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.
They are gathering to elect the person who will best represent black people....what role does whites play in that? Once they choose this person to put their vote behind, then it is incumbent upon THAT individual to ALSO represent the interest of all citizens of the city. You are putting the cart before the horse talking about the responsibility of the mayor. I agree with you about the role of the mayor, but blacks are just gathering to ensure that someone will represent THEIR interest, not exclude the interest of others in the city, but as Mayor one is responsible for all its residents, regardless of color.
If they just got together as a church body and had a discussion about mayoral candidates that’s fine. But, they invited the press. That made it not a church meeting, but a public meeting. But only the right color public was allowed. That’s the problem. If you’re going to invite the public, then invite all the public.
So if one person uses violence in an unprovoked attack upon a person....is it wrong for the person to try to DEFEND themselves using violence? You can't just say violence is wrong....regardless...when one person is using it for an attack and the other person is using it for defense. Ergo, blacks are trying to correct/repair their situation using the means that were used to put them in this state of disrepair.
WTH are you talking about? Stay on topic. Address the issue of the sign which this thread is about.
This is about a sign that says only people of a certain color are allowed to attend a public meeting. Either it is wrong for every color to do it or it isn't. Which side of this fence are you on? Stop deflecting with all your other nonsense.
Well since most o the press is Liberal,I think they are ok with a black only meeting. Later the folks at the meeting can go into the local ice cream shoppe by the side entrence .[src.]
If they just got together as a church body and had a discussion about mayoral candidates that’s fine. But, they invited the press. That made it not a church meeting, but a public meeting. But only the right color public was allowed. That’s the problem. If you’re going to invite the public, then invite all the public.
They are not obligated to invite "all" the public in taking responsibility for black problems.
William Ellison was a real piece of work..and black.....he didn't just own slaves...he bred them like a puppy mill
..Ellison was a former slave himself...and worked and paid his way out of slavery...to his credit, he did buy his family, etc out of slavery too
"William Ellison was one of the wealthiest men in the South as well as being a black, former slave. He owned cotton gins, plantations, and 68 slaves. And from accounts of the time, he wasn't very nice...At the peak of slavery in the United States, large numbers of free Negroes owned black slaves; in fact, in numbers disproportionate to their representation in society at large. In 1860 only a small minority of whites owned slaves. According to the U.S. census report for that last year before the Civil War, there were nearly 27 million whites in the country. Some 8 million of them lived in the slaveholding states. The census also determined that there were fewer than 385,000 individuals who owned slaves. Even if all slaveholders had been white, that would amount to only 1.4 percent of whites in the country (or 4.8 % of southern whites owning one or more slaves, however, around 30% for free blacks owned slaves).
In the rare instances when the ownership of slaves by free Negroes is acknowledged in the history books, justification centers on the claim that black slave masters were simply individuals who purchased the freedom of a spouse or child from a white slaveholder and had been unable to legally manumit them. Although this did indeed happen at times, it is a misrepresentation of the majority of instances, one which is debunked by records of the period on blacks who owned slaves. These include individuals such as Justus Angel and Mistress L. Horry, of Colleton District, South Carolina, who each owned 84 slaves in 1830. In fact, in 1830 a fourth of the free Negro slave masters in South Carolina owned 10 or more slaves; eight owning 30 or more."
WTH are you talking about? Stay on topic. Address the issue of the sign which this thread is about.
This is about a sign that says only people of a certain color are allowed to attend a public meeting. Either it is wrong for every color to do it or it isn't. Which side of this fence are you on? Stop deflecting with all your other nonsense.
It's called an analogy/parallel. If black people think its counter to black interest to have the "white press" at the meetings.....then that is what you wanted in blacks taking responsibility to fix black problems.
That having been said....I am not sure what "white press" looks like. That is not necessarily white people. A black person representing the the mainstream press in the Savannah my not be welcome.
Surely they had to know word would get out....and this does not look good at all
"Organizers of a meeting to discuss an upcoming mayoral race in Georgia barred reporters from attending — unless they were African-American.
The Wednesday meeting at a church in Savannah was held to try to unite the city’s black community behind a single candidate for mayor in the Nov. 5 election. Signs at the door said “Black Press Only!”
White reporters were denied entry, while at least two black reporters and the publisher of a local African-American newspaper were allowed inside, the Savannah Morning News reported . Television cameras and recording devices were also prohibited."
There are a couple of Money Quotes from the Black Candidates that have declared so far .....
Van Johnson is going to campaign for "inclusive" -- while barring Whites from meetings.
Savannah Alderman Van Johnson, who is one of three African-Americans who have stated their intention to run for mayor, said afterwards that during the meeting he had talked about his vision for an inclusive and progressive Savannah.
Regina Thomas, a former Georgia state senator and one of the incumbent mayor’s black challengers, skipped the church gathering Wednesday. She said the meeting appeared divisive and was scheduled too early in the campaign.
Looks like Leftists have gone nutty in Savannah. This won't go over well.
The bad news for all of Savannah is that the Black owned press in all in on this Racism against Whites.
It's called an analogy/parallel. If black people think its counter to black interest to have the "white press" at the meetings.....then that is what you wanted in blacks taking responsibility to fix black problems.
That having been said....I am not sure what "white press" looks like. That is not necessarily white people. A black person representing the the mainstream press in the Savannah my not be welcome.
You still won't answer the question.
This is about a sign that says only people of a certain color are allowed to attend a public meeting. Either it is wrong for every color to put up such a sign or it isn't. Which side of this fence are you on? Stop deflecting with all your other nonsense.
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.
