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.
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 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.
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.
how we lionize the Founding Fathers as paragons of morality.
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):
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.
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.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.
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.
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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?