DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Emmett Till Memorial. Why?

You can troll away but it proves I was speaking of your tactics in tearing down down monuments.

Yes, I agree I planted it there to make a point. LOL

Then again, do you think Perfect didn't plant his original post to make a point? It's all relative, my friend.

I do agree w/you in your argument w/40, though. Till did nothing to deserve either the initial action or the more recent action by a couple of punks w/guns.

What happened to Till in '55 was horrible, but the response to the photo seems a bit of an overreaction without more background info to me. It could easily be part of a frat "scavenger hunt." In poor taste, most definitely, but I'm not sure I see malicious intent. Education would seem to be a better "punishment" than knee jerk group removal especially if it's coming from a school. Make them learn about Till. Have them visit a morgue. Make what happened to him "real" to the kids. Is it strange to think that a school should be focused on education rather than punishment?

I don't click on links. Does the article say in what way the Memorial was vandalized?
Was the photo in front of a vandalized memorial, showing the vandalism?

So one is murdered because of his color. The memorials are statues that memorialize people who fought a war that supports people that enslave those same people.

Yeah 40, same thing. This speaks volumes about you. And your claim. "People want to erase history!?

Which is a lie. Every student in America is taught about the civil war. About the battles and the generals that fought that war on both sides. That history will never be lost.

But you want me to tell you someone they didn't teach you about in school?

Emmett Till.......

Why play into the hands of someone looking for it.

Here's a video for you.....



And no, running away isn't punishable by the death penalty no matter how hard people try to claim otherwise.

No outrage?

When's the lady time you were in school, pitt? Even the civil war history I learned was scant at best, and I grew up in VA. I learned more by going to the battlefields and reading on my own than in history class.

I learned more by going to Gettysburg on vacation as kid myself. But I already knew the leaders and basics of the civil war. I know who Grant, William Tecumseh Sherman and George Custer were.

I knew who Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson and George Pickett were.

I knew about the battles of Fort Sumter, the battle of Antietam, of Gettysburg, and the siege of Vicksburg.

One thing I had never heard of in school was Emmett Till.

I went to school in the 1970's and it was a very highly rated, small suburban school in SW Ohio. It came from our American History classes.

You either have a reading comprehension problem or you are deliberately misinterpreting my intent.

I think it's the latter. Don't do that to me, bro. It's not cool.

I clearly stated in my OP that I support minorities. I have done so for almost my entire life. I know the crap they go through and I never stood for it, no matter what the majority said.

I also said that there are way too threads and posts designed to make whites look bad and people ignore the bad acts of some minorities. I stand by that and you can kiss my ass if you have a problem w/it. Got it?

I don't like bias, labeling, ganging-up on others, discrimination, etc by any freaking group.

My point should have been clear. There are good and bad people in all races. Focusing on the bad people of minority groups to make some stupid all-encompassing generalization is ignorant and hateful. The same goes when some of these folks do the same thing against whites. BS is BS, bro. And I'm pretty freaking tired of it.

And don't purposely misinterpret my message again in order to win some sort of board argument.

My youngest graduated from high school last year. They don't teach the civil war anymore. They don't teach American history anymore. They do teach that Columbus killed the indians. They do teach, or at least imply, that all white people were slavers. They've softened the history to make it more PC.

I'd much rather they teach the truth, good and bad.

None of this is true. The Civil War is a huge unit that takes up an entire quarter in some grades. They do teach American History.........I mean....what an absurd statement. And this just in, the Native Americans were murdered en masse by white settlers.




For decades, they lied to us in schools and in the history books we read. Things are a lot more truthful now than they were in the past. They just don't fit into your view of the world, so you call them false. Guys like you and 40 bug me because you give other whites a bad name. It's no wonder they freaking hate us.

Dont ya know, history has to be bleached, sterallized, and swept under the rug like it never happened. Because overly sensitive PC minorities cant handle the past. Pretty soon they will go to their local libraries and burn books.

I don't think it's like that, I don't think people are trying to do that.

And I don't know... ... but I gather Emmett Till was a black American who was savagely tortured and murdered in the South, in a terrible, tragic incident,

I can see how spending much time on that in a School would just be inciteful and not help much; so I don't understand making a "point" of that it wasn't taught.

We didn't cover Nat what's his name in history either.

My response was mainly towards Erik's comment. They should absolutely teach American history in schools, including all the bad parts. Such as Emmit Till.

It was also directed towards the minority community who seem to feel that erasing history somehow doesnt make it exist.

The history of our country is important to recognize. Even the parts that arent good.

DT/PP in a nutshell.




At least THROW is upfront about it.
That much I can respect, at least

I actually learned about Emitt Till in school. Depending on the version of the story, he spoke/whistled/flirted with a young white woman while visiting relatives in the south. She later recanted her accusation, and we'll never get the whole truth.

I think the actual reason for dumbing down history is so people don't know how far we've actually come to fix the wrongs of the past.

I think this is preposterous.

In fact, the exact opposite is what I believe: that the social improvements that we have seen have happened because people of good conscience uncovered, exposed and publicized American Truths that have been suppressed/dialed back/ignored. These stories have been added to the American Narrative, and as such, have deepened our knowledge and understanding of the past.

The fact that you even learned about Emmitt Till bears out my point. He was tortured, murdered, and weighted down at the bottom of a river... and the only reason his name is now known (to all but 40¢, apparently) is because national news services picked up on the story when Till's mother insisted on an open casket funeral- a funeral that exposed the extent of evil visited upon him.

If there is indeed a 'dumbing down' of American History in our schools, it most certainly isn't to hide social improvements. At least that has never been my personal experience. In fact, The new Smithsonian's Af/Am Museum features a display of my own family's ancestral grounds/personal history, and the role we played in integration and the underground railroad. Without continual scholarship and research, these American stories would never have come to light.

We seem to truly live in two different Americas.

I had posted the Till story back during the Kavanaugh hearings or one of the many other attempting Lynchings in these threads, but it fell on deaf ears as you guys were all wrapped up in Lynching an innocent man at the time.

I have railed against Lynchings for years in these threads as I tried to convince others of our right to due process.

Truth matters not, just keep on repeating the lie until you believe it as fact.

A link to your own post would lend you some sorely-needed credibility.

If we do not see something that backs up this claim, we will all assume that you once again pulled something from around back, and flung it against the wall to see if it would stick (or that no one would call you on it).

Proof, please...
...or your claim just stinks- and stains.

We live in a post-fact society now Clem

This is true. Erik is way off-base in his comments and I tried to address that earlier.

When you and I went to school, Native Americans were still sometimes referred to as "Savages" in movies, novels, and yes...even in American History text books.

The exact opposite of what he is claiming has occurred. Much of the bias has been removed when looking at the past and we now have a better grasp as to our history.

One other thing, we spoke of how things get changed in an earlier thread. It may have been How the Progressives can Win the Election thread. Change occurs when the masses are educated about an injustice. They become outraged and demand that changes be made. Only then will politicians, business owners, and religious leaders take action to right a wrong. They NEVER do it out of the goodness of their heart or to do the right thing. They do what is best for them........always. That is yet another reason why more emphasis should be placed on education.

Well I guess if you want to compare throwing water on cops to black people being shot in the back by a cop as cause for the same sense of outrage you have a point. Sorry if I don't see it that way and would never kiss your ass.

You are purposely misinterpreting my message. Once again, that is not cool. But, go ahead and save face.

Later.

Maybe it's just that I see a difference in pointing out a certain level of double standards, as you did, and what constitutes outrage.

I don't get outraged by most things. That requires a pretty high bar.

I think you're doing exactly what you accuse others of doing here. Taking things that deserve being pointed out and labeling them something they actually aren't. Very few people actually get "outraged" over everything they point out.

You are making the case for how a small, extreme part of one side sees things and making it sound like some widely seen viewpoint. It's not.

When it comes to outrage, I posted the perfect example of what should produce outrage from everyone. You pointed out some things that certainly don't rise to that bar.

And again, for the millionth time, the Dems of decades ago were what the Republicans have turned into..

Your argument is worthless.

It's surprising that such a student of history would have missed the chapter on the Southern Strategy...

Okay, I thought you were purposely missing the point to win an argument, but perhaps you really are confused. Either way, there is no sense in me continuing to have this conversation w/you because you are completely missing my point and don't seem to want to understand it. So, go ahead and point your finger at me, as if I am the one who goes around here labeling groups and spewing hate towards another side.

In short.......blank off!

Now, I am going to try and explain what I meant [I thought I was pretty clear the first and second time] just so everyone understands what I meant instead of believing Pit's "make-believe" version of what I meant.

Some givens:

--I support minorities.
--I have even claimed that I have done more for minorities than anyone on this board.
--I detest labeling entire groups.
--I think there are a lot of racist people out there that look for reasons to label and brand minorities. This act has always sickened me because you can always find people who behave badly and it is fair to transfer their acts onto an entire group of people.

An observation:

--I think that on this board, there are far, far more posts made that are about making whites, our government, a political party, Christians, etc that are intended to make those groups look bad.

The Relevance of that observation:

If I don't like when that type of thinking is done by whites to minorities, why would I approve of the same thing w/the only difference being the intended target?

An Example:

Like many others, I come across articles that blow my mind. Some shock me. Others sicken me. Some even scare me. However, I do not post those articles or start threads w/them if they involved a minority because I do not want to give whites ammunition to think of the minorities in a negative light. It's called taking the high road.

Example Two:

Day after day, I come to this forum and there are a group of people starting threads and then showing their disgust for crimes, acts, thoughts, etc of whites and other groups, as if it is a "Gotcha" moment.

Conclusion:

I'm tired of people on both sides trying to paint broad pictures of entire groups of people by relaying news stories about the bad behavior of individuals.

It has always been my contention that there are good and bad people in all groups and that we should not assign labels to groups due to the sins of a few.

An Epilogue of Sorts:

It is my opinion that the constant posting of articles to make one side look bad is lame. It does not elevate the other group. Those who partake in the constant degrading of the other side are only lowering themselves to the same things they despise. Don't become what you hate.

It's not a game.. I will stand up and say that removing statues of Thomas Jefferson and George Washington is wrong... the good they did, in my opinion, far outweighs the fact that they were slave owners in a time when owning slaves was "normal"... To me, this is the part that is tantamount to "erasing history"...

If the only thing a person is famous for is being a confederate general, then I am not opposed to them being relocated to a place where they can be viewed in context rather than in the town square where it appears they are being celebrated..

As for Till, yes, I'm sure at the ripe old age of 14, if you could look back into it, he might have smoked a couple times, he might have back-talked his mom once (but only once), he might have even stolen a candy bar from the penny store once... I think dying for his cause, which was a noble cause, would adequately erase whatever he had done wrong...

And it's going to take an awful lot for these three guys to convince me that this photo was anything but an admission of guilt to vandalizing the monument and/or a greater threat of violence and intimidation.... but I'll listen if they would like to explain.

I'm hesitant to post this because objectivity isn't something that is used a whole lot with hot topics, but I'm not sure the version of events your espousing are any more truthful than the recanted story.

What happened to Till was horrible and inexcusable, but the dying for a noble cause bit seems a bit outside the facts. His death was senseless and awful, and it was coopted by a noble cause, but I don't see "nobility" in his intentions. You make it almost seem like it was something he sought out.

He was trying to impress some other kids and broke some taboos that he didn't fully understand. He's undoubtedly a tragic figure, and the events served as a catalyst to improve treatment of non-whites, but I'm not sure heroism was involved.

I don't think "romanticizing" the past to the other extreme is much better than the false version of events that was initially presented.

It really just further widens the divide- One side painting the other side as monsters while their side is "righteous." (What happened was monstrous.) There are shades of gray everywhere and moral ambiguity is a fact of life (the "white side" admittedly much "darker" in this instance.)

I believe that the fact that these horrible occurrences are always presented in terms of sides helps perpetuate their happening. The sooner we come to grips with the fact that we're one big messed up group and individuals make their own choices, the sooner we can see these atrocities stop. Thinking in terms of sides more easily allows for the adoption of the mob mentality. Mob mentality leads to people getting carried away.

We need to figure out how to promote personal accountability. Group membership is part of our anthropological heritage, however, in modern life many "groups" seem to cause more harm than help.

The frat could be included in those groups. Maybe not allowing those individuals posing in front of the sign to join the group is a good idea. I think the frat should get increased scrutiny and potentially face ramifications.

I do not disagree with you and after re-reading my post, understand why you feel that way.

I didn't mean to imply that he had a grand noble plan to begin a movement or to create any social change (something like the guy that stared down the tanks in Tiananmen Square). Any heroism or nobility assigned to what happened to Till was definitely applied post-mortem when those events were seized upon and started a movement in his name..

J/C

Perspective is in 1955 this was only an outrage after pictures of his bloated corpse were published on the front pages of newspapers. Now we are outraged by a couple of idiots taking a picture in front of it.

Hard lefts want to tell me it's worse now tho.

So you can't see that shooting someone in the back certainly rises to the level that should invoke outrage from everyone but pouring water on a cop doesn't rise to that level?

And you claim I'm missing the point?





You've become such a classy guy!

I don't know what your issue is lately, but you should probably stop if you value our friendship.

I make comments and you challenge them. I then explain myself further and then you spin and spin and spin to the point I don't even know what the hell you are talking about.

I'm asking you to please stop doing that. I am NOT asking you to agree w/me. But please stop twisting my words around in some lame-ass attempt to misconstrue my intent.

Please?

It's what he does.

Should I reply the way you did to me?



I won't, but maybe I should?

Awe..... Are you mad because I still refuse to do your homework?

Nah. Not even close to mad. More like laughing, really.

It's odd that you would laugh about having no clue what your president has or hasn't done. And asking others to provide you with that information because you don't seem to care enough to find out for yourself.

I guess humor is subjective....