Doonesbury: Why did Texas Secede from the Union

[emilynghiem]

From Judy and Jimmy, two friends from church:

 

[Thunderbird]

Doonesbury vs. the truth

The textbook says the Civil War was caused by “sectionalism, states’ rights and slavery”. That's a perfectly reasonable statement. How is it even controversial? There's no reason to think that because slavery is mentioned 3rd it should be considered less significant!

 

[paddymurphy]

Doonesbury vs. the truth

The textbook says the Civil War was caused by “sectionalism, states’ rights and slavery”. That's a perfectly reasonable statement. How is it even controversial? There's no reason to think that because slavery is mentioned 3rd it should be considered less significant!

You just gonna ignore the phrase "in that order"?

 

[emilynghiem]

Doonesbury vs. the truth

The textbook says the Civil War was caused by “sectionalism, states’ rights and slavery”. That's a perfectly reasonable statement. How is it even controversial? There's no reason to think that because slavery is mentioned 3rd it should be considered less significant!

You just gonna ignore the phrase "in that order"?

Dear paddymurphy
The order is different for different people and situations, even if they are talking about the same instance.
Each person may perceive the stacking of the levels in a different order.

For example, I have friends who see conflicts as gender conditioning FIRST, male vs. female, they see as projected onto everything else.

Then I have friends who will say it is racism first, before anything else.

I have found, generally, it is division by CLASS and then people project or express that division
using gender, race, and now orientation, but they were already divided by groups or classes on a deeper internal level.
The issue of religion, race, gender, orientation etc as "identifying the two groups in conflict" seems to come second
to the internalized issues.

I've seen people say it is ego first, it is fear-based, BEFORE it is expressed as any of these other specific issues.

However people define the source of the problem, which ends up being different for each person layering it in a different order, the resolution still involves forgiving and working through these differences "in whatever order" people stack them in.

If an issue is both racial and gender, I am not going to waste time fighting if it is "gender first before race"
or "race first before gender" but will work with whatever relates to THAT person, and use a different priority
when dealing with the NEXT person who frames it differently.

Asclepias and I were debating how much of the issues with slavery were from race or class, and he came up with the term "cultural" for the biased conditions that cover both perception of race and of class. So "cultural" conditioning or biases would cover all these things that factor into disparity, regardless if people disagree on the order or extent of each factor.

It's not going to be perfect. We still have people who put church law first, before the state laws that are supposed to follow and be in harmony; versus people who put secular laws first and then see the religious laws as optional that are supposed to comply and not conflicts. So with these two biases from two different set ups, we can only expect to have differences and conflicts, and need to find solutions that satisfy BOTH paradigms, so that neither feels the other way is imposed on them.

Same with people who put race issues first, or gender, or gay/orientation.

We are not going to see things the same way, in the same order.
So can we seek policies that account for these differences, satisfy all of the concerns,
and don't pit one way over others if they are all taken into account anyway.

 

[paddymurphy]

Doonesbury vs. the truth

The textbook says the Civil War was caused by “sectionalism, states’ rights and slavery”. That's a perfectly reasonable statement. How is it even controversial? There's no reason to think that because slavery is mentioned 3rd it should be considered less significant!

You just gonna ignore the phrase "in that order"?

Dear paddymurphy
The order is different for different people and situations, even if they are talking about the same instance.
Each person may perceive the stacking of the levels in a different order.

For example, I have friends who see conflicts as gender conditioning FIRST, male vs. female, they see as projected onto everything else.

Then I have friends who will say it is racism first, before anything else.

I have found, generally, it is division by CLASS and then people project or express that division
using gender, race, and now orientation, but they were already divided by groups or classes on a deeper internal level.
The issue of religion, race, gender, orientation etc as "identifying the two groups in conflict" seems to come second
to the internalized issues.

I've seen people say it is ego first, it is fear-based, BEFORE it is expressed as any of these other specific issues.

However people define the source of the problem, which ends up being different for each person layering it in a different order, the resolution still involves forgiving and working through these differences "in whatever order" people stack them in.

If an issue is both racial and gender, I am not going to waste time fighting if it is "gender first before race"
or "race first before gender" but will work with whatever relates to THAT person, and use a different priority
when dealing with the NEXT person who frames it differently.

Asclepias and I were debating how much of the issues with slavery were from race or class, and he came up with the term "cultural" for the biased conditions that cover both perception of race and of class. So "cultural" conditioning or biases would cover all these things that factor into disparity, regardless if people disagree on the order or extent of each factor.

It's not going to be perfect. We still have people who put church law first, before the state laws that are supposed to follow and be in harmony; versus people who put secular laws first and then see the religious laws as optional that are supposed to comply and not conflicts. So with these two biases from two different set ups, we can only expect to have differences and conflicts, and need to find solutions that satisfy BOTH paradigms, so that neither feels the other way is imposed on them.

Same with people who put race issues first, or gender, or gay/orientation.

We are not going to see things the same way, in the same order.
So can we seek policies that account for these differences, satisfy all of the concerns,
and don't pit one way over others if they are all taken into account anyway.

You are not well.

 

[emilynghiem]

Doonesbury vs. the truth

The textbook says the Civil War was caused by “sectionalism, states’ rights and slavery”. That's a perfectly reasonable statement. How is it even controversial? There's no reason to think that because slavery is mentioned 3rd it should be considered less significant!

You just gonna ignore the phrase "in that order"?

Dear paddymurphy
The order is different for different people and situations, even if they are talking about the same instance.
Each person may perceive the stacking of the levels in a different order.

For example, I have friends who see conflicts as gender conditioning FIRST, male vs. female, they see as projected onto everything else.

Then I have friends who will say it is racism first, before anything else.

I have found, generally, it is division by CLASS and then people project or express that division
using gender, race, and now orientation, but they were already divided by groups or classes on a deeper internal level.
The issue of religion, race, gender, orientation etc as "identifying the two groups in conflict" seems to come second
to the internalized issues.

I've seen people say it is ego first, it is fear-based, BEFORE it is expressed as any of these other specific issues.

However people define the source of the problem, which ends up being different for each person layering it in a different order, the resolution still involves forgiving and working through these differences "in whatever order" people stack them in.

If an issue is both racial and gender, I am not going to waste time fighting if it is "gender first before race"
or "race first before gender" but will work with whatever relates to THAT person, and use a different priority
when dealing with the NEXT person who frames it differently.

Asclepias and I were debating how much of the issues with slavery were from race or class, and he came up with the term "cultural" for the biased conditions that cover both perception of race and of class. So "cultural" conditioning or biases would cover all these things that factor into disparity, regardless if people disagree on the order or extent of each factor.

It's not going to be perfect. We still have people who put church law first, before the state laws that are supposed to follow and be in harmony; versus people who put secular laws first and then see the religious laws as optional that are supposed to comply and not conflicts. So with these two biases from two different set ups, we can only expect to have differences and conflicts, and need to find solutions that satisfy BOTH paradigms, so that neither feels the other way is imposed on them.

Same with people who put race issues first, or gender, or gay/orientation.

We are not going to see things the same way, in the same order.
So can we seek policies that account for these differences, satisfy all of the concerns,
and don't pit one way over others if they are all taken into account anyway.

You are not well.

If you can't follow my explanations, one group that does the best job is the
Center for the Healing of Racism that facilitates discussion to work out issues of race and political conflict related:
http://www.houstonprogressive.org/CHRguide.html
http://centerhealingracism.org/

As for me, I'm doing pretty good for someone working two jobs
to fund nonprofits on zero budgets trying to save national historic and environmental sites,
while political leaders act like we can afford to blow billions of dollars fighting over politics as usual.

To me, what is "sick" are the PROBLEMS that aren't solved by partisan division,
such as spending several trillion on war without taking
care of Veterans who are left disabled from service. Or spending
6 billion on election campaigns that don't solve anything,
while claiming there is no money to fix problems directly? Really?

I would say our SYSTEM isn't doing too well if we are trillions in debt
and not covering basic costs. Sorry you feel the need to project
the problems onto me as just another one of the messengers pointing out this isn't working.

I didn't create these issues, I am just trying to promote the solutions to them.
If my explanations suck, just go directly to the sources with success records that speak for themselves.

 

[paddymurphy]

Doonesbury vs. the truth

The textbook says the Civil War was caused by “sectionalism, states’ rights and slavery”. That's a perfectly reasonable statement. How is it even controversial? There's no reason to think that because slavery is mentioned 3rd it should be considered less significant!

You just gonna ignore the phrase "in that order"?

Dear paddymurphy
The order is different for different people and situations, even if they are talking about the same instance.
Each person may perceive the stacking of the levels in a different order.

For example, I have friends who see conflicts as gender conditioning FIRST, male vs. female, they see as projected onto everything else.

Then I have friends who will say it is racism first, before anything else.

I have found, generally, it is division by CLASS and then people project or express that division
using gender, race, and now orientation, but they were already divided by groups or classes on a deeper internal level.
The issue of religion, race, gender, orientation etc as "identifying the two groups in conflict" seems to come second
to the internalized issues.

I've seen people say it is ego first, it is fear-based, BEFORE it is expressed as any of these other specific issues.

However people define the source of the problem, which ends up being different for each person layering it in a different order, the resolution still involves forgiving and working through these differences "in whatever order" people stack them in.

If an issue is both racial and gender, I am not going to waste time fighting if it is "gender first before race"
or "race first before gender" but will work with whatever relates to THAT person, and use a different priority
when dealing with the NEXT person who frames it differently.

Asclepias and I were debating how much of the issues with slavery were from race or class, and he came up with the term "cultural" for the biased conditions that cover both perception of race and of class. So "cultural" conditioning or biases would cover all these things that factor into disparity, regardless if people disagree on the order or extent of each factor.

It's not going to be perfect. We still have people who put church law first, before the state laws that are supposed to follow and be in harmony; versus people who put secular laws first and then see the religious laws as optional that are supposed to comply and not conflicts. So with these two biases from two different set ups, we can only expect to have differences and conflicts, and need to find solutions that satisfy BOTH paradigms, so that neither feels the other way is imposed on them.

Same with people who put race issues first, or gender, or gay/orientation.

We are not going to see things the same way, in the same order.
So can we seek policies that account for these differences, satisfy all of the concerns,
and don't pit one way over others if they are all taken into account anyway.

You are not well.

If you can't follow my explanations, one group that does the best job is the
Center for the Healing of Racism that facilitates discussion to work out issues of race and political conflict related:
http://www.houstonprogressive.org
http://centerhealingracism.org/

As for me, I'm doing pretty good for someone working two jobs
to fund nonprofits on zero budgets trying to save national historic and environmental sites,
while political leaders act like we can afford to blow billions of dollars fighting over politics as usual.

To me, what is "sick" are the PROBLEMS that aren't solved by partisan division,
such as spending several trillion on war without taking
care of Veterans who are left disabled from service. Or spending
6 billion on election campaigns that don't solve anything,
while claiming there is no money to fix problems directly? Really?

I would say our SYSTEM isn't doing too well if we are trillions in debt
and not covering basic costs. Sorry you feel the need to project
the problems onto me as just another one of the messengers pointing out this isn't working.

I didn't create these issues, I am just trying to promote the solutions to them.
If my explanations suck, just go directly to the sources with success records that speak for themselves.

Your explanation has nothing to do with the post. And I have read your incoherent ramblings on other topics. The problem is not with following them. They are incoherent nonsense.

 

[Thunderbird]

You just gonna ignore the phrase "in that order"?

"in that order" is not part of the textbook. Trudeau is being intellectually dishonest.

 

[JimH52]

Easy on....the whites in the south didn't want to give up their free help...

 

[JakeStarkey]

The slave owners did not want to give up their free shit.

 

[emilynghiem]

Doonesbury vs. the truth

The textbook says the Civil War was caused by “sectionalism, states’ rights and slavery”. That's a perfectly reasonable statement. How is it even controversial? There's no reason to think that because slavery is mentioned 3rd it should be considered less significant!

You just gonna ignore the phrase "in that order"?

Dear paddymurphy
The order is different for different people and situations, even if they are talking about the same instance.
Each person may perceive the stacking of the levels in a different order.

For example, I have friends who see conflicts as gender conditioning FIRST, male vs. female, they see as projected onto everything else.

Then I have friends who will say it is racism first, before anything else.

I have found, generally, it is division by CLASS and then people project or express that division
using gender, race, and now orientation, but they were already divided by groups or classes on a deeper internal level.
The issue of religion, race, gender, orientation etc as "identifying the two groups in conflict" seems to come second
to the internalized issues.

I've seen people say it is ego first, it is fear-based, BEFORE it is expressed as any of these other specific issues.

However people define the source of the problem, which ends up being different for each person layering it in a different order, the resolution still involves forgiving and working through these differences "in whatever order" people stack them in.

If an issue is both racial and gender, I am not going to waste time fighting if it is "gender first before race"
or "race first before gender" but will work with whatever relates to THAT person, and use a different priority
when dealing with the NEXT person who frames it differently.

Asclepias and I were debating how much of the issues with slavery were from race or class, and he came up with the term "cultural" for the biased conditions that cover both perception of race and of class. So "cultural" conditioning or biases would cover all these things that factor into disparity, regardless if people disagree on the order or extent of each factor.

It's not going to be perfect. We still have people who put church law first, before the state laws that are supposed to follow and be in harmony; versus people who put secular laws first and then see the religious laws as optional that are supposed to comply and not conflicts. So with these two biases from two different set ups, we can only expect to have differences and conflicts, and need to find solutions that satisfy BOTH paradigms, so that neither feels the other way is imposed on them.

Same with people who put race issues first, or gender, or gay/orientation.

We are not going to see things the same way, in the same order.
So can we seek policies that account for these differences, satisfy all of the concerns,
and don't pit one way over others if they are all taken into account anyway.

You are not well.

If you can't follow my explanations, one group that does the best job is the
Center for the Healing of Racism that facilitates discussion to work out issues of race and political conflict related:
http://www.houstonprogressive.org
Center For The Healing Of Racism | Internalize Oneness - Home

As for me, I'm doing pretty good for someone working two jobs
to fund nonprofits on zero budgets trying to save national historic and environmental sites,
while political leaders act like we can afford to blow billions of dollars fighting over politics as usual.

To me, what is "sick" are the PROBLEMS that aren't solved by partisan division,
such as spending several trillion on war without taking
care of Veterans who are left disabled from service. Or spending
6 billion on election campaigns that don't solve anything,
while claiming there is no money to fix problems directly? Really?

I would say our SYSTEM isn't doing too well if we are trillions in debt
and not covering basic costs. Sorry you feel the need to project
the problems onto me as just another one of the messengers pointing out this isn't working.

I didn't create these issues, I am just trying to promote the solutions to them.
If my explanations suck, just go directly to the sources with success records that speak for themselves.

Your explanation has nothing to do with the post. And I have read your incoherent ramblings on other topics. The problem is not with following them. They are incoherent nonsense.

Dear paddymurphy
Be specific which part do you NOT understand of these
ideas for developing localized govt:

A. statement on equal knowledge and enforcement of laws:
http://www.ethics-commission.net

B. Of setting up campus communities, teaching hospitals
and military developments along the border:
http://www.earnedamnesty.org
based on this campus model for reforming public housing to end dependence on welfare:
http://www.campusplan.org

What part is nonsense to you?
The Campus Plan was written into federal law
and already passed as part of HUD reform.

If you are saying THAT is nonsense are you
complaining about the health care bill that other people are rejecting?

All my messages are about Restorative Justice,
paying restitution for past govt abuses into reforms,
and separating issues of political beliefs by party.

Do you have to see these reforms enacted
before you understand the concepts?

If so, just wait until afterwards,
after everyone else has done the work
who CAN see solutions forming in advance.

Maybe the process of discussing, debating and DEVELOPING
the ideas from different sources isn't for you.

Maybe you are like the people who only want to
enjoy the dinner after it is put together, and
don't want to see the mess in the kitchen it took to create it.

That's fine. This isn't for everyone.
Sorry to bother you paddymurphy
if you only like to see the final finished product.

It will take collaboration of ALL parties to put that
together, and it will change a lot as agreements
form point by point. I think it is interesting to see
how the plans adapt to each group or community,
based on the idea of organizing each district
as a sustainable campus (see previous link
http://www.campusplan.org)

paddymurphy if you please tell me which
msgs or concepts don't make sense to you,
I can figure out why. But if you don't explain
what you don't get, how am I supposed to fix that???

Thanks!