In the Jeep dealership near me, this sign:
WE WILL BE CLOSED FOR JULY ___ 2001 -- INDEPENDENCE DAY.
(The "4" was handwritten on the typed page)
Although I have to admit, it seems kinda lame to have that blank spot on your sign.
[ July 06, 2001: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
Dunno, it's just the same for me. But it seems that people not in their scolarship years are beginning to FORGET the actual date and purpose of the holiday.
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Jonas Bashir:
...it seems that people not in their scolarship years are beginning to FORGET the actual date and purpose of the holiday.
For July 4th I played airsoft all day and blew things up all night. It cant get better then that.
TSN: "The US' real independence day is July 2, anyway..."
Jonas: "But Independence Day (July 9th BTW)"
You two both had a go at people who celebrated the 21st century in the year 2000, didn't cha?
Go on then, why is it really on the 2nd of July? Or the 9th?
The more conservative folks around here (yeah, in this county, _I'M_ fairly liberal) believe that this is part and parcel with the new 'liberal' version of history, in which the US's Founding Father's accomplisments and efforts are entirely ignored in favor of casting them all as racist, mysogynist, classist... well, everything that liberals always label their enemies as.
"The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epoch in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forevermore. You will think me transported with enthusiasm, but I am not. I am well aware of the toil and blood and treasure that it will cost us to maintain this Declaration and support and defend these States. Yet, through all the gloom, I can see the rays of ravishing light and glory. I can see that the end is more than worth the means."
-John Adams in a letter to his wife, 3.Jul.1776
Somehow, we got the "pomp and parade,...shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations" right, but screwed up the date...
quote:
Originally posted by Wes1701E:For July 4th I played airsoft all day and blew things up all night. It cant get better then that.
Sounds good. I don't have any airsoft weapons, but I did blow a few things up during these recent nights even though fireworks aren't exactly legal in Georgia. Please don't tell on me!!!
Congratulations, your indoctrination is complete.
*move on*
[ July 09, 2001: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
FoT: considering that the Founding Fathers were racist, sexist, et al, why was it surprising? Oh, but you left, "hipocritical" off the list.
Let's see ... who owned slaves? Washington and Jefferson, right off the top of my head.
I'm not sure if they actually hated women, but they certainly didn't push for equal rights for women to vote et al. And how many of them had out of marriage affairs? Jefferson, again, right off the top of my head, with ... one of his slaves, wasn't it?
Good history will recognize the collective and individual accomplishments AND the collective and individual foibles.
Yes, but they did it because it was the only moral option open to them. The other choice would have been to release all the slaves immediately, before educating them. If they'd done that, then they all either would have died, or they would have been claimed or tricked and sold right back into slavery. Unacceptable. The welfare of the slaves was the primary concern, and the best thing their owners could do by them was to give them the best education possible, and then free them. Exactly what Washington and Jefferson did.
And how many of them had out of marriage affairs? Jefferson, again, right off the top of my head, with ... one of his slaves, wasn't it?
Sally Hemmings, and no, he didn't. The kid of scandal wasn't his. Nor was the second kid. Now the third kid was a genetic match, but considering he was born years after the (false) claims about the first being Jefferson's kid first broke into a scandal, it seems more likely that it was one of his male relatives in the area. His brother and five nephews are distinct possibilities.
In fact, the only presidents that I know of that had extra-marital affairs were FDR, JFK, and Clinton. Grover Cleavland wasn't too moral, either, but he at least married the girl he (maybe) got pregnant.
Stop being a slavery apologist. Welfare for slaves? By making them work in the fields and live in shacks? Sorry, that is in no way "moral."
Apologist? I apologize for nothing, because I did nothing wrong. Tell me: what was the better alternative? What would YOU have had Jefferson and Washington do that was so much better than what they did? Release the slaves immediately? Because we've already established that they would simply have died for lack of food, or else been taken advantage of and sold right back into slavery, probably to a far more unpleasant owner. Thus again I ask, what's your proposal that's be so much better?
Welfare for slaves? By making them work in the fields and live in shacks?
A) You know nothing about the conditions in which the slaves in question lived. Don't presume that you do.
B) A couple decades of service in exchange for the education that is the only way that the slaves and their decendents will ever be free for any length of time. Sounds like an equitable deal, especially when there's not a better one to be made or found by either party.
As for slave living conditions ... well, I might now know first-hand how slaves were kept, but www.mountvernon.org has a pretty good idea. Read:
quote:
The slaves living at the Mansion House farm were housed in communal quarters. The House for Families, pictured on the left, was used until 1793. Archaeologists excavating the site 200 years later uncovered many objects which helped us discover how slaves in the House for Families lived.Some slaves lived above their place of work, such as the kitchen or carpentry shop. Others lived in quarters adjacent to the greenhouse. Although we know a great deal about many of the slaves living on the estate, the records, for the most part, do not tell us how the living spaces were assigned, or who lived in each quarter.
Slaves living on the outlying farms were not housed as well as those on the Mansion House farm. They lived in small wooden cabins, with dirt floors, which were drafty and hard to keep clean. A Polish visitors described these cabins as "more miserable than the cottages of our peasants."
Now, George Washington, great man that he might've been, sure wasn't exactly out to improve the slave's lives. Okay, yes, he allowed slaves to inter-marry on the plantation. But the simple fact of the matter is, when he inherited Mount Vernon, he inherited ten slaves. When he died, he owned 123 of the 316 slaves living at Mount Vernon. He didn't educate them besides the tasks they needed to work on Mount Vernon: milling, coopering, blacksmithing, carpentry, and shoemaking. He didn't pay them. They didn't exactly have the best housing conditions. Sure, he freed them ... after he died. Why not before he died? Guess he just couldn't live without them.
Let's look at the equity of this "deal."
And now you want to work for free for the same people who kept me in slavery?
Yeah, that's sounds like a great deal for me! Sign me up for that!
Or maybe you, Omega, you should sign up for a couple of decades of involuntary service. That's an equitable deal in exchange for your paultry education.
[ July 10, 2001: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
And now you want to work for free for the same people who kept me in slavery?
No, I'm suggesting that you work for people who are getting you OUT of slavery. If you'd read my posts, used your brain while doing so, or cared to respond to what I actually said instead of what you WISH I said, then you'd have realized that there was no alternative that got the slaves out of slavery faster AND KEPT THEM OUT than the one exercized by Jefferson and Washington.
Yes, THAT explains it ALL doesn't IT.
This works then:
THAT'S entirely EQUATIBLE isn't IT. NO, that is profoundly stupid.
Washington, Jefferson, and others had demand for slaves. Shit, look how much the slave population at Mount Vernon increased. Because of this demand (yes, part of it was satisfied by births within the slave population, but not all), more ships went out to Africa, captured some natives (yes, with help of other African tribes), and carried them back to the U.S.
It's all one big, vicious circle, and for all their noble talk about how bad slavery was, they still bought slaves. They helped perpetuate the system, and if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
No offense, Omega. But as far as slavery goes, they certainly weren't part of the solution. Why not free the slaves once they had their "education?" Why not send them back to Africa? Because these great, noble, Founding Fathers that you idolize weren't perfect, and stop trying to cover up their not-so-nice aspects.
Yes, maybe they did own slaves, but it is NORMAL, and the RIGHT THING for them to do so in their period of time. Time move forwards and things do friggin' changes, stop applying our standards on them.
And maybe THEY ARE doing a favour for their slaves! Generalization does not apply to everyone, and maybe they knew better and treated their "slaves" as good as any other normal, white people.
Yes, maybe they do have affairs, but like I said, things are different back then, monogamy ain't that big a deal in their time.
And don't forget, without them, you won't even be talking about all this shit in this very board right now.
[ July 10, 2001: Message edited by: BlueElectron ]
"Yes, maybe they did own slaves, but it is NORMAL, and the RIGHT THING for them to do so in their period of time."
Kind of like the Holocaust was okay, because genocide was "normal" and "the right thing" to do in Nazi Germany?
Remember, slavery is good for the slaves. Sure they had to give up their freedom, but the got cool living quarters with racquet ball courts and everything.
And remember, once the system got up and running, there was nothing for the poor slave holder to do but keep his slaves as his property, under his thumb, and working the fields. To do anything less would have been inhuman.
quote:
and treated their "slaves" as good as any other normal, white people.
The problem THERE, Blue E, is that the vast majority of white people where pretty damn poor and not treated all that way to begin with. A poor white man wasn't worth as much as a rich white man. And white women? Hell, they had about as much "freedom" as the slaves.
quote:
They lived in small wooden cabins, with dirt floors, which were drafty and hard to keep clean. A Polish visitors described these cabins as "more miserable than the cottages of our peasants.
Which makes them the equal of nearly every house on the then frontier. (this WAS the 18th century, remember?) My great great great great great grandfather lived in such a house. Civilized? No. Livable? Yes.
quote:
I'm forceably removed from freedom and from my family.I'm sold into chattel and raced based slavery.
I'm kept out of the education system.
I'm kept out of the political system.
I'm kept out of the dominate cultural arena in a systemic way that precludes any advancement on my part.
I owe the system so much for that treatment that I should work for free another 20 years.
THAT'S entirely EQUATIBLE isn't IT. NO, that is profoundly stupid.
Well, except for point two, [which isn't quite as valid as you think it is, for reasons I shall enumerate later] You've described the situation of most of the WHITE people who came to the country, as well.
Indentured servitude.
People sentenced to "transportation."
Georgia was a penal colony, remember?
Your conparison of the two are questionable.
And I say "MAYBE" they did treated their slaves better, and by "they", I mean your founding fathers. MAYBE does not mean absolute, start reading before start quoting me!
They didn't. They got them jobs on the farm, didn't educate them beyond what they needed to know to do those jobs, and didn't free them until they (Washington, Jefferson) died.
I mean, if they'd bought the slaves, given them an education, then freed them, it'd be a different story. But they didn't.
Look, folks, stop defending these guys for owning slaves. Realize there are aspects about slave owning that CAN'T be defended, and move on.
I would be. Granted, I might possibly be speaking German, but still...
It is possible to look up to people, and see their faults at the same time Blue.
quote:
It is possible to look up to people, and see their faults at the same time Blue.
And if that's what was being done, I'd say 'fine.' But it's not.
What's being taught, essentially, is that NONE of their ideas, whether properly acted on or not, were valid, because of their personal faults. (But again, this is a policy that only applies to the enemies of their goals. In any other case, you'll find a 'the end justifies the means' standard [the number of people who still rabidly defend Clinton, for instance, despite all his well-known, and a few strongly rumored, personal faults].
quote:
What's being taught, essentially, is that NONE of their ideas, whether properly acted on or not, were valid, because of their personal faults.
No ... what I was taught (in a very liberal state) was that they had some good ideas, some not so good ideas, and some personal faults that aren't so good.
quote:
(But again, this is a policy that only applies to the enemies of their goals.
You know, I think you'd really like some of Harvey Danger's songs. Especially the one that goes, "paranoia, paranoia, everybody's coming to get me..."
quote:
In any other case, you'll find a 'the end justifies the means' standard [the number of people who still rabidly defend Clinton, for instance, despite all his well-known, and a few strongly rumored, personal faults].
In the same way that Republicans brush over George W.'s lack of "moral" upbringing within his own family; Dubya's drinking problem; that he got where he is because of his family name; and that he still owes the National Guard a couple years in a fighter jet.
What'd Clinton do? Protest the Vietnam War and get a blowjob? Ooooh.
[ July 11, 2001: Message edited by: Jeff The Card ]
And his "alleged" alcoholism isn't so alleged -- he admitted to it, including a well publicized drinking and driving event. Once an alocholic, always an alcoholic, and very good of him not to have had a drink in 15 years.
Ford's pardon of Nixon.
Gingrich's attempt to bypass the Judicial and Executive branches of Government with the Republican Party's "Contract With America." Not to mention HIS alleged affairs.
Or the affairs of Senator Packwood.
Now, can't we all just agree that PEOPLE AREN'T FUCKING PERFECT and while it's fine to like 'em or their politics, it's NOT GOOD to forget their faults, and CERTAINLY not good to apologize for their faults.
If Omega wants to make slavery out to be a good thing because some men he admired practiced it, shame on him.
But, hey, we can go on if you just want to turn this into a mud-slinging match.
[ July 11, 2001: Message edited by: Jeff The Card ]
While we think slaves are no good, they might not.
We do have a friggin' 200 odd years of seperation from them.
IDEA CHANGES THROUGH TIME!
You can blame people who own slaves now, but you can't blame the founding father because they didn't know better.
Maybe their slaves didn't get the education they deserve, but in the same time, MAYBE they get treated more like human beings.
quote:
While we think slaves are no good, they might not.
In history, there is certainly a trap that one might fall into about putting one's modern feelings back to the time under study.
However regarding race based slavery, it is easy to look back at the period and see a segment of the polulation speaking out vociferously against it and calling for the immediate uncompensated end of the institution.. We call them abolitionists.
There was, espesically in the north but also in the south, a segment of the white population against slavery. This group represented by Lincoln, while understanding the basic humanity of the slave did not feel that the black was the equal to the white on a social basis and felt strongly threateded economically by slaves, fromer slaves and free blacks. Along with calling for the eventual end of slavery most of this group wanted the slave to leave the United States and be repatriated back to Africa or somewhere else.
quote:
While I was at the hotel to-day, an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was really in favor of producing a perfect equality between the negroes and white people.... 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. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied every thing. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife.
~ Lincoln Douglas Debates, Fourth Joint Debate Charleston, September 18, 1858
Another group is represented by Jefferson. One can read his writings and understand that he felt race based slavery was not a moral institution, but he felt compelled culturally and socially to keep slaves to maintain his position and yet given a clear path, might have done something tangible about ending slavery.
quote:
I considered it at once as the knell of the Union. It is hushed, indeed, for the moment. But this is a reprieve only, not a final sentence. A geographical line, coinciding with a marked principle, moral and political, once conceived and held up to the angry passions of men, will never be obliterated; and every new irritation will mark it deeper and deeper. I can say, with conscious truth, that there is not a man on earth who would sacrifice more than I would to relieve us from this heavy reproach, in any practicable way. The cession of that kind of property, for so it is misnamed, is a bagatelle which would not cost me a second thought, if, in that way, a general emancipation and expatriation could be effected; and gradually, and with due sacrifices, I think it might be. But as it is,
we have the wolf by the ears, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other.
~Jefferson to To John Holmes, Monticello, April 22, 1820
Then we have those unapoligetic fire-eating slave holders who rejected the humanity of the slave and considered them simple property to do with as he or she pleased.
quote:
You can blame people who own slaves now, but you can't blame the founding father because they didn't know better.
Sorry, but yes they did. The ones that held slaves, or got rich on the slave trade understood that there were other options but they chose the one that brought about their own personal economic growth the fastest. Furthermore, they insulated themselves against criticism culturally and socially by seperating themselves from the north for example and rationalized slavery as the south's own peculiar institution.
[ July 11, 2001: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]