South Carolina NAACP rally covers statue of George Washington to not offend anybody

I just re read through the entire thread. BH, you stood steadfast in your beliefs, I am glad about that. Everyone else, you kicked arse. There is one thing and one thing only that we have to remember, we are ALL American.
There is not much else I want to add, I think you all deserve a round of applause because of your ability to actually discuss things! Without vitriol! WOW. The following were comments I created while reading through the comments. I just wanted to add, that while I may have added comments through out, I was not entirely cognizant of the entire structure of the discussion. BH, I am going to say again, good job!



reply to post by Advantage


Hey, I am trying.

I have about 30 different outlets that I espouse my rhetoric.

I have said it before, I bounce things here first to get reactions and adjust in later articles and comments.

I AM TRYING!

Anyway, I am glad someone besides me is sick of the non color blindness.

reply to post by Intelearthling

I am hoping you are being facetious

reply to post by Advantage


Well the kkk was created by those that knew that the LAW was going to ruin their whole whitey thingy. I always love to read who actually created the kkk. Hmmmm, it was created by whom? Oh yeah the Democrats. Ol Billy Clinton and the rest of the racists proudly exholted one of their own, BYRD!

It's pretty offensive,they feel they have the right to do such a thing.

That's a very powerful picture and makes quit the statement, not a good one. I don't think MLK would have wanted that.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
You don't have the right not to be offended.

Oh really? I thought the whole reason they covered up the statue was so that no one would be "offended".Which is it?
Nice try but you can't have it both ways......

reply to post by HoldTheBeans


Nothing describes the stupidity of this group of people more than this picture does. I cannot believe that anyone there would ever have approved such a total display of ignorance, lack of respect, as this photo displays but to think that all of them present would accept such a disgusting spectacle is more than I can believe. There is no doubt that the people who are present do not deserve to even be considered as anything but totally idiotic and racist and deplorable! I am outraged at this spectacle, but have to thank someone here for posting it so that we can see how bad this group of people are with respect to knowledge about why they are even in the USA anyway.

I believe it, In this day and age nothing matters nothing is scared thats whats wrong with the world. People think society needs to be free so we can reach our golden age, they think we are above gods and traditions...I sit back an laugh.

reply to post by topher475


There is no doubt that this shows that this is an insult to Dr. Martin Luther King to show such total disrespect to the first president of the United States. I find this spectacle to be a true picture of what the NAACP stands for and I would prefer that every American see this for themselves to understand why it is that the modern generation minority group has a problem in education. Is American history taught differently in South Carolina than in other states? Does the NAACP think that the American government started after the Civil War? This is an outrageous and stupid insult to all thinking Americans.

Originally posted by 11PB11

Originally posted by Skippy1138
Wow- I don't even know what to say....
I'm guessing it's because he (and just about everybody else back then) was a slave owner.But wouldn't MLK have wanted people to move BEYOND that, move BEYOND the past and try to start looking towards making the FUTURE better for everybody?

Maybe MLK........... but many would like us to continue to pay for what some people did 200 years ago. I have no white guilt and take no responsibility for what ppl did 200 yrs ago. But it does make them feel better when they have ppl to blame for there lack of progress. That's the problem with this mindset, as long as they feel they can blame someone else they can take no responsibility for their actions.... it's also the liberal mindset, blame someone else, feel better today.

Yeah like everybody seems to be doing nowadays.
The right blames everything and everybody who has a tan and at the moment specially if they come from an islamic country. The left seems to like to blame the right for everything. Nobody is taking a good look at them selfs. It's easier to blame others for your problems, government, muslims, rednecks and other countries. So why make an effort to actually better yourself and the current situation? Let's just blame people and keep shouting nonsense.

islam? who is talking about them?

are you bringing them into this?


give me a break, it is a black and white issue, not brown!

take it elsewhere.

Originally posted by MessOnTheFED!
How will racism ever die when the NAACP does things like this? My guess is, if racism DID die these people would be out of work. WTF?

edit on 18-1-2011 by MessOnTheFED! because: (no reason given)

It won't! The NAACP isn't about ending racisim or equal opportunities for black people. It's about preferrential treatment for black people.

In 1988 or 1989 California passed a bill abolishing the Equal Opportunity Act in California, ending racial quotas for employers and educational institutions, The bill was intended to allow employers to hire individuls based on their abilities and schools to accept students on their individual merits, instead of the requirement to meet racial quotas.

The bill passed by something like 78%, but never went into effect. Why? Because the NAACP challanged it and fought it all the way up to the Supreme Court, which somehow ruled that the bill was unconstitutional.

Yeah, the NAACP doesn't want equal opportunity for blacks, they want preferential treatment.

reply to post by beezzer

Thank you. Can't dispute it now.

Nope, can't dispute that a barrier was erected in front of the statue. But, hey, didn't we already know that? Boy, some of you people are really reaching here...

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


look at the picture number one its half covered so anybody could damage it if they wanted number two why would it need to be protected its a statue of a politician at a political rally? How many people have you known that have run into statues my guess is 0. I would say it has to do with him owning slaves and that the people at the rally not fully understanding that without him their non sense would never be heard. I dont think MLK would stand for the crap they spout on about these days because i seriously doubt that in his dream of equality the people would be disrespecting the founding fathers and if that was in his dream maybe we should rethink how great of a man MLK was. Personally i think he was a great man and i doubt he envisioned that his dream would be perverted the way it has been from the 1980's on to present day.

In the spirit of equality.....will they cover up monuments of MLK when George Washing B-Day comes around?

Since there has been no official word on why the statue was covered from the front (at least up until the time I decided to make this post), it appears that the incident can mean whatever anyone wants to assume it means, judging by the blog articles, & the replies in this thread.

Here's one for you: Martin Luther King Day is a time to remember someone who inspired in the American public (not all, but not just Black people, either) a desire to overcome the past, to look ahead to a time when race would not be the barrier it has been historically in the US.

Perhaps the planners of the rally did not feel that George Washington would be seen as the same American icon within what was likely to be a predominantly Black crowd, as he would be among a group of people who were more racially diverse. Thinking outside the box includes the concept that American history may not necessarily look the same to someone who has been on the receiving end of abuse, as it does to someone who has been "excused" from that abuse, by virtue of nothing more than skin color.

After all, it wasn't until the better part of a century after Washington's administration that slavery was abolished. I think it's possible that Washington's image was covered to prevent him serving as a painful reminder of the past, on a day that commemorated someone who inspired hope in so many for the future, before he was taken away every bit as brutally as were John & Bobby Kennedy.

If the NAACP wanted to cover up Washington's statue for such a reason, those of you who are offended by this certainly have that right. However, last time I bothered to check, it's not mandatory that any of us likes anything.

Originally posted by BuzzCory
Since there has been no official word on why the statue was covered from the front (at least up until the time I decided to make this post), it appears that the incident can mean whatever anyone wants to assume it means, judging by the blog articles, & the replies in this thread.

Here's one for you: Martin Luther King day is a time to remember someone who inspired in the American public (not all, but not just Black people, either) a desire to overcome the past, to look ahead to a time when race would not be the barrier it has been historically in the US.

Perhaps the planners of the rally did not feel that George Washington would be seen as the same American icon within what was likely to be a predominantly Black crowd, as he would be among a group of people who were more racially diverse. Thinking outside the box includes the concept that American history may not necessarily look the same to someone who has been on the receiving end of abuse, as it does to someone who has been "excused" from that abuse, by virtue of nothing more than skin color.

After all, it wasn't until the better part of a century after Washington's administration that slavery was abolished. I think it's possible that Washington's image was covered to prevent him serving as a painful reminder of the past, on a day that commemorated someone who inspired hope in so many for the future, before he was taken away every bit as brutally as were John & Bobby Kennedy.

If the NAACP wanted to cover up Washington's statue for such a reason, those of you who are offended by this certainly have that right. However, last time I bothered to check, it's not mandatory that any of us likes anything.

I personally think he was just having a bad hair day. Come on people deny ignorance. You saw the guys hair in the photos.

reply to post by HoldTheBeans


That would be because the Naacp is now a black socialist front (like the panthers) using race as a protection tool.

Like the unions, it out lasted its need a LONG time ago! Now their just racist pukes. hmm. Wonder if they've considered joining ranks with some of their white and mexican corollaries? What a bunch of tools.

I have been following along on this and when I got into my day this morning, I checked to see if a statement had been released, and it has......

A three-sided structure that covered the front and sides of the statue was intended to display a rally graphic and serve as a photo-and-television backdrop for the event's speakers, said S.C. NAACP executive director Dwight James. However, the graphic was not finished before the rally and could not be put in place. Read more: www.heraldonline.com...

So, either this is the real reason it was covered, or they are trying to back pedal.
Or....The person that made the "not to offend" statement was speaking more from his/her point of view and did not know the real reason the statue was covered.

And it seems it was a violation of state law:

SECTION 10-1-165. Protection of certain monuments and memorials.

(A) No Revolutionary War, War of 1812, Mexican War, War Between the States, Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, Korean War, Vietnam War, Persian Gulf War, Native American, or African-American History monuments or memorials erected on public property of the State or any of its political subdivisions may be relocated, removed, disturbed, or altered. No street, bridge, structure, park, preserve, reserve, or other public area of the State or any of its political subdivisions dedicated in memory of or named for any historic figure or historic event may be renamed or rededicated. No person may prevent the public body responsible for the monument or memorial from taking proper measures and exercising proper means for the protection, preservation, and care of these monuments, memorials, or nameplates.

(B) The provisions of this section may only be amended or repealed upon passage of an act which has received a two-thirds vote on the third reading of the bill in each branch of the General Assembly.

Source

Originally posted by miracleretiree
It's pretty offensive,they feel they have the right to do such a thing.

They DO have the right to do such a thing.

Originally posted by fooks
give me a break, it is a black and white issue, not brown!

If you think this is a race issue, it says a lot more about you than it does about anything. The president of the NAACP in that state is white. Many people that benefit from the NAACP are white. And as BuzzCory said, the legacy MLK does not belong to black people. He was a great leader and inspiration to all of this country. Making it about race cheapens the whole situation.

The NAACP was actually started by white people. For your education: NAACP

The association was formed as the direct result of the lynching (1908) of two blacks in Springfield, Ill. The incident produced a wide response by white Northerners to a call by Mary W. Ovington, a white woman, for a conference to discuss ways of achieving political and social equality for blacks. This conference led to the formation (1910) of the NAACP, headed by eight prominent Americans, seven white and one, William E. B. Du Bois, black.

reply to post by BuzzCory


Best post in the whole thread! Thank you!

Originally posted by OneisOne
And it seems it was a violation of state law:

SECTION 10-1-165. Protection of certain monuments and memorials.

(A) No Revolutionary War, War of 1812, Mexican War, War Between the States, Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, Korean War, Vietnam War, Persian Gulf War, Native American, or African-American History monuments or memorials erected on public property of the State or any of its political subdivisions may be relocated, removed, disturbed, or altered.

Source

They did not violate the law. The statue was not relocated, removed, disturbed, or altered.
.

Please, these people are ridiculous! The ignorance among many Americans is very concerning. If people hate it here so much and they are treated so bad why don't they go the hell back from where they came from. Fact is, and for some reason blacks don't believe this, if they were in Africa they would be much worse off then being here but if they are so upset let them get the hell outtta here. We don't need this bs forever I mean seriously it is getting really old. Let them go back to live in tribes or live in the scum over there, then maybe they would be a little more respectful. They think everything is owed to them and for some reason that mentality won't change cause they pass this ignorance on to their children.

reply to post by HoldTheBeans


I'm going to say that's about the most retarded move I've ever seen in my life. And I'm going to flat out use some strong language: MLK would probably call you all stupid retards too.

You know what's fun? Watching an organization die slowly and not even realize it. Cheers to the NAACP. You won't be missed, and I suspect MLK would want it that way.