Princess of Tap

Jim Crow Confederate Monuments Go Down in America

557 posts in this topic

7 minutes ago, Princess of Tap said:

The experiments, operations, were conducted  without anesthesia and without the permission of the women--but with the permission of the white male slave owners.

The object of the experiments was to improve the Gynecology and Obstetrical procedures for white women.

That guy violated their human rights and it's shameful they let his statue stay up for so long.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So instead of taking his statue down they should completely surround it with lager statues of black slave women and honor their forced contributions to modern medicine. ?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Princess of Tap said:

The experiments, operations, were conducted  without anesthesia and without the permission of the women--but with the permission of the white male slave owners.

The object of the experiments was to improve the Gynecology and Obstetrical procedures for white women.

Once again POT transferred something from another thread.

Regardless, her comment is in error.  The object of the experiments was ALSO to improve the health of slave women.  Of course, there would have been a monetary value to the slave owners in that the women could work more and have more children.

As for anesthesia, it was not widely used at the time.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not try to carefully as possible separate ol' Uncle Ned from the

rest of the statue? To paraphrase Joe Stalin, No slave, no problem. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, TheCid said:

Once again POT transferred something from another thread.

Regardless, her comment is in error.  The object of the experiments was ALSO to improve the health of slave women.  Of course, there would have been a monetary value to the slave owners in that the women could work more and have more children.

As for anesthesia, it was not widely used at the time.

I left it out about anesthesia because I was in a hurry - - but I knew you'd make a comment about it. LOL

I'll tell you now it was used at that time-- but the general opinion at the time also was that

*black people didn't feel pain like white people*--

so they didn't see any reason to use it anyway.

 

I suppose there's always some way to rationalize how slavery wasn't as bad as it really was

or that the Confederacy was really about states rights and not white supremacy and

that Jim Crow era Confederate statues are not about domestic terrorism against black American citizens in the South, but about proud Southern Heritage.

 

I'm of the opinion that these pathetic rationalizations are just a waste of time.

 

There's nothing to be proud of about the Confederacy.

It was a promotion of slavery and white supremacy. 

It was an attempt to destroy the United States of America, a Treasonous Act, and should always be seen as such.

 

I also suppose that there will always be people who will be apologians for the Confederacy and slavery -- arguing and disputing every little detail of the situation,  just to try and keep people from accepting logical reality.

 

But I shall never be one of them.

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Princess of Tap said:

To move forward, one must take the first step.

Just out of curiosity, how many cities, countries, etc. (other than Germany) have apologized for their participation in slavery?  Many religions also participated in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Princess of Tap said:

To move forward, one must take the first step.

but the actual slaves who needed the apology are long dead.

:lol:

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Princess of Tap said:

To move forward, one must take the first step.

By "first step," do you mean eventually authorizing reparations?  

Also, what about apologizing for indentured servitude?  It was slavery with term-limits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Princess of Tap said:

A good step in the right direction...

 

11 minutes ago, Princess of Tap said:

A good step in the right direction...

Not really.  I voted for Obama twice and would again.  However, I am totally opposed to naming public facilities, buildings, highways, airports, etc. after people unless they have contributed 25% or more of the cost of construction-out of their personal funds.

In fact it would be nice if Obama declined the honor.  Besides, what connection does Obama have to Richmond VA?  Incidentally, I found it disagreeable when they did it with John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan as well.  Although it had a little more rationale with Kennedy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, TheCid said:

 

Not really.  I voted for Obama twice and would again.  However, I am totally opposed to naming public facilities, buildings, highways, airports, etc. after people unless they have contributed 25% or more of the cost of construction-out of their personal funds.

In fact it would be nice if Obama declined the honor.  Besides, what connection does Obama have to Richmond VA?  Incidentally, I found it disagreeable when they did it with John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan as well.  Although it had a little more rationale with Kennedy.

Clearly city leaders are trying to make a statement by changing the name of this school to that of the so called first black President.    In this way their decision is rationale.     I.e. THAT is the connection and the fact you didn't get that says something

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Clearly city leaders are trying to make a statement by changing the name of this school to that of the so called first black President.    In this way their decision is rationale.     I.e. THAT is the connection and the fact you didn't get that says something

 

 

Oh, I got that.  Of course, the city council is majority African-American as is the mayor.  I have no objection to them changing the name of the school.  My objection is to play race politics by naming it after the first African-American president rather than a neutral name or after someone with a more definitive connection to Richmond or VA.

The fact that you tried to paint me as a racist says something about you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheCid said:

Oh, I got that.  Of course, the city council is majority African-American as is the mayor.  I have no objection to them changing the name of the school.  My objection is to play race politics by naming it after the first African-American president rather than a neutral name or after someone with a more definitive connection to Richmond or VA.

The fact that you tried to paint me as a racist says something about you.

If you got 'that'  why did you post this silly question "Besides, what connection does Obama have to Richmond VA?".    None and you obviously knew that and that a 'connection' was NOT the reason why Obama was selected.

Also if your objection was that the city council was playing race politics (which they clearly are),  why didn't you state that as your objection instead of "However, I am totally opposed to naming public facilities, buildings, highways, airports, etc. after people unless they have contributed 25% or more of the cost of construction-out of their personal funds".

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

If you got 'that'  why did you post this silly question "Besides, what connection does Obama have to Richmond VA?".    None and you obviously knew that and that a 'connection' was NOT the reason why Obama was selected.

Also if your objection was that the city council was playing race politics (which they clearly are),  why didn't you state that as your objection instead of "However, I am totally opposed to naming public facilities, buildings, highways, airports, etc. after people unless they have contributed 25% or more of the cost of construction-out of their personal funds".

 

 

You just don't get it.  Enough said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheCid said:

You just don't get it.  Enough said.

No I get it.  You don't like that these black city council members are playing race politics by removing a confederate and replacing him with Obama. 

I don't agree with that either.    My point was why didn't you just say so in your initial post.   (because if you really believe facilities should be named only after someone ponies up 25% of the cost, then nothing can be named after any historical figures since the dead can't pony up any funds!!!!).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

No I get it.  You don't like that these black city council members are playing race politics by removing a confederate and replacing him with Obama. 

I don't agree with that either.    My point was why didn't you just say so in your initial post.   (because if you really believe facilities should be named only after someone ponies up 25% of the cost, then nothing can be named after any historical figures since the dead can't pony up any funds!!!!).

 

 

Bingo! You got it now.  Don't name anything after people-unless they paid for it.  This includes "historical figures."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jakeem said:

They have been peddling this for years. The Civil War was a single issue war. States rights to buy and sell human beings was used to legitimize legal slavery. Now the Nazi wing of the GOP claims it was a war about states rights. Same thing on segregation. They lost that war too.

It's one thing to make a mistake; it's another thing not to have the guts to face up to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There were multiple causes for the Civil War.  Tried to copy the PBS History Detectives narrative, but can't do it.  Please read before responding to this post:   http://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/feature/causes-of-the-civil-war/

Slavery was the chief problem, but not the only one.  Anyone who has actually objectively studied American History during the period between 1800 and 1865 knows this.  With or without the slavery issue, the Civil War was coming, just as it did to almost every nation in history.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/30/2018 at 6:35 AM, jakeem said:

City of Austin suggests idea of changing name to move away from confederate history http://bit.ly/2LL1NJj 

DjUarYbXsAA7P96.jpg

More and more cities have populations in the South which are now finally facing, not just reality, but the input of black voices that had been brutally and often violently silenced for decades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/26/2018 at 10:26 AM, TheCid said:

There were multiple causes for the Civil War.  Tried to copy the PBS History Detectives narrative, but can't do it.  Please read before responding to this post:   http://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/feature/causes-of-the-civil-war/

Slavery was the chief problem, but not the only one.  Anyone who has actually objectively studied American History during the period between 1800 and 1865 knows this.  With or without the slavery issue, the Civil War was coming, just as it did to almost every nation in history.

 

 

I notice that in the History Detectives post he differentiates between slavery as a moral

issue and slavery as a financial and regional issue. But slavery is still the issue, in whatever

manner it is considered. And the back and forth on slavery is one of the main themes of

the 1800s. Where should it expand, should a state be admitted as free or salve, etc.

So without slavery and its many effects I don't see a Civil War happening, even taking into

account the differences between North and South in other areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Vautrin said:

I notice that in the History Detectives post he differentiates between slavery as a moral

issue and slavery as a financial and regional issue. But slavery is still the issue, in whatever

manner it is considered. And the back and forth on slavery is one of the main themes of

the 1800s. Where should it expand, should a state be admitted as free or salve, etc.

So without slavery and its many effects I don't see a Civil War happening, even taking into

account the differences between North and South in other areas.

Read but no comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, jakeem said:

As the anniversary of the white supremacist rally in Charlottesville nears, cities like Memphis are wrestling with what to do with the controversial statues once they've been taken down.

https://www.npr.org/2018/08/05/633952187/where-do-confederate-monuments-go-after-they-come-down?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20180810

0013-170819-nbf-0114_custom-a0a61d55cf2580bc72841e03ce66a87db2ac9464-s1300-c85.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us