Podcast: Play in new window | Download () | Embed
Subscribe: Android | RSS
Grandfather claims Lourdes holy water cured his cancer | Daily Mail Online
Josh Bernstein: Christine Blasey Ford Was a ‘Man-Crazy Little Soon-To-Be-Whore’ Who Assaulted Brett Kavanaugh | Right Wing Watch
Pharmacist spared jail after posing as mother of 11-month-old boy so he could be circumcised | Daily Mail Online
Mississippi wedding venue refuses interracial pair over owner’s Christian faith – BBC News
Harry Potter books removed from Catholic school ‘on exorcists’ advice’ | Books | The Guardian
Rick Joyner: Christians Need to Establish Militias in Preparation for the Coming Civil War | Right Wing Watch
What version of the “onward Christian Soldiers” song is that at the roughly 30 minute mark? Been stuck in my head all fucking day!!!
I disagree with Cecil. I’m a white woman, but I feel saying “enslaved people” is MORE impactful than saying “slaves.” Because this is a push by POC to more humanize their ancestors, I think that lends to the horror of what happened. When you say, “Slaves were murdered by the thousands,” I find that much easier to shrug off and harder to visualize than if you say, “Enslaved people were murdered by the thousands.” And when you say, “A slave was whipped for trying to escape,” I personally think that sets up the situation as more along the lines of, “Someone’s property tried to leave and was punished.” Where if you say, “An enslaved person was whipped for trying to escape,” suddenly that’s more than JUST a slave, that’s a human being and I can more easily empathize with that person and therefore the horror of the situation becomes more clear. So I don’t think the new language softens it up at all. I think, like Tom said, that it gives you a better understanding of the horror and forces you to turn these slaves into real people with complicated lives and emotions. Maybe that’s just me personally, but the way I learned it in grade school in the nineties and early 2000’s didn’t really humanize those people for me. Like Tom said, they were a category rather than individuals in a horrifying situation. (As for shellshock vs. PTSD, I was only really aware of the condition long after we stopped using shellshock, and so for me PTSD carries a huge and very serious weight, while shellshock seems just imprecise and not really a true medical condition. So maybe over time the “softer” terms come back around to being impactful? Not really sure.)
In reference to “militias”, the right wing use that term because it is in the second amendment. The “well regulated militia” referred to in the second amendment meant the state’s military force, which we now call the National Guard. A bunch of yahoos with assault rifles running around playing soldier is not a militia.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Notify me of follow-up comments by email.
Notify me of new posts by email.