Monument to Ku Klux Klan leader triggers controversy

reply to post by JohnPhoenix

I'll bet you didn't know there were slave owners in the North, and even some black slave owners....

Not sure why you felt to include that. We all know American history is rife with slavery and slave owners. George Washington owned slaves. Most of the early American historical figures did.

I think you perhaps were directing that comment at me as a way of implying I must be a northerner, thus "don't get
the southern perspective. FYI, I'm born and raised in North Carolina. North or South, I recognize racism when I see it, and I saw plenty of it growing up between 'backy farms outside of Gastonia.

Ethically there is no difference between Forest and Pol Pot, Hitler, Mao and other mass murderers in our history as a specie. I was a KA in college, if you dont know what that is, R.E. Lee was our spiritual leader. (That should get the ignorant up in arms.)

However, some folks seem to think that giving exactly this type of honor that they are protesting to the likes of Che Guevarga is OK, trendy and cool even. He was a killer of lesser stature, but nontheless an accomplished murderer himself. Why is ok to honor him, but not Forest?

You cant have it both ways.

Ladies and gentlemen,

DO NOT DESPAIR

The 3 %ers are coming to save you ALL.

I'm not really happy about a statue being put up to honor someone who may or may not have been the first "big-wig" of the KKK. However I support their right to do so. It's not my place to try to infringe on someone's freedom unless it is a physical threat to somebody's well being. As far as I know there aren't any laws against someone being mentally offended by something.

I see things all the time that are offensive to me. I choose to ignore those things as they are not worth my time. But everything offends somebody somewhere, and if we want to retain what freedoms we have left we have to support the freedoms of others whether we agree with them or not.

Originally posted by littled16
I'm not really happy about a statue being put up to honor someone who may or may not have been the first "big-wig" of the KKK. However I support their right to do so. It's not my place to try to infringe on someone's freedom unless it is a physical threat to somebody's well being. As far as I know there aren't any laws against someone being mentally offended by something.

I see things all the time that are offensive to me. I choose to ignore those things as they are not worth my time. But everything offends somebody somewhere, and if we want to retain what freedoms we have left we have to support the freedoms of others whether we agree with them or not.

Spoken like a true American Granny. My only regret is that I have but one star to give for you.

reply to post by littled16


I don't infringe on it either, the whole point is people shouldn't want to. This guy was the leader of the KKK post civil war America. Their whole point were to terrorize blacks back into slavery and submission. He's also a war criminal, slaughtering soldiers that surrendered.

reply to post by Nana2

Not that I agree with what the original KKK did with some of their actions, but those people DID beleive that desegregation and so forth would be the death of whites. It almost has been,

Are you kidding me?

look at the schools which are predominantly black. White students having to be "dumbed down" for the sake of blacks

Ummm.......no. You've clearly never went to a ghetto school. I've been to both suburban and ghetto ones. Nothing is dumbed down, there is just less funding....that affects all the students equally. I really have no clue what you are talking about. Are you saying white people are smarter than blacks by birth?

reply to post by JohnPhoenix

As far as General Nathan Forrest, you are getting that info from Wikipedia. it's the common story told. It has not been corroborated by facts from historical documents like this author dug up. Wikipedia I believe put a slant on the story as they so often do. Wikipedia is known for that - you know this. I think you see hate because you want to see hate.

Yeah you clearly didn't read the wikipedia article, because there are multiple first hand accounts of people that were at the slaughter.

Originally posted by RealSpoke
Are you saying white people are smarter than blacks by birth?

I have noticed back in the 80's this same attitude. If a class was predominantly black, the teacher would slide them sometimes if needed and then chide the white students who got A's for making the black kids look bad. Both white and black teachers did this. It had something to do with having to have the class get a certain grade point average overall mostly for the teachers benefit.

As to the comment above, I have been a member of a predominantly black church for over 20 years. The pastor and all deacons are black. There are less than 10 white people in a 200 member congregation. According to the Bible, it's taught that the black race as came from Noah's son Ham and all his descendants was cursed by god with lesser intelligence. This they said was the origins of all black races of the earth. The only way to remove this curse is through Jesus Christ who has the power to remove all curses. .I'm not saying it's true or historically accurate, but this was taught to us by the black pastors at the church - for the purposes of trying to bring their congregation up mentally and spiritually. Just siting it here to make the point that some people really do believe this and are taught this as biblical fact.

reply to post by RealSpoke


I get what you're saying, and I don't understand why they would want to either. But it's still their right, and I would hope that most people that are offended by it would just ignore it. Nobody is going to change their "view" of the "facts" and bringing attention to it is just what they want. It gives them the opportunity to put their "spin" on it when the press makes a big deal out of it. There are some that would like to put their own spin on things for recruitment purposes, so to those people any publicity is good publicity- if you know what I mean.

However I support their right to put whatever spin they want on it. The laws that protect their right to do so are the same laws that allow me to express myself in whatever way I need to. If it weren't for those laws you and I couldn't even discuss things like this on a public forum. We support it, even if we can't understand it.

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
reply to post by Blackmarketeer

 

All you have proven was that he like many other people in both the North and South were slave owners - which was acceptable in society at that time. The KKK was first and foremost at it's beginnings a political group against the Reconstruction of the south that threatened to take away their slaves. They were against whites and blacks alike. I can see how they had the right to be ticked off. Everything they had worked for all those years were suddenly stripped away from them. This was their whole life, and what was acceptable to them as they grew up. It was less about slavery than it was about remaking the south into an entity the government could more easily control. If you really study slavery, it was accepted in society at the time to such a great extent, many slave owners went out of their way to be kind and decent to their slaves. Not all but many. They used these slaves to help build empires and suddenly, the Gov took away their workers Why? because the Gov was threatened by the power and money these plantation owners had - after all, they were the driving force behind the Confederate government and the Union had beaten them, denying them their right to be their own country.

At the point they stopped acting for political reasons and simply acted toward blacks with hate was the point the KKK as an entity became evil. Up until that happened, the time when Forrest served, they were no different than any other militia doing what they thought was right to uphold their beliefs for their country.

I'll bet you didn't know there were slave owners in the North, and even some black slave owners....

I'm not saying their actions were right mind you, just saying I can see their side of the argument. You and I would feel the same today if the government suddenly took steps to wipe out everything you worked for over many years though the circumstances would be different undoubtedly.

edit on 12-9-2012 by JohnPhoenix because: sp

Thank YOU! Thats the point I was trying to make with my above post.

Originally posted by jrod
Freedom of speech/expression is protected under the first amendment. If you don't like the monument then don't visit. We celebrate Lincoln, Grant, Sherman, ect who did the *same thing to people in the south* but most people don't know and refuse to accept that fact of history.

As long as taxpayer money isn't used for the monument, I have no problems with it.


*not really the same thing. They among others were responsible for murders of women, children, and slave dwellings, as well as burning down cities, and stealing or destroying anything of value they came across. *

edit on 12-9-2012 by jrod because: (no reason given)

Thats because Sherman etc, killed WHITE people. As far as most liberals go, (and lots of blacks) that simply didnt matter because after all, it was ONLY white people, not the poor little downtrodden blacks in general. As I said before, double standards when it comes to blacks and whites. What is really sad, is how many whites agree with this thinking.

Originally posted by ComeFindMe

Originally posted by Nana2
those people DID beleive that desegregation and so forth would be the death of whites. It almost has been, look at the schools which are predominantly black.

Originally posted by Nana2
White students having to be "dumbed down" for the sake of blacks.

Originally posted by Nana2
The KKK has just as much a right to their beliefs as anyone else does.

If anyone around here has bought the propaganda, it's you buddy. These kinds of comments would be quite offensive, if they weren't so ignorant.

Does "nana2" look like a "buddy" to you? I am a woman. Anyway, I digress. Thank you for proving my point. Offensive? Like I said even our language has changed to keep from offending people who don't agree with another's opinion. Come on! If you don't know the facts around the state of black people TODAY despite all their extra handouts and preferable treatment from our govt, then I am sorry fo you. You are the ignorant one.

Originally posted by Nana2

Originally posted by ComeFindMe

Originally posted by Nana2
those people DID beleive that desegregation and so forth would be the death of whites. It almost has been, look at the schools which are predominantly black.

Originally posted by Nana2
White students having to be "dumbed down" for the sake of blacks.

Originally posted by Nana2
The KKK has just as much a right to their beliefs as anyone else does.

If anyone around here has bought the propaganda, it's you buddy. These kinds of comments would be quite offensive, if they weren't so ignorant.

Does "nana2" look like a "buddy" to you? I am a woman. Anyway, I digress. Thank you for proving my point. Offensive? Like I said even our language has changed to keep from offending people who don't agree with another's opinion. Come on! If you don't know the facts around the state of black people TODAY despite all their extra handouts and preferable treatment from our govt, then I am sorry fo you. You are the ignorant one.

I went to university with someone called Nana. He was a male. Though you are quite correct, I wouldn't wish to be your buddy, as i'm sure you wouldn't wish to be mine. Something we can both agree on.

You suggested that desegregation would be the death of Whites...based on " the schools which are predominantly black" - well, congratulations, there are areas of America (and indeed most Western countries) where there is a proprtionately higher black or non-white population which is also reflected in local school ethnicity breakdowns. You can't just extrapolate that to mean that black people are taking over (much as i'm sure you would love to)

You talk about white students having to dumb down for the sake of blacks. Wow, just wow. I'm sure there are teachers, maybe even sets of teachers within the same school who might apply this kind of logic. Unfortunately thats an extreme minority at best. No dumbing down to help black students - if you honestly cant see what kind of ridiculous argument that is, you really are lost. Think about what that kind of accusation actually implies.

We are all born with a right to hold an opinion - but not at the expense of the right of someone to exist or not exist, based on their skin colour.

Nana was a black African male. He got a First Class Honours degree. I'm a white male and got a 2.1. Perhaps we need to start dumbing down the school system in the UK, to help us white students!

Does "nana2" look like a "buddy" to you? I am a woman. Anyway, I digress. Thank you for proving my point. Offensive? Like I said even our language has changed to keep from offending people who don't agree with another's opinion. Come on! If you don't know the facts around the state of black people TODAY despite all their extra handouts and preferable treatment from our govt, then I am sorry fo you. You are the ignorant one.

I went to university with someone called Nana. He was a male. Though you are quite correct, I wouldn't wish to be your buddy, as i'm sure you wouldn't wish to be mine. Something we can both agree on.

You suggested that desegregation would be the death of Whites...based on " the schools which are predominantly black" - well, congratulations, there are areas of America (and indeed most Western countries) where there is a proprtionately higher black or non-white population which is also reflected in local school ethnicity breakdowns. You can't just extrapolate that to mean that black people are taking over (much as i'm sure you would love to)

You talk about white students having to dumb down for the sake of blacks. Wow, just wow. I'm sure there are teachers, maybe even sets of teachers within the same school who might apply this kind of logic. Unfortunately thats an extreme minority at best. No dumbing down to help black students - if you honestly cant see what kind of ridiculous argument that is, you really are lost. Think about what that kind of accusation actually implies.

We are all born with a right to hold an opinion - but not at the expense of the right of someone to exist or not exist, based on their skin colour.

Nana was a black African male. He got a First Class Honours degree. I'm a white male and got a 2.1. Perhaps we need to start dumbing down the school system in the UK, to help us white students!

I have several grandchildren in public schools in several different states. Without exception, their parents tell me of this example or that example of their child being "held back" (academically) so that blacks students didnt look inferior, or so that they didnt have failing grades compared to white students.

Just recently, in the news, a black school was found to be falsifying test scores etc so that black students could graduate because according to the teachers they are "dumb as hell."

You do not live in my country so you have no clue as to what desegregation has done to white people in this country, over the last 50 years or so.

Originally posted by RealSpoke

This is at a PUBLIC state owned park, NOT private property. The USA is so backwards. Thank god I live in the north.

Actually according to the article referenced the above statement is incorrect, which provides an important distinction in my opinion. If this monument were being erected or renovated on a Public State owned Park then I would have to agree that in consideration of the controversy surrounding this historical figure, such actions should be considered unacceptable as it could be viewed as a publicly endorsed acceptance of racism and/or the KKK.

But such is not the case, according to the article referenced.

The renovation of a monument honoring a Civil War Confederate general, who was the first "Grand Wizard" of the Ku Klux Klan, is once more creating controversy in Selma, Ala., 11 years after protesters got it moved off of public property.

The memorial is being repaired after the bust of Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest was stolen in March from the 7-foot-tall granite monument it rested upon at a cemetery in Selma, reported The Birmingham News. A group known as the Friends of Forrest are replacing it, according to local media; and the United Daughters of the Confederacy are adding a pedestal and fencing to make it harder to steal, Selma City Council President Dr. Cecil Williamson told NBC News.

'A public outcry' when statue first went up

The first monument to Forrest was put up on city property in October 2000 under the permission of the local government administration in power at the time. People dumped trashed on it and held a mock lynching, tying rope around it in protest, Williamson said. With a new mayor in office and “such a public outcry from parts of the community about it being on public property,” the city council voted to move it in 2001, he added.

The new site is on an acre of land donated to the United Daughters of the Confederacy in 1877, said Williamson, adding that he believed the group was in control of the lot.

NBC News’ efforts to reach the group for comment were not successful.

“Once it was moved it had just basically been sitting out there for the past 11 years undisturbed until the bust was stolen,” Williamson said. “It was like most people in town did not know or did not care that it was even out in the cemetery.”

But Williamson said it wasn't a city matter, noting the monument didn't belong to the local government, and that, as far as he knew, it was not on city property.

Source

According to the article in 2000 it was erected on public land but due to public outcry in 2001 it was moved off of public land and relocated to a privately owned acre of land where it has quietly remained for the past 11 years, until the bust of the General was stolen from the monument in March.

Two private organizations are involved in the repair of the monument, of the two one of the organizations privately owns the acre of land it stands on. Since the funds to repair the monument are from private organizations not Public funds, and the land that the monument stands on is privately owned land not a Publicly owned state park no matter how distasteful the monument might be to some, as it is a private expression of honor to an historical figure, that does not in any way actively incite people to inflict violence upon others, I would think this would fall under the First Amendment protection of Freedom of Speech.