Rolando@lemmy.world to Everett True Comics@midwest.social · 30 days agoEverett True teaches a kid about gun safety (October 17, 1906)lemmy.worldexternal-linkmessage-square24fedilinkarrow-up1156arrow-down15file-text
arrow-up1151arrow-down1external-linkEverett True teaches a kid about gun safety (October 17, 1906)lemmy.worldRolando@lemmy.world to Everett True Comics@midwest.social · 30 days agomessage-square24fedilinkfile-text
Printed 118 years ago today in the Spokane Press. Image cleaned up, see the original. Found on the Library of Congress site.
minus-squaresamus12345@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up20·30 days agoIt was surprising to see Everett say he didn’t have the right to spank him when he beats the shit out of guys all the time with nary a thought.
minus-squareSeleni@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up24·29 days agoKids back then were seen as property of their parents (in case you were wondering where that idea comes from when it pops up now and again today), and thus technically their discipline was also the province of their parents.
minus-squareFlocklesscrow@lemm.eelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up7·29 days agoWhere is the follow up comic of Everett slapping the parents around?
minus-squaresamus12345@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down1·29 days agoBut isn’t beating someone up also a violation of their rights?
minus-squareSeleni@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up11arrow-down1·29 days agoKids didn’t have rights, any more than a dog or horse or chair did. They were seen as property. Both by the law and by custom.
minus-squaresamus12345@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·29 days agoIn this case, the rights refer to the adult who “owned” them.
minus-squareSeleni@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up3·29 days agoRight, hence him saying ‘I know I haven’t any right to do this’. He was infringing on their rights, with them not present to object.
minus-squaresamus12345@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·edit-229 days agoYes, and he’s also infringing on their rights when he beats them up, yet has no problem with it.
It was surprising to see Everett say he didn’t have the right to spank him when he beats the shit out of guys all the time with nary a thought.
Kids back then were seen as property of their parents (in case you were wondering where that idea comes from when it pops up now and again today), and thus technically their discipline was also the province of their parents.
Where is the follow up comic of Everett slapping the parents around?
But isn’t beating someone up also a violation of their rights?
Kids didn’t have rights, any more than a dog or horse or chair did. They were seen as property. Both by the law and by custom.
In this case, the rights refer to the adult who “owned” them.
Right, hence him saying ‘I know I haven’t any right to do this’. He was infringing on their rights, with them not present to object.
Yes, and he’s also infringing on their rights when he beats them up, yet has no problem with it.