How in the world did they all get along so well, I wonder?

They were all racist, as was common. Jefferson argued slaves would be worse off being freed, as they would be more subject to the racial animosities of the day, lynchings, etc. He predicted Jim Crow and worse, all out race wars. He wanted to send them back to where they were originally kidnapped from. A terrible idea today, or even in Lincoln's time, but in TJs time there were still many first-generation slaves who may have even preferred that to being freed into such hostile territory.

Ghandi slept next to and bathed with his grandneice often, both of them naked, as a test of his restraint. He was extremely racist against Blacks in South Africa.

ok, i googled and found a wealth of info about ghandi's misogynistic and anti-sex views, including this lol quote-

confirmed scumbaf, i guess u learn something new every day

Also, if you guys manage to work this out in the next two days, please send me a pm. Will help me firm up my weekend plans.

Have you guys figured out if owning slaves is racist yet?

Nice simulpost.

Everything is racist therefore it is.

lol this guy, i had no idea he harbored such prejudiced views towards minorities and women. all my life, i've just been lied to about everything...


and +1 to what heehaww said. i can remember when i was a very young boy growing up in NC, as much a conservative wasteland in most areas as in the states further south, the topic of gayness would come up and my friends (all from "conservative" families) would mostly express disgust and disdain, and i (from a "liberal" family) would think "lol who cares, like so what." fast forward 20 years and that attitude of intolerance had been so pervasive among the people i grew up with, you could probably call me a homophobe with relative ease. i did always support their right to get married, but that was mostly a result of my resentment towards the christian church (for various reasons). at some point i had to take a step back and realize how much i had been conditioned to accept intolerance towards my fellow man, and it was disappointing for a number of reasons. point is though, intolerance is 100% a learned behavior. like, it is possible to stop being a racist or a homophobe, it just requires a bit of empathy, understanding, and a willingness to think from a different perspective. and your feelings will probably be hurt, but that's ok.

FoldN could you provide some citations to support your belief that everybody in 17th/18th century America was ****ing 7 to 11 year old children?

Even then Blacks could not simply be sent back to where they were kidnapped. They weren't just scooped up off the coast. There were more modern areas where there was slave trading, but most slaves came from more isolated primitive areas. The Blacks that did go back starting soon after the US was founded started a new colony in Liberia.

As far as all of them being racists, sure to some extent, but Franklin said:

"This is chiefly to acquaint you, that I have visited the Negro school here in company with the Rev. Mr. Sturgeon and some others; and had the children thoroughly examined. They appeared all to have made considerable progress in reading for the time they had respectively been in the school, and most of them answered readily and well the questions of the catechism; they behaved very orderly, showed a proper respect and ready obedience to the mistress, and seemed very attentive to, and a good deal affected by, a serious exhortation with which Mr. Sturgeon concluded our visit. I was on the whole much pleased, and from what I then saw, have conceived a higher opinion of the natural capacities of the black race, than I had ever before entertained. Their apprehension seems as quick, their memory as strong, and their docility in every respect equal to that of white children. You will wonder perhaps that I should ever doubt it, and I will not undertake to justify all my prejudices, not to account for them."

The idea that Whites were not better than Blacks was a possible idea to have in the late 18th century. Also the idea that there was no G_d or that organized religion was a problem. People tend to think progress only moves forward, but in some ways I think the early US was more tolerant and liberal than many generations later.

It's almost like very simplistic judgemental attitudes towards people isn't so useful after all.

https://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/primary-sources/24

Those were the ages of consent. I think most states were 10-12, but one was 7. Obviously, not all men married children, but it was common enough. When they weren't beating their kids, families would often pay handsome dowries to unload those young ladies. Not much help on the farm, I guess.

sure, when they weren't enslaving africans and attempting to exterminate the native american population. of course that all went on for about 300+ years (can you even math bro?) so i'm not sure when exactly you're referring to.

I'm talking about like civil war era, bro, not Ferguson.

let me know when ur heroes jib and brucez achieve the somewhat redeeming quality of bringing independence to a nation and then we'll be able to actually debate whether or not they're scumbafs

because when the north won, tolerance towards blacks was just such a standard thing that they were integrated willfully and efficiently into american society as the white man's equal counterpart.

Man duffee's idea boggles my mind. I don't think it's true but it's plausible that a snapshot of attitudes today would reveal that racial animosity is low and that the inequalities we see today are echos of past racism and a cultural feedback loop of that depredation. Again, probably not true but plausible.

That the past 400 years of racial exploitation got squared away in the last 20-30 years with only laws saying you couldn't actively discriminate against minorities and maybe let a few into college is kind of out there. Like I'd actually like to see the math be done to see how that came out.

No doubt there were those who suspected no race was superior to another, but racism was the norm. They didn't have the benefit of research in genetics to counter those claims. Even today that's not enough for some. I think it's amazing so many people were able to be so racist, yet still work out that slavery was wrong.

Foldn,

The abolition movement was way more of a thing than raising the age of consent. Part of the point is that to be for slavery in 1776, at least in or near the north, was kind of already behind the times.

But, as far as the general progress of liberal values goes, I wonder what the chances are that in a 100 years raising animals for food will be illegal.

Dont be silly, neither of those are anything like heroes or anything like Gandhi

Still hopefully you can learn that simplistic judgement aren't very useful at capturing anything much about people or their views.

Not sure age of consent laws tell us much about how common it was. I personally don't know any adults who currently **** 16 year old girls despite that being the age of consent in my state.

I have no idea what point you're trying to make. Maybe I'm too dumb. I'll try once more if you can possibly try not to be so hostile maybe we'll come to an understanding.

I submit that the era of the founding fathers was in some ways, and in particular regarding slavery, more liberal than later generations. I don't mean more liberal than today, but more liberal than like the civil war era.

I'm not claiming that right after the civil war race relations were great. At some point, and perhaps the ending of the war was not an inflection point, racism, generally, on average, began to decline, perhaps in fits and starts.

Do you have some sarcastic comment about that?

i'd counter by saying that slavery was worse than jim crow

I don't think that's a counter. I agree with it. Of course it's worse.

I'm not specifically talking about the civil war, just a trend the wrong way in the time in between.

For example, I think in 1770 Andrew Jackson would have been thought of as an extremist nutcase. Not as extreme as he is thought of today, but he would never have won a national election.

I'm confused what you mean in this context by "liberal."