Posts Tagged ‘Baldilocks’

Like always.

Title of the Project is wrong, not to mention the Premise 

by baldilocks

From Lyman Stone at the Federalist on New York Times 1619 Project.

1619 is commonly cited as the date slavery first arrived in “America.” No matter that historians mostly consider the 1619 date a red herring. Enslaved people were working in English Bermuda in 1616. Spanish colonies and forts in today’s Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina had enslaved Africans throughout the mid-to-late 1500s: in fact, a slave rebellion in 1526 helped end the Spanish attempt at settling South Carolina.

The presence of Spanish power continued to inhibit English settlement of the deep south basically until the Revolutionary War. In some sense, the 1526 San Miguel de Guadeloupe rebellion cleared the way for English settlement of South Carolina.

(…)

But before 1526, slavery was already ongoing in the eventual United States. The earliest slave society in our present country, and our most recent slavery society, was in Puerto Rico. The island’s Spanish overlords were enslaving the Taino natives by 1500. By 1513, the Taino population had shrunk dramatically due to brutal violence and disease. Thus, Spain brought the first African slaves to Puerto Rico.

Chattel slavery in Puerto Rico continued, despite many “Royal Graces” easing life for free blacks and sometimes promising eventual emancipation, until 1873. Even then, slaves had to buy their own liberty. It’s not clear when the last slave was free in Puerto Rico, but it would still have been a fresh memory in 1898 when the United States gained control from Spain.

Slavery in America did not begin in 1619. It began in 1513. Any argument for a 1619 date implicitly suggests that the American project is an inherently Anglo project: that other regions, like Texas, California, Louisiana, and Puerto Rico, have subordinate histories that aren’t really, truly, equal as American origin stories.

But even if the title were correct, what’s the true propose of this project? Stone gives the answer earlier in the piece.

It isn’t mostly about helping Americans understand the role played by plantation agriculture in American history. It’s mostly about convincing Americans that “America” and “slavery” are essentially synonyms.

Previously, I’ve discussed the Civil War and whether (or not) present-day black Americans should be grateful to our country and to those who fought on the Union side. A lot of people didn’t like my conclusion.

True freedom fighters have the clean conscious of God. May that be enough for them.

And at the same time, however, this country has no need to pay for its past sins. This very same Civil War was America’s trial by fire, its conviction, and its sentence — something that American leaders chose.

But, it seems as if all too many are intent on keeping everyone angry about hardships none of them had to bear. All the New York Times want to do is make itself the drum major of the anger and vengeance parade.

And what if America and slavery are synonymous? What then? Oh, yes, reparations.

Reparations, just like every other government program, will become just another cistern for politicians to wet their beaks. How do you think they all get rich?

Because that’s the true purpose of all this — to create another means for our money to become theirs.

By the way, what about those Spaniards?

UPDATE: For some strange reason, people seem to think I’m unaware of the world history of slavery. I am not.

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng has been blogging since 2003 as baldilocks. Her older blog is here.  She published her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game in 2012.

Follow Juliette on FacebookTwitterMeWePatreon and Social Quodverum.

Hit Da Tech Guy Blog’s Tip Jar !

Or hit Juliette’s!

Update (DTG) Instalanche, thanks Glenn the move to the new host is progressing slowly thanks to database issues so we are posting both here at the backup site and at the current site. So keep and eye both here and at DaTechguyblog.com until the move is finished. Check out our video and written review of the new Monopoly Socialism game here. and if you want to help pay the writers like Juliette you can hit Datipjar

Joe Frazier and Muhammad Ali

by baldilocks

I prefer blogging to Social Media because, with blogging, ideas can be more easily expanded upon and have its foundations described. A downside, however, is that those who need to read these types of pieces won’t do so.

Something else about Social Media: if you put up a status, on, say, Facebook, it is always prone to the commenter who hasn’t read your previous statuses — or your blog — and who refuses to do so. He has made up his mind about whatever it is you are saying and about who you are.

And then there are your regular friends, those who regularly comment on your statuses and vice versa. Most of them are great—even the liberals. But, sometimes, you find out that your friends are harboring all manner of misconceptions about things you thought you had in common.

Example: when you find out that a friend who calls herself a conservative, thinks that when someone posts an opposing opinion on her page, that she is being forced into another opinion. And when you try to explain why this is not so, you get the post-modern version of how to define a word/concept.

This is a good, smart lady and I like her. But her thinking has been so post-modernly molded, that she thinks that anything which makes her intellectually uncomfortable is “force” and cannot see the lack of logic in it.

Call it the Safe Space mindset, where a person is free from the violence of your horrible opinions.

I have only blocked two people from my Facebook page; both were out-and-out straight-jacket lunatics. I’ve never blocked anyone on Twitter, which is, in my opinion, primarily a place to share links, brawl and to toy with trolls. But, occasionally, I’ll put something substantial there.

At my old blog, I blocked a few trolls after many warnings and after tiring of changing their comments to something more entertaining.

On Facebook, I’ve trying to keep my page from being an echo chamber. It surprises many people when I argue with them; they assume I’m angry or that they are about to be blocked. One the contrary, argument is what keeps your thinking from becoming sluggish, from gazing at your navel for too long.

Additionally, if I argue with someone, it means that I respect their intellect.

I’d like to see more people become open to at least reading other points of view and having their minds changed. Yes, I know it won’t be many.

Have I had my mind changed recently? You bet I have. I thought that conservatives were better critical thinkers than liberals. It turns out that we are just as prone to error as liberals are. The culprits: pride and the refusal to be humbled by God.

You cannot improve your thinking process without at least reading what your ideological opponent says; exercise for your brain.
.
And this analogy can be taken further: everyday events continually show just who has been going to the intellectual gym — the library is one example — and who has been sitting on their duffs.

Excuse me while I go exercise.

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng has been blogging since 2003 as baldilocks. Her older blog is here.  She published her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game in 2012.

Follow Juliette on FacebookTwitterMeWePatreon and Social Quodverum.

Hit Da Tech Guy Blog’s Tip Jar !

Or hit Juliette’s!

 

by baldilocks

It’s fun to watch as several of the remaining Democrat candidates for the presidency try to outdo each other in their proposals for disarming the law-abiding.

Kamala Harris creates a problem, then promises to solve it.

Elizabeth Warren’s plans for presidential gun confiscation involve executive orders coupled with nagging the American public to death.

“We will make change, we’ll figure out what works, and then we’ll make some more change and some more change.”

Warren added, “I will take executive action in every corner, with the Department of Justice, with ATF, to move as much as I can.”

And Beta (spelling intentional) tries to top them both:

O’Rourke’s plan lists a number of reforms, including the buyback [sic] program that would remove all banned assault weapons from private ownership — a proposal that goes further than any presented so far by the Democratic field.

(…)

“Beto is calling for a mandatory buyback program for assault weapons and a voluntary buyback program for handguns. To create a funding stream for buybacks, Beto will increase the excise tax on gun manufacturers and fines imposed on gun traffickers, and will enable ATF to purchase any banned assault weapons presented to the agency. Individuals who fail to participate in the mandatory buyback of assault weapons will be fined.”

Beta, sweetheart, straight-out threatening to kick down our doors would be more honest and sound less weaselly.

Honestly, its a toss up as to which one of these I’d like to see lose to President Trump in 2020.

And you may think I forgot about the other Democratic Party front-runner, the former vice president, but I have not.

He would certainly lose to President Trump also, but it has been painfully obvious that Joe Biden is declining in cognitive capabilities. I don’t want to see that final melt down happen in public. Even Biden doesn’t deserve that.

But the others aren’t much smarter. A smart candidate who wanted to take all the guns wouldn’t be so open about it.

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng has been blogging since 2003 as baldilocks. Her older blog is here.  She published her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game in 2012.

Follow Juliette on FacebookTwitterMeWePatreon and Social Quodverum.

Hit Da Tech Guy Blog’s Tip Jar !

Or hit Juliette’s!

Cite: New York Times

by baldilocks

I’m going to try to read this whole thing without stabbing my eyes out.

A taste:

The most important and consequential thing that sociologists have discovered about whiteness—having white skin and/or being identified as white—is that it is perceived as the normal or default race in the U.S. Though the nation is racially diverse and most are aware of that, anyone who is not white is specially coded through language in a way that marks their race or ethnicity, while white people are not treated this way. “European American” or “Caucasian American” are not common phrases, but African American, Asian American, Indian American, Mexican American, etc., are. It’s also common practice among white people to only specifically state the race of a person they came into contact with if that person is not white. Sociologists recognize that the way we speak about people signals that white people are “normal” Americans, while everyone else is a different kind of American that requires additional explanation.

For anyone who is not white, that additional language and what it signifies is often forced upon and expected of them, whereas for white people, because we are seen as the norm, ethnicity is optional. It is something that we can access if we want to, and use as social or cultural capital. But, it is not required of a white American, for example, to embrace and identify with her British, Irish, Scottish, French, and Canadian heritage. It is rare that she will be asked to explain where she or her parents are from in that special way that really means, “What are you?” Her whiteness casts her as normal, as expected, and as inherently American.

We see the “normal” nature of whiteness in film and television too, in which most main characters are white, and in the case where a show or film prominently features actors of color, it is considered a “Black” or “Hispanic” cultural product. Film and television that primarily features white people is “normal” film and television that is thought to appeal to the mainstream; those that feature actors of color in lead roles and casts composed predominantly of people of color are considered niche works that exist outside of that mainstream. The race of the cast members marks the work as “different.” (TV show creators Shonda Rhimes, Jenji Kohan, Mindy Kaling, and Aziz Ansari are contributing to a shift in the racial television landscape, but their shows are exceptions, not the norm.)

Fact is, I agree with this. But is it really that big of a deal?

And what I hate about the dust-up and uproar about “white supremacy” and “white privilege” is that the dust ups and uproars reek of the very things they hate.

If you, citizen of good faith, think that each individual is equal in the sight of God, then that’s great. The overreaction, however, to anything remotely critical or other-ing of any black person is problematic and is, frankly fake. It’s a cover for the true feelings of those who wage war against White “Supremacy/Privilege”: that whites are superior to non-whites and especially to blacks. To them, the only way to counteract it is to, basically, lay down and die. Or, at the very least, to refrain from reproducing.

(Psst! Here’s something else: the overreaction to actual white supremacism smells bad, too.)

How else do I know that the war is fake? The overreaction happens only when black liberals/leftists/Democrats are criticized. But let someone call, say, me, a “sell-out n-word” and none of the Warriors Against Whiteness could give a rat’s. I see you, Anti-Whiteness Warriors!

Ah, well. Let’s read. Let me know if there’s a surprise ending.

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng has been blogging since 2003 as baldilocks. Her older blog is here.  She published her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game in 2012.

Follow Juliette on FacebookTwitterMeWePatreon and Social Quodverum.

Hit Da Tech Guy Blog’s Tip Jar !

Or hit Juliette’s!