The Wisdom of the White Male
by Leigh ScottThere is an often overlooked fact in the discussion of the advancement of minorities over the past 100 years. No single group has done more to “level the playing field” bring about “social justice” or move our nation towards equality than the white male.
Unless I’m missing something, I don’t recall the Women’s Suffrage Revolt of 1920 where armed women stormed the Capitol, beheaded president Harding and declared their right to vote. I also must have missed it when Martin Luther King Jr. unleashed suicide bombers on D.C. until Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
No. Great men and women brought the nation together and increased awareness of social and political injustices. The great service of Martin Luther King, Fredrick Douglas, Susan B. Anthony and others was to expose injustice and let the powers that be know that the Constitution should and does apply to all people.
Power, they say, is taken and not given. Except, of course, in the United States.
All of these changes have come to pass because enlightened white men, who held power in this country, saw and appreciated the injustice. Sure, many of them opposed change, but in the end, wiser heads prevailed and the status quo was changed.
In 2008, 95% of black voters voted for Obama. Imagine if white men truly were the racist, power clinging, exploiters that many would have you believe we are and voted the exact same way. Obama would have lost by a landslide. In fact, white men make up a larger voter block than all minorities combined. Yet, we don’t vote as a group. We have varied political views. White men will vote for and work towards policies that are directly counter-intuitive to their own financial and social standing, simply because they believe it is the right thing to do.
So when someone claims that a “wise Latina” would make a better decision than a white man in terms of social justice, I call foul. A little friend of mine called History says something different.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
93 Comments
And you will be unjustly labled a racist in 3… 2… 1…
RACIST………Just kidding. Excellent article. People forget that white men care about many things (the unborn, injustice, beer!) This identity politics crap needs to end. I think most people are sick of it and want people jugded on the "Content of their character". Oh what a happy day that would be.
…And fought and died in the civil war to free the blacks from slavery.
Sonia is reverse racist and a liar. Just admit that Sonia believes in discriminating AGAINST White Males. Be honest for once!
End Afirmative Action now!
I hate the term "reverse racist" because it decreases the sting. You never hear of a "reverse mugging" if a Black thief mugs a White victim. Because the term diminishes the evil of the crime.
Gringrich was right to just call Sotomayor RACIST.
[...] Big Hollywood: The Wisdom of the White Male by Leigh Scott There is an often overlooked fact in the discussion of the advancement of minorities over the past [...]
No Fred, "reverse mugging" is now termed "Income Redistribution", per his holiness.
Check this out: "Obama’s First Nominee for Supreme Court Justice Dismissed from Jury Duty Under Anti-Bias Rules": http://optoons.blogspot.com/2009/05/updated-obama...
Leigh Scott wrote:
"Unless I’m missing something, I don’t recall the Women’s Suffrage Revolt of 1920 where armed women stormed the Capitol, beheaded president Harding"
Wilson was President in 1920. Harding didn't take office until 1921. Next time you write a column, you might want to check google or read a history book first.
I think we should view this excellent post by Leigh in terms of Andrew's post from last night. We can no longer permit the Dems to label us without fighting back. I'm old enough to sort of get away with it anyway, but I find myself having a shorter and shorter fuse regarding political correctness. I would say I am more willing to call a spade a spade, but you know that even though that is a classic old saying with absolutely no bad intentions, there would be plenty who would go out of their way to try and say it is offensive. I say, too damn bad.
I'm hoping that in the next election, 95% (or more) of the white males might vote differently, especially after four more years of hearing how racist you are.
Ok Oily Taint
now that you found the errors, what say you about the content?
I agree, but a couple of weeks ago when this topic was discussed, every one wanted to kick out the "moderate" republicans. If winning at any cost is the new approach, how do we do that if we try and run so many out? I'd rather have a candidate with whom I agree 75% of the time, than 40%. I don't think most Republicans can stomach this, however. That is why I'm not always a Republican.
brilliant
I am most interested in how white American males of the Jewish faith might vote. They can't be a happy group right about now, can they?
Excellent article. The way to get past racial issues in not to continue to make them the focus.
this is one white American male of Jewish faith that has voted consistantly conservative ever since I was old enough to vote, and will continue to do so. I cannot understand those of my faith that keep putting people into power that immediately turn on them. History has shown what happens to us when the left gets total control.
One of the things I like best about this site is that often I can hear a point made for a position I already hold, for which I have never thought of in that way before. This was done here, and with brevity. Wow. Bravo!
From Oily_Taitz:
"What content??"
Where is the goal line? What is the intended outcome of Affirmative Action? How can we tell when the playing field is level? The Republican party can change the language and the playing field by asking theses questions but, they to not have the stomach. We must stand up or soon we will not be allowed to.
What's really telling is that they couldn't see this coming (Our friend Darkwolf excluded of course….).
Obama showed plenty of signs in his campaign that he was more symapthetic to muslims than anyone else. The fist interview he granted was to the Arabs. His subsequent apology tours and bowing sessions should have sparked more than a little concern in the Jewish communities that voted for him but so far only crickets…..
Espouse conservative ideals and the country will follow, Carter gave us Reagan. Pay no attention to Washington talking heads, this country is inherently conservative get ready for 2010, 2012.
Not many wanted to kick out "moderate" anythings. As Limbaugh points out, if Powell's personal friend, maverick Independent, media-accepted (aka moderate) ideal candidate, McCain was the republican candidate and he lost (in part due to lower voter turnout amongst white males) and Powell didn't even vote for him! Then, 1. Can Powell speak with any credibility as a republican, 2. why are the "moderates" trying to exclude conservatives" when the moderate candidate lost badly, 3. what does being "republican" mean, 4. is there a point in being a 'republican' if that means being part of the party for "big government …only not quite as big as what the Dems woudl do"?
Demagogues as Democrats need strawmen. There must have a bogeyman and a victim. Blame everything on the Other and a white guy will do. Convince your victims that their victimization is due to the white guy, then convince the white guy of his guilt, and you get your way.
If white guys were the evil they are portrayed, they would have put a stop to this shell game long ago
THANK YOU! This is what I've always said. Be at least as thankful to the men who extended to women the right to vote as to the women who marched protesting it.
Disagree, lets go on offense to fight and expose the baloney
That's two of us who have no clue. Perhaps it is the same mentality that made our grandparents leave the Soviet Union and join the U.S. Communist Parties – Some sort of Stockholm Syndrome variant.
Me too.
Level playing field or payback for the sins of our fathers,you make the call.
It was whites who fought to end slavery (which continued in much of the rest of the non-white world), and extended equality under the law.
It was Christians who granted religious freedom, both here and in Europe — try finding that in the Middle East.
It was males who voluntarily extended the right to women to vote and eliminated unequal laws.
If these groups are so horrible, why did they do these things, and why don't they reverse them now and act like they do in the "noble" Middle East or the heart of Africa or Southeast Asia?
Good point, but Limbaugh and others rail against the "Big tent" in that it allows "Squishy" Republicans room. Hosts and callers were saying the same thing.
My fear is that people would rather lose on principals than to dirty their fingers. This attitude will make us feel like we remained on the highroad, but will ultimately bring about huge negative changes for the country.
This is a great post for a media site, because from the left's standpoint, all the peaceful social change was a liberation struggle of women and non-europeans against white males that occurred in conjunction with the media siding with the "opresssed". While you may pat yourself on the back for the moderation of the white male in acquiesence to societal change towards "liberal" justice, the left does not view history from that viewpoint.
mmmm sure Curious if my forefathers had any sins against some poor oppressed minority to pay for but funny enough Curious the only minoritys my forefathers had anything to do with were slaves and the slaves they helped save from being caught and taken back to their "masters'. Now of course you could bring up Jewish people but my Dad and Uncles fought to save what was left Europes Jews from the Nazis. But sure have your little tantrum over what the White Race owes….
And then you can do some historical researching and what ifs over Thermopylae, the Roman invasion of Britain and how Irish Monks saved the learning and scholarly documents of the West from being lost forever.
And then wallow in guilt. Because it must make you feel better. Whine about Aristotle and Plato, Socrates and Marcus Auerelius, cry about teh evils of William Shakespeare and Wilberforce. Cry over the evil of Abraham Lincoln and George Washington and make sure you add Adam Smith and John Locke. Oh yeah Michelangelo, DaVinci, Raphael………..
[...] Grand Rants: Sotomayor on Video (Sotomayor’s Outrageous Comments) Leigh Scott, Big Hollywood: The Wisdom of the White Male First Things – The Anchoress: Sotomayor for SCOTUS? (UPDATED) Michael S. Rulle Jr., Big Hollywood: [...]
I don't want to kick anybody out, either, I just refuse to let the other side define the debate in terms of "if I'm against Obama, I must be a racist. I think non-Democrats, however you define them will do well with a lower tax, less government, strong defense agenda and kind of low key issues like a) gay marriage b) Roe vs. Wade c) war against religion. It's not that I don't respect the feelings of some in the party on these issues or even totally disagree with some of their positions. They are just not central issues to me and, in some cases, exclusionary. I think the point is we need to get really tough in defining the opposition on our terms. That should be easier to do next time since Obama has an actual record he will have to defend. He could have been beaten in 2008. Republicans lost power because of a) people tired of the war and less than stellar defense of the reasons for it. b) the collapse of the financial and lending markets c) nominating a moderate who was Democrat-lite and a poor campaigner and debater, d) identity politics increasing turnout among some who would normally not vote. e) Congressional Republicans did not continue to honor the "contract with America" regarding spending control.
[...] reading: Hot Air: Gibbs warns: Be “exceedingly careful” in how you criticize Sotomayor Leigh Scott, Big Hollywood: The Wisdom of the White Male NewsMax.com: Limbaugh: Sotomayor ‘Reverse Racist, Hack’ Mike Sargent: NewsBusters: [...]
Indeed, this is a point I always hammer out on whenever talking with some of my more left leaning relatives.
If you want to see white man bias, wait for your wife to divorce you. Though you're legally innocent in court, most all men lose children, 18 years of income, 1/2 a home, a car. Then the guy gets stuck with most of the marital debt and an Order of Protection (for getting angry about the new arrangement).
Divorce in the U.S.A. is unilateral (one party decides) and no-fault (no reason needed), unlike marriage which is bi-lateral (two needs to agree). Therefore, the USA has one of the highest divorce rates in the world of about 200 countries.
Something school or media will not tell you is that women initiate divorce about 80% of the time, and if they have a college degree they initiate divorce about 90% of the time.
Men die earlier (about 7 years) and die on the job (about 95% work deaths), than women, but we do not see politicians, Democrat or Republican, establishing an Office of Men's Health. There are more government women organizations than I can count.
The U.S.A. churches – any denomination – are also silent on men issues.
Um, it's when meanie white males have nothing, so they can learn what it's like to be oppressed. Do you see? That's the only thing that's really fair.
/barf
Young men between 20 and 24 have a seven times greater rate of suicide; overall, men commit suicide at rates four times greater than women.
Yet Google a suicide help organization – the org does not have a program aimed at helping men.
Where's the wisdom here?
Nicely done.
Luckily for her she lives in a country that truly wise people forged. I guess as a wise latina she would be qualified to judge on coups and communist revolutions.
Hi Andrew! It’s liberal projection to set a false premise that all white males are racist, homophobes. Simply do not accept the false premise, and the liberal screed will wilt on the vine, give crazy no place to go. The best example of this was Carrie Prejean (white female) and that nasty misogynist queen Perez Hilton, the MSM and all the normal wheels cranked up to destroy this young lady, and she held firm with her beliefs and sent the loons packing, and victory. Hold on to what you believe and the left will crumble.
White men have zero civil rights as they are the feminist's (man bad, woman good) enemy.
I observe feminists at my church – Willow Creek Community Church – and in my liberal and conservative friends, in the media and at work – I work at a school.
A new site that freely speaks about this is here.
http://www.glennsacks.com
Level playing field? What a joke. Giving people jobs or other benefits based on the color of their skin is racist. Period.
Payback for the sins of our fathers?? You have a lot of growing up to do……
Actually, it's entirely possible to have a "Women’s Suffrage Revolt of 1920" that committed an act in 1921. Organizations are often named for when they are founded, or after significant dates that relate to their beliefs, as opposed to the exact date of the act they are for which they are "famous." If YOU read a history book, you would know that.
It could also have been a typo. Or perhaps it was a minor "misstatement." You should be familiar with that concept; your Messiah and his tax-cheating officials make them every time we catch them in what honest people call "a lie."
Incidentally, you strike me as the same type of hypocritical liberal who ragged on Bush for every little slip of the tongue and called him stupid, but now says nothing about Obama and his "57 states," his constant use of "uh," getting the city he's in wrong, literally stating history that doesn't exist, etc.
What "people" like you need is some intellectual honesty, and you won't get that from Google.
Put the Kool-Aid down.
Men are not treated equally in areas such as child custody, domestic violence policies, reproductive rights, criminal sentencing, public health policies, paternity laws, the draft, dating expectations, and more.
Opponents like Ms. Sonia Sotomayor of these facts tend to reactively look only at gender disparities at the top of society (government, CEOs) while overlooking the ordinary or poor, where men account for 80 to 90 percent of homeless adults, work-related deaths, prisoners, and suicide deaths, as well as 99 percent of combat deaths and the majority of dropouts and special education students. Men also die younger and more often than women for the 10 leading causes of death.
Stan, you're absolutely right. The left believes these things because they themselves think this way. Indeed, most of their race/sex policies are underlied with the assumption that there is something inferior about women/minorities. For more evidence, think of how often you've hear leftists make racists/sexist statements without giving it a second thought.
But as you know, they think that they themselves can't be racists or sexists, because despite the evidence to the contrary, they just know that they aren't. Thus, they can tell racists jokes because "they don't really mean it."
To solve this contradiction, they just project their own racism/sexism on others.
I guess she and Obama learned out of the non-white man's history book… Where all people of the Anglo(-Saxon) tribe is bad, evil and want to exterminate anything and everything that gets in their way… :/
Men are the slaves in New World since the 1960's.
The reason for the gender disparity at the top—including the “pay gap”—is that women have more options than men to be primary parents, and many of them exercise that option rather than work long, stressful hours. One study found about 60% of female graduates at Stanford and Harvard left the workforce within 15 years. This is an option few men have (try being a single male and telling women while dating that you want to stay at home). The pay gap only looks at yearly incomes but doesn’t account for these options or for overtime (90% male), commutes, flexibility, physical risk, etc. This has been confirmed by a recent study funded by the Department of Labor.
Notice wise women like Ms. Sonia Sotomayor do not aim for jobs as garbage-persons, truck drivers, or sewer workers. Its always jobs like teachers (who work 9 months a year), lawyers, politicians, leaders of companies that men started.
You mean, "what's content?"
You just have to look at the rest of the world to know this is true, right? Isn't Africa known as the continent of peace? Isn't the Middle East known as the birth place of tolerance.
Why, I don't think there's even been a harsh word spoken outside of Anglo countries.
We all forget that, according to Lewis Diuguid, to be non-Socialist is to be racist (http://voices.kansascity.com/node/2493).
That's funny. Since I know all of the US Presidents and their year of election by heart, I often make that mistake and forget that they were inaugurated a year later. Thanks for catching that. Now, feel free to ignore everything I said because of a tiny error. In fact, feel free to now categorize me as "historically ignorant" or "Sarah Palin stupid" for the typo. Snarky In=Snarky Out!
Excellent point. So well said, Andrew.
Even better…..
Where you seem to be off-track and they seem to have a point is that the Taft/Rockefella/Powel moderate republicans were the minority party in Congress for about 40 years. Reagan and Gingrich were the republicans that won big and they articulated conservative/libertarian ideals. Dole and McCain were moderate candidates that failed.
Limbaugh doesn't think his position is the losing poslition. McCain and Powell are not viewing the political landscape via ideology, but rather via demographics (a shrinking "white" america). Conservatives believe the underlying political soul of middle-america is conservative, and by appealing to that ala Reagan, they will trump demographics.
Neat, I just finished a book on OCD..
With Obama, you cannot ignore demographics. Four years from now, we will see a repition of 2008, his base of Black America will turn out en-masse to re-elect hm. They have no interest in his politics, his beliefs, or the success or failure of America as world power or an economic machine, or in an honest election process. They will be voting to re-elect a black guy. period.
I guestion whether the Democratic party can ever run a white male at the top of their ticket again.
If you take word parsing and racism out their play books that would leave them nothing to fight with. I mean really, look at the new employment numbers. 1.6 million jobs lost after the stimulus bill was signed and Goolsbee says that's a sign the economy is recovering? I guess that makes sense in a kind of "if history repeats itself a conservative like Reagan will come along and fix this mess soon" kind of way.
MegaTroll: Maybe Oily meant "he's content" to be a mini-troll.
Amen
"Power, they say, is taken and not given. Except, of course, in the United States."
- Errrgh-hmmmm!!! (Clearing my throat.) Uh, people, you know that we white males COULD, in actual fact, take back all that wonderful freedom, right? If we really, REALLY wanted to?
I'm just SAYIN'…
So when you think about it, after all the crap we've put up with over the past half-century and not once reaching out to snatch all that glorious liberty back with our sweaty, hairy palms, we ol' Neanderthal white boys must be some fairly decent folks – taken as a whole.
Clearly you don't know the history of my family. My grandfather's great grandfather fought for the Union during the Civil War. All of my other relatives immigrated from either England or Germany after WWI. My fathers have no sins here, but thanks for playing.
Curious- I'm curious…. if the United States is so racist, and the field of play not level, how is it that a half black/half white, son of a Muslim Kenyan was able to become our president and the leader of the Free World? I'm so curious……
As a liberal, who is black, and who makes it a point to lambast all the idiocy I typically see on this site, I'll have to depart from my usual conjecture and agree with Leigh Scott.
It really did take the effort of all people, white, black, Native American, Hispanic, Asian, straight, gay, male, female to bring the nation forward.
I don't agree with what most conservatives say about Sotomayor's speech, because they have a gross misintepretation of it. And I feel that even i wouldn't have the perspective of a Latina woman, just like she wouldn't have my perspective of a black male. So we shouldn't act like white males are all seeing and all knowing.
White men aren't gods. Many of them are just decent guys.
I dont think it is a losing position either. I'd just like to see the party be accomodating to those that aren't a "perfect" match. If a person can get behind most of the core platforms and principles, they ought to be welcome.
Remember Reagan brought the party to him. The problem we have is that the squishies became the party laedership.
Take it back for whites only? Possible, some could argue it has never left. But there are non-white groups that have shown themselves to be both rational and conservative that deserve to be noted. There is also overlap to consider, as the unspoken bit is it was "Christian white males" that allowed change.
Take it back for males only? That will be an issue. Also, last I checked we were trying to avoid doing what the Muslims have done (I want to say "extremists" but it goes somewhat beyond that).
I hit the streets of Selma, Alabama and Oxford Mississippi in 1964, and I have the scars to prove it. I assume that means that you would agree that I have better credentials and perspective on African-American mens' issues than Sotomayor who is a female Latina. This is a zero-sum game that only lefty politicians can win. Should we have a scoring system? Latino trumps white, black trumps Latino, Latino gay female trumps black male, etc., etc., ad infinitum? Judges, particularly appellate judges, swear an oath to be impartial. The only perspective that matters is legal perspective. Race, creed, color, national origin and prior condition of servitude are legally irrelevant. That's what I fought for. Too bad most ultraliberals today have only read about what we fought for, and they don't read well at all.
LOL! Good show Leigh. . . and great article. Your stuff is always worth reading!
Me three.
Affirmative Action was started as something to allow qualified individuals to achieve positions regardless of minority status. It has become something that awards positions based on minority status regardless of qualifications. Since "a level playing field" is based on the original premise but that premise is no longer being executed the goal will not be met. Politics of Division 101, maintain the divisions to maintain the politics.
MLK Jr. would not appreciate what is being done in his name. Hiring the most qualified individual regardless of skin color, yes. Hiring an individual to have someone of that skin color, no. The dream has become a nightmare and the country is not waking up.
Traditionally, beautiful white women prefer white men, despite the penchant of the American media and professional sports figures to change that.
I hope that statement pisses a whole lot of people off.
Now I'm gonna go watch my video of Charlton Heston marching with Martin Luther King, Jr., ya'll.
When the media allows that it is okay to not feel guilty about being born a white male, maybe it will happen. After all everyone else is told it is "not your fault" you were born what you were.
No LawHawk. I said Sotomayor knows better what it's like to be a Latina woman than I would. Just like I know MUCH better what it's like to be a black male than you EVER would, even if you did march in Selma.
In fact, I'm willing to venture that the white folks who did participate in the Civil Rights movement knew that they had little knowledge of what it's like to be black, which made their experience that much more passionate.
All white people are racist. I know because I am one.
Thanks Andrew. I always enjoy your comments.
This is one of the biggest problems in society today. "You're not like me, so you can't relate." The law is not written from the perspective of one race and it should apply to everyone equally. Granted it is not enforced equally at times. If a judge on the supreme court wants to rule from the perspective of his or her race, it defeats the purpose of impartial justice. Sotomayor is a step in the wrong direction.
Hmmmmm,White guys gave you this forum,cars,electricity,I can go on,on,on,and on.We ARE going down the road as decribed in the novel "The Camp of the Saints",and no!I read it in the 70's,long before Neal Boortz "discovered" it.There is a last holocaust coming,get used to it.Keep on espousing how you are superior,BECAUSE YOU SAY SO without any historical context or substantiation.
Let's get back on topic. Sotomayor didn't just say she was a Latina woman in some kind of verbal vacuum. She said it gave her a better ability to deal with certain legal topics than a white male. That is a direct violation of her oath of office. I know what's it's like to be a white male better than you for obvious reasons, but it doesn't have anything to do with judging a record on appeal.
You're about being black. We were about making that a good thing to be. Our entire action in the Civil Rights Movement was about getting to know each other, seeing our differences and living a life where those differences didn't have any effect how we acted toward each other as human beings. We never wanted the differences to become grounds for judicial decision-making. In fact, that is exactly what we were fighting against. The law is about thinking, not feeling. We have two other branches of government to deal with feelings. They are specifically supposed to be kept out of the legal arena, most particularly at the appellate level.
The Civil Rights Movement was to guarantee that no race, no ethnic group, no economic class, and no sex gets special, unequal, or deferential treatment in our courts of law. We've spent years saying that society should be color-blind. Well, that's not exactly correct. In society, color is a bit hard to hide, it's only important that it not matter. But the only colors that appellate courts are allowed to see are the black and white on the papers they are reviewing. Sotomayor wants to change that.
Great article. I wrote a little piece of my own in a similar vein detailing my family's experience in America, hopefully dispelling the myth of the privileged white male. You can read it here:
http://moderncounterculture.com/political-comment...
Joe,
How do you know we white guys aren't gods? You after all don't have the perspective of a white guy since I don't have the perspective of a black guy as you say.
A jewish friend of mine voted for Barry Soreto, aka Barack Hussein Obama.
He's pissed.
Yes, but we have PRIORITIES. For example, we don't have bumper stickers that say:
"LIFE'S TOO SHORT TO DISPENSE CHEAP JUSTICE"
Okay – I'm sticking my head on the chopping block here, I know… but this has been bouncing around in my head for a few days now and I have to say it:
If indeed, as you say (and I agree), "the law is about thinking, not feeling", let us consider Judge Sotomayor's perspective (as evidenced in her controversial statement), and Joe's here. Clearly some feel a moral superiority based on their personal experiences of a society, a culture, a system "keeping them down". But justice in America – in order for the branches of government to work as they should – should be "blind justice", not "social justice" where prior wrongs suffered are factored in to the result. That being the case, ideal candidates for judgeships would likely be those who bear no grudges against the society, the culture, the system; those least likely to factor these elements into their decisions…
Therefore, the best judges would be drawn from the pool of… white males?
Or maybe "Content? Isn't that what Africa is?"
So in other words, to quote the left, "What's the exit strategy?" I think we've hit the level field and have crossed over to the hall of mirrors.
The Church in America is silent on a lot of issues that we shouldn't be silent on. It has long been my contention that if the church was actively being the hand of God that it is supposed to be then our country might be a different place than it is today.
Leigh, this is something that was rattling around my brain while listening to the news media, the administration and every one else rail against white men as being racist pigs. Um…historically, it has indeed been white males making decisions that have upheld the Constitutional rights of all. So thanks to them.
Fair's fair. If we're gonna fry Joey Plugs for FDR's all-out TV publicity blitz in 1929, our side's gotta watch out for howlers of our own. "57 States" as a rallying cry only goes as far as our fact-checking keeps us from the same weakness.
But the characterization of "conservatives" trying to exclude "moderates" is a media fiction.
Spector (who blindly voted for a Trillion dollar spending bill) and Powell (who voted for a socialist) are what? Moderate? Na.
Well said. And let me take a moment to say as few words about relations between women and men, and the right to vote:
– Susan B. Anthony started her efforts in reform with the abolition of slavery, 1849. Once she realized women could not be effective reformers without the right to vote, she became the noted women's rights and suffragist we teach our children about. She died 14 years, 5 months and 5 days before passage of the 19th Amendment giving women the right to vote, 1920.
– 50 years after she went to her friend, Frederick Douglass, to ask for his support including a woman's right to vote along with black males in the 15th Amendment, 1870. It was not the time for universal suffrage over their momentum, he felt.
– 2 years later, Anthony was arrested and convicted for voting, while Douglass' bank failed, 1872.
– 14 years later, the National Woman Suffrage Association annual convention praises Wyoming as the first state to give women the vote, while Douglass marries his second wife, a white woman, 1884.
[...] Grand Rants: Sotomayor on Video (Sotomayor’s Outrageous Comments) Leigh Scott, Big Hollywood: The Wisdom of the White Male First Things – The Anchoress: Sotomayor for SCOTUS? (UPDATED) Michael S. Rulle Jr., Big Hollywood: [...]
You must be logged in to post a comment.