MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
![]() |
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
By Benny Morris @ The Atlantic.com, May 14
The representative’s account of the Arab-Israeli conflict relies on origin myths about the birth of Israel.
I found this be something very rare for an op-ed on the I.P. topic: a worthwhile argument with analytical nuance.
Comments
The Palestinians probably look at the sentence
and ask why Palestinians had to solve a European problem.
The story of the SS St.Louis is horrific
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/01/29/a-ship-full-of-refugees-fleeing-the-nazis-once-begged-the-u-s-for-entry-they-were-turned-back/?utm_term=.c0bb0f47f0f9
by rmrd0000 on Wed, 05/15/2019 - 4:08pm
You don't have to imagine; the paragraph that follows your quote
and a bit later the article describes how the Palestinian leader Husseini ends up a paid guest, agent provocateur and recruiter of Muslims for Hitler in Hitler's Berlin:
by artappraiser on Thu, 05/16/2019 - 12:24am
From the Palestinian point of view, the British were forcing them to solve a German problem. The United States blocked the St Louis from docking. German Catholics had no problem affiliating with the Nazis. Europe was the source of the Jewish threat.
https://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/2001/01/morris.htm
There were a host of sins that created the modern Palestinian situation. We now have a situation that may result in an apartheid state. I see no solution. Israelis and Palestinians both are threatened.
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 05/16/2019 - 8:10am
Let's just say from 1918-1919 on, when the British betrayed the Arab war effort to push independence by signing the Sykes-Picot agreement with France, that all these attempts to blame the Mufti for looking after Arab interests are ironic indeed. Churchill gained fame for cruelty in Iraq during the 20's, later engaging a servile proxy Arab-led government. Syria became (returned to?) French. Saudi Arabia became a British oil puppet. All they got for helping Lawrence with his plans for the southern rebellion. Later the British were supposed to manage Palestine, but instead got caught up in various arbitrary schemes that undermined their authority, but certainly expanding Jewish immigration didn't advance Arab trust nor endear them the Brits to the locals. We can post hoc interpret the Mufti's intentions meeting Hitler, and he seems to be asshole enough, - though not in general representing all the spectrum of Arab thought on the Palestinian and Arab Mideast questions - but it is doubtful the Mufti had any idea as to the extremes of Hitler's planning and actions at that time, and it seems extremely likely to me that Arabs would have become targets of cleansing themselves had Hitler successfully moved south. And it should be remembered that Chamberlain, Beneš and Stalin all cut deals with Hitler in that time period that they quickly came to regret. Condemning a lesser educated and largely powerless Arab for doing much the same to protect Arabs from British, Jewish and German threats without acknowledging those threats - starting not in 1931 but 1919 and earlier - while anchronistically pinning knowledge and responsibility for Europe's holocaust on him seems to be slicing history up rather unfairly. (Begin blowing up a hotel with British soldiers is an independence breaktheough, but the Mufti's on a smaller scale in Jerusalem to little success is notable? Of course Netanyahu presumes to do exactly that - promote Mufti to Eichmann size - but we're not all Bibi, are we.
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 05/16/2019 - 1:14pm
I didn't intend to blame or opine when I made the comment. It was more like: the factual answer is right there in the article. "It was what it was" facts.
But now that you're getting into that. My personal opinion. It's not the initial going with Hitler thing that bothers me as much. After all everything was divided into Axis and Allies, there were two choices and they are pissed at the Brits and he possibly doesn't know about the level of it right away. What bothered me about the mufti, though, is that early on he clearly he is already preaching a "kill the Jews" mentality, not just an anger about having to take them in. As if they are an enemy and not "people of the book." In effect buying into the centuries of anti-Semitism of Christianity. To me, I sense the roots there of manipulating the illiterate Arab masses by giving them a scapegoat to distract them from what their rulers are really up to. The same shit that continued all through the 20th century until Egypt, and then the Saudis, decided to uncloak and show they really were willing to deal with Israel. And I always thought that really scummy of Islamic leaders, to use Jews as a scapegoat to deflect attention from other things, when their own faith is supposed to consider them "people of the book."
Edit to add: I think the whole article has to do with what I just said. What Benny Morris is basically getting at is that Tlaib is buying a bit into the old ignorant conspiracy theories. This conspiracizing on both sides, planted by leaders and governments in people's minds, become passed down generational things, like folklore. And this is why no one can make a decent deal to solve the problems, because everything has become so instinctual and based on fear.
by artappraiser on Thu, 05/16/2019 - 2:31pm
I can kind of agree, except this article is quite incindiary towards Palestinians:
The Palestinians' first affront was not agreeing to more Jewish settlement when critical after several decades of illegal and finagled Zionist immigration.
Then it's the Mufti, who despite being 1 person and in exile for the whole war period, showing up in 1947 to be unreasonable towards the UN plan (pls see how badly the UN fucked up the split in Burma with the vote that never happened, among other useful similar happenings), but still Husseini becomes "the Palestinians", whether he's doing stuff in Iraq or elsewhere. Imagine Steve Bannon (except worse) as "The Americans".
So the Brits wrote a tune to William Blake's "Jerusalem" and like to sing it at football matches, thus they had a naïve quasi-Biblical nostalgia going into their administrative period of the Palestinian Mandate - this started over a decade before Hitler became Chancellor. But we're supposed to start our film in 1933 to gloss over inconvenient facts and skip right to the Godwin's Law part. Yeah, many Arabs embraced old tropes and hateful attitudes. Also, Arabic has a whole mood dedicated to slightly hyperbolic ecstatic proclamations that (me assuming too much from limited knowledge) perhaps plays into the populist effect of leaders like Nasser and Hussein overstating things when egging on their people, whic cam be a good recipe for getting them overexcited, filled with delusions of grandeur and ultimately killed or destroyed.
PS - how does the Mufti's speech and offers compare to all our "Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb bomb Iran" talk from our conservative mavericks? How does it compare with 2 1/2 decades of Netanyahu trying to stir up more attacks against Iran? (considering we overthrew their government once, and continually threaten various attacks, whether Trump or Lieberman or McCain or Bush...).
Horrid when *others* use hate speech.
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 05/16/2019 - 5:08pm
It's unsolvable because it is based not on history -facts-but on what the people involved want to believe.
Attempting to find the guilty party is like examining the Russian dolls take apart and find it contains a smaller doll.
Hitler was unspeakably awful but Zionism was not caused by Hitler. The pogroms , a constant feature of life before Hitler would have fostered it if there had never been a Hitler..
The outcome of the Civil War was that one side lost. After which it took generations for the losers to ,more or less, accept that they would have to live in a country in which the winners set the rules.
The Irish lost to the British.Who ruled them until it became impossible.
The outcome of the 1967 Israel War was that the Palestinians lost. There is no chance they will ever accept that they will have to live in a country in which the Jews set the rules.
Not because either side is any more terrible than either side here in 1865. Or in Ireland in 1920. But because losers don't ever accept having lost. Some individuals will of course but ,the "People" meaning a certain influential cadre won't.
Rashiba Tlaib's knowledge of History is based on what she wants to believe.
Like Netanyahu's
by Flavius on Fri, 05/17/2019 - 4:06am
To be fair, we all filter history through our culture and biases and past patterns. Probably compassion for Native Americans didn't start until it was too late. Even in 2019 most people think it was "treasonous" for the South to vote to secede from the Union (while believing it a right of Catalonia and Scotland and Quebec to vote).
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 05/17/2019 - 5:18am
Confederates wanted to expand slavery and for the North to returned enslaved people who escaped tyranny.
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 05/17/2019 - 10:42am
Doesn't matter - ending slavery wasn't why the North went to war, nor a condition for the longest while for ending it. And I think Dred Scott was upheld, and the Missouri Compromise declared unconstitutional, no? And the question of seceding is different from the immorality of holding slaves - as it took the North 4 years to free Northern slaves (20 months to free Southern slaves).
From WIkipedia:
Again, we run these events through our cultural biases, no matter how many times we've heard the history and could re-evaluate. It wasn't long ago that I realized secession was still a right, not that I ever thought that much about the Civil War - it was just stories one knew, at least for me not terribly important aside from a backdrop for Faulkner stories.
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 05/17/2019 - 12:43pm
Phrase from your wikipedia quote that strikes me:
they might have hesitated at attempting the enormous task of conquering a united South
Oh, did we northerners finish that completely now? I wasn't aware that we had.![wink wink](http://cdn.ckeditor.com/4.5.6/full-all/plugins/smiley/images/wink_smile.png)
by artappraiser on Fri, 05/17/2019 - 2:02pm
P.S. to my comment above. I was being sarcastic, of course. My personal views are to support Lincoln's idea that this experiment not vanish from the earth, that e pluribus unum can work. Case in point right now: that damn-ed new abortion law in Alabamy. It's going to be taken to court, may go up to the Supremes. We are set up so that the federal courts protect some basic creeds, sometimes protecting the majority's wishes, sometimes protecting minority outlier thinking. Saying no to local government when it's a bridge too far. Basically trying to avoid a situation of constant threat of secession. (Also comes to mind how smartly written and executed big federal laws often let states localities tinker with execution, for example, Obamacare, Medicaid....) Prime example of why the Supremes are much more important than who is the president every four years.
Edit to add: always good to keep in mind that we didn't get to be the most powerful nation on earth by letting states leave, but by acquiring more of them. Now maybe some people don't even care to live in the most powerful nation on earth, but that's a whole nother thing.
by artappraiser on Fri, 05/17/2019 - 2:34pm
I'm fine with mulling over different lenses inour past. Maybe being bigger helped us defeat Hitler, so wiping out 600k vs 10-30 million was worth it. 5% was about 3-5% avg loss from Spanish Flu (tho war deaths more gruesome). US could have grown out West w/o the southeast and still be big (maybe Canada would've married us w/o our rednecks). Maybe the Civil War inspired us to wipe out Indians who resisted as well. China's stronger with Tibet and Xinjiang; Russia's stronger with the Urals and Siberia and Caucuses. The world *thinks* we fought the Civil War specifically to stop slavery, not secession, which is likely a very good thing - certainly boosts our morality myth/streetcred and prolly increased our good cop efforts in WWII and Cokd War. Dragging the wife back in the house and beating her when she tries to leave is considered a bit too 19th Century these days. Losing the South would have likely ended or diminished the Monroe Doctrine, which has its historical up and down sides for stability, human rights, *LatAm's* prosperity vs ours as de facto supplier of cheap goods and labor, the South made a good quiet place to tuck away Nazi rocket scientists to get us to the moon. Without the war, no Southern Rock. If the South had seceded peacefully, the major world markets (Europe, North) would have likely stopped accepting slave-made products and produce within 10-30 years based on world changes the previous 30 years producing another set of what-ifs for the South...
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 05/17/2019 - 7:35pm
very inspiring mulling and "what if's" I especially like the Canada thing, as they are a good fit with the midwest. Art History 102 is filled with northern vs. southern peoples' clashes and differences, ya know....it's sort of the main meme![wink wink](http://cdn.ckeditor.com/4.5.6/full-all/plugins/smiley/images/wink_smile.png)
It is really on topic.
Can I just say, though, that the two-state "solution" as to religio-cultural divides hasn't been working out that great vis a vis India vs. Pakistan right now.
by artappraiser on Fri, 05/17/2019 - 10:45pm
Four-state solution: Sri Lanka plus Pakistan split into Bangladesh & Pakistan. (Plus Bhutan, Nepal, et al in north were kinda India as well.) But overall, Kashmir seems to be the main sticking point.
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 05/18/2019 - 12:50am
Myths about the Civil War
Slavery does matter specially because slavery was the primary reason that Southern states wanted to leave the Union
It is well known that Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union, not free slaves, but the South left because they wanted slavery. States rights became an issue after the South lost. It was part of the Lost Cause myth.
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 05/17/2019 - 8:41pm
More on the Confederacy prioritizing slavery as the reason for secession
https://blog.independent.org/2017/08/18/southern-state-seceded-from-the-union-to-protect-slavery/
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 05/17/2019 - 10:37pm
Who is disputing the south left to hang onto its slaves?
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 05/18/2019 - 12:54am
I stated with
You responded
The South left because of slavery. It wanted the North to sanction expansion of slavery. You argued that it wasn’t important. Slavery was important because it was why Confederates left.
by rmrd0000 on Sat, 05/18/2019 - 11:02am
Beautiful - so Dred Scott was returned and the Missouri Compromise was negated to mean slave ownership was enforced everywhere. So why'd the South leave? Things were going swimmingly.
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 05/18/2019 - 1:42pm
The South left because they wanted to expand slavery. Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union.
What is your position on why the South left the Union?
by rmrd0000 on Sat, 05/18/2019 - 1:46pm
Needed some time to think over relationship... Cancun and Montego Bay have nicer weather than Newark and Philly... Caught spring fever - didn't know what came over them... it was all them damn Carolinans' fault... They were trying to surprise the North with a performance of "Cotton Comes to Harlem" but Lincoln got edgy and jumped the gun...
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 05/18/2019 - 2:20pm
So, the South left over the right to own slaves. Full stop. The position of the North was that slavery should not be expanded. Blacks were willing to fight for the Union Army. Blacks did work slowdowns and escaped from the people who enslaved them. There were no good options for blacks in the South. There were no good people in the Confederacy. The South created the myth of black Confederate troops as part of the Lost Cause.
by rmrd0000 on Sat, 05/18/2019 - 4:13pm
So you want to look at history thru your fav prism and none other. As proves my point. Keep repeating.
If you look back, I claimed something about history and you came along and hijacked the fucking thread to argue something no one was denying or gives a shit about. Why do you do this? We know you're black, we know what views you'll bring over and over and how many url's you'll toss in trying but failing to make it more relevant. Do you own every mention of the fucking Civil War?
Watching Victoria - she was given a slave in the 30's of royal Yaruban blood, so Victoria treated her as royalty as she continued to diamantle slavery. How does that play into what was going on in the US, when the world's largest global empire was calling an end to slavery?
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 05/18/2019 - 4:18pm
Thank you. Myopia is a word that might be appropriate. I am reminded of this famous map
And then there's the comparable in politics: single issue voters. I.E. abortion as the only issue of import. Don't care about anything else.
by artappraiser on Sat, 05/18/2019 - 5:47pm
You said
I pointed out that the South wanted the freedom to enslave people. As I understand the Catalans, the Scottish, and Quebec, they wanted self determination. I don’t think they were calling for imprisoning others. I pointed out a significant difference in the demands for separation. You took it off the rails. “Treasonous” because the South wanted to expand slavery. The North wanted to preserve the Union. The South was not arguing state’s rights, they didn’t want the Northern states to reject their demands. I thought that pointing out the difference between the South’s demands versus the other situations was pretty innocuous.
by rmrd0000 on Sat, 05/18/2019 - 7:26pm
If slaves banded together in MS, AL & Fl panhandle to secede, would we still say secession is treason? Would we say fine, but the forts in Mobile and Ft Walton and Gulf Shores still belonged to the US troops in perpetuity? Of course I'm excluding slaves walking away with New Orleans and the valuable Mississippi River trade, as no liberal wouldhave put up with that...
Ps to answer your other:
There's that prism again - slavery was in the Constitution - how could it be "treasonous" to expand based on the Constitution?
Seriously, if you can divide facts into relevant categories, it makes it easier to understand history than lumping everything into a single cause and wishlist.
The right of association is relatively obvious, though has its restraints and limits. The immorality of enslaving people has been fairly obvious since the Enlightenment, sadly seemed a bridge too far for many prior to that. You'd think a round earth was obvious before 1492 as well, since the moon was obviously a sphere, but people can get blocked on the simplest things.
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 05/19/2019 - 2:38am
Rashid is being discussed because of comments made about the Holocaust. We treat the Holocaust differently because it was a horrid event, Slavery was a horrid event. It was allowed because of a white supremacist ideology that we are still fighting. Statues erected to Confederate traitors are abominations.
My objection is that including Southern secession with other separatist movements glosses over the Confederate demand to hold people in slavery as the primary reason for creating the Confederacy. That fact that slavery could be included in the Constitution is actually a plank against it being our national creed. It is possible the national creed document will allow overturning Roe v. Wade. The national creed document may also legalize race based gerrymandering.
Slavery was an abomination and the singular reason for the Confederacy. It is not the same as other movement. Lumping the Confederacy In with the other movements is an insult.
by rmrd0000 on Sun, 05/19/2019 - 9:39am
Every secession movement is condemned. China still claims Taiwan. Burma has no intent to let Rohingya vote. Bangladesh / East Pakistan leaving was a bloody war. East Libya / Cyrenaica was tacked onto Libya and is a major region of discontent. Spain wouldn't let Western Sahara go - now Morocco won't let Western Sahara go.
You didn't answer my question about slaves seceding from the US - would that be okay or treason against the US? What if the Hispanic majority in New Mexico did the same?
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 05/19/2019 - 11:10am
Your hypothetical is of no matter. There are a number of science fiction books that could address your slave secession fantasy. Hispanics are not planning a revolt. We do have an actual increase in assaults by white supremacists. The reality is that United States was founded on equality. Africans did not force colonists to import enslaved people. We are still dealing with the effects of the practice of slavery. We should remove statues that celebrate traitors as a minimal response.
by rmrd0000 on Sun, 05/19/2019 - 3:46pm
Broken record alert. The reason for the what-if was to know your values and consistency. If you cant answer that, fuck your statues nonsense - you can't even say what principles you believe in under varying situations, just offer cant and repetition.
The Mayor of New Orleans did much better.
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 05/19/2019 - 4:37pm
You and AA are predictable. Your example of black secession is incomplete. The true construct would be blacks in Mississippi demand to leave the Union. They want to do this while putting white men in shackles and punishing them with the whip. Are you still supportive of letting blacks leave the Union?
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 05/20/2019 - 9:02am
Jews were in concentration camps, Blacks were enslaved. The Civil War was not fought to free blacks. World War II was not fought to free the Jews.
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 05/20/2019 - 10:40am
Sure, if it's in the Constitution ;-)
Really, all has to be by your rules?
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 05/20/2019 - 11:39am
See below
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 05/20/2019 - 11:45am
Reading this it comes to mind that times, they really may be achanging on who gets to be the scapegoat front:
Maybe I am imagining it (and I don' visit sites like MEMRI anymore like I used to) but sometimes it almost seems as if the epicenter of anti-Semitism has switched to the west and I really do notice a lot more anti-Shia propaganda coming from the Mideast...
Edit to add: Which brings to mind oceankat making a great comment on another thread along the lines of Saudis bitching about Iranian behavior "pot calling kettle black." That is how I have always felt about almost all the parties in the Mideast, including both Israelis and Palestinians. Heck it's all tribalism and I hate tribalism. I am not going to take sides. I refuse on principle. As long as they are doing the tribal thing to the max, I'm not going to show support of any of them, because: it's abhorrent. I am not going to play the game of rating victimhood on a scale, sorry. I'm not their parent and they are not my two kids yelling "that's unfair!" and "he started it". This is where my isolationist urges run rampant. Let em kill each other, why should I care, they are not really trying, it's all just hate and anger. Can easily skip reading I-P news for months and months at a time and jump back in without missing a beat because it's the same old shit over and over and over and over. If I was king, I'd send them all to the moon to fight over the land there instead. Heck, a huge numbers of Americans have family background of folks who willfully chose to give up the "land" in the old country, to leave it all behind. I like that, and I hate tribalism and land inherited over centuries or worse, millennia. It's anti-thetical to my being to care about supposed god-given land to be perpetuated by one tribe for eternity, whether it's Palestinian Arab or Jewish. Great-grandpa's lemon tree, bah humbug.
by artappraiser on Mon, 05/20/2019 - 12:52am
I have this image of Nasser 1956 in the desert shaking his fist at the sky, and it hasn't changed much since.
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 05/20/2019 - 2:22am
Another tale of two tribes:
by artappraiser on Sat, 05/18/2019 - 7:56pm
Interesting that he German parliament felt the need at this time to have a vote decrying the BDS movement:
Germany designates BDS Israel boycott movement as anti-Semitic
By Joseph Nasr & Riham Alkousaa, May 17
by artappraiser on Mon, 05/20/2019 - 1:50am
But Madonna waved both Israeli & Palestinian flags at Eurovusiin - whats it all mean?
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 05/20/2019 - 2:20am
This happens to be true! Those fighting with the cause of freeing the Jews were allied. Your point?
Well, Lincoln did happen to say the reason was to the preserve the union. However, I do believe some abolitionists joined the fight thinking that winning would free blacks. Again, allies.
Your point as to the topic of the thread?
by artappraiser on Mon, 05/20/2019 - 11:39am
My points are directly related to comments made by PP. Neither war was fought for the primary reason of freeing slaves or Jews. I was agreeing with PP.
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 05/20/2019 - 11:48am
Actually all I've seen you do on this thread is use Peracles' thoughts and ideas on the topic of the thread and the right or not to secede from a union as a strawman to hijack and bring up points that are made soooo very much better by Jamelle Bouie in a NYTimes op-ed that you yourself posted in this section only a few posts down. A post in which you also added commentary as if you were arguing with a strawman who was debating with Bouie. All the same argument all the time. For years. You have no other interests besides that and U.S. politics? Everything, every topic in the world, including all U.S. politics must be brought around to being related with the effects of institutionalized racism and the history of slavery in the U.S.?
It would make total sense if you wrote a blog on topic every day and then everyone would know that is your passion, what you fight for, that you have few other interests, and could take it or leave it. But to continually try try to twist other people's conversation on other topics to your passion is very aggravating. It's actually counter-productive zealotry. Like someone coming up to you in an airport and asking if you truly know Jesus.
by artappraiser on Mon, 05/20/2019 - 12:15pm
AA, Southern secession involved slavery so it is not the best case to present to defend secession.
Why are topics that involve race taboo? There is a trial of an NYPD cop who used an illegal choke hold to murder a man selling loose cigarettes, a video of Sandra Bland being threatened by an officer who “feared for his life”, a report on high maternal mortality in black women, etc. These topics all involve race and are all worthy topics.
Rashid and Omar are two Muslim women in Congress. Do you think that race does not influence their coverage? Do you think Trump benefits from being a white guy? Do you think that Congress would be handling Hillary or Obama like they are handling Trump? Don’t you think we would be in impeachment mode by now if a white guy wasn’t in office?
It seems to me that there are stories involving race on a daily basis, are they less valid than others?
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 05/20/2019 - 12:44pm
Boring. 2019 alert.
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 05/20/2019 - 1:17pm
Why are topics that involve race taboo?
Who said they were? Last 3 of 4 stories I posted. Check em out, they all involve race or ethnicity in some way:
Opinion: The Suburbs Are Coming to a City Near You
‘They Were Conned’: How Reckless Loans Devastated a...
In Cities Where It Once Reigned, Heroin Is Disappearing
And the 4th one involves religious tribalism, caste system and related prejudices among same race:
Indian elections are a referendum on Modi’s politics
I bet I have posted more stories on Afro-Americans than you have.
You just harp on like the same three topics over and over and over for years as if the world revolves you and your grievances, and try to make every story about your special grievances. You cherry pick and collect any links that have to do with those 3 and ignore everything else going on in the world. As if there are no other people and no other tribes in the world. There are just people of color and white people. And the people of color agree with Afro-American causes and all Afro-Americans agree. (Afro-Americans and history of slavery always have to be dragged into it, even if it's like about: Palestinians or Muslim-Americans!)
When you come on other's threads, you twist other topics to become one of your memes, in pursuit of having the same exact arguments over and over and over with the few others that participate in this little club. You know where each of us stands on this stuff. Why do you hijack to return to it all the time? As if we are new straw men that you can somehow convince when we have been perfectly clear over and over and over. It's so myopic, like if you have blinders on, and have no interest, no curiosity in any other ways of thinking than your own little tribe. No interest in understanding "the other". There's just you, the people that support your interests, and everyone else is the enemy.
Once again: have you no other interests besides: 1) slavery and reparations 2) Trump and people who voted for Trump being racists? 3) Black Lives Matter movement. If not, why not just blog on those things instead of coming on threads that don't have much to do with it and trying to pretend they do, and then getting us to argue about it all with you for the umpteenth time? You know what we think on these things. What is the purpose? Who are you preaching to? Is it just like practice for shouting your anger on street corners or something like that? If so, I don't like being a guinea pig on which you are trying out your umpteenth version of the same spiel, that's insulting.
by artappraiser on Mon, 05/20/2019 - 8:50pm
P.S. I shouldn't have written most of the above, it was a stupid waste of time, as Peracles' two words say the same thing much more efficiently:
by artappraiser on Mon, 05/20/2019 - 8:59pm
Response to PP from above.
You have no problem with black Mississippians leaving the Union and holding white men in shackles because it is Constitutional.
(Suppresses laughter)
There may be a case to be made for secession. The Southern Exodus is not that case because it involves holding other humans in bondage. The rest of the country did not want slavery expanded or to have to return escapes slaves.
It's the 150th anniversary of the start of the Civil War when Southerners fired on the union redoubt of Ft. Sumter in Charleston, SC's harbor.
If one of William Faulkner's most famous lines ever applied to anything — "The past is never dead. It's not even past." — it is the Civil War.
All this time later, that war still echoes powerfully through American politics. You could draw a straight line from that war through Reconstruction to Jim Crow segregation to the Civil Rights era, then affirmative action and on to the election of the first African-American president up to the present moment. They are all linked.
And they have left their mark on the two major political parties, with African Americans exiting the party of Lincoln and white Southerners embracing it as the lingering shock waves from the Civil War eventually led the parties to reconstitute themselves in different ways.
Americans even still debate why the war was fought. Many a revisionist says it was about state's rights. Others insist it was over slavery. The latter have history on their side.
There was no such confusion at the time of Ft. Sumter. Southerners in 1861 were fairly certain the war was about slavery. Alexander Stephens, the Confederacy's vice president, said the following in his famous Cornerstone speech in March 1861, just weeks before the war started
https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2011/04/12/135353655/slavery-not-states-rights-was-civil-wars-cause
https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/1861stephens.asp
The Confederates needed a new Constitution because the old one failed them.
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 05/20/2019 - 12:11pm
I put a smiley there - should I translate it for you?
Sumter in particular was fought because the North insisted a fort in the middle of the harbor, then one on shore, still belonged to the US forever even after secession, like Guantanamo, Gibraltar, Crimea, Puna, Pondicherry, etc. It was related to slavery per the secession, but the immediate flareup was over insulting colonialist attitudes.
Didn't bother to read the huge quoted splainin' piece.
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 05/20/2019 - 12:29pm
Too bad you didn’t read the post, the Confederates felt that they needed a new Constitution because the one we were using wasn’t strong enough in saying blacks were inferior.
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 05/20/2019 - 12:59pm
I'm so surprised. Why didn't you give me the tl;dr version to start?
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 05/20/2019 - 1:18pm
Interesting Supreme Court Case
Texas v. White, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 700 (1869), was a case argued before the United States Supreme Court in 1869.[1] The case involved a claim by the Reconstruction government of Texas that United States bonds owned by Texas since 1850 had been illegally sold by the Confederate state legislature during the American Civil War. The state filed suit directly with the United States Supreme Court, which, under the United States Constitution, retains original jurisdiction on certain cases in which a state is a party.
Texas v. White![Seal of the United States Supreme Court](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f3/Seal_of_the_United_States_Supreme_Court.svg/100px-Seal_of_the_United_States_Supreme_Court.svg.png)
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued February 5, 1869
Decided April 12, 1869Full case nameTexas v. White, et al.Citations74 U.S. 700 (more)
7 Wall. 700; 19 L. Ed.227; 1868 U.S. LEXIS1056; 1868 WL 11083
HoldingTexas (and the rest of the Confederacy) never left the Union during the Civil War, because a state cannot unilaterally secede from the United States.
Treasury bond sales by Texas during the war were invalid, and the bonds were therefore still owned by the post-war state.Court membership
Chief Justice
Salmon P. Chase
Associate Justices
Samuel Nelson · Robert C. Grier
Nathan Clifford · Noah H. Swayne
Samuel F. Miller · David Davis
Stephen J. Field
Case opinionsMajorityChase, joined by NelsonConcurrenceClifford, Davis, FieldConcur/dissentSwayne, joined by MillerDissentGrierLaws appliedU.S. Const. art. IV
In accepting original jurisdiction, the court ruled that, legally speaking, Texas had remained a United States state ever since it first joined the Union, despite its joining the Confederate States of America and its being under military rule at the time of the decision in the case. In deciding the merits of the bond issue, the court further held that the Constitution did not permit states to unilaterally secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null".[2]
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 05/20/2019 - 1:21pm
Hey, now you get it - "states may not unilaterally secede from the Union" - for whatever reason. Isn't that a load of bollocks?
I can imagine CA/OR/WA and western Nevada (maybe plus Hawaii) seceding from the US tomorrow - they already have the environmental, pot, agricultural and immigration legislation different from the rest of the country.
And one can just dream of Texas going away.
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 05/20/2019 - 1:43pm
This case says that secession is not Constitutional. End of story.
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 05/20/2019 - 2:03pm
End of *your* story - beginning of mine.
So if the US gets a Stalin or Hitler, states/people are obligated to stay in the country, just because... Founding Fathers? The same founding fucks who codified 3/5th of a human being? Radical, dude - you really don't want to examine logic, do you?
BTW - ever known a court case to be, em, reversed? So is it "End of story" until it's *not* "End of story"? It's a wonder Civil Rights ever happened if people were so complacent about accepting shitty precedent.
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 05/20/2019 - 5:53pm
Logic is fine unless it prevents someone from posting something I'd like to read.
As we knows rmrd0000's valuable comments are very often from the perspective of the 400 years black worse than indescribable treatment by their fellow human beings . From when "civilization" had "advanced" from the stage of describing how a revered Moor commander was tricked by Iago , to when the first desperate survivors of the Middle Passage were whipped to work on a cotton or tobacco field in the future home of the brave.
Who would replace rmrd0000 ? Any volunteers? He has the tragic family history and ,finally, endowment with the technical skills to play in this league.
Let him talk. I wan't to listen.
by Flavius on Mon, 05/20/2019 - 11:09pm
Thanks Flavius. I don’t understand the hostility from PP and AA. I don’t think that I am posting anything outrageous. I noted that Rashid is being scrutinized for comments made about the Holocaust. The Holocaust was horrific. Slavery in the United States was another horrific event. When PP lumped the.Confederates In with other secessionist movements, I felt compelled to point out that the Confederates wanted to keep blacks enslaved in their demands. Every knows this, but I think it is important to remind ourselves of that glaring difference. I thought that the Civil War had made it clear that secession was not Constitutional. When PP kept saying that secession was Constitutional, I went looking for what SCOTUS said about secession. I don’t think the decision I cited has been overturned.
I voice my opinion. AA and PP use the strawman argument that I talk for all black people. I wonder if they ever reflect on the fact that it sounds like they talk for all white people. I do look at people having tribal behavior. I see things done by tribes coming together getting. Tribalists are folks who think their group is superior to others. AA talks about the national creed. Obvouisly, she and I have different positions on how that creed should be put into practice. Additionally, I would note that Fukuyama himself notes that the national creed can degenerate into toxic nationalism. I see that as the threat we face today. The Republicans have become a cult who want to punish those who do not agree with their agenda.
Thanks for commenting.
by rmrd0000 on Tue, 05/21/2019 - 12:04am
You're pedantic like we don't know how to read and Google.
And while Flav might appreciate a diversion back into Moorish slave trade (would it always so interesting) in the middle of a thread on Muslim identity, the person who started the thread on Muslim identity, sorry, origins of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, might not appreciate the free-association diversions/full-scale hijacking from their chosen topic du jour. (Flav, if you want to hear rmrd rap, start a thread on topics you'd like to know more about and invite rmrd to contribute - simple, no? I *never* complain about what people put on their own threads)
I as well when I look back at these historical moments disciver something new, such as how people whose ancestors were enslaved can then accept fealty and essentially slavery to a nation-state as perfectly normal. Sure, Back to Africa with Garvey is a-ok, but don't just free up lower Mississippi right where they are, because, uh, U-S-A.
And while I can appreciate some of rmrd's input, I'm not lacking in black education, readings with James Baldwin and Alice Walker and Richard Wright and MLK and The Root and Cornell West and Chuck D and Stacey Abrams and Mandela and once upon a time Dijamo, etc. Sure, some unexpected tidbits can spice things up - but typically only when truly unexpected. Going round the mulberry bush for the millionth time on something obvious or terminally disputed is not much joy. Driving along and being dragged into a no-exit cul-de-sac ain't exactly rejuvenating.
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 05/21/2019 - 1:33am
Corrected: You're pedantic like we don't know how to read
and Googlermrd's postsjust found this particular instance very absurd and blatant because the meme is addressed on a nearby thread and tons better over there! By a writer who uses his real name and stands behind what he writes. What is the purpose of regurgitating it all in way that has far less clarity and eloquence and scholarship, plus doing it on a thread that is like apples to oranges? I know why you brought up theoretical secession and it wasn't to drag the discussion over to that. How did we fall for it again?. . Geez....Fool me once, shame on you, fool me a hundred times, shame on me. The Godfather comes to mind: dragging me back in again. All threads here cannot be on the same topic, Palestinian history and Afro-American history can each get a thread.
by artappraiser on Tue, 05/21/2019 - 2:58am