BayVol7
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2020
- Messages
- 1,669
- Likes
- 126
She was never sent to England as a trophy bride. She was already married when she joined the Lewis & Clark Expedition, and had a baby not long before they departed on their journey. Her husband was a French-Canadian who bought her from a tribe of Hidatsa(Sioux). Sacagawea was Shoshone, and had been captured in a raid by the Hidatsa.Before she was forcibly converted to Christianity and sent to England as a trophy bride? Yeah.
Monticello and Highland aren't racist?Somehow I doubt the location of Monticello, Highland, UVA campus, numerous museums and wineries, that also happens to be pretty close to the Shenandoah National Park, is going to lose a lot of tourists because there isn't a statue of Robert E. Lee on a horse. But if that's the only thing that you would find interesting there, you're entitled to that opinion.
She was never sent to England as a trophy bride. She was already married when she joined the Lewis & Clark Expedition, and had a baby not long before they departed on their journey. Her husband was a French-Canadian who bought her from a tribe of Hidatsa(Sioux). Sacagawea was Shoshone, and had been captured in a raid by the Hidatsa.
You are probably thinking of Pocahontas, but even then, there isn't proof to support she was forced to convert to Christianity, though many Native Americans were. She did convert, but the issue is whether or not it was by choice. Also, though she was treated as a type of trophy by the English, she was not a "trophy wife". She and John Rolfe had genuine affection for each other.
Not saying it’s the right thing to do or not but from the photos you see how meaningful it is to the people in attendance.
There were people who opposed the removal as well, It was meaningful to them for one reason or another. So how do we find a fair balance of whose feelings matter?
Personally, I say let voters of a city decide what should or should not adorn their city. The problem becomes people being shamed for feeling one way or another. Not everyone who supports the statues is a "white supremist" or "racist", and not everyone who supports their removal is a "fascist" or a "liberal".
Of course my biggest fear in this type of censorship is when do we cross a line? It starts with a statue, but what's next? Artwork? Books? What else will be deemed offensive and need "removal".
I just figure it's a matter of time before places associated with the FFs become targeted.I'll leave that up to whoever likes to decide those things. I will say that I saw an article a few months ago about Monticello's attempts to include more of the Sally Hemmings story into their programs or exhibits.
Censorship is the suppression of speech or art or other forms of communication that are considered obscene, or politically unacceptable. What was the reasoning for removing the statues again?
Seems like the speaker here is the government. So question for you is whether a speaker can decide to say something different than he had said before? Is that censorship? If the government wants to build a new courthouse to replace it's aging one and that aging one has "In God We Trust" on it, is it censorship if a new courthouse goes up without "In God We Trust" on it?
Where are we at on changing military base names? I thought that was a hot button item last year, one that was going to be acted on immediately if Biden won.
I still did basic training at Ft Benning - regardless of what happens, and I'll bet most guys feel exactly the same way. We apparently didn't get our souls crushed by training at racist bases - now drill sergeants could crush a soul like nobody's business and they said mean stuff ... in the old days