Very true. But, I don't think I would have want to drag anyone into that confusion, lol.
How does your state work?
- Thread starter scotchandcigar
- Start date
More states want to let kids work as bartenders
"In Wisconsin, legislators are seeking to lower the alcohol service age from 18 to 14"
I think that's kind of crazy, especially making the age 14, but it brings up something I've always been curious about. If we're at a manned register at the supermarket, with a carriage full of groceries, the cashiers under a certain age can't run any packaged or bottled alcohol over the scanner. They have to have an older supervisor physically move the item for them. I always thought this was stupid. All they're doing is scanning your groceries; why does it matter whether they're of legal age to consume it? Anyway, I found this interesting table:
Minimum Ages for Off-Premises Sellers | APIS - Alcohol Policy Information System
Laws that specify a minimum age for employees who sell alcoholic beverages in off-premises establishments.
A sad remnant of how my state used to work. These are original slave quarters built in 1845, part of a sugar mill plantation. They’re now in the National Register of Historic Places. Even though only an hour away, I drove pass them for the first time just a few years ago. You can almost feel the ghosts, such an eerie thing.
I was lucky as a kid. My parents took me to a bunch of amusement parks and we went to Disney all the time. That's why I'm this weirdo Disney adult.
But one trip we took was to Busch gardens in Williamsburg, Virginia and my parents decided that I should actually learn something besides just going on roller coasters. So we went to Jefferson's estate, Monticello. We toured the whole thing but all I really remember are the slave quarters. They clearly stick out in my memory. These are like shitty wood and mud cabins. Basically like the pictures you just posted but a little bit smaller.
Also this was the '90s and my mom had kind of a rebellious streak in her so I remember her asking the tour guide about Jefferson fucking his slaves and having kids with them. Nowadays, I'm sure they're used to that question, but in like 1996 I think it was a bit of a curveball.
Anyway, here's what slave quarters looked like in Virginia. Also it kind of fucking sucks cause I love Washington and Jefferson and those guys but they had fucking slaves? It's really a bummer.
It's really like a major major flaw of their character and I don't care what time it was. Owning slaves was wrong for the Egyptians. It was certainly wrong for our founding fathers. It's just hard to justify how they were such righteous and intelligent men and at the same time thought it was morally acceptable to own other humans.
I'm not saying we should rip down their statues or anything like that. They did found our country and we should hold them in incredibly high esteem. What I'm saying is when we speak of these men we cannot sugarcoat this part of their lives.
But one trip we took was to Busch gardens in Williamsburg, Virginia and my parents decided that I should actually learn something besides just going on roller coasters. So we went to Jefferson's estate, Monticello. We toured the whole thing but all I really remember are the slave quarters. They clearly stick out in my memory. These are like shitty wood and mud cabins. Basically like the pictures you just posted but a little bit smaller.
Also this was the '90s and my mom had kind of a rebellious streak in her so I remember her asking the tour guide about Jefferson fucking his slaves and having kids with them. Nowadays, I'm sure they're used to that question, but in like 1996 I think it was a bit of a curveball.
Anyway, here's what slave quarters looked like in Virginia. Also it kind of fucking sucks cause I love Washington and Jefferson and those guys but they had fucking slaves? It's really a bummer.
It's really like a major major flaw of their character and I don't care what time it was. Owning slaves was wrong for the Egyptians. It was certainly wrong for our founding fathers. It's just hard to justify how they were such righteous and intelligent men and at the same time thought it was morally acceptable to own other humans.
I'm not saying we should rip down their statues or anything like that. They did found our country and we should hold them in incredibly high esteem. What I'm saying is when we speak of these men we cannot sugarcoat this part of their lives.
Last edited:
IdRatherBeSkiing
Sherbet is NOT and NEVER WILL BE ice cream.
It's a complicated matter. It was not looked at the same way back then. They didn't think they owned other humans. They did not consider the slaves human. The attitude is clearly wrong by today's standards but was not considered wrong then. That did start to change shortly after and by 1860 about 1/2 the country had moved away from that viewpoint. And as you know the other half wasn't willing to give it up.
I get what you're saying but I find that so hard to believe and I really want to justify these guys because they're like my heroes but I can't find a way to do it.
Are you really saying in 1780, white people viewed black people the same way as dogs or cats or I guess the better analogy would be beasts of burden because they didn't have John Deere back then?
I mean they were people that looked exactly like us. They just had different skin. They didn't view people from Spain as less than human, or people from Italy....They had different skin.
So I guess maybe it was because their civilizations were more primitive and as a result they viewed them as less than human? I'm really asking the question, I don't know.
But they bought the slaves from other black slavers in Africa. So the white and Spanish people must have viewed the African slavers as at least slightly more human than the captives they were selling...even though they were all black?
I mean if you really don't view someone as human because of their skin color, how could you possibly do business with them? Like I could never do business with Athena because she's a fucking cat. So if they viewed black people as just animals, how could they do business with the black slavers? But they did do business with them so that makes me think that they must have known it was wrong all along and were just completely morally bankrupt.
I don't know man. It's hard to wrap your fucking head around.
Last edited:
Or maybe they justified it by thinking they were actually helping them. Like their primitive lives in Africa was so horrible that being owned by a person in the Americas was a better, more civilized life.
But that's another justification. I think the more obvious answer is people who owned slaves were cruel monsters. And they knew it at the time and just didn't give a shit.
But that's another justification. I think the more obvious answer is people who owned slaves were cruel monsters. And they knew it at the time and just didn't give a shit.
IdRatherBeSkiing
Sherbet is NOT and NEVER WILL BE ice cream.
Probably not dogs and cats. Probably more like gorillas or chimps. One step down. A lot probably thought they were saving them from savagery by passing on with their slave duties the love of Jesus Christ. There are tons of missionary people who went overseas to save the savages. Much the same mindset.
As to black people selling black people and people doing business I have no answer. I can only assume greed and money clouded the judgement because one couldn't use that excuse then, I doubt Jefferson went over anywhere to purchase anybody. Probably bought them at the local slave auction.
As to black people selling black people and people doing business I have no answer. I can only assume greed and money clouded the judgement because one couldn't use that excuse then, I doubt Jefferson went over anywhere to purchase anybody. Probably bought them at the local slave auction.
That makes sense. Jefferson and Washington and those guys were nowhere near the actual slave trade. Definitely not in Africa and not even an America. I imagine people just brought them to those guys.
I know this is a worn out point but it's just so fucking weird for him to sit there in his fucking study and have like John Adams (who never owned slaves) come and advise him and everything and then he decided to write the greatest document ever written yet steeped in hypocrisy.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights
While in his front yard he literally owned people and, whether consensual or not, was raping a woman he owned.
And yeah the Christian thing does make a lot of sense but it's also crazy. They were all about proselytizing but at the same time recognized the importance of religion not playing a central role in the new government they were creating.
I know this is a worn out point but it's just so fucking weird for him to sit there in his fucking study and have like John Adams (who never owned slaves) come and advise him and everything and then he decided to write the greatest document ever written yet steeped in hypocrisy.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights
While in his front yard he literally owned people and, whether consensual or not, was raping a woman he owned.
And yeah the Christian thing does make a lot of sense but it's also crazy. They were all about proselytizing but at the same time recognized the importance of religion not playing a central role in the new government they were creating.
Last edited:
I wonder if Thomas Jefferson had a lawn jockey statue at Monticello.
That's very true, but a lot different. For the most part they didn't go there to enslave, they went to convert. Tons of missionaries went to Japan to try to convert them to Christianity and while I may not agree with it, I can see the morality in it.
If they truly thought that Christianity was the way to heaven, then they would risk their well-being to convert anybody they could to help them get to heaven. There's a misguided honor to that at least. But a lot of the missionaries in who went to Japan were slaughtered for doing what they believed was right.
IdRatherBeSkiing
Sherbet is NOT and NEVER WILL BE ice cream.
You will also be dismayed to find his view on women's place in society was not up to today's standards either.
I'm no expert on this matter, but a random thought.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights
According to the story of Creation in the Bible (Genesis 4:1-15), after Cain killed Abel there were three people in the Garden of Eden: Adam, Eve and Cain. After being banished, Cain found a wife in the land of Nod (located east of Eden). Five Percenters believe that the people of Nod could be none other than the Original man, Asiatic Black-man of Asia from whom Africans, and then African-Americans are descended from.
Perhaps Christian whites believed they are descendants of Adam and Eve and blacks were descendants of Cain and therefore not the same? Leading to some wacky twisted "now I can enslave, torture and rape you" logic based on that? Descendants of Cain aren't endowed with those unalienable rights (according to psychotic Bible thumpers) because of Biblical lineage? Just a wild guess...
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights
According to the story of Creation in the Bible (Genesis 4:1-15), after Cain killed Abel there were three people in the Garden of Eden: Adam, Eve and Cain. After being banished, Cain found a wife in the land of Nod (located east of Eden). Five Percenters believe that the people of Nod could be none other than the Original man, Asiatic Black-man of Asia from whom Africans, and then African-Americans are descended from.
Perhaps Christian whites believed they are descendants of Adam and Eve and blacks were descendants of Cain and therefore not the same? Leading to some wacky twisted "now I can enslave, torture and rape you" logic based on that? Descendants of Cain aren't endowed with those unalienable rights (according to psychotic Bible thumpers) because of Biblical lineage? Just a wild guess...
IdRatherBeSkiing
Sherbet is NOT and NEVER WILL BE ice cream.
So God created Adam & Eve and then they were banished and found some other men & woman not created by God?
Of course the other possibility is that somehow a man & woman and their 2 sons (now 1 since one killed the other) were able to produce enough of a gene pool to create the human race. Without incest (and lots of it) this is also not very viable. Even with incest this would mean that allowing for genetic mutations and defects that come with incest, that humans today would be genetic rejects and retards compared to Adam & Eve who were created in God's image.
Also there are 2 different creation stories in the Bible and my understanding is they are not 100% identical.
I'm no expert on enslavement (perhaps someone else here has studied it), but I know that enslavement is as old as the human race. One example would be the ancient Jews. And I also know that at some point in the 17th, 18th, or 19th century, slavery was common in Europe.
So my point is that one shouldn't look at slavery in America in a vacuum, like we invented it. You've got to look at the history of slavery, in order to understand the mindset of people back then.
Yeah That's what I was saying. You think after like 2000 some years our founding fathers would know better than slavery... But apparently they didn't
Maine is one of 4 states that ban billboards. I just learned this.
www.billboardsin.com
BillboardsIn | States Where Billboards are Banned
www.billboardsin.com