Posted on 09/10/2007 8:01:24 AM PDT by doug from upland
>>>I’m glad to hear that you didn’t know any Klansmen, but I was unable to find a record of anyone being arrested for a lynching.<<<
Hey, pinhead, there is no dispute that blacks were lynched in the South. If you would please get your brain out of the racist gutter for a brief instant, you will find that my objections to your race-bating posts were primarily on two points you made:
1) “Most Southerners were not members of the Klan, but they didn’t go after the Klan, because they felt that despite a few excesses, they generally held the same views” (that was your statement, word-for-word, in post #30).
2) “Open racism and not so hidden lynchings happened because the majority of southern whites were OK with it. Men listed the Klan on their resume and paraded down main street in their relalia because the majority of people were OK with it” (that was your statement, word-for-word, in post #316).
If that is your “historical” knowledge of the South, you truly are a blithering idiot.
ping
Don't be an idiot. Your statements are non sequitor accusations. Perhaps you're projecting.
1) “Most Southerners were not members of the Klan, but they didn’t go after the Klan, because they felt that despite a few excesses, they generally held the same views” (that was your statement, word-for-word, in post #30).
Yea, I stand by that.
2) “Open racism and not so hidden lynchings happened because the majority of southern whites were OK with it. Men listed the Klan on their resume and paraded down main street in their relalia because the majority of people were OK with it” (that was your statement, word-for-word, in post #316).
Yep, I stand by that. And as you haven't presented any argument to counter it, it appears that you don't really disagree with it either. You just don't like to hear it.
If that is your “historical” knowledge of the South, you truly are a blithering idiot.
Its not the limit of my knowledge, but its certainly true.
Because when you segregate the population, you ensure that people don't see the other side. Of course you didn't see a lot of racism, if blacks weren't allowed in your school, or in your places of business. Its a lot neater and cleaner than way.
For the record, the first blacks attended my high school when I was a junior (that is the 11th Grade for those in Rio Linda).
Great. The end of segregation was the beginning of the end of open racism, as people had to confront it. Hopefully Eisenhower didn't have to send troops to your town.
You did not. You made the outrageous claim that a majority of Southern whites were OK with lynchings. Only a blithering idiot, or a race baiter, would make such a claim. Are you a blithering idiot, or a race baiter?
History is history. How you can claim that a society that did not pursue lynchers and ignored violence against one segment was not commonly accountable is wishful thinking on your part.
Please get your history straight, sonny, and not straight from the mouths of leftwing nutjobs or the so-called “Rainbow Coalition”.
Look pops, I've been waiting for you to set the record straight and show me how the majority of South Carolinians had segregation forced on them, or how I was wrong about tacit support for extra-judicial practices.
I'm sorry for you that you can't accept that the society you grew up in was supporting of racism. It was. That doesn't mean everyone in it was evil or even racist. Obviously things were changing for the better during the 40's-60's.
An analogy today is abortion. The majority of our society is supportive of infanticide. Even if they wouldn't do it themselves, they feel that its acceptable for lesser people and they do nothing to stop it.
Someday, God willing, when infanticide is no longer acceptable, I won't be lecturing people how American society was never supportive of the practice.
The society you grew up in was likely far better than todays culture in most every other way, from what I've been told and what I've seen, but you can't bury your head in the sand about what actually happened.
PS, if you don't want to get banned, you might want to learn how to post without name calling. I've got thicker skin than most.
“I also think they could easily target large churches in this country and the libs would have NO OUTRAGE it since they hate Christians so much! Libs would consider it a victory to have many Christians slaughtered as that would remove much of the conservative base and help to increase the Dems power.”
I nominate this post for the most baseless hyperbole on the entire thread.
Over and over, the Left has met the persecution of Christian missionaries with statements suggesting that they had it coming (because missionary work is an anethma to multiculturalism). I think its quite likely that such an episode as described by a real Sheila would be met by similar reactions from the Daily Kos crowd.
I don't think it would be a full 24 hours before the MSM started leading stories with the open question, "Did a lack of tolerance from Christians bring this about."
It is amusing how some folks here on FR choose to insult those with whom they disagree rather than simply stating the reasons for a difference in opinon. I think by doing the later, you JUST MIGHT give me something to consider.
I don't know what kind of press it is getting outside of the affected campuses, but several colleges have recently been getting a rash of bomb threats, UIowa, where I am, included.
We are getting all kinds of 'be alert' messages from the administration. So far, nothing has happened, but it is all very strange.
I’ve noticed that as well.
I know a bunch of people who would patrol schools with their mini-14a and AR-15s, and they would do it for free.
“I also think they could easily target large churches in this country and the libs would have NO OUTRAGE it since they hate Christians so much! Libs would consider it a victory to have many Christians slaughtered as that would remove much of the conservative base and help to increase the Dems power.”
“It is amusing how some folks here on FR choose to insult those with whom they disagree rather than simply stating the reasons for a difference in opinon. I think by doing the later, you JUST MIGHT give me something to consider.”
What is that I could say that would change your mind from your original statement if you weren’t kidding or being facetious? No liberals I know personally would celebrate the slaughter of a church or churches full of people. Churches are not universally full of conservatives — there are any number of liberals in my own church. We generally see eye-to-eye on spiritual matters and just agree to disagree on other things.
You’d also have to hit quite a few carefully selected mega churches to make any actually difference in the number of conservative voters.
When the Twin Towers were hit, among the dead were a fair number of business and Wall Street type people, many of whom I expect voted Republican. I don’t recall liberals celebrating their deaths.
Maybe you just don't pay very close attention:
"They did not license themselves to "target innocent civilians." There is simply no argument to be made that the Pentagon personnel killed on September 11 fill that bill. The building and those inside comprised military targets, pure and simple. As to those in the World Trade Center . . . Well, really. Let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire ? the "mighty engine of profit" to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved ? and they did so both willingly and knowingly. Recourse to "ignorance" ? a derivative, after all, of the word "ignore" ? counts as less than an excuse among this relatively well-educated elite. To the extent that any of them were unaware of the costs and consequences to others of what they were involved in ? and in many cases excelling at ? it was because of their absolute refusal to see. More likely, it was because they were too busy braying, incessantly and self-importantly, into their cell phones, arranging power lunches and stock transactions, each of which translated, conveniently out of sight, mind and smelling distance, into the starved and rotting flesh of infants. If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it. The men who flew the missions against the WTC and Pentagon were not "cowards."Ward Churchill 9-11-2001
"Who knew the World Trade Center was gonna get bombed; Who told 4000 Israeli workers at the Twin Towers To stay home that day Why did Sharon stay away? Who? Who? Who" -- New Jersey poet laureate Amiri Bakara
"Anthrax did not come from a cave in Afghanistan," but from "[t]he same people who blew up the building in Oklahoma City, Ruby Ridge, the terror attack in Atlanta, Georgia - those same anti-union forces....'Ashcroft is using the FBI as one weapon, the IRS as another weapon, and leaks to the right-wing media as another weapon' to 'destroy the leadership' of organized labor." Jesse Jackson at speech to AFL-CIO in Dec, 2001
"This president is trying to bring to himself all the power to become an emperor to create Empire America. If you go along like sheep that is what will happen." Jim McDermott (D - WA)
"The government] plays off [Americans'] relative innocence, or ignorance to be more precise. This is probably why geography has not really been taught since World War II -- to keep people in the dark as to where we are blowing things up. Because Enron wants to blow them up. Or Unocal, the great pipeline company, wants a war going some place." Gore Vidal in the LA Weekly
"The current junta in charge of our affairs, one not legally elected, but put in charge of us by the Supreme Court in the interests of the oil and gas and defense lobbies, have used first Oklahoma City and now September 11 to further erode things." Gore Vidal in the LA Weekly
"When I see an American flag flying, it's a joke." Robert Altman
"Now [African Americans] are supposed to fight and die for a racist corrupt government in yet another imperialist war, when it is the U.S. which has clearly brought on this attack. We are supposed to fight for a country where we still have limited social, economic and political rights, and where we are still subject to death by any racist cop or citizen, where there is widespread poverty, mass imprisonment of the youth, and massive unemployment concentrated in the Black community. The obvious question is what the hell are we fighting for? To avenge America? To mourn America? Why, we don't owe this country anything." Lorenzo Komboa Ervin, CounterPunch
"Patriotism threatens free speech with death. It is infuriated by thoughtful hesitation, constructive criticism of our leaders and pleas for peace. It despises people of foreign birth. It has specifically blamed homosexuals, feminists and the American Civil Liberties Union. In other words, the American flag stands for intimidation, censorship, violence, bigotry, sexism, homophobia and shoving the Constitution through a paper shredder. Whom are we calling terrorists here?" Barbara Kingsolver, novelist, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, September 27, 2001
"America has an almost obscene infatuation with itself. Has there ever been a big, powerful country that is as patriotic as America? And patriotic in the tinniest way, with so much flag waving? You'd really think we were some poor little republic, and that if one person lost his religion for one hour, the whole thing would crumble. America is the real religion in this country." Norman Mailer
"My daughter, who goes to Stuyvesant High School only blocks from the World Trade Center, thinks we should fly an American flag out our window. Definitely not, I say: The flag stands for jingoism and vengeance and war." Katha Pollitt, The Nation, October 8, 2001
"While the rest of the country waves the flag of Americana, we understand we are not part of that. We don't owe America anything - America owes us." Al Sharpton at the "State of the Black World Conference" in Atlanta
There are a lot more concerning just Christians if you would like, but they really aren't that hard to find.
So would you put abortion, sexual deviance, free condoms, and kindergarten sex-ed in the religious or political column?
Placemarker
>>>History is history. How you can claim that a society that did not pursue lynchers and ignored violence against one segment was not commonly accountable is wishful thinking on your part.<<<
I apologize for not responding to you sooner. My Mother has been in critical care. She is recovering now.
You cite “History” as your source. How about some real history? How about some references that support your slander that (I quote you) “...a majority of Southern whites were OK with lynchings.” Spit it out, lefty.
BTW, “non sequitor”, as you mentioned in post 383, is a non-conservative liberal apologist who just happens to post on Free Republic. I have sparred with that liar in the past. Are you “Non-Sequitor” in disguise? If so, that would explain your bizarre “history” of the South.
Bump to read later.
Why don't you do an FR search of my posts and read them. If that doesn't clarify things for you nothing will. FYI, "non sequitor" is Latin and is used to mean "your argument does not logically follow from your statement just made, e.g. The house is dirty, so the grass won't grow.
If so, that would explain your bizarre “history” of the South.
By bizarre "history" I assume you mean my insistence that forced segregation existed in the South and that a certain amount of extra-judicial action against blacks was accepted by the white majority? Given that all of the facts are on my side, I'll standby that.
You've done a lot of whining and crying, but to date you've produced nothing to support your version of history. A history where segregation existed without racism and blacks were happy and content in knowing their place. I've asked you to give me a smidgen of proof that I'm wrong on this, but curiously all you have is an assertion that you had a happy childhood and never saw any racism. Have you never wondered why blacks seemed content to live under Jim Crow? What could it have been that kept them from speaking out?
So you can't figure out what my ax to grind is on this, and think I must be a liberal in drag. Well, here's my ax:
There are sins of commission and omission, but in between there is also the sin of collusion which can be fairly passive. This occurs when someone knows of sin that they should object to, but they don't because they find benefit in it.
If the vast majority of Muslims were not committing this sin of collusion concerning violent acts by islamists to make others submit, it would stop.
Your beef with this is when I stated that the same was true in the American South up to the 1950's with regard to Jim Crow and extra-judicial actions. You somehow think that the vast majority of Southern whites were always against Jim Crow laws, and vigorously despised mob action to enforce it. If you can show me any proof of this at all, I'd be most happy to change my mind.
You appear fixated on the notion that my conclusion is that the South is/was full of bad people. That is not the case.
You cite “History” as your source. How about some real history? How about some references that support your slander that (I quote you) “...a majority of Southern whites were OK with lynchings."
Lynchings occurred. No convictions nor even outcries followed from the majority. What is your conclusion on that?
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.