Let's just put it this way:
White Southerners and white Northerners are as prejudiced and antagonistic to each other as they both have always been toward their negroes.
DK's repeated remarks, including, even now, his SI post, denigrating Southern whites as the only white racists, while once again seeking to exonerate his fellow racist Northern whites of the white racist 1619 project taint of original sin, fully bears this judgment out.
Professor:
Very interesting post. It seems evenhanded by all concerned.
But it has issues...... Here are a couple:
"... [Editorial note]: As we go to press, 178 citizens from parts of the country, including the South, have joined Mr. McKay in protest against the letters of Messrs. Odom, Webb, Dunn and Mrs. Kelso. Twenty-one readers followed the latter in objecting to SI's April 11 cover of Willie Mays and the Durochers. A Californian, protesting the original letters of condemnation, took a mock-serious stand on yet another cover: ..." Sports Illustrated
More letters then followed in later weeks...How many? From where?
It is quite obvious that SI thoroughly cherry picked its alleged 178 letters. They do not even deign to say "from all parts of the country," so they have also cherry picked the parts of the country they wanted to highlight and the angle from each part, but especially the Southern white racist theme they intended from the beginning to fraudulently foist on an ignorant readership, and the fraudulent anti racist theme of Northern whites as a group.
Here is Tocqueville, cited by Professor Kaiser himself, to set the record straight, going back to the founding, as he says:
' "...race prejudice seems stronger in those states that have abolished slavery than in those where it still exists, and nowhere is it more intolerant than in states where slavery was never known."(Alexis de Tocqueville) Even in the northern states where black citizens theoretically enjoyed equal rights, he reported, they were too afraid to assert them. Those states that had abolished slavery had done so not to help the black man, but to help the white, both by leaving free labor without the competition of slaves and by eliminating the corrupting influence of owning slaves upon the whites.' DK, 2016
All the best
Here was my footnote to Tocqueville's quotation:
I will just add a footnote here, to this prior post passage reprinted above.
Those Northern states that had abolished slavery had done so not only not to help the black man, and to help the white, and not only by leaving free white labor without slave competition, and not only by eliminating the corrupting influence of owning slaves upon whites, but, much more importantly, they did not want negroes around, free or slave, in the North or anywhere else in America.
That is really what Tocqueville had meant in 1830, in the passage DK quoted.
The Northern cause in the Civil War was supposed, according to the electorate, to result in the transportation, not the immediate, or the gradual, assimilation of negroes, slave or free.
They got screwed in every way. The only good, temporary, thing, for them, was that the Radical Republican Party kept the freed negroes in puppet control of only the South, not the North.
Kamala would not put up with that shit.
Re the Hindu angle in DK post,
Gandhi had been great at playing the Hindu truth card to British liberal faux power.
No comments:
Post a Comment