They're not "erasing history."  They're removing monuments they don't want.

Take a look at the pictures of some of the "monuments" that they want to remove.  That's from The Florida Times Union.  Most of them are merely signs that tell the history of the area.  They are in fact, making an attempt at removing history.

Here is an example of one such "monument".  The photo comes from the University of North Florida Historic Architecture Main Gallery.  Explain to me why it's so "offensive" that it needs to be taken down.  Explain how it's not removing history.

Markers where historical events took place are good and important, like the stumbling stones in Germany today.  This particular marker could maybe use more context about if this group did anything together, after the war, beyond socializing. It might be missing information about how black men in this area had the right to vote in 1868, but had lost it long before 1914.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Here is a full list as reported on First Coast News.  Why are these so "offensive" and not actual historical markers?

Among them:

Camp Milton Historic Preserve - 23 Informational Signs and 58 Tree Signs
• Location: 1225 Halsema Road North
• Date of Placement: 2006
• Placed By: Jacksonville Parks and Recreation Department

[font=proximanova, sans-serif]In Memory of Our Beloved Ancestors – Ground Marker
[/font]
• Location: Old City Cemetery

• Date of Placement: Information not available
[font=proximanova, sans-serif]• Placed By: Sons of the Confederate Veterans (Kirby-Smith Camp, No. 1209)[/font]

[font=proximanova, sans-serif][font=proximanova, sans-serif]Skirmish At Cedar Creek
[/font][/font]
• Location: Lenox Avenue Right-of-Way near Cedar Creek

• Date of Placement: Information not Available
[font=proximanova, sans-serif][font=proximanova, sans-serif]• Placed By: Sons of the Confederate Veterans (Kirby-Smith Camp, No. 1209)[/font][/font]

[font=proximanova, sans-serif][font=proximanova, sans-serif][font=proximanova, sans-serif]Line of Entrenchment – Federal Occupation Force
[/font][/font][/font]
• Location: Attached to southwest corner of old Jacksonville Terminal (Prime Osborn Convention Center)

• Date of Placement: 1931
[font=proximanova, sans-serif][font=proximanova, sans-serif][font=proximanova, sans-serif]• Placed By: Jacksonville Historical Society 08.29.17[/font][/font][/font]

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

We are so irrational.

---

Take a look at the pictures of some of the "monuments" that they want to remove.  That's from The Florida Times Union.  Most of them are merely signs that tell the history of the area.  They are in fact, making an attempt at removing history.

Here is an example of one such "monument".  The photo comes from the University of North Florida Historic Architecture Main Gallery.  Explain to me why it's so "offensive" that it needs to be taken down.  Explain how it's not removing history.

Markers where historical events took place are good and important, like the stumbling stones in Germany today.  This particular marker could maybe use more context about if this group did anything together, after the war, beyond socializing. It might be missing information about how black men in this area had the right to vote in 1868, but had lost it long before 1914.

Typical of liberal democrats like you.  Let's change the context of a historical marker to fit our agenda.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Here is a full list as reported on First Coast News.  Why are these so "offensive" and not actual historical markers?

They're not. Historical markers are useful. I think statues, buildings and whatever that are there to honor the memory of a traitor are not. There's some overreach going on here.

---

They're not "erasing history."  They're removing monuments they don't want.

Take a look at the pictures of some of the "monuments" that they want to remove.  That's from The Florida Times Union.  Most of them are merely signs that tell the history of the area.  They are in fact, making an attempt at removing history.

Here is an example of one such "monument".  The photo comes from the University of North Florida Historic Architecture Main Gallery.  Explain to me why it's so "offensive" that it needs to be taken down.  Explain how it's not removing history.

On some of them I agree with you, but with a lot of others, I would take them down.  Signs that tell history without glorifying the Confederacy, I would tend to leave up.  

About that particular sign- 1914 Confederate Veterans Reunion- I don't see any historical importance to that sign.  And the monument to the women of the confederacy- I'd take that one down.  Those women are not heroes and they're not deserving of that type of memorial.  

But I'd take it on a case by case basis.

---

It's not my heritage.  I wasn't born around here and my home state (New Mexico) had very little impact during The Civil War.

I do have many friends that are multi-generation Floridians that are very proud of their heritage.  Their ancestors fought for what they (back then) believed in and fought honorably.  The Civil War was a very dark time in our nation's history, but it is what it is.  Many fought because their idea and belief is that it was "right".  Many died and shed blood during that conflict.  Whether or not if they were right or wrong, they deserve some dignity and respect.  That's what the statue that was (cowardly) taken down in the middle of the night was commemorating.  It had nothing to do with "oppression" or slavery.

Put yourself in the shoes of a white man living in Florida in 1850 or so and imagine what you think is "right or wrong".  Society's way of thinking back then is nowhere near what it is today.  Fast forward to the 1890's (when the statue was built and erected) and think about what people were remembering.  It was NOT about slavery.  It was about loved ones that fell during that horrific time in our nation's history.

That statue stood there over a hundred years before some "woke" people decided that it was "offensive".  There is a reason why so many landmarks, roads and schools around this city are named what they are named.  It's all about the history.

In my opinion people that find monuments, landmarks, names of schools, etc. "offensive" or "repressive" today are living in the past.  The whole "white privilege" thing is a big myth.

When we start tearing down monuments and treasures from the past, where will it end?  In my opinion doing so is really no different than what the Taliban did.  I think we as a country are better than that.

People have a right to be proud of their heritage, but they need to be a little more selective about what part of their heritage they're proud of.  Confederate soldiers were fighting for a government that seceded from the United States because they thought slavery was under threat from abolitionists in the North.   The proof of this is in the Articles of Secession where the Southern states stated their reasons for seceding.  Articles of Secession are declarations of independence.  Five of the most important states that made up the confederacy passed and published Articles of Secession.  

You can read them here: 

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/prima...ing-states

Mississippi: "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove."

And here is Alexander Stevens' speech about secession:  

https://teachingamericanhistory.org/libr...ne-speech/

"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition."

I'm a southerner, and I'm descended from southerners, some of whom fought in the Confederate armies.  But that part of my heritage, the part that includes slavery and fighting to preserve slavery, is not something I would be proud of, and I certainly don't think we should have monuments to the army that fought to preserve slavery.  

"...that cause was, I believe, one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse." Ulysses S Grant

I wish that the republican party actually had the messaging to use Alexander Steven's as proof-text that our nation's founding was and forever will be based on the idea that "all men are created equal"

---

People have a right to be proud of their heritage, but they need to be a little more selective about what part of their heritage they're proud of.  Confederate soldiers were fighting for a government that seceded from the United States because they thought slavery was under threat from abolitionists in the North.   The proof of this is in the Articles of Secession where the Southern states stated their reasons for seceding.  Articles of Secession are declarations of independence.  Five of the most important states that made up the confederacy passed and published Articles of Secession.  

You can read them here: 

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/prima...ing-states

Mississippi: "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove."

And here is Alexander Stevens' speech about secession:  

https://teachingamericanhistory.org/libr...ne-speech/

"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition."

I'm a southerner, and I'm descended from southerners, some of whom fought in the Confederate armies.  But that part of my heritage, the part that includes slavery and fighting to preserve slavery, is not something I would be proud of, and I certainly don't think we should have monuments to the army that fought to preserve slavery.  

"...that cause was, I believe, one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse." Ulysses S Grant

I wish that the republican party actually had the messaging to use Alexander Steven's as proof-text that our nation's founding was and forever will be based on the idea that "all men are created equal"

Then why are all men not treated equally?

---

Take a look at the pictures of some of the "monuments" that they want to remove.  That's from The Florida Times Union.  Most of them are merely signs that tell the history of the area.  They are in fact, making an attempt at removing history.

Here is an example of one such "monument".  The photo comes from the University of North Florida Historic Architecture Main Gallery.  Explain to me why it's so "offensive" that it needs to be taken down.  Explain how it's not removing history.

On some of them I agree with you, but with a lot of others, I would take them down.  Signs that tell history without glorifying the Confederacy, I would tend to leave up.  

About that particular sign- 1914 Confederate Veterans Reunion- I don't see any historical importance to that sign.  And the monument to the women of the confederacy- I'd take that one down.  Those women are not heroes and they're not deserving of that type of memorial.  

But I'd take it on a case by case basis.

I agree 100%. Memorials of honor are one thing. Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, the walls with all the names of those who paid with their lives on the fields of battle, signs that inform the public of what happened in that location. But to glorify anyone or anything that was a dishonor or disgrace to anyone? No. 

Learning more about this confederate stuff now (and as an adult because anything I learned in school has long been forgotten) has been an eye opener. I get that the flag itself had different meaning before it was hijacked and used for an agenda (much like the American flag has been) and I guess that's what some hold onto, that original idea. Then you have the racist jackholes. I still say let people make their own decisions on that front and they deal with the consequences. All the other stuff, take down the statues and if warranted place a plaque in its place that speaks to the who, what, where and when without glorifying any of it. The facts. That's it.

---

I wish that the republican party actually had the messaging to use Alexander Steven's as proof-text that our nation's founding was and forever will be based on the idea that "all men are created equal"

Then why are all men not treated equally?

Without going too far into this a break the CoC this is my thought on this very thing.

The men who founded this country were Christians and in the bible there is scripture that says "all men are created equal" but it doesn't stop there. It says "all are created equal in the eyes of God." Notice it doesn't say in the eyes of man. God did his job, we screwed it up. Our founding fathers wanted equality for all people it seems, but people.....we don't always like or appreciate what's different. It may not be wrong, these differences, but it's different and we're comfortable with what is familiar. 

Anyone who is different in any way is treated differently than others. Folks with perceived PTS(D) makes us treat people we just think has it completely different than others. People with Down's Syndrome. People with less, or more of a thing. Beautiful people are treated different than those less attractive. Heck, players and staff of the Patriots are treated better than those of the Jags (that may be coming to an end). So yeah, people from different cultures with different skin colors are going to treat everyone else as different than them because they are different. Sadly this extends to folks treating each other as unequal because different=unequal in the eyes of most. 

I'm a relatively equal opportunity person in a lot of ways. I don't see different=unequal, I just see different=different. 

The life I've lived has given me opportunity to live in  various parts of the country and world and among different socio-economic groups, cultures, etc. I see people as they are, how they  conduct themselves and treat others, etc. I may not like the same music or clothing styles or food (sauerkraut lasagna is just nasty) or anything else, but I always see people as people. Imperfect, annoying, self absorbed and so on; but I also see them as funny, smart, created for a purpose. 

BUT I also like what is comfortable, what is 'normal'...my comfort zone, and anything that messes with that disturbs my groove. No one likes that, but it's the only way we grow and learn. The older we get the less we tend to want to grow and learn and that's a sad thing because we miss out on a lot. I don't want to be that person and is one reason why I keep coming to the political section here even though y'all drive me nuts. I don't know all the answers and I know I can learn from everyone here regardless of race, gender, religious beliefs, political party, etc. I may not agree, but I can learn another point of view that may help me see things a different way, and that has happened. I don't know how that's a bad thing.

---

Then why are all men not treated equally?

Without going too far into this a break the CoC this is my thought on this very thing.

The men who founded this country were Christians and in the bible there is scripture that says "all men are created equal" but it doesn't stop there. It says "all are created equal in the eyes of God." Notice it doesn't say in the eyes of man. God did his job, we screwed it up. Our founding fathers wanted equality for all people it seems, but people.....we don't always like or appreciate what's different. It may not be wrong, these differences, but it's different and we're comfortable with what is familiar. 

So the founding fathers, who included the three-fifths clause and the fugitive slave clause in the US Constitution, the founding fathers who, for the most part, were slave owners and in the case of at least Jefferson were banging those slaves, wanted all men to be equal.

...riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight

---

Without going too far into this a break the CoC this is my thought on this very thing.

The men who founded this country were Christians and in the bible there is scripture that says "all men are created equal" but it doesn't stop there. It says "all are created equal in the eyes of God." Notice it doesn't say in the eyes of man. God did his job, we screwed it up. Our founding fathers wanted equality for all people it seems, but people.....we don't always like or appreciate what's different. It may not be wrong, these differences, but it's different and we're comfortable with what is familiar. 

So the founding fathers, who included the three-fifths clause and the fugitive slave clause in the US Constitution, the founding fathers who, for the most part, were slave owners and in the case of at least Jefferson were banging those slaves, wanted all men to be equal.

...riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight

The founding fathers sincerely believed that slavery would be abolished in all states by the early 1800s.
When the Declaration of Independence was adopted, there were slaves in all 13 states. Between 1776, and the constitutional convention of 1787, the northern states had freed their slaves, or at least adopted laws saying that no new slaves could be brought in and nobody could be born into slavery. It was reasonable at the time to expect that the southern states would eventually do the right thing in this area, though everyone also understood that it would be harder because the southern states had a lot more slaves in the first place.
We see this optimism in the part of the Constitution that says no new slaves can be imported after 1808.
So I have a lot more sympathy for guys like George Washington and James Madison who though they did not free any slaves, thought they were bringing the country closer and closer to a day when the slaves would be freed. I have no sympathy for guys who came later. The ones who insisted on expanding slave holding into the territories. The ones who wrote supreme Court decisions saying black people were not citizens regardless of which state they reside in. And I have the least sympathy of all for guys like Robert E Lee, who clearly saw the time to free the slaves, the time his ancestors hoped for, was at hand, and Lee along with his entire generation of southern bastards, hardened his heart and raised his hand against it.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Without going too far into this a break the CoC this is my thought on this very thing.

The men who founded this country were Christians and in the bible there is scripture that says "all men are created equal" but it doesn't stop there. It says "all are created equal in the eyes of God." Notice it doesn't say in the eyes of man. God did his job, we screwed it up. Our founding fathers wanted equality for all people it seems, but people.....we don't always like or appreciate what's different. It may not be wrong, these differences, but it's different and we're comfortable with what is familiar. 

So the founding fathers, who included the three-fifths clause and the fugitive slave clause in the US Constitution, the founding fathers who, for the most part, were slave owners and in the case of at least Jefferson were banging those slaves, wanted all men to be equal.

...riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight

The 3/5ths clause that took power away from the slave states you mean? That one?

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I wish that the republican party actually had the messaging to use Alexander Steven's as proof-text that our nation's founding was and forever will be based on the idea that "all men are created equal"

Then why are all men not treated equally?

Because men are flawed, not the ideas of the founding.

---

Without going too far into this a break the CoC this is my thought on this very thing.

The men who founded this country were Christians and in the bible there is scripture that says "all men are created equal" but it doesn't stop there. It says "all are created equal in the eyes of God." Notice it doesn't say in the eyes of man. God did his job, we screwed it up. Our founding fathers wanted equality for all people it seems, but people.....we don't always like or appreciate what's different. It may not be wrong, these differences, but it's different and we're comfortable with what is familiar. 

So the founding fathers, who included the three-fifths clause and the fugitive slave clause in the US Constitution, the founding fathers who, for the most part, were slave owners and in the case of at least Jefferson were banging those slaves, wanted all men to be equal.

...riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. 

You know, maybe you're right. I guess I was trying to be optimistic. I was also trying to get a point across while not crossing CoC lines. How equality looked back then is different than now. Was it right? No, but you go with what was considered normal for the timeframe you're talking about. 

Being a sarcastic [BLEEP] isn't necessary.

---

So the founding fathers, who included the three-fifths clause and the fugitive slave clause in the US Constitution, the founding fathers who, for the most part, were slave owners and in the case of at least Jefferson were banging those slaves, wanted all men to be equal.

...riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight

The founding fathers sincerely believed that slavery would be abolished in all states by the early 1800s.
When the Declaration of Independence was adopted, there were slaves in all 13 states. Between 1776, and the constitutional convention of 1787, the northern states had freed their slaves, or at least adopted laws saying that no new slaves could be brought in and nobody could be born into slavery. It was reasonable at the time to expect that the southern states would eventually do the right thing in this area, though everyone also understood that it would be harder because the southern states had a lot more slaves in the first place.
We see this optimism in the part of the Constitution that says no new slaves can be imported after 1808.
So I have a lot more sympathy for guys like George Washington and James Madison who though they did not free any slaves, thought they were bringing the country closer and closer to a day when the slaves would be freed. I have no sympathy for guys who came later. The ones who insisted on expanding slave holding into the territories. The ones who wrote supreme Court decisions saying black people were not citizens regardless of which state they reside in. And I have the least sympathy of all for guys like Robert E Lee, who clearly saw the time to free the slaves, the time his ancestors hoped for, was at hand, and Lee along with his entire generation of southern bastards, hardened his heart and raised his hand against it.

# randomactofsanity

---

isn't necessary. pid='1307564' dateline='1591976565']

C'mon now, you ain't new here...

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Then why are all men not treated equally?

Without going too far into this a break the CoC this is my thought on this very thing.

The men who founded this country were Christians and in the bible there is scripture that says "all men are created equal" but it doesn't stop there. It says "all are created equal in the eyes of God." Notice it doesn't say in the eyes of man. God did his job, we screwed it up. Our founding fathers wanted equality for all people it seems, but people.....we don't always like or appreciate what's different. It may not be wrong, these differences, but it's different and we're comfortable with what is familiar. 

Anyone who is different in any way is treated differently than others. Folks with perceived PTS(D) makes us treat people we just think has it completely different than others. People with Down's Syndrome. People with less, or more of a thing. Beautiful people are treated different than those less attractive. Heck, players and staff of the Patriots are treated better than those of the Jags (that may be coming to an end). So yeah, people from different cultures with different skin colors are going to treat everyone else as different than them because they are different. Sadly this extends to folks treating each other as unequal because different=unequal in the eyes of most. 

I'm a relatively equal opportunity person in a lot of ways. I don't see different=unequal, I just see different=different. 

The life I've lived has given me opportunity to live in  various parts of the country and world and among different socio-economic groups, cultures, etc. I see people as they are, how they  conduct themselves and treat others, etc. I may not like the same music or clothing styles or food (sauerkraut lasagna is just nasty) or anything else, but I always see people as people. Imperfect, annoying, self absorbed and so on; but I also see them as funny, smart, created for a purpose. 

BUT I also like what is comfortable, what is 'normal'...my comfort zone, and anything that messes with that disturbs my groove. No one likes that, but it's the only way we grow and learn. The older we get the less we tend to want to grow and learn and that's a sad thing because we miss out on a lot. I don't want to be that person and is one reason why I keep coming to the political section here even though y'all drive me nuts. I don't know all the answers and I know I can learn from everyone here regardless of race, gender, religious beliefs, political party, etc. I may not agree, but I can learn another point of view that may help me see things a different way, and that has happened. I don't know how that's a bad thing.

You make this board a much better place

---

So the founding fathers, who included the three-fifths clause and the fugitive slave clause in the US Constitution, the founding fathers who, for the most part, were slave owners and in the case of at least Jefferson were banging those slaves, wanted all men to be equal.

...riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight

The 3/5ths clause that took power away from the slave states you mean? That one?

The left still gets this wrong ALL YHE TIME.

---

C'mon now, you ain't new here...

No, but I'm fed up with the sarcasm, the name calling and lack of decent human expression around here. Whether y'all are calling each other boomer or answering with smart [BLEEP] sarcasm instead of intelligent dialogue, it gets old. Normally doesn't bother me, I keep on scrolling, but I guess I'm getting overwhelmed by it being everywhere else too.

---

Without going too far into this a break the CoC this is my thought on this very thing.

The men who founded this country were Christians and in the bible there is scripture that says "all men are created equal" but it doesn't stop there. It says "all are created equal in the eyes of God." Notice it doesn't say in the eyes of man. God did his job, we screwed it up. Our founding fathers wanted equality for all people it seems, but people.....we don't always like or appreciate what's different. It may not be wrong, these differences, but it's different and we're comfortable with what is familiar. 

Anyone who is different in any way is treated differently than others. Folks with perceived PTS(D) makes us treat people we just think has it completely different than others. People with Down's Syndrome. People with less, or more of a thing. Beautiful people are treated different than those less attractive. Heck, players and staff of the Patriots are treated better than those of the Jags (that may be coming to an end). So yeah, people from different cultures with different skin colors are going to treat everyone else as different than them because they are different. Sadly this extends to folks treating each other as unequal because different=unequal in the eyes of most. 

I'm a relatively equal opportunity person in a lot of ways. I don't see different=unequal, I just see different=different. 

The life I've lived has given me opportunity to live in  various parts of the country and world and among different socio-economic groups, cultures, etc. I see people as they are, how they  conduct themselves and treat others, etc. I may not like the same music or clothing styles or food (sauerkraut lasagna is just nasty) or anything else, but I always see people as people. Imperfect, annoying, self absorbed and so on; but I also see them as funny, smart, created for a purpose. 

BUT I also like what is comfortable, what is 'normal'...my comfort zone, and anything that messes with that disturbs my groove. No one likes that, but it's the only way we grow and learn. The older we get the less we tend to want to grow and learn and that's a sad thing because we miss out on a lot. I don't want to be that person and is one reason why I keep coming to the political section here even though y'all drive me nuts. I don't know all the answers and I know I can learn from everyone here regardless of race, gender, religious beliefs, political party, etc. I may not agree, but I can learn another point of view that may help me see things a different way, and that has happened. I don't know how that's a bad thing.

You make this board a much better place

---

The 3/5ths clause that took power away from the slave states you mean? That one?

The left still gets this wrong ALL YHE TIME.

Thanks.

---

Then why are all men not treated equally?

Without going too far into this a break the CoC this is my thought on this very thing.

The men who founded this country were Christians and in the bible there is scripture that says "all men are created equal" but it doesn't stop there. It says "all are created equal in the eyes of God." Notice it doesn't say in the eyes of man. God did his job, we screwed it up. Our founding fathers wanted equality for all people it seems, but people.....we don't always like or appreciate what's different. It may not be wrong, these differences, but it's different and we're comfortable with what is familiar. 

Anyone who is different in any way is treated differently than others. Folks with perceived PTS(D) makes us treat people we just think has it completely different than others. People with Down's Syndrome. People with less, or more of a thing. Beautiful people are treated different than those less attractive. Heck, players and staff of the Patriots are treated better than those of the Jags (that may be coming to an end). So yeah, people from different cultures with different skin colors are going to treat everyone else as different than them because they are different. Sadly this extends to folks treating each other as unequal because different=unequal in the eyes of most. 

I'm a relatively equal opportunity person in a lot of ways. I don't see different=unequal, I just see different=different. 

The life I've lived has given me opportunity to live in  various parts of the country and world and among different socio-economic groups, cultures, etc. I see people as they are, how they  conduct themselves and treat others, etc. I may not like the same music or clothing styles or food (sauerkraut lasagna is just nasty) or anything else, but I always see people as people. Imperfect, annoying, self absorbed and so on; but I also see them as funny, smart, created for a purpose. 

BUT I also like what is comfortable, what is 'normal'...my comfort zone, and anything that messes with that disturbs my groove. No one likes that, but it's the only way we grow and learn. The older we get the less we tend to want to grow and learn and that's a sad thing because we miss out on a lot. I don't want to be that person and is one reason why I keep coming to the political section here even though y'all drive me nuts. I don't know all the answers and I know I can learn from everyone here regardless of race, gender, religious beliefs, political party, etc. I may not agree, but I can learn another point of view that may help me see things a different way, and that has happened. I don't know how that's a bad thing.

With no fear of a warning, I’ll say “amen”

---