DeSean Jackson posts anti-Semitic messages, quotes Hitler

[Orlando Tim]

9 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

There is zero archeological evidence to suggest 'Jewish slaves' built the pyramids. 

If I say slaves built the pyramids does that work?

[GoBills808]

Just now, whatdrought said:

Sweet. Now do historical record.
 

I don’t want us to go too far down this rabbit hole in this thread, so I’ll leave it at this: 

 

if you find the absence of archaeological evidence enough to counter thousands of years of historical record (biblical and not) that’s fine. Help yourself.  

I'm assuming your historical record is the Bible and the Torah? 

 

1 minute ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

 

Wait, did you just blow off the explanation of why that is not true. 

I read it. Your suggestion that 'Jewish slaves' might be in reference to 'Caanites' as opposed to Israelites was a non sequitur. 

[JoshAllenHasBigHands]

10 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

I'm assuming your historical record is the Bible and the Torah? 

 

I read it. Your suggestion that 'Jewish slaves' might be in reference to 'Caanites' as opposed to Israelites was a non sequitur. 

 

You either don't know what "non sequitur" means or are being purposely obtuse. 

 

Also, "the Jews didn't really build the pyramid" is a weird hill to die on.  It sounds an awful lot like a racist dog whistle. 

Edited July 9, 2020 by JoshAllenHasBigHands

[nucci]

He didn't think quoting Hitler would be a bad thing?

[dorquemada]

3 minutes ago, nucci said:

He didn't think quoting Hitler would be a bad thing?

 

Pretty much!  Now we're getting the big crocodile tears and he terribly sorry that someone was offended.  I don't believe he's actually repudiated any of it, and if so only under extreme duress.  Antisemitism has been on the rise for some time and is quite chic in some quarters.  Linda Sarsour who helped organize the big Women's March, is a rabid Antisemite and surrounds herself with the same.  to the extent that the Women's March basically asked her to leave because having a pro-holocaust mouthpiece isn't a great look.  It's amazing to me that in very recent memory you had race hucksters like Al Sharpton encouraging anti-jewish violence in NYC of all places, and all that's gotten memory holed because now he's some kind of folk hero of the left.  It's almost like they think George Orwell wrote 1984 as an instruction guide rather than a warning

[DrDawkinstein]

1 minute ago, dorquemada said:

 

Pretty much!  Now we're getting the big crocodile tears and he terribly sorry that someone was offended.  I don't believe he's actually repudiated any of it, and if so only under extreme duress.  Antisemitism has been on the rise for some time and is quite chic in some quarters.  Linda Sarsour who helped organize the big Women's March, is a rabid Antisemite and surrounds herself with the same.  to the extent that the Women's March basically asked her to leave because having a pro-holocaust mouthpiece isn't a great look.  It's amazing to me that in very recent memory you had race hucksters like Al Sharpton encouraging anti-jewish violence in NYC of all places, and all that's gotten memory holed because now he's some kind of folk hero of the left.  It's almost like they think George Orwell wrote 1984 as an instruction guide rather than a warning

 

The folks you mention in this post are one thing, I wont argue there. Also agreed on the rise of antisemitism and that it needs to be addressed.

 

But I truly dont think Jackson is even smart enough to have the thoughts that he should hate Jews. I'd be surprised if he has ever had much contact or interaction with Jewish people to even have an opinion. IMO, he got caught up in someone else's "hate of X disguised as pride of Y" and shared a message he didnt even understand. That's also why his apology doesnt seem sincere, because he still doesnt understand how he got tricked and what he's apologizing for.

 

Maybe I'm giving him too much(?) credit in siding with Hanlon's Razor on this.

 

He's wrong either way.

 

If it comes out that he has a long, secret history of anti-semitism, then bye. But I'm not sure a guy so dumb he couldnt stop flashing gang signs on the field even after the league told him to stop could somehow also keep his anti-semitism a secret this long.

[dorquemada]

4 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

 

But I truly dont think Jackson is even smart enough to have the thoughts that he should hate Jews. I'd be surprised if he has ever had much contact or interaction with Jewish people to even have an opinion. IMO, he got caught up in someone else's "hate of X disguised as pride of Y" and shared a message he didnt even understand. That's also why his apology doesnt seem sincere, because he still doesnt understand how he got tricked and what he's apologizing for.

 

 

 

Fair enough, but it's not a passive action to post something to twitter.  Something occurred in his mind to trigger the action.  "Oh hey I sure like the cut of this Hitler guy's Jib, I want to make sure everyone knows about this!"   I guess the alternative to that is "Hurr durr i don't understand any of this context but imma post it anyways"  which I realize as I type that is probably exactly what happened but if we extend him a mulligan for being an idiot than we have to do same for everyone else that says something stupid/hateful/racist as well?  That would be the world I would prefer in which to live, but sadly not the one in which I do.

 

 

[Dr. K]

On 7/7/2020 at 7:04 PM, LB3 said:

The reaction to this will be nonexistent in comparison. Even though what DeSean said was actual bigoted garbage and not just "tone deaf".

The team spoke out immediately in the strongest terms, the NFL officially spoke out about it, Jackson has had to issue two different apologies after this first less informed one (just like Brees) and met with a local rabbi to discuss what he can donate and work with the Jewish community. The Anti-Defamation League spoke out as well and urged Jackson to educate himself about anti-semitism. 

 

This doesn't sound like people are ignoring what he said. 

[DrDawkinstein]

19 minutes ago, dorquemada said:

 

Fair enough, but it's not a passive action to post something to twitter.  Something occurred in his mind to trigger the action.  "Oh hey I sure like the cut of this Hitler guy's Jib, I want to make sure everyone knows about this!"   I guess the alternative to that is "Hurr durr i don't understand any of this context but imma post it anyways"  which I realize as I type that is probably exactly what happened but if we extend him a mulligan for being an idiot than we have to do same for everyone else that says something stupid/hateful/racist as well?  That would be the world I would prefer in which to live, but sadly not the one in which I do.

 

 

 

Like I mentioned a few pages back, and has been detailed in some of the stories, Jackson spent this past weekend being "introduced" to the teachings of Farrakhan and the NOI.

 

He basically went through their "Indoctrination 101" course where they say a bunch of stuff that sounds good on the surface, but has deeper, darker, more nefarious meanings that impressionable folks like Jackson dont pick up on until it's too late. If you look at his follow-up tweets when he was still defending himself, it's obvious he had almost zero understanding of what he truly posted, and had missed the single (and non-highlighted) mention of Hitler at the top, and focused on the buzzwords he did know: "Ne groes" "whites" "discrimination and lynching".

 

This was his first follow up post:

 

He STILL didnt realize that the "they" referenced means "Jews". He thought it meant "white Americans".

 

And we give plenty of folks mulligans, as long as there isnt a recurring history there. Allen and Fromm got them. Heck, Brees got one and he does have a history of dumbassery. They werent cancelled. They were given a chance to discuss, apologize, and move on.

 

I guess the good news is, Jackson put it out there before he got too tied up with the NOI. And hopefully after his talks with Lurie and Roseman, and his upcoming trip with Edelman, they can pull him out of that radicalization.

 

 

 

Edited July 9, 2020 by DrDawkinstein

[Hapless Bills Fan]

55 minutes ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

 

I am super persuaded by the argument that it is un-American.  That said, for supporters of the Confederate monuments (I know this because my Mom's side is southern), the monuments represent Southern Pride and Honor. Much the same way Vermont, Texas, and California have these deeply independent traditions. For them, it isn't about being un-American, but projecting their strength against outside influence.  It became important to them decades after the civil war, when the south began to flounder as they lost their status under federal oversight and due to the industrial age.  Their resistance was what they had.  Today, we understand that the Confederate monuments are inseparable from slavery. But, for them, in their consciousness, they are separate and distinct issues. In other words, in their mind, they can oppose slavery but still idolize the bravery of their ancestors. Lastly, don't be so cavalier about "finding another symbol." I think you know it isn't that simple.

 

But since as you point out, so many of those monuments were put up between the 1890s and 1950s (federal oversight of Southern reconstruction ended in 1876), which just so happens to coincide with the period of Jim Crow laws, systematic disenfranchisement of black voters, gun taxes and other measures to disarm blacks, widespread lynchings and terrorizing of blacks, peonage, etc ......

 

....can your relatives also understand that Confederate monuments built during that era can be perceived by blacks (and others) as an intended mechanism of continued intimidation, or if they were put up to "remember" ask....remember WHAT exactly?

[Dr. K]

3 hours ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

 

I am super persuaded by the argument that it is un-American.  That said, for supporters of the Confederate monuments (I know this because my Mom's side is southern), the monuments represent Southern Pride and Honor. Much the same way Vermont, Texas, and California have these deeply independent traditions. For them, it isn't about being un-American, but projecting their strength against outside influence.  It became important to them decades after the civil war, when the south began to flounder as they lost their status under federal oversight and due to the industrial age.  Their resistance was what they had.  Today, we understand that the Confederate monuments are inseparable from slavery. But, for them, in their consciousness, they are separate and distinct issues. In other words, in their mind, they can oppose slavery but still idolize the bravery of their ancestors. Lastly, don't be so cavalier about "finding another symbol." I think you know it isn't that simple.

This history of the post-Civil War era is a myth. The federal government got out of managing the South in 1876; Reconstruction was over. There was no Federal oversight after 1876. In Plessy V. Fergusson the Supreme Court said it was okay for the South to install public segregatation, validating the Jim Crow laws that were passed. In the ensuing decades, as whites took over the South again and repressed Black rights and prevented Black voting, as lynchings swelled and whites rioted to throw out Blacks in Wilmington, NC and Tulsa, OK, THAT's when all these Confederate monuments were erected, to re-assert white supremacy and repudiate any federal interference in the Jim Crow South. Propaganda films like "The Birth of a Nation" (based on the novel "The Clansman" by Thomas Dixon) and "Gone With the Wind" popularized the myth that so many white Southerners (and Northerners) have continued to propagate until now. 

I have lived in the South for 38 years now. I think it's a good thing that finally this myth is being blown to pieces. 

Edited July 9, 2020 by Dr. K

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

This wouldn't be an issue if CRT hadn't muddled the meaning of racism.

 

His instagram post was racist. Period.

 

[DrDawkinstein]

2 minutes ago, Dr. K said:

This history of the post-Civil War era is a myth. The federal government got out of managing the South in 1876; Reconstruction was over. There was no Federal oversight after 1876. In Plessy V. Fergusson the Supreme Court aid it was okay for the South to install public segregatation, validating the Jim Crow laws that were passed. In the ensuing decades, as whites took over the South again and repressed Black rights and prevented Black voting, as lynchings swelled and whites rioted to throw out Blacks in Wilmington, NC and Tulsa, OK, THAT's when all these Confederate monuments were erected, to re-assert white supremacy and repudiate any federal interference in the Jim Crow South. Propaganda films like "The Birth of a Nation" (based on the novel "The Clansman" by Thomas Dixon) and "Gone With the Wind" popularized the myth that so many white Southerners (and Northerners) have continued to propagate until now. 

I have lived in the South for 38 years now. I think it's a good thing that finally this myth is being blown to pieces. 

 

Most "Southern Pride" is built on myth.

 

The Confederacy was only around for barely 5 years. The band Nirvana was around for 7 years. The Office tv show was on for 9.

 

Where are the Kurt Cobain and Michael Scott statues! That's MY heritage!

[JoshAllenHasBigHands]

59 minutes ago, Dr. K said:

This history of the post-Civil War era is a myth. The federal government got out of managing the South in 1876; Reconstruction was over. There was no Federal oversight after 1876. In Plessy V. Fergusson the Supreme Court aid it was okay for the South to install public segregatation, validating the Jim Crow laws that were passed. In the ensuing decades, as whites took over the South again and repressed Black rights and prevented Black voting, as lynchings swelled and whites rioted to throw out Blacks in Wilmington, NC and Tulsa, OK, THAT's when all these Confederate monuments were erected, to re-assert white supremacy and repudiate any federal interference in the Jim Crow South. Propaganda films like "The Birth of a Nation" (based on the novel "The Clansman" by Thomas Dixon) and "Gone With the Wind" popularized the myth that so many white Southerners (and Northerners) have continued to propagate until now. 

I have lived in the South for 38 years now. I think it's a good thing that finally this myth is being blown to pieces. 

 

That is true, but it ignores a ton of context. The monuments were also built during the period of time that the civil war generation began dying out, prompting the ensuing generation to erect monuments to preserve their memory. Plus, enough time had passed from the civil war that some of those stains had dissipated. Obviously not enough since they promptly enacted the Jim Crow laws.  The argument that the monuments were erected for the purpose of supremacy are not entirely untrue, but still based mostly on broad generalizations and the proximity in time to the Jim Crow era. I mean, hundreds of statutes were erected, each with its own justification. Some, hell, maybe even most, were created will ill-intent. Still, its a broad generalization. 

 

All that being said, I agree that it is good the myth is dying, but for some people, myth becomes reality.  My point is really that one can ascribe to that myth, because they have been fed the myth, and still be a "good person." 

Edited July 9, 2020 by JoshAllenHasBigHands

[Hapless Bills Fan]

40 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

If it comes out that he has a long, secret history of anti-semitism, then bye. But I'm not sure a guy so dumb he couldnt stop flashing gang signs on the field even after the league told him to stop could somehow also keep his anti-semitism a secret this long.

 

That's really the big question: is this gonna be a one time thing, and is he going to learn/stop?

Or will it go On and On and On?

 

I think giving him a 1-time "benefit of the doubt" is appropriate....a lot of players have been given a "benefit of the doubt" on various issues, and that seems appropriate.  Everyone can not understand the meaning or implications of something fully (right Jason Rohrwasser?)

 

If it repeats or becomes a pattern, then "Bye Felicia!" 

 

 

[LB3]

30 minutes ago, Dr. K said:

The team spoke out immediately in the strongest terms, the NFL officially spoke out about it, Jackson has had to issue two different apologies after this first less informed one (just like Brees) and met with a local rabbi to discuss what he can donate and work with the Jewish community. The Anti-Defamation League spoke out as well and urged Jackson to educate himself about anti-semitism. 

 

This doesn't sound like people are ignoring what he said. 

Yes. The team and NFL did what they had to do.

 

Public outcry from fans and other athletes has been pretty nonexistent in comparison.

 

https://sports.yahoo.com/le-bron-james-leads-athlete-pushback-on-drew-brees-protest-take-whats-wrong-is-wrong-202512896.html

 

Multiple threads were started and shut down here almost immediately when Brees made his comments, which weren't nearly as offensive. It took over a day for a thread to be made on DeSean.

[Buffalo716]

23 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

Most "Southern Pride" is built on myth.

 

The Confederacy was only around for barely 5 years. The band Nirvana was around for 7 years. The Office tv show was on for 9.

 

Where are the Kurt Cobain and Michael Scott statues! That's MY heritage!

I certainly don't approve of the Confederacy and what they did

 

But the antebellum South was around for a  hundred plus years not just 5. That is where their "pride" and I say that loosely..  comes from

Edited July 9, 2020 by Buffalo716

[DrDawkinstein]

8 minutes ago, Buffalo716 said:

I certainly don't approve of the Confederacy and what they did

 

But the antebellum South was around for a  hundred plus years not just 5. That is where their "pride" and I say that loosely..  comes from

 

Maybe, maybe not.

 

If what JAHBH said at the top of the page is true:

Quote

For them, it isn't about being un-American, but projecting their strength against outside influence.  It became important to them decades after the civil war, when the south began to flounder as they lost their status under federal oversight and due to the industrial age.  Their resistance was what they had. 

 

Then the pride comes from the Confederacy, and their "resistance" to outside influence (telling them they cant own slaves).

 

If it comes from Antebellem, then that is the entire period of slavery. And celebrating a life of luxury afforded solely by the free labor of owning slaves.

 

Either way, theyre wrong.

 

There is simply nothing to be proud of from that time for the South.

[GunnerBill]

3 hours ago, thebandit27 said:

Well since folks like Rashida Tlaib and Linda Sarsour have documented ties to Farrakhan, while Donny Boy’s kid was harping on the Dems to disavow him, I have a hard time fitting him into the right-wing box. Maybe religious extremist is as complicated as it needs to be?

 

But semantics aside, he’s a lunatic.

 

These whole race debates have really warped some people's perspectives of right and left. I, as an avowed big state socialist, have a similarly difficult time reconciling the defunding of police forces with my vision of what left-wing is. I can see a sort of pure Marxism revolutionary vent to it but beyond that it is a stretch. 

 

I think the bolded is right except I am not even sure you need "religious". To me a lot of the views we are seeing expressed right across these debates about racism and prejudice are just extremism. They often have their roots in the sort of loony fringe conspiracy theories that have simmered below the surface of the internet for some time and they are to go back to my favourite phrase of the thread - where the far left and far right meet around the back - especially when it comes to anti-semitism. 

[Buffalo716]

2 hours ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

Maybe, maybe not.

 

If what JAHBH said at the top of the page is true:

 

Then the pride comes from the Confederacy, and their "resistance" to outside influence (telling them they cant own slaves).

 

If it comes from Antebellem, then that is the entire period of slavery. And celebrating a life of luxury afforded solely by the free labor of owning slaves.

 

Either way, theyre wrong.

 

There is simply nothing to be proud of from that time for the South.

Besides being a football player scout and Coach my whole life, I do have a history degree and it's a passion of mine

 

And again I don't think you could say anything good about slavery or the Confederacy

 

But the antebellum South was also a way of life , not just about slavery. the north was hustle and bustle and industry

 

The antebellum South was the opposite, slow pace of life, agriculture, no cities

 

Atleast 50% of Southerners didn't own slaves, and not all were for it so it's hard to sometimes say everybody in the antebellum South was for slavery. Over 10000 Southerners fought for the Union.  The white poverty level in the antebellum South was very high as well, they weren't all rich

 

Playing devil's advocate, you said there's nothing to be proud of from that time.. what if your ancestors, freed slaves and gave them land and protected  them? It happened, and that would certainly make me proud if my family did that

 

As a whole , the time period was the darkest part of our history and there's no excuse for it

 

But with all parts of history, nothing is cut and dry right down the middle. There were good Southerners fighting the good fight

 

Edited July 9, 2020 by Buffalo716

[Lieutenant Aldo Raine]

16 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

Maybe, maybe not.

 

If what JAHBH said at the top of the page is true:

 

Then the pride comes from the Confederacy, and their "resistance" to outside influence (telling them they cant own slaves).

 

If it comes from Antebellem, then that is the entire period of slavery. And celebrating a life of luxury afforded solely by the free labor of owning slaves.

 

Either way, theyre wrong.

 

There is simply nothing to be proud of from that time for the South.

 

Aren't you so righteous.  Your Northern ancestors (I presume) was going out on the town celebrating in their fancy dress, sleeping & ****** in those cotton sheets the same slaves picked and seeded.  Don't act like the North is so innocent in this; the North was a major importer of Southern Cotton, banks got rich, and provided loans to the South who purchased more land and slaves. 

[dorquemada]

29 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

Maybe, maybe not.

 

If what JAHBH said at the top of the page is true:

 

Then the pride comes from the Confederacy, and their "resistance" to outside influence (telling them they cant own slaves).

 

If it comes from Antebellem, then that is the entire period of slavery. And celebrating a life of luxury afforded solely by the free labor of owning slaves.

 

Either way, theyre wrong.

 

There is simply nothing to be proud of from that time for the South.

 

Not disagreeing with anything you're saying Doc, except for that well under 10% of people living in the Confederacy States owned slaves.  The average white family in the South didn't own slaves, and some (look up Winston County, Alabama) did not secede from the Union at all because they didn't want to go to war to prop up the 1% of that day, and they were right regardless of any retrograde beliefs they may have held otherwise

[Niagara]

1 hour ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

There is simply nothing to be proud of from that time for the South.

I have felt the South had the right to secede and the Civil War unnecessary given the right to own slaves was written into the Constitution, and was a precondition for the support of the signing by the southern colonies. It was less than 100 years since the signing of the Declaration of Independence which said "When in the course of human events...." people can dissolve their government structure if it does not work.  

By 1860 the institution of slavery would have died out naturally in10 -15 years as it did around the world.

The brutality of the Civil War was amazing. Men in formation marching up hill against cannon fire. Sherman's march to the sea, a ten-mile swath of destruction highlighted by the burning of Atlanta its crowning horror. Lincoln signed on to it. The Southern Colonies should not have signed onto the union given how its participation played out. It was more than slavery at issue, it was a states rights at issue. Universal gay marriage, right of flag burning and abortion is a carry over of the Civil War. 

Edited July 9, 2020 by Niagara

[HappyDays]

8 minutes ago, Niagara said:

I have felt the South had the right to secede and the Civil War unnecessary given the right to own slaves was written the Constitution, and was a precondition for the support of the signing by the southern colonies.

 

There's a lot going on here. Am I completely misunderstanding this post? If not, what the hell man.

[DrDawkinstein]

50 minutes ago, Buffalo716 said:

Besides being a football player scout and Coach my whole life, I do have a history degree and it's a passion of mine

 

And again I don't think you could say anything good about slavery or the Confederacy

 

But the antebellum South was also a way of life , not just about slavery. the north was hustle and bustle and industry

 

The antebellum South was the opposite, slow pace of life, agriculture, no cities

 

50% of Southerners didn't own slaves, and not all were for it so it's hard to sometimes say everybody in the antebellum South was for slavery. Over 10000 Southerners fought for the Union.  The white poverty level in the antebellum South was very high as well, they weren't all rich

 

Playing devil's advocate, you said there's nothing to be proud of from that time.. what if your ancestors, freed slaves and gave them land and protected  them? It happened, and that would certainly make me proud if my family did that

 

As a whole , the time period was the darkest part of our history and there's no excuse for it

 

But with all parts of history, nothing is cut and dry right down the middle. There were good Southerners fighting the good fight

 

 

No one needs to play Devil's Advocate on behalf of the Antebellum South. There's plenty of devils there already.

 

I'll agree to walk back my statement of "There is simply nothing to be proud of from that time for the South." if you're saying we should be building statues and honoring the heritage of the famous slaves who ran the Underground Railroad and worked to free others, and the early-abolitionists who freed slaves and protected them.

 

That isnt the perspective that started this conversation though. And it CERTAINLY has played no role in what has been historically honored down here as "heritage". I dont know of any statues that were put up to honor plantation owners who voluntarily freed their slaves (maybe someone can enlighten me).

 

Agree to disagree, but knowing antebellum means "pre war", and the slow, agricultural lifestyle didnt change after the war, only the owning slaves part... Folks can say it celebrates the architecture, and clothing, and slow life of luxury, but ALL of that was built and afforded by slavery. It's all about the "good ol days"... of owning slaves.

 

Either way, I appreciate the discussion.

 

 

 

Edited July 9, 2020 by DrDawkinstein

[dorquemada]

5 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

There's a lot going on here. Am I completely misunderstanding this post? If not, what the hell man.

 

There was a big fight during the constitutional convention over Slavery.   Lots of abolitionists wanted Slavery outlawed immediately, and obviously the southern states (though there were plenty of slaves in Northern states too, just not to the degree or of the type in the South) refused, and said they would not join the new nation.

 

There are other factors that caused the Civil war besides Slavery.  That was the obvious proximate cause and the moral rallying cry, but there were substantial economic reasons as well, including that the North was rapidly industrializing and competing directly with England, while the South was continuing to act more like a resource colony of England pitting the regions against eachother economically.  None of this, of course, should be construed as a defense of the Confederacy but the actual story is a little more complicated

[Buffalo716]

8 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

No one needs to play Devil's Advocate on behalf of the Antebellum South. There's plenty of devils there already.

 

I'll agree to walk back my statement of "There is simply nothing to be proud of from that time for the South." if you're saying we should be building statues and honoring the heritage of the famous slaves who ran the Underground Railroad and worked to free others, and the early-abolitionists who freed slaves and protected them.

 

That isnt the perspective that started this conversation though. And it CERTAINLY has played no role in what has been historically honored down here as "heritage". I dont know of any statues that were put up to honor plantation owners who voluntarily freed their slaves (maybe someone can enlighten me).

 

Agree to disagree, but knowing antebellum means "pre war", and the slow, agricultural lifestyle didnt change after the war, only the owning slaves part... Folks can say it celebrates the architecture, and clothing, and slow life of luxury, but ALL of that was built and afforded by slavery. It's all about the "good ol days"... of owning slaves.

 

Either way, I appreciate the discussion.

 

 

 

I don't disagree that slavery had a huge impact on the way of southern life, and that some people got fat off of it

 

But there were plenty of Southerners who never owned slaves and fought for the Union and died to free the slaves. Those should be the southerners that are remembered

 

That is the southern history that people should be educated about

 

And it was a good discussion

Edited July 9, 2020 by Buffalo716

[Coach Tuesday]

19 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

There's a lot going on here. Am I completely misunderstanding this post? If not, what the hell man.

You’re not misunderstanding anything.  3/5 of a brain.  Maybe.

[Buffalo716]

@DrDawkinstein and I agree, there should be more statues of abolitionists, and underground railroad heroes

 

Those are real heroes

 

I do believe there are a few scattered around but not nearly enough

Edited July 9, 2020 by Buffalo716

[dorquemada]

3 minutes ago, Buffalo716 said:

I don't disagree that slavery had a huge impact on the way of southern life, and that some people got fat off of it

 

But there were plenty of Southerners who never owned slaves and fought for the Union and died to free the slaves. Those should be the southerners that are remembered

 

That is the southern history that people should be educated about

 

And it was a good discussion

 

Perhaps some statues across the South to the men who didn't secede and fought for the Union.  "Tories of The Hills" is a book about some of those people.  I dont really see it being available on Amazon but if you're interested it's in some libraries

[Putin]

7 hours ago, YoloinOhio said:

 

Can’t stand this guy ( on a football field )  but he’s 100 % right ,  

I still hate him GO BILLS 

[dorquemada]

Just now, Buffalo716 said:

@DrDawkinstein and I agree, there should be more statues of abolitionists, and underground railroad heroes

 

Those are real heroes

 

I'd put Sojourner Truth on the $20 bill if it were up to me, preferably holding a pistol

[SDS]

This topic has left the original intention behind. 

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

1 hour ago, Buffalo716 said:

Besides being a football player scout and Coach my whole life, I do have a history degree and it's a passion of mine

 

And again I don't think you could say anything good about slavery or the Confederacy

 

But the antebellum South was also a way of life , not just about slavery. the north was hustle and bustle and industry

 

The antebellum South was the opposite, slow pace of life, agriculture, no cities

 

50% of Southerners didn't own slaves, and not all were for it so it's hard to sometimes say everybody in the antebellum South was for slavery. Over 10000 Southerners fought for the Union.  The white poverty level in the antebellum South was very high as well, they weren't all rich

 

Playing devil's advocate, you said there's nothing to be proud of from that time.. what if your ancestors, freed slaves and gave them land and protected  them? It happened, and that would certainly make me proud if my family did that

 

As a whole , the time period was the darkest part of our history and there's no excuse for it

 

But with all parts of history, nothing is cut and dry right down the middle. There were good Southerners fighting the good fight

 

 

 

...isn't it better to draw upon ALL of the country's history, whether good or bad, as lessons learned going forward?.......emulate the positives and avoid repeating the negatives.....what the hell does the "big pink eraser" do?.....NOTHING......

[Rob's House]

4 hours ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

 

I am super persuaded by the argument that it is un-American.  That said, for supporters of the Confederate monuments (I know this because my Mom's side is southern), the monuments represent Southern Pride and Honor. Much the same way Vermont, Texas, and California have these deeply independent traditions. For them, it isn't about being un-American, but projecting their strength against outside influence.  It became important to them decades after the civil war, when the south began to flounder as they lost their status under federal oversight and due to the industrial age.  Their resistance was what they had.  Today, we understand that the Confederate monuments are inseparable from slavery. But, for them, in their consciousness, they are separate and distinct issues. In other words, in their mind, they can oppose slavery but still idolize the bravery of their ancestors. Lastly, don't be so cavalier about "finding another symbol." I think you know it isn't that simple.

 

I disagree with the highlighted portion, but love the rest of what you have to say.

 

If I had to boil it down to one statement, our problem is we're more concerned with judging people than understanding them.

 

We're told to listen to others tell us about their experience before judging, but only the chosen few.

 

Most of the people who are quick to judge those of us who are resistant to the wholesale demonization of our heritage and ancestry have never taken the time to talk to us and really understand where we're coming from.

 

Symbols of pride in one's heritage are nearly universal throughout the world. Those of Irish, Greek, Jewish, Mexican, etc. ancestry regularly show pride in their heritage, despite their historical warts. Indian tribes with histories of unimaginable brutality are allowed to honor their heritage. Southerners however, have had that stripped away, and had the entirety of our heritage reduced to one aspect with no consideration of the circumstances of the time.

 

To most southerners, Confederate symbols are not symbolic of the Confederacy per se, but of a collective culture and identity common to the south.

 

In the 70s when the Dukes of Hazard put a Rebel flag on the General Lee, no one with any sense thought it was a symbol of racism. It was just some good ole southern boys who didn't mean any harm fighting the system like two modern day Robin Hoods. Now we pretend the Confederacy is synonymous with slavery and any related symbolism of the south is a glorification of slavery.

 

To the extent the raising of statues and flying of the battle flag were originally symbols of defiance toward anyone it was the north. Moreso, they were symbols of southern pride and perseverance, as well as symbols to honor their dead. Most southerners at the time had lost family and/or friends in the war. 

 

Nobody cares to understand because it's easier to shun nuanced analysis of complex situations in favor of binary judgments based on gross oversimplifications, just as it's easier to judge someone than to understand their experience and perspective.

Edited July 9, 2020 by Rob's House

[Buffalo716]

3 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

 

...isn't it better to draw upon ALL of the country's history, whether good or bad, as lessons learned going forward?.......emulate the positives and avoid repeating the negatives.....what the hell does the "big pink eraser" do?.....NOTHING......

Exactly why I think you can't paint the whole South in one light

 

And I meant a hundred thousand Southerners fought for the Union, not 10k

 

So I think everybody realizes the negative impact that slavery had on this country, its an abomination.. but I think it's also equally important, to realize that there were hundreds of thousands of Southerner's who fought to free the slaves, and millions who never owned them

 

That needs to be taught as well

 

I love history I think all parts need to be taught and I'm pretty unbiased to American history because my family is first generation American. My grandfather fled Germany while the Nazis were rising to power

[Rob's House]

1 hour ago, Buffalo716 said:

Besides being a football player scout and Coach my whole life, I do have a history degree and it's a passion of mine

 

And again I don't think you could say anything good about slavery or the Confederacy

 

But the antebellum South was also a way of life , not just about slavery. the north was hustle and bustle and industry

 

The antebellum South was the opposite, slow pace of life, agriculture, no cities

 

50% of Southerners didn't own slaves, and not all were for it so it's hard to sometimes say everybody in the antebellum South was for slavery. Over 10000 Southerners fought for the Union.  The white poverty level in the antebellum South was very high as well, they weren't all rich

 

Playing devil's advocate, you said there's nothing to be proud of from that time.. what if your ancestors, freed slaves and gave them land and protected  them? It happened, and that would certainly make me proud if my family did that

 

As a whole , the time period was the darkest part of our history and there's no excuse for it

 

But with all parts of history, nothing is cut and dry right down the middle. There were good Southerners fighting the good fight

 

 

I have some quibbles with this, but I appreciate you bringing some nuanced perspective to the conversation.

[DrDawkinstein]

14 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

 

...isn't it better to draw upon ALL of the country's history, whether good or bad, as lessons learned going forward?.......emulate the positives and avoid repeating the negatives.....what the hell does the "big pink eraser" do?.....NOTHING......

 

I dont think anything should be erased from record. But there is a lot that has been celebrated that absolutely shouldnt be.

[Niagara]

2 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

 

To the extent the raising of statues and flying of the battle flag were originally symbols of defiance toward anyone it was the north. More so, they were symbols of southern pride and perseverance, as well as symbols to honor their dead. Most southerners at the time had lost family and/or friends in the war. They weren't there to keep dark folks in their place.

 

Nobody cares to understand because it's easier to shun nuanced analysis of complex situations in favor of binary judgments based on gross oversimplification, just as it's easier to judge someone than to understand their experience and perspective.

Bingo!!! To defile the statues is akin to trashing grave markers.

[Buffalo716]

2 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

 

I have some quibbles with this, but I appreciate you bringing some nuanced perspective to the conversation.

I certainly would like to hear. I did a quick reply and Im far from perfect and like to learn everyday

 

I did not bring out my notebook so I just went off memory and my studies best I could