Nothing like having a picture of a traitor hanging in you office esp. since you work for another one.
He knew Forrest only âas a southern general during the Civil War,â he said
lying through his teeth.
Racists are having a field day, arenât they? With McConnell stacking the courts with fascists, reactionaries and racists, theyâll get away with it too.
The portrait is called âNo Surrender,â and shows a Forrest sitting on a horse in the snow in 1862.
âIt was just a beautiful print that I had purchased, and I thought it was very nice,â Thomas told the Post. He knew Forrest only âas a southern general during the Civil War,â he said.
He promptly replaced it with a beautiful framed painting of MBS atop an Arabian horse in the desert. He only knows MBS as a connoisseur of fine yachts.
IndeedâŚ
My wife told me I shouldnât put this picture up, but I said I donât care; I like it.
Privilege strikes again.
The portrait is called âNo Surrender,â
Must not have been about Thomas since he ran to get the print down after a reporter mentions concerns about itâŚ
I can probably buy the ignorance of history, but he knew what Forrest did.
The better half has read a lot of Civil War history and has told me about Forrest including his role in establishing the KKK at the end of the war. How a Southerner could not know about him means only heâs lying.
ââMy wife told me I shouldnât put this picture up, but I said I donât care; I like it.ââ
so he knew, ok then
Short answer: I really, really want to âthankâ guys like him and â45â, because while itâs clear that Forrest was an outstanding officer, he was also a) a slave trader and b) one of the founders of an American terrorist organisation.
While all three aspects could be discussed, they likely wonât be, because these guys are immersed in warrior lust, as opposed to understanding what this love actually means.
âThe portrait is called âNo Surrender,â â and it conveniently ignores the surrender that soon followed
Forrest didnât really surrender. He turned into a dead-ender terrorist, organizing a huge bunch of other terrorists who outlived him.
This is like a police officer having an approving portrait of Al Capone in his office.
How was the guy to know? Just because Forest is wearing his white hood in the picture?
Of all the people that were ever generals in US history, he chooses this oneâŚ
But he had no idea!
âSoonâ after a couple more years of war, terrible bloodshed, and a few hundred thousand deaths. With so much distance (and so little history taught in schoolsâŚ) itâs easy to forget how truly devastating the Civil War was.
Has he taken down this generalâs portrait yet?
He also presided over a heinous war crime, the massacre of surrendering Union soldiers â and especially the black Union soldiers â at Fort Pillow.
I had a couple of grad classes with a guy who pointed out in the university newspaper that the Office of Minority Outreach was in a building named after a Grand Wizard of the KKK. Admin was less than grateful.
White people gonna white.
For a change, not a Trump appointee. But soon he likely will be.
It appears that a few commenters on the WaPo thread regarding the article arenât buying David Thomasâ excuses:
Cmon son! Itâs 2018. You can perform a simple Google search.
Due diligence needed for anything on public display in a government agency or public space.
Not meaning to sound like a snowflake, but finding out the picture he
thought was one subject turned into something so ugly for everyone else
who knew. Lousy mistake.
UmâŚIt is titled âNo Surrenderâ and depicts the [confederate] general fleeing a snowy
Tennessee battlefield in 1862."
I can understand not knowing the full history of the subject, but for any
govt official to display anything lauding the Confederacy is an
extraordinarily stupid thing to do.
I just thought it was a very nice print of a traitor astride a horse.â Mr. Thomas should no better. Very poor judgement.
Would it be weird if a VA employee had a portrait of Erwin Rommel hanging in his office
It just looked like a nice picture, a military guy in the desert.
These paintings come with the artistâs description of the scene - where, when, who, and where this image fits in the history of the war being depicted.
Typically there is a master painting along with a hundred or so numbered prints.
If that is a painting and not a print, then he would have had to buy it
from a gallery or directly from the painter. They are regarded
as collectibles by history and military buffs - you donât find these
paintings in yard sales. And the idea it was bought just as a pretty
picture with no knowledge of the subject is laughable.