Camille Paglia: Provocations

“I loved the idea of the armed woman,” Paglia said of Diana the Huntress, whose image entranced her as a child. Caption from the linked article

Camille Paglia, a book, what’s not to like. I like many of you, often disagree with her, from her lifestyle to her writings, but I also admire her immoderately. There aren’t many people about who think and write more clearly and honestly. From Emily Esfahani Smith writing in City Journal.

The word “person” captures a concept so fundamental to Westerners that it can be jarring to discover that it once had a different meaning. Etymologically, “person”comes from the Latin word persona, which means “mask.” To be a person is to wear a mask, act out a role—what people today might call being fake.

But to Camille Paglia, the dissident social critic, a mask does not conceal a person’s true nature; it helps reveal it. This is why Halloween was her favorite holiday as a child. It was “a fantastic opportunity,” she told an interviewer recently, “to enact one’s repressed and forbidden self—which in my case was male.” When she was five, she dressed up as Robin Hood; at seven, she was a Roman soldier; at eight, Napoleon; at nine, Hamlet. “These masks,” Paglia told me in Philadelphia recently, “are parts of myself.”

There’s a lot of truth in that, isn’t there? Halloween is the one time of the year when we can identify with our fantasies publically if we dare.

[…] Her project in Provocations, and in much of her later work, is not to provoke simply for the sake of it, in the manner of, say, Milo Yiannopoulos. Her project is cultural populism. “I feel I should use my name recognition for service, for art,” she told the blog Bookslut in 2015. “I’m just a teacher in the classroom from beginning to end,” she added. Paglia sees culture, from the stories of the Bible to the paintings of Picasso to the ballads of Joni Mitchell, as a vast patchwork of meaning that inspires awe and delivers wisdom. She wants to bring the riches of art, literature, and religion to everyday people. […]

Endicott was in many ways like a rural Italian village—which meant that Paglia saw how gender dynamics worked in the premodern world. Her grandmothers were matriarchal, goddess-like figures, who ruled home and hearth. They dictated the affairs of Paglia’s daily life. “Eat!” they’d command her in Italian. “Sleep!” Even more severe were the petite elderly Italian ladies who would visit their homes. “You had to watch out for them,” she said, “because when they kissed you, they’d bite your earlobe.” When Paglia and her parents moved from Endicott to the top floor of a dairy farm in Oxford, New York, where her father taught high school Spanish and her mother worked as a teller at the local bank, she encountered more tough women—farmers working the animals and land. Paglia dedicated Sexual Personae to her grandmothers and a paternal aunt.

Looking back, Paglia saw that her grandmothers had their own sphere of power at home, separate from the male sphere—where older women ruled. “Young women were nothing” in that world, Paglia said. Today, it’s the opposite: women try to gain power in the male sphere of work and lose status culturally as they age. “You’re unhappy,” Paglia said of today’s professional women, “because you’re spending all day long in this mechanical professional world. But we willingly put up with that because we want the financial autonomy and freedom.”

Her childhood also instilled in her an appreciation of men, especially working-class men—the plumbers, factory workers, and policemen who keep the world going. Paglia’s paternal grandfather was a barber, and her maternal grandfather operated a leather-stretching device at the Endicott-Johnson shoe factory. Four of her uncles served in the military during World War II, and her father was an army paratrooper. “One of the reasons I’m not anti-male,” Paglia told me, “is because I saw the sacrifices made by my father’s generation in those men.”

We forget at our peril just how tough our forebearers had it, especially our foremothers, and how powerful they were in our lives. I often think of my grandmothers, one with her husband dead with 7 kids still at home, and my other one blind from glaucoma for the last 20 years of her life. I never knew them, but from what my families said, they ran a tight ship.

At 14, after seeing an item about Amelia Earhart in the newspaper, she began obsessively researching the feminist aviator, with the goal of writing a book about her. Earhart became a symbol to Paglia of “female freedom, thought, and movement.” As she researched Earhart, she also encountered figures such as politician Clare Boothe Luce, journalist Dorothy Thompson, and aviator Anne Morrow Lindbergh. “These women of the twenties and thirties were amazing pioneers without all this male bashing that goes on now,” Paglia said.

Amelia, especially, fascinated me, as a kid, and yes, even now. An excellent role model for any of us.

Sterling Library was a gothic temple to scholarship—and Paglia worked with the reverence of a medieval monk. “To be a scholar,” Paglia has written, “is the greatest of vocations: to compose a devout commentary, a talmud, on the created world.” Her mother, she likes to point out, was born near the sixth-century monastery where Thomas Aquinas was educated. Her two mentors, Milton Kessler and Harold Bloom, were “visionary rabbis.” “Universities descend from medieval institutions,” she told me, “that were [intended] to train clergy, and there’s always been a model of withdrawal from the world and contemplation and honor and ethics in the academic tradition.”

Her devotion to this noble vision explains why Paglia was appalled by what happened next in academia. In the early 1970s, as she was finishing her doctoral course work, a new school of literary studies gained its first U.S. foothold at Yale and would eventually overthrow New Criticism as the main way academics would interpret texts in English departments across the country. It was known by many names: post-structuralism, continental theory, and deconstruction. Its leaders were the French theorists Jacques Derrida, Jacques Lacan, and Michel Foucault.

Paglia was repelled by the pretensions of these French thinkers. Though she had her problems with the “old-guard professors at the Yale Graduate School,” she recognized them as “genuine scholars, passionately devoted to study and learning. They believed they had a moral obligation to seek the truth and to express it as accurately as they could,” she writes in Provocations. But the French theorists and their converts in American universities were “like high priests murmuring to each other.” Rather than revealing and clarifying the meaning of literature, they obscured it.

Wish I could have said that even a third as well. This is getting too long so we’ll leave it with: read the linked article, and if you’re anything like me, you’ll be ordering Paglia’s new book, Provocations (the link goes to Amazon, but that is up to you, as well.

A Lying Execrable Plagiarist, and His Helpers at the Smithsonian

Like just about everybody else that knows anything about American history, I’ve fulminated about the crap (which is what Mitch Daniels, then Governor of Indiana and now President of Purdue called it when Zinn finally died) that is Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States which is not only bad history slanted far left  but full of  plagiarism, as the main link today tells us.

In any case, what brings this on is that The Smithsonian is sponsoring some seminars to help history teachers to lie (perhaps inadvertently) to their students by promoting Zinn’s execrable pseudohistory. Mary Grabar explains on The Federalist:

This semester, the Smithsonian Institution is helping. Teachers will learn new teaching strategies and receiving continuing education credits at two “teach-ins” — on Sept. 7 in Washington, D.C., at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of the American Indian, and on Sept. 28 in New York City.

Both “teach-ins” are efforts of our national museum, the Smithsonian, and D.C. Area Educators for Social Justice, “a project of Teaching for Change.” The invitation promises to feature “classroom resources for K-12 from Native Knowledge 360 [Degrees]” and from “the Zinn Education Project, including the campaign to abolish Columbus Day.”

The Zinn Education Project’s Infiltration

The Zinn Education Project is a nonprofit launched by one of Zinn’s former Boston University students who was taken in by the radical professor’s tales of derring-do in protesting the Vietnam War and, in spite of Zinn’s pro-communist rhetoric, had done quite well for himself as a capitalist.

The Zinn Education Project’s mission is to distribute materials from its namesake’s record-breaking best-seller, “A People’s History of the United States,” in the form of downloadable K-12 lessons on such topics as imperialismLatinxLGBTQsocial classprison uprisings, Black Lives Matter, reparations, and immigration. Zinn died in 2010, but these lessons are updated by his acolytes, such as Adam Sanchez, who, in a lesson titled “When Black Lives Mattered: Why Teach Reconstruction,” claims President Trump’s “racist rhetoric and policies have provided an increasingly encouraging environment for attacks on Black people and other communities of color.”

Our tax money at work, undermining the United States. Time to privatize the Smithsonian, and tax the hell out of it.

Many of you know that I fell in love with history when I was about eight years old. I happened to check out of the library with a biography of US Grant, and I was off.  By the time I graduated high school I probably had 150 or so books on history, lots of it military history. Those books burned with dad’s house,  and I’m still replacing some of them. But a lot of the reason is that I stumbled across some that knew how to tell a story, and yes, some were historical romances. But you know, those romances, interested me enough in some parts of history to follow up with real history,  Like the invasion of Quebec up the Kennebec River during the Revolution, or the life of William the Marshal, First Earl of Pembroke, and the man who actually made Magna Charta law. The absolute best for me was Bruce Catton on the American Civil War, but Winston Churchill on the First Duke of Marlborough wasn’t all that far behind. There were many others, and others have joined the list over the years.

The thing is, when my stepdaughter was in eighth grade,  she asked me for help with her history class. I tried to read the chapter in her book (I don’t know if it was Zinn’s, quite a while ago now) but I simply couldn’t force my way through it. It was both amazingly dry and badly written, and much of it was false: a political screed.

There is an antidote for Zinn’s crap. It is Wilfred M. McClay’s Land of Hope: An Invitation to the Great American Story. I’ve read many reviews of it, unless blinded by prejudice they are all outstanding, Here’s one from Amazon:

“This book is the antidote to abysmal levels of historical knowledge our high school graduates possess. History bores them; the textbooks are dreary; lessons play up guilt and identity politics. It turns them off. They want powerful tales and momentous events, genuine heroes and villains, too―an accurate but stirring rendition of the past. This is Bill McClay’s Land of Hope, a superb historian’s version of the American story, in lively prose spiced with keen analysis and compelling drama. Every school that assigns this book will see students’ eyes brighten when the Civil War comes up, the Progressive Era, the Depression, civil rights . . . The kids want an authentic, meaningful heritage, a usable past. McClay makes it real.”
― Mark Bauerlein, author of The Dumbest Generation

Yes, it’s on my list, and thankfully nearing the top of it. To be honest, I have other interests,  like eating, that subtracts more than I like from my book budget. Especially if you have kids, but for yourself as well – buy this book, borrow it from a friend, check it out of the library, whatever – read it.

Before the Dumbest Generation destroys the country we love.

The Wednesday Compendium

Richard Gere visited that refugee ship that the Italians are preventing form landing its passengers (good for them, in my opinion). Weasel Zippers tells us this.

He [Gere] compared the political situation in Italy, where League leader and Interior Minister Matteo Salvini has repeatedly refused requests by migrant ships to dock, to that of the U.S. administration of Donald Trump.

“We have our problems with refugees coming from Honduras, Salavador, Nicaragua, Mexico… It’s very similar to what you are going through here,” he said, accusing politicians in both Italy and the United States of demonising migrants.

Italian Interior Minister Matteo Salvini came very close to winning the internet with his response.

“Given this generous millionaire is voicing concern for the fate of the Open Arms migrants, we thank him: he can take back to Hollywood, on his private plane, all the people aboard and support them in his villas. Thank you Richard!” he said in a statement.

Well done, Minister Salvini. Sounds like something we’ve all thought, and perhaps said, more than once, doesn’t it?


National Security Advisor John Bolton is currently in London, talking to the British about Brexit and how it will affect our relationship. According to Guido, he said this:

He makes clear the US would “enthusiastically” support the UK if it left with no deal:

“If that is the decision of the British government, we will support it enthusiastically. That is the message I am bringing: we are with you. Britain’s success in successfully exiting the EU is a statement about democratic rule and constitutional government that is important for Britain but for the US too.”

Which is exactly what I’ve wanted ever since British Independence Day back on  23 June 2016. That it has taken over three years to finally get to this point makes it clear that Theresa May was the worst Prime Minister since at least Lord North.  As somebody said, Lord North only lost America, Theresa May did her best to lose Britain itself. Thank God for Boris Johnson, and may he steer a proper course back to independence. Somebody, back in some dangerous time, signaled, “England expects that every man will do his duty” Nothing much has changed in that regard since 23 October 1805.

This is part of the reason it is so important. From Mr. Bolton.

“The fashion in the European Union when the people vote the wrong way from the way the elites want to go, is make the peasants vote again and again until they get it right.”

Bolton, like many in the Trump administration, is an ideological supporter of Brexit as well as a pragmatic one. Remainers can complain all they like but it’s not a bad thing to have in your closest ally at this moment in time…

There are a lot of Americans (including me) who think that way, and some 16.7 million Britons as well.


Over at American Thinker, Eileen F. Toplansky wants to know why blacks are relinquishing their birthright. It’s a good question. Here is some of her article.

The Democrat Party knows only one way to reach the Black population in this country. They race-bait; they lie; they foment change that never actually helps Black people. They engage in covert racism against the very people they claim to want to help.

Cities that are Democratically-controlled have an abysmal record of assisting Black citizens. Yet, when election time comes around, the Democrats swoop in with their promises only to leave when the television cameras cease running.

She then talks about The Freedmen’s Bureau established in the War Department during Reconstruction.

On April 19, 1866, former slaves Benjamin Berry Manson and Sarah Ann Benton White received an official marriage certificate from the Freedmen’s Bureau, officially known as the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands.

The Wilson County, Tennessee couple had lived as slave man and wife since October 28, 1843, and for the first time in more than two decades their marriage had finally received legal recognition. The Freedmen’s Bureau — established in the War Department by an act of Congress on March 3, 1865 … provided freed people with food and clothing, medical attention, employment, support for education, help with military claims, and a host of other socially related services — including assisting ex-slave couples in formalizing marriages they had entered into during slavery.

For the Mansons — who had lived intermittently on separate farms — the marriage certificate issued by the Freedmen’s Bureau was more than a document ‘legally’ sealing the sacred bonds of holy matrimony. Listing the names and ages of 9 of their 16 children, it was for them a symbol of freedom and the long-held hope that they and their children would one day live free as a family in the same household.

Benjamin and Sarah Manson were not alone in their quest to put their slave marriage on a legal footing. When freedom came, tens of thousands of former slave men and women — some seeking to marry for the first time and others attempting to solemnize long-standing relationships — sought help from Union Army clergy, provost marshals, northern missionaries, and the Freedmen’s Bureau.

We don’t talk enough about how we tried to help the former slaves and accomplished quite a lot.

Regarding education, how is it that so many black students are not excelling in school?  Frederick Douglass innately understood that slavery and education are incompatible because ignorance is one way slave-owners kept their slaves manageable.  Why aren’t black students demanding that they be taught the basics and not a slew of left-wing indoctrination meant to divide people and keep them down?

While no one is in actual iron chains, the Democratic Party keeps black people manageable because they have been denied the tools to succeed in reading, writing, and ‘rithmetic.  If you can barely read, you are ripe for the indoctrination and emotional angst the Democrats whip up.  If you are praised when you speak street talk in an effort to avoid appearing educated, what kind of gift is that?  If Democrats — now diehard leftists — use “white privilege” arguments in order to lure in naïve black students, these students have become useful tools to the left-wing Democratic Party.

As Thomas Sowell has written, “[d]uring the half century following the Civil War, an estimated $57 million was contributed from the North to educate black students in the South and blacks themselves contributed an additional $24 million.  But the Southern states dragged their feet on creating schools — and especially high schools — for black children.”

In fact, it was the Southern Democrats who were determined not to let black children realize their full potential.

Read it all. She is completely, thoroughly, and unequivocally correct. It’s a shame that Johnson and his heirs have so suborned the blacks that they actually do believe that their oppressors are their friends. I suspect than when the scales drop from their eyes, there will be hell to pay. I hope it comes soon because the longer it takes, the worse it will be, both for them now and for us all later.

Not for nothing did President Kennedy say:

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.

And that applies to all three stories we have here today.

Maleducation

Over the weekend, American Thinker published the thoughts of Abraham H. Miller, in his own words an old white college professor. They are some excellent thoughts.

In a few weeks, some of you will be going off to college. But before you commit yourself to the decision and the ensuing financial burden, there are a few things you should know.

Nearly all college experiences begin with a series of orientation sessions. Most start with the assumption that you are the cursed offspring of a flawed society. You come to college not to be educated but to be reeducated. You have imbibed of racism, sexism, and homophobia. And for some outrageous amount of tuition that will send many of you into perpetual debt, the modern-day Gletkins of academia will purge you of these impure thoughts.

The brainwashing will begin in orientation but will not end there. If you live in a dormitory, there will be required sensitivity sessions run by minions from the office of residence life. These generally are graduate students who are shouldering the intellectual rigors of a degree in education administration.

Heh! To continue…

You will learn that there is such a thing as “true truth.” This is the shared reality of an “oppressed” group whose common belief makes something true. Or in the profound words of Alexandria Octavio-Cortez, you can have moral truth without factual truth — whatever that means.

In these classes, you will never say that the trans-Atlantic slave trade was the product of Africans who shifted the trans-Saharan slave trade westward. You will never point out that two African potentates, King Tegesibu of Dahomey and King Alvare of the Congo, were among the wealthiest men in the known world, having gotten rich by selling slaves. […]

Do these classes change attitudes? Yes, but not as the intellectual Gletkins think. As one of my students told me:

I grew up in a rural community. There were no black people. They were not important to me. Then, as a resident advisor, I was told to go to a sensitivity session as part of my training. There I was told that my parents chose to live in such a community because they wanted to get away from black people. I said my ancestors came to the Ohio Valley after the Revolution, and my family has lived in the same community since the late 18th century. In response, I was told I was a racist. I wasn’t before, but I sure to hell am now.

Yep, I can relate to that, it’s how I react, to this day. In any case, read the whole article (link above). John Hinderaker at PowerLine is also thinking about this after an article by Bret Stephens in the Wall Street Journal linked in John’s article.

In the Wall Street Journal, Bret Stephens decries the decline of higher education. He cites a familiar litany of leftist presumption and abuse:

Anyone who has followed the news from college campuses over the past few years knows they are experiencing forms of unrest unseen since the late 1960s.

Now, as then, campuses have become an arena for political combat. Now, as then, race is a central issue. Now, as then, students rail against an unpopular president and an ostensibly rigged system.

I, like John, assume he meant the Democrat Johnson since Nixon carried 49 states for reelection.

Unlike the campus rebels of the ’60s, today’s student activists don’t want more freedom to act, speak, and think as they please. Usually they want less.

Most strange: Today’s students are not chafing under some bow-tied patriarchal WASP dispensation. Instead, they are the beneficiaries of a system put in place by professors and administrators whose political views are almost uniformly left-wing and whose campus policies indulge nearly every progressive orthodoxy.

There is considerably more such sophistry, which John ably dissects, do read it. Professor Miller sums up in his penultimate paragraphs this way:

I do get it — you can’t get a job in retail or, as one of my students told me, unloading boxes at the local soap factory without at least a two-year college degree.

You can get the same politically correct, meaningless education at your local community college for less than a third the money and without the student loan debt. Unless, you have secured entrance to an elite school, the first two years of undergraduate requirements are indistinguishable from the courses in a good suburban high school.

College must have improved or High School gone downhill. The survey courses, with a couple of exceptions, were not nearly as good as my high school courses. YMMV, of course.

And John this way, noting that his organization has done an earnings study, it’s interesting.

Most of these technical fields–CNC programmers, millwrights, plumbers, electricians, electrical power line installers, and so on–earn significantly more than most college graduates, normalized for a 2,000 hour work year. (Including overtime would probably increase this advantage.) And they do it without incurring crippling student debt.

If a four-year degree is no longer, for most young people, the best path to a high-paying and satisfying job, and if much of what is taught is useless or worse, why should parents spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to send their kids to college? Or, worse, incur hundreds of thousands in debt?

University administrators are making fools of themselves and their institutions and subjecting themselves to well-justified contempt. I don’t think they begin to understand how precarious their position has become.

I agree with them too. I didn’t finish college for several reasons, some of which are private, but one of the main motivators was that I wasn’t willing to spend my life sitting on my butt telling kids the nonsense that so-called teachers were trying to teach me. (I still say Joyce wrote Dubliners because he was a drunk and out of booze, by the way.) And yes, I made comparable money, more than a high school teacher, although perhaps less than a professor, but I would have gotten fired from that, where I worked they expected me to do a good job, safely, and in time lead my people well. No degree required to do that. In fact, if I had learned and believed that nonsense (and yes, much of it was around in the 70s) it would have hurt my prospects.

And fresh air (mostly) and I didn’t have any use for a gym membership, either. Think, those of you that are parents or students, what you really want.

Control the Past, Control the Future

We seem to have somewhat inadvertently developed a theme of sorts this week. which suits me. I agree with every word, and you guys appear to like it as well, so let’s go with the flow.

Victor Davis Hanson took a look around and reminds us that George Orwell was correct. That is why the screeching and increasingly violent left is reacting so badly. He wrote about it in American Greatness. Let’s take a look.

The summer season has ripped off the thin scab that covered an American wound, revealing a festering disagreement about the nature and origins of the United States.

The San Francisco Board of Education recently voted to paint over, and thus destroy, a 1,600-square-foot mural of George Washington’s life in San Francisco’s George Washington High School.

Victor Arnautoff, a communist Russian-American artist and Stanford University art professor, had painted “Life of Washington” in 1936, commissioned by the New Deal’s Works Progress Administration. A community task force appointed by the school district had recommended that the board address student and parent objections to the 83-year-old mural, which some viewed as racist for its depiction of black slaves and Native Americans.

Nike pitchman and former NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick recently objected to the company’s release of a special Fourth of July sneaker emblazoned with a 13-star Betsy Ross flag. The terrified Nike immediately pulled the shoe off the market.

VDH cites quite a few more, all of which you know, and they matter, but the point is our mis named elites are running scared, and the noise is overwhelming isn’t it. I find myself tuning out more, constant outrage isn’t very healthy, and I’m not ready to give up this ship. Like most of you, I’ll fight her till she sinks, and that means we’ll either win through or like the once and future king in Camelot we will become legend, that people down the long cold dark centuries will keep close to their hearts, that once there was a nation where men and women were free and happy and even prosperous. And the joke will be true, what did men use before candles for light? Electricity.

In their radical progressive view—shared by billionaires from Silicon Valley, recent immigrants and the new Democratic Party—America was flawed, perhaps fatally, at its origins. Things have not gotten much better in the country’s subsequent 243 years, nor will they get any better—at least not until America as we know it is dismantled and replaced by a new nation predicated on race, class and gender identity-politics agendas.

In this view, an “OK” America is no better than other countries. As Barack Obama once bluntly put it, America is only exceptional in relative terms, given that citizens of Greece and the United Kingdom believe their own countries are just as exceptional. In other words, there is no absolute standard to judge a nation’s excellence.

About half the country disagrees. It insists that America’s sins, past and present, are those of mankind. But only in America were human failings constantly critiqued and addressed.

America does not have be perfect to be good. As the world’s wealthiest democracy, it certainly has given people from all over the world greater security and affluence than any other nation in history—with the largest economy, largest military, greatest energy production and most top-ranked universities in the world.

America alone kept the postwar peace and still preserves free and safe global communications, travel and commerce.

The traditionalists see American history as a unique effort to overcome human weakness, bias and sin. That effort is unmatched by other cultures and nations, and explains why millions of foreign nationals swarm into the United States, both legally and illegally.

That last paragraph sums it up, doesn’t it? If America is so terrible, why is all of Central America trying to get in? I have no problem with somewhat limited legal immigration, always provided that the immigrants are coming because they share our dream. That’s the problem now, they are not. The was clearly indicated that last weekend when the tore down our flag at that detention center, and raised the Mexican one. Down the ages, such things have often been viewed as an overt act of war.

If progressives and socialists can at last convince the American public that their country was always hopelessly flawed, they can gain power to remake it based on their own interests. These elites see Americans not as unique individuals but as race, class and gender collectives, with shared grievances from the past that must be paid out in the present and the future.

We’ve seen something like this fight before, in 1861—and it didn’t end well.

He’s right and it didn’t. By 1865 it had cost 600,000 men their lives out of a population of 35 million or so. This crap needs to be suppressed soon.

Si vis pacem, para bellum

Kaepernick Abuses History and a Black Man

You may have noticed that last week, while we were celebrating American Independence. Colin Kaepernick was flying his anti-American flag and attempting to pervert Frederic Douglass to his cause with this Tweet.

In his desire to blame America for his incompetence to play football, that’s fairly normal, but in any case, Senator Ted Cruz provided an excellent education.

 

 

Senator Cruz is, of course, correct. Mr. Douglass’s speech is a powerful indictment of slavery, not the United States. Its context was that he saw that America could and would improve. Indeed starting within ten years of that speech given by a Republican, 600,000 mostly white Americans would die to end slavery in the United States.

In short, what Kaepernick did was pull a quote to completely twist what a great American said. It’s a cheap trick but what else would you expect from a failure like him.

Here’s the speech: What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?

By the way, you’ll notice that my link to Douglass’s speech is different from Senator Cruz’s. This is a famous speech. Anybody with any sense at all wouldn’t attempt to blatantly twist it. But we are talking about Colin Kaepernick here.

%d bloggers like this: