If so, you should provide evidence here. Since it's factual, present facts.

So what's your definition of racism? Providing a clear definition (and also comparing with other possible definitions) would strengthen your argument.

Do you think this always works?

You're linking to a Google image search page here (which isn't ideal), but going there, it looks like this image comes from Breitbart, a site with an axe to grind against BLM. You should always be aware of possible biases in sites you get information from.

Do you think this was also true of the CRM?

Can you link to news accounts here?

Of course, the name itself is clearly an homage to the CRM.

If federal aid was missing, is this really an example of federal action? Or is it more like inaction?

Are you deliberately evoking the Gettysburg address here? If so, well done!

You mean Bethune? And by the way, you should make clear to your reader (who, because this online, needn't be me) who Harding and Bethune are--maybe mention the quotes.

Really?! Yikes.

This is interesting, and your use of polling data is effective. So what does it tell us?

to?

This is clearly true, but tell me more. I want the post to push a little further, go beyond the clearly true to something deeper and more insightful

Can you link to stats here? That's like putting in a citation, blogging-style.

Although notable that in these cases that was because the Supreme Court was limiting the scope of federal power. So really, this is the exception that proves the rule.

Supporting statistics would be good here.

There has of course been a BLM backlash--it would be interesting to compare that with the CRM backlash.

Ah! You thought of this, too--though you mention here only the BLM backlash, not the CRM backlash.

This would be a good place to provide a supporting link. I'm sure there are interesting studies on this.

The examples you discuss here are interesting, though on some I'd to see you support your point by hyperlinking to supporting examples. I also think there's a key aspect of slave autonomy which you leave out but is worth exploring, and that is slave culture as a way of creating a part of their lives outside of white control--family, music, religion, and so forth. The creation of a distinct slave culture is, arguably, a way in which slaves tried to carve for themselves a limited zone of autonomy

I would love to see links to examples here, to support this point.

This is a dangerous way to "spark discussion"--can you link to an example?

This would be a great place to include a hyperlink, since this is a lesser-known historical event--the sort of event a reader might want to find out more about, by clicking on a link.

A very interesting analysis. Some of the points you raise here are quite interesting. Particularly good is how you address the question, "If race isn't behind racism, what is?" Your answer seems to be: ease of control (and ultimately, a desire to make money).

I think your analysis of the Punch case could be a little clearer. It's critical for your argument, but only towards the end does it start to clarify.

I notice that you have two different font sizes--you should watch for that. I think captions on pictures would also help with presentation.

Although, if I'm understanding your argument correctly, it really started out as a system of labor control that then developed into a belief system of superiority.

By whom?

Your post here is mostly one long paragraph. It would be better to divide it up into shorter paragraphs. That will make the organization clearer. Also, by giving you a chance to write more "topic sentences," it gives you more opportunities to connect to your argument and make your point clear.

This looks like it should be a hyperlink, but I can't click on it.

And how was their social status defined, if not in racial terms? This sentence suggests it's not just "manual laborer," as you say black slaves were treated differently from white indentured servants, even though they were both unfree laborers.

This is a little unclear. It feels like you left out some words. Or maybe it reads like the start of a new paragraph.

A nice phrasing. I think this is where your argument leads to. At some points along the way, I think you could "foreshadow" it a bit more explicitly.

I believe this is true--how does it relate to the question of the relationship between race and racism?

Again, this is an interesting way of putting it.

I'm not sure this is true--is this what Williams says?

This is an interesting way of putting it--it suggest both that racial differences were not created out of nothing, but they were strengthened, solidified and codified to prop up slavery. So what does that say about the relationship of race and racism?

Try to avoid putting in URLs. Instead, put in text (e.g., the name of the source) and then hyperlink it. A good caption on the image would help, too.

This is an interesting quote, as it suggests (to me) that awareness of difference, including racial difference, drove who was enslaved, and thus the creation of slavery)--or did slavery merely take advantage of that? In any case, this seems like a key point.

I'm not sure what you're referencing here--especially because in the second half of the sentence you talk about an increasing reliance on slave labor.

When?

Didn't they say "only Negroes shall be slaves"?

This raises an interesting point, but I'm not completely sure whether you're using it to critique Coates.

Often they were prisoners of war.

Weren't the first laws on slavery well before this? I think in Massachusetts, it was 1640.

I'm not actually sure if this was true. It was true of Europeans--but I don't think the same terms applied to Africans.

I'd love to hear your own words here, rather than quotes from other websites.

So who is this quote from?

In this paragraph, too, I think you could more clearly state the point you're making by including it.

Try to avoid passive voice.

It would be nice to have somewhere in here a clearer statement about the general point you're making about slavery with this object. Why is it here? Does it, for example, showcase slavery's economic importance? Does it explain the significance of slavery in US history? I think you could be a little clearer about that.

This link doesn't seem to work.

Try to avoid putting in URLs as text. It's better to put in some text and then hyperlink it (e.g., Source: University of South Florida). You could also include a caption.

I think defining what you mean by "racism" (just like you note that race is a social construct) would be helpful in clarifying this.

This sounds like a psychological need? Or is it an economic need? What do you think?

It would be interesting to see what white European attitudes towards black Africans were, prior to the slave trade.

The irony is that this is an anti-slavey image. It became the symbol of abolitionism.

This is a nice clear statement of your argument. I appreciate that.

So where do you think the "happened to be" came from?

So are you saying the power dynamic existed first, then than became racism?

By the way, what time period did the process you're describing take place?

How so? Can you say a bit more?

Wasn't this New York?

So what do you mean by this word?

As a writing thing, I would say you always want to avoid this phrase. First of all, it's passive voice, which you should always try to avoid. Second, why not just state your own argument--or alternatively, present a particular person who makes this argument.

Was racial ideology the fuel? Or was it economics?

Are there actually people that say this?

Can you link to their piece? Is it online?

Heavily? As not all whites owned slaves. In fact, I believe that most did not.

American capitalism, in particular.

I like the opening. It gives the piece a personal touch. Towards the end of this paragraph, you move towards a more formal, academic style, but in fact continuing on in the tone you start with could work very well.

This seems high. I've usually seen around 10-15%. But perhaps you could link to a page here.

These seems like the wrong word to use. It suggests, to me, that their presence was more voluntary than it was.

And in South America--Brazil got a lot of slaves.

I wouldn't say "nature" as it suggests that slaves were naturally subservient, and that wasn't true. If they were, shackles would not have been necessary.

Is this true?

Mid 1700s?

So can you sum up here (or at the start) and explaining what key aspect of slavery this object represents? Brutality? Economic significance?

Probably "unpaid" would be a better word here.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this.

Could you link here to actual stories? That would be even better.

This link sends me to a redirect page, instead of directly to the page.

Try to avoid just including URLs. It makes the post look a bit less polished. Instead, but in some text, and hyperlink. You can also put the source, and then hyperlink it.

This doesn't seem quite right. It's one step along the way but, for example, putting slavery into law was important.

It seems to me that this object is also a chance to reference, more generally, the role of religion in slave life.

I feel like this is thrown in, and more needs to be said. Perhaps you can hyperlink to a page that talks about the role of African culture in slave culture?

This is a very thoughtful, very interesting piece. Your analysis of the relationship between race and racism is nicely done.

I think the formatting could be polished up a bit. Sometimes it's centered, and sometimes it's not, and the lack of consistency takes away some polish. The lack of breaks between paragraphs also makes it harder to read--it's good to have the next broken up. The varied line-spacing is also not ideal.

A nice phrasing. Again, you're carrying out a nice analytical balancing act here.

And, of course, it was easier for Indians to run away and escape.

This is pretty long text for a hyperlink.

Again, I like the distinction you're making here. Not slavery, but not quite the same.

And yet, as Coombs notes, wasn't there hereditary slavery quite early--by the 1640s at the latest?

I kind of like the word choice--you're trying to capture the idea, I take it, that knowledge of racial distinctions did exist before slavery, but they were not as solidified or developed as they became later. That's a good distinction to draw.

This is nicely done. It is well-written, with good links, a clear organization, good pictures, and a good explanation of why each object is presented and what it says about slavery. The way you frame it is effective--show both brutality and humanity--and you do that well.

I believe that only in South Carolina were slaves a majority of an entire state. Of course, in particular regions (e.g., the Delta, the Black Belt, the South Carolina low country) slaves were indeed the majority.

And other things, too, such as Christianity. One of the things to note is how black culture in America is such a blend of African and other influences.

I agree that religion was an important part of dealing with slavery--but was it the only thing?

This seems like a slightly off description. That's partly because it's Nat Turner's Bible, and these don't seem like what he learned. More generally, liberation and consolation seem like key ideas here--after all, education was denied to the slaves (though some snatched it anyway) and their hard work wasn't about education.

This is an important point to make about slavery. I think more detail here would enrich the picture you're drawing.

The phrasing is a little confusing here.

The font here (and throughout) is small. Is there a way to make it larger? It would make it easier to read.

This is a very interesting letter.

In the south, you mean?

This link doesn't go to the picture.

Do you have a link?

I'm not fully convinced it does. It definitely demonstrates there was enslavement of Indians; that the colonists enslaved them for economic reasons isn't clear to me from this quote (though I think that is true).

I like that you link to the primary sources.

I think they were just enslaved.

It is an interesting source, though when I read it I didn't catch that note of European superiority. Also, it describes Africans kidnapping Africans, which suggests there is more than just race going on.

If you're going to mention this, I'd like to hear at least a snippet of what is in his account. Do you mean he expresses similar views?

Of course, Europeans had known about Africans before this.

A formatting suggestion: rather than putting in the full URL put in some text (e.g., the name of the website) and then hyperlink that text. It will look better.

And religion--something else that comes out in this object, I suspect.

There seem to be three of them.

How much cotton was produced at the time? Also, rice was a major product (e.g., in South Carolina).

Your argument is thoughtful. The last paragraph is especially nicely done. I think you could more explicitly address the Coombs counter-argument that we looked at in class. It would also be interesting to see what English ideas about Africans were. But even if there were anti-African sentiment in England (as I believe there was) your argument might be able to account for it, especially as those ideas might not have been anything close to the racial ideology that developed later. Prejudice is not the same as racial ideology.

It would be interesting to see what ideas of about race and Africans existed prior to this in English culture.

It would be nice to hear you address and rebut the Coombs argument--that slavery was well established in Virginia (at least among the elite) before Bacon's Rebellion.

To polish up the presentation a bit, try to not include the URL--just hyperlink some text.

Also, the picture seems small. I'd love to see it larger.

I think this shows well that it wasn't just bias against Africans that led to slavery. But could there also have been racial bias against Indians?

This seems like a lot of text for a hyperlink. Usually they are shorter.

What about the John Punch case? Does that show a difference?

So what is the broader significance of his rebellion? What key point about slavery does it illustrate?

I would probably say "slave in revolt"

I would love to hear you say more here. This is correct, I think, but it raises a lot of other issues (such as the centrality of slavery in the American economic system) which you don't raise.

So is this broadly similar to the point you made with the whip? Or are you trying to make a distinct point?

Not a great source to link to...

I like the inclusion of specific examples here.

I can't find the quote at this link--are you sure it's there?

he or she?

I'm not sure what you are referring to here.

Can you put in the full URL?

This would be another great place to include a link.

Again, try to avoid just putting in URLs.

Debt slavery (a very real thing) is different from indentured servitude.

What do you mean by "enslaved" here? The status of an indentured servant was very different. However, it was unfree labor. Is that what you mean?

So I take it your argument is something like: racism is the institutionalized oppression, and that doesn't exist without economic advantage via slavery, so that economic advantage has to come first.

I think this is pretty similar to the argument that Coates is making, but I think your own argument would be clearer if you could provide a clearer definition of "racism" somewhere.

I'm a little troubled by how you present this quote. You're presenting it as a quote from the 1850 publication, but when I go to the link, it looks more like a paraphrase of the 1850 publication (I also worry that the website doesn't itself cite a particular source--"1850 publication" is very vague, and it would be more credible if it provided a name for the source--and even a link)

This link doesn't work. Be sure to check all links before you publish!

Rather than putting in a URL, you should hyperlink some text, and then use that hyperlink to link to this URL.

I'd still like to see more links in here.

I'm not sure we can prove this, as phrased. It is certainly true that the modern economy we have today was based, in part and in the early phases of the industrial revolution, on slave-grown commodities. But that's different from saying we couldn't have done it without slavery.

This is definitely a place where you should be in a link, to support your point.

Also, I want to ask--proved by whom?

Looks like the sentence got cut off.

This would be a great place to put in a link--or even several links I've seen people have separate links in consecutive points in a sentence when they really want to hammer a point home).

I'd like to see this presented more as a piece of web-writing--i.e., without the header. In a similar vein, think about the title. What would catch the reader's attention?

There is an interesting question raised by this. I completely agree with the point here. But is it also important to see the ways in which slaves fought against dehumanization? You suggest some of that in last entry, about the house, but I think it's an important balance to strike: slaves were brutalized--but they were also people with families, their own culture, etc. Capturing both at the same time is tricky.

And yet the irony is that the description of the runaways in the flyer does reference their particular characteristics. So they saw them--but them ignored them, once captured, to treat the enslaved as mere property.

It's good to be clear about the key point that is illustrated by the object. This could even be closer to the front of the description.

The brief intro here is kind of nice. It frames the presentation a bit.

In British North America, of course

This is a little unclear to me. Can you explain it?

I think Ham was African (or was seen to be)?

Good job of coming to the image here.

Probably most southern white Americans. Northerners might have had a different opinion.

Do you remember which state he was from?

The link doesn't work.

40,000?

It is interesting that, in this brick, you have chosen a second object with what might be called a "dual valence" -- in this case, showing the centrality of slavery in the American system, but also the overcoming of that legacy.

It also seems that this would be a good place to talk about economics, as slavery was economically fundamental, and not just politically fundamental. The brick--construction work--would be a great place to bring that in. [Reading further, I see you make the economic point later on.]

Literally foundational--as in, they literally build the foundation of the American government buildings.

This would be a good place to link, not to the book, but to a website which provides a good history of the event.

This is interesting. Do we know why? Was it taken out by him?

I really like this opening sentence. It really states the point clearly.

I'm curious: is there another word you think would work better? As I said, you establish the overwhelming power of master. But you also suggest it wasn't literally absolute. So if it's not negotiated, how would you describe it?

I'd like to hear more here. In the rest of the piece, you do a good job of establishing the overwhelming power of the masters--so good, in fact, that it isn't clear where "some power" for the slaves could be found.

Or perhaps "negotiation table"?

Nice point.

Do do institutions always fall back on, or are they ultimately based on, punishment? Because the rest of the paragraph, including the Ruffin case, revolve around the absolute power of the master to punish.

Again, I think there is a really interesting and thoughtful idea in here, but I think it could be phrased more clearly.

This would be a great place to include a link--provide more information on this specific example. By linking to it, you make that information available, but don't have to put it all in your own piece.

I see you say more in the picture caption, which is great, but it would still be nice to have a link here.

Slave?

Racism? Or race?

I think this is an interesting idea, but I'm not quite clear on what you're saying. Are you saying that all legislation was ultimately tied to slavery (thus showing how racial concepts were always and only used to support hierarchy)?

It would be good to have a caption here, explaining the significance of the picture (then, hyperlink from the caption to this URL).

I'd love to see a sharper title. It's worth putting some thought into it--really bring the reader in.

So do you have a definition of racism? One common definition is (and I'm paraphrasing here) prejudice + power. In other words, prejudice (racial or otherwise) isn't enough to create racism; instead, it has to be tied to a power hierarchy. So the question is, which came first, ideas of race (i.e., prejudice) or systems of hierarchy? Did hierarchy develop because white viewed Africans as inferior? Or did hierarchy come first, with ideas of race solidifying afterwards to justify it?

It is, as you note, a bit of a chicken and egg problem, but different accounts of the origins of slavery in North America have different emphases.

Again, I thought you might link to the original case, or an article about it.

I thought you might link here to the text of the original law, or an article further interpreting and discussing it.

Quickly?

You should put in a capture here. And try to include the whole URL. Instead, put in hyperlinked text.

Slavery and religion is an important topic, and I like how you note the usage by both sides.

I think slavery wasn't commonly practiced among slaves until the 18th and 19th centuries.

How many slaves were able to read these stories?

You mean believed by whites?

Are there examples of this being done? That would be an interesting story to link to.

And also as a way of trying to create "a world apart," not under white control.

Overall, I like the point you make in this paragraph.

So is the significance of this object that it illustrates the violence of the system? (If so, it seems a little indirect). It could also be used to illustrate the aspects of slavery as an economic system. That would be an important point to bring out.

It's a good link, by the way--interesting article, one that could definitely be used for more information on slavery as an economic, capitalist institution.

This looks like (based on the caption on the page you got it from) more like a documentation of a purchase or sale of slaves, not a record of quotas--though you are correct that there were books that recorded whether slaves met quota.

I like the connection.

I think this would be a good point even to make the broader point: how much of the country (especially the south) was build by slave labor. They built so much, this is just one example.

Where was this?

By whom? I would be interested to hear who is doing the "referring" here.

And of course they combined elements of the religions, too.

Interesting link!

I like here, how you explicitly highlight the importance. Putting this further up front, and expanding on it, could make this point more powerfullly

But by 1808, the international slave trade had been banned. In the 1700s, it was a major port.

I like your opening paragraph. It captures very well the idea that you need to define the problem, and it distinguishes very clearly between overall economic growth and how the typical American benefits from that( or not).

The rest of the piece is clearly organized. Your explanations of the policies and how they would work is clear, and the historical examples are clear.

A formatting note: don't center your text. It's not good formatting. Also, make sure all your links work. Finally, I would provide captions for photos (rather than just putting in links).

Overall, very nicely done!

It looks like you're proposing several policies: tax changes, balancing the budget, more welfare, and higher tariffs. Your explanation of how these policies would help isn't always clear. Also (and this is related), your historical examples aren't always clear.

Your text here is very small, and hard to read. In the future, you should make it easier to read.

This would be a good place to provide a supporting hyperlink.

Does welfare do this?

Why is this a problem, in your opinion?

How so?

Do you mean unable to pay for programs?