Sacha wrote, "Not that long ago, the question was what is a human... and the accepted definition only included white people"
I'm old and lived in the deep South when supervisors felt free to call a black employee a ni**er and never heard even the most racist bigots suggest that only white people are human. He established himself as someone with no respect for truth right away didn't he.
Sacha wrote, "Not that long ago, the question was what is a human... and the accepted definition only included white people"
I'm old and lived in the deep South when supervisors felt free to call a black employee a ni**er and never heard even the most racist bigots suggest that only white people are human. He established himself as someone with no respect for truth right away didn't he.
"He established himself as someone with no respect for truth right away didn't he."
I'm fighting with every fibre of my being not to let this settle in as a default assumption, I definitely know some exceptions to this rule, but let's say, in general, I find that people whose identity is based on a lie have a very liberal relationship with the truth.
You are right in that of course, but it isn't my default. My thought on that hangs upon what "not long ago" means. Unfortunately, in the age of hyperbole we have trouble deciding if words are disingenuous. In the grand scheme of humanity's existence, not long ago is different from what people are generally thinking when they hear those words.
Dave, I think Sacha is referring to the three-fifths compromise in America where the country debated whether African Americans were fully human and settled on the idea they were 3/5ths of a human. Natives also didnтАЩt count, as they were seen as тАЬless than humanтАЭ or akin to other apes due to being тАЬuncivilized.тАЭ
Joe, a valid thought but there is room for nuance. Northern/anti-slave states wished to dilute the political power of slave states and reduce the number of Congressmen from those states (based upon census). The slave states would probably have been happy to have slaves counted as whole persons in the census. Ironically, it could be that the anti-slave people who would benefit from that compromise. Was that truly a matter of a less than human idea, or one of political power?
With regard to the native people who were being displaced, what was the ratio of "less human savages" to "soothing conscience" thought? I suspect that many trash ideas are about soothing a guilty conscience.
The book, "Empire of the Summer Moon" is an interesting look at the cultures and behaviors of various tribes, and the political tribes of "Americans" (yeah, I know) and Mexicans.
Sacha wrote, "Not that long ago, the question was what is a human... and the accepted definition only included white people"
I'm old and lived in the deep South when supervisors felt free to call a black employee a ni**er and never heard even the most racist bigots suggest that only white people are human. He established himself as someone with no respect for truth right away didn't he.
"He established himself as someone with no respect for truth right away didn't he."
I'm fighting with every fibre of my being not to let this settle in as a default assumption, I definitely know some exceptions to this rule, but let's say, in general, I find that people whose identity is based on a lie have a very liberal relationship with the truth.
You are right in that of course, but it isn't my default. My thought on that hangs upon what "not long ago" means. Unfortunately, in the age of hyperbole we have trouble deciding if words are disingenuous. In the grand scheme of humanity's existence, not long ago is different from what people are generally thinking when they hear those words.
Dave, I think Sacha is referring to the three-fifths compromise in America where the country debated whether African Americans were fully human and settled on the idea they were 3/5ths of a human. Natives also didnтАЩt count, as they were seen as тАЬless than humanтАЭ or akin to other apes due to being тАЬuncivilized.тАЭ
Joe, a valid thought but there is room for nuance. Northern/anti-slave states wished to dilute the political power of slave states and reduce the number of Congressmen from those states (based upon census). The slave states would probably have been happy to have slaves counted as whole persons in the census. Ironically, it could be that the anti-slave people who would benefit from that compromise. Was that truly a matter of a less than human idea, or one of political power?
With regard to the native people who were being displaced, what was the ratio of "less human savages" to "soothing conscience" thought? I suspect that many trash ideas are about soothing a guilty conscience.
The book, "Empire of the Summer Moon" is an interesting look at the cultures and behaviors of various tribes, and the political tribes of "Americans" (yeah, I know) and Mexicans.