This was the day, in 1858, that Abraham Lincoln, just-nominated as the Republican Illinois candidate for the U.S. Senate, addressed the state Republican Convention in Springfield and, speaking to more than 1,000 delegates, crafted a warning for the nation adapted from the New Testament: “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” It’s ironic, or perhaps appropriate, that the anniversary of the prophetic speech occurs as “Juneteenth,” the federal holiday designed to pander to African-Americans in the aftermath of the George Floyd Freakout makes this a long weekend. Juneteenth is a divisive holiday, based on race alone.
As A.M. Golden asked two years ago at the end of his guest column here, “Any thoughts on how easily America is going to transition into two Independence Days, one for whites, one for blacks?” My thought, based on the two years since: It is likely to transition into a permanently racially-conflicted and divided society, which is apparently just what progressives and Democrats want, only relived by further divisions. I fully expect, for example, for the next push by the increasingly bold and insatiable LGBTQ lobby is for a national holiday honoring the Stonewall riots that began on June 28, 1969. That one, like the federal holiday arriving on June 19, will also be celebrated by only one segment of the public while the others metaphorically scratch their collective heads, or, in the case of weenies, celebrate just to appear sufficiently woke.
I wonder what Abe would say about the dangers of today’s divided house?
1. On the topic of divided houses: NPR host Teran Powell used Flag Day to trash the American Flag and to discuss her anxiety when “surrounded by excessive American Flags.”
“For example, I’m Black American, and over the past few years, I’ve continued to analyze what the American Flag means to me,” Powell said. “Especially considering the growth in extremism in the post-Trump-presidency and those extremists using the American Flag against people of color to say they’re the real Americans.” Then she an anecdote about seeing American flags in Illinois when she was traveling with a friend, saying, “And both of us were like, ‘Yeah, we need to hurry up and leave. And I thought about it like, ‘why did we feel like that?”
Oh, I can answer that one. You feel like that because you live and anti-American, anti-white racist bubble, because you have swallowed Black Lives Matter propaganda whole, facts don’t matter to you because you like the benefits of being a perpetual victim. If NPR wasn’t practicing “diversity,” another bit of George Floyd reparations, I greatly doubt that any radio host who says “like” in consecutive sentences would have a job in radio.
Then, as supporting authority—don’t expect NPR to put on anyone who might say, “That’s bullshit, you know,”—Marquette University philosophy professor Grant Silva got the floor to agree with Powell, though more articulately:
“I also get a little bit anxious around the excessive imagery of the flag in part because in my experience, patriotism quickly slips into nationalism. Especially the simplistic version of patriotism, the flag waving, my country love it or leave it kind of attitude. That is just a hop, skip and a jump away from becoming nationalism.As much as I would like to see the flag displayed in a proud manner, it all too quickly takes on the stakes that, as a non-white person, can mean a lot, right? It can mean a sense of inclusion or exclusion. A sense of belonging or the ascription of perpetual foreigner, perpetual outsider status; that that flag is not for me unless I’m willing to abide by the assimilatory paradigm that some of these individuals that you’re talking about tend to put forward.
Oh nooooooooooooo! Not the assimilatory paradigm! Then he compared the experience of seeing American flags to how he felt when he saw “Immigrant Hunting License” stickers for sale.
We pay taxes to support junk like this. We allow people who reason like Silva to teach the next generation.
2. A racial ethics train wreck that started rolling five years ago has finally ground to a halt. As described here at Ethics Alarms, it all began after police were called to a Philadelphia Starbucks after two African American men refused to leave the coffee store after they were told that they could not use the rest room and needed to buy something in order to stay there. The men were waiting to meet a companion to have a meeting. The store management then summoned the police. Activists turned the incident into a racial grievance, and called for a boycott of Starbucks.The self-consciously Social Justice Warrior-friendly corporation immediately groveled an apology, and even though the store’s staff were following company policy, it promised heads would roll. The company also announced that anyone could use the bathroom in its stores, which became a disaster, but that’s another story.
Shannon Phillips, who worked for Starbucks for 13 years, was the regional director responsible for overseeing 100 stores in Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Various white employees were suspended or fired as Starbucks set out to prove to the black community that it was determined to fight racism…by engaging in it. Soon after the Philadelphia incident happened, was ordered to place a white 15 year veteran manager on administrative leave for alleged racial discrimination. When Phillips protested, insisting that the man had done nothing to justify punishment, she was fired. Meanwhile, the district manager of the store where the incident occurred was black, yet he wasn’t reprimanded or disciplined. Phillips sued Starbucks for racial discrimination, claiming she was fired because of the color of her skin.
This week, a federal jury agreed, awarding her $25 million in punitive damages and $600,000 in compensatory damages.
Ethics Alarms 
This complaint of feeling being an outsider suggests that the complainant never considers how persons unlike them feel when they are in the majority. We do not live our everyday lives in world that reflect national demographic statistics. City neighborhoods have historically been segregated by social or demographic differences that allow the residents to feel safe and empowered within those communities. Little Italy, China Town, Black Harlem and Spanish Harlem are some examples. Baltimore was once known as a city of neighborhoods because each little enclave in the city was populated by some ethnic group. People of all walks of life intermingled on a daily economic basis but had the ability to retreat into a perceived safe harbor in their ethnic neighborhoods. Unfortunately for the black community their neighborhoods are no longer safe harbors for which retreat is possible.
The Black community should also recognize that many non-blacks do not feel totally at ease when they must interact with a majority black community. As such they should not feel that this feeling is just a Black experience. Black communities are not more welcoming to non-blacks and this is especially apparent when whites begin to move back into the cities which have spent billions of dollars in urban renewal to attract higher income residents. In fact, I would venture a guess that, today, white communities are more welcoming or at least ambivalent to non-whites taking up residence in their communities.
While it is not the whites who prey on the black community it could be said that well-meaning whites set the stage for the decline in economic well-being over the last 60 years. I don’t know which came first, the activist clamoring for more money spent in the black community or the government policies that ultimately made young black males feel disposable. Maybe it was something else but obviously our social policies have brought us to this point.
I don’t know if this polarization is an outgrowth of federal housing policies that have tried to create racially mixed neighborhoods which has led to a greater sense of being an outsider among those in the minority within that community. What I do know is that the same insecurities that exist in some whites which lead them to extremist ideologies on race are the same as those being exploited in the Black community whose leaders exalted as progressive activists and not denigrated as domestic terrorists
“City neighborhoods have historically been segregated by social or demographic differences that allow the residents to feel safe and empowered within those communities. Little Italy, China Town, Black Harlem and Spanish Harlem are some examples.”
This is an idealized, and quite frankly incredibly whitewashed, narrative explanation for why these communities were segregated from larger American society. I’m not even going to list the less wholesome factors why this segregation occurred, because I’m sure everyone here knows them already.
Your condescending comment isn’t articulate enough to even be considered being called specious. You basically state the other person’s argument does not dignify a response as any intelligent person knows. That argument is no argument.
If I can presume to infer what Juneteenth Celebrator might mean, red-lining and racial covenants in real estate is part of what created those enclaves.
Whites retreated to certain areas and did not allow blacks to move in. So, even while people tend to group themselves together, they can also be forced to do so.
In other words, ghettoes are not always voluntary.
-Jut
Jut,
Chris’s comment identified multiple racial and ethnic groups. Celebrator’s comment specifically stated, “these communities”. Given Celebrator’s lack of substance and specificity, the reason for my comment, we must conclude groups other than just blacks are included in their blanket condemnation of Chris’s comment. Celebrator’s lack of detail allows others to apply their own interpretations and prejudices to Celebrator’s comment.
There was discrimination against all of those groups, as you know.
It isn’t hard. 1st generation immigrants have a hard time fully assimilating. They tended to group together for some level of social support amongst familiar culture and language. But their children assimilated much easier, yet still had ties to the enclave. This generation begins moving away from the enclave even as new 1st generation immigrants move in. The third generation is almost fully “American” and typically is mostly moved out of the enclave.
These communities are actually really awesome unintentional “transition” zones for immigrant communities.
The history of the African American community and its enclaves, however, will always be different. Unfortunately, the narrative crafters of the American Left want that future to also always be different.
To be fair, Jack, Assimilatory Paradigm would be a great name for a slasher band. Maybe they could open for Rage Against the Machine.
“Assimilatory Paradigm would be a great name for a slasher band”
Better’n Primordial Gelatinous Ooze Mavens, inspired by the yearly arrival of Dog Vomit Slime Mold and the attempt to accurately describe the latter’s…um…appearance…?
A GREAT band name! Puts Strawberry Alarm Clock to shame!
Since we’re quoting Lincoln today, recall his remarks of August 14, 1862, to a group of free black ministers at the White House, from which this is excerpted:
“You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated…
We look to our condition, owing to the existence of the two races on this continent. I need not recount to you the effects upon white men, growing out of the institution of Slavery. I believe in its general evil effects on the white race. See our present condition, the country engaged in war, our white men cutting one another’s throats, none knowing how far it will extend; and then consider what we know to be the truth. But for your race among us there could not be war, although many men engaged on either side do not care for you one way or the other…
It is better for us both, therefore, to be separated.”
Lincoln was a long-time supporter of colonization, an idea which had been around at least since the founding (see “Liberia”) but had become, since the middle of the Civil War, an embodiment of the North’s fears that the freed slaves would flock to and overwhelm the northern cities. (This also more fully explains their desire to “reconstruct” the South after the war: to prevent northern black migration.) After a disastrous attempt to colonize an island off the coast of Haiti in 1863, Lincoln ceased to actively promote colonization (although he never renounced the idea either). At the time, of course, most blacks opposed colonization. Personally, I believe that more than any other immigrant group, they had earned the right to become Americans.
I find it ironic that separation (in some form) seems to be what many blacks now feel would solve all their problems, and apparently is where the neo-Marxists of the Left are taking us, all these years later. I am certainly willing to see all those of any race who are offended by our flag and our history and who do not wish to assimilate into Western culture depart this “land of oppression” for the greener pastures they imagine exist elsewhere. But leave our country alone, please. We’re not perfect, but we don’t have to be perfect, just better than everywhere else.
If celebrating the end of slavery is “divisive,” why exactly should I be expected to respect or care about the opinions of the other side of that divide?
It is a separate Independence Day. That’s what is divisive. The 13th Amendment, passed on April 8, 1864, ended slavery. If a date was needed to celebrate for all Americans, that was the date to use. Juneteenth is an anecdote.
Well unfortunately this country has two “independence days”
I think it would be more divisive to not celebrate the day when every citizen became free.
You miss the point. Black Americans had already become free by law, they just hadn’t heard about it yet. It’s like celebrating the Treaty of Ghent, that ended the War of 1812, on the day the news reached America rather than the day it was signed.
Huh?
Is celebrating on the wrong day what makes it divisive?
You know (I hope) that this is not what I wrote. That’s a sad technique in ducking arguments: intentionally ridicule what the argument didn’t assert in any way. My point was and is that Juneteenth celebrates an anomalous late execution of the actual event being honored rather than the event itself. I did not say that’s why Juneteenth is divisive: I made that argument clear in the various posts. The 1812 treaty analogy illustrates why a local Texas celebration of tardy notice of the real, national event of significance—the 13th Amendment’s passage—isn’t the logical or sensible choice for an annual holiday unless the real motive was to pander to a racial group during the George Floyd hangover.
Which, I think, is an interpretation that the evidence supports.
You have two separate arguments there, and the second is totally irrelevant to the initial complaint. If the problem is that it’s a “second Independence Day,” that problem would exist no matter what date were chosen. But I personally don’t see why that’s a problem at all; it’s a fact of our history that blacks gained freedom much later than whites in our country, and objecting to celebrating the latter along with the former suggests that this historical fact should be suppressed. I see no reason why white Americans, black Americans, and Americans of every color should not celebrate both the country’s independence from Britain and the liberation of African-Americans from bondage. Both are deserving of a national holiday.
I don’t dispute that, but again, what it was offered as was a nationalization of an entirely A-A holiday. No whites, Asians or non-blacks celebrated it. It was treated as “they (that is, the rest of the country have their Independence Day and we have ours.” And that’s how it is being regarded now, and always will be. It locks in the attitude expressed by many black leaders over the years (like Thurgood Marshall)that there was no reason for blacks to celebrate the 4th of July, since it didn’t include them.
As I’ve said elsewhere in the comments, it also celebrates a part of the country learning about something that had already occurred.
There are literally hundreds of events that deserve recognition and holidays. Celebrating the 13th Amendment would be legit, but not moreso than many other dates.
It’s for everyone to celebrate the emancipation of black people.
That’s not divisive.
Anyone saying it’s only for black people is arguing a straw man. No black leaders who fought for this to become a holiday said that.
Black people not having a reason to celebrate the Fourth since they were slaves is an acceptable view point but trust me, black people absolutely celebrate the Fourth.
You wouldn’t say Veteran’s Day is divisive would you since it only celebrates one group of people.
If you think having an Emancipation holiday isn’t a good reason for a Federal holiday that’s one thing I will never change your mind on. Freedom from slavery is probably one of the best reasons to have a holiday for.
It’s a good reason to have a holiday. (Don’t tell me what I can’t be convinced of—you have no basis to say that. I accept persuasive arguments all the time: it’s part of my job.That’s a cop=out: if you can’t make your case, its because I am locked in and refuse to listen. Bullshit)
Juneteenth has been a black community cultural holiday, mostly in the South, since the 19th Century. How do you see making it a National holiday transforming it into something it didn’t begin as, wasn’t regarded as, and can’t seriously pretend to be? It memorializes a local event, the official order enforcing the 13th Amendment in Texas. How is that accurately a marker of when slavery was ended? You could pick the surrender of Lee’s army at Appomattox, the !3th Amendment, or the Emancipation Proclamation, and all would be national events. Instead they opted for another deliberate “separate but equal” holiday, like the emergence of “the black National Anthem.” Is it a coincidence, you think, that this happened as Democrats were falling all over themselves trying to exploit the George Floyd Freakout? I wrote two years ago here,
“The end of slavery is certainly a legitimate subject for a new paid Federal holiday (as well as many others). Getting the holiday established as part of the George Floyd Freakout white guilting strategy cheapens it, I think, placing the holiday in the same pandering package with HBO Max pulling “Gone With The Wind” or the University of Florida banning the “Gator Bait” cheer. As with so much else going on, I am concerned that this will exacerbate rather than ameliorate racial tensions, with an official nation-wide “Juneteeth” having the effect of making July 4th a “white” holiday.”
In other words. “They” have their Independence day, and “we” have ours. That’s counter-productive and divisive. If you can show me any evidence that suddenly white Americans are attending the black cultural festivals that marked Juneteenth’ before it went national (and blacks aren’t resenting it) please do it. THAT would be persuasive.
“It memorializes a local event, the official order enforcing the 13th Amendment in Texas. How is that accurately a marker of when slavery was ended?”
Because that was the last Confederate holdout, and slavery was still happening. That’s why many black leaders argue it’s a better delineation of when slavery actually ended than the Emancipation Proclamation.
https://www.ucdavis.edu/curiosity/news/juneteenth-marks-end-sustained-slavery-lasted-beyond-emancipation-proclamation
I’m not seeing why the fact that it started as a holiday only recognized by the black community means it shouldn’t develop national significance. Columbus Day was originally only celebrated by Italians; that’s not a reason against its existence (though there are others).
I agree that the Emancipation Proclamation would be a lousy choice, because it didn’t even ban slavery in half the country. The ratification of the 13th Amendment would be the national, non-racial, non-divisive choice. You seem to deny that Juneteenth was chosen because it was a black community celebration already. Few white Americans had even heard of it before 2021.
Jack, I do not share your level of antipathy for Juneteenth.
I often noted its passing.
Having said that, I don’t think it needs to be a national holiday.
It should be noted in the same way thatFlag Day, D-Day, or Pearl Harbor Day are recognized.
But my take on it is a little different than yours.
The Thirteenth Amendment was not fully passed until 1865 and did not take effect until December of 1865. The date the Senate passed it in 1864 would seem to be the worst date to acknowledge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
My understanding, and I could be wrong, is that Juneteenth is when the end of the war finally came to Texas. The importance of this is that it is the time when the promise of the Emancipation Proclamation was finally delivered.
As you stated, the Emancipation Proclamation freed no slaves UNTIL they were liberated during the course of the war. But, at that point, they were free by virtue of the Emancipation Proclamation. So, it is not just the delivery of the news of an event; it is the fulfillment of a promise to emancipate.
If the Emancipation Proclamation is an important document (and event) in U.S. History, Juneteenth is a date that closes the book on that important promise.
And, it is an “important” even in the black community (perhaps not extremely important, but important enough for it to get a name). And, it should be important to white people too, especially if we are all Americans and we recognize that this government was founded in the midst of racist economic institution that has plagued the country almost since its founding.
In addition, contrary to the views of the race hustlers and 1619 Project enthusiasts, Juneteenth is one more little event that demonstrates that the history of the U.S. involves the constant move toward the fulfillment of the Founders recognition of Liberty and Equality of all people.
So, yes, I think Juneteenth deserves recognition; I don’t think it should be a National Holiday.
-Jut
“Antipathy” is waaay too strong. It’s an annual American black cultural celebration that has varied from region to region, and never substantially involved whites. That’s fine and good. There are Greek-American culture festivals too: my mother was fond of dragging us to them. I’m sure the date had some significance, but I couldn’t tell you what it was. Bickering over which date would best symbolize the end of slavery ends up missing the issue: the 19th is now enshrining a celebration that began as, and is named as, and is still widely seen as, a celebration of a single group that is now increasingly seeking to segregate itself when the nation needs less racial distinctions not more. It has been a black (or Black) culture day, not just a recognition of the end of slavery. (I’d say the passage of the 13th by the Senate was the moment when it was certain that slavery was done, however long it took to complete the process, but again, fine, it’s not worth arguing about.)
When did the Civil War really, really really end? Should that be the date? Is that more worthy of a national holiday than the end of World War II? Which date would we pick for that, V-E or V-J, or some other date? How about an “End of US Wars Day”? We could all sing “Imagine”!
My one and only point in 2021, and now, is that this is a “reparations” national holiday, aimed at one group (which is not to say that the rest of the country shouldn’t be happy about the historical event involved), that would not have happened if a bunch of clever but ruthless activists, supported by a political party without scruples and radical progressives, decided to use a non-racial police incident with fatal results to mount an attack on police, whites, law, and the United States. When the exploitation was spectacularly successful in being a catalyst for all sorts of race-based, white-guilt fueled goodies ( at least until the attacks on the police accelerated urban rot and the DEI craze got out of hand), this holiday was one of the off-shoots, like the 1619 Project and CRT. Not as toxic as those, but still divisive. In a vacuum, again, swell. It’s as good a date to recognize as any other (though comparing it to D-Day, Pearl Harbor or 9-11 is a bridge too far for me)
And in a vacuum, I agree completely that “contrary to the views of the race hustlers and 1619 Project enthusiasts, Juneteenth is one more little event that demonstrates that the history of the U.S. involves the constant move toward the fulfillment of the Founders recognition of Liberty and Equality of all people.” But it isn’t in a vacuum. The national holiday movement arose out of the George Floyd scam, and is tainted by it, just like the “Black National Anthem,” which is a perfectly nice song. It is one more step down the road of special group interest holidays, months and days, when we should be trying to move away from all of them, because they are being weaponized against whites, males, non-LBGTQs and the American ideals that you properly frame.
Anyone who is excited about celebrating “Junetenth” gets a pass from me—again, swell. It’s not the holiday, but the other thing its establishment symbolizes: the deliberate re-opening of the wounds of racism and slavery here, so they cannot heal, and might get worse.
Jack: “the 19th is now enshrining a celebration that began as, and is named as, and is still widely seen as, a celebration of a single group that is now increasingly seeking to segregate itself when the nation needs less racial distinctions not more.”
So keeping it a “blacks-only” holiday wouldn’t show the black community is “seeking to segregate itself,” but making it a federal holiday celebrated by everyone does?
That doesn’t make any sense. Your argument completely contradicts itself.
It’s clear from the rest of your comment that your position here isn based primarily on your bias against the Black Lives Matter movement, which explains the inconsistencies and your inability to defend your position here. If you think whites are under attack by black culture, of course you’d see this as one more offense.
“You seem to deny that Juneteenth was chosen because it was a black community celebration already.”
I did not deny this, nor did I seem to deny this; in fact, I specifically said it was chosen because it was a black community celebration already:
“I’m not seeing why the fact that it started as a holiday only recognized by the black community means it shouldn’t develop national significance.”
You seem to be arguing that it would be less divisive to just create a brand new holiday, instead of integrating a black American holiday into the general culture. That doesn’t make sense to me, and you haven’t made a convincing argument for it.
“You seem to be arguing that it would be less divisive to just create a brand new holiday, instead of integrating a black American holiday into the general culture.”
Bingo. That’s exactly what I’m saying, and it is a self-evident proposition. If Robert E. Lee’s birthday was suddenly made a national holiday, that wouldn’t change the fact that it would still be perceived as a pr-Confederacy celebration for Southerners, and that’s exactly why it would be made a national holiday.
A scholar could argue that Lee was a heroic and admirable figure who embodied many virtues that all Americans could embrace (which is true) and the holiday would still be divisive.
Bingo. That’s exactly what I’m saying, and it is a self-evident proposition.
It’s definitely not. Not making the already established Juneteenth a federal holiday, while supplanting it with a brand new one that holds no significance to the black community doesn’t make any sense.
If the purpose of the holiday is the same, why would you do that? It’s insulting to the people who already celebrate it.
From the Moderator: And Ally has been banned.
(Who wins THAT pool?)
I have no choice when commenters openly defy specific warnings like: “If you comment in good faith on other issues and other posts, you have an opportunity to stick around. However, if you keep flogging this issue, your next comment will be your last”?
What is your evidence for the claim that the holiday was sold as an “entirely A-A holiday?”
The official site of the Juneteenth Legacy Project doesn’t portray it that way; it even goes out of its way to point out the contribution of a white Union general to the existence of the day.
https://www.juneteenthlegacyproject.com/about
All holidays have multiple meanings to different people. I’m sure you can find some black thought leaders portraying it the way you claim, but it doesn’t seem like they represent all. And if you don’t want the holiday to be divisive, why focus on the voices you find divisive and elevate them above those who don’t portray the holiday in this way? It would be like calling Christmas divisive and only focusing on voices accusing it of crass commercialism and appropriation of paganism or whatever.
1. Funny it was suddenly a national priority as one whole side of the aisle was pandering like mad to the George Floyd mob.
2. Well of course the official site, in your words, “whitewashes” the matter.
3. I’m calling it divisive because it divides. Tell me how its different from having “the Black National Anthem” sung in tandem with the National Anthem. Tell me how it isn’t part and parcel of colleges trying to have separate graduation ceremonies for the races.
4. Religion is not a fair comparison to race. Religion is divisive by nature. But if you want to go in that direction: yes, Kwanza is another divisive phenomenon.
5. I don’t care what holidays are celebrated or aren’t…unless one of them does harm and makes racial harmony ad national comity more difficult. Having official holidays and anthems and “months” and awards shows does exactly that.
As for your first question, it WAS an entirely A-A holiday. Try to tell a Jew or a Muslim that Christmas isn’t a Christian holiday. You could never get Christmas approved as a national holiday today. Do you not concede that?
Addendum: Here’s a headline from today: ‘A sense of betrayal’: liberal dismay as Muslim-led US city bans Pride flags: Many liberals celebrated when Hamtramck, Michigan, elected a Muslim-majority council in 2015 but a vote to exclude LGBTQ+ flags from city property has soured relations.
But these group-based, pandering official celebrations aren’t divisive?
I still don’t see how a holiday celebrating black people being freed from slavery, (white people played a major part in this freedom BTW) is divisive.
Because you are deliberately not processing what I wrote. I’m not going through it again. I certainly understand why someone might think all the holiday does is celebrate the end of slavery, just as I understand why someone might think perpetual racial preferences in jobs and college admissions is a wonderful idea, or having two different anthems, one for each race,or having whole months devoted to women, blacks, Asians and Islanders, and gays, or having segregated colleges, artistic awards shows, and Congressional caucuses, or paying millions to citizens because of their skin-color, are all wonderful.
They are still divisive by definition, and such divisions are destructive to the nation.
Your argument is that including everyone in a holiday that was previously only for one race is just as divisive as actually dividing people by race.
This is not a rational argument, thus we have to conclude it is motivated by non-rational ideas.
That’s NOT what I am saying, and there is specific prohibition in the Comment guidelines against putting words in my mouth. Last warning.
“Juneteenth” is widely perceived as the “Black Independence Day.” We should not have holidays segregated by color. Since I don’t believe that “everyone” is really included in “Juneteenth,” but that it is substantially a George Floyd pander by Democrats to the African-American voting bloc, it is divisive rather than inclusive. You mischaracterized my argument, which has been clear, and called me irrational, which I am not.
OK, you’re a single issue visitor. Your screen name makes that clear. You’ve made your statements and your obviously unalterable position is also clear. If you comment in good faith on other issues and other posts, you have an opportunity to stick around. However, if you keep flogging this issue, your next comment will be your last.
And if you call me irrational again in any context, you’re banned.
Agreed. These arguments don’t make any sense.
The holiday is meant to bring everyone together.
You would never argue Christmas is divisive since only Christians celebrated it would you?
I have no how those things have any connection to a holiday celebrating the end of slavery in America.
You don’t make a convincing point at all.
There’s no reason why this “black only” holiday can’t now become one celebrated by all. That’s the point of making it a National holiday. For everyone to celebrate it.
Also, your analogy about Greek and other cultural festivals are irrelevant since black culture and slavery is a huge part of American history and there was literally a civil war fought to free them.
It’s insulting it took this long to have a national holiday to celebrate emancipation.
Caring about the wrong date, or that “only a small group celebrated this” is odd and doesn’t outweigh the good nationalizing the holiday will bring to the country.
You are a one issue commenter, and you keep saying the same thing repeatedly, adding nothing to the discussion. I just checked to be sure. You offer know actual rebuttal other than your framing of the issue. I will want the time I wasted trying to make substantive arguments to you and Juneteenth Celebrator when I am on my deathbed. It is like arguing with an 8-year-old.
So I’ll give you the same opportunity I gave to JC, to be fair. “If you comment in good faith on other issues and other posts, you have an opportunity to stick around. However, if you keep flogging this issue, your next comment will be your last.”
From the Moderator: Juneteenth has been banned.
(Who wins the pool?)
I told JC that I would allow comment privileges if comments were made on other issues and other posts, but if another repetitive one appeared here, she would be banned. As usual, a sealioning commenter couldn’t comply. Now she will complain that she was mistreated because she didn’t agree with me. This pattern is so boring…
I will agree with you on that point: making Juneteenth a federal holiday was a move to pander to black people by Democrats.
That may be part of the reason I don’t like it. The context of the decision to make it a national holiday sullies its importance.
But, more generally, I stand by my earlier reasoning. It should be acknowledged as an important day in the American Story.
i feel the same way about Cinco de Mayo (the Mexican victory at the Battle of Puebla thwarted French influence in the Americas at a time when the French could have thrown in support for the Confederacy, something that could have prolonged the Civil War, or even turned it in a different direction) but I don’t think the Democrats will try to suck up to Hispanics by making THAT a federal holiday. They are content to use immigration as a way to buy those votes.
-Jut
I agree that it’s an important day, but where did it rank among un-recognized significant dates on the calendar? Top 50? Top 100? Brown v. Bd of Education handed down? The Sweet verdict? The Civil Rights Act? Obama elected? If we’re just looking at dates with special significance to Black Americans, is that #1?
Jack,
I wouldn’t be surprised if, Michael Zyraxian, Juneteenth Celebrator, and Ally were all one in the same. It is not too difficult to acquire multiple email and IP addresses. All three had the same style to their comments, condescending and disruptive. Their goal seemed to be to shut down thoughtful discussion by flooding the blog with circular logic, sniping, what-aboutism, and misdirection. It is difficult to understand why a person who displays that type of behavior does what they do. Were they neglected or abused as a child? Did they eat too many paint chips? Were they thrown out of all the anarchist blogs because of their argumentativeness? Or maybe they are just evil and ran out of flies to pull wings off. Personally, I am leaning toward an evil progressive with a side order of Dunning-Kruger.
Your post about the media and politicians promoting division in our country, and
Chris Marschner’s thoughtful comment would have led to interesting discussions except JC and Ally hijacked the discussion. Your continued banter with them demonstrated much more patience than they deserved. I gave up on JC rather quickly when it seemed to me their goal was confrontation for sport.
Keep up the good work
Thanks, Tom. The theory that various banned commenters are the same person has come up often here. I see their email addresses. Only a couple of banned commenters, including the one who sued me for defamation, if I recall correctly, tried to comment using a new screen name after being kicked off. Only one or two went to the trouble of opening a new email account to slip by me.
The reason it seems like they are the same is because they all behave so similarly. They aren’t here to debate or discuss, they are here with a specific chip on their shoulders and a particular position to advance. It has nothing to do with ethics.
Michael Zyraxian is smarter and more articulate than the other two, which is why I had high hopes that he would both be a constructive contributor and bring a new perspective to various issues. Ally was the trailer intellectually: I compared all of her comments, and they essentially repeated the same mantra. There is also something bafflingly dunderheaded about a commenter being warned that she had abused the privilege of commenting on one post and needed to show she was going to move on to other issues or would be banned, and then deliberately sending in another repetitive comment to the same post, getting banned, and THEN commenting elsewhere, relatively competently. I don’t get it.
Oh: another banned commenter, the insufferable “A Friend,” was moved to weigh-in in support of his emulators.
A progressive blog sicced its readers on my Juneteenth post, leading to a huge flood of views for about an hour on Saturday. I assume Ally and JS were the result of that.
To copy a post on Juneteenth I made years ago:
“My summary observations of something that is more complex than most people make it out to be:
The Fourth of July must always be the preeminent holiday in the American “liturgy”. Even for the slaves whose lives were spent in a state of legalized kidnapping, it was their Independence Day also even while they didn’t enjoy the reality of it. Yet I understand some arguments, such as those who perpetuate Frederick Douglass’s observations on Independence Day. But frankly, anyone espousing that attitude *still* are anti-American.
BUT, it should surely be acknowledged that even while Independence Day was for ALL Americans (even those who in reality didn’t enjoy its blessings), there were those who in reality didn’t enjoy its blessings. And an end to their legalized kidnapping, finally realizing the values of the Declaration, SHOULD be celebrated.
Now, whether that celebration ought to be “Juneteenth”, or the ratification of the 13th Amendment (January 31, 1865), or the Emancipation Proclamation (January 1, 1863), or the defeat of the Confederacy, I don’t know. Still, it is appropriate for the U.S. to honor such a momentous event that all Americans should be grateful for.
Here’s what I do know. Although the official nationwide celebration of June 19th was primarily pushed by Democrats, and I don’t think Conservatives should oppose something simply because it originates with Democrats. BUT. But…when Democrats, so many of whom have proven that they *HATE* America and its Value set, propose anything “patriotic”, one should ask why. What is the undisclosed angle they are working? What does the smokescreen obscure? What are they planning down the road that the language of this “celebration” is setting up?
I am all for a celebration of the end of slavery, but ONLY if people who actually like America (and therefore NOT Democrats), get to define what that celebration is and get to define how the eventual rituals play out. In principle it is a good idea to celebrate the end of the curse of slavery. In practice, I am dubious about motives and execution.
Initial indications are that “Juneteenth” will be promoted and celebrated as “Black Independence Day”, in order to perpetuate the destructive narrative of “White America” versus “Black America.” If that is the case, this new holiday gets a hard “NO!” from me.”
I’ll follow up by demonstrating some relief in that the only real fervor I’m seeing about Juneteenth are from those are arbitrarily trying to make it a “big thing”. From my ground level view, I don’t see anyone really “getting into it”. Good.
It’s meant to devalue the 4th of July by saying that the 4th of July doesn’t belong to African Americans.
I have to apologize. So much time and space was wasted responding to the absurd “it isn’t what it is” arguments from two trolls that Juneteenth isn’t a black community holiday, making it inappropriate and divisive as a national one, because I didn’t think to use the obvious evidence available. This one really is res ipsa loquitur. Look at any of the photos of crowds at the “National Holiday” Juneteenth celebrations of the past two years, and try to find an unequivocally white celebrant. Try to find any non-black attendee. Recall that the percentage of blacks in the general population of the US is 17%.
As an old white guy one of the things I find galling about all the complaining of systemic racism and the white man’s natural sin of slavery; is the lack of appreciation for the hundreds of thousands of northern troops who gave their lives to end slavery. Their contributions and sacrifices are totally ignored by the progressive intelligentsia. Lincoln was correct then and his position is still correct today.
Per the US Parks Service
https://www.nps.gov/civilwar/facts.htm#:~:text=The%20642%2C427%20total%20Union%20casualties,275%2C174%20wounded%20in%20action
The 642,427 total Union casualties have been divided accordingly:
110,100 killed in battle
224,580 diseases
275,174 wounded in action
30,192 prisoners of war