Unfortunately, porn is getting banned, so little Ben will not have his happy ending.
He could just watch Baywatch or something and his mind would have been blown.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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/
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.
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.
Wow A+ comment, extremely informative
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.
“C’mon, Franklin, we’re going to New Brunswick.”
“What for?”
“For the whoring and the drinking, of course!”
Franklin pops right up, eager to go
George Washington would be like: “Why this portrait of a slave in the white house?” (referring to Obama) 💀
There were free black people in Washington’s day. But yes, the first several presidents were all slave owners.
The idea that he might use slave as a slur while understanding he was a free black man isn’t that crazy though.
Listen. Alexander Hamilton died in 1804 and the current year is 2025. If I died today and found out that in the year 2246 that the laws, mannerisms, dress, economics, attitudes, and technology had changed so little that I “recognised” it, I wouldn’t be proud, I would be concerned. My mind would be going “what the fuck why hasn’t anything changed”. I would expect things to be different, if I noticed that nothing or little had changed technologically, socially, economically or politically, I would suspect there had been a collapse akin to the Bronze Age Collapse that society was only just recovering from.
My Grandmother was born in 1920. She was born two years after women got the vote, Modern Art was in it’s heyday, Cinema was still silent, the quickest way you could sent a message to anyone was via Morse Code, and there were people around who were born in the 1830s. She used to have to take a fucking candle up to bed with her like in those Bugs Bunny Cartoons. She lived to see gay marriage in the UK, The Lord of the Rings Trillogy, Video calls, and the Moon Landing.
I expect to see commercial Fusion Power and a moon base by my 90s. If I was told that little changed between now and 2246, my first question would be a terrified “why”?
I’d be concerned that I was brought back to life.
“Welcome back! ReLife Corporation has spared you from the afterlife! Your reconstruction fee is a mere 450,000,000 credits. Please proceed to the Debt Servicers department and then the career fair down the hall!”
Can’t wait to see the “pro choice” and “pro life” debates about forcibly resurrecting people.
Immediately murders the closest person to see what happens
Strength/athletics check.
Success: you kill the person. The coordinator presses a button and a smart restraining net robot launches from the ceiling and pins you down. “Congratulations! You’ve been identified as a prime candidate for a military career. You’re going to need that pay boost, because unfortunately we’ll have to charge part of that technician’s reconstruction fee to your tab.” You feel a needle pierce your neck and your vision goes dark.
Failure: The technician manages to pin you down until a smart restraining net is deployed to hold you. “Congratulations! You’ve been identified as a prime candidate for a law enforcement career. We like that kind of fighting spirit for keeping criminals off our streets.” You feel a needle pierce your neck and your vision goes dark.
I cast Ketemine Ape.
I love how you make it sound like the moon landing happened after LOTR.
If you subscribe to the notion that Middle Earth is our world, it did!
um lotr was published in the 50s and the moon landing was in the 60s my dudes
I miss old school trolling. Shine on, you crazy diamond.
It did though? The Lord of the Rings was written in the 1930s and 1940’s, the moon landings took place in 1969-1972.
They just said “Trilogy,” so it’s unclear if they meant the movies or books. But video calls were definitely after the moon landing, as was gay marriage in the UK being legalized.
The first two-way video call was demonstrated in 1930.
And the first message sent over the internet was in 1969. They’re clearly referring to when it became easily accessible to the masses.
and the moon has been there a lot longer than 1960s
Good point. I assumed they meant the films because the books were not any kind of technogical innovation.
“Damn, they’re making new kinds of chicks” – Ben Franklin when he sees trans porn
“You guys cured smallpox, and there’s people who are working against the cure?” - Also Ben Franklin, who lost one of his sons to smallpox
Is it correct to say we “cured” smallpox? A vaccine isn’t a cure, but we used that vaccine so effectively that we eradicated the disease. But the overall sentiment of your post holds up.
George Washington: “They kept on with political parties, didn’t they? Told 'em.”
Thomas Jefferson: “The Tree of Liberty hasn’t been refreshed, I see.”
Terrible choice of founding fathers to use for that example. Benjamin Franklin was kinky as fuck.
He would be browsing xHamster going, “Seen it… seen it… seen it… done that… done that, too… seen it… cliche…”
Take another look at that jak friend. That’s not the look of shock, it’s awe.
no he’s the perfect choice because he’s a horny bastard and having porn at his fingertips would drive him absolutely apeshit
Something tells me he’d be more interested in the farting and scat porn…
It’s OK, he’ll come out of his gooner cave sooner or later.
No, that picture was his mind being blown from excitement!
He’s saying Ben had orgies with French women. He doesn’t want to see other people doing it. He just did it.
Ben Franklin would be on fetlife hating on how vanilla people are
They didn’t have any of it directly at their fingertips, though.
Him and his student, John Paul Jones.
Hell yeah, Zeppelin rules!
“WHO TF GAVE THE (HARD R)S RIGHTS?”
“Ah, fuck, it was me, wasn’t it?”- TJ
I think they would be horrified, but that’s because of the maga. And because black people would not take their shit.
Ben Franklin would try modern clothes, start sleeping with trans women, then get addicted to the internet. He would be indistinguishable from someone from the 21st century within a year tops
Let’s be honest here if anybody from the 1700s slept with a trans woman it was definitely Ben Franklin. Man was a professional horn dog.
He’d be exhausted searching for all the local milfs in his area.
George Washington could finally get some implants or dentures and stop stealing the teeth from slaves.
“It’s all about the me’s, baby!”
Our founding fathers fought back against their government. At the very least they would wonder why people aren’t gathering in mobs outside the homes and offices of legislators demanding change.
why people aren’t gathering in mobs
Well, it happened about a hundred years after your time, but there’s this thing called the Gatling gun that got invented that really became a hard counter to angry mobs trying to storm things, and once that stopped being an option they just kinda stopped listening to us
Before that they had archers and keep walls. And after that there have been many successful protests and revolutions which created freer democracies (with varying degrees of success).
Fair enough, but, like, 100 archers against 1000 people ends poorly for the archers if the people are willing to take some casualties, and a keep wall is only good so long as nobody inside decides to unlock a door or people outside can’t get a ladder set up somewhere for a few minutes
Yes, there have been successful revolutions since the 1850s, but they’re definitely a lot harder than they used to be, and I think they now really do require some sort of defection from the ruling classes or military over to the opposition in a way that you didn’t really need for, say, the French revolution, where an angry mob of peasant women could just force their way into the kings castle and tell him how things were gonna be going forward
I’m not saying it’s impossible, and I’m definitely not saying people should give up protesting all the bullshit going on right now, but I do think meta social contract between the rulers and the ruled has changed a lot since the 18th century because of technological progress
I have to say, this is a very weird take and you should really consider that you might be mistaken.
Pre-1850, most governments were autocratic in some way or another. Many of these governments lasted for hundreds or thousands of years, only toppled when another, larger autocratic government conquered them. This was true in China, Africa, the Middle East, Mexico, and Europe. Post 1850, democracy began to spread much more rapidly. These days, autocrats at least try to pretend to be elected. And meanwhile, the personal freedom and standard of living for the average person have increased dramatically since that time.
In general, the sort of revolution you are talking about where the people storm the palace gates seem to have become less common because: first of all, you are imagining them as more common than they actually were in the past. In the past, most people were slaves or semi-slaves (surfs, peasants) who lived pretty miserable lives and mostly coped via Jesus and drinking. Second of all, because for the most part people don’t want to storm the palace gates anymore because their lives are pretty good. Sure, Elon has billions while you are living paycheck to paycheck - but you still have a roof over your head, food to eat, and circuses to watch on TV. The risk of losing that and going to jail or dying is not worth the slim potential reward of having a better government in some way. Storming the palace gates and overthrowing the government is a bad thing, because it implies that the government was doing such a bad job that the people became so agitated that they tried such a desperate tactic in the first place.
I think they now really do require some sort of defection from the ruling classes
This has literally always been the case. The idea that a disorganized mob of peasants can storm the palace gates, depose the monarch, and create a utopian, egalitarian government from scratch is a fantasy - just like dragons, fairies, and anyone on Lemmy ever getting laid. A king derives his power from the accumulated power of his court, and each member of the court derives power from the power of their subordinates. As long as the court stays loyal to the king, mobs of people will be largely impotent. If the mob ever did manage to storm the gates and destroy the king, the very next day the court would appoint the king’s heir and send the military out to murder every person in the mob. Mobs succeed when the court is tired of the king’s bullshit and conveniently “forgets” to lock the palace gates.
Six years passed between the Boston Massacre and the Declaration of Independence. Six years. And Boston was not the first issue, just the worst. They were working on the opposition movement for a long time.
If anything, the idea that protests in Chicago and DC could appear within two days of the federal LA invasion would be astounding to them. Some guy on a horse would still be riding through the Rocky Mountains to bring the news.
The only issue is, the news has gone from:
hear ye, hear ye, the king said this 3 months ago!
And everyone physically gathering in squares and pubs for weeks to say “hey what the fuck?”
To:
did you hear what <insert random dickhead> said 5 seconds ago?
And someone else says:
yeah but <insert other dickhead> said that was fake.
And everyone else clicking like, subscribe, and next!
Yep. I’m directly descended from Rev. D. Rice. The guy owned about ⅔ of The Virginia Colony, because he’s a direct descendent of House Rice, and House Wellington. He saw which way the wind was blowing in 1765 and started selling off his land. He donated the raiesd 1,500,000 pounds sterling to his good friends Tom, Jim, and Ben. Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Benjamin Franklin. The joke in my family is that we paid to found the US Army and US Navy.
My cousin still has his diary, which is how we know this even happened, well that and a map of his land.
That’s some incredible history. I hope your family has (carefully) taken scans and such!
That was an incredibly prescient move by the Reverend. And also an insane amount of money!? That’s somewhere around a quarter of a billion pounds today?
He had, quite frankly, an insane amount of land. Yes, my late great Aunt Binny (Virginia) was a professor of history at the University of Louisville, and had scans done by her department before she died. The scans were done in 2002.
People in LA are certainly doing so! And it’s spreading everywhere in the US.
As they should!
The founding enslavers would be gathering in mobs to reinstate slavery.
Maybe, maybe not. Politicians have always had a finger in the wind on some issues. I think if you gave a decent historical account including things like current crime rates by race and the bombing of Tulsa, and just mention “generational wealth” like they’re already familiar with it, and then gave them 24 hours to sit on it, I think they’d all be good with it.
Consider if someone took you, shoved you 200 years into the future and said, “Eating animals was some fucked up shit. Do you know what happened in Factory Farms? Really? Of course we’re all vegetarian.”.
Americans and their Founding Daddy issues.
Why did they leave 😭
It’s really gross and pathetic.
Ask 20 people on the street who advocated for for free press to be added to the constitution. I’d take a guess that maybe 2 of them will get it right, maybe. The other 18 will say either the founding fathers, the states being asked to join, or they don’t know.
It isnt a religion or people would know that Moses did A, Jesus did B, etc. It’s just a lack of knowing or remembering details so people just say “founding fathers” as a blanket term to cover the legislatures of the time.
That doesn’t mean people don’t believe in freedom of the press, they just believe it was wise of James Madison to ensure it was included in the first amendment. Also I’m sure others can argue he wasn’t the only one advocating for it, so a blanket plural works for many.
I understand how it will come across as “we’ve always done it that way” which in Judicial branch they call precedent. Should precedent always hold, not at all. For the most part though, we’ve only had to stray from the core of that writing 17 times since the “completed” constitution was ratified. (Because the first 10 were in the Bill of Rights which were required by the States to ratify it)
This exact joke made into a sketch:
I’m so glad someone posted this, WWG is great
“Look what they’ve made of our dream. This bloated, rotting carcass of an empire is driven not by reason and hope but by fear, hate and ignorance.”
Nailed it.
George Guilliman Washington.
YES but the pic I had was to big to send it sadly
