Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Is Christian art an expression of white supremacism?

Categories
Culture
Defending our Civilization
News Highlights
rhetoric
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Overnight, we noted a certain Mr Sean King, aka “Talcum X” who has perhaps 1.1 million Twitter followers:

I think the statues of the white European they claim is Jesus should also come down.

They are a form of white supremacy.

Always have been.

In the Bible, when the family of Jesus wanted to hide, and blend in, guess where they went?

EGYPT!

Not Denmark.

Tear them down . . . .

Yes.

All murals and stained glass windows of white Jesus, and his European mother, and their white friends should also come down.

They are a gross form white supremacy.

Created as tools of oppression.
Racist propaganda.

They should all come down.

Of course, immediately, Egypt c. 7 – 4 BC was cosmopolitan, especially its capital of that time, Alexandria (which had a large Jewish quarter . . . Jews may have been 10% of the Roman Empire).

Similarly, here is a Roman statue of Cleopatra, mid C1 BC . . . about the time of her visit to Rome, last Queen of Egypt (by then a Roman client state):

Cleopatra VII, last ruler of Egypt, a Ptolemaic Greek who may have had some Egyptian lineage also. (HT: Wikipedia)

No, Egypt was quite cosmopolitan. And indeed, a point made by objectors in Mr King’s Twitter thread was to post this, showing the racial diversity of Ancient Egypt. Though, of course, hair colour is subject to discolouration and the blue eyes claim is in some cases dubious. Mind you, I have cousins with very African features and sapphire blue eyes, given St Elizabeth, Jamaica’s notorious tri-continental racial mashup so blue eyes in some cases would not be implausible:

Similarly, another commenter posted various holy family portrayals, including:

Also:

Here is a very Medieval scene from the C14 Morgan Bible MS:

In that light, let us now ponder the only sculpture Michelangelo signed, his awesome Pieta, with a forever young Mary holding the body of her son across her lap as she mourns:

Pieta, Michelangelo (HT: Wiki Media and Stanislav Traykov )

Then, there is Poland’s famous (and once defaced by Hussite raiders) Black Madonna, originally a Byzantine Icon:

The Black Madonna Icon, venerated by Popes (HT: Wikipedia)

The point is obvious, people often portrayed Jesus, the Holy Family and other Biblical figures in light of their own culture.

And duly, in our scientific, digitally besotted age, we have tried a digital reconstruction of Jesus as a typical C1 Palestinian Jew:

Jesus as a typical C1 Palestinian Jew (HT: Pop Mech)

I suspect, it will not only be BA77 who will prefer this digital painting based on a shroud image:

And, here is a digital fade:

And of course, here is one of the Rose Windows of Notre Dame:

The South Rose Window, Notre Dame

Why bother?

Because, our art and monuments reflect who we are and what we aspire to be. Just so, the besmirching, branding, defacing, deliberate destruction and replacement of great art and key historic monuments is a symbolic raping of a culture and the souls of its people, meant to scar the soul.

That’s why Mao sicced his Red Guards on Chinese treasures, even desecrating graves and bodies given honourable burial. It is why today’s culture form marxist heirs of said Red Guards target cultural achievements and monuments, smear them with one sided or outright slanderous graffiti and use that as an excuse to burn, deface, tear down.

For example, is this even near a responsible summary of the man who — warts and all — led Britain’s lonely stand for what he termed “Christian Civilisation” against Hitler’s triumphant Panzers, Stukas and Messerschmitts in that awful summer now eighty years distant, 1940?

This is rage-driven Civilisation replacement that they intend.

But those on the streets likely don’t understand the need for cultural buttresses to sustain a sound Constitutional Democracy, in their burning zeal to be rid of what they see as an evil civilisation with effectively no redeeming virtues.

So, let us remind of the good governance challenge and what triggering anarchic chaos is liable to trigger, a tumble into the vortex of tyranny:

U/d b for clarity, nb Nil

Likewise, let us refresh ourselves on one of the crown jewels of our civilisational inheritance, our natural law heritage:

We can readily identify at least seven inescapable first duties of reason. Inescapable, as they are so antecedent to reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to them; i.e. they are self-evident. Duties, to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour, so also to fairness and justice etc. Such built in law is not invented by parliaments or courts, nor can these principles and duties be abolished by such. (Cf. Cicero in De Legibus, c. 50 BC.) Indeed, it is on this framework that we can set out to soundly understand and duly balance rights, freedoms and duties; which is justice. The legitimate main task of government, then, is to uphold and defend the civil peace of justice through sound community order reflecting the built in, intelligible law of our nature. Where, as my right implies your duty a true right is a binding moral claim to be respected in life, liberty, honestly aquired property, innocent reputation etc. To so justly claim a right, one must therefore demonstrably be in the right. Thus, too, we may compose sound civil law informed by that built-in law of our responsibly, rationally free morally governed nature; from such, we may identify what is unsound or false thus to be reformed or replaced even though enacted under the colour and solemn ceremonies of law.

For, as Cicero reminded us, c 50 BC, in De Legibus: “Law. . .  is the highest reason, implanted in nature, which prescribes those things which ought to be done, and forbids the contrary” and again, of how “the voice of conscience is a law, that moral prudence is a law, whose operation is to urge us to good actions, and restrain us from evil ones.

That core heritage was endorsed by the Apostle Paul, even as he gives a form of the Golden Rule and explains in brief how conscience instructs and how love sums up law:

Rom 2: 14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them . . . .

Rom 13:Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. [ESV]

Themes like these would be built up and integrated into core thought, e.g. by The Angelic Doctor, St Thomas Aquinas:

So, when rage-driven radicals brand Christian art as intentionally oppressive racism tantamount to Nazism (which was neo-pagan heresy, strictly) and demand its despoliation, they destabilise more than they imagine.

It is time to correct such imbalance and blinding ill-advised rage lest we wreck what we cannot easily recover, our civilisation. Never mind, warts and all. END

Comments
EG, I should note that art represents our vision and that insofar as it captures a slice of verisimilitude, it reflects us in our world. Part of that is that we erect memorials or monuments, and that when we do so, we desire that they be beautiful and durable. KFkairosfocus
June 24, 2020
June
06
Jun
24
24
2020
04:57 AM
4
04
57
AM
PDT
Marfin, more and more it is plain that the real offense being taken is that our civilisation dares to exist. This includes, that it has genuine heroes such as the Norwegian immigrant who volunteered and became a Colonel, leading his men with exemplary bravery until he was mortally wounded at Chicamauga. His memorial statue was knocked down, beheaded and tossed in a lake. The attitude includes that the Christian faith (warts and all) has made a major and even pivotal positive contribution to that civilisation. I draw the conclusion that there is no appeasing of Red Guards drunk on being the vanguard of the new order -- as they imagine. In fact, they are only cannon fodder and pawns for street theatre that someone else is running for an agenda that is usually so indefensible that it has to ride piggyback on genuine concerns, grievances or challenges. The solution is first fix the crisis, i.e. protest is a right but so soon as one slanders another or calls for violation of their legitimate rights or becomes engaged in riotous, lawless assembly (including by enabling the more violent) one has become part of the problem, not a contributor to a solution. Principle one, while our civilisation must always be open for genuine reform, it is not a suicide pact. KFkairosfocus
June 24, 2020
June
06
Jun
24
24
2020
04:31 AM
4
04
31
AM
PDT
Its a slippery slope for sure, being Irish, does any item that has the union flag on it become offensive , Triumph motorcycles being one, what about a brief trip through London, Paris , Rome, Mongolia, but a few of the countries who had empires and have offensive statues, monuments, iconography on almost every street so will we tear it all down because someone is offended , and is one offended person enough , how many offended people are required to tear it down. But then again who gets to decide what is offensive.Marfin
June 24, 2020
June
06
Jun
24
24
2020
03:14 AM
3
03
14
AM
PDT
F/N: Are images, symbols, paintings, Sunday School pictures, stained glass windows etc commonly seen in and around churches or even in Bibles graven idolatrous images to be banned? While sometimes things cross that line, not generally. A good first answer is that in the design of the tabernacle, temple and Ark in the OT, we have representations of angels (on the cover for the Ark), fruit, animals (bulls holding up the bronze sea of water), horns on altars, etc. There was even the bronze snake on a pole, which, when it was abused as an object of worship, was then destroyed. For that matter, to this day, the Capital Letter A retains the shape of an ox's head and Lower Case a is a similar representation. We hardly need to note the pagan uses of bulls. So, should we now discard the alphabet? Obviously, no. From the beginning the scriptures were written in alphabetic script, using aleph, etc. The sound approach, then, is not iconoclasm but the refusal to use art, illustrations, imagery etc as objects of undue veneration. Though at the same time, objects devoted to sacred use should be treated with due respect. Isa 53 speaks of prophetically of messiah that he was not to be a person of such extraordinary appearance that his movie star looks and eloquence etc would compel a charismatic mesmerised following. Instead, we would see a man of sorrows acquainted with suffering and grief. Yes, an extraordinary character, mind and one manifesting God's power to save, heal, deliver. Yes, one who would be lamb and sin offering. Yes, one who after the agony of death would prolong his days and see the light of life. So, the compulsion is not that of the charismatic politician but that of the finger of God at work despite accusations of working by evil powers. The sign would be, holy power. And that holy power in love, truth, rescue, deliverance, healing and good news that brings salvation to those who would receive him remains the central attracting power down to today. Never mind slanderous insinuations and invidious associations with nazism etc. In that context Christian art is a tool of communication, not a representation of hate and subjugation. The slanders as were noted fall to the ground. KFkairosfocus
June 24, 2020
June
06
Jun
24
24
2020
01:37 AM
1
01
37
AM
PDT
F/N: An escaped Venezuelan activist, here, discusses with Laura Ingraham, the ever escalating demands of the Red Guards in a cultural revolution. In a part her words are:
Elizabeth Rogliani Otaola: I had friends who told me it’s just the Confederate statues. And I said ‘no’ it’s not going to be just the Confederate statues just wait and see. This is a slippery slope. The next thing is going to be all the symbols of the United States, the Founding Fathers are going to be attacked, religious symbols are going to be attacked. And, the next, probably museums. Anything can be attacked if you just let it happen. If you just let the first ones come down, nothing, there’s no limits to whats next… It’s a cultural revolution. It’s an attempt to change the national identity. They’re trying to change the system.
The point is obvious, policymaking, policing and courts or art, history, cultural heritage etc should never be handed over to lawless, riotous mobs pretending to act in the name of the community. There are adequate provisions for genuinely peaceful assembly, petition, election and lawsuit. So, the moment protest crosses the line into riot, by destruction or defacing of property, by blocking roads without due march or parade permits etc, police action is warranted. Resort to violence in the face of such police action or targetting of passersby etc should also be recognised as riotous action. Those who resort to the mob are part of the problem, not the solution. KFkairosfocus
June 24, 2020
June
06
Jun
24
24
2020
01:10 AM
1
01
10
AM
PDT
There's an amazing story of racism in the Bible when used as an excuse for challenging the authority of Moses. You can read about it and God's response to defamation based on the skin color of the wife of Moses in Numbers 12. Note that Cushites are black Africans. I can just imagine God saying, "Oh, so you like white skin?" -QQuerius
June 23, 2020
June
06
Jun
23
23
2020
06:08 PM
6
06
08
PM
PDT
One aspect of the attraction and power of Christianity is that the person of Jesus appeals to people of every culture, race and region. They can relate to the Bible stories and the things he talks about. Indeed, the Bible has been translated into every major language and more minor languages than any other writings. And in the people's own language, those writings speak profoundly and wisely to the people who read or listen. As a result, people can feel sure that Jesus is one with them and thereby assume he looks like them. And as EG says in his last paragraph @25, by being relatable and looking like them, his teachings will appeal all the more to them. While on Earth, Jesus was, of course a middle-eastern Jew, with features common to that area. Indeed, he probably looked quite average: see Isaiah 53:2, "He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him." The attraction of Jesus was in what he said and did, and those are what draw people from every tribe and nation to him still today!Fasteddious
June 23, 2020
June
06
Jun
23
23
2020
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT
JaD & AS78: Earlier, I noted:
No, a civilisation does not need to be perfect in every detail at all times before it is worth defending. Especially, given the obvious implications of the realistic alternatives.
That is where we are. KFkairosfocus
June 23, 2020
June
06
Jun
23
23
2020
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT
@JaD Sigh you are sadly correctAaronS1978
June 23, 2020
June
06
Jun
23
23
2020
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT
JaD:
In the PC left’s mind their narrative trumps the truth
Major violation of a first duty of reason, there. And as the seven explicitly listed are inextricably intertwined, it means they are not agents of justice either. So, terms like social justice and the like are loaded with deceit and thus too injustice. Moral inversion, the better to undermine those they intend to attack. No wonder we see them pushing to abolish the police. A complicating part of the problem, not the solution. KF PS: to really move to solutions, this is where we have to begin:
We can readily identify at least seven inescapable first duties of reason. Inescapable, as they are so antecedent to reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to them; i.e. they are self-evident. Duties, to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour, so also to fairness and justice etc. Such built in law is not invented by parliaments or courts, nor can these principles and duties be abolished by such. (Cf. Cicero in De Legibus, c. 50 BC.) Indeed, it is on this framework that we can set out to soundly understand and duly balance rights, freedoms and duties; which is justice. The legitimate main task of government, then, is to uphold and defend the civil peace of justice through sound community order reflecting the built in, intelligible law of our nature. Where, as my right implies your duty a true right is a binding moral claim to be respected in life, liberty, honestly aquired property, innocent reputation etc. To so justly claim a right, one must therefore demonstrably be in the right. Thus, too, we may compose sound civil law informed by that built-in law of our responsibly, rationally free morally governed nature; from such, we may identify what is unsound or false thus to be reformed or replaced even though enacted under the colour and solemn ceremonies of law.
In turn, these point to the inherently good, utterly wise root of reality. It is he who will help us set the crooked straight.kairosfocus
June 23, 2020
June
06
Jun
23
23
2020
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT
KF & Aaron, None of that matters. In the PC left’s mind their narrative trumps the truth. So it doesn’t matter what the actual historical facts about the crusades are (which to be fair are quite complicated) they’re evil because people with a left wing mindset say they’re evil. The only point that I was trying to make @ 32 is that in the PC left’s mind, because the crusades were evil, guilt by association condemns everything Catholic. So following that logic any art or architecture associated with Catholicism has to go. It’s the same logic they are using with Civil War statues and statues of the American founding fathers. YOU CAN’T REASON WITH THESE PEOPLE.john_a_designer
June 23, 2020
June
06
Jun
23
23
2020
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT
@30: “I believe that there’s one person who’s certainly very disgusted with all those artistic images (whether painting or sculpture) of Christ.” Could it be God himself? Hmm...jawa
June 23, 2020
June
06
Jun
23
23
2020
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT
JaD (& attn EG), it is usually not said -- 1/2 truth games again -- that from 630 - 730 Islam expanded in a horrific wave of conquests from India to France, and further attacks went on for another thousand years; indeed that's what "To the Shores of Tripoli" is about. Yes, the first post revolutionary war of the USA was a defence against Islamist aggression. In that context, massacres and enslavement of pilgrims in the Holy Land and a linked appeal from Byzantium led to what, strategically, was a counter-offensive. Not particularly well carried out in most regards and associated with atrocities. However, failure to address in due context is always a sign that something is wrong. More to the point, it was raised as a tainting distractor, in the face of an immediate threat of Red Guards on the streets mounting up in anti-civilisational attacks, now trying to target the Christian Faith as though it were inherently the religious equivalent to Nazism. The attitude manifested tells us all we need to know about fundamental hostility to our civilisation and thus enabling of misanthropy. No, a civilisation does not need to be perfect in every detail at all times before it is worth defending. Especially, given the obvious implications of the realistic alternatives. It is obvious that someone has spent a long time, with serious money backing serious psychological softening up campaigns. Such need to be decisively answered and turned back now; we need to stop the mainstreaming of anticivilisational folly. Yes, reforms need to be dealt with, but need to reform must not distract us from seeing clear and present mortal dangers. Abolish the police is an unambiguous sign that the Rubicon has been passed. KFkairosfocus
June 23, 2020
June
06
Jun
23
23
2020
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT
Deuteronomy 5:8-11
8 “‘You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 9 You shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 10 but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments. 11 “‘You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain.
NKJV MacArthur Study Bible, 2nd Edition
5:8  a carved image. Cf. Ex. 20:4, 5. Reducing the infinite God to any physical likeness was intolerable, as the people found out in their attempt to cast God as a golden calf (cf. Ex. 32).
  Deuteronomy 4:15 Idolatry Forbidden
15 “Therefore watch yourselves very carefully. Since you saw no form on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire,
Reformation Study Bible provided by Ligonier Ministries
4:15 you saw no form. God is transcendent Spirit (John 4:24), which rules out any idolatrous representation of God in the form of animate objects (vv. 16–18), and any worship of the created order (v. 19).
Exodus 20:4 
4 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
NKJV MacArthur Study Bible, 2nd Edition
20:4–6 The mode or fashion of worship appropriate to only one Lord forbids any attempt to represent or caricature Him by use of anything He has made. Total censure of artistic expression was not the issue; the absolute censure of idolatry and false worship was the issue. Violation would seriously affect succeeding generations because the Lord demanded full and exclusive devotion, i.e., He is a jealous God (cf. 34:14; Deut. 4:24; 5:9). The worship of man-made representations was nothing less than hatred of the true God.
Reformation Study Bible provided by Ligonier Ministries
20:4 carved image. The term means something hewn from wood or stone. The prohibited image may be that of the Lord, since other deities have been excluded by v. 2, though the qualifying words “any likeness of anything” suggest that pagan idols are in view. Israel was to be distinguished from the nations by her imageless worship. Images are forbidden, not because there could be none, since God made mankind in His own image (Gen. 1:26, 27), but because God must reveal Himself, not be subject to human imagination. In His own time, God did provide His own image—Jesus Christ is the true image of the Godhead in bodily form (Col. 1:15; 2:19). See “Syncretism and Idolatry” at Hos. 2:13.
PaoloV
June 23, 2020
June
06
Jun
23
23
2020
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT
https://www.catholic.com/search?q=CrusadesAaronS1978
June 23, 2020
June
06
Jun
23
23
2020
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT
[W]ould we have the same reverence for the stained glass if they depicted white crusaders slaughtering brown muslims?
The Roman Catholic Church was responsible for launching the crusades. So we already have guilt by association which means everything associated with the Catholic Church has to go. Bye, bye cathedrals. Well, at least that’s where Ed’s twisted logic is trying to take us. The problem is that there are some people out there who think he is being logical.john_a_designer
June 23, 2020
June
06
Jun
23
23
2020
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PDT
DS, that there may be legitimate grievances is one thing; allying oneself with anti-civilisation chaotic forces is another. That make one into a compounding of the problem, not part of the solution. KFkairosfocus
June 23, 2020
June
06
Jun
23
23
2020
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT
I believe that there’s one person who’s certainly very disgusted with all those artistic images (whether painting or sculpture) of Christ.jawa
June 23, 2020
June
06
Jun
23
23
2020
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=3006545782747021&id=100001748876903 I have many videos of this sort of thing, this just posted, I’ve seen the good too, but it’s more and more becoming this and this is mildAaronS1978
June 23, 2020
June
06
Jun
23
23
2020
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT
Folks, think about the habits of policy making by mob that are being formed. That is NOT how you want to be governed in any sane polity. Those now exulting in street power are probably unaware of their historical fate once a strong man or ruthless faction seizes power. As they are unruly, they then become expendable cannon fodder at best, or are simply eliminated at worst. Such are part of why the road of radical revolutions is so suicidally destructive. KFkairosfocus
June 23, 2020
June
06
Jun
23
23
2020
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT
Racism is being used as an excuse to do something that they’ve wanted to do this whole time Hundreds if not thousands of black ministries would completely disagree with the very notion of tearing Jesus statues down Not to mention entire countries that are not “white” that would be up in arms over doing just that I’m hard-pressed to believe that Dr. King would approve this and this was his dream This has nothing to do with racism or injustice of any kind this has evolved into something else It is not surprising that certain atheists that have NEVER brought this issue up in the past are now in full support of this nonsense reasoning as bandwagon supports.AaronS1978
June 23, 2020
June
06
Jun
23
23
2020
10:06 AM
10
10
06
AM
PDT
The illegal desecration, defacement and destruction of civil war monuments, and now some of the U.S. founding fathers… is nothing more than iconoclasm. Iconoclasm which has historically been associated with fanatical religious fundamentalism-- recently, for example, with ISIS and the Taliban. In other words the secular-progressive left has succumbed to the same fanatical religious fundamentalist mindset. The only difference they don’t think they’re religious. Maybe they’re not but their mindset is virtually the same and equally-- well, I was going to say equally destructive but the speed this movement has spread across the U.S. and around the world-- it’s truly unprecedented.john_a_designer
June 23, 2020
June
06
Jun
23
23
2020
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT
KF
Because, our art and monuments reflect who we are and what we aspire to be.
I think you have to distinguish between art and monuments, although the line can sometimes be fuzzy. Notre Dame was a beautiful building and I was lucky enough to see it shortly before the fire. But would we have the same reverence for the stained glass if they depicted white crusaders slaughtering brown muslims? I would hope not. Depictions of Jesus come in many different shapes and colours, even with distinct Asian features. To make him relatable to the average person, I think it only natural that he would be depicted with similar racial features to the locals.Ed George
June 23, 2020
June
06
Jun
23
23
2020
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PDT
It is interesting to note that the Democratic party has always been a party that has incited racial division. Whereas Republicans were founded as an anti-slavery party,, and have always been at the forefront of bringing forth true racial equality under the law.
Dinesh D'Souza: The face of bigotry has changed in America https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MP4bQNLXNw Dinesh D'Souza: The secret history of the Democratic Party Republicans, meanwhile, to one degree or another, all opposed slavery. The party itself was founded to stop slavery. Of course there were a range of views among Republicans, from abolitionists who sought immediately to end slavery to Republicans like Abraham Lincoln who recognized that this was both constitutionally and politically impossible and focused on arresting slavery’s extension into the new territories. This was the main platform on which Lincoln won the 1860 election. The real clash was between the Democrats, north and south, who supported slavery and the Republicans across the country who opposed it. As Lincoln summarized it in his First Inaugural Address, one side believes slavery is right and ought to be extended, and the other believes it is wrong and ought to be restricted. “This,” Lincoln said, “is the only substantial dispute.” And this, ultimately, was what the Civil War was all about. In the end, of course, Republicans ended slavery and permanently outlawed it through the Thirteenth Amendment. Democrats responded by opposing the Amendment and a group of them assassinated the man they held responsible for emancipation, Abraham Lincoln. Republicans passed the Fourteenth Amendment securing for blacks equal rights under the law, and the Fifteenth Amendment giving blacks the right to vote, over the Democrats’ opposition. Confronted with these irrefutable facts, progressives act like the lawyer who is presented with the murder weapon belonging to his client. Darn, he says to himself, I better think fast. “Yes,” he now admits, “my client did murder the clerk and rob the store. But he didn’t kill all those other people who were also found dead at the scene.” In other words, progressives who are forced to acknowledge the Democratic Party’s pro-slavery history promptly respond, “We admit to being the party of slavery, and we did uphold the institution for more than a century, but slavery ended in 1865, so all of this was such a long time ago. You can’t blame us now for the antebellum wrongs of the Democratic Party.” Yes, but what about the postbellum crimes of the Democratic Party? From Democratic support for slavery, let’s turn to the party’s complicity in segregation and the Ku Klux Klan. Democrats in the 1880s invented segregation and Jim Crow laws that lasted through the 1960s. Democrats also came up with the “separate but equal” rationale that justified segregation and pretended that it was for the benefit of African Americans. The Ku Klux Klan was founded in 1866 in Pulaski, Tennessee by a group of former confederate soldiers; its first grand wizard was a confederate general who was also a delegate to the Democratic National Convention. The Klan soon spread beyond the South to the Midwest and the West and became, in the words of historian Eric Foner, “the domestic terrorist arm of the Democratic Party.”,,, many progressives have been working hard to come up with lies that can be passed off as facts. Progressives have a whole cultural contingent—Hollywood, the mainline media, the elite universities, even professional comedians—to peddle their propaganda. From the television show Madame Secretary to the front page of the New York Times to nightly quips by Stephen Colbert, the progressive bilge comes at us continually and relentlessly. In this bogus narrative, Republicans are the bad guys because Republicans opposed the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s. For progressive Democrats, the civil rights movement is the canonical event of American history. It is even more important than the American Revolution. Progressive reasoning is: we did this, so it must be the greatest thing that was ever done in America. Republicans opposed it, which makes them the bad guys. The only problem is that Republicans were instrumental—actually indispensable—in getting the Civil Rights Laws passed. While Lyndon Johnson pushed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with the backing of some northern Democrats, Republicans voted in far higher percentages for the bill than Democrats did. This was also true of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Neither would have passed with just Democratic votes. Indeed, the main opposition to both bills came from Democrats. Interestingly enough the GOP is not merely the party of minority rights but also of women’s rights. Republicans included women’s suffrage in the party’s platform as early as 1896. The first woman elected to Congress was Republican Jeanette Rankin in 1916. That year represented a major GOP push for suffrage, and after the GOP regained control of Congress, the Nineteenth Amendment granting women’s suffrage was finally approved in 1919 and ratified by the states the following year. The inclusion of women in the 1964 Civil Rights Act was, oddly enough, the work of group of racist, chauvinist Democrats. Led by Democratic Congressman Howard Smith of Virginia, this group was looking to defeat the Civil Rights Act. Smith proposed to amend the legislation and add “sex” to “race” as a category protected against discrimination. Smith’s Democratic buddies roared with laughter when he offered his one-word amendment. They thought it would make the whole civil rights thing so ridiculous that no sane person would go along with it. One scholar noted that Smith’s amendment “stimulated several hours of humorous debate” among racist, chauvinist Democrats. But to their amazement, the amended version of the bill passed. It bears repeating that Republicans provided the margin of victory that extended civil rights protection both to minorities and to women. https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/dinesh-dsouza-the-secret-history-of-the-democratic-party
Like Darwinists, Democrats are almost wholly dependent on deception in order to sell their [SNIP]. If anything ever needed to be torn down because it is a monument to racial oppression, then that monument to racial oppression that needs to be destroyed is none other than the Democratic party itself.bornagain77
June 23, 2020
June
06
Jun
23
23
2020
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT
Strange that New York still has a big lake named after King George.ET
June 23, 2020
June
06
Jun
23
23
2020
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT
Religion, freedom of religion has always been in the secular progressive lefts cross hairs. So this most recent development is not surprising. However, the speed, at least when it comes to western democratic societies (from what I know) has been quite unprecedented. Notice the shift in the cultural Marxist thinking from racist oppression to religious repression. But it’s not really a shift; it’s just two sides of the same coin. If you undermine and destroy religious freedom and tolerance you undermine and destroy democracy. You cannot any kind democratic government of without freedom of thought, conscience and belief. PS Maybe we should take another look at what happened to the Notre Dame Cathedral.john_a_designer
June 23, 2020
June
06
Jun
23
23
2020
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT
KF, I think at least some of what we are seeing are authentic actions taken by individuals in response to the unwarranted killing of black people.daveS
June 23, 2020
June
06
Jun
23
23
2020
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT
DS, street theatre operations to be media amplified in an ongoing 4th gen war. Effectively giving a mob veto to freedom of expression and opinion towards imposing what the mob wants.Here, utter delegitimisation of our civilisation. KFkairosfocus
June 23, 2020
June
06
Jun
23
23
2020
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT
"Racism is obviously a factor." DaveS. I disagree here. Tribalism is a factor, not racism. Racism is just the pretense to justify the violence. Which is apparently a pretense you have bought into. Andrewasauber
June 23, 2020
June
06
Jun
23
23
2020
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT
It is about change of power, certainly. Racism is obviously a factor. Perhaps more rebellion than revolution. People are hitting back in response to many years of abuse, and we can't expect them to be polite. As KF says, this is in some sense a war, and in wars, there is destruction and loss of life unfortunately. To be clear, I'm not endorsing any acts of violence.daveS
June 23, 2020
June
06
Jun
23
23
2020
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply