What does a Missouri Car Dealer and precedented presidential visit to Africa have in common?
Time for a little CNN smackdown.
Don Lemon seems to want to perpetuate the worldwide Obama euphoria and media-generated image-making. However…
Watch CNN’s Lemon get his Obama tire deflated:
Transcript:
DON LEMON, ANCHOR CNN NEWSROOM: Nkepile, I was watching you yesterday on the “Situation Room” with Wolf Blitzer when President Obama was arriving, and they were doing the dancing, and all of the people who were running up to him. For a western leader, I know when presidents come over there, they are usually warmly received. But for a western leader, have you ever seen anything like this? Is this unprecedented?
NKEPILE MABUSE, CORRESPONDENT: It’s not unprecedented. When President Bush was here, you will remember, in February, there were people who were drumming, there were dances, and President Bush joined some of them. So, it’s not unprecedented. This is a truly African welcome that is given to anybody whether they are from Africa or anywhere else in the world, Don.
LEMON: So, they welcome everyone. It doesn’t matter. That’s just part of how the people do it, right?
MABUSE: Indeed, Don.
Here’s Wizbang:
As President Obama makes his way to Africa with some forceful policy goals Reuters is asking if Obama is Africa’s savior. Umm, no. That would be George W. Bush.
I posted on George Bush’s contribution to the continent of Africa.
Have gun, will travel….or is it the other way around? (Hat tip: Ed Rasimus)
Missouri car dealer offers free AK-47′s with the purchase of a new truck:
Mark Muller, owner of Max Motors in Butler, says he knows people will be bothered by the promotion.
But not to worry, Muller is not handing out free guns. Instead, he will give buyers a voucher to use at a gun store after they obtain a license to carry a concealed weapon.
The AK-47 is an upgrade on a previous promotion in which Muller gave away vouchers for the price of a Caltec pistol.
The retail value of an AK-47 is $450, but Muller says customers can spend their voucher on the gun of their choice.
Check out the major pwnage:
Yup. Bush43 spent a lot of money fighting AIDS in Africa, and they know it and appreciate it. Obama hasn’t done squat.
Hey Wordsmith, here’s a link to the President Bush White House archives that has a link on the right side of the page–a picture which says, ‘Africa Slideshow, Feb. 15-21, 2008′, to add to your collection of photos of Pres. Bush and his contributions in and to Africa. President Bush is narrating it. It’s a lengthy video, but it is very informative as well as some humorous parts! (Hope you haven’t already posted it and I missed it.)
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/africa/
Great vidio’s expecially the truck dealer! Buy A FORD, get a big bad gun!
Another Interview giving credit to Bush for his work in Africa
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,465124,00.html
Bill O’Reilly conducted an interview of Ted Turner/Dec 2008….here are the exchanges relevant to this excellent post. Ted Turner basically said we should have sent aid of all kinds to Africa/the world — interesting that Bill O’Reilly had to inform he of what Bush had accomplished. . with his ties to news media…Of Note: I viewed this interview, as it was aired, and the look on Turner’s face when he realized what O’Reilly had just revealed about Bush…was priceless.
The pertinent excerpt follows____________________________________
O’REILLY: All right. Is America a good country?
TURNER: Oh, it’s a great country.
O’REILLY: Are we exploitative overseas? Is the war on terrorism largely our fault?
TURNER: No, I wouldn’t say largely. But I think if we stopped bombing people and sent doctors and scientists and engineers around the world that we’d make a lot more progress, and we wouldn’t have near as much terrorism in the world as we do. I think bombing just makes people angry, and they want to bomb you back.
O’REILLY: Well, I think they bombed us first, but…
TURNER: Who did?
O’REILLY: You know, the terrorists on 9/11.
TURNER: They didn’t in Vietnam.
O’REILLY: They turned.
TURNER: In Vietnam, we bombed them first.
O’REILLY: All right. Look, you can argue the Vietnam War, and I think there are two legitimate sides, but I want to keep it current.
TURNER: All right.
O’REILLY: Because there is, you know, there’s one man who’s done more for the continent of Africa than any other man in the history of civilization. Do you know who that man is?
TURNER: Nelson Mandela?
O’REILLY: No. President Bush has saved more lives, sent more money, and provided more medical care for the citizens of all the countries of Africa than any human being that’s ever lived. Yet, you just said send the doctors, send this, send that and the world will like us better and there won’t be as much terrorism. We have done that. And not only in Africa, but around the world. The world does not look upon George Bush as a hero and neither do you.
TURNER: No, I think he made a lot of mistakes, too. But you can’t — but he did some good things, and I think basically he’s got a good heart.
@An American Voter: Thanks. I actually used a piece of that interview in a different post.
@SoCal Chris: Thanks. I’ve seen that and think it’s been linked before; but can’t remember where I’ve seen it.
awwwe, that guy looked really sad.
Notice how his body “spasmed” (and his eyes slightly widened for a split second) when the lady said “It’s not unprecidented”.
Kind of like that FOX series “Lie to me”.
Looks like the folks in Africa are NOT obsessed with skin color like CNN is in America. Must be something SPECIFIC to the American media. They’re so used to bringing up race when speaking to a black person in interviews, gives the impression they are either another species or robots programmed to see, hear, and say anything about race.
Good to see Africans see themselves as people and not a color.
Pingback: Will Work from Home
@Monique
So very, very true. I’ve met people of African heritage in other countries and never experienced he racial decisiveness and outright hostility I’ve gotten from those from our own country. I think that in today’s America, too much focus on race, (to your own or to others,) begets racial intolerance.
@Monique
Hmm – I wonder if there is anything US history might make them a little bit antsy?
Like what, Gaffa?
Oh I don’t know – howabout the Slave trade (and yes – no thanks to the Brits & those Africans who sold other Africans), Civil War, lack of voting rights, Dred Scott v. Sandford, Jim Crow laws, KKK, lynching, Montgomery Bus Boycott, Martin Luther King assassination, beating of Rodney King and the continued difference in opportunities today.
Whilst compensation is ridiculous – the history of blacks in the US over the last 300 years is bad – and no wonder they feel put upon. Blatant discrimination from the sixties is still in living memory and things aren’t exactly perfect today. That doesn’t excuse criminality or ‘positive’ discrimination (or whatever the PC crowd choose to dress it). However if white people were treated like they were -and in some case still are – then we would be pretty pissed. Although Africa was carved up by the Europeans – and a lot of post-colonial countries fell into wars & corruption – there isn’t the same large mix of white and black populations in a lot them (biggest flashpoint being South Africa – and their repugnant and now defunct Apartheid – again no thanks to the Brits).
And whilst there is racial tension in many countries – like the UK – the US has a bigger weight to carry in terms of it’s relatively recent history which does go back to the involuntary movement and slavery of human beings. Obviously things have got a lot better over the last 50 years. So race should be a sensitive issue. Dismiss it as white liberal guilt if you want – but they got plenty of reasons to gripe and comparing it to Africa is like comparing apples & oranges.
How about America not being uniquely guilty?
How about the institution of slavery being around in most every culture in the world long before the United States ever became a twinkle in the Founders’ eyes?
How about how what is remarkable, is not that America had slave-owners, but how quickly slavery was ended in the United States?
And yes, no thanks to the Islamic world of 1300 years of ceaseless slave-trading that went on openly for another 100 years after it was brought to an end in the West.
Uh….yes? Thanks for making my case: Our country had a war that resulted in the ending of slavery in the U.S., at the expense of 620,000 lives. Does it matter to you that the skin-color of many abolitionists was…white?
Today?
The “three-fifths” clause had nothing to say about the intrinsic worth of blacks.
The origins of the clause is over political representation between the northern and southern states:
Gaffa:
How can you lump Rodney King in there? Oh, yeah….probably bought into the media hype, like “Bush hates black people” over Hurricane Katrina.
Please let me know if you know of any Americans who celebrate MLK’s assassination, lynchings, etc. in 2009. I personally know of nada one.
Because they would have been far better off if their ancestors- about 3% of the transatlantic slaves (at least 94% went to Central and South America)– had stayed in the paradise that is today the continent of Africa. Ever read Keith Richburg’s “Out of America“?
Yeah, we just elected an uber-liberal president….not exactly perfect, today. And those who elected him to the highest office in the land did so either in spite of or because of the color of his skin. So tell your “America is a racist nation” notions to “go figure”.
My experience is that there are those- not all- but those carrying chips on their shoulders who perpetuate racism and see it where none exists. They look for it, and create the problem; fabricate it in their own heads.
America has racism, sure. But it is not uniquely racist.
Absolute BS. America and Britain deserve credit- not blame- for its role in bringing about the end of slavery, not just in their own countries, but around the world. THAT is what is the remarkable story. The anti-slavery movement began nowhere else except in the West.
No….the sentence should read “so race SHOULDN’T be a sensitive issue.”
The only thing that is really holding “the black man” down today is “the black man” and preoccupied obsessiveness over race. Morgan Freeman when asked, “How do we get beyond race?” [paraphrased], responded, “Stop talking about it.” And what that translates to, is “stop obsessing over it, if you want racism to go away.”
How many blacks in America, living today, actually had American slave ancestors?
You let me know when there is a mass migration out of America because the country is so race repressive.
Sorry for the short response, but I’m off to work.
I’ll have you know I skipped my shower for this comment….
Rodney King?? Are you serious? If I were elected to congress, the first law I would propose would read:
I believe it meets the criteria of the equal protections clause. Just saying.
Pingback: » Buy a truck, get an AK-47 NoisyRoom.net: Where liberty dwells, there is my country…
@Wordsmith
Who said anything about uniquely?
So that makes it okay then?
Well slaves had been used in colonial and when the US was formed for approx 200 years until the end of the Civil War. So that makes up over 50% of the time slavery was in existence in what is now the US. Seems the Declaration of Indepedence didn’t cover the freedoms and pursuit of happiness if you had a black face.
Absolutely
There would of been no such war if there had been no such oppression. And I’m not saying all whites are racist and we are all guilty for the sins of our fathers.
I was talking about various points along history. Although I suppose you can argue there is some voting irregulaties e.g. Maimi-Dade county in Florida in 2000.
So if I said you are three-fifths of a person as you are a white person but don’t worry it’s nothing to do with your ‘intrinsic’ worth – you wouldn’t find that a tad offensive and racist? lol c’mon. Clearly it’s indefensible.
A savage beating by the people who are supposed to uphold the law?
Not sure how that is relevant. I didn’t say anyone did celebrate such events.
Probably not. But if they are born and bred in the US then they should be treated equally as a US citizen. So doesn’t that mean you cannot complain today because you might be better than had your ancestors stayed in Europe or wherever they are from.
Bravo – after 42 white presidents you got there. The US as a country isn’t racist. However like a lot of countries it clearly has a racist history and continues to have issues today.
I agree. Those who do make matters worse – in the same way those who seem to claim there is no racism.
Again I’m not claim uniquely. Racism rears its ugly head everywhere – and it’s obviously not just white against black. It works the other way and between other ethic groups.
lol – that reminds me of the Family Guy episode where I think it’s Stewie who tells a black guy there is no need to thank him at Gettysburg because they had written a ‘pretty big cheque for them.’
And yet you seem to be talking about it too…
It would be interesting to see the stats if any exist – but I would imagine most – as people intermingle. What’s your point? Do you doubt that many do???
So does that mean any conservatives in the US today either have to shut up or emmigrate from their country if they don’t like the way things are run?
lol – that was your call. btw – thanks for the civil exchange.
1. No one who is living in America today was a slave, slaver or slave owner in the US during or prior to the Civil War.
2. The history of “racist treatment” includes all races as having been victims and perpetrators. If you want to point fingers at the descendants of racists, you’ll pretty much have to include everyone.
3. The fact that some people of a particular race have acted racist towards you doesn’t mean they all have or will. Or have you never heard of the concept of “innocent until proven guilty?” Never assume that people of a particular race will be racist towards you, for if you do, then you are being racist.
4. No one should be saddled with guilt for things they did not do. The sins of those who came before us were theirs alone. We who live today have neither responsibility nor guilt to bear for things we had nothing to do with.
5. Everyone has reasons to gripe about today. Targeting perfect strangers as recipients for your rage because of what race they are, is racist.
6. I did not compare African’s with anyone.
@ditto
And which countries were you refering to?
@ GaffUK
You usually have some pretty decent posts. I found this one to be holier than thou. I mean seriously, England has been brutalizing people for centuries, way before Columbus or Vespucci even dreamed of sailing our way. And I can say “our way,” cause I have ancestors that were here before they made their way across the pond.
Let’s face it, the Irish and the Scots hate the English. I personally don’t understand it, you guys have always been so nice to them. As for slavery, I wonder who did all the rowing of the warships back in the day. Probably gung-ho enlisted troops that were well paid and well fed. The Norse took slaves from everywhere. At least those they didn’t kill. Germans, same. Even the very model group for all liberals here in the U.S., my own people, the American Indians took slaves from defeated tribes. And, it has been pointed out, right in on FA, the U.S. also had Irish slaves, courtesy of our very good friends…the Brits. Does any of this make slavery right? Nope. It is what it is. You can’t change history. I think the U.S. has done an incredible job with the diverse population we have. I also think our contributions to the world have far exceeded any perceived damage we have done. Even today, we could seal our borders and be 100% independent from the rest of the world. It would hurt for a while, but we could do it. Hell, just stopping financial aid to other countries might pay off most of our debt.
Two more points. Word explained the three fifths rule perfectly and you completely missed the point. Maybe you should Google it yourself
Second, Rodney King made a conscious decision to run from the police. As I said in an earlier post, I believe it should be your right to run from the police, but if they catch you, they have the right to whoop your ass. If Rodney had pulled over when the lights came on, he would have gotten a ticket, or maybe been hand-cuffed and taken to the station. But none of that was his fault, he was scared of the po-po, cause the po-po is bad. Whatever.
@Wordsmith:
I seem to recall that the whole idea of freeing ones’ slaves originated/took off here in the US.
Am I correct in my memory of that chapter of history?
@ Aye
Romans. Many Romans freed their slaves after a certain amount of time in service for their loyalty. Also, it seems the Romans allowed slaves to save money to purchase their own freedom.
@ GaffaUK
I see you edited your last reply. How long did it take for you to realize what “of African descent” meant?
What difference does it make? Aside from my travels in the military, I live in a city of very high world tourism and business travelers. I said, I’ve met of people of African descent from many different countries. I didn’t bother to note down every country in a list, but if I did it would include: the British Isles, Europe, South America, Jamaica, Central America, etc.. The point is was that they were all open and friendly on first meeting me and in long conversations We had. Not a single one treated me with the unwarranted hostility I’ve received from some of those of African heritage of the US.
You don’t live in the US, so you may not understand the open hostile behavior that I refer to having experienced. I can’t explain it as anything else than racist. Nor would I have done anything to initiate such a reaction, as I have never been that type of person. The best way to describe my personality would be “an old Hippie.” (Yes, I know I’m opening myself up for attacks by saying that.) However, I would add that I am politically an Anti-federalist. If you don’t understand what that means, try reading “The Anti Federalist Papers” (NOTE: Thomas Jefferson was one.)
http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/D/1776-1800/federalist/antixx.htm
http://www.archive.org/details/antifederalist_0707_librivox
http://www.amazon.com/Anti-Federalist-Papers-Constitutional-Convention-Debates/dp/0451625250
http://www.iahushua.com/hist/AntiFED.html
@Aqua
Thanks – yeah quality can vary;)
Although I’m English – I’m not saying England is better than US in this regard. I even included Britain twice when refering to slave trade & the situation of Apartheid in South Africa. The UK has had plenty of race flare ups – although I would say because of history and that UK has less ethnic percentage that race relations aren’t so tense – not because the Brits (generally) are somehow less racist than the US.
Ha ha nice sarcasm. You forgot the Welsh. The history of the UK is interesting in the waves of invasions and immigrations. The celtic fringe & history has been over romaticised – particularly by Hollywood e.g. Braveheart (great film/appalling diversion from history). The celts – (who it has been said by one historian who looked into the genes were from Northern Spain not central Europe) were not the first people to the British Isles. Ireland as well as Scotland and England were attacked and settled by Vikings and Normans (although the Romans had earlier had failed to get much headway beyond England & Wales).
The Scots originally came from Ireland. And later the plantations in Ireland were from Protestant Scots not so much the English. Scotland was more than happy to make alliances with the French and would regularly attack England and vice versa. When England & Scotland were united by mutual agreement in 1707 it was ruled by a Scottish king, James I. And it notable that is the British Empire and not the English Empire – as plenty of Scots, Welsh & Irish contributed to that. So whereas the English did throw their weight around and dominate these other countries and there are periods (e.g. Potato Famine etc) that the English should carry blame (in the case of the Potato Famine for making this worst) – the situation is more complex and not one-sided where the ‘celtic’ nations are always the victims.
Again – I haven’t claimed that slavery either started with or only happened in the US. However few places is it so clear where descendants from an ethnic group are clearly derived from slaves who were transported thousands of miles and once freed continued to face discrimination until relatively recently.
Yes I think it has in the last 40 years. Before that there were major changes but not without significant struggle.
What contributions are you refering to? Whether you give aid to Africa etc doesn’t help those within your own country.
Being self-sufficent is good to a point – but in history China & Japan closed their borders and they went into stagnation and fell behind. Not a smart move. Besides a lot of the US was built on immigration.
This was his reply to my mention of Dred Scott v. Sanford. Have a look at that at let me know whether that “decision by the United States Supreme Court that ruled that people of African descent imported into the United States and held as slaves, or their descendants—whether or not they were slaves—were not protected by the Constitution and could never be citizens of the United States” isn’t blatantly racist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford. Not sure why he connected the 3/5 rule to Dred Scott.
Yeah I don’t think giving cops a blank cheque to ‘whoop ass’ is a smart move. They should use reasonable force to apprehend anyone they wish to take in for questioning. He got tasered (twice) – good – as he was resisting arrest. But once he was down -striking him ‘with their batons, stomped on him and kicked him while he was on the ground for almost a minute and a half.’ goes over into police brutality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodney_King. That doesn’t excuse the LA riots btw (where Asian shops were attacked – more rascism!)
Gaffa #22:
Do you think America is all about racial division in the current clime? I’d say America as a whole is extremely tolerant and diverse.
This reminds me of my cousins in Japan fearing to visit Los Angeles because they’ve heard all the news sensationalist headlines about drive-by shootings.
Please don’t believe the hype. There is more racial harmony in the Colonies today than there is divisiveness. And the ones who are mostly race agitators are the ones who see America in terms of race- the Al Sharptons, Jesse Jacksons, NAACP, Reverend Wrights, etc.
Gaffa #15
It’s rather assumed, given that people for the most part only speak about American slavery, ignoring that slavery existed for thousands of years all over the damn globe.
Of course not! But have you ever in your life talked about slave history of other countries? It isn’t an “everybody did it so it’s ok” dodge to simply point out that America participation in the history of slavery is not unique and is less than the contributions to it by others in its 10,000 year history. Why should America harbor a special burden of guilt, while all others are guilt-free regarding their respective nation’s past crimes? Is there any other nation that so obsesses over their country’s crimes of the past more than the U.S.? And gets bludgeoned over the head with it by foreigners, to boot?
Did you know Thomas Jefferson’s original draft of the Declaration of Independence specifically condemned slavery? Calling African slavery “cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life & liberty” and also wrote that “a market where men should be bought and sold” was “piratical warfare.”
Did the colonial U.S. have attitudes toward blacks that were any different than that of mainstream attitudes throughout the world? Certainly racist attitudes developed over the course of time; but I don’t think in the beginning, the enslavement of blacks had to do with racial prejudice as much as it had to do with economic opportunity. In the early days, black slaves brought to America in the 1600′s weren’t treated much differently than indentured white servants, and most eventually worked their way to buying their freedom. White indentured servants and black slaves toiled side by side in tobacco fields in Virginia; and Irish imiigrants were hired by some to do work considered too dangerous for expensive slaves to do. So did the plantation owners hold racist attitudes because they owned black slaves and hired Irish workers to do dangerous work? Or were they driven by simple economic interests?
Yet your attitude suggests a singling out of America as the only nation guilty of slavery and of doing so out of racism. At the time, was America the only nation who had slave-owners? What did other nations do on behalf of ending slavery? It was Britain and the U.S. who brought an end to the slave trade and the institution of slavery itself, beginning in the 19th century. No where else on planet earth was there an anti-slavery movement that developed. Slavery was a norm in the ancient world.
Keep in mind too, that not all of America owned slaves or approved of the institution, pre-Civil War. America’s prosperity was not built upon slaves. Those states who did partake of the institution did not fare as well, economically, as those states who were not slave-based economies. Pennsylvania passed emancipation in 1780; Connecticut and Rhode Island in 1784; New York in 1799.
Good grief. There was no voter disenfranchisement based on race:
lol c’mon…clearly you’re not making the mistake of applying 21st century standards to the 19th century without also trying to understand the constraints of the times? This is like criticizing Lincoln for not freeing all of the slaves all at once or criticizing the Emancipation Proclamation for not going far enough.
Do you not understand why some who were profoundly against slavery were also against abolitionists? If you cannot understand these things then it’s no wonder why my Dredd Scott point flew right over your head.
Was it racially motivated? You lumped it in there to buttress your point, but now you’re shifting goal posts.
The point is, you’re dredging up every racial transgression that comes to mind to point out how blacks are justified in holding a chip on their shoulder to this day; nevermind that half of them occurred 150 years ago, and the decades since the ’60′s has seen lots of changes- yet somehow, America’s still racist, America’s still holding the black man down, etc. Bullshit. It’s stereotypical liberal race-baiting bs that perpetuates discord rather than promotes racial harmony. It makes a lot of people angry- black and white- who haven’t lived the lives they read about, regarding oppression, prejudice, disenfranchisement, etc. Some of that still occurs, but it’s greatly magnified and amplified into distorted proportions by those on your side of the political spectrum.
Today, how are they not treated equally and wholly as U.S. citizens? This isn’t America of a generation ago.
That’s such a canard. In the 18th and 19th century, was the population makeup of equal proportion between whites, blacks, asians, etc.? That’s like accusing Japan of not having elected a caucasian Japanese to be prime minister or Britain of not yet having a citizen with Hindu ancestry as British prime minister. Maybe I should accuse the NBA of racism for having a disproportionate number of black athletes over asians?
Population of blacks in the U.S. today is still about 13-14% of the population. Yet people think that if 9 out of 10 of your office employees are white with one black, somehow you’re discriminating against blacks, and the one you have is a token?
You know what racism is? It’s racism if I begin choosing blacks to fulfill government positions not on the merits of their ability but because of the color of their skin to fulfill a bogus racial quota. It’s racism if because you perceive an imbalance of 42 white presidents, the next 42 presidents should consist of nothing but non-whites.
I’m sorry to be insulting, but what a stupid asinine point you made. Gee, 43 presidents have been all men. 43 presidents as far as we know were all heterosexual. Any other points I missed covering here?
America was founded by those primarily from European countries, such as Great Britain. It is only natural that in these early years of our founding and subsequent years after, we didn’t have Chinese mayors, Muslim doctors, black presidents, Indian governor, Japanese senators, etc. Social evolution takes time.
Today, it’s ridiculous to accuse the U.S. of not giving equal opportunity to any of its citizens based upon race. People of all ethnic backgrounds occupy positions in all aspects of society.
Kind of another “well duh”….
The issues are driven and kept alive primarily by those who seek it out. If you’re looking for racism, you will probably find it, even when it’s a fabrication of your own mind. I’ve seen this happen firsthand, time and time again.
Great. Liberal humor gets you laughs. Bravo. Makes me laugh, too. I hope that behind that snarky comment, this one didn’t fly over your head as well.
Fact is, some of us have ancestors who number among the 364,000 dead, on the side of the Union. I think Chris, one of the authors here, mentioned in one thread that he had an ancestor involved in smuggling escaped slaves to safety.
Nor were all the States involved in promoting slavery, or had slave-based economies.
Once again: America and Britain deserve unique credit for bringing about the end of slavery as an open institution after 10,000 years of it.
Had you lived in the 1800′s, can you be smugly secure in the knowledge that your moral compass would recognize slavery as an evil institution when it was an accepted part of life for so many cultures for so many generations?
Gaffa:
Uh…..big duh, maybe? Given I’m doing you the courtesy of a response to your earlier comment? Should I talk about the weather instead? Or the deodorant I used in place of a missed morning shower after my morning run?
The point is, your comment #10 @ monique:
Those blacks who are calling for their 30 acres and a mule, claiming the source of their current situation in life is due to events that happened 150-200 years ago are only holding themselves down in mental and emotional chains.
And as far as stats on the number of blacks who are descended from slaves, I think they do exist, as I’ve heard/read them cited. Most blacks in this country, like Colin Powell and Barack Obama, have no ties to African slave ancestors in America.
Is it just my inability to communicate, or are my points just flying right by you?
Jesus frakkin’ Christ…..
Eff you, you bloody Brit…..
@Ditto
About 5 secs. Besides my original reply was to Monique who was doing such a comparison;)
Because different countries have different history, ethnic mix and race relations.
I think when traveling, depending on what areas you go, you are more likely to meet more open people. Put it this way when I went to New York I didn’t make my way to any deprived areas of the Bronx. You don’t get to spend as long with those you meet – compared to work colleagues etc. And travellers who come to your city, are probably more affluent than the ones that can’t afford to go. For the most part when I met and talked to black people in the States they were as friendly as black Brits. And yet there are parts of the States – like parts of Washington DC & Memphis where I felt I was in the ‘wrong’ area because of my colour – white. And there have been a few people I have known in the UK who over time have on occasion been surly or seemingly over-sensitive of being black. So I think it really depends on situations, individuals and perceptions.
Yes you’re right – I haven’t lived in the US for any length of time (the longest I was about 3 months in Maryland). And I don’t doubt you don’t initiate such reactions. I think in some individuals who treat certain races as acting all within a narrow set of behaviours is unfortunate – whether they are black suspicious of all white people or white people assuming black people all have a chip on their shoulder.
Reposting as unable to edit last post to sort out blockquote
@Wordsmith
No – like any country the US is about lots of things but clearly race is a sensitive issue and there are reasons for this – some which may be reasonable and some which aren’t.
Yes compared to a lot of other places. However America was a promise of a new world and the US is a young country set up on ideals. Of course no country can live up fully to promises and ideals but nethertheless in the issue of race I don’t think one side is entirely to blame.
Yep and Americans too frightened to travel to UK when IRA bombs used to go off. My Gran used to think all the bad things used to come of US – violence, Hollywood etc but I have always loved the American dream, the country and its people – even though I might tweak it’s nose on here. Glad to visit it first when I was 20. It’s a diverse place – full of contradictions (which is good).
I don’t doubt but of course as humans we don’t focus on the positive we focus on what’s left to do and the areas of tension that remain whilst still nursing old wounds.
Well I’m glad Al Sharpton isn’t President – although haven’t seen him pop up on TV for decades until Michael Jackson checked out the other week.
Don’t worry I’m not assuming that.
Yes – I’m quite fond of Roman history. But are there any racial groups in Italy today that stand out as being descended from slaves and who have been discriminated against in living memory?
Yes – Germany
Whilst I got a lot of admiration particularly for Jefferson – he may have condemned slavery but of course he was a slave owner. He was the 18th Century Al Gore – saying one thing and doing another. Typical politician;)
I don’t buy that. Comparing ‘voluntary’ Irish immigrants to Blacks captured and sold into slavery is quite silly. Did the ‘hired’ Irish workers come across ships where they were bound and packed into ships where they could hardly move? Of course it was motivated by money but the enslavement and exploitation of slaves is where economic interests and racism went hand in hand. The white race (generally) felt they were better than those ignorant black people in Africa.
In 1807 the British Parliament outlawed slavery everywhere in the Empire. In contrast it took almost 60 years and a bloody civil war for the US to abolish slavery through it’s own country. But yes after it’s own shameful exploitation Britain followed later by the US were the the first to lead the move to abolish slavery in modern times. However I am not singling out US – I am only suggesting why some black people in the US might have a less than rosy view of white people in regards to their people’s experience from 1670s to 1960s. Whereas the slavery from ancient times – is partly by it’s very nature – so much longer ago – that those fault-lines are more likely to have blown over.
Absolutely. Again that probably didn’t reassure those who were picking cotton in the South.
Well as I said – it can be argued…
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20010205/palast
http://dir.salon.com/story/politics/feature/2000/12/04/voter_file/index.html
And Checkpoint settled out of court with NAACP over voting rights
http://web.archive.org/web/20060108155841/http://www.choicepoint.net/85256B350053E646/0/16440966B650DEA685256BEB00461242?Open
And what were these contraints? Reminds me of those who excuse Muslim countries today as they are behind and somehow we should accept the way they treat people (e.g. women) in their country until they have had their enlightment which could happen sometime in the next 500 years but meanwhile those oppressed have to put up with it. In regards to slaves – these were issues that those of the 18th and 19th Century were clearly trying to deal with – and thanks to a minority of men and women who were brave enough to stand up to such tyranny – otherwise no doubt we would still have slavery in the US and many other parts of the world today.
Yeah what was that Dred Scott thinking of? Didn’t he know it was complicated and sueing for his freedom in 1857 onwards was a ridiculous notion. He should of kept his mouth shut rather than try to rattle the cage.
I think it was. I don’t believe the cops as a whole are racist but no doubt there are bad apples who let the side down. I think we have to imagine if we were black – how we we feel living in certain areas if we got regularly stopped and searched. I’m not against racial profiling – but I also think policing has to be sensitive to racial issues – something the police try to learn after the riots in the UK in the early 80s.
I’m not so much trying to justify it – as saying these may be the reasons and there may be a degree to which it is understandable – however wrong the reaction is expressed (whether it’s a chip on the shoulder, rioting, affirmative action etc). I think there are people who try to magnify such issues BUT also there are some who try to either ignore, sweep over or even justify the injustices which have happened.
I’m sure things are a lot better – but as whether they are treated equally and wholly as US citizens – you’ll have to ask a black person that.
lol – do you know how many Caucasians make up the population of Japan in percentage terms? It’s about 0.1% so your example is actually very poor. African Americans make up 12.8%. Whilst American white males make up about 37% of the US populations or 97.7% of US Presidents. I’m not against white males – particularly as I’m one myself but if I wasn’t I don’t think I would be so understanding over ‘oh – that’s just the ways thing are’.
I agree that’s stupid. Remember because I may have a degree of appreciation/empathy over racial discrimination over the last 300 years that somehow I therefore represent all those bs Politically Correct thoughts as expressed today.
I disagree totally with affirmative action. I think it’s patronising and counter productive. For example in the UK – the Labour Party changed the laws to allow all-women shortlists when they put up candidates in certain areas. Which is stupid and unfair. But that doesn’t mean that women in the past or current haven’t been discriminated against. I just don’t agree with that shortcut hypocritical solution.
Hardly stupid. You seem to indicate that it’s fine and dandy and that’s how it all worked out. Clearly there were glass ceilings which prevented non-white, non-males from achieving the highest office in the land. Hopefully most, if not all, of these have gone. And yes this includes other countries as well.
In 1790 – about 19.4% were ethically from Africa – so again you contrast one-fifth of the population – a significant slice – with other ethnic groups whose numbers were negligible.
Legally yes – but there are still issues of equality in terms of wealth, education and so forth. And remember this all started over perceptions. My original point being if you was black you might have reason (justified or not) to be peeved towards whites in regards to the not so recent past.
Well it seems like with the uniquely hang up – you needed this pointed out.
Yes I agree but also if you don’t believe it happens, particualarly if you are not part of an ethnic minority and haven’t experienced it – then these issues will seem to be invisible.
Good for you – I think we covered the point about abolitionists. My point with Family Guy – is that when someone/some nation/some race enslaves, exploits & abuses you – that they shouldn’t somehow expect you to be happy and thankful to them when that person/nation/race finally stops doing what they shouldn’t of done in the first place.
Sure – that was a titantic struggle. But my point remains – it shouldn’t of come to that. The Founding Fathers had great ideals but on that issue they swept it under the carpet only for it to burst back again many decades later – after thousands more people had to go through slavery.
Point covered
Impossible to say – but there were those who did recognise that it was evil institution.
Well not from Dixie.
lol – that was a tongue-in-cheek retort to your wish that race discussion should go away.
Compensation – another thing I don’t agree with. I am to get compensation from the Italians (Romans), Germans (Saxons), Swedes (Vikings) & French (Normans) for all the distress they caused my ancestors? However look at what Australia did last year – it said sorry to the aboriginals. No compensation – which is good but at least indicating that the modern history of Australia (again Brits fault) was at the expense of another race. I believe the US senate did an apology.
lol 2 examples. How can you claim that most blacks have no ties to African slave ancestors in America? Where do you get this certainty? Was there mass immigration after the civil war of black people who then never procreated with any of the blacks already living in the US??
It’s a fair point I raised. What didn’t you get? As I say I guess things must be really good and contented in the US as I don’t see huge swathes of conservatives emigrating. I took your point and turned it around.
Don’t bring him into it! This is a vipers nest already without religion too;)
Yeah funny how the villians – these days are usually Brits as portrayed in movies…is that because we’re the only ones left that the PC crowd don’t cry foul over?;)
I suppose if Brazil was the hyperpower, it’d be under more public scrutiny in how it came about to be. Given how many more African slaves were imported there, I wonder why one never hears stories about disenfranchised blacks calling for reparations in Brazil? Does such a movement exist, with some level of public support?
I disagree, with reference to my link to Thomas Sowell’s point regarding judging the past through the lens of 21st century morality.
The first part of your argument seems to miss my point. I’m not equating the situation of Irish immigrants (voluntary labor) to that of slaves (involuntary labor) other than to demonstrate that their “employment” in some cases was more about economic interests than racial bigotry.
Your last sentence has some truth in it. But was it the prevalent attitude of most people? And if so, isn’t it simply the attitudes of most cultures around the globe? Each culture thinking of themselves as superior to outsiders/barbarians? The enslavement of blacks as a whole was done by African blacks. Historian Nathan Huggins writes: “virtually all of the enslavement of Africans was carried out by other Africans.” Africans just happen to be a different skin color than white Europeans….but were they driven to buying African slaves because of a sense of racial superiority (keeping in mind that many cultures considered themselves superior to all others, regardless of skin complexion) or because of opportunity? African tribes didn’t have national armies and navies to exact retribution and rescue their captured kinsmen, unlike other people in the 16th-19th century.
The slave trade was ended in 1807 by the British parliament, followed by the United States one year after, abolishing the import of slaves. It wasn’t until 1833 that Britain freed all its slaves throughout the Empire.
Not only did the British Empire have nothing to gain financially from the abolition of slavery, but they did so at enormous cost and risk. Not only did they end slavery in Britain, but they pressured foreign governments to also ban slavery; and they (and the U.S.) used their naval power to police trade routes and capture slave ships to free those on board. They did this not out of selfish financial interests, but simply because they came to see that this was the right thing to do.
Where is the credit due? What is remarkable about the U.S. and Britain, isn’t that they ever engaged in the institution of slavery, but that they were countries who spearheaded a change in the attitude of the world in not recognizing slavery as a profound evil.
I think one of the keys to healing is to “let go of the past”. Not forget about it- certainly not! We learn from the past. But if people don’t move on, then they keep old hatreds and grudges alive to fester and boil over; and to be used as scapegoat for one’s present state, fostering victimhood.
No one alive today was ever a slave. So when you say “some black people in the US might have a less than rosy view of white people” for things that stretches back to “1670s”…..that’s a stretch for me. 1960s? Sure. But those who lived in the ’60s surely can see the enormous progress that’s been gained in even the last 50 years. Today we have a president who is for all intents and purposes, “black”. In all walks of life, from doctors, lawyers, lawmakers, government officials, entertainment, celebrities, sports stars, etc., we have blacks who are “not being held down by the white man”. And the progress wasn’t made by blacks, only. It was achieved by a white majority who didn’t subscribe to racist attitudes. They rejected racism and bigotry. And the road is a process. Change takes time and doesn’t happen overnight. And it would happen a lot faster if not for those who carry chips on their shoulders, seeing racism everywhere and in everything that happens.
You didn’t click on my link to “read more”? Pity:
Another example:
Lincoln worked actively behind the scenes and on many fronts to end slavery.
Glad you support Bush’s liberation of 50 million people on the quick and now, rather than through the slow grind process of human rights movements and peace activists. Now progress has been expedited to take a couple of generations rather than “the next 500 years” to achieve greater freedoms, progress on human rights, and women’s rights.
A difference here, is that we are judging today’s Muslim countries by our own 21st century standards and not applying them to the situational norms of 200 years ago. Had you been Gaffa of 18th century upbringing, you might not know any better regarding the positions you hold from 21st century upbringing in relation to slavery and other moral issues.
Yup. But how are you so sure it was “minority opinion”? Also, depends on what era you refer to, as that minority, over the years, obviously grew into a sizable, influential majority. These changes were happening even in the 16th century, and I believe have their roots in those who practiced the Christian faith.
Well, once again, Thomas Sowell (I sense a pattern, here):
Really, what makes you assume what happened to Rodney King, would not have happened to him had he been white? Unless there’s evidence of racial motive, all it is, is dangerous assumption that perpetuates and inflames racial division.
I’m very sensitive to it. And it happens. But from my personal experience, it’s also such that each perspective works off of one another, creating the situation where none had existed.
During my final year of college, I was an in-store detective. Sometimes, you wanted to blend in to catch people. Other times, you want to be known out in the open as “security” for the sake of deterrence and to discourage shoplifting; basically, protect the potential criminal from giving in to his own nature.
I was one of those who actually did my job and actively scrutinized every customer who would walk into the store. I profiled, and by process of elimination, I would figure out who to prioritize and keep track of, and who was “ok”. Most of how I profiled came down to behavior. And unfortunately, because blacks have been unfairly followed around in stores, some black customers would display some of the basic behavioral characteristics you looked for in shoplifters, such as shifty eyes and paying attention to you and store personnel instead of the merchandise. So then I had to determine whether the behavior was due to hypersensitivity on their part as an honest customer wondering if you were going to stereotype him and follow him around (as a stereotypical store employee), or if it was due to a desire to steal. It was a real art, figuring it out.
Unfortunately, I had a couple of incidents where customers who happened to be black, walked out in the belief that I was targeting them because of skin color, rather than behavior. One time, I was able to clear things up with one of the customers. He actually accepted my explanation, which was good. But another customer came away from the experience finding his preconceived notions of black stereotyping by the store to have validity because he happened to catch my attention within the moment he stepped into the store (where there were only about 3 other customers in the store that I had already given initial screening to). He probably went on to tell his buddies how he got followed around/watched in a store and racism is alive and well in Westwood, CA; and they’d tell their friends, and so on, and so on…..after all, why should his friends not believe him?
And so, some of those who seek out racist attitudes will find their belief system given confirmation, even if it’s a fabrication of their own imaginings.
I think most officers are very much well aware of it. Curt could probably speak on this point from a more informed firsthand perspective. In this day and age of camera phones and digital cameras, I think officers are hyper aware of making any “mistakes” and transgresses.
Point noted and accepted.
Ask two different black persons, do you think I might not get two different answers?
I’m sorry, but I will not ask an Al Sharpton that question and expect to get back an unbiased, accurate opinion that is representative. You have entertainers who have never personally experienced racial injustice and disenfranchisement who will say America is holding down the black man; or will overexaggerate the case because it’s the attitude that’s been spoonfed to them. It’s kind of hip, dont’cha know, to cite racial inequality and injustice and “fight the good fight”.
Lol, back, as that’s my point exactly when you pull out this “the U.S. had 42 white presidents” line. Are you still holding your breath waiting for the first Asian-American president? I’m not. And I won’t cry “racism” because in 200 plus years, we still haven’t elected one to the highest office, especially given how few Asians there were in the early decades of our history.
Nice point. The number I have is 18% (694,000 of 3,894,000) of which, incidentally, not all were slaves. In 1660, Virginia’s number was 3.5% and increased tenfold by 1715, while the population itself tripled in that time. Still, given that the culture of the time was a Euro-centric one, I think it’s ridiculous to call to task that America’s only had one non-white president in over 200 years, when there were no viable ethnic candidates for much of that time.
And I think, more than anything else, what’s perpetuated wealth and education inequality are affirmative action, welfare, and other liberal “feel good” policies that made things worse, not better.
It’s not “the white man” and “white society” that’s preventing blacks from rising atop the economic ladder. There are more blacks in the middle class today than ever before. Over 40% compared to 5% in 1940.
Which, I think, skirted the serious point I was making, earlier. I’ll plagiarize this point again:
And also offer as suggested reading, Keith Richburg’s “Out of America“.
I believe you are still applying the fallacy of 21st century morals to that of 18th century widely-held beliefs. Slavery was the norm. What a weird statement to say “they swept it under the carpet” in regards to their ideals.
Yes, William Wilberforce, Edmund Burke, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Robert Carter III, Benjamin Franklin, Benjamin Rush, John Jay, William Livingston, Richard Bassett, James Madison, James Monroe, Bushrod Washington, Charles Carroll, William Few, John Marshall, Richard Stockton, Zephaniah Swift, Rufus King, John Adams, John Dickinson, Richard Henry Lee, Luther Martin, James Wilson. Influential voices who helped shape new attitudes and change the world.
*baddum-bump*
Not “race discussion”. The obsession over race that keeps us from moving beyond it. We will never get beyond “the color of the skin to judge by the content of character” so long as we are always dwelling on skin color. Get it?
*Groan*…much of the language in these resolutions are self-serving sanctimonious grandstanding that perpetuates some misconceptions.
Engaging in a War Between the States wasn’t an apology? Pennsylvania and Massachusetts abolishing slavery in 1780? Connecticut and Rhode Island in 1784? New Hampshire in 1792 wasn’t an “apology”? Vermont in 1793? New York in 1799? and New Jersey in 1804? Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa all prohibited slavery due to the Northwest Ordinance authored by Rufus King (signer of the Constitution) and signed into law by President George Washington which prohibited slavery in those territories. 50 years of recent civil rights progress isn’t an “apology”?
Ok, you’re right to lol. Of course, a number of people, including those who may only have 1/16th African blood, can claim African slave ancestors in their genealogy.
Let’s look at it this way:
According to the 2005 Census Bureau, the population of foreign-born blacks was 2,815,000. That’s 5 times the number of slaves who were brought to the States against their will. If America is as racist as some make her out to be, it’s a bit odd that so many non-whites wish to immigrate here.
You have me in a labyrinth. Care to feed me the ball of string? I seriously don’t know what your point is.
Nothing quite like debating America’s supposed “separation of church and state” and getting owned by a Brit on American history….
It’s the accent.
Incidentally, I heard that we here in the Colonies speak the Queen’s English closer in accent to how it was spoken in Victorian England than you Brits. That you evolved more liberally with the language, and we kept it the same as far as accent. Know anything about that?
I don’t see it as very arguable. But then, I’m partisan. You?
Thernstrom/Redenbaugh’s dissent in the highly partisan U.S. Civil Rights Commission report:
More than 6,500 ineligible Florida felons btw, did vote in 2000.
wordsmith, comment # 26 wins in length alone.
Oh… how did they vote? Are they exit polling felons to see who got the felon vote?
Not sure.
@blast:
Anyone can go down to the election office and view voter lists, the list tells you what election every voter has voted in and how they registered, but obviously, not how they voted. If the newspapers, other campaigns, or a curious citizen cross checked the felon list with the voter list they could determine if and when felons voted.
Every campaign has multiple copies of the voter lists for their district, I spent plenty of time using them when I was campaign coordinator for my congressman. It includes name, address, ph number, how often they vote and as mentioned what party they declared and in what elections they cast ballots.
@ WordSmith
Brazil like any country no doubt has race issues – but also in Brazil there are a lot more mixing of the races and white people are actually in the minority (49.7%). But yes no doubt also that if Brazil was a hyperpower (particularly a democratic one) if would get more attention on such issues – but that kind of goes with the role doesn’t it?
I don’t think you can keep running to this to stiffle debate on how we view historical events. I’m not saying that in 18th and 19th century that the US (or anyone else) should have had an Equal Opportunities law for all. But that slavery was a notable sore and was debated in those times. We can use Jefferson’s own words and compare them to his own actions – and there is a big discrepancy for all to see.
No not primarily but as I say economic ‘opportunity’ goes hand in hand with racial superiority. Because they enslaved people for economic reasons because these people couldn’t fight back isn’t a good excuse. However there was a lot of justification for slavery at the time based on discredited racial theory. So you simply can’t take out the race element out of the slave trade.
Absolutely the poachers turned gamekeepers. But in teaching such history both the beginning, middle and end of the slave trade needs to be told. And where we all can be thankful for those brave people who stood up and brought an end to slave trade – it nethertheless is a stain on both our histories.
Kind of like the situation between the Jews & the Arabs, Protestant and Catholic Irish etc. Religion particularly poisons people against each other. In regards to the Black/White race relations and history – I think people on both side needs to be more flexible & understanding. Whilst there are some who keep it alive – there are others who seem to be in denial and completely unsympathetic and unreasonable to what has happened in the past and today.
I’m not doubting that it couldn’t of been done by the oppressed blacks on their own. Not sure whether it was a majority of whites or not – but certainly a significant number because often change isn’t popular but it takes real leadership – as shown by Lincoln – to do the right thing and not always the popular thing. Then later the majority comes round – leaving a small nub of life-long racists.
Clearly Washington was ahead of his time and didn’t like the whole notion of slavery and tried to a degree to rid himself of it. But even so the picture isn’t so simple.
Note…
“At the age of eleven, he inherited ten slaves;by the time of his death there were 316 slaves at Mount Vernon, ”
“The major reason Washington did not emancipate his slaves after the 1782 law and prior to his death was because of the financial costs involved.”
“Also, Washington did not want to risk splitting the new nation apart over the slavery issue. “He did not speak out publicly against slavery”, argues historian Dorothy Twohig, “because he did not wish to risk splitting apart the young republic over what was already a sensitive and divisive issue”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_and_slavery
Washington could of freed his slaves – or at least given them the opportunity to go if they wished – and paid those who remain and hired help. Imagine what an example that would of set as the first President. But again a person’s pocket comes first over such principles.
I’ll continue the other points later;)
Really? I think there are parts of the U.S. that are absolutely integrated racially, with a diversity pool found nowhere else in the world. I suppose it depends on where you go.
Yes, it’s a tough burden being the greatest country on God’s green earth, and have to act humble about it.
“Stiffle debate”?! I’m trying to win this one! And sorry Charlie, but no one lays it out more clearly and logically than Thomas Sowell, so I will keep “running to him” until you’re bleeding through your nose in Thomas Sowell thinking.
What baffles me is that you still don’t seem to get it. Or maybe you do, and simply disagree. I just think it is plain logic to point out that it is sanctimonious hindsight preaching to the past, drawing assumptive criticism without understanding the context of the times and the constraints. You have the benefit of seeing through the lens of today. But if you had lived in the times of our ancestors, your “smug moral superiority” might not be so clear-cut and obvious. You might have even been on the “wrong side” of the issue (I wouldn’t be surprised, since I find you on the wrong side of so many issues today
).
It’s arguments like the above that makes me believe that you’re still “not getting it”. That you’re missing the important point and not seeing what is being laid out for you.
Your argument below is another example that you’re failing to understand Sowell, and not simply disagreeing with him and with me:
I seriously don’t understand how Twohig’s point trumps my point regarding any of the Founders who were anti-slavery. Did you honestly read, study, and digest what I cited from Sowell? Especially since part of your citation is already in my own quotation:
You’re essentially accusing Jefferson and Washington of hypocrisy, because they supposedly “said one thing, and did another”; or weren’t “pure enough” nor went far enough in their denouncement of slavery. You still don’t seem to get how one could be anti-slavery, yet oppose the abolitionists.
Excuse me while I “run” to more Sowell:
Repeat:
On Washington:
@GaffaUK
No it wasn’t. Nice try GaffaUK. Reply #17 above was directed specifically to me. From reply that FA’ emailed out before your edit on #17, you’d clearly read “of African descent” mean “African” which is not the same thing.
I meant: “what difference is it to you?” As I said, I did not specifically compare African Natives I’d met with various US individuals of African descent that I have encountered in my life (nor would I state what I said as true for all those I’d met of US birth). Although I could have, had I wished to be specific, as the African natives I have met also did tend to support my original observation.
I was not just referring to people of African descent I’d met “traveling” but also those whom I have interacted with on a daily basis.
On that I agree. While SOME generalities MAY (possibly) be made, based on an observations a particular group, it is unwise to judge all similar such individuals with the absolutism that such stereotypical analysis creates. This would be a better world if all peoples put aside racial (and other) bigotries and judged individuals on their own merit or fallibility, regardless of stereotypes.
Pingback: Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » ObamaGates
@WordSmith
Washington 1786
So I was thinking…you’re saying that Washington couldn’t release their slaves because it was complicated and a plan needed to be put in place. Washington died in 1799 and in his will he freed his slaves.
So besides his death – what was so very different for slaves in 1799 when Washington felt he could free them which stopped him doing so in 13 years earlier?
Gaffa,
The answer to your question has already been made. If you “don’t get it”, you “don’t get it”. Not sure what more there is to say.
Guess I’ll “run” to more Sowell
:
@WordSmith
Nah – that doesn’t answer my specific question at all. Actually I don’t think you are getting it.
In this particular case I’m not talking about a ringing condemnation from Washington and where he outlaws all slavery overnight. Nor am I talking about Lincoln. In this case – I am asking why Washington was unable PERSONALLY to put his money where his mouth was and set an example – by following through in actions by what he believed – i.e. setting his slaves free. 1786 and 1799 was Washington’s time – at least the first date is from the quote you used and is often used where he condemn slavery and the last date is his date.
Put it this way – whether you believe in AGW or not – people are not going to suddenly slam on the brakes and cut their consumption by 50%. It is going to take time to make the case and slowly reduce consumption and move over to fuels which don’t contribute to the greenhouse effect as much as burning fossil fuels. If everyone did a sudden lurch it would badly hurt the an already damaged economy anyway. So I understand that these things take time (although a 89 years from 1776 to 1865 is an unacceptably long time). However I think people reasonably expect Al Gore would set a better example PERSONALLY than he does – that is today and probably in 223 years time. How’s he going to persuade the majority when his carbon footprint is bigger than the average person?
So I ask the simple question again…
Washington was unwilling or unable to free his slaves in 1786 but on his death he did. Beyond the fact that he died – what changed?
I don’t know….Sowell doesn’t say.
Actually, I think clues there are covered in what’s been cited already (absent a direct interview question posed to Washington on why on his deathbed and not prior):
His feelings and thoughts on what to do, an evolving process?
For Jefferson, I believe he was financially strapped; but I don’t think that was the case with Washington. I think, so long as he was alive, he could look after those in his care; once he was gone, he had no such guarantee.
And again, it all goes back to judging men in a previous age without having lived in the context and constraints of their times. They don’t have the luxury to look outside of that context like you and I. In centuries later 20/20 hindsight, would they have acted more boldly with sweeping action and grandiose rhetoric to satisfy the Gaffas of the world?
Why don’t send a letter to Gore and ask him to set the personal example because a future Gaffa 200 years from now will criticize him for hypocrisy.
Only problem with that, of course, is that 200 years from now, we’ll know for certain that the extent of man-made gw was ever utter bs.
So future Gaffas will be criticizing why we at FA didn’t do more to personally make the case against man-made climate change and prevent cap ‘n trade.
@ GaffaUK
It may sound cruel and socially insensitive, but most of the people that kept slaves, even while trying to abolish slavery did it because of competition. Washington had a farm and sold his goods, I believe mainly tobacco. If he had freed his slaves and hired people to help him farm, he’d have gone bankrupt. That’s my take anyway.
@Wordsmith:
@Aqua:
Washington’s will actually specified that any/all slaves be freed upon Martha’s death if she survived him.
The other thing to remember about that particular period of time is that farm labor (hired labor) was extremely rare and difficult to come by.
Washington was tormented by his inner beliefs and the realities of the time in which he lived. His writings are filled with his thoughts and feelings on the matter.
He was inarguably a kind and considerate slave owner, and, for the benefit of his slaves, opted to keep his slaves rather than sell them off.
True (and it’s noted in my citation of Sowell), but Martha also freed the rest of the slaves during her lifetime:
Also:
It is a shame that much of this is lost in our school systems today; and what is taught to children in regards to our Founding Fathers is a reduction to “They owned slaves”. It leads teachers like Marguerite Talley-Hughes, a kindergarten teacher at Jefferson Elementary School in Berkeley, to be offended by the name of the school. Over 4 years ago, there was a push by teachers and parents to have the name changed from “Jefferson” to “Sequoia”. One parent said,
Fortunately, after much heated debate, the school board voted 3-2 to keep the Jefferson name intact, going against the wishes of the Jefferson Elementary School community, which did vote to change the name to “Sequoia”. Ironically,
Among other names that were considered:
Among those names listed, does anyone think that any person so honored is morally pure and absent of flaw and defect?
Another school in the district, Columbus Elementary School, was renamed Rosa Parks Elementary School (with intense debates that almost had it renamed “Cesar Chavez”). James Garfield Middle School was changed in 1968 to Martin Luther King Jr. Middle School. had renamed “Abraham Lincoln Elementary” to “Malcolm X Elementary” in the 70′s.
@Wordsmith
I don’t agree with the school names changes as Washington and Jefferson were fine men and good effective Presidents. However as I think I have shown – their own rhetoric (and indeed the words of the Declaration of Independence) doesn’t match up to their own personal actions – where money and their own comforts come before principles and the freedoms of others. Of course they are politicians – so no change there.
@GaffaUK:
Recalling how Jefferson’s first draft specifically denounced slavery…
And as I think
ISowell has shown, what you refuse to factor in, is the fact that these men lived in different times. That you apply anachronistic 21st century moral sight to what was a reality for much of the previous 10,000 years of human civilization…until the 1800′s, beginning with Britain and the U.S. If you had lived in their time period, I seriously doubt you would have known any better than they. Slavery was the norm. Thinking “outside the box” and imagining a world absent of slavery was a revolutionary idea, and was a process of thinking that evolved. Can you not fathom why some who were strongly anti-slavery were also opposed to the abolitionists? Can you not understand howSomeone like you, in your arguments, essentially would praise a Garrison, while lamenting why Lincoln didn’t do more, right away.
These men lived in different times and it is wrong to dismiss them as hypocrites for not doing more to back up rhetoric with action. It’s sanctimonious bs.
@Wordsmith
Again you continuely on two things…
1.
But I’m using their OWN words written in the 18th CENTURY or later. Muddy all the waters you like with interpretation, context, 21st century thinking etc but that doesn’t stop the fact that they believed that slavery was wrong.I guess you choose not to comment on anything before your birth as that would be naturally wrong as things were different generation or do ago. I would quite understand your point – IF they had slaves AND never saw anything morally wrong with owing them. But that isn’t the case.
2.
And we dealt with this point. I’m not saying they should have immediately released their slaves as soon as they had their first a moral qualm about keeping them without any regard to their welfare. BUT they never released all their slaves during their lifetime. Washington’s slaves were only all released on his death and Jefferson’s were sold on after his death. You say that releasing slaves was revolutionary – and yes – but of course Washington & Jefferson were revolutionary men.
And continually refering to 10,000 years of slavery is bogus because things speed up when such ideas come to the fore. If that’s the case maybe we’ve all been a bit hasty over the last 200 years and maybe we should have gradually over the next 10,000 years and slowly at a glacial pace – have released people from the misery (sorry – I forget that my 21st cnetury view again – of course slaves were very content & happy at being slaves) of slavery.
When the American colony broke away – it did so by revolution. And despite counter efforts and concerns by some – it was better it did it that way – rather than slowly loosen it ties away from Britain bit by bit over centuries. Again – it is not a binary choice as to whether Washington and Jefferson either had to have slaves or they had to be immediate abolitionists. They could have found ways over a matter of years to reduce their slaves until they had none. And again they didn’t do this because they were primarily concerned about their slaves welfare. Aqua hit it on the head – it was primarily in their own personal interests to keep slaves. I don’t see the problem in admiring people in history for their achievements whilst acknowledging any flaws.
@Wordsmith
I think you’re wasting your time with GaffaUK, as he is being purposely argumentative. (giving him the benefit of the doubt.) Else he is too dense to understand HOW societies and individuals within them thought differently about many things, in relation to the conventional wisdom of today.
It looks like all of us Americans should just give up, know we’re a terrible racist country whose forefathers hated Blacks and unlike ANY other country, treated them badly, and get on with it.
But, then, you can’t count on ME for moral clarity, I think it’s a sin to teach young children the ‘flaws’ of their country until they’re old enough to understand CONTEXT. Heck, I teach preschoolers the story about Geo Washington cutting down the cherry tree: I figure that using a story that helps children remember an important moral tenet is okay even if it’s not true. So, you can’t count on me. My four year olds are so happy that Jackie Robinson became such a great ball player! They know he was Black and they loved hearing about Lincoln and how his actions led to Robinson’s opportunities. Even if Lincoln didn’t fight the war to free the slaves, I figure I grew up loving America with those illusions in MY heart and mind and it didn’t hurt me…….let them learn to love America before people who can’t wait to tear her down get on with it……Hopefully, those teachers will at least wait till Middle School? (Aye Chihuahua is right: Read any honest book on slavery: there were times the slaves had to loan cash to their land owners, regularly…they were friends, but the context forced them to retain the slave/owner relationship…many were friends. But, if TEN were nasty to their slaves…….that’s what our teachers will teach and foreigners will capitalize on)
Great exchange, folks……..
@GaffaUK:
Again…sanctimonious bs and a refusal to put yourself in the restrictions and mindset of a previous age.
And what they wanted and what they were capable of doing were not necessarily the same thing. Your interpretation is what muddies the waters of history by applying 21st century standards to the past without placing yourself in their shoes and the world they navigated in.
I guess you forget wordsmith comment #26:
Our perspective and judgment of the past holds weight; has validity; but one should also make an honest attempt to understand the thinking of those in previous generations when leveling criticism. Try putting yourself in “their shoes” to see why they might have thought one way, yet were constrained in complete action.
Look at how there are those who wish to ban books like Mark Twain’s The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn because some of the language, attitudes, and characterization may appear to be racist to our 21st sensibilities and PC-induced sensitivities.
I don’t think you do understand my point at all because of your inability to see why the hypocrisy charge doesn’t stick; you still “no sell” an acknowledgment of
1. Legal constraints
Such as
2. That Freeing slaves in a hostile world might be more cruel than humane- a reason why some opposed absolute immediate abolition as a viable solution. keep in mind that blacks like Frederick Douglass refused to be shipped to Liberia. Others felt safer to be in the care of their slave “masters”:
Sowell refresher:
Part of the reason for the population increase was not in purchases but in marriages and offspring.
This held true for the broader reason for the population increase in the U.S., when it was Brazil and the other Americas that accounted for the majority (around 94%) of transatlantic slaves, where reproduction between slaves was more restrictive.
Also cut-and-typed from pg 151, Black Rednecks and White Liberals by Thomas Sowell:
3. Their ability to look outside their own world experience at the possibility of a world free of slavery was a gradual process of thinking. The Washington of 20 years before his death is a different man than the one of 20 years into his life.
As for Jefferson, I think he was hamstrung by his financial needs and just couldn’t follow through with his noble sentiments.
But in all, these are complicated men, as we all are, in a different era. One where the vision of abolishing slavery was initiated on their watch. Movements to ban slavery didn’t exist until men like them began seriously thinking about it in the 17-19th century; and that, thanks in no small part to the American Revolution and drafting of the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution, forcing men of good conscience to confront concepts of freedom and equality for all.
I’ll have to look it up again, but I believe by Washington’s death, half the slaves he had ever owned had already been released. About 150, with 150 remaining when he died.
I still think your passing moral judgment (“condemnation” of sorts) over these men is misplaced/misdiagnosed given the circumstances of the times they lived in, which you seem to regard as rather insignificant.
That window into your mentality really tells me you “don’t get the argument”. All I feel like doing is rolling my eyes and give up typing out anything further, to clarify the point. (Maybe ditto’s correct?).
Ok, maybe you do “get it”, and we just have an honest disagreement. Which would be fine.
Washington did free slaves during his lifetime; and 150 (the rest) freed by Martha before her own passing.
I do see personal interest involved, as well as genuine compassion and attempts to figure a way out of the dilemma of living in a world that has ever known slavery.
@Wordsmith
lol well I’m not pious (or even remotely religious) and as I don’t own slaves myself – I’m not a hyprocrite on such issues – so hardly sanctimonious. Also with the bs – what I have said that is factually incorrect? I’m happy to debate but I think we are both above such baseless remarks.
To believe that Washington and Jefferson were actually incapable of freeing their slaves beggars belief. You have given the proposition that they didn’t do this due to their concern for their slaves whereas I suspect it is more likely this was due to their own personal finances. Unfortunately they didn’t put their money where their mouths were.
I’m not sure what banning Mark Twain has got to do with it. I certainly don’t support such things.
Let’s look at other Founding Fathers – John Dickinson, William Livingston & George Wythe who managed in their lifetimes to free all their slaves. So the minority of Americans who owned slaves clearly weren’t incapable of such an act. As for 18th century laws passed in the south – I don’t see how this prevented Washington from releasing all his slaves in the 17th century. It was people like Dickinson, Livingston & Wythe who set a better example by their personal actions than either Washington or Jefferson.
As for this – a rather silly comparison when one of them happens to be the President of the United States and has the power to push somthing like that through whilst the other isn’t. I guess that makes any criticism of Obama where people believe he hasn’t gone far enough -null and void unless any of his critics on here can show material proof that that have had a bigger impact? And of course how do you measure the impact of someone like Garrison – who dedicated his life in freeing slaves? I’m sure he added a tremendous amount to persuade people that slavery was wrong.
All too often those against change, complain about how difficult or complicated, or whine you don’t understand when sometimes underneath they lack the will (or even the belief) to enact such change. A lot of people just prefer the status quo and to conserve things as they are – no matter how injust it may be to others.
Never read up much on the southern slavery history, eh Gaff? So you doubt any plantation owners of that era’s ability to have compassion for humanity? Would it be more humane to “free” them, sans education, into a society that would never hire them and allow them to starve and fend for themselves against the elements? It’s not post 1960s we’re talking about here….
No, no….that’s bulls**t. You might be above it, but I’m not.
(See? I told you, you were sanctimonious.
)
If I’ve raised the temperature, I apologize. It’s due to my own loss of patience and exasperation at traveling in circles, here. I get a bit moody from smashing my head repeatedly on the desk (hardwood) after reading comments going nowhere.
Personal finances and other selfish reasons are fair. Your last sentence is the attitude I take issue with. It goes back to the lack of empathizing with putting yourself in their shoes and walking 30 acres. Constraints of the time…an evolving mindset in how men of their times began thinking of slavery as an issue….
Frankly, I’m not at all surprised, given how I’ve been arguing that you’ve been failing to see my point. If you figure it out, maybe all of the Sowell citation will begin to click and fall into place for you. Hint: How we regard the past….how people thought of things at the time…language and attitudes….always racist? Words we’re sensitive to now, today, as offensive…why weren’t they back then?
You left out Robert Carter III, who freed 500 slaves.
Let’s not forget that a number of the Founders, such as John Adams, didn’t even own a single slave; let’s not forget that the majority of Americans, in fact, didn’t own slaves. 80% of Southerners were not slaveholders.
Again, Washington as president was under political constraints, holding a nation together that had not yet evolved to the point of emancipation of slaves. Yet the country, in only a short space of time, moved in that direction. It didn’t take 10,000 years; yet for you, things apparently did not move quick enough.
John Dickinson- Quakers were among those who spearheaded the anti-slavery movement, and Dickinson was one. So it’s not surprising he came to a point of freeing his slaves. That’s to his credit. Financially, it wasn’t that big of a sacrifice. But that should not diminish the praise.
William Livingston- Yes, he should be applauded. By why set him up as more “holier” than Washington and Jefferson? He expressed anti-slavery sentiments as early as 1776, yet didn’t free his TWO slaves until 1787. So where’s your equal-opportunity criticism at Livingston for not having freed his slaves in 1776?
George Wythe- A mentor to Jefferson, who greatly admired him for his character. An abolitionist. So not surprising he’d free his own slaves. But again, not everyone who was anti-slavery became part of the abolitionist movement for reasons already expressed. Wythe pushed for blacks to be included in Virginia’s Declaration of Rights, but failed, just as Jefferson had tried to include anti-slavery statements in the first draft of the Declaration of Independence.
Garrison, because of the very fact that he isn’t president, can pontificate all he wanted to without suffering the consequences of his high-ringing rhetoric. Go back and read my passages regarding Lincoln, the Emancipation Proclamation, and working behind the scenes to achieve the ends, using “non-Garrison” means. Lincoln was president. Not emperor.
British Dude…
-13th Amendment abolished slavery just 89 years after the birth of the Republic
-Slave importation was ended in 1808, just 32 years after independence
-Decades before we even had a war between the states, slavery was outlawed in most of them.
After 10,000 years as an instutition globally….I’d say that’s a pretty short space of time to achieve “radical change” and America has more to be proud of than to be ashamed by.
Yet apparently not good enough for Gaffa…
@MataHarley:
For Gaffa:
Yet Jefferson’s a hypocrite, ’cause he owned slaves.
Simplistic sanctimony….
@Wordsmith
Using Robert Carter III only further proves my point that releasing slaves was possible. And as for Jefferson’s concern over the welfare of slaves if they were released – here’s quote from him which probably goes closer to the bone…
Small slaveholders around this time (and before) had freed thousands of slaves.
The freeing was still a gradual process, and to Carter’s credit. But it took him another decade to act upon his “conscience”, even though the House of Delegates in Viriginia passed the Act to Authorize the Manumission of Slaves in 1782.
Carter did not have the responsibilities of president and I still say you’re judging the leaders of this country too harshly. He did not face Washington nor Lincoln’s challenges (I am in the middle of Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation by Professor Allen C. Guelzo). Both the abolitionists and the anti-slavery proponents (who opposed the abolitionist movement) deserve credit for moving this nation in the direction of emancipation and the realization of our country’s ideals for all. It was an evolutionary process. States with significant slave populations eventually followed, figuring out ways to finance emancipation on a large, public scale. Sorry if we did not move fast enough for you.
Yes, and……? How does this make Jefferson a hypocrite when he had legitimate concerns regarding whether simply freeing slaves would not just as well amount to “abandonment”? The concerns Jefferson had were real concerns.
How did Carter’s 450-485 freed slaves fare?
Not all slaves fared as badly; however, the concerns men like Washington and Jefferson had were real concerns in how to proceed responsibly in bringing about an end to an institution that had strong inroads in human cultures throughout the world.
I say they dealt with complexities you are trying to ignore, in criticizing them for not supposedly “following through their rhetoric with action”.
I say they dealt with complexities you are trying to ignore, in criticizing them for not supposedly “following through their rhetoric with action”.
No wonder you’re called “Wordsmith” ..well said………..you could take ALL that all of you have said here in this thread and that’s exactly the right summation, Sparky.
@Wordsmith
The quote I used from Jefferson isn’t to do with the concern over the slaves but concern for themselves as the enslavers if they released their slaves. No doubt in terms of not just financial but also fear of retribution.
“but none chose to return to slavery.”
See there’s the real heart of the issue. Whatever concerns those enslavers have for their slaves welfare, genuine or not, it is truimphed by the slaves own will for freedom. No one should enslave another human being. You can talk about 40,000 years of history of slavery if you like but that was not a constant situation where slavery was happening throughout year on year, to that degree and at every part of the globe. In England – although there was a limited amount of slavery in Roman, Viking & Saxon times etc – it had pretty much died out within the country by the 17th century for many centuries. But by all means compare the US to the Empire Rome or the Arabs – if that’s the appropriate standards you think 18th Century US can only achieve. However Romans and Arabs didn’t declared the following…
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
It would have been more honest if Jefferson had inserted white between all and men. So in the same way that Michelle Malkin can hold up Obama for his admin’s corruption judging him by his own standards – it is fair game to judge the founding fathers by their own standards. This doesn’t take any credit away from them in regards to their progressive steps BUT neither should we pretend there isn’t a significant gap between their rhetoric and actions.
The litmus test for a slave’s welfare is simply to ask them whether they want to stay or go. It’s for them to choose. Now of course that doesn’t mean a mass release of all slaves overnight – so it could happen gradually over a decade or so. The thing is to put your feet in their shoes – if you were enslaved – would you like the opportunity to leave – even if it could mean even more hardship – or would you want to be patronised by those who believe it is in your best interest to stay put? Americans are rightly independent – wanting to live free or die. It is shame those sentiments weren’t given over to those with black faces at the time.
Consider the below…
“During the War of 1812, British Royal Navy commanders of the blockading fleet, based at the Bermuda dockyard, were given instructions to encourage the defection of American slaves by offering freedom, as they did during the Revolutionary War. Thousands of black slaves went over to the Crown with their families, and were recruited into the (3rd Colonial Battalion) Royal Marines on occupied Tangier Island, in the Chesapeake. A further company of colonial marines was raised at the Bermuda dockyard, where many freed slaves, men women and children, had been given refuge and employment. It was kept as a defensive force in case of an attack.
These former slaves fought for Britain throughout the Atlantic campaign, including the attack on Washington D.C.and the Louisiana Campaign, and most were later re-enlisted into British West India regiments, or settled in Trinidad in August, 1816, where seven hundred of these ex-marines were granted land (they reportedly organised themselves in villages along the lines of military companies). Many other freed American slaves were recruited directly into existing West Indian regiments, or newly created British Army units. A few thousand freed slaves were later settled at Nova Scotia by the British.
Slaveholders primarily in the South experienced considerable “loss of property” as tens of thousands of slaves escaped to British lines or ships for freedom, despite the difficulties. The planters’ complacency about slave “contentment” was shocked by seeing slaves would risk so much to be free.[63] Afterward, when some freed slaves had been settled at Bermuda, slaveholders such as Major Pierce Butler of South Carolina tried to persuade them to return to the United States, to no avail.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States#cite_note-62
Clearly given a choice – slaves were willing to risk everything for freedom. Again the US was built on freedom – it shouldn’t of taken over 80 years after the Declaration of Independence to get to the point where slavery was stopped. That time period wasn’t primarily due to the concerns of the enslavers for their slaves – but because the unwillingness by many to stop the misery and exploitation of slavery.
WORDSMITH,,this is a post that has to be preserve thank you bye