Victor Davis Constantius Hadrian Thatcher Hannibal Procrustes Martel Rommel Scipio Hanson spends a whole column listing Obama's historical distortions. Okay. Then he says:
Obama also stated: “For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights.”I will suggest, and I do hate to judge before all the facts are in, that some . . . portion of those 600,000 died for a rather . . . different . . . cause.
With all due respect to our president, this assertion is again not fully accurate. The only thing that ended slavery in the United States was the Civil War, which saw some 600,000 Americans — the vast majority of them white — lost in a violent struggle to ensure that nearly half the country would not remain a slave-owning society.
47 comments:
I think Obama was saying that it was MLK's non-violence schtick that finally won "full and equal" rights. The Civil War was mere preface.
it's like Lenin said...
So the Civil War ended segregation? Well, he's the historian...
Yeah, an awful lot of those guys were just Army grunts following orders, with no particular ideology other than "hope I don't get killed today." One which I share.
I did think that lauding peaceful means as the best way to make a better society was a very nice touch. Now let's go blow the fuck out of Afghanistan some more. And hey, Gaza, you want some more of this?
Not to mention slavery was an afterthought to the war, but hey, America's good at changing horses mid-stream that way! Who are we going to protect ourselves from/bring freedom to next! Spin the wheel!
i got'em, i got'em...i forgot to check to see if that 600k number includes conferate deaths too...shit, i don't got'em.
Not to mention slavery was an afterthought to the war
this is a gem. an afterthought? there were many reasons that ran alongside slavery, but an afterthought? friend, less reading of alternative histories and conspiracy theories.
I agree in part with TGGP re Obama's civic theology. As Obama said in his powerful Racial Gettysburg Address, slavery is America's Original Sin (but certainly not the Empire of Mali's). The wages of sin is Death, especially in the Civil War, which was preface to MLK Jr's promise of grace through sacrifice. MLK Jr's own sacrifice was itself prefatory, in that it did not, as we know, bring about Full and Equal rights, but he did Prepare the Way as did John the Baptist. Meanwhile, the advent of the Mahdi is nigh.
That is some authentic frontier gibberish.
Old John Brown lies a-moulderin in his grave...
Ah, yes, let's rag on Obama for speaking of America's foundation on human sorrow, including but not limited to slavery, without mentioning that some blacks were, gasp, slavers too. Because that's germane, right? And did you know that Rome and Greece had slavery, too?
Of course, we all know Inkie's stance on peoples less technologically powerful than us. Slavery was, no doubt, a service to humanity.
Montag: I am the walrus?
"this is a gem. an afterthought? there were many reasons that ran alongside slavery, but an afterthought? friend, less reading of alternative histories and conspiracy theories." Yes, a rare, priceless gem. Much like the shift key.
Tell me, why was the emancipation proclamation signed after the start of the war? Hmmmm. Oh. Why was it Lincoln himself said that he would do whatever was necessary to hold the union? Hmmm. This isn't revisionist. This is well known if you know anything. You clearly don't. Lincoln decided abolishing slavery was the best way to motivate the North to beat the South. End of story.
Shut the fuck up, Anonymous! Vladimir Ilych Ulianov!
lard, if i forget ioz's names for vd hansen, may my right hand for get its cunning...he can tongue jack my shitbox.
"The vast majority of them white."
Christ on a piece of toast, man. That's some weaselly nonsense right there.
Quit minimizing America's nonpareil evil, Cuneyt---that's why incensed Afro-Muslim non-terrorists, acting criminally, alone, and without groupthink rhetorical influence, such as Bledsoe-Muhammad, feel constrained to kill against their better instincts. Our Christian president did not say "foundation on human sorrow", though that's true---he said "America's Original Sin". Just like in the Bible. Own it, Cuneyt. Shame on you for equivocating.
And when his mentor the Right Reverend Jeremiah Wright said yesterday that "them Jews" are keeping Obama away from him, why, it's almost like deja vu all over again, eh? How dare they, the corrupted scribes and pharisees? "Give us Von Brunn!", the greasy Jew quislings call. We have a new Chosen People, Cuneyt, Because of Slavery. If a white man says he has no original sin, he deceives himself, and the truth is not in him.
It's not that the Civil War wasn't fought just over slavery, or that a many of the dead could give a rat's ass what it was about, or that the slaves in states not in rebellion (MD DE and NJ) were not affected by Lincoln's Motivation Proclaimation, or that full and equal rights were in fact not achieved, or even that the civil rights laws purporting to make equality enforceable were passed 100 years later and non-violently. A close, Scaliaesque reading of the Who is IOZ text leads me to conclude that a goodly part of the dead died to keep things they way they were. That's right, they were violently in favor of state supported human chattel, making Hanson wrong in so many ways. He is a hilarious version of historical "can you find the mistakes" from the kids pages of your newspaper. If you have a paper.
Tell me, why was the emancipation proclamation signed after the start of the war? Hmmmm. Oh. Why was it Lincoln himself said that he would do whatever was necessary to hold the union? Hmmm. This isn't revisionist. This is well known if you know anything. You clearly don't. Lincoln decided abolishing slavery was the best way to motivate the North to beat the South. End of story.
dude, you moved from 'slavery' to 'ending slavery'. i know, i know, i am probably just being stupid in the face of your awe inspiring brilliance but, to me, those are two different concepts. jesus christ there are some folks with complexes around here.
Lincoln decided abolishing slavery was the best way to motivate the North to beat the South.
you sure thats the way that went? and not abolishing slavery was the best to undermine the social and economic structures of the south while...and gee whiz, this is the convenient part...also suddenly having yourself a large number of agitated mao's fish eager to destroy the enemy.
"Slavery was, no doubt, a service to humanity."
Well, Cuynet, it did bring them to Jeebus a little quicker! So, that justifies everything!
There's also the tiny fact that the South seceded from the Union when Lincoln was elected because they believed he was an abolitionist. Which makes it difficult to say the war was about anything in particular more than slavery, although of course there were other more complex motivations in various other areas etc etc.
Why yes it does. God works in mysterious ways, and they all seem to benefit the white owning class!
But seriously, I don't know what Inky finds so hard to understand. I'm not going to engage him on the whole Afro-Muslim conspiracy shit, but as far as America's Original Sin and all that, it's pretty accurate. Obama wasn't saying it was an Originally American Sin. America is a utopia built on human bondage, and that yeoman farmer dreamscape conveniently ignores the monstrous harm done to millions in gaining said utopia. Mali has nothing to do with it.
Oh lawd, too funny!
Brian M---
As you say, hardly a "service to humanity" by any estimation, but many of African descent were brought to Jesus as a consequence, including our own President, a proud, spiritual, and observant Christer. America's Original Sin was hence also Part of God's Plan, you see, along with improving the quality of life of slave descendants, and their likelihood of owning a PlayStation, by five hundred percent or so versus their counterparts in today's Africa. Obama preaches today what Jesus preached before, that YHWH-God can and will turn Original Sin into a great triumph! Hallelujah!
inkberrow, obama's ancestors didn't come over on one of the mayflower's offspring.
what part of "kenyan" don't you get?
goes to show God coulda brung his chilluns to hisself w/o, ya know, slavery......
a friend of mine posted a pic he took while on a crit racing trip down south on his facebook account of the Rebel flag with the comment: I thought the war was over, and the South lost?
I told him I root for insurgencies.
You know Lincoln was worried that Great Britain would side with the south because of their textile industry and the great need for cotton. But the English were very much against slavery. This complicated matters. Also, slaves were leaving the plantations in droves. What to do. What to do. One more thing. Lincoln hated slavery.
Anon @ 8:14---
I meant that was Obama was brought to Jesus as a legacy of Christianity's beneficent operation in the nascent African-American community, not that Obama endured the Middle Passage. Without first slavery, then its bloody ouster from American society, followed by the social and political ministrations of sensitive Anglos, Obama and countless others might still be but virtuous pagans. Instead, our president has been cleansed with the Blood of Christ, and with his help America can be cleansed with the Blood of Atonement.
Aside from the fact that ending slavery was NOT a major reason why most Union soldiers fought the Confederacy, Obama is wrong in specifics.
Civil rights for blacks were NOT won by non-violence. The great Dr M.L. King was making very little headway, even with all his peaceful followers, until groups like the Black Panthers came along who did NOT eschew violence. Only then, with the very real threat of civil unrest and violence did the federal government decide to cut their losses and start actually coming through for the peaceful protesters and demonstrators.
Having to choose what to deal with, the peaceful King groups or the much more dangerous Black Panthers (and similar) pushed the government to select who they wanted to deal with. In the end, it was, to all appearances, a purely peaceful protest movement that won the day but that was only appearance. Without the very real threat of violence from OTHER groups seeking, at times, something even more than mere equality under US law, the Civil Rights Movement would still be trying to kumbaya their way to equality.
It has ALWAYS been thus. Even in Gandhi's India, it was NOT his nonviolent resistance movement that won the day on its own. It was absolutely dependent upon the extant violent groups that were acting at the same time - and Gandhi himself recognized this. His own words demanded that if you were not able to find it within yourself to simply sacrifice your life with absolute passissivity (most people are, quite understandably, NOT willing to do so), then FIGHT. To him, the WORST thing one could do was simply nothing.
A lot of people ignore the countervailing facts: that there has NEVER been a peaceful resistance movement that has, on its own (100%) won the day. In ALL cases, there was a parallel violent resistance movement active to various extents and ready to explode. It was the choice between dealing with either one or the other that drove the powers that be to deal with the peaceful/passive groups instead. It is MUCH easier to control the outcome (in their ultimate favor).
Hott.
Why the fuck are so many assrascals blabbering about what the soldiers thought they were fighting for? Since when do their thoughts count for anything? Do we ask today's grunts what the Iraq/Afghan wars are all about for the record?
It's like the people who say, "Well, 99.7% or whatthefuckever of Southern whites didn't own any slaves, blah blah blah..." Well no shit, but surprise surprise, the .3% that did were also the ones whose money talked and whose votes mattered. Same as it ever was.
I meant that was Obama was brought to Jesus as a legacy of Christianity's beneficent operation in the nascent African-American community, not that Obama endured the Middle Passage. Without first slavery, then its bloody ouster from American society, followed by the social and political ministrations of sensitive Anglos, Obama and countless others might still be but virtuous pagans. Instead, our president has been cleansed with the Blood of Christ, and with his help America can be cleansed with the Blood of Atonement.
Your God is vile, Inky. Thank goodness I am not a Christian.
YHWH is not my God, Brian, but by his own report, He is President Obama's. That's why Obama the Cerebral and Our Miss Prejean both publicly honor the Leviticus conception of sex and marriage. I can only pray to my own God, Al-Lah, that your apparent religious bigotry in calling the President's religion "vile" is not partly animated by the color of his skin, or the religions of his extended family.
I can only pray to my own God, Al-Lah, that your apparent religious bigotry in calling the President's religion "vile" is not partly animated by the color of his skin, or the religions of his extended family.
On another blog, we were just discussing the legendary Floyd Alvis Cooper, and I gotta say: the above is some quality trollin'. FAC would have been proud.
LOL mds.
Inky...I find the god of the Bible (and Koran, for that matter) vile because said deity says and does vile things. I could care less who worships him or the color of his skin.
Thanks for that, Brian---on my rebellious days, I agree on the functional equivalency of YHWH and Al-Lah's vileness. I'm not so sure of your complacency where many of their avowed worshippers are concerned, however. They also do vile things, even in America, expressly in the name of the preferred Vilehead, on religious and racial auspices, such as assassinate abortionists, military recruiters, and museum guards, and plan synagogue bombings.
With a view to protecting the public from the truly dangerous ideological extremists, President Obama is endeavoring to seperate the sheep from the goats. I trust Obama's judgment more than most Christianists, even with the almost stifling assistance of Them Jews, but my only fear is that we Muslims could be unduly singled out for culture-war breast-beating and opprobrium in general.
mds---
First "bot" from Cuneyt, now "troll" from you. As Cuneyt was unwilling or unable to define the former, I won't press you on the aptness of the latter. Suffice it to say, that one man's troll is another man's freedom-fighter.
This is some street corner shit. Christ, Inkberrow, let me break this down for you.
I said, on an entirely different thread, that Mr. Fundamental was pushing a "can't change anything, no point in trying" line whose consistency was like your routine digs at "prog Muslim apologists," was it? And hell, I want to talk about the attack on the recruiting station, but not to someone who brings it up with all the nuance of a blustering dittohead father-in-law.
So I told you what being a bot was, namely that you leap down the usual rhetorical flourishes of a rightist partisan, the "oh yeah, well America can't be criticized, because this place or this straw man is worse" and this whole number, the asking of infinitesimally minor questions and then insisting that I haven't answered them. "What's a bot, Cuneyt," "what's a rhetorical routine..."
Now, if I might volunteer an answer as to why you're a fucking troll, it's because you seem like you're being as provocative as humanly possible without advancing any real points. And some of those you do are wrapped in so much avoidant sarcasm that you're clearly not engaged in any conversation here. You start talking about talking, instead of actually joining the talk. You want to harp on what I'm or anyone else is saying or not saying, but fuck, I'd love to actually hash things out with you. But that doesn't seem to be what you're here for.
jesus what the fuck is this shit.
I think we need a 12 point comments policy!
In all seriousness, Cuneyt, "sarcasm", "rhetorical flourishes", "provocative" language, and especially "talking about talking", are not commodities I'm remotely close to cornering the market on here. I haven't gotten the impression our esteemed host, no shrinking violet, wants it any other way---if and when he does, he says so. You just disagree with me on most substantive issues, so how I say things rankles when it otherwise wouldn't. Your prerogative, more power to ya, and I may well be full o' shite, but spare me the pretextual, ad hominem reacharound.
I don't feel like you guys are respecting my safe space here.
Ah yes. "Who you callin' a troll": the Picard Maneuver of trollery. The internet needs more trolls like this guy, because honestly, there's gotten to be way too much of the "cunt eyes" style lately. And "spare me the pretextual, ad hominem reacharound" is awesome. That belongs on a T-shirt.
.....as does "the Picard Maneuver of trollery", mds! I'm glad the talk is free here, courtesy of IOZ, but I'd rather it not be cheap. Seems like most everything's trotted as meta- in some way or another here, and it's simply bad form to be Earnest, whatever importance that holds elsewhere. Wait, mds--are you going meta- with that lofty-hipster routine? (a "rhetorical routine", Cuneyt!)
The internet needs more trolls like this guy, because honestly, there's gotten to be way too much of the "cunt eyes" style lately.
Oh, fucksakes, Grandpa, tell us what it was like back on the Internet frontier when there was a real craft to trolling, please, wouldja, huh?!
If you can't tell the difference between trolling and insulting, you need to take all your windbag pontifications and insert them way, way up your sour, shit-caked ass.
Much better. I feel violated, hurt, and victimized. I can now withdraw from participation in good conscience.
Yes, I am afraid that I have to call the win for the "pretextual, ad hominem reacharound."
Post a Comment