Disqus - Latest Comments for EarthTone

Re: Cloak & Dagger review: Sensitive teen drama in bland superhero clothes | EW.com

EarthTone — Sat, 09 Jun 2018 06:00:28 -0000

The Black Panther and Luke Cage hardly fit the "good smart athlete" mold. Black Lightning, as one writer pointed out, is a middle-aged hero, and he's also a high school principal.

Here's the thing. Black superheroes, as with all black folks, do have this context that they live in a world where racial inequality exists. Writers do have a need to deal with that. I don't know if that makes the characters into SJWs per se. But if writers are going to "keep it real," the injustices faced by African Americans on a regular basis make for a social background that is difficult to ignore.

Re: Cloak & Dagger review: Sensitive teen drama in bland superhero clothes | EW.com

EarthTone — Sat, 09 Jun 2018 05:39:45 -0000

I liked the first two episodes. The two leads are traumatized and troubled, but not broken or pitiful. They are aggressive in the face of adversity, even if their choices are not necessarily moral.

This series so far seems more like horror-suspense than super-hero, which I like. Even in the comic book field, there is some tiredness with the costumes and melodramatics. Many of the best comics today are about ordinary people thrust into extraordinary situations. (For an example, I recommend the recent “Secret Weapon” comic book miniseries from Valiant Comics.)

So far, this series is more Marvel Netflix than CW Arrow-verse, which is fine with me. In fact, I am fearful that once they get into full-blown super-hero mode, it will take away from intimacy and drama of the first few episodes. We’ll see.

Re: Meet the Multiracial Defenders Of Confederate Memorials

EarthTone — Tue, 02 May 2017 19:39:04 -0000

OK, so, faced with a secession crisis, the president sent a detailed message to the people and leaders of South Carolina; excerpts are below:
-----
The States severally have not retained their entire sovereignty. It has been shown that in becoming parts of a nation, not members of a league, they surrendered many of their essential parts of sovereignty. The right to make treaties, declare war, levy taxes, exercise exclusive judicial and legislative powers, were all functions of sovereign power. The States, then, for all these important purposes, were no longer sovereign...

...Your pride was aroused by the assertions that a submission to these laws was a state of vassalage, and that resistance to them was equal, in patriotic merit, to the opposition our fathers offered to the oppressive laws of Great Britain. You were told that this opposition might be peaceably-might be constitutionally made-that you might enjoy all the advantages of the Union and bear none of its burdens. Eloquent appeals to your passions, to your State pride, to your native courage, to your sense of real injury, were used to prepare you for the period when the mask which concealed the hideous features of DISUNION should be taken off.

But the dictates of a high duty oblige me solemnly to announce that you cannot succeed. The laws of the United States must be executed. I have no discretionary power on the subject-my duty is emphatically pronounced in the Constitution. Those who told you that you might peaceably prevent their execution, deceived you-they could not have been deceived themselves. They know that a forcible opposition could alone prevent the execution of the laws, and they know that such opposition must be repelled.

Their object is disunion, but be not deceived by names; disunion, by armed force, is TREASON. Are you really ready to incur its guilt? ----

So... when did Lincoln make these comments? Actually, it's not Lincoln at all. It is president Andrew Jackson, in 1832, in response to the nullification and secession threat of South Carolina during the so-called Nullification Crisis.

The key point is that in 1832 President Jackson stated that as a matter of US government policy, disunion by armed force - which describes Confederate secession - would be met with a military response. Lincoln and the Union government, in opposing Confederate rebellion, were not just making stuff up out of thin air; they were following a precedent set decades earlier.

Simply put, unilateral secession was NOT commonly considered as acceptable in 1860. At best we can say it was controversial. But there was no universal belief that it was OK for sates to leave the Union upon their volition without some kind of process which engaged the other states of the Union. Many northerners did see the secessionists as traitors for the way they attempted to dissolve the union.

Of course, one man's traitor is another man's freedom fighter. Clearly, this was a divisive issue, and that's putting it mildly.

Re: Meet the Multiracial Defenders Of Confederate Memorials

EarthTone — Mon, 01 May 2017 22:55:02 -0000

RE: "So every few years we move monuments around as demographics change?"

Intellectual and cultural change is not solely the result of demographic change. The outcry against these monuments would not have been possible when I was born (in 1955) because under Jim Crow, African Americans had very little to no say in the formation of the commemorative landscape.

What's happened is that there is something of a pent-up demand to deal with these kind of issues. We are seeing the result of that.

To get to the bottom line of your question: these monuments - all monuments - were constructed to meet the needs, desires, and wishes of the community that built them, at the time they were built. People of today have just as much right and responsibility to change the landscape as people who died decades or even centuries ago. I disagree with destroying these monuments, but perhaps a park or other site which is accessible can be a more appropriate space. Perhaps there are other alternatives.

I have some sympathy with the complaint that some people are seeking too much change too soon. But the thing is, the status quo in untenable.

We've seen over a century of an unfair and unbalanced commemorative landscape regarding the Civil War. I think people have a right to complain that when it comes to the Civil War commemoration, all they see is Confederates, and black southerners don't matter. And every day this goes corrected, the anger and indignation build up into fuel, and any random event (like Charleston) can be the match that sets the fuel on fire.

Re: Meet the Multiracial Defenders Of Confederate Memorials

EarthTone — Mon, 01 May 2017 22:25:33 -0000

I don't believe everything I see on Wiki, but I did look this up on Wiki regarding Beauregard:

"Beauregard was born at the "Contreras" sugar-cane plantation in St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana, about 20 miles (32 km) outside New Orleans, to a French Creole family. Beauregard was the third child of Hélène Judith de Reggio, a descendant of Francesco M. de Reggio, member of an Italian noble family who had migrated to France and then to Louisiana, and her husband, Jacques Toutant-Beauregard, of French and Welsh ancestry."

I believe this info is sourced from the book "P. G. T. Beauregard: Napoleon in Gray" by T. Harry Williams. The book is from a university press, the LSU Press. The LSU Press has been a major publisher of history works concerning the American South, as you might already know.

Re: Meet the Multiracial Defenders Of Confederate Memorials

EarthTone — Mon, 01 May 2017 22:04:47 -0000

OK, so, faced with a secession crisis, the president sent a detailed message to the people and leaders of South Carolina; excerpts are below:
----
The States severally have not retained their entire sovereignty. It has been shown that in becoming parts of a nation, not members of a league, they surrendered many of their essential parts of sovereignty...

So obvious are the reasons which forbid this secession, that it is necessary only to allude to them. The Union was formed for the benefit of all. It was produced by mutual sacrifice of interest and opinions. Can those sacrifices be recalled?..

Your pride was aroused by the assertions that a submission to these laws was a state of vassalage, and that resistance to them was equal, in patriotic merit, to the opposition our fathers offered to the oppressive laws of Great Britain. You were told that this opposition might be peaceably-might be constitutionally made-that you might enjoy all the advantages of the Union and bear none of its burdens. Eloquent appeals to your passions, to your State pride, to your native courage, to your sense of real injury, were used to prepare you for the period when the mask which concealed the hideous features of DISUNION should be taken off...

Their object is disunion, but be not deceived by names; disunion, by armed force, is TREASON. Are you really ready to incur its guilt?
-----

So... when did Lincoln issue these comments? Actually, it's not Lincoln at all. It is president Andrew Jackson, in 1832, in response to the nullification and secession threat of South Carolina. (During the so-called Nullification Crisis, the South Carolina threatened to secede if it would not be allowed to nullify federal law). Jackson was, of course, a Southerner, and pro-slavery at that; no one could accuse him of pandering to Northern interests.

The point is, the idea of disunion by armed force being treason was not created by Lincoln and the Union out of thin air in 1861. It was the stated policy of a sitting, southern president decades before the Civil War.

It is fair to say that the concept of unilateral secession as being acceptable practice was controversial in 1861. Some people believed it to be treason, some didn't. Northerners did believe that secessionists were traitors.

Of course, one man's traitor is another man's freedom fighter. Again, it is fair to say that the issue was controversial at the time. It is unfair to dismiss the idea out of hand.

Re: Meet the Multiracial Defenders Of Confederate Memorials

EarthTone — Mon, 01 May 2017 21:51:44 -0000

RE: "In fact, Beauregard wasn't even white, he was a Creole."

A person can be Creole and white. A "white person" is someone of pure European descent. I'm not sure of the exact threshold, but if Beauregard was 15/16ths European, he was considered a white man.

Re: Meet the Multiracial Defenders Of Confederate Memorials

EarthTone — Mon, 01 May 2017 21:10:29 -0000

Many people (including many Louisiana residents) are unaware of this, but no state is more significant than Louisiana in terms of African American soldiery during Civil War. Louisiana provided more African American soldiers to the Union than any other state - 24,052 enlisted in LA, with KY following with 23,703.

Three of the first five black Union regiments were formed in the state, all in the New Orleans area. And finally, Louisiana almost surely produced the most black army officers of any state. A portion of black enlistees (and most black commissioned officers) were free black Creoles, while others were former slaves. Many free blacks had enlisted in the Louisiana Native Guards regiments that were organized in New Orleans as part of the state's militia.

By every useful measure, New Orleans was an epicenter of the African American Army experience during the Civil War. Yet, there is not a single monument or memorial to black soldiers in the city of New Orleans. Per my research, there is only one monument to black soldiers in the entire state — at Donaldsonville, Louisiana (which is between New Orleans and Baton Rouge).

People often talk about celebrating and commemorating Southern heritage. But in the Civil War context, what we see in the South is not the commemoration of Southern heritage, but rather the commemoration and glorification of Confederate heritage. Southern heritage and Confederate heritage are NOT the same thing. As noted above, there were southern black Union soldiers who served, and also there was a huge black civilian contingent that was active in gaining their own freedom and assisting the Union military. But you very rarely see that memorialized in the public square.

This is a problem I have dubbed "commemorative exclusion," a problem that's not unique to the American South.

The fact is, for over a hundred years after the Civil War, the Jim Crow south degraded and subjugated its African American residents. That led to a commemorative landscape that was, to use an era expression, lily-white. This subject has been much discussed by academics.

Of course progress has been made since the end of Jim Crow, but it will be very difficult to overcome one-hudred plus years of mis-representation, under-representation, or un-representation of the Civil War's southern African American experience, which includes the emancipation experience. A lot of progress has been made in commemorating the black Civil War experience in the past 20 years (this is due, in no small part I suspect, to the the 1989 movie Glory).

Given the anger and indignation over the non-inclusive commemorative landscape, some folks want to just remove Confederate objects from the public square, creating spaces which have no reference to the war. In effect, there is nothing there to offend anybody. But there is also nothing which educates people either. This expedient approach is not my own preference, but I understand how and why it is happening.

For the record, I am against destroying monuments and memorials, but I have no problem with moving them to cites that people of the current generation feel are appropriate. I don't see why we have to bound to decisions made decades or even a century ago about the best placement for these objects. But these objects do have cultural and historical significance, and I believe we should keep them.

Re: Why Josh Jackson Should be the Suns #1 Target

EarthTone — Mon, 10 Apr 2017 22:40:52 -0000

If The Timeline is for the Suns to be contenders by 2020; then doesn't it makes sense to get the best PG possible ASAP?
I love Jackson too. But it seems like the most logical thing for now is to move Bledsoe and Knight and get a big time PG who can be ready in a few years. Fultz seems like the best choice, if the hype is real.

Re: Some black Mississippians support state flag for its history

EarthTone — Thu, 17 Mar 2016 00:08:17 -0000

Here is a historical fact: when the Civil War began, 55% of Mississippi’s population consisted of enslaved African Americans. The Civil War enabled their freedom.

The liberation of 55% of the state’s population from chattel slavery was perhaps the most momentous event in the state’s history, or in 19th century history at least.

Why is this momentous event in state and southern heritage and history invisible on the state’s flag?

The message of the state flag is, black history doesn’t matter and black freedom doesn’t matter. The fact that less than half the state’s fought for political independence from the United States is promoted over the fact that more than half of the state’s population gained independence from personal enslavement.

I can’t take it seriously when people say they support the current flag because it represents southern heritage and history, when the flag ignores the story of the majority of the southerners who lived in the state.

The Mississippi flag is the very definition of an unfair and unbalanced representation of southern history and heritage... Unless one thinks that liberation from slavery for over half’s the state’s population doesn’t matter.

Re: Matt Norlander evaluates the Suns’ 2014 NBA Draft

EarthTone — Wed, 02 Jul 2014 20:47:15 -0000

? Warren could be like Markieff Morris or Chuck Hayes?

Both of those guys are PFs who have even played some at the C. Warren is a SF. Warren is not going to be like Hayes, for good or bad; their games are simply not the same.

Re: We are respectable negroes: Questions of Racial Formation on Veterans Day: What Have Black Americans and Other People of Color Really Gained From Service in America's Wars and Military?

EarthTone — Tue, 12 Nov 2013 17:20:03 -0000

In August 1963, Abraham Lincoln sent a letter to his friend, James Conkling, which was to be read at a rally in Illinois. It reads in part:

"But negroes, like other people, act upon motives. Why should they do any thing for us, if we will do nothing for them? If they stake their lives for us, they must be prompted by the strongest motive--even the promise of freedom. And the promise being made, must be kept."

During the American Civil War, some 200,000 African Americans served in the US army and navy. Their service and sacrifice helped the Union to defeat the Confederacy and win the war in 1865.

At the end of 1865, the 13th Amendment was passed, which abolished slavery in all sections of the re-united United States. Your ancestors helped to ensure that people of African descent would no longer be enslaved, a stunning achievement which we should remember and celebrate.

- Alan
jubiloemancipationcentury.w...

Re: But Are the Accounts True?

EarthTone — Tue, 15 Jan 2013 16:30:51 -0000

In the book "The State of U.S. History," edited by Melvyn Stokes, an essay by Michael Tadman discusses the concept of the "key slave." Tadman says that slave masters had a unique and relatively benevolent relationship with a small set of house slaves. These key slaves would likely have been more loyal, and perhaps even, more "loving" or "affectionate" (I use these terms in a platonic manner) in the way they dealt with the master. Wartime servants probably fit the "key slave" classification.

(It is interesting to me, and I think useful to note, that a particular set of bondsmen were called "servants," versus the more generic term "slave." "Servant" implies an attachment to, and perhaps, a personal relationship with, a particular person; "slave" refers to one of a gang of slaves who, for example, works in the field and has no real personal relationship with a master.)

This is an except from an essay by the late James Hollandsworth, ( http://mdah.state.ms.us/pub... )about black Confederate pensioners, which I think is useful:

"Loyalty to the Confederate cause (by black recipients of Confederate pensions) is another issue that has received a good bit of attention. After Reconstruction, Confederate veterans made much of the loyalty of black noncombatants. In fact, loyalty was the rationale for expanding the eligibility for Confederate pensions to include this group. Correspondence from pension files in all five states suggests that most black noncombatants were loyal to their masters and that this loyalty was reciprocated. For example, several black non- combatants went to prisoner-of-war camps with their masters rather than accept offers of freedom when they were captured, a circumstance that can be verified by correspondence in the Official Records…

"It is tempting to assume that the loyalty of many black noncombatants was representative of black southerners in general, but this conclusion is not warranted. Black southerners who were recognized in Confederate memoirs, eulogized at Confederate reunions, and eventually awarded Confederate pensions, were selected from a select group. They were a select group in the first place because they were allowed to accompany their masters to the army. Clearly, a slave-owning Confederate soldier who was about to embark on the hazards of active army life would not take a trouble-maker, a slacker, or an unreliable slave with him to war. It is reasonable to assume that black noncombatants were picked to accompany their masters because of the loyalty they had demonstrated long before there was a prospect of war."

Hollandsworth's point is that these wartime servants were unique, representing a small, perhaps "super loyal" (my term) sub-group of bondsmen. They may well have been the idealized slaves that their masters portrayed them to be; after all, the slave's favored status came at the pleasure of his particular owner, and the slave surely knew this.

- Alan

Re: Tuesday Open Thread

EarthTone — Tue, 01 Mar 2011 10:08:42 -0000

Black History, All Year Long:

For those who are interested in African American History - whether you're black or white - you're invited to read a relatively new blog, Jubilo! The Emancipation Century. The blog feature entries about African Americans in the 19th Century: Slavery, Abolition, the Civil War, Emancipation, Reconstruction, and the Nadir.

The site address is :
http://jubiloemancipationce...

This is an esoteric subject, to be sure. But perhaps it can become an acquired taste. Check it out and enjoy.

Re: Remembering Alabama’s Secession and “Lincoln bin laden”

EarthTone — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 15:14:14 -0000

What's amazing is that these folks don't see the irony and absurdity of their comments. One guy says the war was about freedom and liberty... and apparently ignores the 4 million slaves who were deprived of their freedom and liberty.

And the woman with the Frederick Douglass shirt... what is she thinking?

If somebody had made this into a satirical skit, some folks would complain that the skit was making fun of certain groups of Southerners. But for these people it's not a joke... it's just scary bizarre.

Re: Mr. Ijames, Was Weary Clyburn a Soldier or a Slave?

EarthTone — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 13:30:10 -0000

This is an unfortunate sight.

A lot of this is semantics, although the semantics are vital to get right. In Mr Ijames views, there is no problem with identifying someone that he acknowledges was a slave as being a "soldier."

But as you note Kevin - and I agree with you - the word soldier has a definite meaning, and it must be used properly: to identify a member of the armed forces. If there is no proof of Mr Clyburn was a soldier, it's wrong to identify him as such.

If that particular issue can get laser like focus, and "other" stuff is put aside, then things will get sorted-out properly.

Having said that, this is a potential minefield situation for you. People are going to paint you as someone who refuses to acknowledge Clyburn's heroism. This is not your intention, but that is the straw man argument that will be made.

Re: Earl Ijames Is At It Again

EarthTone — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 20:03:20 -0000

Richard, the problem is that the term Black Confederate has been conflated by some to mean a black person who served out of patriotic loyalty to the Confederacy/the "Southern way of life." The sub-text is, slavery wasn't that bad a thing, because after all, blacks patriotically served the CSA.

Re: How Best to Respond to the Black Confederate Narrative

EarthTone — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 10:08:35 -0000

Kevin,

I like your suggestions/proposals, and I hope someone proceeds with them.

I especially like the idea that you are not merely focusing on an examination Black Confederates (BCs) in isolation, but rather, you are looking at the general idea of how memory is formed, and how myths can become memory when based on... let's call it "bad history."

This way, people can learn larger lessons about the creation of historical memory that go beyond the subject of BCs.

***
I understand the concern of some folks that the subject of BCs might be too esoteric/non-important a subject to warrant the kinds of things Kevin is proposing. My knee-jerk reaction is, there is so much esoterica in historical study, looking at this subject couldn't be any worse. I mean, any day now, I expect a book on how Lincoln getting a "D" on his report card in a 4th grade class totally altered his perception of reality and maybe perhaps was the ultimate cause for his desire to preserve the Union at all costs... or maybe not.

On a more serious note: as has been acknowledged universally, the role of blacks and slaves in the Civil War, in general, hasn't received as much attention or research that many of us would like. I see this as part of a larger effort to address that. A small part, perhaps, but a useful one nonetheless... I would consider it one of many steps in the right direction.

***
Regarding the photo and the comment in the link to it that "The black man in this quarter plate image is wearing a Confederate shell jacket... It is obvious from his bearing that he is proud to be in the Confederate uniform."

It is amazing what people can read into things. For all we know, this man is a slave manservant who's scared s***less that he's about to leave his family and go off to war in the service of his master. Perhaps he's one of the many manservants who fled their masters on the battlefield, as described in Levine's CONFEDERATE EMANCIPATION. But people believe what they want to believe.

Re: Ed Bearss on Black Confederates

EarthTone — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 01:03:19 -0000

As an aside: the quote by itself doesn't indicate that Bearss believes there were Black Confederates (ie, Black Confederate combatants), or, that he believed that there were a large number of such persons.

There is no context as to the "role" that is being discussed regarding blacks in the Confederacy. And of course, no numbers are cited.

It's great that folks are trying to get the facts of what Bearss said. But even without that - this quote by itself is neither objective nor even subjective "proof" of Black Confederates. It IS a perfect quote for folks who are seeking conspiracy theories to explain why the proof for their arguments is so hard to find.

Re: Patrick Cleburne and Black Confederates Take Hollywood

EarthTone — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 16:18:45 -0000

{...this should not turn into "let Kevin do it."}

Brooks, I think we’re all on the same page here. We all recognize and appreciate Kevin's efforts and leadership. Ta-Nehisi Coates of the Atlantic deserves some recognition also. But this will take the support of a lot of others to make this work.

One thing I hope doesn't happen is that this is seen as a conflict between so-called Southern Heritage folks on one side, and history academics (read by some as liberals) and blacks on the other. This would result in some (the media) seeing this as a clash of extremes, thus causing them to focus on the conflict and not the issues; and also cause the media to make the easy (careless) calculation that the real truth lies somewhere in the middle of the issues.

I hope we can get a lot of different voices to speak out on this subject.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Again, I’m thankful to Kevin for his attention and leadership.

Re: town halljpg

EarthTone — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 18:28:46 -0000

This is a blog entry on the intersection of gun rights and African American rights that some might find interesting.

http://allotherpersons.word...

Re: Patrick Cleburne and Black Confederates Take Hollywood

EarthTone — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 18:14:28 -0000

I myself am very worried. Consider the doctored (ie, fake) photo of the Louisiana Native Guards that was mentioned earlier. This fraud has been exposed, yet, the photo is still widely circulated on the web... in fact, its use seems to be spreading.

I appreciate Kevin's efforts here, and those of a few others I've seen. But those efforts represent a tiny slice of the communications spectrum (TV, radio, newspapers, etc.)

To really challenge this movie, it's required that
a) people who are knowledgeable, credible, and possessed of the appropriate communication resources (and time) are able to make an effective pitch that sets the record straight.
b) people who see the movie are sufficiently skeptical that that they are willing to listen to alternative voices that contradict what they've seen or believe.

I don't know if either (a) or (b) will happen. We'll see.

PS: It's amusing to see this stream of interpretations of men like Lee and Cleburne as anti-slavers who had plans to emancipate the slaves. At this rate, the entire South will be portrayed as anti-slavery by the end of the 2010s.

Re: A Glaring Omission

EarthTone — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 20:52:25 -0000

In South Carolina, plans are underway to build a memorial the the Denmark Vesey Conspiracy:

http://www.postandcourier.c...

Re: They Even Got the Right Arm + Links

EarthTone — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 15:36:22 -0000

Black Confederate Pensioners After the Civil War

There's a piece by James Hollandsworth on the web titled "Black Confederate Pensioners After the Civil War" that may be of interest if you haven't seen it. It's here: http://mshistory.k12.ms.us/...

The article includes a discussion of the problems in getting reliable information about the role of blacks in the Confederacy, and also, the problems involved in using anecdotal evidence.

Re: They Even Got the Right Arm + Links

EarthTone — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 12:51:16 -0000

Kevin, you are absolutely right - a brief post like mine cannot do justice to the fullness of the story that is told in Hollandsworth's book.

It's hard for me, though, to see these snippets of so-called facts on the web, and not want to respond with more info. But yeah... trying to right every wrong or misleading statement on the web is probably a lost cause.