Civil War Actor Kicked out of Park Over Slave Comment

5.56X45mm

Milforum Mac Daddy
Civil War Actor Kicked out of Park Over Slave Comment
Posted by Warner Todd Huston on June 15, 2006 - 19:01.
http://newsbusters.org/node/5918


In another example of PC stupidity gone wild, a Civil War re-enactor portraying a Confederate officer was kicked out of Historic Crossroads Village Park, near Flint, Michigan this past weekend, for saying that a young black child would probably have been a slave in 1860's Georgia.
Civil War re-enactor Tim VanRaemdonck said he was just staying in character when he wrote "slave" as the occupation of black children on fictitious enlistment papers during Civil War Days at Crossroads Village.
Word reached Crossroads Village manager Garry Pringle, who had two conversations with VanRaemdonck and asked him to leave.

Gosh! Imagine that! A black person being assumed a slave in 1860's Georgia?
What's next, assuming a Japanese man might have been in the Imperial Army circa 1930? Maybe an English soldier being thought a Cursader in the 14th century? Maybe it would be wrong to generalize that a North Vietnamese man would be a Communist in 1965?

Darn that history stuff anyway! Not to be outdone by the stupidity of Village manager, Garry Pringle, Parks Director Amy M. McMillan said the following to the Media:

McMillan believes there were better choices than labeling the young boy a "slave" - even if the label was designed to share history.
"There were also free people of color in the southern states during this time period," she wrote in an e-mail to The Flint Journal. "More appropriate answers could have included occupations such as farmer, blacksmith, or other occupations typical of that time period. "It would have been equally inappropriate to respond 'slave owner' to a Caucasian child who had asked such a question. Had any re-enactor provided such a response, he/she would have also been asked to leave the village."

Um, no Mz. McMillan. You are wrong on all counts proving you know next to nothing about American history. But, also proving you are a swell practitioner of the dark arts of PCism.
For some REAL history, Mz. McMillan, the total number of free blacks in Georgia as noted in the 1860 census was only 3,500. By contrast, the total number of slaves in Georgia in 1860 amounted to 462,198! So, NO, Mz. McMillan, it would NOT have made much sense to assume that, on average, a black person in Georgia would have been a free man. There was nothing "more appropriate" to have said to the child but that he would probably have been a slave, Mz. McMillan.

Now, to clear up your other garbled historical claim, Mz. McMillan; The number of white slave owners in 1860 Georgia was 41,084 out of a total white population of 591,550. So, while it would not have been an automatic assumption that a white person in Georgia in 1860 was a slave owner it was far, far more likely to assume that a white person might own slaves in 1860 Georgia than to assume a black person was a free man in the same place and time period. The statistics do not lie, Mz. McMillan.

The reenactor was right and the staff of the Crossroads Village is wrong to have removed him from the Park for telling history like it is. Another member of the group to which the unduly accosted reenactor belongs told the Flint paper:

"If we don't discuss it, children don't learn."
"Learning" is NOT what the putrid purveyors of PCsim want. They want whitewashed, cleansed history free of anything that might "upset" or cause certain people to have any "low self-esteem". They don't want people to actually understand the history of this country at all. They just want to label all white people as evil and let that "lesson" go unexamined, kept as a vague notion never investigated and never spoken of directly.
I hope that Civil War reenactors in Michigan stop participating at the "Historic" Crossroads Village Park and stop helping them make all that money off a public whom the Village refuses to help learn about our history. Sadly, the "Historic" part of their charge is to be ignored.

-By Warner Todd Huston


I hate political correctness!
 
The end goal of political correctness is a bland flavourless gruel in place of humanity in all of its resplendant gorgeous diversified ugliness.
 
But they were still slaves before they fought for the Confederacy.
It like when you enlist in the military. They ask what did you do before enlisting. Well, 99.9% of blacks in 1860s Georgia were slaves. Tough luck but that's history.
 
Mohmar Deathstrike said:
Note: Most black people in 1860s Georgia were NOT slaves. Many fought against the Union.
You are incorrect in your statement ... 3,500 free out of 462,198 total slaves indicates that MOST blacks in 1860s Georgia WERE slaves ... not free.

Next time, check your historical archives for the correct statistical data BEFORE you stick your foot in your mouth.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As far as PC is concerned on this story, revisionism comes in all shades of paleness ...the aim of PC is to remove all controversy from history and make it the pallid picture of a world that never was and can never be.

I agree with you, the re-enactors should opt out of ANY celebration at Crossroad Village Park and refuse to participate in any activity anywhere that tries to whitewash history.
 
Last edited:
Mohmar Deathstrike said:
Note: Most black people in 1860s Georgia were NOT slaves. Many fought against the Union.
Stick to what you know MD. Give me a source for this claim or pull yer head in.
 
bulldogg said:
The end goal of political correctness is a bland flavourless gruel in place of humanity in all of its resplendant gorgeous diversified ugliness.

An excellent comment...all hail the devil's advocate...he alone stands for fun and games.

(by the way, I think deathstrike is talking about freed black union soldiers or maybe Lincoln's emancipation proclamation. How many black soldiers were there by the way? Probably not that many. But I have no idea.)
 
Last edited:
bulldogg said:
Was that a shot?

What do you mean..."a shot"? I liked what you wrote. Eloquent and hard-hitting. The devil's advocate comment was not exactly appropriate, but I am always a fan of those who criticize...and you have done so moreorless effectively on numerous occasions. Your view of PC-ism was appreciated.

I get the feeling that some of my sarcastic or whatever posts are being totally misunderstood and coloured by a lot of projection theory stuff. No, I rarely put living people down intentionally. Please do not mistake enthusiasm for ridicule. In any case, the second part of my comment was an attempt to understand Deathstrike's statement...nothing more. I think it was obvious that Deathstrike was referring to something other than the article. What? I do not know. Hence my speculation.
 
Mohmar Deathstrike said:
Note: Most black people in 1860s Georgia were NOT slaves. Many fought against the Union.

They were given a choice:

Remain a slave until the war is decided one way or the other or join the confederacy and fight.

If you fight then you will be proclaimed a free man.
 
Ollie Garchy said:
What do you mean..."a shot"? I liked what you wrote. Eloquent and hard-hitting. The devil's advocate comment was not exactly appropriate, but I am always a fan of those who criticize...and you have done so moreorless effectively on numerous occasions. Your view of PC-ism was appreciated.

I get the feeling that some of my sarcastic or whatever posts are being totally misunderstood and coloured by a lot of projection theory stuff. No, I rarely put living people down intentionally. Please do not mistake enthusiasm for ridicule. In any case, the second part of my comment was an attempt to understand Deathstrike's statement...nothing more. I think it was obvious that Deathstrike was referring to something other than the article. What? I do not know. Hence my speculation.

Fair enough Ollie. FYI a "shot" is an insult, usually masked as a compliment. I am starting to think you should employ a few smilies to let others know when you're being sarcastic. ;)

MD is just a :cen: stirrer and I wouldn't waste too much brain power trying to understand he/she/it.
 
Ollie Garchy said:
An excellent comment...all hail the devil's advocate...he alone stands for fun and games.

(by the way, I think deathstrike is talking about freed black union soldiers or maybe Lincoln's emancipation proclamation. How many black soldiers were there by the way? Probably not that many. But I have no idea.)
No, I just misinterpreted what was said in a recent episode of P&T BS about Reparations. After watching it again I think what was actually said was that most white people in the Confederacy didn't have slaves. I don't remember what their source was, though.

So my earlier comment was completely sourceless, and therefore probably wrong.

But according to this guy:
HK-flag-jamestown.jpg
, black people did fight for the rebels.
 
Last edited:
You are correct that most whites did not own slaves. They were quite an expensive luxury. In modern money, they would cost roughly what a decent car does. Imagine having a labor force of a couple of hundred. It wasn't exactly a cheap resource to use and abuse at will. That is one of many reasons it is supposed that slavery would have ended on its own without a civil war...but I'll leave that for a different topic.
 
Marinerhodes said:
They were given a choice:

Remain a slave until the war is decided one way or the other or join the confederacy and fight.

If you fight then you will be proclaimed a free man.
I did not know this.

moving0target said:
You are correct that most whites did not own slaves. They were quite an expensive luxury. In modern money, they would cost roughly what a decent car does. Imagine having a labor force of a couple of hundred. It wasn't exactly a cheap resource to use and abuse at will. That is one of many reasons it is supposed that slavery would have ended on its own without a civil war...but I'll leave that for a different topic.
Yeh, in movies the evil slave-users (Romans, Confederates, ancient Egyptians, ancient Greeks etc) soften kill their slaves for fun/to prove a point/out of anger, which,in reality, was an activity only the super-rich of the rich could afford.

MOD EDIT: STOP DOUBLE POSTING - I am getting tired of merging your posts.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ollie Garchy said:
What do you mean..."a shot"? I liked what you wrote. Eloquent and hard-hitting. The devil's advocate comment was not exactly appropriate, but I am always a fan of those who criticize...and you have done so moreorless effectively on numerous occasions. Your view of PC-ism was appreciated.

I get the feeling that some of my sarcastic or whatever posts are being totally misunderstood and coloured by a lot of projection theory stuff. No, I rarely put living people down intentionally. Please do not mistake enthusiasm for ridicule. In any case, the second part of my comment was an attempt to understand Deathstrike's statement...nothing more. I think it was obvious that Deathstrike was referring to something other than the article. What? I do not know. Hence my speculation.

Are you a Professor of Philosophy and Word Smithing at Berkely and pretending to be Oligarchy? You speak like you are stuck somewhere in in the 16th Century.:roll:
 
Back
Top