Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

-Horatio_Alger_Jr- t1_irxgq83 wrote

Reply to comment by Kirbyoto in What's your opinion on renaming Plantation Street because it's racist? by [deleted]

Did Quinsigamond Plantation have slaves?

9

outb0undflight t1_irxqkza wrote

As /u/Kirbyoto points out, American colonists in colonial New England had very few compunctions about selling Native Americans into slavery, so whether or not Quinsigamond Plantation itself had slaves is kind of ignoring the point that it's largely impossible to extricate the word 'Plantation' in America from the practice of slavery. Even if a specific plantation owner didn't own slaves and used entirely paid labor (which is a massive if) they were all part of a system that relied on slavery for sustainability. Why do you think profit margins on goods from the American colonies were so high?

People like OP can point to the fact that Plantations still exist without slavery all they want, but Plantation St. was named after a Plantation that actively took place in the American plantation economy, and that is impossible to divorce from slavery.

4

[deleted] OP t1_irxxvh4 wrote

Your argument is weird. The name Plantation Street is bad because it is connected to the people who founded this country, since it was created by people who founded the country, and even though it's not referring to a slave plantation, it was named by people who could have had slaves, so it's therefore a slavery-reminiscent name?

Also, we did "extricate the word 'Plantation' in America from the practice of slavery." Every single day, thousands of people in this city alone use the word "plantation" without thinking of anything aside from a street that runs from Rice Square past Lincoln Plaza to Northeast Cutoff.

4

outb0undflight t1_iry0nk8 wrote

No? That's literally not my argument. It has nothing to do with who named the street, it's that in the United States the word "plantation" is inextricably linked to the Atlantic Slave Trade. This is not a question. The majority of Africans taken from Africa ended up on Sugar Cane plantations in the Carribean. The majority of Slaves in America ended up on cash crop plantations in the South. The slave trade picked up and expanded specifically because these plantations needed labor. They only started to use paid labor when they ran out of slaves to use. Even if you want to argue that some people within the plantation economy system didn't use slaves, the vast, vast majority of them did. Are you starting to see a link between the word plantation and slavery?

4

[deleted] OP t1_iry36yg wrote

Before the 1800s, when the name was first applied, a plantation was just some kind of farm-type area. "Plantation" was used before anyone even permanently settled here, so there is absolutely no relation to slavery. That name came into being before the whole Southern plantation system started. We're not talking about Robert E. Lee Road. We're talking about a street whose name can be interpreted as something tangential to slavery if you stop and think about it and if you want to and if you aren't completely honest. It's not a racist street name. It's not a name that anyone has taken issue with. It's some some bureaucrats looking to justify their role at the medical school. Worcester has a Black community that has never raised this as an issue, ever. It took paid (highly paid) diversity consultants to come and tell us our street name is a problem.

You know what was also linked to slavery? Cotton. Shall we get rid of that term as well? Should the school send its consultant to Leominster to demand that they change the name of Cotton Street? Should they go to Sturbridge and demand that the name of the Cotton Mills Dam be changed? I mean, that's more directly related to slavery, since the cotton mill it's named after opened in the antebellum period and, you know, was a cotton mill.

0

Ikirio t1_iry4bh3 wrote

And to add..... UMASSMED doesnt pay its post-docs or graduate students well. We all just got a raise because after a review the school realized we were paid so shit that it was actually illegal by MASS equal pay laws and they wanted to get ahead of it before we caught on.

They are paying a consultant/DIG officer at least 100K plus staff for their office and building etc so that they can virtue signal about shit that has no impact on a fucking single person while engaging in some of the worst anti-labor shit. Its a bunch of horse shit.

4

[deleted] OP t1_irybt6k wrote

Sort of like, "Hey, look at this shiny quarter over here..."

1

-Horatio_Alger_Jr- t1_irxuqqz wrote

>Even if a specific plantation owner didn't own slaves and used entirely paid labor (which is a massive if) they were all part of a system that relied on slavery for sustainability.

Do you understand what you are saying right now?

−1

outb0undflight t1_irxwtpm wrote

Yes that people who did not own slaves could still take part in a system that relies on slavery. This isn't some fucking galaxy brain take. The point is that you can't "Not All Plantation Owners!" away the fact that in America the word is inextricably linked with the Atlantic Slave Trade.

This is all entirely seperate from the fact that Quinsigamond Village and Quinsigamond Plantation are basically the same thing. QP was more like a homestead than a plantation in the traditional sense. So people getting bent out of shape about the fucking plantation part are ONLY getting pissy because of the race/slavery aspect.

4

-Horatio_Alger_Jr- t1_irxz8sm wrote

>Yes that people who did not own slaves could still take part in a system that relies on slavery. This isn't some fucking galaxy brain take.

You do realize there are more slaves today than in the history of the US. You buying goods that are globally sourced today is contributing more to slave labor than the colonists ever have.

You are using more slave labor because of your nikes, iPhone, and solar panels than were ever used on plantations.

1

Kirbyoto t1_irxh9j9 wrote

I don't know if it had African slaves but apparently at the time when the area was called "Quinsigamond plantation", settlers were in the habit of enslaving natives...so, basically, yes.

"Between the war’s outbreak in June 1675 and its end in August 1676, up to forty percent of New England’s indigenous population had been killed, died in captivity, or sold into slavery."

By the way - did anyone in this thread defending the name "Plantation St" know literally anything about Quinsigamond Plantation before today?

2

-Horatio_Alger_Jr- t1_irxsnng wrote

I guess we need to rename the city also. Worcester has ties to wars with natives.

I did not see much information about slavery on Quinsigamond Plantation in your link. Much more like a passing comment.

>By the way - did anyone in this thread defending the name "Plantation St" know literally anything about Quinsigamond Plantation before today?

I like to learn about the history of my surroundings, so yes, I did.

>I don't know if it had African slaves

Who said anything about where the slaves originated from? I asked about slaves. Does it matter where the slaves came from? Are certain slaves more oppressed in history than others?

Why is UMass not addressing today's slaves. The slaves that make the stainless steel for their medical instruments, the solar panels for their green initiative. Does UMass only get their fuel for their generators and life flight from areas that do not oppress women?

Pushing to change the name of a street because of the word plantation is about as shallow as you can get.

4

chadwickipedia t1_irxzwdu wrote

Why stop at the city name, rename Massachusetts

3

Kirbyoto t1_iryfdzo wrote

>I did not see much information about slavery on Quinsigamond Plantation in your link. Much more like a passing comment.

Yes it's almost like Quinsigamond Plantation isn't tremendously important to history and the people furiously defending its namesake are just looking for things to be upset about. Again, did you know a single thing about it before today?

>I like to learn about the history of my surroundings, so yes, I did.

Name one thing about it without Googling right now.

>Who said anything about where the slaves originated from? I asked about slaves.

And I answered about slaves. I told you about slavery, and genocide to boot. So it sounds like you're just looking for a distraction.

>Why is UMass not addressing today's slaves.

Are you? Do you make sure all the products you use are made without slave labor? Or are you "virtue signalling" right now?

>Pushing to change the name of a street because of the word plantation is about as shallow as you can get.

Pushing against it for effectively no reason is shallower.

−2

[deleted] OP t1_irz1zpp wrote

>Pushing against it for effectively no reason is shallower.

No, that's nonsense. If things are fine as they are in any given situation, e.g. the Grafton Hill's array of street names, telling someone not to intervene to make a change is sensible. Others have already mentioned the burden it puts on the thousands of people who live on this street to change all their documents, and the tens of thousands of dollars on new street signage, as well as the fact that people don't like their street names being changed as evidenced by people's responses to Kilby Street's name being changed, and you have a pretty good set of reasons.

The fact that some people here, yours truly not included, don't know the history is further proof of the argument that no one views "plantation" in some historical sense. It's viewed as the word for this street, right now, not the slavery that didn't even exist in the area when Quinsigamond Plantation was named.

1

Kirbyoto t1_is1xp5f wrote

>If things are fine as they are in any given situation, e.g. the Grafton Hill's array of street names, telling someone not to intervene to make a change is sensible.

So literally your only argument is that all change is inherently bad and has to be hyper-justified. There's a lot more examples of that in the city for you to freak out about than just the name of one street. Frankly I'm just disregarding this argument entirely, in the wake of all the changes Worcester has gone through I think pretending anyone cares about one street name is truly disingenuous.

>The fact that some people here, yours truly not included, don't know the history is further proof of the argument that no one views "plantation" in some historical sense.

You can know the connotations of the word "plantation" without knowing the specific history of Quinsigamond plantation. This is like arguing that if you know what a castle is, then you must know the history of Windsor castle.

>not the slavery that didn't even exist in the area when Quinsigamond Plantation was named.

As established earlier, there was slavery in the area - the enslavement of Native Americans. Like I said, nobody who's mad about this change knows anything about the history of Quinsigamond Plantation, including you.

1

-Horatio_Alger_Jr- t1_is03lm8 wrote

>Yes it's almost like Quinsigamond Plantation isn't tremendously important to history and the people furiously defending its namesake are just looking for things to be upset about. Again, did you know a single thing about it before today?

It is very important to the history of the area and country.

>Name one thing about it without Googling right now.

The Johnson massacre.

>And I answered about slaves. I told you about slavery, and genocide to boot. So it sounds like you're just looking for a distraction.

A distraction?

>Are you? Do you make sure all the products you use are made without slave labor? Or are you "virtue signalling" right now?

I do. I use sites like still made in the US and others before I purchase most things. It really does not matter to the conversation though, as I am not trying to change the name of anything.

>Pushing against it for effectively no reason is shallower.

No reason? Why do you say that?

1

Kirbyoto t1_is1x4fa wrote

>It is very important to the history of the area and country.

Literally everything that happens is technically important to history. But "it's important to history" and "people in the area know and/or care about it" are two different statements.

>The Johnson massacre.

Ah, so the one thing you knew is "well the natives killed some people too". Convenient.

>A distraction?

Yes, a way for you to avoid the actual point, which is that the Quinsigamond Plantation does have a history with slavery and genocide. Your little "oh who said anything about AFRICAN slavery" schtick was just stalling for time.

>I use sites like still made in the US and others before I purchase most things.

And where do those companies get their materials from? Do you think you can circumvent international capitalism with smart choices from a website?

>It really does not matter to the conversation though, as I am not trying to change the name of anything.

You are trying to preserve the name of something that you have no genuine reason to care about. Also, it does matter to the conversation, since your main reason that UMASS shouldn't advocate for the name being changed is that you personally believe they aren't morally pure enough to "deserve" it.

>No reason? Why do you say that?

I mean you don't really care. Nobody in this thread does. Pretending that a street name being changed is somehow offensive or disgusting to you is obviously fake shit. What you actually care about is the idea of things becoming "more PC", hence why a street name has become the flashpoint for all of Worcester's dingy little conservatives to crawl out of the darkness and pretend they have something important to say.

1