Army won’t rename streets to soothe SJW’s feelings
According to the Washington Examiner, New York Congresspersons are upset because somewhere, out of sight of most New Yorkers, on Fort Hamilton, New York are two streets named for Robert E. Lee and Thomas J. “Stonewall” Jackson. The Army contends that renaming the streets would clash with the intended purpose – reconciliation. Of course, the perpetually outraged aren’t satisfied with the answer;
Rep. Yvette Clarke, D-N.Y., mocked the decision as a victory for white supremacy. “That ‘reconciliation’ was actually complicity by the North and the South to ignore the interests of African Americans and enforce white supremacy, effectively denying the result of the Civil War for generations,” she said Monday. “These monuments are deeply offensive to the hundreds of thousands of Brooklyn residents and members of the armed forces stationed at Fort Hamilton whose ancestors Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson fought to hold in slavery.”
I will continue to call on @USArmy to reckon with history & remove the names of Confederate generals from Fort Hamilton, Brooklyn. pic.twitter.com/j6DzwWSJP3
— Yvette D. Clarke (@RepYvetteClarke) August 7, 2017
Yeah, whatever. Renaming two streets that the congresswoman probably hasn’t even seen is certainly more important than ending the crime in Brooklyn, or ending poverty, or whatever else she promised her constituents that she’d do if she was elected. It’s about time that the Army stood up to the social justice warriors.
Category: Congress sucks
Ah! There IS some sense still left in this crazypants world! Thank you, Jesus! I CAN see daylight again!
Yvette D. Clarke is not interested in reconciliation.
Yvette D. Clarke is interested in spreading lies, hate, and discord wherever she can.
Yvette D. Clarke can take a long walk off a short pier during a hurricane, as far as I am concerned.
IMHO Yvette D. Clark is ONLY interested in festering and profiting from racial discord just like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have been doing for decades.
Exactly. She is following the proven record of race hustlers Jackson and Sharpton, and the worst race baiter of all, our former Pres.
Priorities…she needs to work on hers.
Yeah, her Twitter feed is just jammed packed with comments on this issue, you know, as if it really matters to anyone besides her.
It’s obvious that the top priority for SJW screeching flower monkeys like her is always staying perpetually offended about something.
“….SJW screeching poo-throwing monkeys like her….”
There. Fixed it for ya.
The ONLY solution is to take all these race baiters and make slaves of them….at least for a couple of years…then they might have a clue what they are talking about and be happy to come back to the status quo and realized how DAMNED good they have it!!
Are you suggesting a gulag? Eeeww!
lol…Fort Hamilton…that brings back memories.
Yeah, ‘cuz it makes total sense in this day and age to have streets named after supporters of the kidnapping and enslavement and death of millions human beings, the breaking apart of families to be sold as chattel, the torture and murder of countless people. It’s not about a racial holocaust – it’s about proud caucasian heritage! I mean they celebrate Hitler over in Germany, don’t they? Plus she’s black and she’s a woman – what could she possibly know?
Eat shit, Joe.
Right back at ya….
The only one talking about her race or her gender is you, you misogynist, racist.
Best reply comment ever!!
Thanks!
See my response to you, Joey, you an ignorant asshole. Then go picket Planned Parenthood, asswipe. Put your money where your mouth is.
Hey Joe, been riding through West Virginia and everything is named after that great Dimocrat, Sheets Byrd, Grand Kleegle of the KKK. When are you clowns going to demand those be removed?
I wasn’t talking about your reply, Mr. Dim Bulb.
I thought the Platoon Sgt was restrained. That expression usually has a second part
For the second part, SJ, are you referring to a more direct and forceful form of “and expire”? Or a reference to incest?
I seem to remember hearing both versions from time to time. (smile)
Joey just says these stupid things to piss people off and get attention for himself.
He is the master of the shit and run move.
don’t DARE assume Joe’s gender! “Joe” is actually a slightly obese bull dyke who never served due to the refusal to remove the rhinestone buttplug given to her by her first gal pal, but she DID once watch a movie about the military while stoned. She was infuriated that R Lee Ermey was in the movie, since ‘R Lee” is a white supremacist code word for Robert E Lee, the evil owner of the slave nations of the South.
Jam it up your anal orifice, Joey.
If you want to bitch about racist holocausts, then go picket Planned Parenthood, founded by that racist bitch Margaret Sanger, whose stated intention was to wipe out the entire Negro race.
Go put your money where your useless mouth it, asshole, right now.
Yawn….
I am guessing you are not aware that both Jackson and Lee were stationed at that particular post and served with distinction in the 1840s, years BEFORE the Civil War? What’s next, tearing down West Point because Lee was the Superintendent?
Apparently, Joe has no voice for the voiceless.
He has no thoughts for the helpless, either.
He is, himself, incapable of rational thought, but merely repeats what he has heard, like a parrot. Even ravens are capable of higher thought than joe.
wonder if Joe has ever tried to defeat the defeatless?
Tis truly a shame you continue to steal oxygen from real people dude. Were you trying to make some kind of point? You failed.
He made a point that the woman is trying to point out that people attempting to continue a state built on racism should not have streets named after them, and she has the unique qualification in that she is black. It’s a valid point, but one that I disagree with. Nevertheless it is a valid point. Calling him a failure, telling him to eat shit, shove it up his ass, etc, isn’t much of an argument against him, as it is proof that those writers have nothing of value to add, which is why he didn’t respond, other than a yawn or something. We could all learn from Joe. State your point, defend it if called on, but don’t respond to name-calling and personal attacks.
Truth’s a muthafucka, ain’t it Joey?
Now go clean up the bathroom. Little Johnny shit his pants again when you didn’t fill up the TP dispensers.
Oh, I get it. It’s only racist if YOU says it’s racist.
Go look up Margaret Sanger’s bio, asswipe. Then come back here and admit that you’re wrong. Oh, wait, you’re never wrong. You’re just another blunt instrument with no purpose.
We were talking about street names. Don’t change the subject.
Why not, Joey? So you can exercise your chickenshit superiority complex over a non-issue while ignoring the fact that your sacred cow was founded by an outspoken nazi and continues to pursue the cunt’s agenda to this day? Yeah, go fuck yourself, cocksucker.
Now THAT might qualify as the best comeback of the day. +10, TOW.
Hey dipshit
Good link TDM, but I’m afraid it’s wasted effort. I seriously doubt that joey-boy has the ability to read anything with words longer than 4 letters..
YOU, Joey, are the one who brought up both race and gender, specifically that Clarke is black and a woman.
YOU DID THAT. It’s ALL on YOU.
Here’s a little something about Planned Parenthood and Sanger’s negative eugenics ideas:
“79 percent of Planned Parenthood’s surgical abortion facilities are located within walking distance of black or Hispanic communities.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Abortion Surveillance report revealed that between 2007 and 2010, nearly 36 percent of all abortions in the United States were performed on black children, even though black Americans make up only 13 percent of our population. A further 21 percent of abortions were performed on Hispanics, and 7 percent more on other minority groups, for a total of 64 percent of U.S. abortions tragically performed on minority groups. Margaret Sanger would have been proud of the effects of her legacy.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/5/grossu-margaret-sanger-eugenicist/
Well, Joe, after the bloodiest war in America’s history, the Blacks got their freedom, and what have they done with it?
My ancestors fought on both sides of that terrible war.
Some were slave owners, and others helped slaves escape.
After doing some ancestry research, along with that DNA tracking, I found that I have both slaves and slave owners in my lineage.
I pay myself reparations all the time to make myself feel better about being a slave and slave owner descendant. The tough part is arguing with myself about how evil I am and sorrowful I am to myself at the same time. Luckily I don’t do it in public so far.
Statistically, it’s a virtual certainty that everyone alive today has both slaves and slave-owners as ancestors. Slavery was quite common at and before the time of the Roman Empire – worldwide.
And I’m talking classical chattel slavery. If you expand the definition to include serfdom/peasantry, make that a certainty.
Pretty much anyone with Western European ancestry carries at least a few Viking genes, introduced to the family tree via rape. So there’s that.
Let’s not go down the Psulio Viking raod!
That reality Hondo is probably why so many colleges no longer require western civilization I&II in undergraduate studies. Even History majors at some schools in the US are no longer required to take American History I & II. Even world Geography is an elective.
Master Sergeant Eric just won my OutSTANDing salute of the day! LMFAO!
Wow, here I thought you went and huffed enough glue to finally do yourself in… but no, probably just hadda run out to steal some more, so i’ll say it again STOP SNIFFING GLUE!!!
Boy the State, all the towns, streets, schools, etc are sure going to be pissed that they have to change their names from Washington to whatever is SJW approved.
Hey Joe you prolapsed asshole, were you a slave? Were anyone you know personally slaves? My guess is no. That being said, the tribes in Africa and else where are the ones who sold what they considered their weakest tribe members to white explorers, who in turn brought them back to the USA as slaves. If you are going to rewrite history, please get it straight. Black Africans sold their own and are still doing it today. Changing a couple of street names is not going to change or stop it. As far as bringing Hitler and the Holocaust into this discussion and comparing it to slavery and the Civil War just shows how incredibly fucked in your little Muppet brain you are. So fuck off cock wobble. You wouldn’t know real racism if it bit you in the ass and waved hello you freaking Blue Waffle.
Sorry Twist, not sure why my reply went under your comment instead of a standalone.
Hey Joe, where you goin’ with that gun of yours?
Hey Joe, I said where you goin’ with that gun in your hand, oh
I’m goin’ down to shoot my old lady
You know I caught her messin’ ’round with another man
I’m goin’ down to shoot my old lady
You know I caught her messin’ ’round with another man
And that ain’t too cool
Huh, hey Joe, I heard you shot your mamma down
You shot her down now
Hey Joe, I heard you shot your lady down
You shot her down in the ground, yeah
Yeah
Yes, I did, I shot her
You know I caught her messin’ round, messin’ round town
Yes I did, I shot her
You know I caught my old lady messin’ ’round town
And I gave her the gun
And I shot her
Alright
Shoot her one more time again, baby
Yeah
Oh, dig it
Oh, alright
Hey Joe
Where you gonna run to now, where you gonna go?
Hey Joe, I said
Where you gonna run to now, where you gonna go?
I’m goin’ way down south
Way down to Mexico way
Alright
I’m goin’ way down South
Way down where I can be free
Ain’t no one gonna find me
Ain’t no hang-man gonna
He ain’t gonna put a rope around me
You better believe it right now
I gotta go now
Hey, Joe
You better run on down
Goodbye everybody
Jimi thanks you.
song predates Hendrix. The Leaves recorded it years earlier, although Jimi’s version is better known.
Didn’t know that David. Thanks for the info Brother!
Like any old fart of a certain age, must have at least 3-4 different versions of that song floating around the place. Too damn much vinyl!
NEVER too much vinyl!
Joe really needs to study his history. Neither Lee nor Jackson supported slavery as he appears to think they did.
Joe probably thinks that only blacks were ever slaves, and only whites owned slaves.
Joe probably is even unaware of the continued existence of slavery in North Africa and the Middle East.
‘Cause Joe only knows what the woke professors told him.
Joe would shit his pants if you realized that the first legal slave owner in the land that would become the United States was a black man.
Though he didn’t like the institution, Lee did own slaves, inherited from (you could say dumped on him by) his father-in-law, and did not immediately release them as Old Man Custis wanted. In fairness, though, this was because Custis bequeathed not only the Arlington estate, but a metric assload of unpaid debts. Lee didn’t want his wife to lose her home to foreclosure or bankruptcy, so he had to keep the slaves on while he tried to clean up the old man’s mess and turn a profit from Arlington Farm. He did start releasing a few at a time, and started paying small but increasing salaries to those not yet manumitted. Then the war started, he joined the Rebs, and Arlington was seized by the Feds.
Stonewall Jackson owned (6?) Slaves as well, they came with his wife.
Since he made his living as a professor and had no large holdings they did domestic work and worked a plot of vegetables for sustenance. He would work along side them after he taught. One of them was a young girl who was at least a bit slow. Jackson would sit with her and teach her catechisms.
His body servant during the war (Jim) was his slave. They were very fond of each other and Jackson heeded his counsel on matters pertaining to his personal billeting, food and transport.
Confederate monuments and namesakes are simply low hanging fruit for SJW to pick instead of addressing the real issues that affect minorities.
Renaming a street will not create any jobs, better the schools or help reduce crime in minority areas.
Suck start a howitzer, Joe.
But before you do, let’s get rid of Malcom X Boulevards, etc., in all the cities that have them, cause, you know, raciss an shit like dat.
Give them hell Joe, don’t cower to these extreme right wing loons.
These people are too busy counting ammo and thumping their Bible to listen to any reason.
Jonn does not like it when women have an opinion…unless its about how awesome he is.
I wouldn’t take this shit if I was you.
After all the things women have done for you, Dave Hardin, including support your bad pron habits and thirst for moonshine, you still can’t get up in the morning and fix your own food.
HAHAHAHA, I thought I would never miss a chow hall, mornings have proven that wrong.
You people need to stop picking on Joe. He probably has to make his own breakfast too.
Hey, I was not thumping my Bible, ok!?
And if I was I washed my hands when I was done…
what right wing loons and gun/bible thumpers are you talking about? So you think it is cool to insult and call these find men/ladies names? so what if I have a gun or bible you total boob.
Ease up, there, Big Fella. Dave Hardin is on OUR side. He never seems to be able to find the satire label because he’s a stunted illiterate with flaming hemorrhoids.
Damn it ! I never get to play with the other kids.
Thanks MOM.
Love you, too, splinterbutt.
Teh Stupid is strong with this one.
Hey Joe, check your history. Who actually captured and sold the slaves in Africa to be sent here in the first place? And I wonder how many democrats owned slaves in the USA?
History is just that – history – in the past – opportunity to learn and grow. Erasing history doesn’t change it or make anything different.
Move on.
hey joe where did you get millions from? 95% of all slaves went to south America and Caribbean/central America. SWJ didn’t even own slaves and was a math professor at west point before the war and a engineer and so was lee. Joe you ever been to Ft Hamilton? How has naming streets after MLK been? Ever area that has mlk as a name is crime and poverty ridden.So hey Joe you can go pop smoke pos.
Brazil continued to use slaves for 7 years after the US had abolished it.
This was meant to be a joke statement, correct? Because in my reading of history, the story I got growing up in Southern California–that it was all about slavery, evil southerners vs. good northerners–fell apart the minute I learned about states’ rights and the absolute abhorrence, on the part of the southern states, to have their homes and territory invaded by an overarching Federal authority to bring them to heel. Please do instruct me, if I am wrong on this matter.
Hey, Joe… still wearing the Klan outfit? Still like to keep people down, since you love “DA MAN”!
Go eat a 50 lb bag of cream filled gummy dicks, Nutsack…
I’m sure that Joey the 2-hour wonder has never heard of the 1964 murders of three civil rights workers in Phildelphia, Mississippi, who were shot to death by Southern KKK members, who were also Democrats. I’m also quite sure that it doesn’t matter to him, either, because in his perfect idiot world, it only matters if it follows his warped views.
The three civil rights workers were called freedom riders and the fourth victim was my cousin Carol whom they shot in the foot and she survived. I was in the Navy at the time and this story which I completely forgot about was brought up by my Sister and two comments on this site.
Please give your cousin, if she’s still around, my kindest regards. I remember that story when it broke in the evening news. It didn’t make sense to me then, and still doesn’t, but the last one of those murdering thugs was finally sent to prison for it.
Thank you for your thoughts EX-PH2. I have not heard or seen Cousin Carol for years now. Last I heard was that she passed her bar exam years ago and became a lawyer. During her time in the early civil rights era, she was part of the passive resistance liberal crowd who demostrated and protested about any thing they did not agree with or thought unfair.
Up until very recently, slavery was the NORM for every culture there was. The Romans, the Greeks, the Chinese, the Mayans, the Aztecs, the Egyptians….the list goes on and on. And until just recently, nobody gave it a second thought — except maybe someone captured in a raid, that is.
Stop looking back, Joe. That’s not the way you’re headed. Or is it?
And before you say something tremendously stupid — yes, slavery is evil, and yes, that evil still exists, and yes, it needs to be eradicated wherever it’s found. My POINT, which you will wilfully ignore, is that society was different back when slaves were owned here. If we can’t move forward to the new day, and deal with our problems of today…then freedom for slaves was a useless exercise, because it crippled us as a nation.
Joe does not know me.
JACK!!! Long time no hear! How are ya?
The Confederate Army still has recognized campaign credit and battle streamers today.
This lady needs to get lost.
#2 son’s NG unit traces its proud history back through a Confederate unit.
Not exactly a fact to be proud of.
The confederacy fought to preserve the institution of slavery. That is a fact. The entire structure of our government though the drafting of the constitution was intended to give concessions to the South to give them assurances that for a time the US will preserve the institution of slavery and it was the threat to the institution of slavery that caused the south to Secede.
All this “states rights” propaganda narratives is the same kind of political propaganda as the Trump team claiming their meetings about Russian sanctions were about “adoptions”.
“Not exactly a fact to be proud of.” His son has no control over the lineage of his unit. None. And the fact he is proud to serve in a unit with a history dating back that far is not the same as saying he supports slavery or would have supported supported it in that era. Whatever other points you are stabbing at, it would be appropriate to leave out the personal stuff regarding a poster’s son who has nothing to do with this thread. Kind of a bad play there Commissar.
Do you have any idea, how incredibly fucking stupid you sound, howling about Trump on almost every topic under the sun?
You render yourself as an impotent, irrational, idiot. A broken record of stupid, epic in discord and dysfunction. A veritable encyclopedia of non-sequiturs, that have the literary value of grade-school shithouse poetry.
Sadly, you are lacking even in the entertainment value of the functional trolls of this site. What humor we glean from your feeble flailing are almost always happenstance, accidents of software corrupting your tsunami of typos.
You have your minor moments, only to serve as proof that you can’t even manage to be a consistent or complete asshole.
“Render himself” an impotent, irrational idiot? Perhaps.
But methinks “exposes himself as an impotent, irrational idiot” is more accurate.
Those streets were named for Lee and Jackson all during the Obama Administration, dipshit.
Ya think it’s too early to remind our “good friend” Commissar Infallible here of Santayana’s quote concerning history and repetition, Jonn? Or do you think he’d just pooh-pooh that as the ramblings of some irrelevant dead white guy who doesn’t matter today?
Jorge Santayana? He was Spanish.
I must say I am SO disappointed that the Piuperdink couldn’t stay in the Lane of Civilized Discourse.
I had so hoped that by sticking with simple stuff, i.e., please explain, he wouldn’t go running off into the brambles again. But he did. I guess old habits are harder to break than I realized.
While Santayana was Spanish by birth, culturally he was American. Born in Spain, from age 8 he was raised in the US. He remained in the US for the next 40 years.
Santayana graduated from and taught at Harvard, publishing numerous works between his graduation and leaving the US to live abroad in 1912. He wrote in English, Anglicized his first name (from Jorge to George), and identified himself as American. He’s generally considered “an American man of letters” (to use an older term that’s fallen out of favor somewhat).
In any case: last time I checked, the vast majority of Spaniards are Caucasian, and relatively light-skinned – and based on surviving images, Santayana certainly seems to have been. So even if considered Spanish, he’d qualify as a “dead white guy”. (smile)
Commissar, here’s what bothers me about your statement, “The confederacy fought to preserve the institution of slavery.” The confederacy? It was composed not only of high-level generals like Jackson and Lee, and not only of high-level politicians like Jefferson Davis. It was composed, also, of farmers, small landholders (who held no slaves) and the average, common, southern man who was neither wealthy nor landed. When you aver that the confederacy fought to preserve slavery, you are also stating that poor or at least not well-to-do white southerners were fighting and dying to protect someone else’s fine plantation. I don’t think any of our American ancestors were that stupid…do you? Far more likely, to me, is that southerners who were small farmers, not large property owners and certainly not slave owners, fought because they were _invaded_. But the history has been written, otherwise.
Actually, bg2, in that particular statement, other than failing to capitalize “Confederacy” Commissar is IMO generally correct. And having been raised in the South – and heard all the revisionist BS about “State’s Rights being the real cause of the Civil War, not slavery” from Confederate apologists – I’ll comment a bit on the matter. Short version: “That’s bullsh!t; the root cause of the Civil War was slavery.” Longer explanation follows. It is true that individual Confederate soldiers generally fought because they were defending their homes and homelands. However, the Confederacy – e.g., the Confederate States of America – was formed and fought the Civil War to preserve slavery as an institution. “State’s Rights” was the fig leaf justification; secession was the attempted mechanism. Pre-Civil War Southern society was far more stratified than Northern society. And in the south, the “upper crust” were generally plantation farmers. They were generally the ones with (1) education, (2) money (though some city merchants were as if not more wealthy), and (3) sufficient leisure time to engage in politics. In their day, they were equal to the (generally) Northeastern “old money” families of today. They also were overwhelmingly if not universally slave owners. Indeed, Southern plantation agriculture as practiced in the pre-Civil War South was in general completely dependent on slavery. Take slavery away, and plantation owners would have had to learn an entirely new way of life – and likely wouldn’t have been anywhere near as well-off as they were. Small farmers (and to some extent, even wealthy city merchants) were “looked down on” by those large plantation owners. The term “white trash” is NOT a new pejorative; it predates the Civil War by around 3 decades. As in any society of that era, democracy required leaders willing to run for office – and the right to vote was more restrictive. Who were those leaders? The ones with enough education, money, and free time to run for office. (Rich businessmen often simply didn’t have the time – they were running their businesses.) In short, Southern political leadership generally tended to come from the… Read more »
Very interesting read, Hondo, thank you.
But the question then arises, Hondo, about whether or not slavery would have been abolished if the rabble-rousers of the day had not tried to force their will on others?
While the issue of slavery is what got emotions whipped up (much like the cries of “racist” today) the institution of slavery was on the wane. Reasonable men in the South deplored the institution and felt it was an offense against God. Such were Lee and Jackson, among many. Others, such as Forrest, were hard core pro-slavery. We ought not deny that truth as well.
If the Abolitionists had not engaged in eliminationist rhetoric and had instead followed the pattern of Great Britain’s anti-slavery movement, might we not have had a peaceful resolution to the problem?
My ancestors were all in the Confederacy. Some of them held slaves, many did not. The reasons they fought for the South were possibly as mixed as the reasons Lee, Jackson, and Forrest fought for the South.
IMHO, saying that States Rights was not a major contributing factor to the defense of the Southland is oversimplification. Saying that preservation of slavery was not a major contributing factor to the politicians is equally an oversimplification.
But it was very few of the political class who actually fought for the South. Without the motivation of defending their homes and preserving the Constitutional right to secede, the War of Northern Aggression would, equally arguably, never have occurred.
(Before I get flamed – that moniker for “the late unpleasantness” is accurate. Lee, for one, expressed great hope that the North would eventually cease their invasion of Virginia. He was not interested in invading the North in any capacity except to defend his State from invasion.)
As with so much today, the motives for our ancestors’ actions were not a cut-and-dried this-not-that proposition. It is a natural human tendency to want to simplify, but in doing so with a topic as emotionally laden as the issue of the reasons for the Confederacy we risk missing a lot – including current issues.
That is, we risk becoming Yvette Clarke.
Never mind me. I didn’t read the continuation of the conversation below. I think we are generally in agreement on the nature and complexity of the topic.
I’ll go hide in my corner again.
“And if you don’t think the prospect of losing that anchor for their wealth and societal position scared the bejeezus out of them, well, think again. I’ll guarantee it did.”
This makes sense to me. I think you are talking about people who had no experience seeking other solutions that might have allowed them to preserve their wealth. Mechanization? As I understand, the cotton gin didn’t work to eliminate slavery, only to increase it. Use of immigrant labor? Possible. While the Irish were treated like crap in the factories of the north, they might have received a better deal as free workers in the south…but then the planters would have had to deal with the Irish at some point, and that might have proven difficult. I agree, there is no way that the large planters and owners would change, voluntarily.
And, I have to ask, who, at that time was championing the “states’ rights” arguments? The yeoman farmer? The people we see at the beginning of “Gods and Generals” who are leaving their homes, their families, their businesses, to join up? (Gut-wrenching scenes, to me.) I don’t think they were averring “states’ rights.” Rather, they were willing to fight for hearth and home…the most basic reason men have fought until our modern times.
I’m unable to disagree with your argument, Hondo. Yet I also think it may be important to separate the issue of “cause” of the war from the reasons southern men fought it. After all, as I learned years ago in LA (Los Angeles, not Louisiana) public schools, southern whites were “racists,” northerners (particularly abolitionists) were “virtuous.” And that narrative continues in many places, to this day.
They are recognized by your Army and your Government.
My intent was not political or self-serving.
My intent was to recognize American Soldiers.
If you knew a damn thing then it would to be recognize American (uniformed) Soldiers, regardless of the side or politics.
Wow.
Try reading some alternate history about trade, and Northern sanctions against the South, and see if maybe there might be one or two other reasons that the North and South clashed. Slavery was the war/oil propaganda of the Civil War.
Negative, PN. Slavery was the root cause. The rest was mere “fig leaf” public justification. Had slavery not been present in the US, the Civil War would not have happened when and as it did – if ever.
My guess is that some other issue would have produced an attempt at secession by 1 or 2 states at most, and that the resulting “insurrection” would have lasted about 3 months – with the insurrection’s leadership in chains, tried for treason, and hanged a month later.
I say that as a Son of the South.
Joe = Commissar
Rhetorically, yes. But I’m reasonably sure they’re two different
libidiotsmisguided individuals.Methinks Joe is much more ignorant. The Commissar is capable of informed discourse. Joe appears to be incapable of rational cognizance.
I can’t wait for Rep. Clarke to tell Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee that she has to change her name, Because, racism and slavery, yo.. After all, she’s named for those two evil folks, right?
Damnit I didn’t even see your comment and you beat me to it. Ah well. Great minds think about something or something some such
Ponder this: Lee is about as bright as a burnt out match.
She also went to Yale.
That’s right, YALE.
Let that little tidbit sink in.
Affirmative action applicant no doubt
You’re saying that Lee is brighter than Joey, the rock humping hero?
Rep. Yvette Clarke, D-N.Y….I’d hit it.
Boom!
with a 2×4 maybe… that is at least a 12 pack lover
It’s called a grudge/hate f*** (family standards and all that)
Me too…with a fungo bat.
Nothing but a black racist twatwaffle.
With a rusty grub hoe.
it ain’t rusty yet, but I definitely have dug it into some grubby hos
I thought the term was ” nappy dugout”
I just can’t out “Hit You” IDC SARC! You are the “Hit It man!
Jesus, what a buffoon, what an idiot.
NOT MY CONGRESSMAN!
I weep for our “government”. The founding Fathers would be all like What the Fucking fuck?
Sadly, my Congresscritter is an even bigger idiot, if that’s possible.
When is she going to petition for her colleague Sheila Lee Jackson to change her name?
Lee AND Jackson in the same name? It might lead one to think her family dwells on the civil war era.
Seems like Congresswoman Clarke needs to read up on the history of “Stonewall” Jackson. True, the General did own slaves, but he was also a big proponent of providing them with an education & religion. Maybe if she did some studying during Black History month, she might become more aware. From a review of the book “STONEWALL JACKSON: THE BLACK MAN’S FRIEND”: “The book is well researched and comprehensive, ranging from actual correspondence of Jackson and his contemporaries to written material about the slave trade. It includes material from black writers such as Ervin Jordan of the University of Virginia and Carter G. Woodson, considered the father of Black History Month. Eminent Jackson biographer James I. Robertson Jr. provides an excellent foreword. Interspersed are anecdotes and stories by and from former slaves and their families, as well as free blacks, all pointing to the fact that Jackson not only broadened their literary knowledge, but also worked to save their souls. That their descendants to this day praise his name further validates the efforts of a Confederate known in large part for his lack of humor, utter dedication to work, and strange eating and health habits.” Review of “Stonewall Jackson’s Black Sunday School” by Rickey E. Pittman: “Stonewall Jackson, the famous general of the Confederacy, is depicted as a benevolent leader and mentor of black slaves. He did in fact establish the Lexington Presbyterian Church Sunday School in Lexington, Virginia in 1855. And he did this in spite of Virginia laws making it illegal to teach blacks to read and write. (In one illustration, the book shows him confronting two much-whiter townspeople, arguing to them that it was not “Christian” of them to object to his Sunday School.At his school, students were taught the gospels, Old Testament history, The Ten Commandments, the Lord’s Prayer, and the Apostles’ Creed. According to the author, it was because of Jackson that “three black churches were created in Lexington, and a good number of Professor Jackson’s students became members of those churches.” They and their children also contributed “liberally” to the erection of Jackson’s statue… Read more »
There you go bringing up facts and accurate history.
Don’t you know that Yvette D. Clarke don’ care about no facts? Yvette D. Clarke don’ care about no history. Yvette D. Clarke has to be believed because she say so!
Ain’t it ironic that Jackson was essentially a civil rights activist by the standards of 1850s Virginia?
Lee as well. He detested slavery.
1st comment:
Joe says:
August 8, 2017 at 10:59 am
Nine minutes later:
Joe says:
August 8, 2017 at 11:08 am
Yawn….
It didn’t take much time for Joe, Lars or whatever moniker he goes under, to become bored. Must be time for his mom administered daily enema, before he takes a nap. Ya know, a guy like Joe just can’t any quality nappie time in when he is so full of Scheiße.
Er hat in die Scheißehaus gefallen.
Greybeard: Joe ist so unwissend er denkt vermutlich “Scheißhaus” ist irgendeine Art von Restaurant, wie ein Gasthaus.
Ja ja ja. Du hast recht!
No, that’s more your kind of dining.
Such a witty reply. I don’t know how you come up with them.
Dummkopf, gehts du nach dien Scheißhaus an.
Very entertaining to watch the logical backflips and contortions you guys go thru to ultimately defend slavery. That’s what it’s about. I mean I know you guys start with a predetermined notion, and then bend and twist history to rationalize your stance, but this is just amazing. Next you’ll be quoting Cliven Bundy with a straight face, pontificating about how black people were better off under slavery.
I mean you’re all over the fucking map!
No one here is defending slavery, you unbelievable fuckstain.
I don’t know how you think you can say something like that and get away with it.
And there goes the lie, double down, and project, all in one lefty post.
Dems were slavers, secessionists, segregationists, supremacists, and now socialists. Slavery and Supremacy are the heart of the democrat party. Thus Robert “sheets” Byrd, Grand Kleagle of the KKK, founder of the KKK in West Virginia, was the favored son and grand old man of the Dems, till the day he died.
The Republican Party was created in the 1850s -expressly- as an abolitionist party. The Republicans were registering Blacks to vote in the South in the 1960s. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 passsed by the efforts of the Republicans in congress. The Dems voted majority against. Today, the Dems go for the regurgitated Slavery of Socialism, renamed “progressivism”. Some dipshits from other parties join hand in hand with that proggy ass-hattery. It doesn’t change the rotten core of the Dems.
And now they add a gangster sub-strain of the Clinton infection. I didn’t think the Dems could get more corrupt, but apparently they can. Those two crooks could further corrupt a kleptomaniac.
Slavery is -your- Sin to atone for, not mine. And your fellow believers seem to be trying to erase history, which is almost universally the mark of the ones who want to repeat it.
Say … its the Dems that are talking Secession again! Gee. I wonder what they want to impose that requires getting out from under the US Constitution…..
Dems? Republicans? Who the fuck cares? Slavery was pure evil, quit commemorating it. End of story.
Commemorating? That was … lame.
Seriously? Even by your standards that was pathetic.
You fit the SJW pattern to a T: Lie, Project, and Double down.
Skedaddle sheet-head. Go Seek Help.
Not one post defending slavery.
Or any notice that 90% of the slaves brought to the New World went to Brazil or the Caribbean, NOT to what would become the United States. Or that 3/4 of Southern whites did not own slaves.
Any of you ever hear of the Pig War? This ‘war’ took place on San Juan Island here in Washington (then Territory). The Island was the subject of a border dispute with the British, on the Island there were two camps one controlled by the British and the other was American. One day some farmer’s pig got into another farmer’s garden and tore it up. This almost touched off another shooting war between the USA and Great Britain. There was a US Army Captain at Ft. Bellingham that rallied a Militia of local residents, and set up a line of defense over on the Islands. This Captain then helped negotiate a settlement between the Brits and the Americans that gave us our current border with Canada along the 48th parallel and then sweeping down through the islands in the Salish Sea. The Captain, also built the very first bridge over Whatcom Creek, that was named after him. After the bridge was replaced the new concrete bridge was again named for him. The old Ft. Bellingham blockhouse, and his personal residence are still there and I believe are National Monuments. Just this past week, ‘reporters’ from Western Washington University discovered who this officer was, and are trying to cause an uproar in the local community because this man made a decision to resign his US Army Commission and go back to defend his home state of Virginia at the outbreak of the Civil War. The man? George Pickett…of Pickett’s Charge notoriety. My great-great-grandfather was one of those militiamen during the Pig War. Like many others from Bellingham with roots that go back to the pioneer days we have told these kids to Go Fuck themselves. Pickett is revered in the area for what he did for Bellingham and the Islands. We shouldn’t have to erase our history because someone gets upset about what happened during some past era. Especially when those SJW have no understanding of why or how something came to be put there as a remembrance. (PS there is a really good book called the Pig War, that will… Read more »
Atkron,
Id forgotten that Pickett was out here during the Pig War. As you know, back in those days A LOT of folks looked at owing their deepest allegiance to their home state. It seems to be a hard concept for folks to put their brains around. A whole bunch of civil war “names” were stationed at Vancouver Barracks back in those days as well.
With that said, whats the name of the book? 🙂
Following that; Im not sure how Id react if the SJW’s in Oly decided to divert the Columbia south of the WA-OR border, Im thinking Id wouldn’t favor that at all…
https://www.amazon.com/Pig-War-Islands-Northwest-Washington/product-reviews/0945742045
Dammit Atkron, No the boss is gonna yell at me for adding another book to her amazon cart…
The democrat party is the party of Slavery, Secession, Segregation, and racial Supremacy. Now they support Socialism, which is a foul regurgitation of Slavery, where instead of a minority slaving for a majority, the vast majority will slave for a tiny minority.
The reason they want to erase history, is to facilitate repeating it.
^^^^^ This ^^^^^
That god-damn narrative is stupid as fuck.
First, the parties do not fixed ideologies. In the early 19th century political divisions were primarily between state and federal powers and this was particularly relevant with respect to the institution of slavery.
Democrats were the party of the SOUTH and the CONSERVATIVE party in America. It was the party of LIMITING FEDERAL POWER. This was for many ideological and economic reasons but the most relevant was the threat increased federal power presented for the states maintaining the institution of slavery. Under the constitution the South was able to gain disproportionate power and representation. As population sizes of states changed(and congressional representation numbers changed with them) and new states (all anti-slavery states) entered the union the number of states that opposed slavery had come to strongly outstrip the legislative power of slave holding states. So the best way to preserve slavery was to essentially oppose the federal government from having the power to remove it at all since the likelihood of a congress passing a law abolishing slavery was seen as inevitable and perceived by many in the south to be IMMINENT.
The Republican party DID NOT EVEN EXIST in the first half of the 18th century. It was founded in 1856 when the Whig party could not get their shit together and agree on a coherent platform and split apart.
Democrats were the CONSERVATIVES of their era.
Much of the “state” vs federal power ideological differences and MOST of the ideological theories that animated the democratic party of the early 18th century are the same ideological preferences that animate the republican party today.
In fact the democratic party between 1824 and well into the last half of the 19th century mirrors Trump’s platform and base almost exactly with respect to ideological preferences. It was the party of Andrew Jackson. Who is the president most similar to Trump. Except Jackson was smarter, more competent, more charismatic, more qualified, and historically regarded as having been a better than average president. Something Trump will not be.
There are a lot of things to comment on in your statement. Since I don’t have the time, I will nutshell my comment thusly:
Democrats went from being the slave owners to segregationists following the Civil War. That lasted until the late 60s. We all in agreement so far? LBJ (who even MSNBC has to acknowledge as racist http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/lyndon-johnson-civil-rights-racism), even if he wasn’t trying, instituted a scheme that has done little to improve minorities’ lot in life and has done a great deal to perpetuate their living in substandard conditions. If we had been able to beat back Jim Crow and yet not create the current welfare state, I think minorities would have been a great deal better off. Yes, there was racism still to overcome, but people have not been taught to be self reliant – and that is a national tragedy.
In your opinion, that narrative may be “stupid”. But it also happens to have the virtue of being 100% true.
1. The Democratic Party supported and defended slavery prior to and during the Civil War. The press for the abolition of slavery in the US came largely from the other US political parties of that era. That much is verified historical fact.
2. Most if not all the state governments of those states which attempted to secede from the Union in 1861 were led by the Democratic Party. (I’m reasonably certain that the answer here is “all”, but I’m not going to bother to verify that. Debunking yet another of the Commissar’s ideological rants just doesn’t rate high enough on my personal priority list today to merit the time involved.) This was not due to some nebulous concept of “states rights”; it was a direct result of their fear that Lincoln would in fact act to begin abolition of slavery. Secession was a preemptive move to avoid that possibility. Anyone seriously arguing that the Civil War “wasn’t about slavery” is either abysmally ignorant, a liar, or a true moron. Slavery was the single root cause of the Civil War.
3. Segregation and white Supremacy. Again, it is verified historical fact that the majority of those supporting each of these loathsome concepts were Democrats, at least among those politicians of the century following the end of the Civil War. See any discussion of “Jim Crow” and any article detailing the KKK and it’s political influence in the US between the Civil War and the Civil Rights Era for verification.
Sorry if truth, once again, is not what you want it to be, Commissar. But truth doesn’t give a damn what your libidiot ideological fantasies want it to be. It is simply . . . truth. Period.
Well written as always Hondo. One suggestion I’d make about your point #2. the part where you state “Anyone seriously arguing that the Civil War “wasn’t about slavery” is either an ignorant fool, a liar, or a true moron. Slavery was the single root cause of the Civil War.”
IMO, some of the confusion/ disagreement here comes from this. The political side of it was without a doubt based on slavery.
The flip side is that for most of the people who actually fought the war on the Confederate side, joined up to support their states, and the rights of those states.
Most of the rank and file were not slave owners, and while they probably in general had a very low opinion of blacks (something shared by most of those in the North at the time), if you asked them, or just read their writings from the time, slavery was not why they fought.
So that was a very long winded way of saying the politicians (democrats) used secession as a way to avoid the end of slavery, rank and file soldiers fought for their states, not slavery.
Again, just my opinion, and I’m no expert.
You are correct regarding the average Confederate soldier, as well as most of the Confederate officers. They were fighting for home and state.
However, Generals and Privates – and those with ranks in between – don’t choose the wars they fight; that’s done by their political leadership. And as you point out, the Confederate political leadership indeed seceded in order to preserve slavery as an institution.
In this instance the troops did choose the war to fight. During the initial stages, regiments on both sides were raised from volunteers. Drafts came later.
I tend to agree that the main motivation would be states’ rights on one side, and preservation of the Union on the other. The Emancipation Proclamation, which also came later, was to appease a faction of abolitionists who, being on the winning side as it turned out, were then able to create a revisionist narrative that placed them on a moral ground higher than one they would have otherwise.
Slavery was the fuse that lit the powder keg. That the keg existed was due to a variety of reasons. It’s unfortunate we have people like Clarke with influence over such a legacy when she probably can’t find Shiloh or Gettysburg on a map.
Um, PG . . . “choosing to fight in the war” is very different than “choosing the war to fight”. The first is an individual decision made by each volunteer. The second is a political decision made, generally collectively in the US at the time, by political leadership.
Volunteers didn’t form units and unilaterally decide, “Well, it’s time for our Regiment to go invade the (Union)(Confederacy) and burn (Washington)(Richmond) today.” They were formed in response to the political leadership’s decision to go to war – and were ordered into action by that same political leadership.
Again: soldiers don’t choose the wars in which they fight; at best, they choose whether they will fight or not. Their political leadership chooses the wars they fight.
An interesting aside, since you brought it up PG, the Emancipation Proclamation only applied to slaves in the Confederacy, NOT the north. And Lincoln was known to have said that if he could win the war without freeing a single slave, he’d do it..
Exactly, the South seceded before knowing what Lincoln would do. He did state that his goal was to preserve the Union, under whatever circumstance.
True, and irrelevant.
The fact remains that slavery – and slave-state fears of abolition of that “peculiar institution” – was the root cause of the secession of the 11 states that did so. Take that away, and the Civil War does not happen.
Play Orwellian “rectification of history” games all you want. The fact remains that slavery was indeed the root cause of the US Civil War. Without it the mass secession leading to the Confederacy doesn’t happen – and neither does the Civil War.
Hondo is indeed wrong. Look at it in 1860 terms. It was fought for a number of reasons almost all economic. The North was fucking the South over, and everyone knew it. Both sides thought of slaves in terms of property, not as people, and there were a number of slaves in Northern states by the way. Slavery wasn’t even in the top ten for reasons that war started. It got boosted when master politician Lincoln did the Emancipation proclamation, and he didn’t do it for the darkies. He didn’t care for them any more than most people of that time did. He did it to keep England from coming into the war on the Southern side.
“The Darkies”
usmc steve go fuck yourself.
And yet, contemporary publications of the era were rife with discussions of Slavery.
The Articles of Seccession often mentioned Slavery as a cause, aand where they did not,t he accompanying letters of explanation often did.
The economics of the South wer tied to Cotton farming, and the large plantation/ Slave system of it.
Industry was almost impossible in the South due to hot climate and slaves not being suited to industrial work beyond brute force. Too easy to sabotage and slack. (Ask the Soviets)
Yep, lots of dirty scheme politicking.
But the big arguments of things like the Missouri Compromise, Kansas-Nebraska act, various state admissions, etc, etc etc, were slave versus free. Bleeding Kansas wasn’t fought over which sort of tax scheme would prevail, it was free soil versus slave soil.
What was that act that was so very important to the South? Oh yeah, the Fugitive Slave act, where Slavery was manadated to apply is -Free- states,and -required- the Free states to aid an abet slavery.
How incredibly fucking stupid. Absent -that-, the free states would -never- have gotten their dander up enough to make war. -Thaat- more than anything else, was the match that finally lit the inferno. And it absolutely reflected the truth that a Slave economy cannot live alongside a free one for long, as the leakage kills the slave economy.
And the long-term demographic shift is what killed the old South politically. Most immigrants were avoiding the Slave areas. This led to a permanent population shift northward, which tipped congress ever more Northern and “free”. Absent -that- little detail of chattel slavery, the shift would never have been of that huge magnitude. North Carolina and Virginia woudl have likely been the population boom, not the Northeast. Oops.
It is -impossible- to erase the history. Which will make it damn hard to repeat it.
No slavers or pattyroller
Ancestors in my family tree, just Nazis……not like that is ANY better 😲
Um, if I recall correctly the Germanic tribes in Roman days were both slave-owning and slave traders (generally captives from inter-tribal warfare). They were also frequently enslaved when captured by the Romans and others.
So yeah, if you’ve got German or Austrian ancestry, you probably do have both slaves and slave-owners in that branch of the family if you got back far enough. Ditto if you have African, Indian, Chinese, or damn near any other ancestry. The only world culture among which slavery appears to have been unknown was either Micronesian or Polynesian (can’t remember which and I’m not going to take the time to look it up at present).
Bottom line: it’s a virtual certainty that everyone now alive has both slaves and slave owners in their family tree. The practice was simply too common when the world’s population was much smaller millennia ago.
And yet, to the day he died, a fucking Grand Kleagle of the Ku Klux Fucking Klan was the favored son of the Democrat Party, one Robert “Sheets” Byrd.
-your- co-believers. Slavery then, segregation whenever you can get away with it (“safe space” housing for people of color these days), and Socialist Slavery now when you can slip it in somewhere.
You can keep peddling that shit. Folks will keep rightly mocking you for it.
No, you -are not- smart enough to have figured out how to make Socialism work. -yes- it -is- Slavery. No, folks are -not- buying your bullshit.
You have poisoned the well. Adding more bile won’t make it clean.
Lester Maddox was a democrat. Your argument is invalid.
As was George Wallace.
Double invalidation.
SEA,
Wallace became a Republican later in life…became Governor again, repudiated his previous segregationist ways and won a good chunk of the African American vote in that election, as I recall. Lester Maddox, on the other hand, was a die-hard segregationist and Democrat until the day he died. And, Maddox mentored Jimmah Cahtah; for that he should burn in hell.
That would be a “No”.
The famous segregationist George C. Wallace Jr. was a Democrat throughout his political career and apparently until the day he died. While he did profess to have become a “born-again Christian” and in 1979 renounced his former segregationist stance, he never switched political parties during his political career. All of his elections as Governor of Alabama were as a Democrat.
In fact, the only election in which it appears Wallace ran other than as a Democrat was the 1968 presidential election, where he ran as the American Independent Party candidate (carried 5 states and gained 46 electoral votes). His later 2 presidential campaigns (1972, 1976) were both as Democrats. It also appears he never switched political parties after leaving public office the last time in 1986.
You’re apparently confusing him with his son, often referred to as “George Wallace Jr.” – whose legal name is actually “George Corley Wallace III”, but is nonetheless popularly known as “George Wallace Jr.” His son did indeed switch parties during his political career, starting out as a Democrat and gaining election as state Treasurer for Alabama twice as a Democrat. He later switched parties to the GOP. He has never been elected as Governor of Alabama. “George Wallace Jr.” (George Corley Wallace III) is still alive, and remains active in politics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Wallace#Final_term_as_governor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Wallace_Jr.
“This fight isn’t over yet,” Clarke added in a pair of tweets. “I will continue to call on [the U.S. Army] to reckon with history & remove the names of Confederate generals from Fort Hamilton, Brooklyn.”
“I will continue to call on (the U.S. Army) to REWRITE history…”
There fixed it for you.
And since you’re rewriting history, don’t forget to write out the whole slavery thing as well.
Here are a couple of factoids from Clarke’s bio which provide additional perspective.
Apparently she has no direct slavery ancestry going back to the Civil War. Her parents were both immigrants from Jamaica. Her crusade against Ft. Hamilton may be at least partly due to wanting to better play the po’ oppressed victim card to constituents who don’t see her as quite black enough.
The streets at issue on Ft. Hamilton are not even in Clarke’s district. Both Stonewall Jackson Drive and General Lee Avenue are near the fort’s main garrison just south of the Verrazano Narrows Bridge. Clarke’s 9th Congressional District is apparently further north and east.
Prior to 2011, Clarke’s district was held by Anthony “Carlos Danger” Weiner. Which probably says a lot about voters in the neighborhood.
SHUT. YOUR. PIEHOLE.
/and it looks like she could take an entire pie in one bite.
Yeah, these two men were such horrible people.
I mean, Jackson actually taught slaves to READ in a school he had set up, in direct violation of Virginia law.
He saw slavery as “the Will of God”, and fervently believed this. Had he lived to the end of the war, and seen the defeat of the south, and freeing of the slaves, he would have also have accepted this as “the Will of God”, and fervently believed it. For him it was not a matter of good or evil, of right or wrong, but of the Will of God.
Perhaps modern SJWs would not understand this, or would scoff at the idea, or contend that this is an effort to excuse the institution of slavery and Jackson’s part in preserving it, along with “white supremacy”.
But this is just simply not the case. I have no desire to defend slavery or this supposed “white supremacy” that I am supposed to have in my heart.
I am stating a simple fact of history. Jackson cannot be judged on the moral standards of the 21st Century, any more than any of us should be judged by 19th Century morals, or God forbid it, 22nd Century Morals, which may find us sorely lacking in humanity and understanding.
I think Yvette Clarke, Corrine Brown, Maxine Waters and Sheila Jackson Lee should get together and work on bone head math problems. You know, like those pesky 12 divided by 1 problems and such. Their collective brains would go into vapor lock. Better yet, give them the definition of a prime number and ask them to find the first 6. They would be busy until elections and left too brain dead to sign their intent to run applications.
Just tell them to divide by zero…
I know so many intelligent, perceptive, discerning black women whom I respect as much as anyone on the planet – why are there so many of them and people keep electing the Fatuous Four that Sparks named. It’s an insult to blacks and women everywhere.
I wonder if this means they’ll be looking to change the names of Camp Beauregard, Fort Benning, Fort Bragg, Fort Gordon, Fort A.P. Hill, Fort Lee, Fort Pickett, Fort Polk, and Fort Rucker next.
Shhhh, don’t give them any ideas. Besides, they are probably not smart enough to know who those forts are named after.
What, no love for John Bell Hood? (smile)
Yeah, especially after they closed Fort Sheridan! Why are there no active duty installations named for the winners? Grant, Buell, Sherman, etc?
I must say that after reading / following TAH for years, I have NEVER seen as many hilarious, inventive, creative and seriously LMFAO while LOL insults in all my life!!!! I am gonna save this one column just for the incredible ‘diversity’ of gut busting terms and descriptors!!! You guys are the best.
Go to the latest phony SEAL page and take a gander at the wall of insults.
LOL, that’s cruel.
He’ll either never come back or he’ll have to go to the hospital after reading it.
I added the one about Woopie Goldberg’s armpit but replaced it with “cootchie”
Here Heath,
This is what IDC Sarc is talking about
http://valorguardians.com/blog/?p=73866&cpage=1#comment-3023295
NSFW or your funny bone or your sense of dignity
Yvette D. Clark does not know me.
HISTORY, TO THOSE WHO SAY THEY WANT IT DESTROYED, FOR WHATEVER REASON,IS WHAT IT IS, HISTORY!
HISTORY IS MADE OF FACTS THAT ARE EXACTLY THAT!!
IF YOU THINK YIU HAVE THE POWER TO DESTROY ANYONE’S HISTORY, TAKE A LESSON FROM. THE PLIGHT OF THE NATIVE AMERICANS/ INDIGENOUS PEOPLES! ANOTHER LITTLE PIECE OF HISTORY! CHECK OUT THE HISTORY OF THE IRISH SLAVES, SOMETIMES REFERED TO AS ” INDENTURED ” SLAVES!!
SLAVERY IS NIT JUST A BLACK HISTORY. READ THE BIBLE, CHECK OUT ALL HISTORY BEFORE YOU TRY, VERY UNSUCCESSFULLY, TI ERADICATE ANY PART OF ANYONE’S HISTORY!!!
CHECK OUT YOUR OWN & JUST COMPARE. READ ANY HISTORY. ITS ALL THERE, IN BLACK & WHITE, SOME WITH PICTURE’S, FOR THOSE THAT PREFER!!!!!!!!
GOOD LUCK TO YOU ALL, ON WHATEVER SIDE YOU HAPPEN TO BE ON!
HISTORY IS JUST THAT, HISTORY. !!!!!!!
Why are you shouting?????
Meanwhile, what we know about history is pretty much always slanted toward the view of whoever recorded it. In whatever era you might select, we can be assured that what we know is only part of the story and is neither complete nor absolutely accurate. Additional information can only be discovered if it was recorded and if it still exists.
Indentured servitude is not slavery; it typically had a specific term and many of the more onerous provisions of slavery (selling family members to other locations, for instance) were illegal. There were few if any Irish slaves.
If you haven’t found disagreements among historians Lewis, you haven’t read much history. Typing in all caps with copious and unnecessary punctuation just makes you seem like you’re afraid of having a discussion and more or less just throwing a tantrum.
Calm down and come back for a rational discussion when you can actually have one. Since you obviously feel strongly about these topics you’ve listed, it would actually be interesting to see you discuss them.
Someone obviously got up on the wrong side of the cereal box this morning.
I’m guessing they may be freebasing used kitty litter… again.
Even though Im a maple syrup chugging hoser……. I felt compelled to let out my best Rebel Yell
Historic revision in any form is counterproductive. All history should be true and accurate be it good or bad. This is especially true with period monuments and street names.
That being said, I would never want to live on Stalin Street, Hussein Heights or Bieber Boulevard.
Im still trying to understand why the fuck a L Ron Hubbard Blvd exists……
BTW
On behalf of the people of Canada; I wish to apologise for Bieber, Celine Dione and especially for the Ear-Rape known as Nickleback.
You’re forgiven… if you’ll send me two smoking hot wimmens that would entertain me by engaging in some maple syrup rasslin (I’ll provide the inflateable pool)!!!
You guys gave us RUSH, so it’s all good.
/YYZ MFers!!!
Pretty amazing animation or PertGod
I’ve tried your maple syrup on pancakes.
It’s good.