Op-Ed in today's New York Times
ECalistri
I found a few parts of this humorous, others not:
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/17/opinion/17DOWD.html
January 17, 2001
ESSAY
Yes, Yes! To Tara!
By MAUREEN DOWD
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
WASHINGTON — Presidential Inaugural Committee (PIC) Executive Director Jeanne
Johnson Phillips today announced that the theme for the 54th Presidential
Inauguration is "The South Rises Again."
"President-elect Bush campaigned on a promise to `unite, rather than divide,' "
said Mrs. Phillips. "But now that he has won, after the bloody but decisive
battles in South Carolina and Florida, Dubya says fiddle-dee-dee, Lincoln was
wrong: Divided we stand, united we fall!
"Why shouldn't Linda Chavez have slaves? Why shouldn't Gale Norton put slavery
in context? Why shouldn't John Ashcroft talk to the journal of neo-confederacy
Southern Partisan and defend slaveowners against the suggestion that they had
"some perverted agenda"? Why shouldn't our new attorney general care more about
the Unfinished Civil War than unnecessary civil rights? Why should Dubya have
denounced the Confederate flag that once flew proudly over the South Carolina
statehouse? Why shouldn't it fly proudly above his White House?
"The inaugural festivities will reflect that the civilization many thought was
gone with the wind, the pretty world of cavaliers and cotton fields, of master
and slave, is no longer a dream remembered but a dream restored. It is time to
set aside the shallow squabbling of the Clinton era about the 1960's and focus
on something that matters: the 1860's. Instead of refighting the Vietnam War,
we need to refight the War to Suppress Yankee Arrogance. This inauguration will
establish that this is not a restoration of Big Daddy's administration, but a
restoration of Jefferson Davis's."
Herewith the inaugural events to celebrate our first Compassionate Confederate
President, our unreconstructed deconstructionist of Reconstruction:
Thursday, Jan. 18
The Opening Celebration, traditionally held at the Lincoln Memorial, has been
moved immediately south to the home of our mythic leader, Robert E. Lee, in
Arlington, Va., overlooking the Potomac.
Strom Thurmond, the Oldest Living Confederate Widower, will be the master of
ceremonies, introducing Ricky Martin, who will wiggle in tight Rebel-flag pants
and sing "La Vida Dixie." The irrepressible Strom will banter with Ricky about
the contention of Southern Partisan that Negroes and Latins "have no
temperament for democracy." As a gag, Strom will playfully check Ricky's teeth
before he performs.
Fireworks will recreate the glorious bombardment of Fort Sumter.
Friday, Jan. 19
Mississippi State Society Salute to John Ashcroft:
Trent "Bless my chitlins and corn my pone" Lott hosts a Twelve Oaks barbecue
with a charming minstrel show, just as we had at our Philadelphia convention.
(Closed to the press and no-account Yankees.)
States' Rights Old South Cotillion:
Jeb (Stuart) Bush will re-enact the cavalry stampede over voting rights in
Florida. Instead of the Tarleton twins, our beguiling Daughters of the
Confederacy, the Bush twins, Jenna and Barbara, will appear in hoop skirts,
accompanied by George P. in a dashing Southern Guardsman uniform, chaperoned by
Katherine Harris, the Steel Magnolia. No one will want to secede from this
costume ball until the last mint julep is downed and the last waltz is danced.
Saturday, Jan. 20
Swearing-In and Parade:
As our new President and First Lady take a carriage ride down Pennsylvania
Avenue, Gen. Colin Powell and an Army brigade dressed in their fetching new
gray uniforms will re-enact Pickett's charge by charging any pickets.
Inaugural Balls:
Meat Loaf and Marie Osmond join the Gatlin Brothers in a medley of "Sweet Home
Alabama," "The Devil Went Down to Georgia," "Mississippi Queen" and "The Night
They Drove Old Dixie Down."
Don't forget the shopping at BullRun.com, where you can buy such historic
mementoes as inaugural lawn jockeys; inaugural license plates with the
Confederate motto "Deo Vindice" ("With God as Our Defender"); "Recount
Appomattox" T-shirts; busts of John Ashcroft's favorite Southern patriots,
Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson and Jefferson Davis; "I'll never be hungry
again" beer coolers; limited edition Louis Vuitton carpetbags, and "Tomorrow Is
Another Day" watches.
mnemonix
"ECalistri" <ecal...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010117172227...@ng-cc1.aol.com...
>
> I found a few parts of this humorous, others not:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/17/opinion/17DOWD.html
>
>
>
> January 17, 2001
> ESSAY
> Yes, Yes! To Tara!
> By MAUREEN DOWD
I say:
This is good stuff.
-Ahrom M.
--
Bushisms Issue #1
"It is clear our nation is reliant upon big foreign oil. More and more of
our imports come from overseas."—Beaverton, Ore., Sep. 25, 2000
--
"They want the federal government controlling Social Security like it's some
kind of federal program."
—St. Charles, Mo., Nov. 2, 2000
Stu Gotz
Celebration at R.E. Lee's place in Arlington. If Dowd cared to examine the
lives of Lee, Jackson and Davis a bit more closely, she might just discover
that they are not the demons that many Americans today want them to be. Many
Americans love to compartmentalize historical figures and either deem them
flawless or intrinsically evil. Southerners were not evil people back in the
antebellum days. They had a genuine belief, fought for it, and lost.
I love to remind many people that our flag also symbolizes racism,
discrimination and the brutal treatment of the American Indians by torture,
relocation and death. If the same logic holds true in the case of the
American flag versus the Confederate one, both flags should not fly over ANY
state capitol. The American flag would be an even more sinister one because
it would also stand for hypocrisy while the Confederate one would not.
Dave D.
--
Avrai tu l'universo, Resti l'Italia a me!
Stephen McCullough
interesting and humerous, has gone off the deep end since the election.
She is now so left of Molly Irvine she is in danger of becoming a
socialist.
Stephen McCullough
NMSU Library
reb4...@bellsouth.net
wrote:
>Maureen Dowd, who I almost never agree with but in the past have found
>interesting and humerous, has gone off the deep end since the election.
>She is now so left of Molly Irvine she is in danger of becoming a
>socialist.
Left of Molly? I thought you'd have to fall off the edge of the Earth
to get that far :-) Still, some of it was pretty dad-gum funny.
a.s.
sedrick...@my-deja.com
Stephen McCullough <stmc...@nmsu.edu> wrote:
<<Maureen Dowd, who I almost never agree with but in the past have found
interesting and humerous, has gone off the deep end since the election.
She is now so left of Molly Irvine she is in danger of becoming a
socialist.
Stephen McCullough
NMSU Library>>
It's Molly Ivins, not Molly Irvine. And there's nothing wrong with
being a socialist. Dr. King appreciated and found truth in the
doctrine, as do others who care about economic justice in America and
the countless degraded and disempowered Americans.
Sedrick Franklin
----------
"You can't separate peace from freedom because no one can be at peace
unless he has his freedom."
-Malcolm X
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Walter Jowers
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/17/opinion/17DOWD.html
Dowd's piece is funnier than most non-Southern lefties could do, given the
same half-baked idea. But it's funny the way a Police Academy movie is
funny: Gags you can see coming over the hill, lame stereotypes, and
not-enough-truth-to-be-funny satire.
Even so, it's probably really funny to Yankees, and I suppose even Yankees
need to laugh sometimes.
I say Dowd should stick to the rule of, Write What You Know. Dowd does not
know Southern.
WJ
Hugh Lawson
Jowers wrote:
>
>"ECalistri" <ecal...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20010117172227...@ng-cc1.aol.com...
>>
>> I found a few parts of this humorous, others not:
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/17/opinion/17DOWD.html
>
>Dowd's piece is funnier than most non-Southern lefties could do, given the
>same half-baked idea.
I found it pretty puerile. Everybody knows that I'm a small-s southerner
and not a True Southerner, so it will come as no surprise that I find this
kind of thing tells us more about the yankees than about the south.
Of course the south is back. Southern guys put this country together to
start with (Yorktown, Louisiana Purchase, Texas, Mexican cession, Oregon),
and while there is a little whining about this, nobody is suggesting that
we give those bits back. After a long detour caused by the late
unpleasantness and its aftermath of about a century, we got a some help
from the yankees and liberals to dump Jim Crow and the disfranchisement of
African Americans, which changes brought the south back, warts and all.
Get used to it America.
--
Hugh Lawson
Greensboro, North Carolina
hla...@triad.rr.com
Stephen McCullough
Socialism doesn't work, plain and simple. Britain almost destroyed her
economy in the 1970s trying to implment it. I don't deny that socialists
such as Eugene Debs believed in racial equality and strived for it (the
Communist party of the U.S., before being engulfed by Stalinism was in
the forefront of civil rights in the 20's and 30's). However, the only
Marx whose writings are worth reading is Groucho. Thanks for the
correction on Ivins name.
Stephen McCullough
NMSU Library
ECalistri
>Dowd's piece is funnier than most non-Southern lefties could do, given the
>same half-baked idea. But it's funny the way a Police Academy movie is
>funny: Gags you can see coming over the hill, lame stereotypes, and
>not-enough-truth-to-be-funny satire.
>
>Even so, it's probably really funny to Yankees, and I suppose even Yankees
>need to laugh sometimes.
<snip>
Agreed. If GW Bush is a so-called "Neo-Confederate" I'm States Rights Gist.
At any rate, anyone who went to a college north of VMI should automatically
forfeit all claims of confederate heritage. Much of Bush's popularity here in
Texas derives from the fact that he's a carpetbagger, just like the majority of
this states population.
Eric
Pbwalther
>At any rate, anyone who went to a college north of VMI should automatically
>forfeit all claims of confederate heritage. Much of Bush's popularity here
>in
>Texas derives from the fact that he's a carpetbagger, just like the majority
>of
>this states population.
>
>
>Eric
>
>
Texas - he did go to junior high in Midland Texas and enjoyed it far more than
the eastern prep school he was sent to. Bush found the prep school to be rule
oriented and stodgy. Interestingly enough, Gore was sent to an eastern prep
school to but the folks at the prep school found Gore rule oriented and stodgy.
which pretty much seems to invalidate any carpetbagger credentials.
Ed Frank
Pbwalther wrote:
>Eric Calistri wrote
> >Agreed. If GW Bush is a so-called "Neo-Confederate" I'm States Rights Gist.
> >At any rate, anyone who went to a college north of VMI should automatically
> >forfeit all claims of confederate heritage. Much of Bush's popularity here
> >in
> >Texas derives from the fact that he's a carpetbagger, just like the majority
> >of
> >this states population.
>
> I know that Bush the Elder is not from Texas but I thought "dubya" grew up in
> Texas - he did go to junior high in Midland Texas and enjoyed it far more than
> the eastern prep school he was sent to. Bush found the prep school to be rule
> oriented and stodgy. Interestingly enough, Gore was sent to an eastern prep
> school
That's a bit misleading, if the implication is that Gore Jr left his Tennessee
home for the east. He -grew up- in a Washington DC hotel and, IIRC,
went home after school every day. His distant cousin Vidal (who went to
the same school a few decades earlier) reports that young Albert was,
even then, so ambitious for the Presidency that his fellows made jokes
about it.
> to but the folks at the prep school found Gore rule oriented and stodgy.
Ed "if you look up 'smarmy' in the dictionary, you find a picture of Gore" Frank
sedrick...@my-deja.com
Stephen McCullough <stmc...@nmsu.edu> wrote:
sedrick...@my-deja.com wrote:
<<Socialism doesn't work, plain and simple. Britain almost destroyed her
economy in the 1970s trying to implment it. I don't deny that
socialists such as Eugene Debs believed in racial equality and strived
for it (the Communist party of the U.S., before being engulfed by
Stalinism was in the forefront of civil rights in the 20's and 30's).
However, the only Marx whose writings are worth reading is Groucho.
Thanks for the correction on Ivins name.
Stephen McCullough
NMSU Library>>
Dr. King called for a synthesis of communism and capitalism and said
that there must be a better distribution of wealth in America. He
called for a Bill of Rights for the Disadvantaged. He knew
that capitalism protects gross economic inequality and powerlessness and
sought a humane alternative.
It's 2001 and his words are more urgent than ever with millions of
children denied basic quality medical and educational resources.
William G. Davis
<sedrick...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:947qhe$rv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <3A6715BB...@nmsu.edu>,
> Stephen McCullough <stmc...@nmsu.edu> wrote:
> sedrick...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> <<Socialism doesn't work, plain and simple. Britain almost destroyed her
> economy in the 1970s trying to implment it. I don't deny that
> socialists such as Eugene Debs believed in racial equality and strived
> for it (the Communist party of the U.S., before being engulfed by
> Stalinism was in the forefront of civil rights in the 20's and 30's).
> However, the only Marx whose writings are worth reading is Groucho.
> Thanks for the correction on Ivins name.
>
> Stephen McCullough
> NMSU Library>>
>
> Dr. King called for a synthesis of communism and capitalism and said
> that there must be a better distribution of wealth in America.
I've always had a distaste for the term "distribution of wealth". It
conjures up some very unpleasant mind-images, such as what happened in the
Soviet Union after the revolution there, and what happened to the wealth of
the Jews after Hitler put them all in camps. Regardless, it connotes an
involuntary forfieture of money and personal property, to give to those who
have less. If the ultimate aim is for all to have an equal amount, then why
strive for personal gain at all?
He
> called for a Bill of Rights for the Disadvantaged. He knew
> that capitalism protects gross economic inequality and powerlessness and
> sought a humane alternative.
I don't know that this has been proven. Frankly, I would not lay our social
ills at the feet of capitalism. They stem, in my opinion, from other
issues, such as racism, fear, and ignorance. If anything is going to allow
the disadvantaged to raise themselves (as opposed to having the government
raise them) in society, it will be capitalism.
>
> It's 2001 and his words are more urgent than ever with millions of
> children denied basic quality medical and educational resources.
If this is the "wealth" you speak of, then I agree with you, but the broad
generalization you made above in concordance with Dr. King's philosophy
indicates there is more to it. Is there?
--
Regards,
William G. Jeff Davis
je...@heNOSPAMhe.com
"Slavery can only be abolished by raising the
character of the people who compose the nation;
and that can be done only by showing them a higher one."
--Maria Weston Chapman
Speech, 1855, New York.
Stephen McCullough
Stephen McCullough
NMSU Library
Scribe7716
wrote:
>Dr. King called for a synthesis of communism and capitalism and said
>that there must be a better distribution of wealth in America. He
>called for a Bill of Rights for the Disadvantaged. He knew
>that capitalism protects gross economic inequality and powerlessness and
>sought a humane alternative.
>
>It's 2001 and his words are more urgent than ever with millions of
>children denied basic quality medical and educational resources.
>
Give it up, Sedrick. Given that His Illegitimacy George (Baby) Bush the 1st's
first nomination to the Supremes will undoubtedly be attorney general
presumptive John Ashcroft, we'll be lucky to avoid the establishment of a new
Confederacy.
Ashcroft's philosophy is, "Hey, I'm rich, my friends are all rich -- the poor?
Let them eat tree bark."
Scribe7716
wrote:
>I've always had a distaste for the term "distribution of wealth".
Jeff, I support equal distribution of the wealth until I get some.
sedrick...@my-deja.com
arrogant snot. You've shown that to be a good description. You didn't
ask any questions and there's nothing dogmatic about the miserable
medical and educational deprivation suffered by countless American
children. There's nothing dogmatic about Dr. King's calls to reform the
degraded condition of millions of Americans through a Bill of Rights for
the Disadvantaged and a synthesis of communism and capitalism. If
anything's dogmatic it's the casual acceptance of this widespread
degradation and deprivation.
Sedrick Franklin
----------
You can't separate peace from freedom because no one can be at
peace unless he has his freedom."
-Malcolm X
In article <3A677C96...@nmsu.edu>,
Brooks D. Simpson
[snip]
To see Sedrick Franklin quote Dr. King here and then act as
he does elsewhere is one of the marvelous characterisitics
of life here in alt.land.
sedrick...@my-deja.com
"William G. Davis" <je...@heNOSPAMhe.com> wrote:
<<I've always had a distaste for the term "distribution of wealth". It
conjures up some very unpleasant mind-images, such as what happened in
the Soviet Union after the revolution there, and what happened to the
wealth of the Jews after Hitler put them all in camps. Regardless, it
connotes an involuntary forfieture of money and personal property, to
give to those who have less. If the ultimate aim is for all to have an
equal amount, then why strive for personal gain at all?>>
The better distribution of wealth Dr. King called for (not necessarily
equal wealth) doesn't require the brutal acts committed by the Soviet
Union or the Nazis.
<<I don't know that this has been proven. Frankly, I would not lay our
social ills at the feet of capitalism.>>
What Dr. King was talking about and what exists today involves more than
social ills. It involves a deeper and gross inequality of
resources--economic, educational, medical. The Bill of Rights for the
Disadvantaged he called for would have applied to people of all colors
and addressed this fundamental inequality suffered by children and
people of all colors.
<<If this is the "wealth" (medical and educational resources) you speak
of, then I agree with you, but the broad generalization you made above
in concordance with Dr. King's philosophy indicates there is more to it.
Is there?>>
I think Dr. King's Bill of Rights and recommendations for economic
redistribution would have extended beyond providing quality educational
and medical resources. The shame is that we don't even have those basic
medical and educational entitlements in present day America.
Bill Wright
>
> The better distribution of wealth Dr. King called for (not
> necessarily equal wealth) doesn't require the brutal acts
> committed by the Soviet Union or the Nazis.
What did Dr. King suggest that we do if the present holders
of the "wealth" don't agree to let us "distribute" it"?
Bill
Bill Wright
>
> [T]here's nothing dogmatic about the miserable medical and
> educational deprivation suffered by countless American children.
> There's nothing dogmatic about Dr. King's calls to reform the
> degraded condition of millions of Americans through a Bill of
> Rights for the Disadvantaged and a synthesis of communism and
> capitalism. If anything's dogmatic it's the casual acceptance
> of this widespread degradation and deprivation.
Sedrick, you have used "dogmatic" three times here and I'm having
a hard time trying to understand what you mean by "dogmatic".
I know how Stephen is using the word, but I can't figure out
what you mean.
Bill
William G. Davis
<sedrick...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:9482pf$8ar$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <t6etpqd...@corp.supernews.com>,
> "William G. Davis" <je...@heNOSPAMhe.com> wrote:
>
> <<I've always had a distaste for the term "distribution of wealth". It
> conjures up some very unpleasant mind-images, such as what happened in
> the Soviet Union after the revolution there, and what happened to the
> wealth of the Jews after Hitler put them all in camps. Regardless, it
> connotes an involuntary forfieture of money and personal property, to
> give to those who have less. If the ultimate aim is for all to have an
> equal amount, then why strive for personal gain at all?>>
>
> The better distribution of wealth Dr. King called for (not necessarily
> equal wealth) doesn't require the brutal acts committed by the Soviet
> Union or the Nazis.
What does it call for Sedrick?
>
> <<I don't know that this has been proven. Frankly, I would not lay our
> social ills at the feet of capitalism.>>
>
> What Dr. King was talking about and what exists today involves more than
> social ills. It involves a deeper and gross inequality of
> resources--economic, educational, medical. The Bill of Rights for the
> Disadvantaged he called for would have applied to people of all colors
> and addressed this fundamental inequality suffered by children and
> people of all colors.
I would consider them "social ills". They are what I meant when I used the
term. Anyway, could you post this "Bill of Rights for the Disadvantaged",
or at least a link where it could be viewed. please? I am interested in
reading it.
>
> <<If this is the "wealth" (medical and educational resources) you speak
> of, then I agree with you, but the broad generalization you made above
> in concordance with Dr. King's philosophy indicates there is more to it.
> Is there?>>
>
> I think Dr. King's Bill of Rights and recommendations for economic
> redistribution would have extended beyond providing quality educational
> and medical resources.
How far?
The shame is that we don't even have those basic
> medical and educational entitlements in present day America.
I believe we have those entitlements to a very limited extent, and what that
means is that we do not have equality in those (and other) areas. All too
often, they guy with the best insurance policy gets the best treatment.
That doesn't leave much for the indigent, or underemployed. I fault the
medical profession for that, and bottom feeders attendant to that
profession. But that's another story.
--
Regards,
William G. Jeff Davis
je...@heNOSPAMhe.com
"During my 87 years I have witnessed a whole succession
of technological revolutions. But none of them has done
away with the need for character in the individual or
the ability to think."
-Bernard M. Baruch
sedrick...@my-deja.com
Bill Wright <bwri...@earthlink.net> wrote:
<<Sedrick, you have used "dogmatic" three times here and I'm having a
hard time trying to understand what you mean by "dogmatic".
I know how Stephen is using the word, but I can't figure out what you
mean.>>
It's not my problem if you can't understand English.
sedrick...@my-deja.com
Bill Wright <bwri...@earthlink.net> wrote:
<<What did Dr. King suggest that we do if the present holders
of the "wealth" don't agree to let us "distribute" it"?>>
You'll notice that Dr. King referred to "a better distribution of
wealth," which indicates that distribution already exists. The "present
holders of the 'wealth'" already have their wealth distributed through
taxes. The issue is distributing that wealth in a better way that will
provide basic resources to countless children and Americans of all
colors who current suffer in degraded conditions without those
resources.
sedrick...@my-deja.com
<<The better distribution of wealth Dr. King called for (not
necessarily equal wealth) doesn't require the brutal acts committed by
the Soviet Union or the Nazis.>>
Davis wrote:
<<What does it call for Sedrick?>>
It calls for an expansion of current distribution. You'll notice Dr.
King referred to a "better distribution of wealth," which indicates that
distribution already exists. It's a question of making that
distribution better.
Davis wrote:
<<...could you post this "Bill of Rights for the
Disadvantaged", or at least a link where it could be viewed. please? I
am interested in reading it.>>
He talks about it in his book Why We Can't Wait.
I wrote:
<<I think Dr. King's Bill of Rights and recommendations for economic
redistribution would have extended beyond providing quality
educational and medical resources.>>
Davis wrote:
<<How far?>>
At least to fulfilling Franklin Roosevelt's vision of a Second Bill of
Rights that included:
"The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and
recreation."
"The right of every family to a decent home."
"The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and
enjoy good health."
"The right to a good education."
I think Dr. King would have supported a living wage.
I wrote:
<<The shame is that we don't even have those basic medical and
educational entitlements in present day America.>>
Davis wrote:
<<I believe we have those entitlements to a very limited extent, and
what that means is that we do not have equality in those (and other)
areas.>>
In education, we have what Jonathan Kozol calls "Savage Inequalities."
His description applies to medical and standard of living inequalities
too.
sedrick...@my-deja.com
brooks....@asu.edu wrote:
<<[snip]
To see Sedrick Franklin quote Dr. King here and then act as
he does elsewhere is one of the marvelous characterisitics
of life here in alt.land.>>
You can snip what I wrote, but that doesn't change the the widespread
degradation and deprivation suffered by countless children and other
Americans without basic adequate educational, medical, and living
resources. It doesn't change Dr. King's efforts to reform these
miserable conditions And it doesn't change the casual acceptance of
these miserable conditions.
Walter Jowers
"Hugh Lawson" <hla...@triad.rr.com> wrote in message
news:slrn96cokt....@cumquat.froot.com...
Damn, Hugh! What a fine post!
I'm saving that one, and I don't save many from here.
WJ
Brooks D. Simpson
>
> Chuck Pinnegar a few months ago described you as coming across as an
> arrogant snot.
Oh, another "snot." You have such range, Sedrick.
We await a post from you on the Civil War.
Stephen McCullough
>
> Chuck Pinnegar a few months ago described you as coming across as an
> arrogant snot. You've shown that to be a good description. You didn't
> ask any questions and there's nothing dogmatic about the miserable
> medical and educational deprivation suffered by countless American
> children. There's nothing dogmatic about Dr. King's calls to reform the
> degraded condition of millions of Americans through a Bill of Rights for
> the Disadvantaged and a synthesis of communism and capitalism. If
> anything's dogmatic it's the casual acceptance of this widespread
> degradation and deprivation.
>
> Sedrick Franklin
>
>
Arrogant snot I maybe (and frankly your opinion of me is not something
that will keep me up at night), but at least I have a basic grasp of
economics and politics. If you can offer one good example of a working
Marxist economy, I'm listening. As great a man as Dr. King was, he is
dead wrong here.
Stephen McCullough
NMSU Library
Stephen McCullough
appointments. Was Grant a hands on type while dealing out the patronage
like Lincoln or did he let his cabinet dole out the appointments in
their own respective departments? I'm researching for my thesis the
appointment of Ebeenzer Bassett as minsiter to Haiti and I'm just trying
to figure out who recomended him and why Grant picked him, etc. One
source says Frederick Douglass recommended him for the post even though
Douglass wished it for himself. Would Grant or Fish have made the
decision on such a matter? I decided to ask this in the ng rather than
through email in the hopes of starting a discussion on something rather
than the usual fodder. Thanks,
Stephen McCullough
NMSU Library
sedrick...@my-deja.com
Stephen McCullough <stmc...@nmsu.edu> wrote:
<<Arrogant snot I maybe (and frankly your opinion of me is not something
that will keep me up at night),>>
You are an arrogant snot.
<<but at least I have a basic grasp of economics and politics. If you
can offer one good example of a working Marxist economy, I'm
listening.>>
You keep smearing Dr. King's proposals as "Marxist."
Is it Marxist to seek quality educational and medical resources for
millions of American children?
Is it Marxist to propose a Bill of Rights for the Disadvantaged?
Is it Marxist to want a system where Americans won't be condemned to
miserable, degrading conditions?
Dr. King realized pure communism and pure capitalism alike have savage
effects on people. That's why he called for a synthesis. I challenge
you to cite a speech or essay where he said he was a Marxist. He called
for a better distribution of wealth, not a total distribution.
<<As great a man as Dr. King was, he is dead wrong here.>>
He was dead wrong to seek reform of a system where millions were denied
basic economic justice, where today millions of children and others are
condemned to horrible conditions cut off from quality educational and
medical resources? Don't you believe American children are entitled to
these resources?
Brooks D. Simpson
What range, Sedrick. Wow.
sedrick...@my-deja.com
Civil War and its legacy of second-class citizenship. It's no surprise
that those most deeply cut off from quality educational and medical
resources are people of color and African-Americans in particular. This
is a subtle and in some ways more poisonous legacy of a system that for
so long dehumanized and segregated people of color. Now we think the
dehumanizing and segregation are gone because of some court decisions
and laws. That's why it's more poisonous in many ways.
The people in this forum love to take a stand against slavery and Jim
Crow and seem to care less about RAMPANT present day degradation and
informal Jim Crow policies where children of color are packed into
schools that are literally crumbling, children who lack basic
nutritional and medical resources, children cozy white individuals like
yourselves think you care about because you condemn an institution
that's been gone for over a century.
At least the Neo-Confederates don't pretend to be our friends.
Sedrick Franklin
----------
"You can't separate peace from freedom because no one can be at peace
unless he has his freedom."
-Malcolm X
In article <3A67CC89...@asu.edu>,
Brooks D. Simpson
>
> I have been meaning to ask you about Grant and his minsterial
> appointments. Was Grant a hands on type while dealing out the patronage
> like Lincoln or did he let his cabinet dole out the appointments in
> their own respective departments?
When it came to diplomatic posts Grant often made the
suggestions and decisions. Hamilton Fish complained about
the degree to which Grant did so in the pages of his dairy
(which is on microfilm). See if the Haiti mission is
mentioned there.
Also in RG 59 there is a microfilm series that contains the
letters of recommendation for candidates to offices that
might help you.
Stephen McCullough
pleased to know she can stop referring to me as her perputally broke
grad student son.
Stephen McCullough
NMSU Library
Stephen McCullough
>
> In article <3A67CBD4...@nmsu.edu>,
> Stephen McCullough <stmc...@nmsu.edu> wrote:
>
> <<Arrogant snot I maybe (and frankly your opinion of me is not something
> that will keep me up at night),>>
>
> You are an arrogant snot.
> <<but at least I have a basic grasp of economics and politics. If you
> can offer one good example of a working Marxist economy, I'm
> listening.>>
>
> You keep smearing Dr. King's proposals as "Marxist."
>
Other than by having the government control the economy, ala a Marxist
state, how else do you propose to redistribute wealth? Higher income
taxes? Not when the government is running a surplus. Higher corporate
taxes? Not when you consider that not only corporations would lose
money, but investors as well. Investors who in today's world include a
great proportion of the middle class.
> Is it Marxist to seek quality educational and medical resources for
> millions of American children?
>
> Is it Marxist to propose a Bill of Rights for the Disadvantaged?
>
>
No but it unrealistic and farfetched and unworkable.
Is it Marxist to want a system where Americans won't be condemned to
> miserable, degrading conditions?
>
It is if you intend to seize other's possessions to give to others.
> Dr. King realized pure communism and pure capitalism alike have savage
> effects on people. That's why he called for a synthesis. I challenge
> you to cite a speech or essay where he said he was a Marxist. He called
> for a better distribution of wealth, not a total distribution.
>
I called YOUR economic ideas Marxist.
> <<As great a man as Dr. King was, he is dead wrong here.>>
>
> He was dead wrong to seek reform of a system where millions were denied
> basic economic justice, where today millions of children and others are
> condemned to horrible conditions cut off from quality educational and
> medical resources? Don't you believe American children are entitled to
> these resources?
>
As someone who is forced to use Medicaid for my children while I attend
grad school, I'm actually surprised with the government largeness versus
my old insurance. All children are eligible for need based aid, its the
adults who are forced to go without health insurance. As for education,
hell my state for once is a leader in pioneering a affordable education
for any New Mexican high school graduate. If you attend any public
university in the state immediately after high school and have a friggin
2.0, your tuition is paid for via the lottery scholarship fund. All
proceeds from the NM lottery goes to this program. I'm a big believer in
education righting the wrongs of the past. I certainly have never felt
threatened by affirmative action and have welcomed a greater diversity
at the college and more importanly, the graduate levels. However, I
would shudder at the thought of greater federal involvment in education.
Stephen McCulllough
NMSU Library
Brooks D. Simpson
>
> The issues raised regarding Dr. King have everything to do with the
> Civil War and its legacy of second-class citizenship.
How is it due to the Civil War that there is a legacy of
second-class citizenship (which you assert rather than
demonstrate exists). What rights as a citizen do blacks
lack that whites possess?
> It's no surprise
> that those most deeply cut off from quality educational and medical
> resources are people of color and African-Americans in particular.
But are these rights of citizenship? Show me where they are
guaranteed to anyone by law.
> This
> is a subtle and in some ways more poisonous legacy of a system that for
> so long dehumanized and segregated people of color. Now we think the
> dehumanizing and segregation are gone because of some court decisions
> and laws.
Who are "we," Sedrick?
> That's why it's more poisonous in many ways.
>
> The people in this forum love to take a stand against slavery and Jim
> Crow and seem to care less about RAMPANT present day degradation and
> informal Jim Crow policies where children of color are packed into
> schools that are literally crumbling, children who lack basic
> nutritional and medical resources, children cozy white individuals like
> yourselves think you care about because you condemn an institution
> that's been gone for over a century.
This is simply garbage in the form of a rant, Sedrick.
People here discuss the Civil War and Reconstruction
period. We go elsewhere to make our stands on other
issues. Certainly my black students would wonder who you
think you are in making such an assertion about me.
The only evidence we have of your activism, such as it is,
is in your ranting on this newsgroup. We have no other
evidence that you've lifted a finger to attempt to realize
any of the goals you celebrate. Assailing people on the
newsgroup will not bring you a single step closer to
realizing the goals you profess to hold so dear. You are
such an arrogant snot, to use a praise I've heard recently.
> At least the Neo-Confederates don't pretend to be our friends.
I judge people by the content of their character, not by
their race, gender, class, or religious belief. That's why
I find you to be an insufferable pompous jerk.
As someone once put it, you can tell a Sedrick, but you
can't tell him much.
L.M. Berkowitz
news:948n2n$oc8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
: The people in this forum love to take a stand against slavery and
Jim
: Crow and seem to care less about RAMPANT present day degradation and
: informal Jim Crow policies where children of color are packed into
: schools that are literally crumbling,
Obviously they must love those public schools. The citizens of the
sovereign state of Michigan killed a proposal that would allow parents
to actually CHOOSE which schools their children should attend.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
L.M. Berkowitz webm...@jewish-history.com
http://www.jewish-history.com/civilwar.htm "Jews in the Civil War"
sedrick...@my-deja.com
<<The issues raised regarding Dr. King have everything to do with the
Civil War and its legacy of second-class citizenship.>>
Simpson wrote:
<<How is it due to the Civil War that there is a legacy of second-class
citizenship (which you assert rather than demonstrate exists). What
rights as a citizen do blacks lack that whites possess?>>
My ancestors tasted and were then stripped of freedom during the Civil
War-Reconstruction period. They were emancipated only to be segregated,
disenfranchised, and subjected to forms of economic bondage in the South
and were already segregated and disenfranchised in many parts of the
North. The vestiges of these crimes were not eliminated with the civil
rights legislation of the 1960s.
We should not think legal equality means equal rights in practice. The
Fourteenth Amendment talked about equal protection of the laws and for
decades African-Americans were oppressed by Jim Crow laws. The
Fifteenth Amendment prohibited denying the vote on racial grounds and
for decades African-Americans were disenfranchised on racial grounds.
Today African-Americans may have the same rights as white Americans on
paper, but in practice are subjected to gross abuse (Driving While
Black, Rodney King, Amadou Diallo, Abner Louima, on and on). In the
case of African-American children, a disgusting example is education.
See Jonathan Kozol's book Savage Inequalities.
The difference between then and now is the racism has been redirected
more subtly and in my opinion more dangerously since less notice is
being taken. Just as white America quickly and for the most part
ignored Jim Crow after passing the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments,
white America after the civil rights laws of the 1960s has by and large
ignored the systematic racism in modern America that works to keep
people of color in inferior lives as a degraded minority.
I wrote:
<<It's no surprise that those most deeply cut off from quality
educational and medical resources are people of color and
African-Americans in particular.>>
Simpson wrote:
<<But are these rights of citizenship? Show me where they are
guaranteed to anyone by law.>>
I note you don't dispute that those most deeply cut off from quality
educational and medical resources are people of color and
African-Americans in particular.
As for your question:
The right not to be discriminated against in employment on the grounds
of race, religion, sex, or national origin for most of American history
was not a right of citizenship guaranteed by law. (The right not to be
discriminated against in employment on the ground of sexual orientation
is shamefully still not a right of citizenship.) This doesn't mean
Americans weren't entitled to this right before Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act.
The right not to be discriminated against in public accomodations on the
grounds of race, religion, sex, or national origin for most of American
history was not a right of citizenship guaranteed by law. This doesn't
mean Americans weren't entitled to this right before Title II of the
Civil Rights Act.
The right not to be discriminated against in housing on the grounds of
race, religion, sex, or national origin for most of American history
was not a right of citizenship guaranteed by law. This doesn't mean
Americans weren't entitled to this right before the Fair Housing Act.
The right not to be discriminated against in employment on the grounds
of disability until just recently was not a right of citizenship
guaranteed by law. This doesn't mean Americans weren't entitled to this
right before the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Our country has evolved and has recognized the need to expand the rights
of citizenship to provide fair treatment to all Americans. The time is
long due to guarantee to all Americans the rights of quality medical,
educational, and economic resources. Franklin Roosevelt's Second Bill
of Rights should be part of the Constitution.
Are you against guaranteeing Americans these basic resources?
I wrote:
<<The people in this forum love to take a stand against slavery and Jim
Crow and seem to care less about RAMPANT present day degradation and
informal Jim Crow policies where children of color are packed into
schools that are literally crumbling, children who lack basic
nutritional and medical resources, children cozy white individuals like
yourselves think you care about because you condemn an institution
that's been gone for over a century.>>
Simpson wrote:
<<This is simply garbage in the form of a rant, Sedrick.>>
I think in matters of race what people (especially white people) call
garbage many times is a fact they don't want to recognize.
<<The only evidence we have of your activism, such as it is, is in your
ranting on this newsgroup. We have no other evidence that you've lifted
a finger to attempt to realize any of the goals you celebrate.>>
You aren't *privy* to my life and labors. I've got nothing to prove to
a snot like you.
<<I judge people by the content of their character, not by their race,
gender, class, or religious belief.>>
Does this mean you wouldn't judge someone on the basis of being an
Islamic fundamentalist who believes women should be subjugated? Does
this mean you wouldn't judge someone on the basis of holding homophobic
religious beliefs?
<<That's why I find you to be an insufferable pompous jerk.>>
"An insufferable pompous jerk"? Kid, you belong in Victorian England.
Sedrick Franklin
----------
"You can't separate peace from freedom because no one can be at peace
unless he has his freedom."
-Malcolm X
Rambler III
> [snip]
>
> It's 2001 and his words are more urgent than ever with millions of
> children denied basic quality medical and educational resources.
>
> Sedrick Franklin
And whose fault is this, the parents or society? If you can't support'em, am
I supposed to? I would venture to say that most of this class have their
cigarettes and beer, and a minority have their crack and Mary Jane. When the
Ole Man gets tired of hearing the baby crying or he finds greener pastures,
off he goes to create another bastard.
The biggest incentive to finding a job is hunger pains. Ask someone who's
had them.
--
Rambler III
“There are the learned and the knowing. Memory makes the one, philosophy the
other,” said the Abbe ... “Well, then” Dantes replied, “what will you teach
me first? I am eager to begin; I thirst for knowledge.”
p146 The Count of Monte Cristo, Alexandre Dumas, Everman’s Library 393 1951
Rambler III
> [snip]
> There's nothing dogmatic about Dr. King's calls to reform the
> degraded condition of millions of Americans through a Bill of Rights for
> the Disadvantaged and a synthesis of communism and capitalism. If
> anything's dogmatic it's the casual acceptance of this widespread
> degradation and deprivation.
>
> Sedrick Franklin
What this crap boils down to is "to get something for nothing."
Get a job. Earn your own way. Quit sucking on the nipple.
Stephen McCullough
Hamilton Fish is overdue for a new biography. IIRC Fish is overdue for a
new biography treatment,Nevin's book on him dating from the 30s, though
Jay Inman did write a monograph not that long ago on Fish and Grant's
foreign policy.
Stephen McCullough
NMSU Library
Pbwalther
>Rights that included:
>
>"The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and
>recreation."
>"The right of every family to a decent home."
>"The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and
>enjoy good health."
>"The right to a good education."
>
>I think Dr. King would have supported a living wage.
>
>I wrote:
>
><<The shame is that we don't even have those basic medical and
>educational entitlements in present day America.>>
>
>Davis wrote:
>
><<I believe we have those entitlements to a very limited extent, and
>what that means is that we do not have equality in those (and other)
>areas.>>
>
>In education, we have what Jonathan Kozol calls "Savage Inequalities."
>His description applies to medical and standard of living inequalities
>too.
>
>
>Sedrick Franklin
>
I think the problems are a bit more intractable than that. For example, if
everyone is guaranteed adequate shelter, clothing, education, food, recreation
(cool we all get RVs) then why do we need a living wage? Seems to me that we
would get all the necessities of life from the government and heck we wouldn't
have to work at all. Of course, if everyone did that well then there would be
no one producing the shelter, clothes, food, education for the rest of us to be
given. Dern their lazy hides!
Pbwalther
>miserable conditions And it doesn't change the casual acceptance of
>these miserable conditions.
>
>Sedrick Franklin
>
True enough Sedrick, but how do you go about solving the problem? The people
who built the projects in Chicago thought they were a good idea and they
weren't. The welfare system looked like a good idea but in many cases it just
fostered governmental dependency. Just taking money and throwing it at a
problem does not help matters any more than passing a law does --- I think Pi
in Indiana is still legally 3.14 (the Indiana legislature does not like
irrational numbers). And look at the self inflicted power crisis in
California. Utilities are bad so no one can build them in our state, you can
never raise our utility bills and we want more power every year and the
chickens have come home to roost in California because the dern fools never
understood basis economics. It is just dern foolishness.
And the black community has at times been foolish. Many blacks resist academic
achievement because it is "being white". They forget that being educated often
makes a person more effective. Try designing a semiconductor chip without
training in electical engineering.
I mean our general "white" culture is anti-academic enough without trying to
top it. I don't know if you have ever done any teaching Sedrick, but it is
mighty hard to teach people who resist it. In facts, I have had some students
who plainly had the attitude that I could not teach them anything and all to
often they were right. And it is hard to employ people who resent "white
rules" like showing up on time, showing up sober, listening to superiors and so
on. It is pretty tough to make money in a business with conscientious
employees and it is nearly impossible to do so with resentful ones. So, when
you talk about the problem being racism, it can also be from 2 sides. Black
students often fail not because they are incapable of academic achievement but
because they do not see the value in it. How can a teacher combat that?
I have seen well meaning people try to do things to help minorities in this
country for the past 40 years and often these programs have been well funded
and the results have all to often been virtually nonexistant. I am not saying
that the attempt should not be made. But I am saying that the problem is
formible.
Now, I have heard you talk about goals Sedrick, but you seem to think that this
is solely a problem of distribution of cash and that approach has been tried
before.
Bill Wright
> >
> > What did Dr. King suggest that we do if the present holders
> > of the "wealth" don't agree to let us "distribute" it"?
sedrick...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> You'll notice that Dr. King referred to "a better distribution
> of wealth," which indicates that distribution already exists.
OK, I'll play your game. We all know that taxes work to
distribute wealth. Clearly, Dr. King didn't think it was
doing a good enough job. He suggested that there be "a
better distribution of wealth."
You wrote (and I quote):
"Dr. King called for a synthesis of communism and
capitalism and said that there must be a better
distribution of wealth in America."
I know how the USSR installed a communist system for "a better
distribution of wealth" in Russia in an undemocratic and
dictatorial way. I wonder if Dr. King would have approved of
the same tactics to impose a similar "better distribution of
wealth" on the U.S.?
Bill
Bill Wright
Bill Wright wrote:
> >
> > Sedrick, you have used "dogmatic" three times here and I'm
> > having a hard time trying to understand what you mean by
> > "dogmatic".
>
> > I know how Stephen is using the word, but I can't figure
> > out what you mean.
sedrick...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> It's not my problem if you can't understand English.
The problem, Sedrick, is that I DO understand English. Stephen
uses it correctly, but you are incoherent in your usage.
Bill
Bill Wright
>
> The people in this forum love to take a stand against slavery and Jim
> Crow and seem to care less about RAMPANT present day degradation and
> informal Jim Crow policies where children of color are packed into
> schools that are literally crumbling, children who lack basic
> nutritional and medical resources, children cozy white individuals like
> yourselves think you care about because you condemn an institution
> that's been gone for over a century.
You are absolutely right, Sedrick! We think it better to leave
the fight against "present day degradation and informal Jim Crow
policies" to friendly, pleasant and sweet talking people like you.
Bill
Chuck Pinnegar
>Chuck Pinnegar a few months ago described you as coming across as an
>arrogant snot.
Whoa Sedrick! You're doin' ok on your own so please don't drag me into
this debate. Nobody listens to my diatribes anyway. You know "Guess
what that old fool said today?" In any case Stephen has a nice
knowledge of the times and expresses himself in his own style. Your
job is to combat it in the best way you can by solid research (or as
in my case when you have none, curse and swear). Go to it.
Chuck Pinnegar
Dave Smith
>It calls for an expansion of current distribution. You'll notice Dr.
>King referred to a "better distribution of wealth," which indicates that
>distribution already exists. It's a question of making that
>distribution better.
I'm confused (please bear with me). Does Dr. King call for
an "expanision" of distribution (which I interpret as
calling for more to distribute) or a "better distribution"
of wealth (which I interpret as doing a better job with the
tax wealth we have -- a better job of allocating that
wealth)?
Or is it both?
Dave
Dave Smith ". . . remember the golden rule: when the game's
Villa Hills, KY going against you, stay calm - and cheat"
-- Harry Flashman, circa 1855-56
Dave Smith
>I know how Stephen is using the word, but I can't figure out what you
>mean.>>
>
>It's not my problem if you can't understand English.
Then I guess you'll never effectively get your point across,
will you?
Not very tolerant, eh?
Dave Smith
>My ancestors tasted and were then stripped of freedom during the Civil
>War-Reconstruction period. They were emancipated only to be segregated,
>disenfranchised, and subjected to forms of economic bondage in the South
>and were already segregated and disenfranchised in many parts of the
>North. The vestiges of these crimes were not eliminated with the civil
>rights legislation of the 1960s.
And you know what? There are vestiges of nativism directed
at Roman Catholics in this country surviving even today.
Somehow, to go from leap from the franchising of all men in
the immediate post-war period (maybe the women have a bigger
gripe, eh?) to "vestiges of those crimes" (what is that -
having the sort of vote?) is a big stretch, and certainly
without specifics only a rant.
Dave Smith
>You keep smearing Dr. King's proposals as "Marxist."
>
>Is it Marxist to seek quality educational and medical resources for
>millions of American children?
>
>Is it Marxist to propose a Bill of Rights for the Disadvantaged?
Depends on the methods used to bring it about, don't you
think?
Dave Smith
>At least the Neo-Confederates don't pretend to be our friends.
Damn. I have to fire my insurance agent and financial
advisor. I didn't realize that they were not allowed to be
my friend.
Or am I not allowed to be their friend?
Oh, this is so confusing. I guess they and I had better
build up some bitterness or something, in order to
understand.
Dave Smith
>You can snip what I wrote, but that doesn't change the the widespread
>degradation and deprivation suffered by countless children and other
>Americans without basic adequate educational, medical, and living
>resources. It doesn't change Dr. King's efforts to reform these
>miserable conditions And it doesn't change the casual acceptance of
>these miserable conditions.
So what's your plan for solving this, Sedrick?
Not more rhetoric - but concrete steps that lead us to a
solution.
Glenn W. Heintzelman
<sedrick...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:9489af$dn7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> I wrote:
>
> <<I think Dr. King's Bill of Rights and recommendations for economic
> redistribution would have extended beyond providing quality
> educational and medical resources.>>
>
> Davis wrote:
>
> <<How far?>>
>
> At least to fulfilling Franklin Roosevelt's vision of a Second Bill of
> Rights that included:
>
> "The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and
> recreation."
> "The right of every family to a decent home."
> "The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and
> enjoy good health."
> "The right to a good education."
>
> I think Dr. King would have supported a living wage.
>
I always have a problem with positive rights, things the government is
required to do. Negative rights- things the government is forbidden to do-
are a good thing. But positive rights, unless absolutely necessary and
carefully defined, open the door to tyranny, and even worse, bureaucracy.
Take the right to a good education mentioned above. Good by whose
standards? Even if the parent is opposed to those standards? Who pays the
bills? If it conflicts with the rights to housing and medicine, which takes
priority? Who pays the bills? If necessary, do we draft teachers, or pay
enough to attract talented ones? Who pays the bills?
Everything on the above list is, in general terms, a nice idea. The Devil,
as always, is in the details.
--
Glenn W. Heintzelman
"The Truth is out there- but lies are in your head.
-- Terry Pratchett
Brooks D. Simpson
> My ancestors tasted and were then stripped of freedom during the Civil
> War-Reconstruction period. They were emancipated only to be segregated,
> disenfranchised, and subjected to forms of economic bondage in the South
> and were already segregated and disenfranchised in many parts of the
> North.
That African-Americans in the South were stripped of many of
the rights of citizenship in the period of Redemption and
Jim Crow is well known to all, especailly those of us who
have studied (and even written about) Reconstruction. I'd
like to hear about the continued "disfranchisment" of blacks
in the North after the ratification of the Fifteenth
Amendment.
At the same time, of course, Reconstruction-era
constitutional amendments and legislation laid the
foundation for the Second Reconstruction after World War II.
The vestiges of these crimes were not eliminated with the
civil
> rights legislation of the 1960s.
Some were, some were not.
> We should not think legal equality means equal rights in practice.
"We" don't, Sedrick.
[snip]
> The difference between then and now is the racism has been redirected
> more subtly and in my opinion more dangerously since less notice is
> being taken.
And in another discussion forum one might discuss these
issues in depth. But I don't see how it furthers any
constructive agenda for someone to enter this newsgroup and
start assailing white posters, especially when the assailant
may be less than fully informed about the activities and
beliefs of his targets.
> [Franklin wrote]:
>
> <<It's no surprise that those most deeply cut off from quality
> educational and medical resources are people of color and
> African-Americans in particular.>>
>
> Simpson wrote:
>
> <<But are these rights of citizenship? Show me where they are
> guaranteed to anyone by law.>>
>
> I note you don't dispute that those most deeply cut off from quality
> educational and medical resources are people of color and
> African-Americans in particular.
Actually, I think this is more an issue of class/economic
standing than of race.
[snip]
> Our country has evolved and has recognized the need to expand the rights
> of citizenship to provide fair treatment to all Americans. The time is
> long due to guarantee to all Americans the rights of quality medical,
> educational, and economic resources. Franklin Roosevelt's Second Bill
> of Rights should be part of the Constitution.
>
> Are you against guaranteeing Americans these basic resources?
Ah, here we come to the nub of the problem. What's the
nature of the guarantee? How do you define the
"resources"? How does this guarantee come about? Should
these be rights of citizenship or broad
government-sponsored/run programs? And why would you now
trust the very governments at the federal, state, and local
levels when they had much to do with imposing segregation,
Jim Crow, disfranchisement, etc.?
> [Franklin] wrote:
>
> <<The people in this forum love to take a stand against slavery and Jim
> Crow and seem to care less about RAMPANT present day degradation and
> informal Jim Crow policies where children of color are packed into
> schools that are literally crumbling, children who lack basic
> nutritional and medical resources, children cozy white individuals like
> yourselves think you care about because you condemn an institution
> that's been gone for over a century.>>
How do you know, Mr. Franklin? And why race-bait?
> Simpson wrote:
>
> <<This is simply garbage in the form of a rant, Sedrick.>>
>
> I think in matters of race what people (especially white people) call
> garbage many times is a fact they don't want to recognize.
And sometimes garbage is garbage, Mr. Franklin. Such is
your rant.
> <<The only evidence we have of your activism, such as it is, is in your
> ranting on this newsgroup. We have no other evidence that you've lifted
> a finger to attempt to realize any of the goals you celebrate.>>
>
> You aren't *privy* to my life and labors. I've got nothing to prove to
> a snot like you.
Back to your elevated prose, Mr. Franklin. And you aren't
privy to my life and labors. I need not prove anything to
you.
> <<I judge people by the content of their character, not by their race,
> gender, class, or religious belief.>>
>
> Does this mean you wouldn't judge someone on the basis of being an
> Islamic fundamentalist who believes women should be subjugated? Does
> this mean you wouldn't judge someone on the basis of holding homophobic
> religious beliefs?
Acting on those beliefs would spark my opposition, but not
merely holding them, no.
> <<That's why I find you to be an insufferable pompous jerk.>>
>
> "An insufferable pompous jerk"? Kid, you belong in Victorian England.
Powerful retort. :) But I see you don't deny it. Want to
take a poll, Mr. Franklin? Want to see democracy at work?
sedrick...@my-deja.com
<<The vestiges of these crimes were not eliminated with the
civil rights legislation of the 1960s.>>
Simpson wrote:
<<Some were, some were not.>>
Abner Louima TORTURED, Amadou Diallo KILLED, Rodney King BRUTALIZED,
racial profiling, the disenfranchisement in Florida, the everyday
injustices committed against people of color show your "Some were, some
were not" to be a HUGE understatement. A belief in black inferiority
continues to infect American institutions. See Beyond the Rodney King
Story: An Investigation of Police Conduct in Minority Communities, see
Police Brutality: An Anthology. African-Americans are an occupied and
dehumanized people in all too many parts of America under attack by new
forms of Jim Crow. The Reconstruction dream of equality under the law
remains unfulfilled.
<<...I don't see how it furthers any constructive agenda for someone to
enter this newsgroup and start assailing white posters, especially when
the assailant may be less than fully informed about the activities and
beliefs of his targets.>>
Don't think I don't see the code language with the word "assailant."
You obviously never had to live in a community terrorized by
real assailants--some in street clothes, some in uniforms--on a daily
basis and struggle to keep a stable life for a family.
I wrote:
<<I note you don't dispute that those most deeply cut off from quality
educational and medical resources are people of color and
African-Americans in particular.>>
Simpson wrote:
<<Actually, I think this is more an issue of class/economic standing
than of race.>>
It's just a coincidence that African-Americans are disproportionately
represented among the poor, right?
I wrote:
<<Our country has evolved and has recognized the need to expand the
rights of citizenship to provide fair treatment to all Americans. The
time is long due to guarantee to all Americans the rights of quality
medical, educational, and economic resources. Franklin Roosevelt's
Second Bill of Rights should be part of the Constitution.>>
Are you against guaranteeing Americans these basic resources?>>
Simpson wrote:
<<Ah, here we come to the nub of the problem. What's the nature of the
guarantee? How do you define the "resources"? How does this guarantee
come about? Should these be rights of citizenship or broad
government-sponsored/run programs? And why would you now trust the very
governments at the federal, state, and local levels when they had much
to do with imposing segregation, Jim Crow, disfranchisement, etc.?>>
Franklin Roosevelt's Second Bill of Rights defines the resources, Dr.
King's Bill of Rights for the Disadvantaged defines the resources. They
propose a basic set of rights that should be part of the Constitution.
thorugh constitutional amendments. President Clinton fought for part of
Roosevelt and King's vision with universal access to healthcare. He
spoke the truth when he said that America should join the other advanced
nations of the world by guaranteeing quality medical access.
Representative Jesse Jackson, Jr. has also talked about these rights
will have a book about it coming out soon.
As for trust in government, government's not evil by nature so it would
be stupid to argue because there used to be Jim Crow there should be no
quality medical and educational resources guaranteed to Americans.
Why do you oppose Roosevelt and Dr. King's vision?
I wrote:
<<The people in this forum love to take a stand against slavery and
Jim Crow and seem to care less about RAMPANT present day degradation and
informal Jim Crow policies where children of color are packed into
schools that are literally crumbling, children who lack basic
nutritional and medical resources, children cozy white individuals
like yourselves think you care about because you condemn an institution
that's been gone for over a century.>>
Simpson wrote:
<<How do you know, Mr. Franklin?>>
Because I know how to read.
<<And why race-bait?>>
You obviously don't know what race-baiting is.
I wrote:
<<Does this mean you wouldn't judge someone on the basis of being an
Islamic fundamentalist who believes women should be subjugated?
Does this mean you wouldn't judge someone on the basis of holding
homophobic religious beliefs?
Simpson wrote:
<<Acting on those beliefs would spark my opposition, but not merely
holding them, no.>>
And what is "acting on those beliefs," as opposed to "merely holding
them"? Is writing a letter recommending their views "acting on
those beliefs"? Does an Islamic fundamentalist or Christian
fundamentalist have to subjugate women or brutalize homosexuals to
"spark" your opposition?
<<Want to take a poll, Mr. Franklin? Want to see democracy at work?>>
When things get too tough one on one you run to your pals. You're a
bigger punk than I thought, Squeakson.
Brian Wilder
<sedrick...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:94jci7$7s2$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> I wrote:
>
> <<The vestiges of these crimes were not eliminated with the
> civil rights legislation of the 1960s.>>
>
> Simpson wrote:
>
> <<Some were, some were not.>>
>
> Abner Louima TORTURED, Amadou Diallo KILLED, Rodney King BRUTALIZED,
> racial profiling, the disenfranchisement in Florida, the everyday
> injustices committed against people of color show your "Some were, some
> were not" to be a HUGE understatement.
> A belief in black inferiority
> continues to infect American institutions. See Beyond the Rodney King
> Story: An Investigation of Police Conduct in Minority Communities, see
> Police Brutality: An Anthology. African-Americans are an occupied and
> dehumanized people in all too many parts of America under attack by new
> forms of Jim Crow. The Reconstruction dream of equality under the law
> remains unfulfilled.
Police brutality is a serious problem. So is crime.
One thing which did happen in the 1960's is that the rate of crime --
particularly violent crime -- rose dramatically. Despite some modest
declines in the 1990's, the rate of violent crime remains quite high
compared to the 1950s. The U.S. became a more violent place, and the
response, in the 1980's, was to increase the penalties for crime.
Young, male African-Americans commit half or more of the violent crime in
the U.S. and young, male African-Americans are imprisoned at a high rate.
In Los Angeles, where I live, more than a quarter of young (18-~35)
African-American males are convicted felons and most of these are in prison
or jail at any one time. The California prison population has grown
dramatically, and all the programs aimed at facilitating rehabilitation or
the re-entry of released convicts into the community have ceased to exist.
The situation is appalling.
> Don't think I don't see the code language with the word "assailant."
> You obviously never had to live in a community terrorized by
> real assailants--some in street clothes, some in uniforms--on a daily
> basis and struggle to keep a stable life for a family.
I, personally, have lived in a black neighborhood in a city with a very high
crime rate. (Well, I suppose it was an "integrated" neighborhood, by virtue
of my presence and that of a handful of others.) One night, a man literally
knocked down my front door to steal a bicycle parked in the front
stairway/hallway. It was a heavy oak door deadbolted to a solid doorframe;
it might as well have been tissue paper.
I went to the neighborhood watch group meeting once, where I met an earnest
bookkeeper, his wife and one other. Where the other 100+ people on the
block were, I have no idea.
I answered my door one night to find a well-dressed couple, distressed to
find that the friends across the street, whom they had come to visit, were
not home. They asked to use the phone. I let them in, and they seemed
astonished as well as grateful.
Coming out of a late night Christmas party a few blocks from my home, I was
immediately stopped and spread-eagled by two policemen, who said they were
looking for a short black man suspected of a robbery/assault a few minutes
earlier. (The fact that I was white and tall impressed them, apparently,
very little, before they had padded me down and looked at the identification
fished out of my back pocket.
What my experience of living there taught me was to not live there.
> <<I note you don't dispute that those most deeply cut off from quality
> educational and medical resources are people of color and
> African-Americans in particular.>>
>
> Simpson wrote:
>
> <<Actually, I think this is more an issue of class/economic standing
> than of race.>>
>
> It's just a coincidence that African-Americans are disproportionately
> represented among the poor, right?
Close to half of the poor are white, not African-American, including some of
the poorest of the poor. Nor are all African-Americans poor.
"Affirmative action" and similar programs, when the criteria are primarily
racial, are deeply resented by many whites of good will, and for good
reason. The beneficiaries of such racially-qualified programs are typically
middle-class African-Americans, who are not particularly needy, but are
well-educated and aware enough to be able to work such systems to advantage.
> I wrote:
>
> <<Our country has evolved and has recognized the need to expand the
> rights of citizenship to provide fair treatment to all Americans. The
> time is long due to guarantee to all Americans the rights of quality
> medical, educational, and economic resources. Franklin Roosevelt's
> Second Bill of Rights should be part of the Constitution.>>
>
> Are you against guaranteeing Americans these basic resources?>>
>
> Simpson wrote:
>
> <<Ah, here we come to the nub of the problem. What's the nature of the
> guarantee? How do you define the "resources"? How does this guarantee
> come about? Should these be rights of citizenship or broad
> government-sponsored/run programs?
Simpson is not asking the right questions here at all, i.m.o.
> > And why would you now trust the very
> > governments at the federal, state, and local levels when
> > they had much to do with imposing segregation, Jim Crow,
> > disfranchisement, etc.?
The simple answer to this nonsense: The government was quite effective in
imposing segregation, disenfranchisement and Jim Crow. By that evidence, it
should be quite effective in providing the remedies.
In my opinion, this was the most reprehensible thing Simpson wrote. It is
redolent of Calhoun: you cannot or should not use government to do good,
because it might turn around and do evil. Or in Simpson's reworking,
reactionaries have used government to oppress African-Americans, so perhaps
government cannot be "trusted" to relieve oppression. This is a truly
offensive argument.
> Franklin Roosevelt's Second Bill of Rights defines the resources, Dr.
> King's Bill of Rights for the Disadvantaged defines the resources. They
> propose a basic set of rights that should be part of the Constitution.
> thorugh constitutional amendments. President Clinton fought for part of
> Roosevelt and King's vision with universal access to healthcare. He
> spoke the truth when he said that America should join the other advanced
> nations of the world by guaranteeing quality medical access.
> Representative Jesse Jackson, Jr. has also talked about these rights
> will have a book about it coming out soon.
>
> Why do you oppose Roosevelt and Dr. King's vision?
>
Well, I do not. But, I also do not think they go far enough or address
what, at the beginning of the 21st century, are the most acute problems.
Dr. King was concentrating, as he should have been, on removing the most
serious barriers erected by racism and and an unashamed white prejudice.
Those barriers are gone, even if their consequences in terms of poverty and
crime and so on, are still with us -- or with African-Americans, in
particular.
The political problem is that we are still guarding against a resurgent
racism so strenuously that we cannot intelligently discuss what is wrong,
because what is wrong is primarily "wrong" with African-Americans, and no
longer "wrong" with whites or Americans in general.
Police brutality and violent crime may be traced historically to white
racism, but white racism is no longer a proximate cause -- one where
intervention would help. Violent crime among African-Americans reflects
(proximately) dysfunctions in the African-American community and family life
(or lack thereof). "Rights" as proposed by Roosevelt and King do not
address the sexual irresponsibility and violent criminality of a large
minority of African-American young men.
I would agree that the health care/health insurance system desperately needs
reform, and that part of that reform is guaranteeing everyone some minimal
access. But, that doesn't address the epidemic of venereal disease, which
can be treated cheaply, and for which free and low cost treatment is made
widely available to the poor. Three-quarters of all the cases of gonorrehea
(sp?) reported in the U.S. recently were in African-Americans! That is an
appalling statistic, but not one that indicates a problem addressed by
Martin Luther King, Jr.
> <<The people in this forum love to take a stand against slavery and
> Jim Crow and seem to care less about RAMPANT present day degradation and
> informal Jim Crow policies [. . . .]
Progressives and the organized political left seem unable or unwilling to
leave the successful campaigns of 1930-1970 behind, and address problems as
they exist in 2001 with proposals that make sense in 2001.
To even identify the problems of violent crime and sexual irresponsibility,
which are, unfortunately, identified with the poor African-American
community, marks a person as a Republican and a conservative, because
Democrats and progressives steadfastly refuse to even acknowledge them.
(Unfortunately, conservative Republicans, left to their own devices, are not
good at proposing or enacting effective solutions; with them, everything is
an excuse to reduce taxes on the rich.)
You are right that critical analysis of slavery and postbellum Jim Crow do
not address the situation of African-Americans in 2001. While there is a
connection of historic causality, historic causality is no guide to public
policy. When the wag said that he could control the present by controlling
history, he must have been referring to control of the mythology, which
heavily influences our interpretation of the present. But, you cannot
change history as it happened. You cannot relieve poverty in the present,
by undoing the slavery of more than a century ago.
To address the problems of the present, you will have to analyze what keeps
social systems operating in the present, and that is a topic for forums
other than this one.
All we can do, on-topic, here, is to beat back the racist mythmakers of the
far right, neo-Confederate type, while continuing the main business of histo
rical exploration. IMO, Mr. Simpson does his part for the truth of history,
and does not deserve your abuse.
Rambler III
in Philadelphia. He notices a Black man on the sidewalk on the other side. The
White man quickened his pace. The Black man crossed the street diagonally and
kept pace with the White man. Caught by a "No Walk" signal and too much traffic
on the main artery to be able to cross against the light. The Black man was able
to catch up with him on the corner. The White man took a furtive at the Black.
The Black man caught the nervous look and said: "Don't worry. I'm scared too.
Why do you think I was walking so fast?"
Most Black crime is Black on Blacks.
Michael Furlan
<Brian...@aol.com> wrote:
>IMO, Mr. Simpson does his part for the truth of history,
>and does not deserve your abuse.
Doubters are advised to read:
"Let Us Have Peace" Ulysses S. Grant and the Politics of War and
Reconstruction."
"Union and Emancipation" Essays on Race and Politics in the Civil War
Era"
"Think Anew, Act Anew: Abraham Lincoln on Slavery, Freedom, and Union"
"The Reconstruction Era Presidents"
Prof. Simpson's contributions to the understanding of the "race
problem" at the time of the CW are matched by other authors, but as
far as I know never exceded.
tom brennan
threat of Socialism can bring about needed reforms in a Capitaistic
system. Besides, maybe the fact that Marxism didn't work in Russia was
more a problem with Russia than a problem with Marxism. Maybe Americans
with their "can do" attitude could make a go of it :-) As for myself I'm
an old-fashioned FDR fightin' economic Liberal and Union Man; I've no
beef with Capitalism but I want a good shake from it and I'll fight to
get it, but as long as I get it I don't care how much the boss makes.
But any business that can't afford to pay decent wages is socially
parasitical because the burden of providing a living income is shifted
from the employer to the taxpayers who make up the difference in the
form of subsidized housing, food stamps, ADC etc. The government safety
net helps some employers as much as it does the poor. I'm surprised the
Conservatives haven't figured this out. Actually I think they have but
are dummying up.
Regards Tom Brennan
http://community.webtv.net/irishtom/TommysHornSpeaker
http://community.webtv.net/irishtom/MoreLinks
Brooks D. Simpson
this copy from the dejanews archives:
[snip]
BDS: "I don't see how it furthers any constructive agenda
for someone to enter this newsgroup and start assailing
white posters, especially when the assailant may be less
than fully informed about the activities and beliefs of his
targets."
SF: "Don't think I don't see the code language with the word
'assailant.'"
I guess a paranoid would see code language there.
SF: "You obviously never had to live in a community
terrorized by real assailants--some in street clothes, some
in uniforms--on a daily basis and struggle to keep a stable
life for a family."
This assertion would appear to support my observation that
Mr. Franklin assumes a great deal about the personal
experiences of those with whom he disagrees. For all I
know, Mr. Franklin may have lived in an affluent suburb, but
I don't make that statement.
SF: "I note you don't dispute that those most deeply cut
off from quality educational and medical resources are
people of color and African-Americans in particular."
BDS: "Actually, I think this is more an issue of
class/economic standing than of race."
SF: "It's just a coincidence that African-Americans are
disproportionately represented among the poor, right?"
I stand by my statement the it is class/economic standing
that is the chief source of the problem Mr. Franklin
describes. Not all people of color (or African-Americans in
particular) are cut off from those resources, which is the
implication left by his initial statement.
SF: "Our country has evolved and has recognized the need to
expand the rights of citizenship to provide fair treatment
to all Americans."
So, everyone has? Then your argument is needless. People
may believe in expanding opportunities as much as possible,
but making them basic rights of citizenship ... well, you
know what happened to health care proposals in the 1990s.
SF: "The time is long due to guarantee to all Americans the
rights of quality medical, educational, and economic
resources. Franklin Roosevelt's Second Bill of Rights
should be part of the Constitution."
"Are you against guaranteeing Americans these basic
resources?"
BDS: "Ah, here we come to the nub of the problem. What's
the nature of the guarantee? How do you define the
'resources'? How does this guarantee come about? Should
these be rights of citizenship or broad
government-sponsored/run programs? And why would you now
trust the very governments at the federal,
state, and local levels when they had much to do with
imposing segregation, Jim Crow, disfranchisement, etc.?"
Mr. Franklin failed to offer any specifics, instead
referring once again to open declarations. That these
declarations have not been translated into specific
guarantees of citizenship would seem to argue against his
assertion that "our country" has come to this point of
accepting them as rights of citizenship.
[snip]
"President Clinton fought for part of Roosevelt and King's
vision with universal access to healthcare. He spoke the
truth when he said that America should join the
other advanced nations of the world by guaranteeing quality
medical access."
As a right of citizenship? What constitutional amendment
did he propose?
[snip]
"As for trust in government, government's not evil by nature
so it would be stupid to argue because there used to be Jim
Crow there should be no quality medical and educational
resources guaranteed to Americans."
Thank you for clarifying that. It seemed to me that you
were arguing that government was evil by nature. I hope
that answers Mr. Wilder's concern.
"Why do you oppose Roosevelt and Dr. King's vision?"
Show me where I have taken any position on this issue (and
it's not as if I'm going to discuss my political beliefs in
a Civil War newsgroup). I've simply raised some questions
that you seem unwilling to answer.
SF: "The people in this forum love to take a stand against
slavery and Jim Crow and seem to care less about RAMPANT
present day degradation and informal Jim Crow policies where
children of color are packed into schools that are literally
crumbling, children who lack basic nutritional and medical
resources, children cozy white individuals like yourselves
think you care about because you condemn an institution
that's been gone for over a century."
Once again, I remind you, this is a forum about the
discussion of the Civil War era, not about today's
political, economic, and social challenges. Again you make
an assumption about what people do and do not care about
that is not borne out by any acquaintance with anyone's
personal activities.
BDS: "How do you know, Mr. Franklin?"
SF: "Because I know how to read."
Non-responsive to the question.
BDS: "And why race-bait?"
SF: "You obviously don't know what race-baiting is."
Oh, I think ranting about "cozy white individuals" starts
the ball rolling in that direction. We've had people here
in the past make statements about African-Americans and
Jews, among others, that have served to embroil people in
lengthy conflicts. I make no statement about you as typical
of any African-Americans; I'd just point out that it gets
boring to hear smug individuals like yourself, of whatever
race, gender, sexual persuasion, or religious belief go on
and on about other people in perfect ignorance of what they
do or who they are.
SF: "Does this mean you wouldn't judge someone on the basis
of being an Islamic fundamentalist who believes women should
be subjugated? Does this mean you wouldn't judge someone on
the basis of holding homophobic religious beliefs?"
BDS: "Acting on those beliefs would spark my opposition,
but not merely holding them, no."
SF: "And what is 'acting on those beliefs,' as opposed to
'merely holding them'? Is writing a letter recommending
their views 'acting on those beliefs'? Does an Islamic
fundamentalist or Christian fundamentalist have to subjugate
women or brutalize homosexuals to "spark" your opposition?"
One of the great things about the United States is the First
Amendment. I might take issue with someone else's opinion,
but I have to accept that they might hold that opinion and
allow them to express it, no matter how distasteful I may
find that expression. That would seem to be the case in
your first example. In your second example, where people
are taking action to impose those particular beliefs, I've
already said I would (and have) come out in opposition.
But we have no evidence as to any activcism on your part,
Mr. Franklin.
BDS: "Want to take a poll, Mr. Franklin? Want to see
democracy at work?"
SF: "When things get too tough one on one you run to your
pals. You're a bigger punk than I thought, Squeakson."
Well, there is a considered answer. When faced with the
choice of letting the posters here speak (part of that very
democracy Mr. Franklin claims to celebrate) or sinking back
into name-calling, we see what Mr. Franklin prefers.
Brooks D. Simpson
> Simpson wrote:
>
> <<Ah, here we come to the nub of the problem. What's the
nature of the
> guarantee? How do you define the "resources"? How does
this guarantee
> come about? Should these be rights of citizenship or
broad
> government-sponsored/run programs?
Simpson is not asking the right questions here at all,
i.m.o.
What questions should we ask?
> > And why would you now trust the very
> > governments at the federal, state, and local levels
when
> > they had much to do with imposing segregation, Jim
Crow,
> > disfranchisement, etc.?
The simple answer to this nonsense: The government was
quite effective in imposing segregation,
disenfranchisement and Jim Crow. By that evidence, it
should be quite effective in providing the remedies.
In my opinion, this was the most reprehensible thing
Simpson wrote. It is redolent of Calhoun: you cannot or
should not use government to do good, because it might turn
around and do evil. Or in Simpson's reworking,
reactionaries have used government to oppress
African-Americans, so perhaps government cannot be
"trusted" to relieve oppression. This is a truly offensive
argument.
You have misunderstood me. Mr. Franklin pointed out the
evils of government activity in the past. I simply asked
why he would now trust the very government he earlier
assailed as being an instrument of oppression. I've said
nothing about my view of how the state might or ought to act
in these circumstances, and I have not offered the argument
that you describe as "offensive."
I am amused at being described as echoing John C. Calhoun.
This is not a comparison too many posters would make.