Talk:George Fitzhugh
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group. | ||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
||
[edit] Work Needed
This article is probably in need of a revamp - especially the summaries of Fitzhugh's two books - to polish it up. For somebody who has the time, the C Vann Woodward article link at the end has a very good summary of these Fitzhugh books that is better written and more accurate than what we have on this article. It or something like it should probably be used as a guide.
I'd do it myself but I simply don't have the time Rangerdude 07:28, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Universal Slavery
I'd consider the characterization of Fitzhugh's advocation of slavery in Sociology for the South "poor whites as well as blacks" inaccurate. My understanding of Fitzhugh's ideas as expanded in Cannibals All! is that his idea is one of universal slavery. To quote his writings "We conclude that about nineteen out of every twenty individuals have "a natural and inalienable right" to be taken care of and protected; to have guardians, trustees, husbands, or masters; in other words, they have a natural and inalienable right to be slaves."
Though I'd agree that his writings were used in defense of Southern slavery systems, the introduction citing his views as "radical racial and slavery-based sociological theories" also seems a mischaracterization of his underlying philosophy. In reading his works it becomes clear he was a proponent of slavery in a different sense than most consider, one not based on race.
One concept I have difficulty with and would appreciate any input is his idea of bureaucracy in his system of universal slavery. Obviously these slaves would need masters as he only considered it the right of 19 out of 20 individuals to be slaves. While I've read Cannibals All! and portions of Sociology for the South I have yet to understood his idea of who would lead his society and if they would simply provide as administrators of a system. -- User:CRobey 03:44, 26 April 2006
- I'd like to see some justification for the claim that his theories might be seen as some form of "Pre-Marxism". This sounds pretty absurd, considering the differences between Marxism and Fitzhugh's version of slavery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoniel (talk • contribs) 06:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
