<p>I have watched the video. This is too little too late, as far as I am concerned. Ron Paul should have done this the very minute he discovered the racist newsletters were going out. He instead allowed them to persist for at least a decade, poisoning the country against blacks.</p>
<p>I still doubt him because I cannot accept that a man of his education can be that incompetent. Even if I accept his explanation I do not think America can take such incompetence after eight years of Bush. Presidents are a lot busier than a little doctor. He will not be able to use his full schedule as an excuse for not attending to vital issues. Ron Paul, it is clear to me, is nothing more than a footnote in this race - and it is a great thing.</p>
<p>He has done this. You must have just missed it because, hey, he wasn’t running for president back then, so maybe you didn’t notice. What he said on that video is exactly the same as he has been saying all along. His message has always remained constant. Those who have taken the time to read his words know this, and even his opponents know this. They cannot accuse him of flip-flopping like they do with everyone else. At the last debate, the questioner even said something like ‘the only thing you’ve ever flip-flopped on is your party’ (referring to his run as a Libertarian). That’s what’s so amazing - you can dig up videos on youtube of him talking, from 20 years ago, and aside from his hair being darker, you really can’t tell the difference from what he says today. Can you say this to be true of ANY other candidate?</p>
<p>That’s why his consistency of character is so much more important than some newsletters that slipped by him while he was busy DELIVERING BABIES and NOT EVEN INVOLVED IN POLITICS.</p>
<p>Anyway, Drossel, your mind is made up so there’s no point in debating it further. I wonder why you even bother with the discussions about him, since you seem to feel so strongly. I find your comments about him being ‘incompetent’ amusing. That’s like calling Gore stupid, or bush intelligent. ;)</p>
<p>enderkin: if you missed it, then maybe you didn’t watch the whole thing…? Anyone who actually watches the whole video can see the guy’s not a racist, and his policies would actually help minorities more than the other candidates’ policies. (Which may be why he has more support from blacks than any other Republican candidate, btw.) And that is the bottom line.</p>
<p>Gosh, then it must be true! Just like the story in the elementary textbooks about the pilgrims helping those incompetent, starving ‘Indians’ at Thanksgiving…or the stories about the ‘savage’ Natives…</p>
<p>I actually don’t have an opinion about Lincoln…I slept during history class… but I do know history books are written by the (usually male) winners of any conflict.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Drossel, are you prejudiced against the ‘South?’ As someone currently residing in the ‘South’ I could easily take offense at that. Just how do you define the ‘South’ anyway? What is the demarcation? And does that include everyone living there, including the blacks, Hispanics, Asians, etc.? </p>
<p>Drosselmeier, as someone who said just 2 days ago that the only good thing about the South is that its being repopulated by Northerners and Mexicans, I don’t think you’re in a very good position to call someone else a bigot.</p>
<p>Yeah, Lincoln was quite a hero. Tell that to the families of the Native Americans he executed for not leaving Minnesota even though the United States government had already ceded them that land in a treaty. Tell that to the people who voted against the fugitive slave law. His plan after emancipation was to send all the freed slaves to Haiti.</p>
<p>I do not think you really get this. Had the newsletters slipped by him, and then when he was told of them he denounced their contents and then fired those responsible, there would have been no issue. I would probably be a supporter today because I long for an America where racial groups do not first define individuals. But Ron Paul did not do this. He in fact allowed the newsletters to persist even after becoming privy to their contents. It is why I think reason demands I doubt him. His delivering babies is simply no excuse for this. If he is unable to maintain his schedule and deal with something like this, he is unable to juggle the schedule of a United States president.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because I wish to make my thoughts about Ron Paul known, and let the chips fall as they may. There were a lot of his supporters doing likewise long before me. I do not see why I ought not counter their attempts to sell what is to be intellectual snake oil.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, that is southern history. Real history is not mere stories, and it does not stand on mere consensus, as you suggest (unless you wish to resort to existential ignorance, in which case we may as well not even have this discussion).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, in fact real history is written by the participants in one way or another. Southern leaders, those who had power to create and maintain war, were very frequent and clear in their writings concerning precisely why they fought. Since they had power to start, maintain, and end the war, they are by reason those who get to define the Southern effort. They have written this history. Real historians - not southern hacks - have recorded their records and presented them to us. Those who do not sleep through them, tend not to be ignorant of them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am not prejudiced against any person due to his race, gender, orientation. I am prejudiced against certain behaviors (and collection of behaviors), and I think this is quite valid. A person’s race does nothing at all, since race consists of nothing more than passive features. Behaviors, by definition, do everything and therefore they can be judged. I am prejudiced against the increasingly former behaviors in the South that have been responsible for the defense of slavery, Jim Crow, and that are even today responsible for the heavy concentration of racism and general boorishness behind neo-confederate revision of history, and racist leaders like David Duke and the many racist groups that support Ron Paul.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is not about blacks, Asians, Hispanics, or even whites (since there are many whites in the South who are not southerners). It is about behavior groupings (culture). There are behaviors exhibited by individuals in each of these groups that I reject, and some some of them I have rejected right here on CC, even in many blacks. The behavior known as “Hip hop culture” I have rejected quite ardently. I have rejected BET just as ardently. I have rejected the insistence by other blacks that blacks speak in certain ways. Still, I do not reject any black person. The way I really see it is like this:</p>
<p>I am looking at my computer. It is, ironically, a black computer that I put together from parts of other computers. You won’t find another like it. My son is in college with a little computer that is a lot nicer than mine. It is of a different color, more regal, elegant, obviously of a higher class than mine. My D is also in college and she also has a little computer, also of a different color and higher class, snazzy, bright, perky little thing. You undoubtedly have a computer that differs from all of ours. Yours probably has a lot more CPU power than mine, probably does a lot of nice things that mine simply cannot do. I have a friend whose computer looks like a cube, another friend whose system is rack-mountable. All of these systems differ in ability, shape, size, color. They even approach many jobs in fundamentally different ways. But despite their differences, they all get along so well they do not even know they differ. They all speak so nicely together that no one computer even once lords its ability over any other. The most powerful computer simply works with the others in the most effective way possible, sharing files, text, images, games, even playing music together. In fact, so interchangeable are many of these systems that my black computer is only black on the outside. All of its innards come from computers that were white. I kept the black case simply because, I thought the black was beautiful. It’s a preference thing - nothing against white computers at all. Some of my friends like the whites and prefer them over the blacks. No problem. As long as these systems, though different in many aspects, share the same fundamental behavior when dealing with each other, there is just no problem with any of them. They form a culture that unites them all into one Internetwork of systems. But should a group of computers be introduced that should send viruses to some computers on this Internet so that they are unable to speak to certain other kinds of computers, that group engages in BAD behavior-- behavior worth denouncing and firewalling off into oblivion.</p>
<p>The North certainly had cultural elements that were BAD, and those elements still infect the North. But the South was a veritable cesspool of oppressive cultural viruses. It was so sick in this regard that its topmost leaders formed a confederacy to protect oppression by sending its own people to kill and die. To this day its BAD behavior causes many of its people to tell lies about history, even calling Lincoln a tyrant, as if the southern slavery Lincoln ended was not tyrannical. All of this is BAD behavior, concentrated especially in the South, and I denounce it whatever the color of the person promulgating it.</p>
<p>Fortunately, the South is being populated by people who have no part with Southern culture. They are redefining the South. They are Hispanics, Asians, whites, blacks and a growing number of folks who are various mixtures of all of the above. Much of the South is being overtaken by them so that the old barbarism that still causes so much pain today is passing away.</p>
<p>Yeah, hatred of racial groups is an unspeakable horror, but hatred of non Mexican Southern conservatives is A-ok. My grandparents are Southern through and through, and are my favorite people in the world. I’m not going to say anything else that will get my account in trouble, I’ll just leave it at that.</p>
<p>It is my sincerest hope that your blindness will someday be cured.</p>
<p>Race (or gender or sexual orientation, etc.) is something that is determined by one’s genes, something that can not be changed. One is not born a conservative or liberal. Different issues here.</p>
<p>As I mentioned earlier, this is a lot more complex than you are presenting here. Were Lincoln really a tyrant, 303 Native Americans would have died. Only 39 did because of Lincoln’s effort to save them all.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It was a law. Lincoln was the head of the Executive Branch, in charge with enforcing the law. He even aimed to protect slavery where it existed because it was the law and he was bound to enforce it. Had he done else, he would not have been able to deliver his heroic destruction of slavery. Lincoln was very shrewd at getting to this ultimate good.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>By 1863 all of this had collapsed and Lincoln returned to the notion of Citizenship for blacks that he mentioned in 1858 during the Lincoln-Douglass debates. Ultimately, it was his hand that granted that citizenship. He was a hero who saw farther than anyone else of his day and stature, and who did more than anyone else. He may not have been perfect, but perfection would not have worked in this case. Lincoln worked here because he had the guts to push the ship of state in the right direction, and the delicacy not to push too hard.</p>
<p>He DID! He did just that!!! I don’t understand what you are hung up on.</p>
<hr>
<p>Re: The South. You speak of The South as if the Confederate South with slavery intact were alive today. Say, what?</p>
<p>I live in the South. My dad was German, and my mom Scots/Irish/Cherokee. They were poor. They were Catholic. They were NOT prejudiced in the least. They identified more with poor Hispanics and poor blacks than they did with rich whites, even though they were white.</p>
<p>NEVER did I ever hear any talk of prejudice. They condemned slavery. It was a given.</p>
<p>Drossel, you speak of The South as if it were alive today. I’ve got news for you: the bigots who had slaves died many years ago. </p>
<p>Their descendents, like me, should not be held responsible for what our ancestors did.</p>
<p>You really seem bitter. You seem to be the epitome of ‘racial identity’ or ‘group mentality.’ This type of thinking, this identification with RACE, or any other distinguishing group characteristic, taking precedence over the INDIVIDUAL, is exactly what Ron Paul is AGAINST.</p>
<p>Maybe THAT is the REAL reason you don’t like him. You are not ready to let go of all that resentment. You aren’t ready to forgive, and stand up proud in your black skin, and demand LIBERTY and FREEDOM and JUSTICE for ALL! You aren’t ready to claim these freedoms for EVERYONE. You still identify as a VICTIM. </p>
<p>Why can’t you see that your hatred and resentment is only perpetuating racism? Why can’t you see that many WHITES, like myself, left racism behind many years ago? It has ceased to be an issue! Quit making it an issue, quit campaigning for its remaining an issue.</p>
<p>Honstly, what does it matter what Lincoln’s motives were? None of us really knows! We might THINK we know, but all of us are doing the same thing: reading history books and interpreting them according to our own preconceived biases. NONE of us actually lived during that time, so there is no way to prove who’s right.</p>
<p>So it’s pointless, really. You clearly want to hang on to your image of Lincoln as a hero. OK, fine, go for it. It really does not matter! Lincoln is long dead! What does it matter, what happened years ago? What matters is what is happening NOW.</p>
<p>And NOW, although racism obviously still exists, it’s way less than ever before. NOW, we see interracial marriages. White couple adopting black and Asian kids. A black campaigning for president. We’ve come a long way!</p>
<p>It doesn’t even matter what got written in those newsletters. What matters is that Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate seeking to equalize the obvious bias against blacks regarding crime. Why can you not see the good? </p>
<p>May I respectfully suggest that you try to see the GOOD in humanity, and let go of your bitterness. I serves no purpose.</p>
<p>Somebody needs a history lesson. Authorities in Minnesota asked Lincoln to execute 303 Indians. Lincoln was afraid this would anger the Europeans and cause them to provide aid to the South. So his compromise was this: They would whittle the list down to 39 to be hanged, and after that Lincoln would decree that every Sioux Indian in the Santee tribe must leave Minnesota or else be executed. He gave Minnesota 2 million in federal funds to help accomplish this. This all despite the fact that the Federal government had already signed a treaty promising the Natives that land in Minnesota. None of them got a trial, and the youngest girl hanged was 12. 38 total were hanged that day, the largest public mass execution in our country’s history.</p>
<p>Lincoln is no civil rights hero. If he had done the same to African-Americans, you’d be appalled. The only reason he didn’t is because African-Americans were a politically sympathetic group, and Indians were not.</p>
<p>Lincoln was a political opportunist. He pandered to the pro-slavery moderates while they controlled the republican party, and then he pandered to the radical abolitionist wing of the republican party once they controlled the party.</p>
<p>“I am not now, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social or political equality of the white and black races. I am not now nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor of intermarriages with white people. There is a physical difference between the white and the black races which will forever forbid the two races living together on social or political equality. There must be a position of superior and inferior, and I am in favor of assigning the superior position to the white man.”-Lincoln</p>
<p>“If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.”-Lincoln</p>
<p>Well, Vyse, it seems that Lincoln is a ‘sacred cow’ just like so many other issues - taboo to question sacred cows.</p>
<p>What gets me is that people have their beliefs wrapped up so tightly with these sacred cows. So, WHAT IF you were right about Lincoln? WHAT IF?</p>
<p>Why would that change anything? to find out that one of your heroes was not such a hero after all? so what? You can still stand on your OWN values! Your identity need not be wrapped up in his.</p>
<p>”He DID! He did just that!!! I don’t understand what you are hung up on.”</p>
<p>He did it only a decade after the damage was done, when his critics could no longer be ignored. That is not terribly impressive, LD. It is not believable.</p>
<p>”Re: The South. You speak of The South as if the Confederate South with slavery intact were alive today. Say, what? I live in the South. My dad was German, and my mom Scots/Irish/Cherokee….NEVER did I ever hear any talk of prejudice. They condemned slavery. It was a given.”</p>
<p>Then you are part of the New South. Congratulations! The South needs more of you – many, many more.</p>
<p>”Drossel, you speak of The South as if it were alive today. I’ve got news for you: the bigots who had slaves died many years ago.”</p>
<p>The South, while on its back in its last gasp, is still alive. It is why Ron Paul can run in Texas and win. It is why David Duke can still run in Louisiana and win. It is why republican presidential candidates sense a need to speak at racist Bob Jones University when they ought to denounce the place. It is why black people, right now, must pay taxes to fly the Confederate Flag on public property, the same wretched flag around which southerners fought and died to keep blacks in slavery.</p>
<p>”Their descendents, like me, should not be held responsible for what our ancestors did.”</p>
<p>Come now. Though we disagree, you and I, I quite like you. I do not hold any human responsible for what any other human has done. Still, those ancestors of the south have created an abomination of a culture with all sorts of abominable results that harm millions even today, and too many of their descendants still promulgate it to this very day. It is that culture that I hope will die its long deserved death.</p>
<p>“Lincoln is no civil rights hero. If he had done the same to African-Americans, you’d be appalled. The only reason he didn’t is because African-Americans were a politically sympathetic group, and Indians were not.”</p>
<p>Lincoln supported slavery wherever it existed, which is to say he supported capturing and holding blacks in bondage, even killing them if need be. Millions of black men, women, and children, enslaved, owned, and even killed under policies enforced by Abe Lincoln, FAR more than a mere 39 souls. And yet I still honor the man. So this puts the lie to all this nonsense about my being sympathetic to “African-Americans”.</p>
<p>The situation in MN was complex. The Indians were not simply sitting idle and doing nothing in the region. People had grievances against them and there were charges of crime the penalties of which had to be enforced. I do not defend the episode in the least, but it put Lincoln in a remarkably difficult spot. Had he not enforced the penalties he would have been accused of being derelict. Had he enforced them he would have killed 303 souls. He enforced the law in 39 of the cases, tossing this red meat to the masses. I do not trust any accusation against a Native American made by those people of that day. It is clear to me Lincoln didn’t either. Still, when an entire state rises up to declare a charge, it puts the executive in a very bad place. I never claimed Lincoln was perfect, only that he was more perfect than everyone else. THIS is what makes him a hero. He was the very best man at the time and he did more than anyone else.</p>
<p>Had it been anyone else, 303 Indians would have died.</p>