Racism

[Irishize]

.

Reporters may not have been as aware of some of the confederacy ties that some of those schools have. As well, reporters largely dont have the same negative feelings towards the confederacy that young AA men have.

Nah. Reporters aren’t that ignorant to the confederacy ties b/c they’ve been around for decades but even more “in your face”

The large issue with people terming it cancel culture is that so often people are duped into believing something ridiculous like "the Left wants to cancel Ronald McDonald!!!". When in fact it's someone just trying to stir the pot for example - Vin Scully being "cancelled".

I’m specifically talking about the historical figures I’ve mentioned: Lincoln, Washington, Christopher Columbus, Winston Churchill, Thomas Jefferson, etc. If you’re ok with removing them (I assume since you pivoted to Ronald McDonald) then please explain why

To your third paragraph....yeah the majority of people understand that. I've said it a million times, statues that celebrate losers and people who's contributions are overwhelming negative should be taken down.

Cool. Please be specific.

Are the BLM movements offending you? Is the message of a change to systemic racism offensive? Or are the actions of some questionable characters causing you to write off a whole movement?

In regard to the phrase “Black Lives Matter”....I embrace it as should all folks. I understand they’re not saying they disagree w/ “All Lives Matter” but want to recognize what they specifically have been through. Now the BLM group. I read their website and they don’t align w/ the organic BLM movement. That’s my opinion and I’m sure you disagree.

I realize the white nationalists who feel emboldened by Conservatives and feel a strong connection to Donald Trump, don't make up the majority of conservative supporters. But it begs the question, why let them continue to define the ideology? - Now see how stupid that sounds?

You’re generalizing again. Why do you assume EVERY American is either on one side 100% or the other 100% w/ zero grey area? I’ve said it multiple times, but I didn’t vote for Hillary or Trump. I’m more right than left on a lot of issues but can’t wrap my arms around being a member of a party if it’s between the Reps & Dems. And then you act like the only Republican POTUS who was every hated or connected to hate was Trump. Let’s not ignore the fact that the MSM & the Left hated w/ a passion Republicans like W. Bush, his dad Bush SR, Reagan, Romney (until he lost to Obama). Every one of them have been called Nazis or worse and not just by fringe groups that you refer to. The ONLY Republicans that the MSM/Left embrace or are at least civil to are the ones who lost elections and only after said election: Dole, McCain, Romney....”why can’t all Republicans be like those guys?!?!?”....RESPONSE: “why? You hated them & spewed vitriol at them the entire time they were running against your guy/gal?”

 

[Irish YJ]

Agreed. My first knee jerk thought was “why the hell did you commit 3-4 years of your life to a racist school in a racist state in a racist conference?” But their kids and don’t think that deep until it truly affects them personally. I think all athletes who are college hopefuls should do themselves a favor and learn the history of how a huge number of current HOFers played at HBCU in the 60s-70s if they wanted to stay close to home down south or they’d go to a midwestern/northeastern school like the B1G or ND. Go look at the measurables of players like Carl Eller, Willie Lanier, Doug Williams, etc. Those cats were D1 4-5 star prospects in today’s world.

As far as the writers, I was speaking more to the sanctimonious national writers like the ones at The Athletic or USA Today. Give me Andy Staples (who is a national writer) over Dan Wolken every day of the week.

I wouldn't brand Mississippi, or Mississippi schools as racist. There are lots of different studies on "most racist" states based on a variety of factors. None of the studies are perfect, and look at everything from mortality rates, incarceration rates, google searches, twitter tweets, etc.. There's not a lot of consistency in the findings, but there are a few states that pop up regularly in multiple studies. IIRC, Ohio, Maine, and Delaware were listed with frequency. Michigan as well, but not as frequent.

Out of the southern states, I seem to recall Louisiana popping up on a few. But overall, SEC states were on average graded the same as states like CA and many others we think are "woke". One study, I believe the one that looked at mortality AND social media, show the MW and parts of the NE as more racist than a lot of the SEC areas.

I've been all over, and there are pockets of numskulls everywhere. I can point you to some back wood places in both GA and IN, and both states are graded well, especially GA. And there are plenty of places that are racist, that are not white. But nobody will ever talk about that. Good and bad everywhere, and of all colors.

 

[TorontoGold]

.

(I dont know to reply with the previous text in your post)

1. The Confederate statues I think are pretty useless, and I'm not sure the education aspect holds water when there isn't Himmler statues in Germany and they know who he is.

2. I was being facetious, and showing that making generalized statements like the one I made are stupid and serve no purpose.

Anyways, I think we mostly agree on everything and bickering on dumb shit lol

 

[Irishize]

 

[Irishize]

I wouldn't brand Mississippi, or Mississippi schools as racist. There are lots of different studies on "most racist" states based on a variety of factors. None of the studies are perfect, and look at everything from mortality rates, incarceration rates, google searches, twitter tweets, etc.. There's not a lot of consistency in the findings, but there are a few states that pop up regularly in multiple studies. IIRC, Ohio, Maine, and Delaware were listed with frequency. Michigan as well, but not as frequent.

Out of the southern states, I seem to recall Louisiana popping up on a few. But overall, SEC states were on average graded the same as states like CA and many others we think are "woke". One study, I believe the one that looked at mortality AND social media, show the MW and parts of the NE as more racist than a lot of the SEC areas.

I've been all over, and there are pockets of numskulls everywhere. I can point you to some back wood places in both GA and IN, and both states are graded well, especially GA. And there are plenty of places that are racist, that are not white. But nobody will ever talk about that. Good and bad everywhere, and of all colors.

Sorry...should’ve clarified or used italics. My “knee-jerk” reaction was laced w/ sarcasm but I can see where that may not land on a post. I live in Arkansas. We border MS & LA & Memphis,TN, so I agree with you. I think most folks regardless of race rolled their eyes at the confederate flag yahoos & have no problem removing their statues or emblems from flags. I suspect we all get caught up in our own “busy” lives and don’t slow down long enough to consider things that really don’t affect us like they would if we were say....forced to slow down b/c of a pandemic....and be inundated w/ two political parties & two brands of MSM squabbling over the soul of America.

 

[TorontoGold]

Not sure where the chart is necessarily coming from as I can't find it on the US census data. But judging by the similarities in ranking of income based on 2016 data, it looks like the chart is based on ancestral information. Kinda tough to identify as "White American" on an ancestral questionnaire....

Looking at the data in the 2016 info, looks like people with Australian and Austrian heritage are #3/7 in the listing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_United_States_by_household_income

Also, while income does help with making up some ground in the treatment of minorities (ie a poor black person will be treated worse than a rich black person), there are still numerous times when a black person is pulled over driving an expensive car and questioned.

 

[Irishize]

Thread

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">1/ I sometimes ask students what their position on slavery would have been had they been white and living in the South before abolition. Guess what? They all would have been abolitionists! They all would have bravely spoken out against slavery, and worked tirelessly against it.</p>— Robert P. George (@McCormickProf) <a href="https://twitter.com/McCormickProf/status/1278529694355292161?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 2, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[TorontoGold]

Thread

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">1/ I sometimes ask students what their position on slavery would have been had they been white and living in the South before abolition. Guess what? They all would have been abolitionists! They all would have bravely spoken out against slavery, and worked tirelessly against it.</p>— Robert P. George (@McCormickProf) <a href="https://twitter.com/McCormickProf/status/1278529694355292161?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 2, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

So what's the point? I think it's pretty easy to say "400 hundred years ago we'd all be awful people". Seems like the tone of the thread is that anyone trying to be socially progressive is wrong because standards were different in the past so we can't say things in the past were wrong?

Not sure why people looking at historical events critically using today's standards is so bad?

 

[NorthDakota]

So what's the point? I think it's pretty easy to say "400 hundred years ago we'd all be awful people". Seems like the tone of the thread is that anyone trying to be socially progressive is wrong because standards were different in the past so we can't say things in the past were wrong?

Not sure why people looking at historical events critically using today's standards is so bad?

You don't see an issue judging people through standards that exist today? Some of which didnt exist even 10 years ago?

 

[snoopdog]

You don't see an issue judging people through standards that exist today? Some of which didnt exist even 10 years ago?

Exactly. It's like a doctor today calling out 16th century "Doctors'" for using leeches to treat cancer rather than chemotherapy

 

[TorontoGold]

You don't see an issue judging people through standards that exist today? Some of which didnt exist even 10 years ago?

I think it's helpful to critically look at back at prior actions, rather than just "oops Joe Blow was a bad a guy, but ehhhh it was 200 years ago". I think giving cover to something/someone because it happened in the past isn't good learning op.

I remember taking a bunch of history classes - we always compared the actions of what happened in that certain time period to the norm back then, and then assessed based on today's standards (mid 2000's).

 

[MJ12666]

So what's the point? I think it's pretty easy to say "400 hundred years ago we'd all be awful people". Seems like the tone of the thread is that anyone trying to be socially progressive is wrong because standards were different in the past so we can't say things in the past were wrong?

Not sure why people looking at historical events critically using today's standards is so bad?

For argument sake less agree that it is okay to judge all historical events and figures based on today's standards. If this is the case then why haven't social progressives been ripping Mohammad and Islam to shreds as according to this BBC article:

Muslim slavery continued for centuries

The legality of slavery in Islam, together with the example of the Prophet Muhammad, who himself bought, sold, captured, and owned slaves, may explain why slavery persisted until the 19th century in many places (and later still in some countries). The impetus for the abolition of slavery came largely from colonial powers, although some Muslim thinkers argued strongly for abolition.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/slavery_1.shtml

And from the Quran:

FROM THE QURAN - 33:50

"Prophet, We have made lawful to you the wives whom you have granted dowries and the slave girls whom God has given you as booty;..."

Doesn't it seem just a little strange to you that only white historical figures of European decent are being condemned for their actions?

 

[TorontoGold]

For argument sake less agree that it is okay to judge all historical events and figures based on today's standards. If this is the case then why haven't social progressives been ripping Mohammad and Islam to shreds as according to this BBC article:



https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/slavery_1.shtml

And from the Quran:

FROM THE QURAN - 33:50

"Prophet, We have made lawful to you the wives whom you have granted dowries and the slave girls whom God has given you as booty;..."

Doesn't it seem just a little strange to you that only white historical figures of European decent are being condemned for their actions?

In the context of the discussion around removing confederate monuments and slave owners, the inclusion of criticism surrounding a specific religion would be odd to me. If there were statues of prominent middle eastern slaver owners in the US you bet there would be progressives railing against them too.

Social progressives are certainly critical of religion in a general sense. It's just a bit naive to think that given the recent events that criticism of Islam would be a focus.

 

[Circa]

I'm surprised that Indian Americans are at the top. The Patel Family has more motel/hotel's in this 51 state country than anyone wants to admit.
India and our Indian ancesto®s are at 2 different sides of the tax bracket.

Why do the Patel's (surname) get tax breaks for bringing other eastern indians in to the U.S?

 

[MJ12666]

In the context of the discussion around removing confederate monuments and slave owners, the inclusion of criticism surrounding a specific religion would be odd to me. If there were statues of prominent middle eastern slaver owners in the US you bet there would be progressives railing against them too.

Social progressives are certainly critical of religion in a general sense. It's just a bit naive to think that given the recent events that criticism of Islam would be a focus.

So social progressives are only concentrating their criticism on historical US descendants of European decent. Makes perfect sense. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[TorontoGold]

So social progressives are only concentrating their criticism on historical US descendants of European decent. Makes perfect sense. Thanks for the clarification.

Seems like the current North American social progressive movement is focused on BLM/Confederate statues, but when we start going after the Islamic slave owner statues set up around the country I'll make sure to let you know so can tag along.

Honestly though, saying that there isn't enough criticism (there is PLENTY of criticism for repressive religious practices) to diminish another subject is pretty obtuse.

 

[Bishop2b5]

I think it's helpful to critically look at back at prior actions, rather than just "oops Joe Blow was a bad a guy, but ehhhh it was 200 years ago". I think giving cover to something/someone because it happened in the past isn't good learning op.

I remember taking a bunch of history classes - we always compared the actions of what happened in that certain time period to the norm back then, and then assessed based on today's standards (mid 2000's).

The point is that Joe Blow was a product of HIS time, doing what he'd been taught and what was believed at that time to be perfectly normal. Joe wasn't trying to be evil nor was he oblivious. He was just doing what was accepted and widely regarded as normal for his era and what he'd been taught to believe. Trust me, in a generation or two some of the things you and I think are perfectly fine today will be viewed quite differently by our descendants. I know that because it's ALWAYS been that way.

Think of some of the things from just the past century or so, or even just the past few decades that were considered completely normal, natural, and totally acceptable, but now aren't. Child labor for one. A century or so ago parents put their kids to work in factories while they were still quite young. My dad and his siblings were working in the cotton fields all day long by the age of 6. That was the norm everywhere. Now we view it as a horrible human rights issue and child abuse. Even in the US, it was very difficult or impossible for a woman to take out a loan or buy a house without a husband or father to sign for her. Nobody was trying to be evil in that. They had just been raised for generations to believe that most women were incapable of handling such financial matters or being rational and serious-minded enough to make such decisions. Heck, that's still the way it works across most of the Middle East.

Think about marriages up until only a couple of generations ago. The man was head of the household, his word was final, and the "little woman" was expected to stay home, cook, keep house, raise the kids, and leave all the weighty decisions to the man. Do you think your dad or grandfather and their contemporaries were evil misogynists for this who hated women and wanted to abuse them and keep them barefoot and pregnant? Probably not. It was a system that worked to provide stable homes and families, and was what most men and women had been raised to expect and even want. We may see it as overly masculine or demeaning to women or "the patriarchy" by today's standards, but those people were just doing as they'd been taught, doing the best they knew how, and trying to do things the right way to the best of their ability. They weren't evil.

I'm not defending slavery. I wouldn't want to have been a slave nor own them, but I am against the idea that everyone from the past should be judged by today's values and beliefs. I've read a lot of books and studies about slavery. The vast majority of slave owners were neither evil nor had any hatred for Blacks. They were part of a world-wide, multi-cultural, 5000 year old belief system that slavery was normal and morally acceptable, and they viewed their slaves not with an evil or sadistic eye, but more along the lines of intelligent livestock. In other words, they were a product of their time and environment and upbringing. We today view slavery differently, but that was the norm almost everywhere in the world throughout most of the past 5000 years up until just the past few centuries.

 

[Bishop2b5]

I meant to add this example above, as it's a great example of how norms, mores and what's believed and acceptable can change so much over time. A few years ago I read a story about a farmer during the settling of the American plains. He was 30 and he and his wife had 3 young children. His wife got sick and died, leaving him in an untenable situation. He HAD to have a wife to raise the kids while he was in the fields all day. He went to another farmer several miles away who he knew had some young daughters. The farmer had a 13-year-old who was ready for a husband and this guy needed a wife, so she packed her stuff and off she went with her father's blessing to start her new life. Today we'd call him a pedophile, but if you did that 150 years ago, people would think you were nuts and wonder what you were upset about.

Throughout most of history and across most of the world (and even in Westeros), a girl was considered a woman and marriageable as soon as she passed through puberty. We might find it a bit odd today for a 40 year old man to marry a 20 year old woman or for a 70 year old rock star to marry a 30 year old woman, but nobody would call it immoral or perverted. Nobody thought much about a man of any age marrying any woman who'd reached "womanhood" back in the day. The 30 year old farmer who married the 13 year old girl almost certainly never thought of her as a pedophile would a child. He simply saw her as a woman of marrying age who was ready for a husband and he needed a wife. To judge him by today's values would be inaccurate and ridiculous.

 

[Bishop2b5]

I, along with every other normal person around, believes that black lives matter. I DO NOT support the Black Lives Matter organization and their agenda, though. If you think it's to save black lives or improve our society, you're blind and gullible. Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Cullors is on record as claiming she and another co-founder are trained Marxists. As the articles below show, she's basically a professional radical and communist with a long history of direct and indirect ties to several radical and domestic terrorist organizations such as the Weather Underground.

https://nypost.com/2020/06/25/blm-co-founder-describes-herself-as-trained-marxist/
Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Cullors said in a newly surfaced video from 2015 that she and her fellow organizers are “trained Marxists.”

Her claim of being a trained Marxist is in the 7:00-7:10 part of the video.
<iframe width="730" height="411" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/kCghDx5qN4s" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

https://disrn.com/news/video-surfaces-of-black-lives-matter-founder-saying-were-trained-marxists
Responding to the interviewer's concern that the BLM movement might not have enough of a "clear ideological structure," Cullors responded by saying that she and another co-founder "in particular" are dedicated to the ideology of Communist leader Karl Marx:
"We actually do have an ideological frame. Myself and Alicia in particular, we're trained organizers. We are trained Marxists. We are super versed on ideological theories."

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...ting-marxist-co-founder-of-black-lives-matter

 

[Irishize]

So what's the point? I think it's pretty easy to say "400 hundred years ago we'd all be awful people". Seems like the tone of the thread is that anyone trying to be socially progressive is wrong because standards were different in the past so we can't say things in the past were wrong?

Not sure why people looking at historical events critically using today's standards is so bad?

Wow. You totally missed the point. He’s saying it’s not exactly “heroic” to criticize folks from 200 years ago when what they did has been corrected by the rule of law, wars & cultural growth. George is acknowledging that’s what folks were faced (loss of job, ostracized, etc)w/ during those decades of slavery but there’s zero “risk” of speaking out against slavery today since it’s been abolished for decades

So he asked his students what have you done in today’s society that would mirror the claim that you would’ve been a staunch abolitionist working tirelessly against slavery in the 1800s? It’s not heroic to piss all over the sins of people long dead while we live in a culture that already has regulated those sins to the dustbin of history. That’s not progressive at all.

Speaking out against slavery in 2020 isn’t going to put one at risk of losing their job or being an outcast like he mentioned in his thread.

 

[Irishize]

“The Lululemon Riots”

https://spectator.us/gentrification-revolt-black-lives-matter-instagram/

The gentrification of revolt
Liberals distract from real change in the aftermath of the death of George Floyd

Stephen L. Miller
July 6, 2020
4:16 PM
Does anyone actually remember George Floyd? What started out as a noble cause to curb police brutality in urban and African-American communities has morphed into a corporate crusade of ne’er do wells tossing out woke distractions to keep the Instagram millennial mafia off their backs, as well as the looting for likes and posing for photos on the hoods of police cars, all in the hopes of a viral snap for Instagram, TikTok or Twitter.

We’ve seen hordes of entitled white women from Georgetown in Lululemon Yoga gear shrieking at black police officers about their privilege and r/Chapo Antifa larpers tearing down statues of Ulysses S. Grant or berating older black people about their history. And let’s not forget that goddamn racist elk statue in Portland. Removing African American logos and symbols (Uncle Ben’s, Aunt Jemina, etc) is up to the companies that choose to do so, but it’s not going to save one black life at the hands of the police or do anything to placate the bloodthirsty mob.

Hollow gestures of corporate solidarity are meant to appease everyone apart from the people living with the every day stigma of police profiling, who couldn’t care less. Nobody asked to remove old episodes of the Golden Girls over mud masks or for white actors to give up their work voicing black characters. But the companies know that if the media and politicians will use a a private citizen in Central Park’s confrontation with a bird watcher as a symbol of systemic racism to distract from their disastrous decades of policies, then they will surely come after a corporate brand of rice or syrup.

We’re not witnessing a movement to reform police departments in urban communities to prevent more black deaths. We’re witnessing the gentrification of revolt by a mob of upper-class white progressives. It’s no longer about black lives. It’s also about biped trans vegan Palestinian lives and that bitch JK Rowling. These aren’t the Black Lives Matter riots. There are several examples of actual BLM protestors protecting property from being looted and expelling Antifa recruits from attacking their communities. These are the Lululemon Riots. The most selfish generation isn’t doing this for Black Lives. They are doing it for Instagram.

It’s easier to post up a black square online than it is to push for school choice in black communities. It’s easier to hashtag #BreonnaTaylor than it is to mount a public pressure campaign. It’s way more satisfying to get your Hamilton Disney+ placebo on while wearing a Colin Kaepernick jersey than it is to examine economic policies in cities. Hamilton is canceled now too, by the way.

***
Get a digital subscription to The Spectator.
Try a month free, then just $3.99 a month
***

This is all of course enabled by a media which thinks there is a woke romanticism in torching minority owned businesses for viral fame, or securing a six-block radius in Seattle and claiming it’s just a harmless street festival — never mind the two black teenagers were shot, one fatally.

That’s the stuff that doesn’t make it on to Instagram. Black Lives Matters protests overtaken by pasty white kids in bandanas have resulted in more black deaths in recent weeks, but what’s really important is that a professional football team has a name and logo that is problematic to the corporate owner of Fed Ex. A group of celebrities also made a black and white video, and hey, isn’t that really enough?

Renaming a plaza in Washington DC or painting giant yellow letters down 5th Avenue in New York outside Trump Tower is the perfect kind of shiny object for the media to focus on. Just keep ignoring the Democrat politicians who have failed these communities over and over again.

 

[Bishop2b5]

Wow. You totally missed the point. He’s saying it’s not exactly “heroic” to criticize folks from 200 years ago when what they did has been corrected by the rule of law, wars & cultural growth. George is acknowledging that’s what folks were faced (loss of job, ostracized, etc)w/ during those decades of slavery but there’s zero “risk” of speaking out against slavery today since it’s been abolished for decades

So he asked his students what have you done in today’s society that would mirror the claim that you would’ve been a staunch abolitionist working tirelessly against slavery in the 1800s? It’s not heroic to piss all over the sins of people long dead while we live in a culture that already has regulated those sins to the dustbin of history. That’s not progressive at all.

Speaking out against slavery in 2020 isn’t going to put one at risk of losing their job or being an outcast like he mentioned in his thread.

I think much of the point of his asking his students that was to get them to understand that nobody is born knowing what's right or wrong. We're taught. We learn the values and morals and ethics of our culture and those who teach us. Nobody is born "woke." They all say they'd have been abolitionists and spoken out against slavery if they'd lived during that era, but the truth is most of them wouldn't have. They would've held the same beliefs their family and neighbors held for the most part and, depending on where they lived and how they were raised, been no more likely to be for or against slavery than anyone else.

 

[Irish#1]

You're right the old sports writers should have taken a stand long ago. But we all know what happens when someone takes a social issue stand in sports. Theres really never a convenient time to address something like that, and the pushback the kids get by people going "hur durrrr too late!" certainly doesn't help.

Also, its probably naive to think that a sports writer doing a big exposé will just get to keep their access to their sources at the school. Look at the pity party going on for the Redskins name change, I'm sure that everyone would be very understanding and super ok with a story about how theres racist elements to some southern schools.

No there's not, but what is being projected by all sportswriters, not just old sports writers, is that money is more important to them then pointing out a social injustice and forging ahead with it. Kapernick was set for life before he started protesting.

 

[Irish#1]

In the context of the discussion around removing confederate monuments and slave owners, the inclusion of criticism surrounding a specific religion would be odd to me. If there were statues of prominent middle eastern slaver owners in the US you bet there would be progressives railing against them too.

Social progressives are certainly critical of religion in a general sense. It's just a bit naive to think that given the recent events that criticism of Islam would be a focus.

So a statue has to be erected for there to be outrage? It's not naive at all. Slavery is bad regardless of where it is and there doesn't have to be a statue to offend anyone. If we're all about making change, there's no reason this issue shouldn't be included. It doesn't distract.

I also think using today's standards and ideologies to judge those in the past is as wrong as one could get. So many different variables and factors came into play in shaping their lives versus what has shaped us.

BTW.....I replied to these posts as I was getting caught up and saw where several posters had already replied and did it much better than I did. Wasn't meaning to pile on.

 

[TorontoGold]

So a statue has to be erected for there to be outrage? It's not naive at all. Slavery is bad regardless of where it is and there doesn't have to be a statue to offend anyone. If we're all about making change, there's no reason this issue shouldn't be included. It doesn't distract.

I also think using today's standards and ideologies to judge those in the past is as wrong as one could get. So many different variables and factors came into play in shaping their lives versus what has shaped us.

BTW.....I replied to these posts as I was getting caught up and saw where several posters had already replied and did it much better than I did. Wasn't meaning to pile on.

Don't feel bad at all! I view my convo's with you and Bishop as the same ones I would have with of my uncles who are probably similar in age, so I dont feel any malice lol

I guess part of my wiring from spending a lot of time is an auditor is, why can't we look at the past and go "hmmm that was a much different situation, but I see some similarities in X so let's make sure not to do Y"? Like sure I understand that norms are different and what not, but I guess in my opinion it still doesnt make it right for some of the things that happened to have happened.

For example look at how Leopold II of Belgium is viewed.....not good.

 

[Irish#1]

Don't feel bad at all! I view my convo's with you and Bishop as the same ones I would have with of my uncles who are probably similar in age, so I dont feel any malice lol

I guess part of my wiring from spending a lot of time is an auditor is, why can't we look at the past and go "hmmm that was a much different situation, but I see some similarities in X so let's make sure not to do Y"? Like sure I understand that norms are different and what not, but I guess in my opinion it still doesnt make it right for some of the things that happened to have happened.

For example look at how Leopold II of Belgium is viewed.....not good.

Is that some new trendy beer from a microbrewery? I'll show myself out.

 

[MJ12666]

Seems like the current North American social progressive movement is focused on BLM/Confederate statues, but when we start going after the Islamic slave owner statues set up around the country I'll make sure to let you know so can tag along.

Honestly though, saying that there isn't enough criticism (there is PLENTY of criticism for repressive religious practices) to diminish another subject is pretty obtuse.

In my paper today has is a story entitled “Statue fight asks: Who is a hero”? The article chronicles the various statues that are being targeted by social progressive groups. One of the cities that has been identified by the article is St. Louis and states:

A crowd of around 200 people gathered Saturday near the “Apotheosis of St. Louis," the formal name for the bust of King Louis IX of France, which sits atop a hill in the city's Forest Park neighborhood, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported.

“He’s gonna come down,” said protester Umar Lee. “This guy right here represents hate and we’re trying to create a city of love. We’re trying to create a city where Black lives matter. We’re trying to create a city where there is no antisemitism or Islamophobia … this is not a symbol of our city in 2020.”

In St. Louis, Moji Sidiqi, executive director of the Regional Muslim Action Network started a petition to not only remove a statue of King Louis, the city's namesake, but to rename the city itself. “History tells us King Louis was a Christian zealot who was an Islamophobe” said Siqidi.

It would appear what is obtuse is you lack of understanding of the scope of the BLM protests.

 

[TorontoGold]

In my paper today has is a story entitled “Statue fight asks: Who is a hero”? The article chronicles the various statues that are being targeted by social progressive groups. One of the cities that has been identified by the article is St. Louis and states:



It would appear what is obtuse is you lack of understanding of the scope of the BLM protests.

I apologize for not knowing about an article in your local newspaper, I should have known better.

It is interesting you're building a straw-man argument, when we know the focus of the movement is focused on confederate monuments and slave owners. Anything to get a shot in at Islam though, eh?

 

[Legacy]

I think much of the point of his asking his students that was to get them to understand that nobody is born knowing what's right or wrong. We're taught. We learn the values and morals and ethics of our culture and those who teach us. Nobody is born "woke." They all say they'd have been abolitionists and spoken out against slavery if they'd lived during that era, but the truth is most of them wouldn't have. They would've held the same beliefs their family and neighbors held for the most part and, depending on where they lived and how they were raised, been no more likely to be for or against slavery than anyone else.

Restaurant in Lincoln City under fire for its name
Lil’ Sambo’s Family Restaurant on Highway 101 is named after an old children’s book with racist illustrations. Now the owner faces pressure to change the name.

 

[Irish#1]

Listened to Miami Herald reporter Armando Salguero on Clay Travis this morning. He covers a couple of interviews with Colin Kapernick in which he tries t explain away a t-shirt he's wearing that has Fidel Castro and Malcom X on the front. He says it's about Malcom X then goes on to tell everyone why Castro and Cuba is so great. The podcast is worth listening to.

He also points out how Kapernick went on a Twitter rant on July 4 telling everyone how bad the U.S. is and is geared to making the rich richer. Then a few days later signs a deal with corporate giant Disney.

A part of the interview is below.

https://outkick.com/armando-salguero-destroyed-colin-kaepernick-on-outkick-with-clay-travis/

“Actually, I was born in Cuba. So, I’m an immigrant. I tasted the bitterness of all that crap. And what I looked at in 2016 when Colin Kaepernick first started his demonstrations with the kneeling the first time, the very first time that he did it, and was demonstrating against, quote, ‘systematic oppression,’ and wanted freedom for all people, which is what Kaepernick said he wanted after that initial demonstration. That first press conference after that game, he’s wearing a T-shirt that depicts a 1960 meeting between Malcolm X and Cuban dictator Fidel Castro. So, it was striking to me that here’s a guy rallying against systematic oppression and he’s wearing this likeness of one of the 20th century’s all-star systematic oppressors. And so, no one asked him about it, this happened in August, no one asked him about it until November when the 49ers were scheduled to play the dolphins. And he was on a conference call with Miami reporters, of which I am one, and I said to him, ‘Okay, so you’re representing these things and you’re trying to shed light on these things, and yet, it’s pretty hypocritical that as you’re doing that you’re wearing the likeness of this dude who represents the total opposite of what you seem and say to be against.’ And I expected, frankly, for him to say, ‘Hey, you know what? You’re right. I didn’t realize or I wasn’t thinking about it,’ or, you know, ‘I bought the T-shirt because of Malcolm X and I didn’t think about Fidel Castro being in that.’

“So, at the point where he was insulting my intelligence, you know, I got a little hot under the collar. And I’m like, wait a second, no, no, no, I am not a blitzing linebacker. You’re not going to avoid me like that. So, it was a back and forth in which he insisted that he was not presenting Fidel Castro on that T-shirt. That he was not in any way for what Fidel Castro represents except that it went for about two minutes and in the second minute, he starts telling me how great Fidel Castro is. And that, not the T-shirt, that is what was absurd. And that was offensive. And that’s what I, you know, really wrote about.”