+- +-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 39
Latest: robbrogers
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 7802
Total Topics: 220
Most Online Today: 3
Most Online Ever: 48
(June 03, 2014, 03:09:30 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 1
Total: 1

Author Topic: Mechanisms of Prejudice: Hidden and Not Hidden  (Read 4267 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7632
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences


Agelbert NOTE: Attorney GENERAL SESSIONS (Forget? Haill!) just ain't got no sense of humor AT ALL. Ah just cain't figure it out. Ah mean, if he's such a non-RACIST 'noble feller' and all, what's he makin' such a fuss about?   ;)  It seems to me that fine lady hit a raw racist nerve or two...  

woman     arrested for laughing during Jeff Sessions' confirmation hearing heads to trial

By wagatwe   

Tuesday May 02, 2017 ·  1:51 PM EDT

Daily Kos Social Recommended

TAGS #DesireeFairooz #FreeSpeech #JeffSessions #Racism #RichardShelby

Desiree Fairooz, a woman who laughed when Republican Senator Richard Shelby (AL) introduced now-Attorney General Jeff Sessions by saying his record of “treating all Americans equally under the law is clear and well-documented,is now on trial for laughing at such a blatant lie. Huffington Post reports:

Fairooz was seated in the back of the room, and her laugh did not interrupt Shelby’s introductory speech. But, according to the government, the laugh amounted to willful “disorderly and disruptive conduct” intended to “impede, disrupt, and disturb the orderly conduct” of congressional proceedings. The government also charged her with a separate misdemeanor for allegedly parading, demonstrating or picketing within a Capitol, evidently for her actions after she was being escorted from the room.

The hypocrisy of the U.S. Capitol Police officer who arrested Fairooz and the prosecutors trying her case is easy to find. Fairooz’s lawyer has footage of other times folks laughed during Sessions’ hearingand didn’t get arrested.

Samuel Bogash, a lawyer representing Fairooz, showed a video of the audience laughing at another part of the hearing, when Sessions joked about disagreements with his wife. But [assistant U.S. attorney Jason] Covert argued that it was appropriate for the audience to laugh when Sessions made a joke about his marriage but not when Shelby claimed Sessions had a long record of “treating all Americans equally.”

If it’s truly about Fairooz’s laughing, then this is completely ridiculous. Where are conservative “free speech” advocates now? Conservatives like to mock liberals for being “special snowflakes” yet they’re throwing down the hammer on someone who wouldn’t politely laugh at the Racist Keebler Elf’s jokes

Watch a video of the arrest below: (at link)

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/5/2/1658198/-Woman-arrested-for-laughing-during-Jeff-Sessions-confirmation-hearing-heads-to-trial


UPDATE as of May 4, 2017:

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/5/3/1658557/-Woman-arrested-for-laughing-during-Sessions-confirmation-found-guilty-facing-a-year-in-prison
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7632
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences


Agelbert NOTE: Attorney GENERAL SESSIONS (Forget? Haill!) just ain't got no sense of humor AT ALL. Ah just cain't figure it out. Ah mean, if he's such a non-RACIST 'noble feller' and all, what's he makin' such a fuss about?   ;)  It seems to me that fine lady hit a raw racist nerve or two...  

woman     arrested for laughing during Jeff Sessions' confirmation hearing heads to trial

By wagatwe   

Tuesday May 02, 2017 ·  1:51 PM EDT

Daily Kos Social Recommended

TAGS #DesireeFairooz #FreeSpeech #JeffSessions #Racism #RichardShelby

Desiree Fairooz, a woman who laughed when Republican Senator Richard Shelby (AL) introduced now-Attorney General Jeff Sessions by saying his record of “treating all Americans equally under the law is clear and well-documented,is now on trial for laughing at such a blatant lie. Huffington Post reports:

Fairooz was seated in the back of the room, and her laugh did not interrupt Shelby’s introductory speech. But, according to the government, the laugh amounted to willful “disorderly and disruptive conduct” intended to “impede, disrupt, and disturb the orderly conduct” of congressional proceedings. The government also charged her with a separate misdemeanor for allegedly parading, demonstrating or picketing within a Capitol, evidently for her actions after she was being escorted from the room.

The hypocrisy of the U.S. Capitol Police officer who arrested Fairooz and the prosecutors trying her case is easy to find. Fairooz’s lawyer has footage of other times folks laughed during Sessions’ hearingand didn’t get arrested.

Samuel Bogash, a lawyer representing Fairooz, showed a video of the audience laughing at another part of the hearing, when Sessions joked about disagreements with his wife. But [assistant U.S. attorney Jason] Covert argued that it was appropriate for the audience to laugh when Sessions made a joke about his marriage but not when Shelby claimed Sessions had a long record of “treating all Americans equally.”

If it’s truly about Fairooz’s laughing, then this is completely ridiculous. Where are conservative “free speech” advocates now? Conservatives like to mock liberals for being “special snowflakes” yet they’re throwing down the hammer on someone who wouldn’t politely laugh at the Racist Keebler Elf’s jokes

Watch a video of the arrest below: (at link)

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/5/2/1658198/-Woman-arrested-for-laughing-during-Jeff-Sessions-confirmation-hearing-heads-to-trial


UPDATE as of May 4, 2017:

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/5/3/1658557/-Woman-arrested-for-laughing-during-Sessions-confirmation-found-guilty-facing-a-year-in-prison

Almost unbelievable that she was charged....and now, convicted as well. She certainly got a speedy trial. I'm not sure it's Sessions who was responsible for this miscarriage of justice however, or whether credit should go to his fellow Alabama ass hole Senator Richard Shelby, who was speaking when Ms. Farooz busted out laughing. He doesn't have much of a sense of humor either. Both Sessions and Shelby need a pie in the face.




Well, I AM SURE! And you are being willfully BLIND by even questioning whether or not the Attorney General of the U.S. is not BEHIND THIS UP TO HIS thin skinned, bigoted RACIST EYEBALLS.
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7632
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Almost unbelievable that she was charged....and now, convicted as well. She certainly got a speedy trial. I'm not sure it's Sessions who was responsible for this miscarriage of justice however, or whether credit should go to his fellow Alabama ass hole Senator Richard Shelby, who was speaking when Ms. Farooz busted out laughing. He doesn't have much of a sense of humor either. Both Sessions and Shelby need a pie in the face.




Well, I AM SURE! And you are being willfully BLIND by even questioning whether or not the Attorney General of the U.S. is not BEHIND THIS UP TO HIS thin skinned, bigoted RACIST EYEBALLS.

Well, I AM SURE! And you are being willfully BLIND by even questioning whether or not the Attorney General of the U.S. is not BEHIND THIS UP TO HIS thin skinned, bigoted RACIST EYEBALLS.


People who are always very SURE about everything are frequently completely wrong. I'm the last person to stick up for Sessions, but I'd bet five bucks Shelby pushed for the arrest. At the time she was arrested, Sessions wasn't even sworn in as AG.




Agelbert NOTE: I see. Sessions was just sitting around fat, dumb and happy, blissfully unaware of who was laughing at his own swearing in ceremony. And after he was sworn in, they had to twist the General's arm to authorize criminal chargers against those "disrespectful mockers". ;D Speaking of people who are SURE of things (I.E. your CERTAINTY about the "true cause" of the Civil War and the "irrelevance" of slavery to it):

Contemporary Confederate sympathizers who are SURE that the civil War was "not about slavery" are obscuring Civil War history in hollow romance. They are entitled to their opinion of the cause of the Civil War, regardless of how erroneous it is, but documented history by BOTH Southern and Northern historian scholars correctly brands hollow romance as magical thinking.


April 08, 2015
AMERICAN TALL TALES   

For the last time, the American Civil War was not about states’ rights

SNIPPET:

Northern racists, Southern racists 

In a last-ditch effort to deny the integrality of slavery to Southern secession, a contemporary Confederate sympathizer will inevitably raise the issue of the Corwin amendment. Proposed in the US Senate by William H. Seward of New York and in the House by Thomas Corwin of Ohio in 1861, it was intended to lure seceded states back into the Union (and convince border states to remain) by promising to protect slaveholders from federal interference. Its reference is meant to convey a fallacious argument: that the impetus for secession could not have been the preservation of slavery because a few Northern politicians were willing to forgo abolition to keep the Union intact.

The Corwin amendment was never actually implemented. Only three states—Ohio, Illinois, and Maryland—ratified it. But its mere proposal indicates that the North, like the South, was no ideological monolith. There were men who fought for the Union that believed in the institution of slavery, who believed blacks to be inherently inferior to whites. Likewise, there were men who fought for the Confederacy that never owned slaves (the vast majority, in fact), who didn’t wish to, and who believed in the inherent equality of all men.

But while the Civil War was fought, on the ground, by these ordinary men of diverse opinions, it was not a conflict of their own engineering. Southern secession was not a guerrilla insurgency nor a populist rebellion as the neo-Confederate romantics prefer to believe. It was a conflict between two well-heeled establishments: one that depended—economically and spiritually—on the continued enslavement of black people, and another that did not. Extant racism among Northerners does not extinguish this fact.

Ultimately, the debate over motives for Southern secession trivializes the true shame of antebellum America: the existence of an institution of slavery all together. Which is why the effort to debunk Civil War myths must avoid becoming an exercise in elevating the morality of white Northerners. That too is beside the point. As history inarguably demonstrates, life for free African Americans in the postbellum North was subject to just as many miseries and injustices as in the South. And although one region outpaced the other in the formal abolition of slavery, neither was immune to the informal perpetuation of inequities established by slave-trade.

Obscuring Civil War history in hollow romance, refusing to recognize the true heritage of the Confederacy—these are just two of its many manifestations.

https://qz.com/378533/for-the-last-time-the-american-civil-war-was-not-about-states-rights/



Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7632
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Attorney Confederate Racist GENERAL Sessions

May 5, 2017

Code Pink Activists Convicted for Disrupting Jeff Sessions Hearing

Desiree Fairooz & Lenny Bianchi of the activist group Code Pink tell about their protest and the verdict, which they say was unjustified.  


Kim Brown: Welcome to The Real News Network in Baltimore, I'm Kim Brown. One of the early hallmarks of this Trump administration has been the crack down on some for targeted actions as well as a harsh reaction from law enforcement on protestors. Do you remember the confirmation hearings for then Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions to become Attorney General? ...


Speaker: The nomination is approved by the committee and will be reported to the floor. Meeting over


Protestor: Shame. Shame. Shame. You have furthered the nomination of a man who will not protect the vulnerable. That is why we have an attorney general. Shame


Kim Brown: As you just saw they were dragged from the gallery in the Senate office there on Capitol Hill. On Wednesday a demonstrator with the activist organization Code Pink was found guilty of disorderly conduct. Other people were also convicted of various charges related to that Sessions disruptions and today we are joined with two of the members of Code Pink who were involved in that action, Desiree Fairooz and Lenny Bianchi. We want to thank you both for joining us here on The Real News.


Lenny Bianchi: Hello.


Desiree Fairooz: Hi.


Kim Brown: So Desiree, obviously we have seen a lot of coverage of not only the demonstration right there in Jeff Sessions' confirmation hearing, but your conviction on Wednesday is receiving a lot of coverage as well. So talk to us about what happened in court on Wednesday.


Desiree Fairooz: On Wednesday surprisingly we were found guilty. I was found guilty for disrupting Congress, and for raiding.


Kim Brown: What were prosecutors saying about your conduct and what type of penalties were they seeking as it related to your conviction?


Lenny Bianchi: The prosecutors haven't indicated to us what they're going to ask for with regard to sentencing. Each of the charges carries a maximum of six months in prison, and each of us are convinced on two charges. I believe there's also a possible fine associated but I'm not sure what the amount of the fine is.


Kim Brown: So what were your thoughts as you heard what the verdicts were connected to the both of your charges that you were facing? What was your immediate reaction, and what were you thinking about how not only your rights have been impacted here, but the rights of other people planning actions to resist this administration, and what their consequences could be?


Desiree Fairooz: Well I was definitely disappointed in the verdict. We were hoping for a sympathetic jury. We were hoping that they too would be concerned as we are about a Jeffrey Sessions Department of Justice, and we were surprised.


Kim Brown: So Desiree, take us back to that day. Take us back to that moment inside the Senate chamber where you stood up and begin to shout. What were you saying specifically and who were you saying it to?


Desiree Fairooz: Well my action happened after my codefendant Lenny and Ty Berry were removed from the room, so it was moments later, minutes later after they were removed that Senator Shelby made a comment in his introduction to Jeff Sessions, that is why he was worthy of the position of Attorney General because he believed he would be unbiased and he would treat all Americans equally. I found that comment laughable. Involuntarily I let out a giggle. A few moments passed and then a young Capitol Police officer approached me as I was seated in my seat at that time, and said something to the effect of "Ma'am, please come with me." I couldn't understand why I was being removed.
   We had followed the instructions of Capitol Police up and to that point as the members of Code Pink were all dressed in pink garb to look like Lady Liberty, and we sat down when we instructed to sit down, and put our signs down when we were instructed to put our signs down, and were cooperating and behaving as decorum required after the gavel was struck. So I was surprised that I was being removed for giggling.


Kim Brown: So Lenny if I have this correct, you were on Capitol Hill dressed in a Ku Klux Clan outfit, full with the pointed hat and the white robes, et cetera. Obviously this was a coordinated planned action on behalf of you and the other protestors, and on behalf of Code Pink, so what were you hoping to accomplish?


Lenny Bianchi: Well with regard to the action that I was involved in, it was myself and one other person. Our purpose was to have a little political theater, to have a parody, in which there would be members of the Ku Klux Clan that would welcome Mr. Sessions into the hearing room as he entered the room. It wasn't really coordinated with any other actions of Code Pink, it was just an action that stood by itself. What we did was, as soon as Mr. Sessions entered the room, this was before the hearing had begun, the gavel hadn't struck, there were according to the prosecutor about 500 people in this very large hearing room, so it was very noisy. Lots of people talking, and shouting and laughing and so forth.
   As soon as he entered the room we stood up on our chairs with our outfits on, and began waving to him and calling out to him as if we were welcoming him as Ku Klux Clan. It lasted for about 13 seconds before the police hauled us out of the room.


Protestor: Thank you so much for being here for the people. What do we have to do? Wait a minute. You cant arrest me. I'm white. White people don't get arrested. Wait a minute. What do we have to? Wait for the inauguration?


Lenny Bianchi: But we certainly didn't expect to be arrested because we hadn't disrupted anything, the hearing hadn't begun yet. The room was already very noisy.


Kim Brown: Had either of you been involved with protest actions prior to Donald Trump becoming President, and if so have you noticed a difference in how law enforcement treated you then verses how you were handled in January?


Desiree Fairooz: Well I would like to say that we have participated in several hearings, and the reaction to the Capitol Police is never one that you can count on for sure, but normally they wouldn't eject us for laughing. We participated in hearings where we held signs or banners, and then were removed if they didn't want us to stay, and not arrest us, or we've been ignored totally and were allowed to stay at the back of the room where we were for the entire hearing. It's not predictable. We did not expect that we would be arrested for what occurred that day.


Kim Brown: Do either of you feel as if your actions were commiserate with the charges that you faced and potential consequences from those charges that you both were convicted on in DC court this past Wednesday? Were you prepared to deal with the possibility of arrest and facing charges, or do you feel as if your First Amendment rights, your freedom of speech, your freedom to assemble have been violated in any way?


Lenny Bianchi: As Desiree mentioned, we have participated in other political actions, and at times we realize that there may be risk of arrest, and so we have to make a decision whether or not we want to risk arrest or not. In this case, we did not anticipate arrest. And so like in my case I was simply exercising First Amendment right as a private citizen does not leave their First Amendment rights on the hallway when they enter into a hearing. It doesn't mean that they're allowed to interrupt, that's not what we did.
   In Desiree's case, all she did was sound for about two seconds, laughter. That's all she did. It's just absurd that she would have been hauled out of the room and arrested, and be facing two charges totalling twelve months in prison. That's extremely harsh and just absurd. The cost of this to the government, to the people whose taxes pay for all of these things is just unbelievable. All the court appearances that we have to make, the jurors that came in, I'm sure it adds up to quite a hefty sum of money for something so small, so trivial.
   We didn't harm anyone, we didn't use any threatening or obscene speech or any hate speech, nothing like that at all. We simply used our First Amendment rights to express ourselves which in regard to Desiree's laughing, later on in the hearing there was other laughter as senators and others joked about Mr. Sessions and his relationship with his wife, and the audience would laugh. Someone even when he was questioned as part of a joke. Someone called out from the audience "Don't forget you're under oath." So apparently at that time it was okay to speak out even during the hearing, it was okay to laugh even during the hearing. But I guess it depends on who's laughing or what they're laughing at as to whether it's an arrestable offense.


Kim Brown: Last question for the both of you. Do you have any intentions to participate in any protests or resistance actions against the Trump administration going forward, even despite what you have gone through in regards to the consequences of this incident from January?


Desiree Fairooz: I certainly plan to. There are so many issues about this administration that we take issue with. We participated at the airport against the ban and in support of refugees and immigrants. We would appear at
Department of Justice when issues around Black Lives Matter and police brutality. We marched on issues of health, climate, so yeah we're not going to stop.


Lenny Bianchi: To give you an idea, within an hour after we left the courtroom having been convicted, we were in front of the White House participating in a Palestinian riots demonstration in front of the White House with many other people. Whether they end up putting us in prison or not, we're not going to be silent. We're going to continue speaking up for those who suffer injustice because of policies of this government.


Desiree Fairooz: And we must continue speaking up because if we don't use it, we will lose our right to do so. This administration seems bent on squashing the set, and I think the more people see that there are citizens willing to step out of their box, step out of their daily lives to speak out and stand up for our rights, I think more will be inspired to do likewise.


Kim Brown: Indeed. Well we have been speaking with Desiree Fairooz and Lenny Bianchi, members of the activist organization Code Pink who were arrested during Jeff Sessions' confirmation hearings to become Attorney General back in January. On Wednesday they were convicted on a variety of charges including disorderly conduct. We want to thank you both for taking the time to speak with us and we wish you both the best of luck going forward.


Desiree Fairooz: Thank you for having us.


Lenny Bianchi: Thank you very much.


Desiree Fairooz: Bye.


Kim Brown: Thank you and thank you very much for watching and supporting The Real News Network.


END
-----------------------------------------------

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=19020
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7632
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Yeah, we're Virginia proud.  >:(

White Supremacist Richard Spencer leads a KKK-style mob of torch-wielding protesters chanting 'you will not replace us' in fight to keep a statue of Robert E. Lee in Virginia park

Alt-right leader Richard Spencer, 39, led the protests held in Virginia
The marchers were protesting against the removal of a Robert Lee monument
Demonstration only lasted ten minutes before police were called
Mayor has denounced the gathering, saying it echoes practices of the KKK
http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/index.php?topic=9602.msg131531#msg131531


RE said: I don't think you can really claim Spencer's movement is a backlash to the modern civil rights movement and social experiments with welfare.  White Supremacists movements have been around a lot longer than that, see the Nazis, the Eugenics Movement and the Ku Klux Klan.

Eddie said: Sure it is.

No one alive now is directly connected to the real Nazis or the eugenics movement, and KKKer's have been considered a bunch of knuckle-dragging idiots by educated Southerners for most of my adult life. They have had very little support outside certain very racist enclaves. Even with my southern heritage, I never met or knew of anyone personally who was in the Klan.

If you study the real history of the Klan, you will find that it died out as a political force in the early 1870's, was almost extinct, only to be brought back around 1910, by a group of racist joiners out of Atlanta. It had a second, very nasty wave, but then faded again with the Depression. Throughout most of my adult life, most Klan rallies in the South were met with large protests, including plenty of white people who opposed their agenda.

Spencer's followers are very different from the Klan. They have a base of intellectual thinkers who can muster rational explanations for their gripes, and lumping Spencer and the alt-right with the Klan is fallacious. Spencer is smart and appealing to a lot of working class whites who deeply resent Affirmative Action. And they see that it's perfectly okay to be a proud black man, but that claiming to be a proud white man is to be labeled a racist.

That's crap, my brother. 
 

RE said: Sure, each of these movements "died out" to one extent or another under their original names, but the overall tradition of White Supremacist thinking and philosophy never did.  It keeps popping back up in a new incarnation under a new Brand Name, like a corporation that goes outta biz but then all the managers form up a new company and sell the same product over again.

Far as Spencer's movement having an intellectual underpinning and "respectable" thinkers it could muster up to justify their positions, so did the Eugenics movement.


Quote
The American eugenics movement was rooted in the biological determinist ideas of Sir Francis Galton, which originated in the 1880s. Galton studied the upper classes of Britain, and arrived at the conclusion that their social positions were due to a superior genetic makeup.[11] Early proponents of eugenics believed that, through selective breeding, the human species should direct its own evolution. They tended to believe in the genetic superiority of Nordic, Germanic and Anglo-Saxon peoples; supported strict immigration and anti-miscegenation laws; and supported the forcible sterilization of the poor, disabled and "immoral".[12] Eugenics was also supported by African Americans intellectuals such as W. E. B. Du Bois, Thomas Wyatt Turner, and many academics at Tuskegee University, Howard University, and Hampton University; however, they believed the best blacks were as good as the best whites and "The Talented Tenth" of all races should mix.[13] W. E. B. Du Bois believed "only fit blacks should procreate to eradicate the race's heritage of moral iniquity."[13][14]  ::)

The American eugenics movement received extensive funding from various corporate foundations including the Carnegie Institution, Rockefeller Foundation, and the Harriman railroad fortune.[7] In 1906 J.H. Kellogg provided funding to help found the Race Betterment Foundation in Battle Creek, Michigan.[11] The Eugenics Record Office (ERO) was founded in Cold Spring Harbor, New York in 1911 by the renowned biologist Charles B. Davenport, using money from both the Harriman railroad fortune and the Carnegie Institution. As late as the 1920s, the ERO was one of the leading organizations in the American eugenics movement.[11][15] In years to come, the ERO collected a mass of family pedigrees and concluded that those who were unfit came from economically and socially poor backgrounds. Eugenicists such as Davenport, the psychologist Henry H. Goddard, Harry H. Laughlin, and the conservationist Madison Grant (all well respected in their time) began to lobby for various solutions to the problem of the "unfit". Davenport favored immigration restriction and sterilization as primary methods; Goddard favored segregation in his The Kallikak Family; Grant favored all of the above and more, even entertaining the idea of extermination.[16] The Eugenics Record Office later became the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory.

There were many others, including as I recall Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, H.G. Wells and Margaret Sanger among others.  The Nazis of course had the same intellectual underpinning, since Hitler glommed the s h i t from the Eugenics crowd.  So I don't think my argument is crap here.
 

Regardless of whether you want to consider this something brand new or part of a long tradition though, the fact remains that a large portion of the world is seeking retribution for the past crimes of White people and their industrial war machine and economic oppression.  Consider yourself lucky down in Texas if all the Mexicans demand is removal of statues of Davey Crockett and Jame Bowie at the Alamo.

You'll be a lot safer up here in Alaska.  There aren't enough First Nations People left here to take much retribution.

RE

[/quote]

Well said. I hasten to add the Eugenics cheap racist excuse movement grabbed Darwin's Theory of Evolution to justify absolutely every form of prejudice, defamatory mendacity and assorted self serving white supremacy BULLSHIT on behalf of empathy deficit disordered CAPITALIST profit over people and planet (plus black genocide by Germany in Africa around the time of WWI - which DIRECTLY influenced Hitler's racist genocidal policies later on).

But BELOW PLEASE FIND, the way most Southerners of reasonably good will, such as Eddie, view this whole racism thing ALWAYS in the light of the alleged "false" version of the cause of the Civil War:

Quote
Aglebert NOTE: There is a gif of a Confederate flag waving  prior to the title below.

 
The Civil War was NOT over slavery by Amy M. Wrobel

amy_wrobel@att.net

I am a devout Southerner who is proud of my heritage. I am, however, tired of hearing such things as: "Southerners are ignorant," "Southerners are trash," "Southerners are racists," "The Civil war was over slavery," "whites treated the blacks horribly," "Southerners are uneducated." But so far the worst is that the "South was wrong." and "the Union was correct."

As I said before, I am a PROUD Southern woman and anyone who knows me can attest to the fact that I am a loud, proud, outspoken person when it comes to my heritage. They can also, however, attest to the fact that I am not, in any way, shape or form, a prejudiced person.

This is not written to offend anyone who doesn't share my same beliefs, but I can assure you that if you were taught and believe the "Northern ways of life" that this will, for lack of better terms, **** you off. I will warn you now I am a very intellectual individual and if you try to contradict me I can throw a book of solid facts at you. I am going to speak about the black Confederates. Yes, they existed and there were over 65,000 of them, both slave and free. What the war was really about, and both the point of view of Confederate Generals and Union Generals on the act of slavery. I will also touch on how blacks were treated both before and after the war and how the white population is being treated now as a minority.

First things first, the 16th president of the United States, Abraham Lincoln; Lincoln was NOT an abolitionist. William Lloyd Garrison, the most prominent of all abolitionists, concluded that Lincoln "had not a drop of anti-slavery blood in his veins." Lincoln was against social and political equality of the races, he opposed inter-racial marriages, supported the Illinois Constitution's prohibition of immigration of blacks into the state, defended a slave owner who was seeking to retrieve his runaway slaves but never defended slaves or runaways themselves, and he was a lifelong advocate of colonization - of sending every last black person in the U.S. to Africa, Haiti, or central America - anywhere but in the United States. In August of 1852 Lincoln said "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it… what I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union." Lincoln also said on September 18th, 1858, "I will say, then, that I am not, nor have I ever been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races." In 1861 Lincoln was asked "why not let the South go in peace?" He replied by saying "I can't let them go. Who would pay for the government?" I have found no proof that Lincoln was a slave owner, but I can tell you without a doubt in my mind that he was not seeking to abolish slavery.

Two acts of Congress were passed during the Civil War, One in 1864 (13 Stat. 11) and one in 1866 (14 Stat. 321) which allowed slave owners whose slaves enlisted or were drafted into the Union military to file a claim against the Federal Government for loss of the slave's services. The Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 freed slaves in the Southern or 'rebellious' states but in border-states that were loyal to the Union, slavery continued to be legal. If a slave ran away to join the military and the owner knew where and when he joined, the owner could file a compensation claim as long as he or she was loyal to the Union. There were also free blacks who owned slaves. And something else you might not know, it was the Africans who sold their own people into slavery. Union Generals Grant and Sherman were slave owners as well. Confederate Generals Jackson and Lee were not.

Confederate President Jefferson Davis not only envisioned black confederate veterans but also envisioned them receiving bounty lands for their service. There would have been no future for slavery once the armed black CSA veterans came home after the war.

John Parker, a former slave, recorded that many colored Confederate soldiers were killed in action. The "Richmond Howitzers" were partially manned by black militiamen who saw action at the 1st Battle of Bull Run. There were also two black regiments, one free and one slave, who participated in the same battle on behalf of the South. One black Confederate was a non-commissioned officer by the name of James Washington. One was in Company D, 35th Texas Cavalry, Confederate States Army and became 3rd Sergeant. There were also higher ranking commissioned black Confederates. James Russell was a free 'man of color' and the cook for Company C, 24th South Carolina Volunteer Infantry. Unfortunately, he was killed in action at Missionary Ridge on November 25th, 1863. Private Louis Napoleon Nelson was also a free man of color and served time in the 7th Tennessee Cavalry under General Nathan Bedford Forrest. He fought at Shiloh, Lookout Mountain, Brice's Crossing, and Vicksburg and survived the war.

General Grant made the comment that, "The sole object of this war is to restore the Union. Should I be convinced it has any other object, or that the government designs using its soldiers to execute the wishes of the abolitionists, I pledge to you my honor as a man and a soldier I would resign my commission and carry my sword to the other side" in a letter to the Chicago Tribune 1862. Union General William T. Sherman said in 1864 "I am honest in my belief that it is not fair to my men to count negros as equals. Let us capture negros, of course, and use them to the best advantage." As I said before, these two men both owned slaves, and did not want to free them. I honestly do not see how so many "politically correct" people can stand there and say the "North was right."

Confederate General Robert E. Lee, however, saw the world of slavery from a different view. He said "There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery is an institution of a moral and political evil" In 1858. In 1866 he also made a statement that "All the south ever desired was that the union, as established by our forefathers, be preserved; and that the Government, as originally organized, should be administered in purity and truth." It wasn't a far fetched idea yet the people in this country then and still today are yet to grasp hold of something like morals, purity, or truth. But I guess that's where Confederate States President Jefferson Davis comes in with "Truth crushed to the earth is truth still and like a seed will rise again."

I will not deny that most slaves were treated poorly. I feel pity for those who had to endure lashes for not doing their "masters bidding". But as I said before, Africans sold their OWN people into slavery and there is still slavery going on in other parts of the world. And do not think that blacks were the only ones in this country who were slaves. During the 17th century Native Americans (My Ancestors) were enslaved by colonists on a common basis. But just because Southern whites owned slaves it is now taken out on the white population today. My family never once owned a slave and a select few of my ancestors fought beside them in the Civil War. My Aunt Evelynn is a Southern black woman whom I love dearly. As well as friends of both my husband and myself who are colored. I do not agree with slavery on any point. There were free blacks whom owned slaves and a large majority of northerners owned slaves.

Now because of slavery over 150 years ago, whites are being treated like dirt. It is almost like the mentality of a kid I knew in school who told me once that since I'm white that my family owned slaves and I should owe him everything I own. That's not the mentality of a country that should be living together in harmony. You never see the ones who are pissed at the white population for crimes committed 150 plus years ago ever leaving to go live in Africa. If you are going to hold every white person accountable for the acts of whites AND blacks more than a lifetime ago, then go to Africa and hold them accountable as well. Until then, learn the facts before you speak. If you speak intellectually I will gladly listen to and respect you, otherwise I will blow you off as another ignorant individual who couldn't pay attention to true history to save your life.

If you would like the sources from which I found all this information, message me and I will gladly send it to you. I applaud those who actually will look up the correct history on their own.

"Surrender means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written off by the enemy, that our youths will be taught by Northern school teachers; learn from Northern school books THEIR version of the war." Confederate General Patrick R. Cleburne 1864.
http://www.confederateamericanpride.com/notslavery.html


So, what is wrong with this fine lady's analysis? ???

It is based, NOT on the reality of the two elite groups fighting for economic gain, but on the way the people on the ground in the South, WHO DID NOT START THE WAR, felt then and now.

She is right about how many Southerners felt and feel now. SO WHAT? THAT doesn't have any bearing on the fact that slavery was the economic raison d'ętre for the wealth of the Southern elite BECAUSE they went FULL COTTON after the God Damned cotton gin was invented.

Hollow romance about what motivated the LEADERS of the Confederacy is NOT HISTORY.

The article below explains why the Confederate flag and all monuments associated with the confederacy should be remembered as racist memorials, PERIOD. Southern nostalgia for the pre-Civil War South is based on hollow romance. And any claim that the South was fighting for "states rights" is a cheap, and historically inaccurate racist dodge.

HERE ARE THE FACTS:
AMERICAN TALL TALES

For the last time, the American Civil War was not about states’ rights

Written by Jake Flanagin

April 08, 2015

This week marks the 150th anniversary of Robert E. Lee’s surrender to the Union—an occasion for celebration, or mourning, depending on which side of the Mason-Dixon line you fall on.

In this way, the historiography of the Civil War is somewhat unique. Rarely in human history has a conflict’s losing side been lent such considerable say in how the textbooks remember it. As such, American social studies curricula have long been hobbled by one of the most pervasive myths in US history: that the Civil War was fought to preserve (or undermine) the spectral concept of “states’ rights.”

It’s a self-delusion some use to justify neo-Confederate pride: stars-and-bars bumper stickers, or remnants of Confederate iconography woven into some of today’s state flags. “It’s about Southern pride,” they insist. “It’s about heritage”—forgetting, intentionally perhaps, that slavery and its decade-spanning echoes are very much a part of the collective American heritage. Confederate denialism, in the form of states’ rights advocacy, permits sentimentalists to keep their questionable imagery without having to address its unsavory associations.

Just how pervasive are these Confederate mythologies? An informal survey conducted in 2011 by James W. Loewen, published by the Southern Poverty Law Center, found that 55% to 75% of American teachers—“regardless of region or race”—cite states’ rights as the chief reason for Southern secession. This attitude is also reflected in a Pew Research Center poll from that same year, which found that nearly half (48%) of all Americans agreed: the Civil War was fought over states’ rights. Only 38% of those surveyed attribute the conflict to slavery.

So-called states’ rights

No one seems to be able to agree on which specific Southern rights were in danger, but that’s really beside the point. The fact is, Southern states seceded in spite of states’ rights, and the Confederacy’s founding documents offer plenty of proof.

In its constitution, Confederate leaders explicitly provided for the federal protection of slaveholding:


“In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.”

It’s a provision that clashes jarringly with neo-Confederate mythos—how could the South secede to preserve states’ rights if its own constitution mandated legal, federally protected slavery across state borders?

South Carolina was the first state to secede from the Union. On Dec. 24, 1860, its government issued a “Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union.” In it, South Carolinian leaders aired objections to laws in Northern states—specifically, those that sprung from the case of Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842), in which the US Supreme Court ruled that state authorities could not be forced to help return fugitive slaves to the South. Ensuing individual state legislation in New England would double down on that very ruling, expressly forbidding state officials from enforcing the federal Fugitive Slave Acts, or the use of state jails to detain fugitive slaves.

In effect, South Carolina seceded because the federal government would not overturn abolitionist policies in Northern states. South Carolina seceded because the federal government would not violate a state’s right to abstain from slavery and its concomitant policies.

Taxes and tariffs

Another strain of Confederate apologia asserts secession inspired by high taxes, in the form of heavy tariffs. Once again, the neo-Confederates are wrong, and South Carolinian history proves it. The state first raised the threat of secession in 1831 and 1833, events known collectively as the Nullification Crisis. South Carolina declared the federal tariffs of 1828 and 1832 unconstitutional, and therefore null within state borders. No other state government backed the move, president Jackson threatened force, and South Carolina abandoned the idea.

No matter! A Virginian slaveholder wrote a new tariff in 1857, which was passed and generally well-received by Southern members of Congress as it stipulated a record-low rate. Thus, at the time of war, Southerners had no real reason to complain (with regards to tariffs): a plantation owner in Louisiana could export his cotton to Europe at the lowest tariff rate instituted since 1816.

Counting states, taking sides


It isn’t entirely inaccurate, however, to say that the war was fought over money. Most human conflicts are, in some way. In this case, the money issue centered around potential losses Southern titans of agribusiness would experience if slavery was abolished at the federal level. Federally mandated emancipation would require a majority of free states in the US Senate—something Southern lawmakers fought tooth-and-nail to impede.

As a result, the number of free and slave-states was kept equal until 1846, when the count reached 15 and 14, respectively. This imbalance exacerbated tensions between North and South significantly, reducing Southern leaders to a culture of extreme paranoia. Secession, in this sense, was very much a preemptive move.

The Southern aristocracy feared the impending election of Abraham Lincoln would ultimately bring about nationwide emancipation. He and his supporters were known, after all, as “black Republicans,” a term purposefully designed to conjure an image of radical abolitionism. Lincoln’s famous “House Divided” speech of 1858 only aggravated tensions, clarifying the divide between an abolitionist North and a slave-dependent South:


“A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved—I do not expect the house to fall—but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become lawful in all the States, old as well as new—North as well as South.”

Neo-Confederates regard the material of this speech as “proof” of Lincoln’s priority of concerns: preservation of the Union above abolition of slavery. They may be correct. But at the time of its delivery, Southern leaders heard these words and thought one thing: Lincoln aims to abolish slavery at the federal level. Lincoln aims to destroy our way of life.

Declaring a Confederacy

So, as this preemptive secession commenced, Southern state governments issued declarations of secession that placed the preservation of slavery front and center. Mississippi’s is perhaps the most infamous—though also among the most pragmatic. It generally concerns the preservation of the South’s slave-dependent export-economy. “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery—the greatest material interest of the world,” it reads. “Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth.”

The declaration of secession for Texas is perhaps the most dogmatic. On Feb. 2, 1861, state leaders published a defense of slavery that amounted to little more than a bizarre, quasi-eugenic treatise for white supremacy. “Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated States to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility [sic] and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people,” it begins, before taking a wildly offensive turn, even by the standards of the day:


“We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.”

Of all the state governments that published “declarations of the causes of secession” like these (some published shorter “ordinances of secession”), none mentioned the ostensible injustices of America’s tariff system. None complained of high taxes, or even states’ rights in a general sense. All, however, passionately pontificated on the necessity of preserving an institution of slavery; and that no such preservation could be maintained within the Union as it was then organized. Ironically, secession, and the creation of a Confederacy was the only conceivable way of maintaining the status quo.

Northern racists, Southern racists

In a last-ditch effort to deny the integrality of slavery to Southern secession, a contemporary Confederate sympathizer will inevitably raise the issue of the Corwin amendment. Proposed in the US Senate by William H. Seward of New York and in the House by Thomas Corwin of Ohio in 1861, it was intended to lure seceded states back into the Union (and convince border states to remain) by promising to protect slaveholders from federal interference. Its reference is meant to convey a fallacious argument: that the impetus for secession could not have been the preservation of slavery because a few Northern politicians were willing to forgo abolition to keep the Union intact.

The Corwin amendment was never actually implemented. Only three states—Ohio, Illinois, and Maryland—ratified it. But its mere proposal indicates that the North, like the South, was no ideological monolith. There were men who fought for the Union that believed in the institution of slavery, who believed blacks to be inherently inferior to whites. Likewise, there were men who fought for the Confederacy that never owned slaves (the vast majority, in fact), who didn’t wish to, and who believed in the inherent equality of all men.

But while the Civil War was fought, on the ground, by these ordinary men of diverse opinions, it was not a conflict of their own engineering. Southern secession was not a guerrilla insurgency nor a populist rebellion as the neo-Confederate romantics prefer to believe. It was a conflict between two well-heeled establishments: one that depended—economically and spiritually—on the continued enslavement of black people, and another that did not. Extant racism among Northerners does not extinguish this fact.

Ultimately, the debate over motives for Southern secession trivializes the true shame of antebellum America: the existence of an institution of slavery all together. Which is why the effort to debunk Civil War myths must avoid becoming an exercise in elevating the morality of white Northerners. That too is beside the point. As history inarguably demonstrates, life for free African Americans in the postbellum North was subject to just as many miseries and injustices as in the South. And although one region outpaced the other in the formal abolition of slavery, neither was immune to the informal perpetuation of inequities established by slave-trade.

Obscuring Civil War history in hollow romance, refusing to recognize the true heritage of the Confederacy—these are just two of its many manifestations.

We welcome your comments at ideas@qz.com.
https://qz.com/378533/for-the-last-time-the-american-civil-war-was-not-about-states-rights/

Agelbert NOTE: For anyone that believes states rights had BEANS to do with the Civil War, dinner is served:
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7632
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Far as Spencer's movement having an intellectual underpinning and "respectable" thinkers it could muster up to justify their positions, so did the Eugenics movement.

And, in the same exact way, there was (and still is)  a small kernel of baby in the eugenics bathwater that got thrown out. Instead of eugenics, we have chosen what could be described quite logically as "anti-eugenics". We keep every defective baby alive and give support to every person incapable of carrying his/her own weight, and allow everyone to perpetuate whatever genetic defects they might have, with impunity.

I believe you are capable of seeing the problems with that approach.

The problem with Eugenics is that it disproportionately is applied to poor people.  Rather than selectively breeding by actual ability, what it does is selectively breed by economic circumstance.

So for instance, a certifiable IDIOT like Dubya or Trump is not aborted or Euthanized after birth as would make CFS with real Eugenics, but rather lots of poor people are sent to gas chambers.

If you read my 12 Step Plan for a Better Tomorrow, you will see it has a Eugenics Component in it.  There is a Leadership Test and a Test for Survival at puberty.  Acolytes who do not pass this test are not given permission by the tribe to marry or reproduce, although they can live out their lives as contributors to the tribe.  I have also come out in favor of Euthanasia for infants born with extreme defects like Spina Bifida or severe retardation.  Also in favor of Euthanasia of the Elderly and Infirm (such as myself) to rid the society of that burden too.  I am extremely Darwinian in all these areas.

HOWEVER, my Eugenics has nothing whatsoever to do with Race or Economic Circumstances, it is applied across the board to all equally in the society.  No 7 Heart Transplants for Rich Fucks like David Rockefeller.  No reproduction from dimwits like the Bushes, who have now given us at least 3 generations of IDIOTS in charge of our Goobermint.  With my system, Prescott Bush would never have reproduced at all!  His line would have been snuffed out by the Test for Ecological & Economic Wisdom.

I am all for Eugenics done correctly.  I am totally against Eugenics as it has been defined and applied by White people with the biggest and best guns.

RE

I think God has done a fairly decent job of taking care of Eugenics, than you very much. It's called "natural selection", I believe.

The issue here is RACISM, is it not? Eugenics, a product of DO NOT PASS GO, DO NOT COLLECT "GOOD" OFFSPRING DARWIN's THEORY, if applied intelligently in today's world, where we KNOW about DNA and cellular machinery that Darwin and his RACIST PALS and their racist scientist community (who had Australian natives shot to collect their skeletons along with those "scientists" from Germany in Africa that collected African skulls for the "study" of primate evolution) who didn't have a CLUE how genetic traits are passed on to offspring, would ADMIT that racism is one of the stupidest and unscientific concepts that has EVER afflicted mankind.

WHY DON'T THEY ADMIT THAT there is ZERO evolutionary difference between ANY human, even the "genius" ones that have helped make weapons that will probably destroy mankind? HELLO? WHAT is "genius", RE? Is that your ability to read 5000 words a minute or to build stuff with tools or to outsmart another human in some sort of competition? HOW do you KNOW that is an "evolutionary advantage" that you could then quantify, classify and gene snip to make what YOU believe is a "super" human? 

The FACT IS, you DON'T have those skills. The FACT IS, humans are cursed with the DISLIKE OF THE UNLIKE in appearance for ABSOLUTELY NO SCIENTIFICALLY VALID REASON.

And the scientific community, which SHOULD HAMMER THAT FACT into children in schools from the time they are knee high to a grasshopper until they get ready to retire, REFUSE to TALK ABOUT IT.

The imbecilic cognitive dissonance of people who claim to be scientifically literate, but still hold onto prejudices about people of different "races" (a TOTALLY unscientific artificial cultural construct) is, to quote Trump, SAD!
« Last Edit: May 14, 2017, 05:39:30 pm by AGelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7632
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences

Kid: Southerners are sayin' that evil and totally unjustified affirmative action of the 1960s on is what made the poor downtrodden Southern Whites angry at those uppity you-know-whats.

Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7632
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences

I think God has done a fairly decent job of taking care of Eugenics, than you very much. It's called "natural selection, I believe.

Given the fact we have bred up so many empathy deficit disorder folks like Dubya & Trump, Natural Selection hasn't been working so good lately.

RE


I beg to differ. You are Exhibit A in that regard because you, and people like you (and most diners) have recognized that we are heading balls out to extinction if we don't get rid of the parasites pronto.


So, YOU KNOW that NATURAL SELECTION might just be SELECTING HOMO SAPS OUT of the biosphere. 

Not only do we NOT have the CFS to get along with nature, we make up bullshit about different "races" being superior or inferior to the "more evolved" among us   when SCIENCE says we humans are ALL GENETICALLY about as "diverse" as Cheetahs.

Cheetahs get along despite outward differences. Why can't we? ???

Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7632
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Shan Kothari  , constantly evolving.  ::)

Compared to many other species, humans have much lower genetic variation. An oft-quoted statistic for human genetic diversity is that we differ on average by about one in a thousand base pairs, which amounts to 0.1% average pairwise variation. [1]

This is not much. It's lower than it is in chimpanzees [2][3]. It's certainly lower than it is in many plants and most bacterial species, although in the case of the latter, the word "species" is often used much more loosely. Wen-Hsiung Li and Lori Sadler write that the nucleotide diversity of humans is about an order of magnitude less than in the fly Drosophila pseudoobscura (although oddly enough, their amino acid diversity is similar). [4] My own experience indicates that human nucleotide diversity is also lower than in the plant model organism Arabidopsis thaliana.

Hell, at least almost all of us have the same number of chromosomes. In many other species, that's not the case at all. Plants go through genome duplication and fractionation often, to the point where nearly every sequenced plant species has had a detected genome duplication at some point in its evolutionary history. And variation in chromosome number is pretty widespread among even vertebrate animals; to pick an arbitrary example, populations of garden dormice throughout Europe and Northern Africa vary between 46 and 54 chromosomes.

Of course, there are many species that have less genetic diversity than humans. Many of these, however, are either limited in range (like species endemic to a certain area), or have had their population and genetic diversity reduced by humans. For example, cheetahs have critically low genetic diversity, but this is largely a result of human intervention.

It's not entirely clear why humans have such low genetic diversity. Perhaps someone with a better knowledge of human ancestry can explain this, but in general, I think its fair to say that the processes through which some species come to have more diversity than others are often somewhat obscure. Li and Sadler suggest that "The low diversity is probably due to a relatively small long-term effective population size rather than any severe bottleneck during human evolution."

And now for a somewhat off-topic but important aside.  ;D  ;)

Discussions about human genetic diversity are often racially charged
, and I'd like to do my part to clear some of that up. Once we've established that humans are relatively homogeneous, the next question is to consider how human diversity is distributed.

Even excluding recent immigration, most diversity is within populations, not between populations. Between population diversity is often clinal, lacking in sharply defined boundaries. These patterns of distribution mean that it is unlikely that such things as "races" exist - or, depending on how you define a race, they may exist, but they almost certainly will not correspond to the races we often imagine. This is still a contentious issue, but there is a growing recognition that "race" is an inaccurate way of conceptualizing human diversity. Humans certainly do not have subspecies.

As David Serre and Svaante Paabo wrote: "When individuals are sampled homogeneously from around the globe, the pattern seen is one of gradients of allele frequencies that extend over the entire world, rather than discrete clusters. Therefore, there is no reason to assume that major genetic discontinuities exist between different continents or 'races.'" [5]

(Thank you to Hillel Gray for alerting me to this question.)

[1] Lynn Jorde. "Genetic Variation and Human Variation." From the American Society of Human Genetics.

[2] Becquet et al. "Genetic Structure of Chimpanzee Populations." PLoS Genetics, 2007.

[3] R. Bowden et al. "Genomic Tools for Evolution and Conservation in the Chimpanzee: Pan troglodytes ellioti Is a Genetically Distinct Population." PLoS Genetics, 2012.

[4] Li and Sadler. "Low Nucleotide Diversity in Man." Genetics, 1991.

[5] Serre and Paabo. "Evidence for Gradients of Human Genetic Diversity
Within and Among Continents." Genome Research, 2004.

https://www.quora.com/Do-humans-have-a-high-amount-or-low-amount-of-genetic-variation-compared-to-other-species-with-a-large-population

Agelbert NOTE: Racism is unscientific.   Nuff said.
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7632
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Crania Americana: the most influential book on scientific racism

SNIPPET:

EXCERPT FROM THE BOOK

Europeans

“The Caucasian Race is characterized by a naturally fair skin, susceptible of every tint; hair fine, long and curling, and of various colors. The skull is large and oval, and its anterior portion full and elevated. The face is small in proportion to the head, of an oval form, with well-proportioned features. . . . This race is distinguished for the facility with which it attains the highest intellectual endowments. . . . The spontaneous fertility of [the Caucasus] has rendered it the hive of many nations, which extending their migrations in every direc-tion, have peopled the finest portions of the earth, and given birth to its fairest inhabitants. . . .”

Today, these sort of claims would be labeled as politically incorrect, to say the least, but his book stirred quite a few leading figures in the scientific community and earned him a solid following. Only 500 copies were ever printed with no more than 60 being sent outside of the United States, but even so a couple of these precious few made their way on the shelves of the most distinguished libraries in the world.


A book that gave people what they wanted to hear, not the truth
 
Quote
In this day and age, you might find his findings nothing more than crackpot gibberish, but back in the day Crania Americana was endorsed by the likes of Charles Darwin who considered Morton an “authority” on the subject of race.  

EXCERPT FROM THE BOOK

Africans

“Characterized by a black complexion, and black, woolly hair; the eyes are large and prominent, the nose broad and flat, the lips thick, and the mouth wide; the head is long and narrow, the forehead low, the cheekbones prominent, the jaws protruding, and the chin small. In disposition the Negro is joyous, flexible, and indolent; while the many nations which compose this race present a singular diversity of intellectual character, of which the far extreme is the lowest grade of humanity. . . . The moral and intellectual character of the Africans is widely different in different nations. . . . The Negroes are proverbially fond of their amusements, in which they engage with great exuberance of spirit; and a day of toil is with them no bar to a night of revelry. Like most other barbarous nations their institutions are not infrequently characterized by superstition and cruelty. They appear to be fond of warlike enterprises, and are not deficient in personal courage; but, once overcome, they yield to their destiny, and accommodate themselves with amazing facility to every change of circumstance. The Negroes have little invention, but strong powers of imitation, so that they readily acquire mechanic arts. They have a great talent for music, and all their external senses are remarkably acute.”


Full article with fascinating graphics.  ;)

http://www.zmescience.com/other/crania-americana-influential-book-scientific-racism/
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7632
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
35-year-old Cory Godbolt is the RIGHT COLOR for General Sessions to USE

BROOKHAVEN (US): Eight people, including a deputy sheriff, were killed in a shooting in Lincoln County in the US state of Mississippi on Sunday.

Police said the suspect, 35-year-old Cory Godbolt, has been arrested and charges are being filed against him.

Mississippi Bureau of Investigation spokesman Warren Strain said the shootings occurred at three separate homes Saturday night in the state's rural Lincoln County.

The sheriff's deputy was responding to a distress call when he was shot and killed by the suspect, media reports said. The identities of the victims have not been released.

While authorities said it was too early to speculate about the shooter's motive, Godbolt himself revealed in a video filmed by a local newspaper that his intention was to evade arrest and commit "suicide by cop".

The suspect had reportedly been talking with his wife and members of her family about the custody of their children when somebody called authorities. The arrival of the police apparently sent Godbolt on the shooting spree, during which he also shot and killed the sheriff's deputy.


Mississippi governor Phil Bryant issued a statement calling the incident a "senseless tragedy" and noted the "sacrifice" made by law enforcement officers to protect and serve their communities.


"Every day, the men and women who wear the badge make some measure of sacrifice to protect and serve their communities. Too often, we lose one of our finest. I thank the law enforcement agencies involved for their hard work," Bryant wrote in a Facebook post.

He also asked people to pray for those who lost their lives in the shooting.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/mississippi-shooting-8-people-killed-suspect-in-custody/articleshow/58882308.cms

Racists, REJOICE! You have still another example of the those "people" that "don't respect law and order, like to dance, and uh, have low IQs and jes naturally are trouble makers"....

Expect a statement from your HERO shortly about he is going to help our communities be cleansed of these "animals" who threaten our police and or white women too.  ;) 


Quote
Down in Mississippi there seems to be, as I am fond o' sayin', a FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE. I will now do my duty to good, law abidin' citizens everywhair and make sure our peace officers COMMUNICATE more effectively with those no-account animals.

Be calm, friends of liberty, those jigs jes' need to be put back in their place, and I'm jes the man to do that for God and Cuntry.   
« Last Edit: July 15, 2017, 01:33:16 pm by AGelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7632
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Was a Georgia Congressional Candidate Responsible for Kicking Voters off Rolls? (w/Greg Palast)


Published on May 30, 2017

Thom talks with guest Greg Palast (Investigative Reporter and Contributor - Rolling Stone, Author & Filmmaker - The Best Democracy Money Can Buy) about the current special election race happening in Georgia's 6th District where the republican candidate is the former Secretary of State.
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7632
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences


The big, beautiful Wall with the big, beautiful Door is now one of those fetish objects—like the Keystone XL pipeline and the imaginary Ronald Reagan—to which good Republican politicians must pay fealty. This will be true even if it never gets built, or only partly gets built, or even if it gets built and doesn't work the way it's supposed to work, or even if it turns out that Mexico shockingly won't pay for it. These fetish objects carry substantial political salience even when they don't exist.

My first exposure to a journalist named Chris Hayes came in 2007 when he wrote The Nation on the "NAFTA superhighway", a rightwing fever dream that never existed, but that still helped decide local races all over the middle of the country through which the mythical highway was said to run. They surely want the big, beautiful Wall with the big, beautiful Door but, in its absence, they will protect the idea of it. That's often enough.


It's very telling that this is one of the issues which Dump's supporters care most about. "Day took eeer jobsss."  


So true, that depiction of the dumb ass conservative redneck.  They are a very real phenomenon.  I was pumping gas the other day and there was a Mexican there pumping gas as well along with one of these dumb ass conservative rednecks.  The Mexican had on t-shirt which he had cut the sleeves off of and he had also cut slits all over the shirt to allow for better air flow.  It looked ridiculous, but it was obviously not something he had done as a fashion statement.  I understood, it's fuckin' hot as **** here, and humid, and if you work outside it's more about staying cool then what you look like. 

The dumb ass conservative redneck was staring at the Mexican.  His facial expression was one of utter contempt and hatred.  He was looking at that Mexican like the Mexican was the cause of all that creates unhappiness in his life.  It was all over his face.  I was embarrassed to be the same color as this fool.  I saw the Mexican and just saw another person pumping gas.  A person that likely works very hard for **** pay in a climate that's miserable just being outside in while doing no work.  Working in it is down right torturous.  I know, I work in it. 

Anyways, they haven't taken any of our jobs.  The **** neo-con's offshored them all, and the ones that couldn't be offshored just about no Merikan citizen will work.  I'd say probably 60% of the landscapers around here are Mexican, if not more.  The house building crews are probably at least 80% Mexican, and the siding and roofers are probably 95% Mexican.  Why? 

They didn't take any **** jobs.  The dumb ass conservative redneck had his job offshored.  The same motherfuckers offshoring those jobs illegally bring Mexicans into this country to pick the damn fruit.  I'd say a good percentage of the illegals are here with the help of Merican corporations. 

Build a **** wall?  Jesus **** Christ these motherfuckers are retarded.  Dump took your **** jobs your morons.



Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7632
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
July 10, 2017

A Brief History of the KKK with Gerald Horne

As the KKK rallies in Charlottesville, VA, author and historian Gerald Horne charts its history from Reconstruction to the rise of Donald Trump
Dr. Gerald Horne holds the John J. and Rebecca Moores Chair of History and African American Studies at the University of Houston. His research has addressed issues of racism in a variety of relations involving labor, politics, civil rights, international relations and war. Dr. Horne has also written extensively about the film industry. His latest book is The Counter-Revolution of 1776: Slave Resistance and the Origins of the United States of America. Dr. Horne received his Ph.D. in history from Columbia University and his J.D. from the University of California, Berkeley and his B.A. from Princeton University.

transcript

A Brief History of the KKK with Gerald Horne

Jaisal Noor:   Welcome to the Real News, I'm Jaisal Noor in Baltimore.

A few dozen members of the KKK one of America's most infamous and oldest hate groups, held a rally in Charlottesville, Virginia on Saturday, where they protested a city council decision to remove a statue honoring Confederate General Robert E. Lee. The group was guarded by scores of police and outnumbered by hundreds of counter protestors, who waved signs denouncing racism. The anti-KKK protestors raised their voices in chants and shouts, drowning out speeches from the white supremacists. The Klan group that brandished Confederate flags and signs with anti-Semitic messages, was separated by crowds by a ring of fencing and a heavy police presence. After the rally, police dispersed the protestors with tear gas, after they said they refused to let the KKK members leave.

In February, the Charlottesville City Council voted three to two, to remove the statue from the park once named for Lee, and made plans for a new memorial to remember the Southern cities and slave population. That's according to the Daily Progress, the local newspaper there. Now joining us to discuss all of this is Gerald Horne. Dr. Horne holds the John Jay and Rebecca Moore's Chair of History in African American Studies at the University of Houston, he's the author of many books, most recently The Counter Revolution of 1776: Slave Resistance and the Origins of the United States of America.

Thanks so much for joining us again.

Gerald Horne:   Thank you for inviting me.

Jaisal Noor:   I wanted to get your reaction, your response to this latest rally that happened over the weekend, it made national headlines, the KKK, about a few dozen members, were greatly outnumbered by the anti-KKK protestors, the anti-racist protestors. The KKK was drowned out, they had a heavy police presence and the police ended up using tear gas to disperse the protests against the KKK after the Klan rally had ended. Give us your reaction to this, because Charlottesville has been a flash point in recent months, ever since the city council voted to take down the statue of Robert E. Lee. Richard Spencer held a torch light rally there in the spring, which has been followed by a counter protest in the subsequent days. Give us your thoughts.

Gerald Horne:   Well you need to realize that Charlottesville, Virginia, is a particularly sensitive site. On the one hand, it houses a college campus, the University of Virginia, and college campuses tend to have many people who lean to the left. In fact, I had a fellowship at the University of Virginia, some years ago and I remember that statue very well, being offended by it. On the other hand, Charlottesville, Virginia, and more particularly, the University of Virginia, is known as a site founded by a Founding Father, Thomas Jefferson. A Founding Father, who many considered to be a sociopath, not least because of the intimate relationship he had for years, with a slave teenager, speaking of Sally Hemmings, while denying it during his lifetime.

He's considered to be the Sociopath in Chief, and of course there is a saying in United States history, that if Thomas Jefferson is wrong, then the United States is wrong. Thomas Jefferson is certainly wrong, and many in the Ku Klux Klan and the ultra-right, find that a very difficult pill to swallow. Keep in mind, that this is the fourth iteration of the Ku Klux Klan. Recall, that it had its origins in the early post-Civil War era, circa 1865, when the Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest organized a clan to terrorize the newly freed enslaved population, and particularly to deprive them of voting rights.

Then it had another iteration in the World War I era, when it broadened its remit to include anti-Catholicism and antisemitism, and in fact, controlled a number of state houses and marched into thousands, if not into 10s of thousands, through the streets of Washington DC. Then in the 1960s with the rise of the Black Power and Civil Rights Movement, the Ku Klux Klan came creeping back, and of course was known for executing civil rights protestors and demonstrators, and now, with the rise of Donald J. Trump, and the so-called Alt Right or White Nationalist movement, the Ku Klux Klan has been given a new lease on life, and we see it rearing its ugly head once more.

Jaisal Noor:   What you're describing in many of your examples here, about the history of the Klan, is these two versions of history that are sort of in the fabric of the history of the United States. You mentioned Sally Hemmings. Just before the Fourth of July holiday, NBC, the Washington Post, a number of other news outlets came under fire for describing Sally Hemmings as Thomas Jefferson's mistress. This is just one example, they got lots of criticism of it, the Washington Post ran an op-ed rebutting the portrayal of Sally Hemmings as Thomas Jefferson's mistress, and at the same time, the KKK now is defending Robert E. Lee as a hero, as a defender of the South.

Can you just comment a little bit about both of these topics as well?

Gerald Horne:   First of all, with regard to Sally Hemmings, it is beyond belief that one could imagine that an enslaved teenage girl could give voluntary consent to an adult powerful man, indeed a Founding Father like Thomas Jefferson. It's beyond belief that the Washington Post and other news outlets would describe her as a mistress, that's part of the sanitizing and deodorizing of US history that I would have thought had gone the way of the dodo bird, that in fact it was now extinct.

With regard to Robert E. Lee, he was a traitor to the United States government, that is to say he was trained by the United States government to be a military officer, but in 1861, when the so called Confederate States of America rebelled against the United States government, in order to overthrow the United States government, and perpetuate the enslavement of Africans for evermore, he joined that inglorious cause and in fact, was responsible for the deaths of numerous US nationals, not least black US nationals.

So to imagine that a statue would be built in his honor is blowing my mind. I think it should have come down years ago, and I'm happy to see that protestors are now trying to ensure that it comes down for evermore.

Jaisal Noor:   You talked about the different periods of the KKK, of their resurgence. Many of these Confederate statues you see built across the United States, including in Maryland, in Washington DC, in the South as well. They were built in, what may surprise people, they were built in the earlier 20th century, during the rise of Jim Crow. It wasn't right after the Civil War. Can you talk a little bit about the history of these Confederate statues and what they really represent?

Gerald Horne:   The construction of these Confederate statues was part and parcel of a revision of history. Instead of seeing the Confederate States of America as a counter-revolutionary force, a treasonous force, it was re-fashioned and revised, to appear to be a kind of cause, that was somehow glorious, and that was somehow defeated, that had something to do with States Rights, not slavery, that had something to do with tariffs not slavery. They are all over the place. At the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where I formally taught and still have a residence, the centerpiece of that campus, is a Confederate soldier with his gun pointing North.

This is not unusual, in my hometown of St. Louis, Missouri, in the neighborhood in which I grew up, there is a Confederate statue that the city authorities are now trying to remove. In Richmond, Virginia, just down the road from where you are in Baltimore, there are enormous Confederate statues reaching to the sky, honoring these traitors, and certainly, those statues too need to be removed.

Jaisal Noor:   Can you comment a little bit more about the relationship of the KKK and the state? You mentioned that there's members of KKK that took state houses that had lots of political power, but especially during the Civil Rights Movement, at the time, when they attacked and killed members of the Civil Rights Movement, were they held accountable? And to this day, have they been held to account for their actions?

Gerald Horne:   Generally speaking the answer is no. They literally have been able to get away with murder, and that is one of the many reasons why you find these folks coming out to protest the removal of these Confederate statues, because they recognize more than most, that if you can successfully remove these Confederate statues, you might be able to bring successful prosecutions, even against KKK killers, who enjoyed and executed a reign of terror in the 1960s, so this is a very important struggle that's unfolding as we speak, in Charlottesville, Virginia.

Jaisal Noor:   And finally, do you think that the vastly outnumbered KKK protestors, they were drowned out by this massive crowd of anti-racist demonstrators. Do you think that, that's a sign of where the popular opinion and feeling is right now, about the KKK? Do you think this era is waning, or do you think we're just seeing the beginning of a new resurgence? We know that for example, the KKK newspaper, their largest paper endorsed Donald Trump, we know White Nationalists have been empowered by Donald Trump, but do you think that they're on the decline or do you think we're just seeing their rise?

Gerald Horne:   I would like to think that they are on the decline. I would like to think that their influence is waning, but since they have a comrade in the Oval Office, since you have had racist killings in New York City, in College Park, Maryland, in Portland, Oregon, that bear the earmarks, if not the design of those sympathetic to the KKK, I think it would be naďve to imagine that the KKK is going away anytime soon in these United States of America.

Jaisal Noor:   All right Gerald Horne, thank you so much for joining us.

Gerald Horne:   Goodbye and thank you for inviting me.

Jaisal Noor:   Thank you for joining us at the Real News Network.


http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=19509

Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7632
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences

Some things, and parties, never change.

You are right.


Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
188 Views
Last post August 15, 2014, 01:57:09 pm
by AGelbert

+-Recent Topics

Global Warming is WITH US by AGelbert
September 19, 2017, 11:04:16 pm

Wind Power by AGelbert
September 19, 2017, 07:35:49 pm

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
September 19, 2017, 07:06:23 pm

Homebody Handy Hints by AGelbert
September 18, 2017, 11:16:31 pm

Pollution by AGelbert
September 18, 2017, 11:12:18 pm

Future Earth by AGelbert
September 18, 2017, 07:14:08 pm

The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth by AGelbert
September 17, 2017, 10:17:00 pm

Majestic and sometimes Spectacular Scenery by AGelbert
September 17, 2017, 07:52:46 pm

Non-routine News by AGelbert
September 17, 2017, 07:22:28 pm

Money by AGelbert
September 17, 2017, 02:55:55 pm

Free Web Hit Counter By CSS HTML Tutorial