Gov. Northam D-Va. in Blackface?

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Wrong again, road apple. The examples from the NY Times and the AP were news stories. Hillary was eulogizing, but in the context of this thread, her comments provide appropriate historical perspective.

The Times and AP stories were written on the very day of his death. So, yes, they were eulogies/tributes of a man who died that day.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Well, that's the Southern Poverty Law Center's conclusion...

Read a little real history and you'll better understand the story of the erection of these statues (and is has nothing to do with the teaching of history (other than a longer for an earlier time when blacks were still enslaved)). It's obvious from the rest of your post that you know essentially nothing about the history of the Civil War, reconstruction and the Jim Crow era.

From a southern perspective, the Civil War was indeed primarily about slavery. From the Union side, it was primarily about maintaining the Union. The South Carolina secession proclamation cited its cause as “an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery” and an unwillingness of northern states to uphold the Fugitive Slave Act. The Mississippi proclamation stated “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of the commerce of the earth. . . . A blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.” All the other written justifications from seceding states said much the same thing.

You'd be wise not to start arguing Civil War history until you're far better informed. Start by reading both Bruce Catton's and Shelby Foote's Civil War trilogies. It seems you know even less about the Civil War than you know about economics (and that's saying something).

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

The Times and AP stories were written on the very day of his death. So, yes, they were eulogies/tributes of a man who died that day.

Newspapers print obituaries for the purpose of paying tribute. There's a special section for that Or they print opinions in the Opinion section. Both of those stories appeared in the NEWS section.

No further spin on your part is required.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by whell

Newspapers print obituaries for the purpose of paying tribute. There's a special section for that Or they print opinions in the Opinion section. Both of those stories appeared in the NEWS section.

No further spin on your part is required.

No argument too stupid for Whell. Can't ever be eulogistic praise in the NEWS section? That's your argument?

And no matter what about long-dead Byrd, the Republicans of today live and breathe racism!

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Read a little real history and you'll better understand the story of the erection of these statues (and is has nothing to do with the teaching of history (other than a longer for an earlier time when blacks were still enslaved)). It's obvious from the rest of your post that you know essentially nothing about the history of the Civil War, reconstruction and the Jim Crow era.

From a southern perspective, the Civil War was indeed primarily about slavery. From the Union side, it was primarily about maintaining the Union. The South Carolina secession proclamation cited its cause as “an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery” and an unwillingness of northern states to uphold the Fugitive Slave Act. The Mississippi proclamation stated “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of the commerce of the earth. . . . A blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.” All the other written justifications from seceding states said much the same thing.

You'd be wise not to start arguing Civil War history until you're far better informed. Start by reading both Bruce Catton's and Shelby Foote's Civil War trilogies. It seems you know even less about the Civil War than you know about economics (and that's saying something).

Um, did you even read my post? You might want to actually read what I wrote before you start you soliloquy.

I didn't state what I believed. I simply stated that there's no universal agreement.

Sometimes I think you'd argue with a doorknob if you thought it could bring you joy. In the case of some of your posts, I suspect it might actually be more entertaining to listen to a doorknob than read them.

[whell]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

No argument too stupid for Whell. Can't ever be eulogistic praise in the NEWS section? That's your argument?

And no matter what about long-dead Byrd, the Republicans of today live and breathe racism!

Bottom line - Yes, opinions belong in the opinion section. It can certainly be news to report on the "eulogistic" comments of others regarding public figures, but that's not what these stories did. The AP NEWS story used the word "hero" twice, and not as a direct quote. Similar for the NY Times NEWS story.

As far as your "live and breathe racism comment"....hmmmm....who was this OP originally about? A Dem? Nice attempt at deflection, though.

[Chicks]

Trump's racist Elizabeth Warren taunts have entered a new phase

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/02/11/pol...ets/index.html

Northam’s transgressions were long ago, deeply regretted, he has learned, and done much good for race relations in the intervening years. Trump (and his idiot followers like Whell) are CURRENTLY fanning the flames, using racist memes to inflame the racist base. The GOP looks on, saying nothing, making them complicit in the racism. Whell simply ignores Donny’s disgusting behavior, or tries to rationalize it by pointing fingers at long ago transgressions. He is simply incapable of understanding the difference, it appears.

[Chicks]

Trump Jr. makes light of Native American genocide while rooting for father's attack on Warren

New Mexico Democratic Rep. Deb Haaland, one of the first Native American women in Congress, said on CNN's "At This Hour" with Kate Bolduan that she took Trump's remark to be about the Trail of Tears.

"He is just completely ignorant when it comes to Native Americans, Native American history," Haaland said. "It's exhausting, right? It's completely exhausting to try to keep up with so much of his ignorance and racism for native people."

Whell's heroes, the ignorant racist Trumpkin family.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Chicks

Trump Jr. makes light of Native American genocide while rooting for father's attack on Warren



Whell's heroes, the ignorant racist Trumpkin family.

Actually, you’re my hero Chicken. I live loudmouth self-proclaimed know it alls who make accusations rather than debate.

[Chicks]

Originally Posted by whell

I live loudmouth self-proclaimed know it alls who make accusations rather than debate.

Yes. Yes you do.