www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall $$"House Slave"? Or Loyal Husband of The Household?+

Interesting discussion. From my perspective it looks like Harry Belafonte is a racist. I certainly do not agree with every position put forward by Gen. Colin Powell but I do highly respect him. It is amazing how some in the African-American community seek to disparage those who do not fully share their ideology. Mr. Belafonte's attack against Gen. Powell was uncalled for and he should apologize to Gen. Powell.

VirginiaCathgirl, thanks for an excellent and factual presentation of a bit of the history of the War of Northern Aggression! Those Yankees have a habit of rewriting history and forgetting all about the major issue of states rights.

Slavery was and is a horrible thing and certainly morally wrong. If there had been no war slavery would have died out on its own accord. Either way, we are still generations away from true equality and have much work to do.

I disagree with Brian one point and agree with him on another. I don't see propaganda of either of our political parties in this thread but Maximus has failed to illustrate how this topic “has to do with how one discerns to live out their faith”. If he can do so I will leave this topic in this forum. If not, I will move it to the Town Hall Forum.

Republican propaganda by who? I am in no way Republican. I am infact a pro-union person. And if it where not for the pro-abortion stance of the Democrats would probably be a devote Democrat. But what moral credibility can be found in accepting higher wages over ending orginized and legalized murder on very large scale? The apostles to my knowledge began no Apostolic tradition of orginized labor or quote progressive movements? Certainly Apostolic tradition does have something to say about abortion, as well the Ten Commandments have something to say about murder. I guess one must make their own choice and be at ease with that choice. But I contend that there are right and wrongs and that doing the right thing doesn't mean you wont go to the chopping block - but it is facing that chopping block which makes one a martyr and a saint. Selling out is just what it is. Why not call it that? No one has a problem calling an heroin addict a heroin addict.

Mines is not to build yes men. That is the character of Catholicism. Mine is to build men of leadership quality that can discern on their two feet. I have nephews and hope to impart on them tools of leadership and character that where never imparted on me. That means one must face the bull in the eyes, and not be afraid to identify error where error lies.

**************************************************

VirginaC.G.,

Confederacy was every thing about slavery. The majority of white southerners didn't own slaves because they couldn't afford them, not because, as it is implied, they didn't believe in the institution of slavery. Infact southern nobility let it be known to the white men of the south that didn't own slaves, that it was Lincoln's plan to rid slavery of the south and allow the black men to rape their white daughters. It was about slavery because those who died in union blue died to end it. If the southerners loved the black people so much back then how does one answer the question of the rise of the Klan? The masive migration of blacks to the north? And yes 'Jim Crow'.

Lincoln was perhaps the greatest President this nation has ever had. And I truely believe he did not hate black people at the time of his death. It was Lincoln who took this nation through the greatest war it ever had, blood relations killing blood relations, so as to end slavery - saying, I paraphrase: if every crack of the whip has to be repayed by every drop of blood - so be it. The judgement of the Lord is true and correct.

Lincoln started trade schools for blacks after the emancipation. He even suggested reperations for blacks for slavery. It was at this point he was struck down in assisnation. It is fair to say that Lincoln did more for black Americans then any other President in US history - to include Clinton. And Lincoln was not operating in "black is beautiful!" times when he did. It took courage to do what he did and suggest reperations to blacks when he did. Those where not the kinder times of the 1990's or 2000's. One had to look the bull in the eye and he did. Lincoln perhaps wanted to send blacks out of the country because he was realistic and knew lynch mobs, Klansmen, and segregation was going to make black free life an uphill battle. But Lincoln was up to the challenge, and after him so where thousands and thousands of blacks to come.

**************************************************

Administrator,

Perhaps you are correct maybe this thread is better suited for Town Hall. If you move it this will not upset me. I thought, and connect, faith life i.e. Catholicism/Orthodoxy to actual making of choices in life. And that relating to the whole discernment process i.e. racial politics over family - family over racial politics.

Yes it is interesting how black Americans will quickly label other black Americans all sorts of sell-out labels if they do not tow every single line of their politics. Certainly freedom of thought is not encouraged. Infact military service in the US is today thought of by-in-large as selling-out, if your black that is. Baby boomer blacks it's not so bad, but Gen-X, boy it's not that easy at all. I was not that well accepted by many blacks in my age group when I was in the service, because it was looked at by many as being a b***h. Selling-out. Not all of course saw it this way, but many did. There is more respect in having children by several different women - married to none, then by military duty.

But again I do not mean for this to be only a black thing. But rather inclusive of all Americans. For instance should white people put the all often racial politics of the Republican party above that of fidelity to their wives? Their are many white Republicans who have 'cheated' on their wives.

**************************************************

Dr John,

Thank you for the reply. I may not totaly agree with you but that is fine. At least you have made an effort to address a question that may be of some help to some young Byzantine Catholic or Orthodox youth, that is trying to learn how to properly make good choices in this life. Not an easy task, and of course everyone will bump their heads learning, but at least we hope not be fooled into the next era of the Nazi type party. I think the Jews would appreciate this.

Justin

Justin,

OK. I'm going to move this thread to the Town Hall Forum.

With all due respect, I don't see where you have shown a direct link from this discussion to faith. You may wish to clarify.

On another note, you may wish to read some less biased accounts of the War Between the States. Sadly, Lincoln really didn't care about the slaves and said so many times. For him the major issue was the preservation of the Union. Regarding slavery in the South it was already on its last leg. This does not mean that the average Southerner liked the blacks – they clearly didn't. But the two are separate issues even though they are related ones. Lincoln did the correct thing in the end but it is a rewrite of history to think that the only reason the War was fought was to abolish slavery. The history of that war is much more complicated than that.

You may also wish to clarify some of your references. You mention that “that Lincoln did more for black Americans then any other President in US history - to include Clinton” is rather odd since Clinton did absolutely nothing for African-Americans except continue the general policies that came about as the result of the Civil Rights Act. That president spent much of his time opposing what we hold true as Christians. Your other comment, that “For instance should white people put the all often racial politics of the Republican party above that of fidelity to their wives? Their are many white Republicans who have 'cheated' on their wives” is also confusing. This is nothing more than an unsupported accusation. What kind of racial politics are you accusing Republicans of? What does the fact that some may have sinned by cheating on their wives have to do with the specific racial politics of the Republican party (whatever they are)? This is an odd comparison since there are more African-Americans and other minorities in Bush's cabinet then there were in Clinton's cabinet and Bush has not cheated on his wife while Bill Clinton certainly has.

If you're going to make accusations against any of our political parties you need to provide the evidence to support your accusation as well as show a clear relationship to Christian Faith (if you are starting them in the Faith & Worship Forum).

Admin

Perhaps. But this does not change the simple, historical fact that secession was initiated as a response to the acts and attitudes of the North against slavery - to which there was a resolute committment within the South.

[Copied by Justin Sanders from "Journal of the State Convention", (Jackson, MS: E. Barksdale, State Printer, 1861), pp. 86-88]
A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.
http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html#Mississippi

Mississippi was the second state to secede. South Carolina, the first, in an analogous declaration proclaims:

And so on. These states seceded to protect slavery, provked by the efforts to prevent its spread into new territories and states, because its opponents would not return their "property", and had called the institution sinful. The democratic election of Lincoln was seen as the final, unbearable provocation. And secession was not enough, but warfare was initiated by them.
States-rights? Please be clear: the rights at issue were the rights to possess slaves without judgement or interference, the right to pursue slaves across state lines and to demand the return of their escaped "property", the right to extend slavery without into all new states and territories.

That Lincoln was unable to hold and proclaim a vision of equality, is hardly suprising for anyone of that era. This vision remains in all too short supply in our own times (and revisionist histories of the nobility of the Southern cause, or proof-texting about Lincoln's racism hardly advances it). But of his goodness and greatness, his 2nd inaugural address speaks volumes.

Administrator,

From my perspective it looks like Harry Belafonte is a racist.

Mr. Belafonte (unlike Colin Powell) is married to a white woman, I don't see how he is a racist. And please understand the historical and sociological background of what it means when an African American calls someone a house slave. It is never as simple as “some in the African-American community seek to disparage those who do not fully share their ideology [whatever this "ideology' is].” Malcom X popularized the concept best. You can listen to some of his speeches like “Ballot or the Bullet” and “Message to the Grassroots” to get an idea.

If there had been no war slavery would have died out on its own accord.

I guess djs and Justin beat me in response to this one. I don't know if you are familiar with the proverbs and saying of African Americans but there is one slogan, “Freedom can't wait” that drives the point home. Are you suggesting that because for some reason (which you did not detail) slavery would have died out, that Black Americans were supposed to somehow just sit there and wait for it to die out? Nat Turner's rebellion proves that African Americans were not willing to sit and wait for some gradual evolutionist ending of slavery. You can't just expect Black people to sit there and be "discussed' and "debated' about and pretend that we do not have our own voices. Yes, slavery was bound to die and it did die, it died thanks to it being murdered by the second American Revolution, other wise called the Civil war.

thanks for an excellent and factual presentation of a bit of the history of the War of Northern Aggression! Those Yankees have a habit of rewriting history and forgetting all about the major issue of states rights.

Wait up here. Are those former slaves and the contemporary African American communities residing in the South not Southerners too? The African American Southerners never talked about "War of Northern Aggression' like white Southerners did. African American southerners never complained about "states rights' when federal civil rights legislations was being enacted, white Southerners did. Stop presenting the south and southern opinion as if it were simply the sum of what White Southerners had to say. South is southern; anything in it, of it, or about it. It is not only what white southerners have to say about everything. Yes, Yankees have re-written history and so have southerners.

My dearest sister VirginiaCathgirl, thank you for your response; I thought it would be Cizinec or another Southerner who jumped on me for my comments. First of all; yes, I made a blunder it actually was Jefferson Davis, and not Gen. Lee, who the rumors say he was caught wearing a dress when he was captured. My bad, I apologize.

Lincoln's original intent was to preserve the Union, not to free the slaves. He felt that blacks were inferior to whites and could never live together in the same country.

Nobody is defending Lincoln; save the anti-Lincoln arguments for another crowd. What Justin said about Lincoln is actually new thinking on this question. Historically, the Black community has always publicized the fact that Lincoln was a racist, the emancipation proclamation was just for the states in rebellion, and that he gave lip service to the idea or forced repatriation to Africa or to Latin America. Classical African American scholars such as J.A. Rogers wrote about that and contemporary sages such as Leonard Bennett, Jr. wrote a book on the topic just last year. Martin Delany, who many call the father of Black Nationalism, along with Fredrick Douglas had to pressure Lincoln just to allow Black Americans to join the Union Army (and when he consented it was probably one of his wisest political decisions).

Only 1/12 of the population of the South owned slaves

Of course, those are the usual type of ratios of upper class proportions in a class stratified society. How can the majority of a class society be the upper class? It is ALWAYS a social minority that holds economic power. But it doesn't prove much. If only 1/12 could afford to buy slaves and run a plantation does not mean that: they did not have the desire to do so (and jumped to it the minute they got the funds and the opportunity), that they were not racist, or that they did not benefit from the institution of slavery even if they didn't own any slaves themselves.

Repeating the often quoted fact that Lee was against slavery also doesn't get us very far. He objectively allied himself with a rebellion that intended on maintaining slavery and thus as Justin put it “was fighting for the right of southern nobility to maintain slavery whether he believed it or not.” The only people who can honestly claim that they are fighting a war whose goal they might not really support are rank and file solders. Once you pass the rank of colonel then the strength of that argument starts to dissipate. Whether you free your slaves or not, whether you support slavery or not; you can not be the General of an army fighting to maintain slavery (in addition to the other issues they were fighting for) and honestly expect to be taken seriously as one who is opposed to slavery.

When I was a kid, the Civil War was often referred to with tongue in cheek as "The War of Northern Aggression"! I was 12 years old before I realized that "Damn Yankee" was two words!!

Understood, but remember that it is white kids that are taught this and it is the white southern community that talks about “War of Northern Aggression” and not “2nd American Revolution.” The Southern African American Community does not refer to the war that freed their ancestors as northern aggression and they don't consider the Confederate flag their "heritage;' and they are just as southern as you.

If the South had won, Colin Powell wouldn't be enslaved; his parents came from Jamaica and settled in the Bronx!

Yes, we have all read Colin Powell's autobiography My American Journey and are quite aware that he descends from a West Indian background. My point was to say that he, as a Black man, would not have become who he has became had the south won the war.

The assassination of Lincoln and the rise of the Radical Republicans who were determined to punish the South and treat it harshly set back race relations by decades.

No, Reconstruction was the one time in American history where African Americans enjoyed serious political influence and freedom. It has not been duplicated or repeated since; from our modern stand point and the present political status of African Americans the radial Republicans of the 19th century were more advanced and enlightened than our society is today. If there was anything that set back race relations it was the Klan terrorism, lynchings and lynch mobs, race riots like in Atlanta, and the anti-radical republicans that set up the “Black Codes” the “Grandfather clauses” and the notorious Jim Crow segregationist system; an abominable disgrace of human life and dignity. That can not be blamed on radical Republicans.

Finally on this question of Northern aggression:

This is an irritating and condescending term. If anyone ever wants to understand any historical phenomena (such as the concept of the Civil War being Northern Aggression) you should just compare and contrast that situation to other situations. This rhetoric about "northern aggression' is typical in the southern lexicon. Even as late as the civil rights movement, northern Black College students who went to help their suffering Black brothers and sisters in the south were called “northern trouble makers” by Southern bigots and supporters of the segregationist status quo. In fact, white southern political commentary at the time deemed that the entire civil rights movement of “Martin Luther Coon, Jr.” et al was nothing but a conspiracy of a bunch of rowdy northern trouble makers. How could it be other wise? Everyone just knows that “Our negras (yes that is how they pronounced it) are good and loyal. Flutterbuck and Sally Sew are God Fearing Christians. They know their place and would never be caught dead advocating nonsensical notions about voting rights and integration.” It seems that any attempt to correct southern backwardness is responded to by charges of "Northern aggression' and violations of states rights. Save the drama and let's get on with building a civilized society.

Bekka, I think I have said enough.

God Bless

Dr. John, as always your words are greatly appreciated, even if they were critical of anything that I said. As far as "gangsta rap' goes I would just suggest that you talk, not only to your African American friends your own age that you work with, but also their children. Talk to those 19 and 20 year olds who are themselves rapping. If you ever find time, go with them to the studio while they are recording one of their songs. My closest friend is a "gangsta rapper' and he is also the most gentle and courteous person that I know in real life. He talks nonsense in his songs, but in his day job he is a drug counselor at the prison. He has never served time in prison, nor has he done any drug (including marijuana); yet he still inspires the people he talks to. He is a completely different person when you hear his lyrics.

You have to understand that "gangsta rap' is not a sub-culture. It is a counter-culture promoted by corporate interest outside of the Black community. The founder of the enterprise and the executive of the very first gangsta rap group (NWA) was himself a white corporate person. Most of the owners of these record companies are white; therefore this commercialized rap can not be considered a part of Black culture.

After numerous times I started to get a feel of how this commercialized enterprise called gangster rap is run. Once when I was in the studio with my friend his manager (white) told him that he was not saying bitc* and mothefu**r enough. In other words he would have to be ruder in order to sell more records. This is not Black Culture, this is just insane. The only people who think it is Black Culture are those who observe the Black Community through mass media and not real life. Bookworm to Bookworm, when you find the time and are not busy reading linguistics or those difficult theological questions let me know and maybe I can refer you some books about the commercialized rap industry.

BTW, I hope your participation in the Black jokes list means that you also share with them some Greek jokes…

God Bless

Very wise words. Like the Administrator, I can respect Gen. Powell even though I am pro-life. I also find it puzzling that a community would disparage those who do not fully share their ideology. I seem to recall this matter comes up ocassionally with other public figures who may may disagree with their views on abortion.

Axios

P.S. djs,

Thank you very much for taking the time to post those informing quotes. I guess it is sad but fair to say that we are beyond the time when an American President will quote scripture so extensively and drive a theological point home like Lincoln did. What a brave and principled man, even if he was a racist, I think we can forgive him for that part.

Boy haven't we opened a can of worms. It is sort of amazing that even though the Civil War was 140 years ago, it still gets people stirred up. I guess because it touched such vital things as race relations, rights of people to be free versus rights of states to leave the Union if they wanted, whether we should have a strong centralized government vs. "states rights", etc.

The folks over at my favorite libertarian web site, lewrockwell.com, are always posting things on how bad Lincoln was. I don't agree with this. I think that in many ways he was a great man, a person who was handed an unfortunate hand and played it as well as he could, although I don't agree with his suspending the writ of habeus corpus during the war and arresting and deporting a Congressman and a newspaper editor who opposed his war policy. However, no one, no matter how heroic, is either all good or all bad.

Thanks to Aklie for correcting his mistatement on Lee, but I never heard this about Davis, either. Unless he was disguised as a woman to escape capture. Seems pretty lily-livered to me.
Even though I think Lee an admirable person in many ways, I have to wonder, didn't he know that the South could never win the war due to the North's greater industrial capacity, so unless some European power recognized the South, it truly was the lost cause and people were getting killed for nothing. Though for a time, Britain and France, as well as the Papacy, considered recognizing the South.

Aklie is right that the things I mentioned are the white southern person's point of view. No doubt blacks feel differently. However, I would like to point out that racism, unfortunately, is not confined to the South. The most racist guy I know is from Pennsylvania. One of my friends, a liberal Democrat from Syracuse, New York, said many of the people he grew up with were quite prejudiced. The problem with the South is that such prejudice was codified. I do think that the military occupation of the South after the Civil War did embitter people though and this can be charged to the Radical REconstructionists.

My personal view is that the Constitution allows secessions, but it was a bad idea, because it would have delayed the ending of slavery, and if the South had become another country, greedy European powers would be waiting to take advantage of the U.S.'s divided state. I am not one of those "the South will rise again" types. For one thing, the Feds have the bomb now, so resistance is futile!!!

However, I regret the effect of strengthening the hand of the federal government. I also think it quite ironic the relative position of the political parties today versus what they were before the Civil Rights movement. When I was a kid, the Republican party was the party of racial moderation in Virginia and being a Republican was sort of like being a Communist. (My parents were Republicans). The South was solidly Democratic, until the Civil Rights movement and Lyndon Johnson (and to some extent Kennedy). It's strange because things are now 180 degrees. Strom Thurmond used to be a Democrat. So did Jesse Helms, I believe. Colin Powell was right to remind the Republican party of its heritage as the party of Lincoln. If any party can take a certain group for granted, that doesn't really help the group. Blacks are pretty much ignored by the Republican Party because they figure they are always going to vote Democrat. However, the Hispanic and the Jewish vote are seen as gettable by the Republicans, so guess who gets the attention? Democrats don't have to work too hard to keep black votes. The same is true of pro-lifers. Republicans can ignore pro life voters with impunity because they figure they will never vote Democrat.

The other thing is that I remember well all the hysteria in the 60's over integration in the South. Civilization As We Know It was going to end. (translation: black guys might marry white girls!!!!!) Well, when I explain all the fuss I lived though, my kids can't believe it. You mean blacks really had to go to separate bathrooms and water fountains and schools and stuff, they say? Why? What were people worried about? And now, there are elected black officials all over the South. The only state to have a black governor so far is Virginia! Ironic, huh? It sure is a better world and a New South, and I'm not saying to return to the old ways, I'm just saying don't fall into the simplistic view of history of North-Lincoln-freedom-all good guys and South-slavery-Klan-bad guys, because history is always infinitely more complex.

What does all this have to do with Eastern Christianity? Well, not much, unless we realize that moral issues touch every facit of life.
Gee whiz, how did we get on this topic anyway???

Martha

Dearest sister Martha,

I am not a nitpicker so I am not going to search for something to disagree with you about.

Yes, the South gets a bad rap from northerners (BTW, I am a Californian west sider I am not a northerner ) with respect to racial issues and the like. I have no doubt that most card carrying American Nazis reside in the North. Even here in the San Francisco Bay area there is this group called the Pink Nazis; you probably already guessed that what gets them in temper high mood is the site of an inter-racial gay couple. Yep, I have seen all that ridiculousness has to offer.

I really do like the South. Southerners are cultured, well mannered and Church going. The South is the only American culture that has genuinely integrated the cuisine of Native Americans, Europeans and Africans into what we now call southern food. Southern hospitality is something that should definitely be taught to the rest of America. Have you ever traveled to a country where everyone was nice and courteous and then seen the difference when you get back here? Well, in my experience when you return by way of the South you don't even notice the transition because the behavior is the same. But if you land in New York, well…by the time you get to customs you are already trying to sneak back on the plane to leave again.

The South itself is great; heck if y'all could match California in wine (and keep dreaming, it will never happen) I would probably move there. The only problem we have is this confederate stuff and arguments that try to minimize the impact of slavery on the people it affected the most.

You are right about the Democrats taking Black voters for granted. This is something that the Black community is starting to think hard about and hopefully will soon overcome.

I do think that the military occupation of the South after the Civil War did embitter people though and this can be charged to the Radical Reconstructionists.

Yes it did embitter people. It embittered white people who lost their right to own and exploit slaves. You have to consider them in the context they lived in. Just imagine the racial arrogance that is a by-product of owning a fellow human being. Then imagine that he runs away to the North and a few months later he marches on your plantation wearing Union blue and frees all of your slaves. In other contexts, just imagine that your former slave who you used to tie to a poll and whip and tell him that he was the cursed son of Ham; imagine him wearing his Union blue placing you under arrest. Who would not be embittered?

Over all though, yes military occupation led to a disaster. Northern politicians should have just proceeded with their plans to build a local Black militia and arm the ex-slaves. Then there would have been no need for a military occupation and the Black communities would have still been protected from the Klan uprising. But as usual, the politicians that the Black community put so much confidence in betrayed them.

I guess I better do my homework.

God Bless

A. Semaet

Administrator,

Who came first Clinton or Bush Jr? The Republicans knew they were loosing to much ground in America after the terrible and sinful way they went after Clinton. To many people had become aware that they (Republicans) had a greater agenda then "morality" and the good benefit of *all* American citizens. President Bush is in no way a evil man or hateful man, but he is a loyal protector of his party (and friends) and his kinder conservatism is/was just a vehical, as well as his appointment of black people in his cabinet, to protect his party (and friends) through "damage control". -- accusations Perhaps? But they are my personal feelings, as well as that of many other average Joe Americans.

I think what Clinton did for black Americans was to inspire in them, reasure them, that they to have a place in the quote "American dream". And that in it's self is something hopefully held true in Christianity. When was the last time a US President went to Africa? Clinton did, he also has just came back from Africa and he no longer is President. Clinton has also placed himself an office in black Harlem New York from what I understand. Any white Republican ever retired to black Harlem New York?

Of course you are correct that I threw out accusations about the Republican party, or more accurately, white persons of the Republican party. First let me say I at least one white Republican friend. He in no way is hateful of black people, and is an all around good guy. I know there are other Republicans out there like him. That said - what harms the Republican party, as being imaged as a party primarily of racists, is that unlike the Democratic party the Republicans party has long choosen to maintain the old boys network to such an extent that under them the only people truely encouraged to share in the American dream were/our white males.

Yes the Klan south used to be the southern Democrats. Now that has flipped. In the north however the Klan infiltrated the Republican party, and the Republicans have yet to fully scurge their party of that sentiment.

I have to tell you, coming from the north, it is a culture shock to be in the south with all of it's confederate flags. I believe I saw more confederate flags flown in one day down in florida then I have my entire life in Milwaukee. The north total for that matter, from New York to California. Every time that flag is flown I understand the sentiment, propaganda aside, to the heart of the confederate supporter he wishes I were enslaved. At the least I should not have the right to travel around freely.

Who supports these confederate flags flown over state capitals? They are primarily Republicans. The war is over true acts of so called Christian charity would be to make your neighbor feel welcomed. The Confederate flag does not make black people feel welcomed. Yet the Republicans and so called Christian-right feel that cherished pride in southern romance of slave plantation - and the day when even a poor white man could say with pride that he knew he was better then someone - is of greater importance then Christian charity. If ever the day comes when black American men orginize a life time effort to raping white American women. I can be sure from the Republicans - yes? That the standard they raped under can be hoisted above state capitals and flown with integrity?

As for the Lincoln argument - djs and Aklie gave better responses then I can. I think they grasp that part of history better then I do. However I believed and tried to get across the spirit of their posts, in those posts I had put up. In that way I think we share the same understanding.

Look, the upshot of all of this northern/southerner argument - is that today the south is more progressive in race relations then most of the north. Parts of the south still hold a strong Klan presence, where things have hardly changed, but those are smaller parts of the south. The larger part of the south is experiencing a northern black migration back to the south. Of course some of this has to do not with race per se but with the south being union busters and attracting business migration. But the south is still not the south of the past.

Justin

Justin,

Well stated, especially on Christian charity and the Confederate flag. It is clearly racist; the most arrogant slogan that I saw (and clearly intended for Black people) had the “X” of the Confederate flag on a t-shirt and it said “You wear your X and I will wear mine” alluding to the “X” (as in Malcolm X) baseball hat that our generation used to wear in the early 1990's. People supporting that kind of idea are racist, insensitive, arrogant and apparently hungry for a California knuckle sandwich. (I can not quite understand the analogy you were making with white women being raped though).

I agree with the Administrator on one point in this thread and that is that Clinton did not do anything for us except barley keep old 1960's Civil Rights legislation intact. Even there his slogan was “amend it, don't end it.”

I would just caution you though; don't jump out of the Republican frying pan just to fall into the Democratic fire. Right now we need to be making decisions on independent political action and getting our communities and schools in order; strengthening the family unit, kicking the liquor stores out of the neighborhood and taking care of the elders (have you ever talked to a Black elder about how it was in the 60's? They say that even the thought of putting an elder in a hospital as opposed to the extended family taking care of them was unheard of, but now look). Black credit unions need to be supported, the crisis in health care in the Black community and environmental pollution in the hood need be taken care of. These are things that the Democrats are not going to do and the Republicans are going to celebrate if nothing is done because they can keep on demonizing. The comedian and film maker Michael Moore said it best: while it used to be having to choose between the lesser of two evils it is now just the evil of two lessers.

You, like Martha, are right on to highlight that it is not really the south that can be singled out for racism. To bring up Malcolm again he said to a group of young Black northerners who were bad mouthing the South: “quit talking bad about the South, so long as you are south of the Canadian border, you are in the South.”

As far as the pockets of Klan in the South, don't worry about them. In fact, they are where we need them; completely visible and recognizable wearing their ice cream cone hats. They are harmless. Instead you should keep your eye on those klansmen wearing tailor fitted Italian suits sitting in executive offices making important decisions. Also worry about the likes of David Duke almost becoming governor of Louisiana. Those scholars and think tanks with their promotions of this nonsense about "rational racism' (which asserts that there is something behind the stereotypes, justifies racial profiling and ultimately rationalizes racism) are who you need to be watching your back for. These are the dangerous people. Klansmen…naaahhh, just by him a beer, sack him in a game of foot ball, assure him that the past is not coming back so get over it, and tell him to get a life. If you can swallow all of your pride, invite him to Church. But of course in order to do that you have to appreciate your own status as an Apostolic Christian, don't you

Ok, I hope I am done with politics; too distracting.

God Bless

Aklie, Thanks for your post. I never suggested that black Americans should have sat there and waited for slavery to die out. I only suggested that those who believe that the only reason the War was fought was because of slavery do not have a complete grasp on history. As djs points out, succession was instituted because of the acts and attitudes of the North against the South. While there are many arguments that can be put forth, one of the primary ones from the South was economic. They argued that slavery must be maintained because of the economic losses and hardships that would result if they lost the free labor the slaves provided. If the Southerners of that time could have found an alternate method of obtaining such a great quantity of labor at such a cheap price they would have gladly sent all of the slaves back to Africa. Such an argument, of course, was and is morally wrong since the ends never justify the means.

Skipping topics a bit, I agree with Aklie in his comments on the betrayal of black community by the politicians who claim to be leaders. There are many Americans who have made valuable contributions to our society who happen to be black, including Alan Keyes, Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas and Walter Williams quickly come to mind (from the current generation). Alan Keyes and Clarence Thomas also happen to be Catholic.

Justin, I disagree with your comments on Clinton being somehow responsible for inspiring black Americans. Everything the man does is because it will benefit either him or his party (his choice of an office in Harlem that he seldom visits is purely political). The advances the black Americans have made during the last generation are because of their hard work, not because Clinton pretended to promote the cause of racial equality. To be blunt, I did not have much respect for Clinton (from his days as governor of Arkansas) but what little respect I did have was lost when he did not allow Governor Casey of Pennsylvania to speak at the Democratic Convention because Casey was pro-life. I am constantly amazed how Clinton supporters can dismiss any amount of evil done by the man while at the same time finding and condemning evil in even the thoughts of those who are intellectually opposed to him. Also, if you think that the Republican Party is just the only "all boys network" just look at the recent events in New Jersey where the senatorial candidate decided he couldn't win and was replaced by the Democratic political machine (which conveniently forgot the law and owned the state supreme court) or last week in Montana where the Democrats ran advertisements claiming that the Republican senatorial candidate was unfit to be elected because he once ran a hair salon and was possibly a homosexual (that candidate has since dropped out). I could also mention that Democratic Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia is a former klansman and just in this last year had to apologize for racist statements. My point is that neither political party in America holds any moral superiority to the other. There are, to be sure, outstanding individuals in both parties. It is not surprising that the best are usually those who are believing Christians or Jews (since they share, to a great extent, a common morality with those of us who are Catholic and Orthodox).

Finally, since we are on the topic, it is my opinion that the black Americans that have advanced the most in recent generations are those who have worked hard and taken the economic risks (like starting their own business). A friend of mine (who happens to be black) told me a long time ago that the key to equality was not in political advances but in advances in education and self-confidence. I should mention that she holds a masters in computer science and supervises a dozen software engineers.

Admin

Well about the War of Northern Aggression...the Southern States (and all/most States at that time, I believe) willingly entered the Union. However, it was agreed that whatever State entered into the Union willingly could just as willingly leave this Union. So, whether some of the motives of the South were moral and correct (gosh knows some of them were and others weren't) they had every right to leave the Union. I find it sad that this right was so willingly cast aside for selfish reasons, and I find the idea of forcing an entity to stay a part of whatever institution it belongs to very aggressive and NOT within the aggressors rights.

ChristTeen287

Aklie,

The only point I was trying to get across with my analogy of black men raping white women, was that, the confederate flag was represenative of the legal institution of slavery. It was flown in pride. Many white slave masters raped their black female servent maids. Of course I've read one historian who said that sexual intercourse of every type was practiced between *all* slaves and their masters i.e. not to exclude homosexual relations etc. Now let me point out that I feel quite confident in saying that I'm sure there were a fair number of black female slaves who willing, without intimidation (and for the record I consider intimidation as a form of rape), had intimate sexual relations with there "masters". I'm sure a number may have swept off of their feet. This is human nature. And women in general are attracted to the most powerful and high status men. Unfortunatly then was the case as is now, that womens high regard for themselves in discernment of men, often proved to be more faulty and disappointing then what they thought.

Aklie, I would have taken you for your mid 40's. You have to be one of the brightest GenX'ers I've ever talked to (granted this is over the internet). I have know idea how you pack all that knowledge in one brain. Anyways, yes I have heard all the stories of how things were different - and yes they were different - but I also got to witness some of the passing of the old ways. Being a child in the early 80's, you got to see the last of the extended families living under one roof. Still some of this now, but very few. I've also been privilaged to hear - zillion of times - the lectures on how the black neighborhoods use to be filled with black owned businesses. Again in the early 80's one could see the last of this too. Then there's the story how you could leave your bike outside and it would be there in the morning and etc. In the 80's though you could never see any of this.

I'll be in complete disagreement with you though about gangster raps connection to black America. Now "Hip Hop" culture is far bigger then gangster rap, but there is little way to deny black American affection for gangster rap and gangster culture - at least GenX on down. As for your friend, I'm sure he's a nice guy, but he is caught in a trap. One can not have two feet in one shoe. You can't promote peace and reconciliation then rap gangsterism which is counter to that. The rapers of the 80's have tried this with their - "Stop The violence" recording. To then turn around in the 90's and talk about gunning everyone down who disrespects them. If white executives of the music business want you to rap about gangsterism and you don't want to, then become a plumber in the mean time. It's honest work.

Administrator,

I never said anywhere nor alluded to, that black Americans have not accomplished things on their own hard work. But a 40 year old black person is not a 19 year old black person. All Americans must have confidence in there society, that it will allow them to compete, fairly, and acheive fairly, before they will place faith in that system. Otherwise they may establish other avenues to gain status and money. This is a human thing. And confidence in the system is nothing knew I'm speaking of. If people lack confidence in that system they will not take risks in it.

And what you said about political parties is understood.

Lastly, this woman friend of yours, speaks a philosophy I echoed coming out of the service. At which point I was quickly taken to task by family and most numerous black peoples. Perhaps if I had met your friend early enough I might I have been fit enough to marry her - prior to her marriage of course But I can tell you salvation in the political Democrat party is mantra of a very large portion of black America. To disagree can quickly label you a "sell out".

Believe it or not I can speak a bit openly about black American issues, because I feel confident that black people are equal to white people. Just many foolish moves have been made over time by black communities going back to black West Africa. And a number of troubles we have due to white supremice militarium - that evil, which is no fault of black peoples - but can be overcome in time hopefully.

At any rate no matter the race or party I think we all must start with ourselves first. And pass on proper principles and tools to our children. At least this is just my thoughts.

Justin