Comment on Basically

Randomgal@lemmy.ca ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

• Hobo@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  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.

  source

  • Randomgal@lemmy.ca ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ 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.

    source
  • WhatsTheHoldup@lemmy.ml ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    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?

    source

    • Hobo@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      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 had 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 slavery 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.

      source

      • WhatsTheHoldup@lemmy.ml ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        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 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.

        monticello.org/…/jefferson-s-attitudes-toward-sla…

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • 0ops@lemm.ee ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        Wow A+ comment, extremely informative

        source