Conquer Club

BigBallinStalin wrote:You're just jealous that you're not owned by your wife.

Hmm... I'm not sure it's accurate that I'm not owned by my wife.

Symmetry wrote:
On the choice front, we can know- she was a slave. It's genuinely odd to me that you avoided mentioning slavery in that long reply.

No, we don't "know". You wish to think so, but in many cases what held people into slavery was actually society. Individually, they often DID have a choice. However, unlike your pretense, blacks alive back then knew that just being free did not mean having more options and opportunities. In fact, a "free" black could, as was pointed out earlier, be taken back into slavery, could be abused almost with impunity.

Again, none of this says that slavery was "good", but if it were as you seem to envision, then it likely would not have endured as long as it did.

This is part of what makes Sally Hemmings truly remarkable and the story of such note, that it WAS an exception and did happen despite all of the "mores" of the time. When you call Jefferson a rapist, you diminish not just Jefferson, but Sally as well. And, I would say many other women as well.

Part of what always distinguishes women of note versus men of "note" historically is how they are able to find ways to break the bounds that very much existed. Ironically, the fact of slavery would have provided Sally far more of a "cover" and protection than if she were white. If she were white, the dalliance would have been looked far more askance thant it was, because a white woman "visiting" Jefferson would have been "noticed", even if done in secret. With Sally, there was no need for any such pretense.

Again, I don't know, but you also don't know what really went on back then, in their minds. Further, what we do know doesn't point to this being an oppressive and unwanted relationship on Sally's part, rather more of a mutually beneficial exchange or union. Your assumption that the label of "slave" is enough for you to understand the whole situation is prejudice, not thoughtful reasoning. Sorry, but that is how I feel.

And, further

PLAYER57832 wrote:This is part of what makes Sally Hemmings truly remarkable and the story of such note, that it WAS an exception and did happen despite all of the "mores" of the time. When you call Jefferson a rapist, you diminish not just Jefferson, but Sally as well. And, I would say many other women as well.

Part of what always distinguishes women of note versus men of "note" historically is how they are able to find ways to break the bounds that very much existed. Ironically, the fact of slavery would have provided Sally far more of a "cover" and protection than if she were white. If she were white, the dalliance would have been looked far more askance thant it was, because a white woman "visiting" Jefferson would have been "noticed", even if done in secret. With Sally, there was no need for any such pretense.

I'm genuinely amazed that you're now arguing that slavery was a good thing. Also, "Hemings".

Symmetry wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:This is part of what makes Sally Hemmings truly remarkable and the story of such note, that it WAS an exception and did happen despite all of the "mores" of the time. When you call Jefferson a rapist, you diminish not just Jefferson, but Sally as well. And, I would say many other women as well.

Part of what always distinguishes women of note versus men of "note" historically is how they are able to find ways to break the bounds that very much existed. Ironically, the fact of slavery would have provided Sally far more of a "cover" and protection than if she were white. If she were white, the dalliance would have been looked far more askance thant it was, because a white woman "visiting" Jefferson would have been "noticed", even if done in secret. With Sally, there was no need for any such pretense.

I'm genuinely amazed that you're now arguing that slavery was a good thing. Also, "Hemings".

Oh PLEASE. I specifically did no such thing.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:This is part of what makes Sally Hemmings truly remarkable and the story of such note, that it WAS an exception and did happen despite all of the "mores" of the time. When you call Jefferson a rapist, you diminish not just Jefferson, but Sally as well. And, I would say many other women as well.

Part of what always distinguishes women of note versus men of "note" historically is how they are able to find ways to break the bounds that very much existed. Ironically, the fact of slavery would have provided Sally far more of a "cover" and protection than if she were white. If she were white, the dalliance would have been looked far more askance thant it was, because a white woman "visiting" Jefferson would have been "noticed", even if done in secret. With Sally, there was no need for any such pretense.

I'm genuinely amazed that you're now arguing that slavery was a good thing. Also, "Hemings".

Oh PLEASE. I specifically did no such thing.

Ironically, the fact of slavery would have provided Sally far more of a "cover" and protection than if she were white.

Care to walk that back?

Symmetry wrote:

john9blue wrote:hey sym, do you think it's even POSSIBLE for two people that the state recognizes as master and slave to have a mutually consenting sexual relationship?

No, I think that the very nature of slavery rules out the idea of mutual consent when it comes to a master and his slave.

do you think it's possible for an employee to do the same with their boss? even if the boss is extremely demanding because they know the employee badly needs the job?

Symmetry wrote:Now, will you answer my my question about how you define rape?

sure, rape is sexual activity without the consent of both parties.

that definition, like all definitions, is subjective. you know this all too well, and i'm not interesting in dealing with your bullshit morphing of the english language to get words to mean what you think they should mean.

maybe once you realize that the world and the english language aren't black and white, then we can have a meaningful talk.

Symmetry wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:This is part of what makes Sally Hemmings truly remarkable and the story of such note, that it WAS an exception and did happen despite all of the "mores" of the time. When you call Jefferson a rapist, you diminish not just Jefferson, but Sally as well. And, I would say many other women as well.

Part of what always distinguishes women of note versus men of "note" historically is how they are able to find ways to break the bounds that very much existed. Ironically, the fact of slavery would have provided Sally far more of a "cover" and protection than if she were white. If she were white, the dalliance would have been looked far more askance thant it was, because a white woman "visiting" Jefferson would have been "noticed", even if done in secret. With Sally, there was no need for any such pretense.

I'm genuinely amazed that you're now arguing that slavery was a good thing. Also, "Hemings".

Oh PLEASE. I specifically did no such thing.

Ironically, the fact of slavery would have provided Sally far more of a "cover" and protection than if she were white.

Care to walk that back?

oh for f*ck's sake LOL.

there is literally no way you are this dense.

you think EVERYTHING that resulted from slavery was bad?

every action that was ever performed due to slavery was morally wrong?

and if we say that any result wasn't morally wrong, then we are condoning slavery as a whole?

i just can't believe the magnitude of your idiocy. you have to be trolling.

john9blue wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:This is part of what makes Sally Hemmings truly remarkable and the story of such note, that it WAS an exception and did happen despite all of the "mores" of the time. When you call Jefferson a rapist, you diminish not just Jefferson, but Sally as well. And, I would say many other women as well.

Part of what always distinguishes women of note versus men of "note" historically is how they are able to find ways to break the bounds that very much existed. Ironically, the fact of slavery would have provided Sally far more of a "cover" and protection than if she were white. If she were white, the dalliance would have been looked far more askance thant it was, because a white woman "visiting" Jefferson would have been "noticed", even if done in secret. With Sally, there was no need for any such pretense.

I'm genuinely amazed that you're now arguing that slavery was a good thing. Also, "Hemings".

Oh PLEASE. I specifically did no such thing.

Ironically, the fact of slavery would have provided Sally far more of a "cover" and protection than if she were white.

Care to walk that back?

oh for f*ck's sake LOL.

there is literally no way you are this dense.

you think EVERYTHING that resulted from slavery was bad?

every action that was ever performed due to slavery was morally wrong?

and if we say that any result wasn't morally wrong, then we are condoning slavery as a whole?

i just can't believe the magnitude of your idiocy. you have to be trolling.

I'm not trolling John, I just disagree with you. Calm down a bit, yeah?

thegreekdog wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:You're just jealous that you're not owned by your wife.

Hmm... I'm not sure it's accurate that I'm not owned by my wife.

Then we must conclude that every time y'all had sex while married, you were raped.

Symmetry wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:This is part of what makes Sally Hemmings truly remarkable and the story of such note, that it WAS an exception and did happen despite all of the "mores" of the time. When you call Jefferson a rapist, you diminish not just Jefferson, but Sally as well. And, I would say many other women as well.

Part of what always distinguishes women of note versus men of "note" historically is how they are able to find ways to break the bounds that very much existed. Ironically, the fact of slavery would have provided Sally far more of a "cover" and protection than if she were white. If she were white, the dalliance would have been looked far more askance thant it was, because a white woman "visiting" Jefferson would have been "noticed", even if done in secret. With Sally, there was no need for any such pretense.

I'm genuinely amazed that you're now arguing that slavery was a good thing. Also, "Hemings".

Oh PLEASE. I specifically did no such thing.

Ironically, the fact of slavery would have provided Sally far more of a "cover" and protection than if she were white.

Care to walk that back?

ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!!Now you are the one being truly objectionable.


Had you bothered to quote the entire bit, you could not honestly say I was claiming slavery was a good thing. Given the conditions of the time, given that particular master(and some others, I will add), some black slaves did fare better than free blacks. Saying that slavery was not in all cases as harsh as you wish to pretend is not in any way "endorsing" slavery or saying slavery was truly a good thing.

See, unlike you, I can recognize that evil happens not just among henious people without morals, but also by generally good people who have good intentions but just don't take the time to fully understand OR who are simply themselves trapped by their society and thus not able to change.

There are records that Jefferson gave Hemmings an allowance and paid a very high price for her and her brothers tutoring.

I thought the secret to slavery was refusing the slave an education?

Symmetry wrote:If you want me to argue in line with your agenda, you'll be disappointed. Nevertheless, in your scenario, do you thinks she was free?

Too bad, because my "agenda" is nothing more or less than truth and real understanding of history as opposed to your pretense of passing judgement without really bothering with more than the most superificial of survey of terms.

Phatscotty wrote:There are records that Jefferson gave Hemmings an allowance and paid a very high price for her and her brothers tutoring.

I thought the secret to slavery was refusing the slave an education?

No,not always, even in US history. In fact some slaves received training, education and/or developed trades with the full blessing of their masters.. increased their valued, among other things.

However, it also led to them being treated better and no longer wanting to work in the fields. It was the plantation owners, particularly the larger ones, that felt they needed slave labor to make a profit competitively... and that strove to keep the slaves "in their place" to keep that system. Of course, they had plenty of justifications, but even in the US, slavery took many forms.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Symmetry wrote:If you want me to argue in line with your agenda, you'll be disappointed. Nevertheless, in your scenario, do you thinks she was free?

Too bad, because my "agenda" is nothing more or less than truth and real understanding of history as opposed to your pretense of passing judgement without really bothering with more than the most superificial of survey of terms.

So, do think she was free? I'd say that was pretty key to her situation.

Phatscotty wrote:I thought the secret to slavery was refusing the slave an education?

Not really, dude.

Symmetry wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Symmetry wrote:If you want me to argue in line with your agenda, you'll be disappointed. Nevertheless, in your scenario, do you thinks she was free?

Too bad, because my "agenda" is nothing more or less than truth and real understanding of history as opposed to your pretense of passing judgement without really bothering with more than the most superificial of survey of terms.

So, do think she was free? I'd say that was pretty key to her situation.

No, there is a LOT of grey area in between. In fact, as I said before NO woman of that time was truly "free" as you seem to think, and, frankly, neither were many men. THAT is the crux of it.

We are lucky to be born into an age and place where we really do have freedom, but even so, many of our choices are subscribed. Some by merit, which most would say are irrelevant to this discussion, but many are factors of birth and position. You assume that there are only 2 options, basically slavery or free. The reality for most, even today is much, much, much more complex than that.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Symmetry wrote:If you want me to argue in line with your agenda, you'll be disappointed. Nevertheless, in your scenario, do you thinks she was free?

Too bad, because my "agenda" is nothing more or less than truth and real understanding of history as opposed to your pretense of passing judgement without really bothering with more than the most superificial of survey of terms.

So, do think she was free? I'd say that was pretty key to her situation.

No, there is a LOT of grey area in between. In fact, as I said before NO woman of that time was truly "free" as you seem to think, and, frankly, neither were many men. THAT is the crux of it.

We are lucky to be born into an age and place where we really do have freedom, but even so, many of our choices are subscribed. Some by merit, which most would say are irrelevant to this discussion, but many are factors of birth and position. You assume that there are only 2 options, basically slavery or free. The reality for most, even today is much, much, much more complex than that.

You've equaled the conditions of slaves with those of free women several times in this thread, do you truly not see a difference?

Symmetry wrote:

You've equaled the conditions of slaves with those of free women several times in this thread, do you truly not see a difference?

Probably better than you. I ALSO understand the difference between lliving in the 1700's and 2000's, something you clearly do not.

The point here is not whether Jefferson deserves sainthood for his actions. Of course, he does not. The question is whether his actions merit the term "rapist", a crime on the par with murder when it comes to penalties. I have no idea why you think there is some gain in labeling accomplished people from the past with derogatory labels, but I have been hearing this garbage all my life, AND I have heard the contrary arguments. Your "point" is nothing more than back-handed justification and anger. It is not reality, nor truth.

Keep believing that condemning others unreasonably makes you a better person, I won't.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

You've equaled the conditions of slaves with those of free women several times in this thread, do you truly not see a difference?

Probably better than you. I ALSO understand the difference between lliving in the 1700's and 2000's, something you clearly do not.

The point here is not whether Jefferson deserves sainthood for his actions. Of course, he does not. The question is whether his actions merit the term "rapist", a crime on the par with murder when it comes to penalties. I have no idea why you think there is some gain in labeling accomplished people from the past with derogatory labels, but I have been hearing this garbage all my life, AND I have heard the contrary arguments. Your "point" is nothing more than back-handed justification and anger. It is not reality, nor truth.

Keep believing that condemning others unreasonably makes you a better person, I won't.

I don't understand this line of thinking. You've fallen back on the idea that on the idea that things cannot be judged morally right or wrong, or even criminal if they occurred in the past. I thought we'd dismissed that line of argument.

I don't think you've shown any evidence to suggest that Hemings was free to consent, so I'm baffled as to why you think sex without free consent is not rape.

I' confess to being slightly baffled as to why the other thread was locked. Perhaps I'll resurrect this thread instead.

Symmetry wrote:I' confess to being slightly baffled as to why the other thread was locked.

Because the thread that billy07's multi created was locked?

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=203287#p4446228

thegreekdog wrote:

Symmetry wrote:I' confess to being slightly baffled as to why the other thread was locked.

Because the thread that billy07's multi created was locked?

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=203287#p4446228

Is Thomas Jefferson an equivalent of the Prophet now?

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Symmetry wrote:I' confess to being slightly baffled as to why the other thread was locked.

Because the thread that billy07's multi created was locked?

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=203287#p4446228

Is Thomas Jefferson an equivalent of the Prophet now?

I would think not. I suppose some hardcore folks would think Jefferson was a prophet, although many historians think he was agnostic (or atheist). I don't pretend to know why the thread was locked (or why you created the thread in the first place), I was just offering a theory. Your thread looked like a parody thread of a thread that was locked, so I guess the moderators assumed it was a safe bet to lock it. Plus you have this thread.

thegreekdog wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Symmetry wrote:I' confess to being slightly baffled as to why the other thread was locked.

Because the thread that billy07's multi created was locked?

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=203287#p4446228

Is Thomas Jefferson an equivalent of the Prophet now?

I would think not. I suppose some hardcore folks would think Jefferson was a prophet, although many historians think he was agnostic (or atheist). I don't pretend to know why the thread was locked (or why you created the thread in the first place), I was just offering a theory. Your thread looked like a parody thread of a thread that was locked, so I guess the moderators assumed it was a safe bet to lock it. Plus you have this thread.

Symmetry wrote:it's a parody thread.

Well, that was on the first page, but hey, what can you do?

john9blue wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

john9blue wrote:hey sym, do you think it's even POSSIBLE for two people that the state recognizes as master and slave to have a mutually consenting sexual relationship?

No, I think that the very nature of slavery rules out the idea of mutual consent when it comes to a master and his slave.

Except, that is ONLY true when freedom is actually a viable alternative. For women, not just black women, that has almost NEVER existed.

This changes the real claim to "all women have been raped"... and, by extension "all men who engage in sex are rapists"

There is some truth in that, but the larger picture is far more complicated.

Also, you ignore the extreme effort required for someone to step fully outside their culture. Ironically, Jefferson actually did that to a large point in keeping Sally has he did. He COULD have simply "had his way" -- given her nothing, sold off her children. He would have been fully within his legal and societal rights to have done that. Many in his time and day did. However, he, instead, treated Sally very much like a GOOD man of that day might treat a well-loved and treated wife.

Your idea that she should have just been freed is similarly based on a false idea that you want to perpetuate. Think of the recent movie "12 years a slave". Black MEN of that day had little real protection, were not really and truly free, even when they were successful. WHITE women, also had little privilage we now associate with freedom, really had little freedom. A black women would have the worst of both. As Jefferson's slave, she was protected. No other master could claim her. She could not be abused unless Jefferson agreed, and he obviously did not. (and please note that white women could be legally abused!!).

When you dismiss this as rape, you denegrate both Sally Hemmings and Thomas Jefferson. You ignore history and make pretense that doesn't exist.

Frankly, your idea of "freedom" often doesn't even really exist for women today... not in the way you seem to imply. I know plenty of women who would willingly trade positions with Sally! She had access to travel, fine clothing, knowledge and was secure in knowing that her children were well provided for.

Also, saying that this particular instance was not rape is definitely NOT the same as saying that slavery was good or that all master-slave relationships were OK. You cannot judge everything by titles and labels. You have to look at each situation for what it is, in the context of what is possible.