3 ms·

Good luck on your response to this kind of rhetoric- I agree with you totally. For instance, when I read stuff such as "I have seen an America that fought to r

Good luck on your response to this kind of rhetoric- I agree with you totally. For instance, when I read stuff such as "I have seen an America that fought to remove the cancer of slavery"... it really makes me wonder with what eyes that "fact" has been seen. In the last couple of weeks I've been reading a lot of WEB DuBois, who lays out pretty good first-hand material histories on the facts here. Or, for instance, yesterday I read a Frederick Douglas speech about John Brown. When I read these sources, I don't think that the folks (other than the black folks fighting to free themselves) generally were fighting "to remove the cancer of slavery"... I see folks in power who, as a last resort accepted black folks into their lines. If you read first person accounts of these things, if you read the literal words that folks were writing at the time, it's very easy to see that the obvious tactical and strategic reasons were almost overpowered by the blatent and deep racism of the folks in power. It's easy to watch folks who will take the word of their 6th grade "history" teacher over reading, like, 2 books of first-hand sources and trace out the litany of other blatantly false understandings of the world on about every topic. White supremacy culture is disgustingly sticky and oozes all through out folks' brains so much so that they can't even register the water in which they swim as existing. It's even not difficult to see past it if you just, like, read folks and listen when you feel uncomfortable, but damn, folks will just accept whatever BS propaganda they were given in grade school and wonder how come all these folks out in the world dismiss their idiotic positions.

_DeadFred_ 7mo ago
Pretty sure this goes against guidelines here. Responding to someone else's response to quote and then talk about me is straight trash, especially embedding so many labels/ pejoratives aimed at me. I guess Robert Gould Shaw grudgingly accepted everyone I guess. I guess elected politicians like Thaddeus Stevens grudgingly accepted everyone and didn't run on a policy of anti-slavery. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thaddeus_Stevens https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thaddeus_Stevens
- scarecrowbob 7mo ago
  Maybe don't write ignorant stuff? I don't know what to tell you...
  - _DeadFred_ 7mo ago
    I didn't write anything ignorant. Your personal feelings and interpretation are yours to make, but that doesn't mean I'm ignorant for having the mainstream historical interpretation, or believing the United States is a redeemable nation. I guess HN is cool with personal characters attacks like this though because I flagged them for review and they were left up. Good to know what you guys consider meeting your guidelines.
    - scarecrowbob 7mo ago
      You might consider some things. First of all, I don't know you personally. What I wrote about were historical facts. I understand that often white-bodied folks become very triggered when folks point out that they might have a point of view informed by white supremecy culture. I have no idea what kind of body you have, but you are clearly very upset. I don't say that as a "gotcha, hah triggered ya", I say that as a person who has been often and deeply upset by this culture, and who can recognize similar patterns of hurt and harm in other folks writing. So while I have no actual idea about you or your actual state of mind or body, you read to me like a person who is very upset for reasons that have very little to do with postings on a message board. On one hand, it's easy for me to say: a - if you don't like being called out, don't call folks out. If you want to be hypercritical of folks, as you were doing up thread, you're gonna need a thicker skin b - I believe that when you say "mainstream interpretation" you can pretty easily interpret that as "white", which is what I mean when I write that you specifically are operating from a position of white supremacy. You might not have noticed that in response to references to Frederick Douglass and WEB DuBois you counterpoised a couple of white "leaders", but I certainly did. Secondly, even if I didn't just do what you're doing to other folks on this board and dismiss your writings out of hand as both based in whatever deep traumas you have around whiteness and general ignorance of the world, your political position is still quite bad. Your position is what a lot of folks describe as "Blue MAGA", centered on the idea that the US used to be pretty dang good (if flawed) and that we need to work back towards that greatness. To hold that position you need to ignore a whole lot of real and obvious history, and the way folks in the US have done that is to ignore the actual writings and words of non-white folks. I am certain that you don't experience that ignorance you are maintaining as a process of de-humanizing those other people (at least until someone points that out, which can be very activating to read). I don't expect you to be rational about these things, because being made to feel white is very traumatic to folks in white bodies. I don't expect you to have the capacity to deconstruct your thoughts around race, either. But if you ever are able to do that work, consider that what I'm describing is a very specific dismissal that you're doing, of a very specific historical selectiveness, and all you have to do to not do that is to read and listen. That's not a personal attack. This isn't about your personal "character"; that's just the world, and your ignorant and (frankly) dehumanizing political position. I'm sorry that it feels upsetting and personal to you. Getting to a position where you can do that work of examining these things may be impossible, and you might find that it makes all the other white-bodied folks around seem quite menacing, but it's certainly work that will liberate you from the need to defend the indefensible.

_DeadFred_ 7mo ago

Pretty sure this goes against guidelines here. Responding to someone else's response to quote and then talk about me is straight trash, especially embedding so many labels/ pejoratives aimed at me. I guess Robert Gould Shaw grudgingly accepted everyone I guess. I guess elected politicians like Thaddeus Stevens grudgingly accepted everyone and didn't run on a policy of anti-slavery. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thaddeus_Stevens https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thaddeus_Stevens

scarecrowbob 7mo ago
Maybe don't write ignorant stuff? I don't know what to tell you...
- _DeadFred_ 7mo ago
  I didn't write anything ignorant. Your personal feelings and interpretation are yours to make, but that doesn't mean I'm ignorant for having the mainstream historical interpretation, or believing the United States is a redeemable nation. I guess HN is cool with personal characters attacks like this though because I flagged them for review and they were left up. Good to know what you guys consider meeting your guidelines.
  - scarecrowbob 7mo ago
    You might consider some things. First of all, I don't know you personally. What I wrote about were historical facts. I understand that often white-bodied folks become very triggered when folks point out that they might have a point of view informed by white supremecy culture. I have no idea what kind of body you have, but you are clearly very upset. I don't say that as a "gotcha, hah triggered ya", I say that as a person who has been often and deeply upset by this culture, and who can recognize similar patterns of hurt and harm in other folks writing. So while I have no actual idea about you or your actual state of mind or body, you read to me like a person who is very upset for reasons that have very little to do with postings on a message board. On one hand, it's easy for me to say: a - if you don't like being called out, don't call folks out. If you want to be hypercritical of folks, as you were doing up thread, you're gonna need a thicker skin b - I believe that when you say "mainstream interpretation" you can pretty easily interpret that as "white", which is what I mean when I write that you specifically are operating from a position of white supremacy. You might not have noticed that in response to references to Frederick Douglass and WEB DuBois you counterpoised a couple of white "leaders", but I certainly did. Secondly, even if I didn't just do what you're doing to other folks on this board and dismiss your writings out of hand as both based in whatever deep traumas you have around whiteness and general ignorance of the world, your political position is still quite bad. Your position is what a lot of folks describe as "Blue MAGA", centered on the idea that the US used to be pretty dang good (if flawed) and that we need to work back towards that greatness. To hold that position you need to ignore a whole lot of real and obvious history, and the way folks in the US have done that is to ignore the actual writings and words of non-white folks. I am certain that you don't experience that ignorance you are maintaining as a process of de-humanizing those other people (at least until someone points that out, which can be very activating to read). I don't expect you to be rational about these things, because being made to feel white is very traumatic to folks in white bodies. I don't expect you to have the capacity to deconstruct your thoughts around race, either. But if you ever are able to do that work, consider that what I'm describing is a very specific dismissal that you're doing, of a very specific historical selectiveness, and all you have to do to not do that is to read and listen. That's not a personal attack. This isn't about your personal "character"; that's just the world, and your ignorant and (frankly) dehumanizing political position. I'm sorry that it feels upsetting and personal to you. Getting to a position where you can do that work of examining these things may be impossible, and you might find that it makes all the other white-bodied folks around seem quite menacing, but it's certainly work that will liberate you from the need to defend the indefensible.