- Joined
- Jun 4, 2010
- Messages
- 133,429
- Reaction score
- 43,228
- Location
- Miami
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
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.