Tag: history

By on

How Ya Gonna Keep ’em Down on the Farm (After They’ve Seen Paree?)

Whenever I think of immigration, I, at some point, think about our ancient ancestors who left Africa and then walked out of there to every other continent on the planet. Over the course of thousands of years, they wandered into Asia and Europe, eventually, finding North American and then making the 14,000 mile journey to the end of South America. Presumably these ancestors were looking for a better life and not a quick vacation getaway.

Since immigration is in the human DNA as a way to improve your life, I am baffled at how to stop it. This is how human beings have been behaving for thousands of years.

After people became settled this was more problematic for the immigrant. The Roman Empire fell because unwanted immigrants (Barbarians and Goths) decided to move into the Empire without first asking the Romans. The end result was the formation of modern Europe.

There is a long historical record of this phenomena. Mongols into China. Mongols into Europe. Europeans into the Americas. Europeans into Australia. If you have a group of unhappy humans in one place, there is a very good chance that they will decide to move to another place.

The problem is poverty. People want what they can’t have where they are. Now they can wait around and hope things change or they can move. This earthly life is short. Waiting around for things to change doesn’t make much sense. So move it is.

While most of the people who come are good people, some are just wretched people.These wretched people cause problems for both the settled population and the other immigrants. They tar the good immigrants with an undeserved reputation which scare the natives who then tar every other immigrant and not just the malcontents. There is a reason we call a group of uncouth people Barbarians and it isn’t because the Romans liked them.

Which brings me to our present problem. Many in the West feel under siege from immigrants looking for a better life. They feel that the world their ancestors built will be irreversibly changed and they will be correct. New people bring change both to the native population and to the immigrants.

What exactly do you want to preserve is then the question. If you want to see only white faces going to Christian churches, I hate to tell you but that ship has sailed. The West is a multi-racial hodgepodge of Black, Brown, White and Mixed Race peoples. If you are talking about freedom of speech, religion and democratic elections, I am with you 100%.

What worries me is the increasingly heard notion of keeping out all immigrants. Or, worse still, letting in White immigrants because they are seen as good immigrants and preventing Black and Brown immigrants from coming in because they are perceived as all bad. If a White South African immigrant goes on a rampage, you don’t hear people saying keep out all White South African immigrants. Black and Brown immigrants are afforded the same courtesy. That is a big problem.

By on

Winning primaries is a much easier task for Democratic Socialists because the Democratic Party is the left wing party in the American two party system. There is a disproportionate number of left wingers. It makes sense but it doesn’t answer the question about can these left leaning people win general elections.

Winning the general election should be on every Democrat’s mind because Donald Trump is a menace and the only thing that can stop him now is vigorous opposition coming from the legislative branch of government. Democrats need to win elections in order to tame Trump.

Now if we were talking about your garden variety Republican, someone like George Bush, I might be more willing to gamble on Democratic Socialists. Their thinking happen to align more with my own thinking.

On the other hand, it is more important for the Republicans to be defeated. Much more important. A half of a loaf of bread is better than no loaf at all.

That Democratic Socialists can win in a place like New York City is great news but unsurprising. New York City is much more liberal than the rest of the country. Can these Democratic Socialists win in places like Wisconsin and Michigan, states that even more moderate Democrats like Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris barely and painfully lost — leaving us with Donald Trump as president.

I have been told many times that all the American people need is to hear a true candidate of the left and they will magically cast their votes for the left wing candidate. Well, tell that to President George McGovern, President Jesse Jackson, President Howard Dean, President Bernie Sanders. I have supported an array of left wing candidates who never held power.

Americans are suspicious of big government. I happen to disagree with them but then that doesn’t change any minds, does it? The polling for James Talarico in Texas and Jon Ossoff in Georgia shows a more plausible way forward the Democrats. Are they perfect? Of course not. But can they win in states where Democrats have difficult time getting elected. Absolutely.

My fear is that very winnable races will be lost by candidates who are wasting their time on having to define what a biological woman is or what personal pronouns to use because these are the issues the Republican party will raise in these close races.

In the 1990’s most Democrats opposed Gay Marriage — not because they actually opposed it but because they knew it would sink their potential election. Gay people largely understood this and bided their time until the public perception (with a grand assist from the Supreme Court) of Gay Marriage changed.

The same thing can be said for Capital Punishment. I don’t think very many Democrats actually support Capital Punishment but the American public do. Until minds are changed, it is irresponsible for Democrats to lose elections on an issue where the public has a firm commitment.

The world is imperfect. This will always be the case. This means that we will elect imperfect people who hold imperfect positions in an imperfect government. In order to get things done, we have to accept reality and imperfection.

I hope that the Democratic Socialists do well however my bigger concern is that they don’t torpedo potential Democratic victories in the election. Ideological perfection is all well and good but if we have learned anything during the Trump years is that the people who hold the power make the rules. This means winning elections.

By on

I am annoyed at the mean spirited memes going around about Lindsey Graham. This is my question. A man is dead. There are people who loved him. Give them a moment to mourn. What good does it do to dance on his grave?

He deserves every sarcastic comment made about him because he was a terrible man and the world needs to see that. There are people who disagree with this assessment. His legacy can be debated and should be. He was a public figure. I am fine with that but now is the time to put these disagreements on hold. A moment of silence doesn’t say you liked the man. It is an acknowledgement of the sadness of all of our impending deaths.

Trump talks ill of the dead why can’t I. This is an argument of a child who’s hand is caught in the cookie jar. So what? It deserves the perfect parental response to such a lame defense of personal behavior — if Donald Trump jumped off the Empire State Building, would you jump? Trump is hardly a role model for good behavior. Just because he is awful when people he dislikes dies, doesn’t make it right for anyone else to do the same.

It is one of the very worst things that Donald Trump has done to our politics. He has destroyed the little level of civility that existed in public discourse. Anything goes. Talk about a woman’s looks or her weight. Fair game. Talk about your opponent’s dick size. No problem. So why should any one’s death stop the fun back and forth of malicious commentary that permeates modern political life?

Because it is sad. Any time anyone dies, this is a moment to reflect on the fragility of life itself. It can be taken from us all in a moment. Life is sacred and it is terrible when someone loses this precious gift. It doesn’t matter if I like the guy or not. It is still sad no matter who it happens to.

But Hitler, what about Hitler? What about him? Lindsey Graham is not Hitler and there is nothing you can say to make me believe that he is. There is only one Hitler and just maybe Hitler is the one of the few people who have died when it was OK to dance on his grave. But Lindsey Graham Hitler? This is a disservice to true monsters everywhere. Hitler is rolling in his grave.

Which leads me back to my original question. What good comes to the world from dancing on Lindsey Graham’s grave? I can’t really see any. It only worsens the political divide that threatens to rip this country apart. And if we keep tearing and ripping, the country eventually will come apart. Is that what we want? I certainly don’t.

And doing the right thing is so incredibly easy in this case — all you have to do is keep your trap shut.

Try it.

By on

Slavery isn’t the primary problem, I have with the founding fathers. As apologists for the founding fathers have pointed out numerous times, slavery has been around since the dawn of civilization. They behaved just like every other winning civilization when given the opportunity to take advantage of free labor. They took it.

And if we could stop here with the Founding Fathers, I would be OK with that. But there is more to the story.

The African slave traders who sold their fellow Africans into slavery didn’t say that all men were created equal. The Founding Fathers did. This created a number of problems for them. First, how do you explain taking land from a native population and African slavery. I mean, if all men are created equal. There has to be a good explanation and that explanation was racism. These people were less than the European settlers. The African and the Native American were robbed of their humanity — their equality with their fellow men.

The African slave trader was involved in a money making operation with no regards to the humans they captured. They didn’t write the Declaration of Independence. They didn’t write of noble ideas about how men should behave and what the future would look like when men could elect their own government and thus determine their fates. The Founding Fathers, however, did.

This difference caused an expository problem. If all men were created equal, what of the Native American and the African slave. How can all men be equal given the treatment of these non-European peoples. The answer was they are savages. They are less than the White European, that Whites were superior to everyone else. The superior race deserved to run the show.

This sentiment is a much more damaging idea. It turns an unfortunate prisoner of war into less than a human. It poisoned the White population into believing they were better than everyone else so that when the Civil War ended — the slaves might be free but an ideology of racism still existed. Many Whites still believed they were better than Blacks and Native Americans. Treating them differently was OK because they were inferior beings.

But why do we have to dwell on that. Why not just look at the noble ideas and forget the racism. The noble ideas, after all, are what is important. Well, yes, to a degree this is true but we are also teaching children about the past. The Civil War, Civil Rights and the Settlers expansion into Native American Territories are very much a part of this history.

If you don’t give the context of racism, how do those events make any sense?

Noble ideas are starting points in history. This is what we want the world to look like. But, as with all human institutions, the Founding Fathers failed to live up to all of these noble ideas. We do not live in a perfect world and never will. Indeed, we all, even to this day, could do better and this isn’t such a bad idea to leave children with – we can do better.

By on

The continuing debate regarding slavery and the Civil war is baffling to me. There is this faux confusion about why slavery is such a big deal. A good example of this odious opinion can be found in Jason L. Riley’s post in the City Journal. He makes two contentions regarding slavery in USA.

The first is that slavery was pervasive all over the world so why should the American version be seen as evil while every other country gets off the hook. Riley ignores the racist defense of slavery which justified the enslavement of Blacks but also persisted long after the Civil War ended. There was big difference between Roman slavery and American slavery. For most other countries who engaged in slavery, the slaves came from the defeated population after the end of wars. It was just bad luck that the losing side became slaves to the winning side.

Americans, on the other hand, and probably because it was a glaring contradiction with American values, justified slavery with the pernicious view that Blacks were racially inferior to Whites and thus their subordination was justified. It is the only way someone can understand why the subordination of Black people continued after the Civil War. White Discrimination, then, limited Black progress for, at least, 100 years following the Civil War and, sadly, even today, some Whites cling to this racist ideology.

Furthermore, particularly for conservatives who liked to sing the praises of American Exceptionalism, saying that everyone is doing it has all the moral weight of a teenager caught with a can of beer. So what if everyone was doing it? The question pertinent to American History is why did some of our forefathers have slaves. It doesn’t really matter that some African Blacks sold other African Blacks into slavery. Yes, it was wrong of them but their history isn’t what we are looking at. We are looking at American History. It was Americans who thought that these African Blacks were the equivalent of cattle and hogs and so there was nothing wrong with making them slaves.

Then there is Riley’s contention that slavery did very little to the advancement of American Capitalism which, OK, maybe but it hardly matters when Southerners, both slave owner and non-slave owner, believed that the continuation of slavery was vital to the economy of the South. They believed it so strongly that they were willing to defend slavery with their lives. They were willing to break the country in two to defend it. They thought their way of life was under attack. The percentage of GNP that slavery brought to pre-Civil War America seems a irrelevant to understanding the actual conflict.

The reason that Riley is confused about American Slavery being such a big deal is that he overlooks racism. The reason that Conservatives won’t look at racism is that it would involve some uncomfortable discoveries. The painful truth is that White people, either actively or passively, treated Black people badly for quite a long period in American History. It is painful to think that great Grandfather and Grandmother weren’t such good people. They had flaws. They really didn’t represent American ideals. On the other hand, it would certainly make such landmark events like the Civil War much more comprehensible to people like Riley if he introduced racism to the conversation. and, after all, isn’t understanding our history what learning is all about.

By on

Florida continues to rewrite the history of the Civil War. The governor and his cronies want a much more palatable history so that white children don’t have to learn that their ancestors behaved like assholes. As Chauncey DeVega, in the above linked Salon article, noted: “The discomfort of Black and brown children — who watch their communities’ histories, experiences and reality being systematically erased and distorted — was apparently of little concern.”

But never mind, the fragile minds of white children are the concern here. They need to know that their country is great. Period. Any information that might suggest otherwise has to be massaged so that these delicate darlings don’t get the wrong idea about the country.

So the Civil War becomes a little kerfuffle about State’s Rights. The North wanted to force its ways on the South and the South wasn’t having it. Making State’s Rights the issue, as opposed to slavery, drains the Civil War of any meaning.

Florida education wants white children to think that slavery wasn’t so bad. The plantation owners gave the slaves a good profession, and kept them well fed, and housed. The plantation owners and the slaves, in fact, got along fabulously. Besides, slavery was a dying institution and wouldn’t have lasted much longer any way. Got it.

Leaving white children with the mistaken idea that the founding fathers were perfect and the nation was perfect from the beginning with no need to change. But the nation did change — a bloody civil war was fought, the slaves were freed, and the South began a hundred year resistance campaign against blacks which included lynching and legal discrimination.

How does one explain American History without touching on the Civil War and race? More importantly, how does this silence about what happened help anyone – Black, Brown, Red, Yellow or White? The fact is race is an ongoing concern for the American people. The American people’s approach to race has changed over time and this change is important both to note, to discuss and to understand.

How does a student understand Reconstruction without first learning about the Civil War? How does a student understand the Civil Rights Movement without understanding legal discrimination? Yes, these are unpleasant topics because a lot of people behaved badly and their behavior is difficult to understand. But it did happen. It is a part of history.

Children, contrary to popular belief, live in the real world not an imaginary world of lollipops and gum drops. They see confusing and terrible things every day. This is part of their transition to becoming adults. Not all truths are pleasant. Children need to know that. The country started with some grand ideas but some pretty awful ones too. It is important to learn from the awful ones in order to change our present to an even better future.

By on

Sophia Tesfaye, in Salon, reports that conservatives are trying to recast the Rosa Parks story. In 1956, Parks famously refused to go to the back of the bus which set into motion the Birmingham Bus Boycott. Matt Walsh, conservative podcaster, made a documentary trying to show how this was not just a story about a tired seamstress breaking after a hard day of work when asked to move. No, it is worse, so much worse — Parks was a member of the NAACP and was looking for a way to challenge segregation. The bus incident provided her with an opportunity to do so.

Amazingly, Walsh isn’t giving us any new information. He just seems a little surprised that Parks was a member of the NAACP and how it might have affected her refusal to move. Well, yes, so what? This is stunningly meaningless presentation of the facts. The law was wrong and she was right to refuse. NAACP needed a case to highlight this indignity, Parks provided it.

The problem wasn’t that Parks was an activist, the problem was there was a back of the bus laws in the first place. There would be no need for activists opposing unjust laws if the laws did not exist in the first place. If Parks, based on her experience and the experience of other Blacks, saw a situation and was prepared to act in no way diminishes what she accomplished.

And, if Parks and the NAACP set a trap, then who is to blame for the cops falling into it? The cops had other choices here too. They exacerbated an already tense situation with Parks’ arrest. Who better to act when an opportunity presents itself — an ordinary seamstress after a long day of work or an ordinary seamstress after a long day of work who is also a member of the NAACP. What am I missing here? Is Walsh saying that Blacks should remain disorganized and leaderless?

It is painful to listen to this crap because they are trying to turn history upside down. Walsh is all about undermining Rosa Parks? Who backed the NAACP? Who paid for their resistance? Could there have been Communists involved and, if so, doesn’t that make the fight against segregation wrong? Well, the USA fought along side the Communists in World War II, does this some how diminish the Allies’ victory. Walsh misses the whole point — the segregation laws were unfair and needed to be resisted. Parks admirably used the opportunities and resources available to her. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

By on

It always irritates me when I read articles like Barton Swaim in the Wall Street Journal (paywall though you can get a free article if you get a log in). Swaim thinks that the adherence to the Protestant Work Ethic is in decline and he pins this decline on Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty and every other helpful thing ever done for poor people since then because the poor have no reason to work hard when they can get so much free shit from the government. The USA has just made it too easy for poor people to goof off instead of work.

Those retched poor people are just too God damn powerful and greedy as opposed to those put upon rich people who everybody keeps picking on. Swaim’s thinking is that we need to make the poor more miserable than they already are. They will never understand the value of hard work because they are given too much. His search for a villain in this story stops directly where his prejudices end — the poor.

Where to begin? First, we have to take him at his word that people would rather not work. It is mostly word of mouth drivel about adult men living with their parents, COVID subsidies and Somali refugees. Some of these may be problems but Swaim doesn’t really give much insight on how these unrelated problems have undermined the Protestant Work Ethic or how they are related to Johnson’s War on Poverty. He is flinging them out like a mad ape throwing shit at patrons at a zoo. He is hoping one of them will hit the target. They don’t. Adult men living off their parents, I am afraid to say, are living off their parents and not the government. COVID subsidies are long gone and no longer an issue. Which leaves the Somali refugee scandal which may or may not be a problem (it is still under investigation) but hardly a reason to eliminate a whole system. You wouldn’t call for the end of Corporate Capitalism based on the bad behavior of Bernie Madoff or Enron now would you? Why apply a different standard to government assistance.

Swaim also mythologizes life in pre-War on Poverty America. It was not sweetness and light. It was grinding poverty for most Americans — with estimated poverty rates between 40 to 60 % of the American people. And I am not talking the Great Depression either because even before the Great Depression an awful lot of Americans lived in poverty. It was only after Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal that this rate came down to about 20% in 1960. After Johnson’s War on Poverty, the poverty rate now hovers around 11%. So government services lifted many poor Americans out of poverty.

Next lets look at those patriotic Capitalists who, in order to avoid paying higher American wages, brought to you, thank you very much by unions, fled the country in order to pay lower wages to workers outside the country. These “good” Americans pulled the rug out from under high wage workers in order to make more money with absolutely no concern for how this affected their now out-of-work employees. Nobody, by the way, stopped them. They were free to undermine union workers wages and unions themselves with nary a complaint from anyone.

This left getting a good education which has turned out to be bit of a trap for some. Many took out loans for educations that turned out to have very little benefit in the job market. People came out of college owing a bundle of money with little chance of recouping on their investment. So much for a home and a family.

Now AI is whittling away at the functions in the better jobs so that workers even in medicine, law and engineering are being threatened. What type of jobs does Swaim have to offer these young people with the advent of AI? Even a $15 minimum wage is insufficient to pay the rent in most states. The lowest possible wage can’t provide a meaningful income for survival. Some companies like Walmart and McDonald’s encourage their workers to use government benefits to supplement the low wages they pay their employees.. People actually are working full time jobs while receiving government assistance. Then these same assholes are trying to take away these benefits from full time workers because it discourages them from hard work.

Fuck them. Talking about how government benefits discourages people from fully engaging in the Protestant Work Ethic is just bull shit. People can see their reality. Hard work without a pay off is a meaningless exercise. I am surprised that so many low wage workers are still punching a time clock.

If only the poor worked harder, the world would be a better place. Maybe for the rich but there is little evidence that it would help the poor. The corollary to this rule is that rich people need even more money or else they will stop working so hard. Do you see the problem here? Rich people need more money are they won’t work while poor people need less money are they won’t work. Genius.

By on

The worst part of Donald Trump’s march through history is that he has gotten exactly what he wanted from us. He talks and we pay attention to him. He can call a press conference and it will be packed with reporters. The whole world is hanging on his every word.

He doesn’t care if people hate him. He doesn’t care if people point out his lies. The point is people are talking about him. HIM. Donald J. Trump. He is impossible to ignore. I tried. Honestly, I did but he is the fucking president of the United States. How do you ignore him? Particularly someone so adroit at enraging people.

The best thing we could have done would have been to ignore him. But no, we paid attention and now we are stuck talking about him. When people talk about this point in history, they will be talking about Donald Trump, the reaction to Trump, and the damage Trump did to global relations. Exactly what he wanted.

Hate him, impeach him, arrest him. It doesn’t matter that he has low poll ratings because we are talking about him. The press will ask him to respond to anything that happens because he knows how to sell papers. The press will relay any of his thoughts no matter how ludicrous and his opponents will respond and on and on we go.

This man with such meager talents won the most powerful position in the world. Voted in by his fellow citizens. Then he managed to use this lofty position, despite all of his stupidity and malice, to force people to pay attention to him. What more could a megalomaniac want? And we fell into his trap — hook, line and sinker.

Now we are stuck talking about him for the rest of history.

By on

I saw the following posts on Glen Reynolds Instapundit site where I learned that the capture of Maduro is not only a victory for the Trump Administration but also White men. Yes, White men are the only one’s capable of pulling off such competence needed for such a special military operation. No people of color or women involved at all so the only reason it came off without hitch was because White men were in charge of the project and White men performed all of the tasks.

This isn’t the least bit racist either because he is just pointing out the facts. There were only White men involved and the result was military success.

What a crock. There have been lots of successful military operations in the past 6,000 years. Some of them surely involved people of color.

And just in the spirit of balance, I would like to point out the many historical disasters initiated by White men — trench warfare and Viet Nam will suffice as gentle reminders that depending on White men sometimes leads to disaster.

This is, given the divisive nature of the Trump administration and criticism regarding their racial politics, oddly counter productive to what I would think is the goal of such an operation. This was a necessary action conducted for the nation and benefit all Americans. We are all in this together.

But if you are going out of your way to gloat about the performance of just White men than, yeah, great, go White men. The Venezuela Operation is all about White men.

On the other hand, if anything goes wrong later, and surely an undertaking of this size, something will go wrong. We can assign the blame for these mistakes on White men.

Sorry for the photographs. I couldn’t link to the post so I took pictures. If you want to go to Instapundit site and find these posts of January 4 around 5PM.