Beware of anyone who says that "we need to have an open conversation about race in this country." Those words only come out if the person has already decided that America is a land full of racial animosity, and that most folks are really racist, especially whites; and nine times out of ten they personally have little or no social interaction with anyone outside their own race. Nowhere is this more the case than for the media, with networks and publications (often nearly lily-white in their staff's composition, by the way) continually talking about the need for an "honest dialogue," which, of course, always turns out to be making white people confessing how deeply racist they really are and enlightened minorities sharing their experiences of oppression.
With the media reporting it, race was always going to be a big part of the Zimmermann-Martin case; everyone knows that. Or to be specific, race-baiting. From the get-go, when the media insisted on referring to George as a "white Hispanic" (how often has that term come up before now, ever?), this case has been blown up into an innocent black "child" having his life snuffed out by "The System," represented here by a paranoid white(ish) dude. So of course, following the white(ish) dude's acquittal, talking heads on TV went through amazing mental gymnastics to continue to paint this as white-on-black crime.
Take MSNBC's Alex Toure. Last week, Toure went what some might call "full retard" in attacking Zimmermann--oh crap, am I not supposed to say that? Sorry, Toure went what some might call "full exceptional individual" in attacking Zimmermann, claiming that the guy is not Hispanic at all, because he is instead "Peruvian-American." ?!?!?!?!
Boy, how could I forget? It's true; Peru was in fact settled entirely by that strong, fair-skinned Nordic race that just happened to be hanging out in Spain at the time! My God, Zimmermann is even a German name! This explains everything!!
But at least the self-proclaimed advocacy group for all Hispanics, the National Council of La Raza, jumped right in there to protect Zimmermann from these idiotic charges, didn't it? No? No. Instead, La Raza announced long ago it would join with its allies in the "civil rights community" to protest on behalf of Martin. Other Latino groups joined suit, explaining once more that Zimmermann isn't really Hispanic, he's just "half-Peruvian." See? The Latino community gets what you mean, Toure. Those infamous, Aryan Nation Peruvians....
But what really takes the cake are the rules for the "national race conversation" proposed by TheRoot, which apparently is a website of some kind. Their proposals, issued in the wake of the trial, aren't all terrible-sounding--i.e. "talking about race isn't racist": okay, true enough--but then there are these gems. "....is one of the ways racism is maintained. So is acting as if 'blacks suffer from racism' and 'whites suffer from reverse racism' are equally valid points of view." "Being 'colorblind' is not helpful because it cripples our ability to deal with the tangible effects of racial inequality in just about every area of life." "A black person making a joke about race is different from a white person making a joke about race." Blah blah freaking blah. You can read the rest here if you're interested. Noticing that these were all misconceptions about and wrong expectations of black people, conservative blogger Patterico inquired of the writer on Twitter whether only white people had rules to observe, or if there are rules for black people to follow when talking about whites, too. No solid answer was forthcoming.
It's actually not hard to understand what's going on here. The Left, as represented by the Democratic Party, Hollywood, the media, etc., is of course on the side of the black man (or rather on the side of the black race, which doesn't come out to the same thing). And for years now, they've been beating the drum that Hispanics' time has come, too, talking endlessly about "the browning of America" and other marketed jingles. And then here comes a case of a Hispanic guy shooting a black teen dead under confusing circumstances. What to do, what to do? Well, as we've seen, they can always insinuate that the Hispanic guy wasn't really Hispanic; better yet, they can pivot to talking about racial barriers in general. Which is when we're told that it's time for a conversation about race, which of course means "time for whites to feel guilty."
Shameless and disgusting, yes. Still, I have to admit, the news about Aryan Peruvia is quite a gem. I'm glad someone finally shed light on those posers.
95 comments:
Normally, anyone who says we need an "honest" conversation about anything is looking to bully, not converse and isn't the least bit interested in "honest."
So Peruvians are honkeys, huh? I had no idea. I guess someone should tell Wikipedia and the CIA that they are imagine all the mix and American Indian people living there.
I thought it was interesting that they made Zimmerman the white predator, whereas you know he would have been the Hispanic victim if a white person had attacked him. I think that says a lot about the left's sincerity.
nice rant, Rav. The whole thing has mostly been a sham. Yes, racism does exist in this country. There are lots of valid reasons why good people of different races do not trust each other. Appreciating that, and understanding the other person's point of view is a good first step. Believe it or not, I stumbled into a pretty good discussion on Hannity last weekend which featured a whole host of folks who are Fox contributors. Some made a lot of sense, but others just ranted, and came back to the fact Trevon didn't get "justice." In the days sense, the local paper ran two editorials, both from the left point of view. One was by a local black in his twenties which was pretty good, as far as it went. But it lacked any willingness to recognize that fearing people in "hoodies" has a basis in reality beyond just race. Put differently, if blacks, and their allies on the left blame it all on racism, and accept no responsibility for looking in the mirror, the situation will only get worse, not better. Making role models of gangsta rappers does not help the situation. And yes, we can easily see that the Martin case, and the hatred of Zimmerman was manufactured by the left media and baiters because it happened at a time when the re-election campaign was worried about the black vote not turning out in 2012. It is what it is, I guess.
Hey, if Zimmerman is white then so is our current president. And so are many of the blacks in this country.
Do you know who I blame? Canada, with their beady little eyes and flapping heads so full of lies!
I concur. Plus, wasn't Saddam Hussein Canadian?
The Zimmerman affair is another example of the left media machine cherry picking from hundreds of such crimes which occur every week, and then embellishing the closest fit to create a given narrative. If there are rough corners just make up some "facts" and go with it.
It would be interesting to find out where the Zimmerman story first saw the light of day and if they had other "potentials" in the background which weren't quite as good. Most likely, the 12 year old Trayon in the hoody picture clinched the deal.
One thing that worries me is at some point, this kind of agitprop device will blow up and end up with dozens of deaths on the heads of the media maipulators.
Hispanic is no more a single race than American is. In the US I fill out lots of forms for my Honduran Garifuna daughters and usually there is a place to check off their 'race' (black in their case) and a different place to check off whether or not they are Hispanic.
http://kwekudee-tripdownmemorylane.blogspot.com/2012/09/garifunasthe-blacks-in-diaspora-who.html
There are black Hispanics, white Hispanics, brown Hispanics and Asian Hispanics (the first three categories are referred to by the Spanish version of the word we use, I never ran into the last in Latin America though countries like Peru reportedly boast some Hispanics of Japanese descent including but not limited to ex-president Fujimori.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Peruvian
Its also worth noting that in Latin America racial categorizations don't exactly match up to ours. Yes, there is white black and brown, but they don't go by the one drop rule, so mixed races 'browns' tend to characterize themselves as white and mixed race blacks tend to characterize themselves as white or brown (depending on how mixed they are and who they are mixed with).
To cite an extreme case, in the Dominican Republic most of what Americans would call blacks like to maintain that they are Indian (as a result of their colonization by Haiti and the efforts of the dictator which followed Haitian rule).
http://www.miamiherald.com/multimedia/news/afrolatin/part2/
All that being said, while calling Zimmerman a white Hispanic is normal in Latin America (and in insurance forms and suchlike in America) questioning his Hispanicness isn't though I can see why Hispanics would want to disassociate themselves from that piece of excrement.
Also, there's no denying black-Hispanic tensions. The elites get along fine, but things can be rough on the ground. American black thugs in DC have targeted my wife a few times when she spoke Spanish on the Metro (like most Garifuna, one would never guess she was Hispanic until she speaks) and based on newspaper reports I've read such racial hatred sometimes flows the other way as well.
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2011/06/08/latino-gang-targeted-blacks-in-california-city/
What is remarkable about the Zimmerman case isn't that a Hispanic idiot murdered a black teen, its that he got away with it. Murders (including racially motivated cross racial ones) happen all of the time, but normally the killer winds up in jail.
In the Zimmerman case, the cops talked to Zimmerman, were slow to get to witnesses (the national media got to them first, which is remarkable because it took some time before the Martin case became a big deal) and didn't bothered to drug test Zimmerman (an MMA enthusiast who had once attacked a cop in a drunken rage).
Zimmerman wasn't paranoid (paranoids in cars don't get out of cars to chase fleeing people into alleys) he was a play cop. Martin seeking to avoid the nutjob with a gun following him in a car convince Zimmerman that Martin needed to be stopped and he couldn't wait for the police because 'they always get away'. Martin treated Zimmerman the same way anyone would treat a relentless armed stalker. Its a shame Martin didn't have a deadly weapon or the physical skills to kill Zimmerman before Zimmerman used his gun.
Anthony, I agree that Zimmerman should have acted differently but it was the sort of mistake others could have made. But very few people would have reacted the way Martin reacted. In other words, if I had been Zimmermann (at his age) Martin might or might not have lived. If I had been in Martin´s place, I definitely wouldn´t be dead. And that is why Zimmermann is not a murderer.
Of course you can have your own theory of how it went down, but it is just that, a theory.
El Gordo,
What others? How often does neighborhood watch run down people and start fights? I've never heard of such a thing.
Zimmerman is a murderer who belongs in the ground. The fact he isn't there already means its unlikely someone will put him there, but hope springs eternal.
Ýou have made it perfectly clear that you would like to see Zimmermann killed. No need to dwell on it. And how should we deal with his murderer?
What others? I put myself in their place. Hypothetical, just like your theory of what really happened.
We will just have to disagree there.
Hey, leave the Canadians alone. They don't harm anyone. They just sit up there with their beer and "Eh?"'s and hockey as the tophat of the the Americas with their national healthcare system that is supplemented by the US, and don't do nothing to nobody...
Anthony, why do you talk? It's Andrew's prerogative and I don't question that, but if this were my blog, you'd have been canned for that last comment.
Well according to Charlie Rangel, Tea Partiers are a bunch of white crackers.
“It is the same group we faced in the South with those white crackers and the dogs and the police. They didn’t care about how they looked," Rangel said.
Because of this, Rangel said the Tea Party could be defeated using the same tactics employed against Jim Crow.
"It was just fierce indifference to human life that caused America to say enough is enough. ‘I don’t want to see it and I am not a part of it.’ What the hell! If you have to bomb little kids and send dogs out against human beings, give me a break,” said Rangel.
This is as pure a definition of race relations in America today. Don't like your opponents ideas? That's because they're racists indifferent to human life. Un frikkin believable!
Okay, everyone, simmer down. Yes, we can all agree to disagree, but civilly and without incitement to murder. This is why "having a discussion about race" becomes incendiary and ultimately pointless.
Yep, whenever anyone tries to establish "ground rules" for discussion on race, it's always pretty lopsided. The first problem with the rules you linked to are that they are directed only at whites. If there isn't a single set of rules that everyone can abide by, you're not really prepared for discussion.
Of course, no honest set of rules take a paragraph each to spell out. So just for fun, I boiled it down and here's what I got:
Preconditions for Discussing Race
1.(a) Discussion is allowed but (b) not everything will be discussed.
2.(a) Differing criteria will be used to judge various perspectives. (b) Those criteria will not be revealed.
3. Blacks are not monolithic. Don't treat them as such.
4. The possibility of resolution will not be entertained.
5. Culture has nothing to do with it. Don't even go there.
6. Don't cite Bill Cosby or any "Uncle Toms" who assert that blacks contribute to racial issues.
7. You can't tell me I'm wrong. This shit's complicated.
8. You are racist.
9. Rule 3 + Rule 6. What? I'm getting tired.
10. This thing is your problem. You deal with it. I'm out!
Come on folks, everyone stay calm. Everyone's entitled to their opinions, whether you agree with them or not.*
* Statement does not apply to praise of Zoey Daschenelle.
Anthony, The issue as I see it is that the left (mainly white liberals and race baiter groups) identify anyone with one drop of blood in their body as part and parcel of that minority group, which makes them victims of white racism whenever a white person does something to them. But then, in the case of Zimmerman, they disown him by now claiming he's white.
It's the dishonesty of the grouping that is annoying. Minority if victim, white if predator.
Bev, Canadians are much more insidious than you realize. They're everywhere! They control the MSM!!
"Minority if victim, white if predator."
But there is another layer even more frustrating -minority victim of [fill in the blank] even when also the predator...
Bev, True. It's frustrating how quick the left is to excuse predatory conduct when they like the race/gender/ethnicity/religion of the predator.
I'll just leave this here.
http://www.stuffistumbledupon.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/canada-americas_hat-meme_thumb.jpg
This one may be a little inappropriate for small children and sensitive ladies. Bev, you should be fine. You live in NY.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-32oEp_2-Rvw/TpihEWk2agI/AAAAAAAAD1Q/ATUoAKtnrz8/s1600/internet-memes-scumbag-canada-doesnt-play-fair.jpg
LOL! Wow! I've never once considered our geography in that way. I will never look at Canada the same again.
Anthony,
You had a good discussion on how "hispanic" isn't really a race and followed it with why the zimmerman affair has you upset. You lost me at recommending vigilantism to take care of him. It was vigilantism that started this in the first place. Zimmerman did belong in jail and would have probably gone there if the prosecuting attorney would have been more interested in doing her job and providing justice. You have misdirected anger.
On the point about Hispanic not being a race, I read somewhere recently that the Census Bureau is going to stop offering "Hispanic" as a choice. It will be interesting to see how that plays out.
Koshcat: Okay, I take back everything I ever said about Canada. They really ARE screwing us! LOL! So if you look at Mexico in relation to the US. What exactly are THEY doing?
Andrew, I'll agree to simmer down if you agree to correctly spell Zooey Deschannel's name. :-)
There's a proper spelling?
Also, my apologies for not getting around to replying more yet, I had much less time to do so today than I thought.
Andrew and Kosh, when in doubt, always blame Canada. They murder thousands every year in hockey stick-related incidents and no one says anything. Plus, as South Park has reminded us, they're not even a real country anyway.
Let's face it, if the Canadians decide to turn evil, we're in trouble,,They have the high ground...literally.
I have a young man in my PSR class at church who is Peruvian,,,he has an Italian surname and speaks Spanish, English and Italian. He said his family has been in Peru for well over a hundred years.
tryanmax, you jest (sort of), but actually, Point #6 was on the list from that website I mentioned. They even named Cosby as someone you shouldn't cite. Parody's no fun when the subjects do it themselves.
Rather than get rid of "Hispanic," I propose we add "Nordic" as a choice. Because people of Nordic descent have no historical ties to slavery or Jim Crow in America, they should be removed from such discussions. Also, given the cultural idiosyncrasies of Nordic peoples that set them apart from other ethnic groups--more reserved, compliant--special attention should be paid to how the population at large has taken advantage of these against the Nordic minority (only 3.8% as of the last census). Also, be advised that it is no longer acceptable to describe one's appearance as "pink" or "ruddy." The more precise "Nordic" should be used instead.
Patriot, I saw that comment from Rangel. Is it wrong that my biggest gripe with those remarks is "fierce indifference" is an oxymoron? ;-)
T-Rav, I spoofed the list item by item, so that's why it matches up so well. But yeah, parodying the list of rules was a tad difficult in spots.
tryanmax, "Nordic"? I'll have you know that the Swedes had their own special units in the Army of Northern Virginia and the Ku Klux Klan, by gum! You can read all about it in this book I'll write as soon as I make it up.
Also, if we're going to add that, we should probably throw in "Slavic," "Balto-Finnic," and "Basque," which also had nothing to do with race relations. (Until someone "discovers" that they actually did.)
Critch, well duh. They're at the top of the map, obviously. :-)
While I don't have extensive details on the ethnic background of Peru, they've got nothing on Argentina for non-Spanish influx. Lots of English, Italians, and even a hefty German population. (Which really increased after 1945 for some reason.)
Oops, I better cool it on the Anada-Cay iss-day. My sister in law is Canadian...don't tell her I said anything.
Bev, LOL! Don't worry, we won't tell her anything.
tryanmax, I'm sure that Nordics invented slavery. Besides, you still need to deal with "Viking Guilt."
Seriously, four Super Bowls and no wins?
Andrew, that's called "redistribution."
Since I threw that word out, honestly, I say let's give it a try. Then we can say we did it and I'm young enough that I expect to still be alive when it proves to have changed nothing.
I'm old enough to remember when "Hispanic" and "White" were separate racial categories on information forms. Specifically, in high school we had to fill out some sort of form where we disclosed our race. I have a Hispanic last name (both of my parents are a mix of white and Hispanic, grew up in Nogales, my grandfather was brought into the US from Mexico as a baby, etc.), but I appear lily white.
I marked "White" on the form. I handed it to my guidance counselor, who upon seeing my last name asked me if my race had suddenly changed. I responded by saying that I just put down which race was most predominant in my ancestry. Without another word, he crossed out "White", marked the form "Hispanic", and filed it away (He was Hispanic, by the way).
If I went by my mother's maiden name (which is Welsh in origin), I seriously doubt he would have made that change. If my last name was Zimmerman, I seriously doubt he would have made that particular change.
Race apparently boils down to either: 1) skin color, 2) your surname (but not your mother's, unless she was unmarried when you were born and you took her minority-sounding name), 3) whatever's convenient politically (*cough* Senator Elizabeth "Fibs With A Fist" Warren *cough*).
OT LOLZ: So the LGBT community is boycotting Stoli vodka in protest of anti-gay laws in Russia. But the thing is, the Stoli sold in the US--and much of the west for that matter--is made in Latvia. Russian Stoli is made by state distilleries and isn't even exported.
But the LOLZ run deeper. The Stoli boycott began with a July article to that affect by Dan Savage in response to legislation passed in Kaliningrad in February. The February legislation was the 10th such ban enacted in Russia since 2006. That's 7 years of unencumbered Stoli consumption.
And it gets better, still. When confronted by the fact that the boycotted Stoli isn't even from Russia, one LGBT leader responded that the boycott was still justified because the company didn't speak out sooner. Oi!
*Also worth noting, the laws in question are oblast (roughly equivalent to a state or province) laws. So even if Stoli were truly Russian, boycotting it is like boycotting a New York company over laws enacted in Texas.
Eh, vodka is only good for engine degreasing and getting college girls drunk enough to take adv...I mean so they dance on the tables.
If we have Nordic, I must insist we have a box for Irish. The Irish were considered less valuable than black slaves and is why they built railroads, worked in the mines, and become cops-jobs no respectable white person would take. We also demand you stop with all the "fighting" and "drinking" references. Not all of us like to fight or are very good at it either. Not all of us are drunk ALL the time. Finally, not all of our women are souless gingers.
Here - A little Tom Lehrer.
This says it all...
Link
If we're going to start adding categories, then I want Teuton... not Germanic. And just to make this really into a pain in the ass, there should be "Sud Teuton" and "Nord Teuton" and you better not get them wrote when you address me or that's racism!
Also, no more cracks about invading Poland. We only did that twice and it's not like the Poles weren't asking for it.
BTW, Rangel can kiss my Sud Teutonic ass the dirty racist thief crony lying philanderer.
As for Russia and the LBGT community, what exactly did they expect? Outside of the "evil" US and pointless western Europe, the rest of the world is pretty much what they like to pretend we are. Did they really look at Putin and say, "Now there's a man who will respect gays." LOLOLOLOLOL!
Anyway, they should boycott Smirnoff for irony since it's not even made in Russia anymore. That and Yakov Smirnoff on principle. "In Russia, Vodka drink you."
Well, all I have to say about Rangel's comment is that I rather be a "Cracker", than a Lying, Cheating Tax-Evading Thief...
Btw, where do the Teuts and Nords come from exactly?
Bev, Where didn't they come from!! :D
Actually, the Teutons were a Germanic tribe who came from Scandinavia and the Jutland peninsula, and then moved into the Danube valley. They beat the snot out of the Romans until 102 BC, when they got their butts handed to them by the Romans.
The Nords come from Nordstrom.
So that must mean that Neims come from Neiman-Marcus, right?
That is my understanding, yes. :)
Actually, "Nordic" is apparently an adjective traced back to the 1890s and it just means "Germanic people of Northern Europe," with a focus on Scandinavia.
I looked that one up and now I'm getting ads for "Nordic Track" in my sidebars everywhere.
wahsatchmo, is "Fibs With A Fist" Elizabeth Warren's Indian name? :-)
Andrew, that's better than some ads you could be getting. As we've discussed before, the Scandis are a bit disturbing.
Kosh, the only conclusion I can draw from your defense of Irish folk is that some of you are drunk all the time, or that all of you are drunk some of the time, or maybe both.
I thought of throwing in "Celtic" as a catch-all, but there were in fact a lot of Scottish and Irish southerners; in fact, I think Jefferson Davis was of Welsh ancestry. So it wouldn't work, I'm afraid.
River dance with extreme prejudice.
tryanmax, the only tragic thing about a fight between Putin's Russia and the LGBT community is that they can't both lose.
Andrew said:
It's the dishonesty of the grouping that is annoying. Minority if victim, white if predator.
-------
I'm trying to think of examples of that besides Zimmerman (which is an example) and drawing a blank.
Bev said:
But there is another layer even more frustrating -minority victim of [fill in the blank] even when also the predator...
--------
That I've seen.
'Did they really look at Putin and say, "Now there's a man who will respect gays."'
Well, considering Putin is antagonistic towards the US, I'd say... Yes, that is exactly what they said.
Why Dan Savage, and other gay rights activists, are morons.
Also, Andrew, you are wrong about Zooey Deschanel.
LINK
Anthony, These are the same people who decide that whites can't use certain words, but black/Hispanics can. They are the same people who assume any crime by a white against a minority is motivated by race, but refuse to see any crimes by minorities against whites as being racial motivated.
If you want examples, the American Indian heritage is a great example. If you have the right views, then you can say anything and hide behind "your heritage." If you have the wrong views, then you aren't real.
And I'll give you a huge example: OJ Simpson. Before Simpson was accused of killing his wife, he was seen in the same category as black conservatives -- not black, basically white. After he killed his wife, he played the race card and suddenly this predator became a black hero, the victim of racist cops.
Or how about the number of times cops are accused of being "racist" cops and are described as "white" even though they aren't. It's funny how quickly a black cop can become white when a black suspect screams racism.
Kit, That's probably true with Putin.
Don't push your luck on Zooey.
Why was I not told about Tom Lehrer sooner?
Tryanmax: I am SO glad I could introduce you to him! Tom Lehrer is a genius (literally, a math genius!). Listen to his other stuff on YouTube - The Elements, Vatican Rag, Poisoning Pigeons In the Park. He's about the only good thing to come out of Harvard!
I think they still use his song "The Elements" in Chemistry classes to learn the elements...
Oh, and "We Will All Go Together When We Go" about nuclear attacks. Oh, and "I Gave To Agnes" about STDs. Genius!
Andrew,
Being a member of a group earns one slack. I recently attended a trade fair in which a young, very wealthy, very eductated white woman referred to herself as a biker b-tch. If some guy was running around calling women that he would have been booted out. As for your point about crime I agree.
OJ had been viewed as kind of an Uncle Tom figure, but nobody questioned whether or not he was black. That being said the people rooting for him were idiots. The type of losers that kill their ex wives or girlfriends belong either in graves or in cages.
I've never heard a black cop described as white but it should be kept in mind that for practical purposes, cops aren't black or white, they are blue.
Anthony, Not described as white per se, but if he's in a group you will hear the group described as "racist cops" and they will at times drop the fact he's black and talk about white on black racism. I've seen that several times. It's the MSM creating a narrative where there isn't one.
Agreed on OJ.
That's true about being in a group. But I think when it adds a politicized edge, then it becomes a problem.
Bev, I know these songs! LOL! My father has a lot of records from a group called The Kingston Trio and they sang a lot of these.
So, I just watched the Tom Lehrer video on New Math which, apparently, is what I was taught. If you were to ask me (which you haven't) the old math seems much more confusing. A funny bit, though. I think what it really proves is that anything can be made confusing if over-explained.
What's the difference?
To be sure, I couldn't explain it, as the old method made absolutely no sense to me. I can only advise you to go to YouTube and find out for yourself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfCJgC2zezw
(I chose that version because it includes visual aids.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vetg7vWitTU
This one's a little better.
And here is something pertinent to our original discussion: http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/m/mcwhorter-race.html
I only read through the introduction, but I'm encouraged to seek out the book. Some of the references are a bit dated, as it was written in 2000, but what can you do?
Hmm. I don't understand either method. I'm assuming he's just making them both hopelessly complex to make them meaningless. Based on this, I would assume I learned the new math, though I know I didn't... but I definitely never learned any of the useless steps he adds.
Well I don't know what the heck "8 from 4 is 6, then you carry the one" is all about. I've been wracking my brain trying to understand that. The best I can decide is some rote method.
I definitely got new math, including all the steps, but the thing is nobody throws it all at once like that. By the time you get to triple digit subtraction, the concepts are all in place so you don't need all those steps.
The new math made senses to me throughout, the old math didn't at times. It sounded "mystical." "All praise the almighty 8 from which 4 shall be taken and 6 shall be derived... carry the 1."
But I've never been told to create sets of tens or hundreds. That seems kind of stupid to me. The numbers align for a reason and you don't need to go charting them to subtract one from the other. If that's new math, then it's silly. If not, then he just made it up to make it sound complex.
See, you already got it wrong. It's the almighty 4 from which 8 will be taken.
The number alignment is what I mean about the concepts being in place. I think in kindergarten we talked about "ones" "tens" and "hundreds" and what that all meant. So when we subtracted large numbers in first grade, it didn't have to be explained, it just made sense.
I should also add that I am not a rote thinker. So even if I'm doing something for the zillionth time, I'm always aware of the underlying concepts. So I might recall the instruction as being more explicit than it actually was.
I don't want to fill T-Rav's thread with a different topic, but I find the obsession with rote thinking among older people to rather silly... it misses the point. I'm a firm believer that school should first and foremost teach process. Once you know how to find things and what to do with them, then you'll never have a problem solving problems. But knowing things by rote teaches you nothing about how to solve problems or expand your knowledge.
On the 1s, 10s, 100s, yeah we learned that at some point, but nobody does it when they do subtraction. "Oh oh, that four is a tens, so I better draw four little tens next to the problem so that I know the number of tens is now down to three." Uh, no.
Countdown to Catastrophe
AUGUST 2, 1914 (99 years ago today…) -Part 1 of 4
Early morning
-After the Kaiser turns in, German leaders bicker over what to do next. Moltke and Fahlkenhayn want to put the Schlieffen Plan into motion at once. However, Bethmann has not yet received confirmation that the declaration was delivered by Pourtales. He insists that the Geneva Convention of 1907 be followed to the letter, with a confirmed declaration followed by action. Until then, he won’t allow Germnay to fight either Russia or its ally. Tirpitz notes that the Prime Minister and Moltke had “a violent scene” that was “followed by mutual apologies for loss of temper.”
Tirpitz then questions the need to move through neutral Belgium. (He is also shocked to find out that Germany only has one war plan in the event that hostilities break out. In fact, the plan has only been shown to a few military until a few days ago, when it was shown- for the first time- to some of the political leadership.) He’s worried about angering the British and drawing them in as an enemy. Moltke and Fahlkenhayn are only worried about the few ground troops Britain may send. (Of the British Army, Bismarck once quipped that if it invaded Germany, he would "have it arrested.") Tirpitz is worried about the devastating effects of tangling with the Royal Navy.
It is also brought up that Austria had not yet committed to fight Russia. For that matter, neither has Italy or Romania- two key allies. Tirpitz would later say that Germany’s “political leadership has completely lost its head.” Bethmann finally allows operations to begin when news arrives of shots being fired on the East Prussian border.
-In Paris, the French Cabinet agrees that France will declare war on Germany once mobilization is complete.
4:00 AM
-The last “Willy-Nicky” telegram is received by Czar Nicholas. It contains a belated peace offer from Kaiser Wilhelm.
-German leaders receive more reports of fighting on East Prussian border.
6:00 AM
-Reports of the German invasion of Luxembourg reach Brussels. German Ambassador to Belgium, Klaus von Below-Selaske, is asked for an explanation. He tells the Belgians: “Your neighbor’s roof may catch fire, but your own house will be safe.” Belgium, for now, does not ask the Guarantor Powers (the countries that guaranteed Belgium’s independence in the 1839 Treaty) for help.
-Additional reports of Russians crossing into East Prussia arrive in Berlin.
8:00 AM
Prime Minister Paul Eyschen of Luxembourg issues a formal protest to Berlin over German troops entering his country. The German Foreign Office then sends telegrams to all major capitals, calling the move a precautionary measure. The Luxembourg government is told that Germany received reports of a French invasion of Luxembourg (not true) and simply reacted.
Countdown to Catastrophe
AUGUST 2, 1914 (99 years ago today…) -Part 2 of 4
Morning
-Ambassador Cambon in London tries to use the situation in Luxembourg to convince Grey that British intervention is necessary. Grey says that Luxembourg’s existence is collectively guaranteed by Europe; Belgium’s independence, on the other hand, was personally guaranteed by Britain in the London Treaty of 1839, so, he says, the two scenarios are completely different.
11:00 AM
-The British Cabinet remains divided over the unfolding war on the continent. In both houses of Parliament, Conservative and Unionist leaders call for coming to the aid of France and Russia. As for the Liberals, Asquith says that “a good ¾ of our party are for absolute non-interference at any price.”
The meeting lasts for three hours, with resignations expected from several members, depending on the outcome. It’s now revealed that plans made with France in 1912 were, in fact, war plans that dictated the French fleet protecting the Mediterranean Sea and the British fleet protecting the Channel. (The plans were made in secret, with only select members of the government knowing about them, for fear that they would be scrapped if they became public knowledge.) However, a compromise is reached. If German warships enter the Channel with the intention of attacking France, then Britain will intervene. Right Honorable John Burns, president of the Board of Trade, calls it “neither more or less than a challenge to Germany, tantamount to a declaration of war against her.” The compromise barely keeps the Cabinet together and the government from collapsing. (That night, Lord Morley, Lord President of the Cabinet, says almost everyone agreed, “Burns was right;” and that the Cabinet “was being rather artfully drawn on step by step to war for the benefit of France and Russia.”)
Grey’s attempt for a commitment to fight Germany on land nearly brings the house down. Morley and Burns threaten to resign. Sir John Simon says, “why should we support a country like Russia?” Lloyd George thunders, “How will you feel if you see Germany overrun and annihilated by Russia?” With the Liberal government near collapse, Grey promises to make his case for going to war with Germany tomorrow before the House of Commons- with violation of Belgian neutrality being the key issue.
Afternoon
-In Munich, rioters attack the French and Russian legations.
2:00 PM
-Joffre is awarded full freedom to as he pleases by the French government. His first action is move French troops up to the border with Germany.
-France will also declare a ‘state of siege’- ordering martial law and military control of the railways.
2:05 PM
In Brussels, on instructions from Jagow, Ambassador Below opens a letter his office received on July 29th. It was actually written by Moltke on July 26th, before being feverishly re-written by Zimmerman, Jagow, and Bethmann. The note says that Belgium must agree within 12 hours not to resist German troops marching through Belgian territory en route to France. Failure to do so will result in Belgium being considered a German enemy. It is to be delivered by 8:00 P.M.
Countdown to Catastrophe
AUGUST 2, 1914 (99 years ago today…) -Part 3 of 4
A note on the Schlieffen Plan: When General Alfred von Schileffen drafted his famous plan as Germany’s Chief of Staff, he opted for a quick and decisive war with France. (As opposed to his predecessor, Moltke the Elder, who favored defensive war with France and a war of maneuvers with Russia.) The plan calls for German troops to sweep into France, taking Paris by M+40 (mobilization day being M+1), turning around, taking trains to Russia, and hitting the Russians just as they complete mobilization. However, by the first decade of the 20th Century, having German troops cross the Franco-German border was not an option. Since the 1870-71 war, France had been working on a program of modernizing its fort system along the border. By the early 20th century, the line of forts- anchored by Verdun- was formidable, featuring armor that could repel the latest explosives, retractable turrets, and extensive underground rail systems. Schlieffen and other leaders agreed that the line was impassable. (In fact, several forts- including Verdun- never fell in WWI.) So, they looked at another route: Belgium. The flat plain of Belgium and northern France is perfect for an army crossing. Plus, Belgium’s forts- namely Liege and Namur- had last been upgraded in the 1890’s and were incapable of withstanding modern artillery. Therefore, the decision to invade Belgium was a military one, not a political one. Schlieffen- who had no political skills- had simply ignored the political consequences. Though his successor- and former assistant- Moltke the Younger had amended several aspects of the plan to fit changes in France’s new offensive-minded attitude following 1911, he left the Belgian invasion intact with no alternative. This is why he drafted the ultimatum on July 26th. Moltke wasn’t gearing up to fight all of Europe. The plan called for marching through Belgium to get to France; and Belgium had to be given a choice to stay out or become the enemy.
3:00 PM
-Grey tells Cambon the decision of the Cabinet to commit the Royal Navy to defending the Channel, but not to commit the British Expeditionary Force to fight on the continent.
4:00 PM
-After weeks of negotiations, German Ambassador Hans von Wagenheim and Ottoman Grand Vizier, Said Halim Pasha, conclude a secret alliance in that each will defend the other if Russia attacks Germany.
7:20 PM
-Ambassador Below arrives at the Belgian Foreign Ministry in Brussels. He hands the 12-hour ultimatum to Belgian Foreign Minister Davignon. Below leaves with his face sweating profusely. When other officials enter Davignon’s room, he only says, “bad news. Bad news.” More leaders enter and, after reading the ultimatum out loud, Prime Minister Baron de Broqueville says, “if we are to be crushed, let us be crushed gloriously.”
Countdown to Catastrophe
AUGUST 2, 1914 (99 years ago today…) -Part 4 of 4
9:00 PM
-The Belgian Council of State, presided over by King Albert, begins to discuss the German ultimatum at the presidential palace.
Belgium has not been in the dark over the actions of the past few days. When Germany publicly declared its “Imminent Danger of War’ program, Belgium began its own mobilization. However, lacking a plan, it amounted to little more than a “call-up without deployment.” Yesterday, after learning of Grey’s latest peace offers, King Albert and his wife, Queen Elizabeth, had written a personal appeal to Kaiser Wilhelm. Unfortunately, they weren’t able to do more.
The treaty that guarantees Belgian independence- the London Treaty of 1839- also forbids Belgium from war-planning with potential allies, or taking action itself, as it is pledged to neutrality in its constitution. To break those terms would be to lose its protection from the more powerful countries. Blind faith in the treaty led Belgian leaders to neglect the army, which is in a broken-down state compared to its neighbors. Despite pleas from King Albert and his top military assistant, Captain Emile Galet, (as a constitutional monarch, Albert can do no more), the Belgian Parliament refused to increase the Belgian army’s size from more than six divisions for fear that such actions would make the Great Powers think they were contemplating war themselves.
After being brought up to speed, King Albert declares, “our answer must be ‘No,’ whatever the consequences. Our duty is to defend our territorial integrity. In this we must not fail.” De Broqueville adds, “If Germany is victorious, Belgium, whatever her attitude, will be annexed to the German Empire.” The meeting continues until midnight, when the ministers are adjourned. A handful of them head to the Belgian Foreign Office to draft their country’s reply.
Late night
-Germany completes the occupation of Luxembourg. Though the government protests, no resistance is offered.
Rustbelt, It's fascinating how conflicted Germany is because it's never portrayed that way. They are portrayed as gung-ho, with a fully agreed-upon plan to ignore the rules of war and international law from the outset. That's really not true though, is it?
No, Andrew. It's not. Now, to be sure, there are several commanders who want a conflict. But for the most part, Germans didn't because they knew what the consequence would be. The Kaiser loved his navy so much that he dreaded sending it out to fight for fear of it being destroyed. Almost a Spartan attitude of fight hard and well, though only as a last resort.
The problem was they had the wrong people in charge. Bethmann was weak-willed and unsuited for the job. Jagow wasn't much better. Moltke wasn't stupid, but wasn't willing to go against the preset plan. (To his credit, he admitted he wasn't his uncle.) Maybe he was just old and infelxible, or just overly loyal to his old boss, Schlieffen. Who knows? In the end, too many of them were unwilling to stand up and say no to the system, I suppose.
Still, Germany was the most logical-minded of the group. Problem is, as WWI shows, the public prefers raw emotion to reason. The Germans just weren't drama experts.
Rustbelt, In my experience, outside of America, few people are willing to stand up to the system and say no. I'm told that Germany is changing and becoming more like us, but look at the rest of Europe today and ask yourself if most Brits or Froggies or Spaniards or anyone else would go against "the authorities." I doubt it.
Andrew, I think the term 'dynamic European' was removed from Webster's Dictionary the day after Winston Churchill passed away.
To be honest, I don't have the experience with Europeans you do. (I have a relative who taught French for years and says my family at least needs to get out more.) My experiences these days are limited to their chief export- entertainment. As noted in previous threads, it's a sign of how far Europe has fallen.
And if France is any example, 'the system' is still the most powerful force in Europe.
Rustbelt, I've got a good deal of experience with Europeans over the years and in different countries. Their business community isn't like the rest of them, but by and large, the Euros are big into doing what they are told while describing having the right to do as they are told as "freedom."
Germany seems to be changing though in response to the rising economic threat from China, the number of plants they have in the US now which has forced new management methods on them, and a shift of much of their manufacturing to Eastern Europe which has changed their view of labor/capital equality. They seem to have come to realize that they need more flexibility than Germans were used to in the past and that they can no longer afford to give something for nothing.
Britain and France seem to be drifting the other way, as are the basket case countries in the South.
So, they are free to be mindless cogs in the machine? Sounds like the title to a Philip K. Dick or Ray Bradbury short story...or at least commie propaganda pamphlets.
That's good news about Germany. I'm beginning to wonder if Britain and France may need to suffer catastrophic bankruptcy before they finally tweak their systems. Maybe they should follow Monaco's example: find something they're actually good at and base the ENTIRE economy around it. Not a diverse portfolio, but maybe better than what they have now.
Rustbelt, I think the problem goes deeper than that. I think the problem is that the ones with initiative leave the country to go to somewhere where they can benefit from their efforts. And the countries try to mask this with phony statistics about patents and start up businesses, etc., and by claiming things that aren't theirs as theirs.
To give you an example, I know a Brit who actually believes that the BBC is unbiased because the government tells her so, believes that the world looks up to Britain for moral guidance and "expertise"... she can't identify at what, thinks that things like the F-22 are British because the British papers talk about "British companies" like Lockheed Martin developing them in British locations, and thinks that the British invented things like "Ben and Jerry's" because they are owned by Unilever, a British company.
She's woefully ignorant on all these points, because the British papers are surprisingly deceptive in their patriotism, all the while claiming they aren't patriotic.
As an aside, I had to laugh that she's upset that NSA is doing this spying, but she doesn't think twice about every square inch of Britain being covered by surveillance cameras.
Andrew, that is a sad, sad example. I'm tempted to say it might make MSNBC viewers look well-informed, but I won't. Might be the craziest thing said on this thread since Kit's comments about "Z."
By the way, did you also remind her that, for all intents and purposes, Britain's most famous fictional character, at the moment, is a spy?
Some people you don't argue with because it doesn't serve any purpose.
I've already known too many people in my life who fit that description.
Yep.
Well, I've got to call it a night. Got some travelling to do tomorrow. I'll be sure to have the next update ready, though. Until then, my friend...
Have a good trip. :)
Post a Comment