Talk:George Fitzhugh

Biography: Science and Academia Start‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Virginia Start‑class

	Virginia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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)

The article needs to consider his other political views and theories and not just his proslavery views. --Utinomen (talk) 01:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I've removed the term Pre-Marxism and replaced it with non-Marxism. Fitzhugh was a contemporary of Marx and Marx had not come to predominate in socialism at the time. Fitzhugh was acquainted with the socialism of his time, which also consisted of people like Proudhon and Fourier.--Utinomen (talk) 01:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]