And you should bow out of this thread before you embarrass yourself further. The "liberal article" I posted is a piece of scholarship from an economics journal authored by economics professors from Princeton and Columbia (was at Yale when she authored this article, though). So yeah, I'm not surprised you don't care what it says when it doesn't accord with what you want to believe.
What historical evidence can you point to that suggests Lincoln would have banned Confederate monuments in the South? You have none. Lincoln was an abolitionist. He opposed secession. But he was not a modern day social justice warrior. Not even close.
My friend as long as you are here there can be no higher level of embarrassment so I am not worried about it. The schools you just cited are palaces of liberal thinking so I am not surprised you like quoting them. After all awards mean nothing. How many New York Times columnists won Pulitzer prizes because of there crackerjack reporting about Russian Collusion
First, you claim that Lincoln did not tear down monuments that did not exist. Then, you claim that Lincoln's actions after the Civil War prove he would have accepted those monuments. Now, after I corrected your previous historic fictions, you're demanding that I prove with evidence Lincoln wouldn't have accepted monuments that didn't exist during his life? Lincoln didn't consider the Confederacy to be a real country, he considered the Confederate leaders to be guilty of treason, and he only recognized Jefferson Davis as "the insurgent leader." But yes, I'm sure Lincoln would have been totally cool with a bunch of traitors building monuments to glorify their cause of treason. Feel free to fabricate more history to try and support whatever irrelevant point you're attempting to make.
Oh, don't sell yourself short. You have set the bar so high that I know I can't surmount it. Our nation's preeminent universities are "palaces of liberal thinking," so the facts that contradict your historically illiterate stance don't count. It must be nice to live in a world where no "real" facts could possibly contradict whatever ignorant opinion you spout. Now, I get why you love Donald Trump.
Considering Lincoln pardoned most Confederate officers and did not pursue prosecution of Jefferson Davis, it is very difficult to see him tearing down statues of them in the South. What legal basis would he have had to tear down statues of men who were pardoned by him? The statues were not even a problem until the 21st century. How many speeches can you pull from Bill Clinton in the 1990’s talking about how the South needs to tear down Confederate statues? You won’t find any. 1993 Clinton and 1865 Abraham Lincoln were not modern day social justice warriors. Very, very far from it. And again, I am not someone who is supportive of Confederate statues. I’m just correcting the historical record. P.S. I am not incorrect for pointing out Lincoln did not tear down statues in the South. It was you who suggested modern day GOP have trashed Lincoln’s legacy by protecting the statues, even though a large quantity of GOP want them removed as well. But Lincoln never tore down any statues (truth) and more importantly, none of his Reconstruction proposals involved a mass cleansing of any remnants of the Old South. Very, very far from it, in fact.
The first (foremost?) point the author makes is about people having “a common cultural identity of history, art, community, and shared experiences” deserving to have their name capitalized. Well, we have that - African American. But these commonalities apply to all such cultures. I don’t like what aboutism, however, I think black and white (and red and yellow) people all have such commonalities, and access to capitalized group names. I see no reason to capitalize any such descriptors that are reduced to inaccurate and simple colors. No race or skin color or hat size or economic circumstances are more special than the next to me. I don’t really care one way or another, though, and I have a trip to pack for. So for that reason, and because I suspect that you are a trained professional arguer and I’m not, I’m gonna give you the last word and go fit a weeks worth of stuff into a carry-on. Thanks for playing “change my mind.” BTW, I remember the very first black person I ever saw. My family was stationed at a Bomarc base in Quebec and I would have been about five. Not a lot of black folk in Quebec and I saw this airman in the BX. I asked my mom why he was so dark and she said, “he’s a black man.” This was before black was the current nomenclature. I replied, “ but he isn’t black, he’s brown.”
You haven't lived in a world of real fact since Trump became President Maybe even longer for all I know. You are so indoctrinated into the cancel culture way of thinking that you just figure you can throw out a few insults and then tell someone to just go away and of course they will. Why because you have no capacity to hear the other side of the story. I am not going anywhere. The difference between you and me is that no matter how much I disagree with you I will never tell you that you can't say what you want and have your voice heard. You use your moniker as some sort of badge of intimidation to make people think how smart you must be (pretty narcissistic if you ask me) because you are a lawyer (if you even really are). A real man stands up says his piece and then hears the other side of the argument. I would love to see you in court. "your honor make the other lawyer leave the courtroom because there is only room for my opinion here". You are pathetic.
As pointed out, he didn't have time to prosecute Jefferson Davis, who was still in hiding when he was killed (trying to revive the Confederate cause) and was arrested after Lincoln's death. He also did not "pardon most Confederate officers" although he did pardon a few. He explicitly left out major political leaders from the pardons. Davis was partially pardoned by Johnson after being stripped of his assets and held in prison for 2 years. He did not regain his citizenship rights until more than 100 years later. He remained unrepentant to the end, preventing him from receiving a full pardon including the return of his citizenship. You have not pointed out one historical inaccuracy with the record. Yes, he didn't tear down statues that wouldn't exist for decades after his death. How is that anything more than an attempt to mislead those who may not realize when the statues were built? Can you provide evidence to back this? Polling showing what percentage of the GOP wants that? Evidence that GOP leaders are pushing for the removal of Confederate statues? Well, that isn't true. His reconstruction proposal was for a mass cleansing of slavery, which was a remnant of the Old South. That was basically the economic system of the aristocratic South that he was threatening.
Do what you want on capitalization. I don't care. I didn't make any demand of you with regard to capitalizing the word. I'm going to continue capitalizing "Black." The people who don't like that can deal with it.
The nice thing about court is when I say my piece and then offer evidence, my job isn't to convince opposing counsel that I am correct. He doesn't get to say "your fact-based evidence comes from lib universities, so I reject it" and then strut around declaring he has won the case. If you're "intimidated" by my moniker, that's a you problem. It's a username. But I do have to laugh at you lecturing me about how a "real man" hears the other side of the argument. Next, Donald Trump will lecture me about how "real men" treat women with respect.
Why do you think I think you’re the most naive person in the world? I’ve PERSONALLY witnessed racism. And that includes PERSONALLY hearing a coworker get called the N-word just recently by an angry client. I PERSONALLY have friends who have experienced racism. So yea, it’s real bud and it hasn’t gone away. Is your world also absent of any murder or violence too? Tell me the last time you PERSONALLY witnessed murder or it doesn’t exist.
You need to get Trump out of your head he is destroying you. Look all this back and forth is nonsense. Believe me your educational level does not intimidate me one bit. I am not going to trade resumes with you I don't need to in order to give myself some sort of satisfaction in knowing I am smarter than you. Who knows maybe you are smarter than me (that would make you very smart... Mensa smart). I am however willing to extend the olive branch in hopes we can stop insulting each other and just get back to having a friendly discussion with opposing points of view. I am sorry if I upset you with any of my posts. Politics can drive people crazy. This is a one time peace offering I hope you take it.
Thats a nice opinion, but we will NEVER acheive equality by treating some segments of the population differently than others.
I think a civil discussion is always better. So I will accept the peace offering. Enjoy your evening, and I hope you and your loved ones have a happy Thanksgiving.
We also will never achieve equality by ignoring that we historically treated some segments of the population worse than others and still treat them that way. If we're serious about equality of opportunity, it requires reckoning with that fact and seeking to remedy it. Pretending otherwise will only prolong the injustices. I posted this Thurgood Marshall quote earlier and will post it again now: Obviously, I too believe in a colorblind society; but it has been and remains an aspiration. It is a goal toward which our society has progressed uncertainly, bearing as it does the enormous burden of incalculable injuries inflicted by race prejudice and other bigotry, which the law once sanctioned, and even encouraged. Not having attained our goal, we must face the simple fact that there are groups in every community, which are daily paying the cost of the history of American injustice. The argument against affirmative action is but an argument in favor of leaving that cost to lie where it falls. Our fundamental sense of fairness, particularly as it is embodied in the guarantee of equal protection under the law, requires us to make an effort to see that those costs are shared equitably while we continue to work for the eradication of the consequences of discrimination. Otherwise, we must admit to ourselves that so long as the lingering effects of inequality are with us, the burden will be borne by those who are least able to pay.
Good chance it's a combination of both. and LOL@ them trying to cancel French toast and French fries, it sounds like a joke but it's not.
Dee is 100% correct. Good argument: nobody should be using the N word. Bad argument: White guys should be able to say it, double standards! The reality is there *is* a double standard around this word. But only a degenerate fool is going to go to the mat to defend a white kid using it. It was a mistake for him to use it, full stop. But the context was not hateful, and that needs to be taken into account. Hateful usage should be ostracized. This? It’s more just something that one would hope he’d just be embarrassed by.and perhaps learn a lesson about bad PR.
