team politics talking points.

[Matador]

The ridiculousness of it all.. Not really funny, sad actually.

Did you read both papers (from Ewell and Jackson)? The story is far more nuanced than the "LOL" might imply...

 

[fallout]

Did you read both papers (from Ewell and Jackson)? The story is far more nuanced than the "LOL" might imply...

Yes, I did and it's ridiculous and no, it's not 'nuanced' whatsoever. Typically, when someone needs to say something is 'more nuanced', it's usually a crock of shit.

Do you believe science is racist too?

 

[hodad]

Opinions vary... I am a huge advocate of (real) history and we are far from perfect as a nation, but the modern revisionist history promoted by the left (like 1619 project) seems intent on teaching our children to hate each other and hate their own country.

At least you are consistent pushing your team's world view. This is arguably supporting international efforts to weaken our nation internationally.

I can't read your mind but your written words are ugly enough.

JR

Amusing hearing Republicans worried about hate. I think that's absolute crap, John, and let me tell you why.

I have that history--As mentioned here before, I am the descendant of slave owners, and my great-great grandfather fought for the Confederacy. This is my history, and it's not that far removed. I've thought a lot about how you deal with this. Growing up in the South, I certainly was exposed to a lot of the "Lost Cause" mythology, the lies that it was all about "states' rights" (Cornerstone Speech much, anyone?), and on a more immediate & personal level, I grew up in the era of school desegregation, and I've certainly heard and grown up in a stew of beliefs about the inferiority of African-Americans.

This is the baggage I face--reckoning with the racism, past and present, not just of my nation, but particularly the region of that nation that I live in and love, and reckoning with the racist past of my own family. I don't shy away from that fight, and I don't want to be sheltered from this ugly past by some reactionary Republican legislators claiming they're fighting hate. That's absolute garbage. They're simply whitewashing these problems that have been festering for 150+ years.

History is complicated. Pretending the bad things didn't happen solves nothing. The White South has been laboring under its own delusions for 150+ years regarding the Civil War and slavery. As I said, I deal with this on a personal level--looking at my own family's involvement in both slavery and the war, reckoning with the biases and assumptions about race that are so much a part of the weltanschauung of the world I've grown up in that it's sometimes difficult even to recognize them, much less acknowledge and overcome them.

The answer is not hiding this history. "Protecting" children has more to do with trying to keep them from recognizing the racism in their own parents and grandparents than with hating one another. And it's also team politics (that is the thread we're on, isn't it?) Appealing to the worst, racist nature of its constituents is a proven winner for Republicans, and has been since Nixon. Unfortunately, there are real-world consequences when the Republicans pass actual laws that ban the teaching of history. I'd think you'd be more concerned about that, but I suppose not.

 

[Matador]

it's not 'nuanced' whatsoever

There was no reason for Jackson to utilize sweeping tropes about the black community, such as:

"As I see it, the fundamental reason for the paucity of African American women and men in the field of music theory is that few grew up in homes where classic music is profoundly valued, and therefore lack the necessary background...low socio-economic status does not preclude any racial group from doing so...it is not solely a matter of money....success in classical music is a matter of setting priorities, and summoning inner resources to succeed, no matter what it takes....young African Americans must want to be classical musicians, and their families must be supportive".

It's like he went down a playbook of stereotypical arguments and sweeping generalizations about the black community and packed them all into one page. This is the reason he's getting flak, not his views on voice leading in contemporary baroque aria's.

 

[fallout]

You're grasping at straws.

Do you believe science is racist too? Or is it 'more nuanced' as well?

 

[JohnRoberts]

Amusing hearing Republicans worried about hate. I think that's absolute crap, John, and let me tell you why.

I have that history--As mentioned here before, I am the descendant of slave owners, and my great-great grandfather fought for the Confederacy. This is my history, and it's not that far removed. I've thought a lot about how you deal with this. Growing up in the South, I certainly was exposed to a lot of the "Lost Cause" mythology, the lies that it was all about "states' rights" (Cornerstone Speech much, anyone?), and on a more immediate & personal level, I grew up in the era of school desegregation, and I've certainly heard and grown up in a stew of beliefs about the inferiority of African-Americans.

I have a distant relative on my mother's side who fought for the south. I don't dwell on it or feel any guilt. I do cite it on occasion to neighbors who still consider me a damn yankee despite my living here for more than 3 decades.

This is the baggage I face--reckoning with the racism, past and present, not just of my nation, but particularly the region of that nation that I live in and love, and reckoning with the racist past of my own family. I don't shy away from that fight, and I don't want to be sheltered from this ugly past by some reactionary Republican legislators claiming they're fighting hate. That's absolute garbage. They're simply whitewashing these problems that have been festering for 150+ years.

We have traded barbs about CRT and to repeat myself, the remote learning where parents were able to see what their children were being taught revealed the secret indoctrination occurring in plain view.

History is complicated.

An honest reporting of history should not be complicated, rewriting it to promote agendas gets complicated when facts get pushed aside. Arguing about the intent of people related to events occurring centuries ago is difficult to prove.

You just triggered me to purchase another book I've meant to read. "The President and the Freedom Fighter: Abraham Lincoln, Frederick Douglass, and Their Battle to Save America's Soul Hardcover. I also ordered Schwizers "Red handed" documenting Chinese influence buying.

I suspect you would dismiss both books, as is your right.

Pretending the bad things didn't happen solves nothing. The White South has been laboring under its own delusions for 150+ years regarding the Civil War and slavery.

I can only speak for my experience the last 35 years. I was jokingly warned before I moved down here that the south was still fighting the civil war... Curiously there is a little shred of truth to that, but not with intelligent southerners, mostly the dumbass rednecks (like a couple neighbors I know).

As I said, I deal with this on a personal level--looking at my own family's involvement in both slavery and the war, reckoning with the biases and assumptions about race that are so much a part of the weltanschauung of the world I've grown up in that it's sometimes difficult even to recognize them, much less acknowledge and overcome them.

Sorry you are troubled by the distant past. When I first moved down here I saw some residual effects of the south's ugly past. I've shared this story before but once more for the cheap seats. One day shortly after I moved down here I stopped at a roadside barbecue stand known by the locals as "cockroaches" place, to buy some lunch. When I entered the stand there were a few older black people (is that description PC?) waiting in line. When they saw me, they stepped aside so I could go directly to the counter for immediate service. I declined and went to the back of the line.

The answer is not hiding this history. "Protecting" children has more to do with trying to keep them from recognizing the racism in their own parents and grandparents than with hating one another.

This is contentious and turning children against their parents (an old communist strategy). You routinely infer that I am racist, a pejorative characterization I vigorously deny... of course you consider reading my mind, superior to my own self assessment.

And it's also team politics (that is the thread we're on, isn't it?) Appealing to the worst, racist nature of its constituents is a proven winner for Republicans, and has been since Nixon.

I will resist listing the goto whatabouts.

Unfortunately, there are real-world consequences when the Republicans pass actual laws that ban the teaching of history. I'd think you'd be more concerned about that, but I suppose not.

There is no ban on teaching actual history, but false history borders on indoctrination. There appears to be some jealousy of the success China is having with programming their public, and behavior modification to control them with their system of "social credits."

To repeat if you don't know who the patsy is in the poker game, you are the patsy... I refuse to be the patsy in my own life.

JR

 

[Matador]

Do you believe science is racist too? Or is it 'more nuanced' as well?

No such argument is being made. Ewell wasn't saying that b-flat triads or the Mixolydian mode are racist, he is saying that a) music theory is predominantly taught through analysis of white composers, b) music theory is woefully underrepresented by minorities, and that c) Heinrich Schenker had a lot of terrible views on race, which informed how he thought about music.

So speaking of straws, no, I don't think General Relativity is racist, but nobody is making such an argument so I don't know why you keep bringing it up.

 

[fallout]

You're missing the point.

I'm not saying that General Relativity is racist. The field of science is woefully underrepresented by blacks, no?

Would it be racist if a study in jazz didn't include Dave Brubeck? Miles Davis had a lot of terrible views on race too, which informed how he thought about music. I don't hear anyone squawking about that.

 

[Matador]

The field of science is woefully underrepresented by blacks, no?

Yes it is underrepresented by minorities, and women too.

What does that have to do with what Jackson said that got him into hot water?

 

[fallout]

Yes it is underrepresented by minorities, and women too.

What does that have to do with what Jackson said that got him into hot water?

It's the same argument.

 

[Matador]

Jackson never made any such statements, so now I have no idea what you are arguing against....

But whatever....I posted what he wrote, and why I think he got blowback, and if it's just "LOLz" to you then so be it.

 

[hodad]

We have traded barbs about CRT and to repeat myself, the remote learning where parents were able to see what their children were being taught revealed the secret indoctrination occurring in plain view.

And your firsthand knowledge of this is? I saw remote learning from the teacher's side and the student's side--too bad you don't have any actual experience of it and have to rely on right wing propaganda to "inform" your opinion.

An honest reporting of history should not be complicated, rewriting it to promote agendas gets complicated when facts get pushed aside. Arguing about the intent of people related to events occurring centuries ago is difficult to prove.

Of course it's going to be complicated if you're trying to have an honest accounting. A while back we talked about Bill Barr's comment that "History is written by the winners--" a sentiment you largely concurred with. And it is, rightly or wrongly, often the case. And that means the losers do not get their side of the story told. Of course, when the losers later become the winners, there may be a reckoning about what the former winners said was true.

Sorry you are troubled by the distant past.

It is not, as you claim, distant. I was conversing last week with my mother about my great-grandmother, born in 1870. And the fundaments of my mother's takes on slavery and the Civil War came from a woman born just 5 years after it ended. And we are now, just now, having a reckoning with the monuments to the "noble" Confederate soldiers and leaders, in whose menacing, racist shadows Southern African-Americans have had to walk for decades. (And yes, one of those rare cases where the losers were allowed to write the history.) And the "Lost Cause" mythology is still firmly implanted in the White Southern consciousness. (And then there's the battles for (and against) racial equality from Reconstruction to the present, but I guess all that doesn't count in your book.)

This is contentious and turning children against their parents (an old communist strategy).

So if a parent is a racist, any history that might bring that racism to light is unacceptable?

What about black parents? Are we going to protect their little ones' ears from the "States Rights" BS that is still being taught in the South? Oh wait. When we talk about protecting children in our schools, we should automatically assume we're talking about protecting White children.

There is no ban on teaching actual history, but false history borders on indoctrination.

YES!!!!!! That is why we need to make sure to get rid of the BS about states rights, we need to actually teach about Reconstruction (which largely gets ignored), we need to get rid, completely of the BS about "most slave owners treated their slaves well" (except of course for the being enslaved part), and call it out for what it was.
And JR, if you think all of this is in the past and shouldn't be bothering me, why then should it matter if it's properly taught in schools?

 

[JohnRoberts]

And your firsthand knowledge of this is? I saw remote learning from the teacher's side and the student's side--too bad you don't have any actual experience of it and have to rely on right wing propaganda to "inform" your opinion.

I have zero first hand personal knowledge but have seen video clips that parents captured during remote lessons.

Of course it's going to be complicated if you're trying to have an honest accounting.

"honest"?

A while back we talked about Bill Barr's comment that "History is written by the winners--" a sentiment you largely concurred with.

Bill Barr didn't originate that saying. History is Written by Victors." The quote gets attributed to Winston Churchill, but its origins are unknown. It implies that history is not grounded in facts, rather it's the winners' interpretation of them that prevails. I concur with that sentiment.

Bill Barr has a book coming out soon.. I suspect his publisher will leak some excerpts to generate publicity for sales (another shoe drop to wait for).

And it is, rightly or wrongly, often the case. And that means the losers do not get their side of the story told. Of course, when the losers later become the winners, there may be a reckoning about what the former winners said was true.

The loser's opinions don't get broadcast but hard facts generally persist. There are several notable cases in world history where such attempts to hide evil behavior failed.

It is not, as you claim, distant. I was conversing last week with my mother about my great-grandmother, born in 1870. And the fundaments of my mother's takes on slavery and the Civil War came from a woman born just 5 years after it ended.

I don't dwell on the past, but I do read history (i even listed some in my reading suggestions).

And we are now, just now, having a reckoning with the monuments to the "noble" Confederate soldiers and leaders, in whose menacing, racist shadows Southern African-Americans have had to walk for decades.

The history of the post civil war (reconstruction era) monuments is well inspected and not very respectable (bad losers, how about stone mountain?). Coincidentally the Lt governor of VA the former capitol of the confederacy is now a black woman.

(And yes, one of those rare cases where the losers were allowed to write the history.)

History should be written by historians but it can take a long time for short term perspectives to fade.

And the "Lost Cause" mythology is still firmly implanted in the White Southern consciousness. (And then there's the battles for (and against) racial equality from Reconstruction to the present, but I guess all that doesn't count in your book.)

I'm unsure what consciousness you are referring to, is this another attempt at pejorative?

Racial equality of opportunity or results? I thought the new code word for that was "equity"?

So if a parent is a racist, any history that might bring that racism to light is unacceptable?

I have seem more racist history about MS than I need. Every week while going shopping I drive by the Medgar Evers overpass. I have only lived here 35 years and most of this predates my presence.

What about black parents? Are we going to protect their little ones' ears from the "States Rights" BS that is still being taught in the South? Oh wait. When we talk about protecting children in our schools, we should automatically assume we're talking about protecting White children.

States rights? Is this code for something else?

The federalist system of government and constitution assigns states certain rights, with all the rest going to us the citizens.

YES!!!!!! That is why we need to make sure to get rid of the BS about states rights, we need to actually teach about Reconstruction (which largely gets ignored), we need to get rid, completely of the BS about "most slave owners treated their slaves well" (except of course for the being enslaved part), and call it out for what it was.

I learned about it in school as a (yankee) child. I had above interest in the south since my mother was born in NC and I visit her family home as a child.

And JR, if you think all of this is in the past and shouldn't be bothering me, why then should it matter if it's properly taught in schools?

I suspect we have two very different opinions about what "properly" means. For now I will only agree to disagree since we are unlikely to see this similarly as evidenced by this discussion.

JR

PS: This is exhausting and repetitive....

 

[hodad]

White Southern consciousness = what one grows up hearing/learning/believing while White and Southern. My nephew (in his 20s now) learned in his Southern school that the Civil War wasn't about slavery exactly but about states rights. I saw a quote from a history book used in the South during my childhood that had some malarkey about slaves generally being happy and well-treated--essentially excusing slavery as not really being that bad. Reconstruction, IIRC, was taught in my school as a rather negative thing--not that the White Southern reaction to it was negative, but that those Yankees were being mean. And absolutely nobody was even mentioning the Cornerstone Speech.

PS: This is exhausting and repetitive....

That seems to be your specialty.

 

[JohnRoberts]

White Southern consciousness = what one grows up hearing/learning/believing while White and Southern. My nephew (in his 20s now) learned in his Southern school that the Civil War wasn't about slavery exactly but about states rights.

"Any man who takes it upon himself to explain the causes of the Civil War deserves whatever grief comes his way, regardless of his good intentions."

Of course slavery was central to the North/South divide but it was dominantly about economics. The southern agrarian economy was dependent on cheap labor for the southern establishment to preserve their standard of living. Arguably states right's was the specific defense used by the southern states to resist northern states demands.

There was some debate between our founders about slavery and full citizenship during the initial league of states and articles of confederation discussion in 1787, but our nascent nation was too weak to hold together under too much economic stresses. A century later the culture changed enough that most northern states had already outlawed slavery. Precipitating the civil war.

I saw a quote from a history book used in the South during my childhood that had some malarkey about slaves generally being happy and well-treated--essentially excusing slavery as not really being that bad.

eww...

Reconstruction, IIRC, was taught in my school as a rather negative thing--not that the White Southern reaction to it was negative, but that those Yankees were being mean. And absolutely nobody was even mentioning the Cornerstone Speech.

My grade school lessons also painted the carpet baggers as evil.

Since the cornerstone speech seems important to you, I searched it. meh... some blowhard arguing the southern plantation owner's self interest. That seems like fodder to excite racial enmity today.

That seems to be your specialty.

but you triggered me...

For the record slavery still exists today... how about human sex-trafficking coming across the southern border? Uighurs making Nikes in China?, etc.

JR

 

[Matador]

This thread forced me to re-read some of Coates's book on reparations, and it reminded me of a idea he put forth called "colorblind racism", which was originally from Stephanie A. Fryberg and a paper related to American Indians. However the punchlines (from a Psychology Today article):

In a colorblind society, white people, who are unlikely to experience disadvantages due to race, can effectively ignore racism in American life, justify the current social order, and feel more comfortable with their relatively privileged standing in society (Fryberg, 2010). Most minorities, however, who regularly encounter difficulties due to race, experience colorblind ideologies quite differently. Colorblindness creates a society that denies their negative racial experiences, rejects their cultural heritage, and invalidates their unique perspectives.

Many Americans view colorblindness as helpful to people of color by asserting that race does not matter (Tarca, 2005). But in America, most underrepresented minorities will explain that race does matter, as it affects opportunities, perceptions, income, and so much more. When race-related problems arise, colorblindness tends to individualize conflicts and shortcomings, rather than examining the larger picture with cultural differences, stereotypes, and values placed into context. Instead of resulting from an enlightened (albeit well-meaning) position, colorblindness comes from a lack of awareness of racial privilege conferred by Whiteness (Tarca, 2005). White people can guiltlessly subscribe to colorblindness because they are usually unaware of how race affects people of color and American society as a whole.

I think this is the crux of Hodad's argument: it's not like slavery and Jim Crow was something of the distant past, foisted on the Hittites by the Egyptian pharaohs in 3500BC, it was stuff like this from within the lifetimes of posters on this board:

 

[crazydoc]

Wow!

Legally, we honkeys have had to learn to hide our racisnm better these days, but it's still there crawling its way to the surface.

 

[JohnRoberts]

[edit removed unkind retort /edit]

I do not deny bad stuff happened in the past...

the issue is what is happening today, here...

I don't see any racism in the operation of this forum, if someone does I question their perspective.

[edit deleted some me stuff /edit]

JR

 

[Gold]

I know very little about African American history. I don’t think that’s an accident. I think the best show on TV is Henry Louis Gate’s “Finding Your Roots”. Not every guest is African American but those are the most fascinating ones. You get American history from a perspective you never see. You see people with all the complications of real people.

 

[shabtek]

all history is"revisionist history"--or the side promoted by the editors.
if you can read between the lines of the 'accepted' history books you can get to where today's editors are going
or you can maintain a closed mind and use this as another divisive issue

p.s. I hope nobody in this class feels uncomfortable due to these remarks