So much bullshit. So little time. SMMFH

Concerning historical figures (and some present day people, too) it seems the only thing some care about is were they nice to blacks, nothing else matters

You need to be careful with what you say. You are straddling a line right now. 

How so?

Newstalkers does not allow me to be more specific. 

What line? Should be easy as if you are referring to some line, it can't be misconstrued as some nefarious violation.

John, to be honest, you have been very specific with your insults to NT readers. Why not now?

I agree. Nothing charger 383 was untrue, out of line, or racist. Maybe it’s a line like obama’s red line? A line that doesn’t really exist.

Concerning historical figures (and some present day people, too) it seems the only thing some care about is were they nice to blacks, nothing else matters

It's a little more than not being nice to blacks. Jefferson was racist , and a slaveowner. 

That is out of the realm of "not being nice". 

[deleted]

Oh come on admit it, you think anyone who doesn’t believe like you that America is a completely racist country is racist. On the other hand, i watched dave chappelle on netflix last night. I have never heard the n word so many times in such a short period.

On the other hand, i watched dave chappelle on netflix last night. I have never heard the n word so many times in such a short period.

That is not a good argument . Dont say no one ever told you. 

I wasn’t arguing anything. I simply made a comment on an observation. Is there a problem with that?

I told y'all the truthful comment would be censored. 

So what? We all get censored on here.

Let's see what will happen and who "censors" the comment

The institution of slavery proved to be a difficult issue for the Founding Fathers to navigate.  They all had been born into a slaveholding society where the morality of owning slaves was rarely questioned. While some colonies were for slavery, and others against slavery, the fact was that the institution had deep roots in the colonies.  A majority of the signers of the Declaration of Independence and nearly half of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention owned slaves.   Four of the first five presidents of the United States were slaveowners.  As the ideals of the enlightenment began to spread through the American colonies in the 1760s and 1770s, the articulation of the ideals of liberty and freedom began to take shape.  As the Revolution progressed, the issue of slavery soon became a controversial topic that eventually resulted in vast regional and political divides. battlefields

Our history is full of bad acts.   And as our culture evolves we will find more historical bad.    Future societies might condemn all public figures who supported eating meat.   

I figured this would happen when the cancel culture movement started but did not expect it to happen this quickly.   So now we are canceling Thomas Jefferson, the author of the DoI, extremely influential statesman and third PotUS because he, like many of his time, owned slaves.

Slavery is profoundly immoral and our founders were wrong to embrace it.   But maybe we in the present could be sufficiently grounded to see them as men of their times and not categorically dismiss an individual for a moral failing in spite of all that he did to build the nation that we enjoy.  

Surely we are smart enough to deal with both the bad and the good and do so with a calm, sober perspective.    If not, I can easily see us trying to erase a very large portion of our history because we fucked up a lot while growing up — and we continue to do so today.

VERY well put TiG

Removing a statue is not "canceling" Thomas Jefferson.  Why dont you apply some of your famous logic? 

Removing a statue is not "canceling" Thomas Jefferson.

I'm going to need some sort of reasoning for this statement. If it isn't cancelling, what would you call it? 

Quit playing semantics games John.   If you cannot honestly address my point then spare me the bullshit.

I'm not sure you have a point. 

Taking one statue down is not "canceling". Is he gone from the Jefferson monument? 

I made two further comments. Address them if you want.

I'm not sure you have a point. 

Apparently my point has indeed escaped you.   And I suspect it will continue to do so no matter how much I write.

He did.  You simply couldn’t see it.  

I'm not interested in your attempts to talk down to me.  Removing one statue of Jefferson is not "canceling " him no matter how many times you try to say it is. 

You want to debate a single word ('cancel') while ignoring my point.   My point, by the way, was described in detail @4.  

I dont want to debate anything about this. 

Great!  

Removing a statue is not "canceling" Thomas Jefferson

NYC is removing a statue of Thomas Jefferson because he owned slaves back when it was legal to do so, despite all the good things he did. At the same time they're erecting statues of George Floyd who was murdered by a Cop, despite the fact that George Floyd was a life long Criminal who served five years for armed robbery during a home invasion. George Floyd pretended to be a government employee from the water department and attempted to enter the house. But the pregnant woman realized that something was wrong and attempted to shut the door. At this point, he brute-forced the door into the home. Meanwhile, A Ford explorer pulled over in front of the house and five other men (Floyds Friends) entered the property and one of his accomplices pointed a gun at the pregnant residents belly while Floyd searched the house for valuables.

One of the problems that is developing is now we have "conservatives" , such as in Texas, who have succeeded in forcing upon school boards that any classroom teaching that America has been historically racist must also include an "opposing viewpoint".  That is what the school administrator who brought up the Holocaust was actually trying to get to. 

Many white people dont want it taught that Thomas Jefferson was a slaveowner who thought that blacks are inferior human beings.  Jefferson chose to write on the subject, no one forced him, and he wrote very racist things about blacks. It is what it is. 

Thomas Jefferson's standing fell 4 or 5 decades ago when new scholarship revealed to the public his racist writing and his slaveowning. 

His legacy going forward is going to have to include both good and bad and theres nothing anyone can do about it. 

Many white people dont want it taught that Thomas Jefferson was a slaveowner who thought that blacks are inferior human beings.  Jefferson chose to write on the subject, no one forced him, and he wrote very racist things about blacks. It is what it is. 

Actually, I think it should be taught. If Jefferson held such views, that should be made known to students. At the same time, it should also be taught in context of the times. Slavery was a world wide accepted practice. There is no right or wrong in stating that fact. It was just a fact. For most of history, slavery was simply the way the world worked. 

Putting it in true historical context we can then continue a student's education in how we went from where we were to where we are and where we want to go from here. We can look at what Jefferson accomplished, as well as the other founders, in creating something that would inevitably lead us to reject slavery. We can't be afraid to let students think for themselves. They should be presented with counter arguments. For  instance, holocaust denier reasoning should be presented to them and then discussed as to why it is erroneous. Get them to think, not be told what to think. Otherwise, it's just indoctrination. 

His legacy going forward is going to have to include both good and bad and theres nothing anyone can do about it. 

His legacy should go forward honestly with both good and bad.  

My point is about the overreaction of removing Jefferson's statue because he was a slaveowner — that is a categorical reaction that focuses on the bad (his owning of slaves) and, in so doing, causing the removal of his statue.

How about keep the statue and other historical artifacts while expressing both the good and the bad about the individual?    That is, how about we honestly own our history, put it in perspective and try to be a better society than that of our ancestors?

Sweeping the bad under the rug is a bad move.

You might have a point if it werent for the fact that America has been a racist place for almost all of the 500 years that began with 1619. 

How do you put Jefferson into a time when racism was ok when it has always been ok? 

His legacy will always be tainted. It is what it is and cannot be changed. 

His legacy will always be tainted. It is what it is and cannot be changed. 

Yes his legacy and that of many others in history is tainted.   So continue showing the legacy with bad and good.  

Or are you in favor of literally repeating this TJ exercise for every public figure in our history?

The objection to Jefferson is not solely about his slave owning. 

The effort to dehumanize black people by characterizing them as apes is central to our national history. Thomas Jefferson made the connection in his notorious book “Notes on the State of Virginia,” in which he asserted fantastically that male orangutans were sexually drawn to Negro women. Opinion | The Ape in American Bigotry, From Thomas Jefferson to 2009 - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

He made blatantly racist statements. Its too bad I guess, but it is part of his legacy now. 

You might have a point if it werent for the fact that America has been a racist place for almost all of the 500 years that began with 1619. 

Wrong, there has not been a United States of America for 500 years, no matter how much your woke history wants you to believe it.

Maybe you should tale some of your hatred for this country to the British or the Dutch, who were the original slave traders in the land before it was known as the US.

Maybe you should tale some of your hatred for this country to the British or the Dutch, who were the original slave traders in the land before it was known as the US.

So now people who understand that America has always been racist "hate" this country?

lol. You must be a Republican. 

Its too bad I guess, but it is part of his legacy now. 

As it should be.   Honestly show the good and bad.   Hint:  don't downplay the good simply because these men were flawed.

That whole Texas issue is bs.  There is no need to teach two sides of settled history.  The need for teaching two sides is related to current events not 80-90 year old history,  no one in Texas has to teach a pro Holocaust point of view to the students.  On the other hand if there was an election both sides of all the contested issues, parties, and candidates would have to be presented.  

I dont think you understand the issue. 

AMERICA has not been a racist, but only some elements of the population, INCLUDING AND ESPECIALLY those that identify with the democratic party.;

If you want proof, just look at the attacks blacks get from white liberals when they dare get off the democratic plantation.

I can't wait until someone takes offense at the numerous statues or memorials to George Floyd and demand they be taken down.

To watch liberal heads go poof because of it will be a joy to watch.

BTW....

before anyone takes offense to the above, the term is figurative and not literal.

What is sacred about Thomas Jefferson?  As long as I can remember people have said quite publicly that Abraham Lincoln was a racist. 

Lincoln was far less racist than Jefferson was , imo.  And of course Lincoln came around to the idea that he needed to be the agent of change to get rid of slavery. Still people say and write that Lincoln was racist because he thought blacks were not his social equal and said that if it came to one or the other he would choose the white race. 

Should Lincoln be cancelled? I would say no, but if someone somewhere took a statue of his down I wouldnt think it was the end of the world. Lincolns place in history isnt secured by statues and you could say the same about Jefferson.  

What is sacred about Thomas Jefferson? 

The topic is Thomas Jefferson.   Nothing sacred about him, but he is the topic so naturally we are discussing him rather than Lincoln.

So now we are canceling Thomas Jefferson, the author of the DoI, extremely influential statesman and third PotUS because he, like many of his time, owned slaves.

I'm going to say that he's not being cancelled at all.  What relevance is there to having a statue ( painted plaster knock off ) of TJ

in the NYC Chamber?

European discovery of New York was led by the Italian Giovanni da Verrazzano in 1524 followed by the first land claim in 1609 by the Dutch.  Maybe New York can cancel Columbus day and replace it with da Verrazzanno Day  instead of cursing traffic on that dammned bridge for several hours a day.

A statue of Peter Minuit would be more appropriate for founding New Amsterdam,  certainly a better choice than the British King Charles who arbitrarily granted the lands to his brother the Duke of York and had the British Navy seize the city and name it New York.

There are numerous museums in NYC that can and do have Constitutional displays, that's where TJ belongs.

He will never be erased or cancelled.  His white and brown children won't allow it.

Very well stated!

Far too many people today insist on judging Jefferson and other historical figures of the past according to the standards of today rather than in the context of the times they lived in.

That has been a long-time argument but not necessarily true/accurate. 

He could have followed the lead of Robert Carter III and his Gift of Deed, 1792. The US would have been much better off if Jefferson and others would have followed Carter's lead. 

encyclopediavirginia

I don't believe that morality or the lack of is stuck in any time period.

This is what happens when you give a voice to the paint chip eaters and slobby frumps. They most recently got the Rolling Stones to take the song Brown Sugar out of it's set list.

What an accomplishment. We just need to step aside so these aberrations can cancel themselves.

They most recently got the Rolling Stones to take the song Brown Sugar out of it's set list

Holy shit really?

All Keith Richards had to say was that he identified as a Hip Hop artists so his racism and misogynies are ok.

All Keith Richards had to say was that he identified as a Hip Hop artists so his racism and misogynies are ok.

Maybe rewrite some of their songs with the n word with an a at the end in it and they will hit the billboard number 1 list all over again.

An 1833 statue of Thomas Jefferson will be taken out of New York's City Hall in the coming days and sent to a museum, capping longstanding efforts to remove the founding father's likeness because he owned slaves.

This is beyond stupid. There isn’t a single word to exress how stupid this truly is. In his time, it would have been unusual for Jefferson to not own slaves. The statues of him do not go up to celebrate his slave ownership, establish white supremacy, or otherwise make anyone uncomfortable. I believe that if a Thomas Jefferson statue makes you uncomfortable, then you need to learn more about the man.

Few people are as worthy of a statue as Thomas Jefferson. Take down statues like this and people won’t learn about him and his indispensable contributions to the founding and development of this country - at least not as easily and not as thoroughly as they might. Even worse, they won’t learn the ideals, philosophy, and practices he established that define what it means to be American. The fact that he owned slaves does not erase the many, many reasons we remember him. 

Take down statues like this and people won’t learn about him and his indispensable contributions to the founding and development of this country - at least not as easily and not as thoroughly as they might. Even worse, they won’t learn the ideals, philosophy, and practices he established that define what it means to be American.

Utter nonsense. 

No, it’s not.  It’s exactly right.  

Utter nonsense. 

If you really believe that - if you really believe that these things are not important for public education - then what is the point of putting up statues or memorials of anyone?

Who is going to be held accountable for 500 years of racism? No one?  Every person is a product of their times, therefore a Bull Connor, the southern sheriff who sicced German Sheperds on civil rights protesters in the 1960's is not guilty of anything either because he was also a man of his times. 

When I said "utter nonsense" I was referring to your claim that the removal of Jefferson statues would cause his ideas to not be taught or respected anymore. Hogwash.  

But we dont need to keep these people on a pedestal. They were just human beings . 

Who is going to be held accountable for 500 years of racism? No one? 

Holding Jefferson, et. al. accountable for their own racism and, worse, owning of human beings as property, is correct.    But you appear to want to go beyond simply criticizing them for moral failures.  

Face it, our historical heroes are all flawed.   And in the future, current heroes will be seen as more flawed than we recognize today.

But we dont need to keep these people on a pedestal. They were just human beings . 

Everyone was/is just a human being.   Why not tear down Rushmore and anything else that honors an ancestor?   Remove all the statues, all the paintings, all the memorials, etc.  

Ridiculous, right?  So 'just being a human being' is a shitty line to draw.   So where do you draw the line, John?    What is the system that tells us if we are allowed to look favorably on a historical figure?   If Thomas Jefferson does not make the cut, I suspect quite a load of our historical figures will no longer be 'suitable' to remember with net respect.

Why not tear down Rushmore and anything else that honors an ancestor? 

So no one or no group should ever decide to remove a statue, no matter what?   I didnt know statues were that important to you. 

Who is going to be accountable for 500 years of racism? If the reply is that they were all products of their times then no one will be, after all plantation owners were products of their times and place too. How about all the juries that railroaded black men into prison during Jim Crow days? All products of their times. 

Taking a statue of Jefferson down in NYC doesnt signal squat. 

So no one or no group should ever decide to remove a statue, no matter what?

No, John, I did not make an extreme statement.   Focus.   Don't exaggerate to ridiculous extremes.

Who is going to be accountable for 500 years of racism?

I stated:

TiG @ 6.1.4 ☞ Holding Jefferson, et. al. accountable for their own racism and, worse, owning of human beings as property, is correct.  

Individuals should be held accountable for their own acts.

There is no single individual that can be held accountable for 500 years of racism or the 5,000+ years of recorded history of same.   Do you have someone in mind?

How about all the juries that railroaded black men into prison during Jim Crow days? All products of their times. 

And, going back to my comment @ 6.1.4 you already have my answer.   The juries are to be held accountable for their own actions.   You seem to not comprehend that I have always noted that slavery and racism are moral failures.   So remember  racism=bad and slavery=bad.   Those are premises.  Now we add the rest of the facts and make a rational, balanced net judgment.

As noted, if Jefferson does not make the cut based on the line you wish to draw, he will be among quite a few others starting with our founders and moving through history (see @ 4 ):

The institution of slavery proved to be a difficult issue for the Founding Fathers to navigate.  They all had been born into a slaveholding society where the morality of owning slaves was rarely questioned. While some colonies were for slavery, and others against slavery, the fact was that the institution had deep roots in the colonies.  A majority of the signers of the Declaration of Independence and nearly half of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention owned slaves.   Four of the first five presidents of the United States were slaveowners.  As the ideals of the enlightenment began to spread through the American colonies in the 1760s and 1770s, the articulation of the ideals of liberty and freedom began to take shape.  As the Revolution progressed, the issue of slavery soon became a controversial topic that eventually resulted in vast regional and political divides.

Who is going to be held accountable for 500 years of racism? No one?

Why limit yourself to 500 years, or 5,000 years.

Humans have a miserable record of killing each other off all the way back to the Erectus, Neanderthals

and Cro-Magnum based on race.

smh

I’m sorry, but I find your position hysterical and unhinged.

Who is going to be held accountable for 500 years of racism?

This is such a loaded question, I don’t even know where to begin to answer. What do you mean by it?

What do you mean by “accountable?” What 500 years are you referring to? Is a modern person supposed to be accountable for racism they had no part in? Is Jefferson responsible for anyone else’s behavior in his past or future? 

Wouldn’t accountability involve taking responsibility, ending the practice, and insisting on equal justice before the law? The United States has been doing that for a long time. Jefferson was not in a position to do those things and we can’t bring him back to do them now.

Perhaps most relevantly, how in the world does taking down a statue make anyone accountable for anything? 

therefore a Bull Connor, the southern sheriff who sicced German Sheperds on civil rights protesters in the 1960's is not guilty of anything either because he was also a man of his times. 

Where did I say that Jefferson - or anyone else - was blameless for anything? There are no perfect people, but we memorialize them all the same. We do so to remember the important things they did. At the same time, we can learn about shortcomings, but a person’s flaws are not why we build statues. You seem to have a standard that would allow no one to be memorialized this way.

When I said "utter nonsense" I was referring to your claim that the removal of Jefferson statues would cause his ideas to not be taught or respected anymore. Hogwash.

Yes, I understood that very well. But you seem to be ignoring my answering question, which is why memorialize anyone then, if not to educate people about them and celebrate their contribution?

But we dont need to keep these people on a pedestal. They were just human beings . 

I have zero problem taking pride in a country based on Jefferson’s influence. The country he helped create has turned out to the best thing that has ever happen to government and society on planet Earth. The idea that the people are sovereign has spread around the world, freeing people, and improving the lives of every succeeding generation.

"Taking a statue of Jefferson down in NYC doesnt signal squat. "

so, why take it down?

We are in the United States of America, not Cro-Magnia. 

"Collective accountability"  is what is needed, not a pretense that all has been solved. 

If all was solved we wouldnt still be dealing with racism every day. 

So Jefferson is somewhat made an example of, so fucking what?  Better to make an example of him than to have no example at all.  Besides , he's dead and doesnt give a shit anymore. 

The biggest mistake ever made in this country was to let racism fester and even grow in the decades after the Civil War.  Before long it turned into 100 years of unabated segregation and discrimination.  

Yes, there has to be accountability for 500 years of racism.  We can act in that direction, or let the problem destroy our society. 

Feel free to stop displaying your [Deleted at any time.] 

Ever heard of "if the shoe fits" ? 

People like Jefferson should be praised and revered for the good things they did , and criticized for the bad things they did. This is 2021, the 21st century, we can handle it. 

Jefferson is not going to stop being a pivotal figure in American history because a statue of him is taken down.  But it would be a public acknowledgement of his role in perpetuating racism. Jefferson did next to nothing to try and diminish racism or slavery in America. It is a fault he carries with him into eternity. 

What I think is that the Democratic and Republican parties have evolved in opposite directions over the past 60 or 70 years.  Only an idiot doesnt understand that , and keeps trying to insult todays Democrats by trying to connect them to what happened 100 or 150 years ago. 

Please tell us what relevance there is to Democrats instituting Jim Crow 150 years ago when the Democratic Party back then bears no resemblance to the party today? 

There aren't that many white liberals on NYC Council anymore, it a very diverse group of people who might be offended

by the statue and have been talking about moving it since 2001.

I didn't insult today's Democrats. Get it straight

Really?

That's why you bring it up incessantly?

To insult dead people that cannot read your insults?

Wow, just WOW !

That makes so much sense /S

"Collective accountability"  is what is needed

In what form?

not a pretense that all has been solved

No one said “all has been solved.” I would say most of the big stuff has, though.

So Jefferson is somewhat made an example of, so fucking what?

An example should be made thoughtfully and have a purpose. There is no evidence of that being the case by removing this statue.

Besides , he's dead and doesnt give a shit anymore.

So, it’s ok to be unjust and irrational to a person if they’re dead, so long as it satisfies your need to virtue signal.

The biggest mistake ever made in this country was to let racism fester and even grow in the decades after the Civil War.

You might want to study why and how Jim Crow happened before you imagine that you could have done a better job of running the country.

Yes, there has to be accountability for 500 years of racism.  We can act in that direction or let the problem destroy our society. 

We have been acting in that direction. Your pretense that we haven’t is what is doing the most to destroy our society today.

But it would be a public acknowledgement of his role in perpetuating racism.

That has already been done. It is not necessary to take down his statue to accomplish it.

Jefferson did next to nothing to try and diminish racism or slavery in America.

That’s really not quite true. While he did own many slaves, and many remained slaves until his death, he did free several of them while he was alive. He also spoke and wrote publicly against slavery most of his adult life, and even crafted legislation against it.

Jefferson's Attitudes Toward Slavery

Throughout his entire life, Thomas Jefferson was publicly a consistent opponent of slavery. Calling it a “moral depravity” 1  and a “hideous blot,” 2 he believed that slavery presented the greatest threat to the survival of the new American nation. 3  Jefferson also thought that slavery was contrary to the laws of nature, which decreed that everyone had a right to personal liberty. 4   These views were radical in a world where unfree labor was the norm.

At the time of the American Revolution, Jefferson was actively involved in legislation that he hoped would result in slavery’s abolition. 5  In 1778, he drafted a Virginia law that prohibited the importation of enslaved Africans. 6   In 1784, he proposed an ordinance that would ban slavery in the Northwest territories. 7  But Jefferson always maintained that the decision to emancipate slaves would have to be part of a democratic process; abolition would be stymied until slaveowners consented to free their human property together in a large-scale act of emancipation.  To Jefferson, it was anti-democratic and contrary to the principles of the American Revolution for the federal government to enact abolition or for only a few planters to free their slaves. 8

…

Jefferson’s belief in the necessity of ending slavery never changed.  From the mid-1770s until his death, he advocated the same plan of gradual emancipation. First, the transatlantic slave trade would be abolished. 10   Second, slaveowners would “improve” slavery’s most violent features, by bettering (Jefferson used the term “ameliorating”) living conditions and moderating physical punishment. 11   Third, all born into slavery after a certain date would be declared free, followed by total abolition. 12   Like others of his day, he supported the removal of newly freed slaves from the United States. 13

It seems like you have a lot to learn about Thomas Jefferson.

5  In 1778, he drafted a Virginia law that prohibited the importation of enslaved Africans.

By 1778 Virginia already had enough enslaved Africans to serve its purposes indefinitely. They procreated new ones all the time. 

  6     In 1784, he proposed an ordinance that would ban slavery in the Northwest territories.  

By that point legal processes to end slavery were underway across almost all of the northern states , none of it proposed by Jefferson. 

7  But Jefferson always maintained that the decision to emancipate slaves would have to be part of a democratic process; abolition would be stymied until slaveowners consented to free their human property together in a large-scale act of emancipation.  To Jefferson, it was anti-democratic and contrary to the principles of the American Revolution for the federal government to enact abolition or for only a few planters to free their slaves.

Does anyone actually believe this paragraph is in any way a credit to Jefferson ? 

-

By some quirk of human thought, all of Jefferson's "plans" to end slavery would have left him still owning hundreds of slaves.  His plans all involved ending slavery in some other part of the country or after he was dead. He literally said near the end of his life that the fight to end slavery would have to be passed to a later generation. 

He frittered away, most likely out of self-interest , any influence he may have had during his lifetime as regards ending slavery. 

It seems like you have a lot to learn about Thomas Jefferson.

I'm sure I do. So do you. His efforts to end slavery were completely lacking. I guess I will have to post more about this. 

from the book (Chapter 18)

Master of the Mountain: Thomas Jefferson and His Slaves

As Lafayette and Thomas Paine discovered, debating Jefferson would always prove fruitless. A shrewd and relentless lawyer, he composed briefs for the defense con- taining “just enough of the semblance of morality to throw dust into the eyes of the people,” to borrow his own words.

In their entirety Jefferson’s rationalizations amount to nothing compared with his perfectly clear presidential order to admit slavery to the Louisiana Territory. Later in his life Jefferson mocked abolitionists for “wasting Jeremiads on the miseries of slavery” and more or less went over to arguing that slavery was a positive good. Describing what he could see from his terrace— Mulberry Row’s “ameliorated” cabins, where his enslaved relatives lived—he claimed in 1814 that American slaves were better fed and clothed than England’s workers and “labor less”—an argument that to this day is the trump card for slavery’s retrospective apologists.

In the 1790s, as Jefferson was mortgaging his slaves to build Monticello, George Washington was trying to scrape together the financing to free his slaves at Mount Vernon, which he finally ordered in his will, to be carried out “without evasion, neglect or delay.” He proved that emancipation was not only possible but practical, and he overturned all the Jeffersonian rationalizations. Jefferson insisted that a multiracial society with free black people was impossible, but Washington did not think so. Never did Washington suggest that black people were inferior or that they should be exiled; nor did it occur to him that people must be “capable of tracing and comprehending the investigations of Euclid,” as Jefferson stipulated, in order to deserve citizenship.

It is curious that we accept Jefferson as the moral standard of the Founders’ era, not Washington. Perhaps it is because the Father of His Country left a troubling legacy: his emancipation of his slaves stands not as a tribute but as a rebuke to his era, and to the prevaricators and profiteers of the future, and declares that if you claim to have principles, you must live by them. Americans like to believe, however, as Reinhold Niebuhr wrote in The Irony of American History, that “we are (according to our traditional theory) the most innocent nation on earth.”

Jefferson perpetually murmurs absolution over compromise, delay, and evasion, offering a transcendent innocence that is impervious to reality. That is why he has survived the Sally Hemings scandal. He had struck a deal with a sixteen-year-old girl and made the grown woman stick to it for the rest of her life, knowing she would sacrifice her body and soul to save her children. Every day she cleaned his bedroom. Every day their son Madison counted the months until he would get free of that place and that man, his father, the master and enslaver. But when this sorry history came before the public in our own time, Jefferson’s stock rose—because we wanted it to.

Jefferson’s unchangeable symbolic role is to make slavery safe. Only a supremely powerful totem can guard our collective memory on this score, shining brilliantly enough to avert our gaze from the traffickers in human blood roaming outside the gates.

Thomas Jefferson, Slavery, and Slaves by Aaron Schwabach :: SSRN

Jefferson at times seems to have had great difficulty separating facts from opinion. He often presents his belief as established fact, especially on the subject of race. Sometimes these beliefs are merely ridiculous, as in the case of his musings on the relative hirsuteness of the various races.  At other times, they perpetuate damaging and disturbing misconceptions about “race.”

For example, after concluding that a free black population in the United States would create conflict that could only end “in the extermination of the one or the other race,” Jefferson added:

To these objections, which are political, must be added others, which are physical and moral. The first difference which strikes us is that of colour. Whether the black of the negro resides in the reticular membrane between the skin and the scarf-skin, or in the scarf skin itself; whether it proceeds from the colour of the blood, the colour of the bile, or from that of some other secretion,the difference is fixed in nature, and is as real as if its seat and cause were better known to us. And is this difference of no importance? Is it not the foundation of a greater or less share of beauty in the two races? Are not the fine mixtures of red and white, the expressions of every passion by greater or less suffusions of colour in the one, preferable to that eternal monotony, which reigns in the countenances, that immovable veil of black, which covers all the emotions of the other race? Add to these, flowing hair, a more elegant symmetry of form, their own judgment in favour of the whites, declared by their preference of them, as uniformly as is the preference of the Orangutan for the black women over those of his own species.

 Jefferson continues in this vein for some time, throwing out such pseudo-scientific nonsense as “They secrete less by the kidnies, and more by the glands of the skin, which gives them a very strong and disagreeable odor.”  Jefferson himself had also noted that the ownership of slaves seemed to render the slave owners incapable of work: “For in a warm climate, no man will labour for himself who can make another labour for him . . . . [O]f the proprietors of slaves a very small number are ever seen to labour.” 

Here Jefferson was at the pinnacle of his perhaps willful obliviousness: Somehow Jefferson failed to remember that hard work, especially in “a warm climate,” leads to perspiration. Instead, he went on to speculate, nonsensically, that this resulted from a “difference of structure in the pulmonary apparatus.” Jefferson also seems to have been curiously insensitive to the psychological repercussions of the suffering which he must have witnessed daily. Although he observed that “among the blacks is misery enough, God knows,”  he still could marvel that “a black, after hard labour during the day, will be induced by the slightest amusements to sit up till midnight, or later, though knowing he must be out with the first dawn of the morning.” 

Without stopping to wonder when else the slave might enjoy those “slightest amusements,” he blithely drew the conclusion that “they seem to require less sleep.” In the same paragraph, and without any apparent awareness of the contradiction, he wrote of “their disposition to sleep when abstracted from their diversions, and unemployed in labour.”  This, he determined, was because “an animal whose body is at rest, and who does not reflect, must be disposed to sleep of course.”

Jefferson believed and perpetuated many damaging stereotypes, passing them off as the result of scientific observation. He claimed that, “They are more ardent after their female: but love seems with them to be more an eager desire, than a tender delicate measure of sentiment and sensation. Their griefs are transient.” He also states that “in memory they are equal to the whites; in reason much inferior, as I think one could scarcely be found capable of tracing and comprehending the investigations of Euclid; and in imagination that they are dull, tasteless, and anomalous.”

Don’t bother. It’s pretty clear at this point that this cannot be a rational discussion.

You: Jefferson did next to nothing

Me: Here’s a bunch of stuff he did.

You: None of it counts.

You have a bizarre agenda that I am convinced is rooted in virtue signaling.

Yes, there has to be accountability for 500 years of racism.  We can act in that direction, or let the problem destroy our society.

Tacos has asked you twice now to define "accountability", and you've ignored him.  

Accountability is something that has to be worked out by the society, it is not something to be imposed from on high. 

Tell me why there shouldnt be "accountability" for 500 years of racism. Its not a trivial thing, is it? 

I can keep going if you want.   Thomas Jefferson KNEW that slavery was essential to his economic well being.  There is no way in hell he was going to promote abolition while he was alive and needed slaves to finance his lifestyle.  He wasnt trapped or forced into using slaves, he needed them to make money. 

Show me some proposal to end slavery that Jefferson made that would have effected his own use of slaves. 

Accountability is something that has to be worked out by the society

Then who are you to claim that it’s lacking somehow?

Your arguments are absurd. You actually criticized Jefferson for not proposing anti-slavery legislation in other states.

I have asked you and others repeatedly to tell me in what historical era of the United States has this not been a racist nation. No one has responded yet. 

There has to eventually be national accountability for 500 years of racism. If you dont understand that then there is no help for it. 

We have a situation now when many conservative whites think they are the real victims of racism, which is ridiculous. 

Something has to give. 

Please, dont respond.  I am tired of your gibberish. 

I have asked you [ Texan ] and others repeatedly to tell me in what historical era of the United States has this not been a racist nation. No one has responded yet. 

Okay, since ' nobody ' answers, I will offer an answer.

Seems you are asking when the USA was free of racist people.   If so, your question is naive.   The answer is:  'never'.

Biologically, one can argue that all human begins are predisposed to racism.   The effects of skin tone on race-related amygdala activity: an fMRI investigation   Our amygdala (quick danger response) has been shown to register negative impressions on faces whose skin is colored different than the subject's.    The amygdala is tempered by the frontal lobes (reasoning).  Thus the immediate bigotry wired into the amygdala is quickly suppressed by higher reasoning in most individuals.   For some, however, the frontal lobes do not override (and actually exacerbate) the biological bigotry.   This is the nature of cultural racism.  The USA and every other nation on the planet that contains people with an amygdala has always been 'racist'.   Seems to me that the USA continues to evolve away from racism as our culture matures.  

Nowadays, most in the USA (and other advanced nations) have been exposed to a culture that enables them to recognize that skin color is as meaningless as eye color when it comes to judging an individual.   But societal evolution takes time (generational pace).   So maybe you should try to judge the progress we have made since the time of Jefferson.

Rather than seek atonement from founders like Jefferson who lived in very different times and reacted accordingly,  why not focus on extant racists?   I think it would be far more productive to challenge living bigots rather than hold accountable ancient people who lived in cultural (and economic) conditions dramatically different from our own.

I am not saying that there has always been racism. I'm saying there has never been a time , with the possible exception of the last few decades , when the majority of white Americans were not racist. 

I am not saying that there has always been racism.

Okay, but you would be on solid ground to make that claim as I noted:

TiG @6.1.48 ☞ Biologically, one can argue that all human begins are predisposed to racism. 

Our biology has an awful lot to do with our behavior.

I'm saying there has never been a time , with the possible exception of the last few decades , when the majority of white Americans were not racist. 

And I was noting that racism has core biological roots in human beings and that we must learn to suppress our inherent bigotry.   I also noted:

TiG @6.1.48 ☞ Nowadays, most in the USA (and other advanced nations) have been exposed to a culture that enables them to recognize that skin color is as meaningless as eye color when it comes to judging an individual.   But societal evolution takes time (generational pace).   So maybe you should try to judge the progress we have made since the time of Jefferson.

And I was noting that racism has core biological roots in human beings and that we must learn to suppress our inherent bigotry.   I also noted:

There are tens of millions (at least) of racists in America today. The unknown is how many freely express their bigotry to co workers family and friends. 

We are a long way from "evolving" out of it. 

I dont see anything wrong whatsoever with NYC taking down a statue of Thomas Jefferson.  He has a very mixed record now, and on racial issues alone a poor record. There is nothing wrong with there being ramifications. 

His contributions as a founding father and the author of the DOI are still intact. 

We are a long way from "evolving" out of it. 

Evolution is a continual process.   I noted that we are making progress;  you can easily see this by comparing the racism of today with that of Jefferson's time.   You express my thought as if I were arguing that we are close to no longer having racism.   That is a misrepresentation of what I wrote.

I dont see anything wrong whatsoever with NYC taking down a statue of Thomas Jefferson. 

Might as well take down George Washington too;  he was a slave-owner his entire life.  

There is nothing wrong with there being ramifications. 

Well let's see, removal of a statue is binary.   It is either there or it is not.   Thus your position is because he owned slaves (a moral failure by him and his fellow countryman of the time) that overshadows all the good he has done .    Jefferson = net bad = remove his statue.

His contributions as a founding father and the author of the DOI are still intact. 

If so, his statue would not be removed.   His moral failings on slavery (by him and his countrymen) outweigh his contributions per your reasoning.

History should reflect, and generations should be taught, both the good and bad of our historical characters.    But we are not talking about a murderous Christopher Columbus whose portrayal by history is a complete misrepresentation of the facts.   Now the sights are set on people like Thomas Jefferson because his was in the position of living in a time where slavery was commonplace and foundational to much of the economy and he did not do enough to counter the culture of his time.

At this point it is quite reasonable to ask where this ends.    What stops one from using your logic to demand slave-owners and/or racists be removed from Mt. Rushmore?   After all:  "There is nothing wrong with there being ramifications."

History should reflect, and generations should be taught, of both the good and bad of our historical characters.  

I'm reminded of a quote, courtesy of Beast Wars:

"Tell my tale to those who ask. Tell it truly, the ill deeds along with the good, and let me be judged accordingly. The rest... is silence."

In the long history of man, not having slaves is a relativity new concept.  

I'm beginning to wonder if the White House should be painted in stripes of white, black, brown, red and yellow.  Would that make it inclusive?  What would it be called if it were?

Is anyone actually surprised?  It was only a matter of time before our 'founding fathers' would become part of the 'remove, hide and replace historical figures' movement.. after all someone must pay for the sins of the past .. whatever that actually means   

I keep hearing, reading about how 'so called democracy' is threatened in the United States .. then I read an article about the removal of statues, changing of names on buildings, parks and roads .. it makes me wonder just 'who' is threatening this 'so called democracy' existence .. a true democracy is 'mobocracy' .. the majority rules and the minority has no power, is not that what we are seeing during this time of removing, hiding and replacing statues? 

We find ourselves in the peaceful possession of the fairest portion of the earth, as regards extent of territory, fertility of soil, and salubrity of climate. We find ourselves under the government of a system of political institutions, conducing more essentially to the ends of civil and religious liberty, than any of which the history of former times tells us. We, when mounting the stage of existence, found ourselves the legal inheritors of these fundamental blessings.

We toiled not in the acquirement or establishment of them — they are a legacy bequeathed us, by a once hardy, brave, and patriotic, but now lamented and departed race of ancestors. Theirs was the task (and nobly they performed it) to possess themselves, and through themselves, us, of this goodly land; and to uprear upon its hills and its valleys, a political edifice of liberty and equal rights; ’tis ours only, to transmit these, the former, unprofaned by the foot of an invader; the latter, undecayed by the lapse of time and untorn by usurpation, to the latest generation that fate shall permit the world to know. This task of gratitude to our fathers, justice to ourselves, duty to posterity, and love for our species in general, all imperatively require us faithfully to perform.

How then shall we perform it? — At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? — Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! — All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years.

At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.

- Abraham Lincoln