published Friday, November 16th, 2012

Truman integrated armed services and other letters to the editors

Truman integrated armed services

One correction from Sunday, Nov. 11, letters column, "Check history to see who fostered racism." It was Democrat Harry Truman who integrated the armed services, not Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower.

DR. GEORGE A. MILLER, Ooltewah


Christians equally guilty of atrocities

Regarding the letter "Bring punishment to the wrongdoer" (Nov. 8):

While I, likewise, do not condone the events of 9/11 (both of them), I would suggest that the writer set his Bible down for a while and pick up some history books.

The sad fact is that the people of the Middle East hate us. The other sad fact is that we gave them a reason to. From roughly 1095 to 1291, Christian armies attacked the Mideast in what is known as the Holy Crusades. These wars were not about saving souls, or connecting people. The Christian armies saw it as a way to get rich off the misery of others by raping, killing and looting. In other words, by breaking at least three or four commandments of a supposedly just and loving God.

It would seem that it is all right for Christians to commit atrocities, but not others. We don't like the payback. Perhaps the writer will find that the sword of vengeance is capable of being swung in both directions.

JIM PARRISH


Republicans fostered racism

I am writing in regard to the letter "Check history to see who fostered racism" (Nov. 11). As a teacher of history I always find it heartening to see someone using it to support a position, but as the old saying goes, a little bit of knowledge is dangerous.

At its inception the Republican Party was the purveyor of civil rights and would remain so until the party became the bastion of conservatism in the early 1900s. Between 1910 and the end of World War II, neither party gave much attention to civil rights or the plight of black America in general. Harry Truman, not Eisenhower, integrated the military, causing the creation of a conservative, anti-integration wing called the "Dixiecrats" for the 1948 election. The resulting split in conservative votes allowed Truman to be re-elected.

Wallace may have blocked the door, but Kennedy (a Democrat) sent troops to open it and Johnson (another Democrat and Southern to boot) did more for civil rights than any president before him. Because of that, the Democrats lost the South to Nixon's "Southern Strategy." Southern racists, opposed to civil rights, flooded into the Republican Party creating "the Solid South" and a conservative mainstay.

BILL WARD, Red Bank

4
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.

DR. GEORGE A. MILLER, that would be Executive Order 9981. Though we shouldn't pretend that it was over and done with in a heartbeat.

JIM PARRISH, going a bit too far back, you needn't bother, there's the Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussein, the Sauds, and Hosni Mubarak to look at...

BILL WARD, a lot of Republicans want us to forget the present, and just think that the past somehow ended. Those conservative "Democrats" went somewhere...straight into the welcoming arms of the Republican Party.

November 16, 2012 at 1:12 a.m.
Livn4life said...

And so Jim Parrish, we assume you are THE authority on why people of the Middle East hate western culture and thus THE reason for the Crusades was "a way to get rich off the misery of others by raping, killing, and looting." Please sight your source on that implication. Please also read that there was looting, raping, and killing going on there before the Crusades took place and it was not the mean old caucasins from the west doing it. There is much more to the story than the modern leftist line "we made them all mad at us." While I agree there was a lot of unChristian aspects of the Crusades, they were not about getting rich at all. They were about a now called peaceful religion invading and conquering a land held in high regard by Christians. Let's try to put more of the story out there before we conclude one side did all the violence, the pillaging, and negative action.

November 16, 2012 at 6:15 a.m.
daytonsdarwin said...

Don't forget how these peaceful Christians Crusaders slaughtered Jews in Europe and the Middle East on their pious way to Jerusalem. The Knights Templar didn't get rich by stealing from the poor.

But fundamentalist Christians view wars of conquest as God's will since old Jumping Jehovah said if was OK and He lead the way by glorious example in His loving genocide of innocent men, women, and children.

Killing for God, Jesus, and Allah is the right thing to do for the religious orthodox. Can you feel the love at the point of a sword?

November 16, 2012 at 8:06 a.m.

Livn4life: Not about getting rich at all? We know that's untrue.

There were plenty of people out for the wealth and glory they could attain, there's a reason why Constantinople was sacked by Crusaders.

There's certainly a lot more to the story, but your version is even less accurate if you're going to make that claim.

daytonsdarwin: Indeed, if somebody wants to express the general perils of religious fervor, they can do so, but I tend to see more people focusing on particulars while pretending to be concerned about the violence as a whole. Yet they make excuses and justifications for their own.

November 16, 2012 at 10:49 a.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.