Race in America - Riots Explode in Chicago

[ardilla secreta]

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.

[DMac]

Pretty interesting video. This seems to be ignored for the most part.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nuVhEdAgOY

[jhu72]

Pretty interesting video. This seems to be ignored for the most part.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nuVhEdAgOY

,,, what do you mean ignored??

[DMac]

Pretty interesting video. This seems to be ignored for the most part.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nuVhEdAgOY

,,, what do you mean ignored??

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.
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?

What seems almost incomprehensible today is that there was no serious challenge to the moral legitimacy prior to the 18th century.

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?
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]

+1 DMAC. Had some of this discussion with TLD last year.

“Don’t let schooling interfere with your education.” - Mark Twain

[Typical Lax Dad]

+1 DMAC. Had some of this discussion with TLD last year.

“Don’t let schooling interfere with your education.” - Mark Twain

“Don’t let being stupid interfere with your education”. - TLD

[cradleandshoot]

Pretty interesting video. This seems to be ignored for the most part.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nuVhEdAgOY

,,, what do you mean ignored??

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.
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?

What seems almost incomprehensible today is that there was no serious challenge to the moral legitimacy prior to the 18th century.

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?
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.

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.

[youthathletics]

+1 DMAC. Had some of this discussion with TLD last year.

“Don’t let schooling interfere with your education.” - Mark Twain

“Don’t let being stupid interfere with your education”. - TLD

That is border line plagiarism from you.

[jhu72]

Pretty interesting video. This seems to be ignored for the most part.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nuVhEdAgOY

,,, what do you mean ignored??

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.

Certainly 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".
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.

What seems almost incomprehensible today is that there was no serious challenge to the moral legitimacy prior to the 18th century.

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?
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".

[DMac]

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

[Typical Lax Dad]

Pretty interesting video. This seems to be ignored for the most part.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nuVhEdAgOY

,,, what do you mean ignored??

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.

Certainly 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".
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.

What seems almost incomprehensible today is that there was no serious challenge to the moral legitimacy prior to the 18th century.

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?
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 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]

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

... currently the biggest race hustler is Orange Duce and the Trumpnista (former republican) party.

[jhu72]

Pretty interesting video. This seems to be ignored for the most part.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nuVhEdAgOY

,,, what do you mean ignored??

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.

Certainly 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".
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.

What seems almost incomprehensible today is that there was no serious challenge to the moral legitimacy prior to the 18th century.

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?
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 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.

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]

Pretty interesting video. This seems to be ignored for the most part.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nuVhEdAgOY

,,, what do you mean ignored??

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.

Certainly 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".
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.

What seems almost incomprehensible today is that there was no serious challenge to the moral legitimacy prior to the 18th century.

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?
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 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.

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.

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]

tru dat

[seacoaster]

Kelly Cancelled:

https://www.thenation.com/article/socie ... ontgomery/

[cradleandshoot]

Pretty interesting video. This seems to be ignored for the most part.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nuVhEdAgOY

,,, what do you mean ignored??

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.

Certainly 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".
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.

What seems almost incomprehensible today is that there was no serious challenge to the moral legitimacy prior to the 18th century.

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?
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 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.

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.

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.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Pretty interesting video. This seems to be ignored for the most part.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nuVhEdAgOY

,,, what do you mean ignored??

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.

Certainly 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".
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.

What seems almost incomprehensible today is that there was no serious challenge to the moral legitimacy prior to the 18th century.

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?
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 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.

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.

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.

What shade is that?

[cradleandshoot]

Pretty interesting video. This seems to be ignored for the most part.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nuVhEdAgOY

,,, what do you mean ignored??

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.

Certainly 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".
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.

What seems almost incomprehensible today is that there was no serious challenge to the moral legitimacy prior to the 18th century.

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?
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 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.

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.

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.

What shade is that?

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.

[jhu72]

Kelly Cancelled:

https://www.thenation.com/article/socie ... ontgomery/

Wow. Couldn't happen to a more deserving POS.