https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/07/13/po...han-forrest/index.html?r=https://www.cnn.com/
In before "bUt teH KKK wAs fOuNdeD by DeMoCrAtS LMAO dUmB liBruLs"
In before "bUt teH KKK wAs fOuNdeD by DeMoCrAtS LMAO dUmB liBruLs"
Gov. of Tennessee signs proclamation honoring KKK leader.
- Thread starter The Tariff King
- Start date
striker42
Well-known member
Whenever this kind of stuff happens I'm always amused by how people get selectively outraged. Some historical figures are treated with disgust and contempt, while others with similar flaws are venerated.
Abraham Lincoln was a racist who in the fourth Lincoln-Douglas debate stated he was against equality, believed in physical differences between whites and blacks, and advocated for white superiority. He also did one of the most evil acts of any President when he suspended the writ of habeus corpus. There's a massive memorial to him in the middle of DC.
George Washington owned slaves from the age of 11. Jefferson owned hundreds of slaves over his life and tried to rationalize the practice at points. Both are deified.
Andrew Jackson, apart from being a slave owner, committed terrible atrocities against Native Americans. His face is on money.
FDR rounded up Japanese Americans and put them into camps. Actual American citizens. He was also fairly antisemitic. He's also on money and regarded by many as one of our greatest presidents.
The list could go on and on.
I'm not saying venerating these people is right or wrong. And I'm not saying honoring Forrest was right. I'm just constantly amused by societal hypocrisy.
Abraham Lincoln was a racist who in the fourth Lincoln-Douglas debate stated he was against equality, believed in physical differences between whites and blacks, and advocated for white superiority. He also did one of the most evil acts of any President when he suspended the writ of habeus corpus. There's a massive memorial to him in the middle of DC.
George Washington owned slaves from the age of 11. Jefferson owned hundreds of slaves over his life and tried to rationalize the practice at points. Both are deified.
Andrew Jackson, apart from being a slave owner, committed terrible atrocities against Native Americans. His face is on money.
FDR rounded up Japanese Americans and put them into camps. Actual American citizens. He was also fairly antisemitic. He's also on money and regarded by many as one of our greatest presidents.
The list could go on and on.
I'm not saying venerating these people is right or wrong. And I'm not saying honoring Forrest was right. I'm just constantly amused by societal hypocrisy.
57Brave
Well-known member
This is not the 18th,19th or mid 20th century.
Jim Crow was outlawed over 50 years ago
Slavery was abolished over 250 years ago -Japanese internment was a blotch on our history. And, noted by law and officially and rightly apologized for
Using history as a guide, " societal hypocrisy " is lazy and misleading
The KKK was/ is a terrorist organization whose sole purpose was to intimidate people of color and yes, Jews , Catholics and ...
This is comparable to a Muslim country erecting statues of bin Laden
According to the Tuskegee Institute, 4,743 people were lynched between 1882 and 1968 in the United States, including 3,446 African Americans
an overview
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_in_the_United_States
Jim Crow was outlawed over 50 years ago
Slavery was abolished over 250 years ago -Japanese internment was a blotch on our history. And, noted by law and officially and rightly apologized for
Using history as a guide, " societal hypocrisy " is lazy and misleading
The KKK was/ is a terrorist organization whose sole purpose was to intimidate people of color and yes, Jews , Catholics and ...
This is comparable to a Muslim country erecting statues of bin Laden
According to the Tuskegee Institute, 4,743 people were lynched between 1882 and 1968 in the United States, including 3,446 African Americans
an overview
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_in_the_United_States
I actually agree with your overall sentiment.
There have been many flawed leaders, but winners get to write the history books. Hence also why I'm always hesitant to simply make every modern decision based on "what would the founders do".
I think it's very important to educate people on their flaws, and treat them just as vital as their accomplishments.
I think the problem with the Modern GOP is the party is shrinking so much that party leadership is stuck having to hold on to the people who gravitate to that subtle racist stuff. Trumpism is a disease and represents the absolute worst of America. And it brings us back momentarily in time to a lot of those same sentiments you brought up from past leaders (you forgot to include Woodrow Wilson as well).
The GOP has sacrificed future growth of their party by investing in this Trumpism stuff. It is the hill the current establishment has chosen to die on for the next 10-15 years.
striker42
Well-known member
I wouldn't ascribe it to the shrinking of the party. I'd ascribe it to the growth of the fringes primarying the establishment.
Primary elections are low voter turnout elections. As such, they tend to get dominated by the frothing at the mouth extremist fringes of the parties as these people tend to go vote. If you express anything resembling a moderate viewpoint, you could end up facing off against an ideologue in your next primary.
You see the same thing happening on the left. You could ask one of the Democrat presidential candidates if they think it should be legal for a mother in the middle of labor to have the baby sacrificed in a demonic ritual to summon Beelzebub himself and they'd almost all tell you that it should be perfectly legal. Any deviation from the extreme to more moderate, reasonable thinking will get the fringes of your party attacking you and leaving you no chance to win a primary.
The fringes are driving the party buses right now and that's who is being catered to. It's less damaging to do something crazy that appeases your party's fringe than to do something reasonable that benefits everyone.
Again, pretty much agree with what you're saying.
At the same time, I think we should look at one of the causes for why the extremes are pushing that way and why as many historians are noting, we're in the most politically polarized time since reconstruction.
I think the GOP allowing this sort of fringe element to come in after McCain lost in 2008 has helped get us to where we are today. They knew the Neoconservative Run they had with Bush-Cheney-Rove was coming to an end and wouldn't win another election. Palin and the Faux Tea Party lead the charge, and the Dems since have simply been playing fire with fire. The Dems won the House and Senate with Blue Dogs in 2006 and it was Tea Party and Faux GOP Establishment pretending to be Tea Party that won in 2010. The Dems in 2018 won the House with a lot of moderates, yet it's the "Squad" that Trump and the right continue to put on a pedestal. I don't think it's any coincidence either, since attacking moderate white guys like Conor Lamb isn't going to fire up Trump's base like it does attacking a muslim, a black woman, a hispanic millenial...
Perhaps in 100 years we'll look at Obama being elected in 2008 as the asterisk for polarization in the same way the Civil War/Ending of Slavery was the asterisk that started polarization for reconstruction. Which is so ironic. The right for years pushed this narrative Obama was this anti-christ caricature, the real racist, and this big huge communist. Yet in hindsight he was nothing more policywise than a neoliberal.
Buttigeig said it correctly today. Any candidate the Dems nominate, no matter how moderate or centrist they are, will be pushed by the right narratively as a socialist. The right knows it's just good politics for them to keep throwing the word socialist out there over and over.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
There's a big reason why Nathan Bedford FOrrest and his ilk shouldn't be venerated, and my first and foremost content, is anyone who seceded from the USA is a traitor and should not be venerated. I'm not of course talking about the normal joes who had not real stake in the game, but that wasn't him. He wasn't a simple footsoldier conscripted to war on a lie. He was a slaver who financed the war.
striker42
Well-known member
I agree Forrest shouldn't be venerated. At the same time, I grew up near the ruins of a textile mill that employed women, children,and elderly men during the civil war. Sherman ordered the workers be charged with treason, put them in a prison camp where the women were assaulted, and had the workers involuntarily deported to Indiana. Few ever returned.
That man has a statue on the national mall.
My point is not that Forrest should be venerated. My point is we're stupid about who we venerate.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Not much would make me feel sorry for anyone involved in the confederacy. Overall the South got a sweet deal out of the whole thing. Now the South governs the whole whole country.
As for anyone who was a foot soldier. They are as much to blame as anyone. Do not forgive people who pick up guns to fight wars of aggression. We are all human beings with minds of our own. Those who are lemmings to those in power enable genocides and wars.
As for anyone who was a foot soldier. They are as much to blame as anyone. Do not forgive people who pick up guns to fight wars of aggression. We are all human beings with minds of our own. Those who are lemmings to those in power enable genocides and wars.
Last edited:
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
Sherman created some horrifying atrocities, especially during his march to the sea. But there are 2 things to remember. 1. War is hell. 2. History is written by the victors. What Sherman did was break the backbone of the Confederacy, people living in border states had dealt with the most loss, while the deeper south supplied the war and profited from the war and ran the war. Sherman's March to the Sea was to break the backbone of the effective governing body of the Confederacy. Destroying supply lines, factories, etc. As well as lowering morale in the Confederacy. We won't know the effects of Sherman's March, the North would have won the war anyway, but it may have shortened the war by months, or years. And that's what makes war hell. Lives are gonna be ruined and loss, sometimes it comes down to balancing a death ledger.
striker42
Well-known member
I don't really think there should be anything after "Sherman created some horrifying atrocities." I don't think there really should be any attempt to justify what he did. If anything, he should be used as an example of how not to conduct war.
War is going to cost civilian lives. It's unavoidable. But there's a huge difference between intentional targeting of civilians and civilians being the collateral damage of a legitimate target. The intentional targeting of civilians in war is evil and cannot be justified. That's what Sherman did.
And it's not like he was following the standards of the day. Lincoln issued the Lieber Code not long before Sherman's campaign. Sherman pretty much ignored it. The atrocities Sherman committed were also decried in the North as well as the South.
I'm not for whitewashing history. I think it warps the lessons history can teach us. I find Forrest getting honored to be ridiculous. The guy was a trash person. The same goes for Jefferson Davis. But I find the veneration of people like Lincoln and Sherman to be silly as well. Those guys did some really evil stuff as well which gets ignored. When it is discussed people try to justify it. I find that troubling.
Runnin
Well-known member
Honoring the KKK today is about a millions times worse than owning slaves during the 1700's. They are not the same at all.
Bringing up history in this instance is only an attempt to be an apologist for the current evil.
acesfull86
Well-known member
Under Tennessee law, governors are required to proclaim six dates as "days of special observance" including July 13 as "Nathan Bedford Forrest Day"; June 3 as "Memorial Day" or "Confederate Decoration Day"; and January 19 as "Robert E. Lee Day."
Idiotic law
Idiotic law
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
I appreciate the point striker is making, but there’s no question what this law is about.
And it’s well-nigh bizarre that the same people who support it are nodding along in chorus with Trump about how much some Congressmembers hate America...while honoring men who hated America so much that they caused the death of hundreds of thousands.
And it’s well-nigh bizarre that the same people who support it are nodding along in chorus with Trump about how much some Congressmembers hate America...while honoring men who hated America so much that they caused the death of hundreds of thousands.
So honoring the kkk today is worse than owning slaves in the 1700’s?
People should be allowed to honor whomever they want, you don’t have to join them. Satanist, kkk, NAMBLA who cares. You have a right to look away and ignore them
striker42
Well-known member
I'd actually be interested to see the history of the law. A lot of laws like that were passed in reaction to the civil rights movement. I have no idea of this is one of them but I'd be interested to see.
I wouldn't say that Confederates hated America. They viewed what they created as America as well. George Washington was hailed as a hero in both the Union and the Confederacy after all.
I enjoy Civil War history. But it's far more nuanced than a lot of people want to admit. You're talking about a political fracture in a nation that had been building for nearly 100 years. Since before the nation was even a nation. It's not something that could be summed up in a single book, much less a single sentence.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
I think I am using oversimplified language to underscore a point, and, regardless, I have no problem at all saying that Confederate leaders hated America, regardless of whether or not they identified themselves as Americans or considered themselves Washington’s heirs. At a certain point, if you’re willing to secede, take up arms and spill massive quantities of American blood, it’s rather an exercise in hair-splitting.