Racial Tension in the U.S.

[Nathan S]

Kelly's point on Lee being an honorable man raises the legitimate issue of whether we should judge people in the context of their time, or in today's standards.

Slavery was legal everywhere in the world through the vast majority of history. Democratic systems didn't exist for most of history either. Which means that most historical figures of consequence, on every continent (including Africa, and both pre-Columbian South and North America) were complicit in the maintenance of slavery and/or undemocratic rule.

So one way or the other, that includes Socrates, Themistocles, Marcus Aurelius, Alfred the Great, Saladin, Abd-ar-Rahman III, George Washington, and pretty much everyone else.

There's a difference between passively existing in a society where slavery is the norm, and devoting your life to the cause of preserving and expanding slavery. That's Lee's legacy, he chose it himself, and he should be held accountable for it when we look back on him as a historical figure.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

There's a difference between passively existing in a society where slavery is the norm, and devoting your life to the cause of preserving and expanding slavery. That's Lee's legacy, he chose it himself, and he should be held accountable for it when we look back on him as a historical figure.

Lee did not devote his life to expanding and preserving slavery. He spent most of it in the U.S. Army.

 

[MediumBaller]

I mean, did he give half a thought to the countless hundreds or thousands of black lives that Lee destroyed? I don't see how he could genuinely think those lives mattered, and still come to the conclusion that Lee was an honorable man.

I don't think it's fair to judge historical figures by 2017 standards. They were products of their era and should be compared to others of their time, imo.

 

[Huber.]

I don't think it's fair to judge historical figures by 2017 standards. They were products of their era and should be compared to others of their time, imo.

If we're going to do that then MLK wouldn't be as revered by the left.

 

[Nathan S]

Lee did not devote his life to expanding and preserving slavery. He spent most of it in the U.S. Army.

Fair enough...I don't think Kelly was thinking about Lee's service in the U.S. Army when he called him an honorable man, though. That much is pretty clear from context.

I don't think it's fair to judge historical figures by 2017 standards. They were products of their era and should be compared to others of their time, imo.

I'm fine with that; I'm not saying every confederate soldier, for instance, was a terrible person. Confederate leaders, though, were confederate leaders by choice. They weren't blindly following in someone else's misguided footsteps...they were leading the way.

 

[Tlyons]

Trump has absolutely wrecked Kelly.

Sad

 

[-Akronite-]

Kelly's point on Lee being an honorable man raises the legitimate issue of whether we should judge people in the context of their time, or in today's standards.

Slavery was legal everywhere in the world through the vast majority of history. Democratic systems didn't exist for most of history either. Which means that most historical figures of consequence, on every continent (including Africa, and both pre-Columbian South and North America) were complicit in the maintenance of slavery and/or undemocratic rule.

So one way or the other, that includes Socrates, Themistocles, Marcus Aurelius, Alfred the Great, Saladin, Abd-ar-Rahman III, George Washington, and pretty much everyone else.

It's an interesting discussion. Treating everyone by 2017 standards basically means everyone is a shitbag, which in some ways is true and in other ways is frankly unfair. For instance, you can go back less than 10 years to find a time when it was common practice to use transgender/sexuality itself as a punchline. I THOUGHT SHE WAS A GIRL BUT SHE HAS A PENIS LET'S ALL LAUGH AT YOUR EXISTENCE. Does that mean we should burn Mel Brooks at the stake? Naw. But we can acknowledge our predecessors shortcomings while learning from the things they did well.

Going by 1860s standards, it's far more understandable that someone would land on the side of slavery than today, but still not exactly noble or honorable. I know that Lee in his many other actions did inhabit these traits, but Kelly's statement certainly lacked nuance as well. It can easily come off as "compromise on slavery" rather than "compromise to end slavery," which I'd sure as shit hope was his meaning. And given the discussion being had nationally, just feels like a bad time to once again come to the defense of confederate leaders. As you've stated, they refused to compromise because they wanted to uphold slavery. That's an indefensible position even if you have other good characteristics IMO.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

‘White nuclear family’ perpetuates racism, CUNY prof argues

A sociology professor at the City University of New York (CUNY) recently argued in an extensive series of tweets that “the white-nuclear family” perpetuates racism.

Jessie Daniels, a self-described “expert on race,” began her tweetstorm this weekend by declaring that “what I’ve learned is that the white-nuclear family is one of the most powerful forces supporting white supremacy.”

"The white-nuclear family is one of the most powerful forces supporting white supremacy."

“I mean, if you’re a white person who says they’re engaged in dismantling white supremacy but…you’re forming a white family [and] reproducing white children that ‘you want the best for’ - how is that helping [and] not part of the problem."

Daniels notes that she’s not alone in her hostility towards the family. Other scholars have a “feminist critique of The Family as an inherently conservative force in society,” she says, citing the work of feminist scholars Peggy McIntosh and Michele Barrett, who argue in their book that the nuclear family structure is a “fact to be lamented.”

The sacredness of the family also concerns her, Daniels notes, adding that “there’s a whole ideological apparatus to justify how f-cking sacred the family is,” adding that “nothing’s more important” because “Until white people are ready to confront their own family’s racism [and] participation in systemic white supremacy, it’s not getting dismantled.”

https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10069

The sad thing about this is that this kind of shit isn't isolated. There is equally bizarre shit happening at colleges throughout the country on a weekly (at least) basis, and these are people whose job is teaching other people. They're ideological cancer, and mindsets like these are particularly prevalent among the "intersectionality" victimization pimps. Further, it's also these type of people who tend to join and then hijack movements, protests, etc..

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Going by 1860s standards, it's far more understandable that someone would land on the side of slavery than today, but still not exactly noble or honorable.

Oh, I don't think Kelly was claiming that Lee's nobility derived from his support of slavery. He was a generally good man on the wrong side. Even on slavery, his views were conflicted. He openly recognized in the 1850's that slavery was immoral. But he was such a person of his time and place that it wasn't in him to go against the way he had grown up.

I also think Kelly's views about "compromise" should be viewed as a political statement with a direct relationship to how our country is today. He is pointing to the horror that was the Civil War (and the war itself was horrible, though the North's cause was noble), and suggesting that we are heading towards a similar polarization. So, more of us should be looking for compromises to preserve our country and hopefully forestall something worse.

 

[Cavatt]

Oh, I don't think Kelly was claiming that Lee's nobility derived from his support of slavery. He was a generally good man on the wrong side. Even on slavery, his views were conflicted. He openly recognized in the 1850's that slavery was immoral. But he was such a person of his time and place that it wasn't in him to go against the way he had grown up.

I also think Kelly's views about "compromise" should be viewed as a political statement with a direct relationship to how our country is today. He is pointing to the horror that was the Civil War (and the war itself was horrible, though the North's cause was noble), and suggesting that we are heading towards a similar polarization. So, more of us should be looking for compromises to preserve our country and hopefully forestall something worse.

What compromises have the Trump administration proposed? Looks to me like they want to tear down everything we like about the ACA. They were able to choose a supreme court justice after Obama was denied his compromise based choice.

Trumps entire platform is based on anything to do away with Obama's legacy. This is a steaming pile of horse shit. This is an administration based on trolling. Do you even know what compromise means?

 

[Cavatt]

Kelly's point on Lee being an honorable man raises the legitimate issue of whether we should judge people in the context of their time, or in today's standards.

Slavery was legal everywhere in the world through the vast majority of history. Democratic systems didn't exist for most of history either. Which means that most historical figures of consequence, on every continent (including Africa, and both pre-Columbian South and North America) were complicit in the maintenance of slavery and/or undemocratic rule.

So one way or the other, that includes Socrates, Themistocles, Marcus Aurelius, Alfred the Great, Saladin, Abd-ar-Rahman III, George Washington, and pretty much everyone else.

Which North Vietnamese tacticians do you admire?

 

[-Akronite-]

Oh, I don't think Kelly was claiming that Lee's nobility derived from his support of slavery. He was a generally good man on the wrong side. Even on slavery, his views were conflicted. He openly recognized in the 1850's that slavery was immoral. But he was such a person of his time and place that it wasn't in him to go against the way he had grown up.

For the bolded, I don't think so either, just that when you call a confederate general noble, people aren't going to look at that statement in a slavery-free vacuum. The idea that he was not a pro-slavery ideologue is referenced a lot when discussing Lee, but he still was a pretty devout racist that fought for a rebellion seeking to preserve the institution. He's certainly an interesting figure and a great military mind, but I'm not sure how many excuses I need to give his defection for the South.

I also think Kelly's views about "compromise" should be viewed as a political statement with a direct relationship to how our country is today. He is pointing to the horror that was the Civil War (and the war itself was horrible, though the North's cause was noble), and suggesting that we are heading towards a similar polarization. So, more of us should be looking for compromises to preserve our country and hopefully forestall something worse.

I understand what he's getting at, but the analogy isn't a great one. We certainly have very polarized politics at the moment, but the situation is massively different (obviously, Kelly knows this and wasn't saying it's the exact same) and there isn't an primary issue like slavery at the core of our differences.

I doubt we're much closer to a literal civil war than we are to becoming a fascist neo-Nazi state. Certainly you want to nip such things in the bud.

I suppose where people take issue is that in the case of the Civil War, massive human suffering could have been avoided if the South was willing to compromise slavery (ignoring the morally reprehensible idea that there needs to be concessions in order to end such an inhuman practice). While the North had major issues, they were clearly on the right side of history. Is there a side today that is clearly in the right while the other needs to come to terms with reality/morality? I kinda think so but I don't think that's Kelly's point. I assume that Kelly, as many moderate Americans would agree, is simply advocating for compromise in general (Rs and Ds building legislation together for the common good). And that sentiment in itself should be uncontroversial. But Trump makes that shit more difficult than ever IMO (speaking of recent history at least).

It's been a tough time for seeing humanity in our political opponents.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Which North Vietnamese tacticians do you admire?

Can't recall the names of tacticians offhand, but Vo Nguyen Giap was a brilliant strategist.

@King Stannis

 

[Wrathe]

‘White nuclear family’ perpetuates racism, CUNY prof argues

A sociology professor at the City University of New York (CUNY) recently argued in an extensive series of tweets that “the white-nuclear family” perpetuates racism.

Jessie Daniels, a self-described “expert on race,” began her tweetstorm this weekend by declaring that “what I’ve learned is that the white-nuclear family is one of the most powerful forces supporting white supremacy.”

"The white-nuclear family is one of the most powerful forces supporting white supremacy."

“I mean, if you’re a white person who says they’re engaged in dismantling white supremacy but…you’re forming a white family [and] reproducing white children that ‘you want the best for’ - how is that helping [and] not part of the problem."

Daniels notes that she’s not alone in her hostility towards the family. Other scholars have a “feminist critique of The Family as an inherently conservative force in society,” she says, citing the work of feminist scholars Peggy McIntosh and Michele Barrett, who argue in their book that the nuclear family structure is a “fact to be lamented.”

The sacredness of the family also concerns her, Daniels notes, adding that “there’s a whole ideological apparatus to justify how f-cking sacred the family is,” adding that “nothing’s more important” because “Until white people are ready to confront their own family’s racism [and] participation in systemic white supremacy, it’s not getting dismantled.”

https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10069

The sad thing about this is that this kind of shit isn't isolated. There is equally bizarre shit happening at colleges throughout the country on a weekly (at least) basis, and these are people whose job is teaching other people. They're ideological cancer, and mindsets like these are particularly prevalent among the "intersectionality" victimization pimps. Further, it's also these type of people who tend to join and then hijack movements, protests, etc..

This is what happens when you close asylum's.

Seriously though, it's whack job BS.

 

[Wrathe]

What compromises have the Trump administration proposed? Looks to me like they want to tear down everything we like about the ACA. They were able to choose a supreme court justice after Obama was denied his compromise based choice.

Trumps entire platform is based on anything to do away with Obama's legacy. This is a steaming pile of horse shit. This is an administration based on trolling. Do you even know what compromise means?

Or maybe Kelly is capable of rational, objective thought, and wasn't inferring Trump was the king of compromise, but instead that compromise is what's needed to fix this.

**NOTE**

Not intended to be read snarky, I realize after I re-read it myself it's a bit ambiguous. I don't mean to infer you're not capable of rational or objective thought, just that Kelly, if being rational and objective likely meant ....

Sorry again for ambiguity.