"A city commission voted to remove the statue of Thomas Jefferson from the City Council chamber by the end of the year — though the body is still debating where to send the monument to the Founding Father.
The Public Design Commission voted unanimously Monday to banish the nation’s third president from the legislative chamber at City Hall after four lawmakers testified that his status as a slaveholder was an affront to the council’s many African American members.
“We acknowledge that the piece needs to be removed from the City Council chamber,” said commission president Signe Nielsen.
“We as a commission will act before the end of 2021 in finding an appropriate location where it remains in the public realm,” Nielsen said, following a two hour debate on the topic.
The nine-member commission, whose members are mayoral appointees, had originally scheduled a vote to loan the 1833 painted plaster statue of the Declaration of Independence author to the New-York Historical Society. The original remains in the US Capitol.
Assemblyman Charles Barron (D-Brooklyn) who first took up the quest to remove Jefferson from the Council chambers 20 years ago when he was a member, said the revolutionary hero could go in a trash heap for all he cared.
“I think it should be put in storage somewhere, destroyed or whatever,” Barron testified.
“He was a slave-owning pedophile,” Barron said, referring to Jefferson’s sexual relationship with his slave Sally Heming that reportedly started when she was just 14 and he was 44.
University of Oxford historian Raymond Lavertue countered that Jefferson should be removed from Council chambers but kept in a “seat of government in a public space.”
He testified that Jefferson is a “massively flawed” human being, who’s not being honored as a saint– but for his ideas about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
metmike: I'll show you why this is complete bs on the next page.
Martin Luther King is a man that I admire above almost all others. Up there with my Dad and Jesus Christ.
He was a leader on racial equality and ethical treatment based on humanity.
OH NO! This can't be below!
https://www.thebulwark.com/what-are-we-supposed-to-think-of-martin-luther-king-jr-now/
"But does acknowledging these truths mean that we can no longer recognize King’s accomplishments as a civil rights leader? Does it mean we have to ignore what he said in his powerful sermons and writings? Does it diminish his “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”? It was there that King wrote that citizens had “not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws,” and at the same time “to disobey unjust laws.”
metmike: King was a man honored for his ethics in one area but his own personal ethics in another area were extremely flawed........JUST LIKE THOMAS JEFFERSON!
I don't see anybody crying about MLK's statues or honors in every city in the US or asking for him to be defrocked because of his flawed ethics. My Dad would NEVER cheat on my Mom. How dare he betray his wedding vows, as a minister of God and do it a dozen+ times to his loyal wife!
.........Actually, I've known about the MLK affairs for decades and it doesn't lessen the power of what he did and said during his life time. I honor him and quote him all the time here.
So it should be with Thomas Jefferson but one side can't see things objectively or with fairness and justice for a man that accomplished so much and broke no laws at that time and was actually, not as bad as many people try to make him out as about slavery..........see the next page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson_and_slavery
"By 1776, Jefferson was one of the largest planters in Virginia. However, the value of his property (including land and slaves) was increasingly offset by his growing debts, which made it very difficult for him to free any of his slaves. According to the operant financial laws of the time, slaves were regarded as "property" and hence as financial assets.[7]
Jefferson included a clause in his initial draft of the Declaration of Independence denouncing George III for forcing the slave trade onto the American colonies; this was deleted from the final version. In 1778, with Jefferson's leadership, slave importation was banned in Virginia, one of the first jurisdictions worldwide to do so. Jefferson was a lifelong advocate of ending the Atlantic Slave Trade and as president led the effort to make it illegal, signing a law that passed Congress in 1807, shortly before Britain passed a similar law.[8]
In 1779, as a practical solution, Jefferson supported gradual emancipation, training, and colonization of African-American slaves rather than immediate manumission, believing that releasing unprepared persons with no place to go and no means to support themselves would only bring them misfortune. In 1784, Jefferson proposed a federal law banning slavery in the New Territories of the North and South after 1800, which failed to pass Congress by one vote.[9][10] However, this provision was later written in to the legislation establishing the Northwest Territory. In his Notes on the State of Virginia, published in 1785, Jefferson expressed a belief that slavery corrupted both masters and slaves alike, and that gradual colonization would be preferable to immediate manumission.[11]
After the death of his wife Martha, Jefferson had a long-term relationship with her half-sister, Sally Hemings, a slave at Monticello.[12][13] Jefferson allowed two of Sally Hemings's surviving four children to "escape"; the other two he freed through his will.[14] In 1824, Jefferson proposed a national plan to end slavery by the federal government purchasing African-American slave children for $12.50, raising and training them in occupations of freemen, and sending them to the country of Santo Domingo. In his will, Jefferson also freed three other men.[14] In 1827, the remaining 130 slaves were sold to pay the debts of Jefferson's estate."
metmike: Quite a bit different than what people taking down his statues and destroying his reputation want us to believe about Jefferson! In fact, the COMPLETE OPPOSITE in many ways.
Jefferson actually pushed hard against the slave trade and FOR freeing slaves during his life time. Pathetic that they destroy this great man's legacy by trashing him over distorted versions of facts.
In an area where he is portrayed as deeply flawed, he actually displayed a strength and leadership that fought for racial justice in his time.
How did I learn this?
I was reading all the bad stories about him and taking down this statute on MSM and social media sites(as well as others that disagree) and decided, that rather than just believe it or not, I'll just fact check it with my own research.
In today's world, that's often the only way that you know its the truth........no matter how badly you want to believe what you read/hear.
Captured brains
14 responses |
Started by metmike - April 10, 2021, 12:32 a.m.
I beg you to read “Master of the Mountain” by Henry Wiencek
Jefferson banned slave trade because he wanted the supply to be checked which made his “property” more valuable. Similarly with the vote to reduce its expansion in the territories. He also hired the cruelest overseer of slaves in the county to do the dirty work at his behest.
But he did do good things too and I have no desire to see his statues removed. Still, I think Washington and Hamilton and Madison were far better men than Jefferson.
Thanks joj, you've brought up some great points and recommendations here, so I trust you on this being a good book.
However, I will never have the time to read the book and just read a bunch of reviews. Sounds pretty good but I get the impression, like Christopher Columbus that people telling the convincing stories are telling it as a way to implant their thoughts on us, sometimes to sell books or to sell a biased version that they can wrap into a wonderful, compelling and seemingly objective story but you can't know what they are leaving out and what they are giving too much weighting too.
When I was on television for 11 years, I noted that reporters often covered most (previously scheduled) stories in which they pretty much KNEW what they wanted to say before the coverage started. They might shoot an hours worth of video and interviews of numerous people but need to edit it down to a minute to be aired on the news segment.
59 minutes was never seen and 1 minute of the coverage was. What makes the cut and what doesn't?
They pick the best stuff, in some cases sensationalizing and most cases, if its political, without them realizing it......providing their own political signature with the material shown.
These are all good, honest people not trying to brainwash us.........but that's human nature and thats their business in selling what they do for a living.
Hardly a month went by without us being told how important ratings were and those above us, helped us with dozens of suggestions, included paid coaches, consultants and so on to increase our presentations so that it resulted in higher ratings......the bottom line.
These are not non profit charities. They are FOR profit businesses and the bottom line matters a great deal.
The first year that I was there, we had a consultant come in and compliment me for being so "flamboyant" as a great attribute. He said he noticed that when people watched me, they always had smiles on their faces.
Shortly after that, the general manager decided I was TOO flamboyant for his taste and he hired a new coach, just for me to get me to calm down. Also, flamboyance and enthusiasm irritated some people and they complained to the GM.
Eric Huegle was the coaches name. He was brilliant but his job was to mold me into what the nitwit general manager wanted me to be. So I toned everything way down.......even though inside, I was busting with enthusiasm that had to be stay inside.
Some viewers asked if I was sick or something was the matter with me. The nitwit totally disconnected with viewers GM was doing cartwheels over his coach that he brought in that had created the weatherman HE wanted on HIS tv station.
But I still always LOVED doing the weather every second on tv, every second trading(except when losing money) every second on the forum and every second just doing it for fun.........which is hours on many days.
Sorry to go off track but people writing books for a living often have similar selling motives and most people reading books, pick authors that tell the stories or report the history because they like their style or the way that they tell it.
I would bet that the books that you read are much different than the books that Tim reads when politics are involved.
When there are totally contrasting stories from the 2 political parties about the same historical figure.........I'm just not going to believe either one of them when they appear biased or sensationalizing in a manner that tells shocking information.
They might be absolutely accurate. Or they could be selling their book. Or they could be biased.
I can't really know because it happened more than 2 centuries ago.
With climate change, even in the technologically and informationally very advanced year of 2021, we can't get the unbiased, authentic science .........but at least I have access to all the data and the elite discernment of an objective, independent atmospheric scientist of 4 decades with expertise to filter out the chaff from the wheat.
On Thomas Jefferson and Christopher Columbus, I concede that they did some bad stuff by today's standards but will not discredit any of their "off the charts" positive accomplishments, especially by Columbus just like I don't take anything away from MLK because he cheated on his wife repeatedly(which would be the worst thing that I could ever do personally and had lots of opportunities and temptations as a tv celebrity).
And this gets back to my point. It tends to be the same people who bash Columbus and Jefferson who revere MLK and ignore his flaws.
The ones that don't appreciate MLK so much and do see his flaws........defend Columbus and Jefferson.
At least I'm consistent/objective.
I'm all for accurate accounts of history and accurate science and........if we lived in another dimension, truth in politics. But when you mix politics and its widespread, rotten to the core at times, dishonestly with science and history.........it can cause science and history to be unreliable and inaccurate.
The worst accounts of Columbus and Jefferson seem to be mainly a product of that.......especially the ones that dwell so much on the bad stuff because they want the reader to remember that the most after reading the article or the book. Makes for a memorable book and possibly block buster sales.
Maybe not always fair or balanced.
I've not read this guys book though joj, so I could be completely wrong on this particular book so please don't think that is what I'm stating.