Here's a link to Mikey's article in clownhalldotcom!
:P

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MichaelMedved/2007/09/26/six_inconvenient_truths_about_the_us_and_slavery

Now, there are some bloggers out there saying Mr. Medved is defending slavery.  Not at all.  He's just saying it wasn't all that bad.  These liberal revisionist historians spend so much time demonizing the peculiar institution they forget to give credit where credit is due!  American didn't invent slavery and, hey, everybody was doing it, and most countries did it worser for longer, so....

In case you don't feel giving clownhall another hit, here are Vedmed's "Six Inconvenient Truts About the U.S. and Slavery" in brief:

1. SLAVERY WAS AN ANCIENT AND UNIVERSAL INSTITUTION, NOT A DISTINCTIVELY AMERICAN INNOVATION.

2. SLAVERY EXISTED ONLY BRIEFLY, AND IN LIMITED LOCALES, IN THE HISTORY OF THE REPUBLIC – INVOLVING ONLY A TINY PERCENTAGE OF THE ANCESTORS OF TODAY’S AMERICANS.

3. THOUGH BRUTAL, SLAVERY WASN’T GENOCIDAL: LIVE SLAVES WERE VALUABLE BUT DEAD CAPTIVES BROUGHT NO PROFIT.

4. IT’S NOT TRUE THAT THE U.S. BECAME A WEALTHY NATION THROUGH THE ABUSE OF SLAVE LABOR: THE MOST PROSPEROUS STATES IN THE COUNTRY WERE THOSE THAT FIRST FREED THEIR SLAVES.

5. WHILE AMERICA DESERVES NO UNIQUE BLAME FOR THE EXISTENCE OF SLAVERY, THE UNITED STATES MERITS SPECIAL CREDIT FOR ITS RAPID ABOLITION.

6. THERE IS NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT TODAY’S AFRICAN-AMERICANS WOULD BE BETTER OFF IF THEIR ANCESTORS HAD REMAINED BEHIND IN AFRICA.

The reality show of my dreams is having guys like this live as slaves for 6 months.  Bring the wife and kids so we can sell the kids, rape the wife, and work him from dawn to dusk picking cotton in the heat of the Mississippi sun.  Have him keep his eyes averted, head down.  May take a few strokes of the lash, but he could pick up on it soon enough.

Bring the wife and kids so we can sell the kids, rape the wife

  http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/14/sign10.gif
Great turn of phrase!  I needed a good laugh this morning!

I just wish Medved was writing satire....I can get down with a sick sense of humor...but they guy's serious -- seriously effed-up in his brain!

So, Mike, your folks are Jewish, eh?  Well, let me tell you something, Pharoah wasn't such a bad guy after all and that Moses guy is just a bunch of liberal media hype!
:D

  http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/14/sign10.gif
Great turn of phrase!  I needed a good laugh this morning!

I just wish Medved was writing satire....I can get down with a sick sense of humor...but they guy's serious -- seriously effed-up in his brain!

So, Mike, your folks are Jewish, eh?  Well, let me tell you something, Pharoah wasn't such a bad guy after all and that Moses guy is just a bunch of liberal media hype!
:D




Hey, a little pogrom never hurt anyone, right?

Some of those (1 & 3 for example) are inarguable... some could be seen as a trifle revisionist:

4. IT’S NOT TRUE THAT THE U.S. BECAME A WEALTHY NATION THROUGH THE ABUSE OF SLAVE LABOR: THE MOST PROSPEROUS STATES IN THE COUNTRY WERE THOSE THAT FIRST FREED THEIR SLAVES.
Non sequitur: if the most prosperous states were those which never held slaves at all, he might have a point.  What he's saying is the ones who were rich (as a consequence of slavery?  no evidence presented) got a conscience.

5. WHILE AMERICA DESERVES NO UNIQUE BLAME FOR THE EXISTENCE OF SLAVERY, THE UNITED STATES MERITS SPECIAL CREDIT FOR ITS RAPID ABOLITION.
Does it really?  He's stretching a bit here...

I've just changed my mind about #1, too: slavery *wasn't* "universal".  There have been plenty of places around the world that have *never* seen slavery (some of the extremes of serfdom were virtually there, but there is IMO a big difference between the categories of "serf" and "slave").  "Prevalent", perhaps...

Michael Medved is a twerp. I'd like to give him a titty-twister or, put him in a headlock and give him a vicious noogie.

I dunno. I'm not really the bullying type, but something about Michael Medved makes me want to just...PICK on him.  ::)

It still does not make it right.  Any form of slavery now -a- days is considered a human rights violation.  Gads, where do they get morons like that?  Wonder if h's a Holocaust denier too? :P

"Those who want to discredit the United States and to deny our role as history’s most powerful and pre-eminent force for freedom, goodness and human dignity invariably focus on America’s bloody past as a slave-holding nation."

Un, no. All one has to do for that is look at Iraq.

Did anyone actually read the article? #2 is interesting...

"2. SLAVERY EXISTED ONLY BRIEFLY, AND IN LIMITED LOCALES, IN THE HISTORY OF THE REPUBLIC – INVOLVING ONLY A TINY PERCENTAGE OF THE ANCESTORS OF TODAY’S AMERICANS. The Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution put a formal end to the institution of slavery 89 years after the birth of the Republic; 142 years have passed since this welcome emancipation. Moreover, the importation of slaves came to an end in 1808 (as provided by the Constitution), a mere 32 years after independence, and slavery had been outlawed in most states decades before the Civil War. Even in the South, more than 80% of the white population never owned slaves. Given the fact that the majority of today’s non-black Americans descend from immigrants who arrived in this country after the War Between the States, only a tiny percentage of today’s white citizens – perhaps as few as 5% -- bear any authentic sort of generational guilt for the exploitation of slave labor. Of course, a hundred years of Jim Crow laws, economic oppression and indefensible discrimination followed the theoretical emancipation of the slaves, but those harsh realities raise different issues from those connected to the long-ago history of bondage."


The reality show of my dreams is having guys like this live as slaves for 6 months.  Bring the wife and kids so we can sell the kids, rape the wife, and work him from dawn to dusk picking cotton in the heat of the Mississippi sun.  Have him keep his eyes averted, head down.  May take a few strokes of the lash, but he could pick up on it soon enough.


Let me try to understand this correctly: this man prints an article that appears to have somewhat of a passionless, moderate, objective (and flawed in places) standpoint on slavery, with nothing even coming close to patent racism or white supremecy, no threats, etc., and your response is a reality TV show where, among other things, his wife gets raped?

:speechless:

Ant

Let me try to understand this correctly: this man prints an article that appears to have somewhat of a passionless, moderate, objective (and flawed in places) standpoint on slavery, with nothing even coming close to patent racism or white supremecy, no threats, etc., and your response is a reality TV show where, among other things, his wife gets raped?

:speechless:

Ant


I think if you're going to print an article that basically says "slavery is no big deal" you should be prepared to prove it.  Literally. 

Michael Medved is a twerp. I'd like to give him a titty-twister or, put him in a headlock and give him a vicious noogie.

I dunno. I'm not really the bullying type, but something about Michael Medved makes me want to just...PICK on him.  ::)

Medivac seems like he was a straight A student, but not the humble kind of straight A student who was nice to folks and would help you study for the exams and blushed if you called him "smart."  Medved was the adenoidal loudmouth who boasted about his IQ score and his grade point average and busted into everybody elses conversations to correct them on facts, saying "Boy are you guys dumb, you guys are SOOOOO dumb!"  Then he'd sit in the front row in every class and correct every mistake the teacher made, whining saucily, "But Mr. Sherman, the Volstead Act didn't make it illegal to possess alcohol...but Mr. Sherman, James Joyce was writing in that style decades before Faulkner, but Mr. Sherman...." until the teacher yelled, "Michael, just shut up already!"

So when the jocks gave him titty-twisters and wedgies, everybody nodded in approval!

(I went to school with just such a person.)

;D


Some of those (1 & 3 for example) are inarguable... some could be seen as a trifle revisionist:
Non sequitur: if the most prosperous states were those which never held slaves at all, he might have a point.  What he's saying is the ones who were rich (as a consequence of slavery?  no evidence presented) got a conscience.
Does it really?  He's stretching a bit here...

I've just changed my mind about #1, too: slavery *wasn't* "universal".  There have been plenty of places around the world that have *never* seen slavery (some of the extremes of serfdom were virtually there, but there is IMO a big difference between the categories of "serf" and "slave").  "Prevalent", perhaps...


Madvad meant, I think, that the states who abolished slavery first became the most prosperous.  He's factually correct on many points BUT the thrust of his argument is erroneous.  Medved is proposing the argument for one reason: To be smug and fuel the anger of liberals.  OK, that's two reasons. 

BTW, the reason trading slaves from Africa was prohibited in 1808 was because the missions were expensive, risky, and politically unpopular.  By 1808 the New World had a large enough pool of "coloreds" to obviate the need for trans-Atlantic transport.  Americans could easily buy slaves from the Caribbean or South America.  Remember, you could also breed your own.  An individual needed to be no more than 1/32 black and still be a slave.  By emancipation there were "slaves" with freckles and blond hair!  Tell it to Homer Plessy!
::) 


"
Let me try to understand this correctly: this man prints an article that appears to have somewhat of a passionless, moderate, objective (and flawed in places) standpoint on slavery, with nothing even coming close to patent racism or white supremecy, no threats, etc., and your response is a reality TV show where, among other things, his wife gets raped?

:speechless:

Ant

Wait a sec, Ant.  Danoota is engaging in hyperbole.  Do you honestly think she would like to see Medved's wife raped?  Of course not.  We only wish Medved was engaging in hyperbole. 

Medved's rhetoric smacks of post-bellum aplogists who used to day, "The black man was happier under slavery.  He got housed clothed and fed by his master. Sure he had to work hard during the day, but at night he got to play is banjo, sing his songs, and eat watermelon to his heart's content!"  Yeah, that's in bad taste...but that's what they used to say as little as 50 years ago.  A member of this very board thinks Uncle Remus is an acurate portrayal of a Southern house slave!
:o

The main thing he really screws up on is the "rapid abolition" part.  Most British colonies ended slavery in 1820.  It took us about another 50 years to end ours.  That's not exactly a rapid process by any standards, especially when you consider slavery was present in what would become America from the 1600s up until about 1870 -- nearly 3 hundred years.

The main thing he really screws up on is the "rapid abolition" part.  Most British colonies ended slavery in 1820.  It took us about another 50 years to end ours.  That's not exactly a rapid process by any standards, especially when you consider slavery was present in what would become America from the 1600s up until about 1870 -- nearly 3 hundred years.

Fifty years and the bloodiest war in our nation's history.  That is, more Americans died in the Civil War than in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam combined!
:o

Granted, the Civil War really had little to do with slavery, but it did provide a nice cover story for it...

It was really about a conflict of economic interests between Northern Industrialists and Southern plantation owners.

Granted, the Civil War really had little to do with slavery, but it did provide a nice cover story for it...

It was really about a conflict of economic interests between Northern Industrialists and Southern plantation owners.


It was about "states rights" to maintain the institution of slavery:

From the "Cornerstone Speech" by Alexander Stephens, who helped draft the Confederate constitution:
But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other —though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution—African slavery as it exists amongst us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind—from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just—but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.

In addition to states' rights, however, there were trade issues.  The South provided most of the raw materials for the industry of the North, and it really ticked off Southerners how Northern finished goods were too expensive for them to afford, even though they were made with their resources.

Also, there were issues involving tariffs and such and how foreign resources could be positioned against the resources of the South.

Determining which new states would become slave states and which would be free was a big deal for many reasons, but I would argue the trade conflicts were the real reasons behind the war.  Most wars are fought for economic reasons, not moral/social ones.

Medivac seems like he was a straight A student, but not the humble kind of straight A student who was nice to folks and would help you study for the exams and blushed if you called him "smart."  Medved was the adenoidal loudmouth who boasted about his IQ score and his grade point average and busted into everybody elses conversations to correct them on facts, saying "Boy are you guys dumb, you guys are SOOOOO dumb!"  Then he'd sit in the front row in every class and correct every mistake the teacher made, whining saucily, "But Mr. Sherman, the Volstead Act didn't make it illegal to possess alcohol...but Mr. Sherman, James Joyce was writing in that style decades before Faulkner, but Mr. Sherman...." until the teacher yelled, "Michael, just shut up already!"

So when the jocks gave him titty-twisters and wedgies, everybody nodded in approval!

(I went to school with just such a person.)

;D



Exactly! I work with a guy who's like that. He's not a bad guy but he's a complete know-it-all, everything is either "stupid" or "sucks," and he's generally has an all-around negative disposition. He's the type of guy who drives a full-size Chevy pickup yet bitches about the price of gas. I get along with him and I guess I'd consider him to be a friend but half the time I can't stand to be around him. Not just that, but he's a (thumps chest, deepens voice) CONSERVATIVE, by God.

I swear to God he'd make a great right-wing talk show host. Matter-of-fact, I'm starting to think that most of your conservative talk show hosts exhibit these same traits, i.e., they possess above-average intelligence and are very articulate but off the air they have atrocious social skills (at least when they're not around like-minded people).

Ever been to a party when some clown starts spouting off about politics and pretty much ruins the good vibe? That's pretty much how this guy is. He's always talking about how he wants to hang out with me but I just know that if he met some of my friends he'd be a complete dick to them. Yet he wonders why no one wants to hang out with him.

Let me try to understand this correctly: this man prints an article that appears to have somewhat of a passionless, moderate, objective (and flawed in places) standpoint on slavery, with nothing even coming close to patent racism or white supremecy, no threats, etc., and your response is a reality TV show where, among other things, his wife gets raped?

:speechless:

Ant




 
Wait a sec, Ant.  Danoota is engaging in hyperbole.  Do you honestly think she would like to see Medved's wife raped?  Of course not.  We only wish Medved was engaging in hyperbole. 





Thanks, Max, for explaining something that really shouldn't have needed an explaination.


In addition to states' rights, however, there were trade issues.  The South provided most of the raw materials for the industry of the North, and it really ticked off Southerners how Northern finished goods were too expensive for them to afford, even though they were made with their resources.

Also, there were issues involving tariffs and such and how foreign resources could be positioned against the resources of the South.

Determining which new states would become slave states and which would be free was a big deal for many reasons, but I would argue the trade conflicts were the real reasons behind the war.  Most wars are fought for economic reasons, not moral/social ones.



The northern mill owners were walked a fine line when dealing with slaves states.  They really didn't care about the slaves, they were very bothered about ways to placate the southern growers in order to keep the cost of cotton down so that they could maximize their own profits.  Slavery was an issue within an issue, but rest assured the majority of the people who went to war didn't go to free the slaves.  As a matter of fact, when the emancipation proclamation was signed there was rioting in the streets of the north by those who didn't have a problem fighting for the union but would be damned if they would fight for emancipation.

The northern mill owners were walked a fine line when dealing with slaves states.  They really didn't care about the slaves, they were very bothered about ways to placate the southern growers in order to keep the cost of cotton down so that they could maximize their own profits.  Slavery was an issue within an issue, but rest assured the majority of the people who went to war didn't go to free the slaves.  As a matter of fact, when the emancipation proclamation was signed there was rioting in the streets of the north by those who didn't have a problem fighting for the union but would be damned if they would fight for emancipation.


Exactly...  It's a shame that our high schools whitewash (no pun intended) that part of our history.  We make Lincoln out to be a saint, but in truth, he was just a master politician.  He played the game like few others could, but that didn't make him a benevolent person.

If anything, Lincoln sacrificed hundreds of thousands of his own country's men for the sake of uniting 2 very dysfunctional cultures.  To make matters worse, his successor, Andrew Johnson, was bent on punishing the South -- which only worsened the fate of the Southern blacks, since they went from being slaves to being scapegoats.

Ever been to a party when some clown starts spouting off about politics and pretty much ruins the good vibe?

Heck, I've been that guy!
:-[

Exactly...  It's a shame that our high schools whitewash (no pun intended) that part of our history.  We make Lincoln out to be a saint, but in truth, he was just a master politician.  He played the game like few others could, but that didn't make him a benevolent person.

If anything, Lincoln sacrificed hundreds of thousands of his own country's men for the sake of uniting 2 very dysfunctional cultures.  To make matters worse, his successor, Andrew Johnson, was bent on punishing the South -- which only worsened the fate of the Southern blacks, since they went from being slaves to being scapegoats.



Acutally Johnson was for placating the southern states, he himself had owned slaves. The hard core republicans were in control and livid about the Lincoln assassination and wanted the south punished, Johnson refused to sign the amendment granting slaves citizenship. The division lead to his near impeachment. 

Acutally Johnson was for placating the southern states, he himself had owned slaves. The hard core republicans were in control and livid about the Lincoln assassination and wanted the south punished, Johnson refused to sign the amendment granting slaves citizenship. The division lead to his near impeachment. 


Yes those Radical Republicans.  How can we forget Thaddeus Stevens?

Acutally Johnson was for placating the southern states, he himself had owned slaves. The hard core republicans were in control and livid about the Lincoln assassination and wanted the south punished, Johnson refused to sign the amendment granting slaves citizenship. The division lead to his near impeachment.

True...  I decided to take another look at this...  What's confusing about Andrew is he would say one thing and do nearly the opposite.  He apparently began Reconstruction with words of harshness to the South, but his actions were actually in favor of Southern leadership.  A lot of what I posted also had more to do with his actions as Vice President during the war rather than his actual presidency.

Looking closer at his Presidency, he sympathized with the South, but by consequence, was extremely racist.  Still, he was fighting the corporate corruption of the Radical Republicans.

In short, neither side seemed to have much in the way of virtue.  It was like a battle between racists and corporate bastards.  Maybe things would've been better if the British had come in and subdued both sides....

Granted, the Civil War really had little to do with slavery, but it did provide a nice cover story for it...

It was really about a conflict of economic interests between Northern Industrialists and Southern plantation owners.


There are actually a great many causes, but myself I think it all boiled down to the fact that we were still basically 2 different countries at the time.

Most Northerners identified more with the nation then with their home state.  However, in the South most tended to identify with their home state more then as a nation as a whole.  The economics of the North tended to favor trade and industrialization (hence the (in)famous "Yankee Trader) while the South was much more agrarian.

In many ways, the Civil was for the South was as doomed as WWII was for the Japanese.  Even though the early battles all went their way, neither could hold about the industrial might and manpower of the North (or US).

Personally, I do not blame anybody for Slavery.  It had been an established system for over 4,000 years before the Civil War, and still goes on today.  I am much more interested in eradicating it today then I am in rehashing who is to blame 150+ years ago.

And in fact, we were among the first nations to abolish slavery.  France abolished it in 1848, England in 1854, Russia waited until 1907.  Most of Europe and Asia allowed slavery until the end of the 19th Century.

And if anybody thinks that the Slaves did not practice the same thing, they are deluding themselves.  Liberia is still wracked by violence that dates back to the founding of the colony by freed slaves.  Most of them when they arrived in Africa simply captured and enslaved people that were already living there.  Even today, slavery is as bad of a problem in Liberia as it was in the 1930's, when a League Of Nations inquiry looked into the subject.

Just a side note here...  England abolished slavery on its own soil in 1772.  Slavery was completely abolished throughout the British Empire in 1833.

  It(slavery) had been an established system for over 4,000 years before the Civil War, and still goes on today.  I am much more interested in eradicating it today then I am in rehashing who is to blame 150+ years ago.

And in fact, we were among the first nations to abolish slavery.  France abolished it in 1848, England in 1854, Russia waited until 1907.  Most of Europe and Asia allowed slavery until the end of the 19th Century.




Yes, but this was the United States, and it had based its founding on a revolutionary principle, the political and social ramifications have altered the course of history around the world.  To say slavery was an established system still does not make it a valid reason, or in any way excuse the continuation of it by the founders, who themselves were aware of the dangers and hypocrisy of the institution.  Ben Franklin, an abolitionist no less, had slaves that he freed in his will, too bad for them they died before him.  It was greed and self service that continued slavery here.

Let's personalize this a bit.  Maybe he should be sent to somewhere in the world were slavery is still tolerated.  Bring him back in about 10 years and see if he still feels that way.

True...  I decided to take another look at this...  What's confusing about Andrew is he would say one thing and do nearly the opposite.  He apparently began Reconstruction with words of harshness to the South, but his actions were actually in favor of Southern leadership.  A lot of what I posted also had more to do with his actions as Vice President during the war rather than his actual presidency.

Looking closer at his Presidency, he sympathized with the South, but by consequence, was extremely racist.  Still, he was fighting the corporate corruption of the Radical Republicans.




There are a couple of us who are getting pretty geeked out on the civil war, like the one right above this post, eh!   :)

There are a couple of us who are getting pretty geeked out of the civil war, like the one right above this post, eh!  :)


I have no ideal as to who or what you are referring to. ::)

Yes, but this was the United States, and it had based its founding on a revolutionary principle, the political and social ramifications have altered the course of history around the world.  To say slavery was an established system still does not make it a valid reason, or in any way excuse the continuation of it by the founders, who themselves were aware of the dangers and hypocrisy of the institution.  Ben Franklin, an abolitionist no less, had slaves that he freed in his will, too bad for them they died before him.  It was greed and self service that continued slavery here.


One thing I have never really accepted is either "Revisionist History", or loking at historical events through the eyes of modern philosophy.

A lot of things that seem reprehensible today were considered "The Norm" back when they happened.  And I would no more go back and openly condemn them for their actions then I would approve of people doing the same to us 200 years in the future.  After all, hindsight is perfect and does not take into consideration what was known (and believed at the time).

After all, it was during our grandparents time that images like Bugs Bunny and Donald Duck bashing fat Germans and short eyeglass wearing buck-toothed Japanese was acceptible.  And it was (and still is) often acceptible to portray Arabs as wearing turbans, robes, and riding camels.  And everybody knows that Indians wear dots in their foreheads and work in convenience stores (just watch The Simpsons).

One thing I always do when looking at historical periods is to try and take them in context with the time they lived in.  That is something that a lot of people seem to lack. 

Liberal, revisionist history: Slavery was an immoral, barbarous institution.
Conservative, objective history: The Founding Fathers had Uzis in mind when they wrote the Second Amendment!
:D

Anyway, I was just mentioning Medved's assanine column.  Did Medved think he would make one whit of positive difference in the world by penning that crummy screed?  No.  He did it to bug the liberals.  They're desperate.  Conservative chic is on the way out!

What is it with cosnervatives with moustaches?

Michael Medved, John Stossel, Thomas Friedman...some of the most obnoxious buggars on God's Green Earth!
::)

What is it with cosnervatives with moustaches?


Hey, I resemble that remark!

No, wait.  I can't grow a mustache again until December, when I graduate school (as a general rule the military does not allow mustaches while in training).

Well, I resembled that remark, and will again at the end of the year!

:D

Hey, I resemble that remark!

No, wait.  I can't grow a mustache again until December, when I graduate school (as a general rule the military does not allow mustaches while in training).

Well, I resembled that remark, and will again at the end of the year!

:D

No 'stache allowed?  What is this, boot camp or something?  Oh, wait a minute...
:-\\

No 'stache allowed?  What is this, boot camp or something?  Oh, wait a minute...
:-\\


Actually, that is the general rule in both Boot Camp, and Advanced (job specific) training.

Starting in August, I have been in both WTC (Warrior Transition Course - a "mini-boot camp) and now "AIT" (Advanced Individual Training - in my case 14T, "Patriot Maintainer-Operator"), and advanced course to train individual Soldiers in a specific MOS ("Military Occupational Specialty", in other words a specific job).

Most of the students in AIT are raw recruits, just out of Army Basic Training (in fact, the "AIT" students are still basically under Boot Camp restrictions, complete with Drill Sergeants monitoring them).  While I am considered to be a "Transition Student" (already a Soldier, simply getting retrained in a new MOS), I still have to follow most of the grooming standards of a recruit.

For the most part, I have almost total freedom.  I do not have a kerfew, and live in a dorm like setting.  I am in a single room (with a common kitchen-bathroom shared with one other Soldier), while they live in 20-40 man "open squadbays".  I am able to do whatever I want from 5pm-5am, when I have PT every morning (90 minutes, covering both exercises and a 2-5 mile run).  I even have the next 4 days off, something the AIT students do not have (they get half days off on Sunday and Monday).

But you better believe that once I graduate in December, my mustache is comming back.  For the most part I have worn once since I was 14, and have no plans on not doing so in the future.

Actually, that is the general rule in both Boot Camp, and Advanced (job specific) training.

Starting in August, I have been in both WTC (Warrior Transition Course - a "mini-boot camp) and now "AIT" (Advanced Individual Training - in my case 14T, "Patriot Maintainer-Operator"), and advanced course to train individual Soldiers in a specific MOS ("Military Occupational Specialty", in other words a specific job).

Most of the students in AIT are raw recruits, just out of Army Basic Training (in fact, the "AIT" students are still basically under Boot Camp restrictions, complete with Drill Sergeants monitoring them).  While I am considered to be a "Transition Student" (already a Soldier, simply getting retrained in a new MOS), I still have to follow most of the grooming standards of a recruit.

For the most part, I have almost total freedom.  I do not have a kerfew, and live in a dorm like setting.  I am in a single room (with a common kitchen-bathroom shared with one other Soldier), while they live in 20-40 man "open squadbays".  I am able to do whatever I want from 5pm-5am, when I have PT every morning (90 minutes, covering both exercises and a 2-5 mile run).  I even have the next 4 days off, something the AIT students do not have (they get half days off on Sunday and Monday).

But you better believe that once I graduate in December, my mustache is comming back.  For the most part I have worn once since I was 14, and have no plans on not doing so in the future.

Can you bring a bong and Black Sabbath records?

One thing I have never really accepted is either "Revisionist History", or loking at historical events through the eyes of modern philosophy.

A lot of things that seem reprehensible today were considered "The Norm" back when they happened.  And I would no more go back and openly condemn them for their actions then I would approve of people doing the same to us 200 years in the future.  After all, hindsight is perfect and does not take into consideration what was known (and believed at the time).



If not for the fact that, reading their papers, they knew that the institution was wrong, they knew that the probablity of serious repercussions, and there was an enlighted movement for its abolition, and they were enlighted men.



After all, it was during our grandparents time that images like Bugs Bunny and Donald Duck bashing fat Germans and short eyeglass wearing buck-toothed Japanese was acceptible.  And it was (and still is) often acceptible to portray Arabs as wearing turbans, robes, and riding camels.  And everybody knows that Indians wear dots in their foreheads and work in convenience stores (just watch The Simpsons).



All this is still acceptable in many households, depends on whose house you live in.  Just because it was a product of the mass media and many people subscribed to it doesn't mean that there were people well educated or not who fought against this type of behavior.  It also doesn't mean that even the people producing this crap didn't know that that they were wrong, but it sold and that is what propaganda is all about.



One thing I always do when looking at historical periods is to try and take them in context with the time they lived in.  That is something that a lot of people seem to lack. 




There is always room to expand beyond what is generally taught. With the expansion of inquiry into the lesser known aspects of an era and upon further investigation, it has been found that there are contrasting opinions on the "truth' of the context of the times.

One thing I have never really accepted is either "Revisionist History", or loking at historical events through the eyes of modern philosophy.

A lot of things that seem reprehensible today were considered "The Norm" back when they happened.  And I would no more go back and openly condemn them for their actions then I would approve of people doing the same to us 200 years in the future.  After all, hindsight is perfect and does not take into consideration what was known (and believed at the time).

After all, it was during our grandparents time that images like Bugs Bunny and Donald Duck bashing fat Germans and short eyeglass wearing buck-toothed Japanese was acceptible.  And it was (and still is) often acceptible to portray Arabs as wearing turbans, robes, and riding camels.  And everybody knows that Indians wear dots in their foreheads and work in convenience stores (just watch The Simpsons).

One thing I always do when looking at historical periods is to try and take them in context with the time they lived in.  That is something that a lot of people seem to lack. 


Good points...  I think the point is to understand the motivations and norms of a period, so that we can avoid moving in that direction again, if it turns out that the period was very disturbing by our modern standards.

In other words, we must do everything possible to make sure that slavery never becomes something morally acceptable by our society again.  Granted, I don't think we really have to worry about that.

Good points...  I think the point is to understand the motivations and norms of a period, so that we can avoid moving in that direction again, if it turns out that the period was very disturbing by our modern standards.

In other words, we must do everything possible to make sure that slavery never becomes something morally acceptable by our society again.  Granted, I don't think we really have to worry about that.

Well...the sweatshop conditions under which much of the textiles purchased in the U.S. are produced in the Third World isn't technically slavery, but it's pretty near to it.  Yeah, we don't really like it, but we don't have the political will to stop it, and we certainly don't want to pay 30% more for our shirts and shoes!

Eh...  touche...  That's a very good point.  I don't shop at Walmart...  if that helps any...  :-\\

Eh...  touche...  That's a very good point.  I don't shop at Walmart...  if that helps any...   :-\\


It helps alot  http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/06/luxhello.gif

Good points...  I think the point is to understand the motivations and norms of a period, so that we can avoid moving in that direction again, if it turns out that the period was very disturbing by our modern standards.



The problem, as I see it, is we have become accustomed to seeing the motivations and norms filtered through the motivations and norms of the ruling classes, it is they who have written and interpreted what we have generally come to accept as the thoughts and feelings of entire cultures when the motivations and norms of the great mass of people, who in many ways led lives much more distinct and separate from the ruling classes, have been diminished. 

Eh...  touche...  That's a very good point.  I don't shop at Walmart...  if that helps any...   :-\\

Wal-Mart is particularly nasty, but alas, that's just the nature of the entire textile industry.  Even if you buy your threads from relatively upscale joints, they're still made in Third World sweatshops. 

I don't begrudge people for shopping at Wal-Mart.  A lot of families are on tight budgets with no wiggle room. 


If not for the fact that, reading their papers, they knew that the institution was wrong, they knew that the probablity of serious repercussions, and there was an enlighted movement for its abolition, and they were enlighted men.

Exactly.  It was controversial in colonial times.  Men of conscience knew it was wrong...but not wrong enough to override their economic interests!
::)

. 

Exactly.  It was controversial in colonial times.  Men of conscience knew it was wrong...but not wrong enough to override their economic interests!
::)



I was going to equate that to the situation we are in today, but that word "conscience" screwed it all up.

I was going to equate that to the situation we are in today, but that word "conscience" screwed it all up.

You've got plenty of conscientious liberals today who rail against American imperialism and yet benefit from it every day.  I remember all those Volvos at Bread & Circus (now Wholefoods) bearing bumper stickers saying: "Live simply that others may simply live."  Feh.  In the end their impact on the world was no better than the right-winger with the Lincoln Navigator and the "Rush is Right" bumper sticker.