Shooting at SC Church During Bible Study - Suspect still at large

[IMJerusha]

Acts of atrocity aren't a genocidal plan. There wasn't a "final solution" proposed for Native Americans. Doesn't excuse the numerous atrocities, but it does distinguish them and their motivation from what the Nazis were about.

In order, I do and no, he didn't. Which is why you won't show me the documentation and agreement among the heads of government to eradicate the Native American. But enough of this side bar nonsense.

When one sees the photos of mass graves dug for Native Americans and considers the countless treaties broken by our government, it's kinda hard to ignore the similarities to the acts of Nazi Germany. It's rather cold-blooded to state that because a formal declaration of genocide wasn't made by the American government, although several of her representatives such as Chivington did make that formal declaration, the genocide never occurred.

No one has banned a Confederate flag. It's simply and appropriately being removed from seats of government and I've already answered on the remarkable difference between a flag conceived to forward an evil proposition and one that flew over evil acts and the corrections to them.

It's coming. I don't see anything evil about states rights, Town. I can't help but wonder why you do. How much else of the Constitution do you find evil?

 

[Granite]

When one sees the photos of mass graves dug for Native Americans and considers the countless treaties broken by our government, it's kinda hard to ignore the similarities to the acts of Nazi Germany. It's rather cold-blooded to state that because a formal declaration of genocide wasn't made by the American government, although several of her representatives such as Chivington did make that formal declaration, the genocide never occurred.



It's coming. I don't see anything evil about states rights, Town. I can't help but wonder why you do. How much else of the Constitution do you find evil?

There are actually next to no similarities.

 

[IMJerusha]

You're going to have to find some new smoke. As with your "slavery was in the Union too" attempt it fails to account for any other history, meaning as I've noted that same flag that ended slavery and sought justice for the Native American flies over our nation today. We're a work in progress. We failed blacks and minorities in general and women and we've redressed most of that. Because that's how it goes, with men and nations worth keeping around.

Excuse me? You equate mass murder of men, women and children to "smoke?" Progress, Town, is that which brings things forward. You seem to be digressing, but that's how it goes with men. And I can't speak for every Native American but I suspect there's more than a few of them who would state unequivocally that the Indian Nation has not received its due under the American flag. But that's how it goes with nations worth keeping around, eh?

Not in my house or any number. But if the liberal agenda is to remove a symbol of that South from seats of government then good on them. They're right and those of us outside that camp have been wrong on the point by allowing it and confusing that issue with some vague notion of honoring history and tradition. If you're of the mind there's a larger attempt under way it will depend on a case by case.

You may wish to consult the Southern Legal Resource Center which finds that Southerners with pride in their Confederate ancestry are being persecuted. I would have to agree with their findings.

I don't give a twisted fig about turning my back on people...

That much is clear.

...so either willfully ignorant of history that they advance an evil in the name of virtue or so indifferent to the truth in the service of their agenda that they'd cloud the issue willfully.

That's a poor description of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, Town. As I have already stated, the right of states to self governance is not an evil.

The South I care about...

I'm questioning that at this point.

...is a different one and most of the people in it, good, decent people, aren't the sort of yahoos who I have issue with.

Translation: Southerners with pride in their Confederate ancestry are yahoos and all others are good and decent people.

Either we live and grow and learn or we mistake every tradition with an unmeasured nobility that roots us in error and evil.

Again, there is nothing wrong with states rights under the Constitution nor is that evil.

And you can stuff your sanctimonious "while you're turning your back on [Jesus]" comment in the piety hole you're running off at.

I do beg your pardon but I believe I've made my point regarding your indifference to Southerners as well as Native Americans....or rather you've made my point. I've rarely run across someone so devoted to the Liberal agenda all the while in denial of same.

But I thank you for providing a clear point to stop wasting time on a Yankee trying to tell me my culture or state my indifference to issues no one who wasn't in the throes of lunacy, essentially dishonest, or at least crippled by a deeply held confusion would have the audacity to advance.

Town, I'm not the one diminishing mass murder and persecution for the sake of an argument.

 

[Town Heretic]

Okay!
So your problem is tied up with what people said one hundred and fifty years ago?

What do you mean by tied up? The symbol's genesis? Okay, it begins there, but there's more to it.

The north stopped their slave ownership and then slavery was abolished for all the United States.

And that's not a good thing how again?

Nothing more righteous than ex slave owners as the yanks frequently demonstrate.

Sure. Ex smokers too. And smoking? Horrible for you.

Are you saying their beliefs or thoughts back then infect us today - did the killer want slavery?
No.

So you're doing questions and answers too? I think that's a blog. lain: I've noted what that flag was used for, what it was brought back into use to support and, following that line into present day, it becomes easy to see why Roof identified so strongly with it.

Then no more about slavery.

Say what?

The yanks believed some were missing links in the evolution of man. Europeans also did.

And? Lincoln was a racist by modern parlance. He was just dramatically less racist then men who thought it was okay to own, rape and mutilate people.

So explain racism again?

In what particular? By definition? In practice? The empowered nature of ethnocentrism?

...As I said humbly before and now I think He stopped slavery.

Then, again, maybe you shouldn't defend a symbol of the thing He opposed.

 

[drbrumley]

Oooops, those pesky facts...

 

[Town Heretic]

When one sees the photos of mass graves dug for Native Americans and considers the countless treaties broken by our government, it's kinda hard to ignore the similarities to the acts of Nazi Germany.

Similarity is a dangerously loose word. What isn't ambiguous is Hitler's plan to exterminate the Jew. You won't find a similar document of intent on the part of this nation, horrific treatment, abuse and indifference notwithstanding. Another important difference is found in the relational difference. On the one hand you're dealing with warring powers, with no small number of Native American atrocities on the other side of it that enraged an essentially racist opponent to justify its own barbarism (with a great deal of media assistance). On the other you have a state systematically and willfully exterminating productive members of its own society.

Not so similar when you really think about it.

It's coming. I don't see anything evil about states rights, Town.

Me either, which is why I haven't actually said anything negative about the notion, unless you mean to reapply the secessionist notion, which is daft, but not evil.

I can't help but wonder why you do.

I can't help wondering why you keep putting notions in my noggin that aren't there.

How much else of the Constitution do you find evil?

Just crazy talk at this point... :idunno:

 

[IMJerusha]

Yes, they were racists. Saying otherwise is idiotic.

By the way, did you catch that state's rights Klan group waving that flag at the S. Car. capital the other day?

They must be confused. You should go up or down there (depending on where you live) and set them straight on the honorable whatever that is the glorious rebel flag. That should clear them out and end what must be an embarrassing association for you and others who agree with you.

"I am marching for freedom," Hervey said. "The battle flag stands for freedom and states' rights. The U.S. flag is the flag of slavery. It flew over 100 years of slavery, and Native Americans were annihilated under that flag." These are the words of Anthony Hervey whose great-great-uncle, James Hervey, was a black American who fought for the Confederacy during the American Civil War and was killed at Shiloh.

From Harper's Weekly, May 10, 1862 "FOR US OR AGAINST US? THE correspondent of the New York Herald, in one of its late numbers, reports that the rebels had a regiment of mounted negroes, armed with sabres, at Manassas, and that some five hundred Union prisoners taken at Bull Run were escorted to their filthy prison by a regiment of black men."

Now if you want to talk about confusion, consider the Union officers who kept returning escaped slaves to the South in deference to the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 which was still in effect until well after the start of the war. That kinda refutes the argument that the war was about slavery as opposed to states rights.

 

[Town Heretic]

Excuse me?

I'd like to.

You equate mass murder of men, women and children to "smoke?"

But then you write something that enormously, unpardonably wrong headed and I just can't. The smoke is the repeated attempts to cloud the issue, which is what the flag demonstrably was and remains and why it shouldn't fly over any seat of government it opposed.

Progress, Town, is that which brings things forward. You seem to be digressing,

You seem to just be saying things and confusing the will to say it (as with your invention concerning my attitude about state's rights as an evil) with truth. I think you're spiraling to earth at a remarkable rate of speed.

but that's how it goes with men.

Oh you and your love of stereotyping.

And I can't speak for every Native American

If you haven't been elected and/or aren't Native American you can't speak for any.

but I suspect there's more than a few of them who would state unequivocally that the Indian Nation has not received its due under the American flag.

But you don't really have to speak for them to speculate and I think you're probably right on the point.

You may wish to consult the Southern Legal Resource Center which finds that Southerners with pride in their Confederate ancestry are being persecuted. I would have to agree with their findings.

Good for you? Not sure how that was remotely responsive to the quote of mine that preceded it. Persecuted? :chuckle: The SLR is just a name slapped onto a thing created by a handful of S. Car. lawyers around twenty years ago to defend Confederate symbols, essentially.

These geniuses actually tried to get people to identify as "Confederate Southern Americans" on the 2010 United States Census form, under race. lain:

That's a poor description of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, Town.

That's a dishonest or ignorant attempt to mischaracterize my point, since I didn't speak to either man in the bit you're quoting. I'd say Jefferson was morally bankrupt, but possessed a mind with an inclination for principles he exempted himself from serving.

As I have already stated, the right of states to self governance is not an evil.

I don't believe you'll quote me using evil in a description of self governance, though your use is a bit ambiguous.

I'm questioning that at this point.

That's because you have more issues than Time/Life.

Translation: Southerners with pride in their Confederate ancestry are yahoos and all others are good and decent people.

Or, Southerners who take pride in a slave state that permitted dehumanizing and unspeakable acts of barbarism are yahoos, either ignorant of that history or, worse, indifferent to it. Sure, they're embarrassing hold overs from the asinine romanticism of the period.

Again, there is nothing wrong with states rights under the Constitution nor is that evil.

Again, that's not the issue, not what the war was over and has nothing to do with my actual criticism, nor does the application of evil apply.

I do beg your pardon but I believe I've made my point regarding your indifference to Southerners as well as Native Americans.

I think you have a real problem and you've illustrated that amply enough. I don't think your inventions stand any sort of scrutiny.

I've rarely run across someone so devoted to the Liberal agenda all the while in denial of same.

This is almost as funny as Pure calling me an apologist for the Christian right wing because I defended them from irrational attack. Or, zealots never do manage to see straight, so your above doesn't surprise me.

Town, I'm not the one diminishing mass murder

No one here has done that. Trying to make your absurd attempt to level the historical field and make any judgement regarding the participants to that war pointless, noting your repeated attempts to side bar along those lines isn't diminishing mass murder. It's diminishing and contextualizing the attempt.

 

[Town Heretic]

"I am marching for freedom," Hervey said. "The battle flag stands for freedom and states' rights.

One man's declaration or a groups desperate desire to reform an image for its use doesn't obliterate or alter the sad and actual history of it or make your attempt less reprehensible.

The U.S. flag is the flag of slavery.

It was. And then it became the flag that flew over the defeat of slavery. Just as it was a flag that set women into second class status, but also the flag that saw the righted. That's the greatness of this Republic.

It flew over 100 years of slavery, and Native Americans were annihilated under that flag."

It flew over a war between combatants with a deplorable history between them. The more empowered, the winner of that conflict was largely indifferent, at best, to the plight of the conquered combatant. It's not a proud moment in our national history.

These are the words of Anthony Hervey whose great-great-uncle, James Hervey, was a black American who fought for the Confederacy during the American Civil War and was killed at Shiloh.

I can understand why he'd feel the compulsion to justify the sad association of his ancestor to that horror. But it doesn't excuse his effort or his willful advance of a thing that simply doesn't stand when you consider the writings of those states as they rejected the Union.

 

[drbrumley]

One man's declaration or a groups desperate desire to reform an image for its use doesn't obliterate or alter the sad and actual history of it

You have to get new stuff Town. Yes some Southern politicians said white supremacy was a basis for their society, but so did Abraham Lincoln.

So in other words, cry me a river.

 

[IMJerusha]

Similarity is a dangerously loose word.

Like facts ignored by you?

What isn't ambiguous is Hitler's plan to exterminate the Jew. You won't find a similar document of intent on the part of this nation, horrific treatment, abuse and indifference notwithstanding.

You clearly are uninformed regarding the intent of this nation upon the First Nations. They were slated for extermination, a plan of forced sterilization was implemented which many escaped. I'm not the only one who believes there are similarities between eugenics and Nazi Germany: http://www.uvm.edu/~lkaelber/gateway/

Another important difference is found in the relational difference. On the one hand you're dealing with warring powers, with no small number of Native American atrocities on the other side of it that enraged an essentially racist opponent to justify its own barbarism (with a great deal of media assistance). On the other you have a state systematically and willfully exterminating productive members of its own society.

Not so similar when you really think about it.

More similar than you realize. So, you don't think Native Americans were/are productive members of this nation? That's um...revealing.

:idunno:

You're correct...you dunno.

 

[Town Heretic]

Like facts ignored by you?

Nonsense. More of that imagination of yours getting the better of you.

You clearly are uninformed regarding the intent of this nation upon the First Nations. They were slated for extermination, a plan of forced sterilization was implemented which many escaped.

Produce the documentation of this country's plan to commit genocide or put a cork in that bottle.

More similar than you realize. So, you don't think Native Americans were/are productive members of this nation? That's um...revealing.

That's a dishonest trick, combining the current Native Americans with enemy combatants in the past. If that's the only way you can approach a point you should abandon it.

The value of the early Native American to the nation that prevailed was found in the land we kept promising, giving and then moving them off of. I not only understand the value of Native Americans in our society today (and for some time), I had a great working relationship with them years ago. The recent larger success of their gaming industry has been an economic boon for parts of the state.

You're correct...you dunno.

Why you keep putting ideas into my mouth that never came from it? Sure. I suppose I'm overly optimistic. I keep putting rational coins in your crazy machine and waiting for you to spit something coherent out.

 

[Town Heretic]

You have to get new stuff Town.

History remains static. It's the nature of facts. A nation founded to promote and continue the evil of slavery remains one such fact, year after year.

Yes some Southern politicians said white supremacy was a basis for their society, but so did Abraham Lincoln.

What I've set out is what the states themselves declared was the purpose of their stepping out of the Union they'd pledged themselves to. I've noted what the early ambassadors cobbling that Confederacy were selling and what the large newspapers were saying about the vision of that South. I've also noted that Lincoln, by today's light, would be considered a racist, that he simply wasn't the sort of racist who would defend buying and selling people.

So in other words, cry me a river.

So it isn't only history you people can't get right. lain:

 

[IMJerusha]

I'd like to... and I just can't.

Just as I can't ignore your repeatedly offensive statements regarding Native Americans.

The smoke is the repeated attempts to cloud the issue, which is what the flag demonstrably was and remains and why it shouldn't fly over any seat of government it opposed.

Except that it was that state's seat of government that placed it there to begin with and the Constitution protects its right to as well as the rights of the citizens who want it there.

You seem to just be saying things and confusing the will to say it (as with your invention concerning my attitude about state's rights as an evil) with truth.

I don't think anyone can ignore your statements regarding states rights, Town. They have spoken very clearly.

I think you're spiraling to earth at a remarkable rate of speed.

You would.

Oh you and your love of stereotyping.

Hey, I was going off of your words.

If you haven't been elected and/or aren't Native American you can't speak for any.

Well, actually, my husband and son have elected me quite vociferously here.

But you don't really have to speak for them to speculate and I think you're probably right on the point.

Yes, well, it's hard to ignore the facts.

 

[Town Heretic]

inadvertent purge, but it exists in future posting...so that's something.

 

[fzappa13]

I still say this one suits you better. lain:

Yeah, I have noticed a certain ebb and flow to his vitriol that might normally be attributed to over imbibing.

 

[IMJerusha]

Produce the documentation of this country's plan to commit genocide or put a cork in that bottle.

Check the State of Vermont against the Abenaki as late as 1936 when Vermont finally closed their eugenics program. That was the second time, that we know of, Vermont tried to eradicate them with federal assistance as our nation has continually refused to recognize them. There was a push in the 1800's as well. The Abenaki are of the First Nations; the People of the Dawn Land. “Each family band came to a new consensus about how to endure, since to remain unchanged in our old villages quickly invited genocide.” Frederick Wiseman of the Abenaki

In support of eugenics, and I know you studied this, Oliver Wendell Holmes stated ''It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or letting them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.'' From the Supreme Court case of Buck v. Bell. I think Supreme Court Justices are going to have a lot to answer for!

The value of the early Native American to the nation that prevailed was found in the land we kept promising, giving and then moving them off of. I not only understand the value of Native Americans in our society today (and for some time), I had a great working relationship with them years ago. The recent larger success of their gaming industry has been an economic boon for parts of the state.

Do tell! My husband states that you would have fit in quite nicely with the Indian Affairs agents of the 1800's. The value of the Native American early or otherwise is in their knowledge of and reverence for all life which has nothing to do with the gaming industry, Town, just as the Confederate flag has nothing to do with slavery.

Why you keep putting ideas into my mouth that never came from it? Sure. I suppose I'm overly optimistic. I keep putting rational coins in your crazy machine and waiting for you to spit something coherent out.

You do know that resorting to this sort of stuff is the mark of a lost argument. lain:

 

[Town Heretic]

Check the State of Vermont against the Abenaki as late as 1936 when Vermont finally closed their eugenics program... I think Supreme Court Justices are going to have a lot to answer for!

Likely, but that's not a federal program to eradicate the Native American population, is it.

Do tell! My husband states that you would have fit in quite nicely with the Indian Affairs agents of the 1800's.

He might think I'd have made a great tenor too, but with about as much to sustain the idea.

The value of the Native American early or otherwise is in their knowledge of and reverence for all life

That's not something unique to Native American culture. And it's too often used as part of the noble savage stereotype, that is about as accurate a notion as most stereotypes.

which has nothing to do with the gaming industry, Town,

It's valuable to the people who are employed and the people who benefit from the revenue. You'd used the word productive.

just as the Confederate flag has nothing to do with slavery.

The makers of that flag differed with you. And its use since hasn't reformed the image.

You do know that resorting to this sort of stuff is the mark of a lost argument. lain:

No, it's appropriate given what you'd been up to, the habit of putting words in my mouth that weren't from it and your response to being called on it, challenged for quotes by a general declaration of how you felt about my comments...

We aren't arguing. I set out facts and you've tried to start a hundred fires that don't alter them.

 

[glorydaz]

Likely, but that's not a federal program to eradicate the Native American population, is it.


He might think I'd have made a great tenor too, but with about as much to sustain the idea.


That's not something unique to Native American culture. And it's too often used as part of the noble savage stereotype, that is about as accurate a notion as most stereotypes.


It's valuable to the people who are employed and the people who benefit from the revenue. You'd used the word productive.


The makers of that flag differed with you. And its use since hasn't reformed the image.


No, it's appropriate given what you'd been up to, the habit of putting words in my mouth that weren't from it and your response to being called on it, challenged for quotes by a general declaration of how you felt about my comments...

We aren't arguing. I set out facts and you've tried to start a hundred fires that don't alter them.

She's bit off more than she can chew with you, TH. :chuckle:

 

[rexlunae]

Oooops, those pesky facts...

I'm not sure why you think this is relevant. So a pre-Civil Rights Era Congress decided to give Confederate soldiers equal pension and burial rights. That doesn't alter in any way the actions of the Confederacy, nor does it legitimize their rebellion. And it certainly doesn't make Confederate veterans the moral equals to Union ones. It says more about the Congress at the time than it does about the status of the Confederacy.