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

[rainee]

Beloved Eeset,
I understand if you desire to torture Town.
I would understand if you wanted to vex him in return for any of the mean and possibly evil things you felt he might have said. Ok? Ok then..


BUT Eeset,

This thing with the past, is this right to do?

Was Fergeson a black community, segregated to keep the people there poorly educated, jobless and away from whites?

Was Baltimore a problem of segregation?

Did you know in the Old Chicago the Swedes, Danes, and other often non or broken English speaking Immigrants kept to themselves, or perhaps were forced by way of dangers to live in areas of blocks? They could come from another part of the country and ask what part of town their type was living and find relatives and such.


Everyone wants to say the Segregation of the South was bad.
Ok, is that what is wrong today?
One hundred and fifty years ago slavery was abolished.
Black farmers later lost farms in Mississippi years later because of a recession.
It set those families back just as it did the white farmers who lost farms. It was bad.
But know what Rex and others speak of? A legacy not of recessions or joblessness, but of slavery and segregation.

But as great as Civil Rights should be, what did they do for the black Americans in Ferguson?


And please - explain why does it seem all liberals can throw out is the past as they are seeking to blame someone else for what is wrong?

Maybe What All Communities need are People who will make their own schools better Or their own personal learning better, the government didn't do it for the Immigrants but that didn't stop them from doing what they could.


I know someone who was born here from immigrant stock and not taught the original language of their parents. Just so they would not have a foreign accent when they spoke English...

And talk about how far they were willing to - they even often Americanized their last names - letting go of one identity to have another.

Now they are all mostly just called whites but underneath that was a past of derogatory nicknames, and prejudice. Nobody wants to admit this because most conquered the stereotyping.

But Civil Rights can't give people of color the self respect needed for that? Is it because liberals want to make much of pathetic mistreatment that the people of today must be taught since it is getting so long ago now?


I would be careful of people that. Maybe they like being around losers? Maybe they like taking care of themselves by feigning care for others?

 

[rainee]

You might have to restate your last lest some not catch the insult.

Truthfully though, have you ever owned a confederate battle flag or something displaying its likeness?

Ps I didn't understand that last thing he said? I didn't get, sigh
Could you tell me?

 

[Town Heretic]

Ps I didn't understand that last thing he said? I didn't get, sigh
Could you tell me?

Oh for Pete's...here goes then:

...And the truth will set you free, or your hair on fire, depending on how close to it you get.

You would be safe draped in silk.

Or, the truth will liberate you if you are on its side or consume you if you are in opposition, upset you as you draw nearer to it and by the degree to which you are in opposition.

So in Eeset's case I suggested that she could safely wear silk (a highly flammable material) inferring her distance from the truth was considerable.

Now that just sucked the fun right out of it. :mmph:

 

[fzappa13]

Racism is a two way street. Segregation is obviously natural in that all races/cultures do it unbidden. Those of us in interracial marriages are the exception, not the norm. So, where do we go from here? Integration? How'd that work out? Love blooms where it will as does hate ... depending upon the soil that is the heart of those concerned.

You can't legislate that.

 

[rexlunae]

Racism is a two way street.

No, it's not. One person can be a racist without any help from anyone else. This is a platitude designed to give cover to reprehensible behavior.

Segregation is obviously natural in that all races/cultures do it unbidden. Those of us in interracial marriages are the exception, not the norm. So, where do we go from here? Integration? How'd that work out? Love blooms where it will as does hate ... depending upon the soil that is the heart of those concerned.

You can't legislate that.

Of course, a culture where integration occurs quickly loses the distinctions between the groups, whether they be racial, religious, cultural, etc. But this dodges the questions of the specific wrongs committed against specific groups. It's tempting to take the birds-eye view because it excuses a lot, but it's also lazy and unfair to a lot of people.

 

[fzappa13]

No, it's not. One person can be a racist without any help from anyone else. This is a platitude designed to give cover to reprehensible behavior.



Of course, a culture where integration occurs quickly loses the distinctions between the groups, whether they be racial, religious, cultural, etc. But this dodges the questions of the specific wrongs committed against specific groups. It's tempting to take the birds-eye view because it excuses a lot, but it's also lazy and unfair to a lot of people.

I don't know what planet you live on but it's definitely not Earth.

 

[rexlunae]

I don't know what planet you live on but it's definitely not Earth.

Probably the Moon, or something.

 

[TomO]

Probably the Moon, or something.

You're like, the King there or something, right?

 

[rexlunae]

You're like, the King there or something, right?

People keep telling me that. I'm not sure why.

 

[Town Heretic]

People keep telling me that. I'm not sure why.

I like a good moon pie. I'm also not sure why. :chew:

 

[IMJerusha]

I literally did and God alone knows what you think you addressed, but you can't address away facts.

By way of example, here (link) is the post in this thread where I quote the states declarations regarding their withdraw from the Union as well as a link to a letter written by ambassadors from Alabama, etc.

Yes, you put forth the parts "by way of" that supported your argument but certainly not the whole, which supports mine.

For South Carolina -- http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp

For Mississippi -- http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp

For Georgia -- http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_geosec.asp

For Texas -- http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_texsec.asp

Regarding Alabama: Stephen Hale’s letter http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/stephen-f-hale-to-governor-beriah-magoffin/

I would have folks read the whole, the overall theme being about the sovereignty of States.

This Preamble from the Constitution of the Confederate States:

"We, the people of the Confederate States, each state acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity — invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God — do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America."

"A preamble is an introductory and expressionary statement in a document that explains the document's purpose and underlying philosophy." -- Wikipedia

I don't see any words "for the preservation of slavery" in that preamble. Was slavery a large part of the South's ability to provide agriculturally in the face of demand? Yes, it was, but that doesn't make slavery the cause of the Civil War or the flag of the Confederacy about slavery, because it wasn't.

 

[Town Heretic]

Yes, you put forth the parts "by way of" that supported your argument but certainly not the whole, which supports mine.

For South Carolina -- http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp

For Mississippi -- http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp

For Georgia -- http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_geosec.asp

For Texas -- http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_texsec.asp

Regarding Alabama: Stephen Hale’s letter http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/stephen-f-hale-to-governor-beriah-magoffin/

I would have folks read the whole, the overall theme being about the sovereignty of States.

No, that's the justification of the mechanism they're using to leave the Union. The reason they're flexing that particular is slavery and they all say so.

 

[rexlunae]

I would have folks read the whole, the overall theme being about the sovereignty of States.

As an exercise, you should look through that letter and note how many times slavery is mentioned. Or in the declaration of causes. Or in the CSA Constitution. It's quite a lot in each.

In the case of the Confederacy, states' rights was the means to the end of continuing and advancing slavery. And it was quite disingenuously offered, given some of the efforts to use federal power to advance slavery into the territories and even into the Northern states that had abolished the institution that the slave states had successfully made. When it came to a state's right to abstain from participating in slavery, or in choosing its government for itself, the Confederate states were curiously on the other side of the issue.

I asked this question before, but I'll ask it again because I didn't get an answer. The various Confederate flags had 13 stars on them, but only 11 states ever seceded. The Confederacy planned to include two states, Kentucky and Missouri, that didn't wish to join them. How could the CSA claim to have been motivated by a concern for states' rights when it doesn't respect the choices that those states make?

 

[IMJerusha]

No, that's the justification of the mechanism they're using to leave the Union. The reason they're flexing that particular is slavery and they all say so.

No, they don't. They all state their Constitutional right to self govern as sovereign states. As has already been proven, slavery wasn't confined to the South. And, btw, the excerpt you posted from the Southern Punch was brought forward in a June Washington Post article wherein this statement is made: "Descendants of Confederates are not wrong to believe that the flag symbolized defense of constitutional liberties and resistance to invasion by military forces determined to crush an experiment in nationhood. But they are wrong to believe that this interpretation of the flag’s meaning can be separated from the defense of slavery." I would agree with this statement just as I state that there is no way the Confederate flag only symbolizes slavery, because it doesn't just as the Confederacy didn't stand only for slavery, especially when white and black men fought side by side in both the Confederate and Union armies.

 

[rexlunae]

As has already been proven, slavery wasn't confined to the South.

Right, but it was concentrated in the South, as were the defenders of slavery and the political power supporting the institution.

 

[IMJerusha]

As an exercise, you should look through that letter and note how many times slavery is mentioned. Or in the declaration of causes. Or in the CSA Constitution. It's quite a lot in each.

In the case of the Confederacy, states' rights was the means to the end of continuing and advancing slavery. And it was quite disingenuously offered, given some of the efforts to use federal power to advance slavery into the territories and even into the Northern states that had abolished the institution that the slave states had successfully made. When it came to a state's right to abstain from participating in slavery, or in choosing its government for itself, the Confederate states were curiously on the other side of the issue.

I asked this question before, but I'll ask it again because I didn't get an answer. The various Confederate flags had 13 stars on them, but only 11 states ever seceded. The Confederacy planned to include two states, Kentucky and Missouri, that didn't wish to join them. How could the CSA claim to have been motivated by a concern for states' rights when it doesn't respect the choices that those states make?

Why do you believe there was no respect for their choice from the Confederacy? It was the Union that had no respect for their choice and glommed them with the CSA. The reason?....they refused to pay money to the Union for their slaves. That was Lincoln's deal: if you agreed to pay a specific amount in tax, you could keep your slaves.

 

[rexlunae]

Why do you believe there was no respect for their choice from the Confederacy?

Because they attempted to take control of states that didn't secede from the Union. Doesn't sound like respect.

It was the Union that had no respect for their choice and glommed them with the CSA. The reason?....they refused to pay money to the Union for their slaves. That was Lincoln's deal: if you agreed to pay a specific amount in tax, you could keep your slaves.

What are you talking about? Their choices were to stay with the Union. They didn't secede. The Confederacy attempted to forcibly annex them, states' rights be damned. They both attempted to remain neutral officially, despite Missouri having a very pro-Confederate governor. When Kentucky was invaded by the Confederacy, it called in Union troops to repel the invasion.

 

[Town Heretic]

No, they don't.

Yes, IMJ, they all did.

They all state their Constitutional right to self govern as sovereign states.

Sure. That's what they said they had the right/power to do. Now what was the issue that caused them to want to exercise the right to leave the Union again?

That's right, slavery.

As has already been proven, slavery wasn't confined to the South.

I don't think anyone ever disputed that.

... there is no way the Confederate flag only symbolizes slavery,

No one said it only stood for slavery. But it remains a flag that flew over a government that existed because the states enjoined wanted to defend their right to own slaves and to expand the institution.

Your mentioning blacks fighting for the confederacy is as off point as someone noting that Native Americans fought for the Union you said was attempting genocide.

 

[drbrumley]

Because they attempted to take control of states that didn't secede from the Union. Doesn't sound like respect.

Well that's wrong on every level. The south wasn't after Washington DC. They didn't seek to overthrow the government. They set to establish their own. Next...

 

[Town Heretic]

Well that's wrong on every level. The south wasn't after Washington DC. They didn't seek to overthrow the government. They set to establish their own. Next...

You can't call "next" while failing to meet his particular claims and misrepresenting the claim you do note.

rex didn't say they were trying to take over the Union, only that they had two additional stars indicating their desire for two states that did not follow suit and that at a point they invaded one of those states (Kentucky) which then called upon federal troops to resist.

Now that's not the act of a government attempting to exercise its right of self determination. That's the act of a slave confederation attempting to override the self determination of another state, which when you think on it makes sense. That's what they were ultimately in the business of doing.