What is your argument? Lay it out. The OP was some shit about Obama being the most racist president of all time. Thread devolved into a few of our guests from southern states talking about historical slavery and how the US isn't culpable now in any way because of history. Nobody was coming after your white women. The OP is from Iowa. What is your argument? What is your argument? LAY IT OUT.
Most racist presidents of all time?
- Thread starter Jakeleg Jake
- Start date
What is your argument? Lay it out. The OP was some shit about Obama being the most racist president of all time. Thread devolved into a few of our guests from southern states talking about historical slavery and how the US isn't culpable now in any way because of history. Nobody was coming after your white women. The OP is from Iowa. What is your argument? What is your argument? LAY IT OUT.
Replicating, or condoning, their behaviors and beliefs NOW, would make someone racially prejudiced. For them, it was accepted. I'm not encouraging that we mimic them. Just try to allow them to be accountable relative to when they were actually alive.
You realize my comments had nothing to do with the OP, which is why I didn't quote the OP. You know what I posted. I believe you quoted what I posted. Still, you didn't offer any refuting, only insults. So, nut up or shut up, kid.
It may have been accepted, but they were still racially prejudice in their own time.
Okay, I'm heading off elsewhere. If you guys have any actual points, you can put them in this thread. I'm guessing that I'll check tomorrow.
Stating that NOW, while referring to peoples' behavior THEN, only proves that what I said is completely true. If it was accepted, then the standard was different. They never considered themselves as being "racist." We can say they were... by our standards now. Those people are long gone. They have no knowledge of your present day judgments.
Nutting up, disphit: Slavery has been a historical fact of the human condition for pretty much all of recorded time. It isn't something that was started by the the people who came to be known as American southerners. Many different races/cultures have been enslaved by the victors of violent clashes over the years. In colonial times, many people benefited from slavery even when they rejected it in their regions (southern cotton, particularly after the cotton gin, was a cheap source for hypocritical northern textile factories).
Present day: Black Americans who descended from slaves (imported from Africa and not always because of the white man's conquests) contest that they aren't being treated fairly by the government. That's the argument here. Not your shit about Jews being enslaved by the Pharaoh.
Last edited:
Of course the standard was different. It was acceptable to be racist. But they were racist all the same. You can forgive them for that if you like, but that doesn't mean they were not people who believed one race was superior to another. And I bet you wouldn't have to work very hard to prove that to yourself if you were so inclined.
I'm not forgiving or condemning them. What good would it do? They're DEAD. I'm simply aware of the difference between then and now.
Oh. Well, thanks for informing us Yanks on the difference between then and now. Sorry for all the carpet-bagging. We'll forgive you when every Waffle House north of Georgia is replaced by a fireworks stand.
Carpet-bagging never affected me. No apology needed. You must pushing 170 years old.
Closing in on 170 (southern-baptist-jesus-willing). Thank god it never affected you. It makes it easier to dismiss the complaints of others.
Now you're taking plays out of my book. You are truly my student.
There is some bad HROTing on display in this thread.
I'm going to blame it on recreational substance usage.
I'm going to blame it on recreational substance usage.
Last edited:
This does sort of raise the question-- when will Washington state and Washington DC change their names since, you know, GW owned slaves. I'm sure it will come up in my lifetime.
We probably need to remove the Declaration of Independence and Constitution from usage since a bunch of openly racist slave owners wrote it.
I guess every new generation gets to be the judge of all the former generations. Fortunately, the present generation will be judged as inferior and prejudiced, too.
I guess every new generation gets to be the judge of all the former generations. Fortunately, the present generation will be judged as inferior and prejudiced, too.
From the Lincoln-Douglas debates. Knox College.
MR. DOUGLAS-Mr. Lincoln asserts to-day as he did at Chicago, that the negro was included in that clause of the Declaration of Independence which says that all men were created equal and endowed by the Creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. (Ain't that so?) If the negro was made his equal and mine, if that equality was established by Divine law, and was the negro's inalienable right, how came he to say at Charleston to the Kentuckians residing in that section of our State, that the negro was physically inferior to the white man, belonged to an inferior race, and he was for keeping him always in that inferior condition. (Good.) I wish you to bear these things in mind. At Charleston he said that the negro belonged to an inferior race, and that he was for keeping him in that inferior condition. There he gave the people to understand that there was no moral question involved, because the inferiority being established, it was only a question of degree and not a question of right; here, to-day, instead of making it a question of degree, he makes it a moral question, says that it is a great crime to hold the negro in that inferior condition. (He's right.) Is he right now or was he right in Charleston? (Both.) He is right then, sir, in your estimation, not because he is consistent, but because he can trim his principles any way in any section, so as to secure votes. All I desire of him is that he will declare the same principles in the south that he does in the north.
MR. DOUGLAS-Mr. Lincoln asserts to-day as he did at Chicago, that the negro was included in that clause of the Declaration of Independence which says that all men were created equal and endowed by the Creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. (Ain't that so?) If the negro was made his equal and mine, if that equality was established by Divine law, and was the negro's inalienable right, how came he to say at Charleston to the Kentuckians residing in that section of our State, that the negro was physically inferior to the white man, belonged to an inferior race, and he was for keeping him always in that inferior condition. (Good.) I wish you to bear these things in mind. At Charleston he said that the negro belonged to an inferior race, and that he was for keeping him in that inferior condition. There he gave the people to understand that there was no moral question involved, because the inferiority being established, it was only a question of degree and not a question of right; here, to-day, instead of making it a question of degree, he makes it a moral question, says that it is a great crime to hold the negro in that inferior condition. (He's right.) Is he right now or was he right in Charleston? (Both.) He is right then, sir, in your estimation, not because he is consistent, but because he can trim his principles any way in any section, so as to secure votes. All I desire of him is that he will declare the same principles in the south that he does in the north.
Ummmm...you understand this is a myth. Right? Daily sponge baths were common. Lack of bathing was usually due to circumstance rather than desire.
Say what? They believed a "race" of humans was so far below them that they could be owned...even killed with impunity. It matters not WHEN they held that belief. It is racist. By definition. You can look it up, if you wish.
That their racist friends accepted it doesn't excuse it THEN any more than it would excuse it NOW. To argue otherwise is simply idiotic.
To argue that their names need to removed from every building, street, city and state place name because they were racists is equally idiotic.
I agree.
But there are people whose actions were so far beyond the pale that enshrining them in perpetuity makes no sense.
Last edited:
Yes, they were racist. But... they're DEAD! They don't have to comply to our social standards. They CAN'T... they're still DEAD!
I doubt you'll find many human beings from 200 years ago that comply with today's social standards. In fact, you won't find any. You know why? That's right... they're all dead!
We choose which behaviors they exhibited that we agree with and exhibit ourselves now. On our best day, we all exhibit some kind of prejudice. ALL OF US. There are varying degrees, yes. I'm not condoning what they did. I wouldn't do it myself. But, I'd do a lot of things differently with hindsight vision.
Is everyone alive today "smarter" than people 200 years ago?
And, we have you to instruct us as to which were and which were not.
n
What does this have to do with what you were clearly saying in the thread to which I responded? You said:
Replicating, or condoning, their behaviors and beliefs NOW, would make someone racially prejudiced. For them, it was accepted.
So sorry but "Replicating, or condoning, their behaviors and beliefs THEN, would make someone racially prejudiced". You should be more careful in your phrasing, lest you look like you're excusing their behavior because other racists of the era were accepting. A racist surrounded by racists is still a racist regardless of when they lived.
What does this have to do with what you were clearly saying in the thread to which I responded? You said:
Replicating, or condoning, their behaviors and beliefs NOW, would make someone racially prejudiced. For them, it was accepted.
So sorry but "Replicating, or condoning, their behaviors and beliefs THEN, would make someone racially prejudiced". You should be more careful in your phrasing, lest you look like you're excusing their behavior because other racists of the era were accepting. A racist surrounded by racists is still a racist regardless of when they lived.
No, I'll let society make those choices. They made them in the past, not sure why they should be denied the same opportunity now.
I'm simply saying that it is fairly useless to pretend to hold people who are long dead to social standards of today. Since none of us here were alive back then, the best we can do is speculate what was "right" or "wrong" to them, and how their peers viewed them socially, based on whatever has been left behind. In many cases- most cases- what people did earlier in history will not fit with what we do now. And, at the time they were alive, they had their own society with it's own unique standards and etiquette. Just like in 100 years, a lot of our behavior now will likely have social conflicts with how people behave at that time.
The disconnect here is the definition of racism, which is the belief that one race is superior to other(s) in some shape or fashion. They fully believed that the white race was superior to the African race, and calling it "racism" wasn't a slur back then. So, yes... they were racists. But if you went back in time and called them racists, they'd say, "And your point is...?"
See? There you go again. OF COURSE, to them it seemed "right" to own slaves. It seemed "right" for some people in the first half of the 20th century to lynch others because they happened to be black. Most of those racists are dead, too. So the f**k what? We can STILL judge their behavior. There were many living at the time these things were occurring who KNEW IT WAS WRONG. You can't discount them.
LOL...there are people TODAY who will openly admit to being racists. So your point is....?
My point is it wasn't a slur back then. They were racists and proud of it.
People really didn't start thinking it was wrong until about 30 years after the revolution. Europe agitated on this point long before we did.
