• 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]

How can a claim of racism be made against people, who died before racism existed?

Racial equality is not a modern concept. There were abolitionists long before our nation's founding. Abolitionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Even Thomas Jefferson knew slavery was morally wrong, he just didn't do anything about it. So if morality is not relative, then the founders were racists.
 
How does that erode his point?

Hindsight affords us a greater understanding of how racial structures operated.

Because its out of historical context. Do you really think Washington thought of himself as a racists?
 
Have you been elsewhere, perhaps a developing country? One might consider the average theocracy suffering slum dweller and the amount of free critical thinking that goes into their expression.

You might be rather surprised that holding Americans out for such a quality is rather comical and most of the ****in' world doesn't question what their authority dictates. That's why the founders made the constitution, to enumerate social authority beyond the will of any tin pot tyrant or mass of idiots.

What country's critical thinking would you like to compare to the US? Please, amuse us.

nice ramble.

Still won't tackle the historical context of what was accepted back in the 1800's.
 
Still won't tackle the historical context of what was accepted back in the 1800's.

I think I did that pretty clearly in my first post herein. I don't understand your objection or contention.
 
Well, it was an accepted practice by some to own slaves. John Adams, who was instrumental in the adoption of the Constitution, considered slavery an abomination. Which, of course, it was.

I agree slavery is/was wrong. Not my point. One or a few voices does not set the social acceptable norm at the time.

We had a civil war to pretty much make the change , did we not?
 
One of the truly dumb statements ever to appear on this forum.

I just think its funny how the righties rail against "moral relativism" on the left, yet engage in it every time they have to defend "the founders", Old Testament figures, or any historical figure they idolize.
 
Because its out of historical context. Do you really think Washington thought of himself as a racists?

It's not out of historical context. It's addressing historical context through a different lens. How does pointing out how the past worked make it out of context. That *is* context personified.
 
School's Nation of Islam handout paints Founding Fathers as racists

I just think its funny how the righties rail against "moral relativism" on the left, yet engage in it every time they have to defend "the founders", Old Testament figures, or any historical figure they idolize.

Oh God....I get into these arguments all the time with Left-wingers and Right-wingers whenever they want to keep their heroes. It's absolutely ridiculous.

All of the sudden they all act like amateur historians without any of the training.
 
So if morality is not relative, then the founders were racists.

Whether morality is relative or not, they were racists bigtime. Why would racism be defined according to relative morality. 'Relative racism' is nonsense.
 
I agree slavery is/was wrong. Not my point. One or a few voices does not set the social acceptable norm at the time.

We had a civil war to pretty much make the change , did we not?

And what about blacks during that time? In some counties they accounted for numerical majorities in a given county. Does their perspective now become irrelevant?

You're forgetting that these people existed by responding that way.
 
Oh God....I get into these arguments all the time with Left-wingers and Right-wingers whenever they want to keep their heroes. It's absolutely ridiculous.

Exactly, its absurd. Either there is an absolute moral law that applies to all people, at all times, in all cultures, or you accept that morality is relative. If you believe in absolute moral law that you have to call the founders racists, many of whom engaged and profited from one of the most deplorable systems man has ever conceived. In fact, if morality is absolute (as conservatives always claim), then the founders were almost all unconscionable men guilty of crimes against humanity. Otherwise, you believe morality is relative.
 
Exactly, its absurd. Either there is an absolute moral law that applies to all people, at all times, in all cultures, or you accept that morality is relative. If you believe in absolute moral law that you have to call the founders racists, many of whom engaged and profited from one of the most deplorable systems man has ever conceived. In fact, if morality is absolute (as conservatives always claim), then the founders were almost all unconscionable men guilty of crimes against humanity. Otherwise, you believe morality is relative.

Furthermore, If you're going to condemn someone who the opposition values on the grounds that it is seen as bad now, you have put late 20th and 21st century values onto the past.
 
Exactly, its absurd. Either there is an absolute moral law that applies to all people, at all times, in all cultures, or you accept that morality is relative. If you believe in absolute moral law that you have to call the founders racists, many of whom engaged and profited from one of the most deplorable systems man has ever conceived. In fact, if morality is absolute (as conservatives always claim), then the founders were almost all unconscionable men guilty of crimes against humanity. Otherwise, you believe morality is relative.

Morality can be relative and objective (nothing is absolute). There is historical (relative) and modern (objective) context for any evaluation of morality.
 
Whether morality is relative or not, they were racists bigtime. Why would racism be defined according to relative morality. 'Relative racism' is nonsense.

I am just making a larger point. Of course they were racists. The only way we could not consider them racists would be if the entire notion of racial equality was simply unknown to man at the time. There was an abolitionist movement long before the founding of our country and obviously the founders all were aware of it and the arguments presented by abolitionists. Thus they were racists.

I brought up moral relativism because conservatives rail against moral relativism on the left. Yet by claiming you cannot judge the founders by today's morality, you are engaging in moral relativism. Although its a flawed argument even for moral relativism as evidenced by the paragraph above.
 
I brought up moral relativism because conservatives rail against moral relativism on the left. Yet by claiming you cannot judge the founders by today's morality, you are engaging in moral relativism. Although its a flawed argument even for moral relativism as evidenced by the paragraph above.

I don't accept the relative vs. absolute paradigm. If we accept nothing is absolute, then the question is relative (historical) vs. objective (modern) as complimentary perspectives. Framing the concept of moral context in a false dichotomy (let alone including absolutism) is stupid.
 
Sure one can, and one should. At the same time, one must be aware of historical context.

It's not an "either/or" thing. One can, and really should, view historical figures in both a modern and historical context. It's not that difficult and failing to be capable of such is hardly something I can fix.

To judge actions? Perhaps. To judge people? Certainly not. How can you ever hope to judge what kind of person an historical figure was by using a yardstick that was not in use at the time of his life and hope to get anything like an accurate read on the man?
 
To judge actions? Perhaps. To judge people? Certainly not. How can you ever hope to judge what kind of person an historical figure was by using a yardstick that was not in use at the time of his life and hope to get anything like an accurate read on the man?

It's not the only measure.
 
School's Nation of Islam handout paints Founding Fathers as racists

To judge actions? Perhaps. To judge people? Certainly not. How can you ever hope to judge what kind of person an historical figure was by using a yardstick that was not in use at the time of his life and hope to get anything like an accurate read on the man?

First, again, what about blacks? They wrote or spoke quite frequently about the abomination of slavery and their desire to be treated better by whites. Is that a yardstick?

Furthermore, we do this all the time. I have yet to see an incredibly sympathetic take with colonial loyalism or reluctant separatists in this country. We push the wrongness of the loyalists all the time, because we are so used to this country *being here* and it obviously being right, that we so casually dismiss the concerns of these men and women.

People are full of crap when they say they want people to be judged by the standards of the time. At best they are plebeians who heard what German-trained historians said 120 years ago, barely understand it and apply it inconsistently. At worst, they are using it for political convenience.
 
Last edited:
I don't accept the relative vs. absolute paradigm. If we accept nothing is absolute, then the question is relative (historical) vs. objective (modern) as complimentary perspectives. Framing the concept of moral context in a false dichotomy (let alone including absolutism) is stupid.

What you just wrote is in no way at all inconsistent with moral relativism though. For example, if I called 17th century men all ignorant creationists, then I would be making an unfair judgement of them as evolution was not published as a theory until nearly a hundred years later. So while evolution certainly existed before man arrived at the theory, we cannot judge men who were ignorant of it at a time when all men were ignorant of it.

Similarly, racism is wrong. Racism is immoral. It always has been. However, we could not fairly judge individuals in a society where no one recognized it was wrong yet. However that doesn't apply to the founders as there were plenty of people even then that knew racism was wrong and they were part of the public discourse at the time.
 
What you just wrote is in no way at all inconsistent with moral relativism though.

Of course it's not. I'm saying relative (historical) context must be weighed with objective (modern) context. It's not an either/or thing and, of course, absolutism is right out.
 
First, again, what about blacks? They wrote or spoke quite frequently about the abomination of slavery and their desire to be treated better by whites. Is that a yardstick?

Furthermore, we do this all the time. I have yet to see an incredibly sympathetic take with colonial loyalism or reluctant separatists in this country. We push the wrongness of the loyalists all the time, because we are so used to this country *being here* and it obviously being right, that we so casually dismiss the concerns of these men and women.

People are full of crap when they say they want people to be judged by the standards of the time. At best they are plebeians who heard what German-trained historians said 120 years ago, barely understand it and apply it inconsistently. At worst, they are using it for political convenience.

Perhaps in some cases. I've not said anything on my feelings on how the founders would be judged on slavery only on what the appropriate measure is.

The feelings of slaves are certainly relevant. So are those of white abolitionists. That doesn't in any way invalidate my argument.
 
I just think its funny how the righties rail against "moral relativism" on the left, yet engage in it every time they have to defend "the founders", Old Testament figures, or any historical figure they idolize.

Utterly incorrect. The position is that you can;pt judge an individual other than in the context of their own time and culture but you CAN say that the practice is wrong. I don;t condemn individual Muslims for teh way they behave towards women the whole practice of Islam is to blame. The left argue that you can;t critiocise another culture.
 
In a hundred years they will condemn us for our evil treatment of animals.
 
Are you serious? I've seen many dozens of collectivist drones on sites like this one make very clear what a vile country they think the U.S. is--even though they choose to take up space in it. One way to undermine or even potentially destroy a country or culture you resent or despise is to run it down at every opportunity, and encourage other people to do the same. Many people in the 1960's openly expressed their low opinion of all things American, and some of them have insinuated themselves into the public education system. By now (with help from rich leftist hypocrites like Oliver Stone and Michael Moore) they've been able to indoctrinate a couple generations with their propaganda. There are now enough millions of these fine citizens in the U.S. to elect--twice--a President who shares their resentment of it and contempt for its Constitution.

yes I am serious are you? who on this thread hates America?

believing the country has done vile things is not enough to cut it as lets face it what country doesn't have some skeletons in its closet

what culture is being undermined on this thread ?
 
Back
Top Bottom