In class on Friday, I said that slaveholding can be seen as a kind of religion. It was only a few hours ago now that I began to wonder exactly what religion is and just how similar it is to the slaveholding culture of the Old South around the time the Frederick Douglass was a slave.
Dictionary.com gives a number of definition for religion, the below definition seems the clearest and broadest to me:
--a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects
If we are to use this definition, then an absolutely enormous number of things could be called a religion, slaveholding being one of them. Many slaveholders, "a number of persons", agree on a "set of beliefs and practices". This includes the belief in the inferiority of those of African descent, the slaveholder's right to unquestioned obedience, and, in a large number of cases, that the slaves are better off staying that way, that the slaveholding arrangement benefits everyone.
Do you think slaveholding could be seen as a religion? Or did I use too broad a definition?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is one of those topics that, when brought up in a classroom discussion, would be awkwardly argued by frustrated students. If the definition you posted is indeed legit, then technically slave holding can be seen as a religion, but in that case you could also argue that "not slave holding" is religion. Many people agree that slave holding is wrong and practice that belief by not having slaves on a day to day basis. Really anything can be seen as a religion if you argue it obscurely enough. I don't think anyone actually thinks slave holding can be seen as a religion but if asked in class, "Why not, it fits the definition doesn't it?" nearly every student (myself included) would discard their actual opinion and make a choppy statement about how it is indeed a religion.
ReplyDelete