Louisiana Lawmaker Forced to Clarify There Was No ‘Good’ in Slavery

[Tahuyaman]

Slavery and Jim Crow laws did not destroy the black family structure, but one generation of welfare did.

 

[Tigerace117]

Very interesting case. It can be studied. Here is a Vanity Fair article.

And the linked article spells out all the *problematic*.

The purpose of this? To attack, critique, undermine, 'problematize' every aspect of America when America was predominantly a white country. This is itself intolerable to those infected with the animus found often in activist critical race theory.

Another day, another round of Aliza Taylor sobbing because the “good old days” of Jim Crow are gone and never coming back.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

Another day, another round of Aliza Taylor sobbing because the “good old days” of Jim Crow are gone and never coming back.

Eye problems? Alizia Tyler . . .

The thing about you is that though you have a strong opinion, and I very much respect your opinions and strong opinions, you are always a little too *binary* for me. Things are too cut and dried with you. You see things too much in black & white. For example, you seem to have no other way to interpret what I say and the view I have except to see it as a desire to return to Jim Crow. This is silly.

What I have done largely is to try to examine the history of the transformation of America at one time, when America meant a specific thing and in a sense one of the best times of a unified America, and contrast it with what you-plural tell me is a *good and necessary evolution* to where we have this sort of thing going on culture-wide.

I see the writing on the wall. I am not alone. Many see this writing. We see where this is going. (The *we* is a reference to people who think like I do not necessarily anyone here on this forum).

And what I suggest is the construction of a position that can successfully counter this specific movement. I am much more interested in a classic liberal solution. But I honestly perceive that you-plural and *they* of the Left/Progressive radical front will not and do not accept 'liberal compromise'. They push things to the final points. They incite and provoke until they get reaction, and then try to exploit reaction. The Alinsky Playbook so-called. (And here the reference is Barack Obama who was trained in these tactics).

In order to do that I have to back-track into everything that *was*, into the way the world (of America) was conceived at one time. You tell me "this was all evil!" and must all be renounced or rebuked. But what I notice is a peculiarly virulent mob outside the window with torches and weapons that is announcing the violence they intend to us if they *get their way*.

The real issue here, as I understand it, is what comes about when the creation of a multi-cultural and multi-ethnic society is a forced creation that is imposed on a nation, in this case the US. How this came about, and what forces and powers determined it, can be examined dispassionately. But no, to do that is (according to you-plural) crimethink. It is bad and wrong. One is not allowed to do this, and therefore arises 'coerced intellectual process'. You will see things as we tell you they must be seen or you will suffer dire consequences.

While I understand that you, yourself, are ideologically constrained to examine things in depth, and to then modify your binary mind-set, like it or not there are many people who have launched on this path. There are many more than you think. As the radicalism that you seem to support, or support without understanding how you support it, gets more intense, it will necessarily call forth reaction to it. But what will happen at that point is anyone's guess. My *crystal ball* looks all cloudy and I can't read the signs.

 

[JasperL]

The ideas of Madison Grant and Lothrop Stoddard are, by and large, entirely sound ideas.

OK, here's Madison Grant.

A rigid system of selection through the elimination of those who are weak or unfit—in other words social failures—would solve the whole question in one hundred years, as well as enable us to get rid of the undesirables who crowd our jails, hospitals, and insane asylums. The individual himself can be nourished, educated and protected by the community during his lifetime, but the state through sterilization must see to it that his line stops with him, or else future generations will be cursed with an ever increasing load of misguided sentimentalism. This is a practical, merciful, and inevitable solution of the whole problem, and can be applied to an ever widening circle of social discards, beginning always with the criminal, the diseased, and the insane, and extending gradually to types which may be called weaklings rather than defectives, and perhaps ultimately to worthless race types.[9]

That's why I asked what was wrong with Hitler. Apparently you don't really have a problem with what Hitler did, at least in the beginning. It was just the whole genocide thing. If he'd stopped with just rounding up all the Jews, sterilizing them, and then putting them in ghettos, along with gypsies, the mentally ill, and other obvious defectives, it would have been fine.

What you want here is for this statement: “the person you quoted favorably has said, what happened when his ideas hit the real world, and the incredible damage done by putting those ideas into practice” to utterly defeat all his ideas, or to undermine the (potential) sensible base to some of those ideas, and you want the view that you *copied and pasted* to annihilate my position and perspective.

That's right - I have no patience for neo-Nazis, whether they are street thugs or so-called intellectuals. And, again, the reason I oppose his "ideas" is there is no way to put them to work in the real world without violence, murder, death, and a horror show for the 'defectives' or the undesirables or the worthless races.

You can't describe a way to put his 'ideas' to work in a benign way, because there cannot be one, unless you just do not care about the oppressed. When you justify treating entire races with contempt and disgust, there is a predictable outcome for the 'masses' and it's evil.

Then, you-plural say you want to *debate* but your debating is often haranguing in *performances* and *rehearsals* on this forum.

But I return to my basic observation, based on my own direct experience: Madison Grant (the section I quoted was from his introduction to Stoddard’s book) has a central core of soundness. I agree that it is *problematic* in the atmosphere and climate of today however. But this leads me to a ctitique of that *atmosphere* and that *climate*, which involves delving into the ideology that has become so powerful and dominant in our present.

No, it was problematic when written, and was problematic at every point since. It's intellectual cover for what we saw happened in Germany and centuries of how this country treated blacks, right up through my lifetime, as people who weren't deserving of basic human rights that we guarantee for whites, or Aryans, or whoever we determine are not "worthless races."

You say you read history, then ignore it when your white supremacist ideas were adopted at the level of the state. But any idiot can see that when the STATE takes a position that the country should rid itself of undesirables by force, sterilization, ghettos, that it will lead to evil acts done by the state. You're telling the population - these are worthless people, dregs of society, and you should hold them in contempt and disgust. Well, why not kill them? How can you justify feeding and clothing and providing shelter for worthless dregs of society, for perhaps 80-90 years?

 

[Tigerace117]

Eye problems? Alizia Tyler . . .

The thing about you is that though you have a strong opinion, and I very much respect your opinions and strong opinions, you are always a little too *binary* for me. Things are too cut and dried with you. You see things too much in black & white. For example, you seem to have no other way to interpret what I say and the view I have except to see it as a desire to return to Jim Crow. This is silly.

What I have done largely is to try to examine the history of the transformation of America at one time, when America meant a specific thing and in a sense one of the best times of a unified America, and contrast it with what you-plural tell me is a *good and necessary evolution* to where we have this sort of thing going on culture-wide.

I see the writing on the wall. I am not alone. Many see this writing. We see where this is going. (The *we* is a reference to people who think like I do not necessarily anyone here on this forum).

And what I suggest is the construction of a position that can successfully counter this specific movement. I am much more interested in a classic liberal solution. But I honestly perceive that you-plural and *they* of the Left/Progressive radical front will not and do not accept 'liberal compromise'. They push things to the final points. They incite and provoke until they get reaction, and then try to exploit reaction. The Alinsky Playbook so-called. (And here the reference is Barack Obama who was trained in these tactics).

In order to do that I have to back-track into everything that *was*, into the way the world (of America) was conceived at one time. You tell me "this was all evil!" and must all be renounced or rebuked. But what I notice is a peculiarly virulent mob outside the window with torches and weapons that is announcing the violence they intend to us if they *get their way*.

The real issue here, as I understand it, is what comes about when the creation of a multi-cultural and multi-ethnic society is a forced creation that is imposed on a nation, in this case the US. How this came about, and what forces and powers determined it, can be examined dispassionately. But no, to do that is (according to you-plural) crimethink. It is bad and wrong. And I totally disagree with you.

While I understand that you, yourself, are ideologically constrained to examine things in depth, and to then modify your binary mind-set, like it or not there are many people who have launched on this path. As the radicalism that you seem to support, or support without understanding how you support it, gets more intense it will necessarily call forth reaction to it.

Jim Crow’s America was anything but unified. Even without looking at the terrorist group which ran the south with impunity for a century, the country routinely fell into fits of xenophobic hysteria. The murder of people like Emmett Till, who was brutally killed for doing....nothing, essentially, show just how warped and evil the “good old days” really were.

People weeping over such a evil regime IS bad and wrong. The America you long for, quite frankly, was a tyranny no different than the ones popping up in Europe— albeit one which excused its excesses with flowery language and ideals it never bothered to uphold.

If people are dumb enough to double down on Jim Crow apologism and celebration of the Confederacy that’s their own issue, no one else’s.

 

[Jezcoe]

Slavery and Jim Crow laws did not destroy the black family structure, but one generation of welfare did.

How did welfare destroy the black family structure while leaving the white family structure intact?

 

[Tahuyaman]

How did welfare destroy the black family structure while leaving the white family structure intact?

By incentivise fathers leaving the home. Why do you suppose today over 70% of black children are born into a sing,e family home? Almost always that single parent is the mother.

Welfare caused that.

 

[Tahuyaman]

...If people are dumb enough to double down on Jim Crow apologism and celebration of the Confederacy that’s their own issue, no one else’s.

No one is celebrating or doubling down on Jim (Eagle) Crow laws.


I'm just noting how prior to the creation of the welfare state, the black family structure was as strong or even stronger than that of whites. Democrats replaced Jim Crow laws with a new and softer form of indentured servitude.

 

[Tigerace117]

No one is celebrating or doubling down on Jim (Eagle) Crow laws.


I'm just noting how prior to the creation of the welfare state, the black family structure was as strong or even stronger than that of whites. Democrats replaced Jim Crow laws with a new and softer form of indentured servitude.

Trying to compare welfare to Jim Crow is laughable.

 

[Jezcoe]

By incentivise fathers leaving the home. Why do you suppose today over 70% of black children are born into a sing,e family home? Almost always that single parent is the mother.

Welfare caused that.

Why did welfare destroy black families but not white ones?

 

[Tahuyaman]

Why did welfare destroy black families but not white ones?

I just told you. Pay attention in class.

 

[Tahuyaman]

Trying to compare welfare to Jim Crow is laughable.

No one did that.

 

[Jezcoe]

I just told you. Pay attention in class.

Why specifically black people though? Why didn't it happen to white people also?

 

[JasperL]

Your third paragraph is a major misread. CRT is making the claim that America remains irredeemably racist, not Tyler.

She said that the person whose name I avoid spoke to what America "is" not was. Then she rejects CRT, which makes roughly that same claim. You can't have it both ways. If America "is" how that person describes it, then CRT is in fact speaking the truth.

 

[Tigerace117]

No one did that.

.....you literally just did.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

That's why I asked what was wrong with Hitler. Apparently you don't really have a problem with what Hitler did, at least in the beginning. It was just the whole genocide thing. If he'd stopped with just rounding up all the Jews, sterilizing them, and then putting them in ghettos, along with gypsies, the mentally ill, and other obvious defectives, it would have been fine.

I should have expected you'd double-down on this sort of thing. Very well, no problem. First, how do you know that I don't have a problem with what the National Socialist regime did? You made the assumption as part of your sophistical ploy by which you use underhanded tools, whatever is at your disposal, to discredit my ideas. You are essentially *working the angle* that all Left-Progressives work. It is underhanded of course but it is what you do.

I have many problems with 'what Hitler did'. You never asked!

A rigid system of selection through the elimination of those who are weak or unfit—in other words social failures—would solve the whole question in one hundred years, as well as enable us to get rid of the undesirables who crowd our jails, hospitals, and insane asylums. The individual himself can be nourished, educated and protected by the community during his lifetime, but the state through sterilization must see to it that his line stops with him, or else future generations will be cursed with an ever increasing load of misguided sentimentalism. This is a practical, merciful, and inevitable solution of the whole problem, and can be applied to an ever widening circle of social discards, beginning always with the criminal, the diseased, and the insane, and extending gradually to types which may be called weaklings rather than defectives, and perhaps ultimately to worthless race types.

The first thing to say is that in concept what Grant is speaking about is *scientific truth*. He is speaking as a biologist and a naturalist. It is unquestionably true that *good breeding* (a science of breeding) would be just as valuable to a human (biological) community as to a natural community. These are core conclusions of science.

What you object to, and what everyone would object to, is a forced system in which bureaucrats or some state junta makes these decisions. And that is where the issue lies, essentially. But the essence of the ideas behind eugenics are unquestionably sound.

That's right - I have no patience for neo-Nazis, whether they are street thugs or so-called intellectuals. And, again, the reason I oppose his "ideas" is there is no way to put them to work in the real world without violence, murder, death, and a horror show for the 'defectives' or the undesirables or the worthless races.

Here is the other angle that you work. The Nazi Accusation. It is in the background of your thought, it is in the background of your perception, and when needed you haul it out.

There is very certainly a way for the ideas of Grant -- ideas about breeding and such -- when they are voluntarily chosen. There is a range of areas where they would work quite well. But there is no idea that they become highly problematic in the implementation.

You can't describe a way to put his 'ideas' to work in a benign way, because there cannot be one, unless you just do not care about the oppressed. When you justify treating entire races with contempt and disgust, there is a predictable outcome for the 'masses' and it's evil.

I certainly can think about some ways that some part of his sound ideas could be implemented. Education of course. Presenting the *hard, cold facts* just as they are. I think good breeding and good eugenics habits would be and in fact are part of how intelligent people direct their reproduction.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

[cont. from previous]

But I do not deny the problematic involved in either sterilizing defectives or those in mental hospitals.

No, it was problematic when written, and was problematic at every point since. It's intellectual cover for what we saw happened in Germany and centuries of how this country treated blacks, right up through my lifetime, as people who weren't deserving of basic human rights that we guarantee for whites, or Aryans, or whoever we determine are not "worthless races."

You say you read history, then ignore it when your white supremacist ideas were adopted at the level of the state. But any idiot can see that when the STATE takes a position that the country should rid itself of undesirables by force, sterilization, ghettos, that it will lead to evil acts done by the state. You're telling the population - these are worthless people, dregs of society, and you should hold them in contempt and disgust. Well, why not kill them? How can you justify feeding and clothing and providing shelter for worthless dregs of society, for perhaps 80-90 years?

I fully admit that it is problematic. It is an area of immense moral implication. Especially in a society such as ours with the social problems and all the rest. But again you jump to conclusions because your mind is over-heated and you are working furiously to undermine my position.

There was a guy -- William Shockley -- who delved into the topic of volunteer eugenics. I have his books and have read significant parts of them. The ideas he works with are sound, basically, but the narrative simply cannot *play* nor be *heard* except as part of the attack that was perceived.

Here you can watch an interesting interchange:

 

[Tahuyaman]

.....you literally just did.

I did not. I said that Jim Crow laws did not destroy the black family structure. At that time black families were strong. That is a demonstrable fact.


Then I said one generation of the welfare state has torn apart black families. This is demonstrated by the fact that more than 70% of black children are born into a single parent home.


Stop thinking emotionally.

 

[Tahuyaman]

Your third paragraph is a major misread. CRT is making the claim that America remains irredeemably racist, not Tyler.

CRT teaches kids that based on your race, you are either a victim and oppressed or you are a victimizer and oppressor. This is not going to do anything to close the racial divide. It will have the opposite effect.

 

[Tigerace117]

I did not. I said that Jim Crow laws did not destroy the black family structure. At that time black families were strong. That's is a fact.


Then I said one generation of the welfare state has torn apart black families. This is demonstrated by the fact that more than 70% of black children are born into a single parent home.


Stop thinking emotionally.

You claim Democrats “replaced Jim Crow with a softer form of indentured servitude”. I get that conservatives cling to this idea of “familial strength” because they think it’s somehow an exonerating factor that means that the “good old days” really weren’t so bad....but they were.

 

[Tahuyaman]

Why did welfare destroy black families but not white ones?

Why? Because the Dmocrats, led by the bitter racist LBJ wanted to create a dependent class which would be beholding to government for their support and be obligated to vote Democrst to maintain that support.

 

[Tahuyaman]

You claim Democrats “replaced Jim Crow with a softer form of indentured servitude”. I get that conservatives cling to this idea of “familial strength” because they think it’s somehow an exonerating factor that means that the “good old days” really weren’t so bad....but they were.

No one said the Jim Crow era was "the good old days." That's your interpretation.

How do you explain the collapse of black family structure? Happenstance, evolution, progress?

 

[BitterPill]

There was nothing good about slavery?

It made Mississippi the richest state in the Union, but, sadly, it is not anymore.

 

[Tigerace117]

No one said the Jim Crow era was "the good old days." That's your interpretation.

How do you explain the collapse of black family structure? Happenstance, evolution, progress?

The 1950s— aka the days of Jim Crow— are pretty universally regarded as a “golden age” by conservatives.

Arguing that Jim Crow had anything to do with solidifying “black family structure” is, again, ridiculous

 

[JasperL]

I should have expected you'd double-down on this sort of thing. Very well, no problem. First, how do you know that I don't have a problem with what the National Socialist regime did? You made the assumption as part of your sophistical ploy by which you use underhanded tools, whatever is at your disposal, to discredit my ideas. You are essentially *working the angle* that all Left-Progressives work. It is underhanded of course but it is what you do.

How else do I interpret your praise of Hitler's "bible"? You know, the guy who advocated forced sterilizations and ghettos for "defectives" and "worthless races." You seem to want to separate the ideology from what it means when that ideology is adopted by the state, in the real world. It doesn't work that way.

I have many problems with 'what Hitler did'. You never asked!

The first thing to say is that in concept what Grant is speaking about is *scientific truth*. He is speaking as a biologist and a naturalist. It is unquestionably true that *good breeding* (a science of breeding) would be just as valuable to a human (biological) community as to a natural community. These are core conclusions of science.

What you object to, and what everyone would object to, is a forced system in which bureaucrats or some state junta makes these decisions. And that is where the issue lies, essentially. But the essence of the ideas behind eugenics are unquestionably sound.

Sure, in concept the Aryans are the superior race. He used the term 'Nordic' but same difference. Where is your evidence for that claim, that eastern and southern Europe was populated by inferior, or perhaps even 'worthless,' races.

And of course we object to a 'forced system' but it's a forced system that man advocated, and his voice was heard, and people believed him, and we know the outcome. You cannot separate the 'scientific truth' from the practical consequences of accepting his ideas as a 'scientific truth.' In this country we had a couple of centuries of accepting that 'scientific truth' that blacks were inherently inferior and we here in this country know what that meant, for blacks, and for society as a whole.

Conveniently enough for that person, he was a member of the superior race so his ideas didn't threaten him or his family. I'm guessing you consider yourself part of the superior race as well, so why do you care about what happens when society embraces the ideology of the Nazis or the southern white supremacists like George Wallace and all the rest? It's unfortunate that we must oppress the inferior black race, but you know, them's the breaks or something.

Otherwise, if the 'truth' isn't converted into action, why do we care about this scientific 'truth?' What advantage is it for society to have this discussion, and all supposedly rational people grasp the obvious - sure, there are superior and inferior races, the white man, Nordic or Aryan, sits at the top in our society and the blacks, yellows and browns are clearly inferior, worthless perhaps, along with Jews, naturally. Where does that get us as society? Does that bring the country together?

Here is the other angle that you work. The Nazi Accusation. It is in the background of your thought, it is in the background of your perception, and when needed you haul it out.

There is very certainly a way for the ideas of Grant -- ideas about breeding and such -- when they are voluntarily chosen. There is a range of areas where they would work quite well. But there is no idea that they become highly problematic in the implementation.

I certainly can think about some ways that some part of his sound ideas could be implemented. Education of course. Presenting the *hard, cold facts* just as they are. I think good breeding and good eugenics habits would be and in fact are part of how intelligent people direct their reproduction.

But he didn't suggest voluntary. You keep glossing over that fact. And voluntary gets society nowhere. So if the society embraces his views, and cares about doing something, the only course is involuntary - oppression, ghettos, sterilization, often genocide That MATTERS. You call us stupid and ignorant for grasping this simple fact, but you're not fooling anyone. Look at history. When has a voluntary eugenics program worked? Never.