Phelps has asked my opinion of a post by one Clayton Cramer on gay marriage. It seems Mr. Cramer sees a parallel between gay people pursuing equal recognition of their rights as citizens and slave holders pursuing their right to debase a major fraction of the population.
Detangling the rants from the attempt to convince:
By comparison, the notion of gay marriage seems to be unprecedented throughout Western civilization. Even the pre-Christian pagan societies of Europe, while somewhat tolerant of homosexuality, to my knowledge didn't recognize homosexual marriage.
The analogy is in the thought processes that justify the discrimination. I'm not much concerned about when it happened as with the fact that it did.
Mr. Cramer is misinformed on the morals of the time.
"If upon a Just Warre the Lord shold deliver [Narragansett Indians] into our hands, wee might easily have nien woemen and children enough to exchange for Moores, which wilbe inore gaynefull pilladge for us then wee conceive, for I doe not see how wee can thrive untill we get into a stock of slaves sufficient to doe all our business, for our children's children will hardly see this great Continent filled with people, soe that our servants will still desire freedome to plant for themselves, and not stay but for verie great wages. And I suppose you know verie well how wee shall mayneteyne 20 Moores cheaper than one Englishe servant."Twenty Africans for the price of one English servant-how could a Puritan resist such a deal! And how could he overlook the final and deciding factor: the Africans were vulnerable. There were no large power groups nearby to retaliate in their name. Nor did they have power groups on the international scene to raise troublesome questions. They were, in fact, naked before their enemies, and their enemies were legion.
As the pointer on the roulette wheel neared the African number, the power brokers of England suddenly and dramatically increased the odds against Africans by announcing a new policy of restricted white emigration and massive support of the African Slave Trade. With the formation of the Royal African Company (1672), the wheel of fate came to an abrupt halt before the black square. For henceforth, as James C. Ballagh has pointed out, it would be "the policy of the king, and of the Duke of York, who stood at the head of the [Royal African) Company, to hasten the adoption of slavery by enactments cutting off the supply of indented servants, at the same time' that large importations of slaves were made by their agents."
As you see, slavery was acceptable, even engineered into existence, in the 1600s. The maneuvering Mr. Cramer correctly implies took place was to convince the non land-owners to support it…and even that happened well prior to 1800.
…um, like people in interracial marriages want not just permission for their relationship but acceptance? Okay. One point for Mr. Cramer…but note that I elided a rant that significantly changes the tone of this particular statement.
Technically, there can be no violation of free speech in Britain and Canada because they've established no such legal right. The First Amendment is uniquely American.
That said, I would need to verify for myself these things happened, and why. Public expression of disapproval can range from a "tsk, tsk" to a lynching; and I won't defend someone over a letter the content of which I'm unaware of.
That's all the argument there is in a very long post. The rants can be summed up by saying Mr. Cramer's sensibilities are truly disturbed when he pays attention to people he has nothing to do with.
Posted by P6 at February 16, 2004 02:15 PM
Trackback URL: http://www.niggerati.net/mt/mt-tb.cgi/431
Comments
As you see, slavery was acceptable, even engineered into existence, in the 1600s. The maneuvering Mr. Cramer correctly implies took place was to convince the non land-owners to support it�and even that happened well prior to 1800.
I don't see what that has to do with his argument. The argument is that there is an active campaign to engineer public opinion to accept an unnatural (as in engineered -- not formed by anarchy) goal.
Technically, there can be no violation of free speech in Britain and Canada because they've established no such legal right. The First Amendment is uniquely American.
Actually, it is a standard of Common Law which was encoded in the First Amendment. The right predates the American Bill. In addition, it is in the English Bill of Rights (1689): "That it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal..."
All of this is aside from his argument. As I understood it, it was this, a concept that you introduced me to: a small group of people have a personal goal. This goal is an anathema to the majority of people. In order to achieve this goal despite the nature of the general population, a concerted effort is made to incrementally use the law to influence public opinion to make something previously intollerable acceptable against human nature.
It is the Dred Scott angle that interests me the most. There is going to be a constitutional crisis when one state starts making homosexual marriages in direct conflict with states like California that specifically forbid it.
Posted by Phelps at February 16, 2004 07:06 PMReading Mr.Cramer for myself, I hadn't realized that we homosexuals "control (the) judiciary and most of the newstertainment media." You could have fooled me, considering that in most parts of this country we have either no rights as gay people protected under law or very minimal ones, and the only two overtly gay shows on TV, "Will & Grace" and "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" can arguably called "minstrally," in an attempt to appeal to straight audiences. There may indeed be gay people in artistic positions in the entertainment industry but they are hardly in positions of authority. Unless you want to believe that Rupert Murdoch is a closet case.
But that's a minor point. As Phelps says here in his comment: A small group of people ... have a goal ... to use the law to influence public opinion to make something previously intollerable acceptable against human nature." Well, Jeez Louise. First of all, what the hell is "human nature" anyway and who determines what is "for" or "against" it? The Old Testament? The Old Testament is against interracial marriage and tolerates slavery.
And just because Cramer can point to no other society in human history that has accepted homosexuality (though I can quote a few Native American Indian cultures that do, though not in a way European cultures would recognize) how does that prove anything? Just because something is or isn't recognized by other cultures doesn't per se confer (or not confer) legitimacy. Most cultures in human history haven't recognized the right to vote or freedom of speech either.
Finally, minority rights have often been at odds with majority opinion. That's why we have a Constitution, and a Bill of Rights, and a court system with the power to rule on the Consitutionality of individual laws. The size of a minority does not determine the legitimacy of its cause. Nor does majority status determine rightness.
Posted by don at February 16, 2004 09:12 PM
Clayton is a moron. See this thread:
http://www.topdog04.com/000464.html
Posted by Mike at February 16, 2004 10:12 PMOk - aside from the convulted and tortured nature of the analogy, Cramer has the economics wrong.
African slavery was for at least a century, relatively *more* expensive than indentured servitude (mostly Scotch-Irish though not exclusively)in colonial America.
Not only was the initial purchase price of a slave far higher than that of a labor contract for a servant but slaves were likely to be used where the work and climate was least conducive to survival rates - the tidewater basin, the sea islands, the Carribbean islands - the last were truly a charnel house with 90 % mortality rates.
(Obviously the longer a slave lived the more the cost could be amortized but Indentured servants were usually fixed at seven year terms so there was a limit to their cost-effectiveness).
Why did slavery win out over Indentured servitude ? Scarcity. After 1700 the population problem of the British Isles eased while the economy improved - fewer poor folk chose that route to come to America hence the forced settling of English convicts in Georgia and the use of headright as a sweetener. Slavery became the only viable large pool of forced labor for cash crop agriculture.
Posted by mark safranski at February 16, 2004 11:22 PMIf I remember correctly, Cramer was asked to leave the Volokh Conspiracy blog because of his homophobic views.
Posted by Al-Muhajabah at February 17, 2004 04:24 AMWell, that was a fairly popular post.
Phelps:
The argument is that there is an active campaign to engineer public opinion to accept an unnatural (as in engineered -- not formed by anarchy) goal.
You didn't ask me to comment on that. You asked about the gay agenda/slaveowner agenda parallel.
I purposefully ignored the rant as empty calories. See, I don't know if you recognize it, but the "free market" was an unnatural development. It's existed for some 400 years, maybe 500. What fraction of the time humans have been "civilized" does that represent? I feel justified in dismissing the argument when it's presented by someone devoted to another "unnatural" system.
As I understood it, it was this, a concept that you introduced me to: a small group of people have a personal goal. This goal is an anathema to the majority of people. In order to achieve this goal despite the nature of the general population, a concerted effort is made to incrementally use the law to influence public opinion to make something previously intollerable acceptable against human nature.
If I introduced you to the concept, you haven't been paying close attention to the execution of the Southern Strategy by Republicans.
Don:
Your Native American example, that's initiation into shamanhood right? I understand a spontaneous gender inversion is often the way that starts out.
Mike:
Oh, yeah, the S-Train saga. I remember that well.
Mark:
Well, yeah.
Al-M:
Now, if they can just get rid of Cowen I might could read them on the regular again.
Posted by P6 at February 17, 2004 06:52 AMYou could have fooled me, considering that in most parts of this country we have either no rights as gay people protected under law or very minimal ones,
How in the hell do you figure this? As near as I can tell, none of the rights encoded in the first ten amendments to the Constitution say "unless you are gay." Counting the Ninth Amendment, that is a whole hell of a lot of rights.
You get every right as "people" that I do. If you want special rights "as gay people" then you can suck... no... go to... uh -- kiss my... no --bite my... damnit. I can't come up with a response that works.
Posted by Phelps at February 17, 2004 01:32 PM