• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Racism in the Military

Griz882 said:
Farragut, an unquestionably brave and remarkable naval officer, had a slightly different life to set him toward the idea of a unified “United” States. He was at sea as a midshipman at the age ten. His nation was the ship he was on, his flag the US flag, the only he would ever know. His allegiance was to the navy first and because that navy was part of the union...he was for it. A far better example would be a guy like George Thomas. A southern man and an army officer, he was even a slave owner. When the war started he remained with the Union side because he decided his pledge to the nation superseded any notion of duty to one’s home.
Click to expand...
To which I say let's honor men like them!

Treetop Flyer said:
There are exceptions of course. But the fact remains
Click to expand...

And it is often the exceptions to the average that we honor - Washington, Adams. Lincoln, Eisenhower, Nimitz, etc.

At the end of the day, while we seem to disagree on where his loyalties should have been (state or Union), Lee lost a war and fought for a cause none of us (should) believe in any more. Let's not honor him or people like him who fought for a Constitution that specifically was designed to allow slavery of people of the "African" or "negro" race in its own words in at least 5 different sections of the document. Taking down a monument that was mostly likely put up to intimidate people during a period of lynching and KKK recruitment is not erasing history, it's rectifying it.
 
DanMa1156 said:
To which I say let's honor men like them!



And it is often the exceptions to the average that we honor - Washington, Adams. Lincoln, Eisenhower, Nimitz, etc.

At the end of the day, while we seem to disagree on where his loyalties should have been (state or Union), Lee lost a war and fought for a cause none of us (should) believe in any more. Let's not honor him or people like him who fought for a Constitution that specifically was designed to allow slavery of people of the "African" or "negro" race in its own words in at least 5 different sections of the document. Taking down a monument that was mostly likely put up to intimidate people during a period of lynching and KKK recruitment is not erasing history, it's rectifying it.
Click to expand...
I understand and agree with the heart of your argument, but I disagree with your limited use of history. Either we remember people by their entire lives...or we do not. Using that metric we should have no monuments as I can not find a single notable person who can stand up to the changes of society in the face of the times they once lived in.
Washington...slave owner (oh, and traitor to his nation..until he created a new one!)
Adams...defended murderous agents of enforcement who killed innocent black and white protesters and trampled on the 1st Amendment
Lincoln...ordered the state sanctioned murder of American Indians in the nations largest single mass execution.
Eisenhower...broke common ethics rules by profiting off his book (written while in government), created hated “domino theory” that lead to Vietnam War.
Nimitz...ran a ship aground as the CO!

Of course my tongue is planted firmly in my cheek but all of these things are historically accurate and to some perfectly reasonable reasons why someone should be “honored.” There is an inherent weakness in the current argument that this guy is dishonorable but that one isn’t and that weakness is being human.
 
DanMa1156 said:
To which I say let's honor men like them!



And it is often the exceptions to the average that we honor - Washington, Adams. Lincoln, Eisenhower, Nimitz, etc.

At the end of the day, while we seem to disagree on where his loyalties should have been (state or Union), Lee lost a war and fought for a cause none of us (should) believe in any more. Let's not honor him or people like him who fought for a Constitution that specifically was designed to allow slavery of people of the "African" or "negro" race in its own words in at least 5 different sections of the document. Taking down a monument that was mostly likely put up to intimidate people during a period of lynching and KKK recruitment is not erasing history, it's rectifying it.
Click to expand...
Washington and Adams would have likely been hung and be mere footnotes in history if they had lost. Traitorous colonials.
 
This thread has turned into another completely ridiculous "who knows more obscure esoterica about civil war personalities" genital comparison.
 
Griz882 said:
Adams...defended murderous agents of enforcement who killed innocent black and white protesters and trampled on the 1st Amendment
Click to expand...

Honest question - what are you referencing here? Rest of your argument, I understand, though I don't necessarily agree with.
 
Treetop Flyer said:
Washington and Adams would have likely been hung and be mere footnotes in history if they had lost. Traitorous colonials.
Click to expand...

I understand that, but they won, and the values for which they stood are ones that we idealize today and I hope we continue to in the future.
 
DanMa1156 said:
the values for which they stood are ones that we idealize today and I hope we continue to in the future.
Click to expand...
Except for the debate at the time on what to do about blacks and Indians. Everything from genocide to sending them overseas to creating a piece of America for them to live as their own country was on the table... but integration into American society was not. Jefferson, for example, believed that democracy would fail in a diverse society.

I don't think those beliefs stand up to modern scrutiny.
 
Last edited:
Spekkio said:
Except for the debate at the time on what to do about blacks and Indians. Everything from genocide to sending them overseas to creating a piece of America for them to live as their own country was on the table... but integration into American society was not. Jefferson, for example, believed that democracy would fail in a diverse society.

I don't think those beliefs stand up to modern scrutiny.
Click to expand...

For what it's worth, I left Jefferson out specifically.

Adams, I would argue very much was about integration of blacks, and I assume Indians, but I'll spare the history lesson here.
 
DanMa1156 said:
For what it's worth, I left Jefferson out specifically.

Adams, I would argue very much was about integration of blacks, and I assume Indians, but I'll spare the history lesson here.
Click to expand...
I used Jefferson because he was a stalwart of the human rights aspect of the revolution.

For the majority of colonial leaders, we went to war because our taxes were too high and British soldiers were acting like twats. It was an opportunity for governors to power grab, and that's why the federal government was originally envisioned to be relatively weak and forbidden to directly tax people.

We tend to ignore that the decision to declare independence was a hotly debated topic, as was the ratification of the Constitution. Painting these men as flawless heroes is the opposite side of the same coin as distilling Lee to be a traitor.

More to the point: we don't erect monuments just to honor men, we erect them to remember and acknowledge their significant contributions to our history, good and bad.
 
Last edited:
DanMa1156 said:
Honest question - what are you referencing here? Rest of your argument, I understand, though I don't necessarily agree with.
Click to expand...
Sorry, too cryptic! Adams defended the British soldiers (Essentially the police) that were accused of murder after the Boston Massacre. He won the case and was widely despised by the rebels of his time...the Sons of Liberty.
 
Griz882 said:
You seem to be a bit confused about the actual history.
Click to expand...

Nope.

Griz882 said:
The Civil Rights Act, assuming you mean the one passed in 1964 (because all the others were proposed and passed by republicans) was made possible by republicans. It was designed as a backstop to the 1954 bill (crafted by republicans). The numbers are simple...in the Senate 31% of the democrats voted against the bill while only 18% of republicans did so. In the House, a whopping 36% of the democrats voted against the act while a mere 20% of the republicans did. The bill was unquestionably passed because of republican support.
Click to expand...

The Voting Rights Act, proposed by members of both parties and signed into law by a Democratic President in 1965. The Civil Rights Act of 1968, proposed by Democrats in Congress and signed into law by a Democratic President. Also Executive Orders 9981 and 8802, issued by Democratic Presidents.

Both parties helped push through much of the legislation in the 60's but President's Kennedy and Johnson were critical in their passage, built on work of their 3 predecessors.

Griz882 said:
Equally, you have fallen for the comical lie of the “Southern Strategy,” a myth created by disgruntled anti war democrats in response to their shocking defeat at the hands of Nixon. No political scientist, in any university I have ever attended or worked for an name a single paper or book to support the theory. When faced with the fact that the south voted not for Nixon but for Wallace, they all immediately agree that such a “strategy” never existed.
Click to expand...

Sure, and the Nixon advisor who helped originate the strategy and popularize the phrase was just talking extemporaneously when he said this:

"From now on, Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote, and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats."

Or Lee Atwater, who after saying this in an interview (which was anonymous at the time) ran Ronald Reagan's 1984 campaign and subsequently became the Republican National Chairman.

"Y'all don't quote me on this. You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."

If you want it in a book, here's one. Then there is Reagan's "states rights" speech in Mississippi in 1980 a mere 7 miles from where 3 civil rights workers were murdered just 16 years before without a mention of their sacrifice or civil rights at all? Yeah, just a coincidence.

Or maybe one of Atwater's successors as RNC Chairman:

"For the last 40-plus years we had a ‘Southern Strategy’ that alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male vote in the South."

But sure, all a lie.

Griz882 said:
Nixon won every state but Massachusetts and DC.
Click to expand...

But only 18% of the black vote, a high water mark for Republican presidential candidates since then. I wonder why that is?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top