Jump to content
IGNORED

Racheal, the middle child, misogynist, anti-intellectual, and incredibly racist


NachosFlandersStyle

Recommended Posts

On 11/15/2017 at 10:27 PM, Rachel333 said:

She is incredibly ignorant and bigoted. At least the one comment on that post is challenging her (was that from someone here?):

 

Looks like the comment was from Racheal's aunt.  It points out that most Confederate monuments were built several decades after the war, when Jim Crow laws were going into effect and white supremacy was at its height..  Racheal proposes that it was just a coincidence.  She claims Southern states were finally financially stable several decades after the war, and it just happened to be when Jim Crow laws started.

The argument falls apart when you learn that many Confederate monuments were built in places like Helena, Montana--places that were in the north and/or didn't exist during the Civil War.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_Memorial_Fountain_(Helena,_Montana)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 253
  • Created
  • Last Reply

She replied to that comment. Apparently the "Safety and Happiness" of people who were enslaved didn't count in terms of the Constitution. Go figure. 

IMG_0871.PNG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh good God. I knew she would write something on the topic topic eventually, but this is so over-the-top ignorant. Would she feel the same way about statues dedicated to those who suffered under slavery? If not, why not? If the South was all about states' rights, why didn't they respect Kansas' right to enter the union as a free state? Does she know that what is likely the earliest statue to Abraham Lincoln, the Emancipation Monument in DC, was erected immediately after the war with funds contributed by former slaves-- people who were "economically devastated" in ways that no white southerner ever was? 

Seriously, I want to know her answers to those questions. She has only a vague idea of the facts of American history, yet she's so confident about it.

And how progressive of her to disavow Jim Crow. :?

PS. Is there a reason this thread got moved? I've been getting notifications that it was active again but couldn't find it til today. Racheal is very much part of the fundie scene so I'm not sure it fits in Wide World.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder does it hurt contorting yourself into shapes like that to make your own fucked up logic make sense? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How she can possibly make sense of "Jim Crow bad" and "Chattel slavery based on race is okay" is beyond me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, GeoBQn said:

Racheal proposes that it was just a coincidence.  She claims Southern states were finally financially stable several decades after the war, and it just happened to be when Jim Crow laws started.

That is a mighty big coincidence, isn't it? She is one of those people you could show solid evidence to that she was wrong and she would just refuse to look. No point with someone like her. She wants to pretend that the South was some sort of God ordained place that stood up against the ebil liberal government. She seems to have built her sense of self around this fake Southern idea and she isn't going to let it go. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ViolaSebastian said:

How she can possibly make sense of "Jim Crow bad" and "Chattel slavery based on race is okay" is beyond me. 

She has this insane delusion that slave owners treated their slaves really well, and being "good Christians" ensured they were well taken care of, well fed, educated, churched, and clothed. I think she once admitted that there may have been a "handful" of bad apples who didn't take good care of the slaves on their plantations. She sees chattel slavery as biblical for some reason, but views Jim Crow as a modern invention that therefore can be condemned.

I can't even process the amount of willful ignorance it takes for someone to believe that chattel slavery was benevolent. It would be bad enough in someone who is just ignorant of history, but she claims to be a history buff, so she must be exposed to the overwhelming amount of evidence that nearly all slaves were horribly mistreated. Plus, ya know, the very fact that they were born into slavery kinda seems to go against that whole "there is no slave or free...for all are one in Christ Jesus" thing that Christians are supposed to be about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, nausicaa said:

It would be bad enough in someone who is just ignorant of history, but she claims to be a history buff, so she must be exposed to the overwhelming amount of evidence that nearly all slaves were horribly mistreated.

I get the impression that she is very, very selective about what "history" she studies. The things she reads are probably racist propaganda. I don't think she really has a problem with slavery and I doubt she actually has a problem with Jim Crow laws. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/20/2017 at 10:22 AM, nausicaa said:

I can't even process the amount of willful ignorance it takes for someone to believe that chattel slavery was benevolent.

Doug Wilson and Steve Wilkins make this very point in the vile pamphlet (still available on Amazon) Southern Slavery as it Was.  Here's an excerpt from Libby Anne's post at Love, Joy, Feminism that discusses the Southern Slavery pamphlet. 

Quote

I [Libby Anne] want to warn you up front that this is going to get long. Because of this, I have sprinkled headings throughout, working to summarize each of Wilson’s points as he makes them. Here are those headings, in order, to give you some idea of what Wilson argues and what will be covered in this review:

  • The Antebellum South Was a Pervasively Christian Society
  • The Abolitionists Were Godless Lying Provocateurs
  • Racism Is a Sin, and Should Be Opposed
  • Southern Slavery Was Not in Line with Old Testament Slavery—But
  • It Is Not Sin for a Christian to Own Slaves
  • It Is Wicked for Christians to Say that Owning Slaves is Sin
  • The Slave Trade Was an Abomination, but It Was All Northerners’ Fault
  • Buying Slaves Was Not a Sin in the Conditions of the Antebellum South
  • Slavery Was a Time of Racial Harmony
  • Slavery Did Come with Evils, But Abuses Were Rare
  • Slavery Offered Blacks Benefits
  • The Civil War Was a Mistake and Should Never Have Happened

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

 

Racism Is a Sin, and Should Be Opposed

...

It Is Wicked for Christians to Say that Owning Slaves is Sin

Slavery Was a Time of Racial Harmony

 

So...slavery isn't a consequence of racism? That's a new one.

Wonder how these people would feel if Ethiopian Christians began to enslave white Europeans. Something tells me they wouldn't call it "a time of racial harmony."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think, based upon what Rachael says in her blog, that she reads only a selection of books, some of them fiction, that support her views. She doesn't critically think about anything, just encases herself in a delusional bubble of specious "history". Another example of SOTDRT fail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/20/2017 at 11:22 AM, nausicaa said:

She has this insane delusion that slave owners treated their slaves really well, and being "good Christians" ensured they were well taken care of, well fed, educated, churched, and clothed. I think she once admitted that there may have been a "handful" of bad apples who didn't take good care of the slaves on their plantations. She sees chattel slavery as biblical for some reason, but views Jim Crow as a modern invention that therefore can be condemned.

I can't even process the amount of willful ignorance it takes for someone to believe that chattel slavery was benevolent. It would be bad enough in someone who is just ignorant of history, but she claims to be a history buff, so she must be exposed to the overwhelming amount of evidence that nearly all slaves were horribly mistreated. Plus, ya know, the very fact that they were born into slavery kinda seems to go against that whole "there is no slave or free...for all are one in Christ Jesus" thing that Christians are supposed to be about.

The widely held notion among neo-Confederates that American slavery was benign in the sense that it brought Christianity to slaves and everyone lived in one big happy patriarchal family is false. The vast majority of slavemasters were indifferent to the state of their slaves’ souls because 1. They didn’t think blacks had souls 2. Baptizing slaves created the ethical quandary of Christians selling and owning other Christians 3. They were afraid of slaves meeting together and plotting against them under the guise of religious meetings. Plantation missions tried to get around these issues by assuring slave masters that Christianity would make slaves more docile and better workers. Unsuprisingly, the Gospel According to Mammy and Uncle Tom did not go over well among slaves. In fact, many slaves remained unchurched until Reconstruction allowed for the building of independent black churches in the South. Those blacks who did become Christian in the antebellum period did so in spite of slavery, not because of it, and the Christianity they practiced was vastly different than the type preached by “approved” white ministers. Plus, there’s the whole issue of slave masters raping black women during and after slavery, which is not indicative of the actions of a “Christian gentleman.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/22/2017 at 12:01 AM, Demonfan said:

I think, based upon what Rachael says in her blog, that she reads only a selection of books, some of them fiction, that support her views. She doesn't critically think about anything, just encases herself in a delusional bubble of specious "history". Another example of SOTDRT fail.

I totally agree. She only reads what will support her theories on slavery. Racheal is one of those people who will always be right and therefore, if you disagree with her and show her facts; she will just plug her ears. She has romanticized that past so much that she cannot see what is right in front of her nose. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/15/2017 at 11:04 AM, GeoBQn said:

Racheal posts her thoughts on the Confederate monument debate, several months late.

http://adventuresmidkid.weebly.com/blog/the-monument-debate

Quote

Yes, it is a distraction, but it's more than just a distraction by the Left from their socialistic, Marxist, statist bent and working. 

Hold up, is she saying the left/union are the statists? The ones who want STATE CONTROL of the government? I thought the confederates "fought for state rights."

IMG_5582.PNG.026a3203c1ab786ba04b9f5da69c58ec.PNG

And liberals are bad because they work? :confused2:

On 11/20/2017 at 8:40 AM, formergothardite said:

That is a mighty big coincidence, isn't it? She is one of those people you could show solid evidence to that she was wrong and she would just refuse to look. No point with someone like her. She wants to pretend that the South was some sort of God ordained place that stood up against the ebil liberal government. She seems to have built her sense of self around this fake Southern idea and she isn't going to let it go. 

I love this, because usually racists try to claim Lincoln as one of their own to prove they aren't racist. And she's basically admitting that the Republicans of yesteryear are NOT the same party today. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, HarryPotterFan said:

Hold up, is she saying the left/union are the statists? The ones who want STATE CONTROL of the government? I thought the confederates "fought for state rights."

IMG_5582.PNG.026a3203c1ab786ba04b9f5da69c58ec.PNG

When neo-Confederates mention “states’ rights,” they are referring to the ability for states to mandate slavery, Jim Crow, and the like in spite of federal law. Note that “states’ rights” do not apply towards causes they disapprove of, like local anti-discrimination laws against LGBT people, increasing access to health care or education, or sanctuary cities. “States’ rights” has always been a code word about giving whites the ability to discriminate against women other groups. After all, what could be more “statist” and heavy handed than having laws that dictate which water fountain or door one can use based on one’s skin color?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone else commented on her post, also negative, and it wasn't deleted.  

Quote

I am a life long Southerner, and there are so many things that are wonderful about this region, but the glorification of the Confederacy is not one of them.
Have you studied the Confederate Constitution? The Confederate Constitution made it illegal to ever end slavery. This is not godly and stands as a large difference between the our Country and the Confederacy. The Cornerstone Speech shows that the Cornerstone of the Confederacy was not God or the Bible, but slavery. 
"Our new government is founded upon exactly [this] idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."
The reason God let the Confederacy fail is because it was an ungodly institute whose foundation was treating one a group of people made in HIS image as less than white people. 
For a country that was supposed to be built on state rights, the Confederate Constitution also restricts state rights when it comes to slavery. No state could decide on their own to get rid of slavery or protect slaves that escape there from their owners. 
We need to remember history, but in the correct context. We do not need to glorify a failed country whose foundation wasn't God and who wanted to keep black people enslaved forever.

I'm guessing Racheal hasn't studied the Confederate Constitution,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm guessing Racheal hasn't studied much of anything. Didn't she admit that she hasn't studied a great deal and can't debate the subject very well? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

I remembered Racheal today and clicked over to her blog to see what's up. It looks like same old, same old in her Confederacy-oriented world, except that she says her health problems are getting better. I forgot that she's only 26?! My goodness. 

It occurred to me that it's possible she's still single because she really isn't stereotypically "feminine," no matter how much she may promote the antebellum South and its patriarchy. She does target shooting, knows guns, farms, works on machinery, and seems quite capable when she isn't ill. She seems very strong-minded, which would be great if she wasn't racist. I wonder if the patriarchal men in her circles are scared off by her. 

Or perhaps she's not really all that interested in men? 

It really is a shame that she's so fixated on the Confederacy and has such deeply racist beliefs. I don't see much to indicate that those beliefs are being challenged in any way, either. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I just caught up on this girl. Has anyone read her stories? Throughout my childhood and teen years I was a prolific writer, I wrote fan fics, blogs and even posted things publicly. None of them were good I'm sure, so I kind of feel bad mocking her.

Then I realized she's essentially writing pro Confederate fan fics and that's really really messed up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@zee_four I just scanned. But I was struck by her comment along the lines of, “I want to write about a dystopia.... I’ve never read any dystopian fiction.”

She does that a lot. I’m no expert but.... I hate people like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The worst is when she does it about the Civil War. If you are that obsessed with the Civil War, then perhaps you should study it so you can do more than repeat talking points others have taught you. She appears to be fairly shallow. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The dystopia bit struck me as especially shallow because I just read the first novel of an author. She had a preface where she explained how she got published. She couldn’t go beyond a bachelors. She had kids. She had a medical issue. She took it upon herself to embark on a self-study of writing and novelists. Living in New York she was able to attend some workshops and things at lower costs. But mostly she read, and wrote down what she was struck by. And practiced.

It took her 11 years to get published.

Dystopian fiction is a great genre of literature. She’s an idiot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.