Jeff Zacuto ([personal profile] jeffzacuto) wrote2009-06-17 12:40 pm

If we do not learn from history, we are most certainly doomed to repeat it...

"No brutality, no infamy, no degradation in all the years of southern slavery, possessed such villainious character and such atrocious qualities as the provision of the laws of Illinois, Massachusetts, and other states which allow the marriage of the negro, Jack Johnson, to a woman of Caucasian strain. [applause]. Gentleman, I offer this resolution ... that the States of the Union may have an opportunity to ratifty it. ... Intermarriage between whites and blacks is repulsive and averse to every sentiment of pure American spirit. It is abhorrent and repugnant to the very principles of Saxon government. It is subversive of social peace. It is destructive of moral supremacy, and ultimately this slavery of white women to black beasts will bring this nation a conflict as fatal as ever reddened the soil of Virginia or crimsoned the mountain paths of Pennsylvania. ... Let us uproot and exterminate now this debasing, ultra-demoralizing, un-American and inhuman leprosy."

Congressional Record, 62d. Congr., 3d. Sess., December 11, 1912, pp. 502–503.
Mr. President, you should be ashamed. 

[identity profile] 2009-06-17 07:48 pm (UTC)(link)
That is a very powerful point you make my friend.

Wow - great argument here... But I've got a question....

[identity profile] 2009-06-17 09:17 pm (UTC)(link)
Now don't get me wrong - I agree with what you wrote, and I understand what your arguments are. What I'm curious about is - why oh WHY are you guys surprised?

Obama said in as many words that he disapproved of gay marriage - indeed, of gays in general. Granted, he was very VERY careful how he said it, but the basic message was STILL crystal clear - that as a President, he'd do NOTHING to interfere with states' gay issues because he as a person agreed with homophobes (although he said it was because he felt it wasn't a federal issue, he did nothing to hide his personal bias). Now that he's in place, he's upholding those views he expressed while still a candidate - and you guys are surprised... Why?

Again, I agree with you. He fucked up - big time. And I admire you for writing this letter. But I'm still curious why you folks overseas are surprised. Did they censor those interviews he gave on the issue back in the US?

Re: Wow - great argument here... But I've got a question....

[identity profile] 2009-06-17 09:32 pm (UTC)(link)
And today, by granting some same-sex benefits to gay and lesbian Federal employees, Obama made the issue a Federal one.

So as far as I'm concerned, we can't trust this guy.

At all.

And I'm surprised because he said he is a "fierce supporter" of LGBT rights and that he would revoke DOMA and DADT very early in his presidency. He hasn't made good on any of that. He charmed us and made us think that change was possible.

Well, it's possible, but that doesn't mean he's going to do anything to make it happen.

Re: Wow - great argument here... But I've got a question....

[identity profile] 2009-06-17 09:48 pm (UTC)(link)
Fair enough on the Federal issue - they definitely shot themselves in the foot with that one. But now you're really making mewonder if those interviews really didn't make it to the US. Pity I didn't keep copies of them.

[identity profile] 2009-06-17 09:36 pm (UTC)(link)
Thanks Jeff

Amidst all the shrillness, you spoke clearly.

[identity profile] 2009-06-17 09:50 pm (UTC)(link)
And usually I'm pretty shrill. :)

[identity profile] 2009-06-18 05:16 am (UTC)(link)
Bravo! Great point.

[identity profile] 2009-06-18 05:03 pm (UTC)(link)
goodness, I can see a post from you. YAY!!! Thank you for accepting me as friend!

Wow, thanks for reproducing this. The language of it is so, well humorous to me, because of what it says and how it says it. This could easily be the rhetoric of today.