This is one of the single worst beatdowns in the history of this board, and is someone finding 512's facebook account from claiming the #1 spot

I think we can look at these other items to decide if other actions of t.u. are considered racist.

• t.u. has a racist law professor on the current faculty
  
• the basketball arena is named after a school icon who fought integration
  
• the stadium is named after the last SWC coach to integrate his team
  
• there are 4 Confederate 'neck statues on campus
  
• the MLK statue on campus is a target of vandalism by the Klanhorns.

1. t.u. has a racist law professor on the current faculty
I don't know if this is true or false, but if true, it doesn't necessarily mean that t.u. is a racist institution.

2. the basketball arena is named after a school icon who fought integration
Fighting integration does not, in my opinion, make one racist. However, because that has become accepted as absolute racism, I'm left with what our society has decided.


3. the stadium is still named after the last SWC coach to integrate his team
See above. I don't know if being the last to integrate=racism, but it's certainly not evidence of tolerance

4. there are 4 Confederate 'neck statues on campus
False. Absolutely not racism. But, if rivals are going to throw that stuff in our faces and act like it is, then t.u. is racist by necessity

5. the MLK statue on campus is a target of vandalism by the Klanhorns
The message is pretty clear. We don't want to live in peace with black people. It's a question of who did it, but suspicions are justified. It happened on campus. Why would some joe-blow off the street go to t.u. campus to deface the MLK statue, much less even know that the statue exists?

All these actions taken together? Yeah, you are a bunch of klanhorns. We better NEVER again hear about A&M being intolerant and racist !!!

___________________________

quote:

---

* tu still has a dorm on campus named after a KKK founder

---

Obviously. And a small town across the river from Virginia still has a gigantic marble obelisk named after a guy who owned a whole bunch of slaves. Somebody ought to write a letter. I'm certain that Washington will be hearing from several outraged Aggies any day now.

quote:

---

* it's still got a racist law professor on the current faculty

---

Who? Lino Graglia? Is an Aggie really telling me that "opposing affirmative action" = "racism?" What a strange day I'm having.

quote:

---

* the arena is still named after a school icon who fought integration

---

Fought it, as opposed to welcomed it with open arms the way all the open-minded men and women--I mean, all the men--at aTm did in the mid-early sixties?

quote:

---

* the stadium is still named after the last SWC coach to integrate his team

---

Yes. The decision was made to commemorate Darrell Royal's sociopolitical leanings, and not his conference titles or national championships. Should we change the name to John Mackovic stadium?

quote:

---

* there are still 4 Confederate 'neck statues on campus

---

Don't forget about the statue of the same slave-owner discusssed above.

quote:

---

* the MLK statue on campus is a target of vandalism by the Klanhorns.

---

I take it the MLK statue at aTm is safe and sound?

[This message has been edited by Five1Two (edited 6/1/2010 2:19p).]

Good lord, you'd think 512 would want this thing off the first page but there he is bumping it back ttt with stupid response after stupid response.

Poor klanhorn

quote:

---

Good lord, you'd think 512 would want this thing off the first page but there he is bumping it back ttt with stupid response after stupid response.

---

Well, then you'd be wrong, wouldn't you?

quote:

---

Obviously. And a small town across the river from Virginia still has a gigantic marble obelisk named after a guy who owned a whole bunch of slaves. Somebody ought to write a letter. I'm certain that the National Parks Commission will be hearing from several outraged Aggies any day now.

---

quote:

---

As President, Washington did not lead a public fight against slavery, however, because he believed it would tear the new nation apart. Abolition had many opponents, especially in the South. Washington seems to have feared that if he took such a public stand, the southern states would withdraw from the Union (something they would do seventy years later, leading to the Civil War). He had worked too hard to build the country to risk tearing it apart.

Privately, however, Washington could -- and did -- lead by example. In his will, he arranged for all of the slaves he owned to be freed after the death of his wife, Martha. He also left instructions for the continued care and education of some of his former slaves, support and training for all of the children until they came of age, and continuing support for the elderly.

---

yeah, pretty racist and slave hating guy we had as first president of the greatest nation in the history of the world.

quote:

---

Yes. The decision was made to commemorate Darrell Royal's sociopolitical leanings, and not his conference titles or national championships. Should we change the name to John Mackovic stadium?

---

So tu is ok with naming structures after known racists so long as they accomplished a lot. Noted.

Are you really going to quote first-grade history at me?

Do you really think Washington didn't "take a stand" on slavery because he feared for the unity of the country . . . or because Mount Vernon was a big place, and George and Martha couldn't really pick all that tobacco by themselves?

And do you also believe that releasing his slaves AFTER HIS DEATH (without any blood descendants to devise his property to, I might add) actually makes George Washington an abolitionist?

If I steal your car, and keep it locked in my garage with instructions to return it to you once I'm dead and cannot possibly us it any more . . . I guess I didn't really steal your car, did I?



[This message has been edited by Five1Two (edited 6/1/2010 2:29p).]

512, attempting to prove that he made it through at least the first grade. Lets see how this goes...

BMED,

Back to Sul Ross for a minute: he fought a war to protect the "sanctity" of the South's "peculiar institution." To be clear, I'm not suggesting that you tear down any statues . . . but it sounds like you are.

You lefty revisionist historian, you.

As far as I know, George Washington was not a founding member of a white separatist organization.

I think I was pretty fair with t.u. in my last post, don't you 512?

quote:

---

Are you really going to quote first-grade history at me?

---

why not, you seemed inept at grasping 9th grade math so I had to figure the level from which to start.

In that 1st grade history class you must have "placed out of" did you learn anything about the fragile nature of the Union in 1776?

quote:

---

Do you really think Washington didn't "take a stand" on slavery because he feared for the unity of the country . . . or because Mount Vernon was a big place, and George and Martha couldn't really pick all that tobacco by themselves?

And do you also believe that releasing his slaves AFTER HIS DEATH (without any blood descendants to devise his property to, I might add) actually makes George Washington an abolitionist?

---

Many of the dower slaves were the spouses and children resulting from the intermarriage of Custis and Washington slaves. George Washington elected to honor the marital status of the Mount Vernon slaves, even though unions among the enslaved had no legal standing in Virginia. He followed through on his conviction by consistently working to keep the families from being dispersed, even when doing so would have been in his own financial best interest. He repeatedly declined to sell unneeded slaves if it meant that family members would be separated. In a 1786 letter, Washington emphasized his unwillingness to carry out any such transactions, stating that 'it is…against my inclination…to hurt the feelings of those unhappy people by a separation of man and wife, or of families.'

Luft, judging by this thread, it looks like you had a pretty kick-ass Memorial Day Weekend.

Get outside much?

Judging from that little "L" beside your handle I'd say you are obsessed with Aggies...

wow, this thread is still going and going...

however, both A&M and tu have history with racism, klan, etc... shouldn't really come as a shock to anyone.

attitudes were different then, 1920s saw the height of the klan... we could probably find 100s if not 1000s of top Ags and Sips who were prominent in the klan and/or huge racists...

not excusing it, just stating it.

carry on...

99: absolutely fair.

George Washington didn't have to join any white supremacy movements. Back in his day, it was perfectly legal to own as many people as you wanted (as long as they were the right--or the wrong--color).

I do not suggest that this makes GW a bad man. Merely a product of a time not as enlightened as our own.

quote:

---

Many of the dower slaves were the spouses and children resulting from the intermarriage of Custis and Washington slaves. George Washington elected to honor the marital status of the Mount Vernon slaves, even though unions among the enslaved had no legal standing in Virginia. He followed through on his conviction by consistently working to keep the families from being dispersed, even when doing so would have been in his own financial best interest. He repeatedly declined to sell unneeded slaves if it meant that family members would be separated. In a 1786 letter, Washington emphasized his unwillingness to carry out any such transactions, stating that 'it is…against my inclination…to hurt the feelings of those unhappy people by a separation of man and wife, or of families.'

---

You know what? You're right. I bet Washington's slaves were way, way happier than any other slaves in the history of ever. They were probably real, real sad when George released them in his will.

[This message has been edited by Five1Two (edited 6/1/2010 2:45p).]

*

[This message has been edited by Five1Two (edited 6/1/2010 2:44p).]

George Washington may or may not have been a racist. But, based on his ownership of slaves who were black, he was probably a racist. Is that your argument?

If so, would you agree that one being a member of a white supremacy society is conclusive evidence of one's racism?

Undergraduate Demographics as of Fall 2009:
Texas:
White-53.5%
African American- 4.9%

Texas A&M:
White- 74.7%
African American- 3.2%

Interesting.

quote:

---

Undergraduate Demographics as of Fall 2009:
Texas:
White-53.5%
African American- 4.9%

Texas A&M:
White- 74.7%
African American- 3.2%

Interesting.

---

Relevance?

thats the thread, folks

Relevance?

I cannot say for sure whether GW was "racist." That word as it exists today had little or no context in Washington's day. Whatever he was, he clearly was not above profiting from the forced, unpaid labor of a group of people who were, according to the law, subject to a lifetime of ownership and indentured servitude based upon their ethnic background.

Is the KKK racist? Of course. But again, context: belonging to that organization in 1870 did not mean the same thing that it does now. I do not admire, but I do understand, the kind of thinking that would cause former confederates to form secret societies based upon the "ideals" over which they'd just fought--and lost--a long and bloody war (as lamentably warped as those ideals may have been).

I am proud to be a Southerner, but I don't subscribe to the popular revisionist/apologist notion that the Civil War was fought for any reason other than the right to own slaves (because, quite frankly, it's nonsense. It wasn't about "state's rights," it was bout "money." And in the south, "slaves" = "money" ). But neither do I agree that simply because some historical figure or another was associated with any parts of our shared past that may be unsavory, that we should pretend they never existed. They were what they were, and changing the name of a building doesn't change that. Should we build monuments and statues for some guy because he whipped a whole bunch of slaves, or burned a whole bunch of crosses? Obviously not. But building them in spite of such behavior--if that person has accomplished other, more worthwhile things--is entirely justifiable, in my view.

[This message has been edited by Five1Two (edited 6/1/2010 3:06p).]

21% fewer whites, but only 1.7% more african american? wow, huge find there.

Hes comparing Washington's time to someone that was alive in the 1900's.

But the dorm was named after Simkins in the 1950s. That was the buildup that lead to the Civil Rights Movement. The klan was pretty much what it is today. It was totally different than 1870.

Can you imagine if A&M had a building named after a klan founder? You klanhorns would have crucified us, and have crucified us for much less. Consider this well-deserved payback!!!

I'm pretty sure we won't be hearing about any racism at A&M anytime soon from t.u. or anyone else for that matter. Don't you agree?

I just love the George Washington, Jefferson, et. al comparison's. They are so non-comparable, it's laughable.

Many state. "Well, Washington owned slaves, so everything he did is wiped out, horrible, what a horrible man, etc..."

no one's proud that our nation's history is entwined in slavery (well, maybe some are but **** them)

but you're talking about a practice that was legal at the time and your talking about different attitudes and acceptances.

you can't take their situation and try and play it out in today's world. You simply can't, they aren't even close to comparable.

You say that they "should've known better". It was "morally wrong". But in THEIR day, it was a legal venture, one they grew up with and one they were accustomed too. If you grow up being told it's okay, legal and acceptable, it doesn't strike you as oddly at the time. Does it make it right, no, but again, change moves slowly and it was an acceptable practice at the time. Same way segregation was, same way women couldn't vote, prohibition and on and on.

Again, it doesn't make it right, slavery was 100% wrong, but it's like going to China and complaning about the way they run their country. It's two different ideals and worlds. What we see as injustice, to them is acceptable. It's no different from colonial America.

Slavery has been around since the beginnings of time, Hebrews anyone? Some countries enslave other races, some their own, some both. It was never right, but as time progressed, a shift came to try and wipe this out. African nations enslaved their own people as well, and took part in the slave trade that came to our country. A bigger part than history places. Some how this became all the "white man's" idea. Not true. Am I blaming it on the Africans? No. Am I recognizing their culpability in it, yes.

For those of you caught up in today's "fairness for all" simply have no concept of the way things were. It's been a hell of a fight. Hell, in my lifetime (43 years), I've seen many things change for the better regarding race issues. (and many other things not, we are too PC these days and it's choking the life out of our country)

You basically had thousands of years of slavery all over the world in different forms. Our country is relatively young and in the past 150 years, things have changed more than the previous 1,000 of the worlds' history. Think about that.

Again, this doesn't excuse it, but you're talking about a world-wide slavery attitude, not just in our new (at the time country). It took centuries to address. It is still practiced in this world.

Washington and his contemporaries did a lot of good for this country. That cannot be taken away, is it tempered by slavery, of course it is and thank God this country worked to correct this injustice, but to make this issue a black and white one (no pun intended) isn't possible. It has so many shades of gray, the human eye can't even discern them.

jmo

This thread is being debated, either people reeeeeeeeeealllllllllllllllllyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy care or it's just something to do to pass the time in the off-season. Me thinks it something to do to pass the time.....

Carry on...

annie

quote:

---

highwayman
posted 2:37p, 06/01/10



Luft, judging by this thread, it looks like you had a pretty kick-ass Memorial Day Weekend.

Get outside much?

---

Username: highwayman
Number of Posts: 31727
Account Created: 6/28/2004 9:54:30 AM


Username: 99 Luftballoons Ag
Number of Posts: 12707
Account Created: 9/13/2002 10:41:22 AM

puddy just teabagged dip****

quote:

---

highwayman
posted 2:37p, 06/01/10



Luft, judging by this thread, it looks like you had a pretty kick-ass Memorial Day Weekend.

Get outside much?

---

You sound like a complete bad ass. You must have had just a kick ass Memorial Day Weekend because you definitely party hard at bachelor parties

quote:

---

highwayman
posted 10:34a, 12/22/09

going to a bachelor's party here in February...

For those of you who have been here, what are some activities you would suggest for non-gamblers?

Thanks

---

quote:

---

highwayman
posted 11:18a, 12/22/09

Ugh, I need to get something off my chest. The guy who is getting married never really gets a chance to go to casinos or all-out party, so I completely uinderstand him having his BP at a casino. However, I detest casinos... absolutely detest them. Whats even worse, all of my friends love gambling, so I know they'll all be at the tables the whole time (not that theres anything wrong with that) leaving me to fend for myself. I basically need to find something fun to do by myself for 2 nights

---

http://www.texags.com/main/forum.reply.asp?forum_id=38&topic_id=1546513

[This message has been edited by The D (edited 6/1/2010 3:25p).]

oops

To answer Patch's question. Yes. I did get about a bunch with the family.

I was here when you were really named "Patch." Didn't you have another handle before Highwayman? It's been too long.