1776 Commission Report? Ignorance from the Right takes center stage?
1776 Commission Report? Does "patriotic education" from the right wingers point of view replace the Truth?
In response to the 1619 Project, conservatives led by a commission headed by Trump, deals in lies and misconception without so much as one nationally recognized historian on his panel. Is this where we are going? Truth is only that which coincides with rightwing values?
I get angry with arrogance of such people and am determined to have them and their messages obliterated from the planet, within all means available within the democratic process, of course.
Are people so dumb as to be so easily manipulated?
Background:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/18/us/p … eport.htmlI will admit, I did not read the 1776 Commission Report. It is so long. I just researched many other historians' opinions of the 1619 project, its relevance, and their opinions on the accuracy of the claims in 1619. project.
I must ask --- what are your feelings about the actual claims in the 1619 project?Don't blame you it can get quite involved
Excerpt from a book review:
"In August 2019, the New York Times magazine published the “1619 Project.” This series of essays and articles provided readers with many “facts” that they may not have known: that the American Revolution was fought to preserve slavery; that Abraham Lincoln was a racist; that America’s foundational premise was “slavocracy;” that present-day American wealth is a direct consequence of slavery; and that the essential pattern of our history is not one of unprecedented growth in freedom and democracy but institutional hatred and oppression of blacks"
What's wrong? First I have never read anything that indicated that the Revolutionary War was fought to preserve slavery. I think that may be a stretch.
2nd, to attack Abraham Lincoln as a racist was not fair to him, the time that he live in and his effort to eradicate the "peculiar institution". He was ahead of his time and was far superior to almost a half century of his predecessors. You can't judge 19th century men by 21st century standards.
While the Right presents many of its advocates here and now without the foresight that Lincoln could display 160 years ago.
But, I do agree that much of America's vast wealth came from the unrequited toll of others and the appropriation of land and territory at the point of a gun.
I would have my head in the sand if I did not recognize that racism was inherent and institutionalized as part of the Government. Is that as firmly in place today? I would say not, but corrections have come at a price, the bang of a gavel or the point of a bayonet, much of that necessitated the "identity politics" that conservatives harp about all the time. The fact that we had to "force it" means that constant reminders are needed to prevent backsliding.
I regard the 1776 report as an ideological attack piece in a reactionary response to the assertions made in the 1619 project. While both Reports had their errors, the ones found in the 1776 report reeks of partisanism and are far more serious in my opinion.
We don't agree on much, but kudos to you for your scholarship and fervent desire to always get to the bottom of whatever topic you are engaged in....I can and will be kind and applaud Nikole Hannah-Jone's efforts to address the foundational history of slavery and racism in America's history. Many Historians were not kind to her efforts. But veered into criticism of the 1619 Project.
However, there were some historians with the stature that did challenge some of the claims or should I say credibility of the 1619 Project. I would think Jone's more or less had to create let's say a puzzle with all the different long past historical accounts. She created what she saw, a view.
I did go lightly skim the 1776 report, it does appear to be one-sided, yes partisanism. I must say I would have expected that.
I too can agree that much of America's vast wealth came from the unrequited toll of others and the appropriation of land and territory at the point of a gun. Not sure many could argue that part of America's
history.
I enjoy conversing with you. I think you lay it all out there. You don't guard your every word. No games, just your thought. I can see where your coming from, and feel I have gotten to know you --- a bit.
How about some of that "background" for any of us that hit the Pay Wall? (and not even for just a $buck)
I don't know anything about either of the reports, but I get the impression that you think 1619 is the real truth and 1776 is deceitful false "truths," is that right?
So toss out the most extreme and most partisan claims of both reports and compare the center-Left and center-Right report conclusions. Do you still see the issue as in your OP?
As Sharlee asked, "What's your beef bud?
GAWhen it comes to Rightwingers,conservative advocacy and politics, rest assured that there is plenty of beef on the hoof.
Yes, I can live with turning out the falsehoods of both reports. But when you look at what is going on in Virginia today, the danger is coming from the Right, to "whitewash" history, no pun intended. While so many states are talking about banning CRT and the 1619 project, which states discredit the 1776 Report? If it wasn't for Biden throwing this report in the rubbish bin, fragile white audiences would have preferred the comforting 1950's perspective on American history, even while fraught with lies.
What did it say about the Founding Fathers? Excuse after excuse for their duplicitous professed beliefs, contrary to their actions. Such is capitalism, where exploitation for private gain supersedes any real principle. That is just as true today as it was in 1776, we just changed the color of the candy coating on the same M&M. It blames the left for fascism, which is clearly a right wing oriented form of government, bromides about Communism, ad nauseum.
How do I explain to my nieces and nephews a "Leave it to Beaver" view of American History that marginalizes their contributions and their very existence? This is all quite contemporary stuff.
I'd post a link to this 1776 Report, but as Sharlee said, it is a bit long.I was going to take a pass on your "Rightwingers" rhetoric, but then you had to pick-on the Founders. . .
I am sure I recall you defending them, (the Founders), as `men of their times' in past discussions. And you just did the same for Abe Lincoln. (if you give it to Abe, (all those decades later), surely you would do the same for them). So what's up with this "Excuse after excuse for their duplicitous professed beliefs, contrary to their actions"?
As for your nieces and nephews, why not just tell them the truth, at whatever level they can handle? Anything else will harm them.
GAGA, False equivalence to compare my example regarding Lincoln who was handicapped from today's perspectives only because he was a 19th century man, with men who behaved in stark contrast with professed beliefs.(Founding FAthers). Hypocrisy is not redefined in any sense by time and space. I see the clear difference, don't you?
Were they all bad? Of course not. But it is this glaring and serious fault in their characters which tempers my view of the claim of their "greatness".
John Adams is my example of a real patriot that truly believed in freedom, both in word and deed from this aspect, anyway.
Regardless of the level, anything less than the truth will ultimately harm them.I don't think your "false equivalency" claim is valid. You are judging two periods of time, not by the morals of their time, but by our 21st-century morals. That doesn't work. And yet, even so, you will grant `understanding' to one group but not the other. If there is a false equivalency it is that. You don't get to have it both ways.
I think that, if judged by their "times" the Founders could easily be described as more progressive for their "time" than you are in yours. Or, maybe you are suggesting that they should have fought for perfection at the cost of the nation they were trying to form? Surely you don't think your progressive ideology would have carried the day in a vote for our new Constitution?
You are right about telling children the truth but wrong about the "level" thing. Explaining `Leave it to Beaver' shouldn't be any harder than explaining `The Cosby Show'. Unless, of course, a chip on the shoulder gets involved in telling the "truth."
GAGA, what morals?
You can't speak all the lofty things and extol them, and claim to abhor a system that you, yourself, are engaging in and from which you continued to profit. Walking the talk was just as relevant in 1776 as it is today. I am well aware that 18th century mores were different, but a hypocrite, hypocrisy and what they represent remain timeless.
I am aware of the political implications of accommodating slavery as an impediment to the formation of the Union. But as a minimum, as individuals, they could have lived up to their "lofty ideals" within their own lives and personal behavior. Why should I believe anything that they "declare"?Otherwise, it s just more "mumbo-jumbo to impress and startle the world except upon closer examination, the truth is revealed.
These were all intelligent and knowledgeable men and they should have known better.
What is there to understand? When do the morals of anytime accomodate hypocrisy?
You need to elaborate why you consider these Founders so"noble" and so "progressive" with the "enlightened values" of enslaving others for their own gain?I found a good article by Stephen Ambrose that illustrates my thoughts on this.
"Slavery and discrimination cloud our minds in the most extraordinary ways, including a blanket judgment today against American slave owners in the 18th and 19th centuries. That the masters should be judged as lacking in the scope of their minds and hearts is fair, indeed must be insisted upon, but that doesn’t mean we should judge the whole of them only by this part."
Take a few minutes for a good read: Founding Fathers and Slaveholders
That works for me, I think there is a lot to understand, but I have the impression it will mean beans to you.
GAI will check it out and let you know. I will give credit where due if your points are well taken.
First of all, i respect Stephen Ambrose as a renown historian whose credentials are impeccable. I was anxious to read his take on this issue, thanks for sharing it.
Reading this, he basically confirms everything that I have been trying to tell you.
We all are aware of Jefferson's fickle nature, it is legendary.
But what about the other Founding Fathers, were they all fickle as well?
Did they consider blacks inferior and childlike, while they virtually kept the plantations running? The concept of true freedom was not an unknown one, John Adams and his son, John Quincy Adams seem to grasp the principle. Was it only John Adams who said that, "the American Revolution was not complete without the eradication of slavery?"
These men deserve credit for their contribution to nascent republic. That is why I opposed bringing down the monuments to them as I would those associated with the Confederacy. But their "greatness" is marginalized by their support in practice of an institution that they supposedly abhored in their declarations.
In spite of the political pressures, I would have respected them much more had they practiced what they preached and they should have known better than to convieniently throw darts at resolution in a future that they did not help to shape.
Who had to bear the brunt of "waiting" for the "wisdom" of a future generation?
Watching a good crime drama on TV, last night, "FBI Most Wanted", it reminded me of much of what we are speaking about.
A man, an acquaintance of another relatively wealthy man, was imprisoned for 35 years on charges of the rape and murder of a 13 year old girl. The truth was that the wealthy man raped and killed his own daughter and acquired a slick lawyer with circumstantial evidence to have his acquaintance imprisoned for a crime that he did not commit. And the wealthy man knew that he was in fact guilty and the man imprisoned was innocent.
So, after 35 years, the imprisoned man was released and basically went on a homicidal rage against this man and his entire family. The wealthy man when confronting the man just released spoke of bygones being bygones, peace in our time. How about we just bury the hatchet? The formally imprisoned man would say, yes, I would "bury it" into the rear of your skull.
There was no excuse for the man to target the entire family, but his rage and anger was inconsolable and I can understand why. The officers of the FBI had to put him down and send him to his maker by the end of the show.
Such be the case with America and it concealing the true nature of its crime against certain populations?
BTW, in my opinion, Abraham Lincoln was the greatest.Jefferson observed that Blacks were intelligent and would easily catch up with whites in one generation if given the education.
Also, they came from Africa and had been taken care of in America. (Many were not treated well, I realize, but many were well cared for. George Washington allowed slave families to live together, rather than separating them.
What does one do with freedom when released with no survival skills, abilities or experience to live independently?
I believe the transition is where America went wrong.
Newly-feed slaves should have been provided free and appropriate education to learn How to Live skills to enable them to transition from dependance to independence.Yet, Jefferson's observation did not translate into his actions nor his behavior, so I have to question the sincerity of his statements.
Most were not treated well, the idea of the "happy darky" was just that, a myth.
As for what one does with freedom without survival skills? What does anyone do in such an instance? They use human ingenuity and figure it out, is that not what whites did? Paternalism is not an excuse for slavery.
It would have been far more helpful if the government did not renege on the "40 Acres and a Mule". Being able to enjoy the fruits of ones own labor while acquiring wealth in land was a plus. What was there to learn? They had been working with the appropriate skills for years on behalf of their former masters.Q. "As for what one does with freedom without survival skills? What does anyone do in such an instance?"
A. Whites could read and compute couldn't they? Were these slaves educated or even exposed to writing, reading or math?
Q."They use human ingenuity and figure it out, is that not what whites did? Paternalism is not an excuse for slavery."
A. Paternalism was not used as an excuse to use slave labor then, and I do not use it as excuse today. Slavery had been in practice due to the consequences involving all the wars that were constantly occurring in Africa. They sold their slaves to the whites. They did it.
The whites were guilty to take advantage of such horrid darkness.
But on a practical level, they needed the labor of many to cultivate the crops of the south, (especially tobacco.) The slaves were a big part of the beginning success of this country. We should feel awe and gratitude for their contribution.
Well, your FBI Most Wanted example wasn't a surprise. Comparing America and its Founders to a conscienceless wealthy man, (the elite?), and, (I guess), the `wronged' man as America.(?) Geesh.
It doesn't matter what your color is or what your beef is, carrying a chip for too long, (a lifetime? generations?), is never a good thing. Someone smarter than me warned about a future held hostage by its past.
GAThat is always easily said, as long as you are not the aggrieved party.
The past can never be forgotten, but it can be put aside and its detrimental effects can be alleviated in the present. I have discussed with you before the kinds of ideas that will help mend the fences, short of reparations to level the playing field, putting the ball back into our court. That is if we are Really serious about solutions.If it is easy to say—in the context you use, doesn't that translate into a statement of character? By that, your thought would use the scale of the grievance vs. the scale of the response, (revenge, justice, whatever), as a measure of how "easy it is to say," but not be able to do.
I don't think us folks that defend the concepts of the Founders, and the men themselves, want to forget the past or cover it up. We just don't want it propagandized to serve a vengeful agenda. And there should be no argument that a chip carries a desire for vengeance.
Sooo . . . I think it is just as valid to say the same things about many parts of 1619 that you are saying about 1776. As for your criticisms of the Founders, have at it. They were strong men who made a great thing.
I recall those past conversations, and I also remember that, (in most cases). when we were able to get past, (he-he pun intended), the ideological rhetoric, and partisan talking points we found common ground. But not on this one.
GAYou are always talking about turning the other cheek, if the situations were reversed would you really turn yours? Is this not the test of true character, would you do what you insist others should, when it is YOUR skin in the game?
I am simply saying that these (Founding Fathers) are not the infallible Gods that you seem to make them out to be. On the topic we have been discussing, they fell short of being heroes in one very important aspect from my point of view. You have all "your heroes" virtually enshrined in Marble, being naturally and always beyond reproach. Ronald Reagan, for example. Nor do we all see John Wayne as a hero.
There is common ground to the extent that we may have to agree to disagree in this instance.Oh lordy, lordy, so now it's an "agree to disagree situation"? I don't think so. Your responses continue to confirm my "chip" perspective. Either I have been sloppy with my words, or you are reading unintended meanings.
None of my comments have meant to imply that this is `just another' admonishment to turn the other cheek. The simple point, (to me anyway), I have tried to make is that you, (generic), have to let go of the past. Dump its hold on you, (again, generic).
Also, my respect for the Founders' abilities and foresight, and as historically proven, successful achievement may sound like worship, but it's not, it's deep respect. I always talk of them as men, great men, but not gods. And your marble reference might also work if instead of thinking of it as something set in stone, it is viewed as what natural marble is—with veins of contrast, color, impurities, and imperfections. A picture of the entire character. (Hmm . . . I like that. HP must be rubbing off on me :-))
But, to move away from that 'high-horse' be the better person tangent, let me put my street shoes on and look at the everyday reality of your perspective. But remember, I haven't read either report so any descriptions I use are just assumptions made from what I have heard or read.
It appears we agree to discount the most extreme of both reports as off-setting penalties. How about Sharlee's "Washington" reference as an example of a more centrist and less disagreeable contrast between the two reports.
I would guess that 1619 makes a big deal about his bigotry in waiting until his, (and his wife's), death, and the hypocrisy of a nation that allowed that condition to continue even beyond those deaths. I would also guess that 1776 made the bare claim that Washington was a great leader that lived his values and freed his slaves.
Both sides are technically true. But the details and presentation of those details matter, hence your anger. I hope that is a fair representation, because if not then I'm just blowing smoke.
So, we have to pick a truth to run with. As a well-known, (suspected), 'fence-sitter' , I choose both. I think both are true. So if both descriptions are applied to this "Washington" example where would you land? Was he a great man that history has shown to have lived his attributed values, (minus this discussion issue), throughout his life? Was he a great national leader when he was most needed, and a great patriot in following the rules he helped make when he left? Did he come as far as he possibly could, (in his time), when he declared he would free his slaves?
When I look at Washington as that block of marble in this context, I see the solid majority of pure strength and character. Sure, I see the minor impurities, (his early military ambitions), the veins of color, (the examples of sharing military privations), and the imperfections of not being the perfect man, (this issue). So, hell no, I ain't buying that first truth as a measure of the man. And I don't want our nation's children—of any color or culture—taught that the first truth is the truth they must accept because it is the real truth— as attested to by an aggrieved party.
What about you. Is the first truth your view of George Washington, just another "do, (or be), as I say, not as I do, (or am), " Right-winger?
GAI am glad that you decided to stay for another round....
I am a historian, GA,by both inclination and education. That's my thing.
I am not crouched with a knife between my teeth waiting to pounce. I am just sharing with you the philosophical underpinnings behind the way many of us see things. So, there is no "hold" just an explanation.
The Founding Fathers were innovative as to suggest a novel approach to governance, history records that. And they deserve credit for that and that is why their monuments can stay. But, that would have not done anything for me or those hapless slaves that these men kept in bondage. I would adhere more to Frederick Douglas or W.E.B DuBois as advocates of true freedom and equality.
We do agree that both reports had taken some liberties relative to the facts and reality. Sharlee's suggestion was "spot on",more centrist and less contentious could work, not just to make people feel better but to more closely align with the truth as substantiated by the historians. That was a reasonable compromise. But would this issue be an occasion for the Right to dismiss all unpleasant truth about our historyin public schools? Listening to state legislatures and municipalities, all the "excesses" were blamed on the Left.
Excerpt from a History Channel article on the subject:
"In the words of historian Henry Wiencek, his contradictory attitudes towards slavery are “one of the mysteries of his life.” Those contradictions made it into his will, too. Though the will contained the unheard-of order to free his enslaved workers, it stipulated that they remain with Martha for the rest of her life."
I might have been willing to give Washington a break, recognizing that Martha and her family did not share the lofty ideals that George had regarding manumission. But when I look carefully, he in his will directed that his slaves, not Martha's for which he had no control, be freed. But, he stipulated that they remain with Martha for the rest of her life. That does not sound like a commitment to freedom to me. So, in his own way, he was as bad as the others. So, the 1619 version regarding Washington's attitudes toward slavery, was more that just a "big deal", it was the fact, when the lie about Washington freeing his slaves upon his death is proposed in the 1776 report.
Based on the example, I provided above, I think one version is more accurate than the other. Ambrose gave a stirring account of George Washington, and in every aspect, I am sure that he was exemplary among men. But the fault/deficit I did find is of prime importance and one that has equal weight equivalent to several of his virtuous qualities, from my perspective. I have to give a him lower grade on account of it. He might be preferred over Jefferson as less duplicitous (wishy-washy), but not by much.
Being hypocritical and ambiguous about slavery in practice while denouncing it with the tongue, is the premise of the 1619 report and is more than just a "minor flaw" for me.You got me bud. That chip is just too attached to budge. Look where your "explanations" have led you: You say George Washington is only barely acceptable to be called a great man. Barely, but "not by much." A man proclaimed to be the Father of our nation barely meets your bar. Geesh, I can't top that.
GA
Oops, forgot your first question, What would I do, what is my skin in the game?"
I think I answered the "skin" part in a previous response with my reference to what our nation's children are taught, but you know, that as a white man, I can't answer that "do" part, as addressed to this issue. I would like to think I could move on, but who knows.
My only support for that thought is that I have never held a grudge about anything in my life, big or small. That is not because I am such a good forgiving person, or because I have never been mad, angry, or just pissed off, it is because I am lazy. Holding on to a grudge takes energy. It requires work and decision choices to maintain it. And, even worse for me, being angry upsets me. When I get really mad— kiss my ass level mad, I get all worked up and agitated and just plain upset. I don't think anyone should choose a state of agitation over one of normalcy. And think about it, to hold a grudge you have to work to maintain a simmering level of agitation. Nope, I am too lazy and I like the easy road whenever it works, for me.
(ya gonna charge me for this session Doc?)
GAI understand that it is difficult to put oneself in another's shoes..
I share your attitude about "grudges" in my personal life and do not allow them to detract from my health and well being. But, in the process of attempting educate you all about life from the perspective of many us, resentment and distrust remains sticking points. It explains why we vote the way we do and cling to certain ideas and ideals that are not necessarily shared by conservatives and Republicans.
Conservatism seeks a way to excuse race prejudice and bigotry among the Founding Fathers", while in the "1776 report", it attempts to do the same in 2021. It wants to present whitewashed lies to our children.
Should there not be any resentment? Look how long it took before these "truths became self evident" for so many? I say that the inhumane treatment for so long puts one behind a "8 ball" and uphill trudge, while everyone relative to this have paved and evenly graded highways on which to travel.
As for the solution, it is elusive. But, I have had a few ideas. Still, lying and dismissing what did happen is certainly not the answer.No, there shouldn't be any resentment. Instead, there should be celebration, (personal satisfaction), for every forward step made, and I think there have been a lot of great steps made, steps worth celebrating as progress—if I were in your shoes.
Consider two young Creds, children of the 50s. Both have the same cultural and knowledge environment. One grows up with a sense of resentment and debt-owed, (ahem, that chip), the other grows up celebrating the victory of every obstacle removed and every step forward and Right restored.
Who is going to have a happier and more productive life? And who is going to do more for their `people', (if that is their life-direction)?
I don't think the most important, and absolutely necessary `first' solution is allusive at all. It is easily found with just a little introspection.
GAWe heard the same thing 100 years ago, " see how far you've come".
Given more crumbs from the table and calling it progress is not good enough. Why should we be grateful for things unjustiably denied or stolen, that in the 'Man's' good time he sees fit to return.
We all know that harboring resentment to the point of affecting your behavior and life chances is counter productive, leading to prison, premature death, or a marginalized economic state. We all had to survive, grandparents, etc, within a society that allowed them fewer rights and opportunities, they survived in spite of all that. But that does not relieve the larger society of culpability for creating those conditions.
Why should I be so eternally grateful for receiving the things that you have always had? What had given you the temerity to deny these rights in the first place? Did it all start with the Founding Fathers and their General failure to call out a dehumanizing practice as part of all that lofty oratory?Well, since you brought him up . . . "There you go again."
This feels like one of those carnival mirror mazes. I say something and your mind sees multiplied images of what I really said but you read as what you were expecting to be said. I bet your mind could hardly wait to whip out a few links of those chains I have been telling you about.
Look at the ancestry of the terms you chose; "crumbs from the table," "why should I/we be grateful." Both terms that have been repeated by at least a few generations of resentful folks.
I don't think the great black leaders, (and activists), were motivated by resentment. I don't think they saw crumbs, I think they saw them as steps forward. I think they would have celebrated their victories. But hey, it seems kinda ballsy for me to be tossing that to you, I'm probably way over my head. But, what little I do know of the development of the Civil Rights movement and the changes it achieved, it looks like a whole lot of progress has been made. Stuff that is a lot more significant than crumbs.
Going back to your "gratitude comment: That is the maze of mirrors thing I was talking about. I never said gratitude. I never implied a step forward was a gift. I called them victories and achievements, yet it seems your mind just raced to that "gratitude for a gift" mantra that I mentioned earlier in that generations thing.
It is that same iron link, (resentment), that causes you to have the view of your last paragraph: "Eternally grateful," How dare you, ("the temerity"). I bet you can guess who I am just dying to name-drop to show the other possibility.
As for where it started, it started with Eve. ;-O As soon as she arrived the human instinct for comparative judgment kicked in. and it has been kicking ever since.
GASakes, GA, of course they were motivated by resentment, otherwise why go through the trouble if all is good?
Theirs were voices representing millions of people who could well be considered resentful of inequal treatment, government sanctioned racism and bigotry, just to hit the tip of the iceberg. Resentment, anger and frustration is the fuel that drives the dynamo to get things done about it. What similar program coming for any marginalized group did not start with that?
Only Dr. King relied on an excessive "hat in hand" approach, but even he toward the end of life saw the "system" for what it really was, quite incorrigible.
Any civil rights leader that could be defined as such takes in the grievances, frustration and RESENTMENT of those he or she serves making petition to that the powers that are responsible for redress. Any civil Rights leader that have I ever respected from Gloria Steinem, Cesar Chavez or Malcolm X were not satisfied to just play patty-cake with their adversaries.
They celebrated victories and continued to agitate, BOTH. Resentment is the impetus to the need to agitate. Agitation is meaningless without a cause or grievance to focus on. "So, yes, we no longer have to ride on the back of the bus, but now, how about equal pay for equal work so that we can afford to ride it? We are required to continually slay dragons while you lounge at the pool with your mint Julep.
Victories and achievements cannot replace the work and effort that had to follow endlessly and continues to this very day. There is all that battle fatigue.
Go ahead and name drop, I can take it, but it better be good.
I will thank you for your last comment regarding"Eve" reflecting on the futility of the human condition where it has to be expected that man would dominate man to his injury.
I see that you and other conservatives regard the slavery and domestic racial terrorism that followed as a Act of God", such as one would see a hurricane striking another country. You and they would say, "why am I obligated to make this right?" The concessions in regard to this terror visited upon blacks, was only altruistic in nature. For conservatives, To the victor, go the spoils, so live with it, get over it, might makes right, etc.
That is why it is so difficult for you to see my points of view regarding the Founding Fathers and people that from your perspective would be considered heroes. Circumstances force me to be inherently opposed to your viewpoint.
When looking at this picture, One loses his sense of "pride in place" and resolves to just "live here"I tried bud, but I just can't agree with your thoughts about resentment. It sounds like you are almost proud to be carrying that chip.
Yes, MLK was the name in mind. Since my perception is that he was driven, (motivated,) by righteousness, not resentment, he was the example I was thinking about. As for Malcolm and Chavez, those two I can easily see as driven by resentment. Which leader accomplished more for you?
I am going to let this one go. I am not comfortable arguing "blackness" with you. I am not qualified for it. But I will clear up one point. I don't know any Conservative that thinks slavery was akin to "an act of God." I see it as a stain on our national character. Since I feel fairly representative of a white conservative mind, I am comfortable saying your broad-brush proclamation is baloney. It is your resentment that makes you think such.
And, just when I thought calling Washington barely acceptable was the bottom, you toss in that `of course' MLK was driven by resentment. Double sheesh.
Have at it Cred. However, I won't leave it at an "agree to disagree" point, I think you are wrong and your perspective is more a part of the problem than a solution. I think any effort driven by resentment is a tainted effort, and you seem to think there can be no legitimate effort without it.
GANo you can't argue with me something you know nothing about. Here is something that might put a little perspective on Dr. King righteous, resentment free approach. Read it, if you would. Thanks for listening, regardless.
https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch … jr-s-anger
As I think you are wrong and naive to believe that omlets can be made without breaking some eggs.
It takes considerable energy to control and subdue anger and resentment, I mean, really who can do it?
Dr. King was effective in being palatable by not alarming whites regarding the demands of Black people, that is why he was so welcome and conservatives always cling to him. Between him and a sympathetic LBJ, things were moving faster. I give credit where it is due.Kevin Bacon was sensible enough to understand that.
"I think it's a good time for old white guys like me to just shut up and listen. Speechless is probably a good choice.”
Having taken the time to understand that he didn’t “have a full understanding of the life experience of people that are different than me”, the actor explained: “I’m one of these people [who] when I was a kid, I thought I knew everything ... about acting, everything about music, everything about politics, everything about people.
“I thought I could always understand what it was like to be other people, had a lot of compassion and basically I thought I just knew it all. The older I’ve gotten, the more I realise how much there is still to learn. So this has been a perfect example of a good time for me to stop and learn and listen and read and just try to gain some kind of deeper understanding.”
Pausing, Bacon continued: “Here’s the thing, I’ll never understand it because when I walk out of the house, I’m white. To not have that experience and privilege is something that I want to educate myself on.”How true IB, i remain open to those that sincerely are prepared to learn and listen. I keep that avenue available to anyone so inclined.
The point is not so much having or not having resentment, because most of us can't really avoid not having some. The key is channeling the negative energy toward a positive goal or outcome.
Thanks for your contribution.Thomas Jefferson wrote the most important line of America and American history... perhaps of all time:
Jefferson was the author of the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."
Historian Samuel Eliot Morison has said those words, "are more revolutionary than anything written by Marx, or Lenin, a continual challenge to ourselves, as well as an inspiration to the oppressed of all the world."
I think Jefferson had a great mind, a philosophical heart, but was weak of constitution and action. He talked the talk, but would not walk the walk. He was in essence, in my opinion, the first of what we consider or label today as "The Established Elites"... they talk the good talk, they appear to be of good intentions, but little of what they do bears goodwill for today's downtrodden.
Meanwhile they reap all the benefits and have all the best at their beck and call. They decide from up high what is the "correct" and "just" things to do... for the rest of us.
George Washington, like Jefferson, was a rich Virginia plantation owner.
Washington held the Continental Army together, he directed the strategy of the war, turned the Revolutionary army from a ragtag collection into a solid regular army, forced the politicians in Congress to support him, and emerged as the one who would lead the nation through the Revolutionary War.
Washington was at the center of events for 24 years, he never lied, fudged, or cheated. He shared his army’s privations, though never pretended to be "one of the men." Washington came to stand for the new nation and its republican virtues, he became our first president by unanimous choice.
Washington personifies the word "great." In his bearing, in his generalship and his political leadership, in his ability to persuade, in his sure grip on what the new nation needed (above all else, not a king), and in his optimism no matter how bad the American cause looked, he rose above all others. He established the thought, "We can do it," as an integral part of the American spirit.
Of the nine presidents who owned slaves, only Washington freed his. He resisted efforts to make him a king and established the precedent that no one should serve more than two terms as president. He voluntarily yielded power.
It was an ugly world, it was a depraved world that was struggling to bring civil society into reality for all, not just for the elites... every free person today that enjoys not being a Servant or Slave owes to some degree that freedom to this one man who bucked all trends and social norms to set a new precedence and bring a new country based on the idea of freedom and equality for all to life."We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."
Ken, yes, truly great words and when you live it to the best of your ability, you give those words true meaning.
Inspite of the remarkable qualities of Jefferson and Washington, I prefer John Adams and his son as men who actually "walked the talk" and for me that compensates for a multitude of their relative sins and shortcomings relative to the slaveholding signatories.
Also, Washington did not really free his slaves but stipulated that after his passing they were to remain with Martha for the duration of her life. It turns out that she died 3 years after her husband, but who was to know how long these "emancipated slaves" were to continue on under Martha, based on that little stipulation?
I stopped visiting NPR when they announced their reporters could also be activists. But, for you, I took a look.
I liked it. I also think it reaffirmed my perception. I don't think anger and resentment are the same.
GANo, they are not but they are difficult to separate and it takes superhuman determination not to resent someone or something that constantly angers you over and over, again. Dr. King cracked under the pressure to subdue and control his righteous anger after being assulted constantly. Could you do it? I mean, really? I can understand not holding grudges if a source of anger occurs once or infrequently. But....
----------------
What is the difference between Anger and Resentment?
• Definition of Anger and Resentment:
• Anger can be defined as a strong feeling of displeasure.
• Resentment can be defined as a feeling of bitterness that an individual experiences for being treated unfairly.
• Nature:
• Anger is an automatic response to a difficult situation.
• Resentment usually involves reliving a bitter and hurtful experience again and again.
• Controlling:
• Feeling angry is normal when the individual is overwhelmed by the situation. This is because it is a natural reaction which is beyond individual control.
• A person can control resentment by letting go of bitter emotions.
• Natural or Not:
• Anger is natural.
• Resentment is a choice that the individual makes.
• Connection:
• Anger turns into resentment when an individual allows it to be persistent.
• Response:
• Anger can sometimes be positive.
• Resentment is never positive as it only hurts the individual.
-----------
If I place a burr under your saddle, could you turn the other cheek? Pun intended. How many cheeks have you got and how many times will you turn it before anger becomes resentment? Even Jesus got pissed off on one occasion, what do you expect of any other mere mortal man?How many cheeks? Three and one-half. (remember my necrotizing fasciitis surgery story?)
GAI have forgotten, it has been a while. You can refresh my memory on what happened?
Easy-peasy, they cut off most of a butt cheek. I had to sit with a cushion until I learned how to sit without leaning to the right Kinda like that leaning tower in Italy. ROFLMAO (but true)
So technically, I have fewer cheeks to turn than you do.
GA(. . . the whole forum groans)
But I can top that. Even though I had 1/2 a cheek less than most folks, they made it up to me and gave me an extra butt-hole . . . in my belly. (I woke up from the second debreeding(?) with a colostomy bag attached.)
For a year I had two and I . . . (go ahead and run with that one, you're on roll)
GAAll right, you asked for it...
Gus died in a fire and his body was burned pretty badly.
The morgue needed someone to identify the body, so they sent for his two best friends, Creedence and Ken.
The three men had always done everything together.
Credence arrived first, and when the mortician pulled back the sheet,
Credence said, 'Yup, his face is burned up pretty bad. You better roll him over.'
The mortician rolled him over and Credence said, 'Nope, that ain't Gus.'
The mortician thought this was rather strange.
So he brought Ken in to confirm the identity of the body.
Ken looked and said, 'Yup, he's pretty well burnt up. Roll him over.'
The mortician rolled him over and Ken said, 'No, it ain't Gus.'
The mortician asked, 'How can you tell?'
Ken said, 'Well, Gus had two assholes.'
'What? He had two assholes?' asked the mortician.
'Yup, we never seen 'em, but everybody used to say:
'There's Gus with them two assholes.'
I had to come back. "fragile white audiences." Whoo eeee. That's a good one. I mean combining from the side that suffers the torment of micro-aggressions and triggers, and dog whistles, and `safe spaces'.
Yep, that was a chuckle.
GA ;-)
‘them and their messages obliterated from the planet’
Another violent threat from a leftist voice. Sad we’ve come to accept this as the norm.You missed this part: "within all means available within the democratic process, of course."
Oh, wait, you didnt.
Sad, indeed.Exactly how, in your opinion, does one obliterate an individual? In the democratic process. A message, sure. Not an individual. I didn’t miss the context. By the standards of the left this is violence. You guys can’t have it both ways.
Sad indeed is correct. On your post, not mine.Thank you for helping me translate what appeared to me to not be "rocket science".
You must not have received the memo, obliterate within the democratic process, means in a political sense applying every tool within civilized discourse to dispense with the Rightwinger and his or her loathsome ideas.
The amount of rage embodied in comments such as yours cannot be ignored. Nor does it lend any hope of civil discourse.
Having a peanut gallery at your disposal does not mean that such comments should be afforded the courtesy of pretending they aren’t incendiary.
Enjoy your echo chamber.
(Had to rewrite to make sense of his "beef.")
"In response to the 1619 Project ... conservatives are coming up with lies and misconceptions ... without referring to even one Nationally Recognized Historian. (Yikes!
!) Is this where they are going: Truth, for conservatives, must coincide with their rightwing values?"
Q.What conservative "truths" are NOT truth to you?
and which "right-wing" values do you NOT agree with?
A. _________________________________________ --->Good question. I was a bit confused about what Cred was getting at.
Have a look at the report, you can just skim and YOU tell me that it is not the troubling piece of rubbish you have ever read.
https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/The_1776_ReportOkay, but it would be so informative and fascinating if you could answer the questions.
Read carefully, I gave a couple of examples of right wing lies in regard to my issues with the 1776 report, in my comments to Sharlee.
The Right lies all the time, I would need to provide a "War and Peace" format to touch on them all.The ONE comment: (no examples)
"... the ones (assertions) found in the 1776 report reek of partisan-ism and are far more serious in my opinion."
Q. HOW SO?
A. ____________________________________---->How are they NOT partisan?
They apply to ALL."While this country has its imperfections, just like any other country, in the annals of history the United States has achieved the greatest degree of personal freedom, security, and prosperity for the greatest proportion of its own people and for others around the world. These results are the good fruit of the ideas the founding generation expressed
as true for all people at all times and places."
... well, how would you start your extensive/exhaustive list of grievances?
(The most urgent first.)
I am enthusiastic for enlightenment.
I think I have come to understand what Cred was saying in his opening comment.
Cred's statement -- "In response to the 1619 Project, conservatives led by a commission headed by Trump deals in lies and misconception without so much as one nationally recognized historian on his panel. Is this where we are going? Truth is only that which coincides with rightwing values?"
he was referring to the 1776 Commission report that was written to dispute the 1619 project work. I feel he is sharing that he feels the 1776 report was slanted when composed to be right-leaning. He feels the truth was skirted and was put together by those that were not suited to write the report.
I have gone go over the 1776 report, it is long (like 45 pages). Much of it was taken from works of other's historians. This is acceptable.
I looked at the document at face values. I did find some areas that historical context was left out, and it would leave a different impression on the reader than what the historic truth actually provides.
A good example -- the 1776 report claimed that George Washington “freed all the slaves in his family estate” by the end of his life. Historians claim Washington had only freed one slave upon his death. He requested that the rest of his slaves be freed after the death of his wife. And then even when Martha Washington died three years later, several slaves remained in bondage and were transferred to her grandchildren.
The report also denounces that the American founders were hypocrites. Due to preaching equality, even as they codified slavery in the Constitution and held slaves themselves.
So, it is obvious there are some inaccuracies in the 1776 report. Did the authors mean to skirt the truth of history by twisting context? One could certainly say yes. I think individuals due to their own ideologies would walk away with different views of the 1776 report. A view that would suit their own ideologies. One could say all of the same about the 1619 project.... one must take into consideration the practices and the customs at the time.
What do we do today that will seem like cruelty in the future?
Take a look at our public schools and how we enslave children until they are 18. Every child a $ (or more) to the state.
Are their rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness considered.
No, not in the least.
They are expected to sit in desks and open up their brains for information to be shoved in and grades to be earned.
and for what?
for
t h e m ???????"... one must take into consideration the practices and the customs at the time. What do we do today that will seem like cruelty in the future?"
Yes, one must consider the practices and customs from that time in history. But, should we not hope our historians of today present truth mix with the fact these were practices of the time they are writing about. Just the truth, so we could have a proper context of history?
Should Washington in this case have been glorified falsely in regard to owning slaves? This is a problem, as we move farther and farther away from the birth of our nation, are facts being manipulated?
I personally feel our rights have suffered over time, but we still have many rights other countries do not. As our nation grew so did our needs... We needed the education to move us to what we have become today. The structure of education is something we accepted as a nation long ago. We had the right to buck it, did we not?He is not glorified for owning slaves for God's sake. Why do you say THAT!
The structure of education in the US is based on the overly regimented, left-brained British way ...
STILL to this day.Washington was somewhat glorified in the 1779 report that came out of the last administration. -- the 1776 report claimed that George Washington “freed all the slaves in his family estate”
This historically was not true according to many Historians. The facts show -- Washington had only freed one slave upon his death. He requested that the rest of his slaves be freed after the death of his wife. And then even when Martha Washington died three years later, several slaves remained in bondage and were transferred to her
grandchildren.
The 1776 report in my view tried to glorify Washington by making the inference that he freed his slave upon his death.
I will agree our public education leaves a lot to be desired. It has become very poor, and it well appears to be regimented by the teachers union.
As of late parents have taken note (and it's about time) and are demanding change. It would be very positive if more parents would become involved in their children's education. Private schools do a good job working with parents and listening to parents. My children and now my grandchild attended Catholic school. It was and still is a wonderful situation. It's like a large family of support for a student.
We stay involved.
Yes, Sharlee
Just the truth:
I am just as fervent about criticizing errors in the 1619 Project as those in the 1776 report. As, I have made this point clear to you earlier. I just find find one Report more troubling than the other
I can criticize practices of the past, work today to remove hypocrisy and double standards, so that the future can perhaps benefit.
What is your grand design for an alternative to the current education system?
A____________________________It's called New Direction Education and I am still working on it.
Basically, it is researched-based, no grades, individual testing when ready. Subjects will be combined such as History and Science, Art and Science/Math, English and History/Science, etc. Illustrating, drawing and handwriting abilities will be expected ... no computers 'til fourteen.
Teachers act as mentors and guides. Economics and finances will be experienced through mock business endeavors such as printing and selling T Shirts, literary works, such as school publications, and booklets featuring student Art and creative writing pieces. Students could also market hand-made products/crafts.
I would like to include a program like HubPages for high-school English classes. Computers and many types of programs will be incorporated into the curriculums after ninth grade. Elon Musk has a great school which is far more sophisticated that this. His school focuses on critical thinking in regards to global economies and fairness, etc.
"Few know that in 2014, Elon Musk created Ad Astra, a super exclusive and innovative school, where his children and a select few study. Although it has been a great mystery, here we tell you everything that is known so far. ... Very little is known about this exclusive school, located at the SpaceX facility in California."
"... in Ad Astra, students study Artificial Intelligence (AI), applied science, coding and design of many things, mainly the creation of robots."
https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/385257
"A good example -- the 1776 report claimed that George Washington “freed all the slaves in his family estate” by the end of his life. Historians claim Washington had only freed one slave upon his death. He requested that the rest of his slaves be freed after the death of his wife. And then even when Martha Washington died three years later, several slaves remained in bondage and were transferred to her grandchildren."
----
You saw that and noted that you picked up on it, truly an "eagle's eye". Thanks for taking the time to read the lenghty report, understanding the perspective as to "my beef"I picked up on several of the same. The report bends context to lean right. However, I expected this. It is not something I appreciate. This is where we have ended up, context can't be trusted, the country is so divided. It takes real research to really get to the bottom of most that are reported today. Although, one can usually get to some truth.
Conclusion:
Among the virtues to be cultivated in the American republic, the founders knew that a free people must have a knowledge of the principles and practices of liberty, and an appreciation of their origins and challenges.
While this country has its imperfections, just like any other country, in the annals of history the United States has achieved the greatest degree of personal freedom, security, and prosperity for the greatest proportion of its own people and for others around the world. These results are the good fruit of the ideas the founding generation expressed as true for all people at all times and places.
An authentic civics education will help rebuild our common bonds, our mutual friendship, and our civic devotion. But we cannot love what we do not know.
This is why civics education, education relating to the citizen, must begin with knowledge, which is, as George Washington reminds us, “the surest basis of public happiness.”
Got a problem with the conclusion?"While this country has its imperfections, just like any other country, in the annals of history the United States has achieved the greatest degree of personal freedom, security, and prosperity for the greatest proportion of its own people and for others around the world. These results are the good fruit of the ideas the founding generation expressed as true for all people at all times and places."
Well, that's not good enough from where I sit from the opposite side of looking glass from where you obviously are. Just standard right wing boilerplate.
Any education in civics or anything else require the truth as a foundation.- whats not good enough?
- what do you see from the opposite side of the looking glass from where I am?
(- how does that happen?)I lived in Montana, you can speak to the Crow Tribe about "universal benefit", or perhaps speak with the Navajo in Arizona about what the "greatest degree" actually means, as to who benefits?
You think they would have the same perspective that a white women would have about America's vaunted creed and boasts?
That is what I mean by the opposite side of the glass, not being "good enough".
"... American people have ever pursued freedom and justice, which are the political conditions for living well. To learn this history is to become a better person, a better citizen, and a better partner in the American experiment of self-government.
Comprising actions by imperfect human beings, the American story has its share of missteps, errors, contradictions, and wrongs. These wrongs have always met resistance from the clear principles of the nation, and therefore our history is far more one of self-sacrifice, courage, and nobility. America’s principles are named at the outset to be both universal—applying to everyone—and eternal: existing for all time. The remarkable American story unfolds under and because of these great principles.
Of course, neither America nor any other nation has perfectly lived up to the universal truths of equality, liberty, justice, and government by consent. But no nation before America ever dared state those truths as the formal basis for its politics, and none has strived harder, or done more, to achieve them."
Got an argument against this?
Don't think its true?
How come?You really believe all of that, don't you?
"These wrongs have always met resistance from the clear principles of the nation, and therefore our history is far more one of self-sacrifice, courage, and nobility"
Except when they haven't been... which is more often than most of you want to admit.
Looks like we still need to work even harder and with ever more conviction
Is it not obvious to you that I am not going to see "America" in the same light that you do? Am I that incoherent from your view?Especially since you cannot address my questions.
did you notice what followed the letter Q.?
... and then I clearly indicated I would be interested in your A.
"If it wasn't for Biden throwing this report in the rubbish bin, fragile white audiences would have preferred the comforting 1950's perspective on American history, even while fraught with lies.
What did it say about the Founding Fathers? Excuse after excuse for their duplicitous professed beliefs, contrary to their actions."
Q. What were their actions?
A._______________________________________________________________________
"Such is capitalism, where exploitation for private gain supersedes any real principle."
Q. "Any real principle," such as?
A.________________________________________________________________________Will get back to you with a reply that is to the point of your question.
1.Owning and trafficking in slaves and slavery while speaking of the lofty ideals of the freedom, equality under the law and the inherent rights of man and all that.
2. Within the context of this point, the real principle should have been as a minimum that no man had the right to enslave another and involuntary servitude short of committing a crime could not be imposed on anyone. But that takes second seat to the fact that these "gentlemen" were planters and in business to make money to support their lavish estates, built at the expense and uncompensated labor of others, so, of course, the "ideals" have to take a back seat. Such is an example of capitalism in action, harbinger of a style and manner characteristic of the America to come in their future.
My grievances with this society and this system are too vast for you to have the time to read nor for me to have the time to write, trust me on that.As usual you make some excellent points and observations Credence.
Despite some 250 years, the "ruling class" has not changed much in their hypocritical actions, we see this today, they mandate that everyone be vaccinated, wear masks, social distance, but they themselves follow none of these rules unless it is convenient for them or they are on the public stage.
That said, we cannot fathom how horrible those times were (1600s and 1700s) I would dare to say that most Americans alive today would prefer death over living the rest of their days in the hardships of Servitude or Slavery.
What slaves and servants shipped to America must have dealt with one can't truly fathom:
"That most people get sick is not surprising," wrote indentured servant Gottlieb Mittelberger in 1750. "Warm food is served only three times a week .... such meals can hardly be eaten on account of being so unclean.
The water which is served on the ships is often very black, thick and full of worms .... the biscuit is filled with red worms and spiders nests."
Worm-filled water and spider-infested biscuits seemed vile enough, yet conditions could and did get worse for some traveling to the New World.
Consider the fate of the Virginia Merchant. In 1649 the Virginia Merchant, filled with 350 men, women, and children, battled a two-front war: the elements and famine. The ship lost its mainmast in a storm off the coast of Cape Hatteras and fought tempests for eleven days.
Food ran low, and men and women bartered over the many rats that infested the ship's hull. The captain put the weakest ashore on an uninhabited island. As death took its toll upon the sick, "the living fed upon the dead."
Danger from inhumane conditions and danger from the sea made for a horrendous and potentially life-threatening voyage. Thus were the immigrants initiated to the realities of a new life.
The voyage was a foretaste of what was to come.
With the challenge of the sea met, another challenge awaited the indentured: the struggle to become ultimately free men and women.
Before slavery became the prevalent form of labor in the South, indentured labor performed the arduous and dangerous task of travailing in tobacco fields.
Some historians have deemed this labor "white slavery." The status of indentured servitude in Southern society has been debated for decades without any resolution.
Servants were driven through the country "like a parcell of Sheep." Men were traded like animals. Other involuntary servants were those who were forced or kidnapped. Convicts formed a minority of the indentured as did men, women, and children who were kidnapped or "spirited away."
My take is that those who are focused on the past, and getting restitution or reparations or revenge, have doomed themselves to being unable to make a better future for coming generations.
I see plenty of examples today where our current "establishment"... the current "elites" are committing plenty of unfair or harmful acts against the current "masses" and we cannot hope to address the wrongs being forced upon us now if we are focusing our attention on the past.I hear you, blind hatred, retribution etc, impedes one ability to see the road ahead. But in respect for those having their entire lives frittered away tolling for the benefit of others and for myself and my progeny regarding how we all got to this point, the truth regarding all these events should be expected. Since, no one can put spilt milk back into the bottle. I never profited by being ignorant about anything and ignorance is not bliss. We can no more be expected to disregard history any more than Jewish victims of the holocaust can be expected to forget theirs. I want the complete truth, nothing less will do.
I criticize the Founding Fathers, because as aa military man you know that a prime principle of leadership is "setting the example". If so prominent a collection of men can ignore this principle, what example do they set for the less prominent or what excuse do they allow them to be comforted with?
Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.Oh lordy, lordy . . . "spilt milk back into the bottle"? I thought you didn't cry over spilt milk. And I thought it was toothpaste you couldn't put back into the tube. Boy, I better get with the times.
.
.
.
Or, you could get your bromides right before you use them. ;-0
GAI think that "my bromide" was better and more on point. Half the fun is creating my own. If you haven't notice by now, I march to the beat of my own drum....
My bromide emphasizes that you cannot go back in time when the milk and bottle were both intact, it goes a little farther than just lamenting the fact that the milk was spilt.
Is this all that you've got?"Is that all I got"? Well, considering your logic, I guess it is.
GA
But noooo oo oooo!!!!
So thanks for no enlightenment
At all.Report: "These wrongs have always met resistance from the clear principles of the nation, and therefore our history is far more one of self-sacrifice, courage, and nobility"
C. "Except when they haven't been ..."
The report said, "far more ...."
Q. You do not agree?
Q. How come?"But their "greatness" is marginalized by their support in practice of an institution that they supposedly abhored in their declarations."
They did not invent the institution of slavery. Africans did. The practice was happening at the time in a major way. It was part of life in those days. Even people in England had slaves, which is shocking to me.
I can talk all I want about how America could have helped newly freed slaves transition to independent living, but in those days this idea/solution did not occur to anybody! I heard that Lincoln wanted to send them back to Africa, but the merchant ship captains would not hear of it: such long journeys with all the hardships!
Its a matter of the evolution of consciousness. We are still evolving and I thank you for revealing the direction we should be heading. It does no good to hate the past, but it does do good to isolate difficulties and find solutions.
The way I see it.To be "great" involves not behaving like everyone else. "Others" did not make bold declarations nor extoll lofty ideals.
The ideas were around, Lincoln questioned whether blacks and whites could ever like together in peace, harmony and equality. There was much talk during the time about exporting them, as impractical as such an enterprise would be.
I have spoken about solutions that would assist in the healing allowing more of us to relegate all of this to the past and putting books back on the shelves.
I understand and acknowledge your viewpoint.
Related Discussions
- 34
Just another example of why my thinking differs from Conservatives
by Credence2 11 months ago
Long story short: The Satanic Temple, as they are wont to do, applied for the right to include their holiday display in the capitol building. The state allowed it because, under the First Amendment, if they let Christians erect a display, they have to let everyone do it. So some MAGA nut made the...
- 130
Glenn Beck and Many of the Tea Partiers are Neo-Birchers
by Ralph Deeds 14 years ago
A long article in this week's "The New Yorker" by Sean Wilentz entitled "Confounding Fathers" traces the antecedents of Glenn Beck's rants and the Tea Party's hysteria to two individuals who spouted much of the nonsense now being repeated Beck and the Teatards. Unfortunately...
- 29
Stupid is as Stupid does, the plan of the right in a nut shell
by Stump Parrish 13 years ago
What's in a name? When you take the lack of education and common sense that is being so common place in this country, it's everything. Tke politics for example, We sarted out having Dems and Repubs, Then it became liberal and conservative and now it's the left and the right. Why is this a problem...
- 36
What is the difference between a Tommy Gun and a high capacity AR
by Credence2 11 years ago
Somewhere within the tapestry of recent history a determination was made that fully automatic sub machine guns like the Thompson could not be obtained by the private citizen for self defense. These were the weapons of choice for mobsters of the twenties and for time, beyond. Conservatives have...
- 14
What do you call the media that is not the "Main Stream Media?"
by Mike Russo 7 years ago
What do you call the media that is not the "Main Stream Media?"ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, et, al are called the main stream (or as some people call it "Lame Stream") media. What do you call, Fox News, Breitbart, Drudge Report, Alt Right, et al? And how does one...
- 75
America's Ruling Class
by AnnCee 14 years ago
NEVER HAS THERE BEEN SO LITTLE DIVERSITY WITHIN AMERICA'S UPPER CRUST. Always, in America as elsewhere, some people have been wealthier and more powerful than others. But until our own time America's upper crust was a mixture of people who had gained prominence in a variety of ways, who drew their...