Is America a racist nation?

[MDlaxfan76]

Caught this on PBS a few years ago. Completely oblivious to it until that point.

Wow, I'm 30 minutes in and need to take a break...thanks for sharing.

[Farfromgeneva]

I have been meaning to throw this out here on this forum. This morning I have a few moments to do so. There has been a suggestion here by some posters about a solution to the issue of confederate statues and monuments. i agree for the most part about the solution. These items should be but in a central location, be that a museum, to be displayed in their proper context in history. My question here, who is to decide what that proper context is? Is that the US government? Is that the sons and daughters of the confederacy? Who would establish this museum? Is it possible that a sanctuary for all these confederates would then be created? Instead of statues standing in a public square that pigeons poop on and drunken college students urinate on there is now a holy spot where all the modern day relatives of the con federacy can go and pay homage to their ancestors. Sometimes you have to be careful about what you ask for. You now would have one location where throngs of people could have picinics in the summer celebrating Robert E Lee and the old south. You would also have throngs of counter protesters outside the new museum protesting anybody that would go in to visit. What say all of you folks? I'm a NY Yankee, if they busted all these statues down and sold them for scrap I would be just as fine with that.

Definitely not the US Govt. Shouldn't decisions like that be left up to state and city govt's?

I'm basically agnostic re the monument issue, but if people are offended by certain statues/monuments/relics placed in the "public square", of course action should be taken.

State and/or city govts should decide, firstly, whether there is valid basis for demands for removal, and secondly by vote, whether the relics should left in place, destroyed, or placed in a museum setting.

A recent example:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/ ... laveowner/

Personally, I would never have voted for this. In the case of Jefferson, his body of work outweighs his participation in malevolent 18th/19th Century norms.

Vandalism should never be acceptable. Convicted offenders should face jail time.

A national historic park like Gettysburg should be left untouched, and in the case of national parks and museums, have federal protections.

My line of thinking is like this....

Let's say you get bit by a snake, it hurts like hell. you treat it, but there is a huge scar, trauma, and bandage......the pain slowly subsides, the scar begins to heal as you treat the wound, and before you know it, the pain is gone...but every once and while you look down and see that small scar, which reminds you of the pain endured .... but look how far you have come. I treat most things in life like this....opportunity to suffer, and in turn being fortunate to grow. I do the very same with emotional injuries.

What does that have to do with statues? I think they should be a reminder of pain in a time where there was a scar on us, trauma....and simply removing them out of sight does not allow us to educate ourselves and grieve through the pain, recognizing how far we truly have come. I say an option is to keep them up....not for the sake memorializing them, but as an opportunity to be reminded to not ever do that again. Change the plaques to read something that helps us grow.

Not a sermon, just a thought.

But consider in your optimistic approach the black 40-50yr old dude who’s trying to be the best father he can to his kids and give them the most optimal emotional support so they can grow up healthy and he walks by these things and the wounds never heal because he feels the hurt his father and grandfather felt with the oppression those statues and symbols affected in their lives. Consider Jim Crow and statues thrown up in folks faces into the second half of the last century, 100yrs after the civil war, is only a generation or two ago so this is very real and has been articulated throughout the south numerous times. Now is this position your suggesting reasonable or highly parochial and telling black peoples how to feel about the abuses they had inflicted on them?

You are missing the entire point or I am not explaining myself well enough.....maybe re-read it a couple more times. The point, as in damned near everything in life....is to work through the pain, not stuff it away to only resurface in our relationships with others, in the form of anger, addiction, or whatever....not allow it to control you; forgiveness.

So us white guys are telling black people “get over yourselves and forgive us-thats what these statues should represent to you black folk”? And that’s not condescending or parochial?

What I’m reading is your perspective for the white perpetrators but what about the other > 50% of our current population that’s got a different skin tone?

I am not that guy FFG, you should know that by now. And I'm quite sure that you understand how working through the past helps us to all heal; forgive. To stuff it away or hide it in some corner, aint gonna fix it.

I know what you’re trying to say but I don’t think it works for the ones who were hurt the most by it. Black folks didn’t whip, lynch and immolate themselves.

For myself in my life and what I control relating to myself, sure I agree with what you are trying to say. But that thinking ignores the victims and/or makes the perpetrators the victims. I could never speak for slaves and black people, ever, and wouldn’t want to impose my needs (as the class of oppressor) into the victims.

[Farfromgeneva]

I have been meaning to throw this out here on this forum. This morning I have a few moments to do so. There has been a suggestion here by some posters about a solution to the issue of confederate statues and monuments. i agree for the most part about the solution. These items should be but in a central location, be that a museum, to be displayed in their proper context in history. My question here, who is to decide what that proper context is? Is that the US government? Is that the sons and daughters of the confederacy? Who would establish this museum? Is it possible that a sanctuary for all these confederates would then be created? Instead of statues standing in a public square that pigeons poop on and drunken college students urinate on there is now a holy spot where all the modern day relatives of the con federacy can go and pay homage to their ancestors. Sometimes you have to be careful about what you ask for. You now would have one location where throngs of people could have picinics in the summer celebrating Robert E Lee and the old south. You would also have throngs of counter protesters outside the new museum protesting anybody that would go in to visit. What say all of you folks? I'm a NY Yankee, if they busted all these statues down and sold them for scrap I would be just as fine with that.

Definitely not the US Govt. Shouldn't decisions like that be left up to state and city govt's?

I'm basically agnostic re the monument issue, but if people are offended by certain statues/monuments/relics placed in the "public square", of course action should be taken.

State and/or city govts should decide, firstly, whether there is valid basis for demands for removal, and secondly by vote, whether the relics should left in place, destroyed, or placed in a museum setting.

A recent example:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/ ... laveowner/

Personally, I would never have voted for this. In the case of Jefferson, his body of work outweighs his participation in malevolent 18th/19th Century norms.

Vandalism should never be acceptable. Convicted offenders should face jail time.

A national historic park like Gettysburg should be left untouched, and in the case of national parks and museums, have federal protections.

My line of thinking is like this....

Let's say you get bit by a snake, it hurts like hell. you treat it, but there is a huge scar, trauma, and bandage......the pain slowly subsides, the scar begins to heal as you treat the wound, and before you know it, the pain is gone...but every once and while you look down and see that small scar, which reminds you of the pain endured .... but look how far you have come. I treat most things in life like this....opportunity to suffer, and in turn being fortunate to grow. I do the very same with emotional injuries.

What does that have to do with statues? I think they should be a reminder of pain in a time where there was a scar on us, trauma....and simply removing them out of sight does not allow us to educate ourselves and grieve through the pain, recognizing how far we truly have come. I say an option is to keep them up....not for the sake memorializing them, but as an opportunity to be reminded to not ever do that again. Change the plaques to read something that helps us grow.

Not a sermon, just a thought.

How would Nazi statues in Germany go over?

How do Jews feel about Mel Brooks doing this musical number?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LnF1OtP2Svk

I think they well understand who the butt of the satire is, and where Brooks' heart is.
Someone else might well have not been able to pull such off.

He’s a unique talent. I can hear the song playing in my head-the inquisiiiition!

[Farfromgeneva]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpSR0oI5zy8

I've told this story years ago on LP.

I was a member of the Maryland club from '79 to '20. Back in about '90, my wife and I and several other members who happened to be Dartmouth alums and their wives, all of whom worked as business people, docs, lawyers, went to a crab feast in the main dining hall. We'd been living in Boston, so I'd been an out of town member and had just moved back to Baltimore. At the time no black members. I had told my father that I'd only join if I could make it an objective to integrate the club, both race and gender. Handful of Jewish members and my lead sponsor was Jewish, owner of the Hecht company and a neighbor. He responded "well, let's get you in before they get to know you", after junior year of college. My Gilman classmate and future business partner (Harvard undergrad, Harvard Law, Stanford Business...lacrosse at Harvard) was to be the second African American member a couple of years later in the '90's, with my sponsorship.

Place was packed, relatively young crowd, dixieland band. All black servers (senior manager and accounting staff white, squash pro white). Crabs were great, band played a bunch of things, banjos etc...then they struck up Dixie...and over half the members stood up and placed their hands over their hearts and sang along.

We were stunned at our table, Horrified. Frozen. Embarrassed.

As the band finished, I got up and went over to where the black servers lined the room and apologized to them, took each by the hand and said I was sorry, that many of us were horrified by what had just occurred. The pain in their eyes.

I knew that my gesture wasn't enough, but it was all I could offer in that moment. Our table decided to leave before dessert. Upset.

Over the years that followed, the club made some progress in membership but super selectively and outreach was pretty minimal. I can certainly say that the standards for admission for a black guy versus white were way, way different. But progress.

I never associated the warm greetings I received from staff to be unique to me, though when the senior most wait staff manager retired in 2018, at her retirement event, she came up to me and hugged me (as she generally did whenever my dad or I brought the family to dinner) and told me that she remembered the night with the dixieland band and how much it had meant to her and the rest of the staff for me to come over...I was surprised. Still wish I'd done more.

My own usage of the club was 98% squash oriented, gave me a competitive outlet, though the occasional dinner. So, I avoided the most egregious stuffed shirts. Let's just say that I wasn't invited to join club leadership...

And no progress on gender, indeed many of the young members were adamant. That said, wives were given signing privileges and all the silly rules about separate coat closets, back door only for women, admission only with a member, etc were tossed and there was much more family friendly entertainment, though some of the sexist stuff like Boxing Night persisted, though I avoided. I was a pain in the neck on the topic, but they were adamant. I finally got fed up with no membership for women (40 years!) and resigned, writing a letter to the Board explaining the decision. Coincidentally, two months later the club announced that the club would begin admission of women. Good.

Man, progress is slow.

Got your club on Jerry Springer

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=F7LTzEmnyms

[Farfromgeneva]

From Wiki because I’d butcher and explanation of the essay

Master–slave morality (German: Herren- und Sklavenmoral) is a central theme of Friedrich Nietzsche's works, particularly in the first essay of his book On the Genealogy of Morality. Nietzsche argues that there are two fundamental types of morality: "master morality" and "slave morality," basing his theory on Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel's Master-slave dialectic. Master morality values pride and power, while slave morality values kindness, empathy, and sympathy. Master morality judges actions as good or bad (e.g. the classical virtues of the noble man versus the vices of the rabble), unlike slave morality, which judges by a scale of good or evil intentions (e. g. Christian virtues and vices, Kantian deontology).

For Nietzsche, a morality is inseparable from the culture that values it, meaning that each culture's language, codes, practices, narratives, and institutions are informed by the struggle between these two moral structures.

[old salt]

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.

You don't know what I think. Stop speculating.

Had the British traitors who founded our nation (to dodge taxes on their slave earned wealth) been defeated in their insurrection, we'd be happy & polite Canadians, freeloading (for our defense) on wealthy Mexifornia across our southern & western borders.

These woke revisionist historical what-if's are great fun. Hating the USA is liberating.

With this consistent line of argument it sure appears like you are defending the secessionists. Care to state clearly your position on that? Or would you rather be unclear so you can claim to reject anything anyone would infer while being opaque?

Observing the hypocrisy in branding as traitors those who fought to defend their home states, while hailing as patriots the British subjects who fought to remove their crown colony from the British Empire & form a union of independent states, ...& condemning only one for exploiting slavery.

I'm supporting neither, judging neither. I'm branding neither as traitors.
I'm attempting to objectively compare the actions of those who chose to fight in defense of their home state.

History is an account of what happened. I don't view it as a morality play.

[Farfromgeneva]

Ok well then you shouldn’t care at all if their statues go down then it would seem.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Caught this on PBS a few years ago. Completely oblivious to it until that point.

Wow, I'm 30 minutes in and need to take a break...thanks for sharing.

I really couldn’t believe I knew very little about that activity. Certainly wasn’t covered in school.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Ok well then you shouldn’t care at all if their statues go down then it would seem.

Hear hear..

[Kismet]

https://www.psu.edu/news/research/story ... -leniency/

Historian explores how Civil War Northerners reconciled treason with leniency. They apparently made a conscious decision not to prosecute for a variety of reasons. It wasn't that they didn't consider them traitors either.

Treason is the only crime defined in the U.S. Constitution in Article 3 Section 3. It sure appears that they all met the definition. No exception for "defending your home state", The article above details the various reasons why no Confederate was ever tried for treason including Jefferson Davis, who was released after two years at Fort Monroe.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."

Even though it's in there, the text makes it very hard to convict as President Jefferson discovered in 1807 with regard to former Vice President Aaron Burr.

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the ... son-clause

King George III and his government certainly considered the rebels in the American Revolution as traitors to the crown and would have hung all their leaders in heartbeat. No Constitution and no trials either.

[old salt]

Ok well then you shouldn’t care at all if their statues go down then it would seem.

Hear hear..

Agree, if they're taken down legally. Not pulled down by mobs.

[old salt]

https://www.psu.edu/news/research/story ... -leniency/

Historian explores how Civil War Northerners reconciled treason with leniency. They apparently made a conscious decision not to prosecute for a variety of reasons. It wasn't that they didn't consider them traitors either.

Treason is the only crime defined in the U.S. Constitution in Article 3 Section 3. It sure appears that they all met the definition. No exception for "defending your home state", The article above details the various reasons why no Confederate was ever tried for treason including Jefferson Davis, who was released after two years at Fort Monroe.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."

Even though it's in there, the text makes it very hard to convict as President Jefferson discovered in 1807 with regard to former Vice President Aaron Burr.

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the ... son-clause

King George III and his government certainly considered the rebels in the American Revolution as traitors to the crown and would have hung all their leaders in heartbeat. No Constitution and no trials either.

It is hard to convict unless conspiring with a foreign enemy.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Ok well then you shouldn’t care at all if their statues go down then it would seem.

Hear hear..

Agree, if they're taken down legally. Not pulled down by mobs.

I don’t particularly care how or if they come down, personally.

[Kismet]

https://www.psu.edu/news/research/story ... -leniency/

Historian explores how Civil War Northerners reconciled treason with leniency. They apparently made a conscious decision not to prosecute for a variety of reasons. It wasn't that they didn't consider them traitors either.

Treason is the only crime defined in the U.S. Constitution in Article 3 Section 3. It sure appears that they all met the definition. No exception for "defending your home state", The article above details the various reasons why no Confederate was ever tried for treason including Jefferson Davis, who was released after two years at Fort Monroe.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."

Even though it's in there, the text makes it very hard to convict as President Jefferson discovered in 1807 with regard to former Vice President Aaron Burr.

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the ... son-clause

King George III and his government certainly considered the rebels in the American Revolution as traitors to the crown and would have hung all their leaders in heartbeat. No Constitution and no trials either.

It is hard to convict unless conspiring with a foreign enemy.

Which is why they inserted this clause into the 14th Amendment - Amendment 14 Section 3 was originally meant to punish leaders of the Confederacy by preventing them from holding office again.

"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

Amendment 14 Section 3 is a very specific clause about how your rights as a citizen are impacted if you participate in a rebellion against the United States government or any of the government’s interests.

If a person has participated in an insurrection or rebellion against the U.S. government, they no longer have the ability to hold public office. That includes being a Senator, Representative, governor, or judge at the federal or state level. This also applies to positions of military leadership.

Section 3 also applies to anyone who assists declared enemies of the United States. So for example, if a U.S. citizen had given intelligence to Nazi Germany during World War II—and if they were found guilty of doing so in the court of law—they could lose the same privileges as an insurrectionist under Amendment 14 Section 3.

[Matnum PI]

peonage

[DMac]

Caught this on PBS a few years ago. Completely oblivious to it until that point.

Wow, I'm 30 minutes in and need to take a break...thanks for sharing.

I really couldn’t believe I knew very little about that activity. Certainly wasn’t covered in school.

Leaves one's chest just swollen with pride after watching, eh?
Moved from Mass to Georgia, was there from '57-'59.
Hadn't ever seen a whites only sign on anything before we moved there.
Geezuz H, them southern boys do indeed like them some subservient and obedient folk, don't they?

[Typical Lax Dad]

Caught this on PBS a few years ago. Completely oblivious to it until that point.

Wow, I'm 30 minutes in and need to take a break...thanks for sharing.

I really couldn’t believe I knew very little about that activity. Certainly wasn’t covered in school.

Leaves one's chest just swollen with pride after watching, eh?
Moved from Mass to Georgia, was there from '57-'59.
Hadn't ever seen a whites only sign on anything before we moved there.
Geezuz H, them southern boys do indeed like them some subservient and obedient folk, don't they?

That really wasn’t that long ago. I have the good fortune of finding a recording of an interview with my grandmother that was conducted by a local college documenting the early residents of her town (where I was also born). She moved there when she was about 3 years old with her father and siblings. Her mother died when she was 2. That was 1899. Great grandfather raised 5 kids on his own. Great great grandfather fought in the Civil War….down in Virginia and Carolina. Anyway, she talks about race relations being fine in town (relatively speaking) until the southerners came north. A lot of history in that interview which was conducted in 1972 and she was 75 years old. It was nice hearing her voice. I listen to it every now and then just to hear her talk. She couldn’t finish school because she had to take care of her brother who went blind after being struck in the head. He eventually died after gangrene set into his hands and his fingers fell off when he went to the outhouse and froze outside. Oddly his name was Christopher Columbus. Folks had it hard….a$$ holes made it even harder. I count my blessings.

[Farfromgeneva]

Ok well then you shouldn’t care at all if their statues go down then it would seem.

Hear hear..

Did I ever pump the show called American Gods to you? There’s a great god named Annansi

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nCxFnVe6RiM

[Farfromgeneva]

Caught this on PBS a few years ago. Completely oblivious to it until that point.

Wow, I'm 30 minutes in and need to take a break...thanks for sharing.

I really couldn’t believe I knew very little about that activity. Certainly wasn’t covered in school.

Leaves one's chest just swollen with pride after watching, eh?
Moved from Mass to Georgia, was there from '57-'59.
Hadn't ever seen a whites only sign on anything before we moved there.
Geezuz H, them southern boys do indeed like them some subservient and obedient folk, don't they?

That really wasn’t that long ago. I have the good fortune of finding a recording of an interview with my grandmother that was conducted by a local college documenting the early residents of her town (where I was also born). She moved there when she was about 3 years old with her father and siblings. Her mother died when she was 2. That was 1899. Great grandfather raised 5 kids on his own. Great great grandfather fought in the Civil War….down in Virginia and Carolina. Anyway, she talks about race relations being fine in town (relatively speaking) until the southerners came north. A lot of history in that interview which was conducted in 1972 and she was 75 years old. It was nice hearing her voice. I listen to it every now and then just to hear her talk. She couldn’t finish school because she had to take care of her brother who went blind after being struck in the head. He eventually died after gangrene set into his hands and his fingers fell off when he went to the outhouse and froze outside. Oddly his name was Christopher Columbus. Folks had it hard….a$$ holes made it even harder. I count my blessings.

I know a guy here in Atl that was arrested and held for 9 days as a rape suspect in the mid 1980s as a 25-26yr old because he was a “tall black man” as the only cause. Ruined his life he moved multiple times throughout the country even and had to switch jobs despite having gone to Princeton, ultimately graduating from Colorado College (good school for those unfamiliar), all because he was a tall black dude.

Now Tupac did take one back in this circumstance:

https://thesource.com/2020/05/28/redo-9 ... to-people/

But Atlanta is still struggling with what and who it is today I see on a daily basis

[Typical Lax Dad]

Ok well then you shouldn’t care at all if their statues go down then it would seem.

Hear hear..

Did I ever pump the show called American Gods to you? There’s a great god named Annansi

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nCxFnVe6RiM

I need to watch it. It was on my list when it came out.