-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Pete Buttigieg: "The people who wrote the Constitution did not understand slavery was a bad thing."
- Thread starter PMS341
- Start date
That's a perfectly reasonable and understandable position to take, and I can't say I really disagree.
George Washington was a principled figure that, almost unique in revolutionary figures until that point, turned down absolute power in the name of Republican ideals. He was also a slave owner that, while objectively a less extreme and cruel "master" than was common at the time and who did has a pretty clear evolution in beliefs from bog-standerd Virginian land owner to active denouncer of the practice, those things obviously have to be viewed through the glass of the basic evil that slavery is and the inherent deep stain it leaves on all its perpetrators. I wish he had lived longer, if only to see what else he might have done to try and atone in some small measure for his sins.
Ok, yeah I understand that. I personally can't go that step of declaring he was a literal rapist without any historical evidence (or even rumor), but I do understand that point of view and think it's a perfectly reasonable way to view those that practiced such evil as slavery.
Last edited:
This guy keeps finding ways to excuse white supremacists while diminishing people that actually out their money where their mouth was.
He also let's slip his passive aggressive bluntness when challenged.
This guy can't be allowed anywhere close to power.
"John Brown? That's a common ass name. Who's that?"
*googles*
"Of course Buttigieg thinks the guy who supports banning slavery through violent means isn't a progressive"
Also Buttigieg volunteered to be in the war in Afghanistan so....
Dude, I didn't say any of that. Many of America's founding fathers were rapists, and Washington did beat his slaves.
I said there is no historical evidence or rumor of Washington being a literal rapist. In what world does that mean I don't think a slaveowner could be a rapist? A huge number of them were, and yeah, I think you could consider the very practice of slavery to be the collective rape of an entire people.
But we're talking about a historical figure. I personally can't ascribe to him a specific literal action without any historical basis for it. But I also don't think it's unreasonable for someone to assume he did, which I said.
OP
OP
Yup. Calculated, straight-up.
I would love to see this brought up in the next debate, but iirc no one even called him out for faking black support via opt-out e-mail, right?
Looking back on my post, I apologise for my initial snark towards you though I still stand by my claim.
Amen.
I understand the "need for evidence" but sit there and really think about it. It's really not outlandish to say, outside of extenuating circumstances, every male slaveowner was literally a rapist. Whites raping Blacks was ubiquitous. Our culture wholly accepted wanton sexual violence against Black girls and women for nearly three centuries. Women with no rights who were deemed subhuman from the get go.
Extending the benefit of the doubt to a wealthy elite military general whose killed and razed whole villages? That type of person who owned people since he was a kid? What do you think he did with his new teen hormones in a society surrounded by women considered nothing that he had complete control and power over? From a class and race perspective, rape is literally nothing for a man like that. To add, sexual violence was used against men and children too.
Like what do you think would happen right now if fraternities were legally allowed to buy, own, sell, trade, rent, loan, women as property? It's a no-brainer. A piece of scum that's considered a genius by the majority is still a piece of scum. I'm not giving any of those devils the benefit of the doubt.
Last edited:
When Ted Cruz has the moral high ground you know you fucked up.
Mayo Pete can go waste time editing his own Wikipedia entry.
His overall point of the amendment process to the constitution is correct. This was an early debate among the framers of the Constitution, going back to the individual state & colony Constitutions and Charters, about whether they'd be written documents that could be modified via amendments, or whether they'd follow something like the Magna Carta and commonlaw, a declaration of rights but then leaving those rights up to interpretation by people who would "parlor" with a ruler (parliamentarians, as it may).
His point about amending the constitution is a right one, his method of giving an example is a bad one, not only because the Federalists thought that slavery was a moral evil, but also because slavery wasn't stricken from the US via a constitutional amendment, but via an executive declaration -- the Emancipation Declaration -- and the result of the Civil War.
So, a pretty stupid take for Pete Buttigieg talking to a room of what looks like children.
*EDIT*
I was wrong re: the emancipation declaration as it only applied to the Confederacy, not the United States, which ammended the Constitution via 13th Amendment. Thanks to Matt for correcting me here
His point about amending the constitution is a right one, his method of giving an example is a bad one, not only because the Federalists thought that slavery was a moral evil, but also because slavery wasn't stricken from the US via a constitutional amendment, but via an executive declaration -- the Emancipation Declaration -- and the result of the Civil War.
So, a pretty stupid take for Pete Buttigieg talking to a room of what looks like children.
*EDIT*
I was wrong re: the emancipation declaration as it only applied to the Confederacy, not the United States, which ammended the Constitution via 13th Amendment. Thanks to Matt for correcting me here
Last edited:
OP
OP
What in the actual fuck? Then again, shit was (and still is) fucked so not sure why this surprises me.
Like I said, I don't think that position is outlandish at all. I understand it, and I really mean it when I say I think it's a perfectly reasonable position to hold. And I would absolutely agree that rape was a core part of the slave experience throughout human history, and in a macro sense, "slave owners were rapists" is a statement I can get behind.
It's just literally not in my personality to make definitive statements about specific individual actions by historical figures without any evidence, rumor, anything. I'm truly not meaning to give Washington the benefit of the doubt, I just need something to give myself license to say "he did this" beyond the fact that basic sociological and historical factors of the time would indicate that it is a strong possibility.
So again, there is nothing wrong with someone believing Washington himself literally raped his slaves. I just can't sit here and honestly tell you I personally am sure of that. I am sure it's possible, I can even say it's probable, but I can't say it's a fact. And honestly I wish I was more capable of coming to those decisions, as it would certainly make my life a lot simpler.
This. They knew it was bad they just didn't give a fuck. Like many other people. Even now people normalize things because they can get away with it.
The Emancipation Proclamation only applied to states that joined the Confederacy. It took the 13th Amendment to end it in slave states that stayed in the Union.
I been saying it: Can put a man on the moon but can't figure out being racist is wrong...
That's a God damn shame.
This just encapsulates that this was a "dig up, stupid" moment. Pete refused to acknowledge that the sunshine and fresh air was indeed above him and disappeared into the sweltering darkness of the earth with each shovel full of dirt.
Motherfuckers had just fought a war against a supriror power but when it came time to free slaves
And then we later warred with another power in Mexico, because Mexico was pissed at these illegal immigrant slavers coming over to their land and disrespecting Mexico's customs and laws by bringing their slaves with them.
The wrong country won the Mexican-American War. Hell, the wrong country won the War for Independence.
The worst part is that Ted Cruz probably sees this as an affirmation the founding fathers' character that they were aware of the inhumanity of slavery rather than an indictment that they continued it despite that.
That's kind of a half truth. Mexico actively encouraged colonization of Texas by settlers from the United States, as the territory was barely populated and the Mexican government viewed immigration as a way to create a buffer between the Native American nations to the north and the core of Mexico. These settlers were allowed to bring in slaves, as slavery was legal in Mexico.
Over time the immigrant population of Texas grew to a point where the central government became uneasy with the situation, and started trying to limit immigration and the import of slaves to further discourage new arrivals. These laws were often ignored, and Mexico kept increasing the rules and prohibitions on immigration and slavery, eventually outlawing the latter. And while the banning of slavery certainly had a moral component to it (there were many active anti-slavery progressives in Mexico), and slavery in much of Mexico had just outlived its economic usefulness, it also had the realpolitik motivation of attempting to further discourage immigration to Texas and to financially damage the settlers already there.
This outlawing of slavery was essentially the last, most impactful straw to settlers that had seen their political autonomy and individual rights curtailed by the Mexican government. The Texas revolution then happened, and though it was part of a larger rebellion with other areas of Mexico over non-slave related reasons, I'm very comfortable saying it was a pretty despicable revolution done to preserve slavery, a far cry from how it is typically presented.
Last edited:
now he has a literal key to south bend rather than a figurative one
I get the frustration. That was the first time I had read anywhere in my life that GW raped, well, at all. I know his adopted son raped slaves and had kids. I know both Washingtons had significant amount of slaves.
I even read today how, when President, Washington had to rotate his slaves out of service in the Capitol because Pennsylvania had a rule where resident slaves were free after 6 months. And how he used every resource available to chase fleeing slaves.
He's a straight piece of shit for that. It's hard for me to accept as definite fact he was a rapist tho because a bunch of what if statements and probable scenarios. He was a famous figure. We know about his contemporaries like Jefferson who regularly raped slaves. Because he was famous and they wrote about it. But we don't have a single piece about GW raping slaves. Not one. So it's hard for me to take that leap. Nevertheless, I do understand where you are coming from.
Simple fact is that they all knew the moral wrong. Harvard needs to check their History programs because what the fuck.
"Well actually they understood it was bad, they just tolerated it" seems like a really weird "gotcha" to use
This is just meandering and speaking from both sides of your mouth. What does it matter if it's hard fact or not if you've already succumbed to the idea that it's actually probable that such events took place. It's a well accepted truth of the era of slavery and pontificating about it has 0 meaning in the overall distinction.
I can't help but notice say you understand and agree with Powdered Egg and MammothJones but then you just double down in your original notions to begin with. Which is it? Those two ideas don't coexist and aren't compatible with each other.
It fascinates me because it shows off dichotomy between white and black people when it comes to the topic of slavery. It's exactly why the discussion gets messy and carried away because there simply is not a level of understanding when it comes to having discussions about the past.
When white people hear the word Slavery, they tend to think "A great horror", "A great evil". Some are callous enough to think of it as a "Neccesary evil"
When black people hear the word Slavery, it's a reminder of the Rape, Torture, Subjugation, and Utilization of our people. It reminds us that even though our ancestors built this country, this country was never meant for us. Even though our ancestors were the catalyst of this countrys economy, its economy was not meant for us. And that all the systems of this countrys operation were not meant for us as well.
We all sat in school and learned about these "Founding Fathers" and all the "good" they did while they actively decided to not tell us the truth about these men and what they represented...
And all these men represent is hypocrisy. Because they very much so were willing to not abide the words on their fancy document if it meant they had a better chance at fighting against their own "tyranny and subjugation". They were more than willing to put aside the humanity and freedom of Africans, taking part in the same system of slavery they felt "moral conflict" over..... For what? To "establish a more perfect union"....
And what's the state of this union currently?? At this very second as 2020 approaches?
Divided, In Conflict, and On Edge..
Due to the same mistakes these men made. It's remarkable. These guys coddled the slave states and gave birth to White Supremacy..... Only for the same slavers to turn around and enact a full fucking Rebellion against the very Union that coddled them. And when they lost, Andrew Johnson STILL went out his way to coddle the same slavers and racists, only cementing their foothold of power and economic status, giving birth to murderous KKK terrorists and the like...
The same people coddled still to this day, leading to the racist and despicable Administration we have in office now. It's the same result of coddling White Supremacy. It's what happens when the same attitudes are preserved and maintained throughout history.
White People don't feel this, because the system itself was created for them to be above it. It's the definition of white privilege. You don't have to think about history under these terms. You don't have to view it through that lens. That's why you're able to pontificate about the "principles" of a slaveowner. You your very self said you wished the guy lived longer like he didn't already have his time on Earth...
None of that means shit to black people. It's irrelevant to the overall picture. I feel that your response would be to say that it simply isn't black and white and more of grey area.
But it very much so is black and white when these men would have us and our families exist as property if we lived during that era.
It's irrelevant how morally conflicted they would be about it. It's irrelevant wether they went the full mile of banality in regards to American Chattel Slavery. It's irrelevant what Pete Bootymeat says in the clip about them "not knowing" how wrong they were. (Which is false if we haven't cleared that up)
The damage is very much so done and is all the same. So much so to the point that people continue the same mistakes in the modern day.
The mistake being coddling White Supremacy and giving the benefit of the doubt to its enablers.
I appreciate your detailed response, and I know this is clearly and rightfully a really meaningful issue for you and millions of others. It has certainly given me a lot to think about, and I thank you for that.
But I do think we are going to see eye to eye on this very specific and largely academic issue, so we should probably leave it at that.