"Offensive" passage in a Confederate book displayed in Republican congressman Drew Ferguson's office

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
1,001
126
it's not true because the left are the real racists


I'd much prefer to have this book in a GOP lawmaker's office than the manufacturing of racism of the left. Good thing he didn't have Huckleberry Finn open. Books, the horror!
 
Last edited:

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
898
126
There are Confederate apologists who will insist that Lee was anti-slavery and only fought for love of Virginia. It's a really hard argument to support though. For example, they'll cite that he never owned slaves himself - ignoring that his wife did and that he took a personal interest in overseeing them. I think the best evidence is that he was *very* "white man's burden". Which was common enough for the era, not that that's a true defense.

That is in large part due to how people in the south are taught in terms of R. Lee. @zinfamous commented on this before. Generally, the bad parts about lee were ignored. People were/are taught that Lee was a decent guy leading troops in a war. They basically are taught to see Lee as an upstanding moral person in an immoral time. The reality is much different.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,201
14,877
136
A book on General Lee wouldn't be all that surprising. The book was written in 1897? But the quote you highlight from it talks about slavery as a present tense. So what is the full context, exactly? Is it a quote from someone? From a confederate? From General Lee himself? Or from the author? Would seem awfully strange to say "The painful discipline they are undergoing" in 1897.

The questionable context and meaning aside, are we book burning anything from the bygone era? Why would its existence be shameful? You focus on a single line from it, though I suspect a book written in 1897 has MANY offenses. I imagine it was put forward in its glass case for another reason. The Congressman must have liked or otherwise found what it said of General Lee as notable and/or worthy of display.

See, it's a book, but you are essentially having us judge it by its cover, or in this case a single sentence. Yet the line seems out of place in 1897 and that quote is probably not the endorsing reason for it being present in the first place.

I would hope that an elected representative, who is supposed to represent all people in their district, wouldn't find it appropriate to display a book of such nature and especially with that particular passage on full display in an office paid for by the aforementioned people.

I would also hope that something as fucking basic as this wouldn't have to be explained to you but you've shown your true colors on this type of topic more than once.

To that I kindly say, fuck off.
 

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
1,001
126
There are Confederate apologists who will insist that Lee was anti-slavery and only fought for love of Virginia. It's a really hard argument to support though. For example, they'll cite that he never owned slaves himself - ignoring that his wife did and that he took a personal interest in overseeing them. I think the best evidence is that he was *very* "white man's burden". Which was common enough for the era, not that that's a true defense.


Almost as bad as the Margaret Sanger apologists here.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,201
14,877
136
Oh, I had missed that in the OP. Hard to mistake the meaning then. There had better be some damn good excuse for that particular display. In this context, I believe no apology is acceptable without an adequate motive for the display. An alternative, better, context for that particular page. Short of that, the racist meaning is clear.

I saw this reply after mine so you can ignore by previous post. I'll leave it though because it applies to more than one person.
 
Nov 29, 2006
15,601
4,051
136
The book in a glass case on display does not offend me. Its probably a pretty important book that you want to keep as pristine as possible. The passage on the other hand, id need more info on. Was it highlighted on the page? If a book is opened on display it will have 2 pages with hundreds of words and sentences. Did someone just cherry pick this line? Maybe its just opened to a random page for display purposes and no thought given to what is on the actual pages they are opened to. Id need more context to gauge my rage-o-meter.

Now if that passage was highlighted in some fashion as the reason its opened to that page. Well that is a F'ed up passage and my rage-o-meter would ping.
 
Last edited:

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
1,001
126
This whole thread is an example of manufactured racism. This guy has a 100+ year old book in his office. Someone found a bit on the pages that was racist and somehow it is assumed therefore that this GOP lawmaker is racist. This is a good example of the left manufacturing the racism where there very well could have been none before.
 

cfenton

Senior member
Jul 27, 2015
277
99
101
Why would he have a book celebrating a Confederate general on display at all? There are lots of cool old books that don't glorify one of the worst parts of American history.
 
Nov 29, 2006
15,601
4,051
136
Why would he have a book celebrating a Confederate general on display at all? There are lots of cool old books that don't glorify one of the worst parts of American history.

As someone who used to be a civil war history buff this is definitely an interesting book i think would be cool to display if i owned it. Same thing with people who display Nazi WW2 things in a display case. Doesnt mean you are a Nazi sympathizer. And there isnt enough context on the passage in question to get upset about yet. Its one sentence picked from 2 displayed pages of a book. It's either cherry picked for rage, or the person that is displaying it doesnt even realize those words are on the page. They may have just flipped it open to display the book in general for all i know.

Now if that sentence was highlighted in yellow hi-lighter with a smiley face next to it, then sure, that's F'ed up. But without a picture ill assume they cherry picked this line from both displayed pages to drum up click-bait revenue. Although with this book there might be something offensive to be found on ever page if you look hard enough.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,382
7,445
136
Maybe its just opened to a random page for display purposes and no thought given to what is on the actual pages they are opened to.
This whole thread is an example of manufactured racism. This guy has a 100+ year old book in his office. Someone found a bit on the pages that was racist and somehow it is assumed therefore that this GOP lawmaker is racist. This is a good example of the left manufacturing the racism where there very well could have been none before.

I don't buy that for a second. "Blacks were better off slaves in America than free in Africa" is an all too common Republican trope thrown around in the face of... well, blacks. And a book on display just so happens to randomly end up on that exact page? Not likely.

Ultimately it sounds like a justification or an excuse or a diminishing of the horrors of slavery. Now, granted, Rome and much (most... all?) of humanity were comprised of slave societies at one point or another. But the fundamental principles of modern Western Civilization is to abolish slavery, and to enshrine a set of basic human rights for all. For all to be created, and treated, equally. Those principles are the virtues of our civilization. The meaning of that quote spits in the face of all we hold dear.

And it's not just some random phrase, it's a calculated one that is not uncommon and not without predetermined use. It stands as a more effective means to erode or... to white wash the stains of our past. Now maybe this specific display of it is not premeditated, but that is a difficult conclusion to reach given the circumstances as I know them. The burden of proof should be on the Congressman to explain why it got there, and what it means to him. What else, in particular, turned him to that page? Anything less than both a full apology and explanation would simply mean that he is... outed. Shamed.

OTOH, if he has a history of helping blacks and other minorities than perhaps we can reconsider the odds and the... burden of proof. But he is a member of the GOP and so the expectations there are... low. How would he vote on such issues as criminal justice reform, voters rights, etc? There are ways to figure out and guess his penchant for being a good person, or not, based on an existing record.
 
Nov 29, 2006
15,601
4,051
136
I don't buy that for a second. "Blacks were better off slaves in America than free in Africa" is an all too common Republican trope thrown around in the face of... well, blacks. And a book on display just so happens to randomly end up on that exact page? Not likely.

Ultimately it sounds like a justification or an excuse or a diminishing of the horrors of slavery. Now, granted, Rome and much (most... all?) of humanity were comprised of slave societies at one point or another. But the fundamental principles of modern Western Civilization is to abolish slavery, and to enshrine a set of basic human rights for all. For all to be created, and treated, equally. Those principles are the virtues of our civilization. The meaning of that quote spits in the face of all we hold dear.

And it's not just some random phrase, it's a calculated one that is not uncommon and not without predetermined use. It stands as a more effective means to erode or... to white wash the stains of our past. Now maybe this specific display of it is not premeditated, but that is a difficult conclusion to reach given the circumstances as I know them. The burden of proof should be on the Congressman to explain why it got there, and what it means to him. What else, in particular, turned him to that page? Anything less than both a full apology and explanation would simply mean that he is... outed. Shamed.

OTOH, if he has a history of helping blacks and other minorities than perhaps we can reconsider the odds and the... burden of proof. But he is a member of the GOP and so the expectations there are... low. How would he vote on such issues as criminal justice reform, voters rights, etc? There are ways to figure out and guess his penchant for being a good person, or not, based on an existing record.

I cant draw conclusions like that without pictures. What if the 2 pages that are open are literally the very middle of the book as most books on display are? Plus the odds of that book having offensive material probably exists on every page.

I would be fine with the congressman explaining it now that its an issue. But i have a feeling if he honestly just opened it to a random page for display purposes, that wouldnt be good enough for the people who are already offended without all the facts.

I just feel like these types or stories without all the facts play right into people like SlowSpyders ideology of left wing manufactured rage/racism crap. Im not ready to tar and feather or even get upset. yet.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
35,963
27,642
136
This whole thread is an example of manufactured racism. This guy has a 100+ year old book in his office. Someone found a bit on the pages that was racist and somehow it is assumed therefore that this GOP lawmaker is racist. This is a good example of the left manufacturing the racism where there very well could have been none before.
GOOD LORD!

You just admitted that passage is racist. U feeling ok? Don't want to lose the real you.

I didn't assume anything just asked people's opinion of the passage and why out of 600 pages they displayed that one. For all you statisticians the odds of this being an accident is 300-1 (2 pages/display)
 
  • Like
Reactions: nickqt

Homerboy

Lifer
Mar 1, 2000
30,856
4,974
126
Love how "offensive" is in quotation marks lol. That word has become a joke simply because everyone finds everything offensive. It has no real meaning anymore.

Anyhow, regardless of if you find it "offensive", do you believe that the quote is mistaken? If so do you care to explain?

Are you fucking serious?
 
  • Like
Reactions: nickqt

cfenton

Senior member
Jul 27, 2015
277
99
101
As someone who used to be a civil war history buff this is definitely an interesting book i think would be cool to display if i owned it. Same thing with people who display Nazi WW2 things in a display case. Doesnt mean you are a Nazi sympathizer. And there isnt enough context on the passage in question to get upset about yet. Its one sentence picked from 2 displayed pages of a book. It's either cherry picked for rage, or the person that is displaying it doesnt even realize those words are on the page. They may have just flipped it open to display the book in general for all i know.

Now if that sentence was highlighted in yellow hi-lighter with a smiley face next to it, then sure, that's F'ed up. But without a picture ill assume they cherry picked this line from both displayed pages to drum up click-bait revenue. Although with this book there might be something offensive to be found on ever page if you look hard enough.

Sure, but I wouldn't put a Nazi medal or a first edition copy of Mein Kamph on display in my office. I'm not saying the book is not of historical interest, but it seems like a bad choice for an office display piece.
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,302
144
106
Love how "offensive" is in quotation marks lol. That word has become a joke simply because everyone finds everything offensive. It has no real meaning anymore.

Anyhow, regardless of if you find it "offensive", do you believe that the quote is mistaken? If so do you care to explain?
WOW. it is alarming to see you need this explained to you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meghan54

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
1,001
126
GOOD LORD!

You just admitted that passage is racist. U feeling ok? Don't want to lose the real you.

I didn't assume anything just asked people's opinion of the passage and why out of 600 pages they displayed that one. For all you statisticians the odds of this being an accident is 300-1 (2 pages/display)


In The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, the word that starts with the letter N that shall not be mentioned here is often used. If that book was displayed, with that word on the page it was opened to, does that mean that the owner of the book is racist? We both agree that word is a racial slur with racial connotation. This guy had an old book in his office with some offensive phrases in it. That's all we know as a fact. The lefties built the rest of the story, manufactured the racism from there.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
110,512
29,099
146
I'd much prefer to have this book in a GOP lawmaker's office than the manufacturing of racism of the left. Good thing he didn't have Huckleberry Finn open. Books, the horror!

That's interesting. Why would an elected representative of the USA proudly display the book of a traitor and declared enemy of the USA?

Why is that something to be proud of?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ivwshane and nickqt

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
110,512
29,099
146
In The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, the word that starts with the letter N that shall not be mentioned here is often used. If that book was displayed, with that word on the page it was opened to, does that mean that the owner of the book is racist? We both agree that word is a racial slur with racial connotation. This guy had an old book in his office with some offensive phrases in it. That's all we know as a fact. The lefties built the rest of the story, manufactured the racism from there.

This is funny. You intentionally discount the critical use of the epithet in one piece of fiction written by a satirist, by putting it on equal terms with the direct endorsement of human subjugation, as a matter of social policy and "godly morality," in an autobiographical piece written by a declared enemy of the USA and racist owner of human beings.

This is what you did. Why do you dare demand that anyone take you seriously, or ever treat you with respect? Such things are earned, and you are yet to deserve any of it due to your rotating use of dishonest shoehorning of disparate issues or blithe ignorance regarding subjects in which you claim to have a measured opinion.

No thinking adult would try to make this brainless comparison that you have just made. They simply wouldn't. It labels you as an uneducated, dishonest simpleton. It is no other way.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
110,512
29,099
146
Almost as bad as the Margaret Sanger apologists here.

The hero of inventing meaning from individuals by tragically divorcing their statements and lives from all context, has spoken. No one takes you seriously. Again: only proud, purely dishonest idiots make the claims that you do about Sanger and what you to believe her eugenic policies wrg to abortion.

This very famous statement is thoroughly documented, and when completely divorced of the actual context that you and your gestapo shitburgers frequently, and intentionally apply, simply exposes you to be dishonest and ignorant. You refuse to admit it, because you know exactly what you are doing.

Fuck off with your "who, me?" nonsense.
 

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
1,001
126
That's interesting. Why would an elected representative of the USA proudly display the book of a traitor and declared enemy of the USA?

Why is that something to be proud of?


Yea, I would prefer our lawmakers read history about about important people in America's past.
 

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
1,001
126
This is funny. You intentionally discount the critical use of the epithet in one piece of fiction written by a satirist, by putting it on equal terms with the direct endorsement of human subjugation, as a matter of social policy and "godly morality," in an autobiographical piece written by a declared enemy of the USA and racist owner of human beings.

This is what you did. Why do you dare demand that anyone take you seriously, or ever treat you with respect? Such things are earned, and you are yet to deserve any of it due to your rotating use of dishonest shoehorning of disparate issues or blithe ignorance regarding subjects in which you claim to have a measured opinion.

No thinking adult would try to make this brainless comparison that you have just made. They simply wouldn't. It labels you as an uneducated, dishonest simpleton. It is no other way.


There is no issue with the comparison. This guy had a fucking book in his office that is some ~120+ years old. This is history. OMG, it had a phrase on a page that we all wouldn't agree with today. So therefore this politician must be a white supremacist and a bigoted racist. The racist left built the racism here. Keep the victim mentality going, keep the minorities on the plantation.