Ta-Nehisi Coates dropping more gems on why blacks still getting screwed

[David_TheMan]

I can't argue with someone who doesn't have the reading comprehension to understand the material he posted in his own link.

"It was only with his death that Lincoln's popularity soared. Lincoln was slain on Good Friday, and pastors who had for four years criticized Lincoln from their pulpits rewrote their Easter Sunday sermons to remember him as an American Moses who brought his people out of slavery but was not allowed to cross over into the Promised Land. Secretary of War Stanton arranged a funeral procession for Lincoln's body on a continental scale, with the slain president now a Republican martyr to freedom, traversing in reverse his train journey from Springfield to the nation's capital four years earlier. Seeing Lincoln's body in his casket, with soldiers in blue standing guard, hundreds of thousands of Northerners forgot their earlier distrust and took away instead an indelible sentimental image of patriotic sacrifice, one that cemented the dominance of the Republican Party for the rest of their lives and their children's."

Your link says that Lincoln began to be beloved IMMEDIATELY on his death. It's talking about sermons written on THAT day, talking about hundresd of thousands who forgot their distrust right then and there and, as it notes, cemented the dominance of the Republican party for their lifetimes.

What's this "1920s" bullshyt? The effect was immediate.



"It wasn’t until it became clear that the North was going to win the war that the tide of opinion started to change. His murder completely changed how people viewed him from then onward (thus began his rise to “sainthood.”)"

And that's from your other link. It claims that the tide of opinion was changing even before his death, from when it became clear the North was going to win the war. (Which you say was a full year before his death.) And it says that his murder completely changed how people viewed him. Not public school indoctrination 55 years later. His murder, then and there.


Was there an article somewhere by someone who hated him? Of course! Someone writes articles hating on every president, and Lincoln warred against an entire half of the country, sent 500,000 soldiers to their deaths, and ended slavery, so he had more haters than most. But that doesn't change the fact that he was generally beloved upon his death, which even your own links admit.

Everything else you say was already rebuked handedly. Reread what I posted. You don't seem to be able to sift history outside of your own opinion, which you probably got from a youtube video by some NeoConfederate or some idiot who listens to them.

I'm sorry if you don't have the intellectual honesty to read more than one paragraph and believe in fairytales that people magically loved him, when in fact there are numerous instances in those same links that document people actually celebrating his death.

As for his make over it wasn't immediate at all, you still had half the country and a signficant faction of northerners who celebrated his death. It took time and a concerted effort to complete the PR spin of him being "beloved" and "honest" Abe.

Actually it wasn't immediate.

I'm sorry about the links I posted about how much they hated him during his life, but I have a book The Real Lincoln by Tom DiLorenzo that goes more into the actual goings on at the time regarding the hate that Lincoln had even post death. Such as US military sentencing members who spoke out about how much they hated him to death and etc.

You really haven't rebuked anything though.
As for Neo-confederate, hardly, I have no love for the conferderates just like I have no love for the union and the present day US.
I will say this though its clear with what we know about Lincoln and his view of blacks that its clear he wasn't shot or killed because he wanted black men to be free and be able to vote.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

I'm sorry about the links I posted about how much they hated him during his life, but I have a book The Real Lincoln by Tom DiLorenzo that goes more into the actual goings on at the time regarding the hate that Lincoln had even post death. Such as US military sentencing members who spoke out about how much they hated him to death and etc.

Hahahha - Tom DiLorenzo is associated with those very "NeoConfederates" that you claim you're not associated with!

Thomas DiLorenzo, a Loyola professor since 1992, was in Washington on Wednesday to testify at a House subcommittee hearing on the Federal Reserve Bank. But Rep. William Lacy Clay, a Democrat from St. Louis, quickly raised questions about DiLorenzo's ties to the League of the South, which is listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

"You work for a Southern nationalist organization that espouses very radical notions about American history and the federal government," said Clay in a volley that has become popular blog fodder over the past two days.

A secessionist Web site, DumpDC, identified DiLorenzo the same way last year when it published an interview with DiLorenzo in which he is quoted as saying "secession is not only possible but necessary if any part of America is ever to be considered 'the land of the free' in any meaningful sense."

Heidi Beirich, research director for the Southern Poverty Law Center, said DiLorenzo spoke at a League of the South event as recently as 2009 and has been listed as an affiliated scholar in the organization's publications over the years.

The Southern Poverty Law Center in 2004 described DiLorenzo as one of "the intellectuals who form the core of the modern neo-Confederate movement." The center spotlighted his thoughts on Lincoln, his teaching affiliation with the League of the South and his faculty position with the Ludwig von Mises Institute, which it described as a "hard-right libertarian foundation in Alabama."

Beirich said DiLorenzo is linked to the League of the South by shared views on Lincoln and the Civil War. "He is probably the leading Lincoln revisionist out there," she said. "I'm not sure I would call him a hate peddler, but he promotes a really distorted view of the Civil War. … Whitewashing slavery is a bad thing."

Beirich also noted a 1995 essay under DiLorenzo's name in the Journal of Historical Review, a publication primarily known for Holocaust denial. DiLorenzo said the journal must have used the piece, defending South Carolina's flying of the Confederate battle flag, without his permission.

I checked wikipedia, and the reviews for his book that you are getting all this from are laughingly bad:

Writing for The Daily Beast, Rich Lowry described DiLorenzo's technique in this book as the following: "His scholarship, such as it is, consists of rummaging through the record for anything he can find to damn Lincoln, stripping it of any nuance or context, and piling on pejorative adjectives. In DiLorenzo, the Lincoln-haters have found a champion with the judiciousness and the temperament they deserve."

Reviewing for The Independent Review, a think tank associated with DiLorenzo, Richard M. Gamble described the book "travesty of historical method and documentation". He said the book was plagued by a "labyrinth of [historical and grammatical] errors", and concluded that DiLorenzo has "earned the ... ridicule of his critics."

In his review for theClaremont Institute, Ken Masugi writes that "DiLorenzo adopts as his own the fundamental mistake of leftist multi-culturalist historians: confusing the issue of race with the much more fundamental one, which was slavery." He noted that in Illinois "the anti-slavery forces actually joined with racists to keep their state free of slavery, and also free of blacks." Masugi called DiLorenzo's work "shabby" and stated that DiLorenzo's treatment of Lincoln was "feckless" and that the book is "truly awful".

Justin Ewers criticized DiLorenzo, saying this book "is more of a diatribe against a mostly unnamed group of Lincoln scholars than a real historical analysis. His wild assertions – for example, that Lincoln held 'lifelong white supremacist views' – don't help his argument."

Publishers Weekly described this as a "screed," in which DiLorenzo "charges that most scholars of the Civil War are part of a 'Lincoln cult';" he particularly attacks scholar Eric Foner, characterizing him and other as "cover-up artists" and "propagandists."[29]

Here's the best quote:

In a 2009 review of three newly published books on Lincoln, historian Brian Dirck linked the earlier work of Thomas DiLorenzo with that of Lerone Bennett, another critic of Lincoln. He wrote that "Few Civil War scholars take Bennett and DiLorenzo seriously, pointing to their narrow political agenda and faulty research."

Yep, that's the guy you're running with. Perhaps you should take another look at the material?

I will say this though its clear with what we know about Lincoln and his view of blacks that its clear he wasn't shot or killed because he wanted black men to be free and be able to vote.

Except that is EXACTLY why Booth's co-conspirator testified. I guess I have to repeat again:

That means ni--er citizenship. Now, by God, I'll put him through. That is the last speech he will ever give.

That's John Wilkes Booth, as recounted by co-conspirator Lewis Powell, 2 days before the assassination. Lincoln had just given a speech from the White House saying that he wanted Black people to have the right to vote. You want to backtrack now?

Lincoln gave a speech from the White House saying that he wanted Black men to have the right to vote 2 days before he died. Booth heard the speech and swore that he would kill Lincoln, previously having only planned to kidnap him. That's all a matter of public record. Why do you keep ignoring that? Why do you keep ignoring EVERYTHING about what Booth said and did, when he's the one who actually killed Lincoln?

 

[yungblkboy8264]

Hitler was a socialist, look at his actual economic policy. Its socialist by definition, same actually as the US's economy at the time and to this day. Same as Mussolini.
Yes they were fascist, fascism is a form of socialism, the same way communism is a extreme form of socialism.

As for being conservative, I would agree, socialism (or the 3rd way) was a common economic middle ground for those established in power during the early 1900s when communism was spreading, its a way for them to keep their power and assets while providing the lipservice that they were making moves for "the people"

That said, you haven't been able to actually defend your point about socialism or communism being anti-racist, and I've shown plenty.

#fail

 

[David_TheMan]

#fail

How is it a fail.
Fascism is a form of socialism

Hahahha - Tom DiLorenzo is associated with those very "NeoConfederates" that you claim you're not associated with!








I checked wikipedia, and the reviews for his book that you are getting all this from are laughingly bad:








Here's the best quote:



Yep, that's the guy you're running with. Perhaps you should take another look at the material?






Except that is EXACTLY why Booth's co-conspirator testified. I guess I have to repeat again:



That's John Wilkes Booth, as recounted by co-conspirator Lewis Powell, 2 days before the assassination. Lincoln had just given a speech from the White House saying that he wanted Black people to have the right to vote. You want to backtrack now?

Lincoln gave a speech from the White House saying that he wanted Black men to have the right to vote 2 days before he died. Booth heard the speech and swore that he would kill Lincoln, previously having only planned to kidnap him. That's all a matter of public record. Why do you keep ignoring that? Why do you keep ignoring EVERYTHING about what Booth said and did, when he's the one who actually killed Lincoln?

I don't care who Tom is associated with.
If I said I was supporting a new confederacy, if I said I admired the confederates, you might have a point, but you don't.
What is funny though is that you are seemingly going out of your way to label me a neoconfederate, when I'm clearly not, because I'm not fooled into believing Linconln a outright racist, who wanted to send blacks out of the US, died because he gave blacks the right to vote. He didn't.

Booth killed Lincoln because he wanted to cripple the leader of the victorious side of a war he was the losing end of. Simple as that.

You even admitted that Booth wanted to Kill lincoln before the time he did months earlier, yet now you are claiming he waited until the speech 2 days before he killed him because that is why he wanted him dead. LOL

Stop trying to buy into a media myth about a racist white president.
What Lincoln died for has nothing to do with the benefit of the black american. Period.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

David, Booth made a plot to KIDNAP Lincoln months before.

Reading comprehension.

And you are buying the arguments of Neoconfederates hook, line, and sinker. Whether or not you're a confederate yourself is irrelevant, because you're promoting claims and research made PURELY by neoconfederates who have been completely discredited by the research community.

Seriously, the guy you quoted is a joke, his books were the laughingstock of the historical community, and the only reason he gets any publicity is because groups like the League of the South and their kin promote them.

But yeah, keep ignoring all the critics who said that his historical methods and writing were trash. I'm sure that is all part of the conspiracy too, right?

Lincoln was a racist (though not nearly as racist as a lot of other White people of his time). Absolutely no one has denied this. But that has nothing to do with anything in this conversation except inside of your own mind.

 

[Poitier]

 

[The Odum of Ala Igbo]

Apparently, it was Coates son who convinced him to change his mind. Perhaps you sent him a letter @Poitier?

 

[Poitier]

Apparently, it was Coates son who convinced him to change his mind. Perhaps you sent him a letter @Poitier?

 

[Poitier]

bytch nikka