Just musings, is all

thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 26665
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: Just musings, is all

Post by thelivyjr » Fri Jul 24, 2020 1:40 p

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR July 23, 2020 at 6:34 pm

Paul Plante says:

“What concerns all, should be considered by all; and individuals may injure a whole society, by not declaring their sentiments.”

“It is therefore not only their right, but their duty, to declare them.”

“Weak advocates of a good cause or artful advocates of a bad one, may endeavour to stop such communications, or to discredit them by clamor and calumny.”

“This, however, is not the age for such tricks of controversy.”

“Men have suffered so severely by being deceived upon subjects of the highest import, those of religion and freedom, that truth becomes infinitely valuable to them, not as a matter of curious speculation, but of beneficial practice.”

“A spirit of enquiry is excited, information diffused, judgment strengthened.”

“Before this tribunal, let every one freely speak, what he really thinks, but with so sincere a reverence for the cause he ventures to discuss as to use the utmost caution, lest he should lead into errors, upon a point of such sacred concern as the public happiness.”

end quotes

Those words, which come to us across the gulf of time from the “Fabius I” political essay of John Dickinson, OBSERVATIONS on the CONSTITUTION proposed by the FEDERAL CONVENTION, are to me certainly as pertinent today as when they were originally written on April 12, 1788, a little less than twelve years (12) after the first Fourth of July, now considered a “racist” holiday which supposedly celebrates 400 years of white supremacy, even though it was only 244 years ago, in actuality, that it occurred, and seventy (70) days before the U.S. Constitution was finally ratified by all 13 states, with New York, a hold-out, being one of the last, on June 21, 1788.

When he died, John Dickenson was recognized by President Thomas Jefferson as being “Among the first of the advocates for the rights of his country when assailed by Great Britain whose ‘name will be consecrated in history as one of the great worthies of the revolution.'”

But of course, Tommy Jefferson himself no longer exists in American history having been written out of the record as an embarrassment because he was a racist white supremacist who “owned” people as slaves, so perhaps his praise of John Dickenson is really a condemnation today, but let's set that aside for the moment and consider these words on their own, to wit, to test them for veracity regardless of who might have said them, given they are universal in nature, to wit:

“What concerns all, should be considered by all; and individuals may injure a whole society, by not declaring their sentiments.”

“It is therefore not only their right, but their duty, to declare them.”

end quotes

Now, ask yourself as an American citizen today 232 years after those words were first spoken – are they true?

Or aren’t they?

In our time today, should what concerns all really be considered by all?

Or should only a few, like Kathy Sheehan, mayor of Albany, New York, be the ones to consider what concerns all, because we couldn’t possibly know ourselves?

And what about individuals may injure a whole society by not declaring their sentiments?

Is there any truth in that in our times today?

Or is that now like so much else from our past now an anachronism because it harkens back to a racist white supremacist society who gave us the United States Constitution?

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/p ... ent-265195

thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 26665
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: Just musings, is all

Post by thelivyjr » Sat Jul 25, 2020 1:40 p

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR July 24, 2020 at 6:33 pm

Paul Plante says:

Staying with the thoughts expressed 232 years ago on June 21, 1788 in the “Fabius I“ essay at the beginning of this nation’s political history as a nation, as opposed to a collection of separate English colonies beholden to a German king sitting on the throne of England, those being “(W)hat concerns all, should be considered by all; and individuals may injure a whole society, by not declaring their sentiments,” and “(I)t is therefore not only their right, but their duty, to declare them,” and the recent “executive order” of Democrat Albany mayor Kathy Sheehan, the Albany, New York Times Union, a Hearst publication, which has been mounting an admirable defense of the Democrat mayor turning herself into an autocrat or despot with respect to the statue of Revolutionary War figure Philip Schuyler, recently had a rather tepid and gutless editorial on the subject entitled “Don’t remove Philip Schuyler statue without community input” on July 7, 2020, three days after the Fourth of July, wherein we were informed as follows, to wit

THE ISSUE:

Albany Mayor Kathy Sheehan has ordered that a statue of Philip Schuyler be moved.

THE STAKES:

Her intent is laudable, but a broader community discussion would be useful.

end quotes

My goodness, do tell – and who would have thought it?

Think of it, people, how revolutionary that concept is – the broader community actually having a voice here, as opposed to Democrat mayor Kathy Sheehan and BLACK LIVES MATTER, a political movement that uses intimidation tactics very similar to those employed by the KKK or the White League, a Democrat paramilitary terrorist organization started in the Southern United States in 1874 to intimidate freedmen from voting and politically organizing, or the Red Shirts, paramilitary terrorist groups that were active in the late 19th century in the last years of, and after the end of, the Reconstruction era of the United States, groups that originated in Mississippi in 1875, when Democratic Party private terror units adopted red shirts to make themselves more visible and threatening to Southern Republicans, both whites and freedmen.

Different names, but the tactics remain the same, given the Democrats are nothing more than a one-trick pony, and no wonder, since violence works so well for them, why bother to change?

Getting back to the tepid Times Union editorial, is continues as follows:

This much is clear: Monuments to the Confederacy deserve no place in modern American life.

Statues of men such as Jefferson Davis were erected across the American South as celebrations of the racist caste system the Confederacy fought in vain to preserve.

Honoring only an ugly past, they were often erected to intimidate Black populations striving for equality and full citizenship.

Those statues must come down.

But what about monuments to Founding Fathers who were slaveholders, including local hero Philip Schuyler?

Should those also fall?

end quotes

And given that BLACK LIVES MATTER has demanded that Philip Schuyler go, the answer appears to be of course they must go, because BLACK LIVES MATTER says so, and that is that!

What need there for any other input, especially from the “broader community,” given that we all have already been written off as white supremacist racists, because we have white skin, and so, of course, we would have to be on the side of Philip Schuyler, because he is white and looks like us, not them?

So of course it has to be minority rule then in this case!

Because as Obama used to say, it is the right thing to do!

A handful of people don’t like something, it makes them feel bad about themselves, so the majority has to truckle and bend to their views, because they are a minority, and in Albany, at least, the minority rules because as the old saying goes, they hold the whip hand – if mayor Kathy doesn’t pass through the yoke in front of them, they will burn her city down, and she knows it.

And so does the Times Union, for that matter, which takes us back to the tepid and gutless editorial, as follows:

That’s a debate happening around the country amid an ongoing reckoning on race — including in Albany, where Mayor Kathy Sheehan has ordered the removal of a Schuyler statue placed at the entrance to City Hall nearly 100 years ago.

end quotes

A “reckoning on race,” people – can you possibly imagine that, because I can’t.

I can’t imagine that because the concept itself is stupid, just as was mayor Kathy saying “(T)o me, stating that Black Lives Matter is something that we have to say out loud because of our history” in the Times Union story “As statues tumble, relatives of Gen. Philip Schuyler ask for pause” by Brendan J. Lyons on July 5, 2020.

Given that there is but one race here on earth, that being the “human race,” what then is this “reckoning on race” going to be?

And as you ponder that conundrum, because conundrum it is, we are going to take a pause for station identification and a word from our sponsors, but don’t go away, hear, as we will be right back with more on this thing of a “reckoning on race,” to see what on earth it might possibly be.

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/p ... ent-266366

thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 26665
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: Just musings, is all

Post by thelivyjr » Sun Jul 26, 2020 1:40 p

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR July 25, 2020 at 12:14 pm

Paul Plante says:

Getting back to this dish of tripe handed up to us here in America in this editorial entitled “Don’t remove Philip Schuyler statue without community input” on July 7, 2020 by the editorial staff of the Hearst publication the Albany, New York Times Union, wherein we people of America were informed that there is a debate happening around the country amid an ongoing reckoning on race, whatever on earth that is supposed to mean, the editors continued as follows, to wit:

The Schuyler statue wasn’t raised to glorify slavery, but to honor other aspects of the general’s life, including his significant role in founding a nation that, despite its flaws and hypocrisies, advanced the cause of human freedom.

We sometimes forget that the ideals pushed by leading figures of the Revolutionary War were, well, revolutionary.

Their win for inherent human rights was no small achievement.

It is a history worth remembering and celebrating — without ignoring its contradictory immoralities, notably slavery and the genocidal treatment of Native Americans.

end quotes

Now, as a sober, older American who learned about the “Native Americans” as a child through the wide-open lens of history that existed then, right after WWII, a war fought against a fascist nation that employed slave labor in its war efforts against freedom, I have to question the sanity and mental clarity of these editorial writers for the Times Union with their statement about the “genocidal treatment of Native Americans,” which sounds like a statement lifted from a depressing history of America by Howard Zinn, who looked at American history through a glass darkly.

For those unfamiliar with the name, Howard Zinn (August 24, 1922 – January 27, 2010) was an American historian, playwright, and socialist thinker who was chair of the history and social sciences department at Spelman College, a private, liberal arts, women’s college in Atlanta, Georgia, and a political science professor at Boston University who described himself as “something of an anarchist, something of a socialist, maybe a democratic socialist,” so it is not at all surprising that the editorial staff of the Times Union, a Hearst publication, would turn to him for guidance, keeping in mind that it was other Hearst publications that called on the anarchists out there like Anti-Fa today to assassinate American president William McKinley when the publisher’s Journal on April 10, 1901 printed an editorial that declared, “If bad institutions and bad men can be got rid of only by killing, then the killing must be done.”

Keeping that history in mind, we who have skin that is white should truly beware in the light of what the Times Union is calling this “reckoning on race,” which is based on the premise that all males in this country who have white skin are BAD PEOPLE who are genocidal racist white supremacists.

Afterall, look at what the Times Union is saying we did to the Native Americans – we wiped them clean off the face of the earth here in America with our “genocide” against them, where genocide is the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation, notwithstanding that in the United States today, there are some 573 federally recognized American Indian and Alaska Native tribes and villages!

But, if we are sane and rational, as opposed to being emotional cripples, and we look at history through a wide-open lens, instead of the tiny peephole employed by anarchists like Howard Zinn and the editorial staff of the Times Union, which seems to be telling us that our time as white-skinned people to be the victims of a new genocide is coming, and coming soon, with their talk of a “reckoning,” i.e., to settle accounts, and we take the definition of “genocide” as the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation, we are forced to ask ourselves, and this is grade-school history, what happened to the Hurons, a confederation of native North American peoples formerly living in the region east of Lake Huron?

And that answer, as we who actually bothered to learn something about American history, as opposed to accepting the mindless crap spewed out by anarchists like Howard Zinn, is that the Hurons were largely eliminated from the face of the earth, not in any genocide by the BAD WHITE MEN, but by the Iroquois, who themselves were a very powerful and warlike set of confederated nations of Native Americans.

Consider this bit of history on that subject entitled “Iroquois Offensive and the Destruction of the Huron: 1647-1649,” where we learned as children as follows:

The Iroquois Confederacy (the Five Nations-Mohawk, Seneca, Onondaga, Cayuga, and Oneida) launched a massive offensive against the Huron north of the Great Lakes in the summer of 1647.

The Iroquois objective was to seize control of the major fur-trade routes controlled by the Huron.

The Huron had realized great benefits as middlemen between the French on the St. Lawrence and the First Nations farther inland.

An Iroquois Confederacy victory would enable the Five Nations to control the fur trade and divert furs to the Dutch trading posts along the Hudson River.

By 1649, the Iroquois had all but annihilated the Huron nation.

Their towns had been razed to the ground, and the main Jesuit mission at Huronia had been destroyed.

end quotes

Or this from LE CANADA – A PEOPLE’S HISTORY, entitled “Iroquois’ destruction of Huronia,” wherein was stated as follows:

In 1649, the Iroquois attacked and massacred.

“About twelve hundred Iroquois came,” a Huron remembered.

Huronia was bathed in blood and fire.

The Iroquois laid waste to Huronia.

Their vengeance knew no limit.

Of the thirty thousand Hurons, a few thousand survived: some of which decided to live on the Île d’Orléans under the protection of the cannons of Quebec.

“In a word, this people has been wiped off the face of the Earth.”

“My brother,” a Huron chief said to a Frenchman, “your eyes cheat you when you look at us: you think you are seeing living beings, whereas we are only the spectres and souls of the departed.”

It was the end of a people and a culture.

The few Huron that survived the Iroquois onslaught abandoned their lands and resettled near Quebec.

end quotes

Sounds like a genocide to me, anyway.

Stay tuned, more is yet to come!

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/p ... ent-267049

thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 26665
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: Just musings, is all

Post by thelivyjr » Sun Jul 26, 2020 1:40 p

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR July 26, 2020 at 12:50 pm

Paul Plante says:

I was engaged yesterday in a serious discussion with a white police detective lieutenant with over 20 years of experience in law enforcement, including as a street cop in the violent portions of the sanctuary city of Albany, New York, on this question of why are we seeing day after day after day stories of white police officers using what are called “choke holds” on people of color, as they are now called, or call themselves here in America.

What the **** is up with that, was my question.

His answer was interesting.

First off, he said that with respect to George Floyd, no cop, including himself, could or would even try to justify that, which is why the cop who killed him is up on murder charges.

And yes, he was well aware of the back story there with respect to George Floyd and the cop who killed him, while another cop, an African-American or person of color, looked on and watched.

So, why the choke holds?

Which he answered with a question back to me – HOW DO YOU RESTRAIN SOMEONE WHO IS VIOLENT AND IS TRYING TO BITE YOU OR SPIT ON YOU WITHOUT VIOLATING THEIR EVER-INCREASING STACK OF CIVIL RIGHTS THAT THE INNOCENT AND NON-CRIMINALS AMONG US WHO ARE THEIR VICTIMS SIMPLY DO NOT ENJOY?

What is the proper answer to that question he asked me?

Is there a polite way to do it?

Do you plead with the violent person to be nice and simply put on the cuffs?

Do you tell them when they are violent after committing a crime and don’t want to get arrested that you are sorry you bothered them, and simply walk away?

And wouldn’t that be an abdication of their responsibility to society to enforce the law?

What is the answer, he wanted to know.

As to the so-called “choke hold,” it is very basic self-defense that if you control a person’s head, you control their body, so that when you have someone violent trying to spit on you or bite you, or is fighting with you and trying to grab your weapon, and you need to protect yourself, you do what basic self-defense teaches you and you control their head.

Now, and this is a person who was commended for going up on a fire escape WITHOUT a weapon to confront a violent person with a gun holding a hostage who managed to use reason to talk the person into giving up the weapon and the hostage, when the person is restrained and the cuffs are on, the time for the so-called choke hold ends, which like all things is a matter of judgment.

So let’s take away the choke hold, he said.

And he referenced New York City where it is now a misdemeanor for a cop to restrain someone violent with anything at all that can be construed by a politician as a “choke hold.”

What then?

And his answer was, you simply go back to the more efficient and effective method of beating them down with a billy club.

OR YOU SAY “***** IT,” SOCIETY IS NO LONGER WORTH PUTTING YOURSELF AND YOUR CAREER AND YOUR SAFETY AND FUTURE IN JEOPARDY TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF SOMEONE WHO IS VIOLENT AND PREYS ON THE SOCIETY THAT SAYS IT WANTS YOU TO KEEP THEM SAFE!

What say you, Democrats?

The ball is firmly in your court now!

So which answer do you want?

Do you want to protect society?

Or do you want to protect the criminal element that is your political base?

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/t ... ent-267829

thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 26665
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: Just musings, is all

Post by thelivyjr » Mon Jul 27, 2020 1:40 p

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR July 26, 2020 at 10:11 pm

Paul Plante says:

So, do words have meaning today?

Or don’t they?

When the editors of the Hearst publication the Albany, New York Times Union say to us in a recent rather tepid and gutless editorial entitled “Don’t remove Philip Schuyler statue without community input” on July 7, 2020, that Albany Mayor Kathy Sheehan has ordered that a statue of Philip Schuyler in front of Albany City Hall in Albany, New York, the capital city of the state, be moved and her intent is laudable in the context of a broader community discussion on the subject, what really is it they have told us with the insertion of that word “laudable” into the equation?

What does it mean for the Times Union editors to tell us her unilateral order to remove the statue, which is not her personal property, was “laudable,” where laudable means “deserving praise and commendation,” with such synonyms as praiseworthy, commendable, admirable, meritorious, and worthy?

If in fact the editors of the Albany Times Union have already proclaimed her unilateral decision to remove the statue to be praiseworthy, commendable, admirable, meritorious and worthy, what is there that is left for the broader community to then say?

That it in fact is none of those things at all?

But then, if that were really so, that her decision is not commendable, at all, then why are the editors of the Albany Times Union telling us otherwise?

Going back to the editorial, the editors continue on as follows:

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

A statue of Philip Schuyler standing on a pedestal in front of Albany City Hall where it has stood since June 14, 1925 is “hurtful” to the city’s “significant” Black population?

Says who and using what metrics?

As to the composition of the City of Albany, the latest figures have it as follows:

White: 54.21%
Black or African American: 29.89%
Asian: 6.96%
Two or more races: 5.38%
Other race: 3.29%
Native American: 0.25%
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander: 0.02%

end quotes

So if the Blacks are less than 30% of the population of Albany, how is that “significant?”

And of that 29.89%, how many really even know who Philip Schuyler was, or more to the point care, given that he is long since dead and there hasn’t been slavery in New York for close to 200 hundred years now?

Getting back to that editorial, and the issues it raises for our times today, and tomarrow, we have:

This ought not to be a decision for the mayor to make alone.

By acting hastily, Ms. Sheehan missed an opportunity to engage the community in a deeper conversation.

end quotes

A deeper conversation?

Do tell?

On what?

How about the full history of the “special institution” of slavery in the world, starting with the role the Black Ashanti Empire in Africa played in providing Black slaves to the slave market?

And the role Queen Anne of England played in providing Black slaves to the slave market?

If we truly are going to have this “deeper” conversation, then why would we stop at mere surface appearances that seem to place all the blame for there being Black slaves in America today because of white-skinned people alone?

If in fact we are finally going to have this “deeper” conversation about slavery that truly needs to be had, then we need to go far, far beyond the statement of mayor Kathy of Albany in the Times Union story “As statues tumble, relatives of Gen. Philip Schuyler ask for pause” by Brendan J. Lyons on July 5, 2020 that “(T)o me, stating that Black Lives Matter is something that we have to say out loud because of our history” by not stopping at “our” history, but by delving into “their” history, as well, in great depth so that finally, “those” people will be forced by reality to have to accept the vital role the Black folks in Africa played in causing Black people to be slaves in this country, because that “deeper” conversation has been hanging fire and has been one-sided for far too long now, as we clearly see by going back in time to an article in the Daily Mail six (6) years ago on 20 August 2014 where we were informed that shortly after taking office in February 2009, Eric Himpton Holder, Jr, a Democrat Black man who was Democrat Hussein Obama’s top law enforcement officer, called the United States ‘a nation of cowards’ when it comes to talking about race, in a Black History Month speech, where only Black people were in attendance.

A “NATION OF COWARDS,” people, think about it, and when you do think about it, that is quite an indictment of a nation of some 328 million people, or 250,264,000 white people, anyway, for the nation’s top law enforcement official, the Attorney General of the United States of America to be leveling in a forum where white people did not have a voice.

According to our published history in the news media, in a segregated town hall meeting Himpton Holder, Jr. held out in Ferguson, Missouri that was closed so no “white” viewpoints could be expressed, Himpton Holder, Jr. said to the segregated audience present that “(W)e need concrete action to change things in this country,” and “(S)o this interaction must occur,” and “‘(T)his dialogue is important,” and “(B)ut it can’t simply be that we have a conversation that begins based on what happens on August 9, and ends sometime in December, and nothing happens.”

Now, as a white man barred by my “race,” the “BAD RACE,” from Mr. Attorney General Holder’s segregated town hall meeting in Ferguson, Missouri, where he chose as the nation’s top law enforcement official to demonize white cops in particular and the white race in general, as one of those being so demonized, while being denied an opportunity to defend myself by Mr. Attorney General Eric Himpton Holder, Jr.’s action of excluding white people’s voices from his Ferguson, Missouri segregated town hall, I could and would say that by doing so, by excluding white voices that he clearly does not want to be a part of this “important dialogue” on race relations in the United States of America, that it was Mr. Attorney General Eric Himpton Holder, Jr. who was the real coward, and a very craven one at that, if he would deny as he did the voices of white people from this very important, indeed, critical dialogue that must take place in America in the wake of all that has occurred in America since Michael Brown was shot and killed in Ferguson, Missouri, which event in turn fueled the rioters and looters and destroyers of the BLACK LIVES MATTER crowd which brings us to the present time and this discussion we are finally having here today, all those years later, courtesy of the Cape Charles Mirror.

In their zeal to exploit the situation in Ferguson, Missouri for partisan political gain, Obama and the craven coward Holder succeeded in creating a whole new generation of people in America, both Black and white, who will be raised in an atmosphere of mutual hate and distrust which we are now dealing with today in the United States of America, and by creating another generation of young, impressionable people who will now be raised in the atmosphere of racial hate and distrust fomented by Obama and Holder in Ferguson, Missouri, with the segregated town hall meeting where the craven coward Holder was demonizing white cops in particular and white people generally, the hack Democrat politicians Obama and Holder created a situation of racial disharmony in America that the Democrat Party will be able to exploit for political gain for generations yet to come, as we are witnessing today all across this sick nation of ours, which takes us back to the present and the Times Union editorial which concluded as follows:

Removing the statue need not be the only option on the table.

What if Philip Schuyler were given a companion monument honoring Albany’s mostly forgotten enslaved population?

Might that tell the historical story with more context, better reflecting today’s understanding of Schuyler?

To answer those questions, and others, we urge Ms. Sheehan to pause and invite community input — that is, to launch a conversation.

There’s a lot of work to do.

Debating the Schuyler statue could be a beginning, whether it stays or goes.

end quotes

And since that debate is never going to happen in reality, at least in the Democrat-controlled sanctuary city of Albany, New York because it will challenge the narrative the Democrats are using to keep us divided for political gain for themselves as they make their appeal to the Black folks by demonizing the white folks, thank God we white people have the Cape Charles Mirror as a necessary venue to push that Democrat narrative back to the starting line by focusing the spotlight of history on the role the Black folks played in enslaving themselves.

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/p ... ent-268078

thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 26665
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: Just musings, is all

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: 26665
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: Just musings, is all

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: 26665
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: Just musings, is all

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: 26665
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: Just musings, is all

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: 26665
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: Just musings, is all

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

Post Reply