Do you think this Georgetown Law professor did the right thing when he told a woman with Confederate ancestors "I have no respect for your ancestors."
Apparently most people here only appreciate Politically Correctness when it applies to Liberal Black professors commenting about the confederate flag. Meanwhile, Rush Limbaugh, Trump, and Fox News can say whatever they want and it's merely telling
it like it is and rejecting the national plague of political correctness. Lol. Double standard abounds here. Lol.
Self-righteous people picking and choosing data sets that support their argument. It wasn't many generations ago that owning a slave was an aspired-to benefit of doing well, true of people of all colors. Truth is not the guilt industry's friend.
Just jumping on the bandwagon. He probably totally respects the colonists and early Americans who fucked up American natives.
Something tells me he has the intellectual integrity to A, admit that, and B, call out those that did that, while not jumping on the confederate supporter bandwagon that still exists 150 years after the civil war
I bet the professors that said that is still in the party that was slave owned..
As it happens, her ancestors would have been correct. He has no business being a law professor at Georgetown, or any professor anywhere.
He doesn't respect someone's ancestors, therefore he doesn't have any business being a law professor...? I fail to see the connection here. Enlighten me
The reasons the ancestors wouldn't have been in favor of him being a law professor would not have to due with his qualifications or legal views (presumably your reason), but the fact they would've wanted him to be a slave without any education
There are so many reasons he has no business going near any university, he gave one in almost every sentence he spoke.
First, he believes that any confederate veteran would have wanted him to be a slave. This egregious failure of basic logic alone
should disqualify him from teaching, we look for clarity of thought in teachers. He also appears to be interested in political activism, such people cannot be trusted to teach objectively. he can occupy Washington if he wants that, not Georgetown.
It's not really a difficult assumption to make given ante bellum southern society and the reason behind the confederate states attempted existence.
It's not a difficult assumption, it's an impossible one. He hasn't so much as laid eyes on a single confederate veteran, yet he thinks he knows what every single one of the roughly 1 million would have wanted him to be. I find it ridiculous.
It's as silly as some kook 150 years from now telling current veterans' descendants that they only went to Afghanistan because they wanted to 'kill brown people', or some junk like that. You know we already hear that kind of rhetoric today.
It's not an illogical assumption. In a society where many southern states banned volition its literature, where many of the declarations of secession outright point to slavery as the major cause, and where it's own political leaders pointed to
Slavery and white supremacy being the core of their attempted country (with some going to far as to claim that blacks were not only inferior to whites, but part of a lesser species from whites altogether), it's roughly the same level of difficultly
As someone assuming that someone's ancestors from Nazi Germany were anti Semitic. Can you find outliers? Yes. Does basic probability point in that direction? Not at all
Once you start dealing with probability, certainty goes out the window. What he said required certainty. you know as well as I do, it doesn't exist here.
Furthermore, the idea that ancestors are not honorable because they believed something wrong is very stupid. These are fluid times we live in, he too has beliefs and causes that his descendants might find repulsive.
Or does he think he's so wonderful that all future generations will look to his beliefs and activities and find them all perfectly honorable?
Something which even missed is that the confederate army resorted to conscription. His case has become even more flimsy, because once conscription takes place there's even less reason to believe that every soldier supported the same cause.
1. "he believes that any confederate veteran would have wanted him to be a slave. This egregious failure of basic logic..." - Brrr.
This statement has nothing to do with logic. It's his opinion that is either true or false. No logical inference.
2. I sincerely doubt that he means "your ancestors" in the truly exhaustive sense of literally "every southerner". Obviously there were some southerners against slavery, but as a generalization, he is probably right.
3. Why should he need to respect someone's ancestors who by and large stood against the well being of his own ancestors? Respect is not obligatory.
It is based on the following logic:
1) they were confederate veterans
2) therefore they would have wanted me to be a slave
Just because it's garbage logic it doesn't mean that he wasn't trying to use logic and failing.
And since when is generalization a good thing? It's a sign of sloppiness - Not something expected from professors. He could have said 'generally... So and so' but he didn't. He spoke about her ancestors with certainty.
People act as if every white persona ancestors were slave owners! People need to learn their history.
From my understanding, so long as he is only judging the ascenstors, his lack of respect for them is perfectly fine. I do not respect the slave holders within my family nor the ones that supported the Nazi movement.
He shouldn't judge her by those who came before her.
He's not judging her he's judging e ancestors
Yes. I have no respect for Confederate ancestors.
This user is currently being ignored
Too late, I already did.
The man's an idiot, a pig. And you'd expect what from a Georgetown law professor. May he go into a productive line of work.
There is no person now alive who has no ancestors who were slave owners.
Chimama, it's not possible. By the time you go back 14 generations you can trace your kinship to every other person alive. Just 5 generations back and I'm related to everyone around here and one heck of a lot of English, Germans, and Amerindians.
Thanks. Yeah, I have a cousin who's into it pretty heavy. Seems we have ancestors at Jamestown and ancestors watching them arrive, Jews here for the Civil war, and Jews in the ovens in WWII while my father was in North Africa. Yours traced far?
I don't see it as either right or wrong, it's just his opinion. I wouldn't have said what he did, partially because it's a pointless statement considering that war has been over for over 150 years and it would be rude to the student, but I'm not-
-going to get upset at him for saying it.
Exactly what I was thinking
It's silly to place current cultural ideals into a previous time and culture and then to feel all superior because you think differently, believing yourself to be so evolved. It's really ridiculous for a supposedly educated person to think that way.
Why should he? I don't. I wouldn't have any respect if they were my ancestors
Plenty of people in the Union states had slaves too.
A good point apparently no one wants to address. The truth is that even if this professor's American ancestors weren't slaveowners, some further back were.
Unless you think that slavery is great, why would you respect the confederate ancestors?
Because many of us actually understand history
You shouldn't respect his ancestors any more, especially if they practiced slavery as well.
Well I mean... What's the point? He isn't in the wrong but that's rather pointless.
Did you watch the clip? He said it in response to her statement.
I did indeed. I'm saying that's his comment was pretty pointless.
So if someone German were to say "I have pride in my Nazi ancestors" during a discussion about the Nazi flag, and a Jewish person says, "Actually I have no respect for them bc they tried to kill my ancestors," you'd find that pointless too? Wondering
Confederate Soldiers are a disgrace to our country
They were actually not as huge of a disgrace as portrayed by the masses. The union soldiers (especially those led by General Sherman) who murdered innocent and unarmed women and children all throughout the south are the disgrace to America.
Seems pointless to say to someone that they don't respect dead ancestors.
Yeah, what I was going to say was already covered: He didn't say that he didn't respect her, he said that he didn't respect her ancestors. And I don't blame him, considering what her ancestors motives and beliefs likely were.
To all the people saying that the woman didn't choose her ancestors: of course she didn't, and he wasn't saying that she has no respect for *her*. I wouldn't have any respect for my slave-owning ancestors either, nor rapist or murderer ancestors.
Yes, and he didn't just say something about her ancestors randomly. SHE opened up the discussion by saying she respects her ancestors (who wanted him to be a possession).
He's a jerk and an ignoramus.
No - but he's entitled to his opinion. You cannot help the family you are born into, you can only strive to change course as time goes by.
He wasn't calling her out for the fact that she was born into her family!!! He was only referring to her statement that she "respects" her confederate ancestry by saying that he doesn't.
As if Yankees didn't own any slaves at all.
You can't control what your ancestors did nor should anyone be held accountable for what they did.
Let's dig into his past and see what his ancestors did!
Let's say he finds out his ancestors were pirates who went around stealing ships and killing crew. You're right that that's no reason to disrespect HIM. But then he says he respects them and their pirate flag. Now, do you see the problem?
There are skeletons in every family tree. It is what it is but its no reason to be an ass about it.
Huh? Sorry, I don't think you get it. How is it not being an ass to tell someone that you DO respect your ancestors who wanted his kind to be possessions they could buy, sell, whip, and shoot at their own discretion? Isn't that disrespectful itself?
I do get it, you just don't agree. Regardless of what our ancestors have or have not done has no impact on how I evaluate you as a person. The professor was extremely disrespectful, that student had no control over what her ancestors did.
From what I can tell, it wasn't a student (I might be mistaken there) but a caller on NPR. He also didn't say a word about disrespecting HER. He did say he disrespected the ancestors she was attempting to uphold. To me, there's a difference.
FlipFlopGirl, maybe you didn't watch the video? He wasn't saying anything about her. And he only said he didn't have respect for her ancestors AFTER she said that she did respect them. Like Matt said, he didn't go after her for her ancestry.
So I DO, in fact, agree with what you are saying. The bad deeds of our ancestors should have no effect on how we are evaluated. We agree. It's just that that isn't what the professor did at all.
A little harsh because you don't choose your ancestors, but he is right to have no respect for confederates.
Arrrgghhh, read above please
Reid-that's true, but he didn't say he disrespected her due to her ancestors. He limited it to saying he disrespected the ancestors. That may be a subtle distinction, but it is an existent one
Isn't it like a Jewish teacher saying "I have no respect for your Nazi ancestors"?
I don't see a problem
Chimama: Woah there. You don't see the difference between a Jewish person having a problem with Nazis who VICTIMIZED Jews and a Nazi having a problem with Jewish people who basically were just trying to live their lives? How's that a double standard?
By that logic, there's no difference between the descendants of the SF woman who was killed saying "I have no respect for the illegal immigrant who shot her" and the descendants of the immigrant saying "I have no respect for the victim." What?
That may be, but to call that a double standard is a stretch. When we decide if something is "out of bounds," we essentially judge it based on our own moral/philosophical codes. It's only a double standard if both ways equally violate the same code.
If one believes "Stabbing someone out of nowhere is wrong and it's okay to call someone out for it," it's not a double standard to then say "It's NOT okay to say you have no respect for someone because they got in the way of a knife and died." Lol
In the real life examples here, it's pretty clear who the victims were and who the perpetrators were. If someone wants to argue that the Nazis or the slaveowners were actually the victims, then they can discuss that separately.
Except objectively Nazis were the aggressors, so it does not matter what they thought.
Nazis were a group of evil people, the Jews are simply a group of people with a shared heritage, and little collective organization.
I'd have looked at that professor and said "At least a group of people were willing to fight and die against tyranny"
And it's more likely than not he would've immediately said back "Yes, but those were Union men, whether by birth or the immigrants who came to fight what for them was an anti slavery and pro republican government crusade, not that woman's ancestors"
Hate to say it, I'd rather someone defend themselves against perceived tyranny than to be too cowardly to stand for what they believe.
While the concept of your statement in itself, is not ignoble, states committing treason because they're paranoid that the Republican plan in 1860 was to basically end slavery, and unleash the slaves on whites as revenge, and that they had lost
Electoral power that they had had through the three fifths clause due to northern population growth, and then rebelling for several years because they were convinced that slavery and white supremacy were correct, and that, as they viewed it, "The
Black Republican" power would lead to tyranny of the south is petty at best. If anything, their secession made slavery's end more likely, since it forced that discussion both into the meld of persevering the union and onto the international scene,
Both in terms of diplomacy and as part of the Civil War being seen as the ultimate experiment for long lasting republican government in a state larger than San Marino. They could claim tyranny all they want, but when a southern victory would only
Succeed in preserving slavery and creating a country built on the ideas of slavery and white supremacy, as well as proving to the despots of Europe that republican governments of the people could never last, they might have felt tyranny, but not only
You keep going back to this slavery concept when the fact is, it was about the Federal Government blatantly disobeying the Constitution of the United States. Specifically the 10th amendment.
Can one argue there's a certain pathetic nature about it, anyone claiming to be prideful of what they fought for or defending them today ultimately must prove why they can support republican government, a ban on slavery, and being against racism and
Ideas of racial supremacy while supporting a movement whose success would've preserved and enshrined the latter two and destroyed the former.
I keep going back to the slavery issue since Confederate leaders openly said that was the cause, their declarations of secession point at slavery, and any analysis of the social, political, or economic situation that caused it points to that as the
Major focal point uniting it all. The tenth amendment argument is ultimately useless given that you cannot logically claim that federal laws dealing with future states, but then federal land, violated a state's rights. It's creative, but nonsensical
Chim-I absolutely know why the Union was fighting, why the so called Confederacy was fighting, and how the people of Europe viewed it. It's appalling that a Holocaust denier who has shown support for the Confederacy and denied its positions would
Claim to be an American Nationalist or have intelligence, but I suppose this fight can't be won by either of us
I fully agree it was ad hominem. However, given your ad hominem came first, ad hominem as a response to ad hominem (or attempted ad hominem) is simply fair play.
"Mattwall, this is f*****g offensive. Don't disguise your PC b******t as American Nationalism. As a nationalist I find this utter disrespect for American history and culture appalling. Never use the word "patriotism" in this context again."-you, in
Reference to a resolution against the confederate flag. You're a wannabe nationalist. You can't claim that someone supporting treasonous symbols on public lands is a nationalist. Il ow you'll try and claim its history and culture. The problem is no
Actual nationalist would support that for rebellious symbols via placement on government property
That person didn't choose their ancestors, I don't have have much respect for crazy out of touch social science professors.
He didn't say, I don't respect you because of who your ancestors are, he said, I don't respect your ancestors because of who your ancestors are. Big difference.
Maybe he should worry more about modern day slavery. They mans a fool.
Did you watch the clip?
I have no respect for liberal professors who have big mouths.
His political bent and/or legal interpretation all style really isn't the issue here, is it? Though if it is, remind me to point this out if you say you are against anyone saying negatives about hard workers. And by having a big mouth do you mean
Saying this, or saying anything?
I think he disrespected the person. Not every single southern that existed owned or wanted to own a slave. Most were just plain folk eking out a living. So his statement condemned every southern. He's wrong IMO.
Saying this. But I'll bet he has a lot more bias and venom in his veins.
I have no respect for racist treasonous confederates either.
Not respecting seditious rebels works for me.
Note: the video is longer than just the conversation on NPR that had this quote in it, and goes into an interview on MSNBC. This was the shortest video with the quote in it that I could find.