Well liberals is it time to stop July 4th being a holiday?

[Dill]

(07-12-2023, 12:28 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: '''Dill Wrote:[/url]LOL "WE" get it?  On this thread people who don't see through Murray could be in the minority.

It's interesting that you say that like it makes me automatically wrong. 

I say that like your continued use of the plural, as if everyone agrees with you, is "automatically" unethical on several counts.

First it's claim you are speaking for others. Why do that, right or wrong, unless they have specifically authorized you to? 

Also its a way of framing an issue as if you were in the majority and your opponent is an outlier.

(07-12-2023, 12:28 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:And yes, "push history" is about shaping and controlling "public perception" so that eyes roll and people hear "the West is bad" when exposed to a wider account of global history. The goal is to get people to pre-judge and shut out historical knowledge which might alter their views about how existing power arrangements came to be. And ideologues accomplish that by distorting what historians have actually said, reframing history as "grievance," a personal attack on "the West" by people who "hate" it.  

Sorry, there's no global conspiracy at work here.  Just people tired of being held to account for the sins of people long dead.  Especially when major efforts are being made to address those sins.

Er, the reference to "global history" doesn't establish a "global conspiracy."  I'm referring to people shaping public perception, like Murray and Tucker Carlson and many others, and to opinions of people shaped by them--People like yourself, "tired of being held to account" for what they are told are "sins of people long dead" and, in your words, the "castigation of Western Society." 

Your post dovetails with Luvnits': he sees "hatred" in the presentation of critical, accurate history; you see "castigation." True "patriots" don't support that sort of thing, apparently. In both cases, it appears analytical distance is lacking. Critique="hatred" or "castigation" just by being critique. Judge the issue before understanding it. No need to understand, once you've judged. 

What "major efforts" do you think are being made to address those sins, and which sins? Murray appears to be opposing those efforts, but hard to tell which sins are in question. He goes from the U.S. celebration of Juneteenth to the Barbary pirates and Ottoman Empire. Is it that Italians, who can't remember which of them were enslaved 400 years ago, aren't demanding reparations from Turkey, no longer Ottoman, so Black Americans need to lay off their reminder of U.S. slavery? Or at least mention the Barbary pirates too???? Juneteenth is manufactured grievance? 

Telling me to "turn on the mainstream news and watch" just means you have no idea either. You mention "race hustling" below. Maybe that? 

(07-12-2023, 12:28 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:This is especially the case with talk of "reparations," a transnational concept finally enabled by global organizations and courts. So across many countries in Africa, South America, and the Caribbean we see people of various nations calling for reparations.  People who enslaved others and benefitted from that want this to be past harm. Those still affected don't think its all in the past. Haiti is a good contrast to Piers Morgan's example of the Norman invasion. It did not finish paying off its extorted debt to France until 1947 (the "independence debt" for "theft" of property--freed slaves). The role that debt played in Haitian underdevelopment, and Aristide's call for reparations, was still a very live issue when he was overthrown in 2004, 200 years after 1804. [url=https://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/op-ed/article273642735.html]https://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/op-ed/article273642735.html. 
Should Aristide have "acknowledged" slavery in India 400 years ago when making his case "only" against France? 

Ahh, now you're again talking about recent events.  You continue to do this when Murray is referencing events from hundreds of years ago.  You keep doing this, and it's odd since I've pointed out several times that this isn't what we're talking about.  I think you'll find that there are very few people who begrudge the pursuit of recompense for actions that took place within the seeker's lifetime.

1804 was 200 years ago. Is that "recent" or an event "from hundreds of years ago"? It's a live issue still since Aristide was ousted in 2004.

The U.S. issue is not whether Murray is "referencing events from hundreds of years ago." There was never any need to keep pointing that out. 

The question is WHY he is doing that, and whether he is refuting any actual arguments for policy or reparations,

or is his "argument" just a round of WHATTABOUTISM to distract the angry and uninformed--as many on this thread already recognized.  

The question about reparations is not about "paying for sins of the father." It is about whether damage done in past times continues into the present, affecting living people. 

But you'd actually have to hear the other side to know that--not pre-judge and dismiss them as "race hustlers" at someone else's prompting.