Diversity

[Amian]

No, I see your larger point, it's like the Founding Fathers, people like Washington and Jefferson. They owned slaves and there was the whole Sally Hemmings thing with Jefferson, so some people even question honoring them. I think we need to recognize that times were different, that people have always been and continue to be complicated, nobody is all good, we can continue to honor the positive contributions of people without condoning every aspect of their life.

You're right that no one is all good, but weighing the good/bad in each person is important, too. Slavery is a huge tip on the scales toward the bad side. Even in George Washington's time, there were plenty of abolitionist movements and politicians (including John Adams, the 2nd president) who didn't own slaves. Not to mention that George Washington cycled his slaves in and out of PA in order to avoid manumission laws from the time. At the same time, he was a great leader and upheld many wonderful ideals that are at the core of the American experiment. So, yeah, it's complicated. As times change, we reevaluate our past, which is necessary and good.

Though there are aspects of ancestral culture, like slavery, that are absolutely reprehensible and no excuses can be made for it being accepted today, there are facets of it that are absolutely lost in shadow of the moral outrage. As ugly as it was, the slaves of more "moral" owners were often well cared for, and even deeply adored (asexually). Southern plantations were often small communities unto themselves. Black slaves and black free men often worked the field in virtually the same capacity, but the free men did not have anyone "looking out for them" and their lives were harder than the slaves they worked with. Obviously, neither situation was acceptable, but the solution to the problem required an evolution of culture, mechanization of agriculture, and TIME. Examining the process is fruitful, remembering the cost is a great motivator, but adults throwing a temper tantrum over a statue of someone a community honored can galvanize far more resistance than support...

It's not always the behavior of those in the past that is the problem.

Characterizing people's concerns over the honoring of Confederate soldiers as "throwing a temper tantrum" is disingenuous. Is it childish to hold the belief that other aspects of our history are more deserving of celebration? As has been stated above, the history doesn't go away if the statue comes down. What goes away is the honoring of that person as a model or hero for society.

Whether some plantations were like little towns or some owners were nicer than others, it's hard to get past the idea that people and families were owned (and traded and sold) like animals for the profit of other individual families or companies. Perhaps some slaves were not subject to rape, backbreaking work, having their families split apart, punished by the whip, or had their own ancestral languages and traditions eradicated... Maybe... Trying to sort out the nice slaveowners from the mean ones seems beside the point. Saying there were some "moral" slaveowners cannot justify the enterprise. Time and mechanization were not the only solutions. Not owning slaves was a solution, too. Even then, many felt this way. Plantation owners might make less money without the use of slaves, but so be it.

[Kevster]

Characterizing people's concerns over the honoring of Confederate soldiers as "throwing a temper tantrum" is disingenuous. Is it childish to hold the belief that other aspects of our history are more deserving of celebration? As has been stated above, the history doesn't go away if the statue comes down. What goes away is the honoring of that person as a model or hero for society.

Whether some plantations were like little towns or some owners were nicer than others, it's hard to get past the idea that people and families were owned (and traded and sold) like animals for the profit of other individual families or companies. Perhaps some slaves were not subject to rape, backbreaking work, having their families split apart, punished by the whip, or had their own ancestral languages and traditions eradicated... Maybe... Trying to sort out the nice slaveowners from the mean ones seems beside the point. Saying there were some "moral" slaveowners cannot justify the enterprise. Time and mechanization were not the only solutions. Not owning slaves was a solution, too. Even then, many felt this way. Plantation owners might make less money without the use of slaves, but so be it.

I was not referencing the honoring of confederate soldier when I stated "throwing a temper tantrum." I was referencing those that would go so far as to protest, damage property, and deface monuments. Even monuments I disagree with, I would not deface. Of course, I'm not prone to groupthink.

Believe me, I'm no fan of slavery, but that doesn't mean that a comprehensive OBJECTIVE understanding of the realities of the era and practice should be squelched. Though, obviously a bit deep for a Magnum-Mania thread.

Three Modes of Persuasion: Ethos, Pathos, and Logos. Why is Pathos, or an emotional-based assertion, typically used rather than a logos (or logical) assertion? Because Pathos is easier to get a reaction, and the subject is ripe for it. Truly learning about the era, the culture, the conditions... None of that makes slavery acceptable, but it does provide a much needed context.

That is the underlying analysis behind my statement. I hope I didn't mislead or offend. I worded my statement with "quotes" around "moral" to infer the relative absurdity of the calling them that, but maybe that wasn't clear enough. Obviously, you thought I was referencing another group... So, again, sorry if I misled or offended anyone.

[Amian]

Characterizing people's concerns over the honoring of Confederate soldiers as "throwing a temper tantrum" is disingenuous. Is it childish to hold the belief that other aspects of our history are more deserving of celebration? As has been stated above, the history doesn't go away if the statue comes down. What goes away is the honoring of that person as a model or hero for society.

Whether some plantations were like little towns or some owners were nicer than others, it's hard to get past the idea that people and families were owned (and traded and sold) like animals for the profit of other individual families or companies. Perhaps some slaves were not subject to rape, backbreaking work, having their families split apart, punished by the whip, or had their own ancestral languages and traditions eradicated... Maybe... Trying to sort out the nice slaveowners from the mean ones seems beside the point. Saying there were some "moral" slaveowners cannot justify the enterprise. Time and mechanization were not the only solutions. Not owning slaves was a solution, too. Even then, many felt this way. Plantation owners might make less money without the use of slaves, but so be it.

I was not referencing the honoring of confederate soldier when I stated "throwing a temper tantrum." I was referencing those that would go so far as to protest, damage property, and deface monuments. Even monuments I disagree with, I would not deface. Of course, I'm not prone to groupthink.

Believe me, I'm no fan of slavery, but that doesn't mean that a comprehensive OBJECTIVE understanding of the realities of the era and practice should be squelched. Though, obviously a bit deep for a Magnum-Mania thread.

Three Modes of Persuasion: Ethos, Pathos, and Logos. Why is Pathos, or an emotional-based assertion, typically used rather than a logos (or logical) assertion? Because Pathos is easier to get a reaction, and the subject is ripe for it. Truly learning about the era, the culture, the conditions... None of that makes slavery acceptable, but it does provide a much needed context.

That is the underlying analysis behind my statement. I hope I didn't mislead or offend. I worded my statement with "quotes" around "moral" to infer the relative absurdity of the calling them that, but maybe that wasn't clear enough. Obviously, you thought I was referencing another group... So, again, sorry if I misled or offended anyone.

I suppose I was a bit misled by the temper tantrum comment because I thought it was referring to the actions taken to rename of schools and remove Confederate statues. Also, I didn't think I was resorting to an emotional form of persuasion. If anything I was trying to go deeper into the context of slaveholding in in older time (hence my comment on George Washington), and I believe most of the processes now for renaming/removing are being done with Ethos in mind. I don't doubt there is a ton of emotional turmoil, too (after all, we don't exist in a rational vacuum), but the defacements and raucous protests are the exception rather than the rule.

If we're on the topic of context, it might also be useful to think about the role a Confederate statue plays today. For example, I could argue that the presence of a Robert E. Lee statue is itself already a defacement of our public spaces. General Lee was a leader for an army hostile to the U.S.A. If someone takes that position, does the vandalism take on a more righteous tone? For those who have done so, certainly. For those who think the statues are good, or should stay for whatever reason, not so much.

At any rate, you're right... this is getting heavy! Maybe the new MPI will have a dream episode in which the characters are on a sugar plantation. On second thought, no, I'd hate to see the comments that would light up the forum following that one!

[MagnumsGMTMaster]

I've always been bothered by the fact that TC was made into this goody-goody, loyal, cautious citizen-soldier-businessman-doormat almost without flaws ("just a normal guy," right?). That's too bad because the charm and comedy in the relationships between all the characters was in how their flaws all interacted with each other (as well as their virtues). All except TC, that is. It's what made Magnum, Rick, Higgins and even Mac/Lt. McReynolds, especially Mac/Lt. McReynolds, relatable. I have no doubt the producers and writers of the original show wrote TC that way to make him acceptable as a black character and to validate and make believable Magnum's trust in him. In fact, you could say the only way he was made relatable to white viewers was by hyper-normalizing him when, if he were portrayed with a similar level of dysfunction as the other characters, he would not have been relatable to the majority white viewing audience.

The episode that explored TC and his family dynamics is slightly better in this regard. "The Great Hawaiian Adventure Company" actually shows TC as perhaps a less than perfect father, and hence flawed and real.

[ZelenskyTheValiant (Ivan)]

I don't buy into all the nonsense about removing Robert E. Lee statues/monuments, as if he was some evil person. That's ridiculous! The man was the leader of the Confederate Army, no better or worse than Ulysses S. Grant who led the Union Army. Two generals on opposite sides of a conflict. This was a war between brothers, as you all may recall. The man didn't invent slavery. He was a military leader. It's ridiculous to label Lee = bad, Grant = good. South = bad, North = good. It's not so black and white (no pun intended) like that. People need to look at history closer. The South had cotton plantations and so they utilized slaves for labor, the North had no such plantations so they didn't require slave labor. If the North had cotton plantations you can be sure they'd have used slaves too. That's why it's ridiculous to paint the South or Lee or any of the other important historical figures as evil because somehow they were on the Confederate side. People need to take a step back and get a better perspective. Too many people these days who get offended by every little thing. That's why I enjoy shows from back in the day (shows like MAGNUM) when people knew how to relax and take things in stride instead of buying into all the PC crap of today. Way too much liberalism and PC out there and I fear it will be the end of our free society as we know it.

[Pahonu]

I don't buy into all the nonsense about removing Robert E. Lee statues/monuments, as if he was some evil person. That's ridiculous! The man was the leader of the Confederate Army, no better or worse than Ulysses S. Grant who led the Union Army. Two generals on opposite sides of a conflict. This was a war between brothers, as you all may recall. The man didn't invent slavery. He was a military leader. It's ridiculous to label Lee = bad, Grant = good. South = bad, North = good. It's not so black and white (no pun intended) like that. People need to look at history closer. The South had cotton plantations and so they utilized slaves for labor, the North had no such plantations so they didn't require slave labor. If the North had cotton plantations you can be sure they'd have used slaves too. That's why it's ridiculous to paint the South or Lee or any of the other important historical figures as evil because somehow they were on the Confederate side. People need to take a step back and get a better perspective. Too many people these days who get offended by every little thing. That's why I enjoy shows from back in the day (shows like MAGNUM) when people knew how to relax and take things in stride instead of buying into all the PC crap of today. Way too much liberalism and PC out there and I fear it will be the end of our free society as we know it.

I have looked at history closer. That's what I studied and that's what I teach, in particular US history.

I think you should be aware that slavery was well established in a number of English overseas possessions in the 17th century, and by the 18th century, it existed in all British colonies in North America. In the Thirteen Colonies, the distinction between slave and free colonies didn't begin until during the Revolutionary War. The Declaration of Independence not only declared the colonies free of Britain, but it also helped to inspire Vermont to abolish slavery in its 1777 state constitution. In fact, an earlier draft of the Declaration included statements about the immoral nature of slavery, but it was removed by Jefferson to keep all the colonies united against Britain. Several northern colonies thereafter began the process of abolishing slavery, largely in New England, but also Pennsylvania. New York was a slave-holding state until 1799 and New Jersey until 1804. In 1790, for example, New York had approximately 21,000 slaves compared to Georgia's 29,000.

https://faculty.weber.edu/kmackay/stati ... lavery.htm

It is a complex history. There were certainly fewer slaves in the northern colonies, but this still makes your fundamental economic argument invalid. Northern slave-holders benefited economically as well until slavery was ended there.

I would also argue that the removal of Lee monuments is not focused on him as a general or even as an individual, rather his decision to side with the secessionist states. It is well known that Grant was a drunk and not nearly the strategist Lee was on the battlefield, but he remained loyal to the Union, while Lee, for many complex reasons, chose otherwise. This is why he is still regarded as worthy of memorializing today. Consider... if a general in the US Army today led the units under his command into conflict with other US Army forces, that would be considered treasonous. Historically treason has been a capital crime. Lincoln's reconstruction plan not to severely punish the Southern rebels but to reintegrate them into the Union was both far-sighted and wise. It also perhaps saved Lee and other commanding officers their lives. Unfortunately he didn't live to see his plan through.

You're right that this is not a black and white issue. It's not a simple issue at all, so to decry this modern analysis of history as ridiculous or nonsense is itself an oversimplification.

[Kevster]

I don't buy into all the nonsense about removing Robert E. Lee statues/monuments, as if he was some evil person. That's ridiculous! The man was the leader of the Confederate Army, no better or worse than Ulysses S. Grant who led the Union Army. Two generals on opposite sides of a conflict. This was a war between brothers, as you all may recall. The man didn't invent slavery. He was a military leader. It's ridiculous to label Lee = bad, Grant = good. South = bad, North = good. It's not so black and white (no pun intended) like that. People need to look at history closer. The South had cotton plantations and so they utilized slaves for labor, the North had no such plantations so they didn't require slave labor. If the North had cotton plantations you can be sure they'd have used slaves too. That's why it's ridiculous to paint the South or Lee or any of the other important historical figures as evil because somehow they were on the Confederate side. People need to take a step back and get a better perspective. Too many people these days who get offended by every little thing. That's why I enjoy shows from back in the day (shows like MAGNUM) when people knew how to relax and take things in stride instead of buying into all the PC crap of today. Way too much liberalism and PC out there and I fear it will be the end of our free society as we know it.

I have looked at history closer. That's what I studied and that's what I teach, in particular US history.

I think you should be aware that slavery was well established in a number of English overseas possessions in the 17th century, and by the 18th century, it existed in all British colonies in North America. In the Thirteen Colonies, the distinction between slave and free colonies didn't begin until during the Revolutionary War. The Declaration of Independence not only declared the colonies free of Britain, but it also helped to inspire Vermont to abolish slavery in its 1777 state constitution. In fact, an earlier draft of the Declaration included statements about the immoral nature of slavery, but it was removed by Jefferson to keep all the colonies united against Britain. Several northern colonies thereafter began the process of abolishing slavery, largely in New England, but also Pennsylvania. New York was a slave-holding state until 1799 and New Jersey until 1804. In 1790, for example, New York had approximately 21,000 slaves compared to Georgia's 29,000.

https://faculty.weber.edu/kmackay/stati ... lavery.htm

It is a complex history. There were certainly fewer slaves in the northern colonies, but this still makes your fundamental economic argument invalid. Northern slave-holders benefited economically as well until slavery was ended there.

I would also argue that the removal of Lee monuments is not focused on him as a general or even as an individual, rather his decision to side with the secessionist states. It is well known that Grant was a drunk and not nearly the strategist Lee was on the battlefield, but he remained loyal to the Union, while Lee, for many complex reasons, chose otherwise. This is why he is still regarded as worthy of memorializing today. Consider... if a general in the US Army today led the units under his command into conflict with other US Army forces, that would be considered treasonous. Historically treason has been a capital crime. Lincoln's reconstruction plan not to severely punish the Southern rebels but to reintegrate them into the Union was both far-sighted and wise. It also perhaps saved Lee and other commanding officers their lives. Unfortunately he didn't live to see his plan through.

You're right that this is not a black and white issue. It's not a simple issue at all, so to decry this modern analysis of history as ridiculous or nonsense is itself an oversimplification.

Bravo! Exactly the kind of objective view a subject of this magnitude requires!

I've read that Grant was a drunk, but that he was actually more of a lightweight than a sot. It's said he could get tipsy off of a single drink. How much of that is revisionist or legitimate is anyone's guess?

Slavery was both an economic issue and a matter of defiant pride for many southerners, but that was only one of a number of issues that the sessionist states had against the nationalistic Federal government of the pre-war era. The positives that came out of the war (objectively, the end of slavery is positive, as was the industrialization that expanded to supply war goods) are apparent, but some of the negatives are not so apparent. It could be argued that the 17th amendment, changing the US Senate to a popular vote rather than state appointment, might not have passed in 1912-1913 (if ever) had it not been for the Civil War. Clearly, if the 17th were never passed (or should eventually be repealed), the country would be far different. The reduced political pressures on the Senate under the former system would create an insulating environment for them, and from the polarization that is so common today (literally today). Similarly, the nature of the states in that pre-war era were viewed more as small countries than the prism we have today. Arguing whether these changes were good or bad are somewhat moot in the modern context, but these issues have long been buried under the rhetoric focused on race. It seems that the area of slavery and bigotry, which are understandably serious issues, far overshadows other legitimate points of disagreement that have never really been decided or resolved.

And, with that, we still have dysfunction that never got worked out.

[Pahonu]

Thanks Kevster. You have uncanny timing!

I'm currently teaching a unit on the Progressive Era and was recently discussing with a colleague how the Senate might look and function differently today if the state legislatures still selected them. Just sort of a thought experiment for fun. Your point about the regionalism of 19th century America playing a role in the passage of the 17th amendment is valid, but many consider the graft associated with the political machines and the general corruption in the patronage system as the driving force behind these changes. The same era also saw the first use of the Australian (secret) ballot in the US, as well as the initiative and referendum system still used by many states today. Direct democracy was understandably seen as an obvious solution to this kind of entrenched centralization of political power. Even local governments saw big reforms such as those after the botched recovery from the 1900 hurricane in Galveston. I won't get into the details on that here, but it's a fascinating story.

[Kevster]

Thanks Kevster. You have uncanny timing!

I'm currently teaching a unit on the Progressive Era and was recently discussing with a colleague how the Senate might look and function differently today if the state legislatures still selected them. Just sort of a thought experiment for fun. Your point about the regionalism of 19th century America playing a role in the passage of the 17th amendment is valid, but many consider the graft associated with the political machines and the general corruption in the patronage system as the driving force behind these changes. The same era also saw the first use of the Australian (secret) ballot in the US, as well as the initiative and referendum system still used by many states today. Direct democracy was understandably seen as an obvious solution to this kind of entrenched centralization of political power. Even local governments saw big reforms such as those after the botched recovery from the 1900 hurricane in Galveston. I won't get into the details on that here, but it's a fascinating story.

Wow! Ironic that I gravitated straight to where you were taking the students.


My perspective on the 17th: it could not have passed in an era of strong states rights. It took decades for that to erode enough to give it a chance at passage. It may have been driven through by forces attempting a subtle realignment, but the erosion of the underlying culture that emphasized state rights is what made it possible.

We had the Articles of Confederation for a reason, and the subsequent US Constitution was a reluctant and much embattled compromise. The pendulum had to swing quite a distance to permit the 17th. Covering that distance, in my opinion, was hastened by the Civil War.

Direct democracy was meant to be used, regardless of the actual balloting system, for some aspects of the Federal government, but Senate was specifically meant to be a representation of the state's interests. It was never meant to be an alternate take on the House... Different masters produce different results.

Very cool stuff!!!

History Prof? My favorite course during my college time in the 1990's was a History of Western Civilization I course. A good storyteller will make that kind of class into a joyous journey!

[eagle]

It's interesting that you guys have started talking about 17A. I count 16A, 17A, and the Federal Reserve to be 3 of the worst things to ever happen in American history. There are others, but those are my top 3.

[Pahonu]

Thanks Kevster. You have uncanny timing!

I'm currently teaching a unit on the Progressive Era and was recently discussing with a colleague how the Senate might look and function differently today if the state legislatures still selected them. Just sort of a thought experiment for fun. Your point about the regionalism of 19th century America playing a role in the passage of the 17th amendment is valid, but many consider the graft associated with the political machines and the general corruption in the patronage system as the driving force behind these changes. The same era also saw the first use of the Australian (secret) ballot in the US, as well as the initiative and referendum system still used by many states today. Direct democracy was understandably seen as an obvious solution to this kind of entrenched centralization of political power. Even local governments saw big reforms such as those after the botched recovery from the 1900 hurricane in Galveston. I won't get into the details on that here, but it's a fascinating story.

Wow! Ironic that I gravitated straight to where you were taking the students.


My perspective on the 17th: it could not have passed in an era of strong states rights. It took decades for that to erode enough to give it a chance at passage. It may have been driven through by forces attempting a subtle realignment, but the erosion of the underlying culture that emphasized state rights is what made it possible.

We had the Articles of Confederation for a reason, and the subsequent US Constitution was a reluctant and much embattled compromise. The pendulum had to swing quite a distance to permit the 17th. Covering that distance, in my opinion, was hastened by the Civil War.

Direct democracy was meant to be used, regardless of the actual balloting system, for some aspects of the Federal government, but Senate was specifically meant to be a representation of the state's interests. It was never meant to be an alternate take on the House... Different masters produce different results.

Very cool stuff!!!

History Prof? My favorite course during my college time in the 1990's was a History of Western Civilization I course. A good storyteller will make that kind of class into a joyous journey!

It was pretty good timing!

I'm a full-time high school social studies teacher, and part-time college history professor. I'm currently teaching a post-Reconstruction US History class at the college at night. That's where I had the conversation I mentioned. This year at my high school I'm actually teaching Western Civilization (coincidence again!) from the Enlightenment to the modern era and also US History. In the past I've taught economics, government, and geography.

By the way, something we were also discussing relating to the states rights you mentioned, was the electoral college, including it's creation and the 12th amendment modifications to presidential elections. The already growing divide between free and slave states drove this compromise and it remains essentially the last vestige of these types of compromises still in effect in the US today. Here's an interesting TIME magazine article on the topic published after the 2016 election.

http://time.com/4558510/electoral-colle ... y-slavery/

[Kevster]

It's interesting that you guys have started talking about 17A. I count 16A, 17A, and the Federal Reserve to be 3 of the worst things to ever happen in American history. There are others, but those are my top 3.

The era was a time of MASSIVE change! Within a few years, states were stripped of their influence in Congress, citizens' earnings were made a primary source of revenue, and the Federal Reserve was created. Trifecta of dysfunction.

[Pahonu]

It's interesting that you guys have started talking about 17A. I count 16A, 17A, and the Federal Reserve to be 3 of the worst things to ever happen in American history. There are others, but those are my top 3.

I haven't gotten to Wilson yet.

Nobody likes income taxes, that's for sure, but it's an interesting story how we got to it. Check out the Underwood Act of 1913 and how this antitrust measure led to the use of the 16th amendment to make up for lost revenue. The Clayton Antitrust Act, the creation of the FTC, and Underwood were all part of a very popular movement to curb the Robber Baron's influence on our economy and political system. At the time, no one foresaw how future leaders in both political parties would expand the income tax.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... y_type.pdf

[ZelenskyTheValiant (Ivan)]

Grant was from Ohio, Lee was from Virginia. Lee supported/led the side that he was from. I doubt someone from the South would fight on the Union side, and certainly not lead them. I'm sure he felt he was fighting on the right side and for him his cause was a just cause. We're looking at this through modern-day glasses and using words like treason and secession. I'm sure these things weren't as clean-cut back then. We were still a very young nation at the time. Who was the North to dictate to the South what they should do?

[Kevster]

Grant was from Ohio, Lee was from Virginia. Lee supported/led the side that he was from. I doubt someone from the South would fight on the Union side, and certainly not lead them. I'm sure he felt he was fighting on the right side and for him his cause was a just cause. We're looking at this through modern-day glasses and using words like treason and secession. I'm sure these things weren't as clean-cut back then. We were still a very young nation at the time. Who was the North to dictate to the South what they should do?

As I noted previously, and Ivan referenced, the states were seen as mini-countries. Allegiance to a state was really tantamount to allegiance to the nation as a whole. So, if given the option of treason to the state or treason to the nation in the 1860's, the state wins. Lee acted accordingly.

Though the paradigms have evolved, this is still present in modern politics. The "fly-over" states resent the concentration of power and imposition of regulation from distant seats of power, and the population centers of California, New York / Northeast / New England resent that the popular vote tally alone doesn't automatically give them power. The passive / aggressive nature of these conflicts have simmered for decades. Of course, the tensions have amplified in recent years, and the people with guns have been buying ammo in record numbers for a decade. I'm not saying that we're on the brink of another Civil War, but I do believe that the pieces are in place that could lead to it (and a lot of ammo buyers seem to too).