But I'm just trying to get my straight-haired head around "The Royal Baby and Blackness as a Badge of Honor/Whether he 'looks' black or not, I’ll be glad to claim him" by Lizzie Skurnick, who — being black — can wonder out loud in the NYT, "Will he have kinky hair?" That sounds like an awful question to me, a white person.
I remember when I had my first baby — with a Jewish father — somebody asked me, "Does he have a big nose?" I'm still taking offense, and it's nearly 40 years later.
From the top-rated comment at the NYT:
I’m a black man and I’m rather annoyed that people are already trying to draw life’s lines and boundaries around the boy, who at this moment, is nameless. I don’t care what he looks like. His parents love him to pieces. Shouldn’t that be enough?
Posts
125 comments:
Racists can never let go of race.
Duh.
In the looks dept. let's all agree to hope he takes after his mom and leave it at that...
This "Royal baby" will be as essential to the British Monarchy as one of Princess Margaret's children. Or one of Princess Anne's children.
I happen to be very fond of the late Princess Margaret, and also Princess Anne. But this baby is in what place to ascend to the monarchy; 6th? 8th? 12th? More? The new act of Parliament doing away with male primogeniture puts an even more unlikely spin on it. About as much chance as the Secretary of the Interior becoming President.
"Does he have a big nose?"
You're still offended? Really? What's wrong with having a "big nose"? If your ex-husband had been Irish, and someone had asked if they have "red hair" would that still offend you?
And what's wrong with kinky hair?
Big noses used to be called Roman Noses. Julius Caesar had one.
Hopefully he'll arrive into this world with a magnificent Malcom Gladwell fro.
Here's another place for my go-to response when I'm annoyed like this: people suck.
But the truly shocking news is I agree with a NYTs commenter!
"This "Royal baby" will be as essential to the British Monarchy as one of Princess Margaret's children. Or one of Princess Anne's children."
Thank God for that. The Marckle family is a disaster area. We don't want her to be Queen or whatever she would be if Harry was King.
Fortunately,. and nobody will talk about this, the kid is not descended from Prince Charles, who is an idiot.
I forget the name of Diana's horse master, who is almost certainly the father of Harry, but he had to be smarter than Charles.
You're jewish if you have a jewish mother, so a big nose would follow the maternal line.
Will he graduate from nappy bottom to nappy hair.
Big nose means big hands.
and here I thought we'd fought two wars to get away from that nonsense about "noble birth"...
Native American insult: hey wampum nose.
My wife makes me watch sappy romance movies with her, so I watched Meghan Markle star in the 2014 Hallmark movie When Sparks Fly.
Markle was adorable in that movie -- no joke.
I understand why she got a British prince to marry her.
Nappy-headed highness.
All my life I was taught not to see the color of the individual, but the character. Now I'm supposed to only see the color? It's all about race? UGh.
Well, based on the picture accompanying the article; if the child has any kinkyness to his hair it will most likely come from Harry and not Megan.
rcocean said...
Big noses used to be called Roman Noses. Julius Caesar had one
Actually, I really discovered what a Roman nose was when I moved where I live now. A large percentage of the local population is of Italian descent. If you meet someone in church, or a community group, or on the street, and they have a Roman nose- they're of Italian descent. If they don't- they might or might not be. Having one is a tell- not having one isn't.
When I was young I used to get asked if I was Jewish because of my nose. I lacked Seinfeld's turn of phrase: "... not that there's anything wrong with it."
The average US black is 25% white, and most "black" people you see on TV as actresses, musicians, politicians and such are actually mulattoes, e.g. Obama.
With curly eyes and laughing hair
Sing Polly Wolly Doodle all the day.
The President and CEO of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People has a nice tan.
As a Social Justice Wartier - I just want to say you're all racist and there's nothing you can do about it. I say so.
Lame NYT comment: "I’m a black man and ... I don’t care what he looks like."
But we should care what you look like?
Whether he 'looks' black or not, I’ll be glad to claim him
So are we bringing back the racial draft?
If there is no race-centric subculture then there is no racial identity, just DNA.
I don't think the poet Pushkin identified as anything but Russian, or Alexandre Dumas and son as anything but French. These fellows were 1/4 (Alexandre Dumas) -1/8 (Pushkin, Dumas fils) black, as best I can tell.
I don’t care what he looks like. His parents love him to pieces. Shouldn’t that be enough?
#triggered
#wrongthink
#doxhimnow
Color is a low information attribute. Diversity (i.e. color judgment including racism) breeds adversity.
Archie!
People, generally white ones, always think the answer to things like racism is to do away with race — to, as the saying goes, never see color.
I've been taught my whole life that this is precisely the goal....to never see color, but to see an individual instead. If that isn't the answer, then what is?
Let me guess...make race the defining characteristic of people and treat them differently based on their race?
People need to be careful, because if you make race the defining characteristic, and insist that people be treated differently than other people based on race...why shouldn't I want my race (White) to be treated the best?
Recycled-child? #CecileTheCannibal
All my life I was taught not to see the color of the individual, but the character. Now I'm supposed to only see the color? It's all about race?
This is what most of Gen X feels about the issue of race. That (by today's standards) reactive radical MLK espoused the content of ones character and we were bombarded daily with that message throughout our school years. Undeniable and objective progress had been made in the decades since the height of the civil rights era, but that wasn't good enough for some. So roll selfish in with the rest of the PC mix.
Those of us who demonstrated in the 1960s for a color blind society were right then, and those of us who kept the faith are still right.
I sincerely hope that the royal couple, and many others in similar situations, go on to have lots and lots of children, so that eventually we’re all just a big jumbled up mess and people can finally stop caring about all this shit.
I think the whole royal watching is dumb as all get out, but I do love seeing pictures of Megan and her mother together. They are just lovely.
How the hell does this "royal" child not have a name yet?
Are they going to wait until it picks its gender?
It's roamin' all over my face.
In a sane world, people wouldn't laboriously ignore, but notice and remark racial and ethnic differences, out of normal human interest and curiosity. Outside of the context of fish-wrap writers who've made a career of race-hustling resentment, the results (or the idle game of predicting the results) of genetic recombination *are* an interesting and fun topic, something normal people everywhere talk about all the time.
I didn't follow the link - it's the NYT, so I assume it's a whine party - but what's inherently awful about the question "Will he have kinky hair?" People always wonder about what combination of the parents' traits a kid will manifest. Something only racially-paranoid white people and "professionally PoC" non-white people get freaked about.
If the Prince's wife were Brazilian, or Portuguese, or Latin American or Spanish, she would have been "white" in her culture, and the baby certainly would be also.
Can someone explain this whole "person of color" thing to me?
Is this new baby a "person of color" or does being in line to be King of England!! (albeit 7th) negate that?
Are Puerto Ricans "people of color"? I am, under Federal govt guidelines, ethnically Puerto Rican. Does that make me (pale, blue eyed, grey-blonde hair) a "person of color"?
Can I get me some POC privilege?
John Henry
When I was pregnant, people were constantly obsessed with whether the baby would be a redhead. My MIL supposedly still owes us $1000 based on a bet made when she insisted my clearly blond daughter’s hair would eventually change (it did not).
Since Harry’s a fellow ginger, I’ll take that tact. Baby Archie will be a redhead, I’m certain of it!
Chris said...
All my life I was taught not to see the color of the individual, but the character. Now I'm supposed to only see the color? It's all about race? UGh.
5/8/19, 11:25 AM
But the Main Stream Media (Democrat Propaganda Media) are obsessed with race, so everything is seen through the lens of racism anymore.....
Aren't any of you concerned that the Windsors have brought another welfare baby into the world? Think of the poor English taxpayers supporting this leech on society.
Isn't 1500 years of dependency enough?
I am old and have read a lot of even older books. It is fascinating how many physiognomies I have read described as "typically Jewish."
"It's a stereotype that American, assimilated Jews have large noses."
A lot of racial stereotypes started out as real. The vast majority of Jews that arrived in the US during the 19th and early 20th centuries came from eastern Europe and Russia, all of them bearing the same racial characteristics. They were the product of a homogeneous culture.
Nowadays, the Japanese seem to be the only homogeneous culture left in the world.
I get assumed Jewishness because of my surname, and recently found from one of the namebrand genetics tests that I am 3-4% Jewish diaspora (in line with my reference populations). FWIW. (A friend of my son who has kinky red Celtic hair has two daughters with a Jewish woman. They referred to the daughters' hair as Jewfros.)
More interesting and surprising in my genes was some southern European and Mediterranean--more of them than anyone on either side ever knew. We'll eventually do some other tests to see how they compare.
The Windsors are such mediocre people; I'm thinking Prince Prince would sound good, and up-to-date.
Narr
Or Prince Buster!
Under most Jim crow laws her and the baby would be considered colored and under some, all her descendants, no matter how much white blood (such marriages would of course be illegal) was introduced into the line.
People, generally black ones, always think the answer to things like racism is to make everything about color. I mean, what would they do without it?
"Isn't 1500 years of dependency enough?"
The point though is that they owned and still own much of the country outright, as property.
The laws have changed the status of some of this land, and various British governments have made deals trading ownership for state payments.
"Under most Jim crow laws "
These were and are silly.
Isn't 1500 years of dependency enough?
We traditionally go back to the Norman Conquest (1066) as the beginning of the English Monarchy, although there have been some with bloodlines going back to Alfred The Great.
In any case, you are off by several hundred years, Freder.
The Royal family are paid because it flatters the English people and draws tourists from around the world.
I think Whites have been doing a pretty good job reducing racism until recently when some people seem to miss it and the division and victimhood. You never stop seeing color, but you can accept that it doesn't mean much. Tell me who has made more progress and sacrificed more to reduce racism and it's effects than Whites have. What other race has even come close in either progress or effort? In general, racism between other races and against Whites is far worse than what Whites feel toward others. Where are the Black organizations dedicated to dealing with their racism, or the Asian groups doing the same, becuase Whites have lots of outreach and efforts going on. Not to mention it's mostly Whites who even imagine they might be racist, which a required first step.
"If nobody had mentioned it, megan markle would be considered "white" in both american and brit culture too."
But it is specifically because of quirks of American culture that that this must be mentioned, and cannot be ignored.
There aren't enough reparations available on the whole planet to knock that chip off. Money down the memory hole if we are stupid and racist enough to try it.
" They ain't nobody calling them colored"
I'm not calling them colored, I am using the language of the relevant statutes. And fyi, alabama and Mississippi didn't remove their laws(both of which had the "single drop" test) until the mid '90s, thirty years after passage of the civil rights act.
"Nothing in American history says we must mention Jim Crow every change we get, slavery, or American history. We're a forward-looking culture, buwaya."
No you aren't. You have parts that are "forward looking", and others that are firmly stuck in ancient problems that are entirely parochial. The worst thing is that some of the poisonous products of this festering have started filtering out of the US. Britain is heavily affected.
I knew a guy that looked like the lucky charms guy in real life. Married a Jamaican. One of their kids had red hair. Could happen here.
"His parents love him to pieces. Shouldn’t that be enough?"
No. Progs won't let you not see race. Cuz black lives matter, others not so much.
After reading through the comments, I feel like watching that Chris Rock documentary, Good Hair.
Freder Frederson said...
Under most Jim crow laws her and the baby would be considered colored and under some, all her descendants, no matter how much white blood (such marriages would of course be illegal) was introduced into the line.
Fredo stumbles into noticing racial attitudes must have changed quite a bit since people now desire what used to be forced. He's too busy to notice though so no actual learning occurred despite a leftist miraculously coming in contact with a fact outside his narrative. This is why their training focuses on mind limitations.
Poor Fredo.
Why you be hating on baby Jamal? Let him be.
I am not hating on the baby, I am hating on the archaic institution of the British Monarchy which has no place in a modern democracy.
I am also hating on the dumb comments that the baby would automatically be considered White in American Society and many other places. Just over years ago, in many parts of this country (and although not in law, the scandals in the Tennessee legislature show some people still believe), he most definitely would be not be considered white and his parents would be subject to criminal penalties.
What makes the child "black"? Are they still doing that one drop of blood thing? I'm pretty sure the child will get into all the best schools, with or without racial preference, so he won't need to do the Sen. Warren trick.
The point though is that they owned and still own much of the country outright, as property.
They "owned" (or rather stole) most, originally all, of the land by divine right. Saying I own property because God says I do is hardly a rational basis for property rights. Parliament should just pass a law declaring any ownership derived from divine rights is a scam and will not be honored.
Just out of curiosity, what are the criteria for declaring a person Black for the purposes of Affirmative Action?
" one drop of blood " -
The people who wrote that into law - what blood chemistry or genetic theory did they know to inform on the color of blood being anything other than red?
I forget the name of Diana's horse master, who is almost certainly the father of Harry, but he had to be smarter than Charles.
So is the horse, for that matter.
How about if someone said , i bet your kid is going to have a high IQ, go to an ivy league school and be well-off when he grows up. Would you be offended?
Will the royal baby get reparations for slavery?
Chicago is such a great place for indulging in ethnic stereotypes. Everybody does it and, much of the time, in good humor.
How long does it take a Polish immigrant to switch from his track suit into blue jeans? How far south in Italy do your people have to come from before Northern Italians consider you colored?
My wife's family, and many aunts and uncles too, emigrated from Jakarta to Netherlands to California. In Chicago, Latinos would mistake her for la Raza and be pissed she couldn't speak Spanish adequately and she'd fire back in Dutch.
A lot of Blacks thought she was passing. When she applied for MWBE status, the Black city bureaucrats thought the whole Indonesian thing was some kind of scam. The antipathy between Mexicans and Puerto Ricans was such a surprise for me, growing up in the suburbs.
I'm with Teddy Roosevelt and there should be no such thing as a hyphenated American. Your family background is interesting and you should absolutely celebrate your favorite parts. (I identify as Scottish because we have the kilt, not lederhosen.) We get to tease about it, too, just like we do with family.
The more race-mixing the better.
Just out of curiosity, what are the criteria for declaring a person Black for the purposes of Affirmative Action?
Self declaration is the only requirement. Native Americans are the only exception, to claim that you are supposed to be a.registered member of a recognized tribe
"MLK espoused the content of ones character"
Blacks no longer want to be judged on the content of their character. It wasn't working out for them.
Michael K
Not merely the horse master but also the horse.
She also identifies as black Jewish.
I thought she was black because the editors approved her crappy writing and grammar, as well as her stupid racist ideas.
People, generally white ones, always think the answer to things like racism is to do away with race — to, as the saying goes, never see color.
Apparently, the following has passed it's sell-by date:
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
If you kicked the Royal family to the curb tomorrow I bet it would have zero impact on tourism.
You would have to be very certain of your facts. Mayor Khan of London would probably not be much of a tourist draw.
What are you betting, Field Marshall ?
Prince Harry is part black? News to me. Not that I care.
"I’m a black man and I’m rather annoyed that people are already trying to draw life’s lines and boundaries around the boy"
Okay, but assign blame where it lies. With the left, the MSM, and Democrats and their identity coalitions. They are the one forever harping on the subject.
And Meghan is black? I had always associated her with the color of her starring role in that smash James Bond film, "Gold Digger."
Mayor Khan of London would probably not be much of a tourist draw.
And how many people who go to the UK (even if they are big fans of the Royal Family) actually see a member of that family? People go for the trappings of royalty, not the royalty itself. As I pointed out, you could still change guards at Buckingham Palace and increase tourism to formally private residences of the Royal Family. How many people who go to Blenheim Palace expect to see the Duke of Marlboro, or even know or care if there is a current Duke of Marlboro?
That's waaay outside even Dem mainstream, telling Parliament what they should do, after diagnosing the royal baby as "colored" under Jim Crow lawss.
First off, we are talking about divine right, which the politicians in this country rarely have to deal with. Oh, by the way, God just told me I own your house. You've got twenty-four hours to move out. He was a little vague on the address, so please mail it to me with the keys. Now do you see how ridiculous the idea of divine right is in the 21st century.
And I haven't diagnosed anyone as colored. I was just informing ignorant people that it wasn't too long ago people were legally classified as such no matter how "white" they appeared.
I hate to keep repeating myself, but this is one fucked up generation. They look for countless ways to be offended. They post their offense everywhere from Facebook to Twitter to the NY Times looking for approval and adulation. Adulation. For being offended. Considering oneself a thought leader...for being offended.
Whatever else happens, this is not going to be The Greatest Generation. So sorry if I've offended any of you.
Apparently, the following has passed it's sell-by date:
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
Apparently the mayor of Hoschton, GA agrees with you.
They "owned" (or rather stole) most, originally all, of the land by divine right.
They grabbed it by force, like people have done since for-ever (valley girl "what-ever" tone), and justified it with delusions and/or lies. So what else is new?
I saw pics of Meghan Markle before she got involved with the royals. Didn't know she was black until I saw it in the gossip columns after she got involved with the royals.
I have an ancestral relative from circa 1870 who couldn't be legally married to his black housekeeper, but had children with her after his wife died. After he died she went by "Mrs" even though there's no marriage record- because there couldn't have been. He left her the house in his will. I followed the family through the generations. Some descendants today are black, some are white. One I found on the 1940 census as black. His WWII draft card lists him as white, and he was drafted as a white. Which meant he had a wider range of Army jobs. Another descendant was a Tuskeegee airman.
Racial identity is and has been fluid throughout the recorded history of mankind. the 1901 Canadian census listed racial or tribal origin. On one page of the 1901 Canadian census for an ancestral relative I see French, Irish, Scotch, English, and Assyrian listed. In the US the first 4 in the 1900 census would all be white. Your guess is as good as mine as to what Assyrian would be classified as.
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
People love them some out-of-context quotations expressing simple-minded morality suitable for the preschool kiddies and their mommies.
The money words are "one day", because King didn't mean "now", he meant at some point in the future, after reparations and racist affirmative actions programs.
In the meantime he definitely wanted his "four little children" to be judged - as victims - by the color of their skin.
Nowadays, the Japanese seem to be the only homogeneous culture left in the world.
The Koreans (albeit allowing for the whole DMZ thing) might have them beat :)
Apparently the mayor of Hoschton, GA agrees with you.
Title: "FYI, Alabama’s constitution still calls for ‘separate schools for white and colored children'"
The woke kidz made up a new term for an old idea and are calling racially segregated collegiate housing "affinity housing".
Apparently the mayor of Hoschton, GA agrees with you.
I was trying to make the point that the person in the NYT article believes that it's past it's sell date, because he's the one who said that white people want to ignore race, when MLK DISTINCTLY SAID race should be ignored. How you got the idea that I think MLK's statement is past its due date is beyond me.
My brother-in-law is a physician, and half-Mexican.....the other half is Polish. He has a big nose, and is frequently greeted with "Shalom". He does not consider it an insult.
People love them some out-of-context quotations expressing simple-minded morality suitable for the preschool kiddies and their mommies. The money words are "one day", because King didn't mean "now", he meant at some point in the future, after reparations and racist affirmative actions programs. In the meantime he definitely wanted his "four little children" to be judged - as victims - by the color of their skin.
Now was 1968, by the way. 51 years ago. And as for reparations and affirmative action - I don't recall his making a big deal out of that, but hey, your mileage may vary.
Whatever else happens, this is not going to be The Greatest Generation. So sorry if I've offended any of you.
The people like Freder and Ritmo constitute a small, but noisy, segment of the population under 40. I'm assuming they are not older as common sense should still be present in those over 40.
My older, trial lawyer son, might be an exception, but my other kids don't fit Freder's level of delusion. I'm sure there are millions but I would not want to tar the majority as deluded.
Will baby-gender-neutral be a transgender? From neutral to what?
People go for the trappings of royalty, not the royalty itself.
Fredo,
I wonder what trappings there would be without actual living royalty.
Do you think a wax museum would do?
I'm assuming they are not older as common sense should still be present in those over 40.
Considering you are somewhere around seventy and can't even remember when escalation of the Vietnam war began (and all kinds of other nonsense like the world is going to cool precipitously in the next couple years), common sense isn't necessarily a sign of maturity.
I am well over 40, thank you.
And I thought you were done with me.
Did you read my comment about your military experience a few days back?
Freder: They "owned" (or rather stole) most, originally all, of the land by divine right. Saying I own property because God says I do is hardly a rational basis for property rights.
There is no ultimate rational source of "property rights". People only get around to land titles and buying and selling and having real estate contracts backed by the force of law (and the force behind the force of law) *after* the man or the teams wanting the land duke it out and one team wins resoundingly enough to end the conflict, and is strong enough to maintain the peace for long enough for a "rational basis" for property rights to be set up.
But that all sits on top of the "divine right" or "mandate of heaven" or "manifest destiny" or whatever other concept was elaborated to gussy up a successful land or power grab.
Of course the peace never lasts forever, and eventually some hungrier assholes come along and take what they want, reset all the property ownership, and set up their own "rational basis" for maintaining, bequeathing, and transferring it. You and I have "property rights" with a "rational basis" because we belong to the most recent society to have done that hereabouts.
Did you read my comment about your military experience a few days back?
Probably not, as I avoid you. Did you want to see my DD 214 ? Got yours ?
Bragging about being over 40 when I was giving you the benefit of the doubt is not so smart.
Remember the old saying about opening your mouth and proving you are dumb? Of course not.
Dr.K: The people like Freder and Ritmo constitute a small, but noisy, segment of the population under 40. I'm assuming they are not older as common sense should still be present in those over 40.
I've been gobsmacked so many times at discovering that somebody I was sure had to be a silly college student was actually middle-aged or older, that I no longer make assumptions about age. (I've also been very pleasantly surprised when somebody who had come across as unusually intelligent and erudite turned out to be a whippersnapper. Gives one hope.)
Looking at the two parents, I am guessing the kid ends up being as white as the background to this comments section.
As long as he doesn't turn out to be a Bat Boy, it's all OK with me.
The problem is, if they did conceive a Bat Boy, how would we know? It would be hushed up, and they'd get a body double in there for the photo ops. The Bat Boy would be turned over to MI5 to be brought up and trained for special ops. (The Royals are mostly just decorative potted plants, but sometimes sacrifices must be made For England.)
That might be why we didn't see the baby on the day it was born. It took a little while to get things set up. If you know what I mean.
I'm not suggesting that any of this is true, but you have to wonder.
This is a depressing comment thread. New life, new baby, beautiful pictures, a lovely picture of the baby meeting his great-grandparents with Meghan, her mother, and the new father. No need to get snarky and sad about the new generation.
I recall Althouse getting upset by the wedding of Harry and Meaghan; she thought Harry did not want to marry Meaghan. Now they've given birth, and Harry's description of the baby was simply charming. You don't have to be a monarchist to enjoy a new father's joy in his baby. If it's possible to get cranky or annoyed because of events like newborn babies, weddings, comic books, movies, and great TV shows...where's the fun in life? It's like a bunch of Puritans determined to close the theatres. Cromwell is coming.
Neil Ferguson published a article about the "coming generational battle" or something like that the other day. I discounted it. But after the Game of Thrones stuff, comic book movie posts and the comments of this post, it makes me wonder if there does exist a strong antagonism to younger generations.
In California:
The Indians stole the land from the animals.
The Spanish stole it from the Indians.
The Mexicans stole it from the Spanish.
The Americans stole it from the Mexicans.
Next:
Since I am part Indian, part Spanish, part Mexican and part American (one of my ancestors came over on the Mayflower), I am California.
Blogger Michael K said...
Fortunately,. and nobody will talk about this, the kid is not descended from Prince Charles, who is an idiot.
I forget the name of Diana's horse master, who is almost certainly the father of Harry, but he had to be smarter than Charles.
Truer words were never spoken.
I've been gobsmacked so many times at discovering that somebody I was sure had to be a silly college student was actually middle-aged or older, ?
Yeah. Probably not a good assumption for people posting on weekdays especially.
I was trying to assume he was young and dumb. Bad assumption about #1.
Robin,
I look at both sons, and Charles' genes are obvious in both of them, especially William. Harry has more of his mother's looks than his brother does, which makes him the fortunate one.
And, if you don't believe me, look at Prince Philip, especially the younger version, and compare him to the grandsons.
"Freder: They "owned" (or rather stole) most, originally all, of the land by divine right. Saying I own property because God says I do is hardly a rational basis for property rights."
The only and best basis for property rights are to have won the land with a battle-axe.
Or to be descended from people who have done that, or to have legally purchased it from one with that basis, or to have been gifted with it by someone like that, etc.
Every last bit of land was won, or ceded, by someone through conquest.
Funny, but in the old South you were black if you couldn't "pass" and the new racists (ie the Left) wants to bring that back. If you are 1/2 black, you are black. If you are 1/8 black, you are black. It is the contamination by blood theory all over again.
The only and best basis for property rights are to have won the land with a battle-axe.
That is actually the very most primitive and probably the worst way basis for property rights. Hopefully we have evolved beyond that.
Or to be descended from people who have done that, or to have legally purchased it from one with that basis, or to have been gifted with it by someone like that, etc.
Or until someone shows up with a bigger battle axe?
Every last bit of land was won, or ceded, by someone through conquest.
This is simply untrue.
Probably not, as I avoid you. Did you want to see my DD 214 ? Got yours ?
I have never claimed to have served in the military. But from what you revealed (a few years in the Reserves), I have a hell of a lot more experience with the military (as a contractor to the Army, Air Force and Air National Guard and the ex-husband of an active duty officer) than you do.
You on the other hand, tried to make me believe that you served before the escalation in Vietnam, which you tagged as 1968. Of course the escalation start in '64, not '68 (you apparently think I am so stupid I didn't know when the Gulf of Tonkin incident occurred and if I didn't wouldn't even bother to look it up). I think you, by hook or by crook, got your ass into the Reserves to avoid service in Vietnam. Next you will be telling me that you desperately wanted to go to Vietnam but the lucky minority draftees got to go instead of you.
Property rights. One man showing off his big spread to another.
Visitor: Did you inherit all this?
Owner: Ever' bit!
V: Where'd your daddy get it?
O: From is daddy.
V: Where'd he get it?
O: From his daddy!
V: And where'd he get it?
O: Fought Indians for it.
V: I'll fight you for it!
The only people who ever enjoyed free, open, and acknowledged ownership of land were those who lived where nobody else wanted to be. That status usually doesn't last long.
Narr
We were still finding preprinted contract forms with racist covenants in the early-1980s, which we marked out even though they had no legal validity by that time. And all title searches got back to Indian treaties IIRC
"Every last bit of land was won, or ceded, by someone through conquest.
This is simply untrue. "
It is entirely true. Go back far enough to where someone established property rights in the first place, and there you will find a conqueror. Or, usually, several.
If you think that American land grants or homesteads are exceptions, well, they aren't.
Monarchies generally go back to this ur-legal-state. Indeed, any state goes back to this. The institution of the monarch, anywhere, is the result of a conquest.
At this point I am getting tired of pointing out the obvious, that making race the primary marker of a person's identity is textbook racism. It is what Hitler and the Nazis did. It is what the Klan and white supremacists do.
Exploiting racial and ethnic divisions among Americans has always been the organizing principle of the Democrat party, back to the days of its founding. "Vote for me and I will not only make certain the government favors people like you over others, I will also force people outside of government and non-government institutions to favor you over others."
There is a reason the old, racist dixiecrats became the new, woke Democrats.
Freder F: That is actually the very most primitive and probably the worst way basis for property rights. Hopefully we have evolved beyond that.
No, we haven't. Your property rights and mine, underneath the legal superstructure set up by the peoples who fought and took away the land of the people here before them, are maintained by force.
Are you arguing that, if a more powerful group of people wanted to push us off our land and set themselves up here, that there is some sort of magical, advanced "basis for property rights" that would prevent them from indulging in this primitive, "worst way" of nullifying your "rationally based" property rights? What, are they going to flee in terror if you shake your title documents in their face?
The most important thing is the size of the baby's penis. His penis should be 25% larger than the average white penis. I was sure they'd name the baby Tupac Windsor to give him a head start in life. Archie makes me think of Archie Bunker. I think the allusion was intentional. He'll be archenemy of racists everywhere. Archibald is a strange name in my opinion - unless there are of a lot of bald men in your lineage. I encourage the baby to come out of the closet as soon as possible. Britain needs a gay, bald black king with a big penis. The blacker he is the better to scare the lily white brits into stunned submission. He'll probably look like Ru Paul is my guess. He looks better in drag than most people do playing it straight.
See, for first rate trolling, you can’t top Trumpit.
Freder seems desperate to prove something about the military.
But from what you revealed (a few years in the Reserves),
You would not know this, being a draft dodger, but anyone who served, as I did, on active duty, had a total of 8 years obligation including reserves.
I was on active duty in 1961-62, before any escalation in Vietnam. Friends of mine who had not previously served, went to Vietnam about 1967-68. Most went as medical officers, but one fraternity brother was a fighter pilot. Several others were, as well.
Now, I know you are a field marshal and military expert from your deep study but you might want to check the rules for military service, which you evaded, before you bloviate much more.
What, are they going to flee in terror if you shake your title documents in their face?
The U.N. will resettle him in a refugee camp where he and his family can live in squalor for the next ten generations complaining about it.
My dear cousin Lizzie Skurnick is brilliant and charming. She has a wonderful sense of humor. Her column should be taken as somewhat tongue in cheek. BTW I sent her the same comment as someone here, pointing to MLK’s quote about “judged by the content of their character.” She responded that he did not want race eliminated; he just wanted it not to be a basis for best not judged. I thought that was a weak response.
Anyhow the am glad to see Lizzie’s column getting so much interest
Now, I know you are a field marshal and military expert from your deep study but you might want to check the rules for military service, which you evaded, before you bloviate much more
Again, you misspelled Marshall. And why I am very proud of your fraternity brothers, I have no idea why you think their service reflects on you. I was born in 1961, so the draft ended well before I was of age.
So fuck yiun
I was born in 1961, so the draft ended well before I was of age.
There was still the opportunity to volunteer. Being a would be field marshal and all.
Why do you keep posting stuff about military that you know nothing about ?
A mark of the popularity of the Royal Family in Britain: Princess Anne and her daughter Zara have both been awarded BBC Sports Personality of the Year, a public vote, which is a big deal over there. The award is open to both sexes, and both won as equestrians. Anne beat out the legendary soccer player George Best and Zara the golfer Darren Clarke. So if Archie takes up sports . . . .
Since his mother is American, will he be owed reparations?
Sorry, CharChar. I see you beat me to the reparations issue.
Again, you misspelled Marshall.
In what universe is "field-marshal" spelled with two L's in marshal? Are you a tractor salesman?
Post a Comment