NAACP Disrespects George Washington

OldCurlyWolf said:

What most historians DO NOT write is that Lincoln was bigoted against blacks.

The main reason for the Emancipation Proclamation was military strategy. Lincoln wanted blacks in the south to cause problems behind the confederate lines and pull troops from the front lines.

Click to expand...

True. It is also fact that Lincoln offered any states who surrendered returned to the union the ability to keep their slaves. If they returned before the Emancipation Proclamation took effect.

eye95 said:

There clearly are differences. My point was that there is that the lack of differences would amaze the folks of Lincoln's time.

Some folks (not you) just want to twist what others say and don't know the meaning of the word "bigot."

Click to expand...

Definition of BIGOT

: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

Maybe you need to look up the definition because Lincoln definitely met the requirements. Actually seems to describe ......ahhh never mind.

Mas49.56 said:

Not entirely correct, ask any Radiologic Technologist. I was taught in school that black patients of the same size as white or latino patients require slightly higher radiation dose settings to achieve the same picture quality. Black patients generally have greater tissue density and to not do them a disservice and expose them with a repeat Xray, use a little more dose in the first place. Their are a few more medical differences which I will not get into here. Oh, and I wonder what the media would say if the sons of confederate veterans celebrated Robert E Lee's birthday in a park with MLK's statue covered up.

Click to expand...

Can you provide a cite for the medical issues? I have never heard of that. Maybe melatonin would hamper a bit but no idea, and that still is cosmetic. Although curious on a scientific note. My point was that we are all the same.

The city is called WASHINGTON DC- where does the NAACP think the WASHINGTON part comes from?

And why do they still insist on being called the NAACP? They like the term "colored"?

>> shaking head<< and :banghead:

You mean NAACP actually stands for something?

I had a history teacher put it in perspective for me long ago. He said to the class "What would you do if the principal came in and said 'Starting tomorrow, we will all have to share our classes with dogs. They are no different from us, so treat them like you would anyone else'." We all though he was nuts, until he said "That's what it felt like when they desegregated the schools. That's what it felt like when they ended slavery. Sometimes people can believe something so strongly that, looking back, seems so foolish."

sudden valley gunner said:

The main reason Indians went "down" was due to disease, thus the impression that Europeans had of a great empty land, because disease had spread, from Columbus's contact to the mainland and wiped out the population.

Click to expand...

So Wounded Knee and Sand Creek were ways to 'vacinate' them? I agree disease was introduced but dont think that was the main reason they went down. We wanted what they had and when they resisted, they were killed.

Was this a comparison to African-Americans as "dogs...?"

mcdonalk said:

You mean NAACP actually stands for something?

I had a history teacher put it in perspective for me long ago. He said to the class "What would you do if the principal came in and said 'Starting tomorrow, we will all have to share our classes with dogs. They are no different from us, so treat them like you would anyone else'." We all though he was nuts, until he said "That's what it felt like when they desegregated the schools. That's what it felt like when they ended slavery. Sometimes people can believe something so strongly that, looking back, seems so foolish."

Click to expand...

Not sure of the post's intent, but it reads that desegregation was bad; and woul appear to compare African-Americans as "dogs."

As far as slavery and the other posts - disease-pools were the major cause of Indian/Native American, the other was agression by settlers/conquerors. With regard to "labor" the Native Americans resisted or were deemed too weak because of the European diseases; indentured servants were "temp" labor-pools (serving out a "sentence" of debt); Africans were bought/sold by whites and blacks alike; however, the difference was the wide-spread and exploitation - to also include transport to a continent away - that the European slave-trade executed.

America's "infancy" benefited GREATLY from the free-servitude of Africans as Slaves; Lincoln did not want to free the slaves - he simply did what was politically astute at the time.

If you look at the horror of slavery AND then HONESTLY look at the 100years after and the progression - to include discrimination, past and present, Jim Crow, segregation, laws on the books against Blacks - I seriously doubt that any logically person would argue that harm was not done.

The NAACP was a necessary organization during the HEIGHT of the movement to provide and ensure EQUAL rights for Blacks; when the Federal and State Governments failed to take action or even recognize discrimination and wanton acts of aggression, as committed because of skin-color. Does the NAACP have a national platform and/or need in today's society - unsure, but I do see the 'behind-the-scenes' work that is being done on a micro-level (state scholarships, small-business support, etc).

Should George Washington's statute been covered - no; it is a part of history that should be told and re-told with integrity.

The fact that there are multiple opnions - that are spread between the poles, and some that are at the poles - suggests (strongly) that there is STILL need for more open and honest dialogue on RACE in America....!

jadedone4 said:

Not sure of the post's intent, but it reads that desegregation was bad; and woul appear to compare African-Americans as "dogs."

Click to expand...

Then I suggest you re-read it, because that is in no way what I intended to say. Nor does it match the words I used.

The story was to illustrate the fact that when slavery was ended and when segregation was ended the white majority felt as if they were being forced to mingle with a lesser species. The example my teacher used was meant to convey the feeling, while at the same time highlighting the lunacy of treating a fellow human being as if it were a dog.

It only appears to insult African-Americans if you are looking for insult.

mcdonalk said:

Then I suggest you re-read it, because that is in no way what I intended to say. Nor does it match the words I used.

The story was to illustrate the fact that when slavery was ended and when segregation was ended the white majority felt as if they were being forced to mingle with a lesser species. The example my teacher used was meant to convey the feeling, while at the same time highlighting the lunacy of treating a fellow human being as if it were a dog.

It only appears to insult African-Americans if you are looking for insult.

Click to expand...

He ignored your last three words and failed to consider that the teacher was trying to explain, not justify, feelings and reactions.

sudden valley gunner said:

Can you provide a cite for the medical issues? I have never heard of that. Maybe melatonin would hamper a bit but no idea, and that still is cosmetic. Although curious on a scientific note. My point was that we are all the same.

Click to expand...

I don't have my old text books anymore(Arpanet was around but no Internet Lol), but from what I remember it's the African American bone density that is a little greater than the Caucasian. Not a huge difference, but real nonetheless. With a quick google search I found mention of greater bone density in AA women on webmd and this paper mentions it too. http://www.ajronline.org/cgi/content/full/178/2/439 You only need to adjust up a little mas and kV. I agree we all are basically the same, the differences are very minor.

Mas49.56 said:

I don't have my old text books anymore(Arpanet was around but no Internet Lol), but from what I remember it's the African American bone density that is a little greater than the Caucasian. Not a huge difference, but real nonetheless. With a quick google search I found mention of greater bone density in AA women on webmd and this paper mentions it too. http://www.ajronline.org/cgi/content/full/178/2/439 You only need to adjust up a little mas and kV. I agree we all are basically the same, the differences are very minor.

Click to expand...

I have always heard from those in the medical field that there are slight differences in all of the races, enough to have to adjust many things such as x-rays and even medicine. I have also been told that it used to be very easy to distinguish race from bones during any kind of investigation such as crimes. However here in the US there is so much mixing of the races that it becomes very hard in many cases and can cause problems. From my observations I figure that more than half of the "AA" people around here have some "white" ancestors. Many are the decendants of the white slave owners and some can confirm that. Also if you notice that at first many of the slaves brought over were from the "Northern" areas of Africa but later the "Southern" residents of Africa were prefered especially in the South as they could stand the heat better. Not only were the skin shades different but also the body structure. Just stating facts here and and not trying to be racist or derogatory.

hogeater f6 said:

So Wounded Knee and Sand Creek were ways to 'vacinate' them? I agree disease was introduced but dont think that was the main reason they went down. We wanted what they had and when they resisted, they were killed.

Click to expand...

Yes I agree, but even before those "incidents", if disease hadn't decimated millions of occupants before the settlers came history might have been different.

I don't feel that this was purposeful "biological" war fare as some of my family ( on the native side) do. I just think it was a misfortune of a healthy isolated people being exposed to diseases Europeans had developed immunities to over generations.

Slavery was not just a white/black issue. The first slave owner in the US was a black man named Antonio/Anthony Johnson. The records are in the census from that time period. His slave was named John Casor and they resided in Northampton, Virginia.

As for Lincoln being a bigot, I'm sure that Frederick Douglass, Henry Highland Garnet, and William Slade would have been a little surprised to hear that.

http://www.rense.com/general63/friend.htm

Gordie said:

Slavery was not just a white/black issue. The first slave owner in the US was a black man named Antonio/Anthony Johnson. The records are in the census from that time period. His slave was named John Casor and they resided in Northampton, Virginia.

As for Lincoln being a bigot, I'm sure that Frederick Douglass, Henry Highland Garnet, and William Slade would have been a little surprised to hear that.

http://www.rense.com/general63/friend.htm

Click to expand...

Thak you for that link. I had read about this before but could not find it again. I had told several people about this saying that the first slave owner in the US was black and they all thought I was crazy. I thought it was further north than Virginia but was just "misremembering". Again, thanks.

sudden valley gunner said:

Yes I agree, but even before those "incidents", if disease hadn't decimated millions of occupants before the settlers came history might have been different.

I don't feel that this was purposeful "biological" war fare as some of my family ( on the native side) do. I just think it was a misfortune of a healthy isolated people being exposed to diseases Europeans had developed immunities to over generations.

Click to expand...

There supposedly were some cases where they at least attempted to transmit diseases by the use of infected blankets but how effective it was is not so clear. As you say it was probably more of just the normal transmission of it to people who did not have any immunities built up from generations of exposure. With all the antibiotics running around today causing super virused it it likely that there will be, and already are, diseases that will cause lots of problems for modern day mankind.

My Great-Grandmother was a member of the Cherokee Nation that escaped the "Trail of tears" by being married to a white man but when she died she was not allowed to be buried in the white cemetary. She had to be buried outside of it and her husband who died later was buried beside her. Ironically probably at least 30% of the people in this community can trace their ancestry to her but very few know it.

PT111 said:

There supposedly were some cases where they at least attempted to transmit diseases by the use of infected blankets but how effective it was is not so clear. As you say it was probably more of just the normal transmission of it to people who did not have any immunities built up from generations of exposure. With all the antibiotics running around today causing super virused it it likely that there will be, and already are, diseases that will cause lots of problems for modern day mankind.

My Great-Grandmother was a member of the Cherokee Nation that escaped the "Trail of tears" by being married to a white man but when she died she was not allowed to be buried in the white cemetary. She had to be buried outside of it and her husband who died later was buried beside her. Ironically probably at least 30% of the people in this community can trace their ancestry to her but very few know it.

Click to expand...

I'm 1/4 Cherokee/Choctaw we might be related!!! But I was raised in/as a Salish tribe, my father isn't on my birth certificate so I am not listed in any of the records.

Yes, theres a pretty good studies on this, There was extensive trade in the Americas, even out to the islands were Columbus landed. Why when pilgrims landed they were able to be handed/inhabit whole villages, because all the inhabitants had already passed away.

I also theorize one reason why Americans look so much better and healthier than Europeans were the mix of native blood infused into our society. The new genetic pool to pull from.

Gordie said:

Slavery was not just a white/black issue. The first slave owner in the US was a black man named Antonio/Anthony Johnson. The records are in the census from that time period. His slave was named John Casor and they resided in Northampton, Virginia.

As for Lincoln being a bigot, I'm sure that Frederick Douglass, Henry Highland Garnet, and William Slade would have been a little surprised to hear that.

http://www.rense.com/general63/friend.htm

Click to expand...

Lincoln was a consummate liar too. He said whatever he thought was necessary to whatever audience he had to further his agenda.

Abraham Lincoln Quote

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.”

sudden valley gunner said:

Lincoln was a consummate liar too. He said whatever he thought was necessary to whatever audience he had to further his agenda.

Abraham Lincoln Quote

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.”

Click to expand...

Can you provide a source for your quote? I would be interested in seeing that.

Copy a unique phrase from the quote into a search tool. You'll get scads of hits that will give the quote in varying levels of context.

Gordie said:

Can you provide a source for your quote? I would be interested in seeing that.

Click to expand...

Ottawa speech and debate 1858.