The Shirley Sherrod Situation

[axordil]

>.> <.< >.<

[axordil]

Considering your many requests to halplm, over the past several days, that he provide quotes from Sherrod and such to support his opinion on her, it would seem to me that you should also be willing to meet a similar request regarding your assertion. Such as mine, naming the (to start with) Southern Democrat Senators that changed parties and became Republicans after the CRA of 1964.

Asking someone to support an opinion central to a discussion with facts is not the same as asking a trivia question, especially one tangential to the discussion at large. There is no interpretation required to note that the number of Southern senators who flipped parties after the Civil Rights Act is greater than zero, so the requests are not similar. Moreover, Prim didn't mention Senators specifically--you did. She said "politicians" and you decided to reduce that to "Senators."

[Griffon64]

halplm - there is a grain of truth in what you say, insofar as there's no denying that there are some elements in each racial group that preaches the things you talk about. Where things fall flat, as JewelSong pointed out, is that you generalize that to the entire population group, as if people can't think for themselves. For instance, you speak with no respect of non-whites when you say 'How about that's what they're taught from birth by anyone in a position they listen to?

That, of course, and if they disagree they're labeled an "Uncle Tom" or some other form of "traitor" to their own race.' You don't really have a solution, halplm, but when you say things like that you are reflecting a a facet of "the problem" you're pointing out.

That said, I agree that members of any racial group focusing so much on race doesn't help matters - there is usually a lot of generalization going on with that focusing. It makes it really hard to get past race. But the thing that is more likely to help isn't more of the "teach them all from birth" nonsense - that kind of thing really doesn't work with people, because they can look and see for themselves. No, what will help more is a society in which these "teachings" can't grip - and that is what ( in my opinion ) somewhat ham-handed laws about affirmative action attempts to do. This circles back to an earlier post of mine, where those laws wouldn't be necessary if the bastions of wealth and power, which is still white-owned to an outsize extent, was welcoming and helped integrate all of America into a non-discriminatory whole - from back in the day. Sorry, but there's no denying that the past is littered with discrimination. The fix to it isn't more discrimination, only from the other side. The fix is for enough to happen so that discrimination exist in small, naturally occurring quantities only. ( As River pointed out, a certain amount of hesitation is natural, and as long as you have that, you'll always have some discrimination, because people do not process at the same rate. ) You can't tell people race doesn't matter while more of the inner cities are black and poor and more of the quiet, leafy suburbs are white and wealthy. Also, you absolutely cannot try to fix matters through entitlement. Entitlement does unhappy things to people. Entitlement can be a temporary bridge to get to a better place, but it cannot be the better place. At this point I can hold forth at length on other valid points, such as the fact that there's cultural stuff that needs to be broken down all around, but I think people are informed enough to know how many layers and nuances there are. That's what makes the whole thing difficult.

[Infidel]

Considering your many requests to halplm, over the past several days, that he provide quotes from Sherrod and such to support his opinion on her, it would seem to me that you should also be willing to meet a similar request regarding your assertion. Such as mine, naming the (to start with) Southern Democrat Senators that changed parties and became Republicans after the CRA of 1964.

Asking someone to support an opinion central to a discussion with facts is not the same as asking a trivia question, especially one tangential to the discussion at large. There is no interpretation required to note that the number of Southern senators who flipped parties after the Civil Rights Act is greater than zero, so the requests are not similar. Moreover, Prim didn't mention Senators specifically--you did. She said "politicians" and you decided to reduce that to "Senators."

The so called trivia question, while perhaps tangential to the central discussion re. Sherrod, is directly related to what Primula asserted (is her assertion also tangential? Is there some Term of Service rule that tangential assertions can not be challenged?

As I said above, I am starting with the Senators (who are politicians).

[Pearly Di]

The principle problem with regards to race in contemporary America, is that everyone is taught that they need to define themselves primarily by their own race (except white people, who are taught to feel guilt for their own race).

I'm in the UK, not the US, but I can assure you that I certainly don't feel guilty for being white and I've never been taught to feel that way either.

Being aware of racial injustices both past and present is not the same as 'blaming' one's own race or another.

The cities of London, Liverpool and Bristol grew immensely wealthy on the proceeds of that appalling thing, the slave trade. In other words, in the 18th century my country grew rich on the blood of African men, women and children treated like mere commodities, like cattle ... worse than cattle. This is a historical fact, not me being all 'bleeding heart liberal'. It is a horror that happened in history, and my country enabled it to happen. Fact!

Do I feel guilty about it? -- of course not! I'm not one of the original slave-traders.

Do I think British schoolkids should be taught about British involvement in the slave trade? -- absolutely.

And, of course, they are.

The only way to overcome racism is to teach equality from day one.

Yes, I agree. Completely.

I also believe that where inequalities because of racial prejudice have existed in the past, and continue to exist, it's important for us to learn about them and be aware of them. Don't you?

They certainly can't be brushed under the carpet as if they don't exist.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Infidel, you have every right to ask the question. And Prim has every right to answer or not, as she sees fit (just as halplm has every right to either provide quotes from Sherrod that support his views or not, as he sees fit). What people do not have the right to do is to harass someone for opting not to respond to such a request. And again, that goes equally for halplm and Prim (and everyone else) and so people should take that as a fair warning. As I said earlier in the thread, discuss the issues involved, not the posters posting about it.

[Primula Baggins]

I did not intend to become the object of this kind of discussion. But my free time is limited, and I don't see how the answer to Infidel's question is relevant to the discussion going on here. No doubt the population he selected for my "research" will give an answer he thinks will undercut my assertion, and if what I'd said had been about those twenty-odd men rather than the whole mass of Southern politicians from Congress on down to local judges, state legislators, and sherriffs, he would be right.

As Ax said, my request to halplm was that he support the statements he was making that Sherrod is racist, by finding the statements in her speech and later interviews that he said were racist. If they exist, they should be easy to find. Copying and pasting into a post is also easy. But, as Hal often does, he refused. That's his right.

Infidel's request would be as if I gave Hal the name of another black public figure not part of the discussion here and demanded that he present evidence that this person had made racist statements, and if he could find none, drop his assertion that Sherrod is racist because this other person was not provably so.

There would be no point to that. I don't see any point to jumping through Infidel's hoop, either. And I don't need to be led gently by the hand to the truth he wants me to learn. He should just post the statistic himself and let us all share in the teachable moment.

Meanwhile, I have three chapters to edit today, and three more tomorrow, so I'll be looking in here only intermittently. I hope this derailment ends here.

[nerdanel]

The principle problem with regards to race in contemporary America, is that everyone is taught that they need to define themselves primarily by their own race (except white people, who are taught to feel guilt for their own race).

Speaking as one of the "everyone" you are referring to: no, we're not. I posted at length about my own experience, which included a childhood in which I strongly resisted being defined in ANY way by my own race, something which everyone around me (particularly parents and teachers) accepted. Although my personal view of this topic may be sui generis, I accompanied my family to many Indian-American events in our area and met many of the other families. None of them talked or openly thought like you mentioned, despite the fact that "we" were a small minority group in a Southern state that may have appeared insular to outsiders. Many of my classmates and teachers were African-American. A very small minority expressed the feelings that you attribute to the entirety.

Minorities are taught they are oppressed, and majorities are taught they have oppressed in the past... and are thus somehow responsible for "fixing" that in the present.

Yes, the majorities ARE responsible - and so are the rest of us. We have various inequalities in this country that are the result of a painful, racist history. It is society's responsibility to fix that history. For one group to blame another nakedly will ultimately not be productive in ending the legacy of racism (though it is understandable). But so too will it not be productive for "the majority" - the beneficiaries, whether willing or otherwise, of that painful, racist history - to disclaim any responsibility for working towards full equality, because "We didn't create the problem, our [great...]grandparents did." You may not have a responsibility to "fix" racial and socioeconomic discrimination because you are white, but you do because you are American. So do I. And so do our fellow citizens who are black, Hispanic, or of a different background. In my personal view, those of all races who have greater access to positions of influence and power because of socioeconomic privilege have a greater moral responsibility to address this issue.

The only way to overcome racism is to teach equality from day one.

Theoretical racial equality can and should be taught -- i.e., that all people are equal regardless of skin color. However, practical racial equality cannot be "taught" when it doesn't exist. If, to use your parlance, "minorities are taught" that "they" are "equal" and then "they" experience disproportionate racial profiling, employment discrimination, poverty and violence, and inadequate access to the best schools for their children (for starters), then "they" may feel less able to believe the "lessons" that "they" are taught. Thus, before "we" "teach equality", we must all actually work for it. Not because of anyone's family tree, but because we Americans are ALL the descendants of a society that has this history, regardless of what anyone's specific deceased relatives did.

[JewelSong]

Nel...

Excellent post and well-said!

[vison]

Excellent post, nerdanel!!!

It is all very well to say "equality should be taught from day 1". Sure, all children should be brought up to believe that all humans are of equal worth, and have equal rights before the law. That's as far as we can claim "equality" and it would be sufficient - except, of course, that countless generations of children have been taught almost the exact opposite.

[N.E. Brigand]

Hal, please stop claiming the Democrats tried to prevent advances in civil rights. Everyone but you seems pretty well aware of the actual history and the shifts in politics involved (and the fact that many unrepentantly racist Southern Democrat politicians later chose to become Republicans rather than continue in a party that actively opposed their racism rather than offering only token statements against it).

Lets make this simple to start with: 21 Democrat Senators voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Can you name those Senators who afterwards switched to the Republican party? (6 Republicans voted against it)

Apparently there was just one: Strom Thurmond.

[Túrin Turambar]

Hal, please stop claiming the Democrats tried to prevent advances in civil rights. Everyone but you seems pretty well aware of the actual history and the shifts in politics involved (and the fact that many unrepentantly racist Southern Democrat politicians later chose to become Republicans rather than continue in a party that actively opposed their racism rather than offering only token statements against it).

Lets make this simple to start with: 21 Democrat Senators voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Can you name those Senators who afterwards switched to the Republican party? (6 Republicans voted against it)

Apparently there was just one: Strom Thurmond.

Yes, although Jesse Helms also switched parties in 1970 prior to entering the Senate.

Wikipedia reveals that Segregationist Democrat Albert Watson resigned his South Carolina House Seat and re-won it as a Republican in a special election in 1965, but I can find no other changes to the party memberships of any members of the House or Senate from 1963 to 1973. I also went through the lists of governors of segregationist states, and found that Governor Mills E. Godwin of Virginia also changed parties over the issue between his first (1966-1970) and second (1974-1978) terms.

So generally the supporters of segregation either remained in the Democratic Party until their deaths, or withdrew from politics (or, like George Wallace, renounced their beliefs). Nonetheless, there was a massive backlash against the Democratic Party among white southern voters – that is fairly easy to establish.

[Hachimitsu]

Nel said it better then I ever could. But I think that is basically what a lot of people have been saying. Especially as this history was a part of the fabric of the inception of the US. Racial issues were going on before the US became a country and those issues severely impacted the US and leads to the current situation now.


*Big giant monster post coming up*

I think I will try and sum up some stuff that I learned in my anthropology class on that history.

My prof as a preface mentioned Belgium is a tiny country low in natural resources and is somehow is rich. Congo is a huge country with natural resources left, right and centre and is poor. Sort of keep that in the back of your mind.

The main point I am going to get to is that largely organized institutionalized ideological racism was manufactured to justify economic actions. The modern racism we have today comes from that, and not as much from our monkey brain.

It was only after ideological racism was ingrained into the populous that people of darker skin were the sole candidates for slavery. Before that white Europeans were just as much for candidates of slavery or discrimination just like anyone else.
This is why I don't like the idea of racism, or being uncomfortable with people who look different from you stems from some natural forces. It is true but it it does not justify/explain the current racial climate we are in.

Some historical examples I look at are the Slavic peoples of Europe were enslaved and they were white. Ancient Greek mythology and history does not say too much about hating on different coloured peoples. While there were issues, there was no huge institutionalized racist ideology in ancient history (at least the ancient history I was taught in the Western schools I went to I don't know too much about Eastern ancient history although I wish I did).

South Europe and Greece is sort of close to North Africa so I think it's an area that is interesting to look at as light skinned and dark skinned people could bump into each other and interact. Dark skin was a big issues if a child came out dark and the parents weren't. It was possible proof of infidelity, but no was being enslaved just on the basis of skin colour. I read one case where the argument on behalf of the wife was that she was looking at a picture of dark skinned person during conception and that was why the child was dark *giggle* In some Greek myths when Zeus posed as a mortal in the human world he manifested himself as a black man. There is some other stuff too but I won't get into it. In general there was no was institutionalized hating on other groups of people based on skin colour.


Now looking at history at the time before Columbus "discovered" the "New world" there really wasn't colonialism. Each continental groupings was capable of defending themselves from getting conquered by other continental grouping at this time. Notice Europe didn't have any "colonies" during the medieval times. Some historians look at medieval Europe as sort of a backwater.
Columbus then discovers the new world when looking for a different trade route to the east. Now Europeans did get into wars with the some of the native peoples and were sent home packing (There were some South American examples that I can't remember now). Then the "new world" peoples started dying off from the diseases the Europeans brought. This made it pretty easy for the Europeans to come back and literally steal the wealth of the new world and take it over the land, as the population was dying off, and they couldn't adequately defend themselves as they were dying off. This wealth is what funded the beginnings of Capitalism and the Renaissance in Europe. With out this extra wealth the renaissance may not have happened. With all this wealth coming in it helped to start the Industrial Revolution. (I skipped a lot of course stuff here, British economics was changing and that had a giant part to play in this too.) This enabled a lot of technological advances which enabled Europe to then take over/colonize regions they couldn't get into before. Regions that were full of wealth that the residents weren't willing to give up.

Now, to take on this huge task of conquering peoples and literally stealing their wealth, looks pretty bad and would be quite costly for the people at home to fund this. How are would one sell this at home? How would one convince colonists to go and colonize places were people were already living?

Out and out stealing from a person and enslaving them is pretty bad. But what if the person you were stealing from was a sub human? What if one could convince me that really we weren't stealing since these "peoples" were not really fully human or equal in the first place? If they aren't equal they really don't own anything in the first place and all the land and resources are free for the taking. Also since they aren't fully human we can get them to work for us for free. We'd be doing them a favour since they aren't civilized and they don't know any better. "They" are fundamentally different from "Us" It's pretty easy to justify taking wealth once that manufactured idea has been instilled in to the people.[osgilliation] Like with Griffy's examples of learning about labels in school. Later on on science was used to prove the truth of this manufactured idea. They are so fundamentally different, they are a different species/ race. That was taught in schools as I mentioned in a previous post about textbooks. (Also L_M had a brilliant thread about old textbooks from the commonwealth days with really telling quotes, which seemed to acknowledge it was wrong, taking land from indigenous people, but only when other groups did it. Take a look at that thread if what I am saying seems strange.)[/osgilliation]

White mans burden (The white man having a moral task of civilizing the savage), was manufactured to encourage people to go on this economic venture of gaining wealth from other location. I am sure it would make the poor person who isn't doing well at home to go give it a go in the colonies. Not mention it's kind of flattering being so superior and wonderful, that we have to go out and help those savages who don't know any better.

It is using this justification that enabled Europe to colonize other parts of the world and literally take their wealth. This is how Europe got rich. Colonization funded the Industrial Revolution and capitalism. Without manufacturing racist ideology they simply would not have been able to create these economic forces, which greatly enriched Europe.

It's pretty easy to enslave people if they really aren't people. Slavery is about getting people to work for free, which can make the owner richer. That is what it really comes down down to. One can make lots of money with a work force that does not have to be paid (or in today's world a very nominal pay). Manufacturing racist ideals and institutionalizing could open a whole workforce one couldn't get before.
Using vision to identify who would be candidates for slavery makes things very easy when doing it on a large, institutionalized, organized scale for great economic returns. Also by basing it on vision reduces the likelihood of accidentally enslaving prince or princess whose nearby government a conqueror would have to deal with. It was at this time, that slavery became a lifelong condition, and based on skin colour. Before this it was something a person could get out of, through various ways.

It also helps to use science to help justify these ideas. A big example is how Darwin's work was twisted to "prove" natural inferiority of different coloured peoples. It's easier to divide people people if they are counted as different races/ different species. A good example of this is how the aboriginals of Australia and New Zealand were counted as among the flora and fauna of the region, not humans. it's pretty easy to colonize a place if it's deemed "uninhabited by humans". Race science helped prove that these manufactured ideas true, natural. That they were already there and the scientists just discovered it. I am sure many people know race science of the past, has all been debunked now.

[osgilliation]
I will say here as an aside Darwin was an abolitionist and believed in equality of all peoples.Not just himself personally but his family and his wife's family who were the Wedgewoods (yep, those Wedgewoods), who had a pottery line to raise awareness on abolishing slavery. I really don't like when people bring in Darwin into "race" discussions and accuse him of being a part of building racial ideology, when he wasn't.[/osgiliation]

Remember Belgium being small and rich and Congo being large and poor? Belgium colonized the Congo and pretty much used these manufactured racist ideas and concepts to gain the riches Belgium now has. Not to mention leaving behind a huge mess in the Congo. For more details on that I would recommend reading King Leopold's Ghost. (I have not read it yet but it's on my list).

The US founded in the middle of all of this. Also much of US was built of slave labour. So it's very important to look at history and realize much of the modern racism we have now was based on manufactured ideology to justify economic actions. Also it took at least 4 centuries for all of us to get to this point. It's going to take a whole lot more then 50 years to turn all of that around. Especially as much of the concepts and ideology are still used today. Many modern stereotypes all comes from this history. Many current economic practices can be looked at as neocolonialist, as in the the economic practices of colonialism is still going on now, and still benefiting the nations that benefited from it the past. To deny that would be foolish. The machinations developed to sell these ideas are also very very powerful. Ex: marketing.


If we ignore this history on how we got current racism today, the entire human race is never ever going to get rid of it. I personally think, it is very naive and foolish to ignore this history, and frankly sounds like a fantasy to absolve everyone (As Nel said) from feeling obligated to turn it around.

While some of this stuff I already knew, my family historically being from an island that was populated with slaves to produce sugar for England, a lot of the machinations behind it I didn't know and it really really changed the way I view the modern race problems we have today, ( I also view economics completely differently now).

While it was a course in school I am sure it's full of personal opinions of the people involved in the course. So you can take it or leave it. I could be totally wrong and wasted a ton of tuition money on this course

After this post I can't post much more as my arm and back are killing me from so much typing, so I am sorry if I can't give an in depth response.

Also Di , understanding national politics through Doctor Who are my kind of people

Edit: to fix some wording and smiley.

[Túrin Turambar]

The main point I am going to get to is that largely organized institutionalized ideological racism was manufactured to justify economic actions. The modern racism we have today comes from that, and not as much from our monkey brain.

It’s a sound theory, but I would only take it so far. I know from my own experience that academics can try to make messy facts fit a theory that is just a little too neat for reality. This is particularly true in the humanities, where an awful lot is open to interpretation.

It is undeniable that institutional or ‘scientific’ racism is an enlightenment phenomenon. Certainly in the middle ages people of colour were a curiosity to Europeans. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that racism was ‘created’ to justify economic decisions, though. I’d say that it arose more as a side-effect of enlightenment thinking and colonialism.

Once a scientific way of thinking began to become popular, it became the norm to try and classify things into groups and rank them. At the same time, Europeans came into extensive contact with non-European peoples around the world and generally defeated and conquered them. This naturally gave rise to the belief that Europeans were simply better than the ‘ignorant’ ‘savages’ that they now ruled. This contempt of the conquerors for the conquered is nothing new – I’ve seen similar sentiments among medieval Arab writers directed towards Africans and in WWII-era Japan, among others. I think that it is that simple.

[vison]

IAWLM.

[Hachimitsu]

Well basically to sum it up, I think racism is more taught then innate. I felt that before and really felt that after. Also while there are a lot of weaknesses in humanities. I have seen people who haven't taken a humanities course in their life come to conclusion of a link between racism and economics. I did say that the course is full opinions.

EDIT To add an extra though:

On top of everything else, academics or not, if racism was so innate, then why were there people at the time working to stop it? During slavery there were many many, many people against it. For the Congo situation (which was severe) people at the time were pressuring Belgium to stop what they were doing. If it was so innate why didn't Leopold just get more support? If it was so innate why are things changing now? Where are all the feelings of "this is wrong" is coming from if racism is so innate? Maybe I am just too optimistic. *shrug*

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Meanwhile, getting back to Shirley Shirrod, she has indicated in a speech that she does intend to sue Breitbart.

Ousted USDA employee Sherrod plans to sue blogger

[Nin]

Please among the econom¡c argument, don't forget the religious one: for a long time, non-christians, the infideles, were mainly the non-Europeans and the Jews.

If you read some of the crusade appeals, they sound pretty racist. It's a different reason for racism, but it still existed and is a way of seeing mainly coloured and non-European persons as non-persons. So, I don't think racism originates within the Industrial Revolution, only the argument changes and it becomes scientific and ideologic, but personhood had already been denied to non-christians before.

(And I have no idea who Shirley Sherrod or Mr. Breitbart are)

[Hachimitsu]

Nin very good points, which I didn't think of.

About who is who, wikipedia has a good article on it.

What grounds is Sherrod going to sue the blogger on? I am bit curious as to how the blogger will prove he got the edited video from another source.

[Túrin Turambar]

Well basically to sum it up, I think racism is more taught then innate. I felt that before and really felt that after. Also while there are a lot of weaknesses in humanities. I have seen people who haven't taken a humanities course in their life come to conclusion of a link between racism and economics. I did say that the course is full opinions.

EDIT To add an extra though:

On top of everything else, academics or not, if racism was so innate, then why were there people at the time working to stop it? During slavery there were many many, many people against it. For the Congo situation (which was severe) people at the time were pressuring Belgium to stop what they were doing. If it was so innate why didn't Leopold just get more support? If it was so innate why are things changing now? Where are all the feelings of "this is wrong" is coming from if racism is so innate? Maybe I am just too optimistic. *shrug*

Just because it’s a natural consquence doesn’t mean everyone believes it. Warfare is a natural consequence of human societies coming into contact, yet there have always been pacifists.

What does concern me is that this view that racism is taught to the masses by economic elites sounds an awful lot like it’s backed by a political agenda. In particular, a left-wing Rosseau-inspired worldview where people are naturally benevolent but are taught otherwise by ruling classes for their own purposes. It’s very close to the orthodox neo-Marxist position where economic elites control society through social and cultural institutions and dupe people into thinking and acting against their own best interests. In fact, I’d be surprised if the authors of many of the readings supporting this view and the teachers teaching it were not neo-Marxists or at least sympathetic to Gramsci and neo-Marxism.

It concerns me because I believe it shows a disconnect with the real world. I’ve met many Marxists and neo-Marxists in universities and none outside one. Certainly someone would be hard-pressed to argue that anyone is teaching members of the working-classes and poor today to be racist (except for their parents and peers), yet racists tend to be poor and uneducated far more often than they’re wealthy and educated. Political parties like the BNP and Front Nationale have their support almost entirely in heavily blue-collar areas. I find that the people who most often offer neat explanations for why people in lower socio-economic groups act as they do have very little personal experience with the people they claim to speak for.

Please among the econom¡c argument, don't forget the religious one: for a long time, non-christians, the infideles, were mainly the non-Europeans and the Jews.


If you read some of the crusade appeals, they sound pretty racist. It's a different reason for racism, but it still existed and is a way of seeing mainly coloured and non-European persons as non-persons. So, I don't think racism originates within the Industrial Revolution, only the argument changes and it becomes scientific and ideologic, but personhood had already been denied to non-christians before.

That’s true, but it seems to me to be more of an ad hoc thing. People in the Middle Ages seemed to make those sorts of comments about anyone they were fighting. There wasn’t the systematic classification of people into superior or inferior races that you start to get in the 17th and 18th centuries.

For example, take the speech of the Bishop of the Orkneys to the Anglo-Norman Army before the Battle of the Standard in 1138, from the Annals of Roger de Hoveden:

While king Stephen was thus engaged in the southern parts of England, David, king of the Scots, led an innumerable army into England. By the advice and exhortation of Turstin, archbishop of York, the nobles of the north of England, went out to meet him, with William, the illustrious earl of Albemarle, and planted the standard10 or royal banner at Alverton,11 on Cutune moor. As, in consequence of illness, the archbishop of York could not be present at the battle, he sent in his place Ralph, bishop of the Orkneys,12 who, standing in the midst of the army, on an elevated spot, addressed them to the following effect:

“Most illustrious nobles of England, Normans by birth, (for when about to enter on the combat, it befits you to hold in remembrance your names and your birth), consider who you are, and against whom, and where it is, you are waging war; for then no one shall with impunity resist your prowess. Bold France, taught by experience, has quailed beneath your valour, fierce England, led captive, has submitted to you; rich Apulia, on having you for her masters, has flourished once again; Jerusalem so famed, and illustrious Antioch, have bowed themselves before you; and now Scotland, which of right is subject to you, attempts to show resistance, displaying a temerity not warranted by her arms, more fitted indeed for rioting than for battle. These are people, in fact, who have no knowledge of military matters, no skill in fighting, no moderation in ruling. There is no room then left for fear, but rather for shame, that those whom we have always sought on their own soil and overcome, reversing the usual order of things, have, like so many drunkards and madmen, come flocking into our country.

This, however, I, a bishop, and the substitute for your archbishop, tell you, has been brought about by Divine Providence; in order that those who have in this country violated the temples of God, stained the altars with blood, slain his priests, spared neither children nor pregnant women, may on the same spot receive the condign punishment of their crimes; and this most just resolve of the Divine will, God will this day put in execution by means of your hands. Arouse your spirits them, ye civilized warriors, and, firmly relying on the valour of your country, nay, rather on the presence of God, arise against these most unrighteous foes. And let not their rashness move you, because so many insignia of your valour cause no alarm to them. They know not how to arm13 themselves for battle; whereas you, during the time of peace, prepare yourselves for war, in order that in battle you may not experience the doubtful contingencies of warfare.

Cover your heads then with the helmet, your breasts with the coat of mail, your legs with the greaves, and your bodies with the shield, that so the foeman may not find where to strike at you, on seeing you thus surrounded on every side with iron. Marching then against them thus, unarmed and wavering, why should we hesitate? On account of their numbers perhaps? But it is not so much the numbers of the many as the valour of the few that gains the battle. For a multitude unused to discipline is a hindrance to itself, when successful, in completing the victory, when routed, in taking to flight. Besides your forefathers, when but few in number, have many a time conquered multitudes; what then is the natural consequence of the glories of your ancestry, your constant exercises, your military discipline, but that though fewer in number, you should overcome multitudes? But now the enemy, advancing in disorder, warns me to close what I have to say, and rushing on with a straggling front, gives me great reason for gladness. — I therefore in the place of the archbishop of you who are this day about to avenge the sins committed against the house of the Lord, against the priests of the Lord, and against your king under the Lord’s protection, whoever of you shall fall fighting, do absolve him from all punishment for sins, in the name of the Father, whose creatures they have so shamefully and horribly slain, of the Son, whose altars they have polluted, and of the Holy Ghost, whose inspired ones, in their frenzy, they have slaughtered.” To this all the troops of the English answered “Amen, Amen;” and the mountains and hills re-echoed with their cries.

The Scots are ‘unrighteous’ and ‘uncivilised’, but so is pretty much everyone else who fights the Normans. The Normans view themselves as being better because of their martial prowess, good government, and in particular, piety.