The Cleveland Guardians? Yes, It's Official

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bigtrain

One guy is a murderer, one is not. What is so difficult to understand about that? Name calling that is devoid of logic does not win arguments

What are the odds a thread about the new Cleveland nickname ends up as a discussion of Senator Robert Byrd and General Nathan Bedford Forrest (who, by the way, speaking strictly of him as a general, apparently was studied by the Germans in WWII)? Pretty long odds ex ante I would think.

Slightly more on topic, do all the forts in the South named after Confederate generals need to be renamed?

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Slightly more on topic, do all the forts in the South named after Confederate generals need to be renamed?

Yes. They should never have been named after traitors in the first place.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Yes. They should never have been named after traitors in the first place.

From the perspective of Great Britain, the Founding Fathers were traitors.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

From the perspective of Great Britain, the Founding Fathers were traitors.

+1

History is generally written by the victors.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobC

+1

History is generally written by the victors.

What's the saying, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

What's the saying, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Something like that. There's really no black or white anymore, everything is shades of grey.



You can fool some of the people all of the time....

And all of the people some of the time....

But you can't fool Mom!

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by BobC

Something like that. There's really no black or white anymore, everything is shades of grey.



You can fool some of the people all of the time....

And all of the people some of the time....

But you can't fool Mom!

This is your briefest post ever.

[egri]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

What's the saying, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Peter, I wish you could’ve seen when my moms side of the family (Catholic) met my dad’s side (Protestant) started discussing Oliver Cromwell.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobC

+1

History is generally written by the victors.

There is nothing anyone could possibly say to defend slavery, but from my study the rift between North and South was more complex than slavery.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

There is nothing anyone could possibly say to defend slavery, but from my study the rift between North and South was more complex than slavery.

+1

[BCauley]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

There is nothing anyone could possibly say to defend slavery, but from my study the rift between North and South was more complex than slavery.

People would have to actually read and study though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BCauley

People would have to actually read and study though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I was fortunate to have a history teacher who wrote extensively on the Civil War and what led up to it and I became interested in the subject. I think back to the (alleged) showdown between Andrew Jackson and John Calhoun which I'm not sure had much to do with slavery and more with the direction the country was going in terms of federalism vs states rights.

Jackson: Our federal union, it must be preserved.
Calhoun: Our union, next to our liberty, the most dear.

Still has echoes today.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

There is nothing anyone could possibly say to defend slavery, but from my study the rift between North and South was more complex than slavery.

Absolutely agree. Truth is, there has been slavery going back thousands of years in the human race, and that involved people of all colors and nationalities. But today you don't really hear anyone still complaining about the Egyptians, Romans, Vikings, or any other dominant groups that had slavery as a given and accepted part of their culture in the past.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by BobC

Absolutely agree. Truth is, there has been slavery going back thousands of years in the human race, and that involved people of all colors and nationalities. But today you don't really hear anyone still complaining about the Egyptians, Romans, Vikings, or any other dominant groups that had slavery as a given and accepted part of their culture in the past.

Or the slavery that still exists today in parts of Africa:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slaver...mporary_Africa

The continent of Africa is one of the regions most rife with contemporary slavery. Slavery in Africa has a long history, within Africa since before historical records, but intensifying with the trans-Saharan and Indian Ocean slave trade and again with the trans-Atlantic slave trade; the demand for slaves created an entire series of kingdoms (such as the Ashanti Empire) which existed in a state of perpetual warfare in order to generate the prisoners of war necessary for the lucrative export of slaves. These patterns have persisted into the colonial period during the late 19th and early 20th century. Although the colonial authorities attempted to suppress slavery from about 1900, this had very limited success, and after decolonization, slavery continues in many parts of Africa despite being technically illegal.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

From the perspective of Great Britain, the Founding Fathers were traitors.

Which is probably why there's no statues of George Washington in London.

"Treason doth never prosper, what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it Treason."

When you win, it's not treason

[egri]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Which is probably why there's no statues of George Washington in London.

"Treason doth never prosper, what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it Treason."

When you win, it's not treason

There is, along with a handful of other US presidents. The article below also has some interesting remarks from Washington’s British contemporaries about him. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mil...-soil.html/amp

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by egri

There is, along with a handful of other US presidents. The article below also has some interesting remarks from Washington’s British contemporaries about him. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mil...-soil.html/amp

And yet that statue isn't actually on British soil so the point stands.

[BCauley]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Slightly more on topic, do all the forts in the South named after Confederate generals need to be renamed?

May as well be. Honestly, I never even thought this was a controversy until people from both sides started arguing about it.

I’d actually be surprised if any every day person could even name three of the bases in question. People in the military (then and now) would know the names but likely no idea who the people even are.

Looking into it a bit, once these guys became Generals they weren’t even very good at the job. Never mind who they fought for, they just weren’t good and there are far better and more successful Generals out there that they could be named for.

If they do end up changing names, I suggest Audie Murphy (not a General) for one. If they change the name of Ft Bragg, I suggest MG Scoltes, the first CDR of JSOC, as Ft Bragg is the home of special operations forces.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BCauley

May as well be. Honestly, I never even thought this was a controversy until people from both sides started arguing about it.

I’d actually be surprised if any every day person could even name three of the bases in question. People in the military (then and now) would know the names but likely no idea who the people even are.

Looking into it a bit, once these guys became Generals they weren’t even very good at the job. Never mind who they fought for, they just weren’t good and there are far better and more successful Generals out there that they could be named for.

If they do end up changing names, I suggest Audie Murphy (not a General) for one. If they change the name of Ft Bragg, I suggest MG Scoltes, the first CDR of JSOC, as Ft Bragg is the home of special operations forces.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Can we make those changes without an inquisition into THOSE people's lives? What if they made a racist remark somewhere along the way? Or was an abusive husband or father, that behavior is as bad as racism no?

[BCauley]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Can we make those changes without an inquisition into THOSE people's lives? What if they made a racist remark somewhere along the way?

I’m assuming by “those” you’re talking about the people who the bases are named after?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BCauley

I’m assuming by “those” you’re talking about the people who the bases are named after?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No I mean the ones you would change the names to. No point removing a name if the new one did something inappropriate too.

Guess what, we aren't terribly likely to find anyone free of sin. So maybe we shouldn't name anything after anyone. Be like New York, PS 129. Fort 33. Oak City. Tear down EVERY statue except horses.

[BCauley]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

No I mean the ones you would change the names to. No point removing a name if the new one did something inappropriate too.

Guess what, we aren't terribly likely to find anyone free of sin. So maybe we shouldn't name anything after anyone. Be like New York, PS 129. Fort 33. Oak City. Tear down EVERY statue except horses.

So which is it? People that said something or someone that did something?

They (currently names Generals) rebelled against their country. Why should they have an entire base named after them?

Do you even know anything about the two people I mentioned and how it might make sense? Do you even know anything about the people who the bases are currently named after?

I’ll wait while you Google who they are and respond.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BCauley

So which is it? People that said something or someone that did something?

They rebelled against their country. Why should they have an entire base named after them?

Do you even know anything about the two people I mentioned and how it might make sense? I’ll wait while you Google who they are and respond.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes I know who they are, and spare me the patronizing crap, but you are missing my point. Do you really think the distinction between word and deed will hold up if we make that the standard? Didn't Princeton get rid of the Woodrow Wilson School because of things he said?