Malibu said:

---

I'm not going to read through this thread. What relevance does having Confederate family history have to Mond's argument?

---

That one can somehow minimize one person's history while completely ignoring their own. Monds argument is one that should be forgotten and probably chastised for being a bit racist

Sine poena nulla lex.

C@LAg said:

---

hairloom said:

---

Malibu said:

---

I'm not going to read through this thread. What relevance does having Confederate family history have to Mond's argument?

---

That one can somehow minimize one person's history while completely ignoring their own. Monds argument is one that should be forgotten and probably chastised for being a bit racist

---

his entire position/stance on all of this is racist.

---

Agreed. It's a modern racism. Ignoring one's actual history, focusing on now cancel culture and criticizing a past which your skin color can validate.

This isn't a race issue anymore. Credentials are based off of melanin content. That's abhorrent

Also Mond said it himself: "History is his story."

Mond's story is Confederate Generals, slave capturing, land ownership, and great privilege. If you want to to tear down monuments to the Confederacy, start with the schools named after your own family.

And nobody with an IQ above room temperature condemns Sully for his CSA service.

Malibu said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

And nobody with an IQ above room temperature condemns Sully for his CSA service.

---

To the extent that every able bodied male in that time period fought for their respective geography, sure. To the extent that we honor those causes as the embodiment of true Aggieism "...Soldier, Statesman, Knightly Gentleman, Brigadier General C.S.A" I take issue. You can't honor the soldier without making reference to the C.S.A. part of the plaque.

---

We're honoring that he fought for his country. Not a damn thing wrong with that.

And, it's simply one small part. You left out "Governor of Texas", "President of the A&M College". That's why the statue is there, "President of the A&M College".

You know as well as I, that if the line about Brigadier General, CSA, had been left off the statue, it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference to the anti-Sully crowd.

These are the same idiots who are knocking down statues of abolitionists, for pete's sake.

Quote:

---

There's a lot wrong with the cause that he fought for. Don't overplay your hand.

---

America of 1941 to 1945 included a lot of segregation, Jim Crow, anti-foreigner sentiment, interment of Japanese, Germans,and Italians, trampling of civil rights, confiscation of vast tracts of land for government projects and bases, etc. etc. etc.

I guess it's time to give the middle finger to all the WWII vets, if we're looking for perfection.

Malibu said:

---

The Sully debate has been hashed and rehashed. If you want the last word go for it.

Back to Mond though, I still have zero idea why what one's ancestors did is a credible argument against a modern day position.

---

Hypocrisy. If Sully is beyond redemption, Mond should be giving his family fortune to BLM.

Malibu said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

And nobody with an IQ above room temperature condemns Sully for his CSA service.

---

To the extent that every able bodied male in that time period fought for their respective geography, sure. To the extent that we honor those causes as the embodiment of true Aggieism "...Soldier, Statesman, Knightly Gentleman, Brigadier General C.S.A" I take issue. You can't honor the soldier without making reference to the C.S.A. part of the plaque.

And Mond may not be making great arguments for or against his respective sides. I'm just not sure what the actions of his ancestors have to do with any of those arguments. Otherwise every human on the planet has to sidestep whether or not marauding, rape, slavery, theft, etc. are ok to criticize because somewhere in our family tree, someone did something bad.

---

The question is whether or not Sul Ross is the type of man that should be honored. Ross's close relationship with Mond's ancestor, and the glowing terms with which he referred to Ross, certainly seems relevant, unless you are taking the position that we should judge historical figures purely by contemporary standards.

Obviously, the statue at A&M, showing him in civilian dress, primarily honors him for his service as president of the school (it wouldn't be located here if the primary purpose was otherwise). But, it would have been considered quite strange by the people of that time to erect a statue for Ross and not mention his service as governor or his military service. It would be like honoring George Washington without mentioning his service as commander of the army in the revolutionary war: Could you do it? Sure, but it would be a significant omission from the resume.

Quote:

---

It would be like honoring George Washington without mentioning his service as commander of the army in the revolutionary war: Could you do it? Sure, but it would be a significant omission from the resume.

---

Washington really was a traitor.

Malibu said:

---

I think it's safe to say that some of those that were in forces are the same the burn crosses. The conundrum that is America and humanity in general.

---

Ah yes, quote the marxists. But we overplayed our hand saying that the CSA isn't entirely evil? GTFO

Malibu said:

---

Decay said:

---

Malibu said:

---

I think it's safe to say that some of those that were in forces are the same the burn crosses. The conundrum that is America and humanity in general.

---

1. Ah yes, quote the marxists.
2. But we overplayed our hand saying that the CSA isn't entirely evil?
3. GTFO

---

1. You listen to Rage Against the Machine too, enough to know the quote. And anyways, who cares who said it, the only question is whether or not it's true. Yes, some American GIs who fought in WW2 were also KKK members. Hence the conundrum.
2. You overplay your hand when you say there is nothing wrong with fighting for the CSA, not when you claim that men who lived in a certain time and place followed the norms of their time.
3. You first.

---

Can you honor them if they were legally conscripted to join and would have been put to death if they hadn't? Just curious where your line drawing goes. You're acting like the two things (fighting for a cause and following the norms of the time) aren't clearly a mixed issue. They are. Many don't agree with the reasons we went into Vietnam, or Korea. Yet we honor those soldiers. Many didn't honor those soldiers and called them baby killers, etc. Just because you don't agree with the cause, doesn't mean the men don't deserve to be honored. Polticians start wars. Soldiers do what they're told.

Malibu said:

---

Decay said:

---

Malibu said:

---

Canyon said "We're honoring that he fought for his country. Not a damn thing wrong with that."

---

Hmm. "his country". Not "The CSA". Just checking.

---

The difference being....

---

The difference being that when you put words into other people's mouth, AKA saying the CSA versus his country, you're implying he was fighting for the ideals of the CSA.

Canyon was saying he fought for his country. Whichever one he happened to be in.

If you want to nitpick people then they're going to nitpick you back.

Malibu said:

---

hairloom said:

---

Malibu said:

---

I'm not going to read through this thread. What relevance does having Confederate family history have to Mond's argument?

---

That one can somehow minimize one person's history while completely ignoring their own. Monds argument is one that should be forgotten and probably chastised for being a bit racist

---

This argument still makes no sense to me. Mond didn't fight for the Confederacy. He has no personal history with the Confederacy. Sully did. We're not arguing about what Sully's grandpappy did, just Sully himself.

---

Alvard, who's been holding student activists' strings during all this, actually led his argument against Sully by citing to Sully's father's history.

But the larger point is that support for the confederacy was the history of Texas and Texans who were alive at the time. It's not a simple, clear-cut issue and shouldn't be treated as such.

Seems appropriate here:

https://www.outkick.com/outkick-aint-nothing-but-a-gangsta-party-for-2-of-amerikas-most-wanted/

Quote:

---

America's most powerful anti-black bigots ditched KKK hoods and sheets 50 years ago and replaced them with a political moniker liberal. It was a brilliant strategy. It allowed them to keep their friends close and pull their enemies even closer. We have been programmed to believe the word liberal is the birth-control pill for racism. It's not even a condom...

Racism is the preferred weapon of white liberals. It explains their guilty conscience and their inclination to advise black people to adopt strategies that ultimately work against our advancement....

he Daily Beast and white liberals specialize in intentionally misleading black people.

They celebrate young, easy-to-manipulate athletes as thought leaders and denigrate any accomplished black man or woman who dares to publicly challenge their destructive strategy for black people.

---

Malibu said:

---

hairloom said:

---

Malibu said:

---

I'm not going to read through this thread. What relevance does having Confederate family history have to Mond's argument?

---

That one can somehow minimize one person's history while completely ignoring their own. Monds argument is one that should be forgotten and probably chastised for being a bit racist

---

This argument still makes no sense to me. Mond didn't fight for the Confederacy. He has no personal history with the Confederacy. Sully did. We're not arguing about what Sully's grandpappy did, just Sully himself.

---

Well let me help you out here - because I believe it does relate DIRECTLY. It is about MOND.

We have been told repeatedly by the left and protesters and even the anti Sully crowd that

- you HAVE to be anti racist in every aspect of your life it is not good enough to just not be racist.
- you HAVE to condemn racism everywhere you see it or are made aware of it
- we cannot tolerate memorials to ANYONE that was in the Confederacy they were ALL racist

So Mond has now been made aware I am sure of his own families legacy and yet

- he remains silent about the racists in his family
- there are schools and other memorials named for his ancestors and yet he is not fighting for those to be changed

If your "principles" are merely selectively applied and you ignore them when it more directly affects YOU there is a term for that and it is HYPOCRITE.

And if you are a hypocrite I have no respect for your principles or opinions because you don't.

It's pretty simple - practice what you preach - or I don't care to hear your sermon.

Expect your rant (very well done and logical) to fall on deaf ears out in Malibu. Your target is much too sophisticated to see any connection, and logic has absolutely NO place in an argument about our "feelz" anyway... please refrain from posting on this, or any thread like it until you can get your privilege/logic in check!