US Politics: Sitting in Judgement

[Zorral]

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

most people at the time didn't think slavery was wrong or a sin or anything bad,

Actually, most people who were at risk of being enslaved didn't think slavery was good.   And that was just about everybody throughout most of history, as wars were relentlessly raged throughout most of history.

Big part of financing a war, was booty, and captives sold into slavery were the best way to pay off the mercs and other soldiers, with other plunder. Those not killed went to  the slave markets as a matter of course, while their temporary owners pocketed the profits (Julius Caesar, for one, check!  There were so many Gauls thrown into the Roman slave markets that 1) price deeply depressed; 2) people scared coz more slaves than Them).

The records are filled with people wailing and lamenting, grief-stricken not only at having had friends and relatives killed but being led off to be sold.  Almost all of those were the average citizens, women, children, farmers, artisans -- not just the still living members of the defeated enemy.

One of the reasons 'ransom' was so fundamental to 'chivalry.'  Slaves were definitely being marketed throughout the world in those eras.  The market was insatiable.

The last war that did this may have been our own War of the Rebellion, when the CSA soldiers grabbed every Black person (who were, of course free, not slaves) they could get their hands on in Pennsylvania and either kept them to work for them or sold them to others in the South.

Edited February 9 by Zorral

[Zorral]

3 hours ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

they think their slaves are worthless individuals so it rationalizes what they do to them. 

And those people think slavery is evil.

Funny how in history the meme of the escaped slave and the fury of the owner never disappears.

[Rippounet]

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

We have an *extraordinary* capacity to rationalise terrible deeds, as a species.

Yes, and that includes moral relativism or "constructivism," the idea that even things like right and wrong are social constructs first and foremost, and that one can't blame people for following the rules of their society.

It's a perspective that has gained a lot of credence because it can be used to excuse or whitewash both abject individual behavior and inhuman structures: slavery, colonialism, imperialism, capitalism... etc.
So it's a popular argument because what can excuse the misdeeds of the past helps considerably relativise the misdeeds of the present. If society is what determines our notions of morality or empathy, then it can never be wrong to "follow the law."

It's a bullshit argument. It's wrong not just on the philosophical level, but on the historical and scientific ones as well.
Of course, the reverse argument, that human beings should always be held fully responsible for the consequences of their actions, is probably just as bad. But then, we weren't talking about all slavers throughout the entire history of the human race, we were talking about a handful of highly educated gentlemen living in Northern America at the turn of the 19th century.
And on this point, I will second Spockydog: of course these motherfuckers knew it was wrong. To claim anything else would push moral relativism into the realm of nihilism.
 

[Zorral]

6 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

of course these motherfuckers knew it was wrong.

Why did Jefferson go to SUCH lengths to conceal he had an enslaved concubine, with whom he had multiple children, a concubine who was herself the daughter of another enslaved concubine who was his wife's half sister, who also bore several children to the man who owned her?  Though everyone knew who those kids' father was, people pretended this wasn't so.  And throughout the South the men who did not politely attempt discretion about these matters were universally condemned, including by those who were effing enslaved women all the time and fathering children they sold themselves.

You know in his Notes on the State of Virginia, he explicitly says that people of African heritage were not men like him and never could be.  He said a great deal in Notes on the State of Virginia that he didn't want the people of the US to know, so the book wasn't published here -- until it arrived out of England.

Also this big hero of independence and democracy and abolition spent the War of Independence safely in France buying buying buying luxury goods to ship back home after others won the Independence.

I despise Jefferson, I find NO redeeming traits in him throughout his entire life (which includes trying to seduce his friends wife, and then attempting to rape her).  Just in case no one noticed.  Ha! 

[Zorral]

How Guiliani lives these days -- 

Rudy Giuliani’s Most Eye-Popping Claims From His Bankruptcy Hearing

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/rudy-giuliani-bankruptcy-hearing-net-worth.html

He says he's too broke to pay his taxes, among all his other many debts that he can't pay, he says.

[DireWolfSpirit]

Failure to pay your taxes Rudy? Better be careful you dont get Capones old cell, you being the big mafia prosecutor and all.

[Conflicting Thought]

i mean, im pretty sure slaves thought slavery was bad, specially when talking about american and european slavery, thats a pretty significant group of people that thought slavery was evil.

 

and i think ripp hits the nail in the head, in that the people that are "defending" slavery are using an argument that can be applied in todays society. like in todays society is treating trans people like shit is a very common thing, but its clearly fucking evil. are we going to say in a couple of decades that, thats just the way things where back then? im sure some poepl will say that, and they will be full of shit.

[Phylum of Alexandria]

32 minutes ago, Conflicting Thought said:

the people that are "defending" slavery

For clarity, who here has been defending slavery, even via a scare quotes version?

I certainly have not been. I've simply been trying for a slightly more nuanced understanding of it given different individuals with different behavior patterns, and given the cultural-historical progression that we today all benefit from, yet separates us from our targets of study.

But even that is too much for some people (though admittedly not Ripp).

[A Horse Named Stranger]

I know, I said nothing is moving in US Politics, so I wanted to discuss Jackie chan movies in the previous threads, however sometimes things change and stuff happens, and you lot do not pay attention to that over the relitigation of slavery.

Larry Hogan has thrown his proverbial aht into the ring and has decided to launch a challenge for the US Senate. And he is one of the Republicans that can actually win a seat in Maryland.

[karaddin]

6 hours ago, Kalbear said:

My point is that you were wrong, that most people at the time didn't think slavery was wrong or a sin or anything bad, that human being are pretty amazingly good at rationalizing shitty behaviors to other humans if it gets them something or if someone tells them its okay

Rationalization is something we do to make ourselves feel ok about things we know are wrong. So I'd say that they didn't accept it was wrong, but a deep down part of them knew it was and wilfully pretended otherwise - I think that's what spocky was trying to say. Not that they'd go around being all "yes slavery is evil, and I love it".

5 hours ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

Since this is the US politics thread and we've been without a Civil War debate for a bit

Get with the time, we're onto the debate prep for civil war redux.

What are some of the board lawyers feelings on the Hawaii supreme courts pot shots at SCOTUS? 

[Spockydog]

14 minutes ago, karaddin said:

Rationalization is something we do to make ourselves feel ok about things we know are wrong. So I'd say that they didn't accept it was wrong, but a deep down part of them knew it was and wilfully pretended otherwise - I think that's what spocky was trying to say. Not that they'd go around being all "yes slavery is evil, and I love it".

Exactly this. It's like my mum, and her politics. If she thought her Trumpish views were okay, she wouldn't hide them from her little crew of ladies who lunch.

I asked her about it once. She didn't see any problem having views she is only prepared to share anonymously online.

Even animals can show basic empathy and an understanding of fairness. Unless you're a stone-cold psychopath, you just know, deep down, when shit is wrong.

Edited February 10 by Spockydog

[SeanF]

6 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Yes, and that includes moral relativism or "constructivism," the idea that even things like right and wrong are social constructs first and foremost, and that one can't blame people for following the rules of their society.

It's a perspective that has gained a lot of credence because it can be used to excuse or whitewash both abject individual behavior and inhuman structures: slavery, colonialism, imperialism, capitalism... etc.
So it's a popular argument because what can excuse the misdeeds of the past helps considerably relativise the misdeeds of the present. If society is what determines our notions of morality or empathy, then it can never be wrong to "follow the law."

It's a bullshit argument. It's wrong not just on the philosophical level, but on the historical and scientific ones as well.
Of course, the reverse argument, that human beings should always be held fully responsible for the consequences of their actions, is probably just as bad. But then, we weren't talking about all slavers throughout the entire history of the human race, we were talking about a handful of highly educated gentlemen living in Northern America at the turn of the 19th century.
And on this point, I will second Spockydog: of course these motherfuckers knew it was wrong. To claim anything else would push moral relativism into the realm of nihilism.
 

Almost no one in the ancient world tried to pretend slavery was good (Aristotle’s efforts are unconvincing - interestingly he mentions unnamed people who argue that slavery is immoral).  It’s accepted, pretty much, that being a slave is a bad condition, one to be avoided.

The attitude seems more, that the world’s a cruel place, and that’s just how it is.  You’re either giving the beating, or taking it.

Which has the merit of honesty, at least.

The Confederates’ efforts to portray slavery as a good thing (and their modern supporters on Quora or Reddit), are perfect examples of rationalisation.  And the more educated the person, the easier it is to rationalise.

[SeanF]

15 hours ago, Zorral said:

Why did Jefferson go to SUCH lengths to conceal he had an enslaved concubine, with whom he had multiple children, a concubine who was herself the daughter of another enslaved concubine who was his wife's half sister, who also bore several children to the man who owned her?  Though everyone knew who those kids' father was, people pretended this wasn't so.  And throughout the South the men who did not politely attempt discretion about these matters were universally condemned, including by those who were effing enslaved women all the time and fathering children they sold themselves.

You know in his Notes on the State of Virginia, he explicitly says that people of African heritage were not men like him and never could be.  He said a great deal in Notes on the State of Virginia that he didn't want the people of the US to know, so the book wasn't published here -- until it arrived out of England.

Also this big hero of independence and democracy and abolition spent the War of Independence safely in France buying buying buying luxury goods to ship back home after others won the Independence.

I despise Jefferson, I find NO redeeming traits in him throughout his entire life (which includes trying to seduce his friends wife, and then attempting to rape her).  Just in case no one noticed.  Ha! 

I think if someone had offered Jefferson a ton of money to free his slaves, he’d have done so. Although he was always too heavily in debt to free them, that was largely due to his own lavish lifestyle.  Ultimately, it was his own economic interests ( and access to Sally Hemming’s 14 year old body), that took priority over manumission.

There are quite a lot of people like that.

Edited February 10 by SeanF

[Phylum of Alexandria]

I don’t want to belabor this topic of slavery too much more, but I wanted to frame it in a light that’s relevant for our own politics going forward.

I recently read the book Democracy Rising by the historian Heather Cox Richardson. The whole premise of the book is how American history has been a constant tug of war between two very different visions for the country: limiting freedoms to a restricted elite vs expanding on the notion that everyone has the same inalienable rights. Obviously, Richardson tells this history in the hope of advancing the cause of that latter vision.

Now, Richardson has mentioned in interviews that she can’t stand Thomas Jefferson as a person. She does not hold back in her criticism of him, and that’s good.

But also, importantly, she doesn’t let her criticism of the man diminish her deep reverence for the ideas that he put into the nation’s foundational documents. The entire premise of her book, the fight toward fully achieving the promise laid out in America’s founding creeds, is almost entirely centered on the words that Jefferson put into the Declaration of Independence. Those are the seeds that the heroes of later generations took great pains to cultivate and flower into something worthwhile.

An early hero was Frederick Douglass. I can’t think of anyone better justified in despising Jefferson for owning slaves than Douglass, as he himself was a former slave who had escaped his captors. Maybe he did hate the man, I don’t know. But he also looked to Jefferson’s passage that “all men are created equal” as the brightest beacon of light for the soul of the nation. 

Booker T Washington (another former slave), Ralph Waldo Emerson, Walt Whitman, Abraham Lincoln. They all invoked the words of the declaration for their causes of social progress. W.E.B. Dubois framed it more critically, as a dream far from being realized, but nevertheless sought to bring the nation closer to that dream. 

(Yes, I know that a chunk of these names are on the current demonization list as well, spare me the lectures. Despite their severe blind spots, they are nevertheless important figures in American liberal and progressive history. Frederick Douglass would probably rage at such decadent idealism if he were alive to see it.)

I already mentioned Martin Luther King Jr. New Left activists today always highlight the fact that King had a radical vision for America, one that’s been whitewashed in national tributes. True, but those same activists minimize King’s deep belief in the need for pragmatism, and in the need for an inspirational vision to call people to action. Like Dubois, he still took time to highlight the many hurts and injustices that needed correcting, but he wove that into a larger story, filled with soaring rhetoric, to lead the way forward.

After King’s assassination, civil rights activist culture (understandably, but tragically) got a lot more cynical. Still, it’s not like no one invokes Jefferson’s ideals for activist causes. Let’s not forget Barack Obama. Whatever one might think of how he governed as president, it’s pretty much objective fact that Obama is a genius in bringing broad coalitions together with his soaring rhetoric. Not surprisingly, Obama has hit on the promise of achieving Jefferson’s dream quite often. Like Dubois and King, he doesn’t shy away from our current shortcomings. But he never fails to present a positive way forward for us to eventually realize that dream. It’s a balanced approach, not a flat one.

If we can’t find the nuance to highlight the most inspirational aspects of our nation’s founding documents—which were truly radical for their time—in order to expand upon that promise, then our cynicism has rendered us dysfunctional. If we’re treating Thomas Jefferson as basically as repulsive as Adolph Hitler, then our moral righteousness is taking us into cloud cuckoo land.

Nowhere in this argument have I advocated for shying away from real sins and real limitations. I’m saying, don’t flatten history with moral absolutism. Don’t forsake pragmatism for change with convenient idealism. Don’t forgo the responsibility to inspire others into action because of the seductions of outrage and pessimism.

I don’t’ know what Loretta J Ross thinks about Thomas Jefferson, but I love her approach to activism. We need more of this type of stuff, so I’ll just include a video here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xw_720iQDss
 

 

Edited February 10 by Phylum of Alexandria

[SeanF]

13 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

I don’t want to belabor this topic of slavery too much more, but I wanted to frame it in a light that’s relevant for our own politics going forward.

I recently read the book Democracy Rising by the historian Heather Cox Richardson. The whole premise of the book is how American history has been a constant tug of war between two very different visions for the country: limiting freedoms to a restricted elite vs expanding on the notion that everyone has the same inalienable rights. Obviously, Richardson tells this history in the hope of advancing the cause of that latter vision.

Now, Richardson has mentioned in interviews that she can’t stand Thomas Jefferson as a person. She does not hold back in her criticism of him, and that’s good.

But also, importantly, she doesn’t let her criticism of the man diminish her deep reverence for the ideas that he put into the nation’s foundational documents. The entire premise of her book, the fight toward fully achieving the promise laid out in America’s founding creeds, is almost entirely centered on the words that Jefferson put into the Declaration of Independence. Those are the seeds that the heroes of later generations took great pains to cultivate and flower into something worthwhile.

An early hero was Frederick Douglass. I can’t think of anyone better justified in despising Jefferson for owning slaves than Douglass, as he himself was a former slave who had escaped his captors. Maybe he did hate the man, I don’t know. But he also looked to Jefferson’s passage that “all men are created equal” as the brightest beacon of light for the soul of the nation. 

Booker T Washington (another former slave), Ralph Waldo Emerson, Walt Whitman, Abraham Lincoln. They all invoked the words of the declaration for their causes of social progress. W.E.B. Dubois framed it more critically, as a dream far from being realized, but nevertheless sought to bring the nation closer to that dream. 

(Yes, I know that a chunk of these names are on the current demonization list as well, spare me the lectures. Despite their severe blind spots, they are nevertheless important figures in American liberal and progressive history. Frederick Douglass would probably rage at such decadent idealism if he were alive to see it.)

I already mentioned Martin Luther King Jr. New Left activists today always highlight the fact that King had a radical vision for America, one that’s been whitewashed in national tributes. True, but those same activists minimize King’s deep belief in the need for pragmatism, and in the need for an inspirational vision to call people to action. Like Dubois, he still took time to highlight the many hurts and injustices that needed correcting, but he wove that into a larger story, filled with soaring rhetoric, to lead the way forward.

After King’s assassination, civil rights activist culture (understandably, but tragically) got a lot more cynical. Still, it’s not like no one invokes Jefferson’s ideals for activist causes. Let’s not forget Barack Obama. Whatever one might think of how he governed as president, it’s pretty much objective fact that Obama is a genius in bringing broad coalitions together with his soaring rhetoric. Not surprisingly, Obama has hit on the promise of achieving Jefferson’s dream quite often. Like Dubois and King, he doesn’t shy away from our current shortcomings. But he never fails to present a positive way forward for us to eventually realize that dream. It’s a balanced approach, not a flat one.

If we can’t find the nuance to highlight the most inspirational aspects of our nation’s founding documents—which were truly radical for their time—in order to expand upon that promise, then our cynicism has rendered us dysfunctional. If we’re treating Thomas Jefferson as basically as repulsive as Adolph Hitler, then our moral righteousness is taking us into cloud cuckoo land.

Nowhere in this argument have I advocated for shying away from real sins and real limitations. I’m saying, don’t flatten history with moral absolutism. Don’t forsake pragmatism for change with convenient idealism. Don’t forgo the responsibility to inspire others into action because of the seductions of outrage and pessimism.

I don’t’ know what Loretta J Ross thinks about Thomas Jefferson, but I love her approach to activism. We need more of this type of stuff, so I’ll just include a video here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xw_720iQDss
 

 

One should never make the best the enemy of the good.  Some progress, however flawed, is always preferable to none.  I remember discussing this with one commentator, who was unhappy that Lincoln never implemented the ideas of Thaddeus Stevens.  But Stevens’ ideas would never have been acceptable to majority public opinion “which as a statesman, he was bound to consult” (as Douglass put it).

[Lord of Oop North]

15 hours ago, Conflicting Thought said:

are we going to say in a couple of decades that, thats just the way things where back then? im sure some poepl will say that, and they will be full of shit.

Who on this thread is saying that? Or defending slavery?

I think what people are saying is that people of the past are products of their time. You and I would be too, I'm sure.

So yes, you can look at someone and say that they are totally shitty based on universal morality. There are some that are obviously beyond any redemption too. But understanding the context of the time can help to understand why those people turned out that way. Ultimately people are products of their society - nurture is a strong force in shaping human personality.

With regards to rationalization, humans are so different that you will run the gamut from those with conscience that use the rationalizations of society to ease that, to those with less conscience that are in essence true believers in the rationalizations of society.

Edited February 10 by Lord of Oop North

[The Marquis de Leech]

10 hours ago, SeanF said:

Almost no one in the ancient world tried to pretend slavery was good (Aristotle’s efforts are unconvincing - interestingly he mentions unnamed people who argue that slavery is immoral).  It’s accepted, pretty much, that being a slave is a bad condition, one to be avoided.

The attitude seems more, that the world’s a cruel place, and that’s just how it is.  You’re either giving the beating, or taking it.

Which has the merit of honesty, at least.

Aristotle's argument is more along the lines of "some people are naturally slaves. Slavery is natural." Though oddly, he does distinguish between that and enslaved people who are not naturally slaves - the latter being enslaved by force and not by nature.

[Rippounet]

2 hours ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Nowhere in this argument have I advocated for shying away from real sins and real limitations. I’m saying, don’t flatten history with moral absolutism. Don’t forsake pragmatism for change with convenient idealism. Don’t forgo the responsibility to inspire others into action because of the seductions of outrage and pessimism.

Confusing empty promises with actual change is a far greater problem than whatever "moral absolutism" is supposed to be.

Your taking Obama as a positive example is a case in point: Obama promised a lot, and delivered almost nothing (he bailed out the banks and protected the profits of health insurers) ; Americans elected Trump immediately after him. This is no coincidence: lofty words with little substance breed disappointment, resentment, and cynicism. When asked what they like in Trump, his voters often mention honesty...

The entire point of taking down people like Thomas Jefferson from their pedestals is precisely to expose "convenient idealism," to warn against people who will "inspire others" rather than actually work to change things.

Edited February 10 by Rippounet

[TrackerNeil]

22 hours ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

As to us? It's harder to say. You'd like to think that you'd be the hero who stands up, but those heroes were killed off. Most well meaning people just quietly did what they were told. It's quite likely that we would have done the same.

I think there is a tendency to think of humanity as moving steadily forward in terms of moral and cultural sophistication, but it seems to me that's true only in the most macrocosmic sense. Societies backslide all the time; hell, back in the 80s I thought the GOP was evil, but the party then doesn't even hold a candle to today's Republicans. Freedom of expression was once a value defended by the left, but these days many on the left view free expression merely as a tool of white supremacy, the heteropatriarchy, whatever. They'd love to shut it down, and in some contexts, they have. 

I do think humanity has made remarkable progress over the millennia, sure, but recent experience has shown that progress is uneven, tentative, and always in need of defense. So none of us should feel too morally superior to our forebears. When crunch time comes, humans often act like monkeys who do math--just like those who came before us.

Edited February 10 by TrackerNeil

[SeanF]

8 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

I think there is a tendency to think of humanity as moving steadily forward in terms of moral and cultural sophistication, but it seems to me that's true only in the most macrocosmic sense. Societies backslide all the time; hell, back in the 80s I thought the GOP was evil, but the party then doesn't even hold a candle to today's Republicans. Freedom of expression was once a value defended by the left, but these days many on the left view free expression merely as a tool of white supremacy, the heteropatriarchy, whatever. They'd love to shut it down, and in some contexts, they have. 

I do think humanity has made remarkable progress over the millennia, sure, but recent experience has shown that progress is uneven, tentative, and always in need of defense. So none of us should feel too morally superior to our forebears. When crunch time comes, humans often act like monkeys who do math--just like those who came before us.

Yes, and society can regress while becoming more “civilised” in other ways.

16th/17th century Europe saw huge growth in literacy, along with the creation of many fine works of art and literature.  At the same time as religious persecution, witch-burnings, and warfare at a level of brutality unseen since Roman times.