Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : War -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Thomas M. who wrote (15070)	6/3/2002 8:56:22 PM
From: chalu2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23908

>>So, I can take one of two conclusions here. Perhaps you were not aware of the context, because you pulled it from some Judeofascist website (with no citation). Or, perhaps you read the full quote, and you think that blacks or Native Americans are only 3/5 of a human being.<< Given your knowledge of American history, you are aware, are you not, that this is but another example of Chomskyite misrepresentation and distortion? His sole example of the Constitution's "Naziism" is the 3/5 compromise. Now, we all would agree that Chomsky is a very, very bright man, right? So we also know that Chomsky is aware that the 3/5 compromise reflects anti-slavery sentiment, right? So why does he lie about it? So, therefore, given his erudition, Chomsky knows: 1. That the Constitution does not say that that blacks are 3/5 human, but that "other persons" count as 3/5 of a vote in determining Congressional representation, and for purposes of taxation. Chomsky says that the Constitution says that blacks are not "human." It says this nowhere. It does say that for purposes of taxation, "free persons" count whole, while "all other persons" count 3/5. Free persons included free blacks. 2. That the 3/5 compromise was a very anti-slavery act, as it was the south that argued for counting slaves as a full vote so as to increase their representation in the House. This would have led them to import even more slaves. Had there not been strong abolitionist sentiment in the Continental Congress, slaves would have counted as "full humans", as per the desires of the slavemasters. No one who knows U.S. history would have been fooled by Chomsky's despicable trashing of the U.S. Constitution, and his false example. But as he was in Australia, I guess he thought he could get away with it, eh? The notorious three-fifths clause of the constitution, the central exhibit in the claim that the document is racist, in fact reflects no denial of the equal worth of African Americans. Indeed the three-fifths clause has nothing to say about the intrinsic worth of any individual or group. It arose in the context of a debate between the northern and southern states over the issue of political representation. It turns out that the South wanted to count blacks as whole persons in order to increase its political power. The North wanted to count blacks as nothing, not for the purpose of rejecting their humanity, but in order to preserve and strengthen the anti-slavery majority in Congress. It was not a pro-slavery southerner but an anti-slavery northerner, James Wilson of Pennsylvania, who proposed the three-fifths compromise. dineshdsouza.com