President Obama's Legacy in Historical Context

[sheshe2]

Frankly, if I were a historian and New York Magazine asked me to weigh in on predicting what President Obama's legacy will be in the future (especially with 2 years left in his second term), my response would be to ask, "What part of the word 'history' do you not understand?"

But it did give Thomas Powers an opportunity to actually put the question in proper historical context.

With the caveat that his administration is not yet finished, and two years is a long time, how will history judge Obama?

One theme dominates American history from its origins to this morning’s news—the consequences, and how to deal with them, of the importation into the United States of Africans as slaves. President Barack Obama is not a descendant of slaves but he is black and that fact has unloosed or perhaps only illuminated a renewed white political resistance to racial equality that future historians will record as the third phase of the struggle by white Americans to retain political and social control.

The first phase, centering on the question of slavery, extended from the counting of black slaves as three-fifths of a man in the Constitution of 1787 through ratification of the 13th Amendment banning slavery in 1865. The second phase, triggered by white shock at the social revolution implicit in the end of slavery, centered on white use of vigilante terror and control of the courts to deny political and civil rights for black Americans. Soon after the civil-rights acts of the 1960s ended the second phase, a third emerged, triggered by white shock at the fact of black legal and political equality.

Read More Here http://immasmartypants.blogspot.com/2015/01/president-obamas-legacy-in-historical.html

[unblock]

1. the counting of slaves as three-fifths of a man was not the big problem.

them being slaves was the problem!

*given* that they were slaves, the question was how to count them *for purposes or apportionment*, i.e., how many congressmen do the states get?

it was the *slave-owners* who wanted to count them as a full person so that people in the south would get more slavery-supporting representation in congress, and the free states that wanted to count them as non-persons so people in the free states would get more representation in congress.

allowing them to be slaves was horrible.
denying them the vote was horrible.

but *given that their vote was denied*, counting them *at all* merely gave more power to their oppressors.


in any event, pointing to the three-fifths clause as the start of a historic period is pretty silly. the historic period in this case began with the kidnapping and importation of slaves, which goes back essentially to the beginning of the settling of america by europeans.

[Jamaal510]

2. K&R

[Cha]

3. Very well done from Nancy LeTourneau, she! Don't have to wait the two final years for this to be

timelessly accurate.. from your link..

The first line of white defense in each phase has been denial—denial in the first phase that slavery was cruel, exploitive, and wrong, and denial in the second phase that lynching, Jim Crow laws, and whites-only primaries were intended to control African-Americans. In the third phase, it is denied that implacable Republican hostility to Obama has anything to do with race; that the all-Republican South, like the all-Democratic South which preceded it, is primarily an instrument of white control; that voter-ID laws are aimed at blocking votes by blacks and Hispanics; and that the predominance of white men voting Republican (64 percent in the midterm elections) is explained by race. History suggests that it takes roughly 50 years for denial to run its course; after that, everybody will know what the struggle is about, and no historian will blame it on Obama.

Thank you for the brilliant OP, she~ Always smartness from Ms LeTourneau~

[sheshe2]

4. She gets it Cha!

[Cha]

5. Kick for President Obama! Mahalo, she~