|
Post by strummer8526 on Apr 8, 2010 8:13:53 GMT -5
Should any proclamation of Black History Month make reference to the crime rate in predominantly African American neighborhoods? Just askin'. Yes, and it should involve a discussion of how to fix it. But all of my solutions—like pouring every resource we have into inner city education so we can break the cycle of poverty that has afflicted some families for generations—would be considered "socialism." It's much easier for closeted "Confederates" to talk about Frederick Douglas, MLK, and the peanut guy, and then send a ridiculous number of young black men to jail, than to commit our dollars to fixing the rank inequality that has existed for this country's entire history.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Apr 8, 2010 10:32:17 GMT -5
Should any proclamation of Black History Month make reference to the crime rate in predominantly African American neighborhoods? Just askin'. Yes, and it should involve a discussion of how to fix it. But all of my solutions—like pouring every resource we have into inner city education so we can break the cycle of poverty that has afflicted some families for generations—would be considered "socialism." It's much easier for closeted "Confederates" to talk about Frederick Douglas, MLK, and the peanut guy, and then send a ridiculous number of young black men to jail, than to commit our dollars to fixing the rank inequality that has existed for this country's entire history. Yeah, we're going off the rails on this thread. For the record, McDonnell regretted the exclusion of slavery. Anyway. Spending lots of money on education doesn't work. Spending lots of money on what would be called "socialism", because it's either socialism or a few steps away from it, doesn't work - European socialist states like France have ghettos full of minorities, and there are consistent claims that people there are a permanent underclass. The French thought so highly of integrating people that, in their last election, they made the interior minister who ran on law and order president. The only state that's been mildly successful in spending money to fix rank inequality has been North Korea - by spending lots of money on Courvoisier and nukes and other highbrow goodies for Kim Jong Il, the vast majority of North Koreans are now equal in having very very little.
|
|
rosslynhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,595
|
Post by rosslynhoya on Apr 8, 2010 10:52:23 GMT -5
Yes, and it should involve a discussion of how to fix it. But all of my solutions—like pouring every resource we have into inner city education so we can break the cycle of poverty that has afflicted some families for generations—would be considered "socialism." It's much easier for closeted "Confederates" to talk about Frederick Douglas, MLK, and the peanut guy, and then send a ridiculous number of young black men to jail, than to commit our dollars to fixing the rank inequality that has existed for this country's entire history. You must have been delighted then that DC just approved a 20% raise in base pay for its public school teachers. The DC murder rate should be pretty close to zero next year thanks to all that extra education the kids will get, especially when you consider that the District already spends roughly 50% more on its schools than the national average.
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Apr 8, 2010 10:54:51 GMT -5
Yes, and it should involve a discussion of how to fix it. But all of my solutions—like pouring every resource we have into inner city education so we can break the cycle of poverty that has afflicted some families for generations—would be considered "socialism." It's much easier for closeted "Confederates" to talk about Frederick Douglas, MLK, and the peanut guy, and then send a ridiculous number of young black men to jail, than to commit our dollars to fixing the rank inequality that has existed for this country's entire history. You must have been delighted then that DC just approved a 20% raise in base pay for its public school teachers. The DC murder rate should be pretty close to zero next year thanks to all that extra education the kids will get, especially when you consider that the District already spends roughly 50% more on its schools than the national average. Maybe I should have been clear that the resources should be spent wisely. Giving more money to bad teachers is not what I'm referring to. I'm just saying that if you want to celebrate "Confederate History" (or Black History) in all their glory, then yeah, let's talk about crime rates. Let's talk about slavery. Let's talk about centuries of breaking down black families, selling children out from under their parents, and our current desire to blame the collapse of black families and failure black fathers for current problems in black communities. Yeah, let's talk about how these histories have gotten us to where we are today. I actually think it's hilarious to have Confederate History and Black History, but no apparent stomach to discuss what the two mean for how we deal with ongoing issues. But no. We will talk about Martin Luther King, Frederick Douglas, and the peanut guy. And we'll talk about keeping big government off our backs, gosh darn it! Heaven forbid we try to learn anything from these histories and convert it into practical solutions. It's much easier to placate some constituents with crap.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Apr 8, 2010 11:03:38 GMT -5
I think Europe's problems with integration are more cultural than political. To put it very bluntly, the French will never accept somebody with dark skin as a true Frenchman, unless he's good at kicking a ball around a field.
Racial minorities face similar problems in the US (as this Confederate month shows), but not nearly to the same degree as in Europe.
Getting back to the Confederate subject, I think The Onion put it best when they described the South as "Where the Mistakes of the Past Come Alive".
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Apr 8, 2010 12:32:02 GMT -5
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Apr 8, 2010 12:34:19 GMT -5
My favorite: Speaking of Human Bondage...I believe Michael Steele declared April was Human Bondage Month, so that dovetails nicely with this.
Bada-bum. ;D (Though I would've preferred "Ba-ZING!!")
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Apr 8, 2010 12:39:23 GMT -5
My favorite: Speaking of Human Bondage...I believe Michael Steele declared April was Human Bondage Month, so that dovetails nicely with this.
Bada-bum. ;D (Though I would've preferred "Ba-ZING!!") This is remarkably unfair. Everyone knows that all the attendees just wanted OJT to become House Majority Whip.
|
|
whatmaroon
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 819
|
Post by whatmaroon on Apr 8, 2010 13:47:47 GMT -5
My favorite part of Daniel Walker Howe's superb What Hath God Wrought was showing how Southern political leaders made a concerted effort beginning in the mid to late 1820's to play hide the ball and pretend the sectional arguments were about something other than slavery. Yeah, there's other stuff out there, and no, it's not.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Apr 8, 2010 19:00:59 GMT -5
I have made this point in the past but I'll repeat it here. I believe it is a fact that slavery was one of the most important, if not the most important, issue among the leaders of the southern states leading to the Civil War. But that's the leaders, not necessarily the vast majority of whites in the South. Regardless of who gets the blame for starting the war, to most Southerners, all they saw was an army invading their home states, cities and towns. Many joined the Confederate forces to repel those they saw as invaders who were destroying their crops, burning their homes and ravaging the countryside. Most were too poor to even think about having slaves but were merely trying to make a living growing crops to support their families. I can relate to this on a personal level as my great-grandfather lost everything he had when Grant seiged Vicksburg. He was a recent immigrant who settled there, married and bought a home near the water where gunboats would later shell. He did not have slaves, did not fight for slavery, but he joined the Confederate forces to try to save what he had.
When I think of Confederate History Month, instantly I think of my great-grandfather and the many, many others like him who fought with the Confederates and I am proud of them and am only too happy to salute them during Confederate History Month. I also welcome the inclusion of a discussion of slavery as part of that memory as long as it is not the only thing discussed and as long as those addressing the non-slavery issues are not labeled racists.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Apr 8, 2010 19:58:38 GMT -5
I had a discussion about this issue today, and I have a question - why can't we have a Civil War History Month? I have no problem with recalling history, as long as the history is correct.
There have been sacrifices in any number of wars fought by this country. There is not a War of 1812 Day as far as I know. We don't remember the Vietnam War in any formal way (perhaps unfortunately), even though the result there was much like the Confederacy. We don't seem to go out of our way to remember the Trail of Tears. This is not to say in any case that these soldiers are not revered or that the Confederates are not otherwise recalled appropriately in private ways.
While Confederate sacrifices cannot be explained away or ignored in Civil War history, there is another glaring omission from McDonnell's Proclamation beyond the ignorant slavery omission, namely the sacrifices of the Union. I suspect there are some on here, myself included, with ancestors who died fighting for the Union (Gettysburg in my case). My family has been lucky to recover some of the soldier's possessions - a pocket-sized Bible, mess plate, canteen/powder keg. I am left to wonder what options are there for us in states/commonwealths like Virginia to remember their sacrifices apart from knowing that they did not die in vain.
As to the racism point, I have no doubt that many would participate in this event/remembrance for good reasons. I also have no doubt that there are many who wouldn't, and this kind of thing is their Christmas, particularly where it was expressly not intended to be a remembrance of slaves.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Apr 8, 2010 20:34:20 GMT -5
I have made this point in the past but I'll repeat it here. I believe it is a fact that slavery was one of the most important, if not the most important, issue among the leaders of the southern states leading to the Civil War. But that's the leaders, not necessarily the vast majority of whites in the South. Regardless of who gets the blame for starting the war, to most Southerners, all they saw was an army invading their home states, cities and towns. Many joined the Confederate forces to repel those they saw as invaders who were destroying their crops, burning their homes and ravaging the countryside. Most were too poor to even think about having slaves but were merely trying to make a living growing crops to support their families. I can relate to this on a personal level as my great-grandfather lost everything he had when Grant seiged Vicksburg. He was a recent immigrant who settled there, married and bought a home near the water where gunboats would later shell. He did not have slaves, did not fight for slavery, but he joined the Confederate forces to try to save what he had. When I think of Confederate History Month, instantly I think of my great-grandfather and the many, many others like him who fought with the Confederates and I am proud of them and am only too happy to salute them during Confederate History Month. I also welcome the inclusion of a discussion of slavery as part of that memory as long as it is not the only thing discussed and as long as those addressing the non-slavery issues are not labeled racists. The problem is that the Union troops who the everyday southerners were trying to defend themselves from would have never been streaming into their states if their states hadn't seceded. At least in Virginia's case, Secession was supported by the overwhelming majority of (white male) citizens via referendum. I'm not trying to say that all white southerners in 1861 were evil racists. There were certainly a lot of good people in the Confederate States, and lots of fine young men who died for the Confederacy. However, I don't think the Confederacy as a whole is something that should be celebrated.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Apr 9, 2010 1:00:52 GMT -5
I have made this point in the past but I'll repeat it here. I believe it is a fact that slavery was one of the most important, if not the most important, issue among the leaders of the southern states leading to the Civil War. But that's the leaders, not necessarily the vast majority of whites in the South. Regardless of who gets the blame for starting the war, to most Southerners, all they saw was an army invading their home states, cities and towns. Many joined the Confederate forces to repel those they saw as invaders who were destroying their crops, burning their homes and ravaging the countryside. Most were too poor to even think about having slaves but were merely trying to make a living growing crops to support their families. I can relate to this on a personal level as my great-grandfather lost everything he had when Grant seiged Vicksburg. He was a recent immigrant who settled there, married and bought a home near the water where gunboats would later shell. He did not have slaves, did not fight for slavery, but he joined the Confederate forces to try to save what he had. When I think of Confederate History Month, instantly I think of my great-grandfather and the many, many others like him who fought with the Confederates and I am proud of them and am only too happy to salute them during Confederate History Month. I also welcome the inclusion of a discussion of slavery as part of that memory as long as it is not the only thing discussed and as long as those addressing the non-slavery issues are not labeled racists. The problem is that the Union troops who the everyday southerners were trying to defend themselves from would have never been streaming into their states if their states hadn't seceded. At least in Virginia's case, Secession was supported by the overwhelming majority of (white male) citizens via referendum. I'm not trying to say that all white southerners in 1861 were evil racists. There were certainly a lot of good people in the Confederate States, and lots of fine young men who died for the Confederacy. However, I don't think the Confederacy as a whole is something that should be celebrated. Let's also remember that the overwhelming majority of white Virginians didn't even then represent the majority of Virginians (women and blacks couldn't vote after all), and that the overwhelming majority of white males in west Virginia were opposed to secession (hence West Virginia). Getting back to Ed's point, I think it's very possible to acknowledge the sacrifice of southern soldiers and citizens without glorifying the Confederate cause or ignoring slavery. If McDonnell had done that, I doubt anyone would have made a peep. Instead, he caved to whatever the Sons of Confederate Veterans requested.
|
|