Fixing Inequality Without Hate

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

Interesting.

I view slavery as a legacy of the Brits. We were never given a choice.

At the time if the constitution, our choice was a country with the south allowing slavery, or no United States as we now know it. . Ending slavery in the South had to happen by agreement or war, Agreement was never achievable, it took a war. If we had built a country that excluded the slave states, all of history would be different. Washington, Jefferson, and Madison were Virginians. They made enormous contributions to our history and that would have been lost.

The whole concept of “we” is also interesting. We did end slavery in much of the USA and prohibited it in new territories.

In sum, the history of slavery and our founding is complicated and fraught with what-if’s. All this talk about original sin and 1619 oversimplifies the issue and as far as I am concerned serves only simple minds.

Edit: John Marshall was also a Virginian.

I assume there are dissertations on file ”explaining” how Jefferson could own slaves, write the Declaration of Independence, AND ban slavery in the “territories.”

I’m trying not judge 1770 people through 2020 lenses, but sheesh.

Maybe the only thing that explains it is they believed in white supremacy - even to the extent they also believed their African-descended slaves could all turn into to Frederick Douglass if given a regular education by Whitey wearing wigs!

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I assume there are dissertations on file ”explaining” how Jefferson could own slaves, write the Declaration of Independence, AND ban slavery in the “territories.”

I’m trying not judge 1770 people through 2020 lenses, but sheesh.

Maybe the only thing that explains it is they believed in white supremacy - even to the extent they also believed their African-descended slaves could all turn into to Frederick Douglass if given a regular education by Whitey wearing wigs!

There are obviously supremacy feelings at work in all these discussions. Some of it is more malevolent than others, but it is always present. It’s based on education, class, occupation and race.

Jefferson was an elitist, and I think he felt supreme to many people for many different reasons. Illiterates in his time were commonplace, not just among the Blacks. His views about slavery cannot be fully explained by the fact of “ownership” as many are want to do. I don’t think historians agree about how strongly Jefferson supported literacy for slaves. There is evidence that he did. He did think literacy was important for freed slaves.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

Interesting.

I view slavery as a legacy of the Brits. We were never given a choice.

At the time if the constitution, our choice was a country with the south allowing slavery, or no United States as we now know it. . Ending slavery in the South had to happen by agreement or war, Agreement was never achievable, it took a war. If we had built a country that excluded the slave states, all of history would be different. Washington, Jefferson, and Madison were Virginians. They made enormous contributions to our history and that would have been lost.

The whole concept of “we” is also interesting. We did end slavery in much of the USA and prohibited it in new territories.

In sum, the history of slavery and our founding is complicated and fraught with what-if’s. All this talk about original sin and 1619 oversimplifies the issue and as far as I am concerned serves only simple minds.

Edit: John Marshall was also a Virginian.

I'd caution you to stop using the word "we" to describe people who lived in this general geographical area over 200 years ago. I sometimes do it, too, but am trying to stop. They have little in common with us. (I am even increasingly skeptical of using that pronoun about a nation of 300+ million people, etc. It all comes back to pronouns!!!! )

I think that's where a lot of this confusion--on both sides--comes from, and a lot of the indirect importation of morality, responsibility, and pride (in the sense that people today are reticent to point out the complexities of people of the past).

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I'd caution you to stop using the word "we" to describe people who lived in this general geographical area over 200 years ago. I sometimes do it, too, but am trying to stop. They have little in common with us. (I am even increasingly skeptical of using that pronoun about a nation of 300+ million people, etc. It all comes back to pronouns!!!! )

I think that's where a lot of this confusion--on both sides--comes from, and a lot of the indirect importation of morality, responsibility, and pride (in the sense that people today are reticent to point out the complexities of people of the past).

Agreed. ”We” means many different groups.

There is a lot of confusion, but I think much of it is deliberate and used for political power and influence. But one thing I don’t believe is confusing is the concept of 1619, and our founding being draped in original sin are huge oversimplifications and used only for present day political leverage.