Time to Re-name Montgomery County

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FFS. When does this end?

It will never end.... now that the goal of legal equality has been fully reached, crusaders must get more and more shrill about ever smaller (and imaginary) slights.

Legal equality has not been fully reached at all. Many laws and institutions (e.g., tax code, foundation of special education, etc.) legally continue to support racial, socioeconomic, and other inequalities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FFS. When does this end?

It will never end.... now that the goal of legal equality has been fully reached, crusaders must get more and more shrill about ever smaller (and imaginary) slights.

No, it hasn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FFS. When does this end?

It will never end.... now that the goal of legal equality has been fully reached, crusaders must get more and more shrill about ever smaller (and imaginary) slights.

Legal equality has not been fully reached at all. Many laws and institutions (e.g., tax code, foundation of special education, etc.) legally continue to support racial, socioeconomic, and other inequalities.

Tax code is rather race blind. Special ed? Not a POC but DC was treated abysmally. Legal equality is reached via the letter of the law. Individuals who are now anathema include: Lincoln, Jefferson, Churchill, Ghandi, Grant, Columbus and all who sailed on those wooden ships, 54th regiment [AA union Civil War soldiers]. Yes even AA soldiers who fought for the Union are persona non grata with defaced/vandalized memorial. https://www.wcvb.com/article/shaw-54th-regiment-memorial-defaced/32733306#

Astounding how many want to immigrate here - documented an undocumented.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FFS. When does this end?

It will never end.... now that the goal of legal equality has been fully reached, crusaders must get more and more shrill about ever smaller (and imaginary) slights.

Legal equality has not been fully reached at all. Many laws and institutions (e.g., tax code, foundation of special education, etc.) legally continue to support racial, socioeconomic, and other inequalities.

Tax code is rather race blind. Special ed? Not a POC but DC was treated abysmally. Legal equality is reached via the letter of the law. Individuals who are now anathema include: Lincoln, Jefferson, Churchill, Ghandi, Grant, Columbus and all who sailed on those wooden ships, 54th regiment [AA union Civil War soldiers]. Yes even AA soldiers who fought for the Union are persona non grata with defaced/vandalized memorial. https://www.wcvb.com/article/shaw-54th-regiment-memorial-defaced/32733306#

Astounding how many want to immigrate here - documented an undocumented.

That monument has been vandalized twice before —as your own cite points out

The memorial has been vandalized before – with paint in 2012, and the sword was broken off in 2015 and 2017.

The one here has also been vandalized.

Only white supremacists are upset about the USCT being honored.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:George Washington also had slaves. As did Jefferson, and other US potus. Maybe we should take down their monuments.

I'm totally for BLM and renaming military bases that are named after *confederate* generals, as they are basically traitors to the USA. But, I don't think we need to rename *everything* named after people in this country's history who owned slaves. Lots of people owned slaves; it was the norm during that time.

George and Martha "owned" >700 enslaved people. Jefferson raped and had children with an enslaved woman he "owned". You can't leave the past in the past when you have daily reminders. Hey, let's live on Jeffry Epstein Street or Dahmer Blvd.

Why does it matter how many slaves the Washington's owned? As for Jefferson, if he did rape her, and never felt sorry for it, then sure, demolish his monument. But there were many back then who did own slaves and then eventually changed their minds about it. Washington was such a person, and B. Franklin.

Maybe what ought to be done is keep the Jefferson memorial, but in it, also put a memorial up for those he wronged? What better way to remind people that Jefferson was not perfect and slavery was evil. People who go to Jefferson's monument will see both. I like the monument, and some of the words inscribed there. Mt. Vernon has something similar, I believe. They have an area dedicated to the slaves there; I think it's near Washington's tomb from what I recall.

Are you my neighbor from Charles Manson Drive?

Only if you live in Jim Jonestown. Was this a serious post?

Slavery as we know it now is a horrible thing. But, it was practiced by many countries on almost every continent, over thousands of years. It is mentioned in the Bible, the Koran, Russians had serfs who were basically slaves and could be bought and sold up until the 1800s; Africans had slaves, as did the major civilizations in the Americas.

There were those who later felt that it was not a good thing. The guy who wrote the hymn Amazing Grace was such a person. It's an amazing story of a man who was involved in the slave trade, then went on to see the evils of it, eventually getting it abolished in England. I believe he was a captain on a slave ship, transporting them to the British colonies. Should we stop singing Amazing Grace since he wrote it?

Thank you. But historical knowledge and reason are anathema to the mob.

Reason also says that you can’t compare a repentant slave trader turned abolitionist with an unrepentant Confederate general.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:George Washington also had slaves. As did Jefferson, and other US potus. Maybe we should take down their monuments.

I'm totally for BLM and renaming military bases that are named after *confederate* generals, as they are basically traitors to the USA. But, I don't think we need to rename *everything* named after people in this country's history who owned slaves. Lots of people owned slaves; it was the norm during that time.

George and Martha "owned" >700 enslaved people. Jefferson raped and had children with an enslaved woman he "owned". You can't leave the past in the past when you have daily reminders. Hey, let's live on Jeffry Epstein Street or Dahmer Blvd.

Why does it matter how many slaves the Washington's owned? As for Jefferson, if he did rape her, and never felt sorry for it, then sure, demolish his monument. But there were many back then who did own slaves and then eventually changed their minds about it. Washington was such a person, and B. Franklin.

Maybe what ought to be done is keep the Jefferson memorial, but in it, also put a memorial up for those he wronged? What better way to remind people that Jefferson was not perfect and slavery was evil. People who go to Jefferson's monument will see both. I like the monument, and some of the words inscribed there. Mt. Vernon has something similar, I believe. They have an area dedicated to the slaves there; I think it's near Washington's tomb from what I recall.

Are you my neighbor from Charles Manson Drive?

Only if you live in Jim Jonestown. Was this a serious post?

Slavery as we know it now is a horrible thing. But, it was practiced by many countries on almost every continent, over thousands of years. It is mentioned in the Bible, the Koran, Russians had serfs who were basically slaves and could be bought and sold up until the 1800s; Africans had slaves, as did the major civilizations in the Americas.

There were those who later felt that it was not a good thing. The guy who wrote the hymn Amazing Grace was such a person. It's an amazing story of a man who was involved in the slave trade, then went on to see the evils of it, eventually getting it abolished in England. I believe he was a captain on a slave ship, transporting them to the British colonies. Should we stop singing Amazing Grace since he wrote it?

Thank you. But historical knowledge and reason are anathema to the mob.

Reason also says that you can’t compare a repentant slave trader turned abolitionist with an unrepentant Confederate general.

No sh1t. That wasn't the point of that point. Read the entire thread.. it was about Washington and Jefferson, definitely not confederate generals. I wholeheartedly agree with getting rid of traitors - confederate generals. But some people also want to get rid of Jefferson and Washington memorials. U. Grant's statue in SF was just torn down. WTF? Those people have turned into a mob with zero thinking skills.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:George Washington also had slaves. As did Jefferson, and other US potus. Maybe we should take down their monuments.

I'm totally for BLM and renaming military bases that are named after *confederate* generals, as they are basically traitors to the USA. But, I don't think we need to rename *everything* named after people in this country's history who owned slaves. Lots of people owned slaves; it was the norm during that time.

George and Martha "owned" >700 enslaved people. Jefferson raped and had children with an enslaved woman he "owned". You can't leave the past in the past when you have daily reminders. Hey, let's live on Jeffry Epstein Street or Dahmer Blvd.

Why does it matter how many slaves the Washington's owned? As for Jefferson, if he did rape her, and never felt sorry for it, then sure, demolish his monument. But there were many back then who did own slaves and then eventually changed their minds about it. Washington was such a person, and B. Franklin.

Maybe what ought to be done is keep the Jefferson memorial, but in it, also put a memorial up for those he wronged? What better way to remind people that Jefferson was not perfect and slavery was evil. People who go to Jefferson's monument will see both. I like the monument, and some of the words inscribed there. Mt. Vernon has something similar, I believe. They have an area dedicated to the slaves there; I think it's near Washington's tomb from what I recall.

Are you my neighbor from Charles Manson Drive?

Only if you live in Jim Jonestown. Was this a serious post?

Slavery as we know it now is a horrible thing. But, it was practiced by many countries on almost every continent, over thousands of years. It is mentioned in the Bible, the Koran, Russians had serfs who were basically slaves and could be bought and sold up until the 1800s; Africans had slaves, as did the major civilizations in the Americas.

There were those who later felt that it was not a good thing. The guy who wrote the hymn Amazing Grace was such a person. It's an amazing story of a man who was involved in the slave trade, then went on to see the evils of it, eventually getting it abolished in England. I believe he was a captain on a slave ship, transporting them to the British colonies. Should we stop singing Amazing Grace since he wrote it?

Thank you. But historical knowledge and reason are anathema to the mob.

Reason also says that you can’t compare a repentant slave trader turned abolitionist with an unrepentant Confederate general.

No sh1t. That wasn't the point of that point. Read the entire thread.. it was about Washington and Jefferson, definitely not confederate generals. I wholeheartedly agree with getting rid of traitors - confederate generals. But some people also want to get rid of Jefferson and Washington memorials. U. Grant's statue in SF was just torn down. WTF? Those people have turned into a mob with zero thinking skills.

Grant was a slave owner.

“Grant was the last US president to have personally owned another human being. Though his father was an abolitionist, Grant married a woman from a slave-owning family and personally directed the labor of enslaved workers at their plantation in Missouri. In 1859, two years before the civil war, he emancipated William Jones, a slave aged around 35 whom he had personally owned.
During the war, his wife, Julia, traveled with a woman named Jules who was still enslaved, a decision that prompted public condemnation. The Grant family did not free Jules after President Abraham Lincoln issued the emancipation proclamation. Instead, according to the White House Historical Association, Jules ran away.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/20/san-francisco-statues-ulysses-s-grant-junipero-serra-francis-scott-key

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Grant was a slave owner.

“Grant was the last US president to have personally owned another human being. Though his father was an abolitionist, Grant married a woman from a slave-owning family and personally directed the labor of enslaved workers at their plantation in Missouri. In 1859, two years before the civil war, he emancipated William Jones, a slave aged around 35 whom he had personally owned.
During the war, his wife, Julia, traveled with a woman named Jules who was still enslaved, a decision that prompted public condemnation. The Grant family did not free Jules after President Abraham Lincoln issued the emancipation proclamation. Instead, according to the White House Historical Association, Jules ran away.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/20/san-francisco-statues-ulysses-s-grant-junipero-serra-francis-scott-key

Yes, and that slave was gifted to him, and per your post, Grant let him go. The other slaves were owned by his wife and her family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Grant was a slave owner.

“Grant was the last US president to have personally owned another human being. Though his father was an abolitionist, Grant married a woman from a slave-owning family and personally directed the labor of enslaved workers at their plantation in Missouri. In 1859, two years before the civil war, he emancipated William Jones, a slave aged around 35 whom he had personally owned.
During the war, his wife, Julia, traveled with a woman named Jules who was still enslaved, a decision that prompted public condemnation. The Grant family did not free Jules after President Abraham Lincoln issued the emancipation proclamation. Instead, according to the White House Historical Association, Jules ran away.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/20/san-francisco-statues-ulysses-s-grant-junipero-serra-francis-scott-key

Yes, and that slave was gifted to him, and per your post, Grant let him go. The other slaves were owned by his wife and her family.

Do you even HEAR yourself?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Grant was a slave owner.

“Grant was the last US president to have personally owned another human being. Though his father was an abolitionist, Grant married a woman from a slave-owning family and personally directed the labor of enslaved workers at their plantation in Missouri. In 1859, two years before the civil war, he emancipated William Jones, a slave aged around 35 whom he had personally owned.
During the war, his wife, Julia, traveled with a woman named Jules who was still enslaved, a decision that prompted public condemnation. The Grant family did not free Jules after President Abraham Lincoln issued the emancipation proclamation. Instead, according to the White House Historical Association, Jules ran away.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/20/san-francisco-statues-ulysses-s-grant-junipero-serra-francis-scott-key

Yes, and that slave was gifted to him, and per your post, Grant let him go. The other slaves were owned by his wife and her family.

Do you even HEAR yourself?

Yes, I do. Do you? Do you use the same morals on people who lived hundreds of years ago? Thousands? You know the Bible has a verse about how "slaves should obey their masters".. should we stop reading the Bible? Do you know why that verse was in there? HINT: it wasn't to justify slavery, as the white "Christian" slave owners claimed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Grant was a slave owner.

“Grant was the last US president to have personally owned another human being. Though his father was an abolitionist, Grant married a woman from a slave-owning family and personally directed the labor of enslaved workers at their plantation in Missouri. In 1859, two years before the civil war, he emancipated William Jones, a slave aged around 35 whom he had personally owned.
During the war, his wife, Julia, traveled with a woman named Jules who was still enslaved, a decision that prompted public condemnation. The Grant family did not free Jules after President Abraham Lincoln issued the emancipation proclamation. Instead, according to the White House Historical Association, Jules ran away.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/20/san-francisco-statues-ulysses-s-grant-junipero-serra-francis-scott-key

Yes, and that slave was gifted to him, and per your post, Grant let him go. The other slaves were owned by his wife and her family.

You can’t read.

[Anonymous]

I actually don’t think slavery should be erased. It happened. Instead of pretending it didn’t, we should look at how we can change in the future. Our founders were imperfect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Grant was a slave owner.

“Grant was the last US president to have personally owned another human being. Though his father was an abolitionist, Grant married a woman from a slave-owning family and personally directed the labor of enslaved workers at their plantation in Missouri. In 1859, two years before the civil war, he emancipated William Jones, a slave aged around 35 whom he had personally owned.
During the war, his wife, Julia, traveled with a woman named Jules who was still enslaved, a decision that prompted public condemnation. The Grant family did not free Jules after President Abraham Lincoln issued the emancipation proclamation. Instead, according to the White House Historical Association, Jules ran away.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/20/san-francisco-statues-ulysses-s-grant-junipero-serra-francis-scott-key

Yes, and that slave was gifted to him, and per your post, Grant let him go. The other slaves were owned by his wife and her family.

You can’t read.

And you are holier than thou.

Slavery was an acceptable institution across many countries around the world throughout history. Africans owned white slaves, too.

As evil as slavery is I am not going to enforce my modern day morals on cultures from hundreds of years ago.

Grant, Lincoln, Washington were great men, but were human nonetheless, and lived within their morals of their time.

Some of you are really ridiculous. You'd better hope that in 50 years, when your kids are older, they don't try to apply the same standards to your way of parenting to current standards, otherwise, you will be found sorely lacking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I actually don’t think slavery should be erased. It happened. Instead of pretending it didn’t, we should look at how we can change in the future. Our founders were imperfect.

Renaming Montgomery County =/= pretending slavery didn't happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Grant was a slave owner.

“Grant was the last US president to have personally owned another human being. Though his father was an abolitionist, Grant married a woman from a slave-owning family and personally directed the labor of enslaved workers at their plantation in Missouri. In 1859, two years before the civil war, he emancipated William Jones, a slave aged around 35 whom he had personally owned.
During the war, his wife, Julia, traveled with a woman named Jules who was still enslaved, a decision that prompted public condemnation. The Grant family did not free Jules after President Abraham Lincoln issued the emancipation proclamation. Instead, according to the White House Historical Association, Jules ran away.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/20/san-francisco-statues-ulysses-s-grant-junipero-serra-francis-scott-key

Yes, and that slave was gifted to him, and per your post, Grant let him go. The other slaves were owned by his wife and her family.

You can’t read.

And you are holier than thou.

Slavery was an acceptable institution across many countries around the world throughout history. Africans owned white slaves, too.

As evil as slavery is I am not going to enforce my modern day morals on cultures from hundreds of years ago.

Grant, Lincoln, Washington were great men, but were human nonetheless, and lived within their morals of their time.

Some of you are really ridiculous. You'd better hope that in 50 years, when your kids are older, they don't try to apply the same standards to your way of parenting to current standards, otherwise, you will be found sorely lacking.

Must not as a race-based institution and those were white North Africans, not black sub-Saharan Africans. They owned non-Muslim slaves of every race, slavery was not inherited by children, and the enslaved retained personhood. Not at all like race-based, inheritable, chattel slavery in the US.