Kellen Mond is a direct descendant of Col Santos Benavides
Kellen Mond's Ancestors Served In Confederate Army
147,548 Views |
969 Replies |
Last: 2 yr ago by BigRobSA
I wonder how much people like Davy Crockett and the Volunteers coming to Texas played a role in Texans like Sully feeling like they owed it to return the favor. Since none of us were there we will not know the thoughts, but I saw a book I have on him today and it had me thinking from that perspective.
Malibu said:The difference being....Decay said:Hmm. "his country". Not "The CSA". Just checking.Malibu said:
Canyon said "We're honoring that he fought for his country. Not a damn thing wrong with that."
Fighting along side your neighbors shows bravery and sacrifice. They fought for the wrong reasons, but I think the people of today can separate that.
Apparently not.hbtheduce said:Malibu said:The difference being....Decay said:Hmm. "his country". Not "The CSA". Just checking.Malibu said:
Canyon said "We're honoring that he fought for his country. Not a damn thing wrong with that."
Fighting along side your neighbors shows bravery and sacrifice. They fought for the wrong reasons, but I think the people of today can separate that.
valtosca said:
Kellen Mond is a direct descendant of Col Santos Benavides
The irony of this never gets old.
Hardly any of us have a direct ancestor that publicly wrote of Sully being a friend.
How is fighting to protect your home from an invading army "wrong"? Have you even tried putting yourself in their shoes/brogans? I seriously doubt it. Don't give in to the PC climate/culture. It's not a good look...hbtheduce said:Malibu said:The difference being....Decay said:Hmm. "his country". Not "The CSA". Just checking.Malibu said:
Canyon said "We're honoring that he fought for his country. Not a damn thing wrong with that."
Fighting along side your neighbors shows bravery and sacrifice. They fought for the wrong reasons, but I think the people of today can separate that.
AGHouston11 said:valtosca said:
Kellen Mond is a direct descendant of Col Santos Benavides
The irony of this never gets old.
Hardly any of us have a direct ancestor that publicly wrote of Sully being a friend.
Did he attend private school in Florida with money made off the backs of slave labor?
BoerneGator said:How is fighting to protect your home from an invading army "wrong"? Have you even tried putting yourself in their shoes/brogans? I seriously doubt it. Don't give in to the PC climate/culture. It's not a good look...hbtheduce said:Malibu said:The difference being....Decay said:Hmm. "his country". Not "The CSA". Just checking.Malibu said:
Canyon said "We're honoring that he fought for his country. Not a damn thing wrong with that."
Fighting along side your neighbors shows bravery and sacrifice. They fought for the wrong reasons, but I think the people of today can separate that.
Fighting to preserve slavery would be wrong. If you can accept their premise while still destroying their narrative. You are much more persuasive.
It really doesn't matter to me that people 200 years ago could have been racist. That isn't why I want to preserve their memories or southern culture. Keep trying to define me though bro.
"Define you"? I know nothing about you, "bro", other than you used very poor judgment questioning the motives of men defending their homes and property against an invading army, while assigning a motive you cannot prove nor substantiate. It might "look" good on an internet message board, but you'd never accuse them of it to their faces, so why dishonor their memories by doing it here?hbtheduce said:BoerneGator said:How is fighting to protect your home from an invading army "wrong"? Have you even tried putting yourself in their shoes/brogans? I seriously doubt it. Don't give in to the PC climate/culture. It's not a good look...hbtheduce said:Malibu said:The difference being....Decay said:Hmm. "his country". Not "The CSA". Just checking.Malibu said:
Canyon said "We're honoring that he fought for his country. Not a damn thing wrong with that."
Fighting along side your neighbors shows bravery and sacrifice. They fought for the wrong reasons, but I think the people of today can separate that.
Fighting to preserve slavery would be wrong. If you can accept their premise while still destroying their narrative. You are much more persuasive.
It really doesn't matter to me that people 200 years ago could have been racist. That isn't why I want to preserve their memories or southern culture. Keep trying to define me though bro.
Yes, it would be. Too bad that's not what they were fighting for. Read James McPherson's "For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War."hbtheduce said:BoerneGator said:How is fighting to protect your home from an invading army "wrong"? Have you even tried putting yourself in their shoes/brogans? I seriously doubt it. Don't give in to the PC climate/culture. It's not a good look...hbtheduce said:Malibu said:The difference being....Decay said:Hmm. "his country". Not "The CSA". Just checking.Malibu said:
Canyon said "We're honoring that he fought for his country. Not a damn thing wrong with that."
Fighting along side your neighbors shows bravery and sacrifice. They fought for the wrong reasons, but I think the people of today can separate that.
Fighting to preserve slavery would be wrong.
Col Benavides never had a delay of game penalty on his watch, though. Any minute now I expect Kellen Mond to go protest the schools named after Benavides. He would have a lot of credibility in that social justice march/tweets.AGHouston11 said:valtosca said:
Kellen Mond is a direct descendant of Col Santos Benavides
The irony of this never gets old.
Hardly any of us have a direct ancestor that publicly wrote of Sully being a friend.
BoerneGator said:"Define you"? I know nothing about you, "bro", other than you used very poor judgment questioning the motives of men defending their homes and property against an invading army, while assigning a motive you cannot prove nor substantiate. It might "look" good on an internet message board, but you'd never accuse them of it to their faces, so why dishonor their memories by doing it here?hbtheduce said:BoerneGator said:How is fighting to protect your home from an invading army "wrong"? Have you even tried putting yourself in their shoes/brogans? I seriously doubt it. Don't give in to the PC climate/culture. It's not a good look...hbtheduce said:Malibu said:The difference being....Decay said:Hmm. "his country". Not "The CSA". Just checking.Malibu said:
Canyon said "We're honoring that he fought for his country. Not a damn thing wrong with that."
Fighting along side your neighbors shows bravery and sacrifice. They fought for the wrong reasons, but I think the people of today can separate that.
Fighting to preserve slavery would be wrong. If you can accept their premise while still destroying their narrative. You are much more persuasive.
It really doesn't matter to me that people 200 years ago could have been racist. That isn't why I want to preserve their memories or southern culture. Keep trying to define me though bro.
Well seeing how they are all dead. I can't say anything to their faces.
If you want to argue for 20 more pages over the wide range of motives of men alive 200 years ago with sapper. That's your choice. My point remains the same.
Even if you assume the worst motives to confederate soldiers, it wouldn't warrant the removal of statues, names, flags, etc. because no one today would like those "worst" motives (and I agree, it ignores the motives of the common southerner)
wargograw said:Yes, it would be. Too bad that's not what they were fighting for. Read James McPherson's "For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War."hbtheduce said:BoerneGator said:How is fighting to protect your home from an invading army "wrong"? Have you even tried putting yourself in their shoes/brogans? I seriously doubt it. Don't give in to the PC climate/culture. It's not a good look...hbtheduce said:Malibu said:The difference being....Decay said:Hmm. "his country". Not "The CSA". Just checking.Malibu said:
Canyon said "We're honoring that he fought for his country. Not a damn thing wrong with that."
Fighting along side your neighbors shows bravery and sacrifice. They fought for the wrong reasons, but I think the people of today can separate that.
Fighting to preserve slavery would be wrong.
Almost every modern confederate "supporter" would agree that is bad. Which is why the arguments against confederate symbols is in bad faith.
I'm steel-manning the argument. Obviously the actual motives of southern citizens were wide ranging.
I'm not arguing the motives, other than vigorously rejecting THE motive YOU attributed to Confederates. And you can make your point (which i obviously agree with, btw) without denigrating the memories and motives of Confederates as so many are wont to do. THAT is my point, sir!hbtheduce said:BoerneGator said:"Define you"? I know nothing about you, "bro", other than you used very poor judgment questioning the motives of men defending their homes and property against an invading army, while assigning a motive you cannot prove nor substantiate. It might "look" good on an internet message board, but you'd never accuse them of it to their faces, so why dishonor their memories by doing it here?hbtheduce said:BoerneGator said:How is fighting to protect your home from an invading army "wrong"? Have you even tried putting yourself in their shoes/brogans? I seriously doubt it. Don't give in to the PC climate/culture. It's not a good look...hbtheduce said:Malibu said:The difference being....Decay said:Hmm. "his country". Not "The CSA". Just checking.Malibu said:
Canyon said "We're honoring that he fought for his country. Not a damn thing wrong with that."
Fighting along side your neighbors shows bravery and sacrifice. They fought for the wrong reasons, but I think the people of today can separate that.
Fighting to preserve slavery would be wrong. If you can accept their premise while still destroying their narrative. You are much more persuasive.
It really doesn't matter to me that people 200 years ago could have been racist. That isn't why I want to preserve their memories or southern culture. Keep trying to define me though bro.
Well seeing how they are all dead. I can't say anything to their faces.
If you want to argue for 20 more pages over the wide range of motives of men alive 200 years ago with sapper. That's your choice. My point remains the same.
Even if you assume the worst motives to confederate soldiers, it wouldn't warrant the removal of statues, names, flags, etc. because no one today would like those "worst" motives (and I agree, it ignores the motives of the common southerner)
BoerneGator said:I'm not arguing the motives, other than vigorously rejecting THE motive YOU attributed to Confederates. And you can make your point (which i obviously agree with, btw) without denigrating the memories and motives of Confederates as so many are wont to do. THAT is my point, sir!hbtheduce said:BoerneGator said:"Define you"? I know nothing about you, "bro", other than you used very poor judgment questioning the motives of men defending their homes and property against an invading army, while assigning a motive you cannot prove nor substantiate. It might "look" good on an internet message board, but you'd never accuse them of it to their faces, so why dishonor their memories by doing it here?hbtheduce said:BoerneGator said:How is fighting to protect your home from an invading army "wrong"? Have you even tried putting yourself in their shoes/brogans? I seriously doubt it. Don't give in to the PC climate/culture. It's not a good look...hbtheduce said:Malibu said:The difference being....Decay said:Hmm. "his country". Not "The CSA". Just checking.Malibu said:
Canyon said "We're honoring that he fought for his country. Not a damn thing wrong with that."
Fighting along side your neighbors shows bravery and sacrifice. They fought for the wrong reasons, but I think the people of today can separate that.
Fighting to preserve slavery would be wrong. If you can accept their premise while still destroying their narrative. You are much more persuasive.
It really doesn't matter to me that people 200 years ago could have been racist. That isn't why I want to preserve their memories or southern culture. Keep trying to define me though bro.
Well seeing how they are all dead. I can't say anything to their faces.
If you want to argue for 20 more pages over the wide range of motives of men alive 200 years ago with sapper. That's your choice. My point remains the same.
Even if you assume the worst motives to confederate soldiers, it wouldn't warrant the removal of statues, names, flags, etc. because no one today would like those "worst" motives (and I agree, it ignores the motives of the common southerner)
False. Its the motives that are assigned by their critics. At its core, that is the weakness I'm attacking.
The critics are the only people saying that these symbols celebrate slavery. They want to define the symbols, and they are dead wrong.
Kellen is on the BLOC - Black Leaders on Campus - which issued demands.
One of their demands is that the campus must remove any statues and rename any buildings that "have an association with" the CSA. If he won a Heisman and we put up a statue, he is literally advocating its removal.
One of their demands is that the campus must remove any statues and rename any buildings that "have an association with" the CSA. If he won a Heisman and we put up a statue, he is literally advocating its removal.
Decay said:
Kellen is on the BLOC - Black Leaders on Campus - which issued demands.
One of their demands is that the campus must remove any statues and rename any buildings that "have an association with" the CSA. If he won a Heisman and we put up a statue, he is literally advocating its removal.
Good thing he won't win a Heisman.
At this point I wish he would just to live the delicious irony of protesting a CIVIL WAR GENERAL'S DESCENDANT'S STATUE
sportsfreak1975
Joined:
Nov 9, 2004
Posts:
6,389
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BigJim49 AustinNowDallas
Joined:
Jun 24, 2001
Posts:
17,334
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
?hbtheduce said:BoerneGator said:"Define you"? I know nothing about you, "bro", other than you used very poor judgment questioning the motives of men defending their homes and property against an invading army, while assigning a motive you cannot prove nor substantiate. It might "look" good on an internet message board, but you'd never accuse them of it to their faces, so why dishonor their memories by doing it here?hbtheduce said:BoerneGator said:How is fighting to protect your home from an invading army "wrong"? Have you even tried putting yourself in their shoes/brogans? I seriously doubt it. Don't give in to the PC climate/culture. It's not a good look...hbtheduce said:Malibu said:The difference being....Decay said:Hmm. "his country". Not "The CSA". Just checking.Malibu said:
Canyon said "We're honoring that he fought for his country. Not a damn thing wrong with that."
Fighting along side your neighbors shows bravery and sacrifice. They fought for the wrong reasons, but I think the people of today can separate that.
Fighting to preserve slavery would be wrong. If you can accept their premise while still destroying their narrative. You are much more persuasive.
It really doesn't matter to me that people 200 years ago could have been racist. That isn't why I want to preserve their memories or southern culture. Keep trying to define me though bro.
Well seeing how they are all dead. I can't say anything to their faces.
If you want to argue for 20 more pages over the wide range of motives of men alive 200 years ago with sapper. That's your choice. My point remains the same.
Even if you assume the worst motives to confederate soldiers, it wouldn't warrant the removal of statues, names, flags, etc. because no one today would like those "worst" motives (and I agree, it ignores the motives of the common southerner)
So what happens when the woke NFL mob finds out about his lineage?
atmtws said:
So what happens when the woke NFL mob finds out about his lineage?
From the top 5 finish to all but a second round draft pick, I'd say just stop rooting for schadenfreude and take the loss as far as how you hoped it would play out.
Also Viking fans discovering this thread wouldn't be great as far as these things go I'm thinking.
Kind of a funny bump.
It took you seven edits to get that out?
I tend to worry at my posts, which is funny since I resent even spellchecking my actual work product.
Unless you people are under 11 yo, Time to Grow UP...
Faustus said:
I tend to worry at my posts, which is funny since I resent even spellchecking my actual work product.
"You people"!?
Ok, David Duke!
"The Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution was never designed to restrain the people. It was designed to restrain the government."
Featured Stories
See All
9:11
5h ago
2.6k
42:45
13h ago
3.0k
The Good Ol' Days: Reminiscing on Texas A&M's magical spring of '89
by David Sandhop
35:53
16h ago
3.4k