Some common sense to the lib snowflakes around this country

[WVPATX]

http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/08/condoleezza-rice-i-dont-want-to-rename-statues-video/

This very short interview deals with our Presidents that were slave owners, the Constitution that initially recognized blacks as 3/5 Americans and the difficulty for blacks registering to vote in the early 50's.

This makes far too much sense for the snowflakes that want to judge late 1700's and early 1800's America by today's standards.

 

[Boomboom521]

You should keep every ounce of common sense you can muster...you simply cannot afford to give it away

 

[WVPATX]

You should keep every ounce of common sense you can muster...you simply cannot afford to give it away

I simply posted what a former Secretary of State, an absolute genius, said who is also an African-American. Rather than comment on her argument, you disrespect me. Shows me what kind of human being you really are. You Say you are ultra liberal, but I think you're full of hate for those who disagree with you.

 

[Keyser76]

Lol, you act like the fact he is black enhances his opinion somehow.

 

[WVPATX]

Lol, you act like the fact he is black enhances his opinion somehow.

Libs use that argument all the time. All the time. The subject of the piece is our history and specifically the Presidents that were slave owners. So an African American position on this subject is highly relevant. Lastly, Condi Rice is female, not male. I see you didn't even take the time to observe the short interview.

 

[op2]

http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/08/condoleezza-rice-i-dont-want-to-rename-statues-video/

This very short interview deals with our Presidents that were slave owners, the Constitution that initially recognized blacks as 3/5 Americans and the difficulty for blacks registering to vote in the early 50's.

This makes far too much sense for the snowflakes that want to judge late 1700's and early 1800's America by today's standards.

I think that phenomenon actually works in favor of the Right. Removing statues or renaming buildings doesn't have any actual effect on the world. It's just symbolic. But it does make the Left look a bit nutty with regards to it which just drives voters in the middle away from them.

 

[Boomboom521]

Libs use that argument all the time. All the time. The subject of the piece is our history and specifically the Presidents that were slave owners. So an African American position on this subject is highly relevant. Lastly, Condi Rice is female, not male. I see you didn't even take the time to observe the short interview.

So....are you and Mrs. Rice saying that we shouldn't condemn our founders for slavery? Mount Vernon is one of my favorite places to visit. The main house, the view of the Potomac, imagining the workings of the farm - the kitchen, imagining Washington in his study. I become aware of the greatness of the man, to walk away from becoming practically a king.....the greatness of our nation.

I also must look at the slave quarters as well. Imagine the complete and TOTAL lack of freedom. The fear of losing your children, your life as you know it without any say or control of the situation. It's important to contrast the grandness of the main home - the beds versus the dinginess and discomfort of the slave bunks. The complexity of society during Washington's time is obvious. I've often thought that maybe Washington was helping those slaves have a decent life....after all most freemen at that time didn't live much better.

But to not recognize those slave quarters and slavery in general as anything but a massive and disgusting stain on the fabric of the nation is simply....wrong. It was, and is, and always will be one of the worst embarrassments of this nation. We should never dilute that horror through some type of conscious compartmentalization of history to reflect slavery as a kind of positive of our founders.

 

[WVPATX]

I think that phenomenon actually works in favor of the Right. Removing statues or renaming buildings doesn't have any actual effect on the world. It's just symbolic. But it does make the Left look a bit nutty with regards to it which just drives voters in the middle away from them.

I agree, most Americans realize that 1700's - 18000's America was very different than today. We can't judge their actions based on modern mores. Most Americans greatly respect the Founding Fathers, the Washington's, Jefferson's of America. And to argue that we should not honor them or commemorate them just turns off a large swath of America.

 

[WVPATX]

So....are you and Mrs. Rice saying that we shouldn't condemn our founders for slavery? Mount Vernon is one of my favorite places to visit. The main house, the view of the Potomac, imagining the workings of the farm - the kitchen, imagining Washington in his study. I become aware of the greatness of the man, to walk away from becoming practically a king.....the greatness of our nation.

I also must look at the slave quarters as well. Imagine the complete and TOTAL lack of freedom. The fear of losing your children, your life as you know it without any say or control of the situation. It's important to contrast the grandness of the main home - the beds versus the dinginess and discomfort of the slave bunks. The complexity of society during Washington's time is obvious. I've often thought that maybe Washington was helping those slaves have a decent life....after all most freemen at that time didn't live much better.

But to not recognize those slave quarters and slavery in general as anything but a massive and disgusting stain on the fabric of the nation is simply....wrong. It was, and is, and always will be one of the worst embarrassments of this nation. We should never dilute that horror through some type of conscious compartmentalization of history to reflect slavery as a kind of positive of our founders.

No one is saying we should not recognize all of our history both good and bad, but place it in context. Hundreds of thousands of Americans died to free the slaves. But it is also true that slavery existed for millennia and during the time of this country's founding. You are trying to judge the Founders based on today's values when the values of the 1700 and 1800's were very different.

I encourage libs to take down Washington and Jefferson tributes. Tear down those statues. Rewrite the history books and only refer to them as slave owners and hideous human beings. It will only make liberals look petty, small and narrow minded, not to mention turning huge swaths of the American people off that recognize that over time our attitudes and mores change greatly.

 

[TarHeelEer]

So....are you and Mrs. Rice saying that we shouldn't condemn our founders for slavery? Mount Vernon is one of my favorite places to visit. The main house, the view of the Potomac, imagining the workings of the farm - the kitchen, imagining Washington in his study. I become aware of the greatness of the man, to walk away from becoming practically a king.....the greatness of our nation.

Had you been Mr. Washington's friend at that time, would you have condemned him?

 

[Boomboom521]

No one is saying we should not recognize all of our history both good and bad, but place it in context. Hundreds of thousands of Americans died to free the slaves. But it is also true that slavery existed for millennia and during the time of this country's founding. You are trying to judge the Founders based on today's values when the values of the 1700 and 1800's were very different.

I encourage libs to take down Washington and Jefferson tributes. Tear down those statues. Rewrite the history books and only refer to them as slave owners and hideous human beings. It will only make liberals look petty, small and narrow minded, not to mention turning huge swaths of the American people off that recognize that over time our attitudes and mores change greatly.

If anyone wanted to remove tributes to Washington or Jefferson, I would be against it for sure.

Now....tributes to the Confederacy? I want them gone. Take that how you want it, but what makes America beautiful......it's not up to one group at all.

 

[Boomboom521]

Had you been Mr. Washington's friend at that time, would you have condemned him?

See....that's where the compartmentalization comes into play. Asking that question: How would I have felt about slavery as a wealthy white landowner, as a whaler, as a slave??? I condemn slavery. It was wrong. Period.

That said: Washington was a great man, Jefferson, Franklin....all should be honored even with their acts of shame.

 

[WVPATX]

If anyone wanted to remove tributes to Washington or Jefferson, I would be against it for sure.

Now....tributes to the Confederacy? I want them gone. Take that how you want it, but what makes America beautiful......it's not up to one group at all.

Lib snowflakes around the country want buildings renamed, statues removed, history books rewritten, etc. Red state America will rebel against them.

 

[op2]

If anyone wanted to remove tributes to Washington or Jefferson, I would be against it for sure.

Now....tributes to the Confederacy? I want them gone. Take that how you want it, but what makes America beautiful......it's not up to one group at all.

I do not understand the appeal of the Confederacy to some people. It is the single most traitorous, unpatriotic thing in our country's history. You can't get more unpatriotic than deciding to make your own country out of the one you're already in. Why some glamorize it is beyond me.

 

[TarHeelEer]

See....that's where the compartmentalization comes into play. Asking that question: How would I have felt about slavery as a wealthy white landowner, as a whaler, as a slave??? I condemn slavery. It was wrong. Period

I doubt you would've felt that way during that time period.

 

[Boomboom521]

Lib snowflakes around the country want buildings renamed, statues removed, history books rewritten, etc. Red state America will rebel against them.

Geez paxxx, we're all of the same America. I teach my students all of our history, not just the history we are proud of.

 

[Boomboom521]

I doubt you would've felt that way during that time period.

On one hand the argument is: it was a different time and you don't know how you would have felt about something......then on the other hand it's.....I know you would have felt this way at that time.

How about this: slavery was wrong. Great men can do bad things, no one is above mistakes?

 

[WVPATX]

Geez paxxx, we're all of the same America. I teach my students all of our history, not just the history we are proud of.

What does that have to do with lib snowflakes demanding the renaming of buildings, the rending of statues, etc.?

And by your use of the phrase "acts of shame", you are demonstrating that you are NOT teaching your kids the whole truth, the entire context or the actual history of that era. They were not "acts of shame" at the time. It was normal practice. History should be taught in context and you're apparently leaving out huge chunks of context.

 

[TarHeelEer]

On one hand the argument is: it was a different time and you don't know how you would have felt about something......then on the other hand it's.....I know you would have felt this way at that time.

How about this: slavery was wrong. Great men can do bad things, no one is above mistakes?

Romans 3:23, WVOTB translation

 

[Boomboom521]

What does that have to do with lib snowflakes demanding the renaming of buildings, the rending of statues, etc.?

And by your use of the phrase "acts of shame", you are demonstrating that you are NOT teaching your kids the whole truth, the entire context or the actual history of that era. They were not "acts of shame" at the time. It was normal practice. History should be taught in context and you're apparently leaving out huge chunks of context.

Oh Paxxx, social norms should NOT dictate our morality. Where's that Christian resolve? Are you completely full of ****?

History has everything to do with context and perspectives. That's absolutely true. But history also has to do with understanding who we are and why. Recognizing the shame of slavery helps us realize that even the most intelligent, the most revered, the most wealthy, the most accomplished men are not above shameful acts.

 

[Keyser76]

Who are the snowflakes? lol, I don't condemn any historical figure for owning slaves because it was a different era, so I cut them some slack, but I certainly don't celebrate that facet of their history either. Lincoln and the GOP put down the rebels and America is stronger for it, Not sure why some in the GOP base loves that rebel loser flag so much.

 

[WVUCOOPER]

Geez paxxx, we're all of the same America. I teach my students all of our history, not just the history we are proud of.

I honestly don't know what your point is. Are you saying that by naming a building/bridge/tree after someone that owned a slave we are saying slavery is good? Pffffffffffffffffffffffffffttttttttttttttt

 

[WVPATX]

Oh Paxxx, social norms should NOT dictate our morality. Where's that Christian resolve? Are you completely full of ****?

History has everything's no to do with context and perspectives. That's absolutely true. But history also has to do with understanding who we are and why. Recognizing the shame of slavery helps us realize that even the most intelligent, the most revered, the most wealthy, the most accomplished men are not above shameful acts.

I disagree completely. Slavery was normal in the 1700's. Was it shameful, absolutely. But the kids need to be taught that while slavery is shameful, it was normal during that period of time.

Again, you are calling what Washington did, shameful. This is true based on today's standards not on the standards at the time that Washington lived. Big difference. And good teachers would make that distinction.

 

[WVPATX]

Who are the snowflakes? lol, I don't condemn any historical figure for owning slaves because it was a different era, so I cut them some slack, but I certainly don't celebrate that facet of their history either. Lincoln and the GOP put down the rebels and America is stronger for it, Not sure why some in the GOP base loves that rebel loser flag so much.

You're clearly not following the debate. Your point is NOT on point.

 

[Boomboom521]

I honestly don't know what your point is. Are you saying that by naming a building/bridge/tree after someone that owned a slave we are saying slavery is good? Pffffffffffffffffffffffffffttttttttttttttt

Not at all. And I said before, if someone wanted to remove a tribute to a founding father....I'd be against it.

But saying somehow that slavery wasn't so bad because it was a different time, and social norms were different is wrong, imo. It allows students (in my case) to think that social norms drive morality....instead of the reverse.

 

[Boomboom521]

I disagree completely. Slavery was normal in the 1700's. Was it shameful, absolutely. But the kids need to be taught that while slavery is shameful, it was normal during that period of time.

Again, you are calling what Washington did, shameful. This is true based on today's standards not on the standards at the time that Washington lived. Big difference. And good teachers would make that distinction.

By any standards Paxxx, of any time. You want to see them mugs through Washington's or his equals eyes......Try putting yourself in the position of the slave, and tell me if it's not a shameful act.

 

[WVPATX]

Not at all. And I said before, if someone wanted to remove a tribute to a founding father....I'd be against it.

But saying somehow that slavery wasn't so bad because it was a different time, and social norms were different is wrong, imo. It allows students (in my case) to think that social norms drive morality....instead of the reverse.

You can say that slavery was bad but that judgement is based on today's mores. You can also say that in the 1700's slavery was very normal and accepted. Both are accurate statements and in context. Otherwise, you are misleading your students about our Founding Fathers.

 

[TarHeelEer]

social norms drive morality....instead of the reverse.

This should be interesting. State your case that morality drives social norms. That would mean morality is unchanging.

 

[WVPATX]

By any standards Paxxx, of any time. You want to see them mugs through Washington's or his equals eyes......Try putting yourself in the position of the slave, and tell me if it's not a shameful act.

Of course it is shameful, but it was normal and accepted at that time. We had black slave owners for example. I pray you don't teach history because if you are, you are indoctrinating rather than educating. Your students get only one side of our history and that is the side that you embrace.

 

[WVPATX]

This should be interesting. State your case that morality drives social norms. That would mean morality is unchanging.

He doesn't; seem to recognize that over the years morality changes. What was accepted in one era is immoral in another.

 

[Boomboom521]

You can say that slavery was bad but that judgement is based on today's mores. You can also say that in the 1700's slavery was very normal and accepted. Both are accurate statements and in context. Otherwise, you are misleading your students about our Founding Fathers.

Really? Geez Paxxx, thanks for clearing that up. As if the fact that the practice was legal isn't an indicator of that fact?

Regardless, it's a shameful part of our history and a shameful act by our founding fathers. I also make sure to debate why slavery wasn't addressed in the Constitution....until its abolition. I explain the economy of the South, the vulnerability of the Union at the time, and dangers of potential invasion, and the need for the founding fathers to not address the abolition of slavery until the nation was ready. But hey, I guess I should attend Paxxx University in order to become a more effective educator?

 

[WVPATX]

Really? Geez Paxxx, thanks for clearing that up. As if the fact that the practice was legal isn't an indicator of that fact?

Regardless, it's a shameful part of our history and a shameful act by our founding fathers. I also make sure to debate why slavery wasn't addressed in the Constitution....until its abolition. I explain the economy of the South, the vulnerability of the Union at the time, and dangers of potential invasion, and the need for the founding fathers to not address the abolition of slavery until the nation was ready. But hey, I guess I should attend Paxxx University in order to become a more effective educator?

You arguments prior to this showed a bias. History is or should be neutral. State the facts. Provide the context. Slavey is immoral by today's standards. You seem incapable of acknowledging that is was a widely accepted practice at the time. The kids need to understand that full context.

I did not argue that slavery was legal. I stated that it was a socially accepted practice at the time and was not considered immoral. You are placing your own values over those of the people of that era and that is not history.

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

Very ironic that PATX tries to use Condoleezza Rice to support his argument that slavery by some of our founding fathers was "acceptable" when in the interview with her just this past weekend, she unequivocally denounced it and stated it was a very dark beginning for our country and went on to say that it was a shame that it wasn't until the 1950s that blacks received the right to vote.

PATX, you are either very disingenuous (polite way to call you a liar) and only select pieces of information to support your theories or you are one of the dumbest people on this planet.

 

[Boomboom521]

This should be interesting. State your case that morality drives social norms. That would mean morality is unchanging.

Morality, to me, is ones ideas of right and wrong in relationship to others. An average white male during the time of Washington didn't think that locking another white male in chains, depriving them of all freedom and personal rights was morally acceptable. Only that doing it to a black man was acceptable. The morality didn't change, the social norm of accepting a black man as equal in the eyes of all is what changed. Social norms changed of course, but because the morality of the few pressed the perspective of racial equality in regards to that morality.

Morality is changing. But I said that out morality should drive social norms, and not the other way around. It might be socially acceptable that men cheat on their wives, but morally the lie is wrong.

 

[WVPATX]

Morality, to me, is ones ideas of right and wrong in relationship to others. An average white male during the time of Washington didn't think that locking another white male in chains, depriving them of all freedom and personal rights was morally acceptable. Only that doing it to a black man was acceptable. The morality didn't change, the social norm of accepting a black man as equal in the eyes of all is what changed. Social norms changed of course, but because the morality of the few pressed the perspective of racial equality in regards to that morality.

Morality is changing. But I said that out morality should drive social norms, and not the other way around. It might be socially acceptable that men cheat on their wives, but morally the lie is wrong.

Do you acknowledge that morality changes over time? What is moral in one era becomes immoral in another?

 

[Boomboom521]

Do you acknowledge that morality changes over time? What is moral in one era becomes immoral in another?

Again....morality changes....the tar heel fan put those words in my mouth. I said our morality should drive social norms, not the other way around. The abolition of slavery wasn't a sudden change in morality, it was a change of law. The moral questioning of slavery existed at any point of history.

Tell you what....I'll play your bs game: Was it immoral for people to send mentally challenged children away to mental institutions? Or how about this....is abortion moral?

 

[TarHeelEer]

....the tar heel fan put those words in my mouth.
mentally challenged

Keep calling me a tarhole fan and I'll show you mentally challenged
(I have no idea what that means)

 

[Keyser76]

Is Trump a moral man? lol

 

[WVPATX]

Again....morality changes....the tar heel fan put those words in my mouth. I said our morality should drive social norms, not the other way around. The abolition of slavery wasn't a sudden change in morality, it was a change of law. The moral questioning of slavery existed at any point of history.

Tell you what....I'll play your bs game: Was it immoral for people to send mentally challenged children away to mental institutions? Or how about this....is abortion moral?

Boom, morality changes over time. Why you can't acknowledge this as a teacher is very troubling. In the 1700's abortion would have been considered immoral. Today, by many, it is not.

In the 1700's, slavery was not considered immoral. Today is it. And I disagree. By the mid 1800's, slavery was seen by more and more people as immoral. The law did not make it immoral, the people were coming to that conclusion without a law. In fact, we have no Civil War if people still found slavery morally acceptable. The Emancipation Proclamation was supported because the people were coming to that realization anyway.

This is not hard. Teachers should instruct their students about the facts of history, the context of the times for without that, they are indoctrinating, not teaching.

Even you question about mentally challenged children demonstrates that you are applying today's morality to our history. And that is wrong. Teachers should teach what was occurring at the time, what was considered both legal and moral and not teach students to judge history based on today's mores.

 

[Boomboom521]

Boom, morality changes over time. Why you can't acknowledge this as a teacher is very troubling. In the 1700's abortion would have been considered immoral. Today, by many, it is not.

In the 1700's, slavery was not considered immoral. Today is it. And I disagree. By the mid 1800's, slavery was seen by more and more people as immoral. The law did not make it immoral, the people were coming to that conclusion without a law. In fact, we have no Civil War if people still found slavery morally acceptable. The Emancipation Proclamation was supported because the people were coming to that realization anyway.

This is not hard. Teachers should instruct their students about the facts of history, the context of the times for without that, they are indoctrinating, not teaching.

Even you question about mentally challenged children demonstrates that you are applying today's morality to our history. And that is wrong. Teachers should teach what was occurring at the time, what was considered both legal and moral and not teach students to judge history based on today's mores.

Teachers do NOT teach morality. Abortion is a perfect example. To you it's immoral today, so as it pertains to abortion, did the morality change? Not for you. It's not my place to teach that slavery is immoral to my students, but I must teach the conditions of slavery without overlooking them. Even as I teach about the greatness of Washington, I must also teach about the conditions of his slaves. Just because the majority of people at the time believed that treating Africans as animals, doesn't mean they were animals now does it? I mean what are you seeking here paxxx? You want me to acknowledge in class that "slavery was widely accepted at the time"? Of course I do, it's impossible not to.

The majority of the German army thought it was acceptable to gas millions of Jewish men, women and children.....does that mean it was morally acceptable at the time?

Slavery during the 1700's was already addressed as morally wrong by many, the Constitution of Vermont addressed it, Pennsylvania as well. England had already addressed the immorality of the practice, Russia, and Portugal as well.