I almost gave up on this article upon the assertion: "Simply to say he was a man of his time and bore no responsibility on slavery is historically and intellectually a mistake."
Audubon DIED before the Civil War. He grew up in a time and place when slaveholding was considered completely acceptable (as it had been for thousands of years of human history prior to that point). Expecting the man to reject what was normal in his world is not merely unreasonable, it is outrageously unreasonable.
The ironic thing is that Leftists constantly scream for lower standards for POCs because the "systemically racist" world in which they live means they can't be expected to do any better. Progressives want POC to be able to steal, assault, and murder without consequences, because it's "not fair" to punish them for behavior that is supposedly "caused" by racism.
And yet white people of the past were supposedly unaffected by the social environment they grew up in. They should have KNOWN--say Leftists--that slavery was evil, and they should have gotten rid of it AND "systemic racism" in their own era. And the failure to have done so makes them automatically too evil to have their names spoken ever again.
This is one of the most interesting fallacies I have seen mentioned! The idea that we have to give current people a pass because society is holding them back. But people of the past can't have that same pass for being held back by their society. Excellent.
Six hundred thousand NORTHERNERS, who did not grow up surrounded by slave-owners, but rather by Abolitionists. And although you might find it uncomfortable, chances are that most of them who didn't want black people to be slaves anymore nevertheless did not want black people to be their neighbors.
If Northerners were so wonderful, the former slaves who migrated north would not have faced persistent racism in their new cities.
Where does this PC/Woke crap end? Ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome and almost every civilization on Earth had slaves. Does this mean we should empty the museums of the world of pre 20th century artifacts? Turn all of the ancient statuary into gravel and destroy all artwork from these slave owning societies?
Do these tyrannical assholes want to rewrite history, burn all books that mention slaves, Shakespeare, Huckleberry Finn, Gone With The Wind, The Bible and hundreds of thousand of ancient texts and all literature that not only write about slavery but those works that came from slave owning societies?
Again I ask, where does it end?
If I weren't so old I'd move to Ticino Switzerland and sit on my patio admiring the glory of the Alps and drink good wine out of a paper sack.
The most ironic moment was when a few days ago the NYT published an article about black people who were enslaved by Oklahoma Native Americans (of course, the article was about the rights of those people somehow being trampled by police trying to enforce laws). I was like: wait a minute, so a major VICTIM group has victimized another major VICTIM group? That blows my intersectional fuses, itтАЩs too difficult to fathom! So everybody does it, just like the West African black kingdoms of W Africa, who were begging the British as late as the 1870s to resume the тАЬmutually beneficialтАЭ slave trade? IsnтАЩt that supposed to happen only because тАЬracism is in white peopleтАЩs DNAтАЭ?
It ends with the total and complete appropriation of those cultures and their proponents marginalized and oppressed. This is vengeance pure and simple.
All the seemingly-unrelated "movements" are in reality pieces of the giant puzzle called, variously, Communist Revolution, One World Government, Elite Totalitarianism.
It's quite revealing to read the Enemy's literature; destruction of the nuclear family, destruction of tradition, destroying and rewriting history are all parts, and so is "presentism" - the idea that all history, traditional thought, and principles are relics of the past; that those people were stupid and unenlightened (not like us, who are f'ing geniuses), and we have to eliminate from our lives all their knuckle-dragging ideas.
Presentism - -seeks to judge the past by today's standards. Basically it is following this Orwellian mantra: Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book has been rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And that process is continuing day be day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except the endless present in which the party is always right.
Contextualization seeks to explain the past was a different country and put the problematic into context.
"History has stopped. Nothing exists except the endless present in which the party is always right."
Slightly different now tho. We could say that we have an endless present of perpetual Victimhood, but that rests on a never receding past of slavery. The chains rattle today as loudly as they did in 1863 and they will never stop rattling.
'Speciesism' is old hat in the literature of environmental ethics. It's an unnecessarily contentious and somewhat cringe-inducing term that stems from a really interesting question about who or what should be given moral consideration.
Put simply, following terms suggested by Aldo Leopold, our treatment of some things is a matter of ethics, while our treatment of other things is a matter of expediency. Is there any non-arbitrary reason why only human beings should be given moral consideration?
This is a worthwhile question, one that merits some careful thought and requires a lot of nuance.
The charge of 'speciesism' is an impatient short-cut, replacing careful thought with mere name-calling and guilt by association. The implication is supposed to be that 'speciesism' is no more justifiable than racism or sexism.
Presentism is vile. Acknowledging the man's past is one thing. Changing the society's name is foolish.
I almost gave up on this article upon the assertion: "Simply to say he was a man of his time and bore no responsibility on slavery is historically and intellectually a mistake."
Audubon DIED before the Civil War. He grew up in a time and place when slaveholding was considered completely acceptable (as it had been for thousands of years of human history prior to that point). Expecting the man to reject what was normal in his world is not merely unreasonable, it is outrageously unreasonable.
The ironic thing is that Leftists constantly scream for lower standards for POCs because the "systemically racist" world in which they live means they can't be expected to do any better. Progressives want POC to be able to steal, assault, and murder without consequences, because it's "not fair" to punish them for behavior that is supposedly "caused" by racism.
And yet white people of the past were supposedly unaffected by the social environment they grew up in. They should have KNOWN--say Leftists--that slavery was evil, and they should have gotten rid of it AND "systemic racism" in their own era. And the failure to have done so makes them automatically too evil to have their names spoken ever again.
This is one of the most interesting fallacies I have seen mentioned! The idea that we have to give current people a pass because society is holding them back. But people of the past can't have that same pass for being held back by their society. Excellent.
Leftists are experts at Rules for Thee but Not for Me.
Six hundred thousand Union casualties in the Civil War suggests that some of them knew.
Six hundred thousand NORTHERNERS, who did not grow up surrounded by slave-owners, but rather by Abolitionists. And although you might find it uncomfortable, chances are that most of them who didn't want black people to be slaves anymore nevertheless did not want black people to be their neighbors.
If Northerners were so wonderful, the former slaves who migrated north would not have faced persistent racism in their new cities.
Absolutely!
History scares the hell out of some people, hence the presentism. Hence the whitewash. Hence the erasing.
All four Presidents on Mt. Rushmore believed whites were superior to blacks. I'm surprised progressives haven't mined it with sticks of dynamite yet..
I think it will come down eventually if the current societal direction continues. It will be sad.
ItтАЩs coming very soon!
No doubt..
But the name's been keeping all those BIPOC birders out!
The correct response to these hustlers, from Audubon, is to flip them the bird and start selling Quack Lives Matter t-shirts on their website.
But IтАЩm sure they will cave and issue a statement about how winged-flight is racist.
Where does this PC/Woke crap end? Ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome and almost every civilization on Earth had slaves. Does this mean we should empty the museums of the world of pre 20th century artifacts? Turn all of the ancient statuary into gravel and destroy all artwork from these slave owning societies?
Do these tyrannical assholes want to rewrite history, burn all books that mention slaves, Shakespeare, Huckleberry Finn, Gone With The Wind, The Bible and hundreds of thousand of ancient texts and all literature that not only write about slavery but those works that came from slave owning societies?
Again I ask, where does it end?
If I weren't so old I'd move to Ticino Switzerland and sit on my patio admiring the glory of the Alps and drink good wine out of a paper sack.
It doesn't end, because these people always need something to fight against, and to fuel their livelihood if they've become professionally aggrieved.
The most ironic moment was when a few days ago the NYT published an article about black people who were enslaved by Oklahoma Native Americans (of course, the article was about the rights of those people somehow being trampled by police trying to enforce laws). I was like: wait a minute, so a major VICTIM group has victimized another major VICTIM group? That blows my intersectional fuses, itтАЩs too difficult to fathom! So everybody does it, just like the West African black kingdoms of W Africa, who were begging the British as late as the 1870s to resume the тАЬmutually beneficialтАЭ slave trade? IsnтАЩt that supposed to happen only because тАЬracism is in white peopleтАЩs DNAтАЭ?
You are correct. Black slavers raided African villages to capture black people and sell them to slavers
The Kingdom of Dahomey (part of modern Benin) was dependent on the sale of slaves to foreigners.
Did the slaving murderers dress like those depicted in that Marvel "Wakanda" superhero flick?
It ends with the total and complete appropriation of those cultures and their proponents marginalized and oppressed. This is vengeance pure and simple.
The Taliban is their role model - blowing up ancient Buddhist statues.
Good comparison.
Specieist.
Specious.
Something like that.
Flight Supremacy?
ЁЯШВЁЯШВЁЯШВvs white supremacy!
Erase the man. Erase all good that he did for conservancy.
But "presentism?" The Dogs of Neolog have been well and truly loosed...
All the seemingly-unrelated "movements" are in reality pieces of the giant puzzle called, variously, Communist Revolution, One World Government, Elite Totalitarianism.
It's quite revealing to read the Enemy's literature; destruction of the nuclear family, destruction of tradition, destroying and rewriting history are all parts, and so is "presentism" - the idea that all history, traditional thought, and principles are relics of the past; that those people were stupid and unenlightened (not like us, who are f'ing geniuses), and we have to eliminate from our lives all their knuckle-dragging ideas.
Aw, gee. Judging the past by the standards of the present. That's not *such* a freakily jargony term.
No, but it is THE mark of an amateur historian.
Do actual historians still exist? If so, where?
Presentism - -seeks to judge the past by today's standards. Basically it is following this Orwellian mantra: Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book has been rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And that process is continuing day be day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except the endless present in which the party is always right.
Contextualization seeks to explain the past was a different country and put the problematic into context.
"History has stopped. Nothing exists except the endless present in which the party is always right."
Slightly different now tho. We could say that we have an endless present of perpetual Victimhood, but that rests on a never receding past of slavery. The chains rattle today as loudly as they did in 1863 and they will never stop rattling.
Not as long as there is attention gained, advantages had, and money made from doing so.
Exactly J.
My personal favorite is "speciesism".
'Speciesism' is old hat in the literature of environmental ethics. It's an unnecessarily contentious and somewhat cringe-inducing term that stems from a really interesting question about who or what should be given moral consideration.
Put simply, following terms suggested by Aldo Leopold, our treatment of some things is a matter of ethics, while our treatment of other things is a matter of expediency. Is there any non-arbitrary reason why only human beings should be given moral consideration?
This is a worthwhile question, one that merits some careful thought and requires a lot of nuance.
The charge of 'speciesism' is an impatient short-cut, replacing careful thought with mere name-calling and guilt by association. The implication is supposed to be that 'speciesism' is no more justifiable than racism or sexism.