Today is the 30th anniversary of when Rodney King got baby sealed by the LAPD. Nice to see that lessons were learned and so much has changed.
I was living in Los Angeles at that time and it was beyond disturbing to watch the beating and experience the anxiety of the trial decision.
Race in America - Riots Explode in Chicago
-
- Posts: 2203
- Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2018 11:32 am
- Location: Niagara Frontier
Re: Race in America - Riots Explode in Minneapolis
Pretty interesting video. This seems to be ignored for the most part.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nuVhEdAgOY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nuVhEdAgOY
Re: Race in America - Riots Explode in Minneapolis
,,, what do you mean ignored??DMac wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 2:53 am Pretty interesting video. This seems to be ignored for the most part.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nuVhEdAgOY
STAND AGAINST FASCISM
Re: Race in America - Riots Explode in Minneapolis
jhu72 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 4:45 am,,, what do you mean ignored??DMac wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 2:53 am Pretty interesting video. This seems to be ignored for the most part.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nuVhEdAgOY
Where does this come into play with the intellects who tell us that we white folk are inherently racist, it's in our DNA.Although intellectuals today may condemn slavery as a historical evil of our society, what was peculiar about western society was not that it had slaves like other societies around the world, but that it was the first civilization to turn against slavery.
Is this part ignored by those folks, might some of us (a whole lot of us) be of the DNA of the folks who were the first to turn against slavery?
Is this, for the most part, ignored by the cancel culture mob? Do I need to look at George Washington as a bad person because he was a slave owner in a world where there was "no serious challenge to the moral legitimacy " of slavery in pretty much the entire world? Is that part made clear by those screaming the loudest about how evil the white man in this country is/was. Is this being ignored in our new history books or is the whole story being told accurately and with facts? Are they also filled with facts about where slaves were bought and who was selling them, or is that part being pretty much ignored as well?What seems almost incomprehensible today is that there was no serious challenge to the moral legitimacy prior to the 18th century.
I like the way Sowell lays this out, it sure sounds a whole lot different than the way many tell this story and what they would have you believe. I think this part of the story is ignored by a whole lot of people, or perhaps it's more likely they don't even know the whole story.
- youthathletics
- Posts: 15859
- Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 7:36 pm
Re: Race in America - Riots Explode in Minneapolis
+1 DMAC. Had some of this discussion with TLD last year.
“Don’t let schooling interfere with your education.” - Mark Twain
“Don’t let schooling interfere with your education.” - Mark Twain
A fraudulent intent, however carefully concealed at the outset, will generally, in the end, betray itself.
~Livy
“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.” -Soren Kierkegaard
~Livy
“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.” -Soren Kierkegaard
-
- Posts: 34181
- Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:10 pm
Re: Race in America - Riots Explode in Minneapolis
“Don’t let being stupid interfere with your education”. - TLDyouthathletics wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 9:58 am +1 DMAC. Had some of this discussion with TLD last year.
“Don’t let schooling interfere with your education.” - Mark Twain
“I wish you would!”
- cradleandshoot
- Posts: 15463
- Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:42 pm
Re: Race in America - Riots Explode in Minneapolis
If you want to look at the world in totality... there is a chitload of reparations owed to a hell of a lot of people. Slavery has existed since there have been people looking for other people to do their forced labor for them. We all gaze in wonder at the pyramids. Who do you think built them, union masons? We all look in wonder at the great wall of China. Who built it, union masons yet again. The Sowell clip was very informative, plus you have to love that mans voice.DMac wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 9:04 amjhu72 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 4:45 am,,, what do you mean ignored??DMac wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 2:53 am Pretty interesting video. This seems to be ignored for the most part.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nuVhEdAgOYWhere does this come into play with the intellects who tell us that we white folk are inherently racist, it's in our DNA.Although intellectuals today may condemn slavery as a historical evil of our society, what was peculiar about western society was not that it had slaves like other societies around the world, but that it was the first civilization to turn against slavery.
Is this part ignored by those folks, might some of us (a whole lot of us) be of the DNA of the folks who were the first to turn against slavery?Is this, for the most part, ignored by the cancel culture mob? Do I need to look at George Washington as a bad person because he was a slave owner in a world where there was "no serious challenge to the moral legitimacy " of slavery in pretty much the entire world? Is that part made clear by those screaming the loudest about how evil the white man in this country is/was. Is this being ignored in our new history books or is the whole story being told accurately and with facts? Are they also filled with facts about where slaves were bought and who was selling them, or is that part being pretty much ignored as well?What seems almost incomprehensible today is that there was no serious challenge to the moral legitimacy prior to the 18th century.
I like the way Sowell lays this out, it sure sounds a whole lot different than the way many tell this story and what they would have you believe. I think this part of the story is ignored by a whole lot of people, or perhaps it's more likely they don't even know the whole story.
We don't make mistakes, we have happy accidents.
Bob Ross:
Bob Ross:
- youthathletics
- Posts: 15859
- Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 7:36 pm
Re: Race in America - Riots Explode in Minneapolis
That is border line plagiarism from you.Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 10:11 am“Don’t let being stupid interfere with your education”. - TLDyouthathletics wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 9:58 am +1 DMAC. Had some of this discussion with TLD last year.
“Don’t let schooling interfere with your education.” - Mark Twain
A fraudulent intent, however carefully concealed at the outset, will generally, in the end, betray itself.
~Livy
“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.” -Soren Kierkegaard
~Livy
“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.” -Soren Kierkegaard
Re: Race in America - Riots Explode in Minneapolis
DMac wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 9:04 amjhu72 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 4:45 am,,, what do you mean ignored??DMac wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 2:53 am Pretty interesting video. This seems to be ignored for the most part.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nuVhEdAgOYCertainly one of the earliest existing societies to have turned against, perhaps the first. I can't say for certain it was the first. Note the US however was no where near the first among the civilized "west".Although intellectuals today may condemn slavery as a historical evil of our society, what was peculiar about western society was not that it had slaves like other societies around the world, but that it was the first civilization to turn against slavery.
Where does this come into play with the intellects who tell us that we white folk are inherently racist, it's in our DNA. I certainly would not say that it was in the DNA. We have and have had more than our share of racists, but this is much more an issue of environment, nurture, not nature. No child is born hating people of another race.
Is this part ignored by those folks, might some of us (a whole lot of us) be of the DNA of the folks who were the first to turn against slavery? Think I answered this.Is this, for the most part, ignored by the cancel culture mob? Do I need to look at George Washington as a bad person because he was a slave owner in a world where there was "no serious challenge to the moral legitimacy " of slavery in pretty much the entire world? Is that part made clear by those screaming the loudest about how evil the white man in this country is/was. Is this being ignored in our new history books or is the whole story being told accurately and with facts? Are they also filled with facts about where slaves were bought and who was selling them, or is that part being pretty much ignored as well?What seems almost incomprehensible today is that there was no serious challenge to the moral legitimacy prior to the 18th century.
I like the way Sowell lays this out, it sure sounds a whole lot different than the way many tell this story and what they would have you believe. I think this part of the story is ignored by a whole lot of people, or perhaps it's more likely they don't even know the whole story. Rather than point by point I will answer generally. I have always liked Sowell even if he sees himself as a conservative. Don't agree with him in all things but his perception of "history" as outlined by your questions above is right on. I do not believe what he is arguing against however is some hallmark of "liberal" historical interpretation or reading of history. His is the same history I learned. You must distinguish between the "social justice warrior" in the heat of battle and and those historians, intellectuals, learned men who might support their cause. The later most definitely understand the history. Many perhaps most "social justice warriors" don't really know or understand the the history other than that which is relevant to their immediate cause. Some do, but aren't going to argue against their cause. In this regard, I see those opposing the "social justice warriors" as absolutely no better, and more likely worse.
As for the "cancel culture". I find it a really really poor term for what is going on. It is in this case used to imply that history is being unwritten/rewritten - which is not what is going on. The history remains unchanged, only a fuller story is being told. I disagree with those "social justice warriors" who cannot see beyond their cause. Men have to be judged by their deeds, and their time, not some absolute standard, which no one can pass, even the hero's of the "social justice warriors".
STAND AGAINST FASCISM
Re: Race in America - Riots Explode in Minneapolis
Pretty much agree, 72. Sowell speaks of race hustlers here, a huge problem the way I see it.
We need more people like him addressing the issue rather than the Jacksons and Sharptons.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtyoNSmOYzo
We need more people like him addressing the issue rather than the Jacksons and Sharptons.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtyoNSmOYzo
-
- Posts: 34181
- Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:10 pm
Re: Race in America - Riots Explode in Minneapolis
I was just talking to someone about Sowell and this issue last week. He is a little disingenuous in the comparison. Anyway, I tell people, I will give this country a Mulligan on slavery. We had our chance post emancipation....dropped the ball. We are about 75-100 years behind where we should be....the system of slavery here was actually unique.jhu72 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 10:54 amDMac wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 9:04 amjhu72 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 4:45 am,,, what do you mean ignored??DMac wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 2:53 am Pretty interesting video. This seems to be ignored for the most part.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nuVhEdAgOYCertainly one of the earliest existing societies to have turned against, perhaps the first. I can't say for certain it was the first. Note the US however was no where near the first among the civilized "west".Although intellectuals today may condemn slavery as a historical evil of our society, what was peculiar about western society was not that it had slaves like other societies around the world, but that it was the first civilization to turn against slavery.
Where does this come into play with the intellects who tell us that we white folk are inherently racist, it's in our DNA. I certainly would not say that it was in the DNA. We have and have had more than our share of racists, but this is much more an issue of environment, nurture, not nature. No child is born hating people of another race.
Is this part ignored by those folks, might some of us (a whole lot of us) be of the DNA of the folks who were the first to turn against slavery? Think I answered this.Is this, for the most part, ignored by the cancel culture mob? Do I need to look at George Washington as a bad person because he was a slave owner in a world where there was "no serious challenge to the moral legitimacy " of slavery in pretty much the entire world? Is that part made clear by those screaming the loudest about how evil the white man in this country is/was. Is this being ignored in our new history books or is the whole story being told accurately and with facts? Are they also filled with facts about where slaves were bought and who was selling them, or is that part being pretty much ignored as well?What seems almost incomprehensible today is that there was no serious challenge to the moral legitimacy prior to the 18th century.
I like the way Sowell lays this out, it sure sounds a whole lot different than the way many tell this story and what they would have you believe. I think this part of the story is ignored by a whole lot of people, or perhaps it's more likely they don't even know the whole story. Rather than point by point I will answer generally. I have always liked Sowell even if he sees himself as a conservative. Don't agree with him in all things but his perception of "history" as outlined by your questions above is right on. I do not believe what he is arguing against however is some hallmark of "liberal" historical interpretation or reading of history. His is the same history I learned. You must distinguish between the "social justice warrior" in the heat of battle and and those historians, intellectuals, learned men who might support their cause. The later most definitely understand the history. Many perhaps most "social justice warriors" don't really know or understand the the history other than that which is relevant to their immediate cause. Some do, but aren't going to argue against their cause. In this regard, I see those opposing the "social justice warriors" as absolutely no better, and more likely worse.
As for the "cancel culture". I find it a really really poor term for what is going on. It is in this case used to imply that history is being unwritten/rewritten - which is not what is going on. The history remains unchanged, only a fuller story is being told. I disagree with those "social justice warriors" who cannot see beyond their cause. Men have to be judged by their deeds, and their time, not some absolute standard, which no one can pass, even the hero's of the "social justice warriors".
“I wish you would!”
Re: Race in America - Riots Explode in Minneapolis
... currently the biggest race hustler is Orange Duce and the Trumpnista (former republican) party.DMac wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 11:21 am Pretty much agree, 72. Sowell speaks of race hustlers here, a huge problem the way I see it.
We need more people like him addressing the issue rather than the Jacksons and Sharptons.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtyoNSmOYzo
STAND AGAINST FASCISM
Re: Race in America - Riots Explode in Minneapolis
I would agree with the uniqueness and the being behind by a century and Sowell coming off as disingenuousness on occasion. This generally happens when he is being used by some republican propagandist, in cases I have seen. No one is perfect.Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 11:24 amI was just talking to someone about Sowell and this issue last week. He is a little disingenuous in the comparison. Anyway, I tell people, I will give this country a Mulligan on slavery. We had our chance post emancipation....dropped the ball. We are about 75-100 years behind where we should be....the system of slavery here was actually unique.jhu72 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 10:54 amDMac wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 9:04 amjhu72 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 4:45 am,,, what do you mean ignored??DMac wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 2:53 am Pretty interesting video. This seems to be ignored for the most part.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nuVhEdAgOYCertainly one of the earliest existing societies to have turned against, perhaps the first. I can't say for certain it was the first. Note the US however was no where near the first among the civilized "west".Although intellectuals today may condemn slavery as a historical evil of our society, what was peculiar about western society was not that it had slaves like other societies around the world, but that it was the first civilization to turn against slavery.
Where does this come into play with the intellects who tell us that we white folk are inherently racist, it's in our DNA. I certainly would not say that it was in the DNA. We have and have had more than our share of racists, but this is much more an issue of environment, nurture, not nature. No child is born hating people of another race.
Is this part ignored by those folks, might some of us (a whole lot of us) be of the DNA of the folks who were the first to turn against slavery? Think I answered this.Is this, for the most part, ignored by the cancel culture mob? Do I need to look at George Washington as a bad person because he was a slave owner in a world where there was "no serious challenge to the moral legitimacy " of slavery in pretty much the entire world? Is that part made clear by those screaming the loudest about how evil the white man in this country is/was. Is this being ignored in our new history books or is the whole story being told accurately and with facts? Are they also filled with facts about where slaves were bought and who was selling them, or is that part being pretty much ignored as well?What seems almost incomprehensible today is that there was no serious challenge to the moral legitimacy prior to the 18th century.
I like the way Sowell lays this out, it sure sounds a whole lot different than the way many tell this story and what they would have you believe. I think this part of the story is ignored by a whole lot of people, or perhaps it's more likely they don't even know the whole story. Rather than point by point I will answer generally. I have always liked Sowell even if he sees himself as a conservative. Don't agree with him in all things but his perception of "history" as outlined by your questions above is right on. I do not believe what he is arguing against however is some hallmark of "liberal" historical interpretation or reading of history. His is the same history I learned. You must distinguish between the "social justice warrior" in the heat of battle and and those historians, intellectuals, learned men who might support their cause. The later most definitely understand the history. Many perhaps most "social justice warriors" don't really know or understand the the history other than that which is relevant to their immediate cause. Some do, but aren't going to argue against their cause. In this regard, I see those opposing the "social justice warriors" as absolutely no better, and more likely worse.
As for the "cancel culture". I find it a really really poor term for what is going on. It is in this case used to imply that history is being unwritten/rewritten - which is not what is going on. The history remains unchanged, only a fuller story is being told. I disagree with those "social justice warriors" who cannot see beyond their cause. Men have to be judged by their deeds, and their time, not some absolute standard, which no one can pass, even the hero's of the "social justice warriors".
STAND AGAINST FASCISM
-
- Posts: 34181
- Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:10 pm
Re: Race in America - Riots Explode in Minneapolis
Yep. I have been reading him for about as long as I can remember. A lot of what I see in the WSJ opinions pages today isn’t what it used to be.jhu72 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 12:17 pmI would agree with the uniqueness and the being behind by a century and Sowell coming off as disingenuousness on occasion. This generally happens when he is being used by some republican propagandist, in cases I have seen. No one is perfect.Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 11:24 amI was just talking to someone about Sowell and this issue last week. He is a little disingenuous in the comparison. Anyway, I tell people, I will give this country a Mulligan on slavery. We had our chance post emancipation....dropped the ball. We are about 75-100 years behind where we should be....the system of slavery here was actually unique.jhu72 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 10:54 amDMac wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 9:04 amjhu72 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 4:45 am,,, what do you mean ignored??DMac wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 2:53 am Pretty interesting video. This seems to be ignored for the most part.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nuVhEdAgOYCertainly one of the earliest existing societies to have turned against, perhaps the first. I can't say for certain it was the first. Note the US however was no where near the first among the civilized "west".Although intellectuals today may condemn slavery as a historical evil of our society, what was peculiar about western society was not that it had slaves like other societies around the world, but that it was the first civilization to turn against slavery.
Where does this come into play with the intellects who tell us that we white folk are inherently racist, it's in our DNA. I certainly would not say that it was in the DNA. We have and have had more than our share of racists, but this is much more an issue of environment, nurture, not nature. No child is born hating people of another race.
Is this part ignored by those folks, might some of us (a whole lot of us) be of the DNA of the folks who were the first to turn against slavery? Think I answered this.Is this, for the most part, ignored by the cancel culture mob? Do I need to look at George Washington as a bad person because he was a slave owner in a world where there was "no serious challenge to the moral legitimacy " of slavery in pretty much the entire world? Is that part made clear by those screaming the loudest about how evil the white man in this country is/was. Is this being ignored in our new history books or is the whole story being told accurately and with facts? Are they also filled with facts about where slaves were bought and who was selling them, or is that part being pretty much ignored as well?What seems almost incomprehensible today is that there was no serious challenge to the moral legitimacy prior to the 18th century.
I like the way Sowell lays this out, it sure sounds a whole lot different than the way many tell this story and what they would have you believe. I think this part of the story is ignored by a whole lot of people, or perhaps it's more likely they don't even know the whole story. Rather than point by point I will answer generally. I have always liked Sowell even if he sees himself as a conservative. Don't agree with him in all things but his perception of "history" as outlined by your questions above is right on. I do not believe what he is arguing against however is some hallmark of "liberal" historical interpretation or reading of history. His is the same history I learned. You must distinguish between the "social justice warrior" in the heat of battle and and those historians, intellectuals, learned men who might support their cause. The later most definitely understand the history. Many perhaps most "social justice warriors" don't really know or understand the the history other than that which is relevant to their immediate cause. Some do, but aren't going to argue against their cause. In this regard, I see those opposing the "social justice warriors" as absolutely no better, and more likely worse.
As for the "cancel culture". I find it a really really poor term for what is going on. It is in this case used to imply that history is being unwritten/rewritten - which is not what is going on. The history remains unchanged, only a fuller story is being told. I disagree with those "social justice warriors" who cannot see beyond their cause. Men have to be judged by their deeds, and their time, not some absolute standard, which no one can pass, even the hero's of the "social justice warriors".
“I wish you would!”
-
- Posts: 8866
- Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2018 4:36 pm
- cradleandshoot
- Posts: 15463
- Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:42 pm
Re: Race in America - Riots Explode in Minneapolis
I guess Mr Sowell is the wrong shade of black to make the FLP Jack wagons on this forum happy. Imagine that, a cantankerous, ornery bunch of racist FLP liberal old white guys that deem themselves qualified to pass judgement on the opinions of a conservative black man.jhu72 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 12:17 pmI would agree with the uniqueness and the being behind by a century and Sowell coming off as disingenuousness on occasion. This generally happens when he is being used by some republican propagandist, in cases I have seen. No one is perfect.Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 11:24 amI was just talking to someone about Sowell and this issue last week. He is a little disingenuous in the comparison. Anyway, I tell people, I will give this country a Mulligan on slavery. We had our chance post emancipation....dropped the ball. We are about 75-100 years behind where we should be....the system of slavery here was actually unique.jhu72 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 10:54 amDMac wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 9:04 amjhu72 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 4:45 am,,, what do you mean ignored??DMac wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 2:53 am Pretty interesting video. This seems to be ignored for the most part.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nuVhEdAgOYCertainly one of the earliest existing societies to have turned against, perhaps the first. I can't say for certain it was the first. Note the US however was no where near the first among the civilized "west".Although intellectuals today may condemn slavery as a historical evil of our society, what was peculiar about western society was not that it had slaves like other societies around the world, but that it was the first civilization to turn against slavery.
Where does this come into play with the intellects who tell us that we white folk are inherently racist, it's in our DNA. I certainly would not say that it was in the DNA. We have and have had more than our share of racists, but this is much more an issue of environment, nurture, not nature. No child is born hating people of another race.
Is this part ignored by those folks, might some of us (a whole lot of us) be of the DNA of the folks who were the first to turn against slavery? Think I answered this.Is this, for the most part, ignored by the cancel culture mob? Do I need to look at George Washington as a bad person because he was a slave owner in a world where there was "no serious challenge to the moral legitimacy " of slavery in pretty much the entire world? Is that part made clear by those screaming the loudest about how evil the white man in this country is/was. Is this being ignored in our new history books or is the whole story being told accurately and with facts? Are they also filled with facts about where slaves were bought and who was selling them, or is that part being pretty much ignored as well?What seems almost incomprehensible today is that there was no serious challenge to the moral legitimacy prior to the 18th century.
I like the way Sowell lays this out, it sure sounds a whole lot different than the way many tell this story and what they would have you believe. I think this part of the story is ignored by a whole lot of people, or perhaps it's more likely they don't even know the whole story. Rather than point by point I will answer generally. I have always liked Sowell even if he sees himself as a conservative. Don't agree with him in all things but his perception of "history" as outlined by your questions above is right on. I do not believe what he is arguing against however is some hallmark of "liberal" historical interpretation or reading of history. His is the same history I learned. You must distinguish between the "social justice warrior" in the heat of battle and and those historians, intellectuals, learned men who might support their cause. The later most definitely understand the history. Many perhaps most "social justice warriors" don't really know or understand the the history other than that which is relevant to their immediate cause. Some do, but aren't going to argue against their cause. In this regard, I see those opposing the "social justice warriors" as absolutely no better, and more likely worse.
As for the "cancel culture". I find it a really really poor term for what is going on. It is in this case used to imply that history is being unwritten/rewritten - which is not what is going on. The history remains unchanged, only a fuller story is being told. I disagree with those "social justice warriors" who cannot see beyond their cause. Men have to be judged by their deeds, and their time, not some absolute standard, which no one can pass, even the hero's of the "social justice warriors".
We don't make mistakes, we have happy accidents.
Bob Ross:
Bob Ross:
-
- Posts: 34181
- Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:10 pm
Re: Race in America - Riots Explode in Minneapolis
What shade is that?cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 1:51 pmI guess Mr Sowell is the wrong shade of black to make the FLP Jack wagons on this forum happy. Imagine that, a cantankerous, ornery bunch of racist FLP liberal old white guys that deem themselves qualified to pass judgement on the opinions of a conservative black man.jhu72 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 12:17 pmI would agree with the uniqueness and the being behind by a century and Sowell coming off as disingenuousness on occasion. This generally happens when he is being used by some republican propagandist, in cases I have seen. No one is perfect.Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 11:24 amI was just talking to someone about Sowell and this issue last week. He is a little disingenuous in the comparison. Anyway, I tell people, I will give this country a Mulligan on slavery. We had our chance post emancipation....dropped the ball. We are about 75-100 years behind where we should be....the system of slavery here was actually unique.jhu72 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 10:54 amDMac wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 9:04 amjhu72 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 4:45 am,,, what do you mean ignored??DMac wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 2:53 am Pretty interesting video. This seems to be ignored for the most part.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nuVhEdAgOYCertainly one of the earliest existing societies to have turned against, perhaps the first. I can't say for certain it was the first. Note the US however was no where near the first among the civilized "west".Although intellectuals today may condemn slavery as a historical evil of our society, what was peculiar about western society was not that it had slaves like other societies around the world, but that it was the first civilization to turn against slavery.
Where does this come into play with the intellects who tell us that we white folk are inherently racist, it's in our DNA. I certainly would not say that it was in the DNA. We have and have had more than our share of racists, but this is much more an issue of environment, nurture, not nature. No child is born hating people of another race.
Is this part ignored by those folks, might some of us (a whole lot of us) be of the DNA of the folks who were the first to turn against slavery? Think I answered this.Is this, for the most part, ignored by the cancel culture mob? Do I need to look at George Washington as a bad person because he was a slave owner in a world where there was "no serious challenge to the moral legitimacy " of slavery in pretty much the entire world? Is that part made clear by those screaming the loudest about how evil the white man in this country is/was. Is this being ignored in our new history books or is the whole story being told accurately and with facts? Are they also filled with facts about where slaves were bought and who was selling them, or is that part being pretty much ignored as well?What seems almost incomprehensible today is that there was no serious challenge to the moral legitimacy prior to the 18th century.
I like the way Sowell lays this out, it sure sounds a whole lot different than the way many tell this story and what they would have you believe. I think this part of the story is ignored by a whole lot of people, or perhaps it's more likely they don't even know the whole story. Rather than point by point I will answer generally. I have always liked Sowell even if he sees himself as a conservative. Don't agree with him in all things but his perception of "history" as outlined by your questions above is right on. I do not believe what he is arguing against however is some hallmark of "liberal" historical interpretation or reading of history. His is the same history I learned. You must distinguish between the "social justice warrior" in the heat of battle and and those historians, intellectuals, learned men who might support their cause. The later most definitely understand the history. Many perhaps most "social justice warriors" don't really know or understand the the history other than that which is relevant to their immediate cause. Some do, but aren't going to argue against their cause. In this regard, I see those opposing the "social justice warriors" as absolutely no better, and more likely worse.
As for the "cancel culture". I find it a really really poor term for what is going on. It is in this case used to imply that history is being unwritten/rewritten - which is not what is going on. The history remains unchanged, only a fuller story is being told. I disagree with those "social justice warriors" who cannot see beyond their cause. Men have to be judged by their deeds, and their time, not some absolute standard, which no one can pass, even the hero's of the "social justice warriors".
“I wish you would!”
- cradleandshoot
- Posts: 15463
- Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:42 pm
Re: Race in America - Riots Explode in Minneapolis
That would be the shade that pizzes off old, cantankerous FLP liberal white guys. You would have to ask Bob Ross if he was still alive. He was the master at blending different colors to make a beautiful landscape. I do know that the FLP chuckleheads on this forum have a nasty dislike for conservative shades of black. I'm thinking the shade would be blackish.Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 1:53 pmWhat shade is that?cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 1:51 pmI guess Mr Sowell is the wrong shade of black to make the FLP Jack wagons on this forum happy. Imagine that, a cantankerous, ornery bunch of racist FLP liberal old white guys that deem themselves qualified to pass judgement on the opinions of a conservative black man.jhu72 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 12:17 pmI would agree with the uniqueness and the being behind by a century and Sowell coming off as disingenuousness on occasion. This generally happens when he is being used by some republican propagandist, in cases I have seen. No one is perfect.Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 11:24 amI was just talking to someone about Sowell and this issue last week. He is a little disingenuous in the comparison. Anyway, I tell people, I will give this country a Mulligan on slavery. We had our chance post emancipation....dropped the ball. We are about 75-100 years behind where we should be....the system of slavery here was actually unique.jhu72 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 10:54 amDMac wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 9:04 amjhu72 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 4:45 am,,, what do you mean ignored??DMac wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 2:53 am Pretty interesting video. This seems to be ignored for the most part.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nuVhEdAgOYCertainly one of the earliest existing societies to have turned against, perhaps the first. I can't say for certain it was the first. Note the US however was no where near the first among the civilized "west".Although intellectuals today may condemn slavery as a historical evil of our society, what was peculiar about western society was not that it had slaves like other societies around the world, but that it was the first civilization to turn against slavery.
Where does this come into play with the intellects who tell us that we white folk are inherently racist, it's in our DNA. I certainly would not say that it was in the DNA. We have and have had more than our share of racists, but this is much more an issue of environment, nurture, not nature. No child is born hating people of another race.
Is this part ignored by those folks, might some of us (a whole lot of us) be of the DNA of the folks who were the first to turn against slavery? Think I answered this.Is this, for the most part, ignored by the cancel culture mob? Do I need to look at George Washington as a bad person because he was a slave owner in a world where there was "no serious challenge to the moral legitimacy " of slavery in pretty much the entire world? Is that part made clear by those screaming the loudest about how evil the white man in this country is/was. Is this being ignored in our new history books or is the whole story being told accurately and with facts? Are they also filled with facts about where slaves were bought and who was selling them, or is that part being pretty much ignored as well?What seems almost incomprehensible today is that there was no serious challenge to the moral legitimacy prior to the 18th century.
I like the way Sowell lays this out, it sure sounds a whole lot different than the way many tell this story and what they would have you believe. I think this part of the story is ignored by a whole lot of people, or perhaps it's more likely they don't even know the whole story. Rather than point by point I will answer generally. I have always liked Sowell even if he sees himself as a conservative. Don't agree with him in all things but his perception of "history" as outlined by your questions above is right on. I do not believe what he is arguing against however is some hallmark of "liberal" historical interpretation or reading of history. His is the same history I learned. You must distinguish between the "social justice warrior" in the heat of battle and and those historians, intellectuals, learned men who might support their cause. The later most definitely understand the history. Many perhaps most "social justice warriors" don't really know or understand the the history other than that which is relevant to their immediate cause. Some do, but aren't going to argue against their cause. In this regard, I see those opposing the "social justice warriors" as absolutely no better, and more likely worse.
As for the "cancel culture". I find it a really really poor term for what is going on. It is in this case used to imply that history is being unwritten/rewritten - which is not what is going on. The history remains unchanged, only a fuller story is being told. I disagree with those "social justice warriors" who cannot see beyond their cause. Men have to be judged by their deeds, and their time, not some absolute standard, which no one can pass, even the hero's of the "social justice warriors".
We don't make mistakes, we have happy accidents.
Bob Ross:
Bob Ross:
Re: Race in America - Riots Explode in Minneapolis
Wow. Couldn't happen to a more deserving POS.seacoaster wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 1:30 pm Kelly Cancelled:
https://www.thenation.com/article/socie ... ontgomery/
STAND AGAINST FASCISM