SparkleMotion Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Frankly speaking, the idea of racism as an evil that must be stamped out is relatively new on the scene. It SHOULD be stamped out, but it's safe to say that most world leaders before the mid 20th century could probably be classified as racist by today's standards. Was Lincoln a racist? For sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'KanSkinFan Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 I'm not going to debate your whole 'racist' argument. But I, once again, want to argue your suggesting that Northerners treated their slaves with dignity. THEY WERE ****ING SLAVES!!!! To suggest that they were treated with dignity and respect while at the same time admitting that they had absolutely no free will in terms of their living arrangement is, at the VERY LEAST, a contradiction in terms. If you believe for one second that the slaves owned by Lincoln were thinking 'oh well, at least I have a fine master who treats me right. I much prefer this to a life where I have full control of my person.' you are sadly mistaken. You think with todays economy, education, working standard, civil rights, etc; this WAS "in their day" - and whether you believe it or not~ "don't care", "slaves" of that time were much sought out as friends and confidents by their "masters" and the slaves of THAT TIME did appreciate their "master" and stayed working for them LONG after they were given their freedom papers. Just a thought, the theory of today is: IF you work for the "other guy", you are a slave. You are required to be at a job, at a certain time, day, week; take breaks at certain times, take a lunch at a certain time, clock out/leave at a certain time. No free will here:); AND "the boss" expects, EXPECTS productivity~ or they will find another slave . I sense a little anger with your post~ I do hope you find forgiveness in your heart for the ignorance of the past~ for that is what it is~ the past. I am not responsible, nor are you, for how people were treated "back then". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 You think with todays economy' date=' education, working standard, civil rights, etc; this WAS "in their day" - and whether you believe it or not~ "don't care", "slaves" of that time were much sought out as friends and confidents by their "masters" and the slaves of THAT TIME did appreciate their "master" and stayed working for them LONG after they were given their freedom papers.[b']Just a thought, the theory of today is: IF you work for the "other guy", you are a slave. You are required to be at a job, at a certain time, day, week; take breaks at certain times, take a lunch at a certain time, clock out/leave at a certain time. No free will here:); AND "the boss" expects, EXPECTS productivity~ or they will find another slave .[/b] I sense a little anger with your post~ I do hope you find forgiveness in your heart for the ignorance of the past~ for that is what it is~ the past. I am not responsible, nor are you, for how people were treated "back then". If that is your definition of slavery I really don't see how this conversation can go on, we are speaking much, much different languages. No anger - just shock and dismay that someone seems to be dismissing the horror that was slavery. If they really wanted to treat slaves with dignity and respect they could have given them their freedom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Your generalization of how slaves were treated North vs South is laughable. Failing to account for the differences between house servants and field workers,as well as cultural differences shows bias. Did Lincoln own slaves? Did Lincoln feel they were as a race below whites? He was racist,but perhaps a good hearted one:silly: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'KanSkinFan Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 If that is your definition of slavery I really don't see how this conversation can go on, we are speaking much, much different languages.No anger - just shock and dismay that someone seems to be dismissing the horror that was slavery. If they really wanted to treat slaves with dignity and respect they could have given them their freedom. Oh~ I am Not dismissing the horror of slavery of all races of the past~ not in the least bit; I was attempting to lighten the "tone" by sharing a "new" theory of working class in America that was shared with me by another professor of economy. I meant no offense, truly I did not; sorry if you took it that way. No, I haven't forgotten the slavery and the inhuman treatment many of all races and sex received~ I have chosen to forgive their ignorance "of their time" and move myself forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 I believe this quote from a Northern slave *ahem* house servent best sums up my feelings on the subject: “Any time while I was a slave, if one minute’s freedom had been offered to me, and I had been told I must die at the end of that minute, I would have take it just to stand one minute on God’s airth (sic) a free woman, I would.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'KanSkinFan Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Your generalization of how slaves were treated North vs South is laughable.Failing to account for the differences between house servants and field workers,as well as cultural differences shows bias. Did Lincoln own slaves? Did Lincoln feel they were as a race below whites? He was racist,but perhaps a good hearted one:silly: Didn't realize you wanted a thesis in the forum;), "so sorry" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Oh~ I am Not dismissing the horror of slavery of all races of the past~ not in the least bit; I was attempting to lighten the "tone" by sharing a "new" theory of working class in America that was shared with me by another professor of economy. I meant no offense' date=' truly I did not; sorry if you took it that way.No, I haven't forgotten the slavery and the inhuman treatment [b']many of all races and sex [/b]received~ I have chosen to forgive their ignorance "of their time" and move myself forward. The problem is that many (individuals as well as just about every other country) at the time of the Revolution were freeing their slaves. America had an opportunity to move past slavery in the post-Revolution period before cotton became king. By the time of the Civil War it was obvious that slavery was affront to humanity. Therefore I can not buy into the whole 'but he treated his slaves with respect' argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 As often the case, Kilmer's early post, specifically predicting dire responses for the OP's topical contention, falls flat (short for flatulence?) This "the real Lincoln" slant is hardly new or even controversial in most venues, really, especially recently. As we see here, no one's too riled up and yeh, those were/are complex matters and he was a complex thinker and human being. Most such things are complex, which explains the one dynamic you almost always can reliably predict in any taigate thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vicious Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 nearly a million boys died during that time, lets not dwell too much on who had what feelings and stick to the actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Frankly speaking, the idea of racism as an evil that must be stamped out is relatively new on the scene.It SHOULD be stamped out, but it's safe to say that most world leaders before the mid 20th century could probably be classified as racist by today's standards. I'm reading Truman right now, and he was racist and provincial and at times anti-Semitic. But throughout his life he also made an uncommon effort to see past his face and achieve a greater understanding of history, the world and America's place in it. And that's what, in my opinion, made him a great President. Though maybe not as great as Lincoln. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 At least he wasn't a slave-owning monster like Washington or Jefferson. I like to think that political pressure made Jefferson look like a hypocrite. He knew it was wrong but could only speak of it's horrors, not attempt to abolish them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ldysknzfn1 Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Hate to tell that dude..but Jesus wasn't white..lol Other than that...I don't know if he was racists or not...why should I care at this point? He did the right things when they were put before him. I be surprised if he wasn't considering the way things were back then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky21 Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. - Abraham Lincoln aka "The Great Emancipator" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Rocky ya left out he wished to ship them all out of the country. but nice quote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 I am American Indian/Irish/Scottish/English/German heritage. And Lincoln "in the 1800's" hated the Irish;) He did? I hate the Irish too......... especially when they play my Midshipmen but Charlie Weiss may screw up and lose to Navy again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 At least he wasn't a slave-owning monster like Washington or Jefferson. You do know that there are slave owning monsters in places like Africa and the middle East today, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Rocky ya left out he wished to ship them all out of the country.but nice quote. There's a lot left out of this discussion but that's nothing new around here. Lincoln is called The Great Emancipator for what he did, not what he said. If what people say during a campaign is the greatest measure of a politician's worth, Obama is already the greatest President in American history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRAVEONAWARPATH Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 You do know that there are slave owning monsters in places like Africa and the middle East today, right? And they're slave owning monsters as well. Satisfied? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.