Trump Uses Mount Rushmore Speech to Deliver Divisive Culture War Message

[LeafByNiggle]

BLM and the woke mob attacked the Lincoln Emancipation statue depicting a liberated black man rising from slavery. That statue - to Lincoln - was built almost entirely from money donated by freed slaves.

That attack was not against Lincoln, but against the way in which the liberated black man is presented as kneeling before the white man who freed him. If the statue showed a black man standing proud next to Lincoln the statue would not have been targeted. Although the money came from freed slaves, the design and execution of the statue was by a white man. The implication many blacks derive from the statue today is that the blacks are forever indebted to the white man for his generous act of freeing him.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

Which then begin the frustrating search for exactly which rights JonNC believed were in danger of being torn down.

No Leaf, Jon was very clear.

Personal property rights via increased taxation to give to someone else.

The right to due process and not have one’s reputation absolutely ruined simply because someone who disagrees with you a racist.

On a bigger picture, all of government is the balancing of rights. The “right” to an abortion versus the “right” to life. The right to keep your personal property versus the right of government to take it from you via taxation, forfeiture, fines, etc. The right to drive 100 mph versus the right to not be endangered by someone driving that fast. Etc etc ad nauseum.

Those who stupidly push for reparations simply want to take from some and give to others. We have spent trillions doing this through welfare programs. We have done this through affirmative action programs. Both have failed to heal the economic disparities. Now these same people want to take the next step and do so through direct reparations.

It won’t work either.

In America one’s economic situation almost ENTIRELY based on the decisions YOU, your parents, and your grandparents make.

 

[Ender]

That attack was not against Lincoln, but against the way in which the liberated black man is presented as kneeling before the white man who freed him.

More rationalization invented to lend some fig leaf of reasonableness to an action that ought to be condemned outright, but it perfectly captures the idea that insult is in the eye of the beholder, whatever the truth of the matter may be. Here is how the statue was described at its dedication.

But the artist justly changed this, to bring the presentation nearer to the historical fact, by making the emancipated slave an agent in his own deliverance. He is accordingly represented as exerting his own strength with strained muscles in breaking the chain which had bound him. A far greater degree of dignity and vigor, as well as of historical accuracy, is thus imparted.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I don’t completely disagree with you on this. But as we move further from the days of slavery in half of our nation, and further away from the Jim Crow era, the benefit that whites receive is diluted down. In 1870 I would say a person born white in America had a huge benefit over over one born black due to discrimination. Today, I think the benefit of being born white versus being born black in America is only infinitesimally associated with slavery and similar discrimination. Instead any benefit of a baby born in America today is due to the decisions their parents and grandparents made, not the color of their skin.

The general principle of a diluted effect is sound, but there are objective measures of how fast that dilution is proceeding. It is also worth noting that the effect is not unidirectional. Sometimes there are backward steps. For example, shortly after the Civil War, blacks had tremendous progress in gaining some positions in government and voting. But then they lost most of those gains as white supremacy found new and more covert ways to disenfranchise the blacks, such as literacy tests and other such means of voter suppression. So it would be wrong to think of this dilution effect the same way we think of the inevitability of a tablespoon of salt dissolving in a gallon of water. It is not as predictable as that.

As for objective measures, one can look to things like the wealth gap, or the education gap, both of which are objective measures. Now these measures do not gauge injustice directly, but they are possible indicators of injustice. In trying to refute these measures as measures of injustice, one could look for other causes for these gaps besides injustice. One that has been tried a long time ago is the argument that blacks are genetically and morally inferior and that explains their poorer achievement. No one takes that argument seriously these days. Another more recent argument is the “single parent family” explanation. While being from a single parent family is undeniably a handicap to all sorts of achievement, citing it as the cause only pushes the original question back one level. Why do blacks have a higher incidence of single parent families? Well, economic insecurity and hopelessness is one reason. And what causes economic insecurity and hopelessness? A lack of wealth and education can cause that. It still can depend in injustice in some form or another. One final argument I will mention is that blacks have been hobbled by government programs to help them, trapping them in a cycle of unemployment. This of course would be true for poor whites as well, wouldn’t it? Yet we don’t see the same effect on poor whites as we see on poor blacks, so that throws some doubt on that explanation. If I have omitted any significant argument of why the objective measures of the wealth gap and the education gap should not be taken as evidence of injustice, I would like to know what those arguments are.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Which then begin the frustrating search for exactly which rights JonNC believed were in danger of being torn down.

No Leaf, Jon was very clear.

Personal property rights via increased taxation to give to someone else.

There is no right not to have your taxes raised. It might be a dumb thing to do, but it is not a violation of any existing right.

The right to due process…

Yes, you have due process when you are accused of a crime, or when you are assessed a tax. In that case the due process is to figure out if you were treated the same way everyone else in your situation was treated. If your house was improperly assessed, due process can possibly correct your property taxes, for example. The excuse that you do not like what the government is going to do with the taxes it collects from you and from everyone else is not a proper subject for “due process”. In that case the “due process” is, as I said, joining with other like-minded individuals in the democratic process and voting out the scoundrels and installing your own scoundrels.

and not have one’s reputation absolutely ruined simply because someone who disagrees with you a racist.

Having your taxes and everyone else’s taxes be used to correct a racist system does not ruin any one person’s reputation.

On a bigger picture, all of government is the balancing of rights. The “right” to an abortion versus the “right” to life. The right to keep your personal property versus the right of government to take it from you via taxation, forfeiture, fines, etc. The right to drive 100 mph versus the right to not be endangered by someone driving that fast. Etc etc ad nauseum.

Those who stupidly push for reparations simply want to take from some and give to others. We have spent trillions doing this through welfare programs. We have done this through affirmative action programs. Both have failed to heal the economic disparities. Now these same people want to take the next step and do so through direct reparations.

Now you are doing it the proper way - presenting an good argument for why blanket reparations is a dumb idea and should not be enacted. I have no argument with you on that. In fact I agree with you.

In America one’s economic situation almost ENTIRELY based on the decisions YOU, your parents, and your grandparents make.

I think statistics would show that to be not quite correct. Certainly the things you mentioned have the biggest impact, but I can’t see how this squares with the continuing and growing wealth gap.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

But then they lost most of those gains as white supremacy found new and more covert ways to disenfranchise the blacks, such as literacy tests and other such means of voter suppression. So it would be wrong to think of this dilution effect the same way we think of the inevitability of a tablespoon of salt dissolving in a gallon of water. It is not as predictable as that.

Absolutely. The “us versus them” tribal mentality is innate human nature. Jharek has recent postings about how the British kept the Irish down, and just look at the tribalism of the BLM and reparations movement. We should fight against all of that.

However, the economic impacts of SLAVERY on today’s economy, let alone individual persons today, is so diluted down it is impossible to identify in the background of the other causes of economic performance.

While being from a single parent family is undeniably a handicap to all sorts of achievement, citing it as the cause only pushes the original question back one level. Why do blacks have a higher incidence of single parent families? Well, economic insecurity and hopelessness is one reason. And what causes economic insecurity and hopelessness? A lack of wealth and education can cause that. It still can depend in injustice in some form or another.

Now we are getting into questions that should be explored instead of just decrying racism or “because they are BLACK and blacks were enslaved 160 years ago!”.

Blacks have been hobbled by government programs to help them, trapping them in a cycle of unemployment. This of course would be true for poor whites as well, wouldn’t it? Yet we don’t see the same effect on poor whites as we see on poor blacks, so that throws some doubt on that explanation.

Bingo!

And yes, it is absolutely true for many poor whites as well. Add to this the scourge of drug use and I think you we have found the two biggest causes for poverty in America.

Since the Democrat party has taken it upon itself to “take care of the black person” for the past 60 years (in exchange for their vote, of course), and the Democrat part is the party of big government, we see the correlation between the areas run by Democrats have the worst poverty.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

but it perfectly captures the idea that insult is in the eye of the beholder, whatever the truth of the matter may be.

That is true. Walk through and art museum and ask the patrons to explain to you what message any particular work of art conveys to them. You will get many different answers, but none of them can be dismissed as “untrue”, even if they disagree with the intention of the artist. In fact is quite often the case that the general public sees something quite different from what the artist intended.

 

[PaulinVA]

You can either line up with those determined to defend our heritage (even if it means supporting the horrid Trump), or go with those who are at best indifferent to the destruction, or at worst who subtly support it by failing to condemn it. To those on the left: pick your poison.

I object to this if “defend our heritage” is code for supporting confederate statues.

The municipalities have had decades to get rid of these statues that are an affront to Black people and their allies.

I am all for law and order, but what do you do when the people who we rely on to do the right thing are racist and don’t want to remove the statues?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Blacks have been hobbled by government programs to help them, trapping them in a cycle of unemployment. This of course would be true for poor whites as well, wouldn’t it? Yet we don’t see the same effect on poor whites as we see on poor blacks, so that throws some doubt on that explanation.

Bingo!

And yes, it is absolutely true for many poor whites as well. Add to this the scourge of drug use and I think you we have found the two biggest causes for poverty in America.

This does not explain the racial wealth gap. Why are blacks on average still poorer than whites?

 

[Boatswain2PA]

This does not explain the racial wealth gap. Why are blacks on average still poorer than whites?

Yes it does.

LBJ decided to “take care of them” in exchange for “getting them to vote Democrat for the next 100 years.”

So Democrats “take care” of them by imposing big government programs on them. Housing programs in the big city means that the father didn’t have to provide a home for his children, democrat run schools whose only effectiveness is supporting teachers unions, etc.

And the scourge of drug use, initially heroine and then crack, which is a cultural issue in the black community. But the white and hispanic community is catching up with them since meth has become more prominent.

 

[Ender]

Walk through and art museum and ask the patrons to explain to you what message any particular work of art conveys to them.

And which of those museum goers would you defend for attacking a piece of art like you’re doing for those who attacked the Emancipation statue?

I object to this if “defend our heritage” is code for supporting confederate statues.

If you’re going to ascribe to your opponents whatever evil motivation suits you you can justify pretty much anything, which is all you’re doing here. Would I be justified in defacing your house if I felt you were supporting anarchy and fascism? Either you excuse lawlessness or you oppose it, and I am tired of the excuses given in support of it.

This does not explain the racial wealth gap. Why are blacks on average still poorer than whites?

America’s not perfect. No place is. But outlook determines outcomes because outlook determines strategies and priorities.

If your worldview is that you’re the wrong color to achieve success, you will not achieve success because you will choose a strategy devoid of hope and set the wrong priorities.

OutKick - Sports News, Opinions and Analysis

OutKick is your one-stop source for the latest sports news, opinions and analysis. Our expert writers cover a wide range of topics from breaking news to in-depth features, OutKick has it all. Check out OutKick by Clay Travis now.

www.outkick.com

 

[LeafByNiggle]

And the scourge of drug use, initially heroine and then crack, which is a cultural issue in the black community.

As I said, these questions just push back the question one level, but never gets to the root - the prime reason for the difference. There are only two choices: 1. It is inherent in blacks from the beginning. or 2. It is the result racism. Which one are you going to support as the “root” cause? Programs that help blacks do not imprison them. Providing for them does not prevent them from aspiring to be even richer - unless you are going to posit that they are inherently lazy and are satisfied with the bare minimum while whites are inherently striving to make something better of themselves because white are inherently more striving than blacks. If being handed everything you need in life is such a detriment, what do you say about children of the super rich who, arguably, have been given much more by their parents than any government program every gave a black person. If your theory is true, we ought to see the children of the super rich sitting on their duffs and enjoying their inheritance without bothering to get a job. Yet we see the opposite. The children of the super rich who have been given plenty to live on without working another day in their lives, still go out and strive harder than most to be even richer than their parents. The effect you cite does not seem to work on them. Why not? Are they inherently superior? Or, as I maintain, does giving economic assistance have absolutely no damping effect on the desire to get ahead in life?

 

[Nepperhan]

Thinking that “young buck” is automatically a racist term is actually racist.

Have you read Kafka? You post wildly.

 

[PaulinVA]

If you’re going to ascribe to your opponents whatever evil motivation suits you you can justify pretty much anything, which is all you’re doing here. Would I be justified in defacing your house if I felt you were supporting anarchy and fascism? Either you excuse lawlessness or you oppose it, and I am tired of the excuses given in support of it.

Uhm, I think you’re off base here, and I really don’t understand your question.

I have noted that quite a few people in the news have been using “defending our heritage” for years as a dog whistle or code for defending the confederacy or racist attitudes.

There is no need for the United States or its States or municipalities to “defend the heritage” of an insurrectionist, traitorous government or it’s agents.

 

[Ender]

I have noted that quite a few people in the news have been using “defending our heritage” for years as a dog whistle or code for defending the confederacy or racist attitudes.

I see. So, because you disagree with an attitude you believe other people hold, you justify the destruction of whatever monument, statue, or memorial someone wants to eliminate? This apparently even holds for the desecration of a statue paid for by freed slaves, and dedicated to Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation. Clearly one of those dog whistle, racist things.

There are only two choices: 1. It is inherent in blacks from the beginning. or 2. It is the result racism.

This completely removes from the individual any responsibility or ownership of his own life. Are blacks the only ones who have no control over their choices, or whose choices, whatever they are, have no effect on their lives? I believe each of us is responsible for our own decisions, and that those decisions determine how or lives evolve. Yes, some people have greater difficulties to overcome, but, as pointed out above "If your worldview is that you’re the wrong color to achieve success, you will not achieve success.

This has been the mantra of the left since the 60’s: “Racism is systemic; blacks can’t succeed on their own.” You want an explanation for black poverty? Start with this.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

There are only two choices: 1. It is inherent in blacks from the beginning. or 2. It is the result racism. Which one are you going to support as the “root” cause?

Sigh…I know you are smarter than this…

Okay, let’s try it from another angle.

Why are asians so successful? According to your false dichotomy, the “root cause” of their success must be 1: They are inherently superior, or 2: There is a positive racial bias toward asians in our culture.

Instead, they are generally (generalizing the entire group together) because their culture pushes them to make good decisions.

We can look at WHY their culture pushes them to maintain strong family units, WHY their culture pushes them to focus on the importance of education, WHY their culture encourages strong work, etc. But let’s not chalk it up to racial superiority OR to a positive racial bias.

Same thing with the black community. They are not genetically inferior. While there are certainly some problems caused by actual racism, the vast majority of the causes for the economic disparities of the black community comes from the CULTURE of dependence on government that was imposed on them by Democrat leaders, and drug use.

Programs that help blacks do not imprison them.

Which programs have “helped” blacks? Trillions on welfare, decades of affirmative action, and we are having race wars.

If being handed everything you need in life is such a detriment, what do you say about children of the super rich who, arguably, have been given much more by their parents than any government program every gave a black person.

Lots of rich kids grow into terrible adults because they never had to work for anything, so have the same lack of appreciation for things as we see with today’s looters/rioters.

The children of the super rich who have been given plenty to live on without working another day in their lives, still go out and strive harder than most to be even richer than their parents.

Some do, others don’t. Isn’t one of the attacks on President Trump that he is a terrible person because he never had to work for anything because of his daddy’s money?

I am teaching my kids that the fairly substantial wealth we have is God’s money, and He just gave it to me to manage and grow it in order to do more good for Him. If they don’t have the same views, then they won’t get any of it.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

There is no need for the United States or its States or municipalities to “defend the heritage” of an insurrectionist, traitorous government or it’s agents.

There are many different cultures in the US. Downeast Maine is vastly different from Louisiana or San Diego.

The south, speaking generally as one has to when discussing cultures, puts greater value on independence; individual independence from government, parish independence from the state, state independence from the national government, and national independence from any global governing bodies.

Should we defend a heritage of the confederate government? No. Should the southern culture defend its heritage of independence? Yes.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

This completely removes from the individual any responsibility or ownership of his own life.

If you are positing that individual choices are the explanation for the gaps mentioned, that raises the question of why blacks statistically make poorer choices than whites. Again it comes down to just two choices: 1. Blacks inherently make poorer choices than whites on average, or 2. Blacks have been subjected to conditions different than whites than causes them to make poorer individual choices. Which one are you going with?

 

[PaulinVA]

I see. So, because you disagree with an attitude you believe other people hold, you justify the destruction of whatever monument, statue, or memorial someone wants to eliminate?

You know, if the Park Police or whomever, DC Police maybe, want to prosecute the people who tore down the Albert Pike statue, I don’t care.

I just don’t understand people who advocate for keeping those statues up where they are as some sort of “preserving our heritage”.

This apparently even holds for the desecration of a statue paid for by freed slaves, and dedicated to Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation.

I have heard opinions from many sides on this. One side is that the freed slaves paid for th statue but had no creative (name removed by moderator)ut and hated the final statue, that makes the freed black man in chains look subservient.

Should it be pulled down by a mob? Probably not. Is it racist? Many people think so.

Should we defend a heritage of the confederate government? No. Should the southern culture defend its heritage of independence? Yes.

So, we can defend southerners’ independent nature without defending their traitors and traitorous acts, right?

 

[StudentMI]

There’s also the explanation of cultural influences. You’re positing a false dichotomy. Culture is a tricky thing.