“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.
I asked you to give me the exact quote where I said "I personally believed" that in the 60's, if a female enlisted in the military, that she was a dyke. You didn't provide that. All you did was assert that's what I "meant" from my general comment about the stereotypes of that time, ergo, putting words in my mouth. Please don't try to psycho-analyze my comments, or tell me what I really meant by them. By doing so, you come across as rigid, obsessive and controlling.
“Home-grown” means Americans in America"
You might want to tell the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. That's not the definition they provide. They don't even use the terms America or Americans, so it looks like you're putting words in their mouth too.
Home grown:
1. grown or produced at home or in a particular local area, ie., homegrown vegetables; homegrown films
2. native to or characteristic of a particular area
The U.S. government is enabling foreign enemies to come here unfettered, and unvetted, so they can repeatedly violate our national security, build illegal labs, steal technology and top secret information unencumbered. If they weren't enabling, it wouldn't keep happening. They would have tightened up security to prevent it from happening over and over.
I consider the fact that the U.S. government's failure, or deliberate failure to control the influx of these people is providing conditions for these individuals to organize, and become "home grown" here. Once they are here in America, any untoward criminal acts they participate in throughout the country, are "home grown," specifically directed to doing damage to this country, in whatever particular region they choose to establish themselves. They plant themselves in a certain part of the country, and then blossom from there. Thus, they become "home grown" Chi-com networks running throughout the country.
As far as history goes, the study of it, whether one should be emotional about it, or not, is something we're never going to agree on. Obviously, you are in no position to judge me one way or another. You don't even know me, or my work, and you are no expert on the subject, like you are no expert on what you claim I meant in my comments.