Of course, a good half or so of the leading founders knew it to be wrong and said so.

In other cultures at other times, it has been acceptable to practice infanticide. In ours, it is acceptable to practice a certain form of infanticide or pre-infanticide known as abortion. Although it may be difficult to see the immorality of a practice or institution so ingrained in the fabric of one’s culture, there is a moral absolute, “though shalt not initiate force” that proscribes all of these injustices.

There were 200 years ago or in 1861, I am sure, some people who felt that the government should treat everyone the same regardless of race. But they were not the majority North or South. Look at the Illinois codes that banned immigration of ex-slaves, for example. But views about racial disparity were ubiquitous. Even many of the abolitionists had very paternalistic attitudes towards the slaves.

There were non-racists 200 years ago, and there certainly were during the time of Lincoln.

Whatever paulie. You are a PC preener. You are not a serious person. If it makes you feel better to declare people who lived 200 plus years ago racists, a word and concept that didn’t even exist back then, then you are hopelessly myopic and a mindless PC grandstander.

People have to be judged according to their times. This is not moral relativism, it is moral realism. EVERYONE was a “racist” 200 + years ago. Name me one exception. If you lived back then it is 100% certain that you would have been too, and some snot nosed modern would be condemning you for it. This is why I have no use for it when people on my side of the WBTS debate call Lincoln a racist. Lincoln was what almost every other American, North and South, was in 1861.

Are all the Englishmen in the Middles Ages living under a Monarch to be condemned because they were not democrats? That kind of thinking is foolish absurdity, and the mark of an ideologue.

It is true that there are real anti-Semites, (and I agree that some of the most virulent are anti-Arab anti-Semites) but surely you object to the “first use” of the charge as a rhetorical devise to stop debate. You do know that Ron Paul was called an anti-Semite because he used the other n word … neocon. Recently he used the term “new right” and in response some smarta** PC wag said by that he means “Jew Right.” I hope you realize that your PC grandstanding contributes to this debate stifling atmosphere.

I agree that there are real anti-Semites and real race-based haters although much fewer than the race hustling and anti-Semitism hustling demagogues would have us believe. But I believe that anti-anti-Semitism and anti-racism is a much bigger problem these days than is anti-Semitism or racism. That is why I call them out. Because they are used to stifle debate, vilify benign and purely natural inclinations, and are hypocritically applied only to whites.

I denounced the hate aspect of the definition because that is the part I am willing to give credence to. I specifically rejected what the term has come to mean and you obliged by providing modern definitions that illustrate the problem. Of course I reject the idea that any race “has the right to rule others,” for example, but who on earth believes that these days?

But the definition requires people to maintain an egalitarian view that the races either do not differ (if they even exist) or if they do that those differences have no implications. But this is not a moral or philosophical question. This is am empirical question. The definition requires the a priori acceptance of a particular conclusion. Surely a thinking man such as yourself must object to such patent nonsense. To attach a value laden epithet to someone for not accepting a certain conclusion before the fact is clearly absurd and is intended to further an agenda. Is the fact that with utter certainty the fastest sprinters in the upcoming Olympics are going to be of West African decent purely a coincidence? If you think not then you are a racist by the definitions you provided. Anyone who thinks not which is anyone with a lick of sense is a racist by those definitions.

Since in a previous post you implied that you are an evolutionist, then surely you must not be one of the race denying sophists that have become all the rage. (You know, the race does not exist as a real biological entity and is only a social construct crowd.) There is no one sillier than the race denying evolutionist. As if the rules that apply to other species suddenly quit applying to humans because if they did it would violate egalitarian dogma.

I get the game paulie. This whole exercise is an attempt by you to bait out of me an impure thought so that you can then jump up and down like a little child pointing and barking “Racist, racist, racist. Na na na, he’s a racist.” I call it the PC pounce. And at anytime in the future when you disagree with me and want to “discredit” me then you can whip out the offending remark and do it all again. You know, what I referred to above as thought stopping and stifling debate. It sure is less intellectual work than actual debate, isn’t it?

Well right back at you. I really do hope you reply by endorsing racial denial flat earth foolishness and claim that my refusal to do so makes me a racist. I beg you to prove your anti-racist bona fides by suggesting that the virtually certain outcome of the upcoming Olympic sprints have nothing to do with “inherent differences” in “ability” between the races. Then that would just mark you further as an unserious child, and I could be done with you.

Go play in your sandbox little paulie, and let the adults have a serious conversation.

Yes.

Surely you have run across people who throw around the label anti-Semite when someone questions our policies in the Middle East, suggests that the Israeli lobby has disproportionate influence, or uses the word neocon. Surely you object to that nonsense.

Yes, although it is indeed true that some Jew-haters have used the antiwar movement as cover to spread their views.

Likewise rabid war supporters throw around the terms un-American and unpatriotic anytime someone questions the War. Surely you object to that also.

Yes. Although I cop to being unpatriotic.

But these examples are exactly in the same spirit as the use of the word racist. It isn’t intended to convey any useful information because it has been rendered meaningless.

I disagree. There are in fact people who are racist, anti-semitic against Jews (and some who are anti-semitic against Arabs and Muslim middle easterners), etc.

Just because some people tar with too wide a brush does not mean the concepts they are tarring with lose all validity.

I would not say you are an anti-semite merely because you oppose the war; if every other word you utter is about Zionists, Zionist media, Zionist bankers, etc., you surely are.

David Duke is a racist. The KKK and the Aryan Nations are racist. Stormfront is racist.

The founders were racist.

This is a reality, even if you choose to couch it in niceties such as “not egalitarian.”

If you agree that their views on race were factually correct, you are a racist.

Since you haven’t said so, I don’t know whether you are or are not, but the use of the term “politically incorrect” to characterize their views indicates you are likely to be.

They believed it justified
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

Do you agree or disagree?

rac·ism Audio Help /ˈreɪsɪzÉ™m/ Pronunciation Key – Show Spelled Pronunciation[rey-siz-uhm] Pronunciation Key – Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
[Origin: 1865–70; < F racisme. See race2, -ism]

—Related forms
racist, noun, adjective
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
American Heritage Dictionary – Cite This Source – Share This
rac·ism Audio Help (rā’sÄ­z’É™m) Pronunciation Key
n.

1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

rac’ist adj. & n.
(Download Now or Buy the Book)
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Online Etymology Dictionary – Cite This Source – Share This
racist
1932 as a noun, 1938 as an adjective, from race (n.2); racism is first attested 1936 (from Fr. racisme, 1935), originally in the context of Nazi theories. But they replaced earlier words, racialism (1907) and racialist (1917), both often used at first in a British or South African context.

Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper
WordNet – Cite This Source – Share This
racist

adjective
1. based on racial intolerance; “racist remarks”
2. discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion

noun
1. a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others

——-

I see you saw fit to only use one of these definitions, involving hate. You did not address whether you adhere to “a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement…”

Or “The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability” or support “a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.”

The US founders did. Were they incorrect in this, or merely “politically incorrect?”

Feel free to expound on the difference, or not. Besides the characterizations, you have done nothing to dispute the fact.

Believe it.

FYI, these were mostly not intellectuals.

You have met many (?) people who want to reinstitute slavery? I find that very hard to believe.

America had slaves, but it is was not “founded on the backs of slaves.” That is a leftist, white-guilt ridden formulation.

What exactly is a “racist?” If words meant anything it would indicate race based hate or ill will of some sort as I indicated above. Properly defined, I am most certainly not a racist. I don’t hate anyone, and I don’t think hate is compatible with Christianity.

But you know, and I know, that racism no longer means just hate. It means any opposition to a certain political agenda, denial of the biological reality of race and racial differences, etc.

People opposed to immigration are racists. James Watson and his ever so cautious liberal defender William Saletan is a racist. Confederate flag flyers are racists. Lincoln opponents are racists. Etc. It is all just absurd.

I assume you are against the War. Surely you have run across people who throw around the label anti-Semite when someone questions our policies in the Middle East, suggests that the Israeli lobby has disproportionate influence, or uses the word neocon. Surely you object to that nonsense. Likewise rabid war supporters throw around the terms un-American and unpatriotic anytime someone questions the War. Surely you object to that also. But these examples are exactly in the same spirit as the use of the word racist. It isn’t intended to convey any useful information because it has been rendered meaningless. It is simply a word used to stop thought. I am not sure why a free-thinker like you would want to contribute to this atmosphere. Perhaps you should think about that, and so should Dr. Phillies.

I have no PC purity test.

I’m asking for views. You can answer the question in as much or as little detail as you wish, or not at all.

I have no agenda beyond understanding the actual viewpoint of someone I am talking to, although I find it curious that you are projecting an agenda on me simply for asking to clarify your views.

You stated that the racial views of the founders were “politically” incorrect, which leads to the presumption that you believe they were factually correct, and that it is taboo to say so.
If that’s not what you meant, why the word “politically”?

As you readily admit, all or almost all of the founders were extremely racist. To what degree, if any, you disagree with those views is up to you to answer, or not, any time you wish.

I am not derailing every thread. In fact I gave you quite some time before I brought it up again, since you said you wished to compose your thoughts.

I only asked again here since you brought up the issue of bigotry.

radical leftists (“America was founded on the backs of the slaves” types)

You deny this historical fact? I guess I’m a radical leftist for thinking that slave labor had anything to do with building America. It depends on what you mean by radical leftist, since I am for ending government taxation and regulation, and 100% pro gun owners rights, among other views most Americans consider right wing.

I dare say you have never met anyone who thinks race based slavery should be reinstituted.

I dare say you are wrong. I’ve met many people who have.

No, I don’t think opposing reinstating racially based slavery means that you are not a racist.

But, if you are, why not say it? There are plenty of open racists out there. No one is forcing them to hide their opinions.

If you aren’t, of course, you are free to say so as well. Or just keep folks guessing. Entirely up to you.

While I generally don’t play this game because I think it empowers the PC thought police, I will attempt to answer your question because you appear to be one of those PC bulldogs I sometimes deal with who just can’t let go, and so will continue to derail every subsequent thread with your attempts to play PC gotcha.

Your innuendo was that I said the Founders views on race were politically incorrect as opposed to actually incorrect. Well pardon me for not sufficiently satisfying your morbid curiosity about my views on race preemptively. My point was that modern day purist egalitarians who point to the Founders and the DoI in particular to support their views are either historically ignorant or intentionally deceptive. All honest people must admit that the Founders were not purist egalitarians in the modern sense. Just ask the slaves, the Indians, the women who couldn’t vote, the non-property owners who couldn’t vote, the German immigrants that Franklin famously groused about, etc. This is not really a debatable point. Some people (modern “conservatives” and most leftists) might find it an inconvenient point because it messes up their tidy little narrative, but it is still a fact. The primary people who dare to tell the truth about this are radical leftists (“America was founded on the backs of the slaves” types) and paleocons like me. Otherwise we get liars like Jaffa who say America was founded on equality and time has just “perfected” that, especially ol’ Lincoln “perfecting” it by the sword. Of course, this is all blatant, transparent balderdash.

So were the Founder’s views on race incorrect? What specifically are you asking me to comment on? Do you want me to deny that I think that race is a real biological entity and that the races differ? Is that what is required to pass your PC purity test? Or would it be sufficient for me to deny that I think race was a legitimate basis for enslavement which of course I do? But you didn’t really need me to deny the later because I dare say you have never met anyone who thinks race based slavery should be reinstituted.

Red, any details to expand on your own views on race yet? (I haven’t checked back to the thread where we last discussed it to see if you added anything new there since the last time I posted on it).

I hope few thoughtful libertarians will take this seriously, as opposed to the knee-jerk PCtarians, of course.

BTW, Dr. Phillies, nice display of anti-Southern bigotry. There are few more bigoted than the anti-bigotry bigots. But what would you expect from someone from the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts. Two can play at that game, right?

We are collecting the petitions in NH to put Barr on the ballot.