Like Morgan Freeman, I never favored a "Black History Month". (I totally oppose the Perv Pride Month every June, but that's another issue altogether). American History is all we need, and frankly, it makes no sense to national unity to divide, does it? And that's the effect of any month that honors one segment of society.
Now, I have no problem with the notion of reviewing how we teach American history. History is expanding all the time. Events of importance can be supplanted by more recent events whose impact on America are greater than those supplanted events of importance. The same is true of people, as the impact an individual or group has on the direction of our culture can be of greater benefit to the nation than the work of some previously regarded as great. There's a degree of subjectivity in determining any of it, and again, it's a worthy debate to decide which is essential in teaching our kids about this nation. I'd say the same is true of world history, but I'm beginning to stray from what I intended to say.
We're constantly inundated with reminders of just how evil America has been when the subject of race relations comes up. Few would disagree with the fact that how black people have been treated throughout American history has been less than honorable, less than equal, less than Christian. But unfortunately, this usually comes with the charge that such treatment of one race against another is one-sided or unique to the white race. There is no shortage of examples throughout human history which prove this is untrue. Just as unfortunately is how those examples are ignored in order to focus on the behavior of a single race, which is then exploited by the unsavory, resulting in the scabs being constantly picked and the wounds never fully healing...the division never fully narrowing. While doing so, certain aspects of Black History in America is ignored. Whether this is intentional or not I won't attempt to discern at this time (if ever).
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2022/02/black_history_month_is_appropriate_time_for_the_truth.html
The link above is to an AmericanThinker article I found fascinating and illuminating. More so the links with in it, particularly the second one. It's rather lengthy, but it references sources which one who cares can search out to confirm what it contains. And what it contains are aspects of Black History I don't believe those who promote the concept care to know or reveal if they did.
My point in highlighting this information is not necessarily a "what about" ploy. But upon reading the article I am wondering if those who continue to lambast the white race are willing to put alongside white atrocities the atrocities of their own. We hear all the time...ad nauseum... of how badly whites behaved throughout history. The crimes of the white man against non-whites are well known, to say the least. Indeed, they can't shut up about it. The fragile, self-loathing white-guilted can't stop begging forgiveness stupidly insisting all whites are responsible somehow and obliged to make good for the misdeeds of people long dead.
So if all that is true, then it seems quite reasonable, just...indeed "equitable"...to expect those descended from the non-whites described in the article and its links (as well as those who look like them regardless of whether or not their families were around during that time...mine having come to this country only two generations before me) to acknowledge their role in the suffering of those who are the only people who have any right to suggest they're the progeny of the oppressed.
One can easily see how this complicates the whole notion of "reparations". What should be seen is that the widespread dissemination of this unspoken history has greater potential to dissipate the racial divide, as it demonstrates how race has no real effect on man's inhumanity to man and to constantly harp on racial differences is to constantly focus on that which is irrelevant, insignificant and only useful for keeping the flame of hate burning.
VERY IMPORTANT ADDENDUM:
The following link showed up in an AmericanThinker article today. It's from 2019 right after the destructive 1619 Project came out. It's a good analysis of the stupidity of the whole thing, as well as of those who find it compelling...the progressives. Reading through it, one will find familiar BS which one particular progressive...a "proggie" as the author labels them...perpetuates routinely on the blogs:
https://www.bookwormroom.com/2019/08/26/the-1619-project-reframing-history-redefining-racism/
163 comments:
Reparations? Do you mean from blacks to whites, to compensate for the fact that black-on-white crime, including violent crime and murder, is more than ten times the inverse? Yeah, I suppose we could discuss reparations, but I'm not keen to blame an entire race for the past actions of a minority of them. And note that those crimes are much more recent than the crimes of slavery.
Go to China and see how they treat blacks who aren't named LeBron. Overall, we have a spectacularly non-racist society.
Well, Neil. One could make the case that racism is making a big comeback, but it's due to the efforts of race-hustlers and the moronic "white-guilt" people pleading for it.
As some have said when reviewing the latest hate hoaxes, the demand for racism vastly exceeds the supply, so they have to make stuff up. Exhibit A: Jussie Smollett.
They can't get enough!
It seems strange that the call for reparations is so limited in scope. If one looks at the slave trade as a whole, throughout history, it seems strange to focus on one small group of slave owners while ignoring the vast majority of those who practiced slavery and facilitated the slave trade.
I think that it's reasonable to conclude that it's possible to teach history in a way that illustrates the positive and the negative in all societies, and looks at things in the context of the big picture span of history.
The info presented also complicates the issue with regard who today is truly due if we're going to presume anyone is in the first place. And that's restricting the notion to only the American population. There has been no one else who has ever been suggested as obligated but the American white man, so far as I've ever heard, yet that would clearly be untrue even if we agreed that people not guilty should pay to those to whom no debt is owed.
Craig... "I think that it's reasonable to conclude that it's possible to teach history in a way that illustrates the positive and the negative in all societies"
? I suppose you all know that there is no data, at least that I've heard of, that suggests that the 1619 project and people who support such efforts are wanting to present ONLY the negative side ONLY of the US and ONLY of white people in the US? You recognize that as a reality, I suppose? Because you're talking as if you think the 1619 project and such efforts as only wanting to talk about negative stuff in the US. There is no data to support such claim, if that's what you're trying to suggest.
Indeed, it seems like precisely the sort of white fragility privileged in fear of facing even reasonable criticism of US history and you all seem to conflate that with an attack on all of US history and all of white people. That isn't happening.
Quick question: Have a single one of you scholars even READ the 1619 Project?
Also, Marshal... "We're constantly inundated with reminders of just how evil America has been when the subject of race relations comes up. Few would disagree with the fact that how black people have been treated throughout American history has been less than honorable, less than equal, less than Christian."
The kidnapping, enslaving, forced labor, rape, abuse, oppression, murder, denial of basic human rights of people is "less than honorable..."? Are you kidding me?
THAT is part of the problem. The treatment of Africans and their descendants who were enslaved and oppressed is nothing less than a great evil, a skidmark on US history. We MUST begin with that reality. BEGIN with acknowledging that, and you might be able to begin to be treated as a rational adult.
Good Lord in heaven!
Marshal... "But unfortunately, this usually comes with the charge that such treatment of one race against another is one-sided or unique to the white race."
In OUR US history, it has been one-sided. Black people did NOT enslave, rape, abuse, murder and oppress white people systematically. Black people did not deny civil rights to white people systematically. What in the hell are you talking about?
No one - and stop right there. Read that closely and understand it: NO ONE (ie, NOT ONE PERSON IN ALL THE UNIVERSE EVER IN ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY) is saying that there are not people of all races who misbehave. But that is not within the scope of the 1619 Project. The purpose of that is to address the systemic and other racism, oppression and harm caused to black people AS a people in our real world history, as a matter of policy by the white men in power.
So, I don't know what you think they should be doing differently. You've already allowed how it's okay to reconsider our real history and not turn a blind eye to the "less than good" treatment of black people. That's what the 1619 Project attempts to do.
The 1619 Project is not accurate history. It has at its purpose the intention of presenting that inaccurate...false...history as fact. And as you have such a tingle in your lady parts for historians, it's useful to consider their rejection of this farce called The 1619 Project...and rightly so:
https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/174140
https://www.dailywire.com/news/historians-shred-nyt-1619-project-claiming-slavery-defines-america
https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/12/18/these-historians-challenge-new-york-times-dubious-1619-project/
https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2022/01/24/the-1619-false-history-project/
https://nypost.com/2020/01/24/scholars-are-eviscerating-the-new-york-times-1619-project/
https://www.historians.org/publications-and-directories/perspectives-on-history/march-2022/the-danger-of-a-single-origin-story-the-1619-project-and-contested-foundings
I have no confidence you (Dan) will bother with these links anymore than you do with others I post, despite your demand for a level of data, support and evidence you never provide yourself, and these also contain overlaps, too, but all have things the others don't. Bottom line, no actual student or teacher of history regards this broad's "project" as a serious study worthy of forcing down the throats of unsuspecting school kids.
In any case, as we see in testimonies of these historians, Jones' offering does indeed present ONLY negatives, even when the negatives are actually factual.
On a bit of side note, I considered including an Atlantic article, but as I got far enough to experience an inability to stomach continuing, the Atlantic being routinely the cause of gastric distress, I came upon a comment by Jones. This article was really no better than a defense, speaking on the response of the New York Times to critics of Jones' article, with all the distortions and falsehoods one can expect in one lefty rag defending another. In it, Jones' laments none of the historians contacted her with their claims before publishing their criticisms. The irony, of course, is that she apparently contacted none of the historians before submitting her work for publication.
So, there is plenty of data to support the claim in the testimonies of historians who confirm the claim. The response to it demonstrates the real fragility and fear from those race-hustlers and white-guilted, self-loathing proponents of "white privilege" when intelligent people call them on their racist bullshit.
1. Marshal, I am well aware that some historians disagree with some parts of this. I've read the Atlantic article, for instance.
2. I repeat: HAVE YOU READ IT? Do you even know what you're talking about?
3. Unless you can state unequivocally that slavery and the racism that has oppressed black people in the US for most of our last several centuries is a clear and overt evil, why do you think anyone would take you as a serious critic?
"Quick question: Have a single one of you scholars even READ the 1619 Project?"
Quick answer: Why would I want to read that which historians roundly regard as crap? I prefer accurate, honest history. From all indications, Jones' work is not and seems not to have chosen to make the attempt. Thus, I prefer reading history as presented by actual historians.
"The kidnapping, enslaving, forced labor, rape, abuse, oppression, murder, denial of basic human rights of people is "less than honorable..."? Are you kidding me?"
You're like a fish on a hook. I don't feel compelled to wet myself at the slightest mention of this topic, nor do have any need with a lefty moirologist like you always at the ready to oversell it, which you proceed to do once again with your next paragraph. "Good Lord in heaven! Oh, the humanity!" Spare me your false sanctimony.
"In OUR US history, it has been one-sided."
On this topic it certainly has, as my initial link clearly describes. You'll ignore that in order to perpetuate your white-guilt, race-hustling focus on white-black crimes throughout our history, when the point of this is the fact of blacks enslaving blacks during the same period. Now, as with then, your kind continue to ignore black on black crime, as well as black on white crime. Honorable, honest people deal in man's inhumanity to man. That was the case back then, it continues now, and jackwagons like you can't get with the program. Thus, race relations continue to suffer gaping wounds.
"No one...is saying that there are not people of all races who misbehave."
Setting aside your unjustified condescension, Jones, and people like her...and you...are NOT saying much of anything regarding all those who fought for the rights of the enslaved while those like you (because it's ALWAYS those like you) oppressed the enslaved. You ignore how they got here, and who sent them and how they came to be in a position to do so. My link in the post explains it all quite nicely and no one - and stop right there. Read that closely and understand it: NO ONE can speak of the one without the other, which you race-hustlers always do when speaking on our history.
"So, I don't know what you think they should be doing differently."
How about speaking honestly on the subject without the racial bias? That would be a great start. Jones does not do this. Those "black voices" you demand we lend our ears do not. YOU do not. That's not history Jones is spewing. It's racist hatred.
"1. Marshal, I am well aware that some historians disagree with some parts of this. I've read the Atlantic article, for instance."
No doubt you got that tingle again.
"2. I repeat: HAVE YOU READ IT? Do you even know what you're talking about?"
Most of it and far better than you on pretty much every subject we've covered over the years. That's painfully obvious.
"3. Unless you can state unequivocally that slavery and the racism that has oppressed black people in the US for most of our last several centuries is a clear and overt evil, why do you think anyone would take you as a serious critic?"
Because I actually cite legitimate sources of accurate history to back up my positions, and rational, honest people don't require that I feign emotion to hold a position on the subject which is clearly superior to yours. Plus, they'd know they won't be deleted if they object in a manner that is sound and beyond my ability to counter with fact, reason and logic on some lame pretense. They won't be asked to do what I wouldn't and don't do myself. They won't be subject to double-standards I find self-serving. They know I won't lie.
Wow
Yeah. Wow.
Craig, Neil? Are there NO conservatives here who don't have the basic human decency (let alone Christian mettle) to condemn the treatment of POC in US history - through the rape, torture, murder and oppression of slavery to the other corrupt racist attitudes throughout the centuries - as a clear and horrifying evil, and not some denying of it by saying, "It was less than ideal..."?
Can't you call evil, EVIL? Can't you condemn a fellow conservative who won't take the very basic step to acknowledge that great evil as a great evil?
What happened to the decent, rational, moral conservatives of my parents' generation?
"I suppose you all know that there is no data, at least that I've heard of, that suggests that the 1619 project and people who support such efforts are wanting to present ONLY the negative side ONLY of the US and ONLY of white people in the US? You recognize that as a reality, I suppose?"
Once again, you "suppose" wrongly.
I have no problem teaching (accurately) the blemishes found in the history of the US. Failing to do so doesn't provide an accurate picture of history, and it prevents later generations from repeating the mistakes and failures of their forefathers.
The key is to teach history accurately, the 1619 project and it's creator have acknowledged sacrificing accuracy for advocacy.
"The treatment of Africans and their descendants who were enslaved and oppressed is nothing less than a great evil, a skidmark on US history."
But not only US history. I guess acknowledging that reality isn't particularly important. Perhaps acknowledging that the US didn't exist in i619 isn't particularly important either.
"Black people did NOT enslave, rape, abuse, murder and oppress white people systematically. Black people did not deny civil rights to white people systematically. What in the hell are you talking about?"
Which ignores the fact that black people enslaved other black people for much longer than the period in which parts of the US allowed slavery.
Craig... "not only US history. I guess acknowledging that reality isn't particularly important..."
Read. Understand:
NO ONE IS SAYING NOW NOR HAS SAID IN ALL OF RATIONAL HISTORY THAT Africans who enslaved other Africans to sell to Western nations and others (ie, not just the US) were not wrong to do so.
Do you understand that reality? No one is saying that others who took part in slaving people were not also wrong.
What I'm saying is that black people in the United States did not systemically and with the power of law enslave and oppress others. Yes, there were isolated black slave owner owners. No one is saying that didn't exist nor that they weren't also wrong.
Do you understand that reality?
Good God, have mercy.
Can you denounce those who would say that enslaving people and the other racist oppressive actions towards black people in our history was NOT a great evil.? Can you agree that it was, indeed, a great atrocity and evil against human rights? Why not say so?
Shall we teach about Frederick Douglass and his fiery denunciations of the US for the evil of slavery? Of his fiery denunciations of the American church which defended and lent aid to slavers?
From the "What is the Fourth of July to the Slave?" speech by Frederick Douglass...
"...This, for the purpose of this celebration, is the 4th of July.
It is the birthday of your National Independence, and
of your political freedom.
This, to you, is what the Passover was to the emancipated people of God...
Fellow-citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask,
why am I called upon to speak here to-day?
What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence,
extended to us?
I say it with a sad sense of the disparity between us.
I am not included within the pale of this glorious anniversary!
Your high independence only reveals the immeasurable distance between us.
The blessings in which you, this day, rejoice, are not enjoyed in common.
The rich inheritance of justice, liberty, prosperity and independence,
bequeathed by your fathers,
is shared by you,
not by me.
The sunlight that brought life and healing to you, has brought stripes and death to me.
This Fourth of July is yours, not mine.
You may rejoice, I must mourn.
To drag a man in fetters into the grand illuminated temple of liberty, and call upon him to join you in joyous anthems, were inhuman mockery and sacrilegious irony.
Do you mean, citizens, to mock me, by asking me to speak to-day?
If so, there is a parallel to your conduct. And let me warn you that it is dangerous to copy the
example of a nation whose crimes, lowering up to heaven,
were thrown down by the breath of the Almighty,
burying that nation in irrecoverable ruin!
...In glaring violation of justice,
in shameless disregard of the forms of administering law,
in cunning arrangement to entrap the defenseless,
and in diabolical intent,
this Fugitive Slave Law stands alone in the annals of
tyrannical legislation...
A worship that can be conducted by persons who
refuse to give shelter to the houseless,
to give bread to the hungry,
clothing to the naked, and
who enjoin obedience to a law forbidding these acts of mercy,
is a curse, not a blessing to mankind...
...the church of this country is not only indifferent to the wrongs of die slave,
it actually takes sides with the oppressors.
It has made itself the bulwark of American slavery, and
the shield of American slave-hunters...
cont'd...
...They [the church] have taught that man may, properly, be a slave;
that the relation of master and slave is ordained of God;
that to send back an escaped bondman to his master is clearly the duty of all the followers of the Lord Jesus Christ;
and this horrible blasphemy is palmed off upon the world for Christianity.
For my part, I would say, Welcome infidelity! welcome atheism!
welcome anything—in preference to the gospel, as preached by those divines.
They convert the very name of religion
into an engine of tyranny, and barbarous cruelty,
and serve to confirm more infidels, in this age, than all the infidel writings of Thomas Paine, Voltaire, and Bolingbroke, put together, have done!
...In the language of Isaiah, the American church might be well addressed,
“Bring no more vain ablations;
incense is an abomination unto me:
the new moons and Sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with;
it is iniquity even the solemn meeting...
and when ye spread forth your hands I will hide mine eyes from you.
Yea! when ye make many prayers, I will not hear.
Your hands are full of blood; cease to do evil,
learn to do well; seek judgment;
relieve the oppressed; judge for the fatherless; plead for the widow.”
The American church is guilty, when viewed in connection with what it is doing to uphold slavery...
https://www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/speeches-african-american-history/1852-frederick-douglass-what-slave-fourth-july/
More "blasphemy" from Frederick Douglass that Marshal, perhaps, doesn't want taught because Douglass acknowledges what Marshal refuses to: that slavery was a great murderous, raping, child-stealing, family destroy hellish evil.
"“…I therefore hate the corrupt,
slaveholding,
women-whipping,
cradle-plundering,
partial and hypocritical Christianity of the land…
I look upon it as the climax of all misnomers,
the boldest of all frauds, and the grossest of all libels.
Never was there a clearer case of
‘stealing the livery of the court of heaven to serve the devil in.’
I am filled with unutterable loathing
when I contemplate the religious pomp and show,
together with the horrible inconsistencies,
which every where surround me.
We have men-stealers for ministers,
women-whippers for missionaries, and
cradle-plunderers for church members...
The slave prison and the church stand near each other.
The clanking of fetters and the rattling of chains in the prison, and
the pious psalm and solemn prayer in the church, may be heard at the same time.
The dealers in the bodies of men erect their stand in the presence of the pulpit,
and they mutually help each other.
The dealer gives his blood-stained gold to support the pulpit,
and the pulpit, in return,
covers his infernal business with the garb of Christianity.
Here we have religion and robbery the allies of each other—
devils dressed in angels’ robes, and
hell presenting the semblance of paradise...”
The more I read, the more I was led to abhor and detest my enslavers.
I could regard them in no other light than a band of successful robbers,
who had left their homes, and gone to Africa, and stolen us from our homes,
and in a strange land reduced us to slavery.
I loathed them as being the meanest as well as the most wicked of men."
https://bookriot.com/frederick-douglass-quotes/
Shall we ban F. Douglass from our nations' schools and his words from our white children's ears? Was Douglass wrong in his brutal indictment of the US and the white church as defenders of a great evil? You think you know more about slavery than Douglass??
Marshal... "Why would I want to read that which historians roundly regard as crap?"
Here's the Times response to the critique of the five (FIVE! Wow!) historians who disagreed with some of the facts...
"As the five letter writers well know, there are often debates, even among subject-area experts, about how to see the past. Historical understanding is not fixed; it is constantly being adjusted by new scholarship and new voices. Within the world of academic history, differing views exist, if not over what precisely happened, then about why it happened, who made it happen, how to interpret the motivations of historical actors and what it all means.
The passages cited in the letter, regarding the causes of the American Revolution and the attitudes toward black equality of Abraham Lincoln, are good examples of this. Both are found in the lead essay by Hannah-Jones. We can hardly claim to have studied the Revolutionary period as long as some of the signatories, nor do we presume to tell them anything they don’t already know, but I think it would be useful for readers to hear why we believe that Hannah-Jones’s claim that “one of the primary reasons the colonists decided to declare their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery” is grounded in the historical record."
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/20/magazine/we-respond-to-the-historians-who-critiqued-the-1619-project.html
The fact is, there are SOME historians who disagree with the 1619 Project and others who find it very solid historical analysis. Historians may well disagree on facts and interpretations. But what is also a fact is the claim: "historians roundly regard as crap..." is not a factual statement, but a stupidly partisan one. SOME HISTORIANS may disagree with SOME elements of the 1619 Project, but they don't speak for ALL historians.
How hypocritical to be lectured about slavery by a guy who's complicit in the murder of 800K unborn per year, to say nothing of born kids abused and murdered constantly in this country. This asshat...Dan...dares criticize that I would speak on this issue in any less than the Karen-level lamentations he prefers in order to posture as more caring. So while this fake Christian assumes that posture and questions my understanding of the subject..."You think you know more about slavery than Douglass??"...he presents no evidence that my knowledge is lacking in any way, particularly in a post where I've presented history of which his kind (truly the meanest as well as the most wicked of men for the very same reasons of which Douglass spoke about the Trabues of his time) have neither knowledge or a willingness to make known. To do so would destroy the race-hustling, white-guilt narrative which only exploits this less than honorable aspect of American history for profit. I have the sneaking suspicion Dan's over-the-top wailing about slavery may cover for aspects of the Trabue family history in America he'd prefer no one learn.
Dan thinks he's scored points by referencing Frederick Douglass, but what people like Dan forget or ignore is that Douglass's lecture career made him simply the most famous of those who traversed the nation and the world to speak on the cause of abolition. And to whom did they speak? Tons of white people who were already on board with the concept. I doubt any of them were like Dan, because Dan and the party he supports still use identity politics to draw support...they still exploit superficial differences to gain and maintain power. The abolitionists of that time were akin to the conservatives of ours...despite the leftist crap about them David W. Blight spews in his otherwise worthy Douglass biography (I may not regard it as worthy as I read more on Douglass in other books)...as with Douglass, seeing slavery and racism as no more than some men oppressing other men without regard to superficial and insignificant differences.
But what is blatantly and unmistakably clear is Dan's preference to speak not on the topic of the post the link therein provoked, but to laser in on a single rhetorical choice he takes out of context for no other reason than to believe he's found fault in me which justifies his unChristian attitudes toward conservatism...a philosophy of which he has no understanding.
The history of slavery and the racism it provoked is incomplete without understanding what came before it. What the race-hustlers and white-guilt girly men haven't the integrity, honesty or intelligence to consider, as they keep the flames of hatred alive, is the role played by other blacks, both prior to black slaves being delivered here as well as after. What the link in the post demonstrates is that, much like what we see today so clearly when we choose to be honest, is that the suffering of the black race is mostly due to the actions of other black people. That's not to excuse crimes by whites at all nor in any way. But if one truly cares about the suffering of black people (or any other group of people), all the facts are required and essential in order to fully understand how they came to suffer. Without doing so, other crimes take place. In this case, the notion that none of this could have happened were it not for the evil white man. That's clearly a abject and contemptible lie and a most pernicious an evil folks like Dan perpetuate as their support for the murder of the unborn.
I read the Times critique of more honest and knowledgeable people. Like Jones' work, it's crap. And despite the fact that there are clearly more than five historians who spoke against Jones' fiction, it doesn't provide examples of any historians who find value in that which is so flawed and full of stark falsehoods. As one of the critics stated, there's no evidence of any of the founders seeking independence in order to protect slavery. If it's in the historical record, where? Who proclaimed that as a reason to break from Great Britain?
It's crystal clear there is no one more racist than the race-hustling, white-guilt "anti-racist". There's something serious wrong...and evil...about anyone who spends their lives focused on past wrongs instead of joining with the majority who have rejected those wrongs in their own lives. Such people...and you're definitely among them...make me sick to my stomach. Such people are the reason the lives of so many in the black community don't improve.
You're a joke, Dan. A sad, pathetic joke.
You Use so many words to say so very little, Marshal. "Dan is bad. People who disagree with me are bad. People who Talk about racism are bad. Blah blah blah."
Simple questions, Marshal.
Do you think that Douglass was wrong about how I'm about how great an evil slavery was?
Do you think Douglass was wrong i suggesting that the majority of the church in the United States was complicit in this evil?
Why do you think you're in a better place to understand slavery than someone who actually lived through it and fought to end it?
Should Douglass' words be taught in schools today?
Marshal... "Dan's over-the-top wailing about slavery may cover for aspects of the Trabue family history in America he'd prefer no one learn."
? I have no idea what you're trying to say with that period I have been quite clear that in my family's past we have been slave owners and Killers of native peoples. The the history of white America is deeply stained with such realities. And that was a great evil for my ancestors to take part in.
What family history do you think I'm afraid of letting people learn about? Are you suggesting I should feel guilty for what my ancestors have done? None of this has ever been about making people feel guilty for what people did in the past that they had no part in. I don't know how to help you understand words, reality and stuff.
"You Use so many words to say so very little, Marshal."
So you so desperately need to believe. But it's just another lie. You simply lack the capacity to understand.
"Simple questions, Marshal."
Simple minded questions from a simple boy. There's no taking us on tangents. If you have a point, the questions are unnecessary. But you never have a point of any substance. You continue to ignore the point of the post in order to inflate the importance of my choice of words in describing America's past. If you don't understand the point of the post, simply say so and I'll use smaller words.
" I have no idea what you're trying to say with that period I have been quite clear that in my family's past we have been slave owners and Killers of native peoples."
Well OK then! Your family history provokes your guilt. It's still stupid of you, but if you think you owe, then pay and shut the hell up.
"Are you suggesting I should feel guilty for what my ancestors have done?"
It's clear you do feel guilty despite your claim to the contrary. But it's not enough for you, you demand we all feel guilty. If you didn't, you wouldn't be so fixated on race and insisting your betters are racists you actually are and all their positions flow from that racism.
You're a clown, Dan.
So, you know better than Douglass about slavery and racism and better than me about what I do and don't feel guilty about..?
That's not crazy.
Marshal... " If you didn't, you wouldn't be so fixated on race..."
I was opposed to slavery and recognized it as a great evil well before I ever knew about my family's history. Because of course I did. But don't let reality interfere with a great insane theory.
Marshal... " There's no taking us on tangents."
In YOUR post, YOU said...
"We're constantly inundated with reminders of just how evil America has been when the subject of race relations comes up. Few would disagree with the fact that how black people have been treated throughout American history has been less than honorable"
We're reminded of how awful and evil US treatment of enslaved Africans and enslaved black Americans and racist, systemic oppression of black people for hundreds of years, right into our lifetimes for the same reason that we remember how awful the Holocaust was: Because they were real atrocities that must not be repeated.
Do you understand that reality?
That's me responding to YOUR words in YOUR post. It's not tangential if I'm responding to YOUR words on YOUR post.
Do you understand that reality?
I'm thinking that you're thinking that the point of your post is that "black people have also misbehaved..." and I suspect that you're suggesting that "black people have been worse in their misbehaving."
If so, you're just nuts and delusional and completely detached from reality.
Come on, Neil, Craig, Stan, if you're out there: It's time for good conservatives to take a stand against their fellow conservatives when they're denying the real world oppression of black people.
Is there NO decency amongst modern conservatives?
THIS is why 80-95% of black people have run from the GOP.
Look Marshal, you've been caught. Whether or not your "conservative" comrades will condemn you or not, you're out of step with reality and decency and Christianity and justice. Slavery is and was a great evil in the US. White politicians throughout the first 200 years of our nation's history (and before) oppressed black people systemically, as a matter of law and popular convention and doing so was a great evil.
Black people in the US have not similarly enslaved or oppressed white people. You appear to be suggesting they have. That is the ultimate in gaslighting and white male fragility. You appear to be a little piece of toilet paper stuck to an idiot's ass, flapping in the wind and unable to withstand reason or a call for basic decency.
You want to be taken seriously by a majority of the rational world? Begin by making clear that you recognize the oppression of black people as an awful, evil reality. From there, you MIGHT be able to proceed to make some case about... whatever in the hell it is you're suggesting. But if you're completely devoid of basic human decency, Christian character or rational thinking, you'll just be a joke, written off in the same manner that the Klan and other losers from history have been written off. A pathetic joke.
God have mercy on your soul and may God open your blinded eyes.
"So, you know better than Douglass about slavery and racism and better than me about what I do and don't feel guilty about..?"
A really dumbass question.
Next.
"I was opposed to slavery and recognized it as a great evil well before I ever knew about my family's history. Because of course I did. But don't let reality interfere with a great insane theory."
Sure. Whatever you say.
To further dismantle your white fragility "arguments..."
"What should be seen is that the widespread dissemination of this unspoken history has greater potential to dissipate the racial divide, as it demonstrates how race has no real effect on man's inhumanity to man and to constantly harp on racial differences is to constantly focus on that which is irrelevant, insignificant and only useful for keeping the flame of hate burning."
1. WHAT "unspoken history..."? Are you suggesting that no one acknowledges that Africans took part in the slave trade, in kidnapping and selling Africans to feed to the market demand from western white people? No one has ever denied that happened. That's not "unspoken," it's just history.
That there were black slave owners? Again, no one I know of disputes that reality. However, one of the links within your weak-minded "source" notes...
"the colored community of Charleston City clung to the assumptions of the superiority of white blood and brown skin complexion."
Which leads to...
2. The racism that allowed and promoted and defended slavery of black people was deviant and diabolical in that it so thoroughly demonized "black-ness" that light-skinned slaves and former slaves sometimes bought into the white-centric, white power lies that lent support to the racism that allowed for slavery.
In short, that white policies and philosophies were successful enough to enslave and keep enslaved human beings and were successful in demonizing "black-ness" to the point that some light-skinned black people and often former slaves is only evidence of the evil of racism and slavery.
So, not sure what point you're trying to make with this reference, but it seems to only undermine your suggestion that US slavery and racism is not a great evil.
Read and be informed...
https://www.history.com/news/5-myths-about-slavery
More dismantling. Marshal... "What should be seen is that the widespread dissemination of this unspoken history has greater potential to dissipate the racial divide, as it demonstrates how race has no real effect on man's inhumanity to man and to constantly harp on racial differences..."
The facts:
1. Black people have been oppressed specifically and deliberately by white men in power and by a greater white culture, including the white church, by and large, for the vast majority of the hundreds of years we've lived on this continent.
2. There were systemic laws, policies and mores in place by the dominant white culture that directly and specifically, by design, denied basic human rights to black people and other people of color and other minority groups for the vast majority of our nation's history.
3. These laws, policies and mores were in place SPECIFICALLY about race. They were racist, by design, that allowed the enslaving and denial of rights specifically to black people, who were the targets of these laws, policies and mores.
Whether or not you are able to recognize these realities, they ARE the reality.
"So, you know better than Douglass about slavery and racism and better than me about what I do and don't feel guilty about..?
That's not crazy."
Where did I say I know better about slavery or racism than Douglass? Copy and paste it and cite the date and time of the comment. What's true is that I know more about both than you.
You can deny all you like your white-guilt...that's crazy. It won't help.
"What I'm saying is that black people in the United States did not systemically and with the power of law enslave and oppress others. Yes, there were isolated black slave owner owners."
Then you just contradicted yourself.
"That's me responding to YOUR words in YOUR post. It's not tangential if I'm responding to YOUR words on YOUR post."
That's you responding to something not related to what provoked by comment " There's no taking us on tangents."
"I'm thinking that you're thinking that the point of your post is that "black people have also misbehaved..." and I suspect that you're suggesting that "black people have been worse in their misbehaving.""
Well, that's a problem...believing yourself capable of rational, intelligent thought after years of evidence to the contrary. The point of my post is significant historical data is ignored, downplayed and for too many, unknown and the result is a skewed understanding of the issue of slavery in this country which has exacerbated the racial divide so important to people like you and other race-baiters.
Company's here. More later. Hold your water.
Marshal... "Where did I say I know better about slavery or racism than Douglass?"
Douglass makes it clear, over and over again, that slavery and white America and the white church support of it was a great evil. You can't agree with that very low bar.
Do you think that Douglass is wrong and you know better than him, when it comes to the corrupt, evil nature of slavery and racism? Or can you agree that slavery and the treatment of Africans and black Americans is (why do I even have to ask this??!) clearly, overtly, diabolically evil?
Again, as I've made clear: If you can't recognize this very simple, very obvious reality, then why would anyone take you seriously?
Marshal: "Then you just contradicted yourself. "
You failing to understand my words is not the same as me contradicting myself. You almost certainly can't point to a place where I contradicted myself.
white America and the white church support of it was a great evil.
The problem with this is that it is a broad brush logic fallacy. Not every white American supported slavery, nor did every white church. I'd say they weren't even in the majority except perhaps in the south.
Hundreds of thousands of white Americans, including my great-great-grandfather, fought (and thousands died and even more maimed for life) to eradicate slavery.
I don't feel a bit guilty for being a white person, nor am I a racist. None of my friends are racists either. But according to your ideology all whites are racists -- that's the whole teaching behind CRT.
Glenn... "The problem with this is that it is a broad brush logic fallacy. Not every white American supported slavery, nor did every white church."
1. It was almost exclusively White men who were in power for roughly the first 150 years of our nation, as well as the roughly 150 years before that. Just as a point of fact.
2. Likewise, the church had great authority throughout those 1st few centuries and that church was led almost exclusively by white men. Again, as a point of fact.
3. So, while every white man may not have supported slavery, The vast majority did not prevent it from happening. Slavery happened with the sanction and authority of white men and the white church. Again, as a point of fact.
4. No one is saying that you, as a modern white learn white man, should feel guilty personally for slavery. You weren't around to be responsible for it. Again, as a point of fact.
5. There is no fallacy in pointing out the facts as I've restated them. The facts are just the facts.
Glenn, have you readGlenn, have you read Frederick Douglas's words and are you familiar with them? Do you agree with them that celebrity was a great evil that happened because of because of the white people in power in power, in government and in church and in church and in society?
Can you agree that the slavery and oppression that happened against black people by white people was a great evil? Can you agree the slavery and racism that drove a lot of our policies for the 1st 200 years of our nation were a great evil?
"You almost certainly can't point to a place where I contradicted myself."
I'm clearly dealing with a moron. He responded earlier to one comment in a manner not related to the point the comment addressed, and now he wants me to point to a place he contradicted himself, when his objection is to a comment of his I quoted wherein he contradicted himself. To wit:
"What I'm saying is that black people in the United States did not systemically and with the power of law enslave and oppress others." ...which was immediately contradicted with... "Yes, there were isolated black slave owner owners." But somehow he wasn't contradicting himself. What's more, the first sentence clearly ignores the facts my post presented, especially by facts present in links within that article. If Danny-boy wants to assert that there were far more whites enslaving blacks in American history than there were blacks enslaving blacks, no one would disagree in the least, and the assertion would be a classic "No shit!" comment.
From here on, I will try to comment according to the date and time of the dumbass comments Dan's posted, so that accuracy of my response can be confirmed, and finding the context easy.
From Dan's comment on February 25, 2022 at 6:38 PM:
"Come on, Neil, Craig, Stan, if you're out there: It's time for good conservatives to take a stand against their fellow conservatives when they're denying the real world oppression of black people."
Which conservatives deny the reality of real world anything?? The important word here, again, is "reality", as if Dan's perception of reality is honesty, accurate or even more than just fantasy in his small mind.
"Is there NO decency amongst modern conservatives?"
Says a "progressive" complicit in the murder of about 800K innocent unborn every year in this country; is supportive of sexual perversion and disorder as a moral good, morally benign or equal in morality to normal sexual couplings within the boundaries of a legitimate marriage of one man and one woman; favors the government confiscation of a greater percentage of the wealth of some income levels over another in direct conflict with the American ideal of equal application of the law; supports open borders allowing without proper vetting foreigners of all sorts bad actors including terrorists and criminals, the transportation of illegal drugs into our country, the abuse of women and girls in transporting them illegally. This is just the top of the pops of this "progressives" notion of "decency".
"THIS is why 80-95% of black people have run from the GOP."
They're running back because of morons like you:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/black-men-drifted-democrats-toward-trump-record-numbers-polls-show-n1246447
From Dan's idiocy on February 25, 2022 at 7:34 PM:
"Look Marshal, you've been caught. Whether or not your "conservative" comrades will condemn you or not, you're out of step with reality and decency and Christianity and justice."
Not that you've ever been able to prove. Such failure is what you do best.
"Black people in the US have not similarly enslaved or oppressed white people. You appear to be suggesting they have."
I'm not "suggesting" it at all. You can't even point to any comment of mine which so much at hints at such a thing. Of course, now that I think of it, contemporary cases of blacks kidnapping and raping white women would qualify.
"That is the ultimate in gaslighting and white male fragility."
No. That's you desperately attempting to disparage someone with a better and honest and accurate grasp of the topic. Hard to imagine where even a low intellect person like you sees "fragility" in that. But you never cease to amaze.
"You appear to be a little piece of toilet paper stuck to an idiot's ass, flapping in the wind and unable to withstand reason or a call for basic decency."
How powerfully persuasive! How I "appear" to you is of little consequence and far less significance. Once again, you've proven you have no Christian understanding of "decency", so...
"You want to be taken seriously by a majority of the rational world?"
There you go again presuming you understand what "rational" means or looks like. Weren't you in "Dumb and Dumber"?
"Begin by making clear that you recognize the oppression of black people as an awful, evil reality. From there, you MIGHT be able to proceed to make some case about... whatever in the hell it is you're suggesting."
You so badly want to insist I have no understanding of the subject matter, don't you, Skippy? But then you admit you have no understanding of this post which isn't the least bit complex for an average adult to understand. It's really quite straightforward, plus I've reiterated what I'm...not "suggesting" in my post...but asserting quite clearly.
"But if you're completely devoid of basic human decency, Christian character or rational thinking," ...which I'm not, though I've pointed out how you are... "
you'll just be a joke, written off in the same manner that the Klan and other losers from history have been written off."
You mean the Democrats and progressives of the past. Why would I be written off as your kind has been, and as your kind is rejected by so many who try to immigrate to this country? You're funny.
"God have mercy on your soul and may God open your blinded eyes."
He will have mercy on my soul and has already opened my eyes decades ago. But it appears He's given you over to your reprobate mind. Rom 1:28
From Dan's inanity on February 26, 2022 at 12:32 PM:
"To further dismantle your white fragility "arguments...""
This is funny. You think you're going to "dismantle" arguments of mine you need to believe flow from some fictitious "white fragility". You're a pistol!! Of course, we just learned above that you don't even know what I'm "suggesting" with my post!! The laughs never end with you!!
"1. WHAT "unspoken history..."? Are you suggesting that no one acknowledges that Africans took part in the slave trade, in kidnapping and selling Africans to feed to the market demand from western white people? No one has ever denied that happened. That's not "unspoken," it's just history."
There's a vast chasm between a few people acknowledging some aspects of the history of the slave trade versus the common spread of that information in schools. It's barely mentioned with the same vigor behind what you're trying to assert is all we need to know: White men bad, black men poor victims. But then, such simplistic renderings of history are more easily digested by the simple minded progressive. It's clear that to dishonest fake champions of the black community, the full understanding of how things came to be complicate the leftist, race-hustling narrative.
"The racism that allowed and promoted and defended slavery of black people was deviant and diabolical in that it so thoroughly demonized "black-ness" that light-skinned slaves and former slaves sometimes bought into the white-centric, white power lies that lent support to the racism that allowed for slavery.
In short, that white policies and philosophies were successful enough to enslave and keep enslaved human beings and were successful in demonizing "black-ness" to the point that some light-skinned black people and often former slaves is only evidence of the evil of racism and slavery."
So today, we have the reverse. The light-skinned blacks are ostracized by the darker skinned blacks. Mulattoes of the leftist-persuasion (and you posted the words of just such a moron) are the mixed-race versions of the "self-loathing" white man. But what's more, is that you choose to believe the actions of the mulattoes and former slaves were compelled by southern white Democrat attitudes toward race, rather than simply human beings exploiting conditions to their personal advantage...as if they would not do so were there no racial issues whatsoever. Pretty condescending shit toward a people about whom you pretend to care so much.
"So, not sure what point you're trying to make with this reference, but it seems to only undermine your suggestion that US slavery and racism is not a great evil."
Not a reference of mine, but merely information from a lengthy link within the article in my post, which you lifted to further your twisted hatefulness. Further, I made no suggestion as you need to believe I did. Thus, this comment of yours constitutes two intentional lies.
From Dan's stupidity on February 26, 2022 at 12:33 PM:
"https://www.history.com/news/5-myths-about-slavery"
I've seen this many times. It has no relevance to my post. None of it is mentioned in the article to which I linked in my post, nor in any of the links the article provided.
'
From Dan's sad attempt to sound intelligent on February 26, 2022 at 1:05 PM:
"The facts:"
...which had no relevance to the truth presented in my quoted comment to which this crap was in response.
"Whether or not you are able to recognize these realities, they ARE the reality."
How nice.
Regarding Dan's laughable pomposity on February 26, 2022 at 7:11 PM:
"Douglass makes it clear, over and over again, that slavery and white America and the white church support of it was a great evil. You can't agree with that very low bar."
Why would I need to in a post to which it has no relevance? You brought up Douglass in a weak attempt to portray yourself as more knowledgeable and caring, not to address any facts I presented in my post. These are among the tangents you wish to take this thread due to your inadequacies in understanding the post. You want to make it as some racist meme, which is an intentional lie on your part.
"...can you agree that slavery and the treatment of Africans and black Americans is (why do I even have to ask this??!) clearly, overtly, diabolically evil?"
This from a fake Christian who can't find it in his black heart to oppose the treatment of the unborn as clear, overtly, diabolically evil. The asshole dares not only to condescend, but to condescend without just cause...and suppose I'm somehow obligated to respond. Well, I just did.
Glenn,
"The problem with this is that it is a broad brush logic fallacy. Not every white American supported slavery, nor did every white church."
But this fact obstructs the narrative of the self-loathing white "progressive", "White Man Bad".
"Hundreds of thousands of white Americans, including my great-great-grandfather, fought (and thousands died and even more maimed for life) to eradicate slavery."
Doesn't matter. White Man Bad!
"But according to your ideology all whites are racists -- that's the whole teaching behind CRT."
And that's all that matters to the fake Christian progressive. White Man Bad!! Learn it! Live it! We must become morons!!
Regarding Dan's response to Glenn on February 27, 2022 at 3:14 PM:
See Glenn? White Man Bad!!! That's all you need to remember. If you don't wear sackcloth and ashes at the mere mention of black slavery and oppression, you're a racist. You must scream out your opposition at every utterance regarding black slavery and oppression. There is no way to convince the fake Christian "progressive" of your opposition any other way but to express extreme lamentations...while also supporting the murder of 800,000 unborn ever year. Otherwise you're another Bad White Man!
These responses and non answers are just bizarre.
You can't even make the minimal acknowledgment that slavery was a great evil. That white male leaders with the support of the voting white male population created these laws and policies - with the support of the white church- that were evil.
That no one is saying all white men are bad. But it WAS factually white men who created these policies, along with support from the white church. These are all just reality. You can't even address/acknowledge the reality of it all or acknowledge how evil it was???
Do you not understand how deeply weird this is?
From Dan's unjust condescension on February 27, 2022 at 4:56 PM:
"You can't even make the minimal acknowledgment that slavery was a great evil."
What's "bizarre" is your insistence that I must simply because you demand I do, as if you actually have a legitimate reason to suppose I disagree.
"Do you not understand how deeply weird this is?"
What I understand is that "this" has no relevance to the post, its point, the article which prompted it, nor any of the info provided within it. It's just you doing what you do: changing the subject in order to present yourself as morally superior (*snicker*). Such pseudo-sanctimony doesn't impress and has no value of any kind, especially coming from a schmuck who can't find it within himself to acknowledge what I would insist is a far greater evil given the greater vulnerability of the victims of abortion, or who, if you were actually an honest man, you would refer to as "the oppressed". You're truly contemptible.
Trabue:
1. It was almost exclusively White men who were in power for roughly the first 150 years of our nation, as well as the roughly 150 years before that. Just as a point of fact.
But only a minority of such people were pro-slavery throughout the entire history of the USA!!!
2. Likewise, the church had great authority throughout those 1st few centuries and that church was led almost exclusively by white men. Again, as a point of fact.
Again, even in the church, only a minority of people supported slavery.
3. So, while every white man may not have supported slavery, The vast majority did not prevent it from happening. Slavery happened with the sanction and authority of white men and the white church. Again, as a point of fact.
The vast majority didn’t have the wherewithal to prevent slavery, just like the vase majority of us today don’t have the wherewithal to stop the continual slavery in Africa! But guess what, when a leader took over and said let’s fight slavery with the Army, the vast majority of people in the north especially, joined in the battle. Large numbers in the south also were against it but were afraid of what would happen to them until the Northern armies were among them and then they either joined them or helped them in whatever way they could. You really should study history — real history vs “1619” garbage.
4. No one is saying that you, as a modern white learn white man, should feel guilty personally for slavery. You weren't around to be responsible for it. Again, as a point of fact.
Perhaps you need to see what the CRT propaganda is teaching students.
5. There is no fallacy in pointing out the facts as I've restated them. The facts are just the facts.
It is a fact that SOME white people supported slavery, and SOME white Christians supported it, but when you make the broad statements that whites and the white church supported it then it is indeed a logic fallacy of broadbrushing.
Douglas’ words were also broad brush as if ALL whites in power, etc were guilty.
Yes slavery is a great evil by you and your ilk DOWNPLAY and virtually ignore the fact that American slavery only existed because black Africans sold their own people into slavery then and now.
The real problem is the need to view it all from a racist perspective as the progressive left race-hustlers and white-guilt namby-pambies insist on doing. It's not enough to simply regard it as man's inhumanity to man; it's not enough to acknowledge how few actually think in terms of racial animus toward those of another race; it's not enough to simply promote brotherhood and unity rather than absurd "anti-racism"; it's not enough for the progressive racists that non-proggies simply aren't racist.
Glenn... "only a minority of such people were pro-slavery throughout the entire history of the USA!!!"
Support this claim. Or admit you can't.
Glenn... "Again, even in the church, only a minority of people supported slavery."
Again, support it. Or admit you can't support it.
I wonder what even makes you think you can make these claims? Wishful thinking based on a fragile white male ego? Why is it so hard to admit that white men prior to the 1900s were clearly, by and largely, okay with the evils of racism and slavery?
Glenn... "slavery is a great evil by you and your ilk DOWNPLAY and virtually ignore the fact that American slavery only existed because black Africans sold their own people into slavery"
Again, prove it
"What I'm saying is that black people in the United States did not systemically and with the power of law enslave and oppress others. Yes, there were isolated black slave owner owners. No one is saying that didn't exist nor that they weren't also wrong."
Ahhhhhh, the contradict myself gambit.
This notion that somehow slavery in the US must be separated from all other slavery throughout world history as especially heinous, seems strange to me. The fact that folx are obsessed with slavery that happened 150 years ago, but silent on slavery happening in 2021, seems strange to me. Or at the very least, the fact that folx are spend much more time and effort on events of the past, than slavery in the present, seems strange.
FYI, Dan you have absolutely zero standing to tell anyone what they should do. Especially since you (in the quote above) won't do what you demand others do.
Thank goodness. Unlike Dan's evil ancestors, my Cherokee ancestors are off the hook, and the other side of my lineage didn't even show up until after 1900.
" Of all the tragic facts about the history of slavery, the most astonishing to an American today is that, although slavery was a worldwide institution for thousands of years, nowhere in the world was slavery a controversial issue prior to the 18th century. People of every race and color were enslaved – and enslaved others. White people were still being bought and sold as slaves in the Ottoman Empire, decades after American blacks were freed.
[snip]
Everyone hated the idea of being a slave but few had any qualms about enslaving others. Slavery was just not an issue, not even among intellectuals, much less among political leaders, until the 18th century – and then it was an issue only in Western civilization. Among those who turned against slavery in the 18th century were George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry and other American leaders. You could research all of the 18th century Africa or Asia or the Middle East without finding any comparable rejection of slavery there. But who is singled out for scathing criticism today? American leaders of the 18th century.
Deciding that slavery was wrong was much easier than deciding what to do with millions of people from another continent, of another race, and without any historical preparation for living as free citizens in a society like that of the United States, where they were 20 percent of the population.
It is clear from the private correspondence of Washington, Jefferson, and many others that their moral rejection of slavery was unambiguous, but the practical question of what to do now had them baffled. That would remain so for more than half a century.
In 1862, a ship carrying slaves from Africa to Cuba, in violation of a ban on the international slave trade, was captured on the high seas by the U.S. Navy. The crew was imprisoned and the captain was hanged in the United States – despite the fact that slavery itself was still legal at the time in Africa, Cuba, and in the United States. What does this tell us? That enslaving people was considered an abomination. But what to do with millions of people who were already enslaved was not equally clear.
That question was finally answered by a war in which one life was lost [620,000 Civil War casualties] for every six people freed [3.9 million]. Maybe that was the only answer. But don’t pretend today that it was an easy answer – or that those who grappled with the dilemma in the 18th century were some special villains when most leaders and most people around the world saw nothing wrong with slavery."
Trabue,
YOU prove my claims are wrong.
And if you don't think Africans are the responsible people for selling their own people into slavery, then you are as ignorant as it gets.
Craig... "This notion that somehow slavery in the US must be separated from all other slavery throughout world history as especially heinous..."
???
WHO is suggesting That's slavery in the US should be separated from other slavery or considered especially heinous..? Name a source. Who is saying this? You'll keep acting like we're saying things that, as far as I know, no one is saying peri'm just saying. So, if you think this, provides support for it. Otherwise, it's just another stupidly false conservative claim which has become the norm with conservative so-called thinking these days.
What we're saying is that slavery is a great evil atrocity. It always is. And in the US, when white men and white churches implemented - by policy - and kept alive and supported racism and slavery, it was a great evil. Do you disagree?
As I looked into Glenn's claim, I came across some interesting info. There have been debates about the truthfulness of the stat which states in 1860, only 1.4% of the American population owned slaves. It is said this stat is promoted to minimize the reality of slavery in America. I then found info regarding "slave masters", a term which doesn't necessarily mean one who owns slaves, but could also be one who rents slaves from slave owners. Including them with slave owners then raises the percentage to around 20%.
So I'm reading this and it occurs to me that if a factual expression regarding the percentage of slave owners is put forth to minimize the fact of white "oppression", then why wouldn't insisting on focusing on slave masters be intended to do the opposite? Of course the answer is "White Man Bad" and that's all one needs to know, despite the facts presented in my previous comment, which is a quote from Thomas Sowell, also found in the link found in the addendum to this post.
"Ahhhhhh, the contradict myself gambit."
Yes, and I commented on that as well, while Dan insisted he didn't contradict himself.
"This notion that somehow slavery in the US must be separated from all other slavery throughout world history as especially heinous, seems strange to me."
I'm far more concerned that lily-white progressives and race-hustlers pretend the slavery of our past has any relation to the attitudes and behaviors of too many in the black community today. It's cheap and lazy when the "root causes" are more a matter of upbringing and cultural decay. As has been mentioned in the past, there are white communities which "suffer" from the same attitudes and behaviors, but without the slavery angle as a default excuse available to them.
"WHO is suggesting That's slavery in the US should be separated from other slavery or considered especially heinous..? Name a source. Who is saying this?"
That's exactly what you fake Christian white-guilt progressives and race-hustlers are doing by their focus on slavery in America and/or "oppression" of blacks in America to excuse bad behaviors by some in the black community, particularly those who die while in police custody after having broken the law or just responding to lawful police commands in a combative manner, and for attempting to institute laws and policies or changes to laws and policies intended to benefit blacks over others (affirmative action and racial quota policies best known examples). Far, far more often than not, disparities are the result of a failure to meet existing standards which many whites also fail to meet, but again, without having "a history of slavery and oppression" to use as an excuse.
More over, and this is the whole point of the post, is that to ignore one set of facts while whining about "white oppression", which is what your kind is doing, divisions don't heal. Rather than teach the stupidity of the 1619 Project as if it's enhancing knowledge...which it clearly doesn't because it leaves out those details...we promote the wisdom of a far more comprehensive history being taught than what serves you lefty asshats.
Dan,
Perhaps you jumped to a conclusion too soon and got ahead of yourself. Perhaps you'd care to provide a link to any instance where you have written anything about slavery where the focus was on slavery anywhere except the US? The reality is that slavery has been something engaged in by all societies from at least the beginning of recorded history. The reality is that in most instances the "church" (or whatever the religious authority was) approved of and facilitated slavery. In the case of the US and Britain, "The Church" was the primary agency that ended slavery. In the US, hundreds of thousands of people gave their lives, health, property, and the like in order to end slavery. So, let's keep slavery in context and acknowledge the realities of who and how it was ended in the US.
The reality is that you have virtually zero comment on slavery beyond the relatively short (by historical standards) period where it was legal within the US. You think that your bland, vague, generalized, inclusion of the majority of historical slavery somehow covers you.
Marshal... "That's exactly what you fake Christian white-guilt progressives and race-hustlers are doing by their focus on slavery in America and/or "oppression" of blacks in America to excuse bad behaviors by some in the black community..."
I see you saying this... I don't see you providing a single bit of evidence to support the stupidly false claim. That's because making stupidly false claims that go unsupported is the norm for today's modern so called conservatives.
If you had data to support such a stupid a** claim, you would love to put it up there, because you'd like to support it. The fact that you haven't provided any data is proof enough that you have nothing. It's just another empty stupidly false claim.
Also... "...blacks in America to excuse bad behaviors by some in the black community..."
Just another unsupported and stupidly false claim.. As is the norm.
At least you're consistent.
Marshal... "There have been debates about the truthfulness of the stat which states in 1860, only 1.4% of the American population owned slaves."
You are correct in noting that 1% is a large under-estimation of support for slavery. For one thing masters were the ones who owned them, but whole families made up of multiple numbers of people benefited from the system set up by the white men in power and the white churches that gave them support.
Do you acknowledge that reality?
Also, communities benefited from the slave labor even when not everyone in the community had slaves.
Also, because of racism and attitudes towards black people, many white men and their families who didn't own slaves wanted to own them and it was only financial circumstances that prevented it, not any anti slavery opinions.
Marshal... "which is what your kind is doing, divisions don't heal."
I think that wise counsel will tell us that wounds don't heal until until both/all sides acknowledge the harm that was done.
Embrace wise counsel. Listen to Douglass and other wise folk who know what they're talking about. Acknowledge the great evil of slavery and racism in our nation's history. Call it the great evil that it is.
Craig... "The reality is that you have virtually zero comment on slavery beyond the relatively short (by historical standards) period where it was legal within the US..."
I've been quite clear and we've talked a good deal about slavery as was found throughout biblical terms and places. I've spent a good bit of energy trying to get you to acknowledge that that sort of slavery was evil. Something I don't believe you've ever done.
That reality sort of undermines your attempted argument, doesn't it?
In fact, I've been quite clear that slavery - the owning of another person for forced labor or forced sex - is wrong in every situation and always a great evil. If only you all could say the same thing. It's such a low bar to admit.
February 28, 2022 at 1:06 PM
"I see you saying this... I don't see you providing a single bit of evidence to support the stupidly false claim. That's because making stupidly false claims that go unsupported is the norm for today's modern so called conservatives."
First of all, it's not a false claim at all. It's an observation. Your own words over the years in discussions on racial matters is included in that which I and tons of other people, many of whom are well-known black people, have observed. You deny only because you don't like how the sound of your own bullshit indicts you.
"Just another unsupported and stupidly false claim.. As is the norm."
No. Just another fact of the matter on which those well-known black people themselves have referenced in their own discussions of the state of the black community. It's that which we hear from those "black voices" to whom you insist we lend an ear as if we hadn't already.
It's pretty clear that if you don't like a truth we relate, it's a "stupidly false claim" regardless of how well understood it is by honest people. In that, you're extremely consistent.
February 28, 2022 at 1:15 PM:
"You are correct in noting that 1% is a large under-estimation of support for slavery."
I never said it was a "large under-estimation", nor did any of the articles from which I read the info. Do you just lie about everything? You just read my freakin' comment. How could not respond to it truthfully? This percentage is based on the population at the time versus the population of slave owners. You can't do the math with those totals and then dare to claim it's a "large under-estimation".
"For one thing masters were the ones who owned them, but whole families made up of multiple numbers of people benefited from the system set up by the white men in power and the white churches that gave them support."
The "whole families" and the "white churches" didn't own the slaves. The plantation owner (singular) owned them until such time as he died and bequeathed the slaves to whomever. But by your comment we see you're doing exactly what I noted...doing whatever you can to inflate the numbers to overstate that which is bad enough without doing so. Race-hustlers and white-guilt progressives seem to believe that some might not understand the reality of slavery, and by lying as you're doing, you keep the flame of racial animosity burning, while we normal people live lives which would naturally allow that flame to burnout.
"Also, communities benefited from the slave labor even when not everyone in the community had slaves."
It would be great comedy to see you try to make that case. Others argue that paid labor would have done more to increase the GDP of the southern states. But then, they're not the historical/economic "experts" you're interested in hearing.
"Also, because of racism and attitudes towards black people, many white men and their families who didn't own slaves wanted to own them and it was only financial circumstances that prevented it, not any anti slavery opinions."
And of course, you're speaking of a time when all races the world over regarding the enslavement of people of any race as simply a fact of life, they way things were, NORMAL. And again, you choose to focus on what you need to believe was a widespread sentiment in the nation which played a major role in ending slavery, ignoring the many white men and their families who would never dream of enslaving another human being. This is what this post is highlighting and your every comment demonstrates the merit of my argument. Thanks for that. You're a pip.
February 28, 2022 at 1:35 PM:
"I think that wise counsel will tell us that wounds don't heal until until both/all sides acknowledge the harm that was done."
Well, there you go thinking again. That's not something you do well at all.
"Embrace wise counsel."
I always have. You, not so much. Indeed, I even understand the point of what wise counsel relates. You've always been Mr. Missthepoint, as this discussion has shown once more.
"Listen to Douglass and other wise folk who know what they're talking about."
What was that book I just posted I was reading? I can't recall. Oh yeah! It was a Frederick Douglass bio!! I also read Thomas Sowell who knows far more all by himself than all the race-baiting jackasses you find so compelling.
"Acknowledge the great evil of slavery and racism in our nation's history. Call it the great evil that it is."
Acknowledge the greater evil of abortion. Call it the greater evil it is as you admit to supporting its legality like the lefty hypocrite fake Christian you are. It's such a low bar to admit.
Oh, you've read two black authors (and missed the point of half of them, thinking you're better able to recognize the great evil of slavery than Douglass... I guess you think he's a foolish liberal for blaming white people and white churches for the great evil of slavery... or even thinking that slavery was a great evil)...? Let's give Marshal two gold stars.
Marshal... "Acknowledge the greater evil of abortion."
Not everyone agrees with your hunches about abortion that you can't prove. But I suspect that the world nearly universally recognizes the great evil of slavery because OF COURSE WE DO. It's not a hard thing to recognize if you actually value human rights, even for people of color.
But you? Not so much.
You're on the wrong side of morality, justice, human decency and, of course, Christianity on this issue, Marshal. Repent. Acknowledge evil for what it is.
Marshal... "I never said it was a "large under-estimation", nor did any of the articles from which I read the info. Do you just lie about everything?"
Also Marshal... " There have been debates about the truthfulness of the stat which states in 1860, only 1.4% of the American population owned slaves. It is said this stat is promoted to minimize the reality of slavery in America. I then found info regarding "slave masters", a term which doesn't necessarily mean one who owns slaves, but could also be one who rents slaves from slave owners. Including them with slave owners then raises the percentage to around 20%"
YOU SAID that some conservative (ie, estimates by conservatives) estimates for the number of slave owners is 1.4% (which I rounded down to 1%). YOU ALLOWED that some estimates show it closer to 20%. That IS A HUGE UNDERESTIMATION. Do you not understand how numbers work?
And of course, the point being made by Glenn was that support for slavery was not high. THESE NUMBERS do not support that claim. The fact is that the majority of white men who could vote DID NOT TAKE ACTION TO END SLAVERY in the first 75 years of white male rule in our nation. That says that the majority of white men supported or at least allowed slavery to exist, to allow slavery based on racist attitudes towards black people to exist.
Read and do math for understanding, not for silly, petty, little partisan games. It's just an embarrassment for you and your side. And your complete inability to say that "SLAVERY WAS CLEARLY A GREAT RACIST EVIL" is an indictment of your type of "conservatism."
Repent. Humble yourself. Be at least as moral and concerned about decency and justice as the "pagans" are. You are why people want nothing to do with Christianity because of the vulgar indecency of your racists/racism-defending positions.
February 28, 2022 at 7:15 PM:
"Oh, you've read two black authors (and missed the point of half of them, thinking you're better able to recognize the great evil of slavery than Douglass... I guess you think he's a foolish liberal for blaming white people and white churches for the great evil of slavery... or even thinking that slavery was a great evil)...? Let's give Marshal two gold stars."
Wow! How far up your ass did you have to stick your arm to get a hold of that gem? Did I say I've only read two black authors? What makes you think I missed the point of any of them? You still haven't grasped the point of this post, which isn't the least bit ambiguous or mysterious. And please...when reach back up your backside, pull your head out of there and copy and paste where I claimed to understand slavery better than Douglass. Be sure to provide date and time. You just love to make shit up, don't you? It's amazing such a fool dares to condescend to anyone. I guess that's just that fake Christian "embracing grace" BS.
"Not everyone agrees with your hunches about abortion that you can't prove."
More's the pity. But the point is that you're a cretin for supporting what is clearly the unjust killing of the most innocent and vulnerable of our kind (assuming you're human, too). And then...yet again...you dare fancy yourself in a position to condescend to anyone about what is or isn't evil. You're clearly given over to your reprobate mind!
"But I suspect that the world nearly universally recognizes the great evil of slavery because OF COURSE WE DO."
"Nearly universally"? I see. So "not everyone agrees"...more truthfully, is honest enough to admit the fact that one is a person from the moment of conception as human reproduction science clearly confirms, but you find "nearly universally" compelling. And then you have the freakin' GALL to suggest you care about human rights. That level of bullshit might taste good in Leftyland, but here in the real world, honesty, truth and facts mean something. You're contemptible.
"You're on the wrong side of morality, justice, human decency and, of course, Christianity on this issue, Marshal."
Sure, but that's only true if the lies you make up about me can be proven in any way. You've not been able to prove such crap about me. You simply choose to make shit up and pretend. Don't speak of Christianity here, Dan. You know nothing of it. The mere mention of it by you mocks Christ.
February 28, 2022 at 7:22 PM
"YOU SAID that some conservative (ie, estimates by conservatives) estimates for the number of slave owners is 1.4% (which I rounded down to 1%). YOU ALLOWED that some estimates show it closer to 20%. That IS A HUGE UNDERESTIMATION. Do you not understand how numbers work?"
The following is what I said:
As I looked into Glenn's claim, I came across some interesting info. There have been debates about the truthfulness of the stat which states in 1860, only 1.4% of the American population owned slaves. It is said this stat is promoted to minimize the reality of slavery in America. I then found info regarding "slave masters", a term which doesn't necessarily mean one who owns slaves, but could also be one who rents slaves from slave owners. Including them with slave owners then raises the percentage to around 20%.
So you ignore the distinction made between slave owners versus slave masters which require blending the two in order to get to that 20% figure. But that then distorts the idea of how many slave owners there were, which was the point raised by Glenn. Never did I use the word "conservative" either in reference to people or in reference to either percentage. I simply stated there's debate about the number. Maybe some believed the percentage of slave owners in America in 1860 was 1.6% instead of 1.4%. Maybe some believed it was 2%. Maybe you're a certified moron who is so fixated on finding fault with those who understanding of slavery and race relations is more blatantly accurate than yours, as we keep proving. But the greater point was the eagerness of lying lefties like you and other race-hustlers to do all they can to inflate such numbers (like blending the two distinct groups as if there's no difference between them) as if it isn't enough for you that such people existed at all. For some perverse reason you feel a need to make it appear worse than it was, as if how it was just isn't bad enough. What a sick motherfucker you are!!
"And of course, the point being made by Glenn was that support for slavery was not high. THESE NUMBERS do not support that claim."
The numbers I provided do indeed support that claim. But then you go ahead and do more of what I just said...that you do all you can to inflate the numbers. You do it now by conflating everyone who didn't work tirelessly to end slavery with those who actually supported it...which was common throughout the world but far less so in America at that time. What's more, as this thing we refer to as "the Civil War" clearly suggests, "voting" to end slavery would have done nothing to end slavery in America. Face it Dan, you have no freakin' idea regarding this subject. You simply parrot the most race-hustling version of events, such as that found in the 1619 Project or CRT. We favor a more comprehensive history which provides actual details which, if disseminated widely enough would mitigate the race-baiting you find so stimulating to your lady bits. So while you persist in focusing on "White Man Bad", a true understanding of Douglass alone clearly informs honest people about the massive percentage of the nation's white people who actively opposed slavery by pushing for it's abolition, and then giving their lives and limbs to put down those who supported it. You're the type to whom Jason L. Riley said, "Please Stop Helping Us".
"Read and do math for understanding, not for silly, petty, little partisan games."
Take your own advice, lefty hack. That is, if you understand your own advice. I doubt you're smart enough for even that. You certainly don't demonstrate it.
"It's just an embarrassment for you and your side."
YOU'RE an embarrassment for me and my side knowing such fools like you think you're doing any good with your white-guilt bullshit.
"And your complete inability to say that "SLAVERY WAS CLEARLY A GREAT RACIST EVIL" is an indictment of your type of "conservatism.""
No inability, little Danny. Just no obligation to join you in saying what you think is necessary for me to say, especially from someone who is complicit in the murder of 800,000 infants every year in this country. Repent. Humble yourself. Show you care about innocent people by voting for pro-life candidates as you pretend to care about people over 150 years ago not voting against slavery, you hypocrite anti-Christian cretin.
"You are why people want nothing to do with Christianity because of the vulgar indecency of your racists/racism-defending positions."
And you finish your bleating with more lies. Those who want nothing to do with Christianity do not reject it because of people like me...unless they're homosexuals and such. They reject it because those like you have made it meaningless. That's the first lie of your closing statement. The next is the as yet unsupported, baseless lie that my position is racist or somehow a defense of racism. And being the hypocrite you are, you don't provide evidence to support your charge...a...how is it put?...a "stupidly false claim".
You're a clown.
"I think that wise counsel will tell us that wounds don't heal until until both/all sides acknowledge the harm that was done."
From a biology standpoint, this is absurd. If someone stabs me with a knife, my wound will heal (provided reasonable treatment and care on my part), regardless of what the other person does or says.
Further, this notion that forgiveness and healing can long happen if both sides agree is not borne out in real life. The most public and obvious example of this is John Perkins after he was brutalized by LEO during the civil rights movement. Actually, the even netter and more public example is a guy named Jesus who forgave those who tortured and killed him. As usual, I'll take my cues from people like Jesus and Perkins, rather than a middle aged white liberal dude on the internet.
"That reality sort of undermines your attempted argument, doesn't it?"
No, the fact that you (occasionally, when pressed) will make some broad, vague, general statement to cover your ass until you go back to harping on US slavery pretty much makes my point. The fact that you do this, while demanding different behavior from others, is my point.
"If only you all could say the same thing. It's such a low bar to admit."
Not nearly as low a bar as acknowledging the reality that I have said exactly that. It's always easier to argue against a straw man than to acknowledge reality. But, if you were consistent and had the same standards for everyone else that you do for your self, my previous reiterations of your demand would be sufficient. But since you live in a world of double standards, you'll keep spouting this lie.
"SLAVERY WAS CLEARLY A GREAT RACIST EVIL"
I'm confused. Is it being suggested that all slavery, everywhere, throughout history was "RACIST"? It seems strange that one black African tribe enslaving another would be "RACIST".
Is it worse if you say it in all caps?
Craig,
Whether or not one agrees with Dan about slavery is irrelevant, and no less than a dodge from the point of the post. He pushes that question so as to posture as morally superior. He expects that the point and our position on it stands as some expression of racism and our response to his demand we wail about how evil slavery is will confirm or contradict that irrational charge. And the vile and evil hypocrisy of it is his dismissal of a far worse position he supports. He does this with the excuse that not everyone agrees, but everyone agrees with him about slavery, though I provided yet again solid evidence to the contrary. This fake fails to grasp the reality that supporters of racism and abortion are the same. They each reject the notion that a specific group of people aren't people, or equal or worthy of concern. But he's worse than the racist slavers because unlike the slaves, the innocent unborn can't fight back to defend themselves. And while this lying sack of shit dares speak of "the least of these", he won't life a finger or utter the least support in the fight to end abortion in this country. He pretends black people in today's America are oppressed while he is complicit in the ultimate oppression.
And this is all because this low-life fake can't focus on the point of the post and lacks the honesty (and intelligence) to argue against it. It's all "White Man Bad" to this guy.
Art,
It's obvious that Dan's double standard regarding how we respond to slavery has little or nothing to do with anything beyond his ability to use his version of the Truth as a cudgel to attack others. The notion that approaching the teaching of history withing a wider context should not provoke this response, yet it does. One wonders why.
Marshal... "Whether or not one agrees with Dan about slavery is irrelevant, and no less than a dodge from the point of the post."
1. It's not a matter agreeing with Dan. The vast majority of humanity agrees that slavery is a great evil. Frederick Douglass clearly thought so. As have all the great moral thinkers... at least through the last couple 100 of years. We all agree, there's no debate that slavery is a great evil. It has nothing to do with Dan's opinion. It's Marshal and whoever might agree with him (KKK, for instance) against reasonable humanity.
2. Why don't you sum up the point of your post in two or three abundantly clear sentences. It's your post... can you do it?
Craig... "It's obvious that Dan's double standard regarding how we respond to slavery has little or nothing to do with anything beyond his ability to use his version of the Truth as a cudgel..."
1. WHAT double standard? I'm asking a great school level simple moral question and you'll can't answer it? What double standard is there in that?
2. MY version of the truth? Do you truly think that is not a moral truth that slavery is a great evil? If not, what in the h*** is wrong with you?? My God! I don't know what to say about this.
Do you all at least recognize how deeply weird and evil sounding all of this is, what you two appear to be vaguely suggesting?? Do you recognize if you told the average Sunday school teacher/nun that slavery wasn't evil she would smack your hand with a ruler?
Craig... "The notion that approaching the teaching of history withing a wider context should not provoke this response..."
You misspelled "whiter."
Seriously fella's, the Germans don't feel a need to present the "nazi side" of history. Because that side was wrong and immoral and evil. I don't know what about this you all can't wrap your heads around.
Craig... "this notion that forgiveness and healing can long happen if both sides agree is not borne out in real life."
I didn't say forgiving can't happen. But healing in the sense of reconciliation can't happen.
If a nazi wants to continue to kill juice and gay people and keep acting like everybody should get along with him, no. Hell no!
Because we have an obligation to take a stand with the oppressed against the oppressor.
Of course.
This is morality and human decency 101, boys. come on.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2022/02/the_1619_projects_nikole_hannahjones_beclowns_herself_again.html
What about Caucasian people who enslaved other Caucasian people throughout history -- was that racist? And, as Craig pointed out, blacks enslaving other blacks hardly did it because of racism.
To a racist like Trabue, everything is racist.
March 1, 2022 at 3:17 PM
"1. It's not a matter agreeing with Dan."
Yeah. Right. When isn't it?
"The vast majority of humanity agrees that slavery is a great evil."
Where's your polling data to back this up? I've provided a link which suggests the opposite is true. With around 167 where slavery still exists today out of a total 195 countries, it would seem you're mistaken...and only because you want it to be true that man is basically good (though you're not good yourself).
"Frederick Douglass clearly thought so."
The abolitionist who was once a slave? What a shock? Pretty natural for someone who was a slave to be opposed to the institution. But as the information in my post explains, that wasn't even true of every slave who became free. Just as natural to many is the intention to do others what was once done to them, particularly if it is believed a profit can be had.
"It has nothing to do with Dan's opinion."
Which is infantile being based on emotion more than fact...as so often is demonstrated clearly.
"It's Marshal and whoever might agree with him (KKK, for instance) against reasonable humanity."
My position is quite reasonable. You show you haven't sought to understand my position as your next words will prove. What's more, were the Klan to agree with my position, which you can't seem to understand despite how clear and unambiguous it is, it would mean they've repented, or are at least more intelligent than you. But presume my position would make racists happy is just you embracing grace again, you fake.
"2. Why don't you sum up the point of your post in two or three abundantly clear sentences. It's your post... can you do it?"
Why don't you just read it, and all my comments in this thread. Sound out the big words. Use a dictionary or an adult to help you with the parts you find especially tricky. My post and comments are already abundantly clear.
March 1, 2022 at 3:42 PM
"1. WHAT double standard? I'm asking a great school level simple moral question and you'll can't answer it? What double standard is there in that?"
The first answer which springs to my mind is your double standard regarding "great moral evils". Two issues which reflect opinions regarding the value of other people and you respond by suggesting there's some doubt as to the worth of the most innocent, vulnerable and defenseless people there are. I can't say that's the double-standard to which Craig is referring, but it'll do until he chooses to clarify.
"2. MY version of the truth? Do you truly think that is not a moral truth that slavery is a great evil?"
And still you default to this meme as if it's what this post and discussion is all about. The only reason the meme is discussed at all here is due to it being like a stick up your ass which inhibits your ability to pay attention to the subject.
"Do you all at least recognize how deeply weird and evil sounding all of this is, what you two appear to be vaguely suggesting??"
You're doing all the "suggesting". We're trying to discuss the topic of the post...which is deeply weird but not at all vaguely so.
"Do you recognize if you told the average Sunday school teacher/nun that slavery wasn't evil she would smack your hand with a ruler?"
There are any number of things which would result with such a response, none of which are relevant to this discussion.
March 1, 2022 at 3:57 PM
"You misspelled "whiter.""
No. He misspelled "within". You're just making libelous comment implying he's racist in his position.
"Seriously fella's, the Germans don't feel a need to present the "nazi side" of history."
Those of us who recognize the 1619 Project as the crap sandwich it is aren't pushing for a racist side of history, but a comprehensive rendering that goes deeper than "White Man Bad". We prefer our kids to be fully educated to the greatest extent possible. But you keep accusing good people of being racist. That's the type of grace embracing we've come to expect from fake Christians like you.
By the way...knowing the nazi side of history would be enlightening and invaluable for teaching us how to recognize the next attempt by progressives to attack those they hate for bullshit reasons.
"I don't know what about this you all can't wrap your heads around."
Yeah. Understanding the obvious is always difficult for you because of what's wrapped around your head. Try pulling it out and enjoy fresh air and light.
March 1, 2022 at 4:00 PM
"I didn't say forgiving can't happen. But healing in the sense of reconciliation can't happen."
What a joke. First of all, you've got tons of apologizing to do to all of us you accuse of being racist while embracing racism yourself. Secondly, while you carry on with "White Man Bad" as the default reason for all that ails the black race, there can never be reconciliation. The racial divide will only widen.
"If a nazi wants to continue to kill juice and gay people and keep acting like everybody should get along with him, no. Hell no!"
If progressive fake Christians wants to continue supporting the wholesale murder of innocent unborn people and keep acting like everybody should get along with them, true Christians and others of character are not obliged in any way to do so. Hell is what you have coming.
"Because we have an obligation to take a stand with the oppressed against the oppressor."
Says the anti-Christ progressive who oppresses the unborn. The most egregious example of oppression perpetrated by you.
Of course.
"This is morality and human decency 101, boys. come on."
Says the anti-Christ progressive who oppresses the unborn. Dan the morally bankrupt dares to condescend.
Glenn,
I linked to that article in a comment above or in the addendum to the post.
Dan's not interested in the full history of slavery in the world, because he needs to focus on "White Man Bad", and while it can be said of whites who enslaved whites, it just doesn't have the punch for him as whites enslaving blacks in the early days of our nation. Nor, for that matter, does black on black crime today have the same punch for Dan, unless he can tie it to something white people did. It's called "embracing grace".
Marshal... "Why don't you just read it, and all my comments in this thread."
HA! EVEN YOU recognize you haven't made a rational, consistent, adult point! YOU can't even clarify what you mean (if anything) better than what I've already suggested.
Look, it's okay. We all make mistakes. We all right in an irrational, non-sensical manner sometimes. Just admit it. Save face and admit you made no cogent, rational point and while you're at it, admit that you can't even condemn slavery as a great evil... Just say it if you believe it: "Slavery is not a great evil..." Or "US slavery wasn't a great evil..." or whatever it is you believe.
Have the courage to quit hiding behind irrational, vague, nonsensical poor writing and just clarify: "I, Marshal, can't and won't call slavery a great evil because I don't believe it."
Have the courage to be clear and stand behind whatever it is you are thinking, even if they're overtly evil, irrational, loathesome opinions.
Marshal... "I can't say that's the double-standard to which Craig is referring, but it'll do until he chooses to clarify."
Look, Craig, even your comrade, Marshal, doesn't know what you're talking about. You all talk in vague accusations, gossip and conspiratorial nothing-ness and get all emotional when you get called on it and your inability to acknowledge a simple, obvious evil.
Lord, have mercy.
Marshal... "while you carry on with "White Man Bad" as the default reason for all that ails the black race, there can never be reconciliation"
Point to where I have EVER said that, liar. You won't because you can't because it's a stupidly false claim.
You all are not impressing anyone, you're just embarrassing the vapid remains of modern "conservatism," leaving layers of diarrheic stains on your "philosophical" trousers.
Lord, have mercy.
Marshal lied again and, like his pervert hero, he doesn't care how stupidly false the claims are...
"but a comprehensive rendering that goes deeper than "White Man Bad"."
NO. ONE. IS. SAYING. THAT.
YOU CAN'T POINT TO ANYONE SAYING THAT.
IT IS A FALSE CLAIM AND A STUPIDLY FALSE CLAIM AND EVERYONE BUT YOU WHITE BOYS CAN SEE IT.
YOU'VE BEEN CAUGHT AND CALLED ON IT AND YOU AND YOUR KLAN ARE TOO DEPRAVED TO EVEN GIVE A DAMN THAT IT'S A STUPIDLY FALSE CLAIM... YOU JUST KEEP ON MAKING IT.
I wipe the vomit and human detritus from my feet from wading in this cesspool.
Repent, boys.
Art,
I looked for it in a comment or the addendum and couldn't find it.
I have a book Trabue should read; it's by a black man and he demonstrates the problems within the black cultures in the USA and how their problems have nothing to do with white racism:
https://www.amazon.com/Civil-War-Confronting-Subculture-African-American/dp/0615748473
I have a few citations from it here (the first two citations on the same topic are by two other black men, Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell)
http://moralophobia.blogspot.com/search/label/NIGGERS
And, yes, I used the "N" word because the author uses it even in the book title.
I'm sorry Glenn. My bad. What I posted in the addendum is a link within the article you posted...which is where I got it. I didn't post the entire article as you did. Again...my bad.
As to your last comment, I think the author of the book, like Williams and Sowell and as Larry Elder certainly was, are no better than black faces of white supremacy. I think that's how the lefties phrased it. (Morons)
March 1, 2022 at 6:56 PM
"HA! EVEN YOU recognize you haven't made a rational, consistent, adult point! YOU can't even clarify what you mean (if anything) better than what I've already suggested."
Really? You're really this dense? My post is quite clear. But I also restated the point in the comments responding to your earlier stupidity. And now you're mocking me because I won't do it yet again...when you can go back, start over without your preconceived racist notions and read as if you're truly interested in understanding? No. You want me to clarify what is already quite clear. I can't help it you're a moron.
"Look, it's okay. We all make mistakes. We all right in an irrational, non-sensical manner sometimes. Just admit it."
Oh, I get it! You're trying to be funny and clever to hide the fact that you're too stupid to understand basic English.
"Save face and admit you made no cogent, rational point and while you're at it, admit that you can't even condemn slavery as a great evil..."
Save face and admit you aren't capable of understanding what isn't unclear and ambiguous and while you're at it, admit that you can't even condemn the wholesale murder of hundreds of thousands of infants per year in this country as a great evil, so you pretend you're on the moral high ground railing on about "slavery as a great evil"!!!! It won't work, Bucky. You're contemptible.
"Have the courage to quit hiding behind irrational, vague, nonsensical poor writing and just clarify: "I, Marshal, can't and won't call slavery a great evil because I don't believe it.""
My writing is already quite clear, quite rational, and clearly not dumbed down enough for someone of your limited intelligence to understand. On the other hand, now that I think about it, the truth is that you're absolutely clear on my position but aren't smart enough to find a flaw in it. It's why you think I need to admit what I don't need to admit. So either cut the crap, or have the courage to admit it's just a dodge. And while you're at it, just clarify, "I, Dan 'the asshat' Trabue, can't and won't call the abortion of hundreds of thousands of innocent unborn the greatest evil our nation has perpetrated on so many of its people because I don't believe it given I'm not really Christian but only say so hoping it makes people think my stupid positions are moral."
Moron.
"Have the courage to be clear and stand behind whatever it is you are thinking, even if they're overtly evil, irrational, loathesome opinions."
I've been crystal clear in stating boldly what my overtly good, rational and wholesomely beneficial positions are.
March 1, 2022 at 6:58 PM
"Look, Craig, even your comrade, Marshal, doesn't know what you're talking about."
Look, Butthead. I don't presume to speak for anyone but myself unless I have a direct quote to use, preferably with permission to speak for that person. I didn't look for one for the above, as the double-standard of yours I identified was good enough, so I can let Craig speak for himself. OR, I could have referenced a "vast majority" of people I've never polled like you do.
"You all talk in vague accusations, gossip and conspiratorial nothing-ness..."
We know what we mean and if we don't, we ask directly. It looks sorta like this: "What did you mean when you said..." But you get all emotional because you're too stupid to understand or too embarrassed by your stupidity to ask.
"...your inability to acknowledge a simple, obvious evil."
Like abortion? Lord have mercy indeed. If you actually believed in the Lord, you might be in line for some mercy. Can't see how that's possible given your rebellion.
March 1, 2022 at 7:00 PM
"Point to where I have EVER said that, liar. You won't because you can't because it's a stupidly false claim. "
You say that every time someone like me dares suggest the problems in the black community are mostly self-inflicted...which they are. You don't use those exact words, but before very long, you'll be making dumbass comments about my "white privilege" or "the Klan agrees" or some other stupid shit which stand as the same thing. But you're going to whine because you don't specifically say, "White Man Bad"? Too bad, Karen.
"You all are not impressing anyone, you're just embarrassing the vapid remains of modern "conservatism," leaving layers of diarrheic stains on your "philosophical" trousers."
*sniff* I think I'm gonna cry. *sniff* There you go again, pretending you actually have a clue about what conservatism is.
March 1, 2022 at 7:14 PM
"Marshal lied again and, like his pervert hero, he doesn't care how stupidly false the claims are..."
You're not my hero, Dan, and I don't lie about the issues I discuss on the blogs. YOU lie all the time. You lie more than Biden, who lies more than you want to believe Trump does, and you don't care. You make Trump look like one of Christ's apostles.
"NO. ONE. IS. SAYING. THAT."
Sure. All you race-hustlers and white-guilt, anti-Christ progressives say it...in not so many words. It's what the BLM marxists say. It's what NH-Jones says. Kendi says it. Your troll feo says it. It explains why thugs die while confronting cops. It explains why too many black kids can't read at anywhere near their grade level. It explains why so many don't have fathers in the home, why drug use is high, while gang activity lures so many kids. I've never once seen you...or any of your black "experts" you reference...speak on behaviors which lead to the conditions about which you assholes like to pretend are somehow connected to racism and slavery. "White Man Bad".
"I wipe the vomit and human detritus from my feet from wading in this cesspool."
You should have wiped that off before you stepped in my pool. Vermin like you never do. The question now is whether or not someone so given over to a reprobate mind like you can overcome it enough to repent. For your sake and His glory, I hope so.
So perhaps little Danny is fleeing for good after coming here, not speaking to the point of the post, daring to accuse without evidence to justify it and finishes with insults suggesting it is me and my guests who have muddied the waters here. Sad.
Actually, I misspelled "within", but you just felt compelled to lie abut it.
Your double standard is that you hold yourself to a different standard than you hold others to. In this case, you demand a specific condemnation of every specific thing, in very specific terms, while offering bland, generalized, vague statements as if saying something once is sufficient.
I've stated clearly, multiple times, what I think about slavery. You just need to pretend that I haven't so you can use your straw man as a cudgel.
"Actually, I misspelled "within", but you just felt compelled to lie abut it."
To be fair, I think he was trying to make a joke. But the joke came later. So the joke he told wasn't funny, but what he didn't intend as a joke was.
Craig... "In this case, you demand a specific condemnation of every specific thing, in very specific terms, while offering bland, generalized, vague statements as if saying something once is sufficient."
So as to clarify your misunderstanding, I'm not demanding anything. Read that closely. Let me repeat it.
I'm not demanding anything.
Think about those words. I. Am. Not. Demanding. Anything. Do you understand what they mean individually? Do you understand what they mean when pulled altogether?
Well, hopefully now that you understand that, what I AM doing is asking a series of very simple questions.
1. Do you agree that slavery is always evil?
2. Do you agree that the white people in power who enslaved black people as a matter of policy and for racist reasons were engaged in an evil enterprise?
3. Do you agree that the white church, by-and-large, lent support to this evil enterprise as Douglass and others (including their own writings) make clear?
Note the question marks. Do you see how that's not demanding anything? That it's literally not demanding anything? And that your claim that I'm making demands is just simply false?
Craig... "Actually, I misspelled "within", but you just felt compelled to lie abut it."
Actually, I made a clever little joke about it. Perhaps you missed that too.
March 2, 2022 at 2:56 PM
First of all, I dealt with your "clever little joke". Given your constant unjustified "insinuations" about us being racist, another unjustified insinuation within a "clever little joke" isn't any better.
"So as to clarify your misunderstanding, I'm not demanding anything. Read that closely. Let me repeat it.
I'm not demanding anything.
Think about those words."
I did and I don't think much of them because they form a lie. You don't see it because you're not very bright. You don't understand the point of this post, so it doesn't surprise me that you don't see how false your own words are. Ignoring everything else until you get someone to answer your same dumbass questions for which you have absolutely no just reason to ask is absolutely demanding.
Don't ask them again. They're totally irrelevant to the topic of the post. They've been answered long ago. They have no relevance to anything but your unChristian desire to regard us as racists. I don't believe you don't know our answers to that question because you have no way or reason you couldn't already know. You never lift a virtual finger to explain what we've ever said or what position we've taken which would justify or rationalize your bullshit opinion of us. You're just playing the race card once again because it's always so much easier than actually defending YOUR position or countering ours. Your praise and tolerance for clear and unmistakable crap like the 1619 Project and Critical Race Theory is evidence of your own racism, not a better understanding of race relations.
Don't ask them again. Not at this blog.
Marshal... " Ignoring everything else until you get someone to answer your same dumbass questions..."
Also Marshal... "We know what we mean and if we don't, we ask directly. It looks sorta like this: "What did you mean when you said..."
It's reasonable IF someone doesn't know the answer to a question to, you know, ASK the question. YOU AGREED to that yourself. And yet, you won't answer.
We see your hypocrisy, your cowardice, your inability to respond like a respectful, rational adult.
Yeah. Respectful, rational adults don't delete comments at their blog while pretending they're respectful, rational adults at the blogs of others.
I told you I don't believe you don't know my position. I told you your questions assume the possibility I'm racist even though you've never provided any evidence to justify such a belief by you. So just as I challenged you at your blog (though I wouldn't doubt you've deleted it without taking the challenge), setting aside whether you're being truthful about having no idea what my answers would be, give me your best guess as to what my answers would be. If you actually had the balls to answer at your blog, just copy and paste it in your next comment.
And by the way...I don't respect you at all.
The whole "clever little joke" bullshit is just one more example of hubris. "My, look at how clever I am. Aren't I so very clever? Why yes, I am clever."
1. Answered elsewhere. Given the reality that I've already answered this, your continued badgering me to answer it (as if I haven't) is functionally a demand.
2. As long as you choose to take slavery out of it's broader historical context, I see no reason to respond to this. Especially as it's simply another version of your first question which I've answered previously.
3. Given the reality that "The Church" was the primary driver to eliminate slavery in the western world, and the reality that you haven't proven the claim in the question, I see no reason to respond without the question being restated in accurate/in context terms. Further, your separation of "The Church" (presuming that you are referring to Christendom), from every other religious institution that facilitated/facilitates slavery is just one more of your bullshit double standards.
Douglass spoke against churches he felt weren't doing enough in the cause of abolition. That's not debatable, then, that some churches did align with the common sentiment regarding the morality of slavery. From our 21st century perspective, that's inexcusable. From a 18th or 19th century perspective, not necessarily. Certainly, given the fact that so many whites in America supported the abolition movement...many if not most of the speeches Douglass gave were to adoring white crowds. John Brown was certainly not the only white abolitionist of note back then. The 1619 Project, if it focuses any attention at all on white abolitionists, likely supposes this sentiment just popped up out of the blue one fine day in the 1800s, rather than grow from the beliefs of many even before 1619. But that wouldn't fit the narrative of "White Man Bad", which is the crux of that position.
Wow. Having had a moment to kill, I wasted it reading feo's fantasy posted on March 2, 2022 at 11:01 AM at Dan's blog ("Comforting Words from Frederick Douglass..."). What tripe! What world-class hatred! Kudos to him for being so bold in speaking in a manner that exposes his severe evil, though he no doubt feels immensely proud of himself as if he actually wasn't projecting! Talk about a reprobate mind!! Good gosh! And Ducky Dan asserts he's not wrong!
Craig... "1. Answered elsewhere."
Look. I and anyone else can SEE you're literally not answering reasonable questions- neither of you. But my point, Craig, in repeating the questions you two continue to run from, was to point out that asking questions is NOT me "demanding" a specific response or demanding anything. It's me asking questions that I can't know your positions on unless you answer the questions.
Not sure what you two can't understand about that.
Craig... "Given the reality that "The Church" was the primary driver to eliminate slavery in the western world, and the reality that you haven't proven the claim in the question..."
1. I was referencing Douglass who clearly saw great support for slavery amongst those in the white church. Do you disagree with his take on the matter.
2. Indeed, Douglass notes that there are a few exceptions in the white church, but they were notable BECAUSE they were exceptions. Do you think Douglass was mistaken?
3. I rather doubt that you can provide support for the claim that the church was "the primary driver" in ending slavery. Can you? Or is this just another empty claim?
4. Yes, there were those from Church traditions - notably the Quakers, initially... although you all may not even consider them Christians- but the reality was it was more of a case of a relative handful of churches calling out the majority of churches who were either active supporters/defenders of slavery or who remained "neutral" on the topic. Do you recognize that this is a fair assessment of the situation or do I need to show that to you?
From an abolitionist of the time...
"AMERICAN SLAVERY.
———
THE extent to which most of the Churches in America are involved in the guilt of supporting the slave system is known to but few in this country.* So far from being even suspected by the great mass of the religious community here, it would not be believed but on the most indisputable evidence. Evidence of this character it is proposed now to present—applying to the Methodist Episcopal, the Baptist, the Presbyterian, and the Protestant Episcopal Churches. It is done with a single view to make the British Christian public acquainted with the real state of the case—in order that it may in the most intelligent and effective manner exert the influence it possesses with the American churches to persuade them to purify themselves from a sin that has greatly debased them, and that threatens in the end wholly to destroy them."
"He... should have been hung up high as Haman to rot upon the gibbet, until the wind whistled through his bones. The cry of the whole South should be INSTANT DEATH to the abolitionist..."
http://utc.iath.virginia.edu/christn/chesjgbat.html
Read the whole thing. Religious support for slavery - and violently against abolitionists - was strong and deadly. Are you all not aware of this?
March 3, 2022 at 1:25 PM
"Not sure what you two can't understand about that."
We understand completely. You're demanding an answer. That has nothing to do with demanding a specific answer, but your constant asking is a demand for an answer. And again, I don't believe you don't know how we'd answer, so again, give your best guess as to what you think our answer would be.
"March 3, 2022 at 1:48 PM"
Douglass didn't visit every church in America. His opinion, then, is based on his own perception extrapolated to all white churches. But to suggest he knew what each was doing for the cause of abolition is absurd.
Rather than demand Craig provide support for his position, provide support for the opposite if you think he's wrong. This is another typical double standard of yours.
More later...But know that you're going off on tangents again after being told to stick to the freakin' topic of the post.
Marshal... "stick to the freaking topic of the post?"
Dan... "I think I am. But you tell me: what's the topic of the post?"
Marshal... "I ain't gonna tell you!"
Dan... "But you're telling me I'm off topic..."
Marshal... "then just ask!"
Dan... " OK. What's the topic of the post?"
Marshal... "I ain't gonna tell you!"
This is so rational and adult.
Marshal... "You're demanding an answer."
You two APPEAR to be suggesting that slavery is not always a great, moral and rational atrocity, amongst the most vile and evil ways of treating fellow humans. You APPEAR to be saying this, even for the racist-based slavery of the last few hundred years including in US history.
I say APPEAR because you all have never made it clear and sometimes you occasionally make statements that sound like you do think it might be a little evil, but then, most of the time, you don't appear to be hinting at that it is clearly always a great evil and that American slavery wasn't racist or evil.
That is so vile - the idea that there are modern Americans (outside of the KKK) who might think that slavery isn't a great evil or that the overt racism of the first ~150+ years of our history wasn't a great evil - that it is hard for me to fathom... Even amongst the most debased of modern humans, let alone that two modern men who say they are Christians... it's just hard for me to wrap my mind around that and I have to think that you two (and your extended comrades) DON'T really think that, but again, you all are not willing to make it clear. And so I ASK THE QUESTION to try to get a clear answer.
That is not "demanding," that is bewildered asking, sincerely seeking a clear, direct answer.
Why is that hard for you to understand the difference?
++++++
Let me make something else clear: I'm not necessarily saying that we ought to judge people from 200 years ago based on modern morality. 1000 years ago, slavery was very common and just not understood universally to be the great moral depravity/assault on human rights that we understand today. And even 200 years ago, the racism and notion of slavery was still just fairly baked into the psyche of large portions of the world, although - thanks to progressive (ie, making progress from a more depraved way of thinking) Christian thinking and thanks to the Enlightenment - greater portions of the world were understanding the notion of human rights and, as a result, just how very evil slavery and racism were.
And 100 years ago, even more were understanding the depravity of racism and the importance of human rights and the evil of slavery.
So, I'm not saying we should JUDGE people 200 years ago based on modern values, I'm just saying that NOW, we should all recognize the great evil of slavery and the great evil of the racism that allowed it in the US, as well as the great evil of policies that were racist following slavery.
But for people like you all who, probably, think that morality doesn't change, then IF you can agree that slavery is a great evil today, and the racism that was part and parcel of the culture then is a great evil today... then why wouldn't you think it was a great evil then?
March 3, 2022 at 6:20 PM
Cute story. Not the least bit an accurate rendering of the situation here, but you were never one for accuracy when it gets in the way of your narrative.
If you truly don't understand the topic of this very straightforward post, then describing you as a moron is far less mere pejorative than I had ever meant it to be. Are you truly a moron, Dan? Are your really going to insist you can't make head or tails of the post? Really?
March 3, 2022 at 8:54 PM
"You two APPEAR to be suggesting that slavery is not always a great, moral and rational atrocity, amongst the most vile and evil ways of treating fellow humans."
To you, perhaps. It's highly doubtful honest and intelligent people would agree with you. And that it does appear that way to you is no more than because we won't respond to questions for which you have no legitimate reason to ask, or that we don't respond in ways which mirror your feigned moral outrage to your satisfaction.
To honest and intelligent people, I'd wager, it far more likely "appears" that we're bored with your dodging the point of the post with that which has no bearing on it whatsoever.
"That is so vile - the idea that there are modern Americans (outside of the KKK) who might think that slavery isn't a great evil or that the overt racism of the first ~150+ years of our history wasn't a great evil - that it is hard for me to fathom... "
Not nearly so vile as the hypocrisy of a "progressive" "Christian" rejecting the humanity of the unborn as if their lives aren't equally as precious and deserving of protection as his own...that such people don't have the same unalienable right to life endowed by their Creator.
"That is not "demanding," that is bewildered asking, sincerely seeking a clear, direct answer.
Why is that hard for you to understand the difference?"
Once again, the question is irrelevant to the topic, is not provoked by anything either of us have said or not said and is meant only to satisfied your own unjust opinion of us. How you describe the asking is not "how it appears" to honest people who would never ask us such a thing.
++++++
"I'm not necessarily saying that we ought to judge people from 200 years ago based on modern morality."
And yet you're doing that very thing.
"And 100 years ago, even more were understanding the depravity of racism and the importance of human rights and the evil of slavery."
You mean in 1922? Wow. That's amazing.
"So, I'm not saying we should JUDGE people 200 years ago based on modern values, I'm just saying that NOW, we should all recognize the great evil of slavery and the great evil of the racism that allowed it in the US, as well as the great evil of policies that were racist following slavery."
But what is "racism? It's regarding others as inferior based on characteristics which are irrelevant and insignificant to their humanity...in this case race, hence the word. But racism is just one form of that attitude. Another is regarding others as inferior due to their age, size and location. As with race, such people have no control of those characteristics and to judge them as unworthy of consideration as equal to the rest of us based on those differences is just as abhorrent as feeling that way about those of another race, ethnicity, sex or religious belief. So for you to assert we should all recognize "the great evil of slavery and the great evil of the racism" is empty given your own support for and tolerance of a far greater evil. Actually, you're worse as you don't recognize it as the least bit problematic. Stuff your questions, Dan.
"But for people like you all who, probably, think that morality doesn't change,"
I'll let Craig speak for himself on this, but the fact is that morality doesn't change.
"then IF you can agree that slavery is a great evil today, and the racism that was part and parcel of the culture then is a great evil today... then why wouldn't you think it was a great evil then?"
Again, Craig can respond in his own way, but I don't think any differently about those things because or regardless of the time of day.
Here's a chance For you to take a stand against depression here, today.. In Texas conservative extremists in charge are trying to criminalize being transgender. Will you take a stand against that oppression that threatens lives and denounce the Texas governor and AG?
In the past, people like you have denounced progressive lawmakers for "criminalizing" being conservative., saying You all just wanted to be left alone to live your Christian lives in peace. But the Texas governor is making clear that that is not sufficient. You must bow down to their conservative religious dictates or face being charged with a crime. How wicked. Will you condemn it?
Ah, there goes Dan again-- he just can't stick to the topic of the post.
Tell me, Dan, where in this post is there any discussion of the fraudulent, anti-biology and anti-common sense idea of "transgenderism"?!? And, by the way, your claim as to what Texas is doing is a monstrous lie.
"Here's a chance For you to take a stand against depression here, today."
Well, I wasn't at all looking for the chance to take a stand against depression. Don't know that anyone supports depression. After all, it's so depressing. It makes people depressed. That ain't cool.
But while you again seek to derail the conversation even further from the topic than you already have, I'm going to tie to the topic for you, as well as to your previous diversion:
The topic you pretend not to understand is in regard to how history is taught. It contains fact-based criticism of the false history of the 1619 Project (as well as CRT), as well as criticism of withholding important aspects of the history of slavery which I insist would have altered the general attitudes and beliefs of each race against the other.
In the same way, you're presenting a false history, albeit history extending no further back in time than a week or two.
1. The fact is there is no attempt to criminalize "being" "transgender". None.
2. What's proposed is to criminalize all that adults do to enable, support, promote, cajole or influence a minor in the belief that the child is actually of the opposite sex and thus must be allowed, encouraged or supported in seeking and achieving a "transition" to the sex the child falsely and most likely temporarily believes he/she is which is not the child's actual sex.
3. Governor Greg Abbott has not, so far as I've heard, read or have been able to find, sought to impeded adults as mentioned above with any reference to "conservative religious dictates...but I know how hard that is to imagine given how closely aligned to the true tenets of Christianity conservatism is.
4. People like me who have denounced lefty lawmakers for "criminalizing" being conservative is due their hatred of Christianity any time a Christian rightly points out the sinfulness of a behavior cherished, supported, enabled, celebrated and perpetrated by lefties. The left redefined words and normalized behaviors and then crafted laws which forced Christians to subordinate their beliefs or suffer lawsuits.
Thus, the above is an accurate understanding of the history of the issue, while your challenge presents a 1619 false version which, like that nonsensical "project", furthers an agenda.
Secondly, and this is most important, this policy of Abbott's seeks to protect the minors from making decisions which cannot be easily reversed, if at all, by holding accountable those adults who have dispensed with what's best for the minor in favor of what's best for the leftist agenda. In other words, the policy puts the minor above all else. There's no reason to appease what may very well be no more than a phase, as studies have shown it most often to be...a phase they will grow to cast off if not allowed to undergo surgeries or other procedures which inhibit their natural physical development. There's no harm the minor will suffer which won't be overcome by encouraging the minor to wait until adulthood to butcher him/herself.
There's nothing at all extreme about putting the best interests of the minor over the extremist lefties who are keen to see them sink into the worst of leftydom. It's a great moral evil to exploit minors in this way. But your kind isn't known for thinking of what's best for them, and your insistence on allowing crap like CRT or the 1619 Project to be taught in schools is just another example of that. What's more, this is just another case of you calling oppression is really doing the right thing for the right reasons for those who need it most.
Now. Stick to the topic, or I'll Trabue your comments.
Glenn,
You comment came in while I was typing out mine, which took longer than expected due to interruptions. But I addressed your concerns as well. Changing the subject is common for Dan when the subject is too much for him.
Glenn and Marshal... "he just can't stick to the topic of the post."
The topic of the post appears to be nothing more than "the majority of black people are bad and those uppity blacks want to dare teach us white people stuff we don't want to hear...." and my comments have been precisely dealing with that and your words.
The problem is that you all just don't have a handle on understanding history, any better than you have a handle on understanding the Bible.
Marshal, in Germany, they have been teaching (in schools, universities, and beyond) how awful Nazism was, and they had no need to try to make an "even handed, let's hear both 'sides'..." way of teaching. Just the reality of the horrors of what the Nazis did.
Do you think they are right to do so?
If so, why is it also not right to talk about/teach the atrocities and evil of racism and slavery?
Fact: Transgender people have historically been oppressed, abused, molested and killed.
Fact: A lot of that oppression was with the sympathy and support of the conservative church.
Likely fact: The modern GOP and their continued overt attacks on LGBTQ folk, transgender folk, transgender children and their families and allies is likely going to get people killed.
Fact: Marshal is fine with this.
Shame on the modern "conservatives" and their evil oppression of people now, today.
Shame on you. You all are white-washed tombs, pretending to honor the Kings and Douglass but your fathers and mothers killed and oppressed them and the abolitionists and if you were alive then, no doubt, you would too. As we can see by your oppression of LGBTQ folk.
You've learned nothing from the crimes of your ancestors.
And THAT is why, to the point of your post, we MUST have real history taught, much like Germany does, that identifies these very real villains of US history.
March 4, 2022 at 8:19 PM
"The topic of the post appears to be nothing more than "the majority of black people are bad and those uppity blacks want to dare teach us white people stuff we don't want to hear...." and my comments have been precisely dealing with that and your words."
No, your comments have been whining on about questions for which you demand answers. There's nothing in the post, nothing in the comments of mine, Craig's or Glenn's which in any way reflect the lie you just intentionally told. Nothing. Not even slightly. There's not even anything any honest person can mistakenly infer in that regard from my post or any of our comments following it. But you keep on lying, Dan. It's what you do.
"The problem is that you all just don't have a handle on understanding history, any better than you have a handle on understanding the Bible."
That's some mighty fine projection, liar. You couldn't possibly support that "stupidly false claim" any more than you've been able to find legitimate fault in the post or any of our comments following it.
"Marshal, in Germany, they have been teaching (in schools, universities, and beyond) how awful Nazism was, and they had no need to try to make an "even handed, let's hear both 'sides'..." way of teaching."
That's wonderful, Dan. That info is no parallel for anything presented in this post. That's not even a good try.
"If so, why is it also not right to talk about/teach the atrocities and evil of racism and slavery?"
Feel free to copy and paste whatever comment which expresses that, as well as the time and date on which it was posted. I'll wait here while you search in vain.
March 4, 2022 at 9:35 PM
"Fact: Transgender people have historically been oppressed, abused, molested and killed."
Irrelevant to this post, as well as not at all a parallel to people "oppressed, abused, molested and killed" for being a different color, sex, size, age or located in the womb.
"Fact: A lot of that oppression was with the sympathy and support of the conservative church."
Prove it. At YOUR blog. It's not relevant to this topic.
"Likely fact: The modern GOP and their continued overt attacks on LGBTQ folk, transgender folk, transgender children and their families and allies is likely going to get people killed."
Nonsense. What you call attacks is a leftist lie perpetrated by the perverted, disordered and those who enable them rather than help them cope with their twisted desires. Save your lies for your blog. Here, you're to stick to the topic.
"Fact: Marshal is fine with this. "
Another intentional lie. I've never said anything ever which so much at hints at such a thing.
"Shame on the modern "conservatives" and their evil oppression of people now, today."
Another intentional lie. Nice projection, though, from one who's complicit in the murder of hundreds of thousands of infants every year.
"Shame on you. You all are white-washed tombs, pretending to honor the Kings and Douglass but your fathers and mothers killed and oppressed them and the abolitionists and if you were alive then, no doubt, you would too. As we can see by your oppression of LGBTQ folk."
You mean YOUR fathers and mothers killed and enslaved blacks, as you no doubt would have yourself, given how many babies die due to those like you who defend their murders. We know this by your own words. We don't oppress LGBT folk, unless you believe speaking the truth is oppressive, which I suppose it is to those who, like you, find truth inconvenient. So you're intentionally lying with this comment, too.
"You've learned nothing from the crimes of your ancestors."
Says the baby killer.
"And THAT is why, to the point of your post, we MUST have real history taught, much like Germany does, that identifies these very real villains of US history."
Villains like "progressive" fake "Christian" baby killers like you. But you lie yet again. The point of this post is that "real history" isn't being taught, and those like you who defend 1619 Project/CRT bullshit aren't concerned with real history as proven by that defense.
It seems there is no point in you posting any more comments since you've fled the actual conversation long ago, and have now sunk to absolute irrationality and lies. It is not conducive to "real history" to speak of slavery as only "White Man Bad" as you insist on doing. I would argue that the colors of the slavers and the enslaved are far less significant than the mere fact that there existed slavers and slaves in this country. But you keep doing the racist thing, Dan. It's about the best your small mind can handle.
No need to keep asking questions you're too cowardly to even try to answer (and that's ANY of the questions I'm asking, even the most innocuous, most obvious questions - none of which "imply" anything... if you're choosing to INFER meaning to the words that aren't there, that's on you).
We see that you can't/won't answer clarifying questions about whether or not slavery - including American slavery and the racism that accompanied it - is always a great evil or if it was a tremendous evil of the white men and churches of the time to support it. Grade school children can answer that, but none of you geniuses can or will even try.
We see that.
We see while you can't condemn the evil oppression of slavery or the racism that accompanied it, you CAN and DO lend support to the deadly, anti-science attacks on transgender children and their families.
We see that.
History will judge such villains harshly and, I suspect, so will God.
Trabue,
You have nothing but lies.
And the whole lie of "Transgender" IS ABSOLUTLEY ANTI-SCIENCE as well as anti-common sense. No one can change biology from what they were born as. That is a 100% FACT. To believe otherwise demontrates ignorance, stupidity, and folly.
March 5, 2022 at 9:19 AM
As I said at your blog in yet another comment you deleted because you can't deal with the logic and truth of it, you asked the questions because you believe something to be true of us, not because you "really don't know" what our answers would be. The questions are moronic and carry implications by merely asking what should be obvious to any honest reader of our words. If you know any honest people, have them spend time reading our words in the many posts which deal with race relations in any way. None of them would agree with you that your questions were appropriate or necessary. Unnecessary because there's no reason to doubt what our answers could possibly be (you won't step up and make your best guess, if we pretend you honestly and sincerely don't know), and inappropriate given the questions have no relation to the topic of this post. You simply force them in because you have nothing intelligent to say (as if you ever do) about the topic, again feigning an inability to know what the topic is or my position on it.
"We see that you can't/won't answer clarifying questions about whether or not slavery - including American slavery and the racism that accompanied it - is always a great evil or if it was a tremendous evil of the white men and churches of the time to support it. Grade school children can answer that, but none of you geniuses can or will even try.
We see that."
What you, your troll and your head-lice see is only what you choose to see, which is why you bristle at the just contention that the "history" you favor...CRT/the 1619 Project...is false, a distortion and nothing more intellectual than "White Man Bad", and that's good enough for white-guilt fake Christian progressives. We honest people see that because it's so blatantly, crystal clear. Your type is an easy read. Your "grade school children" crap is ironic given your grade school children level of intellectual depth.
"We see while you can't condemn the evil oppression of slavery or the racism that accompanied it, you CAN and DO lend support to the deadly, anti-science attacks on transgender children and their families."
Again, you have chosen without supportive evidence to presume what we can and can't do with regard slavery and racism, so since all the evidence of our many conversations on the topic has not yet informed you, I've no doubt answering your unnecessary question would make much difference anyway.
As to the rest of this last asshat comment, there's no science which supports the claim of "transgenderism". None. As with the claims of homosexuality, if there was any scientific evidence, it's all we'd ever see anytime an actual Christian speaks against it. It is not out of character for you to conflate righteous and just opposition as support for those who commit criminal acts against anyone. Lies are essential for your kind in order to persuade the stupid that you yourselves aren't perverse in your support for the perverse and disordered. We prefer protecting minors, even from themselves and their own immature ideas and choices. It's what actual adults of character and integrity are supposed to do, as opposed to those like you with your agenda driven appeasement and enabling.
The One True God of Scripture does not like to be mocked by fakes like you.
As to the "topic" of your post...
The title you give it is "Important Details Lefy Out of 1619 Project."
You go on to generously, graciously allow that in our history, black people have been treated in a manner that is "less than honorable, less than equal, less than Christian."
You continue...
"But unfortunately, this usually comes with the charge that such treatment of one race against another is one-sided or unique to the white race."
The problem with your topic and your words, then, is that they are based upon stupidly, ridiculously, diabolically false presumptions.
Black people were not treated "less than honorably." They were treated in an evil and disgusting and corrupt and oppressive manner.
Calling the treatment of black people by white people less than honorable Calling the treatment of black people by white people "less than honorable" is comparable to saying that Ted Bundy was less than a boy scout.
Secondly, you had this presumption and claim That bad behavior is unique to the white race.
No one has made that claim.
Read that again. Understand the words.
No one has made that claim.
Not in the history of all humanity has anyone made the claim that only white people misbehave or act in a less than honorable manner.
Now all you have to do to support your stupidly false claim and to disprove me is to find even just ONE instance in ALL of humanity's history where someone has made the claim that that only white people misbehave. You can't do it.
The sick part of it all is that you're not even gonna try. Like your man made pervert idol, trump, facts don't matter to you. If they did, you would support what you say. You routinely never do.
Marshal...
"As to the rest of this last asshat comment, there's no science which supports the claim of "transgenderism". None."
That's what Marshal says. Note, Marshal provides ZERO support for his stupid-ass, dangerously false claim. ZERO.
Science/The experts, on the other hand, say...
"As states pushed to criminalize gender-affirming care, the American Medical Association sent a letter to governors in April urging them to oppose state laws that would ban gender transition-related care. The American Academy of Pediatrics released a statement Thursday expressing its ongoing support for gender-affirming care for transgender youth."
https://www.npr.org/2022/02/25/1082975946/anti-trans-bills-texas
So, just to be clear, the a the Medical scientific experts at the American medical association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychiatric Association ALL say these attacks by conservatives on innocent people and their families/allies are dangerous and should be stopped.
Marshal, in his little head, disagrees with all these experts. Marshal pretends he speaks for science but cites NO scientists.
Also notable, there are no laws that parents of transgender people are breaking. He's trying to prosecute people for something that is not against the law!
This is dangerous. This is totalitarianism. This is the diarrheic shit of Hitler and his nightmares. Good God in heaven, stop it. Repent. Or at least get out of the way and let the experts and adults do the work for Justice that you are impotent and incompetent to do.
Marshal... "The One True God of Scripture does not like to be mocked by fakes like you."
You mean like by presuming to say that God says something that God never said? Like the stupidly false claims idiots like you make when you suggest that God is opposed to transgender folks living their lives?
You can't point to a single place in The Bible where God condemns transgender folks or their parents or their allies.
You can't do it and yet, you're too cowardly and dishonest to admit it.
Your suggestion that God is opposed to transgender folk is a presumption on YOUR part that you can speak for God what God HAS NOT SAID.
To hell with you and your actual fake "Christianity." Your actual fake speaking for God.
God has not said that. That's YOUR made up s***. That's yours. Not God's. Don't try to drag God into what God has not said, you white-washed tomb.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/what-does-the-bible-teach-about-transgender-people
Or look at this anti-trans person, trying to make the "biblical case" against the dignity of transgender people...
https://www.thegoodbook.co.uk/blog/interestingthoughts/2020/02/06/what-does-the-bible-say-about-transgender/
Do you see the entire ABSENCE of ANY biblical support for opposing transgender people and their human dignity? He cites some general passages and then tells us what HE THINKS they mean, as it relates to transgender issues, but it's clear that it's just his opinions and NOT anything that the Bible literally says.
I'm looking and looking and can't find ONE SINGLE VERSE from ONE SINGLE CONSERVATIVE "christian" that says being transgender is against God's will or is wrong.
Not one verse.
Likewise, you can't point to one verse. You just can't. If you could, you would.
You can't point to "science" that supports your opposition to scientific experts nor can you point to "bible" to support your opposition to transgender people.
You've got nothing and you're too cowardly to admit it.
Here's the sinners at Focus on the Family spreading disinformation and fear on their website. Here's THEIR weak-minded case devoid of biblical support...
"Those of us committed to the Christian worldview base our view of gender and sex on the biblical book of Genesis: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them. And God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.’” Therefore, the Christian worldview on gender and sex takes into account not only the creation of a biological man and a biological woman, but also love, marriage, fidelity, and reproduction."
1. So, according to these geniuses, they claim that they "base their view of gender and sex on... Genesis."
First of all, one passage out of all the bible, taken out of context, understood incorrectly and interpreted WAY BEYOND anything that is literally there MUST be understood to NOT be "based on the book of Genesis" but based on a couple of verses that WE INTERPRET to suggest that God means something that literally is not in those verses.
I would ask if you could recognize that basic reality, but I'm sure you can't. Recognizing reality is something that seems to be beyond the scope of modern "conservatives."
2. They then quote a couple of verses from Genesis:
"“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them. And God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.’”"
God created two people (in this myth that they and you presume to be a science textbook), a male and female. DOES GOD SAY in these two verses that these two options - male and female - were the ONLY OPTIONS that God would create? Says who? Based upon what?
Again, God LITERALLY does not say this, nor demand this interpretation. This is an interpretation of the HUMANS at FOTF, not what the Bible says. LITERALLY NOT what the Bible says.
Why is it a problem to make this hellish leap of illogic? Because when reading a text - any text, including the Bible - we ought not say, "Well, there is this ONE VERSE that mentions creating a male and female, THEREFORE, those are the only options that God would create. It's irrational and not good literary reading. For instance: God says NOTHING about any houses or cars in that text. Should we also presume that the ABSENCE of a mention of houses and cars somehow an indication that God was opposed to houses and cars? It's irrational. It's a leap that the text simply factually literally does not support.
Do you recognize that reality?
No, of course you don't.
3. FOTF continues...
"Therefore, the Christian worldview on gender and sex takes into account not only the creation of a biological man and a biological woman, but also love, marriage, fidelity, and reproduction.""
"THEREFORE..."? Says WHO? THEREFORE is NOT in the text. What is the THERE, FOR? Normally, in English, Therefore is a reference to something that was just said. THEREFORE, in this case, is just a leap that is not in the text. "THEREFORE, WE THINK you should ADD this ban on transgender..."
But it's literally NOT in text. It's LITERALLY something that FOTF and their useful idiots are adding to the Bible in their hubris to speak for God something God literally has not said.
March 5, 2022 at 3:49 PM
"The problem with your topic and your words, then, is that they are based upon stupidly, ridiculously, diabolically false presumptions."
Actually, and beyond doubt, the post and my words which...you know...are the post are based on facts which are presented therein.
"Black people were not treated "less than honorably." They were treated in an evil and disgusting and corrupt and oppressive manner."
...which is clearly less than honorable, which means my words are factual.
"Calling the treatment of black people by white people less than honorable Calling the treatment of black people by white people "less than honorable" is comparable to saying that Ted Bundy was less than a boy scout."
...which is also true, so...
"Secondly, you had this presumption and claim That bad behavior is unique to the white race.
No one has made that claim.
Read that again. Understand the words.
No one has made that claim."
It's just so precious when stupid people dare to condescend. But the reality is that you white-guilt fakes and race hustlers who produce crap like the 1619 project and CRT are absolutely pushing that attitude, that white men are responsible for all the suffering of today's non-whites. You pervert history by wetting yourselves when the full story is brought to the fore. Doing so doesn't negate what legitimate historical accounts have presented. It's simply incomplete, and the race-hustlers present racist bullshit to fill the void. You white-guilt saps chow down on that "White Man Bad" nonsense like flies on a pile of dung. Worse, the young, particularly black youth, grow up with a perverted understanding of a very serious subject from our nation's history. This perverted understanding provides justification in their minds to distrust and/or hate white people. But since it's a lie, and you're a total liar, you're a big supporter of that lie.
And speaking you lying, you do it again with this very comment which compelled this response. Let's look at it again with the intentional...as in "ON PURPOSE"...lie highlighted in bold:
"Secondly, you had this presumption and claim That bad behavior is unique to the white race." ...and then you double down with the next idiotic utterance...
"Now all you have to do to support your stupidly false claim and to disprove me is to find even just ONE instance in ALL of humanity's history where someone has made the claim that that only white people misbehave. You can't do it."
Can't do it? Why would I try? "I" never said that. Never. Go ahead. Find where I said this, copy and paste it and provide the date and time it was said. I'll wait here while you fail.
The sick part of it all is that you're not even gonna try. Like your man made pervert idols, Biden, Obama, Nikole Haaa-Jones, Robin DiAngelo and a host of others you've offered on this and any number of subjects, facts don't matter to you. If they did, you would support what you say. You routinely never do. And you certainly haven't in THIS thread!
March 5, 2022 at 4:20 PM
"That's what Marshal says. Note, Marshal provides ZERO support for his stupid-ass, dangerously false claim. ZERO."
Not in this thread I haven't. I'm not about to do so since the subject isn't about your new favorite perversion. More importantly, you've never provided jack shit which stands as actual evidence for this being anything more than mental disorder. The real danger to these disordered people is to enable them and pretend appeasing their defective desires will make their lives better.
"Science/The experts, on the other hand, say... "
And from you NPR link, you choose to present that which is not in any way evidence for the claims in support of the disorder. It's one thing to go off on a tangent on a blog not yours. It's quite another thing to wet your panties as a response to a statement (a true one in this case as in most) instead of defending your position with evidence. Most curious from an asshat who demands it for every little thing which gets those wet panties of his in a twist.
Unlike you, I actually read the link. What's more, I read the links your link provided to the AMA and AAP to see exactly what it was they said. Both referenced evidence neither took the time to present. NPR did nothing to present said evidence. No one does jack shit to present this empirical evidence which proves a damned thing supporting the notion that one can be physically one sex and mentally another. Of course as honest, even semi-intelligent people know, being one thing and believing one is something else is always mental/emotional disorder except for this due to it's relation to other sexual disorders, perversions and the immoral people who indulge and enable it all.
No one is unaware of what LGBT supporters and enablers, including what used to be professional organizations like the AMA and AAP think, believe and promote regarding the LGBT agenda. You all can't shut the hell up about it. But none of it is backed by science. NONE OF IT. As I keep saying...because it's true...if there was some definitive piece of evidence, your kind would scream about it any time the slightest bit of opposition is so much as hinted in public. It's never happened. It NEVER happens. I doubt it will EVER happen, because it's a lie.
"So, just to be clear, the a the Medical scientific experts at the American medical association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychiatric Association ALL say these attacks by conservatives on innocent people and their families/allies are dangerous and should be stopped."
What if they're lefties? What if the disordered people aren't "innocent"...whatever the hell you mean by that term in this context? But again, those orgs can say what they like. Where's the evidence? Where are the studies which draw the line from righteous, fact-based opposition of good conservatives and people of faith to the pro-"trans" narrative that such opposition results in harm of any kind to the disordered your kind is defending? Unless of course by "dangerous" you mean "the truth hurts".
"This is dangerous."
Only in the sense that "the truth hurts". Truth. It's that which you abhor because it's inconvenient for liars.
"This is totalitarianism."
Haha! That's funny coming from a "progressive" who supports insisting good people must abide the lies of the LGBT agenda, or else.
"This is the diarrheic shit of Hitler and his nightmares."
So this is your view of what doing God's will is. Not surprised. Protecting minors from the influence of immoral adults, from the consequences of their choices left unchecked by moral adults. To you, that's shit. But then, you support the legal killing of innocent babies, so it's not at all out of character for you.
"Good God in heaven, stop it. Repent."
Stop calling on God unless you're willing to no longer mock Him with your unChristian bile. I have no intention of stopping my humble efforts in the cause of righteousness and Godliness. My positions in this thread, both those related to the actual topic from which you've fled in failure in order to go off on this tangent and the tangent itself, are on the side of righteousness. It's you who needs to repent of your racism and your disregard of God's will regarding human sexuality, and the harm that disregard brings about.
-----
Now. The above addresses the last comment of yours which is not related to the topic of the post, which, given the fact that you've failed in finding fault in it, should mean you won't be posting to this thread anymore. (If you have something that you think is evidence of your position, I'll consider it) But your final posts on March 5, 2022 at 4:38, March 5, 2022 at 5:14 PM and March 5, 2022 at 5:46 PM won't be addressed because they're totally off topic. They don't belong in this thread anymore than those I've addressed thus far. You should post them at your blog under the title, "I'm An Idiot And Here's More Proof". Should you try to post anything not related to the topic, I will not allow it. I'll totally "Trabue" it. I don't like doing that, but I believe I've already asked you to return to the topic, and you ignore my requests.
There are one or two mildly related things of yours I intend to address, but I'm out of time. I have only so much to give to the totally stupid and you'll just have to wait.
Marshal... "But the reality is that you white-guilt fakes and race hustlers who produce crap like the 1619 project and CRT are absolutely pushing that attitude, that white men are responsible for all the suffering of today's non-whites."
Time and time again, I ask you to PROVE IT. Time and time again, you run away with your shitty tail stuck between your legs.
ALL you have to do is provide the quote that says ANY of these things that you keep getting called on. And yet, you never do provide support. Not from experts. Not from science. Not from those you falsely accuse of saying things they never say.
Lies upon lies upon diabolical, Trumpian-stupid lies.
Coward. Anyone can see that you're just making shit up and never trying to prove it.
This is what modern "conservatism" has descended down to.
The proof is in the totality of everything said by you people. It rears its ugly head every time you dare throw the "white privilege" at us. So you can stomp your feet and spit and whine about proof, but that's not on us. It's time you prove you're not the leftist imbecile your blathering clearly indicates you are. Try providing a few examples that demonstrate anything other than racism or slavery or "White Man Bad" which can explain the condition of too many black people.
Anyone can see you're just flailing away with no actual argument of intelligence which can deny the fact that your views of race is bullshit, biased and racist.
Your opinion of me has long been exposed as worthless. Attacking me is proof of it, as it's based on nothing.
"The proof is in the totality of everything said by you people..."
Some of the totality of what we have said include:
"THIS IS NOT ABOUT trying to make modern white people feel guilty."
"This is NOT saying that WHITE MAN BAD."
"This is not saying that there are no people of color who do bad things. Of course."
etc.
In other words, it's NOT about the "totality" of what we've said (as I JUST demonstrated) and YOU can't point to ONE SINGLE THING that we HAVE said that suggests your claims are anything but delusional, uninformed, ignorant and irrational.
And fyi: When I point to something you've said that is unsupported and say, "That's not supported," and when I point to something you said that is irrational and say, "That's irrational..." these aren't attacks on you. They're statements of facts.
Now, if YOU choose to think that someone pointing to reality is an "attack," then what does that say about your connection to reality?
"Some of the totality of what we have said include:"
Ah! Little Danny thinks denial is proof against the charge.
"And fyi: When I point to something you've said that is unsupported and say, "That's not supported," and when I point to something you said that is irrational and say, "That's irrational..." these aren't attacks on you. They're statements of facts."
When you point to something you want to believe is unsupported, that's just you being petulant, but it and your assertions of irrationality are not what I provided as examples of your attacks of racism on me. Nor are they statements of fact. They're, ironically, unsupported fact claims and opinions of no value except to you when you dodge.
"Now, if YOU choose to think that someone pointing to reality is an "attack," then what does that say about your connection to reality?"
We're not talking about "someone", little Danny. We're talking about you. So, IF I chose to "think" that you are pointing to what you want to pretend is reality, I would likely regard it as an attack because of your inability to recognize reality, or you're just lying again as you did above. In the meantime, my "connection to reality" is strong despite your desperate need to pretend it isn't in order attack me as irrational...which you attempt to do without ever having proven it is remotely true. Disagreeing with your idiocy and moral corruption is what you regard as irrational or an inability to accept reality. It's your typical "nyuh uh" response.
So far, despite my warnings, you've refused to stay on topic with your comments like the petulant little girl you insist on being while laughingly "identifying" as a Christian man. And despite those warnings, I continue to allow your comments and provide appropriate responses. Man up, Sally. Stick to the topic or bail completely.
"It's me asking questions that I can't know your positions on unless you answer the questions."
Yes, I'm aware that you repeatedly ask the same questions over an over, all the while pretending that they haven't been answered. My unwillingness to answer the same question repeatedly doesn't mean that the question has been unanswered, just that you want to pretend that it hasn't I see no reason to enable your delusions.
"1. I was referencing Douglass who clearly saw great support for slavery amongst those in the white church. Do you disagree with his take on the matter."
So what? I was unaware that Douglass' opinions were to be conflated with objective facts? Again, I think that context is the answer here. I can't believe that Douglass visited and examined every church in the Western world specifically on this issue. It seems reasonable that within his experience before he made the comment, that he's opinion represented what he'd seen. It also seems reasonable to conclude that his opinions beyond his experience might not have been as accurate. It's also reasonable to conclude that he was engaging in hyperbole. In any case, it seems like quite a leap to consider his opinion as fact.
"2. Indeed, Douglass notes that there are a few exceptions in the white church, but they were notable BECAUSE they were exceptions. Do you think Douglass was mistaken?"
Are you suggesting that Douglass was infallible? That he was incapable of making mistakes? Are you suggesting that Douglass perfectly understood that position of every church or every believer in the Western world? Or even in the entire US? I think it was his opinion, based on his personal experience, not an objective fact.
"3. I rather doubt that you can provide support for the claim that the church was "the primary driver" in ending slavery. Can you? Or is this just another empty claim?"
You're right. Wilberforce, the Quakers etc, had absolutely nothing to do with the abolition of slavery.
"4. Yes, there were those from Church traditions - notably the Quakers, initially... although you all may not even consider them Christians- but the reality was it was more of a case of a relative handful of churches calling out the majority of churches who were either active supporters/defenders of slavery or who remained "neutral" on the topic. Do you recognize that this is a fair assessment of the situation or do I need to show that to you?"
I realize that it's an unfair, biased, assessment of the situation based on your opinions, prejudices, biases, and obsessive need to be right. The fact that Wilburforce was the primary figure engaged in abolition in England, should just be ignored, I understand.
FYI, if you are going to change the subject to the TX bill. At least describe it accurately. The fact that you seem to support minors engaging in medical procedures that (in some cases) cannot be reversed without the approval of both parents tells me all I need to know. The notion that delaying significant, major, irreversible, medical procedures until adulthood is problematic is simply barbaric. The notion that a minor can be removed from the custody of one or both parents, and that the non custodial parent be forced to pay for major, elective, medical procedures that they don;t support is simply heartless.
"Fact: Transgender people have historically been oppressed, abused, molested and killed."
Fact: Many groups of people (including Christians and Jews) have been "oppressed, abused, molested, and killed" throughout history. Clearly that basic goodness of humanity explains why this sort of thing is rampant throughout history. Given that, it makes total sense to engage in elective alteration of children in ways that my not be reversible. It also makes total sense to ignore the studies about the % of "trans" youth who regret their decisions to get medically altered as minors. Why not allow minors access to unlimited choices?
"Fact: A lot of that oppression was with the sympathy and support of the conservative church."
You mean like when those things happen in majority Muslim or atheist countries? That's the fault of the "conservative church"? I guess providing objective facts to back up your claims isn't realistic.
"Likely fact: The modern GOP and their continued overt attacks on LGBTQ folk, transgender folk, transgender children and their families and allies is likely going to get people killed."
I don't think you understand the definition of either "likely" or "fact". This is simply a bullshit claim, with zero basis. I'm sure that your misrepresentation of the actual positions of those you so vehemently attack have nothing to do with your fantasies.
"Fact: Marshal is fine with this."
Fact: Dan makes a lot of fact claims without providing any actual proof of his claims. In this case, he's claiming that Marshall is "fine with" Dan's distortions.
I would also remind Dan that "the church" is the people, not any specific denomination or congregation. Now certainly, Douglass was speaking of those white churches with which he was personally familiar, as was the guy in Dan's link criticizing Christians in 1842. But when they each refer to exceptions, it's a token gesture while they hold up as common those churches of which they were familiar. But even in those churches, how can they know what percentage of their members were in agreement on the question of slavery? It doesn't matter. That is, it doesn't matter to white-guilt race-baiters like Dan. He won't even consider it. His intellectual curiosity is as limited as his limited intellect.
Art,
I haven't really read much of Dan's blather, except what's been directed it me, but it doesn't seem like he's actually demonstrated that the 1619 project is above reproach and that the issues with it aren't valid. I don't think he's addressed the reality that the author was clear that they were writing propaganda, not history. Which raises the question of how this got to almost 150 comments, without a slam dunk defense of the 1619 project.
Well, that's Dan's way. He muddies up the discussion with off-topic crap and never provides substance for the topic at hand. OH!, but you'd better answer his questions asked a hundred times after having received answers he rejects because they're not in agreement. You often mention his double-standards. I'm not sure that term accurately convey what's going on with this putz.
Craig...
"I don't think he's addressed the reality that the author was clear that they were writing propaganda, not history."
What Nikole Hannah-Jones ACTUALLY said (as opposed to Craig's blatant false claim):
"Many in mainstream media got caught up in the Republican propaganda campaign, which tried to conflate the teaching of a more accurate history, the teaching of structural racism, with trying to make white children feel badly about themselves or guilty,"
Once again, you may have read some of her words, but you've almost certainly misunderstood or deliberately misrepresented what she's said. She CLEARLY thinks her project is writing an IMPROVED, more accurate understanding of history, NOT propaganda. What's clear is not that she claimed she was writing propaganda, but that you are part of a stupidly false propaganda campaign.
For my part, I've not said that the 1619 Project was above reproach. I've been clear that there were errors or editorializing in the effort. JUST LIKE there's been errors and editorializing in all history books.
I think this project is a much needed correction to much of the propaganda/editorializing in more traditional history books. NOT that it's above reproach (again, as so often is the case, not a thing I've said or suggested, just another stupidly false claim), but that it's a helpful look at US history through other lenses that have often gone ignored.
Do you understand the difference? Do you understand that your claim is a false one?
Craig... "You mean like when those things happen in majority Muslim or atheist countries? That's the fault of the "conservative church"? I guess providing objective facts to back up your claims isn't realistic."
It's absolutely factual that other groups - especially fundamentalist/extremist Muslims and other religious groups - have been part of oppressing LGBTQ people, and it's not just Christians that have done this. But that does not absolve Christians of their sins in this regards, you know that, right?
And come on: Are you seriously suggesting that you're completely ignorant of actual Christian oppression of LGBTQ people in at least recent history (ie, the last 200 years)?
You can't be that blind, can you?
Dan fails to comprehend that exposing the LGBTQXYZ+ agenda as totally anti-God is NOT "oppressing" the people. Are there some Christians who treat them badly? Undoubtedly, but not the Church as a whole.
God makes it plain in Scripture that homosexuality is an abomination. A "transgender" doesn't change his/her gender rather they are part of the whole sexual perversion ideology (God says sexual relations are to be confined to marriage between a man and a woman). A man pretending to be a woman and even having surgery to look more like one is attracted to men and women wanting to be men are attracted to women, so both are just doctoring themselves up for homosexual relations. Even if there is no sexual attraction to the same sex, the perversion has allowed many men pretending to be women to have access to women and rape them or otherwise molest them. There is no way that "transgenderism" is not an abomination to the Lord.
As for Christian "oppression" of them, I would say that is one of the biggest lies of the sexual perversion agenda. I think most Christians would agree with my beliefs about LGBTQXYZ people as I have written here:
https://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2016/11/gays-lesbians-and-transgenders-what-do.html
There is no "oppression" with such beliefs.
Craig... "So what? I was unaware that Douglass' opinions were to be conflated with objective facts?"
So what?
So Douglass was a first hand witness reporting on the reality at the time. His reports are backed up by multiple other reports, including reports from churches themselves that show racism and support for slavery and brutal hostility towards abolitionists.. Are you not aware of the written record on this?
Respecting the validity of multiple first hand witnesses is not suggesting that Douglass or other first hand witnesses are infallible. Just that they're more credible than modern day 2nd guessers and slavery apologists.
Actual historians greatly value first hand reporting.
Once again, so what. Are your really suggesting that Douglass' opinions are really facts that apply to "The Church", or to all churches in the Western world?
Maybe you chose not to read what I wrote, I understand how your narrative can get in the way of your comprehension.
NHJ was quite clear that her "aim" was "to reframe the country's history".
But you can just ignore that little tidbit. The problem was that she was trying to "reframe the country's history" to centralize a false narrative. The false narrative being that slavery drove both the formation and economy of the US. Of course, the other obvious false narrative is that the US existed in 1619.
Craig... "Once again, so what. Are your really suggesting that Douglass' opinions are really facts that apply to "The Church",
I'm not suggesting anything. I'm saying quite clearly that Douglass and other first hand reports are in a better place to gauge where the church was at at the time than you are and your guesses with no data to support them. I'm citing first hand reports. You're giving a guess with nothing to support it.
I'm noting that many first hand reports say the same thing, that the white church was largely supportive of racism and slavery and antagonistic towards abolitionists. Do you have ANY first hand reports that says anything like that the majority of the white church was opposed to slavery and not racist?
No.
Noting that first hand reports suggest that that the white church was largely supportive of slavery and racism is not saying that Douglass' opinions are indisputable facts because they come from Douglass. I'm saying that first hand reports, including Douglass' paint a consistent portrait of the church. And I'm noting you have provided nothing to suggest otherwise.
Correct?
That's So What.
Craig... "The problem was that she was trying to "reframe the country's history" to centralize a false narrative."
Bullshit. YOU just said that. Not her. What SHE said was the point is to provide "a more accurate history."
She said nothing about Centralizing a false narrative. You're making stuff up.
Craig... "The false narrative that slavery drove..."
Experts and historians for a long time have disagreed with your hunch, here.
"Few works of history have exerted as powerful an influence as a book published in 1944 called Capitalism and Slavery. Its author, Eric Williams, later the prime minister of Trinidad and Tabago, charged that black slavery was the engine that propelled Europe's rise to global economic dominance...
Nevertheless, slavery was indispensable to European development of the New World. It is inconceivable that European colonists could have settled and developed North and South America and the Caribbean without slave labor. ..
In the pre-Civil War United States, a stronger case can be made that slavery played a critical role in economic development. One crop, slave-grown cotton, provided over half of all US export earnings. By 1840, the South grew 60 percent of the world's cotton and provided some 70 percent of the cotton consumed by the British textile industry. Thus slavery paid for a substantial share of the capital, iron, and manufactured goods that laid the basis for American economic growth. "
https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-resources/teaching-resource/historical-context-was-slavery-engine-american-economic-growth#:~:text=By%201840%2C%20the%20South%20grew,basis%20for%20American%20economic%20growth.
"With cash crops of tobacco, cotton and sugar cane, America’s southern states became the economic engine of the burgeoning nation. Their fuel of choice? Human slavery...
If the Confederacy had been a separate nation, it would have ranked as the fourth richest in the world at the start of the Civil War. The slave economy had been very good to American prosperity."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.history.com/.amp/news/slavery-profitable-southern-economy
The point I'm making in these these quotes is not that other historians might not disagree, just that historians have, for a long time, believed this to be true.
Historians don't always agree. But you merely dismissing the opinions of serious historians does not mean the 1619 Project is a false narrative.
To address the Christian and humanitarian
opposition to slavery... Christian groups and individuals were certainly a significant part of this - in spite of widespread strong and sometimes violent opposition to them by white churches and others. But I wonder if you fellas would recognize and acknowledge that these were often Social Justice Christians who would today be perceived as more liberal.. at least in regards to social issues...?
"The Movement that ended slavery, the Abolitionist movement, was overwhelmingly made up of Christian progressives, of a particular sort. There were also enlightenment thinkers who believed in the “rights of man”. Those were mostly progressive Deist/Agnostic/Atheists. Some later people joining did not want slave labor to be in competition with free labor. None of them correspond with libertarian ideas.
Almost all of the work to make the public see that slavery was wrong, and that led to the abolition of the international slave trade, and in the end to the end of all slavery, was done by Quakers, Unitarians, Evangelical Anglicans (The Clapham Sect or Clapham Saints), and other sorts of Non-Conformist Christians like Methodists. These are the people that led to almost everyone in the world thinking that slavery is a moral evil. They were progressive, (mostly liberal in our terms) Christians..."
https://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/feature/quaker-activism/
https://www.britannica.com/place/United-States/Abolitionism
Conservatives then, as now, preferred the status quo and sided often with businesses/industries over the concern for the poor. Agreed?
March 7, 2022 at 8:00 PM
"She CLEARLY thinks her project is writing an IMPROVED, more accurate understanding of history..."
Yet clearly it's NOT, as the cited historians have attested. And if it's not more accurate, it's clearly not "improved".
"I think this project is a much needed correction to much of the propaganda/editorializing in more traditional history books."
Such as...?
"it's a helpful look at US history through other lenses that have often gone ignored."
Other than to race-hustlers, for whom is it helpful if it is inaccurate as the cited historians have attested?
March 8, 2022 at 10:14 AM
"So Douglass was a first hand witness reporting on the reality at the time. His reports are backed up by multiple other reports, including reports from churches themselves that show racism and support for slavery and brutal hostility towards abolitionists.. Are you not aware of the written record on this?"
Are you not aware that their observances and perceptions regarding white churches they have in mind do not mitigate the reality of Craig's assertion regarding the abolitionist support of other white churches? It's not at all surprising that most white churches may have been defenders of slavery, or even that there was even a lower opinion of the black race in abolitionist churches...or white abolitionists at all. Slavery was an institution practiced worldwide at the time. This period in which Douglass did his thing was a time when the abolitionist movement was beginning to pick up steam. It only stands to reason that white Christians who opposed slavery were in the minority, certainly worldwide if not in the U.S. at the time. The concept of "changing hearts and minds" comes to mind, as such was only picking up speed in the time of Douglass, and would take another hundred years to truly becoming the default setting in the minds of most. But could it have ever been accomplished at all were it not for white abolitionists? How? By a slave revolt which would have been crushed?
So Craig's comment regarding the work of white churches is completely accurate. You're just too enslaved by the "White Man Bad" narrative Jones and others of her ilk promote with their propaganda.
March 8, 2022 at 2:51 PM
"I'm saying quite clearly that Douglass and other first hand reports are in a better place to gauge where the church was at at the time than you are and your guesses with no data to support them. I'm citing first hand reports. You're giving a guess with nothing to support it."
There's no guessing required for that which is widely known to be a fact. The abolitionist movement was impossible without the white abolitionists of the Christian church. You can pick and choose which denominations were at the fore and question where the hell the others were, but that doesn't mitigate the fact of their full and necessary participation in bringing about abolition. Again, this isn't a "guess", and by your own admission, Douglass and your "first hand accounts" back it up.
"Do you have ANY first hand reports that says anything like that the majority of the white church was opposed to slavery and not racist?"
Do you have ANY evidence Craig what making that claim? Let me save you time you won't take anyway: I went through all of Craig's comments and found only two which speak only of white Christian churches as being "the prime drivers" of the abolition movement. Never did he assert there was a "majority of the white churches opposed to slavery and not racist."
Now apologize to Craig for once again putting words in his mouth.
"I'm saying that first hand reports, including Douglass' paint a consistent portrait of the church. And I'm noting you have provided nothing to suggest otherwise. "
And why would he when it's not been a position he's even mentioned, much less asserted in any way? In any case, those reports paint a consistent portrait of churches with which they were familiar. And that only includes the position statements of church leaders and not any indication of exactly how many in each congregation were down with the concept. I'm willing to accept most likely were in agreement, but that's just an opinion informed by a generalization of that part of the country in which they focused their attention.
I also have to wonder...how many of those southern churches publicized such a position simply to keep their churches from burning down? Just a thought.
March 8, 2022 at 2:55 PM
"Bullshit. YOU just said that. Not her. What SHE said was the point is to provide "a more accurate history."
Wow. You can't even provide "a more accurate history" of what Craig said!! He only quoted Jones as saying "reframe the country's history". I'm assuming he's quoting her since he used those little quotation marks to bookend the comment. The problem, therefore, was to do so in order "to centralize a false narrative". Now, did she need to have stated that herself for it to be true, or can intelligent people surmise that from the totality of her work? The correct answer is, the latter. The 1619 Project is certainly a false narrative.
"Bullshit. YOU just said that. Not her. What SHE said was the point is to provide "a more accurate history."
Oh look, Dan is wrong again. But if you are wrong in a forceful manner, with expletives, then you still win.
"You're giving a guess with nothing to support it."
No, I'm asking you questions to determine the accuracy of your claim. The fact that you won't answer and falsely represent what I've asked should be answer enough though.
"Correct?"
Yes, it's correct that you've modified your original claim when you couldn't prove it. You're now suggesting that it's reasonable to draw conclusions about the entirety of The Church based on the biased, observations and opinions of a single person. I'm unaware that asserting a fact based on a biased single source was something to be taken seriously.
Interesting, that "some historians" who disagree with the notion that slavery was the single driver of the US are to be accepted uncritically, but "some historians" who point out factual errors in the 1619 project are to be ignored.
Craig... "Interesting, that "some historians" who disagree with the notion that slavery was the single driver of the US are to be accepted uncritically, but "some historians" who point out factual errors in the 1619 project are to be ignored."
Interesting. I NEVER SAID THAT.
What about reading for comprehension do today's conservatives it understand?
Craig... "it's correct that you've modified your original claim when you couldn't prove it."
Again, NEVER HAPPENED. Or at least, I have no idea what you think you're speaking about since you're not referencing whatever it is you're speaking about.
Vague nothings are not a productive way to have adult conversations.
I suspect it's yet another case of you all reading my words and drawing incorrect conclusions from them.
March 11, 2022 at 1:59 PM
"Interesting. I NEVER SAID THAT."
But you did downplay the historians I cited simply because they didn't, in your opinion, add up to a significant amount, as if a handful of intelligent people don't hold more credence than a crowd of morons. So how is that different or better than Craig's paraphrasing of you attitude?
"What about reading for comprehension do today's conservatives it understand?"
What about using the English language for getting one's point across in a manner which doesn't result in normal people being "mistaken" don't today's leftists understand?
So, I've gone through Dan's links, particularly that which he holds up as the final word on slavery and white Christian churches, his selected quotes from Frederick Douglass, both used to cement the notion "White Man Bad" because of behaviors of the white Christian Americans during a time when slavery was an institution practiced worldwide with worldwide support and acceptance as a natural part of life. This attitude was interrupted by white western Christians (and some non-Christians), most notably in England and it's American colonies, and more so after those colonies became the United States of America. That is to say, Dan's offerings do nothing to mitigate the claim of Craig's...the fact of it, most importantly...that white Christian churches were a main driver of the abolition movement.
Dan then goes on to present links speaking to the economic consequences of slavery. In the same way Jones' crap sandwich hoped to prove that the USA could not have become the superpower it is were it not for slavery being the engine which lead to its economic greatness. But it's a rather simplistic argument, which is no more than, because there was slavery, it's not possible America would have thrived and grown economically. That's not necessarily the case. There are solid arguments against the notion, in fact, as this link and the links within it attest.
Thus, if we're going to talk about providing an accurate history of our nation to our kids in schools, wasting time with the racist nonsense of the 1619 Project ain't gonna get it done. Indeed, we'll be doing just the opposite while also widening the racial divide at a time when that chasm is great enough as it is, thanks to those on the left.
Marshal... "I've gone through Dan's links, particularly that which he holds up as the final word on slavery and white Christian churches..."
I never said that. Not my words, not anything I've said. Another stupidly false claim that anyone can see.
Marshal... "his selected quotes from Frederick Douglass, both used to cement the notion "White Man Bad..."
I never said that. Not my words, not anything I've said. Another stupidly false claim that anyone can see.
Marshal... "This attitude was interrupted by white western Christians (and some non-Christians), most notably in England and it's American colonies, and more so after those colonies became the United States of America..."
I never said that some white churches and white people did not fight against slavery. Indeed, I noted specifically that they DID... just that it was a minority view and one that was violently opposed by many white churches, indeed, the mainstream. At least in the South.
Marshal... " That is to say, Dan's offerings do nothing to mitigate the claim of Craig's...the fact of it, most importantly...that white Christian churches were a main driver of the abolition movement. "
1. He said they were THE MAIN DRIVER. I asked if he could support that. He hasn't and probably can't.
2. I've acknowledged pretty directly and clearly and without any of the vague mealy-mouth nothingness of you two that white Christians were indeed part of the abolitionist movement in the US. That was never my point.
3. The point remains that slavery was largely accepted and defended by white churches in the US. THAT was all I was pointing to, that reality. Why do you all fight so hard to just acknowledge that? Like,
"Yes, it's absolutely true and a great embarrassment that white churches largely defended the evil of slavery. But it's also true that many white Christians fought against slavery..."
Why do you all find it so hard to simply acknowledge A. Yes, slavery was a great and terrible evil and B. Yes, white churches and white men allowed and fought for this great evil...?
March 14, 2022 at 11:10 AM
"I never said that. Not my words, not anything I've said."
I'm working from the Trabue strategy of "Don't you realize how you sound?", with the difference being you are actually pushing what your words sound like you're pushing. All of your "white privilege" crap further supports that reality. If you have a problem with the conclusions drawn by so many from the comments you make, you might want to think more deeply about what you intend to type before hitting a single key.
"I never said that some white churches and white people did not fight against slavery. Indeed, I noted specifically that they DID... just that it was a minority view and one that was violently opposed by many white churches, indeed, the mainstream."
But it's a moot point you insist on bringing up as if it's a freakin' newsflash. No one on this side of the divide needs to be reminded of what was so obvious. No one needs bring it up unless there's some race-hustling motivation to do so.
"1. He said they were THE MAIN DRIVER. I asked if he could support that. He hasn't and probably can't."
Christians being the primary driver (I believe I corrected you on what Craig's words were and you still misquote him...I believe intentionally, which is lying) is a fact to which even your offerings attest. It's a fact of history told often enough. Unlike you, he's not obliged to "prove" the obvious. He, foolishly perhaps, assumes a minimum level of honesty and knowledge. Probably a bad idea here.
"2. I've acknowledged pretty directly and clearly and without any of the vague mealy-mouth nothingness of you two that white Christians were indeed part of the abolitionist movement in the US."
Such a generous token gesture of obvious fact as you pound away with your "White Man Bad" narrative. They were more than "a part of the abolitionist movement". They were, as Craig stated, a primary driver of the movement as well as an essential part of it's success.
"3. The point remains that slavery was largely accepted and defended by white churches in the US. THAT was all I was pointing to, that reality. Why do you all fight so hard to just acknowledge that?"
Again, this is a moot point not necessary to constant proclaim, and no one on this side of the divide is fighting against that fact in any way. You just keep bringing it up to push your "White Man Bad" narrative.
So the real question is why do you insist there's any question about our position on race and slavery when you can't point to one single comment which gives you cause to question us in this way? Apparently, this to you is "embracing grace". Pathetic and very much anti-Christian.
Why? Because I literally don't know what your position is. I don't know how else to help you understand the question or the reasoning for the question.
DO you agree that slavery is ALWAYS an evil? I don't know. I don't think so, insofar as you all defend the slavery of the OT, but then sometimes you say things like you DO think it's evil, so I don't know.
Do you agree that the slavery of US history was a great evil? And that white churches who defended/promoted it were engaged in a great evil? I don't know. You keep saying things like "Well, it was common then... everyone was doing it! It was part of the culture..." and THOSE things make it sound like you don't think it was a great evil that white churches and the US took part in... but then you complain as if the answer should be obvious, and the obvious answer is Yes, it's a great evil. And so, given your refusal to come out and clarify with no vague nothingness, I do not know your position on this or your answer to these questions. I don't know!
Why in the name of all that his holy and good and righteous and reasonable would you not just answer clearly and be done with it?
March 14, 2022 at 7:45 PM
"Why? Because I literally don't know what your position is."
Bullshit. I've given no cause to justify the asking. You've presented no evidence that I have given such cause. Indeed, I've most recently asserted the insulting nature of being asked such a question. This is an intentional lie.
We don't defend "slavery" of the OT. We explain and clarify what it was.
And yet you continue to ask the stupid questions and to rationalize it, you cite statements we've made which also do not suggest what your questions imply...because they address some other asshat comment you've made unrelated to the question!
"Why in the name of all that his holy and good and righteous and reasonable would you not just answer clearly and be done with it?"
I'll say it yet again: because you have no justification for even asking the question. None whatsoever, because we've provided no justification. You conflate our words with that which you use to rationalize this insulting question. Henceforth, I suggest you save your comments on your computer, because if any contain this question, it will not be published here.
Post a Comment