8 ms·

I don't think a King George Washington would preside over a young America as affluent as President George Washington did. Tyranny has a way of sequestering inno

by ddxxdd 8y ago

I don't think a King George Washington would preside over a young America as affluent as President George Washington did. Tyranny has a way of sequestering innovative spirit.

pjc50 8y ago
Washington was a slave owner. Tyranny, but only for some people.
- wallace_f 8y ago
  I think this is misleading. I think when tossing out the credence of people such as Wadhington or Jefferson with the slavery problem, there is very little context understood about the cultural norms, science and religion those people lived in. The problem was that they did not see other races as people as they saw themselves. They saw their lives and societies and thought of them as savages. They further justified their ideology with both religion (which was more unquestionable than say, global warming is today) and scientific racism, which did things like measure brain size of different races. The slave owner like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson was in some ways like an extreme version of the modern liberal -- seeing the person of color as needing an authority to rule over them and provide them with things like welfare, access to education, etc. This has nothing to do with justifying slavery or ignoring that extreme abuses occured with such institutionalized imbalance of power. What I mean to say is to not throw away the baby with the bathwater. Some of the Founding Fathers created the greatest society to ever grace the earth and they deserve some credit for their heroic bravery and ideas on liberty, even if they lived in a truly fucked up world and had trouble seeing past that. Edit: downvote away, I guess
  - jacobush 8y ago
    And nothing in your argument, addresses the claim that wealth was amassed through slavery.
    - benj111 8y ago
      Try reading the comment he responded to.
  - xref 8y ago
    > The slave owner like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson was in some ways like an extreme version of the modern liberal -- seeing the person of color as needing an authority to rule over them and provide them with things like welfare, access to education, etc. You’re being downvoted because you chose to regurgitate alt-right theology to lay history’s problems at the doorstep of “liberal guilt” The largest group of benificaries of public education? Whites. The largest group of beneficiaries of welfare? Whites.
    - wallace_f 8y ago
      Dont worry, you can almost always use versions of reductio ad hitlerum to invalidate any historical context or facts you come across which you dont like. Your ad hominen attack seems especially ridiculous to me as I've never even visited an alt right website or community in my life with the exception of voat--when reddit started mass waves of censorship and politicking--which I havent even since returned to in years.
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      You’re being downvoted because you chose to regurgitate alt-right theology to lay history’s problems at the doorstep of “liberal guilt” This is just spin doctoring and propaganda. Otherwise, your "logic" would make this man "Alt-Right." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sowell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sowell There is an empirical basis to question the effects of “liberal guilt.” https://www.creators.com/read/thomas-sowell/11/14/a-legacy-of-liberalism https://www.creators.com/read/thomas-sowell/11/14/a-legacy-o...
  - magpi3 8y ago
    Slaves were not slaves because whites were trying to save them from themselves. They were slaves because they provided cheap labor. Any other argument is just a rationalization, a story for slave owners to tell themselves to make themselves feel better. Both Washington and Jefferson owned plantations that profited from slave labor. Your comparison with the modern liberal should try to take that fact into account.
    - wallace_f 8y ago
      I'm obviously not rationalizing slavery. That's absurd. My point is to try to show context of what world those people lived in, I clearly said that. The parent comment suggests some glaring flaw in their conception of liberty. Was it a glaring flaw? Yes. But it's important to understand that in the context of their belief system. Do you eat animal products? Have you any idea what kind of abuses take place? Do you consume products produced by people whose lives are defined by insecure access to healthcare, safety or even nutrition? Do you contribute to the horrendous destruction of our environment? Work in sv? How many homeless people do you step over on your way to work? It would be better if people got off their moral high horses and stopped taking for granted the liberty and prosperiry they have available to them here in America. And politicians and bureaucrats certainly profit from those very schemes.
  - pjc50 8y ago
    > The problem was that they did not see other races as people as they saw themselves. They saw their lives and societies and thought of them as savages. Yes > religion (which was more unquestionable No - America was founded as a country on freedom of religion, which is why it ended up with thousands of little groups from a state of polyamorists to some guys who really liked making furniture. > than say, global warming is today) Trolling > extreme version of the modern liberal Trolling. Also please choose whether Jefferson was an extreme liberal or a conservative prisoner of the prejudices of his time. > they deserve some credit for their heroic bravery and ideas on liberty Yes. There was also the question, even at the time, of how well they were going to live up to what they meant on liberty. They wrote "all men are created equal" into the declaration of independence then immediately spent the next 200 years arguing that meant "not all men". Some of the co-signatories were there at the time arguing against slavery, it's just that Jefferson was on the other side of this particular issue.
    - wallace_f 8y ago
      Yes, Jefferson wrote into the original draft of the constitution outlawed slavery, but the southern states refused to sign on to that. Historical facts and context like that do not invalidate all the good done by the Founding Fathers. That is my point. I'm not aware you are rebelling against our government for the atrocities which exist in the world today. The rest of your post is dismissive of not asinine, and even against HN guidelines.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
geowwy 8y ago
What makes you think King George Washington would be a tyrant?
- benj111 8y ago
  He might not be, but what about his son, or his sons son?
firethief 8y ago
It does?
dalbasal 8y ago
Here's another thought experiment. Take the Russian communist revolution of 1917. Had Lenin been an American and the coup/revolution been american... Do you think that by the late 20th century, the US and Soviet Union's positions would have been reversed? I don't think we can really answer that, but to me, "yes" feels like an old fashioned answer. I don't think a founding philosophy or constitution (or anything really) has such a deterministic effect. I'm more in the "one-damned thing after another" camp.
- gandhium 8y ago
  Lenin was sent by Germany and financed by Germany. The only thing that Germany achieved was a peace on Eastern Front. After that Lenin decided to incite a revolution (or two) in Germany and we all know what happened in 1941.
- tomt2323 8y ago
  The two situations really aren't comparable as it's more likely that the entirety of the Americas would've been pulled into a unified communist state like the Russian revolutionaries were hoping would happen with the European communist uprisings that were happening at the same time (and quelled by fascist backlash in Germany, Italy, and Spain). At the same time, it's entirely possible that the Axis would've conquered most of Europe and something equivalent to the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact would've held without the ideological conflict there. It is possible the anti-Slavic racism would've still pushed Hitler to try to exterminate large parts of Germany, but it may have been a harder sell to the German public than it was when coupled with the threat of communism. If you're asking the broader question of whither the (self-proclaimed) state capitalist countries that came out of the retrenchment when those revolutions failed, I think there's still an answer there. They developed differently, used their resources, and prioritized different things than more liberal capitalist ones in ways that you can make some broad claims about. But they did so in a context, as did the liberal and non-aligned/miscellaneous blocs.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

by ddxxdd 8y ago

I don't think a King George Washington would preside over a young America as affluent as President George Washington did. Tyranny has a way of sequestering innovative spirit.

pjc50 8y ago

Washington was a slave owner. Tyranny, but only for some people.

wallace_f 8y ago
I think this is misleading. I think when tossing out the credence of people such as Wadhington or Jefferson with the slavery problem, there is very little context understood about the cultural norms, science and religion those people lived in. The problem was that they did not see other races as people as they saw themselves. They saw their lives and societies and thought of them as savages. They further justified their ideology with both religion (which was more unquestionable than say, global warming is today) and scientific racism, which did things like measure brain size of different races. The slave owner like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson was in some ways like an extreme version of the modern liberal -- seeing the person of color as needing an authority to rule over them and provide them with things like welfare, access to education, etc. This has nothing to do with justifying slavery or ignoring that extreme abuses occured with such institutionalized imbalance of power. What I mean to say is to not throw away the baby with the bathwater. Some of the Founding Fathers created the greatest society to ever grace the earth and they deserve some credit for their heroic bravery and ideas on liberty, even if they lived in a truly fucked up world and had trouble seeing past that. Edit: downvote away, I guess
- jacobush 8y ago
  And nothing in your argument, addresses the claim that wealth was amassed through slavery.
  - benj111 8y ago
    Try reading the comment he responded to.
- xref 8y ago
  > The slave owner like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson was in some ways like an extreme version of the modern liberal -- seeing the person of color as needing an authority to rule over them and provide them with things like welfare, access to education, etc. You’re being downvoted because you chose to regurgitate alt-right theology to lay history’s problems at the doorstep of “liberal guilt” The largest group of benificaries of public education? Whites. The largest group of beneficiaries of welfare? Whites.
  - wallace_f 8y ago
    Dont worry, you can almost always use versions of reductio ad hitlerum to invalidate any historical context or facts you come across which you dont like. Your ad hominen attack seems especially ridiculous to me as I've never even visited an alt right website or community in my life with the exception of voat--when reddit started mass waves of censorship and politicking--which I havent even since returned to in years.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    You’re being downvoted because you chose to regurgitate alt-right theology to lay history’s problems at the doorstep of “liberal guilt” This is just spin doctoring and propaganda. Otherwise, your "logic" would make this man "Alt-Right." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sowell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sowell There is an empirical basis to question the effects of “liberal guilt.” https://www.creators.com/read/thomas-sowell/11/14/a-legacy-of-liberalism https://www.creators.com/read/thomas-sowell/11/14/a-legacy-o...
- magpi3 8y ago
  Slaves were not slaves because whites were trying to save them from themselves. They were slaves because they provided cheap labor. Any other argument is just a rationalization, a story for slave owners to tell themselves to make themselves feel better. Both Washington and Jefferson owned plantations that profited from slave labor. Your comparison with the modern liberal should try to take that fact into account.
  - wallace_f 8y ago
    I'm obviously not rationalizing slavery. That's absurd. My point is to try to show context of what world those people lived in, I clearly said that. The parent comment suggests some glaring flaw in their conception of liberty. Was it a glaring flaw? Yes. But it's important to understand that in the context of their belief system. Do you eat animal products? Have you any idea what kind of abuses take place? Do you consume products produced by people whose lives are defined by insecure access to healthcare, safety or even nutrition? Do you contribute to the horrendous destruction of our environment? Work in sv? How many homeless people do you step over on your way to work? It would be better if people got off their moral high horses and stopped taking for granted the liberty and prosperiry they have available to them here in America. And politicians and bureaucrats certainly profit from those very schemes.
- pjc50 8y ago
  > The problem was that they did not see other races as people as they saw themselves. They saw their lives and societies and thought of them as savages. Yes > religion (which was more unquestionable No - America was founded as a country on freedom of religion, which is why it ended up with thousands of little groups from a state of polyamorists to some guys who really liked making furniture. > than say, global warming is today) Trolling > extreme version of the modern liberal Trolling. Also please choose whether Jefferson was an extreme liberal or a conservative prisoner of the prejudices of his time. > they deserve some credit for their heroic bravery and ideas on liberty Yes. There was also the question, even at the time, of how well they were going to live up to what they meant on liberty. They wrote "all men are created equal" into the declaration of independence then immediately spent the next 200 years arguing that meant "not all men". Some of the co-signatories were there at the time arguing against slavery, it's just that Jefferson was on the other side of this particular issue.
  - wallace_f 8y ago
    Yes, Jefferson wrote into the original draft of the constitution outlawed slavery, but the southern states refused to sign on to that. Historical facts and context like that do not invalidate all the good done by the Founding Fathers. That is my point. I'm not aware you are rebelling against our government for the atrocities which exist in the world today. The rest of your post is dismissive of not asinine, and even against HN guidelines.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

geowwy 8y ago

What makes you think King George Washington would be a tyrant?

benj111 8y ago
He might not be, but what about his son, or his sons son?

firethief 8y ago

It does?

dalbasal 8y ago

Here's another thought experiment. Take the Russian communist revolution of 1917. Had Lenin been an American and the coup/revolution been american... Do you think that by the late 20th century, the US and Soviet Union's positions would have been reversed? I don't think we can really answer that, but to me, "yes" feels like an old fashioned answer. I don't think a founding philosophy or constitution (or anything really) has such a deterministic effect. I'm more in the "one-damned thing after another" camp.

gandhium 8y ago
Lenin was sent by Germany and financed by Germany. The only thing that Germany achieved was a peace on Eastern Front. After that Lenin decided to incite a revolution (or two) in Germany and we all know what happened in 1941.
tomt2323 8y ago
The two situations really aren't comparable as it's more likely that the entirety of the Americas would've been pulled into a unified communist state like the Russian revolutionaries were hoping would happen with the European communist uprisings that were happening at the same time (and quelled by fascist backlash in Germany, Italy, and Spain). At the same time, it's entirely possible that the Axis would've conquered most of Europe and something equivalent to the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact would've held without the ideological conflict there. It is possible the anti-Slavic racism would've still pushed Hitler to try to exterminate large parts of Germany, but it may have been a harder sell to the German public than it was when coupled with the threat of communism. If you're asking the broader question of whither the (self-proclaimed) state capitalist countries that came out of the retrenchment when those revolutions failed, I think there's still an answer there. They developed differently, used their resources, and prioritized different things than more liberal capitalist ones in ways that you can make some broad claims about. But they did so in a context, as did the liberal and non-aligned/miscellaneous blocs.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]