OK this shit is just stupid

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110210/ap_on_re_us/us_confederate_license_plates

Seriously any reason to honor the guy who was the grand wizard of the KKK? I dont care that he was a civil war general. There are a ton of civil war generals they can honor other than him.

You can't judge history on todays over-PC standards. You have to look at time these people were living in.

The month of August is named after Augustus Octavian, who was a ruthless motherfucker who wiped out entire cultures to build his Empire.

Look at famouse English rulers. Queen Elizabeth is immortalize. Ask the Irish what they think of Queen E. Under her rule, the Irish were ravaged.

Sure every Native American hates that US Presidents like Washington, Jefferson, ect are on are currency.

So in my opinion, if want to make a license plate for the guy, I honestly don't give a fuck. You know.

Im with you Sooners, sadly its the world we live in, my pops always tells me he thinks its pathetic that Louisiana's national law library is named after Jefferson Davis, Im from the South and consider confederates people that committed treason, Nathan Bedford Forrest was a sack of shit, great general, that ravaged the south after the Civil War during construction.

Fuck him and no honor should be given to him, 3 states flags still bare resemblence to the Confederate flag and I think that is a joke and a shame on our nation and a representative for the patheticness of the states that choose to bare those colors.

Fort Pillow was also a massive execution and anyone that tries to make excuses for it is graetly mistaken at best, racist more than likely

The Mississippi Division of Sons of Confederate Veterans might believe they're honoring their heritage, but all they're really doing is being a bunch of shit stirring assholes. After all the controversy this will cause, I really doubt that Mississippi is going to go along with state-issued license plates honoring, Gen. Forrest, et al, and/or the 150th anniversary of the Civil War.

BTW, In re: Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest, Ft Pillow and the KKK aside, Forrest was an interesting character, i've read several entertaining books about him:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Bedford_Forrest

LOL at Jefferson Davis. He was the President of the Confederacy and pretty much lost every battle he was in. Richmond, VA, the former capitol of the south has streets & hotels named after him to this day.

flapanther2001 wrote:LOL at Jefferson Davis. He was the President of the Confederacy and pretty much lost every battle he was in. Richmond, VA, the former capitol of the south has streets & hotels named after him to this day.

As a historian I love the Civil War and don't mind celebrating our history and I usually encourage that as much as possible. Problem is that in this case the person involved was the first Grand Wizard of the KKK. Fuck what next we will start to honor Charles Manson?

As for Jefferson Davis I have far less of a problem with him. But really at this point in our country why dont we honor some of our other heroes in history.

Look Nathan Bedford Forrest was one of the true military geniuses to come out of the Civil War. He's also one of the amazing lives of the 19th century.

Stop making the elementary mistake of trying to judge the past by the standards of today. Judge people and events by the standards of THEIR day.

Or maybe we shouldn't honor Washington or Jefferson either.

Historical relativism is just as easy a trap to fall in as cultural relativism. No more point in slagging someone for adhering to 200 year old morality than there is in judging Asian cultures for valuing collectivism over individualism. It is what it is.

marbleheadmaui wrote:Look Nathan Bedford Forrest was one of the true military geniuses to come out of the Civil War. He's also one of the amazing lives of the 19th century.

Stop making the elementary mistake of trying to judge the past by the standards of today. Judge people and events by the standards of THEIR day.

Or maybe we shouldn't honor Washington or Jefferson either.

Yup, what I was saying.

marbleheadmaui wrote:Look Nathan Bedford Forrest was one of the true military geniuses to come out of the Civil War. He's also one of the amazing lives of the 19th century.

Stop making the elementary mistake of trying to judge the past by the standards of today. Judge people and events by the standards of THEIR day.

Or maybe we shouldn't honor Washington or Jefferson either.

Washington or Jefferson didnt start the KKK. Thats the problem. I have no issue with naming a street after Robert E Lee. I have a big problem of naming one after a guy like Forrest. What next Hitler plates to honor WWII veterans? I mean back in his day it was completely acceptable to hate jews.

Soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:Look Nathan Bedford Forrest was one of the true military geniuses to come out of the Civil War. He's also one of the amazing lives of the 19th century.

Stop making the elementary mistake of trying to judge the past by the standards of today. Judge people and events by the standards of THEIR day.

Or maybe we shouldn't honor Washington or Jefferson either.

Washington or Jefferson didnt start the KKK. Thats the problem. I have no issue with naming a street after Robert E Lee. I have a big problem of naming one after a guy like Forrest. What next Hitler plates to honor WWII veterans? I mean back in his day it was completely acceptable to hate jews.

LOL, no all Washington and Jefferson did was OWN HUNDREDS OF SLAVES!!!!!!!!

Geeze oh man.

Hell in many parts of the world it is STILL acceptable to hate Jews. Less acceptable to kill them by the millions. As a matter of fact I'm pretty sure in Hitler's own time some small group of people got together and destroyed his whole way of thinking. Huh? Oh yeah! The Brits and USA etc did that. Pretty compelling evidence that EVEN IN HIS OWN DAY Hitler was viewed as a monstrosity.

This way of thinking (applying present values to past men) is so monumentally stupid that I'll bet you couldn't come up with historical figures outside of Jesus and Gahndi who should be highly thought of. By today's standards just about everyone who ever lived was racist, sexist, bigoted, etc.

I mean Socrates didn't take care of his family, Tolstoy and Dosteevsky were scum in their personal life, King David ordered a married man to his death so he could have the wife, Grant was a drunk for a time, Lincoln would have continued slavery to maintain the Union, MLK was a womanizer, Kings around the world were tyrants, military geniuses were almost unformly brutal in their practices, Muhammad was a pedophile, etc etc etc and yet every one of them was viewed as great in their own times and since. It's only when one tries to look at them through a lens those people never had access to that they fade.

Think of it this way. 200 years from now would you think it's fair if your great, great, great grandchildren judged your actions by the values of 2310, whatever those might be?

Tobe wrote:Historical relativism is just as easy a trap to fall in as cultural relativism. No more point in slagging someone for adhering to 200 year old morality than there is in judging Asian cultures for valuing collectivism over individualism. It is what it is.

Wisdom out of Canuckistan!

marbleheadmaui wrote:

Soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:Look Nathan Bedford Forrest was one of the true military geniuses to come out of the Civil War. He's also one of the amazing lives of the 19th century.

Stop making the elementary mistake of trying to judge the past by the standards of today. Judge people and events by the standards of THEIR day.

Or maybe we shouldn't honor Washington or Jefferson either.

Washington or Jefferson didnt start the KKK. Thats the problem. I have no issue with naming a street after Robert E Lee. I have a big problem of naming one after a guy like Forrest. What next Hitler plates to honor WWII veterans? I mean back in his day it was completely acceptable to hate jews.

LOL, no all Washington and Jefferson did was OWN HUNDREDS OF SLAVES!!!!!!!!

Geeze oh man.

Hell in many parts of the world it is STILL acceptable to hate Jews. Less acceptable to kill them by the millions. As a matter of fact I'm pretty sure in Hitler's own time some small group of people got together and destroyed his whole way of thinking. Huh? Oh yeah! The Brits and USA etc did that. Pretty compelling evidence that EVEN IN HIS OWN DAY Hitler was viewed as a monstrosity.

This way of thinking (applying present values to past men) is so monumentally stupid that I'll bet you couldn't come up with historical figures outside of Jesus and Gahndi who shouod be highly thought of. By today's standards just about everyone who ever lived was racist, sexist, bigoted, etc.

Last time I checked the KKK killed a couple of people also. So I think we established your breaking point is if they killed a ton of people because of that hate we shouldnt honor them. Which is exactly what I was saying. I have no problem allowing them to honor other civil war generals I have a problem with a guy who started the organization that killed a bunch of people for the color of their skin. I am sure there were plenty of people who thought that Forrest was a monstrosity as well.

So what is the difference between Hitler and Forrest. Both were pretty damn good at war. Both were on losing sides of Racist motivated wars. Both had ideas of extermination of a people based upon race. Both started very racist violent organizations. Not seeing the big difference here. There are small details you could pick at but in a whole they are very much alike.

Soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

Soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:Look Nathan Bedford Forrest was one of the true military geniuses to come out of the Civil War. He's also one of the amazing lives of the 19th century.

Stop making the elementary mistake of trying to judge the past by the standards of today. Judge people and events by the standards of THEIR day.

Or maybe we shouldn't honor Washington or Jefferson either.

Washington or Jefferson didnt start the KKK. Thats the problem. I have no issue with naming a street after Robert E Lee. I have a big problem of naming one after a guy like Forrest. What next Hitler plates to honor WWII veterans? I mean back in his day it was completely acceptable to hate jews.

LOL, no all Washington and Jefferson did was OWN HUNDREDS OF SLAVES!!!!!!!!

Geeze oh man.

Hell in many parts of the world it is STILL acceptable to hate Jews. Less acceptable to kill them by the millions. As a matter of fact I'm pretty sure in Hitler's own time some small group of people got together and destroyed his whole way of thinking. Huh? Oh yeah! The Brits and USA etc did that. Pretty compelling evidence that EVEN IN HIS OWN DAY Hitler was viewed as a monstrosity.

This way of thinking (applying present values to past men) is so monumentally stupid that I'll bet you couldn't come up with historical figures outside of Jesus and Gahndi who shouod be highly thought of. By today's standards just about everyone who ever lived was racist, sexist, bigoted, etc.

Last time I checked the KKK killed a couple of people also. So I think we established your breaking point is if they killed a ton of people because of that hate we shouldnt honor them. Which is exactly what I was saying. I have no problem allowing them to honor other civil war generals I have a problem with a guy who started the organization that killed a bunch of people for the color of their skin. I am sure there were plenty of people who thought that Forrest was a monstrosity as well.

So what is the difference between Hitler and Forrest. Both were pretty damn good at war. Both were on losing sides of Racist motivated wars. Both had ideas of extermination of a people based upon race. Both started very racist violent organizations. Not seeing the big difference here. There are small details you could pick at but in a whole they are very much alike.

You are seriously being silly here. Sure the Klan killed people. The point is THEY WEREN'T DESTROYED FOR DOING SO. In that day, in that society, that was seen as a reasonable point of view. Like slavery itself or the Divine Right of Kings etc in other times. Hitler was destroyed in his own time!

Let's go through Hitler and Forrest because you haven't a clue.

1. Forrest a military genius. Hitler a military knucklehead.
2. Forrest a part of an organization that killed scores of people. Hitler headed an organization that killed 16 million
3. The KKK STILL exists as a fringe group 140 years later (sadly). Hitler's National Socialist Movement died in Berlin in 1945 after 300 million people so disagreed with it they mobilized everything they had and destroyed it.
4. Hitler was disgraced in defeat. Forrest was lauded by, among others, WT Sherman in the post war years.

marbleheadmaui wrote:

Soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

Soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:Look Nathan Bedford Forrest was one of the true military geniuses to come out of the Civil War. He's also one of the amazing lives of the 19th century.

Stop making the elementary mistake of trying to judge the past by the standards of today. Judge people and events by the standards of THEIR day.

Or maybe we shouldn't honor Washington or Jefferson either.

Washington or Jefferson didnt start the KKK. Thats the problem. I have no issue with naming a street after Robert E Lee. I have a big problem of naming one after a guy like Forrest. What next Hitler plates to honor WWII veterans? I mean back in his day it was completely acceptable to hate jews.

LOL, no all Washington and Jefferson did was OWN HUNDREDS OF SLAVES!!!!!!!!

Geeze oh man.

Hell in many parts of the world it is STILL acceptable to hate Jews. Less acceptable to kill them by the millions. As a matter of fact I'm pretty sure in Hitler's own time some small group of people got together and destroyed his whole way of thinking. Huh? Oh yeah! The Brits and USA etc did that. Pretty compelling evidence that EVEN IN HIS OWN DAY Hitler was viewed as a monstrosity.

This way of thinking (applying present values to past men) is so monumentally stupid that I'll bet you couldn't come up with historical figures outside of Jesus and Gahndi who shouod be highly thought of. By today's standards just about everyone who ever lived was racist, sexist, bigoted, etc.

Last time I checked the KKK killed a couple of people also. So I think we established your breaking point is if they killed a ton of people because of that hate we shouldnt honor them. Which is exactly what I was saying. I have no problem allowing them to honor other civil war generals I have a problem with a guy who started the organization that killed a bunch of people for the color of their skin. I am sure there were plenty of people who thought that Forrest was a monstrosity as well.

So what is the difference between Hitler and Forrest. Both were pretty damn good at war. Both were on losing sides of Racist motivated wars. Both had ideas of extermination of a people based upon race. Both started very racist violent organizations. Not seeing the big difference here. There are small details you could pick at but in a whole they are very much alike.

You are seriously being silly here. Sure the Klan killed people. The point is THEY WEREN'T DESTROYED FOR DOING SO. In that day, in that society, that was seen as a reasonable point of view. Like slavery itself or the Divine Right of Kings etc in other times. Hitler was destroyed in his own time!

Let's go through Hitler and Forrest because you haven't a clue.

1. Forrest a military genius. Hitler a military knucklehead.
2. Forrest a part of an organization that killed scores of people. Hitler headed an organization that killed 16 million
3. The KKK STILL exists as a fringe group 140 years later (sadly). Hitler's National Socialist Movement died in Berlin in 1945 after 300 million people so disagreed with it they mobilized everything they had and destroyed it.
4. Hitler was disgraced in defeat. Forrest was lauded by, among others, WT Sherman in the post war years.

First off you say I haven't a clue and your advocating the honoring of first Grand Wizard of the KKK? Let me respond point by point.

1. Forrest and Hitler were in different roles during their wars. You say Hitler was a military knucklehead (while I somewhat agree) he did take over Europe something that is not easy to do.

2. Whats the difference? Both men Killed WAY too many people for some very bad reasons.

3. Nazi's still exist today. Ever heard of Timothy McVeigh and the Neo-Nazi's? Also you really think we went to war with Germany because we disagreed with the Nazi's views?

Kinda odd how he was man of the year here in the US. We went to war to stop him from trying to take over the world we could have cared less about the Jews.

4. Neither men should ever be honored in any way shape or form period no matter how good they were at something.

Soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

Soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

Soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:Look Nathan Bedford Forrest was one of the true military geniuses to come out of the Civil War. He's also one of the amazing lives of the 19th century.

Stop making the elementary mistake of trying to judge the past by the standards of today. Judge people and events by the standards of THEIR day.

Or maybe we shouldn't honor Washington or Jefferson either.

Washington or Jefferson didnt start the KKK. Thats the problem. I have no issue with naming a street after Robert E Lee. I have a big problem of naming one after a guy like Forrest. What next Hitler plates to honor WWII veterans? I mean back in his day it was completely acceptable to hate jews.

LOL, no all Washington and Jefferson did was OWN HUNDREDS OF SLAVES!!!!!!!!

Geeze oh man.

Hell in many parts of the world it is STILL acceptable to hate Jews. Less acceptable to kill them by the millions. As a matter of fact I'm pretty sure in Hitler's own time some small group of people got together and destroyed his whole way of thinking. Huh? Oh yeah! The Brits and USA etc did that. Pretty compelling evidence that EVEN IN HIS OWN DAY Hitler was viewed as a monstrosity.

This way of thinking (applying present values to past men) is so monumentally stupid that I'll bet you couldn't come up with historical figures outside of Jesus and Gahndi who shouod be highly thought of. By today's standards just about everyone who ever lived was racist, sexist, bigoted, etc.

Last time I checked the KKK killed a couple of people also. So I think we established your breaking point is if they killed a ton of people because of that hate we shouldnt honor them. Which is exactly what I was saying. I have no problem allowing them to honor other civil war generals I have a problem with a guy who started the organization that killed a bunch of people for the color of their skin. I am sure there were plenty of people who thought that Forrest was a monstrosity as well.

So what is the difference between Hitler and Forrest. Both were pretty damn good at war. Both were on losing sides of Racist motivated wars. Both had ideas of extermination of a people based upon race. Both started very racist violent organizations. Not seeing the big difference here. There are small details you could pick at but in a whole they are very much alike.

You are seriously being silly here. Sure the Klan killed people. The point is THEY WEREN'T DESTROYED FOR DOING SO. In that day, in that society, that was seen as a reasonable point of view. Like slavery itself or the Divine Right of Kings etc in other times. Hitler was destroyed in his own time!

Let's go through Hitler and Forrest because you haven't a clue.

1. Forrest a military genius. Hitler a military knucklehead.
2. Forrest a part of an organization that killed scores of people. Hitler headed an organization that killed 16 million
3. The KKK STILL exists as a fringe group 140 years later (sadly). Hitler's National Socialist Movement died in Berlin in 1945 after 300 million people so disagreed with it they mobilized everything they had and destroyed it.
4. Hitler was disgraced in defeat. Forrest was lauded by, among others, WT Sherman in the post war years.

First off you say I haven't a clue and your advocating the honoring of first Grand Wizard of the KKK? Let me respond point by point.

1. Forrest and Hitler were in different roles during their wars. You say Hitler was a military knucklehead (while I somewhat agree) he did take over Europe something that is not easy to do.

2. Whats the difference? Both men Killed WAY too many people for some very bad reasons.

3. Nazi's still exist today. Ever heard of Timothy McVeigh and the Neo-Nazi's? Also you really think we went to war with Germany because we disagreed with the Nazi's views?

Kinda odd how he was man of the year here in the US. We went to war to stop him from trying to take over the world we could have cared less about the Jews.

4. Neither men should ever be honored in any way shape or form period no matter how good they were at something.

Let's go through your errors one by one.

1. I am NOT advocating honoring Forrest. I am arguing that judging the past by todays morals is an intellectually bankrupt approach.
2. Hitler took over Europe becaue Europe had disarmed or relied on old technologies. Polish Cavalry anyone? The Maginot Line? Once the Allies got up to speed Hitler fell apart in 18 months.
3. Timothy McVeigh was as far away from being a Nazi as one could be. He wasn't a SOCIALIST fer crissake he was anti-gov't!!!!!!! Geeze.
4. Time Magazine's criteria is SPECIFICALLY amoral in nature. It is merely a matter of influence not goodness. Sheesh.
5. If you knew anything about the history of the KKK you'd be aware it was the loosest connection of chapters. It was THE OPPOSITE of the Micromanaging Nazis led by Hitler. Saying Forrest killed in that context is unfair...as is this whole train of thought.
6. Equating scores of dead and millions of dead is a despicable moral point of view anyway.

What horrifies me most about this conversation is that I think you teach history. Please don't bring such a corrupted mindset into the classroom.

I wonder how you teach Washington and Jefferson and all the other imperfect people of the past?

I mean hell, they aren't wrth honoring either right?

marbleheadmaui wrote:

Soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

Soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

Soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:Look Nathan Bedford Forrest was one of the true military geniuses to come out of the Civil War. He's also one of the amazing lives of the 19th century.

Stop making the elementary mistake of trying to judge the past by the standards of today. Judge people and events by the standards of THEIR day.

Or maybe we shouldn't honor Washington or Jefferson either.

Washington or Jefferson didnt start the KKK. Thats the problem. I have no issue with naming a street after Robert E Lee. I have a big problem of naming one after a guy like Forrest. What next Hitler plates to honor WWII veterans? I mean back in his day it was completely acceptable to hate jews.

LOL, no all Washington and Jefferson did was OWN HUNDREDS OF SLAVES!!!!!!!!

Geeze oh man.

Hell in many parts of the world it is STILL acceptable to hate Jews. Less acceptable to kill them by the millions. As a matter of fact I'm pretty sure in Hitler's own time some small group of people got together and destroyed his whole way of thinking. Huh? Oh yeah! The Brits and USA etc did that. Pretty compelling evidence that EVEN IN HIS OWN DAY Hitler was viewed as a monstrosity.

This way of thinking (applying present values to past men) is so monumentally stupid that I'll bet you couldn't come up with historical figures outside of Jesus and Gahndi who shouod be highly thought of. By today's standards just about everyone who ever lived was racist, sexist, bigoted, etc.

Last time I checked the KKK killed a couple of people also. So I think we established your breaking point is if they killed a ton of people because of that hate we shouldnt honor them. Which is exactly what I was saying. I have no problem allowing them to honor other civil war generals I have a problem with a guy who started the organization that killed a bunch of people for the color of their skin. I am sure there were plenty of people who thought that Forrest was a monstrosity as well.

So what is the difference between Hitler and Forrest. Both were pretty damn good at war. Both were on losing sides of Racist motivated wars. Both had ideas of extermination of a people based upon race. Both started very racist violent organizations. Not seeing the big difference here. There are small details you could pick at but in a whole they are very much alike.

You are seriously being silly here. Sure the Klan killed people. The point is THEY WEREN'T DESTROYED FOR DOING SO. In that day, in that society, that was seen as a reasonable point of view. Like slavery itself or the Divine Right of Kings etc in other times. Hitler was destroyed in his own time!

Let's go through Hitler and Forrest because you haven't a clue.

1. Forrest a military genius. Hitler a military knucklehead.
2. Forrest a part of an organization that killed scores of people. Hitler headed an organization that killed 16 million
3. The KKK STILL exists as a fringe group 140 years later (sadly). Hitler's National Socialist Movement died in Berlin in 1945 after 300 million people so disagreed with it they mobilized everything they had and destroyed it.
4. Hitler was disgraced in defeat. Forrest was lauded by, among others, WT Sherman in the post war years.

First off you say I haven't a clue and your advocating the honoring of first Grand Wizard of the KKK? Let me respond point by point.

1. Forrest and Hitler were in different roles during their wars. You say Hitler was a military knucklehead (while I somewhat agree) he did take over Europe something that is not easy to do.

2. Whats the difference? Both men Killed WAY too many people for some very bad reasons.

3. Nazi's still exist today. Ever heard of Timothy McVeigh and the Neo-Nazi's? Also you really think we went to war with Germany because we disagreed with the Nazi's views?

Kinda odd how he was man of the year here in the US. We went to war to stop him from trying to take over the world we could have cared less about the Jews.

4. Neither men should ever be honored in any way shape or form period no matter how good they were at something.

Let's go through your errors one by one.

1. I am NOT advocating honoring Forrest. I am arguing that judging the past by todays morals is an intellectually bankrupt approach.
2. Hitler took over Europe becaue Europe had disarmed or relied on old technologies. Polish Cavalry anyone? The Maginot Line? Once the Allies got up to speed Hitler fell apart in 18 months.
3. Timothy McVeigh was as far away from being a Nazi as one could be. He wasn't a SOCIALIST fer crissake he was anti-gov't!!!!!!! Geeze.
4. Time Magazine's criteria is SPECIFICALLY amoral in nature. It is merely a matter of influence not goodness. Sheesh.
5. If you knew anything about the history of the KKK you'd be aware it was the loosest connection of chapters. It was THE OPPOSITE of the Micromanaging Nazis led by Hitler. Saying Forrest killed in that context is unfair...as is this whole train of thought.
6. Equating scores of dead and millions of dead is a despicable moral point of view anyway.

What horrifies me most about this conversation is that I think you teach history. Please don't bring such a corrupted mindset into the classroom.

I wonder how you teach Washington and Jefferson and all the other imperfect people of the past?

I mean hell, they aren't wrth honoring either right?

Its a corrupted mindset to think that we shouldn't be honoring the first Grand Wizard of the KKK? Are you fucking kidding me or are you a racist? What bothers me about this conversation is you are a very intelligent fellow. We are in a hell of a lot of trouble in this country if our intellectuals are arguing on the side of a guy like Forrest. There is one hell of a big difference between Jefferson and Forrest.

I am NOT advocating honoring Forrest. I am arguing that judging the past by todays morals is an intellectually bankrupt approach.

And this part. Its not an issue of the past its an issue today. The issue is a group of obvious racists are starting shit by selling car tags which are a government issued plate. HOW do we not judge all of this on today's standards. This is such a joke its not funny.

And lastly the rest of your post is just you trying to argue semantics. I mean really your justifying your point that there is a difference between a few thousand that were killed and a few million. Even though its for the same reason? I mean really they are both responsible for the murder of people for racist reasons do we really need to argue numbers?

Sooner, you got a problem with Columbus Day too? There are groups people, especialy Native Americans, that accuse him of starting the Native American holocaust.

And I can tell you, his views and most and most of the explorors views on the Natives was far worse then Forrest's.

GrantZilla wrote:Sooner, you got a problem with Columbus Day too? There are groups people, especialy Native Americans, that accuse him of starting the Native American holocaust.

And I can tell you, his views and most and most of the explorors views on the Natives was far worse then Forrest's.

HELL YES I have a problem with Columbus day. I am Native American. Not a big fan of a guy who murdered a bunch of native americans.

So should we change month of August too since it's named after the first Roman Emperor who took part in wiping out thousdans, enslaving entire cultures, ect to build his Empire?

GrantZilla wrote:

Soonermark890 wrote:

HELL YES I have a problem with Columbus day. I am Native American. Not a big fan of a guy who murdered a bunch of native americans.

So should we change month of August too since it's named after the first Roman Emperor who took part in wiping out thousdans, enslaving entire cultures, ect to build his Empire?

[/quote]
Grant if you where black would you have a problem with the state you lived in honoring the main founder of the KKK? If you where Native American would you have a problem with a guy who murdered entire indian tribes? Its common sense. I personally don't celebrate Columbus day. Its an outdated holiday anyways. What reason do people have to celebrate that day? He "discovered" a place that already had people there and he was not the first one to visit the Americas anyways.

Boo-hoo. I'm of Irish heritage, you think Irish imigrants were treated well when they came to the US? They were disgriminated against, killed, and the only work could get is dangerious jobs like construction, police, fireman, ect.

Queen Elizabeth is celibrated, go look at how she and many celibrated British loyalty treated the Irish. Guess what, I don't got a problem with Lady E because I look at her position at that time.

What you are doing is re-vision history, and being a history teacher, it's very scary if this is how you are teaching your students.

You are looking at stuff from a modern point of view when should be viewing them on the morales and standards of that time.

When Forrest was around, the laws and standards of that time viewed blacks as in-human. Is that right? By today's standards, no. Back then, it was considered moral and right to own, beat, kill your slaves.

Right now, we got animal rights people that think meat eaters are killers. What if, 100 years from now alternate forms of meat is made, and the culture changes. So people who ate meat are looked back at as bad as say Michael Vick killing dogs. You want to be judged like that as Marlb put it by your grand kids?

Soonermark890 wrote:

flapanther2001 wrote:LOL at Jefferson Davis. He was the President of the Confederacy and pretty much lost every battle he was in. Richmond, VA, the former capitol of the south has streets & hotels named after him to this day.

As a historian I love the Civil War and don't mind celebrating our history and I usually encourage that as much as possible. Problem is that in this case the person involved was the first Grand Wizard of the KKK. Fuck what next we will start to honor Charles Manson?

As for Jefferson Davis I have far less of a problem with him. But really at this point in our country why dont we honor some of our other heroes in history.

I'm with you 100 percent, Sooner. The Klan committted some of the sickest crimes in history and it was Forest who actually started the Klan. Mississippi continues to be a "red neck" laughing stock and it's time that they stopped making fun of their own state. They have the dumbest Americans in that state and it's time somebody did something about it.

ill agree with sooner on this one..in his time he founded the kkk based on hatred of blacks and republicans because lincoln was a republican etc etc..the principles in his time hatred of blacks etc etc is the same as today what the kkk stands for...a war genuis who today would be tried for war crimes..if folks or legislatures want to continue that hatred under the mask of honoring a so called war hero then let them wallow in there stupiuty and bigitry which today and in forests time was the same in the kkk under the mask of patriotism..
to kill and beat your slaves back then was considered moral and not only moral but right..realy..but its wrong today..the kkk will disagree with that today that its wrong to do that..there hatred of blacks expanded to jews catholics etc etc and deep down the kkk still believes its right to kill blacks and others..nothings changed except fancy PR..so if that state and trust me they know exactly what there doing want to honor this person then it says indirectly this is our culture our history and we are proud of it..period..fortunetly most folks dont agree ..
drawing parellels to jefferson and washington who were folks that contributed much good to the nation not only in its infancy but that good impacts us today..what good real good has the kkk done...what examples of real intent of trying to correct a wrong and deliver good for all people have they done..