Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: YendelTrex is going to tear me apart!!!


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
21 replies to this topic

#1 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 26 April 2012 - 11:11 PM

I have to admit that I'm morbidly curious about what this particular CAG has to say about it considering he calls it a myth, lie, fraud, etc. Since he hasn't really demonstrated any knowledge on any subject, he wisely suggested that I start a new thread and for the enjoyment of vs. CAGs on any side of the ideological spectrum, here is where I will be torn apart and revealed as the fanatic that only YendelTrex can show.

For those that are unaware, there was an old campaign accusation against Thomas Jefferson about siring children with one of his slaves. As any political junkie with any sense of history would know, they used to fight a lot dirtier back then and this type of accusation isn't unusual. Anywho, the rumor never really went away and in the late 1990's, there was finally a DNA test, as part of a research commission, to put the rumor to rest and long story short, it was concluded that Jefferson had a child with Hemings, which is now accepted as accurate.

Now like all things, controversy didn't end there and a group splintered off to make their own report saying that it was one of Jefferson's brothers and that Hemings had multiple partners. The ones pushing this particular trope are generally right wingers and complain about the mainstream media and liberal agenda trying to indoctrinate our youths or some garbage like that.

Yes, folks, it's exactly like a Jerry Springer episode and any other politicized issue.

Let the fray begin!

#2 Msut77

Msut77

    Occam's Shank

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 27 April 2012 - 12:28 AM

I have to admit that I'm morbidly curious about what this particular CAG has to say about it considering he calls it a myth, lie, fraud, etc. Since he hasn't really demonstrated any knowledge on any subject, he wisely suggested that I start a new thread and for the enjoyment of vs. CAGs on any side of the ideological spectrum, here is where I will be torn apart and revealed as the fanatic that only YendelTrex can show.

For those that are unaware, there was an old campaign accusation against Thomas Jefferson about siring children with one of his slaves. As any political junkie with any sense of history would know, they used to fight a lot dirtier back then and this type of accusation isn't unusual. Anywho, the rumor never really went away and in the late 1990's, there was finally a DNA test, as part of a research commission, to put the rumor to rest and long story short, it was concluded that Jefferson had a child with Hemings, which is now accepted as accurate.

Now like all things, controversy didn't end there and a group splintered off to make their own report saying that it was one of Jefferson's brothers and that Hemings had multiple partners. The ones pushing this particular trope are generally right wingers and complain about the mainstream media and liberal agenda trying to indoctrinate our youths or some garbage like that.

Yes, folks, it's exactly like a Jerry Springer episode and any other politicized issue.

Let the fray begin!


Jeffersons white descendants have been inviting the Jefferson/Hemings to their gatherings for a few years now IIRC. THEY MUST BE IN ON THE CONSPIRACY.
wahhhhh noone helped me so they must not help anyone. - knoell

#3 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 27 April 2012 - 04:44 AM

HAHAHA...I guess I'm following the typical LIEberal pattern and am going to attack the sources.

The Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society's goal is to protect Jefferson's reputation, image, whatever, so we MUST assume that they're the most non-biased source right? It's not like the group was established right after the 1998 report's conclusion about Jefferson's paternity or something like that.
Spoiler


And rumormillnews? Nothing rightwingnut about them either!

As for proof...proof is in the scholarship. That scholars group you reference is The Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society, which was headed by a dissenting member of the original group that did the research study. Most people that study Jefferson agree that he's the father. Shit, even the historians that refused to accept it before the DNA tests had a change of heart. It's only the fringe wingnuts and racists that say "WHERE'S DA PROOF!11ONE!" The argument is akin to saying that we can't prove the Big Bang happened because no one was there to tell us it happened or how evolution is a "theory." I bet you're going to bitch about bringing the big bang theory and evolution into an argument they have no place in, while ignoring how they're examples of the argument that you're making.

Here's the thing skippy: All data points towards Jefferson being the father. When new data pops up or there's access to actual DNA samples from Jefferson and his (great?)grandson through Hemings, then that data will be put into the equation and scholars will go from there. If the dissenters want to prove that Jefferson is conclusively not the father, then they'll have to do it the hard way and show why data matches the Jefferson's brother instead. The don't get to jump to the front of the line because they don't like the conclusion.

I can't wait til you get back and provide a source for your accusation of Gordon-Reeds book being a fraud.

edit: Honestly, I expected a serious thrashing in this thread, irrefutable proof, and all I got was a copy'n'paste job. I am disappoint.

Edited by dohdough, 27 April 2012 - 05:14 AM.


#4 GBAstar

GBAstar

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 27 April 2012 - 05:11 AM

HAHAHA...I guess I'm following the typical LIEberal pattern and am going to attack the sources.

The Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society's goal is to protect Jefferson's reputation, image, whatever, so we MUST assume that they're the most non-biased source right? It's not like the group was established right after the 1998 report's conclusion about Jefferson's paternity or something like that.[spoiler]It was.

And rumormillnews? Nothing rightwingnut about them either!

As for proof...proof is in the scholarship. That scholars group you reference is The Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society, which was headed by a dissenting member of the original group that did the research study. Most people that study Jefferson agree that he's the father. Shit, even the historians that refused to accept it before the DNA tests had a change of heart. It's only the fringe wingnuts and racists that say "WHERE'S DA PROOF!11ONE!" The argument is akin to saying that we can't prove the Big Bang happened because no one was there to tell us it happened or how evolution is a "theory." I bet you're going to bitch about bringing the big bang theory and evolution into an argument they have no place in, while ignoring how they're examples of the argument that you're making.

Here's the thing skippy: All data points towards Jefferson being the father. When new data pops up or there's access to actual DNA samples from Jefferson and his (great?)grandson through Hemings, then that data will be put into the equation and scholars will go from there. If the dissenters want to prove that Jefferson is conclusively not the father, then they'll have to do it the hard way and show why data matches the Jefferson's brother instead. The don't get to jump to the front of the line because they don't like the conclusion.

I can't wait til you get back and provide a source for your accusation of Gordon-Reeds book being a fraud.

edit: Honestly, I expected a serious thrashing in this thread, irrefutable proof, and all I got was a copy'n'paste job. I am disappoint.



What is the significance today if indeed Thomas Jefferson fathered chidren from one of his slaves (regardless if by romance or rape)?

Surely he wasn't the only slave owner to do so? Not that it makes it any more acceptable; Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe blacks were the first to be enslaved and raped in the Americas and certainly not the first in history.

Is it just because we love a scandal? Or because Thomas Jefferson was held in high regard?

Edited by GBAstar, 27 April 2012 - 05:27 AM.


#5 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 27 April 2012 - 05:20 AM

What is the significance today if indeed Thomas Jefferson fathered chidren from one of his slaves (regardless if by romance or rape)?

Surely he wasn't the only slave owner to do so? Not that it makes it any more acceptable; Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe blacks were the first to be enslaved and raped in the Americas and certainly not the first in history.

Is it just because we love a scandal? Or because Thomas Jefferson was held in high regard?

I messed up the spoiler tag and just fixed it, so you might want to c'n'p the revision.

As for relevance today? There is none. YendelTrex said he was going to tear me apart if I started a new thread on it because I used the example of Jefferson having a romance with Hemings was a mischaracterization of that relationship in another thread. Long story short, he implied that I knew nothing about it and was going to enlighten me on the fraudulent nature of the controversy.

edit: You are correct about Africans not being the first slaves. Native Americans were.

edit2: I'm not heavily invested in this argument and was hoping to see him dish out some pwnage of EPIC proportions on me. Like I said: I am disappoint.

#6 GBAstar

GBAstar

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 27 April 2012 - 05:26 AM

I messed up the spoiler tag and just fixed it, so you might want to c'n'p the revision.

As for relevance today? There is none. YendelTrex said he was going to tear me apart if I started a new thread on it because I used the example of Jefferson having a romance with Hemings was a mischaracterization of that relationship in another thread. Long story short, he implied that I knew nothing about it and was going to enlighten me on the fraudulent nature of the controversy.

edit: You are correct about Africans not being the first slaves. Native Americans were.



No I followed the other thread and I understand why you created this one...

I'm not very familar with all the details in the Thomas Jefferson case but I do remember reading about it years ago and I wasn't really shocked or surprised then but I guess I just don't understand the historical impact. Were people shocked because they learned that our forefathers (Celebrities of their time) are just as scummy as the celebrities today?

#7 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 27 April 2012 - 05:33 AM

No I followed the other thread and I understand why you created this one...

I'm not very familar with all the details in the Thomas Jefferson case but I do remember reading about it years ago and I wasn't really shocked or surprised then but I guess I just don't understand the historical impact. Were people shocked because they learned that our forefathers (Celebrities of their time) are just as scummy as the celebrities today?

That's part of it, but the broader implication was the white-washing of our country's history. It's also about historiography because rather than just accepting what we're taught as fact, we should be looking at history critically.

#8 GBAstar

GBAstar

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 27 April 2012 - 05:41 AM

That's part of it, but the broader implication was the white-washing of our country's history. It's also about historiography because rather than just accepting what we're taught as fact, we should be looking at history critically.



^ Yeah that's what I figured

I had an AP history class in highschool that was taught by one of the older tenured professors at my school and we learned very little about actual American History but this dude loved to talk about who slept with who and who was into what.

It was actually pretty cool.

No doubt though. I always thought it was interesting that the history of any country varied greatly depending on the author(s) that wrote it and their agenda.

I'm sure this is more evident in countries over in Europe but even in the U.S. it is common.

I have a friend in Brazil I trade games with and he loves American History but what he has learned is quite different from what I learned in school.

#9 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 27 April 2012 - 06:00 AM

^ Yeah that's what I figured

I had an AP history class in highschool that was taught by one of the older tenured professors at my school and we learned very little about actual American History but this dude loved to talk about who slept with who and who was into what.

It was actually pretty cool.

Right and I think that a discussion about narrative is much more interesting.

No doubt though. I always thought it was interesting that the history of any country varied greatly depending on the author(s) that wrote it and their agenda.

I'm sure this is more evident in countries over in Europe but even in the U.S. it is common.

I have a friend in Brazil I trade games with and he loves American History but what he has learned is quite different from what I learned in school.

I don't know if I'd use "agenda" to describe it because it's kind of a loaded term that implies something subversive, when for most people, that history is constructed from the cultural narrative. I think that there's certainly room for nuanced views on history beyond the narrative and it's important to show the bad stuff. edit: As well as from different perspectives.

Edited by dohdough, 27 April 2012 - 06:43 AM.


#10 Clak

Clak

    Made of star stuff.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 27 April 2012 - 01:10 PM

And here I was looking forward to you finally being outed as a fraud. Well darn...;)
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. -George Carlin

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” -Mark Twain

“When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." -Jonathon Swift

#11 Access_Denied

Access_Denied

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 28 April 2012 - 02:01 AM

In my opinion, I think that it definitely happened. BUT, I have to agree with YendelTrex. Proof is proof. And without proof, we're left with only assumptions. They may be damn good assumptions, but assumptions none the less.

#12 dothog

dothog

    n ur race snakin mai kart

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 28 April 2012 - 02:01 AM

Everybody knows this. It was on SNL. TJ only dated black chicks.
Posted ImagePosted Image

#13 panzerfaust

panzerfaust

Posted 28 April 2012 - 03:21 AM

This is a big deal? I thought it was common knowledge Jefferson had an affair. An interesting look into his character, but I don't see why people would be so defensive about this particular issue.

UjCoyFa.png


#14 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 28 April 2012 - 05:50 AM

I didn't say the book was a fraud...but it did seem that way.

Uhhh...wut? You said it in 3 out of 5 posts in this thread alone.

As far as the letter I mentioned since I can find only one source (and that source is controversial at best) saying she edited out parts of the letter in her book I retract it and I was wrong since there is no other proof that I can find other than that one dodo.. Also it was reported (by same shaky source) that she changed the part to include the whole letter in printings after she was informed of the issue. So I don't think I will be able to confirm it unless I get an original copy of the book.

Are you sure you're retracting it? Because the very next line in your post says otherwise.

I do however think that her book was deceptive fraud and biased.(there I said it) (do not ask why because I will not answer)

So you deny calling it a fraud, then retract calling it a fraud, and then call it a fraud in the three paragraphs you said you didn't call it a fraud, retract calling it a fraud, and then finally calling it a fraud without giving a reason why.

This is really a record on CAG. The dissonance runs so deep in you that you can't even keep a few sentences straight.

Bottom line is it is not a fact that Thomas Jefferson had ANY kids with Sally. You basically calling me racist or a fringe wingnut for asking you for proof is disturbing.

When someone uses the arguments of racists and rightwing fringe wingnuts, you shouldn't be surprised if people think you are one or both.

Lets clear up what you think.

Do you think it is a proven fact that Thomas Jefferson fathered children with Sally Hemings? If yes then I again will ask you for that proof and you can call me racist again but you really should answer and show the proof unless you are just playing games.

edit: BTW I think we all know it is possible but again possible is not absolute proof. Like I said earlier I don't care if people want to discuss it and decide on their own as long as it is understood that THERE IS NO CONCLUSIVE PROOF.

All evidence points towards Thomas Jefferson being the mostlikely the father of Heming's children and the fact that there were 20? other Jeffersons in the country doesn't make a difference when most of them could be eliminated right away and the remainder are less likely to be candidates than Thomas Jefferson.

But the deeper question to your fallacious reasoning is your inability to understand the difference between a scientific theory and a layman's definition of theory. Gravity is a theory too, but I'm sure you wouldn't jump off a bridge to disprove it and there's no absolute proof that it exists either. Judging from all your posts, you have a very superficial understanding of the things you discuss, so it's not surprising that you miss the distinction between casta and the one drop rule, the meaning of theory in different contexts, and your inability to go deeper into discussions, therefore projecting your own self-loathing on to me. It's quite sad. Although, I've come to the conclusion that you're probably a freeper, which explains a lot more about the content of your posts.

#15 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 28 April 2012 - 06:03 AM

My opinion on this whole matter is I don't know and don't really care. I think evidence shows it is POSSIBLE but that is all. I have not came down on either side and again I think it is possible and that is it.

You've already come out on the side that says that Thomas Jefferson can't be the father. You've made it abundantly clear in just about all your posts relating to the subject. Or does your use of the terms fraud, hoax, lies, and myths not in reference to it?

This site actually argues more for the possiblitly then against it but still shows some different viewpoints.

The site is a mess and I shouldn't need to go into why you should be making your own arguments instead of pulling cut'n'paste jobs out of your ass to argue for you. It's lazy and demonstrates how little you know about any given subject.

edit:

As I thought you are just playing games. Put that with the fact you are basically saying I am a racist or fringed wingnut along with anyone else that does not see the ABSOLUTE PROOF where there is NO ABSOLUTE PROOF is disturbing. By your reasoning all the people invovled in this RESEARCH must be racist as well.

I knew you wouldn't answer the SIMPLE question. You are so full of IT.

LOLZ...you never ask simple questions; only loaded ones. I already demonstrated that in another thread. Lemme find the link for you.

Here you go: http://www.cheapassg...67&postcount=38

As for the dissenting researchers being racist right-wing wingnuts? My guess is that they probably are. But as for you, I'm pretty comfortable with labeling you as a racist wingnut.

Btw, there's no absolute proof of gravity either. Care to jump off a building to disprove it? Or is it equally disturbing to you that I choose to accept the existence of gravity?

Edited by dohdough, 28 April 2012 - 06:16 AM.


#16 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 28 April 2012 - 06:49 AM

Is is a lie or fraud or hoax when ANYONE puts it forth as fact when IT IS NOT. That is what I have been saying the entire time. That is all I have been saying. It is NOT FACT that TJ fathered any children with Sally. The fact that YOU WILL NOT answer the simple question only shows that you do not believe it to be fact either but none the less believe it. That is fine I don't care if you want to believe it to be true or not to be true. Again the bottomline is it is NOT FACT. In fact nobody involved in the orgianl DNA study believes it is FACT either. They just show the possiblity and also admit that it fits two dozen other men as well.

I gave my opinion on it and that is it is possible and that I don't care either way. AGAIN IT IS NOT FACT. I never said that Thomas Jefferson is the father or not the father. Just that it is NOT PROVEN but a possibility.

Answer the question...
Do you think it is proven fact that Thomas Jefferson fathered any children with Sally?

It is not a loaded question it is simple. I don't believe it is fact ...you can say it is your opinion you think it is true and that is fine I wont care. But lets get straight what you do think. Is it fact or not? Answer the damn question.

edit: You are taking issues with me posting the evidence and lack of it? Really!!??? You are getting desperate now.

Also stay focused little buddy this thread is about TJ and Sally. Not other threads and other arguments. As I said if you want to have it out on another topic then start a thread or bump that thread and we can have it out there about those topics. FOCUS.

It's okay you can admit that there is NO ABSOLUTE PROOF it wont kill you.

edit two: I am racist in your opinion? Who am I racist against exactly? Black People White People Brown People WHO???
You are a joke!!

Its also possible that we're really descended from martians. THERE'S NO ABSOLUTE PROOF TO SAY OTHERWISE. I'm guessing that you're not going to make the connection between your statement and that.

As for Hemings, I accept it as fact until new evidence proves otherwise.

We can discuss any other issues you want to bring up here. It's part of the thread title, stupid. I also started the thread, so I can discuss anything I want. If you're uncomfortable with that,then YOU start a new thread. But I think keeping your trolling to one thread is probably the best thing for this forum.

As for you being racist, it goes back to your simplistic understanding of the term, among your many other simplistic views.

Now that I've answered your question about Jefferson-Hemings, please compare and contrast casta and the one drop rule.

And LOLZ at you staying away for a week.

#17 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 28 April 2012 - 07:32 AM

What is my simplistic understanding of it? Please tell. You didn't answer the question.

Nor did you answer the question about TJ you said you accept it as fact the question was "Do you think it is proven fact that Thomas Jefferson fathered any children with Sally?"

.....and no I will not get into the one drop rule here with you but I will gladly do it in another thread . . Sure you can talk about whatever you want but the title of the thread is
Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: YendelTrex is going to tear me apart!!!



Which I have. So you can move on if you want from the topic as I won this one but don't expect me to be a part of it.


:rofl: :bouncy:

Your entire argument is based on the childish argument of "it's just a theory." It's the same argument that creationists use and would be laughed out of any serious debate. If you think it's such a profound argument that you've won, well...the the only thing you've proven here is that you are now the top crackpot on vs., so congratulations on a troll well done. I won't be creating any other threads to feed your ego either. I guess I can take that as capitulation because you refuse to address those issues here.

Oh, and since you said that you weren't going to be around for a few days, I'm pretty comfortable with labeling you as a liar for that as well. Congrats on winning that title too!

And just to see where this goes, it is proven fact that Jefferson raped Hemings, which produced offspring and she was not a slut like your dissenting wingnuts imply.

#18 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 28 April 2012 - 08:11 AM

Did someone say she was a slut? Were they accepting a possibility as fact? If so then they are twisted to say the least. I don't own any wingnuts and the only one I know is you. You can try to assign me to others and their beliefs but I have only said that it is NOT FACT.

You are doing great dude screaming racist and now throwing it out as fact that a Jefferson RAPED her as fact. You are too much.

edit: do creationists say it is a fact?? If so then they should be laughed out of any serious DEBATE. As should anyone saying That TJ fathered any children with Sally is fact. Or anyone saying that she was RAPED by a Jefferson as FACT.


I'm guessing historiography isn't something your strong point either.

Calling something a fraud, hoax, lie, whatever, isn't the type of language used by fence-sitters on an issue. You've clearly outed yourself as having a heavy bias, so why hide your crazy behind the veneer of impartiality?

Creationists say that evolution is just a theory and that therefore not a fact despite literal mountains of evidence. Sound familiar?

edit: If you think that you'e totally pwning the hell out of me by simply replying to my posts without addressing all the points, does that mean that I'm pwning you as well?

Edited by dohdough, 28 April 2012 - 08:27 AM.


#19 camoor

camoor

    Jams on foot fires

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 28 April 2012 - 04:45 PM

Yendel, you keep talking about "fact". History is often about piecing together the available evidence to come up with the most reasonable assumptions, there are not many irrefutable facts beyond ruins and carbon-dated artifacts.

I appreciate a good debate but this was a trouncing. I'm glad you hung it up dude, your posts were just fucking embarrassing.

#20 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 28 April 2012 - 05:16 PM

Okay DoDo you really are all over the place. This is not even close to a real scientific theory evolution as you are poorly trying to say that it is or equate it to be. Did you even read the info I posted in post 20?

Obviously, you missed my reference to historiography.

Could it be called a theory b : an unproved assumption :conjecture:

How cute. Quoting a dictionary.

yes it could be but equating this to a scientific theory of evolution is absurd and shows you have no idea what you are talking about. I suggest you do some reading so you can understand the differences between this and that and REAL scientific theory.

Again, it's called historiography. edit: Well, not so much historiography as historiography hits a more specific aspect of your argument, but more the scholarship of history in general.

You have went to calling any voice that says it isn't fact racist and fringed wingnut while even those within the original study say it is not fact.Then you just flat-out called me a racist You said Martians and now creationism. You are using at the best very poor arguments to counter me saying it is NOT FACT.

It's almost as if you'd rather pick on my examples than the actual argument. I'm making an epistemological argument to attack your framework. Jefferson-Hemings is just another example of your binary perspective and justification for unsound reasoning.

Btw, saying that the historians in the original studay saying that it isn't a fact is grossly mischaracterizing what they meant. Especially when they said that the most reasonable conclusion is that Jefferson was the father of all of Hemings children considering all the evidence.

I have no bias as I said I don't care one way or the other if it ENDS up being fact or not. If anyone here is bias it's you gong by all your posts on this thread.

Hahaha...yeah...no bias at all. Unlike how you describe the book as fraud, falsely attribute sentiment from the original researchers, talked about how you're laughing me out of the thread and tearing me up.

edit2: I also don't pretend like I'm a bastion of objectivity.

You brought me here for what looks like an assumption on your part that I am some RACIST person looking to totally deny the POSSIBILITY. You see that is your problem and ongoing pattern making assumptions, prejudgment, and false accusations... etc etc etc.

Tea kettle meet pot?

I have PROVEN quickly and easily what I set out to prove and that is this is in no stretch of the imagination... FACT or PROVEN. It is a possibility and that is all.

Is it proven fact that Thomas Jefferson fathered any children with Sally?
My answer NO and I provided the proof of that.
What is your answer and where is the PROOF that makes it proven fact?

Here's the thing homie...you know those words "fact" and "proof" that you keep throwing around? Let's examine them. Proof is really nothing more than evidence that can be quantifiable and/or qualitative. Take gravity for example. We can conduct experiments, calculate it's effects, see it's effects, and do all sorts of things that point to its existence, but we can't really see, touch, smell, feel, or in any make it tangible. How do we know it isn't a bunch of inter-dimensional trolls pushing down on us or holding our feet to the ground? There's no solid proof that they aren't, but it's accepted as fact that there's a force that we call gravity until there's more evidence that says otherwise.

Let's use another example: Dog-whistle racism and I guess coded language in general. Lee Atwater said it best.

Atwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry S. Dent, Sr. and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now [the new Southern Strategy of Ronald Reagan] doesn't have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he's campaigned on since 1964 and that's fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster.

Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?

Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, "N****r, n****r, n****r." By 1968 you can't say "n****r" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "N****r, n****r."

Now the quote is pretty self-explanatory, but it follows the same reasoning as being able to point at evidence of the existence of racism in policy without explicitly saying it is racist. While it's certainly a possibility that racism isn't there, you can't deny all the evidence that affirms that it is. So, if we apply an epistemological framework to examine this, what do you think it will say?

I'm somewhat interested in your answer, again in a morbidly curious kind of way, but since you're done here, I guess maybe I should close this thread? Or are you unable to follow through with "being done here?" I'll leave the thread open for another 24 hours and see if my hypothesis is correct.

Edited by dohdough, 28 April 2012 - 05:31 PM.


#21 Msut77

Msut77

    Occam's Shank

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 28 April 2012 - 08:36 PM

The straight dope had a good write up about the issue. Jefferson was home during the preceding months before the birth of her children. He also freed her children and no others. Occams Razor.

#22 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 29 April 2012 - 05:37 PM

LOLZ...looks like someone has poor impulse control. Why am I not surprised...

This thread was a nice little experiment, but like all things, it has to eventually end. I'd give someone the last word if it was going to be any different from what we've seen so far...too bad we all know it won't.