My argument could be about any of those, but the pertinent circumstances that have changed is this Roof shooting, so my argument is practicality. Why do you think we see politicians from both sides (and Rand Paul, too) condemning the flag now? Is it a coincidence an election is coming?
Take down confederate flag, and change street names in public places?
- Thread starter nitro
- Start date
Depends on your perspective. Back in the day, we thought that when the old people died off, everything would be okay. And when the SC decided Loving v Virginia, we thought that racial harmony would finally be at hand.
Ha!
I saw whites throw rocks at black children trying to attend school. Now they gun them down.
I saw whites-only restaurants. Now "religious liberty" brings us one step nearer to what I thought we'd never see again.
Spiro Agnew is gone. In his place we've got Dick Cheney, who makes Spiro Agnew look like Mr. Rogers.
And the beat goes on.
As long as we continue to train our children to hate, the current situation will only get worse.
Sorry to sound dystopian, but I see no reason to alter my outlook. Even Jews are again taking heat.
Yeah, it can get depressing when you sit down and think about it. I keep hoping this is "one step back" before the next 2 steps forward. I get disappointed a lot.
People are not at their best when they're afraid. And people are afraid. And they will continue to be afraid, particularly when FoxNews et al stoke the fires. And why do they do that? There's a lot of money in fear. Just listen to the current crop of Republican presidential candidates, and imagine what they get for book deals and speaking engagements.
So unless there is a return to the "good life", I don't see much change. I posted something here some time back about a historian's view that the period from the end of WWII through the 70s was unique and unrepeatable. I suspect he's right. We have been and are on the road back to aristocrats and serfs. And we know how that worked out.
To be fair, the country's race situation is flaring (I think that's Recession driven), but is still not as bad as you two are making out to be. It is vastly better than it was and still improving overall. I say this in light of the Hillary is the return of Hitler fears...
"I saw whites throw rocks at black children trying to attend school. Now they gun them down."
Where pray tell are black kids being gunned down as they try to attend school?
"I saw whites-only restaurants. Now "religious liberty" brings us one step nearer to what I thought we'd never see again."
Where is the restaurant that a black man can't get served a meal?
"Spiro Agnew is gone. In his place we've got Dick Cheney, who makes Spiro Agnew look like Mr. Rogers."
The Nixon administration is gone. In it's place we have the most intrusive, corrupt, and divisive administration in the history of our country. Nixon would be an improvement.
Where pray tell are black kids being gunned down as they try to attend school?
"I saw whites-only restaurants. Now "religious liberty" brings us one step nearer to what I thought we'd never see again."
Where is the restaurant that a black man can't get served a meal?
"Spiro Agnew is gone. In his place we've got Dick Cheney, who makes Spiro Agnew look like Mr. Rogers."
The Nixon administration is gone. In it's place we have the most intrusive, corrupt, and divisive administration in the history of our country. Nixon would be an improvement.
The North and South both had slaves. Shall we ban ol' glory too?
The South resisted emancipation because they were agrarian and totally dependent on cheap labor (share croppers). The North was far more industrialized and no longer required slaves to do the work of machines. The Civil War wasn't so much about slavery, but about economic and political power. Lincoln seized an opportunity to subjugate the South under the banner of emancipation, but like all wars, it was about money and power. The End. Boo Hoo.
And yes, Southerners were abundantly racist. But so was the North. And so was the rest of the world, up until that point. Why do you morons think slavery was abolished the same time the Industrial Revolution emerged? Seriously, think about it.
Calling Abe some great hero for freeing the slaves, is like calling GW a hero for saving America from WMD's. Or Bush Snr a hero for rescuing those Kuwaiti babies thrown from incubators. It's all bullshit folks.
The South resisted emancipation because they were agrarian and totally dependent on cheap labor (share croppers). The North was far more industrialized and no longer required slaves to do the work of machines. The Civil War wasn't so much about slavery, but about economic and political power. Lincoln seized an opportunity to subjugate the South under the banner of emancipation, but like all wars, it was about money and power. The End. Boo Hoo.
And yes, Southerners were abundantly racist. But so was the North. And so was the rest of the world, up until that point. Why do you morons think slavery was abolished the same time the Industrial Revolution emerged? Seriously, think about it.
Calling Abe some great hero for freeing the slaves, is like calling GW a hero for saving America from WMD's. Or Bush Snr a hero for rescuing those Kuwaiti babies thrown from incubators. It's all bullshit folks.
Your understanding is too simple, too convenient, and false to a significant degree (though not entirely).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism
Sometimes the apple falls far from the tree.
The children of segregationists from the civil rights era have taken steps to differentiate themselves from the actions of their parents.
They want to drive home the point that just because your forefathers were on the wrong side of history does not mean you need to follow the same trajectory. more . . .