A bridge too far?

BLM targets Paw Patrol

In time, all movements based on emotion, and in denial of reason,  eventually descend into ridiculousness. The BLM movement has reached that point in record time, largely because it allowed itself to be co-opted by the LBGQT, socialist, social justice, wealth envy, anarchist, pandering lunatics of the left.

Now, monuments and memorials to George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Christopher Columbus are being removed and destroyed. Instead of learning from history, we are to forget it.

There is a great deal to be learned From these historical figures. Gen Robert E Lee’s story illustrates the dichotomy of American life prior to the 13th Amendment and the inner conflicts that he dealt with in as honorable manner as possible. Erasing his story leaves us with a balck and white image of history that does not reflect reality or humanity.

But as BLM descends into excess and lunacy, the backlash is sure to come, and we muct make every effort to assure that the backlash is against lunacy and not race.

24 thoughts on “A bridge too far?

  1. RE: “But as BLM descends into excess and lunacy, the backlash is sure to come, and we must make every effort to assure that the backlash is against lunacy and not race.”

    We’re fortunate there. There’s no shortage of anti-lunacy black voices today, as well as a long history and tradition of the same.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I agree.

      Like any movement involving more than a few people, disagreements and novel ideas come from every where, but that does not necessarily lead to results.

      The smart money is going to “keep the eyes on the prize”, which is a reform of a policing and justice system that does not discriminate, purposely or effectively, based on ethnicity.

      And resolve the problem of why police kill about 1000 people per year which is embarrassingly far and above any other nation.

      Liked by 1 person

        1. No idea. I’m sure a few google clicks can find some references.

          Are we that much more violent than UK with its hooligans, immigrants, tough unions, skinheads, etc?

          Liked by 1 person

  2. Then there is this related issue: renaming US military bases.


    This has been bandied about for years, but is now coming to the forefront again. The irony seems so obvious in that US Army bases are named for Confederate heroes who did all they could to defeat the US Army.

    What is the commemoration for? Why not name a base that does tank training after Rommel. After all his military prowess in armored warfare was legendary and he also fought the US Army.

    Apparently most of the naming for Confederate leaders was done in the era of some of the most egregious Jim Crow culture. One can debate the reasons, but the underlying effects are no longer useful, valid or even reasonable.

    Monuments to early founders who were slaveholders such as Jefferson and Washington might not carry the same burden since they did not take up arms to defend slavery as key to economic survival and thereby fighting to tear a new nation asunder.

    The 13th Amendment ended slavery per se, but did nothing to repair the facts of second class citizenship through a system of apartheid that lingers even today.

    There are no Americans living today that participated in slavery or the Civil War. It would seem to be easy by now to put these memorials aside. Take them away from taxpayer funded public displays of a very divisive past and put them in museums or private gardens. Rename the Military installations for heroes we can all accept, but certainly keep the history books and even plaques that explain why.


    Liked by 1 person

    1. RE: “Apparently most of the naming for Confederate leaders was done in the era of some of the most egregious Jim Crow culture. One can debate the reasons, but the underlying effects are no longer useful, valid or even reasonable.”

      The naming of military installations and ships to honor the Confederacy was done as deliberate acts of reconciliation, motivated by the conscious will to promote national unity after a brutally divisive period. Instead of propping up Jim Crow culture as your comment lazily implies, the effort was actively subversive of it.

      We could use more inspiration of unity today, not less.

      Liked by 1 person

        1. RE: “Let us know when you are going to do your part.”

          It will be when people like you stop wasting time making personal comments.


          1. I’m willing. But you have top stop taking attacks on your opinions personally.
            However, if I see hypocrisy, I’ll call it out. Unless you refute it with something more than “No its not”, then I will continue


      1. Did you just say that the monuments and institutions glorifying the Confederacy are unifying?

        Just because there was little opposition at the time of terror and legal enforcement of apartheid does not mean it was unifying. It just meant the the people in power could rub the noses of Blacks in the crap of the “Lost Cause” and they could not do a thing about it.

        The only “unifying” was for Southern Whites to commiserate in each other’s arms.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. RE: “Did you just say that the monuments and institutions glorifying the Confederacy are unifying?”

          The naming of installations and ships to honor the Confederacy was a conscious decision by the War Department to acknowledge local history as part of its own. The U.S. military was never part of the Lost Cause movement that produced Confederate monuments like the Johnny Reb statue in downtown Norfolk.

          An Army perspective:


          1. Interesting link. Can I make a suggestion? The article is not truly an Army perspective, but that of an Army Major who is also a military historian. To call it an “Army” perspective is a bit misleading, as he isn’t really entitled to speak on behalf of the Army.

            But thank you for sharing that, as it was a very good explanation of the naming process.


          2. That was a good article.

            An accommodation was made for the citizenry most closely aligned with the fort. And that reflected a reality, both cultural and political, in the first half of last century. Plus we needed unity to fight a war so that probably helped.

            At that time, Blacks were marginalized as 2nd class citizens. As the book “Invisible Man” by Ellison pointed out in 1952, the Black in America was not going to have much say so in local affairs. True, there were exceptions.

            In my opinion, it might be time for an accommodation for renaming federal facilities that is both more inclusive and reflective of our citizenry today.

            In addition, the military In early last century was not integrated, but certainly is now.

            Liked by 1 person

      2. …”ships to honor the Confederacy”…

        I’ve been digging around trying to find ships named to honor the Confederacy, but haven’t been able to (Wiki keeps locking up my slow-ass work computer) come across any, current or post-civil War. There are ships named for Civil war battles (Chancellorsville and Antietam come to mind), but none for people.

        Also, I am not aware of any NAVY bases named for the Confederacy in any way shape or form.


    2. I don’t think BLM loonies would be satisfied until every street, building, monument and highway is renamed for MLK. Good luck trying to ask for directions.


      1. Hyperbole noted. Never helpful, but noted.

        And your painting of ALL who support the current movement is just as bad as those who paint all cops with the same broad brush. Just a thought.


        1. Interesting you would say that because that is EXACTLY what BLM is saying about cops. So are you now saying BLM needs the shut the F up? Just a thought.


          1. No, the people need to stick to the message. The problem is, regardless of where you stand, the loudest voices get the ink.

            And shutting the F up is something we should all consider and LISTEN instead of trying to talk louder than the person talking.


  3. …”he dealt with in as honorable manner as possible”…

    Had to think about this for a while because something struck me as a bit off about your statement.

    While he was loyal to his home state, if the oath for officers was the same then as it is now, he committed treason and broke with the oath he took as a US Army officer.

    Never heard of treason being honorable.


    1. Lee never bought a slave.

      He inherited, through his wife. slaves owned by her father George W P Custis. As executor of the estate, he was bound by oath to carry out the terms of the will, which included emancipating the Custis family slaves within 5 years, sooner if possible, but only after the Arlington and other Custis properties had been returned to financial solvency.

      The problem Lee faced, which required him to take a 2 year leave of absence from his commission in the US Army, was that Custis was a kind hearted man who had refused to break up families by selling any of his slaves. As a result, his properties had far more slaves than could be usefully employed, and thus too many mouths to feed.

      Lee solved the problem by RENTING the young, healthy male slaves to other plantations who needed their labor, and then reuniting them with their families as they were emancipated one family at a time.

      There was resentment and resistance to the rental policy and some desertion, as some families were necessarily emancipated before others.

      That is the conundrum Lee was faced with that he had to struggle to handle honorably, remaining true to his oath as executor and at the same time, emancipating the slaves as quickly as possible.

      As to Lee’s choice to fight for the Confederacy, there is no treason there. You are applying our current view of country to a time when Lee’s “country” was Virginia. The United States was seen more like we see NATO today.

      Applying today’s values to past times makes you incapable if understanding history,

      Liked by 1 person

      1. The slavery issue had nothing to do with my comments on Lee, so there was no reason for that 6 paragraph explanation on why he was such a virtuous man.

        Treason is treason, regardless of when it occurred. saying otherwise is to say that Benedict Arnold was not treasonous. Lee swore an allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and to protect it against all enemies foreign and domestic. By choosing to serve as leader of the Confederate Army, he became a domestic enemy. To say otherwise is completely inaccurate and an attempt to say that the Civil War was just a little argument between the Southern states and the Northern ones.

        I understand history just fine. Your attempt to rewrite it is noted with disdain.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s