Did he do it?

I really hope you aren't American...

Her name is Sally Hemings and I'm pretty sure that is just an artist's modern interpretation of what she might have looked like. No actual depictions of her from the period exist, that I know of.

Is that why all the Americans today with the last name of Jefferson are black?

Yes. If I had slaves I would definitely be keeping one to warm my bed at night if you know what I mean. Literally every man would do this.

>Literally every man would do this.

And yet hardly any American slave masters actually did do this. At least according to the historical record.

>No actual depictions of her from the period exist, that I know of.

A much more surprising (to me) fact than this is that no depictions of Jefferson's wife exist, either.

Infantcide was still a thing.

>And yet hardly any American slave masters actually did do this.

The average black American has about 25% European ancestry. So it seems it happened quite a lot.

>The average black American has about 25% European ancestry.

Source?

theroot.com/articles/history/2013/02/how_mixed_are_african_americans.html

>* According to Ancestry.com, the average African American is 65 percent sub-Saharan African, 29 percent European and 2 percent Native American.

>* According to 23andme.com, the average African American is 75 percent sub-Saharan African, 22 percent European and only 0.6 percent Native American.

>* According to Family Tree DNA.com, the average African American is 72.95 percent sub-Saharan African, 22.83 percent European and 1.7 percent Native American.

>

* According to National Geographic's Genographic Project, the average African American is 80 percent sub-Saharan African, 19 percent European and 1 percent Native American.

>* According to AfricanDNA, in which I am a partner with Family Tree DNA, the average African American is 79 percent sub-Saharan African, 19 percent European and 2 percent Native American.

I'd only do it if they were white tbqh

Why is this such a big deal to Americans?

Yeah, because nobody wanted to fess up and say "I prefer the succulent taste of negroid flesh to that of my white wife" in those days you fucking cro-magnon

No, because it didn't happen.

You seriously expect me to believe that no American slave owner ever boinked one of his slaves?

>"I prefer the succulent taste of negroid flesh to that of my white wife"
Kek

I bet you have a house near the bosphorus.

It was consensual.

I would have if she looked like that

>not having jungle fever

Fucking plebs

Probably.
JT was a fucking hypocrite.

He was a hero.

He was a human.

And hey, if I owned people, well I hope I'd have some restraint but let's not kid ourselves.

It's seem likely.

More importantly, it would be great if someone came up with one reason why this matters. Just one.

It proves Jefferson was the first black President.

...

"from time to time it is necessary to paint the walls of black vaginas with white seed" ~thomas jefferson

americans are obsessed with race in my opinion because the deadliest war they fought was over race and its repercussions affect American society to this day. This combines with the long history of slavery in north america, the genocide of native americans, and darwinist views in the 19th century.

>black women women owned by white man with no legal or human rights could consent

Generally all colonial nations have a bit of a race fixation. Canada doesn't have as much of one because they didn't import a whole lot and the Indians aren't numerous enough to still be a big issue.

>read about abolishing of slavery in other nations
>Most are peaceful with slave owners just compensated monetarily

Why did Southerners have to chimp out?

>the genocide of native americans
No such thing

dude, shooting indians on the california hillside and claiming their heads for rewards in order to clear out the countryside is definitely genocide.

That's war, not genocide.

Sure it does.

But really, this is like saying we should discount everything Romans did or wrote because they fucked slaves. They literally had slaves just for that purpose. Who cares? Judging people for engaging in behavior normal for the times is childish.

People that get angry about Jefferson fucking a slave are the same people that defend mohammed for marrying a young girl cause "that's how they did it then".

How the fuck is that war?

you're literally some country fuck with your m8s going around terrorizing indians, killing them, getting money for it, and then taking their land.

genocide: the deliberate killing of people who belong to a particular racial, political, or cultural group

I think a lot of the critics are just jealous tbqh.

Maybe indo savages should have advanced their agriculture so minor smallpox and war deaths isn't mass genocide

Same principle and bullshit revisionism. You're applying knowledge now to knowledge then and this is wrong. Religion and even science at the time told people that indians were savages, subhuman, and even animals.

>Settle land
>animals attack you randomly
>kill animals

Of course there were people that spent time with indians and realized they weren't animals, but to most, they were literally subhuman. This isn't killing a people due to their race. This is killing people because they arent people they are animals.

They were DINDU to the highest degree, they felt they were doing nothing wrong.

Maybe it's because all other slave colonies had so many more blacks and/or natives that White people HAD to recognize blacks and natives didn't like the treatment regardless of how they felt about blacks and natives as a group.

Thomas Jefferson fucking his barely pubescent half-sister in law is disgusting under most societies and ages moral rubric.

>be injun fellow
>dislike american colonists
>always team up against new americans whenever the opportunity presents itself (See: French-Indian War)
>wonder why new americans don't like you

That was most likely from overseers than plantation owners.

>be native american
>most defining aspect of my tribe's culture is basket weaving
>spend hundreds of years slaughtering my neighbors
>one day, advanced peoples with technology leaps and bounds beyond us show up
>they demand that we cooperate or get fucked
>scratch native head and think really hard over this ultimatum the white man has given us
>decide to attack and scalp white settlers because "lol muh land"
>get blown the fuck out by euro illnesses and superior colonist firepower

If a gigantic alien mothership showed up over your city tomorrow and they got on a space megaphone and said, "Hey, me and my friends are coming over and you better not fuck with us, earthlings," would you fuck with them?

I don't get it.

Better to die on your feet etc etc

The Native Americans had a far richer culture and are far more respected around the world than so-called "Americans"

Can you not meme in this thread? Serious replies only, thanks.

It goes both ways. While we can acknowledge that they were doing business as usual back then, we can condemn it for what we consider it to be now.

As long as the distinction is made that they are not us and we are not them, it's sound. Therefore, it's genocide. It wasn't considered genocide in any technical sense at the time. But now we can observe in hindsight that it was the ritual killing and resettlement of people belonging to a particular group.

Remind me again why this consideration of cultural relativism is anything but a thought exercise?

So? Just because people thought it was the right thing to do at the time doesn't mean it wasn't genocide.

Because a) most people that believe that the killing of the indians in this country was genocide conveniently fail to forget that the indians were routinely attacking and killing people all over the country, and b) there's a trend (that people seem to pretty much only apply to american history) to discount pretty much anything early americans did that was positive due to them participating in things that we now consider negative but were par for the course all over the world at the time.

It's disingenuous and smacks of an agenda. Most of us agree that women should be able to get a job, but does that mean that historical contributions by everyone that lived before the 20th century should be discounted because they wouldn't think of allowing their wives to work?

no.

You can call it genocide (I don't), but I consider genocide the attempted extermination of a people due to a defining characteristic such as race or religion and I think it's pretty clear that Indians were killed and resettled due to the defining characteristic of killing us and being in the way of what we at the time felt was our duty (settling and developing the country).

Yes, and she loved it. Bitchs love the Jeffersonian diplomacy

?

dickplomacy*

they're defining characteristic is that they're all Indians, and are taking up good land that people can settle on, so lets just fucking kill them cause these people have told us they won't give whats rightfully theirs

WHITED

kek

she was his wife's half-sister
he didn't start tapping until after his wife died
following his wife's death, he suffered from migraines
he was sick with grief for a year
then he took up with Sally

I think he did

>"One sees the mulattos and little negroes who look just like the white children in every family, and all the while the Men consider themselves models of Husbands and Gentlemen"
- Marry Chesnut

It wasn't super common, but it did happen in a large number of cases. It was frequently common for a slave master to keep the most "white" looking female slave as a bed warmer. I can't remember the name of it, but there was even a legal trial over one girl because she looked literally white and was only like 16 when purchased for the literal purpose of being a sex slave.

Can anybody explain this meme or whatever? I've seen it posted before but I don't get it.

Who wouldn't?

Are you retarded we like apologize every other year for our racist past, the one mandatory friggin year of history in ha teaches us how racist we were

Having sex with her wasn't a big an issue as his having an intimate relationship with a slave.

First of all, what Jefferson did, regardless of how common the transgression was, was not considered normal, it was in fact a huge scandal although perhaps for different reasons than it would be today. He would've never gotten far in politics if people had known what he did, just like no one would've voted for Johnathan Edwards if they knew he was cheating on his dying wife.

Second, the logical conclusion of what you're saying is that there is no such thing as morality, only relative normalcy. If everyone's accusing people of being witches and burning them at the stake better get in on the action because if anything it would be wrong not to. If you study history you will find many people committing what would today be considered heinous crimes against morality in the name of normalcy, but you will also find many others who questioned normalcy in favor of morality and truth. To hold Jefferson and, say, Adams (or Washington for that matter) against each other, for example, it would be hard to argue that Adams's moral stance on slavery was not more commendable than Jefferson's hypocritical and narrowly self-interested but altogether typical stance.

The problem worth identifying is the annoying idea that people who are amoral should not have their voices heard and should only be vilified. The Romans were amoral in many ways but obviously they were worth learning from.

help me Veeky Forums why does the thought of Jefferson bumping her arouse me so much?

Go to adult gif the answers you seek are there.

(You)

There were literal interracial breeding grounds in New Orlans.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaçage#Quadroon_balls

>The quadroon balls were social events designed to encourage mixed-race women to form liaisons with wealthy white men through a system of concubinage known as plaçage.

>In 1805, a man named Albert Tessier began renting a dance hall where he threw twice weekly dances for free quadroon women and white men only (80). These dances were elegant and elaborate, designed to appeal to wealthy white men. Although race mixing was prohibited by New Orleans law, it was common for white gentleman to attend the balls, sometimes stealing away from white balls to mingle with the city's quadroon female population. The principal desire of quadroon women attending these balls was to become plaçee as the mistress of a wealthy gentleman, usually a young white Creole or a visiting European (81). These arrangements were a common occurrence, Guillory suggests, because the highly educated, socially refined quadroons were prohibited from marrying white men and were unlikely to find Black men of their own status.

Good times when whites were cucking blacks, instead of the opposite.

>injun cannibals.jpg

I'm pretty sure that's a funeral rite of some sort, maybe a type of mummification? If they were gonna eat him they wouldn't have smoked the corpse until it had no more flesh.

The genetic record says differently.

No, that has to do with slaves taking the names of their masters (Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, all common white US names), and many slave families took popular names of famous figures after they got their freedom

This is so stupid.

Quadroon "balls" were 1. Over stated and exaggerated and 2. of Haitian refugees not of the local Creole of color population.

It often probably was. Free women will often hook up with rich and powerful men to elevate their status in life, why not slaves?

Did he bang his female slaves?

*(The answer is always yes)

You say this like it's unique to America. Humans have been exterminating their neighbors since the beginning .

Dat filename. It's like you didn't even watch Jeremiah Johnson and learn about injunction jerry sacred burial grounds one simply does not walk into.

>demand we cooperate
With what? Falling off a cliff like lemmings? The Cherokee cooperated and all they got was a forcible relocation. As for big achievements they made babies and passed on culture just as well as anyone.

It's not like the arrival of the Europeans was comparable to an alien mothership. Some dudes came across in boats and made a few walled settlements. Sure, the boats were impressive, and the guns were scary, but it was nothing that seemed to scream "resistance is futile, give up your land and bend over." The natives sacked a few European settlements in their time, there was nothing to suggest that Europeans couldn't be driven off in the early years of settlement.

The disease, on the other hand, does the trick. Besides, a lot of natives DID cooperate, the problem was it usually didn't work out very well for the natives. Doesn't take long to spot a pattern.

She was a 14 year old girl who was enslaved by her own father then after her half sister died her brother in law fucked her.

It wasn't concesual, she was groomed into sexual slavery and had it come out in Jefferson's time and confirmed he did what he did he'd lose everything because even back then people recognized that was wrong.

>that goalpost shifting

When somebody says "there was no such thing as genocide against natives" and they say there is, and then you reply with "dude genocide is totally normal" you're not helping the "no such thing as genocide" argument.