Vision Forum Wide Stance on Slavery

[copper]

I've read multiple discussions on FJ and elsewhere about VF's support of American slavery in the past, and also as a "solution" for poverty today. After searching through the Vision Forum websites and FJ, I'm coming up short on primary quotes straight from Phillips/the Botkins/other affiliates.

Was this info scrubbed from the VF sites at one point? Do I need to invest in my own copy of The 200 Year Plan or some other nonsense? Or is evidence of their support less direct--ie, the Elsie Dinsmore series, etc?

[Burris]

I've read multiple discussions on FJ and elsewhere about VF's support of American slavery in the past, and also as a "solution" for poverty today. After searching through the Vision Forum websites and FJ, I'm coming up short on primary quotes straight from Phillips/the Botkins/other affiliates.

Was this info scrubbed from the VF sites at one point? Do I need to invest in my own copy of The 200 Year Plan or some other nonsense? Or is evidence of their support less direct--ie, the Elsie Dinsmore series, etc?

You'll find support for indentured servitude in the work of their common hero, RJ Rushdoony. One of the Dominionists actually sent me the first volume of his Institutes of Biblical Law. Fantastic writer - terrible and frightening content. That makes his writing all the more dangerous.

Here is a link to some of his comments.

[anjulibai]

What is the 200 Year Plan?

[Burris]

What is the 200 Year Plan?

LOL! I'm not laughing at you, I promise. I'm laughing at their hubris. The 200-Year Plan is a sort of document the modern patriarch works out to direct his family and their affairs for the next 200 years, towards what he considers Biblical dominion over other people and the world in general. That way, the oaf can exercise his overmastering need to control everything even from beyond the grave, assuming his descendents stick to the plan he made for them and come to fill the roles he expects they should take.

[snarkyjan]

What is the 200 Year Plan?

It's also called Multi-Generational Devotion. It's the presumption that the descendants of the current-day fundamentalists will continue the practices of their fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers. It's like the old practice of mortmain (dead hand) , where people's right to inherit or bequeath property was dictated by the terms of wills drafted 4-5 generations before they were born. A perfect example was "Pride and Prejudice" where Mr. Bennet had to bequeath his house/other property to Mr. Collins because the terms under which he inherited the house dictated that it could only go to the nearest male relative.

[anjulibai]

LOL! I'm not laughing at you, I promise. I'm laughing at their hubris. The 200-Year Plan is a sort of document the modern patriarch works out to direct his family and their affairs for the next 200 years, towards what he considers Biblical dominion over other people and the world in general. That way, the oaf can exercise his overmastering need to control everything even from beyond the grave, assuming his descendents stick to the plan he made for them and come to fill the roles he expects they should take.

Wow, that is hubris. I can't believe they think they can control their descendents for the next 200 years.

That's pretty scary.

[anjulibai]

It's also called Multi-Generational Devotion. It's the presumption that the descendants of the current-day fundamentalists will continue the practices of their fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers. It's like the old practice of mortmain (dead hand) , where people's right to inherit or bequeath property was dictated by the terms of wills drafted 4-5 generations before they were born. A perfect example was "Pride and Prejudice" where Mr. Bennet had to bequeath his house/other property to Mr. Collins because the terms under which he inherited the house dictated that it could only go to the nearest male relative.

Yes, because we all live like our ancestors did 200 years ago, and nothing at all has changed society.

Damn, these people are just...yikes...

[2xx1xy1JD]

It's also called Multi-Generational Devotion. It's the presumption that the descendants of the current-day fundamentalists will continue the practices of their fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers. It's like the old practice of mortmain (dead hand) , where people's right to inherit or bequeath property was dictated by the terms of wills drafted 4-5 generations before they were born. A perfect example was "Pride and Prejudice" where Mr. Bennet had to bequeath his house/other property to Mr. Collins because the terms under which he inherited the house dictated that it could only go to the nearest male relative.

A had a sudden terrifying flashback to Estates and Trust class 20 years ago...and the Rule Against Perpetuities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_against_perpetuities

So yeah, back in 1682, the courts in England ruled that this was a bad idea.

[salex]

It's also called Multi-Generational Devotion. It's the presumption that the descendants of the current-day fundamentalists will continue the practices of their fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers. It's like the old practice of mortmain (dead hand) , where people's right to inherit or bequeath property was dictated by the terms of wills drafted 4-5 generations before they were born. A perfect example was "Pride and Prejudice" where Mr. Bennet had to bequeath his house/other property to Mr. Collins because the terms under which he inherited the house dictated that it could only go to the nearest male relative.

This explains one of the inlaws anger when he learned that wills could only dictate what happened to a property for 100 years in our state... (or so I understood from his ire)

They've been in this a lot longer than I knew what was going on.... happily , hubs was never in it.

[dairyfreelife]

Must say I do love these group who truly believe they can get dominion and the country they want through small plans. Because all their children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, great-great grandchildren, etc. will follow their beliefs to the fullest and certainly won't ever not follow suit. Totally possible (not).

I have read and seen that there some right-wingers and fundamentalist Christians who have stated that blacks were better off as slaves. My reaction is :o :shock: :evil: :angry-screaming: :angry-steamingears: They say it was because they had two parents and were in a family back then. Um, really? Maybe it's my poor West Virginia education, but I understood that many children of slaves were taken away and mothers and fathers were separated since they were, you know, slaves, they were bought and sold at any point at the owner's choosing. Not to mention that male slave owners would rape their female slaves sometimes and of course, not acknowledge the child as theirs because, one drop rule and all. But what do I know. :roll:

And I have heard crazier theories like Jewish people are controlling the government and want us to mix so no one will care about race anymore...or something. I fail to see the horrors of that, but when people are that full of shit, it's gonna take a serious enema to remove it and get to the huge polyps inside, but they refuse any help at ways to remove their shitload. It's going to destroy them, but they're too stubborn to care, refusing to believe there's a danger at all. I see this with the NSM, KKK, many Fundamentalist bloggers and even more so, their leaders like Brown, Wilson, Phillips, Gothard, etc., MRA groups and more racists, sexists, and religious nutjobs.

[copper]

"I understood that many children of slaves were taken away and mothers and fathers were separated since they were, you know, slaves, they were bought and sold at any point at the owner's choosing. Not to mention that male slave owners would rape their female slaves sometimes and of course, not acknowledge the child as theirs because, one drop rule and all. But what do I know. :roll:"

This is exactly what I do not understand about the slavery support from VF. Slavery flies directly in the face of all their beliefs--why do they now support it?

Per the linked Rushdooney article I did see his quote about how pagans should/could be enslaved. I guess if they are already evil, it doesn't matter if you force people into a system that results in rape, children out of wedlock, and broken marriages and families?

I just don't understand how an organization that wants to build up the family, and claims that society is broken because of broken families, supports/wants to reinstitute a terrible system that broke up families in the worst way possible.

[Burris]

"I understood that many children of slaves were taken away and mothers and fathers were separated since they were, you know, slaves, they were bought and sold at any point at the owner's choosing. Not to mention that male slave owners would rape their female slaves sometimes and of course, not acknowledge the child as theirs because, one drop rule and all. But what do I know. :roll:"

This is exactly what I do not understand about the slavery support from VF. Slavery flies directly in the face of all their beliefs--why do they now support it?

Per the linked Rushdooney article I did see his quote about how pagans should/could be enslaved. I guess if they are already evil, it doesn't matter if you force people into a system that results in rape, children out of wedlock, and broken marriages and families?

I just don't understand how an organization that wants to build up the family, and claims that society is broken because of broken families, supports/wants to reinstitute a terrible system that broke up families in the worst way possible.

Welcome to the club.

[sunshine]

I guess I will be attending any of their forms. Being a Black woman, they probably snatch me up. smh

[salex]

"I understood that many children of slaves were taken away and mothers and fathers were separated since they were, you know, slaves, they were bought and sold at any point at the owner's choosing. Not to mention that male slave owners would rape their female slaves sometimes and of course, not acknowledge the child as theirs because, one drop rule and all. But what do I know. :roll:"

This is exactly what I do not understand about the slavery support from VF. Slavery flies directly in the face of all their beliefs--why do they now support it?

Per the linked Rushdooney article I did see his quote about how pagans should/could be enslaved. I guess if they are already evil, it doesn't matter if you force people into a system that results in rape, children out of wedlock, and broken marriages and families?

I just don't understand how an organization that wants to build up the family, and claims that society is broken because of broken families, supports/wants to reinstitute a terrible system that broke up families in the worst way possible.

They don't count as families if they are not Good Christian Families. ANd really, we all know rape isn't rape, if you own the woman, and children out of wedlock is proof of being a pagan anyway, so really, who are they to bitch about being slaves?

[wild little fox]

WOW! It gets crazier and crazier! Yet, I am not surprised.

I often think of the damage to generations of African Americans and Native Americans as a result of the deplorable things that occurred. A lot if people have pulled themselves up despite everything, including the still pervasive racism, but there are still a lot of broken people.

[LostSamurai]

So.......the slaves were better off because at least there were two parents around...despite the fact that many of those parents were probaly sold off/killed/raped/disappeared due to the circumstances of the times......

They. Can.Not. Be. Serious.

So, in VF's opinion, we should totally bring back the Civil War despite the fact that most families on both sides lost someone. OKay then, Mr Tool.....

[HereticHick]

A 200 year plan? Like 40 5-year plans? Stalin would be impressed.

I thought that one of the main fundy Christian excuses for slavery was that it brought Christianity to the "heathen" Africans.

I believe on another thread we had a discussion about one of the VF "intellectuals" whining that the College of William & Mary wouldn't give him a PHD because his topic was too "southern" (dog whistle!! southern=confederacy apologist) and "Christian"

[meda]

You dont need to go as far back as Rushdoony. Let us not forget Douglas Wilson (the man who helped a pedophile get married to cure his sin) and his spiffy little 1996 pamphlet supporting southern slavery. From the Wikipedia entry:

Wilson's most controversial work is probably his pamphlet Southern Slavery, As It Was (ISBN 1-885767-17-X), which he wrote along with League of the South co-founder and fellow Christian minister Steve Wilkins. The pamphlet stated that "slavery produced in the South a genuine affection between the races that we believe we can say has never existed in any nation before the War or since." Historians such as Peter H. Wood, Clayborne Carson, and Bancroft Prize winner Ira Berlin condemned the pamphlet's arguments, with Wood calling them as spurious as holocaust denial.[9]

Wilson held a February 2004 conference for those who supported his ideas, such as pastor George Grant, in the University of Idaho. The University published a disclaimer distancing itself from the event, and numerous anti-conference protests took place. Wilson described critical attacks as 'abolitionist propaganda'.[9] He also has repeatedly denied any racist leanings. Wilson has described his own views as 'paleo-Confederate'. He has said his "long war" is not on behalf of white supremacy; rather, Wilson seeks to revive the memory—however rose-tinted—of eras in Western history when faith and reason seemed at one, when family, church, and the organic "community of Christians" that T. S. Eliot describes in Christianity and Culture were more powerful than the state.[10]

The Southern Poverty Law Center connects Wilson's views to the Neo-Confederate and Christian Reconstruction movements influenced by R. J. Rushdoony, concluding, "Wilson's theology is in most ways indistinguishable from basic tenets of Reconstruction." [11]

Canon Press ceased publication of Southern Slavery, As It Was when it became aware of serious citation errors in several passages authored by Wilkins.[12] Robert McKenzie, the history professor who first noticed the citation problems, described the authors as being "sloppy" rather than "malevolent."[13] Wilson reworked and redacted the arguments in the tract, and published (without Wilkins) a new set of essays under the name Black & Tan (ISBN 1-59128-032-X) after consulting with historian Eugene Genovese.[14]

Wilson addressed his views on slavery, racism, and states' rights in a 2011 interview by Canon Wired.[15

Then of course we have his co author, Steve Wilkins, who rates his own entry with the SPLC:

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/i ... kins-world

[Burris]

A 200 year plan? Like 40 5-year plans? Stalin would be impressed.

Well, ahem, I laughed at that. Just more evidence I might be a bad person.

I believe on another thread we had a discussion about one of the VF "intellectuals" whining that the College of William & Mary wouldn't give him a PHD because his topic was too "southern" (dog whistle!! southern=confederacy apologist) and "Christian"

Yeah, him. His name escapes me right now, but he is, as far as I know, one of the same historical "experts" Doug Phillips (Is a Tool) takes on every one of his glorified junkets. And they're goin' to Mykonos this time! I'm sure that guy's Southern Perspective will be right at home on what may be the gayest island in Greece.

[snarkyjan]

Well, ahem, I laughed at that. Just more evidence I might be a bad person.

Yeah, him. His name escapes me right now, but he is, as far as I know, one of the same historical "experts" Doug Phillips (Is a Tool) takes on every one of his glorified junkets. And they're goin' to Mykonos this time! I'm sure that guy's Southern Perspective will be right at home on what may be the gayest island in Greece.

The jerk's name is Bill Potter and he's discussed in the thread "Please Tell me Togas Will Be Involved".

[Burris]

The jerk's name is Bill Potter and he's discussed in the thread "Please Tell me Togas Will Be Involved".

Thank you. My next question is whether there's any closet in the world big enough to hold both those guys and their egos.

[Sobeknofret]

"I understood that many children of slaves were taken away and mothers and fathers were separated since they were, you know, slaves, they were bought and sold at any point at the owner's choosing. Not to mention that male slave owners would rape their female slaves sometimes and of course, not acknowledge the child as theirs because, one drop rule and all. But what do I know. :roll:"

This is exactly what I do not understand about the slavery support from VF. Slavery flies directly in the face of all their beliefs--why do they now support it?

Per the linked Rushdooney article I did see his quote about how pagans should/could be enslaved. I guess if they are already evil, it doesn't matter if you force people into a system that results in rape, children out of wedlock, and broken marriages and families?

I just don't understand how an organization that wants to build up the family, and claims that society is broken because of broken families, supports/wants to reinstitute a terrible system that broke up families in the worst way possible.

In a truly racist world, it's only white families that matter, sadly. VF still longs for a world where black families are merely property, to be disposed of at will. There's an online archive of Civil War newspapers at VA Tech I've been reading through for another project, but the views on slavery are...enlightening and sickening at the same time. They're worth reading for getting the feel of era, and what VF and cronies want to return us to.

[Hane]

The Elsie Dinsmore books do contain the world's most condescending and patronizing attitudes about Southern slaves, although one of them is granted human dignity by lip service for having helped young Elsie become a Christian. Still, the author took the easy way out by having the Dinsmores be in Europe during the Civil War and speak in favor of preserving the Union and taking care of the freed slaves. It struck me as odd, but the books weren't written too long after the war, and perhaps it wouldn't have been acceptable for a mainstream writer to have come out in favor of secession and slavery.

[Sobeknofret]

The Elsie Dinsmore books do contain the world's most condescending and patronizing attitudes about Southern slaves, although one of them is granted human dignity by lip service for having helped young Elsie become a Christian. Still, the author took the easy way out by having the Dinsmores be in Europe during the Civil War and speak in favor of preserving the Union and taking care of the freed slaves. It struck me as odd, but the books weren't written too long after the war, and perhaps it wouldn't have been acceptable for a mainstream writer to have come out in favor of secession and slavery.

Also, Martha Finley was a Northerner herself, and was anti-slavery, but not sure how to handle it in her books. She really was never planning on writing more than the first two books, Elsie Dinsmore and Elsie's Holidays at Roselands, but financial need was the impetus for her to write the rest of the series. At some point in the books, she was going to *have* to deal with the Civil War. It was also not uncommon for Southern planters to be anti-secession, pro-Union and slave holders both. Finley may also have known of the case of Warner Underwood, a Kentucky planter who was a Congressman, slave holder, and plantation owner, who was both anti-secession and anti-Lincoln, but very pro-Union. When one of his brother-in-laws joined the Confederate army after leaving West Point, he and his wife announced that he was dead to them, and never spoke to or acknowledged him again.

ETA: riffles

[Hane]

Also, Martha Finley was a Northerner herself, and was anti-slavery, but not sure how to handle it in her books. She really was never planning on writing more than the first two books, Elsie Dinsmore and Elsie's Holidays at Roselands, but financial need was the impetus for her to write the rest of the series. At some point in the books, she was going to *have* to deal with the Civil War. It was also not uncommon for Southern planters to be anti-secession, pro-Union and slave holders both. Finley may also have known of the case of Warner Underwood, a Kentucky planter who was a Congressman, slave holder, and plantation owner, who was both anti-secession and anti-Lincoln, but very pro-Union. When one of his brother-in-laws joined the Confederate army after leaving West Point, he and his wife announced that he was dead to them, and never spoke to or acknowledged him again.

Thanks, Sobeknofret!