dagblog - Comments for ""Rashida Tlaib Has Her History Wrong""

Corrected: You're pedantic

artappraiser — Tue, 21 May 2019 06:58:02 +0000

In reply to You're pedantic like we don't

Corrected: You're pedantic like we don't know how to read ~~and Google~~ rmrd's posts

just 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.

You're pedantic like we don't

PeraclesPlease — Tue, 21 May 2019 05:33:00 +0000

In reply to Thanks Flavius. I don’t

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.

Thanks Flavius. I don’t

rmrd0000 — Tue, 21 May 2019 04:04:07 +0000

In reply to Logic is fine unless it

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.

Logic is fine unless it

Flavius — Tue, 21 May 2019 03:09:04 +0000

In reply to End of *your* story -

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.

P.S. I shouldn't have written

artappraiser — Tue, 21 May 2019 00:59:37 +0000

In reply to Why are topics that involve

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:

bro·ken rec·ord

noun

used, especially in similes, to refer to a person's constant and annoying repetition of a particular statement or opinion.

Why are topics that involve

artappraiser — Tue, 21 May 2019 00:50:47 +0000

In reply to AA, Southern secession

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:

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.

End of your story -

PeraclesPlease — Mon, 20 May 2019 21:53:14 +0000

In reply to This case says that secession

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.

This case says that secession

rmrd0000 — Mon, 20 May 2019 18:03:46 +0000

In reply to Hey, now you get it - "states

This case says that secession is not Constitutional. End of story.

Hey, now you get it - "states

PeraclesPlease — Mon, 20 May 2019 17:43:51 +0000

In reply to Interesting Supreme Court

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.

Interesting Supreme Court

rmrd0000 — Mon, 20 May 2019 17:21:29 +0000

In reply to I'm so surprised. Why didn't

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

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]