The News Thread

[Dak]

This case I would consider self-defense and wouldn't consider the cops to have used excessive force. However, this is apples and oranges to the Jacob Blake case, as Blake was not in possession of a knife and was not threatening anyone when he was shot.

My point is that "things happen fast". There are egregious uses of force and there are clearly justified cases, and there are those more in the middle of the continuum and Blake is indeed more grey. You're acting like situations are always clear cut.

 

[Oblivious Maximus]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1302212909808971776

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1302586046551597061

 

[crimsonfloyd]

My point is that "things happen fast". There are egregious uses of force and there are clearly justified cases, and there are those more in the middle of the continuum and Blake is indeed more grey. You're acting like situations are always clear cut.

I agree that there are grey cases. I don't agree that Blake's case was grey if you start with the principles of innocent until proven guilty and the 6th Amendment, which I do. However, I've explained my rationale on that already and I don't want to start going around in circles. I think, until more evidence emerges, both of our positions on this, as well as our critiques of one another, are pretty clear and settled.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1302212909808971776

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1302586046551597061

This is just more culture war crap to fire up his base and trigger identitarians. I haven't read too much of the 1619 project, so I'll front-load this by saying there's a lot about this curriculum that I am unfamiliar with. I do agree with 1619's point that impact of slavery has been understated in the traditional American history education. Personally, I think this is largely because we overlook what happened during the Reconstruction Era. However, some of their assertions, such as the claim that the Revolutionary War was primarily about protecting slavery seem to be the result of cherry picking evidence.

 

[Einherjar86]

This is just more culture war crap to fire up his base and trigger identitarians. I haven't read too much of the 1619 project, so I'll front-load this by saying there's a lot about this curriculum that I am unfamiliar with. I do agree with 1619's point that impact of slavery has been understated in the traditional American history education. Personally, I think this is largely because we overlook what happened during the Reconstruction Era. However, some of their assertions, such as the claim that the Revolutionary War was primarily about protecting slavery seem to be the result of cherry picking evidence.

Textbooks in 2014 talking about slave masters taking pride in treating their slaves kindly. Obviously it wasn't slavery's fault; it was cruel masters who ruined it for everyone!

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Textbooks in 2014 talking about slave masters taking pride in treating their slaves kindly. Obviously it wasn't slavery's fault; it was cruel masters who ruined it for everyone!

Ugh... when did I say that the current textbooks, especially in the south, are any good or historically accurate? This point seems totally out of left field.

 

[CiG]

I just saw that clip of Biden talking about how a black man invented the light bulb (lol) and he rips a fart. Great timing considering the subject and how much of a virtue-signaling fart-huffer he's coming across as.



Didn't he also fart during an interview at some point?

 

[Einherjar86]

Ugh... when did I say that the current textbooks, especially in the south, are any good or historically accurate? This point seems totally out of left field.

Ha, that wasn't meant as a counter to anything you said--sorry. I was just feeling your vibe.

 

[CiG]

AntiFa dude got set on fire by a comrade's incendiary device.

http://twitter.com/BGOnTheScene/status/1302476141219905536

 

[Einherjar86]

AntiFa dude got set on fire by a comrade's incendiary device.

http://twitter.com/BGOnTheScene/status/1302476141219905536

If only he’d been on the MAGAritaville...

 

[CiG]

Wouldn't that be a disaster lmfao. AntiFa guy sets self on fire trying to attack the MAGAritaville, fire extinguished and then everyone promptly drowned.

 

[CiG]

 

[Dak]

I do agree with 1619's point that impact of slavery has been understated in the traditional American history education. Personally, I think this is largely because we overlook what happened during the Reconstruction Era.

Between my education, and growing up in the South, + having read White Trash as well as some other history on my own, I would say that the impact is likely understated relative to the whole because it was geographically confined to an area from which people not writing history came from. Additionally, the majority of the "American Mythos" running from DC to Philadelphia isn't in the slave belt, as it were. Throw in the Western Expansion, and most of popular American History outside of the Civil War elides the South.

However, some of their assertions, such as the claim that the Revolutionary War was primarily about protecting slavery seem to be the result of cherry picking evidence.

Yeah. Boston Tea Partiers and Paul Revere retconned to be supporters of the Fugutive Slave Act and using slaves as human shields to defeat the British.

 

[Einherjar86]

Between my education, and growing up in the South, + having read White Trash as well as some other history on my own, I would say that the impact is likely understated relative to the whole because it was geographically confined to an area from which people not writing history came from. Additionally, the majority of the "American Mythos" running from DC to Philadelphia isn't in the slave belt, as it were. Throw in the Western Expansion, and most of popular American History outside of the Civil War elides the South.

I'm confused--isn't this just making the 1619 Project's point? It's true that the American "mythos" is largely derived from westward expansion, i.e. the "Wild West." 1619 argues that slavery should be more in the foreground.

It's probably true that a lot of history tended to be written by intellectuals who heralded from the Northeast, but that's not an excuse. It's just an explanation.

 

[Dak]

1619 argues

Does a Chick Tract argue? Nay, it asserts outside of material history. Thus is 1619. Demons must be brought to the foreground due to their explanatory power.

 

[Einherjar86]

I think slavery qualifies as “material history.”

 

[Dak]

I think slavery qualifies as “material history.”

Slavery is indeed massive amounts of material history in world history, and still ongoing (primarily in Africa and parts of the Middle East), importantly partially enabled by Neoliberal foreign policy (e.g. Libya). However, it is fairly small by comparison in US history. Chick Tracts are fun for adherents though. That's the real target.

 

[Einherjar86]

Slavery is indeed massive amounts of material history in world history, and still ongoing (primarily in Africa and parts of the Middle East), importantly partially enabled by Neoliberal foreign policy (e.g. Libya). However, it is fairly small by comparison in US history. Chick Tracts are fun for adherents though. That's the real target.

There are still textbooks today that downplay the extent of slavery (which was a cornerstone of the US economy until the Civil War) and even glorify “good” slave owners. 1619 is compensating for a demonstrable lack in acknowledging the “material” history of slavery in the US.

It’s not a sermon, it’s a correction.

 

[Dak]

There are still textbooks today that downplay the extent of slavery (which was a cornerstone of the US economy until the Civil War) and even glorify “good” slave owners. 1619 is compensating for a demonstrable lack in acknowledging the “material” history of slavery in the US.

It’s not a sermon, it’s a correction.

"There are textbooks". Actual Chick Tracts are still in publication btw. Same energy. If slavery was the cornerstone of the US economy why didn't the Confederates whip the fuck out of the Union with their economic might?

 

[Einherjar86]

It's not the "same energy." I'm not going to run around in circles with you again on this, but I'll just point out that you've made this accusation before, i.e. that some kind of "argument" isn't really that, but is little more than a quasi-religious appeal to those of a particular persuasion.

That's also not an argument; you're resorting to what's basically a meme-level ad hominem to attack an argument (or set of claims) that you don't like. The 1619 Project is far from perfect, and it's sensationalist in certain ways; but it's neither baseless nor immaterial (I'm not sure exactly what this means, but it was your insinuation). It's hardly a "Chick Tract," although that's certainly a cute rhetorical jab.

If slavery was the cornerstone of the US economy why didn't the Confederates whip the fuck out of the Union with their economic might?

Because there are three other "cornerstones." That's what a cornerstone is.

The expansion of slavery, the expansion of industrial production in Britain and the northern United States, the expansion of world consumer markets and the expansion of world financial networks were all linked together and all essential to the emergence of the modern global economy.

https://www.historynet.com/slavery-as-an-industrial-cornerstone-interview-with-edward-e-baptist.htm

You'll probably take issue with the historian's credentials ("woefully lacking in economic authority, good sir," or some such), but there you have it.