Unethical Tweet Of The Month: The New York Times…And A Close Runner-Up, Both Libeling America

This isn’t news, it isn’t history, it isn’t fair, and it is anti-American. Does anyone objective need more evidence that the New York Times has abandoned any sense of its role in informing the public? This is pure, indefensible race-baiting and Black Lives Matter propaganda.

1. Native American Tribes “owned” almost all of the territory everything in the U.S. was built on, including the New York Times building. They don’t any more.

2. The Mount Rushmore sculpture is art, and the political and social views of the artist, Gutzon Borglum, is a matter of record. The George Floyd mobs want to justify erasing as much American art and culture as possible by any means necessary. If the artwork itself won’t justify the destruction (as with the Emancipation Memorial, the second version of which was just marked for removal in Boston), then the subject will ( Columbus); if the subjects are defensible, than the artist must have something in his history to support the erasure of his work. It’s a disingenuous bootstrapping exercise, for the objective is really to destroy the symbols of our republic and re-write the history of the United States. An artist’s work and the artist are separate and distinct. In the case of Mount Rushmore, the work has taken on far more importance and symbolism, all positive, inspiring and uplifting. An American who cannot find pride in Mount Rushmore is an ignorant American, one whose understanding of his or her own nation has been poisoned, or one with a sinister agenda.

3. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson are not honored on the mountain face as “slaveholders” any more than Teddy Roosevelt is there because he was a big game hunter, or Abe Lincoln is honored for suspending the writ of habeas corpus. Washington is there because without his courage and measured leadership, there would be no United States of America. Jefferson is among the four because he brilliantly articulated the nation’s ideals, aspiration and mission, giving the Continental Congress the reasons they needed to take the dangerous leap toward independence from England.

4. The Times tweet is an insult to the nation and its heroes, and a deliberate effort to misinform its citizens. This paper has deteriorated into an enemy of all of us,

Runner-up: this tweet, by the Democratic Party:

So we may conclude from this tweet that the Democratic Party has wholly endorsed the extreme anti-America position that the entire nation and its history is rooted in racism and white-supremacy, and the 4th of July, the celebration of our nation’s founding, is a vile tradition celebrating white supremacy.

The inconvenient truth is that this nation was founded by Europeans and their ancestors, and that most of its accomplishment, achievements, innovations and victories were also the result of Europeans. It has been a white dominated culture and history, so  celebrating the nation’s history necessarily focuses disproportionately on the lives and contributions of white men. The current anti-white racist narrative that any event or achievement that did not involve African-Americans was by definition motivated by white supremacy is a clever but dishonest trap.

Let us be clear. The Democratic Party now opposes the concept, history and symbols of the United States of America.

“If you support America’s founding and our heroes throughout our history you’re now ‘glorifying white supremacy’? This is insane, historically illiterate nonsense. When will Joe Biden condemn his own party’s hatred of America?” wrote GOP spokeswoman Elizabeth Harrington.

Oh, he won’t. Nonetheless, this his party, and he is accountable.

To give the Democrats credit, they had the sense, if not the integrity, to take down their self-indicting tweet. The Times, apparently, wants us to know where it stands.

16 thoughts on “Unethical Tweet Of The Month: The New York Times…And A Close Runner-Up, Both Libeling America

  1. Honestly, Jack, I think the death of George Floyd might be 9/11 in reverse. After that terrible attack this whole nation united in patriotism, at least for a while. I think this event, for whatever reason, some might say it was too much of a jolt, some might say it had been building up to this for awhile and this was just the last straw, is what caused a good half of this nation to lose faith in it as conceived, and decide that as conceived it just isn’t working. That the Times did this should really come as no surprise after the 1619 project, written to paint all of America up to this point as racist and tainted because it was built on slavery. The Democratic Party is, arguably, just taking its cue from the liberal media, as it always does. I usually get fired up with patriotism as the holidays like Independence Day approach, but I’m almost afraid to do it now. I enjoy going to airshows, which almost always start with parachutists jumping the flag in, a rousing version of the national anthem, and a military flyover. Putting aside the fact that the airshow season this year is probably not going to happen at all due to the pandemic, a display like that sounds quaint and even tone-deaf against what’s going on now.

    1. This is absolutely true, but, thanks to folks like Howard Zinn and those who followed his ideas, now it’s become popular to say that this whole country stands on “stolen” land and is therefore tainted and unworthy of celebration. Mt. Rushmore was built on land sacred to the Sioux, in fact there was a court decision to that effect which ordered compensation for it, but they declined compensation, since that would have ended their claim to the land. To this way of thinking, every day we rise and sleep on land that yes, the Indians no longer own, but that’s because we took it. Every day we should hang our heads in shame of this unaddressed wrong, and anything that hurts that part of society needs to go, hence the push for “Indigenous People’s Day,” a celebration not of achievement, but of victimhood. Shame and guilt can be powerful jailers.

    2. You’re exactly right, but the idea has caught on that, at least for artists who have some form of racism in their past, the art and the man are inseparable. Tolerance for art that is now viewed as tainted is now no longer permissible. Every day a black man’s eyes fall on the image of Robert E. Lee, he’s reminded that he’s still not fully equal. Every day a Native American’s eyes fall on the image of Columbus (a genocidal rapist, they say), he’s reminded that this nation was built right over his people. And every day everyone who’s not white sees this image of four white men, two of them slaveowners, one a killer of Indians (Lincoln ordered the hanging of 38 Dakotas after a violent uprising in 1862), and the last a big game hunter whose attitude was that 9 of 10 Indians were only good dead, they’re reminded that this country is still by, for, and about white men. They’ve decided they won’t tolerate this anymore.

    3. Apparently this no longer matters. In a reverse of the ethics accounting dodge, now any less than 21st century views or thoughts on the subject of the races is enough to outweigh any good or achievement the subject may have done. It’s obvious, or should be, that almost none of the historical figures honored by statues or whatever are being honored for the bad things they did. Columbus isn’t being honored because he treated the Indians badly. St. Louis isn’t being honored because his views on Jews and Muslims were not the current ones. Andrew Jackson isn’t being honored because of the Trail of Tears or because he was a slaveowner. However, apparently, the thought is now that if you publicly honor someone whose history included these kind of things, you’re saying those things were all right, and there are those who don’t think those things are all right. Activist Kevin Powell, campaigning for a change to the national anthem, said “If there’s a tradition that hurts any part of the society — sexist, patriarchal, misogynistic — then it’s time to just throw it away.” That idea has gained traction, ironically after the SCOTUS ruled that the standard of the offended observer was unworkable in the Bladensburg Cross case.

    4. That’s not how they see it. To them it’s about bringing down some idols that never should have been erected in the first place, in the hopes of building “a new and more just system” and “bringing healing.”

    I think you are right that the Democratic Party has become a party opposed to the United States as is, but they wouldn’t be that way if there was no support for that view. That party, once allowed into power, intends to change everything. DC will become a state, they will pack the Supreme Court and the court, they will eliminate the electoral college, they will probably change the national anthem and the flag, there will be a significant change to public art and holidays, and the borders will be wide open. As far as a good chunk of this country is concerned, all of that is just fine. Also as far as a good chunk of this country is concerned, the president should not be giving some proud speech near a symbol of old-style patriotism this Independence Day, certainly not punctuated with military flyovers. He should be giving a speech that repudiates our history, apologizes for everything we did, and resolves to do better, before he invites everyone to join him in taking a knee. That isn’t happening this year, but maybe next year…

  2. Steve-O-in-NJ wrote, “I think this event, for whatever reason, some might say it was too much of a jolt, some might say it had been building up to this for awhile and this was just the last straw, is what caused a good half of this nation to lose faith in it as conceived, and decide that as conceived it just isn’t working.”

    “The seeds that were sown were plainly visible if you had cared enough to pay attention. The behaviors we’re seeing in our streets were predictable and maybe even preventable, but our apathy enabled it.”

    Subversion and Sedition

    Also…

    “As far as I can tell, the accusations drummed up by the social justice horde as a result of Floyd’s death are a complete fantasy, they’re extremely irresponsible and dangerous hyperbole that’s unsupportable with facts and their unethical rationalizations for violence is morally bankrupt.”

    Ignorance or Societal Brainwashing?

    If the hordes of social justice warriors turn their irrational focus to the destruction of something like Mt. Rushmore I think that will be the straw that breaks the silent majority and there will be blood spilled. Maybe martyrs to their cause is what some at the New York Times and some Democrats want.

  3. The Lakota tribe is as indigenous a population to the area as I am. None of what we call native Americans were here first. The modern tribes overran the idigenous peoples much like Cro Magnon man displaced neanderthals or how a more modern “tribe” displaced them.

    The irony is that all the sentiment toward native Americans regarding how unfair it was that we “stole” their lands yet the modern Nativists are seen as white supremacists who are xenophobes.

    This displacement is what I believe Aliza speaks to regularly when she writes about the elimination of white culture. It is becoming more apparent that assimilation is not the goal of the new arrivals.

    The best evidence against the notion of systemic racism is that white America is openly welcoming and facilitating its own displacement.

    I don’t doubt that one day a population will want to save Rushmore or the carving at Stone Mountain not as a tribute to American ideals but for the same reason we try to preserve paleo and neo lithic cave art.

    • Stone Mountain would already be gone if it were not by nature impossible to take down by conventional means. I’ve seen it – the carving is so big and so deep that only dynamite or an artillery bombardment could damage it. The fact is the park below is one huge monument to the Lost Cause. Even I, a political conservative who hates the idea of destroying public art, felt a little odd walking in it. The fact that it was dedicated on the centennial of the assassination of Lincoln was no coincidence, I believe. That said, I don’t see a way out of this that will satisfy anyone.

      • Steve,

        I don’t know if it matters why something exists even if it it perceived by some to be a reminder of a painful past.

        The concept of civil war and its foundations relating to slavery is always couched in terms racism and a desire to preserve white supremacy.

        Given my background in Economics, I evaluate most political issues in terms of who gets and who pays.

        If we had some states focused on heavy manufacturing while the others focused on services and the services states told the industrial states they all had to adopt renewable energy sources, that would be overwhelmingly costly to use in heavy manufacturing, or be shut down it stands to reason that those states might want to secede from the whole.

        Has anyone considered that the post war racial animus or desire to remember the Lost Cause was seeded in the absolute decimation of the South and the heavy hand of northern reconstructionists. Not in any history texts I have seen. Wiping out ancestral wealth through confiscatory taxes does not lend itself to reconciliation. It stands to reason that the Confederacy may have been defeated but how the north dealt with the south after of the war may have led to the creation of the klan.

        • The Klan may have been formed as an instrument of rebellion against heavy-handed Reconstructionists, but its primary victims were black citizens who were terrorized into staying home on Election Day and forced by local ordinances into a life that was slavery in all but name.

          The Lost Cause, regardless of what motivated it, is a false narrative. They seceded from the Union because they assumed Abraham Lincoln was going to take away their slaves and, thus, determined him to be the worst person in the world. There were certainly some economic issues at play in the conflict between the Southern and Northern states, but none so hotly contested as slavery.

          I visited Stone Mountain for the first time last August. We were planning on playing a round of mini-golf or looking through the attractions after taking the skylift up to the top of the mountain (and its breathtaking views). After our ride, though, we just stood there on a hotel porch at this honkin’ big monument on the side of the mountain and just got depressed. We left without doing anything else.

          I oppose the removal of most statues and monuments. I don’t think I’d care if this one went.

        • OK, I do have a solution: Stone Mountain can be turned into a kind of shooting range.

          Anyone who comes pays a certain amount of money to buy a certain type of ammunition. And then they can fire their bullet at the monuments. It will pick and peck at them bit by bit. More bullets, more damage. It will take time but that is part of the glory of it.

          Let’s say $2.00 a bullet or so. But then you can buy other ammunition more powerful for more money. Slowly and surely the monument will be defaces and reduced to dust. Maybe the more enraged will spend $100.00 on a given day. They might also be some sort of missile that people could fire for, I don’t know, a $1,000 maybe.

          This could get really big. Really ‘American’ as it involves both the use of high-powered weapns and the notion of achieving ‘social justice’.

          And then just think of the fees generated! Could they be used to pay reparations? Put Black children through Yale?

  4. AM.

    A couple of questions:

    Do you think the loss of slavery in the principally agricultural south would have been perceived as a potential death blow to the southern economy that would wipe out most peoples incomes?

    If so, was the south’s decision to demand to be released from the Union, given the culture of the day, if they believed the North was about decimate their economy wrong?

    If Lincoln had not moved troops and supplies to reinforce the garrison at Sumpter would the South Carolina militia felt it necessary to fire upon the fort which launched the war?

    Why did Lincoln believe that ratifiers of the Constitution were permanently enjoined from withdrawing that ratification? That question is never asked.

    The Klan that came about after reconstruction also terrorized Catholics, Italians and Republicans. The Klan was the para miltary arm of the Southern Democrats. Race was a factor but so to was political affiliation, religion and ethnicity. Therefore the Klan was not simply a racist organization. There is an organization that chronicles lynching by the Klan. If I recall, more non-blacks were lynched for their beliefs than blacks for their skin color.

    I see the Klan or those supporting the Lost Cause as having the same psychology as HRC’s Resistance team. They both see their preferred vision of the world slipping away.

    Back to the economics.

    Every economy is intertwined. All wealth and income is derived from the value that is created. The circular flow of income in agricultural regions is far more pronounced than in urban areas where foreign dollars injections are more likely because that is where the factories are and where the largest value is added.

    Keep in mind our revolution began much the same way. Colonists sent raw goods back to Europe where it was processed into finished goods then sent back to the colonies for sale. This would bleed all the potential for accumulating wealth away from the colonies. Mercantilism ruled the day. John Hancock did not sell insurance he was in import and export. It was there he made enough money to help finance the rebellion. The Civil war began a mere 90 years later. To put that into perspective Robert E Lees father delivered the proposal for independence to the second continental Congress on this day 244 years ago. Thus, the ideas of liberty in both economic life and political life were very strong in Virginia and the southern states.

    Most southerners did not own slaves but their incomes were as dependent on the practice as the mom and pop store the government closed this year from Covid were dependent on the economy immediately in their market area. The 19th century southern economy was built not on finished goods but raw materials. It was for that reason the north prevailed as it could starve the south of needed supplies.

    No landowner bought slaves to make them feel superior. The slaves then were the John Deere equipment of the day. If you go tell Californians that they must harvest all crops with mechanized equipment or pay labor at least 15 bucks an hour to migrant workers they too will revolt. The only difference is the ag sector is too small politically relative to the population to have the ability to mount much of a resistance. The only thing they can do is let the land lie fallow and food prices rise.

    Our entire cancel culture is designed to use the fear of lost income to coerce changes that others don’t want to make. There is no difference between what is going on today in the private sector and the governmentally sanctioned canceling of economic interests in the late 19th century.

    Slavery is an abomination but that belief is not held everywhere. Slavery occurs enmasse in China, and in Africa. One could say Joe Biden and Lebron James tacitly support slavery as long as the slaves are chinese muslims working in dark factories making shoes for Nike. The idea that slavery is uniformally condemned is a fiction. Holding 17th to 19th century societies to our ideals today is farcical if we say nothing about the practice elsewhere and enable it by buying goods that are cheaper because they are made with slave labor.

    Please pardon my lack of tying all these related ideas into a nice flowing essay. My editing capacity is too lacking on my cell phone.

    • Chris,
      Great comment! I frequently have the same thought about goods made in foreign sweatshops.
      Favored targets of the first Klan (1865-1871) were Northern carpetbaggers exploiting the financially weakened South, and their “scalawag” southern helpers and enablers. Next were those who actively collaborated with the North during the war when the Yankees occupied Southern communities. From what I have read, a lot of this “neighbor against neighbor” animus was dealt with by the Klan or other like-minded vigilante groups, of which there were several.

      • I need to correct the assertion that RE Lees father delivered the Virginia proclamation for the Declaration of Independence. I thought it was he and when I saw Jack’s reference later as his uncle I see I screwed up.

        With that said, I stand by the general time/ societal evolution realtionship. A similar relationship can be drawn that it was a mere 78 years ago that Democrat idol FDR stripped Japanese Americans on the west coast of their wealth and interred them in concentration camps.

    • “If Lincoln had not moved troops and supplies to reinforce the garrison at Sumpter would the South Carolina militia felt it necessary to fire upon the fort which launched the war?

      Why did Lincoln believe that ratifiers of the Constitution were permanently enjoined from withdrawing that ratification? That question is never asked.”

      If memory serves that is just what happened — I believe the fort’s commander notified the SC authorities that if they waited X number of days he would be compelled to surrender. The Union was not successful in resupplying the fort, but the SC authorities decided to force the issue. I invite you to check it out and correct me, if necessary but that’s my recollection of the events.

      Lincoln was certainly not the only one who went to war to preserve the Union — that was the main rallying cry for the first year of the war in the North. It was only later that Lincoln realized he had to also make the war about slavery if he was to ensure that the North would stick it out to the bitter end.

      I believe there had been a growing feeling in the country (most especially in the North) that our primary allegiance was owed to the country as a whole and not the state of our birth or residence. That was a paradigm shift from Revolutionary days, and the war absolutely accelerated it. A seemingly simple grammar shift is illustrative — we went from ‘The United States are’ to ‘The United States is’ (I don’t think our British cousins have caught on to this even yet).

      • DG
        To be honest I am recollecting information I researched in a 12th grade US History report some 48 years ago.

        You are correct Lincoln’s forces were unable to resupply Sumpter but not for the lack of trying. Again my recollection was that Sumpter was fired on when word got to SC that Lincoln’s forces were coming. I will not dispute the fact the Confederacy fired the first shot my question was did Lincolns order to resupply Sumpter create the condition for an attack. In other words why did Lincoln fail to use a diplomatic approach instead of a heavy handed provocation.

        The question about a state’s right to withdraw from the union when the majority plans to issue dictates that were never agreed to at the time of ratification without going through the amendment process has not been answered to my knowledge. Lincoln may have wanted to preserve the Union but what was his legal basis for sending troops to seceding states.

        What should states do if Congress passes legislation eliminating the Electoral College because the highly populous and politically adverse to the EC decides it no longer wants it?

        The thirteenth amendment came after the Feds used violence against those who were in political disagreement snd beat them into submission. Lincoln could not get that amendment passed before the war.

        Don’t get me wrong I dont agree with human chattle but our history of the civil war looks at it from a social humanitarian perspective that values the continuation of the American experiment over well being of a few states and not from an socio-economic political perspective It is easy to want to abolish slavery when your income is not dependent on its existance. A modern day equivalent is those advocating shutting the economy down to prevent the spread of Covid 19 were insulated from the effects of the shutdown. Those that bore the costs of the shutdown to such a degree they were wiped out finacially have been called selfish for wanting the economy to reopen. Imagine what would happen if only southern states were compelled to go broke by closing.

  5. #1: The Lakota were driven out of the Minnesota area by rival tribes who wanted that land (They still hold a grudge…we were first advised of that history by tribal members during a trip to S.D. a few years back). Europeans acquired land in that period, both in the Americas and in Europe, the same way the aboriginals did. They traded for it, or just took it, if they were powerful enough to do so. They essentially operated under the rules (“laws”, if you wish) in place at the time.

    #2: First they came for the Confederate memorials, …..

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.