(07-06-2020 12:17 PM)Jayemyoo Wrote: [ -> ] (07-06-2020 12:13 PM)mturn017 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-06-2020 11:40 AM)Jayemyoo Wrote: [ -> ]They came for the Frederick Douglass statue in Rochester, NY last night. Talk about lack of Historical knowledge. Geez. If you want to remove Confederate statues, fine, put them in a museum. But, wait two years so that it doesn't appear you are bowing to the mob. It will just embolden them.
So you're saying that you think the same type of "mob" that has been tearing down confederate and Columbus statues also removed a Frederick Douglas statue. But instead of doing it in their typical mob style and marching on it and making a show of it this time they decided to do it clandestinely in the middle of the night and not claim any responsibility? I don't know if I buy that story.
A mob is a mob. Doesn't matter what side of the coin.
A mob isn't a mob if it's a couple good 'ol boys in a truck with a chain.
(06-30-2020 04:36 PM)Longhorn Wrote: [ -> ] (06-30-2020 02:24 PM)RamDawg Wrote: [ -> ] (06-28-2020 11:13 AM)Longhorn Wrote: [ -> ] (06-27-2020 05:22 PM)Purple Wrote: [ -> ]I have read your "source documents," but they do not change my mind nor do they change what actually happened.
Remember, the South did not start the Civil War. It started when the North fired on Fort Sumter.
WTF? 
OMG
Seriously P, put down the sauce. You’re embarrassing yourself.
Ummm I'm certainly not a "history Guy" but Honest Abe was pissed because the south left the union and stopped paying taxes and would hurt the commodities supply. A.L. says the south can't leave the union and launched some cannon balls over Fort Sumter. Abe really didn't want a war but the south called his bluff.
A few years ago I believe it was the History Channel did a series on the civil war, (maybe called Grant??) I think based on a book Making a Nation (or something like that)
If I recall correctly, Grant actually owned slaves, gifted from his father. R.E. Lee did not own slaves and actually freed slaves that we're owned by his family when he became an adult.
You learned that misinformation at VCU? You certainly didn’t learn it at JMU. Perhaps you went to the same school of alternative facts as P?
Two facts. Grant married into a family from KY with slaves. Grant’s father (or his blood relations) did not own slaves. Ever. The only evidence of Grant controlling a slave was Grant giving the slave his freedom in 1859. Lee, on the other hand, did own slaves, was raised in a household dependent on slave labor, and fought in court to maintain ownership of his working slaves. Lee subsequently married into a family with more slaves. Lee did not free his slaves of his own goodwill. Ever. That is until the outcome of the Civil War, which settled that question quite completely.
Oh, and it’s incontrovertible that the first shots fired on Fort Sumter were by Southern men commanded by Pierre Beauregard, more commonly known as P.G. T. Beauregard, who the newly formed Confederate government placed in command of the defense of Charleston. As already pointed out, several southern states did not wait until Lincoln was inaugurated before declaring their independence from the Union. The attack on Fort Sumter had the same impact on Northern citizens in 1861 as the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor did in 1941. It galvanized northern support for the Union and an outpouring of patriotism to fight to preserve the United States of America.
Agree with vast majority here, but one nitpick. Grant's wife was from Missouri, just outside of St. Louis. You are correct that Grant had one slave that was given to him by his father in law, who he freed one year later.
Does this make everyone happy now?
(07-08-2020 05:29 AM)Dukeman2 Wrote: [ -> ]Does this make everyone happy now?
People are happier when there is informed dialog about problems. You wouldn't know much about contributing to thoughtful dialog on this forum though would you?
I live in others shoes, so I tend to spend much of my life in the middle on many issues.
I get black lives matter, but does not mean I agree with everything some of their leaders believe or say.
With that said - I at least "understand" why someone could be offended by "Redskin".
Why would anyone be offended by Indian or Brave? Those don't seem to be negative terms? I can even understand why someone "could" be offended by the tomahawk chop.
Really not looking for this ripping either side, although I know this is likely low hanging fruit for those on the right.
So is the reason Braves and Indians is bad because we took over their country, and now we're using them as mascots?
(07-13-2020 12:59 PM)Dukester Wrote: [ -> ]I live in others shoes, so I tend to spend much of my life in the middle on many issues.
I get black lives matter, but does not mean I agree with everything some of their leaders believe or say.
With that said - I at least "understand" why someone could be offended by "Redskin".
Why would anyone be offended by Indian or Brave? Those don't seem to be negative terms? I can even understand why someone "could" be offended by the tomahawk chop.
Really not looking for this ripping either side, although I know this is likely low hanging fruit for those on the right.
So is the reason Braves and Indians is bad because we took over their country, and now we're using them as mascots?
Yeah - I think you're right with these...
Once I actually thought a few years ago about the word "Redskins" and what it actually means, it started to make me cringe. I am fine seeing that go. (Apparently, teams from Washington really suck at naming their teams...Washington "Wizards"?)
As for the Braves and Indians, I think you got it right. Native Americans lost their lands and then were turned them into cartoon characters/mascots. (And "Indians" aren't even named correctly.) Ultimately, it's not the names of those two teams that are the problems - it's the other things that come with it.
The Braves evolved their mascots from an actual Native American to a guy in a Native American costume (with full head - which I would guess is more offensive than the live person)...to a Mr. Met ripoff...and finally to a...thing. They also removed the screaming Mohawk at the end of the 80's and switched to the tomahawk. However, they still have the tomahawk chop and their name is used to lazy sportswriters to make clever headlines. But I do think that because they have been evolving over time and moving away from the imagery, they have become less of a "target".
The Indians, meanwhile, kept their Chief Wahoo for waaaay too long...finally retiring him just last season. Keeping that logo well into the internet age is what has hurt their cause.
I found it interesting that Cleveland took Chief Wahoo off their uniforms while continuing to sell that apparel to fans. Clearly not a stand of principle, but succumbing to pressure.