Obama science czar: Redistributionism as the cure for American exceptionalism
posted at 2:19 pm on September 9, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
With more focus getting applied to Barack Obama’s czars, the first to receive scrutiny should be John Holdren, Obama’s science czar. Michelle has outlined Holdren’s odd views from the past, including statements in books published in the 1970s that suggested forced sterilizations and social pressure for abortions, among other things. The College Politico finds something a little more recent in this interview in 2007, conducted in the virtual-reality environment of Second Life, in which Holdren discusses his views on science and economics:
HOLDREN: There has been a strain of what many people call “US exceptionalism” in the United States, the notion that the United States is so big, so important, so powerful, so technologically advanced that it can and should do what it wants. I think this strain is misguided.
Q: Will Americans need to reduce their living standards? Is that politically viable, or will technology [unintelligible] do it?
H: I think ultimately that the rate of growth of material consumption is going to have to come down, and there’s going to have to be a degree of redistribution of how much we consume, in terms of energy and material resources, in order to leave room for people who are poor to become more prosperous.
Consider that a foreshadowing of Barack Obama’s Joe the Plumber moment.
First, Holdren doesn’t know what “American exceptionalism” means. He can’t even get the term right. American exceptionalism has nothing to do with our size or our technological prowess, except in tertiary terms. Exceptionalism springs from the unique nature of our nation’s birth, the historical leadership in personal freedom that America has shown (with very notable failures, such as slavery and post-Civil War Jim Crow), and especially the role America inherited in the 20th century as the guarantor of Western security and international shipping.
This is no philosophical quibble, either. Part of the reason America consumes more relative to other nations on a per-capita basis is because we produce more for the consumption of others, and out of necessity for our role as global cop. That is a large part of the reason that our defense spending outstrips those of other Western nations, as they do not contribute nearly as much to that role. Seeing as how Holdren can’t figure out what he opposes, it comes as no surprise that he doesn’t see the connection between that role and consumption of resources, either.
One can oppose America’s role on the world stage from either the Right or the Left, and challenge the notion of American exceptionalism itself — but it helps to start off by knowing what it is. Holdren should get bounced for his ignorance as well as opposed for his radical, redistributionist views. This interview strongly suggests that Obama’s science czar got picked not for his dedication to science but for his redistributionist views under the cloak of climate change.










Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
Sheesh, another conservative who believes that if something is good, it must have originated here.
MarkTheGreat on September 9, 2009 at 2:51 PM
Yeah, because none of us racists opposed Bill and Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Joe Biden, Howard Dean…
amerpundit on September 9, 2009 at 2:51 PM
How fitting that it was conducted in Second Life, considering how little regard Holdren has for the first one.
Jim Treacher on September 9, 2009 at 2:51 PM
I thought one was on vacation this week?
MarkTheGreat on September 9, 2009 at 2:51 PM
Yes, Ed… your “Surprisingly Good” column will live in infamy here. Now you’ve warned us that if we’ve signed the WND on line poll about Obama’s birthplace, we can dispense with the hope of ever holding office. I can’t believe you really think that is the equivalent of supporting the 9/11 theory that resulted in 3000 deaths. I watch the continuing BC stories– I don’t accuse Obama of killing thousands.
leftnomore on September 9, 2009 at 2:51 PM
is = his
Blake on September 9, 2009 at 2:52 PM
Eugenics czar.
Johan Klaus on September 9, 2009 at 2:52 PM
Yeah! Let’s institutionalize mediocrity by punishing success and rewarding failure. It’s simply not fair to try harder than others and improve your life, so we’re going to stop it.
That’s change you can believe in. Or not.
RadClown on September 9, 2009 at 2:53 PM
America was one of the last countries to get rid of slavery.
I am well aware of our history.
Prior to that point, we played no role in eliminating it in other countries for two reasons.
1) We didn’t believe in foreign entanglements, for any reason.
2) The Southern states were against it, for fear it would present a bad precedent. (For them)
MarkTheGreat on September 9, 2009 at 2:53 PM
What a tiresome, imbecilic, infantile comment to make. *yawn*
capejasmine on September 9, 2009 at 2:54 PM
Umm, you are very confused. Jim Crow was written into law by a government. Whatever differences that exist between Catholicism and any other Christian-based religion TODAY is NOT written into a government.
I’m an athiest and even I can see that difference. Why can’t you?
is not governmental law.
BillH on September 9, 2009 at 2:56 PM
Well we are over 100 comments. Care to eat some crow? Or are you going to claim that that is racist too?
rbj on September 9, 2009 at 2:56 PM
You’re either ignorant or a liar. Slavery was banned in England in 1840. The sale and importation of slaves was banned in Virginia the same year, and other western nations, such as Brazil, continued to hold slaves for decades.
There were over 100 abolitionist societies in the antebellum south, but only a few in the north.
The Emancipation Proclamation exempted Union occupied territories so they could use captured slaves.
Oh, and Gen. Grant’s wife freed her slaves after the war.
You are a self hater. Hopefully, these facts will make you hate yourself as much as you deserve.
Akzed on September 9, 2009 at 2:56 PM
Racist!
Johan Klaus on September 9, 2009 at 2:56 PM
I strongly disagree with the “don’t fight the Sunstein” job. Sunstein holds incredibly fascist views and goals as to the internet, thinking it should be under federal government “control” and most individual-use privileges removed. And that’s just one of Sunstein’s radically horrible notions…actual, goals, that is.
Lourdes on September 9, 2009 at 2:56 PM
Well, we broke 100 posts.
I wonder if Decider is man enough to apologize?
MarkTheGreat on September 9, 2009 at 2:57 PM
http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=video&video-id=2378
liquidflorian on September 9, 2009 at 2:57 PM
Here’s how Decider’s “mind” works:
September 09, 2009
American Thinker
September 05, 2009
By the Book: How Democracies Perish
By Lance Fairchok
Exaggerated self-criticism would be a harmless luxury of civilization if there were no enemy at the gate condemning democracy’s very existence. But it becomes dangerous when it portrays its mortal enemy as always being in the right. Extravagant criticism is a good propaganda device in internal politics. But if it is repeated often enough, it is finally believed. And where will the citizens of democratic societies find reasons to resist the enemy outside if they are persuaded from childhood that their civilization is merely an accumulation of failures and a monstrous imposture?
– Jean Francois Revel, How Democracies Perish
“Extravagant criticism” and “Exaggerated self-criticism” are perhaps the best descriptions for one of the fundamental strategies used by America’s radical left to gain and keep power. This ever-present ploy is used at every level, from the White House to town hall meetings, to deceive, manipulate and control our restive citizens. It has permeated academia and the press. Even the Republican Party consistently and discouragingly falls for its deceits, repeating obvious propaganda inserted into the national debate by a Democratic Party that is unabashedly socialist.
I discovered Jean Francois Revel quite by accident. While researching anti-American organizations that support terrorist groups, I came across a thin volume entitled simply, Anti-Americanism. Written by a respected French intellectual, it is the rarest of works, examining and condemning the reflexive and unjustified anti-Americanism found in the European and particularly the French press. It is a clear and biting indictment of the unreason of the popular press and of the totalitarian left. Revel’s regard for the US was unclouded by naive romanticism. He judged us fairly, took stock of our strengths and weaknesses and found us admirable.
While visiting a used bookstore a few weeks later, I found another Revel book, How Democracies Perish. In its pages, I found a chilling examination of the methodologies used to undermine and destroy free market democracies. Written within the context of the cold war, Revel dissected democracies external and internal conflicts, those arising from the totalitarian impulses of socialism. He identified democracies fifth column, the political insurgents that fight against prosperity and success, deluded by utopian ideologies and filled with the monumental arrogance that defines the left.
“But democracy can defend itself only very feebly; its internal enemy has an easy time of it because he exploits the right to disagree that is inherent in democracy. His aim of destroying democracy itself, of actively seeking an absolute monopoly of power, is shrewdly hidden behind the citizen’s right to oppose and criticize the system. Paradoxically, democracy offers those seeking to abolish it a unique opportunity to work against it legally. They can even receive almost open support from the external enemy without its being seen as a truly serious violation of the social contract. The frontier is vague, the transition easy between the status of a loyal opponent wielding a privilege built into democratic institutions and that of an adversary subverting those institutions. To totalitarianism, an opponent is by definition subversive; democracy treats subversives as mere opponents for fear of betraying it principles.”
Revel’s description was prescient. Today, the “internal enemy” chips away with manic energy, promising idyllic outcomes, using populist messages built of falsehood, creating expectations of the impossible. Spreading confusion that diminishes our national self-confidence and encourages inaction, they have infected our democracy with a guilt that has no basis in fact. Their agenda is one of deconstructive contrarianism, which they cleverly call progressivism that blames all the world’s ills on our success.
In the short time Obama and the radical left have been in power, they have worked hard to bleed our spirit and our energy with massive tax increases, corruption, cronyism, special interest entitlements, new regulations and the politicization of our institutions. They appease tyrants, siding against democracies, giving unredeemable despots status and legitimacy and prolonging the suffering of millions. They mouth the words of our founders to hide their true nature. They work to dismantle freedom after freedom, destroying what we have proudly fought for and so lovingly built. They do not revere what has made us great; they embrace all that will bring us down. They take success and call it failure, and demand we bow our heads and accept ridicule from those who cannot equal us.
Revel writes, “Perhaps in history democracy will have been an accident, a brief parenthesis which comes to a close before our very eyes.” We now know that tyranny can grow from the fertile ground of national success just as surely as it does from poverty. From whatever direction it comes at us, from economic desperation or elitist ideology, the consequences will be the same, eventual disaster and ruin, our greatness but a memory. Our external enemies cannot defeat us, yet we face deconstruction by homegrown socialists and admitted communists. How Democracies Perish has a new relevance born of old insights. In its final line, Revel quotes the words of Achim d’Arnim, “The history of the world begins anew with every man, and ends with him.” Ultimately, the America we love lives or dies because of the action or inaction of its citizens. Revel reminds us of the terrible responsibility of that citizenship, as we face a battle for survival, against ourselves.
Akzed on September 9, 2009 at 2:58 PM
That should be “into law by a government.”
BillH on September 9, 2009 at 2:58 PM
There are more reasons to appose Holdren than redistribution and American exceptionalism.
From the man who would give trees legal standing there is this
“The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being.”
John P. Holdren
I wonder if the tree would have legal standing only after “essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years” before which it could be aborted (cut for lumber) like embryos for stem cells.
MHatch on September 9, 2009 at 2:58 PM
I put it to all here at this site, it’s time for dare I say CHANGE!
larvcom on September 9, 2009 at 2:43 PM
Thank you.
fourdeucer on September 9, 2009 at 2:59 PM
Funny, you call me names, yet your facts support my position. That being, America did not take the lead in eliminating slavery throughout the world.
MarkTheGreat on September 9, 2009 at 2:59 PM
When was it that we didn’t believe in foreign entanglements?
Doorgunner on September 9, 2009 at 2:59 PM
What most ignore today is that the South fed and clothed the North and generally provided most raw materials that the early, pre-Civil War nation needed for what Northern industry existed back then. It was also the flint that set off the Civil War, that resource difference between the North and the South.
Lourdes on September 9, 2009 at 2:59 PM
He never said that “we took the lead”, jackass.
Doorgunner on September 9, 2009 at 3:00 PM
Better would be to neuter him.
farright on September 9, 2009 at 3:00 PM
We have the worst of both worlds, institutionalized mediocrities who are successful politicians.
We have an unqualified, unaccomplished, corrupt incompetent president who is a “success”.
We have countless Senators and Congressmen who are worthless scum, who are “successes”.
Politicians in this country are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
Makes me want to take a second look at the anarchist view.
NoDonkey on September 9, 2009 at 3:00 PM
Vermont abolished slavery in 1777. Britain didn’t abolish slavery until the 1830′s. American states were steadily abolishing slavery one by one before the Civil War. America also produced a lot of the anti-slavery literature. So, yes, America helped lead the way.
JohnJ on September 9, 2009 at 3:00 PM
I think this guy was a Nazi Prison guard at a Jewish death camp in his former life. No wonder David Letterman likes him.
izoneguy on September 9, 2009 at 3:00 PM
If Decider is in fact male, it’s clear he’s not a man to begin with.
MadisonConservative on September 9, 2009 at 3:01 PM
Page two of comments along with this link.
You need to try harder.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/21/obamas-science-czar-considered-forced-abortions-sterilization-population-growth/
Bishop on September 9, 2009 at 3:01 PM
Prior to around 1915. There was still a significant isolationist wing in the late 1930′s. If Japan hadn’t attacked us, it is very unlikely that we would have ever entered WWII.
MarkTheGreat on September 9, 2009 at 3:01 PM
Lourdes on September 9, 2009 at 2:56 PM
I freely admit to having no experience at political strategy, but it makes sense to me to focus on just one particularly radical czar or advisor at a time. There is certainly no shortage of them in the Obama administration, and this way Obama’s presidency gets the “death by a thousand cuts” treatment. Right now, I see Holdren as the optimal target. Even Democrats won’t defend him if only his views are broadcast to the public.
jwolf on September 9, 2009 at 3:02 PM
Wow. When someone pees on your wheaties, you should drain them before eating.
I know about William Wilberforce, and the English Navy’s enforcement of a ban on slavery on the high seas.
I also know that slaves were owned in the United States until the end of the Civil War.
You may have a point to make, but you might also want to give Dale Carnegie a call.
applebutter on September 9, 2009 at 3:03 PM
The person that I was responding to did. The person Akzed insulted me for disagreeing with.
Perhaps before you start slinging insults you should famaliarize with the whole history.
MarkTheGreat on September 9, 2009 at 3:03 PM
out of necessity for our role as global cop.
From the time man first started banging rocks together there has been a hard and fast rule which is that those most capable of defending a group get the best. If there is only one piece of meat then the biggest, strongest guy gets it as the group wants him in the front of the battle AND in the best physical shape to also win. The villagers in Seven Samurai were not giving their only rice to the Samurai as payment and respect alone. They also wished them to be the strongest and fastest.
This is really the heart of the matter of why liberals wish America to withdraw from the world militarily so the defense budget can be almost completely cut. In a world of dwindling resources who has the most to lose? Who will get the one piece of meat the Soldier or the Sophist? The inventor/innovator or the intellectual?
Liberals excel and dominate almost exclusively in non-critical roles in any society. In a society with low resources it is liberals who have the most to lose so they wish to assuage the hungry masses by gutting the military. In the end the masses will bring the meat to the strongest and the smartest.
Liberals see hunger and poverty and look around for who they should take food and money from to “help” (which is almost always not them since they never occupy the most honored places in a society conveniently). Conservatives see the same and look for ways to find or produce more food and wealth or stop those stealing it.
Rocks on September 9, 2009 at 3:03 PM
Hmmm, I wonder…
I think that is correct for the treatment of Africans as a slave race, but I got the impression that it is not so for slavery in general. I don’t really know time lines on this — hasn’t the US done a lot in terms of fighting the more general enslavement of persons within populations?
Count to 10 on September 9, 2009 at 3:03 PM
Sucker bet, since you’re a moron and could take exception just to win it.
malclave on September 9, 2009 at 3:04 PM
1) Vermont is not the US.
2) The US provided literature. The British sent warships to capture slave ships.
Yea sure, the US took the lead.
MarkTheGreat on September 9, 2009 at 3:04 PM
Sooo, you’ve never heard of United Fruit, and you have know idea in which conflicts Smedley Darlinton Butler earned two Congressional Medals of Honor (Butler should be a hero to the left, except he was a bet too manly)? How about the Monroe Doctrine, the Spanish-American War, the Lusitania, Wm Randolf Hearst… any of this familiar?
Doorgunner on September 9, 2009 at 3:06 PM
Mark: America was not “very late.” The abolition movement was ongoing before the war, and slavery ended with the war (except where the Union Army ahd need of it, and in DE and MD so as not to anger the occupied citizens more than necessary), while many other nations continued to allow it. Even today it’s legal in Muslim despotisms.
Sorry to bust on ya, shoulda found a synonym. But what’s right is right.
Akzed on September 9, 2009 at 3:06 PM
Sorry, all. I goofed that one up badly. Staying up to the wee hours helping someone in OZ with their car doesn’t help.
Should be:
Preview is my friend.
BillH on September 9, 2009 at 3:07 PM
With respect to all, IMHO we should focus this thread on Obama’s radical pseudo-cabinet, particularly Holdren, and leave the discussion of the history of abolition for another thread.
jwolf on September 9, 2009 at 3:07 PM
Anyone else take one look at this guy and think “Hey, it’s George Lucas! Looks like his writing hasn’t improved any from the Star Wars prequels”?
teke184 on September 9, 2009 at 3:09 PM
That can kind of go in circles. The Japanese attacked the US because they new that we would declare war on them for the invasions they were planing in southeast Asia.
Count to 10 on September 9, 2009 at 3:09 PM
I think we would have entered- Great Britain at that time was very much an ally- but the dynamics of our entry would have been very different.
BillH on September 9, 2009 at 3:10 PM
Slavery has nothing to do with Obama’s Neo-malthusian eugenecist advisor, nor for his plans to turn us into North Korean-type serfs.
theCork on September 9, 2009 at 3:10 PM
I just love being called racist by the same people who referred to Miss Condi as Aunt Jemima.™
Re: Holdren et al – These are the people who are whispering in our president’s ear…communists, socialists, anarchists, eugenicists and just plain put-’em-in-the-attic crazy. Lesson learned from all of them: never put into print nor say aloud that which you cannot defend without looking like a perfect donkey (no pun intended; just trying not to cuss).
Oh Mercy on September 9, 2009 at 3:10 PM
Monroe Doctrine said that European empires should stay out of the Americas. No foreign entanglements there.
Spanish American War; Was a response to Spain setting up colonies in the Americas, which threatened the US. Once again, does not support your case.
Lusitania. Was one of the triggers that got the US into WWI. It occurred after 1915. So again, doesn’t support your case.
Hearst. Private citizen, who agitated for war with Spain. I never said that nobody inside the US wanted to fight foreign wars, I said that official US position was that we shouldn’t.
For someone who believes himself to be an expert in history, you sure are showing yourself to be ignorant of history.
MarkTheGreat on September 9, 2009 at 3:10 PM
I mention that because the agricultural and labor base of our nation was contingent upon slavery for quite a number of decades if centuries. The North wasn’t too keen on even attending to the issue of slavery for the same reason the South wasn’t and that was, it was necessary to keep the young nation producing what it needed and what it also needed to export and trade (the products produced).
What many today don’t realize (because “progressive” education doesn’t teach these details) is that the Civil War was not fought over or even about slavery. Abraham Lincoln originally opined that it was an issue left up to states, for individual states to decide upon (maintain slavery, don’t, modify or even amplify it, Lincoln thought it was up to each state to decide).
The North was highly dependent on the South for raw materials and for most of the food the early nation needed. Slavery was necessary (back then, before industrialization) inorder to keep that production going.
But the North started demanding more (wanted “redistribution” by force, eventually, not willing to pay the South the South’s requested prices for the resources and goods produced there), and the North became aggressive about the trade issues. The South tried to work with them, eventually rebelled and declared secession because of these trade issues (mostly very bad behavior by the North toward the South and the South’s materials).
The slavery issue was eventually addressed BY then-President (of the North in the South’s views by then) Lincoln for self-centered reasons: he needed more Union soldiers (because the North was not conquering the South at that point). So Lincoln “freed the slaves” inorder to have more males to put into the military (a sorta’ slave-owner methodology at work in that, by Lincoln, in my view).
The military plan by the North was to ruin the South so it’d be unable to produce as it had, and in that, be on it’s knees, not be able to fight, literally. So the North went about doing that, ruining resources in the South…not only did this remove the income-generating capacity for the South but it also made slavery impossible practically (because few had the resources to even feed their own families much moreso slaves as dependents) (so the slaves were “set free” by the South literally without legal action in many cases because the property owners lost the ability to support them with housing and food and such).
Though slavery was eventually ended, it ended due to a ruined South and to Lincoln’s need for more Union soldiers. But it wasn’t the reason, cause nor goal of the Civil War, contrary to what today many are led to believe.
Lourdes on September 9, 2009 at 3:10 PM
MarkTheGreat
I may have missed another post wherein he used “the leader”, if so… mea culpa.
Doorgunner on September 9, 2009 at 3:10 PM
Obamas gaggle of slimy freaks are the antithesis of everything this country once stood for.
rplat on September 9, 2009 at 3:12 PM
The US didn’t start to end slavery until around 1863, with the emancipation proclamation. By that time, slavery had already been virtually eliminated every where else in the world. Being the last country to officially eliminate slavery sounds like being “very late” to me.
You still have not provided any evidence to back up John’s claim that the US took the lead in eliminating slavery in the rest of the world.
MarkTheGreat on September 9, 2009 at 3:12 PM
He stole it from the Japanese. Then translated it with a Japanese>English dictionary.
genso on September 9, 2009 at 3:13 PM
I guess you think the world is composed of Britain and the US and no one else. Your statement that America was one of the last nations to abolish slavery is totally and completely false, and lacks any element of truthfulness whatsoever.
Here’s wikipedia
JohnJ on September 9, 2009 at 3:13 PM
lolz +100
Maybe we could just get him to stay there.
bitsy on September 9, 2009 at 3:14 PM
The abolition movement was not the US govt. There were abolitionist movements in England for many years prior to their outlawing of slavery as well. Their abolitionist movement predates ours by many years.
MarkTheGreat on September 9, 2009 at 3:14 PM
Yes….Re-Distribution of wealth
SOCIALIST
John Holdren should also stop drinking the Kool Aid or move to France with Alec Baldwin
BigMike252 on September 9, 2009 at 3:15 PM
Conveniently, you left out any response to United Fruit Co and Butler. Try this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler
Doorgunner on September 9, 2009 at 3:15 PM
A convert!
Akzed on September 9, 2009 at 3:15 PM
Yes, agreed, I write after posting earlier ^^…
There’s so much mis-information as to American history — I read so many wrong assumptions about this issue of abolition more than anything except, perhaps, the Viet Nam War and Iraq. The Left refuses to recognize facts in all those regards in their pursuits of various socio-political needs to rewrite history when they aren’t ignoring it.
Lourdes on September 9, 2009 at 3:15 PM
Elimination? Meh. Slavery still exists today and is culturally accepted in, not surprisingly, Africa and the arab world – two of the liberals’ great “interests” and “friends”. Anyone who would not call the whole muslim concept of treatment of women, to this very day, anything less than slavery is not really paying attention. Churchill noted exactly this point in his excellent, “The River War”:
Talk of the elimination of slavery is exceedingly premature. If you want to know where slavery still exists, just look at the allies of liberals and you will find it.
progressoverpeace on September 9, 2009 at 3:17 PM
Um, the Emancipation Proclamation didn’t free any slaves when it was signed. It only applied to regions still in rebellion. So, it couldn’t have added any troops until the Union started to take the land that was in rebellion.
Additionally, while the tariffs were a major source of grievance, let us not forget that the rebellion started in response to Lincoln’s election, and tariffs were not what he ran on.
Count to 10 on September 9, 2009 at 3:17 PM
That dude looks crazy..sounds crazy…The Kenyan sure knows how to pick em’.
tobity on September 9, 2009 at 3:17 PM
Hmmm…you know that Saudi King Obama bowed down before? His family owned slaves and perhaps still does in some terms.
The Saudi Muslims have long “owned” slaves, and very recently (as in, the current generations). In fact, the ‘slave trade’ using Africa has long been one of the income-producing streams for Saudis.
Lourdes on September 9, 2009 at 3:18 PM
Woman, you are literally gonna kill me with this hyper vigilance. I didn’t mean it in a derogatory way. I know that he and others I watch and listen to have talked about him. I’m just saying that that orchestrated push to out Jones needs to happen with this guy. I’ve been personally interested in this specific czar. I know that Beck (although I do not watch him) is invested in this, too. Great. So, let’s do this.
Diane on September 9, 2009 at 3:18 PM
And yes, Vermont’s and Pennsylvania’s and every other state’s abolition of slavery counts as American support for abolition.
JohnJ on September 9, 2009 at 3:19 PM
JohnJ on September 9, 2009 at 3:13 PM
That there are still small pockets of slavery does not invalidate my point. Nor have you done anything to support your claim that the US was a leader in the anti-slavery movement worldwide.
MarkTheGreat on September 9, 2009 at 3:20 PM
So, we beat Brazil and Arabia. Wahoo.
Count to 10 on September 9, 2009 at 3:20 PM
So the US got rid of slavery, but somehow forgot to enforce this elimination in half of their states.
Man, when you get desperate, you get silly.
MarkTheGreat on September 9, 2009 at 3:21 PM
If every state abolished slavery, why did it continue to exist in the South until after the civil war????
MarkTheGreat on September 9, 2009 at 3:21 PM
Psssssst Mark – you might review the distinction between “a leader” and THE leader.”
Particularly since your targtet said “A leader” and NOT “the leader”
Evelyn Wood’s awaiting your call cuz!
http://www.evelynwood.com
Katfish on September 9, 2009 at 3:22 PM
I want in. :o)
Diane on September 9, 2009 at 3:22 PM
I totally support renewed efforts to continue the abolition of slavery.
JohnJ on September 9, 2009 at 3:22 PM
This is absolutely false. Like I said, there were abolition societies in the south long before the war, VA banned the slave trade and importation in 1840.
1588 Lithuania abolishes slavery[citation needed]
1600 Last villein dies in England
1723 Russia abolishes slavery.[11]
1761, February 12, Portugal abolishes slavery[12] in mainland Portugal and in Portuguese possessions in India through a decree by the Marquis of Pombal.
1772 Slavery declared illegal in England, including overseas slaves living in England. Lord Chief Justice Mansfield rules that English law does not support slavery.[13]
1777 Slavery abolished in Madeira, Portugal[13]
1777 Slavery abolished in Vermont, USA[13]
1783 Russia abolishes slavery in Crimean Khanate[14]
1783 Massachusetts rules slavery illegal based on 1780 constitution[13]
1783 Bukovina: Joseph II, Holy Roman Emperor issued an order abolishing slavery on 19 June 1783 in Czernowitz.[15]
1787 Sierra Leone founded by British as state for emancipated slaves
1787 Society for the Abolition of the Slave Trade founded in Britain[13]
1788 Sir William Dolben’s Act regulating the conditions on British slave ships enacted
1792 Denmark-Norway declared transatlantic slave trade illegal after 1802 (though slavery continues to 1848).
1793 Upper Canada, by Act Against Slavery
1794 French First Republic abolishes slavery[13]
1799 New York State introduces gradual emancipation
1799 in Scotland, by an act of the Parliament of Great Britain (39 Geo.III. c. 56).[16]
1802 The emperor Napoleon re-introduce slavery on French colonies growing sugarcane. [12]
1803 Denmark-Norway abolishes transatlantic slave trade on 1 January 1803
1803 Lower Canada abolishes slavery
1804 Haiti declares independence and abolishes slavery[13]
1807 Abolition of the Slave Trade Act: slave trading abolished in British Empire. Captains fined £100 per slave transported.
1807 British begin patrols of African coast to arrest slaving vessels. West Africa Squadron (Royal Navy) established to suppress slave trading; by 1865, nearly 150,000 people freed by anti-slavery operations[17]
1807 Abolition in Prussia, Germany The Stein-Hardenberg Reforms.
1808 United States—importation of slaves into the US prohibited after Jan. 1.[18]
1811 Slave trading made a felony in the British Empire punishable by transportation for British subjects and Foreigners.
1811 Spain abolishes slavery at home and in all colonies except Cuba,[12] Puerto Rico, and Santo Domingo
1813 Argentina abolishes slavery[12]
1814 Dutch outlaw slave trade
1815 British pay Portuguese £750,000 (several hundred million dollars in current values) to cease their trade[19]
1815 Congress of Vienna. 8 Victorious powers declared their opposition to slavery
1816 Serfdom abolished in Estonia.
1817 Serfdom abolished in Courland.
1817 Spain paid £400,000 by British to cease trade to Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Santo Domingo[19]
1818 Treaty between Britain and Spain to abolish slave trade [20]
1818 Treaty between Britain and Portugal to abolish slave trade [20]
1818 France and Holland abolish slave trading
1819 Treaty between Britain and Netherlands to abolish slave trade [20]
1819 Serfdom abolished in Livonia.
1821 Ecuador, Colombia, Venezuela abolish slavery
1821 Liberia founded by USA as state for emancipated slaves.
1822 Greece abolishes slavery.
1823 Chile abolishes slavery[13]
1824 The Federal Republic of Central America abolishes slavery.
1827 Treaty between Britain and Sweden to abolish slave trade [20]
1829 Mexico abolishes slavery[13]
1831 Bolivia abolishes slavery[13]
1834 The Slavery Abolition Act 1833 comes into force, abolishing slavery throughout most of the British Empire. The exceptions being territories controlled by the Honourable East India Company and the islands of Ceylon and St Helena.[21]
1834 Jamaica abolishes slavery[13]
1835 Treaty between Britain and France to abolish slave trade [20]
1835 Treaty between Britain and France and Denmark to abolish slave trade [20]
1836 Portugal abolishes transatlantic slave trade
1839 British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society founded, now called Anti-Slavery International
1839 Indian indenture system made illegal
1840 Treaty between Britain and Venezuela to abolish slave trade [20]
1841 Quintuple Treaty is signed; Britain, France, Russia, Prussia, and Austria agree to suppress slave trade[13]
1842 Uruguay abolishes slavery[13]
1843 Honourable East India Company becomes increasingly controlled by Britain and abolishes slavery in India by the Indian Slavery Act V. of 1843.
1843 Treaty between Britain and Uruguay to suppress slave trade [20]
1843 Treaty between Britain and Mexico to suppress slave trade [20]
1843 Treaty between Britain and Chile to suppress slave trade [20]
1843 Treaty between Britain and Bolivia to abolish slave trade [20]
1845 36 British Navy ships are assigned to the Anti-Slavery Squadron, making it one of the largest fleets in the world.
1846 Tunisia abolishes slavery
1847 Sweden abolishes slavery[22]
1848 Denmark abolishes slavery[22]
1848 Slavery abolished in all French and Danish colonies[13]
1848 France founds Gabon for settlement of emancipated slaves.
1848 Treaty between Britain and Muscat to suppress slave trade [20]
1849 Treaty between Britain and Persian Gulf states to suppress slave trade [20]
1850 United States: Fugitive Slave Law of 1850
1854 Peru abolishes slavery[13]
1854 Venezuela abolishes slavery[13]
1855 Moldavia abolishes slavery.[23]
1856 Wallachia abolishes slavery.[23]
1860 Indenture system abolished in British occupied India.
1861 Russia frees its serfs in the Emancipation reform of 1861.[24][12]
1862 Treaty between United States and Britain for the suppression of the slave trade (African Slave Trade Treaty Act)[20].
1862 Cuba abolishes slave trade[13]
1863 Slavery abolished in Dutch colonies[13]
1863 United States: Emancipation Proclamation declares those slaves in Confederate-controlled areas to be freed. Does not include slaves in “border states” and Washington, D.C..
1865 United States abolishes slavery with the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.[13]
1869 Portugal abolishes slavery in the African colonies
1871 Brazil declares free the sons and daughters born to slave mothers after 28 September 1871.
1873 Puerto Rico abolishes slavery
1873 Treaty between Britain and Zanzibar and Madagascar to suppress slave trade [20]
1874 Britain abolishes slavery in Ghana (the Gold Coast) (after Third Anglo-Asante War and British annexation of the Gold Coast in 1874).
1881 – 1899 – Mahdist War fought partly to suppress slavery in the Sudan.
1886 Cuba abolishes slavery[13]
1888 Brazil abolishes slavery[13]
1890 Brussels Act – Treaty granting anti-slavery powers the right to stop and search ships for slaves
1894 Korea abolishes slavery[25]
1896 France abolishes slavery in Madagascar
1897 Zanzibar abolishes slavery[26]
1906 China formally abolishes slavery and the law became effective on January 31, 1910, when all adult slaves were converted into hired labourers and the young were freed upon reaching age 25.[27]
1912 Siam (Thailand), formally abolishes all slavery. The act of selling a person into slavery was abolished in 1897 but slavery itself was not outlawed. [28]
1923 Afghanistan abolishes slavery[29]
1924 Iraq abolishes slavery
1924 League of Nations Temporary Slavery Commission
1926 Slavery Convention. Bound all signatories to end slavery Convention to Suppress the Slave Trade and Slavery (25 September 1926)
1926 Nepal abolishes slavery[30][31]
1928 Iran abolishes slavery[32]
1928 Domestic slavery practised by local African elites abolished in Sierra Leone[33] (paradoxically established as a place for freed slaves). A study found practices of domestic slavery still widespread in rural areas in the 1970s.
1935 Italian General Emilio De Bono proclaims slavery to be abolished in the Ethiopian Empire[34]
1936 Britain abolishes slavery in Northern Nigeria[35]
1942 Ethiopian Empire abolishes slavery
1945 Nazi Germany and Militarist Japan, both with harsh systems of forced labor, defeated in World War II
1946 Fritz Sauckel, procurer of slave labor for Nazi Germany, convicted at the Nuremberg trials and executed as war criminal.
1948 UN Article 4 of the Declaration of Human Rights bans slavery globally[36]
1952 Qatar abolishes slavery
1962 Saudi Arabia abolishes slavery
1962 Yemen abolishes slavery
1963 United Arab Emirates abolishes slavery
1969 Peru abolishes the encomiendas regime through a land reform[1] ending slavery in the country.
1970 Oman abolishes slavery
1981 Mauritania abolishes slavery[37][38]
Footnotes are here.
John can defend himself.
Akzed on September 9, 2009 at 3:23 PM
You better get used to seeing Beck around…
HornetSting on September 9, 2009 at 3:23 PM
My point was that Lincoln took action (whatever legal action it was) and “freed slaves” IN ORDER TO have more males for the Union Army. His motive/goal was NOT to “free slaves” but he used “freeing slaves” SO THAT he could have more men to fight the Civil War for the Union.
So his goals and motives were not to “free slaves” but to win the Civil War and subjugate the South by military might. That was my point.
The South began rebelling against the North for a while. It wasn’t one flare point or big throw-down, it was a growing complaint with Northern demands for more goods from the South for less renumeration and eventually, arguements by the North as to demanding goods and materials that the South would be deprived by (if they complied, they’d face ruin themselves).
I’m not too aware of what “feelings” existed in the South as to Lincoln winning his election (I’ll try to read more about that at some point, though). I’m sure he wasn’t very popular if only because he represented what many in the South referred to by then as to the North and that was, not their own. By the way, Lincoln quite nearly lost the Civil War, and thus, those “freed slaves” he obtained…
Lourdes on September 9, 2009 at 3:23 PM
Pure desperation on your part.
United Fruit, a central American country stole the property of US citizens, and kidnapped a number of them, so the US govt sent a handfull of marines.
Still haven’t done anything to prove your point, assuming you still have one.
MarkTheGreat on September 9, 2009 at 3:23 PM
target* even……………my kingdom for an edit feature!
Katfish on September 9, 2009 at 3:23 PM
genso
patience..I think we’ll need a trigger rather than a rollover and die type situation..
the key sign will be a reversal in the dollar..a flight to safety if you will..then it’s all over
IMHO
galtg on September 9, 2009 at 2:39 PM
Have you seen the price of gold in dollars this week? And the calls to end the dollar as the “world currency?”
I don’t know what kind of “hot air” is holding up this market, although the talking heads are trying their damndest to blow up the balloon again.
riverrat10k on September 9, 2009 at 3:24 PM
Akzed on September 9, 2009 at 3:23 PM
Most of your list predates the US’s elimination of slavery. As to the rest, your evidence that US pressure caused most of them is????
MarkTheGreat on September 9, 2009 at 3:25 PM
Can someone please slap the sh#t out of me and wake me up from this nightmare?
TXMomof3 on September 9, 2009 at 2:29 PM
Only if you slap me in return…
ladyingray on September 9, 2009 at 2:48 PM
I want in. :o)
Diane on September 9, 2009 at 3:22 PM
Sign me up, too! :)
jwolf on September 9, 2009 at 3:26 PM
I get silly? My reference was clearly toward those states that did abolish slavery. Obviously not every state abolished slavery, but the legal abolition comes only after the movement gains ground. Yes, many Americans were at the forefront of the abolitionist movement, here and around the world.
Still can’t admit being utterly and completely wrong about America being among the last, huh?
JohnJ on September 9, 2009 at 3:26 PM
It can easily be read either way.
Regardless, the fact that the US still permitted slavery to exist is sufficient evidence to refute your claim that the US had eliminated slavery.
MarkTheGreat on September 9, 2009 at 3:28 PM
You went overboard saying America was one of the “very last” to abolish slavery.
The Royal Navy ended ocean traffic in slaves by 1845.
The 13th Amendment passed in 1867. Prior to that several American states had ended slavery.
King Leopold’s brutal methods of forced labor in 1880s Congo are still common knowledge, thanks to Joseph Conrad and English Lit. Brazil kept internal slavery until 1892. Spain allowed it in its colonies until 1898. The British colony of Hong Kong controversially tolerated the Chinese system of “indentured” servants until the fall of the mainland Empire in the 20th century. The Ottomans permitted slavery all along; T.E. Lawrence writes of a plentitude of black slaves among the Arabs in 1917. At the same time the British Army in Kenya pursued German guerrillas with forced bearers called ashkaris; sure, everybody had a draft in WWI, but not everybody had the 66% fatality rate of ashkaris (source on that is Martin Gilbert).
“Very late” is overstated.
Chris_Balsz on September 9, 2009 at 3:28 PM
Actually, what Mark wrote wasn’t false, and certainly not “absolutely.” There WAS no “federal” or national opposition to slavery. As I wrote earlier, Lincoln’s original position on slavery was that it be entirely left up to indiviudual states to manage: do it, proliferate it, do away with it, whatever any state decided for it’s self was what Lincoln’s position was: he maintained for a while that it was not the concern of the NATION as to the federal government but was a states’ rights issue.
Individual states acted accordingly. But there wasn’t any “movement” to address the issue, not from the nation itself (and if anything, from the nation, Lincoln as President, there was a declination to address the issue).
So individual states acting in whatever fashion they deemed to was not a reflection of any formal movement to eradicate slavery (“emancipation” or “free the slaves”).
Most people, culturally, at those times accepted slavery as a part of life and so did, in fact, many of the slaves themselves.
Lots of stories from great grandparents from many families about slaves once freed who didn’t want to “go” — they wanted to and many did remain in the same properties they’d lived in/on before being freed, they used the same last names as the folks who’d “owned” them, even at the end of the War, many just stayed where they’d first been while slaves.
The move North took a while and it was driven largely by people needing to find work to support themselves once the “owner” relationship was nonexistent.
Lourdes on September 9, 2009 at 3:30 PM
I have to go, won’t be responding to this any longer.
I think Sunstein and Holgren should not, under any circumstances, be a part of our federal government, to conclude my comments about the issue of the article here.
Lourdes on September 9, 2009 at 3:31 PM
Wow, that One-Worlder crowd, sitting on their fruit-loops chairs reminded me of Romper Room.
Gang-of-One on September 9, 2009 at 3:32 PM
I agree with you, Mark. The critics here are splitting hairs to accommodate a “Progressive” restatement of facts.
Anyway, gotta’ go.
Lourdes on September 9, 2009 at 3:33 PM
I’m not going to cut and paste the article from Wikipedia, but anyone interested in a history of the abolition movement (which clearly shows that Americans were among the leaders) can read it here.
Some people just can’t admit anything worthwhile about America.
JohnJ on September 9, 2009 at 3:33 PM
well done Azked but
1969 Peru abolishes the encomiendas regime through a land reform[1] ending slavery in the country.
Encomiendas are better considered “serfdom” rather than chattel slavery. You can’t sell out, nor can you transfer.
Chris_Balsz on September 9, 2009 at 3:33 PM
Ok, I was wrong, I knew that there were a small handfull of countries that eliminated slavery after the US did, which is why I said one of the last, not the last.
But it was the British navy that eliminated the slave trade. The US had nothing to do with that. And the British eliminated slavery throughout their empire two decades before the US eliminated it inside the US.
Beyond that, the US had very little to do with the elimination of slavery in those other countries.
MarkTheGreat on September 9, 2009 at 3:33 PM
Well said Jim.
shick on September 9, 2009 at 3:34 PM
I didn’t say the US was first, and I didn’t say anything about US pressure causing anything. You need someone to read these posts aloud to you and then read your posts before they go up to ensure that they comport with reality.
Akzed on September 9, 2009 at 3:35 PM
Lourdes
While the North certainly “made use of” Southern slave production, since the North neither collapsed nor relied on foriegn imports since the abolition of slavery, it seems much to say it was “sustained” by slavery.
Chris_Balsz on September 9, 2009 at 3:35 PM
What the hell does a science czar do, anyway?
kg598301 on September 9, 2009 at 3:35 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »