News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
No, actually I'm pretty sure the guys who only wanted white, land-owning men to vote would probably be okay with this.
I mean, they purposefully designed this system to be broken and easily corruptible to begin with. Many of them owned slaves and had zero issues with slave ownership. Pretty sure Jefferson fucked a bunch of his slaves and had kids with them that grew up as slaves, too.
Let's stop pretending they didn't know what they were doing. They knew exactly what they were doing. This system was set up like this on purpose.
This land was populated by people who "escaped" Europe because of "religious persecution" which actually meant Europe was getting all progressive and deeply philosophical so you couldn't just shove your bullshit religion down other people's throats anymore with impunity.
Are we really shocked this is the very kind of people who populate the USA today? Let's stop pretending the founding fathers were any better, or that they didn't make the constitution easily corruptible on purpose so they could hold on to their positions in society.
The reverence we give for these mere mortal men, who were as corruptible as any, is fucking absurd. Stop placing these dickweeds on a pedestal.
Not that I don't agree with the general sentiment, or want to condone slave-owning in any way, but Thomas Jefferson only had children with one of his slaves, and from the historical record it appears to have been a consensual romantic relationship, insofar as one can have one with such a vast power difference (you cannot, really). He did oppose slavery privately, however he owned slaves, himself. Although, again from the record, it appears that they were more a part of his household, and treated (relatively) well, rather than how we typically imagine slaves in the South. Again, still not right, but compared to his contemporaries, you would call Jefferson a good owner. Still fucked up to say. A further disappointing fact is that, despite the fact that he deemed slavery reprehensible, he also deemed it to be political suicide to try to change the status quo. He brought the issue up a few times during his very long political career, but quickly abandoned the efforts. Additionally troubling is that, like many other in opposition to slavery at the time, he thought the solution was to ship black people to an island in the Caribbean so that they could form their own nation. This was not an uncommon opinion during that era -- I believe even Lincoln bought into this "solution," at one point. Also fucked up, but somehow better than the at-the-time alternative of continuing slavery.
Anyways, I don't mean to undermine your point that many of the individuals who established this country did so with the idea that black and brown people, women, and the lower-class, were less-than, and established it in such a way that made it difficult or impossible for them to participate. However, I think your specific examples aren't super accurate, and since I just read a pretty fair biography of Jefferson recently called Jefferson: Architect of American Liberty by John B Boles, I figured I would chime in. Really interesting and very much puts a great (in terms of historical stature) and flawed (in terms of our modern sense of morals) man in the context of his time and place.
Can we stop pretending the world in the past had the same knowledge, ethics, and standards as we do now? Everyone is a product of their time, even us, and if we are successful in making the world a better place, future generations are going to judge the fuck out of us for things we think are normal right now, that are atrocious in the future, the way people now judge past historical figures
His slave, Sally, also almost freed herself in France and he convinced her not to (I think she was 16 or 17 by then?). The relationship couldnt have been consensual not only because she (& her whole family) was literally owned by him, but also because she was significantly younger/a minor. He kept his own children with her enslaved during his life. That he did this for political reasons isn't a good or acceptable look. Being a slave isn't a chill situation. Back then, we knew people killed themselves rather than be a slave. People knew then how harmful it was. Can't believe you're defending that relationship at any level.
I mean, it's not defendable on any level, except that the prevailing notion of the time was that black people were inferior to whites. Obviously that doesn't make it right, and by today's standards Thomas Jefferson is a monster.
I'm not trying to defend Jefferson as being a good person, but expound upon the (what I consider) false assertion that Jefferson had no issue with slavery whatsoever (from his private letters, he held views against slavery) and that he fucked a bunch of his slaves. I agree with the point of the individual above that the US was built by white men for white men. But, as I said earlier, if you're going to invoke history in your argument, it's best to do it with some level of accuracy.
Since I recently read that John B Bole's biography on Jefferson, I figured I'd chime in. The biography tries hard to put Jefferson in his time and place, establishes him as somewhat of a renaissance man (which, again, shouldn't be praised much due to his privilege and use of slave labor on his projects), and also highlights out his hypocrisy and disappointing refusal to support anti-slavery movement publicly.
You should double check usernames. I never stated those things.
I have been to Monticello. I know quite a bit about Jefferson myself. It would also behoove you to think about whether what you read contained any propaganda or attempts to sanitizes this country's history by making Jefferson appear better.
Back in even Columbus's times, there were people who staunchly disagreed with slavery. Which also existed for natives, including the Taino. Antonio de Montesinos and Bartolomé de las Casas (both wrote extensively about how bad slavery was) were alive 200 years before Jefferson and the latter was extremely well known especially in the academic circles Jefferson was in.
For perspective, 200 years ago would be when Mexico signed their constitution. 200 years is a long time ago in terms of collective consciousness. He knew it was wrong, he just benefitted from it so he was fine with it. Which is like, the entire basis for morals and ethics.
I didn't say you stated them. The person above did -- the person I originally responded to. When I say "If you're going to invoke history..." I mean, "If a person is going to invoke history." Maybe I should have been clearer there.
I personally don't believe Boles sanitized Jefferson's biography. Again, I think he did a good job of outlining his life without letting him off the hook. It's cool you've been to Monticello, and that you know about Jefferson. But if a person is looking for a fair depiction of Jefferson, is that really the place to go? I mean, certainly slaves were the ones who built up that place. I've never been, so I can't say for sure that they (the curators) don't condemn Jefferson in the way that you'd like, so doesn't that point kind of undermine your argument? Hey, I've never been, so I don't know. I'd guess Monticello is just as likely or more to have sanitized Jefferson's life than Boles' book.
And sure, there were people that opposed slavery centuries before Jefferson. But I'd wager to guess they were in the minority (ie, not the prevailing notion) considering there was an entire industry revolving around the slave trade during Jefferson's time, consisting of more than just two individuals.
Edit: Sorry, this doesnt really cover your entire comment because of your edits, but yeah I think the general jist is that we disagree about the level of Jefferson's "alrightness" with slavery. I mean, yeah he's totally a hypocrite, and you could argue it makes him worse that he acknowledge slavery was wrong, but still perpetuated it. I'm hesitant to do that, because of the time and place that he lived.
I'd very very VERY softly compare it to the fact that today, we know Nike has bad labor practices. Am I going to condemn everyone I know who wears a Nike product? Probably not.
Where we disagree is the "because of the time and place he lived, it's okay he had slaves." Also having separate private/public opinions makes him a coward, not a radical.
With your Nike analogy - 1) it's no where near the level of evil of slavery 2) I do condemn people who own shitty companies, eg blackrock 3) plenty of people during that time wore cotton and other products made with slave labor, and many today still do so. I'm not condemning the consumer. I'm condemning the owner, who had extreme power politically to end slavery. I'm condemning Jefferson, a coward rapist.
I mean, I never said it was okay he had slaves. It's obviously monstrous. And yes, it was cowardly not to be public with his private opinions on the matter. My whole point is Jefferson was not completely okay with slavery, although evidently he was okay enough to own slaves (depending on your viewpoint, that make your opinion of him either better or worse), and that he didn't fuck a bunch of his slaves.
Edit: And i suppose that contradicts my Nike comparison (hence why I emphasized "softly" there). Still, I'd say Jefferson was a product of his time and place, for the worse.
Edit2: actually no, it doesn't really. My point was that a person can be uncomfortable with a thing (Nike's labor practices) and still perpetuate it because of the just vast vast acceptance during the time
When you say "he was a product of his time and place," you are saying it's okay he had slaves because of the time/place he was in. FYI. Maybe you're genuinely unaware that's a dog whistle for excusing racism?
I'm unaware of anything significant Nike has done controversy-wise. So I will use Johnson&Johnson as an example instead, and their practice of having asbestos in their baby powder. If you are the owner of J&J, and you knowingly sold a product to babies with asbestos in it, but privately you think that's a bad thing to do, but publicly you did it because all the other businesses sell shitty products - should you not be jailed? If you are in charge of something, does that not indicate MORE responsibility?
Your analogy sucks because you are ignoring the power Jefferson had.
Jefferson was a founding father. Of our laws. He wasn't some no name consumer or worker. He was the equivalent (in terms of power) of a business owner. He is 100% responsible for his actions which affected millions.
I didn't think about it as a dog whistle, but I'm sure it is. That is me being ignorant. I'm not trying to use it in that fashion. It's not right he owned slaves. Once again, my main point is that he was not completely okay with slavery, as the original person I responded to was asserting.
You're getting into his role in drafting laws, which I havent commented on because I simply don't know, off the top of my head, what is attributed to him besides much of the original Constitution. I can only guess in regards to that, and I would guess that, being a white man, he considered and heavily favored the interests of other white men in the drafting of laws, and is responsible for much of the inequity we still see today.
By the way, Nike has been accused of utilizing forced labor in the past.
Three of the seven Founding Fathers were slave-owners.
One was restricted by law from freeing them due to the massive debts he ran up funding the Revolution (Washington) but came to believe that slavery was an unambiguous evil by the end of his life, making plans to free his slaves lawfully (which is a bit of a dick move considering the state of the law at the time, but 'we are creatures of habit, not originality').
One was a dickhead, but one who thought slavery was bad and should die out (Jefferson).
Only one was an unrepentant slaver (Madison).
The other four were staunch abolitionists.
That was true for the Puritans who founded Mass and Connecticut. But for most of what would become the US, the exact opposite was the truth. Europe quite explicitly was NOT progressive and deeply philosophical about religion at the time - the Puritans on the Mayflower were fleeing, specifically, the Netherlands, which was a rare bastion of religious tolerance in Europe. Maryland was founded as a refuge for Catholics where all Trinitarians would have equal rights - far more radical than most of Europe. Pennsylvania was explicitly founded on religious tolerance by a Quaker. Rhode Island instituted freedom for non-Trinitarian Christians in the 17th century. European Jews fled to New York (after it was no longer New Amsterdam) specifically BECAUSE it was more tolerant than Europe. New Jersey, North Carolina, and South Carolina were religiously diverse from the outset.
Most of the Founding Fathers were deists or highly deist influenced, and all believed in freedom of religion.
Hagiography of the early days of America is dumb. But demonization doesn't provide a clear view simply by being the reverse.
Thank you!
Sure, but there were many more people than the "seven founding fathers," and indeed many people include those who signed the Declaration of Independence and those who approved or were there for the Constitution, as being also "founding fathers." At the end of the day, most of them WEREN'T abolitionists or else we wouldn't have had slaves.
When most people say the Founding Fathers, they mean the big seven.
The sticking point for the Constitution (as early drafts did repudiate slavery) was the Southern delegates - though slavery had not yet fully developed as a core part of the region's identity, a lot of money was still tied up in the disgusting trade. Even so, the assumption was that slavery would die out in the South the same way it had done elsewhere - a trend which was reversed by the invention of the cotton gin.
They designed it to be amended constantly. And it used to be.
While I agree, I also see the other guys POV...the Founding Fathers wanting to break from kings and royal lines, while Trump&Fam look like their doing their best to start a royal family of America (I'll be damned before that ever happens)
The Trump family is just the newest one to try this. The Kennedy's had the first American Dynasty I can think of, the Clinton's tried, and the Bush Family also tried and somewhat succeeded.
The Kennedys, I can see to an extent. The Clinton's and Bushes, not at even close...the Bushes had a kid in entertainment news, and Jeb, who no one laughs at (out of politeness)
Bush Sr was head of the CIA, Vice President, then President. One Son became Governor of the 2nd largest State (Texas) and then became a 2 term US President. His other Son went on to become Governor of the 4th largest State (Florida) and may have become President if his older brother hadn't fucked it up quite so badly. The Bush Family was very close to a Kennedy level dynasty.
The Clinton Family tried really hard to get there. Bill was Governor of Arkansas and went on to become a 2 Term President while Hillary went on to become a Senator, Sec of State, and came within a whisker of being President herself. The only thing preventing a further run at "Dynasty" is that, at least so far, Chelsea isn't showing any interest in politics.
Disagree on both counts 🤷♂️
I think another important consideration is that the founding fathers were no more unified than today's political leaders. We talk about how divisive the tone of discourse has become, but those old guys knew how to sling mud. They had intense disagreements about how to build the country, and no single design or designer had enough influence to get exactly what he wanted. When people start a sentence like "The founding fathers never wanted..." some probably did. They imagined all kinds of scenarios and eventualities. Some of them were fascists, some of them were abolitionists, some of them were hedonists, some of them were religious zealots. There weren't many issues where all of the founders were of one mind, if any existed.
The difference is they were willing to give-and-take to eventually come to a mutually tolerable compromise solution.
Contrast that with today's "if you are from the other party, I will thwart you even if it is a good idea"
Ok, but Burr shot a Hamilton.
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/The_Caning_of_Senator_Charles_Sumner.htm
I dunno, we've always had dogshit people in congress.
While your general thought is true, that example is from almost 100 years after the founding fathers era and in the leadup to the Civil War.
The founding fathers probably would have thought of him as a weak leader regardless.