"about time?" Topic

link

Or is this pc twaddle too?

I vote for very disrespectful pc twaddle. It is a disgrace.

About *damn* time.

What the article fails to mention is that the school is in a historically black section of Jacksonville, Florida, and the name was chosen by whites in 1959 in reaction to public school intergration efforts and as a slap in the face to black residents.

Works for me. They might just as well have called it Pointy Hood High!

Based on the above, I would say it is a good call.

On the other hand… Tiburcio Vasquez Elementary.

@jpattern2- I didnīt know that, and it is certainly a rather important piece of information. If that be the case, I humbly retract my comment.

"I vote for very disrespectful pc twaddle. It is a disgrace."

WHAT?

Really?

Believe that the origional name was to have been "Valhalla High School" and their team name to have been the "Valhalla Vikings" (kid you not). Then the racists got involved and you get the hero of Fort Pillow's name on it.

Dan

Apparently the school gets its students from J.E.B. Stuart Middle School and Jefferson Davis Middle School.

And the current mascot is the Confederate Rebel.

link

As an American I knew my country has kind of a dearth when it comes to history. The school's name stayed the same for so long probably because they didn't know who he was. Somebody finally decided to finally research him. "My school's namesake did WHAT?!!"

I thought the whole "Forrest founded the KKK!!!" stuff had been debunked. Even Forrest came around to reconciliation.

Still, not sure I'd name a school after him. Unless it was a cavalry school, of course.

and the name was chosen by whites in 1959 in reaction to public school intergration efforts and as a slap in the face to black residents.

Not cool.

Tiburcio Vasquez Elementary

Also not cool.

Looking at the mural inside the school they have big pictures of a Jew, two African Americans, and two women all famous and all titled 'rebels'.

Just like NBF!!

Nothing to worry about then…

The guy IS a founding member of the Clan. He was also the Confederate commander at the Ft Pillow battle. Not exactly one you would want to exalt with a High School in his name.

Apparently the school gets its students from J.E.B. Stuart Middle School and Jefferson Davis Middle School.

Here in Northern VA, there is a JEB Stuart high school. Nobody cares because there is nothing to care about. And that is the way it should be!

@wyeayeman- yep!There is more than one Southern kid named after Mr Forrest, and for good reason. A great soldier and, if you donīt judge him by todayīs standards, quite an admirable man.

So, given the things he did to modernise Germany and help drag them out of the Depression there should be an Adolf Hitler College?

He was a slave trader before the war, so even by the standards of his time he was not a respectable man. And by that time the Western nations all looked down upon killing prisoners, although Forrest had no problem massacring black POWs at Fort Pillow and elsewhere. He was a war criminal, not a hero.

@ last hussar-Perhaps an Economic college, but certainly nothing in humanities.
Actually, I think by the 1930s and 40s genocide was pretty much frowned upon by polite society.

Aaaaaaaaaaaand the Hitler card is down.

Well played, sir!

Texas Jack, given that he was foolish enough to try and take on every real and potential trade partner and alienate the most powerful economies before the war started, I'd say he was not an economic genius after 1938.

@rebelyell- His work as a slave trader was only odious to certain folks, not everyone, much the same as attorneys and politicians.

As for the Fort Pillow massacre, one must understand the provocation it was towards Southerners to see black troops. It fueled fears of slave revolts, among other things,and for men fighting far from their families, they acted as they did. It doesnīt make it right, but it is understandable if judged by the times.

And I agree about Hitler

Sorry Texas Jack but the Fort Pillow massacre wasn't "understandable". It was mass murder and a war crime. Forrest should have joined the commandant of Andersonville on the gallows after the war.

From the Southern persective, slave trade was a low profession, but to everybody else it ranged in respectability from oral sewage cleaning to pure evil. Slavery was despised in Europe, and the Southerners and Americans were considered uncouth and backwards for maintaining it. Only the Southerners saw killing black POWs as an issue of law and order. To Europe and to the North it was a criminal act to the point that the Federals threatened to kill Confederate officers for every black POW and white officer murdered.

Cultural relativity may be a PC thing, but slavery and genocide should not be included. Especially considering how divided the past society was over the issue.

@ redbanner- Spoken like a Yankee sir, but I respect your opinion!

Personally, I am ashamed of what Forrest did there, but I try to put myself in the shoes of those fellows, and really I can see their point. I think the North knew what to expect from putting black troops in the field, and thus they too should share some of the blame.

Blaming the victims? One of the major causes of the war was slavery, and there was nothing wrong with the North fielding people they considered free men. That is akin to saying a woman should not have worn such a revealing skirt after she was raped.

Well rebelyell, every society has to have their used car salesmen, and the South was no different. Still, someone was buying those slaves he was selling, and judging by his pre-war affluence, quite a few someones.

It doesnīt make it right, but it is understandable if judged by the times.

"It is therefore ordered that for every soldier of the United States killed in violation of the laws of war, a rebel soldier shall be executed; and for every one enslaved by the enemy or sold into slavery a rebel soldier shall be placed at hard labor on the public works, and continued at such labor until the other shall be released and receive the treatment due to a prisoner of war."
--Abraham Lincoln July 30, 1863

Apparently not alright in the North. The only difference is that justice was swifter back then. The Massacre at Poison Springs was met with retaliation by a highly motivated 2nd Kansas at Jenkins Ferry. Today, we hunt down the perpetrators and put them on trial. Heinous crime is heinous crime….then and now.

It was mass murder and a war crime. Forrest should have joined the commandant of Andersonville on the gallows after the war.

Forrest claims he lost control of his men. Perhaps he turned a blind eye toward the destruction? He was the founder of the KKK. To his credit, he distanced himself from them when they started to engage in violence…either because he wanted none of it or he did not want to be hanged by the law.

What do I think of him? He is a total douche. Nobody I would want to know.

rebelyell- Hey cut that out with the woman thing, that ainīt cool! Actually, you are right, the North had the right to field whomever they pleased, but they knew what kind of response it would bring. Just because you have a right does not mean you should exercise it.

But Joker in my family Mr Lincoln is the war criminal, and Sherman a mass murderer. History is indeed written by the winners.

History is written by the facts as revealed by documentation and archaeology, not by the winner. The facts do not support your family's beliefs and opinions. Attitudes like that pushed me away from the SCV. Genealogy is fun, but they are not grounded to reality and are merely trying to find half-truths, lies and fantasy to try to justify their vision of history through scrubbing out ugly facts like slavery. Just as you tried to provide a justification for the slaughter of prisoners, just as the Turks and Armenians provide justification for killing each other.

But Joker in my family Mr Lincoln is the war criminal, and Sherman a mass murderer.

As a Southerner, I'm quite pleased to say your family is wrong, sir, wrong.

Romanticism is a powerful, often dangerous, thing. Best to not let it color one's understanding of the world.

If only that were true, rebelyell. We will have to agree to disagree, because I cannot on all the years I sat at my grandmaīs side listening to the tales she learned from her daddy who fought in that war. The misery caused by Sherman is the reason one side of my family ended up in Texas. For all of my childhood the Civil War, as uncivil as it was, still lived and breathed in my family, and continues to do so to this day.

Mr Lincoln I wonīt even discuss.

darth, you too are welcome to your opinion, and I wonīt even call you a carpetbagger or a scallywag.

Have you read Sherman's memoirs? I know that people considered him a Beelzebub (and I am shocked that people still do, but then again there are people in Ireland who still hate Cromwell), but he was an interesting man. He did not appear to care one way or another about slavery, but he was fervently patriotic almost to the point of fanaticism. While for many the war was an issue of a collective of states vs. one unified nation, to him the war was a matter of treason.

I appreciate that, Texas Jack. It would be wonderfully ironic, considering how here in California, folks eye me warily when I wear my Robert E. Lee "Most Likely to Secede" t-shirt. :D

The way I look at it, the misery caused by Sherman's march can and should be blamed on those who decided to attempt to secede, not on those who stopped them from doing so.

I love it darth!

rebelyell, yes I have read Sherman and I agree, he was quite an interesting fellow. I donīt have the venom for him that the earlier generations of my family did, but then again I am much farther removed.

But Twiningham, wouldnīt that be blaming the victims

You know, if you study the history of the two regions it becomes clear they were so different, so opposed to each otherīs values, that they should have been a separate country from the very beginning.

Oh, and before a pedant gets here first:

I know – Lee was actually reluctant about secession, thought the whole affair was not the right course, etc.

But it's a funny shirt and I like Robert E. Lee. So there.

But Joker in my family Mr Lincoln is the war criminal, and Sherman a mass murderer. History is indeed written by the winners.

And if the South had won, Lee would not be a traitor! Wait! That's in another thread! I got confused!

I wouldn't say that they should have been two separate countries. The only major difference in 1776 was religion, in that the north held more dissenters like the Quakers, while the south held more followers of the sanctioned religions. The population densities, if nothing else, created the major divide that led to industrialization in the north and the status quo ante bellum in the south. The slavery issue should have been resolved instead of left festering for nearly a century. Perhaps the other issues would have never appeared or at least been reduced in intensity if slavery as a whole was banned along with the slave trade.

"but then again there are people in Ireland who still hate Cromwell"

Not just in Ireland.

"Slavery was despised in Europe, and the Southerners and Americans were considered uncouth and backwards for maintaining it.'

Rebelyell I would sincerely suggest you read some history. Whatever sources you are using now are total bunk. France did not abolish slavery in it's colonies until 1848. The UK did not abolish indentured servitude in India until 1860. Russia freed her serfs in 1861. Slavery was not abolished in all English colonies until 1843. So to ay that was 'despised' in Europe is a gross exaggeration.

As for Fort Pillow, Forrest always maintained that he lost control of his troops. I'll also note that POWs were not killed there, the USCT were killed while trying to surrender. Once the killing stopped prisoners were taken and shipped to POW camps.

There were instances of killing of POWs by CS troops. I believe it was Champ Ferguson who did so in south-western Virginia in 1864-65. I'll also note that CS POWs were neglected to the point of starvation and freezing to death in several POW camps including Elmira, NY. Troops there died of illness and froze due to lack of blankets and firewood, while the commandant boasted that he had returned some of the funds allocated to his camp to the government.

So I would, respectfully, suggest you get off your high horse, the facts do not back up your claims.

"I wouldn't say that they should have been two separate countries. The only major difference in 1776 was religion, in that the north held more dissenters like the Quakers, while the south held more followers of the sanctioned religions. The population densities, if nothing else, created the major divide that led to industrialization in the north and the status quo ante bellum in the south. The slavery issue should have been resolved instead of left festering for nearly a century."

I would again suggest you read some history. Slavery could have been banned during the writing of the Constitution, but the New England states sided with the southern states to keep it alive because the slave trade was very profitable. I'd also suggest you read David McCullough's book on John Adams. It is very clear that Civil War was barely averted during Adams' presidency. I've come to the conclusion myself that the Civil War was pretty much inevitable, the two sides were just too different from each other, and slavery was only a part of the difference.

After studying a fair few civil wars, frankly the Americans did a pretty good job at reconciliation. I'm surprised not many what I assume are southerners here are proud of that fact.

I agree with both Dn Jackson and Texas Jack. I also think both names for the school are regretable and I love the T-shirt. There certainly are a lot of ultra PC non-history reading twits out there aren't there?
A great read I suppose, but I really have better things to do with my time….like paint my miniatures & get ready for todays game.

Dn Jackson,

You provides some interesting dates. May I provide a few as well? 1794, when France banned slavery? 1761, when Portugal banned mainland slavery? 1772, when slavery was ruled illegal in England? And after England's 1807 ban on the slave trade, other nations (including America in 1808) joined in. England used its naval and economic strength to pressure some states, and others willingly joined the ban. Slavery was still illegal within France, but Napoleon brought it back for the colonies only. Colonies are typically behind the times compared to their homelands, so it is not surprising that India would hold out. But to say the North was opposed to ending slavery due to its economic benefits is absurd. The Northern states began banning slavery before the revolution ended. Perhaps it would have been expensive for Southern states to end it, but as a business model it is not superior to free labor. Not is it morally superior to free labor.

There certainly are a lot of ultra PC non-history reading twits out there aren't there?

It is a shame, isn't it? That is why I use my B.A. in history to help them. We need to understand actual history, not a romanticized version that mitigates and justifies our past mistakes.

Slavery was still illegal within France, but Napoleon brought it back for the colonies only.

An interesting point. 1803 was it? It sparked the revolt in Haiti that left many white French people dead and had other non-French nationals barley escaping with their lives.

Read all ya answers, here's a real PC solution . A got tp war withe each other then we can wargame the 2nd ACW or. B name every offensive or perceived offensive town,building,street,latrine or state "Obama" same as is being done in South Africa with Mandela (you can't take a step without tripping ove something named after him. Or finally C brush those chips of your collective shoulders and let history lie where it may. Renaming a school will not "change" the school for the better just gives some puffed up moran a sense of moral justification until he or she realizes crap still happens. Cheeze guys to me Forrest is a tin soldier general on my table with a better than average abilities if a bit brittle. And unless your willing to burn every book in reference to these people of history you can't destroy what they were good or bad. One thing I know for sure they are history with a capital H.

Read all ya answers, here's some real PC solutions . A got tp war with each other then we can wargame the 2nd ACW or. B name every offensive or perceived offensive town,building,street,latrine or state "Obama" same as is being done in South Africa with Mandela, (you can't take a step without tripping ove something named after him. Or finally C brush those chips off your collective shoulders and let history lie where it may. Renaming a school will not "change" the school for the better just gives some puffed up moran a sense of moral justification until he or she realizes crap still happens. Cheeze guys, to me Forrest is a tin soldier general on my table with a better than average abilities if a bit brittle. And unless your willing to burn every book in reference to these characters of history you can't destroy what they archived good or bad. One thing I know for sure a lot of people will be pi**ed when there is a warship named USS Obama. So let's game em, not slang em.

I'll ignore the "discussion", when a 2/3 majority vote to rename then there really should be no problem at all. Schools get renamed all the time, big whoop.