[wpietri]

I believe you were told that. But I believe that's pretty ahistorical. See, for example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_suffrage_in_the_United_S...

https://www.history.com/news/slavery-new-england-rhode-islan...

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/why-black-people-a...

And that's just the basic legal stuff, like not being property. When you look at actual attitudes, Northerners were quite racist. You could read, for example, Foner's "The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery". It covers quite well how even Lincoln was quite racist in a way typical of the time.

You might also read Loewen's "Sundown Towns" which shows these attitudes not just persisting, but leading to ethnic cleansing across the US during the Nadir (circa 1870-1920). That includes New England: https://thenewpress.com/books/sundown-towns

There were of course excellent abolitionists and activists from New England, and there were pockets of goodness. But you can't paint New England as a magic exception.

[mistrial9]

ok, you got me. I am rethinking this a bit.. but, may I suggest changing "Northerners were quite racist" to be "Northerners were quite tribal" ? I think the survival of communities in those harsh days required more immediate survival interactions, and very importantly more cooperation in healthy child-rearing. Humans act in groups.

[wpietri]

It's a plausible question. But to show that you'd have to demonstrate that Northerners were not only less hostile to non-white people (especially Black and Native residents) than was common in America, but also equally hostile to their neighbors from other European countries. Given the high levels of immigration, the US definitely had intra-white hostility between different European ethnic and linguistic groups. But I have seen no evidence that was nearly as bad as anti-Black sentiment or action.

So I think "Northerners were quite racist" is a pretty reasonable statement from the historical evidence. Tribal too, as that's a common human characteristic. But when you look at things like America's ethnic cleansing and de-facto segregation, let alone chattel slaver, it's pretty clear there's something more going on than garden-variety cooperative healthy child-rearing.

[mistrial9]

> America's ethnic cleansing and de-facto segregation, let alone chattel slaver

but there you go .. from a reasonable observation of very real tensions among certain people and groups, you then "mix" all of that into the worst, and call it American. It is at the least unfair to those that stayed true to teachings of real liberty for all people.

[wpietri]

What would you think of somebody who refused to look at bug reports because they thought it was unfair to those that stayed true to the teachings of building high-quality software?

Sorry, but you can't pick and choose like that. Does America have a history of high ideals? Sure. Did America always live up to them? Obviously not. All non-Indians live on stolen land. All white people have benefited from the exploitation and suppression of black people. All men have benefited from the exploitation and suppression of women. Whether we meant to or not, and whether we like it or not.

If you really want to stay "true to teachings of real liberty for all people", then you have to look at where and how we've fallen short. Otherwise we'll never live up to the goals.

[mistrial9]

yeah - we definitely do not agree on this, and I have an important point that I think you miss entirely, and that is .. That the design of the USA is legally, exactly NOT a single entity, it is a collection of States, each of which have a set of laws to govern important parts of it.

To your idea about stolen land.. I do empathize with that, and in fact have gone to native American gatherings to be silent and support, so you know. BUT every land in the entire world, has been stolen. All of it, at one time or another, by violence or otherwise. So, not a happy idea, but I claim it is true.

[wpietri]

You think... that I don't know the United States is composed of states? If that's what you're getting out of this, I don't think I can advance the conversation any further.