• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

School's Nation of Islam handout paints Founding Fathers as racists [W:293]

This is about the founders. Not states. Did the US Constitution give same rights to blacks?

Check out those dates. Those states were being run by the Founders when they gave voting rights to blacks. The US Constitution left the decision about who was allowed to vote to the States.
 
:doh

I tell you what, mr Truth Teller. You look up the dates for that Trail of Tears, compare it to the 1770s, 1780s, and 1790s, and let us know what you discover. :roll:

Two separate instances of the same phenomenon. Hope that clears up the post for you.
 
In life, the rules change. Pretending this is not so, and putting ones head in the sand regarding racism, is just willful ignorance.



His morality from an objective perspective. I'm sorry if an objective perspective offends you, but it can and should be included with a historical context assessment.



He was immoral for that and countless other atrocities. Spare us the idol worship.


By your standards, some backwoods redneck racist piece of **** is not really a racist because everyone in his town is racist. That's apologism, not moral assessment.

How can you be bloody well objective about his morality when you apply standards that didn't exist at the time he lived. How can a person be immoral when the choices he makes are moral in the society in which he lives at the time in which he lives?

It's only apologism if the person knows he's doing wrong. If our redneck lives in a racist world and all he knows is racism he is racist. He's just not evil.
 
It's because slavery is ok, as long as WASP's aren't the slave owners.

Ultimately it has nothing to do with slavery, or racism. For the Libbos to, "fundementally change", America, they have to convince everyone to denounce The Founders. That way, the Libbos can sell themselves as the new foujders of The United States. Communist dictators have been employing that tactic since Lenin returned to Russia in 1917. Racism was coined by Trotsky in 1920.
Yes, and it was used to undermine the Democracies, especially England and the United States. "Community Organizer" Saul Alinsky successfully carried on with the program and the effect is still felt today. Black against White, Men Against Women, Left Against White, rubbishing American history, etc. while those who have an alternative agenda watch patiently from the sidelines, simply adding a poke here and a prod there.
 
One shouldn't base positions on BS they invent themselves. No one believes slavery is ok as long as it's not WASPs owning the slaves. Using that crap as a basis for understanding anything is nonsense. That you refuse to reveal your source is telling.
The focus in this thread, and elsewhere, is overwhelmingly concerned about White Save owners and not the Black participation in the trade. Slavery exists today in Islamic nations, and yet it stirs less interest then events occurring many decades ago.

I doubt that many US classrooms would be teaching modern slavery by Muslims today, or even women's rights in Islam, but the teaching of White on Black slavery, and the shortcomings of their country's founders, is always a popular subject. Students must be taught leftist 'perspective'.
 
Check out those dates. Those states were being run by the Founders when they gave voting rights to blacks. The US Constitution left the decision about who was allowed to vote to the States.

That's why is post is so damn funny! :lamo
 
Check out those dates. Those states were being run by the Founders when they gave voting rights to blacks. The US Constitution left the decision about who was allowed to vote to the States.

Did they have all the same rights as blacks? Did they have the right to "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness"? Were they given protections and rights under the bill of rights?
 
Two separate instances of the same phenomenon. Hope that clears up the post for you.

Nope. If anything claiming that the Founding (which was a war against Great Britain) and the Trail of Tears (which was the forcible displacement of a major Native American tribe) are two separate instances of the same phenomenon makes the post less clear. It seems you have some kind of generalized idea that conservatives cherish a falsely mythological view of the Founding, without being able to substantiate it.
 
Did they have all the same rights as blacks? Did they have the right to "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness"? Were they given protections and rights under the bill of rights?

You're embarressing yourself.
 
Did they have all the same rights as blacks? Did they have the right to "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness"? Were they given protections and rights under the bill of rights?

In the states where they did so? Sure. What is so very difficult for you to understand about this?
 
How can you be bloody well objective about his morality when you apply standards that didn't exist at the time he lived.

Objectively speaking, his context is not relevant.
 
No, slavery was wrong in 1860. The Civil War didn't make it wrong. Jefferson owning slaves (and keeping one as his mistress) isn't admirable because it was 1776. There's nothing admirable about Washington owning slaves. To point out the irony of these men proclaiming that all men were entitled to certain inalienable rights while owning other human beings is a good thing.

Historical context.
Were not slaves considered property back then?
 
:lol: but yours are :lol:

Oh So Objective! :mrgreen:

You really don't understand how a modern and inclusive evaluation represents an objective perspective? Do you have any understanding of what constitutes objectivity?

Perhaps you don't believe in the existence of objectivity in any degree? That would be horribly childish. Perhaps you have a better idea of how to establish objectivity. That might be interesting.
 
Last edited:
You really don't understand how a modern and inclusive evaluation represents an objective perspective? Do you have any understanding of what constitutes objectivity?

:) Do tell me how you anticipate using 21st century morals to judge 19th century behavior in a manner that will seem objective to (for example) someone coming to it with 23rd century morals :)

My bet: they are going to point out that your analysis isn't objective because you don't condemn them for eating meat, demonstrating your own biases and cruelty.


Perhaps you don't believe in the existence of objectivity in any degree? That would be horribly childish. Perhaps you have a better idea of how to establish objectivity. That might be interesting.

Oh no - there is definitely an objective standard. The problem is that it isn't what you want it to be :)


Wait. You do realize that the act of you typing the word "objectively" does not actually make an assessment objective, yes?
 
Oh no - there is definitely an objective standard. The problem is that it isn't what you want it to be :)

Please, enlighten us. How do you establish objectivity? I can't wait to see the alternative to modern and inclusive scientific evaluation. Bible?
 
Please, enlighten us. How do you establish objectivity? I can't wait to see the alternative to modern and inclusive scientific evaluation. Bible?

For Morality? I would say that the only Absolute and thus Objective Standard would have to be Divine in nature.

But I couldn't help but notice that you failed to quote half the post you were responding to :). you are attempting to spin off of the question. Indicating that you are continuing to lose. ;)
 
For Morality? I would say that the only Absolute and thus Objective Standard would have to be Divine in nature.

Absolute =/= objective

So, you don't understand what objective means. Great. How do I deal with this?

But I couldn't help but notice that you failed to quote half the post you were responding to :). you are attempting to spin off of the question. Indicating that you are continuing to lose. ;)

You've devolved into patting yourself on the back. Good day.
 
Absolute =/= objective

So, you don't understand what objective means. Great. How do I deal with this?

Well, feel free to answer the question that you conveniently failed to quote :)

You've devolved into patting yourself on the back. Good day.

Yup. Admit defeat and bow out of a subject about which you knew little, but didn't allow that to stop you from pretending to be some kind of expert :)
 
This thread has devolved, predictably, into a pissing match that has little to nothing to do with the OP.

Bottom line, the pamphlet in question is dishonest and deliberately so. This at least is beyond debate.
 
Wait, so your saying that morality is relative.....

Only when it comes to racism. Otherwise the god-hating communist-loving Left hold a monopoly on moral relativism. ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom