What do you mean? The slaver owners, who genocided the local population to steal their land and didn't consider women or children people wouldn't be happy with Trump's America? Trump's America is their dream, and it won't change until you stop mythologizing genocidal slave owners.

[–] Hobo@lemmy.world 13 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

I feel like that's incredibly reductive and it just kind of bothers me every time I see it. The Constitution was almost not ratified because there was a contingent of founders that opposed slavery. What's important about that is that it completely destroys the moral relativism argument for the rest of them. Founders that supported slavery knew it was wrong and did it anyway cause they were greedy.

Well, except for Jefferson. His reasons are more rooted in being an incredibly lazy psychopathic rapist who had created a slavery powered life of luxury for himself. But that's going off on a completely different tangent.

[–] WhatsTheHoldup@lemmy.ml 2 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

I feel like that's incredibly reductive and it just kind of bothers me every time I see it.

Well, except for Jefferson. His reasons are more rooted in being an incredibly lazy psychopathic rapist

Lol.

While there's no shortage of slave related evils to blame him for this is also the man who ended the trans atlantic slave trade.

Do you not feel this description of his motivations might be a bit reductive?

[–] Hobo@lemmy.world 4 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (2 children)

Fair enough! I think it's a bit more complex hence the tangent that I didn't want to get into. The man had 600 slaves during his life and he is often credited as freeing his slaves. He freed two. Which is a fair bit short of the 600 he owned. He denounced the slave trade as a "human right violation" but continued to own slaves himself. So he knew it was wrong and did it anyway.

He built Monitcello to basically run on slavery. He had dumb waiters and hidden compartments in the walls so his slaves could serve him and not be seen. He didn't want his foreign visitors to know about them when they visited, because most other nations had denounced slavery as barbaric, hence the hiding them in the walls and behind pully systems. Which seems extra diabolical to make sure no foreign dignitaries brought back stories about how awful slavery was to their home country. Hiding his slaves like that really points to the fact that he knew it was wrong but did it anyway.

Yes he did end the US's participation in the slave trade. His reaction to which was to have his slaves breed more, "...woman who brings a child every two years is more profitable than the best man on the farm." Is a quote from his Letters on the state of Virginia (I believe that is the corrct source although it could be from one of his almanacs and I'm misremembering). He spent a lot effort trying to reduce infant mortality (which is a good thing) so that slavery could be more profitable (which is a fucked up psychotic thing). So he was outwardly trying to end the slave trade because he had a plan to perpetuate slavery by breeding. I don't know if needs to be said again, but that seems to point to the fact that he knew it was wrong but figured out a way to do it anway.

He often had "relationships" (read raped) with his slaves, which seems to be more like prolific raping of black women than a "relationship" when held up to the light. He raped so many black women that there's a absolute ton of his ancestry in the black American population still today. During his lifetime, and even for a while after, he hid the fact that he was doing this. In fact, it's theorized that some of the children that worked on Montecello were in fact his own mixed race children. The fact that he hid his prolific raping and own children seems to point to the fact that he knew it was wrong and did it, to an unconscionable level, anyway.

I for sure agree that it is nuanced, but it's also rather reductive to just leave it at, "he signed the Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves." He was outwardly antislavery, because he was trying to portray himself as progressive at the time while running an extremely regressive slave farm. His life and his views are just brimming with these sorts of contradicting actions too. So, you are absolutely correct in that it's reductive on both sides of the discussion! I for sure think he was a monster and kind of think of him as a modern day "limousine liberal." He ran around saying how slavery was bad while owning and perpetuating slavery. Much like limousine liberals run around saying the rich are destroying the country while riding around in their limo.

[–] WhatsTheHoldup@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

I get where you're coming from and why you typed up 4 paragraphs condemning his horrible actions before we are allowed to acknowledge that he did one or two okay things.

It's just frustrating that we still live in a such a racist society that you felt like you had to type that up before you could approach the nuance.

I wish we could talk plainly to each other without this underlying paranoid one of us might accidentally come across pro the thing we are obviously very anti.

I for sure agree that it is nuanced, but it's also rather reductive to just leave it at, "he signed the Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves."

I specifically said "While there's no shortage of slave related evils to blame him for this is also the man who ended the trans atlantic slave trade."

Because I was thinking of exactly all the things you listed.

I don't like the accusation that I'm being reductive because I'm not restating a history textbook when acknowledging the countless evils he's done. I didn't mention them because I'm not challenging them and I fully understand the evils he's done.

I didn't reduce anything, I specifically acknowledged his evils before giving him credit for ending the slave trade.

So he was outwardly trying to end the slave trade because he had a plan to perpetuate slavery by breeding.

While that is exactly what ended up historically happening, especially due to the invention of the cotton gin, I would appreciate a source that this was Jefferson’s stated intentions.

From the mid-1770s until his death, he advocated the same plan of gradual emancipation. First, the transatlantic slave trade would be abolished.10 Second, slaveowners would “improve” slavery’s most violent features, by bettering (Jefferson used the term “ameliorating”) living conditions and moderating physical punishment.11 Third, all born into slavery after a certain date would be declared free, followed by total abolition.12 Like others of his day, he supported the removal of newly freed slaves from the United States.13 The unintended effect of Jefferson’s plan was that his goal of “improving” slavery as a step towards ending it was used as an argument for its perpetuation. Pro-slavery advocates after Jefferson’s death argued that if slavery could be “improved,” abolition was unnecessary.

Jefferson’s belief in the necessity of abolition was intertwined with his racial beliefs. He thought that white Americans and enslaved blacks constituted two “separate nations” who could not live together peacefully in the same country.14 Jefferson’s belief that blacks were racially inferior and “as incapable as children,”15 coupled with slaves’ presumed resentment of their former owners, made their removal from the United States an integral part of Jefferson’s emancipation scheme.

https://www.monticello.org/slavery/jefferson-slavery/jefferson-s-attitudes-toward-slavery/

[–] Hobo@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

I get where you’re coming from and why you typed up 4 paragraphs condemning his horrible actions before we are allowed to acknowledge that he did one or two okay things.

I think it's important to me personally for this specific figure. I grew up a leftist atheist in the deep south. When I learned about TJ, he was a very appealing figure to me. He was largely anti-establishment, anti-institutional, and at least mildly anti-religion. He was also, on the surface level, pro-science and pro-scientific method. He went as far as to re-write the Bible with all the miracles removed.

I say all this because when I was a teenager I pointed to him a lot as a bastion of progressiveness in America's founding, and often used him to argue that the US was not founded as a Christian state because he clearly wasn't Christian. The stuff I learned about him in textbooks and in school conveniently left out the much darker shit he did. It wasn't until I started reading his own writings and finding non-history textbook recounts of his life that I saw the complete picture. He was sort of my first experience with a hero that falls short of expectations, and he fell extremely short.

It’s just frustrating that we still live in a such a racist society that you felt like you had to type that up before you could approach the nuance.

I don't quite follow. I don't think those were my motivations and I don't quite understand the logic. I thought I did approach the nuance in my comment, but there's way more that's left out about the man. He was incredibly complex for sure!

I wish we could talk plainly to each other without this underlying paranoid one of us might accidentally come across pro the thing we are obviously very anti.

I don't quite follow, but I personally don't assume anything about you. I do agree that lemmy, and the internet at large, has become a weird obstacle course. I honestly can't quite figure out the new purity test on the left that seem to be everywhere. I feel like you need to find your allies where ever you can (within reason). I do think paranoia of being infiltrated by right wing activist, and the long history of that happening, plays a big part in that paranoia. I agree, though, it's more than mildly frustrating.

[My quote that you quoted for context] "I for sure agree that it is nuanced, but it’s also rather reductive to just leave it at, “he signed the Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves.” [

I specifically said “While there’s no shortage of slave related evils to blame him for this is also the man who ended the trans atlantic slave trade.”

... down through ...

I didn’t reduce anything, I specifically acknowledged his evils before giving him credit for ending the slave trade.

My apologies! I see how that comes off as directed at you specifically. Should have phrased that better for sure! I meant that more in the more esoteric, "when people at large do this." Poor wording on my part! Didn't mean to accuse specifically with that.

While that is exactly what ended up historically happening, especially due to the invention of the cotton gin, I would appreciate a source that this was Jefferson’s stated intentions.

I don't think he ever outwardly states that was intentions because that would be far less self aware than he was about slavery. Here's the source for his "breeding woman is worth more than a man". I'm not sure if I can find the orginal source for it without really digging, but it's widely accepted that he was in massive debt and perpetuating slavery was his only way out. He planned on ending the slave trade, but his actions and many of his writings seem to indicate that he planned on maintaining the system of slavery for his own gain.

I think there's a few things in the quote you linked that seem to support that my position though.

... by bettering (Jefferson used the term “ameliorating”) living conditions and moderating physical punishment.

Is an example of a good thing within context. Which is kind of the equivalent of turning down the orphan crushing machine to a slower pace. Not even turning it off, just making it slower. Like yeah sure you aren't as bad as those other guys but holy shit that's still really bad. Which doesn't really indicate to me that he was trying to stop it as much as make it more palatable.

Third, all born into slavery after a certain date would be declared free, followed by total abolition.

That date was conveniently far into the future where he would be able to keep slaves to pay off his debt. That seems... dishonest at best. It's what several politicians do still. It just seems to indicate that he was attempting to keep slaves while also virtue signaling that he didn't like slavery. Which again seems to support my position.

Jefferson’s belief in the necessity of abolition was intertwined with his racial beliefs... [to the end]

This seems to also point to him be hugely racist and believing that he could use black people like cattle to get out of debt cause they were "inferior." I feel like what you quoted mostly supports what I'm saying. The dude perpetuated slavery for his own personal gain while denouncing it publicly to appear more liberal. I do agree he did several good things, and I like a lot of his more progressive writings. It's just really hard to overlook some the absolutely fucked up shit he was doing to other people. All in the name of greed and to pay off his debts.

[–] WhatsTheHoldup@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

I say all this because when I was a teenager I pointed to him a lot as a bastion of progressiveness in America's founding, and often used him to argue that the US was not founded as a Christian state because he clearly wasn't Christian. The stuff I learned about him in textbooks and in school conveniently left out the much darker shit he did.

You know what, that's totally fair. Sorry for being dismissive, I saw the other commenter compliment your informative write up and I immediately felt guilt for being so dismissive.

I think to me I've always heard of the founding fathers in the opposite context.

What I've heard is the noteworthy part was not that these were a bunch of progressive, worldly, enlightened people who for some reason had these odd backwards blindspots.

But that they were a cruel, racist, sexist, homophobic, religiously extreme backwards people who are noteworthy because in spite of that some of them came up with these seemingly contradictory progressive views for the time.

People were able to intuit out that slavery was bad as an intellectual pursuit while still being insensitive and cruel towards their slaves. This is an unusual thing as people tend to try to justify their evils but here we have at least some societal willingness to try to talk about this and move past it.

Jefferson is not a man to idolize, I will fully agree, but there's more to his philosophy to be learned than simple psychopathy.

He planned on ending the slave trade, but his actions and many of his writings seem to indicate that he planned on maintaining the system of slavery for his own gain.

Yes. So you keep reiterating the evils he's done I already agree with. He did self benefit from slavery, he perpuated it because it was convenient to him and he applied a different standard to himself than he did others.

Him being a hypocrite is not what I'm challenging.

Everything I didn't respond to it's because there's nothing to challenge. He did all these things.

What I'm responding to was whether or not he intended for the institution of slavery to grow or shrink after his death.

Everything he's written says his intellectual desire was for it to "eventually" (meaning when convenient for white people) go away.

Which is kind of the equivalent of turning down the orphan crushing machine to a slower pace. Not even turning it off, just making it slower.

Yes I think that would be putting it in proper context.

This seems to also point to him be hugely racist and believing that he could use black people like cattle to get out of debt cause they were "inferior." I feel like what you quoted mostly supports what I'm saying. The dude perpetuated slavery for his own personal gain while denouncing it publicly to appear more liberal.

Read through this again with the following context in mind. What you said earlier:

I don't quite follow, but I personally don't assume anything about you. I do agree that lemmy, and the internet at large, has become a weird obstacle course.

What assumption I'm feeling is put on me is this idea that I'm not "mostly supporting what you're saying" when the only thing I want to clarify is what Jefferson's true intentions (intellectually dishonest or not) truly were.

[–] Hobo@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

I think we're probably in more alignment than either of us realize. You hit the nail on the head in a lot of ways especially calling out differences in what we were taught. Down to brass tacks, we have much different life experiences so we're coming at it from different angles. I'm filling in the gaps that weren't taught to me and I had to discover for myself. On the other hand, you're filling in the gaps that weren't taught to you and you had to fill in for yourself.

In the 80s and early 90s there was a sort of veneration of the founding fathers where I grew up. There was also a ton of propaganda about how the, "The evil north just wanted to destroy the south." The cotton gin, as you correctly pointed out increased the demand for slaves, was reframed as a tool that would end slavery because you somehow magically wouldn't need slaves to to pick cotton anymore. Reconstruction was reframed as the North needlessly trying to punish the south. The founders were enlightened individuals that just didn't know that slavery was wrong. It feels kind of shit to go out into the world and have completely re-learn the history of the place you grew up because people didn't want to admit that your own country has flaws.

With that being said, I see how a swing in the other direction could be damaging. It sucks no matter which way to be taught just one side of history. It doubly sucks for it to be the history of the piece of land you're standing on.

I do find it interesting that it somehow swung that far back in the other direction, or that it was taught so much differently regionally (not sure if it's an age difference or a regional difference between our experiences). I think perhaps the best way to make sure we all stay on the same page is to have conversations like this though!

[–] WhatsTheHoldup@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 hour ago

Oh I'm definitely in alignment! You clearly have a depth of knowledge, apply healthy nuance, and insofar as we might disagree we would be able to resolve it through analysis of evidence.

I was originally poking fun at the lack of nuance in your original description but you've more than corrected for it in your follow up comments and i dont think we're really disagreeing more than that.

I was arguing Jefferson really should be remembered as a hypocrite, someone who behaved differently than he argued one should in the abstract. He dreamed of an imaginary world where all life's problems smoothly go away without him having to sacrifice much and it all just sorting out on its own.

[–] 0ops@lemm.ee 2 points 5 hours ago

Wow A+ comment, extremely informative

[–] Randomgal@lemmy.ca 2 points 11 hours ago

Owning slaves is owning slaves. Genociding the natives is genociding the natives.

If you say you're against slavery, but own slaves, you're not actually against slavery, you're against the bad rep.