10 ways to fight back against woke culture
By: Bari Weiss (New York Post)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
I realize the faddish thing to say these days is that we live in the worst, most broken and backward country in the world and maybe in the history of civilization. It's utter nonsense.
I have a few basic litmus tests in my own life: Can I wear a tank top in public? Can I walk down the street holding the hand of my partner, a (beautiful) woman, in many places in America without getting a second glance? Can I wear a Jewish star without fear?
I do not take those things for granted. I know very well that in many other places the answers would be different, and my life wouldn't be possible at all.
America is imperfect. (Does it even need to be said?) There is bigotry toward blacks and gays and Jews and immigrants; there is intense polarization; political violence is becoming more regular; elected representatives believe conspiracy theories. All true here as in many other countries being torn apart by the dislocations of the 21st century.
But there is no gulag in America. There are no laws permitting honor killings. There is no formal social credit system of the kind that exists right now in China. By any measure, we have achieved incredible progress and enjoy extraordinary freedoms. And yet people aren't acting that way. They are acting, increasingly, like subjects in a totalitarian country.
These people write to me daily. They admit to regularly censoring themselves at work and with friends; succumbing to social pressure to tweet the right hashtag; to parroting slogans they do not believe to protect their livelihoods, like the greengrocer in Vaclav Havel's famous essay "The Power of the Powerless."
These people aren't crazy. They are scared for good reason.
How much does it cost me to log on to Twitter and accuse you, right now, of an -ism? America is fast developing its own informal social credit system, as the writer Rod Dreher has noted, in which people with the wrong politics or online persona are banned from social-media sites and online financial networks.
When everything is recorded for eternity, when making mistakes and taking risks are transformed into capital offenses, when things that were common sense until two seconds ago become unsayable, people make the understandable decision to simply shut up.
Do not nod along when you hear the following: That Abraham Lincoln's name on a public school or his likeness on a statue is white supremacy. (It is not; he is a hero.) That separating people into racial affinity groups is progressive. (It is a form of segregation.) That looting has no victims (untrue) and that small-business owners can cope anyway because they have insurance (nonsense). That any disparity of outcome is evidence of systemic oppression (false). That America is evil. (It is the last hope on Earth.)
This list could go on for a thousand pages. These may have become conventional wisdom in certain circles, but they are lies.
Yet too many good people are sacrificing the common good, and therefore their long-term security, for the sake of short-term comfort.
Abraham Lincoln High School in San Francisco is at risk of being renamed by woke city leaders.
It's time to stand up and fight back. That means you. Social conservatives. Never-Trump Republicans, and anti-anti-Trump Republicans, too. Lukewarm liberals and libertarians. Progressives who have a little curiosity still left. Exhausted parents who want nothing to do with politics. Joe Rogan stans. Reddit revolutionaries and the hedgies getting crushed. Facebookers and e-mail chainers and Etsy-shop owners and Boomers who still use AOL accounts. Start with the following 10 principles:
1. Remind yourself, right now, of the following truth: You are free. It's true that we live in an upside-down time in which pressing the "like" button on the wrong thing can bring untold consequences. But giving in to those who seek to confine you only hurts you in the long run. Your loss of self is the most significant thing that could be taken away from you. Don't give it up for anything.
2. Be honest. Do not say anything about yourself or others that you know is false. Absolutely refuse to let your mind be colonized. The first crazy thing someone asks you to believe or to profess, refuse. If you can, do so out loud. There is a good chance it will inspire others to speak up, too.
3. Stick to your principles. If you are a decent person, you know mob justice is never just. So never join a mob. Ever. Even if you agree with the mob. If you are a decent person, you know betraying friends is wrong. So if a friend or a colleague does something you disagree with, write them a private note. Don't be a snitch. Any mob that comes for them will come for you.
4. Set an example for your kids and your community. That means being courageous. I understand that it's hard. Really hard. But in other times and places, including in our own nation, people have made far greater sacrifices. (Think of those "honored dead" who "gave the last full measure of devotion.") If enough people make the leap, we will achieve something like herd immunity. Jump.
5. If you don't like it, leave it. A class in college, a job, anything. Get out and do your own thing. I fully understand the impulse to want to change things from within. And by all means: Try as hard as you can. But if the leopard is currently eating the face of the person at the cubicle next to yours, I promise it's not going to refrain from eating yours if you post the black square on Instagram.
6. Become more self-reliant. If you can learn to use a power drill, do it. If you've always wanted an outdoor solar hot tub, make one. Learn to poach an egg or shoot a gun. Most importantly: Get it in your head that platforms are not neutral. If you don't believe me, look at Parler and look at Robinhood. To the extent that you can build your life to be self-reliant and not 100 percent reliant on the Web, it's a good thing. It will make you feel competent and powerful. Which you are.
7. Worship God more than Yale. In other words, do not lose sight of what is essential. Professional prestige is not essential. Being popular is not essential. Getting your child into an elite preschool is not essential. Doing the right thing is essential. Telling the truth is essential. Protecting your kids is essential.
8. Make like-minded friends. Then stand up for them. Two good tests: Are they willing to tell the truth even if it hurts their own side? And do they think that humor should never be a casualty, no matter how bleak the circumstances? These people are increasingly rare. When you find them, hold on tight.
9. Trust your own eyes and ears. Rely on firsthand information from people you trust rather than on media spin. When you hear someone making generalizations about a group of people, imagine they are talking about you and react accordingly. If people insist on spouting back headlines and talking points, make them prove it, in their own words.
10. Use your capital to build original, interesting and generative things right now. This minute. Every day I hear from those with means with children at private schools who are being brainwashed; people who run companies where they are scared of their own employees; people who donate to their alma mater even though it betrays their principles. Enough. You have the ability to build new things. If you don't have the financial capital, you have the social or political capital. Or the ability to sweat. The work of our lifetimes is the Great Build. Let's go.
Bari Weiss is the author of "How to Fight Anti-Semitism." Follow her writings at: bariweiss.substack.com
Freedom can't be taken for granted. The ruling class is ready to take it all away as they churn out executive orders and silence everyone who gets in their way. There has never been a better cause than defeating this onerous ideology.
I like # 9 on that list. Keep it in mind when you read some of the spin here and elsewhere.
#5 - I recommend that trumpsters find a place where there is easy access to :
buh-bye, and have a real safe trip...
You mean the groups the left has manipulated.
There is that part of progressive ideology. That love of victimhood and lying.
I recommend that lefties stop their hate and their nasty trolling.
Brought to perfection by Trump and Trumpism.
Oh ya, Trump! He really screwed up a few minds, or was it academia?
Some can't stop talking about him!
Irony.
How about you Sandy? How do you stand on the cancelling of Abraham Lincoln?
What do you think about companies' rights to dismiss employees who badly represent them in public?
What do you think about private citizens' rights to spend their money as they please? Somehow, that has become "totalitarianism" in your book.
I'm not playing this game with you, Vic. Your posts show that your view boils down to "People won't buy from companies they don't like, and it's NOT FAIR! People have the right to say whatever they want, and shouldn't be confronted about it (your post @3.2).
It screams of victimhood.
I know you're not. This involves honesty. Either you can admit that the SF school board cancelled Lincoln or you won't - and you won't. That I know.
Btw Sandy, have you noticed something about this thread?
Who don't you see? I think they got cancelled too!
That's why I called it for what it is - the love of victimhood of which you accuse others.
You'll have to tell me who you think was cancelled. There is currently nobody on suspension.
You are deflecting. The topic is the insidious cancel culture. If you want to defend it - do it openly & honestly.
You'll have to tell me who you think was cancelled.
Who is missing from this thread?
Correction - one person on suspension, for vile behavior.
I'll make it easy Sandy.
Besides me, do you see any Conservatives here?
Cancel culture even permeates here.
(Sean just arrived)
Yes.
Sean.
I see conservatives participating on the site today. I saw them yesterday, too.
Would you have us force more conservatives to participate? Totalitarianism, indeed.
A level playing field is all I need along with people who can face up to honest questions.
The cancel culture does exist and that is a fact. Running from it only highlights it.
You have a level playing field. Some people choose not to participate.
Cancel culture is overblown, and I don't see you calling out Matt Gaetz trying to put Liz Cheney out of a job.
It's real and it's actually getting worse:
"A previous post discussed an African American school security guard who was fired for using the N-word in the course of telling a student not to direct that word at him. (Thankfully, he was eventually re-hired after a national furor erupted.) The same post discussed a teacher who was fired for inadvertently failing to address a student by his self-identified gender pronoun. The security guard and the teacher each have four children to support and lost their health insurance as well as their income when they were fired."
I don't see you calling out Matt Gaetz trying to put Liz Cheney out of a job.
Whataboutism?
You're all over the board, Sandy.
That GOP rift hardly rises to the level of cancel culture. Cheney is still going to have to run for office as is Gaetz.
So let's pretend we live in the bizarro world where corporations use their power to push far right wing agendas. For instance, they fire people for participating in or even supporting the BLM riots this summer. They fire people who for donating to groups that support gay marriage. If a professor advocates for Joe Biden to expand the Supreme Court, her university will try to fire her.
Complaining about that would be "victimhood" in your eyes?
Cheney having to run for re-election is not the issue. He is trying to have her recalled. But he's conservative, and she, although conservative, doesn't vote your way, so that particular instance of cancel culture doesn't bother you.
Would you force people to spend money with companies that promote views with which they don't agree, Vic? How is that anything other than totalitarianism, with you at the helm?
Are people being fired for donating to conservative causes?
No.
Are people being fired for marching in Right to Life parades?
No.
If someone were participating in a riot for any cause, I have no problem with them being fired, and prosecuted.
So is she. I don't favor one or the other. I think it's an honest argument, just like the one between Pelosi and AOC.
Would you force people to spend money with companies that promote views with which they don't agree, Vic?
Of course not. Is that somehow the alternative to Corporations being influenced/intimidated into cancelling somebody?
How is that anything other than totalitarianism, with you at the helm?
I don't see forcing people to buy things as being relative to the left turning big corporations into political tools. How about we all just leave corporations out of politics? Or is it too late for that?
You wouldn't want me at the helm Sandy.
People are being fired for views. I just gave you a link. (as if we need links!)
He wasn't fired for views. He was fired for speech, and later rehired when his speech was explained.
Corporations exist to make money. Their customers are not all male WASPS, and they know it. They know that Black money spends, and female money spends, and Jewish money spends, and Muslim money spends...
LOL, after Citizens United? No, we can't. They've inserted themselves into politics. They can't disappear when you don't like the fact that they recognize that their customers are not all straight white conservatives, and that to stay profitable, they need to cater to an increasingly diverse customer base. That's business.
Yes, I think we have sufficiently established that. It's probably time to get woke and accept that you aren't. You don't get to tell companies who to keep on their payrolls. You don't get to tell a school system on the other side of the country what names are acceptable for their schools. You don't get to stop people from being confronted in public over their view. The First Amendment grants them the right to state their views, and their opponents have equal right to challenge them. USA! USA!
Now people are complaining about corporations inserting themselves into policy. Citizen United was one of the worst things to happen to our individual rights.
It is and I would like to see Congress address that White Elephant
Oh and that's ok? Cancel culture involves speech too!
and later rehired when his speech was explained.
They were a little quick on the trigger, huh? Kind of like when Winston Smith finally succumbs?
No, which is why he was rehired, Vic.
Oh this is about race and gender?
LOL, after Citizens United? No, we can't. They've inserted themselves into politics. They can't disappear when you don't like the fact that they recognize that their customers are not all straight white conservatives, and that to stay profitable, they need to cater to an increasingly diverse customer base. That's business.
Actually that is not business...Das Politics and you are ok with it because the left is calling the shots and ruining lives.
The First Amendment
Something you should read.
It's called cancel culture. Do you know where it came from? Academia. Now the indoctrinated have flowed into our society and are taking away the rights, reputations and jobs of anyone they don't like.
Do you think "woke" has nothing to do with race and gender? If you complain about "wokeness", know what people are "woke" about, Vic.
Of course it is. You think corporations don't realize that their customers are not only white Christians? They're well aware, and they're also well aware that the US is becoming more "brown" every generation. They're all about turning a profit, Vic. You can't do that if you drive away customers or future customers, even by proxy through employees who are openly bigoted against those customers. There are very few monopolies, and people who feel insulted in a business will take their money elsewhere.
Says the guy complaining about people being confronted for their views. Hilarious!
Yes, woke uses a racial lense for everything
If you complain about "wokeness", know what people are "woke" about, Vic.
I know exactly what they are. You don't really want me to tell you, yet again, what I think of them?
Of course it is. You think corporations don't realize that their customers are not only white Christians? They're well aware, and they're also well aware that the US is becoming more "brown" every generation. They're all about turning a profit, Vic. You can't do that if you drive away customers or future customers, even by proxy through employees who are openly bigoted against those customers. There are very few monopolies, and people who feel insulted in a business will take their money elsewhere.
No it's not. A business does not alienate any of it's customers. However if a corporation like lets say Twitter has a CEO with a leftist ideological bent and is a monopoly it will get political. Other corporations which have no political bent are bending to political pressure from the left which is the order of the day. Most of us never thought this would happen to America, but then again we knowingly let our universities indoctrinate these feeble tools.
I can see what you think of them. What I think you don't see is how obvious it is that the same things you accuse them of are things you engage in, yourself. Vilifying people based on their views (when you personally don't like those views). Embracing victimhood. Desire to control privately-owned businesses.
and here's the mascot for those right wing virtues ...
I'm sorry Vic, but that's just not true. They just left after the election. No one has been banned or suspended for being a conservative.
( these endless conspiracy theories )
who cares? bfd. good riddance.
They couldnt take the heat and they got out of the kitchen. Old as time.
bummer.
I have to admit , im getting a kick out of the cheney kerfluffle.
it will be the voters of wyoming who decide what happens to the esteemed representative , not some "dandy" from florida or even some national personality from the GOP.
little known fact about wyoming , back in the mid 90s the people ( voters) approved term limits for federal offices and the governors seat, but it got shot down by the states supreme court as being unconstitutional. but it has remained at the "suggestion " that the state didnt need term limits for those seats because the voters could remove individuals after a certain number of terms had been served without term limits.
Right now , the unwritten term limits for any of the seats are as follows :
governor is 2 terms , I think the last time this was going to be challenged was when gov. gerhinger was thinking of running for a 3rd term, public support for that showed he would lose re-election if he did. so he chose to open up the race so another democrat could run .
federal senators is unofficially 4 terms before they step down, so far no one has bucked the status quo and tried to run for more terms since i have lived here.
federal level house of reps is also 3-4 terms , again its like senators , no one has bucked the status quo that i know of.
Now if what i am hearing comes to fruitation , cheney was in trouble long before anyone called for her recall, which the state does not have a provision to do, some of it has to do is she is considered an east coast carpet bagger, and ran on name recognition ( her fathers).
of course recent events have shined a spotlight for the voters of the state to be able to reconsider their choices and make adjustments as they see fit with their vote come the upcoming state primary.
right now there are 2 serious primary challengers that have announced they will be running for her seat, and the voters of the state will decide who advances to the general against a dem and / or 3rd party candidate
in light of the prevalent attitude in the state and locally, my opinion is , she wont be the GOP candidate on the general ticket next election.
I'm surprised he didn't end up at the dump along with all the antelope carcasses. I did a lot of work in wyoming last century and they don't like outsiders much. they barely tolerate people from colorado.
Really Vic? You know that isn't the topic of your seed right? In fact while the Post included 'culture' in their headline, the author's original headline did not.
Lincoln Isn't Evil. Neither Is the West. Stand Up to the Woke Lies.
Who?
OH the irony!
Sure it does Vic and it HAS for all of history.
Who is running from it?
Considering the fact that the majority of the GOP took actions to cancel the votes of over 27 MILLION people, your example is weak as hell.
Bullshit Vic.
Multiple legislatures and state Republican parties have censored Governors, Congressmen, officials and long time Republican supporters including Cindy McCain, all for speaking their mind or voting their conscience. If THAT isn't 'cancel culture', WTF is?
i think it was all the petroleum based make up he wears , didnt want to contaminate the local dump into a superfund site.
hell i moved here in 93, and im still not considered a Wyo native , its not so much they dont LIKE outsiders , what they dont like are those that come here even just to visit trying to tell them how they should live their lives , according to where they came from.
i think thats where the Wyoming welcome came from , "welcome to Wyoming , we dont give a shit how you did things back home."
Some people decided they would not post here anymore because of all the 'leftist' posters.
Sounds to me like people that don't like having their world views questioned and wanted to go somewhere with like minded people where they can slap each other on the back.
This site actually went from having a strong conservative following to them all deciding to walk away. Sounds cowardly to me.
As I see it, there is still about the same amount of Liberal posters.
IOKIYAR.
who started a "nothing but Trump" lean over five years ago.
No different than we see here and now. At this moment in time, there are six "conservatives" signed in out of 27. And, 43 "visitors".
Not cowardly really. Fed up with nothing to comment on except constant "But Trump" stories with a dash of other news thrown in. It does get tiring you have to admit........ or maybe you don't.
Think about that one and perhaps why........................
No different than the constant donald was sent by God articles that we have to endure.
Also very easy to stay out of threads one doesn't like.
Not like others cannot seed anything. Vic does it.
Yours isn't. Pelosi didn't go to the Bronx or Queens and tell them to "Defeat AOC in this upcoming election? But Gaetz told them to do just that to LIz Cheney in Wyoming.
Paleoconservatives have been using that tactic from day one. AFA has a long list of boycotts.
I don't like bubbles, but then on the other hand, not every "challenge" is a legitimate debate. A lot of times it's just trolling and personal attacks. That's not unique to one side, of course.
I don't.
I'm sure you don't. You should read your own words, sometime. Like this doozy:
Right there, you explicitly do what I mentioned in my post, and yet you don't see it. Did you type those words, Vic? Or did someone take over your keyboard behind your back?
Maybe that's something we need to concentrate on. I don't think "they" as a group just up and left because of an election. I suggest we think about the level of taunting & trolling we see on here. Maybe that rule needs better enforcement. It might at least improve conversation.
It's called self defense. The man who kills the violent intruder is not equal to the violent intruder.
You consider history an attack?
I'm declaring the radical lefties the violent intruder.
Is this a joke? People can seed whatever they want. If there were ten conservatives that left they had it within their power, when they were here, to seed 50 articles a day about whatever they wanted.
Donald Trump made himself the news, and Newstalkers is hardly the only place where forums talked about Trump every day. 100% conservative sites also talked about Trump every day.
I have been on NT since 2011. I have seen just about everybody come and go. There have been very few people on this forum who I would describe as far left. Its hard to think of more than a couple. Hell there have been more libertarians on this site , many more, than there have been far left. The people , on this site that you describe as "the left" are , almost always, center left on the ideological spectrum. On the other hand, conservatives here tend to be more extreme. There have been many right wingers here who have what the majority of Americans would call out of the mainstream views.
It doesnt really matter to me personally if there are 10 conservatives here or 100, other than Perrie wants as many members participating as possible and she also wants a fairly equal balance of right left and center and I want her to have NT be composed as she hopes for.
I joined NV in 2011, just about the time that Perrie was being cordial & generous to many over here.
There have been very few people on this forum who I would describe as far left. Its hard to think of more than a couple. Hell there have been more libertarians on this site , many more, than there have been far left. The people , on this site that you describe as "the left" are , almost always, center left on the ideological spectrum. On the other hand, conservatives here tend to be more extreme. There have been many right wingers here who have what the majority of Americans would call out of the mainstream views.
That says more about your political standing than those who comment here. Describing the politics of others is subjective. In my time at both NV and here, I have seen the most extreme left wing views take a prominent role on the front page of both. As a matter of fact there are about 8 individuals here whom I consider as far left as one could go without endorsing Mao Zedong. I think the fact that there are many more who read the comments than contribute say something and the constant trolling we see from on side says it all.
It doesnt really matter to me personally if there are 10 conservatives here or 100, other than Perrie wants as many members participating as possible and she also wants a fairly equal balance of right left and center and I want her to have NT be composed as she hopes for.
Good for you, John. I'm just glad we have someone here like Perrie, whom we can go to whenever we have a problem. NT never had that.
It is an example of the point I've been trying to make. A perfect example.
You would have to "prove" that. I assume I would be one of the 8 because I don't think there are 8 people on here that are more "left" than me. But I am not far left by any means. I am not politically correct. I am not anti-police, i agree with the death penalty in certain circumstances. I am not a communist, and I do accept capitalism in principle. What I say is because we have an economic system that creates poor people, that system has a responsibility to provide for the minimal well being of those poor people. In other words, taxes, and the more you benefit from the capitalist system the more you are taxed.
I have not discussed other "liberals" on Newstalkers beliefs with them so I cant be completely sure, but looking at people's comments I really dont see all these "leftist" extremists you are seeing.
Why would my opinion require proof any more than yours would?
I assume I would be one of the 8 because I don't think there are 8 people on here that are more "left" than me.
I told you once before that I did not include you with them. You are clearly to the left, but you usually put up cogent arguments.
But I am not far left by any means. I am not politically correct. I am not anti-police, i agree with the death penalty in certain circumstances. I am not a communist, and I do accept capitalism in principle. What I say is because we have an economic system that creates poor people, that system has a responsibility to provide for the minimal well being of those poor people. In other words, taxes, and the more you benefit from the capitalist system the more you are taxed.
If you believe in all those things, why the 4 year rant against Donald Trump, who championed the middle class? Or is it only the poor you are concerned with?
I have not discussed other "liberals" on Newstalkers beliefs with them so I cant be completely sure, but looking at people's comments I really dont see all these "leftist" extremists you are seeing.
Maybe you're not looking. Let us start with the most obvious - Your thoughts on the commentary in post 1.1.64 ?
A lot of people put up cogent arguments , but some people go into longer explanations than others do.
What do you consider to be "far left" Vic ? If one likes Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez does that make them far left ?
How about my question?
A lot of people put up cogent arguments
Many don't. I recently had someone tell me that she was in favor of the use of deadly force to put down violent rioters. That statement came in the wake of the January 6th riot. The argument she made proved to be disingenuous because she disqualified every other example I raised from the 60 years of left wing riots.
What do you consider to be "far left" Vic ?
Everything Bernie Sanders & AOC advocates. The ideology being taught in American universities. The identity politics adopted by the democratic party which divides the nation by race and gets out that black vote in most elections.
If one likes Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez does that make them far left ?
I can only assume you mean her policies - and ya they are far left. The Green New Deal is obviously a radical idea that the nation could never afford.
I would distinguish a rioter breaking into the Speaker's Lobby of the US Capitol Building as part of a violent mob from a rioter breaking into an electronics store to loot it. The woman was shot trying to break into the House chamber because she was a threat to the physical well being of our national government (the Senators and Congresspeople). Someone breaking into an electronics store should be shot if they are immediately threatening the safety of other people. That is usually not the case though.
Both Bernie Sanders and AOC advocate many things that are mainstream ideas. I assume you are talking about their intention to raise taxes to pay for social programs like universal health care. The majority of Americans believe in some form of universal health care, so are the majority of Americans far left?
They want to limit the excesses of capitalism that create income inequality, and more heavily regulate the financial sector. If someone considers regulating the financial sector to be far left then I suppose they are. I don't.
AOC and Bernie Sanders both want better lives for working class and middle class people, at the expense of the extremely wealthy. Is that what you call "far left"?
Oh come on John. Do you distinguish a rioter from breaking into the Speaker's Lobby from trying to burn down a police station with people still in it or beating a truck driver with a cinder bock? We have 60 years of left wing violence to choose from. So how about it? Do the people who tried to fry those in the police station or a federal Courthouse deserve the same treatment?
YES OR NO?
Both Bernie Sanders and AOC advocate many things that are mainstream ideas. I assume you are talking about their intention to raise taxes to pay for social programs like universal health care. The majority of Americans believe in some form of universal health care, so are the majority of Americans far left?
And by the same token how many American taxpayers want to pay for that?
They want to limit the excesses of capitalism that create income inequality, and more heavily regulate the financial sector.
An equalization of results. That is an extreme which requires extreme measures, which have impoverished every nation where they've been tried.
If someone considers regulating the financial sector to be far left then I suppose they are.
I say that is far left.
I don't.
There you go.
AOC and Bernie Sanders both want better lives for working class and middle class people, at the expense of the extremely wealthy. Is that what you call "far left"?
At the expense of the extremely wealthy? You really believe that? Any redistribution will involve the middle class. Joe Biden promised not to tax anyone making less that $400,000. He has since proposed a gas tax. Kind of sneaky, don't you think?
The United States is the only advanced country that does not have some form of universal health care.
PolitiFact | Universal health care diagnosis is on the mark
Claim: "The United States is the ONLY industrialized country without universal healthcare."
That's an odd way to answer my question. How many Americans are in favor of a tax increase to pay for national health care?
Claim: "The United States is the ONLY industrialized country without universal healthcare."
And who is denying that?
Do you know why that is?
Because in Europe they control health care prices!
We don't! That's the big problem with having taxpayers pay for whatever the health care sector decides to charge!
There is no one, that I know of, in the "progressive" side of things that wants everyone to make the same income.
Equality of outcome, equality of condition, or equality of results is central to progressive ideology.
Oh, so you are in favor of universal health care in the US if we control health care costs. OK, good to know.
YES
This is not directed to Vic.
I have cleaned up the mess I saw here. I remind everyone, tickets will be given out the next time I see a slap fight like that.
How about mine?
WTF?
Abraham Lincoln has not been Cancelled!
I think we all remember that little deflection from your error in historical knowledge, after you were called on it. I'm sure it was embarrassing for you.
Vic is 100% right about what you quoted him as saying. People who say that America was evil and or had a less than honorable founding and founders are in fact evil themselves.
[deleted]
Maybe you could got to Chat or Personal Notes and air your grievances directly with a moderator. It might provide you the same gratification as flagging perceived personal offenses.
I think I have that First Day Cover and it is definitely Canceled......
11. Begin to value people more than some do money.
Or what?
Or what what?
Seems to me that if one believes in the Christian God, one would rather value people over money. I'm pretty sure Jesus didn't say anything about counting the coin in a person's wallet before you decided how much value to place on a person
Didn't Jesus storm the money changers and basically over turn their tables once?
That's how the story goes. Drove them right out of the temple.
Yeah...but some of them forget that
Freedom can't be taken for granted
Why do you think we intelligent folk got rid of the Trump monster?
Intelligent folk?
And elected another Establishment POS in Biden; who has gone and done what you were blasting Trump for; but that is OK since he has that all important D behind his name.
1. Remind yourself, right now, of the following truth: You are free to be a douchbag.
2. You are not free from the repercussions of being a douchbag.
3. Don't be a douchbag.
"Cancel culture" is the most overblown concept in American life. Most sensible people ignore extreme versions of political correctness, hardline conservatives obsess on it.
Without twitter memes and You Tube videos very few people would have any experience whatsoever with "cancel culture".
the trumpster cancel culture is now victimizing republicans that put country before party.
Tell it to everyone who lost their jobs over a political belief or had their accounts closed for expressing views on social media. Tell it to all those confronted in public places over their positions.
Free Speech is under relentless attack by the woke radical left in what used to be a free country.
For our readers who aren't sure: Just look at the posts here.
Free speech can have consequences. People are free to spread dangerous conspiracy theories but it can come back to bite them.
Why do you say that? Because the intolerant left controls government, the media and the university?
So it's a totalitarian state and we should just get used to it?
The right is virtually hysterical at this point.
That's right, we should all accept it. You won't even admit the obvious. I'm sure our readers see it.
What's so frightening about my question, that none of you can answer it?
No, because the question is BS!
If it was BS they wouldn't all be running for the hills.
John said cancel culture was overblown. I offered the example of the San Francisco school board voting to cancel Abraham Lincoln and everyone got frightened.
How about you then. Did the school board vote to cancel Lincoln?
While Lincoln is widely known and revered for abolishing slavery, he also, not so famously, was fighting some pretty horrible wars against the Native American tribes. I believe that this is the reason that the SF school board has voted to remove his name from schools. Don't worry, he won't notice.
Oh, no, history and facts.
Whatever dude.
I, personally, think it's kind of too much.
That's true. The Indian tribes who allied with the Confederacy:
I believe that this is the reason that the SF school board has voted to remove his name from schools.
Yup.
Don't worry, he won't notice.
I'll put you down as favoring Lincoln being cancelled.
Thanks Steve,
Something that needs teaching in American schools & universities.
I agree, but don't object when some people recognize that history isn't all rosy.
It is overblown, as are the reactions.
what about me?
I don't know. Did they? Do I even care? Probably not.
Oh come on Sandy! They're saying a bit more than that. They are judging history by today's standards. You judge history in the context of the era.
That's what I thought.
Thanks for making my point.
I don't think that Lincoln should be canceled. I think his full story should be known. I think that is true of any historical figure.
How?
Was Lincoln unequivocally a good person? No flaws? A hero for everyone?
History doesn't support such a view. Why should people be vilified for recognizing as much?
Everybody gets judged in their totality, at least that's the way I do it. Lincoln was more than good. He had flaws. Certainly not a hero for the south.
History doesn't support such a view.
Who says so? Howard Zinn?
Why should people be vilified for recognizing as much?
They should be vilified for believing or teaching that America was an evil country. It is they who are inherently evil.
That is an honest straightforward answer. I think most Americans, including myself agree with you.
I think his full story should be known. I think that is true of any historical figure.
Amen. We need good teachers.
That's what Steve said. I don't think that he agrees with Lincoln being canceled.
If it's not asking too much, Vic, would you please read the actual words others type on the screen instead of reading what you want to be on the screen?
Nor for everyone not in the south. Native Americans, for example. Lincoln never intended for African Americans to be equal to whites. He issued the Emancipation Proclamation reluctantly. He thought former slaves should be sent to Africa or South America, which they'd never seen, where they didn't have any connections, didn't know the language. He didn't always want to grant them full citizenship.
History is rarely so black and white as it's portrayed. I can't fault people for knowing that.
Vilified for their views? I thought you were against that. Seems you're not.
America has been evil at times. Its treatment of Native Americans, Blacks, Japanese during WWII - all evil. To deny that might be comfortable, but it's not true, and problems not recognized can't be addressed.
Do you really think that Lincoln is going to be "canceled," whatever that means. What, are they going to do away with history?
Mostly I prefer to be polite to folk. That's how I was raised. My parents were good people.
Mom and dad always said "If you can't say something nice; don't say anything at all".
"Polite" is just another word for politically correct/civilized/woke.
Rupert Murdoch taught semi-functional illiterates to wallow in their ignorance and to be proud of their ignorance, stupidity and prejudicial hate of the "other".
I think you would be perfectly happy with a totalitarian state as long as it's the right kind
What point? I'm simply not making a big deal out of nothing.
Many conservatives prove almost daily that they have no problem with cancel culture as long as it's canceling progressive or liberal ideals, they have no problem with being "woke" as long as it's being "woke" to their perspectives, they have no problem with being "PC" when it's about using respectful language to describe their beliefs, they have no problem with social media companies banning speech they disagree with. Their biggest gripe about the MSM is that their own conspiracy theories aren't considered "main stream" and being given more air time. I doubt many conservatives were sadden or righteously indignant when the San Francisco school board decided to rename "Feinstein Elementary". This seed and argument is really just more whiny conservatives claiming to be victims simply because they see society moving on and progressing without them and they can't help but give in to their childish natures and throw tantrums.
You're not "woke" enough for Vic
Lincoln came from a backwoods Kentucky family. I would somewhat take it for granted that as a boy he was exposed to anti-black and anti-American Indian sentiment, and it did effect his beliefs as an adult. However, Abraham Lincoln was always opposed to slavery from the beginning of his public life, and his opinion of the inferiority of Negroes was more in the realm of social inferiority than creating laws against them.
I think Lincoln always thought the slaves should be freed, but he was hesitant about any measure that did not serve to keep the Union intact. An earlier Emancipation Proclamation may have caused border states to join the Confederacy, and he definitely thought that would be a calamity for the Union.
Agreed. Lincoln's views were the product of his time. And while he opposed slavery, he recognized that the law supported it. He advocated for a more gradual freeing of slaves than abolitionists demanded. He objected to blacks and whites living together on equal terms, which is why he supported sending them to colonies elsewhere.
My point is that - history as taught in American schools paints Lincoln as a crusader for abolition and equality for former slaves. It's much more nuanced than that, and it's not incorrect for that to be recognized. Blacks, in particular, seem to be expected to see him as a hero to their race, when he was a reluctant champion of their freedom, and not really a champion of their civil rights, at all.
I agree with you, but I just wanted to note that Lincoln was in fact always opposed to slavery. Some of his methods evolved over time, but there are some people who try and claim that Lincoln was not opposed to slavery prior to the Civil War and that is absolutely not true.
That reminded me of Murdoch rearing his ugly head recently:
Rupert Murdoch, Accepting Award, Condemns ‘Awful Woke Orthodoxy’
Mr. Murdoch of News Corp, who spoke in a video, has been relatively quiet publicly in recent years. He called conformity on social media “a straitjacket on sensibility.”
Yes it is true and it has little to NOTHING to do with certain Tribes allegiance to the Confederacy.
Wow, I'm surprised to see you admit that there could be a cogent reason other than 'the left' canceling Lincoln.
Unfortunately, some would have us call propaganda "history", and vilify those who won't accept that.
That was one of the ideas involving what to do with former slaves after the war. He had another one offered up by Gen Sherman involving breaking up the old southern plantations and giving every freed slave 40 acres and a mule. Of course Lincoln never got to implement any plan. He was assassinated about 6 days after Robert E Lee surrendered.
History is rarely so black and white as it's portrayed. I can't fault people for knowing that.
Everyone knows that, but you don't judge the 1860's based on 2021 standards.
Vilified for their views? I thought you were against that. Seems you're not.
I am. Which of us is defending the censorship, blacklisting and retribution we have seen unleashed in the past few weeks?
America has been evil at times. Its treatment of Native Americans, Blacks, Japanese during WWII - all evil. To deny that might be comfortable, but it's not true, and problems not recognized can't be addressed.
I think you meant uncomfortable. You are trifling a bit. That's not what the left says with their 1629 project, which is being lauded by the media. Th left claims that America was founded on white racism and the enslavement of blacks, and that even today racism is omnipresent. Kamala Harris called the project a "masterpiece" and a lot of what went into it has been taught at our universities for a long time, as is in evidence night here on this thread. The packaging may be knew, but that's what has been taught and we allowed it.
For the record: Jamestown was founded by a British company to search for gold and establish trade to enrich its owners, not give freedom to anyone. America was founded on the principal of equality for all in 1776. This nation ended slavery with a costly war and extended freedom to all Americans, fulfilling it's promise in the Declaration of Independence. Today in certain parts of the world, such as Africa, slavery still exists. America is the nation where people of all races and faith still want to come to.
One that was condemned in his time.
Bullshit. You literally just called for people to be vilified for what they believe.
No, I meant comfortable, as it makes some people more comfortable to deny that the US has ever done anything evil. It has. You might not like to hear about it, and it's obvious that you don't want it mentioned, but it has.
America might have been founded on the principle of equality, but it did not practice the same. Slavery was allowed. Women certainly weren't treated equally to men. It had high ideals, for white landowning men. The rest of us had to fight for the same rights.
I'll put that down with the earth being flat.
Rupert Murdoch taught semi-functional illiterates to wallow in their ignorance and to be proud of their ignorance, stupidity and prejudicial hate of the "other".
That's basically trolling, but let me correct it: American universities have dumbed down America's young and granted them faux degrees
Have you ever heard of Liberia?
Bullshit. You literally just called for people to be vilified for what they believe.
Yes I did. They are a threat to our freedom.
America might have been founded on the principle of equality
And it eventually lived up to every bit of that and that's why so many want to come to America.
For the record: Your comment is unfounded.
The 1606 charter cites a long list of commodities that the crown expects to profit from. Wood produces were the main export from early Jamestown, tobacco became it's main cash crop export.
The crown also gave the colonists a great amount of freedom to self govern though the crown controlled where colonists could sell their products. The early Jamestown colonists were ALL 'freeman', in fact many were aristocrats who proved not to be up to the task.
By your definition all the founding fathers were British. I think the English people of the time though referred to the colonists as the Americans.
The trial and hanging of Dakota warriors in 1862, during Lincoln's Presidency, WAS judged by the context of the era. The trials were extrajudicial, violated military law OF THE TIME and had 'jurors' made up of Minnesota settlers and the Dakota were NOT even allowed an interpreter so they could understand WTF was happening.
The execution of the Dakota warriors in 1862 was the FIRST time the US government criminally punished those defeated in WAR.
Interesting how the Confederate troops were treated in contrast, is it not?
But not the last.
Yes, Vic. The people affected most, African Americans, were mostly opposed to it. So were abolitionists.
You still did that which you claim to abhor. Own it.
The real 1776 history and not the fraudulent fascist 1619 propaganda
Comment 3.2.44 is fascist propaganda employing gaslighting and projection.
Were they all opposed to it?
You still did that which you claim to abhor.
They are hardly equal. People being suppressed for thought and speech is one thing, those doing the suppressing another.
Again you are speaking for the suppressors. Own it!
You want to declare it "disinformation" to suppress speech?
I doubt it. Why does it matter?
You still did that which you claim to abhor. You wish to replace history with propaganda. That's suppressive. Own it!
Revelatory. /s
It's just the opposite. You speak of history as interpreted by Howard Zinn, which is known as "revisionist history." Another idea that took seed and flourished in America's universities, as all bad things do.
"Who controls the past controls the future" Remember?
Vic, it's dishonest for you to tell me where I learned history when you haven't a clue. You're passing off your own speculation as fact, same as you pass off propaganda as history.
As I told you before, just send over whoever taught history where you went to school. That's who I should be debating.
If he were still alive, that would be quite entertaining. For me, anyway.
You aren't debating anyone here Vic.
You post proclamations and avoid addressing questions and opposing posits at all cost.
Which is why it's so important to put the past in the proper perspective, warts and all.
I post facts and you try to contest them. That been our relationship for quite a while.
But Zinn didn't focus on good and bad, did he?
You post opinions, not facts.
I post many facts that you never even address. Saying it's not so isn't even an argument.
You post BS and I refute it with facts. When questioned about your proclamations, you pretend the questions don't exist.
Please do not delude yourself that we have any kind of 'relationship' Vic.
Take your deflective comment to someone who bites on that kind of BS.
Seriously, I have asked you substantive questions in this and other threads. If all you've got in reply is throwing out bullshit, why bother?
Nothing I have posted has any connection to Zinn. Just stop.
I try and answer valid questions. Perhaps the problem lies there?
Please do not delude yourself that we have any kind of 'relationship' Vic.
You mean it's over?
Any thinking person reading this seed and others know that to be false Vic.
For 'it' to be 'over', it would have had to start. Other than the fact that we are both members here, no connection has or will ever exist. The lack of veracity in your comments ensures that. No connection, no relationship.
Sort of like some people obsess about single interactions between people as evidence of society wide racism?
I know racism is society wide. There is endless evidence of it. I live in Chicago, supposedly one of the most liberal cities in America, and I personally know numerous racists. They arent Ku Klux Klan or even Proud Boys , they are regular people with good jobs and good kids, and really dont see anything wrong with being prejudiced toward racial minorities, because in their minds it is justified by various negative characteristics they attribute to the minorities. Blacks are lazy and on welfare and drugs, hispanics are illegals and criminals, etc. Ascribing individual traits to racial groups is racism, and it is very widespread. Now you will say there is racism towards whites too because people say "all whites..." too. To the extent that is true it is a reaction to white racism, and thus not the same thing.
Instead of so many conservative whites saying there is no "societal" racism their energy would be better spent trying to get rid of it.
All too many just cannot admit that societal racism exists here in the US, mostly because it puts a dent in their pride in the 'exceptional' country that they feel they created.
I see the US as an exceptional country despite it's glaring imperfection, whether historic or current.
You do? It doesn't sound like it.
Yes.
Why is that Vic?
Because I don't whitewash American history to your liking?
Because I view the founders from a realistic perspective rather than through the kind of rose colored glasses you wear?
Because I don't insist that the founders be excused for their glaring mistakes because they did so many things right?
Oh and FYI Vic, your opinion means nothing to me.
Whitewash? You can't even give credit where credit is due.
Oh and FYI Vic, your opinion means nothing to me.
Then I'll put you on IGNORE
Bullshit Vic. I have no more issue with giving our founders and others credit for their accomplishments, than I do with holding them responsible for their mistakes and character flaws.
Actually, considering the fact that you NEVER answer my questions, that wouldn't change much, would it Vic?
Oh and you are having delusions of grandeur if you think I give a fuck.
So it is on par with people calling others fascists and racists?
Some people should never, ever, ever talk about obsession.
If you were capable of "debating" anything with persuasion based on fact , I would discuss with you. Let me know if that ever happens.
We now have people attempting to present the idea of Trump as martyr. I think I saw a cartoon image on a conservative seed today of Trump on a cross. A more ridiculous image has never been created.
Trump is not a martyr, he is the worst president in the 244 year history of the United States.
Doubtful at best.
Not my job.
I have never claimed Trump is a martyr, please attempt to debate stuff I actually claim instead of assigning stuff to me that I have NEVER claimed. At least that would be honest.
And as a 'tragic hero' and a 'good' 'president'
Wow, excuse me while I go projectile vomit at the thought
Exactly. Are there "wingnuts" on both sides that take things to an extreme? Yes, of course. But the reality is the vast majority do not.
What this seed does and refuses to take any responsibility for it is to further the conservative straw man that all on the left are wingnuts.
Take this for example:
Virtually no one who is considered on the "left" calling Lincoln a white supremacist. That is a straw man creation from those on the right.
Virtually no one on the left is "separating people into racial affinity groups", that is a straw man creation from those on the right.
Virtually no one on the left is claiming looting is victimless. That is a straw man creation from those on the right.
No one on the left is claiming small businesses "can cope" because they have insurance, in fact the opposite is true as Democrats are fighting for more funding for small businesses but being blocked by Republicans.
Virtually no one is on the left is claiming "any disparity of outcome is evidence of systemic oppression", this is a straw man creation from those on the right who see anyone pointing out specific cases of obvious systemic inequality as somehow offensive to them and believe that means the left is calling them racist.
I believe this right wing conservative seeds intent is to distract and deflect from the actual issues that have been found by claiming the left have blown everything out of proportion by doing exactly that, blowing some random left-wingnut perspectives way out of proportion and dishonestly applying them to everyone on the left and then obsessing over it, whining and complaining about the speck in the lefts eye while conveniently ignoring the rafter in their own.
I don't even know what 'woke' means or 'cancel culture' or, as a former member used to love to say, 'social justice warrior' or any of that nonsense. I don't know what it means and I don't care what it means because it is essentially meaningless and meant to disparage 'lefties' or 'progressives' or 'democrats'.
I agree. This 'cancel' or 'woke' shit is nothing more than a meme.
Just used to throw a label on things people see happening.
We used to call it shunning , ostracizing even exiled. It's existed forever and in many cases it's been put to good use.
Yet now that the 'privileged' are being treated like the 'rabble' have been treated all along, it's earned a new label and is suddenly a form of victimization.
Agreed!
In fact, the so-called "Cancel Culture" itself needs to be cancelled!
Cancel culture reminds me of the War on Christmas...Non-existent.
Not happening you say?
Why are the progressives who run the city of San Francisco taking down Abraham Lincoln's name from public schools?
Why are right-wingers fighting to keep the statutes of traitors/slavers from being replaced?
Could it be that traitors and slavers are their role models?
Abraham Lincoln certainly is a worthy role model.
So, again, why are progressives cancelling Lincoln?
My memory and admiration of Lincoln will not disappear simply because his name is removed from something.
That's a real dodge. If he is to be admired, why are we allowing him to be cancelled?
How many school districts or cities or towns have removed Lincoln's name from schools or streets? I havent heard of it being a pressing national issue.
Are you in favor of the destruction of the Confederate memorial at Stone Mountain?
It was the SF School Board that did this and right now there is no certainty that it will happen since everyone else in SF is against it including the mayor.
So again, why are right-wingers fighting to keep statues of traitors and slavers?
The question was why should it be allowed?
Right now, John, in San Francisco the Board of Education via a 6-1 vote - will strip the names of Lincoln, Washington and even Diane Feinstein from one-third of the city’s schools. (44 schools to be renamed).
Didn't you say it was "overblown?" You don't want to answer that question. Got it.
Yes, the PROGRESSIVE SF school board.
Are you going to condemn it for what it is? You know, the premise of the article.
Sounds like you don't want them to be free to do as they want. I don't live in that school district and don't care what they do.
Sounds like you are going to sidestep it with you don't live there. They cancelled Abraham Lincoln.
Got it.
I dont really respond to hysterics.
So the board is progressive, what in the world is the big deal about that. There are school boards that are moderate and some that are conservative. It's highly likely this will be rejected and my link shows. BTW, I'm not in support of the name change.
You do understand that this is one school board among thousands, right? Now the statues of traitors and slavers are in numerous states and areas. Is that OK with you are you supportive of them?
Now that said what about the right wing support for the traitors and slavers. You know that question that I asked.
It requires character to answer an honest question.
You are the one who claimed it was "overblown."
They voted 6-1 to cancel Abraham Lincoln!
BTW, I'm not in support of the name change.
Thank you. Why do I feel like a dentist who finally performed an extraction?
You do understand that this is one school board among thousands, right?
It might only be the first if it's not stopped or even recognized for what it is.
Now the statues of traitors and slavers are in numerous states and areas. Is that OK with you are you supportive of them?
This is not a debate about Confederate statues. It's about cancel culture.
One out of 13,800 school boards in the US....Sounds more like playing the victim or hysteria.
So you choose not to answer the question. Seems as though you support the traitors/slavers and the rest of the racist BS
Good to know.
I've answered that many times on NT when those issues were the topic. Here it is a deflection from what most here don't want to talk about.
If the article was about traitors/slavers, then you might have had an actual point.
But what I see is clearly a deflection.
Sad.
I've answered it and gave you links on the blow back in the SF area on it. So you're dodging the question.
Allowed???? Really.
The real questions here are, "Why should the renaming of a school not be allowed?" and, more importantly, "Why does the renaming of schools upset people who do not live in the community where the schools are located?"
If the school boards are the ones in charge of naming the schools, then it would seem that they have the right to rename the schools. If the citizenry of the communities in which those renamed schools does not like the new names, show up at the board meetings and voice disapproval. Show up and vote to elect new board members who will do things closer to their liking. I thought that was the way that this country worked. I thought that was the way that you thought it was supposed to work. And then you ask questions like, "The question was why should it be allowed?" at the same time defending the stance that the "woke" people are somehow traitorous to the American ideals of freedom and pursuit of happiness. I guess that we see that those ideals only apply if you are in the "Still pig headedly asleep" group. Hypocrite.
To be honest, I didn't even know until this seed that he was being cancelled. I do thank you for bringing it to my attention and plan to research it a bit more once my move is complete Wed.
I. Don't. Care. No, really. I don't give a fuck what some Progressives across the country do, that doesn't effect me in any way. I really don't. From what Kavika is posting it doesn't look like it will happen anyway so now I care even less.
It was my pleasure.
In case you missed it, we have had discussions on the statues numerous times. For the record: My view has always been that the statues (the Confederate ones) were erected during an era known as "reconciliation" and that the current voters in each state should decide what to do with them.
If the renaming cancels a traditional American icon like Abraham Lincoln it requires input from the community. You know, the American people, rather than 6 radical progressives!
"Why does the renaming of schools upset people who do not live in the community where the schools are located?"
Because it is an assault on traditional American values by a few radicals.
Hypocrite.
Yup and I expected more of you.
I find it amusing that some of the same fine folks who claim no one should be concerned with what a school district does unless they live there are the same folks who often live where no Confederate statues exist and are more than wiling to demand their removal.
Then you should respect what people in another state, city and school board decide to do. In fact, it isn't any of your business, but complaining about it seems hypocritical but that's what you do.
Again with the, "I am rubber, you are glue!" argument.
The community elected those 6 "radical progressives," and they can, if they so choose, elect someone who is more to their liking.
Well, they (San Franciscans') are American people.
I am sorry if I just don't seem to get it, but it sounds like you think that everyone should have a vote on the naming of a local school district's schools. That sounds nothing like small, local government control to me.
Gosh, Vic. I went as easy as I could on you.
There will always be extremists on both sides, taking something a handful of people are deciding and claiming that somehow represents all progressives is just ignorant. I disagree with any attempts to rename or remove Lincoln from anything, as I also disagree with the renaming of Feinstein Elementary or the places and things named after John Muir simply because some old letters prove he held similar racial beliefs as the vast majority of whites did back in the 1800's. However, I'm not opposed to the renaming of places and things named after those who were considered extremists even in their time such as Columbus and Junipero Serra or any confederate General. Columbus was even tried by the people of that time for his cruelty and genocide, it was only an attempt at whitewashing his past that created the fictional hero we have celebrated. I live on a street named after Junipero Serra but know his history well and have seen the large native American protests to his canonization since he was brutal to the native Americans in California, cutting off hands and feet when finding natives trying to practice their own religion or refusing to convert.
We do not need to forget these folk, but there is simply no reason to celebrate or honor those who we all know were extreme racists or genocidal maniacs. Trying to take it to the extremes in cancel culture by claiming someone who devoted their lives to persevering the wilderness because they used a racial slur in their letters or called the natives living in those wildernesses "dirty" takes it too far and do not represent the majority of progressives who do want an accurate accounting of history. For those folk we just have to start telling the whole story and admitting where society failed in the past so that we don't repeat those same mistakes.
You make PROGRESSIVE and Liberal and Democrat sound like dirty words when they are anything but.
Hate to break the news to you Vic, but changing the name of a school does not erase history or Lincoln.
That is just asinine.
Here is the documentation of why the board chose to rename Abraham Lincoln High School:
You view is based on a fantasy.
The 'era known as reconciliation' in the 1880's and 1890's [15-20 years after the war] was an attempt to rewrite history which became better known as the 'Lost Cause'. In short, it perpetuates a LIE.
The VAST majority of Confederate statues were built LONG after the civil war. Hell, the United Daughters of the Confederacy, the propogandists for the majority of the statutes, wasn't founded until 1984, 19 YEARS after the end of the Civil War.
The voters where the statues were installed had little to no choice in the matter. Most of the statues were privately financed and 'donated' for installation on PUBLIC land.
Your stated view is unfounded and easily corrected by reviewing the plethora of historical facts at you fingertips.
No, Kavika, Ideologues don't get to tamper with history. Americans have been silent for too long!
You haven't. You want to let a school district which allows aliens to vote for the school board members to cancel Abraham Lincoln. Americans should never stand for it!
That's a misreading of history. Where did you find that - in the Peoples History of the US?
Reconciliation attempted to do what Reconstruction had not - fulfill Lincoln's plan to reconcile the nation in a peaceful manner. In a way that would not reproach either the north or south. I'm sure the modern progressive wouldn't like that! The left would want to forever punish the south, wouldn't they?
You see the idea was to allow the south to feel as though it was once again part of a united nation. That is not accomplished through treating people as enemies.
Lincoln in his second inaugural speech, extended the olive branch in order to unify:
"One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it.
Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease.
Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes."
Lincoln didn't live to see how it would be carried out, but others made the attempt to unify during that era known as Reconciliation. We can argue about how it turned out, but that was it's purpose.
Ok, I have you down with canceling Lincoln.
No one is a bigger ideologue than you, Vic.
It seems as though I did so your comment is a flat-out lie.
You don't seem to have any issue doing so yourself Vic.
Yet you refuse to recognize that 'Americans' ARE speaking out because they don't share your ideology.
No Vic. I don't form my opinion based on any one source but here is a link that can guide you a first step to reality:
It looks to me than rather than 'misreading' history, your comments intentionally misrepresent it.
Where did you find THAT - in 'A Confederate Catechism - 1920'?
What I am arguing is that there is NO connection between Lincoln and what you call Reconciliation. NONE. It started as a rewriting of history and it continues as such. Your comments are proof of that.
FALSE. It was an act of generosity & conciliation. You just don't approve of it. Beat those southerners down!
Prove it Vic. Show me how the National Park Service got it all wrong. Post a link about the 'era of reconciliation' that states it was an 'act of generosity and conciliation'.
I won't hold my breath since you've yet to answer even ONE of my questions in this seed.
Post a link that repeats my opinion?
How about you make good on your claim that an era of reconciliation never happened. You already said that it took place in the 1880's. This should be interesting.
Look to yourself.
Vic, what is your understanding of the term "Lost Cause" as it relates to post Civil War southern assessments of slavery and the war ?
I assume it is no different than yours. It was the lingering belief of some southerners after the war, that the cause of the Confederate States during the American Civil War was a just and a heroic one.
So are you somehow saying that there should not have been any attempt at reconciliation?
Oh so you stated that my comment was false based solely on your OPINION?
That explains why it is so utter bullshit.
Cite the my comment and block quote where you claim I said that Vic.
So did I claim it never happen or that it happened in the 1880's Vic? Seriously, you really need to PICK ONE.
What's interesting is that you are trying to deflect from the FACT that I posted a link from the National Park Service that dates the pretense of 'reconciliation' between the 1880s and 1890s while you posted NOTHING but your unfounded FALSE opinion.
Oh and BTFW, you STILL haven't answered even ONE question.
Right here:
The 'era known as reconciliation' in the 1880's and 1890's [15-20 years after the war] was an attempt to rewrite history which became better known as the 'Lost Cause'. In short, it perpetuates a LIE.
You conflated two very different things!
I hope that John's understanding is more accurate than yours Vic.
I'd love to see some source from you from which you garnered you OPINION on this subject. It sure as hell isn't anything I have ever read.
I read this book, and other things, so I think I am more ready to discuss this than Vic is
.
So based on what you block quoted, I NEVER said that what you call the 'reconciliation' NEVER happened, DID I Vic?
Secondly, I conflated NOTHING. One is a precursor of the other and the link I posted states that clearly. I don't expect YOU to admit as much, no matter how much evidence I post so 'our readers' can decide whose posit is more accurate for themselves.
It seems like he is on the same page as you. We shall see.
I'd love to see some source from you from which you garnered you OPINION on this subject.
Have you ever heard of Bruce Catton, Frederik Dyer, Stephen Ambrose or Shelby Foote?
That says NOTHING John. Reconciliation was a government policy. The Lost Cause was a feeling among some southerners.
It's a good thing I'm not your history teacher.
Read this from the 'horse's' mouth:
A little excerpt:
And this:
Some pretty delusional bullshit.
Sure. Ambrose's Undaunted Courage is one of my favorites.
Which one of them do you claim stated that 'the 'era of reconciliation' was an 'act of generosity and conciliation'?
Here is what neither you or John understand, 1) there was a concerted effort at reconciliation and 2) some southerners adopted the cause. Two different things.
Here:
"Like Douglass, Grant readily acknowledged reconciliation’s appeal, though for reasons less grounded in Christianity than in practical politics. Grant spoke from experience when he declared that the desire to “make everybody friendly, to have all the world happy” was an “emotion natural to the office” of the presidency. “There has never been a moment since Lee surrendered that I would not have gone more than half-way to meet the Southern people in a spirit of conciliation,” Grant declared. 6
There was only one problem. Ex-Confederates never reciprocated with a willingness to respect African Americans’ rights or to conduct fair elections.
“They have never responded to it,” Grant said. “They have not forgotten the war.” To be sure, a “few shrewd leaders like Mr. Lamar and others have talked conciliation,” Grant acknowledged, referring to U.S. Senator L. Q. C. Lamar. “[B]ut any one who knows Mr. Lamar knows that he meant this for effect, and that at least he was as much in favor of the old regime as Jefferson Davis.”
What you and John seem to be saying is that the south never deserved reconciliation. That is a progressive view.
At least recognize the history!
The Lost Cause theme was created to glorify the Confederacy even though they had lost the war. They couldnt win on the battlefield, or on the national political field, so they tried to "win" in the field of propaganda. Monuments were built, to last for many decades if not centuries. Monuments which were praise of the confederate cause presented artistically as praise for Confederate leaders. "We aren't justifying slavery, we're just praising Jefferson Davis for his service to the south".
How is a statue of a Confederate slaveowner "reconciliation" ?
A slaveowner? Please be specific.
Bullshit Vic. You stated:
There was no 'era known as 'reconciliation' and the VAST majority of the Confederate statues were erected 20+ years AFTER the Civil War by the UDC who were propogandists for the 'Lost Cause'.
Speaking of 'conflating', YOU tried to conflate the erection of Confederate statues with reconciliation and your own fucking link PROVES that the south rejected reconciliation in total.
Throwing out a link to an article that cites the concept of 'reconciliation' FAILS to support your BS about an 'era known as 'reconciliation'.
Seriously, your own link destroys your posit Vic. I encourage other members to read it and confirm that for themselves.
Read the sentence before the question Vic.
Answer?
You told us there was - in the 1880's - remember?
the VAST majority of the Confederate statues were erected 20+ years AFTER the Civil War by the UDC who were propogandists for the 'Lost Cause'.
Yup and it was allowed in the hopes of restoring unity.
YOU tried to conflate the erection of Confederate statues with reconciliation and your own fucking link PROVES that the south rejected reconciliation in total.
Yup, two different issues. If I offer an old opponent my hand and he rejects it, was I wrong to offer it? That seems to be the question.
Throwing out a link to an article that cites the concept of 'reconciliation' FAILS to support your BS about an 'era known as 'reconciliation'.
Gee, I thought it would bolster it!
I encourage other members to read it and confirm that for themselves.
Let us both encourage reading rather than listening to what somebody simply declares "bullshit!"
He has to answer me first. If he means a statue of Davis, he needs to say it.
Few southerners actually owned slaves.
Jefferson Davis owned slaves, Robert E Lee owned slaves, Stonewall Jackson owned slaves. So did virtually all of the other people from the confederacy commemorated on Civil War monuments. The fact that only "some" of southerners owned slaves is immaterial to this.
Didn't Jefferson and Washington own slaves?
Should we destroy the monuments to them, too?
Maybe we should take down the statue of Iwo Jima, as maybe someone will be offended by it, too?
You said I claimed it never happened remember?
Bullshit Vic. It was DONE in an attempt to rewrite history and the documents from those that did it PROVE that.
Yet you got called out for trying to conflate them. Glad you are FINALLY admitting it.
Well no Vic. Now if that were only relevant.
Only in a world where deflection is an accepted form of debate.
It doesn't. Perhaps if you tried reading the article on it's own merits rather than trying to shoehorn it into a vehicle to support your failed posit you'd see that for yourself.
As a bibliophile, I encourage reading all the time. In fact, I encourage YOU to read the fucking NPS link I provided. I doubt you will.
Oh and I call a spade a spade Vic. If at any time I call something bullshit which you think is true or righteous, I invite you to chime right in and prove me wrong. Since that hasn't happened, I must presume you don't had the receipts.
Do you realize that you've demanded answers to YOUR questions multiple times but failed to answer a plethora of questions from me and others yourself Vic? Are you some kind of special snowflake that gets to set standards you don't follow?
MORE question you won't answer...
You say that 30 or 40 years after the war the South began erecting statues commemorating various leaders in the spirit of "reconciliation". How many statues were erected in the south of people who had opposed slavery before and during the Civil War? Were there any?
The predicate for this discussion is Confederate statues Tex. Try to keep up.
Jefferson Davis was more importantly the president of the Confederacy. Robert E Lee and Stonewall Jackson were in the category of great military leaders. For the average southerner they were highly regarded. The way it worked is that the north allowed them that much. It didn't work out as expected.
If progressives don't like all that - they can go pound sand.
I know what the discussion is.
It is called context.
If and when I ever "need" advice from you regarding topic, I will let you know.
No need for you to assume I don't, it is just silly for you to assume otherwise.
There were none because Jim Crow Democrats refused to allow any and had no interest in erecting any themselves.
I can't think of any abolitionist living in the south during that period, though there must have been some.
Were there any?
Statues to southern abolitionists? I doubt it.
There were statues to Confederate leaders, oh ya - who may also have owned slaves. Revered by many southerners who did not.
Actually, it is called deflection.
I offered no advice, I pointed to your out of context comment.
I made no assumption Tex. Your comment intentionally ignored the predicate of the discussion.
Now, do you have a relevant comment about Confederate statues?
How about Vic's claim that Confederate statues were erected during a thingy called the 'era of 'reconciliation'?
Anything?
We have a different society that existed in 1860, 1880, 1900 , or 1920.
Such statues have outlived their usefulness. Even from the stilted perspective that southerners liked them.
So, you are saying that reconciliation meant that tributes to slaveowners and traitors would flourish on the conquered land? Who is it that was being reconciled ?
No.
Still not interested.
That's funny because you posted an article that cited Frederick Douglass and quoted him. Douglass died in 1893.
Weren't some of the same posters telling us not to worry about what some school district in California does if we don't live there?
Do you find it ironic that now they want to decide what may exist in places they don't live?
To the best of my knowledge, statues of confederates were opposed by the local population, particularly local blacks, before they were removed.
SOME people opposed the statues, others did not.
If you don't live there, I have been told it is none of your business!
Did they rise up and attack the Union, joining a confederacy built on the foundation of slave ownership and the superiority of the white race then leading soldiers to kill hundreds of thousands of Americans in their insurrection?
"The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution."
"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition." - Vice President of the Confederacy March 22, 1861
Comparing Jefferson and Washington to the scumbag confederates is exceedingly dishonest. Taking down monuments to the loser confederate traitors is not about the fact that they owned slaves, many early Americans did in both the North and South. It's about not celebrating or memorializing those who fought and killed true patriotic American Union soldiers all to preserve what they saw as their right to own humans as cattle. There were many slave owners in the North who gave up their slaves willingly, even some in the south did the same and joined the Union because they knew it was an evil practice they could no longer support. Those who doubled down on slavery and attacked the North because they were moving towards emancipation should never be celebrated, they should be reviled and spat upon like the traitors they are.
I really don't have time to delve all into every aspect of the Civil War. If you don't know, there are sources you can find.
And if you choose to spit on old Democrats' graves because of the Civil War and their subsequent Jim Crow policies, go for it!
I just find it amusing that the Democratic Party welcomed them some old Jim Crow Southern Democrats as long as they served a useful purpose to the Party.
"I really don't have time to delve all into every aspect of the Civil War. " = "I can't discuss it because I know very little about it"
I believe you made a truthful statement, and hope you get a chance to research it a little!
I understand the civil war era quite well.
Um, okay?
Again, changing the name of a school does not cancel out anything.
Oh no, one school out of hundreds of thousands changed a name.
Now we will forever forget that there was a Lincoln and what he did....
Get a grip .
It's a slow process. Like a frog in gradually hotter water or................
Glenn Beck, is that you?
Lincoln will no more be erased than Julius Caesar was...
Julius who?
That's because he's so into the so-called "Cancel Culture" that's he's trying to cancel our questions! (by not answering even a single one!)
But fear not-- calmer heads will prevail! We will not be cancelled!
And his futile attempts to cancel our CCQ's ("Cancel Culture Questions") will themselves be "Cancelled"!
THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE!!
(WE WILL CEREMONIOUSLY & CALMLY CULL OUT THE CANCEL-CULTURE CULTISTS-- AND THEIR CORRUPT CANCELLING CREDOS WILL BE THEMSELVES BE CONVENIENTLY CANCELLED!)
The salad guy.
Glenn who?
Well, if nothing else, this proves that reality is no hinderance to progressives constructing arguments. "cancel culture" doesn't exist being argued simultaneously as "it only happens to those that deserve it." They have power with corporations and academia marching to their orders, so they exercise it to punish their enemies. Same thing they always do when they obtain power from erecting guillotines to the cultural revolution, they can always justify their brutality by blaming the victims. This is the early stages where those deemed guilty just lose their jobs and are stigmatized. Maybe the cancelled will have to wear some sort of marker on their closing next. What's certain is that as long as insane people like those who cancelled Abe Lincoln are in power, there's really no limit to the excesses the left will go to punish dissenters.
No one here is erecting any Guillotines!
I've seen the same news items-- Trump as President has set a precedent by firing more people than any previous president!
(IMO we could safely say that Trump has been Chief of the Cancel Cultrurists!)
Woke? The only folks I ever see using that term are Trumpists who believe their guy is the wokiest of all. Sorry ex-repubs and ex-conservatives a.k.a. Donald's RINOs, y'all are the neo-Wokerinos.
Really?
Yes!
Just curious as to whether you were actually serious.
It is amusing you were.
Correct.
The beginning sentence of this article I disagree with.
I do not believe this is true. At all. The reason for all the fury is because people do not believe that this is the way America is. It is precisely because they have a view of America as being "better than that" in all sorts of ways, that they act infuriated when they see headlines like,"10-ways-to-fight-back-against-woke-culture."
If you believe there is a woke culture, you need to get out side and walk more often. You need to at least step away from your screen device. These devices and apps take you algorithmically down into rage land, tabulating clicks, watching for what will attract your attention, just to keep you engaged so you can see more ads.
Now, that said, the list of ten things seems straightforward and like good rules to follow in everyday existence.
So this person's 'answer' is to never change your beliefs and stick around people that believe just like you do...
Uh no. Sorry but that is not sound advice unless one wants to live in a bubble and think everyone is out to get them.
I thought the exact same thing. I find it hilarious that this person's answer to "woke" culture is to create a safe space for herself. Disengaging isn't the answer. It furthers the polarization.
8. Make like-minded friends.
If you read the whole of the suggestion, it is definitely not to create a bubble.
Just because somebody is likeminded does not mean that they have all the same thoughts as you do.
For example, when I lived in Missouri I had a friend who was the preacher at my ex-in-laws southern Baptist church. We had views that were miles apart, light years even, but when he and I got together and started a conversation, though we might be coming at the subject of politics or religion or whatever it was we were discussing from totally opposite ends of the spectrum we could agree that each other's views were based on the unique experience of the individual. We were not strident. We were not antagonistic. We did not ever, it seemed, agree on anything except the fact that the other person was a rational individual who expressed opinions rationally and coherently (those were the days!).
He is what I would consider to be a "Like minded friend".
Those are rare to find these days
Throughout my wanderings about the country, I have been blessed to find many, many of this type of friend. Serendipity is a wonderful thing.
It's probably because you are a good person
Or else, perhaps, its because he's started spending less time on Social Media sites!
(Its worked for me
)
At times in our history, we have nostalgized our past and glorified our leaders - arguably beyond what was justified. That wasn't accurate or complete history, but there is some value in identifying the high points of our past and celebrating them, even when we are talking about high points in an individual person.
It's not total fiction for the purposes of brainwashing. It doesn't go that far. Every kid grows up knowing we had slavery, for example, and that it was brutal and cruel. That is not a revelation of the 21st century, but I have seen it suggested as such. That kind of thing does happen in other countries. I have seen it.
The pendulum is swinging too far in the other direction, now.
No historical figure was only the good things we remember. Some statues should come down, and some schools should be renamed - particularly when we have someone better we would like to celebrate. However, it is often petty and ignorant to start removing a person from the popular culture because you found something about him you don't approve of. Notwithstanding the old myth, for example, George Washington probably could tell a lie. "Honest Abe" probably wasn't always honest. Several of our founders and most of our early presidents owned slaves. Most of the men probably also thought women were inferior to them and shouldn't vote. But it would be short-sighted, indeed, to define them only by details common to the era.
As a society, many of our sensibilities have evolved over the generations toward more equal justice. Let's celebrate that, rather than be angry about the past. The past will always be the past, no matter how much it might offend you.
Taking some pride in our country can be a good thing. It brings us together as a unified people, and that has real value. As the teaching of history developed in the 19th century to glorify the founders, that was the point. It gives us a vision of what we are supposed to be about. This helps us to live and work together going forward. The stated ideals written into our founding documents by those imperfect historical people have given us a guidepost to better ourselves. They are the words that are always cited when a civil right is affirmed. That is worth remembering and honoring.
As we look around, we see a lot of division in the country, but we also see a lot of ignorance about our past - particularly the good parts.
Yes, Virginia, there are good parts.
And I think that is a big reason why so many are willing to tear it all down. They don't understand why the statues and names went up in the first place.