I'm still intrigued by the level of diagnosis you are offering and am very interested in your qualifications to determine your suppositions.So you don't think that we should do 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6? Why? Why are you against not giving mental patients drugs which can cause psychotic breaks? Why are you against expanding our mental health capabilities? Why are you against getting people pro-active in reporting people that they know with mental health issues? Why are you against educating the people to help them recognize those with mental health issues? And why are you against getting rid of the stigma associated with getting mental health treatment?
No, you have not got a thing I have said....because I never said that, in fact today I have already said:So you want to limit free speech and blame inanimate objects instead of actually addressing the real ****ing problem. Gotcha.
But I will agree with you if you want to argue that holding to racist ideology, to extreme conservative authoritarian views just might be an indicator of mental illness.
- Colonel Paul YinglingNobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.
Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.
All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
"He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
"Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.
I can't point to evidence either way on how whites in NYC regarded blacks as people, but the "not slavery" exception is a sort of gigantic one. I think in 1863, if I'm black I'm Ok with whites thinking I'm inferior so long as I'm free and treated somewhat at least equally under the law, and not raped, beaten, killed, my kids sold out from under me, whatever, at my owner's discretion.What you're doing here is making the mistake that that wasn't the common belief (inferiority, not slavery) held by almost ALL (including Lincoln himself) as it regards black people. You're only putting that line of thought on the Southerners.
Sheesh, is there anything a racist, white supremacist can do that you're not going to excuse? First of all I imagine the Jim Crow laws were primarily response to a deeply held belief in white supremacy and racists' attempt to keep blacks subjugated despite their "freedom." But if that wasn't the primary motivation, and if they were in response to reconstruction in 1900, what the hell is your excuse for them being in place and vehemently defended by the southern states in 1960? Still holding a grudge and taking it out on blacks a century later?This goes past the issue at hand. The issue of slavery actually was settled, or if the South hadn't seceded would have been settled with the Corwin Amendment which Lincoln signed and is still awaiting ratification. Also what people don't seem to realize was that Jim Crow laws were a response to Reconstruction and its excesses which added insult to injury.
I don't even know how to respond to that. Yes, it would stick in the craw of white men who were up to that point quite able to beat, rape, buy, sell, etc. human beings at their whim. And I imagine that being owned by a white master stuck in the craw of black slaves.We look at these issues through today's eyes without seeing the other side at that time. People think its cut and dry, slavery is evil, it had always been evil. It might have been, but that doesn't mean that was the case, or the view for everyone. And when you tell someone that not only is the property you owned yesterday no longer yours but instead a fully recognized man who is gonna get a piece of your property for retribution and the Yankee gun is gonna back his play and place this uneducated individual who has decades of righteous rage in a position of local power and you can just sit there and take it or be dead, that there is gonna stick in your craw.
But, yes, I get we can't use the lens of 2015 to judge those in 1865. But what most of us are focusing on is more recent history in my lifetime when, for example, S.C. decided to fly the Confederate flag as a protest for the Feds forcing civil rights on reluctant white racists throughout the South. Did it stick in the craw of whites (poor things) that whites in S.C. had to share restaurants with blacks? And blacks got to go to decent schools? Attend state colleges? Play sports with fellow whites?
And FWIW, there has been a boycott of S.C. by at least some black organizations for years. Neither the flag controversy or attempts to use economic pressure are at all new.
As many people have pointed out, the flag itself is not the problem. It is, however, a symptom of the problem, and that problem is societal, systemic racism.
I may have an underlying disease that has no immediate cure, but hope for a future cure. One symptom of my disease is an itchy rash, that is there for everyone to see and be aware of my disease. There is a treatment for my itchy rash, and when I use that treatment, one of the symptoms of my disease becomes less noticeable. People around me are more comfortable.
Will removing the flag from public facilities cure the problem if pervasive societal racism? No. But it may help with some of the symptoms, and make people more comfortable.