Trump Uses Mount Rushmore Speech to Deliver Divisive Culture War Message

[Culter]

If instead you captured a random bunch of Asians and brought them here as slaves and subjected them to generations of what the blacks endured,

You know that most Asians lived in slave like conditions in Asia until recently. Also, many Asians who came to the US were close to slaves.

 

[PaulinVA]

You keep returning to this as if there was anything at all in Trump’s speech that referred to the Confederacy or the protection of Confederate statues, and despite the fact that there is nothing to support your belief you can’t let it go. Such is the power of wishful thinking.

“Defending our heritage” has all to do with the confederacy. Defending our Founding Fathers or Defending our Shared History is about Washington, Jefferson, et al.

Many Mexicans and Indians have statues to their conquered ancestors.

Yes, they were conquered but fought for the Mexican or Indian side, not the opposing side.

I think we can recognize the bravery and patriotism of Confederates without agreeing with their national goals.

No. No we can’t. The “patriotism” of the confederates was to the confederacy, not to the United States. I don’t see why there should be statues to people who fought against the United States to perpetuate the ability to enslave other people. That is what the confederacy was all about. Just read the succession documents.

This is Lost Cause rhetoric.

 

[StudentMI]

No. No we can’t. The “patriotism” of the confederates was to the confederacy, not to the United States. I don’t see why there should be statues to people who fought against the United States to perpetuate the ability to enslave other people. That is what the confederacy was all about. Just read the succession documents.

This is Lost Cause rhetoric.

One can admire the bravery and valor of one’s enemy, even if they weren’t good guys. That’s not lost cause rhetoric. Nor is recognizing that it was the upper classes which wanted slavery preserved. The average man conscripted into the army fought because he was forced to or because as Shelby Foote wrote, the North had come down. Slavery didn’t enter into it in every instance.

 

[PaulinVA]

One can admire the bravery and valor of one’s enemy, even if they weren’t good guys

But venerating them with statues as if they were heroes?

 

[StudentMI]

But venerating them with statues as if they were heroes?

I see you’re not disagreeing with my basic premise.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

“Defending our heritage” has all to do with the confederacy. Defending our Founding Fathers or Defending our Shared History is about Washington, Jefferson, et al.

Our national heritage is one that, after 200+ years of exploration, colonization, and slavery we created the idea that all men are created equal, men have certain inalienable rights, and that government gets its powers from men. We fought a war (actually two) for our national independence, and then 75 years later we fought another one, this time between ourselves, to ensure the “all men” actually meant “all”. Then we put the nation back together and moved forward.

That is our national heritage, and it should be defended.

 

[StudentMI]

I just wanted to add that in the Civil War the amount of southerners who wanted slavery defended and yet did nothing to defend it was staggering. They were truly chicken hawks who hired replacements or bought their way out of the army. Thus it was the poor who fought.

 

[PaulinVA]

I just wanted to add that in the Civil War the amount of southerners who wanted slavery defended and yet did nothing to defend it was staggering. They were truly chicken hawks who hired replacements or bought their way out of the army. Thus it was the poor who fought.

So, they were traitors and cowards. All the more reason to not consider the confederacy something to venerate.

That is our national heritage, and it should be defended.

Yeah, the part where the US abolished slavery through a civil war, not the part about the south defended slavery. That’s history, but people on the wrong side of history seldom get statues.

 

[StudentMI]

So, they were traitors and cowards. All the more reason to not consider the confederacy something to venerate.

Who said anything about venerating? I was pointing out flaws in your position.

I would be hesitant to celebrate the war too much. Even Karl Marx remarked it was merely an economic war, and Lincoln is on record saying he didn’t care about the slaves. That is, before he found a convenient political tool to arouse support.

 

[Culter]

“Yes, they were conquered but fought for the Mexican or Indian side, not the opposing side”

Well, just think of the Confederacy as having been conquered and we solve the problem.

 

[JonNC]

LeafByNiggle:

We can recognize systemic racism where is still exists today and correct it.

You made this claim before and were asked to give examples of systemic racism to which you did not respond. If even you can’t identify it why should we believe it exists, or that there is anything to correct?

Then there is the inconvenient fact that almost all of the “systems” are controlled and dominated by progressives.
Media,
k12 schools,
higher education,
big tech and social media,
unions,
most federal departments no matter who Republicans pick as secretary,
Major metropolitan police departments.
To name a few.

If we have systemic, institutional racism in America, it is obvious who is in charge of it.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Then there is the inconvenient fact that almost all of the “systems” are controlled and dominated by progressives.

Not inconvenient at all. What have conservatives done to show their opposition to the racist aspects of that system that incidentally benefits them? Nothing, of course.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

Not inconvenient at all. What have conservatives done to show their opposition to the racist aspects of that system that incidentally benefits them? Nothing, of course.

We are trying to pull the Democrats, as they kick and scream, toward a true post-racial society by NOT CARING WHAT SOMEONE’S SKIN COLOR IS!

That’s what we do to oppose the aspects of the racist systems that the Democrats created, fought to maintain, and now use to maintain the black vote.

 

[JonNC]

Not inconvenient at all. What have conservatives done to show their opposition to the racist aspects of that system that incidentally benefits them?

I see. Progressives perpetuate racism in all these systems (by their own statements about systemic racism ), and Republicans are at fault some how? I guess Republicans were at fault for Democrats running Jim Crow in the south, too.
Republicans get no benefit from systemic racism. They don’t run the systems. Progressive Democrats do. But here again, the get the blame.
Amazing.

 

[JonNC]

We are trying to pull the Democrats, as they kick and scream, toward a true post-racial society by NOT CARING WHAT SOMEONE’S SKIN COLOR IS!

That’s what we do to oppose the aspects of the racist systems that the Democrats created, fought to maintain, and now use to maintain the black vote.

We listened to MLK’s speech: content of character , not color of skin.
Our political philosophy is not founded in identity politics and racist intersectionality.
Theirs is.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

We are trying to pull the Democrats, as they kick and scream, toward a true post-racial society by NOT CARING WHAT SOMEONE’S SKIN COLOR IS!

Please describe exactly how the Democrats are disadvantaging blacks by caring about the color of their skin? Not some theory of how welfare makes them lazy, but objecting demonstration of a racial policy of Democrats that objectively hurts blacks.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Not inconvenient at all. What have conservatives done to show their opposition to the racist aspects of that system that incidentally benefits them?

I see. Progressives perpetuate racism in all these systems (by their own statements about systemic racism ), and Republicans are at fault some how?

I do not mind accepting fault in the name of the Democrats for their role in creating a racist system, especially if we go back to the southern Democrats and Jim Crow. But it is a fallacy to assume Republicans would have created a less racist society if they were in power. And I mean post-1960s Republicans, not the good and decent Republicans that were instrumental in the passage of the Civil Rights Act.

You can’t blame Democrats for systematic racism at the same time as you claim that systematic racism does not exist! Pick a lane.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

Please describe exactly how the Democrats are disadvantaging blacks by caring about the color of their skin? Not some theory of how welfare makes them lazy, but objecting demonstration of a racial policy of Democrats that objectively hurts blacks.

Never said welfare makes blacks lazy.

It’s human nature that when something is free, it is devalued.

Funny how you and Democrats will use subjective statistical theories like economic disparities to prove racism or sexism, but you require objective demonstrations of racial policies that hurts blacks.

Instead of just looking to where what Democrats are peddling and see if it works. Democrats run our major cities, and have mostly run them for two generations. Yet THIS is where we see the greatest economic disparities. Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that it is the Democrats, the ones who constantly peddle racial disharmony and “care about skin color”, who have created the disparity.

 

[JonNC]

But it is a fallacy to assume Republicans would have created a less racist society if they were in power. And I mean post-1960s Republicans, not the good and decent Republicans that were instrumental in the passage of the Civil Rights Act.

Those “good Republicans” who did that hold the same philosophy Today -Individual rights. For everyone. It is a fallacy to believe they would not have done better, given the opportunity.
Meanwhile, Democrats in the cities treat blacks only marginally better than They did in the segregated south.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Never said welfare makes blacks lazy.

It’s human nature that when something is free, it is devalued.

Then why is it that after Trump was given millions of free dollars by his dad still valued money enough to want to go out make even more money? He did not just sit on his duff living off the free money that would have easily provided him with a modest life style for the rest of his life. If free money didn’t hurt Trump, why do you think a tiny bit of free money will hurt a poor person?

Funny how you and Democrats will use subjective statistical theories like economic disparities to prove racism or sexism, but you require objective demonstrations of racial policies that hurts blacks.

Economic disparities are not subjective measures. The are as objective as you can get - literally by the numbers.

Instead of just looking to where what Democrats are peddling and see if it works.

As I said, I have no problem owning up to the Democrat’s share of blame for systemic racism, the wealth gap, and the educational achievement gap.