Most of your questions seem like disingenuous "gotcha" questions while you never engage with the questions asked of you. I've said it in the past: I'm in favor of remembering everything within full context. I'm fine celebrating some people with less than perfect backgrounds within their full context. But celebrating people who actively engaged in harming others and defended doing so is not immune from criticism and even removal from the public square. Monuments using public funds for their construction and requiring public funds for their upkeep are not above reproach from the public and the public's elected representatives. I would think we could agree that celebrating people who thought owning other human beings or thought hurting other human beings for an innate quality of their existence was a public good is, at best, extremely debatable.
Markers and disclaimer markers
3,819 Views |
51 Replies |
Last: 3 yr ago by Bighunter43
Bighunter43 said:Sapper Redux said:Rex Racer said:Sapper Redux said:Rex Racer said:I knew someone would try to pull this out of their arse.Sapper Redux said:Rex Racer said:It's just silly. So for every single person in our country who has ever done anything that someone doesn't agree with, we must never honor them in any way, or at the very least, we must spell out for all to see every opinion they ever had that is disagreed with by the mob or everything they ever did that is disagreed with by the mob.Sapper Redux said:
Is this a problem?
It's interesting how you're portraying running a political campaign on the explicit basis of white supremacy as some kind of simple "disagreement."
He was wrong, but have you never been wrong or done anything wrong? If so, you can never be lauded for doing anything good, so forget about it.
Every single person who has a marker or monument sinned at some point except Jesus Christ. So either tear down all of the markers and monuments, or put up another maker that spells out every bad thing they ever did. It's stupid.
You realize you're conflating issues, right? There's a difference between a personal failing and promoting the disenfranchisement and mistreatment of millions of people.
As a LOT of people did back then. You putting up a separate marker for every single one?
I'm saying either make note of it or consider not honoring them if you can't properly contextualize them.
Can I ask a question Sapper? There are supposed FBI tapes of MLK having orgies, sex with prostitutes, and even watching and laughing while a fellow pastor raped a woman. That last one, if true, is just plain sick and appalling! "IF" that is true...do you think we should take his statues down and remove his holiday....or put up disclaimers about his actions for all to see how he really was? Publicly, Dr King did some amazing things, and those things deserve the highest accolades.....however, his private life somehow seems to leave little to be desired...does that overshadow the good, and does that warrant a disclaimer of his life's accomplishments? Your thoughts?
I have no problem acknowledging MLK's faults. But let me ask you, why is this equivalent, in your mind, to the systematic violence towards every Black Texan that Haley not only wanted to continue, but wanted to celebrate as right?
This was the statement from the West Texas A&M President to Inside Higher Ed on their plaque:
https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2022/07/11/president-takes-history-seriously
Quote:
I in turn shared [the draft for the first marker] with some members of our history faculty and they acknowledged that Haley was an important historian for our region, and we also discussed the fact he was a segregationist. Many people still held such deplorable views at the midpoint of the twentieth century. Thus we had a dilemma. Do we ignore this person and his important historical contributions, or do we acknowledge him in the fullness of his flaws?
"Some said the plaque should not be on campus at all. These are important and divergent perspectives. I believed we should present a more complete picture of history, the man, and his contributions. Who of us is without 'sin'? What historical figure is void of mistakes, flaws, and wrong decisions, particularly when judged by history decades or even centuries later? (Forgive me for interjecting my beliefs, but as a Christian, I only know of one such person, Jesus Christ, who according to Holy Writ was also fully God.)
"Therefore, adding a current perspective on an accompanying plaque seemed a rational approach to a complex issue. Wording on the WT plaque is intended to create a more complete picture of Haley. The idea of canceling his commitment to the history of the Texas Panhandle, and its importance as a place in Texas, is counter to the careful study of our past as a means to create a better future. Such action would represent a form of timidity that teeters on the edge of the abyss of ignorance. Panhandle people are practically minded and desire facts to understand and process a complete story. It is a public debt owed to all by those engaged in higher education. The purpose of the university is to promote and nurture engaged citizenship. Such understanding may lead to progress."
https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2022/07/11/president-takes-history-seriously
CanyonAg77 said:pmart said:
There are interesting parallels between this thread and one on Premium about Kellen Mond being released from the Vikings and some posters just want to condemn him for his Sully protest.
If he had been a decent quarterback, people would have cut him more slack on Sully.
Mond certainly had his ups and downs, but he holds several records for A&M, including all time passing yards. I'd say that makes him at least a decent quarterback.
Sapper Redux said:Bighunter43 said:Sapper Redux said:Rex Racer said:Sapper Redux said:Rex Racer said:I knew someone would try to pull this out of their arse.Sapper Redux said:Rex Racer said:It's just silly. So for every single person in our country who has ever done anything that someone doesn't agree with, we must never honor them in any way, or at the very least, we must spell out for all to see every opinion they ever had that is disagreed with by the mob or everything they ever did that is disagreed with by the mob.Sapper Redux said:
Is this a problem?
It's interesting how you're portraying running a political campaign on the explicit basis of white supremacy as some kind of simple "disagreement."
He was wrong, but have you never been wrong or done anything wrong? If so, you can never be lauded for doing anything good, so forget about it.
Every single person who has a marker or monument sinned at some point except Jesus Christ. So either tear down all of the markers and monuments, or put up another maker that spells out every bad thing they ever did. It's stupid.
You realize you're conflating issues, right? There's a difference between a personal failing and promoting the disenfranchisement and mistreatment of millions of people.
As a LOT of people did back then. You putting up a separate marker for every single one?
I'm saying either make note of it or consider not honoring them if you can't properly contextualize them.
Can I ask a question Sapper? There are supposed FBI tapes of MLK having orgies, sex with prostitutes, and even watching and laughing while a fellow pastor raped a woman. That last one, if true, is just plain sick and appalling! "IF" that is true...do you think we should take his statues down and remove his holiday....or put up disclaimers about his actions for all to see how he really was? Publicly, Dr King did some amazing things, and those things deserve the highest accolades.....however, his private life somehow seems to leave little to be desired...does that overshadow the good, and does that warrant a disclaimer of his life's accomplishments? Your thoughts?
I have no problem acknowledging MLK's faults. But let me ask you, why is this equivalent, in your mind, to the systematic violence towards every Black Texan that Haley not only wanted to continue, but wanted to celebrate as right?
First of all....you didn't answer my question. You simply proposed a question in return. You acknowledge MLK's faults, but didn't answer my question. So, if true on the rape incident....which is unquestionably a big deal....should we have a disclaimer on his statues, remove his name on streets across the country, or make note of his faults on his holiday? Or does he get a pass? Please answer that question then I'll respond to yours....
There would have to be a significant re-evaluation of him and at the very least, the similar caveats as those added to people like Jefferson would need to be applied to him. Though there's every reason to be extremely suspicious of that claim.
https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/08/martin-luther-king-david-garrow-essay-claims
https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/08/martin-luther-king-david-garrow-essay-claims
Sapper Redux said:
There would have to be a significant re-evaluation of him and at the very least, the similar caveats as those added to people like Jefferson would need to be applied to him. Though there's every reason to be extremely suspicious of that claim.
https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/08/martin-luther-king-david-garrow-essay-claims
Just curious what colonial college do you teach at ?
Sapper Redux said:
There would have to be a significant re-evaluation of him and at the very least, the similar caveats as those added to people like Jefferson would need to be applied to him. Though there's every reason to be extremely suspicious of that claim.
https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/08/martin-luther-king-david-garrow-essay-claims
That's why I used the word "IF" because we don't know for sure. The FBI documents are scheduled to be released in 2027, it might clear up this story one way or the other, and I think we all know that's never going to happen. (And maybe that's a good thing) My point is, which should answer your question....in pretty much every person that has been honored, you are going to find "something" from their life/past that certain people won't agree with. In Haley's case, the original monument was placed to honor his contributions for preserving pieces of Texas History and the museum...unfortunately, yes, his position on segregation was extreme, but not unlike many of his contemporaries at the time. Our own current President had similar views at one time. IF it really came down to it, if you are going to put up a disclaimer or remove monuments for people's indiscretions, or parts of their past that people disagree with.....the list of those still standing will be a short one indeed!
I hope when you die your family puts all the bad crap you ever did in your obituary so you are properly contextualized.Sapper Redux said:Rex Racer said:Sapper Redux said:Rex Racer said:I knew someone would try to pull this out of their arse.Sapper Redux said:Rex Racer said:It's just silly. So for every single person in our country who has ever done anything that someone doesn't agree with, we must never honor them in any way, or at the very least, we must spell out for all to see every opinion they ever had that is disagreed with by the mob or everything they ever did that is disagreed with by the mob.Sapper Redux said:
Is this a problem?
It's interesting how you're portraying running a political campaign on the explicit basis of white supremacy as some kind of simple "disagreement."
He was wrong, but have you never been wrong or done anything wrong? If so, you can never be lauded for doing anything good, so forget about it.
Every single person who has a marker or monument sinned at some point except Jesus Christ. So either tear down all of the markers and monuments, or put up another maker that spells out every bad thing they ever did. It's stupid.
You realize you're conflating issues, right? There's a difference between a personal failing and promoting the disenfranchisement and mistreatment of millions of people.
As a LOT of people did back then. You putting up a separate marker for every single one?
I'm saying either make note of it or consider not honoring them if you can't properly contextualize them.
Except the marker goes beyond JUST discussing his work on the historical commission. And I'd also argue his stance on Jim Crow taints the reliability of his historical claims and arguments. So it's still relevant.
If my obituary is funded by the state then I hope I am fully contextualized. There's an obligation for public history to open and honest in a way that private actors often elide.
There are at least two problems with the current efforts to "contextualize":
First, we seem only to be contextualizing only a certain group or class of individuals and only for certain "sins". Because of that selectivity, the contextualization attempts appear to be as much politically motivated as they are attempts to be historically complete and accurate.
Second, there is no national agreement or consensus on this attempt to contextualize. In fact, there never was even an attempt to enter into a discussion on these issues down at the individual level. Thus, and again because of its political nature, it comes across as an attempt to impose one group's will on another. Nobody ever likes being forced to do anything.
Because of the factors above, and most likely many others, what you term "contextualization" comes across to many as demonization.
First, we seem only to be contextualizing only a certain group or class of individuals and only for certain "sins". Because of that selectivity, the contextualization attempts appear to be as much politically motivated as they are attempts to be historically complete and accurate.
Second, there is no national agreement or consensus on this attempt to contextualize. In fact, there never was even an attempt to enter into a discussion on these issues down at the individual level. Thus, and again because of its political nature, it comes across as an attempt to impose one group's will on another. Nobody ever likes being forced to do anything.
Because of the factors above, and most likely many others, what you term "contextualization" comes across to many as demonization.
I hope you are fully contextualized even if your obituary is NOT funded by the state.Sapper Redux said:
If my obituary is funded by the state then I hope I am fully contextualized. There's an obligation for public history to open and honest in a way that private actors often elide.
Our monuments and plaques have either celebrated or just ignored the harm caused to a huge percentage of our citizens for centuries. Recognizing the full nature of our heritage is not "demonization." You may not like having to deal with the reality of what Mr. Haley believed, but it absolutely influenced how he was perceived in Texas, why he was chosen for certain positions, and influenced the nature of the historical commission.
Bighunter43 said:Sapper Redux said:
There would have to be a significant re-evaluation of him and at the very least, the similar caveats as those added to people like Jefferson would need to be applied to him. Though there's every reason to be extremely suspicious of that claim.
https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/08/martin-luther-king-david-garrow-essay-claims
That's why I used the word "IF" because we don't know for sure. The FBI documents are scheduled to be released in 2027, it might clear up this story one way or the other, and I think we all know that's never going to happen. (And maybe that's a good thing) My point is, which should answer your question....in pretty much every person that has been honored, you are going to find "something" from their life/past that certain people won't agree with. In Haley's case, the original monument was placed to honor his contributions for preserving pieces of Texas History and the museum...unfortunately, yes, his position on segregation was extreme, but not unlike many of his contemporaries at the time. Our own current President had similar views at one time. IF it really came down to it, if you are going to put up a disclaimer or remove monuments for people's indiscretions, or parts of their past that people disagree with.....the list of those still standing will be a short one indeed!
Or in 2027 we could find out that the FBI was involved in the MLK assassination as they were in the Fred Hampton assassination the next year.
Those are the tapes that were sent to him along with a note to kill himself and they wouldn't be given to his wife, right?Bighunter43 said:Sapper Redux said:Rex Racer said:Sapper Redux said:Rex Racer said:I knew someone would try to pull this out of their arse.Sapper Redux said:Rex Racer said:It's just silly. So for every single person in our country who has ever done anything that someone doesn't agree with, we must never honor them in any way, or at the very least, we must spell out for all to see every opinion they ever had that is disagreed with by the mob or everything they ever did that is disagreed with by the mob.Sapper Redux said:
Is this a problem?
It's interesting how you're portraying running a political campaign on the explicit basis of white supremacy as some kind of simple "disagreement."
He was wrong, but have you never been wrong or done anything wrong? If so, you can never be lauded for doing anything good, so forget about it.
Every single person who has a marker or monument sinned at some point except Jesus Christ. So either tear down all of the markers and monuments, or put up another maker that spells out every bad thing they ever did. It's stupid.
You realize you're conflating issues, right? There's a difference between a personal failing and promoting the disenfranchisement and mistreatment of millions of people.
As a LOT of people did back then. You putting up a separate marker for every single one?
I'm saying either make note of it or consider not honoring them if you can't properly contextualize them.
Can I ask a question Sapper? There are supposed FBI tapes of MLK having orgies, sex with prostitutes, and even watching and laughing while a fellow pastor raped a woman. That last one, if true, is just plain sick and appalling! "IF" that is true...do you think we should take his statues down and remove his holiday....or put up disclaimers about his actions for all to see how he really was? Publicly, Dr King did some amazing things, and those things deserve the highest accolades.....however, his private life somehow seems to leave little to be desired...does that overshadow the good, and does that warrant a disclaimer of his life's accomplishments? Your thoughts?
icrymyselftosleep said:Those are the tapes that were sent to him along with a note to kill himself and they wouldn't be given to his wife, right?Bighunter43 said:Sapper Redux said:Rex Racer said:Sapper Redux said:Rex Racer said:I knew someone would try to pull this out of their arse.Sapper Redux said:Rex Racer said:It's just silly. So for every single person in our country who has ever done anything that someone doesn't agree with, we must never honor them in any way, or at the very least, we must spell out for all to see every opinion they ever had that is disagreed with by the mob or everything they ever did that is disagreed with by the mob.Sapper Redux said:
Is this a problem?
It's interesting how you're portraying running a political campaign on the explicit basis of white supremacy as some kind of simple "disagreement."
He was wrong, but have you never been wrong or done anything wrong? If so, you can never be lauded for doing anything good, so forget about it.
Every single person who has a marker or monument sinned at some point except Jesus Christ. So either tear down all of the markers and monuments, or put up another maker that spells out every bad thing they ever did. It's stupid.
You realize you're conflating issues, right? There's a difference between a personal failing and promoting the disenfranchisement and mistreatment of millions of people.
As a LOT of people did back then. You putting up a separate marker for every single one?
I'm saying either make note of it or consider not honoring them if you can't properly contextualize them.
Can I ask a question Sapper? There are supposed FBI tapes of MLK having orgies, sex with prostitutes, and even watching and laughing while a fellow pastor raped a woman. That last one, if true, is just plain sick and appalling! "IF" that is true...do you think we should take his statues down and remove his holiday....or put up disclaimers about his actions for all to see how he really was? Publicly, Dr King did some amazing things, and those things deserve the highest accolades.....however, his private life somehow seems to leave little to be desired...does that overshadow the good, and does that warrant a disclaimer of his life's accomplishments? Your thoughts?
I have no idea. Who even knows if the FBI tapes/memos actually exist? I certainly don't think we'll ever know the truth, and despite the mention that they are supposed to be released in 2027....I think we all know that will never happen in today's politically charged environment. My point was to Sapper to reiterate that we are all human and everyone will come up short if you look deep enough into their past. Dr King's public life and actions are well deserving of statues and praise. I was only using the possibility of discretions in his private life for sake of argument!
Featured Stories
See All
10:53
14h ago
7.3k
Griffen leads second-half takeover as A&M ends Austin drought
by Olin Buchanan
5 Thoughts: Texas A&M 74, Texas 70
by Luke Evangelist
13:26
2h ago
730
2027 OL Jackson Roper reviews his 'fun' return to Aggieland
by Jason Howell
Senior right-hander Josh Stewart picked to wear #12 in 2026
by Richard Zane
Skywalker18
Postgame Discussion: Bucky Ball 4-1 and erases Austin demons
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
36