[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I’m having a hard time understudying why blacks have so many social problems and so on. I’m sure they’d be much better off in Liberia than the US.[/quote]
You don’t understand because you are ignorant. You bring up the Irish as if to prove some point but, the US had a Catholic president of Irish descent while black men were getting lynched and black children were getting killed in church bombings. The Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964, not 1864, not 1880, not 1900, not 1920, not 1950. What were the Irish able to do in the US during that time? A lot more than blacks could. Don’t talk about US social issues if you have no clue about US history. [/quote]
Firstly, I think there are posters here who would vouch for the fact that I certainly have some clue as to US history. I’m fully aware of everything you’ve posted above. My problem was that I was being too subtle. I don’t believe that the treatment of black slaves is the sole or even major contributory cause of their problems. I guess that makes me a ‘redneck’ who wants to lynch every black person I see. A discussion along these lines is only going to lead to ill feeling and misunderstanding so that’s all I’m going to say on the subject unless you have a particularly pertinent question that can offer insight into the issue.
BTW The social problems of Australian aboriginals who were never slaves are far worse. They cannot logically be put down to their inability to vote. It’s more to do with living a hunter gather lifestyle for 40000 years whilst the Europeans and Asians were building civilisations. That may not go across well at the Late drinking crowd but it’s closer to the truth than any of the shit I’ve seen posted here. And I’m not comparing African Americans with Aboriginals. Aboriginals have much more in common with native Americans.
But you go on your little self indulgent rant sonny, if it makes you feel any better.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I’m having a hard time understudying why blacks have so many social problems and so on. I’m sure they’d be much better off in Liberia than the US.[/quote]
You don’t understand because you are ignorant. You bring up the Irish as if to prove some point but, the US had a Catholic president of Irish descent while black men were getting lynched and black children were getting killed in church bombings. The Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964, not 1864, not 1880, not 1900, not 1920, not 1950. What were the Irish able to do in the US during that time? A lot more than blacks could. Don’t talk about US social issues if you have no clue about US history. [/quote]
Firstly, I think there are posters here who would vouch for the fact that I certainly have some clue as to US history. I’m fully aware of everything you’ve posted above. My problem was that I was being too subtle. I don’t believe that the treatment of black slaves is the sole or even major contributory cause of their problems. I guess that makes me a ‘redneck’ who wants to lynch every black person I see. A discussion along these lines is only going to lead to ill feeling and misunderstanding so that’s all I’m going to say on the subject unless you have a particularly pertinent question that can offer insight into the issue.
BTW The social problems of Australian aboriginals who were never slaves are far worse. They cannot logically be put down to their inability to vote. It’s more to do with living a hunter gather lifestyle for 40000 years whilst the Europeans and Asians were building civilisations. That may not go across well at the Late drinking crowd but it’s closer to the truth than any of the shit I’ve seen posted here. And I’m not comparing African Americans with Aboriginals. Aboriginals have much more in common with native Americans.
But you go on your little self indulgent rant sonny, if it makes you feel any better.[/quote]
I get it, you’re butthurt.
My point is that I have a hard time following the idea that the Constitution is a perfect document, that it should never be allowed to change (which is a conservative interpretation of it), based on the imperfect mindset of the people who wrote it.
[/quote]
There is such thing as the amendment process. Conservatives believe this process, and not legislating from the bench, is the correct way to change the Constitution.
Would you have it any other way?
The DID struggle with this. Some were for slavery. Some against. Some indifferent. All ended up compromising.
It’s that simple, Bert.
They were no more racist than Abe Lincoln (for the most part). Abe didn’t even want them in North America. He was willing, as were others before him, to ship them back to Africa.
[/quote]
I would not prefer legislating from the bench, but in this particular case I think it was the best move for Lincoln to perhaps overstep his legitimate authority. Of course I prefer the regular, Constitutional process in almost any case. But in something so fundamentally inimical to the concept of men being created equally as slavery, whatever ended it as a sanctioned institution in this country is the preferable method of choice for me. In the case of Lincoln, it took otherwise questionable tactics to do what had up until then not been accomplished any other way.
I understand that there was a compromise. I’ve never denied the nature of the beast. But I wholeheartedly disagree as to your statement that “it’s that simple, Bert.” It is not that simple. The fact that there was a compromise is the issue itself here to a certain extent when I talk about original intent vs living document.
I don’t necessarily blame them for making the decision that they did, but the Founding Fathers did not make the decision that was most in line with the very principles that they used to justify their revolution, the very principles that the Constitution is to uphold. Any document that requires some sort of lengthy process requiring majority votes and so forth in order to end institutional slavery is an imperfect document.
For those reasons, I think we should always evaluate the decisions of our Founding Fathers in a different light than many Constitutional conservatives seem to hold them in. That extends to the interpretation of the Constitution.
I don’t mean to imply that we should look at them in a purely negative way by any means, not even close to that. I think we should simply look at them as the progenitors of what can still be a great system, provided we cut away a bunch of these bullshit programs liberals constantly clutter the budget up with, and we learn how to adjust the document accordingly without simply bending to the whims of the latest political topic du jour. But I just don’t think it is prudent or logical to look at them as if they finished the job entirely in the 18th century.
It is that attitude that informs my admittedly Model II view of the Constitution.
As far as Lincoln and his overtly racist rhetoric, I really don’t see what that has to do with much here. Sure, you’re probably already thinking that this has some sort of parallel to what I said about evaluating the Founding Fathers’ decisions in general based on one particular misstep. But we have no further decisions of Lincoln’s of much import beyond the EP. To me, that is where his legacy resides, in the freeing of the slaves. I don’t care what his attitude was toward blacks because it clearly did not prevent him from doing what needed to be done one way or the other. Normal avenues had proven fruitless at that point (for the most part) so he went the next logical step and took things upon himself.
And I still contend from our previous discussions on the subject that one could make a pretty solid argument that the EP at least was a purely Constitutional move that did not overstep the boundaries clearly laid out therein.
