The Founding Fathers

[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.