More PC bullshit

Pop1655

Premium Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2014
Messages
11,018
Reaction score
30,245
The thing we always fail to address in these conversations is that it is not 1860 and we are not from 1860.
We don't seem to be able to grasp the accepted norms of the time.
I know much about my great grandfather, as the journal he wrote in every morning survived. He was a great man who lived a life I can't begin to imagine.

If the truth were known, I'm fairly certain that if I lived in his time I would think as he thought and he lived today, he would think much as I think.

I think it's incredibly important to not lose sight of that fact.
 

Bill Hicklin

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2014
Messages
11,841
Reaction score
21,865
The high point of statues and other things commemorating Confederate soldiers came roughly 30-50 years after the War- in other words, when the majority of former soldiers were at their peak economic an d political power at the age of ~50-70, and also when their sons (who teneded to, as all sons do, regard their fathers as heroes) were coming into their own. Compare the "peak period" of WWII movies, the 1970s-1990s.

Also, the 1890s were the first time after Reconstruction the South had enough economic surplus to spend on things like statues. After the misery and poverty of Reconstruction, no wonder those who came out of it a) lamented the Lost Cause and b) didn't mind raising a middle finger to the Damnyankees responsible. After all, the "Solid South" for a full century after the war would never, ever, ever vote for the party of Lincoln and Reconstruction, even when, from the 30s on, they had almost nothing in common ideologically from the post-FDR Democratic Party.

My great-grandfather lost his arm at 2d Manassas, serving in the 6th SC, ANV. His in-laws and cousins and uncles served too, all of them who weren't children or ancient. Many never came home. The widows and children and the surviving vets had everything they had stolen from them by invading Damnyankees and carpetbaggers.

So, no, it was NOT some outgrowth of 'racism,' that prism through which moderns like to view everything . If there was any anger involved, it was directed at the goddam Fedrul Gummint, whose tyranny they had tried, and failed, to escape.

--------------------------

Imagine, if you will, that the EU suddenly decided that it was not going to accept Brexit, and mobilized an EU Army to invade the UK and return it to unwilling subjugation to Brussels rule. Would any Briton who took up arms to defend his home be a traitor?
 

45WinMag

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2009
Messages
7,612
Reaction score
16,064
That's the game, see?

You call them by what's preferred on Tuesday, and by next Saturday, "you're doing it wrong. How dare you".

Are good if you call them "black", most of them anyway.

Then you're wrong for that. You should be calling them "African American" -No matter their actual origin.

Then you're wrong, waaay wrong if you call them "colored folk", even with the kindness of intentions.

But if you call them "people of color", then you're okay... somehow.

It's just a game. Nobody should ever be "offended" if what you mean from your heart is meant with good intentions.

Those who are totally "offended" are just playing a stupid game, IMO. Simon Says. It's just to keep you off balance and always placing your foot in the wrong place. -That's the game.
I always make a point to mention that I am honored to be in the presence of Lando Calrissian's people.
 

Bill Hicklin

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2014
Messages
11,841
Reaction score
21,865
Huh? That’s the exact point I was making. Washington was on the winning side. Jackson, Lee, and Davis were on the losing side. Losers should not have schools named after them, because winners write history. Not sure how my post was unclear.
You used the word "traitor."
 

PeteK

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2009
Messages
15,110
Reaction score
35,408
Didn't Washington own slaves??
Maybe they should all just STFU.
We're trying to hold historical figures up to modern morality and I guarantee you that nobody will hold up as a Saint. Not white people, not black people, not injuns, not orientals. Everyone had "flaws", by today's standards, and who knows what tomorrow's standards will be?? People 100 years from now will look at us like we were damned ogers. I'd bet MLK had some private views on the LGBTQ community that wouldn't play today, but he probably never wrote that stuff down.

I do like your point from another post that says a lot of these things were named in the 50's and 60's as a reaction to the civil rights movement. In light of that, I can see re-naming/removing things that don't really serve any historical purpose. If there's a statue of Stonewall Jackson on a battlefield site where he won, that makes sense. Stop and discuss history with your kids. Talk about the battle, the war, and the real reasons behind it.
But to put it up somewhere in the western US is just being dickish.





As long as I still get the overtime, I really don't care.
They way I figure it is this. We fought a war over the slavery issue. Anything prior to that, whatever. It was legal and people gonna people. But when forced to pick a side, did a person choose to fight to end slavery or fight to continue it?
 

Zungle

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2014
Messages
5,672
Reaction score
9,585
What's wrong with Columbus Day? Pretty monumental achievement wouldn't you say?
Not really......

There is zero reason to have Columbus honored with a Federal U.S. holiday.

Now....that being said I don't believe its governments place to create holidays.....
 

LtDave32

Desert Star Guitars
Super Mod
Premium Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2010
Messages
36,888
Reaction score
119,870
COLORED PEOPLE ARE ADVANCING!!! And all you can talk about is changing names. HOW DARE YOU!!!
Don't make me throw the United Negro College Fund in there.. Please don't.

you can't even whisper that. But you can damn well make donations.
 

Bill Hicklin

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2014
Messages
11,841
Reaction score
21,865
But when forced to pick a side, did a person choose to fight to end slavery or fight to continue it?
That wasn't the question they were presented with. The question was, "Will you fight to preserve the Union/defend the South from Union invasion?" Slavery was NOT an issue; it continued to be practiced in much of the Union including Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware and, yes, Washington DC, right through the war and up to 1866.
 

Neffco

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2013
Messages
2,263
Reaction score
4,016
Geeze, what was wrong with the Dukes of Hazard anyway. I thought it was cool they named schools after one of the coolest cars ever. Not to mention naming them after one of the world’s greatest thespians, Jefferson Davis Hog.
 

cjpeck

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2013
Messages
3,710
Reaction score
12,283
Those names should be removed, but it should have nothing to do with race, PC culture, offending people, or the NAACP. It's because those people were leaders on the losing side of a war to form an unrecognized republic and have the Southern states secede from the country. They lost. They were traitors. Period. Are there schools named after Benedict Arnold?
there's lots of stuff commemorating ol' B.A.


There's a plaque in his memory at West Point,

There's a plaque commemorating his Quebec expedition in Danvers Mass.

I think there's a few others, but I need another whisky.. I knew about the ol' boot and the plaque at West Point, but had to google the last one.
 

Bill Hicklin

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2014
Messages
11,841
Reaction score
21,865
there's lots of stuff commemorating ol' B.A.


There's a plaque in his memory at West Point,

There's a plaque commemorating his Quebec expedition in Danvers Mass.

I think there's a few others, but I need another whisky.. I knew about the ol' boot and the plaque at West Point, but had to google the last one.

There's a stone in Richmond marking the farthest advance his (British) troops made in 1781.
 

Tone deaf

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2011
Messages
27,845
Reaction score
47,539
The high point of statues and other things commemorating Confederate soldiers came roughly 30-50 years after the War- in other words, when the majority of former soldiers were at their peak economic an d political power at the age of ~50-70, and also when their sons (who teneded to, as all sons do, regard their fathers as heroes) were coming into their own. Compare the "peak period" of WWII movies, the 1970s-1990s.

Also, the 1890s were the first time after Reconstruction the South had enough economic surplus to spend on things like statues. After the misery and poverty of Reconstruction, no wonder those who came out of it a) lamented the Lost Cause and b) didn't mind raising a middle finger to the Damnyankees responsible. After all, the "Solid South" for a full century after the war would never, ever, ever vote for the party of Lincoln and Reconstruction, even when, from the 30s on, they had almost nothing in common ideologically from the post-FDR Democratic Party.

My great-grandfather lost his arm at 2d Manassas, serving in the 6th SC, ANV. His in-laws and cousins and uncles served too, all of them who weren't children or ancient. Many never came home. The widows and children and the surviving vets had everything they had stolen from them by invading Damnyankees and carpetbaggers.

So, no, it was NOT some outgrowth of 'racism,' that prism through which moderns like to view everything . If there was any anger involved, it was directed at the goddam Fedrul Gummint, whose tyranny they had tried, and failed, to escape.

--------------------------

Imagine, if you will, that the EU suddenly decided that it was not going to accept Brexit, and mobilized an EU Army to invade the UK and return it to unwilling subjugation to Brussels rule. Would any Briton who took up arms to defend his home be a traitor?
You're referring to the War of Northern Aggression, correct?
 

Bill Hicklin

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2014
Messages
11,841
Reaction score
21,865
I should point out that my REAL objection to the OP news article, and the reasoin I think it bullshit, is not actually changing the names (which though I would disagree, would be legitimate if a policy made by an elected school board or county government), but because the NAACP wants to FORCE the change via an unelected judge based on their bullshit claim of "violated rights."

What next? Will they get a judge to enjoin Dukes of Hazzard reruns? Ban Gone With the Wind?
 

Tone deaf

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2011
Messages
27,845
Reaction score
47,539
There's a stone in Richmond marking the farthest advance his (British) troops made in 1781.
There is a monument on the bank of the Kennebec River commemorating his crossing (of aforementioned river) on his way to Quebec. We used to stop there, regularly, on our way to our camp when we were kids.
 

Tone deaf

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2011
Messages
27,845
Reaction score
47,539
I should point out that my REAL objection to the OP news article, and the reasoin I think it bullshit, is not actually changing the names (which though I would disagree, would be legitimate if a policy made by an elected school board or county government), but because the NAACP wants to FORCE the change via an unelected judge based on their bullshit claim of "violated rights."

What next? Will they get a judge to enjoin Dukes of Hazzard reruns? Ban Gone With the Wind?
The Dukes of Hazzard movie just barely got in under the wire before wokeness took over Hollywood.
 

Tone deaf

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2011
Messages
27,845
Reaction score
47,539
Arnold's Quebec campaign was ballsy. Mindbendingly stupid, but ballsy.
To cross the Kennebec, they made boats from wood, harvested from the forest. Unfortunately, green wood isn't good for boat building. I think a number of them sank.

I try to imagine what it might have been like being in that wilderness, back then. The crossing site is a good 150 miles south of Quebec City. There were no roads. Maps were sh*t. No polar fleece, no North Face down jackets, no Sorels. It was primitive. You needed big balls and good sense to survive.
 

LtDave32

Desert Star Guitars
Super Mod
Premium Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2010
Messages
36,888
Reaction score
119,870
I don't do "woke".

It's what you do when you arise from sleep.

That's it .
 

ehb

Chief Discombobulator
Joined
Feb 20, 2013
Messages
32,391
Reaction score
142,700
That wasn't the question they were presented with. The question was, "Will you fight to preserve the Union/defend the South from Union invasion?" Slavery was NOT an issue; it continued to be practiced in much of the Union including Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware and, yes, Washington DC, right through the war and up to 1866.

Some seem to believe that everybody had slaves. They didn't. Vast majority that fought in the war didn't own shit....

We weren't far removed at the time from another country telling folks here what to do... Not far at all... Do the math...Think Nam to today. They weren't real thrilled with the Gummit telling folks what they could and could not do.... The southern companies were also dealing commerce with other countries which was a sore spot....

Look at where most of the millionaires lived in the 1800s.... Hint: Natchez, Mississippi... Wonder where those folks originated...

Many fought out of loyalty to their state, not politics, not slavery, not much of anything but defending their home ground... Gen. Lee was a helluva man. Might be interesting reading for some.... Might find some preconceived notions incorrect....

Your average folks down here didn't have shit. They wanted to be left the hell alone to live best they could. Interesting to think some of em's parents/grandparents fought the Brits...

We were NOT one country as now.... I think we were more of like a coalition... Many, maybe even most, didn't even know who was running the country as the flow of information was a trickle at best.... Nobody knew what the hell was going on up north and didn't give a shit. Better informed up in VA and that area but deep South, folks were just trying to survive and make a living.... Yankee view of everybody owning a plantation with a gillion slaves is bullshit and good for movies.... Most were poor sumbitches scratching out a living out of the little dirt they owned or rented and just wanted to be left the hell alone....

Soooo, imagine these folks, not far removed from kicking the Brits out, all of a sudden told the yankees are now going to come burn their circus down.... They didn't give much of a damn why....

I don't see it far removed from Maj Ferguson putting the word out that anyone that helped the fledgling army of ours (if you could even call it an army), he would burn your house down with you in it... Well, Scot/Irish clans and such in the west Caros and TN mountains kinda took issue with that and one of the leaders said 'sumbitch needs killing' so they rode or walked to King's Mtn on the border of N & S Caro, surrounded Fergusons Army, and killed about everybody on the mountain... Destroyed the Brit power in the area and administered probably the first natural ass kicking to the Crown and they weren't even Army....Just regular folks trying to exist and prosper on their own. Threaten folks' home and way of life and they tend to get pretty hot....

The typical Confederate soldier was defending his home and way of life in his mind... He didn't own slaves. True, some did, as did many in the north and all over the country. The Gummit wanted to prevent spread of slavery to other states. North had industry of all kinds. South had cotton and the list dwindled quickly after that. Most folks down here were just trying to live their life best they could and survive...

I am not defending slavery at all.....not even a little bit... That being said, anyone that thinks that just the South were the bad slavers is pretty ignorant....as is those that think it was just whites that were involved and just Africans that were slave status... Deep South was full of dirt farmers and such for the most part. You had the Plantations with lots of land but wonder where those folks came from....

Those folks probably saw it as an invading force burning, raping, and pillaging through their homeland....

What if Red Dawn really happened? Same view. Folks from down here AND the rest of the country would see it the same way and would get to wherever the invaders were and unleash as much hell on them as was done to the Brits...

Lots of things played factor in that war.....
 




Top