Wednesday, September 23, 2020

“Speaking Truth to Power” et al: The Left’s Most Common Catchphrases


Father Paul Graney’s impassioned Saturday evening homily will not soon be forgotten in Michigan and beyond
writes Benny Huang.

The Dearborn-based Catholic priest … seems to have caused chaos and dismay when he spoke out against the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement as “evil.”

“Cars have been torched,” said Graney. “Property has been destroyed. Businesses looted and burned, and police officers and other people have been intimidated, assaulted, and even murdered. All in the name of justice.”

Naturally, some people said his message was beyond the pale. But I say, preach it, brother!

As if to confirm everything Graney had said, later that same evening an assailant ambushed two Los Angeles County sheriffs’ deputies as they sat in a cruiser.

Miraculously, both survived. Though we don’t know for certain that the perpetrator was a BLM activist, it isn’t a huge leap to make in this current climate of anti-police enmity to think that the shooting was meant to avenge the death of George Floyd.

We do know however that BLM activists made tracks to the local hospital after the shooting in order to block the entrances and exits. If BLM didn’t perpetrate the murderous act — and I suspect it did — it at least applauded it. BLM activists were apparently shouting, “We hope they f*cking die!” … They later swarmed the emergency room. 

 … Nike gave a shoe deal to third-rate ex-quarterback Colin Kaepernick for having the courage to take a knee during the national anthem. His actions caused “pain, anger, and frustration” among some NFL fans who made their gripes known to the league. But the league didn’t care about those fans.

 … But Kaepernick’s newfound fans, most of whom love his politics more than his football, assert without evidence that he paid dearly for speaking out about racism and police brutality, two of the fakest pandemics in America today. There is no epidemic of police violence against unarmed black men.

The disparate treatment between activists like Kaepernick and activists like Father Paul Graney puts the lie to some of the Left’s most common catchphrases. Here are just a few.

“Difficult Conversations”

If I’ve learned anything over the past few months it’s that we’re all supposed to be having “difficult conversations” about race, privilege, systemic racism, and police brutality. Some of us are forced by our employers to participate in these difficult conversations under the implied threat of losing our jobs.

All Father Graney was trying to do was to start a different kind of difficult conversation with his parish. He soon learned that difficult conversations about certain issues are prohibited because those conversations are difficult for the wrong people.

Rest assured that conversations about race, privilege, systemic racism and police brutality are not “difficult” for everyone. They’re not difficult, for example, for the black lady who runs the “diversity and inclusion” office at your workplace. It’s all she ever talks about. She has a four-year degree in those subjects and she reads books about them during her lunch break — just for fun!

These kinds of conversations are difficult for people who cannot say anything lest they be accused of “whitesplaining,” using “dog whistles” and “coded language,” or committing “microaggressions.” They’re difficult for people who haven’t kept up with the latest terminology — “Latinx,” “people of color,” “DREAMers” — and who know that at any moment they might face an extreme social penalty for using a term that was completely acceptable until just a few years ago.  And they’re most difficult of all for people who merely dissent from the domineering white guilt narrative that is constantly being shoved down our throats.

In other words, these conversations are difficult for people who make the mistake of believing that they are actual conversations. They aren’t. They’re Maoist struggle sessions in which one side lectures and the other side engages in copious amounts of self-flagellation. They’re degrading and that’s the point.

The first thing you have to do during these Maoist struggle sessions is to agree that you are hopelessly racist because not owning your racism is racist in and of itself. Also, you may not sit quietly in the corner and watch the clock tick by. When the wokeness police come knocking, you do not have the right to remain silent because “silence is violence.” Speech is also violence if the words express any kind of disagreement. The only thing that is not violence is unconditional surrender to their agenda coupled with a humiliating petition for racial forgiveness — which may not be granted.

“Peaceful Protest”

Father Graney’s homily was a peaceful protest in the greatest American tradition, yet he may still pay a price for it because not all peaceful protests are created equal. Peacefully protesting police violence against black people is lauded in our society; peacefully protesting against the much more common occurrence of black violence against police officers — or against one another — is not.

I’ll never forget the first time I heard the old “peaceful protest” yarn used to defend anthem-kneeling football players. After years and years of watching people lose their jobs for disagreeing with left-wing orthodoxy, it seemed disingenuous that left-wing orthodoxy was suddenly squarely behind peaceful protest. Talk about “strange new respect!”

Most people, I believe, would agree that peaceful protest shouldn’t cost a person his job. Most people, that is, except employers. Not one employer I have ever had has allowed me to “peacefully protest” while on the clock — and I’ve had a lot of employers. Nor have I ever had a job at which I had anything resembling unfettered free speech. I could have been fired from any of my many jobs for remarks made in private conversation, or even off the clock. I certainly would have been fired if my aggressive political opinions had alienated even a handful of customers — which is exactly what Kaepernick did.

The “peaceful protest” card immunizes people with the right opinions from losing their jobs, being disciplined, or even being criticized. However, those of us who engage in Wrongthink may not play this card. And that includes Paul Graney.

“Speaking Truth to Power”

Just days into the 2016 season, CNN informed us that Colin Kaepernick was “bravely speaking truth to power.” Leftists love that phrase.

But it’s a lie. Leftists never speak truth to power because they never speak truth. The best they can manage is to speak untruths to power and more often they don’t even do that. I don’t know what “power” Kaepernick was speaking to, but I do know that he was far afield of the truth. Cops are not hunting blacks for sport and in fact they kill more whites every year than blacks.

Father Graney on the other hand did speak truth to power. We’re living through an epidemic of violence and destruction all predicated on a myth and propelled by an evil, racist, anti-American, anti-family group of Marxist agitators called BLM. His homily struck a blow against the most powerful people of all: the architects of the official narrative. I’m talking here about Big Government, Big Business, Big Education, and most of all, Big Media. If that’s not speaking truth to power, nothing is.

I sure hope Father Graney hangs tough. We as a society have a duty to stick up for courageous truth-tellers. Not only should he not receive a lick of punishment, he really ought to have his stature elevated in the Church. Is it too soon to start talking about Graney for pope?

Friday, September 18, 2020

Why Does Nobody Ever Fret About Scandinavia's — Ghastly — 19th-C Slavery Conditions?


In 1904, a couple who emigrated from Denmark to America in 1856 testified that the reason they did so was because the dirt-poor peasants they were back then did not want their children to grow up in "the same type of slavery" as they had.

Whenever the issue of apologies and reparations for American slavery comes up, a question or two come to mind. 

    I SHOULD LIKE TO KNOW ON BEHALF OF WHOM, exactly, slavery should be apologized for and whom reparations should be made to. I myself, like the majority of today's U.S. population, am descended from immigrants who arrived after the turn of the 20th century and therefore have nothing to do with the treatment of blacks on the plantations (or that of Indians on the plains, for that matter) — although (as you will see below) Europeans have their own closeted history of local (and non-racially-based) slavery.

    In a similar way, less than half of the blacks in the USA today are descended from Africans who were carried across the Atlantic in chains in the holds of sailing ships. That's right: more than half of blacks in America are descended from Africans (or happen to be the very individuals themselves) who freely decided to emigrate across the Atlantic of their own free will (and who, for some reason, were not repelled by reports by Western drama queens of the USA as some kind of a racist nightmare).

    As for Americans living at the time slavery existed, over twice as many whites lived in states where slavery was illegal and where it had been so, for the most part, since before the French Revolution.  Nobody can hardly apologize for the South either, since most whites even there — two thirds of them, to be precise — did not own a single slave.

    Maybe somebody should apologize for the planters and slaveholders? (Their descendants?) But they inherited the system they dwelled in, and although they certainly did little if anything to change it, in what way are they more guilty than the English, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, and other European nationals who introduced it in all their colonies (including, of course, the future United States)?

    And how, finally, are the above-mentioned whites more guilty than the Arab traders and, especially, the African tribes whose warriors raided neighboring villages to gain slave labor (slaves of the same skin color in this case) themselves or to sell their enemies to the Europeans? Why is no blame ever directed at the Kongo, the Dahomey, the Yoruba, the Benin, the Asante, and the Imbangala peoples?

    Speaking of the "dark continent":  Did not Mungo Park note during his Travels in the Interior of Africa in the 1790s  that the slaves in that part of the world "are nearly in the proportion of three to one to the freemen", unable to leave "a state of hopeless and hereditary slavery" which "probably had its origin in the remote ages of antiquity"?  Didn't he further report that during times of great scarcity, there "are many instances of freemen voluntarily surrendering up their liberty to save their lives"?  The Scottish explorer was told that, during one drought, "many freemen came and begged, with great earnestness, to be put upon [a] slave-chain, to save them from perishing of hunger."

    That's true, isn't it?  In the past, when poverty was the norm for the vast majority of the human race — whichever continent they lived on and whichever race they belonged to — slavery, or some type of bondage (race-based or same-race), was likewise the norm, poverty's Siamese twin, if you will; that would be before humanity was on the path to making significant leaps forward to wealth, mainly following… the birth of the United States and thanks to… the yields of its free market.

    Whatever the color of your skin is, dear reader, perhaps you are growing concerned, or even irate, over the fact that, however is reasonable his message is, some white guy has the gall to talk dispassionately about African slavery, and that is something ought to be verboten, since racism must be involved, and there is no way that any white dude can understand, let alone empathize with, the plight of blacks.

IMMIGRATION TO THE U.S. WAS 
CAUSED BY UTTER POVERTY
    So, as someone whose heritage comes from the kingdom of Denmark, here are some more questions for you: Did you know that between 1850 and 1920, a full tenth of the Danish population emigrated from the kingdom? And would you like to know why? Let us give the word to one of the 300,000 souls who crossed the Atlantic for the new world.

    In Ole Sønnichsen's massive 600 page opus about Denmark's emigrants, "The Journey to America" (Rejsen til Amerika), he quotes a 1904 book by one August Rasmussen, in which he explains why he left Denmark at the age of 26 in 1856:
"For my own part, I can say as follows: I gave my spine to the landowner's cane and the back of my jersey to the lieutenant's blade and my ears to the overseer's whacks. Whippings, punches, and blows were not allowed, but the big ones beat the little ones anyway. They knew our rights was nonexistent."
 That's right, ladies and gents: Denmark's nobles carried canes and/or whips. (And no, it wasn't for the cattle…) Here is another question for you: Would someone care to tell me exactly what kind of "white privilege" is this?!

    For the average dirt-poor Dane, there should be no expectancy of his master calling a doctor, and in 1890, one Jeppe Aakjær visited Skive, where a sick man had been allowed to rest, in… the filth of a… barn!
"How had this man been treated. Lain down here, where the animals stood and soiled [and shat] and stank; … a portion of the wall over the door frame was missing, and the door, formed by rough, stubborn boards, could not be closed at all, but allowed the unstable atmosphere of the barn [with barely any light] to streak over the sick man. … This was how the room was, where the young man lay in the flimsy blankets under which one saw his lean limbs — on all sides surrounded by a wreath of musty, stinking bed straw. This is where he had been lying for six weeks, in the disgusting filth."
   I have a question for you: Would you care to answer it? What kind of "white privilege" is that?!

    In Sweden and Norway, the situation was nothing if not… worse: the poverty was such that one fourth of the Swedish population and one third of the Norwegian people emigrated. Two years after America's Civil War ended, famine broke out, and during the Swedish famine of 1867–1869, the Scandinavians starved. 

   I have a question for you: Yep, that's right, it hasn't changed — Exactly what kind of "white privilege" is that supposed to represent?!

   Along with Ireland (and its' many redheads' pasty white skin), the three Scandinavian countries — whose inhabitants, remember, are supposed to be the epitome of Adolf's Aryan "master" race incarnate — form the top four nations with the highest percentages of their populations emigrating to America in the 19th century. 

    Do you want to know what word Ole Sønnichsen uses in Rejsen til Amerika to describe the conditions under which the largest part of the Danish population lived

   In Danish, the word he uses is called "slaveri."

   August Rasmussen and his newly-wed wife, the former Ane Frederiksen, decided to emigrate in 1856, he writes, because they did not want their children to grow up in "the same type of slavery" as they had.

   As for the Icelanders (called the Scandinavians' Scandinavians, because of their hair which is so blond that it is almost white), they remember that they lived in a state of slavery until the 20th century or some 40 years after Appomattox. The only supposed "redemption" of this type of slavery, according to those who are obsessed with race, is that their skin color was the same as that of the enslavers, their fellow countrymen, who would have looked like brothers and sisters of theirs. 

   Yes. Yes. I'm going to ask the question again: Will somebody be so kind to tell me exactly how poverty, how famine, and how slavery (or bondage) is supposed to fit in with "white privilege"?!

   (On the other hand, there is one thing that cannot be denied: it would be much harder to teach about the horrors of "white privilege" if students (whatever their race, whatever their nationality) knew that in the late 1860s, Northern Europeans were starving to death…)

   In trying to have a reasonable discussion about the subject, I have been shouted down, unfriended, told to shut up. "Well we didn't take our slaves across the Atlantic Ocean!" was how one rant started. Well, apart from the fact that African captors were totally indifferent to the fate of their prisoners of war (and that is putting it mildly), here is how I sum up my thinking: I don't want to be the slave of a black person or of someone of another race. I don't want to be the slave of a white person or of someone who could look like he was my brother (again, the thought shared by almost 2.5 million Scandinavian emigrants in the 19th century). I don't want to be a slave in the region I was born in. I don't want to be a slave across a border or across an ocean. I don't want to be a slave at all.

   I don't want to work as a slave in the fields of Northern Europe, Western Africa, or the Southern United States. And I don't want to be thrown in the stench and among the filth of a cowshed in Northern Europe, Western Africa, or the Southern United States. Nor do I wish such upon anyone else, whether he is of the same race as me, or of a different race than me. That about sums up my thoughts on the subject.

   And that is why, anytime an American with a darker complexion than myself tells me that he or she is "a direct descendant of slaves", I am tempted to answer that Just about every blue-eyed blonde(e) I know in Scandinavia is the direct descendant of slaves.

HAS NO PUNISHMENT BEEN METED 
OUT FOR AMERICAN SLAVERY?

   To return to the call for remedies, apologies, and reparations for slavery, didn't as many Americans die in the Civil War as in all of America's 20th-century wars combined? Didn't one Southerner of military age out of four lose his life in the conflict? How many bereaved families is that, altogether — North and South? And apologies, and reparations, are still supposed to be owed?!

   No wonder statues of Ulysses S Grant, Abraham Lincoln, John Brown, and the Scandinavian immigrant Colonel Hans Christian Heg have been defaced or toppled. No wonder the poverty and bondage that lasted throughout Europe is never taught in any school. It would be much harder to keep up the Left's lies and fairy tales if mementos are still around to remind us all how many good and heroic people (of whatever color) America has produced, Americans who fought, and who died, for freedom and justice.

   Indeed, the tearing down of statues of Confederate generals was all pretense. It was a lie. First the Stars and Bars had to go, which to some ears might have sounded somewhat reasonable. Now, calls are made to remove the Stars and Stripes and to change the national anthem. (Change the Star-Spangled Banner to what? to John Lennon's Imagine, of course.) The truth is that the Antifa types hate America. And they hate all of Western civilization.

   Certainly, you cannot deny that the dirt-poor Danes quoted by Ole Sønnichsen had it about as bad as, if not worse than, slaves in the South.

   Indeed, from Paul Johnson's History of the American People, we learn that
slaves [between the Mason-Dixon line and the Rio Grande] lived twice as long as in Africa and 50 percent longer than in South America 
with Thomas Sowell adding that the average slave in the United States had a longer lifespan also than the average Fenian in Ireland. (I trust that it wil not be taken as a pro-slavery comment — for it is no way so — to point out that when Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin became a huge schadenfreude hit in the UK in the 1850s, planters replied, not entirely unjustifiably, that, in the wake of Ireland's potato famine, Britons should reflect that at least America's slave owners didn't let their slaves starve.)

   As for the theory that creating new nations on Africa's western coast (Liberia for U.S. blacks, neighboring Sierra Leone for Canada's) for North America's freed slaves to return to, the African-Americans often said No. Turning down President James Madison's offer to have them sailed back to Africa, his slaves told him that they would be better off as slaves in America than free on the "dark continent."
American blacks seem to have realized instinctively that [the scheme] would not work, that they were better off in America even as slaves than in Africa.  They were scared of being sent there.  Ten years after its foundation, Madison sold sixteen of his able-bodied slaves to a kinsman for $6,000, they giving "their glad consent" because of "their horror of Liberia."
   Should it be taboo to compare the conditions of 19th-century (and 20th- and 21st-century) blacks with the slaves of other countries (same-race or different-race)? (Needless to say, nobody is pretending that the Southern slave-owners' relatively benign treatment of their slaves was done out of the goodness of their hearts; they did so for a good return on their investment.)

THE DARK SECRET IN THE BLACK COMMUNITY 
THAT MUST NOT BE DIVULGED

   I am probably going to get castigated and cancelled for this, but I am going to end this article by sharing a dark, dark secret among the African-American community. Ideally, it ought to be a black person revealing this taboo, but instead, it will be me, so allow me to apologize beforehand.

    Just as white Americans like to, at least once in their life, go back to the nation of their forefathers and to pay a visit to the region (in Denmark, Germany, Scotland, etc), to the village, and perhaps even to the very farmhouse of their ancestors, black Americans have a tradition to take a similar vacation to Africa. What happens when they return is almost always something along the following lines. 

   Some random white guy is walking down a streets of some East Coast megalopolis, minding his own business, when, suddenly, out of the blue, he is grabbed by a black stranger and given a hard squeeze. The spontaneous bear hug turns out to come from an African-American returning from Africa, who proceeds to say, "I just had to thank you; I am just back from Africa, and you can't imagine how happy I am that your ancestor made my ancestor a slave and took him out of that god-forsaken continent." (Actually, he might use a word that rhymes with "spitbowl".) 

   This was also the conclusion of the African-American reporter, Keith Richburg, in his Out of America, after spending three years as the Washington Post's correspondent in Africa, from Kenya and Uganda to Somalia and South Africa.

   In that perspective, what is missing from the 1619 project is that as soon as the United States was born in the 1770s, Americans became the very first people on the planet to rise against the slavery that had been ubiquitous around the world from the dawn of time, with Northern states abolishing it within a few years.

   In an interview with the World Socialist Web Site's Tom Mackaman, James McPherson brings specifics:
From the Quakers in the 18th century, on through the abolitionists in the antebellum, to the radical Republicans in the Civil War and Reconstruction, to the NAACP which was an interracial organization founded in 1909, down through the Civil Rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s, there have been a lot of whites who have fought against slavery and racial discrimination, and against racism. Almost from the beginning of American history that’s been true.
   And yet no one, and nothing, has done more to alleviate poverty, first in the USA and later around the world, than the very existence of America, its free market system, and its creation of riches from top down — making poverty's Siamese twin, i.e., slavery, obsolete in the process.

   To rant about America's alleged racism, you must focus obsessively on black-white relations while ignoring all conditions of the immigrants from Asia. Otherwise you must believe that the hateful white supremacists who rule America, who relentlessly demonstrate "white privilege", and who control every aspect of the nation with an iron fist are delighted to have another racial minority, Asian-Americans, perform much better and reap many more rewards than they themselves do.

   To bewail America's alleged racism, you must always keep foreign countries out of your rants, both in the past and in the present. Thus, as we have seen, the fate of the down-trodden (i.e., the South's slaves) in the USA never seems to be compared to that of the slaves in Latin America or, indeed, to that of free blacks in Africa.

   As for the Mises Institute, in its comparison of incomes in the 50 states with those of countries of Europe, it found that American incomes were higher than those in Europe, bar three exceptions. Ryan McMaken adds that "The Poor in the US Are richer than the Middle Class in Much of Europe":
if Italy were a US state, it would rank behind every state except Mississippi. The United Kingdom would rank behind every state except Mississippi, Arkansas, and West Virginia

   To vociferate about America's alleged racism, therefore, it is essential that you ignore this simple fact: Whites in the United States are better off than whites in any other part of the world. Blacks in the United States are better off than blacks in any other part of the world. Asians in the United States are better off than Asians in any other part of the world. And the same can be said about women, and gays, and just about any group, or sub-group, you can think of.

   Dennis Prager, who has documented how the USA is the least racist country on the planet, said as much: "This is a wonderful country — for blacks, whites, Jews, Asians, gays, you name it — that's why people who are in any group want to move to this country." Referring to the 2020 riots, he asks, "Is it that bad [in America]?", before pointing our that 

One of the traits that I have always identified with the Left is one of the ugliest of the human condition … And that is ingratitude. … To live in this country, the freest ever created, [with] more opportunities… [Our forefathers] didn't compare America …to utopia, but to … other countries. … That's all you can do in life … you have to compare person X not to an angel, but to persons Y, A, B, C, D, and E. That's what mature people — people with even a modicum of wisdom and common sense — do. You don't compare it to perfection.
   That anybody in America — white, black, yellow, whatever — should disparage the USA while advocating for the the country to emulate Europe (or worse, Venezuela, Cuba, or the Soviet Union) is nothing short of insane.

   And it is an outrage that kids and students in America (let alone around the world) are never taught those simple, pertinent facts, but are instead installed with the Left's deluded propaganda.

Monday, September 07, 2020

The Individuals Who Feel It Necessary to Come Up with a Question

 
Dilbert
by Scott Adams

Also: public speeches.

A guy gives a speech, then asks if there are any questions; but the speech was so brilliant and complete that no questions are forthcoming, i.e., none are necessary. However: the silence feels nerve-wracking, and so finally somebody, just to be polite (virtue signalling?), stands to ask a question, which invariably is on a completely marginal subject, which leads others to ask more inane questions. Leaving the rest of the audience to groan internally.

Instead, after the first few seconds of hearing no queries, the speaker should be happy to finish the speech on a note of triumph. And since no answers are immediately forthcoming, offer to answer any further questions on a personal basis, after the presentation is over (which is now, as the question time has proven useless) and the clapping has subsided…

Sunday, September 06, 2020

The Secret About the Black Lives Matter Outfit; In Fact, Its Name Ought to Be BSD or BAD


There is a tightly guarded secret that you may not know about the Black Lives Matter group, but here it is:
The real name of BLM is not BLM.

The real name of BLM is BSD or BAD.

I used to say that the real name was SBLM (Some Black Lives Matter) or OSBLM (Only Some Black Lives Matter), but I now realize that even that sounds far too positive:

The name should be BSD (Burn Society Down) or BAD (Burn America Down).

"Black Lives Matter is a Marxist organization," the president [told Fox News' Laura Ingraham]. "You remember [them chanting] 'Pigs in a blanket, fry them like bacon' [in 2015].

Yes, that's right: another more accurate name for BLM would be PIB or FTLB (Pigs In a Blanket or Fry Them Like Bacon).

Imagine sports characters, instead of sporting "Black Lives Matter" on their jerseys, being asked to wear clothes with the words "Destroy the Country", "Death to America," or "Burn Down Western Civilization." There would be a whole lot less enthusiasm for the idea.

The soft-sounding, common-sensical official name belies the fact that BLM is less a humanitarian organization than a cult, a far-left mob, and a Mafia gang.

We should all of us stop calling BLM by its official name and start referring to them as "the Burn Society Down outfit."

While leaving the White House on the final evening of the RSC, guests were harassed by protesters. Although Rand Paul got most of the attention, Brian Mast's experience was much more interesting. A seemingly deranged woman kept asking the Florida Representative, "What do you think about police killing black people in this country?" "How do you feel about police murdering black people in this country?" — dementedly repeating "Answer the question!" 

The fallacy about the question is that "police" do not kill or murder "black people" in this country, nor white people, for that matter. An individual policemen (whatever the color of his skin) may have killed a black person here or there, just as an individual policeman (whatever the color of his skin) may have killed a white person here or there. Let that individual be punished — including by the death penalty — if so convicted by a jury of his peers…

But, in any case, the retort — had there been room for thought and tranquility and (yes) debate — should have been linked to David Dorn, Chris Beaty, Secoriea Williams, and a dozen or two other blacks whose lives definitely do not matter one iota to BLM and Antifa:

"How do YOU feel about protesters killing black people?! In fact, how do YOU feel about BLM and Antifa protesters burning black people's homes, looting black people's stores, and killing black people?! Answer the question! ANSWER THE QUESTION!"

Monday, August 24, 2020

The American People Must Choose Between the 1787 Constitution and Its Rival, the Riot Constitution of 1964


Based on by Christopher Caldwell's The Age of Entitlement (America Since the Sixties), Benny Huang signs a Liberty Unyielding post showing the extent to which LBJ’s Civil Rights Act of 1964 has undermined the 1787 Constitution of the United States.

Wasn’t it just about America living up to its founding principles?

 … With the benefit of hindsight it’s clear that the bargain made on that July [1964] day was a rotten deal for almost everyone involved, including many blacks — though not those few blacks who earn their living doing civil rights litigation. The law has been very good to them. Besides being more than most Americans had bargained for, the measures also proved to be both permanent and insufficient to satisfy the need of the self-perpetuating “Civil Rights” establishment (which little by little evolved into the “Civil Wrongs” establishment) to grow and consume.

Two weeks after the bill became law, an off-duty New York cop shot and killed a black 15-year old named James Powell who he claimed had been coming at him with a knife. Harlem quickly went up in flames followed by Rochester, Philadelphia, and Jersey City. To many Americans, this was mystifying. Hadn’t the new law settled old scores?

The obvious explanation is that the riots that followed occurred not despite the CRA but because of it. The government had sued for peace by rolling over and showing its soft underbelly.

And so the riots continued throughout the 1960s, with each subsequent cluster of riots met with an ever-increasing list of wealth-transferring government programs. Leaving aside for a moment the dishonor and immorality of paying people not to riot, is it even effective? The decades of history that separate us from that time have shown that dumping money on the inner city has only provided a perverse incentive to repeat the behavior.

 … And so the cycle continues into the third decade of the twenty-first century. Rioting begets concessions which beget more rioting.

Besides the monetary cost of the Civil  Wrongs Movement, there has been an even steeper price paid in terms of lost freedoms. As journalist and author Christopher Caldwell writes in “The Age of Entitlement: America Since the Sixties”

“What the reforms aspired and failed to do — produce ‘harmony’ between the races and peace between the sexes — may have been beyond the power of any government reform to achieve. But the costs of civil rights were high. New inequalities arose. Fewer things were decided democratically. Free speech was oppressed.”

 … Caldwell’s book, which I highly recommend, goes a long way toward explaining the revolution that America experienced during the heady years of Lyndon Johnson and Earl Warren. Nothing that has occurred since that time — not feminism, not Reaganomics, not the collapse of the housing market — can be understood without the Civil Rights Movement as a paradigm.

Caldwell argues that the revolution did not force the nation to live up to its founding principles but instead substituted a new Constitution for the old one. He writes:

The changes of the 1960s, with Civil Rights at their core, were not a major new element in the Constitution. They were a rival constitution, with which the original one was frequently incompatible — and the incompatibility would worsen as the civil rights regime was built out. Much of what we have called ‘polarization’ or ‘incivility’ in recent years is something more grave — it is the disagreement over which of the two constitutions shall prevail: the de jure constitution of 1788, with all of the traditional forms of jurisprudential legitimacy and centuries of American culture behind it; or the de facto constitution of 1964. …

And indeed we must choose between these two constitutions.

 … The “Mrs. Murphy” … exception … serves as a good example of the kind of dissembling that the Civil Wrongs Movement pursued in order to sell the American people a false bill of goods. Knowing full well that property rights and freedom of association were the true issue at hand — not bigotry — they set out to obscure them by tossing a sop to our constitutional rights as they had been traditionally (and rightly) understood for the first 200 years of our history. 

The Age of Entitlement
(America Since the Sixties)
by Christopher Caldwell


 


Sunday, August 23, 2020

A Plethora of Quora Answers

FYI: I have now started taking to the Quora website to answer questions on various matters that I feel are important. There are answers in English, in Danish, and in French

Saturday, August 22, 2020

Not 1619 but 1641: The American Revolution of 1776 Sought to Avoid the Excesses of the English Revolution Over a Century Earlier


1492 and 1630 are more significant years for the founding of America than 1619. But neither is as significant in the stream of ideas and human rights as 1641. It was in that year that King Charles I went head to head with John Pym, leader of the Puritan faction in the House of Commons. For a stretch of a couple of months in late 1641 and early 1642, Pym and Charles went eyeball to eyeball and took England up to and over the brink of civil war.
In addressing the 1619 Project, Bryan Preston gives us a full rundown of the English Civil Wars at PJ Media:

England was by no means alone in religious strife. The Protestant Reformation had been bubbling around Europe causing wars since the 1500s. John Calvin had ruled Geneva as a dictator, which no one saw coming, in the 1540s. There were massacres and counter-massacres, burnings at stakes—it was a pretty sketchy time to be alive in Europe. Even before the Reformation, someone in Europe was usually fighting someone else. Hence, many wanted to bug out for the New World. It was the Belize of the age, a place to get away from all the noise, but with more hostile wildlife and other dangers. 

We have to take all this into account when we look at 1641, and how the upstarts in America saw things in their time. They weren’t standing on the shoulders of giants, but they were looking back at centuries of war and piles of dead and precedents for bringing bad kings and queens to heel. They had the Magna Carta of 1215, which established some basic rights and jurisprudence, and the various kingly proclamations and declarations of rights of the English, generally issued under threats of civil war, before and after that. They also had John Locke and the concept of natural rights bridging the time of the Pym vs. Charles showdown to their own.

 … a little over a century later, some very astute and well-educated leaders of English heritage on the other side of the Atlantic had serious issues with the king, George III. The long weeks in 1641-1642, the civil wars, the grim fate of Charles, the piles of dead, the role of state religion, the right of self-defense against government, the lack of freedom of the press, the ability to misuse circumstances to tilt government toward factions, the Cromwell dictatorship, the abuses of power by all concerned, and the utter pointlessness of it all surely informed the Continental Congress as they determined what to do and how to keep their heads away from gallows. “Let’s avoid all that, shall we?” was surely the subtext of most if not all their deliberations. 

They wanted to avoid as much as possible the problems and conflicts that dragged England into its civil wars. They wanted to enshrine natural rights and equality. They did not want a monarchy or anything resembling Puritanism, Pym, or Cromwell. A tyrannical king was top of mind, and they wrote down their 27 grievances against George III in the form of a Declaration of Independence, issued July 4, 1776. The Constitution they wrote after the Revolution sought to correct the issues that led up to and fueled the bloody English civil wars. For instance: regular and predictable meetings of the congress; an elected, not hereditary, head of state; checks and balances between three co-equal branches of government.

 … When George Washington left office after eight years as elected president, not a king or “Lord Protector,” surely the fate of Cromwell, the failure to progress, and the future of natural rights and liberty were on his mind. Washington’s voluntary exit and the peaceful transfer of power to another elected president under the established Constitution changed everything.

RELATED: 1619, Mao, & 9-11: History According to the NYT — Plus, a Remarkable Issue of National Geographic Reveals the Leftists' "Blame America First" Approach to History

• Wilfred Reilly on 1619: quite a few contemporary Black problems have very little to do with slavery

NO MAINSTREAM HISTORIAN CONTACTED FOR THE 1619 PROJECT

• "Out of the Revolution came an anti-slavery ethos, which never disappeared": Pulitzer Prize Winner James McPherson Confirms that No Mainstream Historian Was Contacted by the NYT for Its 1619 History Project

• Gordon Wood: "The Revolution unleashed antislavery sentiments that led to the first abolition movements in the history of the world" — another Pulitzer-Winning Historian Had No Warning about the NYT's 1619 Project

• A Black Political Scientist "didn’t know about the 1619 Project until it came out"; "These people are kind of just making it up as they go"

• Clayborne Carson: Another Black Historian Kept in the Dark About 1619

• If historians did not hear of the NYT's history (sic) plan, chances are great that the 1619 Project was being deliberately kept a tight secret

• Oxford Historian Richard Carwardine: 1619 is “a preposterous and one-dimensional reading of the American past”

• World Socialists: "the 1619 Project is a politically motivated falsification of history" by the New York Times, aka "the mouthpiece of the Democratic Party"

THE NEW YORK TIMES OR THE NEW "WOKE" TIMES?

• Dan Gainor on 1619 and rewriting history: "To the Left elite like the NY Times, there’s no narrative they want to destroy more than American exceptionalism"

• Utterly preposterous claims: The 1619 project is a cynical political ploy, aimed at piercing the heart of the American understanding of justice

From Washington to Grant, not a single American deserves an iota of gratitude, or even understanding, from Nikole Hannah-Jones; however, modern autocrats, if leftist and foreign, aren't "all bad"

• One of the Main Sources for the NYT's 1619 Project Is a Career Communist Propagandist who Defends Stalinism

• A Pulitzer Prize?! Among the 1619 Defenders Is "a Fringe Academic" with "a Fetish for Authoritarian Terror" and "a Soft Spot" for Mugabe, Castro, and Even Stalin

• Influenced by Farrakhan's Nation of Islam?! 1619 Project's History "Expert" Believes the Aztecs' Pyramids Were Built with Help from Africans Who Crossed the Atlantic Prior to the "Barbaric Devils" of Columbus (Whom She Likens to Hitler)

• 1793, 1776, or 1619: Is the New York Times Distinguishable from Teen Vogue? Is It Living in a Parallel Universe? Or Is It Simply Losing Its Mind in an Industry-Wide Nervous Breakdown?

• No longer America's "newspaper of record," the "New Woke Times" is now but a college campus paper, where kids like 1619 writer Nikole Hannah-Jones run the asylum and determine what news is fit to print

• The Departure of Bari Weiss: "Propagandists", Ethical Collapse, and the "New McCarthyism" — "The radical left are running" the New York Times, "and no dissent is tolerated"

• "Full of left-wing sophomoric drivel": The New York Times — already drowning in a fantasy-land of alternately running pro-Soviet Union apologia and their anti-American founding “1619 Project” series — promises to narrow what they view as acceptable opinion even more

• "Deeply Ashamed" of the… New York Times (!),  An Oblivious Founder of the Error-Ridden 1619 Project Uses Words that Have to Be Seen to Be Believed ("We as a News Organization Should Not Be Running Something That Is Offering Misinformation to the Public, Unchecked")

• Allen C Guelzo: The New York Times offers bitterness, fragility, and intellectual corruption—The 1619 Project is not history; it is conspiracy theory

• The 1619 Project is an exercise in religious indoctrination: Ignoring, downplaying, or rewriting the history of 1861 to 1865, the Left and the NYT must minimize, downplay, or ignore the deaths of 620,000 Americans

• 1619: It takes an absurdly blind fanaticism to insist that today’s free and prosperous America is rotten and institutionally oppressive

• The MSM newsrooms and their public shaming terror campaigns — the "bullying campus Marxism" is closer to cult religion than politics: Unceasingly searching out thoughtcrime, the American left has lost its mind

Fake But Accurate: The People Behind the NYT's 1619 Project Make a "Small" Clarification, But Only Begrudgingly and Half-Heartedly, Because Said Mistake Actually Undermines The 1619 Project's Entire Premise


THE REVOLUTION OF THE 1770s

• The Collapse of the Fourth Estate by Peter Wood: No one has been able to identify a single leader, soldier, or supporter of the Revolution who wanted to protect his right to hold slaves (A declaration that slavery is the founding institution of America and the center of everything important in our history is a ground-breaking claim, of the same type as claims that America condones rape culture, that 9/11 was an inside job, that vaccinations cause autism, that the Moon landing was a hoax, or that ancient astronauts built the pyramids)

• Mary Beth Norton:  In 1774, a year before Dunmore's proclamation, Americans had already in fact become independent

• Most of the founders, including Thomas Jefferson, opposed slavery’s continued existence, writes Rick Atkinson, despite the fact that many of them owned slaves

• Leslie Harris: Far from being fought to preserve slavery, the Revolutionary War became a primary disrupter of slavery in the North American Colonies (even the NYT's fact-checker on the 1619 Project disagrees with its "conclusions": "It took 60 more years for the British government to finally end slavery in its Caribbean colonies")

• Sean Wilentz on 1619: the movement in London to abolish the slave trade formed only in 1787, largely inspired by… American (!) antislavery opinion that had arisen in the 1760s and 1770s

• 1619 & Slavery's Fatal Lie: it is more accurate to say that what makes America unique isn't slavery but the effort to abolish it

• 1619 & 1772: Most of the founders, including Jefferson, opposed slavery’s continued existence, despite many of them owning slaves; And Britain would remain the world's foremost slave-trading nation into the nineteenth century

• Wilfred Reilly on 1619: Slavery was legal in Britain in 1776, and it remained so in all overseas British colonies until 1833

• James Oakes on 1619: "Slavery made the slaveholders rich; But it made the South poor; And it didn’t make the North rich — So the legacy of slavery is poverty, not wealth"

• One of the steps of defeating truth is to destroy evidence of the truth, says Bob Woodson; Because the North's Civil War statues — as well as American history itself — are evidence of America's redemption from slavery, it's important for the Left to remove evidence of the truth

TEACHING GENERATIONS OF KIDS FALSEHOODS ABOUT THE U.S.

• 1619: No wonder this place is crawling with young socialists and America-haters — the utter failure of the U.S. educational system to teach the history of America’s founding

• 1619: Invariably Taking the Progressive Side — The Ratio of Democratic to Republican Voter Registration in History Departments is More than 33 to 1

• Denying the grandeur of the nation’s founding—Wilfred McClay on 1619: "Most of my students are shocked to learn that that slavery is not uniquely American"

Inciting Hate Already in Kindergarten: 1619 "Education" Is Part of Far-Left Indoctrination by People Who Hate America to Kids in College, in School, and Even in Elementary Classes

• "Distortions, half-truths, and outright falsehoods": Where does the 1619 project state that Africans themselves were central players in the slave trade? That's right: Nowhere

• John Podhoretz on 1619: the idea of reducing US history to the fact that some people owned slaves is a reductio ad absurdum and the definition of bad faith

• The 1619 Africans in Virginia were not ‘enslaved’, a black historian points out; they were indentured servants — just like the majority of European whites were

"Two thirds of the people, white as well as black, who crossed the Atlantic in the first 200 years are indentured servants" notes Dolores Janiewski; "The poor people, black and white, share common interests"

LAST BUT NOT LEAST…

Wondering Why Slavery Persisted for Almost 75 Years After the Founding of the USA? According to Lincoln, the Democrat Party's "Principled" Opposition to "Hate Speech"

• Victoria Bynum on 1619 and a NYT writer's "ignorance of history": "As dehumanizing and brutal as slavery was, the institution was not a giant concentration camp"

• Dennis Prager: The Left Couldn't Care Less About Blacks

• The Real Reason Why Aunt Jemima, Uncle Ben, and the Land O'Lakes Maid Must Vanish

• The Confederate Flag: Another Brick in the Leftwing Activists' (Self-Serving) Demonization of America and Rewriting of History

Who, Exactly, Is It Who Should Apologize for Slavery and Make Reparations? America? The South? The Descendants of the Planters? …

Sunday, August 16, 2020

Republicans Pounce (European Version) Department: Trump Campaign Launches "Brutal Attack" and "Slaughter" on "New Buddy Couple" Biden and Harris

Following Joe Biden's choice of Kamala Harris as VP candidate, Danish readers learned that 

Trump's Campaigners Have Launched a Brutal Attack — And They Are Targeting Biden's Sore Point (Trumps kampagne folk har indledt et brutalt angreb og de går etter Bidens ømme punkt)

The actual title of Kristian Mouritzen's piece in Denmark's Berlingske newspaper is somewhat less excessive:

'Slow Joe' and 'Phony Kamala': Trump's staff is cracking down hard on Biden's vice presidential candidate (»Langsomme Joe« og »Falske Kamala«. Trumps stab slår hårdt ned på Bidens vicepræsidentkandidat). 

Still, check out the choice of words for the pouncing Republicans and the wholesome Democrats.

The subhead reads:

The president' election team is in the process of trying to crush the Democratic buddy couple for the presidential election in November. And the tone is already set. (Præsidentens valgteam er i gang med at forsøge at knuse det demokratiske makkerpar til præsidentvalget i november. Og tonen er allerede sat).

"Makkerpar" is not as quaint an expression in Danish as "buddy couple" is in English, as it can simply mean a more neutral-sounding "double team." However, it is an intrinsically positive and cool-sounding expression, like you would expect to see in the description of one of Hollywood's road movies and one which you would not expect for a Republican ticket. Meanwhile, the article's first sentence reads: 

President Trump's campaigners have already launched a brutal, verbal, and visual slaughter of the new Democratic buddy couple for the November presidential election, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris (Præsident Trumps kampagnefolk har allerede indledt en brutal, verbal og visuel slagtning af det nye demokratiske makkerpar til præsidentvalget i november, Joe Biden og Kamala Harris.)
Related: Check out the Republicans Pounce department

Thursday, August 06, 2020

Hiroshima: During WWII, Japan Killed 7 Times More People (Most of Them Civilians) than They Lost

Among the "mind-boggling" nuggets that Victor Davis Hanson delivers in a speech at Hillsdale College on Why World War II Matters (6:16), the history teacher explains that of the victims,
80% of the 65 million [dead] were civilians! It's the only war in which the losers [the Axis or Fascist powers] killed 75% of the people. The losers did! … Japan killed seven times more people than they lost. And they lost [the war]!
I.e., the Japanese still managed to lose the war.




A critical examination of some common charges against the Americans regarding the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (photos & images from Valérie Kubiak and Jean-Jacques Allevi's Géo article).

Racism

Americans may have felt hatred for the Japanese during WWII, but it was not for what race the Japanese belonged to and it was certainly not a hatred that allowed them to murder on sight (what did the so-called American racists hate, and fight, the Nazis for, then ; for being blond, blue-eyed Aryans?!). It was for what they had done, the treachery in Hawaii (remember Pearl Harbor?), the murders of POWs on the Bataan death march, and the numerous other atrocities committed throughout the Pacific, of which the rape of Nanking is only the most repellent. Still, that anger alone was not what led U.S. authorities to drop atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was the Japanese refusal to surrender, backed by the prospect that the blood-letting would continue and that the fighting would, in fact, intensify.

The Americans' Uncalled-for
Intensification of the War

Many more Japanese died in the hell-hole of Okinawa than in the nuclear blast of Hiroshima. More were killed in the battle of Leyte Gulf than in the explosion at Nagasaki. Based on America's 35% casualties on Okinawa, if 767,000 Americans were to attack Kyushu, one prediction said the dead and wounded would number 268,000, as many as the number of battle deaths that the U.S. had experienced in the war so far. As for Japanese battle death figures, they inevitably dwarfed those of the U.S. (On average, the ratio of combat fatalities was 4:1; on Iwo Jima, three Japanese died for every American; on Okinawa, that figure was 15:1; at Leyte Gulf, 20:1; on Attu, in the Aleutians, 50:1.) Japanese casualties on the battlefield by summer 1945 numbered 1.2 million total.

Nobody suggests that the Japanese be grateful for being the target of at atomic bombs — but, bearing those figures in mind, who can doubt that far more lives — as millions of soldiers and civilians rushed to the defence of their homeland — would have been lost in conventional warfare than actually were at Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

War on Civilians

Those who criticize the Americans for waging war, nuclear or otherwise, on civilians forget that the Japanese armed forces were arming every person available in Japan, from women and children to the elderly, and with everything from advanced firearms to primitive pointed bamboo sticks, to fight the Yankee invaders to the death.

Incidentally, this was not as fanatical as it may sound at first, given their own behavior on enemy soil. The Empire of the Sun expected American soldiers to submit the Japanese people to the same atrocities — in fact, it expected the "foreign devils" to treat them worse — that its soldiers had hoisted upon foreign civilians such as those at Nanking or Manila. Japan's coming victims might as well avoid dishonour and at the same time contribute to holding back the U.S. onslaught by, if possible, taking a few enemy soldiers with them to their death. Fight to the last had been the Japanese motto throughout the war.

Thus, the war promised to become even more bloody, as it indeed already had.

Still, the atomic targets were not chosen out of the blue. "[O]ne of the most important military-command and communications centers in Japan [that] would have become the Imperial headquarters had the islands been invaded and Tokyo been captured" (The New Yorker's John Hersey), the Honshu island city was (correctly) referred to as an "important naval base" by Le Monde back in August 1945, although it is typical that in a retrospective 60 years later (scroll to bottom), the independent daily omitted all types of strategic information and all types of context, for expressions such as "martyrdom", "crimes against humanity", "a haughty indifference of the laws created by men to check barbarism", and "a graduation as useless as indecent into horror". (Needless to say, Japanese actions at Nanking and the Bataan Death March did not figure into this kind of rants.)

Peace Feelers Ignored

It has become common for some to say that the Japanese were ready to sue for peace, and that the treacherous and demagogic Americans (or their leaders, if you want to be cute) ignored the peace feelers. There's so much to say to this charge one hardly knows where to begin. First of all, we are told the peace feelers were secret. If it was so obvious as we are told that the Japanese (or, at least, their government) as a whole were desirous to establish an era of peace and goodwill (unlike the murderous Yankees), why didn't they simply make the call for peace public (and thereby stigmatize the leaders in Washington, had the latter refused to take them up on it)? If asked the question, we will be told that it wasn't that easy and that Japanese pride was involved.

Well… exactly! If pride is involved, to what extent can you be sure the peace offer — or any message — is sincere, and especially, how much power does the individual (or the band of individuals) have in proffering it if he or they are surrounded by sizable parties of prideful leaders, soldiers, and other individuals?

As it happens, if and when you get a message (be it a peace proposal or anything else) from a mortal enemy — or even from a traditional friend (think Chirac and Villepin at the UN in early 2003) — how are you to know they are sincere? Is disinformation of some kind involved? How do you know they're not stalling for time? Time for what? To prepare their fellow leaders, and the population, for surrender? (In that case, how do you know what the chances are they will be successful in the task?) Or to build more weaponry (including their own… atomic bomb!), arm more combatants, launch more attacks, and/or kill more of your own nationals?

And who would the peace feeler have been from? From the entire government (in which case they could have made it public, supposedly)? From a clique in the government? And if, so, how much power did its members actually have — and were the latter sincere, were they wishful thinkers, or might they the victims of manipulation (from those who wanted to stall for time for military reasons)?

To use a surreal example of a peace feeler (from the same conflict), in May 1941 Rudolf Hess asked for peace between Britain and Germany (after flying a Messerschmitt solo to Scotland), only to be immediately disowned by Adolf Hitler. For months — years, really — British citizens, commoners and responsible leaders alike (not to mention nervous foreigners, and their governments), wondered what secret intentions, if any, might have laid behind the feat.

Also, to what extent should we go in trusting today's Japanese accounts of their willing and innocent peace-seeking forebears?

In any case, here are some things to ponder: it is well-known that the Imperial Army was full of officers and men of the type as those who, when they learned that Japan would eventually surrender, tried to prevent Hirohito's message to that effect from being broadcast. It is also known (not least to the Navy personnel at the time!) that while the Japanese were supposedly desiring peace, kamikaze pilots were crashing their Zeros into U.S. Navy warships. What is less known is that over 400 people were arrested in Japan in 1945 on the mere suspicion of favoring negotiation.

In conclusion: the Americans were aware of the propensity of the Japanese to fight to the very end, and untold thousands had bled, suffered, and died in so learning. And for very good reasons, Americans were not very trustful of the Japanese; indeed, the formers' tendency to regard the latter as duplicitous cannot be ascribed only to racism, far from it (remember Pearl Harbor?).
Related:
• Hiroshima 15: Examining the Issues Surrounding the Dropping of Atomic Bombs on Japan (Erik Svane)

• Hiroshima 14: "I regard Hiroshima revisionism as the greatest hoax in American history" (Robert Maddox)

• Hiroshima 13: Although It Is Not Said Openly, Hiroshima Also Played a Purifying Role, IE the Baptism of a New Japan, the Event that Put an End to 50 Years of Crimes (Le Monde)

• Hiroshima 12: Political Correctness in Japan: The comment "tramples on the feelings of victims", so… Shut the F**k Up and Lose Your Job! (re the forced resignation of Japan's defense (!) minister)

• Hiroshima 11: If Western elites cannot find perfection in history, they see no good at all; most never learned the narrative of WWII, only what was wrong about it (Victor Davis Hanson)

• Hiroshima 10: If Not for the Atom Bombs, Japan, as we know it today, would not exist (S L Sanger, author of “Working on the Bomb”)

• Hiroshima 9: Over one million warning leaflets were dropped over Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and 33 other Japanese cities 5 days before the Hiroshima bombing (Bill Whittle)

• Hiroshima 8: Was It Wrong to Use the Atom Bomb on Japan? (Father Wilson Miscamble)

• Hiroshima 7: Some Facts About Hiroshima and World War II That You Hear Neither From America's MSM, University Élites, and History Books, Nor From Japan's (New York Times)

•  Hiroshima: Did Japan's top officers know a bomber was approaching Nagasaki, 5 hours beforehand, and do nothing?

• Hiroshima 6: "Lance or spear practice was a regular women's exercise to practice for the anticipated U.S. landing" (a Japanese American)

• Hiroshima 5: Japan's plans for defense involved mobilizing the civilian population, including women and children, for the customary suicidal battle tactics (Thomas Sowell)

• Hiroshima 4: "Les 300 000 morts d'Hiroshima ont épargné bien davantage de Japonais, qui auraient été écrasés sous des bombes ordinaires" (Charles de Gaulle)

• Hiroshima 3: A mainland invasion could have resulted in millions of Japanese deaths—and that's not counting civilians (Wall Street Journal)

• Hiroshima 2: Hand-wringing over Hiroshima is just virtue-signaling by people who never said a bad word about Stalin or Mao’s mass murders (Glenn Reynolds)

• Hiroshima 1: Unlike the ends of the majority of conflicts, World War II in the Pacific grew increasingly bloody as U.S. forces approached the Japanese homeland (Erik Svane)

Thursday, July 30, 2020

The Truth Is Out: "The 1619 Project Is Not a History," Admits Hannah-Jones, and "Never Pretended to Be"


After learning that the New York Times’ 1619 Project has a conflicted relationship with history, the truth comes out – at last.

Nikole Hannah-Jones is forced to admit that the 1619 Project is not history, but a “work of journalism.”

 On Legal Insurrection, points out the change in tone (thanks to Glenn Reynolds, to Ed Driscoll, to Stephen Green, and to Sarah Hoyt)
Shouldn’t the nation’s shared memory be historical facts?
Jones also said they “explicitly stated” their aims in the piece. The last sentence of the introduction (my emphasis): “On the 400th anniversary of this fateful moment, it is finally time to tell our story truthfully.”

Truthfully. When I read “truthfully” I expect facts and history.

Even if Jones wanted the 1619 Project to be a “work in journalism” she chose the wrong term. Journalism, like history, should report the truth. Not your truth. Not alternative facts.
Idonttweet asks what "work of journalism" is supposed to mean: 
It’s not ‘history” or ‘journalism’ but a work of fiction. An attempt to “Control the National Narrative” sounds an awful lot like ‘propaganda’ to me. Against the backdrop of the current Marxist-led riots being justified as a response to historic racism and slavery, it might plausibly be described as seditious propaganda.
Regarding the former Nicole Hannah, JHogan notes that 
She’s admitting it’s propaganda, while calling it ‘journalism’.

There you have it. It’s okay to use ‘journalism’ to spread propaganda. It should even be encouraged.
“The press should be not only a collective propagandist and a collective agitator, but also a collective organizer of the masses.” ~ Vladimir Lenin
KC Johnson points out the double standards — with the 1619 Project trying to have it both ways:
The tweets are part of a pattern w/the #1619Project in which it’s presented as “history” when convenient, to give it credibility (as in the curriculum description) but deemed non-history when its lack of historical rigor has been challenged.
Adds Tyler O'Neil:
Of course, the 1619 Project is also false in a much deeper sense. Its narrative delegitimizes the very real benefits of American freedom and prosperity by claiming that racist oppression is the central truth behind the country’s ideals, while in truth the country was founded in pursuit of freedom and equality but the Founders allowed slavery to persist, laying the groundwork to defeat it eventually.

What do they have to fear of the 1619 Project?

The pernicious narrative of the 1619 Project also carries devastating effects. At its heart, the project aims to demonize America’s founding and heritage.

The 1619 Project uses Marxist critical theory to demonize America and inspire an unguided and destructive revolution.

 … Yet the “1619 riots” have arguably oppressed black people far more than the U.S. supposedly does. The riots have destroyed black lives, black livelihoods, and black monuments. At least 22 Americans have died in the riots, most of them black.

This narrative undermines the positive aspects of America and encourages hatred toward the very country that provides its citizens with an unprecedented degree of freedom and prosperity. It encourages violent riots in the name of racial justice, even though those riots make life concretely worse for black Americans.
 
RELATED: 1619, Mao, & 9-11: History According to the NYT — Plus, a Remarkable Issue of National Geographic Reveals the Leftists' "Blame America First" Approach to History

• Wilfred Reilly on 1619: quite a few contemporary Black problems have very little to do with slavery

NO MAINSTREAM HISTORIAN CONTACTED FOR THE 1619 PROJECT

• "Out of the Revolution came an anti-slavery ethos, which never disappeared": Pulitzer Prize Winner James McPherson Confirms that No Mainstream Historian Was Contacted by the NYT for Its 1619 History Project

• Gordon Wood: "The Revolution unleashed antislavery sentiments that led to the first abolition movements in the history of the world" — another Pulitzer-Winning Historian Had No Warning about the NYT's 1619 Project

• A Black Political Scientist "didn’t know about the 1619 Project until it came out"; "These people are kind of just making it up as they go"

• Clayborne Carson: Another Black Historian Kept in the Dark About 1619

• If historians did not hear of the NYT's history (sic) plan, chances are great that the 1619 Project was being deliberately kept a tight secret

• Oxford Historian Richard Carwardine: 1619 is “a preposterous and one-dimensional reading of the American past”

• World Socialists: "the 1619 Project is a politically motivated falsification of history" by the New York Times, aka "the mouthpiece of the Democratic Party"

THE NEW YORK TIMES OR THE NEW "WOKE" TIMES?

• Dan Gainor on 1619 and rewriting history: "To the Left elite like the NY Times, there’s no narrative they want to destroy more than American exceptionalism"

• Utterly preposterous claims: The 1619 project is a cynical political ploy, aimed at piercing the heart of the American understanding of justice

From Washington to Grant, not a single American deserves an iota of gratitude, or even understanding, from Nikole Hannah-Jones; however, modern autocrats, if leftist and foreign, aren't "all bad"

• One of the Main Sources for the NYT's 1619 Project Is a Career Communist Propagandist who Defends Stalinism

• A Pulitzer Prize?! Among the 1619 Defenders Is "a Fringe Academic" with "a Fetish for Authoritarian Terror" and "a Soft Spot" for Mugabe, Castro, and Even Stalin

• Influenced by Farrakhan's Nation of Islam?! 1619 Project's History "Expert" Believes the Aztecs' Pyramids Were Built with Help from Africans Who Crossed the Atlantic Prior to the "Barbaric Devils" of Columbus (Whom She Likens to Hitler)

• 1793, 1776, or 1619: Is the New York Times Distinguishable from Teen Vogue? Is It Living in a Parallel Universe? Or Is It Simply Losing Its Mind in an Industry-Wide Nervous Breakdown?

• No longer America's "newspaper of record," the "New Woke Times" is now but a college campus paper, where kids like 1619 writer Nikole Hannah-Jones run the asylum and determine what news is fit to print

• The Departure of Bari Weiss: "Propagandists", Ethical Collapse, and the "New McCarthyism" — "The radical left are running" the New York Times, "and no dissent is tolerated"

• "Full of left-wing sophomoric drivel": The New York Times — already drowning in a fantasy-land of alternately running pro-Soviet Union apologia and their anti-American founding “1619 Project” series — promises to narrow what they view as acceptable opinion even more

• "Deeply Ashamed" of the… New York Times (!),  An Oblivious Founder of the Error-Ridden 1619 Project Uses Words that Have to Be Seen to Be Believed ("We as a News Organization Should Not Be Running Something That Is Offering Misinformation to the Public, Unchecked")

• Allen C Guelzo: The New York Times offers bitterness, fragility, and intellectual corruption—The 1619 Project is not history; it is conspiracy theory

• The 1619 Project is an exercise in religious indoctrination: Ignoring, downplaying, or rewriting the history of 1861 to 1865, the Left and the NYT must minimize, downplay, or ignore the deaths of 620,000 Americans

• 1619: It takes an absurdly blind fanaticism to insist that today’s free and prosperous America is rotten and institutionally oppressive

• The MSM newsrooms and their public shaming terror campaigns — the "bullying campus Marxism" is closer to cult religion than politics: Unceasingly searching out thoughtcrime, the American left has lost its mind

Fake But Accurate: The People Behind the NYT's 1619 Project Make a "Small" Clarification, But Only Begrudgingly and Half-Heartedly, Because Said Mistake Actually Undermines The 1619 Project's Entire Premise


THE REVOLUTION OF THE 1770s

• The Collapse of the Fourth Estate by Peter Wood: No one has been able to identify a single leader, soldier, or supporter of the Revolution who wanted to protect his right to hold slaves (A declaration that slavery is the founding institution of America and the center of everything important in our history is a ground-breaking claim, of the same type as claims that America condones rape culture, that 9/11 was an inside job, that vaccinations cause autism, that the Moon landing was a hoax, or that ancient astronauts built the pyramids)

• Mary Beth Norton:  In 1774, a year before Dunmore's proclamation, Americans had already in fact become independent

• Most of the founders, including Thomas Jefferson, opposed slavery’s continued existence, writes Rick Atkinson, despite the fact that many of them owned slaves

• Leslie Harris: Far from being fought to preserve slavery, the Revolutionary War became a primary disrupter of slavery in the North American Colonies (even the NYT's fact-checker on the 1619 Project disagrees with its "conclusions": "It took 60 more years for the British government to finally end slavery in its Caribbean colonies")

• Sean Wilentz on 1619: the movement in London to abolish the slave trade formed only in 1787, largely inspired by… American (!) antislavery opinion that had arisen in the 1760s and 1770s

• 1619 & Slavery's Fatal Lie: it is more accurate to say that what makes America unique isn't slavery but the effort to abolish it

• 1619 & 1772: Most of the founders, including Jefferson, opposed slavery’s continued existence, despite many of them owning slaves; And Britain would remain the world's foremost slave-trading nation into the nineteenth century

• Wilfred Reilly on 1619: Slavery was legal in Britain in 1776, and it remained so in all overseas British colonies until 1833

• James Oakes on 1619: "Slavery made the slaveholders rich; But it made the South poor; And it didn’t make the North rich — So the legacy of slavery is poverty, not wealth"

• One of the steps of defeating truth is to destroy evidence of the truth, says Bob Woodson; Because the North's Civil War statues — as well as American history itself — are evidence of America's redemption from slavery, it's important for the Left to remove evidence of the truth

TEACHING GENERATIONS OF KIDS FALSEHOODS ABOUT THE U.S.

• 1619: No wonder this place is crawling with young socialists and America-haters — the utter failure of the U.S. educational system to teach the history of America’s founding

• 1619: Invariably Taking the Progressive Side — The Ratio of Democratic to Republican Voter Registration in History Departments is More than 33 to 1

• Denying the grandeur of the nation’s founding—Wilfred McClay on 1619: "Most of my students are shocked to learn that that slavery is not uniquely American"

Inciting Hate Already in Kindergarten: 1619 "Education" Is Part of Far-Left Indoctrination by People Who Hate America to Kids in College, in School, and Even in Elementary Classes

• "Distortions, half-truths, and outright falsehoods": Where does the 1619 project state that Africans themselves were central players in the slave trade? That's right: Nowhere

• John Podhoretz on 1619: the idea of reducing US history to the fact that some people owned slaves is a reductio ad absurdum and the definition of bad faith

• The 1619 Africans in Virginia were not ‘enslaved’, a black historian points out; they were indentured servants — just like the majority of European whites were

"Two thirds of the people, white as well as black, who crossed the Atlantic in the first 200 years are indentured servants" notes Dolores Janiewski; "The poor people, black and white, share common interests"

LAST BUT NOT LEAST…

Wondering Why Slavery Persisted for Almost 75 Years After the Founding of the USA? According to Lincoln, the Democrat Party's "Principled" Opposition to "Hate Speech"

• Victoria Bynum on 1619 and a NYT writer's "ignorance of history": "As dehumanizing and brutal as slavery was, the institution was not a giant concentration camp"

• Dennis Prager: The Left Couldn't Care Less About Blacks

• The Real Reason Why Aunt Jemima, Uncle Ben, and the Land O'Lakes Maid Must Vanish

• The Confederate Flag: Another Brick in the Leftwing Activists' (Self-Serving) Demonization of America and Rewriting of History

Who, Exactly, Is It Who Should Apologize for Slavery and Make Reparations? America? The South? The Descendants of the Planters? …