fergy1370
Team Owner
I think he offered to do so on page three of this thread.....
barelypure
Spectator
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2002
- Messages
- 6,695
- Points
- 0
Whizzer, it was the War of Northern Aggression, thank you very much. It was not a War Between the States as the South had seceded and formed a new Union, as was provided by law. It was not a Civil War as there was certainly nothing very civil about it and that denies the separation of powers. The North was most decidely the aggressors, therefor the WofNA.
Oh, and EMP I would love to hear your views on the involvement of Andy Jackson, John C. Calhoun and their deeds that lead to this war. That is quite a tale that not many historians care to include in their books as it happened long before 1865. But, as we know the thread of history must be followed to derive some of the back room dealings that took place and the parties involved.
Whizzer
Gig'em
Yes, he did, but he offered to do it privately. I am asking he make the list available on the open forum so anyone can access it without going through the personal message crap.
Surely the list of books and websites is not clandestine.
The request to post the lists on the open forum is nothing more than following the "hope" expressed by EMP. The more people having access to the periodicals and informational sites posted, the larger the number of "better educated populace".
Surely the list of books and websites is not clandestine.
The request to post the lists on the open forum is nothing more than following the "hope" expressed by EMP. The more people having access to the periodicals and informational sites posted, the larger the number of "better educated populace".
E
EatMorePossum
Guest
I think someone has been hanging out with another famous detractor of mine too long and picked up the illness.
My offer stands. Anyone with a sincere interest may contact me. I have no intention of taking a racing thread and turning it into history 101. I also have no intention of feeding one person's ego any longer, as I fear it may burst if it gets any bigger. There are none so ignorant as those who refuse to learn.
Possum out.
My offer stands. Anyone with a sincere interest may contact me. I have no intention of taking a racing thread and turning it into history 101. I also have no intention of feeding one person's ego any longer, as I fear it may burst if it gets any bigger. There are none so ignorant as those who refuse to learn.
Possum out.
Whizzer
Gig'em
My request could not have been more sincere. I pass no judgement on the causes of the War Between The States. It was a dastardly time in our history and there could never be enough information to satisfy my interest.
How can those of us who starve for information be deemed ignorant and accused of refusing to learn, when the person suggesting the lessons does not produce the reading materials ???
My e-mail address is on my profile if this thread is not where you choose to place the requested list. Looking forward to it.
Whizzer
Gig'em
Cut it, slice it or dice it anyway you want, it was "The War Between The States" as it involved states, albeit states operating under two different constitutions, but located within the natural boundaries of what later became the 48 contiguous states.
It was a war between states loyal to the United States Of America and states loyal to the Confederate States of America. Therefore, it is appropriate in being labeled as "The War Between The States".
As for it not being civil, you are right. It was the single most uncivil event in the history of this nation.
The Civil War is defined by Webster's Third College Edition dictionary as; the war between the North (the Union) and the South (the Confederacy) in the U.S.. (1861 - 1865).
The word "civil" and of "The Civil War" as defined by Webster's can be construed as contradictory.
It is noted The War Of Northern Aggression is a little used title by sympathizers grasping the cause(s) of the Confederacy. It is not widely recognized as such outside that realm.
Just as using the term, "The War Of Rebellion" might be considered a name applied by those sympathetic to the North. Although either might be deemed accurate by those using them, they express a partisan view.
Other titles, such as "The Civil War" or "The War Between The States", suggest a non-partisan ground and as such permit the student interested in this portion of the history of The United States Of America to draw his or her own conclusions as to the justice or injustice of the causes from either side.
Civil War History - a brief summary
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*This brief summary is not meant to be a comprehensive history of the Civil War, but only the highlights. See one of the many Civil War history pages for more complete histories.
The North and the South had many basic differences. The North was mainly a center for manufacturing and industry and the financial strength necessary for success. The South economy was based in agriculture, with cash crops of tobacco, cotton and sugarcane bringing in a large portion of the economic strength. The South depended greatly on the industry of the North and the northern commercial services to further its trade to the North and to Europe. The southern "planter class" held the majority of slaves during this time, with more than 4 million enslaved men, women and children. They were an economic and financial investment to the southern gentlemen. The non-slave owners also gave their nod to slavery to ensure there would be no unrest.
In the United States government, legislators avoided the slavery question like a plague to keep harmony between the northern and southern factions. But time overcame the avoidance. Growing anti-slavery opinions in the north and the growing expansion of slavery towards the north brought more and more verbal conflict. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 addressed this question by establishing a demarcation line at the 36o 30` parallel between Slavery areas and non-slavery areas. This temporarily settled the outright arguments until the USA began to expand westward. Once again in 1850, new boundaries were established in the Compromise Measures of 1850, which established California as a free state and created the Utah and New Mexico territories from land acquired in the Mexican War. In the two new territories, the local governments were allowed to choose their status between free or slave. These measures did not appease many and conflict continued to escalate. The southern factions believed their views were being ignored and that they were losing any control they may have had in the congress. The northern leaders, in the other hand, wanted funding for expansion, subsidies for improvements, good currency, homesteads and other items needed in a growing and expanding economy. The South felt the North was being favored while they were being discriminated against.
In 1854, discord reared its ugly head once again with the establishment of two new territories, Kansas and Nebraska. Senator Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois sponsored a bill to give both territories popular sovereignty. In effect, this Kansas-Nebraska Act voided the Missouri Compromise and raised the ire of many northerners. Due to the uproar, a new political party, the Republican party, was created. This new party valiantly opposed slavery and gained great strength in the north. By 1856, it had grown so strong that its new candidate for President, John C. Fremont, was nearly elected. President Buchanan asked congress to admit Kansas as a slave state, further irritating the northern supporters.
On 7 March 1857, the Supreme Court ruled in the Dred Scott Case that congress could not prohibit slavery in US Territories. This action greatly infuriated the north. On 16 Oct 1859, John Brown, an anti-slavery leader, led his famous raid at Harper's Ferry, Virginia (which is now in West Virginia). These events, among others, led to great insecurity among Southern leaders. The 1860 election saw great division among the ranks. Candidates were John C. Breckinridge of Kentucky by the southern wing of the Democratic party, Stephen A. Douglas by the northern wing of the same party, John Bell by the newly formed Constitutional Union Party and Abraham Lincoln by the Republican party. The Democratic split mostly ensured Lincoln's election and he took office in March of 1861 on a platform that opposed the further expansion of slavery and endorsed a protective tariff, federal subsidies for internal improvements, and a homestead act.
By the time of his inauguration, the Confederate States of America had been formed with Jefferson Davis as president and seven states had gone along - Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Texas.
President Lincoln took a firm stand from the moment of his inauguration by stating that secession was not legal and further stating he would maintain the federal possessions in all southern states. On the infamous day of 12 April 1861, when an attempt was made to re-supply Fort Sumter at Charleston, South Carolina, the southern forces opened fire beginning the Civil War. Lincoln retaliated within a few days which also brought about the secession of Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia. Though the North had more resources, more volunteers, more money and supplies than the South, neither side was prepared for a great conflict such as the Civil War would bring. Throughout the war, the north was able to muster more men, including troops of former slaves and freemen. The south was constantly hampered by lack in all areas, including military forces. Though more powerful in their resources and manpower, the North did not win as quickly and as efficiently as they had hoped. The South was able to bring in more experienced military men, such as Robert E. Lee while the North had more difficulty finding its military leadership, eventually finding great generals in Grant and Sherman.
Each side employed what they felt were certain advantage. The South wanted to keep the fighting in familiar territory until the North lost its will to fight, while the North wanted to attack broadly, cutting off supply to the South. The Northern leaders felt a march directly to Richmond, Virginia, the confederate capital would bring the war to a rapid end.
Both sides employed various techniques, all of which either worked or failed at some point. In other words, the battles went both ways, large areas were ravaged, lives were lost and not much ground was covered to end the conflict.
Later in 1861, several border states, Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland and Missouri, were brought into the Northern sympathies, but these areas still maintained high levels of secessionism. Later, in September 1861, Kentucky joined the Union side as it was invaded by Confederate troops. West Virginia was also formed at this time from the western counties of Virginia and went to the Northern side. After a number of major battles with losses on both sides, Lee invaded Maryland in September 1862, resulting in major losses for both north and south in the Battle of Antietam. Further conflicts in all fronts moved the battle lines back and forth. The real turning point in the war appears to have been the Battle of Gettysburg beginning on 1 July, 1863, with Lee's army eventually retreating back into northern Virginia. By the end of 1863, the war had definitely turned in favor of the North, though, by no means, was the bloodshed over.
For many months in 1864 Grant's forces attempted to break down Richmond's supply lines by taking Petersburg, Virginia. Meanwhile, Atlanta had fallen and their supply lines obliterated. By September 1, the southern forces had to leave the city. Sherman's troops began their march from Atlanta, burning and destroying all that fell in their path that might help the confederate efforts. By April, 1865, Sheridan and Grant joined up to assail Lee's army for perhaps the final battle. Lee and his army fled to the west, only to be stopped by Grant. On 9 April, 1865, General Robert E. Lee surrendered to General Ulysses S. Grant at the Appomattox Court House in southwestern Virginia.
Once the surrender was complete, what Confederate armies remained quickly fell apart. A naval blockage was initiated to prevent any re-supplying to the south. With a minimal navy, Union forces had trouble enforcing the blockade. Also coming into the picture during March of 1862, was the new southern weapon, the Merrimack, an old steam frigate covered with metal armor. The following day, the north responded with their own "ironclad" ship, the Monitor. The indecisive battle gave neither side a true victory.
Although the Merrimack returned to the safety of Norfolk Harbor, its presence forced McClellan to alter his route of march to Richmond. Other naval operations helped to cut off supply from New Orleans and other ports for the south during the remainder of the war. Lincoln had issued a preliminary proclamation of emancipation in September of 1862 stating that in those states or portions of states that were still engaged in rebellion, the slaves would be "forever free." He felt that the Confederate states would not return to the Union and slavery would not be so much an issue. But he clearly stated that the preservation of the Union was his primary objective! In issuing the emancipation proclamation, he maintained it would further weaken the south and was militarily necessary for victory and maintenance of the Union. Several states and portions of states were excluded from the proclamation. The 13th Amendment which abolished slavery in the entire United States was ratified by the legislature in December 1865.
On 8 December 1863, a Proclamation of Amnesty and Reconstruction was issued by the President. Any Southerner who took an oath of loyalty to the Constitution and swore to obey the legislation and proclamations on slavery would be granted amnesty. New constitutions could be written and leaders sent to Congress once certain provisions were met. Republicans in congress were generally unhappy with this situation, wanting more protection for freed slaves and more reconstruction.
This internal war was the most costly to the American people in both physical devastation and in terms of human lives taken. By the end of the war, 620,000 men had been killed. Bear in mind that at this time there were only a total of 35 million people in the entire country! This does not include the many more who were injured. Most of the destruction took place in the south. Most of the large cities lay in ruins. The surrounding countrysides were ravaged, crops were destroyed and livestock either killed or taken.
After this war, other ways to voice grievances were employed by the states and the Union showed more permanence. The war needs had dramatically increased production and capital in the north as well as in the south. Once the war was over, these facilities were converted over to civilian use to the benefit of the general economy. This marked the beginning for the United States in becoming an industrial power in the world. Though the slaves had been freed, it took many, many years to change attitudes, which are still needing adjustment. Great advances have been made in Civil Rights since the end of the war, though change continues to be needed in many areas to this day.
This is from http://www.racing-forums.com/bbs/index.php...=02&f=8&t=27963
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*This brief summary is not meant to be a comprehensive history of the Civil War, but only the highlights. See one of the many Civil War history pages for more complete histories.
The North and the South had many basic differences. The North was mainly a center for manufacturing and industry and the financial strength necessary for success. The South economy was based in agriculture, with cash crops of tobacco, cotton and sugarcane bringing in a large portion of the economic strength. The South depended greatly on the industry of the North and the northern commercial services to further its trade to the North and to Europe. The southern "planter class" held the majority of slaves during this time, with more than 4 million enslaved men, women and children. They were an economic and financial investment to the southern gentlemen. The non-slave owners also gave their nod to slavery to ensure there would be no unrest.
In the United States government, legislators avoided the slavery question like a plague to keep harmony between the northern and southern factions. But time overcame the avoidance. Growing anti-slavery opinions in the north and the growing expansion of slavery towards the north brought more and more verbal conflict. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 addressed this question by establishing a demarcation line at the 36o 30` parallel between Slavery areas and non-slavery areas. This temporarily settled the outright arguments until the USA began to expand westward. Once again in 1850, new boundaries were established in the Compromise Measures of 1850, which established California as a free state and created the Utah and New Mexico territories from land acquired in the Mexican War. In the two new territories, the local governments were allowed to choose their status between free or slave. These measures did not appease many and conflict continued to escalate. The southern factions believed their views were being ignored and that they were losing any control they may have had in the congress. The northern leaders, in the other hand, wanted funding for expansion, subsidies for improvements, good currency, homesteads and other items needed in a growing and expanding economy. The South felt the North was being favored while they were being discriminated against.
In 1854, discord reared its ugly head once again with the establishment of two new territories, Kansas and Nebraska. Senator Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois sponsored a bill to give both territories popular sovereignty. In effect, this Kansas-Nebraska Act voided the Missouri Compromise and raised the ire of many northerners. Due to the uproar, a new political party, the Republican party, was created. This new party valiantly opposed slavery and gained great strength in the north. By 1856, it had grown so strong that its new candidate for President, John C. Fremont, was nearly elected. President Buchanan asked congress to admit Kansas as a slave state, further irritating the northern supporters.
On 7 March 1857, the Supreme Court ruled in the Dred Scott Case that congress could not prohibit slavery in US Territories. This action greatly infuriated the north. On 16 Oct 1859, John Brown, an anti-slavery leader, led his famous raid at Harper's Ferry, Virginia (which is now in West Virginia). These events, among others, led to great insecurity among Southern leaders. The 1860 election saw great division among the ranks. Candidates were John C. Breckinridge of Kentucky by the southern wing of the Democratic party, Stephen A. Douglas by the northern wing of the same party, John Bell by the newly formed Constitutional Union Party and Abraham Lincoln by the Republican party. The Democratic split mostly ensured Lincoln's election and he took office in March of 1861 on a platform that opposed the further expansion of slavery and endorsed a protective tariff, federal subsidies for internal improvements, and a homestead act.
By the time of his inauguration, the Confederate States of America had been formed with Jefferson Davis as president and seven states had gone along - Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Texas.
President Lincoln took a firm stand from the moment of his inauguration by stating that secession was not legal and further stating he would maintain the federal possessions in all southern states. On the infamous day of 12 April 1861, when an attempt was made to re-supply Fort Sumter at Charleston, South Carolina, the southern forces opened fire beginning the Civil War. Lincoln retaliated within a few days which also brought about the secession of Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia. Though the North had more resources, more volunteers, more money and supplies than the South, neither side was prepared for a great conflict such as the Civil War would bring. Throughout the war, the north was able to muster more men, including troops of former slaves and freemen. The south was constantly hampered by lack in all areas, including military forces. Though more powerful in their resources and manpower, the North did not win as quickly and as efficiently as they had hoped. The South was able to bring in more experienced military men, such as Robert E. Lee while the North had more difficulty finding its military leadership, eventually finding great generals in Grant and Sherman.
Each side employed what they felt were certain advantage. The South wanted to keep the fighting in familiar territory until the North lost its will to fight, while the North wanted to attack broadly, cutting off supply to the South. The Northern leaders felt a march directly to Richmond, Virginia, the confederate capital would bring the war to a rapid end.
Both sides employed various techniques, all of which either worked or failed at some point. In other words, the battles went both ways, large areas were ravaged, lives were lost and not much ground was covered to end the conflict.
Later in 1861, several border states, Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland and Missouri, were brought into the Northern sympathies, but these areas still maintained high levels of secessionism. Later, in September 1861, Kentucky joined the Union side as it was invaded by Confederate troops. West Virginia was also formed at this time from the western counties of Virginia and went to the Northern side. After a number of major battles with losses on both sides, Lee invaded Maryland in September 1862, resulting in major losses for both north and south in the Battle of Antietam. Further conflicts in all fronts moved the battle lines back and forth. The real turning point in the war appears to have been the Battle of Gettysburg beginning on 1 July, 1863, with Lee's army eventually retreating back into northern Virginia. By the end of 1863, the war had definitely turned in favor of the North, though, by no means, was the bloodshed over.
For many months in 1864 Grant's forces attempted to break down Richmond's supply lines by taking Petersburg, Virginia. Meanwhile, Atlanta had fallen and their supply lines obliterated. By September 1, the southern forces had to leave the city. Sherman's troops began their march from Atlanta, burning and destroying all that fell in their path that might help the confederate efforts. By April, 1865, Sheridan and Grant joined up to assail Lee's army for perhaps the final battle. Lee and his army fled to the west, only to be stopped by Grant. On 9 April, 1865, General Robert E. Lee surrendered to General Ulysses S. Grant at the Appomattox Court House in southwestern Virginia.
Once the surrender was complete, what Confederate armies remained quickly fell apart. A naval blockage was initiated to prevent any re-supplying to the south. With a minimal navy, Union forces had trouble enforcing the blockade. Also coming into the picture during March of 1862, was the new southern weapon, the Merrimack, an old steam frigate covered with metal armor. The following day, the north responded with their own "ironclad" ship, the Monitor. The indecisive battle gave neither side a true victory.
Although the Merrimack returned to the safety of Norfolk Harbor, its presence forced McClellan to alter his route of march to Richmond. Other naval operations helped to cut off supply from New Orleans and other ports for the south during the remainder of the war. Lincoln had issued a preliminary proclamation of emancipation in September of 1862 stating that in those states or portions of states that were still engaged in rebellion, the slaves would be "forever free." He felt that the Confederate states would not return to the Union and slavery would not be so much an issue. But he clearly stated that the preservation of the Union was his primary objective! In issuing the emancipation proclamation, he maintained it would further weaken the south and was militarily necessary for victory and maintenance of the Union. Several states and portions of states were excluded from the proclamation. The 13th Amendment which abolished slavery in the entire United States was ratified by the legislature in December 1865.
On 8 December 1863, a Proclamation of Amnesty and Reconstruction was issued by the President. Any Southerner who took an oath of loyalty to the Constitution and swore to obey the legislation and proclamations on slavery would be granted amnesty. New constitutions could be written and leaders sent to Congress once certain provisions were met. Republicans in congress were generally unhappy with this situation, wanting more protection for freed slaves and more reconstruction.
This internal war was the most costly to the American people in both physical devastation and in terms of human lives taken. By the end of the war, 620,000 men had been killed. Bear in mind that at this time there were only a total of 35 million people in the entire country! This does not include the many more who were injured. Most of the destruction took place in the south. Most of the large cities lay in ruins. The surrounding countrysides were ravaged, crops were destroyed and livestock either killed or taken.
After this war, other ways to voice grievances were employed by the states and the Union showed more permanence. The war needs had dramatically increased production and capital in the north as well as in the south. Once the war was over, these facilities were converted over to civilian use to the benefit of the general economy. This marked the beginning for the United States in becoming an industrial power in the world. Though the slaves had been freed, it took many, many years to change attitudes, which are still needing adjustment. Great advances have been made in Civil Rights since the end of the war, though change continues to be needed in many areas to this day.
This is from http://www.racing-forums.com/bbs/index.php...=02&f=8&t=27963
P. S. I was raised in the New England States, and now live in Georgia. The History/Social Studies teachers in the North were very unbiased, as were my parents. I was raised to make up my own mind, and see absolutely nothing wrong with Southerners displaying the Flag of the Confederacy. My Hubby was born in Alabama and there is a Confederate Flag on the wall in our den.
IMHO, prejiduce is as as prejiduce does.
We ALL need to remember The Golden Rule!
IMHO, prejiduce is as as prejiduce does.
We ALL need to remember The Golden Rule!
S
Steve007
Guest
I didn't realize my question was going to raise quite a kerfuffle. 
Growing up, I only ever knew the Rebel Flag as the cool decal that was on top of the "General Lee's" roof. We didn't learn a whole lot about the Civil War in school other than who was fighting, it's main influences and how it affected Canada.
Honestly, I never heard of it being associated with racism till sometime after it became hip to be politically correct. (I assume I heard about it on an Oprah show sometime in the eighties.)
Growing up, I only ever knew the Rebel Flag as the cool decal that was on top of the "General Lee's" roof. We didn't learn a whole lot about the Civil War in school other than who was fighting, it's main influences and how it affected Canada.
Honestly, I never heard of it being associated with racism till sometime after it became hip to be politically correct. (I assume I heard about it on an Oprah show sometime in the eighties.)
97forever
Team Owner
My man....now I have to ask:
What the heck is a 'kerfuffle'?? :lol:
What the heck is a 'kerfuffle'?? :lol:
S
Steve007
Guest
Lol!!
Just a spat!
Just a spat!
97forever
Team Owner
"Spat" I can understand. All too well. :lol:
Thanks dude.
Thanks dude.
N
nascarup
Guest
Seems to me the African Americans/minorities are mad because NASCAR at the top levels have no drivers or not enough representatives. This diversification will always be a topic for minorities whatever the situation where they are not represented. I'm sick of it. I have been to Talladega and seen minorities in the stands. They are welcome and no one bothers them. I will fly my flag. Minorities can get their own flag if it bothers them. Freedom rules!
S
Steve007
Guest
For what it's worth, I know of absolutely no Canadian's of African descent in the top level of professional curling, let alone on the amateur level. Something must be done!!!
Now you may laugh at that, but we have at least two main curling events televised on national tv every year. And at least 40 hours prior to those main events on our version of ESPN. It's high profile baby!!!!!!
Now you may laugh at that, but we have at least two main curling events televised on national tv every year. And at least 40 hours prior to those main events on our version of ESPN. It's high profile baby!!!!!!
S
Steve007
Guest
That's Koda! He's harmless.
Whizzer
Gig'em
Seems to me the African Americans/minorities are mad because NASCAR at the top levels have no drivers or not enough representatives. This diversification will always be a topic for minorities whatever the situation where they are not represented. I'm sick of it. I have been to Talladega and seen minorities in the stands. They are welcome and no one bothers them. I will fly my flag. Minorities can get their own flag if it bothers them. Freedom rules!
[
Did minority organizations make the first move on NASCAR ??? Not the way I remember it. Sems to me NASCAR went hunting for minority organizations to introduce them to racing.
But why might this be considered a problem????
If a person has the ability, why not ??
For NASCAR to searche the ranks of minorities for players is a good thing.
Every colleges with a successful athletic program does it in a search for top athletes.
If Joe Gibbs puts a minority program in place geared specifically for minorities, good for him. Five or six years ago Dale Earnhardt, Sr. tried to hire a minority member to drive a DEI car in the NASCAR Featherlite series. The gentleman refused.
Not sure where some might be watching the race at Talledega but I have seen discrimination and heard discriminatory comments at every race attended there. Trust me, I've been to more than a few NASCAR races in my lifetime.
I've seen a small group of the majority get out of their seats at Richmond because a minority had a ticket in their midst. The minority moved to another area and someone from the area the minority moved too, took his seat. This individual now suffered the wrath of the group and I'm sure you know the insults showered on him for doing so.
I've heard cat-calls, obscenities and racially motivated remarks directed at minorities at nearly every track I've been to.
Racism is alive and well, not only at NASCAR events but all over.
Racism still exists and to anyone who says they do not see it at a NASCAR race is an indicator they either do not recognize racial intolerance or they approve it, overlook it, choosing to do nothing or perhaps, even being one of the participants.
So, please, do not stand on a ladder pouring water down my back and try to tell me it's raining outside.
N
nascarup
Guest
Motorsports
NASCAR under attack by minority fan group
The goal of both is to create a safe, inviting place for minorities.
By BRANT JAMES, Times Staff Writer
Published October 23, 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shawn Griffith has challenged NASCAR to "write a happy ending" to his documentary on racism within the sport, to temper the controversial footage he has captured and posted on the National Association of Minority Race Fans' Web site.
But the timing of the film actually might allow NASCAR to highlight the progress it has made from a hell-raising spectacle to a legitimate league moving toward the mainstream.
NASCAR says it shares the association's stated goal of creating a safe, inviting place for minorities. But it is skeptical, according to NASCAR spokesman Ramsey Poston, that is the Las Vegas-based fans group's real goal.
NASCAR says it is concerned Griffith and his group are out to make money by exploiting NASCAR and prevailing stereotypes.
"I think they've also stated very plainly the documentary they are producing is a commercial venture," Poston said at a protest last week outside Lowe's Motor Speedway in Concord, N.C. "They want to play it in theaters, and they want to make money from it. There is nothing they have done or said that leads us to believe they are not motivated by profit."
Jirard Brown, a director of the fans group who never has attended a race, says NASCAR has been subversive in its attempts to sabotage the group, going as far as hacking into its Web site and thwarting its attempts to speak with NASCAR sponsors. Poston says the group is using attack techniques and aliases to bully sponsors.
The group's methods have raised questions. It had to import 18 protesters from Fort Worth, Texas, for its first demonstration last Saturday, but the group elicited a response likely to make the final cut of the documentary tentatively titled Dixie 500: The Revolution and scheduled for release Feb. 20, the same date as the Daytona 500.
Certainly, a walk through a campsite at a NASCAR event can be a surreal experience. Brown said he heard racist remarks directed toward him as he walked through a Charlotte parking area last fall. African-American police officers watching the rally said minorities are "no less safe than anybody else," at least at Lowe's.
Saturday's protest revealed the obvious: Given enough alcohol and the proper stimulation - be it political or pep rally - a segment of any 140,000-person group will display antisocial behavior.
One fan yelled the protesters should "go try basketball" because NASCAR "is a Southern sport."
Steve "Doc" Parker, a director of the group who runs a community outreach center in Fort Worth, said he never had been confronted at a race but received unfriendly looks two years ago at Texas Motor Speedway.
About a third of his pickets, members of his outreach program, wore NASCAR clothing, and he noted that Dale Earnhardt Jr. was "real popular in the 'hood because he likes hip-hop music."
Ironically, the only passers-by who responded to the protesters up to a half-hour before the race began wore Earnhardt gear.
That begs the question whether it is within NASCAR and track operators' ability to affect societal change in fans.
"No matter who you are or where you go, you're always going to see differences in opinions. Not everybody is going to like you - no matter who you are," Earnhardt said. "Many years ago there was probably a lot of (racism) around. I'm not going to sit up here and sugarcoat the fact that, yeah, there probably were 300 percent more rebel flags in the infield than there are today. I think the sport is changing. Its willingness to change should be noted and appreciated."
Though NASCAR has banned the use of Confederate flags by drivers and official vendors, one flew from a recreational vehicle near pit road last Saturday. While it continues to offend some, many African-Americans like Bill Lester ignore it.
"I know it's there, but as long as it's not being waved in my face, I don't have a problem," said the 43-year-old Californian who drives in the NASCAR Truck series. "It's a cultural thing for those who were brought up with it. I don't look at it as a symbol of oppression."
NASCAR defends its minority record by pointing to an ESPN poll that concluded that African-American fans increased by 17.8 percent from 1995 to 2001 and by referencing what it has done on the competition side.
Its case is given credibility by the African-Americans who have associated with the sport the past few years. In May, retired NBA star Magic Johnson was named co-chairman of the newly formed executive steering committee for diversity. Retired NFL star and civil rights activist Reggie White owns a minority development team in conjunction with Joe Gibbs Racing. NASCAR's minority driver program is growing. On Tuesday, Kentucky men's basketball coach Tubby Smith announced he will co-own a Busch series team in 2005.
"There are so many opportunities for people of color, and not just African-Americans, to be involved with NASCAR in some capacity," Smith said. "After I started investigating what NASCAR is about and the direction it's going and some of the people that are involved with NASCAR ... you really find out that there are a lot of great folks in NASCAR, just like there are in college basketball."
Source
NASCAR under attack by minority fan group
The goal of both is to create a safe, inviting place for minorities.
By BRANT JAMES, Times Staff Writer
Published October 23, 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shawn Griffith has challenged NASCAR to "write a happy ending" to his documentary on racism within the sport, to temper the controversial footage he has captured and posted on the National Association of Minority Race Fans' Web site.
But the timing of the film actually might allow NASCAR to highlight the progress it has made from a hell-raising spectacle to a legitimate league moving toward the mainstream.
NASCAR says it shares the association's stated goal of creating a safe, inviting place for minorities. But it is skeptical, according to NASCAR spokesman Ramsey Poston, that is the Las Vegas-based fans group's real goal.
NASCAR says it is concerned Griffith and his group are out to make money by exploiting NASCAR and prevailing stereotypes.
"I think they've also stated very plainly the documentary they are producing is a commercial venture," Poston said at a protest last week outside Lowe's Motor Speedway in Concord, N.C. "They want to play it in theaters, and they want to make money from it. There is nothing they have done or said that leads us to believe they are not motivated by profit."
Jirard Brown, a director of the fans group who never has attended a race, says NASCAR has been subversive in its attempts to sabotage the group, going as far as hacking into its Web site and thwarting its attempts to speak with NASCAR sponsors. Poston says the group is using attack techniques and aliases to bully sponsors.
The group's methods have raised questions. It had to import 18 protesters from Fort Worth, Texas, for its first demonstration last Saturday, but the group elicited a response likely to make the final cut of the documentary tentatively titled Dixie 500: The Revolution and scheduled for release Feb. 20, the same date as the Daytona 500.
Certainly, a walk through a campsite at a NASCAR event can be a surreal experience. Brown said he heard racist remarks directed toward him as he walked through a Charlotte parking area last fall. African-American police officers watching the rally said minorities are "no less safe than anybody else," at least at Lowe's.
Saturday's protest revealed the obvious: Given enough alcohol and the proper stimulation - be it political or pep rally - a segment of any 140,000-person group will display antisocial behavior.
One fan yelled the protesters should "go try basketball" because NASCAR "is a Southern sport."
Steve "Doc" Parker, a director of the group who runs a community outreach center in Fort Worth, said he never had been confronted at a race but received unfriendly looks two years ago at Texas Motor Speedway.
About a third of his pickets, members of his outreach program, wore NASCAR clothing, and he noted that Dale Earnhardt Jr. was "real popular in the 'hood because he likes hip-hop music."
Ironically, the only passers-by who responded to the protesters up to a half-hour before the race began wore Earnhardt gear.
That begs the question whether it is within NASCAR and track operators' ability to affect societal change in fans.
"No matter who you are or where you go, you're always going to see differences in opinions. Not everybody is going to like you - no matter who you are," Earnhardt said. "Many years ago there was probably a lot of (racism) around. I'm not going to sit up here and sugarcoat the fact that, yeah, there probably were 300 percent more rebel flags in the infield than there are today. I think the sport is changing. Its willingness to change should be noted and appreciated."
Though NASCAR has banned the use of Confederate flags by drivers and official vendors, one flew from a recreational vehicle near pit road last Saturday. While it continues to offend some, many African-Americans like Bill Lester ignore it.
"I know it's there, but as long as it's not being waved in my face, I don't have a problem," said the 43-year-old Californian who drives in the NASCAR Truck series. "It's a cultural thing for those who were brought up with it. I don't look at it as a symbol of oppression."
NASCAR defends its minority record by pointing to an ESPN poll that concluded that African-American fans increased by 17.8 percent from 1995 to 2001 and by referencing what it has done on the competition side.
Its case is given credibility by the African-Americans who have associated with the sport the past few years. In May, retired NBA star Magic Johnson was named co-chairman of the newly formed executive steering committee for diversity. Retired NFL star and civil rights activist Reggie White owns a minority development team in conjunction with Joe Gibbs Racing. NASCAR's minority driver program is growing. On Tuesday, Kentucky men's basketball coach Tubby Smith announced he will co-own a Busch series team in 2005.
"There are so many opportunities for people of color, and not just African-Americans, to be involved with NASCAR in some capacity," Smith said. "After I started investigating what NASCAR is about and the direction it's going and some of the people that are involved with NASCAR ... you really find out that there are a lot of great folks in NASCAR, just like there are in college basketball."
Source
97forever
Team Owner
"Did minority organizations make the first move on NASCAR ??? Not the way I remember it. Sems to me NASCAR went hunting for minority organizations to introduce them to racing."Whizzer. I have two views.
1. Cynical:
Let me interject a bit of my old school cynisism here again. It's exactly what my original point was in the second post of this thread. I doubt very, very seriously if Nascar(that is the bean-counters) give a blue flipping damn about ANY minority issues. In my cynical POV this is more greed oriented from the rich boys that run this sport. I suspect heavily the sanctioning body's motives are much less noble than they would have us believe. Gibbs was very lkely targeted for this venture because the NFL has a LOT higher representation of 'minorites' than Nascar. Thus Joe was the logical choice.
"Send Joe to do it,Bobby Earl....he got 'sperience with 'em".
I agree it may be a good thing( diversification) in the long run, opening doors usually is....but the 'good' is likely to be coincidental rather than from any sense of ' social justice' . Just a side effect of more revenue seeking.
Are we asked to believe the sanctioning body woke up one morning and decided all social ill's must be addressed?
Somebody fly the BS flag. I ain't buying it.
2. Hypocritical:
"NASCAR says IT is concerned Griffith and his group are out to make money by exploiting NASCAR and prevailing stereotypes."Quoted by Nascarup.
How laughable. Nascar is concerned about 'exploitation'. What damned irony.
To summarize? Right thing, wrong reason.
Just my opinion on it. Others may disagree.
1. Cynical:
Let me interject a bit of my old school cynisism here again. It's exactly what my original point was in the second post of this thread. I doubt very, very seriously if Nascar(that is the bean-counters) give a blue flipping damn about ANY minority issues. In my cynical POV this is more greed oriented from the rich boys that run this sport. I suspect heavily the sanctioning body's motives are much less noble than they would have us believe. Gibbs was very lkely targeted for this venture because the NFL has a LOT higher representation of 'minorites' than Nascar. Thus Joe was the logical choice.
"Send Joe to do it,Bobby Earl....he got 'sperience with 'em".
I agree it may be a good thing( diversification) in the long run, opening doors usually is....but the 'good' is likely to be coincidental rather than from any sense of ' social justice' . Just a side effect of more revenue seeking.
Are we asked to believe the sanctioning body woke up one morning and decided all social ill's must be addressed?
Somebody fly the BS flag. I ain't buying it.
2. Hypocritical:
"NASCAR says IT is concerned Griffith and his group are out to make money by exploiting NASCAR and prevailing stereotypes."Quoted by Nascarup.
How laughable. Nascar is concerned about 'exploitation'. What damned irony.
To summarize? Right thing, wrong reason.
Just my opinion on it. Others may disagree.
Whizzer, while I do not totally disagree with what you stated here, I DO have to disagree with the fact that I have NOT seen any form of racism against minorities at the races I have attended. And, no I don't walk around LOOKING for it either.
And, I would never stand on a ladder and pour water down your back and tell you it was raining.
buckaroo
Here kitty, kitty, kitty
IMHO we've covered this subject about as much as I want to see, but I've got to say one last thing. Sitting here reading the replies to this thread has me thinking about minorities in racing. In particular, world wide racing which is mostly F1. I can't think of any driver that is black that races any circuit other than those in the US including NASCAR, ASA, IRL, CART etc. One would think that there would be something there somewhere. You name the race (human race that is) and it's pretty much covered with the exception of the negroid race. What gives?
S
Steve007
Guest
Just in case anyone hadn't heard.
Real troopers...too wet to protest: The National Association of Minority Race Fans said it had 75 protestors in place at Martinsville Speedway to continue its demonstrations against what it sees as unsafe conditions for minorities and women at NASCAR tracks. The protest was, however, canceled due to "wet, soggy conditions." NAMRF "decided its message would be muted given the dreary weather," it said in a statement.(ThatsRacin.com), probably didn't want to get mud in the limo.(10-25-2004)
Real troopers...too wet to protest: The National Association of Minority Race Fans said it had 75 protestors in place at Martinsville Speedway to continue its demonstrations against what it sees as unsafe conditions for minorities and women at NASCAR tracks. The protest was, however, canceled due to "wet, soggy conditions." NAMRF "decided its message would be muted given the dreary weather," it said in a statement.(ThatsRacin.com), probably didn't want to get mud in the limo.(10-25-2004)
buckaroo
Here kitty, kitty, kitty
Oh fer crying out loud. Having been to many races at Martinsville, I know what it's like there when it's wet. IT"S WET THERE ALL THE TIME! Find another race to protest.
How many of you have been to a race where the parking was dry...I mean really dry? I think that mud in the parking lot is a big part of NASCAR.
How many of you have been to a race where the parking was dry...I mean really dry? I think that mud in the parking lot is a big part of NASCAR.