Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire NAACP calls for Mount Rushmore to be demolished

I think the NAACP is offensive.....

What does it [naacp] stand for, North American Apes Coons Possums?

Gunner

I googled it, 'national association for the advancement of colored people'

Hey, that's [bleep] prejudice.

Gunner

^ Take a big damn chunk of coal for sure!

What does it [naacp] stand for, North American Apes Coons Possums?

Gunner

I'm proud of my ancestors who fought for the Union and who served in Lincoln's Cabinet, just as many here are proud of their ancestors who fought for the Confederacy. We'll have to agree to disagree on the rest, but it really seems to be a moot point to argue the righteousness of the cause, either for or against secession, nearly 150 years after the outcome was decided on the field of battle.

Former "peace officers" dress and act like military occupiers. Violence in families and communities may increase as government promoted violence and efforts to counter it become common in society. Religious organizations change their philosophies to fit the warlike values of their many members that work for the police state or the military. Books, movies, and games become dark and war-centered rather than celebrating the happiness and excitement of productive pursuits or family and social activities.

Children want to honor their parents� endeavors so they learn to revere their parents� police-state and war-related professions when those professions become prevalent in society. The participation of ancestors in World War I, World War II, Korea, or Vietnam has resulted in a reverence for those wars in the minds of many, regardless of the basis for those wars. They don�t want to think that their parents would be associated with something bad. Murray Rothbard insightfully commented about "tradition" in The Anatamoy of the State, saying, "Worship of one's ancestors, then, becomes a none too subtle means of worship of one's ancient rulers." War on substances, just like war on anything has blowback and unintended consequences that affect society as a whole.

[quote=ConradCA]



That what they teach in Kalifornia schools now?

The pretense that the "abolition of slavery" was either a motive or justification for the war, is a fraud of the same character with that of "maintaining the national honor." Who, but such usurpers, robbers, and murderers as they, ever established slavery? Or what government, except one resting upon the sword, like the one we now have, was ever capable of maintaining slavery? And why did these men abolish slavery? Not from any love of liberty in general -- not as an act of justice to the black man himself, but only "as a war measure," and because they wanted his assistance, and that of his friends, in carrying on the war they had undertaken for maintaining and intensifying that political, commercial, and industrial slavery, to which they have subjected the great body of the people, both black and white. And yet these imposters now cry out that they have abolished the chattel slavery of the black man -- although that was not the motive of the war -- as if they thought they could thereby conceal, atone for, or justify that other slavery which they were fighting to perpetuate, and to render more rigorous and inexorable than it ever was before. There was no difference of principle -- but only of degree -- between the slavery they boast they have abolished, and the slavery they were fighting to preserve; for all restraints upon men's natural liberty, not necessary for the simple maintenance of justice, are of the nature of slavery, and differ from each other only in degree.

If their object had really been to abolish slavery, or maintain liberty or justice generally, they had only to say: All, whether white or black, who want the protection of this government, shall have it; and all who do not want it, will be left in peace, so long as they leave us in peace. Had they said this, slavery would necessarily have been abolished at once; the war would have been saved; and a thousand times nobler union than we have ever had would have been the result. It would have been a voluntary union of free men; such a union as will one day exist among all men, the world over, if the several nations, so called, shall ever get rid of the usurpers, robbers, and murderers, called governments, that now plunder, enslave, and destroy them.

Still another of the frauds of these men is, that they are now establishing, and that the war was designed to establish, "a government of consent." The only idea they have ever manifested as to what is a government of consent, is this -- that it is one to which everybody must consent, or be shot. This idea was the dominant one on which the war was carried on; and it is the dominant one, now that we have got what is called "peace."

Their pretenses that they have "Saved the Country," and "Preserved our Glorious Union," are frauds like all the rest of their pretenses. By them they mean simply that they have subjugated, and maintained their power over, an unwilling people. This they call "Saving the Country"; as if an enslaved and subjugated people -- or as if any people kept in subjection by the sword (as it is intended that all of us shall be hereafter) -- could be said to have any country. This, too, they call "Preserving our Glorious Union"; as if there could be said to be any Union, glorious or inglorious, that was not voluntary. Or as if there could be said to be any union between masters and slaves; between those who conquer, and those who are subjugated.

At a hastily organized news conference today, the national president of the NAACP asserted that images of two of the presidents honored on Mount Rushmore, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, are "offensive and hurtful."

National NAACP president Rev. William Barber claimed that he was shocked Friday when he was shown a picture of the monument. Upon researching the memorial's history on Wikipedia, he discovered what he described as "disturbing truths" that require the site's "total demolition." Both former presidents were slaveowners.

One historian who disagrees is Civil War historian Kevin M. Levin. "I sympathize with Reverend Barber, and normally I do not disagree with black people, especially those who are bigger than me. But as a student of history, I think we need to appreciate Mount Rushmore in its historical context."

These arguments have not changed Barber's mind. "He is right that it has a historical context," Barber said. "But what is that history? The history of racism. The history of lynchings. The history of death. The history of slavery. If you say that shouldn't be offensive, then either you don't know the history, or you are denying the history."

When asked why the images of Lincoln and Roosevelt should suffer the same fate, Barber laughed. "They've been hangin' with George and Tom too long to be innocent. They had their chance."

April 1, sucka's

Washington and Jefferson were both slave owners ... I condemn their racism and their ownership of slaves.

Lincoln was fighting to maintain control of people who didn't want to be under his control.