Archive for the ‘culture’ Category

Why Washington Matters: Today: Washington the Emancipator

Posted: February 22, 2013 by datechguy in culture
Tags: ,

Baldrick: I still can’t believe you’re leaving me behind.
Blackadder: Oh don’t you worry. When we’re established on our plantation in Barbados I’ll send for you. No more sad little London for you Balders. From now on you will stand out in life as an individual.
Baldrick: Will I?
Blackadder: Indeed. All the other slaves will be black.

Black Adder Amy and Amiability 1987

Ben Franklin:  First things first, John … Independence. America. If we don’t secure that, what difference will the rest make?

1776 1972

The final in my series of post on Why Washington Matters don’t miss Part one (Washington the Revolutionary) Part two (Washington the General) and Part three (Washington the leader/president)

If there is any post title that would cause confusion among readers it’s this one.  George Washington the Emancipator?  For most of his life, Washington owned slaves.  When he married his wife, she brought even more slaves to the marriage and at the time of his death the number of slaves he owned was considerable.

In this modern age where slavery exists only in Africa and parts of Arabia where Blacks and Muslims enslave other blacks (to the silence of the media) and the sex trade (where slavery by other names is an international scourge and also pretty much ignored) this concept doesn’t wash, but in the age of Washington Slavery was not only a norm but had been a norm in the world for the history of…the entire world.

And in addition to full slavery, there were indentured servants bound to masters by contract for years and other systems by which men were held by other men.  From Morocco to the Americas slavery and forced servitude was a norm of convenience and profit wherever you went.

To this world Washington was born and raised, in a culture where slavery was a total norm, yet look at the record as commander in chief:

In his General Orders of 30 December 1775, he gave “leave to the recruiting Officers to entertain … Free Negroes [that] are desirous of inlisting” should Congress approve the new policy. Writing to John Hancock the next day he couched his order in terms of military necessity: “free Negroes who have served in this army are very much dissatisfied at being discarded. As it is to be apprehended that they may seek employ in the Ministerial Army, I have … given license for their being enlisted.”

It would have been remarkably easy for Washington the Virginia planter and slaveholder to let this be.

At the Constitutional convention he spoke very little, how easy would it have been for Washington, slaveholder and southern to push for slavery, to argue against the constitutionally mandated end to the slave trade.  How much of a pull on the delegates would his voice have been if he choose to make the case?

As president although he singed a fugitive slave law he also signed a law  he signed a law affirming the ban on slavery in the Northwest territories. How easy would it have been for a unanimously elected Washington to argue against such affirmation? How many of his friends and fellow slave holders, involved in land speculation would have wanted to bring their “property” to those lands?

Then in the final act in his will.  He freed his slaves.

While it was acknowledged even by Confederate leaders such as Alexander Stephens that the founding fathers considered Slavery wrong:

The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away.

It was he and he ALONE of the slaveholders who would occupy the White House that would free his slaves. After carefully steering the ship of state that was in danger of splitting apart on its maiden voyage he took the act, which has great symbolic meaning at a time when it was least likely to produce an argument against but would shine as his final example at the period when an entire nation would be in mourning for him.

Some in the 21st century might look at this 18th century man’s act as trivial? Why not do this BEFORE death? One might as well condemn Lincoln for not pushing for women’s suffrage. Consider this. Just two years after Washington’s death William Henry Harrison who would later be 9th president was appointed governor of the Indiana Territory. The slaveholding Harrison pushed vigorously for the legalization of slavery there and his allies in congress managed to get article 6 of the Northwest Ordinance/ forbidding slavery suspended for ten years.

Imagine the difference in the close debate if Harrison won, imagine what the country would look like if Harrison’s foes in the debate didn’t have the example of Washington as emancipator to use?

Washington’s act was extraordinary and the proof is that Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, Tyler, Polk and Taylor did not copy it. Lincoln among president might have been the great emancipator but Washington was the first emancipator.

In summary for all of these reasons:
Washington the revolutionary
Washington the General
Washington the Leader/President
Washington the Emancipator
I argue President’s day once again be known far and wide as Washington’s birthday.   I further submit and suggest that George Washington is and remains the greatest American who ever lived.

and I don’t think it’s even close.

Why Washington Matters Today: Washington the Leader/President

Posted: February 20, 2013 by datechguy in culture
Tags: ,

The 3rd of a four-part series of why George Washington Matters, Monday, Washington the Revolutionary, yesterday Washington the General, today Washington the Leader/President

It has become fashionable for some historians to play down George Washington as president and raise more recent people above him.  Abe Lincoln due to his victory in the Civil War gets high marks, FDR’s win in WW 2 and Reagan’s in the Cold War both make them loom large particularly since both Reagan & FDR are still in living Memory and George Washington is from an age so remote to many his presidency becomes ancient history .  You were dealing with a smaller country, less communication,

But to really appreciate Washington the president and the leader you have to look at three specific things.

First Washington at the end of his military career.

Up to the time of Washington and afterwards as well history abounded with examples of leaders of armies who used those armies to take absolute power.  At the end of the War Washington was the single most popular person in America.  As a man with just about everything the only thing he didn’t have was a crown or a title.

It was in his grasp, all he had to do is reach out to have it and he would be the head of an American constitutional monarchy.

And he declined.

It was a move worthy of Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus and a shock to the powerbrokers of Europe.

But as much as it impressed the men of Europe it impressed his countrymen more he presided at the constitutional convention having very little confidence in the resulting system but accepted the presidency when elected unanimously.

This was the 2nd phase.  Despite the lack of confidence in the system he governed with discretion and skill  knowing every action that he would take would be the model for the country to follow and acting in a manner that aided rather than retarded a system that he thought would fail measuring carefully words and deeds for the sake of future generations .

The third phase was the end of his term.  It’s one thing to refuse imperial power when you’ve never had authority, but Washington now had two full terms under him.  He could keep power with the veneer of republicanism  he might have justified serving a 3rd term simply to delay the decent into parties and partisan divisions that already existed.

He did not and when he gave his farewell address assigned the credit for all of his success to the people:

In looking forward to the moment, which is intended to terminate the career of my public life, my feelings do not permit me to suspend the deep acknowledgment of that debt of gratitude, which I owe to my beloved country for the many honors it has conferred upon me; still more for the steadfast confidence with which it has supported me; and for the opportunities I have thence enjoyed of manifesting my inviolable attachment, by services faithful and persevering, though in usefulness unequal to my zeal. If benefits have resulted to our country from these services, let it always be remembered to your praise, and as an instructive example in our annals, that under circumstances in which the passions, agitated in every direction, were liable to mislead, amidst appearances sometimes dubious, vicissitudes of fortune often discouraging, in situations in which not unfrequently want of success has countenanced the spirit of criticism, the constancy of your support was the essential prop of the efforts, and a guarantee of the plans by which they were effected. Profoundly penetrated with this idea, I shall carry it with me to my grave, as a strong incitement to unceasing vows that Heaven may continue to you the choicest tokens of its beneficence; that your union and brotherly affection may be perpetual; that the free constitution, which is the work of your hands, may be sacredly maintained; that its administration in every department may be stamped with wisdom and virtue; than, in fine, the happiness of the people of these States, under the auspices of liberty, may be made complete, by so careful a preservation and so prudent a use of this blessing, as will acquire to them the glory of recommending it to the applause, the affection, and adoption of every nation, which is yet a stranger to it.

In this Washington didn’t just equal Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus who twice gave up power over Rome, he exceeded him by not only giving up power but crediting his success to the people.

It would be 144 years before a president was arrogant enough to consider himself in indispensable.  In closing think of the leaders and the pols of today.  If any of them had the chance for permanent power do you imagine any of them would surrender it?

The nation has seen greatness in the White House, but it has not seen the greatness of a Washington.

Tomorrow Washington the Emancipator

Why George Washington Matters Today: Washington the Revolutionary

Posted: February 18, 2013 by datechguy in culture
Tags:

As history continues to be revised in the classrooms of the country one of the greatest stars the country has ever produced George Washington continues to get short shift.

Washington is a paradox a rich man who risks his wealth in revolution, a general who loses far more than he wins, a man universally popular yet not only doesn’t become king but gives up power after elected. The slaveholder who frees his slaves in his will.

These are all incredible things at any time in history. This weeks for February Vacation and Washington’s birthday week, we’ll talk about the reasons why this holiday should still be called “Washington’s birthday (as its legal name remains) instead of president’s day.

First: Washington the Revolutionary

George Washington was one of the richest if not the richest person in the colonies yet he was willing to fight and support a revolution that would add little if anything to his wealth.

Think about it. What did Washington have to gain from a successful revolt? He was already a huge landowner, he already had comfort, power and wealth, reputation, everything a man of his time could want. What is the incentive for him to do anything that might change it?

Consider: If he had sided with England others would have followed and if a British victory had taken place, a likely-hood that the nearly the entire world anticipated at the time, he would have been honored even further, Knighthood, Order of the Bath, a peerage. These were the greatest honors an Englishman could get at the time, one of the few things Washington lacked.

Yet he put principle ahead of this, and fought against England. Think of the risk involved. If England wins, Washington would not only face a “short drop and a sudden stop”. Even if he was somehow allowed to live, his property would certainly be seized and distributed to loyalists, and his name would have lived infamy. A 18th century Guy Fawkes.

Washington in terms of wealth had more to lose than almost anyone in the nation, and he still fought, risking life, wealth and reputation for the dream of an independent America.

Who can you think of in modern America who would do the same?

When George Washington is called the Father of his Country, you had better believe he earned it.

(Tomorrow, Washington the General)

The Common Thread of the Left: The Ultimate Target

Posted: January 27, 2013 by datechguy in catholic, culture
Tags: ,

You shall not act dishonestly in rendering judgment. Show neither partiality to the weak nor deference to the mighty, but judge your fellow men justly.

Leviticus 18:15

“Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

She replied, “No one, sir.” Then Jesus said,

“Neither do I condemn you. Go, (and) from now on do not sin any more.“

John 8:11-12

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

John Adams

Father Damien Karras: I think it might be helpful if I gave you some background on the different personalities Regan has manifested. So far, I’d say there seem to be three. She’s convinced…

Father Merrin: There is only one.

The Exorcist 1973

For quite a bit I’ve been writing about a common thread that we see on the left

I wrote about the media’s big lie concerning Hurricane Sandy

If George Bush was in office Ginny White would be on every TV network but this is the time of the Big Lie.

The Big Lie, it’s all about not telling the truth or “speaking truth to power” but about pushing a meme and if some people are without blankets that’s just the way it is.

Susan Rice and Benghazi:

Note that the death of four Americans is not the issue, the administration sending out a person before the election to deceive is not the issue, no it is the idea that two of the three Senators who have critiqued said person are white men (we’ll ignore female Senator in the group) and she is a black woman and because she is a black woman the standards of truth and honesty do not apply here.

Israel & Hamas:

So in public Israel needs to show restraint, in private Hamas and their rocket firing friends are “some hooligans” than normal people would just go kill?

I object to the use of the term “Hooligans” it’s not like they are a bunch of bikers dragging their murdered people behind them as they ride…oh wait:

Islam:

Note that, not what is true, not what is right, what can be said. What can’t be said is any critique of Islam, no matter how true.

Amnesty International:

Managing that change has led to problems – an indication of which emerged in 2009, when Amnesty handed over about 800,000 pounds ($1.2 million) to two former executives as part of a confidential payout upon departure.

Normally one must speak truth to and about power, but if the group is a mainstay of the left apparently Silence is golden, particularly if it means suppressing truth about an iconic left money machine.

Sen Kelly Ayotte again:

this is the left, if the truth and the reality is not favorable we shall simply ignore it, deny it or pretend it was never there.

On the bright side they can still play the race card if they include her.

Update: Jennifer Rubin appreciates Ayotte, but she is not the left. (Boy you can tell this is an old post can’t you DTG 12/13/2023)

Abortion:

Elizabeth Elizabeth Elizabeth you are so close, being kind-hearted you conclude that Ms Williams is taking herself on a monstrous route unknowingly, but observe her argument carefully. This is a place she has been forever, in fact an honest reading of her piece admits the pro-abortion side has been there all along. The only reason she is making this statement in public is she believes it will advance her cause.

And the sanctity of life:

How many years do you think it will take before “So What” extends to other people who the left concludes are less important and less worthy of life?

How long before it becomes a matter of faith that those who would stand up and object or obstruct such obvious truths that are held by the more enlightened must be suppressed? Of course you’d have to disarm them first.

All these things have a common thread, a pattern and it’s consistent:

  1. Truth is not valued unless it serves a particular ideology.
  2. The reality of people’s state is subordinate to the perception of their actual condition.
  3. Critique can be made based on optics rather than fact.
  4. Behaviors that are considered beyond the pale by their own standards are tolerated from specific groups or people.
  5. Public standards only exist until they are no longer useful or needed in the fight.

Looking that this list, one might say, it’s a fight the laws of human nature, yet that is not entirely true, after all, if a person of the right has, say an affair, the left applies said rules to destroy them, as opposed to a Bill Clinton who is still celebrated.

Or one could say it’s a battle for “modern feminism” the right for women to advance, yet a Sarah Palin,  Michelle Bachmann, Nikki Haley or a Michelle Malkin can be publicly attacked in ways 1000 times beyond Sandra Fluke was,  and the attackers are embraced and celebrated.

You might argue that its conservative values that prompt the attack, which is why a Kelly Ayotte can be ignored, yet Islam is far more conservative and it is defended.

You could say openness and justice are the goal, but such openness doesn’t extend to their own.

You can plead equality for gays, yet the murder or beating of gays in Islamic controlled lands is not an issue while Israel’s allowing of gay culture to exist is “pink washing”

In short there appears to be a double standard being employed here, people complain of it often, but that appearance is deceiving.  There is a single standard being applied, a common thread, a singular target that must be destroyed:

That target, Judeo-Christian values, or put simply Christianity.

Christianity is everything the left despises:

  • It teaches the unity of men, when the power of the left comes from dividing by race or color or creed.
  • It acknowledges God as the source of our freedom and free will, rather than the state or another giving such freedom
  • It restrains appetites rather than letting one do what they want when they want to by simple rules,
    • greed (thou shalt not covet)
    • lust ( thou shalt not commit adultery)
    • spin (though shalt not bear false witness)
  • It forgives and accepts anyone, on the condition that said person acknowledges and repents of their sins or at the very least commits to fight the temptation to them.
  • It gives the absolute freedom to walk away from it, while giving you until the very last second of your life to re-consider before actual judgement is passed.

And worst of all:

  • To those who embrace it the strongest it gives courage, the courage to stand against any slander, any pressure and even die for the sake of Christ rather than sin.

Now some might look at this and scoff, there are Christians without number who violate these rules.  Well YEAH of course they do, it’s sin, man is susceptible to sin and temptation yet Christianity accepts them and dares to forgive them if only they change.  Even the Pope has a confessor.

One might give numerous examples of preachers and priests who have used Christianity as a cloak for their own sins, YEAH of course but there are corrupt police, corrupt courts, corrupt politicians and dishonest accountants, that doesn’t mean we should abolish Police, Courts, Government and Math. (Boy this post is old DTG 12-13-23

One can point to the sins of a government that professes Christianity but even then Christianity is a walk toward perfection, such perfection can’t be achieved on earth, the left constantly holds Christianity to a utopian standard that they promise but never deliver knowing that very few if any individual Christians reach that standard.

I can hear the arguments now:  There are all kinds of Christians that the left celebrates, yes They are, from breakaway Catholics to Protestants that abandon the written faith the left is always ready to celebrate any Christian that is willing to walk away from the plain language of scripture and tradition.  And since anyone and pretty much make their own protestant church by a vote of a group of people however small, there is no problem finding the willing, particularly when fame and acceptance from the right people is offered as a carrot.

Now I can hear those crying:  DaTechGuy you’re full of it!  It’s just a load of right wing nonsense you’re just upset because we are opposed to that wildly repressive organization known as the Roman Catholic Church that you follow.

That arrangement might hold weight if you didn’t consider the left and Islam.

Islam in general and radical Islam in particular is everything those who attack  Christianity in general and the Roman Catholic Church in particular despise:

The left says Christianity is misogynistic pointing to Paul words about subordination in verses 22-24 of Ephesians (while conveniently ignoring the radical for the time elevation of women in verses 21, 25-33) yet ignore the open misogyny when practiced without violence (divorce by simple proclamation of a man, subordination in practice, polygamy ), or with violence (honor killing, justified rape or slavery of non-believers)

They condemn Christianity as against homosexual acts  (as indeed it is, just as Christianity is against any other sin) yet the actual murder of Gays in Islamic lands or beating of Gays even in Western countries in Muslim enclaves are not newsworthy to them.

They abhor Christianity complaints about the free expression of things we find aberrant or insulting to Christ (as is our right) in public or private display to  and roundly condemn us a “puritanical” in defense of free speech.

Yet Molly Norris is still in hiding for a cartoon, South Park’s Muhammad episodes are still censored, Christians marching in Dearborn can be physically stoned and a filmmaker is still in prison over a (really lousy) film hitting Islam.

The question then is asked?  Why isn’t Islam even critiqued when Christianity is targeted?  The answer is simple.  Christianity IS the target thus the behaviors of Islam are acceptable because it is diametrically opposed to Christianity.

But what about they Jews you might ask?  Jews are no more Christians than Hindus are.  That’s true, but Judaism is the building block that Christianity is built upon.  We worship the same God, revere the same prophets and do our best to obey the same 10 commandments.  One can describe the difference between Judaism and Christianity in one simple expression:

Jews and Christians are running the same race, but Jews think Christians have jumped the gun, Christians think Jews didn’t hear it go off.

—————————————————————-

Now like any generality there are exceptions.   Pat Correll and the late Chris Hitchens come instantly to mind.  They have no use for Christianity but also have no use for Islam and at no little risk to themselves loudly fought its Fascism.  Likewise my friend Cynthia Yockey might take an exception to my arguments on the truth of Christianity but she is an implacable foe of Radical Islam and has abandoned the fiscal liberalism for the sake of her freedom.

It is no coincidence that all three of these people were rejected by the left for their apostasy although in fairness the left hasn’t yet reached the point where, like Islam such apostasy is punishable by death.

—————————————————————

I ask you to look at the last 40 years.  Look at where the culture and the media has gone and ask your self, why?  Ask why children three generations removed from the cultural influences of Christianity find themselves killing themselves and others in numbers not seen before?  Ask why schools, particularly those controlled in places the left is strongest are places not of safety or education but of danger and mediocrity.  Ask why you have the most medicated culture in history, the most litigious culture in history and a generation that has physical and material advantages that their grandparents and great grandparents could only dream of, can’t cope with life and despair of their future.

None of this is a bug, it’s all a feature.  Is this what you want for your children and grandchildren?

I’m quite sure that this argument will produce scoffs, insults, pejorative labels and maybe even some counter arguments.  That’s fine, the nonsense I can deal with and as for the arguments,  if my thesis is any good it will hold up under critique.

But whatever you say, however you phase it, if you look at the left and the path they have led our culture I submit and suggest there is one way to understand it:

The common thread of the left is the destruction of Judeo Christian culture, standards belief and If you start from that position it all makes perfect sense.

Update: restored via the wayback machine with

  1. Minor formatting updates
  2. spelling corrections
Older Entries
Newer Entries