this is retarded you call people what they are. If you call little SJG a boy and he says no I'm a girl then fine you call him a girl from then on. You don;t just not call people by their gender because someone maybe might get their widdle feewlings hurt by accident.
There is nothing insane of 'fucked up' about this. But it is going beyond what most people are accustomed to. I think the issue is just getting people to really think about something.
Trans gender, like cis gender, inherently want to fit in. We have gender assignment in society. The change is we now refer to as gender what we used to refer to as sex. Also we have the notion of gender identity. It gives us something to think about. I agree.
I understand that Transgender people want to fit in, even if they don't. And maybe I just don't live in an area with many transgender people or I don't frequent the same places. But how damn many are out there? I have to think the transgender community makes up a very small portion of the population, like less than 1%, certainly less 2%. Especially in those not yet finished with high school. Am I wrong about this?
I don't envision less than 2% of a population changing a society of over 300 million, no matter how much liberals desire the change.
Corvus, chances are if you leave around affluent people, you may have trans gender people around you (pre-op or post-op) and not even realize it (Dugan, too). The reality for many trans is that the hormone therapy is VERY expensive and often only well-off, affluent, or wealthy individuals and families can afford it, especially early on. Trans who can budget for the full hormone therapy often have little trouble passing for the gender they wish to be (even, pre-op). So even among the trans community there are the haves and have-nots.
Many for the pre-op (before surgery) trans who are outed, are (unfortunately) lower income people who struggle to (or find they cannot) budget** for it.
It's hard to know for sure but trans people may be among you and you don't even know it! ;)
-Dominic
**I use the word budget instead of afford, because a conservative chap reminded me of the difference a long time ago. It's often not that we can't "afford" it per se it just that we struggle (often) to "budget" for it, when juggling many priorities in one's life.
Just think of how much more of this BS a Hillary presidency will bring.
Everyone is good person who deserves love and special protections except white males. We are all hateful greedy rapists. And cops. Cops are all bloodthirsty racists.
Juice has the right to be whatever race and weight class he most closely identifies with. The rest of you are being assholes by not acknowledging this right. From now on, as far as I'm concerned, Juice is a skinny black man. Let's start taking up a collection so he can have the surgery.
Here are some people who are teaching kids to stand up for themselves. So of course I approve. Now this is directed at school administrations. But it could easily be refocused against parents. And it is about corporal punishment, but it could be about religion or any of these gender issues.
You're post was so incredibly long I thought it was SJG trolling hisself. Never mind Che and SJG. It was an oversight. I was watching Fox News while TUSCL-ing.
Che, so I read through your article. Not sure how you relate that to other things said here. But that UK head teacher is really a problem. She just wants to humiliate people.
I agree, the UK head instructor did want to humiliate people. I guess the one upside, was that the kids still got a lunch! I remember when there were bureaucratic or administrative problems regard free school lunch (for me) I would often get no lunch! But I least I got to sit with everyone else. I'd rather that than the isolation, any day!
I should probably never post on "political" threads but I'll just ask a question: did anybody actually glance through the actual slides rather than the Daily Mail summary?
Perhaps I missed something in the document, but the pronoun regulation seemed aimed at just emphasizing that teachers and staff address trans students by the appropriate pronoun for their gender, not forbidding gender pronouns altogether. Indeed, they even said (reasonably) that inadvertent slips may occur.
Yes, there was the goofy "gender unicorn" but that is par for the course for these types of presentations. Non-brilliant but non-harmful.
But the big issue is showing respect for students. Are you really advocating that teachers and staff address a child who is potentially struggling with their gender identity in a way that makes the student uncomfortable? There are plenty of things where teachers should make students uncomfortable, like not doing assigned work, but it is really out of line to intentionally and unnecessarily address somebody in a way that makes them uncomfortable when you're job is to teach and mentor.
I consider myself moderate, supporting some conservative ideas and some liberal ones (but largely being libertarian). But I also think everybody should show basic respect. Pointedly and consistently addressing a biological male living as a girl (or vice versa) isn't conservative. It's just d-baggy. :(
Are reparations still on the docket for these liberals? How would you begin to take away from non-minority groups to give to the poor minirities, when either of these descendants may have only been around for a couple generations as emigrated from other places?
NPR talk radio was doing a piece on reparations last week, and I found it odd that liberals still were talking about the topic.
4got2wipe, actually your ideas and stance on gender identities is pretty mainstream and moderate. I admit I didn't glance through the slides since they wouldn't load for me at the time.
+ accepting and welcoming colleagues who may be sexually or gender diverse
+ incorporating discussions about diversity and equality
in the classroom but not singling out particular students
as an example
+ providing accurate and honest information in an age
appropriate manner to children to help them work through
issues and ideas
+ allowing and encouraging non-gender specific free play
(for example boys dressing up and girls using construction
materials) and challenging sexist attitudes and behaviour
+ using non-gender specific language when talking to adults
about their partners — not assuming their partner is of
the opposite sex
+ not assuming heterosexuality or gender identity of children
+ encouraging, facilitating and incorporating same-
sex parents/caregivers/caregivers in classroom and
community activities
With people quoting each other, I had to trace out the sources of Nina's quotes. Obviously there are different typical types of poor.
Here in San Jose we have a very serious homelessness problem, as we also have a very serious problem of people that are marginally housed and in quite risky situations. You have families with maybe 6 persons living in a studio apartment. You have unrelated people in very marginal housing situations. If anything happened which would force them to move, they would probably be out on the street.
And then we also have the political and cultural issue of people using the poor as scapegoats, and then also the way our society and our government deliberately encourage this scapegoating and depend upon it.
San Jose makes and official homeless count each year, they get a number like 7,000 or 22,000. But you know that this will always be a gross undercount. But even with this some surprising things always surface. Like for one, most of the homeless are working homeless. And another, the average age of homeless persons is 5 years old. That is, there are huge numbers of homeless families with small children and babies. You don't see them so much as there are shelters which take care of them some. But it is hard to keep kids registered in school when the parent has no address except a shelter. I know someone who is often involved in trying to handle this.
And then when Dave Cortese ran for Mayor of San Jose, he characterized the typical homeless person as an employed student at San Jose City College, who though employed, cannot afford to pay rent, so they live in their car.
And in fact, this does fit for a huge number of people. But consider what kind of a life this really amounts to, and what about asking a girl out on a date?
And so Dave Cortese, supported by labor and minority groups, lost in a very close election to the business community candidate Sam Liccardo. He sees the homeless as a societal menace. He is involved in programs which seek to humiliate the homeless and regulate them. He is involved with one where the City forced closure of a church meals program and seems to have imported their own replacement pastor, all the way from Nebraska. He is involved in other things, corporate sponsored, which give the homeless not jobs, of course not, but it gets them into 'work readiness programs'.
All of this has the effect of intimidating organized labor, and especially the public employee unions. When they see the stigma associated with being poor and with job loss, they have to back down. Mostly this is how it works. Our welfare, disabilities, and homeless support systems are designed to regulate and suppress militancy, not just at the bottom, but throughout the work force. So many who are in vulnerable jobs, don't feel that they could even take the risk of organizing.
And then we've all seen the numbers about how more than half of the population is only two paychecks away from defaulting on rent or mortgage.
And then as yuppie couples bid up the housing costs, the chances of that loss of income are doubled.
And so I was right away impressed when I learned that Massachusetts elected Elizabeth Warren to the Senate, and that Hillary Clinton had been working with her.
Many of the long term homeless are completely unemployable, in my view. Its just the long term psychological stress of living out on the streets with zero social standing. And then this contributes to health problems. And then nowadays most employers have to deal with liability insurance carriers and so they don't want anyone who could be seen as high risk, so they do screenings. So these folks are never going to be able to have anything like a normal job.
So to get even the $147 a month General Assistance, people are supposed to show proof of applying for 14 jobs per week. This is a joke, just a complete exercise in humiliation and time wasting.
So there is recycling cans, which is very competitive. And then there might be some occasional day labor opportunities, which might pay $10 to $40. But one could never pay our $1,500 a month median rent like that. And then around half of those sorts of employers don't even pay as agreed.
Some of this is just the way our Capitalist system is designed to work.
Frances Fox-Piven explains that this use of welfare money to try and regulate the potentially disruptive activity of the poor goes back to the start of Capitalism around 1600.
Remember that for Capitalism to go there had to be this Enclosure Movement, driving people off of common lands. Usually starving them, and then still having to drive them off at gun point, so they would have to flee to cities and take starvation wage factory labor.
And today even that kind of labor is usually not available.
And then as I have explained, Born Again Christianity is a system designed to suppress and regulate, it promotes child abuse, and it is a repackaging of the South's old pro-slavery religion.
And then their is the psychiatric system. Putting people on drugs is far cheaper than putting them in psychiatric hospitals or jails.
The Senator from Texas, Ted Cruz, was willing to hold up the federal budget so cuts could be made to Food Stamps. But even he would never dream of cutting off money for keeping the poor medicated.
The longer someone is on psychiatric meds, in my view, the sicker they are getting.
And a huge portion of this does come down to familial child abuse. To be able to educate oneself, someone has to believe that they are worth it. But the middle-class family was originally designed to exploit and abuse children. It operates around the Self-Reliance Ethic. And most of the poor are deeply committed to it. If you have not one dime and no employment, you must say that you believe in Self-Reliance, otherwise you are seen as culpable.
So great potential is being destroyed as souls are murdered in the name of Self-Reliance. And most of all, there is no political uprising.
I believe that the poor do need to organize, and do need to use any and all available means. And especially there must be zero tolerance for these sorts of Social Darwinist arguments.
But as it stands now, as much as it is needed, and as much as it is justified, I don't see it happening.
I will say this, in the organization I am building, no one will EVER have the experience of "looking for a job". That is the most absurd time waste ever invented.
And no one will ever be told about Self-Reliance. Rather, we will work to help people unlearn that idea, so that they can actually develop and apply their talents and abilities.
I say the place to start is with the abusive parents. Take all of their assets away from them and put them in trust for their children. As people know I helped put one such parent into San Quentin, for sexually molesting his daughters. With each communication to the DA and the court, I also started explaining how he never told me anything which directly indicated guilt. But I was completely blown away by the emotional energy he had invested in scapegoating his eldest daughter.
And then at the end, to try and get him as high a sentence as possible I tried to convince the court that this guy's church is a social menace. They all have scapegoat children, and they all talk about them the same way that this guy did.
Imagine if these girls had listened to their church and gone with lies and denial. Think 10 or 20 years out. Failed marriages, failed attempts at getting an education and building a career. These girls could very well end up being the targets for that church's ministry. They would be told that Jesus has so much pity for them that he wants them to have a second chance. All he wants in return is that they admit that it is their own fault and their own rebelliousness which are responsible for screwing up their first chance.
And 4got2wipe, I find your analysis insightful and spot on. I wish I could have described it that way. I think we always need to remember that children and poor people and others are struggling with a historical legacy or rejection and stigmatizing. We don't want to exacerbate that. People will find their way best if we are supporting, instead of persecutory. And I am sorry that so many of the members of this forum, mostly White Males, seem to want this coercive conformity. Often this coercive conformity is under the Libertarian Anti-Government label.
So what I recommend is that people who want to learn get involved with the programs that reach out to the poor. Some are Evangelical, and I am opposed to this. But for those who have never been involved, you will still learn much. Other religious programs are not Evangelical, and then there are some programs which are not religious at all.
Anyway, I say the poor need to act, they need to organize and they need to find targets to attack, as the poor are being used by our entire society as scapegoats, and these Social Darwinist arguments are what it revolves around.
SJG, what I don't understand is the hugely hypocritical stances the Democratic Party has historically been taking. They are by far the most corrupt political party in our nations history, and now presently are considered the country's liberal base. Consider these facts documented by history....
14th Amendment:Citizenship/Equal Right
GOP support= 94%
Democrat oppose= 100%
15th Ammendment: Right to vote
GOP support= 100%
Democrat oppose= 100%
It is clearly obvious the Liberal base, the Democratic Party, has been historically against anything equal for the minority citizens of our great nation and mug of the historical movement of equalizing opportunity is due to the Republican/conservative base. Nina would dismiss these facts as the party has changed, but it hasn't ever changed. It is a self serving party of corrupt individuals conspiring to take advantage of people's problems and capitalizing on the disparity and hopes of the down trodden clad of citizens hoping politicians will take and fight for their cause, yet only to realize the liberals abuse their position for their own personal gain. It's too bad liberals like you find in large metro areas like San Francisco, LA, New York, Baltimore, Chicago, and D.C. drink the kool-aid of progressive-ism when in fact they are the most greedy self serving individuals the history of this Earth has ever known. I would be ashamed to vote Democrat and tell others about it.
Princeton University recently released new guidelines that forces staff to use " gender-inclusive language" when addressing students. What are they going to do with the university's name? prince is not gender-inclusive. :)
@sjg tl:dr
Nina: just because you get a job doesn't mean you're no longer poor. How can you say something so simple when I hear you want to be a lawyer
Who the hell let's their child go transgender when majority of children are still too stupid to tie their shoes
I'm confused about about the whole transgender thing. Imo, post op trans are kinda asking for problems(i.e. Bruce/kaitlynn jenner). Why would you want to be a trans/opposite sex(something you're not to begin with) knowing how much oppression they get. Pre op though, that's how they were born(from my understanding). You have no right to hate them or deny them constitutional rights(especially since the right loves their guns). Anyway it just seems like some of you just like to fucking whine and complain about anything you disagree with. The world doesn't revolve around you.
Tiberon --> "Who the hell let's their child go transgender when majority of children are still too stupid to tie their shoes" --> end quote Tiberon
Just the word choice of "let's his or her child go transgender" suggests the topic might be well enough understood by some of the public. No one "goes" transgender. Just like no one "goes" cisgender. We are just now starting to discuss and really understand gender identity. Earlier many of the experts on gender identity issues thought that gender assignment was cemented at or near the start of puberty. Even recently the experts had come to see evidence that gender identity may actually be formed much younger than that -- meaning it is not tied to sexuality (nor the onset of puberty) -- there is some evidence to suggest gender identity is formed as young as 5 yo (kindergarten) and there is some recent evidence to suggest it might even occur in some individuals earlier than that -- perhaps 2-3 yo.
Like SJG wrote --> "There is nothing insane of 'fucked up' about this. But it is going beyond what most people are accustomed to. I think the issue is just getting people to really think about something." --> end quote SJG
No one "goes" transgender? What is kaitlynn jenner? This is what's so confusing about the whole trans thing. What's the difference between a trans and a man who has an operation to become a woman?(or vice versa).
I just don't understand how those of you that post here, on a website devoted to strippers and strip clubs, albeit with a bunch of off-topic posters, care or even give a rats ass about someone else's sexuality when really if it doesn't effect you. I just fail to see how it is any of your fucking business, whether or not some other one has a dick or a pussy if you aren't fucking them. I think maybe those of you that care so much are hiding something about themselves.
Well, the Democratic Party always was a nationwide party, and this included Southern slave owners, as well as other people who were not really comfortable about the idea of having lots of free blacks around. The leader of the day was Stephen Douglas of Illinois. But his idea was "popular sovereignty", letting people vote state by state on whether or not they would allow slavery. And where this really came into play was in the Western territories. But this was also the doctrine which insured that their would be war.
So as tensions escalated, the old Whig Party of Washington and John Adams collapsed. And then the Republican Party, a Northern only party, and always an anti-slavery party, formed.
You had great people like Charles Sumner of Massachusetts, and their 1856 first Presidential candidate, the Senator from California, John C. Fremont.
Now as a new and Northern only party, they did not do well in 1856. But by 1860 the country had been electrified by John Brown's abortive raid on Harper's Ferry Virginia. And then as the issue remained the status of the Western territories, at the Democratic convention, Southerners insisted that in the party platform they would get a 'slave code for the West." And when they didn't get it, following the lead of the Senator from Mississippi, Jefferson Davis, they walked out of the convention.
Well, the Democratic Party was by this point the only remaining nationwide institution. And though they nominated the leader of the day, Stephen Douglas, with the party split, he had little chance. So the Republican candidate, a relatively moderate and unknown Abraham Lincoln, won.
In 1858 when Lincoln lost running against Douglas for the Senate, he had pledged to "end the abominations of slavery and polygamy". But in 1860, he took a much more moderate position, pledging not to interfere with slavery where it was now practiced, but not wanting it to spread to the West.
Well even this was not enough to placate Southerners. Lincoln won at the start of November, but in those days the inauguration was not until March. So on December 20th South Carolina announced their secession, and they rang their bell. Quickly followed by Mississippi. And then when Lincoln entered DC, under cover of darkness and with snipers on the roof tops, 7 states had already announced secession, and they had taken over every post office and court house. And then they fired on all that was left, Ft. Sumter.
So Lincoln asked the states to supply troops to put down the rebellion, starting around Charleston. But then the remaining 4 states, Arkansas, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Virginia announced secession.
Now some of the Republicans were more abolitionist than others. But they did force through the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, and these amounted to a requirement for the Southern states to allow their state governments and federal legislators to be re-seated. The Republican Party was the anti-slavery party, and the Democratic Party tended to be pro-slavery in the South, and neutral or indifferent everywhere else.
Remember also that in running for his second term in 1864, Lincoln called his run the Union Party. And he selected Andrew Johnson as his running mate. He was the only one of the Southern legislators who had not walked out. Being from the Eastern side of Tennessee, mountainous territory where there was not that much slavery practiced, he opposed secession. But this does not mean that he was in favor of anything like civil rights, or even ending slavery. Lincoln was doing everything possible to hold out an olive branch. When Johnson ran in 1868, he said, "I stand on the Constitution." He, historically a Democrat, did not want these further amendments. Having survived an impeachment attempt, Johnson failed to get the nomination from either party. Those were tumultuous times. And Grant, a Republican, would win in 1868 and 1872. I don't think Grant was a bad man, but he was not cut out to be an effective President. His terms were some of the most corrupt in the nation's history.
Remember that slave produced cotton had been the nation's most valuable export. And it was Northern banks which provided the seed and transportation money, and profited from this.
So the abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison called upon people to be "perfect", to have not contact with any of it.
One of the main reasons that Northerners wanted to end slavery was that by the 3/5 clause, slave owners were getting extra votes and were getting to stack the House of Representatives and the Electoral College. More often than not they held the White House, and had stacked the Federal Judiciary. So people were calling this, plus the influence they bought with the money, Slave Power.
And then there was the concern in the West about the kind of power slave owners would have, being unfair to White workers, and this is what led to guerilla war in 1856 Kansas.
But once the slavery matter was settled, the Republican Party would change, and then the Democratic Party has also changed.
The early 1870's brought us the first of these world wide industrial recessions, caused by over production in steel. The result, especially in England, was unemployment, and then concentration of plant ownership.
Northerners wanted to end slavery, to make the country more politically fair. But they hadn't really planned on the amount of economic disruption that this would cause in the South.
So as Capitalism creates problems, and then instead of solving them, just expands, they responded to this 1870's world wide recession by converting the South into a kind of internalized third world. So the South would be consumers for manufactured goods, while the West would be a natural resource base to exploit.
But to make this work, they were able to convince the second term Grant Administration to end Reconstruction, the federal occupation of the South.
To take apart a society based on racism it takes more than just a few years.
And then in the 1876 election the South was talking about secession again, and so people believe that that was the first stolen election, given to the Southerner, a Democrat, in order to keep the peace.
So in the decades which followed Republicans were more often than not able to hold the White House, as they became the party of Big Business, and totally unconcerned about racial issues, or the fate of immigrants in the Northern industrial cities.
The 1880's were an economically very hard decade. And this is when Social Darwinism took hold. It had developed in England, but there it never had much of a following. Rather in the US, where you had immigrant minorities and a great deal of racial and religious prejudice, and a great deal of extreme economic deprivation for no reason, Social Darwinism was the doctrine of the day.
And so this is when you first had some movement against the power of Big Business, with the emergence of the Grangers, in the Upper Midwest, wanting to limit the power of Railroads and Banks and give small farmers a better chance.
And so Big Business interests were almost always Republicans, where as Southern Whites were Democrats, and still racists. And so most Blacks who were registered to vote were Republicans, and especially the lawyer types who would make up the NAACP.
The Democratic Party in the North came to represent immigrants, Catholics, and Jews. And it did this as there started to be xenophobic movements to keep people from Central and Eastern Europe out, and racial and religious justifications were used to do this.
And so you had people like the Republican New York Times Cartoonist, Thomas Nast, anti-Democrat, anti-Southerner, anti-Irish, anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic.
And while the Republican post civil war rule was extremely corrupt, the Democratic Party also be become associated with corruption in the big cities, like NY's Tammany Hall.
And then so a reform or Progressive Wing of the Republic Party developed, most strongly associated with Teddy Roosevelt. He wanted to limit the power of Big Business, and to break up monopolies, which he called "Trusts". And he was the one who set up the Food and Drug Administration.
And when instead of meeting with TR, J. P. Morgan wanted to send a representative, making himself something like an equal to the President, TR rejected that completely.
Immigrants in the big cities were often living in horrible conditions.
And they still have a business card left with the book's author Jacob Riis from then Congressman Theodore Roosevelt, on which had written, "I want to help".
But then what finally happened, after TR was out, and then wanting to re-gain the Presidency, and running against his own man, William Howard Taft, the Republican Party was split. The Progressive Wing went with TR. But the now reactionary big business wing went with Taft.
So the Democrat Woodrow Wilson thus won. And that would be the end of the Republican Party's Progressive Wing.
Front room friendliness, front room GFE, is just treating a girl, and enjoying her, like a civilian. In strip clubs it depends on the situation. In AMPs, you probably can't do that in the front room, but getting your girl off script and out of P4P mode, will often work great and make the entire experience mind blowing for both parties.
Why would anyone be in such places, if this is not what they want?
Before discussing the election of Woodrow Wilson, one more thing about the Civil War and the lead up to it.
Black abolitionists were extremely offended by Harriet Beecher-Stowe's character Uncle Tom. Her novel was serialized in 1851, then printed between two covers in 1852. By far it outsold any other work of fiction, and then in England far more copies were sold.
But the black community right away reacted against it.
He makes direct reference to Uncle Tom, and says that if they cannot serve in the Massachusetts Militia, and instead follow the example of Uncle Tom, then even in heaven they will be relegated to the Negro Pew.
Here I post from the original text from, 2/24/1853,
Our Rights as Men. An Address Delivered in
Boston, Before the Legislative Committee on the Militia
page 6
"
Your laws are founded in caste, conceived in caste, born in caste.
Caste is the God whom this great Nation delights to honor. Caste
is in your singing, your preaching, your praying; your beau-ideal of
Heaven is a place of unfading joy, and resplendent magnificence,
where you shall play for ever upon your golden harps, and the colored
people, if they, like Uncle Tom, submit to your indignities with
Christian meekness and becoming resignation, shall be permitted,
from the Negro pew, to peep into the glory of your third heaven
to all eternity!
"
page 18ff
"
Gentlemen, do we deserve to be placed in this category? If we
do, we should be taken care of; for lunatics and idiots are not able to
take care of themselves, and criminals should be looked after especially.
If we do not, we have a right to demand that you withdraw
us from the company with whom we find ourselves involuntarily associated.
You will perceive that we are not literally among the
absolute exempts, although prejudice may so construe it. For
although able bodied white male citizens shall be enrolled among the
general militia, there is nothing here which says able-bodied colored
citizens shall NOT. It seems to be left optional with us. Our fathers
were not able-bodied white male citizens; but they were able enough
to face British cannon, in 1776 and 1812.
So, gentlemen, you perceive that we base our petition upon the
grand, fundamental, eternal, Heaven-approving principle of RIGHT;
OUR ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO ENJOY FULL CIVIL PRIVILEGES. If it can be
proved we are not able-bodied MEN; if it can be proved we are incapable
of performing every honorable duty, you should consider our petition
as a gross insult to your body, but it not, there is no alternative but to
treat us as citizens of this Commonwealth should be treated; as ablebodied,
honorable men.
In the fourth and last place, Mr. Chairman, I WILL BRIEFLY NOTICE
SOME OF THE BENEFICIAL RESULTS WHICH WILL ACCRUE
FROM THE GRANTING OF THIS PETITION.
And allow me to remark that these results will be reciprocally
beneficial. I am conscious, gentlemen, there are some men in the
country, foreigners especially, who would not sleep very soundly, unless
your report were adverse to our Petition. There are some so
peculiarly sensitive, that were they to behold an able-bodied colored
company parading down State street, where fell the noble Crispus
Attucks, they would be almost ready to proclaim the hour of God’s
judgment come; or, what is about the same thing in their estimation, we would be upon the eve of a dissolution of the Union. They
would not shut their eyes, but to dream of miserable hobgoblins; and
black regiments of soldiers would so harrow up their little, narrow,
contracted souls, that with mournful and elongated visage they would
feel called on to walk up and down our streets, and proclaim, “Woe,
woe, woe” unto Massachusetts, and to the inhabitants thereof; “for
the great day of His wrath is come, and who shall be able to
stand?”
Why, gentlemen, if you grant us a charter, the soap bubble gasconade,
and characteristic rhodomontade of Southern bullyism, would
be launched forth against you with fearful power. Think you South
Carolina would then stay in the Union, IF SHE COULD BY ANY
MEANS EXIST OUT OF IT?
But, Mr. Chairman, to be serious; if any one dreams of any evil
consequences inevitably flowing from the granting of this Petition,
we should charitably attribute all to the hallucination of a moonstruck
imagination. In the first place, grant our petition, and you
evince to the world, that Massachusetts careth for her colored citizens;
that she does not repudiate them as vagrants or criminals, but
is disposed to help those who help themselves. It shews forth to the
world, that Massachusetts knows no man by the color of his skin, but
all, irrespective of accidental circumstances, stand upon one broad,
common, and ever enduring platform, on which the whole world may
stand and it will not fall.
.
.
.
"
You gotta read the whole thing though. It is really interesting. Uncle Tom was repulsive to Black abolitionists right from the start, and he remains repulsive to this day.
And blacks insisted that they must be allowed to serve in militias, even if just to live down the characterization of Uncle Tom. Though Massachusetts denied them in 1853, they still bought their own uniforms and formed their own militia and drilled and trained.
And then we know about the exceptional service they would give in the 54th and 55th Massachusetts, and the 14th Rhode Island.
55 comments
SJG
I don't envision less than 2% of a population changing a society of over 300 million, no matter how much liberals desire the change.
Lol I see you're still obsessed with black folk.
Many for the pre-op (before surgery) trans who are outed, are (unfortunately) lower income people who struggle to (or find they cannot) budget** for it.
It's hard to know for sure but trans people may be among you and you don't even know it! ;)
-Dominic
**I use the word budget instead of afford, because a conservative chap reminded me of the difference a long time ago. It's often not that we can't "afford" it per se it just that we struggle (often) to "budget" for it, when juggling many priorities in one's life.
Everyone is good person who deserves love and special protections except white males. We are all hateful greedy rapists. And cops. Cops are all bloodthirsty racists.
ime, some people behave like they would actually fail a (Alan) Turing test, so why not identify with a robot? ;)
Video:
https://thesatanictemple.com/campaigns/t…
Letter to School Board:
https://thesatanictemple.com/campaigns/t…
SJG
About Gebser
http://gaiamind.org/Gebser.html
http://independent.academia.edu/EdMahood
http://www.pearltrees.com/dewmalone/jean…
http://integralism.com/integralism-defin…
http://www.academia.edu/7804101/Through_…
http://www.academia.edu/7804109/Through_…
http://a-likely-story.com/2015/11/goethe…
http://www.grailwerk.com/news_connection…
You're post was so incredibly long I thought it was SJG trolling hisself. Never mind Che and SJG. It was an oversight. I was watching Fox News while TUSCL-ing.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/20…
SJG
SJG
The Rolling Stones - Perth 01/11/2014
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V15pU0GZ…
"The stigmas the poor face are extreme!"
You know how to solve that? Get a job!
Most of the poor do work. What they need are better jobs. (or to understand what hard work really means (as well as effectiveness))
Perhaps I missed something in the document, but the pronoun regulation seemed aimed at just emphasizing that teachers and staff address trans students by the appropriate pronoun for their gender, not forbidding gender pronouns altogether. Indeed, they even said (reasonably) that inadvertent slips may occur.
Yes, there was the goofy "gender unicorn" but that is par for the course for these types of presentations. Non-brilliant but non-harmful.
But the big issue is showing respect for students. Are you really advocating that teachers and staff address a child who is potentially struggling with their gender identity in a way that makes the student uncomfortable? There are plenty of things where teachers should make students uncomfortable, like not doing assigned work, but it is really out of line to intentionally and unnecessarily address somebody in a way that makes them uncomfortable when you're job is to teach and mentor.
I consider myself moderate, supporting some conservative ideas and some liberal ones (but largely being libertarian). But I also think everybody should show basic respect. Pointedly and consistently addressing a biological male living as a girl (or vice versa) isn't conservative. It's just d-baggy. :(
'You know how to solve that? Get a job!'
That actually illustrates SJG's point.
NPR talk radio was doing a piece on reparations last week, and I found it odd that liberals still were talking about the topic.
I also found another leaflet (for educators) that is kind of similar:
(https://www.nswtf.org.au/files/infoleafl…)
+ accepting and welcoming colleagues who may be sexually or gender diverse
+ incorporating discussions about diversity and equality
in the classroom but not singling out particular students
as an example
+ providing accurate and honest information in an age
appropriate manner to children to help them work through
issues and ideas
+ allowing and encouraging non-gender specific free play
(for example boys dressing up and girls using construction
materials) and challenging sexist attitudes and behaviour
+ using non-gender specific language when talking to adults
about their partners — not assuming their partner is of
the opposite sex
+ not assuming heterosexuality or gender identity of children
+ encouraging, facilitating and incorporating same-
sex parents/caregivers/caregivers in classroom and
community activities
Here in San Jose we have a very serious homelessness problem, as we also have a very serious problem of people that are marginally housed and in quite risky situations. You have families with maybe 6 persons living in a studio apartment. You have unrelated people in very marginal housing situations. If anything happened which would force them to move, they would probably be out on the street.
And then we also have the political and cultural issue of people using the poor as scapegoats, and then also the way our society and our government deliberately encourage this scapegoating and depend upon it.
San Jose makes and official homeless count each year, they get a number like 7,000 or 22,000. But you know that this will always be a gross undercount. But even with this some surprising things always surface. Like for one, most of the homeless are working homeless. And another, the average age of homeless persons is 5 years old. That is, there are huge numbers of homeless families with small children and babies. You don't see them so much as there are shelters which take care of them some. But it is hard to keep kids registered in school when the parent has no address except a shelter. I know someone who is often involved in trying to handle this.
And then when Dave Cortese ran for Mayor of San Jose, he characterized the typical homeless person as an employed student at San Jose City College, who though employed, cannot afford to pay rent, so they live in their car.
And in fact, this does fit for a huge number of people. But consider what kind of a life this really amounts to, and what about asking a girl out on a date?
And then consider our 470,000 student 23 campus CSU system, with a 9% homelessness rate:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harold-o-l…
And so Dave Cortese, supported by labor and minority groups, lost in a very close election to the business community candidate Sam Liccardo. He sees the homeless as a societal menace. He is involved in programs which seek to humiliate the homeless and regulate them. He is involved with one where the City forced closure of a church meals program and seems to have imported their own replacement pastor, all the way from Nebraska. He is involved in other things, corporate sponsored, which give the homeless not jobs, of course not, but it gets them into 'work readiness programs'.
All of this has the effect of intimidating organized labor, and especially the public employee unions. When they see the stigma associated with being poor and with job loss, they have to back down. Mostly this is how it works. Our welfare, disabilities, and homeless support systems are designed to regulate and suppress militancy, not just at the bottom, but throughout the work force. So many who are in vulnerable jobs, don't feel that they could even take the risk of organizing.
And then we've all seen the numbers about how more than half of the population is only two paychecks away from defaulting on rent or mortgage.
And then as yuppie couples bid up the housing costs, the chances of that loss of income are doubled.
https://www.amazon.ca/Two-Income-Trap-Mi…
And so I was right away impressed when I learned that Massachusetts elected Elizabeth Warren to the Senate, and that Hillary Clinton had been working with her.
Many of the long term homeless are completely unemployable, in my view. Its just the long term psychological stress of living out on the streets with zero social standing. And then this contributes to health problems. And then nowadays most employers have to deal with liability insurance carriers and so they don't want anyone who could be seen as high risk, so they do screenings. So these folks are never going to be able to have anything like a normal job.
So to get even the $147 a month General Assistance, people are supposed to show proof of applying for 14 jobs per week. This is a joke, just a complete exercise in humiliation and time wasting.
So there is recycling cans, which is very competitive. And then there might be some occasional day labor opportunities, which might pay $10 to $40. But one could never pay our $1,500 a month median rent like that. And then around half of those sorts of employers don't even pay as agreed.
Some of this is just the way our Capitalist system is designed to work.
Frances Fox-Piven explains that this use of welfare money to try and regulate the potentially disruptive activity of the poor goes back to the start of Capitalism around 1600.
https://www.amazon.ca/Regulating-Poor-Fu…
Remember that for Capitalism to go there had to be this Enclosure Movement, driving people off of common lands. Usually starving them, and then still having to drive them off at gun point, so they would have to flee to cities and take starvation wage factory labor.
And today even that kind of labor is usually not available.
And then as I have explained, Born Again Christianity is a system designed to suppress and regulate, it promotes child abuse, and it is a repackaging of the South's old pro-slavery religion.
And then their is the psychiatric system. Putting people on drugs is far cheaper than putting them in psychiatric hospitals or jails.
The Senator from Texas, Ted Cruz, was willing to hold up the federal budget so cuts could be made to Food Stamps. But even he would never dream of cutting off money for keeping the poor medicated.
The longer someone is on psychiatric meds, in my view, the sicker they are getting.
And a huge portion of this does come down to familial child abuse. To be able to educate oneself, someone has to believe that they are worth it. But the middle-class family was originally designed to exploit and abuse children. It operates around the Self-Reliance Ethic. And most of the poor are deeply committed to it. If you have not one dime and no employment, you must say that you believe in Self-Reliance, otherwise you are seen as culpable.
So great potential is being destroyed as souls are murdered in the name of Self-Reliance. And most of all, there is no political uprising.
I believe that the poor do need to organize, and do need to use any and all available means. And especially there must be zero tolerance for these sorts of Social Darwinist arguments.
But as it stands now, as much as it is needed, and as much as it is justified, I don't see it happening.
I will say this, in the organization I am building, no one will EVER have the experience of "looking for a job". That is the most absurd time waste ever invented.
And no one will ever be told about Self-Reliance. Rather, we will work to help people unlearn that idea, so that they can actually develop and apply their talents and abilities.
I say the place to start is with the abusive parents. Take all of their assets away from them and put them in trust for their children. As people know I helped put one such parent into San Quentin, for sexually molesting his daughters. With each communication to the DA and the court, I also started explaining how he never told me anything which directly indicated guilt. But I was completely blown away by the emotional energy he had invested in scapegoating his eldest daughter.
And then at the end, to try and get him as high a sentence as possible I tried to convince the court that this guy's church is a social menace. They all have scapegoat children, and they all talk about them the same way that this guy did.
Imagine if these girls had listened to their church and gone with lies and denial. Think 10 or 20 years out. Failed marriages, failed attempts at getting an education and building a career. These girls could very well end up being the targets for that church's ministry. They would be told that Jesus has so much pity for them that he wants them to have a second chance. All he wants in return is that they admit that it is their own fault and their own rebelliousness which are responsible for screwing up their first chance.
And 4got2wipe, I find your analysis insightful and spot on. I wish I could have described it that way. I think we always need to remember that children and poor people and others are struggling with a historical legacy or rejection and stigmatizing. We don't want to exacerbate that. People will find their way best if we are supporting, instead of persecutory. And I am sorry that so many of the members of this forum, mostly White Males, seem to want this coercive conformity. Often this coercive conformity is under the Libertarian Anti-Government label.
So what I recommend is that people who want to learn get involved with the programs that reach out to the poor. Some are Evangelical, and I am opposed to this. But for those who have never been involved, you will still learn much. Other religious programs are not Evangelical, and then there are some programs which are not religious at all.
Anyway, I say the poor need to act, they need to organize and they need to find targets to attack, as the poor are being used by our entire society as scapegoats, and these Social Darwinist arguments are what it revolves around.
SJG
Francis Fox-Piven, talking about these Social Darwinism arguments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kV49hGm8…
Jimmy Smith - Any number can win
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWhJfJye…
SJG
13th Ammendment: Abolish Slavery
GOP support=100%
Democrat oppose= 77%
14th Amendment:Citizenship/Equal Right
GOP support= 94%
Democrat oppose= 100%
15th Ammendment: Right to vote
GOP support= 100%
Democrat oppose= 100%
It is clearly obvious the Liberal base, the Democratic Party, has been historically against anything equal for the minority citizens of our great nation and mug of the historical movement of equalizing opportunity is due to the Republican/conservative base. Nina would dismiss these facts as the party has changed, but it hasn't ever changed. It is a self serving party of corrupt individuals conspiring to take advantage of people's problems and capitalizing on the disparity and hopes of the down trodden clad of citizens hoping politicians will take and fight for their cause, yet only to realize the liberals abuse their position for their own personal gain. It's too bad liberals like you find in large metro areas like San Francisco, LA, New York, Baltimore, Chicago, and D.C. drink the kool-aid of progressive-ism when in fact they are the most greedy self serving individuals the history of this Earth has ever known. I would be ashamed to vote Democrat and tell others about it.
@sjg tl:dr
Nina: just because you get a job doesn't mean you're no longer poor. How can you say something so simple when I hear you want to be a lawyer
Who the hell let's their child go transgender when majority of children are still too stupid to tie their shoes
Just the word choice of "let's his or her child go transgender" suggests the topic might be well enough understood by some of the public. No one "goes" transgender. Just like no one "goes" cisgender. We are just now starting to discuss and really understand gender identity. Earlier many of the experts on gender identity issues thought that gender assignment was cemented at or near the start of puberty. Even recently the experts had come to see evidence that gender identity may actually be formed much younger than that -- meaning it is not tied to sexuality (nor the onset of puberty) -- there is some evidence to suggest gender identity is formed as young as 5 yo (kindergarten) and there is some recent evidence to suggest it might even occur in some individuals earlier than that -- perhaps 2-3 yo.
Like SJG wrote --> "There is nothing insane of 'fucked up' about this. But it is going beyond what most people are accustomed to. I think the issue is just getting people to really think about something." --> end quote SJG
So as tensions escalated, the old Whig Party of Washington and John Adams collapsed. And then the Republican Party, a Northern only party, and always an anti-slavery party, formed.
You had great people like Charles Sumner of Massachusetts, and their 1856 first Presidential candidate, the Senator from California, John C. Fremont.
Now as a new and Northern only party, they did not do well in 1856. But by 1860 the country had been electrified by John Brown's abortive raid on Harper's Ferry Virginia. And then as the issue remained the status of the Western territories, at the Democratic convention, Southerners insisted that in the party platform they would get a 'slave code for the West." And when they didn't get it, following the lead of the Senator from Mississippi, Jefferson Davis, they walked out of the convention.
Well, the Democratic Party was by this point the only remaining nationwide institution. And though they nominated the leader of the day, Stephen Douglas, with the party split, he had little chance. So the Republican candidate, a relatively moderate and unknown Abraham Lincoln, won.
In 1858 when Lincoln lost running against Douglas for the Senate, he had pledged to "end the abominations of slavery and polygamy". But in 1860, he took a much more moderate position, pledging not to interfere with slavery where it was now practiced, but not wanting it to spread to the West.
Well even this was not enough to placate Southerners. Lincoln won at the start of November, but in those days the inauguration was not until March. So on December 20th South Carolina announced their secession, and they rang their bell. Quickly followed by Mississippi. And then when Lincoln entered DC, under cover of darkness and with snipers on the roof tops, 7 states had already announced secession, and they had taken over every post office and court house. And then they fired on all that was left, Ft. Sumter.
So Lincoln asked the states to supply troops to put down the rebellion, starting around Charleston. But then the remaining 4 states, Arkansas, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Virginia announced secession.
Now some of the Republicans were more abolitionist than others. But they did force through the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, and these amounted to a requirement for the Southern states to allow their state governments and federal legislators to be re-seated. The Republican Party was the anti-slavery party, and the Democratic Party tended to be pro-slavery in the South, and neutral or indifferent everywhere else.
Remember also that in running for his second term in 1864, Lincoln called his run the Union Party. And he selected Andrew Johnson as his running mate. He was the only one of the Southern legislators who had not walked out. Being from the Eastern side of Tennessee, mountainous territory where there was not that much slavery practiced, he opposed secession. But this does not mean that he was in favor of anything like civil rights, or even ending slavery. Lincoln was doing everything possible to hold out an olive branch. When Johnson ran in 1868, he said, "I stand on the Constitution." He, historically a Democrat, did not want these further amendments. Having survived an impeachment attempt, Johnson failed to get the nomination from either party. Those were tumultuous times. And Grant, a Republican, would win in 1868 and 1872. I don't think Grant was a bad man, but he was not cut out to be an effective President. His terms were some of the most corrupt in the nation's history.
Yale's David Blight, highly recommended
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXXp1bHd…
How the Republican Party went from Lincoln to Trump
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8VOM8ET…
SJG
FLDS, abusive polygamy, High Country News
http://www.hcn.org/issues/44.10/flds-con…
Debra Weyermann
https://www.amazon.com/Answer-Them-Nothi…
Voulez-vous coucher avec moi ce soir?
https://youtu.be/yiirjB0uO8M?t=2m6s
A very dark play about some very crazy kinds of people
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=er7h5MB2…
Full Text
http://web.mit.edu/jscheib/Public/21m790…
https://www.amazon.com/More-Than-Freedom…
Remember that slave produced cotton had been the nation's most valuable export. And it was Northern banks which provided the seed and transportation money, and profited from this.
So the abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison called upon people to be "perfect", to have not contact with any of it.
One of the main reasons that Northerners wanted to end slavery was that by the 3/5 clause, slave owners were getting extra votes and were getting to stack the House of Representatives and the Electoral College. More often than not they held the White House, and had stacked the Federal Judiciary. So people were calling this, plus the influence they bought with the money, Slave Power.
And then there was the concern in the West about the kind of power slave owners would have, being unfair to White workers, and this is what led to guerilla war in 1856 Kansas.
But once the slavery matter was settled, the Republican Party would change, and then the Democratic Party has also changed.
The early 1870's brought us the first of these world wide industrial recessions, caused by over production in steel. The result, especially in England, was unemployment, and then concentration of plant ownership.
Northerners wanted to end slavery, to make the country more politically fair. But they hadn't really planned on the amount of economic disruption that this would cause in the South.
So as Capitalism creates problems, and then instead of solving them, just expands, they responded to this 1870's world wide recession by converting the South into a kind of internalized third world. So the South would be consumers for manufactured goods, while the West would be a natural resource base to exploit.
But to make this work, they were able to convince the second term Grant Administration to end Reconstruction, the federal occupation of the South.
To take apart a society based on racism it takes more than just a few years.
And then in the 1876 election the South was talking about secession again, and so people believe that that was the first stolen election, given to the Southerner, a Democrat, in order to keep the peace.
So in the decades which followed Republicans were more often than not able to hold the White House, as they became the party of Big Business, and totally unconcerned about racial issues, or the fate of immigrants in the Northern industrial cities.
The 1880's were an economically very hard decade. And this is when Social Darwinism took hold. It had developed in England, but there it never had much of a following. Rather in the US, where you had immigrant minorities and a great deal of racial and religious prejudice, and a great deal of extreme economic deprivation for no reason, Social Darwinism was the doctrine of the day.
And so this is when you first had some movement against the power of Big Business, with the emergence of the Grangers, in the Upper Midwest, wanting to limit the power of Railroads and Banks and give small farmers a better chance.
And so Big Business interests were almost always Republicans, where as Southern Whites were Democrats, and still racists. And so most Blacks who were registered to vote were Republicans, and especially the lawyer types who would make up the NAACP.
The Democratic Party in the North came to represent immigrants, Catholics, and Jews. And it did this as there started to be xenophobic movements to keep people from Central and Eastern Europe out, and racial and religious justifications were used to do this.
And so you had people like the Republican New York Times Cartoonist, Thomas Nast, anti-Democrat, anti-Southerner, anti-Irish, anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic.
And while the Republican post civil war rule was extremely corrupt, the Democratic Party also be become associated with corruption in the big cities, like NY's Tammany Hall.
And then so a reform or Progressive Wing of the Republic Party developed, most strongly associated with Teddy Roosevelt. He wanted to limit the power of Big Business, and to break up monopolies, which he called "Trusts". And he was the one who set up the Food and Drug Administration.
And when instead of meeting with TR, J. P. Morgan wanted to send a representative, making himself something like an equal to the President, TR rejected that completely.
Immigrants in the big cities were often living in horrible conditions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_the_Ot…
And they still have a business card left with the book's author Jacob Riis from then Congressman Theodore Roosevelt, on which had written, "I want to help".
But then what finally happened, after TR was out, and then wanting to re-gain the Presidency, and running against his own man, William Howard Taft, the Republican Party was split. The Progressive Wing went with TR. But the now reactionary big business wing went with Taft.
So the Democrat Woodrow Wilson thus won. And that would be the end of the Republican Party's Progressive Wing.
Why would anyone be in such places, if this is not what they want?
***************************************************************************
Before discussing the election of Woodrow Wilson, one more thing about the Civil War and the lead up to it.
Black abolitionists were extremely offended by Harriet Beecher-Stowe's character Uncle Tom. Her novel was serialized in 1851, then printed between two covers in 1852. By far it outsold any other work of fiction, and then in England far more copies were sold.
But the black community right away reacted against it.
William J. Watkins of Boston
February 24, 1853
Here the full text:
https://research.udmercy.edu/find/specia…
Speech given before Massachusetts Legislature Committee on the Militia, demanding the right of Black men to serve in the militia.
It is also printed here:
https://www.amazon.com/Protest-Pamphlet ... B001NIWTMU
He makes direct reference to Uncle Tom, and says that if they cannot serve in the Massachusetts Militia, and instead follow the example of Uncle Tom, then even in heaven they will be relegated to the Negro Pew.
Here I post from the original text from, 2/24/1853,
Our Rights as Men. An Address Delivered in
Boston, Before the Legislative Committee on the Militia
page 6
"
Your laws are founded in caste, conceived in caste, born in caste.
Caste is the God whom this great Nation delights to honor. Caste
is in your singing, your preaching, your praying; your beau-ideal of
Heaven is a place of unfading joy, and resplendent magnificence,
where you shall play for ever upon your golden harps, and the colored
people, if they, like Uncle Tom, submit to your indignities with
Christian meekness and becoming resignation, shall be permitted,
from the Negro pew, to peep into the glory of your third heaven
to all eternity!
"
page 18ff
"
Gentlemen, do we deserve to be placed in this category? If we
do, we should be taken care of; for lunatics and idiots are not able to
take care of themselves, and criminals should be looked after especially.
If we do not, we have a right to demand that you withdraw
us from the company with whom we find ourselves involuntarily associated.
You will perceive that we are not literally among the
absolute exempts, although prejudice may so construe it. For
although able bodied white male citizens shall be enrolled among the
general militia, there is nothing here which says able-bodied colored
citizens shall NOT. It seems to be left optional with us. Our fathers
were not able-bodied white male citizens; but they were able enough
to face British cannon, in 1776 and 1812.
So, gentlemen, you perceive that we base our petition upon the
grand, fundamental, eternal, Heaven-approving principle of RIGHT;
OUR ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO ENJOY FULL CIVIL PRIVILEGES. If it can be
proved we are not able-bodied MEN; if it can be proved we are incapable
of performing every honorable duty, you should consider our petition
as a gross insult to your body, but it not, there is no alternative but to
treat us as citizens of this Commonwealth should be treated; as ablebodied,
honorable men.
In the fourth and last place, Mr. Chairman, I WILL BRIEFLY NOTICE
SOME OF THE BENEFICIAL RESULTS WHICH WILL ACCRUE
FROM THE GRANTING OF THIS PETITION.
And allow me to remark that these results will be reciprocally
beneficial. I am conscious, gentlemen, there are some men in the
country, foreigners especially, who would not sleep very soundly, unless
your report were adverse to our Petition. There are some so
peculiarly sensitive, that were they to behold an able-bodied colored
company parading down State street, where fell the noble Crispus
Attucks, they would be almost ready to proclaim the hour of God’s
judgment come; or, what is about the same thing in their estimation, we would be upon the eve of a dissolution of the Union. They
would not shut their eyes, but to dream of miserable hobgoblins; and
black regiments of soldiers would so harrow up their little, narrow,
contracted souls, that with mournful and elongated visage they would
feel called on to walk up and down our streets, and proclaim, “Woe,
woe, woe” unto Massachusetts, and to the inhabitants thereof; “for
the great day of His wrath is come, and who shall be able to
stand?”
Why, gentlemen, if you grant us a charter, the soap bubble gasconade,
and characteristic rhodomontade of Southern bullyism, would
be launched forth against you with fearful power. Think you South
Carolina would then stay in the Union, IF SHE COULD BY ANY
MEANS EXIST OUT OF IT?
But, Mr. Chairman, to be serious; if any one dreams of any evil
consequences inevitably flowing from the granting of this Petition,
we should charitably attribute all to the hallucination of a moonstruck
imagination. In the first place, grant our petition, and you
evince to the world, that Massachusetts careth for her colored citizens;
that she does not repudiate them as vagrants or criminals, but
is disposed to help those who help themselves. It shews forth to the
world, that Massachusetts knows no man by the color of his skin, but
all, irrespective of accidental circumstances, stand upon one broad,
common, and ever enduring platform, on which the whole world may
stand and it will not fall.
.
.
.
"
You gotta read the whole thing though. It is really interesting. Uncle Tom was repulsive to Black abolitionists right from the start, and he remains repulsive to this day.
And blacks insisted that they must be allowed to serve in militias, even if just to live down the characterization of Uncle Tom. Though Massachusetts denied them in 1853, they still bought their own uniforms and formed their own militia and drilled and trained.
And then we know about the exceptional service they would give in the 54th and 55th Massachusetts, and the 14th Rhode Island.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097441/
Watch right now, as this kind of stuff doesn't stay up long.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kp4m5Zlj…
SJG