What kind of sin does one need commit to lose a friend?
It’s never a treasured moment to have contact severed with someone we enjoy. In my opinion a friendship should never be set asunder without a very good reason. Perhaps something along the lines of dishonesty, maybe physical or emotional harm. Theft would also be a good reason, lying another. I suppose even jealousy has a place, although it seems immature. Yet, are one’s beliefs enough to create that schism?
It’s often been said if you wait long enough, all things will happen. I suppose it’s along the lines of 1,000 monkeys typing randomly on 1,000 keyboards could recreate Shakespeare’s Hamlet. The link will show that idea’s close to impossible, but the odds are not zero. Could happen. Well, I waited long enough for this one and it did happen. Kinda-sorta twice.
Having seen it with my own eyes, heard it with my own ears, I’m forced to believe it. Accept it as fact, even if I do feel it’s nearly idiotic. I’m talking about someone concluding a relationship for the simple reason of differing beliefs. Not even on something like faith or religion. Not for bigotry or lack of same. No, this was based on political ideology.
If you’ve read many of these blogs, you know I’m conservative in my beliefs. Not a member of the Republican party, other than in name insofar as elections, I’m a Repubendent. It means a conservative independent. I don’t believe any one party is a panacea, not does any one candidate have all the answers. However, I feel those of liberal beliefs are horribly misled in what they feel is the best answer. At the same time, I think soccer is idiocy with two teams, having a cat is submitting one’s own freedom to a lower life form, getting married is asking for anguish and expense, and playing hockey is organized warfare without gunpowder.
I would never expel someone from my life for enjoying soccer, having a cat, being-getting married or playing-watching hockey. I simply would refuse to attend the event, pat the animal, or reshape my beliefs to follow suit. I also have no doubt there are readers of this blog who will disagree with me. That, too, is fine with me. After all, this is America, the land of the free. The home of the brave. You’ll never lose your God-given right to be as wrong as you choose.
Still, why void a friendship because one-both of the parties are wrong on such an illusionary issue? A cajillion arguments pop up to be used as “reasons” the other guy is wrong, or the candidate one supports is right. However, I rightfully acquired a license in that regard. While I don’t use it that way, I “purchased” the right to voice my opinion by being committed and very much involved in the political scene in Michigan for eight years. An old adage advises us, when we feel a need to complain, we’re free to do so. Yet, after a time we’re expected either to do something about it or shut up. I “did something” and earned a “lifetime bitchin’ license”.
I submit, if political activity is so important to a man or woman as to cause the breakup of any relationship, that person should investigate further. To do otherwise is acting on incomplete information. My suggestion? Don’t do it halfheartedly or halfway. Go to the exec committee meeting of both major political parties in your county and hear the “experts”. Listen to their “valid arguments” to see how much you agree-disagree with either-both. At least that way you’ll have some rational basis on which to act.
Get involved in politics so you can have a lifetime bitchin’ license. It’s the American way.
I’m just sayin’.
If you like these blog posts, subscribe here. You’ll also get a free copy of my novel, “The Shimmering Image”. You’ll be helping the 4,500,000 homeless in our country. Ad revenues from this site go to help the homeless community. To see what’s coming next, click here.
{ 30 comments… read them below or add one }
hmmm, there are many liberals who believe some bigotry is inclusive in conservative ideology. I don’t believe any informed voter is in 100% agreement with either their own party or candidate, too many importatnt issues. it’s also, everyone’s God-given right to be as correct as they choose. everyone who chooses to gather as much Fact-driven information that’s available, has a ‘license’ to their opinion, as far as I’m concerned. yes, by all means, listen to each and every side & issue and Then seek the Fact-contained records as in the Truth, then consciously make an informed decison.. as I reiterate Read factual information, don’t just dismiss with a prejudiced attitude, Read, then consider.. or reconsider.
IF all you do is name call liberals and bash Obama, that doesn’t speak or argue anything. IF you provide resourced facts to back your opinions, then you’re in the ring. I’m sure that’s all both your lost friends are seeking from you.
That’s not “all I do”, but explaining it would be too close to arguing about it. I have no energy in, or sufficient interest any longer, to get into the issue that way.
Bill
In 1861, the Civil War happened in the United States. It was a civil war fought in response to the election of a Republican, Abraham Lincoln as President of the United States, 11 southern slave states declared their secession from the United States and formed the Confederate States of America (“the Confederacy”); the other 25 states supported the federal government (“the Union”). After four years of warfare, mostly within the Southern states, the Confederacy surrendered and slavery was outlawed everywhere in the nation. Issues that led to war were partially resolved in the Reconstruction Era that followed, though others remained unresolved.
This is how powerful a ‘belief’ system can be. Not to mention the Crusades.
Deborah is quite insightful. I’ve read your blog where you mention throwing all liberals in jail. Well, I’m a liberal. I shouldn’t be verbally assaulted by a “friend”. You’ve also made it quite clear that you hate Democrats. But, I notice you accept the fruits of their efforts to protect the poor and needy. I became quite conflicted about you. You criticize the “only” people in politics who show your cause any sympathy, and espouse the philosophy of the right wing. The same right wing that would leave you on the street, and your cancer untreated. I’m just sayin’.
opinions without facts, are equal … to offer one’s opinion without facts IS ARGUING for one’s own FEELINGS, without offering others a meaningful basis to understand … how someone “feels” about something is important to THEM … but doesn’t allow another with a different point of view to give those feelings much credit … providing, or pointing to where factual information can be found is a gesture that can allow another to process & decide for him/herself on the merits … it is much about the opportunity to “compare & contrast” … for example, when you claim that liberals/progressives are “horribly misled”, … might you be so kind as to offer a FACTUAL example ? … pontificating on a soapbox about matters that have been found to be untrue or inaccurate by fact-seekers, does little but make the foundation-less believer appear foolish … if it cannot be supported, why offer it as meaningful information to others ? .. best just to tuck it away in one’s own chosen belief systems … why blog it ? … if not to seek the agreement of others ? .. the notion that people choose friends “regardless” of their beliefs, is odd to me … I choose my friends BECAUSE of how they believe … anyone can believe what they want … but I will draw an affinity with those whose values align with my own … to assert that it can be, .. “well, sure … they believe in fucking over the poor, .. but … hey … they’re my friend” …. it’s just not how it actually is … our civic duty is to engage in deliberative dialogue, so that collectively we might become better INFORMED in order to collaborate in the directions that FACTUAL information indicates will likely to be the best ways forward … espousing opinions WITHOUT facts, is merely self-serving … and not very helpful, actually .. In my view, deb is correct .. productive discussions are fact-driven … and I would support my pov by pointing to how our governmental processes are adversely affected by dogmatic ideology, rather than what is actually best to advance the common good … http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-23/why-voters-shouldn-t-trust-their-own-political-party-ezra-klein.html
I must say, I agree with Bob Lehman’s observation. And, I have pretty much said the same thing that he did to you also. I’d say you pose an odd inconsistency with your beliefs vs your lifestyle.
I don’t have anything lavish enough to be called a “lifestyle”. Further, I was on record in the early ’80s saying the people who NEED and DESERVE social services are not paid enough. The money is there if we purge the rolls of “welfare rats”, those who know how to game the system. These are 10th generation welfare rats where it’s been that long since any family member has held down a job.
Still, I no longer have the energy or interest to argue about it.
Bill
My thought back to Bob Lehman, and others who concur with what he said … not that Bill needs a defender but I took exception when you said …
…”You criticize the “only” people in politics who show your cause any sympathy, and espouse the philosophy of the right wing. The same right wing that would leave you on the street, and your cancer untreated”
That’s a very inaccurate condemnation. Conservatives give more than a bit more money and time to charities and good work than do liberals, and that’s not just through churches and religious venues (if that’s what you were about to say). Here are just a couple of pieces on the subject. There are many more out there with a quick Google search.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html
Conservatives (I am indeed a fiscal conservative) would rather help directly because we want to, as I have done in the past on a number of occasions with many good causes and in fact to help Bill when he needed help. I like to choose when I give, how I give, and to whom I give. Most Liberals want the government to take my money ‘by force’ of taxation where I have no say on who gets it, how much they get, and whether or not the recipient is really deserving or not.
Couldn’t've said it better myself … albeit that’s a comment best received from anyone BUT me.
10Q.
Bill
Bill’s thoughtful post generated lots of interesting comments from some pretty darn intelligent people with diverse views. Myself, I don’t really fit into the liberal or conservative category, at least not in the ideological sense. If I suspected that either Michael Moore or Rush Limbaugh would approve of all my views right down the line, I would be disgusted. Even so, I certainly agree with Bill’s comments (in some previous blogs) about the people who want to destroy America. I have no patience for these fanatical, dark-ages cut-throats. How anybody could fall for their crude propaganda and absurd justifications for their vicious actions is beyond my understanding, and I applaud Bill for speaking out on this. They haven’t fooled him one little bit.
The problem today is that political correctness has reached a stage where American and Western European educational institutions are turning out people who are ashamed of their own society and their own history. Rather than going on and on here, please let me give you one concrete example of what I am referring to.
I was having a chat with a politically correct friend (and I say “friend” because I never shun a good person simply because of his or her misguided views). The name Chester A. Arthur came up. That is not as odd as it might sound, because all the people present in that discussion had some interest in history.
Anyway, as soon as the name Chester A. Arthur (the 21st president, the one who took office after President Garfield was shot) came up, my politically correct friend had the knee-jerk reaction of proclaiming President Arthur as a “racist.” This vilification of a great U. S. President began because Arthur signed on to the Exclusion Act, which limited Chinese immigration. However, the real facts are that Arthur opposed the act, though he finally agreed to a watered down bill simply to try and get beyond the issue, which was causing a great deal of rancor and disharmony in the government (in the early 1880′s).
Let me tell you something about this “racist” President, something you may not have heard, and you certainly have not heard it if you had a typical politically-correct history teacher. Going back to the 1850′s, when the New York City of that day was nearly as segregated as the South was for many decades after the Civil War, an African lady was denied a ride on a trolley. This was a fine, very respectable lady who was highly-regarded in her community. She got on the trolley, and the conductor demanded she get off. When she did not obey, the conductor called a policeman who very roughly dragged the lady off the train.
Well, the lady got some legal assistance. At least some New Yorkers of all races were opposed to the sort of segregation which would result in pain and humiliation of this upstanding lady, and people tried to get her some help. The situation rapidly changed. It might not be politically correct to say a white knight rode in to help, so let us just say that a highly-intelligent 24 year old lawyer took the case. The young Arthur fought tooth and nail in court and he won his case, getting a well-deserved monetary judgement for the lady. Most important, the case set a precedent which led to the desegregation of the New York transportation system.
The name of that young lawyer? You have guessed right: It was none other than that “racist” U. S. President to-be, Chester A. Arthur.
My point is that some people have stopped thinking. Instead of informing themselves of facts they are resorting to politically correct knee-jerk reactions.
Oh, they will tell you the Cid was a bigot, not the brave leader who helped run oppressors out of Spain.
Captain Cook should not have “been over there” in the first place, they tell you, that’s why he got killed. Should have stayed home.
Anyone who ever accomplished anything in Western Civilization was doing something wrong and we should all be ashamed of them. That’s the way people are now being “educated.”
Sort of like we should all put bones through our noses and hunker down howling in a dirty hut. Then maybe we too could be proclaimed politically correct…
“Rocky Spikes”
Hear! Hear!
Bill
I have to think “rocky” is a shill, or a nom de plume of bill’s … chester arthur approved the chinese exclusion act in order to “get beyond the issue” ??!! … geezus .. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act … I can however relate to disapproving of the wrongful vilification of a u.s. president, .. such as our president ..
alexander, (who also shares bill & rocky’s apparent interest in obscure historical perspectives) correctly identifies lincoln as a republican, but clearly there is little resemblance to what that designation represents today … it doesn’t even match to 50 years ago … http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/dwightdeisenhowerfarewell.html … the u.s. civil war is a good example of a powerful failure in national values to believe in a basic precept of our constitution (equal opportunity and justice for all) .. and a glaring example of the imperfections within our guiding document, wherein it took amendments to align itself with obvious truths, (such as those who were enslaved WERE truly humans) …
“alexander” seems not to understand that our government is designed to be “we, the people” … and is intending to be representative of “us” for the betterment of the “common good” … (not the increased profit margins for “them, the corporations, as citizens united has declared) .. am I really being asked to believe that the giving of conservatives could adequately create a viable safety net for the people, who in the wake of such abuses of rogue capitalism; like the sub-prime mortgages debacles, the re-packaging of those same toxic loans as AAA-rated mortgage-backed securities, and then “re-insured” as credit default swaps ??? .. I have to ask if alexander is following the trends of neoconservatism that are advocating the removal of help for the those hurt by these schemes thru little fault of their own, in favor of more license to steal for those money-extractors who are selfishly draining the shared resources needed for the common good ??? … the professed notion that progressives are somehow less fiscally responsible than neoconservatives simply isn’t supported by the facts .. I have to ask what bob is asking … what kind of scrambled thinking would lead anyone who is being helped/supported thru the efforts of the common good, to argue against the very values that are supporting their own self-interests and well-being ???
lastly, … I must say, …I doubt the legitimacy of this thread …
“Rocky” is one of the blog’s long-time readers, the man who challenged me to do something nice for a cat, whereupon he’d give some money to a homeless guy. I did and he did and a long-term relationship began. He also now does continuing good deeds for homeless people. Do you?
Alex Irving is the friend who built this blog for me and still does all the heavy lifting on my site, minus the blog posts.
To my knowledge, I didn’t “ask you to believe” anything, nor are you a subscriber to this blog, as far as I’m aware. Those opinions you shared appear about as accurate as your liberal beliefs, Mike. What’s that you said about “proven facts”?
I’ll forward your remarks to “Rocky” and Alex.
Whether I agree with you, or not, 10Q for voicing your opinions. I look forward to a time they’re actually correct.
Bill
strange what you pick out of that post, bill … I can’t learn from what is exchanged unless there are specifics about inaccuracies and/or incorrectness in what I stated … the only statement I did not offer factual support to was whether or not some of the comments made were legitimate … that I offered as my doubt … in bob’s question, he simply asked how anyone could criticize the only people in politics who show causes like yours any sympathy, and yet you would choose to espouse the philosophy of the right wing. The same right wing that would leave you on the street, and your cancer untreated … there was no meaningful response … (except for some articles about conservative charitable giving) … certainly the extent of that charitable giving is not sufficient to substitute for, or replace our national efforts to care for the “least among us” … if you took the time to listen to, or read Ike’s address, it is made clear that conservatism has grown callous & un-american in our time… my point is, conceptually you may feel that others should maintain friendships REGARDLESS of how another believes … however, if we are honest with one another, friendships are elected BECAUSE of how one believes … being discriminate in friendships is the time when discrimination is exceptionally valid … you have people with whom you share history, .. fun times, .. all sorts of experiences .. and for that there is genuine caring …about & for you ,, and all that you have endured and are enduring … yet still, ungratefulness is a quality that is difficult to like in one’s friends … and for what ? … to support an ideology that desires to abandon you … and in fact, would place more into like dilemmas .. it makes no sense … no, I’m not a subscriber .. and I won’t be posting again … thank you for allowing me to participate .. it was generous of you .. I wish you well …
Hi Bill. First, I would like to assure Mike Burke that I am an authentic human being
(at least I always believed I was) and NOT a sock-puppet. It seems to me that the people on this thead are sincerely expressing their feelings, although nobody knows for certain. I believe that I have read postings by Mike Burke in other forums (unless I am mistaking him for someone else). My impression of him was that he was a highly-intelligent person and in many ways a profound thinker deserving of great respect as such. Unfortunately, on this thread Mike is behaving like another run-of-the-mill knee-jerk liberal. I hope this isn’t true of Mike, but in too many cases people hang out with others who think the same way about everything. Because they don’t get enough intellectual challenge, they eventually get sloppy and lazy in their thinking. They end up as clones. I am not saying this has happened to Mike, but his remarks have given me pause to wonder.
Let’s take a closer look at the matter of Chester A. Arthur and the Exclusion Act. Yes,
Mike gave us a reference to the wikipedia article on the Exclusion Act, which merely
says that President Arthur “signed” the act. *I* said as much myself, so exactly how does that refute my remarks? If Mike would have have been more thorough in following the key links, he would have — while reading the Wiki article on the Exclusion Act — also clicked on the Chester A. Arthur link in that same article.
Had he done that, he would have learned that “…The bill passed the Senate and the
house by overwhelming margins, arriving at Arthur’s desk in 1882. Arthur
vetoed the bill…” [later] “…Congress was unable to override the veto,
instead passing a new bill that reduced the ban on Chinese immigration to
ten years. Although he still objected to the denial of citizenship to Chinese
immigrants, Arthur signed the compromise measure into law on May 6,
1982.”
The country was faced with quite a few other troubles, including problems and many bad feelings in the South over the Civil War, which had not even been over for 20 years when this happened. Although personally, with the benefit of hindsight, I feel that the Exclusion Act was a terrible mistake, the fact remains that the majority of Democrats as well as Republicans and most of the labor groups wanted that Act passed.
By analogy, I personally think the Japanese internment during WWII was wrong, because most of the Japanese moved were loyal U. S. citizens. Even so, I also think Roosevelt was one of the greatest U. S. Presidents. You look at almost every great person in history closely and you find that they did things you disagree with, maybe did things you hated. But if you are fair, you balance those things you deplore with what the person accomplished, and you consider the times they existed in, including the political and social climate, etc.
[By the way, if any reader of Bill's group wants to fact-check my comments on
the case of the black lady whom young lawyer Chester A. Arthur so skillfully and admirably defended, google "Elizabeth Jennings Graham" or the New York legal case,
"Jennings v. Third Avenue Railroad." The incident occurred in 1854 and was
settled in favor of Jennings in 1855. There is no question at all that it led to the
desegregation of public transportation in New York City.]
Incidentally, if you think the Civil Service is a good thing, you can thank the “vicious
racist” for that also. President Arthur signed the Pendleton Act, which was the first big step in ending the “spoils system” and establishing Civil Service. This was
actually quite amazing, considering that Arthur himself had benefited from the
“spoils system” and he had to buck some powerful supporters who very much
wanted the system maintained.
Doing a fast forward, we might jump to the Falkland Islands. Now I notice quite a few people knocking Great Britain. What some seem to forget is that when Britain
kicked Argentina’s butt in the 1980′s Argentina had one of the vilest governments on the planet, run by filth who sucked their own citizens off the streets, torturing them, dropping them out of airplanes over the ocean, etc. Let’s be fair: does that sound like folks you would like to have run you out of an island you have had for 300 years?
Freedom is in a great deal of jeopardy just now because so many people in the Western World have been taught to hate their own history and own culture. It was sad to read Bill’s frankly painful report about that poor untrained dog groveling and whining. Yet, the even sadder thing is that there are all sorts of Third World vermin with no respect for democracy at all, who are beginning to demand that we whine and cringe before them in the same debased fashion. Far worse is the fact that so many people in Europe and the U. S. would seen to belive that is how all of us should behave.
Mike, you have my respect as a serious thinker with an excellent mind, but I hope
you will think about what I am trying to tell you. Don’t become one of the “Eloi”, because the “Morlocks” [See H. G. Wells' "The Time Machine"] are out there. Waiting.
“Rocky Spikes”
I’m happy to provide a forum for you to state your lengthy beliefs, even if I disagree with almost everything you say, including all the erroneous statements you attributed to me. I wish you well, too.
Bill
Again, 10Q, Rocky. It’s especially nice at a time I need defending, but can’t do it myself, to have someone with the facts do it for me … and do it so well. I’m in your debt.
Bill
As I sit here trying to decide if I want to leave a reply to the posts I have just read, I am still chuckling and shaking my head. I have found in life there are three things that are better left alone and not discussed. Politics is one. Religion and sex are the second and third. All three topics fall into a bottomless pit type of vortex where there are seemingly no correct answers and as many opinions as there are people involved in the discussion of the topic. I agree with Bill. No, I would not jeopardize a friendship over politics, nor over religion or sex. We each, whether right or wrong, have the right to believe what we want. Politics is such an over rated topic. I had rather discuss religion. At least the characters are more colorful and there are a few miracles thrown in here and there for emphasis. Certainly can’t say that about politics.
Friends give friends the right to believe as the want. If they aren’t ‘broadminded’ enough to do that, then maybe they weren’t a friend to begin with. Oh, by the way, if you don’t like my reply that’s OK. I’m not looking for friends anyway.
Give ‘em hell Bill! I got your back!!
Jerry
Thanx, Jerry. You’re covering it very well. Oh, and you’re right about the topics not worthy of discussion, especially with narrow-minded people.
Bill
I like this Jerry Gilreath. Pleased to know ya, Jerry.
Hi Bill, First let me assure you that the odds against “Rocky” being familiar with my posts in other forums, (seeing them as noteworthy or memorable) are astronomical … on the other hand, the odds are greatly reduced in the case of you … (is it me ? .. or are “Rocky’s” comments equally lengthy, or more wordy than mine ?)
Bill … the salient portion of anything I have attempted to say here has little to do with Chester Arthur … and it doesn’t take hindsight to comprehend that ANYONE (Chester Arthur OR Barack Obama) who would have participated in any laws like those legitimizing slavery, OR the Chinese Exclusion Act, would have been permissive of outrageous racism, and should be condemned for their actions … this neocon notion that a good society should not be remorseful for its moral wrongs is (I say this for effect) among the most un-Christian behaviors I can reason …
When it comes to lost friendships over “politics”, .. I see it differently … differing ideas are easy to accept and appreciate when reasonable, honorable foundations exist for them … (here, I’m mostly referring to supportive facts) … for example, if one offers support for the concept that tax breaks to the richest .05% will be beneficial in creating more jobs for our unemployed people, anyone can understand why that would be helpful … however, it’s not enough to hold up such practices as positive without factual data … after retrieving the available data, and the evidence does not support the assumption, good & reasonable patriots should adjust their support accordingly … In concept, I once supported “trickle-down economics”, until the results showed me incredibly wrong … my apologies are sincerely offered to all those so adversely affected by those unsupportable practices. But .. to dogmatically cling to what is proven to be a harmful to the common good, ISN’T worthy of respect. Friendships aren’t lost over “politics”, ..but they can be lost over values that are not worthy of mutual respect.
While I mean you no harm, nor am I intending to be unkind to your situations … I guess I would feel some relief if you could ever express appreciation for the efforts of the common good to be supportive and helpful in alleviating the suffering of our struggling and less fortunate fellow americans .. In sharing the stories of your life, it is clear that you have had to endure many difficult challenges … but I don’t believe you have done this entirely alone … there is a nation of good and caring people who have extended assistance to you in one way or another … THAT is the american spirit …
If you refer to a dictionary definition of “conservative” it will include a desire to maintain the status quo .. to resist change …. in reference to the definition of “progressive” it will include advocating reform, refinement & revision through incremental improvements over time … to the honest patriot, so much is broken, and detrimental to the betterment of the common good … to advocate for it to go without change is something beyond blind stubbornness … IF our constitution were a perfect document, without the need for change, it never would have included some of the wrongs it has contained, nor would it have been necessary to amend it to right many of those wrongs … our nation has ALWAYS been designed to include a balance between public and private energies … and the true FUNCTION of free market capitalism is to serve the citizenry, .. NOT the other way around … this unrestrained form of capitalism that is siphoning needed wealth and resources away from the common good has lost sight of the symbiotic nature of our mutually cooperative relationship … the intent of our “government” is to be “we, the people” … and presently, (largely due to ignorance and apathy) .. the processes that are meant to benefit the common good are predominantly controlled by massive multinational corporate entities, that place greed over the interests of individuals like you & me, … and those who support neoconservative ideologies are working to give that license …
Advocates of conservative values need to be called upon to support their prescriptions for our common good with factual data … every opportunity for deliberative dialogue would then be greatly improved … IF president obama is leading our nation in the wrong directions, WHY? .. and WHERE IS THE SUPPORTIVE FACTUAL DATA ? … IF progressives are terribly “misguided”, WHY ? and WHERE IS THE SUPPORTIVE DATA ?? … otherwise, … opinions without facts, are equal … good patriots should use the facts as the north star … the stakes are too high not to ..
take good care .. always
Perhaps I confused Michael for another “Mike Burke” who was a frequent poster in some forums I read regularly a few years back. THIS thread’s Mike Burke, I want very much to believe, fits into the same laudable category as a thoughtful, highly intelligent human being. Disappointingly, in his latest reply he presents readers with little more than a rather remarkable instance of ignoratio elenchi (ignorance of the refutation).
I tried to remind Mike that there was far more to Chester Arthur than someone who signed the Exclusion Act, but he didn’t want to hear that. I attempted to sketch the political climate and social climate that President Arthur existed in the early 1880s, but Mike did not want to see that. His mind was made up, and that showed in his knee-jerk reaction to my comments and his curt, unreasoned dismissal of them.
It seems to me that defending the rights of a poor, but honorable, black lady –
an organist, in fact, at no less an institution than the First Colored Congregational Church of New York City — might be enough to cause any reasonable person to at least question the allegation of racism on the part of the rights defender. Further, Jennings v. Third Avenue Railroad was not a simple court defense, but a highly significant legal case which led, within a few short years, to the end of segregation of public transportation in New York.
If you were a poor black working-person in New York City in the 1850′s, having access to public transportation could almost be a matter of life or death, or at least mean putting food on your table or getting medicine for a sick child. In addition, no women had many rights in that time and place, so it would have been especially frightening for a decent black lady to be out by herself, and then to be denied access to public transportation and rudely dragged off an omnibus and roughed up like a common criminal in front of a jeering crowd.
We never hear anything regarding that achievement of Arthur in the U. S. education system of today. Instead, should the name Chester A. Arthur come up at all in a history class, it is only as the President who took office after President Garfield was shot AND as the “racist” who signed the Exclusion Act.
Also, I am certainly no “neocon”, but what I need to examine here is Mike’s comment about being “remorseful” of past wrongs. People should be remorseful of their own wrongs to others — my own religion teaches that — but I do question how remorseful people need to be over wrongs they did not commit. You go far enough back in history, and I suspect that most of us had ancestors who did some terrible things. For instance, if you are an Anglo-Saxon with English ancestry, how many pure-blood Britons have you noticed around? None, thanks to your ancestors’ genocidal ways.
Instead of whining and whimpering in guilt over every mistake their ancestors may have made, my view is that people in America should wake up and realize that there
are lots of “Morlocks” [I like to borrow that fitting term from H. G. Wells!] who could not care one darn bit if we are liberal, conservative, Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, atheist, whatever. They would happily cut all our throats or blow us all up, which is why they applauded the 9-11 attack. These are dangerous, perhaps the most dangerous, times any of us have ever experienced. It is all too easy to miss that, because those who intend to destroy us are plotting in secret, in their caves and spider holes, rather than massing armies against us. We won’t know HOW dangerous until they strike again.
One of a number of things I find admirable about Bill is that although he makes it clear that has at times, had “a few” issues with authorities and various bureaucrats, he has never turned against his county. I believe that it is both for his and for our edification as readers that he examines mistakes which may have had a part in his formerly, homeless condition. He examines such matters painfully and publicly, in other words, rather than trying to paper over his own failings and looking for reasons for jumping on the U. S. haters’ bandwagon. Bill understands and values something that may be called “the spirit of freedom” far better than some other folks do. ‘Nuff said.
“Rocky Spikes”
agreed … THIS Mike Burke admits to “ignorance of the refutation” (particularly THAT one) … how about you, “Rocky” ? … can you admit to the same ?
Thank you Alexander – nice to meet you too. Interesting group of people we have assembled here.
Interesting is an understatement.
Bill
The very core of your writing while sounding agreeable initially, did not sit properly with me after some time. Someplace throughout the sentences you managed to make me a believer but only for a while. I still have got a problem with your jumps in assumptions and you would do well to help fill in those breaks. When you actually can accomplish that, I would undoubtedly be impressed.
Thanks to your nice blog. I appreciate your writing.
Aw, this was a really high quality post. In concept I would like to write like this too – taking time and real effort to make an excellent article… however what can I say… I procrastinate alot and never seem to get one thing done.
With all the doggone weather we have had lately I am stuck indoors, fortunately there is the internet, thanks for giving me something to read.