963 Comments
User's avatar
Maybe's avatar

People who are in an intellectual coma really don't like the idea of Woke.

Expand full comment
RRJKR's avatar

Take a bunch of wealthy guys living in pretty isolated posh accommodations with nobody to account to, toss in lots of booze, opium, cocaine, willing and unwilling women, perhaps a winsome lad or two and you can expect them to get into all manner of mischief

Expand full comment
Maybe's avatar

The wealthy guys don't consider this to be mischief. They are entitled.

Expand full comment
lordpnut's avatar

Nothing on Ben Franklin smoking the Indian hemp?

Expand full comment
RRJKR's avatar

Probably the least scandalous activity ol'Ben was involved in

Expand full comment
Maybe's avatar

Especially when he was our representative in Paris.

Expand full comment
Zyxomma's avatar

Ta, Dok. Jeffrey Epstein's old bestie wants something, anything, no matter how stupid, ignorant, or petty, to distract from the fact that he's on every damned page of the damning Epstein files. And when, exactly, are we going to see the plans for that tacky Epstein Memorial Ballroom™️?

I love the Smithsonian; was a member for years. They own the world's finest collection of minerals and gems (second best is Colorado College of Mines or whatever it's called, third is American Museum of Natural History in NYC). Even though AMNH's collection was third best, it was for quite a while the best displayed. Smithsonian responded to that by upgrading their own displays, and did a terrific job. AMNH was revamped extensively during the pandemic, and although the minerals and gems are still stunningly beautiful, they're displayed to be more tourist friendly and far less informative and hands-on, IMHO.

Slavery and the exploitation of the vulnerable (including the present-day recruitment of child soldiers) will always be the worst of human achievements. No fat orange clown can change that.

Expand full comment
mzf's avatar

Shhh!

Don't tell tRump about the gem collection at the Smithsonian or he'll have it moved to Mar-a-Lardo. Is there something to prevent the Hope Diamond from finding its way to somewhere trumpy?

Expand full comment
RRJKR's avatar

Pilgrims and "Indians" eating pumpkin pie, grinning "darkies" with banjos and big slices of watermelon, lovely families in threadbare clothes happily clutching hymnals in picturesque little churches, old folks with heads bowed in prayer thanking the Lord for a bowl of thin gruel. That's the American history we want to see!

Expand full comment
BlueSpot's avatar

It should be remembered that Benjamin Franklin was once a slave. He was sold into indentured servitude by his father to his oldest brother.

Expand full comment
BlueSpot's avatar

Indentured servants did have some legal protections (in theory, so did chattel slaves, though in the Southern States, much of those legal protections were eliminated over time). I'm not sure that being White made a big difference in how Franklin was treated as an indentured servant (being indentured to his brother would have made some difference; but, even if the treatment was better than normal, Franklin still ran away from his brother while still under indentureship) the first African slaves were made indentured servants at Jamestown under the same contracts as the English indentured servants -- 7 years of labor for full citizenship and 100 acres of land at the end of the of the contract.

Expand full comment
Jjamie's avatar

While I agree with you...indentured was nothing like the horrific slavery

Expand full comment
BlueSpot's avatar

You are right in the chattel slavery was very different from indentured servitude. For the most part, the person who was indentured was under a limited contract, usually for a period of about 7 years, with some legal protections. But indentured servitude of minors and women could be just as horrific as chattel slavery was.

But my point was that Franklin was well acquainted with slavery, both as a person who was enslaved and, later, as a slave owner.

But, without indentured servitude, the English colonies in North America would never have been established.

Expand full comment
Maybe's avatar

The fact that he was a slave owner indicates that he didn't learn much from being indentured.

Expand full comment
BlueSpot's avatar

Yes, you are right about that. It also shows that slavery was so much part of the colonial experience that no one saw how wrong it was. Franklin's time in France, I think, caused him to rethink his position on slavery, as well as being exposed more to how slaves were treated on southern plantations as opposed to how slaves were treated in Philadelphia. Franklin didn't like a lot of the Southern members of the Continental Congress.

Expand full comment
"M"'s avatar

I think there's a larger point here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yw218cpVzok

Expand full comment
Jjamie's avatar

I will have to disagree. Indentured was helpful, but never necessary.controlling people is never necessary. Perhaps the new land that the Europeans landed on would have been less successful and our history in the US would be quite different. But it wasn't. Nor was our horrible history of stepping on every one. BTW, I am not proud necessarily to state my ancestors on mom (north) and dad (south) in thisplace go back to the 1600's. I don't have pride in that except for them, I would not have been born.

Expand full comment
BlueSpot's avatar

My family history in the US also dates back to the 1600s (Jamestown and Lynn Mass.).

The Virginia Company made the mistake of making their first colonists the third and fourth sons of landed gentry who had no survival skills, had no trade skills, and no farming skills. They quickly realized that they needed yeomen who were skilled laborers in order to make the colonies work. But yeomen couldn't afford the cost of passage to America. So the solution was to use indentured servitude, 7 years of labor to the colony, to cover the cost of passage to America, and, after 7 years, the person would receive 100 acres and full citizenship (the right to vote and hold office). These were also the same terms of servitude that the first slaves from Africa received in Jamestown by John Rolfe, rather then being sold into chattel slavery in the slave centers of Europe or North Africa.

Without these laborers coming to America, the colonies would have failed. Jamestown had actually given up and the remaining people were heading towards Chesapeake Bay, when the third supply mission arrived, bringing needed food and the first indentured servants to the colony: farmers, carpenters, and blacksmiths, who ensured that the colony would survive.

Interestingly enough, it was the Puritans in Massachusetts that introduced chattel slavery in the English colonies. They enslaved the local Native Americans, taking and selling them in the Spanish, Italian, and Barbary Coast slave markets.

You are correct that without indentured servitude the history of North America would have been different. The French and the Dutch would have dominated North America, and the English would have likely been shut out after their colonies failed. The Bourbons would have controlled North America (France and Spain).

No telling how things would have unfolded from there. But I doubt that England would have been able to build its empire without her American colonies.

Expand full comment
Jjamie's avatar

Cheers! Would love to have a long conversation with you!

Expand full comment
BlueSpot's avatar

That would be nice. I love history, always more to learn about things. So many "what ifs".

Expand full comment
Jessica's avatar

All slavery is bad, but teh American chattel slavery system would make even the Romans go "Wow, that sucks!" In Latin, of course

Expand full comment
RRJKR's avatar

Merda est!

Expand full comment
Robert Eckert's avatar

So many of our troubles still, to this day, stem from our original sins: the theft of land from the red man and labor from the black man, the killings we had to do to make those thefts stick, and the lies we had to tell children so they wouldn't feel ashamed of benefitting from the thefts and murders. The lying especially is the part that has never really stopped.

Expand full comment
Jjamie's avatar

I'm gonna change a few things regarding your statement (which is true, BTW).1. Indigenous peoples, and 2.Black people. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Expand full comment
Cincinnatus's avatar

"Caroline Downey, a columnist for the conservative National Review, said Thursday that conservatives themselves are to blame for the word “woke” losing its meaning. “Not everything is woke,” Downey said during a panel on CNN’s “NewsNight,” in response to Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.) on social media blasting restaurant chain Cracker Barrel’s new logo as a “woke rebrand” amid a wider MAGA meltdown over the switch. “I think we’re abusing the term a little bit too much where it’s losing its meaning,” she continued. “That’s really important because some things actually are woke and we should call it like it is.”"

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/caroline-downey-maga-use-word_n_68a809b4e4b0ab862cb218fe

Expand full comment
Hat For The Ass's avatar

Donald Trump and his entire Regime will swing for what they've done.

Expand full comment
Robert Eckert's avatar

We would like to believe so, but I am losing faith.

Expand full comment
Hat For The Ass's avatar

It's up to We The People to make it happen. It is HIGH time that these Gestapo fucks and their masters tasted real resistance.

That is going to require violence at this point..

Expand full comment
Zap's avatar

Still woke.

Expand full comment
Bob's avatar

Trump would be bigly mad if he went to the maritime museum, or any other museum in Amsterdam. (Ha, ha, who am I kidding! Trump has never been to a museum unless they were handing him an award.) They have multiple exhibits that talk about how the Dutch owe their prosperity largely to the slave trade, colonialism, and after slavery was abolished by indentured servitude. It was there that I learned about the complicated history of Suriname.

Expand full comment
Maybe's avatar

The problem with trying to rewrite history is that you can't actually change history.

Of course, you can con a lot of people if you're loud enough and they are ignorant enough.

Expand full comment
Bupkus231's avatar

How come all those assholes who were calling Newsom's parodies of FFOTUS posts "childish", etc. are so silent now? Do they think that stupid eagle/tombstone post is dignified and astute. Perhaps they do - because they have the smarts of par-boiled parsnips

Expand full comment
Maybe's avatar

I think that FFOTUS parody would have to be childish 'cause trumpy is childish.

Expand full comment
Zyxomma's avatar

Parboiled parsnip LIBELZ!1!!!!11!!!!!!!

Expand full comment
Asphalt-Type Person's avatar

I've often wondered how many people see parsnips in the produce section and are all "What are these funny-looking white carrots?"

Expand full comment
OneWhiteWhisker's avatar

The rabid right wing would like to minimize slavery for a couple of reasons:

1. To erase black and brown people, you must also erase their history.

2. If you make slavery out to be less brutal, even tolerable, the shrinking middle and growing lower class won't complain too much about being sent to work the now-deserted fields.

Expand full comment
Hank Napkin's avatar

There are some 'buts' but, States Rights, amirite?

Expand full comment
Stranger Than Friction's avatar

OK, I know trump is a raging narcissistic bigot, but are we sure he wrote that stuff himself? It is becoming more obvious by the day that trump is succumbing to dementia. I wouldn't be surprised if Miller turned out to be the real writer of those "anti-woke" screeds.

Expand full comment
"M"'s avatar

It DOESN'T MATTER who wrote it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yw218cpVzok

Expand full comment