"Ty Seidule On Exposing Robert E. Lee, Lost Cause Myths..." Topic
361 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please use the Complaint button (!) to report problems on the forums.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the ACW Discussion Message Board
Action Log
18 Apr 2022 8:45 a.m. PST by Editor in Chief Bill
- Changed title from "Ty Seidule On Exposing Rober E. Lee, Lost Cause Myths..." to "Ty Seidule On Exposing Robert E. Lee, Lost Cause Myths..."
Areas of InterestAmerican Civil War
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Recent Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase ArticleThe fascinating history of one of the hobby's major manufacturers.
Featured Workbench ArticleNeed custom bases?
Featured Profile Article
Featured Book Review
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Tango01 | 16 Apr 2022 9:07 p.m. PST |
…WHITE SUPREMACY, AND TREASON "In his candid and searing recent memoir, Robert E. Lee and Me: A Southerner's Reckoning with the Myth of the Lost Cause (St. Martin's Press), retired US Army general and renowned professor of history Ty Seidule recounts his odyssey from youthful hero worship of Confederate General Robert E. Lee and an indoctrination in racist myths of the Lost Cause to acclaim as a historian devoted to challenging the poisonous white supremacist lies about slavery, the Civil War, African American inferiority, Jim Crow segregation, and the deified Lee.
As a distinguished scholar of history, a decorated soldier, and a native of the South, Professor Seidule writes with rare authority about race, the Civil War, and the myths and lies about the war that he learned from an education presented through the lens of racism and Confederate mythology. He explains how his early beliefs were shaped by white supremacist ideology that demeaned and dehumanized Black citizens. These racist views imbued Southern culture and were widely shared throughout the country in textbooks, popular periodicals, and the media, with movies such as the award-winning Gone with the Wind and Disney's Song of the South rife with degrading stereotypes of African Americans…" Main page link Armand
|
arthur1815 | 17 Apr 2022 2:46 a.m. PST |
The general offers a powerful counterblast to the 'Lost Cause' myth. In so far as the Confederacy seceded in order to preserve slavery, its cause was immoral and it is well that it lost the war. Whether officers who resigned their US commissions and served the CSA deserve to be excoriated as traitors is a separate issue. To believe that states that had voluntarily entered into a union retained a right to leave it is not, itself, inherently unreasonable (the UK, for example, entered the European Union but later chose to leave it), and that constitutional question was decided by force of arms. After all, those who took up arms against the rule of King George III were committing treason; only their victory prevented them being held to account for it. Charles Lee, for example, had held a commission in the British Army and would have sworn loyalty to the Crown. I do wonder though, whether the author's statement that "the noxious, insidious influence of racist ideas that have poisoned white minds since the dawn of slavery." risks suggesting that only white people have had racist beliefs or attitudes. As a teacher in multi-racial schools in the UK, I have certainly encountered racist views amongst some non-white children! |
Tortorella | 17 Apr 2022 3:08 a.m. PST |
This is now on my to read list. There is great power in lifting the veil and taking on the reality of history. Seidule's credentials and personal approach are compelling. |
GamesPoet | 17 Apr 2022 6:48 a.m. PST |
Be careful comparing the CSA's secession to those who took up arms against King George. It is easy to say they were both traitors, and the American colonists' win did keep them from being held accountable. However, in no way is the CSA's secession to protect their use of slavery the same as why King George and those in the British government had their unequal treatment of British citizens help lose them the 13 colonies in North America. And just like the colonists choosing to keep slavery alive, we all have our historical pasts to be reckoned with accordingly. |
John Simmons | 17 Apr 2022 7:39 a.m. PST |
So I can understand the military man, Ty Seidule I do not see any bio on his military success outside the class room. Where is the reports of him winning battles? |
John Simmons | 17 Apr 2022 9:08 a.m. PST |
Has our 'Pentagon Brain Trust' leaders failed America? Per their words, the answer is YES. Chalk Board and Keypad warriors lead the pack. Read it and weep, war seems to be coming. Dec 08, 2021 · U.S. set to lose next war against China, Russia hypersonic missiles; Pentagon said to be "several years behind" both countries. 12/08/2021 / By JD Heyes. |
bjporter | 17 Apr 2022 9:18 a.m. PST |
Another "me too" writer. Writing about the so called "Myth of the Lost Cause" how original. |
Grattan54 | 17 Apr 2022 9:23 a.m. PST |
I have read the book. I found it did not spend much time looking at the Lost Cause or exactly why he came to understand the myth of the Lost Cause. I feel he stress the current idea of White Supremacy to bit too much in relationship to the past. Using modern terms and attitudes when discussing the Historical past. I have read much better books that have dealt with the Lost Cause myth. |
John Simmons | 17 Apr 2022 9:44 a.m. PST |
Good points - But….understand it is a career path for today. |
Old Glory | 17 Apr 2022 2:59 p.m. PST |
There was a real time in my life when if I heard "United States General" or "Colonel" my ears would perk up to listen? No longer. Way to much emphasis on "carreers" and "retirements!" Perhaps it was always this way and as a younger man I was just unawares? The "Peter Principle" is still alive and well it seems. Russ Dunaway |
Tango01 | 17 Apr 2022 3:22 p.m. PST |
|
Marcus Brutus | 17 Apr 2022 7:48 p.m. PST |
However, in no way is the CSA's secession to protect their use of slavery the same as why King George and those in the British government had their unequal treatment of British citizens help lose them the 13 colonies in North America. Of course, your comment begs the question. Did the South really secede in order to protect their use of slavery? There are many of us on TMP who would argue that slavery, per se, was only incidental to the main argument of secession. That is not to discount the role of slavery in Southern thinking or that it didn't contribute to the overall urgency to secede but there is a plausible argument that there were more fundamental forces at play that lead to Southern states leaving the Union. |
Aapsych20 | 18 Apr 2022 12:00 a.m. PST |
The Southern States did in fact secede to protect the racist institution of slavery – that the secession happened after Lincoln's election on a platform expressly prohibiting the expansion of slavery into new territories and states, obviates that fact. Southern plantation owners were then entirely willing to let hundreds of thousands of lower class white folks be grievously maimed in battle and die, for their opulent way of life to continue to be funded entirely by slave labor. They then created the deflecting and dishonest myths of the lost cause to shroud that and to otherwise continue profiting from racial inequality during the Jim Crow era. This is historical fact. Also, arthur 1815 made mention of alleged racist views held by minority students. I challenge you as an educator to do your own research on why reverse racism isn't a thing and why it's harmful to legitimate that idea in any manner. |
Bellerophon1993 | 18 Apr 2022 5:16 a.m. PST |
|
35thOVI | 18 Apr 2022 6:35 a.m. PST |
@Tort before spending money on the book, do some research on the author. Don't use google search engine to do it. As we know Google searches are extremely biased in returned information. The authors books seem to follow a specific pattern and seem agenda driven. Feel free to spend your money, but thought I would give you and anyone else who is thinking about it, a alternative view. There are many more out there. Here is one review: Subject: Robert E. Lee and Me by Ty Seidule, Part One of a Two-Part Review – "Everyone should do all in his power to collect and disseminate the truth, in hope that it may find a place in history and descend to posterity."-Robert E. Lee – Southern History and American History Books and DVDs – The South – Black Southerners – Southern History – Slavery Not Cause of Civil War – Right of Secession – War Between the States – World History – World War I – World War II – The World Wars – Bonnie Blue Publishing – Gene Kizer, Jr. – Charleston Athenaeum Press link |
GamesPoet | 18 Apr 2022 8:16 a.m. PST |
Be careful comparing the CSA's secession to those who took up arms against King George. It is easy to say they were both traitors, and the American colonists' win did keep them from being held accountable. However, in no way is the CSA's secession to protect their use of slavery the same as why King George and those in the British government had their unequal treatment of British citizens help lose them the 13 colonies in North America. And just like the colonists choosing to keep slavery alive, we all have our historical pasts to be reckoned with accordingly. Of course, your comment begs the question. Did the South really secede in order to protect their use of slavery? There are many of us on TMP who would argue that slavery, per se, was only incidental to the main argument of secession. That is not to discount the role of slavery in Southern thinking or that it didn't contribute to the overall urgency to secede but there is a plausible argument that there were more fundamental forces at play that lead to Southern states leaving the Union.
Perhaps an error on my part, yet I didn't say it was the only reason. Although what reason would be said was the same as to why unequally treated British citizens decided to rebel from the British government? As an example, the options most referred to in some of the States declarations of secession mostly referred to Slavery and States Rights, although Lincoln's election was mentioned, as were the occasional economic or military issue. Perhaps the latter two could be considered similar, although not seemingly the primary issues for the state governments in the south at the time of their secession from the Union. |
Cleburne1863 | 18 Apr 2022 9:53 a.m. PST |
"Did the South really secede in order to protect their use of slavery?" Yes. |
Grattan54 | 18 Apr 2022 10:43 a.m. PST |
Yes they did. Look at the succession ordinances where they list the reasons why they left the Union. Virtually all of them have to do with slavery. Before the Confederate Congress Davis said that is why they seceded. Stephens (the VP) called slavery the cornerstone of our republic. The Confederacy sent ambassadors to those slave states that had not seceded before Ft. Sumter. These ambassadors gave speeches and wrote articles for newspapers that spoke on the need for those states to also leave the Union to protect slavery. Also, they only started to talk about state rights when the South lost control of the Federal government when the Republicans took power in 1860. Before that their defense of slavery was always through the federal government. |
Aapsych20 | 18 Apr 2022 12:17 p.m. PST |
One last thing to add, a big picture sort of consideration. It gravely concerns me that there are those among us who are willingly inclined to debate the established fact that white supremacy/maintenance of slavery was the thing responsible for the enormous harms wrought by the US Civil War. To do so means to insulate white supremacy/slavery and those perpetuating it then and now, from historical accountability. By accountability I mean establishing the knowledge that ideas of white supremacy are worthless, and should be eschewed by those who come after us. The events of this thread warrant each and everyone of us to take a good look in the mirror and ask whether we, to any extent, have fallen prey to the false lure of power, or the deception that is inherently carrier by any narrative holding even a marginally positive view of white supremacy and defending a society which broadly espoused it. In effect, ask "am I the baddie" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JOpPNra4bw), and how do I not be any part of that. |
35thOVI | 18 Apr 2022 1:01 p.m. PST |
Be honest here. Do you believe all Confederate soldiers were all White Supremists and their overriding reason for going to war, was to continue to subjugate the black man? Do you believe the overriding reason for Union soldiers to go to war, was the freedom of the black man? That the Union soldiers believed that the black man was his equal and still believed that after the Civil war? Do you believe that anyone who in any way might defend anything about the Confederacy, is automatically a white supremists? Are there Black Supremists? |
arthur1815 | 18 Apr 2022 1:02 p.m. PST |
"Also, arthur 1815 made mention of alleged racist views held by minority students. I challenge you as an educator to do your own research on why reverse racism isn't a thing and why it's harmful to legitimate that idea in any manner." Aapsych20, by 'reverse racism' I presume you mean attitudes of non-whites towards whites? I should perhaps have made it clear that I was referring to derogatory comments (which I did not think it appropriate to quote) made by students of one minority group about students of another minority group. I'm not seeking to justify or excuse anybody's racism; merely pointing out that it is not a phenomenon only found amongst white people. |
Bellerophon1993 | 18 Apr 2022 1:51 p.m. PST |
"The war was caused by slavery" and "Union soldiers fought to free the slaves" are not statements that need to both be true OVI. Yes, it's true, at the beginning of the war freeing the slaves was not in the cards for most northerners other than abolitionists / radical republicans. By the end, though, public opinion seems to have shifted somewhat. And who cares if the average confederate fought to protect slavery or not? Their leaders had that aim, and stated as much, and they went along with it. Did the average Wehrmacht guy personally fight for Aryan values / care about the Holocaust? Not all of them, but that doesn't mean we should spread some myth of the "noble German proudly defending his nation's honor" – if you fight for an awful regime, you take responsibility for its actions. |
Old Glory | 18 Apr 2022 2:30 p.m. PST |
To hold up one race or their history as superior or inferior is racist in and of itself-- The very definition of racism. end of story. Russ Dunawayy |
GamesPoet | 18 Apr 2022 2:37 p.m. PST |
Be honest here.Do you believe all Confederate soldiers were all White Supremists and their overriding reason for going to war, was to continue to subjugate the black man? Do you believe the overriding reason for Union soldiers to go to war, was the freedom of the black man? That the Union soldiers believed that the black man was his equal and still believed that after the Civil war? Do you believe that anyone who in any way might defend anything about the Confederacy, is automatically a white supremists? Are there Black Supremists? Not sure asking questions about beliefs, nor switching to one that doesn't, are helpful. Instead presenting the evidence perhaps could be helpful. To the first question, it has been shown before that a significant motivator for Southern soldiers was the defense of home and family against the invasion of Northerners. However, whether their families owned slaves or not, many believed that two fundamental aspects were at threat, white liberty and black slavery, as well as the fear of having blacks threaten their footing in life. And many also fought because of a sense of duty, honor, and pride whether it be caused by other soldiers, families, or local and state politicians and their sense of Confederate nationalism. Regardless, they weren't the one's seceding, it was their elected representatives, but they were fighting, and at least through such, indirectly supporting it. Regarding the second question, the Federal soldiers had things like patriotism, a sense of duty, honor, and pride, the chance for adventure, steady pay … all things similar to some of the Southern soldiers. Meanwhile, there were in some a desire to preserve the Union, and as the war progressed more and more fought to abolish slavery. And only so many would argue there weren't white supremacists in the north as well, which is pure poppy crud. The third question seems more of the first, so I won't repeat myself, yet perhaps I am missing something. Maybe it is just a question to be rhetorical. And to the fourth question, there seems to be some. Although what is the point of sharing the idea that racism comes from more than one direction, when there are those speaking of "The events of this thread warrant each and everyone of us to take a look in the mirror and ask whether we, to any extent, have fallen prey to the false lure of power, or the deception that is inherently carrier by any narrative holding even a marginally positive view of white supremacy and defending a society which broadly espoused it", and when Lee's actions and motives are in question? It starts to seem as if a black person's wrong means a white person's wrong is ok, but maybe I am not understanding the connection. That can happen when questions are asked instead of providing evidence, except now I'm back at the beginning. |
Tortorella | 18 Apr 2022 2:43 p.m. PST |
Thanks 35th, I will wait for more feedback. We have gone over the slavery issue so many times. I agree with 35th that soldiers from both sides did not all begin the war thinking about slavery. But there are no questions about the various articles of secession, their focus and rationale. Stephens's Cornerstone speech as well. There is just no getting around the clarity of purpose in these documents for me. |
35thOVI | 18 Apr 2022 2:52 p.m. PST |
Well I care what the average soldier on both sides say they fought for. I've read many letters and loads of books. Most soldiers do not mention slavery as their paramount reason for fighting at all. While with Union troops of NE you read a lot about freeing the slaves, with Union troops West of the Appalachian mountains, that is not the norm. Even with NE troops, a lot although they believed the slave should be free, they did not see them as their equal. Most Confederates did not believe the slave their equal, but throwing the evil Northern invaders back from their homes was the prime motivator for most. I don't believe the Confederacy was right, but I understand some of the logic of their arguments for succession. I do not feel the overriding need to demonize the Confederacy and all those associated with it, that seems to Permeate todays dialogues on the Civil War. It also seems like it is being used to bludgeon todays Southerners. I find it odd how we have so many who feel they are holier then those who fought the actual Confederates. It seems those Union men were much less judgmental and Vengeful. I prefer to take their attitude and not judge an era based on todays morals. It was a different time. |
Marcus Brutus | 18 Apr 2022 7:56 p.m. PST |
The Southern States did in fact secede to protect the racist institution of slavery – that the secession happened after Lincoln's election on a platform expressly prohibiting the expansion of slavery into new territories and states, obviates that fact. Again, this kind of comment is a surmise of the evidence and an opinion rather than a fact. I won't go over this ground again since it was thrashed out recently in great detail on a couple of topics on this Message Board. |
GamesPoet | 18 Apr 2022 9:22 p.m. PST |
Then not sure it makes sense coming into a new thread with comments that allude to slavery being "incidental", while at the same time saying there is "a more plausible argument that there were more fundamental forces at play" without specifically linking to where this ground is located. Because otherwise it feels like a drive by, but firing blanks. The implication is that everyone knows where this is, or should, and us less than perfect humans don't. Nor does it demonstrate a sufficient counter, education, nor viewpoint, to what else has already been presented in this thread. Especially when there could be those here who haven't been part of a previous thread, nor interested in looking to find one in a sea of various other threads, especially if you're more familiar and can point the way. In other words, in the way you're presenting your ideas, there's not much really being contributed here or provided. |
Dn Jackson | 19 Apr 2022 1:29 a.m. PST |
"As a distinguished scholar of history, a decorated soldier, and a native of the South, Professor Seidule writes with rare authority about race," I'm sorry, I must be missing something. Which of these experiences gives him 'rare authority on race'? I've written one book and a couple of articles for magazines, I'm a decorated Marine, and I'm a native of the South. Do I have the same 'rare authority'? Regular authority, slightly scare authority, common authority? One must wonder… Drivel. |
Dn Jackson | 19 Apr 2022 1:32 a.m. PST |
" I challenge you as an educator to do your own research on why reverse racism isn't a thing and why it's harmful to legitimate that idea in any manner." I couldn't agree more. There is no such thing as reverse racism. If a person believes that one race is superior to another than they are racist. It doesn't matter if the holder of that view is white, black, brown, yellow, green, or purple. If they believe they are superior to someone else because of their skin color then they are racist. |
35thOVI | 19 Apr 2022 4:13 a.m. PST |
Dn Jackson +1 in addition if you hate other's because of their race, you are a racist. We just had one attempt to kill people in a NY subway and in the not to distant past, (although quickly forgotten by the press and so many others), one with a car through a parade In Wisconsin. |
Silurian | 19 Apr 2022 8:01 a.m. PST |
Studying the experiences of individual soldiers and the causes/motivation for the war as a whole are both fascinating, but separate things. There'll be some who are whole-heartedly behind the motives of their governments (for whatever reason – just look at many Russians today), but there are a myriad of other reasons. My own relative, Willbarger of Texas, a poor farmer with hardly two pennies to rub together, went because his buddies did and for the adventure of it all. But "incidental"? I think the extensive primary sources would beg to differ. |
35thOVI | 19 Apr 2022 10:52 a.m. PST |
Silurian Russia is a totalitarian dictatorship. The soldier really does not have a lot of choice, although some Russians In Ultramodern threads would argue that. The soldier on both sides of the Civil War were free men and up until the draft, had freedom of decision to enlist or not enlist. I will leave the Irish Immigrants coming into ports of NE out of that, as many were basically shanghaied into the military. So do you believe Willbarger was Inherently evil, as were any of his children and wife, if he had them? They had no redeeming value, because he fought for the Confederacy and by nature had to be a white supremists and lived only to keep the black man Subjugated? Of course that didn't end with the war, but that demon of white Supremacy followed him, his children, his children's children, down to the present day. "Yeah, it stinks bad. And we all covered up in it too. Ain't nobody clean." That's the attitude of this author and other authors of a similar bent. Nothing more than the beating of the drum of white ingrained guilt and sin for slavery. If one agrees with it, that is their choice. But please don't pass books like this off as history. If you look at the other books this man wrote, their is a clear pattern. As a side, I find it odd that the only country attacked for slavery is the US, on TMP. Why not Spain, the Countries of South America, Mexico, England, Portugal, China, Germany, Native tribes of the Americas, Rome….etc.? Why only the US? Agenda? There was no Country more dependent on slavery, then the Empire of Rome. Slavery there, was much more evil. The Spanish with both blacks and Indians, I have read we're horrible. A few attack threads on the evils of Argentina, Peru, Mexico, England, etc. and the evils there, would be a welcome change of pace. Are the Germans today, still guilty for the slavery of WW2? |
35thOVI | 19 Apr 2022 11:41 a.m. PST |
I'll ask these questions. Let's say authors like this gentleman win whatever argument they are trying to prove. Let us say that it is that the Confederacies sole reason for succession was slavery and the subjugation of the black race. Now everyone believes it. What have they accomplished? How will the world change? What difference does it make to the dead black slaves? They still died slaves. Jim Crow laws are gone (I know some of you will never believe that). Is the ultimate aim to prove to the world that the US is evil and can never be cleansed of that evil? That somehow the US is worse than anywhere else in the world? I never have understood the ultimate point of all this. I guess because I believe the only points are either self Flagellation or the overthrow of our current government and the Implementation of Socialism, or maybe both. |
Murvihill | 19 Apr 2022 1:05 p.m. PST |
"As a side, I find it odd that the only country attacked for slavery is the US, on TMP. Why not Spain, the Countries of South America, Mexico, England, Portugal, China, Germany, Native tribes of the Americas, Rome….etc.? Why only the US? Agenda? There was no Country more dependent on slavery, then the Empire of Rome. Slavery there, was much more evil. The Spanish with both blacks and Indians, I have read we're horrible. A few attack threads on the evils of Argentina, Peru, Mexico, England, etc. and the evils there, would be a welcome change of pace. Are the Germans today, still guilty for the slavery of WW2?" Because unlike other countries we in the USA talk about the things that don't make us perfect. Most everyone else either tolerate it or simply move on. |
35thOVI | 19 Apr 2022 1:37 p.m. PST |
But I've seen so many of these started from Argentina. 😉 |
Silurian | 19 Apr 2022 1:39 p.m. PST |
With respect 35thOVI, I think you have misinterpreted what I said. I was essentially responding to, and agreeing with, your comments above. Soldiers fight for different reasons unless they are drafted. Many did not realize the underlying cause, and perhaps thought in more general terms of the evil North and States Rights etc (my, perhaps clumsy analogy to Russians today not seeing the big picture). So do I think my relative was evil, no of course not, for the reasons above. So I don't agree with demonizing Southerners today by any means. US slavery seems to come up on TMP more than slavery elsewhere simply because it gets brought up in relation to the Civil War origins on the ACW discussion board, and often by the same individuals with a particular slant. But as to the argument: there are those "who would argue that slavery, per se, was only incidental to the main argument of secession." I disagree with. |
35thOVI | 19 Apr 2022 1:57 p.m. PST |
Silurian I do sincerely apologize. I did misunderstand. I am glad you honor your relative. He fought for what he believed was right, as did so many on each side of that horrible war. How much better would this country be today if all that potential had not died. |
Tortorella | 19 Apr 2022 2:21 p.m. PST |
I have hoped a long time for a good modern bio of Lee, a complex man. An objective account, primary sources, but written in an accessible narrative style. Chernow's Grant seemed like it did the job. But Lee is harder. There is so much emotion around him. |
Aapsych20 | 19 Apr 2022 2:39 p.m. PST |
A few things in response. Slavery and white supremacy were so deeply woven into the fabric of antebellum Southern and later Confederate society, that I would ask if the same kind of bias is at play in a modern individual's engagement in Southern/Lost Cause/Confederate apologetics. As I would with a person justifying, for example, Hitler's invasions of Eastern Europe on the basis of Liebensraum, or clamoring about how great the autobahns were while ignoring that a good proportion of them was built with concentration camp forced labor. Same exact deal. Don't like it? Look harder in the mirror. Get used to the discomfort. Learn more and do better. The only times I'd heard people of color say anything detrimental about white folks, arthur 1815, has been in the context of thoughts expressed through the lens of the harm done by white folks to folks of color. That's called accountability. It concerns me that as an educator you can't recognize that – especially given the UK's rampant and ongoing history of violence towards folks of color. Your and anyone else's attempt to suggest minority folks to be also and equally racist (as if racism were somehow a matter of individual biases solely, rather than of legally legitimated systemic/structured harm that the Confederacy embraced) is called DARVO – Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender – a type of gaslighting. Don't like it? Look harder in the mirror. Get used to the discomfort. Learn more and do better. A summary of facts (re: the secession after Lincoln's election) is also a set of facts. Claiming otherwise is a bit of a desperate ploy, frankly, and it is showing quite transparently. And yes, the very resistance to historical accountability on the part of Confederate apologists, is exactly the reason white supremacy keeps coming up in this forum – to the extent that the slant mentioned above among those Southern "enthusiasts" can be deemed a bias. Once more – Don't like it? Look harder in the mirror. Get used to the discomfort. Learn more and do better. |
arthur1815 | 19 Apr 2022 3:50 p.m. PST |
Aapsych20, I admit I unintentionally misinterpreted what the term 'reverse racism' meant, simply because I had never heard it before. I have looked it up and now understand that the phrase can be used to mean more than racial prejudice practised by individuals, whereas the example I quoted from personal experience was simply an instance of the latter, only to make the point that racial prejudice is not an attitude confined to whites, which the extract I quoted in my original post – "racist ideas &c." – might have suggested. Please note that I only stated that some minority pupils exhibited racial prejudice; I was not suggesting that all such pupils had such attitudes, any more than I would accuse all white people of having them. I am very grateful to be retired from the classroom and no longer have to negotiate the seemingly ever-shifting sands of politically correct terminology and usage, but can simply treat the individuals with whom I come into contact with humanity and respect. |
35thOVI | 19 Apr 2022 4:47 p.m. PST |
Aapsyph20 So If I say the autobahns are nice, I should feel guilty for how they were built? 🤔 well I did not know they were built with slave labor. But now I do. I don't feel guilt over it, I do believe they are nice. That Great Wall of China was built only with the death of many enslaved Chinese. It is still a wonder. Many of the great buildings of Rome, Egypt, Babylon, Aztec, Inca…. I feel no guilt and can still admire the engineering and outcome. Why should we feel guilty for the injustices of history? Our we following the biblical: "Punishing the children for the sins of the parent to the third and fourth generation"? May not be the exact quote, but close. So if someone does not believe in beating the Southern soldiers and officers like a dirty rug, they are "Southern Enthusiast"? One can believe that slavery was wrong, that succession was wrong and still see the nobility and bravery of many of them. It is not an either or situation. Well OK, for those thinking like you, it may be. So you have never been the victim of reverse discrimination? Lucky you. All races practice discrimination in one form or another. You can't just dismiss it as justified, that makes one just as bad as those who practice it. Enjoy the reading and feel free to disregard. This is 2 of the most recent. There are many more, they just don't stay in the news long. Why? They don't propagate the agenda of white guilt and oppression. Subject: Democrats who claim white supremacy is top problem ignore black racist killers link |
Dn Jackson | 19 Apr 2022 10:08 p.m. PST |
"our and anyone else's attempt to suggest minority folks to be also and equally racist (as if racism were somehow a matter of individual biases solely," This thinking is the product of the Marxist view of history, i.e. individuals are unimportant, only the collective should be studied. |
GamesPoet | 20 Apr 2022 4:35 a.m. PST |
To 35thOVI … It is a bit unfortunate when a link is provided to what seems like a marginally written at best perhaps article with an opinion slant from the New York Post. And then using it as a basis of evidence for your opinion based on the two items being reported, seems like an unsound way of backing up your 4th question listed further back on the thread, "Are there Black Supremists?", and where we were told to "Be honest here." Many if not all rational people would probably say yes to that question, and without having to read a New York Post piece on two guys who seem to have committed some criminal acts and had racist views. And just because there are guys like this, does this some how make white supremacy ok? I don't thing most rational folks would argue with a yes. The repetitive nature that you're whining about isn't always about propagating an agenda of "white guilt and oppression". For at least some, it's about getting at the actual history as a way to confront the white supremacy that has been attempting to oppress other people long after the Civil War ended, and the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the U.S. Constitution got passed. You've also asked further back on this thread, "How does the world change?" Perhaps it can change by confronting the current actions of some who continue to propagate the beliefs and views that are the same, or similar, or both, to the decision makers who led the South into secession, and its soldiers to fight for the multiple reasons that they did. And when those current actions and beliefs are in ways that oppose those 3 amendments, it seems such actions and beliefs are worth confronting, including the reminder of the history that has led to those 3 amendments. It isn't necessarily for the brow beating of those individuals who did the leading in those days of the American Civil War. It can be about helping to support the ideas expressed in those three amendments as a way of confronting those who are currently acting in ways that are opposed to those amendments. Maybe the world won't change, and thus the confrontation of those who are opposed to the ideas in those amendments, thru their actions and beliefs, could be continued, and repetitive. |
35thOVI | 20 Apr 2022 5:34 a.m. PST |
Gamespost Before I answer anything else, please explain to us why a story from the New York Post is any less viable than a story from New York Times. The Times has been proven to print false stories, especially about the past President and not printing stories to protect the current one? Same goes for CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NPR and the rest of the liberally controlled media. FYI, that information is available on multiple sources, but not heavily covered by the liberal media. Not sure why. 🤔 Since I was asked on one thread if I was, or had been a pilot, I guess I can ask if you are or were in Acadamia? Same with those who most Vehemently oppose my view points. Look forward to your answers. |
Au pas de Charge | 20 Apr 2022 6:33 a.m. PST |
Marcus Brutus says: Of course, your comment begs the question. Did the South really secede in order to protect their use of slavery? There are many of us on TMP who would argue that slavery, per se, was only incidental to the main argument of secession. That is not to discount the role of slavery in Southern thinking or that it didn't contribute to the overall urgency to secede but there is a plausible argument that there were more fundamental forces at play that lead to Southern states leaving the Union. What exactly is this "main" argument for secession and who are the historians setting them down in detail? |
Au pas de Charge | 20 Apr 2022 6:43 a.m. PST |
@35thOVI Subject: Democrats who claim white supremacy is top problem ignore black racist killers Before I answer anything else, please explain to us why a story from the New York Post is any less viable than a story from New York Times. The Times has been proven to print false stories, especially about the past President and not printing stories to protect the current one? Same goes for CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NPR and the rest of the liberally controlled media. In this case, the NY Post article you linked may be less viable because James hurt mostly people of color. Incidentally, he didnt kill anyone. Thus, maybe, just maybe, the NY Post was off about that too? Does that qualify a false story? |
GamesPoet | 20 Apr 2022 7:14 a.m. PST |
GamespoetBefore I answer anything else, please explain to us why a story from the New York Post is any less viable than a story from New York Times. The Times has been proven to print false stories, especially about the past President and not printing stories to protect the current one? Same goes for CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NPR and the rest of the liberally controlled media. FYI, that information is available on multiple sources, but not heavily covered by the liberal media. Not sure why. 🤔 Since I was asked on one thread if I was, or had been a pilot, I guess I can ask if you are or were in Acadamia? Same with those who most Vehemently oppose my view points. Look forward to your answers. My comments weren't about the NY Post being less viable than the NY Times. And making a claim about "Academia" being the people most "vehemently" opposing your views, I'm not in "Academia". Not sure I'm as opposed as those you've encountered in "Academia", because I haven't experienced what you've experienced. There could be some that aren't as "vehemently" opposed. And if I am as "vehemently" opposed, then evidently it can not be said any longer that they are the only ones "vehemently" opposed. Not that either are truly accurate. Suspect I don't know what all your views are, nor am I necessarily "vehemently" opposed to any of them. Also, no one is picking on you, we're just offering alternative perspectives. And don't worry, it's ok, go slow, take the time needed to process the info provided, and hope it is helpful in bringing some understanding, and then your suffering could be less severe. |
35thOVI | 20 Apr 2022 7:15 a.m. PST |
Actually not really. His posts on his website state his views clearly. By color, do you mean Asian? No one claimed he was an intelligent racist. |
35thOVI | 20 Apr 2022 7:29 a.m. PST |
Did I say anyone was picking on me? God! I am not a liberal! 😂 I can take it. Just trying to find patterns to opposing views. Those have been, avowed Socialist, Academics, either current or past and employees past or present of the Government. Not to say they all feel that way, well except for the Socialist, but that has been the pattern. I'm still trying to figure out why one asked if I was a former or current pilot. 😂 |
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
|