Trump has mercifully ended his daily briefings for the time being (this could change by Tuesday). The real reason is because of what happened at the last one, but also because he thinks they are "totally unfair". Yeah, the entire national media giving you a 2 hour free infomercial 7 day a week for almost a month where you were able to use every reporter in the room as a punching bag was definitely very "unfair".
Trump has mercifully ended his daily briefings for the time being (this could change by Tuesday). The real reason is because of what happened at the last one, but also because he thinks they are "totally unfair". Yeah, the entire national media giving you a 2 hour free infomercial 7 day a week for almost a month where you were able to use every reporter in the room as a punching bag was definitely very "unfair".
They also arent working for him anymore, as his approval ratings are starting to dip down. Also, he knows the press will only get worse because he was constantly saying "Anything less than 60,000 deaths by August is a win!" and we're going to zoom by that by the end of the week.
Trump has mercifully ended his daily briefings for the time being (this could change by Tuesday). The real reason is because of what happened at the last one, but also because he thinks they are "totally unfair". Yeah, the entire national media giving you a 2 hour free infomercial 7 day a week for almost a month where you were able to use every reporter in the room as a punching bag was definitely very "unfair".
They also arent working for him anymore, as his approval ratings are starting to dip down. Also, he knows the press will only get worse because he was constantly saying "Anything less than 60,000 deaths by August is a win!" and we're going to zoom by that by the end of the week.
You mean 100,000, and we're probably STILL going to "trump" that by August.
Trump has mercifully ended his daily briefings for the time being (this could change by Tuesday). The real reason is because of what happened at the last one, but also because he thinks they are "totally unfair". Yeah, the entire national media giving you a 2 hour free infomercial 7 day a week for almost a month where you were able to use every reporter in the room as a punching bag was definitely very "unfair".
The funny irony in all this, is that despite some objectively bad policies, Trump and Republicans probably could have coasted on good sentiment towards the government in a time of crisis. Look at New York and Cuomo, where I think you can argue they've objectively done a bad job, especially contrasted against places like California. Nonetheless, voter approval shot way up for Cuomo and will probably stay high.
If Trump had just shut up, not appeared every day, not tried to dominate the media landscape every second, he'd probably be enjoying a similar fate as Cuomo -- even with things like a lack of testing, lack of preparedness. An amazing capacity to self-immolate for sure.
Trump has mercifully ended his daily briefings for the time being (this could change by Tuesday). The real reason is because of what happened at the last one, but also because he thinks they are "totally unfair". Yeah, the entire national media giving you a 2 hour free infomercial 7 day a week for almost a month where you were able to use every reporter in the room as a punching bag was definitely very "unfair".
The funny irony in all this, is that despite some objectively bad policies, Trump and Republicans probably could have coasted on good sentiment towards the government in a time of crisis. Look at New York and Cuomo, where I think you can argue they've objectively done a bad job, especially contrasted against places like California. Nonetheless, voter approval shot way up for Cuomo and will probably stay high.
If Trump had just shut up, not appeared every day, not tried to dominate the media landscape every second, he'd probably be enjoying a similar fate as Cuomo -- even with things like a lack of testing, lack of preparedness. An amazing capacity to self-immolate for sure.
Cuomo's also had an extremely high profile. However, his briefings have a couple of distinguishing characteristics:
- he's appeared more interested in protecting people's health than their lifestyles, which is an approach most people have supported so far
- he hasn't regularly contradicted expert medical opinion.
Trump's poll rating is only a couple of % off its peak, so it's still a relatively small number of people who are turning against him. I agree that he could have gained considerable support if he'd been able to play the "it's a crisis and we're all in it together card" rather than sticking to his standard divide and conquer approach. I'm not convinced though that would have worked well for him beyond the next few months - given that politicians in all countries are likely to come under increasing pressure over time as the economic pain grows with no end in sight.
Trump has mercifully ended his daily briefings for the time being (this could change by Tuesday). The real reason is because of what happened at the last one, but also because he thinks they are "totally unfair". Yeah, the entire national media giving you a 2 hour free infomercial 7 day a week for almost a month where you were able to use every reporter in the room as a punching bag was definitely very "unfair".
Allegedly it was due to him throwing a tantrum and wanting a CNN reporter and a Washington Blade reporter to switch seats. Both refused even after the threat of secret service getting involved.
He also needs to dodge the questions about him saying the task force meeting, which is held before these press conferences “are a waste of his time.”
Regardless, him not talking is a good thing for everyone involved. The public gets accurate information, he doesn’t look like a complete idiot and the press can focus their questions towards those actually working on this.
Trump has signed and executive order forcing meat-packing plants to stay open despite at least 4 or 5 of them having HUNDREDS of workers come down with the virus. This is being done to absolve the companies of any liability in putting their workers in danger. It's also not a coincidence that these plants are staffed mostly by.......immigrants and minorities. Just like the protests started mere days after statistics showed minorities more likely to contract and die from the virus, the same logic applies here. The right will spend 4 years straight blasting immigrants at every opportunity, but they DAMN sure will be forced to work at plants that are literal hot spots so Karen and Becky don't have a shortage of pork chops and applewood smoked bacon:
@jjstraka34 absolutely disgusting, terrifyingly inhumane and cruel but America's particularly toxic mix of capitalism's continued operation over compassion for real human beings and white supremacy are baked into not just extremist movements like the KKK and neo-Nazis in the US but even (with a better PR paint job) into mainstream political decision-making, so it's not surprising even as enraging and depressing as it is.
The American colonial project from before its inception to present is intergenerational trauma for everyone, the worst obviously doled out for Native Americans and African-Americans but it's so obvious to see the kinds of traumas that pass from parents to children in privileged white households when decision-makers like those who make up the Trump administration (and Trump himself obviously) feverishly cling to whatever security blanket soothes their ego and makes them feel in control and "in the right", trying not to see (or seeing and not caring, which is worse) how those security blankets have costs in human suffering and even in this case human lives. Like how fearful of having to relinquish even a shred of their privileges, advantages, ill-gotten gains and perceived superiority do they have to be to insist on the maintenance of the economy even if it kills working class immigrants and people of colour. Fear drives the right's politics and the smug insistence they're not fearful is just a symptom of it, but the American right is genuinely intellectually and emotionally eviscerated by it to a degree that is astounding to watch from the outside of it, like almost a caricature of the right-wing that someone in another country could dream up that would seem too cartoonishly ignorant and evil to be the case.
Like this is a global pandemic killing people at terrifying rates and things like this shouldn't even be in the political vocabulary of someone with any kind of compassion or respect for human life.
The model the White House is using for it's "success" metric keeps getting revised, but if these people are professionals, then they are failing miserably at their predictions. We've basically hit 60,000. Now they're saying 74,000 by......August?? That is 90 days from now. Anyone who can comprehend what a number is and multiply can tell you that extra 14,000 is LIKELY going to be hit in two weeks, not 3 months, just like anyone could have done the same when they said it would be 60,000 when it was at 45,000. How many times do they get to move the goalposts on this?? At the current rate, even without a resurgence when things reopen, you are looking at WELL over 100,000. Bare minimum.
We also passed the YEARLY total of flu deaths with COVID-19. Took about 40 days. A year has 365 days. That's WITH every major populated area in the country locked down for a month. The math isn't hard, but even if you can't put 2+2 together, you can still figure out the "just the flu" narrative has been shot to shit.
@jjstraka34 absolutely disgusting, terrifyingly inhumane and cruel but America's particularly toxic mix of capitalism's continued operation over compassion for real human beings and white supremacy are baked into not just extremist movements like the KKK and neo-Nazis in the US but even (with a better PR paint job) into mainstream political decision-making, so it's not surprising even as enraging and depressing as it is.
The American colonial project from before its inception to present is intergenerational trauma for everyone, the worst obviously doled out for Native Americans and African-Americans but it's so obvious to see the kinds of traumas that pass from parents to children in privileged white households when decision-makers like those who make up the Trump administration (and Trump himself obviously) feverishly cling to whatever security blanket soothes their ego and makes them feel in control and "in the right", trying not to see (or seeing and not caring, which is worse) how those security blankets have costs in human suffering and even in this case human lives. Like how fearful of having to relinquish even a shred of their privileges, advantages, ill-gotten gains and perceived superiority do they have to be to insist on the maintenance of the economy even if it kills working class immigrants and people of colour. Fear drives the right's politics and the smug insistence they're not fearful is just a symptom of it, but the American right is genuinely intellectually and emotionally eviscerated by it to a degree that is astounding to watch from the outside of it, like almost a caricature of the right-wing that someone in another country could dream up that would seem too cartoonishly ignorant and evil to be the case.
Like this is a global pandemic killing people at terrifying rates and things like this shouldn't even be in the political vocabulary of someone with any kind of compassion or respect for human life.
Which whites are we talking about? Which white people of privilege are we hating on here? Which white people hurt or continue to hurt Natives or Black Africans?
@MaleficentOne: To quote @GenderNihilismGirdle's comment, the subject of her criticism is "decision-makers like those who make up the Trump administration." It does not make any accusation against "whites."
I'd still nitpick about reducing the American right to "fear" alone, though. I think most conservatives would agree that fear about various threats (terrorism, immigration, economic slowdown, etc.) is part of their political concerns, though I wouldn't say that was the long and short of American conservatism per se.
So bigots and racists that are friends of mods in the forums get a pass? Mods have to step in and cover up the mess? Very nice little community you guys have here. How do I get special treatment? Or maybe I should report this forum for allowing Hate Speech and harboring Bigots and Racists and Nazis.
What was said was a blanket statement, kinda like blacks make up 80% of all crime in the Western World. See how that works.
So bigots and racists that are friends of mods in the forums get a pass? Mods have to step in and cover up the mess? Very nice little community you guys have here. How do I get special treatment? Or maybe I should report this forum for allowing Hate Speech and harboring Bigots and Racists and Nazis.
What was said was a blanket statement, kinda like blacks make up 80% of all crime in the Western World. See how that works.
Quoting the text back to you, that you mis-represented, isn't "covering up the mess".
Please DO NOT DISCUSS other users in the thread. Re-read the rules states in the OP of this thread. Flag the comments and the moderation team will deal with them. When you accuse others of being racists and bigots, you insult the participants of the discussion and bring nothing valuable to the topic. Don't do that, please.
@MaleficentOne I agreed with @GenderNihilismGirdle 's post because I lived in South Africa from 1988 to 2010, during which time I saw the end of apartheid, the fall of the National Party and the first few years of the democratically elected ANC government. Consequently (generally speaking) the parallels between the attitudes of white people in the US and in apartheid era SA are obvious to me. The original settlers in both the US and SA are cut from the same cloth after all - in both cases they were religious fundamentalists that were disowned by England and The Netherlands respectively.
@MaleficentOne I agreed with @GenderNihilismGirdle 's post because I lived in South Africa from 1988 to 2010, during which time I saw the end of apartheid, the fall of the National Party and the first few years of the democratically elected ANC government. Consequently (generally speaking) the parallels between the attitudes of white people in the US and in apartheid era SA are obvious to me. The original settlers in both the US and SA are cut from the same cloth after all - in both cases they were religious fundamentalists that were disowned by England and The Netherlands respectively.
Understood. When you say 'religious fundamentalists' you don't mean pagan, buddhists or sikhs. So when we say white people we don't mean white people at all. Confusing.
@MaleficentOne I agreed with @GenderNihilismGirdle 's post because I lived in South Africa from 1988 to 2010, during which time I saw the end of apartheid, the fall of the National Party and the first few years of the democratically elected ANC government. Consequently (generally speaking) the parallels between the attitudes of white people in the US and in apartheid era SA are obvious to me. The original settlers in both the US and SA are cut from the same cloth after all - in both cases they were religious fundamentalists that were disowned by England and The Netherlands respectively.
Understood. When you say 'religious fundamentalists' you don't mean pagan, buddhists or sikhs. So when we say white people we don't mean white people at all. Confusing.
Yes, when talking about the people who first settled South Africa or North America from England and the Netherlands, we are indeed, not talking about sikhs, buddhists or pagans. Not sure why that would confuse you.
@MaleficentOne I agreed with @GenderNihilismGirdle 's post because I lived in South Africa from 1988 to 2010, during which time I saw the end of apartheid, the fall of the National Party and the first few years of the democratically elected ANC government. Consequently (generally speaking) the parallels between the attitudes of white people in the US and in apartheid era SA are obvious to me. The original settlers in both the US and SA are cut from the same cloth after all - in both cases they were religious fundamentalists that were disowned by England and The Netherlands respectively.
Understood. When you say 'religious fundamentalists' you don't mean pagan, buddhists or sikhs. So when we say white people we don't mean white people at all. Confusing.
Yes, when talking about the people who first settled South Africa or North America from England and the Netherlands, we are indeed, not talking about sikhs, buddhists or pagans. Not sure why that would confuse you.
So who were these peoples? Why were they kicked out of their motherland?
@Balrog99 Yes, pre/non Christians thousands of years ago did perform human sacrifice. The hebrews of the Tanakh/Torah performed these as well. Even pre Abraham when people believed that the semitic god (male) had a wife (female) and children (pantheon). This also includes pre-Islamic Arabs who believed in a Moon god/ess.
Christians and most European religions prior to them sacrificed animals instead. Lamb at Easter, turkey at Thanksgiving or an animal from the herd during a harvest. All eaten be those attending.
That opinion piece comes from a neo-pagan perspective which is nowhere close to the same thing as folk that are born into old traditions.
Do I think people today should be blamed for the sins of their forefathers? No. Saying that Alexander the Great or Genghis Khan did stuff isn't the same what the Roman Popes did to the Byzantines, the Swiss Pope and the Arab world including Jerusalem.
@MaleficentOne "Who were these people?"
From the opening paragraph of the article I posted the link to:
"The group of English colonists who settled in North America and later became known as the Pilgrim Fathers originated as a group of Puritans from Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire who by 1605 had come to believe that their Christian faith was incompatible with the Church of England."
Edit: This was less than 100 years after England had split from the Catholic and become Protestant in 1534 so religion was still a highly sensitive and very political issue at that time.
@MaleficentOne "Who were these people?"
From the opening paragraph of the article I posted the link to:
"The group of English colonists who settled in North America and later became known as the Pilgrim Fathers originated as a group of Puritans from Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire who by 1605 had come to believe that their Christian faith was incompatible with the Church of England."
Good, so these are the people that everyone is blaming for all the destruction and terror handed to African Blacks and Native Americans. The Founding Fathers were not Christians, I would probably blame their ilk more. Even though they tried their best to come up with a Constitution that would protect the New World from people like those Pilgrims from England and the Dutch. Something is still missing I think.
@MaleficentOne I agreed with @GenderNihilismGirdle 's post because I lived in South Africa from 1988 to 2010, during which time I saw the end of apartheid, the fall of the National Party and the first few years of the democratically elected ANC government. Consequently (generally speaking) the parallels between the attitudes of white people in the US and in apartheid era SA are obvious to me. The original settlers in both the US and SA are cut from the same cloth after all - in both cases they were religious fundamentalists that were disowned by England and The Netherlands respectively.
Understood. When you say 'religious fundamentalists' you don't mean pagan, buddhists or sikhs. So when we say white people we don't mean white people at all. Confusing.
Yes, when talking about the people who first settled South Africa or North America from England and the Netherlands, we are indeed, not talking about sikhs, buddhists or pagans. Not sure why that would confuse you.
So who were these peoples? Why were they kicked out of their motherland?
I'm not interested in giving you a history lesson. You're free to type those questions into google or wikipedia if you're sincerely curious. I will note one thing, which is that you seem to have a partial understanding of early British colonialism of North America. I suggest you look up the Virginia Colony, which was not founded by outcasts and pre-dated Pilgrim settlements.
I was merely pointing out that if someone is going to talk about the power dynamics in a place like the United States or South Africa, they aren't going to talk about sikhs, buddhists and pagans. For obvious reasons. Whatabouting in that context isn't an counter argument, it's a derailing tactic.
@MaleficentOne "Who were these people?"
From the opening paragraph of the article I posted the link to:
"The group of English colonists who settled in North America and later became known as the Pilgrim Fathers originated as a group of Puritans from Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire who by 1605 had come to believe that their Christian faith was incompatible with the Church of England."
Good, so these are the people that everyone is blaming for all the destruction and terror handed to African Blacks and Native Americans. The Founding Fathers were not Christians, I would probably blame their ilk more. Even though they tried their best to come up with a Constitution that would protect the New World from people like those Pilgrims from England and the Dutch. Something is still missing I think.
Some of them may or may not have been Christian but plenty of them did own slaves. The American Revolution was about "freedom" for a very select group of people, and those people were wealthy white land-owners. Those are the only people who were "endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights". Everyone else had to fight tooth and nail for hundreds of years to get them while this class had to be dragged kicking and screaming to accept it every step of the way. They were the absolute eptitome of what people refer to as the "elites" nowadays. There has probably never been a better example of what that word means.
@MaleficentOne "Who were these people?"
From the opening paragraph of the article I posted the link to:
"The group of English colonists who settled in North America and later became known as the Pilgrim Fathers originated as a group of Puritans from Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire who by 1605 had come to believe that their Christian faith was incompatible with the Church of England."
Good, so these are the people that everyone is blaming for all the destruction and terror handed to African Blacks and Native Americans. The Founding Fathers were not Christians, I would probably blame their ilk more. Even though they tried their best to come up with a Constitution that would protect the New World from people like those Pilgrims from England and the Dutch. Something is still missing I think.
Some of them may or may not have been Christian but plenty of them did own slaves. The American Revolution was about "freedom" for a very select group of people, and those people were wealthy white land-owners. Those are the only people who were "endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights". Everyone else had to fight tooth and nail for hundreds of years to get them while this class had to dragged kicking and screaming to accept it every step of the way. They were the absolute eptitome of what people refer to as the "elites" nowadays. There has probably never been a better example of what that word means.
Nice, getting somewhere. I like you @jjstraka34 , fiery and passionate when it's something close to your heart and calm, cool and collected when in a discussion.
I understand that most colonizers were Christians, my main concern is who imported the slaves/ or told them to do what they did? Was it the Church or some other group(s). Who were the Elites back then?
On blanket racial statements. People who make them or defend them are worse than Nazis.
@MaleficentOne I agreed with @GenderNihilismGirdle 's post because I lived in South Africa from 1988 to 2010, during which time I saw the end of apartheid, the fall of the National Party and the first few years of the democratically elected ANC government. Consequently (generally speaking) the parallels between the attitudes of white people in the US and in apartheid era SA are obvious to me. The original settlers in both the US and SA are cut from the same cloth after all - in both cases they were religious fundamentalists that were disowned by England and The Netherlands respectively.
Understood. When you say 'religious fundamentalists' you don't mean pagan, buddhists or sikhs. So when we say white people we don't mean white people at all. Confusing.
Yes, when talking about the people who first settled South Africa or North America from England and the Netherlands, we are indeed, not talking about sikhs, buddhists or pagans. Not sure why that would confuse you.
So who were these peoples? Why were they kicked out of their motherland?
I'm not interested in giving you a history lesson. You're free to type those questions into google or wikipedia if you're sincerely curious. I will note one thing, which is that you seem to have a partial understanding of early British colonialism of North America. I suggest you look up the Virginia Colony, which was not founded by outcasts and pre-dated Pilgrim settlements.
I was merely pointing out that if someone is going to talk about the power dynamics in a place like the United States or South Africa, they aren't going to talk about sikhs, buddhists and pagans. For obvious reasons. Whatabouting in that context isn't an counter argument, it's a derailing tactic.
I do not need a history lesson from an unqualified forumite. You are right when you say British or Dutch colonialism but blanket statements (whites) are for the uneducated.
My only point when starting the discussion was that the burden of "essential" jobs is disproportionately falling to women and people of color. The healthcare service is made up of 80% women. They've been denied necessary protective equipment for almost 6 weeks now. Many of these relatively low-paying jobs where clearly NO safety precautions were implemented at these meat-packing plants are staffed by people of color. And my belief is that once the American business class (elites) realized this, they immediately astro-turfed a movement to get the money flowing to them again. If "those" people get sick, or even if they die, so be it. To them, they're soylent green. From Jeet Heer at The Nation:
Beneath all the talk of national unity, the pandemic has unleashed a ferocious class war. The latest example is Trump deploying the Defense Protection Act to bolster meat packing plants, a major vector of the disease.The meat packing plants are facing a crisis in part because workers (quite rightly) are refusing to go into plants where they could catch the disease. Trump's deployment of DPA is largely for show but he's signalling solidarity with employers against employees. Iowa governor Kim Reynolds is also sending a signal: that employees who don't return to dangerous workplaces will be seen as quitting and thus not eligible for unemployment. The message: work (at the risk of death) or starve. All the current chatter about “disincentives to work" (heard in Canada as well) is part of the class war. The idea is to keep people working at life-threatening jobs for as little money as possible.
@MaleficentOne I agreed with @GenderNihilismGirdle 's post because I lived in South Africa from 1988 to 2010, during which time I saw the end of apartheid, the fall of the National Party and the first few years of the democratically elected ANC government. Consequently (generally speaking) the parallels between the attitudes of white people in the US and in apartheid era SA are obvious to me. The original settlers in both the US and SA are cut from the same cloth after all - in both cases they were religious fundamentalists that were disowned by England and The Netherlands respectively.
Understood. When you say 'religious fundamentalists' you don't mean pagan, buddhists or sikhs. So when we say white people we don't mean white people at all. Confusing.
Yes, when talking about the people who first settled South Africa or North America from England and the Netherlands, we are indeed, not talking about sikhs, buddhists or pagans. Not sure why that would confuse you.
So who were these peoples? Why were they kicked out of their motherland?
I'm not interested in giving you a history lesson. You're free to type those questions into google or wikipedia if you're sincerely curious. I will note one thing, which is that you seem to have a partial understanding of early British colonialism of North America. I suggest you look up the Virginia Colony, which was not founded by outcasts and pre-dated Pilgrim settlements.
I was merely pointing out that if someone is going to talk about the power dynamics in a place like the United States or South Africa, they aren't going to talk about sikhs, buddhists and pagans. For obvious reasons. Whatabouting in that context isn't an counter argument, it's a derailing tactic.
I do not need a history lesson from an unqualified forumite. You are right when you say British or Dutch colonialism but blanket statements (whites) are for the uneducated.
Personally, I don't think you need to go back to colonialism to talk about issues of white privilege and a black and brown working class that's treated as disposable -- hell, MLK was murdered while organizing black garbage collection workers. The posters above who cited it were clearly using a rhetorical flourish. But there is a descent of ideas at work here.
Saying that people can't talk about "white" in the context of American history, and the history of labor relations in the country, is a form of political correctness. No one can talk honestly about the history of labor relations in the country, especially relating to the points being made about coronavirus, without talking about things like whiteness, blackness, etc. If it triggers you, I'm sorry, but that's not an honest look at American history. I mean whiteness and blackness were literal legal concepts throughout the country's history up until not that long ago. There are still people alive who were the first black kids to integrate in their school districts, and they're not even all that old.
And yes, of course, it always comes with the caveats of "not all whites" but I don't think it's necessary for folks to have to stop and throw that into every discussion for the sake of some people's sensibilities. Nor would it make sense to pause and mention every other ethnic injustice around the world.
It's an English speaking forum community based around a game that was released in the US. Sorry but that where discussion is going to center.
Comments
They also arent working for him anymore, as his approval ratings are starting to dip down. Also, he knows the press will only get worse because he was constantly saying "Anything less than 60,000 deaths by August is a win!" and we're going to zoom by that by the end of the week.
You mean 100,000, and we're probably STILL going to "trump" that by August.
The funny irony in all this, is that despite some objectively bad policies, Trump and Republicans probably could have coasted on good sentiment towards the government in a time of crisis. Look at New York and Cuomo, where I think you can argue they've objectively done a bad job, especially contrasted against places like California. Nonetheless, voter approval shot way up for Cuomo and will probably stay high.
If Trump had just shut up, not appeared every day, not tried to dominate the media landscape every second, he'd probably be enjoying a similar fate as Cuomo -- even with things like a lack of testing, lack of preparedness. An amazing capacity to self-immolate for sure.
Cuomo's also had an extremely high profile. However, his briefings have a couple of distinguishing characteristics:
- he's appeared more interested in protecting people's health than their lifestyles, which is an approach most people have supported so far
- he hasn't regularly contradicted expert medical opinion.
Trump's poll rating is only a couple of % off its peak, so it's still a relatively small number of people who are turning against him. I agree that he could have gained considerable support if he'd been able to play the "it's a crisis and we're all in it together card" rather than sticking to his standard divide and conquer approach. I'm not convinced though that would have worked well for him beyond the next few months - given that politicians in all countries are likely to come under increasing pressure over time as the economic pain grows with no end in sight.
Allegedly it was due to him throwing a tantrum and wanting a CNN reporter and a Washington Blade reporter to switch seats. Both refused even after the threat of secret service getting involved.
He also needs to dodge the questions about him saying the task force meeting, which is held before these press conferences “are a waste of his time.”
Regardless, him not talking is a good thing for everyone involved. The public gets accurate information, he doesn’t look like a complete idiot and the press can focus their questions towards those actually working on this.
The American colonial project from before its inception to present is intergenerational trauma for everyone, the worst obviously doled out for Native Americans and African-Americans but it's so obvious to see the kinds of traumas that pass from parents to children in privileged white households when decision-makers like those who make up the Trump administration (and Trump himself obviously) feverishly cling to whatever security blanket soothes their ego and makes them feel in control and "in the right", trying not to see (or seeing and not caring, which is worse) how those security blankets have costs in human suffering and even in this case human lives. Like how fearful of having to relinquish even a shred of their privileges, advantages, ill-gotten gains and perceived superiority do they have to be to insist on the maintenance of the economy even if it kills working class immigrants and people of colour. Fear drives the right's politics and the smug insistence they're not fearful is just a symptom of it, but the American right is genuinely intellectually and emotionally eviscerated by it to a degree that is astounding to watch from the outside of it, like almost a caricature of the right-wing that someone in another country could dream up that would seem too cartoonishly ignorant and evil to be the case.
Like this is a global pandemic killing people at terrifying rates and things like this shouldn't even be in the political vocabulary of someone with any kind of compassion or respect for human life.
We also passed the YEARLY total of flu deaths with COVID-19. Took about 40 days. A year has 365 days. That's WITH every major populated area in the country locked down for a month. The math isn't hard, but even if you can't put 2+2 together, you can still figure out the "just the flu" narrative has been shot to shit.
Which whites are we talking about? Which white people of privilege are we hating on here? Which white people hurt or continue to hurt Natives or Black Africans?
I'd still nitpick about reducing the American right to "fear" alone, though. I think most conservatives would agree that fear about various threats (terrorism, immigration, economic slowdown, etc.) is part of their political concerns, though I wouldn't say that was the long and short of American conservatism per se.
What was said was a blanket statement, kinda like blacks make up 80% of all crime in the Western World. See how that works.
Quoting the text back to you, that you mis-represented, isn't "covering up the mess".
Of course silly me, I was mis-represented. How could I have made that mistake. I should check my white privilege next time.
Edit, found another one.
https://www.historyextra.com/period/stuart/it-is-claimed-that-the-pilgrim-fathers-set-sail-from-plymouth-but-ive-also-heard-that-they-started-in-boston-lincolnshire-which-is-correct/
Understood. When you say 'religious fundamentalists' you don't mean pagan, buddhists or sikhs. So when we say white people we don't mean white people at all. Confusing.
Yes, when talking about the people who first settled South Africa or North America from England and the Netherlands, we are indeed, not talking about sikhs, buddhists or pagans. Not sure why that would confuse you.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/coloradocelt.wordpress.com/2009/08/18/dirty-secrets-of-paganism-a-rant/amp/
So who were these peoples? Why were they kicked out of their motherland?
@Balrog99 Yes, pre/non Christians thousands of years ago did perform human sacrifice. The hebrews of the Tanakh/Torah performed these as well. Even pre Abraham when people believed that the semitic god (male) had a wife (female) and children (pantheon). This also includes pre-Islamic Arabs who believed in a Moon god/ess.
Christians and most European religions prior to them sacrificed animals instead. Lamb at Easter, turkey at Thanksgiving or an animal from the herd during a harvest. All eaten be those attending.
That opinion piece comes from a neo-pagan perspective which is nowhere close to the same thing as folk that are born into old traditions.
Do I think people today should be blamed for the sins of their forefathers? No. Saying that Alexander the Great or Genghis Khan did stuff isn't the same what the Roman Popes did to the Byzantines, the Swiss Pope and the Arab world including Jerusalem.
From the opening paragraph of the article I posted the link to:
"The group of English colonists who settled in North America and later became known as the Pilgrim Fathers originated as a group of Puritans from Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire who by 1605 had come to believe that their Christian faith was incompatible with the Church of England."
Edit: This was less than 100 years after England had split from the Catholic and become Protestant in 1534 so religion was still a highly sensitive and very political issue at that time.
Good, so these are the people that everyone is blaming for all the destruction and terror handed to African Blacks and Native Americans. The Founding Fathers were not Christians, I would probably blame their ilk more. Even though they tried their best to come up with a Constitution that would protect the New World from people like those Pilgrims from England and the Dutch. Something is still missing I think.
I'm not interested in giving you a history lesson. You're free to type those questions into google or wikipedia if you're sincerely curious. I will note one thing, which is that you seem to have a partial understanding of early British colonialism of North America. I suggest you look up the Virginia Colony, which was not founded by outcasts and pre-dated Pilgrim settlements.
I was merely pointing out that if someone is going to talk about the power dynamics in a place like the United States or South Africa, they aren't going to talk about sikhs, buddhists and pagans. For obvious reasons. Whatabouting in that context isn't an counter argument, it's a derailing tactic.
Some of them may or may not have been Christian but plenty of them did own slaves. The American Revolution was about "freedom" for a very select group of people, and those people were wealthy white land-owners. Those are the only people who were "endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights". Everyone else had to fight tooth and nail for hundreds of years to get them while this class had to be dragged kicking and screaming to accept it every step of the way. They were the absolute eptitome of what people refer to as the "elites" nowadays. There has probably never been a better example of what that word means.
Nice, getting somewhere. I like you @jjstraka34 , fiery and passionate when it's something close to your heart and calm, cool and collected when in a discussion.
I understand that most colonizers were Christians, my main concern is who imported the slaves/ or told them to do what they did? Was it the Church or some other group(s). Who were the Elites back then?
On blanket racial statements. People who make them or defend them are worse than Nazis.
I do not need a history lesson from an unqualified forumite. You are right when you say British or Dutch colonialism but blanket statements (whites) are for the uneducated.
Beneath all the talk of national unity, the pandemic has unleashed a ferocious class war. The latest example is Trump deploying the Defense Protection Act to bolster meat packing plants, a major vector of the disease.The meat packing plants are facing a crisis in part because workers (quite rightly) are refusing to go into plants where they could catch the disease. Trump's deployment of DPA is largely for show but he's signalling solidarity with employers against employees. Iowa governor Kim Reynolds is also sending a signal: that employees who don't return to dangerous workplaces will be seen as quitting and thus not eligible for unemployment. The message: work (at the risk of death) or starve. All the current chatter about “disincentives to work" (heard in Canada as well) is part of the class war. The idea is to keep people working at life-threatening jobs for as little money as possible.
Personally, I don't think you need to go back to colonialism to talk about issues of white privilege and a black and brown working class that's treated as disposable -- hell, MLK was murdered while organizing black garbage collection workers. The posters above who cited it were clearly using a rhetorical flourish. But there is a descent of ideas at work here.
Saying that people can't talk about "white" in the context of American history, and the history of labor relations in the country, is a form of political correctness. No one can talk honestly about the history of labor relations in the country, especially relating to the points being made about coronavirus, without talking about things like whiteness, blackness, etc. If it triggers you, I'm sorry, but that's not an honest look at American history. I mean whiteness and blackness were literal legal concepts throughout the country's history up until not that long ago. There are still people alive who were the first black kids to integrate in their school districts, and they're not even all that old.
And yes, of course, it always comes with the caveats of "not all whites" but I don't think it's necessary for folks to have to stop and throw that into every discussion for the sake of some people's sensibilities. Nor would it make sense to pause and mention every other ethnic injustice around the world.
It's an English speaking forum community based around a game that was released in the US. Sorry but that where discussion is going to center.