https://www.yahoo.com/news/roy-moore-la … 33620.html
Another fine quote from a great religious American.
I saw the article and am appalled, let us now hear from the "right wing" peanut gallery, I expect the silence to be deafening.
As you can see in another thread, it is being decried as "fake news." That's all they have, because they can't dispute it on the merits without looking like idiots.
I was dared to provide an audio or video of the slime ball. I was able to conveniently access one since it is all over so-called fake news.
Yes, Diane, you did, but just as well have not as the excuses are still coming from the usual 'doubting thomases'.
I guess that they will now accuse the venerable LA Times now of faking Moore's voice?
I won't necessarily call the statement racist, but anyone who can put that utterly barbaric period of American History on a pedestal is not the kind of man I want in a leadership position. Things were only 'good' for white Anglo Saxon families. Where does he get the gall to make such a response to a AA that posed the question? Was it intended to be an underhanded slight?
To an AA, EXACTLY! Something similar happened when he was addressing a group (I believe Berkley law students) about the crime in the inner city. I don't want to try to restate what he said but he belittled the person who asked the question.
Meanwhile, back at the plantation,
Sense of family
1. Slaveowners, their sons and friends raped the female slaves,
2. It was adultery,
3. Inhumane treated in considering them animals,
4. hypocrisy of being "Christians" and doing all of the above
5. Slaves were worked hard early morning to late evening, they got 1 pair of shoes for the year
Roy Moore doesn't know Jack shinola about "family" during that period.
Getting upset, over and out!
Moore speaks from the cuff, with a lack of depth commonly found in rightwing thought. Before his statements about who were better off or who was great relative to something or someone else perhaps a little empathy might be in order about all the others that were not included in his vision of a period of relative utopia for America.
Roy Moore's sexual assault of young girls has overshadowed his nutjob positions on other issues. He has equated homosexuality with bestiality and thinks it should be illegal. He said Muslims should not be allowed to serve in Congress, and he thinks Obama isn't an American citizen.
He is unfit to serve, just like his highest-level supporter who besmirches the presidency.
America was only great for whites. Times will change as they done in ancient pass.
You folks better be careful. You could break an ankle jumping on spin like that.
Here are some recent headlines:
Roy Moore: Last Time America Was 'Great' Was During 'Slavery
Roy Moore: America Was Great During Slavery
Roy Moore: America was great in era of slavery, is now 'focus of evil in ..
Roy Moore Believes America Was Great During Slavery.
etc. etc. - Google News search results.
Except for this one anomaly:
Roy Moore: America “was great at the time when families were united ... from Vox.com
Can anyone be faulted for drawing the conclusion that Roy Moore thought slavery made America great? I mean, if you only read the headlines, and don't bother with the details.
In another conversation someone chided another poster for using that Pelosi sound-bite: `We have to pass the bill to see what is in it' - pointing out that the context of its initial use belied the intent of the poster''s use of it. Would you folks consider it reasonable to apply the same consideration to Roy Moore's quote?
Here is Mr. Moore's response, with what I think are the contextual points of his remark bolded:
" Moore responded: "I think it was great at the time when families were united—even though we had slavery—they cared for one another… Our families were strong, our country had a direction."
It seems that the slavery phrase was a time marker, and the "...even though..." descriptor sure seems to imply he didn't think slavery was a good thing - after all he used it to separate slavery from the good things he mentioned; families united, cared about one another, families were strong, country had a direction.
If that statement had not been time-stamped with the slavery era phrase, would the same statement carry your taken meaning that Roy Moore thought slavery was a part of America's greatness? That seems, to me, to be the inference of those headlines I noted - and the comments in this thread so far.
Geesh! Cover your eyes and throw a dart. No matter who you hit it seems you get the same squeal. Y'all got soot on your hands.
Gee whiz, GA! I expected better of you than that. There's no getting around his referencing the slave era. Nor that he wasn't taking in consideration what the slave families were going through at the time. A callous, bigoted statement if I've ever heard one!
I guess it is too bad for me that I just stumbled across an audio of his comments - thanks to Diane, in another thread - because it makes me even more sure of my interpretation.
It turns out the slavery phrase was a bit more than just a time stamp, it was also noted as a problem we overcame.
Contrary to your assertion, I didn't draw any inference to slave families from his comments.
Have a listen for yourself. Even listening with your prejudiced perspective, I think you will have to do a lot of twisting to find support for your interpretation of what he meant.
Audio of Roy Moore's "When was America great" comments"
With hopes of keeping you from jumping to any more wrong conclusions, understand that I am not defending Moore, or his idea of when America was great, I am just commenting on the BS spin that has been put to his remarks.
Also, I can only hope that your "A callous, bigoted statement..." remark was in reference to Moore's statement, because if it was directed at my statement; rather than just saying you disagree - then I will gladly offer to help you place it in a tight sun-deprived place.
Here is my take, copied and pasted from another thread:
"First, I would wonder what makes him think families were more united then? Obviously, he wasn't alive at that time, so where does this idea come from?
But, no, I have no reason to believe families were more united during the time of slavery. In fact, families were torn apart because of slavery."
I think it is fair and I stand by it, even though I acknowledge your point has merit.
Don't fall out of your chair PrettyPanther, but I agree with you. I wasn't agreeing with his statement, I was just commenting on the obvious spin, and the glee of those that so quickly jumped onboard.
As I am sure you will see - in my response to Randy, the audio of his comment sounds to me like a confirmation of my original response.
Here is the audio recording Diane posted in another thread:
Audio of Roy Moore's "When was America great" comments
What do you think?
I think you have a point, but I will say this. Which families were he talking about? I doubt that many Americans of color would agree that families were more united at that time. And, I know you will probably think I am being unfair, but he then uses language common to racists who say that slaves, on the whole, had it pretty good, and that current black family culture is dysfunctional because of their inherent shortcomings which lead them to commit more crime, abandon their families, etc. If it were someone who had never before exhibited racist leanings, I could easily give him a pass, but given the questioner was black, and he unnecessarily threw in the reference to slavery, it is not much of a stretch to interpret his remarks as harking back to a time when he thought whites had it better and blacks were taken care of
All that said, I agree that it's possible he didn't mean all of that, which is why I limited my original statement on the matter.
I am going to stop with my original point PrettyPanther. Anything more would begin to look like I was defending the man.
Considering what little I know of Roy Moore, I can see him envisioning a scenario of the, (as another poster called it), the 'ante bellum' times of the pre-civil war South.
That is what prompted my first comment - not the truth of the thought or character of the man.
I understand. You were introducing fairness into the debate, which I agree was needed.
You have to admit outside of your interesting point, that is was rather a stupid thing for Moore to say.
My view is identical to that of the Panther in this matter.
So, America was at its greatest while a section of the nation was free to own people and while Native Americans were brutally driven across the continent?
Hi Cred, Apparently my comment was misconstrued as agreement with Moore's statement. To the contrary, I also agree with PrettyPanther. Although I do think Moore's criteria was correct; the family and direction stuff, but I would more likely place that time period in the early post-WWII era.
My point was all about the spin used to generate the headlines and interpretations dominating the news, and, (*ahem) certain ideologically-minded folks commenting in this thread.
I posted Diane's audio link a couple times already. Check it out and see what you think after listening to the full remarks - not just that one sound-bite.
GA, we do agree that America's at its most preeminent was during a handful of years after WWII.
As I mentioned to Diane, Moore's comment while not racist bordered on insensitive at best. If this man saw the nation in a sense of togetherness during this historically contentious period (before 1860) when so many were excluded, it sends me the wrong message as he does not truly know what it is that is going to bring people together TODAY, reaffirming all the negative opinions I have about the man.
I think I would put it during the war, not after. Thinking of millions of young men leaving their wives, children and friends to die on foreign soil to protect the country and people and to help the friends they had never seen. Thinking of women that suddenly changed their entire culture, their very concept of what a woman was and what a woman did to do heavy manufacturing jobs. Thinking of children that went without in order to provide for the war effort, that saved their pennies and contributed rather than buy a candy. The elderly that rose from their rocking chairs to do what they could.
The people, all of them, came together in a way that we would not see until 911 and at a level that we have not seen at all since that war.
Of course, you are referring to the white people of that era.
You don't think black people fought in the war? Or black women worked the factories? You don't think black kids saved a penny to contribute?
While I wasn't there, I would have to disagree, and I know black men joined the army - I've read of a group of black pilots.
Good point Wilderness!
Why African-American Soldiers Saw World War II as a Two-Front Battle
Drawing the connection between fascism abroad and hate at home, pre-Civil Rights activists declared the necessity of “double victory”
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ … 180964616/
I very highly doubt that black soldiers saw WWII as a two front battle. I doubt that the black "Rosie the Riveteer" did either - between working long, physically demanding shifts and coming home to care for the kids she would not have had the time or energy.
On the other hand, the civil rights activists with time on their hands most certainly did, just as the first sentence of the link says.
Racism didn't stop when they entered service. They had brothers, sisters, exended family and friends that were surrounded by racism. Transporation to/from service reminded them that racism was alive and well.
My cousin, Jesse, while in uniform, went to an establishment in Mississippi - in the 1950s. He picked up a pool stick to play pool. A worker told him, "N*ggers weren't allowed to play pool."
Reality didn't stop because of the war.
Of course it didn't stop! I just feel that a soldier in the trenches, hearing a bullet tweeet by his head, isn't thinking about what color the soldier is next to him, or how that white soldier rubbing shoulders with him in the trench is so privileged. Same with the young mother working heavy labor in a factory job intended for a man twice her size, then going home to take care of the house and feed the kids. She isn't concerned about what color the woman next to her is - she's concerned about wiping the sweat from her forehead and, somehow, holding it together until the end of the shift.
On the other hand, as I mentioned, the newspaper writer pushing a pencil instead of a 2,000 pound cart of molten iron or looking over the sights of a gun while his feet rotted off, talked about it a lot. As did some politicians that stayed home, safe and sound. And activists with nothing better to do.
That's an opinion and it would have been great had it worked out that way. If the camaraderie in the trenches had gone on and carried back into the homeland, things would have been much different now.
One look at reality and we see a black community since 1930s or so that align with the democratic party by a large ratio , 80 % +- - , it matters when you look at the highest populations of blacks in large democratic dominated and governed cities today , I admit city and rural cultures are as different as night and day but we have to consider party affiliations , population centers and who governs them especially when
discussing racial divide.
The biggest ingredient to better race relations at ANY time is accountability at the all important individual human level .
There are far too many generalities made.
Very true, and not just an opinion. That is how it was, and is. Sadly! That really needs to change. People deserve to get credit where it is due, instead of the biased narratives we get.
Well, you are wrong about that 'two front battle'. Yes there was, the armed forces were still segregated and African American men subordinated their grievances with American society to focus of the war effort. But we agreed to do that in 1917 at the behest of Woodrow Wilson, upon the black doughboy's return, they found that nothing was going to change. We had greater expectations from Roosevelt and Truman administrations, at least Truman desegregated the Armed Forces. Things were happening, progress at a painfully slow pace.
During the war, German POWs were treated better than Black American GIs in the Jim Crow South, obviously so much needed to be done.
We were far from what you consider "unified".
I misunderstood and thought you were referring to the Civil War era. My bad.
The Tuskegee Airmen. I wrote a hub about Tuskegee Airman Joseph Gomer. They were segregated in the military, and thought to be less capable pilots than whites, but they showed them all what they could do in the air and became heroes in their own right.
I never met Mr. Gomer but would love to have had the honor, but my sister knew him and his wife. Pure gold!
Yes, black folks fought in the war and participated in the ultimate struggle to defeat the Axis Powers.
Those pilots you refer to were known as the Tuskegee Airman, they accumulated quite a record of successful close air support of our bombers.
A point well taken, I have seen the old photos of people virtually standing in lines waiting to volunteer as soon after FDR declares war as a result of Pearl Harbor. I can't imagine that happening today short of a direct attack upon American soil. Who is going to make these kinds of sacrifices today in the face of these current manufactured wars and conflicts. But America was at its greatest power in the period after the US had the "bomb" for a least a few years before the USSR exploded theirs. It was second to none the only economy that was functional immediately after the war. And all of us did not necessarily have a unified view in regards to 9-11 as to the provocation, the cause nor the appropriate response, not like Pearl Harbor.
Anyone watching the Moore polling ? Maybe voters are smart enough to wait for the verdict from the trial before determining a mans guilt !
by G. Diane Nelson Trotter 7 months ago
At a campaign event earlier this year, an audience member asked Moore for his opinion on when the last time America was "great." Moore responded: "I think it was great at the time when families were united—even though we had slavery—they cared for one another…Our families were...
by Ralph Schwartz 7 months ago
The Washington Post published a story last week stating that Alabama Judge and candidate for US Senator Roy Moore has multiple incidents of misconduct involving underage girls.....34 years ago.This is the same "newspaper" that did a hit piece on President Trump last election cycle. ...
by Sychophantastic 7 months ago
President Trump is fully backing Roy Moore for the Alabama U.S. Senate seat. Thank God!Jesus spoke to me the other night and said that this was the right thing to do. I personally don't care whether or not Roy Moore dated teenage girls when he was in his thirties. The important thing about Roy...
by Alternative Prime 7 months ago
WHY On Earth Are A Few IMMORAL, Heathen Women Turning Roy Moore Into The "Poster CHILD" For Alabama?Talk about TOTAL Destruction of Mr. Trump & Republicans ~ Trump's Ratings SINKING 2 the LOW 30's, Cancellations at "Hurricane WHIPPED" Mara-Lago by the Red Cross &...
by nightwork4 7 years ago
Does micheal moore's documentaries make you think?he seems to want people to look at greed with an open eye, does he motivate you to question your way of life?
by Alternative Prime 8 months ago
How Can A Woman Still Support Moore? How "SAFE" Are Young Teen Children In "Roy Moore's Alabama"?Yes, I think we realize Alabama has always been a BIZZARE, Disturbing backward place with their Grungy Dented PICK-Up Trucks Adorned with "Confederate FLAG Hate Ornaments",...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|