It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

South Carolina NAACP rally covers statue of George Washington to not offend anybody

page: 10
28
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 02:28 PM
link   
I just had to share this. I remember reading this several years ago, and it truly opened my eyes up to a problem within our society. This is from a comic strip called Bloom County by Berke Breathed (a true genius). Enjoy...

From a "Bloom County" comic strip by Berke Breathed, © 1989 by the Washington Post Company. The characters are Steve Dallas and his parents.

Mom: That's the most adorable little colored girl playing outside.
Steve: "Colored"? You're saying "colored people" in 1988? You know better, Ma.
Mom: Then why the "National Association for Colored People? I don't think Negroes mind at all.
Steve: Don't say "Negroes," Ma! You can't say "Negroes"!
Mom: Can I say "United Negro College Fund"?
Steve: You are baiting me, Ma!
Dad: That's it. We're leaving.
Mom: Stay put, Reginald. "Mister Socially Sensitive"isn't finished shaming his parents into enlightenment.
Steve: Everybody just calm down. Let's agree to use the the New-Age term "People of Color."
Mom: People of Color.
Steve: People of Color.
Mom: Colored people.
Steve: NO!!
Dad: We're leaving.

Peace...




posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 02:32 PM
link   
Negroe is a correct term, if Caucasion is used. If African American is used then European American needs to be used. And we need to stop(black people esp) for using the racist and outdated term colored, or "of color", because it's another effort at denigrating whites and claiming they don't have a color, yet white is the blending of all colors and black is the absence of color. So, colored people would be whites, while blacks would be people of no color in a correct sense.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by HoldTheBeans
 


I just think that is ridiculous to cover up a statue with such historical significance. I believe it is silly and child-like.

They need to grow up...



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by tom502
Negroe is a correct term, if Caucasion is used. If African American is used then European American needs to be used. And we need to stop(black people esp) for using the racist and outdated term colored, or "of color", because it's another effort at denigrating whites and claiming they don't have a color, yet white is the blending of all colors and black is the absence of color. So, colored people would be whites, while blacks would be people of no color in a correct sense.


While we are on the subject, here's something to think about: most white people aren't even "Caucasian". The Caucasians are a specific ethnicity who live in the Caucuses region, a mountain range in Europe. If you are not specifically from there, you are not a "Caucasian". Just like how many black ethnicities aren't from Africa. I like to just stick with black and white since many of us have trouble identifying with any ethnicity at all because many of us are of mixed heritage. I'm white but I'm not a Caucasian. I have many black friends but not ONE of them are from Africa. Etcetera, etc.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by mblahnikluver
reply to post by HoldTheBeans
 


OFFENDED!!!

I can't stand the NAACP, they are the biggest group of hypocrites out there. If someone covered up a statue of MLK as to not offend someone the NAACP would be the first to file multiple lawsuits for various race violations they love to just make up.



I second this...

Even their name is racist. CP = Colored People

But wait, aren't we supposed to be looking past the color of ones skin? Is white no longer a color?

Even my "colored" friends find the NAACP obnoxious.




posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by tom502
Negroe is a correct term, if Caucasion is used. If African American is used then European American needs to be used. And we need to stop(black people esp) for using the racist and outdated term colored, or "of color", because it's another effort at denigrating whites and claiming they don't have a color, yet white is the blending of all colors and black is the absence of color. So, colored people would be whites, while blacks would be people of no color in a correct sense.


nice try there. you will have to catch me on a very bad day or get up much wee in the a.m.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cuervo

Originally posted by tom502
Negroe is a correct term, if Caucasion is used. If African American is used then European American needs to be used. And we need to stop(black people esp) for using the racist and outdated term colored, or "of color", because it's another effort at denigrating whites and claiming they don't have a color, yet white is the blending of all colors and black is the absence of color. So, colored people would be whites, while blacks would be people of no color in a correct sense.


While we are on the subject, here's something to think about: most white people aren't even "Caucasian". The Caucasians are a specific ethnicity who live in the Caucuses region, a mountain range in Europe. If you are not specifically from there, you are not a "Caucasian". Just like how many black ethnicities aren't from Africa. I like to just stick with black and white since many of us have trouble identifying with any ethnicity at all because many of us are of mixed heritage. I'm white but I'm not a Caucasian. I have many black friends but not ONE of them are from Africa. Etcetera, etc.


Good point there. Its like the word niger comes from the part of africa known as Niger (nigh-ger) but we know that all black are not form that country in africa.
edit on 19-1-2011 by Logarock because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   
This suck's like so many other things.
Washington was one of the ones going to get rid of his slaves , I don't know if he did, offend my arse.
Because I'm a mad Japer if I was there i would want to paint a big black dick on George and then accidently knock over the box, then run real fast till they shot me.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Gorman91
Yes it was. It was covered over and altered so as to not bee seen.


The statue itself was not altered, hon. A barrier was placed in front of it. The statue remains intact and unaltered. The VIEW was altered, but the statue is just as it's always been.



No I challenge somebody to go ahead and explain HOW it could be offensive.


It wasn't offensive. That has already been explained. The BLOGGER that originally reported this lame lie ASSUMED that the statue had been covered because it was somehow offensive and got your panties all in a big old knot.


We even honor the Native Americans before us in statues.


Even Native Americans??? Wow! We are pretty great, huh?
To stoop so low as to honor Native Americans. /sarcasm


To cover it is to alter it, and that is against the law.


To cover it is not against the law and it was not altered. So they're cool.

Seems covering this particular statue to use the covering as a backdrop is done commonly. Even by real, white Americans.

Here's a picture of the statehouse with the statue:

Picture

Here's the NAACP rally in 2008 with the statue covered and a graphic on it.



Picture Source

And what's this? A bunch of white people and cops standing on the steps of the State House and what's that in front of the Washington statue? A backdrop with a graphic on it! Don't you just hate white people and cops?




Picture Source

So, it's NOT a racial thing, it's NOT out of disrespect, it's NOT for any nefarious reason that you all dreamed up. Be offended if you choose, though. I'd expect nothing less.
.

edit on 1/19/2011 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)


Let me repost this. Seems a few people overlooked it.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   
Stupid very stupid , but of course what can we expect from the NAACP. They also used to stand for something great in this country. I wonder what MLK would say to how they are acting.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by tom502
 


Why don't we get a little more realistic or fancy with the terms. White and black are shades. So white people can be called unshaded, and black people can be called shaded. Or for the fancy way, white people can be called alabaster and black people can be called obsidian.

So it becomes alabaster or obsidian, and people of shade, and unshaded people.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Throwback
 


I too think a little too much is played into this. G.W. is right smack dab in the focal point of all of that and I believe that's why he is covered up.
edit on 19-1-2011 by kimish because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by robinmorningstar
You know what it looks like to me, because the statue is actually at the back of the gathering (if you look at the chairs they're all facing away from Washington) he looks like a person (kinda like a child) trying to see what's going on by peeking over something that's in front of him. As if George Washington also wants to see liberty in action.

This is a very poignant photo!


Not quite.... It's on the stage right behind the podium. Those chairs nearest the camera are the on-stage chairs which are facing the audience. The statue is facing the audience. Take a look at the chairs which are further away (and more plentiful).



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 08:17 PM
link   
I think most would agree slavery was wrong. My relatives( I am white) came over in the 1600s as Indentured Servants, meaning they had to work off their costs of being sent to this country for years and years after they were allowed freedoms. Every Race or country/religion has had some sort of persecution sometime in history, time for blacks to get over it, My familty had to!!

Also, If I were black and in this country today vs being in Africa I would be grateful for being in this country.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 08:21 PM
link   
Are serious!? What a bunch of nuts! I mean hey, I'm never usually this crude at ATS about such a silly issue. "Yup. . . just as long as we cover it up. . .it don't mean nothin'!" What's weird is that in SC, they cover a statue so that it may not offend anyone, but in Kentucky. . .



As I stated, I know this was erected in a different time, with different mindsets, but aren't we supposed to be moving away from thos mindsets today? Abandoning the old, ignorance and opening our minds to the concepts of unity of humanity? No, wait, that was a movie. . .

edit on 19-1-2011 by Divine Strake because: The gas is too damn high!



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
Just to point out, in this era of media bias, maybe the only source to a story will be a blog. We all here distrust the media to one extent or another. Yet clamour for media approved sound bites when a story occurs.

Folks. WE ARE the new media.

Just throwing that out there.


You're absolutely right, beezzer. Sometimes the only person with a camera and any interest in it is a blogger. What are we supposed to do, call it bogus?

I mean, how many 'mlk rally's' do you think were held on Monday....? I'd say twelve zillion, or anyplace two or more people were loitering around a corner...



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 



If you guys are correct and they did this so as not to offend, they didn't do it for the whole country. They did it for those in attendance at the rally. So, it doesn't really matter what the country thinks.


They did it for themselves, for their own selfish selves. They didn't run around thinking "Oh dear, given his history as a slaveowner, I think this statue of Our Nation's Father and it's First President, might somehow offend the delicate sensitivities of our erudite audience. Let's prevent that by constructing a box around it!"

No, it was probably more like "Yo - Jorge, bust a move! Get outta here, you rassist fool! You just lucky there be a crowd here, else I wouldn't mess with no box!"



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by HoldTheBeans
 


I got pushed out of shape by this because I spent a lot of time studying George Washington, having learned a few things about him through my ability to travel through time and find myself upclose and personal to significant historical figures. However, after giving it some thought I realized how really poor the members of the NAACP are when they cannot even devise a suitable background to hold a rally in honor of their own celebrated hero. A creative genius who can turn busstops into sales pitches for commercial companies could have redesigned the entire staging area suitable for the occasion. See Bored Panda for creative ideas.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 11:04 PM
link   
I think the people behind the scenes just wanted to protect the statue in-case of another LA riot scenario.
edit on 19-1-2011 by blangger because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 01:54 AM
link   

PEOPLE!



This was done on PURPOSE!

Just as the covering of religious symbolism when Obama went to Notre Dame.

Divide and CONQUER.

Remember that. We are being divided to implement the final solution.

Get it together folks. We are sovereign individuals endowed by our creator (or just inalienable for you folks that do not believe) with inalienable rights!

Remember!




top topics



 
28
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join