All Things Doug Phillips & VF, Including Lourdes's Lawsuit

[JemimaPuddle-Duck]

Not weighing in on whether Jasmine's lack of a courtship is a result of her race (I really don't know enough about the VF/Baucham crowd to say), I just wanted to say that Jasmine did have an essay on her blog in which she wrote about how she is attracted to men of all races and is open to marrying a man of any ethnic/racial background, though she does understand why some minorities prefer to marry someone who shares their experience.

Rereading it, I realized she addresses some racism in the culture. It's an interesting read:

allshehastosay.wordpress.com/2013/04/12/just-like-me-2/

Thanks for that link! :-) Something that Either Voddie or Jasmine wrote or said gave me the impression she wanted to marry someone whom is also black, but I can't remember where. Guess I was wrong.

[JemimaPuddle-Duck]

1. Again, unless you are a member of the VF/NCFIC cult, then I was not talking about you or your children, nor was I talking about "every fundie family."

2. So do I. My post was not about Jasmine, it was about the male members of VF/NCFIC.

ETA: Let me be clear about this. Here are my exact words:

"And please don’t get me started on the token black children who were/are adopted into the VF/NCFIC cult and forced to wear racist/imperialist costumes in their propaganda photos."

Adopted into the cult. Not adopted into this or that specific family. I am speaking here of a collective mindset and was using the word "adopted" in a more general sense, okay?

I'm sorry, I always get worked over the adoption stuff, for reasons I won't go into, since I like my anonymity. No, I don't know what you mean by using "'adopted' in a more general sense". ??? I've never been a VF fan girl, but I'm super close to some families that were relatively close to the Phillipses and are still close to the Browns and others. Do I count? If I adopt a black child, will he or she be token in your eyes just because I'm a fundie? Or is it only idiots who dress their kids up in inappropriate costumes that you disapprove of? This isn't the first time this has come up in threads here. Its not just your one comment. It's just hurtful to have it talked about in that way. You must see that. You can't really think every VF family with children of different ethnicities means them to be nothing more than a photo-op? Maybe you don't, but that is how those comments read, to me.

[Coco]

Growing up in the south, i know a person cannot support the Confederacy without it being racist. You don't fly the stars and bars without it meaning a little bit of white supremacy, or "damn the gubmint", Cliven Bundy style. (including his ideas about "the negro") Sorry if that's oversimplifying, but in today's world, regardless of the myriad reasons for the Civil War, supporting the confederacy is equal to supporting slavery. You cannot separate the past from the present. We live in the present and to try to use the Civil War to defend secession and state's rights is just fighting a lost cause. If you believe in state's rights and small local government versus federal, use today's government structure to try to make changes.

VF harping on the old south was for the wrong reasons. Rushdoony and others who influenced DPIAT, Howard Phillips, Scott Brown and the Christian Reconstructionists... they weren't just talking about state's rights. I haven't researched it to death, so apologies for any mistakes in my argument, but i've read enough to know that their heroes like Rushdoony lean towards racism in its most basic, ugly, form. (ie the idea that some men are created better than others)

Here's some of Rushdoony's writing: http://faithandheritage.com/2012/07/rushdoonys-kinism/

(it's clear as mud and completely evil) :angry-banghead: :angry-banghead: :angry-banghead:

"The white man has behind him centuries of Christian culture, and the discipline and selective breeding this faith requires. Although the white man may reject this faith and subject himself instead to the requirements of humanism, he is still a product of this Christian past. The Negro is a product of a radically different past, and his heredity is governed by radically different consideration. Elizabeth E. Hoyt has cited Dr. Simon Biesheuvelâ’s comparisons, a deliberately extreme contrast, to pinpoint certain cultural ideas, African and Western. From Tennyson’s Ulysses is cited as a typically Western expression of man’s purpose,

To follow knowledge like a sinking star

Beyond the utmost bounds of human thought

To sail beyond the sunset, and the baths

Of all the Western stars, until I die

To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield

By contrast, illustrating what Africans call Negritude, is the following cry from Aimé Césaire of Martinique

Hurray for those who have never invented anything.

Hurray for those who have never explored anything

Hurray for those who have never conquered anything.

But who in awe give themselves up to the essence of things.

Not intent on conquest, but playing the play of the world.

This contrast is an oversimplification, and one designed to be flattering to both races, but it does indicate the reality of racial differences. Men like Stampp would, of course, seek to negate every historical citation of differences as merely “cultural differences.†The men behind the respective cultures are the same men. It is therefore held to be wrong to cite histories against any race.

A more absurd position can scarcely be imagined. If you and I have our histories abstracted from us, and our heredities as well, along with all our cultural conditioning and responses, we are no longer men, no longer human beings, but an abstract and theoretical concept of man. No real history of us can then be written. Stampp’s Negroes are thus neither black men nor white men: they are an abstraction, but an abstraction to illustrate the devil in Stampp’s humanistic morality play."

Which is of course utter bull, because in today's America we can choose to rise above any evil in our past regardless of skin color. Long live affirmative action.

[formergothardite]

Doug's treatment of American Indians is pretty damn racist too. Didn't he stage events at Plymouth Rock glorifying the Pilgrims? And I bet he didn't mention that they came, robbed the graves of American Indians, stole some of their winter corn and grains, and then the first time the phrase "A Day of Thanksgiving" was used was when the Massachusetts Bay Colony returned from murdering 700 American Indian women, children and old men. That is why those ebil American Indians host a day of mourning at Plymouth Rock, but Doug made it out to be an attack on Christian values.

Doug and VF was also very classist. And I think that appealed to a lot of people. No matter their current situation, they liked to imagine a time in the "good old days" when they could be sitting on the front porch of their huge Southern plantation home, dressed in fine clothes and watching fondly as their slaves worked the fields. Their would just love them and they wouldn't even want freedom. Heck, their slaves would be fighting for the Confederacy to remain slaves because slavery wasn't that bad. It was even good for the black people.

Look how Doug treated the Titanic. He was clear he would have been would of the super rich elite and not one of the poor people who had a very slim chance of surviving. He downplayed the poor on the Titanic and made it all about the rich. He was very, very classist and the teachings of VF reflect that.

[DomWackTroll]

I'm sorry, I always get worked over the adoption stuff, for reasons I won't go into, since I like my anonymity. No, I don't know what you mean by using "'adopted' in a more general sense". ??? I've never been a VF fan girl, but I'm super close to some families that were relatively close to the Phillipses and are still close to the Browns and others. Do I count? If I adopt a black child, will he or she be token in your eyes just because I'm a fundie? Or is it only idiots who dress their kids up in inappropriate costumes that you disapprove of? This isn't the first time this has come up in threads here. Its not just your one comment. It's just hurtful to have it talked about in that way. You must see that. You can't really think every VF family with children of different ethnicities means them to be nothing more than a photo-op? Maybe you don't, but that is how those comments read, to me.

I'm saying that they allowed their children to be used for Doug Phillips' and Scott Brown's religious and political propaganda purposes, not that there's "nothing more." They should have known that their children were being exploited by these men.

[mausi]

Here's the deal. Criticism is needed and appropriate but it is also best accurate. If I don't think it's accurate, I'm not afraid to say so. Inaccurate criticism only entrenches the belief that they are persecuted. It also does not help one get to the bottom of the problems.

Here's the deal. Confederate Civil War Apologetics is never the moral high road.

[CloakNDagger]

Here's the deal. Confederate Civil War Apologetics is never the moral high road.

I see. So I guess the best way to convince people that they are wrong is to slap them in the face, call them a liar, put a star on their sleeve and expect them to appreciate it?

I prefer to understand where they are coming from and figure out how to help them see why I think they are wrong. Just labeling them racists when they really don't think they are isn't going to go anywhere except to make you feel surperior.

[formergothardite]

I know where people who whitewash the Confederacy are coming from.

1. Complete ignorance of history or they have just been lied to. They haven't really researched on their own, they just believe what people tell them. But they aren't invested in seeing the Confederacy as the good guy. If this is the case then they can be easily shown that what they have been taught is a lie.

2. Willful ignorance of history and I put Doug Phillip and the teachings of VF here. These are the people who pride themselves on being knowledgeable of history, who spend a lot of time going on about how they use the original documents, yet they willfully ignore documents that put the people/group they are seeking to praise in a bad light. These people know better. Showing them the truth about the Confederacy isn't going to help because they are very, very invested in presenting it in a false light. Miss Raquel falls into this category too. She was shown original documents that proved that it wasn't about state rights and she ignored them because she is invested in only seeing the Confederacy as being the good guys.

3. Then you just have the flat out racists who think black people were happier as slaves. But even these people don't see themselves as racists.

[Peas n carrots]

My family tree has a lot of folks who fought and died for the Stars and Bars. I'm not ashamed of my heritage and I respect they had principles they were willing to die for, but human progress has shown their belief in states rights (which included the right to own slaves) to be flat out wrong.

I have never felt the need to try to do mental gymnastics to justify my ancestors beliefs...it just is what it is. It doesn't mean I live my life predestined to be a racist...I live my life learning a lesson from those who came before me.

I hesitate to call so many VF folks racists. Clueless and/or not sensitive to racial issues...most definitely with some of them. Folks who believe they are superior based on race...not sure how many, if any. Calling someone a racist is a very loaded name...racially clueless seems to fit a lot of these folks more.

[snarkopolis]

Dear Cloak n Dagger Here is an easy test--If the Confederate States had won would they have freed their slaves ? If this war was about states rights then the answer should be yes. But we know the war was about slavery or better phrased for YOU--The rights of states to tell the federal government which federal laws they would follow and which subjects they thought the feds had no jurisdiction over (like the no slavery stuff). I find that most of your VF crowd are woefully "clueless" when it comes to race. And the Dougie show has convinced me that many of that crowd are racists but because they don't interact with anyone but their own (religious) kind they don't know it. The intolerance and lack of critical thinking in regards to how they live their lives is a big red flag. If you won't speak to family because of how they pray, how can you convince me that you can interact with someone with melanin in a equitable manner? So scurry off to cherry pick some facts to prove your point like a good SODRT.

[CloakNDagger]

Dear Cloak n Dagger Here is an easy test--If the Confederate States had won would they have freed their slaves ? If this war was about states rights then the answer should be yes. But we know the war was about slavery or better phrased for YOU--The rights of states to tell the federal government which federal laws they would follow and which subjects they thought the feds had no jurisdiction over (like the no slavery stuff). I find that most of your VF crowd are woefully "clueless" when it comes to race. And the Dougie show has convinced me that many of that crowd are racists but because they don't interact with anyone but their own (religious) kind they don't know it. The intolerance and lack of critical thinking in regards to how they live their lives is a big red flag. If you won't speak to family because of how they pray, how can you convince me that you can interact with someone with melanin in a equitable manner? So scurry off to cherry pick some facts to prove your point like a good SODRT.

I don't think they would have, but I do think that slavery could have been solved more like England did it - and without bloodshed - AND SHOULD HAVE been. I bet you with the money spent on that war, a lot of those slaves could have been bought and released and new McCormick plows given to cotton farmers to tell them to quit whining. I find that the arguments that ignore the consequences of the war and the expansion of national government are also and equally woefully "clueless."

[formergothardite]

I don't think they would have, but I do think that slavery could have been solved more like England did it - and without bloodshed - AND SHOULD HAVE been. I bet you with the money spent on that war, a lot of those slaves could have been bought and released and new McCormick plows given to cotton farmers to tell them to quit whining. I find that the arguments that ignore the consequences of the war and the expansion of national government are also and equally woefully "clueless."

I do not believe for one second it would have been this simple. There probably was a way to end it without a war, but it would have taken much longer and how much slave blood would have been shed in that time? How much more suffering would the slaves have had to endure? We have no way of knowing. But we very well could have ended saving the white blood from shedding on the battle field but having more of the slave blood being shed on the work fields.

[FundieWatcher]

CD, that doesn't make sense. A bunch of slaves could have been bought, but slavery would still be legal. Pointless.

And you are trying to solve a 19th century problem with a 21st century solution.

[neuroticcat]

You're right, many didn't notice, but I/we did. Funny, that Endurance was about a dad, going off for years on his adventures away from home, and cheating on his wife. How telling that VF sold it.

Doug also loved Teddy Roosevelt -- who was the founder of the Progressive Party, something that Doug seemed very opposed to.

In my analysis, DPIAT was/is opportunistic more than anything. If he though he could get away with it he would until someone pointed out the hypocricy, then he'd make it go away. The whole 'Raising of the Allosaur' is a good example, as is the pulling of 'Little House on the Prarie' video series.

What happened with VF & Little House on the Prairie?

[CloakNDagger]

CD, that doesn't make sense. A bunch of slaves could have been bought, but slavery would still be legal. Pointless.

And you are trying to solve a 19th century problem with a 21st century solution.

That wasn't my point. My point was that the North didn't seem to want to solve it peacefully really. The aftermath proved that it wasn't so simple even by violence, either, and it certainly wasn't like the freed blacks were really welcome everywhere in the North after the war and the hearts and minds in the south certainly weren't changed overnight. I think there was blatant hypocrisy on both sides.

[Coco]

CD, that doesn't make sense. A bunch of slaves could have been bought, but slavery would still be legal. Pointless.

And you are trying to solve a 19th century problem with a 21st century solution.

We can imagine how it was but we'll never understand completely. We aren't immersed in that world. We don't know who knew what when. Railroad moguls and oil moguls and every other force that can be put to bear on history, what were they doing? Powerful men's reasons for not wanting a peaceful resolution? The Civil War was only one lifetime removed from the Revolution and ratifying the Constitution. Napoleon didn't die until 1821. In 1866 Thomas Edison was just starting to experiment. There are so many layers.

Anyway. I get so pissed off at people who glorify the past, simplify history, or make stupid movies about the past. (looking at you, san antonio christian film festival lol) I bought an e-book the other day originally written in the 1800's about young women preparing a household. Their lives were freaking hard beyond imagination. Poor health care, nothing was simple or easy. Making soap from ashes??? :wtf: Pregnant women prepared their wills. We forget all the details when we try to figure out the past.

Glorifying the old South through our modern filter of history is about as valid a lifestyle as glorifying Narnia. It's mostly imagined :lol:

[Coco]

What happened with VF & Little House on the Prairie?

:popcorn2: so interesting! what's the story behind that?

[RosyDaisy]

As someone born and reared in Virginia and South Carolina, I will state without equivocation that the Civil War was about slavery and that anyone who thinks otherwise (including my kinfolk who adore their "Rebel" flags) are either uninformed or delusional.

As someone born and raised in Alabama, where Montgomery was the first capital of the Confederacy, the Civil War WAS about slavery. Slavery had always been an issue since the founding of the U.S. States rights and other things were just red herrings thrown at non-slave owning white southerners to come to their side. I suggest those clinging to the notion of states rights as the cause of the Civil War to read an actual history book. You're ignorance is showing.

[CloakNDagger]

We can imagine how it was but we'll never understand completely. We aren't immersed in that world. We don't know who knew what when...

Glorifying the old South through our modern filter of history is about as valid a lifestyle as glorifying Narnia. It's mostly imagined :lol:

Exactly, and it's true for the North as well. I mean, just look at the genocide that the victorious Federal government then proceeded for the next 20-30 years to wage against the Native Americans... shameful really. I don't mind South bashing, as long as it isn't we're better than you stuff, because the Yanks really weren't that much better, and the aftermath was NOT all roses.

[ladyamylynn]

Exactly, and it's true for the North as well. I mean, just look at the genocide that the victorious Federal government then proceeded for the next 20-30 years to wage against the Native Americans... shameful really. I don't mind South bashing, as long as it isn't we're better than you stuff, because the Yanks really weren't that much better, and the aftermath was NOT all roses.

By the way, "Your side did bad things too" is another argument that makes you look like a jerk in the real word, bat-boy.

[Peas n carrots]

If you haven't read the book Confederates In The Attic, stop what you are doing right now and run to the like library. It's not only an excellent examination of Civil War remembrence in the former Confederacy but entertaining as well.

[CloakNDagger]

By the way, "Your side did bad things too" is another argument that makes you look like a jerk in the real word, bat-boy.

I see your point. Sorry.

[formergothardite]

Trying to make the North into the violent bad guy who caused so much blood to be spilt sort of makes it look like you are thinking that the massive amounts of blood the South spilt when it came to slavery wasn't that important. Was the North a shining beacon of racial equality? No. But don't act like they were the main ones at fault here. That they were the more violent ones. That the South was peaceful and the North wasn't. That they were the ones responsible for causing all the bloodshed. Because doing is acting like the things done to slaves in the South wasn't "that bad".

[CloakNDagger]

Because doing is acting like the things done to slaves in the South wasn't "that bad".

Um, no. I've said it was bad, and will repeat it, but y'all are really blind to the other political implications of the conflict. The propaganda from both sides reminds me of the hypocrisy and bullying of the Tool.

[formergothardite]

But you are acting like the North was worse and more violent. I'm not saying the North was close to perfect. But don't act like they were the bad guys in the situation.