The Founding Fathers

[masterpanthera_t]

(07-23-2020, 10:34 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: A lot of people have already articulated many of my thoughts. We can judge people within the context of their time. Most of the founding fathers were great people who did great things. I think we can apply more scrutiny regarding slavery to someone in 1861 than we can to someone in 1787 given the evolution of society's view on the topic.

The catchall term "Founding Father" shouldn't be a shield, however, for scrutiny. Not all of those involved in establishing our nation were equally great or equal advocates of democracy.

I think I generally agree with these sentiments. However, while the founding fathers were great in many ways they were certainly not infallible. Their work in setting the course of democracy in this country was a great service and model for the American experiment. Wts, I also think they are spoken of in near god like terms which isn't warranted. It's ironic that in some ways we give them credit (deserved) for a vision of a society built on freedoms for its citizens which was unheard of in their times, yet somehow say we must not scrutinize  them too harshly for not being able to see past their times when speaking of slavery and 2/3rds of a person and such. 
I agree they deserve respect for their extraordinary qualities, but at the same time properly balanced. As Bels mentioned, I'm sure they themselves would not be comfortable with as much adulation as they're given. 

Not necessarily a drastically different opinion to yours, just wanted to emphasize what I view as ironic and dare say a contradictory perspective when speaking of visionary leadership. I think in some cases it leads to a stifling of some views which might be contrary to the founders. I don't mean we must curtail any freedoms, but sometimes I've seen arguments simply consist of "well we can't do that because that's not what the founders wanted". They were definitely visionary in great ways, but not eternally so in every way. But I think I'm digressing a bit.

[Dill]

(07-23-2020, 01:57 AM)CarolinaBengalFanGuy Wrote: What are your opinions regarding the Founding Fathers, the owning of slaves, and the hypocrisy of all men are created equal while many of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were slaveholders themselves?
Do you still consider these men American heroes?
Where do you stand on building names and statues that honor some of these men?
Should we be knocking faces off of Mount Rushmore?

Before I "judge" the Founding Fathers, I ask myself what my views on race and equality might have been if I had been raised during the colonial era as a white man on a Virginia plantation, or a middling home in Philadelphia or Boston.

If, after pondering that, I conclude that I, myself, might not have been arguing against racism, sexism, homophobia and climate change denial back then,  then I am not inclined to judge the Founders as I might my next door neighbor or a politician currently in office.

Further, giving Colonial Dill the greatest possible benefit of the doubt, imagining him BFF with Thomas Paine and Ben Franklin, I think he still might have found a "compromise" with slavers acceptable, if that is what it took to found the nation. So he might at once recognize such compromise as in contradiction with founding beliefs, but necessary to founding a state which might eventually realize liberal ideals of equality. Take up the slavery issue AFTER the Revolution is won and the government settled.

I still consider most of the founders "heroes"--including and perhaps especially Washington. First, because after years of following politics and I history, I have come to understand how difficult it was to do what he did. And second, because the bi partisan esteem in which men and women of honor held him. Franklin is easy to admire, even the conservative Adams. Madison is the one FF whose writings and political insight were equal in depth to Hobbes, Locke, Montesquieu, Rousseau and Smith, the founders of classical liberalism, though he did not produce extended arguments to match theirs.

Regarding statues honoring these men, my only question is how are they placed and contextualized. I am very much in favor of the existing monuments on the Mall to Lincoln, Jefferson, and Washington because they are honoring civic ideals and not personalities. I would like to see an additional monument acknowledging the contradiction in the founding, and the resolution to address it. (I am visiting the Gettysburg battlefield this weekend, the high water mark of that contradiction; my first visit, I hope to see some statues commemorating the bloodiest battle in U.S. history. I will think it stupid if I don't see Confederate soldiers memorialized there as well, if not especially honored.)

Most of the difficulty people currently have with statues and monuments seems to me to arise from our continued inability to come to terms with slavery, segregation and systemic racism, and an ahistorical penchant for judging our ancestors by contemporary standards.  If local communities want to tear down the statue of a Confederate general erected in 1930 to commemorate the Great War of Northern Aggression, then I say go for it. Tearing down a statue of Washington would not strike me as "calling out " founding hypocrisy and exposing how the nation was built on a "lie. He did not take up arms against the nation, he founded it.   

[Dill]

(07-23-2020, 02:05 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Wilson catches a lot of shit, and rightfully so, but he is responsible for an end to the spoils system (not single-handedly, and not necessarily as president as it occurred before he was in office) and he laid a lot of the groundwork for what FDR would eventually build upon. Without the way he built the bureaucracy and really implemented that idea, the system would not have been in place for FDR when it came time.

This is why I like to focus just on their actions and words. There are good things and bad things with every one of our historical figures. But yeah, Wilson's racism when compared with that of TR at the time is a very interesting comparison to raise. That's also the difference between southern racism and northern racism, though. Wilson was, after all, born and raised in Virginia.

LOL Wilson also segregated the Federal Government.

Looking at his place in "the arc of history," he was certainly a mover and shaker who set the stage (though he could not open the curtain) on Liberal internationalism.  From my perspective, hard to complain about that.

I think when teachers teach about guys like this, they need to present both sides of them, and the lingering effects of each.

I think it dangerous to say we cannot teach the bad side with the good, and accustom students to expect or assume that past leaders were all good; as if evil is always outside the great men, and opposing it is never opposing them.

[Belsnickel]

(07-23-2020, 03:30 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL Wilson also segregated the Federal Government.

Looking at his place in "the arc of history," he was certainly a mover and shaker who set the stage (though he could not open the curtain) on Liberal internationalism.  From my perspective, hard to complain about that.

I think when teachers teach about guys like this, they need to present both sides of them, and the lingering effects of each.

I think it dangerous to say we cannot teach the bad side with the good, and accustom students to expect or assume that past leaders were all good; as if evil is always outside the great men, and opposing it is never opposing them.

I don't disagree with any of this. Just as a bureaucrat, I have to recognize that Wilson is one of the founders of our modern day bureaucracy. He literally wrote the book on it. However, much like many others, it doesn't make him immune from criticism.

[GMDino]

This topic falls under the "you can have two views on a subject" view that we've had before.

One can hold the Founding Fathers in high esteem for what they did and still look down on their treatment of fellow human beings.

One can say bad cops need punished and good cops need to call them out and not hate cops.

One can say the virus is bad for the economy and we need to work on reopening it and still want to be careful and not open too fast and believe the virus is very bad for people.

Pigeonholing a single belief into meaning you can't believe something else is wrong unless it has been demonstrated that that one view will override your reaction to the other.  If you are incapable of thinking there are good police then you are a fool or that the Founding Fathers were either all bad or all good.  

[masterpanthera_t]

(07-23-2020, 03:03 PM)Dill Wrote: Before I "judge" the Founding Fathers, I ask myself what my views on race and equality might have been if I had been raised during the colonial era as a white man on a Virginia plantation, or a middling home in Philadelphia or Boston.

If, after pondering that, I conclude that I, myself, might not have been arguing against racism, sexism, homophobia and climate change denial back then,  then I am not inclined to judge the Founders as I might my next door neighbor or a politician currently in office.

Further, giving Colonial Dill the greatest possible benefit of the doubt, imagining him BFF with Thomas Paine and Ben Franklin, I think he still might have found a "compromise" with slavers acceptable, if that is what it took to found the nation. So he might at once recognize such compromise as in contradiction with founding beliefs, but necessary to founding a state which might eventually realize liberal ideals of equality. Take up the slavery issue AFTER the Revolution is won and the government settled.

I still consider most of the founders "heroes"--including and perhaps especially Washington. First, because after years of following politics and I history, I have come to understand how difficult it was to do what he did. And second, because the bi partisan esteem in which men and women of honor held him. Franklin is easy to admire, even the conservative Adams. Madison is the one FF whose writings and political insight were equal in depth to Hobbes, Locke, Montesquieu, Rousseau and Smith, the founders of classical liberalism, though he did not produce extended arguments to match theirs.

Regarding statues honoring these men, my only question is how are they placed and contextualized. I am very much in favor of the existing monuments on the Mall to Lincoln, Jefferson, and Washington because they are honoring civic ideals and not personalities. I would like to see an additional monument acknowledging the contradiction in the founding, and the resolution to address it. (I am visiting the Gettysburg battlefield this weekend, the high water mark of that contradiction; my first visit, I hope to see some statues commemorating the bloodiest battle in U.S. history. I will think it stupid if I don't see Confederate soldiers memorialized there as well, if not especially honored.)

Most of the difficulty people currently have with statues and monuments seems to me to arise from our continued inability to come to terms with slavery, segregation and systemic racism, and an ahistorical penchant for judging our ancestors by contemporary standards.  If local communities want to tear down the statue of a Confederate general erected in 1930 to commemorate the Great War of Northern Aggression, then I say go for it. Tearing down a statue of Washington would not strike me as "calling out " founding hypocrisy and exposing how the nation was built on a "lie. He did not take up arms against the nation, he founded it.   

This post definitely contextualizes the times the FFs were operating in, and explains the compromises they had to make in order to found a nation. I agree with that, and as a practical man, I can appreciate it. Yet, in some ways one thought I'm not convinced of: They were willing to fight Britain and lay down their lives in the interest of freedoms (admittedly in some ways self serving, and service of ideals in other ways), but not willing to do so for the right of other Americans enslaved? I look at it as, if they saw that as a wrong, then they weren't willing to lay down their lives for correcting a wrong, in the defense of higher ideals. Still they were great out of the box thinkers (although, in this context only in ways that would benefit themselves directly). On the other side, if they didn't see it as wrong, well then they are getting credit for being visionaries who could see past their times (in regards to the founding), while at the same time showing that they cannot see past their times (in regards to slavery). So, either way, I think a proper assessment would be a full assessment of their greatness and shortcomings, instead of just being lionized as "heroes."

It's also possible ( I say that and also the previous paragraph, because I have not read the FFs writings or any serious books discussing them, save for my cursory high school civics education), that some among them were absolutely against slavery while others weren't, therefore compromises needed to be made internally. In that case, I would still want this smaller group to have vehemently opposed slavery both privately and publicly, and at any cost to self, in order for me to lionize them, the way that I would say a  soldier willing to lay down his life for the country.

Again, while reluctant to hold them on a pedestal, I still say that I admire their vision and their overall characters. Still not sure about statues, unless the statues are done in a way that provides full accounting (which I'm sure they will not).

[Dill]

(07-23-2020, 04:25 PM)masterpanthera_t Wrote: This post definitely contextualizes the times the FFs were operating in, and explains the compromises they had to make in order to found a nation. I agree with that, and as a practical man, I can appreciate it. Yet, in some ways one thought I'm not convinced of: They were willing to fight Britain and lay down their lives in the interest of freedoms (admittedly in some ways self serving, and service of ideals in other ways), but not willing to do so for the right of other Americans enslaved? I look at it as, if they saw that as a wrong, then they weren't willing to lay down their lives for correcting a wrong, in the defense of higher ideals. Still they were great out of the box thinkers (although, in this context only in ways that would benefit themselves directly). On the other side, if they didn't see it as wrong, well then they are getting credit for being visionaries who could see past their times (in regards to the founding), while at the same time showing that they cannot see past their times (in regards to slavery). So, either way, I think a proper assessment would be a full assessment of their greatness and shortcomings, instead of just being lionized as "heroes."

Good post, MasterP.

To the bolded, in the 17th-18th century, developing conceptions of "equality" and a consequent "natural right" to freedom were predicated upon a presumed ability to reason, to manage one's affairs without paternal oversight. These ideals were articulated/developed against feudal conceptions of paternal hierarchy and natural inequality, at the level of class as well as family.  The men driving the liberal revolution were for the most part business/tradesmen commoners who realized they had a better grasp of worldly affairs, and certainly of the economy, than a privileged aristocracy living parasitically off others labor and inherited property. But women children and servants--they didn't run households and businesses. Seems they did not even come to mind for the most part. (Chapter 5 of Locke's Second Treatise of Government, he makes the classical argument for the origin of and right to property in every person's own labor, drawing food from the commons, then in the very next he adds that the work of one's "servant" is also one's own property. LOL This Founding Father of liberal government also had shares in the slave trade.)

As slavery began to boom in the later 17th century, and the British took most of the trade from the Portuguese and Dutch, to compete with the Spaniards, the debate began over whether slavery was in accord with liberal (and Christian) ideals.  Could Africans manage themselves? Clearly not was the dominant answer, especially when the "not" was coupled to insane profits.  So, like women, servants and children, domination of black people was not necessarily seen as a contradiction with liberal ideals. Certainly not with trade for profit.

What so many find "obvious" today about universal equality was not so obvious back then. That's why I tend to spend most of my energy finding out what these guys actually thought and why, and how and what changed people's thinking on the nature of equality. Important to affirm racism is not an ideal we want to live by now; waste of time to "condemn" Locke or Jefferson, as if they'd just re-tweeted Trump's finding of "good people on both sides."

[masterpanthera_t]

(07-23-2020, 05:41 PM)Dill Wrote: Good post, MasterP.

To the bolded, in the 17th-18th century, developing conceptions of "equality" and a consequent "natural right" to freedom were predicated upon a presumed ability to reason, to manage one's affairs without paternal oversight. These ideals were articulated/developed against feudal conceptions of paternal hierarchy and natural inequality, at the level of class as well as family.  The men driving the liberal revolution were for the most part business/tradesmen commoners who realized they had a better grasp of worldly affairs, and certainly of the economy, than a privileged aristocracy living parasitically off others labor and inherited property. But women children and servants--they didn't run households and businesses. Seems they did not even come to mind for the most part. (Chapter 5 of Locke's Second Treatise of Government, he makes the classical argument for the origin of and right to property in every person's own labor, drawing food from the commons, then in the very next he adds that the work of one's "servant" is also one's own property. LOL This Founding Father of liberal government also had shares in the slave trade.)

More context, and I appreciate it. It opens up my perspectives a bit. Yes, confirms how "radical" this thinking was in those times.

Quote:As slavery began to boom in the later 17th century, and the British took most of the trade from the Portuguese and Dutch, to compete with the Spaniards, the debate began over whether slavery was in accord with liberal (and Christian) ideals.  Could Africans manage themselves? Clearly not was the dominant answer, especially when the "not" was coupled to insane profits.  So, like women, servants and children, domination of black people was not necessarily seen as a contradiction with liberal ideals. Certainly not with trade for profit.

Understood, but simply seems to be a lack of critical thought on their part or a wilfulness to do so, because obviously they couldn't have based this on real research. If "slaves" could not manage themselves, how were they raising their own families, or for that matter, handling household management in their masters' houses. What of all the lack of literacy, intentionally enforced so that a "slave" could not manage himself? If they thought the slave was naturally inferior, well it shows a lack of critical thinking. If it was the thought that inferiority by nurture, well that shows intent to continue the enterprise.

Quote:What so many find "obvious" today about universal equality was not so obvious back then. That's why I tend to spend most of my energy finding out what these guys actually thought and why, and how and what changed people's thinking on the nature of equality. Important to affirm racism is not an ideal we want to live by now; waste of time to "condemn" Locke or Jefferson, as if they'd just re-tweeted Trump's finding of "good people on both sides."

Precisely by this argument, one could argue that the FFs were no more visionaries rather just thinkers who were mostly acting in awareness of their own experiences and therefore founding a nation in ideals that are mostly self serving (in the sense that their awareness of ideals only stem from their limited experiences) and designed to benefit their immediate lives and those of their descendants. That is, their writings might have led to enhanced meanings of "high ideals" over time, well after their existence, than what they themselves were aware of. Which, is not terrible, but not quite in line with a thought process of "these men were such visionaries they set an example". I.e to say, they may have set an example, but it is more out of happenstance rather than full awareness of the application of their ideals in different contexts and in different environments. Point being, their vision only extended as far as the impacts on their own lives and mostly not further. Admittedly, I'm not well read on the personal histories nor the public arguments made by the FFs, outside of a brief civics class in high school, and therefore imagine that the complexity of this truth lies somewhere in the middle. That is, they were self serving in some ways, and probably their ideas came forth in terms of immediate impact on their lives, while also, having some vision where their ideals would apply outside themselves.

[Dill]

(07-23-2020, 06:30 PM)masterpanthera_t Wrote: Understood, but simply seems to be a lack of critical thought on their part or a wilfulness to do so, because obviously they couldn't have based this on real research. If "slaves" could not manage themselves, how were they raising their own families, or for that matter, handling household management in their masters' houses. What of all the lack of literacy, intentionally enforced so that a "slave" could not manage himself? If they thought the slave was naturally inferior, well it shows a lack of critical thinking. If it was the thought that inferiority by nurture, well that shows intent to continue the enterprise.

More good points in a thoughtful post. I just want to address a few here:

1. My discussion largely refers to 17th-18th century slavery BEFORE the Revolution. Anti-literacy laws were gradual--the first one 1740 in SC following a slave rebellion, the last in the 1830s. Censure of anti-slavery sentiment in the South really got going after the War of 1812, not so much before.  Many of the slavers were not themselves "liberals" in the sense they espoused ideals of universal equality. So even a reasonable "inferior" was still fair game for enslaving. Further, many still had the feudal notion that non-Christian captives from a "just war" could be lawfully enslaved by Christians. After the Pequod war, in fact, New Englanders sold about 2,000 Indian captives to the sugar plantations in the Barbados to pay for the war. Following a tradition that went back to Aristotle, many Europeans in the early modern period accepted that there were "natural slaves," and these abounded, not surprisingly, in non-European, non-white countries of the New World and Africa.

2. 17th-18th century Europeans generally did not think Africans were "managing themselves" very well. They regarded Africans as culture-less savages. And slaves were not really "raising their own families" in the colonies.  There was not necessarily a lack of critical thinking in all cases; it was just that they were not starting from liberal premises. 

3. Remember that Anglo culture in this period was not monolithic. There were people who protested slavery from the beginning, gathering steam over two centuries. Though there were some 20,000 slaves in the northern colonies in 1776, it was outlawed in stages until all northern states, plus Indiana, Ohio and Illinois, were slave free by 1821. Some Revolutionary patriots, like Thomas Paine, were actively extending liberal ideals to the slavery question, flagging the contradiction. (Still, Rhode Island was the center of North American Slave shipping until the trade was outlawed.)

In England, the liberal sentiment advanced more rapidly than in the U.S. Slavery was never legal there from Elizabeth I on (slaves brought from Africa or the New World had to be converted to "indentured servants.") De facto slavery was pretty much gone from England by 1800, but continued in the Caribbean until the government bought out plantation owners in 1833. Ex slavers and slaves wrote popular books giving the new demographic of middle class readers plenty to think about in Great Britain and the U.S. Jefferson was familiar with these arguments addressing the contradiction, and quite torn by them, actually. But still kept his slaves while alive. And that had to mean disciplining them to profit from their labor.

After 1830 is when we start seeing book length-treatments of black inferiority grounded in biology and newly developing social science--the "racist ideology" that we are familiar with today. Think of George Fitzhugh's Sociology for the South (1854), in which he calls slavery a perfect from of "socialism" and doesn't think whites should be excluded. His was an illiberal articulation of slavery with capitalism.

[CarolinaBengalFanGuy]

This is a random thought after reading through the responses and not related to my OP at all, but lets say Norway was a slave state and businesses could move their manufacturing to Norway for free labor. Do we think that they would have any problem doing that to turn a profit? As for most big business the dollar is the bottom line.

Probably a stupid post, but I tend to write what comes to mind at the time.

[BmorePat87]

(07-23-2020, 12:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Another excellent post.  By the standards of today's cancel culture types 99.99999999% of the people who have every lived were evil beyond redemption.  Historical reletavism is a cancer and a clear sign that we have failed to adequately teach critical thinking in school.

I disagree with the bolded part obviously as someone who is responsible for teaching that. I just think a lot of people chose to rely on emotion rather than logic because logic alone won't win their argument. 

But, yea, a lot of people would be unacceptable by normal standards.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-24-2020, 12:06 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I disagree with the bolded part obviously as someone who is responsible for teaching that. I just think a lot of people chose to rely on emotion rather than logic because logic alone won't win their argument. 

But, yea, a lot of people would be unacceptable by normal standards.

Exclude yourself from the "we".  

[BmorePat87]

(07-23-2020, 02:05 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Wilson catches a lot of shit, and rightfully so, but he is responsible for an end to the spoils system (not single-handedly, and not necessarily as president as it occurred before he was in office) and he laid a lot of the groundwork for what FDR would eventually build upon. Without the way he built the bureaucracy and really implemented that idea, the system would not have been in place for FDR when it came time.

This is why I like to focus just on their actions and words. There are good things and bad things with every one of our historical figures. But yeah, Wilson's racism when compared with that of TR at the time is a very interesting comparison to raise. That's also the difference between southern racism and northern racism, though. Wilson was, after all, born and raised in Virginia.

and was a child in Georgia during the Civil War. It's sometimes easy to forget that presidents in the 1900's were alive for the Civil War. 

He certainly did a lot of good... but he also was absolutely a racist by his own era's standard. 

[BmorePat87]

(07-23-2020, 02:23 PM)masterpanthera_t Wrote: I think I generally agree with these sentiments. However, while the founding fathers were great in many ways they were certainly not infallible. Their work in setting the course of democracy in this country was a great service and model for the American experiment. Wts, I also think they are spoken of in near god like terms which isn't warranted. It's ironic that in some ways we give them credit (deserved) for a vision of a society built on freedoms for its citizens which was unheard of in their times, yet somehow say we must not scrutinize  them too harshly for not being able to see past their times when speaking of slavery and 2/3rds of a person and such. 
I agree they deserve respect for their extraordinary qualities, but at the same time properly balanced. As Bels mentioned, I'm sure they themselves would not be comfortable with as much adulation as they're given. 

Not necessarily a drastically different opinion to yours, just wanted to emphasize what I view as ironic and dare say a contradictory perspective when speaking of visionary leadership. I think in some cases it leads to a stifling of some views which might be contrary to the founders. I don't mean we must curtail any freedoms, but sometimes I've seen arguments simply consist of "well we can't do that because that's not what the founders wanted". They were definitely visionary in great ways, but not eternally so in every way. But I think I'm digressing a bit.

Agreed, that's why I cautioned against using "founding father" as a shield against scrutiny. 

[Benton]

(07-23-2020, 12:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Outstandingly well put.  Protecting us from soccer alone should ensure they are eternally honored. 

Hey now, my daughter's a goalie. Between her and covering high school sports for two decades, I've grown to appreciate the game. 

But I'll admit it took a lot of years to get to liking it.

It's funny though, with the lack of sports, I've been looking for something to watch. Most often, it's reruns of soccer matches on Pluto. They're a couple years old, but good games.

[treee]

(07-24-2020, 03:22 AM)Benton Wrote: Hey now, my daughter's a goalie. Between her and covering high school sports for two decades, I've grown to appreciate the game. 

But I'll admit it took a lot of years to get to liking it.

It's funny though, with the lack of sports, I've been looking for something to watch. Most often, it's reruns of soccer matches on Pluto. They're a couple years old, but good games.

I like Pluto a lot, been catching some old games on the NFL network lately.

[GMDino]

(07-24-2020, 12:03 AM)CarolinaBengalFanGuy Wrote: This is a random thought after reading through the responses and not related to my OP at all, but lets say Norway was a slave state and businesses could move their manufacturing to Norway for free labor. Do we think that they would have any problem doing that to turn a profit? As for most big business the dollar is the bottom line.

Probably a stupid post, but I tend to write what comes to mind at the time.

I not so sure we can't look at places like China as having "slave labor" with how they "pay", treat and house their "employees.  Currently the POTUS and his daughter have their products made there, for example, all while complaining about how unfair it is to American workers.

Very prominent families and companies did business with Hitler's Germany for a long time.

In your hypothetical I'm sure more than a few businesses would move production there and defend it somehow.  I'd hope the majority of Americans would resist but they aren't now.

[*michaelsean*]

I put them (general them) on a pedestal fully understanding their faults. What they pulled off between the war and the new nation was ridiculous. One in a million? A new form of government for other nations to follow. They signed their names to a treasonous document that more likely than not would end up with them hanging. It seems something bigger put them in one place at one time. I like to believe that at least, and I don't see any reason not to.

[fredtoast]

(07-24-2020, 10:37 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I put them (general them) on a pedestal fully understanding their faults.  What they pulled between the war and the new nation off was ridiculous. One in a million?  A new form of government for other nations to follow. They signed their names to a treasonous document that more likely than not would end up with them hanging.  It seems something bigger put them in one place at one time.  I like to believe that at least, and I don't see any reason not to.

I agree with this.

A lot of the soldiers that died storming the beaches at Normandy were from the south and thought black people were an inferior race.  But I still think of them as heroes.