Bill O'Reilly needs a history lesson.

From MMFA:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200510060002

snip:

My people came from County Cavan in Ireland. All right? And the British Crown marched in there with their henchman, Oliver Cromwell, and they seized all of my ancestors' lands, everything. And they threw them into slavery, pretty much indentured servitude on the land. And then the land collapsed, all right? And everybody was starving in Ireland. They had to leave the country, just as Africans had to leave -- African-Americans had to leave Africa and come over on a boat and try to make in the New World with nothing. Nothing. And succeeded, succeeded. As did Italians, as did -- and I'll submit to you, African-Americans are succeeding as well. So all of these things can be overcome I think, . Go ahead.

End snip.

So, apparently African-American ancestors CHOSE to come here and be slaves. Just ask falafel boy, he'll tell ya!

in a couple weeks he will be railing about people making up lies about what he said, regardless of the existence of a transcript.

He is not a good human being.

"He is not a good human being."


I like it. Succinct and true.

a brain. It's hard to teach anyone who's a mindless, kool-aid-drinking asshat.

He'd have to cinch it up all the way for it to fit, though.

I
have
no
words
.

I guess they worship his every word.

his 'followers' are as stupid as **.

Ireland suffered because it was colonized.
Kind of like Iraq.

(my ancestors left then too, but at least we aren't stupid O'Reallys. And nice little iggerunt flourish about Africa there Bill. Really proud of ya.)

and few people realize that all those Jews in Nazi Germany committed suicide.

I'd a thought he'd be O'Liely's hero! Nice faith-based usurper, sorta like Shrubbie.

It was impossible to continue for mirth....

so clueless, and in such a position to spout that crap.

Excepting our court-appointed pResident, of course.

:P

If you can get into Karen Hughes' position being that stupid, I don't see why you couldn't get into some dumb-ass TV show.

Small detail. ;-)

King Charles I was executed. Cromwell would have fit in nicely with the religious right in this country, I think. As far as claiming that people got on boats and left Africa to come here for a better life, do his fans really believe that just because he says it? The man is an idiot.

I believe that entire passage ought to be inscribed upon his tombstone.

Ya know, some people only respond to the kind of stimulus they are sensitive to. Bill O want's to be a bully, so why doesn't a real bully go up to him a smash mouth him? It just seems like a logical thing to do :shrug:

Media Matters has assassins out to get him, so he needs bodyguards.

He fails to understand his entertainment value to us.

He really does need his face kicked in - along with his pansy-ass body guards!

I don't mean to be flippant - I hope no one takes offense -- but O'Reilly is the best argument for revoking the First Amendment ever....what a fuggin' idiot.

Had to leave? Judas Freaking Priest! Will someone please stop hitting this dolt with the stupid stick? It worked already!!


:argh:

Isaac the bartender was the first African American to make it to the land of the free. The demand for alcoholic beverages was so great, he needed help, as none of the other Africans new how to mix a good drink, they were used as slave labor instead.

P.S. The Native Americans were oppressed by high property taxes, the obvious solution was for them to give us all their land in a tax deferred exchange.

P.S.S. I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

I can't believe how ignorant O'Reilly is. African-Americans leaving Africa, Cromwell invading Eireann for the King. And yet, many Americans still listen to his bullshit and believe every goddamn word he says.

Time for Mr. Stewart to stop playing nice with this cretin.

Hmmm...Forgive me, but I think I just had a stroke reading that.

What an ass.

A good friend of mine has designed a new car magnet in response to those "Support our Troops" yellow magnets you see everywhere. You have to see the Dove to fully appreciate it. It's at www.peacepositive.net. Mike's idea was to bring a symbol of peace to the ribbon message. The results are pretty powerful. The other cool thing is that he is donating 20% of the proceeds to charities that support peace. Who wants to buy one for Mr. O'Reilly?

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

like Bill here, meet Mr 2X4 LOL Or as the Irish say, "a good shellackin'"!

I won't even talk about the "voluntary" slavery thing....

warrants it. I would say.
Peace
Wildman
Al Gore is My President

ever made. And the amazing thing about it is that the next time he opens his mouth, it'll be even more stupid.

That one lone brain cell rattling around inside his skull must get awful lonely some days.

No one should be surprised at this.

WHAT THE FUCK!????

Bill O. is a schmuck, but I thought he had, at least, an expensive education paid for by his upper-middle-class family and some Master's from Harvard?

This reminds me of when I was in graduate school in the early 90s. We had an older African-American professor, and this twit (who was going on to be a teacher, which is scary) wondered why she went to an historically Black college and not to the school we were at.

I had to explain to her about Jim Crow, segregation, etc. I was only in my mid-20s at the time and she was just a few years younger.

Man oh man.

African Potato Famine. :eyes:

fucks need a "history lesson"..but their brains are too burnt to learn anything.

Waterboarding
Castration
mother with a time machine and an appointment with planned parenthood
Lobotomy
Patriotic Gannon Cannon
french kiss from a Velicoraptor

I'm thinking perhaps a history lesson wouldn't be sufficient.

Christ, if he doesn't understand the situation better than that, he probably shouldn't be using it for Celtic street cred.

And William Wallace was a spy for the Brits.

:)

Henry VIII's chancellor who helped develop the rather harsh Britification laws that extended English "sovereignty" over Wales, Scotland, and Ireland. It was during this time that those areas no longer were considered outposts or colonies, but a working part of state - all for more revenue, of course.
http://englishhistory.net/tudor/citizens/cromwell.html
Thomas C. was often quite the toady, but considering what Henry's court was like, I couldn't really blame him.

Still, mistaking Oliver C. for the much more obscure Thomas C. is not something someone who supposedly has a university education would generally do.
Oliver's only interest in Ireland over anywhere else in the British empire was the amount of Catholics and potential royal sympathizers there.


O'Lielly is just your usual pseudo-intellectual poser. Running his mouth on subjects he doesn't understand just to impress the girls.

Haele

same thing, really :eyes:

Not with a book though. Unless the book was hard-back, closed, and coming down hard on his stupid melon head.

Gee cant' you tell I just love Shill O'Lielly? :D

I'm so sure. :eyes: What a doofus. I've had some tell me that slaves enjoyed being a slave and the masters were actually nice. :eyes: I'm sure some were but racism is still a live and well so you can get a picture of that.

Look, I don't like defending that asshole, but much like the Bill Bennet thing, he didn't mean to say what he said. His point was this:

1. The Irish were forced to come over, possessing nothing.
2. The Africans were forced to come over, possessing nothing.
3. Both have found success.
4. Therefore the "our great-grandparents had nothing and therefore this generation is doomed to poverty as well" argument is not airtight.

The Irish were forced by starvation, the Africans at gunpoint, but both were forced. It's a bad analogy, to be sure, but that analogy wasn't his point, it was to introduce that both possessed nothing upon their entry to America. Now, Bill doesn't take racism into account (a second-generation Irish-American is almost indistinguishable from any WASP, whereas a sixth-generation African-American is just as black as her ancestors on a slave ship, and Americans historically are prejudiced against those who aren't WASPs.) But he didn't actually mean to imply that Africans came over willingly.

He DID mean what he implied, and he WAS wrong. The British treated the Irish like garbage, but when they acme over her, they were free mean and women, they were white, they spoke English, and they did have a crony system in place. An often abusive one, but one none the less. The discrimination against them was mainly a religious one. Were they treated like garbage over here? Yeah -0-for the first generation or so, just like most immigrants. BUT THEY WEREN'T SLAVES AND THEY DIDN'T ARRIVE WITH NOTHING. I'm half Irish (1857)and half Italian (1915). I know how immigrant were treated here.

And Africans weren't brought over here at gunpoint, they were brought over in chains, rotting in holds like carcasses, and sold into slavery, where they were raped, worked to death, and OWNED. They had nothing, and never could. Understand?

Please, go be an apologist for O'Reilly somewhere else.

I agree with you entirely on every point. Bill would likely agree with you on all points but "never could."

He was arguing against the "My grandfather was poor therefore I have no chance for success" argument. He said, look, the Irish came over here with nothing, they encountered racism (NINA? I'm full-blooded Irish, you know) and now they're successful. Africans came over with nothing, they exited slavery with nothing, they encountered racism, and now quite a few of them are indeed successful, and that means that the basic argument for reperations is not valid. That was his point. You may not agree with it, but he didn't imply blacks WANTED to come here, which is what the OP suggested, nor did he imply the situations were equal.

And as for gunpoint: "at gunpoint" means "as if under the threat of being shot." They were captured at gunpoint. They were bound in chains at gunpoint. They were loaded onto ships and sold at gunpoint. They often worked at gunpoint, and if they escaped, they were caught an gunpoint. I believe "gunpoint" is a perfectly acceptable term. I intended it to mean "forced by other people" as opposed to the Irish "forced by situation."

And either way, he didn't mean to imply the situations were equal, but rather that they were both examples of coming over with nothing and having their descendants find success. Many have not found success, yes, but some have, and that was his point. I don't agree with the message, but it isn't the brutally ignorant one the OP claimed it was.

...not to mention the bald ignorance spoken with authority like with the Cromwell-for-the-king line.

As long as he counts playing fast and loose with the facts as "no spin", he desereves to be called on it.

He's ignorant. All I was arguing against was the OP's assertion of So, apparently African-American ancestors CHOSE to come here and be slaves. Which is certainly not what Bill was implying. He may be outright wrong, but he didn't say they came willingly.

He tried to disprove the fact that African Americans are held back by thier family histories by selectively comparing thier history to Irish History. Sure, if the only difference between the Irish Americans and African American History was kidnapping versus fleeing starvation, then Bill would have a point, but he is whitewashing history.

Its an ugly piece of rhetoric using cherrypicked data points to misrepresent the historical facts.

but rather one which ignores racism--a common trait among closet racists, to be sure, but slightly different. Racism is the belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others. Bill did not suggest that, but rather took as an assumption that such lines of thoughts did not exist and therefore did not hold back African-Americans. That is extremely ignorant, but, like I said, wasn't the criticism the OP made.

But yes, I agree, the argument is ridiculous, and does point to a racist character in our beloved Bildo.

The implication of arguing that problems in some African American communities cannot be explained via history is that there is something especially wrong with the people in the community.

The fact that it is based on a historical whitewash only confirms the racist nature of the argument.

It is an argument that serves to rationalize the belief that African Americans are to blame for thier own problems. Obviously Bill O'Reilly doesnt spell that out, but you, I and Bill O'Reilly know much of his audience believes that.

Conservatives do still appeal to racism, they just do it deftly, and this is a fine example.

There is a middle ground between claiming historical inevitability and that blacks are willfully lazy. The first is impossible, as many have escaped, and many have escaped from similar situations. The second is racist and incredible. His audience might think, "Oh, it can't be historical inevitability--it must just be that blacks are lazy," and that may very well be his intent, but that certainly isn't the only argument one can draw from that.

The problem with the inevitibility argument is it lends itself to fatalism. I grew up in South Holland, IL, a suburb of the south side of Chicago. I am white. This is uncommon at the school I went to. And a sad number of students had the perspective "Why bother with this shit--I'm black, I'm poor. I'm always gonna be black, so I guess I'm always gonna be poor."

This is a poisonous, viral thought pattern, and while Bill's argument can feed racist white minds, with a little bit of tweaking, it might do some good in Thornwood high school. A great portion of the problem is that whites are racist against blacks. But I'm certain part of the problem is also that a large portion of black youth are entirely demoralized, and I see the strict historically-inevitable argument as part of that.

There is a middle ground between claiming historical inevitability and that blacks are willfully lazy.

Of course, nothing in my post claimed that there wasnt.

The first is impossible, as many have escaped, and many have escaped from similar situations.

That is rediculous. Similar is not the same.

The second is racist and incredible.

And has nothing to do with our discussion.

His audience might think, "Oh, it can't be historical inevitability--it must just be that blacks are lazy," and that may very well be his intent, but that certainly isn't the only argument one can draw from that.

Well you can do the intellectual exercise of seeing how many ways you can spin his argument if you want. But I am happy to just figure out what he actually said. He used an extremely dishonest argument to downplay the historical factors that help explain many problems in African American communities. The implications are clear.

The problem with the inevitibility argument is it lends itself to fatalism.

Hardly, but that doesnt really relate to what we are discussing.

I grew up in South Holland, IL, a suburb of the south side of Chicago. I am white. This is uncommon at the school I went to. And a sad number of students had the perspective "Why bother with this shit--I'm black, I'm poor. I'm always gonna be black, so I guess I'm always gonna be poor."

This is a poisonous, viral thought pattern, and while Bill's argument can feed racist white minds, with a little bit of tweaking, it might do some good in Thornwood high school. A great portion of the problem is that whites are racist against blacks. But I'm certain part of the problem is also that a large portion of black youth are entirely demoralized, and I see the strict historically-inevitable argument as part of that.

Right, they are demoralized because they dont have opportunities, and because they have grown up in a black community scarred from generations of oppression.

Bill O'Reilly's comments would not help them. Lies dont help people.

There is no such thing as the strict historically inevitable argument, that a a straw man you concocted.

People dont get confidence by being told their problems dont have causes. They get confidence by understanding themselves and the world around them and learning that they can in fact succeed.

"The implication of arguing that problems in some African American communities cannot be explained via history is that there is something especially wrong with the people in the community."

You set an either/or implication. Either it is history or there is something wrong with the people in the community. That is clearly false. And if I say that no, some problems in some communities cannot be explained by the unrelenting hand of history, then you claim I am implying there is something wrong with the people. I cannot take a middle point.

A large problem is demoralization. I'm glad you admit that much. That is due to history (in the same way that every single event that ever occurs is due to history), but you cannot solve a problem by fixing history. You must fix the present, and the way to do that is to see what the problems of the present are. Part of the problem is that blacks are demoralized, yes. But blacks are demoralized beyond what is realistic for the level of opportunity that exists. Some of my classmates studied and went to UIC or Chicago State. Many are productive members of society. But quite a few thought "I have no opportunities" (as you claim), and didn't bother educating themselves or working to improve their situation. It is not the case that blacks have no opportunities. That, as much as what O'Rielly spews, is a lie.

And saying "you have no opportunities because whites won't let you" to a junior high student is as harmful to his empowerment as telling him that he is mentally incapable of taking advantage of opportunities. Either way you tell him, "You cannot succeed." And either way he will say, "All right, then I won't try." And then, regardless of your intentions of telling him that, he will not succeed, and for one more black household success will be deferred another generation. Rather, tell him, "Other people were born with more than you have. But you are as smart as they are, you are as capable as they are, you are as strong as they are, and you can be more disciplined and more successful than they are. You will encounter racism. But you will not let it stop you. You will get an education, work, and be successful." And, if you're lucky, he will. And if he does, another family will be lifted out of poverty. Will everyone? No, of course not. But more will than with the current defeatist situation.

It doesn't matter how justifiable defeatism is. It doesn't matter how bad things were, how scarred the community is, any of that. It doesn't matter if you call it history, realism, defeatism, fatalism, inevitability, whatever. It is poisonous, and the way to fix it is to tell people they *can* succeed, not tell them "they don't have opportunities, and telling them people get out of poverty is a lie."

Is the situation of African-Americans deplorable? Yes. Is there crushing racism? Yes. I don't doubt that. But the solution isn't to say "blacks don't have opportunities." Because that line of thought is causing problems.

the south. That is how some of them became so f***ing rich. Africans were brought here to BE the slaves that immigrants (like O'Reillys ancestors) would buy. Big difference.

also owned slaves. The Cherokee were slave owners in America, as well.

They were trying to emulate the white man.

Slighty OT, and Bill O'Really is still an idiot, however.

If they came early, during the slave owning years, or later because of the potato famine. Many of the Irish who arrived during the famine were quite poor and were almost as denigrated as the blacks. They were, however, considered to be a bit higher on the humanity scale than the immigrants from the Mediterranean regions. Racism was rampant and extended to others besides just black people.

equate the situation of blacks with other immigrants, especially those who were white. The fact is not one of those other immigrants would ever wished to trade places with a black person. The reason? Blatant and terrible racism directed at the black population. I get so tired of people trying to say that every group experienced racism. Every group did not. The black population has been treated worse than any other community in this society, except for the Indians. And often, other immigrants became extremely racist themselves, treating African American despicably. Read about the history of the Irish in New York City and Boston and about the Italians in Pennsylvania. After a few generations, white immigrants were able to improve their lot but blacks were forced to remain in segregation with few opportunities available to them.

I was, however, saying that prejudice against European groups who were not Anglo Saxon existed, and in some circles, it still does. This is true. Was it as bad as against blacks, probably not, I'm still wondering about the Irish in New York. Did they get some relief from it, yes, some more than others. Did they become racist or come here as racists, some of them yes.

I know that driving while black is not the same as driving while Italian. I know Italian Americans who drew in racism with their mother's milk.

I'm sure you didn't mean sound sound so condescending, perhaps I'm being a bit defensive. But I do wonder why racism, classism, ethnicism, whatever, is so rampant in the United States. We look so eagerly for "the other". The early Irish who came before the Civil War were not as discriminated against as those who came to escape the famine. I'm thinking that was related to money and class, but it still persisted into the 20th century and against the newly wealthy Irish.

A history professor told us in the 60's that 20 percent of white America has black heritage. As soon as a person could pass for white, they often did. I think that is a sad commentary on our country, our people, our culture.

They were Irish, they owned slaves in MD. Then the Civil War happened, then they lost the slaves--which they had invested all their capital in--and then they ended up living in a former slave home. Ironic, really.

the brothers don't put up with stupid students like Bill

Oliver Cromwell was an agent of the crown?! :LOL: :LOL: :LOL:

The potato famine didn't even happen until the 1840's!

I believe it was William of Orange who perpetuated "genocide" on the Irish. Burned their books, children were not allowed education (were taught in secret), and shipped Irish to places in the Caribbean. They had no worth. African slaves had more worth at the time. He wants to quote the famine, but before that there were attempts to genocide the Irish. They were not indentured servants, and this history comes from my college African American history class. However, the Irish were white!!!! Even in the nineteenth century there was prejudism against Irish. Societal perceptions of "drunken Irish", "brawling Irish", "trouble making Irish!" But most Irish also were in the forefront of labor reform and other political progressive movements. Bill O'Lielly is no true Irishman!!!! Maybe he should read some Celtic history. The Celts were more social democrats and believed in responsibility towards their people. I'd say Bill O'Lielly was more of an "orange man" than anything else.

And while the Irish, as unwanted ethnic refugees faced a tough time in this country, when compared to the whole of the African American experience in America, it is very clear that you would expect African Americans in the year 2005 to have distressed communities, fractured family structures, educational defecits etc to a much larger extent than Irish Americans.

O'Reilly cherrypicked two data points from the comparitive histories to make a rediculous point with racist implications.

Didn't you know in 1944, at the Battle of the Bulge, elements of the 82nd Airborne massacred german prisoners?

Oliver Cromwell wasn't really a fan of the monarchy...his uncle Thomas, on the other hand, was the Earl of Essex, an adviser to Henry VIII.

What I'm trying to get across is that the Irish were still "white." The negative perception of "otherness" is brought into play. Even in ancient times, Greece, there was a perception of "black" being inferior. Bill O'Lielly does not take into account of a bigoted, fear driven divide that has been ongoing since our country existed. If not, African American, then Native Americans have been mis-characterized continually in our history. "Those black men are going to rape your daughters." "They are lazy"; "see they're happy being slaves, they got a bed and food to eat", "we treated them good". I mean even in the forties and fifties, studies were implemented to show another races "differentness", "their not as "smart" as us "white people." The barrier is education which leads to economic disparity and Malcolm X even realized the barrier. Another thing, it's easy to claim your Irish, but today, there are different Irish. Again, Bill O'Lielly sounds like he's an "orange man."

"And the British Crown marched in there with their henchman, Oliver Cromwell, and they seized all of my ancestors' lands, everything. And they threw them into slavery."

Doesn't sound like he's much for the Orange, actually.

between a loofah and a falafel. Why does anyone care about what he thinks about any topic and why does he even have a show? Soon he will be like the titular psyche patient in the Oliver Sacks book "The Man Who Mistook His Wife For a Hat".

You never fail to amuse me.... ;-)


I'm Irish too - hopefully, no relation to Bill. :o