File spoon-archives/anarchy-list.archive/anarchy-list_2000/anarchy-list.0004, message 139


Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 11:59:01 -0500 (EST)
From: danceswithcarp <dcombs-AT-bloomington.in.us>
Subject: Re: Punk Ass



 Thu, 6 Apr 2000, Dave Coull wrote:

> Carpo wrote
> 
> >Thomas Jefferson was a "radical" 
> 
> Yet another slave-owner.
> 
> While recognising that we cannot always apply
> the standards of 2000 to the 18th Century,
> I would nevertheless say that some things just
> have to be true in  _any_  age. One of the things
> which has to be true is that you cannot be a radical
> and somebody who  _continues_  to own slaves.
> There  _were_  people who opposed slavery 
> in the 18th Century. Even the British government
> offered freedom to any black American slave 
> who would run away to join their forces. Of course
> they did this for cynical reasons, but, nevertheless,
> they were aware that offering freedom to slaves 
> was good propoganda as well as good tactics.
> If some people could oppose slavery, then 
> it was possible for other people to do so. 

The "cynical" reasons had nothing to do with an opposition to slavery in
principle, but was rather an attempt to remove "property" from the
rebellious colonials.  Slavery was completely accptable to a great many
monarchists but repulican democracy was a complete anathema to them.  So
to hold the concept of republican-democrat was a "radical" position, much
the same as being anti-slavery was "radical" at the time.   But you didn't
have to hold both opines to be considered 'radical."  One would do.

You seem to confuse the wird "radical" with the concept of "being right."
It is entirely possible to have one or two "radical ideas" even now and be
a "radical" without assuming the entire mantle.  Consider the "radical
right" element.  They are certainly "radical," but few hold them to be
right.  

> >as was Madison and most certainly Thomas
> >Paine.  
>  
> I wouldn't call Madison a radical, but I agree that
> Paine was the nearest thing to a radical involved
> in American independence.But of course, he wasn't
> an American. 

Aha!  Here you have the nut; "Independence" was the identifying "radical"
issue. To favor it was an extreme from the status quo.  That's why it was
treason. Are you saying that people who advcate treasonous activities
aren't radical?

I scoff at that notion.




carp



   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005