text:
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
What's So Good About Being Wrong?
And, if you're like me, you were totally disappointed by what you saw on NASA channel, or, I'm told, through your telescopes at home—even with a clear sky.
A brilliant explosion of dust and ice was predicted. It didn't happen.
Again, if you're like me, you immediately thought something along the lines of "What happened?! What went wrong?!"
NASA, however, announced it was a great success. Data began streaming immediately. And they expect to be analyzing it for weeks to come. Maybe it wasn't a glorious sight, but certainly we'll learn something from the voyage. In fact, the failure of our prediction has already taught us something: It taught us that some prediction and some part of the model that NASA attempted and anticipated was wrong. Observably wrong.
When we make a prediction about reality, and our prediction clearly fails, we would do well to go back and rethink our assumptions. I'm sure NASA will be doing just that. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if one of the most burning questions they're asking is why they didn't get that plume they expected (and even computer generated). The truth is, when life goes on as predicted, we learn very little. When life throws us for a loop—if we're so inclined, we have an opportunity to learn a bit more about ourselves, our assumptions, and, most importantly, about the reality around us.
Can you imagine a NASA engineer watching the plume fail to rise, who insists his assumptions cannot be flawed? Don't get me wrong. I don't doubt that even in the sciences, there can be such fools. But generally speaking, most average people, and most scientists as well, understand that when assumptions fail, we have an opportunity to learn something. And we ignore such opportunities, generally, at our peril.
And yet, I can recall time after time in my former fundamentalist life, when I insisted it was simply a mystery when my beliefs, or what I read in the Bible, failed to correspond to reality. Why does the Bible say this if it doesn't make sense? Well, it does make sense, I was taught to insist—it's just that I can't understand it with my human mind. And if you think you can—well, you're just arrogant.
I know that wine doesn't turn to water. I knew it then. I know a man can't survive for days in the belly of a fish. I knew it then. I had never seen such a thing. I had never heard of any such things having ever been verified. And yet, the fact that these stories failed to correspond to reality hindered me not at all from accepting they were true and that reality was not to be trusted in these cases. What I observed in reality didn't matter. This was "different." This was "god"—residing in a compartment in my brain that reality could never taint.
Recently I heard of something called the Correspondence Theory of Truth—which is just a fancy way to say that if I believe I can run through a concrete wall, and I try, and I bust my head and fall on my ass instead, I would do well to question my assumptions, rather than the wall.
All of us use this method of getting by in life all the time. When you sit in a chair, you believe it will hold you. If it does, your belief has been verified. If it doesn't, your belief has been demonstrated to have been wrong. When you fall to the floor, it is nothing more than folly to insist the chair really did hold you, exactly as you said it would. The children's story "The Emperor's New Clothes" is a cautionary tale about Correspondence Theory, in fact, that any child can comprehend: A person who can be separated from reality and reason, is an easy mark.
Undermining our reliance on how reality corresponds to our mental models divorces us from the most basic means we have of testing our beliefs against reality as a means to differentiate true beliefs from false beliefs. It is just one way religion can damage a person's reasoning ability. Getting an adherent to doubt a method of validation he must use day-in and day-out as the basis for how he learns and survives with any modicum of success in this life, is a monumental accomplishment. Shameful—but monumental. The fact that religion accomplishes this on such a grand scale should cause everyone to take notice.
If you've never suffered indoctrination, it probably seems ridiculous to you. How could I ever, for example, get you to believe reality is not what is clearly demonstrated before you? How could I convince you, through unverified claims alone, that I knew a guy who flat-lined for three days, and has recently been brought back to life? How could I convince you that moral knowledge is gained by eating magical fruit? How could I convince you that angels can make donkeys speak? That the planet is 10,000 years old? How could I convince you mass infanticide can be a good thing sometimes?
I understand how easy it is to think Christians are merely stupid. When judged from the perspective of a person who has never suffered the indignity of having his own reasoning skills utterly gutted and discredited as a child, it will probably only ever be understood as "stupid." Honestly, I really can't defend otherwise. I was stupid. But today, at least, I know why.
Some of you will never understand the sick depths of indoctrination and what it can do to the mind of a child. I am sincerely happy for those of you who never knew, and will never know, what it's like to have come to recognize that a group of people, including those you loved and trusted most, convinced you for many years to doubt your own ability to think and reason, and to doubt the most basic, objective reality that surrounds you.
Reintegrating into reality can be a chore, a process that can take, literally, years. I cringe each time I see a letter on our list from someone going through this who writes to ask "When will I stop being afraid? Does it ever go away?" or "When will I stop feeling like I'm so stupid? Will I ever learn to trust myself?"
And where am I going with this? I guess on the one hand, if you're not familiar with anything like this, try to empathize, even if you can't actually sympathize. Consider mercy sometimes when you feel like being sarcastic or cruel. These are abused people. The fact some of them don't yet realize it doesn't alter that fact.
And if you know exactly what I'm describing, know that you're not alone. Know that you will get better. Know that what was done to you was abusive and wrong—even if it was done by misguided people who thought they were doing the right thing. Forgive them for your own peace of mind. And work on getting past this and finding some way to reintegrate with your humanity and to celebrate the fact that imperfection isn't something for which you need to continually denigrate yourself.
Remember that being wrong, and recognizing we're wrong, is nothing to be ashamed of. It's OK to be wrong. It's an opportunity. It's how we learn and grow as human beings.
10/14/09: Addendum
Today we received a letter on the AE TV list. It was from a Christian, imploring us to reconsider our atheism. I wanted to share this quote as a demonstration of the harm caused by childhood indoctrination. It was just such a sterling example of my point:
"So, you are going to live in fear and doubt until you deal with the question of whether Christianity is true or not."
When I was an adolescent, I prayed long and hard for something to help me to believe. The idea that a vengeful god existed and that he required a belief I might fail to provide was terrifying. At the time, I don't think I would have recognized I was in terror, because I was so used to that level of fear. Today I know that there is nothing to be gained by "fearing" ignorance. And the cure for ignorance isn't prayer--it's investigation. While I'm not immune from fear in my life, I can honestly say I no longer fear in the sense that I "doubt" my choices about god and religion. I don't lose any sleep over the thought "what if god exists and I don't believe?" I recall the day I realized that if I researched as much as I could, and honestly concluded there was no god there, god would be an absolute ass to torment me for an honest, heartfelt effort, which his what I gave. And if god is such an ass, I don't want to worship and obey him anyway--even if it means eternity in Hell, in the same way I wouldn't want to follow orders from Hitler, even if it meant firing squad.
28 comments:
I have only separated from Christianity for just under 2 years now. I still get that anxiety thinking about death and the silly what if I am wrong. I know that it is silly and I fight it but it lingers there.
Tracie, thanks for reminding me I am not the only one that is going through this break up with, so far, a lifetime of indoctrination.- Anonymous10/13/2009 4:19 PM
You're totally welcome. I think I will always wonder how much I'm still affected. I finally reached a point now where I just think that it is so integral to my childhood that it won't ever be unraveled. But I have definitely seen it improve. So, while I can't promise anyone they'll be rid of it. I can promise them it gets better.
ReplyDelete Great one -- an absolute pleasure to read (as are all your posts, Tracie!)
Makes me all the more grateful that I wasn't subjected to the sorts of indoctrination you're talking about -- just a bit of Lenin-worship in my early USSR childhood but we left early enough for it to wear off. It's so frightening how narrow an escape it was, staying just a few more years might have done something terrible."Remember that being wrong, and recognizing we're wrong, is nothing to be ashamed of. It's OK to be wrong. It's an opportunity. It's how we learn and grow as human beings."
I'd love to put a poster/sign saying something to this effect in every classroom of the school I work at. It could potentially kill two birds with one stone, given I work in Catholic school :)I kind of have a similar feeling. While I grew up "Christian" neither of my parents were really that into going. I mean my Mom always took us to church but my Dad never went. But now days he seems to like Joel Osteen, only because it fits with his prosperity philosophy anyway. Otherwise he's my same father.
However, in high school I went through an "atheist only to rebel against the masses" kind of phase. In college I converted to Christianity in fundamentalist fashion. But the way my mind worked, it wore off within a year or so and slowly over years just began to finally crumble until I moved out of the environment, into one that doesn't really embrace religion so much (Japan).
While Japan is VERY traditional, personal diety belief is somewhat of a "that's your thing" kinda attitude...so it's much better. But I still have a fear of going home to Texas and being bombarded with either questions or other religious drivel. I also don't want to lose the respect of many dear friends...
The atheist label is just evil there it seems. I can be non-religious or even agnostic to an extent, but atheist? What am I some sort of evil Gollum esque creature? So I really feel uncomfortable talking to my friends and family about it. Hopefully I'll find the courage soon. Great post.Being raised by a non-denominational Christian(the really crazy ones) it took me a long time to get over the indoctrination. I stopped really believing at around 12 but it took me another 7 years or so to actually break free of it all and call myself an atheist. Now, turning 22 soon, I finally do feel almost entirely free of it, but every once-in-awhile I'm confronted with something that reminds me there are still traces of fear and anger about this. As much as I would like to invite door to door missionaries in and argue with them I still can't bring myself to do it for some reason. Every time one comes to my door, which happens fairly often here, I can't bring myself to do anything more than telling them I am an atheist and shutting the door in their face and this causes a great deal of distress to me after the fact. I can't even figure out why. Oh well, at least I'm finally over that whole fear of hell thing, that took a long time.
I struggled with the word 'atheist' for a long time. I patted myself on the back by settling for the far tamer 'agnostic'. I was middle of the road and non-confrontational, which fit for a while.
Honestly, though, I was trying to escape the highly negative connotation of the word 'atheist' more than anything. 'Atheist' to me meant hate and anger. It took me a relatively long time to embrace the word as simply meaning that I lacked belief.
Dealing with family is hard, though. Acquaintances and friends I can handle but my family's reaction isn't something I really want to confront at this point in time. I don't need to turn into their cause.
Good luck."Consider mercy sometimes when you feel like being sarcastic or cruel. These are abused people. The fact some of them don't yet realize it doesn't alter that fact."
This made me stop and think for a second, but I think unfortunately sometimes you're put in a situation where its not that easy to be "merciful" without sounding too arrogant.- Anonymous10/14/2009 8:47 AM
>Every time one comes to my door, which happens fairly often here, I can't bring myself to do anything more than telling them I am an atheist and shutting the door in their face and this causes a great deal of distress to me after the fact. I can't even figure out why.
I think this is what I mean when I say it gets better, but I don't know if we're ever shed of it. It's one thing to recognize the damage and deal with it. It's another to not recognize the damage--to just have these "negative" feelings that you know are so clearly related to religious indoctrination (look at when you encounter them--when confronted with door to door preachers)--but you don't know what your brain is trying to communicate.
I was also raised nondemoninational fundamentalist--as you say, "the really crazy ones." And believe it or not, for all my work with AE, this blog, and other atheist sites and endeavors, I still have feelings of anxiety when I'm having online debates. I'm pretty sure it's what you experience above as far as how you feel, because I know there is nothing to fear--and yet I feel fear.
My personal thought on this is that it comes from the fundamentalist mindset that you have to be "right." I think the doctrine is that being wrong comes with such severe consequences, that fundamenatlists, more than the average person, fear (in a more phobic way) any misstep, any error, any show of a fault or flaw. It's such a defensive stance that they teach "we're right and everyone else is wrong." And you _have_ to be right.
Getting past that, and learning that (a) you weren't right and (b) that's OK, is the next "step," I think.
And beyond that, being able to project being wrong about other issues in your present and future as being "OK" is still extremely difficult.
This is why I call indoctrination of this sort "abuse." It has negative and dehumanizing repercussions for many years for people who try to get their lives back.
For me, learning I was wrong about god was very freeing--both when I left the church and when I finally dropped theism entirely, years later. However, the ungly negative feelings that were drilled in about self-doubt have lingered much longer and have been much harder for me to overcome.
I really feel envious sometimes of people who have a more "normal" take on being wrong and making mistakes. I've always been far better at forgiving errors in other people more than in myself. It took me many years to finally realize _I_ am not different than the people I can be mentally kind toward and that it was OK to be mentally kind toward myself. No need to beat myself up over not being perfect.
I'm not self-pitying. In fact, I'm more angry at times than anything about what was done to me and how I'm still paying for it--even as I am happy to be through what I would consider "the worst" of it. But I still recognize (1) it's sad that I was messed up like this as a child and am still dealing with an aftermath, and (2) people are still doing this to other children--which is inexcusable.
People consider it not only "good" to do this to children, but they have actually created a toxic society where, if you aren't doing this to your child, you're considered suspect. You don't take your child to church and teach him about god? What sort of uncaring parent are you?
Really, if you're not busying yourself with the task of undermining your child's self-esteem and destroying his reasoning capacity, you're barely a fit parent. And this is the environment we inhabit. "I'm sure NASA will be doing just that."
Well, you're 100% inncorrect.
They may put on a fine show, for the cameras, BUT all They will really do is keep on kissin' the arses of the people in charge and continue to cash their checks.
'Cause that is ALL they hav-ta do.
Don't you remember the two
blown-up space shuttles?
If'in not, allow moi to refresh your memory with me wee YouTube film.
Stay on groovin' safari,
Tor- Anonymous10/14/2009 10:31 AM
Actually having lived in Florida and now living in Texas, two states where the shuttle missions are a big deal, not only do I recall the shuttle explosions, I watched one live from my parents' porch in Orlando.
I recall the excruciating examination of the replay of the video footage and the fine-tooth-combing over of the debris, as well as the political pressure for explanations--all done in order to discover the most likely reasons for the failures.
In both cases extremely plausible explanations were uncovered and reported publicly. In the second case, there was even clear footage presented, demonstrating the failure that very likely led to the disaster. Where I lived we were exposed to nonstop coverage and scrutiny until plausible answers could be provided.
I can't agree the shuttle explosions are a good example of how nobody attempts to explain the failures of space missions. - Anonymous10/14/2009 2:54 PM
I added this to the blog post, but wanted to add it in comments as well, for anyone who may not go back and notice the addition:
10/14/09: Addendum
Today we received a letter on the AE TV list. It was from a Christian, imploring us to reconsider our atheism. I wanted to share this quote as a demonstration of the harm caused by childhood indoctrination. It was just such a sterling example of my point:
"So, you are going to live in fear and doubt until you deal with the question of whether Christianity is true or not."
When I was an adolescent, I prayed long and hard for something to help me to believe. The idea that a vengeful god existed and that he required a belief I might fail to provide was terrifying. At the time, I don't think I would have recognized I was in terror, because I was so used to that level of fear. Today I know that there is nothing to be gained by "fearing" ignorance. And the cure for ignorance isn't prayer--it's investigation. While I'm not immune from fear in my life, I can honestly say I no longer fear in the sense that I "doubt" my choices about god and religion. I don't lose any sleep over the thought "what if god exists and I don't believe?" I recall the day I realized that if I researched as much as I could, and honestly concluded there was no god there, god would be an absolute ass to torment me for an honest, heartfelt effort, which his what I gave. And if god is such an ass, I don't want to worship and obey him anyway--even if it means eternity in Hell, in the same way I wouldn't want to follow orders from Hitler, even if it meant firing squad. @Tracie
What you express above is ultimately what finally destroyed any lingering fear of hell. Either god is not so evil as to send me to hell for just failing to believe in him, or he is and the noble and right thing for me to do is to choose hell over heaven because such a creature in no way deserves my devotion or even grudging acceptance. When I told this to my pastor's wife aunt one time she implied a willingness towards physical abuse. Those theists really hate when you point out how evil their god is.- Anonymous10/14/2009 5:02 PM
It's like that question: If god wants me to believe, why did he make me an atheist?
When a sincere believer searches for more information about god, and in the end begins to see something is awry, until ultimately he must admit there appears to be nothing there--what can that person possibly do?
It's inescapable. I was "on fire for the lord." And I search and search, and finally had to admit that the god I thought (was so sure) was there--simply was no where to be found. By the time I accepted "god"--I wasn't seeking validation any longer. I was seeking simply to learn more about the god I loved. How that search could have possibly resulted in my realizing my beliefs were smoke and mirrors is nearly enough of a miracle to make me believe again! ;-) I feel I need to put my two cents worth in.
I was heavily involved in the church (a crazy tongue speaking fundy one) for the first 30 years of my life.
I was orchestra/band leader, played piano at every service (four on sunday, one on Wednesday, one on Friday) held home fellowship in my home, Monday nights and band practice Tuesday nights.
Thursday was church free.. Saturday was usually some church organised social event.
I consider myself an intelligent person and yet I allowed myself to believe. And I really really did. I hate when people say "you weren't a true christian then". I really was. I feverently spoke about my faith and gave insane amounts of money to the church.
When I did doubt, I was taught that it was satan, so although I did doubt, I didn't entertain those thoughts as they were from satan.
I really believed Jonah was in the whales belly.
I really believed Jesus created fishies and bread for lots of people to eat.
I really believed Abraham was going to kill Issac (why that story doesn't outrage people I'll never know)
What started me on my path to atheism was studying how the bible actually came to be. That led me to further study and slowly my mind started to change.
It was a long painful process.
It's 11 years on now, but I'm still affected by those first 30 years.
While I have absolutely no guilt or fear that god could be real, I resent my upbringing.
I resent that my parents (my family is all still crazy fundy and don't know I no longer believe) put me through that and taught me a lie.
I still struggle over people telling me what to do (the church put huge guilt trips on me if I said I couldn't play a service. They'd tell me that my reward was in heaven and that god watched what I did and it made him happy.... even though I was suffering a nervous breakdown from the pressure... did I mention I also had a full time job???)
Although I know I wouldn't be the person I am today if I didn't go through that experience, I still sometimes wish I had a 'normal' upbringing.
So while yes, it does get easier and certainly, I don't for a moment think any of it could be real, I still feel it's impact.
I did it all by the book and more yet god wasn't there. how could he be when he doesn't exist!!!
I remember as a 10 year old walking around saying "please forgive me god' for any unknown sin I may have committed. I repeated this phrase over and over.... how is that not damaging to a child??? How can you allow your children to think they're sinful and unworthy??
What's the matter with you people!!!
I do agree that religion is harmful... belief in non existant things is harmful whether it's pixies or gods....
But I am thankful that my rational mind won and I now am free from those religious burdens.Reading testimonies from former believers like Tracie and Archaneus and Margot really sends a chill up my spine. I grew up in a completely secular household, not being told to believe in a god, to disbelieve in one, or even what a god was. The earliest experience that I remember where I first had to confront the idea of gods was when I was about 15 and many of my friends in high school attended church regularly. Up until that time, I don't think I even contemplated about the concept of god at all. I was completely ignorant about it, the same as we all are from our birth (I reject the statement that we are all born atheists, because to disbelieve a claim you first have to be told what the claim is). Around 16 I started being pressured by at least one friend to become a believer as she was, but by that time my mind and thinking skills were mature enough that I wasn't going to be easily convinced of anything without proper evidence.
As an amusing side tale, when I was about 6 years old my mother and I went on a vacation while my father stayed home and continued to work. He neglected to feed my goldfish and I was terribly upset when I got back home and we found that they had all died. As we buried them in our back yard, my father told me that its okay because the fish would reincarnate and be re-sold at the pet shop. Well hearing this perked me right up. I wanted to go straight to the mall to re-buy my newly incarnated goldfish before someone else picked them up. I immediately and unquestioningly believed such a ludicrous claim and I'm sure if everyone in my life reiterated the claim and we spent time each week paying tribute/respect/honoring the claim, it would have been a much longer and more difficult road for me to become a "goldfish reincarnation disbeliever". Instead, as I grew older I realized that claim was obviously false and my father was just trying to assuage the pain and sadness that I felt (and to cover his own ass for failing to feed my damn fish).
Anyway, the point I wanted to make is that I grow more and more thankful every day that my parents raised me as they did and didn't subject me to any sort of indoctrination or dogma, minus goldfish reincarnation of course. Its hearing these stories that you people share that has really motivated me to be outspoken about my views on religion. I hope that everyone will continue sharing their stories of indoctrination not just in places like this, but in other avenues as well to reach wider and more diverse audiences.I didn't have a "crazy fundie" upbringing, but I was raised Catholic and definitely to believe in god. While my dad never went to church, he claimed Protestantism. My mother, however, tried to take me to church as much as she could, but I made it miserable for her so it wasn't weekly (as I imagine most kids do, I found church incredibly boring and would fidget and whine).
I gave up the religion first RIGHT after I made my confirmation. I claimed that I could not be part of a religion that condemned gays and even cited to my mother the ridiculousness of the church's claim that she and my father were "living in sin" because they merely got married in a courthouse (my dad didn't want to convert or do whatever foolishness the Catholic church said he needed to do to marry in the church). While these things were true, I think I also just didn't want to waste my time in a church every week when I felt absolutely nothing.
I did, however, continue to spout how I didn't like Catholicism, I still believed in god. I remember saying "the idea of the big bang is just as weird as the idea that a powerful being created us." Ugh. I hate thinking about that. haha While I wasn't raised crazy strict Catholic, I do know the guilt. The guilt I felt for not going to church even though I didn't like the rules of the religion. I remember I started to pray every night (where I had previously only prayed on occasion when I remembered) just to make myself feel better about not going to church.
Then I had the fears of dying which where obvious symptoms of my belief fading since I wasn't sure of heaven. I finally admitted to atheism after reading The God Delusion and it's a freeing feeling. I found out too, from an ex-boyfriend (also still good friend), that apparently I used to yell at him for not believing in god. He said it was a big problem. I must have blocked it out though. I remember talking about it and standing firm that god was real, but I don't recall getting confrontational.
While I am pissed about being slightly brainwashed, the other stories told here are so much worse. I feel lucky that it didn't last longer than it did for me, and that I am completely comfortable telling my parents how I feel now. They don't like it, but they don't bother me about it (probably helps that I was somewhat rebellious and outspoken about everything I believed throughout my upbringing, they're used to it. haha).
Anyway, I just want to say that I am amazed by you guys/gals that have broken through all that nonsense and I hate that it's so hard for you. It's just not right. I do have still a terrifying fear of dying and the occasional thought of "what if...?" but from the sound of it, its nothing like what you have to go through. You are my heroes! :-)Tracie, I understand what you mean on that fear of being wrong. My parents took me to a non-denominational church but I don't think it was super-fundie but it was a fundamentalist church. It has gotten worse since I left it. My parents and my sister are both YECs. Like I have told Matt before, I teach my nieces magic tricks so that they can see how we trick ourselves, but there are fundies that no magic tricks.
I worry sometimes that I am doing the whole I am right because I am right thing without realizing it. So I tend to reevaluate things I have written or said. I don't think I could invite someone inside my house to talk about such things. (The internet provides a level of anonymity that allows me to speak more freely.) I know I have let my family say things in front of me that are just flatly wrong. My sister was talking about how great "Expelled" was in front of me once. I got too scared to say anything right then and later wrote her an email. Turns out she hadn't even seen the "movie". I still get that fear, looks like I need to just confront it and get it over with and then still it will linger for a long time."I reject the statement that we are all born atheists, because to disbelieve a claim you first have to be told what the claim is."
I'm going to have to disagree with that. First I think that statement conflates "atheist" and "strong atheist." Further, I think it is definitionally wrong, and in fact the opposite of the truth.
According to Webster:
disbelieve =
to hold not worthy of belief : not believe
to withhold or reject belief
believe = accept as true
Therefore, disbelieve = not accept as true.
To accept a claim as true you must be familiar with it (whether told of it or creating it yourself). Thus it is impossible to accept something you haven't been exposed to and disbelief is the ONLY option.
Atheism is simply "not theism" and theism is a belief in god(s). Not being familiar with the concept of gods by default means one does not believe in them. That makes one an atheist.You make a good point kopd. I guess I've always viewed atheism as an active rejection of theism. But if we take atheism to strictly mean "not theism" then I agree with you. But I think I would call such persons who have not been exposed to any claims of theism as nontheists rather than as atheists. Strictly speaking nontheism and atheism are the same thing (at least according to what I've gathered on wikipedia), but somehow in my mind I've come to think that atheists are those who both understand -and- reject the claims of theism, whereas a nontheist is someone who has not been told the claims of theism and thus takes a default stance of not-a-theist. This is just my own interpretations of the usage of these terms and I think I am actually wrong about it, just like I was wrong about what I thought it used to mean to be an atheist versus an agnostic before the AE crew enlightened me.
ReplyDeleteI used to think I was agnostic as well, until straightened out by AE and others. I'm with you on the "nontheist" label, too. I do prefer that over atheist, as it does get muddled in English. The prefix a- is usually used to indicate a lack of something (asymmetry, abiotic, amoral), but it is often taken to mean the opposite of the original word. The prefix non- more cleary means "not". For myself, I am an atheist. For children or rocks, technically "atheist" is correct, but it's not very useful, so "nontheist" is fine with me for describing them.
ReplyDeleteYeah. That indoctrination stuff screwed me up pretty good. Does anyone know what it is like to be nine and think you are going to hell for not forgetting you were molested? I thought, in my childs mind with a childs faith, that I was to forgive others as god forgave me, and by the way god doesn't see what you did when he forgives you because it's covered in the blood of christ...like it never even happened.
On a lighter note, sort of, there is a church in WNC(that's Western North Carolina)that plans to burn bibles for halloween.
http://exchristian.net/2/2009/10/church-to-burn-bibles-on-halloween.html- Anonymous10/15/2009 1:18 PM
>I remember as a 10 year old walking around saying "please forgive me god' for any unknown sin I may have committed.
Been there, done that.
Thanks very much. I also think people need to tell these stories. For too long religion has gone unchallenged as something "good" that we provide to children and families. I want to show people what indoctrination really does. Just because a person doesn't acknowledge or realize they're abused doesn't make it any less abusive.
And thanks for all the other comments. I'm happy to see the dialogue here. "I understand how easy it is to think Christians are merely stupid."
Yes. This. Attempts at indoctrination were made on me as a child, but they were half hearted at best and usually made by people who didn't really have any clue what they were saying and weren't used to people arguing or asking awkward questions. As a result, I pretty much came to the above conclusion, that Christian (or Muslim or Hindu or whatever) meant stupid. Not necessarily stupid in all ways, potentially brilliant at crosswords or sports or tracing or whatever, but in the area of critical thinking, stupid.
Two things broke me of this - the first, for which I thank you, was people such as yourself, Matt D, Beamstalk and others who are clearly very intelligent people who freely admit to having believed these things.
The second was the realisation that I didn't become an atheist through some great thought process; unlike the "deconverts", I just decided that the whole thing was preposterous and wrote it off. Now, preposterous it may be, but I hadn't given any of these things any more thought than the average theist. The only difference was that my assumptions were the opposite of theirs. Only when I was forced to think about religious questions did I "become" an atheist instead of just staying in default, as it were. My conclusions remained pretty much the same, but the reasoning was actually sound and, well, reasonable. A bit like Newton, who didn't change his mind about which way things fall, just work out a sensible reason why."And if you know exactly what I'm describing, know that you're not alone. Know that you will get better. Know that what was done to you was abusive and wrong—even if it was done by misguided people who thought they were doing the right thing. Forgive them for your own peace of mind. And work on getting past this and finding some way to reintegrate with your humanity and to celebrate the fact that imperfection isn't something for which you need to continually denigrate yourself..."
I needed to read this, thanks for posting it :)
PLEASE NOTE: The Atheist Experience has moved to a new location, and this blog is now closed to comments. To participate in future discussions, please visit http://www.freethoughtblogs.com/axp.
This blog encourages believers who disagree with us to comment. However, anonymous comments are disallowed to weed out cowardly flamers who hide behind anonymity. Commenters will only be banned when they've demonstrated they're nothing more than trolls whose behavior is intentionally offensive to the blog's readership.
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.


text:
Structural Engineer in El Nido, CA
When you're thinking of Structural Engineer in El Nido, CA, Precision Structural Engineers is the service to call. Have our qualified professional experience work for you by dialing 888-488-1956 for all of your Structural Engineer needs. We strive to help you reach your objectives. We are there to make it easier to evaluate your alternatives and to resolve the questions you have. You'll take advantage of the help of our working experience and professional tips. You will need to make several basic and more difficult choices along the way. That's why we work hard to guarantee that you've got all of the right information to make the best decision for your work. Get more information by calling us today.
Local Business
Another thing customers really like about our organization is that we're a local business. As a local Structural Engineer organization, our professionals connect with our customers and go the extra mile to ensure complete customer satisfaction. Additionally, you'll find that we're extremely active with community volunteering and fundraising.
You'll Never Need to Guess What You're Obtaining
A small percentage of men and women will know just what they need to order, but the majority of individuals usually only have a list of possibilities they've been told to consider. Thankfully, whenever you let our El Nido, CA Structural Engineer professionals help you, you don't have to be an expert because they have the essential experience to help you through the process. The best part is that our pros make sure to clarify everything in an easy to comprehend manner.
What Kind of Guarantee Do You Present?
If you're looking for a El Nido, Wyoming Structural Engineer business that provides you with an incredible variety of top-notch products with fantastic guarantees, Precision Structural Engineers is your best option. Yes, we might be in a position to save you a bit of money through providing cheap, flimsy products, but this would certainly be a horrible long-term strategy because these products don't hold up as well, which would end up costing you even more.
Benefits of Finding an Experienced Organization
At our El Nido, CA Structural Engineer organization, we believe in the importance of having an extraordinary number of products to pick from since everyone's needs will vary, but we also recognize how vital it is to know our products. As this is the circumstance, you'll never be required to worry about waiting a few weeks for us to order what you need, and our pros take things yet another step further by actually being able to educate you about the various options.
Why Our Professionals Listen to Clients
One of the greatest pet peeves we have about the Structural Engineer industry is that there's a propensity for a lot of business' employees to almost talk down to customers in an attempt to prove their knowledge. Our company's specialists, however, understand that this isn't how people like to be treated, so we always listen to your ideas and/or objectives and provide ideas if we believe there's a greater solution.
Educating Our Company's Clients
We understand that when you call our El Nido, CA Structural Engineer business, you're most likely searching for advice instead of simply buying a product. As this is the scenario, we educate you on our company's selection of products rather than rushing through to taking your order.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
A Barbados Family Tree With 'Sugar In The Blood'
In her new book, Andrea Stuart explores the intersection of sugar, slavery, settlement, migration and survival in the Americas. Stuart's personal history was shaped by these forces -- she is descended from a slave owner who had relations with an unknown slave.
Related Topics
Other segments from the episode on February 4, 2013
February 4, 2013
Guest: Andrea Stuart
TERRY GROSS, HOST: This is FRESH AIR. I'm Terry Gross. I want to thank Dave Davies for filling in for me last week while I took the week off. My guest, Andrea Stuart, is the descendent of a slave owner and one of that man's slaves. She has a bloodline that she describes as blending the history of both oppressed and oppressor. She suspects this is true of many families, which, like hers, are mixed-race on both sides.
Stewart has written a new book called "Sugar in the Blood," which traces her family tree beginning with her white ancestor who left Ireland for Barbados in the late 1630s. His great-great-grandson owned a plantation in Barbados and fathered children with several of his slaves, including the woman who became Stuart's forebear.
Stuart's book also describes the history of slavery in the Caribbean, where she was born and raised. Her father became dean of the medical school at the University College of the West Indies in Jamaica. As a child, she spent her summers with her extended family in Barbados, where her grandparents owned a plantation.
Andrea Stuart, welcome to FRESH AIR. When did you start thinking about the fact that one of your ancestors was owned by another one of your ancestors?
ANDREA STUART: I don't think I actually thought about that until quite late in the process of writing my book. It was really one of those things that kind of hits you sort of later on. I mean, it very much began as a process of being interested in my family history. So it wasn't until quite late in the day that I had this moment of clarity, maybe four years into the research, that I realized that this was the truth of it, that was the reality of my life, of my family's story, that we - you know, one side of my family had owned another.
GROSS: And what did that mean to you?
STUART: I think I found that a real kind of one of those aha moments, you know, where you sort of think that is the quintessence of the hideousness of slavery, isn't it, that a family member could own their child and - or you know what I mean, or own series of children and live with that and remain - and keep them in continued slavery. And it made me understand slavery or see it in a very, very personal, intense way.
GROSS: In trying to find documentation of your slave-owning ancestors and of your ancestors who were slaves, one of the things you found was that there was documentation of your white ancestors, but for the slave the only documentation you found was what?
STUART: Well, the irony of slavery is that - and I think it's true whether it's on mainland America or in the Caribbean or South America, is that the system is such that you only know what the white planter who owns you has recorded about you. So it's always through the conduit of this other person.
So what I could know about my slave ancestors were the things that were recorded by their owner, and in the case of my ancestors, their father, in his inventories and mentions of slaves for sale or documents that he'd created, which are usually about transactions and/or money in relation to them as stock.
GROSS: So I'm going to open to the page now of the family tree.
STUART: Yes.
GROSS: So here it is. There's Robert Cooper Ashby, who is your great-great-great-great grandfather.
STUART: Yes.
GROSS: And then there's women on either side of him in this family tree. There's Mary Ann Ashby, who is a slave, who became kind of like his wife after Robert Cooper's wife died, although they couldn't marry because she had been a slave, and that would have been illegal at that time.
STUART: Yes, that's right, yes.
GROSS: But they had how many children together?
STUART: Eleven.
GROSS: That's a lot.
STUART: It is a lot, especially since many of the children were born concurrent with his legitimate white wife, who had only one child, and also with other relationships with slave women on the plantation. So, he was a very busy man.
GROSS: How many slave women were you able to document that he had either sexual relations with or children with?
STUART: Well, I think we kind of came down to about four or five groups. I suspect, of course, that there would have been more, it's just a question of what you can work out historically. And apparently, this was completely common in the Caribbean for planters to have, you know, kind of quite a large number of family groups.
A contemporary of Robert Cooper's had six separate little family groups. And there are rumors of plantation owners on the other islands who - one French planter declared that up to a third of his slave stock came from his "own loins," was the quote. So it was quite common, this very profligate sexual behavior with slaves.
GROSS: That's just kind of chilling, what you just said. It almost sounds like you're breeding your own slaves to work the plantation.
STUART: I think there is certainly a degree of feeling like that. It's sort of, you know, you are kind of producing your own workforce. But also I think it's that sort of sense of claiming you're in total power over everybody in the plantation world over which you preside. Your - his legitimate wife would have had very little redress. There was no chance, really, of her leaving him, as all the money that she had previously brought to the marriage was now in his name.
So everyone - from his wife, his legitimate white wife, to his various other liaisons really had very little say in what happened to them in the world that he presided over and created.
GROSS: One thing you speculate about, you speculate that your great-great-great-great grandmother, who had been a slave, was probably baptized before the slave owner had sexual relations with her because you say that most of the slave owners had no compunctions about sleeping with a young teenager, but they were reluctant to have sexual relations with somebody who hadn't been baptized and was therefore a heathen.
STUART: Yes, I mean, with one of his groups' of children, Suki Ann(ph), he baptized her at 14, and that was often something that planters did if they were going to be in a slightly longer-term relationship with the individual female slave. While they may have, you know, kind of one-off relations with a slave that they had just picked, sort of picked randomly on the plantation, usually if the relationship was going to last, it was quite common for them to get the slave woman baptized, which is an ironic thing because obviously felt that that was a, you know, a rather virtuous gesture, which is extraordinary, when in fact that they were, you know, basically raping underage girls. But that was - thus are the ironies slavery, I think.
GROSS: So the first documented slave ancestor is John Stephen(ph). He's the son of the plantation owner, Robert Cooper...
STUART: Yes.
GROSS: ...and the unknown slave...
STUART: Yes.
GROSS: ...who gave birth to John Stephen.
What's the first documentation you were able - the earliest documentation you were able to find for John Stephen?
STUART: The first moment I discovered John Stephen was in an old inventory, and he was described as being 14 years old, colored, which was the term the West Indian planters used for - certainly the Barbadian planters for those who were mixed-race, and a laborer.
I was looking for him because the good thing about Barbados, it's a very small place, and a lot of the lore or family lore does get passed down. So we had - I had a sense that I was going to find this person. You know, people had - we knew that he was Robert Cooper's because even in my generation, there has always been talk of Robert Cooper because he was such a large and affluent planter.
His reputation and his - the stories of him has kind of lingered in the community. So that's how - but all of it, I have to say, is hearsay. I mean, we as a family assume that all of the - I think we're talking about 18 children of mixed descent that he in some way prioritized, at no point does he ever admit, even when he was living with them - he doesn't describe him as his children in that way.
So we know this because of what the family knows, if you see what I mean, what's been passed on and what we know for sure.
GROSS: And the early documentation of John Stephen that you found is in what was called a slave return that was kept by Robert Cooper, the plantation owner, and that was required. A slave owner at that time in Barbados had to keep a registry of their slaves. What was the reason for that?
STUART: It was the end of the slave trade. One of the important decisions after the end of the slave trade in 1807 was in order to prevent illicit slave trading in the region, planters had to submit a yearly list of slaves on their plantation just to show that they couldn't sneak on slaves who had been illicitly sold in the region.
So, they started documenting their slaves very carefully. And then later on, of course, they would then become compensated when slavery was itself abolished because they were compensated per head of slave. So it was to their advantage to make sure that all the slaves on their plantation were indeed recorded so that they would get the maximum amount of money.
GROSS: And just to clarify here that, you know, in Barbados, the slave trade was ended before slavery was ended. So you couldn't, like, import slaves from Africa, but you could still own slaves.
STUART: Absolutely, that's right.
GROSS: If you're just joining us, my guest is Andrea Stuart. We're talking about her new book that's part memoir and part history. It's called "Sugar in the Blood: A Family's Story of Slavery and Empire." Let's talk more after a break. This is FRESH AIR.
GROSS: If you're just joining us, my guest is Andrea Stuart, and she's the author of the new book "Sugar in the Blood: A Family's Story of Slavery and Empire." And it's the story of her family tree in Barbados, where her great grandfather eight times removed first came to Barbados, and her great grandfather four times removed was a slave owner who had relations with an unknown slave, and that's where her family tree really starts. And her book is also basically a history of slavery in Barbados, and that history is a little different from the history of slavery in the U.S.
So let's get back to your family tree, which you've traced back to a slave owner, your great grandfather four times removed, and an unknown woman slave who he had relations with. Their son, John Stephen, spent three decades in slavery before slavery was ended in Barbados. What did he do after he was freed?
STUART: We have traces of him as, you know, doing kind of a number of - kind of finding a place in the community. He became a shoemaker. I assume he also went on being a carpenter because that was the trade he was given on the plantation. And he married a woman of a similar caste, also a mixed-race slave of a very prominent planter.
They had - I think it - I'm trying to remember now, I think it's six or eight children. And he - he kind of managed to have a certain genuine quality of life, really, in that the privileges that were set up by being this son of a planter carried on through his life. To some degree that meant that he had - he had advantages that ordinary slaves just didn't.
GROSS: After some of your ancestors worked as slaves on a plantation, how did your grandparents come to own a sugar plantation in Barbados?
STUART: Well, it always seems to me an extraordinary irony that my grandfather would decide, or rather his father would decide, that it was a good idea to go back into sugar after the history, the torrid history that our family had had with that particular crop.
But I think, you know, even at the turn of the century - and we're talking about the turn of the 20th century - it must have felt like sugar was still the biggest game in town. It was still the historical crop of the island. To be a planter was to be at the absolute top of the social tree. And so in some ways you can see that for successful businessmen, even those who came from a slave line, the idea of becoming a planter must have felt like real success. And I think that was why my great grandfather decided to buy and also start to farm a plantation again.
GROSS: So we're talking about grandparents who were what they would describe as mulatto, they were mixed-race. They were the descendents of the slave who had children through the slave owner. So who were their workers when they owned a plantation?
STUART: Well, yes, I mean, as I said, I was thinking about this when I was writing the book. And when I was a little girl going up to see my family's plantation, the workers were people who were darker skinned than us and who came - who were basically people who remained - who would have been the sort of bulwark of the kind of slave world the century before.
They were the ones who didn't marry or work - you know, when I say marry, they didn't become involved racially with the planters - or quite so much. So they tended to be the poorer and blacker Barbadians. So it was ironic that we had this juxtaposition of a family like mine who were given a certain degree of privilege, not least the color of their slightly lighter skin, because of their interrelationships with planters and their world being farmed by and cared for by workers who hadn't had that same history.
GROSS: How did your grandparents and great grandparents treat the workers?
STUART: I think that my grandfather was an eccentric, I would say is the nice way of putting it. And I think that he, he very much cast himself in the role of planter. Of course, times had changed enough that one - the kind of horrible extremities of being a planter with - along with violence, and - was no longer possibly legally or even, you know, in a social sense.
But he was, I think, rather overbearing. He very much cast himself in the role of planter, drank too much, gambled too much, womanized too much and, you know, was very much - it was a role that he couldn't quite shed.
GROSS: So knowing that your family is a result of, you know, quote, "illegitimate children" that a slave owner had with an unknown slave, how does it make you feel knowing that your, you know, your mixed-race grandfather and great grandfather had illegitimate children, too? It's not really a word I like to use, illegitimate children, but, you know, children out of marriage.
STUART: Well, I suppose, to be honest, it was completely so much a part of plantation culture and carried on being part of plantation culture all the way through up until the present day, really, that it feels - I wasn't at all surprised. I mean, when I discovered that my grandfather had four additional outside-of-marriage children, that's what they were called in Barbados, I was surprised that I didn't know because it's a small island, but I was not very surprised.
And I was - you know, my uncle, I remember my uncle telling me a story about how he found out about one of his illegitimate brothers and sisters because one guy in his class said to him, oh, you see that guy over there, he's your brother. And my uncle turned around and met this man, and he was indeed his brother by another woman who worked the plantation.
It's amazing how powerful the kind of - the kind of archetype of the plantation was, and I think this is true on mainland America and in the Caribbean, about how the behavior of the plantation carried on after slavery ended. It was an archetypal way of living that just has enormous power and resonance and just went on long after officially slavery was over.
GROSS: Your father is a doctor, and he was the dean at the medical school at the University College of the West Indies in Jamaica. He was knighted for his contributions to medical education. So I presume that when you were growing up, you had a pretty high status in the islands, you know, your grandparents owned a plantation, your father was dean of the medical school. So can you talk a little bit about your status in the islands and how race and the color of your skin did or didn't figure into that.
STUART: Yes, I mean, I had a very lucky upbringing as a child in that sense that I was - my father was a doctor, and we were - we had a very comfortable, pleasant life, really. I think I sort of mentioned in the book that we were the first generation of black children who, really, who could enjoy the fruits of a tropical Caribbean childhood without slavery, you know, kind of yawning over us, really.
And yes, I think I was very, very lucky. I think the idea of race and status in the Caribbean has changed - not entirely changed. I think that there's still a kind of recognition that people who have lighter skins, therefore who are obviously descendent from both planter and slave, do tend to still have certain amounts of privileges. And it's not an accident that up until say my mother's generation, people were very actively making sure that they married other light-skinned people. And I think there's very, very many sort of parallels with America in this regard so that people could maintain the privileges associated with those realities.
But I think now I think that's much less significant in that way. I think now certain Barbados and many of the islands are much more of a meritocracy, and there's a much stronger emergence of kind of, you know, my father being very typical of, quote-unquote, "darker skinned" but, you know, very dynamic men who have come forward and kind of dominate the middle classes.
So I think it's a privilege that now is kind of not as important.
GROSS: Andrea Stuart will be back in the second half of the show. Her new book is called "Sugar in the Blood: A Family's Story of Slavery and Empire." I'm Terry Gross, and this is FRESH AIR.
GROSS: This is FRESH AIR. I'm Terry Gross, back with Andrea Stuart, author of the new book "Sugar in the Blood," which traces her family tree. Her great grandfather four times removed owned a sugar plantation in the Caribbean island Barbados, and fathered children with at least three of his slaves, including the woman who became Stuart's forbear. Those children became his slaves, too. Stuart describes her bloodline as blending the history of both oppressed and oppressor. Her book also describes the history of slavery in Barbados.
The history of slavery in Barbados is significantly different than the history of slavery in the United States, so I'd like to talk a little bit about that slavery. You describe Barbados as the first slave society in the British Americas and the first society entirely organized around its slave system. And you say it became the model for the plantation system throughout the Americas. What made Barbados the model?
STUART: I think that Barbados became the model, because it was the place in the British colonies where they found their cash crop - which was sugar, in their case, but on mainland America, we could discuss tobacco or cotton later. They found their mainland. They had found their crop, and they worked out how to create a working system which involves the importation of slaves from Africa, how to organize gangs and groups, how to organize it in a kind of working - as a workforce, how to create laws that would police it, how to create a kind of racial story that would justify it. They did all those things and created that model which then became - and you can see its links in kind of mainland America and, indeed, across the Americas generally.
I mean, we must remember that, for example, the Carolinas were settled by - the very early Carolinas were - at least half of their early governors were from Barbados. So - and you had a vast kind of backwards and forwarding between - I mean, now we think of America - mainland America and the Caribbean and South America as somehow very distinct, different places, but certainly, the Caribbean and mainland America in those days were described as the Americas by the British, particularly colonists. And many people who had great plantations on mainland America also owned plantations in the Caribbean, and vice versa. You had enormous trade links between the groups. They were, in the historical sense, the same place, which I know that we find to imagine now, but it was. And so those interactions meant that what happened in the Caribbean had enormous influence on what happened in mainland America.
GROSS: And you're saying that it was in the Caribbean, specifically in Barbados, that slavery was codified, that there were laws. They were practices that were written down and codified. There was a law in 1661 that was passed called For the Better Ordering and Governing of Negroes.
STUART: Yes.
GROSS: And I think one of the things that this law did - correct me if I'm wrong - was that it clarified the differences between slaves and indentured servants. So there were also indentured servants in Barbados. What were the differences?
STUART: Yes, it's quite fascinating because, of course, we forget now that on mainland America and in the Caribbean, the first servants were indentured white laborers who worked a term. They were given - in exchange for their passage to the Americas, they were given - they worked for five years, or it could be six or seven, depending on the agreement they had with their owners. And then they were free, and they were given a certain amount in the hope that they could then start a new life in the New World.
So it was - Barbados, like much of the Americas, was actually, initially a European world, the dominant workforce being white and the owners also being white, were - you know. And so therefore, you had - it was only after the kind of realization that sugar was going to be able to - potentially - to make the money it was going to that they realized that they simply didn't have the same stock available of white indentured servants that they would need, and hence, shift over to slavery.
So the white indentured servants worked in parallel in the early days with black slaves. And there was an enormous sense that it was important that these two groups didn't become close. There were a number of rebellions where the two groups worked together, and - because they were actually, of course, suffering the same - much of the same terrible ill-treatment and abuse and neglect. So the laws of 1661 made a real effort to give certain privileges to white indentured servants that were not given to the black workers in order that the two groups would not feel that they had common cause, so that they would not get together. And mainly, they made a lot of - there was a lot of racial significance put on the separation between these two groups.
It's fascinating to see how racism is clearly invented at this point. There's a letter by one planter being sent home, saying: We describe ourselves here as the term whites, he said, is how we describe Europeans here. And they really used created that term whites, in order to separate themselves from blacks, who were, therefore, became the kind of complete opposite and so on. It was a very, very canny move to create - to make sure that these two groups didn't come together.
GROSS: You write that in Barbados, as slavery grew, whites in Barbados were afraid they'd be outnumbered by slaves. Was that more of a fear on the island of Barbados then it was, say, in mainland America, in the American South?
STUART: Yes. I think this is one of the acute differences between the two, and I think of the two countries - or the two sets of conditions, the Caribbean and indeed a lot of South America. There was this real, you know - Barbados, for example, was four - the slaves were four times the size of the white population by the 18th century. So there was a real reality that slaves outnumbered the white population, which created a kind of siege mentality that was extraordinary. This never happened in mainland America.
So the same population never had the same level of threat for the white population, which is not to say that they were not horribly and brutally maltreated. Of course they were. But it was not the slave owners of the Caribbean, and I think, you know, that some of them were of English descent, some French, some Dutch, Spanish - all lived in a state of extraordinary paranoia in relation to the number of slaves that they were surrounded by, hence the particularly draconian and disgraceful treatment of the slaves in the Caribbean and those parts of the Americas.
GROSS: Slavery in the United States ended with a Civil War. But several decades before that, in 1833, the slaves in Barbados were freed. What brought about that emancipation?
STUART: Well, I think one of the things I feel very passionately about was that in Britain, where I live, the story is very much around the importance of the abolitionist movement in Britain and, you know, all the various people who were associated with it and very much put this down to the abolitionists movement.
But the reality was, I think, that the slaves worked as hard for their freedom as the abolitionists did for them on their behalf. Because I think that what was happening more and more, particularly in the Caribbean - because that's where my story is set - was that more and more people, more and more slave revolts were happening. It was becoming so fractious and difficult that it was almost the point where the British authorities were feeling this is impossible for us to contain.
The great specter of Haiti was, of course, the great turning point. The 12-year struggle on that extraordinarily island, in which the black slaves of the island managed to defeat both the British Army and the great French Republic and create the first slave-free slate in the Americas, is one of the kind of biggest unforgotten stories of our age, and I think of that of the whole Americas. It's an extraordinary tale.
GROSS: If you're just joining us, my guest is Andrea Stuart. We're talking about her new book "Sugar in the Blood: A Family's Story of Slavery and Empire." And it's about her family tree in Barbados, and also about the history of slavery in Barbados. She traces her family tree to a slave owner and one of his slaves.
Let's take a short break, here. This is FRESH AIR.
GROSS: If you're just joining us, my guest is Andrea Stuart, and we're talking about her new book "Sugar in the Blood: A Family's Story of Slavery and Empire." And it's part family history and part history. It's the story of her family tree. She is from Barbados, where her ancestry traces back to a slave owner who impregnated one of his slaves, and those two people, the slave and the slave owner, are her ancestors. Her book is also a history of slavery in Barbados.
So slavery ends in Barbados in 1833.
STUART: Mm-hmm.
GROSS: You've said that you were part of the first generation that grew up more out of the shadow of slavery.
STUART: Yes.
GROSS: So what was different, do you think, for your generation? What's the point of demarcation there?
STUART: Well, I suppose I think that my father's generation, for example, the kind of the whole world of the plantation, its ethos, its ideas about what was not valuable and who was valuable really still overshadowed the life of - on the island. And I think, you know, very much, American - African-Americans will probably sympathize with that.
I remember my mother was rather beautiful and entered a beauty contest when she was - in the '50s. And, of course, she knew - she said she knew she just wouldn't win, because there had never been a black beauty queen in all the beauty contests, and that didn't happen until, I think, the '70s. So that there was - and, you know, my father, I remember, joined a club in Barbados when I was - where my grandfather worked, and it didn't allow black members until 1975.
So the kind of ethos of the plantation - the racism, the attitudes to, you know, kind of workers and people and so on - really cast a very long shadow, a shadow that was very, very evident for a very long time. And I think this, as I say, this is something that, you know, the African-American experience kind of echoes. Once slavery was over, it took a long time for it to really go away.
GROSS: So when you moved to England - which was back when you were a teenager - what year are we talking?
STUART: Seventy-six, I think it was.
GROSS: OK. And you moved with your family, because your father accepted a position there.
STUART: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Yeah.
GROSS: Did the color of your skin - and you're, you know, you're a light-skinned black.
STUART: Mm-hmm.
GROSS: To the color of your skin mean something in England that it didn't mean in Barbados or Jamaica, where you lived the previous part of your life?
STUART: The color of my skin did mean something different when I moved to Britain, whereas, in the Caribbean, my slightly lighter skin marked me out as being perhaps potentially a little more privileged, in Britain there was none of that subtlety or ideas about race. It was very much I was a black person, and that was that. And one was very much reduced to a series of stereotypes - and rather dull stereotypes, at that - about what it was to be a black person.
GROSS: Do you think that in England, there's a different understanding of slavery and of the racial aftereffects of slavery, because the slavery wasn't in England? You know, the English colonies had slaves, but - I mean, some of the English colonies had slaves, but that wasn't happening in England itself.
STUART: Yes. I think that - I think it's generally true that one of the reasons there is a difference between Britain and mainland America was that there is that sense in Britain that it was something that happened a long time ago and far away, while in America, the slave experience very, very much existed, coexisted on the same piece of ground. And I think that that reality has made it irretrievable in America's history to be something that was dealt with.
What I think is fascinating in Britain is how little memory contemporary Britons have of the reality of the fact that when that my family's family story first started, Britain was not very far away at all. I'm not talking geographically, but culturally. It was, you know, people like my first ancestor, who was an Englishman, were absolutely - called themselves and described themselves as Englishmen transplanted. They were still English. They still had the same mores, attitudes, behaviors, and they believed themselves to be English.
And I think - so there's a real difference in how these two groups have dealt with slavery. And I also think that the fact that America had such a strong population of - number population of black people has made it incredibly important to come to terms with this extraordinary history, while in Britain we're a relatively small minority. I think it's been easier for Britain to ignore the history of their slave past than it has been for the mainland America.
GROSS: Is the Plum Grove sugar plantation still owned by your family?
STUART: Yes. I mean, it's no longer a working plantation and I think they're going to sell it and it's going to become real estate which is now much more, sort of, lucrative than sugar plantation space is, if you see what I mean.
GROSS: Will you be glad when that chapter of your family history is over, the plantation chapter?
STUART: That's an - it's an extraordinary feeling. I have an enormous - and this is the irony of it all - is that I can remember and spent so much of my youth being at my grandmother's and grandfather's plantation and listening to the swaying sound of the cane. And running around, you know, this little magic world of beautiful gardens that surround the plantation house, then were bracketed all around by all the sugar cane and knowing the workers.
And, you know, generally it was all for me a very idyllic adventure. And so the idea of it being over is both painful, because it represents to me very much my Caribbean childhood, my past, my family, and then another part of me thinks that maybe it's time. For the island just - for me as well as the island to close the door on the plantation story and to walk into the future.
GROSS: I'm wondering, finally, if because of this book about the history of sugar and sugar plantations and slavery in Barbados, where you're from, and also your book is a history of your family tree, if eating sugar has a different meaning for you than it does for me. Like, if you think about all of that every time you put sugar in your coffee or, you know, eat something that has sugar sprinkled on it.
STUART: That's a fascinating question. Originally, when I started, oddly enough, doing the book I didn't have - it didn't particularly click. And it was not until I was reading some of the work by the abolitionists and one of their big, kind of, campaigns was that it was blood-stained sugar. That was what they described it, that it carried the blood of slaves. And I remember actually at that point putting some sugar into something and thinking, ah, it's this.
You know? And realizing that his commodity just is, you know, and I thought again about the way that commodities - in my case it was sugar, in America the parallels would be, as I say, cotton or tobacco - how these simple - these commodities have such real visceral impact on the way our lives unfold and how extraordinary that is. That we don't consume them with any of those realizations, but that's the truth of it.
GROSS: Well, Andrea Stuart, I want to thank you very much for talking with us.
STUART: It's been delightful. Thank you.
GROSS: Andrea Stuart is the author of the new book "Sugar in the Blood: A Family's Story of Slavery and Empire." You can read an excerpt on our website freshair.npr.org. Coming up, Milo Miles reviews the new Yo La Tengo album "Fade." This is FRESH AIR.
TERRY GROSS, HOST: The indie band Yo La Tengo formed in 1984 and for the past 20 years has consisted of the same three musicians. Music critic Milo Miles has a review of their new album "Fade."
IRA KAPLAN: (Singing) When you're screaming in my ear what's the point of it? When you're sure no one can hear, or none that you'll admit. Say that we're afraid. Say that we were wrong. Maybe that's OK...
MILO MILES, BYLINE: The band Yo La Tengo wouldn't seem to be quite un-rock 'n' roll in that it's a very stable and long-lasting operation. Since 1991, the lineup has been the married couple - keyboardist Georgia Hubley and guitarist Ira Kaplan - along with bassist James McNew. All three play additional instruments as needed. Yo La Tengo has been with the same label, Matador, since 1993.
But if they lack rock dramatics, I would argue that the group knows as much about the modes and manners of rock 'n' roll as anyone who has ever played the music. Kaplan and his guitar are particularly enamored of rock's electric noise, the delights of distortion and feedback fantasia. On "Fade," Yo La Tengo get that aspect out of the way in the first track, "Ohm," a song about refusing to feel discouraged.
MILES: Over the years, Yo La Tengo has been more and more drawn to pretty, catchy tunes that hold an intriguing dab of mystery inside. A confessional that makes you feel like you've heard a secret, though you can't quite say what it is.
Hubley's plaintive vocals on "Cornelia and Jane" hint at a beloved intimate going through trauma or crisis. But the focus is on outsiders who don't understand, and on unanswered questions like: Sending the message that doesn't get to you. How can we care for you?
GEORGIA HUBLEY: (Singing) I hear them whispering just out of view. Still unknown, what's inside of you. Outside your window neighbors peer in at you. Now let me clear it for you.
MILES: Newcomers to Yo La Tengo might want to start with a more insistent and straightforward release like 1997's "I Can Hear the Heart Beating As One," but for those used to listening to the slightly encoded collective diary of the group, "Fade" is a feast. All of the previous Yo La Tengo records on Matador were produced by Roger Moutenot, a very simpatico soul.
This time, the band reached out to John McEntire, known not only for studio work, but drumming with the band Tortoise and a host of others. "Fade" has strings and horns unlike any previous Yo La Tengo record, but very much swaying in harmony.
The final track, "Before We Run," may ponder how to make the most of our fleeting days, but the lasting impression lies in the deft interplay between strings and brass. Yo La Tengo all grown up, but not a whit stuffy.
MILES: Still, if I had to pick a favorite tune on "Fade" - most endearing, fresh but characteristic - it would be "Is That Enough," Kaplan's extended sigh about the ambiguities of love in a long-term couple. Whether it's unsaid jokes or undeclared affections, he notes: There's just no way that it's enough.
Kaplan even casts a quick shadow of despair when he sings: What can't come back is what we can't bear to lose. But the music and words on "Fade" as a whole are pure affirmation of life and living. For Yo La Tengo, if what they have isn't enough, it's plenty.
KAPLAN: (singing) Things we did unthinking, the joke we left unsaid, not sure how and when we were misled. And if that matters, it's a varied feud. And all that matters for me is you. Is that enough? Oh, is that enough? Well, it's not enough. No. If it's unclear the way I feel for you.
GROSS: Milo Miles reviewed the new Yo La Tengo album "Fade." You can download podcasts of our show on our website freshair.npr.org. And you can follow us on Twitter @nprfreshair and on Tumblr at nprfreshair.tumblr.com.
Transcripts are created on a rush deadline, and accuracy and availability may vary. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Please be aware that the authoritative record of Fresh Air interviews and reviews are the audio recordings of each segment.


text:
Let me start this post by giving you some heads up, sort of housekeeping news if you will. The workshop that Clare and I are holding in May 2012 is indeed sold out. There is a waitlist so feel free to send us an email to get on it if you wish. You never know…We are also planning more workshops like this in the future so stay tuned!
The good news is that if you live in Charleston and surrounding areas, I will be holding a One Day Food Photography Workshop at Heirloom Book Company downtown on December 10th from 10am til 5pm. Click here for all the details and to register. Photography, food, styling, book, fun space, and great natural light!
One of the things I love about Charleston and the area where we live, is waking up to a thick layer of fog over the ocean. It gives me the impression that Winter is settling in. I know better. It means today will actually be warmer than the last. That's ok. I'm not paying attention to those little details anymore. There is Fall and Winter happening in my kitchen, regardless of my shorts and flip flop attire.
Every morning that I take the pups out in the backyard, I bring a little basket and gather the pecans that keep falling during the night. We fought the squirrels long and hard this year but it looks like we won the battle. Well, we did not lose it too bad, I should say. They left us plenty for a few pecan pies, some pecan sandies and the Pecan Brown Butter Cakes pictured here.
Fresh from the oven. Toasted the next day. A dab of Nutella. A smidge of lemon curd. With a cup of tea or coffee. We surely did not get enough… That would be partly because of a little incident involving a phone call, a step outside the studio, a puppy and a tray of cakes left at snout level. I can't blame Bailey for not resisting. I almost inhaled three of them as they were cooling down.
If it is any testament to how good they are, I made two more batches in the last couple of days. And placed them far away from any possible puppy incident. On the same vibe the roasted vegetable I made for lunch the other day almost ended up consumed by my better half alone…
This salad is a riff on the salad that Clare a made many times when I was there last month for work. It is so easy, wonderfully seasonal and super comforting. Yes, comfort. In a salad. With lots of fresh ingredients. That's my idea of comfort right now. Sometimes it's a cup of rich chocolate mousse, a serving of spaghetti carbonara, a bowl of cheese rich onion soup. It depends on what is truly affecting me at the time.
I have loved these months traveling and staying with friends and bloggers rather than hotels. It gave me the chance to see them in their environment and learn from them. I was never as happy as when they wanted to share their cooking with me and let me in their world, their family traditions, their everyday. I'd rather chill at home with someone sharing their cooking and their story than go out to eat (unless the restaurant does feel like home).
I admit that I get the most satisfaction out of roasting vegetables for soups, salads or simply turning them into easy-do easy-come side dishes. Nothing could be easier than this salad. Roasted golden beets and fennel, a sprinkle of blue cheese, pumpkin seeds and some edamame on top of a bed of greens and Savoy lettuce. I ended up doing a shallot vinaigrette similar to the one Clare made when I was visiting. I sat down and felt a huge sentiment of peace and gratitude.
We call it Clare's Salad at the house now. Just like we have Tami's Lima Bean Bisque or Heidi's Winter Pasta. Or Elise's Braised Short Ribs.
Cooking with friends. Even if only in spirits. And to paraphrase someone we know… "it's a good thing"….
Pecan Brown Butter Cakes:
Makes 12
1 cup shelled pecans
4 oz butter (1 stick)
1 cup buttermilk
1/2 cup sugar
2 eggs
zest one lemon
2 cups Jeanne's gluten free all purpose flour mix (or regular flour)
2 teaspoons baking powder
Preheat the oven to 350F. Position a tray in the middle. Grease bottom of 12 muffin tins and line with wrappers. Set aside.
Place the pecans on a single baking sheet and toast for about 15 minutes. Let cool. Grind finely in a food processor. Reserve.
In a medium saucepan set over medium high heat, melt and cook the butter until it turns golden brown and has a nutty scent. Takes about 8-10 minutes. Set aside to cool. (I usually don't strain mine since we like the little dark particles that form when it browns but feel free to do so)
In a large mixing bowl, whisk together the buttermilk, sugar and eggs until pale (takes about 2 minutes). Add the cooled brown butter and lemon zest and mix until well blended. Add the ground pecans, then the flour mix and baking powder and whisk about 50 strokes until the batter is smooth.
Pour it into the prepared tins and bake for about 20 to 30 minutes until a knife inserted in the middle comes out clean.
Roasted Vegetable Salad:
Serves 2 as main dish
2 medium golden beets, washed, peeled and quartered
1 small fennel bulb, washed and quartered
1 tablespoon olive oil
salt and pepper
salad greens
2 oz blue cheese
handful of pumpkin seeds
handful of edamame
Shallot vinaigrette (see here for recipe)
Preheat the oven to 375F. Position a rack in the middle.
In a medium bowl, toss together the beets and fennel bulb quarters, add the olive oil, salt and pepper to taste. Place in a 9×13-inch baking dish and roast for about 20-30 minutes or until tender and a little charred/caramelized.
Place a handful of salad greens at the bottom of two plates or bowl, top with the roasted vegetables, add about 1 oz of blue cheese to each plate and top with some pumpkin seeds and edamame. Drizzle with the shallot vinaigrette and serve


text:
Sidney Hall's (1831) astronomical chart illustration of the Camelopardalis, Tarandus and the Custos Messium. Original from Library of Congress
- Printed using Vibrant & Eco-friendly Latex Inks
- Highest grade 12mm thick Plywood
- Sustainably sourced wood - PEFC & FSC Certified
- Includes wall hanging plug
- Printed to order in only 2-4 days
- Printed, finished & packed in our London studio
- For every print sold we plant 2-4 trees*
Printing onto wood ensures each one of our prints is unique. We have curated a range of images that are enhanced by the individual wood grain. Our modern printing process means that light areas of the image show-through for a stunning natural effect.
Choose from a range of sizes to perfectly suit your space, An A4 print for the smallest room in the house or a large A1 statement image for your living space. Or why not create you own gallery wall with a mix of sizes and images
For every print purchased, we will plant a tree to offset our production process & maintain our forests. For every A4 or A3 prints are 2 trees, A2 prints are 3 trees and for an A1 print, we plant 4 trees!
Our wooden posters come with built-in hangers making them easy to hang and adjust to give you the perfect result. They can also easily be mounted with command strips for damage-free hanging.


text:
Fate and the fact that Fall is almost over gave me a cold, dreary day. To be kind it also gave me colourful red, yellow and green bell peppers. Not that you don't get them other time of the year but it is always nice to associate winter with colourful veggies and you need to thank Fate once in a while.
And then Fate conspired with Farah Khan to give the likes of me, (which might go up to millions) "Om Shanti Om". It also put me in a spot where I can act like a true NRI and show my love for "Desh ki Dharti" and contribute towards upping my country's economy by watching Bollywood Blockbusters on big screens with 100 other Desi Uncles and Aunties who were as mesmerized by SRK's six packs as was Moi.
Truth be told I loved the movie. Ok, given that I get to watch hardly 2 movies a year, I love any movie, but this I loved the "bestest".
My sense of humor being fed on MTV stalwarts like Cyrus, Udham Singh, Quick Gun Murugan, MTV Bakra and such is definitely not very refined. I love gags and spoofs and more brainless they are the better. I do not do smiles where you just curl up the end of your lips, I want laughs that are on high octane, where you can slap your buddy on the back and throw your head back, sideways and do everything short of ROTFL (Rolling on the Floor..no thanks that I can't do). This movie let me do most of that and the lines were replete with my kind of pun which the D does not get. He understood all the humor in this movie though…strange…maybe he is just ageing and getting hang of Bollywood.
And if you have low esteem for all things Bollywood and SRK, I forgive you. You are a young Indian with a fad for all things Intellectual or an older one like the D who still wants to hold on to the previous image, we have all been through that phase and turned up our snooty noses and watched Bergman over Barjatiya, before long you will be on this side of the camp.
The fact that my Dad who tagged everything beyond Satyajit Ray, Mrinal Sen and Amitabh Bachchan as "baje cinema" (baje = bad) is a fan of Govinda at his current age (no, he is NOT senile, only in his early sixties) proves the above theory.
Let me add in fine prints though, I am not a blind follower of Bollywood and do not like anything they dish out. So do not put Bollywood related Google Ads on my page and please don't ask me to watch "Sawariya" and such
Not to forget the Red, Yellow & Green Bell Peppers in this ensuing Bollywood drama.
With them I made Perun Bhaji or Bell Peppers with Besan. I know it is a Maharashtrian dish but I don't know if this is the actual name, but I loved the feel of the name on my tongue so much that I now call it this. Actually I just utter the name even if I am not cooking it.
I first saw it at SJ's and then at Lakshmi's. Combined the two recipes and made the third.
As is the norm, I do not have measures. The ones I give here are very very approximate.
Read More...
What You Need
Bell Peppers/ capsicum ~ 4 chopped in small pieces
Besan/Chickpea Flour ~ 1 cup
Red Chilli Powder ~ 1 loosely packed tsp (adjust according to your heat level)
Dhania/Corriander powder ~ 1 tsp heaped
Amchur Powder ~ ½ tsp
For tempering
Kalonji/Kalo jeera/ Nigella Seeds ~ 1 loosely packed tsp
Hing/Asafoetida ~ ½ tsp
Oil ~ for cooking. I have used Olive Oil and also Canola at times
Salt ~ to taste
Sugar ~ 1 loosely packed tsp (totally optional)
How I Did It
Chop the bell peppers in small pieces
In a bowl add besan/chickpea flour and to it add the r.chilli, coriander, amchur powder and make a dry mix. No water
Heat Oil in a Kadhai/Frying Pan
Temper with Kalonji and Hing
Add the Bell Pepper Pieces and sauté. Cover and cook till they are soft
Add the besan (mixed with the spices) to the capsicum cooking in the Kadhai.
Stir pretty vigorously to mix the besan with the veggie
Sprinkle a little water if necessary or add a little oil on the sides of the Kadhai. This is only if you think the besan is sticking to the sides of the Kadhai.
Add salt & sugar
Do the stir, cook routine till the besan takes on a crumbly texture and the bell peppers are cooked
Trivia: Bell peppers are a great source of vitamin C. Green bell peppers have two times the vitamin C by weight than citrus fruits (oranges, lemons etc.) and Red bell peppers have three times what the green bell varieties have


text:
Iterative map-making with two-level preconditioning for polarized cosmic microwave background data sets. A worked example for ground-based experiments. ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS [Internet]. 2018 ;618:1–14. Available from: https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.08937
. Links
- Call of interest for positions in mathematics at SISSA
- Public Calls for Professors
- Temporary Researchers
- Temporary Technologists
- Research Fellowships
- Open positions in MathLab
- SISSA Mathematical Fellowships
- PhD Scolarships
- SIS Fellowships
- Pre-PhD Fellowships
- MSc in Mathematics
- Master Degree in Data Science and Scientific Computing
- Professional Master Courses
- SISSA Mathematics Medals
- SISSA Springer Series
Recent publications
G.P. Leonardi; G. Saracco,Rigidity and trace properties...
R. Marchello; A. Colombi; L. Preziosi; C. Giverso,A non local model for cell mig...
I. Prusak; D. Torlo; M. Nonino; G. Rozza,Optimisation–Based Coupling of...
A.Surya Boiardi; R. Marchello,Breaking the left-right symmet...