As a so-called historian, you're pretty judgmental, and putting words in my mouth that I never said. Show me my quote where I said I, personally believed that all women who joined the military in the '60's were dykes. I said it was the culture of the time.
“Please don’t try to change the cultural stereotypes from that time.”
Did you grow up in the inner-city of Rochester, New York? If not, then you have no idea what the stereotypes were there, or in the high schools in the 50's and 60's. And as a so-called historian, you are making a statement based on your own experience, wherever it was that you lived. A real person interested in history would study the various regions of the country, and research the materials available from those periods...newspapers on microfilm, documents, crime statistics, death rates, interview actual people who lived in those times, straight, gay, black, white, etc...not just base their opinion on their own small, little world as you have.
"Of course they existed; they have always existed."
There were four of us kids in our family. My second oldest sister who was five years older than me was gay, and it was never a problem between us. She was very self-conscious of her sexuality, and had a bigger problem with it, than any of us. And that's because of the stereotyping back then. She went out of her way to make sure she didn't look gay, wore feminine clothing all the time, dresses, high heels, etc. Always looked like a lady. And she hated the way the gay culture had turned into a side show...didn't believe in gay marriage. The one thing she said to me as she was dying of cancer was that she was sorry she had never had any kids. I was with her when she drew her last breath, and made sure she got the burial she asked for. But gee, what would I know about how a gay person feels, because ought-six says it didn't happen that way in the 50's and 60's
"A hostile foreign government has infiltrated our own country..."
No $hit Sherlock. It didn't just happen. They've been here for a long time, even before the Clintons took office, and exchanged money for missile secrets. The question is, what has been done about it? Nothing. Biden's DOJ has been lenient on Chinese Nationalists found conducting espionage here. So how is fighting a proxy war with Russia in Ukraine preventing that hostile foreign government from infiltrating here, over and over? It obviously isn't since they pop up all the time. The Chi-coms have been caught here helping themselves to our classified secrets, and our technology, repeatedly, yet it continues, and is allowed to continue, and even granted immunity from the DOJ. LOL!! The Chi-coms are controlling The White House and everything that happens here, and you're screaming: Russia, Russia, Russia. That's hilarious.
"That the threat is now here does not make it a home-grown threat."
Your use of the term "home-grown threat" makes you sound like Christopher Wray, who claimed white supremacists are the biggest home grown threat to this country. Sorry, but the biggest home grown threat are the politicians who are compromising the security of this country, and the safety of the American people through their negligence, their stupidity, and their nefarious deals with our enemies. Our southern border is wide open. We have no idea who is coming over the border, what diseases they have, what crimes they have committed in the countries they came from, or along the way. You sound very naive when it comes to that. It is home grown when you allow it to be home grown, by opening your borders to anyone and everything. When you give Chinese nationals the ability to come here, organize, set up labs, steal intelligence, and continue to let them get away with it. That's home grown, because you provide the means for it to happen, over and over. You are an aider and abettor. I think you have blinders on.
"You are too emotional to be an objective student of history"
LOL!! That's a pretty arrogant, and ignorant comment. Obviously you aren't emotional, or astute enough to be an objective student of history. You need emotion to study history, otherwise, how can you understand it, analyze it, and realize that the past applies to today? When you fail to look at past history, and see it being repeated in this day and time, then you're not an historian. I'd prefer an author, or a professor who was passionate about history, because then you'd know they've fully immersed themselves into the subject they are teaching you, and would go to any length necessary to find as much as they could on the topic. History isn't just about reading books. You can't just turn a page and experience history as it was and is. It takes more than that. It takes physical research. Historians find trails to pursue as their research grows. They will turn over one stone of history only to have it lead them to another and another. And a real historian follows those stones wherever it leads them. It sounds to me like you got to one stone, and never bothered to turn over any of the rest.
“As a so-called historian, you’re pretty judgmental, and putting words in my mouth that I never said. “
Oh, but you did.
Are you denying you said the following: “’Yeah, and they were labeled dykes. Back in the 60’s, if you were a female and joined the military you were a lesbian, and if you were a guy who became a beautician, you were queer.’”? Because you did, in your post #127. I’m citing your very own words; so how is that judgmental? On the other hand, your words are VERY judgmental, in that you jumped to conclusions and rushed to judgment; and branded the whole because of a few. That is judgmental; and that is stereotyping.
“Show me my quote where I said I, personally believed that all women who joined the military in the ‘60’s were dykes. I said it was the culture of the time.”
You believed it, because you said so. You said, “I know that for a fact, because one of the girls I graduated with in 1965 joined the military, and the scoop back then was she was a dyke.” So, you are either saying that it was the “culture of the time” that only lesbians went into the service; or you are saying YOU and YOUR culture of the time labeled women in the military “dykes,” which, either way, it is YOU calling them “dykes.” You and I are about the same age; and it was NOT the general culture that women serving in the military were lesbians. YOU and YOUR “culture” defamed a great many women who served their country honorably.
I was in high school in the 60s, as you were; and I know what the stereotypes were. And, rather than lesbians, the most common stereotype where I lived was that women who went into the military were nymphomaniacs or desperate for a husband or some combination thereof. And that was an unjust stereotype, as well; and we knew it.
So, don’t try to weasel out of your libel by blaming it on “the culture,” or on “society.”
“Your use of the term ‘home-grown threat’ makes you sound like Christopher Wray…”
Nice try. “Home-grown” means Americans in America; it is not “home-grown” if foreigners originated the threat.
“When you give Chinese nationals the ability to come here, organize, set up labs, steal intelligence, and continue to let them get away with it. That’s home grown…”
No, that’s a bunch of Chinese nationals (i.e., not American citizens; thus there is no “home” associated with them – unless it is China).
“…because you provide the means for it to happen, over and over. You are an aider and abettor.”
Try that argument in a court of law. You are not an aider and abettor unless you KNOW you are aiding and abetting. As an example: A bank robber robs a bank, and exits the building. He hails a passing cab and asks to be taken to the train station. The cabbie takes the robber to the train station, accepts payment for the ride, and lets the guy out. Then, the cabbie goes on to another fare down the street. The cabbie was involved in the robber’s escape, but not knowingly. And unless the prosecutor can introduce evidence of the cabbie’s knowledge of the robbery, and his fare’s involvement in it, and willingly – i.e., not under threat or duress — takes the robber to the train station to make good his escape; that prosecutor is not going to bring charges against the cabbie. And even if the prosecutor did bring charges, it is not likely he will get an indictment against the cabbie; and, even if he DID get an indictment, chances of a jury convicting him would be remote.
“LOL!! That’s a pretty arrogant, and ignorant comment. Obviously you aren’t emotional, or astute enough to be an objective student of history.”
That’s a contradictory statement, because objectivity is the absence of any influence due to emotion. If you want emotion from history, read it as a novel; not as history. Can reading history have some emotional impact? Of course it can; as we are only human. But, a true student of history should not let that emotion prejudice his or her study of the history in which he or she is engaged. Emotion can block one’s search for the WHY of something more than anything else can.
“I’d prefer an author, or a professor who was passionate about history, because then you’d know they’ve fully immersed themselves into the subject they are teaching you, and would go to any length necessary to find as much as they could on the topic.”
Oh, one can be passionate about the SUBJECT; but passion should be put in a drawer for the STUDY. A good physician can be very passionate about the science of medicine; but when he or she is dealing with a patient and the patient’s specific case that physician MUST be dispassionate and objective.”
“You need emotion to study history, otherwise, how can you understand it, analyze it, and realize that the past applies to today?”
Absolutely wrong. What you have described is judging the past by today’s standards and mores. Such an approach is fatal to the study of history, and unfair to the subjects of the history. In order to understand history, one must try to put him- or herself in the shoes of the people in that history, and understand what THEY were about, and what motivated THEIR actions. Because, by studying history you are passing judgment on the actors of the past; you owe it to them to understand their case, and be fair in your deliberation; just as a judge and jury in a trial should. You can have emotion to read history as a novel; but not as a study, unless you can shelve that emotion.