Books Written Before the 1950s
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Are you kidding me? There is ALL sorts of political incorrectness in that tome. |
Anonymous
|
Anonymous
|
“You can forgive a young cunt anything. A young cunt doesn't have to have brains. They're better without brains. But an old cunt, even if she's brilliant, even if she's the most charming woman in the world, nothing makes any difference. A young cunt is an investment; an old cunt is a dead loss. All they can do for you is buy you things. But that doesn't put meat on their arms or juice between their legs.”
? Henry Miller, Tropic of Cancer, published 1934. Banned in the U.S. for obscenity until 1964. |
Anonymous
No, the Constitution doesn't say this. (Speaking of paying attention in history class or civics.) Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the Constitution says, "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons." In other words (I am not a lawyer): The number of representatives a state has will be based on state's population, which we will calculate as the number of free people (including indentured servants, but excluding Indians who don't have to pay taxes) plus three-fifths of the number of slaves. |
Anonymous
| OP you are a closed-minded bore! |
Anonymous
Agree with these. If you get rid of these books, then it is like Bradbury's "Farhenheit 451". |
Anonymous
Sorry, pp, but the other pp is right. It's commonly accepted that the effect of this is to refer to slaves (and as a proxy, blacks) as 60% human. I get that you're a lawyer and all, but you need to think about the real-world implications of what it says on paper once in a while. |
Anonymous
When I say "I am not a lawyer", what I mean is, "I am not a lawyer". I do not mean, "I am a lawyer." Yes, many people believe that the Constitution says that slaves are 3/5 of a human. Notwithstanding this common belief, the Constitution does not actually say this. There is a whole lot of stuff that really is in the Constitution that we can criticize, starting with the idea that it's possible to establish justice in a country where only white property-owning men have a say. There is no need to make up stuff that isn't in the Constitution. |
Anonymous
I see you've been reading your Glenn Beck. U. of Pennsylvania professor, Rick Beeman, comments: My goodness -- Glenn Beck got it completely wrong. They put [the three-fifths clause] there because delegates from the Southern states would never have agreed to the Constitution unless some weight was given to their slave populations in the apportionment of representation. They wanted slaves counted 100%, but when they saw that they could not get that, they settled for 3/5. The practical effect of that, far from making easier to abolish slavery, made it more difficult. It gave added weight to southern political power in Congress, it inflated Southern power in the apportioning of electoral votes, which led to a succession of Southern presidents. Ironically, the best thing that could have been done with respect to making it easier to abolish slavery would have been to have given slaves NO weight in the apportioning of representation. Beck's comments are so depressingly typical of those who cite the Constitution to defend their views without having any understanding of the Constitution's history [emphasis added]. |
Anonymous
So true. Many use this argument as one of the previous posters did with absolutely no understanding of the purposes of the statement in order to maintain white, southern political power. History is more complicated than picking some lines from the constitution and calling it 'fact' without understanding true historical context. |
Anonymous
| I actually find them interesting. If I can get past the way they are written, that is. We've changed a lot of things, others haven't really changed that much. |
Anonymous
|
You're an idiot. Every book, play or poem reflects a time period. Even the futurists of the writing world projected into a time period based on what they knew. So I suppose you can't stand I Love Lucy or the Brady Bunch or the Partridge Family?
|
Anonymous
| OP, you are linking to a book called "The Natural History of Prognathous Species of Mankind." Which is what, exactly? Do you realize that your link is giving this book more traffic and credence than it has ever gotten? Why WOULD you read this? |
Anonymous
Good grief, no, I haven't been reading my Glenn Beck. I am specifically attacking the Constitution for saying that only white, male property-owners count. Is that what Glenn Beck does? Who wanted the entire slave population to count, for determining how many representatives a state would get? The slave-owners. So yay, slave-owners? No. When I say, "The Constitution does not say that a slave is 3/5 of a person," it's not because I'm defending the hypocrisy of the founding fathers in saying that all men are created equal (but only if those men are white, property-owning men). It's because the Constitution doesn't say that. |
Anonymous
Was this really necessary? |