|
rudatron posted:The American national identity, like all national identities, is a product of a historical fiction that is projected into the future. Pretty much this. Politics is just story telling; people don't vote for a specific candidate because they'll get some minuscule tax benefit, they vote because they like the story the candidate is telling. The story about America is for a lot of people deeply associated with the idealized image of the Founders and thus the constitution is almost as holy as the Bible. Of course, there's no real logical reason as to why the constitution couldn't be changed, but the story says it's important, people like the story and thus it is important. The fetish is real, as Marx would put it. My dad likes to claim the way to change society for real is to tell our children different bedtime stories.
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 23:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 18:41 |
|
|
Ardennes posted:Jefferson wasn't Hitler, he also isn't a man we should form a cult of personality around. The founding fathers are useful for historical perspective (both positively and negatively) and the only reason to "follow their words" is if you want to wrap yourself in nationalism to get something you want. While I generally agree and don't think it's useful or accurate to specifically compare him to Hitler, I do believe that it's far worse to understate how bad someone like Jefferson was than to overstate it.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Jefferson wasn't Hitler, he also isn't a man we should form a cult of personality around. The founding fathers are useful for historical perspective (both positively and negatively) and the only reason to "follow their words" is if you want to wrap yourself in nationalism to get something you want. Hitler wasn't Jefferson either. They were two different people. But Jefferson did in fact engineer a massive genocide.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 00:58
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:While I generally agree and don't think it's useful or accurate to specifically compare him to Hitler, I do believe that it's far worse to understate how bad someone like Jefferson was than to overstate it. Overstatement may alienate your audience (everyone has an audience), and therefore shut down a necessary conversation on the fact that Jefferson had done and believed some pretty terrible things. Even if someone can appreciate him as a historical figure, he wasn't a guy that you should be worshiping. His political beliefs are actual largely incapable with that of the 21st century even if there is that shared heritage and some elements of his philosophy have retained in a general sense. We aren't an largely agricultural nation anymore with minimal infrastructure and very low population density not to mention the issue of slavery itself. Ultimately, you more or less you can write people off using the foundering fathers as a political tool, it is just an emotional button that is easy to push. You probably could say the same thing about Ataturk. Btw, the new(ish) MLK statue in DC is staring directly at the Jefferson Monument. If you have seen what the statue looks like, it is some pretty great commentary. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 01:05 on May 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 01:00
|
|
|
Last Buffalo posted:In an attempt to re-rail the thread, I have a related question. He's not usually considered a Founding Father because he was only involved in the revolution and not the formation of the US government, but Thomas Paine was an ardent abolitionist, supporter of universal suffrage, and critic of society's treatment of women. He tends to be forgotten though, because of the Age of Reason. He would be considered a progressive liberal in the US even today, much less according to the standards of the late 18th century. Preem Palver fucked around with this message at 01:12 on May 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
Preem Palver posted:He's not usually considered a Founding Father because he was only involved in the revolution and not the formation of the US government, but Thomas Paine was an ardent abolitionist, supporter of universal suffrage, and critic of society's treatment of women. He tends to be forgotten though, because of the Age of Reason. He would be considered a progressive liberal in the US even today, much less according to the standards of the late 18th century. Well, and also because Paine was such an insufferable prick (and what's worse, an insufferable prick who's actually as smart as he thinks he is) that just about everyone that knew him quickly came to loathe him (James Monroe, pretty much his only friend, being the sole exception I can think of) and most did their best to minimize his role in things when time came to write memoirs and histories as a result. See also the hemming and hawing about getting him sprung from the clink when he got on the wrong side of Committee for Public Safety, who had him on the short-list for the guillotine.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 01:21
|
|
|
Last Buffalo posted:In an attempt to re-rail the thread, I have a related question. John Adams was opposed to the system of slavery and also paid Black workers the same wage for house work as whites. Granted some of that was likely the influence of his wife but im sure he did believe in it.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 04:30
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:John Adams was opposed to the system of slavery and also paid Black workers the same wage for house work as whites. Granted some of that was likely the influence of his wife but im sure he did believe in it. Building on this, though not one of that generation his son John Quincy earned the nickname of Old Man Eloquent for his philippics against slavery on the floor of the House (in his singular post-presidential career in Congress). Among other things, he brought anti-slavery petitions up even despite the gag rule of 1836, which he eventually managed to get rescinded in 1844. Captain_Maclaine fucked around with this message at 05:29 on May 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 04:45
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Building on this, though not one of that generation his son John Quincy earned the nickname of Old Man Eloquent for his philippics against slavery on the floor of the House (in his singular post-presidential career in Congress). Among other things, he brought anti-slavery petitions up even despite the gag rule of 1856, which he eventually managed to get rescinded in 1844. He was also a time traveler, apparently, since he got an 1856 rule rescinded twelve years earlier.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 05:27
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:He was also a time traveler, apparently, since he got an 1856 rule rescinded twelve years earlier. Despite my best efforts sometimes I mistype, and by such error am off by a couple decades.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 05:31
|
|
|
tbp posted:D&D relies on that crappy work far too much.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 06:59
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:If we're going off of numbers, millions may have died on the middle passage. And does anguish and inner conflict really count for anything? If you end up committing monstrous acts but make like you felt lovely about it, you're just a hypocritical monster instead of a consistent one. You're implying here that Jefferson and the rest of the founding fathers were directly responsible for the middle passage. You realize that had been in place for a *really long time* before them, don't you? Founding fathers are to the middle passage as Hitler is to the Holocaust? That's really what you mean to say?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 12:20
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:You're implying here that Jefferson and the rest of the founding fathers were directly responsible for the middle passage. You realize that had been in place for a *really long time* before them, don't you? Founding fathers are to the middle passage as Hitler is to the Holocaust? That's really what you mean to say? No, that was only the ongoing holocaust they gleefully participated in. The holocaust Jefferson personally engineered was Indian Removal.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 14:02
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:No, that was only the ongoing holocaust they gleefully participated in. The holocaust Jefferson personally engineered was Indian Removal. By your definition how many holocausts have happened? People A killing People B to take their land is age old, and doesn't really earn the title haulocaust. There are good reasons why we elevate hitler up to be one of the arch villains of history. Purging 10's of millions of otherwise well integrated members of your society who are connected to no tangible threat whatsoever, for no tangible gains whatsoever is significantly different and/or larger in scale than any other example of people killing people in history.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 14:46
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:By your definition how many holocausts have happened? Pretty sure America has killed more natives than Hitler killed Jews. The primary reasons Hitler is so vilified is because he was our enemy and he was the most recent genocidal maniac we fought in a major war. Yes, he was among the worst but Stalin was arguably even more terrible, but Stalin was our bro. Hitler was a legitimate threat and was our enemy so we hate that poo poo. America killing natives even if they deliberately tried to integrate to white culture was just a price of progress, just sweep it under the rug and forget. Stalin was our ally in WW2 so we can't vilify him because why would we be total bros with somebody that horrible? A lot of why we vilify Hitler lies in how the story was told and why. Bragging about bringing down Hitler and remembering that time we kicked that maniac's rear end just feels good. Acknowledging that America did lovely things on its where to where it is feels bad so we try to sugar coat it or handwave it away. Displacing people already living somewhere is an age old human tradition but that doesn't mean that it's right.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 14:56
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:There are good reasons why we elevate hitler up to be one of the arch villains of history. Purging 10's of millions of otherwise well integrated members of your society who are connected to no tangible threat whatsoever, for no tangible gains whatsoever is significantly different and/or larger in scale than any other example of people killing people in history. Stalin and Mao killed way more integrated members of society who posed no threat, but the industrial precision used by the Germans to exterminate has never been equalled.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 15:00
|
|
|
on the left posted:Stalin and Mao killed way more integrated members of society who posed no threat, but the industrial precision used by the Germans to exterminate has never been equalled. Also Mao's actions (specifically the Great Leap Forward because that's where the "30 million dead" number comes from) could be accurately portrayed as a black comedy rather than targeted killings. The equivalent scenario in the US would be basically the Brawndo from Idiocracy.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 15:04
|
|
|
on the left posted:Stalin and Mao killed way more integrated members of society who posed no threat, but the industrial precision used by the Germans to exterminate has never been equalled. Political purges and bad economic policy at least theoretically had a purpose, or some possibility of gain.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 15:06
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Political purges and bad economic policy at least theoretically had a purpose, or some possibility of gain. Fascists would argue that targeting others has a purpose (since, after all, it's part of the fascist philosophy and power structure).
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 15:10
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Political purges and bad economic policy at least theoretically had a purpose, or some possibility of gain. Purging the jews was basically the same as Stalins purges. The international Jew was viewed as a threat to the prosperity and existence of the German state. This is basically the same as the fear of the myriad of imagined enemies of Stalinism/Maoism.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 15:12
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:No, that was only the ongoing holocaust they gleefully participated in. The holocaust Jefferson personally engineered was Indian Removal. Do you feel as strongly about what the Mongols did to (pretty much everyone) or is this more of a "no, gently caress YOU Dad!" kind of thing?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 15:25
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:There are good reasons why we elevate hitler up to be one of the arch villains of history. Purging 10's of millions of otherwise well integrated members of your society who are connected to no tangible threat whatsoever, for no tangible gains whatsoever is significantly different and/or larger in scale than any other example of people killing people in history. Is that what's getting you? Is it better to relocate and slaughter people who aren't *koff koff* "well integrated"? Pauline Kael posted:Do you feel as strongly about what the Mongols did to (pretty much everyone) or is this more of a "no, gently caress YOU Dad!" kind of thing? I might if American culture expected me to praise Genghis Khan as some kind of flawless visionary inspired by god to improve humankind. (e: and you can totally make that argument, the caravans ran on time at least)
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 15:43
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Is that what's getting you? Is it better to relocate and slaughter people who aren't *koff koff* "well integrated"? That's about the dumbest description of the founding fathers that I've seen since 2nd grade. Sorry you had such a bad public education? Is it not possible to praise an individual or group for the things they did well without being accused of worship? Let me change this around a little bit. Since there is always going to be some individual or group to which a culture looks up, if it shouldnt be the founding fathers (worse than hitler!) than whom should it be?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 15:47
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Is that what's getting you? Is it better to relocate and slaughter people who aren't *koff koff* "well integrated"? I'm pretty sure I read that the Mongols let you keep your traditions, culture and leaders as long as you paid them and essentially swore fealty. That's a lot better policy a lot earlier.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 15:49
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Is that what's getting you? Is it better to relocate and slaughter people who aren't *koff koff* "well integrated"? Yes, honesty those things matter. We judge a thief who kills another theif to steal his loot differently than the guy who murders his wife and kid even when the outcomes in terms of numer of dead might be the same. So basically other people like them so you feel a need take up the contrary stance? Can I recommend forming your own opinion that's not still ultimately defined by the authority figures you're trying to rebel against?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 15:56
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:That's about the dumbest description of the founding fathers that I've seen since 2nd grade. That's the problem, that you get it in 2nd grade. That's why it's so tough for you to come around to the fact that they were monsters. quote:Let me change this around a little bit. Since there is always going to be some individual or group to which a culture looks up, if it shouldnt be the founding fathers (worse than hitler!) than whom should it be? This is some sort of bizarre poo poo. "There's always going to be somebody, and if you complain about the slavemasters well NOBODY'S PERFECT ARE THEY??" But OK I'll play. Frederick Douglass. That's who you should look up to. That about covers it.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 15:59
|
|
|
natetimm posted:I'm pretty sure I read that the Mongols let you keep your traditions, culture and leaders as long as you paid them and essentially swore fealty. That's a lot better policy a lot earlier. Unless they felt like burning your village down. Ghenghis Khan also raped his way through so much land that he has over a million offspring walking around right now. He was...uh...kind of an rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 16:00
|
|
|
natetimm posted:I'm pretty sure I read that the Mongols let you keep your traditions, culture and leaders as long as you paid them and essentially swore fealty. That's a lot better policy a lot earlier. Off topic, but I'm rather fascinated by that era. It was said that a woman would walk nude from the urals to the pacific without fear, Ghengis ran a tight ship, and for a 'barbarian' had some pretty progressive policies for that day. Besides, of course, the wholesale slaughter of entire cities. A decent intro to them is Dan Carlin's podcasts on them, I think there were 3 episodes dedicated to the Mongols. Not serious history, but super entertaining and give a nice picture of the Mongols as they emerged onto the world stage and ultimately went away.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 16:06
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:That's the problem, that you get it in 2nd grade. That's why it's so tough for you to come around to the fact that they were monsters. You're really sort of a stubborn child. The difference between you and, say, a normal average educated person, is that the rest of us realize, and are able to pivot between, the simple facts you learn as a young child with the more nuanced view you get with additional education and experience. It's possible to recognize the contributions of the founding fathers as individuals and as a group, while also recognizing that they had aspects to their lives that are unacceptable to us today. Will the future analogue of SedanChair (God help us all)look back at Barack Obama and say, wow, that guy did some things and was remarkable for many reasons, even if he was against gay marriage (before he was for it!)and kept Guantanamo Bay open (even after he promised to close it!)? Or will he say, Barack Obama was worse than hitler because... reasons that arent particularly controversial amongst the ruling class in 2014, but in 2214 are seen as vile perversions of humanity?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 16:16
|
|
|
In terms of raw numbers, most American Indians were killed by diseases that Europeans brought over. The destruction of their communities by Europeans was, like American Slavery, something that was set up and went on for generations, with peaks and valleys in terms of the intensity the oppression and violence. This came about more as structural result of who had the technological power and political ability to exploit the other for resources, and was less of a master plan or a specific ideology. Hitler and his regime, however, set up and committed their crimes in less than 12 years. There was significant intentional policy that caused the majority of the murder and oppression, and it was done in a much more centralized and organized manner. I don't think separating the Holocaust from the Native American oppression and Genocide has mark one as a smaller tragedy. However, they came from very different things, happened in very different ways, and comparing them blindly as Sedan Chair has been going on about is pretty useless in terms of having any discussion on either one.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 16:21
|
|
|
I haven't been comparing them blindly at all, I've pointed out that they are completely different multiple times. Somebody's blind though.Pauline Kael posted:You're really sort of a stubborn child. The difference between you and, say, a normal average educated person, is that the rest of us realize, and are able to pivot between, the simple facts you learn as a young child with the more nuanced view you get with additional education and experience. It's possible to recognize the contributions of the founding fathers as individuals and as a group, while also recognizing that they had aspects to their lives that are unacceptable to us today. That's fantastic for people who can get some perspective, though you don't appear to be one of them. But lots of people pretty much stick to the worldview with which they were propagandized at an early age. Is your argument really that poisonous interpretations of history being taught to children aren't a problem because it's possible--not likely, but possible--to grow up and question them?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 16:22
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Unless they felt like burning your village down. Ghenghis Khan also raped his way through so much land that he has over a million offspring walking around right now. He was...uh...kind of an rear end in a top hat. Pretty much every Mongolian person i've met is extremely proud of the legacy of Ghengis Khan though. The extreme distance in time from the atrocities and the fact that he literally wiped his opponents off the face of the Earth means there's nobody whose feelings get hurt by it either.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 16:22
|
|
|
on the left posted:Pretty much every Mongolian person i've met is extremely proud of the legacy of Ghengis Khan though. The extreme distance in time from the atrocities and the fact that he literally wiped his opponents off the face of the Earth means there's nobody whose feelings get hurt by it either. That and he did kind of create the biggest empire in the history of mankind. That's...kind of a big deal.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I haven't been comparing them blindly at all, I've pointed out that they are completely different multiple times. Somebody's blind though. You're the babby crying that Jefferson is a literal Hitler. That's dumb. Also, the term 'poisonous interpretations' is dumb. Do you think they should be screaming at 2nd graders that Jefferson is Hitler? Do you think talking about the death of tens of millions of Native Americans is appropriate for 2nd graders? Maybe they should go into graphic descriptions of the rape of slaves. Thank God you're not an educator.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 16:29
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:
His argument is that you're just taking some simplistic, bad history lesson you had ("Founding Fathers GOOOD!") and are taking the opposite ("Founding Fathers HITLER!) and are struggling with the idea of something being morally nuanced. I don't think everyone here learned the 1950s textbook version of history you're so pissed about. I remember my 2nd grade text book brought up that Washington and Jefferson owned slaves and probably would not share some of the same values we have. None the less, that class of people is the reason we have the government we have now, as well as a lot of the political philosophy that's shaped how things have turned out. Yeah, hagiographies suck, but the reverse is just as useless.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 16:34
|
|
|
You stupid motherfuckers are just getting mad that I mentioned Hitler. You can't get over it, it's hilarious to me. The truth stings.SedanChair posted:Hitler wasn't Jefferson either. They were two different people. But Jefferson did in fact engineer a massive genocide. God's truth and nothing but.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 16:38
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:You stupid motherfuckers are just getting mad that I mentioned Hitler. You can't get over it, it's hilarious to me. The truth stings. Ok, setting Hitler aside, Jefferson didn't engineer genocide or haulicaust.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 17:05
|
|
|
TJ posted:You know, my friend, the benevolent plan we were pursuing here for the happiness of the aboriginal inhabitants in our vicinities. We spared nothing to keep them at peace with one another. To teach them agriculture and the rudiments of the most necessary arts, and to encourage industry by establishing among them separate property. In this way they would have been enabled to subsist and multiply on a moderate scale of landed possession. They would have mixed their blood with ours, and been amalgamated and identified with us within no distant period of time. On the commencement of our present war, we pressed on them the observance of peace and neutrality, but the interested and unprincipled policy of England has defeated all our labors for the salvation of these unfortunate people. They have seduced the greater part of the tribes within our neighborhood, to take up the hatchet against us, and the cruel massacres they have committed on the women and children of our frontiers taken by surprise, will oblige us now to pursue them to extermination, or drive them to new seats beyond our reach. TJ to the Secretary of War posted:If we are constrained to lift the hatchet against any tribe, we will never lay it down until that tribe is exterminated, or driven beyond the Mississippi.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 17:09
|
|
|
This text is actually less damning than the actual reality. "People B had options, people B continue to harm us therefore were going to attack people B" So if you want to call that genocide then we have genocide in any number of other examples where one group sought to push another group put of a geographical area by moving or exterminating then. Secondly there is the fact that Jefferson, and the founding fathers as a group are not the sole, or even primary authors of this policy. We don't blame every individual plantation owner for the entirety of the system they operated within. So assuming we want to call this genocide Jefferson wasn't its engineer. And again, you already deligimiized your stance by admitting that it's largely the result taking up an arbitrarily contrarian view to authority figures you don't like.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 18:41 |
|
|
SedanChair posted:You stupid motherfuckers are just getting mad that I mentioned Hitler. You can't get over it, it's hilarious to me. The truth stings. Not hardly, you're the one that's a stupid mother fucker poo poo posting about Hitler. The way the United States treated Native Americans was terrible but it is in no way comparable to Hitler or the Holocaust. Most of them had been killed by disease long before the United States even existed.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 17:48
|
|
