Time spent listening to DrRichardson is time well spent, no matter the episode, how old it is, or where you happen to pick up from last time, always end up with new info, new clues.
In the 80s, I was telling friends that the South had actually won the Civil War and they looked at me like I was crazy. Meanwhile, I thought they weren’t paying attention. Good to see that HCR took on this topic.
Equality and democracy only works when people are educated, and home owners, when people are kept ignorant and poor, then there is inequality and ruled by the wealthy, who are protected by home owners, which is why the 2007/8 was to take away home ownership from those who were poor or middle class, the wealthy need the poor for who would serve or do the work, the kids of the wealthy or affluent would become lawyers, doctors, politicians, entertainers (actors) mostly those who come from the upper class, but it’s not what you know but who you know, this was very good, but doesn’t tell the whole story, bureaucracy is about preventing change…
and the trouble every bureaucracy goes to to prevent change would have been enough to build Utopias. Education, Health, Housing etc all end up by now as only office boy stamp carriers for whatever industrial interest is relevant. Transport still holds out a bit. Interesting to watch.
@Gary Johnson so is your solution to prohibit voting for those who don't own property or limit the population to only homeowners? In either case there are inevitable problems.
@@bruggeman672 obviously you misunderstood my comment, the real-estate industry is making home ownership unaffordable except for wealthy investors, I sad othing about restricting voting to only home owners, rents are out of control, while income remains stagnate and promotes homelessness...greed is killing democracy...
I am still amazed at how seemingly reasonable adults can allow their emotions to so frequently interfere with their ability to think critically and communicate effectively. Reading is Fundamental.
Critical thinking and objective reasoning is a faculty that has been intentionally leached from the Average American Mind. As a result We, as a nation, are allowing ourselves to be led like sheep towards a fate that none of us would have chosen for ourselves. It is good to be old.
As of Nov 20th, 2020 Biden turned 78 & is elected 46th president . In addition, back in 1952, Winston Churchill was 78 & prime minister of England. Consequently, there’s another reason why Bernie didn’t make it as the nominee of the Democratic Party. I think that Both Republicans & Democrats has created FEAR of liberalism. Democrats have become Republicans little helper. That’s my opinion.
Yep,good point. Reagan effectively turned "liberal" into a dirty word,to the degree that"liberal democracy",which any staunch Conservative American should be in favor of,is now ready to be abandoned by the radicalized far right.
I am a newcomer to Prof. Richardson’s work, having discovered her blog in December 2020. Not to toot my own horn, but for years I have ruminated on how politics, for the South, has been war by other means, and largely successful at that. This is the book I should have written. If I was smart enough.
@@joseornelas1718 not sure. It seems to me any healthy democracy needs a modicum of compromise and consensus,rather than a battle of wills (war by other means).
@@fretnesbutke3233 Well Clauswitz was making a general comment about wars/politics from the view of the state. I would agree that INTERNALLY the body politic needs to use genteel means. But when WORLDVIEWS diverge somebody needs to acknowledge that and not just paper over everything. Politicians of course try to fake consensus, and kick the can down the road.
@@joseornelas1718 Clauswitz said Diplomacy is war by other means, or the other way round. War is diplomacy by other means. Politics in this case does not mean anything much like what Clauswitz meant by diplomacy. Either way without compromise, horse dealing, trade offs and negotiation the result is war particularly when there appears to be absolute divergences. And then you run up against the business of "appeasement". WW2 etc. Politicians manufacture myths about others and themselves and there is nothing but air to negotiate with and its off to war again.
It was Malcolm X who pointed out in the 60s that the South had won the civil war...and they did as of to day we live in a nation where the citizen is still enslaved.
My mother taught history. Here is something she told me: The Union “won” the Civil War, but the plantation owners and wealthy land owners in the South lost very little. Many gained stability and security during Reconstruction,as well as wealth (often power of influence) that almost always passed down to heirs.
That's an obvious lie. Just look at the reconstruction era taxation of wealthy land owners, southern included. It was outrageous. And that's obviously setting aside the 1/3 or so of their total holdings that was slaves. And setting aside all the land outright stolen/appropriated by the feds during the war itself. Your mom is obviously either having a different definition of "losses" as everyone else, papering over losses or is a good bit ignorant on that sub-subject. That being said, yes many of them managed to recover somewhat over a decade or two, but that isn't the same as them losing very little. They lost quite a bit, and then basically had a lost decade or two playing catch up, and quite a few never recovered (economy changes etc.).
I wonder how popular culture worked to reformulate that as tragic loss for white people in the South - the whole "Gone with the Wind" thing, and the politics of resentment. I remember the Civil Rights movement and how viscious that was - now, for the past 50 years, we've just been on a treadmill, going nowhere.
@Grant Withers I'll give you some credit because I oversimplified things. Obviously much of the south was devastated, just look at Atlanta. But when the dust started to settle, and reconstruction began, _many_ plantation owners, many wealthy land owners, were able to recoup much of what they had lost. Most of their land, and very cheap labor (if not outright slaves, though some slaves were not truly free until many years later) for years to come. The concept that blacks would each get 40 acres and a mule was obviously an empty promise, and I doubt it would have come true even if Lincoln had lived, and some of the harsh anti-slavery Union officers and generals had completely wiped out all Confederate leaders like they wanted. I'm also not going to whitewash the fact that racism existed in the north, even if slavery did not. Or that opportunities for blacks, while much greater in the north than south. It took another 20 years before Howard University really started graduating students who could truly find meaningful work. Some may argue it took 100 years. But the flat notion that the entire south lost everything, especially the irrational "Lost Cause" myth has whitewashed not only history in the south, but across all of America. Greed, power, wealth, and wealthy landowners, again, for the most part, came out ahead far quicker than anyone. And blacks? They may have no longer been slaves, but it took until at least Martin Luther King before people really started to address injustices they had endured for over a century.
@@PhilAndersonOutside Thanks Phil. This is pretty much my current understanding of what happened. I grew up in Texas and there were Confederate memorials in local town squares, outside the court house. People talked about "Yankees", which was not a term of endearment. I don't remember a lot of what I was taught in school - that was more than 50 years ago - but I do remember American history books and the Reconstruction chapters dwelling on "Carpetbaggers" and the evil of this group. Slavery was pretty much regarded as "solved" and no mention Jim Crow, segregation, or civil rights (these textbooks had been redacted before the Civil Rights movement).
@@MCJSA It was tragic for the Elite 😲 Because their most highly valued asset, the slaves were gone, overnight! But they got back at them with sharecropping. They also kept their " culture " and " HERITAGE " With Jim Crow!...once REDEMPTION set in, after 1876.
"Rank choice" is actually "Preferential Voting", which is the House of Representatives" option used in Australia....which just chucked out a cabal of mouth breathing knuckle dragging boof heads after 9 long years. Preferential voting works.
Ranked choice is not as good though as proportional representation and it really did not work in Australia since all it did was replace the government with the major opposition party, which is exactly how even first past the post tends to work over the course of several elections. Ranked choice voting, in fact, becomes simply an instant runoff between the top two candidates and it does nothing to propel third parties (such as the Greens that received more than 12% of the vote in the last Australian election) to a seat share that is anywhere close to their popular vote percentage (unlike what would occur if we use proportional representation). Under proportional representation, Australia would have likely meant a much more Green friendly (and thus a likely much more left wing) Australia for the past decade than their current ranked choice voting ever could deliver.
Huge supporter of rank choice voting. But it really must be coupled with open primaries. That is, it doesn't matter what party you register with (or no party at all), you can vote for whomever you want on your ballot. Here's what the general result most likely is: Candidate from X party can no longer just placate to the extremes in their party during the primaries, knowing the vocal loyalists are most likely to show up to vote. Then, have to change their tune again when it comes to the general election. That won't be a driving force any more. The candidate can just be themselves throughout the entire campaign. A good example of this is Alaska, where Lisa Murkowski, a center-right Republican, who has a platform very similar to most Alaskans, was able to sail to re-election, and remains very popular in her state, and respected by the majority of politicians. I live in Oregon, and an intelligent, center-left Democrat who I support on about 80% of the issues was just primaried out by a far-left progressive. Had this been an open primary with rank choice voting, I seriously doubt this would have happened. Now, the district is likely to be ideologically divided even more than before. Sad.
@@drmadjdsadjadi Agreed. Proportional representation would mean that every vote counts (so very untrue in the US now) and also that government would most likely be run by coalitions most of the time. I'm not sure how it would work in voting for President or Governor, unless we used a parliamentary system like England's.
@@drmadjdsadjadi I think the Greens will make their presence felt at least 12% of whatever its measured in. Just from how supporters talked I'd thought they'd got very much more than 12%!
Dr. Richardson, I appreciate your work and contribution to American history studies. I do understand your position. However . . . your seeing Confederate ideology as moving west in contradistinction to simultaneous white, male supremacy in the east sets aside certain facts. I’ll mention two. One, that interpretation belies the simultaneous reality of the pioneer woman (white, black, Indian, mixed) as the indefatigable woman who plowed before dawn and saved the farm or ranch when husband died of illness, or gunshot. Weren’t the first US women to vote in the West? And second, the epitome of American literature with its quiet yet overt message of equality was banned in Boston. Boston is not in the west but was horrified about what Huck Finn said. After pondering by the river, Huck said that if helping Jim stay free meant going to hell, so be it, he’d go to hell. Is that *not* white, male “Confederate” ideology just because Yankees did the banning? I’d go on with your other points, but that’s pointless as you’ll never read this.
When these podcasters are surrounded by books its very nice the way it seems just like home, the room where the screen is sitting on the table here. You could do a cartoon.
Read the Mississippi history book produced by WPA program. You will find that when Ms. entered the Union, there was little separation between church and state due to Catholic influence but when the Chickasaw land was ceded later to the state, Protestant settlers moved in and took over politics in the state and rewrote the state constitution with clear separation between church and state. One of the clearest separations in constitutions that exist. I’ll also add, as I was reared in Mississippi, on my first trip to Germany in 1979, you could look around and realize that there was no Marshall plan for Mississippi.
I will grant, in the context of the Founders' time, they introduced the seeds of some worthy concepts of equality. THEN WERE PERFECTLY OK WITH ENSLAVING HUMAN BEINGS. Even giving the southern slave states hugely more political power based on their slave populations.
Perhaps an interesting note. In the middle ages (and beyond) in Britain, there were various levels of 'freedom'. Chattel slavery became rarer and rarer, but servile peasants (serfs) also existed. Then there were tenants. None of these classes had nearly the same rights as landowners. Adam Smith is also a relevant read. PS: Some of what Richardson is saying here also helps explain why modern 'conservatives' in the USA get so apoplectic about MMT. It undermines the redistribution narrative.
Disease, largely, "freed" those not part of the ruling class. Middle age post-plague population levels made workers, wealth creators for landowners, a scarce resource. Those not compensated well enough for their efforts, literally, walked to an estate which recognised the value of their labour. The organic beginning of Unions?
@@tangentreverent4821 Modern Monetary Theory. A theory how sovereign fiat money works. Very basically... Gov creates money by spending, and destroys it by taxation. A government can spend however much it wants, but adding too much money too quickly can create inflation. In addition to destroying money, taxes also create demand for money to pay those taxes (increasing the value of the currency).
Hey caller, Chris from Vermont, we may in fact be stronger and smarter in a state of equality. But we're certainly not smarter as a society not firmly dedicated to the free exchange of ideas. This leads to less smart, quite obviously, and from there, the same weakness we see in closed and information-managed societies. There's one side, despite what used to be the case in the past, that right now seems to have little interest in fixing the authoritarian derailment of academia. And then we have flirtations with pressuring social media to get in on the act. The idea of controlling lies is great, until you start trying to design its means.
Biden is too old, but Biden isn't the charismatic leader of a movement. He could drop dead and 'his' administration (or political faction) would carry on.
Also that Sanders didn't have the votes. He didn't have the votes in 2020 because there was a coordination for most of the other candidates to drop out and endorse Biden. Obama was calling them asking them to drop out.
@@paigerasmussen5212, this video is 3 years old today. So the argument about age is fairly new. People today also point out that Trump is only 3 years younger than Biden. The way she brings that up is exactly the argument People made against Biden. Now I do think we have a demographic problem today in government. Most of the leaders and real power centers in government today are controlled by the Boomer generation. We have a geriatric government running on geriatric, post WWII ideas. This is not an argument against age but pro youth. That is that you have to build you movement evenly so that you have leaders of every age group so that you have experienced leaders ready to take over and also to have a broader appeal, and newer ideas.
46:00 FYI my parents who were Republicans noticed a take over of the party in the late 1970s and not the conservatives that they were. They felt them to be like interlopers of sorts although my parents supported things like the Young Republicans and voted a straight Republican ticket in 1964. Like there is not a lot of nuanced view by Republicans now with the differences Bush Republicans, Trump or Libertarian Republicans. I doubt is they would have been able to explain the differences between their ideology and Buckley directly although small businessmen before Buckley were not cozy with big corporations.
"Nuanced view..." Do you mean nuanced diversity/diversity of view? Either way, I think to some degree you're a victim of a gerrymandered factual stream. The factions that have shown up within the Republican party are still there, while admittedly some have given their cheers and voices, provisionally, to Trump (as is what happens in politically binary systems). Furthermore, the picture is in the middle of another shift (analogous to prior shifts like the Christian republican alliance of the 80's, and the long and on-going dance of tenuousness with libertarians). This shift will feature self-described "Classical Liberals." And little of our postulating matters in the face of the fact that it's the "economy, stup#$" Wait for it.
@@mh4zd Your last sentence the crux of the matter on so many level of discourse. That is missing (deliberately) from what is termed so called "moderate" democrats. ¶ I don't know what a "gerrymandered factual stream" is so it is quite possible I'm a victim of it. In what I see in my conversations with Republicans is that they hold a lot of same values as Trump and Trump libertarians whether they have high school or advanced degrees, i.e., they repeat AM radio meme pretty well as a combined group. Trump followers aren't just Larry the Cable Guy or the Neo-Confederate Guy. The broad bush view is probably adequate to the nuanced view.
My sense is that she begins with her conclusion and only then presents evidence (if any) to prove it. Her insistence on drilling the point of the existence of racism and sexism, as if there were no question as to their pervasive existence, only the question of how they took place, probably paints a darker and more exaggerated picture than what probably existed.
There are numerous historical sources that support the claims that racism and sexism were pervasive in the United States in the 19th century. I am not aware of any that challenge it. How is acceptance and support of slavery, lynching, the Indian wars, marital rape, the belief that women should be subordinate to men (which even many women promoted), denial of property rights and voting rights not proof of racism and sexism?
@Abe, I definitely acknowledge that all the human ills of 19th century America existed. My problem with Richardson is that her reason for writing this book seems to be to dredge up all these ills and recast them as if they never ended in order to advance her own political agenda that sees these ills as irrevocable, unredeemable, and interminably current.
@@sophicfire "Pervasive" is a relative term, so not really worth arguing about, as Abe does. I'd say that where she gets muddled is her drawing a line between the past and a particular present dysfunction/sin. Listening long enough, one discovers the thesis: Resistance to socialism is either a conscious stand-in for racism, or is a cultural artifact possessed by potentially non-racist people, but who are passive recipients of a moral conceit passed down from a political move originally made for racist reasons. Lots of words. Lot of history of racism and classism but she fails to notice the onus is on her to address deep, if ultimately subjectively grounded, oppositions to socialism that have zero prima facia emotive call to pro-establishment race preservation. This demuring, and unjust assumption, constitutes its own sort of language creativity (that she seems juiced by on the part of conservatives), albeit, in her case, in the form of paragraphs and books. At the very least, it falls right in the lap of the growing conservative trope that is the leftist that attempts to side-step intellectual rigor and utilize moral shaming to achieve ends, which is just the mark of the pseudo smarty. Lazy. Echo-chamber. Masturbatory.
@@mh4zd Thanks. I agree. I want to add It's not the fact that the ills she explores didn't occur that I have objected to, it's the manner in which these historical ills are exploded back into the present to further a political agenda. The left now routinely does this, of course. What is so infuriating is that the left does this in the face of all reality, i.e. no one wears chains or is whipped chattel, Indians aren't being eradicated, and women aren't repressed or oppressed, etc., anymore, yet people like Richardson don't want you to notice this obvious fact.; that the past isn't the present. No, we are supposed to believe that it is, which is utterly absurd. Grrrrr....
I agree, but just fast forward it. That's what I did. That way they get to do what they want and you get to decide whether you'll listen to that part or not. You're really in much better control here than you'd be if you were actually having to listen to this in person.
I was just warming up to you Dr Richardson, and then your agism about Bernie (not a Bernie backer her but very much an admirer), I do agree he didn't have the votes.
I am very upset that everyone seems to be ignoring the FACT THAT THE DEM POLITICIANS BEGAN TO AND HAVE CONTINUED TO SIMPLY TAKE MORE AND MORE CORPORATE MONEY!!!!!!!
Deeper Dive into her work does recognize what you bring up. Her topic in THIS discussion is on her book. In many of her discussions she regularly speaks to the ills of Dems as well. My take away from her different discussions is , for our current setting, if the population could shake free from blather spun by both parties and the media, we would find that we are all way more aligned in our goals for American Democracy than either faction wants us to recognize, that would threaten their hold on power
As an Australian I would like to lend my support of preferential voting systems. What you called rank choice. We have just had a federal election where you can see it’s owner at work. As a country we have just delivered a message to the noisy conservatives tgat we will not tolerate their obstructionism on important issues such as climate crisis integrity in politics and having a fair and compassionate society. Have a look. It has shaken up our political landscape. The way this h as opened through the publics savvy use of their preferences.
After four years of conflict, the major Confederate armies surrendered to the United States in April of 1865 at Appomattox Court House and Bennett Place.
Our education system does a poor job at teaching foresight, and without the ability to accurately predict there is no way to control and extract useful energy to advance humanity.
I liked this discussion but in the end I feel the lack of addressing white supremacy in a historical sense will ALWAYS leave a schism when are attempting to interpret the historical, socioeconomic realities of how the South lost the physical war but won (and still winning) the proproganda war since 1865. The Lost Cause & the Dunning school of historians and their ilk are still rewriting this history. As a foundational Black American, my lens is one that is schewed toward exactly how & why my people are and have always been on the bottom of America, as a group.
I hope you are well rounded in the history of African slavery especially by the people of Islam who enslaved and killed millions of your people. America did your people a great service by recognizing the problem and doing something about it.
The speaker spoke at some length about white supremacism. There is no doubt she believes racism is a running thread through American history. What might she have said to convince you she takes racism seriously?
@@robertcherry7190 A Foundational Black American is a parent who can trace one of BOTH parental lineages back to the killing fields of antebellum slavery, HERE in the USA. This is an important distinction; THIS is the delineation line for a proper reparations claim.
They (including Bernie) knew, at that time, no presidential candidate dragging a chain labeled socialism (even democratic socialism) was electable in the U.S. He had a huge & highly energized base, but could not pull voters from the middle. This guarantees a loss every time.
@January's Son the statements are not mutually exclusive. There can be voter suppression and Sanders failed to legitimately secure enough votes. If you're suggesting impropriety or illegal acts is there proof?
HCR is an ideologue, and consequently her historical accounts/analyses are inaccurate and anachronistic. For a scholarly consideration of the post-slavery era, I'd suggest looking at historian Eric Foner's work, for starters.
When someone mentions the corner stone speech and makes it absolutely clear they have never read the entire thing (hitting control-f typing in slave and only reading the parts that says slave) they have lost all credibility.
@@robertcherry7190 corner stone speech specifically mnetions tarriffs as a cause for war, and that the south could not build there industry with it. The corner stone speech also states that the republicans didnt care the south had slaves, it just did not want the south to expand slavery to new states, But it also didnt want to give up slave states. In other words the north could not afford to let the south go. Robert E Lee refered to slavery as a moral and political evil. The last part of the cornerstone speech was really dealing with the political evil of slavery (granted the author of the speech would not have viewed it particularly that way). There was a lot of politics in the U.S. surrounding slavery and it for the republicans it basically amounted to you can keep your slaves, but no new slave states so the north will always have more senators than the south.
@@obscurebullshit They mention a lot of reasons, including open boarders, and bloody kansas by name. Their secession document is the longest of the bunch at over 5000 words.
E.micheal Jones wrote many books on this subject alas " barren metal" "Jewish Revolutionary Spirit" and "The Slaughter of Cities" I can't recommend these books enough being the people behind the 1913 take over of American monetary system and income tax
Her argument about libertarianism really is not properly fleshed out. It is true that a libertarianism that fails to recognize that a massive redistribution of wealth will be needed to rectify prior discriminatory action by government that established the current preferential treatment for property owners is highly problematic. However, the notion that there must be a regulated capitalism as opposed to unregulated capitalism to sever this link is simply wrong. Indeed, regulated capitalism will tend to cause the very oligopolies that she fears to a much greater extent that unregulated capitalism ever could because it presupposes a corporate form that is inherently privileged for property owners. The central problem is that any form of capitalism (or even socialism for that matter) will always be fundamentally based on prior historical antecedents unless such a redistribution occurs but if such a redistribution occurs, it does not matter what economic system you have, it will no longer be connected to past racism since you will have corrected this and placed everyone back to initial conditions. One of the key ways to accomplish this is to abolish the corporate form itself, which is a gift by government to the powerful and wealthy to protect their wealth and extent their power in a privileged manner that sole proprietors and partnerships simply do not have. This is not an argument for communism, which is a singularly bad economic philosophy that privileges those in the state power apparatus over all others but rather an argument for a return to the pre-corporate free market era since without corporations neither significant economies of scale nor market power exist and this regulation of business becomes inherently unnecessary. The downside of this, of course, is that we do not get the benefits of scale economies in such a system but given that these particular benefits almost exclusively end up in the hands of the wealthy, I think it is a small price to pay for a massive reduction in government redistribution of wealth that almost always results in the rich getting richer and the poor not receiving a fair shake.
Yes, COBRA was a huge relief for us when my husband lost his job because of George W Bush. This, all the while we had a son in college for Pre-med. Very scary times!
@@barbp2768 COBRA is a joke, unless you are a high wage earner who has lost your insurance through losing your job. You might have a working spouse who can pay it for you, or savings to pay for it until you get another job with health insurance, or are very wealthy. When I aged out of my parents health insurance years ago, I was sent forms to apply for it. It was ridiculous. It was at that point that we all I realized I had to apply for SSDI, so I could get Medicare as an adult disabled child. There was no way for any of us to afford COBRA.
The fact that Africans were rescued from cannibalism should matter And no one has ever been telling the truth about history instead of what you prefer to hear .
That’s funny saying the war was over equality. Think about this. If the south freed the slaves would the union had gone to war with the south? There still would have been the war. And it wasn’t a civil war. Civil wars are two parties fighting for control of the country. The civil war was a war of SECESSION!!! Think about today. Most people pay like 50% or more in taxes. We’re all half slaves. Sure there’s an illusion of freedom but don’t pay your Property taxes and see what happens. We’re all slaves just in a different form. The patriotic act for instance essentially ensured citizens don’t have rights. The government can just invoke national security and all rights go out the window. Think of it this way. Does the U.S. follow the constitution? No and they haven’t for over a hundred years. The constitution says gold is money and with no amendment the federal government changed gold to a commodity and taxes it as such when in reality the constitution says gold is money thus it shouldn’t be taxed. The constitution says direct taxes are fine IF apportioned among the states and yet we still have estate taxes which are direct taxes but not apportioned among the states. Congress says well it’s an excise tax on the PRIVILEGE of passing on wealth. It’s no longer a RIGHT. The federal government has BASTARDIZED the CONSTITUTION and no one cares because big businesses and big government makes bank through massive inflation and are backed by the federal reserve who stops recessions from playing out. Hopefully one day we’ll get a massive depression. People for instance believe the dollar will forever be the global reserve currency. Sure the US overthrew Lybia and iraq when they wanted to stop selling oil in dollars. But if the U.S. did that to Saudi Arabia and Russia which are getting closer to China itd cause a world war. One day things will be made right as history repeats.
Wow, you are like, the opposite of a patriot. I find it hilarious when someone finds a thread of something true to pull on, (like the fact that the oligarchies of the world are in bed together against the common people), and then just fail to understand the other 99% of how the world works
For all of the crying about the false narrative life itself prove power begat power and it passes down for generations & poverty begat the same and it’s pass down. average people stay in their place and the exceptional rises, don’t hate the player hate the game!
This was remarkably stupid... it's embarrassing that someone could be so vague and shallow thinking when writing a book. She spoke for the first 15 minutes without saying anything. I hate when people attempt to sound smart by talking alot to cover for their lack of actual knowledge. Maybe this impresses people who aren't well read... but it's annoying for everyone else.
Well, a lot of knowledge, just not a lot of attention to detail and evidence when making theories about motives. Stories strung together with aspersions and special pleading. Democracy is, she says, subverted by language, as she tortures empiricism, and then Truman only integrated the military due to pressure from the people. Ya. That's democracy. Quit whining about the baddies and get to spreading the love and the effort. Socialism, she says, was moved against, because of racism. Ok. Meanwhile white people across the country are drowning in other white people who won't get off their a@$ and their narcotics and work.
When you look at the night sky, you see billions of stars. You can connect them together any way you choose to create the image you want. That's how she handles facts. For example, she says the Confederate flag is the symbol of the Republican Party. In fact, the most recognizable and most controversial symbol of conservatism is the MAGA hat, popularized by Donald Trump. That's a very clear example that everyone can see, but her other examples are also so bad that they cause me to question her sincerity.
You’re comparing a catch phrase that has been popularised for a little over 4 years to a symbol that was representative of the south of the Republican Party for over a hundred years. To this day the characters of the confederate states are loved and the flag is still flown in the South
Both the Confederate flag AND MAGA represent the republicans. It doesn’t have to be one or the other. What’s frightening is that the Confederate flag has expanded to MAGA now. I wonder how they are going to feel when they’re on their deathbed and about to meet their Maker. God is Love, NOT hate.
@@hardwoodthought1213 the Confederate flag was the flag of the Democrat "majority rule" Party of Slavery. The Republican party liberated the slaves. Strange how so many Democrats whitewash this simple fact.
@@hardwoodthought1213 the confederate flag was always the symbol of the DEMOCRATS. The Democrat party is the party of slave holders, Jim Crow and Eugenics. No republican ever owned slaves. In fact, the democrats have been steaming mad ever since the Republicans took their slaves away. That's no exaggeration, it's a fact.
I don’t buy what she’s selling. She’s a slick ideologue. She drones on, without inflection, without nuance. She is a forgone conclusion thinker, which is no thinker at all.
What do you think about the horrible atrocities that take place in Libya every day. To go from being the wealthiest country in Africa to the hell hole where black migrant people are tortured murdered, tortured and sold into slavery. Gaddafi had to go because we can't have a gold backed Dinar independent of the American dollar. (American hegemony) Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton took a once prosperous country and left it in ruins.
Having grown up in the South, I completely agree with this premise. Brilliant work. Nuanced and flexible. HCR is a great find for these times!!
Time spent listening to DrRichardson is time well spent, no matter the episode,
how old it is, or where you happen to pick up from last time, always end up with new info, new clues.
She is one of the most impressive historians alive today.
LOL This prattling clam barely qualifies to teach middle school.
“The fact that equality depends on inequality has skewed our history.” 5:58 Wow. 👍
Commensurate equality is justice.
In the 80s, I was telling friends that the South had actually won the Civil War and they looked at me like I was crazy. Meanwhile, I thought they weren’t paying attention. Good to see that HCR took on this topic.
Like Trump won the last election? South surrendered that they lost. The North failed to punish the South which was a big mistake.
I think that the freedmen had probably discovered this long before that!🤔
Equality and democracy only works when people are educated, and home owners, when people are kept ignorant and poor, then there is inequality and ruled by the wealthy, who are protected by home owners, which is why the 2007/8 was to take away home ownership from those who were poor or middle class, the wealthy need the poor for who would serve or do the work, the kids of the wealthy or affluent would become lawyers, doctors, politicians, entertainers (actors) mostly those who come from the upper class, but it’s not what you know but who you know, this was very good, but doesn’t tell the whole story, bureaucracy is about preventing change…
Equality is a false god. It's a lie.
@Robert Long did she now, and what did she mean by her statement, it sounds crypticly sarcastic, a private inside joke!!
and the trouble every bureaucracy goes to to prevent change would have been enough to build Utopias. Education, Health, Housing etc all end up by now as only office boy stamp carriers for whatever industrial interest is relevant. Transport still holds out a bit. Interesting to watch.
@Gary Johnson so is your solution to prohibit voting for those who don't own property or limit the population to only homeowners? In either case there are inevitable problems.
@@bruggeman672 obviously you misunderstood my comment, the real-estate industry is making home ownership unaffordable except for wealthy investors, I sad othing about restricting voting to only home owners, rents are out of control, while income remains stagnate and promotes homelessness...greed is killing democracy...
I am still amazed at how seemingly reasonable adults can allow their emotions to so frequently interfere with their ability to think critically and communicate effectively.
Reading is Fundamental.
Critical thinking and objective reasoning is a faculty that has been intentionally leached from the Average American Mind. As a result We, as a nation, are allowing ourselves to be led like sheep towards a fate that none of us would have chosen for ourselves. It is good to be old.
+Robert Cherry That's a glaring non sequitur. Logic is fundamental.
@@lawrenceharold8599 Logic isn't being applied.
@@robertcherry7190 I agree; illogic is.
You’re fantastic. I’m a Tejana, a writer. I need this. Thank you.
Thank you so much for this wonderful presentation and for making it available!
Hello 👋
Just seeing this. Love watching things i learn something from. Will read some of the people Heather mentiined & her book!
Wow. What a treat to come across this with heather cox, richardson, an absolute treasure
Great thinkers and great writers are fascinating.
As of Nov 20th, 2020 Biden turned 78 & is elected 46th president . In addition, back in 1952, Winston Churchill was 78 & prime minister of England.
Consequently, there’s another reason why Bernie didn’t make it as the nominee of the Democratic Party. I think that Both Republicans & Democrats has created FEAR of liberalism. Democrats have become Republicans little helper. That’s my opinion.
Yep,good point. Reagan effectively turned "liberal" into a dirty word,to the degree that"liberal democracy",which any staunch Conservative American should be in favor of,is now ready to be abandoned by the radicalized far right.
Perhaps Bernie should have registered as a Democrat years and years ago.
I am a newcomer to Prof. Richardson’s work, having discovered her blog in December 2020. Not to toot my own horn, but for years I have ruminated on how politics, for the South, has been war by other means, and largely successful at that. This is the book I should have written. If I was smart enough.
Well at least you were smart enough to read it!
Sooooo, the phrase you used usually refers to ALL politics, doesn't it?
@@joseornelas1718 not sure. It seems to me any healthy democracy needs a modicum of compromise and consensus,rather than a battle of wills (war by other means).
@@fretnesbutke3233 Well Clauswitz was making a general comment about wars/politics from the view of the state. I would agree that INTERNALLY the body politic needs to use genteel means. But when WORLDVIEWS diverge somebody needs to acknowledge that and not just paper over everything. Politicians of course try to fake consensus, and kick the can down the road.
@@joseornelas1718 Clauswitz said Diplomacy is war by other means, or the other way round. War is diplomacy by other means. Politics in this case does not mean anything much like what Clauswitz meant by diplomacy. Either way without compromise, horse dealing, trade offs and negotiation the result is war particularly when there appears to be absolute divergences. And then you run up against the business of "appeasement". WW2 etc. Politicians manufacture myths about others and themselves and there is nothing but air to negotiate with and its off to war again.
This was such an interesting and thoughtful discussion!
It was Malcolm X who pointed out in the 60s that the South had won the civil war...and they did as of to day we live in a nation where the citizen is still enslaved.
We the people, (in this room, our friends, and our family)... This is what they were talking about when they wrote the Constitution.
How little things have changed. Interesting.
Excellent. Thank you for this session.
My mother taught history. Here is something she told me: The Union “won” the Civil War, but the plantation owners and wealthy land owners in the South lost very little. Many gained stability and security during Reconstruction,as well as wealth (often power of influence) that almost always passed down to heirs.
That's an obvious lie. Just look at the reconstruction era taxation of wealthy land owners, southern included. It was outrageous. And that's obviously setting aside the 1/3 or so of their total holdings that was slaves. And setting aside all the land outright stolen/appropriated by the feds during the war itself. Your mom is obviously either having a different definition of "losses" as everyone else, papering over losses or is a good bit ignorant on that sub-subject. That being said, yes many of them managed to recover somewhat over a decade or two, but that isn't the same as them losing very little. They lost quite a bit, and then basically had a lost decade or two playing catch up, and quite a few never recovered (economy changes etc.).
I wonder how popular culture worked to reformulate that as tragic loss for white people in the South - the whole "Gone with the Wind" thing, and the politics of resentment. I remember the Civil Rights movement and how viscious that was - now, for the past 50 years, we've just been on a treadmill, going nowhere.
@Grant Withers I'll give you some credit because I oversimplified things. Obviously much of the south was devastated, just look at Atlanta. But when the dust started to settle, and reconstruction began, _many_ plantation owners, many wealthy land owners, were able to recoup much of what they had lost. Most of their land, and very cheap labor (if not outright slaves, though some slaves were not truly free until many years later) for years to come.
The concept that blacks would each get 40 acres and a mule was obviously an empty promise, and I doubt it would have come true even if Lincoln had lived, and some of the harsh anti-slavery Union officers and generals had completely wiped out all Confederate leaders like they wanted.
I'm also not going to whitewash the fact that racism existed in the north, even if slavery did not. Or that opportunities for blacks, while much greater in the north than south. It took another 20 years before Howard University really started graduating students who could truly find meaningful work. Some may argue it took 100 years.
But the flat notion that the entire south lost everything, especially the irrational "Lost Cause" myth has whitewashed not only history in the south, but across all of America. Greed, power, wealth, and wealthy landowners, again, for the most part, came out ahead far quicker than anyone. And blacks? They may have no longer been slaves, but it took until at least Martin Luther King before people really started to address injustices they had endured for over a century.
@@PhilAndersonOutside Thanks Phil. This is pretty much my current understanding of what happened. I grew up in Texas and there were Confederate memorials in local town squares, outside the court house. People talked about "Yankees", which was not a term of endearment. I don't remember a lot of what I was taught in school - that was more than 50 years ago - but I do remember American history books and the Reconstruction chapters dwelling on "Carpetbaggers" and the evil of this group. Slavery was pretty much regarded as "solved" and no mention Jim Crow, segregation, or civil rights (these textbooks had been redacted before the Civil Rights movement).
@@MCJSA It was tragic for the Elite 😲
Because their most highly valued asset, the slaves were gone, overnight!
But they got back at them with sharecropping.
They also kept their " culture " and " HERITAGE " With Jim Crow!...once REDEMPTION set in, after 1876.
"Rank choice" is actually "Preferential Voting", which is the House of Representatives" option used in Australia....which just chucked out a cabal of mouth breathing knuckle dragging boof heads after 9 long years. Preferential voting works.
Ranked choice is not as good though as proportional representation and it really did not work in Australia since all it did was replace the government with the major opposition party, which is exactly how even first past the post tends to work over the course of several elections. Ranked choice voting, in fact, becomes simply an instant runoff between the top two candidates and it does nothing to propel third parties (such as the Greens that received more than 12% of the vote in the last Australian election) to a seat share that is anywhere close to their popular vote percentage (unlike what would occur if we use proportional representation). Under proportional representation, Australia would have likely meant a much more Green friendly (and thus a likely much more left wing) Australia for the past decade than their current ranked choice voting ever could deliver.
Huge supporter of rank choice voting. But it really must be coupled with open primaries. That is, it doesn't matter what party you register with (or no party at all), you can vote for whomever you want on your ballot.
Here's what the general result most likely is: Candidate from X party can no longer just placate to the extremes in their party during the primaries, knowing the vocal loyalists are most likely to show up to vote. Then, have to change their tune again when it comes to the general election. That won't be a driving force any more.
The candidate can just be themselves throughout the entire campaign. A good example of this is Alaska, where Lisa Murkowski, a center-right Republican, who has a platform very similar to most Alaskans, was able to sail to re-election, and remains very popular in her state, and respected by the majority of politicians.
I live in Oregon, and an intelligent, center-left Democrat who I support on about 80% of the issues was just primaried out by a far-left progressive. Had this been an open primary with rank choice voting, I seriously doubt this would have happened. Now, the district is likely to be ideologically divided even more than before. Sad.
@@drmadjdsadjadi Agreed. Proportional representation would mean that every vote counts (so very untrue in the US now) and also that government would most likely be run by coalitions most of the time. I'm not sure how it would work in voting for President or Governor, unless we used a parliamentary system like England's.
@@drmadjdsadjadi I think the Greens will make their presence felt at least 12% of whatever its measured in. Just from how supporters talked I'd thought they'd got very much more than 12%!
@@PhilAndersonOutside Exactly.
Dr. Richardson, I appreciate your work and contribution to American history studies. I do understand your position. However . . . your seeing Confederate ideology as moving west in contradistinction to simultaneous white, male supremacy in the east sets aside certain facts. I’ll mention two. One, that interpretation belies the simultaneous reality of the pioneer woman (white, black, Indian, mixed) as the indefatigable woman who plowed before dawn and saved the farm or ranch when husband died of illness, or gunshot. Weren’t the first US women to vote in the West? And second, the epitome of American literature with its quiet yet overt message of equality was banned in Boston. Boston is not in the west but was horrified about what Huck Finn said. After pondering by the river, Huck said that if helping Jim stay free meant going to hell, so be it, he’d go to hell. Is that *not* white, male “Confederate” ideology just because Yankees did the banning? I’d go on with your other points, but that’s pointless as you’ll never read this.
Great conversation. Peace
I love it when a writer is surrounded by old books...jt
When these podcasters are surrounded by books its very nice the way it seems just like home, the room where the screen is sitting on the table here. You could do a cartoon.
"The True Believer" eric hoffer: Life-changing book for us '60's college students!
Read the Mississippi history book produced by WPA program. You will find that when Ms. entered the Union, there was little separation between church and state due to Catholic influence but when the Chickasaw land was ceded later to the state, Protestant settlers moved in and took over politics in the state and rewrote the state constitution with clear separation between church and state. One of the clearest separations in constitutions that exist. I’ll also add, as I was reared in Mississippi, on my first trip to Germany in 1979, you could look around and realize that there was no Marshall plan for Mississippi.
I will grant, in the context of the Founders' time, they introduced the seeds of some worthy concepts of equality. THEN WERE PERFECTLY OK WITH ENSLAVING HUMAN BEINGS. Even giving the southern slave states hugely more political power based on their slave populations.
So am I.
Perhaps an interesting note. In the middle ages (and beyond) in Britain, there were various levels of 'freedom'. Chattel slavery became rarer and rarer, but servile peasants (serfs) also existed. Then there were tenants. None of these classes had nearly the same rights as landowners.
Adam Smith is also a relevant read.
PS: Some of what Richardson is saying here also helps explain why modern 'conservatives' in the USA get so apoplectic about MMT. It undermines the redistribution narrative.
What does MMT stand for?
Disease, largely, "freed" those not part of the ruling class. Middle age post-plague population levels made workers, wealth creators for landowners, a scarce resource. Those not compensated well enough for their efforts, literally, walked to an estate which recognised the value of their labour. The organic beginning of Unions?
@@andyking7949 somewhat
@@tangentreverent4821 Modern Monetary Theory. A theory how sovereign fiat money works. Very basically...
Gov creates money by spending, and destroys it by taxation. A government can spend however much it wants, but adding too much money too quickly can create inflation. In addition to destroying money, taxes also create demand for money to pay those taxes (increasing the value of the currency).
@@travcollier thank you
Hey caller, Chris from Vermont, we may in fact be stronger and smarter in a state of equality. But we're certainly not smarter as a society not firmly dedicated to the free exchange of ideas. This leads to less smart, quite obviously, and from there, the same weakness we see in closed and information-managed societies. There's one side, despite what used to be the case in the past, that right now seems to have little interest in fixing the authoritarian derailment of academia. And then we have flirtations with pressuring social media to get in on the act. The idea of controlling lies is great, until you start trying to design its means.
It's weird that Bernie is too old for her, but Biden isn't, especially when Biden seems and acts older than Bernie.
Biden is too old, but Biden isn't the charismatic leader of a movement. He could drop dead and 'his' administration (or political faction) would carry on.
I, too, made note of that discrepancy.
That question was not asked, you just made something up and put words into her mouth.
Also that Sanders didn't have the votes. He didn't have the votes in 2020 because there was a coordination for most of the other candidates to drop out and endorse Biden. Obama was calling them asking them to drop out.
@@paigerasmussen5212, this video is 3 years old today. So the argument about age is fairly new. People today also point out that Trump is only 3 years younger than Biden. The way she brings that up is exactly the argument People made against Biden.
Now I do think we have a demographic problem today in government. Most of the leaders and real power centers in government today are controlled by the Boomer generation. We have a geriatric government running on geriatric, post WWII ideas.
This is not an argument against age but pro youth. That is that you have to build you movement evenly so that you have leaders of every age group so that you have experienced leaders ready to take over and also to have a broader appeal, and newer ideas.
Is Professor Banfield’s book “The Unheavenly City Revisited” relevant to this discussion?
46:00 FYI my parents who were Republicans noticed a take over of the party in the late 1970s and not the conservatives that they were. They felt them to be like interlopers of sorts although my parents supported things like the Young Republicans and voted a straight Republican ticket in 1964. Like there is not a lot of nuanced view by Republicans now with the differences Bush Republicans, Trump or Libertarian Republicans. I doubt is they would have been able to explain the differences between their ideology and Buckley directly although small businessmen before Buckley were not cozy with big corporations.
"Nuanced view..." Do you mean nuanced diversity/diversity of view? Either way, I think to some degree you're a victim of a gerrymandered factual stream. The factions that have shown up within the Republican party are still there, while admittedly some have given their cheers and voices, provisionally, to Trump (as is what happens in politically binary systems). Furthermore, the picture is in the middle of another shift (analogous to prior shifts like the Christian republican alliance of the 80's, and the long and on-going dance of tenuousness with libertarians). This shift will feature self-described "Classical Liberals." And little of our postulating matters in the face of the fact that it's the "economy, stup#$" Wait for it.
Thank God someone out there remembers the GOP being hijacked by Jerry Falwell’s "Jesus First" movement in the late 78-79.
@@mh4zd Your last sentence the crux of the matter on so many level of discourse. That is missing (deliberately) from what is termed so called "moderate" democrats. ¶ I don't know what a "gerrymandered factual stream" is so it is quite possible I'm a victim of it. In what I see in my conversations with Republicans is that they hold a lot of same values as Trump and Trump libertarians whether they have high school or advanced degrees, i.e., they repeat AM radio meme pretty well as a combined group. Trump followers aren't just Larry the Cable Guy or the Neo-Confederate Guy. The broad bush view is probably adequate to the nuanced view.
My sense is that she begins with her conclusion and only then presents evidence (if any) to prove it. Her insistence on drilling the point of the existence of racism and sexism, as if there were no question as to their pervasive existence, only the question of how they took place, probably paints a darker and more exaggerated picture than what probably existed.
There are numerous historical sources that support the claims that racism and sexism were pervasive in the United States in the 19th century. I am not aware of any that challenge it. How is acceptance and support of slavery, lynching, the Indian wars, marital rape, the belief that women should be subordinate to men (which even many women promoted), denial of property rights and voting rights not proof of racism and sexism?
@Abe, I definitely acknowledge that all the human ills of 19th century America existed. My problem with Richardson is that her reason for writing this book seems to be to dredge up all these ills and recast them as if they never ended in order to advance her own political agenda that sees these ills as irrevocable, unredeemable, and interminably current.
@@sophicfire When did they end, o White Man?
@@sophicfire "Pervasive" is a relative term, so not really worth arguing about, as Abe does. I'd say that where she gets muddled is her drawing a line between the past and a particular present dysfunction/sin. Listening long enough, one discovers the thesis: Resistance to socialism is either a conscious stand-in for racism, or is a cultural artifact possessed by potentially non-racist people, but who are passive recipients of a moral conceit passed down from a political move originally made for racist reasons. Lots of words. Lot of history of racism and classism but she fails to notice the onus is on her to address deep, if ultimately subjectively grounded, oppositions to socialism that have zero prima facia emotive call to pro-establishment race preservation. This demuring, and unjust assumption, constitutes its own sort of language creativity (that she seems juiced by on the part of conservatives), albeit, in her case, in the form of paragraphs and books. At the very least, it falls right in the lap of the growing conservative trope that is the leftist that attempts to side-step intellectual rigor and utilize moral shaming to achieve ends, which is just the mark of the pseudo smarty. Lazy. Echo-chamber. Masturbatory.
@@mh4zd Thanks. I agree. I want to add It's not the fact that the ills she explores didn't occur that I have objected to, it's the manner in which these historical ills are exploded back into the present to further a political agenda. The left now routinely does this, of course. What is so infuriating is that the left does this in the face of all reality, i.e. no one wears chains or is whipped chattel, Indians aren't being eradicated, and women aren't repressed or oppressed, etc., anymore, yet people like Richardson don't want you to notice this obvious fact.; that the past isn't the present. No, we are supposed to believe that it is, which is utterly absurd. Grrrrr....
Why, when you tune into a lecture, the person introducing the speaker goes on and on and on? FFS get on with it.
I agree, but just fast forward it. That's what I did. That way they get to do what they want and you get to decide whether you'll listen to that part or not. You're really in much better control here than you'd be if you were actually having to listen to this in person.
Excellent
I was just warming up to you Dr Richardson, and then your agism about Bernie (not a Bernie backer her but very much an admirer), I do agree he didn't have the votes.
Surprising how much of the discussion is about modern politics, however: Yay! Rank choice voting.
The Civil War and its aftermath was the beginning of modern American politics. The old constitution was replaced by a new constitution.
I think you mean "RANKED Choice Voting"
"A Youth's History of the Great Civil War in the United States from 1861 to 1865"
R.G. Horton
I am very upset that everyone seems to be ignoring the FACT THAT THE DEM POLITICIANS BEGAN TO AND HAVE CONTINUED TO SIMPLY TAKE MORE AND MORE CORPORATE MONEY!!!!!!!
Deeper Dive into her work does recognize what you bring up. Her topic in THIS discussion is on her book. In many of her discussions she regularly speaks to the ills of Dems as well. My take away from her different discussions is , for our current setting, if the population could shake free from blather spun by both parties and the media, we would find that we are all way more aligned in our goals for American Democracy than either faction wants us to recognize, that would threaten their hold on power
They all take money, what’s your point?
Two sides same coin we don't have a party who represents the people just that simple
Is there a link to download the conversation?
As an Australian I would like to lend my support of preferential voting systems. What you called rank choice. We have just had a federal election where you can see it’s owner at work. As a country we have just delivered a message to the noisy conservatives tgat we will not tolerate their obstructionism on important issues such as climate crisis integrity in politics and having a fair and compassionate society. Have a look. It has shaken up our political landscape. The way this h as opened through the publics savvy use of their preferences.
Some people have a tribal mindset. Linear thinkers follow an ideology.
After four years of conflict, the major Confederate armies surrendered to the United States in April of 1865 at Appomattox Court House and Bennett Place.
Our education system does a poor job at teaching foresight, and without the ability to accurately predict there is no way to control and extract useful energy to advance humanity.
our education system does exactly what it is designed to do. DUMB PEOPLE DOWN
I liked this discussion but in the end I feel the lack of addressing white supremacy in a historical sense will ALWAYS leave a schism when are attempting to interpret the historical, socioeconomic realities of how the South lost the physical war but won (and still winning) the proproganda war since 1865. The Lost Cause & the Dunning school of historians and their ilk are still rewriting this history. As a foundational Black American, my lens is one that is schewed toward exactly how & why my people are and have always been on the bottom of America, as a group.
I hope you are well rounded in the history of African slavery especially by the people of Islam who enslaved and killed millions of your people. America did your people a great service by recognizing the problem and doing something about it.
What do you mean when you use the term "Foundational Black American".
The speaker spoke at some length about white supremacism. There is no doubt she believes racism is a running thread through American history. What might she have said to convince you she takes racism seriously?
@@robertcherry7190 A Foundational Black American is a parent who can trace one of BOTH parental lineages back to the killing fields of antebellum slavery, HERE in the USA. This is an important distinction; THIS is the delineation line for a proper reparations claim.
Stop it already
HCR is a national treasure ❤
Heather Richardson: “There is voter suppression.”
Also Heather Richardson: “Bernie didn’t have the votes.”
Me: 🤦♂️ 🤦♂️ 🤦♂️ 🤦♂️ 🤦♂️
Bernie didn’t get media coverage
@@greatmcluhansghost7134 and when he did he was denigrated and undermined. and still he walks,
They (including Bernie) knew, at that time, no presidential candidate dragging a chain labeled socialism (even democratic socialism) was electable in the U.S.
He had a huge & highly energized base, but could not pull voters from the middle. This guarantees a loss every time.
@@jacpratt8608 because he hasn't been prez. he played ball enough to stay alive but not too much to get elected.
@January's Son the statements are not mutually exclusive. There can be voter suppression and Sanders failed to legitimately secure enough votes. If you're suggesting impropriety or illegal acts is there proof?
HCR is an ideologue, and consequently her historical accounts/analyses are inaccurate and anachronistic. For a scholarly consideration of the post-slavery era, I'd suggest looking at historian Eric Foner's work, for starters.
00:12:25 How ironic! The democrats are doing all of that as I type!
Derrida said that Deconstruction is Justice.
Too bad her audio is too tinny to listen to again… why is this so hard to get right? Good mic, soft room…
Is there an audio version available?
When someone mentions the corner stone speech and makes it absolutely clear they have never read the entire thing (hitting control-f typing in slave and only reading the parts that says slave) they have lost all credibility.
How does your opinion of the Cornerstone Speech differ from what she has stated?
@@robertcherry7190 corner stone speech specifically mnetions tarriffs as a cause for war, and that the south could not build there industry with it.
The corner stone speech also states that the republicans didnt care the south had slaves, it just did not want the south to expand slavery to new states, But it also didnt want to give up slave states. In other words the north could not afford to let the south go.
Robert E Lee refered to slavery as a moral and political evil. The last part of the cornerstone speech was really dealing with the political evil of slavery (granted the author of the speech would not have viewed it particularly that way). There was a lot of politics in the U.S. surrounding slavery and it for the republicans it basically amounted to you can keep your slaves, but no new slave states so the north will always have more senators than the south.
Didn't Texas join the CSA precisely so they could have slaves?
@@obscurebullshit They mention a lot of reasons, including open boarders, and bloody kansas by name. Their secession document is the longest of the bunch at over 5000 words.
The South LOST. Live with it.
Why are no comments allowed on American Paradox?
E.micheal Jones wrote many books on this subject alas " barren metal" "Jewish Revolutionary Spirit" and "The Slaughter of Cities" I can't recommend these books enough being the people behind the 1913 take over of American monetary system and income tax
Read the invisible wars “Gullah wars”
"All Men Are Created Equal" meant, "you and me rich white guys." Nonwhites? Females? Don't even ask.
Is that her library? The books look old. How fitting for a historian.
Of course she has First Editions!
🙄🤦🏻♀️
I like how her title seems to blame oligarchy on the south, as if it weren't Yankee oligarchy that the nation truly inherited....
Too bad we’re not a democracy.
never let up, racism
slow down
Viva Appomattox!!! Moving forward towards healing and creating a more perfect Union--not the rewrite!!!
Her argument about libertarianism really is not properly fleshed out. It is true that a libertarianism that fails to recognize that a massive redistribution of wealth will be needed to rectify prior discriminatory action by government that established the current preferential treatment for property owners is highly problematic. However, the notion that there must be a regulated capitalism as opposed to unregulated capitalism to sever this link is simply wrong. Indeed, regulated capitalism will tend to cause the very oligopolies that she fears to a much greater extent that unregulated capitalism ever could because it presupposes a corporate form that is inherently privileged for property owners. The central problem is that any form of capitalism (or even socialism for that matter) will always be fundamentally based on prior historical antecedents unless such a redistribution occurs but if such a redistribution occurs, it does not matter what economic system you have, it will no longer be connected to past racism since you will have corrected this and placed everyone back to initial conditions. One of the key ways to accomplish this is to abolish the corporate form itself, which is a gift by government to the powerful and wealthy to protect their wealth and extent their power in a privileged manner that sole proprietors and partnerships simply do not have.
This is not an argument for communism, which is a singularly bad economic philosophy that privileges those in the state power apparatus over all others but rather an argument for a return to the pre-corporate free market era since without corporations neither significant economies of scale nor market power exist and this regulation of business becomes inherently unnecessary. The downside of this, of course, is that we do not get the benefits of scale economies in such a system but given that these particular benefits almost exclusively end up in the hands of the wealthy, I think it is a small price to pay for a massive reduction in government redistribution of wealth that almost always results in the rich getting richer and the poor not receiving a fair shake.
They never should have ended reconstruction.
1840’s? Darwin, and The foundations of Eugenics? Is that the start of this?
how did same people succeeding from union get paid and went unpunished for treason
"The Education of Ronald Reagan, The GE Years."" Lemuel Bulware.
Its monumental foot shot! also unprecedented! makes me laugh
Amanda, is that a current profile picture? Hehe.
violent mindset has to have some negative outcome
Yup
New RECOVERY bill will be picking up a large portion of COBRA costs. Anyone who has had to pay COBRA knows what a huge relief that is!!!!! Vote D
Yes, COBRA was a huge relief for us when my husband lost his job because of George W Bush. This, all the while we had a son in college for Pre-med. Very scary times!
@@barbp2768 COBRA is a joke, unless you are a high wage earner who has lost your insurance through losing your job. You might have a working spouse who can pay it for you, or savings to pay for it until you get another job with health insurance, or are very wealthy. When I aged out of my parents health insurance years ago, I was sent forms to apply for it. It was ridiculous. It was at that point that we all I realized I had to apply for SSDI, so I could get Medicare as an adult disabled child. There was no way for any of us to afford COBRA.
Next up: How the former Soviet Union won the Cold War.
The fact that Africans were rescued from cannibalism should matter
And no one has ever been telling the truth about history instead of what you prefer to hear .
TRUMP 2024 🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲
Good interview but she is wrong about support for the left. She wasn't watching closely enough.
using color to separate
That’s funny saying the war was over equality. Think about this. If the south freed the slaves would the union had gone to war with the south? There still would have been the war. And it wasn’t a civil war. Civil wars are two parties fighting for control of the country. The civil war was a war of SECESSION!!!
Think about today. Most people pay like 50% or more in taxes. We’re all half slaves. Sure there’s an illusion of freedom but don’t pay your
Property taxes and see what happens. We’re all slaves just in a different form. The patriotic act for instance essentially ensured citizens don’t have rights. The government can just invoke national security and all rights go out the window.
Think of it this way. Does the U.S. follow the constitution? No and they haven’t for over a hundred years. The constitution says gold is money and with no amendment the federal government changed gold to a commodity and taxes it as such when in reality the constitution says gold is money thus it shouldn’t be taxed. The constitution says direct taxes are fine IF apportioned among the states and yet we still have estate taxes which are direct taxes but not apportioned among the states. Congress says well it’s an excise tax on the PRIVILEGE of passing on wealth. It’s no longer a RIGHT. The federal government has BASTARDIZED the CONSTITUTION and no one cares because big businesses and big government makes bank through massive inflation and are backed by the federal reserve who stops recessions from playing out. Hopefully one day we’ll get a massive depression. People for instance believe the dollar will forever be the global reserve currency. Sure the US overthrew Lybia and iraq when they wanted to stop selling oil in dollars. But if the U.S. did that to Saudi Arabia and Russia which are getting closer to China itd cause a world war. One day things will be made right as history repeats.
Most people pay 50% or more in taxes? What country do you live in?
Wow, you are like, the opposite of a patriot. I find it hilarious when someone finds a thread of something true to pull on, (like the fact that the oligarchies of the world are in bed together against the common people), and then just fail to understand the other 99% of how the world works
And for gods sake, READ the constitution, will you? It's really short...
Please speakers , please do not proceed your sentence with SO . 'SO' , it is very disconcerting ...
For all of the crying about the false narrative life itself prove power begat power and it passes down for generations & poverty begat the same and it’s pass down. average people stay in their place and the exceptional rises, don’t hate the player hate the game!
IT LOST
20:33 - Kerry Lee Merret?.
andrew jackson transformed poor man
This was remarkably stupid... it's embarrassing that someone could be so vague and shallow thinking when writing a book.
She spoke for the first 15 minutes without saying anything.
I hate when people attempt to sound smart by talking alot to cover for their lack of actual knowledge.
Maybe this impresses people who aren't well read... but it's annoying for everyone else.
One only needs to read the comment section to recognize the disingenuous motive.
Well, a lot of knowledge, just not a lot of attention to detail and evidence when making theories about motives. Stories strung together with aspersions and special pleading. Democracy is, she says, subverted by language, as she tortures empiricism, and then Truman only integrated the military due to pressure from the people. Ya. That's democracy. Quit whining about the baddies and get to spreading the love and the effort. Socialism, she says, was moved against, because of racism. Ok. Meanwhile white people across the country are drowning in other white people who won't get off their a@$ and their narcotics and work.
20:16-20:56 in a nutshell
That's about right. 100%
Thaddeus was right.
You all need to listen to Thomas Sowell for historical accuracy.
This is correct. Thomas Sowell is a giant American historian/Economist luminary. these people here, not so much.
You don't. His economics is extremely erroneous in even basic monetary operations facts.
You're joking!
When you look at the night sky, you see billions of stars. You can connect them together any way you choose to create the image you want. That's how she handles facts. For example, she says the Confederate flag is the symbol of the Republican Party. In fact, the most recognizable and most controversial symbol of conservatism is the MAGA hat, popularized by Donald Trump. That's a very clear example that everyone can see, but her other examples are also so bad that they cause me to question her sincerity.
You’re comparing a catch phrase that has been popularised for a little over 4 years to a symbol that was representative of the south of the Republican Party for over a hundred years. To this day the characters of the confederate states are loved and the flag is still flown in the South
Both the Confederate flag AND MAGA represent the republicans. It doesn’t have to be one or the other. What’s frightening is that the Confederate flag has expanded to MAGA now. I wonder how they are going to feel when they’re on their deathbed and about to meet their Maker. God is Love, NOT hate.
@@barbp2768 Very frightening.
@@hardwoodthought1213 the Confederate flag was the flag of the Democrat "majority rule" Party of Slavery. The Republican party liberated the slaves. Strange how so many Democrats whitewash this simple fact.
@@hardwoodthought1213 the confederate flag was always the symbol of the DEMOCRATS. The Democrat party is the party of slave holders, Jim Crow and Eugenics. No republican ever owned slaves. In fact, the democrats have been steaming mad ever since the Republicans took their slaves away. That's no exaggeration, it's a fact.
you mean to tell me GONE WITH THE WIND didnt happen ? Frankly my crybaby dear i do give a damn ...... TVA turn the screw!
Let's get back to a Constitutional Republic and end this Democracy nonsense.
I don’t buy what she’s selling. She’s a slick ideologue. She drones on, without inflection, without nuance. She is a forgone conclusion thinker, which is no thinker at all.
What do you think about the horrible atrocities that take place in Libya every day. To go from being the wealthiest country in Africa to the hell hole where black migrant people are tortured murdered, tortured and sold into slavery. Gaddafi had to go because we can't have a gold
backed Dinar independent of the American dollar.
(American hegemony)
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton took a once prosperous country and left it in ruins.
I loved the Drive by Truckers till they got to to 'woke' ...
Then you "thought" you loved DBT. DBT has always been extremely progressive. That you failed to notice says more about you than about them.
They lost!
BS.
move
The civil war. ( The war of Yankee aggression)