Confederate leaders' names popular wi...

Confederate leaders' names popular with voters in Oklahoma City schools survey

There are 29 comments on the NewsOK.com story from Dec 16, 2017, titled Confederate leaders' names popular with voters in Oklahoma City schools survey. In it, NewsOK.com reports that:

Although hundreds of people voted to keep the names of Confederate leaders on three elementary schools, Oklahoma City School Board members said Friday it won't matter. "It doesn't mean anything.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at NewsOK.com.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
makessense

Phoenix, AZ

#1 Dec 16, 2017
That's because Oklahoma wasn't even a state during the civil war. In fact, after they forced the Indians on to the 'vast, sprawling landscape', the govt. still had to give the land away to get anyone to settle there.

The only Civil War Okies have seen are in their own homes, neighborhoods, churches, and schools.

Always fightin' mad, but at who? Or, whom?
coyote505

Diamondhead, MS

#2 Dec 16, 2017
If school names have to reflect "current" values, will they change with every election? Should we also burn the history books?
Marcavage s Trick

Philadelphia, PA

#3 Dec 16, 2017
coyote505 wrote:
<quoted text>
If school names have to reflect "current" values, will they change with every election? Should we also burn the history books?
Election results are a bit different from a violent insurrection against the United States in order to perpetuate the owning of other human beings...a violent insurrection which wound up killing a significant portion of the male population of the time. You're sick and stupid, white supremacist [sic].
comiccharaccters

Phoenix, AZ

#4 Dec 16, 2017
They should name at least one after a mexican drug cartel member since one of their serial killer getters from California made a mad dash across the US and only turned on his cop lights outside of Albuquerque in an effort, i'd assume, to watch the podunky feds take down some of their relatives in an area known for drugs.

Doesn't surprise me in the least that one of their own was found decapitated in that town. What's worse is the fact that their moronic news reporters could only drudge up 20 year old minor drug arrests and laid it all out like he deserved it.

They put a lot of effort into being the biggest at whatever...regardless of the idiocy everyone else must endure.
1 post removed
UDidntBuildThat

North Augusta, SC

#6 Dec 17, 2017
coyote505 wrote:
If school names have to reflect "current" values, will they change with every election? Should we also burn the history books?
Naming schools after racist traitors was a ridiculous idea to begin with. If they are to be named after people, they should at least name them after real Americans.
Jaysus Sharia

Philadelphia, PA

#7 Dec 17, 2017
History wrote:
<quoted text>
Hstory is history - it cannot be changed no matter how hard people wish to do so!
Jethro, there's no need to change history regarding the violent insurrection launched against the US by those who wanted to perpetuate the "states' right" to own other human beings. We need to shut down any public glorification of those who fought to preserve slavery and all you white supremacists [sic].

When we have public monuments to the Japanese pilots who attacked Pearl Harbor then we should have these statues of Robert E. Lee in public.
1 post removed
Jaysus Sharia

Philadelphia, PA

#9 Dec 17, 2017
Jethro wrote:
<quoted text>
Johnny, Johnny come lately, history is history- it cannot be changed no matter how hard people wish to do so
Exactly what "history" do you think is being changed? Removing the statues from public settings of those who fought a violent revolt against the United States does not change the fact of slavery, the fact that the South wanted to continue with owning other human beings, the fact of white supremacism [sic] living on today in various, undereducated enclaves. In fact, after we remove those statues to museums or wherever we need to step up the recounting of these historical facts.
John Q Public

Norman, OK

#10 Dec 17, 2017
Jaysus Sharia wrote:
<quoted text>

Exactly what "history" do you think is being changed? Removing the statues from public settings of those who fought a violent revolt against the United States does not change the fact of slavery, the fact that the South wanted to continue with owning other human beings, the fact of white supremacism [sic] living on today in various, undereducated enclaves. In fact, after we remove those statues to museums or wherever we need to step up the recounting of these historical facts.
Martin Luther King was against gay marriage. Should we take his statue down, too?

Only reasonable solution is to ban all statues. After that we can ban all speech/communication in public. No one will ever be offended again.
Kristy Lovett

Norman, OK

#11 Dec 17, 2017
Jaysus Sharia wrote:
<quoted text>

Exactly what "history" do you think is being changed? Removing the statues from public settings of those who fought a violent revolt against the United States does not change the fact of slavery, the fact that the South wanted to continue with owning other human beings, the fact of white supremacism [sic] living on today in various, undereducated enclaves. In fact, after we remove those statues to museums or wherever we need to step up the recounting of these historical facts.
The Taliban destroyed statues in Afghanistan, the Chinese destroyed statues, works of art, anything related to the past during their Cultural revolution. The Nazis burned books. I never thought I'd see the same mob mentality of destruction of history in the USA.
3 posts removed
Jaysus Sharia

Philadelphia, PA

#15 Dec 17, 2017
here ya go wrote:
<quoted text>
The word SHARIA in his screen name says it all!
No, as a matter of simple fact, Cletus, that only says half of it.

It's "jaysus sharia," not "sharia." Git ur hom skool teechur out of the meth cookery and hewlpin u.

Removing statues of the organizers of a violent insurrection against our country is not re writing history. We can still teach how the South wanted to perpetuate the owning of other human beings after the UK banned it, after it was banned in the Western Territories, as the writing was on the wall for coming demise of slavery in the North.
Baker handshake

Norman, OK

#16 Dec 17, 2017
Jaysus Sharia wrote:
<quoted text>

No, as a matter of simple fact, Cletus, that only says half of it.

It's "jaysus sharia," not "sharia." Git ur hom skool teechur out of the meth cookery and hewlpin u.

Removing statues of the organizers of a violent insurrection against our country is not re writing history. We can still teach how the South wanted to perpetuate the owning of other human beings after the UK banned it, after it was banned in the Western Territories, as the writing was on the wall for coming demise of slavery in the North.
Removing any memorial, structure or destroying documents will not change the history of the US. Most confederate monuments were dedicated by the democratic party. All CSA troops and officers have US veteran status. Robert E. Lee never owned slaves but were through inheritance. And he freed them long before the Emancipation Proclamation. Many Northeners were slave owners including President George Washington.
Its Dumbass not sharia

Norman, OK

#17 Dec 17, 2017
Jaysus Sharia wrote:
<quoted text>

No, as a matter of simple fact, Cletus, that only says half of it.

It's "jaysus sharia," not "sharia." Git ur hom skool teechur out of the meth cookery and hewlpin u.

Removing statues of the organizers of a violent insurrection against our country is not re writing history. We can still teach how the South wanted to perpetuate the owning of other human beings after the UK banned it, after it was banned in the Western Territories, as the writing was on the wall for coming demise of slavery in the North.
You don't rip down your history unless you're afraid of the truths it holds. The people who want the statues ripped down are COMMUNISTS. When did YOU become a communist sympathiser?

Since: Nov 17

Seattle, WA

#18 Dec 17, 2017
Marcavage s Trick wrote:
Election results are a bit different from a violent insurrection against the United States in order to perpetuate the owning of other human beings...a violent insurrection which wound up killing a significant portion of the male population of the time. You're sick and stupid, white supremacist [sic].
You don't know history do you or you wouldn't be speaking of something you don't even know cuz the American civil war was not a civil war at all it was a secession war not over slavery but over states rights
Jaysus Sharia

Philadelphia, PA

#19 Dec 17, 2017
Baker handshake wrote:
<quoted text>
Removing any memorial, structure or destroying documents will not change the history of the US.
I already agreed that removing confederate statues will not change the history of white supremacist [sic] Southerners launching a violent insurrection against the United States in order that they might continue owning other human beings into the distant future.

We don't glorify that history the way you do. That's the point.
Jaysus Sharia

Philadelphia, PA

#20 Dec 17, 2017
Reddiaperdoperba by1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't know history do you or you wouldn't be speaking of something you don't even know cuz the American civil war was not a civil war at all it was a secession war not over slavery but over states rights
Fine, the "Civil War" was not a civil war. At any rate I have been happy to call it a "violent insurrection against the US" in my posts. You should be pleased.

What "states' right" other than the "right" to own human beings was the civil war that was not a civil war in your tiny head fought over? Be specific.

The incorporating papers of the confederacy and of the confederate states almost all enshrined the "principle" of owning other human beings as a founding principle. But what _other_ "states' right"?
Elaine Mitchell

Norman, OK

#21 Dec 17, 2017
Children, STOP! I FEEL LIKE I'M WATCHING 4-5 KIDS FIGHTING OVER WHAT COLOR CRAYON IS BETTER! Grow up!

Since: Nov 17

Seattle, WA

#22 Dec 17, 2017
Jaysus Sharia wrote:
Fine, the "Civil War" was not a civil war. At any rate I have been happy to call it a "violent insurrection against the US" in my posts. You should be pleased.

What "states' right" other than the "right" to own human beings was the civil war that was not a civil war in your tiny head fought over? Be specific.

The incorporating papers of the confederacy and of the confederate states almost all enshrined the "principle" of owning other human beings as a founding principle. But what _other_ "states' right"?
So let's see what state in the union to this day has all the shipping ports of the USA??? Oh right ny good guess okay they where imposing upon the southern states look it up the south was looking for secession from the union the northern president called it a civil war but you are a history buff an all so you have done all the research your self right? It's like have you ever read the Noah story in your bible??? Or do you still think all the animals came on the arch two by two??? Just askin

Since: Nov 17

Seattle, WA

#23 Dec 17, 2017
Elaine Mitchell wrote:
Children, STOP! I FEEL LIKE I'M WATCHING 4-5 KIDS FIGHTING OVER WHAT COLOR CRAYON IS BETTER! Grow up!
Never and your yelling won't make anyone do what you want.... huh so get a clue

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#24 Dec 17, 2017
UDidntBuildThat wrote:
<quoted text>

Naming schools after racist traitors was a ridiculous idea to begin with. If they are to be named after people, they should at least name them after real Americans.
Like General/President Ulysses S. Grant? A slave owner.
Or General Robert E. Lee who had no slaves.
Both west Point graduates, btw.
The fact that you refer to them as "racist traitors" is indicative of a liberal school education. Brainwashed, in other words.
Find some history books published before 1960 and learn how the North oppressed the South.
1 post removed
Maggie Gallaghers Schmear

Philadelphia, PA

#26 Dec 18, 2017
Reddiaperdoperba by1 wrote:
<quoted text>
So let's see what state in the union to this day has all the shipping ports of the USA??? Oh right ny good guess okay they where imposing upon the southern states look it up the south was looking for secession from the union the northern president called it a civil war but you are a history buff an all so you have done all the research your self right? It's like have you ever read the Noah story in your bible??? Or do you still think all the animals came on the arch two by two??? Just askin
Cretin, what "states' rights" were being fought over if not over the "right" to continue with slavery? Be specific, idiot.

There may well have been embargoes or blockades aimed at the South once slavery was banned in the Western Territories and the South began brewing its violent insurrection against the US.

The Souths' incorporating papers enshrined the owning of other human beings as a core principle.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 3 min Curious 359,718
News Woman accusing Brett Kavanaugh of sexual miscon... 5 min Lawrence Wolf 95
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 5 min Aquarius-WY 1,828,546
News Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 6 min Big Al 41,236
News Miss., Mo. senators seek answers on air ambulan... 9 min Corruption 26
News Barack Obama is greatest president of our lifet... 11 min Vice Versa 1,009
News Under Donald Trump, more cops are acting as imm... 11 min BIll C 95
News Trump's land of delusion 13 min jtkluempers 6,053
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 42 min Kavanaugh 105,650
News Obama in campaign mode, back to promoting hope ... 2 hr CodeTalker 563