< 1 2 3
 
   
 

Who are the ‘good people’ who march with the neo-Nazis and KKK?

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  5693
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
08 September 2017 19:25
 
GAD - 08 September 2017 07:05 PM
icehorse - 08 September 2017 05:29 PM
GAD - 08 September 2017 05:20 PM
icehorse - 08 September 2017 04:59 PM
GAD - 08 September 2017 04:51 PM
icehorse - 08 September 2017 04:44 PM
GAD - 08 September 2017 04:29 PM
icehorse - 08 September 2017 04:09 PM
GAD - 08 September 2017 03:56 PM
icehorse - 07 September 2017 05:08 PM
Brick Bungalow - 07 September 2017 05:05 PM

I don’t think moral progress is possible until we drop polarizing concepts like ‘good people’. There is no such thing outside of some tribal narrative of self congratulation.

Is this a return to moral relativism, I can’t tell what you’re saying here?

Just a reminder, moral relativism is all that there is, period.

Sure, but in our never ending quest to have more fun, we might agree on a few arbitrary axioms and construct a set of morality game rules to play by. And in fact, that’s what we mostly do. In fact, I’d say we do that so much that’s almost a default assumption, and that by convention we’re probably better off mentioning those few times when we’ve decided NOT to agree to any axioms.

Sure, like murder is wrong, except if it’s a homosexual.

Harkening back to older threads… Your example is indeed a commonly held one, sigh. But your example requires a very complex, non-parsimonious set of axioms. There are far simpler and parsimonious sets of axioms we could, and occasionally do live by, such as “well being of conscious creatures for as many generations as possible (WBMG).

But all equally made up and therefore all relative.

All made up, but I would disagree on the “equally” part. From a statistical perspective Mormonism is less statistically likely to be true than Christianity, although both are extremely unlikely.

The Butt Fairy loves it when people argue over which make-believe things are more real then the other.

likely != real

It is inferred in your context “statistically likely to be true” = likely real.

Among programmers, “!=” means “not equal”. given that, I’m not sure I agree with your inference. So, I’m not comfortable with the idea that “likely” can be used interchangeably with “real”. I’m not sure I understand all of the claims made concerning the butt fairy, but I’m comfortable saying that it’s highly unlikely that the Christian god exists and even more unlikely that the Mormon god exists. I don’t think “real” enters into the discussion.

 
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  15631
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
08 September 2017 19:41
 
icehorse - 08 September 2017 07:25 PM
GAD - 08 September 2017 07:05 PM

It is inferred in your context “statistically likely to be true” = likely real.

Among programmers, “!=” means “not equal”. given that, I’m not sure I agree with your inference. So, I’m not comfortable with the idea that “likely” can be used interchangeably with “real”. I’m not sure I understand all of the claims made concerning the butt fairy, but I’m comfortable saying that it’s highly unlikely that the Christian god exists and even more unlikely that the Mormon god exists. I don’t think “real” enters into the discussion.

LOL, OK, more “likely” then what? You used “exists”, are things that exist not real?

PS While I’m only a senior computer HW product engineer I do know what “!=” means

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  5693
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
08 September 2017 19:56
 
GAD - 08 September 2017 07:41 PM
icehorse - 08 September 2017 07:25 PM
GAD - 08 September 2017 07:05 PM

It is inferred in your context “statistically likely to be true” = likely real.

Among programmers, “!=” means “not equal”. given that, I’m not sure I agree with your inference. So, I’m not comfortable with the idea that “likely” can be used interchangeably with “real”. I’m not sure I understand all of the claims made concerning the butt fairy, but I’m comfortable saying that it’s highly unlikely that the Christian god exists and even more unlikely that the Mormon god exists. I don’t think “real” enters into the discussion.

LOL, OK, more “likely” then what? You used “exists”, are things that exist not real?

PS While I’m only a senior computer HW product engineer I do know what “!=” means

In this vein I *think* I’m okay saying “real” ~= “exists”. So I could say it’s highly unlikely that the christian god exists / is real but it’s even less likely that the Mormon god exists / is real.  (I’m not dividing exists by is real smile  )

I don’t know man, aren’t you HW types just interested in volts and milli-amps and stuff?

And I suspect I’ve left at least one question unanswered?

 
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  15631
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
08 September 2017 21:07
 
icehorse - 08 September 2017 07:56 PM
GAD - 08 September 2017 07:41 PM
icehorse - 08 September 2017 07:25 PM
GAD - 08 September 2017 07:05 PM

It is inferred in your context “statistically likely to be true” = likely real.

Among programmers, “!=” means “not equal”. given that, I’m not sure I agree with your inference. So, I’m not comfortable with the idea that “likely” can be used interchangeably with “real”. I’m not sure I understand all of the claims made concerning the butt fairy, but I’m comfortable saying that it’s highly unlikely that the Christian god exists and even more unlikely that the Mormon god exists. I don’t think “real” enters into the discussion.

LOL, OK, more “likely” then what? You used “exists”, are things that exist not real?

PS While I’m only a senior computer HW product engineer I do know what “!=” means

In this vein I *think* I’m okay saying “real” ~= “exists”. So I could say it’s highly unlikely that the christian god exists / is real but it’s even less likely that the Mormon god exists / is real.  (I’m not dividing exists by is real smile  )

I don’t know man, aren’t you HW types just interested in volts and milli-amps and stuff?

And I suspect I’ve left at least one question unanswered?

You know that the god of the Jews, Christians, Mormons and Muslims is the same god, right?

I define the test process for products and have to work with the test engineers who write the test code, so I have to know a little something about code even if I can’t code myself.

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  5693
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
08 September 2017 21:43
 
GAD - 08 September 2017 09:07 PM
icehorse - 08 September 2017 07:56 PM
GAD - 08 September 2017 07:41 PM
icehorse - 08 September 2017 07:25 PM
GAD - 08 September 2017 07:05 PM

It is inferred in your context “statistically likely to be true” = likely real.

Among programmers, “!=” means “not equal”. given that, I’m not sure I agree with your inference. So, I’m not comfortable with the idea that “likely” can be used interchangeably with “real”. I’m not sure I understand all of the claims made concerning the butt fairy, but I’m comfortable saying that it’s highly unlikely that the Christian god exists and even more unlikely that the Mormon god exists. I don’t think “real” enters into the discussion.

LOL, OK, more “likely” then what? You used “exists”, are things that exist not real?

PS While I’m only a senior computer HW product engineer I do know what “!=” means

In this vein I *think* I’m okay saying “real” ~= “exists”. So I could say it’s highly unlikely that the christian god exists / is real but it’s even less likely that the Mormon god exists / is real.  (I’m not dividing exists by is real smile  )

I don’t know man, aren’t you HW types just interested in volts and milli-amps and stuff?

And I suspect I’ve left at least one question unanswered?

You know that the god of the Jews, Christians, Mormons and Muslims is the same god, right?

I define the test process for products and have to work with the test engineers who write the test code, so I have to know a little something about code even if I can’t code myself.

Same god…. hmmm… sort of. Those groups certainly each make unique claims about god’s characteristics. so at a minimum they disagree on the details smile

 
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  15631
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
08 September 2017 23:07
 
icehorse - 08 September 2017 09:43 PM
GAD - 08 September 2017 09:07 PM
icehorse - 08 September 2017 07:56 PM
GAD - 08 September 2017 07:41 PM
icehorse - 08 September 2017 07:25 PM
GAD - 08 September 2017 07:05 PM

It is inferred in your context “statistically likely to be true” = likely real.

Among programmers, “!=” means “not equal”. given that, I’m not sure I agree with your inference. So, I’m not comfortable with the idea that “likely” can be used interchangeably with “real”. I’m not sure I understand all of the claims made concerning the butt fairy, but I’m comfortable saying that it’s highly unlikely that the Christian god exists and even more unlikely that the Mormon god exists. I don’t think “real” enters into the discussion.

LOL, OK, more “likely” then what? You used “exists”, are things that exist not real?

PS While I’m only a senior computer HW product engineer I do know what “!=” means

In this vein I *think* I’m okay saying “real” ~= “exists”. So I could say it’s highly unlikely that the christian god exists / is real but it’s even less likely that the Mormon god exists / is real.  (I’m not dividing exists by is real smile  )

I don’t know man, aren’t you HW types just interested in volts and milli-amps and stuff?

And I suspect I’ve left at least one question unanswered?

You know that the god of the Jews, Christians, Mormons and Muslims is the same god, right?

I define the test process for products and have to work with the test engineers who write the test code, so I have to know a little something about code even if I can’t code myself.

Same god…. hmmm… sort of. Those groups certainly each make unique claims about god’s characteristics. so at a minimum they disagree on the details smile

Not “sort of”, is. Each claims that said god told them something different.

 
 
unsmoked
 
Avatar
 
 
unsmoked
Total Posts:  7128
Joined  20-02-2006
 
 
 
09 September 2017 11:32
 
GAD - 08 September 2017 11:07 PM
icehorse - 08 September 2017 09:43 PM
GAD - 08 September 2017 09:07 PM
icehorse - 08 September 2017 07:56 PM
GAD - 08 September 2017 07:41 PM
icehorse - 08 September 2017 07:25 PM
GAD - 08 September 2017 07:05 PM

It is inferred in your context “statistically likely to be true” = likely real.

Among programmers, “!=” means “not equal”. given that, I’m not sure I agree with your inference. So, I’m not comfortable with the idea that “likely” can be used interchangeably with “real”. I’m not sure I understand all of the claims made concerning the butt fairy, but I’m comfortable saying that it’s highly unlikely that the Christian god exists and even more unlikely that the Mormon god exists. I don’t think “real” enters into the discussion.

LOL, OK, more “likely” then what? You used “exists”, are things that exist not real?

PS While I’m only a senior computer HW product engineer I do know what “!=” means

In this vein I *think* I’m okay saying “real” ~= “exists”. So I could say it’s highly unlikely that the christian god exists / is real but it’s even less likely that the Mormon god exists / is real.  (I’m not dividing exists by is real smile  )

I don’t know man, aren’t you HW types just interested in volts and milli-amps and stuff?

And I suspect I’ve left at least one question unanswered?

You know that the god of the Jews, Christians, Mormons and Muslims is the same god, right?

I define the test process for products and have to work with the test engineers who write the test code, so I have to know a little something about code even if I can’t code myself.

Same god…. hmmm… sort of. Those groups certainly each make unique claims about god’s characteristics. so at a minimum they disagree on the details smile

Not “sort of”, is. Each claims that said god told them something different.

Our brains didn’t evolve to apprehend quantum reality.  ‘Scientific’ reality is out there in schools, books, TV programs - but as Lao Tsu pointed out several thousand years ago, “Once the people are bewitched, their bewitchment lasts a long time.”  We’re living in that ‘long time’ of bewitchment.  If you interview the person on the street, it’s likely to be Noah’s Ark and Jesus, or Joseph Smith and the golden plates, not Nova and Carl Sagan. 

If ‘quantum reality’ punctures ‘scientific reality’ will most of us slip back into made-up stories, or make our peace with the Zen remark - “Reality basically has no explanation.” 

(By ‘scientific reality’ as different from ‘quantum reality’, I mean a reality that our brains evolved to apprehend).

 

 
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  15631
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
09 September 2017 11:45
 
unsmoked - 09 September 2017 11:32 AM
GAD - 08 September 2017 11:07 PM
icehorse - 08 September 2017 09:43 PM
GAD - 08 September 2017 09:07 PM
icehorse - 08 September 2017 07:56 PM
GAD - 08 September 2017 07:41 PM
icehorse - 08 September 2017 07:25 PM
GAD - 08 September 2017 07:05 PM

It is inferred in your context “statistically likely to be true” = likely real.

Among programmers, “!=” means “not equal”. given that, I’m not sure I agree with your inference. So, I’m not comfortable with the idea that “likely” can be used interchangeably with “real”. I’m not sure I understand all of the claims made concerning the butt fairy, but I’m comfortable saying that it’s highly unlikely that the Christian god exists and even more unlikely that the Mormon god exists. I don’t think “real” enters into the discussion.

LOL, OK, more “likely” then what? You used “exists”, are things that exist not real?

PS While I’m only a senior computer HW product engineer I do know what “!=” means

In this vein I *think* I’m okay saying “real” ~= “exists”. So I could say it’s highly unlikely that the christian god exists / is real but it’s even less likely that the Mormon god exists / is real.  (I’m not dividing exists by is real smile  )

I don’t know man, aren’t you HW types just interested in volts and milli-amps and stuff?

And I suspect I’ve left at least one question unanswered?

You know that the god of the Jews, Christians, Mormons and Muslims is the same god, right?

I define the test process for products and have to work with the test engineers who write the test code, so I have to know a little something about code even if I can’t code myself.

Same god…. hmmm… sort of. Those groups certainly each make unique claims about god’s characteristics. so at a minimum they disagree on the details smile

Not “sort of”, is. Each claims that said god told them something different.

Our brains didn’t evolve to apprehend quantum reality.  ‘Scientific’ reality is out there in schools, books, TV programs - but as Lao Tsu pointed out several thousand years ago, “Once the people are bewitched, their bewitchment lasts a long time.”  We’re living in that ‘long time’ of bewitchment.  If you interview the person on the street, it’s likely to be Noah’s Ark and Jesus, or Joseph Smith and the golden plates, not Nova and Carl Sagan. 

If ‘quantum reality’ punctures ‘scientific reality’ will most of us slip back into made-up stories, or make our peace with the Zen remark - “Reality basically has no explanation.” 

(By ‘scientific reality’ as different from ‘quantum reality’, I mean a reality that our brains evolved to apprehend).

 

Evolution is slow, we can imagine a future world but not a future Us, which is why when We get to the future it always sucks, because there the past We are.

[ Edited: 09 September 2017 11:47 by GAD]
 
 
unsmoked
 
Avatar
 
 
unsmoked
Total Posts:  7128
Joined  20-02-2006
 
 
 
09 September 2017 11:57
 
GAD - 09 September 2017 11:45 AM
unsmoked - 09 September 2017 11:32 AM
GAD - 08 September 2017 11:07 PM
icehorse - 08 September 2017 09:43 PM
GAD - 08 September 2017 09:07 PM
icehorse - 08 September 2017 07:56 PM
GAD - 08 September 2017 07:41 PM
icehorse - 08 September 2017 07:25 PM
GAD - 08 September 2017 07:05 PM

It is inferred in your context “statistically likely to be true” = likely real.

Among programmers, “!=” means “not equal”. given that, I’m not sure I agree with your inference. So, I’m not comfortable with the idea that “likely” can be used interchangeably with “real”. I’m not sure I understand all of the claims made concerning the butt fairy, but I’m comfortable saying that it’s highly unlikely that the Christian god exists and even more unlikely that the Mormon god exists. I don’t think “real” enters into the discussion.

LOL, OK, more “likely” then what? You used “exists”, are things that exist not real?

PS While I’m only a senior computer HW product engineer I do know what “!=” means

In this vein I *think* I’m okay saying “real” ~= “exists”. So I could say it’s highly unlikely that the christian god exists / is real but it’s even less likely that the Mormon god exists / is real.  (I’m not dividing exists by is real smile  )

I don’t know man, aren’t you HW types just interested in volts and milli-amps and stuff?

And I suspect I’ve left at least one question unanswered?

You know that the god of the Jews, Christians, Mormons and Muslims is the same god, right?

I define the test process for products and have to work with the test engineers who write the test code, so I have to know a little something about code even if I can’t code myself.

Same god…. hmmm… sort of. Those groups certainly each make unique claims about god’s characteristics. so at a minimum they disagree on the details smile

Not “sort of”, is. Each claims that said god told them something different.

Our brains didn’t evolve to apprehend quantum reality.  ‘Scientific’ reality is out there in schools, books, TV programs - but as Lao Tsu pointed out several thousand years ago, “Once the people are bewitched, their bewitchment lasts a long time.”  We’re living in that ‘long time’ of bewitchment.  If you interview the person on the street, it’s likely to be Noah’s Ark and Jesus, or Joseph Smith and the golden plates, not Nova and Carl Sagan. 

If ‘quantum reality’ punctures ‘scientific reality’ will most of us slip back into made-up stories, or make our peace with the Zen remark - “Reality basically has no explanation.” 

(By ‘scientific reality’ as different from ‘quantum reality’, I mean a reality that our brains evolved to apprehend).

 

Evolution is slow, we can imagine a future world but not a future Us, which is why when We get to the future it always sucks, because there the past We are.

In his recent book, Homo Deus, is Harrari saying that in the future the We will no longer be the past We?  ‘Intelligently’ designed humans; genetically modified humans?  https://www.amazon.com/Homo-Deus-Brief-History-Tomorrow/dp/0062464310  (see reviews)

 
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  15631
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
09 September 2017 12:07
 
unsmoked - 09 September 2017 11:57 AM
GAD - 09 September 2017 11:45 AM

Evolution is slow, we can imagine a future world but not a future Us, which is why when We get to the future it always sucks, because there the past We are.

In his recent book, Homo Deus, is Harrari saying that in the future the We will no longer be the past We?  ‘Intelligently’ designed humans; genetically modified humans?  https://www.amazon.com/Homo-Deus-Brief-History-Tomorrow/dp/0062464310  (see reviews)

All created to serve the past We. At least until Judgement day, or virtual reality porn in which case we will just go extinct.

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  5693
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
09 September 2017 14:52
 
GAD - 09 September 2017 12:07 PM
unsmoked - 09 September 2017 11:57 AM
GAD - 09 September 2017 11:45 AM

Evolution is slow, we can imagine a future world but not a future Us, which is why when We get to the future it always sucks, because there the past We are.

In his recent book, Homo Deus, is Harrari saying that in the future the We will no longer be the past We?  ‘Intelligently’ designed humans; genetically modified humans?  https://www.amazon.com/Homo-Deus-Brief-History-Tomorrow/dp/0062464310  (see reviews)

All created to serve the past We. At least until Judgement day, or virtual reality porn in which case we will just go extinct.

boolean ID_humans = false;
boolean VR_porn = true;
boolean extinct = false;
if (ID_humans = true || extinct == true) extinct = true;

Are we extinct?

 
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  15631
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
09 September 2017 23:13
 
icehorse - 09 September 2017 02:52 PM
GAD - 09 September 2017 12:07 PM
unsmoked - 09 September 2017 11:57 AM
GAD - 09 September 2017 11:45 AM

Evolution is slow, we can imagine a future world but not a future Us, which is why when We get to the future it always sucks, because there the past We are.

In his recent book, Homo Deus, is Harrari saying that in the future the We will no longer be the past We?  ‘Intelligently’ designed humans; genetically modified humans?  https://www.amazon.com/Homo-Deus-Brief-History-Tomorrow/dp/0062464310  (see reviews)

All created to serve the past We. At least until Judgement day, or virtual reality porn in which case we will just go extinct.

boolean ID_humans = false;
boolean VR_porn = true;
boolean extinct = false;
if (ID_humans = true || extinct == true) extinct = true;

Are we extinct?

Not yet.

 
 
Brick Bungalow
 
Avatar
 
 
Brick Bungalow
Total Posts:  4384
Joined  28-05-2009
 
 
 
10 September 2017 00:41
 

Sorry, I was away. I’ll try to clarify.

I agree that morality is relative but prescriptive or enthusiastic relativism is especially ridiculous. It’s not something to endorse or persuade. It’s a brute fact about human circumstance. Moral value is connected or ‘relative’ to the interests and resources of the actors. It’s internal to the very concept. I don’t think one can escape this without some elaborate metaphysics beyond ordinary naturalism. Further, notions of objective value are (by common consensus) shown to be harmful. Inflexible moral dogmas are the direct cause of human failure at the largest scales. I’ve said all this before. It’s what makes groups like the KKK possible in the first place. They have absolute knowledge of their own rightness and will not consider alternatives.

When fragments like ‘good people’ are invoked in conversation they invariably are designed to divide groups according to differing sets of preferences. I’m saying that asserting such an unqualified distinction reflects an un-seriousness about urgent moral questions. It’s a retreat into personality and sentiment and homily. It isn’t helpful. It’s an appeal to the listeners assumptions and biases instead of their knowledge or their judgment. We don’t have access to the kind of information that allows us to decide if people are good. I think we can say that certain outcomes are good. Certain intentions are good. Certain behaviors are good in the context of these prior quantities…. But we are not intrinsically good. We aren’t the kind of being that embodies goodness. (or badness) 

Dividing groups of people into good and bad IS bad. It has reliably bad outcomes. It is (I argue) demonstrably untrue for both logical and empirical reasons. It perpetuates failed strategies. It victimizes innocent people. It validates guilty people. I think it provides emotional vindication at the cost of practical solutions. I think we should stop doing it.

I hope that clears things up.

 
Dumaya
 
Avatar
 
 
Dumaya
Total Posts:  108
Joined  04-05-2017
 
 
 
11 September 2017 01:08
 

The fact that people, even here, are deliberately [mis]construing what the dimwit, discursive Dumbf drivelled — to mean that the “good people” were those who marched in Charlottesville, as distinct from “right-wingers” in general — demonstrates how discombobulated the U.S. political landscape has become, under this presidential reign of outrageous stupidity.

What’s taking place is the literal whiteboard plan of the miscreants in Shite House, playing out in real-time: Distracting the distrait, pea-brained, easily ‘triggered’ public from issues of import, with semantic non arguments about whether a clearly senile leader has fascist stylings—thereby, fomenting tribal in-fighting.

The living, breathing corpse, Steve Bannon, has pretty much attested to said tactic being ‘their’ plan; and that while the U.S. is mired in identity politics, he and his cronies are given carte blanche with fashioning U.S. society…

[ Edited: 11 September 2017 01:10 by Dumaya]
 
unsmoked
 
Avatar
 
 
unsmoked
Total Posts:  7128
Joined  20-02-2006
 
 
 
11 September 2017 10:24
 
Brick Bungalow - 10 September 2017 12:41 AM

Sorry, I was away. I’ll try to clarify.

I agree that morality is relative but prescriptive or enthusiastic relativism is especially ridiculous. It’s not something to endorse or persuade. It’s a brute fact about human circumstance. Moral value is connected or ‘relative’ to the interests and resources of the actors. It’s internal to the very concept. I don’t think one can escape this without some elaborate metaphysics beyond ordinary naturalism. Further, notions of objective value are (by common consensus) shown to be harmful. Inflexible moral dogmas are the direct cause of human failure at the largest scales. I’ve said all this before. It’s what makes groups like the KKK possible in the first place. They have absolute knowledge of their own rightness and will not consider alternatives.

When fragments like ‘good people’ are invoked in conversation they invariably are designed to divide groups according to differing sets of preferences. I’m saying that asserting such an unqualified distinction reflects an un-seriousness about urgent moral questions. It’s a retreat into personality and sentiment and homily. It isn’t helpful. It’s an appeal to the listeners assumptions and biases instead of their knowledge or their judgment. We don’t have access to the kind of information that allows us to decide if people are good. I think we can say that certain outcomes are good. Certain intentions are good. Certain behaviors are good in the context of these prior quantities…. But we are not intrinsically good. We aren’t the kind of being that embodies goodness. (or badness) 

Dividing groups of people into good and bad IS bad. It has reliably bad outcomes. It is (I argue) demonstrably untrue for both logical and empirical reasons. It perpetuates failed strategies. It victimizes innocent people. It validates guilty people. I think it provides emotional vindication at the cost of practical solutions. I think we should stop doing it.

I hope that clears things up.

“They have absolute knowledge of their own rightness and will not consider alternatives.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/08/opinion/sunday/what-the-rich-wont-tell-you.html  (the morality of vastly unequal distributions of wealth).

Who are the ‘good people’ who don’t want to talk about how or why they have a thousand times more wealth than the average person?  Last night I saw Charlie Rose interviewing Steve Bannon.  Talking about the America of the founding fathers, Bannon made no mention of the slaves who were brought here against their will, and whose labor the new country depended on for its prosperity - its trade in cotton, tobacco, sugar - as though Washington and Jefferson could have lived the high life in their mansions without their slaves.

 

 
 
 < 1 2 3