Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Recommended Posts

think of our astronauts who proudly bear the stars and stripes on their space suits...

and chuck heston in planet of the apes and doan forget about john philip souza's stars and stripes forever.

liberalism must stop going too far.

:)

 

Charlton Heston | Planet of the apes, Plant of the apes, Apes

Original 'Planet of the Apes' movie suffered long production delay,  challenges with makeup - New York Daily News

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

I'm not arguing with any of this. You were saying that "Actually, it ended in 1863 or 2  with the signing of Abraham Lincoln's EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION,  Einstein.  " You are flat wrong. I don't know how to say this more clearly. 

I am simply saying that, according to the Emancipation Proclamation, if the Confederacy (and of course I realize this includes Texas)  had laid down its arms in December 1862, this proclamation would have freed nobody. It had no power over Maryland, for example, even after Jan. 1, 1863 because it only applied to states in rebellion. And although the Union forces in Galveston announced that slaves were free, many were not actually freed in the distant parts of Texas - far west Texas and the panhandle - until later, some not until the ratification of the 13th amendment. 

Perhaps this applies to you:

 

Yes, it took time for word to spread after the announcement in Galveston, but it mostly had to spread as far west as the current I-35 corridor.  Most slaves were held in Texas in the east - most people lived east of the current I-35 corridor and along the Rio Grande at that time, as this is where the most water was, and the most fertile land.  There were few if any slaves in far west Texas as it was virtually unsettled at the time, and agriculture technology did not allow for farming of much out there, other than subsistence farming.   Not until people figured out large scale irrigation were they able to farm out there, and in the High Plains area, that started in the 20th century.

Percentage of slaves in Texas in 1860

 

https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/slavery

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, txfilmfan said:

Yes, it took time for word to spread after the announcement in Galveston, but it mostly had to spread as far west as the current I-35 corridor.  Most slaves were held in Texas in the east - most people lived east of the current I-35 corridor and along the Rio Grande at that time, as this is where the most water was, and the most fertile land.  There were few if any slaves in far west Texas as it was virtually unsettled at the time, and agriculture technology did not allow for farming of much out there, other than subsistence farming.   Not until people figured out large scale irrigation were they able to farm out there, and in the High Plains area, that started in the 20th century.

Percentage of slaves in Texas in 1860

 

https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/slavery

Yes, the vast majority of slaves were in this part of Texas because that is where cotton was being grown.  And I know it isn't a problem with people on this board so much, but if you get around some of the more goofy millennials they seem to think that on June 19th the Texans saw that the slaves were freed on their Twitter feed or something. They just can't grasp the concept of communications that are not instantaneous. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Swithin said:

Something I find interesting in this age of cancel culture is that, since the most brutal explorers were Spanish (Cortes, Pizarro, etc.), it's ironic that speaking Spanish and purveying Spanish as a second language is a kind of "woke-ness."  Perhaps it should be cancelled, in the Western Hemisphere. The Spaniards were far more brutal than the English. (The French were pretty bad, yet they still speak French in Haiti. These languages are much more a part of the colonial culture than some old statue!)

Peter Shaffer's play The Royal Hunt of the Sun, though fiction, is based on the encounter between Pizarro and Atahualpa. It's heartbreaking. 

I'd say the individual language is incidental, the actions of the Spanish explorers being the main factor. 

Yes, It is somewhat ironic that the language of the conquistadors is now that of a discriminated against

 minority, but that's just one of the ironies of history. I don't think that irony really has a bearing on today's

policies. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Vautrin said:

I'd say the individual language is incidental, the actions of the Spanish explorers being the main factor. 

Yes, It is somewhat ironic that the language of the conquistadors is now that of a discriminated against

 minority, but that's just one of the ironies of history. I don't think that irony really has a bearing on today's

policies. 

If people want to make a big issue of questioning and trying to eliminate any remnant of colonialism (which btw is ridiculous), language is where it should begin. (Obviously, I don't think it should begin anywhere; but for those people who care, if they are being honest and not hypocritical, that's where it should begin. I live near Columbus Circle, I'm not Italian, but I certainly don't want that statue torn down.)

But that's more about colonialism, and not about Juneteenth. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Swithin said:

If people want to make a big issue of questioning and trying to eliminate any remnant of colonialism (which btw is ridiculous), language is where it should begin. (Obviously, I don't think it should begin anywhere; but for those people who care, if they are being honest and not hypocritical, that's where it should begin. I live near Columbus Circle, I'm not Italian, but I certainly don't want that statue torn down.)

But that's more about colonialism, and not about Juneteenth. 

As cruel as it was to force people to adopt a new language, that was hardly the worst thing the Spanish did.

There is no way to go back and return to the original languages, but getting rid of monuments is fairly simple.

But when one can't count on the gov't to do so, people should take that into their own hands. It's kind of sad

that in this enlightened age monuments to a mass murderer still remain. But I'm not really surprised that

America is only too happy to keep them, and even celebrate the killer. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Vautrin said:

As cruel as it was to force people to adopt a new language, that was hardly the worst thing the Spanish did.

There is no way to go back and return to the original languages, but getting rid of monuments is fairly simple.

But when one can't count on the gov't to do so, people should take that into their own hands. It's kind of sad

that in this enlightened age monuments to a mass murderer still remain. But I'm not really surprised that

America is only too happy to keep them, and even celebrate the killer. 

 

This sounds like MAGA, saying if we can't count on government to overturn a stolen election, people should take it into their own hands. 

Just as not everyone agrees the election was stolen, not everyone agrees Columbus was a killer. 

Consensus matters. 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Vautrin said:

As cruel as it was to force people to adopt a new language, that was hardly the worst thing the Spanish did.

There is no way to go back and return to the original languages, but getting rid of monuments is fairly simple.

But when one can't count on the gov't to do so, people should take that into their own hands. It's kind of sad

that in this enlightened age monuments to a mass murderer still remain. But I'm not really surprised that

America is only too happy to keep them, and even celebrate the killer. 

The Spanish were more brutal not because of the language, but because they butchered the locals (as the locals did to each other before the Spanish arrived). But colonialism was not a province of Europeans. It was just that better ways of travel made it easier for people to come from farther away to conquer. Before that, it was one local tribe against another, conquering and butchering.  The hypocrisy comes from today's people focusing on one branch of colonialism. Today's boundaries and cultures the world over were largely created by war and migration, not by groups who sprang up from the land being put upon by outsides.

I have a (white, Celtic origin) friend in the UK who wants to call himself "Native British," to distinguish himself from all the groups who came later, either as conquerers or immigrants. I see his point. But, like the so-called "Native Americans," his group did not spring up from the land either. Much of the current environment related to political correctness, which has descended into wokeness, it just baloney.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Sepiatone said:

I don't believe so.  However, it WAS recognized as an "African-American holiday"  mostly by white people who had problems with racial tolerance.  And too, I recall....

 

Sepiatone 

MLK Day was presented to the nation as a day to honor African-Americans.

15 hours ago, hamradio said:

History's 9 Most Murderous Explorers, Ranked by How Awful They Were

https://www.thrillist.com/travel/nation/columbus-pizarro-and-other-world-explorers-ranked-by-how-many-they-killed

 

Good to know somebody's keeping track.

Interesting that the British were much more successful in eliminating the native populations, but no single individual rises to the level of the Spanish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ont-kingston-macdonald-20210618.jpg

This is a bit off-topic but associated Canadian news probably doesn't deserve its own thread.  A statue of the very first Canadian Prime Minister Sir John A. MacDonald was removed in his town of birth, Kingston Ontario.  The Scotsman's legacy came under fire for his contribution to setting up the Residential schools for Indigenous peoples.

MacDonald was a notorious drunkard and was known to pass out in the House of Commons.  I found this far from perfect trait a bit endearing.  I once went to an old pub in Kingston that boasted that John A. MacDonald had frequented it.   I wanted to paint a chalk outline of him on the floor with a sign that said "John A. MacDonald Slept Here."

  • Haha 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, ElCid said:

But when MLK day was proposed and "marketed," it was presented as a day to honor or recognize ALL African-Americans.  There are thousands of "significant men" and women who have never been honored with a Federal and state holiday.

Why, I'm surprised that you would forward such an inane argument.  So, pick one out you feel is significant and deserves a holiday and if you start now, you might walk to Washington D.C. in time to get that holiday federal status.  And MLK day wasn't "marketed" per se, but promoted as a way to recognize and honor the MAN.    From WIKI:

King was the chief spokesperson for nonviolent activism in the Civil Rights Movement, which protested racial discrimination in federal and state law. The campaign for a federal holiday in King's honor began soon after his assassination in 1968. President Ronald Reagan signed the holiday into law in 1983.

My mistake was using the wrong word.  I should have used "specific". 

Seiatone

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, LsDoorMat said:

I'm not arguing with any of this. You were saying that "Actually, it ended in 1863 or 2  with the signing of Abraham Lincoln's EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION,  Einstein.  " You are flat wrong. I don't know how to say this more clearly. 

I am simply saying that, according to the Emancipation Proclamation, if the Confederacy (and of course I realize this includes Texas)  had laid down its arms in December 1862, this proclamation would have freed nobody. It had no power over Maryland, for example, even after Jan. 1, 1863 because it only applied to states in rebellion. And although the Union forces in Galveston announced that slaves were free, many were not actually freed in the distant parts of Texas - far west Texas and the panhandle - until later, some not until the ratification of the 13th amendment. 

 

 

And what I was pointing out was that Texas WAS a "state in rebellion" as part of the confederacy.    Perhaps you need a review....?

https://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured-documents/emancipation-proclamation/transcript.html

Sepiatone

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Sepiatone said:

And what I was pointing out was that Texas WAS a "state in rebellion" as part of the confederacy.    Perhaps you need a review....?

https://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured-documents/emancipation-proclamation/transcript.html

Sepiatone

Am I speaking Portuguese or something? At what point did I say Texas was NOT in the Confederacy and  NOT in rebellion? I don't know why you continue to press a point that was never in debate other than to deflect from the issue that you got your facts  wrong just because Nip got your knickers tied in a knot. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

After I mentioned that the Emancipation Proclamation was signed in 1862-3( '62 was it's inception, but wasn't signed until early '63)  but slavery wasn't finally fully abolished in Texas until two years later is when YOU brought up the "states in rebellion" swill.  And for the record, I don't for a minute buy that BS excuse that Texas was "too far west" to get the news of the proclamation until two years passed.  They sure seemed to get the news of the WAR posthaste!  But, we do see eye to eye on at least one thing....    ;) 

16 hours ago, LsDoorMat said:

Yes, the vast majority of slaves were in this part of Texas because that is where cotton was being grown.  And I know it isn't a problem with people on this board so much, but if you get around some of the more goofy millennials they seem to think that on June 19th the Texans saw that the slaves were freed on their Twitter feed or something. They just can't grasp the concept of communications that are not instantaneous. 

Sho' 'nuff!

Sepiatone

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sepiatone said:

After I mentioned that the Emancipation Proclamation was signed in 1862-3( '62 was it's inception, but wasn't signed until early '63)  but slavery wasn't finally fully abolished in Texas until two years later is when YOU brought up the "states in rebellion" swill.  And for the record, I don't for a minute buy that BS excuse that Texas was "too far west" to get the news of the proclamation until two years passed.  They sure seemed to get the news of the WAR posthaste!  But, we do see eye to eye on at least one thing....    ;) 

Sho' 'nuff!

Sepiatone

Oh, I'm sure that enough people in Texas knew that because they were still in rebellion in 1863, that the slaves were free because of the Emancipation Proclamation. It just took two years for the Union army to get there in numbers strong enough to enforce it.  And the Emancipation Proclamation does say that the states had to be in rebellion for it to apply.  It did not apply to Maryland, for example. 

In another post I mention that the Union army and the Texans had been avoiding each other since early 1865, probably both sides seeing that the end was near.  But what is considered the last battle of the Civil War, fought AFTER Lee surrendered, occurred in Texas. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bogie56 said:

ont-kingston-macdonald-20210618.jpg

This is a bit off-topic but associated Canadian news probably doesn't deserve its own thread.  A statue of the very first Canadian Prime Minister Sir John A. MacDonald was removed in his town of birth, Kingston Ontario.  The Scotsman's legacy came under fire for his contribution to setting up the Residential schools for Indigenous peoples.

MacDonald was a notorious drunkard and was known to pass out in the House of Commons.  I found this far from perfect trait a bit endearing.  I once went to an old pub in Kingston that boasted that John A. MacDonald had frequented it.   I wanted to paint a chalk outline of the floor with a sign that said "John A. MacDonald Slept Here."

You know I wouldn't mind a thread on Canadian news/history. I know absolutely nothing about either. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, LsDoorMat said:

You know I wouldn't mind a thread on Canadian news/history. I know absolutely nothing about either. 

Just don't bother with Jake's Trumpism in Canada thread.  Now that IS fake news.

220px-Lorne_Greene_-_1969.jpg

Here is an interesting bit of trivia.   During WWII Lorne Greene was CBC Radio's main war correspondent.  He gained the nickname, 'the voice of doom."

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sepiatone said:

Why, I'm surprised that you would forward such an inane argument.  So, pick one out you feel is significant and deserves a holiday and if you start now, you might walk to Washington D.C. in time to get that holiday federal status.  And MLK day wasn't "marketed" per se, but promoted as a way to recognize and honor the MAN.    From WIKI:

King was the chief spokesperson for nonviolent activism in the Civil Rights Movement, which protested racial discrimination in federal and state law. The campaign for a federal holiday in King's honor began soon after his assassination in 1968. President Ronald Reagan signed the holiday into law in 1983.

My mistake was using the wrong word.  I should have used "specific". 

Seiatone

As I said before, MLK day is the only day to recognize a single individual (your argument) other than Christmas and Columbus Day.  Columbus Day has long been recognized as a day to honor the contributions of Italian-Americans.

As someone who lived in the Deep South at the time MLK day was marketed, "promoted" or however you wish to put it, it was viewed by African-Americans as a day to recognize THEM, not just MLK.  Honoring a slain hero of the civil rights movement was far more likely of success than promoting a day specifically to recognize African-Americans.

If you don't understand that, you don't understand American history and politics. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, ElCid said:

As I said before, MLK day is the only day to recognize a single individual (your argument) other than Christmas and Columbus Day.  Columbus Day has long been recognized as a day to honor the contributions of Italian-Americans.

As someone who lived in the Deep South at the time MLK day was marketed, "promoted" or however you wish to put it, it was viewed by African-Americans as a day to recognize THEM, not just MLK.  Honoring a slain hero of the civil rights movement was far more likely of success than promoting a day specifically to recognize African-Americans.

If you don't understand that, you don't understand American history and politics. 

Not quite.  While most Americans (and TV ads) may call it President's Day or Presidents Day or Presidents' Day, the official name of that Federal holiday is Washington's Birthday.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, txfilmfan said:

Not quite.  While most Americans (and TV ads) may call it President's Day or Presidents Day or Presidents' Day, the official name of that Federal holiday is Washington's Birthday.

I was under the impression that the Federal government changed it to President's Day, but chose to do it on Washington's Birthday.  If not official, why do all calendars and other information refer to it as President's Day?  I am pretty sure I have seen VA and DOD references to it as President's Day.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, ElCid said:

I was under the impression that the Federal government changed it to President's Day, but chose to do it on Washington's Birthday.  If not official, why do all calendars and other information refer to it as President's Day?  I am pretty sure I have seen VA and DOD references to it as President's Day.

The Congressional Act that moved it to a Monday back in the late 1960s has never been amended to change the name, nor have any new laws been passed to change the official name.  The reason people started calling it that is probably because when they moved it off Washington's actual birthdate to a floating Monday holiday in the 60s, it was now close to Lincoln's birthday too, and people just started saying it was to honor both of them, or all presidents, or I guess only the presidents they liked.

If you've seen it on VA and/or DOD calendars as Presidents Day (or some variation thereof), it's incorrect.

https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/federal-holidays/#url=2021

From the footnotes on the page above:

**This holiday is designated as "Washington’s Birthday" in section 6103(a) of title 5 of the United States Code, which is the law that specifies holidays for Federal employees. Though other institutions such as state and local governments and private businesses may use other names, it is our policy to always refer to holidays by the names designated in the law.

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, LuckyDan said:

This sounds like MAGA, saying if we can't count on government to overturn a stolen election, people should take it into their own hands. 

Just as not everyone agrees the election was stolen, not everyone agrees Columbus was a killer. 

Consensus matters. 

 

Folks taking down a monument to Columbus, which has been done in a few places, is much less significant

than trying to overturn an election. The consensus among historians, as far as I know, is that Columbus was

a killer, though there may be some quibbles over exact numbers. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Swithin said:

The Spanish were more brutal not because of the language, but because they butchered the locals (as the locals did to each other before the Spanish arrived). But colonialism was not a province of Europeans. It was just that better ways of travel made it easier for people to come from farther away to conquer. Before that, it was one local tribe against another, conquering and butchering.  The hypocrisy comes from today's people focusing on one branch of colonialism. Today's boundaries and cultures the world over were largely created by war and migration, not by groups who sprang up from the land being put upon by outsides.

I have a (white, Celtic origin) friend in the UK who wants to call himself "Native British," to distinguish himself from all the groups who came later, either as conquerers or immigrants. I see his point. But, like the so-called "Native Americans," his group did not spring up from the land either. Much of the current environment related to political correctness, which has descended into wokeness, it just baloney.

 

 

 

The Europeans brought a wider devastation to the Americas than any local tribe could have accomplished.

It was on a very different level. They turned out to be far more destructive than the "savages" they conquered.

That is why they belong to a category of unique ruin and are the focus of anti-colonial sentiment. I love pc

and wokeness. Anything that drives wingnuts and others up the wall has to be good. 

The Columbus statue in Columbus Circle is now on the U. S. Register of Historic Places. The government of the

U.S. paying tribute to a mass murderer. It doesn't get much better than that. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe they can replace the statue with Navigation chart, dividers, a globe, etc., etc. Honor the accomplishment of the feat of his voyage, not the man. Similar to the monument to Benedict Arnold's leg wound at Saratoga.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Vautrin said:

The Europeans brought a wider devastation to the Americas than any local tribe could have accomplished.

It was on a very different level. They turned out to be far more destructive than the "savages" they conquered.

That is why they belong to a category of unique ruin and are the focus of anti-colonial sentiment. I love pc

and wokeness. Anything that drives wingnuts and others up the wall has to be good. 

The Columbus statue in Columbus Circle is now on the U. S. Register of Historic Places. The government of the

U.S. paying tribute to a mass murderer. It doesn't get much better than that. 

You sound like you are as cynical as the man you (presumably) have named yourself for: Balzac's gay character Vautrin!

I consider myself to be pretty progressive, but one needs to think across the whole swath of history, instead of with the eyes of one's parochial times. Whole civilizations were brutally wiped out in other times. What we saw not that long ago among the Hutu and the Tutsi was commonplace at one time.

What the Arabs did with their invasions of Africa, the brutal murders, the wiping out of indigenous African religions, the burning of priests of the old religion, the conversions on the pain of  death, transcends what the colonials did in America.

 

 

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
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...