The Army retroactively pardons the black Houston mutineers of 1917, who rampaged through the city shooting white civilians at random, including a teenager who was just sitting on his porch—what part of their actions are we rehabilitating exactly? wsj.com/us-news/army-o…
Thread with details on the Houston Mutinty of 1917, including the murder of civilians. "Each shot seemed to be followed with a sickening thud as if they were pounding him with clubs."
The pardon is supposedly based on new “research” showing that, actually, the soldiers only “planned a peaceful march to the police station” but “encountered a mob of white men.” What? That doesn't even fit the basic facts of what we know about that night. kiro7.com/news/trending/…
This report, by the scholar who seems to be the driving force behind the pardon effort, claims the mutineers feared a white mob, hence their resort to violence. Weak argument, in my opinion, but they definitely did not, in fact, encounter such a mob. nimj.org/uploads/1/3/5/…
Witnesses reported mutineers saying things like “I will shoot up every white son-of-a-bitch on Washington Street,” “To Hell with going to France, get to work right here,” and “Let’s go clean up the God damned city.” Sounds like more than a peaceful march to the police station.
What kind of peaceful march shoots out the front tire of an ambulance, orders the passengers to flee, then fires repeatedly at them as they run away, yelling “Get out you Goddamn white son-of-a-bitch and run”? This was just after the soldiers set out, still in sight of the camp.
Military race riots keep getting recast as noble protests in defiance of all facts and logic, and the pardoning of the Houston mutineers may be the worst yet. I wrote about the trend earlier this year in light of the so-called Battle of Bamber Bridge: theamericanconservative.com/how-fake-histo…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
My proposal for how to fix cancel culture is not a return to liberalism/free speech, but a revival of professional standards. Everyone doesn't have to be neutral on everything, but a doctor has a duty to treat patients neutrally; a professor to teach; a lawyer to represent. /1
Professional standards are much older than liberalism—think of the Hippocratic Oath! They exist to compensate for the power that professionals have over their clients. Wokeness has attacked professional codes in every sphere: banking, medicine, law. /2
In my new @firstthingsmag piece on the ACLU, I can't exactly tell them to go back to being good liberals, because I still think liberalism is bad. But I can appeal to their professionalism as lawyers, which demands a sense of duty and self-effacement. /3firstthings.com/article/2023/1…
Three tweets from the past week, plus a comment. Each tweet is about immigration. I don't mean to single out these people, their tweets just happen to be representative.
1. "I think we need a conversation about cultural compatibility and immigration."
This is hardly the worst thing about this statement, but I can't get over the fact that the president of Harvard sounds like a 6th grade teacher. To give a sense of the decline, here is a speech from a Harvard president in 1961 saying roughly the same thing about free speech:
Nathan Pusey, president of Harvard 1953–71, opens the speech with this letter from an alumnus worried about subversives on the faculty: “When a whole Harvard department is so strongly promoting measures leading to totalitarianism, it seems I would be weak-minded to support it.”
“Harvard is a complex, lively, and involved institution. Now as always she includes many kinds and conditions of people—people of different interests, views, and opinions; and this grows increasingly so, the more the University becomes a world institution. But this is good, for diversity of opinion makes one think. As much as anything, it may set one on the path toward truth.
But never has Harvard tried to teach a single narrow orthodoxy in any field, nor does she now. From the time our first president, Henry Dunster, was dismissed for unorthodoxy, it has been her chief purpose to call men to think for themselves. Again and again there has been difficulty about this. Henry Dunster did not meet the conditions of the Massachusetts theocracy, but Harvard respected him for his courage and conviction and in time named a House for him.
Harvard still honors courage, conviction, and independent thought in her main and central thrust. As William James said in his much quoted address at Commencement fifty-eight years ago this month, ‘The day when Harvard shall stamp a single fast an hard type of character upon her children will be that of her downfall.”
The way rifts in the left coalition have always worked before is that groups are allowed to disagree privately—Muslims not liking the trans stuff, Asians resenting college admissions or crime—as long as they line up with the rest of the coalition when it matters.
“Lining up with the coalition” means the diverse masses outside the elite keep pulling the lever for Dems and the diverse people who make it inside the elite shed their dissent (like the Muslims of the Squad going all in on LGBT stuff).
The leaders of the left probably assumed they could contain some intra-coalition grumbling on Israel, as they did on castrating children or liberating criminals. But the people who have, up to now, been surprisingly loyal foot soldiers have decided not to fall in line this time.
This book about the successful struggle to integrate amusement parks ends with a discordantly sad final chapter, in which “the majority of traditional urban amusement parks closed by the late 1960s and early 1970s.” Some stories from the book: amazon.com/Race-Riots-Rol…
Olympic Park, Irvington, New Jersey (1903-1965): “Olympic Park remained segregated until the mid-1950s and Newark’s black community felt unwelcome even when they gained access to the park. By 1965, however, young blacks began to take buses to the park to enjoy daylong excursions. On opening day of 1965 a large group of Newark teenagers, numbering perhaps one thousand, arrived at the park. They expected to pay only ten cents per ride, a tradition on opening day that the park owner had eliminated that year. By the evening many had run out of money as a result. Fearing trouble, park officials tried to close early. Guards ushered the angry teenagers from the park, but there were no buses to take them back to Newark because of the early closing time. The crowds then descended on downtown Irvington, shattering some shop windows and frightening pedestrians…
Two weeks after the riot the town council met to discuss denying the park’s license renewal… By the end of the season the owners had sold Olympic Park to land developers, and Newark youth no longer had access to any major amusement parks.”
Glen Echo Amusement Park, Montgomery County, Maryland (1899-1968): “In Glen Echo amusement park outside Washington, D.C., another classic carousel was the site of a successful desegregation effort by civil rights activists in 1960. Six years later, on the Monday following Easter, large numbers of African American teenagers boarded buses in Washington and headed to Glen Echo… Alarmed by the crowds and fearing vandalism, park operators shut down their rides early, around 6:00pm. The youths had purchased ride tickets that they could not use and were frustrated and angry. At this point the bus company decided to suspend service back to the city because they could not be guaranteed police protection. Several hundred teenagers had to walk many miles to their urban homes. During this walk they threw bottles and stones, frightening nearby residents and smashing some windows on cars and houses…
Glen Echo reopened a week after the riot… Transportation to the park was limited to private cars when DC Transit ended its bus service from Washington. In addition, Glen Echo began to charge admission at the gate rather than allowing patrons to roam the park and pay for individual rides… These efforts failed to stem the park’s decreasing popularity. The final season for Glen Echo was 1968.”
BBC documentarian David Harrison interviewed a black man in Soweto, Solly Madlala, in 1978 and again in 1980. In the first interview Solly was miserable ("There is actually no life worth living in Soweto"). "Two years later Solly Madlala was a changed man." What happened? 1/4
First, the government abolished many forms of petty apartheid like separate queues at post offices. "We had to wait hours on end… All that has been eliminated. What I used to do in two hours, today I do in 45 minutes. Without any commotion everybody is served, like a person."
In exchange for those liberal reforms, influx control was tightened. That was good for Solly, whose sons no longer faced unlimited labor competition from illegal migrants. His family's income doubled.