Anonymous
11/03/2013 10:38
Subject: Books Written Before the 1950s
Anonymous wrote:OP you are a closed-minded bore!
Was this really necessary?
Anonymous
11/03/2013 10:34
Subject: Books Written Before the 1950s
Anonymous wrote:I see you've been reading your Glenn Beck. U. of Pennsylvania professor, Rick Beeman, comments:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Well, actually, the Constitution does not say "all men are created equal." I can see you didn't pay attention in history class or civics. The Consitution does say blacks are 3/5 of a human being.
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.
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].
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
11/03/2013 09:16
Subject: Books Written Before the 1950s
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
11/03/2013 09:16
Subject: Books Written Before the 1950s
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 wrote:It's so hard for me to read a lot of books written during the 1800s and early 1900s because they are so politically incorrect.
They say so many things about women and blacks that would be verboten today. For example, see the ones below:
http://books.google.com/books?id=g2N2AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA105&lpg=PA105&dq=prognathous+negro&source=bl&ots=LEHwwQsMG2&sig=91NhnMJ8o6npft_gOIlkjTN4Vm0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=KeVuUvuOD4rOkQfO7IHgAQ&ved=0CDIQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=prognathous%20negro&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=A31bAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA274&dq=%22woman's+constitution%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0Ph0UtfLJ4_msATrhYGoBA&ved=0CEEQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22woman's%20constitution%22&f=false
It's amazing that people once thought such books were appropriate. I'm so lucky to be living in the 21st century, and I'm grateful for the social activism of my predecessors.
Anonymous
11/03/2013 09:12
Subject: Books Written Before the 1950s
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
11/03/2013 08:55
Subject: Books Written Before the 1950s
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 wrote:I see you've been reading your Glenn Beck. U. of Pennsylvania professor, Rick Beeman, comments:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Well, actually, the Constitution does not say "all men are created equal." I can see you didn't pay attention in history class or civics. The Consitution does say blacks are 3/5 of a human being.
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.
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
11/03/2013 08:44
Subject: Books Written Before the 1950s
I see you've been reading your Glenn Beck. U. of Pennsylvania professor, Rick Beeman, comments:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Well, actually, the Constitution does not say "all men are created equal." I can see you didn't pay attention in history class or civics. The Consitution does say blacks are 3/5 of a human being.
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.
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
11/03/2013 08:37
Subject: Books Written Before the 1950s
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Well, actually, the Constitution does not say "all men are created equal." I can see you didn't pay attention in history class or civics. The Consitution does say blacks are 3/5 of a human being.
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.
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.
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
11/03/2013 08:28
Subject: Books Written Before the 1950s
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Well, actually, the Constitution does not say "all men are created equal." I can see you didn't pay attention in history class or civics. The Consitution does say blacks are 3/5 of a human being.
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.
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
11/03/2013 08:25
Subject: Books Written Before the 1950s
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:We need to keep books like that alive, lest we forget where we came from and the progress we have made, and where we could devolve to.
This. And also be aware that even though your little corner of the world may have made progress, many people out there still hold these views.
Agree with these. If you get rid of these books, then it is like Bradbury's "Farhenheit 451".
Anonymous
11/03/2013 08:24
Subject: Books Written Before the 1950s
OP you are a closed-minded bore!
Anonymous
11/03/2013 08:12
Subject: Books Written Before the 1950s
Anonymous wrote:Well, actually, the Constitution does not say "all men are created equal." I can see you didn't pay attention in history class or civics. The Consitution does say blacks are 3/5 of a human being.
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
11/03/2013 08:04
Subject: Books Written Before the 1950s
“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.
? Henry Miller, Tropic of Cancer, published 1934. Banned in the U.S. for obscenity until 1964.
Anonymous
11/02/2013 11:25
Subject: Books Written Before the 1950s
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Guess the Bible is out for OP.[/]
I'm a new poster. Can PPs not comprehend what they read? OP didn't write that s/he doesn't read the offending books (from the past couple of centuries, btw), but that they are "hard to read."
She chimed in again later to agree that these books are important to read lest history repeat itself.
While I am inspired I am off to help my 3rd grader by proof reading his book report. His reading comprehension is still evolving, and I'm going to make damn sure it doesn't stagnate where it is at age 8. Ahem.
Anonymous
11/02/2013 11:01
Subject: Books Written Before the 1950s
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Guess the Bible is out for OP.
What makes you say this?
Are you kidding me? There is ALL sorts of political incorrectness in that tome.