Reply With Quote
You almost always don't have a significant positions in regards to the OP. You have no room for complaint.
So what aspersions am I casting at no one?
You almost always don't have a significant positions in regards to the OP. You have no room for complaint.
I don't think it's going to be as big a deal as you want it to be.
Why do you never answer questions about your own topic?
If we had to revise our heroes with social standards du jour, very few, if any, would survive, tbh... You see this dichotomy play out from fictional characters like Jesus (old testament), to real people like the forefathers (slavery), etc.
But it's a confusing, and oftentimes wrong barometer: what they did in their time was recognized as courageous and changed the course of the nation/world for the better, and it was all largely selfless and at a great personal risk.
Which is fine. Hero worship is not essential.
At least that's the popular narrative of snowflakes.
So the founding fathers aren't your heroes?
Psychopav asking whatever's in front of his face while still voting present. Par.
It's an uncontestable factual argument. Notice how you instinctively attack the person (by namecalling) instead of attacking the argument instead.
But it's really the same that's happening the other way around. At the time, slavery was the norm, as abhorrent as it was, and it makes sense they would be part of that. It doesn't invalidate any of their selfless sacrifices for a better world/nation.
What do you think is incontestable exactly?
I am attacking the character of the en vogue movement against the revisionist history / history out of context. You bet your ass I am.
Because it's well do ented at least some of them owned slaves. That's firmly incontestable. Even after gaining freedom from the crown, they still owned slaves.
Character assassination attempts are a big, sure L in pretty much any serious argument debate. It's an ancient cop-out to talk about anything that's not the actual argument. A waste of time, basically.
that's Spurtacular's forte. basically the only rabbit he has in the rhetorical hat besides naked assertion.
I think you know they played the hand they were dealt and set up a system for abolition. As well, slaves at Mt. Vernon had a high standard of living and were ultimately granted their freedom.
You're voting present on every issue raised.
Slavery good then.
What was the system for abolition, anyway? Link that up real quick to back up your claim.
Not sure what you're whining about; but enjoy your grudge posting, blakehole.
If it were, they would have set up a Cons ution that enabled it for futurity.
What set it up to end, specifically?
I honestly don't think abolition entered the picture at all for them, nor they had any intention to get involved in that. And yet, I also don't think that makes them bad people or invalidates their selfless pursuit for freedom for themselves and any other non-slave Americans. Conflating both arguments is short-sighted.
At the time, abolition wasn't even a thought, and slavery was pretty well established, both in the Americas and Europe. While we look at slavery as an abomination now, rightly so, it was a social norm and rule back in those days. There's no reason that they would or should feel ashamed in it (don't really recall any 'woke' abolitionist writer from the era).
I would even counter that not owning slaves was a sign of a lower social level. That's why trying to discuss 'benevolent' slavery is another modern point that's really unnecessary and akin to arguing that leukemia is better than alzheimer. While technically it might be true, objectively they both represent near death and I don't think it gives those affected any warmer feelings. That's the kind of stuff the unaffected say trying to rationalize an incredibly ty situation.
I think when people bring up that the forefathers were slave owners, the answer is simply that they were not perfect, almost no hero that's human can make that claim, and yet that shouldn't count against their selfless and courageous pursuit for the birth of this great nation. Which is pretty much the same as almost every other remarkable individual(s) we celebrate.
Then you don't know the history very well. Granted it was not something openly discussed at the cons utional convention because they knew that was a deal killer for ratification among southern states.
You'll find in 1784 that one Thomas Jefferson came up one vote short of outlawing slavery in any new states added. He and others attempted to have abolition by 1800 as well.
SMH. There were plenty of abolitionists throughout the history of America. Many abolitionist newspapers, etc.
Thomas Jefferson owned 500+ African American slaves throughout his whole life and freed only 7, while running a plantation in Virginia. If you read this today, you would think this was an incredibly evil man, but the reality of the time is that slaves were assets, and surrendering them would've meant financial ruin for him and his family.
He also held the view that slaves shouldn't be freed without enough training or education (gradual emancipation). Again, in today's term, a horrendous view, but at the time that was likely fairly progressive.
The closest argument you can make about this is 1804, when both the US (with Jefferson as president) and Britain, outlawed the *international trade* of slaves.
I don't completely disagree with your view that the table just wasn't set to end slavery back then, but the main reason for that is that slavery was a major functional part of war and economics at the time, which is the point I was making: it was simply ingrained in society.
It would take almost another century until the Civil War would break out over this issue in a more concrete way.
Slavery never ended. It got morphed into what's now called wage slavery where the poor and working class (poor whites, blacks, Hispanics) have the need to participate or else they will starve to death.
Religion was invented by these same elites to brainwash and submit us into voluntary slavery.
Religion was invented in the late 19th century?
Religion was invented as a means of social control when tribes became too big, rewarding "good" behaviour (which includes the subjects giving their money to the priests) with promises of heaven, and punishing bad behavior with promises of .
And of course, religion is fundamentally about the politics of its own self-sustenance, and of power over people, power self-invested in the priesthood.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions