Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree..Confederate soldiers were not traitors--neither were they heroes. Mostly just people caught up in the events of their time-making what they thought were the best decisions they could live with. Just like the Union soldiers.
We could - at different levels - say the same about ALL soldiers in history. Ever since the first clan had a bit of extra produce (money) they've been hiring others to do their killing for them.
This is why Daddy Bush had to reinstate the idea of "just" war and put it out as a message - because in their hearts, most humans know War is wrong.
Speaking of rewriting history, tho, fact is that the single largest cause of the Civil War was Slavery (under the name "States Rights to Own Human Beings").
Both secular and religious people (US) of today will tell you that human bondage is evil...or at minimum "bad". That being the case, the Civil War was - in fact - good against Evil.
This does not mean Gen. Lee was evil...nor a rebel soldier. In fact, as a history nut I have a great degree of respect for both.
However, let's not pretend that these KKK dudes have anything to do with an educated discussion. In fact, they are calling Trump's daughter and family Satanists and child molesters (which may be true of Trump, but not even rumored about his daughter and hubby)....see pic enclosed.
Besides that they can't spell. Check out the sign (Bible).
Lol... all of a sudden, everyone admires the old Civil Rights Movement, huh?
The 50's and 60's? Please! You all only admire THAT movement because they could be beaten, jailed, bitten by dogs and sprayed with fire hoses...and they wouldn't and couldn't retaliate.
Them days iz over. It ain't going down like that anymore.
BLM has its issues, but I'm in full support.
I know right! MLK had it all wrong with his stupid peaceful marches.
The "Old Civil Rights Movement" succeeded in desegregation and was the best start to equality for minorities.
Now, BLM have their minions calling for segregation in the name of equality. Blacks only dorms, blacks only ceremonies, black only/white only racial BS is exactly what people died to stop.
Isn't it great to fully support such backa$$ward people?
I know right! MLK had it all wrong with his stupid peaceful marches.
The "Old Civil Rights Movement" succeeded in desegregation and was the best start to equality for minorities.
Now, BLM have their minions calling for segregation in the name of equality. Blacks only dorms, blacks only ceremonies, black only/white only racial BS is exactly what people died to stop.
Isn't it great to fully support such backa$$ward people?
MLK is turning in his grave.
Let's not get it twisted..The civil rights movement of the the 50's and 60's was full of violence. Most historians agree that without the violent component that the Panthers, Malcolm X and the the general rioting in most major American cities provided--year after year---the movement would never have advanced. The non-violent component was important--but make no mistake..minorities TOOK their rights--it was not a gift from an enlightened majority.
Separate but equal--has always been a recurring theme--as has various 'embrace your blackness' movements. They have their adherents, but most people, of whatever ethnicity, just want to have the same liberties as anyone else..including the right to fair and unbiased treatment by those who are supposed to protect and serve.
The KKK needs to hold their head down in shame seriously we're talking about white trash knuckle dragging brown scum from the toilet bowl rim at some truck stop that can't afford a janitor.
Let's not get it twisted..The civil rights movement of the the 50's and 60's was full of violence. Most historians agree that without the violent component that the Panthers, Malcolm X and the the general rioting in most major American cities provided--year after year---the movement would never have advanced. The non-violent component was important--but make no mistake..minorities TOOK their rights--it was not a gift from an enlightened majority.
.
I'm a history nut and never - not even once - have I heard this theory advanced. I'm sure some nut does....that's the great thing about the interweb.
I was "there" to a certain degree. The Black Panthers were put down BIG TIME with guns, heroin and infiltration. Most ended up dead or in jail or overseas. The Gubment hired the Mafia to destroy them.
They have NOTHING to do with MLK and the Southern Movement (student non-violent coordinating) - which is what brought civil rights.
If we want to go back a bit more, it was IKE, then JFK and the SCOTUS that set the course - based on what Lewis and the rest of the non-violent crew did.
The burning of the cities realistically had little effect on the public in general except to confirm to us (the middle class and above) that things were as bad as we had claimed.
So, with all due respect, I take complete exception to your theory or rewriting of history. This is akin to saying that Ghandi never would have chased the Brits out of India without violence. Ghandi stoked up the population and reminded the Brits of their "morality" and it just do happened that WWII had already broken the back of the Brits, so they said "OK".
If I were to list 10 or 20 events or people that had to do with the 50's and 60's civil rights movement, the Black Panthers and Riots would not be in the lists.
That said, I understand the idea of the Panthers. I mean - it had been 100 years since they were "freed" and they still were subject to lynching, redlining and countless other indignities.
I can understand things taking time - but that was ridiculous.
The KKK needs to hold their head down in shame seriously we're talking about white trash knuckle dragging brown scum from the toilet bowl rim at some truck stop that can't afford a janitor.
Those bushy beards would clear around the bottom of the upper rim quite well.
Sounds about right. There are fewer than 10k members of the KKK in the entire country (thank God). 30 showing up is actually a huge crowd for them these days.
It's their right to be total idiots and white robed racist fools, as long as they didn't hurt anyone in the process.
Southern Poverty Law Center estimates KKK membership at only 3k nation wide. You nailed it though that 30 is a big turnout for this anemic group.
Now, BLM have their minions calling for segregation in the name of equality. Blacks only dorms, blacks only ceremonies, black only/white only racial BS is exactly what people died to stop.
Isn't it great to fully support such backa$$ward people?
MLK is turning in his grave.
BLM was OK for a saying.....nothing wrong with it as a concept.
BUT, as soon as I heard on the radio that a group "claimed ownership" and raised money and said it was "their saying", I knew the *** was up.
I'm sure there are many well meaning people in BLM. But creating a "brand", IMHO, screws up the works because then - like any brand (Amazon, Apple) you "own" the brand and anything bad that happens reflects on you.
I am quite cynical (for good reason) about non-profit orgs that appear out of nowhere and run under a banner. The temptation for salaries and expenses and all the other BS that ruins a movement are too tempting.
In any case, in a general sense these people have a valid beef - no way that cop in MN would have shot a nice white guy with a legal gun in the car, etc.
But, then again, white and brown people have beefs with our police also. I don't even blame this on the cops....when you have 200+ millions guns floating around in a country with a history of violence, it's a tough situation to even stop a car for a ticket.
You know its a sad state of affairs when the counter protesters are more violent than the KKK has been in years. Note, I'm all for protesting the KKK and, if I had nothing else to do, might be out there, too. But the level of violence aimed at otherwise peaceful protesters is disgusting.
I'm a history nut and never - not even once - have I heard this theory advanced. I'm sure some nut does....that's the great thing about the interweb.
I was "there" to a certain degree. The Black Panthers were put down BIG TIME with guns, heroin and infiltration. Most ended up dead or in jail or overseas. The Gubment hired the Mafia to destroy them.
They have NOTHING to do with MLK and the Southern Movement (student non-violent coordinating) - which is what brought civil rights.
If we want to go back a bit more, it was IKE, then JFK and the SCOTUS that set the course - based on what Lewis and the rest of the non-violent crew did.
The burning of the cities realistically had little effect on the public in general except to confirm to us (the middle class and above) that things were as bad as we had claimed.
So, with all due respect, I take complete exception to your theory or rewriting of history. This is akin to saying that Ghandi never would have chased the Brits out of India without violence. Ghandi stoked up the population and reminded the Brits of their "morality" and it just do happened that WWII had already broken the back of the Brits, so they said "OK".
If I were to list 10 or 20 events or people that had to do with the 50's and 60's civil rights movement, the Black Panthers and Riots would not be in the lists.
That said, I understand the idea of the Panthers. I mean - it had been 100 years since they were "freed" and they still were subject to lynching, redlining and countless other indignities.
I can understand things taking time - but that was ridiculous.
OK...but I disagree. You seem focused on the panthers and their story. My point is that America was confronted by two very different approaches to the Civil Rights movement.
That the two approaches were complimentary to some degree--is not a new idea.
I too was there--albeit as a returned veteran turned anti-war advocate. I appreciate everything that the the non-violent part of the struggle did..but a lot of the energy came from the angry violent side--and that was also what our society saw...and reacted to.
Watts riots? no..no single riot probably did anything--but if you counted the sheer number of race riots in the 60's..I can't see how it did not have a profound effect. I note you did not comment on Malcolm X---his effect on the Civil rights movement has been largely ignored.
As to 'rewriting' history--well..no, of course not...just because I come up with a different interpretation of the same facts you have access to---rewrites nothing. Believe it..don't believe it. I would put to you that I don't have to parrot other people's opinions about events in the world when I can come to my own conclusions.
Appreciate the 'nut' remark---shows me where your head is at...insight is always valuable.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
