WHINING???

Did I necessarily say that Columbus was a "blood-thirsty tyrant"?
Another person projecting what you think people are saying! You prove my point with a passion! (And you and others managed to turn two whole threads on black history into whining about our supposed whining!) Whether he was a "blood thirsty tyrant" is not the point. He did do things that were wrong, but while you can rail on about King up and down, nobody can say anything about Columbus or other founders, as if they were sinless.

They could have come over as missionaries simply bringing the Gospel; help them build up their civilization, and then return to their land and allow the people to grow for themselves, instead of as conquerors killing the people and robbing the land. Then we wouldn't have all of this strife you whine about. Nobody ever thought of that alternative! What would the Bible have had us do? No, it's like either conquer, or they would remain backwards barbarians, and the "good" of making them "Christian" and "civilized" makes up for that, so once again, they were virtually sinless.

But for one thing, the best education was at white institutions back then. Two, King, as he developed, developed a great love for European culture and education and wanted to get involved in the highest academinc levels. This was apart of the common desire of many blacks to try to prove they were as good as whites. This is covered in Malcolm and Martin in America, (James Cone), which covers and compares the rise of both of these men. You can criticize this "integrationism" (both white segregationists, of course, and black separatists, such as the NOI criticized this), but he and others were trying to improve themselves, in contrast to your stereotype that all we did was lay around and whine. By rejecting him because of race, they helped promote the problems of black achievement, and at the same time...

...provided an "occasion" for the Communists to get involved and manipulate the turmoil to further their schemes as I had said in the first or second post. I never said there was any necessity to collaborate with the Communists, (once again, you make up something nobody ever said based on your own defensiveness) but they took advantage of the situation, their agenda sounded good to some in the Civil Rights, and it became an excuse to further reject the whole Civil Rights movement. Once again, if we had cleaned up this mess before, instead of people resisting to try to maintain the status quo, then that would have been one less foothold for the Communists to gain. But of course, the conservative bear no blame for anything; it's all the liberals. Now, does that sound realistic; really?

Oh, so now it is really in question whether there was ANY segregation at all. And It's "bigoted" to suggest otherwise! Despite all of the stories we have heard from blacks, including King, and including those who believed in hard work, and were honestly trying to pull themselves up by the bootstraps. But those were all just leftist lies, right? I guess we were all getting along nicely and everything was peaceful, until those big bad leftists came in and messed it all up. (Oh, but isn't that the type of statement you accuse us of "whining"?) No, nobody in this country's past ever did wrong! This the type of thinking is why everyone keeps "whining", because you can so easily point out others' sins, but seem to think your history/heritage has none.

BOTH bare the blame, as ALL are sinners, and that's something you just do not understand. You actually believe that all the problems in this society are solely the fault of liberals, and you're the one's spending an inordinate amount of time WHINING because people point out the faults of conservatives and the dark points of American history. (Precisely what I have been showing, and what this thread is all about!). You are the one doing the very things you accuse me and others of. But unlike you, I don't say ALL the blame belongs on one side, and I don't get defensive and try to rebuff any or all of the sins charged to one side.
So when people claim that everything is all the other side's fault, and then others come and shift their side's share of the blame where it belongs, it sounds to the guilty conscience of the deniers like ALL of the blame is being shifted to them, and they hear things to that effect that nobody has actually said (at least not here) and then lash out accordingly "oh, you're just blaming us [whitey, conservatives, etc.], but no, you're blaming the wrong people; it's them over there"! But we have heard all about all the sins of the left for long enough; now it's time for the right to admit to their own sins. Maybe then, all the "whining" and pointing back at you will subside.

This was a general statement about the methods religious conservatives have used at times. In its immediate context, he was talking about the political action of the Religious Right, particularly in the 80's. By extension, it also referred to the political action of those in the 60's and before, who among other things, thought that segregating blacks was the way to keep the nation pure (as we see so many people blaming them for everything). My point was that there was a conservative "social gospel" as well as a liberal one, and it is just as false; and Horton points this out elegantly. In fact, he warns that it IS cut from the same cloth as the liberal social gospel, and based on the same presumption (whether conscious or not) of human goodness (e.g. denial of sin, or sin seen in others only, not in self). So he acknowledges that that is liberal social gospel as well, but the conservatives are not free from its errors. So don't lash out at him unless you know all of what he said. You all spend so much time on the faults of liberals and blacks that you can't see the sin of your own system, and lash out whenver anyone pointa anything out. That is a very common human defense mechanism. But if we are Christians who are following Jesus, the time comes to stop denying and accept that we too are sinners, who have hurt other people. (Prov.28:13)

 

And that is a valid point to raise, as it is a double standard. Of course, that doesn't excuse Martha, and nobody is saying it does. But still, men who foster such injustice should not begin complaining about the women's "whining".
(I acknowledge the sexism in the "culture wars" just as much as racism, and do not defend males just because I am male)

 

Believe me, there are no real hard feelings on my end, though certain things people say are aggrivating at the moment. I am enjoying it in a way, as a hot issue like this needs to be voiced to try to bring some understanding. (I am more heated listening to this junk on TV or books where I can't voice my feelings/the other side of the story.) I cool down as the exchange goes on, and I pondered for a whole day whether to start this thread, but said that it's better to air all of this out, than to go on holding in angry feelings at what people say.