Go figure (1 Viewer)

[Lord Tammerlain]

Obviously it does, since you insist on lying.

Show me where the country of Canada had slavery?

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Hell, y'all even have your very own "trail of tears"...

Expulsion of the Acadians - Wikipedia

That would fall under what Great Britain did not the country of Canada. If looking for bad things that Canada did look towards First Nations, Chinese immigrants and Sikh immigrants. Canada treated First Nations horribly up until the early 1980s. Sending children to residential schools where they were physically and sexually abused. Experiments on nutrition was also done starving some and comparing development

 

[Nickyjo]

Count me among those wondering why the NYT is publishing 400-year-old "news".

Or not, in light of Mr. Baquet's recent pep rally. I believe we all know exactly why the NYT is publishing this.

Gee, in 1976, we published 200 year old news. I suspect that in 2066, the Brits will publish something on Hastings, 1000 year old news. In 1992 there was some stuff about Columbus and indigenous people, 500 year old news. Apparently the French celebrated something on June 14, 1989. And what the hell was “D-Day” that got all those people to visit beaches on June 6?

Hard to figure what motivates humans.

 

[apdst]

That would fall under what Great Britain did not the country of Canada. If looking for bad things that Canada did look towards First Nations, Chinese immigrants and Sikh immigrants. Canada treated First Nations horribly up until the early 1980s. Sending children to residential schools where they were physically and sexually abused. Experiments on nutrition was also done starving some and comparing development

Still Canada.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Still Canada.

Nope Canada did not exist before 1867

 

[apdst]

Nope Canada did not exist before 1867

Where did the Canadians come from?

 

[justabubba]

The 1619 Project and the far-right fear of history

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/08/20/project-far-right-fear-history/

... The “1619 Project” ... charts how — from prison systems to land laws, the origins of capitalism to the evolution of the American diet — there’s little that defines the United States that doesn’t somehow have the legacy of slavery at its foundation.

“If you believe that 1776 matters,” she added, “if you believe that our Constitution still matters, then you also have to understand that the legacy of slavery still matters and you can’t pick and choose what parts of history we think are important and which ones aren’t.”

... this reframing proved all too much for an assorted cast of American conservatives. Newt Gingrich, a former Republican speaker of the House, blasted the Times for printing “propaganda.” President Trump echoed the talking points of right-wing media, decrying the “zero credibility” paper’s “Racism Witch Hunt.” And conservative pundit Erick Erickson lamented the “racial lenses” that the project deployed to look at a history of black subjugation.

For right-wing nationalists, there’s little room for the recognition of fundamental evil, of an original sin, in the founding myth of the nation. A commentator for the far-right Federalist website complained that the project’s goal was to “delegitimize America and further divide and demoralize its citizenry." ...

... Those who engage with history more seriously than politicians understand that recognition of a national darkness need not be an impediment to national pride. “This America is a community of belonging and commitment, held together by the strength of our ideas and by the force of our disagreements,” wrote Harvard historian Jill Lepore in her latest book, “This America: The Case for the Nation.” “A nation founded on universal ideas will never stop fighting over the meaning of its past and the direction of the future…. The nation, as ever, is the fight.”

a worthy read - no matter your political lean

 

[Noodlegawd]

Have been reading the NYTimes special on slavery. Good stuff, though hard to accept as part of our history. Now I discover that while generally positively received on the left and the right, some conservatives are upset with it. I can understand differing with some of the opinions expressed, but the Times does us a great favor in highlighting what started 400 years ago this month. Can someone from the right explain why/how Gingrich and others are upset? Fine to differ with some opinions expressed in some articles, but attacking the paper for running it? Are their other "commemorations" out there from outlets perceived as conservative that have a different slant on the topic?

Huh? Am I the only one who feels like he's in the Twilight Zone after reading that?

 

[Nickyjo]

Huh? Am I the only one who feels like he's in the Twilight Zone after reading that?

Don't get it. If you misunderstood, "good stuff" referred to the articles. "Hard to accept as part of our history" meant sad to read it and learn of stories of sorrow and pain that form part of our common background. Forgive me if it was not clear.

Still don't understand what some conservatives find wrong about such a commemoration. Not saying you are part of it, but the negative commentary by the Federalist Society et al. seems part of the "our **** doesn't stink" patriotism that one runs into from time to time in our country. The US has made great contributions to human freedom, but our **** does stink.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

it depends on how they framed it and if they actually told the truth.
The main party for slavery are democrats that started with Jackson.
Democrats fought every civil rights act that there was and the starting on the KKK were all democrats.

they continue their slavery programs today just in a different form trying to get everyone dependent on government.
for some reason though i doubt the NY time mentioned this.

The founder of planned parenthood is a devout democrat and racist.
it is funny that she put most of the planned parenthood in black communities.
which also corresponds to the plummet in black births.

This dumb ****ing **** again. Democrats back then were conservatives. They are the republicans of today. everybody but dumb dishonest right wingers knows that

What you people don't seem to grasp is that this is not just one lone misguided person posting this nonsense.
It's an entire MOVEMENT.
It is very well funded and it is larger than ALL of the other conspiracy theory groups put together.

It is orwellian newspeak and doublethink writ large and it is there for a purpose...when the facts of history are damaging to your cause, REWRITE history by repeating lies until they are accepted as truth.

This is not about Ludin.
Ludin is a single drop in an ever growing ocean of revisionist poo that pretends that the USA is not a democracy, that Hitler was a lefty and that Democrats are the real racists. A few years ago it was fluoride as a communist plot, it was Jade Helm, it was Obama is a Kenyan Muslim commie.
They've become much more advanced since those primitive days.
It is Dinesh D'Souza, Dennis Prager and Jonah Goldberg together with several hundred million dollars in airtime and internet penetration on social media. It is a right wing revanchist zeitgeist which encompasses the entire rotting scab of their history that embarrasses them.

You can argue all day long but bear in mind that you're arguing heliocentrism with Ptolemy and plant genetics with Lysenko.
You might as well go out in the street and pick a fight with Scientologists about psychology for all the good it will do you.
These people think and act like cult members because guess what? They're cult members!

But, the one bright spot in all of this is, it is just one more reason why a growing number of people have come to the realization that the remainder of what is today's Republican Party are basically idiots who can't think for themselves.
The relatively sane conservatives all started leaving the GOP several years ago.

You're arguing with what was left over after the sane conservatives headed for the exits.

 

[VanceMack]

Talk about dumb. I always find it amusing, in a One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest sort of way, that we are always told, the parties switched every time it is pointed out that the Democrats supported something that leftists, today, find appalling. We are really supposed to believe that the entire two parties just switch it up from time to time? All of the slavery supporting Democrats just up and switched party affiliation, same with Republicans? Then, they did it again during the civil rights movement? Yeah, you go with that. I think I hear Nurse Ratched calling for you.

That’s the lie idiot leftists have been peddling trying to avoid the facts about the rat party.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[VanceMack]

Don't get it. If you misunderstood, "good stuff" referred to the articles. "Hard to accept as part of our history" meant sad to read it and learn of stories of sorrow and pain that form part of our common background. Forgive me if it was not clear.

Still don't understand what some conservatives find wrong about such a commemoration. Not saying you are part of it, but the negative commentary by the Federalist Society et al. seems part of the "our **** doesn't stink" patriotism that one runs into from time to time in our country. The US has made great contributions to human freedom, but our **** does stink.

The only thing that is ‘wrong’ about any of this is the insistence on practicing hysteria where history is concerned.

No one in the last 160+ years has been a slave owner. People today that **** themselves over slavery weren’t slaves. Their mommies weren’t slaves. Their grandmommies weren’t slaves. That’s a minimum of 7 generations ago. **** happened to people a century and a half ago. It sucked.

Carry on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Brochacholomigo]

Talk about dumb. I always find it amusing, in a One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest sort of way, that we are always told, the parties switched every time it is pointed out that the Democrats supported something that leftists, today, find appalling. We are really supposed to believe that the entire two parties just switch it up from time to time? All of the slavery supporting Democrats just up and switched party affiliation, same with Republicans? Then, they did it again during the civil rights movement? Yeah, you go with that. I think I hear Nurse Ratched calling for you.

1900s begin, Democrats don't support equal rights. 2/3rds of the way through the century, the Northern Democrats help pass a Civil Rights act & suddenly everyone in the south's ditching the Democrats to vote for a third party former Democrat, and next thing you know, the south is a Republican stronghold in a single decade. The parties didn't switch on hardly anything; the Democrats just dumped their rotten bastards off on the Republicans' doorstep, and they were nuts enough to take 'em in.

 

[Nickyjo]

The only thing that is ‘wrong’ about any of this is the insistence on practicing hysteria where history is concerned.

No one in the last 160+ years has been a slave owner. People today that **** themselves over slavery weren’t slaves. Their mommies weren’t slaves. Their grandmommies weren’t slaves. That’s a minimum of 7 generations ago. **** happened to people a century and a half ago. It sucked.

Carry on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So we should not tell the story of Gettysburg or San Juan Hill because no one who was there is around anymore? And the Boston massacre? Enough with the British bashing! Same thing applies when the last person to be at Pearl Harbor or at the Twin Towers on 9/11 dies. Why practice 9/11 hysteria? Why bother to go to Normandy when so many who were there are gone? Hey Jews out there, enough already with Passover! Moses is dead, for crying out loud. You have a country. And Christmas? Some kid was born in a manger? Things were tough all over in 1 AD.

This was a seminal event in our country's history. From it flowed everything from the 3/5 compromise to the Alamo to jazz and rock and roll to Jackie Robinson to Selma to Rodney King. Teaching US history without teaching 1619 is like teaching it without mentioning 1776.

 

[Nickyjo]

1900s begin, Democrats don't support equal rights. 2/3rds of the way through the century, the Northern Democrats help pass a Civil Rights act & suddenly everyone in the south's ditching the Democrats to vote for a third party former Democrat, and next thing you know, the south is a Republican stronghold in a single decade. The parties didn't switch on hardly anything; the Democrats just dumped their rotten bastards off on the Republicans' doorstep, and they were nuts enough to take 'em in.

A bit overstated with the "rotten bastards" comment, but otherwise true. LBJ predicted it.

 

[COTO]

Are you required to read the NYTimes? Who’s foisting you?

Alas, if only the crap stirred up by the NYT never floated outside the pool of NYT readers.

The Times, for better or for worse, is the US's "newspaper of record". Anything controversial it writes spreads through the mediasphere and blogosphere like wildfire. These put their own spin on it, leveraging it to their own social or political causes, and eventually it winds up framing US national dialog. This isn't the Times' fault, but it does mean that if they stir up crap, it floats to the far corners of the US quickly and predictably. You yourself hastened to bring it to us here on DP.

In my view, they are doing us a service, no different than was probably done with news articles on the significant years after Pearl Harbor, or 9/11, or for that matter Bobby Thompson’s home run in 1951. This is an important part of history, like lynching, or the Haymarket riots, that has been under-taught.

Agree to disagree.

In the current social climate, they're stirring up hatred and sowing the seeds of discontent, and they know it.

Gee, in 1976, we published 200 year old news. I suspect that in 2066, the Brits will publish something on Hastings, 1000 year old news. In 1992 there was some stuff about Columbus and indigenous people, 500 year old news. Apparently the French celebrated something on June 14, 1989. And what the hell was “D-Day” that got all those people to visit beaches on June 6?

When I wrote this, I didn't realize that you Yankees placed such significance on the date 1619.

As the Smithsonian article points out, the date has no legitimate significance, and it simply isn't taught in Canada (or, I imagine, anywhere outside the US). When you said "what started 400 years ago this month" in the OP, I thought you were being facetious.

Live and learn. :shrug:

 

[vegas giants]

it depends on how they framed it and if they actually told the truth.
The main party for slavery are democrats that started with Jackson.
Democrats fought every civil rights act that there was and the starting on the KKK were all democrats.

they continue their slavery programs today just in a different form trying to get everyone dependent on government.
for some reason though i doubt the NY time mentioned this.

The founder of planned parenthood is a devout democrat and racist.
it is funny that she put most of the planned parenthood in black communities.
which also corresponds to the plummet in black births.

Yet blacks vote overwhelmingly Democrat. Why?

 

[HK.227]

Have been reading the NYTimes special on slavery. Good stuff, though hard to accept as part of our history. Now I discover that while generally positively received on the left and the right, some conservatives are upset with it. I can understand differing with some of the opinions expressed, but the Times does us a great favor in highlighting what started 400 years ago this month. Can someone from the right explain why/how Gingrich and others are upset? Fine to differ with some opinions expressed in some articles, but attacking the paper for running it? Are their other "commemorations" out there from outlets perceived as conservative that have a different slant on the topic?

Hard to say. Is any of the material available without having to subscribe?

 

[VanceMack]

So we should not tell the story of Gettysburg or San Juan Hill because no one who was there is around anymore? And the Boston massacre? Enough with the British bashing! Same thing applies when the last person to be at Pearl Harbor or at the Twin Towers on 9/11 dies. Why practice 9/11 hysteria? Why bother to go to Normandy when so many who were there are gone? Hey Jews out there, enough already with Passover! Moses is dead, for crying out loud. You have a country. And Christmas? Some kid was born in a manger? Things were tough all over in 1 AD.

This was a seminal event in our country's history. From it flowed everything from the 3/5 compromise to the Alamo to jazz and rock and roll to Jackie Robinson to Selma to Rodney King. Teaching US history without teaching 1619 is like teaching it without mentioning 1776.

By all means....we should study from history. We should learn from history. Do you know what we shouldn’t do? Cripple entire segments of society so warped in a victim mentality or conversely expect a segment of society to run around feeling guilt or shame over an historical reality that occurred 160 years ago, perpetuated by people of. A different time, era, and global mindset, practiced by every nation and people across the planet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ludin]

The Democrats voted to pass the civil rights act of 64' and voting rights act of 65' with a solid majority and while nearly 40% of Democrats voted against those 30% of Republicans voted against them as well. The only voting bloc that has truly and consistently voted against equal rights even to this day is The South. The South, i.e. southern representatives of any stripe, be it Democrat or Republican, voted against those two pieces of legislation by over 90%. And we all know who The South votes for today.

not sure where you were getting your information but it is not correct. the majority of democrats opposed the civil rights act.
in fact they filibustered the bill for hours and hours. It was the majority of republicans that over came it and they where the ones that pushed
the bill through. The fact is that democrats were the party of slavery, helped start the KKK and continue to keep people enslaved to the government.

If you think slavery is getting something for doing nothing then son, you don't seem to know what slavery is. It just about the complete opposite of that.

Slavery is nothing more then the suppression of a people and control over a group of people. If you are depending on me to give you food and shelter and
basic needs then i have the power over you and you will do what i say or you will suffer the consequences. that by definition is slavery.

The Founders of this country were slave owners. :shrug:

nothing to do with what i said. whataboutism it is then. funny you complain about it
until you use it.

 

[vegas giants]

not sure where you were getting your information but it is not correct. the majority of democrats opposed the civil rights act.
in fact they filibustered the bill for hours and hours. It was the majority of republicans that over came it and they where the ones that pushed
the bill through. The fact is that democrats were the party of slavery, helped start the KKK and continue to keep people enslaved to the government.



Slavery is nothing more then the suppression of a people and control over a group of people. If you are depending on me to give you food and shelter and
basic needs then i have the power over you and you will do what i say or you will suffer the consequences. that by definition is slavery.


nothing to do with what i said. whataboutism it is then. funny you complain about it
until you use it.

And yet blacks vote Democrat. Are you saying they are stupid?

 

[ludin]

What a batch of unhinged trash this is.
The Democrats are racist?

Yes they are, and they continue their race hate today.

If that's so, then after the 2013 partial overturning of the voting rights act, why were the REPUBLICANS asking for racial voting data? Explicitly, who and what color of people were registering to vote with a drivers license number?

Any state issued id would be used or any form of paper that could verify who you were and they were giving them out for free.
so next. voting is a right but voting illegally is not.

that is what the law says. we are a nation of laws.

Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about. Richard Spencer is a republican.

since in never mentioned him you don't know what you are talking about.

The southern strategy is real and the republicans today are the Democrats of 50 years ago.

Nope they are still liberals today and democrats.

 

[cpwill]

Have been reading the NYTimes special on slavery. Good stuff, though hard to accept as part of our history. Now I discover that while generally positively received on the left and the right, some conservatives are upset with it. I can understand differing with some of the opinions expressed, but the Times does us a great favor in highlighting what started 400 years ago this month. Can someone from the right explain why/how Gingrich and others are upset? Fine to differ with some opinions expressed in some articles, but attacking the paper for running it? Are their other "commemorations" out there from outlets perceived as conservative that have a different slant on the topic?

:shrug: I don't know how "upset" I would say anyone is, but, from National Review

But the 1619 Project’s effort to “reframe American history” requires cropping out some significant figures in African-American history. Perhaps no near-100-page collection of essays, poems and photos could cover every significant figure in African-American history, but the number of prominent figures who never even get mentioned or who get only the most cursory treatment is pretty surprising....

Early in Nikole Hannah-Jones’s essay, she reiterates the important point, “in every war this nation has waged since that first one, black Americans have fought — today we are the most likely of all racial groups to serve in the United States military.” ... In the seven times African-American soldiers mentioned, they are generally described as victims who have merely shifted from one system of subjugation and exploitation to another.... African-American heroism on the battlefield doesn’t really fit the narrative that the 1619 Project is trying to tell. In fact, you could argue that the essays are so wedded to a narrative of white brutality and black victimhood that they seem to fear that spotlighting any example of a successful African-American defiance of oppression would undermine their argument. In the reframing of the 1619 Project, African-American success stories disappear. ...

Would the country as a whole be better off with a greater understanding of slavery and its legacy in American history? Absolutely. (The country would be better off with more understanding of just about any chapter of American history.) The 1619 Project argues, with considerable justification, that most of us been seeing only one part of the portrait of the founding, formation, and growth of our country . . . and then “reframes” the portrait to leave out some of the most consequential and under-discussed African Americans in our history.

 

[ludin]

This dumb ****ing **** again. Democrats back then were conservatives. They are the republicans of today. everybody but dumb dishonest right wingers knows that

no they were not they were liberal leftist democrats.
and everyone but dishonest left wingers know this.

the democrats were founded on racism all the way back to jackson.
it is documented fact.

history revisionism doesn't help you here.

 

[vegas giants]

no they were not they were liberal leftist democrats.
and everyone but dishonest left wingers know this.

the democrats were founded on racism all the way back to jackson.
it is documented fact.

history revisionism doesn't help you here.

Now that is hilariously wrong