Posted on 04/21/2016 4:59:31 PM PDT by snarkpup
“Could you explain how this humiliates white men?”
Well, that’s the problem: if I have to explain it, you wouldn’t get it.
Still, let me have a bash.
Theodore Dalrymple wrote, “Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.” (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1702684/posts)
“There are undoubtedly people of all colors who did more than Tubman.”
Then it is an obvious lie to say that she belongs on our money, much less that she should displace Old Hickory.
“And more than Andy Jackson”
Tubman did more for the United States of America than President Jackson? I don’t buy that.
“The point is to honor specific people who did do something worthwhile and exemplary”
Not at all. The point is to honor the very best. Theodore Roosevelt did immensely more for the United States than did Tubman. Where’s his bill?
“and I see no problem with honoring someone who women and blacks can identify with”
Well, you should. It’s pretty basic. The obvious lie in that is that women and blacks have done things significant enough that they should be on our money.
This isn’t about Tubman. This is about showing white men that they can engage in the most egregious political correctness with impunity. “We can put her on your money because of her genitals and skin color, and there’s nothing you can do about it.”
“especially when that someone is a Republican woman”
That’s awfully thin. The GOP was the party of abolition. Aside from that plank, I very much doubt that she had any idea what it meant to be a Republican.
“who exercised her 2nd amendment rights.”
Andrew Jackson fought for the United States in three wars. Fought, as in combat. Three wars. Served as president. He’s a significant figure in our history. Tubman is not.
“That’s fine, but while you may fairly argue that Tubman is not worthy of being portrayed on US currency, there is no lie in saying that she was a courageous woman of faith who helped many others escape human slavery.”
That’s not good enough. Not to be on the currency of the United States of America.
Her virtuousness is also supported by another obvious lie: that black slavery within the boundaries of the United States was the worst thing that ever happened in the history of the universe.
We all have ancestors who were slaves. Whether you are Irish, Swedish, Chinese, or Spanish, you have ancestors who were slaves. Was black slavery in the US worse than the Egyptian bondage of the Hebrews? Was it worse to be whipped on a plantation in Mississippi than it was to be whipped to death as a Russian serf?
Yeah, I’ll say it: GTF over it, already. No one now living was a slave. No one now living ever owned a slave (Pigdog murder muzzies excepted). But the race-hustling poverty pimps make a very good living from keeping these imaginary grievances alive, and no one is hurt more by this than American blacks.
That is what Tubman on the money is about: fanning the flames of racial discord (by humiliating whites) for the purpose of harming the United States. That, and nothing else, no matter how many drooling morons are taken in by their snake oil.
“but there’s nothing fair about impugning the opinions of others and decreeing that they do not truly esteem Tubman and are simply using her in order to humiliate white men.”
You have restated my argument to make it easier to attack. I did not say that *everyone* was using her to humiliate. This should be obvious, because only a very small number of people had any say in this. Whether those few people actually esteem her or not, *they* are using her to humiliate white men.
It is quite obvious that many Americans are deluded, insane, or stupid, and therefore think this is a good idea, but those people had no say in this.
“There is no set of established guidelines to qualify a person for portrayal on US currency”
There was until Beelzebubba started ignoring them, and there is no reason we shouldn’t abide by them once again.
“and obviously, an escaped slave would not have the same opportunity to shape the world that a privileged, educated politician would.”
Privileged? Are you accustomed to having “white privilege” accepted as a valid concept? Not here, Boris.
And here’s another obvious lie that humiliates one to accept: “If we say that a person would have been a hero if she had been white, that’s the same as actually being a hero.”
It doesn’t matter why she failed to accomplish anything worthy of getting her on the currency; she didn’t.
“But what Tubman did was remarkable”
Repeat that as many times as you like; what she did was not sufficient to place her on the currency.
“an unqualified good.”
Really? The slaves were freed through the efforts of abolitionists like John Brown and Harriet Tubman. Which is another way of saying that the actions of the abolitionists, including the freeing of slaves and the killing of slaveholders, resulted in the unnecessary deaths of 600,000 Americans.
Economic and historical factors would have resulted in the abandonment of slavery in a few short years had the Civil War not broken out. The price paid for those few years was inordinately high. And before you start howling, reflect that none of the other large slaveholding nations had to fight a civil war to get rid of it.
“I believe Tubman stands among those most worthy of honor.”
Wow. And you can vote.
“I believe Tubman had a perfect idea of what it then meant to be a Republican.”
You seem to believe whatever sophistry will purport to justify this travesty.
One should certainly reflect on this: no white person has ever been put on our currency for accomplishments of this magnitude.
How racist is that? “We can’t find a black who deserves to be on our money, so we’ll lower the bar as far as we have to until we trip over one.” If I were a black or a woman, I’d be insulted.
Well said.
Picking someone who apparently fought against other Americans is not the sort of unifying figure that we can all rally to. To understand my point, consider the common appeal of Booker T. Washington.
As for someone proposed for honor on our money by the Obama Administration? Based on the Administration's track record on anything involving race, one has to expect a devious and divisive intention.
“one has to expect a devious and divisive intention.”
An expectation that approaches the level of a moral certainty.
“As I said before, there is no standard set of guidelines for qualification.”
You said that, and I told you that you were wrong. Here you ignore what went before, simply renewing your incorrect assertion. That is what Alinsky said to do.
“You’re applying your own criteria”
Alinsky says to isolate your opponent. You’re really conversant with his precepts.
“and seem to be outraged”
Alinsky says to mock your opponent. You’ve really got that down.
“your criteria are not accepted as the law of the land”
The criteria I apply are those of tradition and long practice in the United States.
“I and most other rational people believe that human slavery is an evil which should be eliminated”
Black slavery in America *was* eliminated, approximately 150 years ago, so what in the world are you on about? Or was that just an opportunity to imply that I must condone and even wish for the restoration of black slavery? Who cares if it’s true, right, as long as it’s insulting?
“I have no idea…don’t see the relevance...?
Well, you should.
“And no one now living was a soldier in the Civil War—the only reason US Grant has a place on US currency.”
Is there no end to this nonsense? I can detect no respect for the truth whatsoever (And no, I shouldn’t). The argument about “no one now living” was not applied to the selection of portraits for our money. That argument applied solely to the question of unjustified resentment among living people against the actions of people long dead. Here you are applying a statement about one thing to a completely different argument. Since we’re not allowed to “mind read,” I will not speculate as to your motives for this nauseatingly dishonest conduct.
“You realize, of course, that your argument can be applied to any figure currently portrayed on US currency?”
If the speaker is willing to be dishonest, then yes, that could be said. Of course, it would be as off-target as when you made the same error.
“You keep referring to some imagined humiliation”
Go, Alinsky. Rah, rah, rah. He says to ignore or mock any actual support your opponent may present, especially if it makes you look like an idiot.
“you still haven’t explained why you find this humiliating, or provided any concrete example of the humiliation taking place.”
That statement is entirely contrary to the facts. Let’s see, what do we call it when somebody says something he knows to be false?
“What is humiliating about the fact that a US president who lived long before your time or mine will be moved to the back of the $20, while a deserving black woman is portrayed on the front?”
1. As explained, you have misapplied an argument in one context to a completely different matter. Jackson is a significant historical figure.
2. Once again, Tubman’s achievements, even contributing to 600,000 unnecessary deaths, do not rise to the level required of those which qualify one to be on our currency.
“I can’t see a reason for such insecurity.”
With Alinsky, one is never stuck for a dishonest ploy. If you don’t have an actual argument to make, just reach down into the sludge at the bottom of the dumpster, pull out a dripping handful of bullshit, close your eyes, and fling it.
“To quote your own words, GTF over it, already.”
Oh, and the signature ploy of the leftist: the false moral equivalence.
I said GTF over something that ended 150 years ago. You said GTF over something that is happening today.
“humiliate the extraordinarily sensitive”
Alinsky. Mock.
“while the rest of us”
Alinsky. Isolate.
“are “drooling morons” who are “deluded, insane or stupid”.
I didn’t come up with this, you know, and saying I did won’t make it so. Enough people have written on this that your “the rest of us” is just a fantasy.
“And now you attempt to divert the conversation”
V.I. Lenin. Accuse others of what you do.
“as if the mere use of the word entitles you to call me “Boris”.
I am entitled to call you Boris because I am a free man. The things you have posted make it appropriate to call you Boris.
“This is laughable.”
Alinsky. Mock.
“Any escaped slave of any skin color is obviously not going to have the same privileges as a free person born into wealth.”
And is therefore highly unlikely to achieve anything to make her worthy to be on our money. Thanks for making my argument.
“It seems to me that the problem isn’t with the rest of us.”
What “us?” You got Hillarius Rodina Clintesterone in your pocket? Or, more likely, are you in hers?
Alinsky. Isolate.
“The kind of political hyper-sensitivity you exhibit is normally the domain of 18 year old college liberals looking for safe spaces to escape nasty trigger words which humiliate them. I assume the word “privilege” is one of yours.”
Alinsky. Mock.
You failed even to mount a single argument against my position. What a waste of time.
I’m done with this. I came to FR so I wouldn’t have to argue with liberals.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.