Teddy,

can you not see the difference?

As I posted previously: not every car is a Toyota. But is it correct to say that there is a "big difference between a Toyota and a car?"

Answer: no. That's not nit-picking, and it's certainly not crawfishing. It's simple fact.

[This message has been edited by Five1Two (edited 6/2/2010 3:43p).]

quote:

---

You are a GIANT MONGOLOID for continuing to ATTEMPT to smear Sul Ross. You've already been destroyed on that count.

---

Take it up with Ralph Wooster, author of Lone Star Generals in Gray: "In March 1864, Ross's brigade fought against African American soldiers for the first time at Yazoo City, Mississippi. After bitter fighting, the Confederates were victorious. During the surrender negotiations, the Union officer accused the Texans of murdering several captured African American soldiers. Ross claimed that two of his men had likewise been killed after surrendering to Union troops." (that's from Wikipedia, which is on the internet--so you know it's legit; not like all those silly books).

*

[This message has been edited by Five1Two (edited 6/2/2010 3:47p).]

"You win some, you lose some, and you wreck some"-Dale Earnhardt

"Courage is being scared to death and saddling up anyway"-John Wayne

Every square is a rectangle, but not every rectangle is a square. So a square is a subset of rectangles but there is a difference between a square and a rectangle. Not a huge difference in this case but a difference.

Another case is that every 9-11 suicide bomber was a man, so 9-11 suicide bomber is a subset of being a man. However there is a huge difference in somebody being correctly characterized as a man and in somebody being correctly characterized as a 9-11 suicide bomber. Huge difference.

If you really are too stupid to see the large difference then whoever is supposed to be taking care of you needs to keep you off the internet.

100% of the founding members of the Klan were former Confederates. And you still contend that there is a "huge difference" between the two? Or is it "not a huge differnce," as in squares and rectangles?

Next, be sure to continue to "disprove" my (nonexistent) argument that Simkins wasn't a KKK founder.

Then we can double back to the MLK statue at UT. Because clearly, every act of vandalism at the Texas campus is perpetrated by Texas students.

[This message has been edited by Five1Two (edited 6/2/2010 3:59p).]

klanhorns

klanhorns

klanhorns

klanhorns

klanhorns

quote:

---

Take it up with Ralph Wooster, author of Lone Star Generals in Gray: "In March 1864, Ross's brigade fought against African American soldiers for the first time at Yazoo City, Mississippi. After bitter fighting, the Confederates were victorious. During the surrender negotiations, the Union officer accused the Texans of murdering several captured African American soldiers. Ross claimed that two of his men had likewise been killed after surrendering to Union troops." (that's from Wikipedia, which is on the internet--so you know it's legit; not like all those silly books).

---

I must be missing the part where it says Ross condoned the killings. Perhaps you should jump on wikipedia and do a quick edit so it will say what you claimed.

Good Lord, is this abomination of a beat-down thread still going?

WTF?

I think it's conclusive evidence that every KKK FOUNDER is a racist. Do you have anything remotely credible that proves A&M has named a building after someone who can conclusively be proved to be a racist?



Jeeez. Every time I come on this thread everybody is talking about quantum physics to prove that the klanhorns didn't name a building after a founding member of the Florida KKK.

___________________________

quote:

---

Every time I come on this thread everybody is talking about quantum physics to prove that the klanhorns didn't name a building after a founding member of the Florida KKK.

---

Exactly!

Except, of course, that literally not one person has actually said this.

[This message has been edited by Five1Two (edited 6/2/2010 4:25p).]

It's all about dem ass-in-totes!

Logic is not as effing hard as some people on here are making it out to be. We don't need to talk about ass-in-totes and other nonsense.

All KKK Founders are racists,
Simkins was a KKK Founder,
Therefore, Simkins is a racist.

Some confederate soldiers were racists,
Sul Ross was a confederate soldier,
therefore, Sul Ross MAY have been a racist.

BUT

People who fight against the KKK are tolerant,
Sul Ross fought against the KKK,
Therefore, Sul Ross was tolerant.

...and please, please, please take the bait and point out my misguided logic.

___________________________

[This message has been edited by Grey Wolf (edited 6/2/2010 4:41p).]

Many southern politicians (especially southern Democrats, like Ross) opposed the KKK for the same reason that George Bush, Sr. opposed Ross Perot: not because of conflicting ideology, but rather for fear of losing valuable political clout to a rival that threatens your turf.

I have no way of knowing how Ross felt, personally, about the Klan. But history tells us that the Southern Democrats who opposed the Klan did so for political, not ideological, reasons. Many of the precepts upon which the Klan was originally based were the same precepts upon which the South fought the Civil war, and so it stands to reason that a former Confederate officer wouldn't be ideologically opposed to the Klan.

[This message has been edited by Five1Two (edited 6/2/2010 4:56p).]

So, what you are saying is that I have made an assumption about the motives of Sul Ross in opposing the Klan, right?

I'm sorry, waiter. I said "hold the conjecture"
Take this argument back and bring me another, please.

So your biased opinion >>> historical fact?

Got it. Do you hate Aggies who are minorities more than you hate other minorities? Or is the hatred pretty much even?

Am I right, 512?

Amirite???

Of course you're right. I never said the guy was a Klansman. But neither do I agree that a Southern politican and former Confederate officer would be opposed to the Klan for ideological reasons. And as I said before, if we're going to start tearing down or renaming every building that's named for someone with unsavory ties to racism, slavery, then there's going to be lots of empty patches of dirt on lots of southern college campuses.

We name buildings after people as a way to tie ourselves to our history. Some of that history is unflattering, but that's no reason to re-name them.

[This message has been edited by Five1Two (edited 6/2/2010 5:01p).]

klanhorns

Do you agree that all founding members of the KKK are racists?

quote:

---

Do you agree that all founding members of the KKK are racists?

---

Yes (we'll have to agree to a bit of generalizing here, but there's no denying the basic principles of the Klan were race-based and reactionary). I think I've acknowledged this already.

[This message has been edited by Five1Two (edited 6/2/2010 5:03p).]

quote:

---

I never said the guy was a Klansman. But neither do I agree that a Southern politican and former Confederate officer would be opposed to the Klan for ideological reasons.

---

So you're still pidgeon-holing Coke to fit your argument and your stereotypes, despite posted evidence that strongly suggests otherwise.
Gotcha.

quote:

---

So you're still pidgeon-holing Coke to fit your argument and your stereotypes, despite posted evidence that strongly suggests otherwise.
Gotcha.

---

I'm not pigeon-holing anybody. I'm assuming that James Smallwood, author of Time of Hope, Time of Despair: Black Texans During Reconstruction knows what he's talking about. Maybe he doesn't.

I find it amusing that a couple of previous posters have pointed out that Coke carried a bible around with him as if this somehow controverts the very possibility of racism; lots of bigoted weirdos have used the Good Book as source material for their wacked-out ideologies.

So, KKK Founders are (by definition) racists.
(and by racists I mean the Dictionary.com definition).

Confederate soldiers are not necessarily racists, right?

My point is, all this stuff about Klansmen and confederate soldiers being the same is immaterial to the issue at hand. We can't determine whether or not a person is racist based solely on whether or not they were a confederate soldier. That would be assuming way too much about their motives for fighting. (For a non-historical/fictional but fun reference, see the movie The Outlaw Josey Wales).

So, no matter how you slice it, all we can say is this:

Simkins = Racist
Sul Ross = maybe a racist, we don't really know
R. Coke = maybe a racist, we don't really know


Have I said anything that is out of line with sound logic?

That's where t.u. loses this argument all day long. That's why I can't believe this thing is still going. If A&M had named a building after a founding member of the KKK, t.u. and any other competing institution would have crucified us over it. You can understand how a bit of payback is in order, right?


klanhorns!!!

___________________________





[This message has been edited by 99 Luftballoons Ag (edited 6/2/2010 5:21p).]

quote:

---

Do you have anything remotely credible that proves A&M has named a building after someone who can conclusively be proved to be a racist?

---

The following is from Coke's bio in 'Governors' Messages: Coke to Ross (Inclusive), 1874-1891':

quote:

---

Governor Coke had faith in his people. He believed in the supremacy of the Anglo-Saxon race-he prided in the rich red blood of the Southern people. As their leader he fought back the tide of tyranny that was about to engulf them in the murky waters of mulatto domination

---

Thread-ender...except of course for any discussions about asymptotes.

link or pic or something that shows you didn't just pull that out of your ass!!!

___________________________

http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth61102/m1/8/?q=coke

On page viii

What time is it?