OK this shit is just stupid

GrantZilla wrote: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?

BULL SHIT. Telling the truth about something is not revisionist. You really want historians ignoring the facts? Are you kidding? What a joke. Its history guys not a fairy tale. So we are supposed to lie about our past to the kids? When the kids ask me if Washington had slaves I tell them the truth. Yes he had slaves but he emancipated his slaves in his will.

Also the bold is not true at all. We fought a war to end slavery in this country. So obviously that statement is complete crap.

Last thing I am judging a holiday we celebrate today. Not 100 years ago. TODAY. Columbus day is a joke of a holiday. Its been proven that Columbus didnt discover shit. Columbus was a murderer. And the guy isn't even American but he has an American holiday. The holiday is outdated and needs to go.

The real issue here is whether or not the State of 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.

My guess is, like it or not, the Mississippi Division of Sons of Confederate Veterans has a legal right to propose the issue of specialty license plates, the question is, will the State of Mississippi, agree with and/or approve the proposal. Chances are they'll approve it, but without any direct reference to Gen. Bedford Forrest.

P.S. Keep in mind, these are "specialty license plates" and not the State of Mississippi's standard license plate, and it's not like everyone in Mississippi who drives a vehicle will have to have one. This just seems like a big uproar over nothing.

Mark,

You have simply fallen beneath contempt by raising the issue of if I am a racist. It is what people do when they have no other option having lost an argument.

It's typical among today's 20 somethings. The surprise is you have fallen so low.

And you are dead wrong on Columbus as well.

The reason he matters, the reason he will ALWAYS matter (in a great way) is he was the first guy to arrive AND GENERATE ADDITIONAL INTEREST THAT DROVE THE ENTIRE ERA OF EXPLORATION!

The Vikings didn't do that, the Irish monks didn't, the Chinese (if they got here) didn't, COLUMBUS did!

The South needs to stop commemorating the Civil War unless they are going to also reference the taint of slavery.

marbleheadmaui wrote:And you are dead wrong on Columbus as well.

The reason he matters, the reason he will ALWAYS matter (in a great way) is he was the first guy to arrive AND GENERATE ADDITIONAL INTEREST THAT DROVE THE ENTIRE ERA OF EXPLORATION!

The Vikings didn't do that, the Irish monks didn't, the Chinese (if they got here) didn't, COLUMBUS did!

What Columbus and others like John Cabot really did was create a profitable enterprise out of exploration. Bringing back gold and the prospect of natural resources to European kingdoms fighting tooth and nail over the limited resources of the old world made the "business case", if you will, for funding large scale exploration.

Now, if I was a native North American I think I'd have some underlying bitterness about the way colonization went down, and Columbus is an easy scapegoat to take the fall for all of that. But, being Irish, I'll stick to hating Cromwell

marbleheadmaui wrote:Mark,

You have simply fallen beneath contempt by raising the issue of if I am a racist. It is what people do when they have no other option having lost an argument.

It's typical among today's 20 somethings. The surprise is you have fallen so low.

Remember who started the personal attacks marble. It was not me.

What horrifies me most about this conversation is that I think you teach history.

That is not acceptable. That was an insult and to me was a big one.

marbleheadmaui wrote:And you are dead wrong on Columbus as well.

The reason he matters, the reason he will ALWAYS matter (in a great way) is he was the first guy to arrive AND GENERATE ADDITIONAL INTEREST THAT DROVE THE ENTIRE ERA OF EXPLORATION!

The Vikings didn't do that, the Irish monks didn't, the Chinese (if they got here) didn't, COLUMBUS did!

Yeah that EXPLORATION was such a great thing right? I am sure all the native Americans (like Me) would agree right?

Sooner I hope don't buy into this bullshit that Natives were all just sitting around peacfully smoking their peac pipes until the Big Bad Europeans came.

Tribes were killing each other left and right. Eventualy one tribe would taken completly over and built an Empire. Just like the Aztects did by basicaly killing off all rival tribes and enslaving the rest. That was until they met a powerful tribe called Spain.

Tell me a country that wasn't envaded and "natives" were either killed off or enslaved.

Fuck, where do think Britian started? They were taken over by Roman. Same with France, and pretty much all civialized world.

GrantZilla wrote:Sooner I hope don't buy into this bullshit that Natives were all just sitting around peacfully smoking their peac pipes until the Big Bad Europeans came.

Tribes were killing each other left and right. Eventualy one tribe would taken completly over and built an Empire. Just like the Aztects did by basicaly killing off all rival tribes and enslaving the rest. That was until they met a powerful tribe called Spain.

Tell me a country that wasn't envaded and "natives" were either killed off or enslaved.

Fuck, where do think Britian started? They were taken over by Roman. Same with France, and pretty much all civialized world.

Ok and your point about all this is what? That we should celebrate murder and genocide?

Soonermark890 wrote:Ok and your point about all this is what? That we should celebrate murder and genocide?

What you can't grasp is your judging it from todays standards instead looking at time this shit went down.

Again, answer my question, should we change the month of August since it's named after Rome's first Empror that killed thousands? Maybe even millions.

GrantZilla wrote:

Soonermark890 wrote:Ok and your point about all this is what? That we should celebrate murder and genocide?

What you can't grasp is your judging it from todays standards instead looking at time this shit went down.

Again, answer my question, should we change the month of August since it's named after Rome's first Empror that killed thousands? Maybe even millions.

I am judging a holiday celebrated today by todays standards. Also I personally dont care much about August. The difference is that Columbus killed the natives that are from here not Europe. You never going to convince me that we should be celebrating a guy who committed genocide. He is in the same category as Hitler IMO.

"If I thought this war was about slavery,I would resign my commission and offer my sword to the other side."-Ulysses S. Grant

I think it's bad that people still choose to honor Forrest. The fact that he's celebrated given the history of race relations in the US and the impact the KKK has had is not a good sign. Forrest's most enduring legacy is the KKK (although it might be different closer to where he's from). If this goes through it means decision makers are actively embracing someone who represented beliefs that are morally unpopular today at a national level (and should be).

"If they want a tag commemorating veterans of the Confederacy, I don't have a problem with it," said Bailey, who is black. "They have that right. We'll look at it. As long as it's not offensive to anybody, then they have the same rights as anybody else has."

If Mississippi wants to choose Forrest in this day and age they owe an explanation as to why. My belief is if people want to celebrate Confederate ideals they should at least acknowledge that some of practices in that past were hurtful to other people and they don't believe in those anymore. It's a necessary concession. Or, they can go out and take positive actions in the name of the Confederacy. Maybe that happens but I don't hear about it. Look at Muslims. Many speak out against the radical factions and attempt to educate people on the religion to show that it's not evil when asked. Almost all disassociate themselves with the terrorists and recent atrocities taken in the name of Islam which is not something I know that Confederate supporters do.

The difference between Forrest's and the Founding Father's other historical figures cases is the majority of people know all of the whole story now. I never learned about Jefferson owning slaves in school. I wasn't taught about everything Columbus did until high school and I'm young. Things like that weren't even taught in the past. However, they are increasingly becoming common knowledge. If the decision were made today, Columbus wouldn't be as celebrated as he is. If people honestly think that everything Forrest did was right, then I question their judgment and firmly believe they should not be in positions of large influence and power. Even if they just want to celebrate his accomplishments, they need to explicitly state that because if not it comes across as a big slap in the face to a lot of people.

10 of the first 12 presidents owned slaves. Only 2 that didn't were John Adams and his son. So presidents not named Adams, all of the first 12 owned slaves.

captainanddew wrote:10 of the first 12 presidents owned slaves. Only 2 that didn't were John Adams and his son. So presidents not named Adams, all of the first 12 owned slaves.

Washington freed his slaves but yes he also owned them.

Soonermark890 wrote:

captainanddew wrote:10 of the first 12 presidents owned slaves. Only 2 that didn't were John Adams and his son. So presidents not named Adams, all of the first 12 owned slaves.

Washington freed his slaves but yes he also owned them.

Yes, upon his death.

captainanddew wrote:

Soonermark890 wrote:

captainanddew wrote:10 of the first 12 presidents owned slaves. Only 2 that didn't were John Adams and his son. So presidents not named Adams, all of the first 12 owned slaves.

Washington freed his slaves but yes he also owned them.

Yes, upon his death.

Yeah he should have done it before then if he was trying to make a statement.

An interesting fact about Columbus, he never did "discover" North America, and the regions he did explore were already inhabited. He did not see mainland North America during any of his 4 voyages.

So it's a myth, that Columbus discovered what later became the United States & Canada, and there really shouldn't even be a Columbus Day Holiday here in America, especially since it offends Native Americans, et al.

Ring wrote:An interesting fact about Columbus, he never did "discover" North America, and the regions he did explore were already inhabited. He did not see mainland North America during any of his 4 voyages.

So it's a myth, that Columbus discovered what later became the United States & Canada, and there really shouldn't even be a Columbus Day Holiday here in America, especially since it offends Native Americans, et al.

Thats how I feel. Am I going to go out and protest it? No. I have enough sense that I can just ignore it but that still doesnt mean that I like it.

Soonermark890 wrote:

Ring wrote:An interesting fact about Columbus, he never did "discover" North America, and the regions he did explore were already inhabited. He did not see mainland North America during any of his 4 voyages.

So it's a myth, that Columbus discovered what later became the United States & Canada, and there really shouldn't even be a Columbus Day Holiday here in America, especially since it offends Native Americans, et al.

Thats how I feel. Am I going to go out and protest it? No. I have enough sense that I can just ignore it but that still doesnt mean that I like it.

In 1937 President Franklin Roosevelt proclaimed every October 12 as Columbus Day, that's where it remained until 1971 when Congress declared it a federal public holiday on the second Monday in October. Kind of odd that it didn't become a fed holiday until 1971, and even odder that it became a holiday at all, considering that Columbus never even saw or set foot on mainland America.

Ring wrote:

Soonermark890 wrote:

Ring wrote:An interesting fact about Columbus, he never did "discover" North America, and the regions he did explore were already inhabited. He did not see mainland North America during any of his 4 voyages.

So it's a myth, that Columbus discovered what later became the United States & Canada, and there really shouldn't even be a Columbus Day Holiday here in America, especially since it offends Native Americans, et al.

Thats how I feel. Am I going to go out and protest it? No. I have enough sense that I can just ignore it but that still doesnt mean that I like it.

In 1937 President Franklin Roosevelt proclaimed every October 12 as Columbus Day, that's where it remained until 1971 when Congress declared it a federal public holiday on the second Monday in October. Kind of odd that it didn't become a fed holiday until 1971, and even odder that it became a holiday at all, considering that Columbus never even saw or set foot on mainland America.

And that he committed genocide on those islands that he visited looking for gold.

Again Sooner, so did a lot of rulers. Queen Elizabeth is hugely respected, and under her reign, Ireland was pulverized.

What you think Rome did? They pretty much whiped out everything to buid their empire. England, Spain, France were taken over by them, but eventualy revolted, and become a by-product of Rome's influence.

And since going on about natives. Why don't you read up what the Aztecs did. Same thing as what all building empires did. Take out rivals, and enslave the rest.

No doubt that had Spain not come in at destroyed the Aztecs, their empire would grown bigger, and likely would've moved to take over other parts, like the US.

But since North America was isloted from rest of the world, they were behind when came to this.

Soonermark890 wrote:Thats how I feel. Am I going to go out and protest it? No. I have enough sense that I can just ignore it but that still doesnt mean that I like it.

In 1937 President Franklin Roosevelt proclaimed every October 12 as Columbus Day, that's where it remained until 1971 when Congress declared it a federal public holiday on the second Monday in October. Kind of odd that it didn't become a fed holiday until 1971, and even odder that it became a holiday at all, considering that Columbus never even saw or set foot on mainland America.

And that he committed genocide on those islands that he visited looking for gold.

Columbus was more responsible for starting the biggest genocide in history rather than him and his men actually doing it themselves. Columbus paved the way, but only did a fraction of the damage done later by his successors, like Francisco Pizzaro or Hernan Cortes.

If it wasn't Columbus, it'd been someone else. Spain was already venturing out to those areas. France was on the verge too, ect, ect.

Shit, the Japanese probably would have eventualy as well, since they were always desperate to expand from their little island.

I just like how Native Americans act like they are only ones this happened to. What you think Brits did to Ireland and Scotland? OR what Romen did to pretty much everybody? Or what Aztecs were doing.