Writes Rod Dreher at The American Conservative in "Sad Songs." I haven't listened to Gladwell's podcast yet, but Dreher ends his column with an invitation to listen to The Band’s “The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down”:
Listen especially to the third verse — the land, family, death, defeat — and know that for very many of us, that is the South. It’s not the whole South. “Strange Fruit” is also the South. But it’s one true story of the South, and if you can’t feel the tragedy and the heartbreak of a poor, proud Southern man laid low in this song, friend, I cannot help you:
I can't embed that without thinking of something I read in The New Yorker this week: "Who Owns the Internet?/What Big Tech’s monopoly powers mean for our culture," by Elizabeth Kolbert:
Consider the case of Levon Helm. He was the drummer for the Band, and, though he never got rich off his music, well into middle age he was supported by royalties. In 1999, he was diagnosed with throat cancer. That same year, Napster came along, followed by YouTube, in 2005. Helm’s royalty income, which had run to about a hundred thousand dollars a year... dropped “to almost nothing.” When Helm died, in 2012, millions of people were still listening to the Band’s music, but hardly any of them were paying for it. (In the years between the founding of Napster and Helm’s death, total consumer spending on recorded music in the United States dropped by roughly seventy per cent.) Friends had to stage a benefit for Helm’s widow so that she could hold on to their house....Here's the album. You can still buy it.
By the way, the 3rd verse that Dreher talks about is the one with the lines: "Like my father before me, I will work the land/And like my brother above me, who took a rebel stand/He was just eighteen, proud and brave/But a Yankee laid him in his grave...." It made me think of the 140 Confederate soldiers whose nearby graves I visited the other day, after Madison's mayor, Paul Soglin, got a memorial removed. I took photographs...
... but only later did I learn that the headstones do not mark individual graves. What's under the ground is, in fact, a mass grave. The individual stones are a later effort at imposing dignity — an effort that corresponds to the effort we are experiencing today, the withdrawal of dignity.
550 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 550 of 550a global depression to end all depressions, and the fallout of that may well be ... fallout.
Another reset. This seems to be a recurring event in human history. Some people will even run, not walk, to bask in its warmth. With tens of trillions of dollars in outstanding debt, and a ball of yarns growing every larger and more compact, there seems to be two choices: control and reset. They're working to secure the former, but the resistance may force the latter.
a dictionary definition of fascism
Judge a philosophy by the content of its principles.
As for the left-right political paradigm, it is context-sensitive, and does not translate directly between societies. Most notably, the American right is individualist with a classical liberal philosophy. The American center tempers this with Christian religious/moral principles.
Give us a manifesto, Pedro.
Be sure to use paragraph breaks.
Jason and Michael K already commented on the actuarial reality of monument building in the South in the late 19th and early 20th century. The SPLC histogram of the South's monument building over time has been all over the internet this week and knowledgeable people have been either appalled or laughing their asses off. If you created a histogram of monument building in the northern states the shape is exactly the same, just shifted earlier in time 4-5 years because the GAR preceded the UCV by several years and the UDC came shortly after, giving the GAR an earlier start. A guy on Facebook created a histogram just for Indiana as he had the data readily available and the shape of the curve is nearly identical, just shifted earlier in time about 3-4 years. If more states were added it would just reinforce this conclusion.
The UDC built most of the monuments in the South, no public money was used, they just copied what the GAR was doing in the North, with lots of help from slick salesman who went from town to town goading the little gray-haired widows of the UDC in one town to build a bigger and finer monument than their UDC neighbors in the next county. They even had pre-packaged fundraising campaigns to get people to contribute the money. There have been books on this. They were working against time, trying to get them built while most of the veterans were still alive. This is no different than the flurry of veterans monuments built in communities all over the US in the last 10-15 years, to get something built before all the WWII veterans were gone. I was involved in this effort in my own community. People back in the late 19th and early 20th century were no different.
For a quick and easy read on the monument-building frenzy and its driving factors from the late 1880's to about 1915 see Chapter 12, pp. 344-345, in Dr. Edward L. Ayers Pulitzer prize nominated book from 1992 "The Promise of the New South - Life After Reconstruction." They do not support the talking points KittyM copied from the SPLC report, which I have read and have many disagreements with.
Unknown: "He'd have to become a citizen of this country first to be your compatriot"
LOL
A lefty pretending that becoming a proper citizen of the US matters to the left.
No one is illegal! No Borders! The lefties are happy to make non-citizens Judges, and let them serve on City Councils.
Citizenship? Man, that is sooooooo mid-1900's!
Check it out, I proved AGW is a scam earlier -
Right. Just after admitting you had no clue about that or any other science.
Also,
They already know who they are. For everyone else, try to be responsive to the post, don't make personal attacks on other commenters, bring some substance...
Having trouble being responsive to the post, Mr. San Francisco Self-Fart Sniffer?
Hey, your guy Bannon sucks his own cock. You, you sniff your own farts.
Wife is watching nothing interesting.
Tired of my novel.
Out with the game on the laptop.
Recommended computer game - Gary Grigsby's War in the Pacific Admirals Edition, Matrix Games. Not available on Amazon anymore! Treason!
Oh well, the other Matrix Games are on Amazon, have a look. Its all quality stuff.
My favorite game ever. Working on a new scenario.
The municipality of Charlottesville, and the State of Virginia and the US Government, assembled as a mass nearby, all are enemies of those poor pathetic white nationalists. The power imbalance, as all these radical folk like to bring up, is completely against them
You overlook the huge contingent of Nazis that we have in Arlington -- right next to our nation's capital! -- and the threat and menace that they pose. They had a big, terrifying rally here on Friday, which I earlier posted a link to a picture of.
So what if this vast horde of Nazis among us is six old geezers who, after their rally went off to the 4 o'clock seniors buffet, they are a threat whose hate will consume us all. Their hateful shouts of "get off our lawns" make us all feel unsafe.
Just a thought about monument building in the 1950s, but wouldn't soldiers returning from WWII look upon the sacrifices of wars differently than people enjoying relative peace?
Maybe?
buwaya said...
"Why should not black Americans embrace their white heritage, and become mothakes? Join, dont oppose."
I have pondered on this a bit myself. I doubt very much that I am genetically descended from the Classical Greeks, but I still consider myself to be their cultural descendant. Same with the Romans (slave-holders, of course). And I feel a greater cultural descent from the British than from the feckless, bloody-minded Irish who apparently were my ancestors.
You don't get to choose your genes, but you do get to choose which ideas you will embrace.
The Toothless Revolutionary said...
Right. Just after admitting you had no clue about that or any other science.
You have already demonstrated a complete lack of scientific acumen and your meltdowns afterward were glorious.
It was interesting when you engaged at times. Now you are a joke. Your entire political movement is a joke. Global Warming is a lie. The Russian Collusion story is a lie. Democrats want to take down statues of Democrats who fought for slavery. I thought it was classic when Democrats declared Trumps reaction to the hurricane a failure before it even made landfall.
Democrats cannot legitimately discuss the issues that face the black community because democrats are the source of all the policies destroying the black community. They would be SOL if the Republican party wasn't so fucking stupid.
After 2018, and the democrats don't even have enough senators to filibuster, maybe you will pull your head out of your ass.
R&B is instructing us about his ideas of "science" again.
Oh boy.
"Why doesn't he go home to the Phillipines and fight his battles there? "
Ah, the racist left shows its true colors!
Paco,
"The Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument strikes me as an example of how adding to our monuments and memorials, rather than blotting them out, can provide a much richer appreciation of history"
And over the years, more in-depth study of the battlefield has resulted in changing the story to a more accurate version. That wouldn't have happened if the site had been destroyed.
"Gary Grigsby's War in the Pacific Admirals Edition"
I'll have to check that out. Back in the olden days, played the original board version quite a bit.
Folks, I don't know why you are bothering to assemble contrary data for KittyM or any of the other Lefty trolls who lurk about us. She has Received Wisdom, plus she has never been taught how to look at facts and reconsider their assumptions. Reality is a waste of time. It's like Toothless and global warming -- poor bastard will freeze to death in a snow drift insisting that it's a logical consequence of global warming.
" Or you just have a huge chip on your shoulder against me."
Is there anyone commenting on this blog who does NOT have a "chip on his shoulder" against Ritmo ?
Good morning.
Paco Wové said... "'isn't it a problem that her own posts on this very subject are so remarkably one-sided?' How many sides do you expect one person to have? On this, as on the other topics she writes about, Althouse has a viewpoint, and expresses it. I don't recall seeing her go in for the "on the one hand.... but on the other hand..." style of exposition very much. If you really want a viewpoint expressed here, and somebody else isn't doing it, then the best person to do it is you... P.S. I don't think commenters trying to shame Althouse into a particular behavior is a tactic with a strong track record of success."
Thanks. It really is absurd to complain that a blogger is exhibiting a point of view. The complaint must really be that the opinions aren't crude and obvious enough. I'm not a journalist with an ethic of presenting all sides. I'm more likely to bring out a side that journalists are failing to give adequate respect to. In the case of this Civil War monuments business, too many people are trying to reduce everything to sharp lines of good and evil and to force you to support a side that isn't 100% good. I oppose that. That's my point of view. I'd support removing some monuments, but I don't like the way it's being done right now.
"Is there anyone commenting on this blog who does NOT have a "chip on his shoulder" against Ritmo ?"
Just the usual suspects. I bet if he quit drinking he'd be an even more miserable person.
But that's the left. A bunch of miserable people whining that the people who aren't miserable aren't doing enough to become more like them.Miserable. And then they smash you in the head with a bike lock.
If your intent is to intimidate blacks in the Jim Crow South, building a statue of Robert E. Lee in a park or town square somewhere is a spectacularly stupid, inefficient way of doing it. Libtards cast aside Occam's razor, race right past the motivations of aging veterans to build monuments to their fallen brothers and the combat leaders they admired, or the Daughters of the Confederacy to build monuments to the beloved fathers and grandfathers they lost or never knew, and go right to Jim Crow - as if these arrogant, pestering harridans imagine that Southerners think of nothing else.
Nope! Can't be family bonds or regional pride in the accomplishments of an army and group of military leaders that punched way above its weight class for four years. Can't be simple Scotch-Irish contrarianism and a warrior spirit inherited from generations before their ancestors ever saw a black slave.
No. For today's insane progressives, everything goes from zero to racist in 2.5 seconds. There are never any more proximate intervening causes, and no limiting principles to their own madness. Two years ago they declared war on Dukes of Hazzard reruns and were airbrushing confederate flags off of computer game boxes and demanding that Civil War museum shops cease displaying the battle flag.
Progressives are always projecting their own insanity on normal people. Their exquisitely sensitive ears are able to discern 978,479 out of every five actual racist dog whistles.
Weird.
Thanks. It really is absurd to complain that a blogger is exhibiting a point of view. The complaint must really be that the opinions aren't crude and obvious enough.
@Althouse, you are being generous. From where I sit the true complaint is that you express a point of view different from the one that the complainant holds. Sometimes I think you take a contrarian position just to force us to reexamine our assumptions, which we should all do all the time. Plus you have a pretty open mind.
@althouse "It really is absurd to complain that a blogger is exhibiting a point of view."
Thank you for responding, Professor Althouse. If I may: I did not "complain that a blogger is exhibiting a point of view" which I agree would be "absurd" and also unfair. I pointed out (critically) the fact that while you explicitly asked for complexity and broader historical understanding, you yourself had chosen not to do this in any of the 15 posts you posted on this issue.
"The complaint must really be that the opinions aren't crude and obvious enough."
Not at all. I am amazed that you could read my comments in this thread - in particular the comments I specifically addressed to you - and read into them that my "complaint" was that your opinions weren't "crude and obvious enough". I can't believe you really think that.
Again, for clarity, my comments were about the *contradiction* between making an impassioned plea for complexity on the one hand and not actually introducing any complexity yourself on the other. In that sense, my "complaint" is exactly the opposite of " the opinions aren't crude and obvious enough": I am complaining that your 15 posts on this issue were *too* "crude and obvious", in the sense that they presented only one very limited perspective.
It is really not that I miss from you the "presenting all sides" journalistic thing. I know perfectly well that a blog is a personal look at things. That's why I visit blogs. But *you* pleaded for more complexity and I was pointing out that you didn't bring that complexity here. At all. As I showed in my analysis of your posts, you really didn't mention African-Americans at all, you mentioned slavery hardly at all. That's such a strange and blatant omission when talking about the problem of Confederacy monuments! The kind of omission I thought your comment about complexity and historical facts was referring to. The kind of omission that is in its own way very interesting and revealing.
"In the case of this Civil War monuments business, too many people are trying to reduce everything to sharp lines of good and evil and to force you to support a side that isn't 100% good. I oppose that."
On your own blog, the commenters do indeed overwhelmingly "reduce everything to sharp lines of good and evil", only in the opposite political direction. I for one was constantly attacked very personally in the crudest way possible in this comment section because I am critical of the retention of Confederacy monuments. My experience here is that the very thing you don't like -- forcing someone "to support a side that isn't 100% good" -- is what happens here if a person such as myself openly opposes Trump and his policies.
So in your own comment section, I don't so far find the things you support and admire: complexity, historical understanding, openness to other points of view, a willingness to see things from another side. All those things that a proponent of free speech such as yourself applauds. That is in itself an interesting reflection of the times we live in.
"I'd support removing some monuments, but I don't like the way it's being done right now."
This view is by far the most interesting you have posted so far on this issue, in my opinion. I am curious as to why you have essentially hidden this more nuanced position behind the very broad strokes of your 15 other posts.
But once again, thank you for the response.
@Big Mike "From where I sit the true complaint is that you express a point of view different from the one that the complainant holds."
Please read my comment above where I explain in painstaking detail that is *not* about expressing a point of view different from my own - after all, that's the reason I come to this blog: to open myself up to a different viewpoint.
It is to point out the contradiction between a stated principle (there should be more complexity in this debate) and the actual blog posting (limited perspective, no complexity).
Why shouldn't you be attacked? You saunter in here so absolutely cock sure of that you have the one right view of life and everybody who presents contrary information is wrong, and you expect to be respected? Try earning a little respect, try opening your mind, try learning how to use contrary information to challenge your assumptions, and you might get somewhere.
I grew up about as northern as you can get (take I-75 to the last exit before Canada and you are about a mile from my childhood home) had two great-great-grandfathers who fought for the Union in the Civil War. Grew up with my mother's father telling me the stories his grand-father told him. They were Republican through and through.
That said, I absolutely love "The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down". Great song!
Democrats cannot legitimately discuss the issues that face the black community because democrats are the source of all the policies destroying the black community. They would be SOL if the Republican party wasn't so fucking stupid.
So go ahead and end gerrymandering, voter suppression efforts, and other blatant, political attempts to restrict the franchise, and go see who they STILL don't vote for. They would never vote for the GOP; they're simply not as masochistic as poor white voters who worship wealthy whites as you do. But you would never do that anyway, because you're just all talk. You can never put your money (money?) where your mouth is.
Learn some life skills besides killing people because condescending to everyone that you can't badmouth, emote or browbeat into going along with your nonsense is not working out for you. Just go sign up for some courses. And liquor is no substitute escape from all the weed and steroids, either. Just get off the drugs and read something that didn't come off of POWERLINE.COM or TOWNHALL or Breitbart or Ace of Space Cadets whatever other tabloid websites you obviously get that partisan crap that forms the sum total of your entire reading experience from. Try reading something longer than four pages long someday, too. Something that was actually printed on paper with a binding other than staples on the spine.
"the commenters do indeed overwhelmingly "reduce everything to sharp lines of good and evil", only in the opposite political direction"
You seem determined to caricature the commentariat here. No acknowledgement that there is, in fact, a diversity of opinion here, or that at least some of it is more nuanced than "sharp lines of good and evil".
It does seem to be the case, though, that often Althouse threads devolve into conservatives discussing topic A, and liberals complaining about the existence of conservatives discussing topic A.
On point, several people have responed to your monument timeline argument, arguing that you have been snookered by the SPLC.
Hi Professor Althouse -
There is a 12:03 PM post and a 12:06 PM post that continues to violate your same request of the readers as this commenter's previously deleted comment from last night also did:
..try to be responsive to the post...
Thank you.
I did read it. I learned how to read before first grade, 65 years ago. When only question to you regarding your statement "that's the reason I come to this blog: to open myself up to a different viewpoint," is are you lying to me, or to yourself.
From where I sit you share a basic problem with most millennials. No one has taught you to challenge your assumptions. You start by assuming certain things, then you apply circular logic to get back to your starting assumptions. If something doesn't fit, well it's because the person challenging you sees things in black and white. I see it, and so do others, but until you truly open your mind to the possibility that many of your views, no matter how deeply and sincerely held, are quite simply wrong (there's that old black and white again!) you won't get anywhere.
@Big Mike "Why shouldn't you be attacked?"
Because personal attacks are irrelevant and a distraction from debating. When commenters tell me I'm "stupid" and "a moron" and a "terrible lefty" or whatever, it just wastes time and removes attention from the issues (e.g. should Confederacy statues be removed?).
"You saunter in here so absolutely cock sure of that you have the one right view of life and everybody who presents contrary information is wrong..."
I didn't "saunter in". Not even sure how that would work online! I created an account and started joining in. I have made an effort myself to be respectful at all times and to engage in the issues and essentially to follow the Althouse rules as they appear above my comment box.
Also: of course I think I'm right! I mean, I don't even know how to *not* think I'm right, just like *you* think *you're* right. When I post a comment, I do so because I genuinely think my viewpoint is right! Why would I do it otherwise?
Having said that, I can't repeat often enough: I am here to listen to alternative views and to discuss my views (which I think are right) with others who hold opposing views (which they think are right) and to test my own views in that way. I am a J S Mill fan and believe he was right about having to engage with people who really hold opinions and can argue them.
That is however why this comment section is often disappointing - because it mostly doesn't provide the intellectual "give and take" that I long for. Instead there's a lot of that personal attacking that is boring and distracting.
"...and you expect to be respected?"
Honestly, no. I don't even know what that would look like online! I just want a debate on the issues.
"I am complaining that your 15 posts on this issue were *too* "crude and obvious", in the sense that they presented only one very limited perspective."
I've learned not to expect anything other than this here. Despite the protestations, this is a rightist blog with rightist opinions.
@Paco Wové "You seem determined to caricature the commentariat here. No acknowledgement that there is, in fact, a diversity of opinion here, or that at least some of it is more nuanced than "sharp lines of good and evil"."
I'm sorry if that came across as caricature. Didn't mean to be disrespectful or to offend anyone. That is honestly my experience of many of the commenters here and most of the responses to my comments.
I honestly have experienced almost no "diversity of opinion". There are two or three commenters who views I recognise as somewhat liberal. But the vast majority seem to be very keen Trump supporters and from my perspective pretty extreme to the right.
What surprises me most is the lack of conservative voices opposed to Trump. Or rather, that any Trump-critical comment is immediately labelled "lefty". That doesn't reflect the truth of the matter, I don't think.
Having said that, I don't find the lack of diversity in the blog comments in and of itself to be a problem. Why shouldn't a blog hold space for mostly one point of view. It's why I'm here - because I know people congregate here who have very different views to my own.
What really bothers me are the personal attacks and the "what about"-ism. In other words, the comments that try to undermine me personally rather than engage with the issues. The times people accuse me of "virtue-signalling" for example, rather than opposing my argument.
"at least some of it is more nuanced than "sharp lines of good and evil"
Yes, you are right. Some of it is (your comments today are!). But I stand by what I said: that in the comment section, the commenters "overwhelmingly" see any critical post as completely and utterly wrong-headed.
"this comment section is often disappointing"
What's your example of a better comments section?
I'd support removing some monuments, but I don't like the way it's being done right now.
Isn't there any way to explain this more detail?
...ideas of "science" again.
What a commenter will put into scare quotes often tells you more about their own point of view than anything else.
@Big Mike "No one has taught you to challenge your assumptions."
I am an open-minded person who has chosen to spend some time in the comments section of a fairly right-wing blog in order to engage with points of view other than my own.
I engage by reading the blog and the comments and then, when I disagree, I attempt to express my opposing views in a respectful and cogent manner and I post them in the comments section.
If someone responds, I read their comment, think about what I think about it, and then respond, again trying my best to formulate my arguments clearly and, where possible, with evidence. I try and engage with what the commenter said by using their name and quoting the bit of the comment to which I am responding.
How else would you suggest that I "challenge my assumptions" own"truly open your mind to the possibility that many of your views, no matter how deeply and sincerely held, are quite simply wrong"?
Again, let me quote from my hero, JS Mill:
“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them...he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”
So again, I ask you, what other form of "opening my mind to the possibility that many of my views are quite simply wrong" is there, other than listening to others and debating the issues?
@ Big Mike "When only question to you regarding your statement "that's the reason I come to this blog: to open myself up to a different viewpoint," is are you lying to me, or to yourself"
Sorry - one more thing - to answer your actual question: I must be lying to myself, because I genuinely believe myself to be coming here to open myself up to a different viewpoint!
"comments that try to undermine me personally rather than engage with the issues. The times people accuse me of "virtue-signalling" for example, rather than opposing my argument."
Not to be overly callous here, but.... that's life on the Big Internet. If a commenter is a stupid jerk, ignore them. There are a number of commenters here I (literally) never read, because their comments are just wastes of time.
I must be lying to myself, because I genuinely believe myself to be coming here to open myself up to a different viewpoint!
Hopefully you'll get something more out of the effort than so many of the right-wing commenters do - that is, if they're even putting in the effort to begin with.
@Paco Wové "What's your example of a better comments section?"
That is such an interesting question! The best comments sections I know are on the British left-leaning paper The Guardian. There are so many different points of view there, the comments are often very, very witty (in that British way!) and they really engage in the issues in often quite a strident but intellectual ways. There are some super extreme left-wing commenters, middle of the road liberals, very conservative people, pro- and anti- whatever topic. It is true that the extreme right-wing views held here are sparsely represented (which is why I am here) but in general it is surprisingly diverse, as I say, and the discussion very on-point. Lively, passionate debate, but also often with humour.
@Paco Wové "that's life on the Big Internet. If a commenter is a stupid jerk, ignore them"
Yeah, I get that. I am not "precious" about it but I did (do) want to engage, even with those who are aggressive so I have responded often to those who tell me I'm a moron or whatever. I believe very strongly in just talking and communicating. I guess I had the idea that if I showed these commenters that I take them seriously, that I am trying my best to think things through and listen respectfully to what they have to say, they would respond positively.
I should probably stop doing that! But thanks for the tip.
...the British left-leaning paper The Guardian.
Ahhh - Britain! Yes. Where the conservatives know their places - in the castles and the estates and haberdasheries and in the tabloids and under the queen's (or prince's) royal garments and not in the houses of parliament. At least, not as enthusiastically in the parliament.
Getting back to the start here,
"Might it be that non-Southerners, for cultural reasons, simply cannot understand why it’s difficult for Southerners to execrate their ancestors, even if their ancestors did bad things?"
I think some other commenters have pointed out that this state of affairs is a radical change from the past. Growing up in the North (well, Maryland) in the '60's, the offspring of northerners with at least one great-great-grandfather dead of wounds received in northern Virginia, the idea that I would expect Southerners to "execrate their ancestors" would strike me as ludicrous. This is a recent innovation which I consider absurd, divisive, and deeply harmful to the country.
Being from a Union family, with Southern and Northern roots, I like to change the They to We and sing the na na na with a mocking tone. That's just mean I guess. What makes The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down a great song is that Robert E. Lee is included in the "They" and in "But they should never have taken the very best."
There are left-wing trolls KittyM but they're usually out marching or demonstrating or whatever. Reading and writing is a pursuit they tend to take more seriously when they get involved in it.
If you want to understand conservatives better, I'd recommend reading Corey Robin. Basically conservatives get bored very easily with life (probably because they're obsessed with organizing it like a flow chart) and have acute needs for distraction that spill over into doing what they can to ensure that political life/discourse resembles a funhouse mirror. IN other countries this is not so much a problem because they have colorful national mythologies or other silly institutions (like royalty or religious rituals or garb) that keep their conservatives better occupied (pre-occupied?).
But in America this is a problem because our conservatives would have opposed the founding, as good Tories were monarchists, and then had to figure out how to accommodate to a country founded in the mould of the very liberal and progressive enlightenment. They've tried mythologizing the founders, as the rest of us also do, but that is not as emotionally satisfying as finding myths to make about our present day predicaments and going to war with the progressive/moderate half of the country when debating them. Making a war out of rational discourse where no personal holds are barred is the only way they can remain excited enough to stay involved. And there is no way to do that absent a rejection of reason - which is convenient, because conservatism is all about a rejection of reason as the key to improving human life. But a complete abandonment of civility is also needed when you get upset at how persuasive your enemy's reason is starting to become.
"Making a war out of rational discourse where no personal holds are barred is the only way they can remain excited enough to stay involved."
Says the commenter who invented making a war out of rational discourse.
Also: "a complete abandonment of civility"
Ritmo knows abandonment of civility like no one knows abandonment of civility.
Well, Meade - I simply don't believe in unilateral disarmament!
But I don't believe in forgoing an easy win, either.
"the British left-leaning paper The Guardian"
Well, that makes sense. The Guardian engages in a great deal of comment "moderation" (some would call it "censorship"), so it is not surprising that leftists would find them to be "better" – the comments are explicitly skewed that way. Just understand that most right-leaning individuals consider The Guardian to be a big, earnest, totalitarian joke.
I would be interested to see your opinion of Megan McArdle's blog's comments section. Personally I find it interesting because there are some lefties commenting there who are much better than the class of lefty we usually get here.
...invented...
Invented? Mr. Meade, your hyperbole is in danger of becoming excessively flattering and generous.
I am not Mr. Trump. I will only believe so much bs said in my honor or to curry my favor. ;-)
Jupiter: I have pondered on this a bit myself. I doubt very much that I am genetically descended from the Classical Greeks, but I still consider myself to be their cultural descendant. Same with the Romans (slave-holders, of course). And I feel a greater cultural descent from the British than from the feckless, bloody-minded Irish who apparently were my ancestors.
You don't get to choose your genes, but you do get to choose which ideas you will embrace.
It's deeper than that. I, too, come on one side from a long line of (extremely non-feckless in our case, but cheerfully bloody-minded) Irish, but it was never of matter of choosing between "immediate tribe" and the larger, deeper civilizational current in which my particular tribe was embedded. From a very early age I had strong sense of those roots going back millenia- and this was not in an "educated", cosmopolitan family, but one in very modest circumstances. That a little middle-class American was the natural inheritor, and member, of the "Western tradition" was taken as given. At the finer-grained level, as member of the European diaspora in the New World, I belonged to the "Anglo-" and opposed to the "Latin-" branch.
But it was all good - Greek, Roman, French, British, etc., all good, and all mine. Even relatively low-brow entertainment reflected this assumption.
Shortly after my time these roots began to be cut, dug-up, burned, systematically and with malice aforethought. (All the hows and whys of how this all came to pass will no doubt be discussed endlessly by future historians.) A civilization cannot be carried forward under such circumstances, nor can an individual flourish in this void. The young in general have been completely cut off from their roots, any sense of who they are and where they are in space and time.
No wonder they're so angry and crazy.
I have to admit - though Paco doesn't like me, I'd have to agree with him on The Guardian's tactics. At least from the last time I remembered perusing their comments sections.
Their comments are all short and sweet, from what I remember. And therefore predictably un-incisive. Perhaps this also reflects a British cultural (and legal!) difference.
I seem to remember The Independent coming across as a more balanced and interesting effort, but basically I avoid getting much news-analysis from Britain in any event.
Ahhh... you liked that comment, FullMoon!
I use every means at my disposal - reason, fact, humor, wit, insult, jokes, threats and shame.
But I just don't use pee-pee tapes or other excessively salacious kompromat. What you do with your Russian hookers in a royal hotel suite is your own damn business!
8/27/17, 9:22 AM: The first time in history anyone ever responded with "TLDR" to comment consisting of 44 words. Including the moderator's 7-word quote.
Laying brick must really build character and teach the importance of hard work.
This is a different thread, FullMoon. Try not to disrespect the bloggers and Meadhouses by trotting out all your personal issues into this one.
Besides, isn't there more to do? I thought life in San Francisco was wonderful! Stupendous! No worries!
So what are you saying, FullMoon? That you want his pee-pee tape released?
Again, it was a joke. If you want his pee-pee tape released, just say so.
Trump's behavior vis a vis Putin is a form of evidence. It's suspicious that he's covering up something. Why is he so accommodating of Putin in ways that he isn't to other leaders?
His son's admission that they had Russian financial interests that they owed is also evidence.
Don't let laying brick distract you from using your mind. Or whatever clay adobe slabs you keep up there.
And you're getting boring.
Paco Wové: Not to be overly callous here, but.... that's life on the Big Internet.
Kitty turned out to be just another control-freak lefty whose real beef is that she's not being allowed to control the discussion.
Odd how often it happens, when a "concerned, open-minded" lefty rolls in, just "looking for honest debate", that it quickly devolves into Mr. or Ms. "open-minded" making everything all about themselves and their feelz?
She's also exemplary of the utterly feminized style of left "debate". (Hey Kitty, we "attack" each other here all the time. And still respect each other, and come back for more. Althouse herself gets excoriated on a regular basis by her "hillbillies" for her views, so what makes you so special?)
Way to take the high road Angel-Dyne and make it personal for no reason.
"Try not to disrespect the bloggers and Meadhouses.."
provides examples of disrespect:
Are you the blogger or Meadhouses here? Is Achilles?
I realize reading is difficult for you. But if you're going to type something into the comments box you might as well make an effort to pick up on an actual word or two. Or at least to not confuse yourself or other commenters with the moderators. That might be an example of some deep-seated identity issues.
And, here it comes.
Four or five little comments, and the tears begin to flow, and the craziness can no longer be repressed.:
Toofus believes:
Trump's behavior vis a vis Putin is a form of evidence. It's suspicious that he's covering up something. Why is he so accommodating of Putin in ways that he isn't to other leaders?
His son's admission that they had Russian financial interests that they owed is also evidence.
...the tears begin to flow, and the craziness -
Wow. So you simply declare that what Eric Trump said to James Dodson is false?
Do you clean his gold bidets, also?
"Folks, I don't know why you are bothering to assemble contrary data for KittyM or any of the other Lefty trolls who lurk about us. She has Received Wisdom, plus she has never been taught how to look at facts and reconsider their assumptions. Reality is a waste of time. It's like Toothless and global warming -- poor bastard will freeze to death in a snow drift insisting that it's a logical consequence of global warming."
Hahaha! And you will drown as the seas rise and flood your beach community, (speaking rhetorically), and you will find any other reason in the world but Global warming as the cause.
And KittyM...keep on keeping on. Most commenters here are dogmatic reactionaries who see themselves as the "smartest commenters in blogdom."
Changing a name is an identity issue?
You are really getting pretty desperate.
Are you able to contribute to the thread without attacking me? What about the thread topic - Ancestor worship by Southern whites? Any contribution to that that you're able to make? Any thoughts of your own on that one?
I was reading yesterday about the Vatican Secretary of State meeting with officials in Moscow. Apparently Pope Francis is now colluding with the Russians.
And you will drown as the seas rise and flood your beach community...
He says that living in San Francisco makes him too good to believe that what happens to the people in Miami Beach or Alaska is any of his concern.
He also said he doesn't know what the science of AGW consists of. He doesn't even understand how the explanation works.
He said this.
As you can see, he's just got personal issues and is trying to turn an entire (and interesting) thread on cultural resonance in the south of 19th c. Civil War participants into a referendum on what he thinks of me and how he can completely fail to understand a single comment of mine that he's quoted.
Yeah, I know what I said, FullMoon. @9:57 AM.
What's your issue with it?
You seem to be having a lot of personal issues. If you want to make an entire thread about me, email Ann or Meade and ask them to do that and you can get your rocks off in that comment section all you want on that.
It's amazing you don't see how rude and ignorant you're being. But then, this is what your people are known for.
It is really not that I miss from you the "presenting all sides" journalistic thing.
No, you just object to her not taking your side.
Come on. Leftists show up here with empty profiles and carry on as though they were graduates of the Kennedy School and then drizzle out the same leftist POV offered at DNC seminars.
There are a number of quite interesting commenters here and not all are "right wing."
I consider myself libertarian and Farmer is Pat Buchanan right wing except he is gay.
Others are of different shades but most lean right. There are left wing blogs where you will find lots of sympathy as long as ypu don;t express and disagreement than you get the Ritmp treatment of obscene anger and abuse.
I used to read left wing blogs and even comment but they went crazy about 2004 when Bush was re-elected in spite of Dan Rather's best efforts at lying.
They've been unreadable since then.
The latest is HuffPo saying that the US military veterans are all racist and white supremacists.
Written by someone who has never been in the military and probably doesn't know any veterans.
The Daily Mail is a tabloid. Kind of like one of those "National Enquirer" rags. The ones that they stock in supermarket checkout lanes and plaster with stories about celebrity space alien love children.
Ever been to Britain? Or does it take too much away from tending to those two San Francisco houses of yours?
Toofus begs:
Are you able to contribute to the thread without attacking me?
Forgetting witty fusillade :
When I ring the door to your trailer make sure you tell the doorman that I'm there to give you a swirly that you'll also argue the physics of. No, the toilet really IS NOT FLUSHING DOWNWARD! I'VE GOT A HOUSE TO PROVE IT!
Go back to your high school reunion, the one you didn't graduate from, and work out your issues with those guys. Or can you not afford the ticket back to Timbuktu?
8/26/17, 1:45 PM
Toofus weakly ad hominems:
The Daily Mail is a tabloid. Kind of like one of those "National Enquirer" rags. The ones that they stock in supermarket checkout lanes and plaster with stories about celebrity space alien love children.
That was yesterday's thread. Apparently somebody didn't get the attention then that he wants now. Talk about a tattletale.
Also, are you saying that the credibility of what passes for "reporting" in the Daily Mail (or any tabloid) cannot be impeached on the grounds that to do is "ad hominem?"
It seems you don't understand the meaning of the phrase ad hominem.
TTR
Comparing the Daily Mail and the National Enquirer suggests you have read neither. The NE funnily enough was the "newspaper" that outed the noble John Edwards. No such news was available to the "journalists" working for the NYT the WaPo or any other "newspaper" with a reputation for not being a checkout line tabloid. A pro tip: read the Mail as well as the Guardian as well as the Telegraph as well as the Sun. If you want to be extra smart about the goings on in Great Britain. Not a bad idea to subscribe to the Times as well. Not to overlook the TLS if you have any interest in books.
TTR
Comparing the Daily Mail to the National Enquirer suggests you read neither. I would suggest that you read both remembering the the NE was responsible for outing John Edwards, a task that the NYT and the WaPo were not up to not having "journalists" on their staffs. To be in the know about Great Britain I would suggest you read the DM as well as the Telegraph and the Guardian and the Times and, if you ever read new books, the TLS. The DM's coverage of U.S goings on often is both more comprehensive and correct than that of US. papers who do not have enough "journalists" in their employ to do the same kind of job.
@Angel-Dyne "Kitty turned out to be just another control-freak lefty whose real beef is that she's not being allowed to control the discussion."
How? How did I turn out to be "just another control-freak lefty whose real beef is that she's not being allowed to control the discussion"?
I turn up. I read the comments. I comment in return, trying my best to give my honest response i.e. the opinion that I hold or my honest reaction or view of what is being said.
Please tell me how that is "trying to control the discussion". I'm here to engage - so why would I want to control the discussion? I already know what *I* think! I want to hear what you think and then I want to be able to share my response to that and then to get an answer back, etc etc.
"it quickly devolves into Mr. or Ms. "open-minded" making everything all about themselves and their feels"
No. That's not true. I am responding to the comments. When you comment about *me*, then I guess I am responding to that. or example. like now. You have criticised me. I think it is an unfair criticism, meaning not true, and I am defending myself.
I would much rather be talking about e.g. Confederacy monuments. But you, more than almost anyone here, refuse to engage in the issues and make it all about me personally.
So you're advising that someone get his science reporting from The Daily Mail?
Ok, just as long as you clarify what you're advocating here.
No, I don't read tabloids - no matter what subset of tabloid they are.
Tell Trump's buddy Piers Morgan I said hi. Is he still hacking phones, BTW?
The Daily Mail has some of the best old-fashioned, hustling, shoe-leather reporters in the business.
@Michael K "No, you just object to her not taking your side."
No, that's not it.
Once again: Professor Althouse wrote a convincing and rather moving comment about the need for complexity and understanding on the issue of Confederacy monuments and I responded by pointing out that this laudable aim was not reflected at all in her own 15 blog posts on the subject.
To be 100 % clear, Michael K, I am a very long-time reader of this blog and I am perfectly clear that Professor Althouse leans much further right than I do. I would never expect her to "take my side" on any particular issue - in fact, I would mostly assume that our views are far apart - although because life and politics is complicated, I have agreed with her on some issues over the years. But in general, I would assume on most issues we have differing viewpoints. That is a given and it is the reason I am reading this blog.
Toofus inquires:
Ever been to Britain?
...........
Humour me, do you find it colourful?
ad ho·mi·nem
ˌad ˈhämənəm/
adverb & adjective
adverb: ad hominem; adjective: ad hominem
1.
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person or source rather than the position they are maintaining.
He reads dictionaries, too, folks!
Still doesn't understand the meaning of "ad hominem," though.
Tabloids are generally poor information sources and usually not credible. Saying this is ad hominem is like saying his obsessive attacks on the IPCC panel are ad hominem.
Oh wait!
"Professor Althouse leans much further right than I do"
Ipse dixit, as they say.
I'd suggest responding to the "lack of nuance" by bringing some nuance of your own. You appear to be suggesting that, because black Southerners dislike these monuments (do they?), therefore these monuments ought to come down. You may be correct – maybe southern blacks have been waiting 150 years to do this, and they have just recently gotten sufficient political power to do so. Personally, I find this argument simplistic and unconvincing, but let's put that aside for the moment. Even if your argument is true, the way in which this old grievance has been addressed has been extremely divisive. I would argue it is not how compatriots behave to one another – it looks more to me like the way conquerors deal with the conquered, aside from the whole Stalinist airbrushing of history aspect. It truly creeps me out that American politicians are behaving like this – no attempts at conciliation or understanding, just we won, so we can force you to eat shit.
Even worse, this didn't start with the statues, and it certainly won't end with them.
But in general, I would assume on most issues we have differing viewpoints. That is a given and it is the reason I am reading this blog.
Then why are you complaining ? I used to read left wing blogs to see what others thought.
You could learn from this blog and its comments that have several different points of view but none are the crazy left wing stuff you get at HuffPo. I used to read that one, too, and sometimes comment. For awhile my comments would never appear and then they began to let them appear.
Then Trump came along and invaded their heads. They have not recovered and I wonder if they ever will.
Trump is a phenomenon that we might have seen in 1992 with Perot. The appeal is very similar.
He is a very successful businessman with some controversial theories. I was thinking of voting for Perot until he had his paranoid breakdown the summer of 1992.
Had he not had it, he might well have been elected and faced the same problems that Trump faces.
The Administrative State is at war with Trump and would have been with Perot. It was not as strong then as Clinton and Obama weaponized agencies and filled them with left wing ideologues.
The "Flight 93 Election " essay explained a lot about why people like me, in spite of our doubts about Trump's manner, were willing to take a chance.
So far, he has done a lot of what he promised and would have done a lot more except for the resistance by Congress.
It doesn't matter that they are Republicans.
People like Ryan have never held a job out of politics. They are swamp dwellers.
Kitty: "I would much rather be talking about e.g. Confederacy monuments."
Then talk about Confederate monuments. This isn't difficult. Stick to your guns and level the best arguments you can. Don't take things personally.
Some will get shot down in flames amidst mirth and mockery. Some won't.
Welcome to the NFL.
@Paco Wové Thanks for your thoughtful and kind comment. Here's my response:
"You appear to be suggesting that, because black Southerners dislike these monuments (do they?), therefore these monuments ought to come down."
Yes. I am essentially saying that (although the word you use - "dislike" - is much too weak, in my opinion, and trivialises the issue and the effect these monuments have on the African-American communities that live with them).
"...maybe southern blacks have been waiting 150 years to do this, and they have just recently gotten sufficient political power to do so..." Yes. I think this describes more or less what has happened. I think if Southern blacks had had any real say in the matter at the time these monuments went up (or the time the schools and streets were named), or had been asked their opinion, they would have rejected these monuments and I think that the current demand for their removal does reflect a shift in power structures in this country.
"Personally, I find this argument simplistic and unconvincing, but let's put that aside for the moment."
Thanks!
"...the way in which this old grievance has been addressed has been extremely divisive. I would argue it is not how compatriots behave to one another – it looks more to me like the way conquerors deal with the conquered, aside from the whole Stalinist airbrushing of history aspect. It truly creeps me out that American politicians are behaving like this – no attempts at conciliation or understanding, just we won, so we can force you to eat shit."
This part of your comment is absolutely fascinating to me. You write very well and articulate and I get a very clear idea of how upset and angry the topic (or the decisions to remove these statues) makes you. I understand better than before that you feel, as you put it, "conquered" and that the removal of these monuments makes you feel like someone is forcing you to "eat shit". That is most helpful to me.
Can we together in a respectful way explore this? For example, just one step to understanding to start with:
Given that you have these very strong feelings - i.e. given that you yourself experience the idea of the removal of the monuments as a very big insult or slight (or whatever word you prefer), can you now go back to the top of your comment where you write "...black Southerners dislike these monuments (do they?)..." - where you express some doubt as to whether black Southerners do indeed have negative feelings towards these monuments - can you maybe get an idea that for black Southerners these monuments could also invoke very strong feelings?
This seems to be key to me. In the parts of the discussion here that were on topic, very many commenters expressed like you the view that black Southerners might not mind these monuments so much, in other words that Democrats - lefties as you like to call them - are just using or politicking an issue - sort of making into a huge thing when it isn't.
But since you yourself have the personal experience of feeling very strongly about these monuments, of believing that their removal would *mean* something (in your case, something bad), can you accept that others might feel just the same way - although in the opposite direction?
Sorry if I have expressed myself poorly. Hope this is clear! Thanks for the debate. I await your answer eagerly!
The Confederate monuments thing is a plan by Democrats using stooges, like that ringer Kessler, to fire up blacks to vote in 2018.
The hysteria about the Arpaio pardon is a similar gambit to motivate Mexican- Americans to vote next year.
The "White Nationalists," to the extent they exist, are a bunch of young poorly educated guys who have been hearing about how bad "Whiteness" is since my youngest daughter was in college ten years ago. If you declare war on an ethnic group, don't be surprised if they think they are in a war and react appropriately.
Clinton and Janet Reno did something like this in the early 90s and we got Ruby Ridge and The Murrah building bombing.
Be careful what you wish for,
@Michael K "Then why are you complaining ?"
I'm not complaining! I'm arguing.
@Jason "Don't take things personally."
I don't take things personally, in the sense that I don't get *upset* by the personal attacks. But I thought I should defend myself when I am personally attacked.
"Then talk about Confederate monuments. This isn't difficult. Stick to your guns and level the best arguments you can."
I was trying to! But you're right, I do tend to respond to people who respond to me, even if all they're saying is "You're boring. You have absolutely nothing of interest to say on this subject." (Angel-Dyne) or "No one has taught you to challenge your assumptions." (Big Mike).
OK. I will try to plough through and ignore the personal stuff more. Thanks for the good advice!
@Michael K "The Confederate monuments thing is a plan by Democrats using stooges, like that ringer Kessler, to fire up blacks to vote in 2018." "The hysteria about the Arpaio pardon is a similar gambit to motivate Mexican- Americans to vote next year.
"
If it is true that Democrats are planning to use these issues politically in the next election, that's of course completely fair game. Political campaigns look for issues that fire people up. No different from Trump making comments about lazy Mexicans in the last election. The politicians are looking to "exploit" issues that resonate with their base. That's the most normal thing in the world.
But insofar as you are implying that these are "fake" issues, then I know you are wrong. You should give people on the left or people in the African-American community and Latino communities credit that they genuinely feel strongly about these issues, just as many on the right (see Paco Wové above) *genuinely* feel strongly in the opposing direction.
It's not very reasonable to credit one side with actual, honest feelings (the pro-Confederate monument side) but dismiss the other side as just shallow irrelevant showboating.
"If you declare war on an ethnic group, don't be surprised if they think they are in a war and react appropriately."
No-one has really declared war on whites as an ethnic group. That is very paranoid thinking on your part. But I will concede that there have been economic and political and cultural changes in America over the past twenty years that have chipped away at some of the fundamental inequalities in American society and I understand that this feels like loss to some whites. In fact, it is more of an equalising. But it *feels* like an attack.
What I seek to convey is that if you, Michael K, feel threatened and worried about the future - if things in America seem unfair to you and you have the sense that you are getting less than you deserve - can you use those feelings to reach out and begin to understand what it has felt like to be an African-American, say, all these years? Because those feelings are the feelings of a minority. You are essentially describing what it was like to be a member of a minority group. In that sense, can this bring us closer together?
Actually, I'm not a Southerner, and I don't have any personal attachment to these monuments, other than that they are part of the record of U.S. history. What alarms me greatly is that I think they are being used, primarily by Democratic Party politicians and their allies, in an attempt to foment discord and division in this country. If the Democrats really wanted to promote unity and healing, surely they could come up with something better than the actions of a conquering army.
I notice that you very much want to focus on the feelings of southern blacks, as you infer them to be. While they certainly deserve to have their voices heard, what is going on strikes me as a spectacularly bad way to go about it. I also don't think that any one group gets to have veto power over the uses of public space.
It also strikes me as odd that the people who I have seen most in the media as favoring the statues' removal are white Democrats and groups representing recent immigrants (e.g., CAIR), who have no dog in this fight at all, as far as I can tell.
Why should the Latino community care about Robert E. Lee?
"But insofar as you are implying that these are "fake" issues, then I know you are wrong. "
That must be the reason why Obama had all the Confederate statues removed. Come on. We know better.
"No-one has really declared war on whites as an ethnic group."
More lefty lies. Look at the media and all the anti-white stuff. I don't have to link because you can hardly avoid it.
What I seek to convey is that if you, Michael K, feel threatened and worried about the future - if things in America seem unfair to you and you have the sense that you are getting less than you deserve
More left wing condescension from our inferiors.
I am not feeling threatened. I have three degrees and am retired in a safe area. I am economically secure, as Ritmo keeps complaining.
I do understand, unlike you, what others are dealing with. For one thing I still interact with young white men who are joining the military and, until last year, I was teaching medical students. I see the concern and uncertainty.
Have you looked at any survey of real black opinion that is not local politicians or national politicians?
This is all ginned up by "activist" groups like BLM and local politicians.
The same ones who ignore black on black crime and the homicide rate in Chicago.
@Paco Wové
"I don't have any personal attachment to these monuments, other than that they are part of the record of U.S. history"
Wow. That surprise me greatly as your reaction in the last comment was so emotional.
"What alarms me greatly is that I think they are being used, primarily by Democratic Party politicians and their allies, in an attempt to foment discord and division in this country."
Three points:
1) As I said above, of course the Democrats will use whatever issues they feel will be effective to campaign on. Trump used "crooked Hillary", "Mexican rapists", etc. That's politics in the most ordinary sense and I don't know how that is something so terrible.
2) If the Democrats choose to use this issue. then that is because they believe it resonates with people i.e. they believe people feel strongly about it. Again, as I said above, you have to give people on the other side of the issue credit for having genuine views on this.
3) "in an attempt to foment discord and division" is a bit unfair. The Democrats like the Republicans want to win elections. That's not really the same thing as fomenting discord and division - or maybe you can say that discord and division is built into a robust democratic system. (Of course for someone like me, the person in public life most fomenting discord and division would be Trump!).
"I notice that you very much want to focus on the feelings of southern blacks, as you infer them to be."
It's totally a small thing - but just FYI you imply that I am white and that southern blacks are not me. I never said anything to give you that idea.
"While they certainly deserve to have their voices heard, what is going on strikes me as a spectacularly bad way to go about it." In any fight for political change, the opposing voices will often argue that it's not the merits of the case they mind, but the *way* people are going about it. This is a very old trope. It happened for example during the fight for women's suffrage, when many men claimed they wouldn't have minded, but it was the *way* women were going about demanding the vote that was bothersome.
It is hard to fight for change. And it is hard to accept change. I have personally experienced on this very blog people telling me I should "argue differently" and they would respect me more if I wrote differently.
"I also don't think that any one group gets to have veto power over the uses of public space."
But shouldn't this work the other way, too? If one group can't veto uses of public spaces, then equally why should one group get to have a monument that others find offensive? Public spaces are just that - public. Shouldn't there be an attempt to find imagery for public spaces that broadly everyone can agree on (I say broadly. Obviously you'll never have complete agreement).
"It also strikes me as odd that the people who I have seen most in the media as favoring the statues' removal are white Democrats and groups representing recent immigrants (e.g., CAIR), who have no dog in this fight at all, as far as I can tell."
Interesting point. I go back to what I said earlier: it's not fair of you to dismiss as not true the feelings of white liberals or other minority groups on this issue. I do not dismiss your views. I accept that they are truly held and genuine. Likewise you need to accept that many many white people find Confederacy imagery to be genuinely abhorrent. You can disagree - you do disagree! But you have to give them credit that the Confederacy represents values that they find obnoxious and that they would quite honestly prefer that these monuments are removed.
And remember - minority groups are directly threatened by some of the groups that campaign for the retention of these monuments: the KKK, the Neo-Nazis and the other white supremacist groups. That's what white supremacist means! So it is fair for them to have feelings against the monuments.
@Paco Wové "Why should the Latino community care about Robert E. Lee?"
I really answered that above but here again: the movement to retain the Confederacy statues includes many hate groups that directly threaten minorities including Latinos.
I had a colleague who was a child in Vietnam during the war and emigrated to the US after the war when she was a teenager. She had a suggestion for Americans who were constantly wallowing in pathos on behalf of the people of Vietnam: Get over it!
I was so sure that I knew what the victims, and their descendants, of that war thought and felt about it, until she turned me around. One who is sure that she knows how blacks feel and think about tearing down monuments might want to check beyond her own thoughts and feelings.
@Michael K. Thanks for your response. I apologise for my words if they came across as condescending. I was genuinely struggling to reach out to you and to understand your views. But I clearly misunderstood you and I'm sorry.
You and I are definitely miles apart politically and to be honest I think most of what you write is simply not true. Sorry. I can't argue with you because it feels like debating with someone who believes in UFOs. You believe something and I just so fundamentally don't. We disagree on the basic facts so I don't think there can be any fruitful discussion between us.
But I hope you have a lovely Sunday!
@Clark "One who is sure that she knows how blacks feel and think about tearing down monuments might want to check beyond her own thoughts and feelings."
Your sentence betrays that you - like many here - assume I am white. I have never revealed my ethnicity.
KittyM: But since you yourself have the personal experience of feeling very strongly about these monuments, of believing that their removal would *mean* something (in your case, something bad), can you accept that others might feel just the same way - although in the opposite direction?
Kitty, who is not accepting this? You keep repeating this, but, as I asked before, what is your evidence that people do not understand or "accept" that other people have equally strong opinions and feelings "although in the opposite direction"? In one of my first comments to you on this topic I stated explicitly that I certainly do understand how other people, particularly black Americans, can and do feel very differently.
I understand this not only because any thinking human being with a minimal knowledge of history would assume that to be the case even without further exploration (as in, that's a a big "duh"), but because there are thousands of sites and thousands of people expressing that "opposite" opinion, and I've read a whole hell of a lot of 'em.
What about "yes, I understand, and sympathize, but still don't agree about the statues" are you not getting? It seems pretty straightforward to me.
What's the problem here, Kitty? It does not follow in any way, from the fact of disagreeing with other people on an issue, or from being more interested in one aspect of an issue over another at any given time or venue, that one does not understand this or that point of view. So why do you think that?
This seems to be key to me. In the parts of the discussion here that were on topic, very many commenters expressed like you the view that black Southerners might not mind these monuments so much...
I would not make any such general statement about "black Southerners", but there are, indeed, black Southerners who aren't on board with the current iconoclasm, for a variety of reasons. Just like there are even black Southerners who don't view the Confederate flag the way they're "supposed" to. And lots of black Southerners find the statues offensive and want them removed. You seem to be suggesting that acknowledging the existence of the former opinion is somehow denying or invalidating the existence of the latter. Why?
...in other words that Democrats - lefties as you like to call them - are just using or politicking an issue - sort of making into a huge thing when it isn't.
There are most certainly people using this for political purposes, most certainly a great deal of "planned outrage" these days about cultural symbols (and not just Confederate flags or statues). Acknowledging a fact of politics obvious to even the most casual observer is not to deny that there are plenty of black Americans (and white ones, too) who are sincerely offended by those symbols. What I don't understand is why you insist on leaping to the conclusion that, if people talk about that aspect of the issue, that they are somehow denying or suppressing the other aspect. Just like you leap to the unsupported conclusion that people who have contrary views "don't understand" or "don't sympathize" or are flat out ignorant of the pertinent facts. All of that is simply faulty reasoning on your part, and yet your persist in it, despite having this pointed out to you repeatedly.
If the Democrats choose to use this issue. then that is because they believe it resonates with people i.e. they believe people feel strongly about it.
They are hoping because they have nothing else.
Socialism does not sell very well in this country.
I certainly wouldn't want you to believe in UFOs so I will ignore you from here on.
@KittyM:
"Your sentence betrays that you - like many here - assume I am white. I have never revealed my ethnicity."
Your two sentences betray that you did not notice the difference between "black" and "blacks". You may be black but you are not blacks.
@Angel-Dyne You are right. I have to admit that I have been assuming that most people here generally do not have any sympathy with Americans who are deeply offended by these monuments. That is because nobody apart from you has written anything that expressed any understanding or sympathy of those views.
You ask: "Kitty, who is not accepting this? You keep repeating this, but, as I asked before, what is your evidence that people do not understand or "accept" that other people have equally strong opinions and feelings "although in the opposite direction"?"
My evidence was simply *lack* of any evidence of sympathy, empathy or even just the facts of history, slavery, etc.
You ask: "What about "yes, I understand, and sympathize, but still don't agree about the statues" are you not getting? It seems pretty straightforward to me." To which I say, nobody *has* written, "Yes, I understand, and sympathize, but still don't agree about the statues" or anything like it.
Only you, to be fair. You wrote: "I guar-on-tee, KittyM, that there is not a single poster here who does not understand, or who is incapable of sympathy with, the fact that black Americans (in general, black opinion is not monolithic) have a different, and negative perspective on this issue. They just happen to think, not only that what black Aemricans think is not the only important perspective on the matter, but, more importantly, that there's a whole hell of a lot going on here that has nothing to do with the "but but but racism! slavery!" narrative that appears to be the limit of your curiosity and understanding."
However, the aggressive tone of the whole comment (you called me childish etc etc) was such that I must admit that I didn't give much credence to your argument. I suppose thinking about it I didn't really think you could speak for everyone here and your comments were belied by the tone and content of everybody else's comments.
"I would not make any such general statement about "black Southerners"" - Well, almost everybody here makes general comments about "Democrats" and Lefties and BLM ad nauseum. It should go without saying that when one is debating a point, the phrase "black Southerners" like the phrase "French conservatives" or the phrase "white Northerners" doesn't mean *every* *single* *person* in that category. We are all adult enough to know that we are talking in useful generalisations.
Likewise you need to accept that many many white people find Confederacy imagery to be genuinely abhorrent. You can disagree - you do disagree! But you have to give them credit that the Confederacy represents values that they find obnoxious and that they would quite honestly prefer that these monuments are removed.
For the love of God, Kitty, there is no one here who doesn't know this, and didn't know this from the get-go.
I'm honestly mystified why you feel the need to keep repeating what is absolutely fuck obvious to everyone here, and has been fuck obvious since well before this thread began, over and over and over and over again.
And remember - minority groups are directly threatened by some of the groups that campaign for the retention of these monuments: the KKK, the Neo-Nazis and the other white supremacist groups. That's what white supremacist means! So it is fair for them to have feelings against the monuments.
Hey Kitty, get back to me when the small number of universally vilified, sad-sack KKKers, tiki-torch nazis, and other "white supremacist" groups start vacuuming up millions of tax dollars annually, as explicitly race-based, (and sometimes unapologetically racially supremacist and triumphalist) groups like La Raza do.
The probability of a member of a "minority group" being at risk of violence from a "white supremacist" is infinitesimally small. Sorry, but "growing danger from 'white supremacists'" is ginned up anti-white bullshit. If you're falling for that crap you are very gullible and easily manipulable indeed.
"I guess when some Antifa shows up at your door with hammer and black mask you can tell how "reasonable" you are and How "you love to debate"."
Well, there is a selection of responses I could make. One is a Colt .45 1911 in stainless.
Another is an AR 15 with a nice reticule sight.
Then, of course, is the Walther P 38. And a Walther PPK
Then we get to the black powder armory.
There's even a Winchester 30/30 if I feel sporting.
@Angel-Dyne "For the love of God, Kitty, there is no one here who doesn't know this, and didn't know this from the get-go. I'm honestly mystified why you feel the need to keep repeating what is absolutely fuck obvious to everyone here, and has been fuck obvious since well before this thread began, over and over and over and over again."
Professor Althouse managed to publish 15 posts and none of them acknowledged the other side of the issue. I have been arguing with guys on here for what seems like days now - no one has said anything remotely like this. So forgive me for making this point. It seemed to need making, since no one had made it. But now you tell me everybody secretly thinks it. OK then.
My experience with you is as follows:
If I write something you disagree with, I'm a moron who doesn't know anything and should shut up.
If I write something you agree with, I'm just stating the fucking obvious and should shut up.
Stop grading my comments.
Crazy Mary says:
This is a white guy typing as Kitty, a very verbal white guy with a lot of time on his hands, likely... an academic? One of ann's leftist former colleagues, perhaps? Undercover here to interview the rubes, and to learn. Goodness, she is eager to learn!
Yep, part serious, part troll.Quality of trolling, 8/10, due to consistency,verbosity, .articulation, patience.
What do you think, Mary? Answer quick before someone tells Meade you are here.
Define "hate group" in a meaningful way or use another term that has a fixed meaning.
I believe the operating definition is "groups that actively work against stated and unstated Democrat Party goals" and I reject its utility.
KittyM: My evidence was simply *lack* of any evidence of sympathy, empathy or even just the facts of history, slavery, etc.
In other words, no evidence for any of the above.
You seem to have mistaken the comments section here for your personal troupe of dancing monkeys, who'll jump on command and dance to the tune you dictate.
However, the aggressive tone of the whole comment (you called me childish etc etc)...
Because I think your peevishness at not being able to control the discussion, make everyone talk about what you want to talk about, and your failure at making logical inferences are childish. When you don't get your way you start accusing everybody of being mean and ignorant and blah, blah, blah, like a spoiled toddler. Jesus, Kitty, I post things here all the time that people ignore, and comment threads go blithely on without any attention to my brilliant insights. Golly, the other commenters here are such insensitive ignorant bastards...
Don't like my "aggressive tone"? Tough shit. I don't like your mealy-mouthed passive-aggression. De gustibus non est disputandum, eh?
"I would not make any such general statement about "black Southerners"" - Well, almost everybody here makes general comments about "Democrats" and Lefties and BLM ad nauseum.
When I said, "I would not make any such general statement about "black Southerners", I meant *I*, not you.
It should go without saying that when one is debating a point, the phrase "black Southerners" like the phrase "French conservatives" or the phrase "white Northerners" doesn't mean *every* *single* *person* in that category. We are all adult enough to know that we are talking in useful generalisations.
I'm glad you recognize that. I'll remind you of that the next time a discussion involving probabilities and other matters statistical comes up.
FullMoon: Yep, part serious, part troll.Quality of trolling, 8/10, due to consistency,verbosity, .articulation, patience.
Any troll that gets me going gets high marks in my book. One can only admire the dedication to quality, the old-school craftsmanship, the sprezzatura. Two thumbs up.
Angel-Dyne,
I agree in part but give poor marks for constantly pretending to want to talk about issues but only accepting a frame of discussion that fits a Leftist worldview. That's not compelling.
KittyM gets top marks for cloying prose. Impressive.
"Use it when needed, but don't talk about them as props..."
I can certainly see why Ann bans you.
Birkel: I agree in part but give poor marks for constantly pretending to want to talk about issues but only accepting a frame of discussion that fits a Leftist worldview. That's not compelling.
Oh, I'm giving high marks for the trolling, if trolling it is, not for the "serious". "Only accepting a frame of discussion that fits the Leftist wordview" is the genuine lefty zombie's default mode, thus a mode a first-class troll would seamlessly maintain. Of course it's not compelling as commenting, it's boring and stupid as hell. But first-rate trolling.
"your reaction in the last comment was so emotional."
My comment was "so emotional"? I find your thinking so surprising. Rather amusing, really.
3) "in an attempt to foment discord and division" is a bit unfair. The Democrats like the Republicans want to win elections. That's not really the same thing as fomenting discord and division - or maybe you can say that discord and division is built into a robust democratic system. (Of course for someone like me, the person in public life most fomenting discord and division would be Trump!).
It's true, "winning elections" isn't the same as "fomenting division", just like "fixing the sewer line" isn't the same as "cutting the fiber cable with a backhoe". However, incompetent or malicious attempts to do one can lead to the other. Just because the motives are pure doesn't mean the results are going to be good. I can see how Trump can be considered divisive – but I think the Democrats have him beat by orders of magnitude. The Democrats have racked up a lot more riots and death than Trump has.
"It's totally a small thing - but just FYI you imply that I am white and that southern blacks are not me. I never said anything to give you that idea."
This really seems to bother you. Why? In the absence of any personal information (which you could easily supply – not that it would be verifiable), I'm just being Bayesian and going with the averages here, and assuming you are not an American black person from the South.
"While they certainly deserve to have their voices heard, what is going on strikes me as a spectacularly bad way to go about it." In any fight for political change, the opposing voices will often argue that it's not the merits of the case they mind, but the *way* people are going about it. This is a very old trope.
Doesn't mean it's not true. The Democrats' actions are inciting riots. This strikes me as irresponsible, to say the least.
"Public spaces are just that - public. Shouldn't there be an attempt to find imagery for public spaces that broadly everyone can agree on (I say broadly. Obviously you'll never have complete agreement)."
Yes, there should. Where is that attempt to find agreement? I don't see it at all.
"Interesting point. I go back to what I said earlier: it's not fair of you to dismiss as not true the feelings of white liberals or other minority groups on this issue."
Who is dismissing anything here? I'm not saying people don't have their opinions. I am saying that the Democrats are handling this sensitive issue in a profoundly ham-handed manner, one that is stirring up greater discord. It is difficult for me to believe it is merely incompetence on their part, but I can be charitable and at least consider it.
I do not dismiss your views. I accept that they are truly held and genuine. Likewise you need to accept that many many white people find Confederacy imagery to be genuinely abhorrent."
I know they do. But they aren't the Southern blacks whose feelings underpin your whole argument.
"And remember - minority groups are directly threatened by some of the groups that campaign for the retention of these monuments: the KKK, the Neo-Nazis and the other white supremacist groups. That's what white supremacist means! So it is fair for them to have feelings against the monuments."
I'm sorry, this is far too glib and pre-packaged. Quite frankly, I don't believe it. Let's put it this way – there's a political proposition, 'A'. A is opposed by groups a, b, c, d. Group 'd' also dislikes group 'z'. Therefore, by your reasoning, group z is obliged to support proposition A, which has nothing to do with them (i.e., "People who don't like us are a small part of a group that wants to keep some statue of some dude who is meaninless to us – therefore we'd better tear that statue down!") I think Occam's razor better supports the idea that leftist groups in the U.S. are somewhat interchangeable – regardless of what it says on the can, feminist, hispanic, environmental, etc., they all end up pushing for the same general set of goals, in this case diminish white conservative influence by any means necessary.
Full Moon:
Thanks for the gallant compliment. Make an old lady blush, you old smoothie, you.
@Paco Wové ""your reaction in the last comment was so emotional." My comment was "so emotional"? I find your thinking so surprising. Rather amusing, really."
Here's the comment I meant: "...it looks more to me like the way conquerors deal with the conquered, aside from the whole Stalinist airbrushing of history aspect. It truly creeps me out that American politicians are behaving like this – no attempts at conciliation or understanding, just we won, so we can force you to eat shit..."
I see now that maybe I misread that. I found it emotional, by which I meant angry. But now that you thought that was surprising/amusing, I see how it could also be read as just very cold. Sorry. Reading tone on the internet is so hard.
"I can see how Trump can be considered divisive – but I think the Democrats have him beat by orders of magnitude."
We'll have to agree to disagree. That is such a major can of worms, don't you think? I mean, that gets to the heart of my criticism of Trump and your support of him as president, probably.
"The Democrats' actions are inciting riots."
I think the KKK and the alt-right are inciting the riots and I think Trump is complicit by tacitly making it clear he finds these groups OK. but again I'm sure my views will come as no surprise to you and I don't have time today (you neither probably) to start that whole debate!
"Where is that attempt to find agreement? I don't see it at all."
Well, the supporters of the Confederate South imagery have enjoyed these monuments for a very long time. And very many of their fellow citizens have now made it crystal clear that they find these monuments deeply offensive and have done for a very long time. So I would argue that the onus is on the supporters of the monuments to propose a positive solution. I think the supporters of the statues who are effectively just crossing their arms and saying , "No way, the statues stay!" are making things much much worse.
"Who is dismissing anything here? I'm not saying people don't have their opinions. I am saying that the Democrats are handling this sensitive issue in a profoundly ham-handed manner, one that is stirring up greater discord."
I apologise if I accused you of something you weren't doing, namely dismissing the honestly held views of feelings of the opponents of these monuments. I don't really have a strong view about how the Democrats are handling this. I am interested in the issue of how society at large deals with this issue. I repeat that we all know that all political parties use what they can.
"Likewise you need to accept that many many white people find Confederacy imagery to be genuinely abhorrent." -- "I know they do. But they aren't the Southern blacks whose feelings underpin your whole argument."
Hmmm - seems we're getting caught up in these little misunderstandings that make arguing on the internet so frustrating! I am arguing *BOTH* that most African-Americans (in particular those who live in the South where the vast majority of these monuments are) have strong negative feelings towards these monuments which should be respected AND in response to your point about a lot of white people demonstrating against them, making the point that white people, too, feel strongly. Not either/or.
Is somebody paying "KittyM" by the word ?
Hmmm - seems we're getting caught up in these little misunderstandings that make arguing on the internet so frustrating! I am arguing *BOTH* that most African-Americans (in particular those who live in the South where the vast majority of these monuments are) have strong negative feelings towards these monuments which should be respected
What percentage had those feelings before Hillary lost?
@Paco Wové "I think Occam's razor better supports the idea that leftist groups in the U.S. are somewhat interchangeable – regardless of what it says on the can, feminist, hispanic, environmental, etc., they all end up pushing for the same general set of goals, in this case diminish white conservative influence by any means necessary."
Funnily enough, you may be shocked, but I think we are almost in agreement here! In the sense that these groups historically have the same opponent: the white (male) conservative.
Let's stick with monuments which celebrate the Confederacy for a moment. Had the Confederacy won, African-American would have remained enslaved. So everyone can understand what the problem is there. But the slavery, while it was an economic system, was based on a world-view that espoused white supremacy, whites as the master race.
In this philosophy, everyone who isn't white is inferior. It is easy to see that a Hispanic person would find this view loathsome. Historically, white supremacy groups also hate Jews. So a Jewish person probably finds Confederacy imagery problematic.
I feel like this is one of those occasions when Angel-Dyne will tell me this is fucking obvious. But also - this is genuinely my response to your comment! Thanks for the conversation so far. This is very fun.
@FullMoon "What percentage had those feelings before Hillary lost?"
I don't know.
And other arguments I want to be true, have no way of proving, cannot be disproven and therefore KittyM wins any argument by her own judgment.
Again, I must pass until you define terms and are quite a bit more specific in your critiques.
(I did not know Angel-Dyne was grading on a curve.)
Define, precisely, alt right.
FullMoon
You forgot the Article 25 proceedings predicted by UnknownInga64.
(Don't question her about what Article 25 is. She just knows things, man!)
"But the slavery, while it was an economic system, was based on a world-view that espoused white supremacy, whites as the master race."
It is hard for me to put into words just how wildly incorrect I think that sentence is. You don't think blacks had slaves? You don't think Hispanics had slaves? You don't think Jews had slaves? Were they all "white supremacists" too? This truly makes me wonder just how blinkered and slanted a view of world history you have.
@Paco Wové "It is hard for me to put into words just how wildly incorrect I think that sentence is."
Let's give it a rest for today. I had hoped we were moving towards finding some point of agreement; instead, we're moving into territory that I honestly find difficult to discuss unemotionally. (I don't imagine I'll get much sympathy for that in this tough environment but this is me being open).
Thank you so much for our conversation. I hope you have a great rest of Sunday and, if I don't come across you on this board soon, a terrific week.
"So I would argue that the onus is on the supporters of the monuments to propose a positive solution."
I would argue that it is much more common practice for the burden to be on those who want to change the status quo.
What the Union generals did at the end is instructive too. Rather than recriminations, they told their defeated foe, "Go home. Take your weapons, take your horses, and go home. Rebuild your farms, rebuild your lives. Go back to your families. Let's be glad it's over."
And read (for the first time, I imagine, for the more passionate Chairborne Ranger TRAITOR! shouters) Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address. The men who led the Union war effort decided on reconciliation over reprisals and Victor's Justice in order to keep the Union they had just successfully defended.
In the 1930s, with the Civil War still in living memory, the War Department began paying pensions to Confederate veterans and their widows. Get over it, SJW shouters, the people who actually fought and bled and suffered during that war did. Let the dead -- and their ghosts -- rest in peace.
"I would argue that the onus is on the supporters of the monuments to propose a positive solution. I think the supporters of the statues who are effectively just crossing their arms and saying, "No way, the statues stay!" are making things much much worse."
A nice capsule view into the leftist mind. They push, and push, and push, and push, and "that's just the way things are". Any pushback, and "OMG! How can you be so divisive! You're making things so much worse!"
KittyM
After all the loathsome statues are dust will the little black children have fathers at home? Read at grade level? What exactly will be the result other than you have had it your way? Our public libraries have books that extol the virtues of these evil men depicted on their stone horses. Should we not remove them from the public eye? From the possibility that a black might find offense if they happened on that particular book and that particular passage? What other memories should be exterminated? Now that you are woke you must have a list.
The Democrat Party is a living, breathing, everyday reminder of Slavery, Secession and Jim Crow. Bull Connor was a Democrat National Committeeman in 1962. Al Gore inherited his Senate seat from a father who voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Bill Clinton personally bestowed a Presidential Medal of Freedom ("Freedom"!) to his political mentor who had signed the Southern Manifesto, filibustered and voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and voted against the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
And that's just a thumbnail of events still in living memory -- don't get me started on the Copperheads or Woodrow Wilson.
Admit it, in the Museum of Bad Ideas(tm) the Democrat Party rates its own wing at least as large as that reserved for all those relocated Confederate Memorials.
I would argue that the onus is on the supporters of the monuments to propose a positive solution.
A positive (and simple) solution: Let the dead -- and the ghosts and furies buried with them -- rest in peace.
furious_a: What exactly will be the result other than you have had it your way?
When the miserable spoiled children have sledge-hammered all the Confederate statues and desecrated all the Confederate graves, they'll move on to the next batch of Dead White Men whose memories and monuments are tormenting them. When they begin to wail about the unbearable pain that the Jefferson Memorial and the Washington Monument are inflicting upon them day in, day out, waking or dreaming, Kitty will show up to bewail our refusal to acknowledge the history of slavery, and ask how we can be so insensitive as to not understand how People of Color(tm) (even the ones who came to this country voluntarily in recent years) feel about these hateful reminders of Wite Soopremisy, and to insist that the onus is on the people who don't want these structures torn down or re-purposed to explain why not, and to come up with a "solution" to this latest "problem" that the left pulled out its ass yesterday afternoon.
Freeman and Paddy O, who you were sure would show up to whitesplain to them they're doing it all wrong, will have decided that the Aggrieved are right again about who "we" should be honoring and not honoring, but promise that they will man the barricades when the Aggrieved head for the Lincoln Memorial, fer sher.
Rinse and repeat. However, since none of this will fix anything, the Aggrieved will just keep getting more frustrated, more angry, more crazy, and more violent.
furious_a: What exactly will be the result other than you have had it your way?
It's not *my* way, it's the way Mr. Lincoln and his generals in their wisdom mapped out post Civil-War policy. It's the way forward veterans from both sides pointed when they reunited in fellowship and remembrance at the 50th and 75th anniversaries of the Battle of Gettysburg.
Can you imagine what it must have been like for those Boy Scouts being in the presence of such men commemorating such an event? That is, if you aren't already triggered by all that hetronormativity and toxic masculinity!
full disclosure: the names of two of my great-great-great uncles are cast in bronze with those of their comrades of the 142nd Pennsylvania Vol. Infantry, Buford's Division, on the Pennsylvania Monument at Gettysburg. Their unit was mauled the first day (140 effectives out of 292 turned out the second day) by A.P. Hill's North Carolinians and one g-3 uncle lost his right arm below the elbow to a Confederate musket ball.
KittyM: I think the KKK and the alt-right are inciting the riots and I think Trump is complicit by tacitly making it clear he finds these groups OK.
No wonder you're getting chewed up and spit out here. Your premises are outright lies.
Pardon me but I'm getting very confused about all this. Weren't the ultra leftists of Ecotopia screaming not too long ago about secession from the Union last spring? What happened to THAT idea and why are they so upset about a substantial proportion of the US population who wanted to do the same thing 150 years ago and failed?
Are they pissed off because someone pointed out it was illegal then and illegal now?
What I do know is that classes at universities and high schools start in a few days.
@2:40 PM "...who just a few short decades ago..." All decades are of the same duration here on planet earth absent time-space warp.
@Roughcoat 3:24 PM. Also "What They Fought For 1861-1865" by James M. McPherson. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/189667.What_They_Fought_for_1861_1865. Paul Craig Roberts refers to its contents thusly:
"Diaries and letters of soldiers fighting for the Confederacy and those fighting for the Union provide no evidence that the soldiers were fighting for or against slavery. Princeton historian, Pulitzer Prize winner, Lincoln Prize winner, president of the American Historical Association, and member of the editorial board of Encyclopedia Britannica, James M. McPherson, in his book based on the correspondence of one thousand soldiers from both sides, What They Fought For, 1861-1865, reports that they fought for two different understandings of the Constitution." Cite: http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/08/23/know-called-civil-war-not-slavery/
@Robert Cook 5:10 PM: "Sure they were...if the Confederacy had won the war, slavery as an institution and engine of great wealth would have been preserved...at least for the time being." Of course, there is no way to discover the truth of that claim. Nonetheless, a similar claim could be made had the Northern States and USG prevailed or hostilities ceased before January 1, 1863, such being the effective date of the Emancipation Proclamation (per the preliminary order of September 1862 this was the effective date if the "rebellion" had not by January 1, 1863 ceased). If the North and USG were not fighting to end slavery (for over 1.5 years), can it be validly claimed that the other side was fighting to preserve it? Alternatively, if the North and USG evolved to make it a fight about slavery, could the South not have also evolved to make the fight not about slavery?
@Mark 6:17 PM: "Number of murders that could have been prevented if only we took down all those statues and whipped all racists off the face of the earth? Zero." We don't know how many of the killers of those 200 are, if not also now dead, racists. One might suspect a good number of them are, rejecting here the BS notion that racism (and apparently free speech nowadays) flows one-way based on melanin concentration.
"And you folks keep on bitching and whining about some damn statues?? That's your priority?"
Good points about serious underlying present-day issues. IMO this is about working to keep blacks from moving to the R party and starting to back guys like Trump. Psyops, desperation, and hysteria, in combination.
Post a Comment