To the white heterosexual god.

Please get help, “Dennis”, we’re all praying for you.

You speak as a neo-conservative Jew-hating anti-Semite with no discernible skill set other than the ability to type.

That’s exactly what moderate Republicans who publicly identify themselves as “Independents” (and have privately begun voting for Democratic leaders) have been thinking about racist right wingers like yourself and the other savage right wing extremists for years, they don’t want “to be associated with your ridiculous comments.”

For the record, I’m not associated with anyone here nor is anyone associated with me.

I speak as an “Independent” with a conservative streak, only!-)

Unmarried?

Deists?

Homosexuals?

White guys that stole their best ideas from Asia (gunpowder) and the Middle East (algebra)?

Diseased?

Benjamin Franklin was never officially ‘married’ (as I understand it). Franklin’s ‘wife’ was already married to someone else. Franklin’s was a common-law-marriage that omitted the fact that his ‘wife’ was married to another man.

My favorite founding father, Thomas Paine, was a Deist (a non-Christian).

There’s a bizarre rumor that the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, was gay (closeted log cabiners, a founding principle of Republicanism?-).

Without the Chinese invention of gunpowder, the English Pilgrims and the Spanish and the French would have had a much more difficult time getting a foothold in the Americas.

Perhaps the biggest advantage that Europeans had over Native Americans was that the Europeans were diseased, but had over generations grown resistant to disease, while Native Americans were NOT resistant to European diseases.

——————————-
I’m not trying to minimize the contributions that Europeans developed and added to our common culture over hundreds, even thousands of years.

But right wing white male supremacists like “Amused Observer” look at the rich and colorful tapestry of human history and selectively only see the white threads.

They’ve made very thoughtful counterpoints to many of the right winger’s assertions.

Traditional in this sense is pretty much a mathmatical term. Who were these guys? The vast majority numerically speaking were…

Ideal if measured by thier accomplishments, who has accomplished the most or who has accomplished the best followed by what ever metric you determine best measures what ever you might be measuring for.

Amused, Savage believes that those who represent “the epitome of all that’s right with America” can be identified through a certain combination of racial (white), gendered (male), sexual (heterosexual) and cultural (christian) categories.

If that’s the case, what combination of categories represent the epitome of what’s wrong with America? Certainly white, heterosexual Christian males cannot represent both the epitome and the antithesis of all that’s right with America, so it must be some other combination of OTHER demographic categories which represents the antithesis. Correct?

And, is this the group that is also demonizing straight white dudes? Somebodies doing that, too.

Or is their no agent implied in the second clause of Savage’s sentence? It just is, that white dudes are made out to be beasts?

The verb “made” has no subject, only an object? Really? It’s a strange metaphysical world you live in.

Hey, perfesser, if heterosexual christian white men are being made out as beasts in this county, somebody must be doing that? Correct? I’m not adding that fact to the sentence. That is its implicit meaning.

Savage refuses to go on an identify this group of people who are demonizing the poor, downtrodden heterosexual christian white male. Why do you think he refuses to do so?

Since you are also refusing to do so, maybe you’d like to tell us why?

I think Repack says all that needs to be said in response above, but I’ll just add, Amused, that you yourself agree “People live in the context of thier times.” That being the case, it’s a little disingenuous, as Repack suggests, to hold out the accomplishments of straight, white, christian males in America as somehow indicative of innate, native ability when that same class was busy denying opportunities for just about everybody else.

Hell, women couldn’t even vote until the early 20th century. Does it make any sense then to argue that straight white christian men were just better political leaders than women due to their innate values and abilities, for the first 144 years of the country? Not really.

I called you bigoted for your assumption that this group is overrepresented in our history through some innate ability rather than its power to deny access to others and its power to write its own history, and for ignoring any bad effects on our country that came out of the same group. If you are going to trumpet the successes of that group, you must also compare their failures.

How many genocidal racists of the 19th Century were WHCM? What percentage of slave owners were WCHM?

Weren’t the treasonous rebels who seceded in 1861 primarily WCHMs? Following that up, would you argue my claim that the overwhelming majority of traitors to the United States fit the same demographic whose successes you are trumpeting? At least treason is an equal opportunity.

You are being arguementative over things have not mentioned because your original line of reasoning doesn’t stand up.

Let us examine the troublesome sentence with the word epitome replaced by it’s meaning,

The white Christian heterosexual married male is the typical or ideal example of everything right with America, and yet it is the white Christian heterosexual married male who has been made the beast of America.”

What is the subject of the sentence? What words are adjectives and what is the verb? What makes the first part racist? And the second part which is what the sentence is actualy about, your
charactorization of being brought down by inferior others is another strawman created in your mind, it is not found in the written text.

Your second theory does not hold water either. The typical or ideal of what makes America right is not by itself an arbitrarily exclusive term. The adjectives that modify the subject can not simply be reversed to achieve a valid statement that describes the antitheses of what’s good in America. We live in an anologue not digital world.

But Oliver deliberately uses editing and inflammatory ledes for propaganda purposes. That is his primary function here.

There goes the “Christian” premise you are defending. How do you know that all these Jewish academics were heterosexual?

Jews were the despised minority in Europe for centuries, unable to achieve success until the restrictions on their entry to the halls of power were removed, and forced by Christian-dominated guild laws to confine much of their business activities to banking.

So it is with all demographics. As long as WCHMs controlled access to powerful positions, they were overrepresented there.

I live in a part of the country where people of Asian, African and Hispanic descent are well-represented among the most successful, Jewish not so much because of the local demographics, and where women and open homosexuals once denied access are doing as well as their WCHM counterparts.

If your claim is that a demographic with the ability to limit the access of others has a higher rate of success in the areas they keep others out of, I will agree with it, but that does not mean other demographics do not have the same abilities when permitted to express them.

You see, Amused, I don’t see anything mitigating about the full sentence. In fact, I think the second clause simply extends the racist thought as it portrays the SHWHM as a victim of inferior others.

In other words, it doesn’t mitigate the racism of the first sentence, it actually justifies it.

If you think I’m wrong, complete Savage’s thought. If the epitome of “everything right with America” can understood and expressed through racial, gendered, sexual and cultural categories, then we should be able to describe the antithesis of all that’s good in American using the same terms.

Would you care to have a whack at describing them?

Refers specifically to you accurately deconstructing Savage’s sentence strucure and understanding the differences in meaning between his actual statement and the version Oliver put up edited for propaganda purposes.

Which in turn has nothing to do with the strawman you set up below.

“Right. Because you’re understanding of the history of the white hetersexual Christian male isn’t clouded at all by anything personal, Mr. My Relatives Came Over On the May Flower.”

“That’s some serious bigotry, Amused. I can see why we don’t agree on anything. We live in different moral universes.”

“And where specifically is the bigotry in my statement? It’s true and casts no aspersions on other people, it merely states what actually happened.

That’s where we part company. You believe that is true, and I don’t. If you believe your statement is a quantifiable fact, show me the numbers and tell me where you got them.

What, no data? Q’elle surprise”

You call me a bigot and then state your disbelief in my statements. When pressed you bring forth a selective qualifier.
Your statement regarding contruction south of the Mason Dixon line is quite misleading. The bulk of the white population did not hold slaves and many of those who did not built most everything themselves. Your point on music is well made but glosses over the traditions of Irish jigs and English ballads. Bluegrass in particular has deep roots in the fiddle playing of early mountaineers of scotch irish extraction.

You are quite correct in lauding the efforts of jews in America, as a group they are our smartest and scientifically most able members of our society despite facing quite open discrimination.

But you have no case for your accusations of bigotry or any real evidence to negate the gist of my statement. In short, the way you feel has greater sway over your statements than the way you think.

Right. Because you’re understanding of the history of the white hetersexual Christian male isn’t clouded at all by anything personal, Mr. My Relatives Came Over On the May Flower.

You seem to have a lot personally invested in the reputation of the white Christian heterosexual male and the ongoing recognition of his awesomeness.

So Mr. Objectivity, please think a little bit on how your understanding of the awesomeness of the straight white christian male relates to your other statement that “People live in the context of thier times.”