P
petra22
Guest
I wasn’t saying it was right just things were much different. A person could have been stoned for having pre-marital sex in some areas… probably still so today…
Again I am not agreeing or disagreeing on Sally Hemings .Near the end of the 18th century, other European nations began to enact age of consent laws. The broad context for that change was the emergence of an Enlightenment concept of childhood focused on development and growth. This notion cast children as more distinct in nature from adults than previously imagined, and as particularly vulnerable to harm in the years around puberty. The French Napoleonic code provided the legal context in 1791 when it established an age of consent of 11 years
Not one person here has claimed it was okay. Not one person here has said that the times Jefferson lived in make it okay.Here’s the thing: it really wasn’t okay then either. It was disgusting. The fact that some are claiming it was a different time speaks volumes to how much the sin of slavery infected this country.
Do you support destroying monuments of great men because of their transgressions?No, but I’m not trying to excuse child rape. I’m simply calling it what it is.
I’ve only seen reasonable understandings of the era, not excuse making. No one had made an excuse, saying such activity then or now is okay.Read the thread and there is a lot of excuse making about how it was common for the time somehow justifying it as not that big of a mark on Jefferson’s character.
Yes, it was sufficient to end the sin of slavery.And I wish the treatment of the blood of Union soldiers was enough to eradicate the sin of slavery and racism, but it wasn’t.
It is not prominent ,at least as it once existed.It’s still quite prominent in modern US society.
That “understanding” was not universal in those days, and now it is universally condemned.Yep, there was an understanding that raping your underaged slave wasn’t that big of a deal back in those days in the South.
That is a Mis-characterIzation of slavery, of course, but there was indeed no excuse for the Democrat imposed Jim Crow laws. Those laws are also gone for two generations.It ended slavery as it was, but a new slavery started (Jim Crow) that really last until the 1960s and now we have a racism where the entire black community does not trust the police because of uneven law enforcement in the community. The sin of slavery still lives among us in the US.
FDR?Yes, depending on the transgressions.
Indeed.I’m glad we can all condemn it now.
As heinous as Jim Crow was, it was not slavery.What is a mischaracterization of slavery?
No.Hmm, where does actual slavery begin. Under Jim Crow, the rights of ownership, free movement and equal justice under the law were taken away. I’d say it’s as close to slavery as you can have without having slave sales.
No, it isn’t. Unnecessary hyperbole doesn’t add to the conversation.That’s pretty darn close to the Jim Crow years.