A Study On Racism In The Job Force In America.

[Thales]

I think you misunderstand the definition of racism or how it is used colloquially. It is true that they do put race and culture over the individual, but this isn't racist in my view, just incorrect.

Listen, putting race over the individual, indeed, placing it at the highest levels is racist. It matters not one whit the motivations of the people behind it, the ideas are what they are. Such ideas once unleashed and accepted are dangerous.

Multiculturalism doesn't hold that any given race is superior,

It holds that whites are inferior or less worthy of life. Really, I see nothing stopping any claims of superiority or inferiority, or hatred of one race for another. The sky is the limit when it comes to the irrationalism possible.

Well yes and no. The principles of freedom in the DOI were noble and just, but that didn't stop us from selectively applying them. For a great deal of time only men with property could vote, women (half the population) could not vote for another 150 years, and had limited rights (could not own property in marriage) compared to men.

The principles were what lead to the vanquishing of slavery, regardless of how bumpy the road was getting there.

The founding document, the Constitution, explicitly said a black man was 3/5 of a man. This is always a black mark on our claim to virtue and a "principle" we would rather choose to forget about.

Whose claim? I personally am not responsible for enslaving anyone or for freeing anyone.

Furthermore, I see a much bigger context here. America ended slavery on principle for the first time in human history. That is a gold star on America. This is brilliantly awesome and I guarantee not one of these guilt inculcating multiculturalists could have achieved one tenth of the positives the Founders had achieved.

Regarding the 3/5 man, it was applied to slaves and the reasoning behind it was to get states to free slaves. A freed slave would count as a whole person.

Here is Walter Williams on the matter

http://marklerner.blogspot.com/2004/06/july-4th-week.html

The Founders are frequently criticized for the three-fifths compromise. At the Constitutional Convention, Southerners said slaves should, "stand on an equality with whites" in determining congressional representation and electoral college votes. Northerners argued it was wrong "to give such encouragement to the slave trade as would be given by allowing representation for their Negroes." Northerners conceded to three-fifths, thereby reducing the political power the South would have had if slaves were counted as whole persons. Free blacks (60,000 in 1790) were counted as whole persons and many voted.

...

Walter E. Williams

January 5, 1998

Again, what is important is the context. Draw a line from the Dark Ages and earlier up to the present day. You see the progress made by the ideas of the enlightenment. In the Dark Ages slavery would have been considered rather indifferently. In early America it gained a great deal of importance exactly because of new Enlightenment ideas. These ideas clashed with and challenged earlier notions and kicked up a hornets nest. Slavery became a morally reprehensible thing only when people realized it was morally reprehensible and the ideas of the Enlightenment are what made that possible.

Slavery is disgusting, but I submit I know this because of the Enlightenment thinkers. They deserve the credit for figuring it out.

[DavidOdden]

Multiculturalism doesn't hold that any given race is superior, just that an individual belongs to a particular group as part of their identity and one should have pride in that identity.

Nevertheless, the multiculturalists do tend to believe in racially-defined cultures. Racism isn't simply the belief that one race is intrinsically better from others, but also is the invalid belief that race can determine volitional aspects of man's nature -- culture, intelligence, whatever other forms of "group identity" there are. Race is not the only category for pigeonholing people used by the multiculturalists -- there is also sex and sexual orientation, and religion. Race is the most important category for the multiculturalists.

[Publius]

I didn't imply you were defending multiculturalism. You simply stated that racism and multiculturalism were different. However, reading your descriptions of two concepts I could not see what difference you wanted to highlight.

I think you're using "racism" to describe a situation where someone thinks that something about their racial identity makes them superior. And, you described multiculturalism as the idea that one should have pride in their racial identity. If pride is something one feels because one possesses or earns something of value, then I'm curious how you see those two concepts as being different. Is it because on is taking pride in things that one believes are of no greater objective value compared to the things in other races; or it is something else?

I think regular folk -- not the intellectuals who teach them -- often have a benign concept of multiculturalism. They hold sessions where they talk about each other's birth, marriage and death customs, and taste each other's cuisine. They're right in thinking that many of these practices and values that are historically practiced by certain ethnic groups are simply optional ways (of getting married, or enjoying food, etc.). To them, multiculturalism means: all these customs are objectively equal. This concept says: the things that are specific to your ethnicity and race may be values, but the form in which they are implemented is simply an optional historical accident. The variety is fun and we can remain attached to our particular optional values, but we realize that they are not objectively any better than those of other people. This type of concept of multiculturalism is quite reasonable, and is not repudiated by Objectivism.

Pride is different from affinity and valuing. It is one thing for me to enjoy and value Chinese food more than some other food; but, it is quite different if I took pride in the goodness of Chinese food, because I am Chinese. That is why I asked what you meant when you said "pride".

I gather you believe multiculturalism is a racist concept, the "intellectual" version, anyway, although I'm not sure why. You seem to assume that members of ethnic groups just have some kind of preference on their traditions and customs, and it is not central to their identity, and I think you would be mistaken (although I'm sure there are exceptions). I think your isolation of any particular element of culture, like food, is not a good method of understanding cultural identity, as I don't think most people have a strong identity-attachment to just food, per se. I think it is more a package deal.

As far as "pride", I think it is fair to say someone could feel that the particulars of their culture, such as wedding traditions or burying of the dead, are preferable and superior for them, but would not be for other ethnic groups. That is the distinction. Say Muslims like to bury their dead within 24 hours, and a family washing and shrouding of the body, no embalming. Do Muslims feel that this is the care for the dead for Muslims? Yes. Do they feel it is the best way for French Catholics, Jews, or Guatemalans? No. Not sure why this is racist.

[DavidOdden]

I gather you believe multiculturalism is a racist concept, the "intellectual" version, anyway, although I'm not sure why.

Note this part of what you said earlier: "an individual belongs to a particular group as part of their identity and one should have pride in that identity". No rational person can be proud of being born white, black, Asian, Indian, or whatever, because it is not an accomplishment -- there is nothing to be proud of, nor ashamed. It is a non-volitional accident. A person who actually does something of merit should be proud of what they have done, and one who does something despicable should be ashamed of what they have done. What you've said condones automatic judgment solely on the basis of non-essential, unchosen facts -- pride simply for being of some race. Racism is exactly the moral fault of assigning significance to a man's racial history.

My nature is not determined by the fact that I'm a member of whatever groups, for example "white", "male", "hetero". My nature does determine that I am not a member of any religion, since religious belief is voluntary.

[softwareNerd]

...I think it is fair to say someone could feel that the particulars of their culture, ...

I think we may be talking at cross-purposes here. I am not speaking of what people could think and feel, nor even of what they do think and feel. Many people in the world accept their values implicitly from the small culture that surrounds them. I was talking about what was objectively correct. i.e. not what is, but what is right. i.e, the correct philosophical view to which an individual should aspire.

That is the context.

Now, within that context, if a person is born to long line of gangsters, but is not a criminal himself, he ought not -- objectively -- feel any shame and guilt for the crimes of his dad and gramps. Perhaps he does, but that's psychological baggage that he should work through. Philosophically, he does not bear any blame. Similarly, if someone comes from a long line of high-achievers, scientists, businessmen, etc. but is very average himself, he ought not -- objectively -- feel any pride in the achievements of his ancestors. If he does, that's psychological baggage that he should work through.

What applies to his family, also applies to his "race".

[Publius]

Listen, putting race over the individual, indeed, placing it at the highest levels is racist. It matters not one whit the motivations of the people behind it, the ideas are what they are. Such ideas once unleashed and accepted are dangerous.

I just wouldn't go so far as to use the word racist. Maybe race biased would be a better terminology.

It holds that whites are inferior or less worthy of life. Really, I see nothing stopping any claims of superiority or inferiority, or hatred of one race for another. The sky is the limit when it comes to the irrationalism possible.

You haven't responded yet as to what your experience has been with multiculturalism. A class? A book?. I think you got a hold of some bad information possibly. There is nothing inherent in multiculturalism that says "down with whitey." I think you're having a visceral overreaction to multiculturalism, painting it as being so sinister. You can disagree with it, even vehemently, without attributing the future downfall of civilization to it.

The principles were what lead to the vanquishing of slavery, regardless of how bumpy the road was getting there.

Furthermore, I see a much bigger context here. America ended slavery on principle for the first time in human history. That is a gold star on America.

Curious as to where are you getting this. It is much more historically supportable that slavery ended primarily due to the convenient timing of the Civil War, and the principals that were drawn on in reference to ending slavery were largely that of Christianity. You can give the Enlightenment some credit, but it was not the driving factor. Most people, even Lincoln, thought whites were superior and blacks should not be treated as equals. Intellectuals going back to the Founding Fathers had contradictory ideas on slavery and blacks.

I'm not sure you can say America was the first to address the rights of man in its founding documents. Just doing a quick look-see on the internet I found some interesting stuff. Did you know the issue of slavery has been touched upon often in the course of history? The institution of slavery was addressed by French intellectuals during the Enlightenment. Later, during the French Revolution, the National Assembly issued the Declaration of the Rights of Man, which declared the equality of all men.

Regarding the 3/5 man, it was applied to slaves and the reasoning behind it was to get states to free slaves.

I've never heard this interpretation before. Do you get this directly from Walter Williams or did you see this some other place? Every historical reference I've ever seen said the 3/5 compromise was made in order to satisfy the southern slave holding states on the issue of determining population for representation in the Federal Government. The northern non-slave holding state didn't want slaves to count as a whole person, or the population in the south would be too much. The southern states wanted the slaves to be counted. The compromise was that 5 slaves would count as 3 people.

[Publius]

Racism is exactly the moral fault of assigning significance to a man's racial history..

Just to reiterate these are not my views, I'm just trying to lay out what multiculturalism is. Now when you say the above, this seems to be wholly in another category from racial discrimination, or believing in racial superiority, or assigning traits to individuals based on race. You're using a broad brush to define what you view as being racist. I wouldn't lump the average multicultural professor in the same category as David Duke.

[DavidOdden]

I wouldn't lump the average multicultural professor in the same category as David Duke.

I don't understand the distinction, although perhaps it's because I'm not totally up on Duke's position on race. Is the distinction that you're drawing between multiculturalists not expressing their position of genetic superiority and Farrakhan actually saying it? As Objectivists know, every "is" implies an "ought", so if a man is supposed to feel pride in the accident of his being white because his nature is superior, then shouldn't he overtly express that pride, which moves him to the "overt racist" camp from the "silent racist = multiculturalist" camp? I'm not sure that the difference between the multuculturalists' "keeps the consequences of his pernicious philosophy secret" approach and the supposed racist's "is overt about his philosophy" is a distinction worth making. The former is more dangerous, in my opinion.

[adrock3215]

I wouldn't lump the average multicultural professor in the same category as David Duke.

The parallel assumes that one realizes the importance of philosophy. From a philosophical standpoint, David Duke and the multicultural professor are one in the same. I think this is what David is gettin at.

[DavidOdden]

The parallel assumes that one realizes the importance of philosophy. From a philosophical standpoint, David Duke and the multicultural professor are one in the same.

Yes, that is the point, and if you consider two Stalinists, they may be different individuals, but they are the same in terms of what is essential (assuming a philosophical context, not a hair-color discussion). The multiculturalist may happen to debase white men while David Duke elevates them, but that is an unimportant difference in specific application of the philosophy.

[Publius]

I think we may be talking at cross-purposes here. I am not speaking of what people could think and feel, nor even of what they do think and feel. Many people in the world accept their values implicitly from the small culture that surrounds them. I was talking about what was objectively correct. i.e. not what is, but what is right. i.e, the correct philosophical view to which an individual should aspire.

That is the context.

Now, within that context, if a person is born to long line of gangsters, but is not a criminal himself, he ought not -- objectively -- feel any shame and guilt for the crimes of his dad and gramps. Perhaps he does, but that's psychological baggage that he should work through. Philosophically, he does not bear any blame. Similarly, if someone comes from a long line of high-achievers, scientists, businessmen, etc. but is very average himself, he ought not -- objectively -- feel any pride in the achievements of his ancestors. If he does, that's psychological baggage that he should work through.

What applies to his family, also applies to his "race".

My disagreement is with the idea that multiculturalism is racist, by any definition in any dictionary. Is the idea that one can have pride (irrational as it may be) in their culture mutually exclusive from the idea that such pride constitutes tacit acknowledgement that said culture is superior? I don't think so, because the culture only sees value in the social mores as they apply to that culture. So in their understanding there is no universal truth as to what is good for everybody. Their thinking on this doesn't extend beyond that, as far as I know. So I don't think you have to worry about it being racist. Although perhaps you have a particular example of racist multiculturalism that you heard or witnessed that sheds light on your stance. Talking in generalities like this without tying to specific examples can lead to sloppy thinking.

I don't understand the distinction, although perhaps it's because I'm not totally up on Duke's position on race. Is the distinction that you're drawing between multiculturalists not expressing their position of genetic superiority and Farrakhan actually saying it? As Objectivists know, every "is" implies an "ought", so if a man is supposed to feel pride in the accident of his being white because his nature is superior, then shouldn't he overtly express that pride, which moves him to the "overt racist" camp from the "silent racist = multiculturalist" camp? I'm not sure that the difference between the multuculturalists' "keeps the consequences of his pernicious philosophy secret" approach and the supposed racist's "is overt about his philosophy" is a distinction worth making. The former is more dangerous, in my opinion.

I can allow that you feel multiculturalism is irrational, but your assumption that having pride in one's culture makes one racist as much as Duke, just not overtly so, I can't agree with. During the class I took there was never any implication that one race had any superiority over another. You make a leap from "having pride in one's ethnicity" (probably better concept to use than race), to being racist. Feeling good about oneself because one is part of a group, something bigger than oneself, is the message. The individual mores of the culture are just the markers of that culture, commonalities that bind people. The pride is in the collection of these mores, not really in any individual one, and it only applies to the those who identify with that culture. You've already explained why this is incorrect according to Objectivist thought, but personally I don't find anything racist about it. Your logical progression tying it to racism is pretty strained, IMO.

[softwareNerd]

.So in their understanding there is no universal truth as to what is good for everybody. Their thinking on this doesn't extend beyond that, as far as I know.

Do they merely not believe in universal truth, or do they believe more in some type of racial-based truth? Clearly, when it comes to abstract human values and ethics, there are universal truths and these are the truths that we must try to figure out. To think that there are some type of race-based truths that would trump the universal ones is the very definition of racism.

In its most abstract form, racism is an idea about knowledge and truth, not about action. If I am Greek and think, "we Greeks are just a bit dumb, that's just how we are", that would be a racist idea. It does not have to be about one's own superiority, even though it often is.

[Publius]

Do they merely not believe in universal truth, or do they believe more in some type of racial-based truth? Clearly, when it comes to abstract human values and ethics, there are universal truths and these are the truths that we must try to figure out. To think that there are some type of race-based truths that would trump the universal ones is the very definition of racism.

In its most abstract form, racism is an idea about knowledge and truth, not about action. If I am Greek and think, "we Greeks are just a bit dumb, that's just how we are", that would be a racist idea. It does not have to be about one's own superiority, even though it often is.

The example you just gave is racism, as I defined earlier, by assigning traits to people by race. Multiculturalism doesn't do that. Are you asking this question rhetorically? As far as what "truth" they believe in and how it applies, you'll have to ask a specific multiculturalist I guess. I think you need to try to apply your abstract idea of what you think racism is to multiculturalism as a concept. I don't believe they would see universal truth as applying to multiculturalism, although that is a broad statement, but I don't feel most aspirants even link the two concepts. What universal truths about "abstract human values and ethics" do you know that would invalidate multiculturalism, and how do you know them? I dismiss it as being impractical in a ethnically diverse country, not because it is racist. Have you ever talked at any length to a multiculturalist about this concept?

[Thales]

I just wouldn't go so far as to use the word racist. Maybe race biased would be a better terminology.

I'm following logic here. Racism is elevating race to a high level or the highest levels of importance in ones value system.

You haven't responded yet as to what your experience has been with multiculturalism. A class? A book?. I think you got a hold of some bad information possibly. There is nothing inherent in multiculturalism that says "down with whitey." I think you're having a visceral overreaction to multiculturalism, painting it as being so sinister. You can disagree with it, even vehemently, without attributing the future downfall of civilization to it.

It's all around the culture. I see it daily in various forms. Let me give you a high profile case in point, the Duke University Lacrosse team. What happened there? Several of the faculty of the university came out against the team based solely on race. They had no regard for the evidence. They disregarded the evidence and vilified the players and still to this day, so far as I know, haven’t changed their views on the matter. These are the multiculturalism driven faculty members, the intellectuals who are at the cutting edge of the movement. This is the kind of stuff they are attempting to pour into the culture at large. These are people we can’t have running America.

Curious as to where are you getting this. It is much more historically supportable that slavery ended primarily due to the convenient timing of the Civil War, and the principals that were drawn on in reference to ending slavery were largely that of Christianity.

Christianity existed some 1800 years at that point and didn't lead to freedom. In fact, it lead to subjugation and the Dark Ages. Saint Augustine and Christianity led man to hell on earth for 1000 years, because they shunned the City of Man (aka Rome) and pursed the “City of God” (aka heaven). However, the enlightenment ideas were explicitly for freedom, and provided the source of inspiration for the American Founders.

You can give the Enlightenment some credit, but it was not the driving factor. Most people, even Lincoln, thought whites were superior and blacks should not be treated as equals. Intellectuals going back to the Founding Fathers had contradictory ideas on slavery and blacks.

Jefferson, Madison, et.al, were explicitly driven by enlightenment ideas. The DOI is the founding document of America. I'm not aware of Jesus or the Bible as being a part of the founding documents. I do know they worked hard to keep religion out of government, and explicitly and strongly voted down including any mention of Jesus. Lincoln at Gettysburg references the founding ideals as the major inspiration for the war.

I'm not sure you can say America was the first to address the rights of man in its founding documents. Just doing a quick look-see on the internet I found some interesting stuff. Did you know the issue of slavery has been touched upon often in the course of history? The institution of slavery was addressed by French intellectuals during the Enlightenment. Later, during the French Revolution, the National Assembly issued the Declaration of the Rights of Man, which declared the equality of all men.

America ended slavery and did so on principle. Or, put positively, America was the first country based on freedom, i.e. on the idea that men have inalienable rights. The American ideals were fundamentally correct. The French, otoh, didn't have most of their ideas right. Liberty, Equality, Fraternity are not the foundations of freedom. The right of each man to his life, his liberty, the fruits of his labors and the pursuit of his happiness is the foundation. Now, to be sure, "fruits of his labors" was left out of the DOI, but it was in other state documents.

I've never heard this interpretation before. Do you get this directly from Walter Williams or did you see this some other place? Every historical reference I've ever seen said the 3/5 compromise was made in order to satisfy the southern slave holding states on the issue of determining population for representation in the Federal Government. The northern non-slave holding state didn't want slaves to count as a whole person, or the population in the south would be too much. The southern states wanted the slaves to be counted. The compromise was that 5 slaves would count as 3 people.

Think of it logically. Many of those in the northern states were against slavery, and thus wanted a slave to be worth zero, but a free man to be worth a full person. The southern states wanted slaves to be worth a full vote. The compromise was 3/5. Clearly the goal was to get the south to free their slaves, because then they'd get more representation in government.

[Publius]

I'm following logic here. Racism is elevating race to a high level or the highest levels of importance in ones value system.

Where are you getting this definition? How does this mesh with the explanations I already gave you on why this isn't racism?

It's all around the culture. I see it daily in various forms. Let me give you a high profile case in point, the Duke University Lacrosse team. What happened there? Several of the faculty of the university came out against the team based solely on race. They had no regard for the evidence. They disregarded the evidence and vilified the players and still to this day, so far as I know, haven’t changed their views on the matter. These are the multiculturalism driven faculty members, the intellectuals who are at the cutting edge of the movement. This is the kind of stuff they are attempting to pour into the culture at large.

So you have never read anything on multiculturalism? Rather, you are just gleaning information from 3rd parties? BTW, what Duke professor are you referring to in particular? Is there a specific quote about something he/she/they said about the Duke lacrosse players?

These are people we can’t have running America.

What "we" are you referring to? And how are multiculturalists running America? That sounds like talk radio kind of stuff.

Christianity existed some 1800 years at that point and didn't lead to freedom. In fact, it lead to subjugation and the Dark Ages. Saint Augustine and Christianity led man to hell on earth for 1000 years, because they shunned the City of Man (aka Rome) and pursed the “City of God” (aka heaven). However, the enlightenment ideas were explicitly for freedom, and provided the source of inspiration for the American Founders.

Christianity has led to all sorts of contradictory things, including slavery and Abolitionism. Why don't you want to acknowledge Christianity's role in ending slavery?

Jefferson, Madison, et.al, were explicitly driven by enlightenment ideas. The DOI is the founding document of America. I'm not aware of Jesus or the Bible as being a part of the founding documents. I do know they worked hard to keep religion out of government, and explicitly and strongly voted down including any mention of Jesus. Lincoln at Gettysburg references the founding ideals as the major inspiration for the war.

God is mentioned in the opening and closing paragraphs of the DOI. Ending slavery is nowhere to be found in the DOI. Why do you use "they" when referring to ideas of the founding fathers? They were not of one mind on anything. The Constitution was a document of compromise.

America ended slavery and did so on principle. Or, put positively, America was the first country based on freedom, i.e. on the idea that men have inalienable rights. The American ideals were fundamentally correct. The French, otoh, didn't have most of their ideas right. Liberty, Equality, Fraternity are not the foundations of freedom. The right of each man to his life, his liberty, the fruits of his labors and the pursuit of his happiness is the foundation. Now, to be sure, "fruits of his labors" was left out of the DOI, but it was in other state documents.

I just showed you an early document from France, and France abolished slavery in 1794, so this contradicts your earlier pronouncement. Also if you read the Federalist Papers you'll see clearly the workings of Founding Fathers' minds when it came to government. As an interesting side note, they explicitly endorsed taxation as fair and just, albeit indirect taxation.

Think of it logically. Many of those in the northern states were against slavery, and thus wanted a slave to be worth zero, but a free man to be worth a full person. The southern states wanted slaves to be worth a full vote. The compromise was 3/5. Clearly the goal was to get the south to free their slaves, because then they'd get more representation in government.

Where did you read this? If this was the motivating factor it has been conspicuously left out of every history book I've ever read.

[adrock3215]

Christianity has led to all sorts of contradictory things, including slavery and Abolitionism. Why don't you want to acknowledge Christianity's role in ending slavery?

I cannot speak for Thales but I should interject here: Christianity does include some positive elements; one of these is the concept of individual moral responsibility. Where and when these positive, more rational (if one can call them that), aspects are preserved (you'll have to look hard for the few specific times), Christianity has played a role in positively shaping history. I would agree with you that Christianity played a role in ending slavery, although I would simply submit to you: "Yes, Christianity had a role. But only because some positive aspects of Christian philosophy were applied, specifically those that happened to be in agreement with enlightenment ideals." Thales is right, America ended slavery on principle. But just because some contemporary Christians (abolitionists for one) shared a similiar idea doesn't disqualify the principle itself from being the determining factor.

As for the rest, you seem to have passed over my prior reply. One must understand the importance of philosophy. That is the first step toward understanding the horrors of multiculturalism. After that, one can conclude that the professor and David Duke are the moral equivalent, because while they differ in application, they both hold at root the same conceptual ideas.

[Thales]

Where are you getting this definition? How does this mesh with the explanations I already gave you on why this isn't racism?

I’m getting it from observation and reading.

So you have never read anything on multiculturalism? Rather, you are just gleaning information from 3rd parties? BTW, what Duke professor are you referring to in particular? Is there a specific quote about something he/she/they said about the Duke lacrosse players?

I've read a TON on multiculturalism. I'm gaining information from direct observation, reading and even arguing. 80 some odd professors signed a paper condemning the Lacrosse team. If you don't know about it, then so be it.

I said:

"These are people we can’t have running America."

What "we" are you referring to? And how are multiculturalists running America? That sounds like talk radio kind of stuff.

Those who are rational and value freedom. "talk radio kind of stuff"? Another one of your fuzzy, kind of, sort of arguments?

Christianity has led to all sorts of contradictory things, including slavery and Abolitionism. Why don't you want to acknowledge Christianity's role in ending slavery?

Because I don't believe it was fundamental. Christianity did lead to the Dark Ages, however. This is what happens when you have a belief system that shuns the real world and promotes a non-verifiable realm as ideal.

God is mentioned in the opening and closing paragraphs of the DOI. Ending slavery is nowhere to be found in the DOI. Why do you use "they" when referring to ideas of the founding fathers? They were not of one mind on anything. The Constitution was a document of compromise.

A "Creator" is mentioned, but the DOI was in line with Lockean thinking and the concept of "natural law". It certainly wasn’t a Christian document.

I just showed you an early document from France, and France abolished slavery in 1794, so this contradicts your earlier pronouncement. Also if you read the Federalist Papers you'll see clearly the workings of Founding Fathers' minds when it came to government. As an interesting side note, they explicitly endorsed taxation as fair and just, albeit indirect taxation.

Well, 1776 was before 1794, but if the French deserve credit, then I'll give it to them.

Where did you read this? If this was the motivating factor it has been conspicuously left out of every history book I've ever read.

Walter Williams, as I told you. I linked to his statement, but I also remember him saying it. The Founders were strongly anti-slavery. I'm referring here to the Northerners primarily.

Anyway, the long and short of it is that the founding ideals of America lead to the ending of slavery. Enlightenment ideas lead to the view that slavery was evil, and must be ended. This is what is outstanding about that period. Slavery itself existed through all of mankind's history. The Egyptians had slaves, the Romans had slaves, the Arabs had (and have) slaves, the Indians had slaves, etc. etc. America fought and ended slavery on principle.

If you don’t want to give the Founders credit for their achievements, you are free to do so. You have the right to your opinion, also thanks to them.

[RationalBiker]

That sounds like talk radio kind of stuff.

And this means what?

I hear a lot of "talk radio stuff" that is true and accurate. As noted by Thales, this is a meaningless characterization.

[Publius]

I’m getting it from observation and reading.

Its not racism, I already explained why.

I've read a TON on multiculturalism. I'm gaining information from direct observation, reading and even arguing. 80 some odd professors signed a paper condemning the Lacrosse team. If you don't know about it, then so be it.

Where you're getting this information is what I'm interested in. It sounds like you are going by what other people think of it, not by reading primary materials on it that don't automatically pre-judge it. You might benefit greatly by going to some forums, or even someone in person, and asking some open-ended questions to find out more.

Did that published ad even mention the Duke lacrosse players? You might want to look that one up again.

Those who are rational and value freedom. "talk radio kind of stuff"? Another one of your fuzzy, kind of, sort of arguments?

Talk radio is notorious for bad and misleading information, its purpose is to get people juiced up ("I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!"). You can hear a lot of good stuff too, and its generally entertaining. But its not a good reliable medium for getting any real information.

Because I don't believe it was fundamental.

Check out this site I found, a quick passage:

Slavery was still very much alive, and in some places even expanding, in the northern colonies of British North America in the generation before the American Revolution. The spirit of liberty in 1776 and the rhetoric of rebellion against tyranny made many Americans conscious of the hypocrisy of claiming natural human rights for themselves, while at the same time denying them to Africans. Nonetheless, most of the newly free states managed to postpone dealing with the issue of slavery, citing the emergency of the war with Britain.

That war, however, proved to be the real liberator of the northern slaves. Wherever it marched, the British army gave freedom to any slave who escaped within its lines. This was sound military policy: it disrupted the economic system that was sustaining the Revolution. Since the North saw much longer, and more extensive, incursions by British troops, its slave population drained away at a higher rate than the South's. At the same time, the governments in northern American states began to offer financial incentives to slaveowners who freed their black men, if the emancipated slaves then served in the state regiments fighting the British.

When the Northern states gave up the last remnants of legal slavery, in the generation after the Revolution, their motives were a mix of piety, morality, and ethics; fear of a growing black population; practical economics; and the fact that the Revolutionary War had broken the Northern slaveowners' power and drained off much of the slave population. An exception was New Jersey, where the slave population actually increased during the war. Slavery lingered there until the Civil War, with the state reporting 236 slaves in 1850 and 18 as late as 1860.

The business of emancipation in the North amounted to the simple matters of, 1. determining how to compensate slaveowners for the few slaves they had left, and, 2. making sure newly freed slaves would be marginalized economically and politically in their home communities, and that nothing in the state's constitution would encourage fugitive slaves from elsewhere to settle there.

Walter Williams, as I told you. I linked to his statement, but I also remember him saying it. The Founders were strongly anti-slavery. I'm referring here to the Northerners primarily.

Walter Williams is an economist, not a historian, so he is not an authority.

Anyway, the long and short of it is that the founding ideals of America lead to the ending of slavery. Enlightenment ideas lead to the view that slavery was evil, and must be ended. This is what is outstanding about that period. Slavery itself existed through all of mankind's history. The Egyptians had slaves, the Romans had slaves, the Arabs had (and have) slaves, the Indians had slaves, etc. etc. America fought and ended slavery on principle. .

The Enlightenment ideals certainly made some people feel guilty about slavery, but didn't do much to actually end it. I will concede that reading this made me take more seriously the Enlightenment's influence on popular thought about slavery. But, as the source I cited says, it was more pragmatic and circumstantial reasons why it ended it the north, and then eventually the south.

Say there is an overweight person who finds out that to lose weight he should start eating more fruits and vegetables and cut out the saturated fat, but does nothing for years until he marries a woman who cooks all his healthy meals for him. Then when he loses weight he attributes his success to his discovery of important nutritional guidelines years ago, when in reality he only succeeded in losing weight because of his wife's cooking. He may have felt increasingly guilty about ignoring his health, but he let circumstances solve his problem rather than acting on what he knew to be the proper dietary principals. This is similar to the argument that you are making.

Edited March 6, 2008 by Publius