Bill Beck

Bill Beck
Location
Ohio,
Birthday
December 31

MY RECENT POSTS

Bill Beck's Links

MY LINKS
No links in this category.
Editor’s Pick
MARCH 2, 2013 11:59AM

"After all, tomorrow is another day"

Rate: 15 Flag

                             AndrewGoodman-JamesChaney-MichaelSchwerner

Being of my generation, I never payed a great deal of attention to Gone with the Wind.  I was aware of it, of course.  I can recall watching it with my parents.  I even lived in Atlanta for 3 years as a young Marine.  I was within walking distance of Margaret Mitchell’s home.  I probably saw it daily.  And although we were not fans of the Confederacy, or sympathetic to their cause, such that it was, I can recall Elizabeth Taylor as Scarlett O’Hara.

 

Oh, wait, that wasn’t Elizabeth Taylor, it was Vivien Leigh.  She was nearly a generation older than Elizabeth Taylor, and quite literally old enough to be her mother.  Time kind of scrunches together when one is looking back at it.  Mom and Dad would be quite shocked that I would confuse Vivien Leigh with Elizabeth Taylor.  That would almost be like someone confusing Lindsay Lohan for Elizabeth Taylor now...almost.  

 

Elizabeth Taylor wasn’t playing adult roles in 1939 when Gone with the Wind was made.  She was still a child.  It was Vivein Leigh who put the face on the punished, crumbling aristocracy of the South during the War of Northern Aggression...er, the American Civil War.  The poor thing actually had to make a ball gown out of a green drape.  The suffering forced upon the good people of the Confederacy by the Union was indeed draconian.  

 

The result of the War of Northern Aggression was the elimination of the plantation system of the South, which was much more than just a business model.  It was a way of life.  In 1860, Mississippi was the wealthiest state in the United States.  “King Cotton” was like General Motors, Standard Oil, and McDonalds all rolled into one.  Suddenly, poof!  “Our peculiar institution” which had made so many so wealthy, which had given rise to so much culture, suddenly, gone.  Why did the Northern aggressors hate America?

 

Oh, say, can you see they were fetishists.  A pernicious fetish grew from the words of a son of the South, a founding father of our society.  A Virginian, Thomas Jefferson made the unfortunate error of using the term “equality” in the Declaration of Independence.  “We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal...”  That was the tragic segment from the Declaration that the equality fetishists cultivated into this pernicious virus which now plagues the once great Confederacy, with that which is called the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  

 

The War of Northern Aggression destroyed the wealthiest part of the United States, and allowed much of its wealth to simply walk away, and for what?  Equality?  This tragic phrase, and this opportunistic band of barbarians, which invaded the South, gave rise to this “racial entitlement” from which the Confederacy...er, the South has not been able to extricate itself since 1865.  

 

In 1980, just after Ronald Reagan was nominated at the Republican Convention, the candidate traveled to Philadelphia Mississippi.  Reagan gave a speech at the Neshoba County Fair where he said, “I believe in state’s rights.”  He also said, “I believe we have distorted the balance of our government today by giving powers that were never intended to be given in the Constitution to that federal establishment.”  Wow, the man had a way with words.

 

Reagan was referring there to the equality fetishists.  The tragic Thomas Jefferson included those words in his Declaration, never intending this concept to be stretched to those unequal parties...women, and people of color.  Six years later, President Reagan appointed Antonin Scalia to the Supreme Court.  The same Ronald Reagan who had the good taste and the prescience to invoke states rights in Philadelphia Mississippi, had now appointed a justice who just this past week decried the “racial entitlement” that buoys up the equality fetishists.  Scalia has appropriately demonstrated that the real oppressed class is the Southern Aristocracy.  What was once great has been laid low by invaders from the North who brought disease with them.  

 

For years, we were made to sympathize with Andrew Goodman, James Chaney, and Michael Schwerner.  These “voting rights” workers were once the faces of this pernicious fetish which grew to a head after their disappearance from Philadelphia Mississippi in 1964.  Just as America jerked wildly and emotionally at the end of the War of Northern Aggression, and destroyed “our peculiar institution,”  a century later America jerked wildly again and placed the South under this onerous restriction of voting “equality.”  

 

Thank goodness for Ronald Reagan, and Antonin Scalia.  These men saw and see the real victims and the real villains of the war, of Reconstruction, and the wolf in sheep’s clothing called “voting rights” and “equality.”

 

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
The empirical consequences of the Voting Rights Act have been good mainly, as to ability to vote, which was almost non-existent for blacks in many places, like 5-10 per cent.
That is very clear, and baiting people like Scalia did wasn't smart, if, it is hardly the case that racial issues and tensions are unique to the South either, see Rodney King, Watts, Detroit, Boston integration fights, none of which is a good thing. I don't get why people want to do that personally.
As to the one downside of one application of the Voting Rights Act, there was a time when in the South, the goal was more black politicians, on the fair to a point theory that blacks understand blacks better, if, poorer blacks have some common interests with working class whites, maybe more than their race, and vice versa with upper class whites and blacks too, in which the evacuation of cities to suburbs by whites has done a lot of harm, more to whites I think than they realize, as to net effect on the country.
As to the one downside of how the voting rights act played out, Republicans did make deals to get more black politicians, at the expense of Democratic Party seats net, hence the new version of the Solid South.
How one gets around that, I don't know, other than reminding people that they do have common interests, white, black, Hispanic or Asian, interests that in the long run are more important than what divides them, if that is easier said than done, hence what sometimes seems the hauting point of Rodney King, "People, why can't we get along?"
People get along. It just depends on how you define "people."
In a way, I am starting to be happy about Scalia's shrillness. For too long the danger of the man has been masked by a kind of pseudo-respectability for his office.

He is shaming that office...and because we Americans often tend to identify with people based on ethnicity, I feel part of the shame as a second generation Italian.

The fact that Scalia is so often abetted in his agenda by Justice Thomas must gnaw at you in like manner.

The change that forms the undercurrent of the issue being discussed here is not coming. IT IS ALREADY HERE. We white, males are becoming the problem now, because so many of us are unwilling to even acknowledge that the change to which I refer is a possibility, let alone that it already is here.

In fairness...many of us ARE on-board.
People are bipedal hominds of any racial classification.
It is interesting, Frank. While I agree with your comment there in total, I disagree with almost every single element. I'll explain.

First, I never think of Scalia as Italian. It does not come to mind. I had not considered Thomas until you mentioned him. Undoubtedly he agrees with Scalia, though. Thomas is murky for me because I can't quite fathom his motivations. He's a former worker for the EEOC, I believe. He is Southern, a Catholic, and opposes Affirmative Action. One can't draw any meaning from any of those bits of Thomas's bio. He does not speak during USSC proceedings. He travels the country with his wife during the summers and attends Nebraska football games and sleeps in a Winnebego in Wal Mart parking lots. I know nothing about why he does what he does. I can only speculate.

As for Scalia and the office, he is more like most justices from the court than he is not like them. From 1789 up until Brandeis, the court was basically of a certain type. Brandeis modernized the way law ans society were viewed with respect to one another. Scalia is more the rule, and not the exception. Only in the modern context is Scalia an embarrassment. Or said another way, Scalia is am embarrassment to the degree that most of American history is with regard to how we have viewed rights, and social justice. I rather like the idea that Scalia would be an embarrassment for his lack of interest or value in social justice, but that would be a rather lofty and stringent view. "Original intent" was the term that they used for people like Scalia in the 80's. It is something of a euphemism. What he really is is a justice who favors the establishment over what we would call social justice. Remember, the founding fathers were not fleeing slavery. They were fleeing taxation.
Don Rich, I don't think Scalia sees it that way. I know the Constitution did not originally.
I don't think that is a fully accurate categorization of the 3/5 compromise, because Northerners wanted zero count, and Southerners a full count, for reasons of power in the House, if it introduced a poison we can't seem to escape, as Lincoln hinted at in the Second Innaugaral as to bondmen's lash.
Few people defended slavery as a positive thing, as opposed to what was, or was necessary, until the 1830s, e.g Fitzhugh, if that later developed into a more formal ideology.
If you read Notes on State of Virginia, that is the one topic on which he fails, as he fails to see how his argument about Indians would apply equally to blacks, as to conditions mattering as to outcomes.
Having said that, we do have an African descended President, voted for by a not small number of whites, both times.
Moreover, we have had a black JCS, many generals etc, better than the record of many other countries, say non-Han, non-Japanese, non-Germans, non-traditional Russians, if such things always trigger anxiety.
I do not think it fair to deny the entire Constitutional order on something everyone knew was a bad problem, if not in their view solvable, if Franklin was an early abolitionist, to be fair, as to founding priniples, in which in fact, Jefferson opened the door to that in the Declaration as to created equal making racial inclusion an easy argument to make, and across the ages, as with Lincoln.
I think that is a very modern interpretation. I think the actual truth is a bit of yes and no, and to the degree that there is any "no" is the question is to consider someone not human. You analyze is in a somewhat silicon, dispassionate manner. I say, 400 years of slavery and any distinction, for any reason, of less than 100 percent is to declare someone less than a someone.

The legislature wrote in this obscene calculus in order to achieve a certain political balance. That in and of itself made the government unjust and illegitimate if it is to be of, for, and by people. The 3/5's thing was a means to an end. That end was hegemony. The colonies and eventually this country were not founded as a love in. It was a business. One essential element of that business model was people as property.

Obviously I see all people as people. Perhaps you misunderstand. My position is, anyone who places a fraction before the classification, for whatever reason, means to say that someone is fractionally human, and therefore not human. Humanness is all or nothing.
So now the right to vote is an entitlement? Justice Scalia is an embarrassment. We are a young country that can't seem to figure out how to reconcile it's grotesque past. Whenever I hear a politician talk State's Rights I know who they are speaking to, and it scares me.
/r.
That, Onislandtime, is a clear eye'd view. They are not bullshitting around. Soft-soaping the issue is what most of us have done in our lifetimes, and probably since Ben Franklin himself. Scalia is right out in the open with it, and where there is one, there are so, so many more.

Incidentally, I drew hella criticism for raising such subjects in the past. Now a Supreme Court justice has called this "racial entitlement" and even white people are writing about it on Open Salon. I have yet to see them referred to as playing "race cards" or "race baiting." Scalia either for that matter. We'll see what happens.
Obviously there was hideously invidious distinction in slavery, correlated with race here, although historically speaking not always, as to more prisoners of war. That distinction here acquired a life of its own, if it also because of ideals, not just interests, if pragmatic trying ideals as to form of government, and not just property in human beings, but land and capital in general, would be in the long run for the best, in terms of English common law.
Not Silicon, human, btw, although maybe I'd feel differently if I wasn't about 94 per cent white, Creek Indian, if that can make a difference too, as to being able to pass. People in an almost all-black bar in Boston-Mattapan, eventually said, after the bouncer story that I was a cop didn't work, to be nice to me so nothing happened, they said, "He's a Domenican." AvTav, even hung out at the last day, as the one-three per cent white boy. (People thought maybe I wanted "Brown Sugar," if really, not that there's anything wrong with that, it was just convenient to the trolly.
But as to invidious distinction, that has massively changed, if not completely, mainly though with subsets that are aging.
What follows, who knows, although live and let live is a good policy, and time tends to heal wounds too.
Wow, you calculated it down to the percentage? How American.
It was a guess, great, great grandmother, and no, not typically American really, single drop rule being the tradition, if Latinos understand that.
Yup. Discrimination and Reverse Discrimination are the Same Thing.

Except that they're not remotely the same thing. They're barely related.
I read a book about General U.S. Grant. Very interesting guy. He basically ran his political campaign, because he felt that Andrew Johnson was too pro Southern and was undoing Lincoln's reconstruction plans.

He felt this would render meaningless the blood, sweat and toil of his old army. He really felt a responsibility to his old soldiers. And he felt a responsibility to Lincoln---that to give in to the Southerners on key issues, such as voting rights for blacks and such (which Johnson was doing) would be a betrayal.

He was the last President in US history, up until the 20th century, that would really try to put those principles into practice. The Ku Klux Klan Acts are very interesting. Grant basically used the US military to fight the Klan in the South (which was under US military occupation). The KKK was waging an insurgency and Grant would have none of it.

Grant also used his Attorney General in a novel manner, for the prosecution of civil rights cases against southerners, who violated the voting rights of African Americans.

Grant made some mistakes in his life, but I think he was a decent guy that tried to do the right thing.
I agree, Rw. Grant is of late being restored with regard to reputation. He advocated for social justice, which has been a killer in American politics, figuratively and literally. When we grew up, Grant was referred to as a fall down drunk, and a failed President. Historians view him quite differently now.

Similarly, I think Reagan's reappaisal will not be very kind in the coming decades.
Grant was a good president, in a difficult situation, that Lincoln's Second Innaugural pointed to as to time healing wounds too, if a lot of time probably.
Listening to an interview of someone who attended that Supreme Court session was very revealing. In the last election, there were roughly 15,000 incidents of racial discrimination in the states falling under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which was last reauthorized by a 98-0 vote during the Bush administration.

Neshoba County, which is the plaintiff in this case, had 327 documented violations of the VRA in 2010. Justice Sotomayer pointed this out to the attorney representing Neshoba County.

This lady thinks that Scalia succeeded in alienating Kennedy or whoever the swing vote is on this case. I certainly h0pe that the Supreme Court comes up with a clean victory for the VRA.
I think you're right, O.N.L. I don't even think Roberts wants to be on the wrong side of this one. We'll see how it goes.
Grant was an interesting guy. He did some very antisemitic stuff during the war and reversed course completely later.
@Koshersalami as to anti-Semitism, all Grant did was ban traveling peddlers, and who were more Jewish, shetls of Poland starting to move here, Germans already here after 1848 especially, and actually useful economically, as to supplying demand in a wartorn land in the South, but, potentially setting off a tinder box of resentment of "carpetbaggers" no different than having say too many Americans show up in foreign countries after a war in floppy hats and beach shoes, Innocents Abroad. That is all that was.
@Koshersalami as to anti-Semitism, all Grant did was ban traveling peddlers, and who were more Jewish, shetls of Poland starting to move here, Germans already here after 1848 especially, and actually useful economically, as to supplying demand in a wartorn land in the South, but, potentially setting off a tinder box of resentment of "carpetbaggers" no different than having say too many Americans show up in foreign countries after a war in floppy hats and beach shoes, Innocents Abroad. That is all that was.
The METRO section of the Washington Post?
They have an article and book review ref Blacks.
It's on my Pickup Dash Board For a Later Read.
`
It's about Jim Crowe, jobs, and Combat Civil War.
The Infantry had segregated Black Fighter Troops.
I didn't know. Thanks. We can't know much History.

Plato said ` Tomorrow is another day? Augustine?
Someone did say that. Seneca? Bill Beck said that.
...and Scarlett O'Hara.
My Mother had Jet Black Hair.
Dad said She was more Beautiful.
Mom staid up at night to Read.
`
She teased Dad Smothered Her.
O, my Father adored my Mother.
Life is Dark/Light Divine Mystery.
It is bitter and sour, hot and salty, cold and sweet. Alone we can grow tired of the elements individually. In combination, we can find them irresistible. Some of the most sour cynics I know pray to god to come out of anesthesia after a hip operation. Sea salt on top of a chocolate chip cookie can make all the difference. It is good to embrace all of it...in moderation.
Rated for knowing Lindsey Lohan is not Elizabeth Taylor.
That was the point right?
Did I miss something?
Bill Beck, the moderate?
Bill Beck, the ironic. If you settle on the notion that I am taking a middle position between the Confederacy and social justice...

RE-CON-SID-ERRRRRRRRRRRR!
I think you're right, O.N.L. I don't even think Roberts wants to be on the wrong side of this one. We'll see how it goes.


I think you may very well be correct about that, Bill.

Roberts may very well end up being today's Earl Warren.

The title Chief Justice of the United States...is a heavy mantle to bear. Scalia can be Scalia...and Thomas can be Thomas...

...but Roberts has to be the Chief Justice.

Let's cross our fingers.
I never would have thought that prior to Roberts' decision on A.C.A. It was stated by some that he was looking at his place in history, with his name attached to the decision. The same sort of thing would apply here. That is certainly no guarantee, and like you said, Scalia can be Scalia, and Thomas can be Thomas, but having the "Roberts Court" be the court to strike down voting rights in front of the free world, and recorded in history for all time would take a special sort of strident ideological masochism.
Nice display of cold fury.

I think Scalia's remarks are worthy of impeachment. But, sigh, I read that impeachment is only for criminal acts.

If the Supreme Court does eviscerate the voting rights, then it is truly criminal, whether bank hold-ups are involved or not. (I'm still shaking my head over the Fox News creatures mocking that 102 year old black woman who waited three hours to vote...)
Thanks, Myriad. Desiline Victor is her name. I love her name. I believe she had to wait six hours, not three. I love that fact too, for several reasons. First, I can't imagine waiting six hours to vote, and I'm 49. Second, the people waiting reportedly helped her by giving her a place to sit, shade, food and water, and other comforts. Also, during that election, lots of celebrities showed up at polling places to entertain those waiting in long lines. Stevie Wonder showed up at some places in Ohio. What I love about these things is that no matter what happens with the law, we will find ways to make is bearable. It also seemed to motivate voters.

Scalia's insanely racist legal musings will stuff the coffers of fund raisers for progessive causes, and bring otherwise complacent voters to the polls. In 2000 and 2004, it was tough to get people to embrace the fact that we did not want Bush making appointments to the USSC. It was a bit easier to make the case with regard to Romney. It also helps to rebut the loons who call Obama evil, and advocate a left wing sacrificial lamb who would lose to a Nazi, and result in more Scalias, Thomases, and Alitos. Some of them actually dont get it, but fortunately, the sane will always outnumber the insane.
The middle course between the Confederacy and Social Justice? Yeah, I know how that works. I sometimes think that if modern politicians had been around in 1941 or so, the Nazis would have said "We want to kill six million Jews," the Jews would have said "we want you to kill none of us" and the rest of Europe would have negotiated for them to split the difference and kill three million.

Don,
No. There was no shtetl presence in the United States during the Civil War, at least not a numerically significant presence. German Jews, yes. Sephardic Jews actually came earlier. Shtetl Jews started coming for real about fifteen years after the war ended.

Grant's edict happened during the war. It was when he was General Grant, not President Grant; President Lincoln countermanded it. No sensitivities to carpetbagging; he was trying to conquer the people whose sensitivities you think he was concerned with. It had more to do with Jews being involved in the black market cotton trade.
Hey, an EP! Congratulations! I haven't seen one of those in a dog's age.
Bill, I had the six hours figure in my head, but when I wanted to reference the matter somewhere else I googled, and the first few results said 3. Six would better suit that other reference, so I'm gonna google further... Yeah, great name - Desiline Victor. I will use it in the other reference. It further demonstrates her common humanity c/w individuality rather than the kinda freakish 102.
I remember seeing her during the SOTU speech. You know, she doesn't carry herself like the average person. One can't tell that she is totally with it, in some ways. I imagine that these were the things that Fox News lampooned. But how many people live to be 102?

As I was watching it, I had a different thought. I thought about the things I mentioned earlier, and the fact that she made such a great effort to vote for this man that she had no reason to believe that she'd meet. Then, a few months later, she is being addressed by our President.

What I say here is not unique to conservatives. I encounter a lot of bitter liberals who say these things to me. Jan Sand impugnes Black voters decision to vote for a Black candidate and President as being only based upon race. Liberals and conservatives call us "apologists." White people, so it would seem, have license to make quality judgements, and have joy, and not be suspect for that. However, a Black American can make choices with the same such motivations or results, and all of them are suspect. There is a philosophical apartheid which says that a decision by a Black person must be validated by some sort of self sacrifice to be legitimate, even though this is not necessary for the UnCola. Ain't that peculiar?
Being of MY generation, I am gobsmacked at the effluvia coming from the direction of The Supremes. Racial entitlements???? What the frick is that supposed to mean? Unless he is referring to the human race, the only race entitled in this country is clearly NOT the one protected by the VRA. When The Supremes start using dog-whistle language to explain their positions on the constitutionality of a law -- which they clearly have -- it is time for all of us to be very afraid.

Well-deserved EP, Bill.

Lezlie
When I called Jan on that comment immediately after he first made it I expected him to back off because it was so far out there. Instead, he defended it and, when I argued the point, defended it ever more ardently. The thread isn't up any more because it was on a post of SBA's and she deleted a bunch of her old posts. I learned more than I wanted to from that exchange.
Thanks Lezlie. That dog whistle of Scalia's sounds like an intergalactic fog horn. The likelihood that this was a resurgence of attitude is not as likely as what my parents used to call, "you'll understand when you're older" type situation. South Africa's apartheid system was created with a stroke of a pen, after and on the model of our Jim Crow system. This can happen here again too, and there is no reason to believe that this would be restricted to Black people. While at one time, this sort of thinking seemed like future dystopia science fiction, now it seems like a weather report.
Kosh, Sand is not alone in membership of the Knights of the Screw Blacks Plan. You may recall several, including one that you mentioned who have taken to not typing my name in capital letters to openly show disrespect. Mentioning it will be an afront to them, no doubt, but I see reporting on their public statements as fair. This is the environment that we are in. You don't just reserve a bag of bigotry for a particular person, like the salt one uses on sidewalks when they get icy. You either support it or oppose it. In 2013, people in threads and Supreme Court Justices are saying that they find certain people to be less than.
Sorry to tell you this, but Fox News said nothing about Ms. Victor or her demeanor per se - beyond having a lot of fun about how slow a 102 year old would be. Here's a transcript of part of the bit:

Kilmeade, MacCallum and Hemmer did not seem to think she deserved one, though. Speaking on Kilmeade's radio show on Thursday, MacCallum said that the issue had no place in the State of the Union because it could be handled on the "municipal level… Get the town council on that one."

"How long was she on line?" Hemmer asked.

"What's the big deal? She was happy," MacCallum argued. "She waited on line, she was happy that she voted."

"They held her up as a victim!" Hemmer alleged. "What was she the victim of? Rashes on the bottom of her feet?"

BIG DEAL. SHE WAS HAPPY. RASHES... No one should wait that long...but when it comes to someone of that age... It's beyond me. You can hear the exchange at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/14/fox-news-hosts-desiline-victor_n_2688111.html?utm_hp_ref=media

One other little thing - if Americans want to take credit for inspiring South African apartheid, that's great by me: I was under the impression that the SA govt. studied our Canadian Indian reservation system to come up with that.
Myriad, I suppose it is a big enough hate cake for everyone to have a piece.
I think serious biographers have concluded that Jefferson believed that all men are equal, but his status as a wealthy landowner able to concentrate on politics and shape his country's future instead of spending his days behind a plow, depended on slave labor.

So, when faced with the conflict of ideal and reality, he didn't go with his ideal, but because he wrote "all men are created equal" into the country's founding documents, he helped the abolitionists a hell of a lot more than the bible, which, in no place condemns slavery.

In the end, it merely proves that you can't divide people into good and evil. There are few saints and a lot of people who can't bring themselves to either do what they know is right, or to act on what they think they should do if they have a few moral qualms.

You've obviously not read GWTW or seen the movie. It's about Scarlett triumphing despite the destruction of her world and the fact that what it took didn't make her happy. The lack of a new dress doesn't get her down, she uses the curtains. I don't recommend it to you, since the book is full of offensive characterizations of anyone who isn't a member of the white Southern ante-bellum planter class. You need to be either oblivious (this was me, when I read the book as a teen) or have a strong stomach.
If you think this post has anything to do with GWTW, you completely missed the point. Basically, it is the set up for a joke. It is irony. It is not a critique of Thomas Jefferson. It is not even a critique of antebellum society. What it is is a demonstration that statements made by a Supreme Court justice in 2013 have roots in steps taken by a President in 1986, which have roots in steps taken in 1980, which have roots in the philosophical conflict from the Civil War era.

This is about Goodman, Schwerner, and Chaney, three real people. These people were the faces of the Civil Rights issue regarding voting rights, which the Justice touched upon this past week. Those real faces on the poster are juxtaposed to the movie image (in your mind) of Vivien Leigh, also intentionally confused with Elizabeth Taylor, for the purpose of showing its relative insignificance. I did not say that Scarlett was upset of held down by wearing the drape. I used that as a element to lampoon "draconian" conditions.

Reading this post requires a bit of knowledge. You would have to know who refers to the "American Civil War" as "The War of Northern Aggression", and why. You would have to know the term "our peculiar institution", and what it means. You need to notice that the terms "slavery" and "murder" are not mentioned, although they figure prominently. You would need to know who said "racial entitlements" and why. These things are the point, not the film.

I'm sorry that you did not comprehend this, but maybe you are too far from it to be able to see the body of the irony since they are not daily events where you are. Yes, I have seen GWTW many times. I am familiar with the story, and the historical context and characters.

Rather than saying, "you've obviously not...", ask the question. You might learn something.
Oh, and Malusinka, equality is not a "fetish." It takes a very extreme perspective to see equality as a fetish. Just as it takes an extreme perspective to see voting rights as a "racial entitlement." This really has nothing to do with GWTW.
When did I say I thought equality was a fetish? Or that voting rights is an "racial entitlement?

I was making a side point on your post, not responding to the whole, which I think I got the point of, but if I failed, it was the opacity of your thick layer of sarcasm, not a lack of understanding of my history.

I have ancestors who fought in the Civil War. (On the right side, of course. For equality, justice and the rights set forth in the declaration of independence. )
Of course. Ever the gadfly, eh?
Malusinka, you didn't say equality was a fetish. I did. Several times. Clearly you did not read the post. My reference to it in the comment indicates that it is a clue. Of course it would seem "opaque" if you never looked at the clues.
Malusinka, Last week, Justice Antonin Scalia referred to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 as an example of "racial entitlements" which once started become difficult to stop. That is the point of this post and several others on the FP. You really didn't recognize the phrase "racial entitlements"? It was all over the news last week.

Seriously?
We could go back and forth on what we thought the other meant, but I doubt it's productive. Can we agree that I apparently didn't get your point and you didn't get mine?
I got this. You said that, "you've obviously not read GWTW or seen the movie..."

I don't see the need to be so rude. I got that much.
I'm sorry if you thought that was rude. I didn't take you for someone who cared about whether you were perceived as knowledgeable about the details of a fairly racist and dated popular novel of no particular literary merit.
I loved this. Ironic, sarcastic, bombastic (with a heavy green drape covering the maul) and pointed.

Other than that, I think the rest has been well covered by others. I think we're in big trouble, governmentally speaking. It should not be -- not today -- about white, black, red, brown, yellow or who is more deserving of having "equality," and yet, sadly, it still is.

White people, yes, do bad things. In any other situation, I would like to think we could all rise above skin color or where we're from, and rise to the ideal of equality from the perspective that people are people, no matter the wrapper they come in; that fairness is not about entitlements, institutionalized points of view or reversals of discrimination -- instead, fairness is something we aspire to, in that we come to recognize the filters we may have over our own eyes and to do our level best to second guess our opinions as well as our motives, because without that reflection, our situation most likely will not change -- or if it does, changes slowly.

I am ever hopeful that all people: can recognize hypocrisy when it's pointed out; that we can promote the concept of fairness in society in the same way we teach our children to share, be considerate and to be courteous; that we all want pretty much the same things.

Those same things are fairly independent of culture, personal values and ethnicity. We want a better life for ourselves whenever possible, the ability to see our children prosper even more than oursleves and that we all have an equal shot at opportunities that promote that propserity in some way.

Bill Beck, thanks for writing this and making your points in such a way. It reminds me much of Bacon's, "A Modest Proposal."

--R--
A friend of mine who read this before I posted it, and read one of the commenters later said, "I wonder if she would think Swift really wanted to eat your babies?"

Not to make fun of anyone, but we are shocked at the statements and behavior of Scalia. We think that there are others who are like him, but only because they are not chastened by a respect for all people. I suspect that is not entirely the case. Did Scalia know the full ugliness of his words? Are people just being aware of their conduct when they say, "obviously you never read...", or "I did not take you for one who cared..." We presume that these people know that they are fully offensive when they preface something with "I think serious biographers have concluded..." Are some people fully developed and still lacking the capacity for basic decency? A few years ago I would have said that this is acting out behavior. Now, I think there is a chance that this conduct comes from a cognitive disability. Scalia may have this. I have the hardest time that people can be that f'd up on purpose.
Preach, brother Bill, preach!

And, yes, you can get an Amen! and Amen! again.....
I'm always amazed when I notice forums in places like Goodreads where bunches of people discuss Gone with the Wind -- was the book better than the movie? ETC. With no cultural context whatsoever. I'm old enough to remember Ms Magazine and a piece Alice Walker wrote many, many years ago about not forgiving a white friend for going to a costume party as Scarlett O'Hara. The movie, at least, had the racism slightly tamped down as compared to the book, but it's still amazing that any white person can watch it without feeling shame, and any black person could watch it without feeling rage.