Pretty soon we'll be told the US didn't really exist till 1900
OT: Duke Admin
- Thread starter DukeDenver
- Start date
- Status
Pretty soon we'll be told the US didn't really exist till 1900
Yes Denver, I think any Lee statue or Confederate statue is tipping its hat to slavery. Please read the statement put out in writing, by each state plainly marking their positions. How can anyone get around that?
Lee owned slaves. Pretty sure he is on record for personally whipping them too.
Lee captured free blacks in Pennsylvania and forced them into slavery. War crime-or should have been.
The Civil War was treason to perpetuate one of the biggest, longest standing atrocities ever committed in a free, democratic country.
As for the Southern Democrats running from their history...those Southern Democrats joined the Republican Party in the 60's over the Democrats being against segregation. Now as Republicans, they are up to their same old tricks- voter suppression, Neo Nazism, etc.
Lee owned slaves. Pretty sure he is on record for personally whipping them too.
Lee captured free blacks in Pennsylvania and forced them into slavery. War crime-or should have been.
The Civil War was treason to perpetuate one of the biggest, longest standing atrocities ever committed in a free, democratic country.
As for the Southern Democrats running from their history...those Southern Democrats joined the Republican Party in the 60's over the Democrats being against segregation. Now as Republicans, they are up to their same old tricks- voter suppression, Neo Nazism, etc.
The statue of Washington Duke? What is it commemorating? Slavery? His service in the Confederate Navy? Then take it down. Is it memorializing virtuous, philanthropic acts on his part? Then leave it up.
The point is not to say that the South is bad or that each and every Confederate a bad individual. The point is that the cause was bad. Unless you are willing to openly say that you are for forcefully enslaving blacks at that time and for many years after, maybe even to this day, you have to be against the Civil War and what it stood for. These statues symbolize what the Civil War stood for.
People are complicated. Most of us, various parts good or bad in varying degrees that vary from situation to situation. We are part of, and often blinded by our situations, histories, environments. I am not going to say that I am certain that I would have been against slavery if I was a white southerner at that time. I cannot say for certain if I would not have taken up arms against my own country- the Union. What I will say is that: Slavery was wrong. Slavery in the U.S. in the 1860's was wrong. Starting a war to perpetuate slavery was wrong. And, to commemorate any part of the Confederacy at any time after that war ended is wrong.
The point is not to say that the South is bad or that each and every Confederate a bad individual. The point is that the cause was bad. Unless you are willing to openly say that you are for forcefully enslaving blacks at that time and for many years after, maybe even to this day, you have to be against the Civil War and what it stood for. These statues symbolize what the Civil War stood for.
People are complicated. Most of us, various parts good or bad in varying degrees that vary from situation to situation. We are part of, and often blinded by our situations, histories, environments. I am not going to say that I am certain that I would have been against slavery if I was a white southerner at that time. I cannot say for certain if I would not have taken up arms against my own country- the Union. What I will say is that: Slavery was wrong. Slavery in the U.S. in the 1860's was wrong. Starting a war to perpetuate slavery was wrong. And, to commemorate any part of the Confederacy at any time after that war ended is wrong.
And you just entered the realm of selective reasoning....I'm not here to debate you on this but we can't start saying 'what does that statue mean?' for figures who've done both good and bad.
Agree to disagree about millenials. While they have weaknesses, they are smart in their ways as well, and life in a different world than we did growing up.
Socialism has worked quite well in a number of places, at least if you term "government taking control of important services like the health care of its people and the education of its people OUT of the hands of for-profit individuals" socialism. Sure, the US is different in many ways, but I think your take on millenials is different than mine when it comes to that stuff; I think they are more aware of our greed and the potential damage business can do in important industries that should be generous and caring in such a rich nation, and thinks there should be change.
BLM doesn't chant that. I have a feeling you do not know much about the organization. I know several organizers and members, and many supporters, and not one them support any of that. None of their platforms support that. Their mission doesn't support that. Are there racist criminals who associate with BLM and chant dumb ****? Sure. But BLM is absolutely not responsible for the issues of race in our country; it is a symptom, not a cause.
You are also wrong about vacation days. In fact, you are so wrong, I am not sure what you are getting your "information"... Facebook? Obama took 328 vacation days. 43 took 1,020. Clinton took 345. 41 took 534. Reagan took 335. At this point in his presidency, Obama had taken 22 vacation days, 17 of which were at Camp David. Trump has taken 41, with two of those at camp David. So no, I wasn't upset that Obama took the fewest vacation days of any modern President. But he also didn't throw stones at other Presidents. Trump did, and used that to get elected, and now has gone back on it. *That's* my issue. Should be an issue for anyone who voted for him.
Exactly.
Remember, too, who ran the south; the wealthy. And they were the ones with the bigger plantations and more slates. 75 percent of white southerners owned no slaves, and the vast majority of the remaining 25 percent owned 1. It was only the elite who owned more... and they ran the state houses.
The south was certainly defending their economy. Some would argue they were defending their way of life, because if slavery had gone the south would have collapsed. They may be right, but the big changes would have come for the wealthy elite, not the average southerner.
Btw, you South Carolinians like to stir the pot
Ease up Pis. I am not "spouting stuff." You said something that was clearly wrong; that more blacks owned slaves than whites. That's a crazy statement, and I pointed that out several times. That's it. Technically you are not right; that isn't how that stat works. Maybe a higher percentage of free blacks than whites owned slaves... about 3,500 free blacks owned 12,000 slaves? That's because the vast majority of blacks were enslaved; some of the remaining ones were able to afford help, and got it. Overall, that's a tiny number of people, when you consider that the South ALONE had about four million enslaved Africans. And yes, thanks, I have two degrees from Duke when I learned about slavery in Africa, so I know a bit about it.
And here is the thing; nobody is talking about preserving statues of black people who owned slaves. Right? Nobody is defending slavery in Africa. We are talking about taking down statues of military personnel of a traitor nation which fought a war against the United States in part to keep slavery. When someone talks about taking down statues of black slave owners, lemme know.
Agreed it isn't Obama/Trump stuff. Obamas last six months economy looked like Trumps first six. No surprise, since we are still operating under Obamas budget and many of his plans... things don't change that fast.
Last edited:
Let's hope never... I drank next to that statue too often!
I think the Duke statue is about his founding of Duke and his contributions to education. I would hope we don't erect a statue in honor of his contributions to the Confederate States of America.Uh, I wasn't trying to be cute. Read any one of hundreds of books about him, and you'll see.. that is often what he was called. A million Yanks and Rebs both called him Bobby Lee. Also, because I am lazy... Quicker than typing Robert E Lee
. Frankly, when the life of Lee has been a part of your life for... Jesus, 35 years of reading about him and watching shows about him and drawing pictures of him and painting little soldier representations of him and studying his different horses and all... yeah, Bobby Lee is perfectly normal. Billy Yank, Johnny Reb, Fightin Joe, Unconditional Surrender, Honest Abe, Little Mac... this is who they are.I know people will get their feelings hurt about this... but some of this is really frustrating. We are discussing an era about which I am an actual expert... a degree in History from Duke with a lot in this area, a degree in African American studies from Duke with a lot in this area... a lifetime of obsession, an entire room packed with books and prints and relics... I've taught this era for 15 years... and there are so many blatantly false and misinformed statements and comparisons being made, it's hard not to growl at it. And then, when some factual statements are made, some people are reacting like it is some personal attack. It isn't. But come on, we have to be accurate and factual.
Last edited:
Agreed.
If anyone else wants to actually discuss this stuff at our alma mater, I'm happy to... it is an interesting discussion, and one that is interesting to have in our Duke community right now.
If anyone else wants to actually discuss this stuff at our alma mater, I'm happy to... it is an interesting discussion, and one that is interesting to have in our Duke community right now.
You said that the majority of people that are filled with hatred already believe in a god which is probably true. If you truly believe in God you won't have hatred towards others.
Eh. That's very difficult to support. ISIS, the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusaders, the Irish Republican Army, Nathan Bedford Forests KKK... all certainly truly believed in God, and all had hatred. I think you are making an impossible-to-substantiate religious argument.
#thirddegreefromDukewasReligion
It all makes sense now @TheDude1 . Jk lol. I like you as a poster but won't sit on the same side with other stuff so don't take that personal...
Also for the record I in no way agree with slavery or racism in any form. Also being where I'm from in NC we technically had nothing to do with the south during the war and my family was as they say "pour" so we didn't even have the chance. They worked like slaves already. And the south was a bunch of democrats and y'all know I don't think that party's ever been right!
Also for the record I in no way agree with slavery or racism in any form. Also being where I'm from in NC we technically had nothing to do with the south during the war and my family was as they say "pour" so we didn't even have the chance. They worked like slaves already. And the south was a bunch of democrats and y'all know I don't think that party's ever been right!
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Muslims blowing themselves up to kill others truly believe in their god. If not, they wouldn't be doing what they are doing. Do those people not have hatred in their hearts? Or let me guess, they don't truly believe in their god?
Sure man, disagreeing is fine. I really enjoy and believe in spirited and informed debate. I obviously would never think you support slavery or racism in any real way (I think we are all a bit racist... its natural, in a way)
Sure the south was Dems... the GOP is literally the Party of Lincoln
. But I don't much care about parties back then, it's a bit distant... and the Dixiecrats quickly left the Democratic Party and went Republican when the civil rights and women's rights movements began. I just find myself on certain sides on a lot of these historical events, and the side I tend to take tends not to be a traditional republican stance.And the north didn't need slaves... we had the Irish!
I think Dukes comment is more about his personal religious views than anything else... a "don't truly get God" sort of thing. No offense or anything meant, I am sure... but more a matter of theological belief
blm is another group to stir the flakes of racial division. As the intensely-Liberal news 'source' CNN stated just last year: "Chances are the answers to those questions fall all over the place. Four years after its founding, BLM is still a movement without a clear meaning for many Americans. Some see it has a hate group; others as cutting-edge activism and yet others as just a step above a mob."
Since they still don't have a clear meaning, and are still a movement based off of a hashtag from 2013, I'm more than comfortable calling them as as a divisive, anti-police (and anti-police brutality) group. They get a loose leash though, since many are afraid to confront the frequent overuse of the race card (particularly Caucasians). As stated above, look at Wes Bellamy. Had that been a White government official, they would have never sniffed political office again. Racial tensions are no better and hypocrisy is on a rapid increase.
Since they still don't have a clear meaning, and are still a movement based off of a hashtag from 2013, I'm more than comfortable calling them as as a divisive, anti-police (and anti-police brutality) group. They get a loose leash though, since many are afraid to confront the frequent overuse of the race card (particularly Caucasians). As stated above, look at Wes Bellamy. Had that been a White government official, they would have never sniffed political office again. Racial tensions are no better and hypocrisy is on a rapid increase.
Last edited:
I think you are misunderstanding that statement. Nobody is denying that people have different views of what BLM stands for, and it's origins.
(BTW, how do you talk about an "intensely-Liberals news 'source'" and not provide a link? What, are we supposed to guess which one it was?
)Whoops; that is where you lose me.
BLM has a clear mission statement and clear guiding principles. They are easy to find and read; here are their guiding principles:
http://blacklivesmatter.com/guiding-principles/
Note: there is nothing there that supports that they are a hate group, and nothing there that supports they are a step above a mob. That's what you are missing from that first statement; it isn't that people RIGHTLY can think any of these three things... it is just that they DO. Wrongly, in two of those cases.
They have a clear meaning. Black Lives Matter is an organization that grew out of the tradition of the American Civil Rights movement. Like the Civil Rights movement, Black Lives Matter addresses racial inequality, although it tends to focus on that inequality in our legal system. Like the Civil Rights movement, it is made up of people of a vast array of races and backgrounds, since many people, black, white, Asian, Latino, and so on and so forth, believe that racial inequalities in our legal system need to be understood and addressed. Like the Civil Rights Movement, it is made up largely of peaceful members who preach things like equality and acceptance and racial harmony and so on and so forth, as clearly outlined in their guiding principals, clearly verbalized by their many of their leaders, and clearly made visible by many of their rallies.
Now, is there of COURSE an ugly underbelly there, black people who have let inequalities and challenges make them angry and racist and violent? Of COURSE. Are there simply bad black people who take advantage of unrest to shout horrible things, commit criminal acts, who let the acts of a few bad apples turn them into some cop hating mess? Certainly!
But that isn't what the Black Lives Matters movement is.
I have had this discussion often recently. I am surprised that is still happening. I wonder if maybe many people have no actual connection to people involved in BLM? I have dozens on my Facebook... kind people of all races, backgrounds, education levels, careers... who go alone to BLM rallies with signs that say things like "Love!" and "Equality," and even bring their kids there, because they want their kids to grow up really appreciating this stuff. Is the only place you guys see this on short internet clips of the worst of humanity, where some caption labels it as a BLM rally?
There are certainly issues when discussing race, from all sides. Sometimes there are reasons for those issues... sometimes they are an oversensitivity or misplaced guilt. Such are the difficulties of such a huge and, for some, *intensely* personal topic
. We aren't perfect!White politicians have gotten away with plenty over time... I don't think they are in some disadvantaged position
Last edited:
Speak for yourself!! I ain't sober!!
I thought I'd paste this here; from a really good friend of mine who organizes and attends BLM meetings and rallies and supports the movement. White, blond, late thirties, college educated stay at home mom married to a guy without a college degree who is a fine artist, two cute kids, a part time doula, a bit of a hippy, bright as hell, lives in a lower middle class area of CT. She recently posted this on her Facebook page. As this is literally from a BLM supporter I hope this maybe paints a picture for some.
"Because I’ve seen this argument over and over this week, this needs to be repeated:
Black Lives Matter is not a hate group. Black Lives Matter is not a terrorist group.
Here are some of the guiding principles from their website. I encourage you to visit their site and really get a sense of their mission if you are not familiar.
Guiding principles include:
“We are committed to embodying and practicing justice, liberation and peace in our engagements with one another.”
“We are committed to practicing empathy; we engage comrades with the intent to learn about and connect with their contexts.”
“We are committed to acknowledging, respecting and celebrating differences and commonalities.”
“We are committed to collectively, lovingly, and courageously working vigorously for freedom and justice for Black people and, by extension all people. As we forge our path, we intentionally build and nurture a beloved community that is bonded together through a beautiful struggle that is restorative, not depleting.”
But, but but…
There has been violence at BLM events!?
Yes. And I don’t condone violence ever. But it’s worth taking a step back and internalizing and empathizing with the struggle. I am as peaceful as they come, but if I envision my husband being shot in the car next to me with my four year old in the back, if I imagine being part of a community where EVERYONE is worried that could happen to them, if I imagine living in constant fear and distrust, then I can also imagine myself getting so fed up I would light a ******* car on fire. I don’t condone it but I get it. It’s anger coming out sideways. On my worst day there is no way to empathize with Nazi sentiments or actions.
But, but, but…
Some guy in Texas shot people in the name of BLM?!
Yes. And how many people have done the same in the name of Christianity? The guy who shot up the GOP baseball field was a Bernie campaigner - is the Bernie Sanders campaign a hate group now? Individual actions don’t always speak for the goal of a group. If it did, white hippies would have to be a classified as a hate group too.
I recently attended a BLM rally. It was the most peaceful and inspiring and eye-opening event I’ve attended since everyone took to the streets after the election. I watched two parents speak out eloquently about their quest for justice after their unarmed children were shot by police. I watched a Muslim high school girl lead the crowd in a chant of “peace, peace, peace.” The rally ended with the speaker asking everyone to turn to the person standing next to them and shake hands, to introduce themselves and make friends, and meet people they hadn’t met before. And the crowd was as diverse as it gets. All this within a perimeter completely surrounded by police and recorded by drones flying overhead.
Nazis are a hate group. Nazis committed a hate crime, an act of terror last week. If you can’t read that statement, agree and move on without adding a “what about…” or a “but”, do some serious ******* soul searching.
If you are an ally looking for something to do, our local BLM chapter in New Haven BlackLivesMatterNewHaven is awesome. They are doing a back-to-school drive for kids right now and are accepting donations through August 19th."
"Because I’ve seen this argument over and over this week, this needs to be repeated:
Black Lives Matter is not a hate group. Black Lives Matter is not a terrorist group.
Here are some of the guiding principles from their website. I encourage you to visit their site and really get a sense of their mission if you are not familiar.
Guiding principles include:
“We are committed to embodying and practicing justice, liberation and peace in our engagements with one another.”
“We are committed to practicing empathy; we engage comrades with the intent to learn about and connect with their contexts.”
“We are committed to acknowledging, respecting and celebrating differences and commonalities.”
“We are committed to collectively, lovingly, and courageously working vigorously for freedom and justice for Black people and, by extension all people. As we forge our path, we intentionally build and nurture a beloved community that is bonded together through a beautiful struggle that is restorative, not depleting.”
But, but but…
There has been violence at BLM events!?
Yes. And I don’t condone violence ever. But it’s worth taking a step back and internalizing and empathizing with the struggle. I am as peaceful as they come, but if I envision my husband being shot in the car next to me with my four year old in the back, if I imagine being part of a community where EVERYONE is worried that could happen to them, if I imagine living in constant fear and distrust, then I can also imagine myself getting so fed up I would light a ******* car on fire. I don’t condone it but I get it. It’s anger coming out sideways. On my worst day there is no way to empathize with Nazi sentiments or actions.
But, but, but…
Some guy in Texas shot people in the name of BLM?!
Yes. And how many people have done the same in the name of Christianity? The guy who shot up the GOP baseball field was a Bernie campaigner - is the Bernie Sanders campaign a hate group now? Individual actions don’t always speak for the goal of a group. If it did, white hippies would have to be a classified as a hate group too.
I recently attended a BLM rally. It was the most peaceful and inspiring and eye-opening event I’ve attended since everyone took to the streets after the election. I watched two parents speak out eloquently about their quest for justice after their unarmed children were shot by police. I watched a Muslim high school girl lead the crowd in a chant of “peace, peace, peace.” The rally ended with the speaker asking everyone to turn to the person standing next to them and shake hands, to introduce themselves and make friends, and meet people they hadn’t met before. And the crowd was as diverse as it gets. All this within a perimeter completely surrounded by police and recorded by drones flying overhead.
Nazis are a hate group. Nazis committed a hate crime, an act of terror last week. If you can’t read that statement, agree and move on without adding a “what about…” or a “but”, do some serious ******* soul searching.
If you are an ally looking for something to do, our local BLM chapter in New Haven BlackLivesMatterNewHaven is awesome. They are doing a back-to-school drive for kids right now and are accepting donations through August 19th."
So let's go ahead and take all the statues down then all the racial tension will disapear. It's seems like most of it is being slighted toward white people being racist. What about people like Jesse James, AL Sharpton, etc. I'd love for everyone to get along but it's not going to happen. It's human nature to be opinionated, selfish, and judgemental. There is always going to be a small percentage of the black community that hate whites and think they are all racist bigots, and you're going to have a percentage of backwoods hillbillies giving the white population a bad name and fueling the blacks to have a bad feeling toward whites. It's like a ping pong game.
I think you are misunderstanding that statement. Nobody is denying that people have different views of what BLM stands for, and it's origins.
(BTW, how do you talk about an "intensely-Liberals news 'source'" and not provide a link? What, are we supposed to guess which one it was?
Whoops; that is where you lose me.
BLM has a clear mission statement and clear guiding principles. They are easy to find and read; here are their guiding principles:
http://blacklivesmatter.com/guiding-principles/
Note: there is nothing there that supports that they are a hate group, and nothing there that supports they are a step above a mob. That's what you are missing from that first statement; it isn't that people RIGHTLY can think any of these three things... it is just that they DO. Wrongly, in two of those cases.
They have a clear meaning. Black Lives Matter is an organization that grew out of the tradition of the American Civil Rights movement. Like the Civil Rights movement, Black Lives Matter addresses racial inequality, although it tends to focus on that inequality in our legal system. Like the Civil Rights movement, it is made up of people of a vast array of races and backgrounds, since many people, black, white, Asian, Latino, and so on and so forth, believe that racial inequalities in our legal system need to be understood and addressed. Like the Civil Rights Movement, it is made up largely of peaceful members who preach things like equality and acceptance and racial harmony and so on and so forth, as clearly outlined in their guiding principals, clearly verbalized by their many of their leaders, and clearly made visible by many of their rallies.
Now, is there of COURSE an ugly underbelly there, black people who have let inequalities and challenges make them angry and racist and violent? Of COURSE. Are there simply bad black people who take advantage of unrest to shout horrible things, commit criminal acts, who let the acts of a few bad apples turn them into some cop hating mess? Certainly!
But that isn't what the Black Lives Matters movement is.
I have had this discussion often recently. I am surprised that is still happening. I wonder if maybe many people have no actual connection to people involved in BLM? I have dozens on my Facebook... kind people of all races, backgrounds, education levels, careers... who go alone to BLM rallies with signs that say things like "Love!" and "Equality," and even bring their kids there, because they want their kids to grow up really appreciating this stuff. Is the only place you guys see this on short internet clips of the worst of humanity, where some caption labels it as a BLM rally?
There are certainly issues when discussing race, from all sides. Sometimes there are reasons for those issues... sometimes they are an oversensitivity or misplaced guilt. Such are the difficulties of such a huge and, for some, *intensely* personal topic
White politicians have gotten away with plenty over time... I don't think they are in some disadvantaged position
Working backwards, you're essentially trying to justify Bellamy still being in gov because 'white politicians have gotten away with plenty over time....'. Smfh. Race card alert!
A quick google search to an article (clearly stated last year) shows that BLM isn't clear on what they are, and may be taken by steps backwards (again from CNN, the Clinton News Network). BLM doesn't have a clear meaning - you can continue to hinge on what you think they are, but they are still associated with groups that chant 'death to pigs' and even some who are being sued by the police (just see Baton Rouge). How often are we seeing those 'lovable' BLM members publicly speaking out against those 'other' BLM members who scream hate?
Btw, I was in Baltimore during the riots, and was in the thick of it. BLM was stoking the hatred and violence, but I guess you'll have a defense for that since you know a few lovable members, eh?
Interesting read.....thanks for posting.
I won't get too involved in this thread. I think I have already said about all I had to say in the Charlottsville thread. There probably is not a single subject you could get the entire country to agree on, but I wish we could get every one to agree that we are all people with the same rights and all should be treated respectfully...won't ever happen.
I won't get too involved in this thread. I think I have already said about all I had to say in the Charlottsville thread. There probably is not a single subject you could get the entire country to agree on, but I wish we could get every one to agree that we are all people with the same rights and all should be treated respectfully...won't ever happen.
Always gonna be someone hating somebody. I hate carolina fans.
Well.....if you're man enough to admit you are full of hatred, I gues I'll step up too....I hate Kensucky fans!
Lol, thank you for posting that from a White apologist. Interesting (sarcasm), yet I don't see her marching in south Chicago protesting the record Black on Black crime (unless you have something that would show that).
Look, racism sucks, and the past history of slavery of Blacks and massacre of Native Americans is terrible. You want to tear down every statute that hurts your feelings? Go for it, that's not my fight. I will, however, call hypocrisy when I see it. I will also look a man in the eye, regardless of race, shake their hand and treat them with respect and love until given a reason not to. You can continue to play the game you're in, indirectly helping to worsen the racial divide in this country. I'll continue being kind to people, regardless of what they look like, and not getting suckered into the distractions of the agenda (and no, I'm not a Republican or Trump voter).
I'm going to step out of this thread - your opinion (and self-proclamation as an expert) aren't going to change, and neither will mine. Go ahead and post a reply but I won't respond as it's pointless. My eyes are wide, my soul is clear, and I'll keep laughing at people being used as pawns in this racial divide (not necessarily saying that's you so don't take personally).
And just to be clear: Wes Bellamy is a racist, sexist, anti-gay POS who doesn't deserve to be in office. It's just a beautiful part of the current-day hypocrisy....
Look, racism sucks, and the past history of slavery of Blacks and massacre of Native Americans is terrible. You want to tear down every statute that hurts your feelings? Go for it, that's not my fight. I will, however, call hypocrisy when I see it. I will also look a man in the eye, regardless of race, shake their hand and treat them with respect and love until given a reason not to. You can continue to play the game you're in, indirectly helping to worsen the racial divide in this country. I'll continue being kind to people, regardless of what they look like, and not getting suckered into the distractions of the agenda (and no, I'm not a Republican or Trump voter).
I'm going to step out of this thread - your opinion (and self-proclamation as an expert) aren't going to change, and neither will mine. Go ahead and post a reply but I won't respond as it's pointless. My eyes are wide, my soul is clear, and I'll keep laughing at people being used as pawns in this racial divide (not necessarily saying that's you so don't take personally).
And just to be clear: Wes Bellamy is a racist, sexist, anti-gay POS who doesn't deserve to be in office. It's just a beautiful part of the current-day hypocrisy....
Last edited:
I'm not going to argue with you. You have your beliefs, I have mine. I believe in my God and that there is a heaven and hell. I once had a kid tell my co-worker that he was an atheist and there wasn't a heaven or hell and that my friend was wasting his time. My friend just said, what if I'm right and you're wrong.
Nothing we can do. We've run it up the flag pole. At this point , the best they've done is tease us with it showing up on the menu. For now, the best we can do as a board is label these types of threads as "OT" so that those who have no interest in reading don't accidentally click expecting something else.
I know there are a lot of people that do not believe in the Bible, but the days we live in are proof that the Bible is fulfilling itself everyday, and anyone that has studied that part of history understands exactly what I am talking about. Most have to much pride and choose not to believe for whatever reason but read and study and see how things are aligning in this World and it's nearly impossible not to believe in the Old Book. Not here to argue history or Religion but It would scare me to death to deny the Bible but to each his own. Right now it's still a free world.
Lol, thank you for posting that from a White apologist. Interesting (sarcasm), yet I don't see her marching in south Chicago protesting the record Black on Black crime (unless you have something that would show that).
Look, racism sucks, and the past history of slavery of Blacks and massacre of Native Americans is terrible. You want to tear down every statute that hurts your feelings? Go for it, that's not my fight. I will, however, call hypocrisy when I see it. I will also look a man in the eye, regardless of race, shake their hand and treat them with respect and love until given a reason not to. You can continue to play the game you're in, indirectly helping to worsen the racial divide in this country. I'll continue being kind to people, regardless of what they look like, and not getting suckered into the distractions of the agenda (and no, I'm not a Republican or Trump voter).
I'm going to step out of this thread - your opinion (and self-proclamation as an expert) aren't going to change, and neither will mine. Go ahead and post a reply but I won't respond as it's pointless. My eyes are wide, my soul is clear, and I'll keep laughing at people being used as pawns in this racial divide (not necessarily saying that's you so don't take personally).
And just to be clear: Wes Bellamy is a racist, sexist, anti-gay POS who doesn't deserve to be in office. It's just a beautiful part of the current-day hypocrisy....
I think I'll still respond.
First... white apologist? That's a pretty big label for someone you've never met. I look at that and see someone who cares about other people. She marches where she lives. And Black Lives Matters is a specific movement that involves black Americans and our justice system. You should read their website to see why your comment is sort of pointless.
Your take, that somehow this is making everything worse, is ridiculous. Completely self serving and ridiculous. What, because suddenly people are bringing up racism and YOU have to put up with it, it's worse? Not how it works. Take one moment and try to get into the shoes of people who deal with racism, daily, and don't have the ability to just ignore it.
And most of us are kind to people we meet. That's easy. You think women got the right to vote just by ignoring everything and being nice? You think slavery was ended by people with your attitude? The reason you CAN just ignore it all is the very definition of white privilege. Lots of Americans cannot ignore it. I think refusing to pitch in is cowardly.
Shame that your opinion will never change. I can't imagine going into something with such a preconceived notion. Mine might... sometimes I hear a point of view I never considered, and it changes. Just on this very subject on the main board a U.K. fan wrote a great piece about the average southerner in the civil war which helped sort of turn the conversation. That's what we should all be looking for.
I am not a self proclaimed expert; I'm an actual expert. I love how people get SO upset when someone knows more about something than they do. Rather than accept and learn, they fight fight fight. It's such a strange reaction... it must come from insecurity, I think.
And I have no idea what you are going on about with Wes Bellamy. Just looked it up... yep, the guy seems like he tweeted a lot of douchebag stuff. Points for you? Neither side is sinless, and there are some horrible people on the left. Just look at Al Sharpton... guy is an opportunistic douchebag.
Im always sorry when someone bows out of a conversation. You may be right, though... judging from some of your comments (Clinton news, you'll never change your mind) this might not be a true back and forth.
Last edited:
Have the leaders of BLM recessed for summer vacation like Congress?
2 heroic Black policemen in Florida were murdered this weekend.
I cannot find any statement from the BLM organization about their deaths.
At least they could reference the GoFundMe pages so supporters could help the grieving families.
2 heroic Black policemen in Florida were murdered this weekend.
I cannot find any statement from the BLM organization about their deaths.
At least they could reference the GoFundMe pages so supporters could help the grieving families.
Pretending the removal of flags and statues is motivated by single incidents like the Charleston Church terrorism or the Charlottesville alt-right intimidation is ignoring what Black people and their allies have been saying for YEARS. Those events were tipping points, not catalysts.
July 9, 1776, a statue of King George III was torn down in Boston. We still know who he was. We still know who won the American Revolutionary War. Statues aren't preserving history; they're honoring history. And if Gen Lee is depicted on a statue as a glorious, fearless leader on horseback, directing troops in battle, we're honoring the cause he was fighting for by proxy. If we want statues of Lee, emphasize his post-War redemption, how he helped the nation heal, contributed positively to Reconstruction, to establishing Arlington, and how he opposed statues memorializing the Civil War.
Why must people opposing the removal of Lee's statue from Duke Chapel slander the administration's process and motives, as opposed to arguing the merits of the choice itself? You really think people charged with leading so great an institution of learning and intellect as Duke are doing ANYTHING "just" because? "Just" PC? "Just" appeasement? "Just" kowtowing? Those are strawmen. It not only ignores, but completely denies the existence of any more compelling and respectable rationale.
July 9, 1776, a statue of King George III was torn down in Boston. We still know who he was. We still know who won the American Revolutionary War. Statues aren't preserving history; they're honoring history. And if Gen Lee is depicted on a statue as a glorious, fearless leader on horseback, directing troops in battle, we're honoring the cause he was fighting for by proxy. If we want statues of Lee, emphasize his post-War redemption, how he helped the nation heal, contributed positively to Reconstruction, to establishing Arlington, and how he opposed statues memorializing the Civil War.
Why must people opposing the removal of Lee's statue from Duke Chapel slander the administration's process and motives, as opposed to arguing the merits of the choice itself? You really think people charged with leading so great an institution of learning and intellect as Duke are doing ANYTHING "just" because? "Just" PC? "Just" appeasement? "Just" kowtowing? Those are strawmen. It not only ignores, but completely denies the existence of any more compelling and respectable rationale.
Last edited:
BLM decries violence. Their mission is about addressing inequities in law enforcement and court, not dealing w/ every tragedy and offense that befalls any and every Black person.
Do you criticize Habitat for Humanity over their inaction on adult illiteracy? Doctors Without Borders for not denouncing domestic violence more firmly? Why criticize any group w/ ties to Black people for not addressing every single malady facing Black Americans?
Why would BLM make a statement on this? BLM is about black people dealing with racism. This was a ****** up black Marine vet shooting two black cops. Doesn't sound like racism; after all, two black people were killed. It sounds more like crazy, and something for an organization like the VA or Wounded Warriors or the PBA to make a comment on. BLM has made a number of statements decrying violence against policemen, as you might imagine.
Yeah! It reminds me of one of my favorite quotations: "The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers." Socrates said that, sometime before he died 2500 years ago. But kids TODAY, boy, are they the ones who are finally going to destroy the perfect harmony every previous generation ever had with each other!
How does pointing fingers at someone else as opposed to the people who actually voted for President Trump fit with the right's mantra about personal responsibility?
And yeah, Lee himself spoke on this topic. I find it bizarre that so many people are ignoring that.
“I think it wiser,” the retired military leader (Lee) wrote about a proposed Gettysburg memorial in 1869, “…not to keep open the sores of war but to follow the examples of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife, to commit to oblivion the feelings engendered.”
WATCH:The shifting history of Confederate monuments
Lee died in 1870, just five years after the Civil War ended, contributing to his rise as a romantic symbol of the “lost cause” for some white southerners.
But while he was alive, Lee stressed his belief that the country should move past the war. He swore allegiance to the Union and publicly decried southern separatism, whether militant or symbolic.
“It’s often forgotten that Lee himself, after the Civil War, opposed monuments, specifically Confederate war monuments,” said Jonathan Horn, the author of the Lee biography, “The Man Who Would Not Be Washington.”
In his writings, Lee cited multiple reasons for opposing such monuments, questioning the cost of a potential Stonewall Jackson monument, for example. But underlying it all was one rationale: That the war had ended, and the South needed to move on and avoid more upheaval.
“As regards the erection of such a monument as is contemplated,” Lee wrote of an 1866 proposal, “my conviction is, that however grateful it would be to the feelings of the South, the attempt in the present condition of the Country, would have the effect of retarding, instead of accelerating its accomplishment; [and] of continuing, if not adding to, the difficulties under which the Southern people labour.”
The retired Confederate leader, a West Point graduate, was influenced by his knowledge of history.
“Lee believed countries that erased visible signs of civil war recovered from conflicts quicker,” Horn said. “He was worried that by keeping these symbols alive, it would keep the divisions alive.”
“I think it wiser,” the retired military leader (Lee) wrote about a proposed Gettysburg memorial in 1869, “…not to keep open the sores of war but to follow the examples of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife, to commit to oblivion the feelings engendered.”
WATCH:The shifting history of Confederate monuments
Lee died in 1870, just five years after the Civil War ended, contributing to his rise as a romantic symbol of the “lost cause” for some white southerners.
But while he was alive, Lee stressed his belief that the country should move past the war. He swore allegiance to the Union and publicly decried southern separatism, whether militant or symbolic.
“It’s often forgotten that Lee himself, after the Civil War, opposed monuments, specifically Confederate war monuments,” said Jonathan Horn, the author of the Lee biography, “The Man Who Would Not Be Washington.”
In his writings, Lee cited multiple reasons for opposing such monuments, questioning the cost of a potential Stonewall Jackson monument, for example. But underlying it all was one rationale: That the war had ended, and the South needed to move on and avoid more upheaval.
“As regards the erection of such a monument as is contemplated,” Lee wrote of an 1866 proposal, “my conviction is, that however grateful it would be to the feelings of the South, the attempt in the present condition of the Country, would have the effect of retarding, instead of accelerating its accomplishment; [and] of continuing, if not adding to, the difficulties under which the Southern people labour.”
The retired Confederate leader, a West Point graduate, was influenced by his knowledge of history.
“Lee believed countries that erased visible signs of civil war recovered from conflicts quicker,” Horn said. “He was worried that by keeping these symbols alive, it would keep the divisions alive.”
Honest question. Does anyone truly believe that by removing statues, our country will come together and solve issues?
This is nothing but a tactic being used by people who want us to remain divided because they know that in general, we are all blind sheep. The groups demanding these statues be removed do not have anyone's best interests in mind. They are exploiting a volatile situation to further their own agenda and until we stop being dumbasses and jumping on every social bandwagon that passes us by, it will only get worse.
This is nothing but a tactic being used by people who want us to remain divided because they know that in general, we are all blind sheep. The groups demanding these statues be removed do not have anyone's best interests in mind. They are exploiting a volatile situation to further their own agenda and until we stop being dumbasses and jumping on every social bandwagon that passes us by, it will only get worse.
Letsgo, I disagree (although I'm glad to see you posting in this thread... I was wondering where you were!
)I think that, as a white person, this sentiment is understandable. You see these statues, and you think there isn't a big deal there. I've never really been offended by them, outside of the fact that I do firmly believe they are statues of traitors and have no place outside of a battlefield... but I'm pretty loyal and inflexible like that, and it isn't race based for me.
But I think it is different for a black person, and I've been told as much by several.
For a black person to see a military statue dedicated to a soldier who was fighting to preserve the confederacy, and especially to see these status in places like government grounds, which are supposed to represent everyone equally, it can be seen as different, as an endorsement of a terrible time gone by, and almost a celebration of it.
When you combine that with the fact that these statues are being used as rallying points for racists... well, I think you are incorrect that this is all because of people who just want to divide. I think it is largely because of people who want to do away with what they see as constant and daily reminders and images of a terrible and jarring past, and seeing them being defended so vociferously is a reminder that it isn't all about the past.
There are certainly people on the left who are over sensitive. But I think they are a distinct minority, in the same way that KKK members and overt racists are a minority on the right.
- Status