Prometheus 6

What Abiola is complaining about isn't " conservatism" it's good historical scholarship practiced by historians on the far left as much as the right.

In political science it's fine to take contemporary concepts and project them anywhere in time. This is because poli sci is about theoretical and conceptual analysis. History is about what happened and why. If you begin with explicit condemnation ( or endorsement) *before* you do your research then you are strongly screwing up your ability to discern what actually happened. This goes back to Ranke's dictum to first find out the facts - once you have those in good order and a reasonable explanation of causation you can make moral judgements.

What's remarkable about Jefferson from a historical perspective is not his hypocrisy of owning slaves while penning the Declaration but his strident advocacy of a radical equality that:

a) Contradicted his own immediate material interests

and

b) Was wildly at variance with a society that held only " gentry" - well-born, independent, white, British-descended, male landowners should have a share of political power. (And even here the American version was far more egalitarian - including about 1/3 of the white male population - than that of the British. Suffrage was limited to around 5 % of the population in Hanoverian Great Britain)

Abiola's parroting Samuel Johnson doesn't change the fact that Jefferson was a revolutionary extremist. Less so than Paine. Less active in practice than the manumitters among the Founding Fathers. Nevertheless, Jefferson's words created the ideological contradiction between the existence of the U.S. and it's tolerance of slavery that led to abolitionism and Civil War.

Few historical figures - or any of us - will look good measured against Jesus or Rabbi Hillel. I could get the opposite effect by measuring everyone against Hitler or Ghengis Khan.

Actually I think those who Abiola is talking about aren't doing scholarship. I think he's in a conversation somewhere wherein someone is slinging stock phrases to justify their own positions.

There's a level of thinking about things that's like doing high school algebra: you manipulate these symbols in just such a way and you get back a useful answer. Most popular considerations of history, sociology, psychology, all the soft stuff, are on that level.

I think that a certain degree of relativism is necessary. People are shaped by the cultures around them. If something was very common in a past culture that is no longer common today, then it would probably be much more difficult for a person in that past culture to go away from the thing than it is for a person today. It's easy to condemn slavery today, but how many of us would have been able to do so in 1840, having grown up in that culture?

The problem is when people use it as an excuse instead of an a way to understand and to seek improvement for their own selves.

P6 wrote:
"Actually I think those who Abiola is talking about aren't doing scholarship. I think he's in a conversation somewhere wherein someone is slinging stock phrases to justify their own positions "

Ok, that's a very understandable gripe.

Abiola's argument is however, mirrored by a minority within the historical profession - mostly revisionists and cultural historians enamored with postmodernist discourse - who believe in scholarship as zealous advocacy for very indirectly related contemporary political problems.

They really should have eschewed history and become journalists or sociologists because they are, as a group, terrible historians; not because of their politics but because of their methodology.

A common defense to justify the practice of slaveholding was that these people were brought from a tribal culture of slavery to this one.Relativism...

Moral relativism you allude to was part of the excuse. Although Jefferson abhorred religion others said it was better to be a slave under "Christ" than otherwise. Yes a true abomination, but the way they used the words of Paul in the new testament also justified their stance in their narrow concepts.

Deep culutural underpinnings.

One can think of it as truth coming forward in different levels over time. Each realization took into account the good points of times previous. Not completely actualized. A more perfect union implies that social models always leave room for improvement.

Perhaps someone could look closer to the founder's writings and in context find underlying guilt of such. Doubtful many of the founders slept without the use of whiskey at some times knowing their idea of freedom was still vested into matters of finance and titleholding of land or even other human beings.

Paine remains the best founder to me. He was not absorbed solely with the powers of officeholding. He championed individual's rights.

Jefferson and Hamilton were the idealogues to study closest. Hamilton was the person who arguably enabled the Government to develop structure necessary to continue., and had black caribbean ancestry.

Jefferson was won over to points of Hamilton's , the federalists/anti-federalists agreed to disagree on many issues. It seems slavery was the one of these that somehow in finding accord united these factions enough to prevent complete collapse in the early days.

The three-fifths solution is being used once again today. It got Bush into office. The diebold algorhytmns shaved votes for Gore to Bush and third parties in key districts.

50-50 political races are the mantra. Electronic voting is 20 percent of the tally. Repubs on most isssues poll 30% of the populace. Combine those you get 50/50.Pluse the electoral safety net.

Jefferson would be glad to see slavery abolished, and angry to see electronic voting scandals. We are still not the perfect union that should be the goal.