Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
Vacamion

President Trump & the USA

Recommended Posts

Guest MattP
2 hours ago, David Guiza said:

Danny Baker, who praised Corbyn and is anti-Brexit so far as I am aware, was ousted by the BBC for his remarks/posts and the BBC continue to hire Boycott despite his numerous comments in the past so I don't think there's any sort of agenda there.  

 

I suspect you're right, but I imagine Brand's long standing history and success as a comedian (even though I don't find particularly funny myself) in comparison to Norcott (a man who recently wrote an article explaining why he is funny :ph34r:) would probably have something to do with it, rightly or wrongly. For the same reason that some no-mark 25 year old would have been shown the door by the BBC if he said that he needed to black up to get a knighthood. 

If Baker's joke had been about a Tory or Farage etc would have been fine - problem was anything that can be perceived as racist and you are a goner.

 

I'm a bit bemused by Jo Brand as well, she's like a comedienne version of Claire Balding - omnipresent on the BBC and doesn't seem to be funny at all, just non stop jokes about how much cake she manages to scoff and clearly bitter about everyone as 99% of men and women are more attractive than she is.

 

She's not even got the Clarkson excuse of earning the organisation a fortune. 

Edited by MattP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, MattP said:

If Baker's joke had been about a Tory or Farage etc would have been fine - problem was anything that can be perceived as racist and you are a goner.

 

I'm a bit bemused by Jo Brand as well, she's like a comedienne version of Claire Balding - omnipresent on the BBC and doesn't seem to be funny at all, just non stop jokes about how much cake she manages to scoff and clearly bitter about everyone as 99% of men and women are more attractive than she is.

 

She's not even got the Clarkson excuse of earning the organisation a fortune. 

 

I think it was less to do with the perceived racism and more to do with it being a Royal - the BBC is the Royal's propaganda machine.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MattP
2 hours ago, Buce said:

I think it was less to do with the perceived racism and more to do with it being a Royal - the BBC is the Royal's propaganda machine.

Then why don't others get sacked for making fun of the Royals? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, MattP said:

Then why don't others get sacked for making fun of the Royals? 

 

It was easier to do it in this case because of the convenient racial overtones - simply 'making fun' wouldn't stand up to scrutiny at an employment tribunal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

You just quote a tweet without going into further detail what parts you'd like to debate. That is superficial.

 

No word on free Blacks in the US as early as the early 17th century? Mixed-races relations and marriages especially among working class citizens in the US?

Children from marriages between white women and black men were free by birth. Slaves could be set free following good services, moreso after the American Revolution than before, to be fair. Still, there's so much nuance there.

 

We are always looking at history from a distance, judging it by today's standards. We may consider procedures back then as "racist" or can consider them as such - now.

It's also important to look at the historical context and the way of living back then, the caste-like system with classes, all of it was product of the times.

People in power back then didn't label themselves "racist" and they weren't labeled that way, women and/or children in general didn't look at their situation calling it "suppressive", they did their fair share to contribute to society and household income, whatever it took; men were born into a position of (more or less) power mostly, some managed to work their way up, most didn't. They adhered to a certain status quo.

The term "racism" itself is relatively new, it only exists since the late 19th century/early 20th century.

Living conditions up until the 20th century were poor for many people - Blacks, Europeans, Asians, Natives, were all exploited in some way or another, and the good life reserved to some. Poor life expectancy, poor education, poor healthcare, poor hygiene, war, famine, droughts, you name it... It affected pretty much everybody.  I am glad we have evolved from that.

A vast majority of the population had to suffer, regardless of their roots or heritage, so to pick out "racism" alone or to use it as a buzzword is a bit far-fetched and doesn't do history that much justice. "Elitism" comes much more closer to the real issue.

 

In summary, it's easy to label the conditions back then as "racist" from a modern perspective, when it's all relative. "Racist"? Maybe in parts, it's debatable. "Exploitative"? More like it. But then again, the discussion surrounding people's place in society back then re-emerges...

The hypocrisy is that the US system favoured exploitation by white men who were mostly Democrats or Dixiecrats, and it appears that with today's Democrats' push for reparations, the irony therein seems to be lost on them.

 

And yes, I'd like you to tell us how you'd approach the reparations issue, which is based on or connected to the theory that the USA were founded by racists.

The vast majority of African slaves (95% and more) went down to the Caribbean and South America, btw.

Am I normally someone to skimp on detail? I like to hope not...this time I was being a little facetious and hoping that all folks would understand where I was coming from. Evidently I was mistaken - like I said, I should have included an extra line or two.

 

With respect, we've had this discussion before - and what you wrote before was disingenuous before and what you're writing here is equally so. It looks like you're somehow trying to imply that pretty much all the positions of political and social power in the US being occupied by white men from its inception in the late 18th Century right through to the late 20th Century was somehow completely coincidental and absolutely nothing to do with beliefs based on race and gender because "some white guys suffered too" (which of course they did). I'm sure those "free" blacks had every much an opportunity to gain power as their free white counterparts did and are remembered by that early history....or maybe not.

 

Is that what you're implying?

 

And supremacists are supremacists - I don't care what party they belong to and pointing it out is a meaningless smear used by those attempting to obfuscate what is happening now.

 

I'm sorry, but quite frankly this is revisionism that I've seen elsewhere that attempts to whitewash (bad pun intended) history by making it appear that because the suffering of some white men was equal to blacks and women (though that might be disupted), their place in society's tiers was equal too.

 

NB. WRT reparations, I think it's way too convoluted an issue to approach in any meaningful fashion given how long ago it happened and as such I don't think it should be implemented, but that doesn't mean we should forget what actually happened in that period of history and what people there did either. Oh, and citation on the last sentence, please.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, leicsmac said:

With respect, we've had this discussion before - and what you wrote before was disingenuous before and what you're writing here is equally so. It looks like you're somehow trying to imply that pretty much all the positions of political and social power in the US being occupied by white men from its inception in the late 18th Century right through to the late 20th Century was somehow completely coincidental and absolutely nothing to do with beliefs based on race and gender because "some white guys suffered too" (which of course they did). I'm sure those "free" blacks had every much an opportunity to gain power as their free white counterparts did and are remembered by that early history....or maybe not.

 

Is that what you're implying?

 

And supremacists are supremacists - I don't care what party they belong to and pointing it out is a meaningless smear used by those attempting to obfuscate what is happening now.

 

I'm sorry, but quite frankly this is revisionism that I've seen elsewhere that attempts to whitewash (bad pun intended) history by making it appear that because the suffering of some white men was equal to blacks and women (though that might be disupted), their place in society's tiers was equal too.

 

NB. WRT reparations, I think it's way too convoluted an issue to approach in any meaningful fashion given how long ago it happened and as such I don't think it should be implemented, but that doesn't mean we should forget what actually happened in that period of history and what people there did either. Oh, and citation on the last sentence, please.

Again, you don't explain your stance with regards to the O'Reilly Tweet. What is it about it that bothers you?

 

Trying to make this as clear as possible:

 

The status quo of the time was based on a caste-like elitism (which to this day still exists in one form or another) and inherited privileges, in a system where men and women tried to complement each other to the best of their knowledge, given the poor living conditions (compared to today). There is no attempt at whitewashing history on my behalf.

I have given you many reasons as to why life sucked big time no matter what part of the world you or your ancestors were from, it affected pretty much everybody - Whites, Blacks, Asians, Natives.

I'm just at odds with the notion that we today are able to judge over times past without the social context back then, including labeling the dominance of white Americans "racist" (to a certain extent or another) or that the US was founded by racists. I mean, THAT is rewriting history in my eyes.

Or how do you explain white Americans dominating over other white Americans in the historical context of the development/evolution of the United States of America? There were also plenty of white men oppressed by the system!

 

Women did not have the right to vote in the US for roughly 150 years up until 1920, so that automatically leaves men at the helm of power.

The vast majority of the population in the US in between 1776 and 1865 (the official abolition of slavery in the US) or in between 1776 and up until recently was/has been white, usually between 80 to 90 percent (reaching a peak in the 1940ies), so it was and still is only logical that the majority of positions of power would go to them also, including the probability of white men moving up the career ladder. It's a simple numbers game.

Lack of eduction, poverty, violence, drugs - there are many reasons as to why some groups lead a hard knock's life still today, falling behind.

As I've stated before, I'm all for women and ethnic minorities raising up through the ranks in their respective jobs or career, but promotion should be based on ability, not heritage. Meritocracy is where it's at.

And life in the US is gradually getting better in terms of equality of opportunity. You work hard, you can make it to the top - no matter where you're from. It's never been easier.

 

The demographic change in the US has seen quite a hefty shift in the white population in only the past 20 years, a decline to approximately 70 percent, the lowest ever since the census started, so that is considerable and brings with it challenges in terms of integration/absorbtion of new cultures and customs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Americans

 

As for my last sentence in my previous post, here are the numbers/percentages of African slaves shipped to North America, the Caribbean and South America:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade#New_World_destinations

6.5% went to North America, others state 5% of the slaves overall ended up in the United States:

Quote

The great majority of enslaved Africans were transported to sugar colonies in the Caribbean and to Brazil.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States

 

 

 

Edited by MC Prussian
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

Again, you don't explain your stance with regards to the O'Reilly Tweet. What is it about it that bothers you?

 

Trying to make this as clear as possible:

 

The status quo of the time was based on a caste-like elitism (which to this day still exists in one form or another) and inherited privileges, in a system where men and women tried to complement each other to the best of their knowledge, given the poor living conditions (compared to today). There is no attempt at whitewashing history on my behalf.

I have given you many reasons as to why life sucked big time no matter what part of the world you or your ancestors were from, it affected pretty much everybody - Whites, Blacks, Asians, Natives.

I'm just at odds with the notion that we today are able to judge over times past without the social context back then, including labeling the dominance of white Americans "racist" (to a certain extent or another) or that the US was founded by racists. I mean, THAT is rewriting history in my eyes.

Or how do you explain white Americans dominating over other white Americans in the historical context of the development/evolution of the United States of America? There were also plenty of white men oppressed by the system!

 

Women did not have the right to vote in the US for roughly 150 years up until 1920, so that automatically leaves men at the helm of power.

The vast majority of the population in the US in between 1776 and 1865 (the official abolition of slavery in the US) or in between 1776 and up until recently was/has been white, usually between 80 to 90 percent (reaching a peak in the 1940ies), so it was and still is only logical that the majority of positions of power would go to them also, including the probability of white men moving up the career ladder. It's a simple numbers game.

Lack of eduction, poverty, violence, drugs - there are many reasons as to why some groups lead a hard knock's life still today, falling behind.

As I've stated before, I'm all for women and ethnic minorities raising up through the ranks in their respective jobs or career, but promotion should be based on ability, not heritage. Meritocracy is where it's at.

And life in the US is gradually getting better in terms of equality of opportunity. You work hard, you can make it to the top - no matter where you're from. It's never been easier.

 

The demographic change in the US has seen quite a hefty shift in the white population in only the past 20 years, a decline to approximately 70 percent, the lowest ever since the census started, so that is considerable and brings with it challenges in terms of integration/absorbtion of new cultures and customs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Americans

 

As for my last sentence in my previous post, here are the numbers/percentages of African slaves shipped to North America, the Caribbean and South America:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade#New_World_destinations

6.5% went to North America, others state 5% of the slaves overall ended up in the United States:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States

 

 

 

Ah, then allow me to clarify: It doesn't bother me per se, I just find it darkly amusing that he so emphatically rejects the idea the "the United States was founded by racist white men who installed a system whereby white guys would run everything and blacks, women and others would be exploited"....when that is pretty much the textbook definition of exactly what happened.

 

This is a matter of record: the people who built that country codified the laws so that women and ethnic minorities couldn't even own property for the chance to get rich - a cursory look at the legal history of the US proves that. Yes, poorer white members of the US community had damn tough lives too, but the simple fact is that those poorer white men, for all of how tough their lives, were, still had more rights under the law than either women or blacks until (relatively) quite recently.

 

Discrimination was institutionalised as written by the founders and I don't see how anyone can deny that - indeed, you make the point about women not being able to vote, that's just one example of such, so I'm not sure how you can say the system was meritorious in any way until recently - if indeed that's the point you were making.

 

The argument that such was "fair for its day" is fair enough - it was the same practically everywhere, but is that a reason to deny that it ever happened in the first place or to not judge those who made the decisions? It was racist by virtue of believing a race inherently superior to another and applying that ideal into law, and that being the prevailing wisdom at the time doesn't stop it being morally repugnant, and is an explanation but it bloody shouldn't be an excuse to not record the viewpoint and judge accordingly at all.

 

It should be possible to view historical figures in terms of both the good and the bad of what they did - it is possible to consider the US Founding Fathers world-shakers who built a nation out of rebellion and managed to weld many dissonant townships into a nation through force of will and people who believed women and blacks to be intellectually and morally inferior and wrote laws reflecting and codifying this in order to exploit them and deny them equality of opportunity. The good and the bad.

 

Yes, contemporary historical viewing often is harsh, but just because lots of people with power believed something was inherently right and just at some point in history doesn't make it so and viewing history should reflect and judge based on that.

 

NB. Thanks for the figures - clearly the Spanish and the Portuguese thought the same as the other colonizing nations at the time. However, a line from a different article: "by the beginning of the American Revolutionary War 1/5th of the total population was enslaved." cc. Wood, Gordon S. (2002). The American revolution: a history from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_United_States#cite_note-48  

 

That's 20% of the population...not far away from the total percentage of ethnic minorities in the US today.

Edited by leicsmac
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

Ah, then allow me to clarify: It doesn't bother me per se, I just find it darkly amusing that he so emphatically rejects the idea the "the United States was founded by racist white men who installed a system whereby white guys would run everything and blacks, women and others would be exploited"....when that is pretty much the textbook definition of exactly what happened.

 

This is a matter of record: the people who built that country codified the laws so that women and ethnic minorities couldn't even own property for the chance to get rich - a cursory look at the legal history of the US proves that. Yes, poorer white members of the US community had damn tough lives too, but the simple fact is that those poorer white men, for all of how tough their lives, were, still had more rights under the law than either women or blacks until (relatively) quite recently.

 

Discrimination was institutionalised as written by the founders and I don't see how anyone can deny that - indeed, you make the point about women not being able to vote, that's just one example of such, so I'm not sure how you can say the system was meritorious in any way until recently - if indeed that's the point you were making.

 

The argument that such was "fair for its day" is fair enough - it was the same practically everywhere, but is that a reason to deny that it ever happened in the first place or to not judge those who made the decisions? It was racist by virtue of believing a race inherently superior to another and applying that ideal into law, and that being the prevailing wisdom at the time doesn't stop it being morally repugnant, and is an explanation but it bloody shouldn't be an excuse to not record the viewpoint and judge accordingly at all.

 

It should be possible to view historical figures in terms of both the good and the bad of what they did - it is possible to consider the US Founding Fathers world-shakers who built a nation out of rebellion and managed to weld many dissonant townships into a nation through force of will and people who believed women and blacks to be intellectually and morally inferior and wrote laws reflecting and codifying this in order to exploit them and deny them equality of opportunity. The good and the bad.

 

Yes, contemporary historical viewing often is harsh, but just because lots of people with power believed something was inherently right and just at some point in history doesn't make it so and viewing history should reflect and judge based on that.

 

NB. Thanks for the figures - clearly the Spanish and the Portuguese thought the same as the other colonizing nations at the time. However, a line from a different article: "by the beginning of the American Revolutionary War 1/5th of the total population was enslaved." cc. Wood, Gordon S. (2002). The American revolution: a history from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_United_States#cite_note-48  

 

That's 20% of the population...not far away from the total percentage of ethnic minorities in the US today.

I think you're misreading the figure, or maybe I do: The 20% slaves at the beginning of the American Revolutionary war refers to African Americans specifically (as part of that paragraph) if I'm not mistaken, not the US population on the whole at the time.

 

Also noteworthy that that was a temporary status - numbers before the war are (much) lower - 2% African American slaves in the North, 25% in the South, that's roughly 13% to 14% overall on average.

Again, that's within the roughly 300'000 people or the 5% of African slaves in total that landed in North America in the first place. That's what - an average of about 40'000 people affected in a population of 31 million (in 1860)? You're then ending up with about 1.5% of the total US population affected by slavery.

 

And after the war, numbers in the South plummeted in particular, thanks to the abolition of slavery. So we're talking about (quite) a minority within the overall population here, and that during a short window of time (about four years), which leads to the question of how prevalent/dominant slavery truly was in the US back then.

This is by no means me trying to belittle these numbers, slavery isn't a joke and my heart goes out to the pain and suffering these people had to endure. But even then, there were various levels of severity within slavery - you could be a servant and lead a relatively good life or be forced to pick cotton by brutal and inhumane means. Many slaves were set free after a while, others were able to pay their way out of the situation. So many scenarios...

 

And again, we don't truly know whether the Founding Fathers were actually racist when the term didn't even exist back then, that's some people trying to impose that term onto the rule back then now, 250 years later. It's a bit hypocritical and arrogant to use our modern way of thinking as a blueprint for people's beliefs and belief systems back then. Times have changed for the better, and history should be a lesson to us all to make strides and improve our way of living, tolerance and understanding for each other, without being overly judgmental of people who lived in the past. If we had a time machine, we could paint a more complete picture, but as a matter of fact, we don't and we can't.

 

The US weren't founded on the grounds of racist white men ruling over women and ethnic minorities - the US were founded as a reaction to British rule first and foremost. And that is manifested in the Constitution.

 

The "white men would run everything" is a stupid argument anyway, when - as I've stated before - 80 to 90 percent of the population were white to begin with, in a new country or in colonies that started off as settlements for Europeans. It's only logical that white men would be in charge, seeing they were making up 40 to 45 percent of the total population and women unable to hold office or unable to vote up until 1920.

 

Some white man in the US back in the day may have been or were racist (as far as we know today based on events or historical documents) - my guess is that number is relatively low. Just as it is today. Most white men weren't racist (when they did not even know what that meant) - they were a product of the times and suffering from hardships just like any other human being on the planet some 200, 150 years ago.

 

The US constitution in itself explicitly prohibits discrimination (Fifth Amendment (1791)/Fourteenth Amendment (1868)), but since the document is formulated in a rather general manner, it leaves a lot of room for interpretation, misinterpretation and abuse on all sides to some extent, as seen in the history of the US.

Edited by MC Prussian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

I think you're misreading the figure, or maybe I do: The 20% slaves at the beginning of the American Revolutionary war refers to African Americans specifically (as part of that paragraph) if I'm not mistaken, not the US population on the whole at the time.

 

Also noteworthy that that was a temporary status - numbers before the war are (much) lower - 2% African American slaves in the North, 20% in the South, that's roughly 11% overall on average.

Again, that's within the roughly 300'000 people or the 5% of African slaves in total that landed in North America in the first place. That's what - an average of about 33'000 people affected in a population of 31 million (in 1860)? You're ending up with about 1% of the total US population affected by slavery.

 

And after the war, numbers in the South plummeted in particular, thanks to the abolition of slavery. So we're talking about (quite) a minority within the overall population here, and that during a short window of time (about four years), which leads to the question of how prevalent/dominant slavery truly was in the US back then.

This is by no means me trying to belittle these numbers, slavery isn't a joke and my heart goes out to the pain and suffering these people had to endure. But even then, there were various levels of severity within slavery - you could be a servant and lead a relatively good life or be forced to pick cotton by brutal and inhumane means. Many slaves were set free after a while, others were able to pay their way out of the situation. So many scenarios...

 

And again, we don't truly know whether the Founding Fathers were actually racist when the term didn't even exist back then, that's some people trying to impose that term onto the rule back then now, 250 years later. It's a bit hypocritical and arrogant to use our modern way of thinking as a blueprint for people's beliefs and belief systems back then. Times have changed for the better, and history should be a lesson to us all to make strides and improve our way of living, tolerance and understanding for each other, without being overly judgmental of people who lived in the past. If we had a time machine, we could paint a more complete picture, but as a matter of fact, we don't and we can't.

 

The US weren't founded on the grounds of racist white men ruling over women and ethnic minorities - the US were founded as a reaction to British rule first and foremost. And that is manifested in the Constitution.

 

The "white men would run everything" is a stupid argument anyway, when - as I've stated before - 80 to 90 percent of the population were white to begin with, in a new country or in colonies that started off as settlements for Europeans. It's only logical that white men would be in charge, seeing they were making up 40 to 45 percent of the total population and women unable to hold office or unable to vote up until 1920.

Looking back at it, I'm not sure either now - might have to do a little more digging.

 

On topic again, honestly at this point I think we're going round and round: you clearly don't think the laws written by the Founding Fathers were racist even though they discriminated on account of race (and gender) and that they shouldn't be judged for those actions anyway, and I think they were and should be. We're not even going to come close to a consensus.

 

I'll leave it at that with just one more observation: I'm not sure how exactly the "white men would run everything" is a stupid argument when the laws were written to ensure women, for instance, had no shot at owning property or gaining any kind of power. Of course it's logical that white men would be in charge, because they wrote the laws that would make them the ones running everything. The US was certainly formed out of rebellion, but O'Reilly's direct quote is "the United States was founded by racist white men who installed a system whereby white guys would run everything and blacks, women and others would be exploited" - by, not for. The Founding Fathers did believe women and minorities incapable of holding powerful office, and they did implement a system where they would not be able to do so. No matter how we might view what they did morally, those two things are factual matters of record.

Edited by leicsmac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Looking back at it, I'm not sure either now - might have to do a little more digging.

 

On topic again, honestly at this point I think we're going round and round: you clearly don't think the laws written by the Founding Fathers were racist even though they discriminated on account of race (and gender) and that they shouldn't be judged for those actions anyway, and I think they do and should be. We're not even going to come close to a consensus.

 

I'll leave it at that with just one more observation: I'm not sure how exactly the "white men would run everything" is a stupid argument when the laws were written to ensure women, for instance, had no shot at owning property or gaining any kind of power. Of course it's logical that white men would be in charge, because they wrote the laws that would make them the ones running everything. The US was certainly formed out of rebellion, but O'Reilly's direct quote is "the United States was founded by racist white men who installed a system whereby white guys would run everything and blacks, women and others would be exploited" - by, not for. The Founding Fathers did believe women and minorities incapable of holding powerful office, and they did implement a system where they would not be able to do so. No matter how we might view what they did morally, those two things are factual matters of record.

Citations, please.

I doubt that all or most Founding Fathers thought lowly of women and/or minorities, here's something for you to chew on:

https://christiananswers.net/q-wall/wal-g003.html

Quote

..., in the years following America's separation from Great Britain, many of the Founding Fathers who had owned slaves released them (e.g., John Dickinson, Ceasar Rodney, William Livingston, George Washington, George Wythe, John Randolph, and others).

Quote

It is true, however, that not all of the Founders from the South opposed slavery. According to the testimony of Thomas Jefferson, John Rutledge, and James Madison, those from North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia favored slavery.

Nevertheless, despite the support in those states for slavery, the clear majority of the Founders was opposed to this evil—and their support went beyond words.

For example, in 1774, Benjamin Franklin and Benjamin Rush founded America's first antislavery society; ...

Quote

Other prominent Founding Fathers who were members of societies for ending slavery included Richard BassettJames MadisonJames MonroeBushrod WashingtonCharles CarrollWilliam FewJohn MarshallRichard StocktonZephaniah Swift, and many more.

And even if they did, the question remains whether we can attribute the term "racist", as again, they were a product of the times, with a particular mindset, different values, a different value system.

In fact, women served as confidantes and assistants in many fields:

Quote

Men like Jefferson, Adams and Washington valued the political opinions of their female friends and sometimes even turned to these women for political access and influence.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/founding-fathers-and-women-not-their-wives-whom-they-wrote-180954278/

 

We all know that "behind a strong man stands a strong woman", no? Why should it have been any different back then?

 

As far as I can tell, the US Constitution isn't racist per se, the Founding Fathers circumvented mentioning race and/or slavery by extensive omission due to economic advantages (financial gain for the Southern States).

Slavery is mentioned in parts, but as a means to an end for the Southern States in particular, hoping it giving them a political advantage (they were hoping to count the slave population as 1-to-1 to the overall population):

https://www.montpelier.org/learn/slavery-constitution-lasting-legacy

 

Various states opposed some of these clauses and went in direct conflict with the US government as a consequence.

Edited by MC Prussian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MC Prussian said:

Citations, please.

I doubt that all Founding Fathers thought lowly of women and/or minorities, and even if they did, the question remains whether we can attribute the term "racist", as again, they were a product of the times, with a particular mindset, different values, a different value system.

 

As far as I can tell, the US Constitution isn't racist per se, the Founding Fathers circumvented mentioning race and/or slavery by extensive omission due to economic advantages (financial gain).

Slavery is mentioned in parts, but as a means to an end for the Southern States in particular, giving them a political advantage (they were able to count the slave population to the overall population):

https://www.montpelier.org/learn/slavery-constitution-lasting-legacy

 

Various states opposed some of these clauses and went in direct conflict with the US government as a consequence.

That the laws written (whether inspired by the Constitution or not) even allowed for slavery in the way stated and didn't grant womens suffrage (but rather left it as a matter for the states) is evidence enough of the attitudes displayed, IMO.

 

It's likely that some of them did think slavery was an awful practice (and a cursory look confirms this) but they clearly didn't think it awful enough to challenge the status quo; to say nothing of the idea that even if they thought blacks were not slaves, the idea of them actually being equal humans in the eyes of the law was another step too far - just the same as women.

 

And we go round again to say that though what they did was fair for its day, that doesn't preclude judgement now in my opinion.

 

I posted this to answer your request because I thought it the polite and courteous thing to do but expect no further input from me on this topic as the debate, for what it is, is IMO played out and both of us are where we are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

I think you're misreading the figure, or maybe I do: The 20% slaves at the beginning of the American Revolutionary war refers to African Americans specifically (as part of that paragraph) if I'm not mistaken, not the US population on the whole at the time.

 

Also noteworthy that that was a temporary status - numbers before the war are (much) lower - 2% African American slaves in the North, 25% in the South, that's roughly 13% to 14% overall on average.

Again, that's within the roughly 300'000 people or the 5% of African slaves in total that landed in North America in the first place. That's what - an average of about 40'000 people affected in a population of 31 million (in 1860)? You're then ending up with about 1.5% of the total US population affected by slavery.

 

And after the war, numbers in the South plummeted in particular, thanks to the abolition of slavery. So we're talking about (quite) a minority within the overall population here, and that during a short window of time (about four years), which leads to the question of how prevalent/dominant slavery truly was in the US back then.

This is by no means me trying to belittle these numbers, slavery isn't a joke and my heart goes out to the pain and suffering these people had to endure. But even then, there were various levels of severity within slavery - you could be a servant and lead a relatively good life or be forced to pick cotton by brutal and inhumane means. Many slaves were set free after a while, others were able to pay their way out of the situation. So many scenarios...

 

And again, we don't truly know whether the Founding Fathers were actually racist when the term didn't even exist back then, that's some people trying to impose that term onto the rule back then now, 250 years later. It's a bit hypocritical and arrogant to use our modern way of thinking as a blueprint for people's beliefs and belief systems back then. Times have changed for the better, and history should be a lesson to us all to make strides and improve our way of living, tolerance and understanding for each other, without being overly judgmental of people who lived in the past. If we had a time machine, we could paint a more complete picture, but as a matter of fact, we don't and we can't.

 

The US weren't founded on the grounds of racist white men ruling over women and ethnic minorities - the US were founded as a reaction to British rule first and foremost. And that is manifested in the Constitution.

 

The "white men would run everything" is a stupid argument anyway, when - as I've stated before - 80 to 90 percent of the population were white to begin with, in a new country or in colonies that started off as settlements for Europeans. It's only logical that white men would be in charge, seeing they were making up 40 to 45 percent of the total population and women unable to hold office or unable to vote up until 1920.

 

Some white man in the US back in the day may have been or were racist (as far as we know today based on events or historical documents) - my guess is that number is relatively low. Just as it is today. Most white men weren't racist (when they did not even know what that meant) - they were a product of the times and suffering from hardships just like any other human being on the planet some 200, 150 years ago.

 

The US constitution in itself explicitly prohibits discrimination (Fifth Amendment (1791)/Fourteenth Amendment (1868)), but since the document is formulated in a rather general manner, it leaves a lot of room for interpretation, misinterpretation and abuse on all sides to some extent, as seen in the history of the US.

 

That’s not a valid argument - a concept can exist without a term to describe it. 

 

Personally, I would argue that the very fact of slavery implies a belief in racial superiority. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Buce said:

 

That’s not a valid argument - a concept can exist without a term to describe it. 

 

Personally, I would argue that the very fact of slavery implies a belief in racial superiority. 

Absolutely, Sikhism was born out of a.mans repugnant hatred towards racism, man has always been racist

Edited by Dr The Singh
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Buce said:

 

That’s not a valid argument - a concept can exist without a term to describe it. 

 

Personally, I would argue that the very fact of slavery implies a belief in racial superiority. 

That may be, but do we know for certain?

 

The concept of racism is a concept developed in the late 19th/early 20th century, some time after the end of the American Civil War. It is debatable whether it did exist in the US in the roughly 90 years prior in between 1776 and 1865. Or somewhere as early as the 17th century, when the colonies first started.

 

Then the question also is - how widespread was that suggested belief?

 

I can surely see a certain portion of a population being racist/derogatory/exploitative (to whatever extent, some more than others), but those tend to be extremes. And thus minorities.

 

The fact that (luckily) only 1 to 2% percent of the US population back in the day were African American slaves doesn't indicate to me that it was that common a phenomenon, in some areas it was certainly more prevalent than in others (North vs. South).

Not a fan of tarring 50+ individuals (the Founding Fathers) with the same brush. Or the general population in the US at the time, for that matter.

 

As for group superiority, I can think of a scenario in Northern Africa/the Arab Peninsula wherein the Arabs conquered much of the surrounding areas thanks to technological advantages, such as battle tactics, weapons, and the likes, resulting in the slave trade pre-dating the one to the Colonies across the Atlantic.

Edited by MC Prussian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

That may be, but do we know for certain?

 

The concept of racism is a concept developed in the late 19th/early 20th century, some time after the end of the American Civil War. It is debatable whether it did exist in the US in the roughly 90 years prior in between 1776 and 1865. Or somewhere as early as the 17th century, when the colonies first started.

 

Then the question also is - how widespread was that suggested belief?

 

I can surely see a certain portion of a population being racist/derogatory/exploitative (to whatever extent, some more than others), but those tend to be extremes. And thus minorities.

 

The fact that (luckily) only 1 to 2% percent of the US population back in the day were African American slaves doesn't indicate to me that it was that common a phenomenon, in some areas it was certainly more prevalent than in others (North vs. South).

Not a fan of tarring 50+ individuals (the Founding Fathers) with the same brush. Or the general population in the US at the time, for that matter.

 

As for group superiority, I can think of a scenario in Northern Africa/the Arab Peninsula wherein the Arabs conquered much of the surrounding areas thanks to technological advantages, such as battle tactics, weapons, and the likes, resulting in the slave trade pre-dating the one to the Colonies across the Atlantic.

 

I think you’re missing my point. 

 

Slavery pre-dates European colonialism; it also pre-dates the Arabian slavery that you speak of. In fact, slavery as a concept goes back to the beginning of recorded time (and probably beyond).  On that, I think we can agree. However, the fact that ‘racism’ as a term is a relatively recent addition to the language doesn’t mean that racism as a concept didn’t exist. I suggest that racism, as defined by belief in racial/cultural superiority, was the driving force behind all slavery. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@AlloverthefloorYesNdidi

So I've finally watched that Tim Pool video and here are my impressions:

 

The first point he makes about the 4 Dems saying "not one dollar" and refusing to approve any funding nor offering any alternative is demonstrably false just by reading the article behind him.  For one thing those words are taken out of context, here's the tweet that he means:

See how she specifies exactly what shouldn't receive further funding and see how the embedded AOC tweet is also explicit about wanting to stop something specific and have more say on how funds are allocated because she doesn't trust the current approach. 

 

And here's the full joint statement cited in the article:

Quote

The Trump Administration would rather criminalize immigrants, separate families, and detain refugees than practice empathy and compassion. Recent reports of a massive deportation operation, targeting thousands of immigrant families in major cities across the country are further evidence that this President will stop at nothing in order to carry out his hateful agenda.

These radicalized, criminal agencies are destroying families and killing innocent children. It is absolutely unconscionable to even consider giving one more dollar to support this President’s deportation force that openly commits human rights abuses and refuses to be held accountable to the American people.

That is why in good conscience, we cannot support this supplemental funding bill, which gives even more money to ICE and CBP and continues to support a fundamentally cruel and broken immigration system.

If these blatant human rights abuses were taking place in any other country, the United States government would rightfully demand transparency, accountability and call for international organizations to investigate abuses and assist in the safe, swift delivery of humanitarian aid. We cannot turn our backs on the abuses taking place on our own soil, executed by our own government.

We must be equitable in our outrage. We must abolish ICE. We must invest in community-based alternatives to detention. We must end the system of mass detention and deportation of immigrants. We must create an immigration system that reflects our values and respects the dignity and humanity of all.

Whether you agree with them or not they've clearly explained their grievances.

 

As for offering alternatives, it's hardly a detailed manifesto but they do say in very broad strokes what they want to do and how they'd like the money to be spent.  You would hope they provide finer details in due course.

 

For another thing Tim repeatedly talks about the Dems being uncooperative despite Trump's magnanimity in calling off the raids.  Trump's tweet says it's only a 2 week amnesty so obviously that's unlikely to sway anybody with long term concerns about the program, I'm surprised that Tim doesn't seem to consider that possibiilty.

 

For what it's worth I think the 4 Dems here are being unrealistic but not sadistic which Tim to his credit seems to appreciate. We are not seeing the sort of petty stalling that the GOP are so good at but given the details I'm not sure this action is objectively much better.  They're never going to get ICE or the detention centres shut down.  The focus should instead be on insisting upon vastly improved conditions and a more stringent code of standards for detainees, even if that means providing funds to build more centres to accommodate the numbers, but also on making the process more efficient in the first place and absolutely on refocusing ICE back onto criminal elements as in the Obama era instead of arresting 55 year old chemistry teachers who can be dealt with peaceably.   From what I understand the proposed emergency bill works to address the first part of that so I'd agree to it for now and get to work on defining the further required changes in policy in time for the next funding bill.

 

But at least they're stating their case instead of running away and hiding from the cops. :D 

 

As for the Eric Swalwell tweet in the latter half of the video: It's the sort of dumb, pandering hyperbole I hate to see from any politician.

 

On 24/06/2019 at 19:40, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

I really will need a yt vid to form a proper opinion on this lol

 

Im not sure the full implications of what those repubs are doing but on first glance it seems pretty wrong and cowardly to just bail instead of taking part in the democratic process.

 

Dont know the fineries of american politics, dont know why that guy said this Democrat bill ignores oregon and only focuses on Portland, either they accept the process in place or not...?

 

Beyond my ken this one. I also dont know the economical ramifications of the bill, though thats not the point really is it? The democratic process being subverted is the point. I doubt they'd like that if the shoe was on the other foot

The bit about Portland just refers to how the votes are spread throughout the state, it's like saying the government shouldn't pass a law because of the people who didn't vote to elect that government into power, it's populist pandering and ignores the point of elections.  They'd be crying bloody murder if the shoe was on the other foot but my aunt would also be my uncle if she had bollocks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Carl the Llama said:

@AlloverthefloorYesNdidi

So I've finally watched that Tim Pool video and here are my impressions:

 

The first point he makes about the 4 Dems saying "not one dollar" and refusing to approve any funding nor offering any alternative is demonstrably false just by reading the article behind him.  For one thing those words are taken out of context, here's the tweet that he means:

See how she specifies exactly what shouldn't receive further funding and see how the embedded AOC tweet is also explicit about wanting to stop something specific and have more say on how funds are allocated because she doesn't trust the current approach. 

 

And here's the full joint statement cited in the article:

Whether you agree with them or not they've clearly explained their grievances.

 

As for offering alternatives, it's hardly a detailed manifesto but they do say in very broad strokes what they want to do and how they'd like the money to be spent.  You would hope they provide finer details in due course.

 

For another thing Tim repeatedly talks about the Dems being uncooperative despite Trump's magnanimity in calling off the raids.  Trump's tweet says it's only a 2 week amnesty so obviously that's unlikely to sway anybody with long term concerns about the program, I'm surprised that Tim doesn't seem to consider that possibiilty.

 

For what it's worth I think the 4 Dems here are being unrealistic but not sadistic which Tim to his credit seems to appreciate. We are not seeing the sort of petty stalling that the GOP are so good at but given the details I'm not sure this action is objectively much better.  They're never going to get ICE or the detention centres shut down.  The focus should instead be on insisting upon vastly improved conditions and a more stringent code of standards for detainees, even if that means providing funds to build more centres to accommodate the numbers, but also on making the process more efficient in the first place and absolutely on refocusing ICE back onto criminal elements as in the Obama era instead of arresting 55 year old chemistry teachers who can be dealt with peaceably.   From what I understand the proposed emergency bill works to address the first part of that so I'd agree to it for now and get to work on defining the further required changes in policy in time for the next funding bill.

 

But at least they're stating their case instead of running away and hiding from the cops. :D 

 

As for the Eric Swalwell tweet in the latter half of the video: It's the sort of dumb, pandering hyperbole I hate to see from any politician.

 

The bit about Portland just refers to how the votes are spread throughout the state, it's like saying the government shouldn't pass a law because of the people who didn't vote to elect that government into power, it's populist pandering and ignores the point of elections.  They'd be crying bloody murder if the shoe was on the other foot but my aunt would also be my uncle if she had bollocks.

Apparently democrats did the exact same thing in the recent past, refusing to show up to pass a Republican bill. You seem to think im allied to one side of politics which i think is why you brought that up in the first place. Ive actually always been leftist but these days i think if you are on the left and vocally supporting them you are not being realistic

 

I dont see the defense you have made of AOC and Omar there at all. Those tweets could have been posted to criticise your case!  Even included the holocaust comparisons! 

 

"Weve shown what they do with that money. Build more camps" Yes! So ICE can do the job that has always been their job and people dont die of exposure in the desert. This should have been the number one consideration, not politics on immigration.

 

Its truly laughable. Warren now talking about decriminilisin illegal immigration. Its not good for anyone. Especially anyone who doesnt want to see Trump elected again. If he doesnt win it will be probably because he hasnt succeeded building the wall, not because of his "evil" immigration policy. (He will win though)

 

Omar: "kids and families being terrorized". How does this language not bother you as inflammatory unhelpful nonsense? At least Trump's horrible language has behind it simple policy that lots of normal working class people agree with and might prevent deaths like the recent sad ones reported near the border. Omar and AOC are apparent lunatics and any sensible leftists should be hating what they are doing

 

And it turns out most dems did approve that aid in the end with a few concessions, because it was insanity to refuse aid in the first place.  So it wasnt so bad after all because in the end more funding to ICE isnt the same as actual Auschwitz and everyone knows this. Although the immigration officer mentioned below said the House version amounts to extortion as it cuts funding for enforcement

 

Are you saying Obama didnt have these detention centres and cages and family separations didnt happen under him? That he didnt deport people?

 

Recently Obama's former immigration chief said these places were built under him. The arrival of young kids coming in large numbers is a new thing and congress not giving the aid they need to deal with it all is the problem

 

And democrats stalled in giving that aid and you are defending the ones calling it terror and concentration camps

 

You seem well meaning but the content of your position is barmy to me

 

Edited by AlloverthefloorYesNdidi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Buce said:

 

I think you’re missing my point. 

 

Slavery pre-dates European colonialism; it also pre-dates the Arabian slavery that you speak of. In fact, slavery as a concept goes back to the beginning of recorded time (and probably beyond).  On that, I think we can agree. However, the fact that ‘racism’ as a term is a relatively recent addition to the language doesn’t mean that racism as a concept didn’t exist. I suggest that racism, as defined by belief in racial/cultural superiority, was the driving force behind all slavery. 

Again, that may be.

 

But I'm pretty sure based on (the very few) historic documents existing that the Egyptians for example or even the Babylonians didn't solely use slaves from other parts of the world alone, they also enslaved/abused/oppressed their very own - the young, criminals, hobos, and others. Armies back then weren't all that voluntary, I might add.

 

Slavery was a means to an end in terms of generating a work force that was able to make things happen, erect buildings, help during wars, etc. Building techniques and raw material were rather primitive or unrefined the further back you go, so in order to create something new, it required a massive amount of people involved, cheap labour.

And if you don't find it at home, you go abroad...

To attribute racial superiority to that is a bit of a one-sided argument, the actual reasons back then more various than one would assume.

 

The concept of slavery isn't per se racist, although I suppose it can contain racist elements or undertones. Again, the prevalence or dominance is what interests me.

I find it hypocritical to sort of rewrite history by calling historic people names based on our society and values of today.

 

EDIT: And now back to the main topic...

Edited by MC Prussian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Swan Lesta said:

In other news some Women don’t want to go the White House even if they win the World Cup.

 

Can’t imagine why.

 

 

Doesn't matter, England are winning it anyway.

 

And they'll be in exactly the same situation when a perv with shit hair invites them to 10 Downing Street.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...