[eDebate] genius josh discredits professor vaughn
Wed Oct 29 00:18:15 CDT 2008
nope, your trying to switch out of your bad argument on record.
"nobody get too excited about that Obama, I know those early
Presidents looked white...and they owned slaves....but they were really
you were wrong lincoln, coolidge and harding did not own slaves and now you're trying to weasel. don't bother admitting that white lie. you're like bush incapable of admitting when you're wrong.
you said in sarcasm "but they were really black" which casts doubt on the african-american claims that five previous presidents "really were black" narrated by scholars, NOT HIGH-PROFILE POWERMONGER POLITICIANS like obama. nowhere did you make the argument about the first black president to acknowledge his ancestry which is actually made in the article i first posted. that's a new argument in the 2AR. you got in a bind and went back to my first post of the thread, reread the article and found an argument in that article which MIGHT answer my position but that saving grace is nowhere to be implied or construed from your first pathetic reply. took about an hour to weasel but you're still in bad shape. what do you think? stromboli's gonna let that shit fly.
"The only difference between Obama and these former presidents is that none of their family histories were fully acknowledged by others."
even if you could regurgitate the argument from my original post and weasel out of your really stupid response, there is a big problem because the obama campaign is nowhere close to making such a mitigated stance on black presidential history.
OBAMA CLAIMS TO BE THE FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT, not the first black president to acknowledge his ancestry. OBAMA IS USING PEOPLE LIKE JOSH'S IGNORNACE AND NIETZSCHEAN WILL TO BELIEVE TO CREATE AN ILLUSION. you have no answer to obama exploiting the white history version on the television which effectively erases the radical black history of the 1960s. the glass ceiling and the watershed inauguration are bogus television soap operas.
the problem with the article i first sent to the list that makes the argument about obama being the first black president to acknowledge his ancestry is that the same article paraphrases from professor vaughn's book a story where 3 of the 5 black presidents were known to be black and did not actively refuse their black identity.
yes, it's disputable whether or not all of the five previous black presidents refused to acknowledge their ancestry or that their ancestry was not known to the electorate.
1) nicknamed "Abraham Africanus the First" by his opponents
2) harding apparently never denied his ancestry
3) coolidge was supposedly proud of his heritage
His heritage fueled so much controversy that Lincoln was nicknamed "Abraham Africanus the First" by his opponents.
President Warren Harding, the 29th president, in office between 1921 and 1923, apparently never denied his ancestry. According to Vaughn, William Chancellor, a professor of economics and politics at Wooster College in Ohio, wrote a book on the Harding family genealogy.
Evidently, Harding had black ancestors between both sets of parents. Chancellor also said that Harding attended Iberia College, a school founded to educate fugitive slaves.
Coolidge, the nation's 30th president, served between 1923 and 1929 and supposedly was proud of his heritage. He claimed his mother was dark because of mixed Indian ancestry. Coolidge's mother's maiden name was "Moor" and in Europe the name "Moor" was given to all blacks just as "Negro" was used in America. It later was concluded that Coolidge was part black.
conclusion: the obamatrons have been so emotionally inculcated into the belief that obama is going to be the first black president that when faced with historical evidence that clearly disputes a watershed moment, the obamatrons claim that obama is the first black president to acknowledge his ancestry. their emotional, dictator complex prevents them from grasping the story told by vaughn where coolidge and harding "never denied" and "were proud" of their ancestry and where the opposition publicly called lincoln "Africanus" in the newspapers/CNN of africanus' time. icing on the cake, obama acknowledges his ancestry but NOT THE ROLE OF HIS OWN PEOPLE IN WORLD HISTORY and this is a tell tale sign of his puppetry under the white policy elite of the council on foreign relations and the trilateral commission. obama does not belong in any grouping with MLK, Malcolm X, or Elijah Muhammed whose very existence was predicated on the refusal to sell out radical black history to the elites and for this they risked their lives instead of taking the bribe for the hollywood fame.
> Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 00:42:43 -0400
> From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com
> To: oldstrega at hotmail.com
> Subject: Re: [eDebate] genius josh discredits professor vaughn
> CC: edebate at ndtceda.com
> Again, your simplistic and frankly silly analysis comes through yet again....
> I wasnt discrediting professor Vaughn, who was trying to deconstruct WHITE history....I was discrediting professor Gas Bag Strega who is trying to discredit Obama....See, those Presidents didnt have to socially be perceived or treated as Black...Obama did.
> Nice try,
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 11:46 PM, Old Strega wrote:
> i think you should tell your version of white history to professor LEROY VAUGHN, the african-american scholar who has unearthed african-american history that does not jive with your white lies.
> the name of his book is BLACK PEOPLE AND THEIR PLACE IN WORLD HISTORY.
> again, you watch way too much CNN television and believe it.
> there is no public debate about obama's place in black presidential history because people like josh are so far up obama's ass they DON'T EVEN REALIZE AFRICAN-AMERICAN VERSIONS OF PRESIDENTIAL HISTORY THAT DEFEND THAT DEFEND THAT DEFEND previous african-american presidents from false white genealogies EXIST even though they're not allowed on sacred television.
> people like josh are only familiar with white history dictated to them on CNN where all the big historical debates take place. when presented with african-american versions of history, white people like josh jump the gun and make irrelevant sarcasm.
> ps. white history buff --- prove lincoln, coolidge and harding owned slaves.
> if you're going to challenge african-american historian, LEROY VAUGHN, and his african-american colleagues on the subject of african-american history with your clean, white version, then you're going to need a better generic disclaimer than "they all owned slaves".
> among the other scholars who confirm VAUGHN are Dr. AUSET BAKHUFU (an alleged slave owner) and JOEL ROGERS (another alleged slave owner).
> "Joel A. Rogers and Dr. Auset Bakhufu have both written books documenting that at least five former presidents of the United States had Black people among their ancestors."
> just because dictator obama is excluding black history to his own benefit and television doesn't say so doesn't mean you have to belittle black versions of their own history, genius.
> i knew you were poorly read but i had no idea you were so naive and insensitive to african-american narratives of their own history before CNN. i won't go so far as to call people like josh racists. they're just lowly pawns under a christian half-black puppet of the predominantly white policy elite who run the council on foreign relations and the trilateral commission.
> suggested reading for the white presidential history enthusiasts:
> Bakhufu, A. (1993) The Six Black Presidents, Washington, D.C.: PIK2 Publications.
> Morrow, E. (1963) Black Man in the White House. New York: Coward-McCann Inc.
> Rogers, J. (1965) Sex and Race. St. Petersburg, FL: Helga Rogers Publishing
> Rogers, J. (1965) The Five Negro Presidents. St. Petersburg, FL: Helga Rogers Publishing.
> Stay organized with simple drag and drop from Windows Live Hotmail.
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
Store, manage and share up to 5GB with Windows Live SkyDrive.
More information about the Mailman