- Joined
- Jun 23, 2005
- Messages
- 32,504
- Reaction score
- 22,762
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
How can a claim of racism be made against people, who died before racism existed?
How does that erode his point?
Hindsight affords us a greater understanding of how racial structures operated.
Have you been elsewhere, perhaps a developing country? One might consider the average theocracy suffering slum dweller and the amount of free critical thinking that goes into their expression.
You might be rather surprised that holding Americans out for such a quality is rather comical and most of the ****in' world doesn't question what their authority dictates. That's why the founders made the constitution, to enumerate social authority beyond the will of any tin pot tyrant or mass of idiots.
What country's critical thinking would you like to compare to the US? Please, amuse us.
Still won't tackle the historical context of what was accepted back in the 1800's.
Well, it was an accepted practice by some to own slaves. John Adams, who was instrumental in the adoption of the Constitution, considered slavery an abomination. Which, of course, it was.
One of the truly dumb statements ever to appear on this forum.
Because its out of historical context. Do you really think Washington thought of himself as a racists?
I just think its funny how the righties rail against "moral relativism" on the left, yet engage in it every time they have to defend "the founders", Old Testament figures, or any historical figure they idolize.
So if morality is not relative, then the founders were racists.
I agree slavery is/was wrong. Not my point. One or a few voices does not set the social acceptable norm at the time.
We had a civil war to pretty much make the change , did we not?
Oh God....I get into these arguments all the time with Left-wingers and Right-wingers whenever they want to keep their heroes. It's absolutely ridiculous.
Exactly, its absurd. Either there is an absolute moral law that applies to all people, at all times, in all cultures, or you accept that morality is relative. If you believe in absolute moral law that you have to call the founders racists, many of whom engaged and profited from one of the most deplorable systems man has ever conceived. In fact, if morality is absolute (as conservatives always claim), then the founders were almost all unconscionable men guilty of crimes against humanity. Otherwise, you believe morality is relative.
Exactly, its absurd. Either there is an absolute moral law that applies to all people, at all times, in all cultures, or you accept that morality is relative. If you believe in absolute moral law that you have to call the founders racists, many of whom engaged and profited from one of the most deplorable systems man has ever conceived. In fact, if morality is absolute (as conservatives always claim), then the founders were almost all unconscionable men guilty of crimes against humanity. Otherwise, you believe morality is relative.
Whether morality is relative or not, they were racists bigtime. Why would racism be defined according to relative morality. 'Relative racism' is nonsense.
I brought up moral relativism because conservatives rail against moral relativism on the left. Yet by claiming you cannot judge the founders by today's morality, you are engaging in moral relativism. Although its a flawed argument even for moral relativism as evidenced by the paragraph above.
Sure one can, and one should. At the same time, one must be aware of historical context.
It's not an "either/or" thing. One can, and really should, view historical figures in both a modern and historical context. It's not that difficult and failing to be capable of such is hardly something I can fix.
To judge actions? Perhaps. To judge people? Certainly not. How can you ever hope to judge what kind of person an historical figure was by using a yardstick that was not in use at the time of his life and hope to get anything like an accurate read on the man?
To judge actions? Perhaps. To judge people? Certainly not. How can you ever hope to judge what kind of person an historical figure was by using a yardstick that was not in use at the time of his life and hope to get anything like an accurate read on the man?
I don't accept the relative vs. absolute paradigm. If we accept nothing is absolute, then the question is relative (historical) vs. objective (modern) as complimentary perspectives. Framing the concept of moral context in a false dichotomy (let alone including absolutism) is stupid.
What you just wrote is in no way at all inconsistent with moral relativism though.
It's not the only measure.
First, again, what about blacks? They wrote or spoke quite frequently about the abomination of slavery and their desire to be treated better by whites. Is that a yardstick?
Furthermore, we do this all the time. I have yet to see an incredibly sympathetic take with colonial loyalism or reluctant separatists in this country. We push the wrongness of the loyalists all the time, because we are so used to this country *being here* and it obviously being right, that we so casually dismiss the concerns of these men and women.
People are full of crap when they say they want people to be judged by the standards of the time. At best they are plebeians who heard what German-trained historians said 120 years ago, barely understand it and apply it inconsistently. At worst, they are using it for political convenience.
I just think its funny how the righties rail against "moral relativism" on the left, yet engage in it every time they have to defend "the founders", Old Testament figures, or any historical figure they idolize.
Are you serious? I've seen many dozens of collectivist drones on sites like this one make very clear what a vile country they think the U.S. is--even though they choose to take up space in it. One way to undermine or even potentially destroy a country or culture you resent or despise is to run it down at every opportunity, and encourage other people to do the same. Many people in the 1960's openly expressed their low opinion of all things American, and some of them have insinuated themselves into the public education system. By now (with help from rich leftist hypocrites like Oliver Stone and Michael Moore) they've been able to indoctrinate a couple generations with their propaganda. There are now enough millions of these fine citizens in the U.S. to elect--twice--a President who shares their resentment of it and contempt for its Constitution.
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?