That is a huge statement and It is not the first tine she has made the point. I would hope that the people have the depth to understand that many never believed in slavery and died to put a end to it. Making that statement without recognizing the sacrifice of the nation to end slavery leaves short the education needed to heal.
" I wakeup everyday in a house built by slaves".
- Thread starter Rockport Zebra
- Start date
The statement itself says the gap has closed. A black First Lady now resides in a Presidential residence built by slaves. If you don't like how she is making the point, then that's on you.
I guess she needs to be specific, you know, in case people forgot about the civil war or something.
I didn't interpret it that way but you may be right. You and I are educated people and may understand nuance, most don't so my position stands.
All I ask is for the left to stop radicalizing youth. It is counterproductive. Why do you oppose the position that many Americans from the Constitutional Convention forward opposed slavery and did everything they could to end it?
That's the point you think she's making?
Look up.
It says "gullible" on your ceiling.
Yeah. Michelle is all the time EXUDING racial harmony.
I know that got tears in my eyes.
PS - it says "gullible" on your ceiling. See it? Turn that one lamp off and look up again. It is just off center, to the left.
You are forgetting who you are engaging.
He eats stereotypes and prejudice for breakfast.
I get your point and I appreciate it. A whole lot of white people -- men, even! -- gave their lives in the cause of ending slavery in America.
But I think both of us know why she says this. It's a foundational plank of a particular narrative, which itself is a foundational plank of a particular appeal. That's not to say her specific statement is factually untrue or anything like that. It's all a matter of which truths one wishes to emphasize in describing America -- as it was, as it is, and (of course) as it should be.
We had a lengthy discussion here recently about the worldviews and attitudes which lie beneath these different characterizations. And I'd just reiterate that, IMO, most people who arrange their lives according to the view which underlies MO's version of America will probably die unfulfilled and unhappy. I cannot escape the impression that, in their eyes, America was the primary cause of their problems and shortcomings and never took (or even wanted to take) sufficient action to correct them.
Of course that's the point she is making. You guys....that's just nonsense. If you could find one thing negative about that speech, you're nuts.
Look at how many people -- including some otherwise very smart and educated ones -- still fundamentally misunderstand the 3/5ths clause. Anytime I point out to somebody who brings that up that, if the slave states had had their way, slaves would've been counted as a full person for the purpose of Congressional apportionment...and if the abolitionists of the era had had their way, slaves wouldn't have counted as a person at all, they usually respond with a blank stare.
I can understand where that comes from. If I'd have been alive in 1789, I'd have been counted as a full person -- while enslaved black people would only have counted as 60% of a person. And of course that's dehumanizing. But the whole point behind that debate was to deprive the slave states of Congressional representation so as to aid in the cause of eventually ridding the country of the horrid institution once and for all.
But rather than being thankful to the Roger Shermans of that era for getting that number below one -- as anybody who hates slavery should be -- it's instead usually trumpeted as a glaring example of just how stained America has always been.
It's hard to have a rational conversation about something that evokes such strong emotions.
So Doc engaged in a personal attack? He should stop doing that. It makes him look small and childish and undermines his argument.
Happy?
Nice try. Problem is, you're removing that statement from the context of her entire speech, which was a hundred on a scale of one to ten. Anyone listening to her speech in its entirety understands she's saying we've come a long way and we have a long way to go. That's it. There's nothing negative there.
This is correct. In context, her comment was just part of undermining Trump's claim that America is no longer great. She nailed it.
Same kind of unthinking people call The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn racist for containing the N word.
They are a huge impediment to racial harmony in this country.
The Road to Stupid is paved with good intentions...and stupidity.
In your opinion, how have we progressed (or regressed) on that road in the last 8 years?
See, I believe that if we could all cryogenically freeze ourselves and come back 100 years in the future, we'd find that there will still be politicians saying "we've got a long way to go."
Because I think this sentiment is more of a political appeal than it is a genuine and sober assessment of our country's status on civil rights or racial equality.
A decent analogy that might be more apparent to some is that I doubt there's any level of taxation low enough that would cause Grover Norquist to say "OK, mission accomplished. Taxes are finally low enough that I'm satisfied." His entire raison d'être is to advocate lower taxes no matter where they presently are.
You don't win the war by saying, "This is enough battles, I'm good." You win the war by continually marching closer and closer to your enemy's capital, no matter how far away it is.
So what if we'll always have a long way to go? That's not because it's just a political cliche. It's because it will (likely) always be true.
Heh. Well, at least you get an A for honesty.
Think about what that means -- particularly in the context of my contention that blaming the country for one's own dissatisfactions (and thus expecting the country to alleviate them) is a nearly surefire recipe for never overcoming them.
That's not an inspiring or empowering message. It's the exact opposite of one.
Wrong, it's empowering in the sense that it's the exact opposite of settling for "good enough."
The fact that you think settling is empowering is telling.
Frankly, I find your cynicism typical of your straitjacketed ideological disingenuity, but in response to your question, I think that there are so many people in the US who are angry that they have a destructive affect on those who are genuinely trying to change things for the better. The Mitch McConnells of the political world have a deleterious affect on our democratic process that is imo cowardly and lazy.
In short, I think there are sincere people trying to make our country better and insincere people opposing those efforts. That's probably always been the case. The question is, who is stronger nowadays? I don't know the answer.
That's just another deceitful mischaracterization of liberals that serves your ideological straitjacket. Wanting a fair playing field does not imply that someone isn't playing as hard and as responsibly as possible, but that's your disingenuous implication. Shame on you. You're on a short leash with me, not that you care. I'm tired of your dishonest mischaracterizations. Up your game. For your country if not for you.
So it's OK for Goat to say "it's OK for Democrats to always and forever claim that there has never been enough progress on race matters" no matter what, but Mitch McConnell is supposed to roll over, give an opposing-party everything he wants, and when he honestly admits he is trying defeat everything that Presudent stands for, that's NOT OK?
Different standards.
Always the different standards.
Dems can stir the race pot forever.
Pubs have to roll over.
Good to know.
No he doesn't.
He said he thinks its just fine to always stir the race pot to "win the war"
He completely missed your point .. As did lurelker - who needs a fainting couch quick.
No I am not talking about your enemy. I am talking about the major dysfunction and lack of understanding about race in this country.
Pretty sure they were expecting The First Lady to plagiarize Melania Trump's speech from last week.
Oh, I'm not advocating anybody "settling" for anything. Quite the contrary. My entire approach to life is about constantly growing, gaining, overcoming, rising, and prospering.
The difference between my outlook on that and what she's getting at isn't that I think people should settle for where they're at and she doesn't. The difference is (a) whose responsibility that is, and more importantly (b) who's actually capable of making that happen.
I think most anybody who looks to government, society, or anybody besides themselves for this advancement is almost certain to end up disappointed and wanting -- excluding, I guess, those who do directly benefit from the acquisition of power and influence within such a leviathan government. That is, of course, usually a very lucrative endeavor -- which has typically been a hallmark of an ailing society, not a thriving one.
So, were it not for Mitch McConnell and those like him, America would be a social paradise. But it's because there are people like him actively thwarting progress towards that promised land that we're still such a long ways off?
If you believe that, you're deluded.
Even if that warped representation of life in 2016 America contained any truth -- and it doesn't -- there are plenty of people every day succeeding in overcoming Mitch and his dastardly impedances and improving their lots in spite of them. So what's that tell you?
See, here's your problem. You can't interpret what someone says without interpreting it through their presumed ideological biases. Even if you're right about the ideological basis of what she said, that doesn't take away from the power that her speech had. It was an effective line, and in the context in which it was delivered, it was all about denying Trump's claim that America is no longer great. Whatever else you think about her or her beliefs, that's what the line and the speech was about, and that's how it's going to land.
There you go again. As is your wont, you mischaracterize another poster's position for your straitjacketed ideology so you can presumably make a point and win your argument, when the other poster probably isn't even trying to have an argument with you but just arrive at some relative truth about some aspect of life or maybe just communicate an idea. But with you there is no real communication. You just talk at people.
I'm continually amazed by how intelligent you obviously are and yet how disingenuous you are with others. It's a mystery I hope to unravel.
Crazed is the epitome of precisely what is wrong with the US political. No real communication. No actual exchange of ideas. We pay attention and understand him in good faith, but he doesn't reciprocate.
Crudely put, he's just masturbating.
The playing field is fair.
My experience suggests that what separates most of those who are having success on it from most of those who aren't is who they see as holding them back and who they see as responsible for getting them ahead.
It's something I deal with on a daily basis. Being that I'm constantly hiring and laying off as needs shift, it doesn't take long to determine that it's a sheer fallacy to believe that everybody works as hard and diligently and effectively as everybody else. As such, the most productive ones are cherished and sought after by all competing employers while the least productive ones are often out of work and usually don't last long when they do find some.
This reality has nothing to do with an unlevel playing field. It has to do with unequal players.
Let's see if you can duplicate with understanding a single thought presented to you by another poster. Just an experiment.
How hard someone works has to do with how he or she was raised and the environment he or she was raised in and is thus one aspect of an unfair playing field. Your understanding of the playing field's fairness is so limited as to correspond to a drop in the ocean.
You have to remember, crazed is "color-blind," and this aspect of his reality is extremely important to him. Look through his old posts on this, it's almost a fetish. So he has to believe in whatever version of the fair playing field it is that allows him to continue believing that he is "color-blind." He won't admit that the natural consequence of this is that black people are lazy, and Mexicans are lazy, but he has to believe it, anyway, because it's the only way he can absolve himself of the white guilt that he is so desperate to avoid.
What I'm saying here has nothing to do with Trump -- let alone advancing any argument that the country isn't great.
What I'm saying is that the results of one's life have far more to do with what he makes of it than whatever impacts of circumstances beyond his control ever will.
That may not be the case everywhere, but it most certainly is here. So, if anything, this is actually a ringing endorsement of America and the opportunities available to those here. But what it isn't is a declaration that America is responsible for anybody's well-being. That's mostly up to each of us.
Then what you're saying is off-topic. Because the section of Michelle's speech at question in this thread was very clearly a response to Trump's assertion that America is no longer great. It wasn't even vague. She was quite explicit about it.
It's interesting because I didn't get any of what you got from Michelle Obama's speech. I got a message of transcending obstacles, reaching for greatness, achieving your dreams, fighting for what you believe is right, and not letting others undercut your self-determination. It was a terrific appeal to the greatness of our country...which is a stark contrast to the doom and gloom preached last week. Reagan is crying at the lack of aspirational vision in the current GOP. The question is can Hillary carry that aspirational tone throughout the campaign.
Except most of the blowback from the left against Trump's MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN has been 'America was NEVER Great'. It's not easy to separate what is the real sentiment and what is the Hollywood-y, polished variety-show stuff you get with the Dems.
Good night for speeches, but I remind you that one of the candidates put forth for this year's presidential election is an incompetent, dishonest, power-hungry egotist elite, proven to manupulate media to eliminate competition and artificially control the narrative, and who has accepted massive financial considerations from the financial sector and other nefarious sources, and the other one is Donald Trump.
Similar threads
