Please refer to post 320
Abolitionism didn’t exist until the late 18th Century. So was everyone before that time evil?
That is a very interesting question. During the Roman Empire there was no such thing as an Abolitionist movement. Well, technically, the Stoics were against it but only on philosophical terms, they disagreed with it but they did nothing to stop it. And even then the only evidence that they felt this way was in a couple of passages of their writings. Again, no actin taken to follow through on the ideal. Only that, like literally two or maybe five passages in some book/scroll, that is the total amount of objection to the institution of Slavery in the Roman Empire.
On the other hand, so many slaves had been set free by their masters that they tried to set laws against setting slaves free. That seems to be kind of a weird dynamic, does it not? No official condemnation of slavery but setting slaves free seemed to be a rather common practice.
I don’t swear by these details. It is what I seem to remember from googling “Abolitionists in the Roman Empire” a while back. I really don’t know how we can judge people from thousands of years ago. Ignorance may very well be an excuse. But it is not an excuse for George Washington since plenty of people actually were Abolitionists at the exact same time he owned slaves.
The slaves who were freed tended to be the favourites of their former masters, thus being more out of personal favour than any systematic opposition to the institution. Hence a slaveowner who might free (say) their former tutor could still very well keep fifty working on his farm.
The abolitionist movement came into being only in the last years of Washington’s life and as noted above Washington freed his slaves in his will.
The fact that he was notable obviously seems sufficient. We have a Sherman tank, a Hellfire missile, etc. Not all names are rewards for a beatific life. Lots of the people in the past and a good portion of the most noteworthy have aspects that judged from the standards of today are quite bad.
That’s a valid point of view, though I doubt it will ever gain traction. Maybe when the perfect machines replace us and everything is named some variant of 010001001001010 we’ll be free of historical baggage. What of societies that benefited from the presence of slavery like Rome and Greece or enlightenment era Europe? Should the freed up labor that serfdom and slavery enabled yet led in some manner to great advances be dismissed or discarded as being tainted? What about people who buy goods that are made by virtual slaves in the now? That $3 Confederate Flag t-shirt’s greatest offense is being made by labor that enables a $3 t-shirt it could be argued. Not the image on it.
A terrible person? Oh no, some random person on the internet has an opinion and a place to express it. I could respond with an equally juvenile insult about you and would probably be a more accurate reflection of your character, but why? Anyone can type nonsensical insults like elementary school children. Making a coherent argument takes a bit more work, even if the troll, and you are trolling, responding to it can’t comprehend it. You derive satisfaction from name calling because?
Wikipedia: [INDENT][INDENT]Washington was the only Southern slaveholding Founding Father among the top seven to emancipate his slaves after the American Revolution. Of the seven Founding Fathers, the northerners Benjamin Franklin and John Jay both owned slaves whom they freed, and Jay founded the New York Manumission Society.[23] He had a practice of freeing slaves as adults after a period of service. In 1798, the year before New York passed its gradual emancipation law, Jay still owned eight slaves.[24] [/INDENT][/INDENT] I think you should take into account the social standards of the time. And yes, those social standards include those who opposed slavery and those who seeked to unwind it.
Jefferson wasn’t too fond of slavery, but his finances were too weak (due to among other things endless tinkering with Montecello) for him to free his slaves. That was his choice.
good point
Hmmm… you seem to know more than me. I like history, I am not a history expert. But a quick google of Abolitionist Movement USA yields (from Wikipedia):
The beginnings
The first attempt to end slavery in the English colonies in North America came from Roger Williams and Samuel Gorton, who made slavery illegal in Rhode Island in 1652. In their view, slavery contradicted their Protestant beliefs. But this anti-slavery law was disregarded in 1700 when the colony became involved in slave trade.
George Washington Was born in 1732. That is 80 years after 1652.
I made my argument and you ignored it. If someone was walking around the US waving an al-Queda flag (or whatever symbol they have), they’d be a terrible person. And anyone who tried to minimize what al-Queda did and does would be a terrible person.
There’s no difference in what you are doing. The only troll here is you.
…
That’s different from someone who’s main influence on society was almost wholly negative like Forrest who was widely abhorred for his actions in his day.
Individual abolitionists have to be distinguished form a wholesale abolitionist movement that not just avoided personally practicing slavery but sought to end it in society as a whole.
Look, I am kind of stubborn and don’t like admitting I am wrong. But perhaps I am wrong here. I’m not even going to bother looking for sources, you don’t need to either, if you tell me you know something about this I will believe you. My point is, it seems to be a common point of American Trivia that the Founding Fathers were deeply and passionately divided on the issue of slavery. Do I have that conception wrong or is it true that they were in fact, deeply divided on this issue. If they were deeply divided, how does Washington get a pass on the morality of the whole issue.
You made no coherent argument. You gave your opinion on a series of events, an opinion which I agree with, and then you made a baseless inaccurate attack. I know certain concepts are hard to understand. Such as not every assumption one may make of another’s knowledge set and intent is correct. And mindset and action are not equivalent concepts. These are hard concepts to learn. It usually takes a human infant at least 12 years to grasp them.
You are the same sort of person who thinks that the defense of the concept of democracy and freedom of expression is equivalent to agreement with what democracy produces or what a particular expression is. The fact that I have to explain this as if I’m talking to my child when you are presumably a grown and educated adult is disheartening.
If I saw someone with an Al-Qaeda flag, assuming I recognized it as such, I’d be suspicious because flying such a flag in America at least is pretty rare. Whereas the Confederate Flag is not rare and is flown for a variety of reasons, even if you prefer to be blind to that.
I’m glad you brought Al-Qaeda up. At what point is an organization fighting a legitimate war against imperial overreach? I don’t agree with their aims or their methods but Al-Qaeda, from what I know of them, had a certain logic to their attacks on 9/11. It wasn’t just shooting up churches randomly. Modern insurrection is an entirely different topic and I am not hoping to derail this fine conversation further. Maybe a great debate about Ends Justifying Means someday.
Actually your frank admittance of the horrors of slavery combined with your apprehension to have streets renamed that are named for confederate generals makes me heavily question your sincerity or legitimacy. In other words, it is your reasoning that is incoherent.
Nope, it’s completely accurate, you troll.
Given that you seem to be pig ignorant about the history of this country and that flag, you are in no position to insult anyone’s intelligence.
Now, talk about baseless attacks. You’re getting your immoral ass handed back to you, so you resort to making up strawmen.
I’m not blind to anything you immoral shithead. You are blind to the decades of terrorism that happened within living memory.
Wow, just wow. But thanks for proving what again what a terrible person you are. Newsflash, dickhead. Flying a flag of terrorism in front of victims of that terrorism is disgusting.
How so? You don’t see the dangers in the opening of a Pandora’s Box of empowering the most vocal and easily aggrieved members of society? I don’t have much patience for endless hysteria, ‘debates’, and finger pointing among conflict driven media personalities. Just in this thread we are splitting hairs over slavers and slave owners and whether such ought to disqualify one. The acrimony wouldn’t end there. Bury the hatchet. Realize history and life are full of ugliness that cannot be excised without harm and move on.
We pragmatically turned a blind eye to some of Japan’s and Germany’s WWII offenses against humanity. Not only did we turn a blind eye we also wisely and selfishly exploited some of their people after the war. Would you have razed Japan, Germany, and Italy?
Big mistake we made in Iraq was the attempted de-Baathification of the nation. I’m sorry that I don’t see the world in black and white.
You seem to fail to grasp the difference between boycotting Chick Fil A on the gay rights issue and the fact that Geroge Washington owned other human beings.
Lol. Is this acceptable language in the pit? I could be wrong. We’ll let a moderator decide. I feel bad calling you stupid because it’s rude and you can’t pick your parents but the language you used is truly unbecoming. Do you kiss your husband with those dirty lips?
What a historically ignorant dumb shit you are. We didn’t turn a “blind eye.” We held war crimes trials. We made them change the symbols they were using. We marched German civilians through the concentration camps to show them what had happened. We restructured the Japanese monarchy and eliminated the Japanese peerage system. We made sure there was a recognition of the atrocities and then we instituted an international system to try and prevent those atrocities from happening again. You don’t know shit about history. Go pick up a book you ignorant dickhead.
Minimizing murder, lynching and terrorism, which is what you are doing, is far worse than anything I’ve said.