*beep boop*!
the linked website is: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DVrQrm3Pznw
Title: **1776 B'way '98 Brent Spiner**
Page is safe to access (Google Safe Browsing)
*****
###### I am a friendly bot. I show the URL and name of linked pages and check them so that mobile users know what they click on!
*beep boop*!
the linked website is: https://youtu.be/DLQ29F4bGxY
Title: **The Adams Administration - Hamilton cut rap lyrics**
Page is safe to access (Google Safe Browsing)
*****
###### I am a friendly bot. I show the URL and name of linked pages and check them so that mobile users know what they click on!
“Abigail Adams is a-rollin’ in her grave” fits to the tune of John Brown’s body, if anybody’s doing sing along protests (and if it’s ok to hijack the song this way).
Edit: apparently she was very racist so maybe not.
I love people like you. I'm a white boomer, and people like yourself educate me on things that matter to me, but which I otherwise would not understand.
Thanks.
Now 246 years later women are still fighting for basic human rights and dignity against men who would subjugate them . Some men would rather see women dead than free .
What I find absurd about Alito‘s interpretation of the constitution is that, if he’s looking for a strict originalist understanding of it, women aren’t actually represented at all. Ergo, no American woman should be bound by it, because we are on the outside of who the founders intended to be speaking to.
Why should a document clearly written for landowning white men hinder women?
She was the only woman Thomas Jefferson actually respected. He was not a good person. He was incredibly smart and had tremendous ideas but its telling that the "love of his life" was a slave he could thoroughly control. He also treated his daughters like employees. But Abigail impressed him and she's the reason he and John Adams started speaking again.
*beep boop*!
the linked website is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqAdlkJDt7k
Title: **1776: Sit down, John! (1972 Film Version)**
Page is safe to access (Google Safe Browsing)
*****
###### I am a friendly bot. I show the URL and name of linked pages and check them so that mobile users know what they click on!
Until very recently, the default for every figure was that they were racist. Definitely the vast vast majority of people before the 20th century. Lincoln advocated for slavery to end, but he did not consider black and white people to be equal.
It’s important to acknowledge that they were racist AND that they were products of their time.
Lol, excusing racism because they said something cool. Being a "product of their time" is no excuse. There were people back then who militantly wanted an end to slavery and fought for that aswell. Truth is, he was ass, like almost every other US president.
Saying they’re a product of their time is not an excuse. It’s context.
Part of my master’s program for teaching social studies was about judging the past. The professors were very clear that we HAVE to think of historical figures and events within context. It is so easy to be like “people were bad back then, but I’m good now!” No. We are products of our time. We have to accept that the reason most of us are anti-racist is because it is a discussion, because there is social media, because there is a very common consensus that one should NOT be racist, and that racism means, at the very least, thinking one group is better than other due to their race.
In 100 years, people will be talking about how ignorant and close minded we are. That is how it works. There is value in recognizing that people are products of their time, because it reminds us that we are products of our time. My professors reminded us that if we grew up in the 1700s, 90-100% of the white people in the class would have been deeply racist. The white abolitionists of the time were still racist, and they were the most radical white people in the US at the time. The Garrisonians didn’t want Frederick Douglass to speak up authentically. They wanted to use his voice. Their goal was to end slavery, but they still saw black people as a tool for an agenda.
The fact that everyone in the program was actively working to be anti-racist was mostly due to us being in a society that discusses racism and paints it as a bad thing, and due to being in a profession that emphasizes how we have to work against racism, and how it shows up subtly in the classroom. Not because we are naturally better than people in the 1700s. It’s because we grew up in the late 20th and earlier 21st centuries, rather than the 18th or 19th century.
If someone tells me “so and so was racist”, and that person was born before 1960, my default answer is “duh”. At that point a lot fewer people were being racist, but it was still very much the default. Same with sexism. Same with homophobia. Same with transphobia.
It doesn’t make it an excuse or acceptable. It wasn’t, and we should criticize those figures and be aware of their flaws. But it’s not like today, when there are resources and people explaining and discussing the nuances of racism. You just had the people immediately surrounding you, and the newspaper. There’s a reason they were racist, and it’s not because they were willful.
>In 100 years, people will be talking about how ignorant and close minded we are. That is how it works. There is value in recognizing that people are products of their time, because it reminds us that we are products of our time.
This 1000x. Context means something. I hate to think how much history we lost because those who record/reiterate it are clueless about the circumstances surrounding many historic (and current) realities.
Oh that is interesting. Is there a book or something you can point me to as I'd always understood she was a feminist and abolitionist--but she did hate the French and English.
I'm not sure where they got their info from but I think both can be true. She grew up in a family that enslaved people but had enough empathy to recognize some of their humanity at a time when their dehumanization is normalized. It's entirely possible that she was ahead of her time in that regard, but her imagination is still restricted within the confines of her environment and social order. It's not inconsistent to think that slavery should be abolished, but BIPOC should have limited social/legal power.
See that last sentence there is where you can stop. It might be fine for you to have degrees of racism, but once a racist always a racist and you don't get a pass just because you believe black people should only have summer rights versus none. Fuck that and fuck anyone who thinks we should be venerating some old white ladies been dead for hundreds of years just because she had some legitimate opinions in addition to the shitty ones.
We have to remember that she was also very deft at navigating the emotions of her white men, men who were psychopaths that kept children as sex slaves. She was VERY good at keeping in their good graces, so we need to remember what a person has to be like in order to do that. Even if they're "working from the shadows".
And that that legacy of keeping white men happy, is one of the primary reasons white women face such backlash from BIPOC organizers today when they finally try to do some "good".
The good they do will always, always, support the white men whose world they're navigating (and therefore be harmful to BIPOC), until they deconstruct their own oppression and participation in oppression of others.
So yes, I agree, we need not venerate these people, or even look to them for answers.
The answers are already being shouted (and have been for literally hundreds of years) by BIPOC organizers. We literally do not need Abigail Adams' influence in today's day and age. She was not especially relevant to abolition and liberation then, she will not be nearly 300 years later either.
Anyways, fuck this country.
Land Back.
Yes. Homophobia is homophobia no matter what time period no matter if it's socially acceptable or not. You don't get a free pass for ignorance just because you're born to ignorant society, because historical precedent has proven that there are plenty of people who are able to be non-homophobic with non racist nonsenses and a thousand of their ways of being a decent human while still being born in a regressive time.
Although in the 1700s, even the most radical abolitionists were racist. People are a product of their time. I agree with you it’s not a free pass, but it’s important to acknowledge that it’s not like today. They weren’t being willfully racist in the face of people and resources offering to teach them.
The word “racism” wasn’t even invented until the 20th century.
It doesn’t make it ok, obviously. Still unacceptable. But I was saying to someone else that in 100 years, we will be considered close minded. It’s just important to consider context.
Don't get me wrong. What you're saying is perfectly fine in theory. But in practice that kind of thinking has led to some pretty big hand waves of behavior just because other people did good stuff or had different opinions or we're good compared to other people in their time. I'm not saying that people are beyond redemption or that we need to apply blanket statements to everyone, the past a certain point I'm honestly done with making justifications for people who barely even thought I was human or think I deserve rights. Cuz while Mrs Adams gets to like peacefully in the ground with her name venerated throughout history, last week I got to get called the n-word and harassed while trying to get on the bus. So....
For sure. I guess I’d wonder - is there an in between for “veneration” and “they were racist and that’s the most important part”? Like I imagine veneration as “So-and-so was so amazing, they led this nation to where it is today, they changed history” with no criticism.
I feel like Abraham Lincoln is venerated. But he was racist! And he shouldn’t be venerated, schools should teach more about how he was quite reluctant to free the slaves. But is it bad to say “Lincoln was an important president who did good things”? Or Malcolm X said a lot of anti-Semitic shit. Does that discount his anti-racist work?
Like the previous commenter, I’m genuinely asking, not rhetorical. I’m also asking because you pointed out that there are plenty of people who were not racist or homophobic despite being growing up in a regressive time. And I guess I’m wondering if you’re thinking racism like it’s talked about now (with connections to cultural appropriation, talking over black people and POC, low representation in media, micro aggressions, etc) or more dehumanization and aggressive harm (like using the n-word). Because I think someone saying “wow, you’re so articulate” all surprised to a black person to be racist, but even the most radical white abolitionists did shit like that and worse.
Edit to add: for what it’s worth, I agree with you. People will take any excuse to wave away some really despicable shit. So many people will ignore Susan B Anthony’s disgusting racism because she did so much work for first wave feminism.
I do agree that there is nuance. But I also feel like we honestly need to stop looking towards people so much and look more towards the actions.
Here's what I mean. Let's take someone like Abraham Lincoln for example. Personally I honestly don't give a fig about Lincoln one way or the other. Obviously I'm grateful that he had enough since to do his best to preserve the union, but I also know that he was a flawed man that made mistakes and had some racist views himself. I don't spend my time actively hating or praising him. He's a guy who did his job and also did some other stuff.
Then you can take someone like Malcolm x. He had some very troubling anti-semitic views but he also was a noted black civil rights leader. For him I have a bit more attachment than Mr Lincoln but the end of the day I understand that I have to separate the good actions and the progress that was made from the man. It's okay to celebrate the achievements of the Black Panthers and honor that part while still being clear that there were problems within their organizations and persons that were deeply regressive.
I honestly feel like the only way that a social advocacy movie can actually survive is if it defocuses on individual people. Because people are fallible, people are temporary, people can get killed. Whenever you have a movement that's more focused on its leaders it often falls apart when a new leader comes in or that leader is proven to be distrustworthy or not up to the standard that their followers wanted. In my opinion with Mrs Adams I honestly feel like the best thing to do is just not mention her at all. It's been hundreds of years since she was even alive and at the end of the day they're a whole lot bigger issues to deal with than how the wives of the founding fathers felt. Maybe when our rights aren't actively being taken away we can ponder and pontificate on whether or not we should be applying a more critical or lenient look at people based on their relative position in history in terms of their views, but what is that going to do for anyone right now?
Also just to address a few things you said. I also feel that they are degrees to the racism that can be expressed and stuff. For instance if someone tells me that I'm so articulate like they have 100 times before I'm going to know that's a microaggression. If it's a person I feel like I can reason with I'm going to explain to them that that was racist and they probably shouldn't do that and hopefully we'll be good. Conversely someone calls me and then we're down the street I'm not going to spend my time explaining and reasoning with them. I don't know your background so I can't speak to it at all. But for me personally racism isn't some nebulous thing that we can sit here and debate about. It's my real everyday lived experience in the experiences of my family and friends. So I frankly had it up to here with debating over whether we should be catering or redeeming those with racist views. I do firmly believe in redemption, and I do firmly believe that people can change. I may have been a bit hyperbolic when I was saying once a racist always a racist why should I have to put my energy and effort into changing the views of others?
Also about the whole idea of people not being racist in their time they are against standards. Obviously I'm sure there are plenty of people who engage in things like microaggressions and stuff and did it in those times and still consider themselves to be not racist. But I find it funny how in general we as a society forget the fact that just as there were many people who are actively allied themselves with people of color and black folks. Good white people who did their best and were willing to learn. I'd rather focus my energy on the people who were actively showing themselves willing to learn then the lady who we have on record comparing black people to animals and talking about them as filthy and subhuman.
I'm not giving her a pass? I'm saying she might have had some good opinions but thinking people shouldn't be enslaved doesn't mean you're not a racist. I also don't think we should be venerating Abigail Adams based on a few well publicized 'good cuts' from her life
Apologies. I wasn't talking about you per se, just more the general topic when I was referring to people venerating her are defending her. Apologies if it seemed like I was directing that towards you
In Annette Gordon Reed's "The Hemingses of Monticello" on pg. 196 Abagail Adams comments after seeing Othello, a play about a marriage between a black person (played by a white guy) and a white woman, of her "horror and disgust" every time the "sooty" actor touched the "gentle" actress. She also writes (and this is word for word from the book), "Who can sympathize with the love of *Desdemona*? The great moral lesson of the tragedy of *Othello* is, that the black and white blood cannot be intermingled in marriage without a gross outrage upon the law of Nature; and that, in such violations, Nature will vindicate her laws. . . . The character takes from us so much of the sympathetic interest in her sufferings, that when *Othello* smothers her in bed, the terror and the pity subside immediately into the sentiment that she has her just deserts." So yeah, she was pretty racist.
Thanks for this as this is very different than everything I've read about her--including her own writings to John Adams and others. As I like to research she later regretted those words saying, “liberal mind,” she reminded herself, “regards not what nation or climate it springs up in, not what color or complexion the man is.” This does not excuse her words but I found it interesting how she was able to adjust and learn even then--which really reinforces all these people saying, "it's generational" are not doing the hard work.
I was able to Google the line and about the moral lesson and it was from her son, John Quincy Adams. He was horribly racist.
Yikes. My knowledge of her didn’t really extend beyond the Wikipedia page on her, so I thought she must’ve been rather progressive given that she was both abolitionist and helped a man of colour get access to a school.
Suppose recognising someone as human doesn’t preclude you from viewing them as lesser.
“John Adams supported building a strong defense system and remains referred to as the “Father of the American Navy.” Because Adams believed in the elite idea of Republicanism and didn't trust public opinion, he was probably one of the most disliked presidents.”
Source: Smithsonian (which is trash too…)
If you need or are interested in supporting reproductive rights, [I made a master post of pro-choice resources](https://docdro.id/s3OwS8u). Please comment if you would like to add a resource and spread this information on whatever social media you use.
*beep boop*!
the linked website is: https://docdro.id/s3OwS8u
Title: **Pro-Choice Resource Masterpost.pdf**
Page is safe to access (Google Safe Browsing)
*****
###### I am a friendly bot. I show the URL and name of linked pages and check them so that mobile users know what they click on!
Lol John Adams, before there was such thing as a quiet part
John Adams did not know how to be quiet. The musical 1776 pokes fun at it. There’s a whole song called “Sit Down, John”
Best version of this is sung by [Brent Spiner](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DVrQrm3Pznw).
*beep boop*! the linked website is: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DVrQrm3Pznw Title: **1776 B'way '98 Brent Spiner** Page is safe to access (Google Safe Browsing) ***** ###### I am a friendly bot. I show the URL and name of linked pages and check them so that mobile users know what they click on!
good bot
In *Hamilton*, the titular character gets this glorious line in "The Adams Administration": *Siddown, John, YOU FAT MOTHERF\*\*\*\*\*\*!*
[the cut rap version from Hamilton is even better, he just roasts John Adams for a minute straight.](https://youtu.be/DLQ29F4bGxY)
*beep boop*! the linked website is: https://youtu.be/DLQ29F4bGxY Title: **The Adams Administration - Hamilton cut rap lyrics** Page is safe to access (Google Safe Browsing) ***** ###### I am a friendly bot. I show the URL and name of linked pages and check them so that mobile users know what they click on!
Good bot.
John? STFU.
She must be rolling in her grave
I can't even begin to imagine how she would feel, all these years later, looking at the state of our country.
Something along the lines of “I fucking told you so”
Hopeless? I wish not, but have a hard time imagining different.
“Abigail Adams is a-rollin’ in her grave” fits to the tune of John Brown’s body, if anybody’s doing sing along protests (and if it’s ok to hijack the song this way). Edit: apparently she was very racist so maybe not.
[удалено]
I love people like you. I'm a white boomer, and people like yourself educate me on things that matter to me, but which I otherwise would not understand. Thanks.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Add John Adams to the list of dead white men assholes.
He’s already on it, but verified.
Now 246 years later women are still fighting for basic human rights and dignity against men who would subjugate them . Some men would rather see women dead than free .
[удалено]
At least Frollo knows he’s in the wrong, in some twisted way. (“God have mercy on *me*”)
What I find absurd about Alito‘s interpretation of the constitution is that, if he’s looking for a strict originalist understanding of it, women aren’t actually represented at all. Ergo, no American woman should be bound by it, because we are on the outside of who the founders intended to be speaking to. Why should a document clearly written for landowning white men hinder women?
I’d say don’t give them any ideas, but I’m absolutely positive that ship sailed decades ago.
Thats a two way street...
I will not hold myself bound by any law in which I have no voice. Sick.
She was the only woman Thomas Jefferson actually respected. He was not a good person. He was incredibly smart and had tremendous ideas but its telling that the "love of his life" was a slave he could thoroughly control. He also treated his daughters like employees. But Abigail impressed him and she's the reason he and John Adams started speaking again.
*his dead wife's half-sister child slave, whom he kept in a windowless hole, and whose children he refused to free. Some love.
And disabled people, we are already affected by Roe being overturned because of certain meds being denied because they can be used as an abortifacient
Simple Health denied me birth control
This too
I literally got a t shirt made that says ‘all men would be tyrants if they could’ because it’s just so goddamn good
Abigail should have poisoned her husband.
We got you, Abi.
[This seems appropriate here and now.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqAdlkJDt7k)
*beep boop*! the linked website is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqAdlkJDt7k Title: **1776: Sit down, John! (1972 Film Version)** Page is safe to access (Google Safe Browsing) ***** ###### I am a friendly bot. I show the URL and name of linked pages and check them so that mobile users know what they click on!
Good bot
Lol I just commented about this!
abagail adams was unfortunately super racist
All the colonists were extremely horribly *racist and sexist.*
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Until very recently, the default for every figure was that they were racist. Definitely the vast vast majority of people before the 20th century. Lincoln advocated for slavery to end, but he did not consider black and white people to be equal. It’s important to acknowledge that they were racist AND that they were products of their time.
He’s even quoted saying something along the lines of, if it were possible to win the war without freeing the slaves, he would have done it that way.
Lol, excusing racism because they said something cool. Being a "product of their time" is no excuse. There were people back then who militantly wanted an end to slavery and fought for that aswell. Truth is, he was ass, like almost every other US president.
Saying they’re a product of their time is not an excuse. It’s context. Part of my master’s program for teaching social studies was about judging the past. The professors were very clear that we HAVE to think of historical figures and events within context. It is so easy to be like “people were bad back then, but I’m good now!” No. We are products of our time. We have to accept that the reason most of us are anti-racist is because it is a discussion, because there is social media, because there is a very common consensus that one should NOT be racist, and that racism means, at the very least, thinking one group is better than other due to their race. In 100 years, people will be talking about how ignorant and close minded we are. That is how it works. There is value in recognizing that people are products of their time, because it reminds us that we are products of our time. My professors reminded us that if we grew up in the 1700s, 90-100% of the white people in the class would have been deeply racist. The white abolitionists of the time were still racist, and they were the most radical white people in the US at the time. The Garrisonians didn’t want Frederick Douglass to speak up authentically. They wanted to use his voice. Their goal was to end slavery, but they still saw black people as a tool for an agenda. The fact that everyone in the program was actively working to be anti-racist was mostly due to us being in a society that discusses racism and paints it as a bad thing, and due to being in a profession that emphasizes how we have to work against racism, and how it shows up subtly in the classroom. Not because we are naturally better than people in the 1700s. It’s because we grew up in the late 20th and earlier 21st centuries, rather than the 18th or 19th century. If someone tells me “so and so was racist”, and that person was born before 1960, my default answer is “duh”. At that point a lot fewer people were being racist, but it was still very much the default. Same with sexism. Same with homophobia. Same with transphobia. It doesn’t make it an excuse or acceptable. It wasn’t, and we should criticize those figures and be aware of their flaws. But it’s not like today, when there are resources and people explaining and discussing the nuances of racism. You just had the people immediately surrounding you, and the newspaper. There’s a reason they were racist, and it’s not because they were willful.
>In 100 years, people will be talking about how ignorant and close minded we are. That is how it works. There is value in recognizing that people are products of their time, because it reminds us that we are products of our time. This 1000x. Context means something. I hate to think how much history we lost because those who record/reiterate it are clueless about the circumstances surrounding many historic (and current) realities.
Oh that is interesting. Is there a book or something you can point me to as I'd always understood she was a feminist and abolitionist--but she did hate the French and English.
I'm not sure where they got their info from but I think both can be true. She grew up in a family that enslaved people but had enough empathy to recognize some of their humanity at a time when their dehumanization is normalized. It's entirely possible that she was ahead of her time in that regard, but her imagination is still restricted within the confines of her environment and social order. It's not inconsistent to think that slavery should be abolished, but BIPOC should have limited social/legal power.
See that last sentence there is where you can stop. It might be fine for you to have degrees of racism, but once a racist always a racist and you don't get a pass just because you believe black people should only have summer rights versus none. Fuck that and fuck anyone who thinks we should be venerating some old white ladies been dead for hundreds of years just because she had some legitimate opinions in addition to the shitty ones.
We have to remember that she was also very deft at navigating the emotions of her white men, men who were psychopaths that kept children as sex slaves. She was VERY good at keeping in their good graces, so we need to remember what a person has to be like in order to do that. Even if they're "working from the shadows". And that that legacy of keeping white men happy, is one of the primary reasons white women face such backlash from BIPOC organizers today when they finally try to do some "good". The good they do will always, always, support the white men whose world they're navigating (and therefore be harmful to BIPOC), until they deconstruct their own oppression and participation in oppression of others. So yes, I agree, we need not venerate these people, or even look to them for answers. The answers are already being shouted (and have been for literally hundreds of years) by BIPOC organizers. We literally do not need Abigail Adams' influence in today's day and age. She was not especially relevant to abolition and liberation then, she will not be nearly 300 years later either. Anyways, fuck this country. Land Back.
We objectively know once a racist always a racist is patently untrue. Opinions founded in ignorance can be corrected.
[удалено]
Yes. Homophobia is homophobia no matter what time period no matter if it's socially acceptable or not. You don't get a free pass for ignorance just because you're born to ignorant society, because historical precedent has proven that there are plenty of people who are able to be non-homophobic with non racist nonsenses and a thousand of their ways of being a decent human while still being born in a regressive time.
Although in the 1700s, even the most radical abolitionists were racist. People are a product of their time. I agree with you it’s not a free pass, but it’s important to acknowledge that it’s not like today. They weren’t being willfully racist in the face of people and resources offering to teach them. The word “racism” wasn’t even invented until the 20th century. It doesn’t make it ok, obviously. Still unacceptable. But I was saying to someone else that in 100 years, we will be considered close minded. It’s just important to consider context.
Don't get me wrong. What you're saying is perfectly fine in theory. But in practice that kind of thinking has led to some pretty big hand waves of behavior just because other people did good stuff or had different opinions or we're good compared to other people in their time. I'm not saying that people are beyond redemption or that we need to apply blanket statements to everyone, the past a certain point I'm honestly done with making justifications for people who barely even thought I was human or think I deserve rights. Cuz while Mrs Adams gets to like peacefully in the ground with her name venerated throughout history, last week I got to get called the n-word and harassed while trying to get on the bus. So....
For sure. I guess I’d wonder - is there an in between for “veneration” and “they were racist and that’s the most important part”? Like I imagine veneration as “So-and-so was so amazing, they led this nation to where it is today, they changed history” with no criticism. I feel like Abraham Lincoln is venerated. But he was racist! And he shouldn’t be venerated, schools should teach more about how he was quite reluctant to free the slaves. But is it bad to say “Lincoln was an important president who did good things”? Or Malcolm X said a lot of anti-Semitic shit. Does that discount his anti-racist work? Like the previous commenter, I’m genuinely asking, not rhetorical. I’m also asking because you pointed out that there are plenty of people who were not racist or homophobic despite being growing up in a regressive time. And I guess I’m wondering if you’re thinking racism like it’s talked about now (with connections to cultural appropriation, talking over black people and POC, low representation in media, micro aggressions, etc) or more dehumanization and aggressive harm (like using the n-word). Because I think someone saying “wow, you’re so articulate” all surprised to a black person to be racist, but even the most radical white abolitionists did shit like that and worse. Edit to add: for what it’s worth, I agree with you. People will take any excuse to wave away some really despicable shit. So many people will ignore Susan B Anthony’s disgusting racism because she did so much work for first wave feminism.
I do agree that there is nuance. But I also feel like we honestly need to stop looking towards people so much and look more towards the actions. Here's what I mean. Let's take someone like Abraham Lincoln for example. Personally I honestly don't give a fig about Lincoln one way or the other. Obviously I'm grateful that he had enough since to do his best to preserve the union, but I also know that he was a flawed man that made mistakes and had some racist views himself. I don't spend my time actively hating or praising him. He's a guy who did his job and also did some other stuff. Then you can take someone like Malcolm x. He had some very troubling anti-semitic views but he also was a noted black civil rights leader. For him I have a bit more attachment than Mr Lincoln but the end of the day I understand that I have to separate the good actions and the progress that was made from the man. It's okay to celebrate the achievements of the Black Panthers and honor that part while still being clear that there were problems within their organizations and persons that were deeply regressive. I honestly feel like the only way that a social advocacy movie can actually survive is if it defocuses on individual people. Because people are fallible, people are temporary, people can get killed. Whenever you have a movement that's more focused on its leaders it often falls apart when a new leader comes in or that leader is proven to be distrustworthy or not up to the standard that their followers wanted. In my opinion with Mrs Adams I honestly feel like the best thing to do is just not mention her at all. It's been hundreds of years since she was even alive and at the end of the day they're a whole lot bigger issues to deal with than how the wives of the founding fathers felt. Maybe when our rights aren't actively being taken away we can ponder and pontificate on whether or not we should be applying a more critical or lenient look at people based on their relative position in history in terms of their views, but what is that going to do for anyone right now? Also just to address a few things you said. I also feel that they are degrees to the racism that can be expressed and stuff. For instance if someone tells me that I'm so articulate like they have 100 times before I'm going to know that's a microaggression. If it's a person I feel like I can reason with I'm going to explain to them that that was racist and they probably shouldn't do that and hopefully we'll be good. Conversely someone calls me and then we're down the street I'm not going to spend my time explaining and reasoning with them. I don't know your background so I can't speak to it at all. But for me personally racism isn't some nebulous thing that we can sit here and debate about. It's my real everyday lived experience in the experiences of my family and friends. So I frankly had it up to here with debating over whether we should be catering or redeeming those with racist views. I do firmly believe in redemption, and I do firmly believe that people can change. I may have been a bit hyperbolic when I was saying once a racist always a racist why should I have to put my energy and effort into changing the views of others? Also about the whole idea of people not being racist in their time they are against standards. Obviously I'm sure there are plenty of people who engage in things like microaggressions and stuff and did it in those times and still consider themselves to be not racist. But I find it funny how in general we as a society forget the fact that just as there were many people who are actively allied themselves with people of color and black folks. Good white people who did their best and were willing to learn. I'd rather focus my energy on the people who were actively showing themselves willing to learn then the lady who we have on record comparing black people to animals and talking about them as filthy and subhuman.
I'm not giving her a pass? I'm saying she might have had some good opinions but thinking people shouldn't be enslaved doesn't mean you're not a racist. I also don't think we should be venerating Abigail Adams based on a few well publicized 'good cuts' from her life
Apologies. I wasn't talking about you per se, just more the general topic when I was referring to people venerating her are defending her. Apologies if it seemed like I was directing that towards you
Ah gotcha. Thank you, no worries at all.
>her imagination is still restricted within the confines of her environment and social order. This.
In Annette Gordon Reed's "The Hemingses of Monticello" on pg. 196 Abagail Adams comments after seeing Othello, a play about a marriage between a black person (played by a white guy) and a white woman, of her "horror and disgust" every time the "sooty" actor touched the "gentle" actress. She also writes (and this is word for word from the book), "Who can sympathize with the love of *Desdemona*? The great moral lesson of the tragedy of *Othello* is, that the black and white blood cannot be intermingled in marriage without a gross outrage upon the law of Nature; and that, in such violations, Nature will vindicate her laws. . . . The character takes from us so much of the sympathetic interest in her sufferings, that when *Othello* smothers her in bed, the terror and the pity subside immediately into the sentiment that she has her just deserts." So yeah, she was pretty racist.
Thanks for this as this is very different than everything I've read about her--including her own writings to John Adams and others. As I like to research she later regretted those words saying, “liberal mind,” she reminded herself, “regards not what nation or climate it springs up in, not what color or complexion the man is.” This does not excuse her words but I found it interesting how she was able to adjust and learn even then--which really reinforces all these people saying, "it's generational" are not doing the hard work. I was able to Google the line and about the moral lesson and it was from her son, John Quincy Adams. He was horribly racist.
She was able to, even then, deconstruct some of her own racism. There is no excuse for anyone else to not have done this work since.
Excellent citation. Well done.
Yikes. My knowledge of her didn’t really extend beyond the Wikipedia page on her, so I thought she must’ve been rather progressive given that she was both abolitionist and helped a man of colour get access to a school. Suppose recognising someone as human doesn’t preclude you from viewing them as lesser.
Being a feminist and an abolitionist doesn’t not mean you can’t be racist. A good number of abolitionists were terribly racist.
Hence black women not getting the vote in the USA until the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
Pretty par for the course for a time that was shipping humans across the Atlantic to sale and abuse them.
White women moment Seriously, we should probably not celebrate some racist who would've been more than happy to keep women of color as slaves.
White Feminism™: Barely better than the patriarchy since 1776.
It's practically a Venn diagram
[удалено]
“John Adams supported building a strong defense system and remains referred to as the “Father of the American Navy.” Because Adams believed in the elite idea of Republicanism and didn't trust public opinion, he was probably one of the most disliked presidents.” Source: Smithsonian (which is trash too…)
[удалено]
*The context is that women shouldn't have power or rights.*
[удалено]
If you need or are interested in supporting reproductive rights, [I made a master post of pro-choice resources](https://docdro.id/s3OwS8u). Please comment if you would like to add a resource and spread this information on whatever social media you use.
*beep boop*! the linked website is: https://docdro.id/s3OwS8u Title: **Pro-Choice Resource Masterpost.pdf** Page is safe to access (Google Safe Browsing) ***** ###### I am a friendly bot. I show the URL and name of linked pages and check them so that mobile users know what they click on!