timschochet
Footballguy
Almost every white entertainer from that era sang songs with racist words and phrases. (Along with most of the black performers too, as rockaction correctly points out.) What are we to do? Should we shun them all?
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
I Was Promised The Commies Weren't Coming For Everything, And You Know How That Worked Out (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter rockaction
- Start date
Thunderlips
Footballguy
What's the problem then? A private business is stopping doing something because they feel it will help them make money. You going to boycott the White Sox until they return to those softball shorts uniforms of the 70s?
Ilov80s
Footballguy
This forum is just really the forum where people will disagree about things. I’m pretty sure vaccinations thread got put in here originally (maybe still is) which I thought was ridiculous. I’m not sure what is or isn’t “political” anymore.
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
[scooter]
Footballguy
Cowboysfan8
Footballguy
Henry Ford
Footballguy
I can never remember why I don’t try to have reasonable conversations with you. I’m sure it will come to me.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Henry Ford
Footballguy
joffer
Footballguy
Chaka
Footballguy
rockaction
Footballguy
Hmm...coming from the guy who aligns himself with the movement that gave us boys competing in girls' track and field in high school, I often wonder the same thing.
Last edited by a moderator:
rockaction
Footballguy
rockaction
Footballguy
Which is what people like me used to wonder when they started the sub-forum. That certain topics would inevitably become quasi-political even if there was nothing political about them because, contrary to public opinion, almost everything becomes a function of the polis (the broad definition, not the city-state) at some point.
The most recent and most modernly comprehensive -- some say best -- book about the history of the societal arguments pro- and con- vaccination in America, Pox by Michael Willrich, eventually leads us to a Supreme Court decision about forced inoculation. That's political.
See the editorial reviews, not the consumers' reviews:
https://www.amazon.com/Pox-American-History-Penguin-Life/dp/0143120786
Ilov80s
Footballguy
Somewhat related I read a lawyer in Michigan was able to win our first ever case of forcing someone to check into drug rehab through a court order.
rockaction
Footballguy
Huh. A lot of states have a sort of symbiotic relationship between the judicial/legal apparatus and rehabilitation facilities in order to avoid jail time. Is that what happened in this case?
Ilov80s
Footballguy
I can’t find the article anywhere...I’m pretty sure I was awake but I guess I could have dreamt it. It wasn’t related to an arrest, it was basically a family member suing another family member to force them to go to drug rehab and the court ordered in favor of the forced rehab.
Yes we should ban all their songs, remove every footprint of them including their Hollywood star, Wikipedia etc, make their heirs pay reparations considering their fortune was made singing racist songs. As a society we have to right all our wrongs from the past so we can all feel better. Unicorns and rainbows for all.
rockaction
Footballguy
Wow. That's quite a step. It usually takes more than one member of a family to have somebody institutionalized in some form or another. And even then, there's generally due process given to the accused or party named to the suit. I wonder what the fine print is on this.
I kind of like this idea of washing all racists from the history books. Let's start with FDR. Did not support federal law to outlaw lynching. Appointed life-time KKK member to Supreme Court. Put 120,000 Japanese Americans in internment camps. Obvious racist. Can we wipe out all the laws he passed while we are at it? TIA.
rockaction
Footballguy
The Supreme Court precedents are where I'd start. Obviously racist, would-have been packed court, FDR remnant wants to give standing to trees.
Cue Henry Ford.
Last edited by a moderator:
rockaction
Footballguy
rockaction
Footballguy
Oh no, not true. Henry's honest enough to argue for standing for trees in courts. I've had the debate with him. He argues that if boats have standing, why not trees?
rockaction
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
Imagine looking at the state of the world in April, 2019 and picking this as the hill you want to die on.
Yeah, I can't do it either.
Yeah, I can't do it either.
rockaction
Footballguy
I totally agree with your entire post. It was just something that struck me while reading a sports article before the hockey game yesterday. I casually asked twice for the thread to be deleted because of my own poor judgment in starting it during Easter and Passover, but that said, it can be a good discussion.
rockaction
Footballguy
It can also be dead serious while being ironically light-hearted, too. Some people are having trouble with that concept -- or I'm just not funny. Either way...
Last edited by a moderator:
Why are we cherry picking who, what , where? Let’s go all the way and right all the wrongs..
H Jass
Footballguy
The interesting thing is I always assumed that Henry Ford used that moniker ironically given his wokeness.
If not:
[scooter]
Footballguy
Can't tell if this post was intended to be humor or sarcasm, but either way it is a bad analogy.
FDR's lack of support for a federal anti-lynching law had nothing to do with racism, and everything to do with A) pragmatism, and B) a belief that lynching was an issue of enforcing existing laws, not an issue of writing new ones.
Hugo Black was not a lifetime KKK member. He was a member for less than 2 years early 1920s. And there's no evidence that FDR knew about it in 1937. (The fact that someone in the KKK later attempted to give Black a "lifetime membership card" is not a persuasive argument, as there's no evidence that Black accepted their unsolicited offer.)
The Japanese-Americans were interned based on their proximity to a country we were at war with. To assume that FDR was motivated by hatred of a race instead of hatred of a specific country, is to assume facts not in evidence.
FDR was no saint, and his record on racial equality is spotty at best. But your examples don't even bring FDR up to the level of the average slaveholding president of the 1800s.
rockaction
Footballguy
Heh. I can't really speak for Henry and why he chose that name. I do know that his old avatar was, I think, Henry Ford himself.The interesting thing is I always assumed that Henry Ford used that moniker ironically given his wokeness.
If not:
timschochet
Footballguy
Pretty good post. A far better example of a racist president who potentially presents a dilemma for Democrats is Woodrow Wilson. In the case of Wilson there is no question of pragmatism or “man of his times”; he was an outspoken white supremacist who segregated Washington. Yet his name remains on high schools, statues, memorials all over the country.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
I haven’t seen you this upset since you got a private message quoting your own words and thought the mods were saying them to you.
rockaction
Footballguy
The bolded sounds like a reason to oppose hate crimes and sounds like pragmatism is a function of historicism.
The Hugo Black and Japanese internment defenses are weak sauce. Both are racially-motivated or products of racism that are stains on our nation's history. I don't think you'll find much agreement among people who do not believe in historicism.
Thankfully, I do believe in historicism -- to an extent, and given the benign nature of the actions -- and don't hold people that guilty for human rights abuses at the time of their cultural and societal prominence. Which is why this thread exists. The benign nature of her singing two songs -- only one mentioned in the article -- that were racist in 1930 and removal of her statue or even playing a different song forthwith is exactly the type of ahistoricism I'm talking about. Frequently practiced by none other than...
commies.
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford
Footballguy
rockaction
Footballguy
Yes, that was embarrassing. So would be ten pages of insisting that Robert Kraft was involved in the sex trade and then still doubling down and not admitting I was incorrect.
But I'm not upset in the least. Simply using the word "commie" is delightful today.
timschochet
Footballguy
rockaction
Footballguy
Okay. I haven't seen it. You're ornery today. I was being cautious and not putting words in your mouth or presuming your intent. It was out of respect to you and your motive for naming yourself (dead serious here).
timschochet
Footballguy
Why not? You should. Most times they knew what they were doing and somebody at the time said it was wrong.
rockaction
Footballguy
Sure it does. The belief that existing laws are enough if prosecuted and executed correctly is one of the main arguments that those against hate crimes use. So is the pragmatist argument, which states that we can never really know motive and shouldn't assume what deep issues motivate someone when committing a crime like assault or battery.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
You should reread and see if I apologized in that thread for my conclusions based on what now appears to be incorrect statements on the case. I did.
But if you want to start bringing up everything wrong each other has ever said in every subsequent thread, I guess that’s your call. It was nice speaking with you occasionally. All the best.
rockaction
Footballguy
Because that's my take on things. I'm able to value the values of yesterday and today, but I'm willing to see people as partially products of their space and time.
rockaction
Footballguy
I actually said they shouldn't have called you out and defended your position in that thread. At length. For hours. After the spa was exonerated from sex trafficking. And I did see the apology, mixed with doubling down.
Best to you as well.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
The pragmatist argument doesn’t state that we can’t know. In the case of FDR we DO know, because there was much discussion at the time. FDR was opposed to the anti-lynching laws, and to ending segregation, because he needed southern support for the New Deal. This isn’t debated by historians.
[scooter]
Footballguy
rockaction
Footballguy
Even I laugh, which says something about my ability to admit when I'm wrong and shows a level of self-seriousness that would seemingly be desirable when compared to some others in this forum.
timschochet
Footballguy
Partially is fine. But if there are well known and respected critics at the time of the action then we can make certain judgments.
Abraham Lincoln can be forgiven his racism because he was a man of his time; I can accept that. FDR cannot be forgiven for the internment of the Japanese because people at the time, including some close to him, told him it was wrong, yet he did it anyhow: probably not for racist reasons but out of fear and political expediency. Doesn’t matter it was still wrong and he doesn’t get a pass.
rockaction
Footballguy
I think the level of the transgression is something to be considered in the historicism calculus, for sure. In other words, death, slavery, and imprisonment are all way, way up there in terms of a sliding scale regarding how much history one wants to take into account.
Cutting a song about "darkies" in 1930 is very low on that scale.