Controversy of Cadet Group Photo -- Reactions from West Pointers?

[scoutpilot]

...And slavery existed in MANY other countries other than "in the colonies and in the US."
IF they put their fists up for "black lives matter," IT'S WRONG... and the PC movement makes me want to puke--just my $.02

Translation: "The PC movement brings us face to face with how much other people demand to be treated like human beings of value, and I don't like dealing with that."

 

[LineInTheSand]

And?

You don't seem to be advocating for a change to the name "Washington" state.

You don't seem to be disavowing the US Army, an organization that fought to establish the slave owning country of the United States.


So, where exactly do YOU draw the line?

Should Coasties stop talking about the USCGC Taney in Pearl Harbor? A cutter named after Chief Justice Taney... Who had an important decision in the Dred Scott case.

Or maybe we stop naming helicopters after tribes because tribes 1. Fought against the US and 2. Fought against each other.

How dirty or clean are you comfortable with hands being before you want action?

 

[cb7893]

Eli Whitney and the cotton gin also increased the "need" for cheap labor in order for the plantations to survive. Before that, some say that slavery had almost died out on its own.

Regardless of when the cotton gin would have been invented, cotton still had to be planted, cultivated and harvested in a very labor intensive manner. The gin only separated the fiber from the seed. If a cotton plantation needed fewer slaves between cotton harvest and cotton planting, he either sold the slaves or gave them other work which was never difficult to find on a 19th century farm. Writ large, the labor would be employed elsewhere in the economy, just as it would be today when the local grocery closes in the wake of Walmart's move to town. Slaves did more than just pick cotton and sing spirituals. They did EVERYTHING, much of it employing skills of great monetary value in the modern economy of the time.

Your point is well taken; there were many things happening at the time of secession. But, it's fallacious to say that the Civil War was fought over more than slavery. Slavery was everything in South.

 

[scoutpilot]

You don't seem to be advocating for a change to the name "Washington" state.

You don't seem to be disavowing the US Army, an organization that fought to establish the slave owning country of the United States.


So, where exactly do YOU draw the line?

Should Coasties stop talking about the USCGC Taney in Pearl Harbor? A cutter named after Chief Justice Taney... Who had an important decision in the Dred Scott case.

Or maybe we stop naming helicopters after tribes because tribes 1. Fought against the US and 2. Fought against each other.

How dirty or clean are you comfortable with hands being before you want action?

See above.

 

[LineInTheSand]

See above.

So your thoughts are Not developed enough to know where to draw the lines, only enough to preach about it to others.

 

[scoutpilot]

So your thoughts are Not developed enough to know where to draw the lines, only enough to preach about it to others.

One could say the very same about yours. I didn't actually advocate for any name change. I merely pointed out that we can't very well pretend that it wasn't done for crass reasons and that it now leaves us in a hypocritical bind as we decide how to approach the issue of race.

 

[Maplerock]

To make sure no one is offended, maybe we should just use numbers for all schools, bridges, etc. If we name after people, sooner or later someone will find something offensive to someone.

On second thought though, even numbers would offend some. #2, 13, 666, and some with sexual connotations.

This is indeed a conundrum.

 

[LineInTheSand]

One could say the very same about yours. I didn't actually advocate for any name change. I merely pointed out that we can't very well pretend that it wasn't done for crass reasons and that it now leaves us in a hypocritical bind as we decide how to approach the issue of race.

Fair enough. I think my point is we live in a dirty world with a dirty past and likely a dirty future. Instead of trying to clean up the past, which is impossible, trying changing the future... Clean up your own hands... And if others clean theirs too, it will be a cleaner place.

 

[scoutpilot]

Fair enough. I think my point is we live in a dirty world with a dirty past and likely a dirty future. Instead of trying to clean up the past, which is impossible, trying changing the future... Clean up your own hands... And if others clean theirs too, it will be a cleaner place.

That's probably true.

 

[cb7893]

To make sure no one is offended, maybe we should just use numbers for all schools, bridges, etc. If we name after people, sooner or later someone will find something offensive to someone.

So true.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The relatively uncontroversial step of naming a post office took an odd turn in the House as nine Republicans balked at putting Maya Angelou's name on the building.

The House voted overwhelmingly on Tuesday — 371-9 — to name a post office in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for the celebrated poet, author and civil rights activist, who died in 2014.

Republican Reps. Mo Brooks of Alabama, Ken Buck of Colorado, Michael Burgess of Texas, Jeff Duncan of South Carolina, Glenn Grothman of Wisconsin, Andy Harris of Maryland, Tom Massie of Kentucky, Alex Mooney of West Virginia and Steve Palazzo of Mississippi voted no. Rep. Don Young of Alaska voted present.

A press secretary for Harris explained that he voted against the naming because Angelou was "a communist sympathizer."

 

[repatriot]

To make sure no one is offended, maybe we should just use numbers for all schools, bridges, etc. If we name after people, sooner or later someone will find something offensive to someone.

On second thought though, even numbers would offend some. #2, 13, 666, and some with sexual connotations.

This is indeed a conundrum.

+1

 

[cga82]

Where the founding fathers are concerned, it's a good question. That all depends on whether you excuse their views as par for the times. In an objective sense, yes, they absolutely were racist. They believed in the right of the white to own, as property, African human beings who were viewed as savages unequal to their white masters. So plainly, yes, they were racists. Do you excuse their views within the cultural climate of the late 18th century? That's up to.

So, a racist is as you say "They believed in the right of the white to own, as property, African human beings".

So are the Black tribes that gained great wealth from the slave trade(to whites) and before they sold slaves(to whites) "Old Black Racist"?

You might want to take a look.


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjxqOHfkOfMAhWCSCYKHRf9CxQQtwIITTAH&url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtRaG_bokds&usg=AFQjCNGfF_Ot35YXUfhFQcNbj8Opz4DkHQ&sig2=caJzmTCEJS-dNDhwPzcabw

There is plenty of brutality slaving done in Africa by Africans without the white man coming on the scene. There is plenty of slavery and brutality done by Africans on Africans "NOW".

the slaughter of 80,000 to 200,000 Hutus by the Tutsi

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...1mfxdlr0s2W_8kWWQ&sig2=TEBgQ3XdUK5lo5Y5lu6ROA

 

[scoutpilot]

So, a racist is as you say "They believed in the right of the white to own, as property, African human beings".

So are the Black tribes that gained great wealth from the slave trade(to whites) and before they sold slaves(to whites) "Old Black Racist"?

You might want to take a look.


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjxqOHfkOfMAhWCSCYKHRf9CxQQtwIITTAH&url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtRaG_bokds&usg=AFQjCNGfF_Ot35YXUfhFQcNbj8Opz4DkHQ&sig2=caJzmTCEJS-dNDhwPzcabw

There is plenty of brutality slaving done in Africa by Africans without the white man coming on the scene. There is plenty of slavery and brutality done by Africans on Africans "NOW".

the slaughter of 80,000 to 200,000 Hutus by the Tutsi

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjN4YTWlefMAhUMQSYKHbubDhYQFggcMAA&url=http://worldnews.about.com/od/africa/f/tutsihutu.htm&usg=AFQjCNGYBqVcbpPgL1mfxdlr0s2W_8kWWQ&sig2=TEBgQ3XdUK5lo5Y5lu6ROA

This is a common red herring thrown out by white Americans as an attempt to somehow downplay the sins of the middle passage.

African tribes absolutely sold one another to slave traders. Slaves were most often the result of wars and territorial raids by stronger tribes.

The question of how the white western man viewed the "inferior" African is wholly separate from the question of whether or not Africans meted out violence against one another. The inferiority of the black race was written into our laws and founding principles. There's no question of the white man's view of racial superiority.

This was a really sad effort on your part. You should be a bit ashamed of trotting out such a hackneyed version of the idea that violence on the African continent somehow absolves the western world of the slave trade.

Imagine someone saying "yes, I abuse my children but they hit one another, you see. So it's hardly so bad."

 

[cga82]

This is a common red herring thrown out by white Americans as an attempt to somehow downplay the sins of the middle passage.."

Not quite! The sins of Humans over Humans is a crime period. To ignore or down play this is an absolute travesty. You only accept that what whites have done and blow off what blacks have done. The numbers of black on black are staggering.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjE9tik3ebMAhXGlB4KHc_6DyQQFggoMAI&url=https://factreal.wordpress.com/2010/07/08/slavery-history-the-african-complicity-africans-captured-and-sold-other-africans-into-slavery/&usg=AFQjCNG1fC6dHl_EEl-F4f9Fh0iAYtTRow&bvm=bv.122448493,d.dmo

[QUOTEAfrican tribes absolutely sold one another to slave traders. Slaves were most often the result of wars and territorial raids by stronger tribes."[/QUOTE]

Half truth, which means they sold to other Africans for a long time and are continuing to do it today.

The question of how the white western man viewed the "inferior" African is wholly separate from the question of whether or not Africans meted out violence against one another. The inferiority of the black race was written into our laws and founding principles. There's no question of the white man's view of racial superiority."

Again a half truth, anyone who is claimed as a slave is considered inferior. Whites and Africans both look at slaves as property and inferior--hence they are slaves--commodities!!

This was a really sad effort on your part. "

This is disgraceful of you. To put this on a one way White street making like it's okay for Africans have slaves of other Africans-shame. It only matters if Whites did it in the past and to never hear any mention of the atrocities on the African continent.

 

[cga82]

You should be a bit ashamed of trotting out such a hackneyed version of the idea that violence on the African continent somehow absolves the western world of the slave trade.."

I didn't cause or make up the African atrocities. Don't you try to shame this as a mask for slavery by whites in the U.S. You fail to mention the Atrocities of African on African before and after trading slaves to whites.

Do you consider yourself superior to others ?

 

[cb7893]

Imagine someone saying "yes, I abuse my children but they hit one another, you see. So it's hardly so bad."

A better metaphor would be: "You abuse your children? Okay I'll buy them from you, put them to work and have them birth my progeny."

 

[Seawings18]

What should be agreed upon by all parties is that following graduation these Cadets will go on to serve the nation, guided by THE General's"three hallowed words", and preserve the right for civilians to engage in such activity as appropriate. Whether the controversial picture is politically motivated or not is not for me to say, still, I congratulate these women on their accomplishments and wish them the best in their careers.

 

[cga82]

He is only interested on the white side of the evil. He can't stomach the fact that the Africans sold their own people to whites for slavery and wants to twist the fact as a one-way bad whites buying slaves into America. He can't stomach the fact that Africans not only did this but did it like the whites for money and greed. To enslave and sell your kin- no mentioned here. No--greed and money ruled the day for both Africans selling to white and whites gaining money from the use of slaves. He can't stomach that Africans were greedy and it was wrong. Only the whites in America are wrong because the wealth and money is only associated with white people. And this should have magically stopped because England had an Epiphany and stopped slavery. Guess what the money and greed still happen today.

Do you like chicken?

http://www.businessinsider.com/report-americas-chicken-industry-workers-wear-diapers-2016-5

How bout clothes and just about every other product you use? Should I show that? Slave labor in India,china,russia,africa

Who's the slave here and who's the master? Money/greed

 

[cga82]

What we should agree on is to stop this hatred and blame of the past (renaming and name calling). It was a period in our historical past. I bet that most of those if not all on those lists would not even consider having slaves in this day and age and would say to own and sell another human is beyond injustice and should never be done (but they were part of that era). I come from Slavic decent and know of my ancestors tragic past yet what pound of flesh would make it any different. We are Americans and if this does not stop then there will be continued division.

 

[scoutpilot]

I didn't cause or make up the African atrocities. Don't you try to shame this as a mask for slavery by whites in the U.S. You fail to mention the Atrocities of African on African before and after trading slaves to whites.

Do you consider yourself superior to others ?

This makes zero sense.