The 1776 Commission Report - Page 2

BobTheCoward · 21st January 2021, 10:38 AM

Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY

Also in case you didn't know. The US war with Japan in WW II was largely due to the US policy of aggressive expansionism in the Pacific. (No kidding this view is actually taught.)

That is true. If the use did not commit acts of aggression in the pacific, there would have been no US soldiers in the pacific to attack.

The US complaining about the Japanese attack is like an arsonist complaining about someone burning down their house.

Meadmaker · 21st January 2021, 10:40 AM

Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY

We can't allow that to be taught in the schools. The emphasis must be about slavery and how wicked the US was and is for that matter. How evil the founding fathers really were etc.

Also in case you didn't know. The US war with Japan in WW II was largely due to the US policy of aggressive expansionism in the Pacific. (No kidding this view is actually taught.)

To pwengthold's point, I don't know what is really taught to real fifth graders in America. The news media stories pick and choose little bits of things here and there.

When I was in high school in the 1970s, I think there was a pretty good balance and realistic treatment of history. The Constitution was praised, but the Founding Fathers weren't portrayed as perfect, and the obvious contradiction of the ideals of the rhetoric of the Declaration of Independence and principles of the Constitution were pointed out, as they should be.

lomiller · 21st January 2021, 10:46 AM

Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY

Also in case you didn't know. The US war with Japan in WW II was largely due to the US policy of aggressive expansionism in the Pacific. (No kidding this view is actually taught.)

US expansionism is what put it at odds with Japanese expansionism. The US was the preferred by the area that was the subject of this expansion because Japanese culture was heavily militarized, authoritarian and racist. (much like the political right is today in the US)

The real preference of the locals, however, was that neither of these powers were trying to expand into the pacific. US expansionism was wrong regardless of what Japan was doing, and it's perfectly reasonable to teach this. What Japan was doing simply does not make US expansionism better.

ponderingturtle · 21st January 2021, 11:00 AM

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Kind of a moot point what other countries were doing. Several states in the US had already abolished slavery before the constitutional convention. Abolition of slavery was not something that was beyond the realm of imagination to any of the founders.

I think it was just Vermont

SuburbanTurkey · 21st January 2021, 11:04 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

I think it was just Vermont

Massachusetts Supreme Court ended slavery in 1783 under the reasoning that it was inconsistent with state Declaration of Human Rights that all men were created free and equal.

Slavery was seen by at least some at the time to be inconsistent with Lockean Liberalism that was popular at the time and was the foundation of much of the Constitution. It's perfectly fair to condemn those that had blind spots on the matter.

dudalb · 21st January 2021, 11:07 AM

Originally Posted by Fizil

The 1619 Project deserves tons of criticism and is full of falsehoods, but that doesn't mean the exact opposite of it is true. I forsee the horror-show that is the 1776 Commission being used to boost acceptance of the 1619 Project stuff, despite the fact that historians are hugely critical of both. At least the 1619 Project is well meaning I guess, and more importantly, actually does contain a lot of good information mixed in with the crap.

THIS.
The 1619 project has a lot of problems , but the 1776 Comission is not a legitimate criticism but right wing political BS.

ponderingturtle · 21st January 2021, 11:08 AM

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Massachusetts Supreme Court ended slavery in 1783 under the reasoning that it was inconsistent with state Declaration of Human Rights that all men were created free and equal.

Slavery was seen by at least some at the time to be inconsistent with Lockean Liberalism that was popular at the time and was the foundation of much of the Constitution. It's perfectly fair to condemn those that had blind spots on the matter.

Oh it was something that clearly was thought of in uncomfortable terms though was mostly rationalized away.

Babbylonian · 21st January 2021, 11:23 AM

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Massachusetts Supreme Court ended slavery in 1783 under the reasoning that it was inconsistent with state Declaration of Human Rights that all men were created free and equal.

Slavery was seen by at least some at the time to be inconsistent with Lockean Liberalism that was popular at the time and was the foundation of much of the Constitution. It's perfectly fair to condemn those that had blind spots on the matter.

They didn't have blind spots. They ignored morality in favor of expediency. Because the slave economy was profitable (to white people), those who knew better went along with it. Then, the states opposed to slavery let the tail wag the dog for another 70+ years.

Again, it's a bald-faced lie that slavery was generally considered moral, and the arguments that it was moral were propagated by those whose wealth depended on it. One could as easily say that it's considered moral to rob banks because bank robbers argue that it is so.

And to Meadmaker, yes we're discussing slavery because it's the crux of this issue. It's why this stupid ******* commission was created: Because some white pissants are mad because over two centuries late our society is trying to expunge the false narrative that our Union was ever ideal. It has been fundamentally flawed from the beginning. If that is accepted then it's possible to change how the US is constituted going forward. It's only through denial that the regressive amongst us can continue to hold power.

lomiller · 21st January 2021, 11:24 AM

Originally Posted by dudalb

THIS.
The 1619 project has a lot of problems , but the 1776 Comission is not a legitimate criticism but right wing political BS.

The big difference is that the 1916 project is op-ed while the 1776 Commission is trying to present itself as an official US government report. Op-ed, can play an important role in political debate even when it's not strictly true. Bogus government reports that try to villainize the opposition are commonly created as a pretext by dictators to crack down on their critics.

The Atheist · 21st January 2021, 11:34 AM

Originally Posted by Donal

Putting aside the many, many, oh so many, racist dog whistles for a moment. It is so poorly written. Did they start it the night before? It reads like one of Trump's speeches. A selection of buzzwords strung together by barely coherent sentences and self-aggrandizement.

I think it was written in a manner that the sponsor could actually read it.

"Keep to small words", "Glorify slave owners", "Deny responsibility because money", "Nationalism wins votes"

pgwenthold · 21st January 2021, 11:41 AM

Originally Posted by dudalb

THIS.
The 1619 project has a lot of problems , but the 1776 Comission is not a legitimate criticism but right wing political BS.

According to the wikipedia page, there are many historians who have expressed concerns about the 1619 Project.

Not a one of them were on the 1776 commission.

Apparently, while it's claimed to be a a response to the 1619 Project, it didn't actually care so much about honest criticism and was more concerned about promoting the "right" view.

d4m10n · 21st January 2021, 11:49 AM

Originally Posted by lomiller

The point being made was that when the US constitution was written slavery was already something most major nations had decided was wrong/evil.

The point hasn't really been shown to be true, though. The major nations of the founding era were France, Britain, Russia, Austria–Hungary, Prussia, and (to a lesser extent) Spain and Portugal.

Portugal partially abolished slavery in 1761, but continued to traffic heavily in slaves across the Atlantic for more than a century thereafter.

Prussia abolished slavery in 1807.

Spain abolished slavery in 1811.

Britain passed the Abolition of Slavery Act in 1833.

France abolished slavery for good in 1848.

Russia abolished serfdom (which had come to strongly resemble chattel slavery) in 1906.

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-s...61464920070322

Thermal · 21st January 2021, 11:57 AM

Seriously, who was the intended audience for this tripe? And what's with 'Commision'? My kids could crank out more (and not been douche canoes about it) during commercial breaks one evening watching tv. Was someone actually paid real money to produce this? How much? I could train a poodle to cut and paste better. And who FFS was supposed to read it and in what context?

ponderingturtle · 21st January 2021, 12:02 PM

Originally Posted by Thermal

Seriously, who was the intended audience for this tripe? And what's with 'Commision'? My kids could crank out more (and not been douche canoes about it) during commercial breaks one evening watching tv. Was someone actually paid real money to produce this? How much? I could train a poodle to cut and paste better. And who FFS was supposed to read it and in what context?

I don't know if anyone was supposed to read it, it was intended as a weapon in the culture war, giving apparent support for right wing wackos pet beliefs. For example like how text books would refer to slaves as immigrants or workers and not slaves.

https://www.latimes.com/books/jacket...005-story.html

"“The Atlantic Slave Trade between the 1500s and 1800s brought millions of workers from Africa to the southern United States to work on agricultural plantations.”"

BobTheCoward · 21st January 2021, 12:07 PM

Originally Posted by d4m10n

The point hasn't really been shown to be true, though. The major nations of the founding era were France, Britain, Russia, Austria–Hungary, Prussia, and (to a lesser extent) Spain and Portugal.

Portugal partially abolished slavery in 1761, but continued to traffic heavily in slaves across the Atlantic for more than a century thereafter.

Prussia abolished slavery in 1807.

Spain abolished slavery in 1811.

Britain passed the Abolition of Slavery Act in 1833.

France abolished slavery for good in 1848.

Russia abolished serfdom (which had come to strongly resemble chattel slavery) in 1906.

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-s...61464920070322

Many had gotten rid of it in their own, national borders and that seems to be the system the US would be competing against.

BobTheCoward · 21st January 2021, 12:13 PM

About the Russian serfs.....this may be a little short sided, but I would have a less of a problem with American slavery if it was wasps owning wasps.

Meadmaker · 21st January 2021, 12:24 PM

Originally Posted by Thermal

Seriously, who was the intended audience for this tripe? And what's with 'Commision'? My kids could crank out more (and not been douche canoes about it) during commercial breaks one evening watching tv. Was someone actually paid real money to produce this? How much? I could train a poodle to cut and paste better. And who FFS was supposed to read it and in what context?

Civics teachers.

The core of the document is about changing the way we teach Civics and American History.

And no, your kids couldn't write better than that document during commercial breaks.

I haven't completed it, but I've read about all that I intend to read. I skipped around. Like so many things, there's good stuff in there, and they try to hide the bad stuff inside the good stuff.

Far too much of it is the theme of "Teach kids that America is and always has been the most awesomest place ever." It does a good job of talking about the principles behind American government, which I would agree really are quite good, and very possibly the best in the world, but that gets drowned out in some of the jingoistic aspects, and they try to slip in some right wing "values" talk as well.

If a high school student wrote it, I would give them an A+. If a college student wrote it, I would give it an A-. If a PhD dissertation candidate wrote it, I would say that it is seriously lacking in documentation and justification.

And if a Presidential Commission wrote it? I think I might have suggested more inclusion of non-partisan sources.

d4m10n · 21st January 2021, 12:34 PM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

Many had gotten rid of it in their own, national borders and that seems to be the system the US would be competing against.

Many what, Bob?

According to this page, "the first country in Europe to ban the African slave trade" did so in 1803, over a dozen years after the founding of the United States as a constitutional republic.

BobTheCoward · 21st January 2021, 12:44 PM

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Many what, Bob?

According to this page, "the first country in Europe to ban the African slave trade" did so in 1803, over a dozen years after the founding of the United States as a constitutional republic.

Outside their borders. We are talking about inside borders here.

Thermal · 21st January 2021, 01:01 PM

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Civics teachers.

So....this was intended as a talking points reeducation pamphlet for civics teachers? Cuz 20 pages or so (then subtract the pictures) would only fill one lecture time. And why do teachers need the pictures mixed in? Do you see what I mean about it having no value as it is? Too short for a text or reference material, too long for a pamphlet shoved in a gas station urinal next to the Jesus Loves The Little Junkies tracts.

Quote:

The core of the document is about changing the way we teach Civics and American History.

And no, your kids couldn't write better than that document during commercial breaks.

I haven't completed it, but I've read about all that I intend to read. I skipped around. Like so many things, there's good stuff in there, and they try to hide the bad stuff inside the good stuff.

Far too much of it is the theme of "Teach kids that America is and always has been the most awesomest place ever." It does a good job of talking about the principles behind American government, which I would agree really are quite good, and very possibly the best in the world, but that gets drowned out in some of the jingoistic aspects, and they try to slip in some right wing "values" talk as well.

If a high school student wrote it, I would give them an A+. If a college student wrote it, I would give it an A-. If a PhD dissertation candidate wrote it, I would say that it is seriously lacking in documentation and justification.

And if a Presidential Commission wrote it? I think I might have suggested more inclusion of non-partisan sources.

It's hard to read on cel but I'll give it another go on laptop later. Seemed pretty generic boilerplate prose with some partisan rhetoric at first blush.

crescent · 21st January 2021, 01:02 PM

Originally Posted by Thermal

Seriously, who was the intended audience for this tripe?

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Civics teachers.

They also intended for this to be used by the National Park Service to guide interpretive efforts at Historic Sites. I was distributed to NPS employees when it was released.

I am guessing it was probably also sent to the Smithsonian, and probably to Defense Department people who manage historical interpretation/tours of existing military faculties that include historic elements.

And more.

Stacyhs · 21st January 2021, 01:37 PM

Slavery existed where it was mostly economically advantageous. In the northern states, farms were small, family run operations; large plantations didn't exist due to weather making for short growing seasons and poor soil conditions made more profitable crops like tobacco and cotton impossible to grow. It didn't make sense to have slaves as it was expensive to buy and maintain slaves. Because slavery was economically unfeasible in northern states, it made it much easier to be philosophically anti-slavery in those states.

Even though most southerners didn't own slaves, and those who did only owned one or two, it was still the plantations owners who drove and controlled southern politics. Whether or not these slave owners truly believed it was morally wrong or not only they knew, but people are very, very good at justifying what they do, especially when it comes to maintaining their power and money.

d4m10n · 21st January 2021, 01:56 PM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

We are talking about inside borders here.

Okay, what was the first European nation to ban slavery inside their own borders?

BobTheCoward · 21st January 2021, 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Okay, what was the first European nation to ban slavery inside their own borders?

It looks like denmark banned it very early.

smartcooky · 21st January 2021, 02:17 PM

This report is bollocks, its part of the right's crusade against the truth about America's racist past. It is almost certainly the brainchild Trump's racist advisor, Stephen Miller (one wag on Twitter accurately referred to is as "Stephen Miller's seventh-grade term paper"). Its an attempt at history revisionism by trying to refute teachings on systemic racism, critical race theory, and deeper examinations of how slavery has affected American society, particularly trying to whitewash slavery (no pun intended).

The biggest insult is that it was released on Martin Luther King Jr. Day - this was no co-incidence - the timing that turns my stomach!

ETA: https://www.esquire.com/news-politic...rican-history/

smartcooky · 21st January 2021, 02:18 PM

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Okay, what was the first European nation to ban slavery inside their own borders?

Denmark & Norway (1803)

d4m10n · 21st January 2021, 02:37 PM

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Denmark & Norway

Once again, I'm having trouble seeing how the U.S. was (as claimed upthread) well behind Europe at the time of the founding.

The Abolition of Slavery in 1848

Quote:

The Danish ban on the transatlantic slave trade in 1792 marked the beginning of the end of slavery. Fifty years later, in 1847, the state of Denmark ruled that slavery be phased out over a 12 year period, beginning with all new-born babies of enslaved women. This was far from enough for the enslaved population.

According to the national museum, the Danish process ran from after the founding of the U.S. and went on for the next five decades.

BobTheCoward · 21st January 2021, 02:38 PM

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Once again, I'm having trouble seeing how the U.S. was (as often claimed upthread) well behind Europe at the time of the founding.

The Abolition of Slavery in 1848

Because europe was well ahead on banning slavery in their own countries.

smartcooky · 21st January 2021, 02:40 PM

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Once again, I'm having trouble seeing how the U.S. was (as often claimed upthread) well behind Europe at the time of the founding.

The Abolition of Slavery in 1848

Keep in mind that part of America was still fighting to keep slavery in 1865!

Thermal · 21st January 2021, 02:44 PM

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Keep in mind that part of America was still fighting to keep slavery in 1865!

But is that really such a chasm in historical terms? Especially when the other part was shedding blood to stop it.

The Don · 21st January 2021, 02:48 PM

Originally Posted by lomiller

I don't see that as germane. The point being made was that when the US constitution was written slavery was already something most major nations had decided was wrong/evil. The fact that some of the special interest groups of the day managed to convince those governments to keep allowing it in places where people didn't have to look at it doesn't change this. The ff HAD to know slavery was evil, and should have found a way to avoid entrenching it in the US constitution.

No, they had decided that they didn't want to do it to their own people. In effect that was the case in the states, the slaves weren't people

d4m10n · 21st January 2021, 02:52 PM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

Because europe was well ahead on banning slavery in their own countries.

In 1789?

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Keep in mind that part of America was still fighting to keep slavery in 1865!

Fair enough to say the U.S. was lagging behind Europe by the middle of the 19^th century, but that's moving the goalposts several decades from what has been claimed upthread.

Delphic Oracle · 21st January 2021, 03:02 PM

Originally Posted by lomiller

There are some major exceptions but for the most part the US constitution didn't really do much more than restate principles that were already present in English Common Law. It did remove the unelected lords and replaced in with Senators appointed by the individual States. It also replaced a King with an elected President but that was something that was actually debated.

Curriculum requirements vary by state and school boards can often apply "interpretation."

From 1st grade to 11th, I just got a slightly more expansive version of the American Genesis Myth. When I took Western Civ I & II as a senior in high school (advanced college credit) was the first time (in an educational setting) the deeper divisions were fleshed out.

The big compromise talked about was the bicameral legislature. Not a whisper about counting 3/5ths of a person.

Stacyhs · 21st January 2021, 03:05 PM

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

Curriculum requirements vary by state and school boards can often apply "interpretation."

From 1st grade to 11th, I just got a slightly more expansive version of the American Genesis Myth. When I took Western Civ I & II as a senior in high school (advanced college credit) was the first time (in an educational setting) the deeper divisions were fleshed out.

The big compromise talked about was the bicameral legislature. Not a whisper about counting 3/5ths of a person.

Odd. I taught that in my 9th grade US history class.

ETA: Late 1980's.

Meadmaker · 21st January 2021, 03:10 PM

I was taught all about the compromises in the Constitution. I know the "3/5" came up even in the junior high school version. In high school history, all of it came up, and the role of slavery on American society was stressed again and again, affecting pretty much every aspect of life in America prior to the Civil War.

For what it's worth, that was in the 1970s with the popular textbook, "The American Pageant".

BobTheCoward · 21st January 2021, 03:32 PM

Originally Posted by d4m10n

In 1789?
.

....if you exclude territories outside of Europe.

BobTheCoward · 21st January 2021, 03:34 PM

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

I was taught all about the compromises in the Constitution. I know the "3/5" came up even in the junior high school version. In high school history, all of it came up, and the role of slavery on American society was stressed again and again, affecting pretty much every aspect of life in America prior to the Civil War.

For what it's worth, that was in the 1970s with the popular textbook, "The American Pageant".

It isn't much of a compromise.

You get slavery, you get the population counted to your votes, but it isn't going to be 1 for 1 damnit!

d4m10n · 21st January 2021, 03:36 PM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

....if you exclude territories outside of Europe.

I must have missed the post in which some European nation (much less most of Europe) had abolished slavery by 1789, anywhere within Europe. Where are you getting this idea from, Bob?

crescent · 21st January 2021, 03:59 PM

AHA Condemns Report of Advisory 1776 Commission (January 2021)(AHA = American Historical Association)

Quote:

The just-released “1776 Report” claims that common understanding of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution can unify all Americans in the love of country. The product of “The President’s Advisory 1776 Commission,” the report focuses on these founding documents in an apparent attempt to reject recent efforts to understand the multiple ways the institution of slavery shaped our nation’s history. The authors call for a form of government indoctrination of American students, and in the process elevate ignorance about the past to a civic virtue.

The report actually consists of two main themes. One is an homage to the Founding Fathers, a simplistic interpretation that relies on falsehoods, inaccuracies, omissions, and misleading statements. The other is a screed against a half-century of historical scholarship, presented largely as a series of caricatures, using single examples (most notably the “1619 Project”) to represent broader historiographical trends.

Edited by Agatha:

Trimmed for rule 4

BobTheCoward · 21st January 2021, 06:09 PM

Originally Posted by d4m10n

I must have missed the post in which some European nation (much less most of Europe) had abolished slavery by 1789, anywhere within Europe. Where are you getting this idea from, Bob?

Portugal.

I can't find anything saying slavery was legal in Denmark after the middle ages.

21st January 2021, 10:40 AM	#42
Meadmaker Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 25,255	Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY We can't allow that to be taught in the schools. The emphasis must be about slavery and how wicked the US was and is for that matter. How evil the founding fathers really were etc. Also in case you didn't know. The US war with Japan in WW II was largely due to the US policy of aggressive expansionism in the Pacific. (No kidding this view is actually taught.) To pwengthold's point, I don't know what is really taught to real fifth graders in America. The news media stories pick and choose little bits of things here and there. When I was in high school in the 1970s, I think there was a pretty good balance and realistic treatment of history. The Constitution was praised, but the Founding Fathers weren't portrayed as perfect, and the obvious contradiction of the ideals of the rhetoric of the Declaration of Independence and principles of the Constitution were pointed out, as they should be.
	__________________ Yes, yes. I know you're right, but would it hurt you to actually provide some information?

21st January 2021, 10:46 AM	#43
lomiller Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 11,367	Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY Also in case you didn't know. The US war with Japan in WW II was largely due to the US policy of aggressive expansionism in the Pacific. (No kidding this view is actually taught.) US expansionism is what put it at odds with Japanese expansionism. The US was the preferred by the area that was the subject of this expansion because Japanese culture was heavily militarized, authoritarian and racist. (much like the political right is today in the US) The real preference of the locals, however, was that neither of these powers were trying to expand into the pacific. US expansionism was wrong regardless of what Japan was doing, and it's perfectly reasonable to teach this. What Japan was doing simply does not make US expansionism better.
	__________________ "Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"

21st January 2021, 11:00 AM	#44
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 50,442	Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey Kind of a moot point what other countries were doing. Several states in the US had already abolished slavery before the constitutional convention. Abolition of slavery was not something that was beyond the realm of imagination to any of the founders. I think it was just Vermont
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

21st January 2021, 11:04 AM	#45
SuburbanTurkey Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2018 Location: Massachusetts, USA Posts: 7,964	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle I think it was just Vermont Massachusetts Supreme Court ended slavery in 1783 under the reasoning that it was inconsistent with state Declaration of Human Rights that all men were created free and equal. Slavery was seen by at least some at the time to be inconsistent with Lockean Liberalism that was popular at the time and was the foundation of much of the Constitution. It's perfectly fair to condemn those that had blind spots on the matter.
	__________________ Gobble gobble

21st January 2021, 11:07 AM	#46
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Sacramento Posts: 50,334	Originally Posted by Fizil The 1619 Project deserves tons of criticism and is full of falsehoods, but that doesn't mean the exact opposite of it is true. I forsee the horror-show that is the 1776 Commission being used to boost acceptance of the 1619 Project stuff, despite the fact that historians are hugely critical of both. At least the 1619 Project is well meaning I guess, and more importantly, actually does contain a lot of good information mixed in with the crap. THIS. The 1619 project has a lot of problems , but the 1776 Comission is not a legitimate criticism but right wing political BS.
	__________________ Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty. Robert Heinlein.

21st January 2021, 10:38 AM	#41
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 20,234	Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY Also in case you didn't know. The US war with Japan in WW II was largely due to the US policy of aggressive expansionism in the Pacific. (No kidding this view is actually taught.) That is true. If the use did not commit acts of aggression in the pacific, there would have been no US soldiers in the pacific to attack. The US complaining about the Japanese attack is like an arsonist complaining about someone burning down their house.

21st January 2021, 11:08 AM	#47
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 50,442	Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey Massachusetts Supreme Court ended slavery in 1783 under the reasoning that it was inconsistent with state Declaration of Human Rights that all men were created free and equal. Slavery was seen by at least some at the time to be inconsistent with Lockean Liberalism that was popular at the time and was the foundation of much of the Constitution. It's perfectly fair to condemn those that had blind spots on the matter. Oh it was something that clearly was thought of in uncomfortable terms though was mostly rationalized away.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

21st January 2021, 11:23 AM	#48
Babbylonian Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 13,495	Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey Massachusetts Supreme Court ended slavery in 1783 under the reasoning that it was inconsistent with state Declaration of Human Rights that all men were created free and equal. Slavery was seen by at least some at the time to be inconsistent with Lockean Liberalism that was popular at the time and was the foundation of much of the Constitution. It's perfectly fair to condemn those that had blind spots on the matter. They didn't have blind spots. They ignored morality in favor of expediency. Because the slave economy was profitable (to white people), those who knew better went along with it. Then, the states opposed to slavery let the tail wag the dog for another 70+ years. Again, it's a bald-faced lie that slavery was generally considered moral, and the arguments that it was moral were propagated by those whose wealth depended on it. One could as easily say that it's considered moral to rob banks because bank robbers argue that it is so. And to Meadmaker, yes we're discussing slavery because it's the crux of this issue. It's why this stupid ******* commission was created: Because some white pissants are mad because over two centuries late our society is trying to expunge the false narrative that our Union was ever ideal. It has been fundamentally flawed from the beginning. If that is accepted then it's possible to change how the US is constituted going forward. It's only through denial that the regressive amongst us can continue to hold power.

21st January 2021, 11:24 AM	#49
lomiller Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 11,367	Originally Posted by dudalb THIS. The 1619 project has a lot of problems , but the 1776 Comission is not a legitimate criticism but right wing political BS. The big difference is that the 1916 project is op-ed while the 1776 Commission is trying to present itself as an official US government report. Op-ed, can play an important role in political debate even when it's not strictly true. Bogus government reports that try to villainize the opposition are commonly created as a pretext by dictators to crack down on their critics.
	__________________ "Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"

21st January 2021, 11:34 AM	#50
The Atheist The Grammar Tyrant Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 28,298	Originally Posted by Donal Putting aside the many, many, oh so many, racist dog whistles for a moment. It is so poorly written. Did they start it the night before? It reads like one of Trump's speeches. A selection of buzzwords strung together by barely coherent sentences and self-aggrandizement. I think it was written in a manner that the sponsor could actually read it. "Keep to small words", "Glorify slave owners", "Deny responsibility because money", "Nationalism wins votes"
	__________________ The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.

21st January 2021, 11:41 AM	#51
pgwenthold Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 20,129	Originally Posted by dudalb THIS. The 1619 project has a lot of problems , but the 1776 Comission is not a legitimate criticism but right wing political BS. According to the wikipedia page, there are many historians who have expressed concerns about the 1619 Project. Not a one of them were on the 1776 commission. Apparently, while it's claimed to be a a response to the 1619 Project, it didn't actually care so much about honest criticism and was more concerned about promoting the "right" view.
	__________________ "As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets

21st January 2021, 11:49 AM	#52
d4m10n Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Mounts Farm Posts: 6,404	Originally Posted by lomiller The point being made was that when the US constitution was written slavery was already something most major nations had decided was wrong/evil. The point hasn't really been shown to be true, though. The major nations of the founding era were France, Britain, Russia, Austria–Hungary, Prussia, and (to a lesser extent) Spain and Portugal. Portugal partially abolished slavery in 1761, but continued to traffic heavily in slaves across the Atlantic for more than a century thereafter. Prussia abolished slavery in 1807. Spain abolished slavery in 1811. Britain passed the Abolition of Slavery Act in 1833. France abolished slavery for good in 1848. Russia abolished serfdom (which had come to strongly resemble chattel slavery) in 1906. https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-s...61464920070322
	__________________ "Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin

21st January 2021, 11:57 AM	#53
Thermal Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2016 Location: East Coast USA Posts: 13,511	Seriously, who was the intended audience for this tripe? And what's with 'Commision'? My kids could crank out more (and not been douche canoes about it) during commercial breaks one evening watching tv. Was someone actually paid real money to produce this? How much? I could train a poodle to cut and paste better. And who FFS was supposed to read it and in what context?
	__________________ We find comfort among those who agree with us, growth among those who don't -Frank A. Clark Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain

21st January 2021, 12:02 PM	#54
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 50,442	Originally Posted by Thermal Seriously, who was the intended audience for this tripe? And what's with 'Commision'? My kids could crank out more (and not been douche canoes about it) during commercial breaks one evening watching tv. Was someone actually paid real money to produce this? How much? I could train a poodle to cut and paste better. And who FFS was supposed to read it and in what context? I don't know if anyone was supposed to read it, it was intended as a weapon in the culture war, giving apparent support for right wing wackos pet beliefs. For example like how text books would refer to slaves as immigrants or workers and not slaves. https://www.latimes.com/books/jacket...005-story.html "“The Atlantic Slave Trade between the 1500s and 1800s brought millions of workers from Africa to the southern United States to work on agricultural plantations.”"
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

21st January 2021, 12:07 PM	#55
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 20,234	Originally Posted by d4m10n The point hasn't really been shown to be true, though. The major nations of the founding era were France, Britain, Russia, Austria–Hungary, Prussia, and (to a lesser extent) Spain and Portugal. Portugal partially abolished slavery in 1761, but continued to traffic heavily in slaves across the Atlantic for more than a century thereafter. Prussia abolished slavery in 1807. Spain abolished slavery in 1811. Britain passed the Abolition of Slavery Act in 1833. France abolished slavery for good in 1848. Russia abolished serfdom (which had come to strongly resemble chattel slavery) in 1906. https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-s...61464920070322 Many had gotten rid of it in their own, national borders and that seems to be the system the US would be competing against.

21st January 2021, 12:13 PM	#56
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 20,234	About the Russian serfs.....this may be a little short sided, but I would have a less of a problem with American slavery if it was wasps owning wasps.

21st January 2021, 12:24 PM	#57
Meadmaker Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 25,255	Originally Posted by Thermal Seriously, who was the intended audience for this tripe? And what's with 'Commision'? My kids could crank out more (and not been douche canoes about it) during commercial breaks one evening watching tv. Was someone actually paid real money to produce this? How much? I could train a poodle to cut and paste better. And who FFS was supposed to read it and in what context? Civics teachers. The core of the document is about changing the way we teach Civics and American History. And no, your kids couldn't write better than that document during commercial breaks. I haven't completed it, but I've read about all that I intend to read. I skipped around. Like so many things, there's good stuff in there, and they try to hide the bad stuff inside the good stuff. Far too much of it is the theme of "Teach kids that America is and always has been the most awesomest place ever." It does a good job of talking about the principles behind American government, which I would agree really are quite good, and very possibly the best in the world, but that gets drowned out in some of the jingoistic aspects, and they try to slip in some right wing "values" talk as well. If a high school student wrote it, I would give them an A+. If a college student wrote it, I would give it an A-. If a PhD dissertation candidate wrote it, I would say that it is seriously lacking in documentation and justification. And if a Presidential Commission wrote it? I think I might have suggested more inclusion of non-partisan sources.
	__________________ Yes, yes. I know you're right, but would it hurt you to actually provide some information?

21st January 2021, 12:34 PM	#58
d4m10n Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Mounts Farm Posts: 6,404	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward Many had gotten rid of it in their own, national borders and that seems to be the system the US would be competing against. Many what, Bob? According to this page, "the first country in Europe to ban the African slave trade" did so in 1803, over a dozen years after the founding of the United States as a constitutional republic.
	__________________ "Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin

21st January 2021, 12:44 PM	#59
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 20,234	Originally Posted by d4m10n Many what, Bob? According to this page, "the first country in Europe to ban the African slave trade" did so in 1803, over a dozen years after the founding of the United States as a constitutional republic. Outside their borders. We are talking about inside borders here.

21st January 2021, 01:01 PM	#60
Thermal Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2016 Location: East Coast USA Posts: 13,511	Originally Posted by Meadmaker Civics teachers. So....this was intended as a talking points reeducation pamphlet for civics teachers? Cuz 20 pages or so (then subtract the pictures) would only fill one lecture time. And why do teachers need the pictures mixed in? Do you see what I mean about it having no value as it is? Too short for a text or reference material, too long for a pamphlet shoved in a gas station urinal next to the Jesus Loves The Little Junkies tracts. Quote: The core of the document is about changing the way we teach Civics and American History. And no, your kids couldn't write better than that document during commercial breaks. I haven't completed it, but I've read about all that I intend to read. I skipped around. Like so many things, there's good stuff in there, and they try to hide the bad stuff inside the good stuff. Far too much of it is the theme of "Teach kids that America is and always has been the most awesomest place ever." It does a good job of talking about the principles behind American government, which I would agree really are quite good, and very possibly the best in the world, but that gets drowned out in some of the jingoistic aspects, and they try to slip in some right wing "values" talk as well. If a high school student wrote it, I would give them an A+. If a college student wrote it, I would give it an A-. If a PhD dissertation candidate wrote it, I would say that it is seriously lacking in documentation and justification. And if a Presidential Commission wrote it? I think I might have suggested more inclusion of non-partisan sources. It's hard to read on cel but I'll give it another go on laptop later. Seemed pretty generic boilerplate prose with some partisan rhetoric at first blush.
	__________________ We find comfort among those who agree with us, growth among those who don't -Frank A. Clark Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain

21st January 2021, 01:02 PM	#61
crescent Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Colorado Posts: 3,979	Originally Posted by Thermal Seriously, who was the intended audience for this tripe? Originally Posted by Meadmaker Civics teachers. They also intended for this to be used by the National Park Service to guide interpretive efforts at Historic Sites. I was distributed to NPS employees when it was released. I am guessing it was probably also sent to the Smithsonian, and probably to Defense Department people who manage historical interpretation/tours of existing military faculties that include historic elements. And more.

21st January 2021, 01:37 PM	#62
Stacyhs Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: United States Posts: 18,008	Slavery existed where it was mostly economically advantageous. In the northern states, farms were small, family run operations; large plantations didn't exist due to weather making for short growing seasons and poor soil conditions made more profitable crops like tobacco and cotton impossible to grow. It didn't make sense to have slaves as it was expensive to buy and maintain slaves. Because slavery was economically unfeasible in northern states, it made it much easier to be philosophically anti-slavery in those states. Even though most southerners didn't own slaves, and those who did only owned one or two, it was still the plantations owners who drove and controlled southern politics. Whether or not these slave owners truly believed it was morally wrong or not only they knew, but people are very, very good at justifying what they do, especially when it comes to maintaining their power and money.

21st January 2021, 01:56 PM	#63
d4m10n Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Mounts Farm Posts: 6,404	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward We are talking about inside borders here. Okay, what was the first European nation to ban slavery inside their own borders?
	__________________ "Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin

21st January 2021, 02:04 PM	#64
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 20,234	Originally Posted by d4m10n Okay, what was the first European nation to ban slavery inside their own borders? It looks like denmark banned it very early.

21st January 2021, 02:17 PM	#65
smartcooky Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Nelson, New Zealand Posts: 16,791	This report is bollocks, its part of the right's crusade against the truth about America's racist past. It is almost certainly the brainchild Trump's racist advisor, Stephen Miller (one wag on Twitter accurately referred to is as "Stephen Miller's seventh-grade term paper"). Its an attempt at history revisionism by trying to refute teachings on systemic racism, critical race theory, and deeper examinations of how slavery has affected American society, particularly trying to whitewash slavery (no pun intended). The biggest insult is that it was released on Martin Luther King Jr. Day - this was no co-incidence - the timing that turns my stomach! ETA: https://www.esquire.com/news-politic...rican-history/
	__________________ I want to thank the 126 Republican Congress members for providing a convenient and well organized list for the mid-terms. - Fred Wellman (Senior VA Advisor to The Lincoln Project) If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! ! Last edited by smartcooky; 21st January 2021 at 02:34 PM.

21st January 2021, 02:18 PM	#66
smartcooky Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Nelson, New Zealand Posts: 16,791	Originally Posted by d4m10n Okay, what was the first European nation to ban slavery inside their own borders? Denmark & Norway (1803)
	__________________ I want to thank the 126 Republican Congress members for providing a convenient and well organized list for the mid-terms. - Fred Wellman (Senior VA Advisor to The Lincoln Project) If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! ! Last edited by smartcooky; 21st January 2021 at 02:35 PM.

21st January 2021, 02:37 PM	#67
d4m10n Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Mounts Farm Posts: 6,404	Originally Posted by smartcooky Denmark & Norway Once again, I'm having trouble seeing how the U.S. was (as claimed upthread) well behind Europe at the time of the founding. The Abolition of Slavery in 1848 Quote: The Danish ban on the transatlantic slave trade in 1792 marked the beginning of the end of slavery. Fifty years later, in 1847, the state of Denmark ruled that slavery be phased out over a 12 year period, beginning with all new-born babies of enslaved women. This was far from enough for the enslaved population. According to the national museum, the Danish process ran from after the founding of the U.S. and went on for the next five decades.
	__________________ "Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin Last edited by d4m10n; 21st January 2021 at 02:41 PM.

21st January 2021, 02:38 PM	#68
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 20,234	Originally Posted by d4m10n Once again, I'm having trouble seeing how the U.S. was (as often claimed upthread) well behind Europe at the time of the founding. The Abolition of Slavery in 1848 Because europe was well ahead on banning slavery in their own countries.

21st January 2021, 02:40 PM	#69
smartcooky Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Nelson, New Zealand Posts: 16,791	Originally Posted by d4m10n Once again, I'm having trouble seeing how the U.S. was (as often claimed upthread) well behind Europe at the time of the founding. The Abolition of Slavery in 1848 Keep in mind that part of America was still fighting to keep slavery in 1865!
	__________________ I want to thank the 126 Republican Congress members for providing a convenient and well organized list for the mid-terms. - Fred Wellman (Senior VA Advisor to The Lincoln Project) If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

21st January 2021, 02:44 PM	#70
Thermal Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2016 Location: East Coast USA Posts: 13,511	Originally Posted by smartcooky Keep in mind that part of America was still fighting to keep slavery in 1865! But is that really such a chasm in historical terms? Especially when the other part was shedding blood to stop it.
	__________________ We find comfort among those who agree with us, growth among those who don't -Frank A. Clark Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain

21st January 2021, 02:48 PM	#71
The Don Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Sir Fynwy Posts: 31,348	Originally Posted by lomiller I don't see that as germane. The point being made was that when the US constitution was written slavery was already something most major nations had decided was wrong/evil. The fact that some of the special interest groups of the day managed to convince those governments to keep allowing it in places where people didn't have to look at it doesn't change this. The ff HAD to know slavery was evil, and should have found a way to avoid entrenching it in the US constitution. No, they had decided that they didn't want to do it to their own people. In effect that was the case in the states, the slaves weren't people

21st January 2021, 02:52 PM	#72
d4m10n Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Mounts Farm Posts: 6,404	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward Because europe was well ahead on banning slavery in their own countries. In 1789? Originally Posted by smartcooky Keep in mind that part of America was still fighting to keep slavery in 1865! Fair enough to say the U.S. was lagging behind Europe by the middle of the 19^th century, but that's moving the goalposts several decades from what has been claimed upthread.
	__________________ "Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin Last edited by d4m10n; 21st January 2021 at 04:37 PM.

21st January 2021, 03:02 PM	#73
Delphic Oracle Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2016 Posts: 5,355	Originally Posted by lomiller There are some major exceptions but for the most part the US constitution didn't really do much more than restate principles that were already present in English Common Law. It did remove the unelected lords and replaced in with Senators appointed by the individual States. It also replaced a King with an elected President but that was something that was actually debated. Curriculum requirements vary by state and school boards can often apply "interpretation." From 1st grade to 11th, I just got a slightly more expansive version of the American Genesis Myth. When I took Western Civ I & II as a senior in high school (advanced college credit) was the first time (in an educational setting) the deeper divisions were fleshed out. The big compromise talked about was the bicameral legislature. Not a whisper about counting 3/5ths of a person.

21st January 2021, 03:05 PM	#74
Stacyhs Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: United States Posts: 18,008	Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle Curriculum requirements vary by state and school boards can often apply "interpretation." From 1st grade to 11th, I just got a slightly more expansive version of the American Genesis Myth. When I took Western Civ I & II as a senior in high school (advanced college credit) was the first time (in an educational setting) the deeper divisions were fleshed out. The big compromise talked about was the bicameral legislature. Not a whisper about counting 3/5ths of a person. Odd. I taught that in my 9th grade US history class. ETA: Late 1980's.
	Last edited by Stacyhs; 21st January 2021 at 03:12 PM.

21st January 2021, 03:10 PM	#75
Meadmaker Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 25,255	I was taught all about the compromises in the Constitution. I know the "3/5" came up even in the junior high school version. In high school history, all of it came up, and the role of slavery on American society was stressed again and again, affecting pretty much every aspect of life in America prior to the Civil War. For what it's worth, that was in the 1970s with the popular textbook, "The American Pageant".
	__________________ Yes, yes. I know you're right, but would it hurt you to actually provide some information?