Jump to content

Recommended Posts

And there's also this...

 

Quote

Ever since the historical musical “Hamilton” began its march to near-universal infatuation, one group has noticeably withheld its applause — historians. Many academics argue the portrait of Alexander Hamilton, the star of our $10 bills, is a counterfeit. Now they’re escalating their fight.

Ishmael Reed, who has been nominated twice for a National Book Award, has chosen to fight fire with fire — collecting his critique of Lin-Manuel Miranda’s acclaimed show into a play.

Reed’s “The Haunting of Lin-Manuel Miranda” is an uncompromising take-down of “Hamilton,” reminding viewers of the Founding Father’s complicity in slavery and his war on Native Americans.

Quote

Miranda’s glowing portrayal of a Hamilton who celebrates open borders — “Immigrants, we get the job done!” — and who denounces slavery has incensed everyone from professors at Harvard to the University of Houston to Rutgers .

They argue that Miranda got Hamilton all wrong — the Founding Father wasn’t progressive at all, his actual role as a slave owner has been whitewashed and the pro-immigrant figure onstage hides the fact that he was, in fact, an anti-immigration elitist.

Quote

Reed’s own play borrows from Charles Dickens in portraying a naive Miranda being visited by a succession of ghostly slaves, Native Americans and indentured servants — people Reed argues never made it into the Tony-, Grammy-, and Pulitzer-winning musical. “What I tried to do was to cover the voices that were not present onstage,” Reed said.

Reed, who has not seen “Hamilton” but read it, criticizes the musical as just the latest piece of entertainment that is sympathetic to slave owners. “I say this is a successor to ‘Gone With the Wind,‘” he said. “But at least in ‘Gone With the Wind,’ Hattie McDaniel had a speaking part.”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess it's a good thing there's not a Lin Manuel Miranda as Hamilton statue up somewhere for Reed to try to pull down. I'm sure his "play" was a great success. 

And maybe you should've included this portion because it's exactly what the musical is, a dramatization.

Quote

However, Miranda has said in interviews that he felt a responsibility to be as historically accurate as possible but that “Hamilton” is necessarily a work of historical fiction, including dramatizations and imprecisions.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NASHVILLE — I have rape-colored skin. My light-brown-blackness is a living testament to the rules, the practices, the causes of the Old South.

If there are those who want to remember the legacy of the Confederacy, if they want monuments, well, then, my body is a monument. My skin is a monument.

Dead Confederates are honored all over this country — with cartoonish private statues, solemn public monuments and even in the names of United States Army bases. It fortifies and heartens me to witness the protests against this practice and the growing clamor from serious, nonpartisan public servants to redress it. But there are still those — like President Trump and the Senate majority leader,Mitch McConnell — who cannot understand the difference between rewriting and reframing the past. I say it is not a matter of “airbrushing” history, but of adding a new perspective.

I am a black, Southern woman, and of my immediate white male ancestors, all of them were rapists. My very existence is a relic of slavery and Jim Crow.

According to the rule of hypodescent (the social and legal practice of assigning a genetically mixed-race person to the race with less social power) I am the daughter of two black people, the granddaughter of four black people, the great-granddaughter of eight black people. Go back one more generation and it gets less straightforward, and more sinister. As far as family history has always told, and as modern DNA testing has allowed me to confirm, I am the descendant of black women who were domestic servants and white men who raped their help.

It is an extraordinary truth of my life that I am biologically more than half white, and yet I have no white people in my genealogy in living memory. No. Voluntary. Whiteness. I am more than half white, and none of it was consensual. White Southern men — my ancestors — took what they wanted from women they did not love, over whom they had extraordinary power, and then failed to claim their children.

What is a monument but a standing memory? An artifact to make tangible the truth of the past. My body and blood are a tangible truth of the South and its past. The black people I come from were owned by the white people I come from. The white people I come from fought and died for their Lost Cause. And I ask you now, who dares to tell me to celebrate them? Who dares to ask me to accept their mounted pedestals?

You cannot dismiss me as someone who doesn’t understand. You cannot say it wasn’t my family members who fought and died. My blackness does not put me on the other side of anything. It puts me squarely at the heart of the debate. I don’t just come from the South. I come from Confederates. I’ve got rebel-gray blue blood coursing my veins. My great-grandfather Will was raised with the knowledge that Edmund Pettus was his father. Pettus, the storied Confederate general, the grand dragon of the Ku Klux Klan, the man for whom Selma’s Bloody Sunday Bridge is named. So I am not an outsider who makes these demands. I am a great-great-granddaughter.

And here I’m called to say that there is much about the South that is precious to me. I do my best teaching and writing here. There is, however, a peculiar model of Southern pride that must now, at long last, be reckoned with.

This is not an ignorant pride but a defiant one. It is a pride that says, “Our history is rich, our causes are justified, our ancestors lie beyond reproach.” It is a pining for greatness, if you will, a wish again for a certain kind of American memory. A monument-worthy memory.

But here’s the thing: Our ancestors don’t deserve your unconditional pride. Yes, I am proud of every one of my black ancestors who survived slavery. They earned that pride, by any decent person’s reckoning. But I am not proud of the white ancestors whom I know, by virtue of my very existence, to be bad actors.

Among the apologists for the Southern cause and for its monuments, there are those who dismiss the hardships of the past. They imagine a world of benevolent masters, and speak with misty eyes of gentility and honor and the land. They deny plantation rape, or explain it away, or question the degree of frequency with which it occurred.

To those people it is my privilege to say, I am proof. I am proof that whatever else the South might have been, or might believe itself to be, it was and is a space whose prosperity and sense of romance and nostalgia were built upon the grievous exploitation of black life.

The dream version of the Old South never existed. Any manufactured monument to that time in that place tells half a truth at best. The ideas and ideals it purports to honor are not real. To those who have embraced these delusions: Now is the time to re-examine your position.

Either you have been blind to a truth that my body’s story forces you to see, or you really do mean to honor the oppressors at the expense of the oppressed, and you must at last acknowledge your emotional investment in a legacy of hate.

Either way, I say the monuments of stone and metal, the monuments of cloth and wood, all the man-made monuments, must come down. I defy any sentimental Southerner to defend our ancestors to me. I am quite literally made of the reasons to strip them of their laurels.

Caroline Randall Williams (@caroranwill) is the author of “Lucy Negro, Redux” and “Soul Food Love,” and a writer in residence at Vanderbilt University.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[/url]

NASHVILLE — I have rape-colored skin. My light-brown-blackness is a living testament to the rules, the practices, the causes of the Old South.

If there are those who want to remember the legacy of the Confederacy, if they want monuments, well, then, my body is a monument. My skin is a monument.

Dead Confederates are honored all over this country — with cartoonish private statues

, solemn public monuments and even in the names of United States Army bases. It fortifies and heartens me to witness the protests against this practice and the growing clamor from serious, nonpartisan public servants to redress it. But there are still those — like President Trump and the Senate majority leader,Mitch McConnell — who cannot understand the difference between rewriting and reframing the past. I say it is not a matter of “airbrushing” history, but of adding a new perspective.

I am a black, Southern woman, and of my immediate white male ancestors, all of them were rapists. My very existence is a relic of slavery and Jim Crow.

According to the rule of hypodescent (the social and legal practice of assigning a genetically mixed-race person to the race with less social power) I am the daughter of two black people, the granddaughter of four black people, the great-granddaughter of eight black people. Go back one more generation and it gets less straightforward, and more sinister. As far as family history has always told, and as modern DNA testing has allowed me to confirm, I am the descendant of black women who were domestic servants and white men who raped their help.

It is an extraordinary truth of my life that I am biologically more than half white, and yet I have no white people in my genealogy in living memory. No. Voluntary. Whiteness. I am more than half white, and none of it was consensual. White Southern men — my ancestors — took what they wanted from women they did not love, over whom they had extraordinary power, and then failed to claim their children.

What is a monument but a standing memory? An artifact to make tangible the truth of the past. My body and blood are a tangible truth of the South and its past. The black people I come from were owned by the white people I come from. The white people I come from fought and died for their Lost Cause. And I ask you now, who dares to tell me to celebrate them? Who dares to ask me to accept their mounted pedestals?

You cannot dismiss me as someone who doesn’t understand. You cannot say it wasn’t my family members who fought and died. My blackness does not put me on the other side of anything. It puts me squarely at the heart of the debate. I don’t just come from the South. I come from Confederates. I’ve got rebel-gray blue blood coursing my veins. My great-grandfather Will was raised with the knowledge that Edmund Pettus was his father. Pettus, the storied Confederate general, the grand dragon of the Ku Klux Klan, the man for whom Selma’s Bloody Sunday Bridge is named. So I am not an outsider who makes these demands. I am a great-great-granddaughter.

And here I’m called to say that there is much about the South that is precious to me. I do my best teaching and writing here. There is, however, a peculiar model of Southern pride that must now, at long last, be reckoned with.

This is not an ignorant pride but a defiant one. It is a pride that says, “Our history is rich, our causes are justified, our ancestors lie beyond reproach.” It is a pining for greatness, if you will, a wish again for a certain kind of American memory. A monument-worthy memory.

But here’s the thing: Our ancestors don’t deserve your unconditional pride. Yes, I am proud of every one of my black ancestors who survived slavery. They earned that pride, by any decent person’s reckoning. But I am not proud of the white ancestors whom I know, by virtue of my very existence, to be bad actors.

Among the apologists for the Southern cause and for its monuments, there are those who dismiss the hardships of the past. They imagine a world of benevolent masters, and speak with misty eyes of gentility and honor and the land. They deny plantation rape, or explain it away, or question the degree of frequency with which it occurred.

To those people it is my privilege to say, I am proof. I am proof that whatever else the South might have been, or might believe itself to be, it was and is a space whose prosperity and sense of romance and nostalgia were built upon the grievous exploitation of black life.

The dream version of the Old South never existed. Any manufactured monument to that time in that place tells half a truth at best. The ideas and ideals it purports to honor are not real. To those who have embraced these delusions: Now is the time to re-examine your position.

Either you have been blind to a truth that my body’s story forces you to see, or you really do mean to honor the oppressors at the expense of the oppressed, and you must at last acknowledge your emotional investment in a legacy of hate.

Either way, I say the monuments of stone and metal, the monuments of cloth and wood, all the man-made monuments, must come down. I defy any sentimental Southerner to defend our ancestors to me. I am quite literally made of the reasons to strip them of their laurels.

Caroline Randall Williams (@caroranwill) is the author of “Lucy Negro, Redux” and “Soul Food Love,” and a writer in residence at Vanderbilt University.


That....is one of the most amazing pieces of writing I have ever read. Holy shit. Seriously, people - read it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/23/2020 at 7:22 PM, jettrink said:

Maybe you are an ironclad lsu loving dumbass who should get the fuck off a Longhorn message board!

This is a pretty funny post from someone who's teetering on the edge of surly oblivion.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

woodrow wilson's statue in front of the tower got paint bombed (maybe?  vandalized definitely and i'm pretty sure it was paint) while i was at UT and a lot of people couldn't figure out what the issue was.  one daily texan letter said, "ya missed, jeff davis is the other one"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do find it funny that Wayne always played the quintessential masculine badass in all his movies yet he avoided service in WW2. Definitely deserved getting an airport named after him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty amazing how much things have changed in 10 years. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do find it funny that Wayne always played the quintessential masculine badass in all his movies yet he avoided service in WW2. Definitely deserved getting an airport named after him. 


At least we know that ours isn’t the only generation that confuses entertainers with noteworthy citizens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chad Fuck said:

 


At least we know that ours isn’t the only generation that confuses entertainers with noteworthy citizens.

 

Nope it was the boomers both times

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John Wayne's not dead. He's frozen. And as
soon as we find the cure for cancer we're gonna thaw out the Duke and he's gonna be pretty pissed off. You know why? Have you ever taken a cold shower? Well multiple that by 15-million times, that's how pissed off the Duke's gonna be.

I'm gonna get the Duke, and John Cassavetes, and Lee Marvin, and Sam Pekinpah and a case of Whiskey and drive down to Texas...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/25/2020 at 8:27 PM, MaybeACoordinator said:

"Hamilton has been accused of owning slaves, by scholars and his grandson, which suggests that any beliefs he has on the quality and natural rights of blacks did not always translate into action. It is possible that Hamilton did not own slaves but, even so, his involvement in slave transactions suggests a more ambiguous picture of Hamilton than the 'unwavering abolitionist.'"

So maybe, but probably not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

"Hamilton has been accused of owning slaves, by scholars and his grandson, which suggests that any beliefs he has on the quality and natural rights of blacks did not always translate into action. It is possible that Hamilton did not own slaves but, even so, his involvement in slave transactions suggests a more ambiguous picture of Hamilton than the 'unwavering abolitionist.'"

So maybe, but probably not.

No, almost certainly so.

 

“It has been stated that Hamilton never owned a negro slave, but this is untrue. We find that in his books there are entries showing that he purchased them for himself and for others.” -- Hamilton's grandson.

Read the link for details. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

No, almost certainly so.

 

“It has been stated that Hamilton never owned a negro slave, but this is untrue. We find that in his books there are entries showing that he purchased them for himself and for others.” -- Hamilton's grandson.

Read the link for details. 

 

 

Nooooooooooooooooooooo !!!!!  Yut uhhhhh, Dennison said so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And there you have it.  Lincoln statue gotta come down.

"This statue right here embodies the white supremacy and the disempowerment of black people that is forced upon us by white people. That is why we are tearing this statue down," said 20-year-old organizer Glenn Foster at an earlier protest this week.

According to the National Park Service, which maintains the park, an African American woman named Charlotte Scott of Virginia used the first $5 she earned in freedom to kick off a campaign as a way of paying homage to Lincoln after he was assassinated in 1865.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/protesters-blast-emancipation-memorial-trump-signs-order-protect/story?id=71494738

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Parliament said:

And there you have it.  Lincoln statue gotta come down.

"This statue right here embodies the white supremacy and the disempowerment of black people that is forced upon us by white people. That is why we are tearing this statue down," said 20-year-old organizer Glenn Foster at an earlier protest this week.

According to the National Park Service, which maintains the park, an African American woman named Charlotte Scott of Virginia used the first $5 she earned in freedom to kick off a campaign as a way of paying homage to Lincoln after he was assassinated in 1865.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/protesters-blast-emancipation-memorial-trump-signs-order-protect/story?id=71494738

And they should.  A proper monument to emancipation would have the freed slave standing tall next to Lincoln as his equal.  Not kneeling before him as a savior.

Donating to something before its designed does not mean one approves of the final design.  None of the donors had any say at all in the actual monument.  I am sure you would also like some artistic control over the donations you sent Trump as well.  Maybe you should get your five bucks back too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Message Board User said:

Gandhi.

They're after Gandhi now.

 

dude was bloodthirsty SOB bent on nuking the world. 

Edited by elfenix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gandhi was racist against "Kaffirs" and if statues of American racists are to come down it's only logical his come down too. I don't know why this would surprise anybody. 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

As long as the Satan statue in Oklahoma stays up, I’m good. 

This one?

 

B615FD76-1422-46E0-9DCA-1136550935EE.jpeg

 

Edited by Left Coast

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

Gandhi was racist against "Kaffirs" and if statues of American racists are to come down it's only logical his come down too. I don't know why this would surprise anybody. 

 

 

 

 

My wife buys kefir.  I hate that shit.  
 

 

edit:  https://www.google.com/amp/s/theprint.in/opinion/ramachandra-guha-is-wrong-a-middle-aged-gandhi-was-racist-and-no-mahatma/168222/%3famp

yep, no shock they’d wanna take his statue down.  Makes sense to me...

Edited by ChiTownDoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

And they should.  A proper monument to emancipation would have the freed slave standing tall next to Lincoln as his equal.  Not kneeling before him as a savior.

Donating to something before its designed does not mean one approves of the final design.  None of the donors had any say at all in the actual monument.  I am sure you would also like some artistic control over the donations you sent Trump as well.  Maybe you should get your five bucks back too. 

Says a 20th-21st c. person. We should go back and change all art from the 19th c. so it conforms to (your) 21st c. thought processes and motivations....  Your interpetation is your interpretation of the piece, it's wrong, but have at it.  Mr. Lincoln was thought of as a savior by many freed slaves.  But that's just wrong they shouldn't have... stupid slaves....

Edited by Onboard 2.0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Yep. Haven't 99% of all statues eventually fallen? 

 

 

We should bring back the Colossus of Rhodes.  Shit was dope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

No, almost certainly so.

 

“It has been stated that Hamilton never owned a negro slave, but this is untrue. We find that in his books there are entries showing that he purchased them for himself and for others.” -- Hamilton's grandson.

Read the link for details. 

 

 

I read it. It's not exactly overwhelming evidence. 

So maybe, but probably not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Says a 20th-21st c. person. We should go back and change all art from the 19th c. so it conforms to (your) 21st c. thought processes and motivations....  Your interpetation is your interpretation of the piece, it's wrong, but have at it.  Mr. Lincoln was thought of as a savior by many freed slaves.  But that's just wrong they shouldn't have... stupid slaves....

Why don't you go see what Frederick Douglass had to say about it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, David Dennison said:

I read it. It's not exactly overwhelming evidence. 

So maybe, but probably not.

It is pretty compelling to me. I mean, he married into a plantation family. Do you think he and his wife at the very least did not borrow a slave or two?

What was redacted from his papers by his widow and son? Where is the evidence that he was the "staunch abolitionist" history has unaccountably made him out to be?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mpu


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Recruiting ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Help ... For Sale ... Politics ... Board Discussion
×
×
  • Create New...