ON THE FOURTH OF JULY

thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 26666
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: ON THE FOURTH OF JULY

Post by thelivyjr » Tue Jul 28, 2020 1:40 p

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR July 27, 2020 at 9:31 pm

Paul Plante says:

And going back to the recent rather tepid and gutless editorial entitled “Don’t remove Philip Schuyler statue without community input” by the editors of the Hearst publication the Albany, New York Times Union on July 7, 2020, we find ourselves as American citizens confronted with this following statement of theirs, to wit:

Ms. Sheehan says she is not trying to erase history, but argues the Schuyler statue must go because it is hurtful to the city’s significant Black population.

end quotes

Given that Kathy Sheehan of Albany is merely a “cat’s paw” for BLACK LIVES MATTER, that statement is probably true on its face, because it is BLACK LIVES MATTER that is trying to erase history, using as their dupe to accomplish their political agenda mayor Kathy Sheehan of the Democrat-controlled sanctuary city of Albany, New York.

Consider for a moment that a “nation,” any nation, including the United States of America, is defined as “a stable community of humans formed on the basis of a common language, territory, history, ethnicity, or psychological make-up manifested in a common culture.”

If one bothers to consider that definition for a moment, one is first forced to have to wonder if today, we are a nation at all, given the turmoil and instability that exists in this nation today where we no longer have a common language, especially with the rise of TWITTERESE, or a psychological make-up manifested in a common culture, which we no longer have.

And then one has to ponder what happens to us as a people when we no longer have a common history.

What are we then?

As to the use of “history” as a political tool or weapon, consider the article “Constructing national history in political discourse: Coherence and contradiction (Moldova, 2001–2009)” by Julien Danero Iglesias, Pages 780-800, received 05 Jan 2012, accepted 12 Oct 2012, published online: 27 Feb 2013, where we had as follows on that subject, to wit:

Abstract

History is one of the many instruments available for the persuasive construction of a nation.

end quotes

Said another way, it is history that shapes who and what a “nation,” which is always an abstract notion or idea, actually is, something the Marxists among us, which today includes BLACK LIVES MATTER, have known for some long time, as this is not at all a new subject for them.

I would say the majority of people are unaware of this on-going discussion about the role of history in creating the notion of what a nation is or is not largely because it is going on in academic circles where the majority of us are excluded, not included, unless we come out of our “comfort zones” to look around us at what is going on in the world we inhabit, as opposed to what is going on with TWITTER and the Kardashians, or Instagram.

One informative article on the subject is “Identity and Persuasion: How Nations Remember Their Pasts and Make Their Futures” by Consuelo Cruz in World Politics, Vol. 52, No. 3 (Apr., 2000), pp. 275-312, published by Cambridge University Press, https://www.jstor.org/stable/25054115 , which article shows that the sharp developmental divergence between Costa Rica and Nicaragua can be properly understood only through close analytical scrutiny of the different rhetorical frames, fields of imaginable possibilities, and collective identities that rose to prominence at critical points in these countries’ colonial and postcolonial histories.

A similar article is “The Construction of Europe and the Concept of the Nation-State” by Bernard Bruneteau in Contemporary European History, Vol. 9, No. 2 (Jul., 2000), pp. 245-260, published by Cambridge University Press, https://www.jstor.org/stable/20081745 , where we were informed as follows:

Abstract

The construction of Europe is often teleologically addressed as a result of an unstoppable trend towards federalism.

Another angle on this history gives access to another logic: that of a European kind of nation-state which considers European integration not as an element in its decline, but as a tool to reorganise its power.

This new youth for the old nation-state was linked as much to the historical context of the 1950s-1970s as to the specific rules of policy-making and to the economic regulation focus of the European Community.

end quotes

And then we have the article “Social Construction of Nation—A Theoretical Exploration” by Helen Ting in Nationalism and Ethnic Politics Volume 14, 2008 – Issue 3, Pages 453-482, published online 14 Aug 2008,
https://doi.org/10.1080/13537110802301418 , wherein was stated as follows:

Abstract

In this article, the term “nation” is understood as a mental construct, and the formation of national identity as a dynamic, contentious historical process of social construction.

Using the concept of “figured world of nationhood,” I discuss how the subjective, collective perception of the “objective,” virtual reality of a nation is (re)constituted and negotiated through social practices.

In the same process, actors come to increasingly identify with and commit themselves to this “figured world of nationhood.”

The agency of social actors involved is differentiated according to the respective “social field” of their action.

end quotes

A lot of big words, perhaps, but when boiled down to its essence, it is an apt description for what is going on in this nation of ours right now, as we have Hawk Newsome of BLACK LIVES MATTER in a Newsweek article entitled “BLM Leader: We’ll ‘Burn’ the System Down If U.S. Won’t Give Us What We Want” by Meghan Roos on 6/25/20, telling us, or more properly, warning us, as follows:

A leader of Black Lives Matter’s New York chapter on Wednesday said the movement was prepared to “burn down this system” if the U.S. does not work with participants to enact real change.

“If this country doesn’t give us what we want, then we will burn down this system and replace it,” said Hawk Newsome, chairman of Black Lives Matter of Greater New York, during an interview with Fox News.

end quotes

That is why Democrat mayor Kathy Sheehan of Albany, New York ordered the statue of Philip Schuyler in front of Albany City Hall to be removed and hidden away somewhere, along with our history that is being erased, because she knew damn well that BLACK LIVES MATTER would burn down her city if they didn’t get what it was they wanted from her, which is her subservience to their Marxist cause.

The Newsweek article continued as follows:

“This country is built upon violence,” Newsome said, pointing to the American Revolution and modern American diplomacy as examples.

end quotes

As to violence during the American Revolution, which was very much a civil war in this country, a well-researched and informative book on that subject is “The Burning of the Valleys – Daring Raids from Canada Against the New York Frontier in the Fall of 1780” by Gavin K. Watt, as follows:

Overview

In the fifth year of the War of Independence, while the Americans focused on the British thrust against the Carolinas, the Canadian Department waged a decisive campaign against the northern frontier of New York.

Their primary target was the Mohawk River region, known to be the “grainbowl” that fed Washington’s armies.

The Burning of the Valleys details the actions of both sides in this exciting and incredibly effective British campaign.

General Frederick Haldimand of Canada possessed a potent force, formed by the deadly alliance of toughened, embittered Tories, who had abandoned their families and farms in New York and Pennsylvania to join the King’s Provincial regiments in Canada, and the enraged Six Nations Iroquois, whose towns and farmlands had been utterly devastated by Continentals in 1779.

The Governor augmented this highly motivated force with British and German regulars and Canadian Iroquois.

In October, without benefit of modern transportation, communications or navigational aids, four coordinated raids, each thoroughly examined in this book, penetrated deeply into American territory.

The raiders fought skirmishes and battles, took hundreds of prisoners, burned forts, farms, and mills and destroyed one of the finest grain harvests in living memory.

end quotes

Living very near to where those raids took place, as children we learned about that violence first-hand, as in the Cherry Valley Massacre, which was an attack by British and Iroquois forces on a fort and the village of Cherry Valley in central New York on November 11, 1778, during the American Revolutionary War, described as one of the most horrific frontier massacres of the war when a mixed force of Loyalists, British soldiers, Seneca and Mohawks descended on Cherry Valley, whose defenders, despite warnings, were unprepared for the attack.

During the raid, the Seneca in particular targeted non-combatants, and reports state that 30 such individuals were slain, in addition to a number of armed defenders.

So when this Hawk Newsome of BLACK LIVES MATTER starts talking about the use of violence as a political tool or weapon in the context of the American Revolution, where one side was fighting for liberty, while the other side was fighting to maintain a foreign tyranny, is he uttering fighting words to those of us in America who do know and remember our history?

Stay tuned, for through the courtesy and patriotism of the Cape Charles Mirror, more is yet to come on that subject.

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/p ... ent-268525

thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 26666
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: ON THE FOURTH OF JULY

Post by thelivyjr » Wed Jul 29, 2020 1:40 p

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR July 28, 2020 at 9:33 pm

Paul Plante says:

Staying with this concept that the term “nation” is understood as a mental construct, and the formation of national identity as a dynamic, contentious historical process of social construction, and history is one of the many instruments available for the persuasive construction of a nation, let us go back for a moment to the article “Constructing national history in political discourse: Coherence and contradiction (Moldova, 2001–2009)” by Julien Danero Iglesias, where we had further on that subject, to wit:

In Moldova, the Party of the Communists of the Republic of Moldova (PCRM), in office from 2001 to 2009, advocated for a Soviet-based version of the Moldovan nation.

This “Moldovanism” boasted of the existence of a “Moldovan People” and was relied upon to justify the independence of the former Romanian province.

Vladimir Voronin, the party’s leader and president of the Republic during this period, promoted this “civic” Moldovan nation and created what seemed to be a coherent and ad hoc construction of an independent Moldovan nation.

This paper focuses on communist political discourse during this eight year period.

Through the use of Critical Discourse Analysis, this paper focuses on the discursive construction of the Moldovan nation.

It is based on Voronin’s official speeches and messages from key occasions such as Independence Day and Victory Day.

This paper demonstrates the varied use of history in these speeches which improves understanding of the process of the construction of a nation.

end quotes

As I have said above, the Marxists have known for some long time the value of history as a political tool, which takes us to this sentence in that same paper, to wit:

This is a reference to a 1990 Soviet movie, based on a Turkish legend according to which a Mankurt is a man who is used as a slave because somebody has made him forget his fatherland, his history, and his language.

end quotes

In the figurative sense, the word “mankurt” is used to refer to a person who has lost touch with his historical, national roots, who has forgotten about his kinship.

In this sense, the word “mankurt” has become a term in common parlance in the old Soviet Union and thus, is a term used in journalism.

Marxists like BLACK LIVES MATTER would be quite familiar with that term and its meaning with respect to political control over a subject people, which would happen to be people with white skin in this nation if BLACK LIVES MATTER can succeed in stripping from us our national identity as a nation of people who once threw off the tyranny of a foreign tyrant king to replace it with a Republican frame of government based on the concept of egalitarianism or the doctrine that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities.

In his novel “The Day Lasts More Than a Hundred Years,” the author Chinghiz Aitmatov, a Soviet and Kyrgyz author who wrote in both Kyrgyz and Russian, draws heavily on the tradition of the mankurts.

The legend is about a Turkmen who defends his homeland from invasion.

He is captured, tortured, and brainwashed into serving his homeland’s conquerors.

He is so completely turned that he kills his mother when she attempts to rescue him from captivity.

So, indeed, it is a very powerful metaphor, the Mankurt, which takes us back to the Albany, New York Times story “Biancolli: As we get rid of Schuyler statue, we need to own his history” by Amy Biancolli on July 7, 2020, to wit:

Philip John Schuyler, Revolutionary War general and senator from New York, has been a piece of Albany’s history for more than a quarter of a millennium.

We’ve been proud to embrace that history.

Schuyler’s ours.

We own him.

And now that the Black Lives Matters protests have sparked fresh reflection on history — now that Mayor Kathy Sheehan has promised to remove the statue — now that the Philip J. Schuyler Achievement Academy has resolved to change its name — now that the lens we train on history is focusing more closely on slavery, Schuyler’s own enslaved servants and the persistent systemic racism borne of same — we can’t disown him.

And we shouldn’t.

Owning him means acknowledging the facts of his life, which the Schuyler Mansion has been doing for years — incorporating the stories of Prince, the general’s longtime butler, and other enslaved people.

end quotes

And it is indeed interesting that with regard to “owning” Philip Schuyler by acknowledging the facts of his life, there is a lengthy, well-researched paper on that subject from the website for the New York State Military Museum entitled “Victory…Impossible Without Schuyler’s Direction” by Abigail and Paul Stambach, where we had as follows, to wit:

Two hundred and thirty years ago this summer, one of the most important campaigns of the American Revolution was fought in upstate New York and Vermont.

The action took place at Fort Ticonderoga, Whitehall, Fort Anne, Hubbarton, Fort Stanwix, Bennington and Schuylerville.

The campaign culminated in the American victories at the battles of Saratoga in September and October 1777 when a mighty British army was defeated.

As a result, France with its treasury, army and, more importantly, its naval fleet joined the American cause.

Most historians believe that this French aid resulted in final victory for independence.

The American commander at the time of the climatic Saratoga battles was General Horatio Gates.

Due to a combination of sectionalism amongst the states, class conflict, political intrigue and personal ambition, Gates received credit for the stunning victory.

Major General Philip Schuyler, the architect of the victorious campaign, was condemned as a military incompetent, and possibly even a traitor, despite his acquittal from a court martial in 1778.

In the last 30 years, however, historians such as Don Gerlach, Martin Bush and Richard Ketchum have begun to question the usual beliefs regarding Schuyler’s generalship.

Schuyler’s contributions were vital to the American war effort during the campaign leading up to the critical battles of Saratoga, which took place on September 19 and October 7, 1777.

Although Schuyler was no longer in command when the actual battles took place, nevertheless, his uses of the Fabian tactics of delay and evasion rather than direct confrontation were successful in stalling Burgoyne’s troops as they marched from Canada into northern New York.

Also, Schuyler audaciously split his forces in the face of the enemy’s main onslaught from the north to counter a British feint from the west along the Mohawk River valley.

Without Schuyler’s daring improvisations prior to the Saratoga battles, it is very possible that the campaign of 1777 would have turned out badly for the Americans.

end quotes

What makes that article not only interesting for the detailed look into the life of Philip Schuyler that it provides us with is the fact that the article started out as a term paper by Abigail, who was a senior at Gettysburg College majoring in History, who worked summers as an interpreter at the Schuyler Mansion State Historic Site in Albany, NY., while her father, Paul, who enhanced the paper into this article, was the manager of Schuyler Mansion and the Crailo State Historic Site in Rensselaer, NY during the 1970s, which is over 40 years ago now, and is an indication of just how long scholarship on the life of Philip Schuyler has been going on now.

In closing, the article stated that they encouraged the reader to visit these sites to gain an understanding of what men like Philip Schuyler and John Van Rensselaer put at risk with their support of the war for independence.

Forty years later, instead of trying to gain an understanding of what men like Philip Schuyler put at risk with their support of the war for independence, we are instead being taught to revile him because as we have known for well over sixty years that I can attest to, he in fact “owned” slaves, like Prince, his pampered and well-fed butler at the Schuyler Mansion, where he tended to the family and their guests at the Georgian-style manse built in the 1760s for Gen. Philip Schuyler and his wife, Catherine.

Prince became the butler there after issuing a 1776 appeal to “the Honourable Lady Schuyler,” explaining the dire circumstances under his current owner and asking the Schuylers to take him on.

He “has quite lost the use of my limbs with cold for want of Cloaths or Blanket,” he wrote — or perhaps someone else wrote on his behalf.

“I am very willing to go to work for his Excellency the General at any sort of employ or any of the inhabitants in the town for my victuals & Cloaths.”

Of all the slaves in the Schuyler manse, said Heidi Hill, historic site manager at Schuyler and Crailo, “We know the most about Prince.”

Not everything: His age was unknown.

But Prince must have been on in years by the time Angelica Schuyler Church wrote to her mother from London, asking: “How is old Prince?”

“When I don’t see the old man’s name I think he is dead.”

Church’s letter is quoted in a 1911 book by Georgina Schuyler that tracks the mansion’s history from 1762 to 1804.

The author notes: “Prince was an African, a slave.”

“It was reported soon after he became a member of the household that he refused to eat with the other negroes on the ground that he was their superior in rank in Africa.”

“… Soon he was promoted, and he became a trusted and faithful servant.”

Which takes us over to mindless TWITTER, where on June 22, 2020, @AmyBiancolli TWEETED to her multitude of followers as follows:

More back-and-forth emails with this guy.

He’s adamant that enslaved people in NYS, including the servant Prince in the Schuyler Mansion, were well treated, so, you know, that somehow made their enslavement kinda okay?

My response: *He was owned.*

I need to say this??

Really??

end quotes

As was mentioned previously, who she is referring to in there as “this guy” happens to be myself, and it was never my contention that all enslaved persons anywhere, including New York state were well-treated, although the evidence indeed points in that direction if one were to bother to use the wide-open lens of history, as opposed to the tiny peephole employed today by BLACK LIVES MATTER and their media toadies and sycophants like Amy Biancolli of the Albany Times Union.

As to Prince being owned by the Schuylers, according to the established history that has existed since the 1800s, it was at his specific request that he be their slave.

So, if we are going to “own” the history of Philip Schuyler, then we also, all of us, including Amy Biancolli and BLACK LIVES MATTER, have to own the history of Prince, who was the slave of Philip Schuyler by an act of his own volition.

As to that history of slavery in New York, and the United States of America which we have known about for some long time, in an article entitled “Guest Blog: The Women of Schuyler Mansion” three years ago now on 4/14/2017 written by Danielle Funiciello, a historic interpreter at Schuyler Mansion since 2012 who earned her MA in Public History from the University at Albany in 2013 and has been accepted into the PhD Program in History for Fall 2017, writing her dissertation on Angelica Schuyler Church, we learn as follows, to wit:

Schuyler Mansion State Historic Site has been open to the public since October 17, 1917 and will be celebrating its 100th anniversary this season.

The home was built between 1761 and 1765 by Philip Schuyler of Albany who, after serving in the French and Indian War, went on to become one of four Major Generals who served under George Washington during the American Revolution.

Prominent for his military career, as a businessman, farmer, and politician, Philip was the main focus of the museum when it opened in 1917.

Over the last hundred years, however, the narrative told by historians at the site has expanded to emphasize the roles of Philip’s wife Catharine Van Rensselaer Schuyler, their eight children (five daughters; three sons), and nearly twenty enslaved men, women, and children owned by the Schuylers at their Albany estate.

end quotes

So despite the ignorance of Amy Biancolli, it is quite obvious that the history of the slaves at the Schuyler mansion in Albany has never been a secret, nor have they been treated as if they were not human, which has me wondering why people are acting today as if this were a recently unearthed “secret” about Philip Schuyler’s past, when it has been a matter of open knowledge going back to at least 1917, which takes us back to that article, as follows:

Since March was Women’s History Month, I am pleased to set aside Philip Schuyler, and instead bring you the history of the women of Schuyler Mansion – Catharine Schuyler and her five daughters Angelica, Elizabeth, Margaret, Cornelia, and Catharine (henceforth Caty to avoid confusion with her mother).

Some of those names will sound familiar to fans of the Broadway show Hamilton: An American Musical.

The oldest daughters, Angelica, Elizabeth, and Margaret “Peggy” Schuyler, born in 1756, ‘57, and ‘58, feature heavily in the plot because second daughter Elizabeth married Alexander Hamilton, America’s first Secretary of the Treasury, in 1780.

It is largely through Elizabeth’s efforts that so much information exists about Alexander Hamilton, Philip Schuyler, and the rest of the family.

Women were often the family historians of their time, collecting letters and documents.

Elizabeth was particularly tenacious in this role.

Unfortunately, since women’s actions were not considered relevant to the historical narrative (and perhaps due to some degree of modesty from the female collectors), sources by and about women were not always preserved.

Through careful inspection of the documents that remain, however, we can piece together quite a lot about these six women.

end quotes

Of relevance to this discussion is the following from that article, to wit:

Schuyler Mansion once had 125 total acres with 80 acres of farmland and a series of back working buildings.

Catharine was often placed in charge of the property in Schuyler’s absence and managed the slaves who worked in the household.

Catharine also acted as an overseer for the unsung women of Schuyler Mansion – the enslaved servants.

The head servant Prince, the enslaved women including Sylvia, Bess and Mary, and the children like Sylvia’s children Tom, Tally-ho, and Hanover, who helped serve within the home, all reported directly to Catharine.

These women did the majority of labor within the home – cooking, cleaning, mending, laundry, acting as nannies when the girls travelled, and perhaps even producing the materials used for these tasks – like rendering soap and dipping candles.

All this was done while raising their own families.

Sources on the enslaved women of the Schuyler household are even sparser, of course, but we tell the stories we have and hope that we will someday know more.

end quotes

So, what really is going on here, people?

By erasing Philip Schuyler from our history, as BLACK LIVES MATTER is demanding, how much more of our history gets erased, as well?

And for what purpose?

To turn us into Mankurts, people who are to be used by BLACK LIVES MATTER as their slaves after we have been made to forget our history and our language?

Think about it, people, in the context of BLACK LIVES MATTER leader Hawk Newsome, chairman of Black Lives Matter of Greater New York, during an interview with Fox News, telling the people of America, “If this country doesn’t give us what we want, then we will burn down this system and replace it.”

Replace it with what, Hawk?

What are you going to replace our Republic that Philip Schuyler fought for with?

A tyranny?

A despotism?

A Marxist “worker’s paradise?”

The candid world would like to know.

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/p ... ent-269191

thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 26666
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: ON THE FOURTH OF JULY

Post by thelivyjr » Thu Jul 30, 2020 1:40 p

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR July 29, 2020 at 8:50 pm

Paul Plante says:

And going back to this Newsweek article entitled “BLM Leader: We’ll ‘Burn’ the System Down If U.S. Won’t Give Us What We Want” by Meghan Roos on 6/25/20, we have a dude named Hawk Newsome, who has to be one of the stupidest people on the planet today, which is quite an honor, given the stiff competition, warning us as follows, to wit:

A leader of Black Lives Matter’s New York chapter on Wednesday said the movement was prepared to “burn down this system” if the U.S. does not work with participants to enact real change.

“If this country doesn’t give us what we want, then we will burn down this system and replace it,” said Hawk Newsome, chairman of Black Lives Matter of Greater New York, during an interview with Fox News.

“This country is built upon violence,” Newsome said, pointing to the American Revolution and modern American diplomacy as examples.

end quotes

And that statement about violence in this country associated with the American Revolution in the context of BLACK LIVES MATTER burning down the “system” in America, said “system” being civilized society based on rule of law, to replace it with something new, brings us back to the Declaration of Independence, where that violence is referenced quite vividly, as follows:

The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.

To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

end quotes

Now, I can just imagine the more sensitive among us are screeching at the top of their lungs at that reference in the Declaration of Independence, a historical document that is being written out of our history because it is alleged to be a white supremacist, racist document, to the Indians (Native Americans) as merciless savages, but if one reads history, and really, this is grade school history we are talking about here, because you don’t need a college degree to read and understand the Declaration of Independence, the Native Americans had a particularly brutal form of warfare before and at the time of the American Revolution whose violence this Hawk Newsome is referring to justify the violence of BLACK LIVES MATTER today, as we see by going back to that Newsweek article, as follows:

Several city leaders across the country have begun reviewing the training and policies in place at their local police departments, and a handful of officers accused of using excessive or unnecessary force that resulted in the death of a Black individual have been fired.

From Newsome’s perspective, that kind of progress is at odds with the due process claims government and law enforcement leaders made previously as explanations for why quick change was difficult.

“The moment people start destroying property, now cops can be fired automatically.”

“What is this country rewarding?”

“What behavior is it listening to?”

“Obviously not marching,” Newsome said.

end quotes

And talk about understatement – what the country is rewarding is BLACK LIVES MATTER taking over and looting and destroying the property of others so they can get their way by extortion and intimidation, which are classic KKK tactics.

And to see the direction this story is taking us as a nation and as a people with that said, let us go back to the Albany Times Union story “As statues tumble, relatives of Gen. Philip Schuyler ask for pause” by Brendan J. Lyons on July 5, 2020, where we find ourselves confronted with the following, to wit:

Although (Kathy) Sheehan has been mayor of the city (Albany) since 2014, the recent protests in Albany and across the country in the wake of the killing of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer prompted her call for the statue’s removal at a time she believes everyone should embrace the Black Lives Matter movement.

While a few leaders of Black Lives Movement groups have promoted violence, or have a history of violence themselves, the mayor said it is time for the nation to embrace that cause.

end quotes

Why Democrat mayor of Albany, New York Kathy Sheehan thinks rational, sane people in this country today are going to embrace a cause that intends to burn our civilized society in this nation down because she has done so remains a mystery at the time of this writing.

And that thought brings us back in time to the American Revolution and British General Burgoyne’s Proclamation at Bouquet River, 23-24 June 1777, while he was on his way south with his huge army to end the Revolution by splitting the colonies.

As our grade school history informed us, while camped at Bouquet River, forty miles north of Fort Ticonderoga (now Willsboro, New York), General John Burgoyne issued a bombastic proclamation intended to rally loyal Americans to his support and dishearten the rebels with threats of attack by his native American allies.

end quotes

When this Hawk Newsome gets to running his mouth about having his savages in BLACK LIVES MATTER burn down civilized society here in America unless Hawk Newsome gets what he wants, he actually reminds me very much of Johnny Burgoyne threatening to turn loose his Indians back during the Revolution, and what the threat ended up costing Burgoyne, when that threat stirred up a hornet’s nest, just as the threats of this Hawk Newsome are stirring up a hornet’s nest today, and just as Nat Turner’s rebellion on August 21, 1831 stirred up a hornet’s nest and created a serious backlash against innocent Black folks back then, with his action setting off a massacre of up to 200 black people and a new wave of oppressive legislation prohibiting the education, movement, and assembly of enslaved people.

As was the address of this Hawk Newsome of BLACK LIVES MATTER, the Bouquet River Proclamation was filled with the rhetorical excess for which Burgoyne was already well known and exposed him to ridicule from both sides of the Atlantic.

At about the same time he was threatening to unleash native American warriors against the rebels, he spoke to those allies in an attempt to persuade them to fight humanely.

Burgoyne’s two efforts at military rhetoric display a set of unrealistic assumptions about the character of the struggle, the nature of war on the frontier, and the motives of native Americans that help to explain why his campaign ended in surrender at Saratoga.

Before he further threatens the American people, this Hawk Newsome of BLACK LIVES MATTER should really consider the history of what happened to Burgoyne after he made similar threats, to wit:

After an introductory enumeration of his titles and a general comment on the justice of his cause, his political proclamation read:

To the eyes and ears of the temperate part of the public, and to the breasts of the suffering thousands [of Loyalists] in the Provinces, be the melancholy appeal, whether the present unnatural Rebellion has not been made a foundation for the compleatest system of tyranny that ever God, in his displeasure, suffered, for a time, to be exercised over a froward and stubborn generation….

Animated by these considerations, at the head of troops in the full power of health, discipline and valour, determined to strike where necessary, and anxious to spare where possible, I, by these presents, invite and exhort all persons, in all places where the progress of this army may point, and by the blessing of God I will extend it far, to maintain such a conduct as may justify me in protecting their lands, habitations and families.

The intention of this address is to hold forth security, not depredation to the country.

To those whom spirit and principle may induce to partake [of] the glorious task of redeeming their countrymen from dungeons, and reestablishing the blessings of legal government I offer encouragement and employment….

The domestick, the industrious, the infirm and even the timid inhabitants I am desirous to protect, provided they remain quietly in their houses …, [and do not] directly or indirectly endeavour to obstruct the operations of the King’s troops, or supply or assist those of the enemy.

[Concluding with threats against those who continued in rebellion, he went on to say that] I have but to give stretch to the Indian forces under my direction, and they amount to thousands [400, actually], to overtake the hardened enemies of Great Britain and America … wherever they may lurk.

(Quoted in Commager and Morris, Spirit of ‘Seventy-Six, pp. 547-548)

Burgoyne then addressed an assembly of chiefs and warriors by means of an interpreter on 24 June.

Beginning with a why-we-fight exhortation, he then tried to lay down a few simple rules:

Persuaded that your magnanimity of character, joined to your principles of affection to the King, will give me fuller control over your minds than the military rank with which I am invested, I enjoin your most serious attention to the rules which I hereby proclaim for your invariable observation during the campaign….

I positively forbid bloodshed, when you are not opposed in arms.

Aged men, women, children and prisoners must be held sacred from the knife or hatchet, even in the time of actual conflict….

In conformity and indulgence of your customs, which have affixed an idea of honor to such badges of victory, you shall be allowed to take the scalps of the dead when killed by your fire and in fair opposition; but on no account … are they to be taken from the wounded or even dying, and still less pardonable … will it be held to kill men in that condition on purpose….

Base, lurking assassins, incendiaries ravagers and plunderers of the country, to whatever army they may belong, shall be treated with less reserve.

(Commager and Morris, pp. 545-547)

end quotes

As I say, when older Americans like myself hear Hawk Newsome of BLACK LIVES MATTER threatening us with his mobs of savages, we immediately think of Burgoyne’s address where he told his savages that in conformity and indulgence of their customs, which have affixed an idea of honor to such badges of victory, they would be allowed to take the scalps of the dead.

As to Burgoyne’s admonition that on no account were scalps to be taken from the wounded or even dying, and still less pardonable would it be held to kill men in that condition on purpose, as the death and scalping of Jane McCrea was to prove, those were empty words, and by uttering those words and turning loose his Indians, Burgoyne indeed stirred up the hornet’s nest that was waiting for him roughly 107 miles to the south at a place called Bemis Heights, where he met his defeat and humiliation in what is known today as the Battle of Saratoga where his mighty army was destroyed by those he had set his Indians on to terrorize them to cause their submission.

That is the history I own, anyway, as an American citizen today,

What history does Kathy Sheehan and Hawk Newsome of BLACK LIVES MATTER own?

The history of LA-LA LAND?

Getting back to Burgoyne, after an initial flush of rage, Americans started laughing, and the more literate reached for their goose quills and foolscap, just as I am doing in here today in response to this call by mayor Kathy to embrace a cause to prevent our system being burned down, along with our nation, by BLACK LIVES MATTER.

An anonymous American commented, “General Burgoyne shone forth in all the tinsel splendour of enlightened absurdity” (Montross, p. 198).

In Albany, Kathy Sheehan is doing the exact same thing with her call for us to embrace BLACK LIVES MATTER, a group pledged to the destruction of our nuclear families here in the United States of America.

In England, Horace Walpole suggested that “the vaporing Burgoyne,” “might compose a good liturgy for the use of the King’s friends, who … have the same consciousness of Christianity, and … like him can reconcile the scalping knife with the Gospel” (quoted in Nickerson, Turning Point, p. 122).

In the House of Commons, Edmund Burke evoked a picture of the keeper of the royal menagerie turning loose his charges with this admonition: “My gentle lions, my humane bears, my tenderhearted hyenas, go forth!”

“But I exhort you as you are Christians and members of civil society, to take care not to hurt any man, woman or child” (Commager and Morris, p. 544).

In Albany today, were he around, Edmund Burke, who did have a way with words, would be talking in the same manner about Kathy Sheehan turning loose her charges on us with the admonition to not loot and burn and destroy, which we know to be a joke, especially in the face of the threats of Hawk Newsome to burn down our country with us in it.

So where is it that they think their threats are going to take them?

And us, as well.

Stay tuned for further developments, as they say on TV.

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/p ... ent-269793

thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 26666
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: ON THE FOURTH OF JULY

Post by thelivyjr » Sat Aug 01, 2020 1:40 p

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR July 31, 2020 at 6:29 pm

Paul Plante says:

So, staying for the moment with the concept of Democrat Kathy Sheehan, the mayor of the sanctuary city of Albany, New York since 2014, telling the candid world in the Albany, New York Times Union story “As statues tumble, relatives of Gen. Philip Schuyler ask for pause” by Brendan J. Lyons on July 5, 2020, that she believes everyone should embrace the Black Lives Matter movement, and that while a few leaders of Black Lives Movement groups have promoted violence, or have a history of violence themselves, she says it is time for the nation to embrace that cause, when Hawk Newsome, chairman of Black Lives Matter of Greater New York told the people of America during an interview with Fox News that “(I)f this country doesn’t give us what we want, then we will burn down this system and replace it,” do we actually know what it is he wants?

And that answer is yes, we do, to wit:

“I just want Black liberation and Black sovereignty — by any means necessary,” he said.

end quotes

So, okay, people, there it is, plain and simple, staring us right in the face – if we do not want Hawk Newsome and BLACK LIVES MATTER to burn down our country with us in it, we have to give Hawk Newsome and BLACK LIVES MATTER Black liberation and Black sovereignty.

And when Democrat mayor Kathy Sheehan of Albany, New York tells us it is time for the nation to embrace BLACK LIVES MATTER, there is what she is asking us to embrace – Black liberation and Black sovereignty.

But liberation from whom?

Who is Hawk Newsome demanding liberation from?

Who is it that is holding him as a hostage that he needs liberation from?

How are we to liberate him when we have no idea where it is he is presently imprisoned?

How can we plan an operation to liberate him, if we don’t know how many people are holding him hostage?

As Jimmy Carter proved with that fiasco in the desert on April 24, 1980, when an ill-fated military operation to rescue the 52 American hostages held in Tehran ended with eight U.S. servicemen dead and no hostages rescued, these are all important details that cannot be overlooked without courting yet another disaster like that one.

And then there was that raid on Son Tay Prison to rescue American prisoners of war, just 23 miles west of Hanoi, the capital, which was also a failure.

So do we need to do that again as we try to liberate Hawk Newsome?

And what about his demand for Black sovereignty?

What exactly is Black sovereignty?

And why should we embrace that idea, as mayor Kathy of Albany is asking us to do to keep BLACK LIVES MATTER from burning down her city in front of her eyes?

Is Black sovereignty the same as Black nationalism, a type of nationalism which espouses the belief that black people are a race and seeks to develop and maintain a black racial and national identity?

Is that what Hawk Newsome is demanding us to accept, a belief that Black people are a race separate and apart from the human race to which all other people regardless of skin color belong?

If so, I have to say as an older American that what Hawk Newsome is spinning there and Kathy Sheehan of Albany is asking us to embrace reminds me all too much of Adolph Hitler and the Nazi Party ascribing to the concept of the “Master Race,” which ideology held that the Aryan Races, people of Northern European descent, represented a superior and “pure race,” with an ideal member of the Master Race being referred to as an “Übermensch”, or literally, a “Super Man,” while any person not of pure, Aryan descent was considered an “Untermensch”, or literally, a “Sub-Human.”

It sounds very much as if Hawk Newsome has spun that around so that now, instead of Hitler’s Aryans being the Master Race, now it is Black folks like Hawk Newsome and BLACK LIVES MATTER, while the rest of us are relegated to the status of “sub-humans,” because we do not have skin that is Black, and thus, we cannot be members of the Master Race which will have sovereignty over us.

That is what Democrat mayor Kathy Sheehan is asking us to embrace – the status of a sub-human in America under the domination of Hawk Newsome and BLACK LIVES MATTER.

Thinking it over, I’m going to take a pass, because I refuse to be considered a sub-human by anyone simply because I do not have Black skin.

What say you, America?

Which side will you be on?

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/p ... ent-270447

thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 26666
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: ON THE FOURTH OF JULY

Post by thelivyjr » Sun Aug 02, 2020 1:40 p

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR August 1, 2020 at 9:22 pm

Paul Plante says:

So, yes, people, Black superiority!

It does exist!

It is real!

And that is exactly what Democrat mayor Kathy Sheehan of the sanctuary city of Albany, New York is asking the people of America to embrace – a concept that has everyone who does not have Black skin being inferior to people with Black skin, which superior race the Democrat mayor thinks should have sovereignty, supreme power or authority, over all of the rest of us.

Consider the learned academic dissertation on the subject entitled “The White Image in the Black Mind: African American Ideas about White People, 1830-1925” by Waldo E. Martin, Johns Hopkins University Press, Volume 23, Number 3, Summer 2000, pp. 1153-1155, 10.1353/cal.2000.0151, to wit:

Important 19th-century black thinker James W.C. Pennington once described the dialectical struggle between master and slave as “a war of minds.”

end quotes

So when Hawk Newsome of BLACK LIVES MATTER demands “Black sovereignty — by any means necessary,” including burning down civilized society in America, there is where his thinking is coming from, along with Kathy Sheehan’s – he is mired in a thought pattern with its roots in the 1800’s, when the rest of us are comfortably over into a new century and a new millennium, one in which the Black folks in America haven’t been slaves since Juneteenth, although in the homeland of Africa, slavery still does exist as an institution, because over there, it is ingrained in their culture, while we in America have broken free of the institution and moved on into a world of egalitarianism, the doctrine that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities, except for people like Hawk Newsome and Democrat Kathy Sheehan of Albany, who in their minds believe that all people without Black skin are less equal than people with Black skin, who they believe is a superior race to the rest of us who are not Black, which is quite un-American of the pair of them.

As to James William Charles Pennington (c. 1807 – October 22, 1870), he was an African-American orator, minister, writer, and abolitionist active in Brooklyn, New York who escaped at the age of 19 from slavery in western Maryland and reached New York.

After working in Brooklyn and gaining some education, he was admitted to Yale University as its first black student.

So much for the shabby treatment of the Black folks in America, n’est-ce pas?

Getting back to James William Charles Pennington, he completed his studies and was ordained as a minister in the Congregational Church, later also serving in Presbyterian churches for congregations in Hartford, Connecticut; and New York.

After the Civil War, he served congregations in Natchez, Mississippi; Portland, Maine; and Jacksonville, Florida.

In the Antebellum period, Pennington was an abolitionist, and among the American delegates to the Second World Conference on Slavery in London.

In 1850, he happened to be in Scotland when the Fugitive Slave Act was passed by the US Congress.

As it increased the risk for fugitive slaves in the North, Pennington stayed in the British Isles while friends worked to buy his freedom from his former master and then from his estate.

Pennington raised funds for the abolition movement on the public lecture circuit in England.

Pennington wrote and published what is considered the first history of blacks in the United States, “The Origin and History of the Colored People” (1841).

His memoir, “The Fugitive Blacksmith,” was first published in 1849 in London.

So certainly, he would be considered an authority on the institution of slavery in America if anyone would be.

But he has been dead now since 1870, along with the institution of slavery he knew so much about, having experienced it first-hand, versus reading about it in a book the way Hawk Newsome and Kathy Sheehan did.

So what relevance do his views, which I don’t dispute, have today, where slavery does not exist in the United States of America, except in the fertile and fevered imaginations of Hawk Newsome of BLACK LIVES MATTER and Democrat Kathy Sheehan of Albany, New York?

Getting back to that dissertation, we have:

As intellectual historian Mia Bay demonstrates in this well-written analysis of black attitudes towards whites, a vital battle within that war was the increasingly vigorous assertion of black humanity by free and ex-slave blacks, as well as by the slaves themselves.

end quotes

Today, 150 years give or take, after the Civil War ended and the slaves were set free, i.e., “liberated,” nobody who is sane and rational denies the Black folks their humanity.

So why are Hawk Newsome and Kathy Sheehan channeling a thought pattern from the 1800s in 21st century America?

Are they lost in space?

Are they lost in time?

Or are they just fools?

Getting back to the dissertation:

Waged within an increasingly white supremacist society, this critical intellectual offensive probed and also valorized blackness while simultaneously analyzing whiteness (see, for example, Winthrop Jordan’s study of the earlier period in “White Over Black: American Attitudes Toward the Negro,” 1550-1812 [1968] and George M. Frederickson’s “The Black Image in the White Mind: The Debate on Afro-American Character and Destiny, 1817-1914” [1972]).

end quotes

So we can see that what is going on today with this concept of Black supremacy Democrat Kathy Sheehan of Albany is asking the people of America to embrace is not a new concept, at all, which takes us back to the dissertation, as follows:

In her highly readable analysis of this offensive, Bay insightfully maps the various, complicated, and at times ironic and paradoxical ways in which ordinary as well as elite blacks thought about whites.

Speaking with moral authority and the insight of experience, ordinary and often unlettered blacks forged compelling critiques of the racist foundations of white power and privilege.

Educated blacks, however, used a rhetorical admixture of 19th-century environmentalism joined with racial determinism and early 20th-century cultural relativism joined with liberal environmentalism — all reigning intellectual discourses of the time — in their compelling critiques.

The work’s trajectory proceeds from roughly the antebellum emergence of militant black abolitionism through the DuBoisian and Garveyite cultural politics of the early 20th century.

end quotes

Garveyite cultural politics of the early 20th century is a reference to the politics of race of Marcus Mosiah Garvey Jr. (17 August 1887 – 10 June 1940) a Black political activist, publisher, journalist, entrepreneur, and orator who was the founder and first President-General of the Universal Negro Improvement Association and African Communities League (UNIA-ACL, commonly known as UNIA), through which he declared himself Provisional President of Africa.

Ideologically a black nationalist, his ideas which envisioned a unified Africa as a one-party state, governed by himself, that would enact laws to ensure black racial purity, and his black separatist views — he collaborated with white racists such as the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) to advance their shared interest in racial separatism — came to be known as Garveyism.

While he was in the U.S., ideas about the need for black racial purity became central to Garvey’s thought.

Garvey argued that mixed-race people would be bred out of existence; and the hostility to black people not deemed of “pure” African blood was an idea that Garvey shared with Edward Wilmot Blyden (3 August 1832 – 7 February 1912), a Black educator, writer, diplomat, and politician noted as one of the first people to articulate a notion of “African Personality” and the uniqueness of the “African race,” stating in one of his books as follows:

‘Let us do away with the sentiment of Race.”

“Let us do away with our African personality and be lost, if possible, in another Race.”

“This is as wise or as philosophical as to say, let us do away with gravitation, with heat and cold and sunshine and rain.”

“Of course, the Race in which these persons would be absorbed is the dominant race, before which, in cringing self-surrender and ignoble self-suppression they lie in prostrate admiration.”

end quotes

Yes, people some pretty incredible stuff, this talk of “dominant races,” along with “cringing self-surrender and ignoble self-suppression.”

While we normal people in America get up in the morning thinking of today and tomarrow, and what we have to do today to make it a better world, people like Hawk Newsome of BLACK LIVES MATTER and Democrat Kathy Sheehan are mired in the thinking of a by-gone age that pits people with Black skin against the rest of the population as to who really is the “dominant” race.

How we who do not share those beliefs about a MASTER RACE are supposed to have any kind of rational conversation with either Kathy Sheehan or Hawk Newsome or BLACK LIVES MATTER eludes me, quite truthfully.

In “Black Moses: The Story of Marcus Garvey and the Universal Negro Improvement Association,” Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, author Edmund David Cronon believed that Garvey exhibited “antipathy and distrust for any but the darkest-skinned Negroes,” and he also rallied against Eurocentric beauty standards among blacks, seeing it as an impediment to black self-respect.

Garvey also accused W.E.B. Du Bois and the NAACP of promoting “amalgamation or general miscegenation,” and he rallied against what he called the “race destroying doctrine” of those African-Americans calling for racial integration in the U.S., instead maintaining that his UNIA stood for “the pride and purity of race.” to wit:

“We believe that the white race should uphold its racial pride and perpetuate itself, and that the black race should do likewise.”

“We believe that there is room enough in the world for the various race groups to grow and develop by themselves without seeking to destroy the Creator’s plan by the constant introduction of mongrel types.”

Garvey argued that the European-American population of the U.S. would never tolerate the social integration proposed by activists like DuBois and that campaigns for such integration would only encourage anti-black riots and lynchings, and he openly conceded that the U.S. was a white man’s country and thus did not think African-Americans could expect equality within it.

He thus opposed attempts at social and economic integration of the races within the country.

Garvey’s belief in racial separatism, the migration of African-Americans to Africa, and opposition to miscegenation all endeared him to the KKK, who supported many of the same policies.

Garvey was willing to collaborate with U.S. white supremacists to achieve his aims and they were willing to work with him because his approach effectively acknowledged the idea that the U.S. should be a country exclusively for white people and would abandon campaigns for advanced rights for African-Americans within the U.S.

Garvey called for black collaboration with the white separatist Anglo-Saxon Clubs, stating that they shared the same ideals: “the purification of the races, their autonomous separation and the unbridled freedom of self-development and self-expression.”

“Those who are against this are enemies of both races, and rebels against morality, nature and God.”

Is that the philosophy Democrat Kathy Sheehan of Albany, New York is asking us to embrace?

Stay tuned, more is yet to come!

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/p ... ent-270807

thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 26666
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: ON THE FOURTH OF JULY

Post by thelivyjr » Mon Aug 03, 2020 1:40 p

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR August 2, 2020 at 10:17 pm

Paul Plante says:

And staying with this scholarly article entitled “The White Image in the Black Mind: African American Ideas about White People, 1830-1925” by Waldo E. Martin, Johns Hopkins University Press, Volume 23, Number 3, Summer 2000, pp. 1153-1155, 10.1353/cal.2000.0151, in the light of Kathy Sheehan, the Democrat mayor of the sanctuary city of Albany, New York being quoted in the Albany, New York Times Union story “As statues tumble, relatives of Gen. Philip Schuyler ask for pause” by Brendan J. Lyons on July 5, 2020 as saying “To me, stating that Black Lives Matter is something that we have to say out loud because of our history,” and “I think it’s very important that we recognize that 400 years of white supremacy have consequences” and “We have to speak to those consequences and own it in order for us to engage in this civic discourse that we need to continue to engage in to ensure that we are creating a more perfect union,” we have as follows, to wit:

Throughout, Bay cogently argues that together the imperatives of the long-term black freedom struggle in concert with the exigencies of the particular historical moment (i.e., Emancipation) have fundamentally shaped the contours and development of African-American thinking about whites.

end quotes

Now, with respect to mayor Kathy telling the people of America that she thinks it’s very important that we, the American people recognize that 400 years of white supremacy have consequences, although she is incapable to explaining what they are, or what they might be, and that we, the American people have to speak to those consequences and own it in order for us to engage in this civic discourse that we need to continue to engage in to ensure that we are creating a more perfect union, which is mindless drivel, given there is no “civic discourse” on the consequences of what she calls “400 years of white supremacy,” given that there weren’t 400 years of white supremacy here in what is now the United States of America, which nation has only existed for 244 years, if one takes the Declaration of Independence as the birth of the nation, I think it is very important to consider how it is that the Black folks in America see the white folks, and why that is, and as we can see from this scholarly article, their views of white people harken back to them being slaves, something they seem incapable along with mayor Kathy of getting over, which takes us back to that article as follows:

“Black ideas about white people,” Bay thus perceptively concludes, “are inextricably entwined in this history of African-American intellectual resistance to racism.”

This is a most significant work in both African-American and American intellectual history.

As historians have given exclusive attention to white attitudes toward blacks, they have neglected the critical historical issue of black attitudes toward whites.

Similarly, while historians have given considerable attention to elite black discourses, there is scant historical work for this period on what cultural historian Lawrence W. Levine has characterized as “Afro-American Folk Thought” (Black Culture and Black Consciousness: Afro-American Folk Thought from Slavery to Freedom [1977]).

This study offers path-breaking and thoughtful discussions of vernacular as well as elite black interrogations of whiteness.

As a result, this work provides a much-needed, refreshing, and illuminating black narrative on whites and racism to the historical literature on American racial thought.

What emerges is a well-conceived three-part argument. “White People in Black Ethnology,” the first section, plots how a series of key black thinkers used concurrent racial science (and pseudoscience) and humanistic authorities — especially religious ones — to dissect white racial character.

These thinkers concluded that in crucial ways blacks were superior to whites, notably morally and spiritually.

Next, “The Racial Thought of the Slaves” offers a highly original and probing portrait of slave and ex-slave ideas about race.

Several features of this section stand out.

In an especially illuminating discussion, Bay observes that whereas elite black thinkers “often attributed the status and wealth of white people to the rapacious, acquisitive character of the Anglo-Saxon race, unlettered African-Americans confronted the power and privilege of the white world as a mysterious and troubling phenomenon” (165).

Equally revealing is the ubiquity of the animal husbandry trope — the dehumanizing equation of blacks with work animals — as a vernacular representation of the master-slave relationship in particular and of white-black race relations in general.

end quotes

And there we see the theme of Black superiority being pushed by Kathy Sheehan of Albany again being expressed – in her world view, using pseudoscience and humanistic authorities — especially religious ones — to dissect white racial character. Blacks are superior to whites, morally and spiritually, end of story.

So much then for stating that Black Lives Matter is something that we have to say out loud because of our history, which takes us to another scholarly article entitled “The White Image in the Black Mind: A Study of African American Literature (review)” by Charles Scruggs, American Literature, Duke University Press Volume 73, Number 3, September 2001, pp. 663-664, where we learn a bit more about our “character” as follows:

“The White Image in the Black Mind: A Study of African American Literature.” By Jane Davis. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood. 2000. xx, 161 pp. $55.00.

Reversing the title of George M. Fredrickson’s well-known historical study (The Black Image in the White Mind: The Debate on Afro-American Character and Destiny, 1817–1914), Davis analyzes the “images” of whiteness in black-authored texts.

end quotes

For those unfamiliar with her or her works, Jane Davis is a Black woman listed as an Associate Professor, Department of Languages, Literature, and Philosophy at Tennessee State University with a Ph.D. in Modern Thought and Literature; Humanities from Stanford University.

Before coming to TSU, Dr. Davis was a Mellon Postdoctoral Teaching and Research Fellow for two years at the Africana Studies and Research Center at Cornell University and an Associate Professor of English at Iowa State University.

Her interests include: American Literature with an emphasis on African American Literature; Multicultural American Literature; Modern Literature; Film; Environmental Literature; South African Literature.

She has also been a participant in NEH Summer Seminars and Institutes at University of Chicago (Topic: Culture and Communication in Early Islamic Communities); UC Berkeley (Topic: Race and Slavery in American Literature); Indiana University (Topic: Post-Colonial Literature); CUNY Grad Center (Topic: Emergent/Multicultural American Literature); College of New Jersey (Topic: African American Literature)

As to George M. Fredrickson (July 16, 1934 – February 25, 2008), he was an American author, activist, historian, and professor who was the Edgar E. Robinson Emeritus Professor of History at Stanford University who in his college years was one of the many white college students who traveled to the South in support of the civil rights movement for African Americans and joined the March on Washington in 1963.

In his work “Racism: A Short History,” Frederickson captured his conception “of racial inequality and racism, as ideology and practice in Western societies over the past half millennium,” and how it is “based on the three primary components: ideas of racial purity, cultural essentialism or particularism, and a ‘them’ vs. ‘us’ mindset in which difference and power (and powerlessness) structured racist regimes.”

In the foreword of “Racism: A Short History” republished in 2015, Stanford historian Albert M. Camarillo discusses the courses that he co-wrote and taught with Fredrickson.

They developed a survey course called “Race and Ethnicity in the American Experience” that “examined how ideologies of race were manifested in societal institutions and policies that shaped the socioeconomic statues of communities of color in North America from the colonial era (British and Spanish) through the twentieth century.”

So there is where Kathy Sheehan of Albany is drawing her history from, which takes us back to the review of the work of Janet Davis above, to wit:

She focuses upon four types of white characters—“the overt white supremacist,” “the hypocrite,” “the good-hearted weakling,” and “the liberal” — who, she argues, are dissected with withering contempt by fiction writers such as James Baldwin, Richard Wright, Charles Chesnutt, Langston Hughes, Alice Walker, and Toni Morrison, and by nonfiction writers such as Ellis Cose (The Rage of a Privileged Class) and bell hooks (Killing Rage).

end quotes

So there we have it, people, our character as white people has been thoroughly dissected with each of us falling into one of those four categories that have been determined for us by Black authors such as James Arthur Baldwin (August 2, 1924 – December 1, 1987), an American novelist, playwright, essayist, poet, and activist whose essays, as collected in “Notes of a Native Son” (1955), explore intricacies of racial, sexual, and class distinctions in Western society, most notably in regard to the mid-twentieth-century United States.

Baldwin’s novels, short stories, and plays fictionalize fundamental personal questions and dilemmas amid complex social and psychological pressures.

Themes of masculinity, sexuality, race, and class intertwine in his works to create intricate narratives that run parallel with some of the major political movements toward social change in mid-twentieth-century America, such as the Civil Rights Movement and the Gay Liberation Movement.

As such, Baldwin’s protagonists are often, but not exclusively, African American, while gay and bisexual men also frequently feature as protagonists in his literature.

These characters often face internal and external obstacles in their search for social and self-acceptance.

Such dynamics are prominent in Baldwin’s second novel, “Giovanni’s Room,” written in 1956, well before the Gay Liberation Movement.

Which takes us back to the essential existential question of how exactly do we white folks have this “civic discourse” when the Black folks have already written us off as being morally and spiritually inferior to the Black folks?

Stay tuned, more is yet to come!

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/p ... ent-268525

thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 26666
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: ON THE FOURTH OF JULY

Post by thelivyjr » Tue Aug 04, 2020 1:40 p

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR August 4, 2020 at 10:25 am

Paul Plante says:

And what about what is called the “nuclear family” here in the United States of America?

Why does Democrat mayor Kathy Sheehan of the sanctuary city of Albany, New York want to do away with the “nuclear family” here in the United States of America, because by asking all of the American people to “embrace” BLACK LIVES MATTER, that is exactly what she is advocating for – an end to the nuclear family as we presently know it.

For those unfamiliar with the term, the “nuclear family” is considered to be a couple and their dependent children, regarded as a basic social unit.

And here, immediately, will come a charge of RACISM, because the “nuclear family” is considered “racist.”

Consider, for example, the New York Post story “The agenda of Black Lives Matter is far different from the slogan” by Mike Gonzalez and Andrew Olivastro on July 1, 2020, where we were informed as follows on that subject, to wit:

Many see the slogan Black Lives Matter as a plea to ­secure the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all Americans, especially historically wronged African Americans.

They add the BLM hashtag to their social-media profiles, carry BLM signs at protests and make financial donations.

Tragically, when they do donate, they are likely to bankroll a number of radical organizations, founded by committed Marxists whose goals aren’t to make the American Dream a reality for everyone — but to transform America completely.

Visit the Black Lives Matter website, and the first frame you get is a large crowd with fists raised and the slogan “Now We Transform.”

Read the list of demands, and you get a sense of how deep a transformation they seek.

One proclaims: “We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear-family-structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and ‘villages’ that collectively care for one another.”

end quotes

Disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear-family-structure requirement?

What is that supposed to mean, and why is Democrat mayor of Albany, New York Kathy Sheehan asking the people of America to embrace disrupting anything, starting with our families, and here, I am speaking as a grandfather of a stable nuclear family that I have absolutely no desire whatsoever to see “disrupted” by Kathy Sheehan and her BLACK LIVES MATTER agenda, where the word “disrupt” carries its everyday meaning of “interrupt (an event, activity, or process) by causing a disturbance or problem,” with such synonyms as throw into confusion, throw into disorder, throw into disarray, cause confusion/turmoil in, play havoc with, derange, turn upside-down, make a mess of, disturb, disorder, disorganize, disarrange, interfere with, upset, unsettle, convulse, interrupt, suspend, discontinue, obstruct, impede, hamper, or drastically alter or destroy the structure of (something)?

And that question takes us back to the New York Post article, as follows:

The group’s radical Marxist agenda would supplant the basic building block of society — the family — with the state and destroy the economic system that has lifted more people from poverty than any other.

Black lives, and all lives, would be harmed.

end quotes

And how do we know it is a Marxist agenda that Democrat mayor Kathy Sheehan of Albany is pushing?

Going back to that article one more time, we have:

In a revealing 2015 interview, Cullors said, “Myself and Alicia in particular are trained organizers.”

“We are trained Marxists.”

end quotes

Given that they claim they are, who are we to dispute that?

So why is Democrat mayor Kathy Sheehan pushing a Marxist agenda that wants to destroy our family structures here in the United States of America to replace them with something out of the old Soviet Union, other than the fact that BLACK LIVES MATTER will burn down her city if she doesn’t?

On that same subject, the Tennessee Star had an article entitled “Black Lives Matter Plan to Disrupt the Nuclear Family and ‘Dismantle Cisgender Privilege’ Gains Support in Corporate America” by Debra Heine on June 29, 2020, wherein was stated as follows:

The CEO of Brooks Brothers sent out a letter to customers last week expressing support of the objectives of the Black Lives Matter movement, which include a plan to “disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family,” and “dismantle cisgender privilege.”

Brooks Brothers, the oldest men’s clothier in the United States, is headquartered on Madison Avenue in Manhattan, New York City, and owned by the Italian billionaire Claudio Del Vecchio.

end quotes

WOW!

So we can see here that mayor Kathy is flying in style here, advocating for what the billionaires in Italy are advocating for, which must make her right and the rest of us wrong, which takes us back to that story as follows:

Del Vecchio goes on to say: “Our values at Brooks Brother align with and our morals support the objectives of the Black Lives Matter movement.”

The following principles and objectives are included in the Black Lives Matter movement’s official declaration:

We are self-reflexive and do the work required to dismantle cisgender privilege and uplift Black trans folk, especially Black trans women who continue to be disproportionately impacted by trans-antagonistic violence.

We build a space that affirms Black women and is free from sexism, misogyny, and environments in which men are centered.

We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.

We foster a queer‐affirming network.

When we gather, we do so with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking, or rather, the belief that all in the world are heterosexual (unless s/he or they disclose otherwise).

end quotes

And wow all over again, as we see what it is that mayor Kathy Sheehan of Albany, New York is asking the people of America to embrace, which is the end of society as we presently know it.

A lot to think about, isn’t it?

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/p ... ent-271792

thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 26666
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: ON THE FOURTH OF JULY

Post by thelivyjr » Thu Aug 06, 2020 1:40 p

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR August 5, 2020 at 9:00 pm

Paul Plante says:

And while we productive, law-abiding people of America who are products of stable nuclear families, and who ourselves have productive, law-abiding, stable nuclear families continue to ponder Democrat mayor of Albany, New York Kathy Sheehan’s open and overt advocacy for BLACK LIVES MATTER, where she is advocating for an end to the nuclear family and the dismantling of cisgender privilege while fostering a queer‐affirming network, that in the light of her oath of office wherein she solemnly swore that she would support the constitution of the United States, and the constitution of the State of New York, and that she would faithfully discharge the duties of the office of mayor of Albany, a special place filled with people who care, who are kind to one another and love her great city, according to the best of her ability, which in fact might in reality be quite limited, and as we ponder all these big words like cisgender and heteronormative that are coming at us from BLACK LIVES MATTER through Democrat mayor of Albany, New York Kathy Sheehan, who is their advocate and who believes we all should embrace BLACK LIVES MATTER as she has done, in spite of her oath of office, let’s go back for a moment to the City of Albany, NY Charter Article III, “Executive Branch,” Section 301, Mayor’s Powers and Duties Generally, where we have as follows:

a) There shall be a Mayor who shall be the chief executive officer and administrative head of the City government.

(b) The Mayor shall be responsible for the day to day administration and supervision of all City affairs, executive officers, and departments, offices and agencies of the City, except offices headed by an elected official.

(d) The Mayor shall take care that the laws of the state, together with all local laws, resolutions and ordinances of the Common Council are faithfully executed and enforced within the City.

i) The Mayor shall have such other powers and duties as are provided by state law, this Charter, local law, ordinance or resolution.

end quotes

So, hmmmm.

Given all of that, which in these times we are now finding ourselves in, where mayors are becoming literal tin-pot dictators in America, may mean nothing at all despite it being our American heritage she is tossing in the trash can as she truckles to BLACK LIVES MATTER, we productive, law-abiding people of America who are products of stable nuclear families, and who ourselves have productive, law-abiding, stable nuclear families have to ask ourselves the essential existential question of why mayor Kathy is advocating for the disruption of our productive, law-abiding stable nuclear families.

What on earth kind of agenda is that, other than something someone mentally ill or criminally insane would come up with?

Consider financial stability, for example.

It has been found or suggested that nuclear families are more financially stable than joint families and can provide children with better opportunities in life.

Since it’s a smaller family, the expenses are considerably lesser, which means better financial stability.

So why does Kathy Sheehan of Albany want to disrupt that?

Is her mind twisted or warped in some devious way that she hates civilized society in America and wants to destroy it out of spite?

Consider that it is held by those who would be considered experts on the subject that the nuclear family plays an important role in the development of personality of individuals because children are more close to the parents and can have more free and frank discussion about their problems with parents which helps for the better development of their personality.

In fact, on February 11, 2020, the Institute for Family Studies, P.O. Box 1502 Charlottesville, VA 22902 michael@ifstudies.org 516.242.6812 had a series of articles on the subject including one entitled “Yes, David Brooks, the Nuclear Family is the Worst Family Form—Except for All Others” by Kay Hymowitz, @KayHymowitz, the William E. Simon Fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a contributing editor of City Journal who writes extensively on childhood, family issues, poverty, and cultural change in America, wherein was posited as follows on that subject, to wit:

For the past several years, David Brooks has made the decline of American communities and social isolation central themes in his writing.

For those of us who share his alarm over these trends, he has been an indispensable voice.

So, it comes as a surprise to read “The Nuclear Family Was a Mistake,” Brooks’ new essay featuring a flawed history that negates both its argument and its solutions for a society that is, as I fully agree, “too detached, disconnected, and distrustful.”

Like other skeptics of the nuclear family, Brooks describes the arrangement as a recent historical aberration replacing the more long-standing extended family.

In his telling, by stranding parents and children on their own little island without the organic safety net of grandparents, that shift attenuated social connectedness and support.

Wealthy people may be able to afford to purchase child care, prepared foods, and many other services once freely provided by grandparents and other relatives.

But for the rest, he argues, the nuclear family has been “a disaster.”

His solution is “forged families” made up of self-selecting individuals instead of blood and marriage kin.

However, the premise of this narrative can’t survive the cold light of history.

Scholars now pretty much agree that the nuclear family household has been the “dominant form” in Western Europe and the United States since the dawn of the industrial era.

In fact, demographic realities made extended families an impossibility.

Brooks, citing family historian Steven Ruggles, states that “(u)ntil 1850, three-quarters of Americans older than 65 lived with their kids and grandkids.”

That’s true, but it slides past the fact that there simply weren’t many 65-year-olds above ground; U.S. life expectancy stood at only 40 in 1850.

In data published in a 1994 paper, Ruggles estimated that as of 1880, more than two-thirds of white couples, the large majority with children, lived in independent households.

The anomaly was the extended family, not the nuclear family.

What about the black family, often held up by nuclear family doubters as a resilient alternative to the nuclear “white family?”

True, after the Civil War, extended families made up a larger percentage of black households than they did white.

But those families were still the minority: Ruggles estimates that extended families were only 22.5% of black households in 1880; the number climbed till about 1940, but it never went above 26 percent.

Far more prevalent among blacks was the nuclear model: 57% of black households were married couples, the large majority of them with children.

As demographics changed, the dominant family form did not.

Rising life expectancy and falling fertility starting in the latter half of the 19th century meant more surviving grandparents available for a smaller number of couple households.

But the share of households with extended families stayed more or less the same.

It seems that people preferred the privacy and independence of the nuclear form — despite all its disadvantages.

Brooks doesn’t talk about marriage in “The Nuclear Family Was a Mistake,” yet the inextinguishable human urge for pair bonding (and its associated childbearing) helps explain both the persistence of the nuclear family and the problems that plague its alternative communal forms.

Because humans can’t seem to resist pairing up, couples who break up will likely look for new partners.

The partner who moves out will be mourned and newcomers will have to be incorporated into the pre-existing family, whether it is nuclear, extended, or forged.

Children will lose crucial daily rituals and contacts — generally with their fathers — and adult networks will be short-circuited.

Jealousy, anger, hurt, inconvenient attractions, doubts, and changing allegiances will be no easier to weather in forged, chosen families than they are in nuclear families.

In fact, it’s a good guess it would be harder.

Some of the alternative arrangements Brooks describes, such as in-law apartments and common areas in otherwise conventional apartment buildings, still depend on a solid base of nuclear families.

Others, like co-living buildings, are temporary arrangements for singles until the right partner comes along.

The more radical commune-like experiments he cites have a dismal historical record for some of the reasons I described above.

Fruitlands, a “con-sociate” farm founded by the father of Little Women author, Louisa May Alcott, in the mid 19th century lasted seven months before succumbing to food shortages and infighting between and within the two primary families.

The kibbutzim of the early Zionists were deliberately designed to free children from the hothouse of the bourgeois family, but this also died a slow death as parents demanded the domestic intimacy they were supposed to forswear.

Children who were raised on the kibbutz left in droves.

The large majority of the back-to-the-land communes of the 1970s were equally unsuccessful.

The disaster confronting less prosperous Americans is not the nuclear family, but the erosion of socio-economic conditions that help them sustain lasting pair bonds.

To do something about the disconnection and instability infecting American life, we need to start there.

end quotes

Hmmmmm, again.

Can Kathy Sheehan of Albany rationally and logically dispute that with facts of her own that would justify her advocacy of the dismantling of our stable, productive, law-abiding nuclear families that we do not want her disrupting?

Stay tuned, more is yet to come.

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/p ... ent-272466

thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 26666
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: ON THE FOURTH OF JULY

Post by thelivyjr » Fri Aug 07, 2020 1:40 p

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR August 7, 2020 at 11:18 am

Paul Plante says:

So, if Kathy Sheehan, the Democrat mayor of the sanctuary city of Albany, New York has taken an oath to support the constitution of the United States, and the constitution of the State of New York, and that she would faithfully discharge the duties of the office of mayor of Albany according to the best of her ability, and the City of Albany, NY Charter Article III, “Executive Branch,” Section 301, defines her powers and duties as (d) The Mayor shall take care that the laws of the state, together with all local laws, resolutions and ordinances of the Common Council are faithfully executed and enforced within the City, then why is the mayor advocating for a Marxist faction in America that is dedicated to dismantling what they are calling “cisgender privilege,” whatever that might in fact be, beyond a concept in the minds of these Marxists mayor Kathy is advocating for?

And what does it portend for society here in the United States of America when we have the Democrat mayor of Albany, New York asking us to “foster a queer‐affirming network?”

When the mayor of the capital city of New York is advocating for the fostering of a “queer‐affirming network,” where to foster is to nurture something, for what exact purpose to society is mayor Kathy Sheehan of Albany, New York dedicating herself to nurturing a “queer‐affirming network,” where “affirming” is taken to mean offer emotional support or encouragement?

And what exactly is this “queer‐affirming network” that mayor Kathy wants us to nurture?

And what of her advocacy for freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking, or rather, the belief that all in the world are heterosexual, when we have known since at least the time the Bible was written by the Roman Emperor Constantine in or around 325 A.D., which is 1,695 years ago that there are among us many people who are not “heterosexual?”

What purpose is the mayor trying to accomplish here in 2020, given that five years ago in 2015, the United States Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges ruled that state-level bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional and that the denial of marriage licenses to same-sex couples and the refusal to recognize those marriages performed in other jurisdictions violates the Due Process and the Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and that “(U)nder the Constitution, same-sex couples seek in marriage the same legal treatment as opposite-sex couples, and it would disparage their choices and diminish their personhood to deny them this right,” in essence, recognizing the LGBT community as fundamental to American life, which decision was based on the fundamental right to marry and the equality that must be afforded gay Americans?

Given that since at least 2015, if not much earlier, given the time it takes for matters to reach and be decided by the Supreme Court, the alleged and supposed “tight grip” of heteronormative thinking, or rather, the belief that all in the world are heterosexual, has been peeled loose by the Supreme Court, which decision is “law of the land” binding on mayor Kathy and the BLACK LIVES MATTER crowd, what exactly is the issue today?

Does mayor Kathy not know of this decision?

But how can that be, given that the City of Albany in New York State already prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender identity or expression, and New York State’s 2011 Marriage Equality Act also gives same-sex couples the right to marry in New York State and provides them the same rights, responsibilities, and benefits under State and local law enjoyed by opposite-sex couples so that same-sex couples can reap state tax benefits, state and municipal employee benefits, insurance benefits from state-licensed insurance agencies, health care benefits, expanded property rights, parental rights and a wide array of legal rights, and same-sex couples are now able to file joint state tax returns, take spousal deductions on state income taxes, exclude employer contributions for health insurance, exempt property from the state estate tax, and receive other tax benefits previously available only to opposite-sex couples?

Questions for our times, indeed.

But will answers ever be forthcoming from mayor Kathy?

Stay tuned for further developments.

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/p ... ent-273230

thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 26666
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: ON THE FOURTH OF JULY

Post by thelivyjr » Sun Aug 09, 2020 1:40 p

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR August 8, 2020 at 6:01 pm

Paul Plante says:

And this brings us back around to Kathy Sheehan, the Democrat mayor of the sanctuary city of Albany, New York being quoted in the Albany, New York Times Union story “As statues tumble, relatives of Gen. Philip Schuyler ask for pause” by Brendan J. Lyons on July 5, 2020 as saying “To me, stating that Black Lives Matter is something that we have to say out loud because of our history,” which again raises the question of exactly what history she is talking about that requires us today to have to say “out loud” (to whom I must wonder) Black Lives Matter, which is kind of a joke when one watches Ray Rice, a Black man, punching his fiancee, a Black woman, in the face in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zo1UMV1GATQ

There is Black Lives Matter for you in technicolor.

And that is history, as well.

So according to mayor Kathy, white people have to say Black Lives Matter, which of course they do, given that ALL lives matter to white people, but to the Black folks like Ray Rice, and mayor Kathy ought to be aware of this with all the Black Folks in her city of Albany, a special place filled with people who care, who are kind to one another and love her great city, which is horse****, shooting each other, to the Black folks, Black lives aren’t worth spit.

What is “our history?”

Does it include, say, the Grand Settlement or Great Peace of Montreal which was negotiated between the Iroquois Confederacy and New France on 4 August 1701, which treaty ended over one hundred years of warfare between the Iroquois, Hurons, Algonquians, English, and the French?

When mayor Kathy tells the Albany, New York Times Union that “I think it’s very important that we recognize that 400 years of white supremacy have consequences” and “We have to speak to those consequences and own it in order for us to engage in this civic discourse that we need to continue to engage in to ensure that we are creating a more perfect union,” is she talking about the Great Peace of Montreal on 4 August 1701 which ended over one hundred years of warfare between the Iroquois and the Hurons, who were all but wiped from the face of the earth by the Iroquois?

And that thought takes us back to Hearst Publishing’s own star political correspondent Amy Biancolli of the Albany, New York Times Union and her TWEET to the TWITTERATI on TWITTER on June 23, 2020, where she TWEETED as follows:

For too many people, History = What They Learned As Kids.

And that’s it.

No room for the voices of people of color.

end quotes

I truthfully have no idea what she learned about history as a “kid,” and frankly, based on her ignorance today, it wasn’t much, but what I learned as a kid included that Great Peace, and the more than one hundred years of warfare that led up to it, and I learned as a kid that during the American Revolutionary War, Walter Butler, a New York Loyalist, led a mixed force of Indians and Loyalists to the area of Cherry Valley in what became the state of New York, resulting in the Cherry Valley Massacre, during which more than 40 people were killed and many were captured, which massacre was followed by a second raid in 1780, leading to the temporary abandonment of the village.

And that in turn brings us back to Hawk Newsome, chairman of Black Lives Matter of Greater New York telling the people of America during an interview with Fox News that “(I)f this country doesn’t give us what we want, then we will burn down this system and replace it,” and “This country is built upon violence,” pointing to the American Revolution as an example.

And as a child, a “kid” in the parlance of Amy Biancolli, I learned a lot about that violence, which takes us to a speech we learned as children by Colonel Isaac Barré (6 November 1726 – 20 July 1802), an Irish soldier and politician who earned distinction serving with the British Army during the Seven Years’ War and later became a prominent Member of Parliament, known for coining the term “Sons of Liberty” in reference to American colonists who opposed the British government’s policies, who with strong feelings of indignation in his countenance and expression, replied to Mr. Townsend in the following eloquent and laconic manner in March of 1765, to wit:

“THEY (the colonists in this country who rebelled against the King of England in 1776) PLANTED BY YOUR CARE?”

“No.”

“Your oppressions planted them in America.”

“They fled from your tyranny into a then uncultivated land , where they were exposed to all the hardships to which human nature is liable; and among others, to the cruel ties of a savage foe, the most subtle, and, I will take upon me to say, the most terrible, that ever inhabited any part of God’s earth.”

“And yet, actuated by principles of true English liberty , they met all these hardships with pleasure, when they compared them with those they suffered in their own country, from men who should have been their friends.”

“THEY NOURISHED BY YOUR INDULGENCE?”

“They grew up by your neglect of them.”

“As soon as you began to care about them, that care was exercised in sending persons to rule them in one department and in another, who were perhaps the deputies of deputies to some members of this House, sent to spy out their liberties, to misrepresent their actions, and to prey upon them.”

”Men whose behavior on many occasions, has caused the blood of those sons of liberty to recoil within them.”

“Men promoted to the highest seats of justice, some of whom to my knowledge were glad, by going to a foreign country, to escape being brought to the bar of a court of justice in their own.”

“THEY PROTECTED BY YOUR ARMS?”

“They have nobly taken up arms in your defence.”

“They have exerted a valor amidst their constant and laborious industry, for the defence of a country whose frontier was drenched in blood, while its interior parts yielded all its little savings to your emolument.”

“And believe – remember I this day tell you so, that same spirit of freedom which actuated that people at first, will accompany them still: but prudence forbids me to explain myself further.”

“God knows I do not at this time speak from any motives of party heat; what I deliver are the genuine sentiments of my heart.”

“However superior to me in general knowledge and experience the respectable body of this House may be, yet I claim to know more of Americans than most of you , having seen and been conversant in that country.”

“The people, I believe, are as truly loyal as any subjects the King has, but a people jealous of their liberties, and who will vindicate them, if ever they should be violated: but the subject is too delicate – I will say no more.”

end quotes

So, when Kathy Sheehan of the Democrat-controlled sanctuary city of Albany, New York tells the Albany Times Union that “I think it’s very important that we recognize that 400 years of white supremacy have consequences,” is she channeling Colonel Isaac Barré (6 November 1726 – 20 July 1802), an Irish soldier and politician who earned distinction serving with the British Army and who during the French and Indian War here in what became the United States of America served under his patron General James Wolfe on the Rochefort expedition of 1757, fighting at both Louisbourg (1758) and Quebec (1759), and who in the Quebec expedition, in which Wolfe was killed, was severely wounded by a bullet in the cheek, losing the use of his right eye?

Is that some of the violence this Hawk Newsome of Black Lives Matter is talking about?

Stay tuned for more on that subject of violence and burning is yet to come.

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/p ... ent-273552

Post Reply