Damn, Kanye West Spoke the Truth?! Slavery Was a Choice!
A Deliberate One Made By the US and the West To Enslave Africans, Then Cover it Up and Lie About It
The idea that Thomas Paine wasn’t so much “ahead of his time” but rather “chose a different path” based on an ethical or moral perspective, contrasts with many traditional narratives that tend to view history more from a progressive or chronological point of view.
Thomas Paine was a significant figure during the American Revolution. His pamphlet, “Common Sense,” galvanized many to the cause of independence from Great Britain, and his series of essays, “The Crisis,” was instrumental in maintaining morale.
Paine’s reputation, however, is more complex than some other founding figures. He was a radical advocating for American independence but also for a very different kind of social and political structure. He was ahead of his time in many respects, including his opposition to slavery and his advocacy for social security, progressive taxation, and universal suffrage.
Complex and Radical
My perspective challenges the notion of Thomas Paine as a “radical” and suggests a reevaluation of his ideas within a moral and ethical framework, as well as in comparison with his contemporaries.
I’m suggesting the language used in marking Paine as radical¹ and complex² was (and is) done in order to cover up the inherent moral failing of the people of the time and the choice the US founding fathers and Western nations to participate in slavery.
Presentism and Historical Relativism
There’s debate among historians about “presentism” — the application of contemporary moral judgments to the past. The debate often centers on figures like the Founding Fathers, many of whom owned slaves.
Some argue that they were products of their time and should be judged accordingly, while others assert that there were always alternatives to racism and oppression. And that people made deliberate choices to uphold these systems.
Slavery was known to be wrong at that time in history just as it is known to be wrong today.
This idea that people were the products of their time is bogus. Well, how did the times get to be such that people would choose to enslave other people? What ingredients made the times so?
To eliminate racism, Kendi told the audience, people have to understand where it comes from. Many people have taken for granted that “the cradle of racism” is ignorance and hate. If that’s the case, he said, it would stand to reason that once people are better educated, racist policies would end. But what if, he argued, the perpetrators of racist policies already know what you are trying to teach them? What if they are instituting those voter suppression policies out of self-interest?
Contemporaries of the US Founding Fathers who knew at the time that slavery was wrong and a deliberate choice
- William Wilberforce (1759–1833): A British politician and leader of the movement to abolish the slave trade. He successfully influenced the passing of the Slave Trade Act 1807, which banned British trade in enslaved people
- John Woolman (1720–1772): An early American Quaker preacher and merchant, Woolman is considered one of the founding contributors to the abolitionist movement in America.
- Granville Sharp (1735–1813): An English abolitionist and one of the founders of Sierra Leone as a colony for the resettlement of freed slaves.
- Anthony Benezet (1713–1784): A French-American abolitionist and educator who founded one of the world’s first anti-slavery societies, the Society for the Relief of Free Negroes Unlawfully Held in Bondage.
- Benjamin Rush (1746–1813): A signer of the Declaration of Independence from Philadelphia, Rush was a prominent physician and ardent critic of slavery and the slave trade.
- James Ramsay (1733–1789): A British ship’s doctor who later became a clergyman and published works against the slave trade, influencing public and political opinion.
- William Lloyd Garrison (1805–1879): Although a little younger than the generation of Paine and the Founding Fathers, Garrison was a prominent American abolitionist, journalist, and social reformer, who played a significant role advocating for the end of slavery.
- Elizabeth Heyrick (1769–1831): An English Quaker, and abolitionist who campaigned for immediate, rather than gradual, abolition of slavery in the British colonies.
Heyrick, a Quaker convert and a campaigner on a whole range of social issues, published Immediate, Not Gradual, Abolition: or an Inquiry into the Shortest, Safest, and most Effectual Means of Getting Rid of West Indian Slavery in 1824, a date when William Wilberforce and all the now more famous male abolitionists were arguing for gradual abolition.
I deliberately chose non-African Europeans as they could have made the choice to benefit from the wealth of torturing and enslaving Africans, but they chose the path of freedom and morality.
These individuals demonstrate that during the time of Paine and the Founding Fathers, there were many voices across the world advocating for the end of slavery.
It seems to me that this idea of “Presentism” is a flat-out lie.
It’s a deliberate idea to defend the obfuscation of the choice of slavery. To continue to create the belief that slavery was inevitable and that the “different times” (different from how we think today) are why we shouldn’t judge the people of the past by our standards of today.
This is wrong.
Radical
“Radical” describes views or actions that deviate from the established norm.
From a modern ethical perspective, many would agree with me that Paine’s views on slavery, human rights, and social justice were morally sound, advocating equality and human dignity.
The idea of Paine’s ideas being radical for his times is a lie.
His ideas starkly contrasted with the accepted norms of his era, and in that context were considered radical.
It’s crucial to understand that the use of the term “radical” does not necessarily imply a moral judgement; it’s often used in a more neutral, descriptive sense to indicate deviation from the norm.
By the standards of today’s society, where abolition, universal suffrage, and social security are accepted norms, Paine would likely not be viewed as radical.
The assertion that Paine was simply “ahead of his time” obscures a more profound truth. Paine’s ideas weren’t “radical” but rooted in principles of equality, social justice, and human dignity that were known and debated at the time.
The language used to label Paine as radical and complex was designed to mask the moral failings (the norm) of the time and the deliberate choices made by the Founding Fathers and Western nations to participate in slavery.
And this continues to be true today.
The debate around “presentism” serves as a smokescreen to defend the obfuscation of the true choices made regarding slavery.
It perpetuates the belief that slavery was an unavoidable outcome and that we should refrain from judging the past by our present moral standards.
In truth, slavery was known to be morally wrong then, just as systemic racism is today.
Paine and some of his contemporaries consciously chose to reject slavery because it was and is wrong, and to embrace freedom and morality.
The use of the term “radical” to describe Paine’s ideas was deliberate. In fact, his ideas were rooted in basic principles of human rights and justice
The question then becomes why were the “norms” of the time bent to slavery? What, then, led the societal norms of that era to so readily accommodate slavery? What failures in the moral fabric of these Western nations permitted them to risk their spiritual integrity (their morality, not mine) and the well-being of their descendants for profit?
¹ “Radical” generally refers to something that is very different from, and often a departure from, the traditional or usual.
² “Complex” composed of many interconnected parts; compound — dictionary.com
