George Washington Not Welcome at NAACP Rally
Diane Ellis ·
January 18, 2011 at 8:54pm
This photo -- hat tip to the Free North Carolina blog -- was taken yesterday at the NAACP's annual MLK observance at the steps of the statehouse in Columbia, South Carolina. The bronze statue of George Washington is hidden from view so as not to offend participants of the rally.
- Comment (72)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
Comments:
Sep '10
Re: George Washington Not Welcome at NAACP Rally
These folks are unbelievably small-minded and petty to stoop to this level.
This is clearly a metaphor for their approach to the world. Hold your event in a nice section of town and wall off what is inconvenient. Surely if they held the event on Martin Luther King Jr Boulevard (there is one in every major city isn't there?) they would have had to build a much bigger wall to obscure the backdrop of failure. Ancient slave-holders are not the problem.
Jul '10
Re: George Washington Not Welcome at NAACP Rally
Frankly, being offended by Washington to the point of hiding him from view is on a par with burning the flag. It is flatly anti-American.
Nov '10
Re: George Washington Not Welcome at NAACP Rally
CoolHand: THAT has got to be one of the best rants I've ever read.
Right up there with Ace and Dennis Miller.
Rare form indeed.
Well struck, and it perfectly articulates a point I've been making for years.
Which rant are you referring to?
Dec '10
Re: George Washington Not Welcome at NAACP Rally
One thing about MLK, he often spoke about how America failed to live up to its own ideals and all that was necessary was to return to them. Washington was not a perfect man, but he was a man of sometimes immeasurably high character.
He owned slaves, which is much to his detriment, but he wasn't the first.
May '10
Re: George Washington Not Welcome at NAACP Rally
I'm outrageously outraged that FDR doesn't have a cigarette holder and Winston Churchill doesn't have a cigar.
Honestly, the real villains here are not the people who would be offended (that being, like, three people). It's the people who are scared of offending the three people who might possibly get offended. I'd just give em the, uh, high sign and carry on.
Sep '10
Re: George Washington Not Welcome at NAACP Rally
My jaw dropped at this. What the (expletive). What the bloody (expletive)!
Sep '10
Re: George Washington Not Welcome at NAACP Rally
Perhaps the offense is that he was the only president (that I can call to mind) who freed his slaves; seems irresponsible in setting up a fund to support the elderly, and to support and educate the young, only into the first generation. Jefferson, with Ms. Hemmings, was, it seems, working on increasing the slave population...
Curious, in passing, that a major American political party still hosts Jefferson-Jackson day dinners, given positions those two took on Blacks (well known) and on Native Americans (Jefferson in dismanteling the reasonably humane Washington/Knox plan to allow Indians to own land and farm east of the Mississippi - check out "Jefferson and the Gun-Men" by Montgomery) and Jackson's "trail of tears".
Nov '10
Re: George Washington Not Welcome at NAACP Rally
I wanna know what Lady K said. :(
Nov '10
Re: George Washington Not Welcome at NAACP Rally
It was a thing of savage beauty, Charles. Trust me.
May '10
Re: George Washington Not Welcome at NAACP Rally
Lady Kurobara
It was a thing of savage beauty, Charles. Trust me. · Jan 18 at 4:40pm
Red in tooth and claw.
Aug '10
Re: George Washington Not Welcome at NAACP Rally
Lady Kurobara: That is outrageous.
Outrageous.
O - U - T - R - A - G - E - O - U - S
[Comment redacted by an editor] · Jan 18 at 12:12pm
Edited on Jan 18 at 12:31 pm
Komment redaKted by an editor ? Yeah bring it on Lady K. !*&%^$*(@(&! b
May '10
Re: George Washington Not Welcome at NAACP Rally
Lady Kurobara
KC Mulville: Did the NAACP really cover it up, so as not to offend blacks? That seems suspicious. Was it just an "optics" thing, like covering the crucifix at Georgetown? (Maybe I just can't bring myself to believe that was their intention.) If so, I have other questions:
They have a grudge against poor old George because he owned slaves, dontcha know. For too many blacks, that is the only thing about Washington's life that matters. In the same way, Thomas Jefferson's life is about nothing but Sally Hemmings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Hemmings
That sums it up.
May '10
Re: George Washington Not Welcome at NAACP Rally
flownover
Lady Kurobara: That is outrageous.
Outrageous.
O - U - T - R - A - G - E - O - U - S
[Comment redacted by an editor]
Edited on Jan 18 at 12:31 pm
Komment redaKted by an editor ? Yeah bring it on Lady K. !*&%^$*(@(&! b
Fight the power! *music* Fight the power! *music*....
May '10
Re: George Washington Not Welcome at NAACP Rally
Bob Croft: Jefferson, with Ms. Hemmings, was, it seems, working on increasing the slave population...
I believe that turns out not to be the case. The genetic evidence does not show that it was Thomas Jefferson, merely that it was it was a Jefferson. Furthermore, unlike Thomas Jefferson, his brother had a well-established reputation for taking advantage of female slaves. The contemporary accusations against Thomas Jefferson were made by some of his political opponents. The case against Thomas Jefferson is very shaky, but it gets lots of airplay because it serves the political purposes of people who like to run down America and the Founding Fathers.
May '10
Re: George Washington Not Welcome at NAACP Rally
I find this offensive.
May '10
Re: George Washington Not Welcome at NAACP Rally
The privileges bestowed upon you due to your whiteness preclude you from objecting in this context. Cause you is white, foo!
Nov '10
Re: George Washington Not Welcome at NAACP Rally
Kennedy Smith
Lady Kurobara
It was a thing of savage beauty, Charles. Trust me.
Red in tooth and claw.
Michael Labeit
flownover
Lady Kurobara: That is outrageous.
Outrageous.
O - U - T - R - A - G - E - O - U - S
[Comment redacted by an editor]
Komment redaKted by an editor ? Yeah bring it on Lady K. !*&%^$*(@(&! b
Fight the power! *music* Fight the power! *music*....
Diane, I am not ashamed of what I wrote. And I would like Michael Labeit's honest reaction. I respect his opinion. If Michael says that my original post is offensive and unacceptable, then I will consider myself humbled. That is a rare opportunity to reach a real decision in a public forum (where debate is notoriously diffuse and inconclusive). In short, I deserve a fair hearing from Michael.
Michael Labeit
The privileges bestowed upon you due to your whiteness preclude you from objecting in this context. Cause you is white, foo!
I respect Michael in no small part because he obviously has a good sense of humor and is not afraid to show it in racial matters.
May '10
Re: George Washington Not Welcome at NAACP Rally
Lady Kurobara
Michael Labeit
flownover
Lady Kurobara: That is outrageous.
Outrageous.
O - U - T - R - A - G - E - O - U - S
[Comment redacted by an editor]
Komment redaKted by an editor ? Yeah bring it on Lady K. !*&%^$*(@(&! b
Fight the power! *music* Fight the power! *music*....
Diane, I am not ashamed of what I wrote. And I would like Michael Labeit's honest reaction. I respect his opinion. If Michael says that my original post is offensive and unacceptable, then I will consider myself humbled. That is a rare opportunity to reach a real decision in a public forum (where debate is notoriously diffuse and inconclusive). In short, I deserve a fair hearing from Michael.
Michael Labeit
The privileges bestowed upon you due to your whiteness preclude you from objecting in this context. Cause you is white, foo!
I respect Michael in no small part because he obviously has a good sense of humor and is not afraid to show it in racial matters.
It seems this could be an opportunity for us all to learn something. And, many of us are interested.
Oct '10
Re: George Washington Not Welcome at NAACP Rally
Indeed.
May '10
Re: George Washington Not Welcome at NAACP Rally
Of all the things one should be offended by, its the charade at the NAACP event. Those people have a fetish for focusing on the non-essential characteristics of the Founders while ignoring or dismissing the essential. It is outrageous and I don't expect anything else from them.