But what about Abraham Lincoln's legacy?

Post Reply New Topic

IIRC, Abe said that if he could end the war without ending slavery he would, but if he had to end slavery to end the war, he would - or something along those lines. He'd rather have kept slavery if he could. Slavery is profitable. The number one contributor to the cost of an item or good is the amount of labor man-hours that went into it. As a result, labor is also the highest expense, by a lot. So the easiest way to maximize profits by leaps and bounds, is to cut costs by using slaves.

Abe may have said "the slaves are free now", but in places that still supported free slave labor and the massive profits it generates, all they did was arrest black people on charges like vagrancy or loitering, or whatever they could come up with, and once in jail or prison, would be loaned to the very cotton plantations they just got "freed" from - in return for a fee, of course. Plantations get their workforce back, and police gets additional funding. Now instead of "slaves" they were "criminals". Instead of "plantations" they became "work camps". See how that works? And today we have over-funded police who over-target people of color, to put into for-profit prisons, who use them for free labor. The words have changed, but not the actual system that profits from exploited people. America didn't just "use" slavery - the entire system has it built in as a key necessity to rapid accumulation of wealth. Kinda like how today we have millionaires and billionaires popping up faster than ever, while forcing wages to stay low. It's *almost* like accumulating wealth has more to do with exploiting others than it does "hard work".

On a side note, there's a difference between erasing history, and acknowledging history. Acknowledging that something is untrue, and accepting the truth in it's place, is at worst the erasure of a lie, not of "history". Just because it's the history you're familiar with, doesn't mean it's true. Erasing history would be totally ignoring the government-ordered genocide of native americans, trying to pretend it didn't happen, and glossing over the whole thing with thanksgiving, pocahontas / dances with wolves, and "cowboys n indians". Robert E Lee and all the others will still be in the history books, we'd just be honest about the history behind them. Abe's legacy doesn't need to be erased. It just needs to be honest. He did end the war, he did sign the emancipation proclamation, but he did also recognize and capitalize on the wealth-generating benefits of slavery. Also he was shot by John Wilkes Booth.

I like your point about the difference between erasing and acknowledging history.

Are we now going to say the Norman conquest didn't happen and didn't influence history because it was a cruel and brutal action or event,William the bastard was beyond cruel but we still teach it in history.

I don’t think anyone who advocates for the removal of statues thinks they are changing, denying, or erasing history. They are however arguing against the glorification of slave owners, traitors, imperialists, and dictators.

With people like Lincoln I think we need to balance both perspectives. Ultimately while we might not like all aspects of Lincoln, Washington, Churchill, or Grant, but they also did good things that are worth commemorating. Same even for Mandela and Gandhi. But I like the idea of plaques which note both the good and the bad aspects of those figures, rather than simply whitewashing them.

People like Rhodes and Colston don’t have any value as positive symbols. And Confederates only have value as negative symbols. So taking those statues down seems reasonable.

No point putting statues of bad people in museums unless they’re genuine works of art. Melt them down and put them to use.

Many American "heros" are heros because they conquered American Indians.

Obviously, they're gone.

Abraham Lincoln married into a slave owner family, obviously he goes.

Vietnam memorial posted earlier (of white people war of invading non-white people), that has to go.

It would seem everything has to go

MLK had sexual affairs, he may have to be erased from our minds too.

Nearly every historical person has "badness" and must be erased?

There's a funny poem I see a lot ... it goes like ...

They destroyed Confederate statues, and I didn't say anything cause I didn't care about Confederates.

They destroyed Columbus statues, and I didn't say anything cause I didn't care about Columbus.

They destroyed War memorial statues, and I didn't say anything cause I didn't care about wars.

Then they destroyed statues I cared about, and no one was left to speak up for me.

I get extreme things like Confederate generals.But I don't want Lincoln's statues taken down even though I'm aware of his faults which were many.Lincoln May have done wrong,but what his legacy stands for is positive.

Would you want a statue of Henry Plantagenet or Queen Victoria taken down,would you.Neither were saints but there legacy is positive.

THere is Balance Between Life
And Death; Safety And Freedom That May
Move Off Slippery Slopes of Common Sense;
In 'This Sense' of Systematic
Oppression Taking
Down the Symbols
That Represent Systematic
Oppression is Indeed Symbolic
of Change in Oppressing Ways of
Society That This Group Think is Changing to;
Let's Face it
Society is
Group
Think
As Far As Politics,
Religion; Yes, Even Philosophy
For What Conforming To Group
Think Says Stays or Goes. What Remains
When All These Clothes of Culture Go As
Statues for Who We Are AS Human If We
Can And Will Find A Way to Be Naked And Free;
Yes, What Still
Remains is Us
As We Are Evolved
Now For Group Think
In Social Conforming
Cultural Ways; Namely, 'Statues'
of Politics, Religion, And Philosophy Same;
Technology is the only Real FRiEnD that allows
Us to Move
Against
Classical Evolution
For Human Social Animals
And Become More Interdependent
And Independent in Unique Ways of
Being Far Beyond the Bonds and Binds
of 'Statues' Others Carry Together as their Reality Now;
The Majority
Of
Folks
Have Finally
Determined 'The South
Is Never Gonna Rise Again'
'Their Statue' is taking down
The 'Old Statues' And Replacing
Them With Newer Statues of Ideology Now;
It's All About Change; The Balance of Safety And
Freedom That is in Our Reality Now; Statues Come;
Statues Go; but THere Will Always Be New Statues to Erect
Giving
Great
Thanks
to and
Praise
Worshipping
Now As These
Are the Classically
And Epigenetically Made
Clothes We Continue to Create
And Try
on For Best Fit
of 'Our Statues' Now.

Statues aren't going
Away; As Long AS Humans
Continue to Bind and Bond Over What We Co-Create.

But Again, In This Case, 'The South Will Rise Again' is
Fading into iT WaS A DarK AnD DusTY DaY
GodzillAsKeYeS HoRiZoN OrangE HuE...

If That Phrase
Makes 'no Sense';
Here is a Picture to
Illustrate What Happens
'With Change'... Hmm, 'Godzilla', Just
Another Biggest 'Desert Dust Storm'...
It's Cooler To BE A Moving Statue With
Big Godzilla Fire Breathing Nuclear Grins NoW..

Of Course 'Godzilla' Is An 'Asian' Symbol
Of Western Oppression; Namely, Instant Death of Over
100,000 Folks; Hmm; Nature of Karma of Nature AS Smallest
Of Mammal Creatures; Bats, Return Karma Freely for Nature's Balance.
And of Course There Was Another 'Desert Storm' That Does the Similar Too Now.
In Some Ways
'This Country'
'Royally' Deserves Trump;
Hey; Just a Bigger Picture View; i LiVE Here too.

There's a huge difference between "This *never* happened" and "this is what *actually* happened". Nobody is calling for "erasure" of anything except the lies that are kept in place. It's not "erasure" to stop lying about the actual history. It's not erasure to replace lies with the truth.

It's not that they "have to go". Just stop lying about the truth. And it's funny you should invoke the "erasure" of MLK, cos white history already does that every time they tell you King's speeches about peace, but *never* tell you about his belief in civil disobedience. They already "erase" vietnam by not teaching it in schools, and calling it a "war" despite the fact that congress never declared war, to hide the fact that they originally called it a "police action" so they could sidestep the need to actually declare war. The only reason we consider those who "conquered" native american to be "heroes" is cos we lie that the natives were "vicious savages' in order to paint their murderers as "heros", rather than the truth, that the natives were fighting to protect the land we were openly stealing from them. THAT is erasure of history.

Turning the argument into "oh so anyone who isn't a saint has to be erased?" is a strawman. Nobody is saying that. What they are saying is, stop lying about history. Don't erase it. Be honest about it. Tell the WHOLE story, not a fake story.

Last edited by uncommondenominator on 27 Jun 2020, 12:15 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Are you implying that there is something inherently wrong with idol-worship?

Americans may disagree on policy, however, most Americans agree that our soldiers are heros.

When they conquered (slaughtered) American Indians --> Heros
When they fought battle/war X ---> Heros
When they fought for/against slavery ---> Heros

That's the truth as people see it.

So, it's not lies, it's moral relativism.

nope

Put me down dammit,you’re squeezing me.

Moral relativism, the idea that all morality is inherently neutral, and morals are only "better" or "worse" when subjectively compared to each other, but otherwise have no absolute value. This has long been used to argue things such as the idea that "all black people should die" and "I like kittens" are both "just opinions", and neither are inherently good OR bad unless someone applies bias or subjectivity to it. While this is a technically true statement from a philosophical point of view, all id does is invalidate the notion of a "moral compass". Certain ideas or ideals that we all do, or should, all agree on. Most nations and cultures have at least some version of "murder is bad" on the books, even it if makes exceptions. Try pleading "moral relativism" in court, see how well that works.

Believing something that's incorrect because it was taught to you that way and that's the only version you know isn't "moral relativism". It's being tricked / lied to. Knowingly leaving details out, and replacing them with fabrications, isn't "moral relativism". Lying to preserve the image of your morality, is not "moral relativism" - it's just using the concept to justify the lie. "Moral relativism" would also say that lying is neither good nor bad - it just is, and seeing it as bad is just a moral bias. So if you believe lying is ok, then lying is ok. Because to say lying is bad is just a moral judgement. Ergo the ultimate implication is, anything that I "don't like" is simply me being "judgmental".

Moral Relativism is the most popular false equivalency used by bigots to "prove" that YOU are actually the bigot for not being more "accepting" of their "different opinions". They play it of as some sort of "enlightened acceptance" that allows them to be so "open minded" as to be able to put "crunchy is better than smooth" or "Fiat makes the best car" at equal merit and value as "I want to kill an entire race of people" or "this particular ethnicity deserves to be slaves". By this same reasoning, the only reason Charles Manson is in prison, is because of moral bias. It's just plain ol' harmless moral relativism. They say he killed people, he says he didn't kill anyone - just different opinions! To have an opinion is to be biased. Moral relativism!

And that's the point, "don't judge slavery as BAD, its merely a DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE! Don't be so judgmental...", because getting people to stop seeing something as bad is part of how you normalize bad things. First you keep doing it, no matter what, until people get tired of being outraged by it. Then you do it a little more, and people get used to it. Then you do it a little more and people get comfortable with it. And in the case of things like slavery, which are very, very profitable - using slave labor is EXTREMELY profitable, since labor is usually the biggest expense by several times - people start to like it, when they're the ones benefiting from it. And that's why slavery and racism are so vehemently avoided. Nobody wants to admit they're comfortable with the idea of exploiting human life purely for personal gain. Nobody want's to admit just how much they'd be "morally relative" about, so long as it never affects them. "Oh, that's none of MY business, it has nothing to do with ME. I'll just stay out of it. It's just two different opinions after all..." is what they tell themselves, to rationalize not getting involved. And if it starts to be beneficial or profitable, well shucks, why on earth give up an advantage like that?

All the dehumanizing rhetoric and language is designed to justify the imbalance of power, and make sure everyone knows who is the boss. "Oh, well, they're animals, they NEED control or they'd run wild! They're violent and dangerous and *need* to be kept under control for everyone's safety. They're too stupid to take care of themselves, they *need* us to take care of them. They're so untrustworthy, you have to constantly keep an eye on them or they'll steal everything you own, they just don't understand rules or respect personal property. They're naturally lazy, and if we didn't *make* them work they'd just sit around all day causing problems, and they need to contribute something."

Now re-read that and tell me how many of those things sound like things people still say today.

But hey, it's not racism, it's just Moral Relativism!

Bigotry isn't simply "hating" people who are different for being different. Bigotry means you're using those differences as an excuse to devalue human life. The act of calling someone a racist labels them a racist, but nothing more. Racism in america is so culturally acceptable, "no I'm not!" is considered an iron clad defense all on it's own, yet a claim of racism won't be accepted unless there are 9 HD video cameras recording it from every angle, and the person committing the act of racism is literally screaming "I AM WHITE AND DOING THIS FOR PURELY RACIALLY MOTIVATED REASONS, YOU EVIL PERSON OF COLOR!! !" over and over again during the entire incident, and people would still make excuses like "well, we don't know what happened before the filming started, he could just be crazy, that doesn't prove anything, maybe someone of that race did something horrible to him once..." The expected / accepted dialogue already knows who is supposed to be seen as innocent, and who should be assumed to be guilty.

So, clever argument but it doesn't add clarity, it just clouds the issue with the moral equivalent of "nothing is actually real". By invoking "moral relativity" in regards to reporting history, all you've done is point out the well known fact that the victors always paint themselves as the hero and the opposition as the villains to justify their actions to the future. "The victor gets to rewrite history" is not the same thing as "moral relativity". A morally relative history would report events, but paint them in a different light. For example, the crusades did happen, they just happened to be more about money than principle. They admit they did it, they just say it was a good thing. That's fundamentally different than saying something major didn't happen entirely, or that something that never happened did happen. Debating about why the holocaust happened or how many people did or didn't die, or whether anything good may or may not have come out of it, is totally different than outright saying it just didn't happen at all.

And anyways, if moral relativity is so relevant to the real world, and not just a neat philosophical concept, how come we don't all just descend into anarchy from all of our own relative realities. See, philosophy has a flipside to "moral relativity" - it's called the "veil of ignorance". The idea is, imagine you are told to pass judgement on a person, but you know nothing about that person. You are literally ignorant of every detail of their existence, except that they exist. They are behind a "veil of ignorance". The idea is, you should find your judgement of the person to be acceptable no matter who the person turns out to be, even if the person turns out to be yourself. If the judgment is "enslave them", you should be equally accepting of your fate should you happen to become enslaved. After all, its all just morally relative. But an individual should at least be consistent relative to themselves. If slavery is ok, then you should be ok with being a slave too, should it ever happen. If might makes right, then don't complain when someone stronger comes along. I eat meat with the understanding that someday I will die and become food myself.

But if one is going to make the argument that it's ok unless it's being done to ME, and that's still just "moral relativity", that's actually just avoidant self interest hiding behind moral ambiguity.

Oh, and i almost forgot - your political-speech-grade "I love the troops" is a noble distraction, but you only said it to try to put me in a position where I theoretically have to either agree with you, get defensive and fear for my life cos people might think I "hate da troopz", or be forced to say something negative about the troops so you could then try to put me on the moral defensive, and keep me talking about me, instead of anything else.

"Support the troops! NO MATTER WHAT! *OR ELSE!! !* is a really common tactic to virtue signal as a "patriot" and call into question others' "patriotism". It's used in such a way that if you criticize any detail of the armed services, you MUST "hate the troops". "I think it was an unjustified war" - OH SO YOU HATE THE TROOPS, HUH? "Soldiers should be punished if they commit violations" - OH SO YOU HATE THE TROOPS HUH? Well, who's gonna join if they think they can get in trouble for things they do during their job? Well, you SHOULD get in trouble for doing things on the job, if they're things you're not supposed to be doing. "They spend too much on the military" - I GUESS YOU HATE THE TROOPS, HUH?

I don't hate the troops. I guess you could say my feelings are "morally relative"...

I respect what the military is SUPPOSED to do, and I support their legitimate actions - but just as a soldier is not required to obey an illegal order, I don;t have to respect an illegal war. Just because I think the war was crap doesn't mwan I don't still respect the soldier's commitment to duty, even when they're ordered to do dumb crap. I respect them enough that I feel they should have to be sent off to die on political whims, and money making schemes. I respect solders for their honorable behavior, even when carrying out questionable orders. I DO NOT respect individuals who act dishonorably, and hide behind "brotherhood" and "solidarity" to get away with sh***y behavior. The service, the title, and the individual are different things. I respect them accordingly.

Sorry... couldn't resist...

Haha, i'll try to be more gentle next time..