ISH Racists, Conservative White Men Have Proven My Point..........

[Dresta]

What I find amazing is American ignorance regarding their own history. The schoolbooks have evidently marginalised the antebellum South into some kind of evil "other" perpetuated only by vicious and evil white males. It's not that they don't know anything about it, but that they are completely certain about their misapprehensions. It takes remarkable cognitive dissonance to accept this view and not to think the entirety of the US one big evil mistake (probably why many of them jump on the "progress" bandwagon).

Nowhere is it admitted that the nation was essentially created by this slave-holding semi-aristocratic class, and that it could not have been born without it; that the American path was taken from the English, and that the system of plantation agriculture that dominated in places like Virginia, was a clear attempt to mimic the institutions and customs of the english country gentleman. The Revolution itself was fought to "reclaim the chartered rights of englishmen"--an essential borrowing of the Whig ideas of the late 17th century.

The idea of there emerging a Washington, a Jefferson, a Madison, a Marshall, a Monroe, and so on, anywhere outside of the cultural milieu of 18th century Virginia, and the landed gentry that ran and established it, is quite frankly unthinkable. Its most important thinkers, military leaders, and statesmen were from this particular background, which is no coincidence. So evidently the South was not all bad, which is the only point i'm really making, but it's a point that often sends Americans into bouts of moralistic rage.

[longtime lurker]

What I find amazing is American ignorance regarding their own history. The schoolbooks have evidently marginalised the antebellum South into some kind of evil "other" perpetuated only by vicious and evil white males. It's not that they don't know anything about it, but that they are completely certain about their misapprehensions. It takes remarkable cognitive dissonance to accept this view and not to think the entirety of the US one big evil mistake (probably why many of them jump on the "progress" bandwagon).

Nowhere is it admitted that the nation was essentially created by this slave-holding semi-aristocratic class, and that it could not have been born without it; that the American path was taken from the English, and that the system of plantation agriculture that dominated in places like Virginia, was a clear attempt to mimic the institutions and customs of the english country gentleman. The Revolution itself was fought to "reclaim the chartered rights of englishmen"--an essential borrowing of the Whig ideas of the late 17th century.

The idea of there emerging a Washington, a Jefferson, a Madison, a Marshall, a Monroe, and so on, anywhere outside of the cultural milieu of 18th century Virginia, and the landed gentry that ran and established it, is quite frankly unthinkable. Its most important thinkers, military leaders, and statesmen were from this particular background, which is no coincidence. So evidently the South was not all bad, which is the only point i'm really making, but it's a point that often sends Americans into bouts of moralistic rage.

Only Dresta could paint a bunch of murderers and rapists as sympathetic figures.

[Dresta]

Only Dresta could paint a bunch of murderers and rapists as sympathetic figures.

What are you blubbering on about now? Which "murderers and rapists" was I "painting" exactly? Washington and Madison and Marshall? Ooook buddy.

[warriorfan]

The answer to that is yes: John Randolph did it plenty, and he was an invalid. What's more, his slaves saw him as their patron and protector, and he slept with no security, with his small log-cabin door left wide open. He took no precautions for his safety, nor to prevent runaways, and yet his slaves remained obedient and devoted to him--with good reason. This is what happened to them after his death:

http://hubpages.com/politics/Born-A-...rginia-to-Ohio

And that's the same reason why he didn't free his slaves until his death (they would be turned loose into a world that despised them with no protection from abuse and injustice); and he tried to lessen this by buying them land and resources in a northern state. Their hardship would have been even greater if Randolph had not spent significant amounts of time educating them and training them in various crafts (they could all read and write). As strange as it may seem, he viewed his slaves with great affection, and they reciprocated it; after he died, one of his slaves stayed behind, of his own account, to manage and care for his former owner's property; an unusual sight in Virginia of that time! And we forget how different the times were: beatings were commonplace, and the punishments often much worse on sea vessels, where the ship-captain was invested with absolute power; and this was a time when hunger, starvation, and early death, were real things to contend with. You get an idea of his position from this letter, written during the struggles (and potential famine looming) of the war of 1812:



As I often say: things in history are almost never black and white. Blaming slaveowners for everything is foolish considering the United States was set up with the right to own human property maintained by the Constitution--and the Constitution could never have been enacted without such a provision (and was barely ratified as it was). Effectively, the compromising acceptance of slavery is the only reason the United States exist as a country at all. Too many Americans are desperate to deny their past, and to pretend the bad things about it are someone else's fault (e.g. the "slave power" paranoia) to help externalise their disgust ("on the racists dammit, everything is their fault!!"). The South never in this period was the ascendent power: the North was, in both resources and manpower; and it's not like the North didn't use the South to its own benefit, through the use of tariffs, land grants, &c. There is a long history of New England businessmen robbing southerners of their land through double dealing and duplicity, dating all the way back to the Yazoo land scandal.

Dresta trying to say that slaves liked being slaves

This guy has something seriously wrong with him

[DonDadda59]

Dresta trying to say that slaves liked being slaves

This guy has something seriously wrong with him

These 2 are somewhere slow-clapping to Dresta's posts.

[Im Still Ballin]

You pawns are so foolish for letting ideas of race control your mind

Life is meaningless

The Nihilistic has it's merit

But just like Nietzsche's Ubermensch, I overcome fickle ideals and morality of mankind

I Transcend it, while you are trapped by it

I make my own world

I Win

[Dresta]

Dresta trying to say that slaves liked being slaves

This guy has something seriously wrong with him

Fool. Human beings almost always prefer what they know to what they don't, and very often value safety over freedom--at the heart of the bulk of humanity is the longing to be a slave. How have you not realised this by now? Even in the modern age, when life is more comfortable than ever, and liberty easier, less risky and painful to bear, people still cannot handle it, and so we increasingly drift towards a Huxlean dystopia, where we are freed finally from the painful consequences of freedom and instead given over to a servitude of the senses and the vacuous ideology of happiness.

Of course, in the much harder and harsher world of the early 19th century, many, many, many people would prefer the certainty of clothes, food, and shelter, to being turned loose into a milieu that made even survival exceptionally difficult. I probably would too. You seem rather ignorant of the conditions of the working class at this time, too; the average life-expectancy in industrial cities like Manchester was only 25. The great labouring masses invariably lived lives of misery, disease and death. Stop pretending it is such a simple thing to choose between two miserable sets of circumstances.

[warriorfan]

These 2 are somewhere slow-clapping to Dresta's posts.

Dresta, do us all a favor

seek help immediately

thank you

[Jameerthefear]

These 2 are somewhere slow-clapping to Dresta's posts.

[AceManIII]

Uncle Tom and Uncle Remus would be proud of Dresta analysis as well

[Dresta]

Uncle Tom and Uncle Remus would be proud of Dresta analysis as well

Yes, the founders of your nation, and probably the only reason you exist at all, owned slaves. Be grateful. None of these ex post facto mindless moral denunciations from 200 years in the future make any sense. They're ahistorical and stupid.

But, of course, silly children only see "slaveowner" without any context, completely ignoring the a slaveowner was born into his position as much as a slave was. It's like debating something with a bunch of ten year old children here.

fyi: "uncle Tom" was a fictional creation and not even a real person; as I said, you people have a poor understanding of this time in history, probably because Harriet Beecher Stowe's propaganda pamphlet is all you've read on the matter (if that). The modern perception of "Uncle Tom's" as slavish types comes from the minstrel shows actually, because even Stowe was not so black and white as that. I discuss reality, real circumstances and people, and you dismiss them with made up propaganda, not only that, but propaganda that was come down to us through chinese whispers, and that was intended to denigrate black people .

[Dictator]

These 2 are somewhere slow-clapping to Dresta's posts.

[Dresta]

Nowhere is it admitted that the nation was essentially created by this slave-holding semi-aristocratic class, and that it could not have been born without it; that the American path was taken from the English, and that the system of plantation agriculture that dominated in places like Virginia, was a clear attempt to mimic the institutions and customs of the english country gentleman. The Revolution itself was fought to "reclaim the chartered rights of englishmen"--an essential borrowing of the Whig ideas of the late 17th century. Thus it was the spirit of the gentleman that was at the heart of the US Constitution.

The idea of there emerging a Washington, a Jefferson, a Madison, a Marshall, a Monroe, and so on, anywhere outside of the cultural milieu of 18th century Virginia, and the landed gentry that ran and established it, is quite frankly unthinkable. Its most important thinkers, military leaders, and statesmen were from this particular background, which is no coincidence. So evidently the South was not all bad, which is the only point i'm really making, but it's a point that often sends Americans into bouts of moralistic rage.

I'll just quote myself and ask if anyone has the balls to answer this question properly and seriously, rather than making feeble, emotive and irrelevant attempts to dismiss it without bothering to even try and understand it.

edit: oh, and this is completely ignoring the fact that slavery was the norm for human societies and civilisations until the British and French decided to get rid of it, through imperialism. The great African Empires like Mali all bought and sold slaves; there wasn't a place in Africa where slavery didn't exist as far as i'm aware; not only that, but slavery actually persists in many African countries, and would still be a ubiquitous norm if not for European imperialism.

Dem nasty evil old southern white men doe. I find it funny how you guys think you're intelligent and objective and yet blindly follow the pro-state dogmas that have been foisted onto you by a gargantuan state, which bends the teaching of history to its own needs, and for the consolidation of its own power. Allows you to externalise all the bad things of US history onto some evil "other", and pretend your state-worship is the continuation of some noble cause, dating back to the abolition of slavery; all praise the mighty and beneficent state!! Even though it's become a mass-murdering machine and tool for the powerful, it's still noble and great!! We can still advance progress and rights by force!!

Bunch of ignorant sheep.

[AceManIII]

Yes, the founders of your nation, and probably the only reason you exist at all, owned slaves. Be grateful. None of these ex post facto mindless moral denunciations from 200 years in the future make any sense. They're ahistorical and stupid.

Yessah, bawse! Thank goodness our founders saved Black people from the savage lands of Africa!! Gave 'em a "safe" place to stay and "honest labor"!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrZZQzyhp7g
^^^Truth about slavery by Uncle Ruckus

Poor white slave owners! The South wasn't tthhhaaatt bad

fyi: "uncle Tom" was a fictional creation and not even a real person; as I said, you people have a poor understanding of this time in history, probably because Harriet Beecher Stowe's propaganda pamphlet is all you've read on the matter (if that). The modern perception of "Uncle Tom's" as slavish types comes from the minstrel shows actually, because even Stowe was not so black and white as that. I discuss reality, real circumstances and people, and you dismiss them with made up propaganda, not only that, but propaganda that was come down to us through chinese whispers, and that was intended to denigrate black people .

Mannnnn, you're trying too hard to attempt at intellectual dialogue and showing that you lack basic common sense.

Lemme help; why would I bring up "Uncle Tom"? Focus on that.

But wait, since you only deal with "real people"...look up Frederick Douglass.

[Dresta]

And you're failing to come up with any kind of counterargument whatsoever. Just more inane bullshit.