The Cleveland Guardians? Yes, It's Official

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BCauley

I’ll never understand why people bother getting into these kinds of arguments. Nobody ever thinks they’re wrong. Everybody thinks they’re right. Nobody is going to change anyone’s mind.

If anything it just makes people look insecure and unstable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

People like to argue. Recall the great Monty Python skit? "I'd like to have an argument." "No you wouldn't." etc.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

People like to argue. Recall the great Monty Python skit? "I'd like to have an argument." "No you wouldn't." etc.

"That's not an argument, that's just a contradiction..."

[Leon]

Originally Posted by cammb

+1

I quit watching after the strike in 1994. It was bad back then and it's worse now.

.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

"That's not an argument, that's just a contradiction..."

"Sorry. This is abuse. Argument's down the hall."

[Kzoo]

Originally Posted by Leon

I quite watching after the strike in 1994. It was bad back then and it's worse now.

.

I wish we could have seen a full 1994 season of Tony Gwynn and the Expos.

[bigtrain]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

And you are not God. You don't get to decide which sins are forgiven and which are not, you ignorant jackass.

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

[gawaintheknight]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

You should probably have your full name in your post.

Let me help you with that, Ted Clayton.

Thanks.

[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?

[Mark17]

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

The only thing that will stop the cancel culture from continuing to mow down traditions in this country will be their hypocrisy, when they give certain people who have done reprehensible things a pass because of political affiliations. Although in the case of Forrest and Byrd, both were of the same party.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mark17

The only thing that will stop the cancel culture from continuing to mow down traditions in this country will be their hypocrisy, when they give certain people who have done reprehensible things a pass because of political affiliations. Although in the case of Forrest and Byrd, both were of the same party.

I remember first year of law school when minority students were objecting to the tradition of calling on and grilling students as racist and calling for a "no hassle pass."

And now, decades later, we have trainers telling us that people like me are inherently racist because we grew up in a mostly white suburb. Really?

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

And now, decades later, we have trainers telling us that people like me are inherently racist because we grew up in a mostly white suburb. Really?

Exactly. It is insidious and needs to be confronted. If someone generalized a negative attribute to all people of a particular minority race, we would all agree that is reprehensible, and the very definition of racism. Yet people can look at your skin color, and nothing else, and ascribe all sorts of negativity on you because you happen to be white.

It's the same exact concept, and it is a rotten thing on principle. The way to end racism in this country is to treat everyone with equal respect, until they, as individual people, through their own actions, prove otherwise. But you don't end racism my turning that evil cannon around and firing it at white people, thinking it is somehow evening the score.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by fkm_bky

It’s actually quite relevant of a logo if you know that the statues of the Guardians have that same winged design on their helmets. But why would people know that, it’s not like it isn’t readily available information on the web. Let’s just be lazy and say it’s stupid.

I’m not a Cleveland fan and have never been there but it took all of 15 seconds to educate myself.

Bill

Ok. But it's still aesthetically ugly and cheap looking.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Exactly. It is insidious and needs to be confronted. If someone generalized a negative attribute to all people of a particular minority race, we would all agree that is reprehensible, and the very definition of racism. Yet people can look at your skin color, and nothing else, and ascribe all sorts of negativity on you because you happen to be white.

It's the same exact concept, and it is a rotten thing on principle. The way to end racism in this country is to treat everyone with equal respect, until they, as individual people, through their own actions, prove otherwise. But you don't end racism my turning that evil cannon around and firing it at white people, thinking it is somehow evening the score.

It's ridiculous. The one Black kid in our neighborhood was a close and ultimately lifelong friend of my brother, and was a fixture in our house. Nobody could have cared less about his skin color. I say that not in self-congratulation but as illustration.

I live in an extremely liberal town. Our Mayor is always ranting and raving about institutional racism. Ironically, her predecessor, who would have easily been reelected had he run, was Black.

[carlsonjok]

Originally Posted by Mark17

The only thing that will stop the cancel culture from continuing to mow down traditions in this country will be their hypocrisy, when they give certain people who have done reprehensible things a pass because of political affiliations.

It is far worse than you think. Not only will cancel culture mow down traditions, it will also lead to dancing among our children.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by bigtrain

Name calling that is devoid of logic does not win arguments

Starting your first post to me with, "I am sure that you know that your post is disingenuous BS" does not win arguments either.

[Shoeless Moe]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzGVlMGhKaE

[sdimag]

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

It is far worse than you think. Not only will cancel culture mow down traditions, it will also lead to dancing among our children.

“Dancing”? Is that what the cancel culture is calling rioting,looting,and burning now?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by sdimag

“Dancing”? Is that what the cancel culture is calling rioting,looting,and burning now?

You would be thinking of CNN's "mostly peaceful protest"

[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.

[BCauley]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

You would be thinking of CNN's "mostly peaceful protest"

You must be thinking of the “normal tourist visit” in January 6th that “cancel culture” doesn’t talk about.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sdimag]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

You would be thinking of CNN's "mostly peaceful protest"

That’s the one! A summer of “dancing” in the streets!

[CurtisFlood]

Originally Posted by insidethewrapper

How about the Cleveland Fellers ?

As a grade schooler I became an Indian's fan by reading Bob Feller's books. Bob Fellers Strikeout Story and Pitching To Win. If their name had been Guardians I would not have been interested.

Total Pud effort in finding a new moniker.

[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.

[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?

[gawaintheknight]

Just to clarify: when someone says that white people are racist, it doesn't mean that all white people actively hate minorities or burn crosses or murder people in a black church or fly a Confederate flag. I think that there are two points to be made: one is that white people have prejudices, which they may not even recognize, because everyone does, whatever race they identify as. The difference is that white people have privilege and power that other races don't have, and because white people have privilege and power, their prejudices turn into racism and oppression in a way that's not possible for races that don't have privilege and power.

A classic article about white privilege: https://nationalseedproject.org/Key-...sible-knapsack


The second point that I think is important is that not all racism comes from individual racist acts. There's also structural racism. There are a lot of articles about that - here's one specifically aimed at Christians by a conservative Christian, but useful even if you're not a Christian yourself:

https://frenchpress.thedispatch.com/...t-wokeness-its

Given that structural racism exists, and that white people benefit from it, we (I'm white) have three options. One is to be happy with our privilege and tell ourselves we deserve it. One is to recognize that it's a bad thing, but not do anything to change it. That lets us feel good about ourselves, because we aren't actively doing anything wrong, but it perpetuates the status quo and the existing structural racism, even if we don't personally feel hostility to minorities. And the last one is to actively work against it.

Incidentally, the National Council of American Indians had this to say about the name change:

https://www.ncai.org/news/articles/2...name-guardians

“With today’s announcement, the Cleveland baseball team has taken another important step forward in healing the harms its former mascot long caused Native people, in particular Native youth,” said NCAI President Fawn Sharp. “We call on the other professional sports teams and thousands of schools across the country that still cling to their antiquated Native ‘themed’ mascots to immediately follow suit. NCAI also looks forward to continuing its work with the Cleveland Guardians to help grow the national movement of respect for Tribal Nations, cultures, and communities, a movement that values, teaches, and validates who Native people are today, what makes us unique, the many important contributions we make to this country, and our rightful place in the diverse mosaic that is America.”

I'd be curious to hear from those of you going to the National what percentage of the dealers and what percentage of the attendees there are white and what percentage are women (excluding those who are just there to keep their boyfriend/husband/son happy)....

Ted Clayton

[BCauley]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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?

To make clear, I did edit in the middle of when you apparently responded. I don’t know how to add an edit reason in Tapatalk. I’m a technological moron and don’t know how to do it. I’m used to desktop.

You’re stuck in things people said and what people did.

The people the bases are named after rebelled against the U.S. That’s what they DID. Why should that be celebrated? Do you celebrate the people who stormed the Capitol on January 6th?

The people I mentioned actually have significance to the U.S. military history which, again, I highly doubt you know unless you Google right now. And that’s not patronizing, not many people at all know who they are. It’s stating a fact.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BCauley

To make clear, I did edit in the middle of when you apparently responded. I don’t know how to add an edit reason in Tapatalk. I’m a technological moron and don’t know how to do it. I’m used to desktop.

You’re stuck in things people said and what people did.

The people the bases are named after rebelled against the U.S. That’s what they DID. Why should that be celebrated? Do you celebrate the people who stormed the Capitol on January 6th?

The people I mentioned actually have significance to the U.S. military history which, again, I highly doubt you know unless you Google right now. And that’s not patronizing, not many people at all know who they are. It’s stating a fact.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree they are significant individuals. But you shouldn't assume someone else doesn't know something just because the average person might not. That is patronizing or at least presumptive. Do you know anything about me, or my interests or education or what I read and study for example? Audie Murphy btw is pretty well known, although I will grant you Scholtes, whose name YOU misspelled by the way lol, is not.

[BCauley]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I agree they are significant individuals. But you shouldn't assume someone else doesn't know something just because the average person might not. That is patronizing or at least presumptive. Do you know anything about me, or my interests or education or what I read and study for example?

And you’re right, I shouldn’t assume.

I’m going on my personal experience and mentioning these people among others in conversations with many civilian and military personnel.

You still haven’t answered any of my questions though. Specifically, and now I can’t see my comment so it’s not word for word, why should they have a base named after them? What did they do to accomplish such an honor since they rebelled against the country? Additionally, should those on the 6th of January be celebrated as well?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[carlsonjok]

Originally Posted by sdimag

“Dancing”? Is that what the cancel culture is calling rioting,looting,and burning now?

That was a joke, champ, and I figured most people had enough neurons bouncing around inside their melon to catch the implication. Obviously, I was wrong. So, even though it doesn't really belong in this section, I'll try to explain. There are two premises here, but I will only address the one that is actually relevant (IMO) to the name change from Indians to Guardians. Also, these are my general observations. It isn't meant to be one size fits all. I am sure many of you do not fit neatly into the narrative:

1. Cancel culture is just the latest biennial moral panic conjured up by political operatives who needed something new to gin up outrage now that the previous panics have lost their impact.
2. The name change in Cleveland has nothing to do with "cancel culture." It is an artifact of the usual inter-generational changes that cause the olds to get their backs up and the youngs to roll their eyes at grumpy old Papaw.C

I was born in 1965 and I am part of the first Gen X cohort. I spent the first part of my professional career working with Baby Boomers and the second part with Millennials and (now) Gen Z. It's my observation that the younger generations are more comfortable with differences along ethnic, cultural, faith, and sexual orientation lines. With this comfort level comes a desire to use language that acknowledges the difference without resorting to potentially offensive tropes. It is nothing more than matter of being considerate of other people. And, I think we can all agree that being considerate is a good thing.

This isn't to say that Boomers (and my generation) are inherently racist. But we were able to move through our formative years without being confronted with the increasingly multi-cultural nature of America. Having one minority family in your neighborhood or, in my case, your graduating class doesn't mean that you are the living embodiment of MLK Jr "I have a dream" speech. It does mean that you grew up in an environment where you didn't need to think about how to deal with such issues. It also means being more intentional now in how we deal with those issues.

The Cleveland Indians were under no serious threat of going out of business by retaining the Indians name. However, we all also know that baseball is facing a demographic cliff with a rapidly aging fan base that is not being replaced by younger people. As younger generations become more accepting of differences, it is not surprising that various institutions (be they corporate or public sector) change to reflect the zeitgeist. It isn't a matter of caving to the "woke crowd." It is a matter of following the money and creating brand loyalty. Let's just face up to the hard truth: the only industries that consider our market demographic highly desirable are reverse mortgages and catheters-by-mail. So, if you really must be upset about this, you would do better to criticize Cleveland's ownership from engaging in such a obvious, cynical marketing ploy.

And, since every thread needs a card

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BCauley

And you’re right, I shouldn’t assume.

I’m going on my personal experience and mentioning these people among others in conversations with many civilian and military personnel.

You still haven’t answered any of my questions though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I despise anyone who participated in January 6. I'd have to think some more about the forts, I guess my overall point is it seems futile to try to redo things like names that have been there so long that as you point out most people don't even know their significance. To me it's more a feel-good virtue signaling gesture than anything that will make a real difference. Now if you're talking the Confederate flag, that's a living symbol, so I'm in favor of getting rid of that no question.

As I posted before, renaming a school named for Lincoln pushed me over the edge on the cancel culture thing.

[BCauley]

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

That was a joke, champ, and I figured most people had enough neurons bouncing around inside their melon to catch the implication. Obviously, I was wrong.

I read your comment and thought of the movie Footloose.

Please don’t ruin it for me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[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.

[carlsonjok]

Originally Posted by BCauley

I read your comment and thought of the movie Footloose.

Please don’t ruin it for me.

Don't read any further then. There be dragons.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by Chuck9788

How is their new logo not a trademark copyright infringement of the Los Angeles Angels?!?

Also shitty...

[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.

[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.

[judsonhamlin]

At the risk of diving in here, I never understood why the US Army named bases/forts after CSA military figures like Lee, Bragg, Hood and Hill who actively fought and led troops and whose orders caused the deaths of thousands of US Army soldiers. I would not expect the British Army to name one of their bases after James Connolly or Michael Collins, nor would I expect the French to name anything after Marshal Petain.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by gawaintheknight

Just to clarify: when someone says that white people are racist, it doesn't mean that all white people actively hate minorities or burn crosses or murder people in a black church or fly a Confederate flag. I think that there are two points to be made: one is that white people have prejudices, which they may not even recognize, because everyone does, whatever race they identify as. The difference is that white people have privilege and power that other races don't have, and because white people have privilege and power, their prejudices turn into racism and oppression in a way that's not possible for races that don't have privilege and power.

A classic article about white privilege: https://nationalseedproject.org/Key-...sible-knapsack


The second point that I think is important is that not all racism comes from individual racist acts. There's also structural racism. There are a lot of articles about that - here's one specifically aimed at Christians by a conservative Christian, but useful even if you're not a Christian yourself:

https://frenchpress.thedispatch.com/...t-wokeness-its

Given that structural racism exists, and that white people benefit from it, we (I'm white) have three options. One is to be happy with our privilege and tell ourselves we deserve it. One is to recognize that it's a bad thing, but not do anything to change it. That lets us feel good about ourselves, because we aren't actively doing anything wrong, but it perpetuates the status quo and the existing structural racism, even if we don't personally feel hostility to minorities. And the last one is to actively work against it.

Incidentally, the National Council of American Indians had this to say about the name change:

https://www.ncai.org/news/articles/2...name-guardians

“With today’s announcement, the Cleveland baseball team has taken another important step forward in healing the harms its former mascot long caused Native people, in particular Native youth,” said NCAI President Fawn Sharp. “We call on the other professional sports teams and thousands of schools across the country that still cling to their antiquated Native ‘themed’ mascots to immediately follow suit. NCAI also looks forward to continuing its work with the Cleveland Guardians to help grow the national movement of respect for Tribal Nations, cultures, and communities, a movement that values, teaches, and validates who Native people are today, what makes us unique, the many important contributions we make to this country, and our rightful place in the diverse mosaic that is America.”

I'd be curious to hear from those of you going to the National what percentage of the dealers and what percentage of the attendees there are white and what percentage are women (excluding those who are just there to keep their boyfriend/husband/son happy)....

Ted Clayton

It isn't a given, it's an opinion some people have, these articles aren't some sort of definitive gospel. And tell me exactly how I personally am benefiting from this, I must be missing that.

[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

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by judsonhamlin

At the risk of diving in here, I never understood why the US Army named bases/forts after CSA military figures like Lee, Bragg, Hood and Hill who actively fought and led troops and whose orders caused the deaths of thousands of US Army soldiers. I would not expect the British Army to name one of their bases after James Connolly or Michael Collins, nor would I expect the French to name anything after Marshal Petain.

Lee at least I think is more complicated.

[BCauley]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I despise anyone who participated in January 6. I'd have to think some more about the forts, I guess my overall point is it seems futile to try to redo things like names that have been there so long that as you point out most people don't even know their significance. To me it's more a feel-good virtue signaling gesture than anything that will make a real difference. Now if you're talking the Confederate flag, that's a living symbol, so I'm in favor of getting rid of that no question.

As I posted before, renaming a school named for Lincoln pushed me over the edge on the cancel culture thing.

I had no idea of the Lincoln school being renamed until I saw something in this thread. That’s something I’d like to read up on as well as much deeper into these guys the forts were named after.

As someone who was stationed at Ft Bragg for 3.5 years (including 15 months deployed), nobody knew who the hell he was nor did anybody care.

It would be more of a pain in the ass than anything to go about changing the name, but I don’t feel like they deserve a fort named after them. With that said, I do believe hardly anybody knows who these guys are anyway so it probably doesn’t matter anyway. Save the taxpayers some money.

Maybe someday people from all ends of the spectrum will stop getting outraged because some talking heads said to do so.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[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

I had no idea of the Lincoln school being renamed until I saw something in this thread. That’s something I’d like to read up on as well as much deeper into these guys the forts were named after.

As someone who was stationed at Ft Bragg for 3.5 years (including 15 months deployed), nobody knew who the hell he was nor did anybody care.

It would be more of a pain in the ass than anything to go about changing the name, but I don’t feel like they deserve a fort named after them. With that said, I do believe hardly anybody knows who these guys are anyway so it probably doesn’t matter anyway. Save the taxpayers some money.

Maybe someday people from all ends of the spectrum will stop getting outraged because some talking heads said to do so.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In 1984, recall that one of the government's most powerful weapons was simply purging and changing history. I think it's critical to learn from the past and to acknowledge its injustices, but I don't think wiping out the names on schools and dorms and forts and cities and tearinig down statues is the way to do it generally speaking. I agree there might be some really outrageous example where I would agree with it.

[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.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by gawaintheknight

Just to clarify: when someone says that white people are racist, it doesn't mean that all white people actively hate minorities or burn crosses or murder people in a black church or fly a Confederate flag. I think that there are two points to be made: one is that white people have prejudices, which they may not even recognize, because everyone does, whatever race they identify as. The difference is that white people have privilege and power that other races don't have, and because white people have privilege and power, their prejudices turn into racism and oppression in a way that's not possible for races that don't have privilege and power.

Really? All 100 million (or however many) white people have privilege and power? Really???? I can introduce you to some poor people in my community (with white skin color) who expose that to be a blatant lie.

Generally speaking, an intelligent black person has privilege and power over a white idiot. A normal black person has power and privilege over a white dwarf. Young, healthy, active people have privilege and power over old, sick people. And so on.

I've seen far, far too many successful people with darker skin and far, far too many failures with lighter skin to buy into your racist nonsense.

Looking at someone, seeing only their race, and from that tidbit of information declaring them privileged and powerful is outright stupid. And that is what this group think mentality is doing - making idiots out of otherwise intelligent people.

You cannot take a hundred million people and ascribe ANY attribute to each and every one of them. It is absurd, and quite obviously racist.