The B12 (XII) Forum, home of the 'Front Porch, y'all' at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

I think all my HS history teachers were coaches, every one of them.  One of them was decent, my varisty BBall coach.  I had one quarter in college, all that was required, an honors level course with only 8 students.  It also was meh. 

I took sociology in college because it was a very easy A and I needed some liberal arts courses.  That was sort of interesting actually but not because of the professor.  They counted German as a liberal arts credit fortunately as I needed that for my degree anyway.  German was not easy though, took a lot of time and I made 4 Bs in it.  I can barely speak a word now.

I took 4 semesters of German in HS, and when I was in Germany 20 years later I found that I could barely say bitte schön and danke schön.  And while I had a decent German accent (so I was told), I could never do the German "r" very well.  Words like lehrer and richtig never quite rolled off my tongue.

I've never heard of Sul Ross being a part of the KKK and I can't find out if he owned any slaves or not (the light research I did says that his family may have had slaves but he did not).  He was a Texas Ranger before the Civil War and apparently did some Indian killin' and such.  He was actually seriously injured (shot in the chest) fighting the indians early in his life but recovered.

I hate how people look back on history through the lens of modern judgement.  You judge somebody based upon their actions appropriate to the time they lived in.  I'm not even sure racism was a word back then.  Heck, even among white people they were pretty racist against each other.  

At the end of the day if you tear down statues like Sull Ross and his contemporaries then you have to do the same for Washington, Jefferson, etc.  They all owned slaves and participated in some bad things by modern standards.  

I think there remains a pretty big divide among modern America as well in that there is a big misconception that everyone who fought in the civil war was fighting to keep slavery intact.  Sure, slavery was a big reason why the civil war occurred but there just so much more to it than that.  

To sum it up I give you the words of my 7th and 8th grade history teachers:  
7th Grade:  No matter what anyone tells you, the civil war was not about slavery.
8th Grade:  No matter what anyone tells you, the civil war was about slavery.  

The Sul Ross thing gives me pause.

We know of plenty of statues and monuments that were erected for no other reason than naked intimidation of black people during critical periods of history. Usually, these monuments feature someone of something that has nothing at all to do with the area. Robert E. Lee had nothing to do with Dallas, Texas, yet it featured a statue. These deliberate provocations are long overdue for removal.

Sul Ross has a reason to be memorialized on A&M's campus. Likely, without his lobbying and support, there'd be no present day A&M campus. He earned plaudits in his own right before undertaking the abhorrent cause of the Confederacy.

I'd ask that, in that light, do black students at TAMU feel insulted or demeaned by the statue? Be prepared to listen to the dialog. It's not for me to supply both sides of the debate. I've got to listen to the other.

Let me ask you a serious question:  How does Stephen F Austin compare to Sul Ross?  The man actually owned slaves, and there are documents that show he was instrumental in bringing slavery to Texas even against the Mexican governments wishes.  

so these Texas statue guys not only owned slaves or supported slavery, but they also committed the racist atrocities of killing Mexicans and native Americans?!?!?!?

Yup. Get a rope.

MLK Jr. apparently had his flaws, as do we all.   I don't think that means we shouldn't celebrate what he accomplished.

Einstein married his cousin.

If you ever read anything about Paul Dirac, you might note that his fellow physicists thought he was weird and extremely smart.


Imagine Einstein thinking you are smart.

I hope you don't think my answer here is a cop out. I don't mean it that way. I really mean this to the point.

The point here is that I can't answer that question from a useful perspective. I'm a 48 year old white guy. Everywhere I go, I fit in.
It's not possible to put up a statue that "offends" me, because my position in this society has never been threatened. There's no representative out there that enslaved my ancestors. I can't sit in a lecture hall named after an academic that famously enforced the status quo by refusing to recognize my father as a human being worthy of acceptance. In short, it is simply not possible for me to entertain a frame of reference by which I can relate to the oppressed. I'm the living embodiment of "not oppressed".

It is inarguable that all our heroes (who are lauded with statues and plaques) are all humans with shortcomings and faults. Those faults might be put off as a "sign of their times", but that's just not for me to say. If a person of color claims to be genuinely hurt by the presence of these statues, then I've got to listen. I'm not saying I'm obligated to agree and act, but I've got to listen first. We can have a dialog and discuss human failings and historical contexts, but I've got to do most of the listening.

Oh ok then.  White guy, can't have an opinion.  Or at least can't really express your opinion, because, you know, you might offend somebody.  

Look, just think of it in these terms. 

Sul Ross = bad white man, killed indians and mexicans, and fought for slavery.  Erase him from our history.  Take the statue down, everything's good right?  

Stephen F Austin = worse white man.  Indian killer and mexican killer.  In fact, maybe the father of slavery in Texas.  Helped establish slavery here, supported people who wanted it even going against the Mexican government.  

Here are some snips from Austin's wikipedia page:  

Austin continued to encourage violence both against and between the Indian tribes, culminating in 1825 with his order for all Kawankawa to be pursued and killed on sight.<sup>[19]

Arguing that the loss of slaves would be ruinous to the colony, he arranged for his settlers to receive eighty acres of land for each slave they brought with them to Texas. In August 1825, he recommended that the state government allow immigrants to bring their slaves with them through 1840, with the caveat that female grandchildren of the slaves would be freed by the age of 15, and males by age of 25.[36][34][37] His recommendation was rejected.</sup>

Austin went before the legislature and pleaded that, at the least; his original 300 colonists should be allowed to keep their slaves.^[37] He argued against the "bad faith" of freeing them, demanded reparations to slaveowners for every slave emancipated by the state, warned that the loss of slaves could leave some colonists destitute, and reasoned that freeing them would not only leave his settlers alone in the harsh Texas environment, but would also expose them to the discomfort and nuisance of living amongst freed slaves, who would become vagrants seeking retribution upon their former owners.^[42] While he waited for the legislature's verdict of his request, Austin went into a deep depression over the issue and sent his brother, Brown Austin, to further lobby the legislature on his behalf.<sup>[32][39]

Texas must be a slave country. Circumstances and unavoidable necessity compel it. It is the wish of the people there, and it is my duty to do all I can, prudently, in favor of it. I will do so.[37]"</sup>

Forget that, Waterloo is named after a part of England, and the English are the a-holes that created slavery in the colonies from the very beginning.  It's all THEIR fault.