quote:It is why emancipation lead to such confusion and such a dark era, so few lottery winners act responsibly with their sudden wealth of possibilities.
Yeah, it had nothing to do with people who had been threatened with death if they even learned to read and (for many) being purposefully kept from learning any useful skill suddenly being told, "OK, you're free now. Have a good life."
Or the fact that the Supreme court systematically dismantled every attempt to protect slaves.
Or the fact that the ruling party traded the few protections that were there for freed slaves in order to win the Presidency.
Or the fact that, after ripping power away from blacks, the new state governments deprived them of almost every basic civil liberty.
Or the fact that they actually organized a secret society to keep freed slaves in "their place."
It wasn't any of these things that led to confusion and a dark era that lasted well into the 1960s. Nope. It was the irresponsible lottery winners who squandered the "gift" of being allowed to live with their children and spouses, and not be forced to labor unceasingly for another while kept on substinence rations.
It's certainly true that most freed slaves weren't prepared to survive economically in the situation in which they found themselves. That has everything to do with a 400-year conspiracy to keep them unprepared and nothing to do with their not valuing freedom. And that lack of economic ability was NOT the biggest source of the confusion and darkness of the post-War South.
Trust me - they valued freedom a whole hell of a lot more than you do.
Do you actually believe this stuff? If so, you are evil and ignorant. If not, you are evil and a liar.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd put money down that if Obama is elected, any sign of trying to establish good will with the middle east will garner him accusations of "being soft with his Muslim brothers, who he has strong secret ties with."
Because you know all Muslims absolutely love each other unconditionally.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Both my mother and mother-in-law, at different times, have stated that they don't like Obama because he's a muslim. This really bugs me, because it tells me that two completely different Christian groups are being fed this lie and are being manipulated.
Huh? I don't follow your logic here.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, Obama is a member of the UCC, a mainstream protestant congregation. If people think he is Muslim (a premise that has been floated in certain circles a couple times since Obama announced his candidacy) then that is a lie, and since they apparently don't like him for this simple fact, this lie is being used to manipulate people.
That they shouldn't have these bigoted views is a separate issue...
quote:Both my mother and mother-in-law, at different times, have stated that they don't like Obama because he's a muslim. This really bugs me, because it tells me that two completely different Christian groups are being fed this lie and are being manipulated.
Huh? I don't follow your logic here.
Sorry, I left out information. Both my mother and mother-in-law are heavily influenced in their political views by their respective churches. These churches are very different, although both are conservative and Christian. The fact that they think Obama is a muslim tells me that they're most likely getting that information from their churches or people at their churches.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree. Generally it is not a good idea. Someone advocating radio collars for Muslims and stating that the reason we had a dark period after the civil war is because ex-slaves were "lottery winners" is a good reason the adverb in that sentence is "generally" and not "always."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Until I volunteered to fight and earn it. (My Freedom was unearned, except where I spent 18 years learning how to be a citizen without freedom)
quote: Or perhaps it had as much to do with emancipation doing nothing to protect the newly freed human beings from the hatred and violence of their neighbors.
Had the slaves secured their own freedom they would not have been vulnerable to victimization, they would have proved themselves a match for whatever their neighbors could do (that is how you earn your freedom). There are and were several non violent approaches to this.
Posts: 231 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
I'm also not sure what the connection to fighting and "earning" your freedom is. Your freedom is not at stake in the Iraq War. You won't lose your freedom if we lose the war. You wouldn't have lost your freedom if you didn't volunteer to fight.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I had grown up training to value it, but I had not paid for it. I value it more now.
Like the slaves who were freed, I had the joy without enough of the discipline. I think the lottery analogy actually holds up very well. To get wealthy usually involves the experience of growing up with money, or of earning it. Both teach you a great deal about how to deal with all the choices.
As for taking away the Iraqi's rights to assembly and such, who said anything about that? I would just compare time index of bomb placement with the people present and then gank them out of society, but they tend to behave if they know they are being watched. (Children again) It would also tell us who is a legitimate Iraqi and who does not belong. The only freedom they lose is a right to move about privately.
A freedom that they have at the cost of being unable to move about safely.
Posts: 231 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I agree. Generally it is not a good idea. Someone advocating radio collars for Muslims and stating that the reason we had a dark period after the civil war is because ex-slaves were "lottery winners" is a good reason the adverb in that sentence is "generally" and not "always."
quote:Originally posted by Counter Bean: I had grown up training to value it, but I had not paid for it. I value it more now.
I don't understand. (I'm not trying to be a twit -- honest -- I am just not following you.)
Even if someone would value something more if it were taken away temporarily, that doesn't mean another person has the legitimate authority to take it away for awhile, even if alleged for that first person's own good.
You would probably value your mother, or your car, or food if we took it away from you for awhile, but that wouldn't make doing so right.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I agree. Generally it is not a good idea. Someone advocating radio collars for Muslims and stating that the reason we had a dark period after the civil war is because ex-slaves were "lottery winners" is a good reason the adverb in that sentence is "generally" and not "always."
Precisely.
Thirded.
And Dagonee, I generally (and this is one of those times) really enjoy your posts when you get fired up.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Had the slaves secured their own freedom they would not have been vulnerable to victimization, they would have proved themselves a match for whatever their neighbors could do (that is how you earn your freedom). There are and were several non violent approaches to this.
Exactly how should they have done this? Secured their own freedom, I mean. You clearly must know, else you wouldn't be talking so blithely about it.
quote:Like the slaves who were freed, I had the joy without enough of the discipline. I think the lottery analogy actually holds up very well. To get wealthy usually involves the experience of growing up with money, or of earning it. Both teach you a great deal about how to deal with all the choices.
No, it holds up very poorly indeed. Look at the things Dagonee wrote, and you'll see why. The slaves didn't "win the lottery", we just stopped raping, killing, and enslaving them so damned much. But we were still raping, killing, terrorizing, and enslaving them.
It's a shameful thing you do, hinting that other people should be willing to bring down horrible suffering on their families and loved ones when you have never had to make that choice yourself.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The value does not come from having the freedom taken away, all you can do is miss what you do not have, the value comes from having what you have worked hard to understand or achieve.
As all Americans who grow up with the wealth of freedom, I grew up with tools to help me handle it. However it is the privilege of a few of us to pay the hard price for freedom and internalize its true value. It is this experience that teaches me that 'freeing' anyone is thrusting a terrible burden of responsibility on them that they are often unprepared for, it includes a burden and obligation to teach them how to handle it and free them incrementally as they learn the lessons they need. Doing it any other way is irresponsible and cruel, because the lessons are still taught, but without mercy.
Posts: 231 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's really pretty easy to understand Bean's positions. If you're not an American, preferably a Republican, certainly a Christian (of the right church) then you're not really an adult and possibly aren't actually human, which means we are fully justified in doing whatever needs to be done to them for their own good. They only complain because they don't know any better.
By the way... "There's never been a question in my mind that CB is evil, in the truest sense of the word." Could we use a different nickname? This one makes me paranoid.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
There were plans put forward that would have forced slave owners to pay an annual tax that would have been used to purchase freedom for slaves a few at a time. Further the slave week would be divided into six days and freedom could be purchased one sixth at a time meaning that a slave would have one free day when their labor was paid for to them. They would be allowed to purchase thier own freedom one day at a time with thier own wages, learning to use money in the process and accustoming the white population to free working negros as well.
There were others that ranged from arming them and letting them secure the freedom of other slaves to giving them Florida and letting them work it out for themselves. Most would have been better then 'you are free', good luck...
Posts: 231 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:To get wealthy usually involves the experience of growing up with money, or of earning it. Both teach you a great deal about how to deal with all the choices.
Yep. Paris Hilton and Nicole Ritchie are perfectly good examples of this.
quote:Had the slaves secured their own freedom they would not have been vulnerable to victimization, they would have proved themselves a match for whatever their neighbors could do (that is how you earn your freedom). There are and were several non violent approaches to this.
Knowing how to make passive resistance work (and I'm not granting it would have - slaves were whipped for anything that looked like organizing, including attending church services not overseen by an approved minister carefully choosing which verses to read to them) does not prepare one for running a farm, knowing how to enter a contract, knowing how to negotiate with a bank, knowing how to prevent foreclosure, and millions of other things.
This is especially true when, even if one did all these things correctly, the very mechanisms of enforcement were tilted absolutely against the newly freed slaves. I can't imagine trying to practice law if every single document I executed was going to be interpreted in the absolute least favorable manner to me. Someone who, at best, learned to read in secret during the few hours they were left alone wouldn't have a chance.
quote:However it is the privilege of a few of us to pay the hard price for freedom and internalize its true value.
And you've internalized it so well it's impossible to see it in you any more.
I'd suggest trying to make your appreciation of freedom a little more external. You value it like a dragon values gold - in a dark cave, pretending you somehow deserve it, but not wanting to let it out in the world to actually accomplish anything.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Most would have been better then 'you are free', good luck...
Wrong, they would not have been better, because it involves an ongoing acceptance of human slavery, which is totally unacceptable and frankly despicable. You should be ashamed of yourself for suggesting it.
Here's a hint: it's because it involves slaves having to buy what was stolen from them in the first place. If I stick a gun in your face (and no, you don't get a chance to kill me first) and steal your mp3 player or something, I don't get to compel you to buy it back. I have to give it back, and make some other restitution as well.
That works with property, it for G.D. sure works for human slavery.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:There were others that ranged from arming them and letting them secure the freedom of other slaves to giving them Florida and letting them work it out for themselves. Most would have been better then 'you are free', good luck...
Even better would have been "you are free. Sorry we did this to you. Here's a job, or a farm, or something else to make up for stealing your very lives. Here's a resource to help you learn how to make that work for you."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wait a minute, I missed that. Are you actually suggesting some form of nonviolent effort on the part of slaves in America would have had a real chance at success, Bean Counter?
If you are, that's one of the stupidest things I've heard in a long time. That's stating it plainly.
When you can't read, when your family and friends have been sold up the river or down the street, when you're kept in a state of perpetual exhaustion by 14+ hour shifts of backbreaking labor in another man's fields, when you're fed substandard foods, when you know that any attempt at escape is extremely difficult and can see the results for failing to succeed all around you...
Well, when those conditions are met, your manly talk about earning one's freedom is exposed for what it is: the chest-thumping machismo of a man who hasn't had to earn his when another man was actively trying to steal it. You've done service to the nation, and I respect that.
But in the situation you "earned your freedom", you didn't have someone right there next to you with his boot on your neck. Your freedom was not endangered.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't understand. (I'm not trying to be a twit -- honest -- I am just not following you.)
It's easy not to understand any of it, since his axioms are reliably flawed, internally inconsistant, and often rely upon bogus historical or social interpretations.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Both my mother and mother-in-law, at different times, have stated that they don't like Obama because he's a muslim. This really bugs me, because it tells me that two completely different Christian groups are being fed this lie and are being manipulated.
That doesn't bug me as much as the first sentence. Sorry to single them out, but this entire movement is bent on attacking Obama's reputation solely because he may or may not have, back when he was too young to decide for himself, gone to mosque. The only reason that would mean anything to anyone would be if a significant part of the American public was Islamophobic enough to believe that being registered as a Muslim student at an elementary school means that he is "tainted" or "untrustworthy" or "unChristian".
I hate politics. Posts: 155 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Slavery was the law of the land, slaves were property, not wanting your property taken away is pretty universal. For me the tragedy was the loss of life, apparently internalized by most as the blood price we paid for the sin of slavery, which could have been avoided if the abolitionists were more moderate and advocated a process of securing freedom for slaves.
quote: Wait a minute, I missed that. Are you actually suggesting some form of nonviolent effort on the part of slaves in America would have had a real chance at success, Bean Counter?
Of course it would have required that the white men institute the process. Perhaps under the threat of violence, but there was a surprising amount of abolitionist sympathy in the South tempered by just exactly the concern, "What will they do once they are free" answering that question or mitigating that concern would have gone a long way toward creating an oportunity for change. Unfortunately the whole thing came to a head too quickly for us to find out.
Posts: 231 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Slavery was the law of the land, slaves were property, not wanting your property taken away is pretty universal.
I'll go with this. I think the deeper sting is that not only were the chattel let free, the owners were asked to cede property to them. I guess it would be the equivalent of letting your dog go and having to cede not only the dog house, but a quarter of the backyard to Rover. Except, we aren't talking about dogs, we are talking about people.
This does make me wonder if a zealous regard for property rights is a moral flaw. I think so. I think it's so common a moral flaw that it is fashionable among white conservatives, in the same way that it's cool to hate taxes.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Someone with a zealous regard for property rights would have recognized that they had no such rights in people.
Even if one is willing to treat humans as property, the "property" in question was stolen. Doesn't sound like a "zealous regard" to me.
No, slaveowners used a variety of rationalizations to avoid the conclusion that what they did was evil. Bean's "they're better off this way" B.S. is just one of them.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Slavery was the law of the land, slaves were property, not wanting your property taken away is pretty universal. For me the tragedy was the loss of life, apparently internalized by most as the blood price we paid for the sin of slavery, which could have been avoided if the abolitionists were more moderate and advocated a process of securing freedom for slaves.
I see. Well, you're wrong on the first count. Not legally speaking, but morally. So the tragedy you see in the history of slavery in America is not the slavery itself, but rather the loss of life in the Civil War, am I understanding you correctly?
You're also dead wrong about the abolitionists as well-aside from being morally despicable, of course. The South was very in tune with threats to the institution of slavery, and fought tooth and nail politically and culturally to keep it protected every inch of the way. You can see this as evidenced primarily by, hey, their opposition to Abraham Lincoln who was a moderate on abolition (and truly, it's a huge stretch to call him an abolitionist at the time of his candidacy), and they hated him. Moderation on the part of abolitionists would not have made a difference.
You need to work a lot more before you understand the basic ideas and principles underlying slavery and the Civil War before you can speak intelligently about it, Bean Counter. Your ignorance is broad and deep.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry about that Irami, I'm not in the habit of deleting posts. We cross posted, and yours was actually a thought out reply rather than just a expression of disbelief that someone really thinks the way Counter Bean does. Since I think Counter Bean thrives on the types of reactions I just gave him, I thought I could take it down before anyone saw it.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And from the other end of the racism spectrum...
quote:This does make me wonder of a zealous regard for property rights is a moral flaw. I think so. I think it's so common a moral flaw that it is fashionable among white conservatives, in the same way that it's cool to hate taxes.
If it is a flaw, it's a flaw fashionable amongst far more than white conservatives.
But slavery was not, and could never be, truly about property rights. Human slaves are never property, they are always, always prisoners.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Someone with a zealous regard for property rights would have recognized that they had no such rights in people.
See, I think they were are at least two different principles at play. 1) Property should not be taken and let go by the government. 2) People cannot be property.
You can believe in the first and not believe in the second, or vice versa. I don't have a strong sense of private property precisely because I understand that concern with private property, at a level that's considered normal in our culture, shows poor moral priorities, similar to those money changers Jesus lit into at the temple.
quote:But slavery was not, and could never be, truly about property rights. Human slaves are never property, they are always, always prisoners.
I don't think so. I think it is about property. Prisoners allegedly commit crimes. The slaves were closer to cattle than criminals.
Edit, to stay on topic.
quote:Both my mother and mother-in-law, at different times, have stated that they don't like Obama because he's a muslim. This really bugs me, because it tells me that two completely different Christian groups are being fed this lie and are being manipulated.
You know how they say about hypnotism, that you can't be hypnotized to do something that you don't already want to do. I think there is a similar principle at play. If you want to find a reason to vote against Obama, there are going to be reasons. I imagine these same people say they were swayed by the anti-Kerry Swiftboat captains ads.
There is a large swath of America who don't particularly like gay people; who are comfortable with the quality of education and healthcare their kids are getting; are fine with the violence in Iraq or torture or the criminal system, as long as it stays in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay and away from their family and friends, respectively; and who aren't particularly keen on electing a black guy with a muslim name to the highest office in the land. These are the people who rise to a comfortable living in private industry, raise healthy good looking college bound kids, and elect presidents.
quote:I don't think so. I think it is about property. Prisoners allegedly commit crimes. The slaves were closer to cattle than criminals.
You don't have to committ a crime, or even be accused of committing a crime, to become a prisoner. I did not choose that word for its American connotations. Just because their 'owners' viewed them--publicly--as property does not make them property.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't have strong sense of private property precisely because I understand that concern with private property, at a level that's considered normal in our culture, shows poor moral priorities, similar to those money changers Jesus lit into at the temple.
Aww... look who's on the high road.
I'm not precisely sure what attitudes about property today have to do with attitudes about property/people in the 1860s.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: This does make me wonder if a zealous regard for property rights is a moral flaw. I think so. I think it's so common a moral flaw that it is fashionable among white conservatives, in the same way that it's cool to hate taxes.
I often wonder that myself.
edit to add: I wonder about it in general, not necessarily in relation to the issue of slavery.
Better be careful, zombie Ayn Rand might rise from the grave and start hungering for your brains Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I should also have added that I wasn't agreeing with the "white conservative" thing. I think it is a human thing, perhaps moreso an American thing.
As long as Ms Rand doesn't make me listen to her reading "Atlas Shrugged". The story was interesting, but good heavens, she's preachy!
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's certainly true that most freed slaves weren't prepared to survive economically in the situation in which they found themselves. That has everything to do with a 400-year conspiracy to keep them unprepared and nothing to do with their not valuing freedom.
This resonates with me very strongly. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Property is a legal concept, so people can most certainly be property if they are defined as such by the law. Believing otherwise elevates the notion of property to the status of some sort of natural law.
Posts: 231 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bean Counter's opinions on freedom basically amount to: if you permit yourself to be kidnapped, you didn't want freedom enough, and thus you don't deserve it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think everyone needs to pay a price for freedom. The founding fathers fought wars amongst themselves and with foreign enemies to ensure that it was secured, both in blood and ink, that our right to freedom has no price, it is free, and given to us upon birth.
No offense to CB or any other soldier in Iraq, but I don't think you're fighting for my freedoms. I might however be willing to concede you're possibly fighting for my safety, but those two things are completely different. The only way you'd be fighting for my freedom is if there is a serious threat of Iraqis hopping a boat for Detroit. Even if they did, it's more than likely a combination of the Detroit police and street gangs would mow them down before they ever hit the suburbs, so I feel quite secure as well. The only way you're fighting for my safety now, is if there's a threat of harm from actions Iraqis might take against me, and frankly, I think what our troops are doing over there, just their presence alone, is doing more damage than good to my long term safety.
So I thank you for your efforts, but I don't feel I owe you anything, and I don't think you've done anything specific for me, and I appreciate the fact that should the need arise, you would be there to fill in that post.
Black slaves tried time and again, by the way, to overthrow their enslavers. They tried in America, several times, they tried in the West Indies several times, and with the exception of Toussaint Louverture and Haiti, those too were brutally repressed. The island Alexander Hamilton was from, I want to say Nevis? or St. Croix, I can't remember, had something like 300 whites and 10,000 slaves, and still the slaves could never effect a successful uprising. It wasn't because they didn't want to be free, or that they never tried hard enough, it was just that we were too damned good at what we did, and what we did was slavery.
The citizens of Iraq are already free, because they are alive, and they are people. Those are the only prerequisites you need. Anything we do to curtail that freedom is subjugation and oppression. Now you can try to justify it if you want, but don't make it sound less serious than it is. Iraqis don't have to earn their freedom, and they don't owe us anything for it. We chose to put them in the situation they are in, well, us and Britain anyway. Shoving freedom down someone's throat, then telling them they are doing it wrong when they don't agree with you, and on top of that, giving them a BILL for services rendered is highway robbery at best, and brutal barbarism at worst. America should be better than that.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:So I thank you for your efforts, but I don't feel I owe you anything, and I don't think you've done anything specific for me, and I appreciate the fact that should the need arise, you would be there to fill in that post.
I agree with most of the rest of your post, but not this.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
