Historical Marker for the Algiers.

[Meddle]

DETROIT [[AP) — The site of a transient motel in Detroit where three young Black men were killed, allegedly by white police officers, during the city’s bloody 1967 race riot is receiving a historic marker.

A dedication ceremony was held Friday in a park several miles north of downtown where the Algiers Motel once stood.


https://apnews.com/article/detroit-r...8fd74549a9b1a2

[CassTechGrad]

These are unpleasant memories for all of us, why would we want to relive this all over again? Can’t we come up with something positive from the past to remember and commemorate.

[DetroiterOnTheWestCoast]

These are unpleasant memories for all of us, why would we want to relive this all over again? Can’t we come up with something positive from the past to remember and commemorate.
]

Does a historical marker make you relive the past?

We need to remember our history in order to learn from it. The good, the bad and the ugly.

[ABetterDetroit]

These are unpleasant memories for all of us, why would we want to relive this all over again? Can’t we come up with something positive from the past to remember and commemorate.

Could the whataboutism arguments be recognized for their stupidity? What do smash and grab crimes have to do with white collar crimes like hooker payments being wrote off as a tax deduction? Nothing. Discuss one or the other but combining irrelevant things is just a stupid and pointless argument for those not bright enough to know a difference.

The Algers motel killings historical marker installation is worthy of a discussion on its own merit. Was it a significant event in Detroits history? A milestone event that changed things going forward? It seems to me that the riots and these killings did affect Detroit greatly in negative and positive changes in the years after the events. Disagree, let’s hear why? Discuss instead of throwing out irrelevant crap.

[Meddle]

I kind of said much of that to myself before posting. Significant event for the community? Certainly. Historical in comparison to others events? Not so much.

But the community wanted it and they campaigned for it over several years. I have no problem with that.

[Henry Whalley]

These are unpleasant memories for all of us...

It's history and an historical marker seems appropriate IME.

[Cincinnati_Kid]

Could the whataboutism arguments be recognized for their stupidity? What do smash and grab crimes have to do with white collar crimes like hooker payments being wrote off as a tax deduction? Nothing. Discuss one or the other but combining irrelevant things is just a stupid and pointless argument for those not bright enough to know a difference.

The Algers motel killings historical marker installation is worthy of a discussion on its own merit. Was it a significant event in Detroits history? A milestone event that changed things going forward? It seems to me that the riots and these killings did affect Detroit greatly in negative and positive changes in the years after the events. Disagree, let’s hear why? Discuss instead of throwing out irrelevant crap.

Definately a milestone event that needs to be recognized, and changed the city's fortunes going forward. White residents left in droves after the riot.

[Zads07]

As a white millennial not from the city, but the suburbs, I took a fascination into the city and the history.

In order for me to understand the city, I had to research events like this. Having a historical marker is significant in that it allows us a glimpse into what makes that spot so important in the history of the city and the state.

It brings more awareness to what happened and gives us a route toward educating the next generation.

For those that fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it.

[Richard]

Valid argument but many across the country do not see it that way and would rather destroy history as a way of processing and gaining closure.

But in that time frame you could put up 27 million historical markers all across the country marking just another day in time.

[southen]

Valid argument but many across the country do not see it that way and would rather destroy history as a way of processing and gaining closure.

Also, in many cases it was not about destroying history, but removing monuments that were erected during reconstruction as a form of intimidation to those in the south. Honoring Confederates AFTER the Civil War was not done to honor history of the region, it was to remind an entire segment of the population about their oppression. That is why you don't see a statue of Hitler at Auschwitz. To understand why some monuments came down, necessarily, takes critical thinking beyond "They are destroying our history!"

I am all for historical markers like this one to bring awareness to moments like this.

[Meddle]

Should be noted:

"Applicants also raise the funds to pay for their marker and are responsible for the installation."

That cost is somewhere just under $5,000

[Richard]

Also, in many cases it was not about destroying history, but removing monuments that were erected during reconstruction as a form of intimidation to those in the south. Honoring Confederates AFTER the Civil War was not done to honor history of the region, it was to remind an entire segment of the population about their oppression. That is why you don't see a statue of Hitler at Auschwitz. To understand why some monuments came down, necessarily, takes critical thinking beyond "They are destroying our history!"

I am all for historical markers like this one to bring awareness to moments like this.

It’s all based in individual perception is it not ?

The amansapation proclamation was not signed until 13,000 northern troops were killed in 1 battle and the north realized unless they allowed African Americans to fight they were going to lose the war,why would they have not allowed them to fight for their freedoms before that?

So the agricultural southerners were also fighting oppression from the industrial north who were trying to dictate the price of the products they purchased from them.

So to somebody in the south those confederate soldiers were fighting for their way of life,sense less then 2% actually even owned slaves they were not fighting for the right to keep slaves they did not own,they were dirt poor farmers and it would have benefited them if there was no slaves in the first place,because they could have found work picking cotton.

Its perspective - look at today - post a house that looks like an Antebellum style,which was actually Kansas prairie farm style,and a majority of the respondents will say it needs to be burnt to the ground because it was built by slaves - in 1925.

Go to Europe and yes a preserved Flak tower in Berlin is no different as a monument to the Nazis as any other ,but yet they exist along with many other buildings,so people are selective as to what parts of history they want to remember and what parts they do not,based on personal preference.

Fort Wayne played an important role in the history of the city,but it does not seem to be much of a priority in using that to teach future generations.

Nobody cares,what happened then,because you can go to any city in the country and black on black is senselessly killing each other and innocent children,the only difference there was it was white on black,if it was black on black it would be no different then it is today,just another day.

If you take the stance of not wanting to repeat history,then you have to look at it all and not pick and choose what parts you want to serve as reminders.

It like art - 10 people can look at a painting and interpret the artist’s intent 10 different ways.

If somebody wants to organize and raise the funds for the installation they should be allowed to,just as somebody else should be allowed to raise funds for an installation that they may not approve of.

May of 1712 - I do not know,is there a plaque there?

I would not think so because the Indians aligned with the British,so most likely whatever happened after that is best history forgotten.

[Zads07]

It’s all based in individual perception is it not ?

The amansapation proclamation was not signed until 13,000 northern troops were killed in 1 battle and the north realized unless they allowed African Americans to fight they were going to lose the war,why would they have not allowed them to fight for their freedoms before that?

So the agricultural southerners were also fighting oppression from the industrial north who were trying to dictate the price of the products they purchased from them.

So to somebody in the south those confederate soldiers were fighting for their way of life,sense less then 2% actually even owned slaves they were not fighting for the right to keep slaves they did not own,they were dirt poor farmers and it would have benefited them if there was no slaves in the first place,because they could have found work picking cotton.

I studied the Civil War, I have a degree in history and the war was about slavery. One group of states wanted slavery legal while the other group wanted to keep the "union" together.

But I digress, the original point of this post is to acknowledge the history at the site. If you think it's not necessary to have, that's your opinion. I think it's wrong because it completely ignores the very important piece of history that happened there.

As for your comment about black on black crime, you'll realize one day how racist that statement is and how racist that view is.

[southen]

It’s all based in individual perception is it not ?

The amansapation proclamation was not signed until 13,000 northern troops were killed in 1 battle and the north realized unless they allowed African Americans to fight they were going to lose the war,why would they have not allowed them to fight for their freedoms before that?

So the agricultural southerners were also fighting oppression from the industrial north who were trying to dictate the price of the products they purchased from them.

So to somebody in the south those confederate soldiers were fighting for their way of life,sense less then 2% actually even owned slaves they were not fighting for the right to keep slaves they did not own,they were dirt poor farmers and it would have benefited them if there was no slaves in the first place,because they could have found work picking cotton.

Its perspective - look at today - post a house that looks like an Antebellum style,which was actually Kansas prairie farm style,and a majority of the respondents will say it needs to be burnt to the ground because it was built by slaves - in 1925.

Go to Europe and yes a preserved Flak tower in Berlin is no different as a monument to the Nazis as any other ,but yet they exist along with many other buildings,so people are selective as to what parts of history they want to remember and what parts they do not,based on personal preference.

Fort Wayne played an important role in the history of the city,but it does not seem to be much of a priority in using that to teach future generations.

Nobody cares,what happened then,because you can go to any city in the country and black on black is senselessly killing each other and innocent children,the only difference there was it was white on black,if it was black on black it would be no different then it is today,just another day.

If you take the stance of not wanting to repeat history,then you have to look at it all and not pick and choose what parts you want to serve as reminders.

It like art - 10 people can look at a painting and interpret the artist’s intent 10 different ways.

If somebody wants to organize and raise the funds for the installation they should be allowed to,just as somebody else should be allowed to raise funds for an installation that they may not approve of.

May of 1712 - I do not know,is there a plaque there?

I would not think so because the Indians aligned with the British,so most likely whatever happened after that is best history forgotten.

I will keep this succinct as your conservative gumbo goes in every direction. There is a very big difference in teaching history and honoring those that committed acts of treason.

Case in point is that people like you are constantly trying to rewrite what the Civil War was about. That is why teaching it is important, all of it, but you may have to live without your Robert E. Lee statues as tough a pill as that is to swallow. An imperfect union is going to have an imperfect past, acknowledge and learn from it instead of reinterpreting it constantly to make the country seem more star-spangled-awesome. If treasonous slavers who tried to break up the country is a huge part of your "heritage" than that says a lot more about your than the people looking to remove statues honoring said folk.

[Richard]

The problem with that is I was born in the north and have no allegiance to the south ,I just study the real history and present an unbiased opinion.

Pay attention to what is happening in Venezuela,the ones fighting for democracy are considered traitors by the state so as you loosely use the word you might want to put some context into things before you take the status quo’s and follow what you been told to believe,but nothing wrong with that,not everybody has the ability to think for themselves,without followers they would not need leaders.

I do not need to re-write the civil war,it’s documented,one just needs to take the blinders off.

Tell me why is it you and only you are allowed to follow your beliefs,but yet anybody else you become a label maker or as some may say - sheep.

Once again - your local history- May of 1712 - do you know what happened?

There are 30,000 people living in Detroit metro that you can also call traitors,do you?

Do do you have selective remembrance syndrome ,like you only pick and choose.

If the civil war was all about freeing the slaves ,how come the African Americans were banned from joining up to fight it ?

Until it started looking like the north was going to lose,that’s not me re-writing history,that is history.

[Zads07]

The problem with that is I was born in the north and have no allegiance to the south ,I just study the real history and present an unbiased opinion.

Pay attention to what is happening in Venezuela,the ones fighting for democracy are considered traitors by the state so as you loosely use the word you might want to put some context into things before you take the status quo’s and follow what you been told to believe,but nothing wrong with that,not everybody has the ability to think for themselves,without followers they would not need leaders.

I do not need to re-write the civil war,it’s documented,one just needs to take the blinders off.

Tell me why is it you and only you are allowed to follow your beliefs,but yet anybody else you become a label maker or as some may say - sheep.

Once again - your local history- May of 1712 - do you know what happened?

There are 30,000 people living in Detroit metro that you can also call traitors,do you?

Do do you have selective remembrance syndrome ,like you only pick and choose.

If the civil war was all about freeing the slaves ,how come the African Americans were banned from joining up to fight it ?

Until it started looking like the north was going to lose,that’s not me re-writing history,that is history.

Ahh the classic ignorant trope - calling people sheep.

Just stop. You're embarrassing yourself.

[Richard]

Ahh the classic ignorant trope - calling people sheep.

Just stop. You're embarrassing yourself.

All you are doing is proving you did not learn anything from history,otherwise you would be treating others with respect,that’s all it takes is treating others with respect or like we would wish to be treated, and we would not have all of these problems.

The internet makes it worse because people like to hide behind it.

Walk up to somebody in the street and tell them just stop,you do not have any place in this world to tell anybody what to do.

Federal law established in 1792 prohibiting African Americans from entering the military,it was not until 1862 1 year after the civil war started and then they still were not allowed to fight alongside white soldiers or be anywhere near them.

So if the civil war was about freeing the slaves how come they did not think enough about them to let them fight alongside of them ?

That was the only reason 100s of thousands of white soldiers were dying in the battlefield was to free the slaves but they were not allowed to fight for their own freedom?

So the white people cared so much about the African Americans that they told them to stay home - we got this.

Yea right

Your claim was it was about freeing the slaves,if they had given them the freedoms that you boast about and hold true,cities would have never burned in the 60s and Algiers would have never happened.

The north did not give a crap about the African Americans,it was about money and to this day they have never stopped exploiting African Americans.

So you do not have any moral ground to stand on to tell others just stop - you are embarrassing yourself.

Nobody can claim they freed the slaves,the constitution written in 1787 gave them their freedom ,you just gave them the illusion of freedom while always maintaining them at chains length so you can control them while keeping them trapped and suppressed and to this day you do not even shed a tear as they are killing each other in the streets.

The civil war did not free anybody,but it shure made a lot of people in the industrial north millionaires as in todays money,billionaires really fast.

You guys like to be played like silly putty with all of this white and black crap - there is no law that says anybody has to like anybody regardless of skin color.

That constitution says every American is to be treated equal regardless of skin color that’s what needs to be respected and followed above anything else.

So the question becomes,why are you guys embarrassing yourselves by constantly making it a black or white thing when we are all Americans under the constitution,because that is what you are told to do ,so you do it and defend it to the death.

Sticking a plaque up to teach people about history and a spot where an injustice occurred in that moment in time .

People do not give a crap about that or the history behind it,if they did the same injustice happening today would not be.

And people would not be going out of their way to show disrespect to others as much as they do without a second thought,like they are naturally disrespectful to others,so clearly they have not learned a thing from past history.

Ya think if they see a plaque it will change them ?

[Zads07]

All you are doing is proving you did not learn anything from history,otherwise you would be treating others with respect,that’s all it takes is treating others with respect or like we would wish to be treated, and we would not have all of these problems.

The internet makes it worse because people like to hide behind it.

Walk up to somebody in the street and tell them just stop,you do not have any place in this world to tell anybody what to do.

I have no problem telling people the straight facts. I also appreciate a respectful conversation, but I don't respect racists.

[southen]

Yes just straight facts and unbiased opinions from Richard lmao.

I did have Venezuela on my Bingo card as well as sheep. I am one "woke" away from winning, so don't stop now.

[Richard]

Yea you kinda have to wake up first before you can become woke.

[ABetterDetroit]

Yes just straight facts and unbiased opinions from Richard lmao.

I did have Venezuela on my Bingo card as well as sheep. I am one "woke" away from winning, so don't stop now.

Dang it you won. I had “cell phones.”

[Richard]

I have no problem telling people the straight facts. I also appreciate a respectful conversation, but I don't respect racists.

I do not respect people that default to calling somebody a racist while mentioning facts in the same sentence.

A respectful discussion involves looking at and respecting multiple POVs without resorting to childish name calling and innuendos.

I asked specific questions and y’all went 175 miles out of your way to avoid answering them and then having to resort to but but but your a racist and my favorite- just stop you are embarrassing yourself .

One needs to be capable of having a discussion before they can graduate to a respectful discussion.

Then people acting like they won,nobody has won anything because nothing has changed sense Algiers and with discussions like this it is easy to see why and the closed minds that are actually indicative of racists who only do see things in black and white.

Even worse is self appointed white people who act like African Americans are to ignorant to stand up for themselves with out the assistance of the white guy in shining armor that swoops in to save them.

Thats how all of this started - I saved you - now you owe me for eternity,you are not freeing anybody if it is a conditional freedom.

Muslims do not like Jews - you could say they are racist against the Jews,but because it is not a black or white issue you have no problem being around and supporting racism while picking and choosing who you alone determine what and who defines racism.

So do you also not like the estimated 190,000 Muslims in Detroit metro because by your definition they are racist ?

If you are not comfortable having a discussion,it’s usually not best practice to involve yourself in it.

[Jimaz]

... I did have Venezuela on my Bingo card as well as sheep. I am one "woke" away from winning, so don't stop now.

Dang it you won. I had “cell phones.”

What?! <Google_clatter> Oh. LOL!

MAGA Buzzword Bingo Card

[Zads07]

It’s all based in individual perception is it not ?

The amansapation proclamation was not signed until 13,000 northern troops were killed in 1 battle and the north realized unless they allowed African Americans to fight they were going to lose the war,why would they have not allowed them to fight for their freedoms before that?

So the agricultural southerners were also fighting oppression from the industrial north who were trying to dictate the price of the products they purchased from them.

So to somebody in the south those confederate soldiers were fighting for their way of life,sense less then 2% actually even owned slaves they were not fighting for the right to keep slaves they did not own,they were dirt poor farmers and it would have benefited them if there was no slaves in the first place,because they could have found work picking cotton.

Ok, respectful discussion. 1. Emancipation Proclamation.

The Civil War was strictly about slavery. The Confederate States, which seceded from the United States of America, was trying to keep its economy in tact, by keeping slavery around. There's absolutely nothing to the opinion you have of farmers going to pick cotton for themselves and wouldn't have needed slaves.

Can you please cite the source for less than 2% of Confederate soldiers owned slaves?

Here's my source for the start of the Civil War: https://www.battlefields.org/learn/a...&#39;%20Rights

[CassTechGrad]