USAians: What are you doing on this loooong MLK weekend?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Some people do believe that though. They think that by establishing a MLK day that it does in fact free him from criticism.

Who are these 'people' ? Don't be shy, name names.


Otherwise it's yet another stereotypical attention-diverting strawman.

[Ben Kenobi]

Of course, you realize that you can also put together quite an impressive list of accomplishments for one Benedict Arnold as well. He, most likely, was the greatest American general of the Revolution before he jumped sides.

If you can find that go right ahead.

Geronimo asked the question, what did he accomplish in his life. I gave the before and the after.

Whether you agree with it the man was pardoned in the end. He has redeemed himself. I see no reason why a Lee-Jackson day shouldn't be celebrated, unless it's the Jackson part you have a problem with.

The holiday is celebrating an insurrection that was begun over the issue of slavery. I used to think all that "states rights" crap and whatnot, but over the years it is futile to try to admit that it wasn't slavery that was the main issue involved, especially when reading the speeches for secession.

Well you have to recall that Lee was an erstwhile opponent of secession. I don't see how a day honouring him would celebrate secession. The man has a significant contribution to the state of Virginia, both before, during and after the civil war. He's earned his stripes.

Don't you mean "white Southerners"? Because I doubt a lot of black folk are celebrating Lee and Jackson, two generals, who if they won, would have resulted in victory for a racist state that would have kept them in bondage for far longer than they had been.

The same man who arranged for government funding, who shouted down Davis and Early, the same man who insisted that the slaves should be freed in the south so that they could serve in the army.

I could go on.

Why shouldn't a black man celebrate Lee? It's not Lee who was the problem with the confederacy.

The fact that you DON'T consider it morally repugnant says a lot about you as well... willing to look the other way when people celebrate racism under the guise of "culture".

So I'm a racist?



If I did I'd surely be arguing on the same side as Early who was a grand wizard, not in support of Lee, who was not a racist, despite your claims to the contrary.

I'm not surprised to see you ignored the bit about him getting government funds to support the education of blacks and expelling white students if they supported slavery from his college.

That little tidbit gets in the way of your hate-on.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

I don't see how a day honouring him would celebrate secession.

Mmm, because he commanded the forces of the States which seceded from the Union ? In a war based on race ?


Good grief.

[Ben Kenobi]

You know what? It's HIGH TIME for white Southerners to find ways to celebrate the distinctiveness of their region's culture that is inclusive of other race and ethnic groups who also live in the South instead of such divisive, and racist "celebrations" as waving the Confederate flag.

And why has the battle flag of the confederacy (which BTW wasn't even created until the war started) a symbol of slavery?

We've argued this before. The south should be allowed to have their own culture, to celebrate what they believe in without folks from other states telling them what they can and can't do.

Why should someone from Atlanta celebrate General Sherman? He burnt the whole city? I can see why they would have a considerable problem, but in the in the end, it's the right of people in the north to celebrate him.

They even held a large funeral for him in the south, (because that's where he was from).

You see, that's a southern trait. The same man who fought hard against Sherman, was his pallbearer at his funeral and considered it an honour that he was able to perform that duty for his friend.

I'm all for the South celebrating its own regional culture, cuisine, customs, and so forth. But white Southerners generally do this at the exclusion of non-white Southerners and usually, this includes offensive, racist elements.

According to whom? You?

I don't see why it should be separate. MLK is just as much part of the south as the confederacy. Both need to have their voices heard, not one to the exclusion of the other.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Whether you agree with it the man was pardoned in the end. He has redeemed himself. I see no reason why a Lee-Jackson day shouldn't be celebrated, unless it's the Jackson part you have a problem with.

Someone who kills a man and then turns to God and repents is still a murderer. Whether he gets pardoned or not is irrelevant. For many, he would not be redeemed.

Well you have to recall that Lee was an erstwhile opponent of secession. I don't see how a day honouring him would celebrate secession.

Do as I do, not as I say. Opponent or not, when push came to shove, he joined up with the secessionists.

Why shouldn't a black man celebrate Lee? It's not Lee who was the problem with the confederacy.

He led the army of the country that wanted to keep him enslaved. Regardless of his personal views, he was responsible for the continued existance of that racist state.

So I'm a racist?

If you'd like to call yourself that. I merely said you looked the other way. Unless you think that people who looked the other way during the Nazi Holocaust were anti-Semites.

I'm not surprised to see you ignored the bit about him getting government funds to support the education of blacks and expelling white students if they supported slavery from his college.

Who cares? You think he got a day because he advanced the cause of blacks after he got his ass kicked by Grant? I don't think so.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I don't see why it should be separate. MLK is just as much part of the south as the confederacy. Both need to have their voices heard, not one to the exclusion of the other.

Nathan Bedford Forrest was just as much a part of the South. George Wallace was just as much a part of the South. Should they have his voice heard to?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


And why has the battle flag of the confederacy (which BTW wasn't even created until the war started) a symbol of slavery?

Because it was the symbol of the Confederacy which fought for the right to own other human beings.

Sometimes reading your posts is an exercise in despair.

The south should be allowed to have their own culture

Yeah. Let's bring back the community tradition that was lynching, when whole (white communities) could turn out and get souvenir postcards and drink home made lemonade.

Imagine, you could probably get some interested foreign tourists- maybe some Canadians might like to see real live African Americans die.

Then of course there's bear baiting, dog fighting, child labour, the burning of Catholic churches- lovely quaint old cultural traditions.

You see, that's a southern trait.

Like bigotry and ignorance ?

You can find hospitality and respect everywhere. It's not like Mississippi or Louisiana cornered the market in respect.


A fine Southern trait, hypocrisy :

All my life I had known that such conditions were accepted as a matter of course. I found that this rape of helpless Negro girls and women, which began in slavery days, still continued without let or hindrance, check or reproof from the church, state, or press until there had been created this race within a race - and all designated by the inclusive term of "colored".

I also found that what the white man of the South practiced as all right for himself, he assumed to be unthinkable in white women. They could and did fall in love with the pretty mulatto and quadroon girls as well as black ones, but they professed an inability to imagine white women doing the same thing with Negro and mulatto men. Whenever they did so and were found out, the cry of rape was raised, and the lowest element of the white South was turned loose to wreak its fiendish cruelty on those too weak to help themselves.

No torture of helpless victims by heathen savages or cruel red Indians ever exceeded the cold-blooded savagery of white devils under lynch law. This was done by white men who controlled all the forces of law and order in their communities and who could have legally punished rapists and murderers, especially black men who had neither political power nor financial strength with which to evade any justly deserved fate. The more I studied the situation, the more I was convinced that the Southerner had never gotten over his resentment that the Negro was no longer his plaything, his servant, and his source of income.

Ida Wells, 'Crusade for Justice' (1928)

[Ben Kenobi]

Someone who kills a man and then turns to God and repents is still a murderer. Whether he gets pardoned or not is irrelevant. For many, he would not be redeemed.

In the eyes of the United States of America he has, whether you agree with him or not.

I'm sure we can all call him a traitor out of our personal beliefs, but clearly the men of his time did not.

Do as I do, not as I say. Opponent or not, when push came to shove, he joined up with the secessionists.

Which is why he campaigned during the war to free the slaves?

Regardless of whether he made his decision, he did not do so to support slavery.

He led the army of the country that wanted to keep him enslaved. Regardless of his personal views, he was responsible for the continued existance of that racist state.

And so were the men who were drafted? Are they responsible for not fleeing to the north?

If you'd like to call yourself that. I merely said you looked the other way. Unless you think that people who looked the other way during the Nazi Holocaust were anti-Semites.

Where have I said I supported slavery? I've said over and over again that it was silly that a line on a map would decide whether someone was a person or not. The state doesn't get to choose who is a person and who is not, people have inherent rights that cannot and should not be abrogated.

Who cares? You think he got a day because he advanced the cause of blacks after he got his ass kicked by Grant? I don't think so.

Compared to Early and Davis who complained about everything?

The men of his time recognised him and accorded him considerable acclaim. North as well as south. They even renamed George Washington College, Washington and Lee.

It's easy 150 years after everything to sit back and pontificate, but that's the truth. You have your own impression of Lee, and the facts aren't going to change anything here.

[Ben Kenobi]

dp

[Ben Kenobi]

Nathan Bedford Forrest was just as much a part of the South. George Wallace was just as much a part of the South. Should they have his voice heard to?

From the man who supported free speech, you sound awfully quick to deny such to others.

Any honest assessment of the south has to include the best and worst parts. I think it's horrifying you would rather whitewash the parts you don't like and are offended by.

Yes there will still be folks who support both of them as well as Early. Yes, that's for better or worse, part of the south. Should we simply expunge that and said it never happened?

[Ramo]

Which is why he campaigned during the war to free the slaves?

No. He didn't.

And so were the men who were drafted?

Lee and Jackson weren't drafted.

[Ramo]

From the man who supported free speech, you sound awfully quick to deny such to others.

Opposing a public holiday commemorating a certain odious public figure has absolutely nothing to do with free speech. Not one thing.

[Ramo]

Any honest assessment of the south has to include the best and worst parts.

That doesn't mean you have to celebrate the worst parts.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


From the man who supported free speech, you sound awfully quick to deny such to others.

How much 'speech' would you say was denied by the Confederacy in its treatment of the slaves ?


And by Robert E Lee (who unlike men who had been drafted) chose to fight for the Confederacy ?

I think it's horrifying you would rather whitewash the parts you don't like and are offended by.

That's rich, coming in the post of someone who's done a snowjob on Lee and what the Confederacy was about.

By the way, who are these people who think that M.L.K. Day places Martin Luther King beyond reproach ?

You claimed it, but didn't back it up. Shock, shock, horror, horror...

They even renamed George Washington College, Washington and Lee.

Care to tell us where the college is situated.... ?

Regardless of whether he made his decision, he did not do so to support slavery.

He was the owner of slaves himself. His intent is irrelevant- if you fight to preserve a system which is racist and seeks to enslave people out of some misguided sense of loyalty or out of a desire to perpetuate said system the outcome is the same.

[Ben Kenobi]

No. He didn't.

In 1864, he pushed Davis for southern conscription of black men to extend his manpower.

Davis denied him because he saw that if the south relied upon the blacks, then there was no justification for slavery. He couldn't keep them both together. Lee saw this, and so did Davis.

Lee and Jackson weren't drafted.

Not the point, the point being that there were many who served in the confederacy unwillingly. Conscientious objectors didn't have a choice of alternative service as they do now.

Lee had the choice to abandon and fight against his home state of Virginia, or stay and be with the confederacy. Maybe that choice is cut and dried to you Ramo, but I wouldn't see it as an easy choice at all.