The Original Sin of the United States Re: McNabb and Limbaugh Re: Raceism L3
At 12:20 PM 11/6/2003 -0600 Dan Minette wrote: >> At 09:57 AM 10/28/2003 -0600 Dan Minette wrote: >> >Well, that slaughter started well before the US existed, so it did come >> >first. But, I was thinking how racism is written into the Constitution. >> >> Which also applies to the Native Americans, no? > >Is there an explicit mention of Native Americans in the constitution? Yes. Albeit in a less dehumanizing way than assigning them 3/5 of a peronhood or to slavery - it ratherly simply states that if they are not taxed then they are not citizens of the United States. Anyhow, the reason I consider our treatment of Native Americans to be the United States "original sin" is as follows: The sin of slavery was at least a *choice* of the United States as an entity, inasmuch as it was written into the Constitution. In Catholic "original sin" theology, "original sin" is not _your_ *first* sin. Rather it is the sin of our ancestors, a sin upon which we owe our very existence, and a sin which has produced a debt that can never be repaid. All of these aspects, with the possible exception of the last one being at least arguable, apply much more directly to the treatment of Native Americans than to slavery. The mistreatment of Native Americans both intention and unintentional (such as in the case of certain diseases) was carried out in large part by predecssors of the United States - although admittedly the sins were then perpetuated by the United States long after slavery was abolished, the origins of eliminating the Native Americans came long before the United States. Secondly, without the elimination of the Native Americans the United States is never reallly the United States. Without elimination of the Native Americans there is no "Manifest Destiny," and without Manifest Destiny the United States may never become the dominant nation in the world.I think that in large part the US owes its national greatness to the richness of its geography - which was seized from the Native Americans. Lastly, far too many Native Americans have been killed for the wrongs the United States has committed against the Native Americans to every be rectified in any meaningful sense.The First Peoples of the United States in almost all cases will be a tiny minority in their own lands in every sense - cultural, lingual, and political. There's no way to turn back the clock. If we are to map US history into Christian Theology, I would say that the Civil War is a much closer parallel to the United States' crucifixtion. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: McNabb and Limbaugh Re: Raceism L3
- Original Message - From: "Miller, Jeffrey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 1:19 PM Subject: RE: McNabb and Limbaugh Re: Raceism L3 > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dan Minette > Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 11:03 AM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: McNabb and Limbaugh Re: Raceism L3 > > > > - Original Message - > From: "Miller, Jeffrey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 12:44 PM > Subject: RE: McNabb and Limbaugh Re: Raceism L3 > > > > > Is there an explicit mention of Native Americans in the > constitution? > > >Maybe in the Apocrypha > > You mean it is in the origional constitution, but taken out > by revisionists. :-) >Exactly. Once they realized that the Masonite Revolution wasn't going to take hold, they went >back and scrubbed all the copies. And, if you vidiotaped the series "Scrubs" and reassembled it according to "The Code" you would find a complete doumentary on this. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: McNabb and Limbaugh Re: Raceism L3
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dan Minette > Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 11:03 AM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: McNabb and Limbaugh Re: Raceism L3 > > > > - Original Message - > From: "Miller, Jeffrey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 12:44 PM > Subject: RE: McNabb and Limbaugh Re: Raceism L3 > > > > > Is there an explicit mention of Native Americans in the > constitution? > > >Maybe in the Apocrypha > > You mean it is in the origional constitution, but taken out > by revisionists. :-) Exactly. Once they realized that the Masonite Revolution wasn't going to take hold, they went back and scrubbed all the copies. -j- ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: McNabb and Limbaugh Re: Raceism L3
- Original Message - From: "Miller, Jeffrey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 12:44 PM Subject: RE: McNabb and Limbaugh Re: Raceism L3 > Is there an explicit mention of Native Americans in the constitution? >Maybe in the Apocrypha You mean it is in the origional constitution, but taken out by revisionists. :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: McNabb and Limbaugh Re: Raceism L3
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Dan Minette > Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 10:21 AM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: McNabb and Limbaugh Re: Raceism L3 > > > > - Original Message - > From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 11:51 AM > Subject: Re: McNabb and Limbaugh Re: Raceism L3 > > > > At 09:57 AM 10/28/2003 -0600 Dan Minette wrote: > > >Well, that slaughter started well before the US existed, so it did > > >come first. But, I was thinking how racism is written into the > > >Constitution. > > > > Which also applies to the Native Americans, no? > > Is there an explicit mention of Native Americans in the constitution? Maybe in the Apocrypha -j- ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: McNabb and Limbaugh Re: Raceism L3
- Original Message - From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 11:51 AM Subject: Re: McNabb and Limbaugh Re: Raceism L3 > At 09:57 AM 10/28/2003 -0600 Dan Minette wrote: > >Well, that slaughter started well before the US existed, so it did come > >first. But, I was thinking how racism is written into the Constitution. > > Which also applies to the Native Americans, no? Is there an explicit mention of Native Americans in the constitution? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: McNabb and Limbaugh Re: Raceism L3
At 09:57 AM 10/28/2003 -0600 Dan Minette wrote: >Well, that slaughter started well before the US existed, so it did come >first. But, I was thinking how racism is written into the Constitution. Which also applies to the Native Americans, no? JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: McNabb and Limbaugh Re: Raceism L3
- Original Message - From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 9:09 PM Subject: Re: McNabb and Limbaugh Re: Raceism L3 > At 04:34 PM 10/19/2003 -0500 Dan Minette wrote: > >First of all, I'm 99% sure we agree that slavery was the original sin of > >the US, > > Just for the record, I disagree.The decimation of the Native Americans > is the "original" sin of the United States. Well, that slaughter started well before the US existed, so it did come first. But, I was thinking how racism is written into the Constitution. > > But the reasonable conservative viewpoint is not just that McNabb is > overrated which I think is a wrong viewpoint, but I must admit that it > is reasonable just because of its prevalence amongst the pro football > punditry class but it is also that the media wants to see black QB's do > well, and thus the media is less quick to turn on McNabb with criticism > because he is black than they would be if McNabb were white.i.e. to > argue that the racism of the media means that if McNabb were white like Jon > Kitna, people would have called him overrated much faster than they have. Nah, overrated means more than that. It means he was never very good to begin with, he was just the media's darling because he was black. The reason he got MVP votes is that he his black...it is clear that a white player deserved better. So, all the black QBs that didn't rate as high as he did were worse; only white QBs could be better. Further, you now need to assume that there is a liberal sportswriter push of the liberal agenda. > Moreover, the very timeline of the current situation backs up Gautam's > thesis. ESPN's NFL Countdown, while a live show, is a *rehearsed* >live show. At no point in the rehearsal nor at the live taping did anyone at > ESPN express shock or dismay at Rush's comments, including two black >former NFL Players on ESPN's panel. The network knew what they were getting with Rush. I'm sure that they wanted his target demographics. I can imagine how people who's expertise is sports would like to focus on why Rush is wrong in sports instead of getting in a political debate with him. Did you really expect two jocks to have the guts to go toe to toe with one of the most successful ranters of the 20th century? And, we don't even know if he brought up "liberal media bias" in the rehearsals. > On Monday following the game, there was again very little notice taken of > Rush's comments despite the fact that many people had no doubt by then > had the opportunity to review them, and any journalists watching ESPN's > show would no doubt have had the opportunity to write about them in their > Monday columns. Rush being racist isn't really news. Its been going on the air waves for almost two decades. If you want, I can see if he was an obvious racist all the way back in high school. My father in law went to high school with him. > Indeed, let us consider who objected to these comments. *Al Sharpton* > objected to the comments. *Howard Dean* objected to the comments. > Democratic Presidential Candidate *Wesley Clark* objected to the remarks. I heard of it two ways: listening to sports radio in my car and listening to ESPN's I'm not exactly sure about the sequence. On ESPN, there was breathless coverage during the baseball playoffs. The feeling seemed to be that the buzz would continue to drive ratings up. I then heard about it on sports radio, where they quoted a sports columnist on it and said how stupid Rush was. This is in a _very_ conservative city, BTW. They got a fair number of calls on this subject. Most talked about how stupid Rush was; I don't remember anyone defending him. The real problem that I see is to have a Limbaugh hijack a pregame show for his rants. How would you like it if Jesse were a guest commentator and used the show as a platform for his rants? Finally, do you really think that the fact that Rush was in the process of being outed as a druggie had nothing to do with his resignation? > Pretty soon, Jesse Jackson was threatening a boycott of ESPN and even > ABC/Disney. Right, just like the SBC boycott. That didn't bother me; Jesse has a smaller following than them. No one wins against mouse, not even moose and squirrel. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: McNabb and Limbaugh Re: Raceism L3
At 04:34 PM 10/19/2003 -0500 Dan Minette wrote: >First of all, I'm 99% sure we agree that slavery was the original sin of >the US, Just for the record, I disagree.The decimation of the Native Americans is the "original" sin of the United States. >Yes, he just gave one example, but it wasn't an off the cuff remark; he >planned to bring it up. Since McNabb is just one of several high ranked >black quarterbacks, it would be hard to explain why you think all the other >black QBs deserve their reputations, but not McNabb. The only consistent >reason for this viewpoint that I can think of is the belief that the old >days, when all the QBs were white, was a reflection of the natural order of >things. You know, the inherent intelligence of whites and the inability of >whites to regard a black man as a leader, and all that other nonsense. > >So, in short, while you could argue that PC has been used to attack very >reasonable conservative positions, that dog doesn't hunt with Rush. But the reasonable conservative viewpoint is not just that McNabb is overrated which I think is a wrong viewpoint, but I must admit that it is reasonable just because of its prevalence amongst the pro football punditry class but it is also that the media wants to see black QB's do well, and thus the media is less quick to turn on McNabb with criticism because he is black than they would be if McNabb were white.i.e. to argue that the racism of the media means that if McNabb were white like Jon Kitna, people would have called him overrated much faster than they have. Moreover, the very timeline of the current situation backs up Gautam's thesis. ESPN's NFL Countdown, while a live show, is a *rehearsed* live show. At no point in the rehearsal nor at the live taping did anyone at ESPN express shock or dismay at Rush's comments, including two black former NFL Players on ESPN's panel. On Monday following the game, there was again very little notice taken of Rush's comments despite the fact that many people had no doubt by then had the opportunity to review them, and any journalists watching ESPN's show would no doubt have had the opportunity to write about them in their Monday columns. Indeed, let us consider who objected to these comments. *Al Sharpton* objected to the comments. *Howard Dean* objected to the comments. Democratic Presidential Candidate *Wesley Clark* objected to the remarks. Pretty soon, Jesse Jackson was threatening a boycott of ESPN and even ABC/Disney. If this is not evidence of a coordinated attack by the PC Police, then I don't know what is and quite frankly, I am still waiting for "The Fool" and the ACLU to start complaining about the chilling effect that all this has had on free speech in this country Then again, I'm not holding my breath. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: McNabb and Limbaugh Re: Raceism L3
--- Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > So, in short, while you could argue that PC has been > > used to attack very > > reasonable conservative positions, that dog doesn't > > hunt with Rush. > > Dear Dan, > Pleez git yer frases right - it's "that dog don't > hunt!" Wel what do you expect? Time, Newsweek, NYT, etc. have all been using slang phrases in headlines, but correcting the grammer. Like this week's NW, "Rush, in a world of pain", The phrase is "in a world of hurt". They mean completly different things, the subtle pun would have actualy been funny if they had got the phrase correct. It's kind of like when someone outside the know tries to act like they are "down". Steve Martin makes a living out of that these days. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: McNabb and Limbaugh Re: Raceism L3
--- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So, in short, while you could argue that PC has been > used to attack very > reasonable conservative positions, that dog doesn't > hunt with Rush. Dear Dan, Pleez git yer frases right - it's "that dog don't hunt!" Debbi who agrees with most all else what you wrote in that there post ;) __ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: McNabb and Limbaugh Re: Raceism L3
- Original Message - From: "Gautam Mukunda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 8:54 AM Subject: Re: McNabb and Limbaugh Re: Raceism > --- Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Did Rush go to college? My impression is that he > > didn't, or at least he > > never came out with a degree > > > > Julia > > I have no idea, actually. What I meant was that every > conservative who even wants to think about racial > issues outside of PC orthodoxies has to accept that > this is the deal - the very first tactic that will be > used by those who disagree with him is to call him a > racist. That's part of the deal. There doesn't have > to be any evidence or anything at all. If you want to > say anything about race beyond talking about the > pervasive racism of American society and how that's > the only explanation for every problem afflicting > African-Americans, you will get called a racist. > Every conservative knows it. I think most leftists do > to, to be honest, but it's too useful a tactic of > intimidation to admit that. In some cases, it happens exactly as you state it. I'm sure, especially at liberal universities, well thought out balanced conservative ideas are shouted down as racist when they are not. If you followed my discussion of my Zambian daughter being told she isn't black enough because she works too hard, you will note that I accept and acknowledge that there are problems that extend beyond the simple effects of prejudice. Having said that, though, I feel that this does not well apply to the criticisms of Rush. I've been mulling over my response to this, and find the need to keep on expanding it in my head. What I write will have to be a subset of this. First of all, I'm 99% sure we agree that slavery was the original sin of the US, and that the obvious manifestations of blacks being second class citizens in the US extended into the '60s. That is not just a matter of ancient history (heck I can close my eyes and see the TWTWTW song being sung when the Civil Rights legislation was signed). It is the necessary backdrop for any discussions because there are strong links between these facts and present attitudes, policies strategies, etc. The analogy I used when I discussed Neli (my Zambian daughter) and her accusers was people dealing with an adult who has been abused as a child. Adam rightly pointed out that white Americans can't see themselves in the position of the therapist. That wasn't the position I was actually thinking of; I was more thinking about the position of the family member. Having seen this, both personally and through Teri's work, I have a strong feel for what being a family member in this position entails. Part of it is an understanding of the background to the problem. Another part is not letting the person use their previous abuse as an excuse for present bad behavior. Sympathy and understanding must be present, but cannot be turned into a license and excuse for destructive behavior. OK, so having given my metaphor, let me look at other aspects of the situation. One of the first that I wish to consider is the change in the US political landscape in 1964. From the 1870s to 1960, the solid south existed. The South would not vote for the party of Lincoln. In Texas, the voters were referred to as yeller dog Democrats; they proclaimed that they'd vote for a yeller dog if it ran as a Democrat. The only real significant exception to this was '48 when the Dixiecrat candidate, Strom Thurmond won 4 southern states. In '64 Johnson signed the Civil Rights bill, and the political landscape changed. Barry Goldwater carried the solid Democratic south, and his own state, and that's all. Even though the Republican leadership went along with the Civil Rights act, the fact that a Democratic president pushed the legislation meant that Southerners now decided that, even though the national Republican party was the party of Lincoln, it was still the lesser of two evils...because they didn't push civil rights. Local Democrats could show that they voted against Civil Rights, and thus preserve their own hides. Nixon saw this, and he wasn't stupid. He devised his "Southern Strategy" to go and get these votes. While Wallace got most of them instead, this strategy has been part of the Republican party overall strategy every since. Now, this cannot be said overtly, because no one can come out and say they are against civil rights. So, code phrases have been developed. "State's rights" is the classic one. The apologists for the Confederacy insist that the war was about state's rights. The supporters of segregation claimed it was not anti civil-rights, but pro states rights. Now, that doesn't mean that anyone who thinks that the balance in federal and state power needs to be shifted more towards the states is racist. There are indeed, principled arguments for this, that are not at all ra
