It would be pretty hard to justify keeping that statue on display on campus. His ties to Texas are fairly minimal.

Wiki indicates that Fort Davis and the Davis Mountains are named after him, but at least partially prior to the civil war altogether.

Jefferson Davis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Davis Wrote:Some portions of his legacy were created not as memorials, but as contemporary recognition of his service at the time. Fort Davis National Historic Site began as a frontier military post in October 1854, in the mountains of western Texas. It was named after then-United States Secretary of War Jefferson Davis. That fort gave its name to the surrounding Davis Mountains range, and the town of Fort Davis. The surrounding area was designated Jeff Davis County in 1887, with the town of Fort Davis as the county seat. Other states containing a Jeff Davis County or Parish include Louisiana, Georgia and Mississippi.

(08-31-2015 11:09 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Austin is a liberal cesspool.

It used to be very racist too. They hated everyone that wasn't white. No shite. I experienced it when I was young. Same thing in Houston.

(08-31-2015 12:24 PM)I45owl Wrote:  It would be pretty hard to justify keeping that statue on display on campus. His ties to Texas are fairly minimal.

Wiki indicates that Fort Davis and the Davis Mountains are named after him, but at least partially prior to the civil war altogether.

Jefferson Davis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Davis Wrote:Some portions of his legacy were created not as memorials, but as contemporary recognition of his service at the time. Fort Davis National Historic Site began as a frontier military post in October 1854, in the mountains of western Texas. It was named after then-United States Secretary of War Jefferson Davis. That fort gave its name to the surrounding Davis Mountains range, and the town of Fort Davis. The surrounding area was designated Jeff Davis County in 1887, with the town of Fort Davis as the county seat. Other states containing a Jeff Davis County or Parish include Louisiana, Georgia and Mississippi.

The justification is pretty easy. The statues were put there to exemplify the re-uniting of the north and south in WWI.

Davis did have limited ties to Texas, but he was important in the battles of Monterrey and Buena Vista which helped secure Texas's future in the US.

(08-31-2015 12:27 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 11:09 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Austin is a liberal cesspool.

It used to be very racist too. They hated everyone that wasn't white. No shite. I experienced it when I was young. Same thing in Houston.

You must be really, really old. Because I'm old and Austin and Houston weren't that way.

67

(08-31-2015 12:34 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 12:27 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 11:09 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Austin is a liberal cesspool.

It used to be very racist too. They hated everyone that wasn't white. No shite. I experienced it when I was young. Same thing in Houston.

You must be really, really old. Because I'm old and Austin and Houston weren't that way.

When someone wants to see racism, it's all they'll see.

And when you experience it you know it's there. You're probably white so how would you know?

Let me give you an example: A large group of us went to Phoenix to watch the Miners play in the NCAA Dance. We went into a Dennys to eat. The waitress had that "I can't believe I have to serve this people" look. Mind you we were dressed well and we even had a doctor in the group. Everyone of us could say that we were above her in earnings but honestly we didn't flaunt it. The waitress brought our plates and it looked like we were in Las Vegas and she was dealing cards. We couldn't help but laugh out loud at her rudeness. We still gave her a nice tip hoping to shame her for the next hispanic group she encountered.

It's beyond my comprehension why sometimes waiters want to treat you as if they are better than you when they're the ones serving you. But regardless they will still get a courteous reception from me.

(08-31-2015 12:52 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  And when you experience it you know it's there. You're probably white so how would you know?

Let me give you an example: A large group of us went to Phoenix to watch the Miners play in the NCAA Dance. We went into a Dennys to eat. The waitress had that "I can't believe I have to serve this people" look. Mind you we were dressed well and we even had a doctor in the group. Everyone of us could say that we were above her in earnings but honestly we didn't flaunt it. The waitress brought our plates and it looked like we were in Las Vegas and she was dealing cards. We couldn't help but laugh out loud at her rudeness. We still gave her a nice tip hoping to shame her for the next hispanic group she encountered.

It's beyond my comprehension why sometimes waiters want to treat you as if they are better than you when they're the ones serving you. But regardless they will still get a courteous reception from me.

Excellent post.

I think a lot of people falsely believe that racism doesn't exist because they have never experienced it.

It's not something that a person looks for but when it happens to you, it's glaringly obvious.

When it happens to me, my first reaction is to get angry but then I calm down and just feel sorry for the person.

(08-31-2015 12:37 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  67

Older than me.

(08-31-2015 12:56 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 12:52 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  And when you experience it you know it's there. You're probably white so how would you know?

Let me give you an example: A large group of us went to Phoenix to watch the Miners play in the NCAA Dance. We went into a Dennys to eat. The waitress had that "I can't believe I have to serve this people" look. Mind you we were dressed well and we even had a doctor in the group. Everyone of us could say that we were above her in earnings but honestly we didn't flaunt it. The waitress brought our plates and it looked like we were in Las Vegas and she was dealing cards. We couldn't help but laugh out loud at her rudeness. We still gave her a nice tip hoping to shame her for the next hispanic group she encountered.

It's beyond my comprehension why sometimes waiters want to treat you as if they are better than you when they're the ones serving you. But regardless they will still get a courteous reception from me.

Excellent post.

I think a lot of people falsely believe that racism doesn't exist because they have never experienced it.

It's not something that a person looks for but when it happens to you, it's glaringly obvious.

When it happens to me, my first reaction is to get angry but then I calm down and just feel sorry for the person.

Well some people think being treated badly only happens to minorities because they have never experienced not being a minority.

I've had some bad service from wait staff. And wait staff usually hate large groups (maybe that was the issue, not that the group was Hispanic).

I had a lot worse treatment in a black part of Houston once. I haven't been back to a Jack-in-the-Box since.

You hear a lot of complaints about being followed around in department stores. When I was in the 18-25 range, I got followed around occassionally in department stores. Since my Dad was in retail, I understood it and also was the least likely person in the store to shoplift. I simply found it amusing they were wasting their time.

(08-31-2015 12:52 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  And when you experience it you know it's there. You're probably white so how would you know?

Let me give you an example: A large group of us went to Phoenix to watch the Miners play in the NCAA Dance. We went into a Dennys to eat. The waitress had that "I can't believe I have to serve this people" look. Mind you we were dressed well and we even had a doctor in the group. Everyone of us could say that we were above her in earnings but honestly we didn't flaunt it. The waitress brought our plates and it looked like we were in Las Vegas and she was dealing cards. We couldn't help but laugh out loud at her rudeness. We still gave her a nice tip hoping to shame her for the next hispanic group she encountered.

It's beyond my comprehension why sometimes waiters want to treat you as if they are better than you when they're the ones serving you. But regardless they will still get a courteous reception from me.

Maybe she was 2 hours into a second shift she was not supposed to work that day. Phoenix has as many Hispanics (Mexican heritage) as White people. Surely restaurants like Denny's successfully serves (and employs)
Hispanics as well as whites, if not they will go out of business.

Perhaps Superfly, perhaps. I'll give her the benefit of the doubt. Like I said, I don't hate anyone.

(08-31-2015 12:32 PM)bullet Wrote:  The justification is pretty easy. The statues were put there to exemplify the re-uniting of the north and south in WWI.

That sounds eerily reminiscent of USS Arizona memorializing the German bombing of Pearl Harbor in WWII.

It was not conceived as a memorial for those who died in WWI... that was a compromise suggested by the sculptor. Reading up on it a bit, it seems conceived mainly out of ego an conflict between two University regents who had taken opposing sides during the Civil War, with the gateway commissioned in part to keep the university from moving to a much larger site.

The Littlefield Gateway | The UT History Corner

http://jimnicar.com/2013/08/12/the-littlefield-gateway/ Wrote:Their presence is the result of an extended conflict between two very different University regents who, by chance, had the same first and middle names: George Washington Littlefield and George Washington Brackenridge
...
Coppini built a model of the arch that was featured in an exhibition in Chicago, but the sculptor informed Littlefield that its construction would cost more than the $250,000 Littlefield was willing to spend. Coppini offered the idea of a fountain instead, and at the same advised against a memorial to the Confederacy. “As time goes by,” Coppini argued, “they will look to the Civil War as a blot on the pages of American history, and the Littlefield Memorial will be resented as keeping up the hatred between the Northern and Southern states.” Instead, Coppini proposed to honor those who had fought in the World War, as “all past regional differences have disappeared and we are now one welded nation.” A compromised was reached, and Coppini set out to design the Littlefield Memorial Gateway.

Crews remove Jefferson Davis, Woodrow Wilson statues from UT... | http://www.statesman.com

http://www.statesman.com/news/news/local...-at/nnTST/ Wrote:UT was influenced in its early days by sympathizers with the Confederacy, including George Washington Littlefield, a Confederate officer, regent and benefactor who nearly 100 years ago commissioned the statues of Davis, Wilson and four other people, all of which were arrayed along the Main Mall, a long stretch of paved plaza, sidewalks, grass and live oaks with a fountain at its southern tip.

Interestingly, Pompeo Coppini, the sculptor commissioned by Littlefield, expressed misgivings, writing, “As time goes by, they will look to the Civil War as a blot on the pages of American history, and the Littlefield Memorial will be resented as keeping up the hatred between the Northern and Southern states.”

Fenves decided against moving statues of Confederate Gens. Robert E. Lee and Albert Sidney Johnston, Confederate Postmaster John H. Reagan and James Stephen Hogg, the first native-born governor of Texas and the son of a Confederate general. The four had deeper ties to Texas than did Davis, Fenves said.

(08-31-2015 02:09 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Perhaps Superfly, perhaps. I'll give her the benefit of the doubt. Like I said, I don't hate anyone.

Agreed.

At what point do we get to say that not every city in the south needs a monument to Civil War leaders that never lived there, fought there, or died there, which is sort of why I find all this outrage a little obnoxious.

(08-31-2015 04:00 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  At what point do we get to say that not every city in the south needs a monument to Civil War leaders that never lived there, fought there, or died there, which is sort of why I find all this outrage a little obnoxious.

At what point do we get to say that not every city in the south needs a MLK blvd?


It's history, live with it because it can't be changed and those that try to rewrite history are doing a disservice to future generations.

(08-31-2015 04:11 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 04:00 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  At what point do we get to say that not every city in the south needs a monument to Civil War leaders that never lived there, fought there, or died there, which is sort of why I find all this outrage a little obnoxious.

At what point do we get to say that not every city in the south needs a MLK blvd?


It's history, live with it because it can't be changed and those that try to rewrite history are doing a disservice to future generations.

No one is trying to change history, that's my point, the overwhelming majority of these statues and monuments aren't truly historically relevant except for the fact they exist. As far as I can tell, no one is arguing that Lee's actual burial site be removed of any mention of him, just that statues throughout the south in places he likely never even step foot in don't really need to be there.

As for the ludicrous MLK counterexample, I think even you understand the differing implications of celebrating a civil rights leader as opposed to celebrating traitors who seceded over the fear that they would lose the right to own other human beings. So, you know, I'd probably not try that example again unless you want people to outright know you're painfully ignorant.

(08-31-2015 04:18 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 04:11 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 04:00 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  At what point do we get to say that not every city in the south needs a monument to Civil War leaders that never lived there, fought there, or died there, which is sort of why I find all this outrage a little obnoxious.

At what point do we get to say that not every city in the south needs a MLK blvd?


It's history, live with it because it can't be changed and those that try to rewrite history are doing a disservice to future generations.

No one is trying to change history, that's my point, the overwhelming majority of these statues and monuments aren't truly historically relevant except for the fact they exist. As far as I can tell, no one is arguing that Lee's actual burial site be removed of any mention of him, just that statues throughout the south in places he likely never even step foot in don't really need to be there.

As for the ludicrous MLK counterexample, I think even you understand the differing implications of celebrating a civil rights leader as opposed to celebrating traitors who seceded over the fear that they would lose the right to own other human beings. So, you know, I'd probably not try that example again unless you want people to outright know you're painfully ignorant.

That's your opinions and you are entitled to it, even if it isn't true. It's different sides of the same coin in reality when it comes to historical figures and where they are remembered. I'm not advocating for removing any MLK streets, it's just that you make it seem like there are confederate memorials all over the country when in reality there are not.

(08-31-2015 04:00 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  At what point do we get to say that not every city in the south needs a monument to Civil War leaders that never lived there, fought there, or died there, which is sort of why I find all this outrage a little obnoxious.

With remarks like this , it is difficult to believe that you are from the South born and bred. It is not as if these statues and monuments are "new".

As far as MLK Blvds going up everywhere ,.. Frankly it is a bit forced and fake.

(08-31-2015 04:27 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 04:18 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 04:11 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 04:00 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  At what point do we get to say that not every city in the south needs a monument to Civil War leaders that never lived there, fought there, or died there, which is sort of why I find all this outrage a little obnoxious.

At what point do we get to say that not every city in the south needs a MLK blvd?


It's history, live with it because it can't be changed and those that try to rewrite history are doing a disservice to future generations.

No one is trying to change history, that's my point, the overwhelming majority of these statues and monuments aren't truly historically relevant except for the fact they exist. As far as I can tell, no one is arguing that Lee's actual burial site be removed of any mention of him, just that statues throughout the south in places he likely never even step foot in don't really need to be there.

As for the ludicrous MLK counterexample, I think even you understand the differing implications of celebrating a civil rights leader as opposed to celebrating traitors who seceded over the fear that they would lose the right to own other human beings. So, you know, I'd probably not try that example again unless you want people to outright know you're painfully ignorant.

That's your opinions and you are entitled to it, even if it isn't true. It's different sides of the same coin in reality when it comes to historical figures and where they are remembered. I'm not advocating for removing any MLK streets, it's just that you make it seem like there are confederate memorials all over the country when in reality there are not.

No sir, it's not an opinion, it's a fact that those who took up arms against the United States military during the secession were committing treason as defined by the Constitution of the United States of America. Citing Article III, Section 3 of the United States Constitution-

Quote:Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

There is no debate to be had about this, they levied war against the United States, committing treason and therefore are legally considered traitors as defined by the constitution. This whole 'that's your opinion' nonsense needs to stop, because regardless of whether or not you want to view them that way, there is absolutely no ambiguity over the fact that they were traitors to the United States of America. Period.