It's not the end of men, it's the evolution of men into better men. (beautiful animation by Sophie Koko Gate!) pic.twitter.com/Qtf0xyT5Ad— Lena Dunham (@lenadunham) November 2, 2016
The video is presented with the caption "It's not the end of men, it's the evolution of men into better men. (beautiful animation by Sophie Koko Gate!)"
And it really is a very cool animation. The father's answer, heard in voiceover, is:
Well, white men are a problem. Straight white men are a big problem, that’s for sure. But I actually feel pretty good about it. I think straight white guys have been screwing things up for long enough. High time for straight white males to step back and let some other people do it.At Breitbart, the video was said to be "celebrating the extinction of straight white men." I don't think she's "celebrating" anything but her own father. The implication is: Isn't he cool and funny? (Note that his last word, "it," refers to "screwing things up.")
The caption shows that she has the mild opinion that men are evolving into better men, not going extinct at all. But she got your attention, including getting somebody at Breitbart to raise up the righties in protest, which I'm sure she celebrates.
Posts
218 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 218 of 218Saint Croix said...
And the Trump administration cuts off loans to the schools that are bad investments.
This isn't enough. A lot of baby boomers got rich dumping debt on millenials and giving them nothing of value in return. The debt in the form of student loans is going to be monetized when nobody pays them back. Those colleges and baby boomers are going to have to be held to account. Harvard has billions sitting in that endowment and it is tax exempt. This is an absolute scam.
Rhythm and Balls said...
"Well, I might have muddled that bit up, mockturtle. But this was never a "clean" history, anyway. It's based on 2/3rds ante-bellum Southern whites being secularized, formerly Catholic Irish and 2/3rds ante-bellum Northern whites being Anglos.
That provides as much of the bigger picture as anyone needs to know - re: where Southern whites got their classist superiority complex from. They finally developed a culture that was seen as superior in traditional European terms: Secular, wealthy, noble.
So, they were better than the Anglos, by anyone's standards at the time. That's why they resisted relinquishing the slave empire that got them that way."
Do you think that the southern aristocracy were try to emulate it's English betters? And then the smaller estate owners trying to emulate their tidewater betters? Even after the revolution. Probably should have mentioned that first.
"Is there a point to denoting that the confederacy was Irish(catholic) and the north was Anglo(protestant)?"
Huh? Catholic immigrants, beginning with the Irish in 1848, mainly settled in the North, where the industry was. Outside of Louisiana, there were very few Catholics in the South at the time of the Civil War. The majority of whites in the South were of Scots-Irish descent and Protestant. As David Hackett Fischer's fine book "Albion's Seed" points out, many of the Southern aristocrats, Robert E. Lee, for instance, were in fact descended from the English aristocracy. Younger sons with no hope of inheriting land in England went to Virginia. And they were not Catholic.
I highly recommend Hackett Fischer's book, which focuses on the 4 vastly diferent groups from Britain that formed the template which still divides our country to this day - the Puritans from East Anglia who settled in New England, the Anglican aristocracy from the South of England who went to Virginia, the Quakers from the Midlands who went to Pennsylvania and Delaware, and what Hackett Fischer calls "the borderers" - the Presbyterians from the English-Scottish border and Northern Ireland who headed for the backcountry. Each group loathed and mistrusted the others. And they all mistrusted Catholics, but Catholics were simply not much of a force in colonial America outside of Maryland. That remained largely true at the time of the Civil war, although there were many more Catholics in America at that point. They were largely excluded from positions of power.
if you ignore Lena Dunham, maybe she will disappear. Why must we keep hearing about and from her?
" It's based on 2/3rds ante-bellum Southern whites being secularized, formerly Catholic Irish"
To anybody who confuses the Catholic Irish with the Scots-Irish, which is what the majority of ante-bellum Southern whites actually were, I point you to the history of Northern Ireland. Things have quieted down there in recent decades, thank goodness, but the differences between Irish Protestant and Irish Catholic have been, uh, pretty pronounced for hundreds of years.
And "secularized?" What? This is the Bible Belt we're talking about.
If more women were like Lena, the demise of the white man would be greatly accelerated.
Maybe it shouldn't be a surprise that R&B got something as simple as the distinction between Scots-Irish and Catholic Irish wrong. exiledonmainstreet laid it out pretty well. I think back in the 19th Century, we would have talked about Protestant Privilege, with this country being very heavily Protestant through the first half of that century. As noted, the Catholic Irish started coming over here mid century, followed by other Catholic nationalities. And, notably, the Civil War was almost exclusively a war between Protestants, though I expect that we would consider the Union forces to be notably more fundamentalist than the Confederate ones (at least for my ancestors who fought on the Northern side were at least partially religiously motivated) - which is why, I would suggest that the Union forces would sing "Battle Hymn of the Republic" while the Confederates would sing "Dixie". Indeed, the former was in our hymnal the last time I checked, and we would sing it at least once a year, something that no one would do with Dixie in church.
But, I think it simplistic to think that the Scots-Irish were dominant in the South. Rather, I would suggest that the Anglican aristocracy formed much of the southern aristocracy, as they settled the south eastern part of the country, up through maybe LA or so, with cotton and slavery, with the Scots-Irish primarily settling the band through KY, WV, TN, S. PA, S. OH, etc., more similar to their native Scottish border and Northern Ireland (where they had been transplanted from Scotland to help civilize the Catholic Irish). (With Trump's Scots-Irish roots, no one should be surprised that he did well with their descendants there). And, it wasn't as if they weren't religious - churches were the center of their culture, as was the case in much of the rest of the country. Rather, they just weren't as fundamentalist as the Puritans and their descendants. Nearing four centuries after my Puritan ancestors came over, on my mother's side, I can still feel it in my bones. Not so on my father's side, whose ancestors have been here just as long - they were primarily Scots-Irish (with some later Welsh), with Anglican aristocracy on the straight paternal line (supposedly, a Hayden ancestor built the last private castle in England, before they were outlawed).
I think that the Scots-Irish were "secularized" only to the extent that they weren't as fundamentalist as the Puritans (and probably Quakers). What has become secularized is New England, which originally was probably the most fundamentalist portion of the country. My guess is that a good part of that was the large influx of Roman Catholics, esp. starting half way through the 19th Century. Though, for my ancestors, New England had seemingly become too secularized by the early part of that century, well before the Catholic influx, as they migrated from MA, into CT, N. OH, thence into the wilds of MI (to start a Christian Academy).
I'll second 'exiledonmainstreet' regarding Albion's Seed. Excellent study and fascinating read. I mentioned Jim Webb's book, Born Fighting because it dealt specifically with the Scots-Irish.
Bruce, the Scots-Irish immigrants were, for the most part, very 'fundamentalist' in their faith, though their doctrine differed somewhat from that of the Puritans. They were Baptists and Presbyterians for the most part and were far less 'secular' than were their northern post-Puritan counterparts. The secular plantation aristocracy accounted for a very small segment of this population.
I was being sarcastic about persecuting for belief, BTW.
And "secularized?" What? This is the Bible Belt we're talking about.
Not prior to 1865. It's the Puritan Salem residents you're comparing them to.
Ante-bellum South was way secular compared to the North. Things change.
Albion's Seed is a great book. I'm pretty sure it will back me up. The migrants to the Mid Atlantic were Quakers and to New England were Puritans and other Calivnists. Or something of the sort. I can't remember exactly. You get the picture. But their emigration was from regions where those sects were prominent or were provoked to migrate.
It's always good to get a prissy nit-picker like Bruce Hayden to quibble about minor shit as an excuse to crank out two more long paragraphs of nothing.
Maybe I post too much. An error is bound to happen. Settle down. I ain't no theology expert.
The south retreated into religion as a response to losing the Civil War. Read Wolfgang Schivelbusch - Culture of Defeat.
I wonder if the Professor has ever read about the Soviet gulags and what happens when you 'other' entire classes of people. I wonder.
It's always good to get a prissy nit-picker like Bruce Hayden to quibble about minor shit as an excuse to crank out two more long paragraphs of nothing.
Hey! You're guilty of the same shit.So don't be calling out anybody else.
It was a good read, by both of you.
Couple a pedantic assholes.
54 % of the white women votes were for Trump
Well, what is a white man? Are the Irish and the Italians considered white, these days? I don't care what anyone says, Sicilians aren't white.
Post a Comment