Rape Colored Skin

[miketx]

You people need to tear this statue down because it goes against your entire existence.

 

[Redcurtain]

This is a very powerful essay, and by a direct descendant of Edmond Pettis. Her story adds to history rather than erasing it.

Help me understand how removing a monument adds to history. Her perspective surely does and it should be included when history is taught. But I am not understanding how making a confederate general a non entity adds to history.

Again, the monuments are lies – symbols of racism, fear, and hate.

The monuments’ historical significance is that of relics of a hateful, brutal past – their appropriate place is in museums and other private venues that display such manifestations of evil, not public lands.

 

[daveman]

“Among the apologists for the Southern cause and for its monuments, there are those who dismiss the hardships of the past. They imagine a world of benevolent masters, and speak with misty eyes of gentility and honor and the land. They deny plantation rape, or explain it away, or question the degree of frequency with which it occurred.” ibid

Many of those apologists are here among USMB’s reprehensible right.

I don't have any obligation to feel guilty for something I didn't do, but you feel free if you want to, white liberal.

 

[daveman]

It's a good op ed. I like other perspectives.

I'm not sure her feelings warrant pulling down statues; she is not alone living in the South. It is also inhabited by a lot of people who have an entirely different perspective on those monuments, those men. I can understand why she despises those statues and I am sure no one is insisting she honor them in any way. I'm sorry she hates her own blood; I'm sorry she has to.

If the community where she lives agrees with her, fine, vote to remove the statue. Most of the folks pulling down these statues and calling for the renaming and all this other business are in no way intimately connected with the South. It's a political judgment fest and yeah, a move to "airbrush history," as much as she says it's not.

I'm more or less on the movement's side, but I'm not at all convinced on this piece.

The problem is that those perspectives are predicated on lies, ignorance, and myths.

For example, such monuments were created during the 1890s and early 20th Century not to ‘honor’ those who fought in the Civil War, but to intimidate blacks, justify Jim Crow, black codes, and segregation.

Indeed, the monuments commemorate those who engaged in treason, fought to preserve slavery, and committed the most heinous of war crimes.

Consequently, as a matter of sound, responsible governance, ‘confederate’ statues on public land should be removed.

Soooo...Democrats are angry about statues of Democrats erected by Democrats to further oppression of blacks by Democrats.

 

[OldLady]

This is a very powerful essay, and by a direct descendant of Edmond Pettis. Her story adds to history rather than erasing it.

Help me understand how removing a monument adds to history. Her perspective surely does and it should be included when history is taught. But I am not understanding how making a confederate general a non entity adds to history.

I can sort of understand Ms. William's anger in having to see a statue.monument to the man the raped her great-great grandmother.

Me, too. But when I saw Beyonce doing her gyrations in that state of undress at the Super Bowl for the first time, I was really angry too, because my granddaughter was 8 years old and I was furious that mainstream family tv would put on such a role model for young girls.

Does that mean Beyonce should have been banned? It is her personal perspective, and I do respect it. I just don't know that her opinion trumps all others' opinions.

 

[JoeMoma]

I just don't know that her opinion trumps all others' opinions.

I don't believe her opinion should trump all other opinions.

By the way, Beyonce is light skinned.......was her great-great grandma rapped also?

 

[LoneLaugher]

It's a good op ed. I like other perspectives.

I'm not sure her feelings warrant pulling down statues; she is not alone living in the South. It is also inhabited by a lot of people who have an entirely different perspective on those monuments, those men. I can understand why she despises those statues and I am sure no one is insisting she honor them in any way. I'm sorry she hates her own blood; I'm sorry she has to.

If the community where she lives agrees with her, fine, vote to remove the statue. Most of the folks pulling down these statues and calling for the renaming and all this other business are in no way intimately connected with the South. It's a political judgment fest and yeah, a move to "airbrush history," as much as she says it's not.

I'm more or less on the movement's side, but I'm not at all convinced on this piece.

The problem is that those perspectives are predicated on lies, ignorance, and myths.

For example, such monuments were created during the 1890s and early 20th Century not to ‘honor’ those who fought in the Civil War, but to intimidate blacks, justify Jim Crow, black codes, and segregation.

Indeed, the monuments commemorate those who engaged in treason, fought to preserve slavery, and committed the most heinous of war crimes.

Consequently, as a matter of sound, responsible governance, ‘confederate’ statues on public land should be removed.

Soooo...Democrats are angry about statues of Democrats erected by Democrats to further oppression of blacks by Democrats.

Yes. Exactly.

Moron.

 

[daveman]

It's a good op ed. I like other perspectives.

I'm not sure her feelings warrant pulling down statues; she is not alone living in the South. It is also inhabited by a lot of people who have an entirely different perspective on those monuments, those men. I can understand why she despises those statues and I am sure no one is insisting she honor them in any way. I'm sorry she hates her own blood; I'm sorry she has to.

If the community where she lives agrees with her, fine, vote to remove the statue. Most of the folks pulling down these statues and calling for the renaming and all this other business are in no way intimately connected with the South. It's a political judgment fest and yeah, a move to "airbrush history," as much as she says it's not.

I'm more or less on the movement's side, but I'm not at all convinced on this piece.

The problem is that those perspectives are predicated on lies, ignorance, and myths.

For example, such monuments were created during the 1890s and early 20th Century not to ‘honor’ those who fought in the Civil War, but to intimidate blacks, justify Jim Crow, black codes, and segregation.

Indeed, the monuments commemorate those who engaged in treason, fought to preserve slavery, and committed the most heinous of war crimes.

Consequently, as a matter of sound, responsible governance, ‘confederate’ statues on public land should be removed.

Soooo...Democrats are angry about statues of Democrats erected by Democrats to further oppression of blacks by Democrats.

Yes. Exactly.

Moron.

 

[OldLady]

It's a good op ed. I like other perspectives.

I'm not sure her feelings warrant pulling down statues; she is not alone living in the South. It is also inhabited by a lot of people who have an entirely different perspective on those monuments, those men. I can understand why she despises those statues and I am sure no one is insisting she honor them in any way. I'm sorry she hates her own blood; I'm sorry she has to.

If the community where she lives agrees with her, fine, vote to remove the statue. Most of the folks pulling down these statues and calling for the renaming and all this other business are in no way intimately connected with the South. It's a political judgment fest and yeah, a move to "airbrush history," as much as she says it's not.

I'm more or less on the movement's side, but I'm not at all convinced on this piece.

The problem is that those perspectives are predicated on lies, ignorance, and myths.

For example, such monuments were created during the 1890s and early 20th Century not to ‘honor’ those who fought in the Civil War, but to intimidate blacks, justify Jim Crow, black codes, and segregation.

Indeed, the monuments commemorate those who engaged in treason, fought to preserve slavery, and committed the most heinous of war crimes.

Consequently, as a matter of sound, responsible governance, ‘confederate’ statues on public land should be removed.

That is a northerner's perspective, and a very harsh one, at that. I have heard that argument before, that those statues were to intimidate blacks. I am not convinced of that, either.

Oh, who knows. I'm just a northern Yankee who has pride in her ancestors and where she's from, and I know how I would feel if someone wanted to tear down my ancestor's statue (not that any have a statue) or the monuments to the Civil War generals and the conductors on the Underground Railroad if roles were reversed and the South were in ascendancy and decided to reopen the Civil War during this election season for some reason. That and a healthy appreciation of history are what put me where I'm at. I do keep thinking it over, though.

 

[OldLady]

This is a very powerful essay, and by a direct descendant of Edmond Pettis. Her story adds to history rather than erasing it.

Help me understand how removing a monument adds to history. Her perspective surely does and it should be included when history is taught. But I am not understanding how making a confederate general a non entity adds to history.

Again, the monuments are lies – symbols of racism, fear, and hate.

The monuments’ historical significance is that of relics of a hateful, brutal past – their appropriate place is in museums and other private venues that display such manifestations of evil, not public lands.

View attachment 357884

FACT CHECK: 9 'Facts' About Slavery They Don't Want You to Know

A widely circulated list of historical "facts" about slavery dwells on the participation of non-whites as owners and traders of slaves in America.

www.snopes.com

 

[OldLady]

It's a good op ed. I like other perspectives.

I'm not sure her feelings warrant pulling down statues; she is not alone living in the South. It is also inhabited by a lot of people who have an entirely different perspective on those monuments, those men. I can understand why she despises those statues and I am sure no one is insisting she honor them in any way. I'm sorry she hates her own blood; I'm sorry she has to.

If the community where she lives agrees with her, fine, vote to remove the statue. Most of the folks pulling down these statues and calling for the renaming and all this other business are in no way intimately connected with the South. It's a political judgment fest and yeah, a move to "airbrush history," as much as she says it's not.

I'm more or less on the movement's side, but I'm not at all convinced on this piece.

The problem is that those perspectives are predicated on lies, ignorance, and myths.

For example, such monuments were created during the 1890s and early 20th Century not to ‘honor’ those who fought in the Civil War, but to intimidate blacks, justify Jim Crow, black codes, and segregation.

Indeed, the monuments commemorate those who engaged in treason, fought to preserve slavery, and committed the most heinous of war crimes.

Consequently, as a matter of sound, responsible governance, ‘confederate’ statues on public land should be removed.

Soooo...Democrats are angry about statues of Democrats erected by Democrats to further oppression of blacks by Democrats.

Yes. Exactly.

Moron.

View attachment 357891

Enough on Democrats. Stick to the topic, which is interesting enough.

 

[OldLady]

I just don't know that her opinion trumps all others' opinions.

I don't believe her opinion should trump all other opinions.

By the way, Beyonce is light skinned.......was her great-great grandma rapped also?

I don't know. Since interracial marriage wasn't a "thing" until recently, probably, yeah.

 

[Redcurtain]

This is a very powerful essay, and by a direct descendant of Edmond Pettis. Her story adds to history rather than erasing it.

Help me understand how removing a monument adds to history. Her perspective surely does and it should be included when history is taught. But I am not understanding how making a confederate general a non entity adds to history.

Again, the monuments are lies – symbols of racism, fear, and hate.

The monuments’ historical significance is that of relics of a hateful, brutal past – their appropriate place is in museums and other private venues that display such manifestations of evil, not public lands.

View attachment 357884

View attachment 357903

FACT CHECK: 9 'Facts' About Slavery They Don't Want You to Know

A widely circulated list of historical "facts" about slavery dwells on the participation of non-whites as owners and traders of slaves in America.

www.snopes.com

Snopes pretty much said it was all true lol haha

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

View attachment 357880


You people need to tear this statue down because it goes against your entire existence.

Oh theyll get to it sooner or later

 

[JoeMoma]

I just don't know that her opinion trumps all others' opinions.

I don't believe her opinion should trump all other opinions.

By the way, Beyonce is light skinned.......was her great-great grandma rapped also?

I don't know. Since interracial marriage wasn't a "thing" until recently, probably, yeah.

Ms. Williams assumes that all the white/black sexual encounters in her family tree were rape. She may very well be correct, but there is no way to know for sure that some cases were not consensual.

 

[OldLady]

This is a very powerful essay, and by a direct descendant of Edmond Pettis. Her story adds to history rather than erasing it.

Help me understand how removing a monument adds to history. Her perspective surely does and it should be included when history is taught. But I am not understanding how making a confederate general a non entity adds to history.

Again, the monuments are lies – symbols of racism, fear, and hate.

The monuments’ historical significance is that of relics of a hateful, brutal past – their appropriate place is in museums and other private venues that display such manifestations of evil, not public lands.

View attachment 357884

View attachment 357903

FACT CHECK: 9 'Facts' About Slavery They Don't Want You to Know

A widely circulated list of historical "facts" about slavery dwells on the participation of non-whites as owners and traders of slaves in America.

www.snopes.com

Snopes pretty much said it was all true lol haha

Some of it. That's why you can rely on Snopes. They tell the truth. Some of those "facts" are misleading by being taken out of context and some are not true. Just thought the poster would like to know what he's spreading around.

 

[daveman]

It's a good op ed. I like other perspectives.

I'm not sure her feelings warrant pulling down statues; she is not alone living in the South. It is also inhabited by a lot of people who have an entirely different perspective on those monuments, those men. I can understand why she despises those statues and I am sure no one is insisting she honor them in any way. I'm sorry she hates her own blood; I'm sorry she has to.

If the community where she lives agrees with her, fine, vote to remove the statue. Most of the folks pulling down these statues and calling for the renaming and all this other business are in no way intimately connected with the South. It's a political judgment fest and yeah, a move to "airbrush history," as much as she says it's not.

I'm more or less on the movement's side, but I'm not at all convinced on this piece.

The problem is that those perspectives are predicated on lies, ignorance, and myths.

For example, such monuments were created during the 1890s and early 20th Century not to ‘honor’ those who fought in the Civil War, but to intimidate blacks, justify Jim Crow, black codes, and segregation.

Indeed, the monuments commemorate those who engaged in treason, fought to preserve slavery, and committed the most heinous of war crimes.

Consequently, as a matter of sound, responsible governance, ‘confederate’ statues on public land should be removed.

Soooo...Democrats are angry about statues of Democrats erected by Democrats to further oppression of blacks by Democrats.

Yes. Exactly.

Moron.

View attachment 357891

Enough on Democrats. Stick to the topic, which is interesting enough.

When you talk about slavery, you're talking about Democrats.

 

[Redcurtain]

This is a very powerful essay, and by a direct descendant of Edmond Pettis. Her story adds to history rather than erasing it.

Help me understand how removing a monument adds to history. Her perspective surely does and it should be included when history is taught. But I am not understanding how making a confederate general a non entity adds to history.

Again, the monuments are lies – symbols of racism, fear, and hate.

The monuments’ historical significance is that of relics of a hateful, brutal past – their appropriate place is in museums and other private venues that display such manifestations of evil, not public lands.

View attachment 357884

View attachment 357903

FACT CHECK: 9 'Facts' About Slavery They Don't Want You to Know

A widely circulated list of historical "facts" about slavery dwells on the participation of non-whites as owners and traders of slaves in America.

www.snopes.com

Snopes pretty much said it was all true lol haha

Some of it. That's why you can rely on Snopes. They tell the truth. Some of those "facts" are misleading by being taken out of context and some are not true. Just thought the poster would like to know what he's spreading around.

They were all true except they argued about how many slaves Ellison bought .. Ellison was a know breeder.. something many white slave owners were against .. take a hike loser

 

[Redcurtain]

It's a good op ed. I like other perspectives.

I'm not sure her feelings warrant pulling down statues; she is not alone living in the South. It is also inhabited by a lot of people who have an entirely different perspective on those monuments, those men. I can understand why she despises those statues and I am sure no one is insisting she honor them in any way. I'm sorry she hates her own blood; I'm sorry she has to.

If the community where she lives agrees with her, fine, vote to remove the statue. Most of the folks pulling down these statues and calling for the renaming and all this other business are in no way intimately connected with the South. It's a political judgment fest and yeah, a move to "airbrush history," as much as she says it's not.

I'm more or less on the movement's side, but I'm not at all convinced on this piece.

The problem is that those perspectives are predicated on lies, ignorance, and myths.

For example, such monuments were created during the 1890s and early 20th Century not to ‘honor’ those who fought in the Civil War, but to intimidate blacks, justify Jim Crow, black codes, and segregation.

Indeed, the monuments commemorate those who engaged in treason, fought to preserve slavery, and committed the most heinous of war crimes.

Consequently, as a matter of sound, responsible governance, ‘confederate’ statues on public land should be removed.

Soooo...Democrats are angry about statues of Democrats erected by Democrats to further oppression of blacks by Democrats.

Yes. Exactly.

Moron.

View attachment 357891

Enough on Democrats. Stick to the topic, which is interesting enough.

When you talk about slavery, you're talking about Democrats.

Why won’t democrats change the party name??

 

[daveman]

It's a good op ed. I like other perspectives.

I'm not sure her feelings warrant pulling down statues; she is not alone living in the South. It is also inhabited by a lot of people who have an entirely different perspective on those monuments, those men. I can understand why she despises those statues and I am sure no one is insisting she honor them in any way. I'm sorry she hates her own blood; I'm sorry she has to.

If the community where she lives agrees with her, fine, vote to remove the statue. Most of the folks pulling down these statues and calling for the renaming and all this other business are in no way intimately connected with the South. It's a political judgment fest and yeah, a move to "airbrush history," as much as she says it's not.

I'm more or less on the movement's side, but I'm not at all convinced on this piece.

The problem is that those perspectives are predicated on lies, ignorance, and myths.

For example, such monuments were created during the 1890s and early 20th Century not to ‘honor’ those who fought in the Civil War, but to intimidate blacks, justify Jim Crow, black codes, and segregation.

Indeed, the monuments commemorate those who engaged in treason, fought to preserve slavery, and committed the most heinous of war crimes.

Consequently, as a matter of sound, responsible governance, ‘confederate’ statues on public land should be removed.

Soooo...Democrats are angry about statues of Democrats erected by Democrats to further oppression of blacks by Democrats.

Yes. Exactly.

Moron.

View attachment 357891

Enough on Democrats. Stick to the topic, which is interesting enough.

When you talk about slavery, you're talking about Democrats.

Why won’t democrats change the party name??

Because they're proud of their racist history.