Is America a racist nation?

[tech37]

a fan, sorry had to drop this earlier...

I made this general post the other day: "History is indelible, good or bad, can't nor should be erased."

In a general sense, do you agree? If not, let's stop there because any discussion thereafter will hit the wall.

No, I don't agree. And I doubt you do you in any other instance . We erase history all the time, every day. Doubly so when bad things happen.

-should we leave up all those "whites only" signs at hotels, restaurants and water fountains? Can't erase history, right?

-should we leave up the banners with swastikas on them that were flown in Madison Square Garden before WWII? Can't erase history?

-or how about the World Trade Center? Why'd we clean that up? Leave "history" as is, right?

-at my High School, Columbine, they destroyed the library where many of the kids were killed. We should have left that? That's your position?


You and OS are behaving as if you think that former slaves and their children are the ones who put up those Confederate statues....and that people in 2021 are just being fickle. If you REALLY believe this "history" angle? Take a look at who, when, and why those Confederate statues were installed. It ain't pretty. Heck---- tell this history, as you put it, and post a big sign next to most statues that reads: "white racists paid to put this in at the height of Jim Crow to show black Americans who runs things around here. And the current people of this town still think this monument is a good idea"

And if you still disagree with them being removed, that's cool. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. But the reaction you and OS are getting here is because you're behaving as if you don't understand why some Americans don't want to celebrate traitors who tried to dissolve America. Traitors who fought to keep some of your fellow Americans in chains. If that's not what you mean to convey, ok...but I"m telling you, that's the message you're sending.

"No, I don't agree." would have been sufficient

I preferred the full-throated reply. Thanks!

+1

A very clear, full-throated, thoughtful reply.
It's painful to watch the squirminess of the responses though.

But I'll take a crack at a further clarification by saying, tech, none of your fellow posters would suggest that it's not important to study and understand the lessons of history, all of it, but when you use the language of the hard right, "history...should not be erased" when specifically talking about these sorts of monuments, etc, any rational reader will logically assume that's intentional and quite correctly draw the inference that you think removal of such is 'erasing history'.

Which is total BS.

History ain't erased.
But choices as to who and what to honor are being made every day based on that history...all of that history.
Leaving a statue or a portrait or a name of something in place is a choice, just as it is a choice to change it.

In the first half plus of the last century, a whole lot of choices were made to 'honor' people associated with the Confederacy, often explicitly and always implicitly, designed to intimidate a part of the population of fellow citizens. It was always infused with white supremacist intent or assumptions. In many parts of the country, that intent was supported by a majority of the voting population, certainly by most of those already in power. and others just assumed, "that's the way it is".

Thankfully, the country no longer has a majority that supports that intent, though one can certainly find large pockets of such still today. And thus the backlash to making different choices about what we honor and what we do not is not surprising.

So, tech, how do you choose?

blah, blah, blah...you guys are a joke...either can't read and/or understand context, or worse, don't give a sh!t. And you wonder why people don't want to engage.

Here's what I reasonably wrote to a fan in my original post which he conveniently edited out...talk about playing some "game":
"After I posted that, you did an immediate turn to discuss statues. Obviously that subject requires nuance/discernment and I'm sure we would find agreement in some, perhaps most instances."

Despite that discreet statement, you dudes forge ahead with diatribes that often inaccurately represent other's opinions

BTW, regarding statues/monuments, which you guys seem obsessed with... on that I'm not sure OS and I agree completely (which is fine of course) but I do agree with a lot of what Kismet (who seems as informed as anyone on here) has posted.

[Farfromgeneva]

Winter months suck everyone gets bitter.

[Typical Lax Dad]

a fan, sorry had to drop this earlier...

I made this general post the other day: "History is indelible, good or bad, can't nor should be erased."

In a general sense, do you agree? If not, let's stop there because any discussion thereafter will hit the wall.

No, I don't agree. And I doubt you do you in any other instance . We erase history all the time, every day. Doubly so when bad things happen.

-should we leave up all those "whites only" signs at hotels, restaurants and water fountains? Can't erase history, right?

-should we leave up the banners with swastikas on them that were flown in Madison Square Garden before WWII? Can't erase history?

-or how about the World Trade Center? Why'd we clean that up? Leave "history" as is, right?

-at my High School, Columbine, they destroyed the library where many of the kids were killed. We should have left that? That's your position?


You and OS are behaving as if you think that former slaves and their children are the ones who put up those Confederate statues....and that people in 2021 are just being fickle. If you REALLY believe this "history" angle? Take a look at who, when, and why those Confederate statues were installed. It ain't pretty. Heck---- tell this history, as you put it, and post a big sign next to most statues that reads: "white racists paid to put this in at the height of Jim Crow to show black Americans who runs things around here. And the current people of this town still think this monument is a good idea"

And if you still disagree with them being removed, that's cool. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. But the reaction you and OS are getting here is because you're behaving as if you don't understand why some Americans don't want to celebrate traitors who tried to dissolve America. Traitors who fought to keep some of your fellow Americans in chains. If that's not what you mean to convey, ok...but I"m telling you, that's the message you're sending.

"No, I don't agree." would have been sufficient

I preferred the full-throated reply. Thanks!

+1

A very clear, full-throated, thoughtful reply.
It's painful to watch the squirminess of the responses though.

But I'll take a crack at a further clarification by saying, tech, none of your fellow posters would suggest that it's not important to study and understand the lessons of history, all of it, but when you use the language of the hard right, "history...should not be erased" when specifically talking about these sorts of monuments, etc, any rational reader will logically assume that's intentional and quite correctly draw the inference that you think removal of such is 'erasing history'.

Which is total BS.

History ain't erased.
But choices as to who and what to honor are being made every day based on that history...all of that history.
Leaving a statue or a portrait or a name of something in place is a choice, just as it is a choice to change it.

In the first half plus of the last century, a whole lot of choices were made to 'honor' people associated with the Confederacy, often explicitly and always implicitly, designed to intimidate a part of the population of fellow citizens. It was always infused with white supremacist intent or assumptions. In many parts of the country, that intent was supported by a majority of the voting population, certainly by most of those already in power. and others just assumed, "that's the way it is".

Thankfully, the country no longer has a majority that supports that intent, though one can certainly find large pockets of such still today. And thus the backlash to making different choices about what we honor and what we do not is not surprising.

So, tech, how do you choose?

blah, blah, blah...you guys are a joke...either can't read and/or understand context, or worse, don't give a sh!t. And you wonder why people don't want to engage.

Here's what I reasonably wrote to a fan in my original post which he conveniently edited out...talk about playing some "game":
"After I posted that, you did an immediate turn to discuss statues. Obviously that subject requires nuance/discernment and I'm sure we would find agreement in some, perhaps most instances."

Despite that discreet statement, you dudes forge ahead with diatribes that often inaccurately represent other's opinions

BTW, regarding statues/monuments, which you guys seem obsessed with... on that I'm not sure OS and I agree completely (which is fine of course) but I do agree with a lot of what Kismet (who seems as informed as anyone on here) has posted.

[Kismet]

a fan, sorry had to drop this earlier...

I made this general post the other day: "History is indelible, good or bad, can't nor should be erased."

In a general sense, do you agree? If not, let's stop there because any discussion thereafter will hit the wall.

No, I don't agree. And I doubt you do you in any other instance . We erase history all the time, every day. Doubly so when bad things happen.

-should we leave up all those "whites only" signs at hotels, restaurants and water fountains? Can't erase history, right?

-should we leave up the banners with swastikas on them that were flown in Madison Square Garden before WWII? Can't erase history?

-or how about the World Trade Center? Why'd we clean that up? Leave "history" as is, right?

-at my High School, Columbine, they destroyed the library where many of the kids were killed. We should have left that? That's your position?


You and OS are behaving as if you think that former slaves and their children are the ones who put up those Confederate statues....and that people in 2021 are just being fickle. If you REALLY believe this "history" angle? Take a look at who, when, and why those Confederate statues were installed. It ain't pretty. Heck---- tell this history, as you put it, and post a big sign next to most statues that reads: "white racists paid to put this in at the height of Jim Crow to show black Americans who runs things around here. And the current people of this town still think this monument is a good idea"

And if you still disagree with them being removed, that's cool. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. But the reaction you and OS are getting here is because you're behaving as if you don't understand why some Americans don't want to celebrate traitors who tried to dissolve America. Traitors who fought to keep some of your fellow Americans in chains. If that's not what you mean to convey, ok...but I"m telling you, that's the message you're sending.

"No, I don't agree." would have been sufficient

I preferred the full-throated reply. Thanks!

+1

A very clear, full-throated, thoughtful reply.
It's painful to watch the squirminess of the responses though.

But I'll take a crack at a further clarification by saying, tech, none of your fellow posters would suggest that it's not important to study and understand the lessons of history, all of it, but when you use the language of the hard right, "history...should not be erased" when specifically talking about these sorts of monuments, etc, any rational reader will logically assume that's intentional and quite correctly draw the inference that you think removal of such is 'erasing history'.

Which is total BS.

History ain't erased.
But choices as to who and what to honor are being made every day based on that history...all of that history.
Leaving a statue or a portrait or a name of something in place is a choice, just as it is a choice to change it.

In the first half plus of the last century, a whole lot of choices were made to 'honor' people associated with the Confederacy, often explicitly and always implicitly, designed to intimidate a part of the population of fellow citizens. It was always infused with white supremacist intent or assumptions. In many parts of the country, that intent was supported by a majority of the voting population, certainly by most of those already in power. and others just assumed, "that's the way it is".

Thankfully, the country no longer has a majority that supports that intent, though one can certainly find large pockets of such still today. And thus the backlash to making different choices about what we honor and what we do not is not surprising.

So, tech, how do you choose?

blah, blah, blah...you guys are a joke...either can't read and/or understand context, or worse, don't give a sh!t. And you wonder why people don't want to engage.

Here's what I reasonably wrote to a fan in my original post which he conveniently edited out of course...talk about playing some "game": "After I posted that, you did an immediate turn to discuss statues. Obviously that subject requires nuance/discernment and I'm sure we would find agreement in some, perhaps most instances."

Despite that discreet statement, you dudes forge ahead with diatribes that inaccurately represent

BTW, regarding statues/monuments, which you guys seem obsessed with... on that I'm not sure OS and I agree completely (which is fine of course) but I do agree with a lot of what Kismet (who seems as informed as anyone on here) has posted.

Thx for the compliment tech. In a nutshell IMHO we live in a great country that has accomplished many, many incredible and beneficial things over our 250 years of existence. Having said that, our path during that same 250 years contains events and actions that are not in keeping with the ideals of the nation created beginning in 1776. It is not perfection. We should know all about those things (along with a plethora of good things, too) and understand them in the context of when they occurred and acknowledge their deleterious effect on the population both at the time they occurred as well as a lingering bad feelings or injustice. By doing this, we can hope to avoid similar issues in the future and become an even greater nation. IMHO this is what liberty and justice for all means in practice.

As for monuments, we do send a message in what we choose to commemorate but there is discernment in that as well which is why I call BS on Confederate monuments and can still understand and celebrate Washington and Jefferson on the totality of their lives and contributions to this country for which they should be celebrated but also all of their actions be understood in the context of their times. Take Washington, for example, he owned slaves and did not free them when he had an opportunity to.. I'm sure he considered them a substandard race that the rules that applied to him and other white people did not apply to them. He also could have become a king had he chosen to but he voluntarily walked away after 8 years setting a precedent that lasted until 1940. In my mind, this counts for something very significant when I think of him historically. It does not forgive his treatment of slaves, his bad military management during the French & Indian War and more than a few other less than honorable things he did in his life. But, in total, he is deserving of the monument that commemorates him which, by the way, in the tallest structure within the District of Columbia. Ditto for Jefferson. Without these two men and many others like them, we might not not enjoy the life we all live today.

[tech37]

a fan, sorry had to drop this earlier...

I made this general post the other day: "History is indelible, good or bad, can't nor should be erased."

In a general sense, do you agree? If not, let's stop there because any discussion thereafter will hit the wall.

No, I don't agree. And I doubt you do you in any other instance . We erase history all the time, every day. Doubly so when bad things happen.

-should we leave up all those "whites only" signs at hotels, restaurants and water fountains? Can't erase history, right?

-should we leave up the banners with swastikas on them that were flown in Madison Square Garden before WWII? Can't erase history?

-or how about the World Trade Center? Why'd we clean that up? Leave "history" as is, right?

-at my High School, Columbine, they destroyed the library where many of the kids were killed. We should have left that? That's your position?


You and OS are behaving as if you think that former slaves and their children are the ones who put up those Confederate statues....and that people in 2021 are just being fickle. If you REALLY believe this "history" angle? Take a look at who, when, and why those Confederate statues were installed. It ain't pretty. Heck---- tell this history, as you put it, and post a big sign next to most statues that reads: "white racists paid to put this in at the height of Jim Crow to show black Americans who runs things around here. And the current people of this town still think this monument is a good idea"

And if you still disagree with them being removed, that's cool. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. But the reaction you and OS are getting here is because you're behaving as if you don't understand why some Americans don't want to celebrate traitors who tried to dissolve America. Traitors who fought to keep some of your fellow Americans in chains. If that's not what you mean to convey, ok...but I"m telling you, that's the message you're sending.

"No, I don't agree." would have been sufficient

I preferred the full-throated reply. Thanks!

+1

A very clear, full-throated, thoughtful reply.
It's painful to watch the squirminess of the responses though.

But I'll take a crack at a further clarification by saying, tech, none of your fellow posters would suggest that it's not important to study and understand the lessons of history, all of it, but when you use the language of the hard right, "history...should not be erased" when specifically talking about these sorts of monuments, etc, any rational reader will logically assume that's intentional and quite correctly draw the inference that you think removal of such is 'erasing history'.

Which is total BS.

History ain't erased.
But choices as to who and what to honor are being made every day based on that history...all of that history.
Leaving a statue or a portrait or a name of something in place is a choice, just as it is a choice to change it.

In the first half plus of the last century, a whole lot of choices were made to 'honor' people associated with the Confederacy, often explicitly and always implicitly, designed to intimidate a part of the population of fellow citizens. It was always infused with white supremacist intent or assumptions. In many parts of the country, that intent was supported by a majority of the voting population, certainly by most of those already in power. and others just assumed, "that's the way it is".

Thankfully, the country no longer has a majority that supports that intent, though one can certainly find large pockets of such still today. And thus the backlash to making different choices about what we honor and what we do not is not surprising.

So, tech, how do you choose?

blah, blah, blah...you guys are a joke...either can't read and/or understand context, or worse, don't give a sh!t. And you wonder why people don't want to engage.

Here's what I reasonably wrote to a fan in my original post which he conveniently edited out of course...talk about playing some "game": "After I posted that, you did an immediate turn to discuss statues. Obviously that subject requires nuance/discernment and I'm sure we would find agreement in some, perhaps most instances."

Despite that discreet statement, you dudes forge ahead with diatribes that inaccurately represent

BTW, regarding statues/monuments, which you guys seem obsessed with... on that I'm not sure OS and I agree completely (which is fine of course) but I do agree with a lot of what Kismet (who seems as informed as anyone on here) has posted.

Thx for the compliment tech. In a nutshell IMHO we live in a great country that has accomplished many, many incredible and beneficial things over our 250 years of existence. Having said that, our path during that same 250 years contains events and actions that are not in keeping with the ideals of the nation created beginning in 1776. It is not perfection. We should know all about those things (along with a plethora of good things, too) and understand them in the context of when they occurred and acknowledge their deleterious effect on the population both at the time they occurred as well as a lingering bad feelings or injustice. By doing this, we can hope to avoid similar issues in the future and become an even greater nation. IMHO this is what liberty and justice for all means in practice.

As for monuments, we do send a message in what we choose to commemorate but there is discernment in that as well which is why I call BS on Confederate monuments and can still understand and celebrate Washington and Jefferson on the totality of their lives and contributions to this country for which they should be celebrated but also all of their actions be understood in the context of their times. Take Washington, for example, he owned slaves and did not free them when he had an opportunity to.. I'm sure he considered them a substandard race that the rules that applied to him and other white people did not apply to them. He also could have become a king had he chosen to but he voluntarily walked away after 8 years setting a precedent that lasted until 1940. In my mind, this counts for something very significant when I think of him historically. It does not forgive his treatment of slaves, his bad military management during the French & Indian War and more than a few other less than honorable things he did in his life. But, in total, he is deserving of the monument that commemorates him which, by the way, in the tallest structure within the District of Columbia. Ditto for Jefferson. Without these two men and many others like them, we might not not enjoy the life we all live today.

+++1

[Farfromgeneva]

a fan, sorry had to drop this earlier...

I made this general post the other day: "History is indelible, good or bad, can't nor should be erased."

In a general sense, do you agree? If not, let's stop there because any discussion thereafter will hit the wall.

No, I don't agree. And I doubt you do you in any other instance . We erase history all the time, every day. Doubly so when bad things happen.

-should we leave up all those "whites only" signs at hotels, restaurants and water fountains? Can't erase history, right?

-should we leave up the banners with swastikas on them that were flown in Madison Square Garden before WWII? Can't erase history?

-or how about the World Trade Center? Why'd we clean that up? Leave "history" as is, right?

-at my High School, Columbine, they destroyed the library where many of the kids were killed. We should have left that? That's your position?


You and OS are behaving as if you think that former slaves and their children are the ones who put up those Confederate statues....and that people in 2021 are just being fickle. If you REALLY believe this "history" angle? Take a look at who, when, and why those Confederate statues were installed. It ain't pretty. Heck---- tell this history, as you put it, and post a big sign next to most statues that reads: "white racists paid to put this in at the height of Jim Crow to show black Americans who runs things around here. And the current people of this town still think this monument is a good idea"

And if you still disagree with them being removed, that's cool. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. But the reaction you and OS are getting here is because you're behaving as if you don't understand why some Americans don't want to celebrate traitors who tried to dissolve America. Traitors who fought to keep some of your fellow Americans in chains. If that's not what you mean to convey, ok...but I"m telling you, that's the message you're sending.

"No, I don't agree." would have been sufficient

I preferred the full-throated reply. Thanks!

+1

A very clear, full-throated, thoughtful reply.
It's painful to watch the squirminess of the responses though.

But I'll take a crack at a further clarification by saying, tech, none of your fellow posters would suggest that it's not important to study and understand the lessons of history, all of it, but when you use the language of the hard right, "history...should not be erased" when specifically talking about these sorts of monuments, etc, any rational reader will logically assume that's intentional and quite correctly draw the inference that you think removal of such is 'erasing history'.

Which is total BS.

History ain't erased.
But choices as to who and what to honor are being made every day based on that history...all of that history.
Leaving a statue or a portrait or a name of something in place is a choice, just as it is a choice to change it.

In the first half plus of the last century, a whole lot of choices were made to 'honor' people associated with the Confederacy, often explicitly and always implicitly, designed to intimidate a part of the population of fellow citizens. It was always infused with white supremacist intent or assumptions. In many parts of the country, that intent was supported by a majority of the voting population, certainly by most of those already in power. and others just assumed, "that's the way it is".

Thankfully, the country no longer has a majority that supports that intent, though one can certainly find large pockets of such still today. And thus the backlash to making different choices about what we honor and what we do not is not surprising.

So, tech, how do you choose?

blah, blah, blah...you guys are a joke...either can't read and/or understand context, or worse, don't give a sh!t. And you wonder why people don't want to engage.

Here's what I reasonably wrote to a fan in my original post which he conveniently edited out of course...talk about playing some "game": "After I posted that, you did an immediate turn to discuss statues. Obviously that subject requires nuance/discernment and I'm sure we would find agreement in some, perhaps most instances."

Despite that discreet statement, you dudes forge ahead with diatribes that inaccurately represent

BTW, regarding statues/monuments, which you guys seem obsessed with... on that I'm not sure OS and I agree completely (which is fine of course) but I do agree with a lot of what Kismet (who seems as informed as anyone on here) has posted.

Thx for the compliment tech. In a nutshell IMHO we live in a great country that has accomplished many, many incredible and beneficial things over our 250 years of existence. Having said that, our path during that same 250 years contains events and actions that are not in keeping with the ideals of the nation created beginning in 1776. It is not perfection. We should know all about those things (along with a plethora of good things, too) and understand them in the context of when they occurred and acknowledge their deleterious effect on the population both at the time they occurred as well as a lingering bad feelings or injustice. By doing this, we can hope to avoid similar issues in the future and become an even greater nation. IMHO this is what liberty and justice for all means in practice.

As for monuments, we do send a message in what we choose to commemorate but there is discernment in that as well which is why I call BS on Confederate monuments and can still understand and celebrate Washington and Jefferson on the totality of their lives and contributions to this country for which they should be celebrated but also all of their actions be understood in the context of their times. Take Washington, for example, he owned slaves and did not free them when he had an opportunity to.. I'm sure he considered them a substandard race that the rules that applied to him and other white people did not apply to them. He also could have become a king had he chosen to but he voluntarily walked away after 8 years setting a precedent that lasted until 1940. In my mind, this counts for something very significant when I think of him historically. It does not forgive his treatment of slaves, his bad military management during the French & Indian War and more than a few other less than honorable things he did in his life. But, in total, he is deserving of the monument that commemorates him which, by the way, in the tallest structure within the District of Columbia. Ditto for Jefferson. Without these two men and many others like them, we might not not enjoy the life we all live today.

I’m clearly not for memorializations of much of anything pretty much across the board that tie up physical resources but I find the binary argument some folks make beyond inane. “Ohh, well let’s just tear them all down then if they ever did one bad thing! Uggh”. People are imperfect, why erecting monuments to them seems silly unless we’re erecting flawed images of people as human beings. Not them looking great and triumphant.

So yeah, I agree generally with you, they are here now and it comes down to an argument of body of work and probably the most extreme positive and most extreme negative in their resume (in other words there’s some stuff that almost no amount of good deeds can overcome think the Joe Pa statue on Penn States campus as a obvious example). That ought to clear out about 65-85% of the questionable statues and leave a chunk that are “there so we may as well keep them” based on my view that none should ever be erected. Then there’s like 15-35% that can be argued on the body of work. Seems that simple, give or take on my percentages.

IMO, The guys who would be most defensible of maintaining statues would likely be the first ones to say “nah, this hurts certain people we don’t want it do, tear me down”.

[MDlaxfan76]

a fan, sorry had to drop this earlier...

I made this general post the other day: "History is indelible, good or bad, can't nor should be erased."

In a general sense, do you agree? If not, let's stop there because any discussion thereafter will hit the wall.

No, I don't agree. And I doubt you do you in any other instance . We erase history all the time, every day. Doubly so when bad things happen.

-should we leave up all those "whites only" signs at hotels, restaurants and water fountains? Can't erase history, right?

-should we leave up the banners with swastikas on them that were flown in Madison Square Garden before WWII? Can't erase history?

-or how about the World Trade Center? Why'd we clean that up? Leave "history" as is, right?

-at my High School, Columbine, they destroyed the library where many of the kids were killed. We should have left that? That's your position?


You and OS are behaving as if you think that former slaves and their children are the ones who put up those Confederate statues....and that people in 2021 are just being fickle. If you REALLY believe this "history" angle? Take a look at who, when, and why those Confederate statues were installed. It ain't pretty. Heck---- tell this history, as you put it, and post a big sign next to most statues that reads: "white racists paid to put this in at the height of Jim Crow to show black Americans who runs things around here. And the current people of this town still think this monument is a good idea"

And if you still disagree with them being removed, that's cool. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. But the reaction you and OS are getting here is because you're behaving as if you don't understand why some Americans don't want to celebrate traitors who tried to dissolve America. Traitors who fought to keep some of your fellow Americans in chains. If that's not what you mean to convey, ok...but I"m telling you, that's the message you're sending.

"No, I don't agree." would have been sufficient

I preferred the full-throated reply. Thanks!

+1

A very clear, full-throated, thoughtful reply.
It's painful to watch the squirminess of the responses though.

But I'll take a crack at a further clarification by saying, tech, none of your fellow posters would suggest that it's not important to study and understand the lessons of history, all of it, but when you use the language of the hard right, "history...should not be erased" when specifically talking about these sorts of monuments, etc, any rational reader will logically assume that's intentional and quite correctly draw the inference that you think removal of such is 'erasing history'.

Which is total BS.

History ain't erased.
But choices as to who and what to honor are being made every day based on that history...all of that history.
Leaving a statue or a portrait or a name of something in place is a choice, just as it is a choice to change it.

In the first half plus of the last century, a whole lot of choices were made to 'honor' people associated with the Confederacy, often explicitly and always implicitly, designed to intimidate a part of the population of fellow citizens. It was always infused with white supremacist intent or assumptions. In many parts of the country, that intent was supported by a majority of the voting population, certainly by most of those already in power. and others just assumed, "that's the way it is".

Thankfully, the country no longer has a majority that supports that intent, though one can certainly find large pockets of such still today. And thus the backlash to making different choices about what we honor and what we do not is not surprising.

So, tech, how do you choose?

blah, blah, blah...you guys are a joke...either can't read and/or understand context, or worse, don't give a sh!t. And you wonder why people don't want to engage.

Here's what I reasonably wrote to a fan in my original post which he conveniently edited out...talk about playing some "game":
"After I posted that, you did an immediate turn to discuss statues. Obviously that subject requires nuance/discernment and I'm sure we would find agreement in some, perhaps most instances."

Despite that discreet statement, you dudes forge ahead with diatribes that often inaccurately represent other's opinions

BTW, regarding statues/monuments, which you guys seem obsessed with... on that I'm not sure OS and I agree completely (which is fine of course) but I do agree with a lot of what Kismet (who seems as informed as anyone on here) has posted.

So, if you agree so completely with Kismet's views, as described above, and as I clearly do in this post, why do you refuse to say you agree, or at least engage with mine here? Or a fan. Simply clarify, don't squirm.

Where you agree, say so. Where you disagree, say so. Stop asking people to guess.

You were using language of the hard right...in the context of a discussion about monuments and portraits etc. That was the context. Obviously that's going to be understood as conforming to the hard right's views on this topic.

If that's not your intent, say so clearly.
No one's going to give you the benefit of the doubt when you use that language.

And no, OS, clearly doesn't agree with the removal of the Confederate monuments, portraits, base names, etc. Align yourself with his views, and you're not agreeing with Kismet after all.

[tech37]

a fan, sorry had to drop this earlier...

I made this general post the other day: "History is indelible, good or bad, can't nor should be erased."

In a general sense, do you agree? If not, let's stop there because any discussion thereafter will hit the wall.

No, I don't agree. And I doubt you do you in any other instance . We erase history all the time, every day. Doubly so when bad things happen.

-should we leave up all those "whites only" signs at hotels, restaurants and water fountains? Can't erase history, right?

-should we leave up the banners with swastikas on them that were flown in Madison Square Garden before WWII? Can't erase history?

-or how about the World Trade Center? Why'd we clean that up? Leave "history" as is, right?

-at my High School, Columbine, they destroyed the library where many of the kids were killed. We should have left that? That's your position?


You and OS are behaving as if you think that former slaves and their children are the ones who put up those Confederate statues....and that people in 2021 are just being fickle. If you REALLY believe this "history" angle? Take a look at who, when, and why those Confederate statues were installed. It ain't pretty. Heck---- tell this history, as you put it, and post a big sign next to most statues that reads: "white racists paid to put this in at the height of Jim Crow to show black Americans who runs things around here. And the current people of this town still think this monument is a good idea"

And if you still disagree with them being removed, that's cool. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. But the reaction you and OS are getting here is because you're behaving as if you don't understand why some Americans don't want to celebrate traitors who tried to dissolve America. Traitors who fought to keep some of your fellow Americans in chains. If that's not what you mean to convey, ok...but I"m telling you, that's the message you're sending.

"No, I don't agree." would have been sufficient

I preferred the full-throated reply. Thanks!

+1

A very clear, full-throated, thoughtful reply.
It's painful to watch the squirminess of the responses though.

But I'll take a crack at a further clarification by saying, tech, none of your fellow posters would suggest that it's not important to study and understand the lessons of history, all of it, but when you use the language of the hard right, "history...should not be erased" when specifically talking about these sorts of monuments, etc, any rational reader will logically assume that's intentional and quite correctly draw the inference that you think removal of such is 'erasing history'.

Which is total BS.

History ain't erased.
But choices as to who and what to honor are being made every day based on that history...all of that history.
Leaving a statue or a portrait or a name of something in place is a choice, just as it is a choice to change it.

In the first half plus of the last century, a whole lot of choices were made to 'honor' people associated with the Confederacy, often explicitly and always implicitly, designed to intimidate a part of the population of fellow citizens. It was always infused with white supremacist intent or assumptions. In many parts of the country, that intent was supported by a majority of the voting population, certainly by most of those already in power. and others just assumed, "that's the way it is".

Thankfully, the country no longer has a majority that supports that intent, though one can certainly find large pockets of such still today. And thus the backlash to making different choices about what we honor and what we do not is not surprising.

So, tech, how do you choose?

blah, blah, blah...you guys are a joke...either can't read and/or understand context, or worse, don't give a sh!t. And you wonder why people don't want to engage.

Here's what I reasonably wrote to a fan in my original post which he conveniently edited out...talk about playing some "game":
"After I posted that, you did an immediate turn to discuss statues. Obviously that subject requires nuance/discernment and I'm sure we would find agreement in some, perhaps most instances."

Despite that discreet statement, you dudes forge ahead with diatribes that often inaccurately represent other's opinions

BTW, regarding statues/monuments, which you guys seem obsessed with... on that I'm not sure OS and I agree completely (which is fine of course) but I do agree with a lot of what Kismet (who seems as informed as anyone on here) has posted.

So, if you agree so completely with Kismet's views, as described above, and as I clearly do in this post, why do you refuse to say you agree, or at least engage with mine here? Or a fan. Simply clarify, don't squirm.

Where you agree, say so. Where you disagree, say so. Stop asking people to guess.

You were using language of the hard right...in the context of a discussion about monuments and portraits etc. That was the context. Obviously that's going to be understood as conforming to the hard right's views on this topic.

If that's not your intent, say so clearly.
No one's going to give you the benefit of the doubt when you use that language.

And no, OS, clearly doesn't agree with the removal of the Confederate monuments, portraits, base names, etc. Align yourself with his views, and you're not agreeing with Kismet after all.

So don't guess. Just ask, as I've suggested more than once to a fan, in the interest of honest discourse.

That way you won't say dumb stuff like, "You were using language of the hard right"

Man is that ever beat/duplicitous language at this point

[MDlaxfan76]

a fan, sorry had to drop this earlier...

I made this general post the other day: "History is indelible, good or bad, can't nor should be erased."

In a general sense, do you agree? If not, let's stop there because any discussion thereafter will hit the wall.

No, I don't agree. And I doubt you do you in any other instance . We erase history all the time, every day. Doubly so when bad things happen.

-should we leave up all those "whites only" signs at hotels, restaurants and water fountains? Can't erase history, right?

-should we leave up the banners with swastikas on them that were flown in Madison Square Garden before WWII? Can't erase history?

-or how about the World Trade Center? Why'd we clean that up? Leave "history" as is, right?

-at my High School, Columbine, they destroyed the library where many of the kids were killed. We should have left that? That's your position?


You and OS are behaving as if you think that former slaves and their children are the ones who put up those Confederate statues....and that people in 2021 are just being fickle. If you REALLY believe this "history" angle? Take a look at who, when, and why those Confederate statues were installed. It ain't pretty. Heck---- tell this history, as you put it, and post a big sign next to most statues that reads: "white racists paid to put this in at the height of Jim Crow to show black Americans who runs things around here. And the current people of this town still think this monument is a good idea"

And if you still disagree with them being removed, that's cool. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. But the reaction you and OS are getting here is because you're behaving as if you don't understand why some Americans don't want to celebrate traitors who tried to dissolve America. Traitors who fought to keep some of your fellow Americans in chains. If that's not what you mean to convey, ok...but I"m telling you, that's the message you're sending.

"No, I don't agree." would have been sufficient

I preferred the full-throated reply. Thanks!

+1

A very clear, full-throated, thoughtful reply.
It's painful to watch the squirminess of the responses though.

But I'll take a crack at a further clarification by saying, tech, none of your fellow posters would suggest that it's not important to study and understand the lessons of history, all of it, but when you use the language of the hard right, "history...should not be erased" when specifically talking about these sorts of monuments, etc, any rational reader will logically assume that's intentional and quite correctly draw the inference that you think removal of such is 'erasing history'.

Which is total BS.

History ain't erased.
But choices as to who and what to honor are being made every day based on that history...all of that history.
Leaving a statue or a portrait or a name of something in place is a choice, just as it is a choice to change it.

In the first half plus of the last century, a whole lot of choices were made to 'honor' people associated with the Confederacy, often explicitly and always implicitly, designed to intimidate a part of the population of fellow citizens. It was always infused with white supremacist intent or assumptions. In many parts of the country, that intent was supported by a majority of the voting population, certainly by most of those already in power. and others just assumed, "that's the way it is".

Thankfully, the country no longer has a majority that supports that intent, though one can certainly find large pockets of such still today. And thus the backlash to making different choices about what we honor and what we do not is not surprising.

So, tech, how do you choose?

blah, blah, blah...you guys are a joke...either can't read and/or understand context, or worse, don't give a sh!t. And you wonder why people don't want to engage.

Here's what I reasonably wrote to a fan in my original post which he conveniently edited out...talk about playing some "game":
"After I posted that, you did an immediate turn to discuss statues. Obviously that subject requires nuance/discernment and I'm sure we would find agreement in some, perhaps most instances."

Despite that discreet statement, you dudes forge ahead with diatribes that often inaccurately represent other's opinions

BTW, regarding statues/monuments, which you guys seem obsessed with... on that I'm not sure OS and I agree completely (which is fine of course) but I do agree with a lot of what Kismet (who seems as informed as anyone on here) has posted.

So, if you agree so completely with Kismet's views, as described above, and as I clearly do in this post, why do you refuse to say you agree, or at least engage with mine here? Or a fan. Simply clarify, don't squirm.

Where you agree, say so. Where you disagree, say so. Stop asking people to guess.

You were using language of the hard right...in the context of a discussion about monuments and portraits etc. That was the context. Obviously that's going to be understood as conforming to the hard right's views on this topic.

If that's not your intent, say so clearly.
No one's going to give you the benefit of the doubt when you use that language.

And no, OS, clearly doesn't agree with the removal of the Confederate monuments, portraits, base names, etc. Align yourself with his views, and you're not agreeing with Kismet after all.

So don't guess. Just ask, as I've suggested more than once to a fan, in the interest of honest discourse.

That way you won't say dumb stuff like, "You were using language of the hard right"

Man is that ever beat/duplicitous language at this point

A fan had asked.

As did I...you refused to engage and clarify.

I called that squirminess.

And yes, I quoted the exact terminology you used....do you really not recognize that "history...should not be erased" is the language of the hard right?

Do you really not recognize it specifically in the context of Confederate monuments, portraits, base names, etc that has been their cause celebre?

Really?

Here's your full sentence, to which you asked for agreement, else would not discuss anything further: "History is indelible, good or bad, can't nor should be erased."

The word "erased" is when the 'tell' went on...had you simply asked, "Do you agree that history should be studied thoroughly, from all perspectives, so that we can learn from the successes and mistakes of the past" you'd have easily found agreement...but no, you intentionally used "erased".

[Farfromgeneva]

You have to ask it in a certain way that he likes. I’ve experienced that in the past-redefine words on the fly in response and then force the other to assume that definition is agreed upon. Make everyone else do the work and resent when required to make any effort themselves.

[cradleandshoot]

I never knew those silly rednecks were code talkers. Is there a translation guide somewhere on this forum? Do FLP folks also speak in code as well?

[Kismet]

a fan, sorry had to drop this earlier...

I made this general post the other day: "History is indelible, good or bad, can't nor should be erased."

In a general sense, do you agree? If not, let's stop there because any discussion thereafter will hit the wall.

No, I don't agree. And I doubt you do you in any other instance . We erase history all the time, every day. Doubly so when bad things happen.

-should we leave up all those "whites only" signs at hotels, restaurants and water fountains? Can't erase history, right?

-should we leave up the banners with swastikas on them that were flown in Madison Square Garden before WWII? Can't erase history?

-or how about the World Trade Center? Why'd we clean that up? Leave "history" as is, right?

-at my High School, Columbine, they destroyed the library where many of the kids were killed. We should have left that? That's your position?


You and OS are behaving as if you think that former slaves and their children are the ones who put up those Confederate statues....and that people in 2021 are just being fickle. If you REALLY believe this "history" angle? Take a look at who, when, and why those Confederate statues were installed. It ain't pretty. Heck---- tell this history, as you put it, and post a big sign next to most statues that reads: "white racists paid to put this in at the height of Jim Crow to show black Americans who runs things around here. And the current people of this town still think this monument is a good idea"

And if you still disagree with them being removed, that's cool. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. But the reaction you and OS are getting here is because you're behaving as if you don't understand why some Americans don't want to celebrate traitors who tried to dissolve America. Traitors who fought to keep some of your fellow Americans in chains. If that's not what you mean to convey, ok...but I"m telling you, that's the message you're sending.

"No, I don't agree." would have been sufficient

I preferred the full-throated reply. Thanks!

+1

A very clear, full-throated, thoughtful reply.
It's painful to watch the squirminess of the responses though.

But I'll take a crack at a further clarification by saying, tech, none of your fellow posters would suggest that it's not important to study and understand the lessons of history, all of it, but when you use the language of the hard right, "history...should not be erased" when specifically talking about these sorts of monuments, etc, any rational reader will logically assume that's intentional and quite correctly draw the inference that you think removal of such is 'erasing history'.

Which is total BS.

History ain't erased.
But choices as to who and what to honor are being made every day based on that history...all of that history.
Leaving a statue or a portrait or a name of something in place is a choice, just as it is a choice to change it.

In the first half plus of the last century, a whole lot of choices were made to 'honor' people associated with the Confederacy, often explicitly and always implicitly, designed to intimidate a part of the population of fellow citizens. It was always infused with white supremacist intent or assumptions. In many parts of the country, that intent was supported by a majority of the voting population, certainly by most of those already in power. and others just assumed, "that's the way it is".

Thankfully, the country no longer has a majority that supports that intent, though one can certainly find large pockets of such still today. And thus the backlash to making different choices about what we honor and what we do not is not surprising.

So, tech, how do you choose?

blah, blah, blah...you guys are a joke...either can't read and/or understand context, or worse, don't give a sh!t. And you wonder why people don't want to engage.

Here's what I reasonably wrote to a fan in my original post which he conveniently edited out...talk about playing some "game":
"After I posted that, you did an immediate turn to discuss statues. Obviously that subject requires nuance/discernment and I'm sure we would find agreement in some, perhaps most instances."

Despite that discreet statement, you dudes forge ahead with diatribes that often inaccurately represent other's opinions

BTW, regarding statues/monuments, which you guys seem obsessed with... on that I'm not sure OS and I agree completely (which is fine of course) but I do agree with a lot of what Kismet (who seems as informed as anyone on here) has posted.

So, if you agree so completely with Kismet's views, as described above, and as I clearly do in this post, why do you refuse to say you agree, or at least engage with mine here? Or a fan. Simply clarify, don't squirm.

Where you agree, say so. Where you disagree, say so. Stop asking people to guess.

You were using language of the hard right...in the context of a discussion about monuments and portraits etc. That was the context. Obviously that's going to be understood as conforming to the hard right's views on this topic.

If that's not your intent, say so clearly.
No one's going to give you the benefit of the doubt when you use that language.

And no, OS, clearly doesn't agree with the removal of the Confederate monuments, portraits, base names, etc. Align yourself with his views, and you're not agreeing with Kismet after all.

So don't guess. Just ask, as I've suggested more than once to a fan, in the interest of honest discourse.

That way you won't say dumb stuff like, "You were using language of the hard right"

Man is that ever beat/duplicitous language at this point

When it comes to language, I was just admonished (rightfully) by Pizza Snake in another thread - Here's his advice on language

English (in fact, almost all languages have this feature -- it only requires some care of the part of the interlocutor) has a lot of words and possible constructions so as to allow for nuanced and careful thoughts. Don't be lazy.

Might be something for folks here to think about.

[Farfromgeneva]

a fan, sorry had to drop this earlier...

I made this general post the other day: "History is indelible, good or bad, can't nor should be erased."

In a general sense, do you agree? If not, let's stop there because any discussion thereafter will hit the wall.

No, I don't agree. And I doubt you do you in any other instance . We erase history all the time, every day. Doubly so when bad things happen.

-should we leave up all those "whites only" signs at hotels, restaurants and water fountains? Can't erase history, right?

-should we leave up the banners with swastikas on them that were flown in Madison Square Garden before WWII? Can't erase history?

-or how about the World Trade Center? Why'd we clean that up? Leave "history" as is, right?

-at my High School, Columbine, they destroyed the library where many of the kids were killed. We should have left that? That's your position?


You and OS are behaving as if you think that former slaves and their children are the ones who put up those Confederate statues....and that people in 2021 are just being fickle. If you REALLY believe this "history" angle? Take a look at who, when, and why those Confederate statues were installed. It ain't pretty. Heck---- tell this history, as you put it, and post a big sign next to most statues that reads: "white racists paid to put this in at the height of Jim Crow to show black Americans who runs things around here. And the current people of this town still think this monument is a good idea"

And if you still disagree with them being removed, that's cool. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. But the reaction you and OS are getting here is because you're behaving as if you don't understand why some Americans don't want to celebrate traitors who tried to dissolve America. Traitors who fought to keep some of your fellow Americans in chains. If that's not what you mean to convey, ok...but I"m telling you, that's the message you're sending.

"No, I don't agree." would have been sufficient

I preferred the full-throated reply. Thanks!

+1

A very clear, full-throated, thoughtful reply.
It's painful to watch the squirminess of the responses though.

But I'll take a crack at a further clarification by saying, tech, none of your fellow posters would suggest that it's not important to study and understand the lessons of history, all of it, but when you use the language of the hard right, "history...should not be erased" when specifically talking about these sorts of monuments, etc, any rational reader will logically assume that's intentional and quite correctly draw the inference that you think removal of such is 'erasing history'.

Which is total BS.

History ain't erased.
But choices as to who and what to honor are being made every day based on that history...all of that history.
Leaving a statue or a portrait or a name of something in place is a choice, just as it is a choice to change it.

In the first half plus of the last century, a whole lot of choices were made to 'honor' people associated with the Confederacy, often explicitly and always implicitly, designed to intimidate a part of the population of fellow citizens. It was always infused with white supremacist intent or assumptions. In many parts of the country, that intent was supported by a majority of the voting population, certainly by most of those already in power. and others just assumed, "that's the way it is".

Thankfully, the country no longer has a majority that supports that intent, though one can certainly find large pockets of such still today. And thus the backlash to making different choices about what we honor and what we do not is not surprising.

So, tech, how do you choose?

blah, blah, blah...you guys are a joke...either can't read and/or understand context, or worse, don't give a sh!t. And you wonder why people don't want to engage.

Here's what I reasonably wrote to a fan in my original post which he conveniently edited out...talk about playing some "game":
"After I posted that, you did an immediate turn to discuss statues. Obviously that subject requires nuance/discernment and I'm sure we would find agreement in some, perhaps most instances."

Despite that discreet statement, you dudes forge ahead with diatribes that often inaccurately represent other's opinions

BTW, regarding statues/monuments, which you guys seem obsessed with... on that I'm not sure OS and I agree completely (which is fine of course) but I do agree with a lot of what Kismet (who seems as informed as anyone on here) has posted.

So, if you agree so completely with Kismet's views, as described above, and as I clearly do in this post, why do you refuse to say you agree, or at least engage with mine here? Or a fan. Simply clarify, don't squirm.

Where you agree, say so. Where you disagree, say so. Stop asking people to guess.

You were using language of the hard right...in the context of a discussion about monuments and portraits etc. That was the context. Obviously that's going to be understood as conforming to the hard right's views on this topic.

If that's not your intent, say so clearly.
No one's going to give you the benefit of the doubt when you use that language.

And no, OS, clearly doesn't agree with the removal of the Confederate monuments, portraits, base names, etc. Align yourself with his views, and you're not agreeing with Kismet after all.

So don't guess. Just ask, as I've suggested more than once to a fan, in the interest of honest discourse.

That way you won't say dumb stuff like, "You were using language of the hard right"

Man is that ever beat/duplicitous language at this point

When it comes to language, I was just admonished (rightfully) by Pizza Snake in another thread - Here's his advice on language

English (in fact, almost all languages have this feature -- it only requires some care of the part of the interlocutor) has a lot of words and possible constructions so as to allow for nuanced and careful thoughts. Don't be lazy.

Might be something for folks here to think about.

I feel shame now

[Kismet]

Given that this is the 80th Anniversary of the surprise attack by the Japanese on the U.S Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor, I came across a historical example of obvious racism n the U.S. Navy at the time (which was common across all of the military services all of which were segregated by unit which was impossible to do on a Navy ship). I am going to use a 2019 article from Navy Times to illustrate my point about our collective history on race after the Civil War when all slaves were emancipated. My selected excerpts below (many of which may be news to some folks here to this day)

https://www.navytimes.com/military-hono ... -the-navy/

Among the pantheon of America’s heroes, none might seem more improbable than the black son of Texas sharecroppers and grandson of slaves, Doris Miller. He enlisted in the U.S. Navy in 1939.

At that time, black men serving in the Navy were not only ineligible for promotion, they were consigned to the lowly messman branch, where they were tasked with making the beds and shining the shoes of their white officers and waiting on them in the officers’ mess.

By regulation, they could not be trained in or assigned to any other specialty, such as signals, engineering, or gunnery. Their battle station was below decks in the “hole” or magazine, where they passed ammunition up to the gunners.

They were not even allowed to wear buttons marked with the Navy’s insignia, an anchor entwined with a chain, and had to wear plain buttons instead.

After attending a racially segregated boot camp at Norfolk, Virginia, he was assigned on Jan. 2, 1940, to the battleship USS West Virginia — which, due to the rising tensions between the United States and the growing Japanese empire, was soon transferred along with the entire Pacific Fleet to Pearl Harbor.

When the raid struck, Doris Miller — then 22 and a mess attendant third class — was below decks, doing the laundry of one of the ship’s ensigns.

With the first torpedo’s explosion, he reported to his battle station, the ship’s magazine. He found the magazine already flooded, however, and so went seeking reassignment.

He encountered the ship’s communications officer, Lt. Cmdr. Doir C. Johnson, who ordered him to the signals deck, where West Virginia’s commanding officer, Capt. Mervyn Sharp Bennion, lay mortally wounded.

Miller, the ship’s heavyweight boxing champion, was ordered to lift his dying captain and carry him to a place of relative safety, a sheltered spot just aft of the conning tower below the port side antiaircraft guns.

By then the ship had sustained heavy damage from two bombs and six Japanese torpedoes (a seventh failed to explode) and was listing drastically, its port guns silenced.

Most of its starboard guns were still operational, however, so Lt. j.g. Frederic H. White ordered Miller to start feeding ammo, packaged in 27-foot-long belts, to one of a pair of .50-caliber Browning machine guns that stood idly nearby, while White fired the gun at incoming Japanese planes.

The deck was awash with oil and water, and fires raged around him but Miller — finding the second gun unattended, and without orders and with absolutely no training in its operation — took control and opened fire.

Only when his gun ran out of ammunition and the critically damaged West Virginia began to sink did he cease firing, and only when Capt. Bennion was officially pronounced dead did the little group of officers and men abandon the ship’s bridge.

Descending to the boat deck, Miller helped pull sailors from the burning water, unquestionably saving the lives of a number of men. By then, the ship was flooded below decks and rapidly settling in the harbor’s shallow water, and its senior surviving officer gave the order to abandon ship.

Doris Miller was one of the last three men to leave West Virginia. He and his shipmates swam 300 or 400 yards to shore, avoiding patches of flaming oil from the adjacent battleship USS Arizona and strafing from Japanese planes.

On New Year’s Day 1942, the Navy released its list of commendations for heroism at Pearl Harbor. On the list was a single commendation for the still-unnamed black sailor.

Bills were quickly introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate to award Miller the Medal of Honor, but Georgia Democrat Carl Vinson, the House of Representatives’ Chairman of Naval Affairs, averred that Miller’s deeds were not deserving of the nation’s highest award for valor; Secretary of the Navy William Franklin Knox and the congressional delegation from Miller’s home state seconded him.

Both at the time and since, numerous historians and political leaders have argued that gallant as were the sacrifices of the 16 men—all of them white and most officers and petty officers — who were awarded the Medal of Honor for their actions that day, Dorie Miller’s exploits were at least of equal distinction, and all the more to be honored because of the oppressive racial stigma under which he performed so heroically.

And on May 11, President Roosevelt approved awarding Miller the Navy Cross—at the time, the third-highest Navy award for gallantry during combat."

Miller was lost in action in November 1943 when his ship, USS Liscome Bay, was torpedoed while supporting Marine landings on Makin and Tarawa. His body was never recovered.

Now you may ask, why do I ask you to read all this material? To which I respond, this is OUR history and we should be aware of it and how some were treated differently despite their emancipation for a long period of time in military service. With this knowledge, we should be angry,, disappointed and ashamed. However, with this knowledge, we should all agree that it was wrong and that we should endeavor to not only not repeat it but to also insure that everyone today is treated equally. This country provides everyone the opportunity to do this and gives us access to the history to learn from the past. Sadly, this incident is not a one-off travesty. It was quite common for a long period of time.

In another quirk of history - Carl Vinson, who participated in denying Messman Miller a MoH has an nuclear-powered aircraft carrier named for him currently in the fleet (CVN-70). When that ship is retired from the fleet, it will be replaced by a new ship CVN-81 USS Doris Miller. Karma.

Thx in advance for taking the time to read my lengthy discourse.

[SCLaxAttack]

I never knew those silly rednecks were code talkers. Is there a translation guide somewhere on this forum? Do FLP folks also speak in code as well?

Cradle, I don't call you out often because of the respect I have for you, but not this time. It's. ALL. Code.

"Stand back and stand by."

"There were very fine people on both sides."

[seacoaster]

Given that this is the 80th Anniversary of the surprise attack by the Japanese on the U.S Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor, I came across a historical example of obvious racism n the U.S. Navy at the time (which was common across all of the military services all of which were segregated by unit which was impossible to do on a Navy ship). I am going to use a 2019 article from Navy Times to illustrate my point about our collective history on race after the Civil War when all slaves were emancipated. My selected excerpts below (many of which may be news to some folks here to this day)

https://www.navytimes.com/military-hono ... -the-navy/

Among the pantheon of America’s heroes, none might seem more improbable than the black son of Texas sharecroppers and grandson of slaves, Doris Miller. He enlisted in the U.S. Navy in 1939.

At that time, black men serving in the Navy were not only ineligible for promotion, they were consigned to the lowly messman branch, where they were tasked with making the beds and shining the shoes of their white officers and waiting on them in the officers’ mess.

By regulation, they could not be trained in or assigned to any other specialty, such as signals, engineering, or gunnery. Their battle station was below decks in the “hole” or magazine, where they passed ammunition up to the gunners.

They were not even allowed to wear buttons marked with the Navy’s insignia, an anchor entwined with a chain, and had to wear plain buttons instead.

After attending a racially segregated boot camp at Norfolk, Virginia, he was assigned on Jan. 2, 1940, to the battleship USS West Virginia — which, due to the rising tensions between the United States and the growing Japanese empire, was soon transferred along with the entire Pacific Fleet to Pearl Harbor.

When the raid struck, Doris Miller — then 22 and a mess attendant third class — was below decks, doing the laundry of one of the ship’s ensigns.

With the first torpedo’s explosion, he reported to his battle station, the ship’s magazine. He found the magazine already flooded, however, and so went seeking reassignment.

He encountered the ship’s communications officer, Lt. Cmdr. Doir C. Johnson, who ordered him to the signals deck, where West Virginia’s commanding officer, Capt. Mervyn Sharp Bennion, lay mortally wounded.

Miller, the ship’s heavyweight boxing champion, was ordered to lift his dying captain and carry him to a place of relative safety, a sheltered spot just aft of the conning tower below the port side antiaircraft guns.

By then the ship had sustained heavy damage from two bombs and six Japanese torpedoes (a seventh failed to explode) and was listing drastically, its port guns silenced.

Most of its starboard guns were still operational, however, so Lt. j.g. Frederic H. White ordered Miller to start feeding ammo, packaged in 27-foot-long belts, to one of a pair of .50-caliber Browning machine guns that stood idly nearby, while White fired the gun at incoming Japanese planes.

The deck was awash with oil and water, and fires raged around him but Miller — finding the second gun unattended, and without orders and with absolutely no training in its operation — took control and opened fire.

Only when his gun ran out of ammunition and the critically damaged West Virginia began to sink did he cease firing, and only when Capt. Bennion was officially pronounced dead did the little group of officers and men abandon the ship’s bridge.

Descending to the boat deck, Miller helped pull sailors from the burning water, unquestionably saving the lives of a number of men. By then, the ship was flooded below decks and rapidly settling in the harbor’s shallow water, and its senior surviving officer gave the order to abandon ship.

Doris Miller was one of the last three men to leave West Virginia. He and his shipmates swam 300 or 400 yards to shore, avoiding patches of flaming oil from the adjacent battleship USS Arizona and strafing from Japanese planes.

On New Year’s Day 1942, the Navy released its list of commendations for heroism at Pearl Harbor. On the list was a single commendation for the still-unnamed black sailor.

Bills were quickly introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate to award Miller the Medal of Honor, but Georgia Democrat Carl Vinson, the House of Representatives’ Chairman of Naval Affairs, averred that Miller’s deeds were not deserving of the nation’s highest award for valor; Secretary of the Navy William Franklin Knox and the congressional delegation from Miller’s home state seconded him.

Both at the time and since, numerous historians and political leaders have argued that gallant as were the sacrifices of the 16 men—all of them white and most officers and petty officers — who were awarded the Medal of Honor for their actions that day, Dorie Miller’s exploits were at least of equal distinction, and all the more to be honored because of the oppressive racial stigma under which he performed so heroically.

Both at the time and since, numerous historians and political leaders have argued that gallant as were the sacrifices of the 16 men—all of them white and most officers and petty officers — who were awarded the Medal of Honor for their actions that day, Dorie Miller’s exploits were at least of equal distinction, and all the more to be honored because of the oppressive racial stigma under which he performed so heroically."

And on May 11, President Roosevelt approved awarding Miller the Navy Cross—at the time, the third-highest Navy award for gallantry during combat."

Miller was lost in action in November 1943 when his ship, USS Liscome Bay, was torpedoed while supporting Marine landings on Makin and Tarawa. His body was never recovered.

Now you may ask, why do I ask you to read all this material? To which I respond, this is OUR history and we should be aware of it and how some were treated differently despite their emancipation for a long period of time in military service. With this knowledge, we should be angry,, disappointed and ashamed. However, with this knowledge, we should all agree that it was wrong and that we should endeavor to not only not repeat it but to also insure that everyone today is treated equally. This country provides everyone the opportunity to do this and gives us access to the history to learn from the past.

In another quirk of history - Carl Vinson, who participated in denying Messman Miller a MoH has an nuclear-powered aircraft carrier named for him currently in the fleet (CVN-70). When that ship is retired from the fleet, it will be replaced by a new ship CVN-81 USS Doris Miller. Karma.

Thx in advance for taking the time to read my lengthy discourse.

Thanks; great post. Much appreciated.

[a fan]

Look. You're not bothering to pay attention to what YOU are writing over time...and it's confusing your fellow posters, including me.

Sometimes you need to relax, and realize that it's YOUR fault because you're all over the place with your thoughts. It's not a big deal...when we're telling you what you're conveying to the reader...and you think we're wrong, just take a second and clarify your points. Problem solved.

So yes, you wrote this.....

Here's what I reasonably wrote to a fan in my original post which he conveniently edited out...talk about playing some "game":
"After I posted that, you did an immediate turn to discuss statues. Obviously that subject requires nuance/discernment and I'm sure we would find agreement in some, perhaps most instances."

But you also wrote this:

Sure, go ahead and qualify historic things all you want but then let people make up their own minds. But simply wipe it out? Like it or not, it's all part and parcel of who we are.

So in the top quote? You tell me that statues require nuance and discernment. And guess what? I AGREE with you on that.

But in the bottom one, you're saying the opposite and tell me NO such nuance is needed.

And you gave me that same sentiment again with your "I made this general post the other day: "History is indelible, good or bad, can't nor should be erased." In a general sense, do you agree? If not, let's stop there because any discussion thereafter will hit the wall.

So be honest....are you REALLY surprised that I'm confused by your words?

If you're sticking to your "Obviously that subject requires nuance/discernment and I'm sure we would find agreement in some, perhaps most instances."? We're good, and understand each other. And I agree with that position, for what its worth.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Look. You're not bothering to pay attention to what YOU are writing over time...and it's confusing your fellow posters, including me.

Sometimes you need to relax, and realize that it's YOUR fault because you're all over the place with your thoughts. It's not a big deal...when we're telling you what you're conveying to the reader...and you think we're wrong, just take a second and clarify your points. Problem solved.

So yes, you wrote this.....

Here's what I reasonably wrote to a fan in my original post which he conveniently edited out...talk about playing some "game":
"After I posted that, you did an immediate turn to discuss statues. Obviously that subject requires nuance/discernment and I'm sure we would find agreement in some, perhaps most instances."

But you also wrote this:

Sure, go ahead and qualify historic things all you want but then let people make up their own minds. But simply wipe it out? Like it or not, it's all part and parcel of who we are.

So in the top quote? You tell me that statues require nuance and discernment. And guess what? I AGREE with you on that.

But in the bottom one, you're saying the opposite and tell me NO such nuance is needed.

And you gave me that same sentiment again with your "I made this general post the other day: "History is indelible, good or bad, can't nor should be erased." In a general sense, do you agree? If not, let's stop there because any discussion thereafter will hit the wall.

So be honest....are you REALLY surprised that I'm confused by your words?

If you're sticking to your "Obviously that subject requires nuance/discernment and I'm sure we would find agreement in some, perhaps most instances."? We're good, and understand each other. And I agree with that position, for what its worth.

No longer honor or celebrate is not the same thing as erasing or wiping out history. Saddam Hussein’s statue was toppled and the Berlin Wall came down. Those events are part of history.

Sethi:
“Let the name of Moses be stricken from every book and tablet. Stricken from every pylon and obelisk of Egypt. Let the name of Moses be unheard and unspoken, erased from the memory of man, for all time.…”

Still part of history. Not erased.

[Farfromgeneva]

Look. You're not bothering to pay attention to what YOU are writing over time...and it's confusing your fellow posters, including me.

Sometimes you need to relax, and realize that it's YOUR fault because you're all over the place with your thoughts. It's not a big deal...when we're telling you what you're conveying to the reader...and you think we're wrong, just take a second and clarify your points. Problem solved.

So yes, you wrote this.....

Here's what I reasonably wrote to a fan in my original post which he conveniently edited out...talk about playing some "game":
"After I posted that, you did an immediate turn to discuss statues. Obviously that subject requires nuance/discernment and I'm sure we would find agreement in some, perhaps most instances."

But you also wrote this:

Sure, go ahead and qualify historic things all you want but then let people make up their own minds. But simply wipe it out? Like it or not, it's all part and parcel of who we are.

So in the top quote? You tell me that statues require nuance and discernment. And guess what? I AGREE with you on that.

But in the bottom one, you're saying the opposite and tell me NO such nuance is needed.

And you gave me that same sentiment again with your "I made this general post the other day: "History is indelible, good or bad, can't nor should be erased." In a general sense, do you agree? If not, let's stop there because any discussion thereafter will hit the wall.

So be honest....are you REALLY surprised that I'm confused by your words?

If you're sticking to your "Obviously that subject requires nuance/discernment and I'm sure we would find agreement in some, perhaps most instances."? We're good, and understand each other. And I agree with that position, for what its worth.

No longer honor or celebrate is not the same thing as erasing or wiping out history. Saddam Hussein’s statue was toppled and the Berlin Wall came down. Those events are part of history.

Sethi:
“Let the name of Moses be stricken from every book and tablet. Stricken from every pylon and obelisk of Egypt. Let the name of Moses be unheard and unspoken, erased from the memory of man, for all time.…”

Still part of history. Not erased.

Excellent point. Or beating my own drum, not the x rated metaphor I could rightly be accused of having in mind, don’t put the things up.

Small quibble in. That the Berlin Wall was only partially destroyed-I once partied in a private club below ground where the wall still stood around the turn of the Millenium. That was dope.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Look. You're not bothering to pay attention to what YOU are writing over time...and it's confusing your fellow posters, including me.

Sometimes you need to relax, and realize that it's YOUR fault because you're all over the place with your thoughts. It's not a big deal...when we're telling you what you're conveying to the reader...and you think we're wrong, just take a second and clarify your points. Problem solved.

So yes, you wrote this.....

Here's what I reasonably wrote to a fan in my original post which he conveniently edited out...talk about playing some "game":
"After I posted that, you did an immediate turn to discuss statues. Obviously that subject requires nuance/discernment and I'm sure we would find agreement in some, perhaps most instances."

But you also wrote this:

Sure, go ahead and qualify historic things all you want but then let people make up their own minds. But simply wipe it out? Like it or not, it's all part and parcel of who we are.

So in the top quote? You tell me that statues require nuance and discernment. And guess what? I AGREE with you on that.

But in the bottom one, you're saying the opposite and tell me NO such nuance is needed.

And you gave me that same sentiment again with your "I made this general post the other day: "History is indelible, good or bad, can't nor should be erased." In a general sense, do you agree? If not, let's stop there because any discussion thereafter will hit the wall.

So be honest....are you REALLY surprised that I'm confused by your words?

If you're sticking to your "Obviously that subject requires nuance/discernment and I'm sure we would find agreement in some, perhaps most instances."? We're good, and understand each other. And I agree with that position, for what its worth.

No longer honor or celebrate is not the same thing as erasing or wiping out history. Saddam Hussein’s statue was toppled and the Berlin Wall came down. Those events are part of history.

Sethi:
“Let the name of Moses be stricken from every book and tablet. Stricken from every pylon and obelisk of Egypt. Let the name of Moses be unheard and unspoken, erased from the memory of man, for all time.…”

Still part of history. Not erased.

Excellent point. Or beating my own drum, not the x rated metaphor I could rightly be accused of having in mind, don’t put the things up.

Small quibble in. That the Berlin Wall was only partially destroyed-I once partied in a private club below ground where the wall still stood around the turn of the Millenium. That was dope.

Yep. I have not been to Germany but would like to visit. My father was stationed there while doing his time in the Air Force. He had good memories of it, I believe, as I never heard him say anything negative about it.