Mormon America

[changed]

Originally Posted by talisyn

What I find incredibly sad is that someone thought the lot of slave owners was at least equal to that of their human property.

I agree - I think the lot of the slave owners were much worse off than (not equal to) that of the African Americans. I think it is harder to live with a guilty conscience, to live as a sinner, than to live as an innocent.

It's not a curse but a gift t'us,
The best path we could seek
A place where God can lift us
We kneel; our knees is weak

And when one of us is kneelin',
We understand his fears.
We know what all us is feelin'
We cry each other's tears.

That's just what Jesus done
For all us human folk.
He agreed to come get born
To feel ever' pain and poke.

So's he could understand us,
What it is to be a slave.
So's he could get beneath us
And push us outa the grave

Would you rather be the massa
Or the Roman with his whip?
Would you rather nail the Savior--
Put vinegar to his lip?

Or learn the lessons of sufferin'--
How we nothin' without grace.
Jesus, He give us a callin'
He gifted us our race.
Margaret Blair Young - He Gifted Us Our Race

Who here would rather be the massa? Not me.

[FunkyTown]

Originally Posted by changed

I agree - I think the lot of the slave owners were much worse off than (not equal to) that of the African Americans. I think it is harder to live with a guilty conscience, to live as a sinner, than to live as an innocent.

Wow. I came on here to tell Elphaba that just because someone says something stupid about one thing doesn't make them wrong about everything else, but I have to address this:

You're kidding, right, Changed? You recognize that many slave owners wouldn't have had a guilty conscience? Never once have I ever seen any show displaying the poor, downtrodden slave owners tyrannized by the people they owned.

[talisyn]

Still no sympathy for the slave owners. I would have to agree with the comments about the slaves making the best of a bad situation, be it comfort to those around them or passive-aggressive behavior, but that's all I agree with. The idea that abolitionists cause slavery to last longer? Absurd. What were they suppose to do when faced with inhumane treatment of fellow humans, wait until the slave owners said 'Gee this just isn't cost effective so we're gonna send all our slaves to Hawaii as reward for their labor'? It's an insulting theory, inaccurate at best. Advances in agriculture, making it cost effective to own vast amounts of land thus necessitating cheap labor, is what stopped slavery from dying a 'natural' death, not abolitionists.

Changed, most Southern slave owners were Christian. They knew full well what they were doing was wrong yet they did it anyways. I wouldn't want to be them either, but then I wouldn't have been like them at all, anyways!

[hordak]

Originally Posted by bluedreams

Excuse what is about to come. I'm an art person, love art, and do it myself. So I often have strong feelings towards the topic of art and its representation.


BD

Is it common to "steal" art when making a new work? First thing i thought of when i saw this was "hey my dad has this". I can't find a pic on line but my parents had one exactly like this but less modern. If you erased the capital, the paper in his hand and made the people in the back anonymous it would be the same pic. Even the sinners are in the same place

It's like taking the Mona Lisa and drawing sunglasses , a hat on her and calling it new.

Anyone know the pic i'm talking about?

[bytor2112]

Originally Posted by talisyn

What I find incredibly sad is that someone thought the lot of slave owners was at least equal to that of their human property.

I find it incredibly sad that some free blacks owned slaves????

[Just_A_Guy]

Wasn't a frequent abolitionist argument that slavery demeaned the owners as well as the owned?

Odd how Skousen's a racist for resurrecting a century-old abolitionist argument. I could agree with you, Elphaba, if Skousen's overall point was that the lot of the slaves was better than the lot of the owners. But to judge that in context, I'd have to read the book--which would entail buying the book--which would entail incurring your wrath, I'm sure . . .

[FunkyTown]

Originally Posted by Just_A_Guy

Wasn't a frequent abolitionist argument that slavery demeaned the owners as well as the owned?

Odd how Skousen's a racist for resurrecting a century-old abolitionist argument. I could agree with you, Elphaba, if Skousen's overall point was that the lot of the slaves was better than the lot of the owners. But to judge that in context, I'd have to read the book--which would entail buying the book--which would entail incurring your wrath, I'm sure . . .

Oh, there's no question it does, JAG. It does demean both.

However, if someone steals money from me, it demeans them by making them a thief. I still don't want someone to steal money from me.

His arguments are ridiculous. And stupid. And have nothing to do with his financial arguments.

[Just_A_Guy]

Originally Posted by FunkyTown

Oh, there's no question it does, JAG. It does demean both.

However, if someone steals money from me, it demeans them by making them a thief. I still don't want someone to steal money from me.

His arguments are ridiculous. And stupid. And have nothing to do with his financial arguments.

Aside from the general assertion that slavery had serious negative consequences for white southerners, what "argument" is he making, precisely? Taken in context, is the guy pro-slavery?

[bluedreams]

Hey Bluedreams, perhaps we will need to hold back in using it to sell ward bonds. We do not need ridiculous propaganda for that task!

Lol.

After reading your response, it is easier to understand why the Supreme Court Justice in that painting is weeping. Did not mean to cause you distress.

No that would be the realization that supreme court decisions about disputes of private/government property are a mar on his soul. At least he realizes his mistakes. The people he's in company with (journalists, a proffesor who believes in evolution, them greedy lawyers, smug hollywood, and blinded politicians) don't seem to have a clue that they're being led by Satan. I love that he states you can tell who people ID with by their reactions. It's like the finishing touches of judgment being made.
And I knew what I was getting when I decided to watch this. I once had to watch a documentary on kinkade and I left with stomach pains from the man. So it's not much of a surprise. I just have very strong feelings about art.

Hey, did you see the Youtube video of Glen Beck analyzing the art and architecture at Rockefeller Center? Now that was really something. He knows the truth aout those capitalists since reading Cleon Skousen.

That was hilariously bad. The art on the rockefeller building was propaganda. Most public art is. But he's missing half of it. He ignores the large part of symbolism shown within the art of NYC. And I'm surprised he didn't mention how communist Isaiah is. The symbols used by the USSR go long before the state as symbols and all of the work he criticizes were made prior to the absolute paranoia that would swallow Americans about communism, socialism, and fascism. It like pointing to the upside down stars on LDS temples and pointing to the obvious signs of satanism IMO.

On to man at the crossroads. Diego Rivera happens to be one of my favorite artists. He was a communist, but the meaning that Beck puts in his art is off, really off. And Rockefeller was never happy about this painting and considering that Rivera didn't like Rockefeller isn't much of a surprise. He tried to control his desires for the painting (artists are not fans of that) and he would later destroy it because of the Lenin bit that he always disliked. I completely disagree with his idea that Lenin is the savior in this painting. Man is the controller of his destiny, the man behind the machine. The world has brought out many evils, wars, and tyrannies but also the altering and grasping for new ideas. Not only ones based on marxism, but also shown are breakthroughs in social liberties, science, and technology. These are the things that are coming out of humanity, the ground a crop with all sorts of plants, in his day. And the man is at a cross roads where he must choose what he will utilize and propogate into the future. Communism isn't the basis of his message.

Originally Posted by Elphaba

BD, I'm curious as to what you think of this piece of "art." Oh, and don't forget to read the words while looking at the art.

　

Actually, the painting, in and of itself doesn't bother me. I agree with it. In some ways the economic system did entrap the slaveowner in a system where they were dependent on bondage. Something about the bondage of sin comes to mind. The painting in and of itself doesn't bother me and I can't help but wonder if this picture was commissioned by Skousen or rather he found it and interpreted it to fit his ideas on slavery. Because the words that follow are a load of crap that flirts with racism.

Abolitionists at fault for delaying emancipation.

They weren't actually willing to do it....that was the delay to emancipation. That they talked for 2 decades without any real formative plans should speak volumes for their willingness. That the formers of the new government had to work around slavery in the first place to comfort their southern brother should speak a couple more encyclopedias. At every turn they found excuses to maintain the system that they already had because it worked for them. Turner was an excuse. The northern influence was an excuse. That the slaves were just peachy being slaves and that it was a natural state of being for the lesser folk was an excuse. The politcal startegy and Lincoln's initial desires was for this slow death. They were cutting off the practice to of slavery from spreading west. The south saw it as an afront to their lifestyle and fought back. For heaven's sake, in the letters of secession many specifaclly state that it was for their "right" to have slaves.
Gradual emancipation was a means to get people off their back about an immoral practice.

Newly sold slaves "usually a cheerful lot." "

Of course they were. What was the point of fighting? Any sign of dissent would lead to punishment. That they were usually cheerful means a) they knew better than to complain to their masters and overseers b) You find whatever happiness you can in a half-life c) on the off chance the people were documenting the three people who did like have their lives subjugated, controlled, and repressed by others.
That there were "vicious" types should state of the unhappiness and discontent that was truly lurking under the surface. What he states onwards from slow labor to slaves trying to drive down their own worth shows classic passive aggression

White schoolchildren would "envy the freedom" of "colored playmates."

Of course they did. What kid wouldn't want to run around naked and miss out on school all day. That children, who still have a weak grasp on social and economic disparities would envy this is of no value or surprise.

Cruelty rare, slave owners "the worst victims."

And now it's bordering racist

"Excessive toil occurred only where the masters or overseers were feeble witted as well as brutal. A persistent rumor among abolitionists was that sugar planters followed a policy of working slaves to death in seven years as a matter of economy.

No, there's a reason people in the they were important slaves to begin with. They could whether it. All the weak ones were killed off by a horrifying boat ride over, leaving an unnatural selection of hardier people.

In the caribbean they had started using black slaves because the native populations just kept dying from the work.
But the main reason they were brutal in excess was because slaves cost money and were apart of their livelihoods. They'd also built a system of behavior and culture around slavery that allowed for a more sustainable system that preferred implicit reminders of power than explicit.

Broken marriages "one the blessings of slavery." "Negro weddings were attended by white people who joined in the celebration. If the marriages were of a rather impermanent nature, that fact was frequently considered as 'one of the blessings of slavery.' At church and camp meetings the Negroes, in their own section of the building or tabernacle, enjoyed the experiences immensely. They could shout without restraint, while the masters, in order to preserve their dignity, had to repress their emotions. It made little difference if religion was thrown off soon after the camp meeting dissolved -- backsliding was pleasant, and there was always a chance to get intoxicatingly converted again."

And this would definitely be an example of flirting with racism.

"Negro preachers" warranted surveillance. "The worst offenses of slaves against the white men's code were rebellion and running away. Drunkenness, stealing, hiding out from work, personal filthiness, carelessness of property, fighting, and general brutality had various positions in the scale of misdemeanors. Negro preachers often bred discontent by their unnecessary restraint upon pleasure, and, if itinerants, had to be watched closely for abolitionist or seditious doctrines." [The Making of America, page 734]

No, that's really all I have to say but the story of abinadi comes to mind while reading this.

Southern life a "nightmare" of fear -- for white people. "The constant fear of slave rebellion made life in the South a nightmare, especially in regions where conspiracies were of frequent occurrence. The extermination of white civilization in Santo Domingo was followed in the nineteenth century by several other bloody outbursts in the West Indies, which never failed to cause ominous forebodings in America. [...]

This I agree with. not necessarily his wording, but that the South was paranoid about slave rebellion and chaos breaking was very real. But I'm not given to much sympathy for it as skousen's writing sounds like. To me, their paranoia is no different than that of a murderer fear that he'll be caught by the cops. They had laid down a very dangerous system where something could unexpected blow up in their faces.

Southern slavery better than Northern freedom.

No. Northern freedom was not the best because the people in the north were marred by racism as much as the south was. But slavery was not better than freedom

Some Negroes, having been freed and sent to any Northern state which would receive them, became so miserable as to solicit a return to slavery." [The Making of America, pages 735-736]

Just like there are people who return to abusive spouses. That some preffered the life of a slave isn't a good indication of whether slavery was better. It only shows that the slaves were human. The ran from the terrors of slavery, into a life with no familial and little community support. They were, most likely, with few skills, illiterate, and with little idea of the northern state culture. Slavery wasn't better, but it was known. They had built the tools necessary to survive being a slave, which in turn handicapped them for any other life.

Emancipated slaves hated because of Civil War and "carpetbag regime." "This seemingly hopeless situation was by 1860 approaching a solution which was not allowed to materialize. The limits of slavery expansion either by purchase or conquest had been reached. The natural increase of slave population in a few decades would have checked the opportunities for profitable sale. It seems futile to believe otherwise than that, before the end of the century, the diminishing returns from slave ownership would have driven slave prices so low that, in self-defense, owners would have made tenants of their laborers, thrown them upon their own resources, and placed dependence upon rentals for profits. It likewise seems reasonable to believe that by this solution the Negro might have escaped the revulsion of feeling against him that resulted from forcible emancipation and the carpetbag regime."

oh so much better. From slavery to an american version of the feudal state. That is skousens best hypothetical solution of if things were to not end in civil war?!?

The Making of America is making the rounds now among the extreme far-right, and I'm sure it's doing very well hanging onto The Leap's and Beck's coattails.

Great....it can join the ranks of The Bell Curve in further validating racist beliefs and easing the conscience of racist beliefs.



With luv,
BD

[bluedreams]

Originally Posted by hordak

Is it common to "steal" art when making a new work? First thing i thought of when i saw this was "hey my dad has this". I can't find a pic on line but my parents had one exactly like this but less modern. If you erased the capital, the paper in his hand and made the people in the back anonymous it would be the same pic. Even the sinners are in the same place

Yes, in a sense. Though artist don't usually call it stealing. Art borrows and builds upon past art all the time. Sometimes this can cross the line, but in this case I probably say it hasn't....any more than doing a million landscapes that look practically the same to me is. As long as he painted it, did not immediately transfer the basic work onto the canvas, and still hold his own original touch to his painting, I'd consider it new art. Not the most original, but new.

It's like taking the Mona Lisa and drawing sunglasses , a hat on her and calling it
new.

Sounds like dadaism (an art movement) to me

Anyone know the pic i'm talking about?

I think I might. The one with the more heavenly looking seen with a darker corner. There's a broken column somewhere in there too...

with luv,
BD