Systemic Racism

VP, I sincerely hope that someday you come to realize that when you rely on Google and Wikipedia for your clever responses on subjects you otherwise know nothing about, you will very often come across as an ignorant fool.

No, I don't "know more about the Civil War than anybody", but I certainly know more than you.  I've read more books and scholarly works on Robert E. Lee than you ever knew existed.  I've also read about a hundred primary sources from his life and era, including many of his personal letters, private documents and public records.  That includes the relevant sections of his father-in-law's will.  And the reason I've remained silent is that I've gone over this with you at least twice before.  I'll do it one more time and then I'm done with this shit.

(1) The first quote you cited is very carefully worded in the case of Grant to make it technically correct while also being intentionally misleading.  Yes, Grant did not own slaves during the Civil War, but he did own a slave, deeded to him by his father-in-law, before the war in the late 1850's.  Grant's slave ownership was covered in Ron Chernow's recent best seller on Grant, it was covered in the three-night miniseries about Grant on television about three weeks ago, and it was covered in two other Grant biographies I've read.  You would know that if you knew anything about this subject, but you don't.  And the quote further is incorrect in that Lee never owned slaves.

(2) I don't know why you included the second quote you cited, because it does not speak to Lee's "slave ownership".

(3) The third quote you cited is incorrect in its details.

For the last time, here are the facts:

(4) By the 1830's, the Lee family was still one of the most prestigious and respected in Virginia (along with the Washington, Custis, Randolph and Fitzhugh famiiles, all of whom frequently intermarried), but the family had lost much of its wealth.  Lee's branch of the family owned very few slaves, and Lee himself never owned any.

(5) When his father-in-law George Custis died in 1857, he named Lee as the executor of his estate, the bulk of which comprised Arlington House and two plantations.  He left Arlington House to his daughter Mary, who was Lee's wife.  He had originally wanted to leave the two plantations and their roughly 200 slaves to Lee, but Lee made it clear in numerous letters and conversations that (a) he was opposed to the institution of slavery, and (b) that he considered himself a soldier and had no interest in owning plantations worked by slaves.  So Custis bequeathed the two plantations to Lee's sons, William and Robert Jr.  Since both sons had not yet reached the age of majority, the plantations remained in the estate, although William managed them both.  What I hope you realize is if you are named as the executor of an estate in a will, or the successor trustor/trustee of a trust, you never own the contents of the estate or trust.

(6) Significantly, Custis had stipulated that as soon as all the articles of his estate had been executed and all properties dispositioned in title, all slaves were to be freed, or that they were to be freed five years after Custis' death, whichever came first.  Lee executed all articles of the estate within three years and freed the slaves as soon as he was finished, whereupon he returned to his commission as an officer in the United States Army.  You would know all these things if you knew anything about Lee or this period of history, but you don't.

VP, you are articulate, and at times you seem somewhat intelligent.  However, you also seem to have some kind emotional need to appear to be an expert in every subject.  The truth is, you're not.  After three tries, it's obvious I can't enlighten you on this subject any more than I can teach astrophysics to a monkey, because neither you nor the monkey have any desire to learn.  You can post links to all the articles of revisionist history you want, but you can't change the truth, and you can't change the huge body of primary documents from that era that support that truth.  I'd suggest that you not argue medicine with Luca, Catholicism with Dave or Credo, or Robert E. Lee with me, because you are so far out of your league you don't even know what sport you're playing.  And if you continue to use Google and Wikipedia to foster this charade of being an expert on everything, the only thing you will accomplish is appearing like a pathetic, presumptuous ass.

"Karen" doesn't even begin to describe that bitch.

As Ben Shapiro says "The supply of actual racism in the US is less than the demand".

When was the last public act of racism you can recall?

I've subscribed to Harvard Business Review for years, and got this gem in my inbox this morning.


"Racial Justice, Start by Revising Your Own Policies

Over the past few weeks, company after company has released statements about their support for racial justice and equity. But it’s more important to back your words up with meaningful action. Leaders must start by changing problematic policies in their own organizations. You can also create new policies that show your company is serious about being anti-racist. For example, adopt a no-tolerance-for-racism policy that allows for swift termination of employees who display racist behavior. Commit to supporting full participation in democracy by making Election Day a paid holiday. Pay a living wage and offer paid parental and sick leave for all employees. And then back your new policies by providing racial equity training for all employees — from the CEO and board to hourly workers. These changes are within the power of every company and will make a profound difference."

I'll summarize...

1. Become judge, jury and executioner for the racism police
2. Write a check

... I'll pass.

It's interesting how so many have become experts on identifying what racism is today. I'm surprised HBR would advocate the need for training. Isn't it as simple as an accusation to identify the latest person on the right who victimized someone on the left?

How is it that victims of racism only are on the left?

For the same reason that the vast majority of gay people are not Republicans.

The people inside the "big tent" of the Republican party are mostly white.