Sign in to follow this  
Blackwatch

Fizz goes off !!!

Recommended Posts

Michael D    0

Considering what was going on around the time that this monument to Forrest was constructed (lynchings of blacks nationwide) I think it's pretty safe to say that the monument to the first Grand Wizard of the KKK was meant to make sure black people stayed in their place at the bottom and to keep them living in fear of violence if they tried to improve their social status.

Don't really care that Forrest wrote about changing his attitude towards blacks.  The damage was done and the reason for keeping these types of monuments in place has been about keeping certain people living in a system of terrorism and fear.  When you see it for what it really is, it sucks big time and should have been destroyed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want a facts check on Chip's description of William Wallace....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tangogriz    0
On 8/21/2017 at 4:12 PM, chipc3 said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Bedford_Forrest

I hope everyone will take the time to read the Wikipedia coverage of Nathan Bedford Forest especially the post-civil war entry. In that section they discuss how he was associated with the KKK. He probably was the first appointed leader of but found after one year the organization "an ungovernable membership employing methods that seemed increasingly counterproductive, Forrest issued KKK General Order Number One: “It is therefore ordered and decreed, that the masks and costumes of this Order be entirely abolished and destroyed.” He ceased being associated with the Klan soon after that.

Clearly his attitudes toward the races was evolving. 

He was a successful slave merchant before the war but after the war was a meager businessman who, as President of the Macon and Memphis Railroad drove the company into bankruptcy. 

He wrote a letter to the governor of Tennessee offering to hunt down (they use the word 'exterminate') the people responsible for lynching for innocent black men. 

He testified in front of congress against the Klan. That committee noted, "The natural tendency of all such organizations is to violence and crime; hence it was that General Forrest and other men of influence in the state, by the exercise of their moral power, induced them to disband." That's correct. General Forrest testified in congress that he worked to disband the KKK. 

The New York Times covered his final public appearance. This is what he said after a black woman handed him flowers before his speech:
 

After this speech he was rejected by the KKK completely. It's almost funny that the same organization that spoke out against his final speech and disavowed any relation to him in the past now use him as a tool to garner respect for their misguided passions. 

I believe his life should be remembered. He started a slave merchant, fought for the south in the Civil War, was a leader in the early years of the KKK but he was also a man who changed his opinion and became a supporter of unity and reconciliation between the races. 

Hopefully the thoughts he expressed at the end of his life will be used as a tool for the healing we still need in society today. I still believe his statue should be moved somewhere else. I believe his final request should be honored and his and wife's remains be removed from the park and he should be buried next to his soldiers. Despite the horrible acts he did as a young man the totality of his life earned him that final respect. Forrest has been used as a tool by both sides to long. First by the racist to add legitimacy to their criminal acts. Today by others who want to tar him for the crimes he spoke out against a leader in the community. He wasn't perfect but as he grew older he did try to mend the wounds. 

I know few people will read this post and sadly even fewer will go to the trouble to learn who he was and all that his life encompassed. I suppose it is easier to put on a T shirt and criticized the statue. However, for those that do look into the whole story, they may find someone worth discussing. 

What a great life, it does Memphis proud.

http://werehistory.org/nathan-bedford-forrest/

Quote

Of course, Forrest’s violence was particularly aimed toward black Americans: Forrest climbed from rags to riches over the bodies of slaves. Slave trading was not for the morally sensitive, but Forrest stood out even among slave-traders in his oppression of his human property. In January of 1860 his “Slave Mart” collapsed in a heavy rain, “burying beneath its ruins six valuable slaves,” killing at least two. He was also certainly the source of an article published in January of 1859 claiming that he was in possession of a daughter of “Fred Douglass.” Emphasizing that she was “of the class known among the dealers as a ‘likely girl,’” Forrest cruelly noted her vulnerability to rape. The article called out Douglass for hypocrisy in failing to purchase her. We can assume that she was not actually a daughter of Douglass: Forrest loved to overawe. Even when it came to depravity, his big talk frequently outran his big actions. Forrest was trying to degrade and insult Douglass. Yet this reveals him as man eminently comfortable with, and indeed playful about, the fact that selling girls to men who would rape them was his business.

Forrest was also responsible for the notorious Fort Pillow Massacre of April 12, 1864, which earned him the title “the butcher Forrest.” After Forrest’s soldiers breached the understaffed fort, they massacred black, and some white, defenders of the fort as they attempted to surrender. Though there is some doubt about the details of the atrocities (Did Forrest’s soldiers really nail two men to boards and throw them into the flames? Did they really coolly gun down three teenaged non-combatants who had attempted to hide in the river near the shore? How many wounded men did they actually bury alive in a mass grave or set on fire?), there is no question the massacre occurred, nor that killings of unarmed and injured men extended for many hours after the fighting ended. Many survivors testified to it, an army surgeon testified that the wounds he encountered were unlike any he had seen before in their close range and accuracy, the unnaturally high casualty rate was heavily skewed towards black soldiers, and there was a much higher proportion of dead to wounded soldiers than in normal combat. Forrest’s level of responsibility for his soldiers’ brutality is contested: he may not have intended all that occurred. But he was a decisive leader in charge of a terrible atrocity. According to anecdotes circulated by his supporters, he even joked about the event in later years, claiming that his men ate the black soldiers and he ate the murdered babies himself for breakfast.

Which part of his life is the statue glorifying?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chipc3    0
14 hours ago, tangogriz said:

What a great life, it does Memphis proud.

http://werehistory.org/nathan-bedford-forrest/

Which part of his life is the statue glorifying?

This is the problem. Can we honestly honor a man simply for his military prowess that was unquestioned? Is military success alone a reason to honor a man or do we require more than simply killing other humans who disagreed with him? Do we forget the atrocities because of his military success? Do we hold the man's life and legacy to acts committed in his youth that he appeared to reject later in life? Forrest is a complicated man and so is this issue. 

As I have repeatedly said, I believe the ultimate outcome should be left for the historians to settle and therefore his statue should be moved to a more appropriate place (a civil war battlefield or museum) and his remains should be moved so his final wishes could be honored and have him buried finally alongside his soldiers as he requested. 

Clearly his remains being moved (he was originally buried elsewhere) so that he and his wife now reside under the statue in a city park is a horrible offense in itself. No matter what side of the historical battle you claim, denying him his final resting place according to his wishes is wrong. Let his remains be interned with his fellow soldiers, let the statue be moved to a place of more historical importance and let's start healing the wounds this entire issue has caused for years. 

We don't have to forget a man simply because we placed his memorials where they rightfully belong. No one is suggesting we erase history. We simply want it placed in the proper locale. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paladin    0

I am not going to enter the discussion because it is so frustrating to read that people think celebrating southern heritage and defending the statue that were put up for racist reasons in the 20th century are the same issue.  We need to remove the statues, and Fiz is correct in stating his views as a person who has some celebrity in Memphis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Father Pat    0

“I think if you ask most black people to be honest, they ain’t thought a day in their life about those stupid statues. What we as black people need to do: we need to worry about getting our education, we need to stop killing each other, we need to try to find a way to have more economic opportunity and things like that,”   -   Charles Barkley

He was quickly called a lot of foul names for giving his opinion when asked the question. It made me remember the billboards that were all over the Memphis area when my wife and I moved away 5 years ago; "Chill, don't kill". Most people did not talk about the high level of violence, or the billboard campaign, with the emotion that they have toward 2 statues that most gave no thought to until recently. Actually, I can't remember anyone talking about those billboards. We can all agree that a single human life is far more important than any statue or monument, so why is it so easy for some to become angry when a man voices what we all agree on? Should some of these statues be taken down, yes. Should every single one be taken down because of the assumption that all confederate monuments were constructed based solely on racism? I think that's idiotic. Should we place our priorities and emotions in more important things as Barkley suggested? Of course. Evidently some just don't want to hear it though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/21/2017 at 6:56 AM, Notorious O.D.K. said:

Do you understand the concept of a museum? Here, I'll help you. Here's a definition of a museum:

I'm finished with this. 

People would just go there so they could butch about it. Do you HAVE to look at the dam thing, you can't turn your eyes away because it is so offensive or does it just give you something to mouth about. Like I said, my family fought for the North.

So should they take down statues of MLK just because some redneck white people find them offensive? Why hail naw. I remember when we got electricity, water in the house and a toilet in the house. It wouldn't surprise me if you've only seen pictures of outdoor toilets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tangogriz    0
On 8/25/2017 at 8:11 AM, chipc3 said:

This is the problem. Can we honestly honor a man simply for his military prowess that was unquestioned? Is military success alone a reason to honor a man or do we require more than simply killing other humans who disagreed with him? Do we forget the atrocities because of his military success? Do we hold the man's life and legacy to acts committed in his youth that he appeared to reject later in life? Forrest is a complicated man and so is this issue. 

As I have repeatedly said, I believe the ultimate outcome should be left for the historians to settle and therefore his statue should be moved to a more appropriate place (a civil war battlefield or museum) and his remains should be moved so his final wishes could be honored and have him buried finally alongside his soldiers as he requested. 

Clearly his remains being moved (he was originally buried elsewhere) so that he and his wife now reside under the statue in a city park is a horrible offense in itself. No matter what side of the historical battle you claim, denying him his final resting place according to his wishes is wrong. Let his remains be interned with his fellow soldiers, let the statue be moved to a place of more historical importance and let's start healing the wounds this entire issue has caused for years. 

We don't have to forget a man simply because we placed his memorials where they rightfully belong. No one is suggesting we erase history. We simply want it placed in the proper locale. 

The Forrest statue should be a gimme, an easy one. We don't need to wait for the historians. He was certainly not an untrained tactical wizard and he did not try to make amends for his actions. The statues remain because what they represent remains.

We know that Forrest fought for unrestricted slavery because he said so. And more importantly because he put his money where his mouth was. The true story of rising from enlisted man to General is that he bought his way in. He bought and paid for a couple of commands, men and equipment. That's why they commended and promoted him and gave him so much freedom.

http://civilwarcavalry.com/?p=21

Quote

First, and foremost, Forrest was not a cavalryman in any traditional sense of the word. The historic role of cavalry was scouting, screening, and reconnaissance. With no formal military training, Forrest had absolutely no talent for these crucial roles, and did not perform them with any ability, the one notable exception being the Battle of Shiloh in April 1862.
...
Second, there’s the fact that effective cavalry work depends upon the cavalry commander working closely with the army commander, whereby the cavalry commander serves as the eyes and ears of the army. Armies rely on discipline. Discipline means that junior officers obey the lawful orders of their superiors. This is the only way that a chain of command can be maintained and anarchy avoided. That means that an insubordinate junior officer, no matter how talented, has no value to an army commander if that junior officer refuses to obey orders. What I’ve just described is Nathan Bedford Forrest. Forrest absolutely and categorically refused to serve under two army commanders–Bragg and Hood–and said to Hood, “If you were half a man, I would slap your jowls.” Never mind that Hood had lost one leg in combat, and had a permanently crippled arm due to another combat wound. This means that unless he was in independent command, Forrest was entirely useless to the army commander.
...
Finally, there’s the issue of just what did Forrest accomplish. Yes, he had a gaudy combat record, but it’s easy to do that when you’re persistently and consistently up against the second team. I can think of only one instance where Forrest really faced the first team–against Wilson at Selma at the tail end of the war–and when he did face the first team, he got thrashed, big time.

Forrest is not a story of redemption. He spoke a few words at the end of his life, probably because he realized that he would be remembered as a ruthless slave-trader and The Butcher of Fort Pillow. After the war, he was still very wealthy. If he had genuine feelings of reconciliation, he would have put a little of his money where his mouth was. Instead, he lost it all trying to become a railroad tycoon.  Folks point to him slighting the Klan during a Congressional hearing. Well, they weren't investigating the Klan because they thought it was a good thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chipc3    0

Callkins baited Fizdale again at the press conference and Fizdale didn't back off on his earlier comments or even express an understanding of the larger issues surrounding them. 

I don't blame Fizdale for answering the question but I wish he would at least admit the city is being pro-active on the issue and trying to deal with the problems in a responsible fashion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tangogriz    0
On 8/30/2017 at 10:23 AM, chipc3 said:

Callkins baited Fizdale again at the press conference and Fizdale didn't back off on his earlier comments or even express an understanding of the larger issues surrounding them. 

I don't blame Fizdale for answering the question but I wish he would at least admit the city is being pro-active on the issue and trying to deal with the problems in a responsible fashion. 

To "bait" as in to tempt or taunt someone, or lay a trap? What?

And Fiz said that he plans to speak out often, so not baited.

What is the city doing that Fiz should comment about?

The NBA audience is drawn from the most tolerant and least prejudice, so I don't think his words will hurt business and will increase his standing with that audience and players as well.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TimBC    0

Not speaking out is a statement in itself. 

His real decision would have been whether to wait till he was asked. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chipc3    0
21 hours ago, tangogriz said:

To "bait" as in to tempt or taunt someone, or lay a trap? What?

Lay a trap. The press conference was about the three new players not Fizdale. Since Calkins' immediately wrote about this it would appear clear that he wanted to force Fizdale to comment about it in spite of Fizdale not bringing up the subject nor the event being about him.

And Fiz said that he plans to speak out often, so not baited.

That is your opinion. However Fizdale was baited into making a comment he had no intention of commenting on at the time. 

What is the city doing that Fiz should comment about?

The city filed for permission to move the statues over 2 years ago. They are being blocked by state statutes and the Tennessee Historical Commission which took the city to court to stop the move. The mayor has continued his efforts to have them moved. Fizdale's criticism of the City not doing anything is wrong.

The NBA audience is drawn from the most tolerant and least prejudice, so I don't think his words will hurt business and will increase his standing with that audience and players as well.

The NBA draws from all society not specifically the most tolerant and least prejudiced. People have told me That they are upset with Fizdale's position and will not support the team as strongly (and some said at all) due to this issue. I don't agree with this position but I would be ignorant to deny the potential impact. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, chipc3 said:

 

Fizdale is reminding me a lot of Jason Levien. He has the same Teflon black and white attitude toward his causes. And the problem is, I'm still not sure he can even do the job he was hired to do.

If Hollins had said what fizdale is saying, he'd be buried by the media, just because he is an old school guy that is seen as difficult. It appears that fizdale can say what he wants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MemphisX    0

If you are arguing about honoring a KKK Grand Wizard,  I as a black man unequivocally consider YOU a racist. There is no ambiguity in membership in the KKK. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MemphisX said:

If you are arguing about honoring a KKK Grand Wizard,  I as a black man unequivocally consider YOU a racist. There is no ambiguity in membership in the KKK. 

Everyone is a racist. But to your question, I am arguing that history be left to what it is and lets not try to erase it. My beef is and always has been scholars trying to rewrite history.

My personal hero is Ralph Ellison and I've had more than my share of ****** off moments with his "biographer" labeling him as a selfish prick who tried to hold back the younger generation of his people.

I am against anyone who labels Chris Columbus as a fraud. People have their own motivations when it comes to history.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tangogriz    0
7 hours ago, chipc3 said:

To "bait" as in to tempt or taunt someone, or lay a trap? What?

Lay a trap. The press conference was about the three new players not Fizdale. Since Calkins' immediately wrote about this it would appear clear that he wanted to force Fizdale to comment about it in spite of Fizdale not bringing up the subject nor the event being about him.

And Fiz said that he plans to speak out often, so not baited.

That is your opinion. However Fizdale was baited into making a comment he had no intention of commenting on at the time. 

What is the city doing that Fiz should comment about?

The city filed for permission to move the statues over 2 years ago. They are being blocked by state statutes and the Tennessee Historical Commission which took the city to court to stop the move. The mayor has continued his efforts to have them moved. Fizdale's criticism of the City not doing anything is wrong.

The NBA audience is drawn from the most tolerant and least prejudice, so I don't think his words will hurt business and will increase his standing with that audience and players as well.

The NBA draws from all society not specifically the most tolerant and least prejudiced. People have told me That they are upset with Fizdale's position and will not support the team as strongly (and some said at all) due to this issue. I don't agree with this position but I would be ignorant to deny the potential impact. 

Calkin's statue-related question, near the end of the presser :
"How much will you continue to talk about that ...?"
Fizdale's Answer:
"Continuously ... I won't let up on it."

I disagree that Fiz should talk about the Tennessee Historical Commission and their role. Bad things could happen. Whoever needs to be influenced will be influenced when enough people speak out, especially newsmakers.

I disagree that the city is completely roadblocked by the vote of that commission. If enough citizens felt strongly enough, the local government would be protecting the people to remove the statues immediately. Let the law suits come. Take it to the Supremes. Make the courts force you to reinstate the offensive works. I doubt they would.

Observing people has indicated to me that white racist (or supremacists or whatever) are not attracted to a sport that has 75% black players and is dominated by the elite black players. That filter changes the potential audience. Btw, racists particularly don't like the domination part. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MemphisX    0
1 hour ago, Kevin B Moses said:

Everyone is a racist. But to your question, I am arguing that history be left to what it is and lets not try to erase it. My beef is and always has been scholars trying to rewrite history.

My personal hero is Ralph Ellison and I've had more than my share of ****** off moments with his "biographer" labeling him as a selfish prick who tried to hold back the younger generation of his people.

I am against anyone who labels Chris Columbus as a fraud. People have their own motivations when it comes to history.  

History shows he was a terrorist. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wells    0
17 hours ago, MemphisX said:

If you are arguing about honoring a KKK Grand Wizard,  I as a black man unequivocally consider YOU a racist. There is no ambiguity in membership in the KKK. 

So, the statue of Robert Byrd in West Virginia needs to come down as well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this