(06-19-2018 01:57 PM)L Verge Wrote: (06-19-2018 11:00 AM)Rsmyth Wrote: "J.E.B. Stuart Elementary School, named after a Confederate general, will become Barack Obama Elementary School. The decision means that Richmond, the former capital of the Confederate States of America, will soon have a school honoring America’s first black president."
Common sense and decency prevail.
If you say so... My home county named a brand new school in "honor" of Barack Obama back in 2010. We have had a high school named after Fredrick Douglass (who did much more to aid in the Negro's plight) since the late-1800s or early-1900s.
We also have over 200 elementary, middle, and high schools plus vocational schools, charter schools, and academies; and many are named after black leaders, and one is named for Cesar Chavez. I have no problem with honoring those who truly served society.
We have gone through name changes - Roger B. Taney Middle became Thurgood Marshall many moons ago, and Francis Scott Key Middle was changed to Drew-Freeman to honor the great black physician Charles Drew and a leading black educator in our county.
The one that was really a shocker to the black and white citizens occurred around 2004. We had Lord Baltimore Middle School, whose name honored the founders of Maryland, and it was soon changed when a black member of our County Council was killed in an automobile accident. What shocked folks is that he was under investigation for a variety of felonies - and, when killed, he was joy riding with his mistress, not his wife and family. Please find the logic in that.
Let's hope that changing the names of institutions, streets, etc. really serves to educate future generations to who these folks are/were and, more importantly, how they changed our lives for the better.
One last thought from my bully pulpit. In our society and our churches, we are asked to forgive others, to help them rehabilitate themselves, shelter and feed them, etc. That is the lesson that walks out the doors of our churches with us every Sunday. And yet, many of our pious friends (on every side) still want to cling to the evil Southerners syndrome over 150 years later. If their thoughts and hopes were/are in the right place, shouldn't they have forgiven our ancestors, solved the situations, and moved on to more current problems? May I suggest that one practices what one preaches?
P.S. Now that we have shown both sides of the Nathan Bedford Forrest persona, are we taking on J.E.B. Stuart? http://www.historynet.com/jeb-stuart-imm...valier.htm
When was the last time that an innocent black person was lynched? I assume that it was not within your lifetime or you would have protested vigorously! I would suggest that one should practice what one preaches!!!
Laurie Verge wrote: "Roger B. Taney Middle [School] became Thurgood Marshall many moons ago."
I wonder how many moons ago it was that President Abraham Lincoln addressed the nation in his first inaugural address on March 6, 1861 with these words:
"If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."
President Lincoln was referring to the opinion of the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, Roger B. Taney, in the Supreme Court's majority opinion in the Dred Scott decision. This majority decision held that "a negro, whose ancestors were imported [into the United States], and sold as slaves," whether enslaved or free, could not be an American citizen and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court; and that the federal government had no power to regulate slavery in the federal territories acquired after the creation of the United States.
This decision was only the second time that the Supreme Court had ruled an Act of Congress to be unconstitutional.
People nowadays may have different opinions. My opinion will not be swayed by an opinion that differs from that of President Abraham Lincoln, no matter how many times such peculiar opinions are repeated!
(06-19-2018 01:10 PM)JMadonna Wrote: FWIW
Since time immemorial slaves have always been part of the hierarchy of society no matter which government they served under. Western culture began to change in the mid 1400's when Gutenberg began to print bibles.This led to the Protestant Reformation movement in 1517 with Martin Luther and his insistence that all Christians be able to read the Bible in their own language.
The ability to read the word of God for themselves changed Western Culture and the world. The concept of 'all equal under the eyes of God' planted the seeds for Western Democracy.
In America this led to The Second Great Awakening. A Protestant religious revival during the early 19th century in the United States. The movement began around 1790, gained momentum by 1800 and, after 1820, membership rose rapidly among Baptist and Methodist congregations whose preachers led the movement preaching abolitionism. (note - this movement occurred after the founding fathers had passed on)
Preachers began sermonizing that slavery was a moral sin, and set about arousing public attention to the subject. Repentance from slavery was required of souls, once enlightened of the subject, while continued support of the system incurred "the greatest guilt" upon them.
Slave owners countered that if it was a sin why didn't Christ preach against it? But you know the end of the story.
Those who take a high moral stance and equate America's slavery experience to Hitler's genocide of the Jews simply don't know how modern their moral stance is. You weren't born with high morals they were taught to you and learned from your environment. Anti-Slavery is a very recent standard.
Much of what you read about the cruelty and mistreatment of slaves was left over propaganda written for the war effort. The majority of slaves were expensive so they were fed and treated well. Many of whom remained loyal and volunteered for the South. Every Simon Legree knew that a mistreated slave did not produce work for his master.
"The majority of slaves were expensive so they were fed and treated well. Many of whom remained loyal and volunteered for the South."
Let the rich enslave the poor in this country and around the world, now. No doubt that they will all be "volunteers."
Search
Member List
Calendar
Help
/
Just read - no comments needed
