• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

'Ask a Slave' Makes Depressingly Stupid Tourist Questions Hilarious

No, eco, it is quite relevant. If the context of the time was that slavery was normalized (if not a sin that ought to go away, but can't quite yet) to the white population, then it is equally true that context also meant that you had thousands and millions of African Americans who detested the institution wholesale and thought that even among their white allies, there were enormous gulfs. You can't just presume that since the former is true, the latter must be ignored, not given equal consideration, or labeled stupid when someone edges in that direction.




Yes, you were. You even said you were going on a rant, and that rant was against those you perceived to have ignored historical context. Yes, eco, this does mean that you get to ask tougher questions about what it means to be a good or a bad person, and whether or not "good slave owner" is a useful or incredibly limited term.

Look, dude, I have nothing against considering all perspectives (I've spent my life gathering more perspectives than most dream of). If you want to judge an individual without historical context, then everyone that lived before 1900 was a piece of garbage; that's pointless.
 
Look, dude, I have nothing against considering all perspectives (I've spent my life gathering more perspectives than most dream of). If you want to judge an individual without historical context, then everyone that lived before 1900 was a piece of garbage; that's pointless.

Yes, that may be true (in fact, you would probably run into that issue even into the early 90s-as we already have), however, again, it is also true that the opposite problem is in exaggerating to what extent the negative judgments are not historically valid. I think you were guilty of the latter, and I am calling you on your historical thought processes.
 
Yes, that may be true (in fact, you would probably run into that issue even into the early 90s-as we already have), however, again, it is also true that the opposite problem is in exaggerating to what extent the negative judgments are not historically valid. I think you were guilty of the latter, and I am calling you on your historical thought processes.

My historical thought process (regarding the OP text) is simple: judging an individual without historical context is pointless and renders all ancestors (everywhere in the world) garbage. I'm not debating the video, because I didn't click on it. I'm commenting on the moral judgement of historical figures without historical context (text in the OP).

If you'd like to pontificate about perspectives, that's great but it's late, I'm tired and I just can't say I give a damn about a 'historical perspective' lesson right now.
 
My historical thought process is simple: judging an individual without historical context is pointless and renders all ancestors (everywhere in the world) garbage. I'm not debating the video, because I didn't click on it. I'm commenting on the moral judgement of historical figures without historical context (text in the OP).

Yeah, but your simple method is based off of a complicated idea, and an idea that you do an injustice to. Furthermore, your definition of historical context on slavery writ large and American slavery in particular was incredibly narrow in scope, and when called out on it, you still call it "historical context." Despite having not watched the video, it was incredibly clear what angle you were pushing.

If you'd like to pontificate about perspectives, that's great but it's late, I'm tired and I just can't say I give a damn about a 'historical perspective' lesson right now.

That's all well and good that you are tired, but again, you were distorting historical context to favor one narrative over the other and condemn others for embracing the second narrative for the exact reasons you chose the former.
 
Yeah, but your simple method is based off of a complicated idea, and an idea that you do an injustice to. Furthermore, your definition of historical context on slavery writ large and American slavery in particular was incredibly narrow in scope, and when called out on it, you still call it "historical context." Despite having not watched the video, it was incredibly clear what angle you were pushing.

That's all well and good that you are tired, but again, you were distorting historical context to favor one narrative over the other and condemn others for embracing the second narrative for the exact reasons you chose the former.

I'm not pushing any angle. You think I'm pro-slavery? Think I'm anti-black? I was referring to this (from the OP):

how we lionize the Founding Fathers as paragons of morality.

That is what my comments were regarding, nothing else. If you wanna have a different conversation, great - go ahead. Just don't bother me about it.

Good day.
 
I'm not pushing any angle. You think I'm pro-slavery? Think I'm anti-black? I was referring to this (from the OP):

No, I explicitly stated that you were anti-slavery from a morality perspective, but when it came to judging it from a historical perspective, you buckled, for an incredibly inconsistent application of historicism, which ended up upholding the hegemony of the institution of slavery.


That is what my comments were regarding, nothing else. If you wanna have a different conversation, great - go ahead. Just don't bother me about it.

No, I am incredibly on topic, and very specific. If you do not like the idea that I am criticizing your application of historicism for being incredibly incomplete and flawed, too bad. That's expected in historical argumentation.
 
No, I explicitly stated that you were anti-slavery from a morality perspective, but when it came to judging it from a historical perspective, you buckled, for an incredibly inconsistent application of historicism, which ended up upholding the hegemony of the institution of slavery.

No, I am incredibly on topic, and very specific. If you do not like the idea that I am criticizing your application of historicism for being incredibly incomplete and flawed, too bad. That's expected in historical argumentation.
You've missed the point, and built your entire argument in opposition to yourself. Eco's not the one you're debating. Just so you know.

At no point has he discounted said perspective. Only that perspective in any case requires the context of historical norms. Whether by inclusion or omission of an individual's perspective, we can assume such context, since there was an event at all, and we are commenting on it. If not, then no comment is possible unless in reference to a work of fiction where historical context is moot.
 
I'm using the history of slavery, which occurred everywhere in the world at that time. To act like someone was a bad guy on those grounds alone is to condemn every person of the time and that's stupid.

Most people didn't own slaves. It was the aristocracy that felt entitled to own people because that increased their profit margins.
 
There is no implication of truth. There is no relative morality. There is only considering context before passing judgement on others.

These people wore their Christianity on their sleeve. How many slaves did Jesus own?
 
Back
Top Bottom