Thomas Jefferson statue toppled by protesters

a reply to: burdman30ott6

They should topple the tyrannical homeowners associations instead of the statues

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Karl 12 posted this in the funny pictures thread but I thought it appropriate here.

Oh snap! I used the pyramids as a good example a few posts back! Sorry for being so inventive

They are the largest and possibly the oldest example of it!

Take em down first! Ship the snowflakes to the desert and give em each a prospectors hammer. That should keep them out of our hair for a few generations

a reply to: ketsuko

I'll be honest here, the USA wouldn't be what it is (and I mean the good things, global superpower, largest economy, shining city on a hill) without slavery. Given that, I think slavery was OK for 1789... just being honest about how I view things. My ancestors were abused same as many ethnic groups were abused in the new world, we dealt with it and succeeded in the wake of those abuses.

Changing the past would carry unintended and potentially catastrophic consequences on the present, so I don't really get anyone living in the USA today that looks back while waxing poetically about how they wish they could change so much. Hell, most of the people presently whining and complaining about crap 200 years in the past likely wouldn't even be here today if not for the event of that early American history.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

According to the HOA in my folks' 'hood, black people cannot own a house there (this is in CA, for chrissake)

Now, it's not enforced, and can't be, but it is there in writing.

Most HOA's need a large majority of the homeowners to come together to change anything in them... which never happens.

Per the rules in my HOA, I need to submit a request to plan a flower in my back yard.

But.. I digress.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

The good and the bad are what make you who you are. For better or for worse, it builds character.

It works that way with a nation and a people too.

These kiddies are acting like they can perform a reverse cleansing or pogrom on the past and erase its sins, but they don't explain to what end. Maybe they're just angry it all happened, but even so, I'm angry that I got unmercifully bullied. But if I spent time erasing the people who did it, it doesn't change that it happened. And that year helped shape who I am and what I become. If I like that now, then who knows what I would have been without that formative experience no matter how horrifically painful it was.

a reply to: Ohanka

I agree 100%... as well as toppling the property taxes. While we're sitting here pissing and moaning about human property ownership 2 centuries ago, we've allowed the nation to make physical property ownership a total joke. You don't "own" anything in America, 2020... anyone who believes they do own property, try not paying property taxes or try doing someone with what you claim is your own property without paying the permitting fees and receiving permission from the government to make those improvements. If you own something, you own it... if you have to pay for it beyond the agreed purchase price annually and at whatever rate and valuation the masters tell you you must pay at, or you lose possession of the property then you're little more than a lease holder.

Somewhere along the way to freeing the slaves, the USA seems to have managed to enslave the entire country. Nobody is actually "free." A wonderful example being the little exercise in fascism we just observed in which people were locked down in the name of Coronavirus. Freedom is an illusion. Descendents of former slaves take note, we're all in the same pile of crap as you believe yourselves to be in. If you have money, then you have power and a greater illusion of freedom, no matter your skin tone. If you don't have money, then you're equally powerless, regardless your skin tone.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Gryphon66

History simply can't be judged through a modern lens. With the possible exception of issues that resulted in major international revulsion at the time the event occurred (such as the Holocaust), any attempt to apply modern morals to historical norms will ultimately bite people in the ass. It is extremely likely, for example, that someday in the future present humanity's body count of aborted babies will be widely viewed as a sign of 21st century barbarism. That's but one example of what will almost certainly be a laundry list of morally reprehensible or flat our stupid actions we presently view as mostly normal, but which future historians will struggle to defend.

Okay, so slavery was okay in 1789?

Thomas Jefferson didn't think so; he called it morally reprehensible.

Nice slice in for anti-choice there though. Kudos.

He favored gradual emancipation and, frankly, the rapid degradation of society, prosperity, and peace in South Africa since they broke from Apartheid entirely and instantaneously seems to be a clear indication that the gradual emancipation the US did experience following an end to slavery was absolutely the smart choice.

In short, yeah it was OK in 1789...

I could provide you some quotes to counter the claim, but no matter.

Are you sure about comparing apartheid to slavery? That might be interesting. I'm an infrequent visitor to South Africa and I wouldn't describe it as you are in any way. Tribalism has more to do with ZA's problems than ending apartheid. There are 11 national languages ... the Zulu don't trust the Xhosa etc. etc.

But, question asked and answered: Slavery was okay in 1789 in your opinion.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Yes..very appropriate. But the guy ordering the destruction isn't wearing a puzzy hat or Swastika.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Women not voting was OK then too.

It was a common cultural norm for the time.

Today, it's unthinkable, just like slavery, but at that point in time, it was a commonly accepted thing. Don't make the mistake of judging their past by our mores. It's the same mistake the statue brigade is making.

As I said, for the Founders to have written what they did and to have laid for foundations for its abolition was remarkable given the world around them.

a reply to: Gryphon66

The point is that equality isn't an instantaneous achievement, Gryph. It can't be because with equality of benefits also must come equality of expectations and responsibility. Hell, we haven't even reached that in this country. Those most loudly complaining about inequality are starkly contrasted as being the ones who tend to receive the most benefits while fighting the hardest against being demanded to take responsibility for themselves, not to mention how societal expectations are usually castigated as somehow being racist/sexist/bigoted by many.

Benefits sans expectations and responsibility is just another form of slavery in many ways.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

Women not voting was OK then too.

It was a common cultural norm for the time.

Today, it's unthinkable, just like slavery, but at that point in time, it was a commonly accepted thing. Don't make the mistake of judging their past by our mores. It's the same mistake the statue brigade is making.

As I said, for the Founders to have written what they did and to have laid for foundations for its abolition was remarkable given the world around them.

No it wasn't okay for women to be denied the vote then or now.

Up until the time of the Fourteenth Amendment, by the way, there was no universal suffrage, despite all that "all are created equal" stuff. People that didn't own a certain amount of property couldn't vote for example. That was also wrong then and now.

Washington, Jefferson and ALL of them knew that slavery was wrong. They STATED that it was wrong, morally reprehensible, calamitous for the new nation, etc.

They couldn't do anything about it, but it is very clear that the approbation of slavery in our Constitution is one of the continuing serious flaws in our country.

However, the UK outlawed slavery just a few years after our Constitution was enacted in 1833. So it wasn't impossible.

Here's the bottom line that we must face: Slavery was PROFITABLE. The Southern States' economies were agrarian based, and slavery is what kept the profits flowing.

a reply to: Gryphon66

You're doing it again.

Stop judging the past through your modern lens. It will fail to live up to your expectations every. single. time.

Think of it as an object lesson on where we have been and how and why we got to where we are now and you'll do much better with it.

But you change none of it by attempting to erase it because you don't like it.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Gryphon66

The point is that equality isn't an instantaneous achievement, Gryph. It can't be because with equality of benefits also must come equality of expectations and responsibility. Hell, we haven't even reached that in this country. Those most loudly complaining about inequality are starkly contrasted as being the ones who tend to receive the most benefits while fighting the hardest against being demanded to take responsibility for themselves, not to mention how societal expectations are usually castigated as somehow being racist/sexist/bigoted by many.

Benefits sans expectations and responsibility is just another form of slavery in many ways.

I would not argue with you at all that gradual lasting change in society is preferable to rapid change that creates a continuing rift.

Slavery was not dealt with at the creation of the US, and thus, the Civil War, Jim Crowe laws, etc. etc.

Are you saying that Blacks receive more support from Welfare programs etc?

Incorrect, but a common misconception.

Survey respondents’ estimation of who receives welfare tracked closely to their estimation of who gets food stamps. Nearly two-thirds of poll respondents said the program’s recipients are mostly black or that there are as many black Americans as white Americans receiving benefits. Only 21 percent correctly said there are more white than black food stamp recipients.

Source

There is slighly larger participation rates among Blacks, but there is also a very notable economic difference between the average White familiy and the average Black one.

But this is leading the disucussion off track. Thanks for the chat, Burd, as always.

a reply to: a325nt

Glad you openly admit majority of modern capitalism is neo slave labor.

a reply to: ketsuko

I collect books.

One set I had at one time was a set of Victorian medical text books.

They had great pictures from the Boer War.

They had a section on women and illnesses specific to women.

I bet you did not know that if women try to get a higher education (University) their brains collapse because they aren't as developed.

It was in a medical text book. I can't say Dr. Faucci wrote it, but it was written by a doctor.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Oh yes, they had all kinds of notions about the frailty of we women folk. Absolute History on YouTube has a bunch of videos about things Victorian and Edwardian women used to do.

One of my favorites was the cosmetics. I also enjoyed the notion of heating your bath with a gas burner lit right underneath it. The corsets and highly flammable plastic dresses are in there too.

a reply to: Gryphon66






"Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. He probably sexually abused his female slaves. "


Ah , Really ? How do you know that for a Fact ? If not , No Reason to Mention it .

a reply to: Gryphon66

Welfare consists of more than "food stamps" and more than just federal level programs. "Benefits" consist of a LOT more than welfare programs. You posting something that says "Group A gets more food stamps than group B so that proves Group B claims less in welfare benefits overall" is sort of like me saying "Manute Bol posted 3.3 blocks per game for his career versus Michael Jordan's 0.8 blocks per game, so Manute Bol was a better basketball player than Michael Jordan."

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

You're doing it again.

Stop judging the past through your modern lens. It will fail to live up to your expectations every. single. time.

Think of it as an object lesson on where we have been and how and why we got to where we are now and you'll do much better with it.

But you change none of it by attempting to erase it because you don't like it.

I don't accept that your proposition that the past cannot be judged by the values of the present, when the values of the present existed then.

One more time: Thomas Jefferson argued passionately that slavery should not exist. There was even a line about it in his original draft of the Declaration which was cut BECAUSE THE SOUTH WOULD NOT AGREE.

Slavery was morally reprehensible at all times and all places. There were slave rebellions in Rome, Greece, etc.

The Stoic philosophers in Greece argued against slavery. Marcus Aurelius argued against slavery indirectly.

I reject the idea that the ideals of freedom and individual liberty are functions only of the "modern" era.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Gryphon66

Welfare consists of more than "food stamps" and more than just federal level programs. "Benefits" consist of a LOT more than welfare programs. You posting something that says "Group A gets more food stamps than group B so that proves Group B claims less in welfare benefits overall" is sort of like me saying "Manute Bol posted 3.3 blocks per game for his career versus Michael Jordan's 0.8 blocks per game, so Manute Bol was a better basketball player than Michael Jordan."

True, but the statistics are similar across all programs. I gave one quick example.

However, I won't argue the matter here.