The Biden Cabinet and Transition Thread (1 Viewer)

GrandAdmiral

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2019
Messages
1,758
Reaction score
2,242
Location
Center of the Universe
Offline
Ok the rules:
  • Your post can only contain one department and guess.
  • You may post more than once for different departments.
  • Post can contain comments about previous guesses.
  • Guesses for one department can be used for other departments.
  • Minds can, of course, be changed.
I will kick things off first...

Secretary of State: Susan Rice

Susan_Rice_official_photo.jpg


This is as clear a choice as there can be. She has all of the credentials and rep to begin healing as relationships with our allies.
 

SaintForLife

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
2,092
Reaction score
1,474
Location
Madisonville
Offline
I'm trying to understand I you can disconnect slavery from white supremacy in this country?

The 13th amendment wasn't part of our "founding documents and principles", which is what she was commenting on. That came later.
The 13th ammendment is part of our constitution. What principles do you think she was talking about?
 
Last edited:

TaylorB

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 20, 2019
Messages
427
Reaction score
1,755
Age
35
Location
Louisiana
Offline
Slavery is one thing, but it's quite a stretch to claim “White supremacy is weaved into our founding documents and principles.” Doesn’t weaved make it seem like white supremacy is a core part of our constitution?

What principles of the US are white supremacy? What about the 13th amendment?
It didn't say in the Constitution that "white people are supreme to black people" but it did say that non-whites are less valuable in a representative democracy (60% as valuable, to be precise), and our founding fathers did allow black people to be enslaved by white people, all of which was a dead giveaway as to what our principles were. We were so dependent on the institution of slavery that almost 100 years after the country was founded, half the country literally tried to start a new country over the prospect of outlawing it (which we finally did via the 13th amendment).

The white people who founded America also forcibly removed hundreds of thousands of natives from their ancestral lands, and over the years we've consistently had colonial approaches to non-contiguous territories like Puerto Rico, which have roots in white supremacy (e.g. the Insular cases). Dozens of Supreme Court cases over the years have echoes of white supremacy. We continued to find ways to systematically disenfranchise black people after the 13th Amendment and Reconstruction. And on and on.

Those are just a few of many examples. It doesn't mean everyone that founded the country was in the KKK. But white supremacy is an undeniable presence in our story as a nation.
 
Last edited:

MT15

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2019
Messages
4,415
Reaction score
7,344
Location
Midwest
Offline
Oh, look, part of the Wikipedia article on satire:

Censorship and criticism[edit]
Descriptions of satire's biting effect on its target include 'venomous', 'cutting', 'stinging',[135] vitriol. Because satire often combines anger and humor, as well as the fact that it addresses and calls into question many controversial issues, it can be profoundly disturbing.

Typical arguments[edit]
Because it is essentially ironic or sarcastic, satire is often misunderstood. A typical misunderstanding is to confuse the satirist with his persona.[136]

Bad taste[edit]
Common uncomprehending responses to satire include
revulsion (accusations of poor taste, or that "it's just not funny" for instance) and the idea that the satirist actually does support the ideas, policies, or people he is attacking. For instance, at the time of its publication, many people misunderstood Swift's purpose in A Modest Proposal, assuming it to be a serious recommendation of economically motivated cannibalism.
 

DaveXA

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 6, 2018
Messages
2,716
Reaction score
1,956
Location
Vienna, VA (via Lafayette)
Online
I just picked on very obvious example.

Since black people were property at the time, pretty much anything dealing with protecting property rights has a dash of white supremacy.

Not all blacks were slaves or property back then. And the 3/5ths vote was at least in part to appease the south at that time. Pre-civil war iirc. And of course, the Constitution being the living document it is had obviously changed over the years with amendments to address some of the injustices inherent in the founding documents.
 

MT15

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2019
Messages
4,415
Reaction score
7,344
Location
Midwest
Offline
The 13th ammendment is part of our constitution. What principles do you think she was talking about?

Was the 13th amendment part of the constitution when this nation was founded? She specifically spoke of the founding of this country. This seems like arguing for the sake of arguing.
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #492
OP
GrandAdmiral

GrandAdmiral

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2019
Messages
1,758
Reaction score
2,242
Location
Center of the Universe
Offline
What principles of the US are white supremacy? What about the 13th amendment?

Last I checked, the 13th Amendment is not a founding document, hence the term AMENDMENT. Hell, Mississippi didn't ratify it until 1995 (not that it mattered). Wonder why it took so long...
 

samiam5211

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
1,438
Reaction score
1,813
Age
43
Location
Earth
Online
Not all blacks were slaves or property back then. And the 3/5ths vote was at least in part to appease the south at that time. Pre-civil war iirc. And of course, the Constitution being the living document it is had obviously changed over the years with amendments to address some of the injustices inherent in the founding documents.

The number of black people in the US in 1787 who were not slaves was so small that it is not statically relevant.

I am not saying that white supremacy was in the consciousness of the founding fathers or even slave owners. Black people were not really people to them. They were almost people, but not quite. Otherwise the African slave trade never would have happened.

There is no way that people who thought men were created in God’s image would enslave that creation. They would not have treated humans as livestock. They believed that black people were almost human.

That perception evolved as they became exposed to black people and over generations the perception evolved in enough people for things to change.

So anytime they are talking about rights, they are really talking about the rights of white people and mostly white men. They would not have thought it necessary to specify white when they say people, because they thought it was understood.

They passed laws requiring that lost property be returned to its owner if it escaped to the north like a cow that had gotten out of its fence. They had laws that would punish people (white) who helped the livestock escape their fields.

This is why we’ve had to pass laws and fight to make sure the rights of black people are respected. The emancipation proclamation was a starting point, but we still have not undone it all, not even close.

White supremacy is in the roux of the United States. You can’t just pick it out like bad sausage, it is in the fabric of the gumbo. You almost have to start over to fix a gumbo with bad roux, we can’t do that, so we have to just keep adding to it until it is buried under other flavors.
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #494
OP
GrandAdmiral

GrandAdmiral

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2019
Messages
1,758
Reaction score
2,242
Location
Center of the Universe
Offline
Not all blacks were slaves or property back then. And the 3/5ths vote was at least in part to appease the south at that time. Pre-civil war iirc. And of course, the Constitution being the living document it is had obviously changed over the years with amendments to address some of the injustices inherent in the founding documents.

While there were some blacks who were not slaves (and they were primarily concertrated in South Carolina ironically until Louisiana came into the Union which allowed New orleans to overtake that claim), they had no rights under the law. And if it wasn't clear that they didn't have any rights, Roger Taney and his SCOTUS confirmed it in the Dred Scott case.
 

DaveXA

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 6, 2018
Messages
2,716
Reaction score
1,956
Location
Vienna, VA (via Lafayette)
Online
While there were some blacks who were not slaves (and they were primarily concertrated in South Carolina ironically until Louisiana came into the Union which allowed New orleans to overtake that claim), they had no rights under the law. And if it wasn't clear that they didn't have any rights, Roger Taney and his SCOTUS confirmed it in the Dred Scott case.

I guess my main point is that the Constitution, warts and all, has been slowly changed over the years to adjust to our changing culture and certainly to spell out the rights that should be afforded citizens. Certainly, our founders were flawed and we've had to correct those wrongs. Thus trying to create a more perfect union. We're hardly there right now, but, as jaded and disillusioned as I am with politics, I haven't given up on the idea that everyone should be treated equally and fairly.
 

CoolBrees

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2019
Messages
847
Reaction score
1,946
Age
44
Location
Portland, Oregon
Offline
The 13th abolished slavery; what an incredibly low bar for white supremacy. The ownership of others.

No wonder you think like you do. Thinking once Blacks weren’t property any more; everything was even. Man.

Oh the 13th was ratified in 1865 - literally everyone alive when the Constitution was written was long dead.

Oh yeah, we went to forking war with loser traitors from the south over it for jeebus sakes. Sounds familiar. At least this time only a few hundred traitor losers stormed the Capitol instead of seceding and causing the death of tens of thousands of patriots from the north. Oh and hundreds of thousands of traitors.

Hooray progress I guess?
 

DaveXA

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 6, 2018
Messages
2,716
Reaction score
1,956
Location
Vienna, VA (via Lafayette)
Online
The 13th abolished slavery; what an incredibly low bar for white supremacy. The ownership of others.

No wonder you think like you do. Thinking once Blacks weren’t property any more; everything was even. Man.

Oh the 13th was ratified in 1865 - literally everyone alive when the Constitution was written was long dead.

Oh yeah, we went to forking war with loser traitors from the south over it for jeebus sakes. Sounds familiar. At least this time only a few hundred traitor losers stormed the Capitol instead of seceding and causing the death of tens of thousands of patriots from the north. Oh and hundreds of thousands of traitors.

Hooray progress I guess?

The thing that gets lost in all of that was freed slaves never received the compensation the government promised. At least not most of it. I forget however much it was back then. I'm actually down with reparations that equal what they were own in today's dollars plus interest.

It's never been a level playing field for AAs and it's time that is remedied. That would actually be progress. Not gonna fix everything, but it certainly would address some of the wrongs and injustices over the last 150+ years.
 

MT15

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2019
Messages
4,415
Reaction score
7,344
Location
Midwest
Offline
On Inside Edition tonight, of all places, there was a story about a black family that had purchased beach property in a California town in the 1920’s and made a resort for black people since they weren’t welcome at other places. The town couldn’t stand it. They first put up barricades so they had no beach access and ended up just taking the property. To their credit, the town is giving that property back to the descendants. I think they said it was worth about $70 million dollars today. It was a feel good story.
 

DaveXA

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 6, 2018
Messages
2,716
Reaction score
1,956
Location
Vienna, VA (via Lafayette)
Online
On Inside Edition tonight, of all places, there was a story about a black family that had purchased beach property in a California town in the 1920’s and made a resort for black people since they weren’t welcome at other places. The town couldn’t stand it. They first put up barricades so they had no beach access and ended up just taking the property. To their credit, the town is giving that property back to the descendants. I think they said it was worth about $70 million dollars today. It was a feel good story.

Yep, it was posted here. I forget which thread though. Or maybe it was on SR. I forget where I am sometimes, lol.
 

zztop

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 5, 2020
Messages
1,143
Reaction score
1,428
Age
121
Location
in a van down by the river
Offline
The thing that gets lost in all of that was freed slaves never received the compensation the government promised. At least not most of it. I forget however much it was back then. I'm actually down with reparations that equal what they were own in today's dollars plus interest.

It's never been a level playing field for AAs and it's time that is remedied. That would actually be progress. Not gonna fix everything, but it certainly would address some of the wrongs and injustices over the last 150+ years.

I just saw this, a small step :

On Wednesday, Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee voted to recommend the creation of a commission to consider reparations for the Black descendants of U.S. slaves.

First introduced in Congress in 1989 by the late Democratic Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, H.R. 40 had never made it out of committee until this week. Twenty-five Democrats in the Judiciary Committee voted in favor of the bill, while 17 Republicans voted against it.
 

DJ1BigTymer

Yo! We got some hats now...
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
750
Reaction score
1,219
Age
48
Location
New Orleans
Offline
Murkowski should prepare herself for another censure!!!

Murkowski joined all Democratic senators in voting to advance Gupta’s nomination 51-49 toward a final vote, which is expected to take place later Wednesday.

Murkowski said on the Senate floor that after an “extensive” sit-down with Gupta, she was impressed by her professional credentials and her level of experience as well as the “passion that she carries with her with the work that she performs.”

Murkowski said that although Gupta has made some “troubling and concerning” statements in other areas, she was “going to give the benefit of the doubt to a woman who I believe has demonstrated through her professional career to be deeply, deeply committed to matters of justice.”

“And so I will be casting my vote in support of her in about an hour here,” Murkowski concluded.

 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Advertisement

General News Feed

Fact Checkers News Feed

Sponsored

Top Bottom