You have to think of the way things were back in the middle ages and before.
You had a group of elites. Some were wise some were not, they got their wealth from inheritances of lands granted by royalty and lived off the labor of the tenants on the land.
They would patronize entertainers and artists and scientists. Those people would humor their patrons who were amateurs in their fields in order to maintain their funding and comfort. They would also have squires and knights who would serve them and depend on their largess for their place in society.
These Lords would compete with other lords for the favor of the king and the largess that he would supply them, but the King also knew that if the Lords turned on him they would be another Royal house in charge.
Since wealth wasn’t the big issue the primary worry was status. Who was considered the most important.
Because they were elites they also enjoyed the king protection when their actions crossed lines of propriety.
And beneath all of these people were the freedman, the tradesmen, the serfs and the slaves, they actually grew the foods and created the tools and did the work and saw the majority of it. They were expected to do the work, pay the taxes and not complain.
At the corner this morning this question is asked about John Brown on the 150th’s anniversary of his raid on Harper’s Ferry.
Was Brown a hero of black freedom or a bloodthirsty terrorist?
One could argue that he can be both. The cause of abolition was certainly just, no rational person would make an argument against that today.
Fredrick Douglas certainly considered him heroic:
“The true question is, Did John Brown draw his sword against slavery and thereby lose his life in vain? And to this I answer ten thousand times, No! No man fails, or can fail, who so grandly gives himself and all he has to a righteous cause. No man, who in his hour of extremest need, when on his way to meet an ignominious death, could so forget himself as to stop and kiss a little child, one of the hated race for whom he was about to die, could by any possibility fail.
“Did John Brown fail? Ask Henry A. Wise in whose house less than two years after, a school for the emancipated slaves was taught.
“Did John Brown fail? Ask James M. Mason, the author of the inhuman fugitive slave bill, who was cooped up in Fort Warren, as a traitor less than two years from the time that he stood over the prostrate body of John Brown.
I have a hard time thinking that way because of slightly mitigating fact that Brown was a murderous bloodthirsty bastard.
At the Doyle farm, James and two of his sons, William and Drury, were dragged outside and hacked up with short, heavy sabres donated to Brown in Akron, Ohio. Mrs. Doyle, a daughter, and fourteen year old John were spared. The gang then moved on to Allen Wilkinson’s place. He was ‘taken prisoner’ amid the cries of a sick wife and two children. Two saddles and a rifle were apparently confiscated. The third house visited that night was owned by James Harris. In addition to his wife and young child, Harris had three other men sleeping there. Only one of them, William Sherman, was executed. Weapons, a saddle, and a horse were confiscated from the house. While members of the rifle company, including four of Brown’s sons, asserted that their Captain did not commit any of the actual murders himself, he was the undisputed leader and made the decisions as to who should be spared.
Nathaniel Hawthorne said no man was more justly hanged. That’s a generalization but there no question that Brown no matter how right his cause of abolition was a bloodthirsty killer and deserved the punishment he got. His cause in no way mitigates the crime or the sin of murder and can’t be used to justify either. I can’t join in the celebration of Brown that Douglas has. I don’t have the stomach for it.
And for those who would dispute my position because of the lives saved and the evil that ended because of his actions lets play a game and substitute the words “Scott Roeder” for “John Brown”.
Lets say that Roe v Wade is overturned and someday in the future a prominent opponent of Abortion gave a speech quoting the names of people alive because of the repeal of Roe v Wade and the good they had done. What would you think if that person asked used that example and asked if Scott Roeder died (or more likely was imprisioned) in vain?
Personally it would make me sick.
Scott Roeder and John Brown are two heads on the same coin. Bloodthirsty murderers who killed using the cloak of a just cause to try to justify evil deeds. The study of Brown is justified and necessary as his actions were a turning point in American history.
I think the idolization of either of those men is obscene. Any Catholic in particular who would consider it should re-read this post.
Update: Honesty in Motion flatters me. You are too kind.
So now we have to prove that someone never said anything rather than provide a link or a quote. After all we can’t prove that he didn’t sing this in his shower one day. Noted Cherry Picker Tim Blair quotes from Mark Stein but I think this quote from the same link is more significant:
when I began guest-hosting for Rush, I was amazed to discover that George Soros pays a team of stenographers, many of them called Zachary, to work their tippy-tappy fingers to the bone for three hours transcribing everything Rush or his fill-ins say in the hope that their efforts will one day be rewarded and he will deliver the big career-detonating soundbite. Among the afficionados of this service are, as I discovered recently, America’s “newspaper of record,” which faithfully follows the George Soros typing pool and dutifully plasters any potentially damaging bon mot on page one.
And, aside from all that, 20 million people are out there listening.
If this had any truth about it do you think it would only be coming up in the context of buying a NFL franchise? This would have been trumped from the MSM everywhere years ago. This as you might recall is the same argument I made weeks ago concerning his slander of Robert Stacy McCain:
Apparently the importance to expose that racist, neo confederate and White supremacist Evil that is Robert Stacy McCain was so great that Charles waited until Robert Stacy McCain posted 5,071 entries on his blog on his blog before exposing him.
He was so outraged by Glenn Reynolds linking to him that he waited until his 21st instalance (yes that’s 20 instalances more than me, feel free to suggest to Glenn that I deserve another) to denounce him for it. Apparently he wanted to give Glenn every chance to change his mind.
Q: What are the three most harmful developments for the liberal agenda in history?
A: The Personal Computer , The Affordable Digital Camera, and the Internet because it makes it impossible to hide stuff
Apparently according to King Charles the Pious (peace be upon him) that same standard is not true when it comes to Rush. It IS possible to hide stuff, the same guy who was able to find the pictures and signs of Fauxphotography declares it unnecessary to even try to verify this stuff. That’s because there is no there there, he can’t even come up with dubious links this time.
Speaking of Cynthia Yockey back in September she said this:
Then I had another thought: isn’t it a remarkable coincidence that CJ began his vendetta against Stacy just after Stacy and Dan Riehl succeeded in shutting down the foremost lying liar Leftie bloggers who were the origins of so many lies about Gov. Sarah Palin? Just as Gov. Palin put herself in a position to fight their libels by stepping down — the grounds for libel are different for private citizens — and just as Dan Riehl and Stacy McCain proved that unflattering amounts of sunshine were going to flood down upon the blogs and lives of the lying liar anti-Palin bloggers — suddenly Stacy McCain is under relentless and groundless attack.
Hmmmmm, I thought to myself. Hmmmmmmm.
So I called Stacy to tell him I was planning to write a post asking whether Charles Johnson is being paid to conduct this campaign by Obama’s post-election minions, Organizing for America, and he told me he didn’t think so.
I said before he reminded me of an aunt of mine who was running of of people to talk to as she dropped people in the six degree style.
However the Global warming stuff is science, stuff that can actually be measured and King Charles the Pious (peace be upon him) claims to a patron of the sciences:
So as the evidence has changed to a degree that the Climate Change correspondent for the BBC actually questioned Global Warming Charles Johnson has managed to be convinced in the other direction.
What is one to think?
I think the fight is over and Robert Stacy has won, Charles has jumped the shark so far that the round by round stuff isn’t worth my time or the prospective hits one might get from it. Johnson’s positions are not supportable and can’t stand scrutiny. They are no longer worthy of serious consideration…
…but they are still worthy or ridicule so in that spirit…
Update 2: You know was it not even two months ago that King Charles the Pious derided the conservative blogosphere for the standard they used to condemn Van Jones?
When this “news” came out, I spent hours searching the web for any corroboration at all in Jones’ own words that he believes the 9/11 attacks were a conspiracy by the US government.
Apparently the “hours on the web standard” doesn’t apply to Rush Limbaugh honorary lizardoid.
Yes it’s Columbus day the day the left most loves to hate. (Next to Christmas of course)
You might think that it’s because a White (Italian) European sailed across the ocean and discovered lands where the Wheel wasn’t discovered, where people lived pretty much in the stone age, where cannibalismwasa norm, where regular war took place between peoples and where the greatest and most advanced civilization in the Americas spent most of its time cutting out the hearts of captives to serve their Gods.
Now it has become fashionable to lionize the American Indian as “better” than Europeans. It’s certainly true that in some aspects Europeans demeaned and belittled their accomplishments but perhaps instead one might treat them as oh I don’t know, men? They had all the strengths and weaknesses of men however they belonged to a group of civilizations that were certainly not as advanced as European civilizations certainly not scientifically or militarily.
It’s interesting that the same people who insist that we don’t treat American Indians as a conquered people (they are) have no problem treating our friends of the old confederacy as a conquered people (they are too).
All of this is interesting but the REAL reason why our friends on the left despise Columbus isn’t what he did to America, but what he did to Europe.
For centuries before Columbus Europe was ruled by an elite that could ignore the people at will, they were the rich or the connected or the artiest who were patronized by them. They were able to live well off the backs of their serfs and renters, they had a class system that kept them on top.
Once religious freedom came in North America and the concept of Representative Government became the way of North America, the elites much like the followers of Saddam found themselves after his fall, saw their place at the top and the easy life and privileges came out of it.
Millions of those who served emigrated to the New World and after the American Revolution democracy strength increased all over the world. After world war 2 things were in dire straights for the elites, The only remaining powers were the US that bastion of democracy, and the USSR where they had their own feudal system based on party but with fewer of the comforts they craved.
Ah but then came the “European Constitution” and the European way and all we have seen since. Lo and behold the result of all of these things is the creation of…a set of elites bureaucrats who live on government largess that pays them to go to conferences with the best food and wine and act important.
It has taken 500 years but the European elites have almost re-solidified the class system that they once ruled by, the basis being not divine right, but bureaucratic power and regulation.
That is Why Columbus is hated by the elites, he set things in motion (although not meaning to) that threatened their power and has taken centuries to re-establish, and believe me those same elites want power here.
If you want to know what is going on with this administration keep that thought in mind, the idea of a set of elite bureaucrats with power of life and death but most importantly with the power of the gravy train for themselves. This is what it is all about, and always has been.
Da Techguy's (no longer backup) Blog 