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

reply to post by Victoria 1

for some reason that mentality won't change cause they pass this ignorance on to their children.

In this one respect, & in only this one respect, I would be willing to concede the possibility that you just may be an expert.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Yes it was. It was covered over and altered so as to not bee seen.

No I'd like a coherent logical reason as to why. Because offense is not a practical answer. Allow me to explain that covering a statue to not offend somebody IS altering it.

No I challenge somebody to go ahead and explain HOW it could be offensive. MLK certainly did not cover Lincoln at his speeches there.

Honor the land or suck it up and leave it. We even honor the Native Americans before us in statues. I was told at Montechello that at the door, Jefferson had a scupted head of a proud Indian chief and a revolutionary philosopher from Europe whose names escape me. he proudly showed the heritage to all those who entered.

You have a right to say and do as you please. You do not have a right to erase history and stop the views and speeches of others, and rest assured, this is doing that ideologically. A statue is a form of speech. Unspoken symbols of certain themes. To cover it is to alter it, and that is against the law.

Originally posted by Gorman91
Yes it was. It was covered over and altered so as to not bee seen.

The statue itself was not altered, hon. A barrier was placed in front of it. The statue remains intact and unaltered. The VIEW was altered, but the statue is just as it's always been.

No I challenge somebody to go ahead and explain HOW it could be offensive.

It wasn't offensive. That has already been explained. The BLOGGER that originally reported this lame lie ASSUMED that the statue had been covered because it was somehow offensive and got your panties all in a big old knot.

We even honor the Native Americans before us in statues.

Even Native Americans??? Wow! We are pretty great, huh? To stoop so low as to honor Native Americans. /sarcasm

To cover it is to alter it, and that is against the law.

To cover it is not against the law and it was not altered. So they're cool.

Seems covering this particular statue to use the covering as a backdrop is done commonly. Even by real, white Americans.

Here's a picture of the statehouse with the statue:

Picture

Here's the NAACP rally in 2008 with the statue covered and a graphic on it.



Picture Source

And what's this? A bunch of white people and cops standing on the steps of the State House and what's that in front of the Washington statue? A backdrop with a graphic on it! Don't you just hate white people and cops?



Picture Source

So, it's NOT a racial thing, it's NOT out of disrespect, it's NOT for any nefarious reason that you all dreamed up. Be offended if you choose, though. I'd expect nothing less.
.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Thanks for those photos. What I don't understand, is why anyone would cover up a statue of George Washington. I don't feel you could have a better backdrop for any event than the Father of our great nation. These types of actions and disrepect by any group (white/black) is the reason that we are no longer the great nation we once were. This saddens me.

It appears the reason was not as the blogger stated...

Too bad...could have been there relieving folks of all of those offensive $1 bills and quarters with his picture on it, and turned a nice profit!

reply to post by HoldTheBeans

South Carolina NAACP rally covers statue of George Washington

While I personally find this kind of action totally out of character considering the occasion being recognized, I think they had the right to box old George up if that was their choice. And while I think it unlikely that Dr. King would have himself approved of this behavior, he is not here to speak for himself, and all we can do is offer our own take on the situation.

The NAACP is an ever-changing organization that rarely holds any single piece of ground for very long, before moving on to the next. It is both dynamic and something of a paradox. I would also suspect that some of its membership are asking the same questions.

Originally posted by Mannie159
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

Thanks for those photos. What I don't understand, is why anyone would cover up a statue of George Washington. I don't feel you could have a better backdrop for any event than the Father of our great nation.

I actually agree that if I were having a rally there, I would NOT cover the statue. I agree that I could not have a better back drop. But I didn't hold this rally.

This is a big problem I see in this country today. People think that others should do things the way THEY would do it. And if they don't, there's a problem. Names are thrown about. Aspersions are cast. Reasons are manufactured and then judgments are made.

I questioned this blog source on page one of this thread, but nearly everyone else jumped on the hater bandwagon. ATS is supposed to be better than that. We're supposed to look for the truth BEFORE throwing stones. We're supposed to support freedom and free expression... But when a disagreement comes up, all freedom talk is just that. TALK. They don't want other people to have freedom unless they agree with it... THAT is what's sad. THAT is what saddens me...

Land of the free and home of the brave... As long as you agree with me...

reply to post by Skippy1138


Washington was a Freemason. All those people who scream about the NWO seem to forget that.

Originally posted by Deathstarr54054

Originally posted by 11PB11
The NAACP is a bunch of racist idiots anyway........... That's the problem when you have a bunch of racist, uneducated spooks trying to make a point. They just end up embarrassing themselves. Those people are so dumb they can't even see how contradictory they are.

second line

I completely agree.

What a confusing mixed up world we live in eh?

From my point of view:
I am not american so I don't give a damn about your statue.

The statue is not good object to have behind you if you want put a podium in front of you. it's a distracting object to the public, so I will say this: it's a common standard practice to cover anything behind a podium.
.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Thanks for the reply. I am not at all suggesting that others do not have the right or should not have the right to cover up the statue of George Washington. If someone were to attempt to take that away, I would be the first in line to support their right. I also do not feel that someone is wrong just because they don't agree with me. I am simply stating that it saddens me that I feel a lack of respect or understanding of our history is loosening the fabric of our Great Nation. Does anyone have the right to cover up George Wahington? Absolutely! Is it disrepectful to do so? Absolutely? Just my humble opinion.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


If one were to discover the iniquity ongoing, and they chose not to particpate in it, even if it meant imprisonment and death, would you choose not to participate?

reply to post by LanMan54


I'm sorry - I don't understand your question... Could you expand on it?
What iniquity?
Would I choose not to participate in what?

This is America. If "African Americans" don't want to have anything to do with the core of this country, and what it stands upon; they are more than welcome to return to their native land.

reply to post by baked


If you don't like the fact that people are permitted freedoms in this country, then perhaps you should return to YOUR native land.

I don't understand why it's so easy for people to forgive a slave owner. I keep hearing some of you say "Well we couldn't cover up a statue of MLK in one of our Nascar rallies" (or something to that effect) but there's one flaw in that argument: MLK didn't have a bunch of hillbillies as slaves! If he did, then it would be perfectly understandable to cover up the image and horrible reminder of that slave owner, MLK.

There is absolutely no room to argue that it's acceptable to have a statue of a slave owner on a day you are supposed to honor the legacy of the Reverend King, a civil rights leader! To be honest, I find Washington's image offensive on a daily basis and I'm quite embarrassed to have in the legacy of my nation.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic



Oh please. If we keep on with this politically correct bull****, there is going to be nothing left that is sacred. The ******* shouldn't be protected in committing an act like this, nor should any one else.

It looks like a big box that they constructed around the statue .... a box they could have put elsewhere if they really wanted to ... but they didn't want to. The folks didn't want to see George Washington. Fine. Whatever. Just don't erect a statue to Mao and just don't get upset if someone else puts a box around some statue someday that you DO like and we'll be fine..

I feel like that kid in the ghost movie who says 'I see dead people'.
But instead, 'I see morons'.

reply to post by baked

Oh please. If we keep on with this politically correct bull****, there is going to be nothing left that is sacred.

And by this you're referring to the blind, unreasoning hatred that makes someone take the time to make posts to this thread that contribute absolutely nothing?

reply to post by BuzzCory


Your more than welcome to meet me on Storm Front, and we can discuss this further.