In the "People in the US are historically ignorant and found of their founding myths department", I bring you "Ask a Slave":
Actress and comedian Azie Mira Dungey used to work as a historical re-enactor at Mount Vernon. Since George Washington's old stomping grounds are staffed with people acting out roles they might have had during the George Washington days. Since Dungey is black, she played the role of a slave named Lizzy Mae. Now, she's made her experiences fielding actual stupid questions from actual stupid tourists into a video series that not only invites laughter, it encourages people to think a little harder about how we lionize the Founding Fathers as paragons of morality and look at the past.
Dungey reflects back on that time period.
I ask you to remember the racial tension that was all around. We had people saying that the President would be planting watermelons on the White House lawn. Emails were forwarded proclaiming that this was the beginning of a race war and the end of the country as we know it. People bought guns. (A lot of guns.) A scientist reported the evolutionary explanation as to why black women were the least attractive of all the races. The Oprah Show ended. It was mass chaos.
And in the midst of all this, I was playing a slave. Everyday, I was literally playing a slave. I mean, I was getting paid well for it, don’t get me wrong, and we all need a day job. But all the same, I was having all these experiences, and emotions. Talking to 100s of people a day about what it was like to be black in 18th Century America. And then returning to the 21st Century and reflecting on what had and had not changed.
Yes, Pooch. Washington was imperfect, as were all of the founding fathers. Some owned slaves. Others, abolitionist or not, had racist views like the guy in video 2. This latter issue with some abolitionists continued through the period after the Civil War when many slaves were shipped back to Liberia--something that is still helping that be one of the most stable paradises in all of Africa.
ReplyDeleteIf all you were doing was reminding people that Washington and others were imperfect, fallible men, and that we should look to see if the logic of what they said is sound, then we'd have no issue here.
However, your intention seems to be to throw out everything they said and to denigrate their memories based solely on their flaws. This goes as far into folly as deifying the men does. After all, if it weren't for their ideas, principles, and the stands they took (however flawed these were by hypocrisy and the blind spots of the day), this country would not have developed in the direction it did.
With different people in charge, there could have been a descent into carnage like the French Revolution. If Washington had been more ambitious, he might have made himself king, leading this country into a different type of bloodshed and disaster.
Either outcome might have demoralized other revolutionaries and anti-colonialists and emboldened emperors so that we might be, today, living in a very different world.
You look just as foolish discounting everything the founding fathers got right as some look when they refuse to acknowledge their faults.
Nope, you look foolish saying the founding fathers got anything right. In fact, you would trash what they gave you by saying that the constitution in anyway allowed for you to trash the government.
DeleteYou are just pissed off that these demigods were actually human and probably completely flawed people who drove their nation into chaos which it has never completely recovered.
Laci, can you seriously not see the excellence of what the Founders were trying to do? They were human and as flawed as the rest of us, but they had an extraordinary idea, one that was bigger than even they realized.
DeleteBut if I've read you correctly, I am pleased to see you finally admit that you reject the whole system of government that we have in this country. It's no wonder you can't read the Constitution correctly. When you reject its fundamental principles, how can you expect to comprehend its finer details?
Methinks the little Brit wants his colony back.
DeleteDrove their nation into chaos which it has never recovered from? Seriously? The idiocy of that comment is so extreme and self evident that it doesn't even deserve a historical rebuttal.
Instead, I'll just note that Scotland wasn't far enough from bastards like you, so we crossed the pond and settled in with a bunch of like minded Europeans--including a bunch of Englishmen who also couldn't stand your likes. We have done our own thing for quite a while now, and since I've spent time in your island, I can say that as much as we've fucked up, it's still nicer over here.
So gae on back tae your ain country if you don't like it here you insufferable git.
The luke-warm descriptions that "they were human" and "they had their flaws," don't quite cover the gigantic fuck-ups that were enslaving another race of human beings and completely denying women of their own race the most basic human rights.
DeleteYet, you guys have them on a pedestal as Lici so rightly pointed out.
Yes, Mike, those were horrible things. However, those were things that they shared with everyone else on earth at that time--and with human beings for thousands of years before them.
DeleteThis doesn't make it right for them to do such things (although, according to Laci it would because society accepted these limitations on the rights of blacks and women).
It Does mean that, given the culture they came from, they got a lot right, protecting liberties that other governments of the time didn't, but succumbing to their culture's flaws in other areas. Interestingly, the principles they declared, but failed to fully live up to, inspired others and eventually led to the righting of those wrongs.
Finally, Laci isn't complaining that we put them on a pedestal. Look at his last comment. Laci is mad that we remember them with ANY fondness. He considers them the greatest fuck ups in history and apparently resents the founding of the United States. What a sour grapes little Imperialist.
I'd rather honor the Founders of this country than the people that you honor.
DeleteT., in his most incredible, said, "those were things that they shared with everyone else on earth at that time."
DeleteI'm not even going to call that a lie. I'll wait for you to clarify it, but you better hurry.
Mikeb, slavery and imperialism were common practices in the late eighteenth century and into the nineteenth. British abuses in Africa, Ireland, and Asia were hardly better than America's treatment of slaves. So what about Tennessean's comment do you find incredible?
DeleteLook at the other countries and cultures of the time. The other Europeans had slaves. Wilberforce and Pitt were young statesmen--it would be the work of Wilberforce's life to end Slavery in Britain. The African tribes were enslaving each other and selling each other to White slavers. The Spanish and Portuguese were still ruling South and Central America and stripping them of resources.
DeleteWhat about the Middle East? They still have slaves in some countries today. Arab slavers were the ones who introduced the Arabic word for infidel "Kafir" into Africa where it eventually became the slur you hear all the South Africans using in Apartheid movies.
The Sub Continent and the far East? Honestly, I don't know much about them from the 1700's, but considering the endurance of loyalty to the Caste system that endures until today, the Xenophobia of some eastern cultures, and existence of traditions such as foot binding in China, I doubt that you will find that those cultures were beacons of light, truth, justice, and progressive freedom.
If your issue with my statement is because there were some radicals who were ahead of their time and already opposed slavery and promoted equality for women, then yes, such ideas were in their infancy, but they were held by exceptional people. I was speaking broadly about all of the cultures and societies around the world which accepted these wrongs.
If you are going to point to some matriarchal tribe or small culture which did not hold slaves, then fine--I don't have an exhaustive knowledge of the people of that time, but any such finds will be small exceptions that don't number among the ruling powers and societies of the day.
Slavery and the subjugation of women were accepted at that time and had been throughout history with few exceptions.
The founders did not exorcise these evils from their society, and so we had years of strife and even war before we got rid of them. However, they did establish a government that did a better job of limiting the power of rulers to the power granted to them under the law. Something that Britain was still having wars over.
Britain had the Magna Carta (Laci's favorite document) since 1215, limiting the King's power. Still, this did little to stop the civil wars fought between the nobles or the people and the absolutist Kings. From James I through James II there were battles in Scotland. Charles I was deposed (rightfully) and beheaded (some believe wrongfully) by the usurper Cromwell. James II eventually was deposed after putting a bunch of Jesuits into high positions (Jesuits of the day were less the cuddly educational figures of today back then).
After a bit of a respite under William and Mary and then Queen Anne (there were a few battles with Jacobites, especially in Ireland), the Hanoverians came to the throne and you had some epic revolts in 1715 and 1745. One for each of the first two Georges. Then, at the end of the century, here comes George III who felt that the monarchy was not respected enough and needed the power it had in its glory days--back when Divine Right was the favorite royalist catchphrase.
George unsuccessfully butted heads with the parlaiment, and his Mental problems ensured that he would not regain all of the power he sought, but some of his early attitudes about his authority helped start off the powderkeg over here.
Britain has since calmed down into a fairly stable constitutional monarchy where the monarchs don't assert the divine right of Kings, but it took quite a while.
Given that this was the shared history of most of the people here at the time of the war for Independence, it's surprising we didn't end up with our own monarch, President for life, or Lord Protector.
That is just one achievement to admire the men for while also keeping their flaws in sight--looking with clear vision at the places where they were leaps and bounds ahead of their peers in other governments as well as the places where they failed to do better than the others of their time.
The British abolished slavery in 1833.
DeleteT., You said "everyone else on earth," which makes you a about as wrong as you could be. You need look no further than at our beloved and nearly-deified founders themselves. Weren't some of them opposed to slavery? Weren't there statesmen involved in the founding of the Republic who, based just on their own innate sense of right and wrong, abhorred slavery?
DeleteI'm so sick of your prolix bullshit when what you should say is very simply that you were wrong.
As I said, there were some exceptional people who avoided being sucked in by the cultural acceptance of slavery, but they were few and far between. Even more rare were the suffragettes who did not all demand as much freedom and equality as women have today.
DeleteI was primarily speaking in general terms of people as groups--countries and societies--but even on the individual level you won't find people from that time who held views identical to what modern people hold. Even with those who abhorred slavery you will probably find some other view of theirs, endemic to the time, which bothers you.
Every period has its blind spots, and just because you're lucky enough to spot one and avoid it doesn't mean that you can or will dodge them all perfectly.
You said this: ""those were things that they shared with everyone else on earth at that time.""
DeleteWhen I called you one it, after repeated attempts, you finally said, "I was primarily speaking in general terms"
You are a liar who is incapable of admitting when he's caught lying.
Mikeb, you're much too free with calling people liars.
DeleteAh, so now it's lying to poorly phrase your argument when hammering out a comment as quickly as possible.
DeleteYou made a demand, I told you what I intended and was thinking when I wrote the initial post.
Rather than discuss that issue, you've kept on replying to call me a liar for a poor choice of wording that I can't go back and change.
Who's distracting from the topic with "gotcha" games?
I'm curious to know at whom you are aiming these postings, Laci. I don't know anyone here on my side who is "historically ignorant."
ReplyDeleteGreg: Wow, you take ignorance to a new level since you demonstrate a lack of historical knowledge in the comments to this post
Deletemikeb302000.blogspot.com/2011/11/latest-from-brady-campaign.html
Or were you hoping I couldn't document your ignorance?
Nope, if anyone is pompous and an ass it is you Greggy since you continuously pontificate on topic you have no idea of what you are talking about.
But, don't let me stop you, since you seem to love making an idiot of yourself.
proper link:mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2011/11/latest-from-brady-campaign.html
DeleteGiving a link to a bunch of comments in which you spout irrelevant information while refraining from addressing the main ideas doesn't support your claim here.
Delete"The Oprah Show ended. It was mass chaos."
ReplyDeleteForgive me if I disagree with the Oprah show going away as being a sign of societal decline. I don't have any false beliefs that the founders of the nation. They were just plain folk in a tough situation who happened to start something wondrous.
I thought the Oprah reference was tongue in cheek. Did you really take it seriously?
DeleteGreggy: All gunloons are historically ignorant. To be more specific--they're just plain ignorant.
ReplyDeleteTennesseean: You have to remember Jefferson was a big fan of the French Revolution and sought to undermine Washington at every turn. Of course, we all know Jefferson also liked to use his slaves much in the same manner as Ariel Castro.
There Jade goes again with the baby talk. Rather than lying, how about you provide some proof for your claims?
DeleteRegarding Jefferson, as with Washington and many other Founders, yes, the man had his flaws. Somehow, I suspect that if we dug into your life, we'd find that you have enough of your own. Narcissism being one of them, I've seen here. When you accomplish as much as the Founders did, I'll be interested in seeing it.
Jade,
DeleteDo you have any other tid-bits you think I don't know?
Frankly, you're the one part of this blog I can't figure out.
I get Mike and the Pooch being buddies who both act like they know everything. The pooch hits and runs; Mike sticks around and debates a bit. Both of them seem to genuinely want gun control, though.
You, on the other hand, stop by only sporadically to do your character assassination bit or your "Look at this NRA representative" bit where you pick a random person who isn't even a NRA member. If this was all you did, you'd just seem like a tool, but you go that extra mile and salt your comments with self aggrandizing language, talking about how you "Sagely" did this that or the other.
The over all effect is not unlike that of our dearly departed troll, E.N. and his many sockpuppets: it makes you look like a pro-gun person lampooning the anti-gun side. Frankly, I'm surprised that they give you posting rights since you look like a caricature of you own position, but I guess they're desperate for any help from anywhere they can get it.
T., I think I'll start deleting all comments that are personal attacks on the other commenters. Your output will be cut in half.
DeleteTry and stick with the argument and see if you can contribute something to the discussion. Half of your comments are pretend bewilderment at your opponents or wild attempts at gotchas.
Mikeb, if you make that decision, Laci and Jadegold won't be able to post at all--comments or articles. They are incapable of restraining themselves.
DeleteSo, you're going to start deleting my comments if they call someone out for being illogical, but it'll be fine for Jade, Laci, Jim, Steve, You, and others to continue dodging my questions and responding with ad hominem attacks?
DeleteFrankly, when Sarge asked about the deletion of comments the other day I considered responding, but I refrained. I was going to defend your moderation since, for the past month or two, you have not been applying double standards as you used to. You've blocked Kevin's comments for obscenity, but otherwise you've been pretty open with what both sides are allowed to say.
DeleteHowever, if you start deleting comments based on a double standard again, you'll be losing all good will you've built up, and you'll probably drive readers away since they'll see that you have one standard of behavior for people on your side and another for opponents you don't want to listen to.
Yes, please block personal attackers. Like Greg and TN who call me a liar and sock puppet, no matter which post, or which issue we are discussing.
DeleteT., you can't tell the truth even when you want to.
Delete"you have not been applying double standards as you used to."
I never have applied a double standard to the comment moderation.
Bull Shit.
DeleteEarlier this summer you deleted comments where the worst thing I did was say that you got something wrong. This was taken as an ad hominem attack calling you a liar, I think--I never did get an answer as to why the comment wasn't posted. Meanwhile, you and others continued slinging insults.
If I pointed out that you had a "no insult policy" for me and Kurt, you would delete my comment--perhaps under the "no commenting on the commenting policy" rule. However, if Greg or someone else noted the same thing, their comment showed up and you dismissed your insults as being playful or being spot on descriptions.
By the end of that time, there were some posts that were not insulting at all, but which you blocked from posting. I reworded them, posted them as Anonymous, and they were allowed to appear.
By Mid July you eased up and I stopped posting Anonymously. You then even blocked Kevin's vile posts--the first time I'd seen you call out someone on your side for crossing the line. Ever since then, you've been fair, and the only thing of mine you've deleted have been things that disappeared when you deleted Kevin's postings and anything replying to them on the occasions that you've opened commenting.
I liked the change.
You're confused, or else your memory isn't working right. There has been no double standard in the comment moderation, but there has been an evolution, At a certain point a few months ago I stopped allowing the whining complaints about the comment moderation policy, you know the ones that go, "why did you post his comment when you deleted miiiine."
DeleteKurt caught on after one example. You continued dozens of times until you finally got with the program.
This policy continues to this day and the comment above that I'm wasting my time responding to will be the last one of its kind that gets posted.
Why not just appreciate the humor? She's adorable. No one is saying that Washington and Jefferson were not great men of the faith. Are they?
ReplyDeleteThat's not what you guys are really trying to say? Is it?
Didn't think so.
Junior,
DeleteI enjoyed her videos. They're witty and a good way to remind people of the sins of the past, poke fun at people asking stupid questions, and entertain--all at the same time.
I had no problem with what she said, and in my first comment I was merely suggesting that Laci was tossing the baby out with the bath water and that a balanced view of the founders was appropriate.
However, Laci came back with this:
"Nope, you look foolish saying the founding fathers got anything right.. . .
You are just pissed off that these demigods were actually human and probably completely flawed people who drove their nation into chaos which it has never completely recovered."
That sounds like a person with quite a bit of contempt for the founding fathers--contempt not just for the bad things that they did, but for everything they did.
If that wasn't Laci's intention, then I welcome him clarifying his remarks.
I agree whole-heartedly. I love reading about Washington, Adams, Franklin, Hamilton and Jefferson. I love the dramatizations where actors do their best to make these historical figures come to life. I know the circumstances surrounding the constitutional convention quite well. I realize that the storybook of American history that was taught in our schools mid-century was whitewashed. But there is also a great deal of truth. And many new editions of biographies and histories have been published in the last ten to fifteen years which are presumably quite historically accurate.
DeleteHere's a question for Laci: Name one African nation that either you or she would like to live in more than you like living in the United States.
ReplyDelete