There’s something profoundly melancholy about Disney returning, in its present state of creative exhaustion and corporate decadence, to The Little Mermaid—the nucleus from which the entire Disney renaissance exploded, in a way along with everything that has followed.
The last time Disney was artistically lost to the degree that it is now was in the doldrums of the 1980s, when it was reduced to feeble, forgettable fare like The Black Cauldron and Oliver & Company. Amid this dreary landscape, the arrival of The Little Mermaid in November 1989 came like a bolt from the blue (from King Triton’s trident of power, as it were).
The return to fairytale romance and the appeal of the mermaid archetype gives The Little Mermaid an ambitious mythic scope that hadn’t been seen since Sleeping Beauty 30 years earlier. Ariel, with her fascination for artifacts of the surface world, is a more vividly drawn protagonist than any prior Disney princess, and almost any prior Disney heroine. Ursula the Sea-Witch’s decadent look (famously inspired by drag queen Divine) and larger-than-life performance by Pat Carroll, her husky voice dripping with self-amused irony, put her on a villainous par with Sleeping Beauty’s Maleficent. The plot, adapted from Hans Christian Andersen’s fairy tale with typically sweeping license and an obligatory happy ending blithely grafted on in place of Andersen’s high-minded, tragic one, is lumpy but memorable.
Most important is the film’s secret weapon, the thing that blew up the old way of making Disney cartoons: the brilliance of songwriting team Howard Ashman and Alan Menken and the showstopping Broadway energy of the sequences the animators crafted for their songs. Ariel’s iconic “I Want” song “Part of Your World,” yearningly performed by Jodi Benson, resonates deeply in part because of how Ashman works Ariel’s passion for the human world into a metaphor for adolescent longing for independence and achievement. The Caribbean rhythms and catchy melodies of “Under the Sea” and “Kiss the Girl,” with the colorful razzle-dazzle of the former and the swoony, moonlit magic of the latter, remain high-water marks in American animated musical production numbers. (I remember standing up and cheering in the theater after “Under the Sea”; I was an art-school student and a serious animation fan.) Ursula’s Villain song, “Poor Unfortunate Souls,” is both a deliciously droll celebration of the Sea-Witch’s stylish depravity and also an insinuating sales pitch to the vulnerable, naïve Ariel. And don’t forget René Auberjonois’ unhinged, Clousseau-accented narration of the wacky slapstick of “Les Poissons”!
Among supporting players, Flounder the fish and Scuttle the seagull are pretty typical—but Sebastian the crab is perhaps the most engaging Disney sidekick since the days of Timothy Q. Mouse and Jiminy Cricket (not that the competition is fierce). This is partly, of course, because of his key role in two of the musical highlights, but also because of Samuel E. Wright’s performance. Sebastian’s name and position as court composer evoke the world of Western classical music, and he could easily have been a submarine counterpart to, say, The Sword in the Stone’s Archimedes the owl: a generically fusty, British stereotype with a piping voice like so many diminutive Disney sidekicks (indeed, look no further than King Triton’s seahorse herald). Instead, Wright’s melodious baritone, and his unexpected Trini accent (Ashman originally suggested a Jamaican accent, but Wright was more comfortable modeling his performance on college roommates from Trinidad), give Sebastian a unique vibe well suited to the movie’s marine milieu.
While less creativity went into Prince Eric and King Triton, Christopher Daniel Barnes is adequately appealing as Eric, and Kenneth Mars provides the template for domineering Disney dads for years to come. The potent father-daughter conflict isn’t completely without precedent—see, for example, Peter Pan’s blustering Father Darling capriciously exiling Wendy from the nursery, only to relent at the end—but Ariel’s emotional volatility and teenaged willfulness make for more compelling drama than Wendy’s meek biddability. (Ariel’s temperament led to the choice to make her a redhead, adding to her distinctiveness.) The influence of the Junior Knows Best trope has been even more enduring than the Ashman/Menken musical revolution, as has the substantial theme of conflict around prejudice and openness regarding another culture.
Reimagining Andersen
The first two-thirds of Ariel’s story at least loosely reflect the events of the anonymous mermaid of Andersen’s tale, though without Andersen’s framework of overtly religious ideas. The youngest daughter of the widowed Sea-King, our heroine is fascinated by the surface world, and falls in love with a handsome prince whom she rescues from drowning after a storm sinks his ship. Yearning to visit him, she strikes a bargain with the sinister Sea-Witch, who, in exchange for her beautiful voice, gives her a potion that grants her legs. If the prince falls in love with her, the Sea-Witch says, all will be well; if not, there is a terrible price to pay. (In Andersen, the prince must marry her; if he marries someone else, the mermaid will turn into sea foam, and, because merfolk have no immortal souls, cease to exist. In the Disney version, he must kiss her with the kiss of true love—within three days!—or she will become a worm-like polyp in the Sea-Witch’s garden.) Then a romantic rival appears whom the prince wrongly credits with rescuing him from drowning, and a royal wedding is announced at once. (In the Disney version the rival is Ursula in disguise, using Ariel’s voice to bewitch the prince.)
In Andersen’s account, the prince does marry the rival, and the mermaid, resisting another offer from the Sea-Witch to recover her mermaid form by murdering the prince in his sleep, does turn into sea foam—but, instead of ceasing to exist, she is rewarded for her suffering and good deeds by becoming an air-spirit with the hope of one day achieving immortality and salvation. Obviously none of this would do for a Disney musical, but what happens instead is, for me, the cartoon’s biggest, ah, sticking point.
Ursula’s machinations manage to delay true love’s kiss just long enough for Ariel to fall into her power. Triton tries to rescue his daughter, but all his power is useless against the unbreakable magic of Ariel’s contract with Ursula. To free Ariel, Triton surrenders to the Sea-Witch’s power, becoming one of her garden polyps and effectively yielding his trident of power to Ursula, now the supremely powerful Sea-Queen—a very bad bargain for the greater good!
At this point, having effectively written themselves into a corner, the writers turn to a startlingly arbitrary conceit. Pushed by Disney chairman Jeffrey Katzenberg to make the ending “more Die Hard,” writer/directors John Musker and Ron Clements wound up having Ursula use the power of the trident to grow to approximately the size of the Nakatomi Tower. She then begins stirring up the ocean into a maelstrom, ostensibly to expose Ariel and Eric in order to kill them. The whirlpool raises wrecked ship hulls from the ocean floor, one of which Eric manages to commandeer, and, by steering hard amidst the vortex, skewers the titanic Sea-Witch with the splintered bowsprit, killing her. Upon Ursula’s death, her polyps are restored to merfolk form, including Triton, who recovers his trident and crown. Triton then uses his power to restore Ariel’s legs so that she can marry Eric with his blessing.
The inescapable problem with Ursula’s downfall is that the drama in The Little Mermaid has been rule-driven; it has turned on agreements, contracts, loopholes, and even cheating, but cheating to achieve or to avoid rule-defined states. To get legs, Ariel must surrender her voice; if Prince Eric kisses Ariel within three days, Ariel lives happily ever after: a rule binding even on Ursula, so that she first staves off defeat by upsetting Eric’s rowboat moments before he would have kissed her, and then transforms herself into a beautiful woman, hypnotizing Eric with Ariel’s voice. Ariel and Ursula’s contract is so unbreakable that Triton can free his daughter only by striking another bargain: by surrendering himself into the Sea-Witch’s power.
A story like this demands a rule-driven resolution. Somehow Ursula must be defeated by some loophole she didn’t see coming or forced to strike a new bargain. Die Hard–esque brute force is as unsatisfying here as it would be if Die Hard ended like Raiders of the Lost Ark, with God showing up and killing all the bad guys. It’s not deus ex machina in Raiders because that’s what Raiders is about—but it would be in Die Hard, and Die Hard solutions are just as out of place in The Little Mermaid. (Both Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin do better in this regard; particularly notable is how Aladdin defeats Jafar, not by exploiting the Genie’s power, but, in keeping with the movie’s moral theme, by being himself and relying on his wits.)
Mermaid redux
Kenneth Branagh’s wholesome, charming Cinderella was both the best thing and the worst thing to happen in the modern era of Disney live-action nostalgia. It was a good thing because its critical and popular success made it a compelling case for sincerity and goodness at a time of cynical, subversive reimaginings like Maleficent (which pointedly subverts Sleeping Beauty’s Christian symbolism) and Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland. Cinderella’s success paved the way for the serial-adventure thrills of Jon Favreau’s The Jungle Book and the contemplative soulfulness of David Lowery’s Pete’s Dragon. But it was a bad thing because the kind of creative liberties that allowed those three films to succeed was unthinkable when it came to remaking the sacred texts of the Disney renaissance: Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, The Lion King, Mulan, and now The Little Mermaid, from director Rob Marshall and screenwriter David Magee (who previously collaborated on Mary Poppins Returns).
It didn’t have to be this way. Both Cinderella and The Jungle Book went back to literary sources to deepen and enrich their narratives. For example, such Kiplingesque devices as the Water Truce and the Peace Rock, the Law for the Wolves, and the elephant creation-myth, all omitted from the 1967 hand-drawn Jungle Book, are included in Favreau’s version. The new The Little Mermaid feints in this direction in its opening minutes. First comes a poignant epigraph drawn from Andersen: But a mermaid has no tears, and therefore she suffers so much more. In the first scene a sailor on Prince Eric’s ship talks about mermaids luring men to their deaths. (Andersen actually rejects this idea, though he says the little mermaid has the most beautiful voice in the world. Still, it’s drawn from mermaid lore and could be interesting, given the mutual animus between humans and mermaids in this version.) Intriguingly, Ursula (Melissa McCarthy) calls Ariel’s singing voice a “siren song” and, mysteriously, credits Ariel (Halle Bailey) singing to Prince Eric (Jonah Hauer-King) on the beach after rescuing him with “saving” him. Oh, and following Andersen, Ursula’s polyps are no longer enslaved merfolk, but guardians of her home.
Alas. Nothing comes of any of this. Marshall and Magee have no more interest in mermaid suffering than the 1989 cartoon, which is fair enough, but what’s the point of the epigraph? The alleged siren qualities of this Ariel’s voice aren’t explored further one way or another (Ursula still uses Ariel’s voice to enchant Eric, but no new light is shed on how this works). The same goes for some character back-story ideas with potential interest, like making Ursula the resentful sister of King Triton, giving Triton a grudge against humans for killing Ariel’s mother, and giving Prince Eric a living adoptive mother. There are thematic stabs at multiculturalism and environmentalism. Prince Eric wants to be a different kind of leader, not “trapped in his castle,” but traveling and learning from other cultures to keep his own kingdom from “being left behind.” Meanwhile, Triton rails against humans—“the most dangerous species of all”—for despoiling the oceans, and Eric worries about his island kingdom slowly succumbing to the oceans rising at Triton’s wrath. Except for a cute sequence in which Eric and Ariel bond over maps and curios Eric has collected in his travels, none of these ideas add anything notable.
So far from expanding the mermaid mythology, in some ways the remake weirdly atrophies King Triton’s kingdom. In the cartoon Triton held court in an imposing undersea castle where vast throngs of merfolk converged for royal events and Triton rode in a chariot-shell pulled by dolphins. When Ariel vanishes, Triton anxiously commands that no one in his kingdom should sleep until she is found. In the 2023 film, there’s no castle, no royal events, and, until the very end, no merfolk at all other than Triton and his daughters, who don’t live with him, but in the seven seas. While it’s true that a photorealistic chariot-shell might look silly, the absence of any castle, court, or other royal trappings, not to mention subjects to be seen, leaves Triton’s crown and trident looking rather odd. Who’s he trying to impress? What exactly is Ursula sore about being cut out of? (In this version, Triton’s daughters assemble from the seven seas for an event called a “coral moon” to report to their father on conditions around the world. They’re a range of different skin tones and ethnicities, raising an awkward question whether merfolk are monogamous or whether Ariel’s sisters have other mothers from the world’s other seas.) When Triton insists that the search for Ariel go on, he’s apparently speaking only to his six older daughters. What kind of all-out search is that?
Restaging a musical
If there’s a reason to see this new Little Mermaid, that reason is Halle Bailey’s Ariel. Possibly not since little Georgie Henley stepped through the wardrobe door into the snowy wood of Narnia has a young actress’s dewy-eyed wonder done so much heavy lifting on behalf of a fantasy premise. Bailey commits to the role so utterly that even when nothing around her is working, I always believe her; for me she is Ariel. Just as crucially, Bailey is an expressive and powerful singer. Her rendition of “Part of Your World”—closely following Benson’s in the original with a just few personal touches, notably a flourish of melisma near the end—is perhaps the one element of the new film that equals the original, aurally at least. Perhaps Marshall’s best creative choice was having Bailey sing backup vocals on “Under the Sea,” as if Ariel were swayed by Sebastian’s pitch on behalf of the marine world. Turning it into an actual duet between Sebastian and Ariel might have been even better (and would have added to the impact of Ariel’s disappearance at the end).
“Under the Sea” is also the one sequence that just about matches the spectacular visual appeal of the original. In this one standout set piece, a riot of vibrant iridescence and rhythmic movement brings the undersea world to stylish, stylized life, rippling sea slugs, bioluminescent jellyfish, cartwheeling feather stars and other species cavorting with no concession to realism. While I didn’t stand up and cheer, I did think that this is what Tim Burton, remaking Dumbo, should have been aiming at instead of settling for the glaringly non-surreal imagery of his “Pink Elephants on Parade.” (Less favorably, Sebastian singing “Down here all the fish is happy” while we are incongruously looking at dolphins reminded me of a similarly sloppy juxtaposition in the Aladdin remake, with ostriches onscreen while Will Smith’s Genie sings about “exotic-type mammals.” Are these blunders in direction, choreography, editing, or zoology?)
Other musical sequences, including, alas, “Part of Your World,” are less successfully visualized. Often they suffer, like much of the film, from the murky, underlit look of many Disney tentpoles these days. In the underwater sequences, as in the aquatic Namor sequences of Black Panther: Wakanda Forever, the dimness ostensibly approximates realism, but the real function is to camouflage CGI quality issues. (For a far better approach to underwater visuals, see DC’s Aquaman, not to mention Avatar: The Way of Water.) In fact, underlit visuals also mar much of the surface-world shooting, though not all. Too much of The Little Mermaid fails at a basic level: It’s not worth looking at.
Although I can’t refute Marshall’s contention that “Les Poissons” is too goofy to work in live action, I still resent its omission. Less explicable is the dearth of supporting voices in Sebastian’s two big musical numbers. I’m glad that Ariel sings backup on “Under the Sea,” but where’s the deep-voiced fish singing “Guess who’s gon’ be on the plate?” Why are we stuck with just Flounder (Jacob Tremblay) and Scuttle (Awkwafina) singing backup for “Kiss the Girl”?
Prince Eric gets an “I Want” song of his own, “Wild Uncharted Waters,” with music by Alan Menken and lyrics by Lin-Manuel Miranda, layered with Ariel’s wordless theme. Hauer-King has pipes and Miranda has bars, so what’s missing? Why is the song generic and unmemorable? Lack of humor is part of it, I think. Certainly there’s humor in Scuttle’s new song, “Scuttlebutt,” a rap interlude I imagine many will find annoying, though that seems to me a feature rather than a bug.
Miranda also tweaks a few lyrics, ostensibly for modern sensibilities, though if anything the changes only highlight any possible disconnect. I don’t see how the “Kiss the Girl” line “Possible she want you too, there is one way to ask her” raises real concerns around Eric forcing himself on Ariel—but certainly having Diggs’ Sebastian sing instead “Use your words, boy, and ask her” serves only to make us aware that Eric leans in to kiss Ariel without “using his words.” Likewise, the notable absence of Ursula’s patter about how human men aren’t into chatty women (“The men up there don’t like a lot of blabber…Yes, on land, it’s much preferred for ladies not to say a word”) doesn’t change the fact that it’s still a story about a young woman who gives up her voice to be with the man of her dreams.
Parting thoughts
Best supporting players are Daveed Diggs as Sebastian and Melissa McCarthy as Ursula. Neither can match the vocal richness of the original performers—a recurring pattern in Disney remake voice casting—but both are talented enough to make the roles their own. As always, the more exactly the dialogue mirrors the original screenplay, the more often the new line readings fall short; we would miss Wright less if Diggs weren’t asked to say lines like “Somebody ought to nail that girl’s fins to the floor” or “You are hopeless, child…completely hopeless.”
Awkwafina’s goofiness is much better suited to Scuttle than to her draconian role in Raya and the Last Dragon. (Scuttle is now a gannet instead of a seagull, a good move that allows her to converse with Ariel underwater, heightening the taboo of the surface world.) Noma Dumezweni is fine in a rather thankless new part as Queen Selina, Eric’s adopted mother. Bardem’s Triton is a weak link, stiff and grim, without the undercurrent of humor and affection for Ariel that I suddenly appreciate anew in the hand-drawn Triton. (Nothing so readily highlights a movie’s inconspicuous strengths as the flaws of another movie.)
Sometimes you can feel the filmmakers scrambling to address perceived plot holes or other problems. There are no longer any written contracts with the Sea-Witch, because if Ariel can read and write, why wouldn’t she just explain to Eric in writing who she is? Ursula also secretly causes Ariel to forget that she needs Eric to kiss her—ostensibly for her own purposes, although the real reason, I guess, is to remove any question of coercion in the “Kiss the Girl” sequence. No detail is too small: Would Ariel really be completely mystified by the discovery of a fork in the shipwreck? Now she calls it “the smallest trident I’ve ever seen.”
The low point of the remake, for me, might be the Die Hard climax, precisely because it’s clear that the filmmakers want to empower Ariel but have no new ideas about doing that or defeating Ursula. What if the key to defeating Ursula was not a shipwreck, but Ariel’s voice—her “siren song”? What if the real reason Ursula wanted Ariel’s voice is that she knew it could somehow empower Ariel to defeat her?
This would require rethinking the rules of the story—but then only such a rethinking could make revisiting the story really worthwhile. The hand-drawn Little Mermaid is not a perfect film, but it is, I think, the best possible version of itself. I can imagine a better Little Mermaid movie, but it would have to be a real outside-the-box reimagining, made with the kind of creative daring that sparked the Disney renaissance in the first place. It would take filmmakers who are eager to explore, like Prince Eric, and not get left behind. The Little Mermaid is the product of a studio machine that’s content to remain trapped in its castle.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
One small point that was omitted: The Great Mouse Detective saved Disney’s animated film department, which was almost abolished after the Black Cauldron flop. Without TGMD, the Disney Princess renaissance never would have been able to happen. It certainly did blaze up into a huge success, but it all started with a mouse … detective.
Other than that little point, though, very good and thoughtful article. Disney Studios, like so much of the rest of our culture, is suffering from a lack of sources to draw from with any depth. The result is shallow remakes, reboots, and reimaginings.
This review is spot on!
The only thing good about “The Little Mermaid” is the music, but not necessarily the lyrics.
If taken as a whole – i.e. time being immodest – Ariel was the most immodest Disney protagonist. Her name itself is possibly a part of the problem. It might be code. (The interested reader will find the minimum standard of modesty in the Marylike Modesty Standard which is based off of the instructions of Pope Pius XI. My only objection to it is that it doesn’t explicitly condemn pants. However, pants on women likely were extremely rare – and possibly unthinkable – in 1928.)
Also, as mentioned, the original adaptation of the fairy tale excised religious parts. That shows corruption. It is like a public school that doesn’t teach religion.
In fact, the only Disney film where the protagonist prays is “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.” This was the first and most financially successful Disney animated feature film. However, even Snow White was slightly immodestly dressed.
I think mermaids might struggle to wear britches pre or post 1928.
🙂
Is it even possible for a mermaid to wear pants??
Not so! Some additional Disney prayers to consider:
Lilo and Stitch includes a scenes in which Lilo kneels at her bed to pray. She opens with the words “It’s me again” (implicitly referencing past prayers) and prays for “someone to be my friend, someone who won’t run away. Maybe send me an angel—the nicest angel you have.” (The movie positions Stitch as the answer to her prayers—not a nice angel or an angel at all, but ultimately a good friend and a valuable part of their little, broken family.)
There’s a similar bedside prayer in The Rescuers, in which Penny, kneeling down (and positioning her teddy bear in a kneeling position), says “we almost forgot to say our prayers,” and proceeds to ask God to bless all the kids at the orphanage and to let someone rescue her (a prayer that is answered).
The song “God Help the Outcasts” in The Hunchback of Notre Dame depicts the Gypsy Esmerelda looking at images of Christ and the Virgin Mary in Notre Dame cathedral as she prays, “I see Your face and wonder / Were You once an outcast too?” as she prays for her marginalized people. (There are also contrasting prayers of the selfish, praying for wealth and fame while Esmerelda asks nothing for herself, only for those who are less fortunate than she.)
Going back further: The Disney “package film” The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad, in the “The Wind in the Willows” segment, includes a moment with Rat and Mole saying grace before meals.
(Ceaveats: Esmerelda and Rat and Mole are supporting characters, not protagonists. Penny is the central character in The Rescuers in the sense that the drama centers on her plight, but dramatically speaking the protagonists are the mice Bernard and Miss Bianca. But Lilo is definitely the protagonist of Lilo and Stitch.)
Also worth noting: In Robin Hood, while we don’t see Friar Tuck (a badger) praying, he does say at one point “Thank God! My prayers have been answered!” (He also alludes to the Gospel story of the widow’s mite: “Your last farthing? Ah, little sister, no one can give more than that!”) In Frozen, Anna looks at a painting of Joan of Arc and says “Hang in there, Joan,” which is close to, though not quite, a prayer to a saint. There’s also praying to ancestors (similar to praying to saints) in Mulan, and, amid a lot of pantheistic spirituality in Pocahontas, a possible line addressed to deity as “dream giver” at the end of Pocahontas’s song “Just Around the Riverbend.”
How on earth was Snow White even slightly immodestly dressed? And does one expect a mermaid to wear much clothing?
“Snow White was slightly immodestly dressed.”
This comment is laughable. Another reason people avoid the TLM.
Debbie,
I’m curious about Snow White. When was she everimmodest?
But I’m a TLM goer whenever possible. The TLM can have an eclectic crowd. My former diocese had a weekly TLM and we had everyone from Art school students to the leader of the local chapter of the NAACP. God rest his soul.
mrscracker
Snow White’s neckline is too low by something like 2-3 inches and her sleeves are too high. The neckline of a dress must be no more than 2 fingers width below the pit of the throat all the way around. Sleeves must cover the elbows.
Also, there are some times where her covered lower legs are partially visible. Strictly speaking that isn’t a modesty issue, but if it was atypical to see lower legs, then it was possibly a remote occasion of sin.
I don’t know what was typical female dress in the 1930s, but is is likely that her immodesty played a large part in the popularity of the film. It seems quite apparent that a “hidden” reason for the success of some films is extreme immodesty.
Well Shawn I appreciate you taking the time to explain your comments.
Different eras and different cultures have differing perspectives on modesty. From what I know about the 1930s Snow White was well within the norms.
I have an illustrated Catechism from 1949 and what you say about modest necklines for women’s clothing is reflected in that also.
I’m all for modesty but sometimes the emphasis can become a little unbalanced. Charity is an important virtue too and without that young women are less likely to listen to us about modesty. I have 4 daughters so trust me I’ve had plenty of experience trying to teach that. 8 of my 16 grandchildren are girls so I guess I’m going to be getting some more practice.
🙂
mrscracker,
I would really appreciate the name of that catechism.
A strict and inflexible standard is very important when it comes to modesty. There is at least one document publicized by Freemasons which indicate that there was – and presumably still is – a plan of incremental “undressing” of children by means of changing clothing coverage.
The people who believe that “its not that big of a deal” are gravely mistaken. It only takes one mortal sin to go to Hell, and a problem is that the effect of immodestly occurs regardless of the intention of the wearer. It would take a saint who has regained something approaching original innocence (e.g. St. John of the Cross), and, perhaps, control of his body to avoid the bodily effects of immodesty, if not any sin. There was even a claim from 1970 by law enforcement officers that women were more likely to be unjustly forced into intimate relations (i.e. the crime of ….) if they were immodestly dressed.
From my experience, one has to look at those who have immigrated from other countries or have immigrant parents to find those who, hopefully, know about, and practice something close to modest dress.
You’re not helping your case here. Goodness.
Here you go Shawn:
My Catholic Faith, A Catechism in Pictures
Copyright 1949,1952, 1954
And I beg your pardon, the description of modest dresses for women in my edition of that book refers specifically to blessed dresses worn in honor of Our Lady but I have seen the general neckline and sleeve kength requirements you mentioned in other sources.
Orthodox Jewish women follow similar guidelines. And so do many Anabaptists, Muslims and others.
OK, I can agree that Ariel was immodestly dressed in the original cartoon…one reason my kids never saw this movie when it came out…but Snow White is immodest? C’mon.
I have a gut feeling that Deacon Greydanus put more effort into his review than Disney did the remake, if recent Disney offerings are any indicator. Like most such ‘remakes’, the message of ethnic and demographic correcting is the great, albeit unspoken, point of the movie. The rest of the movie is likely there to fill up a couple hours one way or another.
I appreciate the kind words about my review, Dave G. As for this movie and other recent Disney offerings, here’s a thing worth bearing in mind: This movie, like a number of recent Disney offerings, is not a good movie, and in some ways it’s a cynical, lazy product of a cynical, lazy corporate culture — but it’s also true that it takes a lot of people working hard together to make even a bad movie — some of them very talented, working hard to make the best movie they could, often under unfavorable circumstances that wind up overcoming their best efforts. Halle Bailey, to pick just one obvious example, is very talented and gave this movie her all. I’m sorry not to be able to recommend it for her sake and for the sake of other talented people who worked hard on the movie. It’s not their fault it’s not good.
I think it was Roger Ebert who once said he hated giving a movie a negative review. That’s because of the monumental effort needed to get even the most garbage level trash heap film onto the screen. Which makes the great films all the more impressive if you think on it (just watched ‘The Bridge on the River Kwai’ as if to drive home the point). Then again, Ebert could publish some scathing reviews, so he must not have hated it too much.
With that said, I’m not concerned about those putting effort into these movies. Not bothered about any ‘leftwing ideology’, just FWIW. If they want to advocate leftwing ideology, it’s not like that’s new. I mean, movies have been putting messages into films for ages (you don’t watch ‘How Green Was My Valley’ and come away wondering if there was a message there).
Nonetheless, I do object to the backhanded laziness of the ‘white culture’s hand-me-downs’ mentality behind so many modern projects. I mean, you can’t miss the unspoken point screamed from the rooftops – ‘Look ma, no white people!’ Or men, where a white woman can do the replacing.
But it’s just take something already made, replace appropriate gender and ethnic identity, and slap a ‘New and Improved’ label on it. Not only does it fall into the modern pit of ‘Of course it’s right to discriminate based on skin color as long as you get the right skin color’, but it’s lazy and almost condescending. As if these demographic groups that are supposed to be so important aren’t really worth the effort to produce something new and unique. Which is why, even if it isn’t difficult to figure why this is being done, it still doesn’t make it right, or excusable.
Have been the most huge Disney fan in the world for decades. Spent many thousands at their parks. Would not give them a dime now, disgusted as i am with their strenuous efforts to insert woke and sexually inappropriate material in their recent work. The woke superficiality of their changing Ariels race is the first question I have. Why exactly was that necessary at all? The change was purely pandering and gratuitous. As for Eric needing to ask permission for a kiss????? Really?? As a woman myself i consider this a major romance killer. There is not a single woman of my acquaintance unable to handle an “unwanted” advance. And a few who never got the wished for attention hoped for from certain parties. Disney has become a major disappointment, a fact which makes me sad. They should bow out of leftist politics.
I think there is a point to it beyond common sense. The point is to divide and conquer. Create as many divisions between as many demographic groups as humanly possible. Convince people they are the oppressed heroes, versus that group which is the vile oppressors. In this case, men v. women. Remember, at the height of the #MeToo wave, it was said a man suggesting a woman should smile was a case of sexual misconduct. Anything to get Group A at Group B’s throats. That’s why the big unspoken sales point of this was ‘look at the problematic ethnicity being corrected.’ Again, A v. B. It’s the goal today, and almost impossible to miss.
I imagine Disney mixed up the characters’ skin colours more to check off boxes but why should we be concerned about that in the first place? It’s a fairy tale. Do we know what shade of complexion mermaids might have?
When we react to unimportant stuff like this we play right into the race hustle and class warfare tactics. Faith and family values are important. Culture is important and worth preserving. Culture brings us together Skin colour is not important and is used to divide us.
We should be concerned EXACTLY because it was likely done to “check off boxes” as you suggest. And in so doing, continue to make today’s whites “pay” for something they did not do, by increasingly erasing them from public view, whether that be removal of historical statues, on TV commercials, or as movie characters. It has long been those of the left who have tried to make political points with the issue of race. As for the race of mermaids, the story of the Little Mermaid has its origins in the Hans Christian Andersen tale.Andersen was European and WHITE. If mermaids are an element of African literature or culture, I am unaware of it. Disney has made films with African themes or non-white characters which have been quite successful. Which is great, but makes justifying this clearly arbitrary change hard to do.
I think more than one culture has folklore about mermaids but what difference should it make to us how a Disney film portrays a mythological creature? It’s their call.
It reminds me of a Lord of the Rings production controversy recently. Who cares what colour elves or dwarfs are? It’s fantasy.
There are real battles for Christians & people of faith to fight. This isn’t one of them.
I would have loved to write about the racial dimensions of the casting—it’s a topic I’ve addressed in other pieces—but there just wasn’t space this time around.
Spider-Man was my hero as a boy. Not just because he fought bad guys, but also both because he was both like me in some ways (quiet, bookish) and because he was things I wanted to be: brave, selfless, confident, making the most of his unique abilities.
I grew up watching big-screen and small-screen heroes like Luke Skywalker, Superman, Indiana Jones, Captain Kirk, James Bond, Spider-Man, the list goes on and on. For my father’s generation, it was Matt Dillon, the Lone Ranger, etc.
I have a friend who is Chinese-American. He grew up with the same heroes I did. Our imaginations — his and mine — were informed by a narrative universe of stories in which virtually all important people were white, and most important people were white men.
A young girl our age would have had Princess Leia and Marion Ravenwood, and after that the list gets thin pretty quick. A black boy would have Lando Calrissian and then who? A black girl would have been out of luck. I think my Chinese friend was aware of Bruce Lee’s Kato on The Green Hornet — the most celebrated martial-arts star of his day playing sidekick to a white hero, and that was it.
For many years my younger children have played most days with the children next door, who are Black. Our youngest daughter used to wear Disney princess paraphernalia. So did the little girl next door. Belle and Ariel and Cinderella smile from their T-shirts and bicycle decals, smiling iconic images of feminine beauty. White beauty. Any number of times a week my daughter saw girlhood heroes smiling at her with hair and skin like hers. The little girl next door also sees girlhood heroes smiling at her who look like — my daughter. And that sends a message both to that little girl and to my daughter.
Casting a dark-skinned Ariel also sends a message to little Black girls (and White girls). I believe it’s a good message.
Again, I really think we should move away from racial stuff period, especially as Christians. Race is an outdated social construct and just another means to divide us.
I don’t believe children care one way or the other about ethnic differences unless they’re taught to or conditioned to by adults. And I think even adults identify with characters in films based upon how sympathetic they are, not on how closely they resemble ourselves. Have you watched the film Black Orpheus? How could we not sympathize with the tragic young couple? What possible difference would their complexions make?
People of all ancestries are marrying each other at greater rates and more people are identifying themselves as “mixed race ” in censuses. Hopefully one day we’ll figure out that we’re just fellow human beings and children of God and move forward.
We should care because it is racial stuff. Yes, the purpose is to undermine various principles and values, and sow racial divisions. That much is clear. But that doesn’t mean we should ignore it. If we want to make movies highlighting and showcasing other ethnic groups or demographic groups, there’s no problem. That’s a great thing. But the whole ‘we need to scrub white people’ is no different than saying we need to scrub any demographic group, no matter the justification (and it isn’t like we’ve not seen that done in the past). Saying the wrong ethnic group is in this film, we need to replace it with the right ethnic group is racism. Pure. Simple. And should be resisted as any racism should be resisted.
Very fine insights, Dave, in exposing the shallowness of people who ignorantly push having X number of certain kinds of people in films based on their skin color. Laughably, these people really believe that meeting certain quotas based on the skin colors that they prefer will actually right some wrongs of the past that no longer exist….but they always falsely claim that the wrongs are ongoing and so this version of affirmative action and tilting at illusory windmills must also continue.
To be sure, a most egregious form of racism today is anti-white woke racism that insists on judging people by the color of their skin and not by the content of their character. In doing this, many of their leaders and fellow travelers unjustly accuse white people in general of perpetuating anti-black racism despite no OBJECTIVE evidence to support their anti-white racist claims.
If you get the chance, check out some of the very well researched works (articles and books) by scholar Kathleen Brush. Her use of objective data and historical facts, comparative studies, and so on and so on continue to pierce very large holes into what she has rightly labeled as the title of one her books: “America’s Discrimination Circus.” In this book, she dismantles all of the bogus claims made by people on the left, including the nonsense about unconscious bias that shallow left wokies continue to push in order to demonize white people and perpetuate the myth of ongoing, systemic racism against black people that, many of them say, can only be corrected by exercising anti-white bias, which is a significant violation of basic morality.
Among the many good articles Brush has written that are online, you might want to start with “America Would Be A Better Place If We Taught The Truth About Slavery.” In this article, Brush once again uses actual facts and data that drives the woke left crazy because real data and real facts obliterate their anti-White/anti-Western narratives.
Lastly, you are absolutely correct when you state that all racism should be resisted, but anti-white race hustlers who continue to fool many won’t let this cash cow go, and they have found willing allies in weak-thinking leftists who help them keep the hustle going.
Dave, there is no such thing as race. It’s a completely outdated 19th century theory that we should ignore and move past.
Whenever we react to the race hustlers we just encourage more of the same.
We’re children of God period and we all share a mix of DNA. It’s time to move on.
Actually, Mrscracker, a number of convergent studies have found that infants as young as three months prefer looking at faces from their own racial or ethnic group (that is, people who resemble the family members they see every day) to faces of other racial or ethnic groups.
I do believe Nelson Mandela was correct when he said:
But I also think it’s significant that Mandela speaks of learning to hate, but being taught to love. In other words, those who are not taught to love — intentionally, methodically socialized to value and esteem equally those who are different in various ways — will naturally learn, by default, if not to hate those who are different, at least to hold them in lower esteem, and to adopt prejudicial, discriminatory ways of thinking and acting toward them.
Children who are loved naturally love in return, but they also quickly begin not only to prefer familiar people and situations, but to manifest stress responses like anxiety and fear in the presence of the unfamiliar. (Stranger anxiety typically intensifies around six to eight months old.) In fact, the preference for the more familiar over the less familiar is present even before birth, in the womb. Babies in the womb have been shown not only to prefer their mother’s voice to strange voices, but also the sound patterns of their mother’s language to that of unfamiliar languages.
The tendency to prefer the familiar and to distrust or fear the unfamiliar is natural and (within limits) healthy. Still, it easily gives rise to spontaneous forms of bias. C.S. Lewis notes in The Screwtape Letters how easily children assume that whatever is familiar to them is normative and whatever is not is somehow abnormal — how a child might feel, for example, that “the kind of fish-knives used in her father’s house were the proper or normal or ‘real’ kind, while those of neighboring families were ‘not real fish-knives’ at all.” The spontaneous individual tendency to prefer the familiar to the unfamiliar easily and naturally leads to cultures characterized by what is sometimes called tribalism or, more technically, intergroup bias, i.e., a shared preference for “us” over “them” (in-group vs. out-group).
I’m not saying people are naturally racist! Far from it. But I do believe people naturally tend to be tribalists — that they very naturally and easily tend to value people, communities, and ways of life more like their own over people, communities, and ways of life less like their own. This natural tendency can be overcome through education and/or experience — but it doesn’t happen automatically. True egalitarianism is a product of a deliberate project of dismantling the tendency toward tribalism — and that work is never done once and for all. We may apply here the wry words of Thomas Sowell: “Each new generation born is in effect an invasion of civilization by little barbarians, who must be civilized before it is too late.” Bias itself is not innate, but the tendency toward bias is, and its seeds begin to manifest startlingly early.
As people continue to intermarry in the US hopefully that will solve itself.
In the South and West Indies “white ” children were typically raised among “black ” children and those families who could afford it hired nannies of African heritage. So I don’t know that theory works the same in those situations. Light skinned babies saw dark skinned people from day one.
I just think we need to put this foolishness behind us and stop allowing it to cause division. If you travel in Latin America you see all varieties of people with mixed and diverse ancestry. The French and Spanish didn’t have the same outlook on that as Anglo America did.They’ve had issues of status per ethnic group also but nothing like what we’ve seen in the States. It’s pretty ridiculous.
Deacon Greydanus, I hate to disagree with you, but you are wrong. I agreed that the particular form of racial distinction we inherited in the 20th Century was due to the Western attempt to apply the latest scientific theories to everything. We were drunk on science and figured everything should be analyzed through these new scientific lenses. Hence the racial bigotry that existed took on new intellectual forms and scientific spins (sort of like gender today). But racism was present before that, even if it lacked the pseudo-scientific lingo. And present not just in Europe or America, or only during exploration, but around the world since ages past.
My years spent with Eastern Orthodox Christians, many of whose ancestors fell under the heel of Ottoman conquest, would chafe at the idea that racism only existed in 19th Century Europe and America, or was unique to the West because of exploration or colonialism. Their ancestors tell a different tale, and they’re prepared to stand someone down if she tries the old ‘Nah, it only came from white people in Europe and America’.
That we’ve allowed ourselves to believe racism is a uniquely Western sin – an all defining and unforgivable sin at that – is merely ideological activism done cleverly. It ignores the reality of human history, and the suffering of people throughout the ages, and even around the world today, because of that all too common sin. It looks at the rest of the world through rose colored glasses, and tries to suggest any problems like racism originated only west of the Urals. The reasons for this flawed approach to racism should be clear by this time.
After all, a person would have to have sawdust for brains to think our modern approach to racism is accomplishing anything but stoking racial tensions, or worse. In fact, in one of those ironic spins in history, the 21st Century approach to race – a uniquely white/Western construct singularly and universally defining Western history and America’s heritage as opposed to the rest of the world – is as flawed as the 19th Century scientific spins on the age-old sin of racism. Perhaps learning from history isn’t one of humanity’s strong suits.
Also, if I may, you appeal to the old notion that ‘history is written by the winners.’ You know that’s a trope, not a fact. Fact is, sometimes our history is written by the winners (like the winners today), but at other times it’s written by the critics of a given time. Sometimes we know about a historical period from the losers, the playwrights, the poets, the marginalized, and others protesting a given era more than we do from any official history of the winners. Just consider that most people today probably get their understanding of 19th Century industrialized England from Dickens’ rather dismal appraisal than from any propaganda from British pro-industrial capitalists of the time.
With that said, I agree that talking about racism isn’t a bad thing, though it isn’t the only thing. I just disagree that the way it’s being talked about today is in any way beneficial. Like Mrscracker, I would like to see a world beyond race or racism. But that’s not what we’re seeing, nor does it appear to be the modern goal. And I fully reject the idea that progressives alone can speak to the issue, and to do otherwise is somehow denying racism or, worse, being racist. I have concluded through observation, in fact, that exploiting racism for ideological ends is as bad as racism itself, if not worse.
None of that word salad obscures the fact that anti-racism is a much greater threat than anti-black racism. The latter is the most wicked taboo imaginable.
I fail to understand any broad truth behind Mandela’s distinction. How did our ancestral Scriptural parent Eve ‘learn’ to hate [God and his commandment]?
Greydanus: ” I do believe people naturally tend to be tribalists — that they very naturally and easily tend to value people, communities, and ways of life more like their own over people, communities, and ways of life less like their own.”
Yes, the apostolic-age Christian was easily identified through his love for his fellow Christian. Jesus valued his “brother” and “mother” as those who believed in Him more than those related to Him through blood-nature.
Greydanus: “This natural tendency can be overcome through education and/or experience — but it doesn’t happen automatically. True egalitarianism is a product of a deliberate project of dismantling the tendency toward tribalism — and that work is never done once and for all.”
Where in the continuing project of education and experience should God’s grace occur? Where in Church teaching or in Scripture is egalitarianism a goal or commandment which God requires Christians to work toward?
Ratzinger discusses egalitarianism in the CDF document on liberation theology….worth a careful read as is JPII’s Reconciliatio et Paenitentia in its entirety (rather than solely para. 16 which the Catechism references re social sin.)
mrscracker, I’m not sure what you’re talking about. The idea that race was somehow invented in the 19th Century ignores the previous centuries and eons where one can find examples of appeals to race. Sure, the 19th Century was the flowering of a million modern ideals and philosophies and theories that put new spins on the old idea (usually with disastrous results). But the idea of the races has been around for ages, and still is. Hence White Privilege. You can’t speak of that without appealing to 1) race, and 2) judging based on race. The Eastern Orthodox have a saying that race is a sin of man, ethnicity is a gift of God. I’m fine with that, since there are Orthodox Christians today whose ancestors learned fast that ‘race’ was very much in existence centuries ago, and it was hardly a European monopoly.
Dave G,
Mrscracker is correct that “race” in the fully modern, biological sense is an invention of the modern era, and specifically a product of the “Age of Exploration/Discovery” and the scientific revolution, as anthropologists and naturalists attempted to develop a scientific system of classifying humanity into various physical or phenotypical groupings, or biological races. (Prior to the scientific revolution, “race” could be applied to groups defined by sociological traits including language, nationality, and occupation; for example, in Shakespeare’s day one might encounter phrases like “race of saints” or “a race of bishops,” not to mention “the Irish race” or “the French race,” etc.)
In its stronger forms, the modern theory of biological race proposed pseudoscientific taxonomies of discrete strains of humanity, essentially definable by immutable, biologically determined characteristics, possibly with distinct ancestral origins (a theory called polygenism that was incompatible with Catholic anthropology regarding the unity of the human race).
Pseudoscientific theories of racial taxonomy all but inevitably involved theories of racial hierarchy and in particular of white supremacy: the doctrine that the white inhabitants of Europe were biologically as well as culturally superior to the darker-skinned peoples of other lands.
As history is written by the winners, the Europeans unsurprisingly ranked themselves, with their technological advancement and sociocultural development, over the peoples they encountered abroad, whose land, resources, and very bodies the Europeans claimed for their own.
To Mrscracker’s hope, while I would be very happy to see intermarriage erase racial differences to the point of mootness, such a future is at best centuries away. For the time being, I believe we must regard the natural human tendency toward bias and tribalism—which, as I noted, involves tendencies that manifest in the months after birth and in some cases even in the womb—as a fixed reality of human nature, and take it into consideration in our pedagogy. As I said earlier, true egalitarianism is not the default state, but an achievement to be brought about (or not) in every generation and in every household with young children. Not talking about race and racism may be more comfortable for many White parents and teachers, but I agree with educators and other experts who consider this approach counterproductive and part of the problem rather than the solution.
Mr.Dave,
I think Deacon Steven explained the modern origins of race well in his comments.
And just to mention, babies simply prefer what is familiar and what’s familiar will vary per family and per household. One of my grandchildren is half Chinese. Which “race” do they prefer when they see both daily?
Culture is important and worth preserving. Colour is incidental and is only used to divide the Body of Christ.
BTW, Dave’s fine. 🙂
I never denied that the West, with its obsession with science as the explanation for everything, put a unique spin on the ages old sin of racism. It’s version coming out of the 19th Century looking different than, say, European racism centuries earlier. Or Asian racism. Or Arabic racism. Or Native American racism. Or African racism. Each one would have their own spins on such forms of bigotry.
You see, when I was growing up, we learned about racism as a form of bigotry. But bigotry could exist in many forms, and racism wasn’t so simply defined as today. For instance, in those days, Italian Americans or Polish Americans were also considered ‘ethnic minorities’, and using off colored jokes or statements about them was every bit an ethnic slur. A form of racism.
But what’s been done today with the topic of racism is at best a joke, at worst a travesty, and is going absolutely nowhere good. The whole idea that it’s right and just to judge, condemn or even discriminate against someone purely because of their ethnicity and skin color is as evil as ever. Yet it’s being completely sanctioned in a way that can’t be accidently as counterproductive as it is. That’s the problem. If you want to see race put behind us, then you should be the loudest critic of what is happening today, since it is doing no such thing, but making the problem worse.
I think ignoring it Dave is the best way to make the foolishness go away. We just reward the race hustlers by overreacting. Disney can make every single character in their future films dark skinned if they choose to & it should make no difference to us. A good story is a good story.
Discrimination will always be with us because of our fallen nature. If it’s not skin colour it can be disabilities, language differences, accents, etc.
I support keeping anything related to race out of school texts & curriculum. CRT has no place in school and neither does “white” replacement theory. It’s all rubbish.
Mrscracker, I have to disagree with you there. Racism is racism. It should be called out in any form. Two big things are happening with the growing anti-white racism that are of particular concern. 1) convincing people that anything touched by white people is tainted by colonialism, racism, imperialism, or any such sin, which per the narrative only ever happened in the West. Therefore, anything touched by white people can easily be on the chopping block. Incidentally, the scrubbing of white people from media merely aids this trend. After all, if we accept the elimination of a people group, then eliminating that people group’s contributions is a logical next step. 2) It is encouraging a growing number of non-whites to embrace the sin of racism. Scarcely a month goes without some non-white activist emerging, spouting vitriol and hatred against white people in a way that would have made Rudolf Hess blush. Not to mention that there are race-hate attacks against whites, even if the press gingerly avoids talking about it. In fact, the entire ‘down with Western Civilization – it’s too white!’ movement is largely due to a carefully (and sinfully) constructed media narrative. It ignores endless suffering, misery and death throughout history, in America and around the world, if it doesn’t fit the narrative, and then jumps on incidents of the same only when it does fit the narrative. Remember, that’s how we got the BLM narrative. That, too, is a grave evil (not caring about human suffering but that it can be exploited for political gain*). Those are reasons, I believe, we can’t sit by and say nothing. I can never know what I would have done in the Jim Crow South, or Nazi Germany. But seeing what is happening today, I have a chance to live out one possible option.
*Not that this media trick of narrative building is limited to race or crime, but that doesn’t make it any less evil.
This is laughable.
WOW! And I thought my exposure to Disney films, at an early age, was Little Mermaid safe. I thought my soul was still white. However, after struggling with the conclusions of this litany of Disney history I may be forced to label Disney suspect or BAD?. There is one term used to identify the “mythology” of Disney productions. We Catholics deal extensively in mythology. Fast forward to 2023…
I lived in Florida where Disney World is the major player in the state’s economy. Governor Ron DeSantis has launched a political war with Disney signing a bill where the Republican Governor is about to launch a “takeover” of the Florida company. Amazing, given his apparent autocratic penchant, he is running for president in 2024. The governor is known for his decision to remove books from school library shelves has caused an uproar from citizens. Seems it reeks with violations of the first amendment rights. Some books banned: by Rosa Parks… Rosa Parks: My Story, I Am Rosa Parks, Quiet Strength. and other books about black history and the Negro continuing plight.
Disney was planning to spend $1 billion to expand Disney World that will create hundreds of new jobs. Because of DeSantis’ bill, (directive), Disney has put that improvement on hold. They have stated that they may exit Florida for another state.
DeSantis displays a not too subtle attacks on the LGBTQ+ community by insisting “don’t say Gay”. Any one who opposes him is labeled a WOKE? Not sure, does he?
Conclusion. Disney offerings should have the “legion of decency” rating of G. Book bans must be made by parents or guardians, not a politician. Disney must survive and return to its former innocence.
“DeSantis displays a not too subtle attacks on the LGBTQ+ community by insisting “don’t say Gay”. ”
I recommend you read the actual bill you are referring to and bypass the usual MSM narrative, which is disingenuous and laughable.
You are correct! Governor DeSantis did not include “don’t say Gay” in Florida bill 1577, but why would he?
The US Conference of Bishops published the following on gender equality: Pope Francis “clarified” the church’s “being homosexual is not a crime. It is not a crime.” He defined as “unjust” laws that criminalize homosexuality or homosexual activity and urged church members, including bishops, to show “tenderness” as God does with each of his children”.
That statement does not repeat his earlier saying para: “love the homosexual, but not his sexual acts”. I agree.
Don’t say gay is a false label used by the bill’s critics. That the press has universally repeated the critics’ talking point when covering this story says more about the press than about the bill or its critics. A little friendly advice – don’t trust the press at this point. It increasingly has no compunction about misrepresenting the facts in order to buttress an agenda or, in some cases, attack dissent.
“We Catholics deal extensively in mythology”??? What is that supposed to mean? That Jesus was a myth? Or the Virginity of Mary is untrue? What exactly are you implying?? From the various inaccuracies/ propaganda in your post I can only conclude you vote DEM. My sympathies. In fact it was DISNEY who felt a need to weigh in on the Florida Governor’s bill. Something that companies are learning to their fiscal sorrow they should BUTT OUT of doing. The bILL NEVER said “dont say gay”. EVER. It did prohibit propagandizing small children in school with sexual narratives that can only be charitably described as abnormal. Maybe you want your kids pumped full of nonsense about multiple genders, drag queens and other disgusting things but most of us do not. Our children are not a social experiment. I dont care if any adult wants to have sex with a watermelon, but I dont want it taught to impressionable children. Which is probably what the left is aiming for. Destruction of the family and normal values.
Ditto, removing books which are sexually inappropriate for children is not censorship. The parents can clearly buy their child any garbage they choose, OUTSIDE OF SCHOOL. It is not up to the schools to offer pornographic novels without parental knowledge or consent. This is the whole reason public libraries have adult and young adult and childrens sections. Or, at least, they used to before they started using taxpayer funds for drag queen shows.Some material is not age appropriate, period, and can even be traumatizing to show children. It is simply not necessary. As for homosexuals and the Pope, he has made a whole raft of statements on many things which have amounted to little more than verbal meandering, much of which has not been supported by other Bishops or theologians. I would wager that few homosexuals take the road of celibacy, which appears to be the Pope’s minimal criteria. Certainly , homosexual sex has been roundly prohibited since the days of ancient Judaism and is unlikely to be universally accepted by the church.Treating others with respect need not include approval of their life style, sexual habits or sins.”Nice” does not trump church lore or religious truth. The Florida governor hardly fits the bill of an autocrat in any way, a role which is more perfectly filled by Democrats of various positions who appear to wish the power to tell people how to live every aspect of their lives from no gas stoves, no gas cars, closed churches, how their children are sexualized, and hiring quotas. I wont even go down the sick and racist road of the govt offering economic help which specifically excludes white people, criteria never before seen in our republic. Disgusting.
FWIW, in Protestant circles at least, there are many within various traditions who no longer believe the biblical narrative to be historically true. Great stories in a certain ‘Harry Potter with heft’ sense perhaps, but certainly no more real than Zeus or Luke Skywalker. Many instead see the scriptures as an ancient set of fables and tales, from a rather barbaric and savage age of bigotry, sexism, brutality, phobias and superstitions owing to their ancient lack of science. And these were people I knew in my ministry days who took to the pulpit each Sunday. One minister – and she was a fine woman who I enjoyed talking to at local conferences – even scoffed at the belief in a personal God, feeling such thinking was presumptuous on our part. I used to wonder what she talked about on Sundays. But it’s a fact that not a few in pews on Sundays believe in the reality of the Gospel no more than they believe in the Tooth Fairy. Perhaps a little more valuable, but nothing we can’t jettison when up against the latest truth claims by the latest experts. Don’t know if it applies here, or how common it is in Catholic circles, but it’s worth remembering.
The Aristocats – Nothing more need be said.
(So he said) – The scene where the two spinster English geese on vacation in France enter the action is beyond funny, and the mere thought of it gladdens me and causes me to get up and go get some sodey pop and sit out on the porch in the august company of Rachel (the wonder dog) and contemplate.
See the movie and know this – I consider myself to be in the company of the”swingin’ hepcats” referred to in the film.
Lucky me
Perhaps Greydanus’ critique suggests a save Snow White movement and the conversion of the Disney Corp. As a tyke Snow White was a favorite fairy tale. She represented innocence and beauty. The Wicked Witch’s curse dispelled by the caring kiss of the Prince. Values lost in an age of darkness and self adulation.
Some Food for Thought Regarding a Variety of Comments in these specific Comboxes:
–If Race is just a Social Construct and not objectively real as claimed, then how come many people like the shallow film critic and fellow wokies continue to push the false narrative of ongoing white supremacy? Who are the whites that are allegedly guilty of white supremacy, and how is it that they are spoken of as a group…or race if such are not real?
–If Race is just a Social Construct and not objectively real as claimed, then why do shallow thinking people insist that people with certain skin colors and ancestry must be included in things like movies to avoid racial prejudice?
–Why do shallow thinking people insist that certain preferences that are objectively innocuous should nevertheless be referred to negatively as “biases,” and then they add that such “biases” can be eradicated through (woke) education? The only bias on display here is the notion that various preferences must be eliminated based on the shallow thinkers’ limited understanding and pretense about such things.
–Given the ongoing assault on solid morals emanating from the Disney organization that are undeniable by people of good will, why would anyone continue to support Disney and buy their products?
–Are certain cultures and their moral codes/foundations superior to other cultures, or are they all equal as wokies and their fellow travelers insist despite obvious differences in development and practices that separate the cultures? For instance, is a culture that abuses women and restricts their freedom equal to a culture that does not abuse women or restrict their freedom? On a related note, why do shallow thinkers insist on attacking Western culture by negatively referring to the white skin color of the majority of people within the Western culture?
–Why do shallow thinkers insist upon pushing an overbroad egalitarianism despite its inherent absurdity, and the fact that it is a rejection of God’s creative order and the concomitant fact that God Himself deigns it appropriate to distribute talents to people without trying to force a silly and impossible equality (worse today: the false promotion of unjust equity) upon them?
–Many of today’s egalitarians are at the forefront of pushing the unjust and absurd notion of reparations for certain people (usually of a certain skin color) based on the enslavement of their ancestors hundreds of years ago that egalitarians insist impact all such people even today despite evidence showing very little impact at the very worst, and also avoided entirely by most. Also, these shallow thinking egalitarians refuse to honestly consider the worldwide history of slavery imposed on others of all skin colors by people of all skin colors in order to put the entire onus on, you guessed it, white people of the West. Remarkable bias allegedly combatting other kinds of bias. Shallow thinking indeed.
Some Book Recommendations to Help Expose and Combat the Rubbish Often Pushed by the Featured Film Critic and Fellow Wokies:
“Taboo: 10 Facts [You Can’t Talk About]” by Wilfred Reilly. (2020)
“Race Marxism” by James Lindsay. (2022)
“The War on the West” by Douglas Murray. (2022)
“America’s Discrimination Circus” by Kathleen Brush. (2021)
“When Race Trumps Merit: How the Pursuit of Equity Sacrifices Excellence, Destroys Beauty, and Threatens Lives” by Heather MacDonald. (2023)
DocVerit,
Are you familiar with the caste system in India? Are you familiar with the advantages accorded to the “higher” castes, such as the Brahmins, and the disadvantages imposed on the “lower” castes, especially the “untouchable” Dalits? (I have a Christian friend on Twitter who is a Dalit Indian, and I hear about this from him all the time.)
Do you recognize that the caste categories are socially constructed and not objectively real? Socially constructed categories absolutely can be used as the basis for a system of privilege and oppression similar to White supremacy. If you deny this, as your previous arguments appear to do, you must either argue that a) caste-based advantage and disadvantage does not exist (objectively false) or b) caste is not socially constructed, but represents something objective in human nature; God, not human beings, created the categories of Brahmins, Rajanyas, Vaishyas, and Shudras, as well as Dalits.
It is hard for me to believe that anyone can really be so confused as to not understand how it could possibly be that Europeans constructed a system of racial categories and racial hierarchy and then proceeded to create a legally and culturally enforced system of advantages and disadvantages based on their culturally constructed hierarchy. Your errors are too elementary to warrant further rebuttal.
Anybody who thinks that the American legal system still privileges white people over black people is out of touch with reality. Compare the lack of response to the months of BLM rioting we saw in 2020 to the crackdown and indefinite detention of the January 6 trespassers. Everywhere you look, American law and culture privilege non-white people over white people.
One of the big problems with the modern Left is denial of development. To hear some talk, we’re living in 1910 Alabama. I once attended a history conference ages ago in my ministry days. One of the speakers was from Argentina, and he happened to sit at our table. While chatting, he told me something I have never forgotten: Never trust a revolution that won’t admit it has won (we Americans being spoiled for having one of the few revolutions in history that actually did what they set out to do). Consider ‘gender equality’. In a growing number of areas, women are overtaking or have long overtaken men (graduation rates, new business starts, first time home ownership, etc). Yet to hear feminists (and even your average shmuck on the street), you’d think we’re living in the Handmaid’s Tale. The same goes for LGTBQ rights, civil rights, and others. Given the historian had seen his share of revolutions that promised equality on the farm and then pulled the rug out after winning, I keep his advice in my mind. That’s why I’d say much of what we’re seeing today in terms of ‘social justice’ has little to do with justice or any of the concerns stated by the various movements in question, and much to do with goals they’re not stating openly.
There is a third option Deacon Greydanus. a) caste-based advantage and disadvantage does not exist, b) caste is not socially constructed, but represents something objective in human nature. There is also the 3rd option: c) a caste-based advantage and disadvantage does exist; such a caste based structure is unique to India, all of Indian society and history and structures are based upon, and therefore tainted by, that caste system, thus anything and everything to do with India – it’s history, heritage, beliefs, culture, laws, values or even people – can and should be reinvented, if not outright eliminated.
It’s that third approach that we are using against the West and the United States. The thought that racism existed (true), but that the West was defined by this sin, that the entirety of its existence is defined by this sin, tainted by this sin, built upon this sin, and therefore anything and everything west of the Urals can be redefined or even eliminated, is the basis for the CRT grounded spin on the subject. Hence the ease with which we suggest the presence of white people is ipso facto racist, and therefore demands change by erasure or discrimination or other forms of righting the wrong. To even think of applying such an approach to Indian society, or suggesting Chinese society and history, or Islam and its history, or the pre-Columbian Americas should be so defined by their sins, would be smacked down as racist so fast it makes my head spin.
There’s a reason Critical Race Theory is called a theory. That’s just what it is. A mere theory, and an ideologically driven one at that. So is the idea that the West was entirely consumed by racism and built upon racism and structural racial oppression. The purpose is to justify its elimination. And that includes in the Church, where I see a surprising number of Catholics suggesting that modern Catholicism is a tainted product, warped by centuries of white domination and the exclusion of non-whites from the development of the Church. Hence God somewhere dropped the ball and let the wrong people mess up the Church. A very Protestant perspective ironically (though I’m unaware of any Protestant tradition based upon the idea that the wrong skin colored people messed things up – the pathological obsession with race and skin color in 21st Century America being as much a distinctive as baseball used to be).
BTW, none of this is to speak to the modern twisting of racism into the single worst, all defining, unforgivable sin that it has become. The idea that if you dropped the n-word in an email 20 years ago as a white person (skin color being important here), you are now a racist, and therefore since all racism is a monolith, all of your accomplishments, virtues, identities and contributions are forfeit – you are now simply ‘racist’ – is also a corruption of the topic. But one necessary for the CRT approach to Western history and its reinvention to make any sense or gain any ground.
Dave G.,
I was responding to DocVerit’s argument that the understanding of race as “just a Social Construct and not objectively real as claimed” somehow undermined the claim that White supremacy was or is a real thing—that it did in fact exist (as a legal and cultural institution in the United States under slavery and Jim Crow) and that in some form it does exist (in ongoing cultural, social, and structural implications in the present).
Regarding your diagnosis of Indian society and the antiracist diagnosis of American society, I think we need to distinguish between “tainted by” and “based upon.” Is Indian society and history and structures is, in a radical and pervasive way, tainted by the caste system? I think that it is, yes, and I think the work of purifying Indian society and culture from the caste system requires a concerted effort of anticasteism. This is not, though, to say that Indian culture or society are based upon the caste system in a way that allows for no hope of purification and the goal of an authentically Indian society that rejects the caste system. The idea that Indian culture and society “can and should be reinvented, if not outright eliminated” strikes me as an inhuman prescription.
I would say something similar of racism in American society. I do think that American society and history and structures is, in a radical and pervasive way, tainted by racism—from the nation’s origins in colonial days to the crafting of the Constitution to allow for the institution of slavery; from the thoroughgoing legal, cultural, and social controls on Black people in the antebellum South to the 1857 Dred Scott Supreme Court decision (written by the Court’s Catholic chief justice, Roger B. Taney) declaring that no Black person, free or slave, anywhere in the United States, held any of the rights of citizenship either of the nation or of the state where they lived; from the antebellum North’s own versions of Jim Crow–style segregation and race riots to the founding of the Confederacy and the drafting of the Confederate Constitution enshrining White supremacy as the law of the South; from race-restrictive deeds and communities that were legally binding until 1948 and legally permitted until 1968 to systematic federal and institutional efforts to build up generational wealth in a White middle class while sweepingly excluding Black Americans from benefitting; from the legal systems of oppression against which the Civil Rights movement labored until 1968 to the use of armed state forces to deny Black children entry to schools even after the Supreme Court had struck down segregation in education.
These things are not Critical Race Theory: they are simply history, and not ancient history. Nor is it Critical Race Theory to say that, although White supremacy as a principle of law has been abolished (the last vestiges of it within my own lifetime), the cultural, social, institutional, and structural legacy of this system has not been eradicated. I should add that, as with India and the caste system, I am not saying that American culture or society are based upon racism in a way that allows for no hope of purification and the goal of an authentically American society that rejects racism. I am saying, though, that the work of purifying American society and culture from this legacy requires a concerted effort of antiracism. This is essentially the position set forth by the USCCB in their 2018 Pastoral Letter against racism, “Open Wide Our Hearts.”
“I am saying, though, that the work of purifying American society and culture from this legacy requires a concerted effort of anti-racism.”
Hard pass. This prescription, much like the riots it inspired, is psychotic. In its current form, America glorifies anti-white racism just as much as it deifies black people. Enough.
I’ve read Open Wide Our Hearts. Also, I learned about America’s racism, and racist laws, when I was in elementary school in the 1970s. Therefore, I’m well aware of the presence of racism (a great lie I’ve continuously heard since I was young is that Americans have never admitted to America’s sins). We simply didn’t take the approach that became popular after we elected our first black president – Racism as some unique, all defining and irredeemable sin as present today as it ever was.
Think on it. You say that we can become an ‘authentically’ American society that rejects racism, as if we haven’t been authentic before, or rejected it yet. Yet we have. Legally it is against the law to racially discriminate. Unlike some countries in the world, that applies to our federal government, state governments, and local governments, as well as private enterprise. That is not true in other parts of the world, where a nation may have ‘no discrimination’ as part of its legal code, but allow local municipalities or private businesses to discriminate with impunity. Hence in America we must use such nebulous terms as ‘systemic racism’ or ‘structural racism’, because anyone or anything in America that discriminates based on race has broken the law.
But apparently that’s not good enough, since we only might become authentically American someday. So what does ‘good enough’ look like? When does America, where racial discrimination is illegal, and socially rejected (as it has been since I was a kiddo) finally become ‘authentic’? Is it a matter of 99% of Americans not being racist? And does that include all racism? Black against Asian, Hispanic against White, American Indian against Arabic, everyone against Jewish? Does it only apply to white Americans (OWOH seems to suggest that)? And exactly how do we measure not racist? Can we have an according to Hoyle definition of racist if that’s the measure we must achieve to become authentic? To be brutally honest Deacon Greydanus, I hear a lot of people use the term ‘racist’, when it sounds to my ears like they really mean ‘disagree with their politics.’
See the problem here? Sure, racism existed in America, as anywhere in the world. Legally and socially, as anywhere in the world. But it was not the only thing about America, or even the main thing. Was it sin? Yes. A sin. But not some unique all tainting sin. Not something built into our national DNA. Not our ‘legacy’, any more than your sins are your legacy, or the Church’s sins her legacy, or Japan’s sins are its legacy. And I fundamentally reject the modern approach, abetted by a carefully contrived media narrative, that says a white man who cured cancer and rescued a dozen children from a burning building, but who dropped the N-Word in a 20 year old email, is now merely a racist and nothing more – the assumption behind our modern approach to the subject of ‘anti-racism’.
That’s the problem with that slippery approach called CRT. Which, I’ll admit, is a flexible term used to distinguish this approach to racism versus the older (and IMHO saner) approach. That older approach declared that America was always a great country, and the Christian West a net boon for humanity, but like other parts of the world, it has its skeletons, including racism. But our current approach takes the Christian virtues of self-examination, confession and redemption and slaps a template on them more in line with Marxist Communist agitprop than Gospel truth, or historical reality, whatever the Bishops’ publication suggests. Its purpose is to tear down, not redeem.
Finally, Jesus said you can tell a tree by the fruit it bears. When I step back and look at those who peddle the current spin on America’s racist past and origins, and see how they would ‘fix’ this problem, and see what else they are selling, I immediately question its premise about racism defining America’s structural legacy. After all, the same ones who want me to believe that our medical institutions, like all American institutions, are ‘systemically racist’ because that’s America for you, have now moved from ‘it’s a lie, nobody is performing gender surgeries on minors’ to ‘it’s a lie, nobody is performing gender affirming care on children’ (because now they happily boast of removing the breast tissue of adolescent girls over the laughable idea that gender exists). See the point? Who are you going to believe? The ones in the past who worked to overcome our failures? Or the ones today who want to define the past by our failures, and use those failures, defined as unique to our civilization, in order to justify dropping down the ladder yet again where reality and morality and common sense are concerned?
You are the one who lacks even basic reasoning skills, SDG, and so you keep playing your dishonest game of mischaracterizing what I and others set forth to set up straw man arguments. Next dishonest trick: Call for X answer to be provided to skewed questions, and also claim that if X answer is not provided, that it shows an error in thinking. This is quite despicable, but when confronted with opposing views you can’t handle, it is indeed part of your modus operandi. I’m not playing your game regarding your last dishonest comments directed toward me.
However, many kudos to Dave G. for also recognizing your dishonesty in claiming the things you do from your woke perspective that unjustly claims X about white people that you PROUDLY repeat over and over again.
May the Good Lord forgive you, for you clearly know not what you do in violating basic principles of justice.
“If Race is just a Social Construct and not objectively real as claimed, then how come many people like the shallow film critic and fellow wokies continue to push the false narrative of ongoing white supremacy? Who are the whites that are allegedly guilty of white supremacy, and how is it that they are spoken of as a group…or race if such are not real?”
*********
Race as science is not biological reality. Race as a social construct to maintain status is an historical reality & continues on today, though thankfully in a much more diluted way. And I think in a more generational way.
I had to go to Confession recently to ask if I had a greater obligation to correct the increasingly ugly things I’ve been hearing about folks from places like Central America & Haiti. Or about those of us with African ancestry. Father in his wisdom said we should correct people in the most prudent way possible.
I believe this currently is a reaction to the Biden administration’s neglect of our border security & a reaction against wokeness. But it’s ugly & disturbing all the same. Christians are better than that & science shows us “race” is non-science-based rubbish in the first place. Just as “transgenderism” is.
I disagree that Deacon Steven is shallow. I appreciate his film reviews.
I’m a Southern, Trump voting, Latin Mass attending, mantilla wearing, Rosary praying, homeschooling mother of 8 & granny to 16. If believing that we’re all equal children of God & our ancestry makes absolutely no difference to that, then call me woke. That will be a first.
🙂
mrscracker:
Note more carefully what I actually set forth as food for thought regarding how many shallow woke people like the film critic use race not just as a social construct, but as a real, biological/genetic thing in order to push their bogus agendas that include the bigoted and hateful nonsense of ongoing white supremacy, white privilege, and systemic racism all directed at white people as a race. {For some fun and a dose of reality, you might want to see how the film critic would react to you seriously challenging him on how he frequently uses the notion of race to attack white people as set forth above. Indeed, you might see something you don’t want to see, but as the wise saying goes, the truth shall set you free.}
But generally speaking, why don’t people like the film critic, who paid lip service to your citing some scientific support in favor of the social construct thesis, still make false accusations against white people and/or the white race if there are no such things except as mere social constructs? This is what people like Dave G. and yours truly have pointed out is part of the real problem today involving how those on the woke left use race (real or just a social construct) and unjust/false claims of widespread anti-black racism as a weapon to demonize certain groups of people and further divide us. Ignoring their attacks and wave of destruction is what too many people are doing in the naive hope that it will all go away soon enough when in point of fact it is still metastasizing and needs to be vigorously opposed instead of hoping that the thesis of race as a social construct will end the destruction and conflicts once enough people see race as just a social construct.
“Speaking” of science, more and more scientists are also claiming that “transgenderism” is real, and so science does not show us that it is rubbish. Objective science does, but not all claims made in the name of science are objective even though such are always claimed or assumed to be the case.
And what about scientists who argue that the baby in the womb is not really alive, or if alive, is not distinct from its mother? More bad science that should be rejected regardless of the science label.
So there is a problem with the “Science says this” approach, especially when science proposes theories that frequently change. A similar problem also manifests itself with the “science as consensus” viewpoint. Consider the historical reality of most scientists one-time accepting that the world was flat, or for hundreds of years accepting the Newtonian theory of Gravity until Einstein came around.
These historical realities and many others demonstrate the limits of science and the all too easily accepted assumption that the last word on this or that has been spoken by science. Accordingly, while the history of classifying people based on noticeable biological/genetic differences did indeed have some unjustified motivations behind it, it may still be the case that false conclusions notwithstanding about “X race” being superior to “Y race,” there are indeed real, observable distinctions that can legitimately classify people as being of a particular race in terms of shared biological/genetic realities. In fact, one important recognition of this reality does take place in the medical community because of the undeniable fact that some groups of peoples who possess the same or very similar genetic make-ups in certain respects make them more vulnerable to some maladies. I doubt if they would be comforted by hearing that perhaps they should not even worry about such things or don’t take some precautions to help prevent the maladies from afflicting them because “race is just a social construct,” and so the data showing those with X biological/genetic make-ups having a greater vulnerability to a certain malady can just be ignored.
Lastly, I don’t believe that you are a wokie or even a fellow traveler, and I don’t see how you apparently assumed that I considered you to be a wokie from what I presented as food for thought. However, the shallow film critic, even if he protests to the contrary, has time and time again demonstrated that he is at the very least a fellow traveler pushing shallow and even hateful nonsense directed at people he has no problem labeling as white and part of a larger group or race of white people. In fact, as he recently wrote in one of this article’s comboxes, “I would have loved to write about the racial dimensions of the casting—it’s a topic I’ve addressed in other pieces—but there just wasn’t space this time around.”
“Racial dimensions.” What could he possibly be thinking about? If race is not real, how could there be any racial dimensions to write about?
Doc, I wasn’t really being serious about being “woke ” but it would be kind of refreshing to be mistaken for a progressive. Most people think I’m somewhere to the right of Genghis Khan.
🙂
You are correct about certain maladies being more hereditary but some of those simply result from populations being isolated and more likely to intermarry and pass on recessive genes. We see that in European Jews, the Amish, Cajuns, etc. Other diseases are related to the environment and helped survival where there was malaria, etc. Those aren’t inherently racial diseases. Cajuns for instance have higher rates of an hereditary condition causing deafness. It’s thought to have found its way into the region from a Jewish trapper years ago. Greeks, East Indians and Saudis have higher rates of sickle cell anemia because they were on what had been the Eastern slave trade route.
The more you look at human history the more movement and mixed heritage you discover.
You have a blessed day!
mrscracker:
Mixed heritages actually support the notion of the biological reality of race; it does not demonstrate that such is not real.
What is being mixed and how does this impact any offspring? Member of X group or race marries member of Y group or race and the offspring is a combination of the X and Y groups or races.
With respect to the “mixed heritage” throughout history idea as support for the social construct thesis of race, the other historical fact is the reality that some groups or races have maintained a certain biological/genetic heritage that remains distinguishable from others even if they have many similarities with other groups or races. Observable differences are real even among similar things, like colors in general.
For instance, take the color yellow and mix it with blue and you might get a greenish color. Does this mean that no color is blue and no color is yellow? Among the whole spectrum of colors, we observe various shades of actual colors, and so we would be absurd if we claimed that color is a social construct and that there is only one color after all.
The history of various maladies afflicting various groups or races of people exclusively or much more so than other groups or races also support the biological reality of race, and tracing how certain things began or when they began also does not eliminate the reality that X malady impacts certain people of a certain group or race that is passed on genetically, even if this only began a few hundred years ago for whatever reason. If X malady impacts a particular group or race and it is observed that the malady is passed on to the offspring of that group or race, then this also illustrates that race is a reality and not simply a social construct.
As we also see today, the great “X is a social construct” idea that has permeated all walks of life is the bogus “Gender is a social construct.” This has come about because of the denial of biological reality and, as I have written elsewhere, the acceptance of the false idea that gender and sex are different despite the reality that the word gender has been used as a synonym for biological sex since the 12th century.
But accept the notion that gender is just a social construct and not a biological reality and look at the obvious evil emanating from this insistence that “Gender is just a social construct.”
In fine, there are too many things considered to be just social constructs, and when that prevails, relativism spreads its evil.
[By the bye, you have inadvertently fallen into a trap used frequently by people of the left. They will use many monsters of the past and label them as right wing, but that is almost always false. People that are more to the right loathe such monsters, and it should be particularly noted that the great monster Hitler who is always wrongly labeled as right wing was in fact a leftist in his support of socialism and State control that leftists find much favor with. So when you write with fine humorous intent that you are more to the right of Genghis Khan, you have indeed fallen into the trap of the left. Genghis Khan is not a member of the right who did what he did based on right wing ideas, and so your gag line feeds the false narrative of the left that all monsters of the past were right wing, and so all right wing ideas are monstrous. If you are very much on the far right of things, and you want to make a joke about it, you might want to say that you are somewhere to the right of the celebrated “founder of conservatism” Edmund Burke or even farther to the right of the libertarian Robert Nozick.]
Responding briefly to one of your comments directed to Fair, please note the following:
Because some people have wrongly used various categories or groupings of people to act unjustly toward them does not eliminate the reality of the categories or the groupings.
Thanks for the blessings and back at ya.
Thank you Doc. I can use those blessings. Truly.
I think we can confuse DNA haplotypes with “races “.
The African continent has more diverse DNA than any other region if I remember correctly. And things like sickle cell only developed where malaria was endemic. Other parts of Africa weren’t afflicted in the same way because the climates differed, not the skin colour of the inhabitants.
Sorry, the Ghengis Khan comparison wasn’t my invention. I would have preferred being to the right of the late Queen Mother.
🙂
“CRT has no place in school and neither does “white” replacement theory. It’s all rubbish.”
Deacon Greydanus in these comments supports “white replacement” though…
“while I would be very happy to see intermarriage erase racial differences to the point of mootness, such a future is at best centuries away.”
It’s strange when people claim race doesn’t exist and yet everyone knows exactly to what they are referring. That’s because it does exist. I don’t see anybody going to bat for white children today, just high minded parents saying it’s good for their own kids to be squeezed out of their own own culture.
The point wasn’t that “race ” exists as a biological reality, it doesn’t, but that as people intermarry they begin to resemble each other more. Everyone , especially in a place like the States, is a bit mixed up DNA wise. And the longer your family has lived in a former colony the greater the odds are that you have non European ancestry. Even Mrs. Jefferson Davis is believed to have had ancestors who were free people of colour. Folks way back in the Appalachians have discovered they’re the descendants of indentured European women and free men of colour.
Sadly even in nations where ancestry itself may not be the issue human beings still find other ways to discriminate against each other by income level, clan, ability, etc. Its just an ugly part of our fallen nature.
There’s no “white” culture or any culture based upon a complexion. Individual family heritages may differ but a shared Culture is worthwhile and something we can all enjoy.
Fair,
Ridiculous. I was speaking hypothetically of a scenario proposed by another commenter (a self-described “Southern, Trump voting, Latin Mass attending, mantilla wearing, Rosary praying, homeschooling mother of 8 & granny to 16”) who imagined racial differences fading away over time. Neither she nor I were talking about “replacing” anyone with anyone else, much less some kind of sinister plot to replace one population with another.
I did say that, hypothetically, I would welcome such a world, and I would. My great-great-great-great-etc.-grandchildren in such a world would still be mine, whatever the exact hue of their skin might be. I also said that such a world was “at best centuries away.” This was an understatement; I don’t believe such a world is coming at all. And that’s okay too, but it means that the world of antiracism is ongoing.
“Neither she nor I were talking about ‘replacing’ anyone with anyone else, much less some kind of sinister plot to replace one population with another.”
One sentence later: “I did say that, hypothetically, I would welcome such a world, and I would.”
Perfect.
Well technically you do. A while back, we discussed the idea that the original Rocky franchise was problematic due to the racial composition of the actors involved. I put it to you straight – knowing Stallone wrote the script for himself, what was he supposed to be, not white? What would have helped this problem with the first Rocky movies? You said replace Burgess Meredith as Mickey with a black actor. That is white replacement. Saying that for no other reason but skin color, we should replace person X with person Y. My opinion is that it’s no different when we do that than when any other notable societies in recent memory moved to remove the presence of individuals based on ethnic identity. That’s the danger with flirting with these deeply troubled approaches to our nation, our civilization, and their history. It doesn’t take a gameshow host to see where it is leading us.
But White basically just means native European. There are white musical instruments, white languages, white religions, and more. If there are native Americans as a coherent group, for example, then there are Whites. Do you deny that Native Americans exist?
Fair, perhaps you are referring more to cultures than race? There is no white music or white Christian religion. There is folk music from different areas in Europe but even some of that has been influenced from outside the continent.
Christianity began in Asia , spread through North Africa and on to Europe and elsewhere. The Global South is where Christianity is growing today.
Tribal peoples came to North America a very long time ago and developed distinct cultures.
It’s fair to say that people isolated from one another intermarry and end up resembling each other more than they resemble populations in other regions but that’s not “race.” And mutations in genes get passed down in one population simply through intermarriage. When you restrict movement as in the case of the Jews in parts of Europe you make that much more likely. If there’s more movement and marriage within a wider area, recessive genes become less of a problem.
mrscracker writes on
JUNE 1, 2023 AT 4:42 PM:
…
“I think we can confuse DNA haplotypes with “races “.
The African continent has more diverse DNA than any other region if I remember correctly. And things like sickle cell only developed where malaria was endemic. Other parts of Africa weren’t afflicted in the same way because the climates differed, not the skin colour of the inhabitants.”
________________
Response:
Sorry, mrscracker, but your reference to haplotypes and climate differences bringing about X do not support your claims. As I previously pointed out, it does not matter how certain diseases or maladies first came about or where they originated. What matters is if certain diseases or maladies can be shown to currently afflict X group or race exclusively or significantly more so than other groups or races, and such can and are passed down to the offspring of the same group or race. This is indeed the case, which, once again, supports the reality of group or race classifications among the people of the world.
Next, DNA diversity does not support your position, either. In fact, it does the opposite in showing other kinds of real biological/genetic differences, and that some groups or races have some things in their DNA or DNA expression that are distinct from other groups or races even though all humans share some 99.9% DNA with each other as human beings.
Once more, how some people use such classifications of groups or races in unjustified ways does not mean the classifications are wrong or do not represent was is present in reality.
Doc, there’s diversity in DNA haplotypes but that’s not “race”. And haplotypes are more complex and spread about than we imagine. There’s one Y DNA type found both in Sweden and Nigeria.
A couple of my children shelled out their money for a 23 and Me DNA test and their maternal DNA type (mine actually) is found in some very disparate places and more than one continent.
If we could just quit using the word race the world would be a better place. And our language would be more accurate.
It’s true that some recessive gene issues originated in in certain parts of the world but again that’s not about race. It’s about gene mutation , natural selection, and adaptation to the environment and that can happen everywhere.
You have a blessed evening Doc.
Mrs Cracker,
You didn’t answer the question. Do Native Americans exist? Does black music exist? There is white music. Classical music for example. It originated in europe among white people. There are likewise white religions which are no longer practiced for the most part since europeans embraced Christianity. Also white languages which are perfectly analogous to Native American languages. You’re wrong, white people do exist.
It depends what you mean. Native American identity (also known as American Indian, Indigenous American, etc.) is not a scientific fact. It’s a socially defined status: one with historical, ancestral, and cultural roots, but still a socially constructed identity. As with questions as different as “Do tall people exist?” or “Do cool people exist?” (all very different kinds of questions, to be clear), there is no single definition and no clear demarcation, making the question of Native American identity complicated, not simple. For example, for many people, Native American identity means enrollment in one or more recognized tribe, but not everyone with a reasonable claim to Native American identity is enrolled in a tribe.
Black artists and black communities around the world have certainly made a powerful mark on popular music, including American popular music, and a number of genres and styles are strongly associated with black communities and black identity. Note that there is no monolithic “black community” or “black identity”; for example, the origins of genres like Negro spirituals, calypso, and hip hop might be as divergent as, say, Appalachian folk music, Portuguese fado music, and Romanian etno music.
Is rock and roll “white music” or “black music”? Is Polish jazz “black” or “white”? The history and influences are what they are; the labels are socially constructed.
Western classical music is a label applied to a range of European music (the term “classical music” can also refer to non-Western art music traditions). Like other terms under discussion, it’s a culturally constructed term with no precise or universally agreed upon definition or extent.
People with varying amounts of melanin exist. People with varying DNA and cultures exist. Per some researchers ancient Northern Europeans had dark skin.
But my point simply was that “race” as an outdated concept doesn’t exist. That’s all.
“Profoundly melancholy” – good phrase.
How about – pathetic
Sure, both terms work, in my opinion, Terence. Both tell you something true about the situation, though they suggest somewhat different angles on the attitude of the person commenting. Which one a given writer is inclined to use, then, may vary with a) how much they care about the films of the Disney renaissance and b) how much they care about family entertainment today. As suggested by my anecdote about standing up and cheering in the theater as a young art student and animation fan after “Under the Sea” in the original Little Mermaid, I have a more than passing interest in the films of the Disney renaissance; and certainly I have an ongoing interest in family entertainment today: hence my choice of “profoundly melancholy.”
Happily, as of this weekend, there is one very, very bright spot in family entertainment in theaters.
That’s a long answer that seems to mean yes Native Americans exist. Which is why we can talk about them coherently even if the margins may be blurry. I would be more likely to say black music doesn’t exist since it’s performed on white instruments, recorded on white technology, using white musical notation and a white language, than that polish people playing jazz is black. But the edges are fuzzy so who knows. Tribal music from africa is obviously black. Do men and women exist? Your arguments sound the same as the hundred gender people.
Fair,
In the beginning, God created them male and female. He did not create them Portuguese, Kenyan, Thai, Paiute, Guaraní, etc. He did not create them Black or White or Brown. This is not complicated.
Male and female are culturally elaborated but not culturally constructed; they are biological realities. Portuguese, Kenyan, Thai, Paiute, Guaraní, etc. are not biological realities; they are culturally constructed. There is no Portuguese identity that is not culturally constructed.
The biological reality behind the concept of race is that differences in genetic ancestry exist and patterns and commonalities can be observed. The catch is that classification systems are social, not scientific. For example, A “white” person in Brazil might have more African ancestry than a “black” person in the US. Southern Italian immigrants at Ellis Island 120 years ago were assigned nonwhite status, and often occupied a “middle ground” in social standing between blacks and whites. Exactly 100 years ago this year the Supreme Court decided (in United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind) that people of Indian descent are not “white” (“the average man knows perfectly well that there are unmistakable and profound differences between” Indians and white Americans; an associate justice even wrote that the people of India “cannot be properly assigned to any of the enumerated grand racial divisions”).
God created them male and female; he did not create them Black or White or Brown. Variation exists, but the categories, the dividing lines, and the labels are socially constructed.
“The biological reality behind the concept of race is that differences in genetic ancestry exist and patterns and commonalities can be observed. The catch is that classification systems are social, not scientific.”
That’s fine. God obviously has created us as “native europeans” and we exist as an identifiable objective reality. No white person is more African than a black American. If you want to hollow out the word white the way you were doing with race, then sure. But if we’re talking about reality and not word games, white people exist objectively, white culture exists, white everything exists as I’ve enumerated. That bit about the Supreme Court is fascinating. It came from a time when America was a white country with a coherent identity. Some might celebrate that white people are probably going to be a minority here soon. I don’t. But then some will probably just say, well since white is culturally constructed let’s just categorize 10s of millions of illegals as white and boom everything is just as good as it used to be!
Who you calling “us,” white man? I’m certainly not “native European”; I was born in New Jersey, like my father and his father before him, and New Jersey is definitely not in Europe. I am native to here. How about you?
“God created us as ‘native europeans’?” Friend, what God created is seas and dry land and people. “Europe” is a socially constructed entity associated with part of a land mass geographically contiguous with, and in no way “objectively” separated from, a much larger part of the same land mass that is socially constructed as “Asia.” If you want to say “God made Eurasia,” I’ll grant it, but he didn’t create “Europe,” any more than he “created” the Confederate States of America or the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone.
Nor did God put human beings in portion of the land mass that would one day be associated with the culturally constructed entity of “Europe.” The book of Genesis says he created us in what is now the Middle East; the paleoanthropologists put our origins in Africa. At any rate, when at various points the last 50,000 or so years, as it seems, humans began migrating in waves to what would eventually be called “Europe,” thereby becoming what would eventually be called “Europeans,” that wasn’t God “creating” anything: it was migration.
Then, over time, environmental factors and natural processes led to a shift in genetic patterns resulting in the emergence of traits such as pale skin. You can say that God created the genetic diversity and flexibility that allowed for the emergence of traits like pale skin, but it would be more accurate to say “We made ourselves Europeans” than “God created us as Europeans.” At least, he no more “created us as” Europeans than he “created” King Charles and his family “as” the Royal House of Windsor. There is no analogy between racial variation and male–female identity, which God did instill in us in the beginning and which is, unlike racial classifications or the traits associated with them, fundamental to our identity.
False. First of all, definitions of “whiteness” and “blackness” differ from country to country. Historically, in the US, the “one-drop” rule held that a person was black if they had any African heritage whatsoever, and even today people whose African ancestry is as little as one-quarter, one-eighth or even less may be classified as “Black.” In Haiti, on the other hand, the opposite principle applies: A person with even low levels of European ancestry is “white.”
In Brazil, “white” and “black” contend with “intermediate” and other categories, and racial or ethnic identity is based more on appearance than ancestry. But appearance, too, is weighted differently in Brazil, so that Brazilians who identify as “white” or “intermediate” come to the US and learn that here they are “black”. Even within Brazilian society, genetic testing of hundreds of Brazilians found that “black” and “intermediate” Brazilians might have low levels of African heritage—as low as Portuguese controls—while “white” Brazilians might have more African heritage than “intermediate” Brazilians.
Oh. I guess a person born in Germany to two “full-blooded” Native Americans is not a Native American in your view, but is as German as apfel strudel.
I was told God created us and knit us together in the womb and numbered the hairs on our heads, but I guess according to you, we created ourselves.
Europe and Asia are separated by a vast, inhospitable wilderness.
Some people believe that God created us over long periods of time through evolution. If that’s the case why couldn’t he further his creation using migration which is a factor in evolution? According to Genesis he deliberately scattered people and confused their languages. But maybe your hope of all people blending together into one via intermarriage is for some reason a good thing this time where before it was offensive to God?
You’re still playing word games. I’m talking about a reality which is fuzzy around the edges and you’re talking like fuzzy edges prove the reality fake.
I’m half German half American
I remember watching a program some years ago about Brazil. The government was offering a scholarship or some type of financial aid to anyone who could prove African ancestry. Well, it’s been awhile since I watched that but as I remember, virtually everyone qualified regardless of whether they appeared “Black ” or “White “.
One young lady who was blonde and seemed 100% European discovered she was eligible also and her family were celebrating that.
I suppose if you offer financial or other incentives people’s perspectives change pretty quickly.
People confuse citizenship with DNA. Germany for instance didn’t even exist as a nation until quite recently. Europe was broken up into kingdoms and before that into tribes
. “White ” people can be citizens of South Africa or Zimbabwe. “Black ” people are British subjects. And so it goes.
And North America was never “White “. Europeans were the original replacers but we’ve had diverse people from the beginning.
To be “Native American” (capital N, capital N) is an ethnic identity. No one uses “native European” that way; to be native European means someone who is born in Europe.
Likewise, there is no such thing as “half American.” “American,” used without qualification, is a nationality, and possibly by extension a cultural identity; it is not an ethnic identity. You are either an American citizen or you aren’t.
Nothing but word salad. Different races exist, the differences between the races are far more superficial than the differences between the sexes, and extreme identification with one’s race, as exemplified by the progressive obsession with looks-like-me-ism, is unhealthy and unwholesome. It only took me two (now three) sentences to answer the question you’ve taken dozens of paragraphs to dodge.
“Who you calling ‘us,’ white man?”
Why are you trying to sound like a tough black man? It’s embarrassing. Some (on your side of the fence) might even call it cultural appropriation. It also betrays your unhealthy preoccupation with matters of race, which you routinely take a try-hard approach to.
It was allusive irony, Denzel, meant to be deliberately absurdist. Also movie-Indianese, not tough-Black-man dialogue.
I said “tough black man,” not “tough Black man.”
Mrs Cracker I didn’t ask if people with varying amounts of melanin exist. Anyway it’s clear you guys do understand that Native Americans and White people both exist. Not using the word race, or saying the word race isn’t scientific, doesn’t alter the reality.
Fair:
You have labored mightily by referring quite often to objective truth and reality only to have your words unjustly turned into arguments you have not made via the use of straw man tactics frequently accompanied by red herrings instead of engaging you more honestly (one of your adversaries is well-adapt at this form of dishonest interaction). These parties that you have tried to enlighten with objective truth know what you mean in making some of your more general observations, but they cannot handle the truth that serves to destroy their bogus narratives, and so if they can dishonestly turn your obvious meanings into something they can attack,…well…you see the results.
You may want to let these particular battles go and wait for the next ones and try again. You have given these people enough opportunities to accept reality regarding the current issue, but again, they prefer a bogus narrative wherein objective truth is secondary to their agendas. In the meantime, I wholeheartedly recommend the following 2 books written by very thoughtful scholars who make use of both facts and sound thinking to completely obliterate many of the false positions you have encountered.
1. “America’s Discrimination Circus” by Kathleen Brush (2021)
2. “When Race Trumps Merit” by Heather MacDonald (2023)
Lastly, your defense of objective truth to more faithfully follow Objective Truth Himself is quite admirable.
Perhaps to solve both race and skin isues, the Little Mermaid should wear a Muslim knee-high burka.
Well morgan, since she’s anatomically unable to wear britches…
🙂
I saw the original The Little Mermaid when I was in school in the 1990’s. I loved it. I will give this new demake (a remake that is inferior to the original) a pass for the following reasons:
1) Disney supports Woke Ideology wholesale, including incorporating same in their products, and thus I refuse to give them my money out of principle;
2) The new film adds nothing new, and in fact degrades the main male character, Prince Eric, to support the long tired Disney trope of the “Strong Female Lead” Mary Sue character; Disney hates leading men (just look what they did to Luke Skywalker in their Star Wars films and to Indiana Jones in the Dial of Destiny);
3) Awkwafina’s singing. Her voice makes me feel like broken glass is getting shoved in my eardrums.
Many US females of a certain age group sound like broken glass or gravel when speaking. My son said it’s called “vocal fry”. It must hurt to growl that way at the end of every sentence.
I thought it was a West Coast affliction, but it seems to be everywhere now. Even in the UK & beyond. I was flipping around YouTube once & randomly saw an interview with a Pasadena Rose Parade Queen from the early 1960’s. She had a beautiful natural speaking voice. No gravel. Something’s changed since the early ’60s.
Yeah, usually people say White and not Native European. It refers to the same real thing, though.
Well on my fathers side I’m Anglo saxon but his line has been in America since long before the Civil War. Since America was founded by Englishmen for themselves and their posterity I sort of regard myself as an actual American but who knows.
No it doesn’t, because “Native European” is not a term of identification used by any group of people. It’s not a thing. By the same token, no one says “I’m European-American” (except, say, in reaction to “African-American”). What people actually say is “I’m Irish-American” or “My family is from northern Italy” or “My background is mostly German Swiss” or (perhaps with a wry smile) “My ancestors come from all over Europe, I’m basically a mutt.”
Mrs. Cracker
You’re confusing citizenship with DNA. The same peoples who populated Europe when it was tribal populated it when it was kingdoms and populate it now that it’s nation-states. In the same way the peoples who own Indian reservations in the US are the peoples who lived here prior to the White man’s arrival. America was a white nation at one point. 50 years ago it was still like 90% white.
Here is one example of you equating European and White. You guys aren’t being honest but you’re mostly lying to yourselves so it’s not totally deliberate.
“And North America was never “White “. Europeans were the original replacers but we’ve had diverse people from the beginning.”
You’re also indirectly referring to the white replacement “conspiracy theory” by saying white people were the “original replacers.”
That’s a common error in our modern Anti-Westernism. The idea that the West alone brought evil to the world, while everyone else lived in a Utopian paradise of peace, love, joy and John Lennon songs. The tacit belief that the people living along the coast when the first Europeans arrived had lived there for 20,000 years is right up there with flat Earth theories. As one of my history professors back in the day said, when we celebrate Thanksgiving, we are remembering a three day festival commemorating a military alliance between two peoples with similar goals. Failing to know that today is the result of purposeful misinformation, even in our schools and colleges at this point.
It’s hilarious to me that someone can literally be a “Southern, Trump voting, Latin Mass attending, mantilla wearing, Rosary praying, homeschooling mother of 8 & granny to 16”—but if they’re skeptical about the scientific basis of race, or voice the least criticism of European colonialism, suddenly they’re a purveyor of “modern Anti-Westernism” and “implicated in the belief that the West alone brought evil to the world, while everyone else lived in a Utopian paradise of peace, love, joy and John Lennon songs.”
What a world we live in.
I said the erroneous take was so common that a Southern, Trump voting, Latin Mass attending, mantilla wearing, Rosary praying, homeschooling mother of 8 & granny to 16 would repeat it. The idea of ‘indigenous people’ as some group who lived in the same place since the deeps of time until uprooted only by Europeans is the basis for the very false idea that Europeans were ‘the original replacers’. Why this Southern, Trump voting, Latin Mass attending, mantilla wearing, Rosary praying, homeschooling mother of 8 & granny to 16 repeated such a thing, I don’t know. That she did goes to show how error can become so universally embraced. Though it could be that the world isn’t cut along easy Red State/Blue State lines. Fact is, some of the most brutal critics of the US I’ve met have been Catholics deep in the Traditional Catholic school. Apparently they see nothing but fault in this rather Protestant/Enlightenment based American experiment, and can often come off sounding like an MSNBC host, at least where American history is connected. Perhaps that’s why. I dunno, I just know an erroneous narrative when I see it.
Dave G., are you saying that Europeans didn’t replace Native Americans? Didn’t take possession of the lands where their ancestors and peoples ethnically and culturally related to them had lived, not “since the deeps of time obviously,” but for thousands of years? Didn’t legislate and militate to push them westward, forcibly when necessary, overriding and negating treaties when desired? Are you denying that this was replacement? Or is your argument that Native Americans were all replacers too? What would your evidence be for ethat?
I grew up in a NJ town called Pequannock. The name is from a Lenape word, Paquettahhnuake, meaning cleared land that is prepared or intended for cultivation. The historical territory of the Lenape included all of what we now call New Jersey and parts of Pennsylvania, New York, and Delaware. (The Delaware Indians, so called by English settlers, were actually Lenni Lenape.) They Lenape were, of course, fallen, sinful human beings, but reportedly generally peaceful (even scorned as such by other, more aggressive tribes; I’ve read that the Iroquois called them “the Old Women”). Although they moved about frequently, the Lenni Lenape occupied their territories for centuries before Europeans arrived. I’m aware of no evidence that the Lenni Lenape took their territory by conquest; on the contrary, they seem to have been driven by war and famine from regions to the north (perhaps southern Canada).
Lenni Lenape today are mostly in Oklahoma, Wisconsin, and Ontario. They don’t live on their ancestral lands because we pushed them out, first via settlement and the Revolutionary War, and then further still via the Indian Removal Act. We replaced them. So far as we know, they hadn’t replaced anyone.
Deacon Greydanus, nice insights. My wife is part American Indian (her preferred term), and I’ve appreciated her perspectives when learning about those pre-European cultures. But you’ll note that I didn’t say Europeans didn’t replace American Indians. I said they weren’t the first. Which they weren’t. The idea that if you’ve seen one Indian, you’ve seen them all, is no better when trying to exalt people than condemn them. If your Lenape had come here thousands of years ago, and lived in the same place until the Europeans arrived, then that would make them the freakish exception to the rule. Pre-Columbian America, like Europe, or Asia, or Africa, or Australia, or anywhere, was a land of much warfare, conquest, slavery, imperialism, genocide, racism, bigotry, and the usuals of a fallen world. If they were that peaceful, then they likely wouldn’t have been there long. Those others who scorned them wouldn’t have left it at merely scorning them. They would have moved in and removed the Lenape one way or another. If the Lenape weren’t removed, then at best they were like Mr. Myagi – nice and peaceful, but able to ferociously defend themselves. Most likely they were like the other peoples in the Americas or anywhere: capable of good, and bad; at times peaceful, at other times not so much.
The key phrase here is that the ‘Lenape were, of course, fallen, sinful human beings’. Just like Europeans. Just like Americans. That’s the point here. The Left would have us believe that there was something particularly and uniquely bad about Europe’s and America’s sins, versus anywhere else in the world. That also applies to ‘whites’ in general, as opposed to any other people in the world. Fact is, the people living here had all the sins of the Europeans, plus not a few that Europeans, influenced by the Christian Faith, had long dispensed with (at least officially).
It’s worth noting the Left has the advantage of being secular, and dismissing the Gospel as nothing but myth and lies at best. Therefore there was absolutely no benefit for the Gospel coming to the New World no matter how it got here. A relatively new viewpoint I’m rather shocked to see embraced by a growing number of Catholic leaders. As if the Gospel is a great way for Christians to kill an hour on a Sunday morning, but in the real world it brings nothing particularly worthwhile that any pagan society couldn’t provide. The same thing goes for our ideas of democracy, equality, and liberty – also concepts foreign to most places in the world, at least as currently understood. Hence it was once believed that, despite the bad that was acknowledged, there was a net good to the spread of Western ideals, even on the heels of imperialism (also a practice not uncommon among American Indians).
BTW, I live in Ohio. There is almost no place in the state not named for something Native American: my town, two nearby rivers, a nearby lake, our main park. That was a common way of paying tribute to the Indians back in the day (see the Land O’Lakes kerfuffle). Fun thing to consider. Years ago I was watching some PBS documentary about America’s national parks. Among those interviewed were various Native American activists. One activist said, when discussing Yosemite Park, that the white (his term) settlers who first saw the area were gobsmacked and overwhelmed. They had never seen what the natives took for granted. But here’s the point. Had the Mingo, the Delaware or the Seminoles suddenly been transported to Yosemite, they would have been just as gobsmacked. Yosemite would have looked just as overwhelming to them. Because just like Europeans, or Asians, or Africans, those living here weren’t all the same.
In fact, in a bit of irony, the idea that all of the Western Hemisphere was one big happy people is as racist as the idea that you can judge a racist by the color of his skin. Hence the problem with ‘Indigenous Peoples’ Day’ (does that include celebrating the human sacrifice, infanticide and slavery? They say that’s what celebrating Columbus means). Sometimes, if you think on it, it’s amazing how much racially charged prejudice we have to accept, and not just about Caucasians, in order to fall in line with our modern ‘anti-racism/systemic racism/white privilege’ narrative that the Left endorses. Something not a few non-whites are well aware of (even if the press never seems able to locate these particular minorities for interviews).
1. With all necessary caveats that I am not an expert in this area, what I know about violence among pre-Columbian Americans has largely to do with inter-village raids, blood-feud violence, ritualized forms of battle, and raids aimed at acquiring goods and (in the case at least of the Maya) prisoners for sacrifice. Territorial conquest was not unknown, particularly in the American Southwest, but it was not the norm.
2. Slavery in one form or another is a perpetual human institution, often in form including debt slavery and subjugation of prisoners of war and convicts of certain crimes. Such slavery was practiced among pre-Columbian Americans. I believe, though, that the modern Western world did invent a new kind of slavery, something I am unaware ever having before seen in human history: perpetual, hereditary, racialized chattel slavery, and that on an industrial scale. The idea that an entire class or group of people, because of their supposed inferior racial nature, could be hunted, captured, sold, owned, and bred like livestock, and their offspring similarly owned and bred in perpetuity, did not exist in any ancient or medieval society I am aware of.
3. I cannot think of any meaningful use of the term imperialism among pre-Columbian Americans, nor am I aware of any documentation of genocide among them. You can say if you like that the only reason genocide didn’t come to America before the arrival of the Europeans was that we brought the technology to do it, just as the reason that agro-industrial slavery came with colonization was that industrialization took place in Europe. That’s fine. It is not my argument that Native Americans were personally morally superior to Europeans. But those with greater power are capable of greater harm, and bear greater moral responsibility. There’s a reason biblical writers so often call out the wealthy and powerful while showing great concern for the poor, the powerless, and the marginal: not because the latter are always morally superior to the former, but because the former are generally oppressing the latter.
4. Bigotry is universal. Whether racism is universal or, in keeping with the historical origins of the term, a product of Darwinism in the age of exploration and colonial imperialism, is a semantic question. I find persuasive the historical case for reserving the use of the term racism to describe modern biological race theory and its aftermath (an argument I encountered close to 30 years ago from Dinesh D’Souza; I think he is wrong about many things, but not that).
P.S. “the Left has the advantage of being secular” Category mistake. I know rightwing atheists and leftwing Christians.
Well, as a former history teacher who married a woman part Indian, I have studied this extensively. In fact, my wife is a great resource, being descended of Iroquois by way of her grandmother. She is also descended from a woman named Jenny Wiley. She was a frontierswoman who had the opportunity to be captured by one of those mere ‘raiding parties’; she was able to watch her family, including her children, be killed, and then she was taken into slavery. She eventually escaped – hence my wife’s family. A rather famous firsthand account for historians. Given that, I find my wife’s take on the history – which is steeped in generations of study and traditions – is pretty solid. She idolizes neither side, but gives credit to both. But in no way does she, or her grandmother (who had no problem with the word ‘Indian’, and loves the USA as much as Lee Greenwood) lift them up to any ‘better than the whites’ level. Quite the contrary. She admits her ancestors were what they were: a stone age culture where life was expendable, pacifism a foreign concept, and paganism the default belief (as a Christian, she sees value in the Gospel coming to her ancestors, and sees the worst of how it got here as no different than the worst anywhere). Odd how journalists and liberal politicians never seem able to locate people like her.
The slavery paragraph. Slavery always has been quite diverse, as it is today. While there is some slavery nowadays in the good old ‘slave auction in chains’ variety, much of it has morphed into what we euphemistically call ‘human trafficking’. This is a new form of slavery to match the shifting post-national boundaries & global corporate money streams of the rich and famous. Just like slavery around the world throughout history. Slavery usually fit the time and place. The only people who didn’t engage in slavery didn’t do so because it wasn’t practical. Small tribes, nomadic peoples, those who couldn’t spare the manpower to guard the slaves. As soon as slavery became profitable, it became par for the course. Not better in one place and worse in others. Slavery is, in the end, slavery. And the idea of slaves as ‘perpetual, hereditary, racialized chattel slavery, and that on an industrial scale’ actually predated Darwin, and industrialization, and the discovery of the New World.
Muslims, in fact, invoked the same racial justification for Islam’s robust African slave trade (as most societies that own slaves use similar justifications) long before Christopher Columbus’s parents went on a date. Same with other cultures. Again, the crazy part of Europe wasn’t that it had slaves. The crazy part is that in a world where slavery was as common as shoes, this Christianized, industrialized, democracy pioneering culture began to say slavery should altogether be banned on moral grounds. An approach that much of the world (including Africa) would resist, with the African slave trade itself existing in some parts of the world while we were listening to The Beatles.
Imperialism? I find this paragraph tough to believe. Just in the Americas there were empires that would shame the most militant European state. Does the Sioux Nation ring a bell? How about the Aztecs? Or the Incas for that matter. While the Sioux preferred outright conquest, like many Native Americans seizing upon the influx of the Europeans to exploit the chaos visited upon other tribes, the Aztecs and Incas were old school: destruction, expansion and, of course, especially for the Aztecs, human sacrifice as a tool of terror. And that’s just here at home. We won’t even mention similar great empires through Africa, Asia and the Asian subcontinent. I find it hard to believe you’re not aware of those. They were limited only by resources, not intentions.
I entered the Catholic Church in 2006. Part of my pilgrimage included a six year stop in an Antiochian Eastern Orthodox Church (Orthodoxy was a pill more easily swallowed by my wife, a lifelong Evangelical, than Catholicism). Funny thing that. You meet people from an entirely different world whose views are Gehenna and gone from the narratives spun by Western media and political punditry. They were from the former USSR (who are quite stunned at what they see happening in our country today), Arabic Christian communities, and Eastern European descendants of those conquered and enslaved by the Ottomans (and brutalized by the Soviets). I know that in our society the fall of the Byzantine Empire rates a couple paragraphs in a history book. Believe it or not, it’s a big thing in Eastern Orthodox churches. And if you want to rile someone in an Orthodox church, tell them that the African Slave trade, only involving Europeans, was alone uniquely horrible and based on some singular take on racism. Since the Ottomans, like Muslims and most humans in general, invoked their own brand of racism to justify their actions against their European and African conquests, that will go down a bit rough for those Orthodox church goers whose ancestors were sometimes more recently slaves than African Americans today.
Again, was Europe’s and America’s approach to slavery different? Even between the more Catholic countries versus the Protestant countries there were differences. Differences also existed along national lines. Things are always different because people, nations, cultures, societies, civilizations are different. But in no way did that make it worse, or better, than slavery anywhere else. The brilliance of the Left has been to convince people that the first civilization in history to move toward abolishing slavery altogether based on its morals, values and principles is the only civilization we should condemn, while giving every other people on the planet a pass.
Oh, and I didn’t say there are no conservative atheists. Sure there are. Not many, but they are there. The bulk of atheists are decidedly left of center. That’s because the Left is predicated upon the premise that religion is inspired at best, not revealed. As Terry Mattingly pointed out years ago, that is a big, BIG, difference. And it is the basis for our rather secularized society – a secularization that has dominated us for generations, even if we didn’t realize it. As for leftwing Christians, I suppose it’s possible to bake kosher ham, but probably difficult to justify it.
Dave G.,
Clearly, as dedicated as I am to responding to comboxers, your commitment and your free time exceed mine. I can’t keep responding to you forever, but I will try to confine myself to a few salient notes on topics I’ve researched at greater length over the years.
You say “Slavery is, in the end, slavery.” Here’s a contrary view from Cardinal Avery Dulles on the importance of distinctions in different forms of slavery, and why the distinction between chattel slavery and ameliorated forms of slavery is important in the history of Catholic thought.
Slavery in medieval Islamic law, as in medieval Catholic law, was not pure chattel slavery; both Christians and Muslims made some effort to ameliorate slavery as it was practiced by the Romans and other pagan societies. In principle, slaves in Islamic societies had legally recognized rights that their masters had to respect and could even go to court against their masters. Slaves could be legally married (usually with the consent of their master), and this had legal implications; for example, although slave masters were considered to have the right to sexual relations with female slaves, the law forbade this if she were married. In some cases, if a female slave bore her master a child, the mother could not be sold and was to be freed on her master’s death. In short, medieval Muslim law did not reduce slaves to the status of pure chattels with no legally recognized rights, as American slavery law did.
Heh. Nope, not more free time. Just a former history teacher who has studied history since the 70s. Plus, I’ve been on an African history kick lately owing to my oldest son, who is studying immigration law, taking part in a government program studying African immigrants in our neck of the woods. Because of that, there is a boatload of books about Africa that I’ve been perusing recently. Bad timing, I guess.
Did I say all slavery was the same? No. I said in the end, slavery is slavery. If you only had two choices, your children could end up as the best treated slaves in history or not slaves at all, which would you choose? I’ll give you a minute.
Now, rather than bust your chops more, let me bullet point a few things:
1. Your appraisal of the article doesn’t seem to be the main point of the article. The point seems to be tracing the Church’s development of moral doctrine, largely in light of that unique form of slavery seen across Europe in the Age of Discovery and beyond.
2. You want to guard against romanticizing other cultures at the expense of the West. If other cultures didn’t practice chattel slavery, it was more often than not because other groups in those societies filled the chattel role. Not to mention having other practices long abandoned by the Christian West (but becoming fashionable again, see below). FYI, the same goes for the world today. Too much human misery is downplayed when we do this.
3. The idea that racism is the worst, unforgivable sin, and the West’s slave trade alone was based on racism, is wrong on multiple levels. Basic World History 101 should debunk that. Yet much modern condemnation of the West/US is based on that assumption. We won’t even discuss the laughable idea that only certain people can be racist.
4. The appraisal of the West and the US as therefore uniquely culpable has given rise to the increasingly fashionable anti-white racism that sanctions judging, condemning and even discriminating based on skin color. If that’s where a theory leads, and in only a generation or two, we might want to do a recheck (though it does show how easy racism in the past must have been). That’s telling a tree by the fruit it bears.
5. Was the Renaissance era slave trade unique? Yep. Suddenly you had a modernizing, technologically and economically advanced civilization on the cusp of the world altering Industrial Revolution descending on cultures that at best were bronze age, as often than not stone age. The results were bound to be staggeringly and catastrophically different, as they obviously were.
6. The Catholic Church wasn’t the only one to see changes were needed where slavery and human rights were concerned, and our Protestant brothers were sometimes ahead of the Catholic curve (ironically the increasingly maligned American Colonies were a hotbed for the new and emerging abolitionist movement). Same with those Western thinkers outside traditional Christian circles I should add.
7. Again, you don’t want to romanticize the rest of the world while villainizing the one civilization that brought the values with which we villainize the West in the first place. You know, the first civilization in history to ban all slavery on moral grounds based on its unique approach to life, equality and freedom? You do that, and you start seeing what we’re seeing now, and that’s a growing catalogue of editorials and articles and publications musing on the benefits of returning to various pre-Western practices including, but not limited to, senicide, ever broader abortion rights, and actual cannibalism! (NYT, July 2022).
Not to mention that many on the Left today feel all they need to do is hang some value or truth claim around the West’s neck, and that’s excuse enough to ditch it (like the whole laughable notion that gender is a physically objective thing, apparently a contemptable view hoisted on the world by – guess who). We ignore these points at our own risk. If we continue to do so, my little question about your children’s choices might not be so rhetorical in the future. Capiche?
Europeans became the larger population in North America replacing native tribal people in numbers. That’s demographic history, not a moral judgement.
I don’t think there’s much disagreement that US people of mostly European ancestry will be replaced by other ethnicities if the current trends continue but that’s not controversial unless one cares about it. I don’t.
Dave, you literally said “As soon as slavery became profitable, it became par for the course. Not better in one place and worse in others.” You don’t think chattel slavery is worse than non-chattel slavery? You don’t think Cardinal Dulles argues that point? Does “opposed to natural law, considered in its primary requirements” (i.e., “absolute bondage” or chattel slavery”) not sound worse to you than “not opposed to natural law except in its secondary requirements or aspirations” (i.e., “lesser forms of servitude,” e.g., debt bondage, serfdom)?
St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa, and the Corpus Juris Canonici, an important medieval collection of canon law documents, both taught that slaves, as human beings equal in nature to their masters, had inalienable rights that their masters were obliged to honor, e.g., the right to marry without, or even against, their master’s will. Contrast that with the legal condition of slaves in America, where marriages between slaves had no legal status, and consequently, in the words of Henry “Box” Brown (so called because he escaped slavery by mailing himself from Richmond to Philadelphia in 1849),
You don’t think one of those is worse than the other?
I think following along this conversation is probably more interesting than the Disney film might be.
🙂
You know, the histories of the Atlantic & Eastern slave trades are worth looking at to get a wider perspective. It’s not a moral comparison but one of size, numbers, & length of time. The Eastern slave trade was older, larger, & lasted right up into the 20th Century. Into the 2nd half of the 20th century in a few places.
I’m not a history teacher or even an especially educated person but the more I look at this the more I see how we all resemble each other in our brokenness & fallen nature. No matter what culture we come from, when you lift back a few layers of history you tend to find the same things.
Good point. When I was in high school and college, even through graduate school in the 90s, that was more or less the story. Nobody seriously suggested that the Transatlantic Slave Trade was the only real evil ever visited on the planet. Historically unprecedented in its impact and its devastation? Oh yeah. Unique in its execution? Sure. Just like anything done by people tends to be unique. But on the other hand, it was through this, and the Age of Imperialism, that many of the benefits of the West were brought to the world. Benefits that were still seen as objectively valuable.
As Eugen Weber famously said, we might bemoan the White Man’s Burden, and the accompanying racist attitudes in this era of colonialism and imperial conquests (again, before racism became the singular worst, all defining and unforgivable sin that it is today). But it was through that White Man’s Burden and subsequent subdual of much of the world that scientific advances, medical advances, and our modern ideas of life, liberty, equality, human rights and democratic government that we so took for granted were brought to the world.
That was the popular gist. The world was certainly a brutal and savage place, ever since the beginning. That was understood. Likewise, at its worst, the Christian West was at times no better, and sometimes just as bad. But the view hoisted by the emergent Left, that the West alone brought nothing to the world of value (certainly not old fairy tales about some God born in a manger), but only the worst to the world, is the problem. It is adherence to this latter template that is giving rise to so much of what we see today, from justifying racial bigotry based on new racist narratives, to dispensing with not only sexually based ethics, but a growing number of other principles and values as well: presumption of innocence, freedom of speech, human identity, religious liberty, even the value or lack thereof of life itself. If we continue on this trajectory, one that attempts to paint the West alone in the worst colors possible, it doesn’t bode well. In fact, I fear future generations will learn all too well the difference between a civilization that had the highest Christian based values and yet repeatedly failed to live up to them, versus civilizations that were far removed from such values and succeeded in living up to theirs.
When I look at that pile of books on Africa that were accumulated, I notice something. Not that they run about saying the transatlantic slave trade was nothing new to see. Quite the contrary. That would be absurd. They all admit what I said – that owing to its unique place in the equally unique developments occurring in the West, it was far more devastating and, when set against the lofty ideals developing in the West at that time, far more condemnable. But only when set in that context of the West’s unique place and positive contributions to history.
With that said, they, like John Reader in his impressive volume on African history, caution about romanticizing other cultures, or cherry picking certain isolated cases and trying to paint with broad, rose-colored brushstrokes, simply because we look at them through Western Slave Trade glasses.
Fact is, as the 1977 publication on slavery in Africa concedes (Slavery in Africa: Historical and Anthropological Perspectives), slavery anywhere (including, it should be clarified, the broadly defined ‘west/transatlantic’ form) varied greatly. In terms of Africa, it could be at one end “part of the realm of kinship, and at the other end using people as chattels.” That’s chattel slavery, in this case referring to that practiced in the non-Western brands of slavery.
As for other forms of slavery being not so bad, I refer to Robert Collins’ excellent intro to African history, which has this to say about pre-European slavery within Africa:
“Slaves in Africa were property, chattel (there’s that word again), to be bought and sold like horses or cattle … To ensure obedience, discipline, and service, slaves were intimidated by flogging, dismemberment, castration and sacrifice to gods or as a spectacle for the crowds … Most slaves were passed on to the heirs of their masters along with the land and livestock … Slave owners controlled the sexual and physical and mental lives of their slaves … The right of the master to have sexual access drove up the price of female slaves to twice that of male.”
Those are snippets from a chapter on the topic of the non-Atlantic slavery, but you get the point.
Doesn’t sound like a big difference if you ask me. It seems the worst of slavery in other parts of the world were as bad as the worst in the West (with the opposite no doubt being true, since treatment of slaves often varied based on owner to owner – we are talking about vast swaths of time over multiple centuries and across wildly diverse cultures after all). It seems worse in the West only if you elevate the West to a higher standard, which again I’m prepared to do.
Perhaps Collins’ best summary comes while unpacking the general history of slavery in Africa and Islamic states long before Europeans go in the act:
“[T]here are endless examples of slaves regarded as members of the owner’s family, as willing sexual partners, and as those upon whom their masters were completely dependent, but none of these euphemistic rationalizations can disguise the ultimate claim of dominance by the owner.”
Again, that applies to slavery through the ages, including that of the West.
None of this is defending the past, or trying to excuse it. It is rejecting the Presentism (and the resulting hubris that defines so many modern attitudes) which is practically the official approach to studying the history of Western Civilization today. Instead, I’m putting it in historical and global context so we can avoid undoing the development of those ideals we take for granted. It is also rejecting the modern Left’s attempt to suggest that no matter what in the world, the Christian West (including the United States) was always worse. Given that the values the Left would have us embrace smack closer to those pagan societies of old – and all that came with them – that alone should give us pause.
To historian Dave G and all other people of good will who want to better understand the real history of slavery and how dishonest people of the wokie left are purposely distorting it by the use of pernicious lies and false narratives like the destructive 1619 Project to promote the unjust claims of ongoing systemic racism, white privilege, the need for reparations, and so on and so on aimed exclusively at the West, I have 2 more book recommendations, both by the superb historian and research machine Dr. Kathleen Brush:
1. “Racism and Anti-Racism in the World: Before and After 1945” (2020)
2. “Reparations For All or None” (2022)
Dr. Brush uses extremely well-researched historical data and facts that not just claim but actually demonstrate why all efforts to rewrite history based on non-factual false narratives should be completely rejected by all people interested in objective truth.
Brush also demonstrates why specifically anti-American/anti-White claims favored by many of the wokie left are without any merit, and she accomplishes this by examining the real development of America and its efforts that led to the eventual eradication of slavery and other forms of discrimination. Much to the chagrin of the race hustlers and their fellow travelers of the wokie left, Brush shows that US efforts to eliminate slavery and other forms of discrimination toward blacks were and are actually superior to the efforts of most other nations with a much worse history of abuses that the wokie left simply do not want to admit. Indeed, admitting the truth would destroy the wokie left narrative that the West and the US are inherently racist and reparations should come from them while all other nations get a pass despite being greater abuses of people in the forms of slavery and other human rights abuses, many of which are still taking place in some parts of the world not led by white people of the West.
Also, not long ago a supremely informed lady from Great Britain appeared on CNN with Don Lemon, and Lemon attempted to push the false narrative that Great Britain also owed reparations to black people because of its history of colonial slavery and so on. Unprepared for the truth and hoping to shame his guest into accepting his bogus narrative, Lemon was instead provided a real history lesson that demonstrated how leaders in Africa were even more to blame for slavery by exercising it themselves, and also selling their own people to others. Moreover, many sailors in Britain gave their lives rescuing some slaves and trying to halt slave trading, and so reparations would be better paid to them or their ancestors by the ancestors of the African holders and sellers of their slaves. Lemon didn’t know how to deal with the real history and logical conclusion that obliterated his false narrative, and so he meekly ended the short interview since it was not going in the direction he obviously intended and expected. This interview along with some additional comments can still be seen on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_IYK4CAbnw&t=213s
With all necessary caveats that degrees and credentials do not a scholar make, and that anyone can be a great researcher and anyone can write a brilliant and important book, “the superb historian and research machine Dr. Kathleen Brush” may be thought to suggest that Dr. Brush is a professor of history. For the sake of an accurate picture, a) Dr. Brush appears to bill herself as a “consultant, writer and educator on global and women’s leadership issues”; b) her PhD is in management and international studies; and c) as far as I can tell, most or all of her books are self-published. (Which, again, doesn’t mean that they aren’t great! I know an excellent novelist who self-publishes her books.)
Since I don’t see many interesting conversations happening around Dr. Brush’s history books, I will say no more about them. I have previously seen Ms. Fordwich’s conversation with Mr. Lemon, and while it’s certainly true that she was better prepared than he, her case seems shockingly glib to me.
Her opening argument is to posit that “You always need to go back to the beginning of a supply chain,” the idea being that Africans, not Europeans, were supposedly the real villains in the trans-Atlantic slave trade. In reality, the the trans-Atlantic slave trade is a classic example of Keynes’s Law, i.e., “Demand creates its own supply.” From the late 15th to the early 18th centuries, European imperial powers forcibly transported between 10 and 12 million Africans across the Atlantic—a number dwarfing the 2 million or so European migrants to the New World. 10 to 12 million African slaves were not just, as it were, sitting on the shelves in Africa waiting for buyers; the reality is that buyers wanted as many slaves as they could get, creating economic incentives for Africans to scramble to meet the demand. African wars were fought largely or solely for the purpose of taking prisoners to sell to Europeans. William Fox, in his 1851 book A Brief History of the Wesleyan Missions on the West Coast of Africa, cites several historical sources for the conclusion that not only were African wars “entered into for the sole purpose of making slaves, but…they are fomented by Europeans, with a view to that object” (p. 103; for more see John Thornton’s Africa and Africans in the Making of the Atlantic World, 1400-1800).
The deeper fallacy in Ms. Fordwich’s argument is that she wants to see reparations come from Africa, when, in reality, responsible historical and economic analysis indicates that while the trans-Atlantic slave trade greatly profited Western nations, it took a devastating toll on Africa, far outweighing the blood money of the slave trade. The cost of lost manpower and productivity to Africa was no concern to most slave traders, since they had stolen some other community’s people, not their own. And it was only part of a larger pattern of looting and exploiting the “dark continent” through colonialism. (Just the atrocities in the Congo Free State under Leopold II of Belgium are a horror show almost beyond imagining.) Far from demanding reparations from Africa, a case can be made for paying reparations to Africa.
“her case seems shockingly glib to me.”
Pray tell why? As a Christian, why would you so easily dismiss the killing and sacrifices she appealed to? She was describing an event in time when actual human beings suffered and were killed; those human beings attempting for the first time to end the universal scourge of slavery. How in the blazes is that glib?
“the reality is that buyers wanted as many slaves as they could get, creating economic incentives for Africans to scramble to meet the demand. African wars were fought largely or solely for the purpose of taking prisoners to sell to Europeans.”
Then shouldn’t those African cultures and their descendants be just as culpable? Or do we hold them to a lower standard? And if so, why? Are we saying because they lived in an inherently inferior civilization as an inferior people, therefore we should lower standards where their behavior was concerned? Or is it because the West was infinitely higher in its place in history, and therefore should be held to the highest of standards owing to its cultural superiority? You can’t just say ‘well, there was a market and Africans wanted to fill it, no harm no foul’ and leave it at that. That, by the way, is sometimes known as ‘soft racism.’ It tends to act as if we shouldn’t hold anyone but the West to any particular standards because, well, you know why.
Friend, you are free to ask me questions I’ve already answered, but I’m certainly not going to repeat what I already said. If you want a different answer, feel free to ask a different question.
This is a question I am happy to answer. There are a number of pieces to the answer.
First—as I suspect you know and agree, though you may be surprised to discover that we agree—culpability applies only to the actual individuals who commit or are complicit in wrongdoing. “Collective guilt” is strictly speaking an oxymoron, a nonsense term; we can talk about what the Catechism calls “social sins” (which are not sins at all in the strict sense, but only by analogy) and shared responsibility for what the Catechism calls “excessive economic and social disparity between individuals of the one human race [which] militates against social justice [and] human dignity” (CCC 1938), but descendants are not culpable for the wrongdoing of their ancestors, and “culpable” is not a thing that cultures can be.
If this answer surprises you, it may be that you think “wokies” believe that White people are collectively guilty of racism, White supremacy, and slavery, and you consider me a “wokie,” so. Clearly, though, at least one of those premises is fallacious.
Second, it seems to me that there are three related but distinct realities that may be getting lumped together here: moral evil, moral responsibility, and financial liability. Were African slave hunters and sellers any less personally wicked than European buyers and distributors? This, of course, is a question only God can answer, on a case by case basis, but I have no reason or basis to say that, in general, European buyers and distributors were morally worse than African slave hunters and sellers. To say that might, indeed, be a form of “soft racism.”
But were the Europeans no more responsible than the Africans? Here it seems to me there are reasons to answer in the affirmative. First (and this, again, may not be what you expect from someone you consider a “wokie”), the Europeans had a millennium and a half of Christianity behind them. To whom much is given, much is required; the servant who knew the master’s will (or who knew it better, who had a clearer revelation of it) and did it not deserves a harsher beating than the one who knew it not (or knew it less well). The words “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” and “Love your neighbor as yourself” were familiar to virtually all Europeans and beloved of many, and they knew the parable of the Good Samaritan which teaches us that anyone in need is our neighbor. Beyond that, while important Christian thinkers such as St. Augustine, Pope Gregory I, and St. Thomas Aquinas had not condemned slavery outright, they had taught that slaves and masters, although unequal in condition, were equal in nature and dignity, and that slaves consequently had inalienable human rights which masters were obliged to respect. Yet they created and participated in a system of absolute chattel slavery contrary to all traditional Christian thought. Their responsibility is therefore greater.
Second, “To whom much is given, much is required” applies also to power; those with greater power, including technological and military power as well as economic power. When there is a vast power differential between two parties to an interaction, responsibility for what happens is not equal (a point that, FWIW, Dr. Kathleen Brush clearly appreciates, given her commentary on #MeToo).
Finally, while financial liability for past injustices can obviously correlate with social sins and structures of sin, the case for reparations is ultimately a question of benefit and harm. The fact that many Africans were morally complicit in the trans-Atlantic slave trade doesn’t change the fact that, from a perspective of financial liability, great wealth was created for Europeans and landowners in the New World, while Africa suffered catastrophically. Africans living today are no more culpable than White Americans or Europeans today for the trans-Atlantic slave trade, but when it comes to redressing the economic injustices resulting from that history, the burden falls on those to whom the wealth acrued.
Technically, you didn’t answer the question about Ms. Fordwich. You essentially reiterated that Europeans bear the responsibility and Africans don’t so she was wrong. No. She was doing history the way those hip liberal historians taught me in college. That is, don’t look at the game of thrones, the rise and fall of nations, or the sad stories of the death of kings. Look for the little people, the small individuals. Look for history lived out in the cottage, the hut, the tavern. Dare I say, the wharf where a European is killed by an African for trying to end the slave trade. That’s what she was doing against Lemon’s ‘but only white people need to pay’ narrative. She was reminding us that history is an ugly affair. Boiling it down to the simplistic Bad Group A vs. Good Group B, which is all the rage today (thanks media narratives), has almost never been a good way to approach the subject.
“we can talk about what the Catechism calls “social sins””
FWIW, Protestants have similar teachings. When I studied ethics with Dr. David Gushee, that was my focus. I wrote extensively on my concerns about how the teaching could be abused. Which is what we’re seeing today. BTW, I also wrote that a problem – at least in Evangelical circles – was talking of social sins, but where was social grace or social forgiveness or social redemption? Especially if the concept was applied as we see it applied today (a similar problem I had with Evangelical belief in communion as merely symbolic, but that’s for another discussion).
Now you say “descendants are not culpable for the wrongdoing of their ancestors, and “culpable” is not a thing that cultures can be.” That’s great. But it makes the Church a shrinking voice in the growing chorus saying just the opposite. And not just saying, but increasingly implementing policy and discriminating based upon that very idea. Don’t excuse the Left with the old ‘ostrich’ approach to things.
Ultimately, that’s what I’m railing against. None of what you say is wrong. In itself. It’s just not the whole story. An incomplete story, ironically, seen through decidedly White Western lenses. Though you do say ‘to those who are given much.’ If that means we should hold the West to the higher standard because it was the higher civilization, with a higher set of values and a higher revelation, and therefore on a higher level than the rest of the world, then fine. I think that is true, and that was historically understood by those in the West struggling with its myriad sins. As I said above to mrscracker, no matter how we scorched the West, we saw it as a net positive for the world.
We condemned the inhuman treatment of slaves by setting it against the developing ideas in the West regarding the worth of the individual. Ideas completely foreign to much of the world throughout most of history (including some places today). Likewise, the unprecedented impact of European imperialism was due to the leaps and bounds occurring in technology and invention and industry. We were an Enlightenment era civilization running headlong into primitive, even stone age, cultures. That’s why the Ottoman attempts to invade Europe and subdue it, as late as the 17th Century it’s worth noting, failed. No matter its initial triumphs and successes, Europe was gaining the upper hand. Europe held off where, say, American Indians against European incursions did not. The reason that the Ottomans didn’t manhandle Europe the way Europe manhandled others was that they were prevented from doing so, not because the Ottomans were swell people. Also remember that the period of European discovery and imperialism was itself a small period in a thousand years that saw multiple attempts by outside civilizations failing to do what Europe succeeded in doing (and that also helped inform Europe’s mentality about the rest of the world).
The problem is, the modernist movement – let’s use the term ‘Left’ for ease of reference – has seized upon the approach you’ve been defending, without that acknowledgment. That somehow, in some way, the West (and the ‘white’ people therein) alone is culpable of the sins and evils of the world. All while insisting no other place in history had less value than the West, which brought almost nothing positive to the world.
But to be honest, Europe also did right. Something overwhelmingly ignored today. Essentially the vast Western empires and slave trades don’t exist today, not because a bigger, badder civilization rose up and took them out. But because those Western empires – those to whom much had been given – stopped them. Often on their own. America as well as Europe became the first to end slavery on such moral grounds. On their own. Europe ultimately gave up much of its imperial holdings. On its own. That’s where the current emphasis on social sin falls short. We dwell on the sins, but like a human being, do we give credit to the virtue or repentance? America undid Jim Crow and segregation, not because Canada invaded us and made us, but on our own. Shouldn’t that count for something? Not to the modern Left it doesn’t.
If the West was a person, who had much and then squandered it in sin, only to return and try to do right, would we only focus on the sin? Is that Catholic doctrine? The modernist approach to Europe’s history – if not from your approach, then certainly the Left’s – is that the prodigal son’s father should have turned him away and only focused on his sinning against him and God. For that is exactly how we are being told to do history today, at least how to do the history of the Christian West.
In fact, as the Left increasingly convinces us that the Christian West and American Experiment brought nothing to the world but a giant negative, it makes strides not only in pushing racial prejudice, but continuing to dumb down the value of inconvenient life, pushing for thinning the human herds, ending equality, rejecting forgiveness, and sexualizing ever younger and younger ages while seeking to redefine the role of family in the decision. Much like the pagan world of old, it’s worth noting. The pagan world that didn’t stop such things on its own, but as often as not was forced to by that rascally Christian West. These are things worth considering if you fall into the tendency of looking only at certain pieces of the overall pie.
BTW, don’t get me started on #MeToo. That reminds me of what an Argentinian professor told me at a history conference many ages ago. Never trust a revolution that won’t admit its victories. It never ends well. As a child of South America, I considered his warning credible.
No, Dave, I didn’t say that. I wrote carefully, in detail, and with nuance, and—given that you are a teacher—I think I have a right to expect a higher level of reading comprehension and accuracy in paraphrasing if you want to critique my comments.
I appreciate this acknowledgement. (Almost as if I didn’t say after all that “Europeans bear the responsibility and Africans don’t”—since, you know, that would be wrong!)
I agree. Western Christendom deserves criticism (self-criticism above all) for having tolerated and legitimized slavery for as long as it did, but also praise for abolishing it on moral grounds, among its other achievements. This is a point well made by Thomas E. Woods in How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization.
The problem with this identification is that the Christian abolition movement you rightly celebrate was certainly Christian, but the defenders of slavery (also largely Christian), and, later, of Black Laws, Jim Crow segregation, and other racially discriminatory laws and practices, were the conservatives or “right wing” of their day, and considered their opponents (abolitionists and later Civil Rights advocates) the liberals or “left wing” of their day. We cannot simultaneously claim the abolitionists for Christendom and also condemn liberalism or the left, root and branch, as equivalent with the “Modernist movement.”
Deacon Greydanus,
First out, you sort of did just say that. I appreciated your detail and nuance and the links. I would have given you an A-. But you ultimately ended up saying what you’ve said the whole time, which is the premise upon which Don Lemon made his assertion that only whites in Europe and America owe a debt to the world. Her answer was a nuanced answer too. I didn’t see it as glib in any way. She simply called upon us to look past the textbook headings and down to the individuals who make up the history. History from the bottom up.
You say the Church in the past deserves criticism. Eh. Personally, I think it’s time we put an end to our generation’s obsession with perpetually criticizing and condemning the sins of past sinners when we’re clearly not housebroken ourselves. I fear it has become our fallback to avoid confronting the grave sins of our age. Plus, it allows us to think that, somehow, we would have been any better centuries ago. As one of my sons is fond of quoting, if you envision yourself as one of the heroes of the past bravely standing up to the evils of the age, there’s about a 99% chance you’re wrong. I think constantly dwelling on the sins of old, dead sinners, and the emerging presentism that is all the rage nowadays, is skewing that fact in the thinking of many moderns, especially young ones.
BTW, you mention liberalism. I was talking about the modern Left. What does the modern Left have to do with liberalism? I’m at pains to think of a more illiberal movement than the modern Left. Saying leftwing liberalism today is like saying kosher ham. Just listen to their rhetoric. Unless we define liberal as insisting there are no morals or realities below the waistline. The fact that it covers itself in such euphemistic terms as diversity and inclusion doesn’t hide the fact that its message is ‘conform to our latest views or watch your derriere.’ One of many reasons I don’t trust it. Given the last century, I have a profound suspicion for any movement that relies so heavily on euphemism. Plus, using modern ‘left-wing liberal this and right-wing conservative that’ and applying that template to generations and ages past usually doesn’t work.
For example, when I was in seminary in Louisville, there were churches that had support for the civil rights movement proudly displayed in their histories. Based on our understanding of liberal and conservative today, I doubt many would wear the modern liberal nametag. Heck, I doubt many would have universally embraced the term as it was used then. Progressive in some ways yes. But liberal altogether? No. The same goes for church involvement in other movements through the ages. I was shocked, for instance, when I worked within a Baptist church convention in SE Indiana, to discover that many of the Baptist advocates of the old ‘Social Gospel’ were what we would call your ‘fundamentalists’ of the day. The ‘liberals’ were often the ones embracing the values and priorities of the new gilded age, and laughing at silly old tales about walking on water or virgin births. Where does liberal end and conservative begin in such cases?
No, find me better words than ‘left’ and ‘right’ to describe the growing schism in our society, and I’ll happily use them. Not being a pro writer, I’m not clever or imaginative enough to come up with something myself. Though I’ll never fall for slick media narratives of ‘good blue state/bad red state.’ I lack the credulity for that, no matter how hard the media works to keep it at such a simplistic dichotomy.
But never think it can so easily be ‘but the liberals were the good guys’. With all due respect to my former professor Dr. Gushee, that is ridiculously simplistic from even the most sympathetic reading of history. After all, given that it is these ‘liberals’ within the Left today pushing the envelope regarding just which undesirables we should have the right to eliminate on industrial levels (as certain newest movements did in generations past), I’d say the old ‘liberals always be the good guys’ is no more correct than ‘conservatives always be the good guys.’
Dave G,
To “Europeans bear the responsibility and Africans don’t” we must now add “only whites in Europe and America owe a debt to the world” as a second failed attempt by you to paraphrase me. I reject both propositions as a) untrue and b) non-equivalent to anything I have said. You are either not reading carefully enough or not reading with comprehension.
What I did say is that “when it comes to redressing the economic injustices resulting from [the trans-Atlantic slave trade and Western racialized hereditary chattel slavery], the burden falls on those to whom the wealth acrued,” i.e., the wealthy powers of the West. Since I explicitly distinguished responsibility from financial liability, obviously this is not synonymous with “Europeans bear the responsibility and Africans don’t.” It’s embarrassing to have to explain this. Why it is not synonymous with “only whites in Europe and America owe a debt to the world” I leave as an exercise to the reader.
As an added fun note. We spent about a half dozen years with an Antiochene Orthodox Church. There were many there who grew up in the old Soviet Union, and used to tell stories about what life was like there. One of the fellows who went there said if you ever wanted to know what students in the old Soviet Union learned about the United States, you could do worse than the NYT’s 1619 Project. Given the growing catalogue of editorials and articles in the NYT singing the praises of Karl Marx, Marxism and comparing communist countries favorably to the USA, it probably shouldn’t be a head-scratcher as to why.
To all good people of CWR: Judge for yourselves. Take the comments of the wokie left film critic and his bogus historical narratives that include the morally unjust claim for reparations from the West (no solid deacon that understands the Catholic principles of justice would ever make such an argument because of the sheer impossibility and inherent wrongness of such a claim, let alone the absurdity of it), and compare them with the well-researched and documented historical facts in Kathleen Brush’s works that the film critic does not want you to consult, precisely because they completely destroy his favored narrative backed up by spurious narratives and wild exaggerations instead of actual facts.
Also note how the film critic yet again takes another cheap shot at another person to try to undermine her credibility instead of actually engaging her work honestly. By dismissing/downplaying Dr. Brush’s scholarship that he has not honestly engaged, and even though he tries to make it look like he is just being fair-minded, what the film critic has done is purposely abuse Dr. Brush by invoking the fallacy of credentialism against her. Many years ago, some people just like the film critic said “is this not the carpenter’s son?” instead of engaging Him more justly and honestly. You see, they could not refute the Son’s arguments on their merits, and so they pulled the credential card on him. The film critic has proven himself to be a worthy descendant of these misguided self-righteous elitists by pulling a similar card on a true scholar he can’t abide because she obliterates the false narratives he spreads in too many places. So transparently underhanded.
Also note how the film critic has purposely mischaracterized (what else is new — his favorite fallacy he often uses is the straw man argument) the superb argument by Ms. Fordwich who set forth the kind of facts that people like the film critic simply deny because, again, it does not fit the simplistic “the West is bad, and their nations’ histories of the slave trade are worse than other nations,” which is pure rubbish.
The kind of “history” favored by the film critic is what is found in the 1619 Project that I don’t believe the film critic has ever rightly condemned, nor is he likely to because it contains fantasy narratives that fit his ideological agenda, so made up facts are just fine “for the cause.” Objective truth is always secondary to the wokie left if it refutes the all-important narrative.
Again, good and honest-minded readers of CWR: Note the fine and historically accurate historical remarks in these comboxes by commenter-historian Dave G, and then check the works of scholar Dr. Brush, the actual comments of Ms. Fordwich in destroying the reparations narrative pushed by Don Lemon, and put all of these up against the film critic’s completely ahistorical narrative, and judge for yourselves.
By the bye, isn’t it actually amazing how the film critic attacks Dr. Brush’s credentials when his own are extremely weak, and some of the sources he cites are written by mere agenda-driven journalists like Lynsey Chutel who has much fewer credentials than Dr. Brush, yet the film critic has no problem using these sources, and he has no problem making pronouncements on many things, including what he has judged to be “responsible historical and economic analysis,” but he is clueless and has no business making such bogus judgments. Anybody who touts Keynes’ flawed law of ‘demand creating supply’ does not understand the economic reality that there cannot be an economic demand unless there is a supply to be demanded. Nobody can demand what does not exist. Moreover, the fact remains as has also been ably pointed out by superior scholar Thomas Sowell that the trans-Atlantic slave trade would not have existed at all if not for the willing leaders of Africa providing the supply for sale (see his superb chapter “The Real History of Slavery” in his scholarly book “Black Rednecks and White Liberals.” I believe YouTube also provides a short overview of Sowell’s chapter in a 20-30 minute mini-documentary that you can also watch to learn things that the film critic would prefer you don’t know, including the historical fact that there was no raiding for slaves by White Europeans as the false narrative popularized by Roots presented many years ago. Isn’t it sad that the people of Africa (who also owned white slaves from Europe, by the way) enslaved their own people and sold them to others? These are facts that need to be honestly engaged; not denied because they do not fit bogus narratives and unjust claims for reparations based on those narratives instead of true history.
No further comments. The defense rests. Thank you for the conversation.
This sort of thing happens all the time. The overly fastidious Greydanus obsesses over a word or phrase he doesn’t like, turning a rhetorical molehill into a mountain. If you criticize the left, he’ll insist that you’re criticizing every single leftist who’s ever lived. Then he’ll do his Google searches, link to a bunch of sources that he claims substantiate his assertions, throw in some word salad, and call it a day. Naturally, he cites the most mainstream sources imaginable, so any dissident or heterodox perspective is bound to receive an unfair hearing.
For what it’s worth, I support reparations. They should come from the coffers of the Democratic Party. (I’m not even promoting the boomer meme that Democrats are the real racists or whatever. I just think they should take responsibility for their ideological legacy.)
A Note of Appreciation to Dave G, and Some Extra Food For Thought to All CWR Readers of Good Will:
Dave: Thanks for contributing factual history and analysis that serves to refute the incomplete/inaccurate narrative and unjust imposition of collective guilt on the West, White People, and the United States by people on the Left, including the film critic. Very informative and insightful indeed.
Now for some extra relevant food for thought.
1. The Arab/Muslim Slave Trade was much more destructive and enslaved many millions more people over a thousand-plus years than the destructive Atlantic Slave Trade, and it is not even close between them. Moreover, the Arab Slave Trade conducted primarily by Muslims enslaved both White People and Black People.
2. There’s lots of financial capital in the Muslim World. Why don’t people on the Left who call for the West to unjustly pay reparations for the Transatlantic Slave Trade and its negative aftermath based on the bogus narrative that the West owes most of its wealth to slavery (remarkably ignorant) never call for the wealthy Arab/Muslim World to pay for its thousand-plus years of enslaving Black and White People?
{By the bye, anybody who actually believes the absurd claim that “Islam is a Religion of Peace” and has been a leader in opposing slavery or treating slaves with kid gloves is not looking at the Documented history and doctrines of Islam with clear eyes. Dr. William Kilpatrick contributes some articles to CWR, and many of his works (articles and books) shed much needed light on the history, ongoing human rights abuses (includes slavery), and actual teachings of Islam. A good place to begin or enhance one’s understanding of the unvarnished truth about Islam as opposed to the Left’s obtuse apologia for the barbaric cult is Kilpatrick’s “What Catholics Need to Know About Islam” (2020).}
3. During the years of the Transatlantic Slave Trade, America purchased some 3 to 4% of African Slaves. 96 to 97% were purchased by Latin America. Where is the call for reparations to be paid by Latin America?
4. Historical estimates range from as low as 35 million to as high as a bit more than 200 million slaves sold by African Leader Slave-holders to traders to take to other continents. 388,000 slaves went to what became the United States.
5. Native Americans owned Black Slaves. Also throughout their history, conquering Native American Tribes also imposed slavery on other Native American Tribes that they conquered. Oh yes. They also took over their lands. Which particular tribes owe reparations to the tribes they conquered, enslaved, and took over their lands? Which particular tribes owe reparations to the descendants of their black slaves? If you are on the Left, ignore these questions and simply declare that only one “tribe” owes reparations: the White Faces.
6. As of 1860, less than 2% of Americans owned slaves. Less than 2%!! Some Free Blacks also owned Black Slaves. When it comes to reparations, who will call for the ancestors of Free Black Slave-holders to write out reparations checks? Or should they also get reparations checks?
7. Note a great irony: When good people who support the many fine things of Western Culture (including its leading role in the World in the movement to end slavery) that help bring about greater economic development dare to recommend the adoption of more free market capitalism (recall that the great scholar Pope St. John Paul the Great also wisely supported a commonsense form of capitalism as opposed to the unfortunately less enlightened Pope Francis who aligns much more so with failed socialism) to help any country grow more economically prosperous and thereby improve its economic standard of living, those who are anti-Western culture nowadays self-righteously insist that these good people “stop trying to impose their Western values on other countries.” And we see this same mentality in America wherein the assault on objective standards of excellence are moronically portrayed as “too White” or “anti-Black,” and so on. But then the same old same old victim narrative is pushed by the Left: Any blacks and other minorities who are not succeeding are not doing so primarily because of alleged ongoing White oppression everywhere (even where it can’t be seen or spotted in any way) as manifested by its insistence on objective standards of excellence that help more people succeed than any other approach or method in history regardless of race or culture. Better to blame others for a lack of success and falsely accuse them of racism than do those things that can bring success.
Anyone who can read can see that this is a lie. 🙂
Deceptive factoid:
Accurate perspective: “According to the Census of 1860, 30.8 percent of the free families in the confederacy owned slaves. That means that every third white person in those states had a direct commitment to slavery.” (source)
Hello Deacon Steven,
This all reminds me of the old saying that figures don’t lie but liars can figure. I don’t believe anyone here is lying but I do believe we all can selectively choose sources of information & those sources in turn selectively choose their data & come up with their own outcomes. One of my children works in demographics & sees a lot of that going on.
A trouble with the statement about what percentage of free families were slave holders is an assumption that free translated to “white”. In Anglo America that was overwhelmingly the case, especially by 1860. But in parts of the South with Creole cultures that didn’t apply the same way. Thousands of free Haitian Creoles sought refuge in Louisiana after the slave revolt. Not only did Creole people of colour own slaves but they could own large plantations with numerous slaves. One Creole family were the wealthiest residents in their parish & owned over 100 slaves. I know of several others who had similar plantations. Code Noir laws could be effectively ignored for all practical purposes or at least navigated around. Unlike in some other parts of the South.
I sat next to an African American artist on a flight several years ago. He had made a new crucifix for a TX church that had a number of prominent Creole parishoners. At a parish reception honoring him, the pastor pointed out an affluent family who had donated most of the funds towards the crucifix. The artist looked through the people assembled & asked “Do you mean the Black couple over there?” The priest looked alarmed & said “They’re Creole. CREOLE. Never, ever call them “Black.”
Creoles were a whole separate group & right up until Jim Crow they were a cultured, educated, & prosperous people that did not identify with other ethnic populations & they occupied a unique place in Southern society. I watched a public TV program about the Cane River Creoles & it described how shocked Creole parishoners of colour were when Jim Crow laws forced them to sit in the back of their own church along with their former slaves.
And it’s funny because if folks back then had our DNA tools available a great many more would find themselves sitting in the back of the church. Assuming they went by the “one drop rule.” Including even Mrs. Jefferson Davis, per her extended family’s research today.
I tried to compose a comment earlier today & it disappeared into cyber space. Maybe for a good reason. Who knows?
You have a blessed day Deacon Steven. I always enjoy your articles but sometimes the comments beat watching Disney. At least modern Disney.
🙂
God bless!
Sorry to interfere, but that’s wrong. In fact, that’s the sort of reasoning that falls under the old ‘stats never lie, but…’ proverb. Mackey said all members of all families equally owned the slaves because they all benefited from them. Therefore, we can’t say it was merely the one slave owner who owned the slaves. Instead, we should take all the family members of the slave owners and make them all slave owners. As a result we base the stat on families, not individual slave owners. Thus, we arrive at the 30.8%, not the mere 5% generally accepted based on censuses of slave owners verses the free population of the South.
Sort of like taking the percentage of Americans who own a Lamborghini. Then suggesting since all family members of the Lamborghini owner get to ride in the Lamborghini, we’re going to broaden the definition of Lamborghini owners to include the whole family of spouses, sons, daughters, and grandkids. Therefore, it’s the entire family we count, thus arriving at a higher percentage of Lamborghini owners.
I hope you see the staggering problem with that. Not to mention it hangs heavily on that assumption of inherent guilt by ancestry that you say you reject. That a son of no matter what age is every bit the slave owner simply because he is a son of no matter what age (note the article makes no such distinction).
In case you were wondering, the percentage of Lamborghini owners in the US doesn’t even register on most calculators, the number is so small. But if you use Mackey’s approach of whole families versus owners, then viola! Turns out an impressive .00002% of Americans now own Lamborghinis! A booming economy to be sure. Again, see the problem? Look for and engage with disagreement, don’t just use sources that tell you what you already believe.
Dave,
Lamborghini ownership is not a good analogy because Lamborghinis aren’t meant to be practical. If I owned a BMW X7, which seats 7, any time my family went to church, to the movies, or out to eat, Suz and I and our five kids who live at home would arrive in a BMW X7. The car might be in my name and I might be one usually driving it (though Suz would drive it sometimes; likewise, plantation wives gave orders to slaves and in some cases had slaves dedicated to serving them, who might or might not be in their name) would not alter the fact that the whole family directly benefits from being a household with a BMW X7.
If a husband and father in 1860 owns a typical plantation with 20 slaves, the wealth those slaves generate for him may be in his name, but his wife and children live in the house, eat the food, wear the clothes, ride in the carriage, etc. The same is true of the majority of slavemasters with smaller numbers of slave: If a family man keeps five slaves, his family are the direct beneficiaries of the income generated by the labor of five human beings who are not the paterfamilias or any other member of the family.
If we were running stats on the families of plantation owners where the average number of kids was three, and someone said the slave ownership rate among this population was 20%—as if 80% of family members of plantation owners were completely uninvolved in slavery—I hope you would object that this was a misleading statistic. If you wouldn’t, I certainly would.
OK, I’m a bit confused. I admit I haven’t studied the Catholic approach to social sin that much, so I’m coming at it from my Protestant days. Social sin meant you and I benefit from various structures that can, at times, be unjust or sinful. For instance, the global slave trade euphemistically called Human Trafficking. Sweat shops, child labor camps, or even slavery, all conspire to impact the modern global market and yield benefits, no doubt for both of us. Acknowledging that, and that there could be other unknown injustices that help us out in our day to day, is social sin. What would cross the line is equating you or me to the human traffickers or to other actors who make such injustices possible. The idea that, even if we are completely unaware, we are as culpable as some modern slave merchant is where abusing social sin comes in. That would be like judging the children of such criminals. Perhaps that isn’t the Catholic view, but it was the Protestant.
But that is exactly what is being said about those antebellum children. It’s one thing to say they benefited from the slavery. Fair enough. True enough. It’s another to therefore equate the kids to the slave owning parent. To somehow suggest they deserve the label slave owner simply due to accident of birth. From a Protestant POV at least, that crosses the line. The child is never to be judged inherently guilty of the sins of the ancestors (heck, that’s even a Hollywood trope). But for Mackey, yes they are. Hence they can all be equally judged as slave owners, allowing the entire family to be so labeled, and thus arrive at that much nastier 30% rather than the more ‘don’t condemn the kiddies’ approach of 5%. Which you seem to agree with, despite saying you reject such appeals to ancestral guilt.
Same with Don Lemon. Remember, Lemon was not saying there should be some reparations from Western governments. He was accusing the modern Royal Family purely by virtue of ancestral guilt linked to the sins of its forebears. Which, if you’ve done DEI, or encountered progressive social activists, or listen to leftwing pundits, you’ll know is the dominant approach within the modern Left. There, all manner of group identity, group virtue and group culpability are dogma. Remember, whether or not our media carries a national story depends heavily upon the demographic groups involved – and you know it. Lemon has echoed such thinking before, it’s just this time the guest was prepared. I didn’t find her answer glib at all. You did, though you appear to reject Lemon’s premises and agree with hers (quite frankly, in the context of a cable news hour, her answer was close to thesis level).
But then you come out and say there is a level of unique financial liability based on the fact that it was the European nations that ratcheted up the demand that the Africans rushed in to fill. From my POV, that’s like saying consumerism is a problem, but it’s just the vast billion-dollar corporations to blame. The actual consumers rushing out to spend like a drunk sailor are not culpable. No. Africans had been seizing and selling slaves by the bushel for thousands of years. And no small number of slaves brought to the New World were merely bought from the slave owning Africans. No doubt to a much greater level owing to the advanced logistical capabilities of the Renaissance era West. But in essence the same as it had been for centuries.
That’s what I’m running into here. You reject ancestral guilt. Great. But what is Mackey’s premise based upon other than that? For he doesn’t leave it at ‘the families benefited’, but goes on to equate all families and posterity with the sin of the slave owners. Likewise, you reject Lemon’s race-based verdict against the Royal Family, and thus Westerners in general. Great. But then you say due to some colonial era Keynesian culpability, there is a unique liability there. I’m sure Lemon and the gang are fine with concluding unique liability for the West, even if you disagree why. But I think that’s where my confusion is. You reject so many of these premises, but end up agreeing to some level with their conclusions. Even if those conclusions rely heavily on those premises which you reject.
Dave, it’s a low bar, but it’s still worth saying that I appreciate your willingness not to put words in my mouth and to accept my own account of what I believe and don’t believe. Not a thing I can take for granted in this space!
FWIW, while I’ve long been aware of Mackey’s analysis and of convergent analysis by others, the link I included earlier after a quick Google search was not the best. Here’s a better link from Mackey’s blog.
From this link and the other one it seems to me that the topics of “culpability” and morally equating “all families and posterity with the sin of the slave owners” are your preoccupation, not Mackey’s. Mackey is out to “better understand the extent of slavery’s impact.” Indeed, he is directly responding to historical analysis aimed at evaluating “the effect of slaveholding upon the culture and outlook of the Southern people.” Note the following, from Otto H. Olsen’s “Historians and the Extent of Slave Ownership in the Southern United States” in Civil War History:
Demurrals to your other topics:
a) I am not here to carry water for Don Lemon. I had a critique of his guest’s preposterously glib “go back to the beginning of a supply chain” rhetoric and her absurd reductio ad absurdum conceit about Africa paying reparations. That doesn’t put me on the hook for defending anything about Lemon.
b) You appear to propose the following analogy: “US consumers : vast billion-dollar corporations :: European colonial powers : Africa.” Is that right? I’m sorry, I can’t begin to take this seriously (and the obvious problem with the analogy, if it’s not self-evident after two seconds’ thought, should be obvious from my earlier comments). If it‘s not, you’re on your own!
c) As I’ve already noted, despite mentioning in passing that I think there is a case for Western reparations to Africa, I am not here to argue for reparations, or to solve racism or racial inequity.
I try not to put words in people’s mouths. Goodness knows I’ve had it done to me on the freewheeling world of social media.
Now, at the end of the day, Mackey falls into the problem of topical history. That is, history to prove a point in keeping with the latest trends or fads. The general rule of thumb is that if you seek to make a case for a historical conclusion, you will. No matter the damage done in the process, or the inconvenient data that must be ignored or downplayed. In his case, no matter how you slice or dice it, he appeals to a form of ancestral guilt to build his statistical case. Ancestral guilt writ small, but there nonetheless. You simply can’t arrive at his statistical conclusion without a template that says a newborn in a drug cartel family is every bit as guilty as the head of the drug cartel. Something we would cringe at if said today, and rightly so.
As for the Lemon debacle, you’re harsher on her than I am. I don’t think she was laying out a comprehensive economic analysis of the Slave trade’s impact or origins. She was debunking Lemon’s leftwing approach of group identity, group exoneration, and group culpability. Which is a good thing. She merely pulled a trick we learned in college in the 1980s. Move past the easy broad templates and zero in on the individuals who are really what history is all about. If she spoke in a way that suggested another goal, I’m still more bothered by Lemon’s racially charged group culpability premise.
Now, obviously I’m not equating the slave trade to corporate America or Walmart or Saturday shoppers (though goodness knows, some do). I was using it to whimsically (and I think accurately) illustrate my objection. My bone of contention is the removal of culpability from the African slave kingdoms simply because the European Slave Trade, operating at much greater logistical capacity, ratcheted up the quantities demanded. That somehow the African slavers, building upon thousands of years of slavery and slave trading, kicking in and getting more slaves to fill the quotas, are this time off the hook liability-wise. But since this is opinion, likely based on a shelf full of other presuppositions, we’re simply going to have to agree to disagree there.
As for reparations, I don’t think they are an unchristian concept. I merely am 100% sure that any approach to the topic today will have nothing to do with righting any past injustices, and everything to do with sowing racial divisions and provoking race-based reactions. For instance, the recent reparation proposals in California. A person would have to have sawdust for brains to think those have any other purpose than provoking racial tension and inciting racial retaliation as their goal. I think of Syndrome casually tossing the tanker truck over his shoulders when I see things like that.
Dave G, I think at this point we have both been sufficiently clear, and interested readers have the data they need to draw their own conclusions.
“Dave G, I think at this point we have both been sufficiently clear, and interested readers have the data they need to draw their own conclusions.”
If they need more data than what we’ve provided, I’d say it’s on them!
The film critic writes:
‘collective guilt’
“Anyone who can read can see that this is a lie.”
______
Response Based On Objective Truth and Honest Perspective:
Anyone who is honest admits that the call for reparations is based on the notion of COLLECTIVE GUILT since the current collectivity who are not descendants of slaves is specifically targeted for payment. Reparations are demanded to allegedly repair (how can anyone not know the basic meaning of the word?) for the guilt of slavery and its negative aftermath resulting in losses of wealth over hundreds of years.
Unless the film critic is no longer calling for reparations to be paid by a particular US collective because he does not believe that the US is guilty and should not pay anything, but if so, this would be quite a reversal of his stated support for reparations to be paid by people in the US who are not descendants of slaves.
_____
The film critic writes:
“Deceptive factoid:”
‘As of 1860, less than 2% of Americans owned slaves’
“Accurate perspective: ‘According to the Census of 1860, 30.8 percent of the free families in the confederacy owned slaves. That means that every third white person in those states had a direct commitment to slavery.’”
Response Based on Objective Truth and Honest Perspective:
Yet another deceptive response by the film critic while falsely claiming deception provided by yours truly. Quite sad, but what else is new? First and most blatant deception is that the source quoted by the film critic comes from an article that provides some census data from 1860, but the claim that 30.8 percent of free families in the confederacy owned slaves is an inflated estimate that cannot be honestly derived from legitimate extrapolations of the census data. Moreover, anyone who honestly reads the article that the film critic cites will notice that the 30.8 percent bogus claim is provided by an alleged civil war expert by the name of A. Mackey, but his estimate is significantly higher than more reasonable estimates found in more reliable sources. Indeed, more honest estimates of the number of slave-holders in the confederate south is closer to 20 to 24%, and using the higher percentage here means a little bit less than 1 out of 4 and not the intentionally inflated 1 out of 3 southerners owning slaves that the film critic glibly and happily accepts in order to push his false narrative and unjustly accuse another 9% of something they were not part of. See https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-resources/teaching-resource/statistics-slaves-and-slaveholdings …for the more honest figures. Also consider the following reality: 24% of a population owning slaves is quite a bit, but it still means that the significant majority of 76% of that population did not own slaves, yet, as always, all of this particular population is considered to be collectively guilty and unjustly still benefitting from the impact of slavery when it comes to the call for reparations.
Once again, however, the call for reparations applies to ALL Americans who are not descendants of slaves. Reparations are not called to be paid only by the descendants of the aforementioned 24% of the southern population owning slaves in 1860. Accordingly, a proper perspective is to honestly recognize and admit that if all Americans who are not descendants of slaves are called upon to pay the unjust reparations for slavery, then all are being judged collectively guilty, so it is important and not a deception to find out just how many Americans actually owned slaves, and who their descendants are as an important consideration when assessing the morality of imposing collective guilt and punishment for slavery.
For the most proper perspective, then, among all Americans, actually ONLY 1.25 to 1.4% owned slaves per the 1860 census. This is a fact that the wokie Left absolutely hates because they love to give the impression that a majority of Americans owned slaves, but that is not the case, and in the Southern Confederacy, only 24% owned slaves.
Bottom Line: in the entire US, only at most some 1.4% owned slaves, which means that 98.6% did not own slaves, yet all of their descendants are also called upon to pay reparations based on the bogus notion that they unjustly benefit from slavery, which is absolutely impossible to determine (another aspect that must always be considered if one wishes to act justly), plus many, many did not benefit in any way, yet they are included in the call for reparations for the “crime” of basically being white in America today. The imposition of collective guilt once again.
Good readers of CWR: Note how the film critic does not honestly address the slave trade conducted by Muslims, and he does not call for reparations from the wealthy Islamic world for its practice of slavery for at least some 1,400 plus years. Also note that he will not admit that black Africans in Africa brutally treated fellow blacks in their practices of slavery, and that the leaders of Africa could have prevented the entire Atlantic Slave Trade from taking place, but as beneficiaries of all slave trade, they were glad to make more money by selling their own people to other parts of the world. As always, only the US and the West in general is to be singled out and judged by the film critic to be collectively guilty despite his absurd denial of so judging over and over again.
Excellent Collection of Short YouTube videos for more factual history and a more honest perspective on slavery provided by super scholar Thomas Sowell:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL7s6piXiFK-Q5PoPxMQ2maPPIwcBX7ssF
DocVerit said:
I said:
I trust readers of good will to recognize that what I regard as a nonsense term with no coherent meaning, I obviously do not impute to anyone. (It’s also an absurd falsehood that reparations imply collective guilt, but I have nowhere in this combox committed to arguing for reparations at all, although I have said that a case can be made.)
I think DocVerit does not care that I regard the thing he accuses me of imputing as a nonsense term with no coherent meaning, because I think that to him I am something less than a person with a point of view: I am only an enemy to be opposed by any and all possible means, including putting words in my mouth. C.S. Lewis writes about this in The Four Loves:
Once more unto the breach.
“Collective guilt” is most decidedly NOT an oxymoron. An oxymoron requires a combination of contradictory words such as “innocent guilt.” As such, “collective guilt” does not even come close to qualifying as an oxymoron, and I hope you will cease repeating this error moving forward. There is no good will in purposely botching a basic meaning to try to make a bogus point that is also not made in good will as a result.
Perhaps the following synonymous term will turn on a light bulb to help you better understand. “Collective guilt” is also known as “collective responsibility.” Now, anybody who supports paying reparations by any particular group of people (aka a COLLECTIVE) to another particular group of people, whether they openly state it or not, seeks to impose COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY (or COLLECTIVE GUILT) on the paying group of people.
Moreover, anybody who supports paying reparations also claims that a case can be made for doing so. What’s the point of saying a case can be made for paying reparations unless that case includes support for such payments? Those who are opposed to paying reparations state that a case cannot be made for doing so. Next, from the section of the Catechism you cited, since descendants are not culpable for the wrongdoing of their ancestors, what possible and justifiable case can be made for the payment of reparations by any such descendants who allegedly wrongly benefitted from the wrongdoing of their ancestors?
And an important newsflash for you: It does not matter how you personally consider what a word or phrase means. What matters is the objective meaning or meanings. Of course, many people on the wokie left actually believe in the nonsense of “my truth,” and this certainly applies here as you insist that how you view a word or phrase is definitive and must be respected; otherwise you whine about (cue the violins) “I think DocVerit does not care that I regard the thing he accuses me of imputing as a nonsense term with no coherent meaning, because I think that to him I am something less than a person with a point of view: I am only an enemy to be opposed by any and all possible means, including putting words in my mouth.” 🙁
Your crying is partially correct. I don’t respect any subjective statement about what constitutes an alleged nonsense term when the subjective assessment of the alleged nonsense term is objectively false as demonstrated above. On the other hand, you are most definitely a person with a point of view that is frequently wrong and harmful as pointed out by many other thoughtful people like Dave G. I wonder: is Dave G also known as David Griffey who writes some interesting things in his blog? Maybe; maybe not. In any case, nobody is putting words in your mouth; simply correcting the ones that come out of your mouth or from your articles pushing various left wing ideas you love to emphasize when you see them on display in various movies like the latest “Avatar” piece of propaganda, or in a video series like the woke “Rings of Power.”
As a gift for you because you could really use it, be sure to check out the superb series of short videos on YouTube on the true history of slavery by super scholar Thomas Sowell at
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL7s6piXiFK-Q5PoPxMQ2maPPIwcBX7ssF
Your opinion is noted but irrelevant. You have accused me, so the topic at the moment is not what you think, but what I think. I have no need to persuade you of the correctness of my views. I have my reasons for my beliefs, and I would be happy to defend my views to any non-hostile interlocutor who persuades me of his interest in my actual opinions. As it is, I am not in the dock and you are neither my judge nor the lawyer for the prosecution. You say “collective guilt” is not an oxymoron. I say it is, and I am prepared, as circumstances warrant, to support my view from magisterial sources.
The bottom line is this: When you accuse me of “the unjust imposition of collective guilt,” you manifestly accuse falsely. Nothing I have said supports this false and (from my point of view, if not from yours) meaningless charge. I would never impute “collective guilt” to anyone, because it would contradict my beliefs.
My view is that a) guilt is a result of sin and b) sin is the misuse of free will—and, as c) only individuals have free will, d) sin acrues only to individuals. Individuals can certainly be accomplices in one another’s sin, but the culpability of each person is strictly his own; it is not shared. Groups are not judged collectively before God; conspirators are not sent collectively to hell, or even to purgatory. If you disagree, or even if I am wrong, it doesn’t make your false accusation any more true. My beliefs are what they are.
It is typical of your insecticide-spraying type that you emotionalize descriptive analysis and respond to my quite dry-eyed observations with sneers about “whining,” “crying,” invocations of “violins,” etc. Like Lewis, I observe; the emotions you project are precisely that, your projection.
I suspect your mask slips, though, when you try to make common cause with Dave G, because Dave G (as I have had reason to observe in this combox) is willing to accept my own account of what I believe and don’t believe, and I don’t think you are, although in charity I would love for you to prove me wrong. Can you bring yourself to say “Okay, SDG, I accept that you believe (mistakenly in my view) that collective guilt is an oxymoron, so I was wrong to accuse you of imputing it”? If you are, a) I will be surprised and b) you will earn some respect from me. To be honest, I don’t think that is likely, but you are a human being with free will. You can stick by your false charge, or you can surprise me.
““Collective guilt” is strictly speaking an oxymoron, a nonsense term”
I’ll admit, I don’t understand this either. For decades our approach to such issues as slavery or racism or our treatment of various minority groups has been predicated on just that – collective guilt. Both in America and the West in general. It’s very much a thing. If you look up the term, you see it pop up by the thousands on Google. I mean, have you ever taken DEI training? You’re certainly free to have your opinions or read the tea leaves as you see fit. But you can’t deny reality.
From a quick search. From Psychology Today:
“The Swiss psychoanalyst Carl Jung wrote an essay in 1945 in which he introduced the term collective guilt, describing it as a psychological phenomenon.”
(Thus it is a recent thing, and IMHO, not a helpful one)
From the University of Alabama Birmingham:
“Collective guilt is a phenomenon that has impacted societies over time. The idea of collective responsibility means that we (as a society) feel responsible for hurting a group of people. It typically connects with tragic events such as genocides.”
From this Washington Post piece about collective guilt and corresponding collective responsibility:
“It is good politics around V-E Day to deny the notion of collective responsibility. Only, it is nonsense. Collective responsibility is an elementary principle of national life.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1985/05/03/collective-guilt-collective-responsibility/e80c7651-6f05-4881-94d2-23ddddd91f9a/
Perhaps you reject the idea of collective guilt, I’m certainly fine with that. Like so many fancy ideas, we can see where it is going and none of it is good. But again, you can’t deny it other than say you think it is wrong. At which point you need to start seeing how common it is, and how it is so foundational to much of the activism and advocacy we see today.
I’m speaking of objective guilt, not psychological guilt feelings. People have all kinds of nonveridical feelings which lie outside the scope of my interest. I also reject the notion of “White guilt” (again, obviously a psychological experience—one I do not share, and make no attempt to instill in others—but with no objective corollary). I do think that being White in American society today comes with certain social advantages, and that with those advantages (along with the disadvantages experienced by people of color) come certain obligations—a point worth making on Juneteenth—but “White guilt” is a meaningless term (and, for those who experience it, a meaningless feeling).
In my view, the article you link to wrongly conflates collective guilt (not a thing) and collective responsibility (absolutely a thing). For example, the duty to “be fruitful and multiply” applies to the human race collectively; it is not incumbent upon every individual to do it, or even to try, but in every generation it must be undertaken by some. Celibacy is a valid state in life, but not if everyone chooses it. Another obvious example is if someone is in distress in a crowd situation. If possible, someone must aid the person in distress; if you and I are both nearby, we share in the collective responsibility to render aid—but the moment you intervene, assuming you don’t need more help, I no longer have responsibility to act. On the other hand, if nobody acts, then I am culpable for my inaction (in the face of no one else acting) and you are culpable for yours, and God judges each of us individually for our individual fault. There is no collective guilt.
Collective responsibility is also a thing insofar as we cooperate in the sins of others. Nevertheless, sin remains a personal act, and the guilt or culpability stemming from it is personal and individual, not shared. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
Note that social sins are sins only analogously, not strictly speaking. That is because only individuals commit sins, even when their sins converge in shared misdeeds.
Deacon Greydanus,
You say you reject Collective Guilt. I’m delighted to see that. But collective guilt is a thing, a very definite thing, and part of the lifeblood from which much of our modern approach to ideas like CRT, BLM, 400 years of slavery, White Privilege, and Systemic Racism flow. It’s a basis for being told in DEI training that equality has to go, to be replaced by ‘equity’ (which is, in its most basic form, making judgments and treating people differently based upon their group identities).
What started as a question about whether all German soldiers deserved blame for the Holocaust (as opposed to only those in the SS and similar), and then expanded to whether all Germans were guilty, has morphed into saying anyone and anything today in any way remotely connected to a thousand-year-old sin is nonetheless guilty. Thus ‘whites are…’, ‘the Church did…’, ‘America was …’, ‘The West is…’. Collective guilt.
As for Juneteenth, when I read stories about black Americans not wanting it to be only for blacks, and then:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/don-t-whitewash-juneteenth-black-people-shouldn-t-have-to-lose-identity-to-promote-holiday/ar-AA1cJBTp?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=6c515f33441a4a2884bbc77e03e8fc60&ei=9
See outrage that white people were put on signs celebrating unity, and then eliciting this response:
“”Juneteenth GVL would like to apologize to the community for the presence of non-black faces on two flags representing Juneteenth. We acknowledge this mistake having been made and will correct the error quickly.”
I’ll pass. Apologize for the presence of non-black skin color? Correct the error quickly? Are you kidding me? Nope. Not buying it. Juneteenth is about unity the way Fred Phelps was about gay rights. Those saying it’s for everyone as long as we have the right skin colors merely demonstrate the mendacity of our modern age. Though embracing offense over the presence of the wrong skin color shows just how easily racism in the past was embraced, and that racism is hardly a white person’s temptation.
But then we come to White Privilege, a concept that necessitates judging people based on skin color. If you can’t do that, then *white* privilege (as opposed to the general tendency of majorities in a given society having certain advantages) fades in a snap. The fact that it allows us to talk of ‘white Americans’ in the generic sense, as if a young, white girl abused by her father and living in poverty has some type of inherent privilege that is denied a black girl born to loving millionaire parents, shows just how far we have fallen. By the way, if they insist that isn’t what White Privilege means, then White Privilege is meaningless. I have a standing principle that if a theory or concept doesn’t survive first contact with a real human being, it isn’t worth the tree killed to provide the paper to write it on.
By the by, as an ordained member of the Church, I hope you’re as repulsed by such naked racist attitudes displayed in that Juneteenth article as anyone. I mean, the notion that black Americans can speak of whites in the same way whites in the Jim Crow South would have spoken of blacks should be the neon warning sign right there. And a sign predicated on so many of these ideas and concepts that you rightly reject.
With the caveat that I don’t use “whites” (or “blacks”) as collective nouns (I prefer “White people” and “Black people”), it is impossible to discuss history and sociology meaningfully without using language like “The Church did…”, “America was…”, etc. Literally every historical text in the world uses language like this.
I’ll go a step further: Not long ago, a priest I know whose political and cultural sensibilities converge with yours said to me “Jesus didn’t divide people by race.” I agreed, adding, “Europeans and Americans did… We invented White supremacy. We invented segregation and Jim Crow. We invented redlining and race-restrictive deeds and government housing policies promoting neighborhoods where there was ‘protection’ from ‘infiltration’ by ‘inharmonious racial groups.’ We invented government and institutional policies that built up generational wealth in the White middle class while systematically preventing Black Americans from benefitting. Jesus didn’t do any of that. We did.”
The priest objected: “No. We didn’t do those things. People in the past did.” He then proceeded to quote Ezekiel 18 to “prove” to me that people do not inherit guilt from their ancestors—which, of course, I already agreed with.
In this instance, I was able to show from the priest’s own social media that he has often used “we” in ways much like I did. (For example, he talked about “why we don’t make beautiful cathedrals like Notre Dame anymore,” but of course he was never personally involved in making beautiful cathedrals like Notre Dame, and he has nothing to do with church building now. He also asked rhetorically, “Why are we training pilots from countries where people hate us?” But he isn’t training pilots from anywhere.)
In other words, everyone knows what this sort of language means when they use it, or when people they generally agree with use it. It’s only when the same sort of language is used by people we disagree with that it suddenly becomes fraught with divisive meaning. I think it behooves us all not to over-exegete common linguistic usages (such as metonymy, which allows a word like “we” to mean not only “a group of people that includes me” but also “some members of a larger group of people that includes me, but which may or may not actually include me; i.e., people who are in some way like me, who have attributes in common with me”) even when they are used by people we disagree with. (If every time you read language like “The Church did…” or “America was…” you think “Collective guilt!” then you are very likely misreading many of the texts in question.)
Without taking a position on the Juneteenth story you linked to, I will simply observe that taking a position like “Juneteenth is a celebration of Black culture and liberation that is open to everyone of every racial and ethnic group, and all are welcome, but the theme of the holiday is specifically around Black culture and liberation, and promoting Juneteenth with a banner depicting White models is inappropriate and objectionable” is not the same as saying “White people need to apologize for having White skin.” Of course, you are free to be offended if you want to.
Not offended. It wasn’t me on the banner. But a bit shocked. For a person who insists you reject various leftwing premises, you sure do support the conclusions. I mean, you reject corporate guilt. Yet it is upon the idea of corporate guilt and demographic victimhood that the Left insists it’s perfectly fine for one ethnic group to judge, be offended by, and seek the removal of another ethnic group based on skin color. As long as you’re part of the right ethnic groups. Which you obviously support, though you reject the premise.
After all, consider the softball I threw you. That in the name of a unifying holiday, some black Americans were offended at people with the wrong skin color on the holiday’s promotional banners. That’s more the stuff of a SNL skit than anything. You can almost hear the laughter. An easy agree with me there, I’d think. Instead, what did you say? Apparently, it’s perfectly acceptable for some black Americans to be offended by the presence of the wrong skin color on banners meant to promote an African American holiday of unity. Is that the African American definition of unity? Heh. I chuckle as I write this. But there you go.
We won’t even get into ‘we invented white supremacy’. White supremacy is a thing*, but no more a universal white identifier ‘we’ invented than any minority evil within a particular ethnic group defines that particular ethnic group. White Americans no more own white supremacy than Muslims invented Islamic terrorism and therefore own Islamic terrorism. Which, I recall vividly in our post-9/11 world, is a position that is strictly verboten, lest the label of Islamophobe be applied.
As for Segregation and Jim Crow, that would be the Southern Democrats. Not ‘white people.’ Let’s try to be more specific when we can.
As for my issue with those using the ‘America did…’, ‘whites were…’, ‘the Church…’ and on and on. Yes, people in a saner age used such terms without problem. I could speak of America or the Church or Europe or Africa or the Ottomans or the Mongols or Japan or American Indians or Latin America and it all made sense. But ours is not a sane age. When used today, such terms mean speaking of America or the Church or white people with all the nuance that Rush Limbaugh talked about Democrats. Is there a problem with talking of ‘Democrats thus…’? Obviously, it depends. And the same goes with everything we’ve discussed, which is the point.
* We are speaking of actual white supremacy here, not the modern left’s rhetorical trick of defining anyone – including non-whites – who challenge leftwing activism as allies of white supremacy. At that point, white supremacy merely means non-leftist, and that’s not the white supremacy I’m addressing.
I understand, Dave. All you wanted me to do was to criticize Black people for feeling strongly that the face of a holiday celebrating Black culture and liberation should be a Black face. And I wouldn’t even do that! How very unreasonable of me.
Look. I don’t agree with everything that, say, Ibram Kendi says by a long shot. A lot of my friends whom you would consider “leftist” have problems with Kendi and with other systems and theories on the left. “The left” is a lot less monolithic than you suppose. You think I’m some kind of outlier for rejecting the idea of “collective guilt,” but the reality is that no one I know accepts the idea of collective guilt. I’m not saying no one anywhere believes in it, but I haven’t met them. Pretty much everyone I know who acknowledges the reality of White privilege understands it in terms more or less like this analogy from Omar Ismail. In my experience, “collective guilt” is overwhelmingly a right-wing straw man—something that critics of Ta-Nihisi Coates’s famous essay on reparations talk about, but which Coates’s essay doesn’t mention at all.
Would it surprise you, Dave, to learn that long before the notorious Jim Crow laws of the postbellum South—long before the Civil War, in fact—Jim Crow–style segregation was legally practiced in the North, and persisted after the war? Or that the term “Jim Crow” in regard to segregation, documented as early as 1838, appears to have been applied first in the North?
I assume you’re aware that free states as well as slave states had anti-miscegenation laws forbidding interracial marriage (absolutely a form of segregation), and that many non-slave states had onerous “Black Codes” and other laws restricting the actions and rights of “free” or non-enslaved Blacks. Among the worst were Indiana’s 1851 Constitution and Illinois’ 1853 Black Code, which completely prohibited Black people from entering either state (segregation at its most extreme!). Similar laws applied in Oregon, both before and after it became a state.
So, no, I do not concede that “Southern Democrats” invented Segregation and Jim Crow.
Well, second objection first. Jim Crow is a thing, the actual Jim Crow laws. We’re not talking about a ‘Jim Crow style’ thing. And the Jim Crow laws belong to the Democrats. As does segregation. Not that segregation was non-existent elsewhere. That’s absurd. You know me. I freely admit that such bigoted and racist practices and attitudes existed well outside of Democrats, Americans, white people or the Christian West. Nonetheless, the segregation that was fought for, and compounded upon through the actual Jim Crow laws and similar legal measures, draws a straight line through the Democrats from the post-Civil War south until well after WW2, as other areas were beginning to disband such measures. It was the Democrats who most recently fought to legally maintain segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever. If you’re willing to say ‘we’ own things, no matter how tenuous the connection, certainly the Democrats own Jim Crow and the outgrowth from those laws.
As for the next. I’m not trying to get you to criticize black people. I have a feeling that’s the internet version of a snipe hunt. I am trying to unpack that tendency you have of denying the acceptance of premises while endorsing conclusions that come straight from those same premises.
For instance, as a Christian I reject the approach to liberation theology that suggests the teachings of Christ and commandments of God should be applied differently based upon one’s demographic identity and place in the history of oppressed or oppressor. So based on such a perspective, for women at least, pride is not a sin. In fact, for women pride might be a virtue while humility is closer to sin. That’s because history is the story of the patriarchal oppression of women. So women need pride to offset the history of their oppressed condition. Men? Sure, pride is a sin for (those who identify as?) men. But not necessarily for women, whatever the Bible (written by men) has to say. Similar approaches apply to race, or sexual preferences, or any group categories. It’s all based on group identity.
That’s why I reject that type of thinking. Full stop. You obviously don’t. Or at least you don’t reject the application of such thinking. For it is that very principle that allows you to hear that people were offended at seeing the wrong skin color, and conclude based on the ethnic groups involved, that it’s no big deal. Because I have a gut feeling if white people were offended at seeing the wrong skin color – whatever the reason – you’d not be quite so gracious. Though if you could show me a time when you did defend someone who was white doing such a thing, I’d happily concede the point.
That goes for tolerating people like Ibram Kendi. I can remember when people called Rush Limbaugh a racist. If Limbaugh was a racist, I’d hate to think of what Kendi is. But then, I am an old liberal at heart who believes it’s racist to talk about an ethnic group the way Kendi talks about white people, no matter how they justify it. And no matter who or what group is doing it.
Oh, and I know that while the Left represents a revolutionary movement in our time, not everyone on the left is a monolith. The same goes for the right, conservatives, right wingers or even the dreaded MAGA Trump supporters. Not to say MAGA isn’t something, or the Right is a nothing. But I never assume everyone in a particular camp is a carbon copy. Though I do appreciate people who admit they align with a particular camp when it’s obvious they do.
Dave, did you read the articles I linked to? You don’t get to say “Jim Crow is a thing, the actual Jim Crow laws” when the reality is that in 1840 you could say “Jim Crow” in Massachusetts and people would know you were talking about local segregation, e.g., segregated “Jim Crow” train cars. Jim Crow—both the term and the reality—existed in the antebellum North. Jim Crow started in the North. The fact that we think of Jim Crow simply and solely as a postbellum Southern thing reflects historiography, not actual historical fact. The historians, by and large, got that one wrong; the reality is more complicated than the story they told about it. Reality often is. (Also, I was the one who said “We invented segregation and Jim Crow,” and you don’t get to tell me what my words mean.)
Your “softball” was an invitation to join you in finding it ridiculous that first we “read stories about black Americans not wanting [Juneteenth] to be only for blacks” and then come stories about Black Americans objecting to the use of White models in the promotion for Juneteenth. You didn’t put their objection that way, of course. You claimed they wanted people to “apologize for the presence of non-black skin color” (where or in what context, you didn’t say). You characterized their position as “it’s for everyone” (which as far as I can see can only mean “the holiday is for everyone to enjoy and participate in”) “as long as we have the right skin colors” (which is patently a distortion of their objection). You accused them of “embracing offense over the presence of the wrong skin color” (again, where or in what context you didn’t say).
In a word, you conflated two different issues: who is welcome to attend an event and who (in the opinion of some Black people) it is appropriate to put on banners promoting an event that is, once again, a celebration of African American culture and liberation.
Now, maybe you think that’s a shallow or irrelevant distinction. Maybe you think that the marketing for an event that is welcome to all should focus not only on the people whose culture and liberation is being celebrated, but also on all who are welcome to attend. (See what I’m doing there? I’m trying to flesh out your position and express it as reasonably and fairly as I can. That’s called steelmanning. It’s part of the principle of charity in rhetoric and philosophy. It’s the opposite of what you did to the objections of the people your “softball” invited me to join you in criticizing.) The people you’re criticizing, though, have explicitly made that distinction. From your link (emphasis added):
See? This is explicitly a discussion about banners promoting an event, not who is welcome to participate in the event. No one here is saying “the holiday is for everyone to enjoy as long as we have the right skin colors.” You may take issue with that distinction, but you can’t take issue with it without first acknowledging it, which your critique failed to do. That’s simple fairness, before even getting to charity or steelmanning.
You are trying to unpack what seems to you a tendency blah blah blah. Part of the principle of charity in logic and rhetoric is that other people’s ideas make more sense on “the inside” than they may seem to at first from “the outside,” and the effort to understand other people’s ideas “from the inside out.” Again, charity and steelmanning.
First, you’re doing bad history. You seem to think if you can just find Jim Crow anywhere at some earlier time then that gets the Democrats off the hook. Yes, Jim Crow was a term used against African Americans at least as far back as the early years of the 19th Century. That is exactly why that term was applied to the specific laws implemented and broadened by the Democrats in the post-Civil War South, and eventually into broader American society into the 20th Century.
As for Juneteenth. Nope. Not buying it. A holiday based on a historical event that then isn’t going to be about the historical event, and instead only used to celebrate African American culture, but whites are invited if they keep their place? That makes me think more of a Chevy Chase comedy routine than actual principles.
Now, if African Americans don’t want to make it about the history of the historical event, they can pick a different day, not an actual historical event. Because if you look at the historical event that gives the holiday its name, there is no reason to exclude white people, since they were involved in liberating the slaves in the first place, as part of the ongoing development of this new country and its developing principles.
I get that such doublethink is the lifeblood of so much modern activism. After all, that’s how some insist it’s sexist to suggest men and women are inherently different, while then saying of course men attacking women is uniquely horrible because men and women are inherently different, but then what do you mean women and men objectively exist?
That same fluid approach to reality is what you are defending. The whole ‘Juneteenth!’ but not the actual historical event, only African American culture, but because of the event, but we’re not going there, except to make a point, without the actual historical event the holiday’s name is based upon. That might be about right for our approach to things today, but that doesn’t mean it’s the sane or proper approach to things. And that goes for any demographic group, not just particular ones.
Oh, and my personal opinion is that Simone Biles was not cowardly or courageous, but clever. Nonetheless I’ll leave you two to hash that one out.
I think Doc brings up some information that could help gain perspective.
I don’t have a dog in any particular narrative but I do know the old saying that figures don’t lie but liars can figure. Not that anyone here is lying but we can all choose databases selectively and interpret data per a familiar narrative.
Slavery looked different outside of Anglo America. As Doc mentioned, even American tribal people owned folks of African ancestry and some continued to own them following the War Between the States.
Free people of colour owned slaves and not just their own family members. The wealthiest plantation owner of that period in a community near us was a free Creole person of colour who owned over 100 slaves, maybe 150. He wasn’t at all unique in this part of the country. Free didn’t necessarily translate to “white “.
So saying what percentage of families in 1860 owned slaves shouldn’t always assume colour. And if free “white ” antebellum families had access to modern DNA testing the data would look different also. Sadly that wasn’t the case so they continued on in their faulty racial narratives which still haunt people today.
It is true that small numbers of free Black people had slaves. It’s also true that in many cases, though not all, these were relatives that they bought to protect (e.g., a husband buying a wife or vice versa) and to formally manumit if possible (although this could be difficult; e.g., they might have to leave the state). Some free Black people did keep slaves to exploit them just like White slave keepers. And some Black slave buyers did both, or did something in between! (Not all who purchased relatives, even spouses, immediately freed them, and in some cases they were even resold; others purchased slaves in order to offer them freedom for a nominal amount to be worked off on easy terms, etc.)
The majority of free Blacks who purchased slaves did so on more or less philanthropic terms—but the majority of slaves owned by free Blacks were concentrated into the hands of a few who were not philanthropic. The overwhelming majority of slaves were kept by White people, who were of course the vast majority of the free population of slave states and disproportionately owned the wealth in those states.
(a few sources: one | two | three | four)
Thank you, Deacon Steven, for the link to the Louis Henry Gates article. I enjoy watching downloads of his PBS shows on YouTube. He has a fair-minded outlook on things I imagine because of the extensive research he does. One episode featured the actor Don Cheadle whose ancestors had been kept in slavery by the Chickasaw Nation following abolition. His family didn’t gain US citizenship until the 1890’s, I think.
The data on how many slaves free people of colour owned was interesting also. A large percentage of “white” slave holders also owned perhaps just one or two slaves to assist with housekeeping & childcare. When you consider the value of slaves, to have more than a few represented considerable affluence. And we can forget that some of those slaves often were in fact members of “white” slaveholder’s families. Though not all could claim them as family publicly.
A.C. Myers, quartermaster general of the Confederacy, was a Southern Jew, West Point graduate, & great grandson of the first rabbi of Charleston, SC’s oldest synagogue. Ft. Myers, FL is named for him. He had a relationship with a slave & made private arrangements with contacts in the Union Army to help her & the children escape North to freedom during the conflict.
South Carolina had laws limiting the number of free persons of colour so that incentivized folk to buy their own relatives to keep families together.
History’s really complicated but again I find the more you study about it the more you find out how much we human beings have in common with each other. For better or worse.
mrscracker et al:
Don’t forget to also take advantage of super scholar Thomas Sowell’s awesome history of slavery by simply pushing a few buttons on your computer or television and watching the series of some 15 short videos on YouTube. Sowell, who is now approaching the ripe old age of 93 and still going strong, used to be a Leftist/Marxist in his younger years growing up during the time of Jim Crow, but he came to recognize the false promises and the greater forms of discrimination perpetrated much more so by the Left than by the Right of the political spectrum (still true today despite the Left’s ongoing efforts to paint the Right with racist paint while pretending to be the opponents of racism), and as he looked more deeply into things, he became more committed to the truth than false narratives. You can find Sowell’s most informative series that sets forth many objective truths and facts that people on the Left find most uncomfortable (again, they refute the wokie left narrative with actual facts and data) at
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL7s6piXiFKQ5PoPxMQ2maPPIwcBX7ssF
Alas, since Thomas Sowell is a black man, he is often falsely labeled by too many people on the Left with the pejorative “Uncle Tom”* (also easier for some yahoos to make this bogus charge given his first name) despite all of his work that relies on objective evidence and data as opposed to false narratives, and despite his own personal history that demonstrates how utterly unjust and quite despicable the characterization is.
*You may already know that the real Uncle Tom (Josiah Henson) who was the inspiration for the Uncle Tom character of “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” was actually a heroic and honorable man. Kind of a shame that he is mostly forgotten while his fictional namesake is used to viciously attack black people like Thomas Sowell who is also a heroic and honorable man.
Enjoy the increased knowledge you will gain from watching the aforementioned videos.
mrscracker et al:
Don’t forget to also take advantage of super scholar Thomas Sowell’s awesome history of slavery by simply pushing a few buttons on your computer or television and watching the series of some 15 short videos on YouTube. Sowell, who is now approaching the ripe old age of 93 and still going strong, used to be a Leftist/Marxist in his younger years growing up during the time of Jim Crow, but he came to recognize the false promises and the greater forms of discrimination perpetrated much more so by the Left than by the Right of the political spectrum (still true today despite the Left’s ongoing efforts to paint the Right with racist paint while pretending to be the opponents of racism), and as he looked more deeply into things, he became more committed to the truth than false narratives. You can find Sowell’s most informative series that sets forth many objective truths and facts that people on the Left find most uncomfortable (again, they refute the wokie left narrative with actual facts and data) at
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL7s6piXiFKQ5PoPxMQ2maPPIwcBX7ssF
Alas, since Thomas Sowell is a black man, he is often falsely labeled by too many people on the Left with the pejorative “Uncle Tom”* (also easier for some yahoos to make this bogus charge given his first name) despite all of his work that relies on objective evidence and data as opposed to false narratives, and despite his own personal history that demonstrates how utterly unjust and quite despicable the characterization is.
*You may already know that the real Uncle Tom (Josiah Henson) who was the inspiration for the Uncle Tom character of “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” was actually a heroic and honorable man. Kind of a shame that he is mostly forgotten while his fictional namesake is used to viciously attack black people like Thomas Sowell who is also a heroic and honorable man.
Enjoy the increased knowledge you will gain from watching the aforementioned videos.
Well I see now the original comment has appeared. Sorry for the redundancy.
On YouTube, Channel Awesome made the dark video “What If Ariel Was A Siren?”
To Dave G:
Thanks again for providing factual data, objective history, and common sense to counter the misinformation and leftist narrative against White people and Western Civilization presented by the film critic who writes very much in lockstep with the narrative featured by the hideously immoral group known as Black Lives Matter, the 1619 Project, and other perpetrators of false narratives. I have written a follow-up post in justifiable defense of yours truly against the film critic’s most recent cheap and false shots at me (I have seen in other comboxes regarding some related topics that the film critic has also taken cheap shots at your intelligence more than once, he slandered Mr. Don Fanucci without apology, and he even attacked the Church itself when he wrote the malicious lie that “I’m not exaggerating when I say that literal White supremacy is an ongoing problem in the Church,” and so on and so on.), but so far, my justifiable defense remains unposted. Sad. In addition to what I just set forth above, the film critic can accuse people like Sylvester Stallone of being racist/promoting racism in his films, he can personally and despicably attack Matt Walsh by showing a completely unjustified disdain for Walsh, he can personally attack you, me, and others with hubris, and yet all of these malicious attacks in the comments are published. Respond to defend oneself against him, and most of the time your comments will get published, but not always, especially if they expose some blatant hypocrisy by the film critic as my so far unpublished comments clearly do.
I always call for a fair standard to be applied by Carl and his fellow editors. Either allow people to defend themselves or remove the attacking posts, but allow the attacks to be posted while denying a defense is simply unjust, and it cannot be claimed that the defenses violate the posting rules but the personal unjustified attacks do not. This, however, is in essence what is being done whenever defenses to the film critic’s attacks are not published while his attacks get published.
Keep up the good fight, Dave G. I am honored to have your back in fighting the bigotry and false narratives that emanate from the wokie left. By the bye, I don’t know if you have read and/or seen some of the works of Dinesh D’Souza, but his documentary version of his important book “Death of a Nation” covers some of the important truths you have pointed out in your honorable attempt to correct the numerous errors and false narratives of the film critic. This documentary can be seen for free on YouTube at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wmo8VkuN5o4&t=2696s
As is also the case regarding his other works, D’Souza tears apart the false historical narratives and false claims arising out of them that are pushed by the wokie left. More importantly, D’Souza exposes the great evil found much, much more on the Left than on the Right, and he does so with objective facts and data in his commitment to objective truth. Again, he employs those things that support objective truth and not bogus narratives. Check it out and recommend it to others as well.
To pick out just one lie in the sea of lies of this comment, DocVerit, I note that when I confronted you with evidence from Father John Hardon’s Modern Catholic Dictionary supporting my contention that Matt Walsh wrongly accused Simeone Biles of showing “the opposite of courage” (i.e., cowardice) for actions that were in fact courageous—since Walsh wrongly defined bravery as “refus[ing] to quit precisely when most people would,” thereby lumping together bravery with rashness, which fortitude moderates—you did not respond.
My guess is that you realized that your only options were to a) admit that Walsh was wrong, I was right, and that you were therefore wrong to accuse me on this point, or b) to double down and accuse Biles of cowardice, in effect saying that you know what her body and her mind were capable of that day better than she did.
And I don’t think you wanted to do either of those two things, because a) admitting I was right about anything would go counter to your goal of only ever trolling, and b) accusing Biles of cowardice would be letting your mask slip too much to other readers. But we will see, I guess.
The human virtue of moderation comes through the cardinal virtue of temperance; and it is a fruit of the Holy Spirit bourne out in grace as it counts with God.
Human fortitude, another, different, cardinal virtue, allows you to stay on the right path; besides which it is a GIFT of the Holy Spirit, not a fruit, which God imparts so that what matters to Him happens as He wants it to be.
You may be getting many of the virtues wrong SDG, not just 2 of them, in these detailed reviews; that are not necessarily righted because intricacies can be found or because the effort you make to decorate them is relentless.
You’re…are you really saying that Matt Walsh got the definition of bravery right, and Fr. Hardon’s Modern Catholic Dictionary got it wrong?! That’s your play?
You disagree with Fr. Hardon and stand by Walsh’s contrary claim that “To be brave is to refuse to quit precisely when most people would”? I admit, I did not see that coming.
In Tango and Cash, Stallone and Russell are in a shower scene appearing to be bathing naked together where they spend like eighteen (18) hours (forever moment) working things out with brains but shooting the breeze as they swinging their bodies through the streaming water. It’s supposed to be chic and edge bro-stuff “we’d understand” but it is revolting -and silly. Some writer and the producer decided that it was the right way to portray something and so they put together all that “creativity” and “audience appeal” into making it a feature for the film.
You’d argue it is supposed to be a thoughtful and meaningful asset with the virtues too? Actor fortitude? Moderation?
This is what goes on in Hollywood, movies are often used to initiate actors into a perversity in the reigning culture. It advances them when they concede to act it. The actors then get interiorly snagged in it. Later when they have proved themselves in some style responsible for the same culture -code of silence type of thing & etc. and whatever and whatever.,- they are graduated as true men and women of genres and veterans of red carpets. They get a star in the ground. What they have to say is “honoured” as weighty in experience and knowledge.
A “just recognition” for “effort”? That is drama?
Their own lives stupefy them. It can scar them permanently; some of them never recover or remain personal and social dystopes; and some of them commit suicide.
Elias, your bizarre non sequitur ramblings (Tango & Cash?!) suggest that you have either decided not to address the question of which definition of fortitude is correct, Matt Walsh’s or Father Hardon’s; whether Walsh was correct to accuse Biles of “the opposite of courage”; and whether DocVer was correct to accuse me of “personally and despicably attack[ing] Matt Walsh” for his attack on Biles; or else that you haven’t followed the discussion.
Responses/Rebuttals provided. CWR is protecting you and refuse to publish them even though fairly mild and not anywhere near as pointed as other comments they have published. Out of my hands if they continue to treat you as a victim needing special protection from objective analysis.
Wrong application of Fr. Hardon’s definition by you, and false dichotomy set up by you between Walsh and Hardon……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….Again, CWR will not post my responses and rebuttals.
I missed a few more comment gems by Dave G. that I will only briefly comment on here since the Reply button is not available to respond just below his posts.
Dave G. has honestly pointed out some serious problems with the recently created Juneteenth holiday that does not support unity as many have falsely claimed. Sadly but not unexpectedly, because he emphasized some realities that offend the Left and their made-up narratives, one person in particular tried in vain to find fault with Dave G.’s reasonable conclusions, but Dave G. exposed that person’s errors and blatant hypocrisy in response. CWR readers interested in the short but most revealing exchange can find them beginning with Dave G.’s comment posted on June 20 @4:39 AM, and then concluding with his additional hypocrisy-exposing remarks on June 21 @3:27 AM.
As for the problems emanating from the creation of the ridiculously named “Juneteenth” itself, a most interesting and insightful perspective has recently been provided by the courageous and wise Candace Owens that can be found on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEZ5E0y1QQA .
For those of you who may not know, Candace Owens, like other black people with more intelligent views that reflect more conservative principles, is considered by the wokie Left to be a traitor to her race that makes her worthy of their scorn. However, an honest assessment of her work and her stated mission to really help black people succeed with honor (in large part by rejecting the false narratives of the Left that insist black people cannot succeed without government help because they are perpetual victims of racism, etc.) reveals that she is a true hero of not only her race but of all people who believe in standing up for traditional values and ethics that never excuse violence, stealing, and so on as acceptable responses and actions to “feeling oppressed” that the wokie Left actually defends. Owens has also recently stated in public that she is seriously considering joining her husband as a member of the Catholic Church by leaving behind here more fundamentalist faith that she grew up with. Let us hope and pray that she joins the One True Church soon.
DocVer, is it your view (as it appears to be Elias’s) that Matt Walsh and not Father Hardon has defined courage correctly? That Father Hardon was wrong to say that fortitude “moderates rashness” (which Elias appears to think must be wrong, since moderation is an entirely different virtue!)? That deciding not to press ahead rashly in the face of excessive difficulties and dangers can never be a mark of courage, as Father Hardon believes, but only of “the opposite of courage,” as Walsh says?
I’m curious what you think about this question you keep ducking.
On a general level, in the human virtues, not pressing ahead is not “moderation balancing fortitude” with “courage”; it comes under prudence.
Then the human virtue associated in the waiting is patience.
If it was feeling like something to be endured, it could relate to a psychological issue or immaturity or sin. It would depend on the specifics.
If you were a soldier in a heavily bombarded defensive position, keeping cover is smart whereas keeping your spirit goes to the bravery etc.
SDG, were I to have to teach virtues I wouldn’t use your types of in-depths nor would I use these odd-constructed super-fatuous cartoons.
I don’t mean to lecture; it’s a comment that is bound to offer disruption. I have to take care not to get too engrossed lest another nightmare comes.
False Dichotomy,…but you know this already, yet you cannot stop using the cheap and dishonest straw man argument in support of your false dichotomy re: Hardon v. Walsh that you have completely botched in your application of Hardon’s definition/explanation of the virtue of Fortitude which contains more elements than courage in and of itself. CWR is now protecting you from my more detailed posts that expose your faulty approach, perhaps after seeing your irrational insistence on redefining Oxymoron.
Oh well. Will this mild response get published? Hopefully, but not holding my breath. By the bye, no ducking when responses have been submitted but not published.
No one is protecting anyone here. It’s just that comments full of thinly veiled (if veiled at all) personal attacks aren’t going to get much traction.
SDG thank you but I have to find my own ways to be able to keep thinking outside the box in the face of your very focused (over-) analyzing (?) and your recent concentration on animated fantasy movies. I mean to say, whatever merits may be there in your reviews, there is no determinism going on in terms of necessarily paralleling of insights. And not only am I certain of this, I can prove it by the very reactions I am having as you see here!
There is also a need to procure compensations for the expenditure required to get through your heavy-going high-maintenance style. With all that work to do just to read a review one has to find the ways to preserve composure and not allow perspectives to deplete and faze out or short circuit -yet rebound to normalcy quick. This could go in multiple directions but here are two.
One would be the relief found in making the contrast with something odd and somewhat transparently despicable and tacky like Tango and Cash.
Another would be to recommend alternative viewing like The Glass Shield. Once one gets through your reviews or for that matter the animations themselves; or even if a person just had to stop mid-way because he couldn’t take any more, he might find THIS movie to be light but active and easy to leave behind once seen. Intelligent plot. Acting to plot. Plot catharsis. Arguably maybe the rookie cops should have had more robust character backgrounds; but nonetheless, they are only just starting out and the lesson is learned not to get it wrong. Pointed cast, Anderson, Ironside, Ice, etc.
‘ ….. J.J. agrees to back up his colleague and say the suspect made an illegal turn. It takes him a while to realize that his little lie, which he thought would get more “scum” off the streets, is supporting a scheme to frame the motorist for murder.
…..
Burnett’s stylish direction, as well as his decision to refrain from using any curse words in the script, puts the focus on the characters and the ideas. He never loses sight of them, even as he tells an absorbing suspense story. ‘
https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1995-06-02-1995153170-story.html
Elias, you’re more than welcome to hold forth about whatever suits your fancy, and blessings on you! Knock yourself out. I just wanted to be sure that we were clear about the secondary operation of fortitude in moderating rashness. You seemed to me to think that because fortitude and moderation are different virtues, I was confused about that, and I wanted to be sure that you understood now. If you’re still unsure, I can show you more in the Summa. Cheers.