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 |
The governor of Alabama publicly apologized on Thursday for participating in a skit that involved her and her sorority sisters wearing blackface while she was a senior at Auburn University in the 1960s.
In a statement, Gov. Kay Ivey (R) offered her “heartfelt apologies for the pain and embarrassment this causes, and I will do all I can ― going forward ― to help show the nation that the Alabama of today is a far cry from the Alabama of the 1960s.”
“While we have come a long way, we still have a long way to go,” Ivey said.
The governor said she doesn’t remember wearing blackface or the details of the skit ― but she also didn’t deny her part in it.
As part of her apology, she released a recording of a radio interview she and her then-fiance Ben LaRavia gave in 1967, according to The Associated Press.
LaRavia describes Ivey, who was student body vice president, wearing “blue coveralls” and “black paint all over her face” at a Baptist Student Union party.
“The skit did not require a lot of talent, as far as verbal talent; it did require a lot of physical acting, such as crawling around the floor looking for cigar butts,” LaRavia said in the recording. His comments can be heard at about the 1:39 mark below
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/alabama-governor-sorority-blackface_n_5d6836dfe4b0488c0d11b1ff
Comments
And she even apologized for it. A couple of decades ago they'd be bragging about wearing blackface in Alabama.
by ocean-kat on Fri, 08/30/2019 - 1:39am
Believe it or not, a couple decades ago wearing blackface wasn't a big thing.
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 08/30/2019 - 6:39am
Sorry but it strikes me as ridiculous for a politician to be apologizing for one thing they did during college 52 years ago.She might as well go whole hog and apologize for the kind of person she was in college. Which reminds me, I never heard Hillary apologize for being a Goldwater girl.
by artappraiser on Fri, 08/30/2019 - 11:39am
I think we likely agree that these issues from 50 years ago when a person was in college should mostly be forgotten but we have a different way we think they should be handled. I think she, and others like Northam, should make the brief obligatory apology and then we should just let it go. Too long ago to hold on to and make a major issue.
by ocean-kat on Fri, 08/30/2019 - 2:39pm
Short of the Joe Biden patented fumbled apology, I don't really find the obligatory apology neither here nor there.
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 08/30/2019 - 3:28pm
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/383616-alabama-governor-defends...
She blasts the out-of-state Liberals, but ignores the opposition within the state.
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 08/30/2019 - 2:26pm
This is a current ongoing issue that I think it is important for state officials to discuss. As opposed to what a governor did in college 50 yrs. ago.
She is demagoguing it politically, though, doing the culture wars thing, by implying out of state liberals are the enemy and the problem. Especially as there are plenty of politically liberal historians who agree with her as well as those that disagree.
And I see the problem as those who buy into the culture wars meme she's utitlizing. If it didn't work on both sides, those who will vote for her and those who won't, she wouldn't do it.
It's quite possible to discuss these issues about what to do with ideologically obsolete monuments like grownups, and apart from politics, historians and curators do it all the time.
by artappraiser on Fri, 08/30/2019 - 3:06pm
Blackface was used to demean black people. It was all about white supremacy. Confederate statues are all about white supremacy. If we are supposed to forgive her for a 50 year old event, how can we argue that she has moved on if she is suppressing debate about white supremacy? The statues were not put up immediately after the Civil War. They were put up to intimidate blacks. They coincided with lynchings. Ivey forgot that she wore blackface. She also seems to have forgotten the history of the Confederate statues. Would the blackface Ivey of 50 years ago have agreed with the statues? Yes. The Ivey of today is not bothered by the statues either.
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 08/30/2019 - 3:38pm
I don't think you're really concerned with what a politician has done in the years since wearing blackface. Despite decades working for civil rights for blacks you still thought Northam should resign for a college stunt. You're entitled to your opinion but it should be pointed out that most black people in Virginia disagreed with you and thought Northam should be forgiven. In fact a greater percentage of black people favored forgiveness than white Virginians.
by ocean-kat on Fri, 08/30/2019 - 4:09pm
We all voice our opinions. Younger blacks in Virginia rejected Northam appearing on their campus.
The black poll was not a vindication for Northam. Black voters felt that they were in a no-win situation.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/black-virginia-voters-feel-betrayed-...
If a black politician was found to have attended a Louis Farrakhan event and their was a recording of the black politician laughing at anti-Semitic jokes 50 years ago, there would have to be detailed explanation required today. “When did your heart change” would be one question. Ivey is required to say more.
More on Ivey
https://www.thecut.com/2019/05/alabama-governor-kay-ivey-abortion.html
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 08/30/2019 - 5:51pm
Northam did appear at the 1619 commemoration in Virginia
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/virginia-gov-ralph-northam-pledges-new-black-history-education-n1046391
Northam is dealing with his blackface, Ivey has to deal with her blackface. Being dismissive is not the solution.
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 08/30/2019 - 6:01pm
Sure but your opinions seem flexible. You claim that Ivey needs to do what Northam did but when we discussed Northam and pointed out what he did you said it was irrelevant. What mattered was the blackface despite what he did. Now what he did is the template for Ivey. What do you actually believe? What ever you think gets you a win in the debate.
by ocean-kat on Fri, 08/30/2019 - 6:24pm
Northam had to explain his blackface. Ivey has to explain his. Northam has amnesia for how blackface photos were on his medical school yearbook. Ivey has amnesia for her blackface. This amnesia persisted despite Ivey being reminded of the skit during a radio broadcast in 1967.
https://www.npr.org/2019/08/29/755649657/alabama-gov-kay-ivey-apologizes...
Ivey denied that she participated in the skits during a February 2019 interview with the Auburn Plainsman
https://www.theplainsman.com/article/2019/02/blackface-racist-photos-amo...
Do you find her forgetfulness credible?
Do you really believe that no explanation is required when a person in office or seeking office has amnesia?
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 08/30/2019 - 10:04pm
I would like to answer this question you ask of oceankat: Do you really believe that no explanation is required when a person in office or seeking office has amnesia?
Yes, when it was 52 years ago, as a young person in college, doing something that was not considered unusual.
I actually suspect she was not lying about forgetting and that when evidence was presented to her, she had political handlers craft a very good apology so that she could feel free to demagogue about other racially charged issues from a higher horse.
But it is absolutely 100% believable that she forget she did that. Because it wasn't considered controversial at the time. Why would she? I'm younger than her and I don't remember every social event I went to in college. I find the trend of oppo research into candidates' college years is a very bad thing, it can cut lots of ways. There is a reason that even teen criminal records are expunged.
by artappraiser on Sat, 08/31/2019 - 11:36am
p.s. This reminds me of how I find those who use your "take-no-prisoners outraged politically correct soldier" approach to these type of things very counter-productive politically. It alienates possible friendlies and the opposition has learned to use it productively against its practitioners. Trump especially is skilled at picking out the very same when he sees it, in order to create false Manichean and partisan situations that actually aren't real, an "us vs. them" situation. And he does it only because it draws attention and manipulative power to himself, being the source of demagoguery that riles emotions rather than rationality gives him a feeling of power and feeds his narcissism. Ridicule of him, rather than taking him seriously and getting outraged, is the most devastating response. Same with the outraged overly politically correct. People with common sense who are not captive to their emotions are capable of seeing nuance.
by artappraiser on Sat, 08/31/2019 - 11:52am
She was reminded of the event with her then boyfriend in 1967. She has recurrent amnesia?
by rmrd0000 on Sat, 08/31/2019 - 2:06pm
Bullshit - much of Confederate statues was about heroism and honoring the dead. You trying to spin everything into your only-1-prism tiny race worldview gets so so tiring. Yeah, I liked New Orleans mayor speech on why the statues' time has passed, but only because it was a holistic presentation, not a narrow distorted interpretation. 630,000 soldiers lost their lives, most thinking they were doing the right thing. We've often paid respect to human fallacy and futile misguided efforts. We are inherently idiots and geniuses, mixed motivations. You think the world is somehow properly sorted.
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 08/30/2019 - 6:04pm
"Yes, these monuments were put up to honor Confederate leaders and soldiers. But the timing of the monument building makes it pretty clear what the real motivation was: to physically symbolize white terror against blacks. They were mostly built during times when Southern whites were engaged in vicious campaigns of subjugation against blacks, and during those campaigns the message sent by a statue of Robert E. Lee in front of a courthouse was loud and clear.
No one should think that these statues were meant to be somber postbellum reminders of a brutal war. They were built much later, and most of them were explicitly created to accompany organized and violent efforts to subdue blacks and maintain white supremacy in the South. I wouldn’t be surprised if even a lot of Southerners don’t really understand this, but they should learn. There’s a reason blacks consider these statues to be symbols of bigotry and terror. It’s because they are."
The Real Story Behind All Those Confederate Statues. Mother Jones link
by NCD on Fri, 08/30/2019 - 7:06pm
United Daughters of the Confederacy and the Lost Cause Movement
by NCD on Fri, 08/30/2019 - 8:04pm
yes, this does seem to be the far more convincing version of the story of why and how these statues were placed.
by ocean-kat on Fri, 08/30/2019 - 8:29pm
Well, I imagine very few statues were built during Northern occupation because the North didn't allow them. I remember Barcelona took aa couple decades after Franco to regain its footing, find its mojo. While I'm sure there was some causation, there's also some inherent bias in lumping in all statue building as just a reflection of lynchings.
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 08/30/2019 - 9:41pm
Please provide links to support your position.
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 08/30/2019 - 9:52pm
How about that there are fewer lynchings in the period marked "lynchings" than any of the prior 30 years?
https://www.famous-trials.com/sheriffshipp/1084-lynchingsyear
Or that the last dying Civil War vets is as big an explainer of statue building as any venemous intent towards blacks:
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 08/30/2019 - 9:54pm
The author of the Mother Jones articles explains the timeline
Lynchings continued in the period labeled “Lynching”. The author explains we had the addition of the Klan and the erection of statues. The terror campaign continued. The intimidation continued. Ida B. Wells was active in the period labeled “Lynching” in the timeline. She joined an anti-lynching delegation to President McKinley in 1898.
Blacks were not complacent about lynching. Lynchings did not decrease by magic.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/against-all-odds-65322127/
Blacks fought against lynching. Whites erected Confederate monuments as intimidation.
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 08/30/2019 - 11:06pm
So you ask for links, I give you links & reasoning, and then you don't fucking address the links I give but instead post a bunch more gobbledygook.
You're an asshole and shitty debater.
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 08/30/2019 - 11:53pm
You questioned the label “lynching”. I point out that lynchings were happening when the monuments were increasing. You said the monuments were not intimidation, but in honor of the slain Confederate traitors. NCD pointed out the monuments were created to support the myth of the Lost Cause.
I understand your anger. You have been poorly educated on slavery and Civil Rights. There are efforts to correct this lack of knowledge. The NYT 1619 Project details how slavery impacts modern life. The WaPo has a series on the shoddy job done in the classroom educating students about slavery.
You asked why the timeline was labeled lynching despite a decrease in lynching. I pointed out that Ida B Wells was fighting lynching during that period. NCD noted the increased activity of the Klan. The Red Summer occurred.
You seem to take pride in referencing the myth of the Lost Cause. Here is reality.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/its-time-for-the-lost-cause-of-the-south-t...
The Lost Cause was intimidation, not honor.
Edit to add.
Links to the WaPo classroom series
https://www.washingtonpost.com/podcasts/post-reports/how-american-classrooms-gloss-over-slavery-and-its-enduring-legacy/
And to the NYT 1619 Project
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/14/magazine/1619-america-slavery.html
To help you break free from the Myth of the Lost Cause
BTW, there were African slaves on the Continent even earlier
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/misguided-focus-1619-beginning-slavery-us-damages-our-understanding-american-history-180964873/
by rmrd0000 on Sat, 08/31/2019 - 8:45am
Your first link, the Jack Schwartz/Daily Beast piece is an extremely well written and nuanced argument about the issue, I highly recommend it. I especially like how he handles Robert E. Lee and how he speaks to the difference between statutes of Washington and Jefferson and those of Civil War figures erected during the UDC and UCV campaign.
I'm doing that because I don't recommend your presentation of it at all, I find it simplistic and incorrect, ironically condescending to your respondent, and in its "agit-prop-ness," I would suspect it counter-productive for almost all readers.
by artappraiser on Sat, 08/31/2019 - 11:11am
I still argue that the South like Scotland or Bangladesh or Slovenia had the right to vote to peacefully leave the Union - not treason. There's a question to me where theUS had the right to keep federal forts in all the southern harbors after secession. Short of this, secession would have been non-violent.
That doesn't addressthe issue of slavery. I understand many (most?) Southerners will confuse the two issues on purpose, yet I also think most northerners/non-southerners will underplay the amount of regional countrymouse/citymouse hostility that still exists to some degree today.
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 08/31/2019 - 11:55am
Doesn't really matter because the inconvenient truth is that there's way way more nuance one can offer on this whole thing about monuments than the Jack Schwartz op-ed, which was merely a decent summary. No need to even go there where you are going in many cases.
The inconvenient truth is that all these monuments are not all the same iconographically, every artist commissioned was not necessarily following the agitprop needs and desires of the UDC and UCV that well, and they themselves were not rocket scientists at knowing whether every instance of what they got worked for their nasty message. Not necessarily always inspiring fear and loathing, some might rather get an "eh?" And furthermore what matters now is what the object says to citizens now. If looking at a statue most can't figure out it is racist, today, in this moment, then to include it as an enemy is demagoguing right back. Get what I am saying? It's all fine and dandy to research the history and provenance of pieces and find that they were inspired by a racist agenda, but if they don't have that effect in reality today to passersby who haven't read up on them, who are they bothering? Eye of the beholder. Today's beholder.
On the other hand, okay to go there if you want to go off the rails and use what has been discovered about them by scholars. as a metaphor for something else.
by artappraiser on Sat, 08/31/2019 - 12:23pm
This, really. If I have to take a position I'll side with removal but the vast majority don't know why they were built, don't know who the statues are, and don't care if they stay or are removed. It's a fight between two fringe groups.
by ocean-kat on Sat, 08/31/2019 - 1:32pm
Removing statues would stop the fringe groups from using them as strawmen to fight over. It would change little else. Unless locally there are still poorly educated blacks actually frightened into a state of subservience by a statue of Colonel Bureaugard Butthead in a Civil War uniform. The actual argument about southern secession would go on amongst those parties passionately interested but there would be no statues for teachers to teach about why they came about in high school history class. No one would bother to learn about who Colonel Bureaugard Butthead was anymore. There would be little less learning and discussion of history about the Civil war, not more. Which might be good. And it would only be a little less ,as those passionate about it will argue it forever, just like Israel vs. Palestine.
Most people don't like history class and no one is going to change that.
That is why they do not tear down the remnants of Auschwitz concentration camp, it makes history more real to be forced to see some to see physical artifacts.
This is also why they tore down the statue of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad, those who did wanted to forget about him.
It's not about the statues, it's about what the affect they have on people's minds. I do not believe most of the mostly lousy works of art commissioned and promoted by these two Jim Crow groups have much effect on most people's minds anymore when they see them. They don't even know who they are depicting. They could actually be used to teach history, though, right where they are now, if the plaques accompanying them were changed. I can't imagine southern blacks being frightened into subservience by them now. More likely they put toilet paper on them on Halloween, or ridicule them with costume effects.
On the other hand, that mammy statue mentioned at the start of the Daily Beast article, that would have been a real potent image where most people would get the message. The House of Representatives at the time got that it was going too far even for the time and voted it down.
But statues of white guys in military uniforms are allover the world and nobody pays much attention to them, even though some of them today would basically be considered war criminals. That's because they are not potent images and so few care about history, they consider the here and now more important. At the same time I think most people these days understand potent images when they see them because they have been educated by advertising. These confederate statues being talked about are not that.
by artappraiser on Sat, 08/31/2019 - 4:08pm
Very well stated. I don't even think changing the plaque would help many people learn about history. Most won't bother to read it. I likely wouldn't bother to read it. The only thing that might help is a huge banner proclaiming "This Is A Racist Statue." Then people might go look at the statue and read the plaque.
by ocean-kat on Sat, 08/31/2019 - 4:24pm
The statutes are bothering the people who are well read and know the history.
by rmrd0000 on Sat, 08/31/2019 - 2:10pm
Some of the people who are well read and know the history. Some of those who are well read and know the history aren't bothered.
What percentage of the population is well read and knows the history? A fringe group imo.
by ocean-kat on Sat, 08/31/2019 - 2:17pm
AA asked who was bothered by the statues.
Here is Mitch Landrieu who wrote about why the statues need to come down in “In the Shaw of Statues”
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/25/books/mitch-landrieu-mayor-new-orleans-in-shadow-of-statues-interview.html
by rmrd0000 on Sat, 08/31/2019 - 2:25pm
I know what Arta asked. I don't need you to repeat it.
Finding a link to someone who agrees with you is meaningless. I don't come here to play dueling links but to dialog.
Your reply does not in anyway address my comment.
by ocean-kat on Sat, 08/31/2019 - 2:30pm
Your question is meaningless. The facts are that people are bothered by the statues. Landrieu offers a solution. Discussion and education is what is required.
by rmrd0000 on Sat, 08/31/2019 - 2:46pm
The facts are that very few people care about the statues. Either to remove them or to fight to make them stay.
by ocean-kat on Sat, 08/31/2019 - 3:11pm
I have a B.A. and M.A. in Art History specializing in 19th-century American, and taught art history to undergrads as well. I believe southern secession was treason mainly for the purposes of continuing slavery. The statues do not bother me, ok? I think they are interesting and so do a lot of curators. I bet I am in the majority among my colleagues.
But then I don't think much of Ulysees S. Grant as a person or president, either, yet I don't think his tomb in NYC should be torn down, even though it's not a world treasure of architecture. Because he's an enormously interesting and important person in American history.
Historians are interested in deconstructing propaganda messages, not destroying evidence that they existed in order to help push the current narrative in vogue. Because that too will pass. We are not our statues, we are living breathing things that change.
How many pre-natal exams for black expectant moms would the equal the cost of taking down the statues and moving them them to storage somewhere?
by artappraiser on Sat, 08/31/2019 - 4:25pm
The problem with putting them in a museum somewhere is government officials know that not enough people go to most museums for them to even break even. The government is left making up the deficit from tax revenues.
by ocean-kat on Sat, 08/31/2019 - 4:27pm
here's an idea, keep the UDC busy and out of trouble raising funds to move em all here, which I made the time to visit about a decade ago while on a trip to Atlanta. They would be just fine additions scattered around one of the spookiest most tragic godforsaken places in this country. I bet your ghost town cannot come near competing with it. They could invite all the white supremacists to hold their functions there.
by artappraiser on Sat, 08/31/2019 - 5:27pm
shhh! Quiet! If the activists discover the existance of this site they'll agitate to remove it.
by ocean-kat on Sat, 08/31/2019 - 5:30pm
P.S. to above: NO BBQ'ing would be allowed, tho, I'm pretty sure!
by artappraiser on Sat, 08/31/2019 - 5:20pm
We one day will deal with how many Calleys there are among our good soldiers for good wars.
That war deaths have dropped hugely means our fantasizing over war heroes will also decrease. Petraeus might have been the last?
I still don't understand how seceding for whatever reason is treason - it's democracy, the right to associate. That slavery was guaranteed in the Constitution makes it doubly hard to see how that's "treason". Immoral, anathema, ethically indefensible, yes, but it begs the question how to deal with new ethics in a democracy - e.g. coastal elites vs flyovers on the topic of abortion or gay marriage, should it get to a big enough deal to leave (say Republicans ban it, California says enough's enough, but Trump/DC decide to hold onto the many army, air force and naval bases?
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 08/31/2019 - 8:15pm
Secession was about the right to enslave people. That was the reason stated when the state’s seceded. As the war progressed freedmen and enslaved men could legally fight against slavery. The Confederacy never allowed black men to fight because that would have defeated the purpose for secession. Black men would have value as humans.
by rmrd0000 on Sat, 08/31/2019 - 2:18pm
Fuck you, dickwad - my education is fine. My anger is towards you. I dont care if Ida Wells fought lynchings - a period marked "lynchings" implies more lynchings thqn periods not marked "lynching". The dying off of Civil War vets around the turn of the century *partially* explains the nostalgia and revival of Civil War sentiments - certainly other factors including any rreenewed KKK acyivity, new film Birth of a Nation, etc but Occams Razor demands some consideration of the obvious. What effect did the increased black migration have at this time, or did an uptick of vilence and harassment of blacks have anything to do withthat migration? Interesting questions, but answere only with serious consideration of facts, not just more slapdash "here's a graph, stand in awe" with mislabeled/misleading heaings to further crap history and shallow regurgitation of cant.
PS - and no I didnt say "statues weren't intimidation", you shit disturbing mothefucker - I said there are more thins to consider before drawing that conclusion, including that an increase/bubble dying vets is a very obvious explaination for an increase in *some* statues. Get your ahit together or take your Amos n Andy show somewhere else - we're not your whipping boy for bad race-aggrieved history.
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 08/31/2019 - 11:39am
^ I'm just hoping no Dem candidates are allowing rmrd to do "outreach" for them to get reactions like this.
I also find it extremely sad that attempts to help him argue his own case better which is one very beneficial thing participation in groups like this website can offer, fall on deaf ears. He doesn't seem at all to see the continual efforts of other members to help him refine his own methods of communication. Fellow members are made into strawmen combatants to slay, and lurkers no doubt see failure at doing that every time and those trying to give respectful criticism get frustrated time after time after time.
by artappraiser on Sat, 08/31/2019 - 12:25pm
The candidates I supported won, while you remained on the nonpartisan sidelines.
by rmrd0000 on Sat, 08/31/2019 - 2:08pm
The United Daughters of the Confederacy is a racist group.
You can’t separate the group who created the statues from their racism. This was white supremacy, not honor
by rmrd0000 on Sat, 08/31/2019 - 2:38pm
Most people might know the UDC as that group of mainly older women
Most people don't know or care who the UDC is.
by ocean-kat on Sat, 08/31/2019 - 2:45pm
The fact that they don’t know doesn’t mean the facts don’t matter.
by rmrd0000 on Sat, 08/31/2019 - 2:47pm
The fact that they don't know supports my contention that this is a fight between two fringe groups. Most people don't care whether the statues are removed or stay. Most people are too busy with more important issues to spend the time necessary to study the history to form an opinion.
by ocean-kat on Sat, 08/31/2019 - 2:57pm
Public opinion can be changed
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/why-martin-luther-king-had-75-percent-disapproval-rating-year-he-died-180968664/
King was fringe.
by rmrd0000 on Sat, 08/31/2019 - 8:12pm
see below
by ocean-kat on Sat, 08/31/2019 - 9:13pm
Thanks NCD. The United Daughters of the Confederacy and the Sons of Confederate Veterans led the effort to make the myth of the Lost Cause gain traction. States Rights rather than slavery was the supposed cause of the war. All you have to do is read the statements on the reason states gave for secession and the right to maintain and expand slavery was front and center. There was even an effort to promote the idea that enslaved men fought for the Confederacy. I remember having a weeks long argument with someone who no longer posts at dagblog about the existence of black Confederates. It took weeks to convince that poster that o enslaved blacks were in the ranks of the Confederacy.
There is an excellent new book, “Searching for Black Confederates The Civil War’s Most Persistent Myth by Kevin M. Levin exposes the lies.
https://www.uncpress.org/book/9781469653266/searching-for-black-confeder...
There is poor job of educating citizens about slavery and the Civil War.
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 08/30/2019 - 9:50pm
Two Governors appear in blackface. Nothing to see here. Time to move on. Confederate statutes created to intimidate blacks erected. Confederate statues were pushed into existence by a group of racist women who wanted to honor white terrorists who attacked the Union and wanted to enslave black people and to have enslaved people who escaped returned to their so-called masters. Let’s just leave the statues in place.
Glad we had that discussion on race.
The status quo is great.
by rmrd0000 on Sat, 08/31/2019 - 8:19pm
You're here to argue about events that happened 30, 50 and 100 years ago as if they're current events. Even discussingMark Twain's use of the N-word from 140 years ago. Meanwhile the US is burning.
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 08/31/2019 - 8:27pm
No, the argument is ongoing. That is the precise point of the 1619 Project. We are dealing with age old practices today. Not talking about the racism of the women who promoted the Confederate statues and honoring traitors is not working? Ivey would have approved the statues to traitors when she was in college and her position hasn’t changed. What other viewpoints are fixed?
She says that she does remember, but was reminded of the skit in 1967.
by rmrd0000 on Sat, 08/31/2019 - 9:43pm
Jeez you don't even seem to understand the common usage of the word fringe. It has nothing to do with approval rating but with what percentage of the people think about and care about an issue. MLK wasn't a fringe figure leading a fringe movement. The whole country was involved in the movement at least in paying close attention to what was happening. Also your implied racism is stupid as his 75% disapproval rating came near the end of his life and was related to his stance against the Viet Nam war and massive welfare programs for blacks. Your own link states that his disapproval rating was st least 25 points lower during his civil rights struggle.
I suppose you think such distortions and false statements will work to make people aware of this issue and to change public opinion. Who knows, you may be right. People are regularly fooled by lies. But they won't work here.
by ocean-kat on Sat, 08/31/2019 - 9:28pm
re: don't even seem to understand the common usage of the word fringe.
I was going huh? on that one, too. Tho it fits quite nicely with not understanding the common usage of the term "identity politics," something I've had mucho difficulty with in the past. Also fits with goals of preaching and ranting at a phantom tribe of people as if they were the audience of this website. claiming to represent a whole 'nother tribe of people who are not here either. Instead of trying to improve communication between individuals. The definition thing, this is why it seems to be a complete flipflop of an argument he made on the same thread? I.E., I just got done basically saying "people and times change", so I am scratching my head. So then maybe it's not the preacher thing but it's a foreign language and we don't realize it....
uncle I give. I was bound and determined not to enter into this discussion because as you might surmise, this is something I've discussed on a whole nother level with colleagues....why'd I waste the time, that's the real question...the fault is in myself, my discipline problem....ah but, I have even moved past that now, I have decided I am no longer going to beat myself up by dragged in again. Just trying my best to keep something I enjoy as: something I enjoy! No excuses kind of thing...
by artappraiser on Sat, 08/31/2019 - 9:41pm
No distortion
Take the Freedom Riders and Sit-ins, 60% disapproved in 1961
60% disapproved of the March on Washington.
In 1966, 85% said that mass demonstrations were harmful
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/19/black-lives-matters-and-americas-long-history-of-resisting-civil-rights-protesters/
You need to read more:
King had scorn for white moderates who wanted him to wait, as noted in his letter from a Birmingham jail
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2018/01/15/martin-luther-king-jr-s-scathing-critique-of-white-moderates-from-the-birmingham-jail/
King was falsely labeled a Communist
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2017/11/04/in-the-latest-jfk-files-the-fbis-ugly-analysis-on-martin-luther-king-jr-filled-with-falsehoods/
King was not beloved during life
by rmrd0000 on Sat, 08/31/2019 - 10:15pm
Regarding fringe, he was considered fringe near the end of his life. This is accompanied by a statement about falling behind in some areas while being ahead of his time in others.
The Riverside Church speech was April 1967.
by rmrd0000 on Sat, 08/31/2019 - 10:50pm
I assume rmrd0000 is Black. There may have been other Blacks among the other commentators. I wonder. I strongly hope so. "
I think Dagblog's a multi racial forum . Is it?
And if so, does that depend on rmrd0000 ? He strenuously -and ably- presents views that surely are shared by a lot of Blacks. (Not all, of course. There are the Clarence Thomases . ) But I'd hate to think that we depend entirely on rmrd0000 to present the majority Black position.
Anyway , hang in there rmrd0000. If you go, I'm going.
by Flavius on Sat, 08/31/2019 - 10:56pm
It's inevitable that dagblog will end. It's only a question of time. We keep losing participants and never get anyone new that posts regularly long term. We're down to several people having a conversation, often only a few. Eventually one of us will be the next to leave, followed by another. Given the small number of posters rmrd represents about the same % here that blacks represent in the US population. I wish it were different but it seems most people aren't interested in the type of discussions we have here. At most there might be some lurkers that are interested in just reading but I can't imagine there would be many.
by ocean-kat on Sat, 08/31/2019 - 11:15pm
Thanks Flavius. I do find conversations with many of the white people here curious and socially outdated. We went to dinner with an older white couple from Arkansas on Friday. They were high school educated and well- read. When the discussion came to Trump, they had no problem labeling Trump and his followers racist. The triumvirate at dagblog is much different than most of the white people in my circle. I do talk to white Conservatives, but I have learned there is very little of value gained. We agree to disagree.
To get responses from people who appear to be Liberal/Progressive, but have such outmoded ideas is an anomaly. A Governor forgets that she wore blackface in a college skit despite being reminded of the skit in the late Sixties. I am told, no apologies or explanation is needed, just move on. This is simply incredible.
On the issue of Confederate statues, I am told that issue is not a big deal as well. A group of racist women sanctioned the statutes to promote the Lost Cause. The statues honor people who supported slavery, but there is nothing to see here either.
My intelligence and education are attacked routinely. The saving grace is that the triumvirate controls nothing of importance. The BBQ people are safe from ocean-kat. I think the dog hump guy was banned from the dog park. The dog hump came when ocean-kat inserted the story about dogs barking in a Chevy Chase dog park. Katy is worried about blacks getting away with crimes because police aren’t called for nonsense. There was a great line in the WaPo story about barking at the dog park.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/no-excessive-barking-a-chevy-chase-dog-park-divides-the-rich-and-powerful/2019/08/27/0b9fd242-c4e5-11e9-9986-1fb3e4397be4_story.html
I actually find kat’s outrages laughable.
AA uses pity olympics as an insult, then whitesplains everything under the sun. She is a true tribalist. Note that not commenting about blackface is fine with her. Who of importance, according to her, cares about the statues. All people have to do is agree with her and tribes would no longer be a problem.
PP comes along with his outbursts. On lynching he worries about how a graph was labeled rather than ask what we do with statues put up by racist white women to honor white traitors.
Thanks for noticing the trend. Outside of their self-imposed bubble, people are working for change. They are forever stuck with the comfortable status quo.
by rmrd0000 on Sun, 09/01/2019 - 12:19am
they had no problem labeling Trump and his followers racist.
It's a strawman argument. Everyone here also has no problem labeling Trump and his 40% base racist. The disagreement is over whether Obama to Trump voters are racist and whether democrats should attempt to get that segment to return to the democrats.
I am told, no apologies or explanation is needed,
That's a lie. I specifically said that Ivey should apologize. It's at the top of this thread. How can you expect to have a reasonable conversation when there is undeniable proof right in this thread that you lie.
Katy is worried about blacks getting away with crimes because police aren’t called for nonsense.
You claim the police calls were for nonsense without giving a single reason to back up that claim and you refuse to even address the reasons why I think they are serious public health violations. If they are nonsense then you should easily be able to debunk them. But you never even made an attempt.
I don't even get why you made this post. It's like you're looking for someone to validate you. This is just an intellectual diversion for me. I don't care if you hate me, or Flavius hates me, or Arta hates me, or anyone here. I'm not looking for validation from any of the anonymous people here. All I care about is responding to the arguments people make here. And that they respond to the arguments I make. You don't so I find dialog with you a waste of time.
The saving grace is that the triumvirate controls nothing of importance.
You do realize that we think the same about you. Arta has posted several times that it's good you control nothing. I know no one here controls anything so I've never felt the need to post that.
The problem some have with your dialog here is you lie about things we've clearly posted, you create strawman that do not accurately reflect our views to argue against, and you refuse to even address the points we bring up. I'm not angry or upset because I don't care about you. I don't care about you enough to even find you laughable. You're just some anonymous guy on the internet I occasionally talk to. I won't miss you when I leave. I won't ever even think about you. It's just incredibly boring to attempt to have a conversation with someone who lies, refuses to address what I think are reasonable cogent points, and instead argues against strawman that don't in any way reflect my views
by ocean-kat on Sun, 09/01/2019 - 3:57am
More lies - I already said I was impressed with Landrieu's speech noting the statues' time had gone (though will consider the approach voiced by others here that it really doesn't matter)
Somehow I don't think repeated lies and distortions aptly voice the "Black viewpoint". I don't need agreement, but when someone continually intentionally misreads and misparaphrases my words, holding an intellectually interesting conversation becomes impossible, much less digging deeper into root causes and trends. I don't recall Danny having this problem, though Wattree was a piece of work.
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 09/01/2019 - 5:03am
Re: But I'd hate to think that we depend entirely on rmrd0000 to present the majority Black position.
I don't and have been very clear about exactly that many times. But he often claims to (or maybe it's only that he communicates in a manner that makes it seem that way via use of the third person and strawmen.) This is a major source of any friction. If he used the first person and only claimed his own thoughts, rather than those of an entire tribe, I doubt I'd be tempted to say much about any comments.
Do you see any others react to what Danny Cardwell writes, who identifies as black and doesn't write under a pseudonym, in the same way as to what rmrd writes?
By the way, you didn't express any outrage on this thread about a governor doing blackface in college 52 yrs. ago. Why not? I suspect if you actually addressed the topic of this thread rather than just meta, you would likely be turned from rmrd friend to rmrd strawman enemy right quick. Nobody here is chasing him away, he tries to chase others by making them into strawmen representing some other tribe when they try to talk to him.
The conundrum: not talking with him, letting him preach all by himself, without any interaction, just silence, is what will keep him here? Or does he want people to interact? if they have to serve as strawmen it is not the type of members left here who want to role play that for him. Or what?
All you are seeing, Flavius, is people trying to talk with him, and then getting rigged into being strawmen, and not liking that role. It's not even real debate. He mainly wants to argue with others who are not here.
by artappraiser on Sun, 09/01/2019 - 12:39pm
I look forward to your comments.
And his.
by Flavius on Sun, 09/01/2019 - 12:50pm
And I look forward to yours! How about this for a suggestion: come around more often, and what comes out of that is that it will be a nicer place to come to?
by artappraiser on Sun, 09/01/2019 - 12:57pm
My statement
PP’s response
NCD noted:
So why the harsh response to my post? Nothing I have said is outside of comments made by black pundits on television and in print.
Only later did PP address the intimidation factor behind the creation of the statues.
Also, note AA’s repeated use of pity olympics to describe what she considers whining by ethnic minorities. She admits that it is not a unifying message. Why would I find kinship with her? Note how freely they use profanity directed at me. PP has the keys. If I respected their opinions enough to be offended, and I don’t have that level of respect for them, and responded in kind, PP would block me. While AA ridicules black complaints, we are on installment five of her tortured life in NYC.
by rmrd0000 on Sun, 09/01/2019 - 7:34pm
Here is a portion of the Landrieu speech that PP skim read
https://americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mitchlandrieuconfederatemonuments.htm
by rmrd0000 on Sun, 09/01/2019 - 7:54pm
Fuck you with your "skim read" - you're the selective reader around here so crawl back in your single-prism hole.
And I've never argued against the primacy of slavery as the cause for secession - I've only noted several issues like north-south/city-country/urban-rural disrespect, states' rights and the North lording the claim to forts in southern harbors exacerbating the situation - and that by pretending these issues don't/didn't exist, we only feed the victimology of that Lost Cause. And yes, states have the right to peacefully and in some cases violently secede (would you accept the right of Lower Saxony to withdraw from Hitler's raving mad Germany? Were Muslim Indians allowed to form their Muslim state of Pakistan while Tamil Ceylonese formed Sri Lanka?)
Seriously, I have no interest in simplified dumbed-down versions of history. Even the crudest people have mixed complicated motivations in most (but not all) cases.
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 09/01/2019 - 8:28pm
The proper sentence would emphasize the racism part You make the white supremacy an afterthought. Your fist profane statement was about honoring the traitors.
Edit to add:
You are making a “good people on both sides” argument.
by rmrd0000 on Sun, 09/01/2019 - 8:42pm
Fuck your "proper sentence" - I don't have to write to spin things your way - just fucking learn to read and quit changing other peoples' words. That will go a long way towards having fruitful adult conversations and debates around here.
And in any case, I'd *guess* most southerners at the time of statue building were more motivated by honoring the bevy of dying-off old veterans than to send a signal to blacks. Maybe some people organizing this had this as prime motive, but I doubt they did many fundraisers from common folk spouting "let's show them blacks by putting up a statue of Beauregard", but most anything's possible - if you show some evidence.
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 09/01/2019 - 8:53pm
PP addressed mixed motivations early on, e.g. "While I'm sure there was some causation, there's also some inherent bias in lumping in all statue building as just a reflection of lynchings."
I don't put all my eggs in one basket unless obvious. Trivializing the various sentiments, including the widespread racism and the "grandpa Civil War vet's dying produces a misreading of history and a misunderstanding of people.
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 09/01/2019 - 8:26pm
The mission of the United Daughters of the Confederacy was very clear. Landrieu was clear
If your basket is not loaded down with white supremacy eggs, you are not being truthful
The statues were about the Lost Cause.
by rmrd0000 on Sun, 09/01/2019 - 8:38pm
Fuck you again - Landrieu said "not JUST" - quit changing his argument, his words just to get your way.
PS - and George W Bush can suck my dick - quoting that deceptive shit after lying his way into Iraq and worse with no plan to manage it or get out gives him zero credibility on anything to do with wars, much less acknowledging and correcting historical mistakes.
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 09/01/2019 - 8:42pm
Mitch Landrieu
Edit to add:
No pedestals for those who fought to enslave other people
by rmrd0000 on Sun, 09/01/2019 - 8:52pm
Rehash
Your first statement was outrage that people did not acknowledge that the statues were to honor Confederate traitors. (Slavery, not state’s right was the issue. that led to the Civil War)
Landrieu acknowledges that the Lost Cause was [PARTLY - "NOT JUST" - Landrieu] why the statues went up. He ends with saying that there should be no statues to the Confederacy.
The State’s Rights argument is part of the Lost Cause
https://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/lost_cause_the
by rmrd0000 on Sun, 09/01/2019 - 9:05pm
What the fuck are you doing? I already largely agreed with Landrieu *years* ago, and agreed the South was on the wrong side of history and humanity - not too tuff.
The line about "subjugate our fellow Americans to slavery" is a bit strange, as they weren't considered fellow Americans but chattel at time of independence, and any voting allotment accrued to their masters, and so the war was not to subjugate but to continue a system of slavery enshrined 85 years in the Constitution, whereas it wasn't until 1863's partial Emancipation Proclamation - almost 2 years into the war -that Lincoln set about codifying the un-subjugation of blacks and codifying them as fellow Americans.
But anyway, I didn't quibble with Landrieu because he was making a persuasive emotional argument to persuade holdout unpersuaded southerners, not an Encyclopedia Britannica historical record.
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 09/01/2019 - 9:10pm
Go back to where AA tell us about her MFA and teaching about the Civil War period. She says that she is not offended by the statues. WTF.
How do you interpret that? Would you really want your black child in her class? Get Professor Gates, Glaude, Harris-Perry, Jason Johnson, Forner, etc.
by rmrd0000 on Sun, 09/01/2019 - 8:28pm