Happy Juneteenth one and all!

[laughing dog]

For the people playing at home, I said:

I reserve judgment on the over all desirability of the laws. But I do not think the left should weaponise a false narrative about the laws using Juneteenth as a springboard.

laughing dog said:

But is okay for "the right" to do so?

laughing dog here has asked if it is okay for "the right" (in contrast to the left, from the context) to "do so" (which would refer to what I was disapproving the left of doing) - that is "weaponise a false narrative about the laws using Juneteenth as a springboard."

I said:

no, it is not okay for the right to use Juneteenth as a springboard to spread false narratives about a law they disagree with.

And laughing dog said

that dies [sic] mot [sic] answer my question

I implore laughing dog to clarify the question he thought he was asking me.

Been there, done that, and all it generates is a rerun of your wrong answer.

 

[lpetrich]

Not the boogie-man!

You may remember this same logic from "BLM is Marxist!" (it's not really, the vast majority of people involved are still concerned with police brutality) and "BLM is a terrorist group!" (still 0 people killed, and no planned or executed terrorist attacks, in mid-2021).

Right-wingers like to blame Antifa, even though it's hardly anything, and even though no Antifa members have ever been caught looting or destroying property or setting fires or attacking cops, as far as I know.

Basically, the same hysterical white supremacist backlash we saw after reconstruction ("Negro Domination"),

As if one race must dominate the other one and it should be the honkies who should be the dominant ones.

the civil Rights era ("Race mixing is communism!")

Back then, many civil-rights-movement opponents believed that that movement was taking orders from Moscow. The John Birch Society, the QAnon of the day, published a pamphlet "What's Wrong with Civil Rights?" arguing that American blacks are pampered, privileged spoiled brats who refuse to accept how good they have it, and that the civil-rights movement will lead to a Communist takeover.

TIMELINE: The Koch Family, the John Birch Society, and Civil Rights mentions other JBS pamphlets which argued similar things, like how Martin Luther King was a Communist.

Also, Like His Dad, Charles Koch Was a Bircher (New Documents) | PR Watch

The John Birch Society's Anti-Civil Rights Campaign of the 1960s, and Its Relevance Today | Political Research Associates

and at the start of the Obama Era ("Kenyan Anti-colonialist!")

Except that the American Revolutionary War was an anti-colonialist war, and the Boston Tea Party an anti-colonialist protest.

Wild-eyed nonsense that only serves as an excuse to continue white supremacism in society - which, in this case, is strong evidence that Critical Race Theorists were entirely right all along.

Creator Of Term ‘Critical Race Theory’ Kimberlé Crenshaw Explains What It Really Is - YouTube - she was interviewed by Joy-Ann Reid of The Reidout of MSNBC

KC explained that it is neither Marxist nor racist.

 

[Rhea]

Yes, Virginia – there is Critical Race Theory in our schools

The more I read y’all’s screeds against CRT, and the links like this one, the more it sounds like you’re running around saying that every single conversation about racial justice or equality in America is MARXIST! And CRT! And whether it is even related to CRT or not, you’re like Joe fucking McCarthy screeching EVIL EVIL EVIL!!!

I looked at your link and it was an “everything and the kitchen sink” throw it at the wall and see if it sticks mishmash of hatred.


I’m surprised you are willing to post stuff like that under your own user name.

 

[Bomb#20]

...you just spontaneously segued from states declining to teach that white people are automatically racist way over to MLK's dream speech. ... Leftists equate opposition to CRT with outlawing teaching about Juneteenth -- with covering up slavery -- not because it takes CRT to tell the truth about slavery, but because telling the truth about slavery isn't enough to prove that current white people deserve to be punished for it. ...

Um, the state declining to teach juneteenth?

"The state declining to teach juneteenth" is a noun phrase, not a question. What question are you asking about that noun phrase?

The Texas law says:
(6) No teacher, administrator, or other employee in
any state agency, school district, campus, open-enrollment charter
school, or school administration shall shall require, or make part
of a course the following concepts: (1) one race or sex is
inherently superior to another race or sex; (2) an individual, by
virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or
oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously; (3) an
individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse
treatment solely or partly because of his or her race or sex; (4)
members of one race or sex cannot and should not attempt to treat
others without respect to race or sex; (5) an individual's moral
character is necessarily determined by his or her race or sex; (6)
an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, bears
responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members
of the same race or sex; (7) any individual should feel discomfort,
guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on
account of his or her race or sex; or (8) meritocracy or traits such
as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist, or were created by a
members of a particular race to oppress members of another race.

Um, the state declining to teach juneteenth?

You appear to be of the opinion that the state is declining to teach Juneteenth. So help us out here. Which prohibition in the law are you saying interferes with teaching Juneteenth?

Are you saying you can't explain what happened on June 19, 1865 without telling kids (1) that black people are inherently superior to white people? Without telling kids (2) that a white individual, by virtue of his or her whiteness, is inherently racist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously? Without telling kids (3) that a white individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her race? Without telling kids (4) that members of one race cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race. Without telling kids (5) that an individual's moral character is necessarily determined by his or her race? Without telling kids (6) that a white individual, by virtue of his or her whiteness, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other white people? Without telling kids (7) that a white individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her whiteness? Without telling kids (8) that meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are racist and were created by white people to oppress black people?

Which of these things do you feel we need to tell to children in order for them to make sense of General Granger forcing the slavers in Texas to let their slaves go free?

 

[none]

"The state declining to teach juneteenth" is a noun phrase, not a question. What question are you asking about that noun phrase?

Um, who da fuck told you this^ is the proper way to ask a question?

The Texas law says:
(6) No teacher, administrator, or other employee in
any state agency, school district, campus, open-enrollment charter
school, or school administration shall shall require, or make part
of a course the following concepts: (1) one race or sex is
inherently superior to another race or sex; (2) an individual, by
virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or
oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously; (3) an
individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse
treatment solely or partly because of his or her race or sex; (4)
members of one race or sex cannot and should not attempt to treat
others without respect to race or sex; (5) an individual's moral
character is necessarily determined by his or her race or sex; (6)
an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, bears
responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members
of the same race or sex; (7) any individual should feel discomfort,
guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on
account of his or her race or sex; or (8) meritocracy or traits such
as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist, or were created by a
members of a particular race to oppress members of another race.

Um, the state declining to teach juneteenth?

You appear to be of the opinion that the state is declining to teach Juneteenth. So help us out here. Which prohibition in the law are you saying interferes with teaching Juneteenth?

Well, maybe I'm mistaken.
I figured juneteenth was a celebration of the end of slavery, heck I don't know what stupid shit they teach children and adults in all levels of education in Texas when you can't even turn a light bulb on over there.

Are you saying you can't explain what happened on June 19, 1865 without telling kids (1) that black people are inherently superior to white people? Without telling kids (2) that a white individual, by virtue of his or her whiteness, is inherently racist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously? Without telling kids (3) that a white individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her race? Without telling kids (4) that members of one race cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race. Without telling kids (5) that an individual's moral character is necessarily determined by his or her race? Without telling kids (6) that a white individual, by virtue of his or her whiteness, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other white people? Without telling kids (7) that a white individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her whiteness? Without telling kids (8) that meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are racist and were created by white people to oppress black people?

Which of these things do you feel we need to tell to children in order for them to make sense of General Granger forcing the slavers in Texas to let their slaves go free?

I'm am not familiar enough to explain much about what happened of significance on that day, wherever.
If you feel the need to "get it all out"....

 

[Lion IRC]

Is it true that Africans (people of color) played a direct role in the slave trade, kidnapping adult negroes and stealing black children for the purpose of selling them, through intermediaries, to Europeans or their agents and that those colored people sold into slavery by their fellow black countrymen were usually from a different tribal group than those who captured them, whether enemies or just neighbors.

Shame on them.
Greedy, disgusting slave traders, selling their fellow Africans to make a buck. We can all celebrate Juneteenth in recognition of the (white, Christian) American lawmakers who put an end to this.

 

[Gospel]

Is it true that Africans (people of color) played a direct role in the slave trade, kidnapping adult negroes and stealing black children for the purpose of selling them, through intermediaries, to Europeans or their agents and that those colored people sold into slavery by their fellow black countrymen were usually from a different tribal group than those who captured them, whether enemies or just neighbors.

Shame on them.
Greedy, disgusting slave traders, selling their fellow Africans to make a buck. We can all celebrate Juneteenth in recognition of the (white, Christian) American lawmakers who put an end to this.

That must have tasted like a double rainbow after licking your fingertips. Are you saying that only white people fought against slavery? And for the record African's enslaved each other long before the Europeans showed up, that you got right. However, their reasons for enslaving each other were different. It was for debts & war. The Europeans did it for skin color. Yeah, it's different but I won't stop you and you're rainbow dipped typing fingers from celebrating Juneteenth.

Edit: and yes they sold their own to the Europeans, again for war & not skin color.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

This holiday's turning out to be great.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Is it true that Africans (people of color) played a direct role in the slave trade, kidnapping adult negroes and stealing black children for the purpose of selling them, through intermediaries, to Europeans or their agents and that those colored people sold into slavery by their fellow black countrymen were usually from a different tribal group than those who captured them, whether enemies or just neighbors.

Shame on them.
Greedy, disgusting slave traders, selling their fellow Africans to make a buck. We can all celebrate Juneteenth in recognition of the (white, Christian) American lawmakers who put an end to this.

The Bible be an awesome book, both condemned and condoned slavery. A book for all occasions.

 

[Lion IRC]

The Bible be an awesome book, both condemned and condoned slavery. A book for all occasions.

Yes, the bible certainly does condemn slavery.

"Condone" is a pretty vague and lame argument from silence. If that's the worst you got, then it's not exactly a slam dunk.

Condone: to disregard or overlook (something illegal, objectionable, or the like):
The government condoned the computer hacking among rival corporations.

Condone: to give tacit approval to:
By his silence, he seemed to condone their behavior.

 

[lpetrich]

Yes, the bible certainly does condemn slavery.

Where?

From beginning to end, the Bible takes it for granted, though it does not mandate that anyone own slaves.

 

[Lion IRC]

Yes, the bible certainly does condemn slavery.

Where?

From beginning to end, the Bible takes it for granted, though it does not mandate that anyone own slaves.

Jimmy Higgins says the bible condemns slavery.
He wouldn't lie about that.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Yes, the bible certainly does condemn slavery.

Where?

From beginning to end, the Bible takes it for granted, though it does not mandate that anyone own slaves.

It condemns running red lights too.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Shame on them.
Greedy, disgusting slave traders, selling their fellow Africans to make a buck. We can all celebrate Juneteenth in recognition of the (white, Christian) American lawmakers who put an end to this.

Yeah, those damned black slaves. If they wanted to be free, then why did they stay in bondage for centuries instead of creating and passing legislation that freed themselves?

Also, if they didn't like Merika so much, they could have went and founded their own country!

 

[TomC]

Also, if they didn't like Merika so much, they could have went and founded their own country!

Black folks ain't that smart. So white folk did it for them. It's called Liberia, and it still exists today.
[/snarky sarcasm]

Tom

 

[laughing dog]

The Bible be an awesome book, both condemned and condoned slavery. A book for all occasions.

Yes, the bible certainly does condemn slavery.

"Condone" is a pretty vague and lame argument from silence. If that's the worst you got, then it's not exactly a slam dunk.

Condone: to disregard or overlook (something illegal, objectionable, or the like):
The government condoned the computer hacking among rival corporations.

Condone: to give tacit approval to:
By his silence, he seemed to condone their behavior.

There are plenty of instances of slavery in the Bible. The Bible does not insist or even tell slave owners that they must free their slaves at once (or at all). So, the Bible by its silence does condone slavery at times.

 

[Bomb#20]

Yes, the bible certainly does condemn slavery.

Where?

From beginning to end, the Bible takes it for granted, though it does not mandate that anyone own slaves.

The Bible completely prohibits slavery in any form. See Matthew 1:16 and Luke 3:23.

Show

"And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ."

"And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli"

From a contradiction, anything follows. The Bible implies whatever a reader wants it to imply.

 

[Bomb#20]

There are plenty of instances of slavery in the Bible. The Bible does not insist or even tell slave owners that they must free their slaves at once (or at all). So, the Bible by its silence does condone slavery at times.

Which silence are you talking about?

Leviticus 25:

44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.​

That's not condoning by silence; that's explicitly authorizing.

 

[fromderinside]

Juneteenth. Yes. A name in search of meaning celebration. Everybody knows when the last to know knew needs celebration.

Just how lazy have we become? Please!

 

[Harry Bosch]

There are plenty of instances of slavery in the Bible. The Bible does not insist or even tell slave owners that they must free their slaves at once (or at all). So, the Bible by its silence does condone slavery at times.

Which silence are you talking about?

Leviticus 25:

44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.​

That's not condoning by silence; that's explicitly authorizing.

Yea, the bible totally condones slavery. It establishes rules on how to treat slaves, the maximum amount of punishment for a slave, how decedent's of slaves should be treated, provides different rules for Jewish slaves, and etc.