Why do I not feel divided by the most dividing leader in American History?

[Valjean]

In one sense I agree with Limbaugh. Racial animosity does seem to have increased in recent years. Weather this can be traced to a white panic induced by that 'arrogant negro in the White House who's and gotten too big for his britches' or a general backlash by closet bigots, whipped up by right-wing propaganda, I can't say.

 

[ronburgundy]

In one sense I agree with Limbaugh. Racial animosity does seem to have increased in recent years. Weather this can be traced to a white panic induced by that 'arrogant negro in the White House who's and gotten too big for his britches' or a general backlash by closet bigots, whipped up by right-wing propaganda, I can't say.

He is racially divisive, but not due to his actions, but due to his race. The proximal cause of that divisiveness is actually the racist views of those reacting to Obama's race and those fueling those views like Limbaugh himself. This likely played a role in the South Carolina church shootings.
That said, most of the current racial strife surrounding the police has nothing to do with Obama and is largely coincidental. Its is partly due to aggressive idiocy by the police likely resulting from the massive unprecedented influx of conflict-oriented ex-military into the police ranks (which includes waiving or lowering training and psych evals for vets who want to be cops). Some of actions by cops have been racist, but many many not directly so, just excessive force targeted at criminals of whom blacks are highly over represented (note how most of the attention getting cases of police brutality involve people who were in fact committing crimes and have prior records. This is combined with a massive increase in ideologically fueled distortion of these incidents into racial issues, which often entails distortion of the basic facts of the incident itself (such as false claims that the Cleveland cop fired before DuBose ever stepped on the gas or that Dubose had his "hands in the air" right before and during the shooting) in order to eliminate any possible trigger for the cop behavior other than racism.
It is possible that part of this heightened reaction to police conflicts is enabled by tech of constant cameras. Some actual brutality that was going on is now being caught on tape. But also, things are not excessive force are being framed as such by recordings that only start once the cops feel they need to resort to physical conflict, or the visceral reaction to seeing the violence often inherent to even good police work, without keeping in mind the realities of the context and the variables that are not part of the visual scene.
It also doesn't help when statistically illiterate ideologues spew "data" and claim it shows racism by cops, when all it actually shows is racial differences in criminal behavior

All these variables are colliding in kind of a perfect storm.

 

[funinspace]

Wow. Though, I don't know what that means. Are people switching to other more right-wing assbats or just concentrating on reading right-wing Internet sites? I wonder how Prager, Medved, Hannity numbers are doing.

If my evangelical/tea-bagging/redneck in-law's family is any indication, then I think a lot of them have moved more into the wild wild web with Facebook linkages et.al. Some of the sites they link make Limbaugh seem almost mainstream. And I know one of them gets a direct email feed of the Family Research Counsel's propaganda.

Thanks to them complaining about the "horrible" bias of rightwingwatch.org, it has become one of my favorite sites for humor while reading about the craziest things said by the right-most lunatic fringe group leaders.

 

[Bronzeage]

Anyone who claims President Obama is divisive is simply not being fair to Abraham Lincoln. His election caused seven states to walk out the door. President Obama couldn't do that on his best day.

 

[ronburgundy]

Anyone who claims President Obama is divisive is simply not being fair to Abraham Lincoln. His election caused seven states to walk out the door. President Obama couldn't do that on his best day.

If the Union of states was as new as it was in 1860, I think Obama would have caused more than 7 seven states to leave it and the Union would have lost.
The historical events since 1860 have changed the context in which leaving the Union has far more going against it, no matter how racially divided people feel. IOW, willingness to leave the union is less strongly tied to racial divisions than it was in 1860.
Not to mention, the desire to maintain slavery was not primarily about preserving racist sentiments, but preserving the economic benefits of having slaves (no matter their race).

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Anyone who claims President Obama is divisive is simply not being fair to Abraham Lincoln. His election caused seven states to walk out the door. President Obama couldn't do that on his best day.

If the Union of states was as new as it was in 1860, I think Obama would have caused more than 7 seven states to leave it and the Union would have lost.

Haw! Texas and Georgia couldn't win the fight alone.

The historical events since 1860 have changed the context in which leaving the Union has far more going against it, no matter how racially divided people feel.

You mean how some people feel about different races?

IOW, willingness to leave the union is less strongly tied to racial divisions than it was in 1860.

They left in 1860 because slavery would be doomed if the new territories weren't anti-slavery... and apparently the South fucked up their farmland as well and needed to expand westward.

Not to mention, the desire to maintain slavery was not primarily about preserving racist sentiments, but preserving the economic benefits of having slaves (no matter their race).

If that was the case, then there would have been white slaves as well.

- - - Updated - - -

Wow. Though, I don't know what that means. Are people switching to other more right-wing assbats or just concentrating on reading right-wing Internet sites? I wonder how Prager, Medved, Hannity numbers are doing.

If my evangelical/tea-bagging/redneck in-law's family is any indication, then I think a lot of them have moved more into the wild wild web with Facebook linkages et.al. Some of the sites they link make Limbaugh seem almost mainstream. And I know one of them gets a direct email feed of the Family Research Counsel's propaganda.

Thanks to them complaining about the "horrible" bias of rightwingwatch.org, it has become one of my favorite sites for humor while reading about the craziest things said by the right-most lunatic fringe group leaders.

It is amazing how far away from reality they are willing to go to "know the truth". Limbaugh, Hannity... mainstream media? Yeah. That is about as good as Boehner is just as bad as Obama because he didn't let the US default.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Not to mention, the desire to maintain slavery was not primarily about preserving racist sentiments, but preserving the economic benefits of having slaves (no matter their race).

If that was the case, then there would have been white slaves as well.

Ya, that does seem to be a fairly unsupported assertion which doesn't look like it ties in with historical facts. They may have liked the economic benefits of having slaves but the entire basis of Southern slavery was predicated entirely on racist sentiments.

 

[J842P]

Not to mention, the desire to maintain slavery was not primarily about preserving racist sentiments, but preserving the economic benefits of having slaves (no matter their race).

I think it's hard to say that the desire to maintain slavery was primarily motivated by the economic benefits of having slaves which really only went to a small minority of people.

 

[bilby]

Not to mention, the desire to maintain slavery was not primarily about preserving racist sentiments, but preserving the economic benefits of having slaves (no matter their race).

I think it's hard to say that the desire to maintain slavery was primarily motivated by the economic benefits of having slaves which really only went to a small minority of people.

The decision to secede was really only in the hands of a small minority of people, most of whom were wealthy slave-owners.

They may have had the support of their citizens, but they didn't consult them on the details of their opinions before making decisions.

 

[ronburgundy]

If that was the case, then there would have been white slaves as well.

Ya, that does seem to be a fairly unsupported assertion which doesn't look like it ties in with historical facts. They may have liked the economic benefits of having slaves but the entire basis of Southern slavery was predicated entirely on racist sentiments.

No, there would not have been white slaves in the South, because they couldn't get away with it legally even though many of the land owners would have been fine with it, just as corporate CEOs are today. Racist sentiments gave cover to enslaving people for profit, which makes profit the actual driving motive and goal and racism merely a rationalizing enabler. The fact that historically blacks have enslaved blacks and white enslaved whites very much shows that slavery is not driven by racism.

 

[laughing dog]

No, there would not have been white slaves in the South, because they couldn't get away with it legally even though many of the land owners would have been fine with it, just as corporate CEOs are today.

Um, why couldn't they have legally enslaved white people?

Racist sentiments gave cover to enslaving people for profit, which makes profit the actual driving motive and goal and racism merely a rationalizing enabler. The fact that historically blacks have enslaved blacks and white enslaved whites very much shows that slavery is not driven by racism.

The fact that it was legal to have slaves of one race in the US but not another is an indication it was motivated in part by racism in the US. Comparing this to other times and other places is irrelevant to the issue of slavery and racism in the USA.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Ya, that does seem to be a fairly unsupported assertion which doesn't look like it ties in with historical facts. They may have liked the economic benefits of having slaves but the entire basis of Southern slavery was predicated entirely on racist sentiments.

No, there would not have been white slaves in the South, because they couldn't get away with it legally even though many of the land owners would have been fine with it, just as corporate CEOs are today. Racist sentiments gave cover to enslaving people for profit, which makes profit the actual driving motive and goal and racism merely a rationalizing enabler. The fact that historically blacks have enslaved blacks and white enslaved whites very much shows that slavery is not driven by racism.

So, you're saying that they couldn't have gotten away with it because of racism but yet racism wasn't an important factor in it?

That's an ... interesting ... way of looking at things.

 

[ronburgundy]

If the Union of states was as new as it was in 1860, I think Obama would have caused more than 7 seven states to leave it and the Union would have lost.

Haw! Texas and Georgia couldn't win the fight alone.

??? The point is that the majority (if not nearly all) of states that existed at the time would have seceded, if Obama or any black man somehow became President in 1860.

The historical events since 1860 have changed the context in which leaving the Union has far more going against it, no matter how racially divided people feel.

You mean how some people feel about different races?

No, I mean everything else that has happened in the last 150 years, including several wars with other nations, the rise of the US as a superpower and economic leader, the larger role of the Fed in providing various services, and even just an additional 150 years of racists identifying as Americans and thus not willing to leave the US simply due to their still very strong racist sentiments.
In 1860, being part of the United States did not mean nearly as much as it does today, thus for most people seceding was not a big deal because it meant little more to their lives or identity than words on paper somewhere. There is still more than enough racism now that if being part of the USA was as meaningless to people as it was in 1860, many states would have seceded when Obama was elected. They didn't primarily because of their ties and reliance on the Union and the Fed, not because their lesser racism.

IOW, willingness to leave the union is less strongly tied to racial divisions than it was in 1860.

They left in 1860 because slavery would be doomed if the new territories weren't anti-slavery... and apparently the South fucked up their farmland as well and needed to expand westward.

Every human decision is a matter of pros and cons of the options. In 1860, defending slavery was a major pro for seceding, and there was little in the anti column for states whose economy depended on slavery. Today, those states have many reasons against seceding that have nothing to do with race or slavery. Thus, no matter how racist most their citizens still are, those racial divisions would not be enough to tip the decision toward seceding. Which it why it was completely invalid to point to willingness to secede as though it is a direct measure of racial divisions, which is what Bronzeage presumed when he claimed that Lincoln was more racially divisive because he got 7 states to secede.
Maybe if you actually tried to comprehend what I say rather than invent knee-jerk reasons to counter me, you wouldn't waste our time with irrelevancies.

Not to mention, the desire to maintain slavery was not primarily about preserving racist sentiments, but preserving the economic benefits of having slaves (no matter their race).

If that was the case, then there would have been white slaves as well.

See my reply to Tom Sawyer as to why this is completely false. Hint: racism playing an enabling role is not the same as it being the primary purpose and motive behind the institution of slavery.

 

[ronburgundy]

No, there would not have been white slaves in the South, because they couldn't get away with it legally even though many of the land owners would have been fine with it, just as corporate CEOs are today. Racist sentiments gave cover to enslaving people for profit, which makes profit the actual driving motive and goal and racism merely a rationalizing enabler. The fact that historically blacks have enslaved blacks and white enslaved whites very much shows that slavery is not driven by racism.

So, you're saying that they couldn't have gotten away with it because of racism but yet racism wasn't an important factor in it?

That's an ... interesting ... way of looking at things.

The fact that it was legal to have slaves of one race in the US but not another is an indication it was motivated in part by racism in the US.

Both your arguments suffer from the same failure to understand enabling factors from primary motivating causes, so I give them the same response (again).
Something being "a factor" in allowing something to happen doesn't make it the primary motive people have for making it happen, which is what I actually said. I never implied that racism didn't exist or play a role. I said the desire to maintain slavery in 1860 was not primarily based in racist sentiments.
If you want to marry a woman and her father's approval (which she cares deeply about) allows that to happen, does that make her father's approval the primary basis for your desire to marry her? This is the "logic" you are applying. Did the slave owners pay slavers to go to Africa and get slaves primarily because they hated black people and just wanted to bring them to the US to make their lives miserable? That is the absurdity that you presume by claiming that slavery was primarily about racism.
They paid to get slaves in order to profit off of them. Cultural racism merely determined who were the easier victims on whom they could profit via this method.

 

[Valjean]

But there have always been slaves, serfs or an underclass of workers for the past five thousand years. Usually they were of the same race as the landowners/aristocracy. The negro slavery in the US was a historical anomaly. Negroes were convenient, clearly "other" and easily identified. They came to replace the white indentured servants of the colonial period.

The South, after the civil war, quickly found ways of returning blacks to servitude. In many regions the South split into little fiefdoms, with a small aristocratic class, sheriffs as enforcers and both black and white serfs. This persisted well into the 20th C.

 

[laughing dog]

So, you're saying that they couldn't have gotten away with it because of racism but yet racism wasn't an important factor in it?

That's an ... interesting ... way of looking at things.

The fact that it was legal to have slaves of one race in the US but not another is an indication it was motivated in part by racism in the US.

Both your arguments suffer from the same failure to understand enabling factors from primary motivating causes, so I give them the same response (again).
Something being "a factor" in allowing something to happen doesn't make it the primary motive people have for making it happen, which is what I actually said. I never implied that racism didn't exist or play a role. I said the desire to maintain slavery in 1860 was not primarily based in racist sentiments.
If you want to marry a woman and her father's approval (which she cares deeply about) allows that to happen, does that make her father's approval the primary basis for your desire to marry her? This is the "logic" you are applying. Did the slave owners pay slavers to go to Africa and get slaves primarily because they hated black people and just wanted to bring them to the US to make their lives miserable? That is the absurdity that you presume by claiming that slavery was primarily about racism.
They paid to get slaves in order to profit off of them. Cultural racism merely determined who were the easier victims on whom they could profit via this method.

First, I never said slavery in the US was primarily motivate by racism. IMO, it is absurd to think one can derive and partition out the various motives for the maintenance of slavery.

Second,slavery in general is driven by economic profit. Slavery of a particular race is not driven by profit but by racism. And maintaining a racist institution requires a racist mentality.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

So, you're saying that they couldn't have gotten away with it because of racism but yet racism wasn't an important factor in it?

That's an ... interesting ... way of looking at things.

The fact that it was legal to have slaves of one race in the US but not another is an indication it was motivated in part by racism in the US.

Both your arguments suffer from the same failure to understand enabling factors from primary motivating causes, so I give them the same response (again).
Something being "a factor" in allowing something to happen doesn't make it the primary motive people have for making it happen, which is what I actually said. I never implied that racism didn't exist or play a role. I said the desire to maintain slavery in 1860 was not primarily based in racist sentiments.
If you want to marry a woman and her father's approval (which she cares deeply about) allows that to happen, does that make her father's approval the primary basis for your desire to marry her? This is the "logic" you are applying. Did the slave owners pay slavers to go to Africa and get slaves primarily because they hated black people and just wanted to bring them to the US to make their lives miserable? That is the absurdity that you presume by claiming that slavery was primarily about racism.
They paid to get slaves in order to profit off of them. Cultural racism merely determined who were the easier victims on whom they could profit via this method.

Your argument is similar to saying that the KKK isn't about favouring white people but instead favouring people who look like them and they all just happen to be white due to cultural and historic factors unrelated to their current positions, so let's downplay the racist aspect of the KKK. It was the racist sentiments which viewed black people as less human than white people which allowed for the system to be profitable because it's the thing that gave them the justification to enslave them while still maintaining that they were something other than evil for doing so. You can't separate out one from the other.

 

[fromderinside]

It was the racist sentiments which viewed black people as less human than white people which allowed for the system to be profitable because it's the thing that gave them the justification to enslave them while still maintaining that they were something other than evil for doing so. You can't separate out one from the other.

Damn. Just when I was getting used to counting the number of cheeks I in which I could put my tongue this Tom Sawyer guy has to come along play the straight man - is straight man OK on this thread - and screw up this laugh track.

 

[ronburgundy]

The fact that it was legal to have slaves of one race in the US but not another is an indication it was motivated in part by racism in the US.

Both your arguments suffer from the same failure to understand enabling factors from primary motivating causes, so I give them the same response (again).
Something being "a factor" in allowing something to happen doesn't make it the primary motive people have for making it happen, which is what I actually said. I never implied that racism didn't exist or play a role. I said the desire to maintain slavery in 1860 was not primarily based in racist sentiments.
If you want to marry a woman and her father's approval (which she cares deeply about) allows that to happen, does that make her father's approval the primary basis for your desire to marry her? This is the "logic" you are applying. Did the slave owners pay slavers to go to Africa and get slaves primarily because they hated black people and just wanted to bring them to the US to make their lives miserable? That is the absurdity that you presume by claiming that slavery was primarily about racism.
They paid to get slaves in order to profit off of them. Cultural racism merely determined who were the easier victims on whom they could profit via this method.

Your argument is similar to saying that the KKK isn't about favouring white people but instead favouring people who look like them and they all just happen to be white due to cultural and historic factors unrelated to their current positions, so let's downplay the racist aspect of the KKK.

Nonsense. My argument has nothing in common with that. The KKK was a specific formal organization created to promote a particular ideology and have a general political influence. Slavery was not a specific formal organization any more than corporate pollution is a specific formal organization. They are both behaviors engaged in by individuals for personal gain. Various rationalizations and enablers are employed to achieve that goal, of which racist ideology is just one of them, and only sometimes even that. In fact, racist ideology has been used to rationalize various acts of pollution as well, impacting where the pollution is dumped and how upset the general public is about the dumping.
Your argument is equal to saying that corporate polluters are primarily motivated by wanting to poison the minorities that are disproportionately impacted by their actions. And like I said, it is equal to claiming that making money from slavery was incidental to slavery, and the slavers really just went and got slaves because they wanted to harm blacks. It is ridiculous.

It was the racist sentiments which viewed black people as less human than white people which allowed for the system to be profitable because it's the thing that gave them the justification to enslave them while still maintaining that they were something other than evil for doing so. You can't separate out one from the other.

You can and should seperate enabling conditions driving motivations. That is what rational analysis of human behavior entails. It is a central aspect of taking a scientific approach to understanding human psychology and behavior.

 

[ronburgundy]

duplicate