Norways Dark Secret, The Lebensborn, ABBA

By the way, no one should make the mistake that this sort of casual racism was limited to the Germans, the Norge and the Swedes. The White Man's Burden was written to advise the Americans about the responsibilities they were assuming for their "inferior" brown brothers after the Spanish war. The French, who have about the best record of treatment of native peoples among European colonizers, spoke of their mission civilizatrice, their "civilizing mission," with regard to their colonies. (Note also that being colonized by someone who treats you better than any other nation would do is about as charming as being enslaved by the kindest of slave masters--no one yearns to be colonized.)

Theodore Roosevelt described Margaret Sanger as a "race traitor" because she advocated birth control, and he firmly believed that the "white races" must assure that they reproduced to keep their dominance over all other races. We can look beyond France, England and the United States to Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa for other examples of "white" societies which institutionalized racism.

The Germans may be the most blatantly obvious, but they are not alone by any means.

0 Replies

Well said, I never knew about Roosevelt's views.

0 Replies

It seems to me that the French had nothing against black intellectuals, writers and poets in the colonies.

http://french.about.com/library/bl-negritude.htm

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Theodore Roosevelt described Margaret Sanger as a "race traitor" because she advocated birth control, and he firmly believed that the "white races" must assure that they reproduced to keep their dominance over all other races.

He no doubt honestly believed that whites were the superior race, but he also was said to have treated non-white individuals who were well-educated and with "high" morals as equals. For example, he was the first president to invite a black man (Booker T Washington) to the White House as a guest. He was also the first president to appoint blacks to lower level federal positions. At the very least, his respect for blacks came during the days Buffalo Soldiers teamed with his Rough Riders.

While the label fits, it doesn't do him justice to simply leave it at that. In his era, being racist was very envogue and he was still a politician. By the standards of his day, he was a n****rlover.

0 Replies

Kratos wrote:

While the label fits, it doesn't do him justice to simply leave it at that.

Doing "justice" to Theodore Roosevelt, Jr., is not in the scope of this thread.

Quote:

In his era, being racist was very envogue and he was still a politician.

That such attitudes were common was exactly my point.

Quote:

By the standards of his day, he was a n****rlover.

Nonsense.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Doing "justice" to Theodore Roosevelt, Jr., is not in the scope of this thread.

So sue me.

Quote:

That such attitudes were common was exactly my point.

And the fact that his case wasn't a simple one is mine.

Quote:

Nonsense.

That's contradictory to your previous statement. If racist atitudes were the norm for his day, then he was most assuredly viewed as a n-lover for his entertaining of Booker T and various appointments.

0 Replies

It does not contradict my previous statement at all. That certain portions of the population were effulgently white supremecist while a significant portion of the rest of the population were only casuaully so would easily account for a small number of the population indulging the disgusting epithet you used, without authorizing a blanket statement that he was generally viewed in that term.

0 Replies

One thing I never knew was a movement called the 'Bund". Nazi sympathizers in the US.
Stranger than fiction, lol.
.
http://rexcurry.net/pledgebund.html

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

It does not contradict my previous statement at all. That certain portions of the population were effulgently white supremecist while a significant portion of the rest of the population were only casuaully so would easily account for a small number of the population indulging the disgusting epithet you used, without authorizing a blanket statement that he was generally viewed in that term.

What makes you so certain that the majority of the population was only casually racist? This was the same era which came up with crap like the Chinese Exclusion Act.

0 Replies

detano inipo wrote:

One thing I never knew was a movement called the 'Bund". Nazi sympathizers in the US.
Stranger than fiction, lol.

It's more than impossible that htey were Nazi sympathisers, at least not in 1889.

0 Replies

Kratos wrote:

Setanta wrote:
It does not contradict my previous statement at all. That certain portions of the population were effulgently white supremecist while a significant portion of the rest of the population were only casuaully so would easily account for a small number of the population indulging the disgusting epithet you used, without authorizing a blanket statement that he was generally viewed in that term.

What makes you so certain that the majority of the population was only casually racist? This was the same era which came up with crap like the Chinese Exclusion Act.

Actually, by the time Roosevelt was in office, he was obliged to deal with the then relatively new racism against the Japanese in California. Casually racist was still racist--my point is that i think you ascribe a degree of virulence in the population as a whole which is not warranted.

******************************************

Walter's point about the German-American Bund is well taken. There is a special irony in that many Germans came to American after 1848 to seek a "liberal" atmosphere after the ruthless oppression of the socialist movement in Europe. Many of the "Forty-eighters" fought in Mr. Lincoln's army on a principle--people such as Franz Siegel and Louis Blenker were already recognized community leaders among Germans who had come to America after 1848.

By 1935, the German-American Bund was well-established, and it is twenty-twenty hindsight to make accusations against them simply because they were enamoured of Hitler at a time when no one knew what National Socialism would lead to. A great many people in several nations considered Hitler and his programs (which were not original to the National Socialists, althought that was generally not known then) to be praiseworthy. The then great American hero Charles Lindberg was enamoured of Hitler and the National Socialists, and visited Germany, where the Nazis, ever mindful of good publicity, made much of him.

However, in both the Great War, and the Second World War, Americans of German descent "answered their nation's call" to fight the Germans. There is very little evidence that the Bund ever presented a real danger to the United States.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Kratos wrote:
Setanta wrote:
It does not contradict my previous statement at all. That certain portions of the population were effulgently white supremecist while a significant portion of the rest of the population were only casuaully so would easily account for a small number of the population indulging the disgusting epithet you used, without authorizing a blanket statement that he was generally viewed in that term.

What makes you so certain that the majority of the population was only casually racist? This was the same era which came up with crap like the Chinese Exclusion Act.

Actually, by the time Roosevelt was in office, he was obliged to deal with the then relatively new racism against the Japanese in California. Casually racist was still racist--my point is that i think you ascribe a degree of virulence in the population as a whole which is not warranted.

The Chinese Exclusion Act obviously took a majority vote to pass. It's not out of the question to assume that the legislators who passed this represented the general atitude of their constituents, the population as a whole. What, IYO, makes my implied assertion of extremely virulent racism "unwarranted"?

I'm looking for an answer that goes deeper than "because I said so".

0 Replies

If you had a different tone, i might be inclined to answer. One does wonder just precise how it is that you think you can "charm" an response out of someone in that manner.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

If you had a different tone, i might be inclined to answer. One does wonder just precise how it is that you think you can "charm" an response out of someone in that manner.

You're complaining about my tone? Laughable. Do you pay much attention to your own tone when ridiculing some ignorant IDer/creationist? If you've read my "tone" to be belligerent, then there's likely a reason for it. A simple, one-word response such as "nonsense" can easily be interpreted as dismissive and smarmy. If your intention was otherwise, then I'll apologize for my "tone".

I'm not looking to get into some pissing contest with you. It's obvious that you're a very knowledgeable guy, especially in the realm of history. I ask again, what is it that makes you believe my assertion of virulent racism to be false/exaggerated?

0 Replies

"The name of the game" was quite a nice ABBA song, btw.

0 Replies

I was always fond of ABBA, although i would not always publicly admit it. I have a thing for female vocalists, though, and those two were good.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I was always fond of ABBA, although i would not always publicly admit it. I have a thing for female vocalists, though, and those two were good.

I'd never admitted it - only got my coming out with some ABBA-revival band Embarrassed

0 Replies

I would have loved to have seen that, Walter.

0 Replies

Theodore Roosevelt, Jr. not only invited Mr. Washington to dine at the White House, he appointed a Jew to his cabinet, a first in United States history. The contention that he were viewed by the nation in the unfortunate term used to describe him based on his race relations policy is beggared by the popularity he enjoyed throughout his career after 1901.

In 1904, Roosevelt polled fractionally over 56% of the popular vote, and took 336 electoral votes, with only 239 needed to win. That is the greatest proportional plurality by any candidate in a contested election (Washington was twice elected unopposed, and James Monroe was unopposed in his second term). His Democratic opponent received 140 electoral votes. Kentucy and Maryland were the only states north of "the Old South" which he did not take in that election. One might suggest a racist motive in Southern voting, but this would ignore the solid Democratic character of Southern voting in national elections in the entire period from the election of Lincoln until the election of Reagan. Even were one to assert that the motive for Southern voting in 1904 was racist, his plurality suggests that the degree of "casual racism" in the public were not so significantly virulent as the other member seems to suggest.

Additionally, in 1912, when Roosevelt ran against his "protege" Taft, whom he considered had betrayed their "radical" Republican roots--he managed to take seven states in the electoral vote, compared to Taft's two. This was undoubtedly the spoiler, which allowed Wilson to "bury" Taft in the electoral college, in which Wilson took 435 votes. However, Wilson only took 41% of the popular vote, and Roosevelt took 27%, well ahead of Taft's 23%. Given that Roosevelt survived a failed assassination attempt, and the blocking of an anti-trust plank by the Progressive Party's financial backers shocked those who saw him as a reformer, he nevertheless showed better than the Republican candidate.

Therefore, i consider a contention that Roosevelt were seen by Americans to be the type of person described in the other member's unfortunate characterization, or that the nation as a whole were sufficiently, racially motivated for that to have mattered to be nonsense.

Norways Dark Secret, The Lebensborn, ABBA

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know

Norways Dark Secret, The Lebensborn, ABBA

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know

Norways Dark Secret, The Lebensborn, ABBA