More details on a troubling story

At Free Republic, there's more discussion of the Jessica Chambers murder, with some new details (based on part on rather sketchy sources, namely 'social media') which shows the troubling aspects of the whole story. It appears as though a very sordid set of people are at the heart of the whole thing, and it should be instructive to young women who fail to choose their company wisely, and to parents who don't make a constant effort to 'train up' their children in the way they should go, before wrong associations are established. Oh, but 'choosing wisely' would be evil, as 'choosing wisely' is just another way of saying 'discriminating.' Yet the essence of parenting is to instill the quality of discernment, another word for choosing carefully -- or 'discriminating.' He who teaches his children to be 'welcoming' and inclusive of anybody, regardless, is disarming his children, and leaving them vulnerable. To do that is a wrong against our children and posterity.

That aside, the victim was 19 years old, and had made her choices of associates; once our 'children' are that age, it's no longer possible to exercise control over their choices. Maybe it's not wise to have decided that the age of 18 is the magic age at which young people attain full control over their own lives, the age when parents must relinquish all authority over our sons and daughters. And when did 18 become that magic age? Possibly when our brilliant and wise political classes decreed that giving 18-year-olds the franchise was the right thing to do. The fact that there was a bonanza of potential young voters, as the baby-boomers began to reach that age, didn't enter into the politician's calculations, did it?  But suddenly ''if you're old enough to be drafted or married, you have the right to vote'' and to act as a fully responsible adult. But how many 18 or 19-year-olds today arereally adult in their judgments?

We may never know who is responsible for the death of Jessica Chambers -- or the later victims of suspicious burnings in that same area.

But the discussion that you can see on that Free Republic thread will be going on indefinitely, as the social conditions in which the Chambers murder occurred continue to worsen. And because the vexed question of race is a part of the story, it will NOT be dealt with honestly; there will be obfuscation, cover-ups, denials galore, race-baiting, and blinkered attitudes on the part of many Whites, it seems. The 'colorblind conservatives' are the ones who are having the hardest time, it would seem, clinging to their illusions about how we are all the same, except for ''ideology'' and ''culture.''

Reading through the comments I noticed some passing comments by the Republican and libertarian commenters who buy the liberal narrative about the history of  'Jim Crow' and the bad old days, which show that without a doubt, many Republitarians or respectable-cons are basically radical egalitarians. In that respect they are in agreement with the 'progs'. Yet each side considers itself the bitter enemy of the other, united though they are on the basic premises. How odd.

It often exasperates me that so little is taught in schools about the issues of the War Between the States and especially the aftermath -- Reconstruction in particular, and how the bad old 'Jim Crow' system came about -- and mostly why it came about. Even if a few rare Americans want to know more, there is hardly any honest history written about that period. Yet today's crisis is very much a continuation of that period and its policies.

There are very few modern sources that are not tainted by political correctness and the blank-slatism and the egalitarianism that is nearly universal now.

It's essential to 'cleanse one's palate' by reading old sources, written by people nearer to those events, accounts which are free of the taint of Cultural Marxism and the radical views that dominate academia and the media now. Yet there are a few sources available through Archive.org. How long before the book-burners and the PC revisionists decide to eliminate those sources, lest somebody read the truth, or question PC authority? We can't have that, can we?

I recommend some sources which provide some missing information and which let the other side, the politically incorrect side, be heard. But hearing both sides is a taboo now; we hear this blather about a ''dialogue on race'' but under present conditions, only a monologue is heard, only one point of view, and that monologue is more of an ongoing harangue, a hectoring diatribe in which one side is perpetually and only the bad guy. We need both sides to be heard; a dialogue implies two contrasting points of view.

Lacking a real dialogue, the Freepers and other such confused 'conservatives' and libertarians need to read some sources such as these, from Archive.org:

A Defense of Louisiana (about Reconstruction)
Kemper County Vindicated, and a Peep at Radical Rule in Mississippi
The Recent Past from a Southern Standpoint
Reconstruction in Georgia

Without some background knowledge of that era, many conservatives will go on repeating lines like the one in the discussion at FR, about the 'brutal, unjust Jim Crow laws.' If we believe that the past and our ancestors were 'brutal and unjust' then we remain plagued with guilt and a feeling of responsibility for the situation that prevails now. Many of us end up being not just guilty but apologetic, always on the defensive, or else bitter towards our forefathers ("shoulda picked our own cotton", etc.)  At some point we have to look elsewhere than in 'mainstream [left-wing, culture-of-critique] ''history'' books for the whole story.