The Conversation: The Lefties Avoided It. What A Surprise.

The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there.  -L.P. Hartley

This is likely my last post in this series.  It seems quite clear that the Bobbsey Twins do not truly wish to have "the Conversation" after all.  When Eric Holder called America "a Nation of Cowards" with regard to dealing with racial issues, he clearly was speaking of himself and the left half of the nation.  I have yet to hear of either of the two clowns regarding the "voices" I presented in posts of this series.  Dan claims we're only interested in those who validate our opinions, while lacking the courage to accept that our opinions are informed by those voices he finds less than compelling, despite their basis in fact and evidence.  "Hard data", evidently, is only important when it serves the lefty's purpose, not when it exposes the stupidity and falseness of the lefty position.

feo, on the other hand, prefers to engage in his typical practice of trying to post wholly off-topic comments where his claim of better understanding has an open forum for providing useful info and insights...except that he really doesn't have any.  Indeed, I have to stretch to include anything he says, but mostly because I'm compelled..."provoked" might be a better word...to address some of the goofy things he says that has any connection at all to the point of the post on the table.  *sigh*

So what I will do now is address the "words of wisdom" from one Caroline Randall Williams that have given both Dan and feo (as well as leftists in general) quite the tingle in their nether regions. 

Frankly, I find her words less than wise.  Rather, I find them overwrought and overly dramatic.  Imagine referring to one's skin as "rape-colored"!  Good gosh, can we all have a pity party together!!!  This woman speaks of "airbrushing" the past, as if the honoring of Confederates with statues and memorials...and allowing them to remain...ignores the sins of the past.  But her essay is the opposite side of that very same coin...she is highlighting the worst as if it was all some constant horror story.  This is not at all to diminish a damned thing about the conditions suffered by the average slave.  Absolutely not.  But to take pains to make it worse than it was, as if it wasn't bad enough without doing so, is far worse than pretending "it wasn't all that bad".  It's as if that period in history can't be discussed without mentioning the worst aspects of it...that indeed one MUST mention the worst aspects of it or by golly, you're "whitewashing" slavery!!  Nonsense. 

The very same people who hold this essay in such great esteem are also likely to be among those who accept the Thomas Jefferson/Sally Hemings story as true.  Yet, there is no evidence that supports it, and a great deal that makes the very notion pure fantasy.  Could this be the case with Edmund Pettus?  How can we confirm the story?  She claims DNA testing confirms she has white blood.  She doesn't say it's the blood of Edmund Pettus.  She just believes what great-grandfather Will believed...or claimed.  So do those who descended from Hemings believe their family history despite what evidence exists in conflict with that history.

But what of the more serious charge of rape?  The concept is that the no slave has any real consent so any sexual relations between slave and master is rape.  That's pretty convenient for the sob story Williams wishes to convey.  "Take pity on me.  I'm the result of rape."  But is it true?  How can it be confirmed with any certainty?  Personally, I have no skin in the game, so it really doesn't matter to me if it is true or not.  But if it's going to be put forth as true, it's a serious charge that requires more than hearsay.  What if great-great-granny saw sex with her master as a possible means to better treatment?  Well, just how were they treated exactly?  There are stories of Robert E. Lee being a very harsh master, to the degree that supposedly other slave holders thought he was unnecessarily strict.  Was this true of Pettus (if he was indeed the sex partner)? 

In my brief search to determine just what kind of slave owner Pettus was, I found some interesting things about his influence on the town of Selma and his work in making it thrive.  He was instrumental in Selma being known as a haven for blacks fleeing the Klan.  The point here is not that Pettus didn't rape or even have sexual intercourse with Williams' ancestor.  It's that there is nothing beyond their family history that I could find that indicates it ever took place.  Now, 150 years later, Williams insists her belief is true regardless of the lack of documentation of any kind. 

Williams goes on to ask who would dare insist she celebrate those who enslaved her ancestors?  I don't know than anyone would, is or intends to, nor do I believe that most people who prefer the memorials remain are "celebrating" them, either.  It seems an odd thing to suppose.  I don't necessarily celebrate Lincoln as much as remember who he was and what he did and what what he did meant for this country.  It's the same for most of the Confederate memorials.  Despite what they're positions were on slavery, those positions aren't the be all and end all of their lives.  Not all of what each of them did for their states is solely tied to any pro-slavery position they held as if there was nothing else.  Clearly, Pettus did more.  The same is true for most of them.  What did Williams do that we should regard her as a monument to anything, as if there are no monuments or memorials of greater value than her skin color?   These things aren't hidden from public access.  

In doing a quick research on Williams, I cam across this blog article noteworthy for also deferring to more scholarly research than merely family history.  Again, this doesn't mean Williams' story is absolutely false, but it again paints a picture that her lamentations would deflect objective observers from noticing.  (An interesting aside, I just saw a video wherein actor Don Cheadle finds that he was descended from slaves owned by an Indian tribe.  His ancestors were never owned by white people.  It can be found on YouTube.  I didn't think to save it when I came across it.)

There are some of us who wish to preserve history for our honest and objective edification.  There are others who would use history to push an agenda.  Williams is of this latter group, as are our two buffoonish fake Christians lefties and as are most of the black voices to whom they would have us lend an ear.   Worse, they would have us join them in referencing history to appease demands of a grievance group rather than to simply learn from it so as not to repeat it...hard to do when pulling down references to it is enabled by the spineless left. 

Thus, it is the left who is truly the cowards regarding this issue of race relations.  They look at history in an exploitative manner, as they look to exploit wherever doing so furthers their ideology.  And if the two fakes want to have a conversation, they'll have to provide the open forum in which to do so at their own blogs.  They've failed to prove they want such a thing having been given the open forum here.