PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair

Status
Not open for further replies.
Crab said:
In other words: the British are much too nice to the blacks and Indians, join the revolution! And that's smack-bang in the middle of the Declaration of Independence.
Click to expand...

I don't see anything suggesting that the complaint is that British are nice to slave and Native Americans. Just that they want to turn them against the colonists. Very different message.
 
pigeon said:
In general, I would say the founding fathers weren't unaware of the moral compromise of their position. They were hanging out with Benjamin Franklin and John Laurens, so it's not like they hadn't heard the arguments. It's undeniable that they deliberately tried to tamp down abolitionist sentiment because they felt the revolution wouldn't succeed without the Southern states and they wouldn't agree to abolishing slavery. It's also clear that this strategy of "just don't talk about it" became ongoing American policy that led to the Civil War. At the same time, they could've explicitly enshrined slavery, as the Confederacy did, and they chose not to do so, but to preserve the dissonance between America's aims and it's condition.

It's not a particularly bright moral line, but I do think the difference is clear between a man who participated in the slow boil of American slavery versus a man who explicitly fought to change the country to make permanent and unchangeable the peculiar institution. Washington was pretty bad, in terms of slavery, but he left the door open for a country where it could be abolished. Lee wanted to hammer that door shut for all time.
Click to expand...

That's fair.

I'm actually at least 50% playing devil's advocate for fun. My personal opinion is that: it doesn't really matter who the statue was or what the precise details of their history were. What matters is how they're perceived. The reason Lee statues need to come down and Washington statues (probably) don't is because Lee is used as an in-group symbol and identifying point for white supremacy and Washington isn't (at least, not near to the same extent), even though the personal views of the two men have almost total overlap.

It's not what they did, it's what people choose to make of them.
 
Crab said:
That's fair.

I'm actually at least 50% playing devil's advocate for fun. My personal opinion is that: it doesn't really matter who the statue was or what the precise details of their history were. What matters is how they're perceived. The reason Lee statues need to come down and Washington statues (probably) don't is because Lee is used as an in-group symbol and identifying point for white supremacy and Washington isn't (at least, not near to the same extent), even though the personal views of the two men have almost total overlap.

It's not what they did, it's what people choose to make of them.
Click to expand...

I agree with this, but I also want to be clear that political positions shouldn't drive our moral judgments of people.

Just read this for example: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/16/opinion/george-washington-slave-catcher.html?mcubz=0.

There is no defending this.
 
Ignatz Mouse said:
I don't see anything suggesting that the complaint is that British are nice to slave and Native Americans. Just that they want to turn them against the colonists. Very different message.
Click to expand...

The way they were turning them against the colonists was by offering freedom. if you're suggesting that being an American slave was better than being a British freedman, you are in the contention for top five racist GAF comments this week.
 
Hot take: there is no difference between Washington and Lee because they both died so long ago that they have crumbled into mostly indistinguishable dust by now.
 
PBY said:
Its not like Washington presided over the signing of a document that codified black people as 3/5 human.

Totally agree.
Click to expand...

The South wanted black people to count fully, but without being actual citizens having rights, so they could dominate the House of Representatives, which would mean even harsher subjugation of slaves and civil liberties

They also included in the Constitution that no new slaves could be imported after 1808 (of course because of smuggling this still happened, but it wasn't legal)

Not saying that those two things easily match or outweigh the severity of the implications of the 3/5 compromise, but they weren't fully in support of slavery (of course I'd agree that they didn't do enough, they should've banned it, but this is what happened)
 
PBY said:
I agree with this, but I also want to be clear that political positions shouldn't drive our moral judgments of people.

Just read this for example: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/16/opinion/george-washington-slave-catcher.html?mcubz=0.

There is no defending this.
Click to expand...

No, of course not. And the day that people do start having a quasi-religious attachment to the idea of Washington as a supreme person in the face of all contrary evidence is the day that we really should start thinking about pulling his statues down, so, uh, if PoliGAF doesn't want to see that happen they should probably consider all facets of the man!
 
pigeon said:
Hot take: there is no difference between Washington and Lee because they both died so long ago that they have crumbled into mostly indistinguishable dust by now.
Click to expand...

I'm not expert, but any hot take which equates Malcolm X and Hitler probably needs re-examining.

I am an expert, though.
 
skullmuffins said:
it's this one http://maristpoll.marist.edu/nprpbs-newshourmarist-poll-results-on-charlottesville/
Click to expand...

Hindl said:
They're just tying leading Democrats to extremists to try to paint the entire Democratic Party as terrorists. Republicans already hate Pelosi and think she's a baby-killer, tying her to Antifa is the next logical step
Click to expand...

whyamihere said:
Marist
Click to expand...

Teggy said:
It's NPR/PBS/Marist

http://maristpoll.marist.edu/nprpbs-newshourmarist-poll-results-on-charlottesville/
Click to expand...

Thanks to all.
 
Crab said:
In the alternate timeline where the Confederacy succeeded:
Click to expand...

Not at all true. The Confederacy was a theocracy which eliminated the ability of people to enact change in their government. The declarations of secession omitted consent of the governed and inalienable rights afforded by the constitution.

The ideals and principles in in the constitution are noble ideals that modern society relies upon, also (more importantly IMO) the framework which outlines the ability to change laws and peacefully transition power between elected officials is still worthy of reverence. Even though they were were written by flawed men, which we should judge fairly.
 
Dubbedinenglish said:
Not at all true. The Confederacy was a theocracy which eliminated the ability of people to enact change in their government. The declarations of secession omitted consent of the governed and inalienable rights afforded by the constitution.

The ideals and principles in in the constitution are noble ideals that modern society relies upon, also (more importantly IMO) the framework which outlines the ability to change laws and peacefully transition power between elected officials is still worthy of reverence. Even though they were were written by flawed men, which we should judge fairly.
Click to expand...

The declaration of inalienable rights kind of falls flat when you realize slavery still existed...
 
Dubbedinenglish said:
Not at all true. The Confederacy was a theocracy which eliminated the ability of people to enact change in their government. The declarations of secession omitted consent of the governed and inalienable rights afforded by the constitution.
Click to expand...

You've never actually read the Confederate Constitution, have you?
 
PBY said:
Its not like Washington presided over the signing of a document that codified black people as 3/5 human.

Totally agree.
Click to expand...

Uh, the 3/5 compromise was effectively over the issue of how much extra representation slave owners had, it would have been worse for slaves had they counted as a full person.
 
Crab said:
That's fair.

I'm actually at least 50% playing devil's advocate for fun. My personal opinion is that: it doesn't really matter who the statue was or what the precise details of their history were. What matters is how they're perceived. The reason Lee statues need to come down and Washington statues (probably) don't is because Lee is used as an in-group symbol and identifying point for white supremacy and Washington isn't (at least, not near to the same extent), even though the personal views of the two men have almost total overlap.

It's not what they did, it's what people choose to make of them.
Click to expand...

Agreed that it's what the statues mean, but disagree with the comment about total overlap of their positions. There's both a difference in context (much more acceptable in Washington's time) and action (Washington belatedly freed his slaves and wrote that he hoped the practice would be eventually legislated away, Lee fought to prolong and expand the practice).

For a Virginian, Washington was slightly ahead of his time on the subject. Still shitty, but not by any means equivalent.

Washington also has some other unsavory characteristics not related to Slavery, but there's no need to relate him to somebody like Lee. The differences are more than one of them winning.
 
The difference between Washington and any of the Conservative generals is mostly historical timing. It's not great, but the further back you go the more more morally questionable things we'll find. At some point society said "no" (for various reasons) and it's at that point that we today notice who the fell on the side of morality. It's just something we accept.
 
Crab said:
The way they were turning them against the colonists was by offering freedom. if you're suggesting that being an American slave was better than being a British freedman, you are in the contention for top five racist GAF comments this week.
Click to expand...

I am not saying any such thing.

But saying that the appeal to colonists was that the British were being "too nice" rather than "trying to turn them into fighters against us" is disingenuous in the extreme.
 
Fenderputty said:
The difference between Washington and any of the Conservative generals is mostly historical timing. It's not great, but the further back you go the more more morally questionable things we'll find. At some point society said "no" (for various reasons) and it's at that point that we today notice who the fell on the side of morality. It's just something we accept.
Click to expand...

And this is true for pretty much any socially progressive movement ever.
 
Crab said:
No, of course not. And the day that people do start having a quasi-religious attachment to the idea of Washington as a supreme person in the face of all contrary evidence is the day that we really should start thinking about pulling his statues down, so, uh, if PoliGAF doesn't want to see that happen they should probably consider all facets of the man!
Click to expand...

Lee-Manuel Miranda talked a little about the song he tried to write for Hamilton about the slavery crisis. If you have heard Hamilton, obviously you know the song did not make it in. He basically said that he tried a bunch of times and eventually came to the realization that it was impossible to make the piece work because there's no forward progress -- the conclusion of the slavery debates among the Founding Fathers was that they forbade discussing the abolition of slavery for twenty years! It's a stumbling block in the narrative of the American ascension, but for that reason, not good theater.
 
Ignatz Mouse said:
I am not saying any such thing.

But saying that the appeal to colonists was that the British were being "too nice" rather than "trying to turn them into fighters against us" is disingenuous in the extreme.
Click to expand...

This is patently untrue. The British were offering the slaves freedom to become British fighters. If the sole problem that the revolutionaries had with this was that slaves became British fighters, then they would have freed all their slaves themselves on the condition they become American fighters - solves the problem instantly. That didn't happen, because the problem wasn't just the insurrection bit, it was specifically the 'freeing the slaves' bit. They wanted slaves. They wanted to enjoy the fruits of black labour while denying black liberty and dignity and engaging in torture of blacks.
 
jtb said:
This discussion makes me even more eager to read Chenrow's biography on Grant. Fuck the lost cause bullshit.
Click to expand...

I've also heard that you should read Grant's biography on Grant -- apparently his memoirs were a huge sensation at the time and extremely well-written and incisive.
 
This conversation going too far in one direction sort of justifies right wing dismissal of the criticism of confederate monuments.

Washington wasnt just some idiot who threw his life away and killed a bunch of Americans in the name of maintaining his ability to own people.

He committed human rights violations, and that shouldn't be downplayed or justified. But there's a difference between remembering someone who did commit a crime like that vs remembering someone specifically BECAUSE they commited crimes against humanity in order to stick it to people in areas that were never even apart of the confederacy
 
pigeon said:
Lee-Manuel Miranda talked a little about the song he tried to write for Hamilton about the slavery crisis. If you have heard Hamilton, obviously you know the song did not make it in. He basically said that he tried a bunch of times and eventually came to the realization that it was impossible to make the piece work because there's no forward progress -- the conclusion of the slavery debates among the Founding Fathers was that they forbade discussing the abolition of slavery for twenty years! It's a stumbling block in the narrative of the American ascension, but for that reason, not good theater.
Click to expand...

I love it, but the play is problematic historically in a lot of way. They make Hamilton out to be anti-slavery (because in some regards he is meant to be sympathetic) but he married into a slave-owning family. He also exposed anti-slavery views. Like Washington claiming to be against slavery and taking his whole life to make any significant step, the founding fathers were more talk than action on the topic (and divided). You can see them slouching (too slowly) in the right direction, but it's a big moral gap even for Hamilton who had a declared position. Anyway, that's why I don't like the comparison with Lee, who wasn't even leaning the right direction but pushing squarely back against it.
 
Doing some reading, I didn't realize Ben Franklin died a member of the young abolitionist movement. Thomas Paine was a founding member of the Society for the Relief of Free Negroes Unlawfully Held in Bondage, the first abolitionist group in the US and Ben was president of it

I just assumed the founders were all wishy washy on it.

I already liked Ben Franklin, so this certainly helps.
 
Crab said:
This is patently untrue. The British were offering the slaves freedom to become British fighters. If the sole problem that the revolutionaries had with this was that slaves became British fighters, then they would have freed all their slaves themselves on the condition they become American fighters - solves the problem instantly. That didn't happen, because the problem wasn't just the insurrection bit, it was specifically the 'freeing the slaves' bit. They wanted slaves. They wanted to enjoy the fruits of black labour while denying black liberty and dignity and engaging in torture of blacks.
Click to expand...

I never said it was the sole problem either. The appeal in the Revolution is against the turning of slaves against the colonists by England. It the "make war against" part, not the "British wants freedom for slaves." Note that the offer from England didn't include the slaves of loyalists, just revolutionaries.

The Revolutionary War was not fought to maintain slavery, which is what you have been implying. If that were the case, England would have granted freedom to the loyalists' slaves as well.
 
balladofwindfishes said:
Doing some reading, I didn't realize Ben Franklin died a member of the growing abolitionist movement. Thomas Paine was a founding member of the Society for the Relief of Free Negroes Unlawfully Held in Bondage, the first abolitionist group in the US (of which Ben was president of)

Huh. I just assumed the founders were all wishy washy on it.
Click to expand...

Lincoln's Cooper Union speech talked about this, at least in the context of expanding slavery to the territories.
 
VendettaRed07 said:
This conversation going to far in one direction sort of justifies right wing dismissal of the criticism or confederate monuments.

Washington wasnt just some idiot who threw his life away and killed a bunch of Americans in the name of maintaining his ability to own people.

He committed human rights violations, and that shouldn't be downplayed or justified. But there's a difference between remembering someone who did commit a crime like that vs remembering someone specifically BECAUSE they commited crimes against humanity in order to stick it to people in areas that were never even apart of the confederacy
Click to expand...
We can basically use a version of this, from Yale's decision to rename Calhoun College, but for Confederate monuments
The Witt committee outlines four principles that should guide any consideration of renaming: (1) whether the namesake’s principal legacy fundamentally conflicts with the university’s mission; (2) whether that principal legacy was contested during the namesake’s lifetime; (3) the reasons the university honored that person; and (4) whether the building so named plays a substantial role in forming community at Yale.
Click to expand...
 
Crab said:
You've never actually read the Confederate Constitution, have you?
Click to expand...

I have and done some decent research into it, have you?


CSA constitution:

Preamble-We, the people of the Confederate States, each state acting in its sovereign and independent character....invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God

Article 1 section 2- Removes birthright citizenship and the ability to serve government of those who are "foreign born"

Article 1 section 6- But Congress may, by law, grant to the principal officer in each of the Executive Departments a seat upon the floor of either House, with the privilege of discussing any measures appertaining to his department.

Article 1 section 7- Line item veto is legal

Article 1 section 9- No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.


Article 4 section 2-
The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.





There is a lot more we could get into and we can even debate interpretations of articles but the CSA was not as you are implying a simple US- with a twist
 
Mobius and pet octopus said:
The President condemns terrorism in other countries before "waiting for the facts" and much faster than terrorist attacks in his own country. Mind boggling.
Click to expand...

i'm sure it has a lot to do with the amount of naturally produced melonin in a person's skin. If you have more melonin, you are more prone to being a terrorist. However, if you are white, you are more prone towards mental illness and are not responsible for the bad things you do.

I am sure it's written in his latest firmware as an if-then-else statement.
 
ivajz said:
https://twitter.com/alanhe/status/898237335426478080
Click to expand...
Versus his comments on Trump's Charlottesville rant at the Knoxville Chamber Luncheon yesterday:

“I did not see them (Trump’s comments),” he said. “I don’t see a lot of television, I apologize … look, I respond in my own way. My comments are the ones I focus on and I think the media does a plenty good job and has plenty of panelists on and others giving editorial comment about other peoples’ comments and mine.

“Look, I let the president’s comments speak for themselves. There are plenty of people who editorialize about those. I’m responsible for my comments and how I feel and people editorialize about those too … I mean I don’t know what ginned up the event in Charlottesville except that there was a lot of hate on display there. Again, certainly it needs to end.

“I just don’t want to get into trying to compare. I have no desire to give a balancing comment. I thought what was on display with the white supremacists and the KKK and others was, to me, reprehensible.”
Click to expand...

Source: http://www.knoxnews.com/story/news/...ker-charlottesville-trump-comments/565554001/

At the same event he accused a woman of working for George Soros when she asked him why he's refused to hold any town hall meetings(including not so subtle arm grab until he realizes he's being filmed.
 
Bonen no Max'd said:
Hot take: Washington probably would have been a Confederate
Click to expand...

No

Washington was a straight up Nationalist.

He sided against his fellow Virginians and slaveholders and supported Alexander Hamilton and the federalists, essentially the Northern Party, because he thought that their ideas were best for the nation as a whole.

Hotter take: it potentially would have been better if the American revolution never happened.
Click to expand...

Britain got around to abolishing slavery in their colonies in 1834. They could do that because their colonies were weak and pathetic and could not fight back.

If the South ceded because Lincoln advocated a strategy of containment and strangulation of slavery, do you honestly think that the South wouldn't secede if the Britain abolished slavery?

Do you think that they would actually fight a war against the Southern colonies to abolish it? One that would obviously be insanely costly in lives and money?

Do you think they would fight a war against the south to free slaves when Britain's manufacturing economy was completely dependent on the South's slave cotton economy?

Hell, there were significant voices in the government during the Civil War that advocated that Britain should support the South because of cotton and the South's more 'noble' heritage.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
The Crisis in Venezula
2
2K
God Enel replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT2| Well, maybe McMaster isn't a traitor.
397 398 399 400 401
20K
2M
ShadowSwordmaster replied
Top Bottom