– Jean-Francois Revel
Seeing as how there are no new posts up today, I thought I’d check with FA readers to find out whether any of you went out this weekend to see Dinesh D’Souza’s “America: Imagine a World without Her”; and to give you a chance to share your thoughts and opinions.
For myself, I saw it yesterday, first showing in the late morning. The theater wasn’t filled; but neither was it empty. I could sense in the atmosphere that all of these movie-goers were of the same political persuasion as myself. And that, ultimately, will be part of the problem with this film.
While I am thrilled that there is a movie out in theaters with a conservative message, and while I agree with, and am sympathetic to, the partisan perspective expressed, I had hoped that D’Souza would make a movie focused more on challenging some of the Howard Zinn/Noam Chomsky/Ward Churchill worldview history and anti-Americanism that many of us have been fed in public schools and colleges; and less on partisan attacks against President Obama and Hillary Clinton. Why? Because half of America will most likely knee-jerk tune out and dismiss the movie as partisan propaganda rather than give it the serious attention it merits.
The film addresses 5 indictments made by many on the left about America. But it only scratches the surface in how it challenges some of the liberal-view beliefs about America’s shamefulness. I have not read the book, so I don’t know if D’Souza gives more in-depth arguments and analyses against the Howard Zinn narrative on American history.
While I don’t totally dismiss Zinn’s American history, I find where it primarily is at fault is in its lopsided, agenda-driven perspective in painting an incomplete portrait of our nation’s past (and how he feels about its present). What I fear is that rather than an honest, balanced look at the United States, conservatives will buy into a pro-America propagandistic perspective that is also flawed, inaccurate, and dishonest.
Liberal reviews that I’ve seen are unsurprisingly hating the film and dismissing it. Conservative movie-goers are loving it. What needs to happen is the creation of a historical narrative that is honest, viewed in context to the times, balanced in perspective, and pro-American while acknowledging the sins of our past. There are both liberals and conservatives who celebrate Independence Day and who love our country. There should be a film that can resonate with both sides of the political aisle and make us all deeply proud and unapologetic in calling ourselves “American”.
A few books (off the top of my head) I recommend:
A Patriot’s History of the United States by Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen
The Heritage Guide to the U.S. Constitution by Edwin Meese
Jean Francois Revel’s Anti-Americanism
10 Big Lies About America by Michael Medved
3 Big Lies About the Vietnam War Michael Medved Show (radio program)
An American Amnesia by Bruce Herschensohn
America: The Last Best Hope by Bill Bennett
Black Rednecks and White Liberals by Thomas Sowell
-Pg 163-165, Black Rednecks and White Liberals excerpt:
Even those Western leaders who sought to end slavery are condemned by critics today for not having done it sooner or faster. The dangers and constraints of their times have too often been either ignored or brushed aside as mere excuses, as if elected leaders operating under constitutional law could simply decree whatever they felt was right.
Even a sympathetic biography of George Washington, for example, said: “He had helped to create a new world but had allowed into it an infection that he feared would eventually destroy it.” This statement is breathtaking in its assumptions. Washington did not “allow” slavery, which existed on American soil and around the world before he was born, nor did he have the option to decree its end. Even to have made slavery a public issue at the time would have accomplished nothing except to jeopardize the survival of a fragile coalition of newly independent states. Yet this man who contributed more than anyone else to the introduction of free republican government in the modern world is widely seen as being under a moral cloud, as if he had chosen to introduce or abet slavery. Washington’s actual behavior illustrated what Adam Smith had said, decades earlier, in his Theory of Moral Sentiments, that a man prompted “by humanity and benevolence,” when he cannot establish the right, “will not disdain to ameliorate the wrong.”
Abraham Lincoln, who took advantage of a military conflict to stretch his powers as commander-in-chief to the point of issuing the Emancipation Proclamation, has been downgraded in the post-1960′s world for not having done it sooner, more sweepingly, with more fervent moral rhetoric, and with affirmations of the equality of the races thrown in. The serious legal and political risks that Lincoln took when he emancipated Southern slaves are ignored. There was no groundswell of public opinion, even in the North, for freeing slaves. On the contrary, in a war-weary nation it was feared that the Emancipation Proclamation would stiffen Southern resistance and reduce the chances of an early negotiated settlement of a conflict that killed more Americans than any other war, before or since.
Lincoln himself was unsure what the net military effect of the proclamation would be. Yet military necessity was the only rationale that had either a constitutional basis or a political chance of being accepted. Those in later times who judge only by words may be disappointed that Lincoln did not make a ringing moral case for emancipation. But seldom, if ever, do they ask whether that would have made the proclamation more likely or less likely to survive both constitutional and political challenges. Despite Lincoln’s mastery of moral rhetoric- some consider his Gettysburg Address the finest speech in the English language- the Emancipation Proclamation was written in such dry and dull language that it has been likened to a bill of lading. But Lincoln understood that ringing rhetoric can be as counterproductive in some situations as it is inspiring in others.
To have made the moral case for emancipation in the Proclamation would have undermined its acceptance as a matter of military necessity. The earlier emancipation of slaves in the British Empire likewise invoked military necessity and avoided ringing humanitarian rhetoric, in order to maximize the range of its political support. As a distinguished scholar aptly put it, “we are so conditioned to expecting interest to masquerade as altruism that we may miss altruism when concealed beneath the cloak of interest.”
As it was, Lincoln was viciously attacked in the Democrats’ press for issuing the Emancipation Proclamation. Nor was this simply a question of his own political career being in jeopardy. Lincoln warned Andrew Johnson “to remember that it can not be known who is next to occupy the position I now hold, nor what he will do” at this critical moment in the history of the nation and of the fight against slavery. William Lloyd Garrison could indulge in ringing rhetoric without regard to the consequences but Abraham Lincoln had the heavy responsibility of consequences squarely on his shoulders as he faced his countrymen- and history. Lincoln had been elected to his first term by a plurality, rather than a majority, and it was by no means certain that he would be re-elected, especially with the controversy over the Emancipation Proclamation swirling around him.
Those who view slavery as an abstract moral issue are as disappointed with Lincoln today as William Lloyd Garrison was at the time. Garrison was dissatisfied with the language of the Emancipation Proclamation and with the fact that it did not decree “the total abolition of slavery,” rather than just its abolition in the Southern states at war. He seemed oblivious to the huge legal and political risks that Lincoln was taking- as many in later times would be when they criticized the limits of his actions and words. But had Lincoln’s real concerns extended no further than the military effects of the Emancipation Proclamation, it would be hard to explain his many and strenuous behind-the-scenes efforts to get slave-holding border states and the Congress of the United States to extend the ban on slavery to the whole country. Garrison’s rhetoric may look better to a later generation but the cold fact is that William Lloyd Garrison did not free a single slave, while Abraham Lincoln freed millions.
Lack of awareness or concern for the context and constraints of the times is only part of the problem of those today assessing such historic figures as Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln- or the American nation as a whole.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfVUktKzPSA[/youtube]
D’Souza’s movie doesn’t fully develop an imagined alternate reality where America- the indispensable nation- didn’t come to existence. Would the world be better off today or worse?
I was pleased with the inclusion of Madison Rising’s kick-ass rendition of the Star-Spangled Banner for the closing credits of the film. Here is my all-inclusive video of that song:
A former fetus, the “wordsmith from nantucket” was born in Phoenix, Arizona in 1968. Adopted at birth, wordsmith grew up a military brat. He achieved his B.A. in English from the University of California, Los Angeles (graduating in the top 97% of his class), where he also competed rings for the UCLA mens gymnastics team. The events of 9/11 woke him from his political slumber and malaise. Currently a personal trainer and gymnastics coach.
The wordsmith has never been to Nantucket.
I saw it first thing on Sat AM, too.
One of the parts I thought most highly of was how D’Souza pointed out that looting and simply taking what wasn’t yours was par for the course throughout most of human history (even on the American continents before colonists got here) and even now in many parts of the planet.
America was the first place to institutionalize NOT doing that.
America made creating things and developing them, marketing them and profiting from that more worthwhile than simply stealing something.
D’Souza related America’s freeing of slaves to this as well.
He reminds us that slaves have been held all over the world, by all sorts of cultures both in the past and now.
America stands out for institutionalizing NOT doing that, too.
As for Zinn, I despise the man.
Not just because his ”histories” are cover for propagandizing Americans into hating themselves, but more because he has made his ”histories” so entertaining as to render classicalist histories dry in comparison.
People with the attention spans of 3 minutes, tops, will not bother with the facts, figures, names and dates that are par for the course in classical history books.
Zinn has prepared a new generation to doom because they haven’t even learned history, much less enough to avoid mistakes students of history can see a mile away.
An excellent point. One of the mistakes of looking at past history is to judge it from a modern perspective. Some examples. With the slavery issue, while today we find it appalling, at that time blacks were perceived as an inferior race by both sides, those who supported it and those who opposed it. Militarily, I used to think Ambrose Burnside was a hosed up general (which he was because he lost battles) because he sent thousands of soldiers to their deaths at Fredericksburg. After all, how could a general march his troops against a salient on high ground? But the military tactics he used were common military tactics of the day. Same with sharpshooting Truman for dropping the bombs. Was he supposed to take over a million U.S. casualties by invading Japan in the fifth year of a war that the American public was growing weary of? The left loves to insinuate that Bush “hid” from 9/11 because he didn’t immediately go to D.C. after the attacks. What were they suppose to do, fly the POTUS into what was a war zone? No POTUS would ever been flown there. Why do you think they have all of those underground complexes for the POTUS and Congress that have existed since at least the start of the Cold War?
I do not have a great hope that the film “America” will penetrate the contemporary lack of insight and foresight that seems to be the lot of the current electorate. The films though are really a hallmark of the times and may someday be seen in retrospect as the warning “we” didn’t heed. The treasonous governance of today’s leaders just may soon go far enough into the depths as to wake up the American people, but I am not hopeful…….
@Nanny G: The damage Zinn has done- and those who disseminated and indoctrinated his lopsided anti-American historical view of our nation to generations of high school and college kids- is enormous.
In regards to the injustices and sins America has committed, I have no problem with owning up to those. But not to the point of self-flagellation and exaggerating the sins as though America were uniquely guilty of such institutions as slavery. What is unique is a country that fought a civil war over the issue, to end it.
Some candor:
@another vet:
My whole argument in the thread I cited from, if I remember correctly, was me arguing with Gaffa over flaws in judging the past and those who lived within the constraints and context of their times through the lens of 21st century moral convictions and standards. So rather than seeing and crediting many of the Founders (and Christianity and western/British culture) for recognizing the evils of slavery and getting the ball rolling in changing an institution that had been in existence all across the globe since man could remember, people like Gaffa can only criticize that the Founders didn’t do enough nor lived up to their principles of equality.
Here’s another good article by Sowell on Lincoln:
Guelzo’s book is another one I have on my shelf.
@Wordsmith:
I agree 100%. My post wasn’t to criticize, but to support that idea. Another well written and thought provoking thread!
Zinn was a marxist apologist, which is the real reason his pseudo-history was used so heavily in high schools and universities to brainwash people. Chomsky may be a brilliant linguist, but his laughable defense of the Khymer Rouge – denying (in spite of obvious evidence) the blatant slaughter and brutality of the Cambodian communists should have rendered his political philosophical stature totally irrelevent for all time – yet pseudointellectual nitwits still name drop Chomsky all the time to burnish their “I’m a cool leftist” credentials…usually while wearing some Che T-shirt.
@Wordsmith:
As if the failure to live up to a standard invalidates that standard. This sort of “argument” is common from leftists.
@another vet:
Oh, I knew that! I was just picking up on your comment and elaborating upon it. 🙂
@Wordsmith: No problem. That’s what I thought but wasn’t sure. With regards to Sowell’s article about the Emancipation Proclamation, the primary motivating factor was Lincoln realized that he was going to have to wage total war in order to win, after all the “insurrection” was only to have lasted 90 days and it was going on two years with no end in sight. That meant emancipating the slaves in the South in order to cripple their war efforts. Before he issued the Proclamation, he offered the South the opportunity to keep their slaves if they returned to the Union.
@Pete: Kind of like the lefties who are Lenin apologists. They think that if he would have lived longer Communism would have worked and that he wasn’t a butcher because he didn’t kill as many people as Stalin. You think only being in power for 6-7 years as opposed to around 30 had anything to do with it?
@another vet:
Do you actually believe this is true or are you just spouting neo-Confederate pabulum? Is that how you reduce the opinion of Frederick Douglass, just a guy who opposed slavery while perceiving blacks as “inferior”?
@Wordsmith:
Of course its’s a false narrative that liberals are hung up on slavery as something that’s gone unaddressed (I’ll skip over the obvious irony of the slavery apologism on this very thread).You can choose to be the most pro-American and you can choose to be the most clear-eyed viewer of history – those are two different things. Holding up slavery as a pain point is an easy easy way for conservatives to ignore and paint as ridiculous concerns regarding contemporary inequities. For example, while conservatives paint a picture of questionably loyal liberals complaining about ancient history, in real life African Americans make up 40% of the male US prison population. There are more black men in prison today than there were in slavery in 1850. There are many reasons for this that you will never hear conservatives discuss because conservatives put racism to bed with the Emancipation Proclamation. Creating a false dichotomy between the good Americans who love our county and the bad Americans who are all about self-flagellation might work in the abstract but it doesn’t actually address reality. Anyone who is willing to approach it with an open mind might find a lot to chew over in Ta-Nehisi Coates seminal The Case for Reparations. It has garnered many, thought-provoking conservative responses (with responses in kind) . We can grapple with history or we can just call ourselves the good guys and be done with it. The cost, obviously, is another thing.
@Tom:
Source: http://www.nps.gov/liho/historyculture/debate4.htm
@Tom: Who sold blacks into slavery? A market was created for the product.
@Tom:
Stands to reason, since there are more black men today than there were in slavery in 1850.
I know your comment was for impact, but you ignore why so many black men are in prison to begin with. Bill Cosby, Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele and Star Parker have relentlessly tried to persuade black Americans to clean up their own neighborhoods, be fathers to their children and take responsibility for their own lives. Not only has that message fallen on deaf ears while the welfare checks roll, but those who have tried to show that black Americans are trading their souls for a check, have been labeled Uncle Toms and traitors to their race.
In the 1950’s, prior to LBJ replacing fathers with government checks, blacks had a lower divorce rate than any other group, fewer unwed mothers, were more religious than whites, and placed strong importance on faith and family more than any other segment of the population. What changed? 80% of all pregnancies among black women in New York end in abortion.
Coates is a radical who needs to go away. Not once does he ever mention the racist past of black Americans. Never. Nada. Yet, we build museums to the Buffalo Soldier who had but one goal; drive the Native American into Mexico or annihilate them, which they did with fervor. Perhaps Coates should take up the cause that the ancestors of all the Buffalo Soldiers be required to provide reparations to the families of the Native Americans they slaughtered. Nor does he ever mention the blacks that actually owned slaves in all states. How would he demand reparations from those blacks? Would every black be required to research Ancesty.com in order to make sure they descended from slaves and not slave owners? What about whites whose family were not even in the U.S. prior to 1864? Should they pay reparations?
Coates, like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Jeremiah Wright, et al, race baiters to the core who have fattened their bank accounts by being divisive and creating resentment, instead of promoting self reliance, responsibility and advancement of black Americans. There is a reason the name of the group is the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, a goal they long ago abandoned.
Wordsmith
WOW, JUST LIKE AMERICA,
YOU DID IT AGAIN,
THANK YOU, SO MUCH
@Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:
There in lies the irony. White slave traders would not venture inland (as much as that claim has been repeated over and over again) due to knowing that the tribes who were kidnapping other tribes, and selling them into slavery, had no problem enslaving, or killing, the whites any more than they did the natives.
Another thing I find ironic is how blacks seem to gravitate toward Islam, never admitting that Islam still supports slavery, and in fact, many, many black children have been kidnapped and put into slavery for no other purpose than to be camel jockeys for the Arab nations.
retire05
YES,
AND THEY WHERE BROUGHT IN AMERICA BY ARABS WHO WHERE CATCHING THEM BY FORCE AND DRAGGING THEM ON THEIR BOAT TO COME TO AMERICA AND SELL THEM TO WHOEVER THEY COULD FIND INTERESTED,like cattle,
THE NEW RANCHERS needing hands bought them more on compassion than needs, like AMERICANS are still to this day for oppress people, it was a known fact which stood up time, till theses days,
and yes to be repeated for all the BLACKS PEOPLE TO REMEMBER ALWAYS,
NO MATTER WHAT HAS BEEN TOLD TO YOU ALL FROM GENERATION TO GENERATIONS,
THIS IS THE TRUTH,
NOW OBAMA HAS OPEN THE INVITATION TO FOREIGNERS,
AND IT’S LOADING THE COUNTRY, AND CAUSING A GREAT DANGER FOR THE OVER CROWDING PRESENT SOCIETY, AND
AMERICANS DO NOT AGREE OF IT, NOT BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT COMPASSIONATE, BUT BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE FUTUR ENTANGLEMENTS OF THE WHOLE
COUNTRY,AND THE MANY DANGERS AHEAD SURE TO HURT
THEIR OWN SOCIETY, WHICH IS NOW STRESS TO THE MAXIMUM,
LIKE THE RANCHERS OF GENERATION AGO, KNEW TO TAKE
ONLY WHO THEY COULD NOURISH AND REFUSE THE OTHER TO KEEP THE PRIORITY ON THEIR OWN PEOPLE, WHICH WAS
THE WISE THING TO DO,
OBAMA IS DUMPING THOSE PEOPLE LIKE DUMPING HIS GARBISH,
@retire05:
Do you mean the neighborhoods they lived in because of redlining?
Clap clap clap
As much as I enjoy you proving my point by floating every racist stereotype under the sun, what if we tried for once to stick to objective facts? Of course if you can prove “black Americans are trading their souls” I’ll stand corrected.
Where should he go?
Perhaps that’s because that’s not what his essay is about. Or are you of the option that someone can’t write about a topic without writing about every other topic as well? Is that what happens here at Flopping Aces? “Now, for the liberal perspective that perhaps Obama isn’t a Marxist Muslim…”
So much straw. Yes, I think you’re correct. less than 1/100th of 1% of slaves in 1830 were owned by blacks. Your argument is actually too laughably weak to even warrant pointing out how irrelevant it is to anything Coates has written. Congratulations on that. You should try reading Coates essay next time before debating it, unless you consider blindly reaching into your grab bag of fascinating racial factoids “debating”.
@retire05:
Another one of your objective “facts”, huh? I’d love to see you attempt to prove that.
@another vet:
What does that prove? That Lincoln struggled with his own views on slavery? That he was never part of the abolitionist wing of his party? All this is well known. It doesn’t prove your assertion that blacks were universally perceived as “inferior”.
Tom
SO, WHAT’S THE POINT IN MIXING FLOPPING ACES IN THAT COMMENT?
@Tom: If you believe that back then blacks weren’t perceived as inferior by most whites, I suggest you hit the history books. I could rattle off a list of primary sources for you to read from a 50 page thesis I did, but it probably wouldn’t matter. Just because Lincoln was opposed to slavery, that doesn’t mean he didn’t believe they were inferior. You do know his first plan in dealing with the freed slaves was to send them to Liberia? He later changed that to Haiti but after over 400 of them died, he scrapped the idea. Check out wage rates for blacks and whites during and after the war. Black wages were much lower than whites. Blacks serving in the Union Army had to fight to get paid the same as their white counterparts. Check out the way they were treated by Union forces after being freed. If those aren’t indications that blacks were perceived as inferior to you, then so be it. If Lincoln’s own words weren’t enough to convince that he perceived blacks to be inferior, then so be it. I could rattle on about Grant, McClellan, Sherman, the correspondence of Union grunts to loved ones writing about why they were fighting etc., but it probably wouldn’t matter. You have pre-perceived view so that is what is true.
@another vet:
I’m afraid I have no choice but to point out that you’ve changed your argument. “Most” is a slippery word for sure, and a qualifier you’ve tacked on after the fact. To your point, sure, I’m willing to believe that a majority of whites felt that way (although, crucially, some didn’t). Now are you willing to admit that many of those same people who felt the way you’ve described, Lincoln included, considered slavery an evil abomination regardless of their opinion of blacks as a race? You seem to feel you can mitigate slavery as a wrong because people just didn’t know any better. But that’s a false narrative, and false history, because we know they did know better. Many people who thought there were differences between the races still believe slavery was evil. I’m sure there were plenty of racists, by our modern definition, in 19th century Europe, but that didn’t stop the British Empire and others from abolishing slavery. So what exactly is your point, sir? What you think of as an excuse for slavery is no such thing. Southern whites were well aware that by the 19th century their peculiar institution was considered a moral abomination by most of the civilized world. They chose to carry on regardless. That isn’t ignorance. That’s an informed decision.
@Tom:
Where did I mitigate slavery as a wrong? I want you to you quote me verbatim.
@another vet:
The original statement by you I responded to, obviously: “With the slavery issue, while today we find it appalling, at that time blacks were perceived as an inferior race by both sides”
Let’s consult Webster: Mitigate: to make (something) less severe, harmful, or painful.
Are you tying to tell me that statement by you isn’t an attempt to mitigate the act of slavery? You’re directly offering an excuse for it! And not a very convincing one at that.
@Tom: Tom- I put my ass on the line freeing people from oppression more than once. Yourself? If you think I condone slavery or are trying to mitigate then you are dead wrong. My statement about blacks being regarded as inferior back then as well as slavery being looked at differently are historical fact. If that bothers you or you want to twist the statement to make it believe it is something you want it to be, that is I for some reason am downplaying the evils of slavery, then so be it. We are done.
ANOTHER VET
hi,
I DON”T AGREE, that slavery was all bad, but the word was made bad, there where bad slaves also who where punish hard,
for what crime they did, that is fair, and those had bad story to repeat to the next generation, that is to be expected,
when the slaves where liberated, many came back to their same place,where they had learn many skills, nothing wrong with that,
because being free had taken away their security the one they where use to,
but the word was made evil subserviant of other human,
aren’t we all slave of our lives, subserviant of someone else, at one time or more of our lives?
yes, i believe it, we stay in our slavery condition for many because we are secure in it,
and find not all bad thing, but a mix of it both good and bad, worthy enough to sustain the bad,
and overpower it with the good times,
there is many sentences made up with the word “slave”
one say: i did work like a slave, but i finished it,
i study to get to learn like a slave, and found the answers,
this plan we want to create is slavery for a few months,
and many more,
bye,
@ilovebeeswarzone: Most of us can relate to “working like slaves” or “being a slave to our environment” but those are different than being forcibly held against one’s will. If you notice the theme of my original post was that we have a tendency to view past history in present terms as opposed to taking into account how people thought back then. That goes hand in hand with Word’s cited quote at the beginning of the post, “We have to know who were, if we’re to know who we are.” I then cited multiple examples, two of which were the changed attitudes toward slavery and the changed attitudes toward blacks. Notice how those were singled out and made into some sort of a downplaying of slavery (which they weren’t) yet no significant historical evidence was provided to dispute the claims. Frederick Douglas was black and a former slave, of course he didn’t feel that way. Neither did some of the abolitionists who were a minority in the North. Had I instead used the practice of the pre-Christian Romans worshipping multiple gods or how they forced a number of those they conquered into slavery, there most likely wouldn’t have been a response to that post because no one could have felt like they were fighting against slavery and racism and thus feel good about themselves. I made a point of not reading or responding to comments made by the left and veered from that. My bad as they say. This was a typical example of why.
another vet
YES YOUR POINTS ARE SOLID AS STEEL,
I am looking at positives for the slaves who benefited in some or maybe many ways< from their force removal of their country by the rutheless ARABS, ROAMING AROUND THE AFRICAN COUNTRIES,
from the start those they themself called slaves wich was kept because it was their collective names,
given by ARABS, not the first settlers on this country,
i am rejecting the shame put on the ranchers, they didn"t go to get them in their country<
they bought them because there was a price on their head they where not given by compassion,
the SETTLERS NEW ARRIVED COULD NOT AFFORD THEM TO BEGIN WITH,
THE MONEY WAS SCARCE, THEY WHERE STRONG AND DEPENDED ON THEIR SKILLS AND WILL
TO TAME THEIR LAND THEY WHERE NOT BAD, and they took the slaves out of their inner feeling of compassion, THEY DID NOT ASK FOR EXTRA HANDS, THEY START BY BEING ON THEIR OWN,
and their need for help was scondary to buying an emaciated half dead BLACK MAN, WHO WAS UNABLE TO HELP THEM WAS THEIR FIRST LOOK, but they took them so to save them,
the ARABS WOULD THROW OUT TO SEA THE WEAK WHO COULDN'T MAKE THE TRIP,
THE RANCHERS KNEW THE SLAVES WHERE GOING TO BE KILLED IF NOT TAKEN,
OF COURSE THERE WAS SOME ABUSE, THE HUMAN DEMONS WHERE ACTIVE ON SOME,
THEY WHERE ACTIVE ON THE SLAVES ALSO,
BUT NO ON THE MAJORITY OF SETTLER, I REFUSE TO THINK IT WAS ON ALL OF THEM,
THE PROOF IS MOST SURVIVED,
BYE
@ilovebeeswarzone: You make a good point about the plight of slaves in Africa. They were far worse off than the ones here, as were Irish immigrants in the North, although that doesn’t justify them being held in slavery over here. General William T. Sherman believed that Southern slavery was the best form of slavery and owned slaves himself (Marszalek, John F. Sherman: a soldier’s passion for order, p. 64). Yet another example of a prominent Northerner who defies the historical revisionism that the main purpose of the war was to free the slaves as opposed to keeping the Union together.
@retire05:
Wounded Knee. Men, women, and children.
another vet
yes, and when we think of the whole pattern,
the slaves had no other choices, they where new to AMERICA, SO THEY DIDN’T KNOW WHERE ELSE TO ESCAPED, THEY WHERE SOLD IN A MARKET AND BROUGHT TO A LAND SO WIDE THAT THEY DIDN’T SEE
ANY OTHER WAY TO GO ESCAPE,
YES I THINK BACK NOT THINK OF TODAY, AND YET, STILLNOW, WE HEAR OF SOME BEING TAKEN CAPTIVE FOR MANY YEARS, IN A CITY FULL OF PEOPLE, THAT IS SLAVERY ALSO WITH A CRIMINAL MIND AS OPPOSE TO THE RANCHERS BUYING THE SLAVES WAS NOT WITH A CRIMINAL MIND,
BUT IN THOSE TIME THEY MUST HAVE FOUND IT NOT SO BAD, AND BY BEING SLAVES OWN BY THE TOP AUTHORITY , IT GAVE THEM A PROTECTION ALSO FROM THE HATERS PRETENDING TO TAKE THEIR INTEREST BY YELLING OUTRAGE FOR THE SLAVES OWNERS,
I THINK THE ONLY BAD GUYS WHERE FEW, and more ON the other SIDES OF THE REASONNING, IF ONE SLAVE ESCAPE HE WAS SURE TO GET KILLED, AS oppose to STAYED AND WORK AS EVRYONE ELSE DID, BLACK OR WHITE, while learning a trade.
AND I REJECT THE TODAY BLAME ON THE WHITE PEOPLE, FOR
SLAVERY THEIR ANCESTORS WHERE SUBMITED TO,
AND USING IT TO SHAME THE WHITES IS OUTRAGEOUS,
and prevent them to evolve
instead of get their gutts eaten with hate all their lives,
we even notice it in some street gangs , out to no good,
BYE
@another vet:
Did I say you “condone slavery”? Obviously not. You’ve decided to take my disagreement with your interpretation of history personally. My apologies if you’ve taken offense. None was intended. You are a complete stranger to me and we are debating history and ideas, I thought.
@Tom: Tom,
It wasn’t that I took your disagreements of my interpretations personally, people do have different interpretations of history and I recognize that and don’t expect everyone to agree with me and find debating it to be a learning experience. I even addressed that in a round about way when I addressed my interpretation of Burnside at Fredericksburg. It wasn’t until someone with an opposing view, that being that he used the military tactics that were common to the day, that made me rethink my position to an extent. He was still a very failed general and is rated as one of the worst if not the worst by CW historians. What irked me off was this comment:
The first sentence in particular was an implication of I didn’t what I was talking about or worse yet, racism. The second part actually made me think for a second as to whether or not you knew Frederick Douglas was black and a former slave because using him to support your argument made no sense. William Lloyd Garrison or John C. Freemont would have made far more sense as they were white and abolitionists who were far more radical on the idea of war to free the blacks as opposed to Lincoln and the bulk of Northerners who went to war to keep the Union together and who were quite racist themselves. Again, don’t take my word for it. Read the history books or better yet, read primary source documents which will have what the people actually said.
@Tom:
Funny you should mention “redlining”. It was claimed on a report by the Boston Fed, but later disproved by a number of university studies including the one done by Economics Professor John Lott (oops, the main study was done by Professor Stan Lebowitz) and a partner. They found that the ‘redlining” claimed by the Boston Fed was nothing more than an application of credit scores applied equally to all races and colors. But of course, not wanting to let a “crisis” go to waste, Bill Clinton put the CRA on steroids, which lead to the housing mortgage industry melt down in 2008.
But I’m sure a smart cookie like you knew all that, right?
When you forfeit your independence, and responsibility for your own actions, for no other reason that to participate in government largess funded by those who are independent and responsible, you think that has no affect on a person’s soul? When you slaughter your unborn child, time after time, you think that has no affect on a person’s soul?
If you think I am wrong, compare the standards of 1870 black families to those of today. No one alive today is responsible for slavery, or enslaving blacks in post 1864.
The scholarly method is to be inclusive in your writing about any topic. To present ALL facets of the issue. Coates does not do that. And while I admit that he is not a scholar, merely a propagandist, his writings leave a lot to be desired.
I am fully aware of Henry Gates’ article. He simply provides a “Yeah, but” excuse to a well documented fact, that free blacks owned other blacks. His was an agenda driven article, not one that was fully researched that provided actual documentation that would have shown he was minimizing the subject. But then, I have found that Gates functions from emotion and revisionist history more than he does using actual census statistics.
And the name of Louis Farrakhan’s organization is?
@another vet:
Fair enough. That sentence does seem unnecessarily combative, which I agree you did not deserve. Two things on this: 1) Your inital statement seemed far too broad. You later qualified it as “most” people, but I still think you’re under-counting the number of Americans who did not share that viewpoint. 2) Your line of reasoning has been used by others in an attempt to paint the morality of slavery in a more forgiving light. This is why I raised the point about England, or even the North. People there, as in the South, may not have shared our “modern” sense of race, but that didn’t stop them from seeing slavery as an evil. As Frederick Douglass (more on him below) said of Abraham Lincoln, “Though Mr. Lincoln shared the prejudices of his white fellow-countrymen against the negro, it is hardly necessary to say that in his heart of hearts he loathed and hated slavery.”
Yes, I know that Frederick Douglass is black. That’s exactly why I brought him up, to refute the concept that everyone on “both sides” saw things the same. Was he not on a side? Douglas was well-known and influential in his time and made a powerful and influential impression upon many people in his lifetime, Lincoln included. You quote Lincoln in 1858. But surely you can’t deny that Lincoln’s views evolved over time, to the point where Frederick Douglass, a former slave, was having private audiences with the President of the United States? ” In his company I was never in any way reminded of my humble origin, or of my unpopular colour.” – Frederick Douglass.
@Tom:
Which is why I said this:
With regards to Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation being put on hold:
Lincoln was, “allowing himself to be the miserable tool of traitors and rebels.” Frederick Douglas
Lincoln was, “nothing better than a wet rag and his war time policies were stumbling, halting, prevaricating, irresolute.” William Lloyd Garrison
McPherson, James. The Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 505.
When Lincoln proposed a government financed pilot colonization in Central America for blacks:
“This is our country as much as it is yours and we will not leave it.” Philadelphia Negro
Frederick Douglas accused Lincoln of “contempt for negroes and canting hypocrisy.”
McPherson, James. The Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 509.
All the evidence needs to to be looked at. It’s not quite so black and white (no pun intended) and the truth often lies in between. Keep in mind McPherson believed the causes of the CW were regional and sectional differences as well as a difference in opinion of what the role of the central government should be. He also leans left politically, is very pro-Lincoln, and has been a vocal opponent and critic of neo-Confederate groups.
As for the number of people in the North who were or were not in the belief that blacks were inferior, keep in mind that despite making the aforementioned speech, Lincoln was elected POTUS twice and the second time no Southern states voted. Aside from running for Imperial Wizard of the KKK, how far do you think someone would make it today politically after a speech like that?
another vet
yes and there was that DEMOCRAT NAME BIRD, WHO WAS IN THE KLUKLUX CLAN,
those linching the blacks and burning them
i always wonder why the BLACK PEOPLE FOLLOW THE DEMOCRAT PARTY,
KNOWINGLY THAT BIRD WAS STILL THERE,
@ilovebeeswarzone: Because Byrd was a democrat, he had a different set of rules. Anyone else from another party would have been crucified. Jesse Jackson has made anti-Semetic comments about Jews and he is still highly respected by that side of the aisle as well. It’s not the act, it’s the political affiliation of the person that matters most. Nice standards, don’t you think?
ANOTHER VET
I LIKE THE RULES OF CONDUCT FROM THE CONSERVATIVES, THEY ARE THE BEST RULES I EVER READ,
Smorgasbord gave us the list some times ago, and i like specialy the one who said to win wars,
WHICH IS DENIED TO THEM,
BUT IT’S OBVIOUS THE DEMOCRATS HAVE ONE RULE , IS KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT TO THEIR OWN,
AND NO MATTER THAT THEY CAN BE PERVERT OR LIARS, OR CORRUPT, IT’S OKAY ,THEY WILL PROTECT THEM TOTALY,
WHAT A DIFFERENCE,
BYE
@another vet: Actually, indentured servants were treated much worse than slaves. Don’t hear much about that because they were mostly poor whites who sold themselves to get to America.
@another vet:
In regards to your quotes regarding Lincoln, as I said, Lincoln’s views evolved, as did Douglass’ opinion of Lincoln. I am aware of those quotes, as I’m sure you’re aware of Douglass’ quotes on Lincoln following his murder.
Which would seem to indicate they supported the aim of preserving the Union at a high cost. Whether or not you want to downplay slavery as a cause for the Civil War, you cannot deny that the North fought a war to great personal cost that resulted in the freeing of millions of slaves. Were many of those Northern’s racists? Perhaps they were. You keep hammering on this point. But being a racist isn’t the same thing as being a slave owner, not by a long shot. I think this is the critical thing you’re failing to acknowledge, You are going to great pains to paint Northerners as racists as if that makes them no better than Southern slavers. That’s like saying a sexist is the same as rapist.
@Randy:
Now we’ve really reached a ridiculous level of hair splitting. Being a 19th century slave, forced working fields in the subtropics, the constant threat of torture or murder, your wife raped on a whim, your children sold, this is apparently better than being an indentured servant. How does one even arrive at this sort of judgement? What desperation to prove a point propels it? I knew a self-proclaimed 8 year old expert when I was a kid who told me it’s much worse being eaten by piranhas than being burned alive. I thought the same thing then as I do now: when something is worse then death, you can debate better or worse, just let me die.
@Tom:
You said this:
Douglas appears then to support my contention that racism was prevalent in the North.
My statement here kind of contradicts your conclusion as it distinguishes between the two:
They were in a large part racists. I don’t see the CW as some galliant attempt by the valiant white warriors of the North invading the South to free the slaves. Amongst the Abolitionist minority it was certainly true, but not amongst the overwhelmingly majority of Northern whites. They did so to keep the Union together. It’s historical fact. Lincoln and then the U.S. Congress in its Crittenden-Johnson Resolution, clearly stated the purpose of the war was to preserve the Union. Both stated specifically it was not the intention of the war to overthrow slavery. You do realize that the first 13th Amendment that PASSED the U.S. House in 1861 guaranteed slavery in the states against any future interference by the federal government? The second time it came up for vote in 1864 (no Southern votes), this time abolishing slavery, it failed 93-65. If it was the true intention of the North to rid the country of slavery, then why didn’t the North invade the South prior to Ft. Sumter with the stated intention of abolishing slavery?
I see the CW not as the guys in the white hats from the North going to fight the guys in the black hats from the South, but rather the guys in the gray hats in the North going to fight the guys in perhaps a slightly darker shade of gray hats in the South. McPherson, based on the 1860 census, put the number of white slave owning families in the upper South at 20% and 37% in the lower South and a minority of those had the overwhelming majority of slaves. In other words, the vast majority of Southerners did not own slaves. It’s no endorsement of slavery nor a downplaying of it. The same goes to ignoring or downplaying the issues of racism or labor practices in the North. You can’t look at this through tunnelvision. I feel the same about WWII. Our involvement there certainly wasn’t white and black in the European Theater like it was in the Pacific or for that matter 9/11 or even Iraq. It was gray as well. We got rid of the murdering bastard Hitler by befriending an even bigger murdering bastard in Stalin. Think about it. We replaced someone in half of Europe who murdered 8 million with someone who murdered over 20 million. Add in Lenin’s carnage and that number goes to over 30 million. Not exactly something you’d want to brag about but our historical revisionists like to play down those facts to present a PC feel good version of U.S. WWII history. Ditto for the CW.
I think it’s safe to say that the overwhelming majority of Americans today from all political stripes and sections of our country would say that they would have been abolitionists back then. One of the points I’m trying to make here, is that no one knows that for sure because we weren’t alive back then and views on race and slavery weren’t the same as they are now, including those in the North.
@Randy: We don’t hear much about the Irish, child labor, or the abuse of women in the workplace. I’d like to see a comparison between those who died working in the Northern sweat shops to those who died working on Southern plantations. In addition, first generation immigrants as well as free blacks/freed slaves made up a disproportionate number of those serving under arms in the Union Army.
No Tom, it’s not an endorsement or downplaying of slavery but merely a statement that those in the North (of which I am one) like to ignore the abuses of their own history.
another vet
they could not abolish RACIST as a thought, it was to deep on many,
but the abolish most of the abuse of race,
but racist feeling is still alive and with the flow of children invading AMERICA,
we will see a resurgence of the racist mode, which is a fundamental way of wanting to protect your race,
RACIST IS PART OF THE GENES OF ALL COLORS, AS other deep feeling of rejecting who is not part of ONE’S color,
and more of, who is entering AMERICA ILLIGALLY SPECIALY WITH ANOTHER COLOR,
NO ONE CAN CHANGE THAT EVER,
it"s part of the self defense, and present in all other colors too, they feel the same racist as WHITES ,
we see it more of them by their behaviors impossible to deny,
but the whites are more covering their feeling, by their tolerance which is the most extreme in AMERICA, MORE THAN ANY OTHER COUNTRY,
so extreme as to give a pass to a leader abusing their right constantly,
but the limits are starting to show, BECAUSE HE CROSSED IT.
and by assotiation the color enter in the abuse feelings,of the people, even unconsciously,
that might be him, being the cause of his abuse, his rejection of following the rules in his leadership,
which he think of being the unquestioned SUPREME LEADER OF ALL LIVES, EVEN LIVES OF FOREIGN COUNTRY leader he told to resign,and having succeede enhance his belief,
of being supreme nothing to stop him,
THAT’S WHEN THE DOWNFALL BEGIN AND TAKE OTHER LIVES WITH IT,
NO ONE WANT TO DIE FOR THAT KIND OF LEADER,
BUT HE HAS OPEN THE GATES OF HELL AND MANY WILL DIE TO SAVE THEIR FREEDOM AND THEIR COUNTRY, IF THAT CONTINUE, and those who die leave a bigger hole in the country because they are amog the protector of freedom,
as oppose to other many weak too weak to become the bravest,
and after a time past, that country lacking of enough braves is on a self destructing slope, where there is no way to rise again,
don’t we have to be aware of the survey of our country?
More than fifty percent of indentured servants did not survive longer than five years. Children were kept until their deaths or until they reached adulthood, working from age 5 until age 21, if they lived.
Because they were cheaper to use, they were preferred over slaves in much of the colonies.
When a boss died his indentured servants lost everything, having to go to work for someone else all over again!
Slaves also had it very bad.
The biggest loss of life was on board the ships getting them here initially.
But the new diseases they were exposed to here also killed a large percentage of them.
They also began working at young ages, children of slaves began working at 4 or 5 years old.
Few slave owners tried to kill off their slaves, as they were expensive to replace.
But breeding slaves was a way to mitigate their death rates from disease, poor diet and intense labor.
So, its a wash.
It sucks to be either a slave or an indentured servant.
Sadly, in the Middle East, both exist to this day and are badly abused.