Pages: 1 2

 

2008-11-04 03:26:19
deeznutz1245
Connecticut: our chimps are stealin yo' faces.
+483|6797|Connecticut
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27530588

I see both sides of the argument, honestly. However, one thing nobody brought up is that when the KKK started (when Forrest was in it) it was a Christian fraternity that met to pay homage to the dead soldiers of the civil war. They committed no violent acts until later in their history and this guy wasn't associated with any of it.
Malloy must go
2008-11-04 04:31:06
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6926|London, England

deeznutz1245 wrote:

They committed no violent acts until later in their history and this guy wasn't associated with any of it.
But the question is, where they a racist organisation from the beginning? Even when they were a wholesome Christian veteran memorial thing or whatever
2008-11-04 04:34:22
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6926|London, England
And also, it seems odd that the US is glorifying separatist/confederate leaders like that. I'd have thought they'd be looked down upon as villains in the US, or is the south still proud of its Confederate days?

Last edited by Mek-Stizzle (2008-11-04 04:35:55)

2008-11-04 04:36:07
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6457|what

Mek-Stizzle wrote:

or does the south still proud of its Confederate days?
Of course it is. It wasn't just about slavery, and the South did fight well.

Robert E. Lee is still considered a hero by many.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
2008-11-04 04:47:22
Superior Mind
(not macbeth)
+1,755|6997

Mek-Stizzle wrote:

And also, it seems odd that the US is glorifying separatist/confederate leaders like that. I'd have thought they'd be looked down upon as villains in the US, or is the south still proud of its Confederate days?
The South was pretty much destroyed by the end of the Civil War. There was much resentment towards the Union by the South. Confederate ideology and support still exists even today. Besides slavery being the key element needed to support Southern life style of the mid-late 19th century, the Confederacy had legitimate reasons to want to secede. Southerners were not some Nazi/Al-Queda esq people who wanted to see America burn. They were just Americans who wanted to farm without the government all up in their grills. They were Americans. Americans killed Americans. It sucked.
x
2008-11-04 05:18:29
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6926|London, England

Superior Mind wrote:

Mek-Stizzle wrote:

And also, it seems odd that the US is glorifying separatist/confederate leaders like that. I'd have thought they'd be looked down upon as villains in the US, or is the south still proud of its Confederate days?
The South was pretty much destroyed by the end of the Civil War. There was much resentment towards the Union by the South. Confederate ideology and support still exists even today. Besides slavery being the key element needed to support Southern life style of the mid-late 19th century, the Confederacy had legitimate reasons to want to secede. Southerners were not some Nazi/Al-Queda esq people who wanted to see America burn. They were just Americans who wanted to farm without the government all up in their grills. They were Americans. Americans killed Americans. It sucked.
They wanted to farm with slaves. Maybe it's not as bad as Nazi or AQ (just a tad not as bad), but it's still pretty fucked up. Yeah, boo fucking hoo, they wanted to farm with slaves without the government interfering, how dare they. Fuckin wankers if you ask me...
2008-11-04 06:09:05
RoosterCantrell
Goodbye :)
+399|6784|Somewhere else

TheAussieReaper wrote:

Mek-Stizzle wrote:

or does the south still proud of its Confederate days?
Of course it is. It wasn't just about slavery, and the South did fight well.

Robert E. Lee is still considered a hero by many.
and MANY schools bear that name.
2008-11-04 06:21:54
deeznutz1245
Connecticut: our chimps are stealin yo' faces.
+483|6797|Connecticut

Mek-Stizzle wrote:

deeznutz1245 wrote:

They committed no violent acts until later in their history and this guy wasn't associated with any of it.
But the question is, where they a racist organisation from the beginning? Even when they were a wholesome Christian veteran memorial thing or whatever
Not that I condone the behavior of the KKK, but in the begining it had nothing to do with violence or race. Educated men would ride their horses with white sheets on to depict ghosts of the fallen civil war soldiers. They would do good deeds to honor the spirits of the dead soldiers and then gather afterwards and hang out. Somewhere along the lines they turned into a bunch of uneducated hate mongoring rednecks but that was later, after his time. And the fact that he was a General for the Confederate Army is quite an honorable feat in my opinion. I don't agree with slavery, but not to many men on either side fought for that anyway. America itself is founded on being rebellious so I commend those who fight and die for their cause with exception to those who fight to terrorize out of hate.
Malloy must go
2008-11-04 06:24:36
13rin
Member
+977|6784

Mek-Stizzle wrote:

Superior Mind wrote:

Mek-Stizzle wrote:

And also, it seems odd that the US is glorifying separatist/confederate leaders like that. I'd have thought they'd be looked down upon as villains in the US, or is the south still proud of its Confederate days?
The South was pretty much destroyed by the end of the Civil War. There was much resentment towards the Union by the South. Confederate ideology and support still exists even today. Besides slavery being the key element needed to support Southern life style of the mid-late 19th century, the Confederacy had legitimate reasons to want to secede. Southerners were not some Nazi/Al-Queda esq people who wanted to see America burn. They were just Americans who wanted to farm without the government all up in their grills. They were Americans. Americans killed Americans. It sucked.
They wanted to farm with slaves. Maybe it's not as bad as Nazi or AQ (just a tad not as bad), but it's still pretty fucked up. Yeah, boo fucking hoo, they wanted to farm with slaves without the government interfering, how dare they. Fuckin wankers if you ask me...
Um no.  It really wasn't about the slaves.  As much as revisionist history tries to sell it. Wasn't the case..  Wankers, that stood up to a government perceived as unjust to them at the time....
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
2008-11-04 06:54:33
God Save the Queen
Banned
+628|6648|tropical regions of london
Why would a man from tenessee  get a high school named after him in florida.


deez, I disagree.  The klan shortly after it started terrorzed newly freed slaves and "carpet baggers"  this was during reconstruction.  reconstruction , if im not mistaken, lasted until the mid to lat 1870's.  meaning, since the klan started in 1866,  you must be refferring to the the first month or something if you are saying they werent terrorizing people.


Or, are we supposed to swallow that tripe about the KKK being symbol of southern culture like the stars and bars?lol, nigga please.
2008-11-04 06:55:09
deeznutz1245
Connecticut: our chimps are stealin yo' faces.
+483|6797|Connecticut

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Um no.  It really wasn't about the slaves.  As much as revisionist history tries to sell it. Wasn't the case..  Wankers, that stood up to a government perceived as unjust to them at the time....
exactly. Slavery was just one of the many issues that opposed each side and it is falsly glorified to a "good versus evil" battle today.
Malloy must go
2008-11-04 06:56:06
God Save the Queen
Banned
+628|6648|tropical regions of london
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1871


youre4 wrong about the klan.  You say it started as a noble organization (HA), but that is far from reality.

It really sounds like your are speaking highly of the fuckers.  Like youre using the confederate flag argument.  fuck the soul of every single confederate soldier and I hope they are still burning in hell.  traitors.

Last edited by God Save the Queen (2008-11-04 06:57:59)

2008-11-04 07:03:42
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6595|Éire

deeznutz1245 wrote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27530588

I see both sides of the argument, honestly. However, one thing nobody brought up is that when the KKK started (when Forrest was in it) it was a Christian fraternity that met to pay homage to the dead soldiers of the civil war. They committed no violent acts until later in their history and this guy wasn't associated with any of it.
The nazis weren't established to exterminate the Jews either... but they still tried to!

Was the guy this school is named after dead by the time the KKK lost the plot and went off the reserve or was he still at the helm when they started dressing up as ghosts? Because maybe then you could argue that he is not to blame for the sins of his successors.
2008-11-04 07:05:41
God Save the Queen
Banned
+628|6648|tropical regions of london

Braddock wrote:

deeznutz1245 wrote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27530588

I see both sides of the argument, honestly. However, one thing nobody brought up is that when the KKK started (when Forrest was in it) it was a Christian fraternity that met to pay homage to the dead soldiers of the civil war. They committed no violent acts until later in their history and this guy wasn't associated with any of it.
The nazis weren't established to exterminate the Jews either... but they still tried to!

Was the guy this school is named after dead by the time the KKK lost the plot and went off the reserve or was he still at the helm when they started dressing up as ghosts? Because maybe then you could argue that he is not to blame for the sins of his successors.
He left his position a few years after he started the klan.  but it has always been an organization of terrorists, with a secondary goal of remembering dead traitors (confederates)
2008-11-04 07:08:17
deeznutz1245
Connecticut: our chimps are stealin yo' faces.
+483|6797|Connecticut

Braddock wrote:

deeznutz1245 wrote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27530588

I see both sides of the argument, honestly. However, one thing nobody brought up is that when the KKK started (when Forrest was in it) it was a Christian fraternity that met to pay homage to the dead soldiers of the civil war. They committed no violent acts until later in their history and this guy wasn't associated with any of it.
The nazis weren't established to exterminate the Jews either... but they still tried to!

Was the guy this school is named after dead by the time the KKK lost the plot and went off the reserve or was he still at the helm when they started dressing up as ghosts? Because maybe then you could argue that he is not to blame for the sins of his successors.
He actually was the first leader of the KKK but then when it spread through out the south and began to become violent he worked with Congress to disband it. Also, it should be noted that he was a slave owner until the war broke out. He volunteered to fight and equipped his men with weapons, horeses and supplies with his own money. He offered his slaves to go free and they actually fought with him in his regiment. The Army was spread out so thin financially that he spent his own money to equip his soldiers.
Malloy must go
2008-11-04 07:11:52
deeznutz1245
Connecticut: our chimps are stealin yo' faces.
+483|6797|Connecticut

Braddock wrote:

Because maybe then you could argue that he is not to blame for the sins of his successors.
I don't think you are responsible for what happens after you are gone and furthermore his name should not be tainted for the actions of others. If the Boy Scouts turned into a youth group that committed crimes instead of good deeds I would not hold past Scouts responsible for those actions. Besides, America's founding fathers are probably rolling over in their graves right now too.
Malloy must go
2008-11-04 07:15:12
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6595|Éire

deeznutz1245 wrote:

Braddock wrote:

deeznutz1245 wrote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27530588

I see both sides of the argument, honestly. However, one thing nobody brought up is that when the KKK started (when Forrest was in it) it was a Christian fraternity that met to pay homage to the dead soldiers of the civil war. They committed no violent acts until later in their history and this guy wasn't associated with any of it.
The nazis weren't established to exterminate the Jews either... but they still tried to!

Was the guy this school is named after dead by the time the KKK lost the plot and went off the reserve or was he still at the helm when they started dressing up as ghosts? Because maybe then you could argue that he is not to blame for the sins of his successors.
He actually was the first leader of the KKK but then when it spread through out the south and began to become violent he worked with Congress to disband it. Also, it should be noted that he was a slave owner until the war broke out. He volunteered to fight and equipped his men with weapons, horeses and supplies with his own money. He offered his slaves to go free and they actually fought with him in his regiment. The Army was spread out so thin financially that he spent his own money to equip his soldiers.
It's a complex and very subjective issue arguing whether someone who creates something that subsequently turns out to be quite evil is free from blame. If there was a heaven would the guy who invented the cigarette or the gun be allowed in? This guy created one of the most twisted and evil groups in American history and its effects are still lingering today... maybe he shouldn't be blamed for all of that but at the same time I wouldn't go naming schools after the guy.
2008-11-04 07:24:59
deeznutz1245
Connecticut: our chimps are stealin yo' faces.
+483|6797|Connecticut

Braddock wrote:

It's a complex and very subjective issue arguing whether someone who creates something that subsequently turns out to be quite evil is free from blame. If there was a heaven would the guy who invented the cigarette or the gun be allowed in? This guy created one of the most twisted and evil groups in American history and its effects are still lingering today... maybe he shouldn't be blamed for all of that but at the same time I wouldn't go naming schools after the guy.
Thats my argument though, he didn't create something bad. His intentions were noble but once someone else turned into something not, he mde every effort to disband it.  I mean, if I were to get tasered I wouldn't be mad at Benjamin Franklin because he discovered electricity.
Malloy must go
2008-11-04 07:26:56
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6595|Éire
In Northern Ireland the UVF started out as a legitimate organisation. They fought in a world war for Britain and in later years set up the Somme nursing home in Belfast for injured vets. They also went on to become a terrorist organistaion responsible for the deaths of many unarmed Irish civilians and in modern times have been implicated in drug dealing throughout their stronghold areas.

I personally wouldn't name a school after their leader or founder.
2008-11-04 07:28:39
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6595|Éire

deeznutz1245 wrote:

Braddock wrote:

It's a complex and very subjective issue arguing whether someone who creates something that subsequently turns out to be quite evil is free from blame. If there was a heaven would the guy who invented the cigarette or the gun be allowed in? This guy created one of the most twisted and evil groups in American history and its effects are still lingering today... maybe he shouldn't be blamed for all of that but at the same time I wouldn't go naming schools after the guy.
Thats my argument though, he didn't create something bad. His intentions were noble but once someone else turned into something not, he mde every effort to disband it.  I mean, if I were to get tasered I wouldn't be mad at Benjamin Franklin because he discovered electricity.
I'm sure there are plenty of other worthy people to have schools named after, why waste it on a guy who created a monster? ...even if he never intended it to be a monster.
2008-11-04 07:30:37
deeznutz1245
Connecticut: our chimps are stealin yo' faces.
+483|6797|Connecticut

Braddock wrote:

deeznutz1245 wrote:

Braddock wrote:

It's a complex and very subjective issue arguing whether someone who creates something that subsequently turns out to be quite evil is free from blame. If there was a heaven would the guy who invented the cigarette or the gun be allowed in? This guy created one of the most twisted and evil groups in American history and its effects are still lingering today... maybe he shouldn't be blamed for all of that but at the same time I wouldn't go naming schools after the guy.
Thats my argument though, he didn't create something bad. His intentions were noble but once someone else turned into something not, he mde every effort to disband it.  I mean, if I were to get tasered I wouldn't be mad at Benjamin Franklin because he discovered electricity.
I'm sure there are plenty of other worthy people to have schools named after, why waste it on a guy who created a monster? ...even if he never intended it to be a monster.
Maybe because he was a General? Perhaps because they ran out of people to name the school after? James Woods High School?
Malloy must go
2008-11-04 07:35:05
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6595|Éire

deeznutz1245 wrote:

Braddock wrote:

deeznutz1245 wrote:


Thats my argument though, he didn't create something bad. His intentions were noble but once someone else turned into something not, he mde every effort to disband it.  I mean, if I were to get tasered I wouldn't be mad at Benjamin Franklin because he discovered electricity.
I'm sure there are plenty of other worthy people to have schools named after, why waste it on a guy who created a monster? ...even if he never intended it to be a monster.
Maybe because he was a General? Perhaps because they ran out of people to name the school after? James Woods High School?
They should name it James Woods High School... that would be cool.

But seriously, why pick a guy who, although revered by one section of society, is despised and seen as a figure of hate by another section of society? It would be like naming schools after IRA and UVF terrorists/freedom fighters throughout Northern Ireland. If you're going to name something after someone then that person has to have a pretty clean track record... I mean Gary Glitter had some good songs but he still went on to bugger little kids, ye know.
2008-11-04 07:40:47
deeznutz1245
Connecticut: our chimps are stealin yo' faces.
+483|6797|Connecticut

Braddock wrote:

. If you're going to name something after someone then that person has to have a pretty clean track record... I mean Gary Glitter had some good songs but he still went on to bugger little kids, ye know.
Ok. By that logic perhaps we should rename this  school too.



ye know

Last edited by deeznutz1245 (2008-11-04 07:41:09)

Malloy must go
2008-11-04 07:45:37
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6595|Éire

deeznutz1245 wrote:

Braddock wrote:

. If you're going to name something after someone then that person has to have a pretty clean track record... I mean Gary Glitter had some good songs but he still went on to bugger little kids, ye know.
Ok. By that logic perhaps we should rename this  school too.



ye know
Go ahead.

Here's a thought... how about just naming the schools after the area they are in?
2008-11-04 07:46:54
deeznutz1245
Connecticut: our chimps are stealin yo' faces.
+483|6797|Connecticut

Braddock wrote:

deeznutz1245 wrote:

Braddock wrote:

. If you're going to name something after someone then that person has to have a pretty clean track record... I mean Gary Glitter had some good songs but he still went on to bugger little kids, ye know.
Ok. By that logic perhaps we should rename this  school too.



ye know
Go ahead.

Here's a thought... how about just naming the schools after the area they are in?
hmmmm. not bad.


srsly.
Malloy must go

 

Pages: 1 2

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard