Heartbreaking! New book reveals Atticus Finch is a racist; Parents who named kids 'Atticus' hardest hit http://t.co/3EGyDRyyJm
— TwitchyTeam (@TwitchyTeam) July 11, 2015
Heartbreaking! New book reveals Atticus Finch is a racist; Parents who named kids 'Atticus' hardest hit http://t.co/3EGyDRyyJm
— TwitchyTeam (@TwitchyTeam) July 11, 2015
51 comments:
Pardon my confusion on this topic...Atticus Finch was not a real person, but a character invented by Harper Lee. Purportedly based on her father. So now he's revealed to be a racist in a new book, also fiction. Still not real ... so what is the *Twitter fuss* about? We could just as well analyze Elmer Fudd or Bugs Bunny.
I don't know Aridog...
I think those books are symbols of oppression. They should be confiscated and burned.
Or put in a museum at the very least ;)
He isn't a sad racist, is the complaint.
Progressives think blacks are children but are sad about it.
We need a scorecard Ari just to keep up on these things.
Doesn't that make him a sexist, but not a racist because women aren't a race, but a sex or a gender or something (I get so confused anymore)?
Of course, since he's a white heterosexual male, we know he's automatically a bigot.
Aridog said...
Pardon my confusion on this topic...Atticus Finch was not a real person, but a character invented by Harper Lee. Purportedly based on her father. So now he's revealed to be a racist in a new book, also fiction. Still not real ... so what is the *Twitter fuss* about?
Keep in mind, these are the geniuses who needed 200 years to figure out the guy on the $20 was the guy who marched all the Indians to OK.
That's pretty dumb. I guess the Trump candidacy is more damaging than predicted. Any clue as to when this anti-anti-racism strategy will end? A new project for neoconservatism would be helpful any day now...
Somebody tell Rit "his people" are doing it all to themselves.
Salon just trolls for page hits (I suppose that's what they're up to). No one I know would take them seriously. Their website is literally littered with fluff-pseudo-content so vacuous and thin that it almost looks like a page full of adverts.
Actually what's going on (from what I read) is that Harper Lee's sequel casts the same guy as a Klan member or some such. So what? That's her prerogative.
As for the credibility of doing so, lawyers don't have to be saints to defend their clients. Some soft-headed buttmunch at TOP named "hombre" used to talk about the infamy he supposedly incurred as a Texas lawyer defending gay clients in the 1980s, and he's one of the commenters most stubbornly opposed to their being granted civil rights and in favor of restricting them to theocratic dictates today. So go figure. Lawyers are hired guns and often don't care which side is squeezing their trigger.
Harper Lee was writing from the perspective of the 1950's. If you hold those attitudes today the SJW's want to burn you at the stake.
Atticus would be destroyed because he didn't believe the rape victim who would be carrying a mattress into the courtroom.
Many respectable people in the south in the 1950's belonged to the Klan. It was a social club like the Elks for a lot of people.
It was only after the terrible destructive hateful behavior with murderous consequences that most people shunned it.
You know sort of like the Democratic Party today.
You know sort of like the Democratic Party today.
If you really believed that then it should be pretty easy to get blacks to vote for Republicans.
The reason they don't has everything to do with the dying movements that South Carolina, for instance, is finally finding a way to put to rest, as you saw last week.
But that movement is exactly what got Republicans votes after the 1960s, and all the way through to today. The denial of the fact that Strom Thurmond simply became a Republican and Wallace's voters migrated to that same party is something that only makes sense if one is desperately partisan.
So partisan that the same person would convince himself that all blacks are socially suicidal, or intractably violent, or whatever.
Either way, it's not working any more. Denying the Southern Strategy made sense while it was working. Which it isn't now.
Actually that is wrong Ritmo. The Southern Strategy was based on the premise that appealing to white voters would bring electoral victory. Check out the percentages of the white vote. It is predominately Republican. By a wide margin. Especially white men. But also white women. Or at least married woman and not those whose lifestyles mirror the pathology that leads to voting for more free stuff from the government. That is why the Republicans hold the House and the Senate and the majority of governorships and state houses.
It is mistake to appeal to the black vote. At least for conservatives. You can never give more free stuff than the Democrats. The blacks who are in the middle class will vote their economic interests by voting Republican without trying to buy the majority of the black vote that is bought and paid for by governmental handouts provided by the Democrats. That is the Rhino strategy of McCain and Romney. A proven loser.
Trooper York said...
Many respectable people in the south in the 1950's belonged to the Klan. It was a social club like the Elks for a lot of people.
Same way in the 20s. That was the way it was marketed. And not only in the South, but Northeast and Midwest. As I've said, my mother (Irish Catholic, born '09) said the running gag was KKK stood for Kikes, Katholics, and Koloreds.
But the violence was always there.
You're painting yourself into a corner on this one, amigo.
The only black Senator is a Republican. The blacks in the middle class will vote their pocketbooks. That is why then new regulations that Obama is promulgating to attack the suburbs will be very interesting. The smart people who fled the pathology of the urban mess will not stand by to be forced back on the plantation by their Democratic elitist overlords.
That is the Rhino strategy of McCain and Romney. A proven loser.
And Jack Kemp, too.
You used to think respect for him was a not such an unrespectable thing, not too long ago.
It's not a corner Ed. Many respectable people were in the Klan. Or sympathized with them and led people to believe that they belonged. Harry Truman. Hugo Black. William Fullbright. Harry Byrd. The list goes on and on. Some of them covered it up later because it became an indelible stain like being a member of the Communist party. But I bet at the time you had to be a member to do business in those days. If you weren't a member you had to be cool with the people who were. It was the reality of the situation.
Just as you have to be a social justice warrior today to do business in the current climate. This is just the flip side.
The world is a wheel. It turns. What was anathema yesterday establishes your bona fides today.
Who knows what the future will bring.
Suburbs aren't doing as well as they used to. I can understand the difficulty in planning too many day trips from Brooklyn, and there aren't a lot of suburbs to move out to in that area, anyway. But elsewhere, gentrification is the norm. People moving back to cities, renovating what they can, taking an old building facade and using that character as a front for their spiffy young business. Population density is high around NYC, but that doesn't call for a policy of abandoning cities. For a long while, suburbs have wanted to have things both ways - none of the concerns of cities and none of the virtues of country living. I think that day is ending. They might as well be like the banliueues of Paris. Eventually population swells, and people have to make a choice of either making the area work better and in a more organized fashion or neglect it. Only one of those choices works for the long term.
Events change your perspective Ritmo. Jack Kemp would not get elected today. His economic program would be laughed out of the room.
You have to realize that tribalism has won. President Barrack Obama is the ultimate expression of tribalism. The splintering and the division of American Society is accelerating at a dizzying pace.
The Southern Strategy was an early expression of tribalism. Just as "Black Lives Matter" is today. Opposite sides of the same coin.
You can't complain when you foster tribalism if people identify and side with their tribe. By pushing it underground you will foster the violent expressions by the fringes that we are suffering with today.
Come on, man. Is tribalism what's got Obama to signing onto the Koch prison reform agenda?
There is more going on than tribalism. Always has been and always will be.
Yes, black tribalism is more forgivable than the tribalism of white Confederate revivalism. Most South Carolinians understand that. Is there a Black Panther flag flying over any state capitol grounds? A statue erected to black guys who owned and beat and killed thousands of white slaves?
Come on. One of these things is a lot more pernicious and worthy of confrontation than the other. Two sides of two different coins: One the hundredth of the size of a dime and the other a 50 cent piece. I don't recall us ever having to fight a civil war and a hundred years of civil rights and reconstruction for what was done to whites. A little perspective wouldn't be a bad thing.
Jack Kemp would not get elected today.
I disagree. Character matters and is an enduring virtue. His economic ideas got him laughed out of every room he entered when he was alive, not just today. Neither thing changed.
A little perspective wouldn't be a bad thing.
And, of course, I'm not saying a lot of blacks nowadays aren't obnoxious or use history to nurse stupid personal grudges that can't cover up their poor individual characters. That's a different thing.
But it's usually the type of thing I address more personally anyway. Like the ridiculous black war against traffic signals. I have my way of dealing with that.
Keep personal acts of revenge personal. Even if they're silly tribal traits.
Heres the thing Ritmo. Gentrification only works if you keep the crime down. If you abandon the proactive police activity that makes it safe then those million dollar condos ain't work jackshit.
How much do you think the condo's at Camden Yards in Baltimore are worth these days.
I have no problem with what I think proactive policing means.
Baltimore is a shithole. I wouldn't live there if you paid me a million dollars.
Well, maybe if I only had to live there for a day or something.
Anyway, people are right to complain about the city's obvious legacy of horrible management. I don't disagree at all.
Obama came into office holding a grudge. He was never the President of all the people. He came in talking about "typical white people" who were "holding on to their guns and their religion." His wife was never proud of America until her husband was elected.
The new plan is to make the suburbs fundamentally change. They don't want Americans living in their own house with their own car. They want them living in "dense" communities with all economic, racial and class types mixed together in easily controllable lumps.
I have lived in a city all my life and I can tell you it leaves a lot to be desired. It is my choice. I don't think I have the right to impose that lifestyle on somebody who wants to live in a rural or suburban setting. It's not right for everybody.
Of course the people who came up with this bullshit live in gated communities or ultra-rich neighborhoods where you can bet your bippy there are no Section 8 housing or homeless shelters. These are the same people who put all of these mandates on the public schools while their kids are in private school.
You know. Elitist political scumbags. Both Republican and Democrat. To coin a phrase there is not a dime's worth of difference between them.
Proactive police activity means rousting the skells who commit crimes.
In urban settings it is black gangbangers and cholo's with neckerchiefs hanging out of their droopy pant.
In rural settings it is toothless skinny meth heads with a confederate flag decal on their rusty pickup trucks.
But it means rousting them and throwing them up against the wall.
That has ended in NYC and Baltimore and most cities in the US. Now convicted criminals are let free just because they are illegal immigrants and that is a protected class. So they are free to shoot tourists at their leisure.
Proactive police activity means rousting the skells who commit crimes.
In urban settings it is black gangbangers and cholo's with neckerchiefs hanging out of their droopy pant.
In rural settings it is toothless skinny meth heads with a confederate flag decal on their rusty pickup trucks.
But it means rousting them and throwing them up against the wall.
So be it. I've got no problem with any of that.
Trooper York said...
It's not a corner Ed. Many respectable people were in the Klan. Or sympathized with them and led people to believe that they belonged. Harry Truman. Hugo Black. William Fullbright. Harry Byrd.
Well, it is, really.
Not a fight here, but you need to do a little research on how William Simmons recruited for the Klan and kept it going. What you say is true, but that's just the beginning.
Simmons modeled a lot of the Klan on the many fraternal organizations to which he belonged. He recruited out of churches (Rev was given a free membership), often the ones you had to belong to if you wanted to do business. And, yes, if you wanted to run for political office in a lot of states (not by any means all Southern), you had to have a sheet in the closet.
They had their picnics and the hog roasts and their Ladies' auxiliary, but they hated Catholics and Jews and immigrants as much as they hated blacks and were big supporters of Prohibition and moral rectitude, until the story of Madge Oberholtzer brought them down.
If you're in a respectable organization, you don't have to hide your face and hate people. People in those days knew enough history, they knew what the Klan was, it just had more people on its drop dead list. And, yeah, I remember as a kid, proud Klan members using the same arguments, trying to compare themselves to the Knight of Columbus or the NAACP (when it was run by Roy Wilkins), saying it was the white Protestant's club. But in the 50s, supposedly, everybody knew, didn't they?
Sorry, but you've come to a dead end on this one.
Jack Kemp was a moron. He spent all of the 1988 campaign attacking white voters as racists and talking about the inner city when he should have been attacking slick Willie.
He came to California in 1994 and attacked moderate Pete Wilson as a racist because Wilson didn't want to give illegal aliens free school lunches and welfare.
I hate to say it, but a little evil part of me was glad when he died. Because then I wouldn't have to hear his dumb voice on TV pushing for amnesty or talking about racist Republicans. He was such a loser.
I think everyone is overestimating how important the KKK was in the South in the 50s or 60s. The KKK was important during Reconstruction, then went out of favor, and then came back in the 1910s and 1920s and then went into drastic decline during the Great Depression. Byrd and Justice Black were members of the KKK in the 1920s but left by the 1930s. In the case of Black it was a case of 'Youthful indiscretion' - he voted in favor of Brown vs. Board of Education and was persona non grata with his Southern friends and relatives afterwards.
Didn't know that harry truman as a member. I thought he was asked to join but refused. Or maybe that was the cover story.
What are we arguing about exactly ed?
It is my position that many respectable people belonged to the Klan in the fifties before the real excesses during the civil rights struggles of the 1960's. That is not saying that the Klan was good or it was something they should belong to because many of their execrable opinions were known at the time. People remained members through inertia or for the networking possibilities. The point of the controversy is that in the original book that Harper Lee wrote Atticus Finch was true to what a small town lawyer of the time would be including being a member of the klan. Not the idealized wet dream liberal dream boat that creams the SWJ jeans.
Are saying something different? Or are you saying something as banal as "Klan bad."
I'm glad to know that Bill Clinton ("slick Willie") was running in 1988, and that the Klan's importance or lack thereof somehow made integration the wrong cause.
The "wrong cause?" Bill Clinton was not running as a paragon of integration. He was running as a Southern governor who could touch the bases to get some of the Souths whites to vote for him. Something the liberal Michael Dukakis or Walter Mondale were unable to do. Remember Triangulation?
Bill Clinton was the political protégé of J. William Fulbright who was a segregationist of the first water. Clinton was running with a wink and a nod to the southerner who despised them pointed headed eastern liberals.
This is the basis of Jim Webb's campaign today. He is running as a southern moderate who can pick up enough white votes in the South to be competitive in some of those states. Just as it will be almost impossible for a Republican to get 10% of the black vote it will be almost as impossible for a ultra liberal like Hillary or Sanders to get 10% of the white vote in certain areas.
Trooper York said...
What are we arguing about exactly ed?
It is my position that many respectable people belonged to the Klan in the fifties before the real excesses during the civil rights struggles of the 1960's. That is not saying that the Klan was good or it was something they should belong to because many of their execrable opinions were known at the time.
OK, if you're talking about the murders of people like Andrew Schwoerner (sp?) and Viola Liuzzo, you're talking '64. The spotlight on Klan violence started long before then. As the joke went, there were more FBI agents in the Klan than Klansmen.
The 30s and 40s (WWII, in particular) maybe, but, when the Klan tried to keep the good defense jobs open only to white people, it opened up a flood tide of investigation and stigmatization. Hugo Black's nomination was also a turning point, the idea of a Klansman on the Court was seen as pretty repulsive.
By the 50s, even the hard-core segregationists were giving the Klan a wide berth. A number of bombings of black families had gotten national attention. If Ms Lee meant that, in the real backwaters, some of that Klan loyalty remained, that may be so, but, by the end of the Korean War, Southern newspapers were openly crusading against the Klan.
The Blonde has relatives down there and, while the Klan was a presence, it was a shadow, talked about, but no one was going to admit membership.
Harper Lee may have overstated her case. I think we need more story from her.
Trooper York said...
The "wrong cause?" Bill Clinton was not running as a paragon of integration. He was running as a Southern governor who could touch the bases to get some of the Souths whites to vote for him. Something the liberal Michael Dukakis or Walter Mondale were unable to do. Remember Triangulation?
Triangulation was Dick Morris' specialty.
Willie ran nationally as a paragon of the New South and New Democrats, touting his Ivy League and Rhodes (which he never completed) credentials, but he had no problems running on the Stars and Bars. Ironically, what almost wrecked him, Gennifer Flowers, stemmed from Willie's inherent racism (remember, one of his heroes was Orval Faubus). The real beef in the Flowers mess was that the state job he got for her was all set to go to a qualified black woman.
Bill Clinton was the political protégé of J. William Fulbright who was a segregationist of the first water. Clinton was running with a wink and a nod to the southerner who despised them pointed headed eastern liberals.
Everybody knew the deal with J Wacko (he didn't even know who are allies in 'Nam were) was, as long as he voted for segregation, the folk in Arkinsaw would let him vote any way he wanted on foreign policy.
That's why the hard Lefties gave him a pass, too.
Willie, of course, was in the hip pocket of people like Sam Walton and Don Tyson. How much of a protege he was of Fulbright is interesting. Like His Poutiness, Willie seems to have been extremely impressionable and latched on to various people as role models. Jack Kennedy being another of his idols. His first term as governor, he seems to have done a 2 year long Elvis impersonation.
That's why I don't trust Webb. He's just another Southern fried phony like Slick Willie and Carter. Toss out a few good ol' boy vibes but on everything important vote like Ted Kennedy or Harry Reid.
Ed,
You keep talking about the Klan when you should mean most white southerners. The KKK supported segregation prior to 1965, so did most white southerners. You didn't have to belong to the KKK to be against civil rights - prior to 1965.
Anyway, its bizzare we're talking about the KKK in 2015. What politician besides David Duke has belonged to the KKK and been elected to Public office since, say 1970? That's 45 years ago!
Tell me all the public figures that have belonged to the KKK since 1970. There's y'know whoseits and what's his name. And whoever. Other than that, no one.
Meanwhile people think CP USA has gone away and communists are like witches. They either don't exist, or if they do, so what?
rcocean said...
Ed,
You keep talking about the Klan when you should mean most white southerners. The KKK supported segregation prior to 1965, so did most white southerners. You didn't have to belong to the KKK to be against civil rights - prior to 1965.
On that, we are in agreement. The issue was Harper Lee's contention that respectable people (many, as Troop put it) were Klan members in the 50s and I think she may be remembering inaccurately.
I asked The Blonde, who has cousins in Pulaski TN (birthplace of the Klan where they still hallow Bedford Forrest's law office, where the Klan was formed) whom she babysat for when her family visited. She said she figured some were, but nobody said anything about it because it could get you investigated.
That gag I quoted about the FBI infiltrating the Klan I first read in the early 60s (I was into politics then). From what I gather, publicly being prominent and a member of the Klan went out with the ridicule visited on Hugo Black on his SCOTUS appointment.
FWIW, here's a link to a book excerpt (you need to scroll up and down to get full context) which contends the Klan had all but ceased to exist in the years before Brown v Board, but only made a fragmented comeback after the decision, so Ms Lee may have a memory problem or, at best, may be remembering a local, rather than a widespread situation.
As always, YMMV.
"I have no problem with what I think proactive policing means. "
Then you don't believe in the fourth amendment. Stop and frisk is the reality of dealing with certain populations around this country but it also blatantly violates the 4th and that corruption spreads to all citizens. The easy answer to this of course is to let the people arm themselves. It has been proven to work across the country where it has been tried, even with just a permit system, let alone full constitutional carry like in Vermont.
It was sad and hilarious to watch some fox news commentators after stop and frisk was ruled unconstitutional. Several of them knew the end result of the ruling, knew it was unconstitutional but they all knew it meant more trouble for them as they live/work in NYC. Yet none of them had the guts to say what the easy answer was.
Very doubtful that Truman was a member of the KKK. In fact, the KKK fought against him from the very beginning of his political career when he was running for a county judgeship. The story may have started because his mother, to whom he was devoted, was from a slave-holding family, loved the Confederacy, and hated Lincoln with a passion, and was not quiet about any of it.
Orrey ... funny you cite this issue about stop & frisk, which I favor living in a big city that I do. Concerned enough I am gong to my local precint to verify if my concealed pistol is legally "concealed" if the bulge on my hip is very noticeable, even if fully covered...I favor an ultra-safe FNX-45 and that is rather hard to hide like a tiny pistol. Main point is that the FNX-45 properly handled CANNOT accidently fire, even with a trigger snag...the decocker and sear disconnect safety makes it so.
For the record H&K also makes a decocker/sear disconnect safety pistol as well, but it is just as bulky...and somewhat more expensive (like all H&K's) No one at present makes a single stack compact version...e.g., 1 to 1.5 inches shorter and less thick due to a single stack magazine design....if available, which they are not at present. Best approximation is the H&K but only .3 inch shorter and just as fat in the body. I am puzzled why the safest design is not also made in a compact shape. Maybe one day they will be. A concealed sidearm is a very last resort, bar nothing, and a bit more compact would be a bright idea. If I am stopped & frisked by an officer with a badge I am more than happy to comply amicably...and have on a couple occasions. Periodially I am in dicey parts of the city, and have even been stopped for "driving while white" believe it or not. The black cops who stopped me apprecaited my positive attitude...as I did theirs. One thing is an "absolute"...if stopped in your vehicle or on foot, the very first thing you must do is advise you have a CPL and a sidearm and let them ask you for more information...in fact that is the law in Michigan. As it should be.
I spoke with my local police today. Their opinion is that, although legal under the CPL laws, a large "lump" on my hip is counter productive. Their reasons were sound, and they coperated once I made clear that safety was my concern, not firepower. I agree the noticability of the "lump" is a hazard in some cases. Idiots can see it and may try to take it...my custom holster for it makes that rather hard to do...and I may add a reverse thumb snap strap (snap is on the down side) just for more safety.
I am still going to carry that way when I can wear a blousy long waisted shirt, or a jacket, etc., ...and if it causes a "Terry Stop" so be it...I will cooperate without being stupid. My sole purpose for carrying the FNX-45 is safety....I look forward to the day, whether 9mm, .10 caliber, or .45 APC a pistol can be built, single stack, with the trigger of my FNX, and sold with the same safety features.
I'm not going to hold my breath...becasue I doubt the manufactuers realize the importance of safety in any caliber....versus firepower. That bothers me a bit. My FNX will accomdate 15 round magazines, but I carry only the 10 round version...I don't need more capacity. My plan is to never draw the pistol, barring an incident where there is no choice. Yes, I am a good shot, very good, since 1949 or so, and 1964 with the .45 ACP, but I want the safety offered by the FNX ...it is impossible to A.D. the thing if handled even half way properly. Nobody can get shot fumbling with it in a bra, for example...but you'd need really big boobs to conceal it that way. Being a scrawny male I lack that convenience. De-cocked and set on "safe" no infant or kid under say 8 could make it fire.
Just to add something...if the H&K .45 ACP LE (law enforemtn model) is ever offered in a truly compact size I'll buy it in heartbeat. Autpomatically de-cocks (like the old S&W Model 39's) and has a truly long, but smooth DA draw on the trigger. In short it is always in a manageable double action mode until fired once. A trigger snag would be near impossible.
Funny isn't it that though I "carry" my first concern is safety, not firepower.
Also funny, I suppose, is that for the first time ever I lock our front door during the daytime, all day, (used to leave it opem) instead of just at bed time. The Marine Corps victims of the latest wack job is one reason, of several lately, why. I am well known to be affilitated with the Army, though retired, and should some Sunni/ISIL nut attack my Shia neighbors, I'd likely be prime target. Thus I lock doors I used to keep open. Not a happy circumstance. If anyone were to try to harm Judi or our dog, I'd go ballistic...and that's not a necessity if I lock the doors to give me a bit of an edge. I much preferred them open and anyone to just walk in if they wanted to do so.
Maybe someday once again I can relax and leave doors open.
Screw it...locking our doors all day is a hassle. It was a symbol of retreat to boot. They are now unlocked again. I'll deal with whatever comes just as before.
Screw it. Locking our doors all day is a hassle. Also a symbol of retreat to boot. The doors are unlocked again all day & I'll deal with whatever comes just as in the past...which includes big dogs and guns. Never hd to utilize either in our home and don't expect to now...but I could if necessary.
Test
Post a Comment