Counter to what
the left claims, the American record on slavery is a pretty good one. While all of us wish we could live in a country
that had never allowed slavery, the reality is that slavery has existed in most
cultures throughout history. Some estimates place the number of slaves at
the beginning of the 19th century at three-quarters of the world’s population.
Moreover, the number of people thought to be currently living in slavery ranges from 12 to 27 million. None of whom
reside in the United States.
- 1777 Vermont outlaws slavery
- 1807 Britain outlaws slavery
- 1808 Importation of slaves to U.S. outlawed
- 1843 British India outlaws slavery
- 1865 U.S. outlaws slavery
- 1866 Russia emancipates all state-owned serfs
- 1894 Korea outlaws slavery
- 1905 French outlaw slavery in French West Africa
- 1906 China outlaws slavery
- 1948 U.N. declares freedom from slavery a human right
- 1962 Saudi Arabia outlaws slavery
No one alive in the U.S. today has owned a slave. No one alive in the U.S. today has been a slave. The slave trade
did not begin in America, and America was not the worst offender when it came
to slavery. In fact, it was Americans who debated the morality of slavery since
our founding, with many in opposition. Instead
of being one of the last nations to outlaw slavery, the U.S. was one of the
first.
There is no
excuse for having supported and legalized slavery, but the loss of historical
perspective is unfortunate. Slavery has existed since at least 8000 BC and was
active worldwide at the time of America’s founding. Slavery is a stain on mankind and the world; it is not a stain on
America. The left needs to figure that out.
You missed one-
ReplyDeleteIn 1866 The Holy Office of Pope Pius IX affirmed that, subject to conditions, it was not against divine law for a slave to be sold, bought or exchanged.
1917 Vatican reversed Church teachings on "just" slavery and (after 19 centuries) effectively made slavery a sin.
I don't know, an attempt to provide some sort of response to the libs on this, sort of smells like the 'Tu quoque' fallacy, except it's "everyone else did it, but we're not as bad as them because of [insert reason here].
ReplyDeleteI guess, I'd just let this issue be something the libs can beat their chests over, and I'll just shrug my shoulders. It's not a fight worth having. Human reason and values have changed since the time of slavery was a part of society, and it should be sufficient to leave it at that.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI have just started researching the history of the Democrat party. I was fascinated to learn that a majority of southern slave owners were Democrats. I was also surprised to learn Democrats are the ones that put in place jim crow laws. I have read a little more and some historians say there was a party realignment and the parts of the party that supported jim crow left and became Republicans but it is not a consensus. Can anyone point me to any books / web site that will help me research this more on this subject.
ReplyDeleteBrian, I've made similar points in the past. You might like What the Southern Strategy Says About Democrats.
ReplyDeleteBe careful who you read and their agendas. You'll find many left wing academics who like to claim the parties switched places, but this is just a tactic to distance Democrats from their racist past. Republicans led the way from Lincoln all the way through the civil rights era.
I don't have any specific book recommendations, but check out Walter Russell Mead and his blog Via Meadia. He has developed what he calls the Blue Model to describe race and class in America.
Just found this: an article by Mead written this month that includes a discussion of the history of race in America (unfortunately, subscription required).
Keep in mind, it's important to understand the roots of racism and where the parties stood -- and particularly the lies that the Democrats propagate today about Republicans. But it's more important to realize that true racism is pretty rare in our country today, whether you're talking about Democrats or Republicans. Let's not fall into the same trap as the left and claim that our opponents are racists just because of past behavior by other individuals.
According to historians such as Philip Curtin and Hugh Thomas, Arabs have enslaved more black Africans over the centuries than Europeans/European-Americas have (14 million to 12 million)............A little bit of additional perspective.
ReplyDeleteHR said: "No one alive in the U.S. today has owned a slave"
ReplyDeleteWell, that is not quite correct. While it is a relatively small number, the existence of a few thousand slaves in the US (along with their related number of abusers/owners) should not entirely be forgotten.
Especially if you use such absolutist language as "no one alive".
As for what Brian T said, the Democrat Party has always had a problem with its racism. It was the party of slave owners. It was the party that resisted civil rights. And now it is overwhelmingly the party that thinks people should be punished for having the wrong skin color (through affirmative action). While the color of the victims differs now from the previous example, it just shows the problem of a party that has always> had a major problem with treating people as the Constitution demands: without regard to their race. The Dems have almost always been the party of racism.
Just a few days ago, I heard in the news about a Supreme Court case involving a student denied an education due to an explicit racist university admissions policy that kept her out solely due to her skin color. Obama kept with his party of racism by siding with the racists and for discrimination.
dmarks,
ReplyDeleteThe name of the party is irrelevant. The beliefs and desires of dead racist Democrats (and any other racists) do not match the beliefs and desires of the typical modern Democrat.
You may complain that affirmative action policies are inappropriate forms of discrimination. However, you cannot say that the beliefs and desires of those who support those policies are the same beliefs and desires of those who supported slavery or thought of others as subhuman.
Our reasons for action matter. If affirmative action is intended to help certain groups of people who are thought to be unable or much less likely to help themselves due to factors outside their control, then it is misguided at worst. Most of those who support it would presumably do the same if, for example, white people were thought to be victims of institutionalized racism. They do not believe that some race is superior to another; they believe that certain groups of people need help.
If that is racist, then we need a new, more condemnatory term for those who do believe in the superiority of their race.
Ryan said: "The beliefs and desires of dead racist Democrats (and any other racists) do not match the beliefs and desires of the typical modern Democrat."
ReplyDeleteYet, modern Democrats still insist on explicitly racist policies.
"They do not believe that some race is superior to another; they believe that certain groups of people need help."
And it follows that they believe that certain groups of people need to be denied opportunity because of their skin color.
Affirmative action with quotas/goals/preferences is just another form of Jim Crow (even if much much milder) with the races changed.
And of course judging people by belong to "certain groups" instead of as individuals violates the ideals of due process in the Constitution, as well as being racist if it involves race.
The person denied a job due to their skin color doesn't really care what sort of subtleties or justifications there are in the system or racial discrimination.
"Yet, modern Democrats still insist on explicitly racist policies."
DeleteI see that you completely disregarded my point: whether or not affirmative action is racist to you, it is not racist in the same sense that the belief that whites are superior to blacks is racist.
You are free to dispute the necessity and usefulness of affirmative action, as I do. However, it is not unreasonable for people to support affirmative action if they believe that certain groups have been wronged to such an extent that they need it. This is the nuance in the belief that you do not seem to understand or at least have not acknowledged. There is a significant difference between someone who thinks that whites are superior to blacks and someone who thinks that blacks need assistance because whites wronged them severely. I consider it completely inappropriate to call them racists, which is understood to be an attack on character. One can condemn affirmative action without resorting to that.
"And it follows that they believe that certain groups of people need to be denied opportunity because of their skin color."
The idea is that one race has more opportunities on average than the other race does. It is true that accepting one student over another because of his race is also a denial of opportunity to the other student, but, according to this belief, the denied student will have opportunities elsewhere.
"The person denied a job due to their skin color doesn't really care what sort of subtleties or justifications there are in the system or racial discrimination."
He should care, since details can make all the difference. He might believe that, while it is not right to employ one person over another based on race, it is also not right that the other person has had fewer opportunities (if that is true). Even if not, we should all be able to recognize that fairness, though desirable, is but one ideal of many. Whether or not we are justified in sometimes acting unfairly depends on the "subtleties or justifications" that you seem eager to dismiss.
Ryan said: "I see that you completely disregarded my point"
ReplyDeleteBecause it was not a very good one.
"whether or not affirmative action is racist to you"
It is in fact racist whether or not I believe it is.
"it is not racist in the same sense that the belief that whites are superior to blacks is racist."
There are different forms of racism. Consider for example, any idea of "separate but equal", or laws against mix-race marriage, which are also forms of racism which assume no race is superior.
"You are free to dispute the necessity and usefulness of affirmative action, as I do."
No racism of any kind is necessary or useful.
"However, it is not unreasonable for people to support affirmative action..."
It is never reasonable to support racist policies, sorry.
"...if they believe..."
Despite ignorant and incorrect belief.
"that certain groups have been wronged to such an extent that they need it."
No one 'needs' racism, sorry.
"This is the nuance in the belief that you do not seem to understand"
I understand it, and you don't. You seem to want to use a 'nuance' to defend racism outright.
"There is a significant difference between someone who thinks that whites are superior to blacks and someone who thinks that blacks need assistance because whites wronged them severely."
Here is one major problem with your statement: afformative action quotas have nothing to do with blacks being wronged by whites. These policies give blacks a special advantage whether or not they were wronged at all. Under any affirmative action policy, for example, the daughters of Barack Obama (black, and princesses of wealth and power) are given a special advantage over whites from families in poverty.
"I consider it completely inappropriate to call them racists"
You might consider it inappropriate, but it is factual and accurate.
"which is understood to be an attack on character."
Well, why not? I hold the character of anyone who favors ANY form of racism in contempt. Including these you defend for some reason.
"One can condemn affirmative action without resorting to that."
I condemn the policy, and the character of those who favor punishing and rewarding people for skin color based on ignorance.
"And it follows that they believe that certain groups of people need to be denied opportunity because of their skin color."
"The idea is that one race has more opportunities on average than the other race does."
This belief is no justification for punishing and rewarding individuals based on skin color... which is, according to what you said, the heart of racism. Judging treating individuals based on a generalization of skin color, rather than as individuals.
"It is true that accepting one student over another because of his race is also a denial of opportunity to the other student..."
Exactly. Just like Jim Crow. If you put someone in front of the bus, you are putting someone else in the back.
"...but, according to this belief, the denied student will have opportunities elsewhere."
According to this logic of yours, Jim Crow is OK because blacks can choose to walk ("opportunities elsewhere"). After all, a person denied a job due to their color by affirmative action, and a person kicked to the back of the bus by Jim Crow, can (respectively) be unemployed, or walk.
(continued)
(continued)
ReplyDelete"He should care, since details can make all the difference."
Why should a person denied opportunity due to racism care about 'nuances' in the character flaws of the racist who denied it? It's wrong, either way. And yes, it is my belief that racism is wrong.
"He might believe that, while it is not right to employ one person over another based on race, it is also not right that the other person has had fewer opportunities (if that is true)."
Is the white individual with fewer opportunities treated differently from the black individual with fewer opportunities?
"if the person with fewer opportunities is thus a l Even if not, we should all be able to recognize that fairness"
How is it "fair" to consider these people differently, based on skin color??
"Whether or not we are justified in sometimes acting unfairly depends on the "subtleties or justifications" that you seem eager to dismiss."
I am eager to dismiss racism. You are eager to defend it.
And yes, it remains that the Democratic Party is the party of racism. Most liberal/Democrats strongly support a certain form of institutional racism, as described above. Which, while milder than Jim Crow, is definitely racist. The Republicans/conservatives oppose this, and while there are racist gaffes from some Republicans (as there are from many Democrats), the Republican "agenda" does not include any racist elements.
ReplyDeleteThe first part of your response consists mostly of chopping my comment up and saying "Racism" again and again, which is pointless and condescending. This is typical of your style, at least from what I have seen on this blog. You should consider a change.
Delete"There are different forms of racism. Consider for example, any idea of "separate but equal", or laws against mix-race marriage, which are also forms of racism which assume no race is superior."
Yet when you ask someone why he supports those policies, you are likely to find that he believes that separation is appropriate because one race is superior to the other. This is not always the case; a theist might believe that the races are equal but were intended by God to stay separate. However, that is another nuance that separates his character from someone who believes in racial superiority. It is important to acknowledge these differences.
"Here is one major problem with your statement: afformative action quotas have nothing to do with blacks being wronged by whites."
That is not a problem with my statement. It is unreasonable to give more opportunities to people who already have more than most others. I doubt that Obama's children will need such help in life. At this point, I would prefer to help the poor in general--those who are actually worse off--instead of groups who are "more likely to be poor." However, I probably would have supported affirmative action for blacks for some period of time after the end of slavery.
"Well, why not? I hold the character of anyone who favors ANY form of racism in contempt."
They have good intentions (and not necessarily any racial resentment), but their values differ from yours according to their desires and beliefs. Do you condemn the character of anyone whose values differ from yours?
"This belief is no justification for punishing and rewarding individuals based on skin color... which is, according to what you said, the heart of racism."
The heart of racism, according to me, is a belief in racial superiority. Affirmative action is not guided by this belief.
"According to this logic of yours, Jim Crow is OK because blacks can choose to walk ("opportunities elsewhere")."
Being able to ride a bus vs. having to walk is one scenario; being able to get one job vs. being able to get another is a different scenario.
Suppose that a black man has the opportunity to get (or "is qualified and considered for") one job while a white man has the opportunity to get that job and four others. However, the white man is more qualified than the black man. Without assistance, the black man would lose the only job available to him to someone who has four other opportunities. In this scenario, there is no chance that both men will be employed. However, with assistance, there is a chance that both men will be employed.
Whether or not this scenario exists or is common in the real world is one question. Whether or not one believes that it exists or is common is another. Whether or not one believes that affirmative action is the best way to address the problem is yet another.
If you insist that belief in the scenario is unwarranted, then you are perhaps entitled to call others wrong or even ignorant. But to attack their character--their current intentions and motivations--requires something more. And if you want to explore someone's reasoning and have a chance at changing his mind, you certainly aren't going to accomplish it with name-calling.
"I am eager to dismiss racism. You are eager to defend it."
I am defending the character of decent people from someone who does not seem to care about accounting for differences in reasoning, just as I would defend you from charges of racism from those who believe that your policies are effectively racist. The truth matters, but so does what people believe.
Ryan said: The first part of your response consists mostly of chopping my comment up and saying "Racism" again and again"
DeleteWhy not? There are so many examples of your defense of racism in your argument. I tried not to let any slip by unrefuted by facts and reason.
"...which is pointless and condescending."
The problem is your defense of racism. If you find me sticking to the facts to be "condescending", so be it.
"This is typical of your style"
Thank you. I like to stick to the facts, and be consistent.
"at least from what I have seen on this blog. You should consider a change."
No way, pal. I want to stick to being informed and principled, thank you.
"Yet when you ask someone why he supports those policies..."
I'm sorry, I am not interested in supporting injustice because a person has a false belief about it.
".... However, that is another nuance that separates his character from someone who believes in racial superiority. It is important to acknowledge these differences."
Yet you are using these nuances to support racism. In contrast, I believe these "nuances" merely separate different degrees of injustice... some more outrageous than other. But all racist.
"That is not a problem with my statement. It is unreasonable to give more opportunities to people who already have more than most others."
If you believe this, then you completely oppose affirmative action now.
"I doubt that Obama's children will need such help in life."
Yet, under any and all affirmative action goals/etc programs, his daughters get a special boost just because of their skin color.
"At this point, I would prefer to help the poor in general--those who are actually worse off--instead of groups who are "more likely to be poor."
In this, we have agreement. I support this because it is not racist.
"However, I probably would have supported affirmative action for blacks for some period of time after the end of slavery."
And now you come out as supporting racism against individuals of group A because some individuals of group A wronged individuals of group B. Sorry, but when you are being racist, I will not "change" and let it slide.
"They [the racists] have good intentions..."
Ask any Nazi or apartheid South African white and they will tell you of 'good intentions'. But like with what you are defending and supporting here, the intentions are not so good if they are openly supporting racism.
"...but their values differ from yours according to their desires and beliefs..."
Sure, the values of the racist differ from mine. But sorry, I do not accept the ideals of injustice as being valid at all.
"Do you condemn the character of anyone whose values differ from yours?"
No, only those who favor injustice, such as you defend.
(continued)
And ryan continued:
Delete"The heart of racism, according to me, is a belief in racial superiority. Affirmative action is not guided by this belief."
Again, you are only looking at part of the picture. Racism includes more than that. Now it sounds like you are separating good racism from bad racism.
But again, if a person is kicked to the back of the bus due to his skin color, does the "nuance" really matter of what is going on in the mind of the ignorant ill-spirited person who caused this?
"Being able to ride a bus vs. having to walk is one scenario; being able to get one job vs. being able to get another is a different scenario."
It is. But both involve people being denied something due to racist laws/policies. And yes, Jim Crow is worse than affirmative action. But why is any of it a good thing, ever, anywhere?
"However, the white man is more qualified than the black man. Without assistance, the black man would lose the only job available to him to someone who has four other opportunities."
Such "assistance" is racist. Hiring should be on qualifications, not skin color. Also, the blatantly racist treatment you support has major bad consequences. It would, in the example of fire and police protection, result in a lot more incompetent cops and firefighters. After all, you are lowering standards.
"After all In this scenario, there is no chance that both men will be employed."
Yes. So the most qualified, black or white, should get the job.
"However, with assistance, there is a chance that both men will be employed."
How so? If this is a position for only ONE?
"Whether or not this scenario exists or is common in the real world is one question."
It is extremely common, as it happens any time a race-based affirmative action goal or quota program exists, and it is adhered to.
"Whether or not one believes that it exists or is common is another."
That's not an issue at all, unless you believe that companies and institutions with affirmative action on their books never enforce it.
"Whether or not one believes that affirmative action is the best way to address the problem is yet another."
Racist injustice is no way to address anything. Like other injustices, such as rape, there is never any place where it is appropriate.
"If you insist that belief in the scenario is unwarranted, then you are perhaps entitled to call others wrong or even ignorant."
No, the problem lies with the racists we are discussing. Either they are ignorant of the fact that these policies or racist, or they are not and intend the bad results. Neither thing is worth defending.
(continued...)
(concluded)
Delete"And if you want to explore someone's reasoning and have a chance at changing his mind, you certainly aren't going to accomplish it with name-calling."
I have done no name calling. I have insisted on an accurate term, "racist" for them. This is not name calling. Just like calling a murderer a murderer is not name calling. It's accurate. If the racists and murderers don't like accuracy, they should change. To call these racists anything other than racists is to abuse language and to lie about matters.
"I am defending the character of decent people"
No, you are defending the inexcusable actions and attitudes of those who are at best completely ignorant and at worst really want people of races they dislike to suffer.
A person who believes that people should be judged on skin color instead of actual merit, and then denied college admissions or job opportunities as a result is, in this regard anyway, not decent. You are defending racism. You are defending the indefensible. Calling the indecent and unjust "decent"
"..from someone who does not seem to care about accounting for differences in reasoning"
I account the differences in reasoning. However, I simply do not accept or support injustice.
"...just as I would defend you from charges of racism from those who believe that your policies are effectively racist."
My policies are not racist in the least. You would be right to defend me from such entirely uninformed and baseless "charges". Anyone who "believes" as you are talking about knows nothing at all. Sticking again, to the facts.
"The truth matters, but so does what people believe."
Yeah yeah. What Germans believed in the 1930s mattered too, of course, but that does not mean I have to accept it or toss my principles out the window for them.
This will be my last response to you:
Delete"Yet you are using these nuances to support racism."
I don't support racism. I try to defend people with good intentions who do not know any better. Insulting them only makes them more resistant to change unless they care about what you have to say, which is unlikely. Patiently and politely dealing with their perspective is the way to go. The goal is to make a change--not to let your anger out and make the problems worse.
If you want to treat "racists" like Nazis, then consider going to war. Otherwise, operate differently. You would if you cared more about resolving the problem than letting others know how little you respect them.
"And now you come out as supporting racism against individuals of group A because some individuals of group A wronged individuals of group B."
When a large portion of the country wrongs such a large group of people and persists in discrimination (actual racism) in all manner of institutions, those people deserve some sort of compensation. That idea is not foreign to our legal system. The affirmative action only acknowledges a specific skin color because a specific skin color was already singled out for harm! If we had decided that all green-eyed or blonde-haired or 6' tall or web-fingered people deserved to be treated as subhuman, then affirmative action would have focused on those aspects instead.
Now, while we would ideally only punish the offenders and only help the victims, that's sometimes much easier said than done.
"But again, if a person is kicked to the back of the bus due to his skin color, does the "nuance" really matter of what is going on in the mind of the ignorant ill-spirited person who caused this?"
It should if we're considering character--and we are. It might not affect how we feel about the action itself, but it should affect how we feel about the person. Similarly, whether or not a murderer killed for fun and without remorse or in the heat of the moment and with great remorse is important even though he has killed someone either way. One man is more open to change and to being a better person than the other.
Ryan: "However, with assistance, there is a chance that both men will be employed."
dmarks: "How so? If this is a position for only ONE?"
If the white man takes the one job available to the black man, the black man has no other opportunities. If the black man takes the one job available to him, the white man has four other opportunities. Remember: one began with one opportunity, the other with five.
"Either they are ignorant of the fact that these policies or racist, or they are not and intend the bad results. Neither thing is worth defending."
Again: There is a difference between defending intentions and defending behavior. If affirmative action is bad, it is worthy of condemnation. But if someone who supports affirmative action does so because of false beliefs or some error in reasoning (instead of, for example, a desire to get back at white people), he is simply misguided.
Being misguided is not worth defending, but it is also not worth the same treatment as having harmful desires. Recognition of good intentions despite being misguided is worth at least some measure of sympathy.
"...that does not mean I have to accept it or toss my principles out the window for them."
You have not been asked to do so.
Lastly, I can't help but wonder if you intentionally began your response to me with further splicing and simple comments, this time about having the facts and reason on your side. Again, that kind of pointless repetition in a debate serves only to make matters worse--especially if you do it on purpose. If it was not intentional, then I was right to point it out as one of your abrasive habits.
Ryan said: "This will be my last response to you"
DeleteHope so. You really dug yourself a hole defending racism.
"I don't support racism."
You have in this discussion, several times.
"I try to defend people with good intentions who do not know any better."
That these racists have good intentions is quite debatable. Of course racists don't know better. And by defending them, you are defending racism.
"Insulting them only makes them more resistant to change..."
Well, excuse me for offending racists by accurately describing their views.
"Patiently and politely dealing with their perspective is the way to go."
I am sure glad Abe Lincoln and Dr. King did not follow your advice and coddle the racists.
"The goal is to make a change--not to let your anger out and make the problems worse."
There can't be a chance if we are afraid to even describe problems accurately.
"When a large portion of the country wrongs such a large group of people and persists in discrimination (actual racism) in all manner of institutions, those people deserve some sort of compensation."
Of course. If the people wronged have actually been wrong, it will be easy to plead their cases in a court of law, punish the guilty, and get recompense.
But affirmative action does none of this. As I mentioned before, it gives people who haven't been wronged at all, such as Obama's daughters, special advantage.
"If we had decided that all green-eyed or blonde-haired or 6' tall or web-fingered people deserved to be treated as subhuman, then affirmative action would have focused on those aspects instead."
And it would be equally racist here as well.
"Now, while we would ideally only punish the offenders and only help the victims, that's sometimes much easier said than done."
I see now how un-American you are, and the ideals of due process are alien to you. Just some vague ideals, but not necessary.
"If the white man takes the one job available to the black man, the black man has no other opportunities."
If, in this case, the black man is less qualified, then what happened was entirely proper.
"Recognition of good intentions despite being misguided is worth at least some measure of sympathy."
I'm sure that there were some Nazis who had good intentions, but that is no reason to be soft on their racism.
"Again, that kind of pointless repetition in a debate serves only to make matters worse"
The problem is your pointless reputation of invalid/bad points that racism is OK. If you had stopped defending racism, I'd have stopped pointing it out.
"If it was not intentional, then I was right to point it out as one of your abrasive habits."
Yes, my abrasive habit of sticking to principles and not accepting your idea that racism is OK if the racists believe it is.
Again, Ryan said; ""Now, while we would ideally only punish the offenders and only help the victims, that's sometimes much easier said than done."
DeleteThat's really really scary.
Burr Deming offers his own take at Fair and Unbalanced. As is usual for Burr, he completely misses the point with his comments:
ReplyDelete"The Heathen Republican defends patriotism by arguing that America's record on slavery was pretty darn good. A weak, but understandable, reaction to a false choice between condemning wrong and promoting a beloved nation. I suggest his aim is more than a little off.
"An alternative is to insist that slavery was a horrible national condition, and that patriotism is defined by a dream, is measured by a journey toward a vision. This promotes a more genuine, less strained, pride and love while honestly addressing profound wrongs. The real contest in this nation is between those who celebrate the achievement of freedom as a completed accomplishment, and those who experience the American spirit as a hope and a direction."