Nelson Mandela

[Westside Steve]

I didn't realize anyone gave a shit what Don Imus said

Did you realize he had a nationally aired radio show? Not that you should give a shit or not just wondering how much you realize.

 

Edit: even though I don't listen to the show he has 2.25 million listeners per week.

WSS

[gftChris]

Well, you don't have the power to stop anything I post do you? And whether you care about my viewpoints or not I could give a rats ass, so to speak. And by the way, fuck the Queen.

Zing, you found my one weakness...

 

"Nelson Mandela is a leader who Barack Obama should try to emulate."

 

 

 

 

"He could start by spending 27 years in prison."

 

 

 

 

Love it!

 

 

Back to your point Osiris, I agree with you. One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. Still I don't necessarily agree with likening him to Arafat but not bin Laden. It's not that I disagree with the Arafat reference but I can understand how a certain group of people might think Osama bin Laden was a hero. I wonder how the British feel about George Washington.

 

The British generally don't care about George Washington, FWIW.

[calfoxwc]

NO, no, no.

 

Terrorists are not oppressed. They are just fine, except they demand

that things be changed to be their way. It isn't a lack of freedom, or tyranny.

 

They want themselves, and their ideology to be supreme. And the way they try

to implement it, is via extreme, horrific violence, to force everyone to be oppressed

by their ideology.

 

A true freedom fighter, is the one who is oppressed by an ideolgoy - being denied his

freedom, his safety, his rights to life in peace and safety and freedom.

 

Terrorists don't want freedom, they actually want slavery, and they want themselves

and the rest of their ilk, to be the slave masters.

 

Freedom fighters never want to be oppressors - that's what they are fighting against.

 

One man's "cute" turnabout saying, is another mans really stupid crap he heard.

 

A freedom fighter is the opposite of a terrorist. Someone who fights/shoots in self-defense

against armed violence is the opposite of someone who initiates the armed aggression.

 

This all started with liberals in schools trying to convince students that they shouldn't believe

in anything but what they are told in class, because words can be redefined to twist reality

and common sense into confusion and garbage.

 

Critical thinking, that's my critical thinking lecture for December. It's my birthday present to myself. GGG

[Westside Steve]

Is today your birthday? Well break out the root beer! But I don't agree with you with your separation of the definitions. Terrorism in itself is merely a tactic which includes targeting innocent people to, well, terrorize the opposition. It doesn't necessarily mean that your cause wouldn't be seen as just by many people it is a means to an end. Most terrorists that we can think of today use the banner of justice freedom blah blah blah to justify their acts of violence. If Arafat kills innocent peoplein the guise of freedom for the Palestinians then some will consider him a freedom fighter.

WSS

[Westside Steve]

And Chris, I wouldn't expect you to care about George Washington today. It's tough to get worked up over 18th century politics. I kind of meant at the time. How do the English feel about the struggles in Ireland these days? It seems that has exited the front page for quite a while.

WSS

[calfoxwc]

Is today your birthday? Well break out the root beer! But I don't agree with you with your separation of the definitions. Terrorism in itself is merely a tactic which includes targeting innocent people to, well, terrorize the opposition. It doesn't necessarily mean that your cause wouldn't be seen as just by many people it is a means to an end. Most terrorists that we can think of today use the banner of justice freedom blah blah blah to justify their acts of violence. If Arafat kills innocent peoplein the guise of freedom for the Palestinians then some will consider him a freedom fighter.
WSS

********************************************

Not really, it's the 18th. I understand what you're saying, but freeedom fighters don't target innocent people

as a tactic. Never.

 

Sure, folks of the same, sick and twisted ideology, support terrorism. I'm sure they probably want some justification

for carrying out their hideous, unwarranted violence.

But I disagree that you are correct about disagreeing with me.... Some extremely hateful Arabic people think

of Israelis as not human. The nazis did the same thing. That they thought that doesn't change the definitions of

words, to infer that they were correct in any way. Freedom fighters fight against tyrants, ...terrorists fight

against the helpless and innocent.

[Westside Steve]

Well let's make the nazis our example, everybody hates them and they are universal e known as the worlds bad guys.

Do you believe we firebombed Dresden because we truly believed it was a military target? Do you believe that the British bombed residential neighborhoods in order to eliminate the workers at German defense plants? Do you think General Sherman contained his reign of terror to military targets only?

You I think that the revolutionary war rebels abstained from killing civilians for no other reason than being loyal to the crown?

 

Its one thing to claim all is fair in love and war but quite another to deny that both sides have bloody hands.

WSS

[Westside Steve]

So let me ask this. Do you believe Nelson Mandela's cause was justified?

And do you think he targeted innocent people?

WSS

[calfoxwc]

I know little of that history....was just going on Mandela's reputation in his later years.

Beats me.

 

But you are talking about collateral damage. Let's talk about Hiroshima. That wasn't

civilian deaths terrorism.

 

That was all out self defense to stop the hideous terrorism against Pearl Harbor and

our people and all those soldiers.

 

The war against the nazis was all in the world's self-defense against terror and oppression.

 

Unwarranted hideous violence reaps warranted violence, even if it has to be hideous.

 

A terrorist murders innocent people on purpose. A freedom fighter kills terrorists, sometimes

with collateral damage, deaths to civilians, regrettably.

 

To freedom fighters, there is no point to unwarranted killing. That's murder. They are the oppressed.

 

To terrorists, unwarranted murders are the whole idea for power and rise of their twisted ideology.

[gftChris]

I know little of that history....was just going on Mandela's reputation in his later years.

Beats me.

 

But you are talking about collateral damage. Let's talk about Hiroshima. That wasn't

civilian deaths terrorism.

 

That was all out self defense to stop the hideous terrorism against Pearl Harbor and

our people and all those soldiers.

 

The war against the nazis was all in the world's self-defense against terror and oppression.

 

Unwarranted hideous violence reaps warranted violence, even if it has to be hideous.

 

A terrorist murders innocent people on purpose. A freedom fighter kills terrorists, sometimes

with collateral damage, deaths to civilians, regrettably.

 

To freedom fighters, there is no point to unwarranted killing. That's murder. They are the oppressed.

 

To terrorists, unwarranted murders are the whole idea for power and rise of their twisted ideology.

To play devil's advocate a bit here - because I agree with you in general but not on this point - you can't drop an atomic bomb on a city and unintentionally kill innocent people. It's not a discriminate weapon, you can't just target military sites. And on top of that, you do something like that, you're basically saying "stop what you're doing or we'll kill all of you" - one could make an argument that that's terrorism, scaring people in to submission.

[Westside Steve]

Lest we forget exactly why Japan bombed Pearl Harbor... Japan was in the midst of a war with China and the United States actively came in to that conflict on the side of China. We helped the Chinese with the blockade. Japan, probably correctly, assumed we were looking for a reason to after the battle in full stride and would soon.

in the minds of the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor was a preemptive strike. Just saying.

 

WSS

[Schopenhauer]

Do you think General Sherman contained his reign of terror to military targets only?

 

Yes, Sherman targeted "civilian resources" in the Savannah Campaign foreshadowing the "total war" approach that would become fashionable in the 20th century. Not the nicest way to be ahead of your time but there it is, American's have always been innovators.

 

Grant's orginal plan had called for a massive (read "biggest ever") cavalry incursion into the deep south to destroy the same resources. It was going to happen one way or another, the South could not stop it and may even be grateful that Sherman exercised some restraint. A massive calvary raid would have been too fast-moving and wide-ranging to exercise that same level of restraint, and might be why Grant decided against it ultimately.

 

Reign of terror is just a poor comparison though. You might be aware that the original "reign of terror" (where we get the name today, also simply known as "the terror") actually happened in France and was accompanied by about 35,000 executions through guillotine and firing squads alone. Nothing Sherman ever did comes close to that and you my friend are doing the good General a serious disservice with the comparision. I get your point, sure, however you have no evidence of any reign of terror on his part, no matter how many southern legends say otherwise.

 

Talk like the following is nonsense: The troops, she said, had been commanded by a man "more evil than Ivan the Terrible or Genghis Khan." Pure hyperbole. If that were true he would have tortured their southern accents out of them...if any survived. Genghis would burn your city and kill everyone just to make a point, it's on record.

 

That said, bonus points for using "reign" correctly. Many folks just type whatever works (rain, rein, reign). And yes, bloody hands were everywhere during the US Civil War....then we took what we learned and went after the Natives...

[Westside Steve]

I don't think you measure the brutality scale on numbers alone. Sherman certainly didn't butcher as many people as Khan but those he did probably weren't thinking they got off easy.

My point, however, is that terrorism is killing innocent people whether it be 10 in a cafe or 3000 in an office building or 500 in a civilian neighborhood or...

WSS

[Schopenhauer]

I don't think you measure the brutality scale on numbers alone. Sherman certainly didn't butcher as many people as Khan but those he did probably weren't thinking they got off easy.

My point, however, is that terrorism is killing innocent people whether it be 10 in a cafe or 3000 in an office building or 500 in a civilian neighborhood or...

WSS

 

Here's some butchery for you.

 

It's curious that someone like Nathan Bedford Forrest never makes anyone's list, while Sherman is painted as a ghoul. Perhaps you've heard of Forrest's butchering prisoners and civilians at Fort Pillow, "one of the bleakest, saddest events of American military history" says Military Historian David Eicher. Historian Andrew Ward reached the conclusion that an atrocity in the modern sense occurred at Fort Pillow, including the murders of fleeing black civilians. THAT is butchering people under a military flag. Sherman was a General, Forrest, once a General, became a butcher at Fort Pillow.

 

More butchery in this next example. Ever heard of the Moro Massacre? Mark Twain did, here is what he thought about it.

 

Again, granted, Sherman butchered natives, lots of them, his real acts of terrorism, which are never discussed, because then we would have to feel bad for the natives, and we can't do that in the US because, after all, the natives have a legitimate claim to the land here. The southerners, on the other hand, lined up to fight and die for their country and took the first shots at Fort Sumpter. Sherman merely outgeneraled them and obliged them.

[Schopenhauer]

A freedom fighter is the opposite of a terrorist. Someone who fights/shoots in self-defense

against armed violence is the opposite of someone who initiates the armed aggression.

 

This all started with liberals in schools trying to convince students that they shouldn't believe

in anything but what they are told in class, because words can be redefined to twist reality

and common sense into confusion and garbage.

 

Critical thinking, that's my critical thinking lecture for December. It's my birthday present to myself. GGG

 

Quite an assertion, ironic that you refer to critical thinking and twisting reality and common sense into garbage.

 

Seems like history has worked against you. Consider the Vietnam Era. Conservative opinions held sway in most academic institutions and "liberal" students out and out rejected what they were hearing in the classroom. Conservatives did not start the anti-war movements, they believed what they were told in and out of class exactly as you say. This still has consequences to this day as the faculty felt betrayed by these students who would not toe the line; and students felt betrayed by faculty who would flunk them out into the army for their beliefs. Remember "don't trust anyone over 30?" Liberals were that challenge to the existing authority. To be clear, conservatives were not shot at at Kent State, remember?

 

So, while there are undoubtedly some "intellectually militant" liberal fools trying to do what you describe these days, there is obviously nowhere near the intensity that you seem to be hoping for. I've faced them down myself, plenty of times. They are full of bluster but there is nowhere near enough evidence to say that the pendulum has swung completely in the opposite direction and that people are going to get shot today due to defying liberalism.

 

You mentioned a lecture, how about the roots of conservatism versus the roots of liberalism? Let's go way back to Galileo. He knew the Earth wasn't flat and that it revolved around the sun. However, since the church was trying to CONSERVE its authority on every subject, Galileo knew the church would kill him and declined to defend his beliefs and published after his death. When Isaac Newton came along a 100 years later he used logic and reason to LIBERATE individuals from the absolute authority that the church had conserved for hundreds of years. His scientific theories proved that the church was wrong about certain things, and if they were wrong about some things, perhaps they were wrong about other things too, in fact, maybe they were wrong about EVERYTHING else too. It snowballed from there. Bottom line, we little people could finally have a say too, provided we were rational and logical.

 

There it is in a nutshell. Yes, there are some irrational and illogical people in schools today, yet you can't just hand all the power and the blame over to them like you seem to want to do. Yes, they suck, but they are not the absolute authority.

 

Also, I wasn't aware of this, were you? Why do you use it in your post?

 

"GGG stands for Good, Giving, and Game. More specifically: good in bed, giving equal time and equal pleasure, and game for anything—within reason. The term was coined by Dan Savage, gay author and sex advice columnist for the Stranger."

[MLD Woody]

lol new guy

[calfoxwc]

Conservative opinions held sway in most academic institutions and "liberal" students out and out rejected what they were hearing in the classroom.

To be clear, conservatives were not shot at at Kent State, remember? Shopen

************************************************************************************************************

Wrong. My experience was at Kent State University. And before I started attending, after I worked for a year

first, to pay off my beautiful '66 Chevy Belaire, 4 door, maroon metallic.... I was in a sociology class

at Kent. Some communist witch prof was talking about how our country was the worst, the American people

were stupid and imperilists, blah blah commie blah,... and I challenged her. I made her look like a pile

of commie pigeon poo. And I got a standing ovation from the rest of the class. See, I was only visiting that day,

going to soc class with my best friend. Know what? She blew her stack, yelled at realizing I wasn't even

a student in her class, and ordered me to leave, the class laughed at her, and some long haired kid threw open

the door and said the National Guard just murdered a bunch of students.

Yes, do tell me about May 4th. I'm all ears.

So, later, at Kent, I was in argumentation class. My assignment was "conservatism is a lowering political force

that threatens to ring in a new Dark Age". So, in my brief, which I also won a debate on, was a grade of D-.

hah. I went to the Dean, with a copy, deleted grade, with a complaint. He read it overnight, and the next day,

said it was very, very excellent, and even if he were a bastard and hated me personally, he couldn't give it

less than a B-. So, he asked what grade I got. I told him "D-", and he just shook his head and told me

who my instructor was. A noted anti war, very socialist. So, that and other lib crap led me to quit school,

enlist, and go back later with my GI bill. I wouldn't have to borrow money, or work, to pay, and I'd know better

of what I wanted to do, etc.

Two years later. Yeah, go ahead and tell me about Kent. All too often, liberals WERE the "authority".

Academic freedom. bah.

Did you know, that there were rocks being hauled in, in burlap bags before the riots? Yep. Did you know

that the freaks went out later, and picked them up? Yep.

Did you know I have a set of pics somewhere, of the national guard, and of two tall, long haired freaks

I'd never seen before, harrassing a lone National Guardsmen guarding several troop trucks and jeeps?

I once won a debate at that class. About "anti war riots and rallies are bringing about

the end of the Vietnam War.".

I had most of the class against my position before the debate. Afterwards, all but 4 of 48 students

were on my side. So, after that class, some big hippie who wasn't even in the class, but a friend of

one of the weirdly hateful hippies who was in the class, grabbed my shirt and put me up against the wall,

and wanted to know where I lived, because I was part of the bourgeouis (okay, I can't spell it) military

industrial something, and warned me they were going to get me.

I had friends, who also had friends, and that whole situation never, ever happened. And the one guy

was afraid to walk near me, for whatever reason, afterwards. He'd see me, and look down, reverse his direction,

and walk away.

I don't know how it got resolved, one lady friend wouldn;t

tell me, except smiling, she said I was perfectly safe.

Oh, and "GGG" is generally me saying "multiple grins", as compared to "LOL". I don't know what

the hell you are talking about, but I gather I won't use it anymore....

Here, "LOL", "ROF,L", and "MYOB".

Have a nice day.

[MLD Woody]

Man, when I'm old I hope I don't make up ridiculous college stories.

 

"So Denard couldn't play. I took the field and scored the game winning drive"

 

"My MIT graduate Prof was wrong, so I got up and debated him on his mistake and won. Then I beat him in chess. Everyone cheered and we all got free ice cream!"

 

 

 

Maybe Cal was that annoying kid in the lecture that always raises his hand to make a statement and try to "show how much he knows". Or corrects to teachers spelling mistake. Or whatever he has to do to make it seem like he's better than everyone.

[koalabazooka]

Schopenhauer is going in on this Forum!

[The Cysko Kid]

To play devil's advocate a bit here - because I agree with you in general but not on this point - you can't drop an atomic bomb on a city and unintentionally kill innocent people. It's not a discriminate weapon, you can't just target military sites. And on top of that, you do something like that, you're basically saying "stop what you're doing or we'll kill all of you" - one could make an argument that that's terrorism, scaring people in to submission.

 

Dropping the atom bomb was a mercy in a way because we would had to kill 85% of all Japanese if wed invaded the islands. The other 15% would likely have killed themselves. Their propoganda machine was strong.

[calfoxwc]

Self defense is not terrorism.

 

egad, the way words are used, misused, and abused.

 

It is nice, to be old enough to tell stories.

 

Especially when they are true, at worst, "95 percent true".

 

But to never have a story to tell, you know you are a kid

who grew up in your room, eek.

[MLD Woody]

I have no stories? Awe....

 

 

Using words incorrectly, like "self defense"?

[DieHardBrownsFan]

 

Bogus sign language interpreter at Mandela memorial was in group that burned men to death

 

Published December 16, 2013

Associated Press

• 

  Dec. 10, 2013: President Barack Obama waves standing next to the sign language interpreter after making his speech at the memorial service for former South African president Nelson Mandela at the FNB Stadium in Soweto near Johannesburg. South Africa's deaf federation said on Wednesday that the interpreter on stage for Mandela memorial was a 'fake.' (AP)

JOHANNESBURG – The bogus sign language interpreter at last week's Nelson Mandela memorial service was among a group of people who accosted two men found with a stolen television and burned them to death by setting fire to tires placed around their necks, one of the interpreter's cousins and three of his friends told The Associated Press Monday.

But Thamsanqa Jantjie never went to trial for the 2003 killings when other suspects did in 2006 because authorities determined he was not mentally fit to stand trial, said the four. They insisted on speaking anonymously because of the sensitivity of the fake signing fiasco, which has deeply embarrassed South Africa's government and prompted a high-level investigation into how it happened.

Their account of the killings matched a description of the crime and the outcome for Jantjie that he himself described in an interview published on Sunday by the Sunday Times newspaper of Johannesburg.

"It was a community thing, what you call mob justice, and I was also there," Jantjie told the newspaper.

Jantjie was not at his house Monday, and the cousin told AP Jantjie had been picked up by someone in a car Sunday and had not returned. His cellphone rang through to an automatic message saying Jantjie was not reachable.

Instead of standing trial, Jantjie was institutionalized for a period of longer than a year, the four said, and then returned to live in his poor township neighborhood on the outskirts of Soweto. At some point after that, they said, he started getting jobs doing sign language interpretation at events for the governing African National Congress Party.

Jantjie told the AP last week he has schizophrenia and hallucinated, seeing angels while gesturing incoherently just 3 feet away from President Barack Obama and other world leaders during the Tuesday ceremony at a Soweto stadium. Signing experts said his arm and hand movements were mere gibberish.

In the interview last Thursday, Jantjie said he had been violent in the past "a lot" but declined to provide more details and blamed his violence on his schizophrenia, for which he said he was institutionalized for 19 months in a period that included time during 2006. The cousin and the three friends said the "necklacing" killing of the suspected thieves occurred within a few hundred meters (yards) from Jantjie's tidy concrete home near ramshackle dwellings.

The four spoke to the AP on Monday in Jantjie's neighborhood, and one of the friends described himself as Jantjie's best friend.

Necklacing was a method of killing that was fairly common during the struggle against apartheid by blacks on blacks suspected of aiding the white government or belonging to opposing factions. The method was also used in tribal disputes in the 1980s and 1990s. While people who encounter suspect thieves in South Africa have been known to beat or kill them to mete out punishment, necklacing them has been rare.

An investigation is under way by South African officials to determine who hired Jantjie as the onstage interpreter at the Mandela memorial service and if and how he received security clearance. The officials have not said how long their investigation will take place, and reaching them for updates was difficult Monday, a public holiday in South Africa.

Four government departments involved in organizing the historic memorial service have distanced themselves from the hiring of Jantjie, telling the AP they had no contact with him. A fifth government agency, the Department of Public Works, declined to comment and referred all inquiries about Jantjie to the office of South Africa's top government spokeswoman, who has only said a "comprehensive report" will eventually be released.

Jantjie told the AP he was hired for the event by an interpretation company that has used him on a freelance basis for years. The address that Jantjie provided for the company was occupied by a different company that is not involved in interpreting for the deaf.

The owner of the company was identified by the Sunday Times as Bantubahle Xozwa, who heads a religious and traditional affairs unit of the ANC.

Xozwa told the newspaper that Jantjie was an administrator in his company, South African Interpreters but "is not an interpreter" because he was "was disqualified years ago on the basis of his health."

"He was interpreting at the memorial service in his personal capacity," Xozwa said. The ANC has said it had no role in hiring Jantjie for the memorial service, but has acknowledged using him at party events in the past.

Two ANC spokesmen and a spokeswoman did not answer their cellphones on Monday, a public holiday, when AP tried to reach them for comment. A number listed for Xozwa in Johannesburg rang unanswered.

The Deaf Federation of South Africa has said it filed a complaint with the ANC about bogus signing by Jantjie at a previous event where South African President Jacob Zuma was present.

"We will follow up the reported correspondence that has supposedly been sent to us in this regard and where necessary act on it," the ANC said in a statement last week.

The AP was unable to verify the existence of the school where Jantjie said he studied signing for a year. An online search for the school, which Jantjie said was called Komani and located in Eastern Cape Province, turned up nothing. Advocates for the deaf said they have never heard of the school and said there are no known sign language institutes in the province.

The Star newspaper of Johannesburg reported Friday that Jantjie said he studied sign language interpretation in Britain at the "University of Tecturers." A British charity that awards qualifications for deaf and deaf-blind communications techniques said it had never heard of the university.

[Westside Steve]

Self defense neither is retaliation. Hey I'm as much of a homer as the next guy. But if Lincoln wants to slaughter tens or hundreds of thousands of his own people because of a little gunfire in South Carolina....

I have no doubt that for some a bin Laden did what he did, or what his followers did, because they thought their people were being oppressed.

WSS

[Westside Steve]

And to Schopenhauers example I suppose someone thought the Moro Massacre was justified as self defense, especially looking back over the history of the rebellion against the Spanish and subsequently the United States and Philippians.

 

Let's face it, human beings like to kill other human beings. But we also have the mental process that allows us to justify it. And usually the winner of the conflict, as they say, writes the history.

WSS

[Schopenhauer]

 

Conservative opinions held sway in most academic institutions and "liberal" students out and out rejected what they were hearing in the classroom.

To be clear, conservatives were not shot at at Kent State, remember? Shopen

************************************************************************************************************

Wrong.

Actually, I think I am right in the assertions I made that you quote. It may be the case that a stray bullet struck some members of the crowd, but they were aiming at these folk, who, incidentally, were protesting the established view:

 

From Governor Rhodes the day before the shooting:

We've seen here at the city of Kent especially, probably the most vicious form of campus oriented violence yet perpetrated by dissident groups. They make definite plans of burning, destroying, and throwing rocks at police, and at the National Guard and the Highway Patrol. This is when we're going to use every part of the law enforcement agency of Ohio to drive them out of Kent. We are going to eradicate the problem. We're not going to treat the symptoms. And these people just move from one campus to the other and terrorize the community. They're worse than the brown shirts and the communist element and also the night riders and the vigilantes. They're the worst type of people that we harbor in America. Now I want to say this. They are not going to take over [the] campus. I think that we're up against the strongest, well-trained, militant, revolutionary group that has ever assembled in America.

Yeah he was full of hyperbole, but he was not talking about conservatives. The people that were shot (that were aimed at) were protesting the Cambodian Campaign. Again, not a big conservative issue at the time...

 

Also I already anticipated and responded to your personal stories in my post. I'm bummed that you didn't hang in there, like I said, they talk big but their opinion is not an objective truth and they are highly susceptible to their own policy and procedure, which they tend to ignore. I have won numerous victories over these folks, moral and otherwise.

 

My reference to conservative ideas holding sway was mostly directed at the era of buildup and expansion of Vietnam though. It was starting to shift around Kent State and the lefties were seeking some payback, of course. It was unfortunate but still goes on to this day, yet again, like I said, I don't see anyone getting shot for defying liberalism soon. They may get a medal from some conservative groups and become the next "Joe the Plumber", but they won't get shot.

 

Hard to believe you didn't do well in argumentation...Maybe because of things like a MYOB reference in a forum website? Wow. Here's one for you back: SMH.

 

Straight up tho, that is what I found for GGG... And I'm a little sad you didn't mention my lecture..pretty cool stuff, eh? History is, like, historical....

[Schopenhauer]

What do you know?

 

I mention Nathan Bedford Forrest in a post yesterday and today they are renaming the high school named after him.

 

I didn't mention in my post that he was a founding member and former Grand Dragon of the KKK, didn't seem pertinent at the time.

 

Looks like it matters to some people...

[Westside Steve]

Apparently your opinions hold sway with the Board of Education...

You don't think that he was an isolated example during the Civil War do you? Human beings are brutal enough in peacetime let alone when war allows them to turn Feral?

WSS

[Schopenhauer]

Apparently your opinions hold sway with the Board of Education...

You don't think that he was an isolated example during the Civil War do you? Human beings are brutal enough in peacetime let alone when war allows them to turn Feral?

WSS

 

That is insightful Steve.

 

As it happens, Forrest was a self-made millionaire (well, he had slaves to help) and highly successful and functional member of society as defined by the times. He raised, outfitted and served as general for his own army essentially, and, Fort Pillow aside, is considered, along with Abraham Lincoln, to have been the only two authentic geniuses produced by the war. Some very smart people think that.

 

I tend to agree with you...thinking he would have been "successful" in a variety of endeavors if not for the war. And no, there are not many incidents in the civil war that meet our present day definition of atrocity. The sad fact is that afterwards the Union turned what it learned during the war loose on the Natives...they never stood a chance. Basically, Custer, Sherman and Sheridan and the whole lot of them became the same as Forrest where the natives were concerned. His KKK went after the blacks, the Union army went after the natives. I think the difference in the tactics is negligible.

 

I guess that loops us back around to your "bloody hands" comment from a few posts ago...plenty of blood to go around for sure. Again, though, the ones who massacred the Natives are protected. It is hard to overstate how important the native claims on the land are, they HAD to be eradicated because they were a constant reminder of the land theft and represented the constant threat of one day suing for their land back.

 

Pen Mightier than the Sword? Frank Baum, who wrote the Wizard of Oz, participated by shaping public opinion himself, writing: "Why not annihilation? Their glory has fled, their spirit broken, their manhood effaced; better that they die than live the miserable wretches that they are. History would forget these latter despicable beings, and speak, in latter ages of the glory of these grand Kings of the forest and plain.” Imagine writing to annihilate blacks or latinos? We watch this guy's stuff to this day. Why? Because he targeted the "right" population...it's not all cafe and building bombings...kill them because they are not "great" anymore? Wow. Just wow.

[koalabazooka]

The winners write the history books.