History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.
This morning, Tim Russert asked whether references to slavery should be considered inappropriate, like references to Nazi Germany, because they are both too unique. Of course, he raised the question in the context of Sen. Clinton calling the leadership style of the Congress a 'plantation system.' I'd say no--slavery is not unique, it was (and is) a crime committed by many societies, with a variety of economic systems.
What's interesting about 'Godwin's Rule' is that it reflects the patterns of contentious arguments: two sides diverging from one another, seeing each other in the most hostile light. Are references to slavery in southern states used the same way? Are comparisons between Dred Scott and Roe the equivalent to saying"like Hitler"? Perhaps, but for the most part I don't see references to slavery being used in the same way as references to Nazi Germany. In the latter, a simplistic comparison is used to associate something with a notorious regime. Although potentially invidious, metaphors derived from slavery may be more useful. Using slavery as a reference uses something native to the American experience to discuss problems in contemporary society. Banning comparisons, moreover, may come from the desire to expunge slavery from national memory.
Ralph, the tenant-farmer system applied to blacks, as well. If you are perpetually in debt, and a few large farmers have the area politically and economically 'sewn up', ...
Ralph E. Luker -
1/23/2006
Point very well taken, David. How would your point illuminate the original use of the metaphor by Republicans that the Democratic Party is the plantation from which black voters may not stray? There have been opportunities (pitifully few, I admit) for African Americans to vote for Republican candidates who were a) clearly superior to their Democratic opponants; and b) were more likely attuned to the interests of African American voters. Even under those circumstances, black voters have tended to remain on the plantation. Why would that be?
David L. Carlton -
1/23/2006
Ralph and Co.,
Maybe I missed something here, but I can't find any reference to slavery in Hillary Clinton's remarks. The metaphor she used was the plantation--and, as I thought every southern historian knew, the plantation survived slavery and persisted up until at least my parents' generation, only using sharecroppers instead of slaves. The white guys bloviating on this topic don't seem to get the distinction, but I dare say HC's audience did; if they didn't have personal experience with the tenant plantation, their families did.
In fact, I thought the "plantation" metaphor for the Republican-run HR was quite apt--for, among other reasons, for the way rank-and-file *Republicans* are whipped into line by what could be termed a form of peonage ["Never mind that you haven't read the bill; vote for it, or kiss your next Abramoff contribution good-bye and be prepared for a primary challenge."]. That this "controversy" has been twisted into one about slavery looks to me like another success for Republican spin
Andrew Israel Ross -
1/23/2006
Heh, fair enough ;) I'm not usually one to defend Hillary Clinton, but I did want to clarify the point that it didn't originate with her. If only because this fact seems to have been forgotten amongst the pundits. Though memory lapses seems to be defining characteristic of the punditocracy these days.
Ralph E. Luker -
1/22/2006
I find it difficult to understand why one would buy into a metaphor that was offensive in the first place, even to invert it -- because both the original and the inversion were apologias for mostly white pols, whatever party they might belong to.
Andrew Israel Ross -
1/22/2006
I just wanted to point out that Clinton wasn't just using slavery as a metaphor, but was also echoing Republican discourse from the 1990s. Except that they were implying that Black people were too stupid to leave "the Democratic plantation," while here Hillary was trying to imply how little the minority is heard these days (i.e., point c may be in dispute).
I honestly have no opinion on Hilary's use of metaphor, per se, though generally speaking I relate this to the John Kerry's "Mary Cheney is a lesbian" flap, in that the last people who are able to judge instances of racism or homophobia are pretending to do so. However, I do think it's important to be clear that Clinton wasn't making up this metaphor herself, but was inverting it's previous usage. Just do a google search on "Democratic plantation" to see what I mean.
Ralph E. Luker -
1/22/2006
I agree with you, Nathanael, that slavery was not "unique." Rather, it was, at one time, ubiquitous and had many different forms. Nonetheless, I do have problems with Hillery Clinton's reference to the House of Representatives being run like a plantation. The minority there may be rendered very weak by a ruthless majority, but a) the majority doesn't claim ownership of the minority; b) the majority doesn't claim ownership of the fruit of the minority's labor; and c) the majority still recognizes the minority's right of representation in decision making. I suspect that if I were the great-grandchild of slaves, I'd want to give Senator Clinton some lessons in what a real plantation system was like, just as, if I were the child of Holocaust survivors or victims, I'd want to give some people some lessons about the incomparability of modest oppressions with major effort at exterminations.
Jonathan Dresner -
1/22/2006
There may well be a slavery corrollary to Godwin's Limit (as an online discussion continues the probability of comparisons to Hitler or Nazi Germany approaches one) or Godwin's Law (not by Godwin, but the general idea that appeal to comparisons to Hitler, etc., are evidence of overreaching and signal the end of rational discourse).
But, like Godwin's Limit, Russert and others who cry "foul" at this language are not really trying to enforce some kind of standard of civility as they are trying to deflect discussion of significant problems. Limits on language should not be allowed to actually close off discussion of the underlying issues, nor should they be imposed on those who are serious about the historical references they are making.
If someone says "do you really mean to compare House Republicans to slaveowners" and the answer is "yes" then the discussion has to go on from there. If the answer is "no" then the question can be reframed, but I think you're right about the basic root.
Louis N Proyect -
1/22/2006
This guy was really obnoxious in the way he kept pressing Obama this morning to take a position on what Harry Belafonte was saying in Venezuela about Bush. It just came across as racist, as if one Black person had to be accountable for what another said. Although I don't have much use for Obama politically, he did make the point that this is a free country and Belafonte can say whatever he wants. I only wish that Russert could eventually end up in the same jail as the other reporters who were complicit in fingering Valerie Plame.
