QOTD: Ronald Reagan, on Roots, 1977

[phantom power]

You know, I've been watching Vikings, and mysteriously I'm not viscerally upset or otherwise butthurt about my ancestors being portrayed as sometimes-violent raiders who killed unarmed men and stole their stuff. Why? Because (1) it's the truth, and more importantly (2) it's in the fucking past -- It's not a personal accusation.

So, when all these contemporary conservatives get wound up about white slavers being portayed as "villains", it makes you wonder why they take it all so personally -- why, it's almost as if they're all fucking racists themselves and so they can't help taking it all personally even though it's 19th century history.

On "Roots" back in 1977:

"Very frankly, I thought the bias of all the good people being one color and all the bad people being another was rather destructive."

Right. In fact, it's racist to suggest that American slavery was a racial issue.

Via Perlstein on Facebook who pointed this out in response to the brouhaha over this.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2014/09/qotd-ronald-reagan.html

[AuntPatsy]

1. Telling.

[yeoman6987]

7. Wow....today that would have exempted him from President

Shame it didn't in 1980.

[AuntPatsy]

13. Perhaps not president but a few areas still allow such inane and hate filled rhetoric ...

I'm afraid we have a long way to go....

[unblock]

2. notice that he didn't want to commit as to which color is which.

[phantom power]

3. A nod's as good as a wink to a blind bat, eh?

[DavidDvorkin]

4. That's not even accurate

It was a long time ago, and my memory of the miniseries is fuzzy, but wasn't there at least one sympathetic white character? A young man who helped a slave family escape and went West with them?

[alterfurz]

5. I'll take U.S. History for $400, Alex...

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

6. Huh?

Race was how the U.S. justified slavery. Blacks were an inferior race so it was okay to enslave them.

Still the slave holding states wanted them counted for Congressional and Electoral representation. Hence the 3/5 human compromise.

[NealK]

8. K&R

[AverageJoe90]

9. Reagan was a crass opprotunist of the highest order. And a moron.

I mean, let's face it: yes, the situation was sometimes more complex than can be boiled down in a simple lesson or soundbyte. But this quote honestly sounds like Reagan may have been implying that the blacks were just as bad, or almost so.....which, if so, just isn't based in any sort of truth. Never was.

And, to be honest, I think it can be said that pretty much anyone who actually defends slavery is a racist, and likely a hardcore one at that.

[bhikkhu]

10. That's like insisting, during the Holocaust, there had to be good and bad people on both sides

Something about a people being rounded up, robbed, imprisoned and starved, and eventually executed makes the bad qualities any of those people might have had seem insignificant.

And something about the people doing all the rounding up, starving, imprisoning and killing of others...I'm sure many of them had some good qualities, but they seem insignificant as well.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

11. ANY discussion of slavery ALWAYS starts up the "not all whites" glee club.

[Diclotican]

12. phantom power

phantom power

The Vikings - that be in the movie/series Vikings or in the living was a rather violent gang who did some horrible things at a time when most european states was weak - and could not defend them selfs against the viking attacks who started in 790 - and ended around 1000 AD.... From our point of view the vikings was horrible angry raiders who did horrible things - but back then - the vikings was not to violent at all - back then - it was much how raiders was acting - all over the continent - plundering the ones who was seen as weaker - and it was a rather natural things of order - to plunder the surplus - and them some for the ones who was able to do so... Most of the noble houses of ancient England, France and so one - was using the same tactic when it come to fight between them as the vikings did - but the vikings had a technical advance in its shipbuilding - who surpassed everything the rest of europe had at the same time - and also was a society who was prepared for raid - that be others who was not of your own clan - or on a larger scale in the rest of the world - but vikings was not just plunderers and raiders - it was also traders - who have been trading goods over long distances all the back to 400-500 AD as some of the oldest artifact found on scandinavian soil is from this period - it seen also like from some archaeological digs in Denmark - that even at the time of Rome - around Emperor Augustus it was rather well known trade routs going all the way up to Denmark from Rome..... And even the wars between Rome and the germanic tribes was not able to cut off this trade routs for long time - and it is known - from burial traditions - that the influence from Rome strike a long way - specially in the form some was buried - with weapons - and other artifacts who surly is influenced or was from Rome itself.... And they was also trade blazers all over the then known world - some of the trade routs going from the Baltic Sea - to the black sea was trade blazed by vikings - who often could Master both the trade of a trade man - and a marauder who if they are not getting what they want - could "advice" them to do it - or else risk everything - including their life.... Some viking also was founding new settlements - and one ended up starting a new country - or at least a first dom of sorts - who by the natives wa called Rus - the modern name Russia comes from that name (they are often told to be of swedish origin - as sweden had long direct contact with the empires of east - what become Rus was many smaller first dom - who ruled over small areas or bigger areas - the empire of Kiev was one of the larger one - and was an important trade link between the rest of that large area who is known as Russia - and the baltic sea - and to the rest of scandinavia - and south and east to the important city's at the Black Sea - like the byzantine capital Constantinople - who was also one of the largest Christan city's in the world... Surpassing even London or Paris - or Rome itself by half a million to a million people..
And the vikings also kept slaves - Treller as they was known as - people who was captured from abroad - and used as manual workers - and was not seen as more than cattle - talking cattle but still.... And could be deposed of as such if they was going sick - or was rebellious or other vice annoyed its owners.... It is strikingly similar to how the romans treated their slaves - just centuries appart... In the end even the violent vikings mellowed somehow - in Normandie they was able to grab a whole part of France - and was given the tittle of Duke by the French King who believed it to be a smart move to let the Norsemen to be on his side rather than the other side - and the dukes of Normandie was rather scrude people who was power players in most of Europe way into the middle ages... Even had a few kingdoms here and there like in the south of Italy and Siclily - who was conquered back from the arabs, at the formality of the Pope - but no pope was able to hold the territory - because the kingdom kind of deiced they wanted it for them self - that annoyed the pope a lot - but at the time the whole Catholic Church was busy fighting against the Holy Roman Empire - and was not able, to spend the reassures blindly as they wanted....

Today - the descendants of the wild, violent vikings is rather peacefully of them - scandinavia is one of the most stable and peacefully areas of the world - with an content population who is well integrated into world affairs - and who for the most part is not known as violent at all... I suspect the vikings of old would have been disappointed about how peacefully their descents is today - on other ways they might be proud as Scandinavia is known as a rather peacefully part of the world - with all the benefits it become (Norway and Sweden have been at peace for more than 200 year now )

Slavery is wrong - period - to degenerate other humans to the level of treating them as property - not humans is repulsive I would say

Diclotican

[phantom power]

14. Good point, they also engaged in trade and slavery

I wish the History channel's show Vikings spent some more time on the trading aspect, that would be interesting.

[Diclotican]

15. phantom power

phantom power

The Vikings was as good traders as they was warriors - and if it suits them - they could plunder at one place - and then sell the proceeds at another place - to earn some extra money - who gave them power back home.... Who in time also was given them more people who wanted to be on the "winning team" and therefore gave them more ability to go plunder and pillage the rest of europe And for a few centuries it was enough to make people scared about the vikings.. For the most part - the vikings even if its trading role was able to fetch some decent deals - the other side seldom was willing to risk getting hurt because they tried to bust a deal on wrong premisses.... Not when the other side had enough weapons for a small army

I'm not sure if History channel is the best channel (so to speak) about vikings - they often enlarge the warrior part - to the extreme sometimes - and cut out the part where the vikings was rather peacefully and was doing what people have doing in scandinavia for eons - living their life as best they was able to do... But you tube have tones of information about vikings - even from the point of trading over large distances. Specially BBC have some of the best out there... And of course you could allways try to pick up a book about the vikings - it is not excactly few books out there who is written about the vikings

Diclotican