Posted on 11/28/2004 11:19:10 AM PST by wagglebee
Now, it is time to turn the racism accusation, that they feel they own, and turn it around on them.
I think we are in a great place when we are able to debate our preference of brilliant conservative ladies (Ann, Laura, Michelle). Think of what the Left has to deal with (Jeanine G. vs Susan E.). Shudder!
I think that the Dems are showing their true colors...who famously advanced a little thing called civil rights?
Is this 2004? The nastiness continues after Condi Rice was announced as Sec of State...Now Michelle...The dems are just plain nasty...Racists? I dunno, but they are nasty little hate mongers.
Just start and continue referring to them as Communist-Americans.
I'd like to add the Bush ladies - Barbara, Laura, and the twins. Thank goodness for them. And maybe Wendy McElroy - she's a good champion of gender fairness.
Malkin wrote a whole book claiming the internment of loyal, patriotic Japanese Americans was done for justifiable, reasonable reasons--when in fact the very people who ordered the internment said after the fact that it was motivated by racism. Her schtick is to claim that she's better/smarter/more honest than the academics who had gone over the evidence before her. I'm not buying it.
RE "when in fact the very people who ordered the internment said after the fact that it was motivated by racism."
I'd love to see any evidence you have that FDR (who is the one who ordered the internments) ever made a statement that he was motivated by racism.
The line of the year! I am so happy when someone says this! I am an American! Whoo Hoo, way to go!
For example, that fellow down at Emory supposedly "went over the evidence" on gun ownership in colonial America. Of course, he turned out to be a fraud. But he was believed BECAUSE he fit the template that all the academics already had. Nobody checked his work before it was published.
It is possible that something similar was going on here.
Have you read her book?
I can't give you FDR, but how about Earl Warren? I'm citing Wikipedia, but only because I've heard this from other sources as well:
A key supporter of the internment was California Attorney General Earl Warren. In later years, Warren viewed his early stance on the internment as one of his greatest mistakes. He wrote in his autobiography:He doesn't say outright "racism," but he makes it clear his decision was un-American and not based on a real danger. If his decision was not based on a real danger, what else could have motivated it except racism? That's the only explanation left.I have since deeply regretted the removal order and my own testimony advocating it, because it was not in keeping with our American concept of freedom and the rights of citizens. Whenever I thought of the innocent little children who were torn from home, school friends and congenial surroundings, I was conscience-stricken.
I know a Japanese-American family who lost valuable downtown property while they were interned, which is worth millions of dollars today. They never saw a cent of that (at best, they got their $20K).
I could believe the internment of Japanese-Americans was based on non-racist motives if their property was not stolen in the process. The fact that such theft took place is proof enough of racism (people wouldn't steal like that from whites; there is no such historical counterpart).
Face it, not everything done in this country was wonderful. America never was "perfect," and still isn't perfect today. Anyone trying to tell you otherwise is selling you a bill of goods. No country is perfect. We're a good country, possibly the best in the history of the world, but we're not perfect.
Ann just goes on those shows for kicks:) That's just her style.
Michelle's generally really good, but I am reluctantly afraid to observe and now say that she really screwed up with that book justifying the 1940s internment of American Citizens by American Citizens, something that even the icon of our conservative movement, the late and great President Ronald Reagan, saw as an error and apologized for and took remedial action...
Don't try to preach that American policy and decisions were not PERFECT and ERROR-LESS in 100% of things, at all times past and present. It won't work (at least not here). (I would say, don't also try to preach that America is the Best in the World in Everything, to a lot of folks who may not even have a passport or been overseas to comparatively see that while were are darned good at the top of the pile, we certainly can't claim the tops in 100% of everything.) You are in for quite a ride. Don we now our (festive) asbestos.
("don't try to preach that America is NOT the best in everything in the world) .. is what I meant
That is unkind. However misguided, Communists have always clung to some (very distorted) ideals. So have most Socialists and Marxists. Stalinists, on the other hand, have always been simply about hate and power, in that order.
These things are Stalinists. As it happens almost all "Communists" in Amercica have really been Stalinists since well before WW2. They are the slimy toadys of the bully boys of history. Stalin's devotees, the Ayatollah's goons, a rappers posse, Zarqawi's martyrs, all the same types of hangers on, attracted to power and ruthlessness. the dead enders.
In all seriousness a non-Caucasian Conservative is in for a lot of flack and hatred from Caucasian liberals. Those of our own ethnicity who are liberals are often bewildered but you don't get a lot of out and out hate. Some but not a lot. More puzzlement then anything else at least in my experience and sometimes you can even talk to them about why you believe what you believe.
Now if they are in leadership positions then all bets are off because you are now an active threat to their power. But Caucasian liberals take it very seriously and personally even if they are not in leadership positions. It is quite puzzling.
Have you read her book?
No.
It is possible that something similar was going on here.
Nope, not really possible.
For example, that fellow down at Emory supposedly "went over the evidence" on gun ownership in colonial America. Of course, he turned out to be a fraud. But he was believed BECAUSE he fit the template that all the academics already had. Nobody checked his work before it was published.
Michael Bellesiles was an out-and-out liar who fabricated evidence. He is a s###-stain on American academia. He was the only one to claim that early Americans didn't really have lots of guns lying around. No other left-wing scholar even imagined claiming such a thing.
A very large number of left-, right-, and politically-neutral scholars have all come to agreement that the internment of Japanese Americans was based on prejudice rather than intelligence indicating a real threat.
Jim Lindgren, a conservative scholar, is one of the first to out Bellesiles as a liar. He posts at the Volokh Conspiracy web log. That same (conservative/libertarian) site posted Eric Muller's criticisms of Malkin's work. The idea that the internment was a bad, ugly thing isn't just some sort of left-wing conspiracy theory.
-OR- People not willing to put up with is on the rise..
I don't see anymore of it... BUT I do see more people less willing to "SWALLOW IT".. More folks have just about had it and are "up to here".. with this bull sperm..
Who knows maybe hangings on the White House lawn are not far away.. I'll gladly pull the trap.. Sure we might hang a few "innocents" but the gene pool would be better for it.. The needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few... as the liberals like to say..
I'm just putting forward the possibility that the entire story is not known.
I can see circumstances under which prominent people might conclude that it was easier to issue a "mea culpa" and pay damages than get into unknown details. (For example, if spies and saboteurs were known to exist on the West Coast but at the time their identities were still secret, or if the community shielded them rather than giving them up.)
A similar thing happened here with the old Georgia state flag. It was easier for certain politicians who were still serving to say yeah, it was motivated by segregation, than it was to try to tease out the various motivations of the people involved.
I know that Belleisles was a fraud (I'm an alum of that school and I sent the history dept. chairman a scorcher), my point was that everyone accepted his work without checking it - perhaps some of that same "everybody knows this is true" thinking is going on here.
The parallel I'm really interested in is the way the Islamic community in this country closes ranks with some pretty nasty characters, or at least looks the other way . . . that may be how it resonates here and now.
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.