Felicia Sanders is the mother of victim Tywanza Sanders, the first of the 9 persons Roof shot. According to this account in The Washington Post, Tywanza, 26, was the first person Roof shot, but not the first person Roof targeted. Roof aimed first at the oldest person there, a woman, Susie Jackson, 87. And Tywanza "put himself between the 87-year-old woman and the gunman and sought to talk him down." Roof shot Sanders and then Jackson.
Such strong and profound expressions of Christianity rarely appear in the media. Truly awe-inspiring.
Here's a new photo of Roof that's turned up. It would be ludicrous, like some nonracist's parody of a racist, if the fact of the massacre didn't block any possible comedy:
The NYT found the picture at a website (which it doesn't link to) that "features dozens of photos of Dylann Storm Roof... posing with weapons, burning an American flag and visiting Southern historic sites and Confederate soldiers’ graves.... posing with wax figures of slaves."
It... concludes with a section labeled “An Explanation.” “I have no choice... I am not in the position to, alone, go into the ghetto and fight. I chose Charleston because it is most historic city in my state, and at one time had the highest ratio of blacks to Whites in the country. We have no skinheads, no real KKK, no one doing anything but talking on the internet. Well someone has to have the bravery to take it to the real world, and I guess that has to be me.”That reminds me in some ways of the Norwegian murderer Anders Behring Breivik, who is carefully profiled in "The Inexplicable/Inside the mind of a mass killer," in The New Yorker a few weeks ago:
He made himself a sort of military commander’s uniform, in which he photographed himself before the crime; he consistently referred to a large organization, of which he claimed to be a prominent member but which does not exist; in his manifesto he interviews himself as if he were a hero; and the impression this gives is of a person who has erected a make-believe reality, in which his significance is undisputed....ADDED: "I am not in the position to, alone, go into the ghetto and fight"... so, he chose the church — and unusually kindly people — because it was so easy. He "explained" that as "bravery," because he was all alone.
पोस्ट्स
२६० टिप्पण्या:
260 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»The members of the church have showed more class than anyone else in this mess.
Is this exactly what happens in the Middle East. "All of your problems are created by the Great Satan, America... You should hate America." And a lot of folks in the Middle East fall for this crap. A few less stable folks actually act on it. But when they do, they commit terrible events of terror.
I'm really curious as to whether allowing statements from victims' families at a bond hearing is standard procedure. Doesn't this somehow violate the presumption of innocence? I'm not saying there's any doubt here, but as a matter of process, it seems unusual, and possibly prejudicial.
The statements themselves are quite moving, I agree. I don't share these peoples' convictions, religious or moral (I would never forgive such a monster), but I understand where they are coming from, and how this can bring them comfort at a dreadful juncture in their lives.
This guy is confused. The Nazi spawned racist based military murder squads actually seem heroic to him. He wants to be the hero that leads pure evil to conquest of the world.
The hate angle is also in the Confederate Battle Flag , but that is not hatred of black people. It is hatred of Yankee Armies that invaded and humiliated the gallant southern warriors in their homes on a mission of ending slavery. So it is about slavery to the extent it is about Puritan anti-slavery activists who sent those Armies.
The black American citizens just want affirmation that they were worth it. And they are. They are our cousins.
He reminds me of Brevik as well. A lone wolf extremist acting out what his fellow travelers won't ever do. And interestingly enough, leading white supremacists and southern nationalists advocate non-violence as being counter productive to their goals.
"We have no skinheads, no real KKK, no one doing anything but talking on the internet."
That doesn't jive with what I read and hear in the press.
Doesn't all the talk of racism, in the NYT and other main stream media, suggest Dylann Roof is at the very least misinformed? (Beyond the shooting and maiming)
One would think this tragic story would be a massive blow to the idea of an interventionist God.
Somehow, God gets credit for good things happening, but never blame for the bad.
For example, the woman who spotted the murderer and followed him until the cops got there,
is crediting God for that. Completely oblivious to the 500 lb gorilla in the room that a God who 'let' her find the guy, also 'let' the guy kill those innocents.
H.G. Wells 1950's movie adaptation of The War of the Worlds had the first Earth victim (incineration by death ray) be a Christian preacher, walking toward the crashed spacecraft, while holding up a bible.
God indeed works in mysterious ways.
This evil person seriously underestimated the strong faith of many, most, of those around him and chose a city that is an example of a modern southern town that has for the most part put racism behind it. Witness the outpouring of grief and the overt Christian talk of blacks and whites in Charleston. The opposite of what he hoped for has happened.
This kid is in a very small minority of holdouts.
Picking a modern southern city was a huge mistake if he thought it would arouse a race war. If anything he has reminded us of where we have been and what a blessing it has been to have come to where we are, leaving almost all like the evil one behind.
"One would think this tragic story would be a massive blow to the idea of an interventionist God."
The idea of an interventionist God also includes the idea that this isn't the end of the story.
Christianity arose in the context of persecution and martyrdom. Many of the most influential (foremost?!) theologians of the 20th century, like Moltmann, kept in mind the Holocaust. So, it's an understandable challenge, but not a massive blow, just one that pushes people back into the core texts and traditions. A great deal of the Bible, really, is one long study of persisting in faith when the context suggests otherwise. It anticipates the challenge.
The NYT found the picture at a website (which it doesn't link to)
Censored for your convenience; from Reason.com, the site is lastrhodesian.com.
I figured that Roof was going to be shown to be a loner in his political fantasies. He doesn't look the part of the racist troglodyte, looking much closer to the Pillsbury doughboy with a bowl-cut than your just-out-of-prison Aryan Nation cultist.
I'd also never heard of any real use of the Rhodesian and South African flag in white racist circles. The source of the that information comes from a quotation from one Todd Blodgett, an "ex"-racist in an article in the WSJ. Blodgett also claims to have been involved in racist groups only as an "opportunist", not as a believer, so make of his credibility what you will. I also found a racist site actually selling such paraphernalia, (NSFW -- hate site), and there were no such flags or patches to be found.
In short, this guy was loon who took bits & pieces from the various racist "traditions" around him & forged them into something unique in his diseased mind. How one can see oneself as any sort of ubermensch but yet commit the incredibly cowardly act of shooting 9 unarmed people, including old men & women, at prayer is a thought that probably only he can hold in his head.
This southern confederate angle has been used traditionally in politics to disqualify southern candidates that are not liberal. So it is pushed and pushed in the media.
Rick Perry and Rand/Ron Paul are goners. Meanwhile a Scott Walkers is empowered by his unique positioning as a northern Midwestern Southern Baptist.
But Mrs Bill Clinton of Arkansas is a goner too.
I'm really curious as to whether allowing statements from victims' families at a bond hearing is standard procedure. Doesn't this somehow violate the presumption of innocence? I'm not saying there's any doubt here, but as a matter of process, it seems unusual, and possibly prejudicial.
Its unusual but not prejudicial. Legal Insurrection covers your question in great detail here:
http://legalinsurrection.com/2015/06/charleston-victim-impact-statements-forgiveness-and-pain//#more
This evil person seriously underestimated -
Not such much. His intent was to spark a race war. If you listen to the MSM, they appear to be helping him.
"It would be ludicrous, like some nonracist's parody of a racist..."
I imagine most NYT readers mentally picture something like this anytime someone from the South is discussed.
But then, I do think most NYT readers are indeed a parody of the intellectual.
I am Laslo.
Fen
If the MSM fostered a race war it would not occur in the south. They, the MSM, know so little of the south beyond their fifty year old stereotypes that they struggle to resurrect.
If I were posting this on a blog, I would just turn the comments off. Literally any comment only serves to trivialize the post's content.
The Associated Press has published this report which should totally confound simplistic theories of racism.
Dylann Storm Roof's crime is a story of manifold tragedy. His friends, some of whom are black, knew he owned a gun and they knew he was dangerous, dangerous enough that they confiscated his weapon and hid it on at least one occasion. There is also evidence that Roof's attack on the Emanuel Church was not planned, that his intended target was the College of Charleston campus. Apparently he was deterred by the campus security measures, whatever those may be, and instead when to the church because it was occupied and had no security.
"As we said in the Bible study, we enjoyed you. But may God have mercy on you."
Why the "but?"
Why not an "and?"
A dog whistle to God for revenge.
Not that I blame her.
His intent was to spark a race war.
I doubt Roof's crime had much of anything a reasonable person would call a motive. Charles Manson also spoke to followers about igniting a race war, but the actual motive was satisfaction Manson gained by his domination of his "family."
Christians forgive all they want to like Warrick Dunn did, but the law has no forgiveness after the Jurors verdict level. Juries can forgive for multiple. Murders, as they did O J Simpson, but Judges can only grant them new trials.
Oh, and if you think this sort of messianic nonsense is restricted to racist nut-jobs, take a gander at what was sent to me, today, by a FB friend, a Harvard educated Unitarian minister, no less:
What kind of person engages in revolutionary activity? Is there a specific type?
There are different types, but they have certain characteristics in common. That’s why I quote theologian Reinhold Niebuhr when he talks about “sublime madness.”
I think that sublime madness — James Baldwin writes it’s not so much that [revolutionaries] have a vision, it’s that they are possessed by it. I think that’s right. They are often difficult, eccentric personalities by nature, because they are stepping out front to confront a system of power [in a way that is] almost a kind of a form of suicide. But in moments of extremity, these rebels are absolutely key; and that you can’t pull off seismic change without them.
Here's the link.
Roof could see himself fitting right into that, couldn't he? And, while, society's losers browse "Stormfront", our self-proclaimed "bestest & brightest" have their noses buried in Alternet.
The more I read about Roof, the more confusing it becomes. Most of his racist words and artifacts seem contorted and contrived to fit a particular stereotype- almost like he actually has no real connection to any of it, nor even really understands it all. Now, maybe this shouldn't surprise me since I think the boy was deeply mentally ill, and I shouldn't be trying to understand it all.
Ann said:
Such strong and profound expressions of Christianity rarely appear in the media. Truly awe-inspiring.
They rarely do appear in the media and I am sure that reading this will surprise many people who form their ideas of Christians and Christianity from the stereo types we normally see.
On the other hand, as a Christian, I would have been surprised at any other reaction. It's just the way Christians roll. Not always easy and we don't always succeed, but we know what we are supposed to do and usually try.
John Henry
His pro-Confederate sympathies had NOTHING to do with his virulent, homicidal racism! It's nothing but a liberal lie to suggest anything otherwise!
To Someone:
The miracle is the forgiveness.
I wish more was written about the bible study, it's origin, who typically attended etc. My wife and I lead/facilitate two. They are special groups.
Just so I have it straight, it was wrong for Roof to cast blacks as rapists who are taking over the country, but proper and appropriate to call them "welfare queens" and "food stamp presidents".
I think the Confederate sympathies of the current Republican mindset just became a whole lot clearer.
Just two days ago noted commenter "edutcher" was explaining to me the alleged constitutionality of firing on Fort Sumter, fighting the Civil War and assassinating Lincoln - as supposedly provided by the legal framework of the 9th and 10th amendments.
Looks like you've got your work cut out for you, Southern Strategizers. Good luck with these kooks. They're all yours now.
Have fun with them.
Many millions will be made by people selling this story. If they would take those millions and build a nut house, it would be a step forward.
Then arrange for their organs to be harvested, and their bodies burned to generate electricity and hot water.
Yes, yes. It's religion that will save us from virulently racist homicidal maniacs inspired by the treasonous Confederate legacy, the succor it retains in certain parts of the country and in the Republican party, and the persistence it gained in terrorizing black churches and communities that attained any political salience post-reconstruction.
Forgive thyselves, first. The long leash of neo-Confederate accommodation is directly to blame, and everyone knows who's doing the accommodating.
Rhythm and Balls is using black corpses as props to advance his radical political narrative. How quaint.
And Rhythm - to paraphrase your hero President Bartlett - when you are wondering why I treat you like a scumbag, this is why.
Coward, cowrard, coward.
By the way, the NYT did not find that web site. A couple of Twitter users did.
"His pro-Confederate sympathies had NOTHING to do with his virulent, homicidal racism!"
Ultimate straw man. Who is disagreeing with this. The guy is a racist jerk. This is hardly controversial.
The Confederacy died 150 years ago. You are the one keeping it alive as a glowering force, not the people of today's south.
So he burned an American flag? Yep - that's what we conservatives do!!
Props? Roof didn't choose a white church. For a reason. Refusing to deny the blindness to the danger of treasonous Confederate-sympathizing is radical?
No wonder you have to project with slurs like "scumbag". For crying out loud, you're defending people who think assassinating Lincoln was justifiable. And still do.
There's a religious angle. But it's not to the extent that you denialists need it to be:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/18/why-the-gop-hates-talking-about-hate-conservatives-don-t-want-to-confront-racism-in-charleston-shooting.html
Just looked at the picture again. Does anyone else think it looks like he is sitting on the hopper taking a dump?
Or does my mind just run in weird ways?
John Henry
Ultimate straw man. Who is disagreeing with this. The guy is a racist jerk. This is hardly controversial.
I think people who see no problem in flying the SC and US flags at half-mast while the Confederate flag is prohibited by state law from being lowered are the one's disagreeing with it.
The Confederacy died 150 years ago. You are the one keeping it alive as a glowering force, not the people of today's south.
Bullshit. The people who turn away from pictures like this are the ones keeping it alive.
As Cox says, by denying it, you're implicitly acknowledging it. We know what exists by the strength with which you turn and demand that others turn their eyes away from it.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/18/why-the-gop-hates-talking-about-hate-conservatives-don-t-want-to-confront-racism-in-charleston-shooting.html
Birds of a feather. Racist violence and Republican neo-Confederate accommodation. Lower that fucking Confederate flag or better yet, get rid of it entirely. Everyone with a brain knows what it stands for. Denying that is as stupid as denying that there was a reason Germany retired the Nazi swastika after our God-favored UNION troops smashed their asses into the ground, also.
Some years ago (1997), Dennis Prager wrote a short essay, The Sin of Forgiveness, http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB882148570236751500 . The circumstances which gave rise to its being written are somewhat different than these dreadful murders, but not fundamentally. What the survivors of this horrible attack said required amazing compassion and faith, but the point of Prager's essay is that no one but the wronged person can grant forgiveness, so in the case of murder, it cannot be done.
I'm pretty sure that if you think it was right to assassinate LIncoln (let alone fire on Fort Sumter), then mowing down 5 to 10 middle-aged black lady parishioners in a church is the least of your moral concerns.
The guy was crazy, no doubt. He was also allowed the traditional cultural space to promote views directly related to how he acted. No doubt.
How would people have thought to have reported his rantings when they have to live with the symbol for them flying high, proudly above their own state house when even the US and state flags are lowered?
You people are rank denialists. Again, we know what to look for. We look directly at the things you avert your eyes and your gaze away from. And unlike you we face them head-on.
Cowards.
Twitter is very interested in who took the photographs.
Whoever took them is in deep doo doo.
It's not hard to disown something you're against.
Unless politics gets in the way and you're better at denying things than most people.
Eric the Fruit bat said: ""As we said in the Bible study, we enjoyed you. But may God have mercy on you."
Why the "but?"
Why not an "and?"
A dog whistle to God for revenge.
Not that I blame her."
God's grace: "Receiving something (good) we don't deserve."
God's mercy: "Not receiving something (bad) we deserve."
Oh, I was confused and I see the quoted headline has been changed to, "As we say in Bible Study...."
I was confused because as worded, it sounded like she was at Bible Study with Roof and said that to him then. But it sounds like something they say as a tradition.
Lem - I just assumed his used his phone's timer.
"Such strong and profound expressions of Christianity rarely appear in the media."
I invite you to think deeply about why that might be.
"I'm really curious as to whether allowing statements from victims' families at a bond hearing is standard procedure."
Normally, Prog criminologists oppose victim impact statements. Unfair to defendants and all that. Sounds like for once they have the decency to shut up.
Just as interesting would be to question who took the picture of him with the Confederate flag.
But no one will. Avert your gaze! Turn your eyes elsewhere!
Celebrating the legacy of the strongest and most violent faction to ever take up arms against the Federal Government is no reason to question or even denounce its racist, violently oppressive and tyrannical character.
Of course the only one with trigger discipline on the internet is the evil mass murderer.
Rhythm and Balls- so you think the Federal government is oppressive and tyrannical? Now we are getting somewhere!
Join those of us who are for smaller, less oppressive government!
It's fitting again to note that scientific experiment has shown that intercessory prayer doesn't work. See "The great prayer experiment" in the The God Delusion by Dawkins, or Wikipedia.
Thank God that Methodists don't pray for dead people.
Here's my take: 'Leftist Flag-Burner Dylann Roof's 'Last Rhodesian' Manifesto Rooted in Democrat Ku Klux Klan Racism'.
Do the glasses suggest a guy interested in looking like a cool movie character?
Or is it a southern thing I'm not privy to?
Look for kids to buy them... sadly.
"Nothing I hate worse than Illinois Nazis" - Elwood Blues.
Well, I am starting to hate internet Nazis worse. I can imagine there is some kind of dark internet where these scum hang out.
Rhythm and Balls- so you think the Federal government is oppressive and tyrannical? Now we are getting somewhere!
Join those of us who are for smaller, less oppressive government!
Nice display of amphiboly - and diversion representing just the sort of denialism I noted!
Obviously antipathy against your own government should stop, in my book, at the way toward sympathizing with the much more oppressive and tyrannical Confederacy. But I understand that your politics prevents you from unequivocally understanding that.
Which is sad. And as we can see from the post, deadly.
But you have bigger fish to fry. Worrying about how people are incited to murder minorities (let alone deny them a vote) is not really something that concerns you all that much.
If somebody took the picture, I certainly want to know who did it.
It seems unfair, "Rhythm and Balls", to blame all those dead Democrats who fought for the Southern armies in favor of slavery for what this current whack job did. You should be ashamed, blaming Jim Crow laws created by Southern Democrats for this whack job. And all those Democrat mayors who oversee metropolitan shit holes responsible for incarcerating an outsized number of blacks are not to blame for this whack job either. Hell, even President Obama, who has overseen the worst economic results for blacks in living memory, is not to blame for this whack job.
Worrying about how people are incited to murder minorities (let alone deny them a vote) is not really something that concerns you all that much.
Where it is true, it is certainly of concern. The most virulent racism, if you look at the guy who studied Google searches for racist terms, comes from the Appalachian spine. Same place where you can find the most poor whites. Racism is a crutch of the powerless.
But you have bigger fish to fry. Worrying about how people are incited to murder minorities (let alone deny them a vote) is not really something that concerns you all that much.
Frankly, I have no idea what you are talking about in most of this thread.
I don't see anybody here revering the Confederacy, failing to condemn this racist killer, or lacking an interest in why he did it. THere's no getting rid of the fact that the confederacy happened. That history is with us forever. It and Rhodesia seem to have motivated this guy to kill black people, along with his racist parents and his loser life. Thankfully, that's incredibly rare and universally condemned by everyone except other extreme racists.
You seem to be railing against people in your head.
Pretty obviously selfies, I would say.
I would guess he took the pictures of himself mainly because there's never anyone else in his photos. These aren't snapshots of a gathering.
He had a lot of time to stage his photos and write his manifesto.
This guy was a skinny, unattractive, immature-looking, drug-taking, unemployed, 9th grade drop out with divorced parents. There was nothing in this guy's life that says, "I make good choices". In the terms of the day, he self-radicalized. Not by looking at modern culture, but by seeking a subculture and looking for hate. Oddly enough, he seems not to have practiced his hate all the time- he partied with black friends (apparently displeasing his racist mother).
I'd be happy for everyone he received encouragement from to be investigated. We certainly don't want more of this.
@R&B,
We look directly at the things you avert your eyes and your gaze away from. And unlike you we face them head-on.
Oh sure you do, R&B. That's why you failed to comment on the link from Alternet I posted where a lefty waxes all romantic on the spirit of the true revolutionary individual, which sounds quite a lot like Roof's self-image, doesn't it? Maybe that's because lefty murderous nutjobs are simply the mirror image of right-wing murderous nutjobs.
Do you think that murderous rage is somehow the sole province of the American right? Probably you do, because you have always made a habit of averting your eyes.
Jonathon Gruber was a loner who was never involved in any way with the creation of Obamacare, pictures with the POTUS notwithstanding, but this scum Storm Roof, with his Apartheid and Rhodesian flags is a mainstream Republican and we all own him.
Well I don't own him. If the FBI found these pictures on some Nazi web site some where, like "StormFront," which I guess is a Nazi website because so many lefties are always referring to it as one, they probably shouldn't have leaked the photos to the NYT. Maybe they should have watched it for a while.
I don't see anybody here revering the Confederacy, failing to condemn this racist killer, or lacking an interest in why he did it. THere's no getting rid of the fact that the confederacy happened. That history is with us forever.
History is history, but respecting a historically atrocious legacy takes some true malice aforethought.
For instance, there is not a rule that says that a Nazi Swastika flag should never be lowered in Berlin around the Bundestag. But there is a law that says the Confederate flag must remained forever raised in Columbia, even when the South Carolina and U.S. flags are lowered.
That's a deliberate attempt to make sure an atrocious history is given not only a respectable legacy, but one more revered than that of the state of nation.
Some people distinguish between history as objective fact, and legacy as something to judge as bad or good. But when it comes to the Confederacy, it's obvious that a lot of people lose that distinction.
The consequences are predictable.
The response above is the only comment Young Hegalian needs as a reply, also.
R&B,
I challenge you to explain to me how your response answers my post about nostalgia for revolutionary violence on the Left.
You do this all the time, R&B. You get challenged & you move the goalposts, & I've called you on it multiple times.
You simply can't sustain an argument to save your life, R&B.
The blood of martyrs are the seeds of Christianity because of this type of situation that is always known so publicly.
But it is comforting to also remember Jesus of Nazareth in addition his role as Son of God incarnate offering Himself as the slain lamb/suffering servant by sacrificially offering of his human body and soul for forgiveness for sinners using His role of Melchizedek, also has a final role coming soon as The Messiah, or war king of Israel.
It helps to regularly read Psalm 110. That was Jesus'favorite scripture that He quoted to explain his roles.
Rhythm and Balls: Yes, it is indeed the abjuration of wrath and invocation of forgiveness which not only is the precondition for salvation as Christians understand it, but in the real world destroys the forces that would help the wretched Roof toward his stated goal.
Yes, it really IS the answer. It is.
Maybee, it does not appear that the mother was racist:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/roof-family-expresses-remorse-as-nation-cries-over-charleston-massacre/ar-AAbRAdH?ocid=mailsignout
During their time in Rosewood, Roof's mother reunited with a childhood friend, Linda Brown, who also had a son. Dylann Roof and Brown's son, Caleb, went to the same school and became friends. They often would stay with Roof's mother after the school day ended.
Roof's mother was always kind to Caleb Brown, who is of mixed race, Linda Brown said.
"Although I have not seen them in several years, I can only imagine the pain and the heartache that this monstrous act has caused a woman I knew to be a kind and devoted mother," Brown told The State newspaper. "As a parent, my heart goes out to her. As her friend, I want others to be able to know that whatever Dylann became as a teenager that led him to do this monstrous, heinous act, it was not nurtured by his mother.
The oddity of Dylann Roof is that he appears to have lived as his family taught him - the Facebook black friends are apparently real - but adopted a contradictory ideology which culminated in the shooting at the church.
Children often rebel against what their parents teach them. David Duke's family was not racist at all! Duke the Puke apparently met up with a KKK dude when he was 17 and just adopted that attitude.
Minister's sons are famous for being wild - what can I say?? We don't always take the best from our parents. I suspect that there is some mental disorder involved here. Obviously the guy is a murderous racist, but there's a disconnectedness to his actions that seems highly bizarre.
On the other hand, those who knew Hitler used to claim he was a "kind" man, and apparently when Hitler was directly appealed to on behalf of some Jews, he intervened to save them. Maybe Roof is some such monster?
Hey!! Enough of this crap. How about a photo of hero and martyr Tywanza Sanders. Acting the way I always imagined I would (hoped I would -- but wonder if I'd have the courage) in a time of crisis. Man of the year.
Some people distinguish between history as objective fact, and legacy as something to judge as bad or good. But when it comes to the Confederacy, it's obvious that a lot of people lose that distinction.
Ok, but who here is defending either the Confederacy or flying the Confederate flag?
And do you really think the flag motivated this kid? Do you think the coverage of the Trayvon Martin case motivated him? If we should get rid of the flag because it motivated this kid, should we also get rid of one sided reporting like the early Trayvon Martin coverage was? Is MSNBC as responsible for these murders as the confederate flag is?
I'm addressing what I've addressed - which involves the case in question in the post and is a very important, yet often denied phenomenon.
Distracting it with partisan tu quoques and other fallacious nonsense just falls right in line with the exact kind of denialism I'm talking about.
If you can't address it directly, then that's a problem with your shifting of the goalposts.
When Althouse wants to post on the topics you prefer, comment all you want on it, then - Hypocrite! Until then, just go do what you do best. Whatever that is.
"they knew he was dangerous, dangerous enough that they confiscated his weapon and hid it on at least one occasion"
I am still convinced this kid is a paranoid schizophrenic. They can be very well organized and seem normal until you get into their delusions. I think there will be more of this come out in time.
This story is all about mental health and not politics or racism.
Thanks, Maxed Out Mama. I originally said his parents were racist because Roof would tell his black friends his mother didn't like him hanging out with them.
But perhaps his mother didn't like him partying rather than working, and he himself blamed it on his black friends.
@tim in vermont,
Stormfront is white racist, anti-Semitic, & fond of the Christian_Identity movement, but it is not Nazi & has no use for them.
Evils have histories & evils have distinctions, and they've got to be kept in mind to be understood & overcome. Even after all my years of reading Marxism, I'm kind of at a loss to understand any real distinction between the Stalinists & the Troskyites. But, no one, no one, hate each other with such passion as these two groups.
Ok, but who here is defending either the Confederacy or flying the Confederate flag?
It's convenient here for intelligent people to do neither. But defending the Confederacy is something that gets a lot of traction in Republican/conservative circles (apparently for it's "anti-Federal Government" appeal) and the Confederate flag is proudly flown and never even lowered in the capitol of the very state from which the kid came! How can you deny that there is any cultural reverberation from that?
And do you really think the flag motivated this kid?
I think it gave him a reason to feel strengthened in his beliefs. And I think his own state's refusal to lower it, let alone abandon it, made him feel even more justified.
Do you think the coverage of the Trayvon Martin case motivated him?If we should get rid of the flag because it motivated this kid,
We should get rid of the flag because it is a hateful and violent and divisive reminder of the worst assault on what this country stands for, ever.
should we also get rid of one sided reporting like the early Trayvon Martin coverage was?
More tu quoques. Where's the equivalence? How would you even do that? Where's the reasoning for avoiding the denialism that motivates your inability to consider one (obvious, and very easily remedied) problem without throwing in some other one.
Is MSNBC as responsible for these murders as the confederate flag is?
It sounds like you already made your diversionary point, and it seems like I already did you the favor of answering it in spite of how diversionary it was, anyway.
What's with the home depot flowers all around him in the picture? It is sort of an attempt at "funereal" I guess.
But defending the Confederacy is something that gets a lot of traction in Republican/conservative circles
I am sure that it is widely discussed on DailyKos, but I have never seen it personally.
I did have a lefty American History professor though who liked to point out that one of the demands of the North after the war was that the South allow corporations. Something they fought against.
R&B
You are full of shit, dude. Your bourgeois high school analysis could get you a job in the news media.
I like corporations, think they are great.
Confederate flag is proudly flown and never even lowered in the capitol of the very state from which the kid came! How can you deny that there is any cultural reverberation from that?
I don't defend that practice and haven't spent much time in South Carolina, but I know this: They have a Black Senator and an Indian-American Governor. A higher than average black population, which is growing. So somehow, they are managing to not get mired down in its past.
I am sure that it is widely discussed on DailyKos, but I have never seen it personally.
Have you ever been to South Carolina?
Recently Althouse just discussed the Confederate license plate issue.
I didn't say that anything is uni-causal. Most things in life have many causes. (That should have gone in my reply to MayBee). But that doesn't mean we deny away any single cause just because because you can throw a bunch of other things in there. His mental illness, etc., etc., etc. But pretending that widespread rhetorical and cultural (and even governmental!) support for the Confederate cause in the South doesn't allow people to feel more brazen in the sentiments he held to is bunk.
You are full of shit, dude. Your bourgeois high school analysis could get you a job in the news media.
There's the kind of calm, reasoned, straightforward analysis and lack of hysterical defensiveness that we can expect in such a true Son of the South as Michael.
More tu quoques. Where's the equivalence? How would you even do that?
The equivalence is this kid specifically said he sought out white supremacist writings because of the unbalanced Trayvon Martin coverage.
How would you do it? i don't know. How do you get rid of the fact that the Confederacy existed, or that South Carolina played a big role in it?
Rhythm and Balls, you sound a little overwrought. Are you in a safe place?
Should you maybe call someone?
Our liberal justice system has put this evil shit's first trial date in October. The second in February. The man who killed McKinley was caught tried, convicted and executed in less than 90 days.
I don't defend that practice and haven't spent much time in South Carolina, but I know this: They have a Black Senator and an Indian-American Governor. A higher than average black population, which is growing. So somehow, they are managing to not get mired down in its past.
The practice should be banned. But regardless, you bring up a fair point: What could be pointed to as progress in other areas doesn't dismiss the fact that backwardness in other areas gets more support than it should.
Germany's a pretty "progressive" place. I don't doubt that their Nazi-revivalists however would feel a lot more brazen and stir up much more trouble if it treated its outdated symbols and "legacy" in the way that the Old Confederacy treats those of its own.
The equivalence is this kid specifically said he sought out white supremacist writings because of the unbalanced Trayvon Martin coverage.
How would you do it? i don't know. How do you get rid of the fact that the Confederacy existed, or that South Carolina played a big role in it?
Because I take the uncontroversial view that most things in life have more than one cause, rather than just a single cause. I also think that when an unhinged person talks about what motivates his "reasoning", you should take it with a grain of salt.
"Rhythm and Balls" studiously avoids the long and well-documented history of Democrats who have had the same motivations as the present alleged murderer. Margaret Sanger wanted to murder as many black babies as she could and is revered by the Left. Nothing has been responsible for more black deaths than the abortion movement. And Democrats love abortion.
R&B
Thanks. Finally some decent analysis.
doesn't dismiss the fact that backwardness in other areas gets more support than it should.
Fine.
But considering this kid sought out Rhodesian and South African flags, you do know that no flag over the State House of South Carolina would not have kept this kid from becoming a racist killer, right?
The Confederate flag was a symbol he used because he was a racist loser, just like the other two flags. The confederate flag didn't make him racist.
When Confederates look to become a big threat again, I'm sure we could move to - what? make the flags illegal? Is that what you think would solve the problem you see?
You're welcome, Michael.
I don't doubt that their Nazi-revivalists however would feel a lot more brazen and stir up much more trouble if it treated its outdated symbols and "legacy" in the way that the Old Confederacy treats those of its own.
So, are you claiming that the ante-bellum South & the Confederacy are the moral equivalents of Nazi Germany? You wanna defend that claim, or just assert it as somehow obvious?
Because, if you are, that's a new one on me, and I can't think of a major Civil War historian (including the Marxist ones) who would go near that with a ten foot pole. But, yet you just blithely drop it in a comment.
Clearly you can't do anything about changing history, or stopping people from being crazy, so obviously, the thing to do is take down a piece of cloth.
Because that'll fix things right up. Right Rhythm and Balls?
Because I take the uncontroversial view that most things in life have more than one cause, rather than just a single cause. I also think that when an unhinged person talks about what motivates his "reasoning", you should take it with a grain of salt.
Then what are you doing here blaming all of us for his thinking? Or pretending anybody agrees with him? Or talking about the Confederacy?
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I suspect you are just using this atrocity to accuse Republicans/Conservatives of bad things.
Maybe wrote:
"This guy was a skinny, unattractive, immature-looking, drug-taking, unemployed, 9th grade drop out with divorced parents. There was nothing in this guy's life that says, "I make good choices". In the terms of the day, he self-radicalized. Not by looking at modern culture, but by seeking a subculture and looking for hate. Oddly enough, he seems not to have practiced his hate all the time- he partied with black friends (apparently displeasing his racist mother).
I'd be happy for everyone he received encouragement from to be investigated. We certainly don't want more of this."
Bingo!
But considering this kid sought out Rhodesian and South African flags, you do know that no flag over the State House of South Carolina would not have kept this kid from becoming a racist killer, right?
He was resourceful, I'll grant you that. But he wasn't from Rhodesia or South Africa - places that don't (AFAIK) seek to keep symbols of their own racist legacies "respected". But place of origin in important. All politics are local. And we know what the politics of Confederate flag and Confederate cause support are in his very own hometown and home state. And home "region".
The Confederate flag was a symbol he used because he was a racist loser, just like the other two flags. The confederate flag didn't make him racist.
I don't see how you can say this. It seems to defeat itself. The whole point is that the Confederate flag gets a lot more respect than it should, flying on the capitol grounds. Do you really think that only "losers" or even just "racist losers" are taught to respect that symbol, or take to waving it? I think they don't, and I think that's a big part of the problem in at least this regard.
When Confederates look to become a big threat again, I'm sure we could move to - what? make the flags illegal?
Crush them like we did the first time, hopefully with less lives lost and time taken, though.
Is that what you think would solve the problem you see?
No. Because that's not what's currently happening. What's happening is that the symbols of past insurrection are appropriated by politicians who simply don't mind pretending that it's all just a part of their anti-federal government rhetoric. Also, we don't ban speech. But we don't allow governments to feel that appropriating racist symbols of the past, in any official capacity, is a necessary and acceptable part of their "pride", either.
I for one am happy when I go to a foreign country and they haven't taken down all symbols of their past when they've gone through their various revolutions.
Look how long all the religious symbols and ancient buildings have lasted in the Middle East- that is until Isis decided they just can't have the old, defeated symbols around anymore.
No. Because that's not what's currently happening. What's happening is that the symbols of past insurrection are appropriated by politicians who simply don't mind pretending that it's all just a part of their anti-federal government rhetoric. Also, we don't ban speech. But we don't allow governments to feel that appropriating racist symbols of the past, in any official capacity, is a necessary and acceptable part of their "pride", either.
This has nothing to do with Dylann Roost.
Do you really think that only "losers" or even just "racist losers" are taught to respect that symbol, or take to waving it? I think they don't, and I think that's a big part of the problem in at least this regard.
No I think only losers and racist losers go into black churches and kill 9 beautiful, innocent black people.
The rest of the people who like the flag seem to handle themselves pretty well. Much like people who wear Che Guevara t shirts.
So, we agree. Reviving sacrificial rites (e.g. selective-child) under the pro-choice doctrine is the last bastion of negative progress that debases human life, corrupts science, and sabotages morality. That, and strategies that denigrate individual dignity are the cause of progressive corruption and dysfunction in liberal societies. Also, institutional discrimination, including class diversity, is a cause to disenfranchise and alienate individuals.
The use of correlation which is weak or soft evidence, has justified and rationalized recycling violation of human and civil rights for partisan causes and special interests. Still, classes of people can only legitimately be judged on commonly held principles or uniform behaviors. The outcome of normalizing bias and prejudice was and is predictable. Its establishment by the progressive State will continue to reap rewards.
Then what are you doing here blaming all of us for his thinking?
I'm not blaming you for his "thinking" - I use quotes because the term must be taken loosely. I take issue with denying things that help influence him.
Or pretending anybody agrees with him?
I'm not doing that.
Or talking about the Confederacy?
OTOH, you simply must believe me that there are Republicans who believe that the Confederacy is an innocent symbol of freedom. They believe this strongly. Maybe not most, but enough. "Edutcher" does this. He actually told me that the 9th and 10th amendments gave the Confederacy the right to: 1) Fire on Fort Sumter, 2) Fight the Civil War, and 3) Kill LIncoln. He said it was a defense against tyranny, not a stand for slavery. And I know I've heard this stated many, many, many times. It's a big part of the reasoning you'll hear from the many people who refuse to retire the symbol.
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I suspect you are just using this atrocity to accuse Republicans/Conservatives of bad things.
Everyone does some bad things every now and then. It's the kid's fault. But his influences are not.
No I think only losers and racist losers go into black churches and kill 9 beautiful, innocent black people.
Calling him a loser will do less good than taking issue with what he sought out as legitimate influences - especially in his own state, country and political "heritage".
MayBee
Well said
On a historical note, may I add that the presidential electoral footprint of Henry Wallace (pinkish-progressive Democrat) In 1948 was about the same as the presidential electoral footprint of George Wallace (racist-segregationist Democrat) in 1968. Everybody likes to sanitize their past and poop on the other guys, it's human nature. But it wasn't maybe ten or twelve years ago that I heard Senator Byrd (D-WV) in an interview talk about "white ni99ers" and I don't remember anybody in his party calling him out for it. So when the progressive-liberals among us caricature Republicans and libertarians as having Confederate flags in their closets, I just take it as a weird example of unconscious projection.
R&B
The Che T-Shirt remark stung, no?
I have noticed Soviet Communist propaganda T-shirts sold online. Until "Rhythm and Balls" denounces every vendor and wearer of those items, personally, I assume "Rhythm and Balls" supports starving Ukranians.
OTOH, you simply must believe me that there are Republicans who believe that the Confederacy is an innocent symbol of freedom.
But absolutely no Democrats, huh?
OTOH, you simply must believe me that there are Republicans who believe that the Confederacy is an innocent symbol of freedom. They believe this strongly. Maybe not most, but enough. "Edutcher" does this. He actually told me that the 9th and 10th amendments gave the Confederacy the right to: 1) Fire on Fort Sumter, 2) Fight the Civil War, and 3) Kill LIncoln. He said it was a defense against tyranny, not a stand for slavery. And I know I've heard this stated many, many, many times. It's a big part of the reasoning you'll hear from the many people who refuse to retire the symbol.
So what?
If that's what they believe, that's what they believe.
But that isn't what this kid believed. This kid was a racist who adopted those flags because he was a racist. He adopted the stupid white supremacist numbers symbolism. The existence of a symbol did not motivate him.
You think we can get rid of all forms of thoughts and symbols that might be adopted by a murderer? I know you don't.
I for one am happy when I go to a foreign country and they haven't taken down all symbols of their past when they've gone through their various revolutions.
The difference is that Europe doesn't seek to castigate its "intellekshulls" as deserving of nothing but opprobrium. It allows them to go on about how philosophically the outcome of one revolution might have been right, or not. In America, intellectuals are supposed to be derided as elitists.
And then, your happiness has to account for the fact that in their most egregious "revolution", the one that was supposed to last for a thousand years, they're not even allowed anywhere near the level of support, let alone free speech, that we have here.
No, Michael. I'm pretty much just talking w/MayBee. I'll leave the whole pride issue to you.
"The NYT found the picture at a website (which it doesn't link to) that "features dozens of photos of Dylann Storm Roof... posing with weapons, burning an American flag..."
Naturally, the picture they show is the one with the Confederate Battle Flag. The American Flag burning just wouldn't fit the narrative.
Also, what's with the flowers? Is there some significance or is that just where the lawn chair was already located?
The existence of a symbol did not motivate him.
You keep talking about the "existence" of something.
I'm talking about the persistent, official respect that states drum into something.
You think we can get rid of all forms of thoughts and symbols that might be adopted by a murderer? I know you don't.
I think I already answered you.
It's why the SCOTUS license plate issue (among others) matters. What people talk about is one thing. What gets the government's imprimatur is another.
We already agree that the Columbia flag issue is a problem that needs to change - as a primary example, so I don't see much more disagreement to be had on this point, honestly.
Calling him a loser will do less good than taking issue with what he sought out as legitimate influences - especially in his own state, country and political "heritage".
Yes, as I said, we should take issue with anyone or any group that encouraged him.
For people asking about flowers- he was at one time a landscaper, so perhaps the flowers have something to do with that.
There is an interesting story at Daily Mail with a lot more facts.
There was no mother around, the father looks abusive and the kid still looks schizophrenic to me.
Too much political speculation here.
"Rhythm and Balls" blames Democrats for the Charleston murders, since it was Democrats who made the decisions "Rhythm and Balls" criticizes about the South Carolina flag. Democrats are evil, but they are not responsible for the recent murders.
@R&B,
The difference is that Europe doesn't seek to castigate its "intellekshulls" as deserving of nothing but opprobrium
You're right. They maintain their prominence & intellectual respectability even when they preach the necessity of revolutionary genocide.
Oh, if only we could be as enlightened as our European cousins!
I just think it's weird when a horrible shooting like this occurs, there are some who need to append their cause onto it.
Supposed "violent" rhetoric in politics for Jared Laughtner. The Rape Culture for Elliot Rodger. Hateful anti- Muslim videos for Benghazi. Unwelcoming American Culture for the Tsarnaev brothers. The horrors of war for Nidal M. Hasan. The Confederate Flag for Roof.
I'm not saying let's not look into causes, but to latch onto these small, unrelated things just seems....weird.
OH! Bullying for Columbine.
If you want to be like that buffoon Zizek, that's up to you. I didn't say we had to be like Europe, but I guess that's why you're making it seem like I did. I have a feeling he's not taken as seriously you'd want me to believe, anyway.
R&B,
I have a feeling he's not taken as seriously you'd want me to believe, anyway.
Well, you missed the references to Badiou in there, too.
You could, however, go look him up under Wikipedia. Why don't you read it & come back & tell us about him not being taken seriously.
Once again, R&B, when they're inconvenient to your politico-social phantasy life, things just disappear. "Hey, I don't know about it, so it must not be important". You don't subscribe to the New York Times, by any chance, do you? 'Cause that would just complete the stereotype to a T.
There are tons of academic kooks in the U.S., too. (Ward Churchill, for instance. Or maybe even guys with an inordinate fondness for Hegel). The difference is that in Europe they're not taught to hate them on account of merely what they do for a living.
It seems like the setting today on your anti-free speech device needs to be directed away from the "scattershot" mode, YH. ;-)
Oh, I'm sure obscure European intellectuals are very important (and perhaps even convenient) to your own right-wing fantasy life, "Young." Lol.
As are stereotypes. And what's with this malarky about things being fitted to a "T"? What does that even mean? You've used that dopey expression already with me twice in the last few weeks.
As long as you realize you have nothing more to say on the perniciousness of Mr Roof's widely accepted influences.
The difference is that Europe doesn't seek to castigate its "intellekshulls" as deserving of nothing but opprobrium. It allows them to go on about how philosophically the outcome of one revolution might have been right, or not.
Didn't the South see the Civil War as a revolution?
Not only that, they saw it as economic salvation! "King Cotton", etc.
There are probably parallels to old industries still being propped up today.
But that's for another thread.
R&B,
Please point out where I in any way deprecated the importance of free speech? Or denied that right to anyone?
I simply pointed out that people who you think are "civilized" put up with & laud major intellectual figures who wax poetic over mass murder. Is this not the case?
Once again, you cannot follow the argument, and you make up words to put into your opponents mouths.
This has nothing to do with politics, R&B. You're really an asshole, and, sadly, you don't seem to have a clue as just how big an asshole you are. I suspect the folks in your orbit unfortunately do.
Why am I not surprised Ritmo has hijacked a race thread. 50% of the comments are his. Marching orders from Cenk?
I find it interesting how the left operates. All white South Carolinians are racists because of Roof. However, whenever a Muslim commits an act of terrorism, the left rushes to make sure to scream from the rooftops - "lone wolf madman".
Is that how it works?
Basically hate whitey at all costs?
Is that what they teach in university these days?
I think the asshole is the one who persistently thinks he can deride others for not seeing the importance of Slavoj Zizek to the political ideals, inspiration and influences of Dylan Roof. But what do I know? "Asshole" is just a matter of opinion, anyway - and just like any asshole, you have many of them. That yours are especially unconsidered and cranky is what seems to fit you to the definition of that, anyway.
Anyways, glad to hear that I have an entire "orbit" of assholes to accompany me. Since you're such a fan of strength in numbers and "going along for the sake of getting along", I'll take that as a sign that in forums where we outnumber you, you'd be the asshole, too.
Your second paragraph was a complete mischaracterization, but one I'm happy to let sit there as your stubborn refusal to ever argue in good faith or take someone's word makes conversation with you pointless. I'm happy to let you think what you want, as that's all you have the capacity for, anyway.
Enjoy being a crank. I'm out for the day!
50% of the comments are his.
As were 50% of the actual THOUGHTS. If you want paid-for speech then go onto a Koch-supported site.
The Tsarnaevs had no trouble finding collaborators.
The Garland shooters had no trouble finding collaborators.
But Dylan Roof, who can',t find any Klansmen to play with, is proof America is rife with racism.
The worst things about the photo:
His gun
The flag
His flip attitude
The nerdy haircut
The shorts
The idiotic shades
The mansplaining
The setting amidst flower pots
His tan
R&B...
s were 50% of the actual THOUGHTS.
Simply an assertion without fact. All I'm hearing is the same regurgitation of drivel from "The Young Turks". You certainly know how to suck Cenk's dick.
The south saw their insurrection as a revolution, until they lost, then their apologists pretended that their insurrection was legal, and the legal actions of the US president, under 1795 Militia Act and 1807 Insurrection Act were an invasion.
Sadly, you can find that opinion on this thread.
Revolution is the crime of treason, with but one defence: Win. If you don't meet that standard, it is treason.
I actually don't know how to suck anyone's dick, but I'm glad to know that's the sum total of your understanding on how politics or any other social phenomenon works.
Or you could just post a thought of your own. But you won't. You don't have any.
But I digress. YH is an upstanding young man whose opinion I respect and admire greatly. And he obviously feels that being an asshole to people who start off by being assholes to you is about as uncivilized a behavior as they come. Unless we are all Jesuses, then we are assholes. And no, Alex, that's not an invitation for you to try for another butt-cheek.
The real takeaway:
We have no skinheads, no real KKK, no one doing anything but talking on the internet.
Actual racism is so hard to find that we had to invent white privilege and micro-aggressions just to keep the pot stirred.
And this loser couldn't find anyone to rally around his flag so he had to take his long sad walk to a gun-free zone all by himself.
"Rhythm and Balls" cannot comprehend why Democrats defended slavery, established Jim Crow, created the KKK, support abortion of black babies and defend communism.
Therefore, Republicans must be guilty of contributing to murders.
We get it, "Rhythm and Balls". You are a statist who will use any tool at hand to further your political agenda. You do that because power is your goal.
R&B can't comprehend how despite the Grant Administration's best efforts, southern racists rolled back any attempt to institute equality for blacks through extreme violence(also they murdered lots of white Republicans). You can't just force a change of heart in a single generation. It takes time. But why bother with patience when you can demonize the entire GOP right now and make political hay for 2016?
Rhythm and Balls said...
[I] Enjoy being a crank. I'm out for the day!
6/20/15, 4:32 PM
As were 50% of ...
6/20/15, 4:33 PM
I ... know how to suck anyone's dick ...
6/20/15, 4:38 PM
Or you could just post ...
6/20/15, 4:41 PM
This may be a time for Ann to apply Critical Legal Theory (CLT) to this case. CLT is a theory that challenges and overturns accepted norms and standards in legal theory and practice. Proponents of this theory believe that logic and structure attributed to the law grow out of the power relationships of the society. The law exists to support the interests of the party or class that forms it and is merely a collection of beliefs and prejudices that legitimize the injustices of society. The wealthy and the powerful use the law as an instrument for oppression in order to maintain their place in hierarchy.
It was officially started in 1977 at the conference at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, but its roots extend back to 1960 when many of its founding members participated in social activism. The views of some commenting here certainly make it clear that Roof is part of society that is out of power. An microscopic oppressed minority made up of poor, lonesome, drugged up dropouts. Even though R&B is desperately trying to attach Roof to some other group because that's what R&Bs do it may be time for a UW-Madison professor to brush up on CLT and some of its offshoots like Feminist Legal Theory and Critical Race Theory. Fight the power, right?
Is R&B angling for some government job? I'm trying to figure out his motivation. Is he a campaign staffer?
R&B: I'm talking about the persistent, official respect that states drum into something.
You mean the "whites are evil" propaganda that state schools have been drumming into kids for the last 50 years, and the respect for that idea that motivates so much official policy these days? The idea that the formative years of a 21 year old American in any region were awash with teachers, preachers, and state officials lauding the glories of the Confederacy and apartheid South Africa, encouraging him on his road to Stormfront, is ludicrous.
Funny how the relentless anti-white propaganda pumped out by schools, guv, and media is never examined as a possible factor in sending disturbed young people off the deep end. Seems like an obvious avenue of inquiry to me.
R&B - it's amazing you can't fathom how insane you sound.
I am not in the position to, alone, go into the ghetto and fight"...
Smart cookie. Go for the "gun free" zone, not the ghetto, where potential victims might shoot back. Some other folks want to make all of America a "gun free" zone, which will make it easier for these monsters to mow even more people down without encountering any resistance. Btw, the weapon he is holding in the photo is a Glock fitted with what seems to be a laser sight.
According to CNN:
… Roof bought a .45-caliber handgun at a Charleston gun store … His grandfather says that Roof was given "birthday money" and that the family didn't know what Roof did with it.
https://tinyurl.com/ned4o3d
This information is buried deep into the article. Frankly, I'm surprised CNN included it at all because it directly contradicts an article in the Washington Post, which says the weapon was a gift. The MSM media is usually more consistent in their misinformation. Of course the Post naturally wanted to peddle the gun control narrative of gun law "loopholes."
https://tinyurl.com/noy7svc
Which begs the question: If the Charleston police are correct and Roof bought the pistol in a gun store how did he pass the background check? He has a felony charge pending against him.
It could be that he has a CCL. Concealed Carry licensees already go through a background check before being issued the license, therefore no additional check is legally required to purchase a handgun. It could be the license was issued before the charges. If so he would have to have lied on the additional forms required of ALL handgun purchasers which asks about pending felonies.
Or did the background check itself fail? After all, background checks are administered by the same government that allowed individuals on the government's own terrorist watchlist to work at airports.
Storify... What I picked up about the confederate flag fastidiously but felicitously following the right people.
Link
Come on Ann, you're falling off your game. If this isn't worthy of a "men in shorts" tag then nothing is.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CHARLESTON_SHOOTING_SUSPECT?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-06-20-03-09-22
A black drinking buddy of the white man accused of killing nine people at a Charleston church says the suspect told him a week earlier that he planned to shoot up a college campus in the city...
The friend, Christon Scriven, told The Associated Press on Friday that he thought Dylann Roof's statements were just drunken bluster....
..."I don't think the church was his primary target because he told us he was going for the school," Scriven said Friday. "But I think he couldn't get into the school because of the security ... so I think he just settled for the church."
...When Scriven saw this week that Roof was arrested, he said it hit him "that he actually did all the stuff he said he was going to do, like he actually killed these people."
Though none of them took the statements seriously, Scriven said he and Roof's other friends are now struggling with the knowledge that they might have been able to prevent the killings.
"I think everyone feels guilt," Scriven said. "There are a lot of things that happen in life that we just don't understand and we'll never understand. And this situation is something that you're not going to find the answers to from ordinary people. ... The only person that can tell you is Dylann."
Ok Anglelyne - go ahead and put up a flag that symbolized an official regime of white enslavement by blacks at permanent full-mast on your state capitol, even when the normal state and federal flags are ordered flown at half-mast, and we'll test out your crackpot theory that way. That sounds like it would be some REAL "whites are evil" propaganda (instead of the emotive hyperventilating of your own victimology), but I doubt you would go for it the way you do for a stars-and-bars white-supremacist regime. You would probably shit your pants at the thought of even a toothless "Black Panther" flag flying superior to your own state and national flags at the capitol. But you bloviate about how you think it's harmless, so go ahead and try it out.
Go on.
R&B can't comprehend how despite the Grant Administration's best efforts, southern racists rolled back any attempt to institute equality for blacks through extreme violence(also they murdered lots of white Republicans). You can't just force a change of heart in a single generation. It takes time. But why bother with patience when you can demonize the entire GOP right now and make political hay for 2016?
I hear you. If blacks believe the government isn't doing enough to reverse the impacts of its discrimination of them and get angry and kill a lot of whites as a result of their frustration, we should be patient. That seems to be what you're saying.
I haven't read the entire thread, but so far, no one understands forgiveness. It is much more for the one forgiving than for the one forgiven. Rage and resentment is a power that those that forgive refuse to grant to the offender. Forgiveness is just a single example of the power and teaching of God. (for those that claim there is no proof of God.)
Even if it's 150 years of patience.
No amount of patience is ever enough.
We should be patient enough to never end affirmative action, too.
karlpoppersghost:
Scriven: The only person that can tell you is Dylann
Very enlightened. We can infer motive with the available circumstantial evidence, and we may even be able to deduce it from a preponderance of evidence; but, ultimately we will do so through correlation, which may fail to discern causal relationships, or worse, create relationships and evidence tainted by progressive inaccuracy and dislocation.
R&B - are you advocating a race war asshole? Otherwise, I'd pay close attention to the words of conciliation coming from the church members. The stuff you're saying is shameful.
I've been off having life and I see that ritmo has taken over the thread again. Bye.
So, other than, at a personal level, take threats seriously and try to talk a person out of it, what can one do? Claiming, while drinking with buddies, that you're going to shoot someone -- is that a crime? Would the police have grounds to take away the weapon or, do, well, anything?
And, given that the shooter said he was going to the college, there wouldn't have been any reason to warn the church, or black churches in Charleston in general, either.
This isn't a rhetorical question. I just don't know.
R&B - are you advocating a race war asshole?
I saw that's what you were doing, when advocating surrender to the racist assholes who killed blacks and white Republicans during Reconstruction. It looks like you were saying their race war shouldn't have been opposed.
Remember, these things take time - or so you said. Patience.
150 years might not be enough time. Let them keep their flag of race war. Patience.
I've been off having life and I see that ritmo has taken over the thread again. Bye.
It's good to know you only come here when not having a life. But it's ok. I'm sure you have plenty of other opportunities in life to go on about things that no one takes seriously.
iowan2:
Whether the insight was from God or our ancestors, "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord, are true words of wisdom. The advocated constraint for retribution, especially for guilt through association or correlation, mitigates denigration of individual dignity, poisoned human relationships, and addled minds.
Jane the Actuary:
Nothing. There wasn't a specific threat. The best they could do was infer his intentions, dissuade him from pursuing his proposed actions, or take an extreme step and physically restrain him based on a hypothetical argument.
It's interesting to note that he had black friends or acquaintances. Also, his first hypothetical target was a secular location, where there is class diversity. These inconsistencies further complicate any response and discerning motives for his hypothetical statements.
Suppose this tragic shooting had not occurred.
Then why does the Stars and Bars still fly over these Southern state capitals?
It's claimed to be a symbol of Southern heritage.
But the South has millions of black citizens in it. It's their land and their heritage too. Yet they weren't asked if they considered the Stars and Bars to be a symbol of their shared heritage.
Instead, the flag was originally flown by segregationist white Dixiecrats starting in the 1950s and continuing with the opposition to racial integration in the 1960s.
It has never been considered a symbol of anybody except white people.
That's enough of a reason to switch to something else.
There are many things about the South that both blacks and whites can be proud of: Southern hospitality, Southern economic and social progress, the patriotism that got so many to enlist to defend America, etc.
Why can't we come up with another symbol and another flag that both whites and blacks can embrace?
If it weren't for the utter horror of the circumstance, I would say it is a nice thing to see that R&B has gotten over his nut job obsession with Sara Palin's uterus.
I have more interests than you might know of, Tim.
Here's one of them.
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate, we can not consecrate, we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
It's a good one. Even if it weren't for a certain day on the calendar year, it would be good to know about what this "father" of the country stood for, and to honor his works and deeds and thoughts, as so well described above.
In the spirit of that address, what is everyone here highly resolved to do? Especially so that those dead shall not have died in vain?
Such strong and profound expressions of Christianity rarely appear in the media. Truly awe-inspiring.
Lambs loving the Butcher. Yes, quite a sight.
None dare call it a death wish.
Although R&B has made an attempt here, it is essentially impossible to have a useful discussion on race on this particular forum. Althouse has four go to topics: partisan politics, gay males, feminism and race. Arguably there is a fifth, the supreme court, but no one seems to give a shit about this, except when it relates to the other four topics.
In partisan politics Althouse engages in the dance of a thousand veils regarding her voting choices, which keeps the punters engaged. She is unquestionably the world's expert on this particular topic. With respect to gay men, she has some cred, as the mother of a gay man, as she does on feminism, as a mainstream feminist. On race she has produced much of the most painfully clueless writing I have ever read. She is unwilling to acknowledge, much less discuss, white racism and is essentially impermeable to black voices. While the latter is understandable, the former is deeply problematic. Writing about race in American without placing white racism front and center is like writing about biology without mentioning DNA. White racism created the system and permeates all its institutions. Her frank denial of the issue creates a vacuum that is filled by the racial ids of her commentators in way that would be unusual on a blog like Turley's, whose proprietor has a much more nuanced viewpoint on racial issues.
Here's my two cents as a lifelong southern Republican who has lived in South Carolina for 13 years, and considers it his home:
First of all, I'm a Republican because I grew up under Wallace in Alabama, and no matter how much Democrats deny it, they are still the party of race. They have changed from fighting for segregation to getting all the oppressed groups on government assistance to create a permanent constituency, but it's still the same nasty racial politics.
Secondly I, and most of the South Carolinians I know are for permanently taking down that flag, and leaving it to museums and confederate graves, but it should be done the right way, and I hope to see, some day soon, a ceremony with Governor Haley, the President Pro Tempore of the State Senate and the Speaker of the House, along with a few private citizens taking down the flag together as a show of togetherness.
As for as this R&B character goes, just let him be. I will give him Lynyrd Skynyrds response to Neil Young, "a southern man don't need him around anyhow." The south has come a long way in my lifetime, far more that people like that will ever give us credit for. Are there still racists? Absolutely, but I've lived in the north and work daily with northeasterners, and I guarantee you that there is more racism there than here now. Black and white southerners have for the most part kissed and made up. Heck, we even go to church together (my wife informed me that we go to church with at least one relative of one of the deceased.)
God bless, and I'm voting for Scott Walker!
I have been trying to make sense of this kid in South Carolina going into a black church prayer meeting and shooting so many people, and I have been lost.
Until I kept reading. And I read that this putz put a "manifesto" (God I hate that word) on the internet so I pored over it.
Here is the thing. He wrote about his hatred for blacks and lots of other races. He wrote about his admiration for Rwanda, and slavery and South African apartheid. He wrote about how he wanted to join a group that would finally put things right.
But he couldn't find that group. He actually complained that he could not find enough KKK, white supremacists or racists to help him. HERE IN AMERICA HE COULD NOT FIND A GROUP THAT HATED AS MUCH AS HE DID.
Isn't that the most amazing thing you can imagine? Despite what the damn media may be telling you, he could not find a group of haters to join and kill with.
No matter how many times NBC or ABC or CBS may decry our heritage and the American people, a true hater could not find a compatriot.
I am so sorry for the people that were killed, for their families, for their friends. But I am also so proud to live in a country that could find no quarter for that low life scumbag.
So here's the deal. If you make a living off racial hatred, or if you want to be famous for racial hatred, know this: We don't give a fuck for you. We are Americans.
Anne Staskelunas-Cacioppo
"it is essentially impossible to have a useful discussion on race on this particular forum."
I would like to thank our blog hostess for avoiding "useful discussions" of this topic and for not caring one whit whether discussions are "useful" and for ignoring charges of "frank denial" of this or anything else. Guilt trippers and race baiters have plenty of online swamps to wallow in.
ARM: What word or words would you use to describe the tendency of a person to consider their own Race, the best Race?
And contrast that, if you would, to the very natural tendency of a husband to consider his own wife, the best wife, his own kids, the best kids, etc.
Thanks.
he was a lazy punk, I would describe him as a Reaver, the cannibalistic mutants from Whedon's Firefly universe, they were part of a social experiment, that was supposed to induce a more compliant populace, but it turned a small percentage, feral, the eternal conversation on race,
he chose to totally accomodate, and become what we are told America is all about anyways,
Oh, Qaestor, you are showing your face. Haha.
Do let us know when that day comes - if it ever does, John Reeves. A lot of people are waiting on your little "process" there, seeing as how much it gets in the way of seeing things equally, as one nation.
In the meantime, the rest of us are also wondering what good it did to restore Robert E. Lee's citizenship, in 1975. We're also wondering what good it did to remove Jefferson Davis' service ban, in 1978.
But I guess that's just how the South is. Demanding absolution hundreds of years later for all its misdeeds while insulting the rest of the country for just asking when it's going to hurry the hell up on its "respect for a racist past" problem.
I guess the speed of that progress you're talking about isn't fast enough to see four damn decades as long enough to sort out its issues of pride, from its issues of prejudice.
But in the meantime, affirmative action has to end and black people need to take more responsibility for crime and for not fearing racism when they have troubles with the law (especially when it comes to cops using inordinate force against them, wrongfully killing or beating them in greater number) and yada yada yada all that. What do I know? I'm just a line in a song by a band named for their gym teacher, and as bad as the much more important and influential and just musician that they resented for calling them out.
All these cop abuse videos, and the worst one seems to be of Michael Slager shooting Walter Scott. Anyone want to wager a guess as to where that occurred?
I know John Reeves sure doesn't. There's just too much pride there to let go of that.
But hey - this is all a religious issue. Forgive the murderer, and the proud enablers. Remember, the sin of their pride is not one that they yet feel capable of taking account of.
Give them some time.
Maybe a couple hundred years or so.
Things go slow, where they're from.
he was a lazy punk, I would describe him as a Reaver, the cannibalistic mutants from Whedon's Firefly universe, they were part of a social experiment, that was supposed to induce a more compliant populace, but it turned a small percentage, feral, the eternal conversation on race,
he chose to totally accomodate, and become what we are told America is all about anyways,
"if the fact of the massacre didn't block any possible comedy:'
I went with my black girlfriend to the historical black church her family attends, and we were moved -- deeply, wonderfully moved -- by the words of Truth and Love the pastor spoke.
Moved by the Truth and the Love, we skipped the following Bible Class and went into the bathroom to have ecstatic anal sex.
Right after I ecstatically orgasmed, and she proclaimed "Hell yeah Jesus," we heard gunfire.
By the time we had pulled up our pants and straightened our clothing the damage was done: nine dead in this most wonderful of Churches.
We fell into each others arms, sobbing:
ONLY BY HAVING ANAL SEX IN THE BATHROOM DID GOD SAVE US.
The problem now was that now, anywhere we went -- McDonald's, Starbucks, Home Depot -- we felt compelled that only by having anal sex in the restroom would we be safe from any danger.
So, McDonald's, Starbucks, Home Depot bathrooms: anal sex. With my black girlfriend.
Safe.
Then she gave a blowjob to a Chinese guy at Lowe's and I realized that all of this wasn't connected.
Mysterious ways.
I am Laslo.
Guilt trippers and race baiters have plenty of online swamps to wallow in.
As do Confederate sympathizers too guilty of the sin of Southern pride to account for their division of the nation.
But they get a pass. They vote Republican, after all - and that's the only thing that should matter.
Thanks for telling us what this is all about. But this is a thread on religion, after all.
As if this is would be the end point, those pushing most insistently against the star and bars, are nearly as aggrieved by the American flag, because Vietnam or Abu Ghraib or AGW,
SomeoneHasToSayIt said...
ARM: What word or words would you use to describe the tendency of a person to consider their own Race, the best Race?
It is pointless discussing who is more racist than whom. I'm perfectly willing to accept that all people, on average, are roughly equally racist, albeit there are large individual differences. But black, asian, hispanic racism wasn't a factor in the formation of core US institutions, white racism was. Obviously a very different set of circumstances apply in Japan. And, you can't understand Japan's current economic circumstances without considering Japanese racism.
@ARM,
Writing about race in American without placing white racism front and center is like writing about biology without mentioning DNA. White racism created the system and permeates all its institutions.
Stop being so self-righteous.
You come in here & drop the quote above that are nothing but grade-Z, post Marxist identity politics drivel as if they were Gospel. Well, excuse us all for not sharing your metaphysics & morality, which are just so obviously superior.
History is a messy business, and picking out causes and causal chains in history is not for the faint of heart. Fifty years ago the same folks who today tell us that "white privilege" is the foundation of the nation would have told us that it was class consciousness, and, by golly, that was just the science of it all.
Those of us here are old enough to know that the meme of "white privilege" was invented the day before yesterday to take the place of the faltering Marxist ideology that lay at the heart of the modern left. Make no mistake -- it's dubious on all counts --- historically, philosophically, politically. No one here needs to apologize for not buying it, even if it is the language du jour of the black struggle.
By the way, if you so concerned about slavery & its after-affects maybe you want to drop your avatar of Aristotle, you know, he of the "Some men are slaves by nature".
Stop being so self-righteous.
Says the guy in a marriage built on the demand that his wife respect his belief in her journey to hell as a "non-believer".
Young Babylonian wastes four paragraphs demanding that everyone believe that the institution of black slavery ( as well as its after-effects) at the hands of a white majority and elite political class involved no privilege in their sense of their own "race".
But hey - history is a messy business, he says! So let's let messy social problems stay messy because pointing to their most obvious causes is arrogant, by his reckoning, at least. And arrogance is worse than ignorance OR asking defenders of the status quo to explore the mere possibility of their complicity by benefiting from it. SACRILEGE!
AReasonableMan said...
It is pointless discussing who is more racist than whom.
Hey! We agrees on something. Probably for different reasons though.
I'm perfectly willing to accept that all people, on average, are roughly equally racist, albeit there are large individual differences. But black, asian, hispanic racism wasn't a factor in the formation of core US institutions, . . .
Good thing, too. Else this place would suck like Nigeria or North Korea or El Salvador
. . . white racism was.
White exceptionalism, you mean.
. . . Obviously a very different set of circumstances apply in Japan. And, you can't understand Japan's current economic circumstances without considering Japanese racism.
I admire Japan's immigration policies.
I wonder, R&B, if any of your ancestors every did anything wrong. I think it's time for their sins to be laid out for public scrutiny, and I think we need to hang a large placard around your neck listing them, since that's what you are doing to southerners.
Let's go, boy. Fair's fair.
I wonder, R&B, if any of your ancestors every did anything wrong. I think it's time for their sins to be laid out for public scrutiny, and I think we need to hang a large placard around your neck listing them, since that's what you are doing to southerners.
If they did, I'm not demanding that anyone pay homage to them on account of those misdeeds. I'm certainly not picking through any violations of theirs of the Constitution and demanding pardons one hundred ten years after the fact.
It's the South that's wrong here, by believing its sin of pride deserves more respect than our need to act justly and honorably as one nation. Why can't you see how arrogant that is? Why do you see those who want to put respect for the Confederacy in the past as the arrogant ones? We're not the ones demanding respect for pride in something damaging, provincial and wrong.
socialism was always a tough sell in this country, so they sought a sullen lumpenproletariat, that was the Communist interests in African American issues, not humanitarian concerns, one could ask Stalin about his concern for the people of the Caucasus,
Gramsci saw from his own experience, and that of the Social Revolutionaries in Russia, that direct action was not always the quickest way, hence 'the walk through the institutions' in this country, Alinsky took up that mantle, his watchword 'rub raw the sources of discontent,'
R&B,
But hey - history is a messy business, he says! So let's let messy social problems stay messy because pointing to their most obvious causes is arrogant, by his reckoning, at least. And arrogance is worse than ignorance OR asking defenders of the status quo to explore the mere possibility of their complicity by benefiting from it.
Thinking you know the direction of history & trying to make social changes based on that faulty knowledge leads to even worse results, e.g. every Marxist-Leninist regime that's ever been. Tens of trillions of dollars have been spent since the start of the Great Society, and yet poverty remains at 14%. Maybe it's time to step back & admit that we really don't understand the nature of what black slavery wrought in America, and look at what the numbers are telling us. It's not a pretty picture for anybody's side.
And by the way, those self-same forefathers who so poisoned the well for the blacks, well, they hated the Yids & the Micks, too. Where are the Jews & the Irish today? At the top of the heap both in terms of income & education. Those stupid fucking WASPS! They don't even know how to hold their inferiors down, do they? That's the problem with the "white privilege" narrative. Throughout American history lots of folks who weren't "white" came out not just ahead, but far ahead.
so we have a president, who was exposed from the beginning, to stalinism (frank davis) maoism
(bill Ayers) and critical race theory (Bell, De Unger) and practice (Wright, et al) hence the world where we find ourselves,
@R&B,
Says the guy in a marriage built on the demand that his wife respect his belief in her journey to hell as a "non-believer".
Nothing of that sort was ever said, R&B.
There's is absolutely no cause to insult or discuss spouses here, R&B. I insult you when I think you deserve it but never would I think of insulting Mrs R&B. That comment was beyond the pale, and I demand an apology.
If you had said that to my face, R&B, you'd be nursing a broken skull right now. Say what you want to me, but my wife is strictly off limits.
Thinking you know the direction of history & trying to make social changes based on that faulty knowledge leads to even worse results, e.g. every Marxist-Leninist regime that's ever been.
It's hard to see how bad a result you can get from accepting that the cause that attacked America - after refusing to continue a state's supposed right to slavery and insurrection - was wrong, and that demanding respect for it today is wrong. But then, I guess that's why I'm not the one demanding a right to believe in mysterious things. Or demanding respect for that belief from a significant other.
And by the way, those self-same forefathers who so poisoned the well for the blacks, well, they hated the Yids & the Micks, too.
Not enough to enslave them. Not enough to prevent "Micks" (and is that necessary, BTW? What did you gain by using a slur?) from signing the Constitution. Not enough to prevent George Washington from explaining to the Touro Synagogue the importance of their liberty, or in seeing their liberty as part of the same larger struggle, or even forging the Liberty Bell with inscriptions from Leviticus, or of the colonists identifying with biblical Israelites.
You use "white" privilege to talk about white Europeans who weren't considered on par with Anglos, as if that proves some point. It proves nothing of the sort because the only privilege that mattered was their privilege to avoid being enslaved - thereby preventing up to a dozen generations from prospering and attaining the same institutional power that you then seem to resent them from attaining.
For a guy who likes to declare that there are so many problems with understanding history, you sure could afford to get some of your historical facts together, first. Learn first. Criticize later.
YoungHegelian said...
Throughout American history lots of folks who weren't "white" came out not just ahead, but far ahead.
Let's just accept this as true, for the moment. Wouldn't this suggest that instead of investing so much time and energy telling black people how to run their lives a much better strategy, for white people, would be to focus on the problems that are holding 'white' people back. For starters, I would suggest examining their anti-intellectualism, fondness for institutional violence and lack of interest in the fine arts. And, most of them could usefully learn how to change a flat tire and/or build something out of their material of choice. Reading a book every now and then and laying off the carbs wouldn't hurt either.
Ok. I'm sorry about the comment but remain curious as to what you think makes your marriage and your view of it (which you did, of course, bring up earlier) different from Mel Gibson's comment on how his wife must be going to hell as this was what he saw as a pronouncement from the Chair of Saint Peter.
it's pretty clear,
http://biblehub.com/john/14-6.htm
now either you believe or you don't, the word denies God's truth, and invents another in their image,
Here's the background of what Gibson, a self-described conservative Catholic (and YH is both conservative and a proud Catholic) believes about his non-Catholic wife:
Mel Gibson has come under fire for being hard on Jews in his film “The Passion of the Christ” — but apparently, he feels that Protestants are also doomed to damnation. In fact, it looks like Gibson, a conservative Catholic, believes that his Episcopalian wife could be going to hell.
Gibson was interviewed by the Herald Sun in Australia, and the reporter asked the star if Protestants are denied eternal salvation. “There is no salvation for those outside the Church,” Gibson replied. “I believe it.”
He elaborated: “Put it this way. My wife is a saint. She’s a much better person than I am. Honestly. She’s, like, Episcopalian, Church of England. She prays, she believes in God, she knows Jesus, she believes in that stuff. And it’s just not fair if she doesn’t make it, she’s better than I am. But that is a pronouncement from the chair. I go with it.”
So naturally, when YH talks about similar sorts of relationships and beliefs, I am curious to know how similarly his match up with Gibson's. Seeing as how I am neither of those things.
I am also curious to know the answer, just for the sake of understanding how someone so opposed to anti-racist/anti-Confederate sentiment and so defensive of arbitrarily "mysterious" historical and spiritual references, goes about constructing his views on these things.
It's a hell of a lot more direct than just arguing with a seeming crank whose actual motivations for his odd feelings about things couldn't be more inscrutable.
ARM: It is pointless discussing who is more racist than whom. I'm perfectly willing to accept that all people, on average, are roughly equally racist...
OK. That suggests that there's something universal and fundamental about "racism" in human populations.
...But black, asian, hispanic racism wasn't a factor in the formation of core US institutions, white racism was. Obviously a very different set of circumstances apply in Japan. And, you can't understand Japan's current economic circumstances without considering Japanese racism.
Well, duh, based on your premise, above, that's a tautology. A nation put together by a bunch of white people isn't going to have black, asian, or "hispanic" racism at its core, it's going to have white racism, an Asian nation Asian racism, etc. (Geez, are white people supposed to cover everybody's racism as well as their own?) And if white racism is part of the core of the institutions of a white nation, then it follows that getting rid of the racism would undo the institutions, right? You did say core, dude.
So by your own lights there's really only one solution - everybody needs to live in a society where the foundational institutions are built on their own in-group proclivities and preferences, institutions built of, by, and for the kind of people they are, so that everyone has the ineluctable racism of human societies working in their own favor. Sure, people should be able to move around if they personally prefer some other groups' way of doing things, but they have to go transracial. None of this "I can be racist but you can't" malarkey, no sirree.
And don't be telling me "but but but 'all men are created equal' and 'equal protection' and diversity and anti-racism are what America's really about" - because you just got finished telling me that white racism is at the core of this country's institutions, and therefore all of that can't be anything but a flat contradiction or a bunch of non-essential accretion.
Now, I think there ought to be some allowance in every nation's racist core for the people all over the world whose ancestors were enslaved or conquered. (No, just being of the same race as some other nation's enslaved or conquered people doesn't get you any slack.) Their ancestors may have just been minding their own business, enjoying their own racist institutions in the comfort of their own coherent cultures, when somebody came along and imposed alien ones. (We won't get too fussy about the fact that they were probably up to the same enslaving conquering impositional shenanigans themselves at some point). But those millions of people now pouring into other groups' nations and then bitching and moaning about "racist institutions" and locals' "privilege"? Pshaw. They need to just piss off or get on with the transitioning. I'm sure you'll agree.
Quite Buckley sorry I had to change; alas.
the point being, this punk shot 9 church goers in cold blood at the end of a bible study, a swift and sure punishment is what is due him, but the same parties who wave the bloody shirt,
are the the first to want to keep him alive,
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा