If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
The point is to question the validity of notions such as "[t]he need to project a progressive environment is just as important as food and shelter to survive", and note the prevalence of such notions in the halls of higher education.
When was this statement made, and by whom?
As far as the higher ed thing, this whole argument has always seemed like a giant contradiction to me. The idea is that students should think for themselves without being "indoctrinated", right? If a student is inclined to be an independent thinker, college is a great time to explore their politics, and once a student is thinking for themselves it shouldn't matter what the politics of their teachers are. If they aren't ready to think for themselves, will they ever be?
Everybody has a bias, you aren't going to solve this problem by replacing liberal bias with conservative bias, or trying to pretend that we can find teachers that don't project a bias.
Furthermore, if you look at the way many right wing politicians are turning against science, it is kind of no wonder that the academic community is more comfortable with progressivism. Academics tend to have strong biases towards facts.
When we get these batshit crazy politicians away from discouraging vaccinations, claiming that climate change is a hoax, being a home to religious nutjobs such as young earth creationists, etc. should it be surprising that there are more liberal academics?
"The need to project a progressive environment is just as important as food and shelter to survive."
I'd say that's a wee bit of the overstatement.
Yeah, that pretty bad. Looking forward to more griping about 'millenials.'
Originally Posted by subego
The entire point to owning someone is having the means to force their consent. By owning a person, one has given up the ability to claim said person acts of their own volition.
If Jefferson had a problem with this, his option was to manumit Hemings.
Eeesh. Talk about an uncomfortable realization. Good post, though.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
If anyone deserves the right to be innocent until proven guilty, it's him.
The guy had a penchant for being a hypocrite. I love him for it, but that doesn't mean he's above doubt on subjects such as this.
I'm not going to roast Thomas Jefferson without proof, so you can go suck it.
The proof was that he owned ****ing slaves. Why would any human male not have sex with a slave if they felt that there was no moral problems with doing so?
The proof was that he owned ****ing slaves. Why would any human male not have sex with a slave if they felt that there was no moral problems with doing so?
The guy had a penchant for being a hypocrite. I love him for it, but that doesn't mean he's above doubt on subjects such as this.
When exactly? He wasn't perfect, he made mistakes. But to say that he was an abuser and a rapist is to say that he was doing those things for decades. And that's just... hell no. If someone wants to open an inquiry? Fine. Formal investigation? Go right ahead. But unless it's proven beyond a reasonable doubt, leave his legacy intact. This isn't Bill Cosby where we can simply stop airing a 25 y/o sitcom, this is the founder of this country, and saying he was that corrupt throws into question everything he did as a statesman. Did he own slaves? Yes. Most wealthy Americans did. Did he mistreat, abuse, and rape them? No. There's not a shred of evidence to support that claim, and to try to remove his visage and presence from everyday life, simply on a baseless accusation, is insulting.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
When exactly? He wasn't perfect, he made mistakes. But to say that he was an abuser and a rapist is to say that he was doing those things for decades. And that's just... hell no. If someone wants to open an inquiry? Fine. Formal investigation? Go right ahead. But unless it's proven beyond a reasonable doubt, leave his legacy intact. This isn't Bill Cosby where we can simply stop airing a 25 y/o sitcom, this is the founder of this country, and saying he was that corrupt throws into question everything he did as a statesman. Did he own slaves? Yes. Most wealthy Americans did. Did he mistreat, abuse, and rape them? No. There's not a shred of evidence to support that claim, and to try to remove his visage and presence from everyday life, simply on a baseless accusation, is insulting.
You're overreacting. It's being pointed out that whatever relationship he had with Hemings, you can't assume she was a willing party because she was property. I have said nothing more or less.
The proof was that he owned ****ing slaves. Why would any human male not have sex with a slave if they felt that there was no moral problems with doing so?
It's good to know your own weaknesses, but don't project them onto Jefferson. The man wrote a treatise on the nobility of life, against cruelty to animals, for Christ's sake. How much more would he show kindness to people? (He referred to his slaves as people on many occasions, even granting them freedom upon his death.)
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
You're overreacting. It's being pointed out that whatever relationship he had with Hemings, you can't assume she was a willing party because she was property. I have said nothing more or less.
No I'm not, and if anyone comes against T. Jefferson in such a fashion with baseless claims, they'll get worse than this. And yes, you can assume that, unless proof is given to the contrary, that's called the "Burden of Proof" and it is a burden, because you have to claim it, support it, and then live with the lumps you take if it's bullshit, and the more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence in support of it must be.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
No I'm not, and if anyone comes against T. Jefferson in such a fashion with baseless claims, they'll get worse than this. And yes, you can assume that, unless proof is given to the contrary, that's called the "Burden of Proof" and it is a burden, because you have to claim it, support it, and then live with the lumps you take if it's bullshit, and the more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence in support of it must be.
You're painting me as saying Jefferson as a rapist. I'm just stating that with no evidence one way or another, you can't assume it was consensual, either. And, by the way, there's a difference between non-consensual and rape, as far as I'm concerned – the difference between him physically taking it against her will and her acquiescing out of a sense of obligation or duty. I believe people int his thread a referring to the latter.
And the best part of this is – you're vehemently defending Jefferson's behavior for a relationship who's existence doesn't meet your burden of proof.
Isn't a slave falling in love with her owner an extraordinary claim too?
Allow me to posit the following: the person who started this petition is trying to bait you.
The petition starter is taking a reasonable allegation (Jefferson engaged in morally questionable behavior) and phrasing it in a really incendiary way.
This creates a situation wherein you are given the incentive to treat defense of the reasonable allegation as if it is likewise incendiary, which gives the people who defend the reasonable allegation the incentive to think your arguments are irrational.
I think neither is true, so we're all going to be in an endless feedback loop unless we take it upon ourselves to back out of it.
You're painting me as saying Jefferson as a rapist. I'm just stating that with no evidence one way or another, you can't assume it was consensual, either.
Indeed I can, and I will, unless proof to the contrary is given.
And, by the way, there's a difference between non-consensual and rape, as far as I'm concerned
Not within the eyes of the law, and people who wish to taint Jefferson's name had better have the law behind them if they're going to make such allegations.
And the best part of this is – you're vehemently defending Jefferson's behavior for a relationship who's existence doesn't meet your burden of proof.
I've never denied the relationship, I'm actively denying that it was non-consensual, and it isn't MY burden of proof, it's the burden of proof afforded anyone who is confronted with such allegations. Want to remove his statues, claim he was a rapist, say that he systematically took advantage of his slaves for decades? Well, you damned well had better have strong evidence on your side, because this isn't like ruining the lives of a group of jocks at Duke (though that was horrific too) where they sue and you apologize, this is besmirching, within the context of deeds, one of the greatest men who ever lived. While his memory is not above the law, because no one is above investigation, what evidence that is brought against it had better be iron-clad.
Isn't a slave falling in love with her owner an extraordinary claim too?
Conjecture. You'd need to ask a person who has been a slave their entire life, who only knows that their life is 100x better than others who are born into such a station (and even common citizens, during that day and age). What I do know is that automatically assuming the worst, when there's no evidence to support it, is vile.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Allow me to posit the following: the person who started this petition is trying to bait you.
The petition starter is taking a reasonable allegation (Jefferson engaged in morally questionable behavior) and phrasing it in a really incendiary way.
This creates a situation wherein you are given the incentive to treat defense of the reasonable allegation as if it is likewise incendiary, which gives the people who defend the reasonable allegation the incentive to think your arguments are irrational.
I think neither is true, so we're all going to be in an endless feedback loop unless we take it upon ourselves to back out of it.
I don't believe so, not in today's Social Justice climate. Their problem is they don't understand history. They feel their allegations are reasonable, that it's like making them against a frat boy at a university, where until evidence is supplied, everyone will automatically assume that he's guilty, throw fruit, and call for their expulsion. Well, they're wrong, very wrong. **** them and their agenda, this is going too far, and they're overdue for a comeuppance.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
I'm not telling you what to do. I'm explaining what's reasonable. Why do you not need proof it was consensual?
You need proof to assert that it wasn't, to remove images of Founding Fathers based on conjecture.
Strawman. This isn't a legal proceeding.
Negative. It's a petition for removal, which is a legal document. They can provide that proof or shove that document up their asses.
I didn't say you did. I said that the relationship occurring is also conjecture.
It isn't conjecture, they had children together. DNA testing shows that most likely he was the father of those children.
You didn't answer the question. Are they not both equally likely? What do you base your conclusion on?
The burden of proof is on those accusing Jefferson, those who wish to remove his statue and tarnish his good name. I don't know, they don't know, and since they don't know they can stop bitching and take their Social Justice hobby/project elsewhere.
That was already addressed.
and I shut it down there, too.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
It's good to know your own weaknesses, but don't project them onto Jefferson. The man wrote a treatise on the nobility of life, against cruelty to animals, for Christ's sake. How much more would he show kindness to people? (He referred to his slaves as people on many occasions, even granting them freedom upon his death.)
OMG do you ever grow tired of being so deliberately obtuse? Thomas Jefferson was also one of the primary authors of The Declaration of Independence which stated that "All men are created equal." Yet he kept slaves. Yet he NEVER freed Sally Hemmings. Not even upon his death. And why is that?
Because he and his contemporaries did not recognize the humanity of black people as being "equal" to that of white people.
The reason why the statement didn't say "All white men are created equal." is because this mentality was so ingrained that it would have been completely superfluous.
and none of that means he abused, raped, or sexually exploited his partner, Miss Hemmings, or that he ever abused anyone. But thanks for playing.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
and none of that means he abused, raped, or sexually exploited his partner, Miss Hemmings, or that he ever abused anyone. But thanks for playing.
Perhaps one day you might actually find a clue and realize that chattel slavery is abuse of the highest order in and of itself. And consequently, Sally Hemmings could not have been Jefferson's "partner" by any stretch of the imagination.
I have a clue, I don't accuse people of such things (like sexual abuse) without proof. You? That seems to be about the only thing you do, and that's what makes your opinion on this worthless.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
I don't believe so, not in today's Social Justice climate. Their problem is they don't understand history. They feel their allegations are reasonable, that it's like making them against a frat boy at a university, where until evidence is supplied, everyone will automatically assume that he's guilty, throw fruit, and call for their expulsion. Well, they're wrong, very wrong. **** them and their agenda, this is going too far, and they're overdue for a comeuppance.
I'm not speaking in terms of intent. I would agree the petition maker thinks their incendiary argument is reasonable. I'm talking about the practical effect.
Think of him like a terrorist. The goal, whether conscious or not, is to get you to shoot back, which will be used as evidence he was right all along.
Right now, you've got your guns blazing at everybody, even though not a single person in this thread sees Jefferson's behavior (however one wants to describe it) as grounds for removal of the statue.
Why is it important to you that TJ not be accused of this?
It's important that his statues not be taken down and his image tarnished, lately Americans have had a very bad habit of slinging allegations without proof, leading to hasty (stupid) decisions that will have severe repercussions. This is our ****ing history, it's important.
Originally Posted by subego
I'm not speaking in terms of intent. I would agree the petition maker thinks their incendiary argument is reasonable. I'm talking about the practical effect.
Think of him like a terrorist. The goal, whether conscious or not, is to get you to shoot back, which will be used as evidence he was right all along.
Right now, you've got your guns blazing at everybody, even though not a single person in this thread sees Jefferson's behavior (however one wants to describe it) as grounds for removal of the statue.
Why do people think that conversations like this are revolving around them? They weren't the ones who wrote (and hopefully didn't sign) the petition.
As for shooting back, it's time someone did, Social Justice dipshits have been running roughshod over other people's liberties up to this point, having no qualms about screwing society for everyone else, just so they can have some attention. This is the line in the sand, however, don't mess with this country's founders.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
It's important that his statues not be taken down and his image tarnished, lately Americans have had a very bad habit of slinging allegations without proof, leading to hasty (stupid) decisions that will have severe repercussions. This is our ****ing history, it's important.
People should not view their country's history through rose colored glasses either, and revere men as gods who cannot do wrong. Critically reviewing the lives of influential people in the history of a country is part of that.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
People should not view their country's history through rose colored glasses either, and revere men as gods who cannot do wrong. Critically reviewing the lives of influential people in the history of a country is part of that.
That would not support his bias spelled out pretty clearly in the thread title.
Why do we insist on demonizing somebody or something? It's the liberals, conservatives, muslims, christians, always some specific population that is a cancer to something. It can never be recognized that there are small, often non-representative populations within just about every group that have the ability to seem carcinogenic.
Not only this, but how far some people go with this is staggering. Look at BadKosh, for example, when was the last time he said something bad about his political sports team? He seems to earnestly believe that liberal ideologies are exactly what is to blame for the failures of American politics, and this seemingly hasn't wavered in years.
There is a lot that is going wrong simultaneously, the hyper focus on any single demographic loses sight of the forest for the trees.
But you're shooting at the people in the thread, none of whom want the statue taken down...
And people in this thread are getting shot at for the fairly reasonable assertion being a slave calls one's ability to consent into question.
Our views on slavery are probably quiet different than when it was a "normal" part of life. The lives of field/heavy labor slaves was harsh (I'm descended from Irish slaves on my father's side), I have first-hand accounts of how brutal and dehumanizing it was. Household and personal slaves? Not so much. In fact, life serving a caring, wealthy master (though uncommon) was in many ways better than being free, if you were uneducated and had limited prospects.
Freedom, while beautiful in the abstract, is a different thing when you can't find work, and there aren't social programs to clothe, feed, and house you. It wasn't the norm, but there are many accounts of personal slaves who would not leave their masters, even after emancipation, because in the grand scheme of things they had it pretty good and being with that master gave them a feeling of purpose. Comparing societies that are >2 centuries apart, while an interesting exercise, isn't realistic. You can't broadly compare life now to the way it was then, because we simply don't know how someone in Miss Heming's position felt, and without that, leveling inflammatory accusations towards Jefferson is insulting.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
People should not view their country's history through rose colored glasses either, and revere men as gods who cannot do wrong. Critically reviewing the lives of influential people in the history of a country is part of that.
I don't, I've already said he made mistakes, he was only human, but to allege that he was sexually abusive, without strong evidence, is absurd. In the USA we often tend to view our Founders as heroes, Jefferson was a personal hero of mine when I was a child (along with Ben Franklin). Both of them were flawed, but they were also brilliant and risked everything, including their own lives and the lives of their families, for what we have today. We, as Americans, owe them our respect.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
That would not support his bias spelled out pretty clearly in the thread title.
I mentioned earlier in the thread I consider the label "progressivism" to be poor. I likewise admit I don't have the best handle on the phenomenon in terms of describing it succinctly and with precision.
Here's an example of what's being talked about. It's material from the University of California for teachers on the subject of "microagressions".
While there are plenty of examples on the list of things you can say are a genuine problem, it also includes such things as saying "America is a melting pot", or "I believe the most qualified person should get the job".
According to this, the above statements "communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative messages to target persons based solely upon their marginalized group membership".
Isn't it a little worrisome a university system officially regards the above examples as hostile and derogatory?
Why do we insist on demonizing somebody or something? It's the liberals, conservatives, muslims, christians, always some specific population that is a cancer to something. It can never be recognized that there are small, often non-representative populations within just about every group that have the ability to seem carcinogenic.
Not only this, but how far some people go with this is staggering. Look at BadKosh, for example, when was the last time he said something bad about his political sports team? He seems to earnestly believe that liberal ideologies are exactly what is to blame for the failures of American politics, and this seemingly hasn't wavered in years.
There is a lot that is going wrong simultaneously, the hyper focus on any single demographic loses sight of the forest for the trees.
That works both ways, ya know? Want me to find the posts where you've demonized conservatives? You've spent quite a lot of time staring at individual trees, yourself (especially last election cycle). As usual, people are fine when someone is bashing an ideology they disagree with, but get incensed when it's one they espouse.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
That works both ways, ya know? Want me to find the posts where you've demonized conservatives? You've spent quite a lot of time staring at individual trees, yourself (especially last election cycle). As usual, people are fine when someone is bashing an ideology they disagree with, but get incensed when it's one they espouse.
After you laid an egg here:
life serving a caring, wealthy master (though uncommon) was in many ways better than being free, if you were uneducated and had limited prospects.
I don't think you're in a good position to be playing the high road on not having strong biases.
I don't think you're in a good position to be playing the high road on not having strong biases.
He's not exactly wrong.
I've argued slavery would be better in a lot of ways to what we do with illegal immigrants. At least they'd get health care. In fact, I'd say many are de facto slaves, to whom we add the insult of feeding, clothing, and housing themselves as part of their workload. As far as the "slave owners" are concerned, our current system is a bargain.
Note, this isn't a claim "slavery is awesome", it's an indictment of just how badly we treat people.
You need proof to assert that it wasn't, to remove images of Founding Fathers based on conjecture.
Negative. It's a petition for removal, which is a legal document. They can provide that proof or shove that document up their asses.
I am doing neither of these things.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
It isn't conjecture, they had children together. DNA testing shows that most likely he was the father of those children.
Key word: Most likely. That's the conjecture.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
The burden of proof is on those accusing Jefferson, those who wish to remove his statue and tarnish his good name. I don't know, they don't know, and since they don't know they can stop bitching and take their Social Justice hobby/project elsewhere.
You haven't been reading my posts again. I haven't brought up the statue.
Our views on slavery are probably quiet different than when it was a "normal" part of life. The lives of field/heavy labor slaves was harsh (I'm descended from Irish slaves on my father's side), I have first-hand accounts of how brutal and dehumanizing it was. Household and personal slaves? Not so much. In fact, life serving a caring, wealthy master (though uncommon) was in many ways better than being free, if you were uneducated and had limited prospects.
If anyone had any lingering doubts about CTP's worldview please note that he just went there with a variant of the romanticized, and long-discredited "Blacks were better off as slaves." argument. And given his disdain for "progressivism" and "Social Justice Warriors" (SJW) please forgive me if I think it's pretty likely that he would be quite comfortable with this crowd of like-minded fools ...
In any event, while this is a fictional portrayal it is most definitely rooted in real historical accounts. And since our Resident Forum Internet Expert has declared that house slaves had it so easy just take a look and decide for yourself ....
Ah. No we don't. It feels like oftentimes we're so busy patting ourselves on the back for how good we have it compared to everyone else, that we feel compelled deify men who acted in their own best interests.
We owe it to the Founding Fathers to respect what they achieved. We owe it to them to remember what they contributed to creating this country. And we owe it to history, accuracy, and objectivity, to also remember all those things we didn't like that they did. That they were just men, like you and I, capable of hypocrisy and misdeeds.
Not guaranteed, but I think many would wish to maintain their investment.
I think you may be thinking of slavery as an institution in America from a purely economic perspective. Considering that aspect alone then what you have said is perfectly rational. But we can't forget that there were decidedly irrational aspects to slavery. The disdain and utter contempt that results when one is raised from birth and culturally reinforced by society at large to consider and entire group of people as sub-human. Bear in mind these were the same people who completely convinced themselves that the slaves they kept ... and black people in general for that matter ... were "lazy and shiftless" while working from sunup to sundown in the oppressive heat of American South while they sat on the porch sipping on a mint julep. And it didn't necessarily matter if a particular slave was worked incessantly into an early grave because the slave master could always have his way with his female slaves of childbearing age and produce a steady supply of replacements.
WRT to rape, it's defined as "sex without consent".
Unlike some, I'm willing to say a broad definition like this is by nature going to define a continuum of behavior, some far, far worse than others, but what Jefferson did fits this definition.
The evidence would place Jefferson at the lesser end of the scale, but I'm not going to redefine the term because I consider Jefferson a hero.
Which I do, BTW. Honestly, I feel neither position should be a surprise coming from someone who holds the Bill of Rights in the esteem I do.
I laud him for being the architect, and lament these were things he felt Hemings didn't deserve.
WRT to rape, it's defined as "sex without consent".
Unlike some, I'm willing to say a broad definition like this is by nature going to define a continuum of behavior, some far, far worse than others
While you're technically correct, I think you have to acknowledge it's a loaded term. And I think that in a society where we're becoming concerned with affirmative consent, it would do injustice to future offenders (which will probably include large swaths of inebriated college student) to use such a term to label their transgressions.
It's reminiscent to me of a similar problem we have with classifying underage pictures of sexually mature teenagers "child pornography." Once again it does not portray the circumstance correctly.
While you're technically correct, I think you have to acknowledge it's a loaded term. And I think that in a society where we're becoming concerned with affirmative consent, it would do injustice to future offenders (which will probably include large swaths of inebriated college student) to use such a term to term their transgressions.
It's reminiscent to me of a similar problem we have with classifying underage pictures of sexually mature teenagers "child pornography." Once again it does not portray the circumstance correctly.
This is a fair statement, and I would in fact say the fact the term is loaded, yet covers such a broad continuum is being used to weaponize the term.
This puts me in a sticky position of not desiring to use the term itself, but making me unable to make a direct refutation to those who do.
This is why I used the (also loaded) term "terrorist" as a descriptor for the petition maker.
I don't think you're in a good position to be playing the high road on not having strong biases.
Egg? You mean after I hit the nail on the head? Why sugar-coat it, what would be the point? If you'll take a second to take in the entire statement, instead of cherry-picking what you believe is a "zinger" (or whatever you want to call it), it makes sense. Besides, isn't that the type of behavior you were just denouncing? Yikes.
I'm not claiming the "high road", I'm just saying you can't either.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
I didn't say you (specifically) should, it was a general "you". Sorry if you thought the you "yous" were directed at you.
Key word: Most likely. That's the conjecture.
99.9% likely, according to DNA tests, then further corroborated by statements from members of the family.
You haven't been reading my posts again. I haven't brought up the statue.
and I'm not just talking about the statue, but also his good name and reputation.
No, you just injected emotion into the situation.
Suit yourself.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
I've argued slavery would be better in a lot of ways to what we do with illegal immigrants. At least they'd get health care. In fact, I'd say many are de facto slaves, to whom we add the insult of feeding, clothing, and housing themselves as part of their workload. As far as the "slave owners" are concerned, our current system is a bargain.
Note, this isn't a claim "slavery is awesome", it's an indictment of just how badly we treat people.
There are much worse things than being the slave of a kindly master, like being broke, hungry, and homeless without a pot to piss in. We have wonderful visions and aspirations of freedom, that by theoretically being able to do what we want we can somehow achieve it without prospects, but sadly that isn't the case. That's why I don't bellow about doing away with welfare, food stamps, and other forms of temporary gov't assistance. As a compassionate society we need those services, not as a way of life, but as a stepping stone to eventually being able to support one's self. So even though slavery is, by and large, a reprehensible institution, that doesn't mean all slaves had terrible lives, it kind of goes with the age-old question, which predates Milton's Paradise Lost, "Is it better to rule in Hell than be a slave in Heaven?"
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Ah. No we don't. It feels like oftentimes we're so busy patting ourselves on the back for how good we have it compared to everyone else, that we feel compelled deify men who acted in their own best interests.
You're conflating things. You think I'm "deifying" him, I'm not. I'm saying we owe him respect, not worship. The founding fathers took huge risks, they could have lived out the rest of their lives as very wealthy, prosperous men under the Crown. What they did wasn't only in support of their own best interests, in fact, they KNEW they would be executed for treason if the rebellion had failed.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
The Naval War College placed a professor on administrative leave and demanded that he apologize because during a lecture that critically described Machiavelli's views about leadership he paraphrased Machiavelli's comments about raping the goddess Fortuna. In another example, the University of Denver suspended a tenured professor and found him guilty of sexual harassment for teaching about sexual topics in a graduate-level course in a course unit entitled Drugs and Sin in American Life From Masturbation and Prostitution to Alcohol and Drugs.
A sociology professor at Appalachian State University was suspended because she showed a documentary film that critically examined the adult film industry.
A sociology professor at the University of Colorado was forced to retire early because of a class in her course on deviance in which volunteer student assistants played roles in a scripted skit about prostitution.
A professor of English and Film Studies at San Bernardino Valley College was punished for requiring his class to write essays defining pornography. And yes, that was defining it, not defending it.
This summer, Louisiana State University fired a tenured professor of early childhood education who has received multiple teaching awards because she occasionally used vulgar language and humor about sex when she was teaching about sexuality and also to capture her student's attention.
And I could go on.
This is the former head of the ACLU talking. Is it okay for me to voice concern over this, or by doing so am I just demonizing innocents in order to support my conservative agenda?
There are much worse things than being the slave of a kindly master, like being broke, hungry, and homeless without a pot to piss in. We have wonderful visions and aspirations of freedom, that by theoretically being able to do what we want we can somehow achieve it without prospects, but sadly that isn't the case. That's why I don't bellow about doing away with welfare, food stamps, and other forms of temporary gov't assistance. As a compassionate society we need those services, not as a way of life, but as a stepping stone to eventually being able to support one's self. So even though slavery is, by and large, a reprehensible institution, that doesn't mean all slaves had terrible lives, it kind of goes with the age-old question, which predates Milton's Paradise Lost, "Is it better to rule in Hell than be a slave in Heaven?"
I don't disagree, but I'm not sure this an apples to apples comparison in the case of Hemings. As a former house slave to Jefferson, her prospects would have been above average. Said prospects including a decision to remainin in the Jefferson household as a freeman.
Top