Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

The irony of the New York Times’ 1619 Project...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    Nonsense Sam, I don't see anyone preventing blacks from doing anything. And I have no idea what you mean by equal share. The vast majority of this country's wealth and power was the result of the industrial revolution. And most of that generated in the north long after slavery.
    It is a good bit of historical revision really. Most contemporary accounts of America in the 18th century paint the picture of a backwards society, that was looked down upon by those living in Europe. Much of our economic and political clout is a post civil war, post industrial revolution, development.
    "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
    GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by seer View Post
      Nonsense Sam, I don't see anyone preventing blacks from doing anything. And I have no idea what you mean by equal share. The vast majority of this country's wealth and power was the result of the industrial revolution. And most of that generated in the north long after slavery.
      Give me a break, seer, you only believe that because you're not buying into the left's attempts at revisionist history!
      Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
      But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
      Than a fool in the eyes of God


      From "Fools Gold" by Petra

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Adrift View Post
        Most abolitionists were, by necessity, white, so it's a bit anachronistic to make it seem like only black resistance and protest is what changed the plight of black people, and forced this nation to live up to it's ideals of "all men are created equal."
        Most abolitionists were, in fact, black. That many were relatively invisible, being current or former slaves, seems less a problem for Hannah-Jones' thesis than for the rebuttal.

        Originally posted by Adrift View Post
        And on the subject of equality, "all men are created equal," included women ("men" being synonymous with "humans"), and yet women didn't have the same rights as white men. So it's a bit selective to talk about how those words didn't apply to "hundreds of thousands of black people." Why not argue, "But the white men who drafted those words did not believe them to be true for over half the nation." That, of course, wouldn't work for purposes of the essay.
        Actually, that fits explicitly into Hannah-Jones' argument; Hannah-Jones doesn't argue that white Americas solely excluded black Americans and black Americans won greater purchase, thereby making democracy -real-. Instead, Hannah-Jones argues correctly identifies slavery as the foundational American effort to dehumanize and disenfranchise others and that the abolition of slavery paved the way toward the abolition of other types of disenfranchisement and discrimination. This is non-controversial to anyone familiar with the use of the 14th Amendment in civil rights law.

        Originally posted by Adrift View Post
        The argument that "black rights struggles paved the way for every other rights struggle, including womenÂ’s and gay rights, immigrant and disability rights," is disingenuous and seriously downplays those other struggles. One could just as easily argue that the suffrage movement paved the way for black rights struggle if one were so inclined. It might be more accurate to say that they shared similar goals, and/or that suffragettes and abolitionists (for instance) often collaborated or were one in the same, but to assert that black rights struggles paved the way for every other rights struggle is saying too much.
        It would be quite hard to "just as easily argue that the suffrage movement paved the way for black rights struggle" since the suffrage movement came after both the end of slavery and the first Civil Rights Act and since suffragists explicitly used the language and the law of anti-slavery black civil rights. One can make an argument and dispute Hannah-Jones' account, sure, but that's a rather academic disagreement and not an obvious example of an anachronism.

        Originally posted by Adrift View Post
        Teal can defend her own arguments, but it would seem to me that if someone is arguing for the legacy of black people in America since before the nation's founding (all the way back to 1619), referring back to manumission laws preceding the Constitution is relevant, especially when plenty of state laws and charters carried over and were still in effect well after Independence. Could the US Constitution have superseded or obsoleted such laws? I don't know. It seems to me that the framers of the Constitution were heavily in support of State rights, and did what they could to prevent federal government from superseding those rights.
        You make the opposite point that Teal (and your endorsement of her analysis) needs: you're arguing here that you "don't know" if the Constitution could have superseded states' rights -- of course it could have, it's the Constitution! The Constitution superseded the Articles of Confederation and obsoleted plenty of former laws.

        You next move to the argument that the founders "did what they could to prevent federal government from superseding [state] rights." This is untrue (the Constitution created a much stronger federal government than the Articles of Confederation it replaced) and not exculpatory -- the framers explicitly fashioned the Constitution in a way that both continued and strengthened slavery; whether they did so because they had personal purchase in the institution of slavery or because they simply accepted slavery as the cost of "independence" is moot and irrelevant to Hannah-Jones' thesis. The founders knew that they were strengthening the institution of slavery and that's the relevant point.




        A matter of format: if I think the post includes something direct, specific, and substantive that should be read before my reply, the quote goes on top.

        Originally posted by Adrift View Post
        As an aside, why are you putting the quoted posts below your reply? It makes it harder to see who you're replying to when you do that. Also, it's unnecessary to postscript with your name, as we can all see your name on the top-left of your post.

        A matter of old habits,

        --Sam
        "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

        Comment


        • #49
          The second 1619 Project essay, by Matthew Desmond, does a very good job of summarizing just how dependent on slavery the American and British industrial revolutions were, and how that dependence and exploitation of black labor didn't end after the Civil War.

          Source: In order to understand the brutality of American capitalism, you have to start on the plantation. Matthew Desmond. The New York Times. 2019.08.14

          Slavery was undeniably a font of phenomenal wealth. By the eve of the Civil War, the Mississippi Valley was home to more millionaires per capita than anywhere else in the United States. Cotton grown and picked by enslaved workers was the nation’s most valuable export. The combined value of enslaved people exceeded that of all the railroads and factories in the nation. New Orleans boasted a denser concentration of banking capital than New York City. What made the cotton economy boom in the United States, and not in all the other far-flung parts of the world with climates and soil suitable to the crop, was our nation’s unflinching willingness to use violence on nonwhite people and to exert its will on seemingly endless supplies of land and labor. Given the choice between modernity and barbarism, prosperity and poverty, lawfulness and cruelty, democracy and totalitarianism, America chose all of the above.

          Nearly two average American lifetimes (79 years) have passed since the end of slavery, only two. It is not surprising that we can still feel the looming presence of this institution, which helped turn a poor, fledgling nation into a financial colossus. The surprising bit has to do with the many eerily specific ways slavery can still be felt in our economic life. “American slavery is necessarily imprinted on the DNA of American capitalism,” write the historians Sven Beckert and Seth Rockman. The task now, they argue, is “cataloging the dominant and recessive traits” that have been passed down to us, tracing the unsettling and often unrecognized lines of descent by which America’s national sin is now being visited upon the third and fourth generations.

          © Copyright Original Source



          It was only last year, I believe, that the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals found that white North Carolina politicians had targeted black voters "with almost surgical precision" in an effort to disenfranchise them. If you don't see anyone preventing black Americans from doing anything, I suggest adopting a clearer perspective.

          --Sam

          Originally posted by seer View Post
          Nonsense Sam, I don't see anyone preventing blacks from doing anything. And I have no idea what you mean by equal share. The vast majority of this country's wealth and power was the result of the industrial revolution. And most of that generated in the north long after slavery.
          "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Sam View Post
            ...

            Actually, that fits explicitly into Hannah-Jones' argument; Hannah-Jones doesn't argue that white Americas solely excluded black Americans and black Americans won greater purchase, thereby making democracy -real-. Instead, Hannah-Jones argues correctly identifies slavery as the foundational American effort to dehumanize and disenfranchise others and that the abolition of slavery paved the way toward the abolition of other types of disenfranchisement and discrimination. This is non-controversial to anyone familiar with the use of the 14th Amendment in civil rights law.

            ...


            You make the opposite point that Teal (and your endorsement of her analysis) needs: you're arguing here that you "don't know" if the Constitution could have superseded states' rights -- of course it could have, it's the Constitution! The Constitution superseded the Articles of Confederation and obsoleted plenty of former laws.
            ...

            --Sam
            I'll help out here - the Fourteenth Amendment was passed AFTER the Civil War - not before. So, if you are familiar enough with the 14th, you should also know that prior to the 14th Amendment, the BoR DID NOT apply to the states! The Ninth Amendment STILL doesn't (also doesn't seem to matter). So NO, there was NO Constitutional basis to override state law prior to the Civil War.

            FYI: The Constitution replaced, not superseded, the Articles of Confederation. Superseded implies that the Articles are still 'on the books' - and they aren't.


            Adrift can tackle it if he wants, but the Constitution weakened, not strengthened, position of slavery. It does it in a backhanded way - but it does it.
            "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

            "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

            My Personal Blog

            My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

            Quill Sword

            Comment


            • #51
              Perhaps I'm unfamiliar with a particular legal use of the word but "replace" is a synonym for "supersede" and is so used here.

              You've mixed up two arguments: the first, that the Constitution could have superseded (or replaced) state manumission laws. Second, that the 14th Amendment was used after emancipation in the pursuit of other suffrage and equality efforts (e.g., women's vote, same-sex marriage).

              You had argued, at least how Adrift and I read it, that manumission laws were a factor when crafting the Constitution. The counter-argument is that the people writing the Constitution were writing the Constitution and could have eliminated or superseded those laws. They chose not to do so.

              --Sam

              Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
              I'll help out here - the Fourteenth Amendment was passed AFTER the Civil War - not before. So, if you are familiar enough with the 14th, you should also know that prior to the 14th Amendment, the BoR DID NOT apply to the states! The Ninth Amendment STILL doesn't (also doesn't seem to matter). So NO, there was NO Constitutional basis to override state law prior to the Civil War.

              FYI: The Constitution replaced, not superseded, the Articles of Confederation. Superseded implies that the Articles are still 'on the books' - and they aren't.


              Adrift can tackle it if he wants, but the Constitution weakened, not strengthened, position of slavery. It does it in a backhanded way - but it does it.
              "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

              Comment


              • #52
                Checking a few legal dictionaries, the meaning of "supersede" is indeed synonymous to "replace". The usage differs between legislatures and court orders, perhaps, but since we're talking about drafting the Constitution, the former's usage holds.

                --Sam
                "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Sam View Post
                  Perhaps I'm unfamiliar with a particular legal use of the word but "replace" is a synonym for "supersede" and is so used here.

                  You've mixed up two arguments: the first, that the Constitution could have superseded (or replaced) state manumission laws. Second, that the 14th Amendment was used after emancipation in the pursuit of other suffrage and equality efforts (e.g., women's vote, same-sex marriage).

                  You had argued, at least how Adrift and I read it, that manumission laws were a factor when crafting the Constitution. The counter-argument is that the people writing the Constitution were writing the Constitution and could have eliminated or superseded those laws. They chose not to do so.

                  --Sam
                  You are the one that is confused - I used FYI to distinguish the comment from the argument.


                  The Supreme Court held that the Bill of Rights DID NOT apply to the states fairly shortly after Marbury, if memory serves. So no, there was no way to use the constitution to override manumission laws.

                  No, that is NOT what anyone argued. She makes blanket statements based on the 'failure' to release slaves without noting the manumission laws. Those laws were in place when she is arguing that the Founders 'should have' released there slaves (because her argument rests on the fact that they hadn't). Washington literally could not release his slaves legally except as part of his final disposition - which he did (in part - Martha completed it under hers).

                  And it's silly to argue that they 'could' have written the Constitution differently with regards to slavery - sure, that could have been done but it WOULD NOT have been ratified, would never have been the law of the land and would have been a totally pointless exercise.


                  Here's what she said:

                  It was common for white enslavers to keep their half-black children in slavery.
                  I pointed out - and cited - that there were laws in place preventing them from doing differently. This is both before and after the Revolution. She implies that this was because these folks just didn't want to release their children when in fact, it wasn't legal to do so.

                  Also, she, and you, get the use of 'enslavers' wrong - should be slave owners since she's not talking about actual slavers. <- this is a side note.

                  Back to the argument - THEN you go off on the Constitutional tangent.

                  'They should have written it differently' is pretty much the same thing as saying 'we should have stayed under the Articles of Confederation'.
                  "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                  "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                  My Personal Blog

                  My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                  Quill Sword

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Sam View Post
                    Checking a few legal dictionaries, the meaning of "supersede" is indeed synonymous to "replace". The usage differs between legislatures and court orders, perhaps, but since we're talking about drafting the Constitution, the former's usage holds.

                    --Sam
                    So what? I still disagree but fine, have a point. One that has NOTHING to do with the argument, but okay, have it.

                    You keep going on tangentials and still haven't shown where I made a factual error - is this just a wild goose chase so I get sick of it and quit? She gets quit a lot factually wrong (slaves building railroads, Attucks Crispus, et al) and you're best comeback is to argue the Constitution 'could have' been written differently?

                    Yeah, I noticed the second link - no, I'm not going down another rabbit hole.
                    "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                    "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                    My Personal Blog

                    My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                    Quill Sword

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      The entire existence of the 13th and 14th Amendments proves conclusively that the Constitution could have been written in a way that outlawed slavery, freed enslaved people, and provided them equal protection of the law.

                      The founders, many who personally profited from slavery, did not write the Constitution to provide those protections.

                      Hannah-Jones' argument, that the foundation of American democracy was inherently hypocritical and not achieved without the suffering and work of black slaves and their descendants, remains unscathed by appeals to the practicality of the Constitution's compromises to slavery.

                      Slave owners are, by definition, slavers/enslavers.

                      --Sam

                      Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                      You are the one that is confused - I used FYI to distinguish the comment from the argument.


                      The Supreme Court held that the Bill of Rights DID NOT apply to the states fairly shortly after Marbury, if memory serves. So no, there was no way to use the constitution to override manumission laws.

                      No, that is NOT what anyone argued. She makes blanket statements based on the 'failure' to release slaves without noting the manumission laws. Those laws were in place when she is arguing that the Founders 'should have' released there slaves (because her argument rests on the fact that they hadn't). Washington literally could not release his slaves legally except as part of his final disposition - which he did (in part - Martha completed it under hers).

                      And it's silly to argue that they 'could' have written the Constitution differently with regards to slavery - sure, that could have been done but it WOULD NOT have been ratified, would never have been the law of the land and would have been a totally pointless exercise.


                      Here's what she said:



                      I pointed out - and cited - that there were laws in place preventing them from doing differently. This is both before and after the Revolution. She implies that this was because these folks just didn't want to release their children when in fact, it wasn't legal to do so.

                      Also, she, and you, get the use of 'enslavers' wrong - should be slave owners since she's not talking about actual slavers. <- this is a side note.

                      Back to the argument - THEN you go off on the Constitutional tangent.

                      'They should have written it differently' is pretty much the same thing as saying 'we should have stayed under the Articles of Confederation'.
                      "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                        So what? I still disagree but fine, have a point. One that has NOTHING to do with the argument, but okay, have it.

                        You keep going on tangentials and still haven't shown where I made a factual error - is this just a wild goose chase so I get sick of it and quit? She gets quit a lot factually wrong (slaves building railroads, Attucks Crispus, et al) and you're best comeback is to argue the Constitution 'could have' been written differently?

                        Yeah, I noticed the second link - no, I'm not going down another rabbit hole.
                        I have pointed out numerous factual errors you've made, in fact, ranging from matters of history (1807/1833, Samuel Johnson) and errors of comprehension (e.g., Hannah-Jones' father seeing lynchings vs. the account of his home county).

                        Railroads in the South being mostly built by poor white citizens is another error of history: ~75% of the railroads in the South were, by some estimates, built by black slaves. Railroad companies in the South dealt in the slave trade and had extensive "holdings" of their own, also renting slave labor from surrounding plantations.

                        I haven't seen anything that directly refutes Hannah-Jones' thesis regarding the perfection of democracy (in the 'more perfect Union' sense) flowing through black liberation and effort.

                        --Sam

                        ETA: I did not bring up the quibble about "supersede" vs. "replace" but only responded to it. If it was unimportant, I'm not sure why it was introduced but, regardless, I took the complaint seriously enough to make sure I wasn't using the word in a legally incorrect way.
                        "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Sam View Post
                          It was only last year, I believe, that the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals found that white North Carolina politicians had targeted black voters "with almost surgical precision" in an effort to disenfranchise them. If you don't see anyone preventing black Americans from doing anything, I suggest adopting a clearer perspective.

                          --Sam

                          Sam that is called Gerrymandering. And both sides do it, the Republicans have just gotten better at it of late. Of course up here in New England the Dems are better. And it is not about race, but politics since blacks overwhelming vote Democrat. So do you have a real example?
                          Last edited by seer; 08-22-2019, 05:26 PM.
                          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            In other news, another racist and anti-Semitic Times editor has been outed.

                            https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...ng-next-steps/
                            Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                            But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                            Than a fool in the eyes of God


                            From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              "Democrats and Republicans alike have disenfranchised black Americans for political advantage" does not refute the central thesis or complaint of Hannah-Jones' essay.

                              And if NC Republicans commissioning a study on photo ID use and then explicitly only including the forms that black residents were least likely to have doesn't qualify as a "real example" then I'm afraid your situation is quite dire.

                              --Sam

                              Originally posted by seer View Post
                              Sam that is called Gerrymandering. And both sides do it, the Republicans have just gotten better at it of late. Of course up here in New England the Dems are better. And it is not about race, but politics since blacks overwhelming vote Democrat. So do you have a real example?
                              "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Sam View Post
                                "Democrats and Republicans alike have disenfranchised black Americans for political advantage" does not refute the central thesis or complaint of Hannah-Jones' essay.

                                And if NC Republicans commissioning a study on photo ID use and then explicitly only including the forms that black residents were least likely to have doesn't qualify as a "real example" then I'm afraid your situation is quite dire.

                                --Sam
                                Sam answer me this - if blacks voted overwhelmingly republican would the NC Republicans have done this? Of course not, so it doesn't have to do with race but political affiliation. Now give me a real example based on race.
                                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                132 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                112 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                197 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                361 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X