(07-02-2015 01:40 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 01:13 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Who knew Tom was an elitist, blue blood?

That side - yes. But I'm also Cajun on the other side. By the way, whatever 'money' there was came from the 'non-blue blood' side of it.

Odd, or maybe not...The side of the family that sent their kids to Horace Mann in NYC and had all the rock star family history....eventually ended up with far less than the side that came up from the swamps around Houma or the hardscrabble brush around Bastrop or as farmers and basic merchants in the Black Belt of Alabama.

I never claimed my situation was typical, or even replicable.

My family has always been upper-middle/middle class, and *extremely* boring.

But I am distantly related to the late Art Carney from "The Honeymooners".

(07-02-2015 08:05 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 01:40 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 01:13 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Who knew Tom was an elitist, blue blood?

That side - yes. But I'm also Cajun on the other side. By the way, whatever 'money' there was came from the 'non-blue blood' side of it.

Odd, or maybe not...The side of the family that sent their kids to Horace Mann in NYC and had all the rock star family history....eventually ended up with far less than the side that came up from the swamps around Houma or the hardscrabble brush around Bastrop or as farmers and basic merchants in the Black Belt of Alabama.

I never claimed my situation was typical, or even replicable.

My family has always been upper-middle/middle class, and *extremely* boring.

But I am distantly related to the late Art Carney from "The Honeymooners".

Art Carney was in yesterdays crossword puzzle and I couldn't remember his show name. It was Ed Norton I found out later.

(07-02-2015 08:05 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 01:40 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 01:13 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Who knew Tom was an elitist, blue blood?

That side - yes. But I'm also Cajun on the other side. By the way, whatever 'money' there was came from the 'non-blue blood' side of it.

Odd, or maybe not...The side of the family that sent their kids to Horace Mann in NYC and had all the rock star family history....eventually ended up with far less than the side that came up from the swamps around Houma or the hardscrabble brush around Bastrop or as farmers and basic merchants in the Black Belt of Alabama.

I never claimed my situation was typical, or even replicable.

My family has always been upper-middle/middle class, and *extremely* boring.

But I am distantly related to the late Art Carney from "The Honeymooners".

Sometimes boring can be good. You never have to read about family members in the newspapers being the target of national opprobrium. With a higher profile comes a higher level of scrutiny. I'd rather just be rich and forgettable than moderately well off from a prominent family. Easier that way. I have a mortal fear of any undue attention. Even when its a good thing and you have nothing to hide. Number one rule...do not draw undue attention to yourself. The smart side of the family (not the Aycocks) knew the sweet spot is to let your law partner run for office. Let them deal with that mess.

(07-02-2015 08:08 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 08:05 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 01:40 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 01:13 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Who knew Tom was an elitist, blue blood?

That side - yes. But I'm also Cajun on the other side. By the way, whatever 'money' there was came from the 'non-blue blood' side of it.

Odd, or maybe not...The side of the family that sent their kids to Horace Mann in NYC and had all the rock star family history....eventually ended up with far less than the side that came up from the swamps around Houma or the hardscrabble brush around Bastrop or as farmers and basic merchants in the Black Belt of Alabama.

I never claimed my situation was typical, or even replicable.

My family has always been upper-middle/middle class, and *extremely* boring.

But I am distantly related to the late Art Carney from "The Honeymooners".

Art Carney was in yesterdays crossword puzzle and I couldn't remember his show name. It was Ed Norton I found out later.

He won an Academy Award for best actor in 1974 for "Harry and Tonto". And he was in an episode of "The Twilight Zone". That's all I know about him.

(07-02-2015 07:19 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  In 1845 my paternal great great great grandfather left from the Detmold region (Regierungsbezirk) of North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany, and arrived to New York City. Next, he traveled over water to New Orleans before taking a paddle wheeler up the Mississippi to St. Louis. He settled on some land along the Missouri River outside St. Charles, MO alternating between farming, and cabinet making.

The maternal side of the family is your traditional English / Irish / Scottish mutts from the mid-1800.

Our (very unique) family name has strong roots in the St. Louis area and oddly enough, Dickinson North Dakota.

That's like my mom's maiden name. Whenever I meet anyone with her name I swear we look related. It's rare but it has happened. It's in a couple of odd pockets of the US, one being south alabama as early as europeans could possibly be here. One fought with Jackson at horse bend. If he had been killed there I would not exist. If there fort had been massacred like fort Mims I wouldnt be here either

It's strange we keep our father's name if you think about it. Not to be too crass but you never have any doubt who is your mother. Lol. It makes more sense to keep her name


Is noticed Jamestown a few times in this thread. My ancestor was Temperance Flowerdew at jamestown. We might be related. Haha.

(07-02-2015 09:16 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 08:08 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 08:05 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 01:40 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 01:13 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Who knew Tom was an elitist, blue blood?

That side - yes. But I'm also Cajun on the other side. By the way, whatever 'money' there was came from the 'non-blue blood' side of it.

Odd, or maybe not...The side of the family that sent their kids to Horace Mann in NYC and had all the rock star family history....eventually ended up with far less than the side that came up from the swamps around Houma or the hardscrabble brush around Bastrop or as farmers and basic merchants in the Black Belt of Alabama.

I never claimed my situation was typical, or even replicable.

My family has always been upper-middle/middle class, and *extremely* boring.

But I am distantly related to the late Art Carney from "The Honeymooners".

Art Carney was in yesterdays crossword puzzle and I couldn't remember his show name. It was Ed Norton I found out later.

He won an Academy Award for best actor in 1974 for "Harry and Tonto". And he was in an episode of "The Twilight Zone". That's all I know about him.

His work with Jackie Gleason in The Honeymooners was classic. The Ed Norton character was great.

One side is English/South Carolinian from the late 1700s. They ended up in North Alabama after the Civil War. Closer in mixed with some Cajuns and natives for a fairly eclectic mix. Note much to note other than being fairly successful farmers and one was the first man to own a car in Marion county.

The other side are Irish, although not actually since the 'Irish' side is actually Flemish, tracing the name and such to a a failed French intervention in Ireland, having immigrated in the 1870s. Settled in southern Illinois where several of the brothers played various roles, general council, investor, drillers, management, and founders, of both Lycos and The Ohio Oil Company, which most folks know as Marathon Oil today. They then scattered and many are in Colorado where my great uncle ran for governor.

That side has been in the oil industry ever since and overall I'm the only member in Alabama.

Late 1600's. England and Scotland.

Originally surveyed and plotted the layout of Essex, Virginia.

Owned slaves.

Fought and were Patriots in the Revolutionary War and War of Northern Aggression.

don't know, don't care.....I just know they once said, "sprechen sie" and know when we buried my grandfather, I couldn't pronounce a single name on the stones.....I knew at that point ol' missippy had strangled the tongue for the rest o' me breath....

(07-02-2015 03:41 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  It is complicated, and I'm aware of the history. But on the whole, there's a difference between honoring the legacy of public education, and honoring a very flawed man.

Without regard to names on public buildings or publicly funded statues...

My question is, who (or what entity, including the US) isn't flawed? This country was founded on all sorts of principles that we don't embrace and in fact some we abhor... (many of them the exact same principles that you are talking about) but we still celebrate the country.

In the context of current discussions, It seems that we make a distinction between those who intentionally do things they should have known were bad already... and those who are slow to come around to the idea that these are bad things and need to be stopped or changed.... So it's okay to celebrate our founders who owned slaves, declared slaves to be property and afforded no/few rights to women or people of color... because of all the other good that they did... but its not okay to celebrate the other good of your similarly flawed ancestor who merely wanted to cling to those ideas upon which this country was founded when others had moved on.

People are flawed. Nations are flawed. Perspectives change. Even the most celebrated among them. Do we celebrate the scientists of the Manhattan project for developing the most destructive weapon on the face of the earth? We don't celebrate them formally, but we also advanced an awful lot of science through the atrocities of the Nazi's. The good doesn't outweigh the bad, but neither does the bad eliminate the good. Celebrate the good in everything and everyone... and 'fix' the bad.

(07-03-2015 10:09 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 03:41 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  It is complicated, and I'm aware of the history. But on the whole, there's a difference between honoring the legacy of public education, and honoring a very flawed man.

Without regard to names on public buildings or publicly funded statues...

My question is, who (or what entity, including the US) isn't flawed? This country was founded on all sorts of principles that we don't embrace and in fact some we abhor... (many of them the exact same principles that you are talking about) but we still celebrate the country.

In the context of current discussions, It seems that we make a distinction between those who intentionally do things they should have known were bad already... and those who are slow to come around to the idea that these are bad things and need to be stopped or changed.... So it's okay to celebrate our founders who owned slaves, declared slaves to be property and afforded no/few rights to women or people of color... because of all the other good that they did... but its not okay to celebrate the other good of your similarly flawed ancestor who merely wanted to cling to those ideas upon which this country was founded when others had moved on.

People are flawed. Nations are flawed. Perspectives change. Even the most celebrated among them. Do we celebrate the scientists of the Manhattan project for developing the most destructive weapon on the face of the earth? We don't celebrate them formally, but we also advanced an awful lot of science through the atrocities of the Nazi's. The good doesn't outweigh the bad, but neither does the bad eliminate the good. Celebrate the good in everything and everyone... and 'fix' the bad.

Its a judgement call in the case of very flawed people. People are making that call. I'm not going to fault them for doing so. Its not like they don't have a case. I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that those arguing for the removal of those statues and building names don't have an argument that contains merit (even if you might, personally, disagree with what they are asking for).

So long as those statues stay up and those buildings retain their names, the discussion of CBA's commitment to public education will not be the focus, but rather his actions to promote White Supremacy.

I think that what should be done is to simply change statues of him to statues of kids going to public schools and change the name at the bottom of the statue from Charles Brantley Aycock...to "Education for All" with the year of the Education Act. In that way, you'd be honoring his legacy in a way that would be focus the best part of his legacy. In a manner that we could all celebrate.

The buildings? Are a bit more complicated. Its kind of hard to change the names of a building to something like that. How about this...put an "Education for all" Statue in front of every building that is renamed.

And yes, continue to teach kids that it was CBA that was responsible for getting the bill passed. But also teach about Wilmington and the perils of White Supremacy.

---

I get that CBA's education legacy is something that North Carolinian's are, rightly, very proud of. Keep that.

(07-03-2015 10:34 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-03-2015 10:09 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 03:41 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  It is complicated, and I'm aware of the history. But on the whole, there's a difference between honoring the legacy of public education, and honoring a very flawed man.

Without regard to names on public buildings or publicly funded statues...

My question is, who (or what entity, including the US) isn't flawed? This country was founded on all sorts of principles that we don't embrace and in fact some we abhor... (many of them the exact same principles that you are talking about) but we still celebrate the country.

In the context of current discussions, It seems that we make a distinction between those who intentionally do things they should have known were bad already... and those who are slow to come around to the idea that these are bad things and need to be stopped or changed.... So it's okay to celebrate our founders who owned slaves, declared slaves to be property and afforded no/few rights to women or people of color... because of all the other good that they did... but its not okay to celebrate the other good of your similarly flawed ancestor who merely wanted to cling to those ideas upon which this country was founded when others had moved on.

People are flawed. Nations are flawed. Perspectives change. Even the most celebrated among them. Do we celebrate the scientists of the Manhattan project for developing the most destructive weapon on the face of the earth? We don't celebrate them formally, but we also advanced an awful lot of science through the atrocities of the Nazi's. The good doesn't outweigh the bad, but neither does the bad eliminate the good. Celebrate the good in everything and everyone... and 'fix' the bad.

Its a judgement call in the case of very flawed people. People are making that call. I'm not going to fault them for doing so. Its not like they don't have a case. I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that those arguing for the removal of those statues and building names don't have an argument that contains merit (even if you might, personally, disagree with what they are asking for).

So long as those statues stay up and those buildings retain their names, the discussion of CBA's commitment to public education will not be the focus, but rather his actions to promote White Supremacy.

I think that what should be done is to simply change statues of him to statues of kids going to public schools and change the name at the bottom of the statue from Charles Brantley Aycock...to "Education for All" with the year of the Education Act. In that way, you'd be honoring his legacy in a way that would be focus the best part of his legacy. In a manner that we could all celebrate.

The buildings? Are a bit more complicated. Its kind of hard to change the names of a building to something like that. How about this...put an "Education for all" Statue in front of every building that is renamed.

And yes, continue to teach kids that it was CBA that was responsible for getting the bill passed. But also teach about Wilmington and the perils of White Supremacy.

You could argue that MLK statues shouldn't be up anywhere because he was a socialist, if not a communist and even his closest associates said he had a "weakness for women." Others put it a little stronger. So does putting his statue up represent celebrating socialism and adultery? Shouldn't we take them all down?

(07-03-2015 10:38 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-03-2015 10:34 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-03-2015 10:09 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 03:41 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  It is complicated, and I'm aware of the history. But on the whole, there's a difference between honoring the legacy of public education, and honoring a very flawed man.

Without regard to names on public buildings or publicly funded statues...

My question is, who (or what entity, including the US) isn't flawed? This country was founded on all sorts of principles that we don't embrace and in fact some we abhor... (many of them the exact same principles that you are talking about) but we still celebrate the country.

In the context of current discussions, It seems that we make a distinction between those who intentionally do things they should have known were bad already... and those who are slow to come around to the idea that these are bad things and need to be stopped or changed.... So it's okay to celebrate our founders who owned slaves, declared slaves to be property and afforded no/few rights to women or people of color... because of all the other good that they did... but its not okay to celebrate the other good of your similarly flawed ancestor who merely wanted to cling to those ideas upon which this country was founded when others had moved on.

People are flawed. Nations are flawed. Perspectives change. Even the most celebrated among them. Do we celebrate the scientists of the Manhattan project for developing the most destructive weapon on the face of the earth? We don't celebrate them formally, but we also advanced an awful lot of science through the atrocities of the Nazi's. The good doesn't outweigh the bad, but neither does the bad eliminate the good. Celebrate the good in everything and everyone... and 'fix' the bad.

Its a judgement call in the case of very flawed people. People are making that call. I'm not going to fault them for doing so. Its not like they don't have a case. I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that those arguing for the removal of those statues and building names don't have an argument that contains merit (even if you might, personally, disagree with what they are asking for).

So long as those statues stay up and those buildings retain their names, the discussion of CBA's commitment to public education will not be the focus, but rather his actions to promote White Supremacy.

I think that what should be done is to simply change statues of him to statues of kids going to public schools and change the name at the bottom of the statue from Charles Brantley Aycock...to "Education for All" with the year of the Education Act. In that way, you'd be honoring his legacy in a way that would be focus the best part of his legacy. In a manner that we could all celebrate.

The buildings? Are a bit more complicated. Its kind of hard to change the names of a building to something like that. How about this...put an "Education for all" Statue in front of every building that is renamed.

And yes, continue to teach kids that it was CBA that was responsible for getting the bill passed. But also teach about Wilmington and the perils of White Supremacy.

You could argue that MLK statues shouldn't be up anywhere because he was a socialist, if not a communist and even his closest associates said he had a "weakness for women." Others put it a little stronger. So does putting his statue up represent celebrating socialism and adultery? Shouldn't we take them all down?

1) I think its really difficult to argue that MLK was a Communist. It is true, that there were a few persons with links to the US Communist Party that MLK worked with, such as Jack O'Dell. But MLK was a loyal American and a committed Christian. MLK was quite clear about retaining the talents of those he thought could do the best job, even if it meant political issues for the movement. He kept O'Dell. He kept Bayard Rustin too.

2) What the f' is socialism anyway? Demanding that people who work earn a 'living wage'? Then I suppose that anyone who supports a minimum wage is a socialist too. Come on.

3) So he had an affair. That's between Coretta and him. Studies have shown that over HALF of marriages have cases of infidelity.

---

You should thank MLK btw. He managed to get society changed in a way that was probably the least violent way to do it. All at great personal cost to him and his supporters. It wasn't all him..but the non-violent element of it could have been only sold by him. To me, that was his most enduring legacy. And the greatest show of his commitment to American values. If you turn the clock back to 1954 and look at how this could have gone down.....and really think about it....I think you should thank MLK.

And you know, he freed white Southerners too. From a society that demanded that they segregate themselves from African Americans as well.

MLK just keeps looking better with time.

(07-03-2015 10:34 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-03-2015 10:09 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  People are flawed. Nations are flawed. Perspectives change. Even the most celebrated among them. Do we celebrate the scientists of the Manhattan project for developing the most destructive weapon on the face of the earth? We don't celebrate them formally, but we also advanced an awful lot of science through the atrocities of the Nazi's. The good doesn't outweigh the bad, but neither does the bad eliminate the good. Celebrate the good in everything and everyone... and 'fix' the bad.

Its a judgement call in the case of very flawed people. People are making that call. I'm not going to fault them for doing so. Its not like they don't have a case. I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that those arguing for the removal of those statues and building names don't have an argument that contains merit (even if you might, personally, disagree with what they are asking for).

I agree with this, and part of why I separated the public buildings part. Public buildings and funds DO belong to the majority, so long as they don't oppress the minority.

What we seem to find though is that the arguments against things like the confederate flag don't merely extend to a question of public opinion and majority rule (which is correct) but extend to some sort of public morality ban on any display whatsoever. Even those that say 'it's okay' do so by saying that 'if you want everyone to know what a racist you are, no problem'... and then when it is explained that 'what they believe' about the flag ISN'T what is being celebrated, it's ignored and trashed and belittled. (Not saying by you, Tom)

But even to things like Gay marriage. The majority has ruled and that is perfect, but we still shouldn't vilify those who have a different opinion. In my mind, that makes some of today's 'winners' no better than those bigots that they railed against. Supporting gay marriage was pretty recently a vastly minority opinion... and frankly, I think the 'hatred' spewed by those against it, towards those in favor of it was part of what turned the tide... so why is it 'smart' to rail against those who NOW have the minority opinion? Disagree all you (one) want... and celebrate the victory... but try and do so with the same respect for the minority opinion that you yourself wanted and deserved 20 years ago.

(07-03-2015 11:34 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-03-2015 10:34 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-03-2015 10:09 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  People are flawed. Nations are flawed. Perspectives change. Even the most celebrated among them. Do we celebrate the scientists of the Manhattan project for developing the most destructive weapon on the face of the earth? We don't celebrate them formally, but we also advanced an awful lot of science through the atrocities of the Nazi's. The good doesn't outweigh the bad, but neither does the bad eliminate the good. Celebrate the good in everything and everyone... and 'fix' the bad.

Its a judgement call in the case of very flawed people. People are making that call. I'm not going to fault them for doing so. Its not like they don't have a case. I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that those arguing for the removal of those statues and building names don't have an argument that contains merit (even if you might, personally, disagree with what they are asking for).

I agree with this, and part of why I separated the public buildings part. Public buildings and funds DO belong to the majority, so long as they don't oppress the minority.

What we seem to find though is that the arguments against things like the confederate flag don't merely extend to a question of public opinion and majority rule (which is correct) but extend to some sort of public morality ban on any display whatsoever. Even those that say 'it's okay' do so by saying that 'if you want everyone to know what a racist you are, no problem'... and then when it is explained that 'what they believe' about the flag ISN'T what is being celebrated, it's ignored and trashed and belittled. (Not saying by you, Tom)

But even to things like Gay marriage. The majority has ruled and that is perfect, but we still shouldn't vilify those who have a different opinion. In my mind, that makes some of today's 'winners' no better than those bigots that they railed against. Supporting gay marriage was pretty recently a vastly minority opinion... and frankly, I think the 'hatred' spewed by those against it, towards those in favor of it was part of what turned the tide... so why is it 'smart' to rail against those who NOW have the minority opinion? Disagree all you (one) want... and celebrate the victory... but try and do so with the same respect for the minority opinion that you yourself wanted and deserved 20 years ago.

Yes and no. I'm inclined to give many the benefit of the doubt. But where I draw the line is with those who sought to advance discrimination, for personal or political gain. Even if it impacts a relative of mine.

The question for me is this "were you just going along to get along?" Which is a failing we all have - at one point or another. Or were/are you "seeking to exploit people's fears of others and increase those fears in order to profit in some way from it"?

And its not just if you opposed equality, but HOW you did it. Did you demean that targeted minority? Did you trade in lies? Were these based upon your own personal ignorance or did you know better?

Most I can't trace before 1865. Now I know by a bible, a freedman's bureau ledger book that my grandfather has, and the papers from the creation of Vance County; that my maternal grandfather's side has been here for a good while. The oldest I can find is an ancestor named "Big Thomas" born in 1823.

My maternal grandmother's side is traceable back to the latter 1700s because one of her (I don't know how many greats) grandfathers was the son of master (yeoman farmer) and slave. That line is traceable to a letter in Granville County records, where one of his ancestors is speaking of bringing the rest of his family in from Ireland.

My paternal side is difficult. Because my father's dad was already an old man by the time my dad was 18, he never got a chance to ask, nor did he care to. My paternal grandmother never knew her father and her mother's side is only traceable into the 1870s.

This brings me to another point. In the centuries of being away from Africa, American black people have been inter-mingled so much that we are hardly of any common ethnicity with those who are there now. It's amazing how that works.

(07-03-2015 10:55 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-03-2015 10:38 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-03-2015 10:34 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-03-2015 10:09 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 03:41 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  It is complicated, and I'm aware of the history. But on the whole, there's a difference between honoring the legacy of public education, and honoring a very flawed man.

Without regard to names on public buildings or publicly funded statues...

My question is, who (or what entity, including the US) isn't flawed? This country was founded on all sorts of principles that we don't embrace and in fact some we abhor... (many of them the exact same principles that you are talking about) but we still celebrate the country.

In the context of current discussions, It seems that we make a distinction between those who intentionally do things they should have known were bad already... and those who are slow to come around to the idea that these are bad things and need to be stopped or changed.... So it's okay to celebrate our founders who owned slaves, declared slaves to be property and afforded no/few rights to women or people of color... because of all the other good that they did... but its not okay to celebrate the other good of your similarly flawed ancestor who merely wanted to cling to those ideas upon which this country was founded when others had moved on.

People are flawed. Nations are flawed. Perspectives change. Even the most celebrated among them. Do we celebrate the scientists of the Manhattan project for developing the most destructive weapon on the face of the earth? We don't celebrate them formally, but we also advanced an awful lot of science through the atrocities of the Nazi's. The good doesn't outweigh the bad, but neither does the bad eliminate the good. Celebrate the good in everything and everyone... and 'fix' the bad.

Its a judgement call in the case of very flawed people. People are making that call. I'm not going to fault them for doing so. Its not like they don't have a case. I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that those arguing for the removal of those statues and building names don't have an argument that contains merit (even if you might, personally, disagree with what they are asking for).

So long as those statues stay up and those buildings retain their names, the discussion of CBA's commitment to public education will not be the focus, but rather his actions to promote White Supremacy.

I think that what should be done is to simply change statues of him to statues of kids going to public schools and change the name at the bottom of the statue from Charles Brantley Aycock...to "Education for All" with the year of the Education Act. In that way, you'd be honoring his legacy in a way that would be focus the best part of his legacy. In a manner that we could all celebrate.

The buildings? Are a bit more complicated. Its kind of hard to change the names of a building to something like that. How about this...put an "Education for all" Statue in front of every building that is renamed.

And yes, continue to teach kids that it was CBA that was responsible for getting the bill passed. But also teach about Wilmington and the perils of White Supremacy.

You could argue that MLK statues shouldn't be up anywhere because he was a socialist, if not a communist and even his closest associates said he had a "weakness for women." Others put it a little stronger. So does putting his statue up represent celebrating socialism and adultery? Shouldn't we take them all down?

1) I think its really difficult to argue that MLK was a Communist. It is true, that there were a few persons with links to the US Communist Party that MLK worked with, such as Jack O'Dell. But MLK was a loyal American and a committed Christian. MLK was quite clear about retaining the talents of those he thought could do the best job, even if it meant political issues for the movement. He kept O'Dell. He kept Bayard Rustin too.

2) What the f' is socialism anyway? Demanding that people who work earn a 'living wage'? Then I suppose that anyone who supports a minimum wage is a socialist too. Come on.

3) So he had an affair. That's between Coretta and him. Studies have shown that over HALF of marriages have cases of infidelity.

---

You should thank MLK btw. He managed to get society changed in a way that was probably the least violent way to do it. All at great personal cost to him and his supporters. It wasn't all him..but the non-violent element of it could have been only sold by him. To me, that was his most enduring legacy. And the greatest show of his commitment to American values. If you turn the clock back to 1954 and look at how this could have gone down.....and really think about it....I think you should thank MLK.

And you know, he freed white Southerners too. From a society that demanded that they segregate themselves from African Americans as well.

MLK just keeps looking better with time.

You're missing the point. He was a flawed human being. Those statues aren't put up to celebrate his flaws.

(07-03-2015 12:34 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Most I can't trace before 1865. Now I know by a bible, a freedman's bureau ledger book that my grandfather has, and the papers from the creation of Vance County; that my maternal grandfather's side has been here for a good while. The oldest I can find is an ancestor named "Big Thomas" born in 1823.

My maternal grandmother's side is traceable back to the latter 1700s because one of her (I don't know how many greats) grandfathers was the son of master (yeoman farmer) and slave. That line is traceable to a letter in Granville County records, where one of his ancestors is speaking of bringing the rest of his family in from Ireland.

My paternal side is difficult. Because my father's dad was already an old man by the time my dad was 18, he never got a chance to ask, nor did he care to. My paternal grandmother never knew her father and her mother's side is only traceable into the 1870s.

This brings me to another point. In the centuries of being away from Africa, American black people have been inter-mingled so much that we are hardly of any common ethnicity with those who are there now. It's amazing how that works.

That's true of about everyone. That's why when people talk about races being inherently (genetically) different, its simply not true.

(07-03-2015 12:34 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Most I can't trace before 1865. Now I know by a bible, a freedman's bureau ledger book that my grandfather has, and the papers from the creation of Vance County; that my maternal grandfather's side has been here for a good while. The oldest I can find is an ancestor named "Big Thomas" born in 1823.

My maternal grandmother's side is traceable back to the latter 1700s because one of her (I don't know how many greats) grandfathers was the son of master (yeoman farmer) and slave. That line is traceable to a letter in Granville County records, where one of his ancestors is speaking of bringing the rest of his family in from Ireland.

My paternal side is difficult. Because my father's dad was already an old man by the time my dad was 18, he never got a chance to ask, nor did he care to. My paternal grandmother never knew her father and her mother's side is only traceable into the 1870s.

This brings me to another point. In the centuries of being away from Africa, American black people have been inter-mingled so much that we are hardly of any common ethnicity with those who are there now. It's amazing how that works.

We talked about that in another thread a couple months ago. Eventually, the entire world will look something like the people of Brazil.

(07-03-2015 04:57 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-03-2015 12:34 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Most I can't trace before 1865. Now I know by a bible, a freedman's bureau ledger book that my grandfather has, and the papers from the creation of Vance County; that my maternal grandfather's side has been here for a good while. The oldest I can find is an ancestor named "Big Thomas" born in 1823.

My maternal grandmother's side is traceable back to the latter 1700s because one of her (I don't know how many greats) grandfathers was the son of master (yeoman farmer) and slave. That line is traceable to a letter in Granville County records, where one of his ancestors is speaking of bringing the rest of his family in from Ireland.

My paternal side is difficult. Because my father's dad was already an old man by the time my dad was 18, he never got a chance to ask, nor did he care to. My paternal grandmother never knew her father and her mother's side is only traceable into the 1870s.

This brings me to another point. In the centuries of being away from Africa, American black people have been inter-mingled so much that we are hardly of any common ethnicity with those who are there now. It's amazing how that works.

That's true of about everyone. That's why when people talk about races being inherently (genetically) different, its simply not true.

Most of the eastern Native American tribes, when their DNA is examined don't have much Native American DNA.