Va. legislator: Blacks should get over slavery like we’ve gotten over Jews killing Christ
posted at 6:16 pm on January 16, 2007 by Allahpundit
Just when you think he’s about to veer off into a racist rant about blacks, he turns around and says something anti-semitic instead.
Like Nigel said in Spinal Tap, “He did a twist on it.”
Looks like Spengler rolled a seven with that analogy this morning, huh?
“The present commonwealth has nothing to do with slavery,” said Del. Frank D. Hargrove, R-Glen Allen, whose ancestors were French Huguenots who came to America in search of religious freedom…
“Are we going to force the Jews to apologize for killing Christ?” Hargrove wondered. “Nobody living today had anything to do with it. It would be far more appropriate in my view to apologize to the Upper Mattaponi and the Pamunkey” Indians for the loss of their lands in eastern Virginia, he said…
“I personally think that our black citizens should get over it,” Hargrove said of slavery, which existed in Virginia from 1619 until the Civil War. “By golly, we’re living in 2007.”
A Jewish legislator called him on his remarks during the House session today in Richmond, explaining that his grandparents had to flee Poland to avoid being killed by the Nazis.
Hargrove’s response?
“I think your skin was a little too thin,” he said as Republicans and Democrats gasped and groaned in disbelief.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
You said that Africa deserved some of the blame for slavery, because “they offered”. By the same measure, the U.S. (in the abstract, as with Africa) deserves blame for illegal immigration.
DaveS on January 16, 2007 at 11:09 PM
Actually, ironically, it was Andrew Johnson (aka Antonio the Negro) who made the case in the Jamestown courts that African slaves were NOT indentured servants since they were forced here and there was no agreement made for their time of service. Next thing you know, Andrew just convinced the courts to agree that Blacks were slaves for life. Yup, you heard it here folks, a black man brought lifetime slavery to America.
I wonder if he is going to be one of those blacks talked about during Black History Month?
Tim Burton on January 16, 2007 at 11:13 PM
I agree, no one should be offended at his comments. He is making a very valid analogy. In both cases the respects are correct.
For some reason, no Conservative would be upset if we said, “Listen, since no blacks in the US were slaves during this lifetime so they should just get over it…”, yet for some reason we are upset about the comments about Jews.
I just talked to a Jewish buddy, and he agrees. Since we used it as a reason for years to justify Anti-Semitism, it is a valid analogy.
Tim Burton on January 16, 2007 at 11:17 PM
here’s how it breaks down guys.
“there are those that continue to use slavery as a hammer to bash whites and receive preferential treatment.”
completely defensible statement
“Blacks should get over slavery like we’ve gotten over Jews killing Christ”
completely indefensible statement marked by anti-semetic supersticion and crass dismissal of apartheid.
jummy on January 16, 2007 at 11:18 PM
You are right, we do. Our companies looked past the law to make an extra buck, our politicians looked the other way too. Therefore, we are to blame. If the US collectively quit hiring illegals the over-whelming majority would go home.
You are ignoring a few issues about slavery:
1. It was the norm across the world for slavery. No society found it morally wrong, nor is there a case made in Scripture that it was wrong. Humanists of the Roman Empire used reason to justify it, while it was a valid argument, it wasn’t sound.
2. The slave trade was big in Africa, since Pre-Roman days. It wasn’t really popular after the fall for Rome in Europe, until during Colonization.
3. The slaves were mostly from other tribes. Either they were captured on a raid (Think Apocolypto) or as prisoners of war. The tribes justified their selling into slavery as both financially smart, but smart in the sense that no extra blood was on their hands. Therefore they definitely are at least partially responsible for the slave trade.
Tim Burton on January 16, 2007 at 11:23 PM
did you see that? how your post quoted mine, but engaged none of its substance?
yadda yadda yadda and freed blacks owned estates with slaves and some blacks even fought with the confederacy, etc.
so, slavery was good then?
jummy on January 16, 2007 at 11:23 PM
My family did not own slaves and I am not apologizing for anything…I am half Native American and German…my German half has apologized to my Native American half for killing its people for being on their land when they got here.
EnochCain on January 16, 2007 at 11:25 PM
Not true. Many in America and England found it morally repulsive. In fact, there was a movement in the U.S. before the civil war began to outlaw slavery.
Hmmm…what to say…on one hand, I see the point you’re making; on the other, I wonder if you’re trying to justify what happened to those who became slaves by spreading blame. It’s hard to tell from your comments and I’ll admit I could be misreading your point. However, slavery is not justified by implying blacks, themselves, were complicit or bear partial responsibility. The fact remains: there was a market for such reprehensible activity, and social structures that allowed it and sustained it. To me, your logic could just as well state that drug dealers aren’t responsible for a society’s drug problem so long as there are buyers who purchase them. It attempts to ignore a greater problem by justifying one bad behavior with another.
thedecider on January 16, 2007 at 11:37 PM
Heres an idea..lets focus on the slavery thats still going on today in this world instead of looking into the past…besides no apology of any kind is not going to make a damn bit of difference in my opinion.
EnochCain on January 16, 2007 at 11:39 PM
No I did. The point was that you can’t put the blame on one group. This isn’t a case of rape, the victim is the slave, but there was two criminals.
An analogy is:
Guy breaks into a house and stole a TV. (Criminal #1)
Guy who knowingly buys stolen TV. (Criminal #2)
Guy whose house was broken into. (Victim)
Guy who captures slave and sells him. (Criminal #1)
Guy who buys slave. (Criminal #2)
Guy who is captured). (Victim)
The analogy and the logic is fine.
Second point:
Actually, that isn’t true either. Without Antonio, James would have continued to have indentured servants. Lifetime slaves in VA was ILLEGAL, because anyone came over here was originally considered an indentured servant.
Therefore, your point that whites wouldn’t have done it isn’t knowable, due to a black man convincing Jamestown judges that his way was financially better.
So the substance of the point is valid, I just didn’t delve as deep as I should have into the history.
Finally, both worldviews, Socialism and Christianity, both did NOT see slavery as a moral evil at the time, because it was not part of Natural Law. So to judge their morality at the time is very dishonest, after all it was the standard world-wide since the dawn of time.
Tim Burton on January 16, 2007 at 11:40 PM
…besides no apology of any kind is not going to make a damn bit of difference in my opinion.
EnochCain on January 16, 2007 at 11:39 PM
Or mine either. Good point!
thedecider on January 16, 2007 at 11:43 PM
Just because some “white” people had slaves many decades ago, our government should pay ancestors now? How about their own ancestors paying them? They were the ones that rounded them up and sold them like cattle.
R D on January 16, 2007 at 11:45 PM
Slavery was horrible so go beat up a slave owner and leave the rest of us alone.
Perchant on January 16, 2007 at 11:48 PM
Again, that was not always the case. It was a change in the role that Dispensationalism (I don’t think that is spelled right) played in Christianity that changed it. Most Convent, theologians held to the OT still having the same validity in truths as the NT. So they interpreted Philemon in light of OT law that allowed Slavery. The change in theology allowed OT law to be interpreted different, so Philemon was primary and OT Law secondary. So they then started to look at it different, they also then used logic to prove their point in Natural Law as such:
1: Man is created in God’s image.
2: God is sovereign.
C: Therefore Man too should be sovereign.
Don’t take my word for it. Here is the review of “Bury the Chains”. The review was written by Thomas Sowell:
From Capmag.com
Townhall.com
The point is that it is UNDISPUTABLE that there was NO idea or theory that Slavery was wrong until after 1750. Even in 1850 it was in dispute worldwide. I personally own a theology text from 1851 that teaches that slavery is Scriptural (and it wasn’t used in the South, the theologian was from Chicago).
What I am saying is, “Slavery wasn’t a ‘white’ thing, it was a worldwide thing. Ending Slavery was strictly a white thing, specifically English, then American.”
Tim Burton on January 16, 2007 at 11:57 PM
But they do. That is definately the issue. Blacks were selling each other into slavery of the Muslims since about AD 750.
I dare you to quote a writer pre-1750 that condemns universal slavery. The fact is that as Sowell points in his review of “Bury the Chains” that Slavery was a UNIVERSAL.
One of the things in history is that you must not look at it in your time, but in their’s. At that point and time, slavery was unquestioned anywhere in the world, nor was it questioned in Christian Theology or any other philosophy. In fact, the Socialist supported slavery as being a rational truth until the 1880s.
See above post.
Tim Burton on January 17, 2007 at 12:03 AM
Interesting points Tim – and thank you for the documentation. I’m thinking about this issue with 21st century logic and social mores without considering the history of slavery and how societies viewed it. I admit I’m not strong on theology and I’ll make one more admission: you might well be one of the very few bloggers on this site who has actually altered my thinking. Still, we all agree the act of slavery was reprehensible then, as now. But today, we have the advantage of history to know better.
thedecider on January 17, 2007 at 12:10 AM
If it happened more than a year or two ago, just get over it. If it happened before you were born, you’re almost completely unrelated to it. If it happened before your parents were born, you are completely unrelated to it.
Only whining babies keep harping on things that happened a long time ago. Actually, only whining babies keep harping on things that happened five minutes ago.
It’s time for everybody to grow up and stop trying to steal other people’s experiences. Your ancestors’ experiences aren’t your experiences, and they don’t make you a victim.
The old man’s right. That’s why people don’t like what he said.
Doghouse on January 17, 2007 at 12:18 AM
This is far from indisputable. Slavery was abolished in Persia in the 6th century BC under Cyrus’s rule, and there have been a number of societies throughout history that have lived without slavery for extended periods of time. These ideas have been in the air for a long long time. Unfortunately they did not come to fruition in most of the world until fairly recently.
Jazzman on January 17, 2007 at 12:19 AM
Actually, there is debate about if this truly was universal slavery that he eliminated, most of it revolves around indentured servants.
I tend to believe he allowed them to be enslaved for 7 years. The reason is because he leaned heavily on Jewish teachings and Jews allowed lifetime slavery for foreigners, but only 7 years of slavery for Jews.
The point still stands, there was no civilization that eliminated slavery or held to the theory it should be eliminated.
Tim Burton on January 17, 2007 at 12:26 AM
Most Jews would find the statement that the Jews killed Jesus to be offensive … on a number of levels.
I know many Christians who would be equally offended (not necessarily for the same reasons as Jews do.)
aunursa on January 17, 2007 at 12:27 AM
First, the Jewish leadership DID kill Christ. And Christians don’t care that they did. It was neccesary for him to be betrayed in order to fulfill his mission.
And yes, Black Americans should get over it. WHO should apologize? The state of Virginia IS NOT RUN by the same people who ran it back in the day. This is just the first step towards a reperations claim.
csdeven on January 17, 2007 at 12:28 AM
I’m not one for collective responsibility, so I think the idea that America needs to apologize for slavery is a little silly. What Hargrove said was stupid certainly, and mildly offensive, but nothing to get heated over.
I do want to ask this: A number of you have suggested that you hold the so-called “moderate Muslims” (the ones who aren’t involved in perpetrating or financing terror) to blame for not speaking up against terrorism. Isn’t this an analogous form of collective responsibility? Surely their “speaking up” isn’t going to stop the fanatics. If anything it will result in more of them getting blown up. So why do they have this responsibility to speak up for acts that they did not commit?
Jazzman on January 17, 2007 at 12:28 AM
Thanks, I’m just glad someone actually read one post of my stupidity. ;-)
Another thing, if you like Military history, looking at their decisions in their eyes makes much better reading and bringing the topic to life. Such as it is always easy to say that Lee should NEVER have ordered Pickett’s Charge, but when you look at it in his eyes the order was tactical genius.
Tim Burton on January 17, 2007 at 12:31 AM
But the point is that at one time Christians did care. Read some of Martin Luther’s writings, also most of the mass murders of Jews (pre-1800s) in Europe was justified on the fact that they killed Christ.
Now, you and I may both know that it was his will and his death was mankind’s gain, but that doesn’t mean that they were mental giants and put 2+2 together to equal 4.
Tim Burton on January 17, 2007 at 12:34 AM
I get his point, I think, and would agree with it, but he sure found a poor way to say it.
I prefer “It’s ok to remember the past but stop living it” rather than “get over it”.
Notwithstanding it was the Romans, and not Jews, who killed Jesus. :)
hadsil on January 17, 2007 at 12:37 AM
I’m not sure I agree with your interpretation of the Cyrus Cylinder. But it doesn’t matter, because this is not the only example. Here’s another one: Sweden abolished slavery in the 14th century.
Jazzman on January 17, 2007 at 12:41 AM
The over reaction to the words is just another example of out of control PCness. The argument could be made that those calling for the apology should be making a different argument. If it were not for their ridiculous demands, the opposition wouldn’t be using ridiculous words to explain their opposition to it.
PS The Romans nailed him up, but it was the Jewish leadership who facilitated it. Had it not been for Jewish pressure and the fear of civil uprising, Pilate would have released Jesus. Per the gospels of Matthew and Luke.
csdeven on January 17, 2007 at 1:19 AM
Did the Borg hive kick this guy out? What’s with the implant?
Black Adam on January 17, 2007 at 1:43 AM
My answer to reparations is a simple one. One of the evils of slavery was that the slave-master made his money on the backs of slaves. If we were to institute reparations, this evil would again become reality with the so-called ancestors of slavery making money on the backs of slaves. In either event, the slave is punished and used. Why do we seek to knock on the graves of slave-masters to tell them they were wrong and knock on the graves of slaves and tell them they have been repaid for their wrongful enslavement?
Alan Keyes has an interesting idea on reparations. He would give two gernerations of blacks in this nation a pass on federal income taxes. Not a bad idea really. Only those working would be able to benefit and those earning reparations would be doing so by keeping the money they had earned……
ritethinker on January 17, 2007 at 1:52 AM
tim, i don’t disagree with anything you’ve written about slavery. i’ve strayed from the original matter though of what this old guy said.
i’m reading “get over it” through 20th century eyes because i think the 20th century policy of jim crow apartheid is nearly impossible to disagregate from slavery. to look at the social pathology which afflicts only blacks with ancestry reaching back to slavery and demand impatiently that they “get over it” seems as realistic and helpful as telling jefferson a century before emancipation to emancipate and integrate then and there. social forces much larger and persistent than the individual are at play in these matters. an outsider’s offering that “you’re in control” doesn’t carry self-evident value to even a successful black person confronted with his group’s pathologies; less so, an ousider barking “get over it!”
“get over it” demonstrates a dense refusal to even begin to empathise. not, as others here seem to rationalize it, “tough love”.
regarding the part about christians being big enough to forgive the jews for killing christ, it seems that we are in agreement on this. but i want to go back over it for everyone’s benefit.
the jews sentenced and the romans executed. that much is a scriptural fact. to ballance the weight of blame on the romans is not anti-italian and to place the weight alternatively on the jews is not anti-semitic. that’s not where the anti-semitism is in the “christkiller” deicide libel.
when he credits christians with the largeness of soul to forgive jews, he’s introduced christians as a group who suffered something at the hands of jews. this idea that christians have something to forgive or resent the jews for is based on nothing. christiandom was anachronisticly written into the story as a victim of the crucifixion in the 8th century to justify actual group persecution of jews. two things about this are then clear:
1) because christians were not persecuted by the jews and christians therefor have no basis to “forgive” the jews for anything, it is completely beside the point to note the trivia that jews had a part in the execution of a named christ, and
2) the fake, fraudulent myth of jewish persecution of christians cannot be made analogous with the actual group persecution of blacks in america.
there is not a syllable of what this man said which is true, kinda true, true if you read between the lines, true if taken in a strictly literal sense, or true if you’re able to, like, break the chains of this pc false conciousness society puts on you, maaaan.
they are simply the simple words of an old bigoted stooge with a plug in his head.
jummy on January 17, 2007 at 2:19 AM
that was the only non-embarrassing thing he ever said in this town.
jummy on January 17, 2007 at 2:22 AM
I knew that there must be something behind this. Eventhough they accept the apology, apology is not money. Why do you think courts award monetary damages than apologies? I would rather have someone pay me than apologize to me.
Ouabam on January 17, 2007 at 2:47 AM
Yes, but that proves my point. It was a Western conversion on the idea of slavery. While it may have been earlier than the rest of Europe, it was still Western Civ and even then they made no attempt to stop it world wide as the English and later the Americans did.
Well, have a good night. :-)
Tim Burton on January 17, 2007 at 2:51 AM
did my big post get eaten?
jummy on January 17, 2007 at 3:06 AM
The part of Virginia that I call home is the Southwestern part, as if it is of any concern to you.
In saying what I said, I failed to communicate that ALL of us in “my neck of the woods” are too busy trying to survive and to make a living to bother with such niceties as this bullspit. Everyone I know, black, white, or otherwise, doesn’t see this issue as a day-to-day issue or even worthy of discussion except when holier-than-thou jackasps want to stir the stew until it stinks.
I don’t have a problem with what the man said or the fact that he said it. I just don’t want to be associated with it because it is irrelevant in my world and small-minded and xenophobic in everyone’s.
That being said, I will leave you with this:
Weak minds are the Devil’s playground.
Who said that? I did.
hillbillyjim on January 17, 2007 at 3:10 AM
Here are just a few of the reasons the idea of reperations is foolish. The only way the could be paid would be by taxation.
The ONLY people who should recieved payment:
The direct descendents of american slaves. This means black AND white slaves and only those who were slaves AFTER the US government came into existance.
The people who should pay:
1) The direct descendents of slaves owners. This would included ALL slaves owners, black and white.
2) The direct descendents of those Africans whom sold slaves.
3) The direct descendents of those who were involved in the Confederate Government.
The people who should NOT pay:
The direct descendents of all those whom fought on the side of the Union during the civil war.
The direct descendents of those whom were sympathetic and helped slaves escape to the north.
Any descendent of a person who came to america after slavery was outlawed.
The list goes on and on.
csdeven on January 17, 2007 at 8:23 AM
“I don’t have a problem with what the man said or the fact that he said it. I just don’t want to be associated with it because it is irrelevant in my world and small-minded and xenophobic in everyone’s.”
If you don’t have a problem with what he said, then what the hell are you rambling on about? If it’s not relevant in your world … why are you concerned why it may be relevant in someone elses? The biggest clue that you have no idea of what your rambling on about is your use of “xenophobic”, a die hard lib term that is overused like “hate” and “racist”. Please continue with your struggle for existence and don’t mind us other folks who may have opinions that differ from yours.
“Weak minds are the Devil’s playground.”
Obviously, the devil’s been playing with yours for quite some time now.
darwin on January 17, 2007 at 8:36 AM
Based on what? A religious text, not a history book. Hargrove’s comments were in the state capitol, not church.
aunursa on January 17, 2007 at 8:58 AM
Slavery in the US was particularly odious because of the ideas of liberty and equality that were the bedrock of the nation. If all men are created equal, how can some men be slaves? Well the rationale was that blacks were not human in the same sense whites were.
In other times, other cultures, slavery was a result of war–defeated nations became slaves–or economy–in ancient Rome a slave could buy their way out of slavery. Even in Latin America, the Church insisted that slaves had souls and converted them, giving them some measure of equality.
That said the idea of reparations is inane. It will never happen. There is some merit to the argument that as native Americans have been “rewarded?” with casino licenses and interned Japanese-Americans given some payment, why not slaves? Regardless, it will never happen and probably shouldn’t.
honora on January 17, 2007 at 9:00 AM
As a man of Irish heritage I completly accept everyones humble apology for your continued portrails and general acceptance of the Irish as low class rabble rousing drunkards.
This simply not the case.
That being said, the drinks are on me whilst we work this through.
:opens the first and passes it to the left:
So…any scotts on here?
If so, i’m sorry your scottish. ;)
(the above is simple sarcasm depicting the absurdness we have achieved as an overly apologetic PC society.)
CBarker on January 17, 2007 at 9:07 AM
So what?
csdeven on January 17, 2007 at 9:09 AM
Exactly. Acceptable behavior in one era is unacceptable in another. In time, a just society will come to the realization that a particular behavior or “norm” is no longer acceptable and outlaw the behavior as was the case with slavery here.
When I was a kid in the 1960′s, there were still places in my little hometown where blacks were unwelcome. There was a black school on one end of town, and a white school on the other. I can still remember the uproar from the white community when desegregation occurred and the black kids were integrated into my elementary school. Mind you, this was only 40 years or so ago.
In one sense, I think Hargrove is right. No African-American alive today in the US has been a slave here nor have any whites held slaves. Although he could have said it better, his point is valid. “Let’s move on and quit blaming slavery for current problems in the black community”.
If the Virginia Legislature wants to issue an apology, they should apologize for their own wrongdoings ala “Massive Resistance”, “Passive Resistance” and other actions their institution took to circumvent the Civil Rights Act and the “Brown vs. Board” decision back in the 1960′s. It took the “Green Act” of 1968 to finally force all Virginia public schools to integrate. A mere 38 years ago.
Does racism and bigotry still exist today? Sure it does, but it’s not just practiced by whites. Do blacks deserve an apology for past injustices? Sure. But only if it is a simple recognition of past governmental injustice as opposed to being framed as an apology from the present white community.
If governmental recognition of past injustices is what will take to get the black and white communities to focus on today’s problems instead of yesterday’s, it’ll be worth it. Unfortunately, as long as there are Al’s and Jesse’s in the world, no amount of contrition will be sufficient.
BacaDog on January 17, 2007 at 9:10 AM
“So what?”
Exactly. Free country, free speech. End of story. The 1st Amendment wasn’t written with politically correct qualifiers in it.
darwin on January 17, 2007 at 9:15 AM
I already explained why the reasons descendents of slaves should not be compensated.
I have not studied the Native American and Japanese American issues, but I suspect that the fact that ALL Native Americans are descendents of the indigenous peoples of this country and the geneology of the compensated Japanese Americans can be verified are part of the discussion.
csdeven on January 17, 2007 at 9:27 AM
already explained why the reasons descendents of slaves should not be compensated.
There is also the economic realtiy: the number of Japanese-Americans in question was small; the casino give-away didn’t cost the government anything, regardless of who runs it, the gov’t still gets its take.
Apples and oranges anyway you look at it.
honora on January 17, 2007 at 10:21 AM
“He’s right”
Whoosh! (That’s the sound of the point rushing thought your empty head.)
rightwingprof on January 17, 2007 at 10:21 AM
People talk about slavery, yet what has black leadership and the liberal movement done for minorities? For the past 40 plus years the liberals have held postitions of power in every major inner city school district. And the minorities (read black) have suffered the greatest. Far beyond slavery, the liberals have created a generation of illiterates and victims, worse than any slavery. When coming out of slavery the blacks were eager to work, learn and with a strong sense of family they could achieve. But “the democrats and liberals soon stopped that drive, supplanting it with government programs to “assist” and creating welfare state, and worse, the low expection of achievement in school. The liberals know, with education, the blacks would learn, and model the rest of the country. 50% would be Republican, 50% would be democrat, and the liberals would fall apart. The liberals mantra should be, don’t educate them they will leave the plantation”. If I am wrong, show me where the democrat controlled school districts have excelled. As long as the blacks are uneducated they will stay democrat. The liberals are the modern day slave owners.
right2bright on January 17, 2007 at 10:26 AM
I’m Scottish and I’m offended.
Not really, I’m just sorry you’re Irish.
This is ridiculous, Hargrove used an analogy to create anything else out of that is proof positive just how much societal damage has been caused by political correctness guilt complex.
To perpetuate that guilt for personal and political gain is well, bleep.
Speakup on January 17, 2007 at 10:27 AM
This opens up more worms that it solves. Would black slave owners have to pay? After all, the 3rd biggest slave owner in South Carolina was a black man. What role is Antonio the Negro culpable? What about families who fought on both sides? What about reparations for the rapes, murders, vandalism and theft of Southern property that was until that time against the rules of war during Sherman’s March to the Sea?
Tim Burton on January 17, 2007 at 10:53 AM
csdeven and darwin,
This isn’t a free speech issue. Don’t misrepresent your opponent’s argument — that’s a liberal debating tactic.
Hargrove’s comments might have been appropriate in a religious setting, in which the Christian version of events is considered factual. In a government building, as a state representative, however, the VA representative’s remarks are merely his personal religious belief. And it’s particularly painful to his Jewish constituents (a) who don’t share his religious beliefs, and (b) whose ancestors suffered countless atrocities at the hands of Christians who blamed the Jews for the death of their religion’s founder.
As others have pointed out, there are many analogies that he could have used. I don’t believe that he intentionally chose to use a divisive and painful one to make his point. But that’s how it comes across.
aunursa on January 17, 2007 at 11:02 AM
what reparations? how did reparations come into this?
why can’t we just condemn unambiguous prima facie bigotry without rationalizing it?
jummy on January 17, 2007 at 11:17 AM
this whole business of pretending there’s nothing inherantly anti-semitic about “forgiving” jews for “killing christ” is like walking around with a swastica armband and claiming it just “looks cool.”
jummy on January 17, 2007 at 11:18 AM
“I don’t believe that he intentionally chose to use a divisive and painful one to make his point. But that’s how it comes across.”
I don’t either. It was off the cuff and was used to make a point, not to inflict harm. That said, I’m sure he regrets using Christ and Jews as a comparison.
darwin on January 17, 2007 at 11:25 AM
this whole business of pretending there’s nothing inherantly anti-semitic about “forgiving” jews for “killing christ” is like walking around with a swastica armband and claiming it just “looks cool.”
Please … quit trying to write just to “sound cool”. You act as if mentioning anything related to Jews or Judaism is “bigoted” or anti-semitic. His choice of words may have been poor, but they’re not anti-semitic.
darwin on January 17, 2007 at 11:28 AM
I agree with him. I think that pretty much sums up society today regardless of one’s political leanings Left or Right.
.
GT on January 17, 2007 at 12:05 PM
Would it be equally racist/anti-caucasian to use the term “forgiving whites for slavery” as it would be racist/anti-semetic to use the term “forgiving Jews for killing Christ”? Why wouldn’t both be equally unfair and if they are equally unfair then why wouldn’t it be considered a perfect analogy?
Perchant on January 17, 2007 at 12:12 PM
the sentencing of christ was something jews did to another jew. slavery and apartheid were things done by whites as a group to blacks as a group.
no. it doesn’t even make for an imperfect analogy.
further, and for the final time, christians cannot assume the position of victimhood in relation to what jews did to another jew. jews punnished no christians and no christians suffered by the sntencing and execution of christ. christians did not yet exist. the idea that christians have a role in the crucifixion which is availible to be reconciled one way or the other is the construction of 8th century antisemites and its purpose was to foment the actual group persecution of jews by christians. there is nothing murky about this. “we should kill/forgive jews for killing christ” is as clearly and automaticly an expression of anti-semitism as a swastica tattoo.
jummy on January 17, 2007 at 12:40 PM
Do you really believe that all white people owned black slaves? Where were you taught this?
Perchant on January 17, 2007 at 1:31 PM
Actually jummy, the early Christians were hunted down and killed by the Pharisees. Steven was stoned for Blasphemy (Acts 7:54) and the church was scattered:
Saul continued to hunt them down until he met Jesus on the road to Damascus
My purpose in writing this is to correct your statement that early Christians dis not suffer persecution. It is NOT to put any blame on the Jews as they are a part of God’s plan. The bible makes it clear that the Jews have a special place in God’s heart, therefore I have no right to harbour any ill will towards his people.
jman on January 17, 2007 at 1:50 PM
Just to reiterate. I do NOT believe that Christians can claim victimhood for any of the actions committed 2000 years ago. I was just correcting the record.
jman on January 17, 2007 at 1:52 PM
There is nothing wrong with the noting of slavery in our history. There is everything wrong with wallowing in it like it was yesterday.
For those *few* blacks and their “Poverty Pimp” leaders who are still holding their hands out in wait for some large federal payday, I say to them “Get over it!” Really.
The folks who were wronged (and the individuals that wronged them) are long gone. Time to take responsibility for your own actions and choices in life and move on.
As for the VA state legislator in question: clumsy use of words, poor syntax, and a tin ear for politics in 2007. He won’t be around much longer once the Legacy Media frenzy kicks into high gear.
itzWicks on January 17, 2007 at 1:52 PM
Duke?
BacaDog on January 17, 2007 at 1:52 PM
Forget this nonsense. What I want to know is when Arab Muslims are going to apologize for enslaving black Africans all the way up to right this very second. Oh and stopping it would be nice also. Sheesh!
baldilocks on January 17, 2007 at 2:05 PM
WTF did the man’s family leaving poland to escape nazi’s have to do with the jews and Christ?
Yes there was slavery in this country. There is still slavery in some countries. There is no longer slavery here, although the country continues to ‘make up for it’ by promoting discrimination towards minorities.
Lord Nazh on January 17, 2007 at 2:46 PM
According to the Christian scriptures. History is written by the victors. I am not aware of any record of alleged Jewish persecutions of Christians in ancient rabbinic texts.
aunursa on January 17, 2007 at 2:53 PM
Please don’t mix me up with jummy, whose comment you are referencing.
jman on January 17, 2007 at 2:56 PM
The writings of Josephus, the Jewish historian, support much of the biblical account.
jman on January 17, 2007 at 3:13 PM
Aunursa
It’s not a contradiction, it’s one of the vagaries of history. It depends on which historical records you take your narrative from, which you give more weight to, etc.
If it is my use of “fact” that is bothering you, I checked the definition and I don’t seem to have used it inappropriately.
As for your statement that “it is innapropriate for a government legislature in the state capitol to declare a controversial religious belief”, I agree wholeheartedly. It is not appropriate. However, unless I have missed some clause in the Constitution that says that legislators have to check their 1st ammendment rights at the Capitol doors, I’d have to say it’s his right to say it. Just as it is the right of the people that elected him to take offense and not elect him next time. Or applaud him for it and reelect him again. Or ignore it and watch American Idol instead of voting.
aunursa on January 16, 2007 at 9:16 PM
JadeNYU on January 17, 2007 at 3:24 PM
Gee, until I saw the video, I figured Rep. Moran had opened his mouth again. My bad. This guy is such an imbecile that Moran looks mostly sane by comparison.
Physics Geek on January 17, 2007 at 4:44 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2