Idaho and Critical Race Theory

[Eacaraxe]

I can accept that Liberty was a goal of the founding fathers...

More to the point, "liberty" in this case meaning privatizing and consolidating value created by underclass laborers into the hands of plutocrats. One oughtn't expect much else from a class of people whose principle grievances at the time of revolution were the revocation of land grants, being expected to pay for foreign wars they started, and having their illicit side gigs undermined by tax cuts when Parliament figured out EIC wasn't turning enough profit due to over-taxation.

I mean, after all there were genuine leftists among those who would be considered founding fathers. What was made of their legacies in the long run? I don't see any bougie douchebags on Broadway rapping about universal basic income, progressive taxation and generational inheritance taxes, radical land redistribution, free public college, and (accounting for inflation) the most expansive and cohesive social welfare system the West would have ever seen. But when it comes to serial philanderer right-wing kooks who owed their entire careers to nepotism, married into money, did very little of note on their own and rather took credit for the work of other, smarter and greater men than he...?

Chattel slavery was simply cheaper and easier to preserve than serfdom in an era of near-constant peasant revolts, and wage slavery and convict labor were cheaper and easier to preserve than chattel slavery in mercantilist and industrial economies. The only difference is a matter of degree, and upon which parties blame for mass suffering is misdirected.

I think it's good that the understanding of the word liberty changed. It shows growth

Not really, though.

 

[tstorm823]

I mean, everything I've heard about from Americans about their schooling system, especially history, says otherwise.

Counterpoint: everything you know about American history likely comes from Americans, so all the appropriately unwhitewashed information you believe is sourced from the people you think whitewash it.

 

[Hawki]

Yes i meant things like serfdom. If you are willing to not count serfdom and similar institutions, there is no disagreement. Of course if you do count serfs and the like as slaves, stuff suddenly looks quite different.

I do make a distinction between slavery and serfdom, it doesn't change the fact that slavery (not serfdom, slavery) was still widespread globally, and yes, that includes places where you find both slavery and serfdom in the same area (Africa comes to mind).

Many of the HRE principalities. They didn't have a way to become a slave or trade a slave and didn't try to import any, but they didn't outlaw it and some traveller bringing a slave with him would not make that slave free. Also for some short period it was fashionable for the prince to have a court slave, likely as the only slave in the whole realm.

Didn't you say many places, or something?

The HRE was part of Europe. Europe banned slavery on its own accord (as you yourself describe), then started taking slaves elsewhere. That the HRE didn't allow slavery in Europe, or that Japan didn't have slavery in Asia, or that some African kingdoms refused to trade in slaves, are still the exceptions to a constant rule.

I'm not disputing that slavery was abolished in some areas prior to the 19th century, just that the historical record is clear on the matter as far as the abolition timeline goes.

But the thing is, that didn't lead to any more slaves in Europe itself nor to a change in perspective there.

Some slaves were brought back to Europe, but that aside, I think it's fair to say that slavery did change the perspectives somewhat, in that slavery in the New World was racialized, and that trickled back to the continent, so to speak. You get key changes in perspective with the Enlightenment, with the idea that no-one should be a slave, ever, anywhere. Which at the time, was radical, since there's been no shortage of figures across cultures who've sought to mitigate slavery, absolute abolition is a fairly recent concept.

Counterpoint: everything you know about American history likely comes from Americans, so all the appropriately unwhitewashed information you believe is sourced from the people you think whitewash it.

Counter-counterpoint: American history is whitewashed to an extent, but pretty much every country's history is whitewashed to an extent, because the people in every country will, naturally, want to celebrate the good and bury the bad.

But if we're talking about American history specifically, then of course there's been efforts to whitewash it. Remember the Lost Cause Myth? That's a myth that's so pervasive that some people deny to this day that the Confederacy was founded to preserve slavery.

 

[Trunkage]

Counterpoint: everything you know about American history likely comes from Americans, so all the appropriately unwhitewashed information you believe is sourced from the people you think whitewash it.

Well, considering I'm more likely to interact with Historians, Economist, Political Scientists and Teachers... You could say they have a vested interest in saying it's whitewashed

 

[Satinavian]

Didn't you say many places, or something?

That alone would several dozen souvereign principalities and enough to qualify for "many places". and those are just one example.

But if you are only looking at broader regions, so yes, slavery got down in Europe and was often eventually forbidden or at least not practiced, but it stayed way more common in Asia, where you really have to look for exceptions (but can find them) or Africa, where even looking won't help you much. And of course in the Americas where it, once installed, was hard to remove.

I don't think we have that much disagreement about facts and more about their significance. Also the Enlightenment thinkers were originally way more bothered with serfdom because that had practical implications where they actually lived. Demanding slaves (who were nearly only overseas and owned by people they didn't know and didn't care for) to be freed was relatively cheap talk for most of them.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

There's also the bit where, while slavery of some form was in a lot of places, chattel slavery as practiced in the americas was significantly worse than most other forms of slavery being practiced.

Like, yeah, the janissaries were slaves, and slavery in the Ottoman Empire was rampant and terrible...but:
Slaves tended to have some measure of possible social mobility and political power, their children were born free peoples, etc, etc. It was common for slaves to make up huge portions of the political and bureaucratic staffing. It wasn't uncommon for parents to try and bride officials to enslave their children, especially if they had connections.

It would be like if the Southern States had a significant portion of enslaved state representatives.

Slavery's bad no matter what form it takes and nobody's disputing that slavery, in one form or another, was unique to western colonial powers. But slavery in the Americas was top fucking 3 in generational cruelty with a solid claim to #1.

 

[Seanchaidh]

It wasn't uncommon for parents to try and bride officials to enslave their children, especially if they had connections.

Do you mean bribe?

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Do you mean bribe?

Yeah but it wouldn't shock me otherwise

 

[Seanchaidh]

Yeah but it wouldn't shock me otherwise

It sounds like a system which takes the idea of 'public service' maybe a little bit too seriously.

 

[Seanchaidh]

As regards whitewashing of US history: how many people learned this in school? How often is this factoid mentioned when there are references to George Washington in the news or works celebrating the United States' war of independence?

 

[Seanchaidh]

 

[Schadrach]

Newspaper can't report dead that hadn't died yet, and a morning newspaper on June 1, 1921 would have necessarily been printed before the worst of the violence happened. Still underreported by at least 2 dead blacks and 8 dead whites (assuming at time of writing only the initial shootings had been accounted for).

The 300 number though is the highest estimate made of black casualties of the Tulsa riots. Most other estimates are substantially lower (as in the next highest estimate has 200 as the high end). It would be like if we were talking about false rape accusations and I pretended Stewart (1981) was a good study on the topic (reporting 90% false accusations, highest of any study).

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Yeah, in fairness to the Tulsa Daily World, after the Tulsa Race Massacre, they became know for their opposition to the KKK

Of course, the fact that "becoming known for opposing a bunch of flagrant, violent racists" was the exception rather than the rule...

 

[Hades]

Of course American history is whitewashed. Just look at the founding fathers.

They are still seen as essentially demigods rather than thoroughly hypocritical slavers. They are still credited with great wisdom and foresight despite the system they set up repeatedly failing to prevent, if not outright facilitating disaster. The system they set up being so flawed and their approach of slavery so dangerous that it plunged the country into a bloody civil war is never held against them, nor their desire to steal Canada from Britain ending in a war they proceeded to lose. And their attempts to prevent a ''Caesar'' in their republic went on to pretty much force a Caesar to be installed very recently.

 

[tstorm823]

Of course American history is whitewashed. Just look at the founding fathers.

They are still seen as essentially demigods rather than thoroughly hypocritical slavers. They are still credited with great wisdom and foresight despite the system they set up repeatedly failing to prevent, if not outright facilitating disaster. The system they set up being so flawed and their approach of slavery so dangerous that it plunged the country into a bloody civil war is never held against them, nor their desire to steal Canada from Britain ending in a war they proceeded to lose. And their attempts to prevent a ''Caesar'' in their republic went on to pretty much force a Caesar to be installed very recently.

You understand that (with maybe the exception of referring to Trump as Caesar, which is a goof laugh), you've pulled all these dumb arguments from other people, who must therefore not be whitewashing American history. Your argument defeats itself.

 

[Silvanus]

you've pulled all these dumb arguments from other people, who must therefore not be whitewashing American history. Your argument defeats itself.

"There are some commentators who aren't whitewashing, therefore whitewashing isn't taking place".

 

[tstorm823]

"There are some commentators who aren't whitewashing, therefore whitewashing isn't taking place".

I think you misunderstand the idea of whitewashing. It's not whitewashing if some commentators take more positive perspective on events than others. It's whitewashing if you present an overly positive take by concealing the facts and quashing or discrediting dissenting opinions.

 

[Hades]

You understand that (with maybe the exception of referring to Trump as Caesar, which is a goof laugh), you've pulled all these dumb arguments from other people, who must therefore not be whitewashing American history. Your argument defeats itself.

Not really. Say for example if I took my argument that the founding father's refusal to address slavery led to the civil war from a professional historian. Even if its an accomplished one then his work certainly hasn't affected the popular view of the founding fathers as demigods. It hasn't corrected the belief that the founders were wise men who's policy didn't backfire to an extreme degree later down the line. If I took from another historian that the founders recklessly started a war to steal Canada then his work still hasn't led the public to question the wisdom of people starting a war they would then lose. Heck. Maybe none of those historians are even Americans to begin with.

Take any relevant American figure. Do they, or don't they portray the founding fathers in a highly flattering light? Do they or don't they hold or at least voice the belief that the founders had great wisdom and foresight despite their system repeatedly failing?

Trump being a Caesar is indeed a laugh if we were to compare Trump to Caesar as people and leaders. But Trump's style of politics at least is the ''Caesarism'' the founders seemed to fear. The strongman deceiving the people to go bring down the republic. Trump has been following the same blueprint as the likes or Orban, Erdogan and Putin pretty closely. Just less successful. And in that sense the electoral college being there partially to prevent such figures rising to power backfired spectacularly.

 

[tstorm823]

Not really. Say for example if I took my argument that the founding father's refusal to address slavery led to the civil war from a professional historian. Even if its an accomplished one then his work certainly hasn't affected the popular view of the founding fathers as demigods. It hasn't corrected the belief that the founders were wise men who's policy didn't backfire to an extreme degree later down the line. If I took from another historian that the founders recklessly started a war to steal Canada then his work still hasn't led the public to question the wisdom of people starting a war they would then lose. Heck. Maybe none of those historians are even Americans to begin with.

Take any relevant American figure. Do they, or don't they portray the founding fathers in a highly flattering light? Do they or don't they hold or at least voice the belief that the founders had great wisdom and foresight despite their system repeatedly failing?

a) They didn't refuse to address slavery. They addressed it in a way that was undesirable, because the alternative was to split the country in half from its inception. There was no perfect solution, nor is there any reason to believe there would be fewer or less bloody wars if they'd done differently. The foundations of the Civil War are older than the Constitution.
b) Your description of the War of 1812 is genuinely silly. I'm not silly enough to declare a winner or loser, and neither should you be, when the side you claim lost made no concessions for peace. Ultimately, you're providing a real-time example of how deliberately negative people go on United States history.
c) It is historically ignorant to say the founding policies of a nation "backfired" for as long as that nation continues to exist under that framework. There are so many failed attempts in history, to put such a pessimistic spin on anything that manages to exist beyond the deaths of those who started it is unwarranted.

 

[Seanchaidh]

I think you misunderstand the idea of whitewashing. It's not whitewashing if some commentators take more positive perspective on events than others. It's whitewashing if you present an overly positive take by concealing the facts and quashing or discrediting dissenting opinions.

so, like, misrepresenting deaths that occur at residential schools as students "running away"? that would count as whitewashing to you?