Juliana, that works too. I just wish more people understood, say, the conflict in America over "authentic" AA voice. Understanding the roots of the debate between the Booker T. Washington school of thought in the late 1890's and W.E.B. DuBois' views in the teens and 20's makes so much of the cultural divide within, for instance, the entertainment industry today (i.e. Bill Cosby vs. Wanda Sykes).

I'm really going back to grading Lord of the Flies essays now, I swear.

"How did slavery cause evolution in "White" and "Black" America?"

Well, that's a way different question than what IS slavery. In it, the term slavery obvously refers to "our" slavery. However, that doesn't mean our version of slavery defines what slavery is.

Well, that's a way different question than what IS slavery.

Most definitely. These other snippets of conversation came from the evolving of the discussion in class.

that's a way different question than what IS slavery

But "what is slavery?" remains relevant. (See above comments on Jim Crow.)

No one was owned in Jim Crow, Fred, so I (admittedly vague on some details of American history) don't see the parallels.

Jim Crow was, in my opinion, the South's version of apartheid. "Colored" fountains, sitting on the back of the bus/train, not being served at lunch counters, being denied the right to vote because of poll taxes, etc.

I think that they are limiting their definition of slavery to slavery as it happened in the United States.

Even in the United States, it's not valid -- Native Americans were enslaved in this country too.

And from your link, Aimée, I'm reminded of Native American slavery, which doesn't have inherent dislocation either.

Which, naturally, has already been mentioned. Damn you, work, taking me away from valuable online conversations!

And let's not forget not being allowed to rent in White neighborhoods AND not given mortgages in Black neighborhoods, thus being forced into a lifetime of renting.

I get those bits of Jim Crow. I just don't get the slavery bits.