Virginia scraps Confederate History Month
William G. Davis
Virginia scraps Confederate History Month
March 21, 2001
Web posted at: 1:51 AM EST (0651 GMT)
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Virginia Governor James Gilmore has dropped the
state's traditional Confederate History Month proclamation, replacing it
with a tribute to both black and white Civil War combatants, the Washington
Post reported in Wednesday editions.
Gilmore designated April as a month of "remembrance of the sacrifice and
honor of all Virginians who served in the Civil War" in a proclamation that
expressly denounces slavery as the root cause of the conflict, the Post
said.
"Everybody who needs to be honored can recognize honor in this
proclamation," Gilmore was quoted as saying.
Gilmore, who also serves as chairman of the Republican National Committee,
expanded the resolution to say for the first time "that had there been no
slavery there would have been no war," the Post reported.
Many Confederate heritage groups argue the primary cause of the four-year
conflict was a battle over states' rights.
The second-highest officer in the Virginia chapter of the Sons of
Confederate Veterans denounced Gilmore's revised proclamation as a
capitulation to the Virginia NAACP, the Post said.
"Gilmore has knuckled under to the NAACP," Bragdon Bowling was quoted as
saying. "Basically, he's done their bidding by honoring people who invaded
this state and murdered, raped and pillaged. It's a cop-out, a sellout,"
Bowling said.
The NAACP last year threatened a statewide tourism boycott over the
governor's Confederate History Month designation, despite its specific
reference to the horrors of slavery, the newspaper reported.
Black leaders generally hailed Gilmore's revised proclamation as a positive
step, the Post said.
Emmitt Carlton, former president of the state NAACP, was quoted as saying
that it was a "more balanced resolution" than the one issued by former
governor George Allen. "
The rest of the article can be seen at http://www.cnn.com
--
Regards,
William G. Jeff Davis
je...@heNOSPAMhe.com
"Historians desiring to write the actions of men,
ought to set down the simple truth, and not say
anything for love or hatred; also to choose such
an opportunity for writing as it may be lawful to
think what they will, and write what they think,
which is a rare happiness of the time."
Sir Walter Raleigh
reb4...@bellsouth.net
wrote:
>Posted to CNN.com
>
>Virginia scraps Confederate History Month
>March 21, 2001
>Web posted at: 1:51 AM EST (0651 GMT)
STATE OF TENNESSEE
P R O C L A M A T I O N
BY THE GOVERNOR
WHEREAS, The War Between the States began and ended in the month of April; and
WHEREAS, the State of Tennessee seceded from the United States of America; and
WHEREAS, Columbia, Murfreesborough, Thompson's Station, Salem Cemetery, Jackson
and Parker's Crossroads are among the momentous battles of The War Between the
States which occurred in Tennessee; and
WHEREAS, the War and its consequences profoundly transformed Tennessee's
society; and
WHEREAS, the causes and effects of the War and the participation of the State
of Tennessee are worthy of historical examination and study; and
WHEREAS, all Tennesseans can benefit from further understanding of these times,
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Don Sundquist, Governor of the State of Tennessee, do hereby
proclaim the month of April, 2001, as
CONFEDERATE HISTORY MONTH
in Tennessee, and urge all citizens of the State of Tennessee to avail
themselves of the opportunities to increase their knowledge of this
important era of Tennessee's history.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the official seal of
the State of Tennessee to be affixed at Nashville on this 9th day of February,
2001.
Signed,
Don Sundquist, Governor
Riley C. Darnell, Secretary of State
Lo52964
posts
snip
That is because they are assholes who wouldn't recognizee an historical fact if
it were buggering them and the "Civil Rights" crowd is no better.
I do not know why it is so hard for folks to admire the bravery and commitment
of their forebearers while seeing that their morality was of that time and not
of this.
Their motive was slavery, so what? It was a legal and legitimate position at
the time, whatever we think of it now.
What do you think about abortion? Whatever it is, there is a decent honest
person on the other side with a different view and lots of arguments to back
it. That is how slavery was.
If we would understand that, we would learn something about our ancestors.
If we approach the ACW with a 2001 political agenda, we will learn nothing.
" Don't talk to me about justice, it is bad enough to be mixed up with the
law."
LO5 2964
Stephen McCullough
>
> >William G. Davis" je...@heNOSPAMhe.com
>
> posts
>
> snip
>
> That is because they are assholes who wouldn't recognizee an historical fact if
> it were buggering them and the "Civil Rights" crowd is no better.
>
Ah yes. Those damn Civil Rights people who insinisted on blacks having
the right to vote, the right to a decent education, the right to be
served by the same institutions as whites. Is "civil rights" your
codeword for African Americans?
Stephen McCullough
Sedrickfranklin
<<I do not know why it is so hard for folks to admire the bravery and
commitment
>of their [Confederate] forebearers while seeing that their morality was of
that time and not of this.>>
More like their immorality. Those forebears' bravery and commitment went to
defending a rebellion whose foundation was slavery and white supremacy. Being
brave in defense of racist subjugation is nothing to admire.
<<Their motive was slavery, so what?>>
So what? So their motive was to defend a racist system that kept a class of
human beings in bondage, tortured their bodies and minds, and inflicted other
horrible injustices.
<<It was a legal and legitimate position at
the time, whatever we think of it now.>>
What was legal regarding slavery was made into law without the consent or
participation of the class of human beings whose enslavement those laws
protected, so slavery's being legal didn't mean much.
And the enslaved class of human beings didn't think their enslavement was
legitimate and a good number of people who weren't enslaved didn't think it was
legitimate to enslave African-Americans, either.
Sedrick Franklin
----------
"You can't separate peace from freedom because no one can be at peace
unless he has his freedom."
-Malcolm X
Lo52964
writes><<I do not know why it is so hard for folks to admire the bravery and
>commitment
>>of their [Confederate] forebearers while seeing that their morality was of
>that time and not of this.>>
>
>More like their immorality. Those forebears' bravery and commitment went to
>defending a rebellion whose foundation was slavery and white supremacy.
>Being
>brave in defense of racist subjugation is nothing to admire.
>
><<Their motive was slavery, so what?>>
>
>So what? So their motive was to defend a racist system that kept a class of
>human beings in bondage, tortured their bodies and minds, and inflicted other
>horrible injustices.
>
><<It was a legal and legitimate position at
>the time, whatever we think of it now.>>
>
>What was legal regarding slavery was made into law without the consent or
>participation of the class of human beings whose enslavement those laws
>protected, so slavery's being legal didn't mean much.
>
>And the enslaved class of human beings didn't think their enslavement was
>legitimate and a good number of people who weren't enslaved didn't think it
>was
>legitimate to enslave African-Americans, either.
Both of you gentlemen should have read on a bit before consulting your viscera.
What do you think about abortion? Whatever it is, there is a decent honest
person on the other side with a different view and lots of arguments to back
it. That is how slavery was.
If we would understand that, we would learn something about our ancestors.
If we approach the ACW with a 2001 political agenda, we will learn nothing.
You are both using that 2001 political agenda and learning nothing.
I think that the South was wrong too, but that helps my study of the ACW not
one bit.
William G. Davis
"Lo52964" <lo5...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010321113856...@ng-ci1.aol.com...
> >William G. Davis" je...@heNOSPAMhe.com
>
> posts
>
> snip
>
> That is because they are assholes who wouldn't recognizee an historical
fact if
> it were buggering them and the "Civil Rights" crowd is no better.
>
> I do not know why it is so hard for folks to admire the bravery and
commitment
> of their forebearers while seeing that their morality was of that time and
not
> of this.
>
> Their motive was slavery, so what? It was a legal and legitimate position
at
> the time, whatever we think of it now.
Legal? Yes. Legitimate? Not hardly.
>
> What do you think about abortion? Whatever it is, there is a decent honest
> person on the other side with a different view and lots of arguments to
back
> it. That is how slavery was.
No comparison. To try to cvompare the two does disservice to both. Apples
and oranges at best. At worse, a straw man.
>
> If we would understand that, we would learn something about our ancestors.
> If we approach the ACW with a 2001 political agenda, we will learn
nothing.
How about approaching it with an 1863 agenda? Slavery was every bit as
wrong then as it is now. They knew it. They ALL knew it. The south clung
to it to maintain their comfort and their "elite" status. That's not
political correctness, that's the facts.
--
Regards,
William G. Jeff Davis
je...@heNOSPAMhe.com
"So long as the law considers all these human beings, with beating hearts
and living affections, only as so many things belonging to the master, so
long as the failure, or misfortune, or imprudence, or death of the kindest
owner, may cause them any day to exchange a life of kind protection and
indulgence for one of hopeless misery and toil, so long it is impossible to
make anything beautiful or desirable in the best-regulated administration of
slavery."
Harriet Beecher Stowe
Sedrickfranklin
<<What do you think about abortion? Whatever it is, there is a decent honest
person on the other side with a different view and lots of arguments to back
it. That is how slavery was.>>
I don't think this comparison holds up. A decent person wouldn't support a
racist form of subjugation, which is what American slavery was. There were
people who lived when slavery existed that condemned it as racist injustice,
and the majorities in the South in the 19th century that supported slavery
behaved shamefully.
Lo52964
writes>rom: lo5...@aol.com (Lo52964):
>
><<What do you think about abortion? Whatever it is, there is a decent honest
>person on the other side with a different view and lots of arguments to back
>it. That is how slavery was.>>
>
>I don't think this comparison holds up. A decent person wouldn't support a
>racist form of subjugation, which is what American slavery was. There were
>people who lived when slavery existed that condemned it as racist injustice,
>and the majorities in the South in the 19th century that supported slavery
>behaved shamefully.
As opposed those who advocated murder and pillage to change it and robbery of
property which individuals had fairly bought and paid for.
If you can't see both sides you are just raving or propagandizing, not studying
History.
What decent person can support the murder of a baby? What decent person can
support the denial of a woman's basic rights over her own body?
You say that the problem is different. it is frightningly the same.
If one can't admit the basic decency of opponents we are on the way to war.
Sedrickfranklin
<<A decent person wouldn't support a
racist form of subjugation, which is what American slavery was. There were
people who lived when slavery existed that condemned it as racist injustice,
and the majorities in the South in the 19th century that supported slavery
behaved shamefully.>>
Lo52964 wrote:
<<As opposed those who advocated murder and pillage to change it and robbery of
property which individuals had fairly bought and paid for.>>
The enslavement of African-Americans in this country for centuries was robbery,
a theft of millions of bodies and their labor. The people who fought against
slavery were heroes and should be remembered as heroes.
<<If one can't admit the basic decency of opponents we are on the way to war.>>
American slavery was a war against African-Americans, just as Jim Crow was a
war against African-Americans. As for the matter of war and peace in general,
see the Malcolm X quotation below.
Brian Hampton
>What decent person can support the murder of a baby? What decent person can
>support the denial of a woman's basic rights over her own body?
>
>You say that the problem is different. it is frightningly the same.
>If one can't admit the basic decency of opponents we are on the way to war.
There are discussions in which "Lo" and I have strongly disagreed, so
some may find this odd, but I have to say that in this case he is more
correct that a lot of people would like to believe.
The issue of abortion is analogous to the issue of slavery, and in
more ways than even he's stated. (Pardon my sexism. I'm assuming Lo
is a "he.")
Political historians and political scientists who study these sorts of
things have suggested that the abortion issue may very well be the
thing that signals another change in political party systems. By most
theories, we've had the same one for nearly 70 years. It's time, and
this issue may be it. Will it cause a war? I heavily doubt it. But,
it may very well result in some fundamental changes in our political
structure and how we view morality, the value of a human life, and
civil rights. That hasn't occurred since the Civil War, but, it is
worth emphasizing, this *did* occur during the Civil War.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian D. Hampton | Historians are the 'professional
| remembrancers of what their
| fellow citizens wish to forget.'
The Longstreet Chronicles |
http://tennessee-scv.org/longstreet/ | - Eric Hobsbawm
Dave Smith
><<What do you think about abortion? Whatever it is, there is a decent honest
>person on the other side with a different view and lots of arguments to back
>it. That is how slavery was.>>
>
>I don't think this comparison holds up. A decent person wouldn't support a
>racist form of subjugation, which is what American slavery was.
And with 21st century logic, as well as logic that was
around though the ages, a non-abortion supporter could argue
that a decent honest person on the other side
(anti-abortion) that any decent, honest person would not
support killing an unborn baby.
As a matter of fact, an 1860 collection of people would
likely have been against abortion by a large majority. That
in the 2000's our views have changed and adapted simply
reflects that our 2000 views are different than those in the
1860s. Much the same way that views on slavery and race
have changed.
For the better, I might add, other views to the contrary.
Dave
Bill Wright
>
> The enslavement of African-Americans in this country for centuries
> was robbery, a theft of millions of bodies and their labor.
Bull shit, Sedrick. Slavery was a perfectly legal system of labor, in
which the workers were bought and owned, rather than hired for wages.
> American slavery was a war against African-Americans, just as Jim
> Crow was a war against African-Americans.
Bull shit, Sedrick. (again) Your hyperbole is getting out of control.
Some of us here know the difference between war and a civil miscarriage
of justice. Even if your hero, Malcolm X didn't.
Bill
Sedrickfranklin
<<The enslavement of African-Americans in this country for centuries was
robbery, a theft of millions of bodies and their labor.>>
Wright wrote:
<<Bull shit, Sedrick. Slavery was a perfectly legal system of labor, in which
the workers were bought and owned, rather than hired for wages.>>
A crime against humanity, which is what slavery was, can only pretend to be
legal. American slavery was fundamentally criminal in nature, robbing millions
of blacks of their human rights and labor.
I wrote:
<<American slavery was a war against African-Americans, just as Jim Crow was a
war against African-Americans.>>
Wright wrote:
<<Bull shit, Sedrick. (again) Your hyperbole is getting out of control. Some of
us here know the difference between war and a civil miscarriage of justice.>>
Calling slavery and Jim Crow a civil miscarriage of justice is like saying the
Japanese-Americans interned during World War II went on a paid vacation.
Bill Wright
Bill
Harry Clark
(Sedrickfranklin) wrote:]
<snip>
Sedrick, I'm curious about something else too:
Is the reason -- the main reason, anyway -- you subscribe to this
newsgroup an expectation that a group of Civil War history buffs is
likely to include some "good ol' boy" racists? Maybe even some
totally unrepentant KKK types?
Harry
Sedrickfranklin
"I wrote:
<<The enslavement of African-Americans in this country for centuries was
robbery, a theft of millions of bodies and their labor.>>
Wright wrote:
<<Bull shit, Sedrick. Slavery was a perfectly legal system of labor, in which
the workers were bought and owned, rather than hired for wages.>>
A crime against humanity, which is what slavery was, can only pretend to be
legal. American slavery was fundamentally criminal in nature, robbing millions
of blacks of their human rights and labor.
I wrote:
<<American slavery was a war against African-Americans, just as Jim Crow was a
war against African-Americans.>>
Wright wrote:
<<Bull shit, Sedrick. (again) Your hyperbole is getting out of control. Some of
us here know the difference between war and a civil miscarriage of justice.>>
Calling slavery and Jim Crow a civil miscarriage of justice is like saying the
Japanese-Americans interned during World War II went on a paid vacation."
Wright wrote in response to the above:
<<Still just spouting the party line, eh, Sedrick?>>
You can't refute what I wrote, so the best you come up with is this dumb ass
insinuation that I'm a communist. Funny, that was a common accusation made
against the heroic participants of the Civil Rights Movement.
Bill Wright
>
> A crime against humanity, which is what slavery was, can only
> pretend to be legal. American slavery was fundamentally criminal
> in nature, robbing millions of blacks of their human rights and
> labor.
>
> like saying the Japanese-Americans interned during World War II
> went on a paid vacation."
Still the old "party line, Sedrick?
> You can't refute what I wrote, so the best you come up with is
> this dumb ass insinuation that I'm a communist. Funny, that was
> a common accusation made against the heroic participants of the
> Civil Rights Movement.
I have refuted everything you have written. I don't know whether
you're a Commie or not, Sedrick, but you seem to quote them and
besides, I think of you as a member of the "White Haters Movement".
Bill
Raymond O'Hara
>
>Is the reason -- the main reason, anyway -- you subscribe to this
>newsgroup an expectation that a group of Civil War history buffs is
>likely to include some "good ol' boy" racists? Maybe even some
>totally unrepentant KKK types?
>
>Harry
And judging by some of the posters {mauron , "right",and a few others } he
would be right .
Bill Wright
> >
> >Is the reason -- the main reason, anyway -- you subscribe to this
> >newsgroup an expectation that a group of Civil War history buffs is
> >likely to include some "good ol' boy" racists? Maybe even some
> >totally unrepentant KKK types?
Raymond O'Hara wrote:
>
> And judging by some of the posters {mauron , "right",and a few
> others } he would be right .
Raymond, your post is not only false, but a personal insult. Can
you not contain your personal hate better than Sedrick does?
Bill
Raymond O'Hara
my but aren't we sensitive , might i remind you of your use of bog-trotter
or darkie , if anybody is full of hate "right" it's you , look in the mirror
dude.
you sit typing your vitriol , but heaven forbid you get it back
nothing in my post is false , you and mauron are racists .
but you are "right" again it was a personnel insult .
Bill Wright wrote in message <3ABB6D7A...@earthlink.net>...
Sedrickfranklin
<<my but aren't we sensitive , might i remind you of your use of bog-trotter or
darkie...>>
You can add "Japs" to the list.
Bill Wright
>
> my but aren't we sensitive , might i remind you of your use of
> bog-trotter or darkie , if anybody is full of hate "right" it's
> you , look in the mirror dude.
The words "bog-trotter" and "darkie" might be offensive to
those who are obviously members of those groups, but it is
not a "racist" name.
> you sit typing your vitriol , but heaven forbid you get it back
> nothing in my post is false , you and mauron are racists .
Raymond, you first class asshole, The name "O'Hara" is Irish and
therefore "bog-trotter" is a name for them. Now, I'm sorry if I
hurt your tender feelings by referring to "bog-trotters" but if
you're nice, I won't do it any more.
Now, the U.S. Courts have ruled that calling someone a "racist"
is libel. unless you can prove it to be true. As you don't have
a chance of doing that, I think it would help you to guard your
six to refrain from such direct abuse.
Bill
Raymond O'Hara
, now you say "OH not me"
sued for libel , don't make me laugh , all you could do is prove me right.
RACIST BILL "RIGHT" , get your lawyers out you fool. show them your posting
history , and see if they don't laugh you out of their offices.
Bill Wright wrote in message <3ABD0F7D...@earthlink.net>...
lpo...@damnyankeesjuno.com
sedrick...@aol.com (Sedrickfranklin) wrote:
>From: "Raymond O'Hara" re...@mediaone.net:
>
><<my but aren't we sensitive , might i remind you of your use of bog-trotter
or
>darkie...>>
>
>You can add "Japs" to the list.
>
>Sedrick Franklin
You know, Sedrick, you go along garnering support for slaves who had no one
to speak for them,and no redress anywhere, and henious Jim Crow which did
finally result in Southern black governors and mayors and reps, etc. and
plenty still to be done.
The "japs " are another story and anothe n.g. or so I think.
Bill Wright
>
> [G]et your lawyers out you fool. show them your posting history,
> and see if they don't laugh you out of their offices.
Only a child, such as you, would ever think that a lawyer would
laugh a couple thousand dollars out of his office.
Bill
Sedrickfranklin
<<The words "bog-trotter" and "darkie" might be offensive to those who are
obviously members of those groups, but it is not a "racist" name.>>
People who aren't Irish or African-American consider those words offensive.
<<The name "O'Hara" is Irish and therefore "bog-trotter" is a name for them.>>
The word "darkies" is a name for African-Americans and like "bog-trotter" it's
offensive.
Rambler III
> [s]
>
> The word "darkies" is a name for African-Americans and like "bog-trotter" it's
> offensive.
I think it might from one "Irish American" to another, but from an outsider, it
would cause a sneer and an acerbic: "You don't know what you're talking about".
And "whitey" or "honky"?
Why are Irish "Irish" rather than "Irish-Americans"? And if Irish are "Irish", why
aren't African-Americans "Africans"?
Is a descendant of a Scotch-Irishman a "Scotch-Irish American"? And what if the
"Scotch-Irish American" married a French-German American from Canada would their
descendants be "Scotch-Irish-French-German-Canadian Americans"? Mix in a little
mixed Native American lines, say Cree, Mohican, Erie and Huron, and the name game
get rather lengthy and ridiculous.
Frenchmen, Germans, and Hungarians are not labeled "European-Americans", so why
are Blacks "African-Americans" and not "[Tribal name]"-Americans"?
"A curious mind wants to know,"
--
Rambler III
".In short, I guess what I think I think [I can't be sure that what I think I
think] is really what I think, and if you think that's confusing, think what it
must be like to be thinking it... Obviously, I'm speculating,.."
Brian Hampton AWCUSA
Bill Wright
This post has NO Civil War Content.
Bill
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Brad Meyer
wrote:
>More like their immorality. Those forebears' bravery and commitment went to
>defending a rebellion whose foundation was slavery and white supremacy. Being
>brave in defense of racist subjugation is nothing to admire.
FWIW, being brave in defence of _anything_ is something to admire.
There is little enough of it (bravery) as it is. IMO, the only people
who knock the concept are the cowards.
Brad Meyer
"It is history that teaches us to hope"
-- R E Lee
reb4...@bellsouth.net
>The word "darkies" is a name for African-Americans
No, it's not. It's a slang term for any non-caucasian person.
> and like "bog-trotter" it's
>offensive.
What isn't offensive to you? FWIW, I'm of Irish descent in
several family lines, and "bog-trotter" doesn't bother me one
bit.
Have a nice day,
Cracker Boy
Raymond O'Hara
Bill Wright wrote in message
>
>laugh a couple thousand dollars out of his office.
>
>Bill
Only a senile old fool such as your self would hand over that money.
Race baiting is a form of racism , you constantly indulge in it , for no
other reason than pure cussedness.
and i see your fellow sheet wearing twit is riding to your defence .
Bill Wright
>
> Only a senile old fool such as your self would hand over that
> money. Race baiting is a form of racism , you constantly indulge
> in it , for no other reason than pure cussedness.
Only a gutless coward like you would write such things.
Bill
Kevin Jordan
Kevin Jordan
> From: Bill Wright bwri...@earthlink.net:
>
> <<The words "bog-trotter" and "darkie" might be offensive to those who are
> obviously members of those groups, but it is not a "racist" name.>>
>
> People who aren't Irish or African-American consider those words offensive.
>
> <<The name "O'Hara" is Irish and therefore "bog-trotter" is a name for them.>>
>
> The word "darkies" is a name for African-Americans and like "bog-trotter" it's
> offensive.
>
>
> Sedrick Franklin
>
I would not find "darkie" or "bogtrotter" offensive if I were to use
them.
Mark you, being called a bogtrotter is synonomous with "as ignorant as
Paddy's pigs" - now that IS getting close.
Kevin Jordan
>
> Frenchmen, Germans, and Hungarians are not labeled "European-Americans",
> so why are Blacks "African-Americans" and not "[Tribal name]"-Americans"?
>
> "A curious mind wants to know,"
>
I doubt if any Black would know his tribal derivative.
Raymond O'Hara
sedrick is irrelevant to our flame.
bill is just a bitter old man , who's depnds are failing
Kevin Jordan wrote in message
<1eqx72r.av0zic1jx84xsN%kfjo...@ozemail.com.au>...
Bill Wright
>
> sedrick is irrelevant to our flame.
>
> bill is just a bitter old man , who's depnds are failing
Can anyone understand this illiterate child?
Bill
Stephen McCullough
I believe he is attempting to make a lame joke saying you need adult
diapers. Its very hard to comprehend his posts.
Stephen McCullough
news
In response to Virginia, changing ''Confederate History Month'' to a
month to remember all Virginians who fought in the Civil War is an insult to
many people. My personal view is that changing the name of a holiday or
history month because some think its racist is an insult. Like most history
months, it gives our brothers and sisters of Confederate bloodline a time to
look back and reflect on a very low point in our nations history. It allows
our children to see apart of history that some people want to push under the
rug and forget. Yes, what the Confederates stood for in the eyes of most
(slavery) was very insulting to the African American culture, but it stands
for more than that in the eyes of those who lost family during the Civil
War. The other morning when I heard on the radio that the name was being
changed and the reason was that the NAACP said that calling a history month
''Confederate History Month'' was racist. I do not know if that was said,
but, if ''Confederate History Month'' is racist isn't February "Black
History Month", March " Women's History Month" and all those that can be
considered racist?
If we are going to start renaming history months or holidays because
they appear to be racist or discriminatory, then lets do it to all that can
be looked at that way. Lets make February "National Immigrants Month" so all
of us can have a month to reflect on our ancestry. Make the day we celebrate
Martin Luther King Jr's birthday, "National Civil Rights Leaders Day" so all
races and genders can reflect on the battles fought to give them freedom,
the right to vote, etc. George Washington's birthday (the father of this
country) has already been consolidated with Lincoln's Birthdays in to
"Presidents Day". Since we do not celebrate/recognize all religious
holidays, lets stop recognizing Christmas, Easter, Thanksgiving and all
those religious holidays that we do celebrate and have those be like any
other day.
People want to scream racism and discrimination, every time they do not
like something or someone. It is really starting to get out of hand. I'm not
saying the laws, enforcing those laws or groups that are legitimately
helping enforce the laws are bad. I fully support them and the good unions
and groups like the NAACP have done, but to many people are starting use the
laws when its to their advantage and looking the other way when its to their
advantage. This country has come along way since the Civil War days, it can
still be better, but there will never be a time when everyone will be happy.
I would like to say one last thing. I feel its fine to change a states
flag, change names of holidays, and ban certain groups from holding private
meetings in conference rooms because they are thought to be racist. But,
when are the same groups that are screaming about making these changes going
to lower the flags they fly, give up the name of holidays they support or
just walk away when they are told they can not hold their private meeting
because it is thought to be racist? Lets learn to fly the same flag (the
flag of this country), and live in peace before we end up like many of the
countries overseas. Remember, this country was founded by immigrants from
all over, and built up by immigrants from all over, that is why this great
country is known as the big melting pot.
Sedrickfranklin
<<You can't refute what I wrote, so the best you come up with is this dumb ass
insinuation that I'm a communist. Funny, that was a common accusation made
against the heroic participants of the
Civil Rights Movement.>>
Wright wrote:
<<I have refuted everything you have written.>>
No, you haven't, but you have put your hostility to people of color on display
for all to see.
<<I don't know whether you're a Commie or not, Sedrick, but you seem to quote
them...>>
I have quoted James McPherson, Randall Robinson, and Robin D.G. Kelley. (I
might have quoted other people but these are the names I remember right now.)
The only person here who could be said to be a communist is Kelley. So what?
Are only pro-capitalism writers capable of telling the truth?
Bill Wright
This is just one more off topic rant from Sedrick Franklin
Brad Meyer
wrote:
>A crime against humanity, which is what slavery was, can only pretend to be
>legal.
Does this mean that you think conscription is/was illegal?
Scribe7716
wrote:
>>The word "darkies" is a name for African-Americans
>
>No, it's not. It's a slang term for any non-caucasian person.
>
>> and like "bog-trotter" it's
>>offensive.
>
>What isn't offensive to you? FWIW, I'm of Irish descent in
>several family lines, and "bog-trotter" doesn't bother me one
>bit.
>
What is offensive to you? Other than dissing the Confederate Naval Jack.
Dennis J. Francis
----------------------------
Maybe when he visits Ireland and is called a Yank? 8-)
Dennis
Dennis J. Francis
Scribe7716
wrote:
>> What is offensive to you? Other than dissing the Confederate Naval Jack.
>----------------------------
>Maybe when he visits Ireland and is called a Yank? 8-)
I thought the rule was that overseas you could call any American a Yank -- just
don't call him a jerk.
reb4...@bellsouth.net
>>reb4life wrote:
>>What isn't offensive to you? FWIW, I'm of Irish descent in
>>several family lines, and "bog-trotter" doesn't bother me one
>>bit.
>What is offensive to you? Other than dissing the Confederate Naval Jack.
Not much, other than people trying to tell me what to think.
a.s.
reb4...@bellsouth.net
wrote:
>Maybe when he visits Ireland and is called a Yank? 8-)
Maybe, but I'd just have to consider the source. What do
a bunch of bog trotters know anyway :-)
a.s.
Rambler III
Foreigners have two opinions of Americans: good and bad. One is public and the
other is private. It's sorta like, "Your manners are good enough to dine in my
restaurant, but they don't pass muster at my table." I suspect the primary cause of
resentment is that not only do Americans demand that people speak 'Merican at home,
but also when they travel abroad. [The foreigners might speak English, but a
'Merican has trouble understanding it although they can deciphrer "Rap",
occasionally.]
Mike Marshall
><<The enslavement of African-Americans in this country for centuries was
>robbery, a theft of millions of bodies and their labor.>>
Sorry sedgebo - one of your great-great-great-grandpappys sold
your other great-great-great-grandpappy into slavery. No theft
involved.
-Mike
William G. Davis
without your parrot, Teasley?
Both of you should crawl back down into the stinkhole you slithered out of.
--
W. G. Jeff Davis
je...@heNOSPAMhe.com
"When looking for a clue as
to why something goes wrong,
never rule out sheer stupidity."
--Groucho Marx
"Mike Marshall" <hub...@hubcap.clemson.edu> wrote in message
news:9bf9mo$m6m$1...@hubcap.clemson.edu...
Sedrickfranklin
<<Sorry sedgebo...>>
That sounds a lot like "Sambo." It looks like Wright isn't the only one here
who can't resist racist language.
reb4...@bellsouth.net
>From: hub...@hubcap.clemson.edu (Mike Marshall):
><<Sorry sedgebo...>>
>That sounds a lot like "Sambo."
No it doesn't. It isn't close in regard to spelling, either.
Lighten up.
Allenbo
Rambler III
> From: hub...@hubcap.clemson.edu (Mike Marshall):
>
> <<Sorry sedgebo...>>
>
> That sounds a lot like "Sambo." It looks like Wright isn't the only one here
> who can't resist racist language.
"Whada yo say, 'bro'?"
There goes another word on the banned list for being similar to an Indian boy who
had a pet tiger. Any tigers in Africa, bro?
Raymond O'Hara
but i think marshall was thinking Sambo when he wrote Sedgebo.
don't you think that really is the case ,Albo.
<reb4...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:k9fndts6bq79rbbct...@4ax.com...
Bill Wright
>
> <<Sorry sedgebo...>>
Sedrickfranklin wrote:
>
> That sounds a lot like "Sambo." It looks like Wright isn't
> the only one here who can't resist racist language.
Are "Sambo" and "Sedgebo" part of "racist language"?
Where do you get these ideas, Sedgebo?
Bill
reb4...@bellsouth.net
>i go by Raybo, no one gets upset,
>but i think marshall was thinking Sambo when he wrote Sedgebo.
>don't you think that really is the case ,Albo.
I truthfully don't think so, Raybo. I know Mike from places
other than this forum, and have always found him to be
well mannered and considerate of others. Except for
maybe that Zucek (sp?) guy ;-)
albo
Bob Tiernan
Sedrick Franklin wrote:
> American slavery was a war against African-Americans, just as
> Jim Crow was a war against African-Americans.
Mainly, yes, but it was also a war against private property
and free enterprise as they are intertwined. Unless you
think a white owner of a restaurant who served *anyone*
at his lunch counter would go unpunished.
Bob T.
Ignorant people don't understand the "Federalist
Papers", but they understand government checks
with their names on them.
-- Joseph Sobran
William G. Davis
"Bob Tiernan" <zu...@spock.peak.org> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.10.101041...@spock.peak.org...
>
> Sedrick Franklin wrote:
>
>
> > American slavery was a war against African-Americans, just as
> > Jim Crow was a war against African-Americans.
>
>
> Mainly, yes, but it was also a war against private property
> and free enterprise as they are intertwined. Unless you
> think a white owner of a restaurant who served *anyone*
> at his lunch counter would go unpunished.
>
>
> Bob T.
Your stunning insight is somewhat lacking in its logic. Why not head for,
say, North Korea? Supposed to be quite nice this time of year. Regardless,
you've been here too long. Get your anti-American ass out of this country.
The US deserves much better than you.
Mike Marshall
>I truthfully don't think so, Raybo. I know Mike from places
>other than this forum, and have always found him to be
>well mannered and considerate of others. Except for
>maybe that Zucek (sp?) guy ;-)
There's no secret hidden meanings in what I say. Have fun looking for them
anyway.
-Mikebo "daed si luap" Marshall
William G. Davis
That's right, you generally lay your racism out there about like Allen and
Bill have been doing.
Bill Wright
>
> That's right, you generally lay your racism out there about
> like Allen and Bill have been doing.
You forgot the worst racist of all -- Sedrick.
Bill