Jump to content

Tell Me About Texas a&m


MrPhlegm

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, BurntEyes said:

Did you open that page? 

Holy shit, I designed better with my first shot at html 25 years ago. You can't see a lot of the text, despite repetitive tries, and no pics are showing up.

Hell, the email isn't in and the phone numbers are place holders. It looks like a fucking high school kid designed it.

Extremely aggy

Yea.....but other than that.....

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 72k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Randolph Duke

    2141

  • Longboard Horn

    2040

  • Deej

    1849

  • Cairn Horn88

    1513

12 minutes ago, jeevsie said:

https://www.khou.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/aggie-covid-cases/285-70f051f8-c612-480f-b774-1b1e13beb389

Lotta 'Rona showing up on the aggy campus.

Please don't make this a tradition.

Once again, the aggy "cultural bias that impedes risk identification" (yet again) gives reason to believe that some aggy student(s) is (are) going to (yet again) die a needless death.

"Organizational failure" pretty much sums up aggy culture in two words. Organizational failure will have dire consequences (yet again ) his time.

But hey, A&M is a military academy full of only racially inclusive soon-to-be corporate CEOs (and national championship athletes), so does it really matter is dead students start piling up on the aggy campus (yet again)? Amirite? Whoop!

The people of Texas deserve better than Texas A&M

aggy bonfire risk management.jpeg

Edited by Randolph Duke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember good old Sul Ross and his “Jaybird” friends who graciously imposed Jim Crow upon Ft Bend County, without ever receiving so much as a “thank you?”

Well, it seems the people of the county are revisiting that chapter of their history, and I don’t think “the gallant Texas negro killer” is being looked at as the black man’s best friend this time. 

https://www.chron.com/neighborhood/sugarland/news/article/Richmond-committee-to-consider-fate-of-Jaybird-15515276.php?cmpid=hpctp

Quote

Richmond committee to consider fate of Jaybird Monument

A Richmond monument situated for decades in a quiet corner near the historic Fort Bend County Courthouse may soon be dismantled and cast aside as an embarrassment to the city’s history after officials announced Tuesday a committee would be formed to consider the fate of the Jaybird Monument, a large obelisk statue erected in the city’s post-Civil War Reconstruction era.

“Our City thrives on being a place where hate and racial prejudices will not be tolerated,” Richmond City Manager Terri Vela said in an official statement. “Our goal is to continue to preserve our history as an educational gateway while being sensitive to all the members of our community of today and tomorrow.”

The announcement came after Mayor Evelyn Moore and the Richmond City Commission approved the measure following executive session discussions Monday (Aug. 24). Prior to the vote, a handful of Richmond and Fort Bend County residents urged city leaders to destroy or relocate the monument including Samantha Rodgers, who was among those spearheaded efforts to dismantle the monument, which she described as “offensive”.

“You are all elected officials, meaning our community members vote you into office to represent us and it is time you start listening to a large part of your community that has felt ignored for a very long time,” Rodgers said. “These community members are telling you to remove the racist Jaybird monument.”

Rodgers warned continuing to ignore the issue could affect voters’ opinions in the upcoming November elections. Philip Bartholomew told city leaders he considered the monument to be a symbol of racism.

“As a concerned citizen and someone who thinks that statue is a blight upon our overall county and our community and something that needs to be relegated to the past because it is not history but the erasure of history, I would encourage you to consider allowing a third-party to take ownership of the monument,” he said.

In the weeks leading up to the vote, three petitions had circulated calling for the monument to be removed. After city officials questioned who actually owned the monument, Richmond resident Tres Davis announced he was willing to take ownership and would arrange to have it relocated to a museum. Davis repeated his offer to Mayor Moore and the Commissioners and went on to describe the “heroes” of the Jaybird Monument as racists who passed laws blocking Blacks and Jews from holding office and voting and also denied women the right to vote.

“All of you have friends in our community that are Black, that are older who lived up under the Jaybirds and know what Jim Crow was like for them, and for you to sit there and look at that monument and know that monument is both racist and misogynist is uncalled for,” Davis said.

Barbara Jones said she grew up in Kendleton and learned about the Jaybirds and Woodpeckers from the late Marjorie Adams, who talked to her about her uncle Willie Melton, one of three Richmond residents who fought a legal battle against the Jaybirds that ultimately led to a 1953 U.S. Supreme Court ruling restoring the right to vote to Fort Bend County’s African Americans.

“Supreme Court Justice Menton referred to the Jaybirds and their process as an ‘unworthy scheme’, Jones said, going on to read back portions of the monument’s inscription to city leaders. “The monument as it stands redefines the word ‘heroes’ as White Supremacists, male chauvinists, leaders of the Battle of Richmond, friends against friends, relatives against relatives, brothers against brothers, (who) forced African American citizens to leave their homesteads immediately, many without any other place to go because they or their forefathers had been brought here with the ‘Old Three Hundred’ as slaves, refused to allow African Americans to right to vote simply because of the color of their skin, Confederate soldiers who fought to keep African Americans in slavery.

“More importantly, they were just flat-out lawless men,” Jones said.

Although no one spoke in support of the Jaybird Monument, one resident submitted a letter to the commission saying he supported keeping the statue in its current position with modifications.

What is the Jaybird Monument?

The Jaybird Monument was built to honor H.H. Frost, L.E. Gibson and J.M. Shamblin, members of the “Jaybirds”, a post-Civil-War faction of the Democratic Party whose all-white members were predominantly wealthy planters and business men who in post Civil-War times lost political power to freed slaves and their white allies, called “Woodpeckers”. Outnumbering Jaybirds by almost four-to-one as voters, the Woodpeckers held political control for more than two decades before a bloody battle in 1889 ended with the murder of several members of both parties. The Jaybirds then seized back political control via military force and established an all-white election primary system that denied African-Americans the right to vote for over 60 years.

Over the summer, the Jaybird Monument was covered and members of the Fort Bend County Historical Commission invited residents to voice their opinion via an online survey as to whether the monument should be dismantled and destroyed, relocated or left standing with or without signage offering further details related to its history. Richmond city leaders reviewed the results of the survey which indicated the majority of the almost 3,000 who responded favored destroying, removing or modifying the monument. Approximately, 43 percent supported destroying the monument and roughly 19 percent wanted to see it removed. Approximately 16 percent favored leaving the monument in place with certain modifications and 24 percent supported “other options”. The survey results included hundreds of comments from those who supported various modifications and other alternative options. One person commented: “Grind it up as gravel for paving. It will be the only useful thing these ‘heroes’ ever did”.

Other comments reflected racial overtones.

“Stay where it is. Stop changing things because blacks say so,” one person commented.

“Leave it as a reminder what happens when parties do not co-operate. Blacks were in the wrong to leave out the whites and this bothers the blacks as they want to cover up what their race did,” another person wrote.

Others point to the issue as part of the nation’s “cancel culture” and argue the county’s history shouldn’t be erased. Others say it should remain for the lessons the incident can teach future generations.

“Do not remove this it may not be a proud part of our history but it is still our history and should be left to teach people that violence is never the answer. If we erase all of our monuments we erase our history and then the generations that didn’t get taught about it are likely to repeat the same mistakes,” one person commented.

“It should disappear with no mention of the event. It’s very embarrassing this ever even took place and should not be remembered in this community,” was also among the comments.

The historical complexities that surround the Jaybird Monument and the underlying racial tensions mirror issues faced by communities across the county in the wake of protests triggered by the death of former Houston resident George Floyd. The Jaybird Monument is perceived by some as a symbol of racial oppression that should be rejected. The demand that it be destroyed or removed is perceived by others in the community as a hostile takeover of the county’s heritage and history. Similar issues have already been decided in other Texas communities.

In Dallas, a state of a Texas Ranger that went by the name of “One Riot, One Ranger” was removed from Love Field Airport in June over new concerns related to historical episodes of police brutality and racism within the agency. In Houston, the Spirit of the Confederacy, a statue that stood at Sam Houston Park for more than 100 years was quietly dismantled last June. Currently, the fate of the Jaybird Monument remains undecided. Mayor Moore and the Richmond City Commission are expected to review the committee’s recommendations in the coming weeks.

 

Edited by Randolph Duke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the "only in aggyland" file...

By edict of "the university" children's sidewalk chalk has been banned from Texas A&M University. First, the use of wood as a building material. Now children's sidewalk chalk. Evidently, people have been using sidewalk chalk to express unapproved thoughts.

aggy culture depends on controlling what aggys think and limiting individual expression on campus. problematically, they are running out of ways to keep "the side of aggy culture we all know about" from being very publicly exposed.

They can't address the essence of the matter (the overtly white supremacist foundation of aggy culture) and they can no longer effectively suppress the facts from being made available to a wider audience.

What they need is a good old fashioned distraction like they got last time racial oppression on campus and racist aggy traditions were put under scrutiny (1999. The bonfire distracted attention from demands for their Matthew Gaines statue).

John Sharp is betting passions wane and honest examination of the racist nature of aggy culture ends. He created two "commissions" he can point to to deflect, although we all know neither "commission" has any actual authority. He pulled strings and the AG gave him an opinion he could use to further deflect demands their shrine to white supremacy be removed. John Sharp has certainly done his best Orval Faubus imitation.

My guess is the white supremacist majority (lead by Grand Dragon John Sharp) will fight back when the design of the Matthew Gaines statue is unveiled (they will make that statue larger than that of Sul Ross because even Black aggy just gotta aggy). Sharp needs to ensure the Gaines statue never gets built, let alone placed on campus. If I was a betting man, I would wager Sharp again uses political clout and gets the AG to issue an opinion stating no new statues of historial figures can be placed on the campus without legislative approval. Sharp can then get his white supremacist cronies on the legislature to shoot down individual bills, claiming they promote statues "that  fail to adequately capture the grandeur and importance of Matthew Gaines."

But banning children's sidewalk chalk on a university campus as a means of limiting discussion of controversial subjects? Only in aggyland.

The people of Texas deserve better than Texas A&M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Longboard Horn said:

Founded on racist ideals?!!! Where the fuck did he get that idea from? Oh aggy, never stop being you...

 

8 minutes ago, TrashMaster G said:

Declaration of Independence - 1776

US Constitution - 1787

15th Amendment - 1870

Perhaps he has at least a bit of a point.

Life comes at you fast 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The value of the aggy education (yet again) on full display:

Wow, so ignorant of history... 3/5 was an anti-slavery movement. It acknowledged African Americans as value, as people. The true racists considered them no differently than a horse or some other material object. Leading African American Freemen reviewed the Constitution and saw it at progress and an anti-slavery document disguised so that it could get ratified in the south”

But wait, there’s more...

The civil war made slavery illegal in the united states with the 15th amendment.

the 19th amdendment addressed the voting issue for black men

The civil rights act addressed institutional issues

No nation on earth has done as much.

Please learn history before you spout nonsense.”

https://texags.com/forums/5/topics/3133555/3#discussion

Edited by Randolph Duke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3/5 compromise was about slave states wanting to count slaves in the population in order to gain seats in US house of reps, and the free states not wanting that to happen, right?  The black population was just a commodity that was being bargained, nobody was trying to emancipate them in any incremental way. Right?

  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

3/5 compromise was about slave states wanting to count slaves in the population in order to gain seats in US house of reps, and the free states not wanting that to happen, right?  The black population was just a commodity that was being bargained, nobody was trying to emancipate them in any incremental way. Right?

Yep.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

3/5 compromise was about slave states wanting to count slaves in the population in order to gain seats in US house of reps, and the free states not wanting that to happen, right?  The black population was just a commodity that was being bargained, nobody was trying to emancipate them in any incremental way. Right?

The Constitution mentions “persons,” not citizens, residents, or Americans. The Census counts persons, be they legal or not, citizen or resident. Apportionment is based on “persons.”

The South insisted blacks were persons, just persons without rights. Abolitionists had to deal with Northerners insisting slaves could not be considered “persons” (while simultaneously insisting the “non-persons” should be free persons). 

The 3/5 Compromise defined the term “person.”

Edited by Randolph Duke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NeverMarryAStripper said:

America was founded with the best of ideals

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

It's in the practical application of those ideals where it falls somewhat short

But those FF old white guys created the mechanism for change, in spite of so many of their descendants being insufferable assholes.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Longboard Horn said:

Founded on racist ideals?!!! Where the fuck did he get that idea from? Oh aggy, never stop being you...

Well I mean  it was certainly there. We quickly passed a law, in 1790. saying only white people could be citizens in the United States (though free black people could be citizens of some states). This was a country for the white people was, I think, just assumed. 

But there were other ideals as well, fortunately, and eventually we tossed that 1790 law (and its similar successors) in the trash bin.

Edited by Valmy77
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...