Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Hillary's historian refutes Sanders claim that this country is "created on racist principles". [View all]Autumn
(44,986 posts)252. I call bull shit, the OP does not threaten to NOT to vote if their candidate isn't the one
in their comments. Your post was in response to the article in the OP and the comment by the OP. And technically if anyone was being attacked in the OP and the article it was Sean Wilentz for his bull shit, he's the one getting his ass handed to him. You deflection failed, now I'm done.
randys1 (9,919 posts)
40. The only reason this matters to some is the supposed connection to Hillary...duh
So if we find an adviser to Bernie with views that are out of the mainstream or just wrong, do we get to blame Bernie for them?
Hope not, as a Bernie supporter I have no doubt he has friends or supporters or advisers who could have fucked up views on one thing or another.
BASH bash BASH Hillary day...
40. The only reason this matters to some is the supposed connection to Hillary...duh
So if we find an adviser to Bernie with views that are out of the mainstream or just wrong, do we get to blame Bernie for them?
Hope not, as a Bernie supporter I have no doubt he has friends or supporters or advisers who could have fucked up views on one thing or another.
BASH bash BASH Hillary day...
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
258 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Hillary's historian refutes Sanders claim that this country is "created on racist principles". [View all]
Luminous Animal
Sep 2015
OP
I guess some people are willing to destroy their reputation for a politician.
beam me up scottie
Sep 2015
#57
No. They will appear on the right near the bottom of the article. You'll see a box
Luminous Animal
Sep 2015
#101
Even the founding fathers knew that slavery was a time bomb buried in the constitution.
Warren DeMontague
Sep 2015
#4
A gruesome response to anyone that doesn't think that this country isn't built on
erronis
Sep 2015
#109
well, technically it was a lot of LITTLER genocides, and often they just starved to death by
MisterP
Sep 2015
#81
No, it does not even come close to saying they only count as 3/5th of a real human.
ieoeja
Sep 2015
#106
My main beef with the article is the Mr. Welintz conflates country with Constitution.
Luminous Animal
Sep 2015
#82
"our country was founded on racist principles." - but what does really mean? That some of the
jonno99
Sep 2015
#90
One of the last? Your link appears to have the US somewhere in the middle. Not to mention
jonno99
Sep 2015
#173
To me that's the question of this thread. Racism's precedes capture and ownership. "Principles"
ancianita
Sep 2015
#224
"...attempting to judge the past by the present, ...is always a preposterous thing to do"
AlbertCat
Sep 2015
#92
Ok - but as codified by what specifially? This whole discussion is a little nebulas.
jonno99
Sep 2015
#132
Are you (or Bernie) referring to the "three fifths of all other Persons" language in article 1?
AlbertCat
Sep 2015
#139
I agree, and yet our jurisprudence is based on the words of the document - not the
jonno99
Sep 2015
#183
Both Washington and Jefferson owned hundreds of slaves and freed none during their lifetimes.
Nye Bevan
Sep 2015
#27
Can Hillary's lawyer explain why a slave could both not vote and only counted 3/5 th?
karynnj
Sep 2015
#28
So, Hillary's lawyer is on the wrong side of an argument made a century and a half ago?
karynnj
Sep 2015
#50
Slavery was NOT abolished until 1865 with the 13th Amendment. Are we going to ignore history. n/t
Skwmom
Sep 2015
#37
The only reason this matters to some is the supposed connection to Hillary...duh
randys1
Sep 2015
#40
Did I blame Hillary? Oh no I did not. I do hope someone asks her about it, though.
Luminous Animal
Sep 2015
#44
Because he advises her on historical issues and is sometimes referred as Hillary's Historian.
Luminous Animal
Sep 2015
#60
so Hillary's historian says, US not founded on racist principles, but Obama's campaign was?
virtualobserver
Sep 2015
#69
Their whole record belies any claim to any "fit into the arc of progression." Their record fits,
ancianita
Sep 2015
#146
People here are focused on criticizing DEMOCRATS, most of that is against Hillary.
randys1
Sep 2015
#65
I correct people all the time, problem is there is a 20-1 ratio of attacks on hillary.
randys1
Sep 2015
#247
I call bull shit, the OP does not threaten to NOT to vote if their candidate isn't the one
Autumn
Sep 2015
#252
And they still had to wait 56 more years after the 14th amendment for citizenship
jfern
Sep 2015
#156
The work of any historian, regardless of how respected he or she may be, is still subject
Maedhros
Sep 2015
#253
Don't make the mistake of assuming Hillary's supporters are arguing in good faith.
Maedhros
Sep 2015
#254
So, Hillary's historian denies the founding racism of this country, seemingly unaware ...
hedda_foil
Sep 2015
#73
It's an OpEd in the NYT by a Clinton advisor who claims that Bernie poisoning the current presidential
Luminous Animal
Sep 2015
#77
This is classic Clinton politics and he knows how to play the game.
beam me up scottie
Sep 2015
#119
Yeah, you joined right at the beginning and it's only going to get worse.
beam me up scottie
Sep 2015
#127
I understand his argument and that is not my main complaint. Bernie stated the COUNTRY
Luminous Animal
Sep 2015
#129
Please do. I can't anymore because I timed out on my 10 free monthly access to the Times.
Luminous Animal
Sep 2015
#151
Indeed. You are the new guy. Welcome and thanks for your every contribution.
Luminous Animal
Sep 2015
#211
He shilled for her in 2008 and accused Obama of deploying "racial politics":
beam me up scottie
Sep 2015
#112
"This country was founded by slave owners who wanted to be free." -George Carlin
Fearless
Sep 2015
#133
Are people going to claim that "3/5ths of a person" has nothing to do with racism?
jfern
Sep 2015
#141
No system of evil has "principles." Sanders just needs to lose that word. That's 17th Century l
ancianita
Sep 2015
#149
It means, in this context, the underlying foundation for a belief or behavior system.
Luminous Animal
Sep 2015
#160
Then we disagree on depravity, which is the basis of slavery, not "principles". "Foundation" is
ancianita
Sep 2015
#170
No. We disagree that a word can have more than one meaning. The members of the KKK
Luminous Animal
Sep 2015
#175
Like I said, there are no principles as the foundation of any evil system of bigotry/racism.
ancianita
Sep 2015
#184
Actually, Sanders and my definition is the first definition in every dictionary.
Luminous Animal
Sep 2015
#210
Definitions are living documents subject to change by thinking through words' ramifications.
ancianita
Sep 2015
#213
Oh I understand. I just think removing context and contracting meaning makes us less
Luminous Animal
Sep 2015
#216
To say that "foundation" and "principles" are synonymous muddles context and makes us unintelligent.
ancianita
Sep 2015
#218
I've not said that at all. The definition of principles has a foundation. That foundation is
Luminous Animal
Sep 2015
#230
The foundation of racism is fear, depravity and greed. Those are not principles. Principles are
ancianita
Sep 2015
#232
Like it our not, principles are the ideological foundation of both the odious and the sublime.
Luminous Animal
Sep 2015
#235
Thank you. If a word could have two different meanings, there wouldn't be need for different words,
ancianita
Sep 2015
#205
I understand that but I loathe disregarding context and the contraction of vocabulary.
Luminous Animal
Sep 2015
#207
Yes, it certainly does dictate context, particularly when one tries to rationalize the real world
ancianita
Sep 2015
#214
I also look to motives of those who strive to restrict language within narrow bounds.
Luminous Animal
Sep 2015
#221
This is where we are done. Enjoyed the conversation. Reject where's black Waldo.
Luminous Animal
Sep 2015
#228
That's beyond the scope of this thread. You could agree if you didn't distract yourself with that.
ancianita
Sep 2015
#202
Fair enough. But I'm on record as not putting anything past the language of status quo supporters.
ancianita
Sep 2015
#217
Fine. I got the history part. But I'm trying to deal with a candidate's use of language today.
ancianita
Sep 2015
#219
It is possible to support evil when one rationalizes the benefits of it by using exonerating words
ancianita
Sep 2015
#197
Changing language changes thinking. Language use is psycholinguistic training. It's crucial to seein
ancianita
Sep 2015
#208
Oh yes. No doubt. All kinds of astroturf uses of language...meet the new boss, same as the old boss
ancianita
Sep 2015
#225
Revisionist in the sense that he wants to rewrite history to fit a racist world view.
blackspade
Sep 2015
#241