Poster's comment:
"I take Jackson's comments as offensive, to say that these monuments were built as hateful symbols of racial repression. Not so, from my reading of the history. Just look at the monuments. They honor people, and don't denigrate anyone. True, they don't honor African Americans, but that might warrant more monuments, not less. On the other hand, Ellis's comments are measured. He's talking about suitable placement and protection of these fine monuments, and he's been talking about this for a long time, so he's just using this occasion to try to push his longstanding argument. Ellis has a defensible, understandable position. Jackson's comments, on the other hand, are inappropriate, and should be rejected by scholars as anti-historical, and by politicians as inflammatory and divisive."
I'm Offended:
I am familiar with this poster (Attorney Dave Oedel) and had read other internet post he'd written. Initially, I had thought him to be unbias, however as I began to read more of his statements and other’s statements about him one thing became clear............he was a lawyer and wannabe politician. His post above in The Telegraph, really caught my attention because it ringed eerily familiar to 45’s both side. Which made me come to one conclusion he “play both sides” in hopes to gain. Gain, what I don’t know, but I’m sure at a later day it will be exposed.
 |
| African Methodist Ministers and Former Mayor C. Jack Ellis |
"I take Jackson's comments as offensive, to say that these monuments were built as hateful symbols of racial repression. Not so, from my reading of the history. Just look at the monuments. They honor people, and don't denigrate anyone. True, they don't honor African Americans, but that might warrant more monuments, not less. On the other hand, Ellis's comments are measured. He's talking about suitable placement and protection of these fine monuments, and he's been talking about this for a long time, so he's just using this occasion to try to push his longstanding argument. Ellis has a defensible, understandable position. Jackson's comments, on the other hand, are inappropriate, and should be rejected by scholars as anti-historical, and by politicians as inflammatory and divisive."
"Let me add one other factoid. When mayor, Ellis rescued the Baconsfield
Park stone that quoted Senator Bacon's gift of Baconsfield Park (to white women
and children). It was under the kudzu, deep in the woods of Shirley Hills.
Ellis saved it for the Tubman. It was mildly annoying to me, because I used to
have fun having my Con Law students do a field trip to read the devise in stone
that was the occasion for the famous Supreme Court case, Evans v. Newton out of
Macon, that appears in the leading Con Law casebook by Erwin Chemerinsky. Ellis
is no hater of history. He seems genuine in wanting a fair and open
interpretation of the history that is ours, though he wants the whole history
to be told. OCGA 50-3-1 gives our officials the flexibility to find the best
way locally to do that. We need to think about what might work best. Moving the
statues is one possibility, but another possibility, suggested by a very smart
collleague of mine, is to build more statues and leave them all up to spar with
our minds on a daily basis. I like that idea better."
I'm Offended:
I am familiar with this poster (Attorney Dave Oedel) and had read other internet post he'd written. Initially, I had thought him to be unbias, however as I began to read more of his statements and other’s statements about him one thing became clear............he was a lawyer and wannabe politician. His post above in The Telegraph, really caught my attention because it ringed eerily familiar to 45’s both side. Which made me come to one conclusion he “play both sides” in hopes to gain. Gain, what I don’t know, but I’m sure at a later day it will be exposed.
In my humble
opinion any man or woman who is not black who feels comfortable using the word
“ni**er in a student lecture or otherwise, have friends who defend him, and
a little annoyed that Senator Bacon’s racist plaque was removed offends me.
As he will never
be able to justify the use of the word ni**er ………… he will never be able to
convince me there are two sides to defend confederate statues/ monuments existence in the public square. I believe Bishop Jackson's statement was accurate/correct. The statues were /are a symbol of hate for anyone
who truly understand racism. One thing some white people haven’t grasped
about blacks, we know when we’re being lied to and we know(have known) hatred when we see it, in its many forms .
I disagree with his
description of his colleague (very smart) and his agreement with colleague suggestion, but that’s his
opinion…like “behinds” everyone has one. I disagree with his comment Bishop
Jackson’s comments were inappropriate, and should be rejected by
scholars, and yada, yada, yada. Macon has
few scholars and I doubt if they read The Telegraph's bias stories and pretending
not to be racist, poster's comments. The politicians in Macon have more pressing
issues to deal with (haven't he heard?) and inflammatory and divisive (Confederate Statues) issues doesn't fit the bill.
I take offense to
confederate monuments/statues, I take offense to some white folk in your face disrespect for people of color, and I take offense to white people using the word ni**er……..from my
reading of history. Do you think anybody
cares what I take offense to, the answer is no, but anyone with a shred of
decency do care about “doing the right thing”.
Some, not all, white folks have blatantly shown a disrespect for black
folks from the first time our ancestor stepped on Indian's soil and it continues, right to this very day.
When he referred to Bishop Jackson as Jackson his statements/opinion /post lost all credibility
with me. It is said, when a person shows
you who they are the first time believe him/her. He showed me he has no respect for people of color........ as did most(if not all) pretending to be not racist commenters/posters on this story.
No comments:
Post a Comment