This is a short post, the purpose of which is to point out the lack of reports of police "brutality" against white people. We know the stats prove there are more white people killed by cops, the argument only being one of proportion with regard to percentage of population. But regardless of that lame angle played by the lying left...in this case the media, not just people like Dan...one would think that for the sake of objectivity and to prove one's news organization is balanced in their reporting, we'd see something regarding incidents where white suspects or detainees are shot by cops.
But no. We only see story after story of black people being "victimized" by cops as if it never ever happens to anyone else. That's intentional. That's the media pushing the leftist, race-hustling narrative.
Of course we're never treated to violent protests of any kind by the families and friends of all those many more whites killed by cops. Grace-embracers might argue it's because whites haven't been oppressed for 250 years in this country...as if that freakin' matters in any case with which we've been inundated in the past five years or more. If one is truly concerned about out of control law enforcement, what difference would that make anyhow and why only provide examples of black people victimized by it?
The answer is clear and obvious. It's because the left and their media shills aren't at all concerned about ANY victims of police misconduct. They're only concerned with appeasing the radical marxists behind the "racist cop" narrative and the ultimate goal of taking money from those who have it and giving it to those who aren't interested in engaging in wealth building activity and the effort it takes to be successful...after taking their cut, of course.
So it's a lie of omission as well as a lie of misdirection every time you see another story of cops killing black suspects, while never seeing any involving white suspects. This distortion of reality results in a distortion of perception by the general public, particularly those who don't or won't take the time to look beyond the headlines. The leftist media counts on these sheep. It's intentional and more proof that the leftist media is indeed the enemy of the people.
88 comments:
1. Of course, white people being shot by police gets reported. Welcome to reality.
2. The media doesn't report on such stories with equal vigor and alarm as with cases of black folk being shot by police because our nation doesn't have a historical problem of white folk being singled out for oppression and black folk do.
Again, Welcome to reality.
1. Perhaps in the local newspaper, in the town in which it happens, but I don’t see them in national news or on Yahoo or AOL news reports. Welcome to reality.
2. What relevance does past issues of racism have to contemporary news stories of cops killing black suspects resisting arrest? Answer: none whatsoever. Lying leftist media...an enemy of the people...seeks to perpetuate the bullshit "racist cop" narrative.
Again, welcome to reality.
Sigh.
Past racism, yes. That comes pretty easy for you to say, doesn't it?
1. It's not national news when a cop kills a white person. It's a local tragedy.
2. But in a nation founded upon the original sins of racism and slavery, cops killing black people speaks to the ongoing national problems of racism and oppression.
That's why.
If you don't understand that, go visit some black churches and ask them humbly to educate you.
The reality is that for every high profile black person killed by the police, there is an almost perfectly analogous situation where a white guy is killed virtually identically.
Keith Heakook, say his name.
"Past racism, yes. That comes pretty easy for you to say, doesn't it?"
Why would or should it be difficult? There's nothing particularly special about it that provokes apprehension in honest people. Who so for those like yourself? My point stands. It has absolutely nothing to do with current stories of cops shooting suspects who resist arrest or have been combative. Nothing. The suspects aren't resisting arrest or being combative as if they are serving a cause related to past racism. They're doing so for completely selfish/self-serving reasons.
"1. It's not national news when a cop kills a white person. It's a local tragedy."
How incredibly racist of you to say so. At the same time, it was not national news when Floyd, Garner, Brown, etc. were killed by cops. Yet, the racist, left-wing media felt it deserved national attention for no other reason than to perpetuate the myth of a racist America. You clearly are more than happy to see racial tension increase.
"2. But in a nation founded upon the original sins of racism and slavery, cops killing black people speaks to the ongoing national problems of racism and oppression."
Ah, well, this is the perfect evidence of what I said above. You're more than happy to see racial tension increase. This nation was not found upon racism. That's a leftist lie perpetuated by grace-embracing morons.
"If you don't understand that, go visit some black churches and ask them humbly to educate you."
How many black churches have you visited? I really don't need them to educate me about the founding of this nation. I'm well aware of the basis of its founding. It wasn't racism. That's what morons like to believe.
I don't believe I'd get the education in which you'd love to see me indoctrinated if I was to inquire of Pastor Corey Brooks of Chicago or Pastor Jasper Williams of Detroit. They tend to see the problems of the black community as self-inflicted more than a result of "white oppression". That's because they're actual Christians which compels to them to deal in truth regardless of how it pains lefty morons.
Only revised, lying, propaganda “history” comes up with garbage such as "a nation founded upon the original sins of racism and slavery,”
The USA was not founded upon racism and slavery, and only fools brainwashed by the LEFT would come up with such a stupid idea.
Indeed, Glenn. Even if we go by the buffoons behind the "1619 Project", slavery was a world-wide practice. The notion would mean that ever nation was founded on slavery. It's absurd. But worse is the intent by these grace-embracing frauds to stoke the racist flames and keep racism alive. It's part of the leftist game plan to create problems they can pretend to fight, because they have no real ideas about how to improve anything.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/06/slavery-made-america/373288/
It's a good thing racism and slavery aren't a concern any more...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/black-man-enslaved-by-white-restaurant-manager-should-be-awarded-more-than-500000-court-says/%3famp=1
Anastasios Tsakos, say his name.
Given the fact that a significant number of colonies/states had outlawed or were on the way to outlawing slavery at the time of the founding, it seems absurd to suggest that the US was founded on "slavery or racism". Or, if one insists on saying that, then one would have to add that virtually every society in recorded history was also founded on "racism and slavery". We certainly can't ignore that most, of not all, of the tribes that pre dated European settlement practiced slavery, something akin to racism, along with torture, human sacrifice, and the like.
Of course one could also say that it's impossible to ignore the hundreds of thousands of white soldiers that gave up life and limb to end slavery.
But it's easier to peddle a simplistic lie, than the more complex and nuanced Truth.
Craig... "course one could also say that it's impossible to ignore the hundreds of thousands of white soldiers that gave up life and limb to end slavery."
What is it about white supremacy is defenders in Confederacy defenders that they assume that we point to the realities of racism and slavery and oppression for hundreds of years in our history and you think that means that we're saying all white people are evil. We're not saying that. do you understand that?
We are not saying that some white people didn't fight against slavery. Of course they did! You do understand the distinction between saying that our nation had racist, evil, oppressive policies about slavery and oppression of black people... Between that and saying that all white people supported slavery and racism right?
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/09/did_slavery_create_american_prosperity.html
The above represents competing understandings of the effects of slavery on the prosperity of the United States versus what race-hustlers like Coates would have us believe. Indeed, upon reading Dan's link, one of the first thoughts which came to mind was the difference between the profit generating automation being developed in the industrialized North as compared to the pretty much stagnant progress of the agricultural South. How much more prosperous would the South have been had they abandoned slavery in favor of automation? It seems, according to my link above, cotton production improved after the Civil War and the abolition of slavery. Thus, it is more accurate to say that slavery impeded the economic prosperity of the nation in whole despite enriching a very small elite few of the slave states. That small elite was not "America".
Dan's second link dishonestly tries to prove that we are mistaken in our understanding and beliefs about racism in this country. Just as Dan now tries to insist he wasn't referring to all of America, we can more truthfully assert...since we've done so repeatedly ad nauseam...that we've never attempted to make the case that racism doesn't exist in this country. Yet, his link says nothing about the white guy being a racist simply because the mentally challenged victim is black. Even the use of racial epithets doesn't prove racism as much as proves the guy is an asshole. But it's good enough for Dan, because to the buffoonish, racism only goes one way.
The fact of the matter is that the very people to whom Dan points and upon whom he relies in his lame attempts to convince us we're wrong are the very people who insist that white people are all guilty of the crimes perpetrated against black people so long ago. I guess when one is incapable of thinking for one's self, that sort of thing happens.
Impressive, 2 paragraphs and not one accurate characterization of anything I said.
If we can’t honestly look at the actual history of slavery throughout history and specifically in the US, then what’s the point?
Craig... "Impressive, 2 paragraphs and not one accurate characterization of anything I said. "
Impressive. I asked reasonable questions and Craig just dodged them continuing to show his cowardice and hypocrisy. Or perhaps just dumb stupidity... an inability to understand and answer questions in an adult manner. I'll write in big letters and just one question at a time to help.
WE ARE NOT SAYING THAT WHITE PEOPLE DIDN'T ALSO FIGHT AGAINST SLAVERY.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT OR DO YOU NEED ME TO DRAW YOU A PICTURE?
(NOTE: It won't help. Craig's not interested in answering questions. He'd much rather establish strawmen arguments to beat down. But there it is, should he start acting like an adult.)
Like this, for instance...
Craig: "If we can’t honestly look at the actual history of slavery throughout history and specifically in the US, then what’s the point?"
Where have I ever said that we shouldn't honestly look at actual history? HINT: I HAVE NOT.
You can dodge reality and reasonable questions and engage in logical fallacies, but it won't do you any good amongst the rational class.
We see you. We see the white supremacists who continue to deny and dodge and ignore real history.
We see.
"What is it about white supremacy is defenders in Confederacy defenders"
Let's start with the fact that I'm neither, and your implying that I am is just more bullshit.
"that they assume that we point to the realities of racism and slavery and oppression for hundreds of years in our history and you think that means that we're saying all white people are evil."
1. This is simply not an accurate representation of anything I've said.
2. The problem is that you aren't giving a balanced, historically accurate representation of both slavery and well as anti-slavery movements in the US.
3. This also ignores the reality that slavery was a part of literally every culture in the world, and holds that US to some sort of unreasonable standard when assessing the history.
"We're not saying that. do you understand that?"
I never said you were saying that, because it would be stupid for me to have said that. Do you understand that your question is based on a complete and total misrepresentation of my actual words?
"You do understand the distinction between saying that our nation had racist, evil, oppressive policies about slavery and oppression of black people... Between that and saying that all white people supported slavery and racism right?"
This "question" is completely unrelated to anything that I've ever actually said on the topic. Obviously I understand the distinction, it's just so divorced from anything I've said as to be a nonsensical "question".
The reality is that there has never been a period of time in US history where the majority of the people/states supported/practiced/legalized slavery. Even in the states where it was legal, it was never the majority that actually owned slaves.
My point has always been that if this discussion is going to be worthwhile, it should be based on the actual facts, and on the historical context.
"I asked reasonable questions and Craig just dodged them continuing to show his cowardice and hypocrisy..."
Actually, you asked two "questions" that were based on a complete and total mischaracterization of what I actually said, and I didn't have the time or inclination to try to respond on my phone. Once again, Dan mistakes me not answering his questions now, with me not answering his questions ever. Which, in light of the increasingly large numbers of questions that Dan has ignored over the past few months, is quite the display of hubris.
"DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT OR DO YOU NEED ME TO DRAW YOU A PICTURE?"
I wasn't referring to you specifically when I made my comment. I'm sorry that your ego got in the way.
"NOTE: It won't help. Craig's not interested in answering questions. He'd much rather establish strawmen arguments to beat down. But there it is, should he start acting like an adult.)"
All one has to do is to look back at the last several months to see who answers question, and who doesn't. But these assumptions born out of impatience usually don;t age well.
"Where have I ever said that we shouldn't honestly look at actual history? HINT: I HAVE NOT"
Hint, I never said you did. You should seriously dial back your ego.
"You can dodge reality and reasonable questions and engage in logical fallacies, but it won't do you any good amongst the rational class."
More vague, unsupported, bullshit.
"We see you. We see the white supremacists who continue to deny and dodge and ignore real history."
Are you really calling me a "white supremacist"?
"We see."
I love the vaguely threatening attempt to virtue signal.
One thing's for certain: Dan sees what he wants to see. And like all sheep suffering from white-guilt, he sees racism where it doesn't exist.
I don't get Dan's need to reference past history of slavery and other Democrat examples of racism in discussions about current events as if there's an actual connection, except that it's a dishonest ploy to establish the race-baiting narrative as fact in order to rationalize, legitimize and enable bad and/or criminal behaviors, as well as to demonize police. It won't/doesn't work with honest people. There's simply nothing happening today in any way connected to it.
Craig keeps saying things like this...
"I love the vaguely threatening attempt to virtue signal."
Perhaps in his world, "We see" implies some physical threat. In my world, we're just noting that all of history is seeing how modern Trump-type conservatives (including those like Craig who didn't even like Trump, just failed to speak out sufficiently against him and his supporters) are behaving on issues like sexism, misogyny, racism.
It's not saying you are overtly racist, just that you are using the same words, arguments and notions that white supremacists are using (to address another of your failed understandings) and we see that, too.
You see (probably not), folks like me are convinced that history will judge modern Trump-style conservatives in a very harsh manner, not unlike how we view slavers and their defenders today. We believe the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of modern conservative types will be embarrassed by the behaviors of their grandparents... the rolling over to Trumps and racists/white supremacists/anti-liberty types will be a source of shame to them, just as I am ashamed of my slave-owning ancestors.
We see, and we'll remember.
Marshal...
"I don't get Dan's need to reference past history of slavery and other Democrat examples of racism in discussions about current events as if there's an actual connection... There's simply nothing happening today in any way connected to it."
The US people (63%), including large majorities of black citizens (84%) disagree with Marshal...
"Black adults are particularly likely to say slavery continues to have an impact: More than eight-in-ten say this is the case, including 59% who say the legacy of slavery affects the situation of black people a great deal.
By comparison, 26% of whites, 29% of Hispanics and 33% of Asians say slavery affects the position of black people in American society today a great deal,
though majorities of each group say it does so at least a fair amount."
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/17/most-americans-say-the-legacy-of-slavery-still-affects-black-people-in-the-u-s-today/
I guess Marshal thinks that he is smarter than most in the US and nearly all black people. That says a lot, right there.
Also, scholars and historians disagree with Marshal's glorious and unsupported declaration...
"The eminent Negro man of letters W. E. B. Du Bois predicted in 1903 that the issue of the 20th century would be “the problem of the color line.” He has been proven right...
Du Bois must have relished the irony of having a statue named Liberty oversee the arrival in New York’s harbor of millions of foreigners, “tempest tossed” and “yearning to breathe free,” even as black Southern peasants–not alien, just profoundly alienated–were kept unfree at the social margins. And Myrdal observed a racist ideology that openly questioned the Negro’s human worth survive our defeat of the Nazis and abate only when the Cold War rivalry made it intolerable that the “leader of the free world” should be seen to preside over a regime of racial subordination...
Nevertheless, as anyone even vaguely aware of the social conditions in contemporary America knows, we still face a “problem of the color line.” The dream that race might some day become an insignificant category in our civic life now seems naively utopian. In cities across the country, and in rural areas of the Old South, the situation of the black underclass and, increasingly, of the black lower working classes is bad and getting worse.
No well-informed person denies this..."
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/an-american-tragedy-the-legacy-of-slavery-lingers-in-our-cities-ghettos/
More from the experts, vs Marshal's unsupported and on-the-face-of-it stupidly ridiculous false claim that "simply nothing happening today in any way connected to it..." (Warning: Scholarly paper from Harvard, so, clearly, it's worthless!)
"for the first 250 years of American history, white land-owners, predominantly from the South, enslaved millions of individuals of African descent.
This“peculiar institution,”as it was sometimes called, defined the social,economic, and political landscape of the American South throughout this period. Slavery was so crucial to the South that one Georgia newspaper editor wrote,“Negro slavery is the South, and the South is negro slavery”.
Yet, despite slavery’s prominence in shaping American history, and despite volumes written by economists and historians on its consequences, political scientists have largely overlooked how American slavery and the events following its abolition could continue to influence the South’s con-temporary politics.
Given recent findings on the long-term consequences of past events and institutions, it would be surprising if such a fundamental aspect of American history had no persistent impact on American politics...
CONCLUSION
In this paper, we have shown that an institution that was formally abolished 150 years ago still has effects on attitudes today. Specifically, we show that American slavery has had a direct impact on Southern whites’
(i) partisan identification,
(ii) attitudes on affirmative action,
(iii) levels of racial resentment, and
(iv) attitudes toward blacks...
...Our findings here suggest that historical institutions like slavery are significant in shaping American culture and politics, even if they no longer exist."
https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/msen/files/slavery.pdf
Hell, look at what the freakin' Southern Baptists even acknowledge...
"In 1995, when Southern Baptists celebrated the one-hundred fiftieth anniversary of the founding of our convention, we recognized a reckoning was required.
The Convention overwhelmingly adopted an historic resolution
which, among other affirmations, stated:
Our relationship to African-Americans has been hindered from the beginning by the role that slavery played in the formation of the Southern Baptist Convention; many of our Southern Baptist forbears defended the right to own slaves, and either participated in, supported, or acquiesced in the particularly inhumane nature of American slavery;
and in later years Southern Baptists failed, in many cases, to support,
and in some cases opposed, legitimate initiatives to secure the civil rights of African-Americans.
That was an historic act in which the Southern Baptist Convention also declared to the public,
“we apologize to all African-Americans for condoning
and/or perpetuating individual and systemic racism
in our lifetime;
and we genuinely repent of racism of which we have been guilty, whether consciously or unconsciously and we ask forgiveness from our African-American brothers and sisters, acknowledging that our own healing is at stake."
https://sbts-wordpress-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com/sbts/uploads/2018/12/Racism-and-the-Legacy-of-Slavery-Report-v4.pdf
And you know, I'm sure, I could go on all day long citing scholars, historians, black leadership, theologians - conservative, moderate and liberal - who affirm that the very real history of racism and slavery impacts our nation today, and continues to negatively impact black communities.
You know that, right?
And can you cite EVEN ONE historian or scholar (not associated with the KKK or other conservative white supremacist groups) who says that the data shows there is NO impact of slavery and/or racism on our nation today? Can you cite Harvard, Yale, Columbia or other prestigious research project that supports your ridiculous claim?
Even one?
And, if you can (which I rather doubt)... I can cite conservative scholars who would affirm the view of rational people as shown above. Can you find even one liberal scholar who would affirm your position?
I kind of get referencing the past, I just don’t understand why the past is referenced so selectively and why we can’t take a more balanced look at history.
I've never seen Dan put the blame for slavery of Africans on the real culprits -- Other Africans who sold them into slavery.
So, should the Irish decedents of the Irish slaves, brought to American long before African slaves arrived, demand reparations?
Craig... " I just don’t understand why the past is referenced so selectively and why we can’t take a more balanced look at history."
Indeed, why not? Not having a balanced look at history is not something I have ever suggested. Indeed, that's part of the problem of modern conservatism - this desire to ignore the reality of the past and pretend it didn't happen. "It just makes things more divisive to keep bringing up all that unpleasantness..." I hear white conservatives say again and again.
WHY NOT take a balanced look at history?
"We should teach about the greatness of America and about our heroic founding fathers," I hear white conservatives say (1776 project, anyone?)... "Why keep bringing up these little mistakes like hundreds of years of slavery and racism and the oppression of black people...?" they keep saying.
But WHY NOT take a balanced look at history?
Are you asking the 1776 Project promoters that question, Craig? Or do you only bring it up to liberals like me who are NOT suggesting anything BUT looking at history in a balanced manner?
Glenn cites the racist conspiracy theory about the "irish slave myth..." because, of course, he does. It's what white supremacists and their allies do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_slaves_myth
"Indeed, why not?"
That's an excellent question. Too bad you won't actually answer it.
"Not having a balanced look at history is not something I have ever suggested."
Pray tell, where have I ever said that you specifically have "suggested" that we should "not have a balanced look at history"?
"WHY NOT take a balanced look at history?"
I think that we should.
""We should teach about the greatness of America and about our heroic founding fathers," I hear white conservatives say (1776 project, anyone?)..."
Why shouldn't we teach the reality of what the founders accomplished?
"Why keep bringing up these little mistakes like hundreds of years of slavery and racism and the oppression of black people...?" they keep saying."
Pray tell, who specifically has said that we shouldn't bring up the reality of slavery, the reality of legally sanctioned racism, or the like? Please provide names and links to the specific quotes.
"But WHY NOT take a balanced look at history?"
That's what I've been asking.
"Are you asking the 1776 Project promoters that question, Craig?"
I'm only vaguely familiar with the 1776 project, only to the extent that it was a reaction to the 1619 project. To the extent that the errors and propaganda of the 1619 project are countered with accurate information, I don;t see the problem.
"Or do you only bring it up to liberals like me who are NOT suggesting anything BUT looking at history in a balanced manner?"
When I see you looking at history in a balanced manner, I'll let you know.
Re: Glenn's white supremacist "irish slave myth..."
"The Irish slaves myth is a
pseudohistorical narrative
that falsely conflates
the penal transportation and indentured servitude of Irish people
during the 17th and 18th centuries
with the hereditary chattel slavery experience of enslaved Africans.
Some white nationalists,
and others who want to
minimize the effects of hereditary chattel slavery on Africans and their descendants,
have used this false equivalence to
promote racism against African Americans
or claim that African Americans are
too vocal in seeking justice for historical grievances.
It also can hide the facts around Irish involvement in the transatlantic slave trade.
The myth has been in circulation since at least the 1990s
and has been disseminated in online memes and social media debates.
In 2016, academics and Irish historians wrote to condemn the myth."
Dan's love of LEFTIST Wikipedia for his information never fails.
There is an excellent book refuting Wikipedia's claims to the contrary, "White Cargo: The Forgotten History of Britain's White Slaves in America." Well researched and well documented but why should Dan let truth faze him? Slavery is slavery. When one is forced to work for another against their will, that is slavery.
By the way, there is no "conflation" with the African slave trade; the point is that there were slaves before the African trade. It has nothing to do with trying to lessen the effects of the black slave trade, contrary to the nonsense Dan cites, nor has it anything to do with white nationalism or promoting racism. But with the LEFT, everything is racist.
The Irish slave trade is not a myth, rather it is factual history. Real history is HATED by LEFTISTS who want to believe trash like the 1619 "history."
Craig... "Pray tell, where have I ever said that you specifically have "suggested" that we should "not have a balanced look at history"?"
ALSO Craig...
"When I see you looking at history in a balanced manner, I'll let you know..."
Um... right there, for one.
"Perhaps in his world, "We see" implies some physical threat."
Where exactly did I say or even imply "physical threat"?
"In my world, we're just noting that all of history..."
Excellent, Dan's "world" feels competent to speak for "all of history", that's quite impressive.
"...is seeing how modern Trump-type conservatives (including those like Craig who didn't even like Trump, just failed to speak out sufficiently against him and his supporters) are behaving on issues like sexism, misogyny, racism."
Please, tell me exactly what you and "all of history see" regarding my "behavior" on those issues. Please explain why those issues are the only ones you and "all of history" deem worthy of watching and passing judgement on.
Craig... "When I see you looking at history in a balanced manner, I'll let you know."
The reality is, of course, you can't point to a single place where I've ever talked about history in an unbalanced manner. Just another stupidly false claim going unsupported because it's false.
And sense you don't seem to understand my position at all...
I am not saying that all white people are racist. I am not saying all the founders were racist, (although they most certainly were quite likely mostly racist... given the time they lived in.)
I am also not saying that they didn't do some great things. Founding this free Republic with the ideals they advocated was pretty fantastic, although they never lived up to those ideals, much to their great shame.
I'm a big fan especially of Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine, I love the ideals they advocated. And at the same time, Jefferson was quite likely a rapist and a racist who did horrible, horrible things. And given the ideals he espoused, that makes it just all the worse, because he demonstrated with his words that he knew better.
Balanced, just as I and progressive types advocate.
Now, given my ACTUAL position, can you admit your error, slander and false witness?
Not much time at present, but feel compelled nonetheless...
Dan once again tries to use like-minded opinions of others as evidence his opinion is correct. It doesn't matter if the whole world believes anything. What matters is whether or not there is evidence to support the belief. Thus, if "The US people (63%), including large majorities of black citizens (84%) disagree with Marshal..." It only means 63% disagree with me. It absolutely does NOT mean my position is incorrect, false and proven wrong by the percentage of people who disagree. There is no connection between the history of slavery and the fact that black suspects are shot by cops. None at all. That's the point of this post...more specifically, that there are statistically more white people shot by cops, but few are highlighted nationally by the racist, leftist media Dan so loves to portray as glorious purveyors of absolute truth and fact, but in fact are purveyors of the lie that this country is racist or that there is a true systemic racism behind the shootings of black suspects.
""Why keep bringing up these little mistakes like hundreds of years of slavery and racism and the oppression of black people...?" they keep saying."
Who is "they"? NO ONE regards the history of slavery as "these 'little' mistakes". Either provide a source to prove anyone of note does, or admit you're comment is a lie meant to denigrate those who are really trying to keep things in perspective.
And that's what Glenn's offering is. It's not meant to minimize the evil of the enslavement of blacks, but to keep things in perspective.
Later, after I've read Dan's links and found he's again wasted my time by presenting that which doesn't make his case, I'll have more to say.
"Um... right there, for one."
Excellent job. You take something that I said in jest, after you made your claim, and act as if it's proof. So let's try this again.
Pray tell where, before your claim, I have suggested that you have said that we should not have a "balanced look at history".
My pointing out that the parts of US history that you are most vocal about are those you believe to be negative or evil, is just me pointing out the reality that I've never seen you spend any time on any aspect of US history that you've put in a positive light. I'm sorry that you've confused me pointing out reality as I've seen it, with my making specific claims about things you have or haven't said.
Craig... "My pointing out that the parts of US history that you are most vocal about are those you believe to be negative or evil,"
Everyone knows the story of the "heroes" who were our founding fathers. That history is what has been told throughout the United States history including when we were in school. We're familiar with that part. It has been the dominant paradigm.
What has been ignored, what has been downplayed and not fully acknowledged is the slavery and racism side. The effort to tell the 1619 story IS an effort to bring balance to the dominant paradigm.
That is, I don't NEED to point out what everyone knows. We need to listen to the other side of the story. The oppression. The slavery. The racism. The murders. The lynchings. The rapes. The breaking down of black communities. The red-lining. The criminalization of being black.
Why do I need to talk about what everyone already knows about?
That's what you're missing. The 1619 project IS the balancing of history.
Craig... "My pointing out that the parts of US history that you are most vocal about are those you believe to be negative or evil..."
? That I BELIEVE to be negative or evil? Tell me you didn't mean this the way it sounds. Slavery WAS a great and diabolical evil, monstrous, sickening, horrifying evil and rationally so. You agree, right? There is not ANY part of slavery you're defending (as the white supremacists do) that was good, right? You're not defending the racist view of "happy slaves..." are you?
Tell me that there's nothing in your mind about the centuries old racist oppression of black people that wasn't evil?
It's not that "I believe to be negative or evil." IT WAS negative. IT WAS a great devilish evil. Right?
Why do you say things like this? This is the sort of language used/embraced by white supremacists, you know that, right?
Craig... "that I've never seen you spend any time on any aspect of US history that you've put in a positive light."
You've NEVER heard me speak of human rights (that the US has led the way - in many ways - of establishing)? You've NEVER heard me speak of this great land of liberty? Then you've not been paying attention.
That I join in solidarity with black and other historically oppressed folk in recognizing the great evils in our history does not mean that I don't appreciate the wisdom of the WORDS (if not actions) of our founders.
It is precisely because of the ideals espoused by our founders that I so vociferously condemn them for not living up to them. You know that, right? As they did, themselves, right?
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-dark-side-of-thomas-jefferson-35976004/
Unrelated, but I'm curious... have you all (Marshal, Craig, Stan, Glenn, Neil... if he's around...) got your Covid vaccinations or, if not, do you plan to?
At a guess, Glenn and maybe Marshal haven't and the rest have.
Again, just curious.
"We need to listen to the other side of the story. The oppression. The slavery. The racism. The murders. The lynchings. The rapes. The breaking down of black communities. The red-lining. The criminalization of being black."
By all means, talk about those things, but also talk about the fact that they've removed from the US legal code. Let's talk about who was responsible for red lining, and the breakdown of the black families. But, let's talk about those things accurately and in context.
"Why do I need to talk about what everyone already knows about?"
You don't "need" to talk about any of this, you choose to. I'd submit that by leaving out the context, that the narrative becomes unbalanced simply a propaganda tool.
"That's what you're missing. The 1619 project IS the balancing of history."
The 1619 project is explicitly NOT a "balancing of history", it's not even history.
"That I BELIEVE to be negative or evil? Tell me you didn't mean this the way it sounds."
I didn't mean it the way you took it. I simply meant that YOU choose to focus on certain aspects of US history that YOU have identified as "evil". If you prefer, I could have said that you choose to focus on the evil parts of US history. The reality is that if you only focus on the "evil" while ignoring the efforts to remove the evil, than you only tell part of the story.
"Slavery WAS a great and diabolical evil, monstrous, sickening, horrifying evil and rationally so. You agree, right? There is not ANY part of slavery you're defending (as the white supremacists do) that was good, right? You're not defending the racist view of "happy slaves..." are you?"
No.
"You've NEVER heard me speak of human rights (that the US has led the way - in many ways - of establishing)? You've NEVER heard me speak of this great land of liberty? Then you've not been paying attention."
Not in the same way or with the same volume as your obsession with "evil".
"It is precisely because of the ideals espoused by our founders that I so vociferously condemn them for not living up to them. You know that, right? As they did, themselves, right?"
I guess I know that you claim to now.
As far as your off topic, personal question about vaccination, why in the world would you care, beyond trying to confirm your prejudices? Why in the world should any of us tell you?
Craig...
"why in the world would you care, beyond trying to confirm your prejudices?"
I care because healthy people opting not to get a vaccination are putting lives at risk other than their own. Why WOULDN'T I care?
That is, the experts are saying that healthy people choosing not to vaccinate are posing a threat to less healthy people.
"Why in the world should any of us tell you?"
Why not? It's a simple question, reasonable in the context of a world wild pandemic that has killed hundreds of thousands of people.
The reason I ask you specific conservatives is because you represent a small little cross section of conservatives - some who are fans of Trump and more prone to believe and pass on conspiracy theories and others who are less conspiracy-minded, less fans of Trump, but still in the mix of white evangelical conservatives.
In hearing the news stories about 30% of people who say they won't get vaccines - and not really knowing anyone like that except for those who have health reasons not to or who are reasonably skeptical of medical systems due to real-world events like the Tuskegee Study atrocity. I'm honestly interested in IF you all got vaccines and IF not, what you might have to say about why.
But don't answer it, it's not a big deal. I'm not doing anything with it. Like I said, I'm just curious. When I'm curious about things, I ask.
I just went to my website. Typed in a search for Liberty. I found this near the top...
"We have religious liberties in this nation. And that is a very good thing."
A little further down, I found a post praising Thomas Jefferson's writings and theories. I led with...
"The more I read of Jefferson on the topic of religious liberty, the more impressed I am with his writings. I say that knowing full well his AWFUL limitations as it relates to civil/personal liberty as it related to the slavery question. He was wrong, wrong, wrong, with no doubt. Awfully so, especially given his apparent well-thought out opinions about human liberty.
His mistaken position on slavery, notwithstanding, consider his wise words on the topic of religious liberty..."
A little further down, a post praising our progress we're making as a nation and a planet. I led with...
"Here's the truth: We are objectively getting better and making progress. Human lives are better now than they used to be.
People who are gay can live with less fear of being killed or beaten or imprisoned. That IS progress.
Women have rights to vote and work and make their own choices. They can choose to marry who they want. That is objectively progress. Women are objectively better off now.
By and large we no longer embrace slavery as an option. That is progress."
Then, I quoted Dr King who spoke to the good and the bad...
"And I use this subject because there are literally two Americas. One America is beautiful for situation. And, in a sense, this America is overflowing with the milk of prosperity and the honey of opportunity. This America is the habitat of millions of people who have food and material necessities for their bodies; and culture and education for their minds; and freedom and human dignity for their spirits. In this America, millions of people experience every day the opportunity of having life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in all of their dimensions. And in this America millions of young people grow up in the sunlight of opportunity.
But tragically and unfortunately, there is another America. This other America has a daily ugliness about it that constantly transforms the ebulliency of hope into the fatigue of despair...
With this faith, we will be able to speed up the day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and live together as brothers and sisters, all over this great nation."
And I quoted Obama's praise of our great nation...
"each time, we overcame those fears. We did not, in the words of Lincoln, adhere to the “dogmas of the quiet past.” Instead we thought anew, and acted anew. We made change work for us, always extending America’s promise outward, to the next frontier, to more people. And because we did -- because we saw opportunity where others saw only peril -- we emerged stronger and better than before."
I praise our ideals and strengths regularly in my blog and in my comments. Perhaps you're just so focused on pushing back against my criticism of the failures that you can't see or notice it when I do it?
Craig... " If you prefer, I could have said that you choose to focus on the evil parts of US history."
Yes, I prefer stating things directly and accurately, not using the euphemisms that white supremacists and their allies have used over the centuries to gaslight.
Do you understand why? Were you not aware of that sort of language being used by white nationalists and their ilk?
As to "you choose to focus on the evil parts of US history..." Well, why wouldn't I? Why wouldn't any of us, when confronted within a great evil within our own people choose to speak up and denounce that which is wrong?
One reason to do this is to be more clear that we ARE allies (or trying to be) of the oppressed and marginalized. I mean, why did Jesus spend SO much time condemning the Pharisees and rich and powerful of his time for their oppressive ways? Because it was needed, that was why.
Jesus praised the prophets (who also spoke out against the oppressive and wealthy abusers) and condemned the wealthy and powerful.
I praise Jefferson's words, Sojourner Truth, MLK, Frederick Douglass, Langston Hughes, Helen Keller, Rachel Carson and the various heroes of our nation's history all the time. AND I condemn Jefferson's actions, the racists, the oppressors, the wealthy abusers of power.
Like Jesus. What's wrong with that?
Or, looking at it another way: When I go on and on and on and on about John Muir, John Burroughs, Thoreau, King and the other historical figures I cite regularly, do you NOT view that as praising our nation's history and heroes?
re: Craig's repeated concern about me saying, "We see..." I noticed this headline today from a very conservative Liz Cheney...
"Liz Cheney Says ‘History Is Watching’ As GOP Leaders Try To Punish Her For Telling Truth"
We see, indeed.
"I care because healthy people opting not to get a vaccination are putting lives at risk other than their own. Why WOULDN'T I care?"
No, they're not.
"That is, the experts are saying that healthy people choosing not to vaccinate are posing a threat to less healthy people."
Then they're clearly not experts. Sick people might be a threat to less healthy people, but healthy people are not. What's more, those same "experts" like to give the impression that being vaccinated makes one healthier than the non-vaccinated, but insist they remain masked. Further, by the reckoning of your "experts", vaccinations will make the less healthy healthier, so it is they who need to be vaccinated, not the healthy.
"Why not? It's a simple question, reasonable in the context of a world wild pandemic that has killed hundreds of thousands of people."
Sure. It's no big deal. But since it's you asking, I'm not going to respond because you actually believe it's killed hundreds of thousands of people in this country. You can choose to believe I have or haven't been vaccinated. I don't much care, especially since you chose not to divulge your own status before or after asking.
"The reason I ask you specific conservatives is because you represent a small little cross section of conservatives - some who are fans of Trump and more prone to believe and pass on conspiracy theories and others who are less conspiracy-minded, less fans of Trump, but still in the mix of white evangelical conservatives."
"Conspiracy theories"? You mean like Russian collusion, Trump's a racist, cops are racists, Bush went to war in Iraq for oil, the 2016 Dem primaries were rigged against Bernie Sanders, racism and patriarchy are products of the GOP....? Those conspiracy theories?
"Perhaps you're just so focused on pushing back against my criticism of the failures that you can't see or notice it when I do it?"
Perhaps you're just so focused on the negatives your rare attention to the positives just doesn't stand out.
"Yes, I prefer stating things directly and accurately, not using the euphemisms that white supremacists and their allies have used over the centuries to gaslight."
Like who?
"Were you not aware of that sort of language being used by white nationalists and their ilk?"
There's so few of them they don't stand out. Which ones do you have in mind and how many followers do they have?
"One reason to do this is to be more clear that we ARE allies (or trying to be) of the oppressed and marginalized."
You don't really spend much time on truly marginalized and/or oppressed people. You engage in something far less noble, and it is manifested here in your rejection and rationalization of the fact that the lefty media exploits cases of cops shooting blacks who resisted arrest or were otherwise combative...generally because they're thugs...while almost never reporting on similar cases of white suspects getting shot by cops. You want to pretend it's a sign of systemic racism or some such crap, when it's no more than rank race-hustling on the part of the enemy of the people.
Craig and Marshal both complained that I don't say enough positive about our nation's history, and yet, looking at their blogs, I find MUCH less positive commentary about our nation's history and actions (a quick look, I didn't find much of anything) and instead, they primarily focus on their problems with liberal ideas (which, I'd argue, ARE a great part of American history!)
Sooo... I don't know, is that hypocrisy?
Sounds like a duck to me.
"I find MUCH less positive commentary about our nation's history and actions"
We're too busy correcting your anti-America drivel. As to "liberal ideas", they're the reason the nation is so troubled.
Liberal ideas. You know, like ending slavery. Like public schools. Like a 40 hour work week. Like Letting women and black people have the vote. Like child labour laws. Like human rights. Like Religious liberty, Meaning both freedom of religion and freedom from religion. Like opposing oppression. Those liberal ideas are troubling our nation?
I don't think so.
"I care because healthy people opting not to get a vaccination are putting lives at risk other than their own. Why WOULDN'T I care?"
Really, healthy people under the age of 70 are putting "people at risk"? What is the risk of a healthy person between 40-60 passing on COVID provided they follow reasonable precautions? We already know that the actual risk to healthy people in that age range is minimal anyway. So, tell me what the level of risk that has you so worried is?
"That is, the experts are saying that healthy people choosing not to vaccinate are posing a threat to less healthy people."
More risk than following the precautions we've been following for the last 14 months?
"Why in the world should any of us tell you?"
"Why not? It's a simple question, reasonable in the context of a world wild pandemic that has killed hundreds of thousands of people."
That's not a reason. Again, why should we tell you personal information?
"In hearing the news stories about 30% of people who say they won't get vaccines - and not really knowing anyone like that except for those who have health reasons not to or who are reasonably skeptical of medical systems due to real-world events like the Tuskegee Study atrocity. I'm honestly interested in IF you all got vaccines and IF not, what you might have to say about why."
So I was right, it's about confirming your preconceptions and prejudices.
IF, I chose or choose NOT to get a vaccine the primary reason would be because it's still experimental and hasn't been fully approved yet. If I was a woman who was pregnant or wanted to become pregnant I likely wouldn't take it due to lack of testing. Given the microscopic risk to young children, I would be unlikely to get my kids vaccinated without much more testing.
"But don't answer it, it's not a big deal. I'm not doing anything with it. Like I said, I'm just curious. When I'm curious about things, I ask."
Yes you do ask. You just rarely answer.
Would it be safe to assume that you have gotten yours, and still wear at least one mask even when outdoors?
It's not hypocrisy, it's that I don't spend a lot of time writing about ANY aspects of American history, although I have written about bad policies.
https://fee.org/articles/the-origins-of-the-public-school/
https://bebusinessed.com/history/history-40-hour-workweek/
https://www.history.com/news/african-american-voting-right-15th-amendment
https://www.nfrw.org/women-suffrage
https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2017/article/history-of-child-labor-in-the-united-states-part-2-the-reform-movement.htm
https://www.heritage.org/religious-liberty/commentary/caving-bullies-over-religious-belief
https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/04/05/this-teacher-says-left-has-turned-public-schools-into-indoctrination-centers/
https://eternian.wordpress.com/2015/11/20/liberalism/
The above links are in reference to Dan's comment on May 7, 2021 at 12:08 PM and ends with one that references my truthful comment regarding how leftism harms the nation. Each of these are suitable for separate posts should anyone care to opine on them. This post is about the leftist media purposely highlighting only stories about blacks being killed during confrontations with police to push the false "systemic racism" narrative.
Craig...
"healthy people under the age of 70 are putting "people at risk"? What is the risk of a healthy person between 40-60 passing on COVID provided they follow reasonable precautions? We already know that the actual risk to healthy people in that age range is minimal anyway. So, tell me what the level of risk that has you so worried is?"
According to the experts...
"Older people and those living with chronic medical conditions such as heart disease and diabetes are more likely to experience severe — even fatal — cases of COVID-19 if they catch it. The more people who receive the coronavirus vaccines, the sooner vulnerable people can feel safe among others."
https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/covid19-vaccine-hesitancy-12-things-you-need-to-know
"Infectious disease specialists and public health officials often talk about herd immunity, which refers to the effectiveness of immunization when the vast majority of people have been vaccinated against a disease.
One of the key ways herd immunity works is by minimizing the number of people who are at risk of catching the disease, thus diminishing its power to spread.
When someone who is not vaccinated against a particular disease come into contact with that disease, the spread becomes exponential if other people in the community are not vaccinated against it either. Every non-vaccinated person they meet – and in turn, every non-vaccinated person they meet – is vulnerable.
More important, certain children and adults with weak immune systems--whether because of chemotherapy for cancer, other medication or because they were born like that--often can’t get vaccinated. They are also at increased risk of complications from vaccine-preventable diseases and therefore need herd immunity to remain protected."
https://www.thechildren.com/health-info/conditions-and-illnesses/very-real-risks-avoiding-vaccinations
If you're asking me about specific numbers, I don't have them. I'm willing to listen to widespread medical experts. Do you have any hard numbers?
Or do you NOT have any hard data and you're hearing the experts say "get vaccinated to help protect others, if not yourself" and you're thinking, "Nah! What do experts know!?" or "Nah! Not unless they can give me numbers...!"
Craig... "Yes you do ask. You just rarely answer."
Says the guy who is specifically and literally opting NOT to answer. Who has a history of either NOT answering questions or RESPONDING to questions asked with "answers" that don't address the question being asked.
I know you don't see it. I'm just pointing it out again so maybe, one day your eyes will open.
Dan,
The evidence of my answering your questions at length and in detail is legion. I've literally got entire posts of my answering your questions in a simple direct Q-A format. I've also got at least one post, with questions you've dodged over a period of weeks.
The fact that I choose not to answer one, specific, personal, question in this relatively public forum is just a smoke screen.
" What is the risk of a healthy person between 40-60 passing on COVID provided they follow reasonable precautions? We already know that the actual risk to healthy people in that age range is minimal anyway. So, tell me what the level of risk that has you so worried is?"
Meanwhile, these questions remain unanswered. If your "experts" can't quantify the risk, then how can anyone be expected to make an informed decision?
"Would it be safe to assume that you have gotten yours, and still wear at least one mask even when outdoors?"
One more unanswered.
Yes. Of course, I've had my vaccine. I'm rational and can follow expert advice.
Yes, I'm still wearing my mask. I'm rational and can follow expert advice.
No, I’m not wearing a mask when outside. Because I'm rational and can follow expert advice.
Of course.
And yes, experts HAVE quantified the risk. There's little risk of healthy people taking the vaccine and there is larger risk of healthy people not taking the vaccine and causing harm to others by infecting them. Just read. Listen to the news. Go to CDC
""Liz Cheney Says ‘History Is Watching’ As GOP Leaders Try To Punish Her For Telling Truth""
But she wasn't telling the truth. At best, giving her the benefit of the doubt, she was speaking what she thought was the truth. Trump clearly and provably did NOT incite any rioting that day. He bears absolutely no responsibility for the actions of the demonstrators at the Capitol building. History will regard Cheney properly for her less than noble position.
The sorts of things that Cheney is saying that are getting her in trouble with the GOP are noting that the election was NOT stolen and that Trump, his collaborators and his useful idiots are spreading that Big Lie and it's dangerous. Like this...
"“The 2020 presidential election was not stolen. Anyone who claims it was is spreading THE BIG LIE, turning their back on the rule of law, and poisoning our democratic system,”
She IS telling the Truth. Trump is lying.
Have you bought the Big Lie, too? Are you a useful idiot or a conniving collaborator?
What does it say that this EXTREMELY conservative woman - more conservative than Elise Stefanik, the congresswoman that may replace Cheney in her role in the GOP?
What does it say that actual conservatives are getting kicked to the curb if they don't support your pervert king?
The GOP is soul-sick.
Dan,
Who is this "expert" whose advice you follow and insists a healthy person can infect anyone? Be specific.
"She (Cheney) IS telling the Truth. Trump is lying."
What proof do you have to make this claim? When has any of the evidence the election was stolen been proven to be without merit?
"Are you a useful idiot or a conniving collaborator?"
I'm neither. I among the millions who wonder why the evidence for the case of a stolen election never had a true hearing in court.
"What does it say that this EXTREMELY conservative woman - more conservative than Elise Stefanik, the congresswoman that may replace Cheney in her role in the GOP?"
Seems you didn't finish your thought...assuming you had one. What does it say that this woman...what? Are you about to pretend that because a conservative opposes Trump it means that opposition to Trump is rational? I hope you're not going with that lame crap!
"What does it say that actual conservatives are getting kicked to the curb if they don't support your pervert king?"
It means those conservatives haven't produce a sound argument for opposing a president whose term in office was inarguably the most conservative in recent memory. It means they lack sense and they lack backbone. In Cheney's case, it means she's an establishment Republican of the type many conservative Americans are keen on seeing replaced.
Cheney lied about Trump. You like lies about Trump, because you're a liar, too.
Oh....by the way, Dan. You are NOT "rational". The mere thought is laughable. Again, to which "expert" are you listening? Be specific. Name this expert (or "these" experts).
"Or do you NOT have any hard data and you're hearing the experts say "get vaccinated to help protect others, if not yourself" and you're thinking, "Nah! What do experts know!?"
Experts don't say this. They never say this. There's never been a time when people were encouraged to get a vaccine to "protect others". Never.
Marshal... "There's never been a time when people were encouraged to get a vaccine to "protect others". Never."
Do you really believe this? The question is, are you stupid or ignorant or just a liar? Read. Read and understand.
"And yes, experts HAVE quantified the risk. There's little risk of healthy people taking the vaccine and there is larger risk of healthy people not taking the vaccine and causing harm to others by infecting them."
Which still doesn't answer the questions as asked. I realize we all know it's virtually zero, but still...
At least you answered some questions clearly and directly, that's great for you.
"The 2020 presidential election was not stolen."
Was the 2016 election stolen?
"Do you really believe this?"
Why wouldn't I? It's the truth. Feel free to cite your source which justifies your contrary belief.
Was the 2016 election stolen...?
??
No. It was a legal election. We have deeply racist and problematic election rules that suppress city/urban/minority voting power, but it was legal. The GOP was rationally and morally negligent to nominate a depraved moron conman, but it was legal.
Why do you ask?
Name a racist election rule, Dan. While the GOP nominated Trump, the Dems put up Hillary Clinton, who dared tried to imitate a black dialect. Dan...a racist...dares speak of the speck in the GOP's eye.
Art,
Dan is rational by his personal definition of rational.
Dan,
"Why do you ask?"
I ask because Hillary and others in the DFL have regularly and repeatedly for an extended period of time claimed that the 2016 election was "stolen". I just assumed that you would have paid attention to what your candidate has been saying and apply the same standards to the DFL as you do to Trump.
FYI, it's a totally reasonable claim to make that the Sanders had the DFL nomination stolen from him in the 2016 election cycle.
"Dan is rational by his personal definition of rational."
That's true. It's like he's Christian by his personal definition of "Christian".
Art,
Bingo.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77i_pC3lp04
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2018/09/11/many-democrats-think-that-the-2016-election-result-was-rigged/
https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/26/four-years-later-bitter-hillary-clinton-claims-2016-election-was-stolen-from-her/
As recently as 2019 Hillary was claiming the election was "stolen" from her. It seems clear that saying an election was "stolen" isn't a problem.
Craig... "As recently as 2019 Hillary was claiming the election was "stolen" from her"
She's speaking of the problems of electoral college. She's not saying that it was literally illegally taken from her. Do you understand the difference?
The Electoral college gives more voting power to rural and white areas of the nation. Literally reducing black voting power. That would be one the examples of racist structures in place that the gop needs to have in order to stay viable.
Apartheid by another name.
Wow. That's beyond moronic. This is especially asinine from the very people who rant and fart on about "equity". The Electoral College is neither racist nor intended to be so. What an evil lie Dan tells.
In the meantime:
https://newspunch.com/hillary-popular-vote-fraud/
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2017/01/27/hillary-clinton-received-800000-illegal-votes-research-suggests/
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/12/the_myth_of_hillarys_popular_vote_victory.html
https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/its-official-clintons-popular-vote-win-came-entirely-from-california/
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trump-is-right-millions-of-illegals-probably-did-vote-in-2016/
Marshal, the electoral college LITERALLY has the effect of reducing the voting power of black folks, specifically, as well as urban people, generally. It advantages white folk and specifically disadvantages the black community. That is systemic racism, by definition. It's like treating black people as 3/5 of a person.
I GET that you don't understand systemic racism, but this is it.
The "effect" of random population disbursement is not in any way a feature of the Electoral College system, even if it is a consequence. That is to say, there's no way you can prove, or even suggest, that the intention of the process was to have such an effect. The reality is the rest of the nation is not disadvantaged by the densely populated areas dictating everything according their own desires without regard for the rest of the nation. The EC was not created with regard to who is in the densely populated areas or what their race is, only that they do not get special attention due to their larger population.
The notion that the electoral college disenfranchises minorities is absurd. The problems is that the EC is designed to give the states voices in the federal government, not to prioritize certain groups. Most people don't fully grasp the importance of the states in our federal system and how the founders prioritized states over individuals.
It was also not lost on me Dan's reference to the 3/5ths Clause and the leftist, racist lie about what it meant. While his kind were treating their slaves like property until they needed to treat them as people to get more representation they weren't giving to their slaves, those better people in government were forcing the truth that the southerners couldn't have it both ways.
Marshal... "That is to say, there's no way you can prove, or even suggest, that the intention of the process was to have such an effect."
Do you understand Institutional Racism? Do you recognize the reality that "intention to cause harm to one race" is NOT required for it to be Systemic or Institutional racism?
"Systemic racism includes the policies and practices entrenched in established institutions, which result in the exclusion or promotion of designated groups.
It differs from overt discrimination in that no individual intent is necessary.
It manifests itself in two ways:
Institutional Racism: Racial discrimination that derives from individuals carrying out the dictates of others who are prejudiced or of a prejudiced society
Structural Racism: Inequalities rooted in the system-wide operation of a society that excludes substantial numbers of members of particular groups from significant participation in major social institutions"
Educate yourself.
https://www.aclrc.com/forms-of-racism
Wow! I checked out your link and have to say it provoked quite a bit of laughter...until I realized just how freakin' dangerous it's "philosophies" are.
There definition of "systemic racism", which you presented above, suggests perceived consequences of a system, policy or procedure indicates racism. We here in the real world call that "bullshit". No intent means no racism. To view outcomes in this way suggests no need to determine the actual cause of whatever consequence has fallen under the definition of these morons.
To educate myself requires that I avoid the very people to whom you give such unjustified allegiance and respect. It would mean I desire to be as stupid as you intend to continue being. I prefer to deal in facts, truth and logic and not the blatherings of leftist asshats.
But that's just me.
Marshal... " No intent means no racism."
I'll let the rest of the world know that Marshal has spoken. "ALL HEED THE MIGHTY WHITE ONE, for he hath spoken!"
You'd get along grand at Klan rallies.
You should know that I have had beloved elderly family members who would say something about the "cute little N-word" and have NO intention of being racist, but it remains a racist thing to say.
You should understand that this IS what Institutional (structural, etc) racism IS, regardless of whether that hurts your little feelings.
IF a policy or system of policies have AS AN EFFECT, harmful results especially for people of a given RACE, THEN that is systemic RACISM. It's right there in the name. That you, as a privileged, candy-ass white guy don't LIKE it, doesn't mean a single thing. You're going to have to get over it, boy.
Geez, Lord! The arrogant privilege these types live with!
You didn't like the last article? Here's another. Man, you MUST get out of your little white privilege circles. LISTEN to black folks who disagree with you. Don't dismiss them all as stupid or Less Than you.
https://www.ted.com/playlists/250/talks_to_help_you_understand_r
https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2019/10/31/we-should-teach-about-racism-idea-thats-expressed-through-behaviors-rather
"I'll let the rest of the world know that Marshal has spoken. "ALL HEED THE MIGHTY WHITE ONE, for he hath spoken!""
Ah! I get it! Only black people know what racism means! If a black person says being named "Dan" is racist, then it is so!
"You should know that I have had beloved elderly family members who would say something about the "cute little N-word" and have NO intention of being racist, but it remains a racist thing to say."
I can't think of anything positive to say about a family that produced you, but that doesn't mitigate a thing I've said.
"You should understand that this IS what Institutional (structural, etc) racism IS, regardless of whether that hurts your little feelings"
Who said anything about hurt feelings? This is what institutional racism is to racists who are desperate to keep the flames of racism alive. Dopes like you buy into it.
"IF a policy or system of policies have AS AN EFFECT, harmful results especially for people of a given RACE, THEN that is systemic RACISM."
No. It is the excuse of those for whom standards or policies have been for one reason or another beyond their ability to meet. Unless you can show the intention was to prevent people of a particular race from achieving, then you're just full of crap. In the meantime, you'd also have to show that no one of the race you want to pretend is being racist fails to achieve under the same conditions. You're an idiot.
"That you, as a privileged, candy-ass white guy don't LIKE it, doesn't mean a single thing."
Aside from the fact that you're too candy-ass to survive calling me a candy-ass were you in front of me, there's nothing about me which makes me privileged that isn't also that which makes the average black, brown or any other colored person privileged as well. The difference is that I don't hang with whiners who blame others for their troubles. You evidently hang with candy-asses. In the meantime, what I don't like is pandering, white-guilted, self-loathing fake Christians presuming leftist race-hustling is reality.
"You didn't like the last article? Here's another. Man, you MUST get out of your little white privilege circles. LISTEN to black folks who disagree with you. Don't dismiss them all as stupid or Less Than you."
I don't like any articles you post! They're routinely moronic and validate my low opinion of you, despite my patient hope you'll at least accidentally someday redeem yourself. I don't exist in any "little white privilege circle" because there's no such thing as white privilege. That's just the lies of the race-hustler and the cowed white sheep who buy into bullshit. (That would be you)
And I DO listen to blacks who disagree. That's how I know they're full of shit. I compare what they say to intelligent black people and in doing so I'm unable to deny how full of shit they are. So, yeah. They're stupid and just your level of intelligence, so I'm not surprised you find them appealing. And aside from your troll, you're the only person I feel compelled to regard as "less than" me.
And by the way, providing more race-hustling bullshit (your latest two links) in an attempt to validate the race-hustling bullshit you've already presented only serves to double-down on your race-hustling indoctrination. Right from the start the first of the two presents a discussion referencing the deaths of blacks by cops as examples of racism. That's crap. Save it for your blog where only lies are allowed.
"She's speaking of the problems of electoral college. She's not saying that it was literally illegally taken from her. Do you understand the difference?"
Of course she is. Because "stolen" is clearly the way to refer to the electoral college operating as it was designed.
"The Electoral college gives more voting power to rural and white areas of the nation. Literally reducing black voting power. That would be one the examples of racist structures in place that the gop needs to have in order to stay viable."
This is a fascinating take. The reality is that, since we don't have anything that restricts "blacks" to certain states, the notion that the EC is intentionally racist is absurd.
The reality is that the founders wanted to vest power in the states, not the individual, and the EC is designed to give the states equal representation. This is because we don't have a democracy, we have a representative republic.
"The reality is that, since we don't have anything that restricts "blacks" to certain states, the notion that the EC is intentionally racist is absurd."
Ah! A much better way of expressing the stupidity of Dan's claim than was my attempt. Well done.
Post a Comment