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: 6
28
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   
What is the difference between the naacp doing this than the KKK draping a white sheet over a statue of MLK so as not to offend any of its members?

Discrimination is against the law, period. If the "father of our country" statue offended anyone's sensibilities, than the steps of the state Capitol was probably a poor choice for your rally.

You cannot plan for a future of equality when you dwell in the past. You gained your equality through reason, you made your case that all people should be equal before the law and to have equal access to all the benefits of our society. You also gained equallity in responsibility in weeding out racism from your own numbers.

That is the only way freedom can be achieved for everyone, to not allow this insidious illness to hide within any of our diverse cultures.




posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by filosophia
 


Hey, trust me. If you get out of hand, they are not going to ban you. If you REALLY get out of hand, they may make you grovel to come back.





This could not be anymore true.
I been down that road a few times, and its a cold, cold trail.

On Topic- NAACP only discredits equal rights, not promoting them by doing stuff like this.
edit on 18-1-2011 by Common Good because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by Advantage
 


See, that is fine, what you are talking about is the propaganda networks.

THAT is why they are failing. We have to make sure that the government no longer attempts to push our tax dollars onto their agenda ever again.

This is why we have to eliminate ALL government funded media. This includes NPR, NEA or any other components of propaganda. This is why the last election was soooo important. If they do not defund the propaganda points, we have to continue our efforts.

Now, there is something that I have contemplated, if the people we elected all of a sudden switch their beliefs about the debt, their may be something our government is keeping from us. That itself is wrong, but understandable. NOT giving them an excuse though.


I truly believe that our tax dollars are funding the agenda. You can not expect those who are complicit in this to ever "wake up" becuase its their lifeblood and I think some even think they are doing the right thing. The propaganda points will never be de-funded I really dont believe. It will have to get a LOT worse for the majority whites and people in general to wake up to it all. It may be too late by then and I really fear it for my kids and grandkids..

Anymore if you say it enough it becomes fact. Kind of like white people are racists and should be called out of they say that this covering of a statue is another example of selective freedoms. It **all** works into the erosion of your freedom. This IS a freedom issue and not a racial on at heart..racial issues are merely a vehicle... dont allow it to be turned into a racial one.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Common Good
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


It just hit you didnt it?


No.



What they did was a slap in the face to ALL Americans.


Not at all. It is not a slap in the face to me at all.

Look, these people got legal permission to hold their rally there. They chose to cover one of the decorations that was there. They have every right. You don't have to like it.

If you are offended (and I take it that you are - as you call this a "slap in the face"), that's really your problem. You don't have the right not to be offended.



Originally posted by debris765nju
What is the difference between the naacp doing this than the KKK draping a white sheet over a statue of MLK so as not to offend any of its members?


Nothing. And I would support their right to do that. If they legally rented or otherwise procured the space, then they should be allowed to decorate it as they see fit.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by debris765nju
What is the difference between the naacp doing this than the KKK draping a white sheet over a statue of MLK so as not to offend any of its members?

Discrimination is against the law, period. If the "father of our country" statue offended anyone's sensibilities, than the steps of the state Capitol was probably a poor choice for your rally.

You cannot plan for a future of equality when you dwell in the past. You gained your equality through reason, you made your case that all people should be equal before the law and to have equal access to all the benefits of our society. You also gained equallity in responsibility in weeding out racism from your own numbers.

That is the only way freedom can be achieved for everyone, to not allow this insidious illness to hide within any of our diverse cultures.


KKK is a bad choice again for this. They have no political clout.

Lets go there.. lets say the dreaded TEA PARTY with the little clout they have compared to the NAACP... wanted to cover the Booker T Washington monument to "protect it" or so it doesnt offend anyone during a rally. Even in my imagination the consequences are too horrible to comprehend.. politically and personally.. for exercising this "freedom". Face it.. youre not as free as you think you are and something as precious as freedom has been given away under the guise of racial tolerance and equality. This "all people of color want is equality" is a huge steaming pile of BS and "people of color" ( not just blacks.. people if color includes us browns when they want to use us too.. ) are apparently too stupid to realize they are being used IMO.

In reality, I doubt the Tea Party would be as childish as to do something as stupid as that for any lame excuse.. but you get what Im saying I hope.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Common Good
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


It just hit you didnt it?


No.



What they did was a slap in the face to ALL Americans.


Not at all. It is not a slap in the face to me at all.

-Go Figure.

Look, these people got legal permission to hold their rally there. They chose to cover one of the decorations that was there.

-Its NOT a "Decoration".

If you are offended (and I take it that you are - as you call this a "slap in the face"), that's really your problem. You don't have the right not to be offended.


-What REAL AMERICAN wouldnt be after such a diisgraceful move? ...Oh yea.. you.




posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Common Good
-What REAL AMERICAN wouldnt be after such a diisgraceful move? ...Oh yea.. you.


So, you have stooped to saying that I'm not a "real American" because I support the rights of those with whom I disagree and I'm not offended that someone put a wall around a piece of metal... Very interesting. This is what this country is coming to, unfortunately. If a person doesn't agree with YOUR view, they aren't really Americans.You should read the Constitution sometime. It's really good.

I'll have you know that I AM a real American. And the beauty of this country is that people of ALL beliefs can live peacefully together. That's the IDEA, anyway. But some of you just can't have people thinking differently than you, can you? If they have an opinion that differs from yours, they're not "real Americans". George Bush would be proud of you!

.
edit on 1/18/2011 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Historical MONUMENT is not a decoration in the same sense as the American Flag is not a decoration, they are memorials to the people who fought and died to guarantee them the freedom the were enjoying.

On another note, FREEDOM cannot be rented, nor can renters surplant those monuments for any reason. If they offend you, you're in the wrong place.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


I didnt say you werent a real american.

Dont twist my words.

But I guess, you can read it how you want.




posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


I'm going to have to disagree on that point, freedom of speech is the ability to speak without interference or censorship. With the professor link (first one) from my previous post,


While reviewing a chapter about identity and the body, Zaruba referred to himself as “a 'n-word' on the corporate plantation.”
. www.thepoliticalcesspool.org...

He did not call a student, coworker, random person the term, he used it in reference to himself and was terminated. To me this is definite interference/censorship.

Now, I believe this case is in line with Cohen v California in which the Supreme Ct decided that the use of offensive words and phrases are protected so long as they convey a political message.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Common Good
-What REAL AMERICAN wouldnt be after such a diisgraceful move? ...Oh yea.. you.


So, you have stooped to saying that I'm not a "real American" because I support the rights of those with whom I disagree and I'm not offended that someone put a wall around a piece of metal... Very interesting. This is what this country is coming to, unfortunately. If a person doesn't agree with YOUR view, they aren't really Americans.You should read the Constitution sometime. It's really good.

I'll have you know that I AM a real American. And the beauty of this country is that people of ALL beliefs can live peacefully together. That's the IDEA, anyway. But some of you just can't have people thinking differently than you, can you? If they have an opinion that differs from yours, they're not "real Americans". George Bush would be proud of you!

.
edit on 1/18/2011 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)


You know what? Besides the "decoration" part.. hehe... I think that you and I are on the complete same page with the whole freedom thing. Across the board freedoms.. and not selective allowances. I guess the question is how to get there and where to start.
My idea I guess because my own experiences dictate it, is to tackle this racism thing. Kind of a ground floor up approach. It IS an attack on the freedoms we all should be sharing equally and Its insidious how the racist label is slammed on anyone who wants *full* equality and freedom. The racist junk is a VERY clever cover for the erosion of freedoms at a very basic level. IMO it just wont wash to allow one to cover decorations and not the other.. both without consequences. The consequences will be showered on those practicing their freedom of assembly and etc who are not of the approved shade of skin from the federal government.. and this just wont do.

When a black man gets called a 'n-word' by a white man and hits a white man.. and the white man hits back : white man charged with a hate crime.He was 19 years old and was last week ( I believe it was last week) sentenced to prison. We have that currently in my local paper and people are livid. Not doing anything about it but livid on the newspaper comment section. WHich is now modded and any post has to be approved before letting it be read by the public. When a black man calls a white man a cracker and he hits him .. the white guy hits back. white guy is charged with assault because the white guy took it to a physical assault rather than walking away from the word cracker. Thats not in our paper .. thats in a chicago paper. Both in Illinois, both under the same laws. Why the discrepancy? Freedom erosion and uneven application of the law due to racial favoritism and PC gone mad. Does freedom include freedom to use silly words? If so, you arent free any more. Current statutes in every state allows FEDERAL prosecution of hate crimes. OUR federal Govt is not interested in freedom or equal application of federal laws.

Like I said, when the white man can enjoy freedom the way we browns and the blacks do.. then we can talk about the US being a "freedom" minded country and that freedom is equal for all.

IMO the people who really need protection federally from hate crimes are homosexuals.. but thats just my opinion and another thread entirely . Some of the information Ive read on gay targeted hate crimes are completely devilish and may be better served discussed on RATS.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by debris765nju
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


On another note, FREEDOM cannot be rented, nor can renters surplant those monuments for any reason.


What does "surplant" mean?



If they offend you, you're in the wrong place.


By the same token, if their actions offend you, stop reading about it. No one is forcing any of you to read about it.

I find it extremely interesting to see that you guys appear to be just fine if the people at this meeting are offended, but if YOU are offended, someone has to change their behavior.

You guys are doing EXACTLY the same thing that these people are doing by covering the statue. They wanted to remove something THEY saw as offensive (if that's the reason) from their site. And you guys are all up in arms because you're offended by their actions.

The truth is, they CAN be offended and they CAN cover the statue and you CAN be offended by them covering it and you CAN complain about it or you CAN stop reading and commenting about it. That's AMERICA!!!! So much FREEDOM! Yay!


Originally posted by searching4truth
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


I'm going to have to disagree on that point, freedom of speech is the ability to speak without interference or censorship.


No it isn't! Not unless you get your information from Sarah Palin. Freedom of Speech is the ability to speak without the GOVERNMENT making laws to infringe upon it.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Too many people don't understand Freedom of Speech. It does not guarantee that there will be no consequences or censorship. Just that Congress can't make laws abridging your speech.



He did not call a student, coworker, random person the term, he used it in reference to himself and was terminated. To me this is definite interference/censorship.


But did Congress make a law preventing him from using that word? No. Free Speech was NOT violated.


Originally posted by Advantage
You know what? Besides the "decoration" part.. hehe... I think that you and I are on the complete same page with the whole freedom thing.


I think we are, too. I used the term "decoration" to take the emotional charge out of it, but it didn't work very well. The fact is, it doesn't matter WHY they covered the statue. It's their right. It doesn't matter if it's a statue of George Washington or a trash can in the middle of the aisle, if they want to build a wall around it, they can. And if people here are offended, that's too bad. When they rent the place, they can put up 50 Washington statues and cover up the whatever they want and 'decorate' the place however they see fit.


I'm shutting down now. Great discussion!

.
edit on 1/18/2011 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 06:16 PM
link   
Well, if I had been there, I would have been offended by them covering him up. I wonder how many people felt the same way that I would have.

Also, why can't my state ever be in the news for something awesome like the highest SAT average in the country or the safest highways or something? Why is it that people here are always doing stupid stuff like covering up a statue of George Washington or putting up a homeless guy as the Democratic candidate?
edit on 18-1-2011 by gnosticquasar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   
I wouldn't worry about it. What can we do about it? Instead of starting fights? People have different views of George Washington just like someone will have different views on Mao Zedong or Mahatma Gandhi.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Advantage
The KKK are a very small group of frustrated white guys with a linen fetish.


Hah! I bet they use pure Egyptian cotton too!


Thanks for the laugh,
FK



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


I for one am not offended by what they did. I just find it very childish and belligerant. No one does something like that unless they are deliberately trying to get a negative reaction out of the populace. A statue of George Washington didn't offend anyone. It was covered to incite arguments, and it worked.

They could have dismantled the statue and I wouldn't have been offended. George Washington means nothing to me. He is just a former president and happens to be a Revolutionary War hero and general. Big deal. I never met or cared for the man. For them to be offended by the statue is silly and I'm not buying it for one second.

Yes I agree they are completely within their rights to do this, but I don't think it was a good idea. Poking and prodding to incite emotional responses out of people is never a good idea. I would think that on MLK day, they'd have a better understanding of this concept. Aren't they always preaching tolerance? Tolerate the statue. It beats making everyone angry with you. But hey, who am I but a guy with an opinion

edit on 18-1-2011 by spinalremain because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Well, I'm sure he will sue and we will have another court case to reference. Because as in the case I cited Congress did not make a law that infringed upon Cohen, he wore a jacket that said "F... the Draft" and was arrested, which was thrown out because we do have the right to speak and express ourselves.

I am in no way saying that the person does not have responsibility in what they say, they absolutely do. But he did not use the term even in reference to someone else he used a word to describe himself. Would he have been terminated if he were black? I doubt it. Actually, out of the class of multicultural students, only one complained, no one else had a problem.

Also as a side note, I noticed the external text I posted was censored, not that I'm complaining there are t&c here, but it looks automatic and interesting.

edit to add: I'm using the Supreme Courts interpretation of the first amendment, not Palins

edit on 18-1-2011 by searching4truth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by spinalremain
I would think that on MLK day, they'd have a better understanding of this concept. Aren't they always preaching tolerance?
edit on 18-1-2011 by spinalremain because: (no reason given)




#1 they have NO idea what MLK was all about or dont care... he is justa figurehead they can use to manipulate people and evoke emotional responses. MLK was an incredible visionary IMO. Way before his time. he was a human, a fallable one who made mistakes.. it definitely doesnt take away from what he wanted so desperately to occur and what he spent his life trying to convey. He wanted the same thing I want to see occur in my lifetime. Unfortunately I am old and I am losing hope that it will.

#2 The definition of tolerance by the NAACP: Tolerance is YOU tolerating whatever the NAACP does under whatever guise it chooses and dont dare try to do it yourself ( exercise the same freedoms) or say one word against it or YOU will be branded a racist and unAmerican.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Advantage
 


To your first point:

I always have found it incredibly ironic that to honor a man who so highly valued education (the same could be said for presidents day) that he is honored by an extra day off school to play playstation and run wild.

There is one, and only one school in Chicago that is open on MLK and it is predominately a black private school. The president of the school, grew up in Alabama and said that he had met MLK on a few occasions and that because MLK was fighting for education among other things, he has always held class on MLK day, granted the topic of the day is MLK and civil rights. But at least I wasn't the only one to see the irony.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by searching4truth
reply to post by Advantage
 


To your first point:

I always have found it incredibly ironic that to honor a man who so highly valued education (the same could be said for presidents day) that he is honored by an extra day off school to play playstation and run wild.

There is one, and only one school in Chicago that is open on MLK and it is predominately a black private school. The president of the school, grew up in Alabama and said that he had met MLK on a few occasions and that because MLK was fighting for education among other things, he has always held class on MLK day, granted the topic of the day is MLK and civil rights. But at least I wasn't the only one to see the irony.


Good on him! I dont see him getting much in the press.. do you?
What a wonderful way to honor a man who promoted education for black youth! THATS honor... in contrast to this "rally" nonsense.

Ive met some wonderful and solid black folks who COULD be true leaders in the black community. I mean people who really grasp these things. Why arent they? Their own community refuses to listen to reason. Our police chief who is a great friend of ours is a black guy. We have a huge gang and youth ciolence problem in our area that our mayor refuses to acknowledge... as in the moron said we dont have a gang problem when we had a 15 yr old killed in a drive by from a gang the day before. ANyway, the Chief gives a speech and meet and greet at a meeting we had and centered on black on black crime in our area. Guess who was branded the latest Uncle Tom and 'n-word' in town???
Here's a great guy WANTING to make a difference. He was open about being a gang member in his youth in Chicago.. he was reaching out desperately. Its truly heartbreaking and shameful. The problems are VERY deep.. here and all over the country.

BTW..., sorry for writing like a 3rd grader.. Im trying to do several things at once and Im getting happy with run ons and repeated "and"s.

edit on 18-1-2011 by Advantage because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
28
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join