John Oliver - US History (1 Viewer)

[Andy Dufresne]

You've misstated his overall thesis.

The theme of this week's episode was not simply "teach history better"; he specifically chose the "lens of race" (using your code words) as a link to current discussions of racial equality.

Also, he didn't use the 1957 woman as an avatar for modern racists; he used it as an avatar for 1950s racism -- postulating that there is a direct link between the racism of the 1800s (slavery) to the racism of the early 1900s (Jim Crow) to the racism of the 1950s (whites-only neighborhoods in suburbia), much of which is glossed over or ignored in the history books.

...which he connected to present day racism. 

(I knew I shouldn't have stepped into this.)

If he's saying "we haven't done a very good job of teaching the history of racism in America" then, yeah, I can buy that. But his connections "proving" as such are pretty specious. 

 

[BobbyLayne]

Sadly, like a good number of Americans, I learned about Tulsa from a freaking tv show. That lead to the other topics you mentioned. Sad for somebody that enjoys history and is past the half century mark in age.

When I share these epiphanies with my black friends they just tilt their head & smile. “I know. Most white allies go through this phase. Glad you could make it”

What I think @Andy Dufresne is missing in his arguments upthread is we absolutely need race centered history. We went through 80 + years of compromise which only divided the country into extremes. We fought a civil war that killed 700K. We tried enforcing minimal civil rights for 13 years to no avail. When we gave up & let them back in the Union, we allowed Jim Crow laws to keep people of color oppressed.

The entirety of U.S. has history has largely been whitewashed, sanitized, forgotten and lost in euphemisms. 

 

[Andy Dufresne]

When I share these epiphanies with my black friends they just tilt their head & smile. “I know. Most white allies go through this phase. Glad you could make it”

What I think @Andy Dufresne is missing in his arguments upthread is we absolutely need race centered history. We went through 80 + years of compromise which only divided the country into extremes. We fought a civil war that killed 700K. We tried enforcing minimal civil rights for 13 years to no avail. When we gave up & let them back in the Union, we allowed Jim Crow laws to keep people of color oppressed.

The entirety of U.S. has history has largely been whitewashed, sanitized, forgotten and lost in euphemisms. 

I wouldn't say I'm missing it, Bob.  (Holy cow, that couldn't have worked out any more perfectly!)

I'm just disagreeing with it. 

Do more? Sure. Make it the basis for understanding America? Sorry, I can't get there. 

 

[[scooter]]

You've misstated his overall thesis.

The theme of this week's episode was not simply "teach history better"; he specifically chose the "lens of race" (using your code words) as a link to current discussions of racial equality.

Also, he didn't use the 1957 woman as an avatar for modern racists; he used it as an avatar for 1950s racism -- postulating that there is a direct link between the racism of the 1800s (slavery) to the racism of the early 1900s (Jim Crow) to the racism of the 1950s (whites-only neighborhoods in suburbia), much of which is glossed over or ignored in the history books.

...which he connected to present day racism. 

Well, yeah.

There's absolutely a connection between decades of suburban redlining and present-day racism.

Just like there was absolutely a connection between Jim Crow laws and suburban redlining.

Just like there was absolutely a connection between reconstruction and Jim Crow laws.

Oliver's "thesis", if you will, is that if we had spent more time teaching this history, there would be a lesser likelihood of that history repeating itself in watered-down forms.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Well, yeah.

There's absolutely a connection between decades of suburban redlining and present-day racism.

Just like there was absolutely a connection between Jim Crow laws and suburban redlining.

Just like there was absolutely a connection between reconstruction and Jim Crow laws.

Oliver's "thesis", if you will, is that if we had spent more time teaching this history, there would be a lesser likelihood of that history repeating itself in watered-down forms.

Well that I can buy.

That's what passes for a handshake emoji?

 

[Bracie Smathers]

I have a huge issue with foreign, especially English/greater UK comedians commenting on the US as though they knew everything without the help of writers and researchers as they monologue endlessly about how stupid Americans are.  If you've ever had friends from overseas who endlessly bash America you know where I'm coming from.

John Oliver was never a fave of mine, I don't know why he got a show over someone from the UK like, Jimmy Carr, Sean Lock, David Mitchell, Lee Mack, Richard Ayoade, Rob Brydon, Greg Davies, Kevin Bridges...

It isn't about agreeing or disagreeing with what he is saying it is about style and Oliver comes across preachy, condescending, and pontificating.  He's not funny. 

If you do not like people getting in your face without cause from a guy has no clue what you know or stand for and he keeps going in a smarmy manner you will react to the messenger.  A bad messenger can harm a good message.  This isn't the guy to hold up and he never was the right guy to get a platform.  

 

[BobbyLayne]

I wouldn't say I'm missing it, Bob.  (Holy cow, that couldn't have worked out any more perfectly!)

I'm just disagreeing with it. 

Do more? Sure. Make it the basis for understanding America? Sorry, I can't get there. 

Name something more central to American history than race.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I just think he's tilting at windmills a bit here. I'm betting a good chunk of Americans don't even know there IS a Tulsa, Oklahoma, much less where it is or what happened there at ANY time in history.

WW II was the most important, largest event of the 20th century. The population at large know next to nothing about it. To expect that they should or would know something that happened in Tulsa a hundred years ago is naive and to use it as some sort of example as to why people don't care to confront their own or their nation's racist past is just wrong. 

I personally already knew that there was such a place as Tulsa, Oklahoma. I'm also fairly familiar with the story of WWII.

When I watched the first episode of Watchmen, the first few minutes seemed like they might have been based on a real event, but it wasn't one I'd ever heard of before, so I pressed pause and googled about it. Sure enough, it was a real event.

I'm not a total history buff or anything, but I thought I was somewhat decent at American history. The Tulsa Race Massacre is the kind of thing I'd have expected to hear about at some point in my life, but I never had. Not until I saw Watchmen. It's hard to describe my feeling of surprise -- how did I not know anything about this? -- but it stands out because it's not a common one. This uncommon gap in my knowledge seems to have been shared by an awful lot of people. The fact that it's about a racial topic discomfiting to the majority might just be a coincidence...

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Name something more central to American history than race.

Have to admit. You have me thinking. 

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I personally already knew that there was such a place as Tulsa, Oklahoma. I'm also fairly familiar with the story of WWII.

When I watched the first episode of Watchmen, the first few minutes seemed like they might have been based on a real event, but it wasn't one I'd ever heard of before, so I pressed pause and googled about it. Sure enough, it was a real event.

I'm not a total history buff or anything, but I thought I was somewhat decent at American history. The Tulsa Race Massacre is the kind of thing I'd have expected to hear about at some point in my life, but I never had. Not until I saw Watchmen. It's hard to describe my feeling of surprise -- how did I not know anything about this? -- but it stands out because it's not a common one. This uncommon gap in my knowledge seems to have been shared by an awful lot of people. That fact that it's about a racial topic discomfiting to majority might just be a coincidence...

Wait until the Watchmen do an episode on the hangings in Mankato, MN during the Dakota War. How many people know that that was the largest mass execution in United States history?

It's just not reasonable to believe that people should know of every important thing ever. Historic things become important when we look for clues that give context to our present area of interest. 

 

[El Floppo]

Well, maybe my biases took over the longer I listened to it. 

I just think he's tilting at windmills a bit here. I'm betting a good chunk of Americans don't even know there IS a Tulsa, Oklahoma, much less where it is or what happened there at ANY time in history.

WW II was the most important, largest event of the 20th century. The population at large know next to nothing about it. To expect that they should or would know something that happened in Tulsa a hundred years ago is naive and to use it as some sort of example as to why people don't care to confront their own or their nation's racist past is just wrong. 

if I'm to use a quixotic windmill as something non-existent... I genuinely hope you equating learning about racism within the context of US history isn't you thinking racism is non-existent within the context of US history. 

his point is that these are things that have been systemic in our history- but avoided. why? what's gained/lost by learning about them? and we do learn about wwII, whether most people could tell you much about it or not- it's part of the curriculum. but we have avoided issues of race completely outside of: slavery, civil war, civil rights... full stop. teaching about our racist past doesn't exclude learning about other things. this attitude feels akin to being angry at BLM because all lives should matter... and focusing on the black lives somehow means others don't.

I mentioned the lecture I attended in college above. I attended it with two soccer team mates who happened to be black. the visiting lecturer (black CCNY professor) had been in the national spotlight for teaching perceived anti-white and antisemitic sentiments. He quickly explained that away (to my satisfaction) and then proceeded to give a 3+ hour history of the world from a strictly african-centric view. As I sat and listened- 80ish% things I had learned previously at a good HS and Ivy college- I found myself start to grate. yeah... all of this is true, BUT it didn't happen in a vacuum... impossible to jump from this to that without including the greeks, romans and other major parts of world history.

by the end, I was feeling frustrated and looking forward to discussing with my friends how wrong/lacking it was to skip the rest of the world. we walked out and as I was about to bring it up, the other two guy were practically coming out of their skins with amazement/excitement. I decided to let them go first.... they had never heard this info presented in this way- and were overwhelmed with a new-found sense of awareness, pride and excitement of their culture's role in history. Even though they had also learned the same 80% of info previously. 

we kept talking, and it got me looking back to my- what I had always considered- fully integrated, liberal childhood growing up, going to school and playing sports with a large community of black kids. but listening and talking more, I realized that even though all of that was fully integrated, and I considered everybody the same... at the end of the day, my best friends were all white, my parties were all white, my entire life outside of those activities were all white.

also got me thinking about those kids- most from a low-income area- who didn't necessarily have the advantage of the education I had... let alone access to this kind of lecture. from our shared education, their place in history was: slaves, civil war, civil rights, full stop. after 3+ hours of hearing what I'd already learned, but in a specifically non-white way... and I was grating against the info. I imagined these kids- 20 years of hearing only about slaves, civil war, civil rights... and only white people have a history outside of that. If' I'm grating after 3hours- what does that mean after 20 hours- (eta- years, not hours) and never getting to hear the rest of it? 

this lecture (and subsequent talk with my friends) more profoundly affected and changed my view on race than any other thing in my life.

hearing about tulsa, the NC coup... all got me thinking about that all over again. 

 

[culdeus]

Has anyone jumped into the new serial podcast series?  It deals with a lot of this topic on a very micro level.

When I saw he was doing this bit for the show last week my first thought was he was trying to capture some of the serial hype.

https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cDovL2ZlZWRzLnNlcmlhbHBvZGNhc3Qub3JnL3NlcmlhbHBvZGNhc3Q/episode/MjgwIGF0IGh0dHA6Ly9zZXJpYWxwb2RjYXN0Lm9yZw?sa=X&ved=0CAkQ38oDahcKEwjgsoGD_IHrAhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQAQ&hl=en

 

[Andy Dufresne]

if I'm to use a quixotic windmill as something non-existent... I genuinely hope you equating learning about racism within the context of US history isn't you thinking racism is non-existent within the context of US history. 

his point is that these are things that have been systemic in our history- but avoided. why? what's gained/lost by learning about them? and we do learn about wwII, whether most people could tell you much about it or not- it's part of the curriculum. but we have avoided issues of race completely outside of: slavery, civil war, civil rights... full stop. teaching about our racist past doesn't exclude learning about other things. this attitude feels akin to being angry at BLM because all lives should matter... and focusing on the black lives somehow means others don't.

Of course not. I'm chafing at the idea that if people don't know every instance of racism in their country's past that they don't know enough about racism.

Like the example I cited about the Mankato executions. I'd wager that Oliver knows nothing about that. 

All I'm saying is that if his thesis is that we should teach more about our history of race, I would agree - but his message supporting that thesis is just all sorts of off base and isn't going to to much to garner support for it because it degenerates far to often into spoofing the very people he's trying to convince.

 

[urbanhack]

I don't think the analogies and lines he draws connect all that well. I also think he realizes it and that's where he deflects with attempted humor.

And a lot of it is simple smearing through guilt by association. Choosing a 1957 era racist suburbanite as an avatar for modern day racist suburbanite avatars is just cherry picking and wrong.

His overall thesis of "teach history better" is correct. But teaching history ONLY through the lens of race, as he seems to imply we should, is not, IMO.

There's more I didn't like about it, but I don't really have the energy to dissect it any more than that. 

It's not an avatar, it's to show a dotted line from how overt things used to be to the president using code words to communicate something similar in the year 2020.

He's not saying it should only be taught through the lens of race. He's saying that the way racial history is taught needs to be vastly improved.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

It's not an avatar, it's to show a dotted line from how overt things used to be to the president using code words to communicate something similar in the year 2020.

Okay. I got that wrong. 

But I don't agree that those lines connect like he says they do. 

Lord do I loathe having to "defend" anything that Trump has to say and/or the way he says it. 

 

[Andy Dufresne]

One thing I am certain of is how tired I'm getting with people using the 3/5 compromise as an example of how racist the beginnings were.

The abolitionists were the ones that advocated FOR it. 

 

[BobbyLayne]

Have to admit. You have me thinking. 

That’s actually pretty impressive. Seems like most of these discussions lead nowhere. Kudos for being open minded (no snark.)

FTR I grew up in a homogeneous area, rural mid-Michigan. My views evolved over time. It’s been a long, slow walk.

 

[moleculo]

that was a really powerful episode.  I came away thinking that it felt a bit rushed - he needed well more than 20 minutes or so to flesh it all out.

 

[El Floppo]

I wouldn't say I'm missing it, Bob.  (Holy cow, that couldn't have worked out any more perfectly!)

I'm just disagreeing with it. 

Do more? Sure. Make it the basis for understanding America? Sorry, I can't get there. 

maybe I missed Oliver saying that we should make it the basis of understanding America. I don't think I did.

Of course not. I'm chafing at the idea that if people don't know every instance of racism in their country's past that they don't know enough about racism.

Like the example I cited about the Mankato executions. I'd wager that Oliver knows nothing about that. 

All I'm saying is that if his thesis is that we should teach more about our history of race, I would agree - but his message supporting that thesis is just all sorts of off base and isn't going to to much to garner support for it because it degenerates far to often into spoofing the very people he's trying to convince.

this is different than what you said originally... which is great. 

history of race... but not racism?

 

[Andy Dufresne]

history of race... but not racism?

That would have been better said as "history ON race", i.e. racism.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Wait until the Watchmen do an episode on the hangings in Mankato, MN during the Dakota War. How many people know that that was the largest mass execution in United States history?

Thanks. I'll look it up.

If it was white people mass-executing non-white people, it kind of bolsters my point.

 

[Galileo]

that was a really powerful episode.  I came away thinking that it felt a bit rushed - he needed well more than 20 minutes or so to flesh it all out.

This could be said about pretty much every John Oliver episode.  They all feel rushed.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Thanks. I'll look it up.

If it was white people mass-executing non-white people, it kind of bolsters my point.

Whites executing natives.

And it proves mine too. It's not important until it is. There's no way to know every event ever.

And historic things sometimes GAIN importance in light of current events. Tulsa is a great example. But it doesn't mean that people shouldn't be excused for NOT knowing about it before it increased in importance.

 

[El Floppo]

Whites executing natives.

And it proves mine too. It's not important until it is. There's no way to know every event ever.

And historic things sometimes GAIN importance in light of current events. Tulsa is a great example. But it doesn't mean that people shouldn't be excused for NOT knowing about it before it increased in importance.

I think we're kind of saying the same thing, but in different directions. 

this isn't about chastising people for not knowing these events. and it's not about having to learn about every event ever. it's about trying to see how we got to our current state of race-relations/blm/etc given the history we HAVE learned and that having the info that has been excluded all these years finally included might affect positive change. at least- that's my take. it's obviously been important since the beginning- but without the education, we have no way of knowing it.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

And historic things sometimes GAIN importance in light of current events. Tulsa is a great example. But it doesn't mean that people shouldn't be excused for NOT knowing about it before it increased in importance.

I don't think the Tulsa Massacre gained importance after Watchmen. It was always important. What it gained was overdue publicity.

I also don't think John Oliver was blaming me for not knowing about Tulsa (though I do assign most of the blame to myself). I think he was blaming the politicization of the history-textbook-publishing business in response to the politicization of certain history-textbook-selection criteria.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I don't think the Tulsa Massacre gained importance after Watchmen. It was always important. What it gained was overdue publicity.

I also don't think John Oliver was blaming me for not knowing about Tulsa (though I do assign most of the blame to myself). I think he was blaming the politicization of the history-textbook-publishing business in response to the politicization of certain history-textbook-selection criteria.

Of course it is an important event. But it's importance, in terms of being something on people's minds, has been diminished over the course of an entire century. There's literally nobody who can claim to remember it happening. And there are untold number of events that fall under the same category. 

It's not necessarily a political decision to not keep everything at the forefront for all time. There's almost no reason to have the masses learn about the Teapot Dome scandal in order to learn about government corruption. 

Edit: I often think I'm being clearer than I truly am. I should give others, including those I disagree with - like Oliver, the same grace I hope people will give me. 

 

[beer 30]

Thanks. I'll look it up.

If it was white people mass-executing non-white people, it kind of bolsters my point.

One of the undercurrents to all these discussions I have in my head is the saying, "the victor writes the history." I always thought of it in the context of the winner of a conflict writing the history of the vanquished. I never really thought of it in terms of white vs _______ (insert race here). Guess I should have.

 

[[scooter]]

One thing I am certain of is how tired I'm getting with people using the 3/5 compromise as an example of how racist the beginnings were.

The abolitionists were the ones that advocated FOR it. 

Do you think abolitionists advocated for it because they were racist?

Or do you think they advocated for it because they realized it was the only way to get the more racisty faction of the country to agree to ratify the Constitution?

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Do you think abolitionists advocated for it because they were racist?

Or do you think they advocated for it because they realized it was the only way to get the more racisty faction of the country to agree to ratify the Constitution?

I think they advocated for it because if "non free" people counted as a full person that it would give the slave holding states more power at the federal level. Which would be worse for the abolitionist/slave cause. 

 

[moleculo]

And I'm sorry, it's this kind of thing that makes discussion nearly impossible. There's no way to use specific enough language to where someone won't demand more. I'm not really saying that you, specifically, do this and I'm sorry that it's your post that caused me to comment. But it's just exasperating that we have to argue the letter of the statement rather than the spirit of it.

Of course it is an important event. But it's importance, in terms of being something on people's minds, has been diminished over the course of an entire century. There's literally nobody who can claim to remember it happening. And there are untold number of events that fall under the same category. 

It's not necessarily a political decision to not keep everything at the forefront for all time. There's almost no reason to have the masses learn about the Teapot Dome scandal in order to learn about government corruption. 

I remember learning about Teapot Dome in high school, but not Tulsa.

 

[[scooter]]

Do you think abolitionists advocated for it because they were racist?

Or do you think they advocated for it because they realized it was the only way to get the more racisty faction of the country to agree to ratify the Constitution?

I think they advocated for it because if "non free" people counted as a full person that it would give the slave holding states more power at the federal level. Which would be worse for the abolitionist/slave cause. 

Oh. And you don't think that's an example of racism?

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Oh. And you don't think that's an example of racism?

No. Of course not. How do you think it is?

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I remember learning about Teapot Dome in high school, but not Tulsa.

Same. To the benefit of nothing. 

 

[El Floppo]

And I'm sorry, it's this kind of thing that makes discussion nearly impossible. There's no way to use specific enough language to where someone won't demand more. I'm not really saying that you, specifically, do this and I'm sorry that it's your post that caused me to comment. But it's just exasperating that we have to argue the letter of the statement rather than the spirit of it.

Of course it is an important event. But it's importance, in terms of being something on people's minds, has been diminished over the course of an entire century. There's literally nobody who can claim to remember it happening. And there are untold number of events that fall under the same category. 

It's not necessarily a political decision to not keep everything at the forefront for all time. There's almost no reason to have the masses learn about the Teapot Dome scandal in order to learn about government corruption. 

we haven't gotten to learn about this level of systemic racism outside of slavery. don't you think it's worth considering why this particular event has been hidden in history?... and that's part of what the episode was about.

seems like you're saying if it's not been important before, it's not worthy of being important now- outside of current events. which would eliminate any further discussion and education about racism in the country outside of slavery and civil rights.

One thing I am certain of is how tired I'm getting with people using the 3/5 compromise as an example of how racist the beginnings were.

The abolitionists were the ones that advocated FOR it. 

Do you think abolitionists advocated for it because they were racist?

Or do you think they advocated for it because they realized it was the only way to get the more racisty faction of the country to agree to ratify the Constitution?

out of curiosity- what was the alternative? was it presented as 0/5, and the 3/5 offered as a method of getting everybody on board? this is a question- not a statement.

 

[El Floppo]

Oh. And you don't think that's an example of racism?

No. Of course not. How do you think it is?

certainly worthy of learning about. and discussing. 

 

[Andy Dufresne]

we haven't gotten to learn about this level of systemic racism outside of slavery. don't you think it's worth considering why this particular event has been hidden in history?... and that's part of what the episode was about.

seems like you're saying if it's not been important before, it's not worthy of being important now- outside of current events. which would eliminate any further discussion and education about racism in the country outside of slavery and civil rights.

out of curiosity- what was the alternative? was it presented as 0/5, and the 3/5 offered as a method of getting everybody on board? this is a question- not a statement.

The slave states wanted them to be counted as 1 and the abolitionists as 0. 

Yes, the number 3/5 was agreed on to get people to agree to the rest of it. 

 

[El Floppo]

The slave states wanted them to be counted as 1 and the abolitionists as 0. 

Yes, the number 3/5 was agreed on to get people to agree to the rest of it. 

never knew that... thanks.

jeebus. 

you don't see how the abolitionists needing to come to this position to try to achieve their goals is born out of racism, or at least a reaction to racism?

 

[[scooter]]

Oh. And you don't think that's an example of racism?

No. Of course not. How do you think it is?

The tacit confirmation that rights shall be denied based implicitly upon race. That's racism, is it not?

 

[Andy Dufresne]

we haven't gotten to learn about this level of systemic racism outside of slavery. don't you think it's worth considering why this particular event has been hidden in history?... and that's part of what the episode was about.

seems like you're saying if it's not been important before, it's not worthy of being important now- outside of current events. which would eliminate any further discussion and education about racism in the country outside of slavery and civil rights.

No, not at all. I'm still going back to MY reaction to what Oliver was saying - that it's MY fault that this wasn't taught to me. (That's a shorthand of the argument.)

Given where we're at today, it's certainly one of many dots that could/should be connected in learning where we truly are at today. 

 

[El Floppo]

No, not at all. I'm still going back to MY reaction to what Oliver was saying - that it's MY fault that this wasn't taught to me. (That's a shorthand of the argument.)

Given where we're at today, it's certainly one of many dots that could/should be connected in learning where we truly are at today. 

I honestly have no idea why you'd come to that conclusion from that episode.

 

[El Floppo]

and btw- thank you guys... been an interesting discussion.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

never knew that... thanks.

jeebus. 

you don't see how the abolitionists needing to come to this position to try to achieve their goals is born out of racism, or at least a reaction to racism?

But we have to considering on which "side" we're leveling the charge of "racism" don't we? The decision was made in the context of racism, sure, but it was in reaction to the demands of the slave holding/racist representatives of (primarily) the south. 

Making a decision in an air of racism doesn't make one racist. 

The tacit confirmation that rights shall be denied based implicitly upon race. That's racism, is it not?

But who was denying that to begin with? The political reality the abolitionists faced was that they were trying to create a new constitution with racist brethren. 

The reality of it was that "non free", i.e slaves, people weren't going to have rights regardless of whether or not they were counted as a "whole" person. 

Representation, of course, is based on population. So the slave holders were trying to have it both ways - slaves don't have rights because they're not people, but they should be counted as people for representation purposes. 

It was sad that a long game needed to be played but in terms of the compromise it was more of a win that the number 3/5 was agreed to but it would have been better if it was zero. 

Of course, the best option was for slavery to not exist at all, for all people to be free, and for everyone to be counted. But that simply wasn't going to happen at that time. 

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I honestly have no idea why you'd come to that conclusion from that episode.

It comes from my dad. He has a MAJOR persecution complex. 

 

[wikkidpissah]

at its roots, 3/5 aint racism - it's speciism

 

[El Floppo]

But we have to considering on which "side" we're leveling the charge of "racism" don't we? The decision was made in the context of racism, sure, but it was in reaction to the demands of the slave holding/racist representatives of (primarily) the south. 

Making a decision in an air of racism doesn't make one racist. 

But who was denying that to begin with? The political reality the abolitionists faced was that they were trying to create a new nation with racist brethren. 

The reality of it was that "non free", i.e slaves, people weren't going to have rights regardless of whether or not they were counted as a "whole" person. 

Representation, of course, is based on population. So the slave holders were trying to have it both ways - slaves don't have rights because they're not people, but they should be counted as people for representation purposes. 

It was sad that a long game needed to be played but in terms of the compromise it was more of a win that the number 3/5 was agreed to but it would have been better if it was zero. 

I never learned any of this.

I should have. everybody should have. regardless of who the charge of "racism" gets leveled against. that's part of the discussion from the episode.

 

[[scooter]]

out of curiosity- what was the alternative? was it presented as 0/5, and the 3/5 offered as a method of getting everybody on board? this is a question- not a statement.

There were several alternatives.

One of the little-known facets of the Three Fifths Compromise is that it was cobbled together from previous ideas, much in the way that the 2nd Amendment was cobbled together from multiple sources (which is why we have the "well regulated militia" line, but not any lines which could explain it).

The origin of the compromise dates to the drafting of the Articles Of Confederation in 1783, when it was proposed that a count of ALL inhabitants should be used to determine taxes paid to the federal government. The slave states immediately objected to this idea, of course. Various counter-proposals were then made -- the slave states suggested that slaves should be taxed at a much lower rate, if at all. I don't think that it was specifically the "abolitionists" who came up with the 60% number, though. In any event, the framers drafted an amendment calling for taxation at a 60% rate, but that amendment was ultimately voted down and the idea was shelved.

(At that point, the idea of tying the 3/5ths rate to representation had not even entered the picture.)

Fast forward a few years to the Constitutional Conventions. As far as I know, it was Charles Pinckney of South Carolina who first suggested that slaves should count at a 3/5ths rate for purposes of congressional representation. (I'm pretty sure he was not an abolitionist, based largely on the fact that he was a slave owner.)

Abolitionists rejected Pinckney's suggestion. Although almost everyone agreed that representation should be based on population, the abolitionist faction argued that only free people should be counted.

At some point, they dusted off the 1783 idea of tying slavery to taxation, and added it to Pinckney's proposal. This addition satisfied the abolitionists, but also gave the slave states exactly what they wanted all along. It was basically a 2-for-1 deal: the slave states gave up one thing (taxes) but got 2 things in return (more representatives and more electoral votes) -- which they could then theoretically use to pass legislation that relieved the very tax burden that they had agreed to in the first place.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

One thing I am certain of is how tired I'm getting with people using the 3/5 compromise as an example of how racist the beginnings were.

The abolitionists were the ones that advocated FOR it. 

Abolitionists wanted slaves counted as zero while slaveholders wanted slaves counted as one, for obvious reasons. The compromise, which was necessarily in between those two positions, had advocates on both sides.

But the spirit of your point is correct.  Counting each slave as only 3/5 of a person wasn't for the purpose of denigrating the full dignity or personhood of slaves; it was to reduce the power of slaveholding states in Congress.

 

[moleculo]

the mere fact that the 3/5th compromise was necessary goes to illustrate that racism was codified in the Constitution to begin with - thats the point.  It really doesn't matter who was arguing for what.

The original claim:

One thing I am certain of is how tired I'm getting with people using the 3/5 compromise as an example of how racist the beginnings were.

The abolitionists were the ones that advocated FOR it. 

the fact that abolitionists had to advocate FOR it in the first place goes to illustrate where we were as a country in 1788.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

the mere fact that the 3/5th compromise was necessary goes to illustrate that racism was codified in the Constitution to begin with - thats the point.  It really doesn't matter who was arguing for what.

The original claim:

the fact that abolitionists had to advocate FOR it in the first place goes to illustrate where we were as a country in 1788.

We're arguing a pretty fine point here.

People that view the big picture, like yourself, see it this way - that the need for it at all is the problem. I'd agree. We should have remained a colony until after England declared slavery illegal and THEN revolted. 

But too many people get it wrong and instead say that even at that time that slaves should have counted as a "whole" person in the Constitution. That would have been of great detriment to the anti-slavery cause and slaves themselves. 

 

[-OZ-]

the fact that abolitionists had to advocate FOR it in the first place goes to illustrate where we were as a country in 1788.

That, and that many of the founding fathers held slaves which at the time was fairly routine. 

Can we acknowledge that the world was racist (and sexist, and ageist, and other prejudices) for much of the past millennia?