General Discussion

I like him, most of the time and don't expect him to be some goddamned paragon of virtue, but when medical issues abound, he usually misses the mark.

As for the "product of their times", that is what many were. He was wrong in claiming no one was against slavery, there were those against it for as long as it has existed in one form or another. However, the crux of the monologue was people need to get the fuck over themselves with "atoning" for every "sin" of the past, including those they didn't commit. He was also speaking to those "holier than thou" assholes who scream, stamp their feet, and shake their fists about how they couldn't have owned slaves, or aided the Nazis, or pushed Native Americans off their land. They are no different than historical revisionists in many respects. They take a modern, and mostly common, stance, and pretend they would have been the same person they are today even if they were born in 1820. While it is true, some here may not have wanted to own slaves, or been abolitionists, or stood up to the powers that be, but more often than not, they would have, possibly, looked like the liberals and progressives OF THE TIME, not of OUR time, and trust me, those "liberals" would NOT be liberals, for the most part, today. That is the point; though, IMO, he worded it in such a way that was convoluted and distracting.