Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Do you fault the Native Americans for stealing it from whomever was here before them?
Get real. We've been on this continent for thousands of years. Your comment is juvenile at best.
It sounds like you're trying to justify some of the dark history for the way this country was built and obtained. I find it more honorable and respectful to admit there've been many mistakes and autrocities in the building of America, but we are where we are in 2010 and we need to at a minimum respect other Americans' viewpoints. It'd be real nice to try and grasp why, what for, and how they came to rest with that viewpoint.
I still don't relate to the founding fathers in the manner that some people carry on about them, but try to understand why people hold them in high esteem.
In the end, we're still Americans that live in the present.
How is it presumptious when the idea of a slave free nation was discussed at great length by the colonies and they were unable to meet agreement? Do we just dismiss historical facts?
You dodged the child labor question when I asked you about lightbulbs and jewelry. So you don't mind buying products resulting from slavery? Just because you aren't the one doing the enslaving? Please. How do you keep a straight face when pointing a finger?
IMO it's a bit presumptious to say what would be the effect on history with the change of one thing - so I am loathe to take anyone serious who asserts that they know the United States wouldn't have formed if slavery was abolished.
Again - I think it's presumptious to imply that if the FF had dug their heels in on slavery that there would be no United States. It's not the "debate" that I'm contesting - I'm contesting that the assertion that avoiding slavery was impossible.
Phooey AND Ba Hum Bug to that.
Within the debate at some juncture, the point was conceded (that there would be slavery). Do we know what would have happened if the point hadn't been conceded? Do we know if they could have worked out a differing compromise? No. So we can't say or imply that slavery was unavoidable in the formation of a United States... we don't know that. We just know that the point WAS conceded.
Secondly your question wasn't dodged it was irrelevant. I thought I demonstrated that but apparently not. The principle in my argument was the hypocrisy in being anadvocate for freedom for oneself, while being an advocate for oppression for someone else.
For your question to even approach relevance, we have to engage in a "death by association" approach that conflates my purchase of an item manufactured under a particular regime, as my endorsement of their political platform. By this nebulus standard I also support torturous regime in the Middle East because I fail to avoid using any and all petroleum based products. It is a ridiculous standard.
But if it's the one you choose... I don't wear jewelry, but if I did, I'd happily pay more for it, if it ensured that there was no slave labor involved. Now again I ask: where is the duality? I'm not advocating anything for myself that I am not advocating for others. Nor am I arguing that the FF that didnt have slaves did or didn't purchase items procured from slave labor (which where your analogy would be applicable if it at all)
The best I can come up with is the analogy of a 1950 person looking at today's abortion rights. Would that person of 60 years ago be appalled by what was to come given his 1950 sensibility? Well, a lot of 1950-era people would, I can say that with a pretty good level of certainty. Many of the Supreme Court Judges, and various politicians who today support a woman's right to choose would, in 1950, be seen as baby-murdering criminals. If it were 1950 it would be interesting to stand in front of a group of ordinary people of that era and state that in 25 years abortion would be legal and available to any woman. Many would think it would not be possible, and if it were to happen, America must surely be conspiring with the devil. I tend to believe that the Americans of 2010, and our civic leaders, are as moral as in any time in our history.
As for the Declaration of Independence, etc., those documents are merely written examples of cultural change through time.
I actually read your analogy before in another post. The distinction that I'm trying to make is we're talking a difference in perspective over years versus knowledge of incongruent concepts on Day 1. I agree with you values (and thus social mores can change). But what I'm saying is this isn't a case of that happening. The FF abhorred oppression and valued freedom at a time when they were perpetuating the former and restricting the latter of people in their country. They didn't need hindsight to see it was wrong, it's because they knew it was wrong that they broke free from England.
Do you fault the Native Americans for stealing it from whomever was here before them?
Because you don't think there are ever any first settlers? Someone had to have stolen it from someone else, and those people ("someone else") had to have stolen it from other people also, and so on, and so on, from the beginning of time.
I think the "politically correct" term in 2010 is now FRAMERS instead of FOUNDING FATHERS.
Nothing about political correctness, just your... how shall I put his...ignorance of the difference. The Founding Fathers (absent the revisionist non-sense about Richard Allen et., al.,) were those who either lead or inspired the revolution. The Framers were the delegates to the constitutional convention.
I think most of the founders indulged in a convenient self-delusion. Most of their writings indicate that they think slavery will just die a natural death. Of course, this was them acknowledging that it was evil, but their dodging any responsibility to eliminate it.
To me, one of the more interesting questions is this:
What would they have done differently if they could have foreseen the Civil War and all the bloodshed that ensued? Would they have just let the South split off in 1776? What would this country (countries?) look like?
Also, different slaveholders had different priorities. George Washington worried about what to do with his slaves. He actually freed them in his will and left the older ones enough to support themselves and the younger ones money to learn a trade. Most of the slaves on his land were too old to work so it ended up being a semi-retirement home. Also, some were too young to work so it was also like a daycare center. He did worry about breaking up families so he didn't want to free some and keep others or sell them for cash.
I think it's easy to demonize them, but they knew they were dependent on slaves for their way of life. I imagine it would be a hard thing to give up. Probably similar to the dilemma to give up all your cars, boats, toys etc to be a stay at home mom. It's a difficult thing to give up your standard of living, no matter who you are.
I'm not tracking you here... is this a serious question?
Yes. it is.
It's politically correct to bash the white man because "we" (not my ancestors, btw) "stole" the land from the Indians.
But....what about those that the Indians conquered? They were not the first people to live here. They took it from someone.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
