Mass shooting at AME church in Charleston, SC. State Senator is dead (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

No I think I understand you (at least I hope I do.) your posts on this have been very thoughtful and you bring up many issues I enjoy discussing, even when I disagree.

A book like 1984 is so brilliant, and has such large themes, that it's easy to quote passages and relate them to modern day occurrences, as one might do with Shakespeare or the Bible. But the difference is that the latter two sources are used to discuss human relationships, the gist of which are timeless, while Orwell's novel is specifically about a totalitarian society which bears no inkling to our essentially free society. And when you use it to attempt to categorize a rather independent thinker like Stewart, I think that's especially flawed. You ask if it comes from academia or the government, what's the difference? Well actually there's a huge difference, and someone who is a libertarian minded as yourself should know that.

But I digress. The names are changed in 1984 because the history surrounding those names are unpleasant to the rulers of the dictatorship- just as in real life Stalin erased the actual history of the Russian Revolution in order to give himself a starring role and to eliminate the truth about the atrocities committed by the Communist Party. Stewart is speaking the exact opposite- an acknowledgment of the truth of American atrocities towards blacks- and if he wants names or flags removed (he never exactly made that clear) it's because he wants to remove the reverence for men whom he considers did evil acts- but in no way does he want to remove the truth of those acts; he wants to expose that truth. It couldn't be more opposite to 1984.

 

[timschochet]

BTW, whenever things do go wrong in America, especially when they're caused by the government, the book I use for comparison is not Orwell's 1984 but Kafka's The Trial. It is much easier for me to believe that, rather than a secret plot to control us all and establish tyranny, the government is simply confused and has no idea what it's doing half of the time. Our ultimate doom is not to be thrown into prison by a wicked government but to be thrown into bureaucratic chaos by a large formless government. In some ways the latter is more disturbing.

 

[rockaction]

No I think I understand you (at least I hope I do.) your posts on this have been very thoughtful and you bring up many issues I enjoy discussing, even when I disagree.

A book like 1984 is so brilliant, and has such large themes, that it's easy to quote passages and relate them to modern day occurrences, as one might do with Shakespeare or the Bible. But the difference is that the latter two sources are used to discuss human relationships, the gist of which are timeless, while Orwell's novel is specifically about a totalitarian society which bears no inkling to our essentially free society. And when you use it to attempt to categorize a rather independent thinker like Stewart, I think that's especially flawed. You ask if it comes from academia or the government, what's the difference? Well actually there's a huge difference, and someone who is a libertarian minded as yourself should know that.

But I digress. The names are changed in 1984 because the history surrounding those names are unpleasant to the rulers of the dictatorship- just as in real life Stalin erased the actual history of the Russian Revolution in order to give himself a starring role and to eliminate the truth about the atrocities committed by the Communist Party. Stewart is speaking the exact opposite- an acknowledgment of the truth of American atrocities towards blacks- and if he wants names or flags removed (he never exactly made that clear) it's because he wants to remove the reverence for men whom he considers did evil acts- but in no way does he want to remove the truth of those acts; he wants to expose that truth. It couldn't be more opposite to 1984.

tim, I'm going to be (wow, not blunt nor restrained at all) blunt and brief simply because time is running out on my mental capacity for the night. It just is, and that's no disrespect. Maybe I can give a better answer tomorrow?

First bolded: Something about this strikes me as wrong. Orwell concentrated deeply upon history. It wasn't simply a government-approved history, it was a postmodern fight for the accuracy of history. It's not a metaphor that you're missing; it's a specific authorial decision. The government in 1984 is a postmodern government. It creates the past, present, and future through its manipulations, regardless of the actual truth. The truth it doesn't like, it airbrushes or recreates. I've read numerous articles on Orwell and history. It is no accident that in 1984, Winston Smith is a historian of records at the Ministry of Truth. Orwell was concerned and consumed with history and its viability in the modern context. It is not so much governments he fears, it is the dominant majority and its expressions of the dominant or superior culture, which to him is a form of totalitarianism because of its control of information. It's very postmodern in this way. Don't forget -- he is British. Independent press and things of the sort are still ingrained in his thinking. He is worried about a majoritarian view of history that only winners get to write.

Second bolded: Saying that by removing historical monuments and state symbols that we move closer to an understanding of history is paradoxical at best and an oxymoron at worst, and very much in keeping with 1984's use of those literary and linguistic devices. Stewart wants uncomfortable truths removed according to his political beliefs, not because of historical accuracy. He doesn't search for the truth by seeking to have street names, monuments and flags removed, he seeks a normative socio-political influence on future psychopaths. He calls those things "wallpaper," a use of words that is enlightening. What does one do when wallpaper goes out of style, or fashion? Why, one removes it! (I'm moving right now, so this use of language hits close to home.) I mean, not only is wallpaper simply transient, it's gauche and always dated. It was a bad use of words for Stewart. What about the hardwood floors?

Italicized: A dominant mode of thought is a dominant mode of thought. History does not run through our government, but Orwell was more concerned with the fight for men's minds. Smith as historian, Smith as terrified subject with a rat and cage, Smith as sexual being, Smith as receptive to being told that 2+2=5 (A Dostoyevskian turn more than a Kafkian one) is significant. Orwell is terrified of government and its rise, but limiting Orwell to simply writing about "totalitarianism" undersells the scope of the work. Orwell understands, and this is evidenced in his letters and criticism, that the fight is for men's minds, that the individual mind is most important, but that the aggregate of those minds make majorities and politics. I think selling Orwell short as an author merely concerned with totalitarianism underestimates his psychological underpinnings and his delving into the human mind as a mind that then shapes politics, which then shape individual minds in a cyclical sense. This is not simply a government/non-government issue. It bleeds, as do all things, into the personal, which at some point always becomes political, even though not all things must be, nor should be.

 

[rockaction]

It's two sides of the same coin, Tim.

I think I understand this. I think I agree. I would like to see an objective history, not a fight over the primacy of a dominant majoritarian view of it.

I did not understand this. When somebody else is addressed, one shouldn't butt in. Sorry, SID.

BTW, whenever things do go wrong in America, especially when they're caused by the government, the book I use for comparison is not Orwell's 1984 but Kafka's The Trial. It is much easier for me to believe that, rather than a secret plot to control us all and establish tyranny, the government is simply confused and has no idea what it's doing half of the time. Our ultimate doom is not to be thrown into prison by a wicked government but to be thrown into bureaucratic chaos by a large formless government. In some ways the latter is more disturbing.

I have not read The Trial, but I have read Before The Law and An Imperial Message as a diptych in law school. That was very interesting. Didn't Anthony Perkins star in The Trial? I believe I have watched that movie, but in a very sleepy state.

 

[msommer]

No I think I understand you (at least I hope I do.) your posts on this have been very thoughtful and you bring up many issues I enjoy discussing, even when I disagree.

A book like 1984 is so brilliant, and has such large themes, that it's easy to quote passages and relate them to modern day occurrences, as one might do with Shakespeare or the Bible. But the difference is that the latter two sources are used to discuss human relationships, the gist of which are timeless, while Orwell's novel is specifically about a totalitarian society which bears no inkling to our essentially free society. And when you use it to attempt to categorize a rather independent thinker like Stewart, I think that's especially flawed. You ask if it comes from academia or the government, what's the difference? Well actually there's a huge difference, and someone who is a libertarian minded as yourself should know that.

But I digress. The names are changed in 1984 because the history surrounding those names are unpleasant to the rulers of the dictatorship- just as in real life Stalin erased the actual history of the Russian Revolution in order to give himself a starring role and to eliminate the truth about the atrocities committed by the Communist Party. Stewart is speaking the exact opposite- an acknowledgment of the truth of American atrocities towards blacks- and if he wants names or flags removed (he never exactly made that clear) it's because he wants to remove the reverence for men whom he considers did evil acts- but in no way does he want to remove the truth of those acts; he wants to expose that truth. It couldn't be more opposite to 1984.

tim, I'm going to be (wow, not blunt nor restrained at all) blunt and brief simply because time is running out on my mental capacity for the night. It just is, and that's no disrespect. Maybe I can give a better answer tomorrow?

First bolded: Something about this strikes me as wrong. Orwell concentrated deeply upon history. It wasn't simply a government-approved history, it was a postmodern fight for the accuracy of history. It's not a metaphor that you're missing; it's a specific authorial decision. The government in 1984 is a postmodern government. It creates the past, present, and future through its manipulations. I've read numerous articles on Orwell and history. It is not so much governments he fears, it is the dominant majority and its expressions of the dominant or superior culture, which to him is a form of totalitarianism because of its control of information. It's very postmodern in this way. Don't forget -- he is British. Independent press and things of the sort are still ingrained in his thinking. He is worried about a majoritarian view of history that only winners get to write.

Second bolded: Saying that by removing historical monuments and state symbols that we move closer to an understanding of history is paradoxical at best and an oxymoron at worst, and very much in keeping with 1984's use of those literary and linguistic devices. Stewart wants uncomfortable truths removed according to his political beliefs, not because of historical accuracy. He doesn't search for the truth by seeking to have street names, monuments and flags removed, he seeks a normative socio-political influence on future psychopaths. He calls those things "wallpaper," a use of words that is enlightening. What does one do when wallpaper goes out of style, or fashion? Why, one removes it! (I'm moving right now, so this use of language hits close to home.) I mean, not only is wallpaper simply transient, it's gauche and always dated. It was a bad use of words for Stewart. What about the hardwood floors?

Italicized: A dominant mode of thought is a dominant mode of thought. History does not run through our government, but Orwell was more concerned with the fight for men's minds. Smith as historian, Smith as terrified subject with a rat and cage, Smith as sexual being, Smith being receptive to be told that 2+2=5 (A Dostoyevskian turn more than a Kafkian one) is significant. Orwell is terrified of government and its rise, but limiting Orwell to simply writing about "totalitarianism" undersells the scope of the work. Orwell understands, and this is evidenced in his letters and criticism, that the fight is for men's minds, that the individual mind is most important, but that the aggregate of those minds make majorities and politics. I think selling Orwell short as an author merely concerned with totalitarianism underestimates his psychological underpinnings and his delving into the human mind as a mind that then shapes politics, which then shape individual minds in a cyclical sense. This is not simply a government/non-government issue. It bleeds, as do all things, into the personal, which at some point always becomes political, even though not all things must be, nor should be.

Without being overly intellectual here:

We agree that the seceeding states did so largely over the issue of slavery (someone quoted the VP's speech to that effect and it is largely held to be a mjor cause of the conflivt)

We agree that slavery is evil

We agree that the secession failed

Why should we honor the symbols of a failed revolt/secession in daily life, let alone one that stood for abominable acts? When the confederate battle flag is put on license plates, at war memorials isn't that what is done?

We should remand those symbols to museums and encyclopedias and the private sphere.

We should, by all means, explain to the population everything that these symbols stood for - and why we are no longer willing to use them from a public sphere standpoint.

Why e.g. General Lee, who might have been the best army commander of his time, should not be honored too much for being principled about his home state - since the cause he fought for was ignoble

 

[Courtjester]

The statements by the families of the victims in court was pretty powerful. Hopefully their message of peace, love, forgiveness, and justice will be heard by the angry (justifiably) black folks, the racist and hate filled white sociopaths, and the blood thirsty media and their sheep.

It is sad that so much of the racism in this country is fueled by liberal media, extreme hateful conspiracy websites, social media, and the influence of backwards family members. When two people of different races can sit down with no agenda and share a meal, drink, conversation, or even bible study they usually find that people are generally good and have more in common than not.

This terrible tragedy could cause a paradigm shift in race relations if politicians, media, and we the people focused on these families responses rather than bicker about mental illness, gun control, terrorism, flags, which race kills more of the other race, etc.

Unfortunately messages of love and peace do not increase votes, bank rolls, or web clicks.

I don't think anyone here can say it better than this....frankly /end thread

 

[rockaction]

No I think I understand you (at least I hope I do.) your posts on this have been very thoughtful and you bring up many issues I enjoy discussing, even when I disagree.

A book like 1984 is so brilliant, and has such large themes, that it's easy to quote passages and relate them to modern day occurrences, as one might do with Shakespeare or the Bible. But the difference is that the latter two sources are used to discuss human relationships, the gist of which are timeless, while Orwell's novel is specifically about a totalitarian society which bears no inkling to our essentially free society. And when you use it to attempt to categorize a rather independent thinker like Stewart, I think that's especially flawed. You ask if it comes from academia or the government, what's the difference? Well actually there's a huge difference, and someone who is a libertarian minded as yourself should know that.

But I digress. The names are changed in 1984 because the history surrounding those names are unpleasant to the rulers of the dictatorship- just as in real life Stalin erased the actual history of the Russian Revolution in order to give himself a starring role and to eliminate the truth about the atrocities committed by the Communist Party. Stewart is speaking the exact opposite- an acknowledgment of the truth of American atrocities towards blacks- and if he wants names or flags removed (he never exactly made that clear) it's because he wants to remove the reverence for men whom he considers did evil acts- but in no way does he want to remove the truth of those acts; he wants to expose that truth. It couldn't be more opposite to 1984.

tim, I'm going to be (wow, not blunt nor restrained at all) blunt and brief simply because time is running out on my mental capacity for the night. It just is, and that's no disrespect. Maybe I can give a better answer tomorrow?

First bolded: Something about this strikes me as wrong. Orwell concentrated deeply upon history. It wasn't simply a government-approved history, it was a postmodern fight for the accuracy of history. It's not a metaphor that you're missing; it's a specific authorial decision. The government in 1984 is a postmodern government. It creates the past, present, and future through its manipulations. I've read numerous articles on Orwell and history. It is not so much governments he fears, it is the dominant majority and its expressions of the dominant or superior culture, which to him is a form of totalitarianism because of its control of information. It's very postmodern in this way. Don't forget -- he is British. Independent press and things of the sort are still ingrained in his thinking. He is worried about a majoritarian view of history that only winners get to write.

Second bolded: Saying that by removing historical monuments and state symbols that we move closer to an understanding of history is paradoxical at best and an oxymoron at worst, and very much in keeping with 1984's use of those literary and linguistic devices. Stewart wants uncomfortable truths removed according to his political beliefs, not because of historical accuracy. He doesn't search for the truth by seeking to have street names, monuments and flags removed, he seeks a normative socio-political influence on future psychopaths. He calls those things "wallpaper," a use of words that is enlightening. What does one do when wallpaper goes out of style, or fashion? Why, one removes it! (I'm moving right now, so this use of language hits close to home.) I mean, not only is wallpaper simply transient, it's gauche and always dated. It was a bad use of words for Stewart. What about the hardwood floors?

Italicized: A dominant mode of thought is a dominant mode of thought. History does not run through our government, but Orwell was more concerned with the fight for men's minds. Smith as historian, Smith as terrified subject with a rat and cage, Smith as sexual being, Smith being receptive to be told that 2+2=5 (A Dostoyevskian turn more than a Kafkian one) is significant. Orwell is terrified of government and its rise, but limiting Orwell to simply writing about "totalitarianism" undersells the scope of the work. Orwell understands, and this is evidenced in his letters and criticism, that the fight is for men's minds, that the individual mind is most important, but that the aggregate of those minds make majorities and politics. I think selling Orwell short as an author merely concerned with totalitarianism underestimates his psychological underpinnings and his delving into the human mind as a mind that then shapes politics, which then shape individual minds in a cyclical sense. This is not simply a government/non-government issue. It bleeds, as do all things, into the personal, which at some point always becomes political, even though not all things must be, nor should be.

Without being overly intellectual here:

We agree that the seceeding states did so largely over the issue of slavery (someone quoted the VP's speech to that effect and it is largely held to be a mjor cause of the conflivt)

We agree that slavery is evil

We agree that the secession failed

Why should we honor the symbols of a failed revolt/secession in daily life, let alone one that stood for abominable acts? When the confederate battle flag is put on license plates, at war memorials isn't that what is done?

We should remand those symbols to museums and encyclopedias and the private sphere.

We should, by all means, explain to the population everything that these symbols stood for - and why we are no longer willing to use them from a public sphere standpoint.

Why e.g. General Lee, who might have been the best army commander of his time, should not be honored too much for being principled about his home state - since the cause he fought for was ignoble

I think the first bolded is . I'm laughing at me, not you.

I think the second bolded is legitimate to ask. I have no problem with honoring failed revolts nor secessions. That's my political worldview. I'm very much for failed revolts against government overreach. The qualifier is important -- why would I support memorializations of a revolt or secession based upon an abomination of rights-based principle? A cop-out is education, and I don't think that reason suffices. Indeed, like you suggest, we could remand all of the offending signs, flags, monuments, etc. into the private sphere.

I guess my argument largely comes from culture. As pointed out in my previous posts, identity and assimilation are tricky concepts. We allow a certain amount of authenticity within our own political system, from all walks of life and all cultures. Southern culture is responsible for tons of things in the U.S. Its poetry, its music, its literary heroes, even its cinema, to name a few categories. Look, I can't dish on Faulkner or Griffith or others (I'd be out of my league) but there are so many things within Southern culture that were intertwined with its politically disastrous conception of human rights, and we don't condemn those. I'm not sure street names and battle flags are a normative issue other than to messed up kids and their messed up intellectual influences. Whether there is a normative influence that emanates from having street names named after Robert E. Lee is for the South and its localities to decide, frankly. There's a degree of relativism to that I'm uncomfortable with, but I'm also restrained enough to be uncomfortable about anything with me and the South. So I think that becomes -- and I realize the historical implications of this -- a local issue. If Stewart and the rest of us Northerners (and Westerners, perhaps) would like to point out the awful legacy of slavery, we have every right to do so. Can we point out what its commemorations stand for? Sure. But to ask for its removal and to call this sort of thing "the wallpaper" of racism seems strong, though, and nebulous.

I should correct myself a bit: He does have a right to call for the removal of all of these symbols and slogans and street signs -- just as their communities have the right to rebut him. As do I. If he spoke truth to power for certain people, then so be it. I thought he took advantage of a tragedy to advance an agenda he really didn't understand, at the behest of people who would do other things than simply call for awareness. I don't trust it. I think it blunts history, it blunts awareness, and it blunts the cultural achievements of the South, however ill-gotten.

eta* edited simply for format. The spellcheck at this board is probably the most outstanding thing I've ever typed into; the one-space rule after periods is something I'll have to change soon.

 

[FlapJacks]

I will say that there is a lot of historical revisionism in our culture, but renaming a street is not an example...

 

[SeveredHorseHeads]

I'd be posting walls of text, which are totally unreadable.

Yeah, we wouldn't want you to do that.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Last night Clinton told host John Ralston, We have to have a candid national conversation about race, and about discrimination, prejudice, hatred. The people who do this kind of dastardly, horrible act are a very small percentage. But unfortunately public discourse is sometimes hotter and more negative than it should be, which can, in my opinion, trigger people who is less than stable to do something like this.

Clinton continued, I think we have to speak out against it. Like, for example, a recent entry into the Republican presidential campaign said some very inflammatory things about Mexicans. Everybody should stand up and say thats not acceptable. You know you dont talk like that on talk radio. You dont talk like that on the kind of political campaigns. I think he is emblematic. So I want people to understand, its not just him, its about everybody. The second thing is guns. Lets just cut to the chase its guns.

That's Hillary, not Bill, just in case to avoid confusion.

I said basically the same thing in the Police thread last week, only in my post I was speaking to the bad behaviors on the Left, particularly the overplaying of the race card. This type of violence was exactly what I was afraid of. And as we heard yesterday from one of Roof's friends, the race baiting that went on with Trayvon Martin and Walter Scott were specifically mentioned as having incited Roof.And to be perfectly honest Tim, the Left isn't ready, willing or able to have such a candid national conversation about race baiting. They certainly weren't in the Police thread. And to be fair the Right isn't having a lot of constructive healthy dialogue on this topic either. So it largely goes undiscussed. But I will repeat what I said in the other thread, there is a huge undercurrent of resentment right now amongst many whites about the way the Left (and particularly the media) is handling race relations in this country.

Just stop. No one buys your whole "but the people pointing out the racism made me into a racist" shtick.

Racebaiting by leftists didnt make this racist attack happen.

Racism made this racist attack happen.

 

[Underachievers]

So you don't think the 24/7 racebaiting is finally pissing people off?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Jon Stewart pretty much hits the nail on the head.

That was powerful. Not quite David Letterman after 9/11, but somewhat reminiscent.

Larry Wilcox is worthwhile as well.

I appreciated Stewart;s words from the sheer anger and frustration they conveyed, but I'm not sure it made a lot of sense and certainly didn't offer any solutions. He made sure to point out, in various ways, that he was sure "nothing would be done about it" or that there wouldn't be the proper level of outrage (I think he's off base with the latter). But again, no solutions. I think that describes most of us. Outraged, but clueless on what to do about it.

I'm mostly a liberal and I love Stewart, but the words seemed to miss the mark here, even if the tone was spot on. Though, I just don't think anyone can find the words to make any sense of this.

This is kind of where I am on this, in terms of Stewart. I think we're all (concerned Americans) swinging at air here.

 

[Todd Andrews]

So you don't think the 24/7 racebaiting is finally pissing racists people off?

Fixed that for you.

 

[timschochet]

The statements by the families of the victims in court was pretty powerful. Hopefully their message of peace, love, forgiveness, and justice will be heard by the angry (justifiably) black folks, the racist and hate filled white sociopaths, and the blood thirsty media and their sheep.

It is sad that so much of the racism in this country is fueled by liberal media, extreme hateful conspiracy websites, social media, and the influence of backwards family members. When two people of different races can sit down with no agenda and share a meal, drink, conversation, or even bible study they usually find that people are generally good and have more in common than not.

This terrible tragedy could cause a paradigm shift in race relations if politicians, media, and we the people focused on these families responses rather than bicker about mental illness, gun control, terrorism, flags, which race kills more of the other race, etc.

Unfortunately messages of love and peace do not increase votes, bank rolls, or web clicks.

I don't think anyone here can say it better than this....frankly /end thread

Wow. This is a horrible post, probably the worst one I have read in this forum in a while, and that's saying something. When someone combines "racists" and "liberal media" in the same sentence as if they're equally to blame for these murders, that person loses all credibility. But just in case we didn't get the point, he also calls the media "bloodthirsty". Just awful.

 

[Underachievers]

Play the racism game all you like, but to ignore the constant baiting is naive. I personally don't care if I am accused of racism or not, but it does get old when it works both ways.

 

[General Tso]

Last night Clinton told host John Ralston, We have to have a candid national conversation about race, and about discrimination, prejudice, hatred. The people who do this kind of dastardly, horrible act are a very small percentage. But unfortunately public discourse is sometimes hotter and more negative than it should be, which can, in my opinion, trigger people who is less than stable to do something like this.

Clinton continued, I think we have to speak out against it. Like, for example, a recent entry into the Republican presidential campaign said some very inflammatory things about Mexicans. Everybody should stand up and say thats not acceptable. You know you dont talk like that on talk radio. You dont talk like that on the kind of political campaigns. I think he is emblematic. So I want people to understand, its not just him, its about everybody. The second thing is guns. Lets just cut to the chase its guns.

That's Hillary, not Bill, just in case to avoid confusion.

I said basically the same thing in the Police thread last week, only in my post I was speaking to the bad behaviors on the Left, particularly the overplaying of the race card. This type of violence was exactly what I was afraid of. And as we heard yesterday from one of Roof's friends, the race baiting that went on with Trayvon Martin and Walter Scott were specifically mentioned as having incited Roof.And to be perfectly honest Tim, the Left isn't ready, willing or able to have such a candid national conversation about race baiting. They certainly weren't in the Police thread. And to be fair the Right isn't having a lot of constructive healthy dialogue on this topic either. So it largely goes undiscussed. But I will repeat what I said in the other thread, there is a huge undercurrent of resentment right now amongst many whites about the way the Left (and particularly the media) is handling race relations in this country.

Just stop. No one buys your whole "but the people pointing out the racism made me into a racist" shtick.

Racebaiting by leftists didnt make this racist attack happen.

Racism made this racist attack happen.

And where does racism come from Todd? Born with it? White recessive gene? I'd submit that the hatred is learned and then it is cultivated, with the mentally ill and disaffected being disparately impacted by the cultivation of it. The media has been acting irresponsibly in fanning the flames recently. I don't see how that can be denied. And the polls reflect it. Race relations are at their worst level in 25 years. You think it is just some accident or coincidence that the worst racial killing in our history comes on the heels of 6 months of some of the worst race baiting we've ever seen? The killer's friend says specifically that Dylann Roof was motivated into action by the Trayvon Martin affair. He also said that he made his decision to do something like this 6 months ago. That's curious timing. What went on 6 months ago? Michael Brown? Ferguson? Eric Garner? The revenge killing of the two New York cops? Coincidence?Then there's the coincidence of him driving 120 miles out of his way to do this in Charleston, where Walter Scott occurred, and specifically targeting the Reverend/State Senator Pinckney who not only was a key part of the black community's response (including a visit by Al Sharpton) but was also the man instrumental in passing the body camera legislation? Coincidence? In my post in the Police thread where I was warning about the potential consequences of race baiting I even specifically cited the Walter Scott case as an example of race baiting to be concerned with. And I was ridiculed. What happens? One week later a white man drives to Charleston South Carolina and specifically targets and kills the black civil rights leader who most spoke out about Walter Scott. Sounds to me like I pretty much nailed it. (And for the record, I don't at all accuse Rev. Pinckney of doing anything inappropriate. My blame for the race baiting in the Walter Scott case lay elsewhere, mostly with the media)

You can deny all you want that the recent events, and the media coverage of the events, had no effect on Dylann Roof, but the evidence shows just the opposite, in both his words and his deeds. I'm not saying it's THE root cause for what Roof did, but it certainly seems to be a contributing factor.

This will be my last comment in here on this. I've explained my position now about a dozen times and it keeps getting misrepresented. Other than Olaf, the Conservatives in here don't seem to be interested in pursuing this angle. So I will gracefully bow out and we can get back to talking about the true root causes of racial terrorism, which apparently are slavery, the Confederate flag, and antidepressants.

 

[moleculo]

just so I'm clear - can you better define race-baiting? I'm not all that clear about what you are talking about.

 

[timschochet]

Rockaction, removing flags from government buildings and renaming streets is not going to damage Southern culture in the least. The heritage of antebellum and the Civil War era is always going to be there: in museums, in books, in songs and poetry, in documentaries and movies and television. This is not a case of denying the history or forgetting it, which is why I believe your Orwell analogy is off. It's simply removing the government recognition of these items as stuff to be revered.

Personally I would go further; it's not just the Civil War with me. I would remove Andrew Jackson from the $20 bill, as one example. Why should we honor a mass murderer?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

On Stewart's point though, I agree we should look at anything we can that might help stop fostering and encouraging these sort of racist nutjobs. I just have no clue how you do that. Changing street names and taking down flags over state capitols (while fine ideas for other reasons) probably doesn't do this. He was clearly throwing shots at FOX, but I don't think we can do much to change FOX (though I'd love to see it). He didn't offer any solutions for it, and I can't imagine what any might be.

To risk falling into the "whadya gonna do?" trap, I'm not sure how you stop downtrodden white trash from seeing others as the enemy holding them down and acting out on it.

I think people commenting on statues and street names and flags ought to take a look at where Roof lived. In the arraignment the judge read out his address. I thought, I want to see where such semihuman detritus hailed from. How did he, how did we get here? It's Old Eastover Road, outside Eastover SC on the way to Columbia. It's country, pretty, woods on one side of the road, fairly bucolic spread out homes on the the other with trail fences and ponds. It looks nice. I don't think renaming streets or taking down flags would have made a bit of difference to this guy. He seems in the mode of Dylan Kliebold or Adam Lanza to me. Personally I'm guessing Roof got his hate off the internet.

I will also remind that the AME church itself was a monument, as is the statue to Denmark Vesey, to a slave revolt. Denmark Vesey was a slave who (incredible story here) won the lottery, then bought his freedom, then he lived as a free man. He owned a business. He had a family, but they were slaves (his wife was a slave so his children were slaves too). He and many slaves attended church, the AME church. Did people know all that was possible? Vesey then decided to use his freedom to organize a slave revolt in which the rebels would kill as many of their masters as they could (and presumably some families could get hurt along the way, who knows), they would commandeer some ships and head to Haiti. Four white men were actually part of this rebellion. Now is this man a hero or a terrorist? The authorities stopped the revolt, hung 35 people and convicted another 67. Should there be a statue to him? Is this a tale of heroism or atrocity or both? Personally I think it's a good thing there is a statue to him, and I think it's important the church commemorates this.

Robert E. Lee was and is a symbol of both rebellion for a horrible cause and also reconciliation. How many lives did he save by telling his armies to take the knee? Tens of thousands?

One Sunday at St. Paul's Episcopal Church in Richmond, a well-dressed, lone black man, whom no one in the community—white or black—had ever seen before, had attended the service, sitting unnoticed in the last pew.

Just before communion was to be distributed, he rose and proudly walked down the center aisle through the middle of the church where all could see him and approached the communion rail, where he knelt. The priest and the congregation were completely aghast and in total shock.

No one knew what to do…except General Lee. He went to the communion rail and knelt beside the black man and they received communion together—and then a steady flow of other church members followed the example he had set.

After the service was over, the black man was never to be seen in Richmond again. It was as if he had been sent down from a higher place purposefully for that particular occasion.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/09/0907_smithgenlee_2.html

A lot of time has passed since the Civil War but it's complicated, real complicated. I'm of immigrant stock, both sides, my people got here from Spain and Lorraine/So. Rhine, well after the CW. There is a statue of Robert E. Lee that rises high above my city. When I see it I think of the above story.

There was also once a Berlin Street in NO. It was changed during WW I to "Gen. Pershing Street" because people were so offended by the name of it. German social organizations and German newspapers at the time snuck underground or went away as well. This happened all over the country. Did this help win WW I or somehow end German nationalism or prevent WW II from happening? No, of course not.

One more - so a while ago we adopted a puppy. Sweet, loyal, tough, smart little mutt. One thing that struck us besides his great attitude was this streak down the middle of his back. It's just skin. It's why no one would adopt him. We kept hearing stories about where that came from. One story was that some people put motor oil on a dog's back to get rid of fleas. Another story was that leaving a dog out in the sun for too long can do this. Last night we met a woman who had worked in a dog shelter for 10 years, and she said, no, that's not where that comes from. The streak is from dog fighters who take weak dogs and then then they take a long razor and rip the flesh off the back of a dog so that they can train other dogs to get the whiff and taste of blood. Then they throw the weak dog to the fighters, who of course have been contorted into evil wrecks by cruelty themselves. - Can you imagine such depravity?

This is no defense of naming streets after Confederates, I'm just saying that you will have to go a lot further past 1860 to get at what ruined Roof's soul.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Last night Clinton told host John Ralston, We have to have a candid national conversation about race, and about discrimination, prejudice, hatred. The people who do this kind of dastardly, horrible act are a very small percentage. But unfortunately public discourse is sometimes hotter and more negative than it should be, which can, in my opinion, trigger people who is less than stable to do something like this.

Clinton continued, I think we have to speak out against it. Like, for example, a recent entry into the Republican presidential campaign said some very inflammatory things about Mexicans. Everybody should stand up and say thats not acceptable. You know you dont talk like that on talk radio. You dont talk like that on the kind of political campaigns. I think he is emblematic. So I want people to understand, its not just him, its about everybody. The second thing is guns. Lets just cut to the chase its guns.

That's Hillary, not Bill, just in case to avoid confusion.

I said basically the same thing in the Police thread last week, only in my post I was speaking to the bad behaviors on the Left, particularly the overplaying of the race card. This type of violence was exactly what I was afraid of. And as we heard yesterday from one of Roof's friends, the race baiting that went on with Trayvon Martin and Walter Scott were specifically mentioned as having incited Roof.And to be perfectly honest Tim, the Left isn't ready, willing or able to have such a candid national conversation about race baiting. They certainly weren't in the Police thread. And to be fair the Right isn't having a lot of constructive healthy dialogue on this topic either. So it largely goes undiscussed. But I will repeat what I said in the other thread, there is a huge undercurrent of resentment right now amongst many whites about the way the Left (and particularly the media) is handling race relations in this country.

Just stop. No one buys your whole "but the people pointing out the racism made me into a racist" shtick.

Racebaiting by leftists didnt make this racist attack happen.

Racism made this racist attack happen.

And where does racism come from Todd? Born with it? White recessive gene? I'd submit that the hatred is learned and then it is cultivated, with the mentally ill and disaffected being disparately impacted by the cultivation of it. The media has been acting irresponsibly in fanning the flames recently. I don't see how that can be denied. And the polls reflect it. Race relations are at their worst level in 25 years. You think it is just some accident or coincidence that the worst racial killing in our history comes on the heels of 6 months of some of the worst race baiting we've ever seen? The killer's friend says specifically that Dylann Roof was motivated into action by the Trayvon Martin affair. He also said that he made his decision to do something like this 6 months ago. That's curious timing. What went on 6 months ago? Michael Brown? Ferguson? Eric Garner? The revenge killing of the two New York cops? Coincidence?Then there's the coincidence of him driving 120 miles out of his way to do this in Charleston, where Walter Scott occurred, and specifically targeting the Reverend/State Senator Pinckney who not only was a key part of the black community's response (including a visit by Al Sharpton) but was also the man instrumental in passing the body camera legislation? Coincidence? In my post in the Police thread where I was warning about the potential consequences of race baiting I even specifically cited the Walter Scott case as an example of race baiting to be concerned with. And I was ridiculed. What happens? One week later a white man drives to Charleston South Carolina and specifically targets and kills the black civil rights leader who most spoke out about Walter Scott. Sounds to me like I pretty much nailed it. (And for the record, I don't at all accuse Rev. Pinckney of doing anything inappropriate. My blame for the race baiting in the Walter Scott case lay elsewhere, mostly with the media)

You can deny all you want that the recent events, and the media coverage of the events, had no effect on Dylann Roof, but the evidence shows just the opposite, in both his words and his deeds. I'm not saying it's THE root cause for what Roof did, but it certainly seems to be a contributing factor.

This will be my last comment in here on this. I've explained my position now about a dozen times and it keeps getting misrepresented. Other than Olaf, the Conservatives in here don't seem to be interested in pursuing this angle. So I will gracefully bow out and we can get back to talking about the true root causes of racial terrorism, which apparently are slavery, the Confederate flag, and antidepressants.

In the face of all the leftist racebaiting driving you mad with whiteyracemadness, please dont do anything stupid. Resist the lefty influence telling you to kill the black man.

It isnt worth it.

 

[timschochet]

General Tso, I'm afraid you're very misguided on this. First off, please don't put yourself in league with Olaf; you demean yourself by doing so. You are not a racist; he very much is. But that being said, you're just not getting the big picture.

There is one reason and pretty much only one reason why race relations are tense now in America: video cameras on cell phones. These cameras are capturing incidents that HAVE BEEN GOING ON FOR YEARS- it's just that most of them weren't recorded so nobody talked about them. Now it's in everyone's face, and we are realizing, as a nation, that we haven't solved all of our racial problems. And because the truth of this fact is an anathema to conservatives in particular, many get annoyed and blame "race baiting" and the "liberal media": anything to avoid examining our society and trying to actually solve these issues. Shooting the messenger isn't going to make the problem go away.

But NONE of this has anything to do with what happened on Wednesday night. Roof wasn't influenced by liberals nor conservatives. His sort of evil racist attack could have taken place at any time regardless of the social climate.

 

[KarmaPolice]

just so I'm clear - can you better define race-baiting? I'm not all that clear about what you are talking about.

Keep seeing the term thrown around but not 100% as to what they are referring to. Maybe I don't watch enough news or something.

 

[squistion]

just so I'm clear - can you better define race-baiting? I'm not all that clear about what you are talking about.

It appears it is the press/media actually covering a story in which an unarmed black man killed by the police or a private citizen and interviewing anyone who thinks that there might have been a racial element to it, because I guess seeing that in the news is what will set off the racists like Roof. The absurd suggestion seems to be that the nine people gunned out would still be alive today if only the "liberal" media had just ignored these previous stories.

 

[SeveredHorseHeads]

just so I'm clear - can you better define race-baiting? I'm not all that clear about what you are talking about.

Apparently it consists of reporting on Walter Scott getting shot repeatedly in the back and the police staging the crime scene.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Liberal media racebaiting causes whiteyracemadness in people like Roof, who were otherwise perfectly normal negro loving Caucasians like General Tso.

 

[FlapJacks]

The statements by the families of the victims in court was pretty powerful. Hopefully their message of peace, love, forgiveness, and justice will be heard by the angry (justifiably) black folks, the racist and hate filled white sociopaths, and the blood thirsty media and their sheep.

It is sad that so much of the racism in this country is fueled by liberal media, extreme hateful conspiracy websites, social media, and the influence of backwards family members. When two people of different races can sit down with no agenda and share a meal, drink, conversation, or even bible study they usually find that people are generally good and have more in common than not.

This terrible tragedy could cause a paradigm shift in race relations if politicians, media, and we the people focused on these families responses rather than bicker about mental illness, gun control, terrorism, flags, which race kills more of the other race, etc.

Unfortunately messages of love and peace do not increase votes, bank rolls, or web clicks.

I don't think anyone here can say it better than this....frankly /end thread

Wow. This is a horrible post, probably the worst one I have read in this forum in a while, and that's saying something. When someone combines "racists" and "liberal media" in the same sentence as if they're equally to blame for these murders, that person loses all credibility. But just in case we didn't get the point, he also calls the media "bloodthirsty". Just awful.

The media likes to play up the race angle in these stories more in a way that seeks to fan flames rather than seeking fairness....look at the egregious editing of the Zimmerman phone call...

 

[rockaction]

I'd be posting walls of text, which are totally unreadable.

Yeah, we wouldn't want you to do that.

Too dry?

Also, apparently I killed Earl Milford.

Good work all around, friend.

 

[cosjobs]

A zoom in on the front license plate looks like the s korean flag. And the kids skin tone and haircut look more Asian than redneck. Hopefully this keeps the race mongering rhetoric from Sharpton/MSNBC/Twitter to a minimum if he turns out to be Asian.

More race mongery than a white racist murdering a church full of innocent black Christians?

 

[timschochet]

Flapjacks, I acknowledge that the media does like to sensationalize the news, though I would argue that it's not in order to pursue a liberal agenda but simply because that's what increases ratings.

But you overemphasize this element as largely contributing to racial tensions and I think that is in error. Again, it's shooting the messenger.

 

[squistion]

Flapjacks, I acknowledge that the media does like to sensationalize the news, though I would argue that it's not in order to pursue a liberal agenda but simply because that's what increases ratings.

But you overemphasize this element as largely contributing to racial tensions and I think that is in error. Again, it's shooting the messenger.

And in Zimmerman edited audio he mentioned, NBC immediately issued an apology and fired the producer who had done this, but, of course, that part is always forgotten and still pointed to as example of intentional liberal media distortions. Meanwhile if Fox News does something of this nature, that is never seen as bias or some sort of an agenda on their part, just a unfortunate mistake that happened.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Well, guess it's not the day to point out our history of diversity and our ability to assimilate cultures, races, sexes, genders, identities, political philosophies, etc.

I also want to point out that, while this is true on the whole, and it's something we should be absolutely proud of as a nation, it's never been specifically true with regard to African-Americans. Unlike every other ethnic group besides Native Americans (who were already here) most blacks didn't come here willingly. We forced them to come, killing half on the way, treated them like animals, separated them from their families. Then when we finally forced the lower half of our nation to free them, we spent another 100 years treating them like absolute crap, second hand citizens. And even 50 years after Jim Crow ended, the police still don't treat them right, and we still don't spend the resources we need to in order to help Blacks out of the cultural and economic crisis that white America made for them. So yeah, we should feel guilty about this, because we ARE.

Present tense? How should anyone living today be accountable for the sins of the past? My ancestors were getting starved by the British in Ireland when slavery was going on in this country. This is the problem with race discussions in 2015. There is nothing you, me or any other well meaning white person can do to right the historical wrongs of slavery and Jim Crow, except dedicate ourselves to allowing for fair and equal treatment TODAY.

Here is the problem with this line of thinking. Sure, you personally did not have anything to do with the atrocities that occurred in our country's history. But what needs to happen is that we need to acknowledge that the vestiges of our history are still felt today. Ferguson, Baltimore, Charleston, they all lead back to our past. In the city I live in, a good portion of the black people that live here are living in public housing, that is riddled with drugs and violence. This is not a coincidence, and it is not because they don't have the fortitude to lift themselves up by their bootstraps. The fact is that they don't have boots to begin with. Slavery, Jim Crow laws, etc., have all lead to a country that is institutionally racist. It is a crisis, yet our country and government choose to ignore it, or put it on the back burner. Instead of spending billions on wars overseas, why don't we spend those billions to finally put an end to the institutions that are in place, by educating young people and creating job training programs that can really make a difference. We also need to spend money to overhaul our criminal justice system, which does nothing to rehabilitate people, and only goes to create hardened, lifelong criminals. How we can support the massive amount of money spent on defense, and not support using money to help our own country become a better place is beyond my comprehension.

 

[NCCommish]

He did it because he hates black people. He hates black people because he was taught to hate black people. There is a political party in this country that spends an inordinate amount of their time blowing racial dog whistles and sometimes they are way more blatant. They spend their time enacting policies to limit the political and economic power of minorities.. They even do it in their announcements for president as a ####### applause line. Forgive me if I have trouble blaming the media for this quite as much as I do the party of hate and so many of their very loud very proud of it champions..

 

[squistion]

Huffington Post ‏@HuffingtonPost ·

Mitt Romney calls on South Carolina to remove Confederate flag at statehouse http://huff.to/1Lq3JNx

 

[FlapJacks]

He did it because he hates black people. He hates black people because he was taught to hate black people. There is a political party in this country that spends an inordinate amount of their time blowing racial dog whistles and sometimes they are way more blatant. They spend their time enacting policies to limit the political and economic power of minorities.. They even do it in their announcements for president as a ####### applause line. Forgive me if I have trouble blaming the media for this quite as much as I do the party of hate and so many of their very loud very proud of it champions..

There is a political party in this country that supports a policy that has eliminated 38 million black people since its inception.

 

[jonessed]

He did it because he hates black people. He hates black people because he was taught to hate black people. There is a political party in this country that spends an inordinate amount of their time blowing racial dog whistles and sometimes they are way more blatant. They spend their time enacting policies to limit the political and economic power of minorities.. They even do it in their announcements for president as a ####### applause line. Forgive me if I have trouble blaming the media for this quite as much as I do the party of hate and so many of their very loud very proud of it champions..

 

[rockaction]

He did it because he hates black people. He hates black people because he was taught to hate black people. There is a political party in this country that spends an inordinate amount of their time blowing racial dog whistles and sometimes they are way more blatant. They spend their time enacting policies to limit the political and economic power of minorities.. They even do it in their announcements for president as a ####### applause line. Forgive me if I have trouble blaming the media for this quite as much as I do the party of hate and so many of their very loud very proud of it champions..

There is a political party in this country that supports a policy that has eliminated 38 million black people since its inception.

This was way, way too easy. Almost unfair. Here's the predictable response to your truthful point:

But it's no longer that party!

 

[timschochet]

He did it because he hates black people. He hates black people because he was taught to hate black people. There is a political party in this country that spends an inordinate amount of their time blowing racial dog whistles and sometimes they are way more blatant. They spend their time enacting policies to limit the political and economic power of minorities.. They even do it in their announcements for president as a ####### applause line. Forgive me if I have trouble blaming the media for this quite as much as I do the party of hate and so many of their very loud very proud of it champions..

Yeah well this sounds like Thom Hartmann. I think blaming the Republican Party is just as extreme, and awful, as blaming the media.

 

[DocHolliday]

Didn't Obama already make the request to remove the flag in SC?

 

[FlapJacks]

He did it because he hates black people. He hates black people because he was taught to hate black people. There is a political party in this country that spends an inordinate amount of their time blowing racial dog whistles and sometimes they are way more blatant. They spend their time enacting policies to limit the political and economic power of minorities.. They even do it in their announcements for president as a ####### applause line. Forgive me if I have trouble blaming the media for this quite as much as I do the party of hate and so many of their very loud very proud of it champions..

Speaking of economic power

http://articles.latimes.com/1992-07-25/news/mn-3880_1_median-incomes

A set of minority economic profiles released by the Census Bureau show that black households had a median income of $19,758 at the time of the 1990 census, up 84% from 1980. During that period, white median household incomes climbed 68%, but at $31,435 were still ahead of blacks and Latinos.

Median incomes of all Latino households climbed 77% during the decade to $24,156 in 1990, the report showed.

It looks like in the Reagan Bush era there was some progress....

 

[Kilgore Trout]

He did it because he hates black people. He hates black people because he was taught to hate black people. There is a political party in this country that spends an inordinate amount of their time blowing racial dog whistles and sometimes they are way more blatant. They spend their time enacting policies to limit the political and economic power of minorities.. They even do it in their announcements for president as a ####### applause line. Forgive me if I have trouble blaming the media for this quite as much as I do the party of hate and so many of their very loud very proud of it champions..

Yeah well this sounds like Thom Hartmann. I think blaming the Republican Party is just as extreme, and awful, as blaming the media.

The Republican party supports policies that do nothing to empower the poor and less fortunate, who happen to be disproportionately represented by minorities. The reason for this dis-proportionality is directly related to slavery and our sordid past. The Republican ideal that we are all given the same opportunity is a farce, and they are against programs that can help to bridge this gap. I don't think it is unreasonable to point this out.

 

[roadkill1292]

I'm wif NCC.

Did we ever get a definitive definition of "race-baiting?"

 

[timschochet]

It's not unreasonable to make that argument though it is certainly a matter for debate. But that's not the argument NC made. The Republican Party does not encourage racial hatred, and to suggest it does is just asinine IMO.

 

[timschochet]

I mean come on you guys. Calling the Republican Party the "Party of Hate"? Just terrible. But between the Tea Party conservatives on the one side and the Warren/Sanders progressives on the other side, this is what our politics are coming to. Can you guys see now why I despise populism so much? They demonize their opponents. Thankfully most of the nation will remains centrist and moderate and will, in the end, elect leaders who represent establishment values.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

It's not unreasonable to make that argument though it is certainly a matter for debate.

It is not up for debate. Without a significant investment in social programs and criminal justice reform, the problems that we are experiencing now will continue for generations. It won't fix itself, and Rebpublicans time and time again have shown they are against investing in these types of programs.

 

[NCCommish]

He did it because he hates black people. He hates black people because he was taught to hate black people. There is a political party in this country that spends an inordinate amount of their time blowing racial dog whistles and sometimes they are way more blatant. They spend their time enacting policies to limit the political and economic power of minorities.. They even do it in their announcements for president as a ####### applause line. Forgive me if I have trouble blaming the media for this quite as much as I do the party of hate and so many of their very loud very proud of it champions..

Yeah well this sounds like Thom Hartmann. I think blaming the Republican Party is just as extreme, and awful, as blaming the media.

Oh yeah why blame the party that espouses hate and putting guns in as many hands as possible regardless of criminal history or mental defect? Why blame the party of the modern Jim Crow? To be honest I couldn't care much less than I do if you think pointing out the obvious is a bad thing.

 

[rockaction]

It's not unreasonable to make that argument though it is certainly a matter for debate.

It is not up for debate. Without a significant investment in social programs and criminal justice reform, the problems that we are experiencing now will continue for generations. It won't fix itself, and Rebpublicans time and time again have shown they are against investing in these types of programs.

If you could think of one presidential and party candidate who was pushing criminal justice reform, both left and right, who immediately comes to mind? Would it be an accurate assessment given that person's record and platform?

 

[rockaction]

I'm still not sure why we got into a Republican/Democrat debate. I thought this was more historical and a little more nebulous than a party-line thing. Just my two cents on that whole deal.

 

[Slapdash]

I mean come on you guys. Calling the Republican Party the "Party of Hate"? Just terrible. But between the Tea Party conservatives on the one side and the Warren/Sanders progressives on the other side, this is what our politics are coming to. Can you guys see now why I despise populism so much? They demonize their opponents. Thankfully most of the nation will remains centrist and moderate and will, in the end, elect leaders who represent establishment values.

Can someone please reset the Timbot? He's just posting this same #### in every thread.

 

[NCCommish]

Huffington Post ‏@HuffingtonPost ·

Mitt Romney calls on South Carolina to remove Confederate flag at statehouse http://huff.to/1Lq3JNx

I give Mitt credit he has long been right on this issue. I wish this Mitt had run instead of the Mitt we got. Would've have been much more interesting.

 

[rockaction]

Oh yeah why blame the party that espouses hate and putting guns in as many hands as possible regardless of criminal history or mental defect? Why blame the party of the modern Jim Crow? To be honest I couldn't care much less than I do if you think pointing out the obvious is a bad thing.

This reminds me of when Tom Wolfe coined American grievances as The Great Adjectival Catch-Up

No overt fascism? Well, social fascism. No overt racism? Well, institutionalized racism. No real Jim Crow laws? Well, modern Jim Crow.

As always, the adjectival catch-ups are weaker, more nebulous, and more difficult to define than the actual positions and historical conditions themselves.