• 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!

Were there racists in 1776? (read post first)

Where there racists in 1776? (read post first)

  • Total voters
    27
jamesrage said:
It doesn't matter if the word existed back then. Racism is the belief that one's race is superior to other races and or racial hatred or the policy of government that fosters that doctrine. If you hate someone because of their race it doesn't matter if there is a word for it. If you think there are inferior and superior races then you are a racist and if you want a form of government that fosters such ideas then it is racism.There were people back then who thought their race was superior to other races and hated other races.
Click to expand...
I'm sure there are those who "hated" certain other races in 1776 but primarily they were not hated, just seen as property - like cattle or other tools and implements. Racism is a modern concept.
 
Canell said:
OK but did the master own the indenture servant's life or just his work?
Click to expand...

We have discussed this in the past. Indentured servitude was the norm...right up until Anthony Johnson petitioned the commonwealth court for outright 'ownership' of another individual.

'Slavery' was a practice engaged for centuries and by every society. Over time people became more and more enlightened to the human experience. In this country even before 1776 and the eventual formation of what became the United States, territories were banning the practice of slavery (Rhode Island, Pennsylvania for example). The US as a country was in a constant state of flux and growth. The US banned the importation of slaves and targeted the institution to end it it while the country was in its infancy. Where there 'racists' then? Sure...just as there are now and always WILL be. To say the country was racist because it allowed slavery is just simply wrong. Are 'Africans' today racist because they continue to allow the practice?
 
Last edited:
Ockham said:
I'm sure there are those who "hated" certain other races in 1776 but primarily they were not hated, just seen as property - like cattle or other tools and implements. Racism is a modern concept.
Click to expand...

I don't think they were hated, but Europeans and Westerners during that period, and even extending back to perhaps the early renaissance, DID look down upon the other races (mainly black and yellow) as more savage and primitive, less civilized than themselves.
 
jamesrage said:
It doesn't matter if the word existed back then. Racism is the belief that one's race is superior to other races and or racial hatred or the policy of government that fosters that doctrine. If you hate someone because of their race it doesn't matter if there is a word for it. If you think there are inferior and superior races then you are a racist and if you want a form of government that fosters such ideas then it is racism.There were people back then who thought their race was superior to other races and hated other races.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

X = belief in racial superiority

If someone in 1776 says, "I believe in racial superiority", then they also say "X".

X may be "racism", "purple", "kayak" or whatever word a society gives to that belief. The word is complete irrelevant to the presence of the belief.
 
VanceMack said:
We have discussed this in the past. Indentured servitude was the norm...right up until Thomas Johnson petitioned the commonwealth court for outright 'ownership' of another individual.

'Slavery' was a practice engaged for centuries and by every society. Over time people became more and more enlightened to the human experience. In this country even before 1776 and the eventual formation of what became the United States, territories were banning the practice of slavery (Rhode Island, Pennsylvania for example). The US as a country was in a constant state of flux and growth. The US banned the importation of slaves and targeted the institution to end it it while the country was in its infancy. Where there 'racists' then? Sure...just as there are now and always WILL be. To say the country was racist because it allowed slavery is just simply wrong. Are 'Africans' today racist because they continue to allow the practice?
Click to expand...

Maybe not, but it was definitely racist for other reasons.
 
Ockham said:
I'm sure there are those who "hated" certain other races in 1776 but primarily they were not hated, just seen as property - like cattle or other tools and implements. Racism is a modern concept.
Click to expand...
I showed you the post of a scientist in the 18th century who literally said that the white race was superior to others and you clearly chose to ignore it. It's not a modern concept at all, even CC admitted that white superiority was the norm back them.
 
Ockham said:
I'm sure there are those who "hated" certain other races in 1776 but primarily they were not hated, just seen as property - like cattle or other tools and implements. .
Click to expand...

I agree with that.

Racism is a modern concept
Click to expand...

The word racism itself is a modern concept. It still does not change the fact there were people who believed that some races were inferior and some were superior and that some people hate others because of the color of their skin and that there should be laws that foster these ideas.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Maybe not, but it was definitely racist for other reasons.
Click to expand...

"the country' was not racist. Many hated the practice and spoke out against it. Many that followed the practice were simply following historical and cultural trends. The study of history requires only that we LEARN...understand. Attempting to judge history absed on modern understandings and the very lessons we learned FROM them is simply foolishness. SOME PEOPLE were then (and are today) 'racist.' The practice of slavery was not in and of itself racist.
There are places in Africa today were people feel the right to enslave others because their cultural identity is inferior and its what they know. Are they 'racist' or have they simply not yet advanced as a people? Do they live their culture (wrong though it is)?
 
jamesrage said:
I agree with that.



The word racism itself is a modern concept. It still does not change the fact there were people who believed that some races were inferior and some were superior and that some people hate others because of the color of their skin and that there should be laws that foster these ideas.
Click to expand...

There were also people...scientists even that believed the world was flat. They didnt believe that because they were stupid, they believed it because they had no better frame of reference. When tomorrows scientists look back at our ideas today they will find many things that we were simply wrong about. It wont be because todays scientists are morons...it will be because todays scientists offered tomorrows scientists the gift of experience, theory, trial and error. Human beings are relatively intelligent. We 'learn'.
 
VanceMack said:
"the country' was not racist. Many hated the practice and spoke out against it. Many that followed the practice were simply following historical and cultural trends. The study of history requires only that we LEARN...understand. Attempting to judge history absed on modern understandings and the very lessons we learned FROM them is simply foolishness. SOME PEOPLE were then (and are today) 'racist.' The practice of slavery was not in and of itself racist.
There are places in Africa today were people feel the right to enslave others because their cultural identity is inferior and its what they know. Are they 'racist' or have they simply not yet advanced as a people? Do they live their culture (wrong though it is)?
Click to expand...

That's not what I'm trying to argue. Slavery doesn't enter into my argument. I'm saying the country was racist because the vast majority of Americans held racist views (racist, meaning the belief that the races were FUNDAMENTALLY different and that whites were superior). These were views held by almost everyone at the time, regardless of whether or not they supported slavery. And that is what made the country racist.
 
VanceMack said:
"the country' was not racist. Many hated the practice and spoke out against it. Many that followed the practice were simply following historical and cultural trends. The study of history requires only that we LEARN...understand. Attempting to judge history absed on modern understandings and the very lessons we learned FROM them is simply foolishness. SOME PEOPLE were then (and are today) 'racist.' The practice of slavery was not in and of itself racist.
There are places in Africa today were people feel the right to enslave others because their cultural identity is inferior and its what they know. Are they 'racist' or have they simply not yet advanced as a people? Do they live their culture (wrong though it is)?
Click to expand...
The problem is that we're not talking about right vs. wrong. We're talking about racist vs. non-racist and racism has a very morality-neutral definition. You can be racist and not advanced, you can be racist and normal in your thought process. The scientific basis for racism and the morality of it are completely separate from whether or not racism exists.
 
You keep making the same mistake. You are using a modern-day definition of racism, which of course, some of the founding fathers were. Then you assume that the modern definition is the only definition, which is plainly wrong. The people living in 1776 plainly wouldn't have considered themselves racist because what they believed was typical of their day. Trying to take modern-day sensibilities and imposing them on people of the past is a waste of time, just as it will be when people of the future look at how we conduct ourselves and declare us to be something-ist. What's the point?
 
Cephus said:
You keep making the same mistake. You are using a modern-day definition of racism, which of course, some of the founding fathers were. Then you assume that the modern definition is the only definition, which is plainly wrong. The people living in 1776 plainly wouldn't have considered themselves racist because what they believed was typical of their day. Trying to take modern-day sensibilities and imposing them on people of the past is a waste of time, just as it will be when people of the future look at how we conduct ourselves and declare us to be something-ist. What's the point?
Click to expand...

That is totally irrelevant.
 
Cephus said:
You keep making the same mistake. You are using a modern-day definition of racism, which of course, some of the founding fathers were. Then you assume that the modern definition is the only definition, which is plainly wrong. The people living in 1776 plainly wouldn't have considered themselves racist because what they believed was typical of their day. Trying to take modern-day sensibilities and imposing them on people of the past is a waste of time, just as it will be when people of the future look at how we conduct ourselves and declare us to be something-ist. What's the point?
Click to expand...
If X = "belief in the superiority of certain races", then someone who believes in the superiority of his race is X. It's that simple.
 
theplaydrive said:
If X = "belief in the superiority of certain races", then someone who believes in the superiority of his race is X. It's that simple.
Click to expand...

Fine, I didn't disagree with you. I just pointed out that X has not always meant that, nor will it probably always mean that. Funny how definitions and ideas change over time.
 
Cephus said:
Fine, I didn't disagree with you. I just pointed out that X has not always meant that, nor will it probably always mean that. Funny how definitions and ideas change over time.
Click to expand...

Words and definitions change over time, yes. But in this context, racist means racist. The WORD "racism" didn't mean something different back in 1776 (because it didn't mean anything at all, since the word hadn't been coined yet, the earliest recorded use of the word "racism" was in 1936 according to the OED). The definition of racist has for the most part changed little since then, except for political hacks on both sides who have twisted its meaning to mean whatever they don't like.

None of this takes away from the fact that people back then were, indeed, racists.
 
StillBallin75 said:
That's not what I'm trying to argue. Slavery doesn't enter into my argument. I'm saying the country was racist because the vast majority of Americans held racist views (racist, meaning the belief that the races were FUNDAMENTALLY different and that whites were superior). These were views held by almost everyone at the time, regardless of whether or not they supported slavery. And that is what made the country racist.
Click to expand...

Darwin promoted the idea that there were savage people. MOST people from around the world including the middle east identified 'savages' as people that existed culturally far longer but still lived a (for lack of a better word) 'savage' existence. They didnt identify whites or Europeans as superior. They didnt identify as an example Egyptians as inferior. People that knew there were other races and knew about dark skinned people from developed and developing worlds understood that not all blacks were the same and certainly not savages. Those that DIDNT know about the existence of other cultures knew there were 'savages' as they had been taught. Thats not a racist philosophy...its an expression of their current societal development. Why people feel the need to project their modern knowledge enhanced with the blessings of many peoples LIFETIMES of experience on those that had little if any practical education is beyond me.
 
I don't know how anyone could vote that there wasn't racism in 1776. Racism has been around for a long, long time. It would be remarkable indeed if there had somehow been the slavery of blacks without there being any racism.
 
theplaydrive said:
The problem is that we're not talking about right vs. wrong. We're talking about racist vs. non-racist and racism has a very morality-neutral definition. You can be racist and not advanced, you can be racist and normal in your thought process. The scientific basis for racism and the morality of it are completely separate from whether or not racism exists.
Click to expand...

The problem is you insist on judging a people from centuries ago with todays standard. Good lord dood...most of the people back in the 1700s had never SEEN a black person before. Many that knew of slavery stood against it. That you have the privelege of being able to judge them racist only occurs because those people from that era CHANGED a society.
 
Luna Tick said:
I don't know how anyone could vote that there wasn't racism in 1776. Racism has been around for a long, long time. It would be remarkable indeed if there had somehow been the slavery of blacks without there being any racism.
Click to expand...

Including in Africa, where blacks enslaved blacks long before there was an America, during its formation, and...oh yeah...today?
 
VanceMack said:
Darwin promoted the idea that there were savage people. MOST people from around the world including the middle east identified 'savages' as people that existed culturally far longer but still lived a (for lack of a better word) 'savage' existence. They didnt identify whites or Europeans as superior. They didnt identify as an example Egyptians as inferior. People that knew there were other races and knew about dark skinned people from developed and developing worlds understood that not all blacks were the same and certainly not savages. Those that DIDNT know about the existence of other cultures knew there were 'savages' as they had been taught. Thats not a racist philosophy...its an expression of their current societal development. Why people feel the need to project their modern knowledge enhanced with the blessings of many peoples LIFETIMES of experience on those that had little if any practical education is beyond me.
Click to expand...

Disagree. Racism existed back then, as TPD has shown back in the other thread. Any attempt to twist it any other way is engaging in revisionist history.

Your argument is like saying just because a white guy thinks one black guy is "articulate," he is therefore not a racist.
 
VanceMack said:
The problem is you insist on judging a people from centuries ago with todays standard. Good lord dood...most of the people back in the 1700s had never SEEN a black person before. Many that knew of slavery stood against it. That you have the privelege of being able to judge them racist only occurs because those people from that era CHANGED a society.
Click to expand...
If X = "belief in the superiority of certain races", then someone who believes in the superiority of his race is X. It's that simple.
 
"Modern-day slaves can be found laboring as servants or concubines in Sudan, as child "carpet slaves" in India, or as cane-cutters in Haiti and southern Pakistan, to name but a few instances. According to Anti-Slavery International, the world's oldest human rights organization, there are currently over 20 million people in bondage.
Slave Trading on Africa's West Coast
The slave trade in Africa was officially banned in the early 1880s, but forced labor continues to be practiced in West and Central Africa today. UNICEF estimates that 200,000 children from this region are sold into slavery each year. Many of these children are from Benin and Togo, and are sold into the domestic, agricultural, and sex industries of wealthier, neighboring countries such as Nigeria and Gabon.
UNICEF estimates that 200,000 children from West and Central Africa are sold into slavery each year.
The most recent incident involved the MV Etireno, which was refused from ports in Gabon and Cameroon. When the ship reached Cotonou, Benin, in April, 2001, police began an investigation of the captain and crew. More adults than children were believed to be aboard.
Chattel slavery in Sudan
The enslavement of the Dinkas in southern Sudan may be the most horrific and well-known example of contemporary slavery. According to 1993 U.S. State Department estimates, up to 90,000 blacks are owned by North African Arabs, and often sold as property in a thriving slave trade for as little as $15 per human being.
"There he found several Dinka men hobbling, their Achilles tendons cut because they refused to become Muslims."
Animist tribes in southern Sudan are frequently invaded by Arab militias from the North, who kill the men and enslave the women and children. The Arabs consider it a traditional right to enslave southerners, and to own chattel slaves (slaves owned as personal property).

Frekin savages...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom