"Very Fine People on Both Sides"

I'm sure everybody here remembers those words Trump used when discussing the Charlottesville protest.

The mdeia narrative was was mostly a repudiation of those words... basically saying that there really wasn't fine people on both sides... only one side. People who were there to object to removing historic statues were labelled as racists. I always thought that was nothing more than weak politcal journalism at best.

Circle back to today where we have daily protests full of people who cheer for a terrorist group that raped, slaughtered, and captured 1400+ Israelis and foreigners. I think many of these protestors probably are fine people who are just ignortant to the facts because of what they've been taught.

So, do we use the same standards as were used to go after Trump? Are all these anti-Israel protestors horrible racists/anti-Semites or are there some "fine" people in there too?

Good point. I am sure there are plenty of Palestinians who hate Hamas and what they do to innocents. And also plenty of liberal Israelis who don't like what their government does either, especially now.

Protesters supporting Hamas? I hope they get educated quickly and find out they are supporting genocidal terrorists who want to eliminate the state of Israel.

FredHayek wrote:
Protesters supporting Hamas? I hope they get educated quickly and find out they are supporting genocidal terrorists who want to eliminate the state of Israel.

These are the same people who support antifa and BLM... their indoctrination runs deep and there's really no cure for it.

Just think about what Trump said after Charlottesville and compare that to what the moron squad is saying about the Israel slaughter and the Hamas sympathizers. I also ask, where is the white supremacy threat that Biden's been squealing about for the lasty 3 years? Democrats just made that up expecting us to somehow believe it.

Not surprisingly, American white supremacists are showing up at pro-Palestinian and/or pro-Hamas rallies. Someone asked where the American white supremacists are. We all know they're here. We all know basically what their agenda is. And, well, they're currently taking advantage of the anti-semitism engendered by the current conflict. Fine people? I think not.

George,
Unfortunately I am too dense to understand your reasoning. Pray tell why should white suprermacists support a group of "rag heads" (as they are purportedly called)? Also how are they taking advantage of the anti-semitism engendered by the current conflict?
No, we don't all know. Please explain.

I see a lot more liberal socialists at these demonstrations than Klan hoods. Please show me evidence of Confederate flags or Nazi Swastikas in American demonstrations supporting the end of Israel.

GeorgeM wrote: Not surprisingly, American white supremacists are showing up at pro-Palestinian and/or pro-Hamas rallies. Someone asked where the American white supremacists are. We all know they're here. We all know basically what their agenda is. And, well, they're currently taking advantage of the anti-semitism engendered by the current conflict. Fine people? I think not.

Would you mind submitting your PROOF? How exactly do you know this? Do you have video evidence nobody else has access to? It sounds like you have very strong feelings that are backed up by nothing more than your feelings. Prove me wrong please.

HARVARD sourced

Excerpt from “Teaching White Supremacy: America’s Democratic Ordeal and the Forging of Our National Identity” by Donald Yacovone, Associate, Hutchins Center for African & African American Research

Several years ago I began a study of the antislavery movement’s legacy. I focused on the century after 1865 to understand how the “collective” or “popular” memory of the original freedom struggle helped create the modern civil rights movement. As part of this project, I wanted to measure how abolitionism had been presented in our nation’s K–12 school textbooks. I naïvely imagined a quick look at a few volumes and then a speedy return to my primary research. Instead, I found myself overwhelmed by the collection of nearly 3,000 U.S. history textbooks, dating from about 1800 to the 1980s, at the Monroe C. Gutman Library at Harvard University’s Graduate School of Education.

I plunged in and resurfaced with a solid sense of what schoolbooks were like before 1865 — so I could fully grasp the later history of the history I wished to understand. But in a clear inversion of Robert Frost’s “The Gift Outright,” I was the collection’s before the collection was mine. Within a short time, I found myself immersed in a study of how slavery, race, abolitionism, and the Civil War and Reconstruction have been taught in our nation’s K–12 schoolbooks from about 1832 to the present.

One morning as I examined a library cart bursting with about 50 elementary, grammar, and high school history textbooks, a bright red spine reached out to me through time and space. Why is this familiar? I wondered. As I opened the book, it all came rushing back. Somehow I had never forgotten the book’s image of Eli Whitney, included not for his notorious cotton gin but instead for “inventing” the concept of interchangeable parts — thus laying the groundwork for industrialization. “Exploring the New World,” by O. Stuart Hamer, Dwight W. Follett, Benjamin F. Ahlschwede, and Herbert H. Gross — published and reprinted between 1953 and 1965 — had been assigned in my fifth-grade social studies class in Saratoga, Calif.

Just like a legion of the early textbooks I had been reading, “Exploring the New World” never mentioned the antislavery movement. Slaves, on the other hand, proved necessary to pick cotton — “Who else would do the work?” the authors asked. This textbook, and nearly all the texts I reviewed, was not published by a Southern segregationist press, and certainly not by the Klan or other far-right publishers — although such presses emerged with a vengeance in the 1920s and still operate, especially online. No, the thousands of textbooks that have stained the minds of generations of students, from the elementary grades to college, were produced almost entirely by Northern publishing houses, situated mostly in New York, Boston, and Chicago, and by Northern-trained scholars and education specialists.

At the same time, however, my fifth-grade textbook also stated that the people of the North did not believe that men and women “should be bought and sold.” “Exploring the New World,” published during the Cold War, followed the same pattern set at the close of the 19th century, seeking sectional reconciliation regarding issues related to slavery and the Civil War. Its authors also wished to avoid cultural strife (and the reality of slavery and racism) and promoted national unity in the early 1960s by asserting that during the Civil War everyone (white) was brave, everyone (white) fought for principle, and Gen. Robert E. Lee represented all that was noble, gallant, and heroic in American society. “His name is now loved and respected in both North and South,” they explained. “We know that he was not only a gallant Southern hero but a great American.” What we have been teaching our children for nearly all American history suddenly became real, and personal.

The depth, breadth, and durability of American white supremacy and racial prejudice is certainly no revelation to modern historians and social analysts, Black and white. To understand why it has proved so dominant, so irresistibly appealing, even essential, we must survey its development and range. No better place exists to trace that development and cultural importance than in the long history of the nation’s textbooks. Embodying the values to be treasured by rising generations of Americans, textbook authors passed on ideas of white American identity from generation to generation. Writers crafted whiteness as a national inheritance, a way to preserve the social construction of American life and, ironically, its democratic institutions and values. Given the extent of the nation’s belief in white supremacy, one would be astonished if it had not been a guiding principle of our textbooks.

Of course belief in white supremacy and Black inferiority existed long before the creation of the American republic and, along with a sincere — but not contradictory — belief in democratic republicanism, always has occupied the center of the American soul. James Baldwin, the celebrated African American writer and critic, recalled in 1965 that “I was taught in American history books that Africa had no history and that neither had I. I was a savage about whom the least said the better, who had been saved by Europe and who had been brought to America.” After school, he returned home and thought, “Of course, that this was an act of God. You belonged where white people put you.”

And it always had been so.

teaching White Supremacy

In the 1920s, for instance, if an African American student had asked a teacher why no Black people appeared in their history textbook, the answer would be that African Americans “had done nothing to merit inclusion.” As the Black scholar Charles H. Wesley reported in 1925, through textbooks and classroom instruction, the Black student quickly realized that “his badge of color in America is a sign of subjugation, inferiority and contempt.” In 1939, the NAACP surveyed popular American history textbooks, and as one Black student concluded from the association’s findings, since textbooks “drilled” white supremacy “into the minds of growing children, I see how hate and disgust is motivated against the American Negro.”

Surveying American history school textbooks from the early 19th century to the present day provides a profound insight into the full depth of the national commitment to white supremacy. It also allows us to trace exactly how white supremacy and Black inferiority have been drilled into student minds generation after generation. In addition this exploration focuses on the responsibility of Northern leaders and educators for the creation and dissemination of white supremacy and construction of the “color line.”

For most of modern American history, scholarship and popular thought have blamed the legacy of Southern slavery for the distressing persistence of racial inequality. And of course, slave owners and their descendants do possess a unique and lethal responsibility for racial suppression. But it is also the case that if no slaves ever existed in the South, Northern white theorists, religious leaders, intellectuals, writers, educators, politicians, and lawyers would have invented a lesser race (which is what happened) to build white democratic solidarity, and in that way make democratic culture and political institutions possible. As one of our greatest authors, Toni Morrison, once explained, in the United States the rights of man were “inevitably yoked to Africanism.” In other words, American democracy depended on Black inequality to sustain white equality.

Harvard is the same university that supports global terrorists over innocent Israelis. Hamas who gunned and decapitated innocents at a peace concert.

HA, I wish you would just use your own words instead of posting a bunch of Harvard garbage. I don't really want some random leftist's lesson on past racism, I'm lookin g for CURRENT EVIDENCE that white supremacists occupy our country in SIGNIFICANT NUMBERS with SIGNIFICANT numbers of crimes we can see with our own eyes. I'd like it if George came back to backup his claim since he is the one that made it. If I wanted a really bad lesson on who is racist and who isn't, I'd watch that horrible human Joy Reid.