Hattip Neo_Prodigy:

[underlankers]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/23/tea-party-tennessee-textbooks-slavery_n_1224157.htmlRead more... )

Comments

[jerseycajun]

As silly as it is, I would posit that it's a reactionary silliness. The other equally silly side is the one that says because the founders owned slaves, that invalidates everything they touched and every idea they ever had, without further examination, should be undone. Scrap everything and start from scratch. Some of the things I've heard you say over the years have made me think at times you might belong to the latter yourself. For rich white slaveowners writing them, I still love me some fourth amendment with a side of 1st 2nd and 5th, among most of the others, and I can argue with reason why I think they're worth keeping, as they touch on some rather timeless issues people have had between them and their respective authority of choice. They weren't gods or prophets. They were mortal, flawed human beings, who once upon a time had some really great ideas on government

[underlankers]

1) David Irving considers himself a reaction to propaganda, too. I don't give a damn what he or they consider themselves.

2) At the very least it requires a serious look at how the Founders worked with their ideas in practice, as opposed to theory. I mean let's face it, saying we can only look at what they wrote and not what they did is a purely myopic way of looking at them. It retains the Demigod myth without any serious look at them as human beings.

3) Northern Founders *did* abolish slavery and *were* consistent. This means that technically not all of them *did* think that way. What the Northern Founders did wrongly was accept the idea that the Southern ones' moral cowardice was acceptable.

4) And no, actually, they failed the first time and kicked the can down the road until they ran into a buzzsaw. The prevailing idea of the Southerners was that the USA would be a giant Ruritania.

[notmrgarrison]

You're the History buff, so you must be aware that an entire Civil War was fought over slavery. You really think the Northern Founders could have got slavery banned in all the states back in the 1700's, or the early 1800's?

[anfalicious]

Slavery was much less important in 1776 than it was in 1860. It had almost ceased to be a profitable industry until the cotton gin.

[rimpala]

This is not only wrong and dangerous to paint over our history of slavery but it is anti-American as well. Anti-American in that our founders emphasized the human nature of my country's leaders, the whole point of the American government was that our Presidents were not kings. They didn't have a divine right to rule, they were not supposed to accept gifts, they were supposed to be treated as equal to the rest of the American citizenship - and equality that fortunately is now more proper and more shared by women and people of color (though we do have a long way to go).

So why do we need to white wash our early American founders? What do they become when all their flaws are taken away? Do they become god-kings?

[anfalicious]

I posted this as a response, but it got eaten, and I can't remember where it was

[geezer_also]

" how you don't have to feel guilt "

But see, in this country you DO have to feel guilt, or you are a racist. (of course that's if you are white, and probably only males). I'm pretty sure that is another thing you can credit (or blame) my generation for :D

[yelena_r0ssini]

The confusion between consciousness and guilt you have here, while erroneous, helps me understand why you're so contemptuous of social justice.

But just to be clear: nobody wants you to "feel guilty" because feeling guilty doesn't do a lick of good. Being aware of privilege, on the other hand, can help minimize its effects. Not eliminate them, but minimize them.

[rimpala]

Except for trolls of course, who just want to bully. I've seen it happen before, but that's the internet for you. (vs reality I mean)