gulf of america

[badgolferman]

The body of water formerly known in the United States as the Gulf of
Mexico is now listed for US-based users of Google Maps as the Gulf of
America.

The change follows an executive order by US President Donald Trump
renaming the area. Google has previously said it has “a longstanding
practice of applying name changes when they have been updated in
official government sources.”


https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/11/business/trump-gulf-of-america-google-maps-hnk-intl/index.html

[Skeezix LaRocca]

Post by badgolferman
The body of water formerly known in the United States as the Gulf of
Mexico is now listed for US-based users of Google Maps as the Gulf of
America.
The change follows an executive order by US President Donald Trump
renaming the area. Google has previously said it has “a longstanding
practice of applying name changes when they have been updated in
official government sources.”
https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/11/business/trump-gulf-of-america-google-maps-hnk-intl/index.html

Truly, only an egomaniac with a deranged mind would even think of
changing the name of a body of water as he did.

[badgolferman]

Post by Skeezix LaRocca

Post by badgolferman
The body of water formerly known in the United States as the Gulf of
Mexico is now listed for US-based users of Google Maps as the Gulf
of America.
The change follows an executive order by US President Donald Trump
renaming the area. Google has previously said it has “a longstanding
practice of applying name changes when they have been updated in
official government sources.”
https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/11/business/trump-gulf-of-america-google-maps-hnk-intl/index.html

Truly, only an egomaniac with a deranged mind would even think of
changing the name of a body of water as he did.

Technically the US owns more of the gulf's waters than Mexico does.

https://en.as.com/latest_news/who-has-a-larger-percentage-of-the-gulf-of-mexico-the-united-states-or-mexico-n/#:~:text=Mexico%20has%20a%20little%20more,remaining%2012%25%20belongs%20to%20Cuba.

[Skeezix LaRocca]

Post by badgolferman

Post by Skeezix LaRocca

Post by badgolferman
The body of water formerly known in the United States as the Gulf of
Mexico is now listed for US-based users of Google Maps as the Gulf
of America.
The change follows an executive order by US President Donald Trump
renaming the area. Google has previously said it has “a longstanding
practice of applying name changes when they have been updated in
official government sources.”
https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/11/business/trump-gulf-of-america-google-maps-hnk-intl/index.html

Truly, only an egomaniac with a deranged mind would even think of
changing the name of a body of water as he did.

Technically the US owns more of the gulf's waters than Mexico does.
https://en.as.com/latest_news/who-has-a-larger-percentage-of-the-gulf-of-mexico-the-united-states-or-mexico-n/#:~:text=Mexico%20has%20a%20little%20more,remaining%2012%25%20belongs%20to%20Cuba.

True, but what a childlike power play.

[badgolferman]

Post by Skeezix LaRocca

Post by badgolferman

Post by Skeezix LaRocca

Post by badgolferman
The body of water formerly known in the United States as the
Gulf of Mexico is now listed for US-based users of Google Maps
as the Gulf of America.
The change follows an executive order by US President Donald
Trump renaming the area. Google has previously said it has “a
longstanding practice of applying name changes when they have
been updated in official government sources.”
https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/11/business/trump-gulf-of-america-google-maps-hnk-intl/index.html

Truly, only an egomaniac with a deranged mind would even think of
changing the name of a body of water as he did.

Technically the US owns more of the gulf's waters than Mexico does.
https://en.as.com/latest_news/who-has-a-larger-percentage-of-the-gulf-of-mexico-the-united-states-or-mexico-n/#:~:text=Mexico%20has%20a%20little%20more,remaining%2012%25%20belongs%20to%20Cuba.

True, but what a childlike power play.

Why was it ever named Gulf of Mexico in the first place? Maybe he's
righting a wrong from centuries ago. I didn't hear you complaining
about Obama renaming Mt. McKinley to Mt. Denali. That was unnecessary
as well. All the parks, monuments, roads and schools in Virginia have
been renamed to remove any vestige of the Confederacy from the history
of its cradle. Administrators at the University of Virginia are trying
to remove Thomas Jefferson from the grounds. What are those but power
plays by the left?

[Skeezix LaRocca]

Post by badgolferman

Post by Skeezix LaRocca

Post by badgolferman

Post by Skeezix LaRocca

Post by badgolferman
The body of water formerly known in the United States as the
Gulf of Mexico is now listed for US-based users of Google Maps
as the Gulf of America.
The change follows an executive order by US President Donald
Trump renaming the area. Google has previously said it has “a
longstanding practice of applying name changes when they have
been updated in official government sources.”
https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/11/business/trump-gulf-of-america-google-maps-hnk-intl/index.html

Truly, only an egomaniac with a deranged mind would even think of
changing the name of a body of water as he did.

Technically the US owns more of the gulf's waters than Mexico does.
https://en.as.com/latest_news/who-has-a-larger-percentage-of-the-gulf-of-mexico-the-united-states-or-mexico-n/#:~:text=Mexico%20has%20a%20little%20more,remaining%2012%25%20belongs%20to%20Cuba.

True, but what a childlike power play.

Why was it ever named Gulf of Mexico in the first place? Maybe he's
righting a wrong from centuries ago. I didn't hear you complaining
about Obama renaming Mt. McKinley to Mt. Denali. That was unnecessary
as well. All the parks, monuments, roads and schools in Virginia have
been renamed to remove any vestige of the Confederacy from the history
of its cradle. Administrators at the University of Virginia are trying
to remove Thomas Jefferson from the grounds. What are those but power
plays by the left?

I Did not complain about the Obama renaming because it was not brought
up, nor did I complain about the renaming of Confederate memorials for
the same reason...It's just my opinion to be renaming shit, when we have
far bigger problems is nothing but show boating and muscle flexing.

[Sharx335]

Post by Skeezix LaRocca

Post by Skeezix LaRocca

Post by badgolferman

Post by Skeezix LaRocca

Post by badgolferman
The body of water formerly known in the United States as the
Gulf of Mexico is now listed for US-based users of Google Maps
as the Gulf of America.
The change follows an executive order by US President Donald
Trump renaming the area. Google has previously said it has “a
longstanding practice of applying name changes when they have
been updated in official government sources.”
https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/11/business/trump-gulf-of-america-
google-maps-hnk-intl/index.html

Truly, only an egomaniac with a deranged mind would even think of
changing the name of a body of water as he did.

Technically the US owns more of the gulf's waters than Mexico does.
https://en.as.com/latest_news/who-has-a-larger-percentage-of-the-
gulf-of-mexico-the-united-states-or-mexico-n/
#:~:text=Mexico%20has%20a%20little%20more,remaining%2012%25%20belongs%20to%20Cuba.

True, but what a childlike power play.

Why was it ever named Gulf of Mexico in the first place?  Maybe he's
righting a wrong from centuries ago.  I didn't hear you complaining
about Obama renaming Mt. McKinley to Mt. Denali.  That was unnecessary
as well.  All the parks, monuments, roads and schools in Virginia have
been renamed to remove any vestige of the Confederacy from the history
of its cradle.  Administrators at the University of Virginia are trying
to remove Thomas Jefferson from the grounds.  What are those but power
plays by the left?

I Did not complain about the Obama renaming because it was not brought
up, nor did I complain about the renaming of Confederate memorials for
the same reason...It's just my opinion to be renaming shit, when we have
far bigger problems is nothing but show boating and muscle flexing.

THAT being the case, it was also "show boating and muscle flexing" when
Democrat leaders did exactly the same thing. SHEESH. Very soon now, our
cruddy,WOKE Canadian government will go down to defeat by a Motion of
Non Confidence and the electorate will boot the arse of the limp-wristed
LIEbrawl climate fanatics out of the House of Commons. They who continue
to block the building of an all-Canadian east-west pipeline to supply
Eastern Canada with Alberta oil.

[Sharx335]

Post by badgolferman

Post by Skeezix LaRocca

Post by badgolferman

Post by Skeezix LaRocca

Post by badgolferman
The body of water formerly known in the United States as the
Gulf of Mexico is now listed for US-based users of Google Maps
as the Gulf of America.
The change follows an executive order by US President Donald
Trump renaming the area. Google has previously said it has “a
longstanding practice of applying name changes when they have
been updated in official government sources.”
https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/11/business/trump-gulf-of-america-google-maps-hnk-intl/index.html

Truly, only an egomaniac with a deranged mind would even think of
changing the name of a body of water as he did.

Technically the US owns more of the gulf's waters than Mexico does.
https://en.as.com/latest_news/who-has-a-larger-percentage-of-the-gulf-of-mexico-the-united-states-or-mexico-n/#:~:text=Mexico%20has%20a%20little%20more,remaining%2012%25%20belongs%20to%20Cuba.

True, but what a childlike power play.

Why was it ever named Gulf of Mexico in the first place? Maybe he's
righting a wrong from centuries ago. I didn't hear you complaining
about Obama renaming Mt. McKinley to Mt. Denali. That was unnecessary
as well. All the parks, monuments, roads and schools in Virginia have
been renamed to remove any vestige of the Confederacy from the history
of its cradle. Administrators at the University of Virginia are trying
to remove Thomas Jefferson from the grounds. What are those but power
plays by the left?

Exactly! How Thomas Jefferson lived, BACK IN THAT DAY, was the normal
way his class lived. I wish lefties would stop judging HISTORICAL
characters strictly by TODAY'S standards. Here in Alberta, the P.C.
whackos got Chinaman's Peak renamed. It HAD been called that in honour
of one of the many Chinese labourers who died building the railroads
through the Rockies.

[Fred Exley]

Post by Sharx335

Post by Skeezix LaRocca

Post by badgolferman

Post by Skeezix LaRocca

Post by badgolferman
The body of water formerly known in the United States as the
Gulf of Mexico is now listed for US-based users of Google Maps
as the Gulf of America.
The change follows an executive order by US President Donald
Trump renaming the area. Google has previously said it has “a
longstanding practice of applying name changes when they have
been updated in official government sources.”
https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/11/business/trump-gulf-of-america-
google-maps-hnk-intl/index.html

Truly, only an egomaniac with a deranged mind would even think of
changing the name of a body of water as he did.

Technically the US owns more of the gulf's waters than Mexico does.
https://en.as.com/latest_news/who-has-a-larger-percentage-of-the-
gulf-of-mexico-the-united-states-or-mexico-n/
#:~:text=Mexico%20has%20a%20little%20more,remaining%2012%25%20belongs%20to%20Cuba.

True, but what a childlike power play.

Why was it ever named Gulf of Mexico in the first place?  Maybe he's
righting a wrong from centuries ago.  I didn't hear you complaining
about Obama renaming Mt. McKinley to Mt. Denali.  That was unnecessary
as well.  All the parks, monuments, roads and schools in Virginia have
been renamed to remove any vestige of the Confederacy from the history
of its cradle.  Administrators at the University of Virginia are trying
to remove Thomas Jefferson from the grounds.  What are those but power
plays by the left?

Exactly! How Thomas Jefferson lived, BACK IN THAT DAY, was the normal
way his class lived. I wish lefties would stop judging HISTORICAL
characters strictly by TODAY'S standards.

There's a word for it:

presentism | ˈpreznˌ(t)izəm |
noun
uncritical adherence to present-day attitudes, especially the tendency
to interpret past events in terms of modern values and concepts.

[Charlie M. 1958]

Post by Fred Exley

Post by Sharx335
Exactly! How Thomas Jefferson lived, BACK IN THAT DAY, was the normal
way his class lived. I wish lefties would stop judging HISTORICAL
characters strictly by TODAY'S standards.

presentism | ˈpreznˌ(t)izəm |
noun
uncritical adherence to present-day attitudes, especially the tendency
to interpret past events in terms of modern values and concepts.

For those who want to demonize figures from the past who supported
slavery in any way, I use this as food for thought:

Today, people are more or less evenly divided on the issue of abortion.
And yet we all know good people whose views are in opposition to our
own. Suppose that in 150 years or so, abortion has become a settled
issue. Virtually everyone agrees that either a) it was barbaric to force
women to go through with unwanted pregnancies, or b) it was barbaric to
kill unborn human beings. Either way, should people who did great things
in our time be erased from history and/or vilified because, in
hindsight, they happened to be on the wrong side ?

[Sharx335]

Post by Charlie M. 1958

Post by Fred Exley

Post by Sharx335
Exactly! How Thomas Jefferson lived, BACK IN THAT DAY, was the normal
way his class lived. I wish lefties would stop judging HISTORICAL
characters strictly by TODAY'S standards.

presentism | ˈpreznˌ(t)izəm |
noun
uncritical adherence to present-day attitudes, especially the tendency
to interpret past events in terms of modern values and concepts.

For those who want to demonize figures from the past who supported
Today, people are more or less evenly divided on the issue of abortion.
And yet we all know good people whose views are in opposition to our
own. Suppose that in 150 years or so, abortion has become a settled
issue. Virtually everyone agrees that either a) it was barbaric to force
women to go through with unwanted pregnancies, or b) it was barbaric to
kill unborn human beings. Either way, should people who did great things
in our time be erased from history and/or vilified because, in
hindsight, they happened to be on the wrong side ?

Abortion IF NECESSARY but not necessarily abortion. IF I was a woman, NO
ONE would damn well tell me what to do with a pregnancy. My body, my
business. Having said that, then the government should ensure that
EVERYONE has ready access to all birth control measures AND the
education to understand what is available to AVOID unwanted pregnancies.
And other alternatives to avoid having to resort to the ultimate ending
of that pregnancy. Simply outlawing abortion is totally unreasonable as
the rich have always, for example, had alternatives. ALL should have
alternatives.

[badgolferman]

IF I was a woman, NO ONE would damn well tell me what to do with a
pregnancy. My body, my business.

Does the man have any say so in this or does he always have to foot the
bill regardless of how she decides? If it was her body, she made it
his business too.

[Pluted Pup]

Post by badgolferman

IF I was a woman, NO ONE would damn well tell me what to do with a
pregnancy. My body, my business.

Does the man have any say so in this or does he always have to foot the
bill regardless of how she decides? If it was her body, she made it
his business too.

Banning abortion because women abuse men is indirect and abusive.
A more appropriate "retaliation" is to make it routine to have
paternity tests with every birth. Best yet, this can be caused
by social pressure alone, without new law, other than to ensure
such tests are accurate.

It ought to be considered offbeat for a woman to refuse
a routine paternity test of her baby, the opposite of today, where
paternity tests are rare and it is considered "disrespectful"
for the presumed father to ask for a paternity test, perhaps
leading to divorce proceedings.

Medicine should be the initiator of the test, leaving it as
an opt-out option for those refusing the test.

[Pluted Pup]

Post by Charlie M. 1958

Post by Sharx335
Exactly! How Thomas Jefferson lived, BACK IN THAT DAY, was the normal
way his class lived. I wish lefties would stop judging HISTORICAL
characters strictly by TODAY'S standards.

presentism | 'prezn?(t)iz?m |
noun
uncritical adherence to present-day attitudes, especially the tendency
to interpret past events in terms of modern values and concepts.

For those who want to demonize figures from the past who supported
Today, people are more or less evenly divided on the issue of abortion.
And yet we all know good people whose views are in opposition to our
own. Suppose that in 150 years or so, abortion has become a settled
issue. Virtually everyone agrees that either a) it was barbaric to force
women to go through with unwanted pregnancies, or b) it was barbaric to
kill unborn human beings. Either way, should people who did great things
in our time be erased from history and/or vilified because, in
hindsight, they happened to be on the wrong side ?

Smart question, because the abortion issue is questionable
throughout the political spectrum, and the mere proclamations
that there are no such questions, merely because the media says
there are no real arguments about the issue. Those who assume
that abortion is left-wing and anti-abortion is right-wing, just
because the media is unanimous on presenting that as "fact", are
sorrily mistaken. I can see them as easily flipping on the issue,
because their, both sides, premises are so weak on the issue.

Doesn't the abortion issue get so much heat only because of
what the "other side" says? What if leftists became anti-abortion,
won't the Right become pro-abortion to retaliate, or the other
way around?

[Ted H]

On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 12:36:00 -0600,

Post by Charlie M. 1958

Post by Fred Exley

Post by Sharx335
Exactly! How Thomas Jefferson lived, BACK IN THAT DAY, was
the normal way his class lived. I wish lefties would stop
judging HISTORICAL characters strictly by TODAY'S standards.

presentism | ˈpreznˌ(t)izəm |
noun
uncritical adherence to present-day attitudes, especially the
tendency to interpret past events in terms of modern values
and concepts.

For those who want to demonize figures from the past who
supported slavery in any way...

What about those who want not to whitewash some of the inhuman
things they did?

[Sharx335]

Post by Ted H
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 12:36:00 -0600,

Post by Charlie M. 1958

Post by Fred Exley

Post by Sharx335
Exactly! How Thomas Jefferson lived, BACK IN THAT DAY, was
the normal way his class lived. I wish lefties would stop
judging HISTORICAL characters strictly by TODAY'S standards.

presentism | ˈpreznˌ(t)izəm |
noun
uncritical adherence to present-day attitudes, especially the
tendency to interpret past events in terms of modern values
and concepts.

For those who want to demonize figures from the past who
supported slavery in any way...

What about those who want not to whitewash some of the inhuman
things they did?

There is no creditable DENIAL of the shit that occurred but sometimes it
is TIME TO MOVE ON! WTF should *I* be penalized for what others, long
dead, did? It's like blaming all women for what Eve allegedly did in
the Garden. WTF. After all, women got to have multiple orgasms. If only...

[Socrates]

Post by Sharx335

Post by Ted H
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 12:36:00 -0600,

Post by Fred Exley

Post by Sharx335
Exactly! How Thomas Jefferson lived, BACK IN THAT DAY, was
the normal way his class lived. I wish lefties would stop
judging HISTORICAL characters strictly by TODAY'S standards.

presentism | ˈpreznˌ(t)izəm |
noun
uncritical adherence to present-day attitudes, especially the
tendency to interpret past events in terms of modern values
and concepts.

  For those who want to demonize figures from the past who
  supported slavery in any way...

What about those who want not to whitewash some of the inhuman
things they did?

There is no creditable DENIAL of the shit that occurred but sometimes it
is TIME TO MOVE ON!  WTF should *I* be penalized for what others, long
dead, did?   It's like blaming all women for what Eve allegedly did in
the Garden. WTF. After all, women got to have multiple orgasms. If only...

God's design. A man needs rest after 11 seconds of bliss.

[Sharx335]

Post by Socrates

Post by Sharx335

Post by Ted H
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 12:36:00 -0600,

Post by Fred Exley

Post by Sharx335
Exactly! How Thomas Jefferson lived, BACK IN THAT DAY, was
the normal way his class lived. I wish lefties would stop
judging HISTORICAL characters strictly by TODAY'S standards.

presentism | ˈpreznˌ(t)izəm |
noun
uncritical adherence to present-day attitudes, especially the
tendency to interpret past events in terms of modern values
and concepts.

  For those who want to demonize figures from the past who
  supported slavery in any way...

What about those who want not to whitewash some of the inhuman
things they did?

There is no creditable DENIAL of the shit that occurred but sometimes
it is TIME TO MOVE ON!  WTF should *I* be penalized for what others,
long dead, did?   It's like blaming all women for what Eve allegedly
did in the Garden. WTF. After all, women got to have multiple orgasms.
If only...

God's design. A man needs rest after 11 seconds of bliss.

ELEVEN seconds? Ah....those were the days...daze....

[badgolferman]

Post by Sharx335

Post by Ted H
What about those who want not to whitewash some of the inhuman
things they did?

There is no creditable DENIAL of the shit that occurred but sometimes
it is TIME TO MOVE ON! WTF should I be penalized for what others,
long dead, did? It's like blaming all women for what Eve allegedly
did in the Garden. WTF. After all, women got to have multiple
orgasms. If only...

White guilt.

[Charlie M. 1958]

Post by Ted H
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 12:36:00 -0600,

Post by Charlie M. 1958

Post by Fred Exley

Post by Sharx335
Exactly! How Thomas Jefferson lived, BACK IN THAT DAY, was
the normal way his class lived. I wish lefties would stop
judging HISTORICAL characters strictly by TODAY'S standards.

presentism | ˈpreznˌ(t)izəm |
noun
uncritical adherence to present-day attitudes, especially the
tendency to interpret past events in terms of modern values
and concepts.

For those who want to demonize figures from the past who
supported slavery in any way...

What about those who want not to whitewash some of the inhuman
things they did?

Ted, facts are facts. History should not be taught in an edited version.
But examining those ugly truths through the lens of current social
values and modern science is wrong as well.

I have to go back to my example. It's 2175, and everyone agrees that
ripping a living human fetus from it's mother's womb, tearing it to
pieces in the process, is a disgusting and murderous act. Does that mean
anyone who supported abortion rights in 2025 is unworthy of admiration,
regardless of their achievements?

Maybe an even better example is animal rights. There's a pretty solid
logical argument that animals suffer fear and pain, and we routinely
expose them to both in the ways we mass-produce and slaughter them for
food. Yet most of us (myself included) turn a blind eye because we like
a good steak or burger. We tell ourselves that it's our rightful place
at the top of the food chain to use these animals as we see fit. (This
is not all that different from how a great many mid-19th century
Americans viewed slavery.)

Lincoln himself never envisioned blacks and whites living together as
equals. His suggestion was to ship them off to their own island. His
priority was to preserve the union because he didn't believe the north
could survive without the agriculture of the south. He stated that if he
thought he could maintain the union by preserving slavery he would
preserve it. But those facts are whitewashed in the history books as well.

The bottom line is that we should never obscure the facts of history.
But a person's character should only be judged in the context of the
times in which they lived.

[Sharx335]

Post by Charlie M. 1958

Post by Ted H
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 12:36:00 -0600,

Post by Fred Exley

Post by Sharx335
Exactly! How Thomas Jefferson lived, BACK IN THAT DAY, was
the normal way his class lived. I wish lefties would stop
judging HISTORICAL characters strictly by TODAY'S standards.

presentism | ˈpreznˌ(t)izəm |
noun
uncritical adherence to present-day attitudes, especially the
tendency to interpret past events in terms of modern values
and concepts.

  For those who want to demonize figures from the past who
  supported slavery in any way...

What about those who want not to whitewash some of the inhuman
things they did?

Ted, facts are facts. History should not be taught in an edited version.
But examining those ugly truths through the lens of current social
values and modern science is wrong as well.
I have to go back to my example. It's 2175, and everyone agrees that
ripping a living human fetus from it's mother's womb, tearing it to
pieces in the process, is a disgusting and murderous act. Does that mean
anyone who supported abortion rights in 2025 is unworthy of admiration,
regardless of their achievements?
Maybe an even better example is animal rights. There's a pretty solid
logical argument that animals suffer fear and pain, and we routinely
expose them to both in the ways we mass-produce and slaughter them for
food. Yet most of us (myself included) turn a blind eye because we like
a good steak or burger. We tell ourselves that it's our rightful place
at the top of the food chain to use these animals as we see fit. (This
is not all that different from how a great many mid-19th century
Americans viewed slavery.)
Lincoln himself never envisioned blacks and whites living together as
equals. His suggestion was to ship them off to their own island. His
priority was to preserve the union because he didn't believe the north
could survive without the agriculture of the south. He stated that if he
thought he could maintain the union by preserving slavery he would
preserve it. But those facts are whitewashed in the history books as well.
The bottom line is that we should never obscure the facts of history.
But a person's character should only be judged in the context of the
times in which they lived.

Sadly, it was only fairly recently that I learned that Lincoln was NOT
really The Great Emancipator. Not to say that he wasn't one of the
better presidents, though. Yup, in hindsight, he would have thrown
blacks under the bus BUT, back then, I could see the IMMEDIATE priority
would have been to save your Union...which he did accomplish.

[Ted H]

On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 20:42:42 -0600,

Post by Charlie M. 1958

Post by Ted H
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 12:36:00 -0600,

Post by Charlie M. 1958

Post by Fred Exley

Post by Sharx335
Exactly! How Thomas Jefferson lived, BACK IN THAT DAY, was
the normal way his class lived. I wish lefties would stop
judging HISTORICAL characters strictly by TODAY'S standards.

presentism | ˈpreznˌ(t)izəm |
noun
uncritical adherence to present-day attitudes, especially the
tendency to interpret past events in terms of modern values
and concepts.

For those who want to demonize figures from the past who
supported slavery in any way...

What about those who want not to whitewash some of the inhuman
things they did?

Ted, facts are facts. History should not be taught in an edited
version. But examining those ugly truths through the lens of
current social values and modern science is wrong as well.

[snipped examples, they don't help as far as I'm concerned]

Post by Charlie M. 1958
Lincoln himself never envisioned blacks and whites living
together as equals. His suggestion was to ship them off to
their own island. His priority was to preserve the union
because he didn't believe the north could survive without the
agriculture of the south. He stated that if he thought he could
maintain the union by preserving slavery he would preserve it.
But those facts are whitewashed in the history books as well.
The bottom line is that we should never obscure the facts of
history. But a person's character should only be judged in the
context of the times in which they lived.

I don't disagree, but I think there's an undeniable gap between
judging and demonizing and refusing to acknowledge the injustices.
Celebrating the Confederacy and those who fought to preserve their
assets (i.e., slaves) simply canot be abided.

Did you know Jefferson ordered slaves severely whipped and their
backs washed with brine? In front of all his other slaves? To
make them better behaved. I'm not in any way for taking down
statues of Jefferson, but these past practices have got to be
acknowledged. So long as the dominant "race" continues to say the
dominated should just get over it, is so long as we will have no
ability to make progress.

[Sharx335]

Post by Ted H
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 20:42:42 -0600,

Post by Charlie M. 1958

Post by Ted H
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 12:36:00 -0600,

Post by Charlie M. 1958

Post by Fred Exley

Post by Sharx335
Exactly! How Thomas Jefferson lived, BACK IN THAT DAY, was
the normal way his class lived. I wish lefties would stop
judging HISTORICAL characters strictly by TODAY'S standards.

presentism | ˈpreznˌ(t)izəm |
noun
uncritical adherence to present-day attitudes, especially the
tendency to interpret past events in terms of modern values
and concepts.

For those who want to demonize figures from the past who
supported slavery in any way...

What about those who want not to whitewash some of the inhuman
things they did?

Ted, facts are facts. History should not be taught in an edited
version. But examining those ugly truths through the lens of
current social values and modern science is wrong as well.

[snipped examples, they don't help as far as I'm concerned]

Post by Charlie M. 1958
Lincoln himself never envisioned blacks and whites living
together as equals. His suggestion was to ship them off to
their own island. His priority was to preserve the union
because he didn't believe the north could survive without the
agriculture of the south. He stated that if he thought he could
maintain the union by preserving slavery he would preserve it.
But those facts are whitewashed in the history books as well.
The bottom line is that we should never obscure the facts of
history. But a person's character should only be judged in the
context of the times in which they lived.

I don't disagree, but I think there's an undeniable gap between
judging and demonizing and refusing to acknowledge the injustices.
Celebrating the Confederacy and those who fought to preserve their
assets (i.e., slaves) simply canot be abided.
Did you know Jefferson ordered slaves severely whipped and their
backs washed with brine? In front of all his other slaves? To
make them better behaved. I'm not in any way for taking down
statues of Jefferson, but these past practices have got to be
acknowledged. So long as the dominant "race" continues to say the
dominated should just get over it, is so long as we will have no
ability to make progress.

Indeed, the WHOLE story SHOULD be included in school curricula--e.g.
indigenous peoples WERE slaughtered by those in power BUT, they also,
regularly, slaughtered other indigenous groups in horrific ways,
too.Yet, the left, as a whole, tend to glorify them. Ditto for Abraham
Lincoln--hardly the hero that the left make him out to be.

[badgolferman]

Post by Sharx335
Indeed, the WHOLE story SHOULD be included in school curricula--e.g.
indigenous peoples WERE slaughtered by those in power BUT, they also,
regularly, slaughtered other indigenous groups in horrific ways,
too.Yet, the left, as a whole, tend to glorify them. Ditto for
Abraham Lincoln--hardly the hero that the left make him out to be.

Ironically, Lincoln was a Republican.

[Sharx335]

Post by badgolferman

Post by Sharx335
Indeed, the WHOLE story SHOULD be included in school curricula--e.g.
indigenous peoples WERE slaughtered by those in power BUT, they also,
regularly, slaughtered other indigenous groups in horrific ways,
too.Yet, the left, as a whole, tend to glorify them. Ditto for
Abraham Lincoln--hardly the hero that the left make him out to be.

Ironically, Lincoln was a Republican.

But, the Dems, then, were definitely the Dark Side...according to the
Northern Aggressors....

[Charlie M. 1958]

Post by Ted H
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 20:42:42 -0600,

Post by Charlie M. 1958

Post by Ted H
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 12:36:00 -0600,

Post by Charlie M. 1958

Post by Fred Exley

Post by Sharx335
Exactly! How Thomas Jefferson lived, BACK IN THAT DAY, was
the normal way his class lived. I wish lefties would stop
judging HISTORICAL characters strictly by TODAY'S standards.

presentism | ˈpreznˌ(t)izəm |
noun
uncritical adherence to present-day attitudes, especially the
tendency to interpret past events in terms of modern values
and concepts.

For those who want to demonize figures from the past who
supported slavery in any way...

What about those who want not to whitewash some of the inhuman
things they did?

Ted, facts are facts. History should not be taught in an edited
version. But examining those ugly truths through the lens of
current social values and modern science is wrong as well.

[snipped examples, they don't help as far as I'm concerned]

If the examples aren't meaningful, you've missed my point entirely. If
history teaches us anything, it's that what human's define as reasonable
and acceptable behavior changes over time. That change never happens
without conflict, and those who end up on the wrong side of that
conflict always come off poorly in the eyes of future generations.

Post by Ted H

Post by Charlie M. 1958
Lincoln himself never envisioned blacks and whites living
together as equals. His suggestion was to ship them off to
their own island. His priority was to preserve the union
because he didn't believe the north could survive without the
agriculture of the south. He stated that if he thought he could
maintain the union by preserving slavery he would preserve it.
But those facts are whitewashed in the history books as well.
The bottom line is that we should never obscure the facts of
history. But a person's character should only be judged in the
context of the times in which they lived.

I don't disagree, but I think there's an undeniable gap between
judging and demonizing and refusing to acknowledge the injustices.
Celebrating the Confederacy and those who fought to preserve their
assets (i.e., slaves) simply canot be abided.

Celebrating the confederacy? No, I don't support that. In fact, I have
no problem with the removal of confederate monuments that for many folks
serve as a painful reminder of the suffering of their ancestors.

But your statement about celebrating "those who fought to preserve their
assets" is at worst a grave injustice, and a best a vast
oversimplification. How many of the 258,000 confederate dead do you
think owned slaves?. However misguided their motives might seem today,
in their minds they were fighting for their country. For that matter,
how many of the 360,000 union dead were true abolitionists? The fact is
that virtually every white American of that time period was a racist.
And lets not forget the inhuman conditions under which the northern
industrialists forced children and women to work.

So when you talk about not whitewashing history let's include the false
narrative that the civil war was a battle of the good guys vs. the bad guys.

Post by Ted H
Did you know Jefferson ordered slaves severely whipped and their
backs washed with brine? In front of all his other slaves? To
make them better behaved. I'm not in any way for taking down
statues of Jefferson, but these past practices have got to be
acknowledged. So long as the dominant "race" continues to say the
dominated should just get over it, is so long as we will have no
ability to make progress.

And did you know that Robert E. Lee wrote that he believed slavery was a
moral and political evil? Of course in the same letter he wrote that he
believed the harsh discipline some imposed on slaves was necessary to
train them so their race could do better in the future. Today that comes
off as an outrageous statement, but JUDGED AGAINST THE BACKDROP OF THE
TIMES it was not a dishonorable sentiment.

As for your comment about acknowledging the inhuman practices, I think
the idiots who make statements like "the slaves didn't have it that bad"
are, thankfully, pretty rare. I agree the atrocities must never be
forgotten or covered up, but what will it take, in your opinion, for the
acknowledgement to be sufficient to allow us all to move on and view
history and history, rather than an open wound?

Personally, I think the only reasonable path forward is twofold:

1. Teach our children the unvarnished history, AND the context to
understand it fully.

2. Rather than somehow trying to right past wrongs, focus on stamping
out acts of racism that take place currently. Instead of putting money
into reparations, let's put it into creating easier paths for people to
report discrimination, and meting out punishment for the perpetrators.

[badgolferman]

Post by Charlie M. 1958

Post by Ted H
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 20:42:42 -0600,

Post by Charlie M. 1958

Post by Ted H
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 12:36:00 -0600,

Post by Charlie M. 1958

Post by Fred Exley

Post by Sharx335
Exactly! How Thomas Jefferson lived, BACK IN THAT DAY, was
the normal way his class lived. I wish lefties would stop
judging HISTORICAL characters strictly by TODAY'S standards.

presentism | ˈpreznˌ(t)izəm |
noun
uncritical adherence to present-day attitudes, especially the
tendency to interpret past events in terms of modern values
and concepts.

For those who want to demonize figures from the past who
supported slavery in any way...

What about those who want not to whitewash some of the inhuman
things they did?

Ted, facts are facts. History should not be taught in an edited
version. But examining those ugly truths through the lens of
current social values and modern science is wrong as well.

[snipped examples, they don't help as far as I'm concerned]

If the examples aren't meaningful, you've missed my point entirely. If
history teaches us anything, it's that what human's define as reasonable
and acceptable behavior changes over time. That change never happens
without conflict, and those who end up on the wrong side of that
conflict always come off poorly in the eyes of future generations.

Post by Ted H

Post by Charlie M. 1958
Lincoln himself never envisioned blacks and whites living
together as equals. His suggestion was to ship them off to
their own island. His priority was to preserve the union
because he didn't believe the north could survive without the
agriculture of the south. He stated that if he thought he could
maintain the union by preserving slavery he would preserve it.
But those facts are whitewashed in the history books as well.
The bottom line is that we should never obscure the facts of
history. But a person's character should only be judged in the
context of the times in which they lived.

I don't disagree, but I think there's an undeniable gap between
judging and demonizing and refusing to acknowledge the injustices.
Celebrating the Confederacy and those who fought to preserve their
assets (i.e., slaves) simply canot be abided.

Celebrating the confederacy? No, I don't support that. In fact, I have
no problem with the removal of confederate monuments that for many folks
serve as a painful reminder of the suffering of their ancestors.
But your statement about celebrating "those who fought to preserve their
assets" is at worst a grave injustice, and a best a vast
oversimplification. How many of the 258,000 confederate dead do you
think owned slaves?. However misguided their motives might seem today,
in their minds they were fighting for their country. For that matter,
how many of the 360,000 union dead were true abolitionists? The fact is
that virtually every white American of that time period was a racist.
And lets not forget the inhuman conditions under which the northern
industrialists forced children and women to work.
So when you talk about not whitewashing history let's include the false
narrative that the civil war was a battle of the good guys vs. the bad guys.

Post by Ted H
Did you know Jefferson ordered slaves severely whipped and their
backs washed with brine? In front of all his other slaves? To
make them better behaved. I'm not in any way for taking down
statues of Jefferson, but these past practices have got to be
acknowledged. So long as the dominant "race" continues to say the
dominated should just get over it, is so long as we will have no
ability to make progress.

And did you know that Robert E. Lee wrote that he believed slavery was a
moral and political evil? Of course in the same letter he wrote that he
believed the harsh discipline some imposed on slaves was necessary to
train them so their race could do better in the future. Today that comes
off as an outrageous statement, but JUDGED AGAINST THE BACKDROP OF THE
TIMES it was not a dishonorable sentiment.
As for your comment about acknowledging the inhuman practices, I think
the idiots who make statements like "the slaves didn't have it that bad"
are, thankfully, pretty rare. I agree the atrocities must never be
forgotten or covered up, but what will it take, in your opinion, for the
acknowledgement to be sufficient to allow us all to move on and view
history and history, rather than an open wound?
1. Teach our children the unvarnished history, AND the context to
understand it fully.
2. Rather than somehow trying to right past wrongs, focus on stamping
out acts of racism that take place currently. Instead of putting money
into reparations, let's put it into creating easier paths for people to
report discrimination, and meting out punishment for the perpetrators.

The only acceptable outcome to blacks is millions of dollars reparation to
each one of them. Paid by the American taxpayer regardless of whether their
own ancestors were slave owners.

[Ted H]

On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 20:11:41 -0000 (UTC),

Post by badgolferman

Post by Charlie M. 1958
Personally, I think the only reasonable path forward is
1. Teach our children the unvarnished history, AND the context
to understand it fully.
2. Rather than somehow trying to right past wrongs, focus on
stamping out acts of racism that take place currently.
Instead of putting money into reparations, let's put it
into creating easier paths for people to report
discrimination, and meting out punishment for the
perpetrators.

The only acceptable outcome to blacks is millions of dollars
reparation to each one of them. Paid by the American taxpayer
regardless of whether their own ancestors were slave owners.

Oh my, that's an incredibly broad brush you are painting with
there. Certainly there are some activists who hold that view, but
it's far from being the entire community. I hope you're not
completely serious in that extremely stated position, but based on
your posting history here I suspect you probaby are.

[badgolferman]

Post by Ted H
On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 20:11:41 -0000 (UTC),

Post by badgolferman

Post by Charlie M. 1958
Personally, I think the only reasonable path forward is
1. Teach our children the unvarnished history, AND the context
to understand it fully.
2. Rather than somehow trying to right past wrongs, focus on
stamping out acts of racism that take place currently.
Instead of putting money into reparations, let's put it
into creating easier paths for people to report
discrimination, and meting out punishment for the
perpetrators.

The only acceptable outcome to blacks is millions of dollars
reparation to each one of them. Paid by the American taxpayer
regardless of whether their own ancestors were slave owners.

Oh my, that's an incredibly broad brush you are painting with
there. Certainly there are some activists who hold that view, but
it's far from being the entire community. I hope you're not
completely serious in that extremely stated position, but based on
your posting history here I suspect you probaby are.

That's all I've seen. Perhaps you have cites from prominent black
spokesmen who don't want monetary reparations and all other forms that
look like that?

[Sharx335]

Post by Charlie M. 1958

Post by Ted H
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 20:42:42 -0600,

Post by Ted H
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 12:36:00 -0600,

Post by Fred Exley

Post by Sharx335
Exactly! How Thomas Jefferson lived, BACK IN THAT DAY, was
the normal way his class lived. I wish lefties would stop
judging HISTORICAL characters strictly by TODAY'S standards.

presentism | ˈpreznˌ(t)izəm |
noun
uncritical adherence to present-day attitudes, especially the
tendency to interpret past events in terms of modern values
and concepts.

   For those who want to demonize figures from the past who
   supported slavery in any way...

What about those who want not to whitewash some of the inhuman
things they did?

  Ted, facts are facts. History should not be taught in an edited
  version. But examining those ugly truths through the lens of
  current social values and modern science is wrong as well.

[snipped examples, they don't help as far as I'm concerned]

If the examples aren't meaningful, you've missed my point entirely. If
history teaches us anything, it's that what human's define as reasonable
and acceptable behavior changes over time. That change never happens
without conflict, and those who end up on the wrong side of that
conflict always come off poorly in the eyes of future generations.

Post by Ted H

  Lincoln himself never envisioned blacks and whites living
  together as equals. His suggestion was to ship them off to
  their own island. His priority was to preserve the union
  because he didn't believe the north could survive without the
  agriculture of the south. He stated that if he thought he could
  maintain the union by preserving slavery he would preserve it.
  But those facts are whitewashed in the history books as well.
  The bottom line is that we should never obscure the facts of
  history. But a person's character should only be judged in the
  context of the times in which they lived.

I don't disagree, but I think there's an undeniable gap between
judging and demonizing and refusing to acknowledge the injustices.
Celebrating the Confederacy and those who fought to preserve their
assets (i.e., slaves) simply canot be abided.

Celebrating the confederacy? No, I don't support that. In fact, I have
no problem with the removal of confederate monuments that for many folks
serve as a painful reminder of the suffering of their ancestors.
But your statement about celebrating "those who fought to preserve their
assets" is at worst a grave injustice, and a best a vast
oversimplification. How many of the 258,000 confederate dead do you
think owned slaves?. However misguided their motives might seem today,
in their minds they were fighting for their country. For that matter,
how many of the 360,000 union dead were true abolitionists? The fact is
that virtually every white American of that time period was a racist.
And lets not forget the inhuman conditions under which the northern
industrialists forced children and women to work.
So when you talk about not whitewashing history let's include the false
narrative that the civil war was a battle of the good guys vs. the bad guys.

Post by Ted H
Did you know Jefferson ordered slaves severely whipped and their
backs washed with brine?  In front of all his other slaves?  To
make them better behaved.  I'm not in any way for taking down
statues of Jefferson, but these past practices have got to be
acknowledged.  So long as the dominant "race" continues to say the
dominated should just get over it, is so long as we will have no
ability to make progress.

And did you know that Robert E. Lee wrote that he believed slavery was a
moral and political evil? Of course in the same letter he wrote that he
believed the harsh discipline some imposed on slaves was necessary to
train them so their race could do better in the future. Today that comes
off as an outrageous statement, but JUDGED AGAINST THE BACKDROP OF THE
TIMES it was not a dishonorable sentiment.
As for your comment about acknowledging the inhuman practices, I think
the idiots who make statements like "the slaves didn't have it that bad"
are, thankfully, pretty rare. I agree the atrocities must never be
forgotten or covered up, but what will it take, in your opinion, for the
acknowledgement to be sufficient to allow us all to move on and view
history and history, rather than an open wound?
1. Teach our children the unvarnished history, AND the context to
understand it fully.
2. Rather than somehow trying to right past wrongs, focus on stamping
out acts of racism that take place currently. Instead of putting money
into reparations, let's put it into creating easier paths for people to
report discrimination, and meting out punishment for the perpetrators.

Time to phase out "affirmative action" programs-- they are just a modern
form of slavery unjustly targeting innocent groups in the present for
ancient problems.

[Ted H]

On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 17:18:46 -0700,

Post by Sharx335

Post by Charlie M. 1958
Personally, I think the only reasonable path forward is
1. Teach our children the unvarnished history, AND the context
to understand it fully.
2. Rather than somehow trying to right past wrongs, focus on
stamping out acts of racism that take place currently.
Instead of putting money into reparations, let's put it
into creating easier paths for people to report
discrimination, and meting out punishment for the
perpetrators.

Time to phase out "affirmative action" programs-- they are just
a modern form of slavery unjustly targeting innocent groups in
the present for ancient problems.

Yikes. You seriously think there are no current problems? And
slavery in the US is hardly ancient. It goes back only a few
generations before us. ANd Jim Crow practices were alive and well
up into the lives of most of us here.

[Ted H]

On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 14:00:26 -0600,

Post by Charlie M. 1958

Post by Ted H
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 20:42:42 -0600,

Post by Charlie M. 1958

Post by Ted H
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 12:36:00 -0600,

Post by Charlie M. 1958
For those who want to demonize figures from the past who
supported slavery in any way...

What about those who want not to whitewash some of the
inhuman things they did?

Ted, facts are facts. History should not be taught in an
edited version. But examining those ugly truths through the
lens of current social values and modern science is wrong
as well.

[snipped examples, they don't help as far as I'm concerned]

If the examples aren't meaningful, you've missed my point
entirely. If history teaches us anything, it's that what
human's define as reasonable and acceptable behavior changes
over time. That change never happens without conflict, and
those who end up on the wrong side of that conflict always come
off poorly in the eyes of future generations.

Seems uncharitable to assume I've missed the point just because I
don't find the examples helpful. Let me take a stab at it.

As I recall, you gave examples of abortion and tretment of
animals. For them to be relevant, I think they have to speak to
whether fetuses and animals are human (slavery and the treatment
of slaves was most often justified by slaves being subhuman).

For that reason, I don't consider animals will ever be classed the
same. Fetuses may be closer, but before whatever the spirit of
being (sentience, I guess) is present it's also not very relevant.

I'm sure we could argue this point further, but it just doesn't
provide me much value.

Post by Charlie M. 1958

Post by Ted H

Post by Charlie M. 1958
Lincoln himself never envisioned blacks and whites living
together as equals. His suggestion was to ship them off to
their own island. His priority was to preserve the union
because he didn't believe the north could survive without
the agriculture of the south. He stated that if he thought
he could maintain the union by preserving slavery he would
preserve it. But those facts are whitewashed in the history books as well.

Yes, circling back on this point, my reading of history is same.

Post by Charlie M. 1958

Post by Ted H

Post by Charlie M. 1958
The bottom line is that we should never obscure the facts
of history. But a person's character should only be judged
in the context of the times in which they lived.

I don't disagree, but I think there's an undeniable gap
between judging and demonizing and refusing to acknowledge the
injustices. Celebrating the Confederacy and those who fought
to preserve their assets (i.e., slaves) simply canot be
abided.

Celebrating the confederacy? No, I don't support that. In fact,
I have no problem with the removal of confederate monuments
that for many folks serve as a painful reminder of the
suffering of their ancestors.

Okay, good. Seems we agree on this.

Post by Charlie M. 1958
But your statement about celebrating "those who fought to
preserve their assets" is at worst a grave injustice, and a
best a vast oversimplification. How many of the 258,000
confederate dead do you think owned slaves?. However misguided
their motives might seem today, in their minds they were
fighting for their country.

I think you're being a bit sensitive here. It's true that many of
the Confederate soldiers didn't own slaves, but they were in fact
fighting for an economic system that relied entirely on slaves.

Post by Charlie M. 1958
...For that matter, how many of the 360,000 union dead
were true abolitionists? The fact is that virtually every white
American of that time period was a racist.

"virtually every" is probably overstating it, but the point is
valid.

Post by Charlie M. 1958
So when you talk about not whitewashing history let's include
the false narrative that the civil war was a battle of the good
guys vs. the bad guys.

Sure, I agree. Did I imply anywhere I thought that?

Post by Charlie M. 1958

Post by Ted H
Did you know Jefferson ordered slaves severely whipped and
their backs washed with brine? In front of all his other
slaves? To make them better behaved. I'm not in any way for
taking down statues of Jefferson, but these past practices
have got to be acknowledged. So long as the dominant "race"
continues to say the dominated should just get over it, is so
long as we will have no ability to make progress.

And did you know that Robert E. Lee wrote that he believed
slavery was a moral and political evil?

Yep.

Post by Charlie M. 1958
...Of course in the same letter he wrote that he believed
the harsh discipline some imposed on slaves was necessary to
train them so their race could do better in the future.

Many of the leading men of the time had conflicting views, at
least based on their writing. Emerson, Lincoln, Lee, and the list
goes on. Really, the book I mentioned ("How the Word is Passed")
is an excellent read on much of this history. Can't recommend it
highly enough.

Post by Charlie M. 1958
...Today that comes off as an outrageous statement, but
JUDGED AGAINST THE BACKDROP OF THE TIMES it was not a
dishonorable sentiment.

Talking about honor smacks of moving goalposts, but okay.

Post by Charlie M. 1958
As for your comment about acknowledging the inhuman practices,
I think the idiots who make statements like "the slaves didn't
have it that bad" are, thankfully, pretty rare.

Umm, I hope so. But I'm not convinced. Rare seems unlikely.

Post by Charlie M. 1958
...I agree the atrocities must never be forgotten or
covered up, but what will it take, in your opinion, for the
acknowledgement to be sufficient to allow us all to move on and
view history and history, rather than an open wound?
Personally, I think the only reasonable path forward is
1. Teach our children the unvarnished history, AND the context
to understand it fully.
2. Rather than somehow trying to right past wrongs, focus on
stamping out acts of racism that take place currently.
Instead of putting money into reparations, let's put it into
creating easier paths for people to report discrimination,
and meting out punishment for the perpetrators.

We agree fully on point 1. Regarding point 2, we may not be that
far off. I don't think the terrible abuses of slavery can ever be
made right. So I agree we need to not try. On the other hand,
the many decades of Jim Crow and racist practices that followed
Emancipation (not only in the South) prevented many (if not most)
blacks from the opportunity to build wealth--especially from
ownership of property and reasonable wages. Somehow there needs
to be a way to rectifiy the imbalance. The deck is stacked
against the masses of urban poor (not only, but predominantly)
black. We need more than stamping out racism for all to have
paths toward thriving.

[Socrates]

Post by Ted H
On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 14:00:26 -0600,

Post by Charlie M. 1958

Post by Ted H
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 20:42:42 -0600,

Post by Charlie M. 1958

Post by Ted H
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 12:36:00 -0600,

Post by Charlie M. 1958
For those who want to demonize figures from the past who
supported slavery in any way...

What about those who want not to whitewash some of the
inhuman things they did?

Ted, facts are facts. History should not be taught in an
edited version. But examining those ugly truths through the
lens of current social values and modern science is wrong
as well.

[snipped examples, they don't help as far as I'm concerned]

If the examples aren't meaningful, you've missed my point
entirely. If history teaches us anything, it's that what
human's define as reasonable and acceptable behavior changes
over time. That change never happens without conflict, and
those who end up on the wrong side of that conflict always come
off poorly in the eyes of future generations.

Seems uncharitable to assume I've missed the point just because I
don't find the examples helpful. Let me take a stab at it.
As I recall, you gave examples of abortion and tretment of
animals. For them to be relevant, I think they have to speak to
whether fetuses and animals are human (slavery and the treatment
of slaves was most often justified by slaves being subhuman).
For that reason, I don't consider animals will ever be classed the
same. Fetuses may be closer, but before whatever the spirit of
being (sentience, I guess) is present it's also not very relevant.
I'm sure we could argue this point further, but it just doesn't
provide me much value.

Post by Charlie M. 1958

Post by Ted H

Post by Charlie M. 1958
Lincoln himself never envisioned blacks and whites living
together as equals. His suggestion was to ship them off to
their own island. His priority was to preserve the union
because he didn't believe the north could survive without
the agriculture of the south. He stated that if he thought
he could maintain the union by preserving slavery he would
preserve it. But those facts are whitewashed in the history books as well.

Yes, circling back on this point, my reading of history is same.

Post by Charlie M. 1958

Post by Ted H

Post by Charlie M. 1958
The bottom line is that we should never obscure the facts
of history. But a person's character should only be judged
in the context of the times in which they lived.

I don't disagree, but I think there's an undeniable gap
between judging and demonizing and refusing to acknowledge the
injustices. Celebrating the Confederacy and those who fought
to preserve their assets (i.e., slaves) simply canot be
abided.

Celebrating the confederacy? No, I don't support that. In fact,
I have no problem with the removal of confederate monuments
that for many folks serve as a painful reminder of the
suffering of their ancestors.

Okay, good. Seems we agree on this.

Post by Charlie M. 1958
But your statement about celebrating "those who fought to
preserve their assets" is at worst a grave injustice, and a
best a vast oversimplification. How many of the 258,000
confederate dead do you think owned slaves?. However misguided
their motives might seem today, in their minds they were
fighting for their country.

I think you're being a bit sensitive here. It's true that many of
the Confederate soldiers didn't own slaves, but they were in fact
fighting for an economic system that relied entirely on slaves.

Post by Charlie M. 1958
...For that matter, how many of the 360,000 union dead
were true abolitionists? The fact is that virtually every white
American of that time period was a racist.

"virtually every" is probably overstating it, but the point is
valid.

Post by Charlie M. 1958
So when you talk about not whitewashing history let's include
the false narrative that the civil war was a battle of the good
guys vs. the bad guys.

Sure, I agree. Did I imply anywhere I thought that?

Post by Charlie M. 1958

Post by Ted H
Did you know Jefferson ordered slaves severely whipped and
their backs washed with brine? In front of all his other
slaves? To make them better behaved. I'm not in any way for
taking down statues of Jefferson, but these past practices
have got to be acknowledged. So long as the dominant "race"
continues to say the dominated should just get over it, is so
long as we will have no ability to make progress.

And did you know that Robert E. Lee wrote that he believed
slavery was a moral and political evil?

Yep.

Post by Charlie M. 1958
...Of course in the same letter he wrote that he believed
the harsh discipline some imposed on slaves was necessary to
train them so their race could do better in the future.

Many of the leading men of the time had conflicting views, at
least based on their writing. Emerson, Lincoln, Lee, and the list
goes on. Really, the book I mentioned ("How the Word is Passed")
is an excellent read on much of this history. Can't recommend it
highly enough.

Post by Charlie M. 1958
...Today that comes off as an outrageous statement, but
JUDGED AGAINST THE BACKDROP OF THE TIMES it was not a
dishonorable sentiment.

Talking about honor smacks of moving goalposts, but okay.

Post by Charlie M. 1958
As for your comment about acknowledging the inhuman practices,
I think the idiots who make statements like "the slaves didn't
have it that bad" are, thankfully, pretty rare.

Umm, I hope so. But I'm not convinced. Rare seems unlikely.

Post by Charlie M. 1958
...I agree the atrocities must never be forgotten or
covered up, but what will it take, in your opinion, for the
acknowledgement to be sufficient to allow us all to move on and
view history and history, rather than an open wound?
Personally, I think the only reasonable path forward is
1. Teach our children the unvarnished history, AND the context
to understand it fully.
2. Rather than somehow trying to right past wrongs, focus on
stamping out acts of racism that take place currently.
Instead of putting money into reparations, let's put it into
creating easier paths for people to report discrimination,
and meting out punishment for the perpetrators.

We agree fully on point 1. Regarding point 2, we may not be that
far off. I don't think the terrible abuses of slavery can ever be
made right. So I agree we need to not try. On the other hand,
the many decades of Jim Crow and racist practices that followed
Emancipation (not only in the South) prevented many (if not most)
blacks from the opportunity to build wealth--especially from
ownership of property and reasonable wages. Somehow there needs
to be a way to rectifiy the imbalance. The deck is stacked
against the masses of urban poor (not only, but predominantly)
black. We need more than stamping out racism for all to have
paths toward thriving.

From the Devil's Dictionary: :)

OPTIMISM, n. The doctrine, or belief, that everything is beautiful,
including what is ugly, everything good, especially the bad, and
everything right that is wrong. It is held with greatest tenacity by
those most accustomed to the mischance of falling into adversity, and is
most acceptably expounded with the grin that apes a smile. Being a blind
faith, it is inaccessible to the light of disproof, an intellectual
disorder, yielding to no treatment but death. It is hereditary, but
fortunately not contagious.

[Sharx335]

Post by Ted H
On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 14:00:26 -0600,

Post by Ted H
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 20:42:42 -0600,

Post by Ted H
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 12:36:00 -0600,

    For those who want to demonize figures from the past who
    supported slavery in any way...

What about those who want not to whitewash some of the
inhuman things they did?

   Ted, facts are facts. History should not be taught in an
   edited version. But examining those ugly truths through the
   lens of current social values and modern science is wrong
   as well.

[snipped examples, they don't help as far as I'm concerned]

  If the examples aren't meaningful, you've missed my point
  entirely. If history teaches us anything, it's that what
  human's define as reasonable and acceptable behavior changes
  over time. That change never happens without conflict, and
  those who end up on the wrong side of that conflict always come
  off poorly in the eyes of future generations.

Seems uncharitable to assume I've missed the point just because I
don't find the examples helpful.  Let me take a stab at it.
As I recall, you gave examples of abortion and tretment of
animals.  For them to be relevant, I think they have to speak to
whether fetuses and animals are human (slavery and the treatment
of slaves was most often justified by slaves being subhuman).
For that reason, I don't consider animals will ever be classed the
same.  Fetuses may be closer, but before whatever the spirit of
being (sentience, I guess) is present it's also not very relevant.
I'm sure we could argue this point further, but it just doesn't
provide me much value.

Post by Ted H

   Lincoln himself never envisioned blacks and whites living
   together as equals. His suggestion was to ship them off to
   their own island. His priority was to preserve the union
   because he didn't believe the north could survive without
   the agriculture of the south. He stated that if he thought
   he could maintain the union by preserving slavery he would
   preserve it. But those facts are whitewashed in the history
   books as well.

Yes, circling back on this point, my reading of history is same.

Post by Ted H

   The bottom line is that we should never obscure the facts
   of history. But a person's character should only be judged
   in the context of the times in which they lived.

I don't disagree, but I think there's an undeniable gap
between judging and demonizing and refusing to acknowledge the
injustices. Celebrating the Confederacy and those who fought
to preserve their assets (i.e., slaves) simply canot be
abided.

  Celebrating the confederacy? No, I don't support that. In fact,
  I have no problem with the removal of confederate monuments
  that for many folks serve as a painful reminder of the
  suffering of their ancestors.

Okay, good.  Seems we agree on this.

  But your statement about celebrating "those who fought to
  preserve their assets" is at worst a grave injustice, and a
  best a vast oversimplification. How many of the 258,000
  confederate dead do you think owned slaves?. However misguided
  their motives might seem today, in their minds they were
  fighting for their country.

I think you're being a bit sensitive here.  It's true that many of
the Confederate soldiers didn't own slaves, but they were in fact
fighting for an economic system that relied entirely on slaves.

       ...For that matter, how many of the 360,000 union dead
  were true abolitionists? The fact is that virtually every white
  American of that time period was a racist.

"virtually every" is probably overstating it, but the point is
valid.

  So when you talk about not whitewashing history let's include
  the false narrative that the civil war was a battle of the good
  guys vs. the bad guys.

Sure, I agree.  Did I imply anywhere I thought that?

Post by Ted H
Did you know Jefferson ordered slaves severely whipped and
their backs washed with brine?  In front of all his other
slaves?  To make them better behaved.  I'm not in any way for
taking down statues of Jefferson, but these past practices
have got to be acknowledged.  So long as the dominant "race"
continues to say the dominated should just get over it, is so
long as we will have no ability to make progress.

  And did you know that Robert E. Lee wrote that he believed
  slavery was a moral and political evil?

Yep.

        ...Of course in the same letter he wrote that he believed
  the harsh discipline some imposed on slaves was necessary to
  train them so their race could do better in the future.

Many of the leading men of the time had conflicting views, at
least based on their writing.  Emerson, Lincoln, Lee, and the list
goes on.  Really, the book I mentioned ("How the Word is Passed")
is an excellent read on much of this history.  Can't recommend it
highly enough.

          ...Today that comes off as an outrageous statement, but
  JUDGED AGAINST THE BACKDROP OF THE TIMES it was not a
  dishonorable sentiment.

Talking about honor smacks of moving goalposts, but okay.

  As for your comment about acknowledging the inhuman practices,
  I think the idiots who make statements like "the slaves didn't
  have it that bad" are, thankfully, pretty rare.

Umm, I hope so.  But I'm not convinced.  Rare seems unlikely.

      ...I agree the atrocities must never be forgotten or
  covered up, but what will it take, in your opinion, for the
  acknowledgement to be sufficient to allow us all to move on and
  view history and history, rather than an open wound?
  Personally, I think the only reasonable path forward is
  1. Teach our children the unvarnished history, AND the context
     to understand it fully.
  2. Rather than somehow trying to right past wrongs, focus on
     stamping out acts of racism that take place currently.
     Instead of putting money into reparations, let's put it into
     creating easier paths for people to report discrimination,
     and meting out punishment for the perpetrators.

We agree fully on point 1.  Regarding point 2, we may not be that
far off.  I don't think the terrible abuses of slavery can ever be
made right.  So I agree we need to not try.  On the other hand,
the many decades of Jim Crow and racist practices that followed
Emancipation (not only in the South) prevented many (if not most)
blacks from the opportunity to build wealth--especially from
ownership of property and reasonable wages.  Somehow there needs
to be a way to rectifiy the imbalance.  The deck is stacked
against the masses of urban poor (not only, but predominantly)
black.  We need more than stamping out racism for all to have
paths toward thriving.

From the Devil's Dictionary:  :)
OPTIMISM, n. The doctrine, or belief, that everything is beautiful,
including what is ugly, everything good, especially the bad, and
everything right that is wrong. It is held with greatest tenacity by
those most accustomed to the mischance of falling into adversity, and is
most acceptably expounded with the grin that apes a smile. Being a blind
faith, it is inaccessible to the light of disproof, an intellectual
disorder, yielding to no treatment but death. It is hereditary, but
fortunately not contagious.

What about the flip side of the coin, pessimism?

[Socrates]

Post by Sharx335

Post by Ted H
On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 14:00:26 -0600,

Post by Ted H
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 20:42:42 -0600,

Post by Ted H
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 12:36:00 -0600,

    For those who want to demonize figures from the past who
    supported slavery in any way...

What about those who want not to whitewash some of the
inhuman things they did?

   Ted, facts are facts. History should not be taught in an
   edited version. But examining those ugly truths through the
   lens of current social values and modern science is wrong
   as well.

[snipped examples, they don't help as far as I'm concerned]

  If the examples aren't meaningful, you've missed my point
  entirely. If history teaches us anything, it's that what
  human's define as reasonable and acceptable behavior changes
  over time. That change never happens without conflict, and
  those who end up on the wrong side of that conflict always come
  off poorly in the eyes of future generations.

Seems uncharitable to assume I've missed the point just because I
don't find the examples helpful.  Let me take a stab at it.
As I recall, you gave examples of abortion and tretment of
animals.  For them to be relevant, I think they have to speak to
whether fetuses and animals are human (slavery and the treatment
of slaves was most often justified by slaves being subhuman).
For that reason, I don't consider animals will ever be classed the
same.  Fetuses may be closer, but before whatever the spirit of
being (sentience, I guess) is present it's also not very relevant.
I'm sure we could argue this point further, but it just doesn't
provide me much value.

Post by Ted H

   Lincoln himself never envisioned blacks and whites living
   together as equals. His suggestion was to ship them off to
   their own island. His priority was to preserve the union
   because he didn't believe the north could survive without
   the agriculture of the south. He stated that if he thought
   he could maintain the union by preserving slavery he would
   preserve it. But those facts are whitewashed in the history
   books as well.

Yes, circling back on this point, my reading of history is same.

Post by Ted H

   The bottom line is that we should never obscure the facts
   of history. But a person's character should only be judged
   in the context of the times in which they lived.

I don't disagree, but I think there's an undeniable gap
between judging and demonizing and refusing to acknowledge the
injustices. Celebrating the Confederacy and those who fought
to preserve their assets (i.e., slaves) simply canot be
abided.

  Celebrating the confederacy? No, I don't support that. In fact,
  I have no problem with the removal of confederate monuments
  that for many folks serve as a painful reminder of the
  suffering of their ancestors.

Okay, good.  Seems we agree on this.

  But your statement about celebrating "those who fought to
  preserve their assets" is at worst a grave injustice, and a
  best a vast oversimplification. How many of the 258,000
  confederate dead do you think owned slaves?. However misguided
  their motives might seem today, in their minds they were
  fighting for their country.

I think you're being a bit sensitive here.  It's true that many of
the Confederate soldiers didn't own slaves, but they were in fact
fighting for an economic system that relied entirely on slaves.

       ...For that matter, how many of the 360,000 union dead
  were true abolitionists? The fact is that virtually every white
  American of that time period was a racist.

"virtually every" is probably overstating it, but the point is
valid.

  So when you talk about not whitewashing history let's include
  the false narrative that the civil war was a battle of the good
  guys vs. the bad guys.

Sure, I agree.  Did I imply anywhere I thought that?

Post by Ted H
Did you know Jefferson ordered slaves severely whipped and
their backs washed with brine?  In front of all his other
slaves?  To make them better behaved.  I'm not in any way for
taking down statues of Jefferson, but these past practices
have got to be acknowledged.  So long as the dominant "race"
continues to say the dominated should just get over it, is so
long as we will have no ability to make progress.

  And did you know that Robert E. Lee wrote that he believed
  slavery was a moral and political evil?

Yep.

        ...Of course in the same letter he wrote that he believed
  the harsh discipline some imposed on slaves was necessary to
  train them so their race could do better in the future.

Many of the leading men of the time had conflicting views, at
least based on their writing.  Emerson, Lincoln, Lee, and the list
goes on.  Really, the book I mentioned ("How the Word is Passed")
is an excellent read on much of this history.  Can't recommend it
highly enough.

          ...Today that comes off as an outrageous statement, but
  JUDGED AGAINST THE BACKDROP OF THE TIMES it was not a
  dishonorable sentiment.

Talking about honor smacks of moving goalposts, but okay.

  As for your comment about acknowledging the inhuman practices,
  I think the idiots who make statements like "the slaves didn't
  have it that bad" are, thankfully, pretty rare.

Umm, I hope so.  But I'm not convinced.  Rare seems unlikely.

      ...I agree the atrocities must never be forgotten or
  covered up, but what will it take, in your opinion, for the
  acknowledgement to be sufficient to allow us all to move on and
  view history and history, rather than an open wound?
  Personally, I think the only reasonable path forward is
  1. Teach our children the unvarnished history, AND the context
     to understand it fully.
  2. Rather than somehow trying to right past wrongs, focus on
     stamping out acts of racism that take place currently.
     Instead of putting money into reparations, let's put it into
     creating easier paths for people to report discrimination,
     and meting out punishment for the perpetrators.

We agree fully on point 1.  Regarding point 2, we may not be that
far off.  I don't think the terrible abuses of slavery can ever be
made right.  So I agree we need to not try.  On the other hand,
the many decades of Jim Crow and racist practices that followed
Emancipation (not only in the South) prevented many (if not most)
blacks from the opportunity to build wealth--especially from
ownership of property and reasonable wages.  Somehow there needs
to be a way to rectifiy the imbalance.  The deck is stacked
against the masses of urban poor (not only, but predominantly)
black.  We need more than stamping out racism for all to have
paths toward thriving.

 From the Devil's Dictionary:  :)
OPTIMISM, n. The doctrine, or belief, that everything is beautiful,
including what is ugly, everything good, especially the bad, and
everything right that is wrong. It is held with greatest tenacity by
those most accustomed to the mischance of falling into adversity, and
is most acceptably expounded with the grin that apes a smile. Being a
blind faith, it is inaccessible to the light of disproof, an
intellectual disorder, yielding to no treatment but death. It is
hereditary, but fortunately not contagious.

What about the flip side of the coin, pessimism?

PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer
by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope
and his unsightly smile.

[Sharx335]

Post by Socrates

Post by Sharx335

Post by Ted H
On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 14:00:26 -0600,

Post by Ted H
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 20:42:42 -0600,

Post by Ted H
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 12:36:00 -0600,

    For those who want to demonize figures from the past who
    supported slavery in any way...

What about those who want not to whitewash some of the
inhuman things they did?

   Ted, facts are facts. History should not be taught in an
   edited version. But examining those ugly truths through the
   lens of current social values and modern science is wrong
   as well.

[snipped examples, they don't help as far as I'm concerned]

  If the examples aren't meaningful, you've missed my point
  entirely. If history teaches us anything, it's that what
  human's define as reasonable and acceptable behavior changes
  over time. That change never happens without conflict, and
  those who end up on the wrong side of that conflict always come
  off poorly in the eyes of future generations.

Seems uncharitable to assume I've missed the point just because I
don't find the examples helpful.  Let me take a stab at it.
As I recall, you gave examples of abortion and tretment of
animals.  For them to be relevant, I think they have to speak to
whether fetuses and animals are human (slavery and the treatment
of slaves was most often justified by slaves being subhuman).
For that reason, I don't consider animals will ever be classed the
same.  Fetuses may be closer, but before whatever the spirit of
being (sentience, I guess) is present it's also not very relevant.
I'm sure we could argue this point further, but it just doesn't
provide me much value.

Post by Ted H

   Lincoln himself never envisioned blacks and whites living
   together as equals. His suggestion was to ship them off to
   their own island. His priority was to preserve the union
   because he didn't believe the north could survive without
   the agriculture of the south. He stated that if he thought
   he could maintain the union by preserving slavery he would
   preserve it. But those facts are whitewashed in the history
   books as well.

Yes, circling back on this point, my reading of history is same.

Post by Ted H

   The bottom line is that we should never obscure the facts
   of history. But a person's character should only be judged
   in the context of the times in which they lived.

I don't disagree, but I think there's an undeniable gap
between judging and demonizing and refusing to acknowledge the
injustices. Celebrating the Confederacy and those who fought
to preserve their assets (i.e., slaves) simply canot be
abided.

  Celebrating the confederacy? No, I don't support that. In fact,
  I have no problem with the removal of confederate monuments
  that for many folks serve as a painful reminder of the
  suffering of their ancestors.

Okay, good.  Seems we agree on this.

  But your statement about celebrating "those who fought to
  preserve their assets" is at worst a grave injustice, and a
  best a vast oversimplification. How many of the 258,000
  confederate dead do you think owned slaves?. However misguided
  their motives might seem today, in their minds they were
  fighting for their country.

I think you're being a bit sensitive here.  It's true that many of
the Confederate soldiers didn't own slaves, but they were in fact
fighting for an economic system that relied entirely on slaves.

       ...For that matter, how many of the 360,000 union dead
  were true abolitionists? The fact is that virtually every white
  American of that time period was a racist.

"virtually every" is probably overstating it, but the point is
valid.

  So when you talk about not whitewashing history let's include
  the false narrative that the civil war was a battle of the good
  guys vs. the bad guys.

Sure, I agree.  Did I imply anywhere I thought that?

Post by Ted H
Did you know Jefferson ordered slaves severely whipped and
their backs washed with brine?  In front of all his other
slaves?  To make them better behaved.  I'm not in any way for
taking down statues of Jefferson, but these past practices
have got to be acknowledged.  So long as the dominant "race"
continues to say the dominated should just get over it, is so
long as we will have no ability to make progress.

  And did you know that Robert E. Lee wrote that he believed
  slavery was a moral and political evil?

Yep.

        ...Of course in the same letter he wrote that he believed
  the harsh discipline some imposed on slaves was necessary to
  train them so their race could do better in the future.

Many of the leading men of the time had conflicting views, at
least based on their writing.  Emerson, Lincoln, Lee, and the list
goes on.  Really, the book I mentioned ("How the Word is Passed")
is an excellent read on much of this history.  Can't recommend it
highly enough.

          ...Today that comes off as an outrageous statement, but
  JUDGED AGAINST THE BACKDROP OF THE TIMES it was not a
  dishonorable sentiment.

Talking about honor smacks of moving goalposts, but okay.

  As for your comment about acknowledging the inhuman practices,
  I think the idiots who make statements like "the slaves didn't
  have it that bad" are, thankfully, pretty rare.

Umm, I hope so.  But I'm not convinced.  Rare seems unlikely.

      ...I agree the atrocities must never be forgotten or
  covered up, but what will it take, in your opinion, for the
  acknowledgement to be sufficient to allow us all to move on and
  view history and history, rather than an open wound?
  Personally, I think the only reasonable path forward is
  1. Teach our children the unvarnished history, AND the context
     to understand it fully.
  2. Rather than somehow trying to right past wrongs, focus on
     stamping out acts of racism that take place currently.
     Instead of putting money into reparations, let's put it into
     creating easier paths for people to report discrimination,
     and meting out punishment for the perpetrators.

We agree fully on point 1.  Regarding point 2, we may not be that
far off.  I don't think the terrible abuses of slavery can ever be
made right.  So I agree we need to not try.  On the other hand,
the many decades of Jim Crow and racist practices that followed
Emancipation (not only in the South) prevented many (if not most)
blacks from the opportunity to build wealth--especially from
ownership of property and reasonable wages.  Somehow there needs
to be a way to rectifiy the imbalance.  The deck is stacked
against the masses of urban poor (not only, but predominantly)
black.  We need more than stamping out racism for all to have
paths toward thriving.

 From the Devil's Dictionary:  :)
OPTIMISM, n. The doctrine, or belief, that everything is beautiful,
including what is ugly, everything good, especially the bad, and
everything right that is wrong. It is held with greatest tenacity by
those most accustomed to the mischance of falling into adversity, and
is most acceptably expounded with the grin that apes a smile. Being a
blind faith, it is inaccessible to the light of disproof, an
intellectual disorder, yielding to no treatment but death. It is
hereditary, but fortunately not contagious.

What about the flip side of the coin, pessimism?

PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer
by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope
and his unsightly smile.

"Unsightly smile"?? WTF.

[Socrates]

Post by Sharx335

Post by Socrates

Post by Sharx335

Post by Ted H
On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 14:00:26 -0600,

Post by Ted H
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 20:42:42 -0600,

Post by Ted H
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 12:36:00 -0600,

    For those who want to demonize figures from the past who
    supported slavery in any way...

What about those who want not to whitewash some of the
inhuman things they did?

   Ted, facts are facts. History should not be taught in an
   edited version. But examining those ugly truths through the
   lens of current social values and modern science is wrong
   as well.

[snipped examples, they don't help as far as I'm concerned]

  If the examples aren't meaningful, you've missed my point
  entirely. If history teaches us anything, it's that what
  human's define as reasonable and acceptable behavior changes
  over time. That change never happens without conflict, and
  those who end up on the wrong side of that conflict always come
  off poorly in the eyes of future generations.

Seems uncharitable to assume I've missed the point just because I
don't find the examples helpful.  Let me take a stab at it.
As I recall, you gave examples of abortion and tretment of
animals.  For them to be relevant, I think they have to speak to
whether fetuses and animals are human (slavery and the treatment
of slaves was most often justified by slaves being subhuman).
For that reason, I don't consider animals will ever be classed the
same.  Fetuses may be closer, but before whatever the spirit of
being (sentience, I guess) is present it's also not very relevant.
I'm sure we could argue this point further, but it just doesn't
provide me much value.

Post by Ted H

   Lincoln himself never envisioned blacks and whites living
   together as equals. His suggestion was to ship them off to
   their own island. His priority was to preserve the union
   because he didn't believe the north could survive without
   the agriculture of the south. He stated that if he thought
   he could maintain the union by preserving slavery he would
   preserve it. But those facts are whitewashed in the history
   books as well.

Yes, circling back on this point, my reading of history is same.

Post by Ted H

   The bottom line is that we should never obscure the facts
   of history. But a person's character should only be judged
   in the context of the times in which they lived.

I don't disagree, but I think there's an undeniable gap
between judging and demonizing and refusing to acknowledge the
injustices. Celebrating the Confederacy and those who fought
to preserve their assets (i.e., slaves) simply canot be
abided.

  Celebrating the confederacy? No, I don't support that. In fact,
  I have no problem with the removal of confederate monuments
  that for many folks serve as a painful reminder of the
  suffering of their ancestors.

Okay, good.  Seems we agree on this.

  But your statement about celebrating "those who fought to
  preserve their assets" is at worst a grave injustice, and a
  best a vast oversimplification. How many of the 258,000
  confederate dead do you think owned slaves?. However misguided
  their motives might seem today, in their minds they were
  fighting for their country.

I think you're being a bit sensitive here.  It's true that many of
the Confederate soldiers didn't own slaves, but they were in fact
fighting for an economic system that relied entirely on slaves.

       ...For that matter, how many of the 360,000 union dead
  were true abolitionists? The fact is that virtually every white
  American of that time period was a racist.

"virtually every" is probably overstating it, but the point is
valid.

  So when you talk about not whitewashing history let's include
  the false narrative that the civil war was a battle of the good
  guys vs. the bad guys.

Sure, I agree.  Did I imply anywhere I thought that?

Post by Ted H
Did you know Jefferson ordered slaves severely whipped and
their backs washed with brine?  In front of all his other
slaves?  To make them better behaved.  I'm not in any way for
taking down statues of Jefferson, but these past practices
have got to be acknowledged.  So long as the dominant "race"
continues to say the dominated should just get over it, is so
long as we will have no ability to make progress.

  And did you know that Robert E. Lee wrote that he believed
  slavery was a moral and political evil?

Yep.

        ...Of course in the same letter he wrote that he believed
  the harsh discipline some imposed on slaves was necessary to
  train them so their race could do better in the future.

Many of the leading men of the time had conflicting views, at
least based on their writing.  Emerson, Lincoln, Lee, and the list
goes on.  Really, the book I mentioned ("How the Word is Passed")
is an excellent read on much of this history.  Can't recommend it
highly enough.

          ...Today that comes off as an outrageous statement, but
  JUDGED AGAINST THE BACKDROP OF THE TIMES it was not a
  dishonorable sentiment.

Talking about honor smacks of moving goalposts, but okay.

  As for your comment about acknowledging the inhuman practices,
  I think the idiots who make statements like "the slaves didn't
  have it that bad" are, thankfully, pretty rare.

Umm, I hope so.  But I'm not convinced.  Rare seems unlikely.

      ...I agree the atrocities must never be forgotten or
  covered up, but what will it take, in your opinion, for the
  acknowledgement to be sufficient to allow us all to move on and
  view history and history, rather than an open wound?
  Personally, I think the only reasonable path forward is
  1. Teach our children the unvarnished history, AND the context
     to understand it fully.
  2. Rather than somehow trying to right past wrongs, focus on
     stamping out acts of racism that take place currently.
     Instead of putting money into reparations, let's put it into
     creating easier paths for people to report discrimination,
     and meting out punishment for the perpetrators.

We agree fully on point 1.  Regarding point 2, we may not be that
far off.  I don't think the terrible abuses of slavery can ever be
made right.  So I agree we need to not try.  On the other hand,
the many decades of Jim Crow and racist practices that followed
Emancipation (not only in the South) prevented many (if not most)
blacks from the opportunity to build wealth--especially from
ownership of property and reasonable wages.  Somehow there needs
to be a way to rectify the imbalance.  The deck is stacked
against the masses of urban poor (not only, but predominantly)
black.  We need more than stamping out racism for all to have
paths toward thriving.

 From the Devil's Dictionary:  :)
OPTIMISM, n. The doctrine, or belief, that everything is beautiful,
including what is ugly, everything good, especially the bad, and
everything right that is wrong. It is held with greatest tenacity by
those most accustomed to the mischance of falling into adversity,
and is most acceptably expounded with the grin that apes a smile.
Being a blind faith, it is inaccessible to the light of disproof, an
intellectual disorder, yielding to no treatment but death. It is
hereditary, but fortunately not contagious.

What about the flip side of the coin, pessimism?

PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer
by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow
hope and his unsightly smile.

"Unsightly smile"?? WTF.

Aka, smirk (a smile that shows a smug, condescending, or self-satisfied
attitude). Haven't you watched any Trump press conference's?

[Sharx335]

Post by Socrates

Post by Sharx335

Post by Socrates

Post by Sharx335

Post by Ted H
On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 14:00:26 -0600,

Post by Ted H
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 20:42:42 -0600,

Post by Ted H
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 12:36:00 -0600,

    For those who want to demonize figures from the past who
    supported slavery in any way...

What about those who want not to whitewash some of the
inhuman things they did?

   Ted, facts are facts. History should not be taught in an
   edited version. But examining those ugly truths through the
   lens of current social values and modern science is wrong
   as well.

[snipped examples, they don't help as far as I'm concerned]

  If the examples aren't meaningful, you've missed my point
  entirely. If history teaches us anything, it's that what
  human's define as reasonable and acceptable behavior changes
  over time. That change never happens without conflict, and
  those who end up on the wrong side of that conflict always come
  off poorly in the eyes of future generations.

Seems uncharitable to assume I've missed the point just because I
don't find the examples helpful.  Let me take a stab at it.
As I recall, you gave examples of abortion and tretment of
animals.  For them to be relevant, I think they have to speak to
whether fetuses and animals are human (slavery and the treatment
of slaves was most often justified by slaves being subhuman).
For that reason, I don't consider animals will ever be classed the
same.  Fetuses may be closer, but before whatever the spirit of
being (sentience, I guess) is present it's also not very relevant.
I'm sure we could argue this point further, but it just doesn't
provide me much value.

Post by Ted H

   Lincoln himself never envisioned blacks and whites living
   together as equals. His suggestion was to ship them off to
   their own island. His priority was to preserve the union
   because he didn't believe the north could survive without
   the agriculture of the south. He stated that if he thought
   he could maintain the union by preserving slavery he would
   preserve it. But those facts are whitewashed in the history
   books as well.

Yes, circling back on this point, my reading of history is same.

Post by Ted H

   The bottom line is that we should never obscure the facts
   of history. But a person's character should only be judged
   in the context of the times in which they lived.

I don't disagree, but I think there's an undeniable gap
between judging and demonizing and refusing to acknowledge the
injustices. Celebrating the Confederacy and those who fought
to preserve their assets (i.e., slaves) simply canot be
abided.

  Celebrating the confederacy? No, I don't support that. In fact,
  I have no problem with the removal of confederate monuments
  that for many folks serve as a painful reminder of the
  suffering of their ancestors.

Okay, good.  Seems we agree on this.

  But your statement about celebrating "those who fought to
  preserve their assets" is at worst a grave injustice, and a
  best a vast oversimplification. How many of the 258,000
  confederate dead do you think owned slaves?. However misguided
  their motives might seem today, in their minds they were
  fighting for their country.

I think you're being a bit sensitive here.  It's true that many of
the Confederate soldiers didn't own slaves, but they were in fact
fighting for an economic system that relied entirely on slaves.

       ...For that matter, how many of the 360,000 union dead
  were true abolitionists? The fact is that virtually every white
  American of that time period was a racist.

"virtually every" is probably overstating it, but the point is
valid.

  So when you talk about not whitewashing history let's include
  the false narrative that the civil war was a battle of the good
  guys vs. the bad guys.

Sure, I agree.  Did I imply anywhere I thought that?

Post by Ted H
Did you know Jefferson ordered slaves severely whipped and
their backs washed with brine?  In front of all his other
slaves?  To make them better behaved.  I'm not in any way for
taking down statues of Jefferson, but these past practices
have got to be acknowledged.  So long as the dominant "race"
continues to say the dominated should just get over it, is so
long as we will have no ability to make progress.

  And did you know that Robert E. Lee wrote that he believed
  slavery was a moral and political evil?

Yep.

        ...Of course in the same letter he wrote that he believed
  the harsh discipline some imposed on slaves was necessary to
  train them so their race could do better in the future.

Many of the leading men of the time had conflicting views, at
least based on their writing.  Emerson, Lincoln, Lee, and the list
goes on.  Really, the book I mentioned ("How the Word is Passed")
is an excellent read on much of this history.  Can't recommend it
highly enough.

          ...Today that comes off as an outrageous statement, but
  JUDGED AGAINST THE BACKDROP OF THE TIMES it was not a
  dishonorable sentiment.

Talking about honor smacks of moving goalposts, but okay.

  As for your comment about acknowledging the inhuman practices,
  I think the idiots who make statements like "the slaves didn't
  have it that bad" are, thankfully, pretty rare.

Umm, I hope so.  But I'm not convinced.  Rare seems unlikely.

      ...I agree the atrocities must never be forgotten or
  covered up, but what will it take, in your opinion, for the
  acknowledgement to be sufficient to allow us all to move on and
  view history and history, rather than an open wound?
  Personally, I think the only reasonable path forward is
  1. Teach our children the unvarnished history, AND the context
     to understand it fully.
  2. Rather than somehow trying to right past wrongs, focus on
     stamping out acts of racism that take place currently.
     Instead of putting money into reparations, let's put it into
     creating easier paths for people to report discrimination,
     and meting out punishment for the perpetrators.

We agree fully on point 1.  Regarding point 2, we may not be that
far off.  I don't think the terrible abuses of slavery can ever be
made right.  So I agree we need to not try.  On the other hand,
the many decades of Jim Crow and racist practices that followed
Emancipation (not only in the South) prevented many (if not most)
blacks from the opportunity to build wealth--especially from
ownership of property and reasonable wages.  Somehow there needs
to be a way to rectify the imbalance.  The deck is stacked
against the masses of urban poor (not only, but predominantly)
black.  We need more than stamping out racism for all to have
paths toward thriving.

 From the Devil's Dictionary:  :)
OPTIMISM, n. The doctrine, or belief, that everything is beautiful,
including what is ugly, everything good, especially the bad, and
everything right that is wrong. It is held with greatest tenacity
by those most accustomed to the mischance of falling into
adversity, and is most acceptably expounded with the grin that apes
a smile. Being a blind faith, it is inaccessible to the light of
disproof, an intellectual disorder, yielding to no treatment but
death. It is hereditary, but fortunately not contagious.

What about the flip side of the coin, pessimism?

PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the
observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his
scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile.

"Unsightly smile"?? WTF.

Aka, smirk (a smile that shows a smug, condescending, or self-satisfied
attitude).  Haven't you watched any Trump press conference's?

I saw far more of those smirks from the Harris' campaigners PRIOR to the
election.

[Charlie M. 1958]

Post by Ted H
Seems uncharitable to assume I've missed the point just because I
don't find the examples helpful. Let me take a stab at it.
As I recall, you gave examples of abortion and tretment of
animals. For them to be relevant, I think they have to speak to
whether fetuses and animals are human (slavery and the treatment
of slaves was most often justified by slaves being subhuman).
For that reason, I don't consider animals will ever be classed the
same. Fetuses may be closer, but before whatever the spirit of
being (sentience, I guess) is present it's also not very relevant.
I'm sure we could argue this point further, but it just doesn't
provide me much value.

With all due respect, my point was that we don’t know how these issues will
be viewed far in the future. It wasn’t so long ago intelligent, morally
upstanding men would have scoffed at the notion that women should be
allowed to vote, let alone hold high political office.
.

Post by Ted H
I think you're being a bit sensitive here. It's true that many of
the Confederate soldiers didn't own slaves, but they were in fact
fighting for an economic system that relied entirely on slaves.

The people in power in the south were certainly fighting to maintain their
economic system. But I think maybe you’re overestimating the percentage of
southerners who were part of that plantation elite. Wars are fought over
money and territory, but the poor saps in the trenches rarely have much of
either. It’s usually a sometimes-misguided sense of patriotism that keeps
them going.
.

Post by Ted H
We agree fully on point 1. Regarding point 2, we may not be that
far off. I don't think the terrible abuses of slavery can ever be
made right. So I agree we need to not try. On the other hand,
the many decades of Jim Crow and racist practices that followed
Emancipation (not only in the South) prevented many (if not most)
blacks from the opportunity to build wealth--especially from
ownership of property and reasonable wages. Somehow there needs
to be a way to rectifiy the imbalance. The deck is stacked
against the masses of urban poor (not only, but predominantly)
black. We need more than stamping out racism for all to have
paths toward thriving.

I guess we will have to disagree on this point. Frankly, I don’t get the
wealth building thing. Most of the people I know around my age had parents
who grew up dirt poor during the depression. It’s not like most white
people have benefited from generational wealth ( of course some have). Our
parents were able to climb out of poverty precisely because they didn’t
have the handicap of racism. I just don’t see any practical way to help
people who are victims of their past other than to stop victimizing them in
the present. I could go on about how our political system has helped
maintain the status quo for poor black people, but that’s a whole ‘nuther
kettle of fish.

Last thing I’ll say is that I have great admiration and respect for you as
a person ,Ted, so don’t let anything I’ve said in this discussion make you
think otherwise.

[Sharx335]

Post by Charlie M. 1958

Post by Ted H
Seems uncharitable to assume I've missed the point just because I
don't find the examples helpful. Let me take a stab at it.
As I recall, you gave examples of abortion and tretment of
animals. For them to be relevant, I think they have to speak to
whether fetuses and animals are human (slavery and the treatment
of slaves was most often justified by slaves being subhuman).
For that reason, I don't consider animals will ever be classed the
same. Fetuses may be closer, but before whatever the spirit of
being (sentience, I guess) is present it's also not very relevant.
I'm sure we could argue this point further, but it just doesn't
provide me much value.

With all due respect, my point was that we don’t know how these issues will
be viewed far in the future. It wasn’t so long ago intelligent, morally
upstanding men would have scoffed at the notion that women should be
allowed to vote, let alone hold high political office.
.

Post by Ted H
I think you're being a bit sensitive here. It's true that many of
the Confederate soldiers didn't own slaves, but they were in fact
fighting for an economic system that relied entirely on slaves.

The people in power in the south were certainly fighting to maintain their
economic system. But I think maybe you’re overestimating the percentage of
southerners who were part of that plantation elite. Wars are fought over
money and territory, but the poor saps in the trenches rarely have much of
either. It’s usually a sometimes-misguided sense of patriotism that keeps
them going.
.

Post by Ted H
We agree fully on point 1. Regarding point 2, we may not be that
far off. I don't think the terrible abuses of slavery can ever be
made right. So I agree we need to not try. On the other hand,
the many decades of Jim Crow and racist practices that followed
Emancipation (not only in the South) prevented many (if not most)
blacks from the opportunity to build wealth--especially from
ownership of property and reasonable wages. Somehow there needs
to be a way to rectifiy the imbalance. The deck is stacked
against the masses of urban poor (not only, but predominantly)
black. We need more than stamping out racism for all to have
paths toward thriving.

I guess we will have to disagree on this point. Frankly, I don’t get the
wealth building thing. Most of the people I know around my age had parents
who grew up dirt poor during the depression. It’s not like most white
people have benefited from generational wealth ( of course some have). Our
parents were able to climb out of poverty precisely because they didn’t
have the handicap of racism. I just don’t see any practical way to help
people who are victims of their past other than to stop victimizing them in
the present. I could go on about how our political system has helped
maintain the status quo for poor black people, but that’s a whole ‘nuther
kettle of fish.
Last thing I’ll say is that I have great admiration and respect for you as
a person ,Ted, so don’t let anything I’ve said in this discussion make you
think otherwise.

In my darker moments, I could understand, at one point in history, why
the ancient Greeks only allowed property-owning, men over 30 the power
to vote. For many years, in the city where I live, to vote in a money
bylaw plebiscite one had to be a property owner...as property owners
paid taxes and were considered to be much more aware of how spending
money on things tended to raise taxes. Many renters couldn't see the
connection between the city spending money, raising their landlords'
taxes and resulting rent increases.

[Ted H]

On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 05:20:41 -0000 (UTC),

Post by Charlie M. 1958

Post by Ted H
I think you're being a bit sensitive here. It's true that
many of the Confederate soldiers didn't own slaves, but they
were in fact fighting for an economic system that relied
entirely on slaves.

The people in power in the south were certainly fighting to
maintain their economic system. But I think maybe you’re
overestimating the percentage of southerners who were part of
that plantation elite.

The point isn't that there were elites in great numbers, it was
that most everyone in the southern system benefited from the
wealth that slavery created. Think of the businesses that existed
to serve the elite and their plantations. The book I cited gives
a really nice discussion of this--much better than I can recall
(and I'm not going to go check it out again).

Post by Charlie M. 1958
...Wars are fought over money and territory, but the poor
saps in the trenches rarely have much of either. It’s usually a
sometimes-misguided sense of patriotism that keeps them going.

Sure.

Post by Charlie M. 1958

Post by Ted H
We agree fully on point 1. Regarding point 2, we may not be
that far off. I don't think the terrible abuses of slavery
can ever be made right. So I agree we need to not try. On
the other hand, the many decades of Jim Crow and racist
practices that followed Emancipation (not only in the South)
prevented many (if not most) blacks from the opportunity to
build wealth--especially from ownership of property and
reasonable wages. Somehow there needs to be a way to rectifiy
the imbalance. The deck is stacked against the masses of
urban poor (not only, but predominantly) black. We need more
than stamping out racism for all to have paths toward
thriving.

I guess we will have to disagree on this point. Frankly, I
don’t get the wealth building thing.

I've read enough to convince me, but not enough (or not well
enough) to be able to recount the reasoning. So it makes sense to
leave it at that.

Post by Charlie M. 1958
Last thing I’ll say is that I have great admiration and respect
for you as a person ,Ted, so don’t let anything I’ve said in
this discussion make you think otherwise.

Well thanks for that, much appreciated. I probaby tend to be over
sensitive.

[Sharx335]

Post by Ted H
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 05:20:41 -0000 (UTC),

Post by Charlie M. 1958

Post by Ted H
I think you're being a bit sensitive here. It's true that
many of the Confederate soldiers didn't own slaves, but they
were in fact fighting for an economic system that relied
entirely on slaves.

The people in power in the south were certainly fighting to
maintain their economic system. But I think maybe you’re
overestimating the percentage of southerners who were part of
that plantation elite.

The point isn't that there were elites in great numbers, it was
that most everyone in the southern system benefited from the
wealth that slavery created. Think of the businesses that existed
to serve the elite and their plantations. The book I cited gives
a really nice discussion of this--much better than I can recall
(and I'm not going to go check it out again).

Post by Charlie M. 1958
...Wars are fought over money and territory, but the poor
saps in the trenches rarely have much of either. It’s usually a
sometimes-misguided sense of patriotism that keeps them going.

Sure.

Post by Charlie M. 1958

Post by Ted H
We agree fully on point 1. Regarding point 2, we may not be
that far off. I don't think the terrible abuses of slavery
can ever be made right. So I agree we need to not try. On
the other hand, the many decades of Jim Crow and racist
practices that followed Emancipation (not only in the South)
prevented many (if not most) blacks from the opportunity to
build wealth--especially from ownership of property and
reasonable wages. Somehow there needs to be a way to rectifiy
the imbalance. The deck is stacked against the masses of
urban poor (not only, but predominantly) black. We need more
than stamping out racism for all to have paths toward
thriving.

I guess we will have to disagree on this point. Frankly, I
don’t get the wealth building thing.

I've read enough to convince me, but not enough (or not well
enough) to be able to recount the reasoning. So it makes sense to
leave it at that.

Post by Charlie M. 1958
Last thing I’ll say is that I have great admiration and respect
for you as a person ,Ted, so don’t let anything I’ve said in
this discussion make you think otherwise.

Well thanks for that, much appreciated. I probaby tend to be over
sensitive.

Thanks to Ted and Charlie for this discourse--definitely not a black and
white discussion--50 shades of grey...such are the nuances.

[badgolferman]

Post by Sharx335

Post by Ted H
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 05:20:41 -0000 (UTC),

Post by Charlie M. 1958

Post by Ted H
I think you're being a bit sensitive here. It's true that
many of the Confederate soldiers didn't own slaves, but they
were in fact fighting for an economic system that relied
entirely on slaves.

The people in power in the south were certainly fighting to
maintain their economic system. But I think maybe you’re
overestimating the percentage of southerners who were part of
that plantation elite.

The point isn't that there were elites in great numbers, it was
that most everyone in the southern system benefited from the
wealth that slavery created. Think of the businesses that existed
to serve the elite and their plantations. The book I cited gives
a really nice discussion of this--much better than I can recall
(and I'm not going to go check it out again).

Post by Charlie M. 1958
...Wars are fought over money and territory, but the poor
saps in the trenches rarely have much of either. It’s usually a
sometimes-misguided sense of patriotism that keeps them going.

Sure.

Post by Charlie M. 1958

Post by Ted H
We agree fully on point 1. Regarding point 2, we may not be
that far off. I don't think the terrible abuses of slavery
can ever be made right. So I agree we need to not try. On
the other hand, the many decades of Jim Crow and racist
practices that followed Emancipation (not only in the South)
prevented many (if not most) blacks from the opportunity to
build wealth--especially from ownership of property and
reasonable wages. Somehow there needs to be a way to rectifiy
the imbalance. The deck is stacked against the masses of
urban poor (not only, but predominantly) black. We need more
than stamping out racism for all to have paths toward
thriving.

I guess we will have to disagree on this point. Frankly, I
don’t get the wealth building thing.

I've read enough to convince me, but not enough (or not well
enough) to be able to recount the reasoning. So it makes sense to
leave it at that.

Post by Charlie M. 1958
Last thing I’ll say is that I have great admiration and respect
for you as a person ,Ted, so don’t let anything I’ve said in
this discussion make you think otherwise.

Well thanks for that, much appreciated. I probaby tend to be over
sensitive.

Thanks to Ted and Charlie for this discourse--definitely not a black and
white discussion--50 shades of grey...such are the nuances.

It’s really quite simple. The winner gets to write the history and get the
spoils. Might makes right!

[Socrates]

Post by badgolferman

Post by Sharx335

Post by Ted H
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 05:20:41 -0000 (UTC),

Post by Charlie M. 1958

Post by Ted H
I think you're being a bit sensitive here. It's true that
many of the Confederate soldiers didn't own slaves, but they
were in fact fighting for an economic system that relied
entirely on slaves.

The people in power in the south were certainly fighting to
maintain their economic system. But I think maybe you’re
overestimating the percentage of southerners who were part of
that plantation elite.

The point isn't that there were elites in great numbers, it was
that most everyone in the southern system benefited from the
wealth that slavery created. Think of the businesses that existed
to serve the elite and their plantations. The book I cited gives
a really nice discussion of this--much better than I can recall
(and I'm not going to go check it out again).

Post by Charlie M. 1958
...Wars are fought over money and territory, but the poor
saps in the trenches rarely have much of either. It’s usually a
sometimes-misguided sense of patriotism that keeps them going.

Sure.

Post by Charlie M. 1958

Post by Ted H
We agree fully on point 1. Regarding point 2, we may not be
that far off. I don't think the terrible abuses of slavery
can ever be made right. So I agree we need to not try. On
the other hand, the many decades of Jim Crow and racist
practices that followed Emancipation (not only in the South)
prevented many (if not most) blacks from the opportunity to
build wealth--especially from ownership of property and
reasonable wages. Somehow there needs to be a way to rectifiy
the imbalance. The deck is stacked against the masses of
urban poor (not only, but predominantly) black. We need more
than stamping out racism for all to have paths toward
thriving.

I guess we will have to disagree on this point. Frankly, I
don’t get the wealth building thing.

I've read enough to convince me, but not enough (or not well
enough) to be able to recount the reasoning. So it makes sense to
leave it at that.

Post by Charlie M. 1958
Last thing I’ll say is that I have great admiration and respect
for you as a person ,Ted, so don’t let anything I’ve said in
this discussion make you think otherwise.

Well thanks for that, much appreciated. I probaby tend to be over
sensitive.

Thanks to Ted and Charlie for this discourse--definitely not a black and
white discussion--50 shades of grey...such are the nuances.

It’s really quite simple. The winner gets to write the history and get the
spoils. Might makes right!

How is that philosophy working our for Trump?

[badgolferman]

Post by Socrates

Post by badgolferman
It’s really quite simple. The winner gets to write the history and get the
spoils. Might makes right!

How is that philosophy working our for Trump?

It seems to be working out quite well. See the “lightning speed” thread.

[Socrates]

Post by badgolferman

Post by Socrates

Post by badgolferman
It’s really quite simple. The winner gets to write the history and get the
spoils. Might makes right!

How is that philosophy working our for Trump?

It seems to be working out quite well. See the “lightning speed” thread.

Seems you may have missed some of the history:

When historians write about his presidency, they will do so through the
lens of the riot.

They will focus on Trump's tortured relationship with the alt-right, his
atrocious handling of the deadly Charlottesville protest in 2017, the
rise in violent right-wing extremism during his tenure in office, and
the viral spread of malevolent conspiracy theories that he encouraged.

"Donald Trump will be remembered as the first president to be impeached
twice. He fed the myth that the election was stolen, summoned his
supporters to Washington to protest the certification of the Electoral
College vote, told them that only through strength could they take back
their country, and stood by as they stormed the US Capitol and
interfered in the operation of constitutional government."

[badgolferman]

Post by Socrates

Post by badgolferman

Post by Socrates

Post by badgolferman
It’s really quite simple. The winner gets to write the history
and get the spoils. Might makes right!

How is that philosophy working our for Trump?

It seems to be working out quite well. See the “lightning speed” thread.

When historians write about his presidency, they will do so through
the lens of the riot.
They will focus on Trump's tortured relationship with the alt-right,
his atrocious handling of the deadly Charlottesville protest in 2017,
the rise in violent right-wing extremism during his tenure in office,
and the viral spread of malevolent conspiracy theories that he
encouraged.
"Donald Trump will be remembered as the first president to be
impeached twice. He fed the myth that the election was stolen,
summoned his supporters to Washington to protest the certification of
the Electoral College vote, told them that only through strength
could they take back their country, and stood by as they stormed the
US Capitol and interfered in the operation of constitutional
government."

If you're going to use someone else's word you should at least provide
the attribution, otherwise it looks like you stole it. Those are
obviously not your words because every word is spelled correctly and
every punctuation is correct.

[Fred Exley]

Post by badgolferman

Post by Socrates

Post by badgolferman

Post by Socrates

Post by badgolferman
It’s really quite simple. The winner gets to write the history
and get the spoils. Might makes right!

How is that philosophy working our for Trump?

It seems to be working out quite well. See the “lightning speed” thread.

When historians write about his presidency, they will do so through
the lens of the riot.
They will focus on Trump's tortured relationship with the alt-right,
his atrocious handling of the deadly Charlottesville protest in 2017,
the rise in violent right-wing extremism during his tenure in office,
and the viral spread of malevolent conspiracy theories that he
encouraged.
"Donald Trump will be remembered as the first president to be
impeached twice. He fed the myth that the election was stolen,
summoned his supporters to Washington to protest the certification of
the Electoral College vote, told them that only through strength
could they take back their country, and stood by as they stormed the
US Capitol and interfered in the operation of constitutional
government."

If you're going to use someone else's word you should at least provide
the attribution, otherwise it looks like you stole it. Those are
obviously not your words because every word is spelled correctly and
every punctuation is correct.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55640427

[Fred Exley]

Post by Fred Exley

Post by badgolferman

Post by Socrates

Post by badgolferman

Post by Socrates

Post by badgolferman
It’s really quite simple. The winner gets to write the history
and get the spoils. Might makes right!

How is that philosophy working our for Trump?

It seems to be working out quite well. See the “lightning speed” thread.

When historians write about his presidency, they will do so through
the lens of the riot.
They will focus on Trump's tortured relationship with the alt-right,
his atrocious handling of the deadly Charlottesville protest in 2017,
the rise in violent right-wing extremism during his tenure in office,
and the viral spread of malevolent conspiracy theories that he
encouraged.
"Donald Trump will be remembered as the first president to be
impeached twice. He fed the myth that the election was stolen,
summoned his supporters to Washington to protest the certification of
the Electoral College vote, told them that only through strength
could they take back their country, and stood by as they stormed the
US Capitol and interfered in the operation of constitutional
government."

If you're going to use someone else's word you should at least provide
the attribution, otherwise it looks like you stole it.  Those are
obviously not your words because every word is spelled correctly and
every punctuation is correct.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55640427

That BBC article was published January 2021 -hardly the definitive last
word of Trump's legacy.

[badgolferman]

Post by Fred Exley

Post by badgolferman

Post by Socrates

Post by badgolferman

Post by Socrates

Post by badgolferman
It’s really quite simple. The winner gets to write the
history and get the spoils. Might makes right!

How is that philosophy working our for Trump?

It seems to be working out quite well. See the “lightning speed” thread.

When historians write about his presidency, they will do so
through the lens of the riot.
They will focus on Trump's tortured relationship with the
alt-right, his atrocious handling of the deadly Charlottesville
protest in 2017, the rise in violent right-wing extremism during
his tenure in office, and the viral spread of malevolent
conspiracy theories that he encouraged.
"Donald Trump will be remembered as the first president to be
impeached twice. He fed the myth that the election was stolen,
summoned his supporters to Washington to protest the
certification of the Electoral College vote, told them that only
through strength could they take back their country, and stood by
as they stormed the US Capitol and interfered in the operation of
constitutional government."

If you're going to use someone else's word you should at least
provide the attribution, otherwise it looks like you stole it.
Those are obviously not your words because every word is spelled
correctly and every punctuation is correct.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55640427

So that was written in 2021 and it sounds like someone tried to get a
head start on writing his legacy. Isn't it ironic that the American
people decided they had made a terrible mistake by electing Biden
instead? Obviously Trump was not as bad as the lefties have tried to
portray him otherwise 76 million people wouldn't have voted for him
again in 2024.

[Fred Exley]

Post by badgolferman

Post by Fred Exley

Post by badgolferman

Post by Socrates

Post by badgolferman

Post by Socrates

Post by badgolferman
It’s really quite simple. The winner gets to write the
history and get the spoils. Might makes right!

How is that philosophy working our for Trump?

It seems to be working out quite well. See the “lightning speed” thread.

When historians write about his presidency, they will do so
through the lens of the riot.
They will focus on Trump's tortured relationship with the
alt-right, his atrocious handling of the deadly Charlottesville
protest in 2017, the rise in violent right-wing extremism during
his tenure in office, and the viral spread of malevolent
conspiracy theories that he encouraged.
"Donald Trump will be remembered as the first president to be
impeached twice. He fed the myth that the election was stolen,
summoned his supporters to Washington to protest the
certification of the Electoral College vote, told them that only
through strength could they take back their country, and stood by
as they stormed the US Capitol and interfered in the operation of
constitutional government."

If you're going to use someone else's word you should at least
provide the attribution, otherwise it looks like you stole it.
Those are obviously not your words because every word is spelled
correctly and every punctuation is correct.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55640427

So that was written in 2021 and it sounds like someone tried to get a
head start on writing his legacy. Isn't it ironic that the American
people decided they had made a terrible mistake by electing Biden
instead? Obviously Trump was not as bad as the lefties have tried to
portray him otherwise 76 million people wouldn't have voted for him
again in 2024.

As Musk said yesterday, the people are seeing through the lies of the
mainstream media. They masses are not as stupid as the liberal left thinks.

Here's a perfect example of how hoodwinked are those who only rely on
what their leftie sources tell them:

https://townhall.com//tipsheet/saraharnold/2025/02/15/rachel-maddow-spews-fake-news-and-whines-about-corruption-n2652272

[Sharx335]

Post by Skeezix LaRocca

Post by badgolferman
The body of water formerly known in the United States as the Gulf of
Mexico is now listed for US-based users of Google Maps as the Gulf of
America.
The change follows an executive order by US President Donald Trump
renaming the area. Google has previously said it has “a longstanding
practice of applying name changes when they have been updated in
official government sources.”
https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/11/business/trump-gulf-of-america-google-
maps-hnk-intl/index.html

Truly, only an egomaniac with a deranged mind would even think of
changing the name of a body of water as he did.

Some here seem to be overly familiar with such minds. ROFL. <vbg>

[Pluted Pup]

Post by Skeezix LaRocca

Post by badgolferman
The body of water formerly known in the United States as the Gulf of
Mexico is now listed for US-based users of Google Maps as the Gulf of
America.
The change follows an executive order by US President Donald Trump
renaming the area. Google has previously said it has "a longstanding
practice of applying name changes when they have been updated in
official government sources."
https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/11/business/trump-gulf-of-america-google-maps-hnk-intl/index.html

Truly, only an egomaniac with a deranged mind would even think of
changing the name of a body of water as he did.

It is pure symbolism, and for that reason it is bad, in my
opinion. But no, it was not wrong merely because Trump
did it, as if everything Trump says he supports is bad,
"because Trump".

Symbolic political gestures are held in very high
esteem by the Mainstream Left, so you could say that Trump
is being very fair and balanced by stressing symbolism
over action.

Switching the name back makes sense to me, and not
merely because that would be considered a revolutionary
anti-Trump move, symbolically, as if every thing that
that Trump says is bad must be automatically good.

"Please be advised that the FAA is in the process of updating
our data and charts to show a name change from the Gulf of Mexico
to the Gulf of America and a name change from Denali to Mount
McKinley"

People who keep pointing out how much better other countries
are than the USA could point to Canada in having dual language
names. Why not adopt Canada's Successes? Gulf Of America / Mexico
and Mount Mckinley / Denali could be a progressive start.

[banjo Jon]

Post by badgolferman
The body of water formerly known in the United States as the Gulf of
Mexico is now listed for US-based users of Google Maps as the Gulf of
America.
The change follows an executive order by US President Donald Trump
renaming the area. Google has previously said it has “a longstanding
practice of applying name changes when they have been updated in
official government sources.”
https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/11/business/trump-gulf-of-america-google-maps-hnk-intl/index.html

While they're at it, Google should change the name of Mexico to
Auschwitz-Birkenau.

same difference

[Pluted Pup]

Post by banjo Jon

Post by badgolferman
The body of water formerly known in the United States as the Gulf of
Mexico is now listed for US-based users of Google Maps as the Gulf of
America.
The change follows an executive order by US President Donald Trump
renaming the area. Google has previously said it has "a longstanding
practice of applying name changes when they have been updated in
official government sources."
https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/11/business/trump-gulf-of-america-google-maps-hnk-intl/index.html

While they're at it, Google should change the name of Mexico to
Auschwitz-Birkenau.
same difference

Do you see Google as so faultless that you only complain
about Google if they're not at fault?

[Charlie M. 1958]

Post by badgolferman
The body of water formerly known in the United States as the Gulf of
Mexico is now listed for US-based users of Google Maps as the Gulf of
America.
The change follows an executive order by US President Donald Trump
renaming the area. Google has previously said it has “a longstanding
practice of applying name changes when they have been updated in
official government sources.”
https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/11/business/trump-gulf-of-america-google-maps-hnk-intl/index.html

I had to pull up the map to believe this actually happened. Next up:
United States of Trump.

[badgolferman]

Post by Charlie M. 1958

Post by badgolferman
The body of water formerly known in the United States as the Gulf of
Mexico is now listed for US-based users of Google Maps as the Gulf
of America.
The change follows an executive order by US President Donald Trump
renaming the area. Google has previously said it has “a longstanding
practice of applying name changes when they have been updated in
official government sources.”
https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/11/business/trump-gulf-of-america-google-maps-hnk-intl/index.html

United States of Trump.

Apple Maps has followed suit.

[Fred Exley]

Post by badgolferman

Post by Charlie M. 1958

Post by badgolferman
The body of water formerly known in the United States as the Gulf of
Mexico is now listed for US-based users of Google Maps as the Gulf
of America.
The change follows an executive order by US President Donald Trump
renaming the area. Google has previously said it has “a longstanding
practice of applying name changes when they have been updated in
official government sources.”
https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/11/business/trump-gulf-of-america-google-maps-hnk-intl/index.html

United States of Trump.

Apple Maps has followed suit.

The Associated Press has not. One of its reporters was barred from an
Oval Office event signing the executive order to rename the Gulf of
Mexico.


https://www.bostonglobe.com/2025/02/11/nation/white-house-bars-ap-gulf-of-mexico/

[Sharx335]

Post by badgolferman

Post by Charlie M. 1958

Post by badgolferman
The body of water formerly known in the United States as the Gulf of
Mexico is now listed for US-based users of Google Maps as the Gulf
of America.
The change follows an executive order by US President Donald Trump
renaming the area. Google has previously said it has “a longstanding
practice of applying name changes when they have been updated in
official government sources.”
https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/11/business/trump-gulf-of-america-
google-maps-hnk-intl/index.html

United States of Trump.

Apple Maps has followed suit.

The Associated Press has not.  One of its reporters was barred from an
Oval Office event signing the executive order to rename the Gulf of Mexico.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2025/02/11/nation/white-house-bars-ap-gulf-
of-mexico/

The Associated Press has little credibility left--look at its continual
pro-Hamas coverage, for example.

[Pluted Pup]

Post by Charlie M. 1958

Post by badgolferman
The body of water formerly known in the United States as the Gulf of
Mexico is now listed for US-based users of Google Maps as the Gulf of
America.
The change follows an executive order by US President Donald Trump
renaming the area. Google has previously said it has "a longstanding
practice of applying name changes when they have been updated in
official government sources."
https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/11/business/trump-gulf-of-america-google-maps-hnk-intl/index.html

United States of Trump.

If Trump had actually ordered the change in the country's name to
The United States Of Trump, Trump then would be celebrated for leading the
change for what led to the successful movement to reducing the
executive powers of the Presidency.

Sorry, you can't win this game, become too anti-Trump and you
become pro-Trump!

[badgolferman]

Post by Pluted Pup

Post by badgolferman
The body of water formerly known in the United States as the

Gulf of > Mexico is now listed for US-based users of Google Maps
as the Gulf of > America.

Post by badgolferman
The change follows an executive order by US President Donald

Trump > renaming the area. Google has previously said it has "a
longstanding > practice of applying name changes when they have
been updated in > official government sources."
https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/11/business/trump-gulf-of-america-google-maps-hnk-intl/index.html
I had to pull up the map to believe this actually happened. Next
up: United States of Trump.

If Trump had actually ordered the change in the country's name to
The United States Of Trump, Trump then would be celebrated for
leading the change for what led to the successful movement to
reducing the executive powers of the Presidency.
Sorry, you can't win this game, become too anti-Trump and you
become pro-Trump!

You make about as much sense as Whoopi Goldberg from The View.

[Charlie M. 1958]

Post by Pluted Pup
Sorry, you can't win this game, become too anti-Trump and you
become pro-Trump!

I'm pro-Trump on a number of issues. I just think he's a total asshole
as a human being.

[badgolferman]

Post by Charlie M. 1958

Post by Pluted Pup
Sorry, you can't win this game, become too anti-Trump and you
become pro-Trump!

I'm pro-Trump on a number of issues. I just think he's a total
asshole as a human being.

+1

[Sharx335]

Post by Charlie M. 1958

Post by Pluted Pup
Sorry, you can't win this game, become too anti-Trump and you
become pro-Trump!

I'm pro-Trump on a number of issues. I just think he's a total asshole
as a human being.

Similar to my analysis, too. Personality of a wart hog BUT some damn
good ideas--he's managed to cause a number of my fellow Canadians to
foam at the mouth such are THEIR crazed reactions.

[Socrates]

Post by Charlie M. 1958

Post by Pluted Pup
Sorry, you can't win this game, become too anti-Trump and you
become pro-Trump!

I'm pro-Trump on a number of issues. I just think he's a total asshole
as a human being.

Similar to my analysis, too.  Personality of  a wart hog BUT some damn
good ideas--he's managed to cause a number of my fellow Canadians to
foam at the mouth such are THEIR crazed reactions.

You are drooling on your keyboard again. ;)

[Sharx335]

Post by Charlie M. 1958

Post by Pluted Pup
Sorry, you can't win this game, become too anti-Trump and you
become pro-Trump!

I'm pro-Trump on a number of issues. I just think he's a total
asshole as a human being.

Similar to my analysis, too.  Personality of  a wart hog BUT some damn
good ideas--he's managed to cause a number of my fellow Canadians to
foam at the mouth such are THEIR crazed reactions.

You are drooling on your keyboard again.  ;)

And you, Monsieur Thomas, never drool?

[Socrates]

Post by Sharx335

Post by Charlie M. 1958

Post by Pluted Pup
Sorry, you can't win this game, become too anti-Trump and you
become pro-Trump!

I'm pro-Trump on a number of issues. I just think he's a total
asshole as a human being.

Similar to my analysis, too.  Personality of  a wart hog BUT some
damn good ideas--he's managed to cause a number of my fellow
Canadians to foam at the mouth such are THEIR crazed reactions.

You are drooling on your keyboard again.  ;)

And you, Monsieur Thomas, never drool?

At the thought of seeing Trump in handcuffs. :)

[Sharx335]

Post by Sharx335

Post by Charlie M. 1958

Post by Pluted Pup
Sorry, you can't win this game, become too anti-Trump and you
become pro-Trump!

I'm pro-Trump on a number of issues. I just think he's a total
asshole as a human being.

Similar to my analysis, too.  Personality of  a wart hog BUT some
damn good ideas--he's managed to cause a number of my fellow
Canadians to foam at the mouth such are THEIR crazed reactions.

You are drooling on your keyboard again.  ;)

And you, Monsieur Thomas, never drool?

At the thought of seeing Trump in handcuffs.  :)

Hope springs internal, eh?

[badgolferman]

Post by Socrates

Post by Sharx335
And you, Monsieur Thomas, never drool?

At the thought of seeing Trump in handcuffs. :)

Here, go play with yourself.
https://thesmokinggun.com/mugshots/celebrity/politics/donald-trump-mugshot-690534

[Socrates]

Post by badgolferman

Post by Socrates

Post by Sharx335
And you, Monsieur Thomas, never drool?

At the thought of seeing Trump in handcuffs. :)

Here, go play with yourself.
https://thesmokinggun.com/mugshots/celebrity/politics/donald-trump-mugshot-690534

LOL, I know who won't feel orgasmic when they see Trump in custody, the
gang over on Faux Snooze.

[Sharx335]

Post by Socrates

Post by badgolferman

Post by Sharx335
And you, Monsieur Thomas, never drool?

At the thought of seeing Trump in handcuffs.  :)

Here, go play with yourself.
https://thesmokinggun.com/mugshots/celebrity/politics/donald-trump-
mugshot-690534

LOL, I know who won't feel orgasmic when they see Trump in custody, the
gang over on Faux Snooze.

I suspect that if it benefited Faux Snooze, they, too, would throw the
Donald under the bus.