Conquer Club

i think player's point is that, if jefferson can be considered a rapist, then most other men of the time period can be considered rapists too. which doesn't bother me all that much, to be honest, and it shouldn't bother you guys either.

john9blue wrote:i think player's point is that, if jefferson can be considered a rapist, then most other men of the time period can be considered rapists too. which doesn't bother me all that much, to be honest, and it shouldn't bother you guys either.

No, that was not my point, but that you think it was... and that that is OK is, well, disturbing.

Starz comments are close to what I was suggesting.

john9blue wrote:i think player's point is that, if jefferson can be considered a rapist, then most other men of the time period can be considered rapists too. which doesn't bother me all that much, to be honest, and it shouldn't bother you guys either.

If, with the tale as history tells it points to Jefferson and "most other men of the time period" being rapists, then it rather makes all men - even of this time period, 2013 - "rapists," because if coercion = rape then pretty much all men who ever had intercourse with a woman, are guilty of rape.

The fact is, NOT all coercion = rape. Nor is the "coercion of power" - which in essence, is what the "coercion of slavery" is - it's not always equal to rape either.

But what Player was, in her way, and I, in my way, were trying to get at is, just because this coercion of power exists, does NOT mean that "coercion of power" was then or is now, the most motivating force for any woman, especially not for a healthy, intelligent, and loving woman as it seems Sally was.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

john9blue wrote:i think player's point is that, if jefferson can be considered a rapist, then most other men of the time period can be considered rapists too. which doesn't bother me all that much, to be honest, and it shouldn't bother you guys either.

No, that was not my point, but that you think it was... and that that is OK is, well, disturbing.

Starz comments are close to what I was suggesting.

well then, if many women of the era were not free, why are the men who had sex with them not rapists?

john9blue wrote:well then, if many women of the era were not free, why are the men who had sex with them not rapists?

Women of this era are not free of coercion; are all men of this era who have intercourse with a woman, rapists?

Erm. No. It depends on the amount/degree of coercion used, doesn't it? And, to consider it rape, the coercion has to be forceful enough to be "threatening" rather than just there, doesn't it?

stahrgazer wrote:

john9blue wrote:well then, if many women of the era were not free, why are the men who had sex with them not rapists?

Women of this era are not free of coercion; are all men of this era who have intercourse with a woman, rapists?

Erm. No. It depends on the amount/degree of coercion used, doesn't it? And, to consider it rape, the coercion has to be forceful enough to be "threatening" rather than just there, doesn't it?

i agree. which is why it's ridiculous to say that jefferson raped this girl just because her legal status was "jefferson's slave". there are tons of other factors which people like symmetry like to blissfully ignore.

john9blue wrote:

stahrgazer wrote:

john9blue wrote:well then, if many women of the era were not free, why are the men who had sex with them not rapists?

Women of this era are not free of coercion; are all men of this era who have intercourse with a woman, rapists?

Erm. No. It depends on the amount/degree of coercion used, doesn't it? And, to consider it rape, the coercion has to be forceful enough to be "threatening" rather than just there, doesn't it?

i agree. which is why it's ridiculous to say that jefferson raped this girl just because her legal status was "jefferson's slave". there are tons of other factors which people like symmetry like to blissfully ignore.

Not the least being, she wasn't his slave at the time of the proven intercourse

But even if she was, he didn't treat her abusively so "I'm a slave" may not have been the most powerful motivator, as Player and I had tried to point out.

stahrgazer wrote: But what Player was, in her way, and I, in my way, were trying to get at is, just because this coercion of power exists, does NOT mean that "coercion of power" was then or is now, the most motivating force for any woman, especially not for a healthy, intelligent, and loving woman as it seems Sally was.

No, that would be almost the opposite of what I was saying.

The truth is that its easy to greatly exaggerate what freedom means in rhetoric. The real truth is that few people truly have real freedom, not even the very wealthy (though they come close), because they are constrained by social "mores". In fact wealthy people are often more socially constrained (that is constrained to follow the "rules", though the "rules " might be very oppressive to some others).

Never is this more true than the case of women in that time. The idea that ANY woman in that day was truly free is an exaggeration.

Yet, here is the thing. People DID make choices, even with the constraints. Women, just like men would proclaim that they were "free". It is in that context that you have to judge whether Sally was able to make her won decisions or not. The facts show that she had more choice than many white women and certainly more than other black women of the day, even "free" women.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

stahrgazer wrote: But what Player was, in her way, and I, in my way, were trying to get at is, just because this coercion of power exists, does NOT mean that "coercion of power" was then or is now, the most motivating force for any woman, especially not for a healthy, intelligent, and loving woman as it seems Sally was.

No, that would be almost the opposite of what I was saying.

The truth is that its easy to greatly exaggerate what freedom means in rhetoric. The real truth is that few people truly have real freedom, not even the very wealthy (though they come close), because they are constrained by social "mores". In fact wealthy people are often more socially constrained (that is constrained to follow the "rules", though the "rules " might be very oppressive to some others).

Never is this more true than the case of women in that time. The idea that ANY woman in that day was truly free is an exaggeration.

Yet, here is the thing. People DID make choices, even with the constraints. Women, just like men would proclaim that they were "free". It is in that context that you have to judge whether Sally was able to make her won decisions or not. The facts show that she had more choice than many white women and certainly more than other black women of the day, even "free" women.

You are saying what I was saying. You're simply calling those other forces, "constraints" while I called them coercions and motivating forces other than the "coercion of power."

john9blue wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

john9blue wrote:i think player's point is that, if jefferson can be considered a rapist, then most other men of the time period can be considered rapists too. which doesn't bother me all that much, to be honest, and it shouldn't bother you guys either.

No, that was not my point, but that you think it was... and that that is OK is, well, disturbing.

Starz comments are close to what I was suggesting.

well then, if many women of the era were not free, why are the men who had sex with them not rapists?

The part I objected to was your "doesn't bother me much" bit. It really should.

Saying that times were different back then and we cannot judge people based on the rules of the day is very different than saying "it seems fine to me". I can dislike, abhore, the institution of slavery without demanding that every single person, every single interaction was negative.

The rules for consent differed back then. The views about women, the value women had in society, in life differed. The "mores" men were taught differed. I reject Summetries' assumptions, partly becuase in this particular case the evidence just doesn't show things happened the way she likes to insist and partially because while women were more constrained, so were men.

It is a constant irony in philosophy, ethics that often the oppressors are almost as constrained as those oppressed. That is one constant and fundamental argument against oppression.


It is a constant irony in philosophy, ethics that often the oppressors are almost as constrained as those oppressed. That is one constant and fundamental argument against oppression.

Many men in the US, particularly in conservative Christian groups want to pretend that there is some kind of “ideal” past, when, well.. “men were men”. It certainly was easier in some ways to be a man in the 1950’s. No worry about what to cook, you might get yelled at if you were late, but dinner would generally be there… etc. Except, well…Men wound up having to leave their families, kids if needed to make a living and were not supposed to be terribly upset about it, men and women each had to “dress” a certain way, follow very specific rules and patterns… etc.

Today, we have choices. Choices often mean more work, but the end result is, most would say, far better. Not always, but I don’t know many people who would seriously and truly trade today for then (who actually understand that time, anyway).

PLAYER57832 wrote:

john9blue wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

john9blue wrote:i think player's point is that, if jefferson can be considered a rapist, then most other men of the time period can be considered rapists too. which doesn't bother me all that much, to be honest, and it shouldn't bother you guys either.

No, that was not my point, but that you think it was... and that that is OK is, well, disturbing.

Starz comments are close to what I was suggesting.

well then, if many women of the era were not free, why are the men who had sex with them not rapists?

The part I objected to was your "doesn't bother me much" bit. It really should.

Saying that times were different back then and we cannot judge people based on the rules of the day is very different than saying "it seems fine to me". I can dislike, abhore, the institution of slavery without demanding that every single person, every single interaction was negative.

The rules for consent differed back then. The views about women, the value women had in society, in life differed. The "mores" men were taught differed. I reject Summetries' assumptions, partly becuase in this particular case the evidence just doesn't show things happened the way she likes to insist and partially because while women were more constrained, so were men.

the reason it doesn't bother me is beacuse i know almost all of the men who treated women/minorities/etc. "poorly" (by modern standards) back in those days were not actually bad people, they were just influenced by the morals of their culture.

bad PEOPLE bother me. and you can't tell whether someone is bad just by looking at their actions.

john9blue wrote: the reason it doesn't bother me is beacuse i know almost all of the men who treated women/minorities/etc. "poorly" (by modern standards) back in those days were not actually bad people, they were just influenced by the morals of their culture.

bad PEOPLE bother me. and you can't tell whether someone is bad just by looking at their actions.

I still disagree. Its not that I give the men of the day a pass, its that Jefferson was one who went as far as he could to break the rules. If everyone had lived by Jefferson's standards, then there would likely not have been slavery much longer, if at all. THAT is the point.

We don't have the right to judge individuals directly, but we can absolutely judge actions and the way many men of that day acted was abhorrant by any standards. It just so happens that Jefferson was not one of them.

Getting into mincing words over whether Sally was or was not a slave doesn't move that discussion forward. But, saying that all women were treated poorly, so the men could just be excused is not correct either. By that standard, we would have no right to ever push for change at all, because to push for change is, very much, to say that someone else's behavior is wrong.

PLAYER57832 wrote:[quote="john9blue the reason it doesn't bother me is beacuse i know almost all of the men who treated women/minorities/etc. "poorly" (by modern standards) back in those days were not actually bad people, they were just influenced by the morals of their culture.

bad PEOPLE bother me. and you can't tell whether someone is bad just by looking at their actions.

I still disagree. Its not that I give the men of the day a pass, its that Jefferson was one who went as far as he could to break the rules. If everyone had lived by Jefferson's standards, then there would likely not have been slavery much longer, if at all. THAT is the point.

We don't have the right to judge individuals directly, but we can absolutely judge actions and the way many men of that day acted was abhorrant by any standards. It just so happens that Jefferson was not one of them.

Getting into mincing words over whether Sally was or was not a slave doesn't move that discussion forward. But, saying that all women were treated poorly, so the men could just be excused is not correct either. By that standard, we would have no right to ever push for change at all, because to push for change is, very much, to say that someone else's behavior is wrong.[/quote]

He was as slave trader, and he raped his slave and kept his own children (who he never acknowledged) in slavery). Is that not abhorrent?

PLAYER57832 wrote:I still disagree. Its not that I give the men of the day a pass, its that Jefferson was one who went as far as he could to break the rules. If everyone had lived by Jefferson's standards, then there would likely not have been slavery much longer, if at all. THAT is the point.

We don't have the right to judge individuals directly, but we can absolutely judge actions and the way many men of that day acted was abhorrant by any standards. It just so happens that Jefferson was not one of them.

He was as slave trader, and he raped his slave and kept his own children (who he never acknowledged) in slavery. Is that not abhorrent?

Symmetry wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

john9blue wrote: the reason it doesn't bother me is beacuse i know almost all of the men who treated women/minorities/etc. "poorly" (by modern standards) back in those days were not actually bad people, they were just influenced by the morals of their culture.

bad PEOPLE bother me. and you can't tell whether someone is bad just by looking at their actions.

I still disagree. Its not that I give the men of the day a pass, its that Jefferson was one who went as far as he could to break the rules. If everyone had lived by Jefferson's standards, then there would likely not have been slavery much longer, if at all. THAT is the point.

We don't have the right to judge individuals directly, but we can absolutely judge actions and the way many men of that day acted was abhorrant by any standards. It just so happens that Jefferson was not one of them.

Getting into mincing words over whether Sally was or was not a slave doesn't move that discussion forward. But, saying that all women were treated poorly, so the men could just be excused is not correct either. By that standard, we would have no right to ever push for change at all, because to push for change is, very much, to say that someone else's behavior is wrong.

He was as slave trader, and he raped his slave and kept his own children (who he never acknowledged) in slavery). Is that not abhorrent?

He could not, given the times, as you say "acknowledge" his children in public. He did acknowledge them, provide for them privately. As fro "keeping them in slavery" – that has already been addressed. He did so in name, only. By so doing, he was able to PROTECT and educate them, as he would not have been able to had he freed them. He DID free them legally when they were old enough to fend for themselves. Several of his children then “passed” as white – in that day, the best thing that could happen to a black person, but something rife with penalties. Had Jefferson, as you demand “acknowledged” them publically, then NONE of that would be possible.

You can pretend that names tell all or you can actually look at the details. This is not justification of slavery or saying things were wonderful back then.
It is saying that people can only step go so far to stretch the conditions of the time. Jefferson went far beyond what almost anyone of the day would or could.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

john9blue wrote: the reason it doesn't bother me is beacuse i know almost all of the men who treated women/minorities/etc. "poorly" (by modern standards) back in those days were not actually bad people, they were just influenced by the morals of their culture.

bad PEOPLE bother me. and you can't tell whether someone is bad just by looking at their actions.

I still disagree. Its not that I give the men of the day a pass, its that Jefferson was one who went as far as he could to break the rules. If everyone had lived by Jefferson's standards, then there would likely not have been slavery much longer, if at all. THAT is the point.

We don't have the right to judge individuals directly, but we can absolutely judge actions and the way many men of that day acted was abhorrant by any standards. It just so happens that Jefferson was not one of them.

Getting into mincing words over whether Sally was or was not a slave doesn't move that discussion forward. But, saying that all women were treated poorly, so the men could just be excused is not correct either. By that standard, we would have no right to ever push for change at all, because to push for change is, very much, to say that someone else's behavior is wrong.

He was as slave trader, and he raped his slave and kept his own children (who he never acknowledged) in slavery). Is that not abhorrent?

He could not, given the times, as you say "acknowledge" his children in public. He did acknowledge them, provide for them privately. As fro "keeping them in slavery" – that has already been addressed. He did so in name, only. By so doing, he was able to PROTECT and educate them, as he would not have been able to had he freed them. He DID free them legally when they were old enough to fend for themselves. Several of his children then “passed” as white – in that day, the best thing that could happen to a black person, but something rife with penalties. Had Jefferson, as you demand “acknowledged” them publically, then NONE of that would be possible.

You can pretend that names tell all or you can actually look at the details. This is not justification of slavery or saying things were wonderful back then.
It is saying that people can only step go so far to stretch the conditions of the time. Jefferson went far beyond what almost anyone of the day would or could.

Not really- I would assume that the majority of people didn't resort to slave trading when they got into debt.

Symmetry wrote:Not really- I would assume that the majority of people didn't resort to slave trading when they got into debt.

You assume a lot.

Also, the issue was not whether Jefferson was a great abolitionist. The question was whether she abused Sally and her children.

Symmetry wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

john9blue wrote: the reason it doesn't bother me is beacuse i know almost all of the men who treated women/minorities/etc. "poorly" (by modern standards) back in those days were not actually bad people, they were just influenced by the morals of their culture.

bad PEOPLE bother me. and you can't tell whether someone is bad just by looking at their actions.

I still disagree. Its not that I give the men of the day a pass, its that Jefferson was one who went as far as he could to break the rules. If everyone had lived by Jefferson's standards, then there would likely not have been slavery much longer, if at all. THAT is the point.

We don't have the right to judge individuals directly, but we can absolutely judge actions and the way many men of that day acted was abhorrant by any standards. It just so happens that Jefferson was not one of them.

Getting into mincing words over whether Sally was or was not a slave doesn't move that discussion forward. But, saying that all women were treated poorly, so the men could just be excused is not correct either. By that standard, we would have no right to ever push for change at all, because to push for change is, very much, to say that someone else's behavior is wrong.

He was as slave trader, and he raped his slave and kept his own children (who he never acknowledged) in slavery). Is that not abhorrent?

He could not, given the times, as you say "acknowledge" his children in public. He did acknowledge them, provide for them privately. As fro "keeping them in slavery" – that has already been addressed. He did so in name, only. By so doing, he was able to PROTECT and educate them, as he would not have been able to had he freed them. He DID free them legally when they were old enough to fend for themselves. Several of his children then “passed” as white – in that day, the best thing that could happen to a black person, but something rife with penalties. Had Jefferson, as you demand “acknowledged” them publically, then NONE of that would be possible.

You can pretend that names tell all or you can actually look at the details. This is not justification of slavery or saying things were wonderful back then.
It is saying that people can only step go so far to stretch the conditions of the time. Jefferson went far beyond what almost anyone of the day would or could.

Not really- I would assume that the majority of people didn't resort to slave trading when they got into debt.

WTf IS YOUR PROBLEM? It has never been proven that Thomas Jefferson ever fucked any black person. in fact he may of had as much a chance of raping you in the mouth as raping Sally. You lost the war of 1776 and 1812, so get the f*ck over it. You gave up your gun rights and free speech in the UK. You and most of your countrymen, for all practical purposes are slaves. Please STFU and pick some cotton you slave f*ck.

GeneralRisk wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

john9blue wrote: the reason it doesn't bother me is beacuse i know almost all of the men who treated women/minorities/etc. "poorly" (by modern standards) back in those days were not actually bad people, they were just influenced by the morals of their culture.

bad PEOPLE bother me. and you can't tell whether someone is bad just by looking at their actions.

I still disagree. Its not that I give the men of the day a pass, its that Jefferson was one who went as far as he could to break the rules. If everyone had lived by Jefferson's standards, then there would likely not have been slavery much longer, if at all. THAT is the point.

We don't have the right to judge individuals directly, but we can absolutely judge actions and the way many men of that day acted was abhorrant by any standards. It just so happens that Jefferson was not one of them.

Getting into mincing words over whether Sally was or was not a slave doesn't move that discussion forward. But, saying that all women were treated poorly, so the men could just be excused is not correct either. By that standard, we would have no right to ever push for change at all, because to push for change is, very much, to say that someone else's behavior is wrong.

He was as slave trader, and he raped his slave and kept his own children (who he never acknowledged) in slavery). Is that not abhorrent?

He could not, given the times, as you say "acknowledge" his children in public. He did acknowledge them, provide for them privately. As fro "keeping them in slavery" – that has already been addressed. He did so in name, only. By so doing, he was able to PROTECT and educate them, as he would not have been able to had he freed them. He DID free them legally when they were old enough to fend for themselves. Several of his children then “passed” as white – in that day, the best thing that could happen to a black person, but something rife with penalties. Had Jefferson, as you demand “acknowledged” them publically, then NONE of that would be possible.

You can pretend that names tell all or you can actually look at the details. This is not justification of slavery or saying things were wonderful back then.
It is saying that people can only step go so far to stretch the conditions of the time. Jefferson went far beyond what almost anyone of the day would or could.

Not really- I would assume that the majority of people didn't resort to slave trading when they got into debt.

WTf IS YOUR PROBLEM? It has never been proven that Thomas Jefferson ever fucked any black person. in fact he may of had as much a chance of raping you in the mouth as raping Sally. You lost the war of 1776 and 1812, so get the f*ck over it. You gave up your gun rights and free speech in the UK. You and most of your countrymen, for all practical purposes are slaves. Please STFU and pick some cotton you slave f*ck.

The US won the war of 1812? News to me...but then I don't get my history from Holocaust deniers.Oh and internet bullies don't really scare anyone,you can't send your black-shirted bullyboy pals goosestepping thru cyberspace to beat people up.In this market place of ideas yours cannot stand up to the scrutiny of an international educated response,so they must wither and die.Inevitably.

Symmetry wrote:He was as slave trader,

Well, he owned them, anyway, as did many plantation owners. Wouldn't quite call that "slave trader," though - it implies he made the trade his profession, which he did not.

Symmetry wrote:and he raped his slave

No. He did not.

Symmetry wrote:and kept his own children (who he never acknowledged) in slavery.

No, he did not. He freed them per the laws of the state he lived in at the time: when they came of age. If he had tried to free them prior to that, he would have risked them being captured and enslaved by someone brutal. Choice two was to send them away from home, which their mother did not wish. We know she did not wish it because when she, a then-free woman, became pregnant by Jefferson, she CHOSE to return to Virginia with him.

Symmetry wrote: Is that not abhorrent?

Blind Ignorance is more abhorrent.

chang50 wrote:

GeneralRisk wrote:WTf IS YOUR PROBLEM? It has never been proven that Thomas Jefferson ever fucked any black person. in fact he may of had as much a chance of raping you in the mouth as raping Sally. You lost the war of 1776 and 1812, so get the f*ck over it. You gave up your gun rights and free speech in the UK. You and most of your countrymen, for all practical purposes are slaves. Please STFU and pick some cotton you slave f*ck.

The US won the war of 1812? News to me...but then I don't get my history from Holocaust deniers.Oh and internet bullies don't really scare anyone,you can't send your black-shirted bullyboy pals goosestepping thru cyberspace to beat people up.In this market place of ideas yours cannot stand up to the scrutiny of an international educated response,so they must wither and die.Inevitably.

Obviously Generalrisk ignored my previous post about 1812 in his thread back here. I'll repost it for his benefit:

Ray Rider wrote:As far as the speech goes, it was really good, aside from his complete misrepresentation of the War of 1812. He claimed the US won the war even though it was the US that declared war, retreated so far they abandoned their capitol to be burned, and were eventually forced to make peace again without gaining a square inch of territory. That doesn't sound like winning. To rephrase Dr. Carson in a more accurate light, "...even though the Americans thought that we Canadians were young whippersnappers and it was time for us to become another US State...we went on to win that war and retain our freedom!" Plus about 3,000 American slaves won their freedom by escaping to Canada (then a British territory) in the chaos. Thomas Jefferson stated back then that "The acquisition of Canada this year, as far as the neighborhood of Quebec, will be a mere matter of marching, and will give us the experience for the attack on Halifax, the next and final expulsion of England from the American continent." However that walk in the park was not meant to be. Of course economically, the takeover has virtually happened over time; but that's beside the point.

As an aside, it's funny to see people still refusing to admit they're wrong about Thomas Jefferson being a rapist even though that assertion been thoroughly debunked.

Ray Rider wrote:

chang50 wrote:

GeneralRisk wrote:WTf IS YOUR PROBLEM? It has never been proven that Thomas Jefferson ever fucked any black person. in fact he may of had as much a chance of raping you in the mouth as raping Sally. You lost the war of 1776 and 1812, so get the f*ck over it. You gave up your gun rights and free speech in the UK. You and most of your countrymen, for all practical purposes are slaves. Please STFU and pick some cotton you slave f*ck.

The US won the war of 1812? News to me...but then I don't get my history from Holocaust deniers.Oh and internet bullies don't really scare anyone,you can't send your black-shirted bullyboy pals goosestepping thru cyberspace to beat people up.In this market place of ideas yours cannot stand up to the scrutiny of an international educated response,so they must wither and die.Inevitably.

Obviously Generalrisk ignored my previous post about 1812 in his thread back here. I'll repost it for his benefit:

Ray Rider wrote:As far as the speech goes, it was really good, aside from his complete misrepresentation of the War of 1812. He claimed the US won the war even though it was the US that declared war, retreated so far they abandoned their capitol to be burned, and were eventually forced to make peace again without gaining a square inch of territory. That doesn't sound like winning. To rephrase Dr. Carson in a more accurate light, "...even though the Americans thought that we Canadians were young whippersnappers and it was time for us to become another US State...we went on to win that war and retain our freedom!" Plus about 3,000 American slaves won their freedom by escaping to Canada (then a British territory) in the chaos. Thomas Jefferson stated back then that "The acquisition of Canada this year, as far as the neighborhood of Quebec, will be a mere matter of marching, and will give us the experience for the attack on Halifax, the next and final expulsion of England from the American continent." However that walk in the park was not meant to be. Of course economically, the takeover has virtually happened over time; but that's beside the point.

As an aside, it's funny to see people still refusing to admit they're wrong about Thomas Jefferson being a rapist even though that assertion been thoroughly debunked.

In fact the biggest loser in the war were the Native Americans led by the great chief Tecumseh,but I digress..

chang50 wrote:

Ray Rider wrote:

chang50 wrote:

GeneralRisk wrote:WTf IS YOUR PROBLEM? It has never been proven that Thomas Jefferson ever fucked any black person. in fact he may of had as much a chance of raping you in the mouth as raping Sally. You lost the war of 1776 and 1812, so get the f*ck over it. You gave up your gun rights and free speech in the UK. You and most of your countrymen, for all practical purposes are slaves. Please STFU and pick some cotton you slave f*ck.

The US won the war of 1812? News to me...but then I don't get my history from Holocaust deniers.Oh and internet bullies don't really scare anyone,you can't send your black-shirted bullyboy pals goosestepping thru cyberspace to beat people up.In this market place of ideas yours cannot stand up to the scrutiny of an international educated response,so they must wither and die.Inevitably.

Obviously Generalrisk ignored my previous post about 1812 in his thread back here. I'll repost it for his benefit:

Ray Rider wrote:As far as the speech goes, it was really good, aside from his complete misrepresentation of the War of 1812. He claimed the US won the war even though it was the US that declared war, retreated so far they abandoned their capitol to be burned, and were eventually forced to make peace again without gaining a square inch of territory. That doesn't sound like winning. To rephrase Dr. Carson in a more accurate light, "...even though the Americans thought that we Canadians were young whippersnappers and it was time for us to become another US State...we went on to win that war and retain our freedom!" Plus about 3,000 American slaves won their freedom by escaping to Canada (then a British territory) in the chaos. Thomas Jefferson stated back then that "The acquisition of Canada this year, as far as the neighborhood of Quebec, will be a mere matter of marching, and will give us the experience for the attack on Halifax, the next and final expulsion of England from the American continent." However that walk in the park was not meant to be. Of course economically, the takeover has virtually happened over time; but that's beside the point.

As an aside, it's funny to see people still refusing to admit they're wrong about Thomas Jefferson being a rapist even thyesough that assertion been thoroughly debunked.

In fact the biggest loser in the war were the Native Americans led by the great chief Tecumseh,but I digress..

Yes, I fully agree. The Americans lost the war in that they failed in their original intent of taking Canada and took a beating in the process; but the Native Confederacy literally lost everything in the war. It was devastating to them. I often wonder what the result would have been had the Natives been successful in creating an independent nation where they could rule themselves rather than being mistreated by the Whites in both the US and Canada.

stahrgazer wrote:

Symmetry wrote:He was as slave trader,

Well, he owned them, anyway, as did many plantation owners. Wouldn't quite call that "slave trader," though - it implies he made the trade his profession, which he did not.

He bought and sold slaves to pay off his debts. That's slave trading. He was a slave trader. It was certainly part of his professional life. It was one of the ways he made his money.

Although opposed to the international slave trade, Jefferson sometimes bought slaves and often sold them.[188][189] After returning from France, he sold fifty slaves to pay the debts he had incurred there.[188][190] Ten years after the abolition of the American slave trade, Jefferson, again to pay his debts, sold slaves to his grandson.[191]