Should we posthumously impeach the founding fathers

[Octavious]

Oct, taking your last two posts together. Do you think that the English were immune from the racism which justified hundreds of years of slavery?

No, nor have I suggested it

[orathaic]

Oct, taking your last two posts together. Do you think that the English were immune from the racism which justified hundreds of years of slavery?

No, nor have I suggested it

So you know about racism, and you claim that slavery has been abhorrent to English people for nearly a thousand years? What are you suggesting?

[Octavious]

Oct, taking your last two posts together. Do you think that the English were immune from the racism which justified hundreds of years of slavery?

No, nor have I suggested it

So you know about racism, and you claim that slavery has been abhorrent to English people for nearly a thousand years? What are you suggesting?

I'm not sure I understand the question...

[orathaic]

Poppycock. Slavery may have been permitted in the colonies, but it had been abolished in England by virtue of its clear moral repugnancy since shortly after the Norman invasion.

<snip>

The excuse that it was a different time with different standards simply doesn't wash. It's evil now, it was evil then, and it was evil countless of generations before.

This seems to suggest you don't understand that 'slavery' being a clear moral repugnancy didn't apply to non-White - who were consider less than human, by those who decided racism could make more money...

[brainbomb]

We need to impeach taft, US grant, Monroe, Teddy Roosevelt, TJ, GW, John Hancock, John Wilkes booth, and all the other slave owners.

I would say spending 26 million to impeach these slaver cretins would be a good amount. let them lawyer up. lets do this

[MajorMitchell]

Well I disagree with the proposition that the legal status of an activity is of little significance compared to the moral status of the activity, which I think is what Octavious has suggested. If anything I would suggest that the antithesis is true. The legal status of an activity is of greater significance than the moral status of the activity.

[Octavious]

Poppycock. Slavery may have been permitted in the colonies, but it had been abolished in England by virtue of its clear moral repugnancy since shortly after the Norman invasion.

<snip>

The excuse that it was a different time with different standards simply doesn't wash. It's evil now, it was evil then, and it was evil countless of generations before.

This seems to suggest you don't understand that 'slavery' being a clear moral repugnancy didn't apply to non-White - who were consider less than human, by those who decided racism could make more money...

I'm saying it did apply to non-Whites, and that the number of mixed race children between slaves and those in power is clear evidence that there was no confusion about whether they were human. Be in no doubt that slavery was known to be wrong, but they did it anyway.

[Octavious]

Well I disagree with the proposition that the legal status of an activity is of little significance compared to the moral status of the activity, which I think is what Octavious has suggested. If anything I would suggest that the antithesis is true. The legal status of an activity is of greater significance than the moral status of the activity.

If murder and rape was decriminalised would you go around murdering and raping? Of course not. The legality of something has really quite small an impact on most people's lives.

[orathaic]

I'm saying it did apply to non-Whites, and that the number of mixed race children between slaves and those in power is clear evidence that there was no confusion about whether they were human. Be in no doubt that slavery was known to be wrong, but they did it anyway.

The same speices and 'worthy of basic human dignity' are different things... Especially when you are talking about the rape of slaves, this might seem obvious.

That said, there was a particularly disgusting form of scientific racism which put aboriginal Australians closer to chimpanzees than to other humans.

Categories of White, Asian, Black, we're used to excuse this behaviour, because the others were not considered the same as us.

Reminds me of a conversation with Dawkins, where he admitted he would have owned slaves if he had lived 200 years ago (as a wealthy white man who doesn't consider the morality of his actions) ~ this conversation was about whether eating meat is morally repugnant.

[Octavious]

Categories of White, Asian, Black, we're used to excuse this behaviour, because the others were not considered the same as us.

Indeed. The very fact that even the slave owners required some form of excuse demonstrates how repugnant slavery was considered at the time. My argument is that the excuse was merely a pathway to enable the action, and that the action itself was never considered good. Our prisons are full of examples of people who are willing to do wrong to others for personal profit. Slavers are no different. They just had the political nouce to make their crime legal.

[orathaic]

Categories of White, Asian, Black, we're used to excuse this behaviour, because the others were not considered the same as us.

Indeed. The very fact that even the slave owners required some form of excuse demonstrates how repugnant slavery was considered at the time. My argument is that the excuse was merely a pathway to enable the action, and that the action itself was never considered good. Our prisons are full of examples of people who are willing to do wrong to others for personal profit. Slavers are no different. They just had the political nouce to make their crime legal.

Ah OK, I think I get you now.

To elaborate, it was far away (in colonies, and buying slaves from where they existed to begin with) for long enough that the gained enough wealth to become a powerful group who could set the law themselves.

[Randomizer]

Well I disagree with the proposition that the legal status of an activity is of little significance compared to the moral status of the activity, which I think is what Octavious has suggested. If anything I would suggest that the antithesis is true. The legal status of an activity is of greater significance than the moral status of the activity.

So because killing Jews and other groups during the Holocaust was legal and the morality was of lesser significance? The imprisonment of Japanese-Americans but not German-Americans during World War II was legal but not racist? There are plenty of other examples of morally repugnant behavior that was legally passed and in some cases is still going on around the world.

[orathaic]

Why and how it becomes legal is a question.

Back to attitudes towards slavery for a moment. I am sure you could find people 250 years ago in England who said it was morally repugnant but that didn't stop people from profiting from it.

Well today in England you can find people who say eating meat (or more particularly farming animals for slaughter) is morally repugnant. Will there come a time when this is also illegal? (and I say this a ls a vegetarian, who thinks he should go fully vegan).

I think the parallels are clear. Though I suspect the treatment of migrants (that is:asylum seekers, refugees and economic migrants as a combined group) is morally repugnant. Isolation, imprisonment, separation from families is horrible, and it of course leaves people open to abuse, so this should be no surprise:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/27/us/i ... abuse.html

(You saw similar abuses in Iraq when the US Army and CIA committed various acts of abuse against detainees: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghr ... oner_abuse)

You see the same on EU borders, with abusive treatment of migrants/asylum seekers:
https://www.euractiv.com/section/global ... -migrants/
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/02/worl ... reece.html
https://www.bbc.com/news/topics/cnx753j ... ant-crisis
https://www.euronews.com/2020/03/03/eur ... with-syria

[MajorMitchell]

I think Randomiser that the Nuremberg trials established certain principles regarding the Holocaust. I don't think I stated that the morality of an action is completely irrelevant, and it's not irrelevant, ie the morality of an action is important imho. What I do know is that it's extremely difficult to defend criminal charges on the basis of morality not law.
With regard to slavery, I think there are many forms of slavery and most are abhorrent. The one personal form of slavery that could be considered as amusing is my slavish obedience to the commands, dictates and whims of both my Lovely Fire Breathing MemSahib Her Serene Imperiousness Indoors lounging on a sofa eating cakes and my Adorable Princess Estelle. When they crack the proverbial whip I jump as directed.

[brainbomb]

Impeach LBJ
Impeach Warren G Harding
Impeach William Henry Harrison
Impeach John Staurt Mill

all slavers.

[MajorMitchell]

In some recent media commentary I saw/listened to on the oppression of the Uighars & others in China and the use of "re~educated" victims of that oppression being used as factory slaves allegations were made that huge global corporations with USA origins, Swooshy shoes & apparel and the fruit pc/it device co might have been mentioned with others.. are uncaring consumers in wealthy nations complicit in modern day industrial sweat shop forms of slavery as well as the shareholders/management of Corporations that purchase from these supply sources ?