I don't think you understood what he was trying to say. There's a difference between being a Nazi, being an opportunistic follower or going along with it to avoid trouble. There's a difference between being a zealot, a shitty human being or a coward.
And if somebody gets himself killed for not going along with it, then that person is neither of these things.
'Being a slave-owner was the thing to be' isn't a correct statement either, or is it, Bob?

@newtboy --

Yarr. I had a pretty long response typed up, and then accidentally clicked on a link and lost it.

So here's a short version:

I agree with you on pretty much everything, but "all statues and other monuments celebrating the insurrection should go" has some caveats for me.

Civic places like government buildings, city parks, etc.? Yeah, they should all go (including the State flags that incorporate the stars and bars). But museums (which you noted you are OK with), battlefields, and even a landmark or two like Stone Mountain I feel can be re-purposed so they aren't necessarily "celebrating the insurrection" so much as "reminding us of the evil that can exist in the hearts of men -- even men that some people respect".

Malcolm Reynolds in Firefly said "It's my estimation that every man ever got a statue made of him was one kind of sumbitch or another." Easier to remember that for Jefferson Davis, Robert E Lee, and Stonewall Jackson, given that their roles in the Confederacy are pretty defining aspects of their legacies. But it remains true for some people like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and many other founding fathers that were also slave owners, even though we often conveniently forget that aspect of their history.


--EDIT--
Oh, by the way, I love that Malcolm Reynolds quote from Firefly, and there's a rather similar one made by the Hound in the (leaked) S07E06 episode of Game of Thrones:
"Every lord I've ever known has been a cunt. Don't see why the Lord of Light should be any different."

Not as relevant as the other one, but I liked it.

That's true. And only a racist would celebrate racists, right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_who_owned_slaves

Time for Americans to do some real introspection. Slavery isn't acceptable because the founding fathers did it. Considering the Constitution and the Bill of Rights they penned, it seems all the worse that they could recognise the evil slavery was yet still profit from it (and they're not suddenly good people because they released some of their slaves, or released them after they died).

I think making sure history is well recorded and taught correctly is more important than tearing down a statue. If a statue or monument is left up then it needs to clearly state the history of the subject and how they were on the "wrong side of history".

I think it is possible to recognise the good and bad that an individual has done.

"Quite an experience to live in fear. That's what it is to be a slave....
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe..." - Roy Batty

The past, present and future seems pretty consistent.

It all goes to how comfortable you are with the government legislating what you can and can't do. I used to smoke, nasty habit. I did it for at least 20 years, started when I was 14. I was a light smoker, usually less than 4 or so a day, but I did do it until I weaned myself off with nicotine gum and then quit that later.

Now, I wouldn't want to stay in a hotel or go to an establishment (bar, eatery, etc) 'alone' that allowed it in all areas. But in selected areas that I don't have to enter, I don't have a problem with it. I feel that way because I want people to be able to do what they want to their own body.

As far as employees being forced to be exposed to it, no one can force you to do anything in a job unless you are essentially a slave. You always have the option to look for work elsewhere. Bars could offer a pay differential or force patrons to pay an automatic tip percentage if they want service in a smoking area, giving incentive for people who don't care about serving smokers. Their body, their choice.

I understand the criticism; I use (am forced/ am a grateful software platform slave to Windows boxes) at work...

But...to be fair...Apple figured out how to create a handheld/phone way the heck better than Microsoft did...at least for the last decade.

I think that may depend on your viewpoint.

A lot of native Americans would certainly take exception at having their treatment ignored, and I believe we at least started that genocide before African slaves were imported in large numbers.

Also, it bears noting that indentured servitude was (according to my history teacher) more prevalent in the early colonies than actual slavery....they were mostly poor whites.

I'm not trying to minimize the effects of slavery and racism, just pointing out it wasn't our first or only sin that needs "healing".

I hear you, but the interpretation part is where I think the problem lies.

While you have a fairly benevolent interpretation, someone else who has trouble getting laid could read it as a god given justification to own sex slaves. That's a pretty extreme example of course, but you can imagine that there would be interpretations varying between your example and my extreme example, many of which could be used to oppress women.

When all that was needed was a simple "no gossiping in church" rule. It's a clear command, unmistakable and unexploitable for anything other that it's original intention.

So a 3rd testament would start with the words READ THIS LITERALLY :-)

Right now though - How do we know whether or not take the bible word for word? It's not even clear whether that is up to us to decide.

It's your interpretation that's made you decide not to read it literally, but instead to interpret it with the overall goal of viewing the good in the bible. And that says more about you being a good person, rather than the contents of the bible. I think you would be advocating living a compassionate lifestyle whether or not you read the bible.

That's why I'm thinking it's unnecessary to even have religion, when we can just teach ethical behavior, and ethical thinking in a very clear way, which leaves no room for error, or danger of allowing people to justify their bad behaviors.

Misleading title, otherwise it would be a good post. The slave trade of the 1700's would never have grown into what if became if there were not buyers.

@newtboy, you are correct. Slavery indeed long predates the trade of Africans across oceans. Though, it probably didn't start in Mesopotamia because it was probably happening a little bit everywhere there were tribes that were aggressive with each other.

When slavery is thought of in a modern sense, we tend to think of the slave trade during the early stages of the industrial revolution.

And indeed, members of different tribes were more or less kidnapped and brought to the coast by coastal tribes, where they were sold to ships, which usually originated in Europe or N. America.

One of the busiest ports for the slave trade was Dakar, Senegal. The kingdom there would collect people, to take to Goree Island where they would be later loaded onto ships.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gor%C3%A9e

Uh......slavery didn't start in the 1700's. It likely began in Mesopotamia as an industry, but probably existed long before cuneiform existed to record it.

Even sticking to Africa, Egyptians used slaves extensively eons before this.

Most active slavers in 18 th century Africa were Arabs or Europeans. Africans traded/sold POWs from other tribes caught during tribal warfare, and later began to actively participate in the European slave trade. They absolutely were not the sole kidnappers, however, nor were they the first.

Yeah, Fox is the bastion of fairness and balance.......and the sky is a lovely shade of green. Edit: Fox can't even stop claiming Clinton/DNC murdered a man over leaks the Russians made, the best they can do is pause while indicating the story is still true but out of respect/bowing to pressure they'll stop covering it for now.

He originally claimed he never touched the man, even though he knew the Fox reporter saw him. The only sane conclusion is he expected them to go along with his lie because he's Republican.

That's not what I read, both before and after the attack. The point is, this is not acceptable behaviour, and that made little difference because 1)early voting before it happened and 2) Republicans will vote for any frothing idiot if they just put an (R) in front of their name.

Nope, not kidding. They elected Trump, a womanizing, racist, classist, classless, serial philanderer, proud liar and deceiver, falsely pious, groper, repeatedly failed businessman that never reads the contracts he signs who is the worst kind of partisan con man. 8 years of hating Obama screwed with your heads. You're so incredibly deluded you still think Trump is winning big time. You probably repeated the bullshit about child slave pizza, you buy into every other insane conspiracy theory Alex Jones dreams up. Who promotes the worst again? You know, like baseless accusations of murder and child slavery being repeated for months on national tv? Like frothing rage over Benghazzi, but total head in the sand over Trump's imploding administration and his Russian ties involving every person in his administration it seems, all angrily lying about it until recordings surface then going silent? Yeah, using an unsecured email server, that's much worse than just telling our enemies state and intelligence secrets and leaking far more while creating enemies of the press and intelligence community (both ours and our allies). Worse than setting up a secret communication channel through the Russian consulate because you don't trust American intelligence agencies but do trust Russia? Much worse. Lock her up...Lock her up....Lock her up.

Democrats represented more Americans than Republicans if you go by votes...so if one party represents Americans and the other doesn't, you have it backwards. (Truth be told neither represent their constituents, but democrats come closer).

american's out source so much already. It is as if the sense of entitlement one has to demand another to do work for little or no compensation continues from the founding of the country on the backs of slaves to the present day.

The fact that no white male police officer has ever been convicted for murdering a black male in america's entire history will sadly remain a fact until the day you die. You have your entire lifetime to accept it or live in denial. So have a cookie. Trust me by the time you finish eating it you will feel better.

A common tactic employed by those who wish to suppress the truth is to become dismissive, devalue and attempt to marginalize the individual. It works as effective propaganda on the masses who need to believe atrocities and genocide could not possibly take place on american soil. But hey! texas released a text book that called slaves hard workers. Some could argue that is more insulting then using the n-word.

No court cases found? was an attempt even made? Let's make it the next X Prize.

@Jinx
the whole jordan peterson thing confuses me as well,though i do not know if for the same reasons.

i understand his argument on language,and it's uses,prefixes etc etc.ok,i get that.what i do not really get is his objection to c-160.

on the surface,his argument seems to suggest that it is about criminalization of pronoun usage,which,if true,i could understand his objection,but how i read c-160 that is not the case at all.

the new addendum appears to only add to already existing laws on the books to protect a subset of people that were in need of at least SOME protection.

his argument seems to be ripped out of the pages of a minority report type abuse,but not anything that is actually in practice.

now this is not necessarily un-warranted.there have been many instances where well intentioned laws were perverted to produce something entirely not expected.
see:14th amendment and the creation of the corporation,an amendment set in place to protect newly freed,land owning slaves.

but to extrapolate an addendum,to already existing law,and make the case of future abuse,with little or no evidence.is a pretty thin argument.

in my opinion,dr petersons only real gripe,and valid argument,is against the university of toronto,and how they handled the situation.

i have watched a number of dr petersons videos on language,and the psychology behind language,and the societal and cultural impacts of language,and even the abuses that can arise with the misuse of language and the inevitable conflicts that can arise.

i have also seen peterson speak to a group of protesters and have watched them settle down and actually have a conversation with him.

so i think peterson has a beef with the university,and not the addendum to an already existing law,although that is not his contention.i simply do not see where he can take it to that extremity,when there is little evidence to support it.

i dunno..seems kind of a waste of time in many aspects to me.

Or perhaps more appropriately taking American laws that have been changed/revoked like:
If any slave resists his master... correcting such a slave, and shall happen to be killed in such correction... the master shall be free of all punishment... as if such accident never happened.

A bit closer to the mark of your snippets, and the later teachings that counter and adjust in the Bible.