Professor's sudden dismissal stuns students(Aryan Race Nation)

equinoxnews ^ | 04/01/05 | Tiffanie Johnson and Roberto Chavez

[cyborg]

Who comes to America thinking and acting like an American? Only an American can think and act like an American so I'm confused by your statement.

[cyborg]

Yet you seem to be saying that flooding America with people who don't speak or think like us is a good thing.

** Well that's what you said and I assumed you meant Americans. You said 'Westerners' and not everyone from the West holds American values or will fit into this country.

[cyborg]

I forgot to ask have you read 'Death of the West'? I think you'll find that book interesting.

[Marysecretary]

Maybe he and Ward Churchill can get together and found a foundation!

[PaRebel]

That Forrest was the founder of the KKK is true; he was also the greatest light cavelry commander North America has ever produced! For us military buffs, his military legacy is worth study.

[Marysecretary]

They both hate. One hates America, the other hates anyone who isn't white and he hates Jews as well.

[Marysecretary]

Not Buchanan, the professor who was dismissed.

[Marysecretary]

I was talking about the professor who was asked to leave the school because of his aryan views, and Churchill because he hates America. His speeches should indicate that.

[Smokin' Joe]

You left out the part about the wealthy northern industrialists and textile mill owners who wanted a monopoly on the South's Cotton, at rock bottom prices.

Jefferson had slaves, else the entire speculation that he and Sally Hemmings were involved would never have come to pass.

Do more digging, please.

I take no issue with the fact that the institution of slavery was dying out on its own. Why, then, was it not simply permitted to do so? Had this been the seminal issue of the war, then why did Lincoln issue the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863? Why not 1860? As a military coup, what better way to pre-empt the ability of the South to function?

The proclamation of 1863 was intended to cause a slave revolt in the South, instead, there were Draft Riots in New York.

Certainly, other issues apply, issues which were sufficient to cause the Southern States to pass acts of secession and declare hostitlities well prior to Lincoln 'freeing' slaves.

One more thing, not all slaveowners were 'racists', either. There were free blacks who owned slaves, and a slave did not have to be negro. A Jesuit priest sold himself to one of my ancestors during the Protestant Reformation in Maryland in the 1730s, and thus escaped certain hanging (as many Catholic Clergy faced at the time) by becoming property of the Manor Lord and untouchable under English Common Law.

Recall, if you will that "Uncle Tom's Cabin" is a novel, written by an ardent Abolitionist, and you will realize that hyperbole sold books, even in the 1800s. Imagine a novel written by Sarah Brady about gun owners today, and you will begin to get the idea. Despite being a novel, it inflamed some elements of the populace predisposed to inflamation, much like Dan Rather's bogus Bush National Guard Memos, also a work of fiction, or one of Michael Moore's hit pieces.

Any slaveowner who treated their slaves like those in the novel would be the equivalent of a modern farmer spending a fortune on a new tractor (250,000 to 500,000 in these parts) and then taking a sledgehammer to it.

I am not justifying the institution of slavery, except in that one rare instance, (the Jesuit later bought himself back after the furor had died down), but pointing out that, especially colored by the drive for 'reparations', the issue is portrayed differently than things were.

No one had indoor plumbing, flush toilets, or central heat/air.

Medicine was crude by modern standards and being wealthy and able to afford the best physician meant you paid more for treatment which was as likely to kill you as most maladies.

There were no antibiotics, many of the medicines of the day would be considered toxic substances today in the doses which were prescribed.

Very, very few could afford a life of leisure surrounded by working minions, much as things are today.

Even then, only a well treated (healthy, well fed, secure in their surroundings), sufficiently educated, motivated, and productive work force would allow a profit, and abusive treatment will never get that from anyone, slave or free.

The treatment outlined in Harriet Beecher Stowe's novel simply would not have accomplished that end. I am not saying it did not exist, some people break their babies bones, and starve their children to death in their cribs even today (that from news stories this year), just that those who treated their slaves that badly were a rarer minority than has been portrayed, and on their way out of business.

I am not apologising for an institution which I find morally reprehensible, just stating that as bad as it may have been, it has been mischaracterized by the propagandists of the day as having been far worse on a widespread basis.

One thing which changes little despite the trimmings of its temporal moderninity is human nature.

That someone would twist reality to sensationalize an issue in a novel is no great leap, even then sensationalism sold copy. The only tragedy is that such writings become somehow accepted as gospel. Imagine Farenheit 911 being accepted as truth 100 years from now, and you begin to get the picture.

[Rembrandt_fan]

You're grasping at straws. Agreement with Lauralee or Jude doesn't constitute 'piggybacking.' And you also wrote:

"...how many people have you brought to your point of view?"

I follow my own conscience. This isn't about advocacy, winning other people to my point of view. It's about expressing my point of view. Whether you or anyone else agrees with my stance is entirely up to them.

[Rembrandt_fan]

You wrote: "it is okay for America's culture to become a third-world melting-pot full of immigrant Somali Bantus and Vietnamese, because, they say, those Somalis and Vietnamese are just like us. Yep, those immigrant Somalis and Vietnamese will nuture and respect our Western culture and our Bill of Rights to the same degree as any other American, even though it is not their original culture and they are naturally predisposed to other cultures [you should be laughing now]."

For the sake of argument, let's say two patriotic Americans, one of African and the other of Vietnamese descent/ethnicity, both attracted to conservative ideals, visit FR and read your post. What conclusions would they draw about you, or worse, about the rest of us posting here? Don't know about Joe, but I'm not laughing now; the only racist joke here is you.

[LauraleeBraswell]

I found your article length explaination interesting. Except, that blacks that owned blacks didn't exist past 1700s America.

[familyop]

You might be interested in the following fresh post. It's about what the extent of so-called "academic freedom" of the politically correct neo-Nazi left and their brand of "free speech" leads to: the double standard that they perpetuate and project/lie about along the way.

The Monstrous Regiment of University Teachers (Judeophobia in the groves of Brit academe)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1378645/posts