CRT crazies bite the Pentagon, the Pentagon bites back - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15180368
https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/works/determinism.htm
Even though consciousness can only be directly experienced subjectively, subjective experience cannot be scientific. The science of consciousness, not unlike the sciences of history and geology, relies on surmising the subject matter from objective traces given to the researcher in the observation of behavior. But these traces are not themselves the subject matter of the science. The intelligible explanation of historical processes entails surmising what can never be observed, and first-person reports of historical events are no more than evidence which the historian places alongside other evidence. Nonetheless, historiography relies on the plausibility of intelligible explanations of great historical changes in terms of mundane conversations and concrete events and seeks evidence of such events wherever possible. Likewise, the psychologist places the reports of subjective experience (including their own) alongside other evidence which is objective and verifiable.


https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/help/foucaul1.htm
Now, just as Mach played a "confusing but necessary" role in the 1890s, preparatory to the natural scientific revolutions of the turn-of-the-century, Foucault's war on "naïve structuralism", his insistence on halting at the presumption of what lies behind the trace, of all those categories like "influence", "author" and geographical, temporal or social continuity, is a "necessary but confusing" obstacle.
What lies behind the trace is materiality. One cannot go beyond that without slipping into dogmatism. One cannot deny that and avoid scepticism.
For example, the victim of a murder-rape is silent, their violator is articulate. Maybe we never hear the words of the victim, hear her testimony or even see her body. But what kind of science is it that asks use to confine ourselves to the traces, if (in this example) they be only the testimony of the rapist? Perhaps we are forced to return an open verdict in this case. Who knows - but something happened! I cannot presume to speak for the silent, but I must hear the silence.
This example is extreme, and perhaps for that reason unfortunate. It is well-known that the dominant ruling classes of any society write the history, they leave their traces on every monument, every document and their names live forever. Must we not surmise what lay behind? whose hands built the monument to Kubla Khan?
#15180369
Unthinking Majority wrote:Obviously, but what about Irish slavery from 350 years ago?

The Irish had achieved political and social equality with other "white" Americans by about the beginning of the 20th century, and their position was considerably better than that of African-Americans for centuries before then. So, no. They were never slaves, even 350 years ago, but in bonded servitude - and the English, the Scots and the Welsh were also in bonded servitude at the same time. Do you hear them whining about it? :eh:
#15180385
Fasces wrote:1. Many people elites at the time know their diaries will be read and write accordingly.

2. It doesn't matter if most people knew. Most people don't make decisions.

3. 1619 makes the claim that the traditional narrative is wrong because it overly relies on the claim that we can accurately assign intent to historical records. As long as you try to disprove it by relying on historical records, you fundamentally misunderstand the critique it is making. CRT in general doesn't try to replace other narratives or ways of examining history either. It is simply a perspective/lens one can use alongside any other, including a traditional histiography.

Its a very normal thing to read a paper that begins "Let's analyze the "Assassination of Allende" (or other historical event) from a Marxist/Traditional/CRT/Feminist/etc perspective."


First off I like your writing style and ability to reason. Very enjoyable to read.

Next I must respectfully disagree with you comment CRT is simply a perspective/lens one can use alongside any other, including a traditional histiography. I wish it was. If it is great. Then I agree it should be used as one of many approaches.

With due respect however having been a professor of Law for over 25 years I have seen it used to shut down dialogue of views other than those of CRT holders. Its become a trendy way to shut down any forms of expression other than ones stated by CRT followers on campuses.

I am also Canadian so our collective experience with all minorities is a bit different. We find CRT very US-centric, i.e., predicated on black American experiences within the consequences of slavery when it discusses race relations.
Last edited by PhantomStranger on 10 Jul 2021 19:19, edited 3 times in total.
#15180387
PhantomStranger wrote:
First off I love your writing style and ability to reason. Very enjoyable to read.

Next I must disagree with you comment CRT is simply a perspective/lens one can use alongside any other, including a traditional histiography.

If I believed people were as reasonable as you about using it I would have zero problems with it although I disagree as a fundamental principle in lumping anyone into a skin colour category for ANY reason.

With due respect having been a professor of Law for over 25 years I have seen it used to shut down dialogue of views other than those of CRT holders stating a specific rigid interpretation of what it must mean and putting down anyone who disagrees and trying to stop debate by accusing those who disagree with many of its premises as being "racist" and "denying racism".

I can and do acknowledge institutionalized behavipour that discriminates. It doesn't mean I have to agree with all other premises of CRT nor does it mean because I don't I deny racism or am a racist.

I would have zero problems explaining my concerns to you in open dialogue. I am sure you would understand me. I can not say the same for others who are now using CRT as a method to shut down critical thinking and analysis and for that matter showing basic common courtesy and tolerance of differing views.

In my practical legal world I see the reality of inequality on the streets and no it is not captured by CRT or for that matter many other theories in the world of academia.

Some people I see being accused of being racist according to CRT definitions are the most open minded, flexible, realistic people I have ever met. They treat people the way they want to be treated so they avoid labels of any kind. They take each person one at a time. The labels such as white privilege just don't work. They are being put in jail with whites for the exact same reasons, unemployment, drug addiction, street violence, domestic disputes, mental illness. Yes they know a black man driving a certain kind of car in the wrong neighbourhood will be profiled for sure. They know what that is. They also know how anyone on the street can be profiled for other reasons and they know most people on the street committing crimes are white not black if for no other reason they are a larger population but because they fail for the same reasons.

Poverty, mental illness, drug addiction, they don't distinguish white from black and when people get shot or knifed they bleed the same colour.

I left behind the labels years ago. I learned from street people, i.e., criminals, the homeless, the mentally ill, drug addicts, physicians, nurses, police officers, paramedics, on the street when people fail, its all one colourless chaotic mess and you do your best to take it one person at a time in any given situation. Anyone can kill you, hurt you or die or od the same way.

Labels that blame society and specific people in society don't mean shit on the street. They don't help fix it, they don't help address it, all they do is keep professors employed and students busy thinking they are learning something.

If students want to learn the best way they can learn is to come work in a street clinic and see how their theories don't mean a damn thing to someone with fleas, rotted teeth, withdrawal symptoms, hearing voices.



Good post, and well written.

But let's throw CRT out the window, not really relevant. The looney Right is using it as a distraction. One of the things they are trying to distract us from is reform. So, as much as I like your writing, what reforms would you support?
#15180392
wat0n wrote:
Why would they ignore historians they consulted with?



"Since The 1619 Project was published in August, we have received a great deal of feedback from readers, many of them educators, academics and historians. A majority have reacted positively to the project, but there have also been criticisms. Some I would describe as constructive, noting episodes we might have overlooked; others have treated the work more harshly. We are happy to accept all of this input, as it helps us continue to think deeply about the subject of slavery and its legacy.

The letter from Professors Bynum, McPherson, Oakes, Wilentz and Wood differs from the previous critiques we have received in that it contains the first major request for correction. We are familiar with the objections of the letter writers, as four of them have been interviewed in recent months by the World Socialist Web Site. We’re glad for a chance to respond directly to some of their objections.

Though we respect the work of the signatories, appreciate that they are motivated by scholarly concern and applaud the efforts they have made in their own writings to illuminate the nation’s past, we disagree with their claim that our project contains significant factual errors and is driven by ideology rather than historical understanding. While we welcome criticism, we don’t believe that the request for corrections to The 1619 Project is warranted.

The project was intended to address the marginalization of African-American history in the telling of our national story and examine the legacy of slavery in contemporary American life. We are not ourselves historians, it is true. We are journalists, trained to look at current events and situations and ask the question: Why is this the way it is? In the case of the persistent racism and inequality that plague this country, the answer to that question led us inexorably into the past..."
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/20/magazine/we-respond-to-the-historians-who-critiqued-the-1619-project.html

The editor goes on to point out that the 1619 project had a bunch of historians. Historians that shared part, or all, of the interpretation expressed by the project.

So this is how it would work, if you actually wanted to participate, instead of doing your usual propaganda work. You would need to read a bunch of historians to get a feel for the different schools of racist history. You would need to find out which one is the SI, and how the fighting is going in historical journals about whether we should update the SI.

As I've said repeatedly, historians will smooth any rough edges, not that it matters in the slightest. They are journalists, and they've already accomplished what they set out to do; to make more people aware of the horror of our history.

This is how change happens. Academics in the 70s started updating our history with Indians, which found it's way into journalism and movies. Eventually some reforms were enacted.
#15180394
late wrote:"Since The 1619 Project was published in August, we have received a great deal of feedback from readers, many of them educators, academics and historians. A majority have reacted positively to the project, but there have also been criticisms. Some I would describe as constructive, noting episodes we might have overlooked; others have treated the work more harshly. We are happy to accept all of this input, as it helps us continue to think deeply about the subject of slavery and its legacy.

The letter from Professors Bynum, McPherson, Oakes, Wilentz and Wood differs from the previous critiques we have received in that it contains the first major request for correction. We are familiar with the objections of the letter writers, as four of them have been interviewed in recent months by the World Socialist Web Site. We’re glad for a chance to respond directly to some of their objections.

Though we respect the work of the signatories, appreciate that they are motivated by scholarly concern and applaud the efforts they have made in their own writings to illuminate the nation’s past, we disagree with their claim that our project contains significant factual errors and is driven by ideology rather than historical understanding. While we welcome criticism, we don’t believe that the request for corrections to The 1619 Project is warranted.

The project was intended to address the marginalization of African-American history in the telling of our national story and examine the legacy of slavery in contemporary American life. We are not ourselves historians, it is true. We are journalists, trained to look at current events and situations and ask the question: Why is this the way it is? In the case of the persistent racism and inequality that plague this country, the answer to that question led us inexorably into the past..."
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/20/magazine/we-respond-to-the-historians-who-critiqued-the-1619-project.html

The editor goes on to point out that the 1619 project had a bunch of historians. Historians that shared part, or all, of the interpretation expressed by the project.

So this is how it would work, if you actually wanted to participate, instead of doing your usual propaganda work. You would need to read a bunch of historians to get a feel for the different schools of racist history. You would need to find out which one is the SI, and how the fighting is going in historical journals about whether we should update the SI.

As I've said repeatedly, historians will smooth any rough edges, not that it matters in the slightest. They are journalists, and they've already accomplished what they set out to do; to make more people aware of the horror of our history.

This is how change happens. Academics in the 70s started updating our history with Indians, which found it's way into journalism and movies. Eventually some reforms were enacted.


Yes, the project called a bunch of historians and indeed I gave you an example of a Black female historian who was contacted by the NYT - but whose advice was not heard. The rough edges won't be smoothed if historians are not heard - and if there's controversy among historians then the honest thing to do is to report on it, which would lead to just similar discussions about the history of race relations in the US (but it seems there is no controversy about the facts that support some specific claims made by Nikole Hannah-Jones about the American Revolution in particular. Even leftist historians pushed back).

So I'll ask again: Is it honest for the 1619 Project to pretend to be historically grounded when in reality they decided to ignore the advice from historians they consulted with?
#15180399
wat0n wrote:
Why does Kimberley consider July 4th is a tragedy?




The July 4 holiday in the United States commemorates the signing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776. Anyone educated in this country has been propagandized with lies about patriotic colonists seeking freedom from a tyrannical British monarch. Our minds were filled with tales of Paul Revere and Betsy Ross which erase the role that indigenous and Black people played as they attempted to end true tyranny over their lives.



https://blackagendareport.com/freedom-r ... s-july-4th



wat0n wrote:
Nonresponse here - unless you are conceding my point.



I thought you would accept the content about Kimberley to be in her own words.

Per your *formalistic* objection, I'll simply *paraphrase*, to point out the hypocrisy of the Declaration of Independence, in calling for an end to political tyranny while at the same time *exercising* such tyranny over BIPOC people.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:



King George III issued the Proclamation of 1763, which forbade settlement west of the Appalachian mountains. One of the speculators poised to become a wealthier man if settlements were permitted to move westward was George Washington.

He was not alone in his wish to conquer the entire continent and to get rich doing it. Property claims had already been made in these regions, and neither he nor the rest of his cohort were going to let British treaties with indigenous people stand in their way. They largely ignored the edict and went wherever they wanted to go.



wat0n wrote:
And Kimberley is not mentioning that Washington's land claims would be recognized by the British-Cherokee Treaty of Lochaber in 1770...



ckaihatsu wrote:
Hmmmm, I think you're missing the point -- Kimberley speaks to *economic motive* in the first place:


The crown and the colonists were both determined to seize lands from native peoples and to continue enslavement. But their interests were also hostile to one another and war was the inevitable result. White settlers wanted full independence for themselves and no control over their actions at all.

The indigenous populations were nearly eradicated in the decades long quest for conquest. Expanding slavery was an integral part of those efforts against native peoples. Genocide could not be carried out completely nor could any accommodation be made with European nations in the quest to control land from sea to shining sea. That is why the settlers declared their independence.



wat0n wrote:
...Which was rendered moot by the treaties.



No, the white colonists *retained* their material economic interests for land westward, and for genocide and slavery. As Kimberley notes, these *material* interests motivated their *political* interests for independence from the British Empire.

Treaties with the Native Americans, as you should know, were ignored and *broken* by the white settlers.



The Royal Proclamation of 1763 redrew boundaries of the lands west of Quebec and west of a line running along the crest of the Allegheny Mountains, making them indigenous territory and barred to colonial settlement for two years. The colonists protested, and the boundary line was adjusted in a series of treaties with indigenous tribes. In 1768, the Iroquois agreed to the Treaty of Fort Stanwix, and the Cherokee agreed to the Treaty of Hard Labour followed in 1770 by the Treaty of Lochaber. The treaties opened most of Kentucky and West Virginia to colonial settlement. The new map was drawn up at the Treaty of Fort Stanwix in 1768 which moved the line much farther to the west, from the green line to the red line on the map at right.[24]

Image
New borders drawn by the Royal Proclamation of 1763



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution



---


wat0n wrote:
Taxes is just one aspect, however. It seems that what truly irked them was the fact that they were being taxed without having much venues of representation.




From snowballs to musket balls

There are times in history when one small action can cause an explosion, just as a pinprick can burst a balloon. That small action occurred in Boston harbour in November 1773. An East India Company ship was delivering a cargo of tea, with which the governor’s sons intended to break the boycott against the remaining tax. While thousands protested on the shore, 100 activists dressed as Native Americans boarded the ship and threw the tea overboard.

Respectable leaders of colonial opinion were horrified. It was ‘an act of violent injustice’ stormed Benjamin Franklin.11 But it found a powerful echo among those already bitter at the British government—and it was the last straw for that government. It appointed a General Gage as governor of Massachusetts, with a mandate to bring the colony to heel, dispatched troops to Boston and passed the Intolerance Acts which decreed that colonists breaking the laws would be hauled to Britain for trial.

The issue was no longer taxation. It was whether the inhabitants of the colonies would have any say in the laws governing them—as Jefferson put it, ‘whether 160,000 electors in the island of Great Britain give law to four million in the states of America’12 (conveniently forgetting that in his own Virginia, black slaves and many poor whites had no say whatever). All the colonies were threatened. There was a wave of outrage throughout them, and committees sprang up to give expression to it. The tea boycott spread, and the 13 colonial assemblies agreed to send delegates to another Continental Congress.

The people at the Congress were, by and large, respectable property owners. They had risen to prominence within the structures of the British Empire and had no desire to overthrow them. Given the choice, they would have preferred things to continue in the old way. But that was not an option. They called for a new trade boycott. But the severity of the measures taken by the British government meant that such a boycott could not just be left to the merchants. It had to be reinforced by the organisation of mass resistance. In every ‘county, city and town’, people had to elect committees to agitate against buying or consuming British goods.13

This was not a problem for the planters of Virginia, who joined with Massachusetts in pushing for the boycott. They controlled all the structures of the colony apart from the governor. They could impose their will without disturbance. But elsewhere it raised a thousand and one questions.

In Massachusetts popular opinion was near-unanimous against the British measures. But judges in places such as Worcester county had decided to implement the new laws. What should be done? In New York many of the wealthier merchants profited from Britain’s imperial trade and were reluctant to follow the boycott, while the powerful landowning families would follow the lead of the British governor. Again, what was to be done? In Pennsylvania, much of the Quaker merchant elite would put ‘loyalty’ to Britain above the call of their fellow colonists. What was to be done there?

The call for committees to impose the boycott implied, whether the Continental Congress recognised the fact or not, the revolutionary replacement of old institutions by new ones.



Harman, _People's History of the World_, pp. 269-270
#15180402
Fasces, I'm going to try something a little different here, if you'll indulge me -- after each of the following excerpts from your posts I've included one or more political diagrams of mine that I think are relevant and illustrative. Feel free to follow up on any, all, or none. Thanks.


Fasces wrote:
The debate about whether 1619 is true or not true misses the point entirely. It is as true and untrue as any other history of the United States. The debate should be about whether 1619 is useful to contemporary society.



philosophical abstractions

Spoiler: show
Image



History, Macro-Micro -- Political (Cognitive) Dissonance

Spoiler: show
Image



---


Fasces wrote:
They're not being dishonest, but may appear to be because you're not debating them on their terms. They are offering a histographic perspective. It is a narrative intended to highlight certain factors, much like a Marxist history would focus on class relations, or a feminist history focusing on contributions of women. None of these narratives are True, and they are also not Untrue, and the same applies to the traditional Great Man narrative taught in American schools.
IE:
Traditionally we say that George Washington and his pals led the fight against Britain in order to establish liberty and a grand new liberal world order against European absolutism. This is true.
Marxists say that GW and pals led the fight against Britain to protect their capitalist interests as landowners. The revolution was a bourgeoise revolt that protected capital from abuse by the crown. This is also true.
CRTs say that GW and pals led the fight against Britain to protect the rights of American slaveholders and that the revolution protected slavery and racism institutionally. This is also true.
What proponents of the 1619 project want is for all alternative narratives and historical perspectives to be taught to students, as well - not just the traditional one - and that there is social value in doing so.



History, Macro-Micro -- Political (Cognitive) Dissonance

Spoiler: show
Image



---


Fasces wrote:
They're not facts. Without a time machine and a mind reading device, you cannot state anything as a historical fact.



philosophical abstractions

Spoiler: show
Image



---


Fasces wrote:
Yes, but both should recognize that by using sources you are fundamentally limiting your understanding of history to the perspective of the literate part of society - a perspective which will exclude many laborers, women and the vast, vast majority of slaves. Such a perspective is fundamentally distorted, something I'm sure your girlfriend can explain to you.



History, Macro-Micro -- Political (Cognitive) Dissonance

Spoiler: show
Image



---

Fasces wrote:
the topic of whether CRT is a valid perspective that should be considered when teaching history.



History, Macro-Micro -- politics-logistics-lifestyle

Spoiler: show
Image



---


Fasces wrote:
Well, that'd be a debate you can have a critical race theorist, and it would be on their terms. That's the discussion they're trying to have.



History, Macro-Micro -- Political (Cognitive) Dissonance

Spoiler: show
Image
#15180403
ckaihatsu wrote:I thought you would accept the content about Kimberley to be in her own words.

Per your *formalistic* objection, I'll simply *paraphrase*, to point out the hypocrisy of the Declaration of Independence, in calling for an end to political tyranny while at the same time *exercising* such tyranny over BIPOC people.


Sure. So? Does it mean the US should be a British colony?

ckaihatsu wrote:No, the white colonists *retained* their material economic interests for land westward, and for genocide and slavery. As Kimberley notes, these *material* interests motivated their *political* interests for independence from the British Empire.


Again, the British Empire had signed treaties that had dealt with the demands of those white colonists at the time, and it also did not threaten slavery until the Revolutionary War had begun. If anything, one would believe that the colonists would rather keep British support and just paid the higher taxes necessary to fund the wars necessary for expansion instead.

ckaihatsu wrote:Treaties with the Native Americans, as you should know, were ignored and *broken* by the white settlers.


And they had been doing so long before the American Revolution began, and would do so again once the US had established its federal system of government. In what way did independence change any of these?

ckaihatsu wrote:---


Indeed, the boycotts were one such way to express their discomfort with British policies on the matters of taxation and representation. Again, this had little to do with matters such as slavery.
#15180486
wat0n wrote:
The rough edges won't be smoothed if historians are not heard

- and if there's controversy among historians then the honest thing to do is to report on it

which would lead to just similar discussions about the history of race relations in the US






You keep running away from reality. Historians work out the specifics among themselves. In addition, it's amazing how much historians are being heard at the moment. Quite unusual..

It's being reported.

Not if Republican cancel culture can keep saving Republican political correctness.
#15180502
late wrote:You keep running away from reality. Historians work out the specifics among themselves. In addition, it's amazing how much historians are being heard at the moment. Quite unusual..

It's being reported.

Not if Republican cancel culture can keep saving Republican political correctness.


It's the press' job to report accurately, that includes reporting when there is a controversy among experts in a topic. And they actually do just that, at least when it comes to other less political topics - including in the NYT. If you want an example, you can read about its reporting about the replication crisis in psychology.
#15180549
wat0n wrote:
It's the press' job to report accurately...



If you want something to b*tch about, look at Fox. One day they mentioned CRT a hundred times by 1PM.. And it was all the same brain dead BS you shovel.

Anyway.. if you want to contribute something (you don't this is purely hypothetical) you need to know something.

One of those things is that the press has been doing advocacy since the days of George Washington. Your constant whining about what is actually a difference in interpretation is just BS. Fox and the other Right wing lunatic sources are hundreds of times worse.

I haven't said boo, they aren't worth talking about. But you care (I make the little joke) so you should be whining a few hundreds times about them for every time you whine about the Times.

If you weren't pathetic, that is.
#15180556
late wrote:If you want something to b*tch about, look at Fox. One day they mentioned CRT a hundred times by 1PM.. And it was all the same brain dead BS you shovel.

Anyway.. if you want to contribute something (you don't this is purely hypothetical) you need to know something.

One of those things is that the press has been doing advocacy since the days of George Washington. Your constant whining about what is actually a difference in interpretation is just BS. Fox and the other Right wing lunatic sources are hundreds of times worse.

I haven't said boo, they aren't worth talking about. But you care (I make the little joke) so you should be whining a few hundreds times about them for every time you whine about the Times.

If you weren't pathetic, that is.


Is Fox being Fox an excuse for the NYT to be going on the way to becoming a leftist counterpart?

Then some people wonder why the press has lost credibility over the years... Because, yes, American press is partisan. But this does not excuse poor reporting.
#15180562
ckaihatsu wrote:
I thought you would accept the content about Kimberley to be in her own words.

Per your *formalistic* objection, I'll simply *paraphrase*, to point out the hypocrisy of the Declaration of Independence, in calling for an end to political tyranny while at the same time *exercising* such tyranny over BIPOC people.



wat0n wrote:
Sure. So? Does it mean the US should be a British colony?




The crown and the colonists were both determined to seize lands from native peoples and to continue enslavement. But their interests were also hostile to one another and war was the inevitable result.



https://blackagendareport.com/freedom-r ... s-july-4th



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
No, the white colonists *retained* their material economic interests for land westward, and for genocide and slavery. As Kimberley notes, these *material* interests motivated their *political* interests for independence from the British Empire.



wat0n wrote:
Again, the British Empire had signed treaties that had dealt with the demands of those white colonists at the time, and it also did not threaten slavery until the Revolutionary War had begun.


wat0n wrote:
If anything, one would believe that the colonists would rather keep British support and just paid the higher taxes necessary to fund the wars necessary for expansion instead.



Yet that's not what actually happened, historically.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Treaties with the Native Americans, as you should know, were ignored and *broken* by the white settlers.



wat0n wrote:
And they had been doing so long before the American Revolution began, and would do so again once the US had established its federal system of government. In what way did independence change any of these?



Independence didn't change the Western interests for expropriating more land with genocide, and for more slave labor, with slavery.


ckaihatsu wrote:


wat0n wrote:
Indeed, the boycotts were one such way to express their discomfort with British policies on the matters of taxation and representation. Again, this had little to do with matters such as slavery.




Expanding slavery was an integral part of those efforts against native peoples. Genocide could not be carried out completely nor could any accommodation be made with European nations in the quest to control land from sea to shining sea. That is why the settlers declared their independence.



https://blackagendareport.com/freedom-r ... s-july-4th
#15180568
ckaihatsu wrote:---


You didn't answer the question... The text you quoted would suggest "no". But then the text you quoted at the end would say "yes".

ckaihatsu wrote:Yet that's not what actually happened, historically.


No, because expansion and slavery were at best secondary issues.

ckaihatsu wrote:Independence didn't change the Western interests for expropriating more land with genocide, and for more slave labor, with slavery.


Sure, hence how can slavery have been the cause of the American Revolution? :|
#15180570
wat0n wrote:Sure, hence how can slavery have been the cause of the American Revolution? :|

Indeed. In fact, all the evidence suggests that the Founding Fathers regarded slavery as an embarrassment - it was the basis of most of their personal fortunes, yet it contradicted everything they claimed to stand for. They never managed to square that particular circle. But to say that one of the main motivations for them to fight a war for independence from Britain was their wish to maintain the institution of slavery is just wrong. The British were not yet threatening to end slavery anywhere in their empire; the law simply asserted that it was illegal to own slaves in England. This essentially changed nothing; hardly anyone in England owned any slaves anyway. It was cheaper just to hire servants to change your bed linen or empty your chamber pots. Lol.
#15180640
ckaihatsu wrote:Fasces, I'm going to try something a little different here, if you'll indulge me -- after each of the following excerpts from your posts I've included one or more political diagrams of mine that I think are relevant and illustrative. Feel free to follow up on any, all, or none. Thanks.


Can't follow them, my man. There's enough text on them that you may as well just write a post and they're impossible to understand without at least a small introductory writeup, at least in the two minutes I'll try before moving on.
#15180672
Fasces wrote:
Can't follow them, my man. There's enough text on them that you may as well just write a post and they're impossible to understand without at least a small introductory writeup, at least in the two minutes I'll try before moving on.



Yeah, no prob -- if you like, maybe try clicking on each one to bring it up at the hosting site, then click on *that* one to get the full-size image so you can see the text. Or not.

It is true that the Hindu's gave us nothing. But […]

I dont buy it, Why would anyone go for a vacation […]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

@JohnRawls No. Your perception of it is not. I g[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

I'd be totally happy for us to send ground troop i[…]