Brown University, Slavery and Place

Posted on by

200610211943
Kendall has posted a bit from this New York Times article regarding the attempt by Brown University to acknowledge and atone for the institution’s ties to Slavery. I posted the following comment on Titusonenine about the article:

I for one am glad to see an institution facing the reality of its past and its ties to slavery–particularly a northern one–rather than pointing a self-satisfied finger at the benighted South. As long as this doesn’t turn into a complete vilification of those figures in Brown’s past with ties to slavery, then it seems to be a healthy approach–though I am unsure how the plan to recruit more minority students from Africa and the West Indies is supposed to help them come to terms with the past–that part seems thrown in only to placate some liberal guilt.

Also, I have to disagree with Maryland Brian–I don’t think one can say that dead union soldiers who died while fighting for many motives under orders given by men with their own can be said to have died specifically to wipe out the blot of slavery from the nation’s soul. After all, it was Honest Abe himself who in 1838 said “Towering genious. . .thirsts and burns for distinction; and, if possible, it will have it, whether at the expense of emancipating slaves or enslaving freemen.” The Union no more fought specifically to end slavery than the South fought solely to defend it (though certainly it was very, very important and a central motivating factor for the upper classes at least).

This is a very important issue for the United States because it stands contra our national and personal myths of sinlessnes and chosen-ness. Americans, for the most part, have little sense of history or place and as a result, little or no understanding of sin. This is one place that I’ve felt the South, at its best, can act as mirror for the rest of the country, as an image of the nation’s shadow side, the place where place and history, family and generational connectedness is not forgotten, where the “past is not even past” and therefore sin–even generational sin–can be clearly seen when one is looking. This is the only way Americans will ever come to grips with the mixed bag that is our history. It is a lesson that other nations and peoples have learned–there are no unsullied motives or sinless leaders shining brightly. There are only broken and sinful people stumbling around, occasionally embracing the “better angels” of their nature.

Perhaps, rather than condemning such actions on the part of institutions such as Brown, my fellow conservatives should do more to direct such reflection and soul-searching in a more productive direction–one that leads to the recognition that we are all guilty, and all in need of the saving love of Jesus Christ, individually and corporately.

Finally, with apologies for rambling, I would like to recommend the book “Blood Done Sign My Name: A True Story” by Timothy B. Tyson. It is very good.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

  • http://www.gavoweb.com gavin

    my buddy jay, how mediated one of the presentations, blogged about his impressions of the slate. thought i’d throw that line your way.

  • http://www.adamantius.net Jody

    Thanks Gavin,
    I’ll give it a look…

  • Alan

    At the Sewanee meeting, in the small groups, a couple asked each candidate whether as bishop they would give consent to a non-celibate homosexual bishop, ordain a non-celibate homosexual priest, or approve or allow SSU services. Burns said no to all, with considerable verbiage, but hedged with the remark on the last two parts that he could not imagine it ever being an issue in this diocese. He then went on to say that he did not see it happening in his lifetime, but he hoped that a day would come when individuals who desired to live faithfully together would be able to do so in recognition. I suspect he and +++Williams would agree on the separation of personal versus positional and institutional theology.

    All three said at the panel meeting, in various ways, that they would be Windsor Bishops. I tend to take Fr. Burns at his word, but in his case it would be due to corporate polity considerations rather than personal convictions.

    Alan

  • http://www.adamantius.net Jody

    Alan, thanks for the comment. I’m encouraged to hear that Fr. Burns responded in that way to the couple’s question, though to be honest I’d almost prefer a liberal with conviction to a moderate/moderate liberal whose motivation is corporate polity… I’m not sure where that puts me, but it often seems as though some people who are primarily concerned for the institution end up trying to quell debate prematurely and as a result we end up in an institutional paralysis. I tend to think that’s been one of the primary problems with the bulk of the leadership in ECUSA/TEC with the commited conservatives pulling one direction and the commited liberals pulling in another with a leadership that has been gun-shy about honest debate. At least the current conflict has risen to the level that it is more difficult to write off–but some still do.

    My understanding is that Fr. Burns also indicated that he would have signed the Camp Allen statement, and while this too is encouraging, I’m concerned that I haven’t seen more evidence of interest in the global nature of the Church on his part. In this area I believe both Bauerschmidt and Paden come out ahead.