(no subject)

[shadowkat]

1. States Remove Confederate Monuments

Following in the footsteps of Baltimore, many other cities across the United States have taken preliminary steps to remove their own Confederate monuments. This includes statues and plaques and the like, as well as schools, highways, and other facilities named for Confederate soldiers, even holidays. All told, the Southern Poverty Law Center identified about 1,503 items as of 2016. Moreover, the vast majority of statues and physical markers are located in what can be considered southern states; of the 718 monuments and statues, about 300 are located in Georgia, Virginia, or North Carolina.

As you already know, Charlottesville’s city council voted to remove a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee from the newly-minted Emancipation Park. It was this decision that led to the violence that occurred over the weekend. As of right now, the statue’s removal is on hold as the city tries to figure out how to move forward after the protests and tragedy of the weekend. Gainesville, Florida has already moved one statue, and is in the process of raising funds to remove a second. One North Carolina statue was knocked over by protesters in response to what happened in Charlottesville.

This is actually a big deal. A historic event. Keep in mind these monuments have been around since the 1800s. So they are over 100 years old. The removal of the monuments to the Confederacy has opened up a nation wide debate on the topic. A debate that everyone from Condoleeza Rice, former Secretary of State to Robert E. Lee Jr, V, descendant of the Confederate General have participated. Interestingly enough, Rice thinks the monuments should stay where they are and Robert E. Lee's descendant thinks they should be put in a history museum depicting the horror of the times.

You'd think it would be the opposite, it's not.

Asked about the value of preserving statues that honor slaveowners in a May interview on Fox News, Condoleezza Rice argued against what she called the "sanitizing" of history. "I am a firm believer in 'keep your history before you' and so I don't actually want to rename things that were named for slave owners," she said. "I want us to have to look at those names and recognize what they did and to be able to tell our kids what they did, and for them to have a sense of their own history."

"When you start wiping out your history, sanitizing your history to make you feel better, it's a bad thing," the former secretary of state added.

Rice's defense in favor of preservation is rooted in an argument that is the basic opposite of the reason white nationalists are rallying for Lee. They believe it to be a persistent reminder of a positive history. Rice, on the other hand, believes preserving monuments to the darker moments of our past ensures future generations are acquainted with history and charge forward rather than backward, away from the mistakes of their ancestors, rather than into their fading bronze arms.

To be clear, Rice has not yet voiced her opinion on this particular statue. But hers is an interesting perspective to consider at a time when a small but vocal group of racist bigots is drawing attention to one of the darkest times in our nation's history.

I am curious to see what she'd have said after the events in Charlottsville.

Meanwhile...

Lee, a great-great-grandson of the Confederate hero, and his sister, Tracy Lee Crittenberger, issued a written statement on Tuesday condemning the "hateful words and violent actions of white supremacists, the KKK or neo-Nazis."

Then, Lee spoke with Newsweek by phone.

"We don't believe in that whatsoever," Lee says. He is quick to defend his ancestor's name: "Our belief is that General Lee would not tolerate that sort of behavior either. His first thing to do after the Civil War was to bring the Union back together, so we could become a more unified country."

The general was a slave owner who led the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia during the Civil War and who remains a folk hero throughout much of the South.

"We don't want people to think that they can hide behind Robert E. Lee's name and his life for these senseless acts of violence that occurred on Saturday," Lee says.

The Lee heir says it would make sense to remove the embattled statue from public display and put it in a museum—a view shared by the great-great-grandson of Jefferson Davis.

"I think that is absolutely an option, to move it to a museum and put it in the proper historical context," Lee says. "Times were very different then. We look at the institution of slavery, and it's absolutely horrendous. Back then, times were just extremely different. We understand that it's complicated in 2017, when you look back at that period of time... If you want to put statues of General Lee or other Confederate people in museums, that makes good sense."

Then there's this statement from the Mayor of New Orleans...

But there are also other truths about our city that we must confront. New Orleans was America’s largest slave market: a port where hundreds of thousands of souls were brought, sold and shipped up the Mississippi River to lives of forced labor of misery of rape, of torture.

America was the place where nearly 4,000 of our fellow citizens were lynched, 540 alone in Louisiana; where the courts enshrined ‘separate but equal’; where Freedom riders coming to New Orleans were beaten to a bloody pulp.

So when people say to me that the monuments in question are history, well what I just described is real history as well, and it is the searing truth.

And it immediately begs the questions: why there are no slave ship monuments, no prominent markers on public land to remember the lynchings or the slave blocks; nothing to remember this long chapter of our lives; the pain, the sacrifice, the shame … all of it happening on the soil of New Orleans.

So for those self-appointed defenders of history and the monuments, they are eerily silent on what amounts to this historical malfeasance, a lie by omission.

There is a difference between remembrance of history and reverence of it. For America and New Orleans, it has been a long, winding road, marked by great tragedy and great triumph. But we cannot be afraid of our truth.

As President George W. Bush said at the dedication ceremony for the National Museum of African American History & Culture, “A great nation does not hide its history. It faces its flaws and corrects them.”

So today I want to speak about why we chose to remove these four monuments to the Lost Cause of the Confederacy, but also how and why this process can move us towards healing and understanding of each other.

So, let’s start with the facts.

The historic record is clear: the Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis, and P.G.T. Beauregard statues were not erected just to honor these men, but as part of the movement which became known as The Cult of the Lost Cause. This ‘cult’ had one goal — through monuments and through other means — to rewrite history to hide the truth, which is that the Confederacy was on the wrong side of humanity.

He's not wrong. You should really read the whole thing. After listening to the Mayor's speech, I re-affirmed my view that yes, those frigging monuments need to come down. They should have been torn down in the 1960s. No, wait. They should never have been erected in the first place. Apparently there's a memorial to a Nazi sympathizer and collaborator in NYC, why it's there, I've no clue. Particularly in NYC of all places. Although changing place and street names may be a bit more problematic from a logistical perspective. (Yes, I know, I'm possibly the only person on the planet that obsesses over logistical matters... But, say you are looking for a post office located on Robert E. Lee Avenue and suddenly it has become Forest Hill Avenue. You're GPS can't find it and neither can you. Granted, if I were African-American I would not want to be living on Robert E Lee Avenue or passing down it every day to work. So, yes it should be changed. It's just a bit problematic. I bring this up because Governor Cumo wants to change the place and street names in New York. Now, why New York of all places had places and streets named after Confederate Generals is beyond me.

2. North Carolina Protest Arrest

In the days since Charlottesville, cities across the country have taken steps to remove Confederate monuments. Baltimore removed all of theirs in the middle of the night earlier this week. And if you haven’t yet watched the video of protesters in Durham, North Carolina, who refused to wait on their city and toppled a Confederate statue themselves, I recommend doing so. It’s highly catharticOne woman, Takiyah Thompson (you can see her coming out from behind the statue in the GIF), was arrested for her part in the protest. She’s currently out on bail, but this morning, a group of about 200 people gathered outside the Durham courthouse to oppose her arrest. And many of them (about 50 by some accounts) also went full Spartacus and lined up to turn themselves in to authorities.


3. How America Spreads the Disease that is Racism by not Confronting Racist Family Members and Friends

There's a nifty chart, see if you can identify where you fall on it.

Racism Scale Chart.

I can't reproduce the chart, sorry, I tried. You'll have to follow the above link.

If you fall below “awareness”, then this is a red flag that racism is a problem for you. If it is not a problem for you, but find that it is a problem for your family members and/or friends, then it’s time to address it or it will continue to spread throughout America.

Like alcoholism, an alcoholic cannot thrive without their enablers. It is the same white Americans who enable their relatives and friends who are racist. It is important to identify and recognize that racism is a mental illness and recommend that individual to a psychotherapist as needed.

There is no easy way to contain a disease, but if we can identify the symptoms, then we can put a stop to it through education and awareness.

This is why it is very important to talk to a diverse group of people constantly. I remember ages ago being challenged by my friends, when I muttered that if only I can be around people who agreed with me all of the time. They said, a)that would be boring, and b) how would you know when you are wrong?

Comments

[conuly]

This is actually a big deal. A historic event. Keep in mind these monuments have been around since the 1800s. So they are over 100 years old

Some of them are, but most were put up during the 20th century - notice the spike in the 1960s.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/08/the-real-story-of-all-those-confederate-statues/

Yes, I know, I'm possibly the only person on the planet that obsesses over logistical matters... But, say you are looking for a post office located on Robert E. Lee Avenue and suddenly it has become Forest Hill Avenue. You're GPS can't find it and neither can you.

Tell me about it. We lived for decades with Sixth Avenue being perversely marked as Avenue of the Americas on the signage!

Also, google suggests that Lee himself never wanted the darn things erected in the first place.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/16/us/robert-e-lee-statues-letters-trnd/index.html

[shadowkat]

Some of them are, but most were put up during the 20th century - notice the spike in the 1960s.

Ugh. Did not know that. That's just...horrible. I can understand why they may have been erected in the 1800s, but the 1960s?

Tell me about it. We lived for decades with Sixth Avenue being perversely marked as Avenue of the Americas on the signage!

Yes, the inconsistent signage in NYC is a problem. They also have a habit of renaming bridges, streets, sections of the city, every few years to make it more marketable for someone or other, which is just confusing. I tell people that I live in Kensington, Brooklyn, and they get confused. Mainly because it used to just be West Flatbush.

[conuly]

Ugh. Did not know that. That's just...horrible. I can understand why they may have been erected in the 1800s, but the 1960s?

I think you have a glimmer of why the 1960s. (As for the big spike, there's two factors there. First, it coincides with the 50th anniversary of the war, and secondly, it also coincides with peak KKK.)

Yes, the inconsistent signage in NYC is a problem.

Oh, they were very consistent. They consistently wanted us to stop calling it 6th Avenue. We were consistent too. We weren't gonna do it! FFS, it's sandwiched in between 5th and 7th! Why not rename 9th Avenue, or whatever the highest number is? Nobody would've cared so much!

[shadowkat]

a glimmer of why the 1960s.

I discussed this with my mother over the phone, and she apparently has done some extensive reading on the topic. She told me that many of the statues were erected in protest to desegregation and the people who erected them did it to deliberately rub it in the African American faces...as if to say, "look, here are our heroes, the people who fought to keep you slaves"... Sort of similar to Germany erecting statues of Hitler.

Oh, they were very consistent. They consistently wanted us to stop calling it 6th Avenue. We were consistent too. We weren't gonna do it!

I should have given examples. Since I've moved here in 1996, they changed street names in the Bronx, various place names, etc. They changed the name of ball fields...Mets-Willets to Citifield, seriously? Penn Station to Monyihan Station is the latest, again, seriously? Stupid people. I can understand changing something to honor say Martin Luther King in the Bronx, but why they heck do they need to call a ball field after Citibank, just because they are a sponsor. Or an airport after a US President?

I completely agree with you regarding 6th Avenue. Renaming it "Avenue of the Americas" is not only silly, but offensive, also in regards to what exactly? There's nothing remotely "South or North American" about that avenue. I know I worked near it for a while. Silly marketing people.

[conuly]

why they heck do they need to call a ball field after Citibank, just because they are a sponsor.

Because if they didn't, Citbank wouldn't be a sponsor.

[shadowkat]

LOL! Very true.

[anoyo]

I read a couple of those yesterday through my Twitter feed, and it's an interesting debate.

I agree with not honoring men (or women) who did horrific things, but I disagree with the concept of "the wrong side of history." History is a story, sure, but it's only helpful if it contains all the facts. In that sense, there's no wrong side of history: just the losing side, and the side of the morally corrupt (sometimes the same thing).

In my opinion, if we remove these statues, we need to keep a record of where they were, and why they were erected. Not to censor the cities and locations that built them, but to remember why they were, at one time, very important. We won't learn a damn thing if we don't remember.

[mefisto]

The real question is "what are we remembering"? These statues were erected for the express purpose, often stated on the statues themselves, of celebrating white supremacy. We need to remember in the "never again" sense.

If that's what you meant, then we agree.

[anoyo]

Isn't that what history is, in essence? The story of things we did well, and things we should never do again? It's definitely in the "never again" sense; my issue is that if we remove the things we should never do again too far from the public eye, they become forgotten, or less important. There are concentration camps still in Europe that help us to remember that tragedy, and places in Hiroshima that do the same. The statues are awful, and shouldn't be in places of celebration, but they do need to be somewhere people can find, if only so that people can see them, and what our ancestors thought as they erected them.

The "why" is just as important as the "never again." If we just remember "never again," but don't remember the "why" behind the statues in the first place, the "never again" becomes more theoretical, and less recognizable as a result of real human action.

[mefisto]

Agreed. At least some of the statues should be preserved, perhaps in museums, for that purpose.

[shadowkat]

I agree as well. I think cactuswatcher stated this rather well...it makes sense to leave them in places like say Virginia. But do we need a commemorative plaque and statue of Stonewall Jackson, placed by the Daughters of the Confederacy, in front of a church in New York City?

I think it depends. We do have a museum for 9/11 and monument where the twin towers stood. But we do not have statues of Osama Bin Laden. And we do have a museum for the Battle of Gettysburgh, along with the area where the battle was fought preserved. We also have various plaques and statues for the Underground Railroad. And there is a statue and plaque in West Port, Kansas City, Missouri, commemorating the Battle of Westport during the Civil War. It's not as if we don't have these things already. Not to mention the African-American History Museum.

Do we really need a statue of Robert E Lee in various cities across the South? Doesn't that send the wrong message, if we have the others?

[shadowkat]

We also have the film and book, Gone with the Wind, along with various other books regarding the Civil War from various perspectives. What does a statue of Stonewall Jackson, Robert E. Lee, etc really say?

[mefisto]

The statue itself says nothing. What's significant about it is the attitude of the people who raised it. That attitude was white supremacy, and it's worth remembering that so we don't make that mistake again.

Mind you, I don't support these statues in public places. A museum is fine, complete with a plaque which explains that Lee was a traitor to his country, a slave owner, and someone who fought and killed hundreds of thousands of loyal Americans in order to keep other loyal Americans in bondage.

[shadowkat]

!00% agree. The trick is to inform, sort of like the Holocaust museums in Germany.

[mefisto]

Exactly.

[shadowkat]

I agree. I think that's why Robert E Lee V was sort of suggesting. That they could be put in a museum. I don't think removing them necessarily erases the history surrounding them...if we relocate them in a museum? Or put a plaque stating, "in this place was a statue honoring a man who fought to preserve slavery and it was removed because we as a nation do not honor what this man did or what he fought for. We are against this." or something to that effect.

[anoyo]

I agree; we can totally move them without removing their historical significance, so long as we make clear where they were and why. It's just the "getting rid of them huzzah!" that bothers me, with the implied desire to just destroy them. I understand the impulse, I just don't agree with destroying parts of our history. Not even the ugly parts. That's how we progress.

[spikewriter]

Rice lost a friend in the 1963 Birmingham church bombing, so perhaps there's a thought that if we just take the monuments down -- most erected during the rebirth of the Klan -- we lose that piece of our history, that people did this to justify their belief. And the lost of that context will let those people keep going, dwelling in the dark until they emerge once more. I'm not sure what context we should/could put them in, but I don't think it's something lightly considered for her.

This is why it is very important to talk to a diverse group of people constantly.

:: nods :: That's one place where social media has actually been helpful to me. It provides me with more diverse opinions than what's going on immediately around me.

[shadowkat]

Rice's comment made me question it a bit...then I read the Mayor of New Orleans speech...and..

so perhaps there's a thought that if we just take the monuments down -- most erected during the rebirth of the Klan -- we lose that piece of our history, that people did this to justify their belief. And the lost of that context will let those people keep going, dwelling in the dark until they emerge once more

True, but, as Robert E. Lee V states...isn't a museum the best place for this? Or maybe take a picture of it and reproduce in a museum?

It's not quite the same as the Syrians tearing down their monuments or tearing down the ones in Greece or Rome, since many of these were erected after the Civil War, and by people who wanted to commemorate the Confederacy.

Nor is it quite the same as say removing George Washington's face from the dollar bill or tearing down the Washington and Jefferson memorials...since these aren't there to honor slavery or propose the cause of racism or white empowerment. [Andrew Jackson, on the other hand, probably should be removed from the twenty dollar bill, because he was pretty horrible, and didn't do anything positive during his presidency worth commemorating. ]

I think there is a way we can preserve history, while at the same time not honoring or sending out a racist message?

[cactuswatcher]

There is a small Confederate monument on the Arizona state capital grounds. No statue, just a stone about the size of a largish headstone, but still... I remember thinking when I was visiting the capital shortly after I moved here, 'What the hell is that doing here?' There was only one skirmish of any note in Arizona Territory during the Civil War. A bunch of Texans rode west looking for easy conquest. There was a much bigger battle in New Mexico with a different group of Texans. The result was the same in both territories. The Texans were chased away having gathered little support or sympathy from the locals. Closer to the site of the Arizona skirmish there is a monument to Jefferson Davis of all things. The monument on the capital grounds got spray painted the other night, and the Jefferson Davis monument got tarred and feathered.

I'm not totally against Confederate monuments where they are appropriate. Lee fought long and hard specifically for his state of Virginia. Statues of Lee there I don't find offensive. But in New Orleans? In Texas? It's not like those states didn't have their own defenders. Jefferson Davis only wished the Confederacy had that kind of unity. How about the Stone Mountain carving in Georgia? It depicts no one from the state of Georgia and reportedly was the site of the organization of the modern KKK. While the carving was planned in the 1920s there was no real money to work on it till the mid 1960s when school desegregation was in full swing. Georgia was notorious for refusing Jefferson Davis' requests for assistance through the war. But there is Davis trotting up on the rock beside Lee and that good soldier, but sanctimonious S.O.B., Stonewall Jackson.

These random Confederate monuments aren't monuments to an ideal. They are monuments to resentment over the long past failure of Southern anti-bellum thinking, the fervent but hypocritical belief in personal freedom at the expense of the freedom of others. Which is why it is not surprising that finally many white Southerners want all of them gone, locally appropriate or not.

[shadowkat]

I had a similar reaction. Why, for instance, is there a plaque commemorating Stonewall Jackson put up by the Daughters of the Confederacy in front of a church in New York City? (It came down this week.) That's not needed. I understand honoring history, but having memorials to long dead losers in areas like NYC, makes no sense.

I got into a brief, somewhat vehement discussion with a black co-worker about it.

Co-worker: If you want to take down the memorials, why not remove George Washington from the dollar bill. He owned slaves. Me: Because Washington didn't fight in the Confederacy Co-worker: so what he owned slaves Me: - although I'm not against that, I want Andrew Jackson off the twenty dollar bill - Co-worker (speaking over me): Well in WWII, Hitler fought, and we don't have him on bills, and he was a Nazi, what is the difference? Me: He did not fight in the Civil War, he was dead. He fought in the American Revolutionary War -- Co-worker (speaking over me): Ah, the American Revolutionary War...(patronizing voice)..still a slaveholder. As if that doesn't matter. Me: He's on the bill because he was the first president of the US, not because he was a slaveholder nor for fighting for the Confederacy. There is a big difference between commemorating a president and a general who fought a war to own slaves, I don't think I need to explain that to you.

The conversation ended before I could add that he freed his slaves when he died. The problem here is people don't want to think critically about it, they just want to react emotionally.

[cactuswatcher]

And my adviser, who I mentioned in a post few days ago, was very proud of his African-American ancestors who owned slaves in this country. As sad a chapter in history as it was, your co-worker would never have been born if it hadn't been for slavery. If your co-worker wishes she/he had never been born, that's also a little beyond the discussion of Confederate monuments.

Yes, black on white racism is also a problem.

[shadowkat]

was very proud of his African-American ancestors who owned slaves in this country.

Wait...what?

. As sad a chapter in history as it was, your co-worker would never have been born if it hadn't been for slavery.

Again...uh, what? Not sure what you are trying to say here??? Are you suggesting that African-Americans should be thankful for slavery because they wouldn't exist otherwise?

There are over a million people who never born due to slavery. Millions of Africans were killed during the slave trade, it was far worse than the Holocaust. Also, we have no idea if he'd have been born or not. He may have been and had a far better life than he does now.

If you haven't done so...you should read Colin Whitefield's novel Underground Railroad, which is heavily researched and brutal reading, but it shows how the slave trade was as bad if not worse than the Holocaust.

[cactuswatcher]

You didn't know there were Black slave owners?

Also, we have no idea if he'd been born or not

Seriously? Think about that for a while on a genetic level if that helps.

Again the discussion isn't about about all the Africans who were never born in Africa because of slavery in the New World, about all the Africans who died on the way to the New World, or about all the Africans who were slaves. That's where your co-worker is drifting off into other issues. It's about how we in the 21st century treat each other. It's about discouraging people living now from using symbols of the past as an excuse to abuse other people now.

[shadowkat]

Thank you for more clarification. Your comment wasn't clear, it seemed to be justifying slavery and I couldn't imagine that being your intent. ;-) I discussed this recently with a few people, how easy it was to misunderstand what someone else is saying. What you think you are saying may not be what someone else sees or hears. Sort of how we sound different in our own heads...then outside our heads?

You didn't know there were Black slave owners?

I thought they were only in Africa, not the US? Mainly because the US was very "white" privilege and run by "white Europeans". I know that slavery was a practice in Europe, Africa, etc...up until roughly the 1800s. People conquered each other , and often raped, tortured, killed and enslaved the losers. We do not have a history to be proud of. Actually there isn't a lot in human history that is worthy of pride. Which says a lot about us as a species, doesn't it?

That's where your co-worker is drifting off into other issues.... It's about how we in the 21st century treat each other. It's about discouraging people living now from using symbols of the past as an excuse to abuse other people now.

I agree. It's not like we can go back in a time machine and change the past, and even if we could...should we? (a whole other debate...similar to the "should we kill Hitler debate").

It's how we treat each other now.

Although regarding black on white racism, while, yes, everyone is racist, there's an imbalance in power in our society and as long as that imbalance exists...then white on black racism is the issue. Just as male on female sexism and straight on homosexual homophobia is an issue....white men are not being pulled over, taken out of their cars, searched and often shot by cops. Also there's a distinction between individualized racism and institutionalized racism...the later is a big problem and is only against blacks not whites.

Unfortunately the white man has abused his authority and power over time and until that changes...he will have to be held accountable for that abuse of privilege. Sad, but true.

[amyvanhym]

I wrote a post about the monument issue: On Statues. It's better than writing a long response here, I figure.

But also in response to a specific part of your post,

>"I am curious to see what she'd have said after the events in Charlottsville."

I hope that she would stand more adamantly against the removal of monuments, at least for the time being, as the more violent the political environment in which a monument is removed, the more that removal becomes an act of ideological conquest. Now is the time to stand back, take a breather, and discuss the issue, rather than engage in acts escalating civil tensions.

[shadowkat]

Now is the time to stand back, take a breather, and discuss the issue, rather than engage in acts escalating civil tensions.

I agree. I don't think screaming at the white supremacists is going to get people anywhere. Also, it's important not to react to the white supremacists propaganda with violence or rage. Tempting as it sounds. The women's march was an example of peaceful protesting...and that needs to continue.

OTOH, it's a tad scary when the government isn't reacting in a more aggressive manner to the white supremacists. Tolerance should only go so far.

The escalating tensions have a lot to do with what is happening on a Federal level right now. It should be noted none of this was happening under previous administrations, well, not since the 1960s, when various statues were originally erected in direct response to The Civil Rights movement and desegration. So, it's important to look at the whole picture.

Why were the statues erected? As racist propaganda by the white supremacists and Lost Cause.

Where are there situated? In federal and state government owned parks and places that normally require a permit for such works. Many were erected without permission.

Who pays for their continued maintenance? The taxpayers

Do they need to be maintained? Yes, they were made of bronze and would otherwise rust and degrade, like monuments in cemeteries due over time if not maintained and protected.

Are they artistic expression? No more than the military figurines you buy at your local Walmart. Mass produced from a National Monument Factory in the North. Using prefabricated parts. That's why they look alike. In fact, in some cases, some of the statues have the same faces as union soldiers.

When were they erected? In the 1960s, and post-Civil War

Do they incite hatred and pain or are they free speech? They were erected to do so, that was the intent. But it depends, on whether you know that or not, so no, not necessarily. I would not define the statues by themselves as hate speech. So yes, protected under first amendment.

Are they history that needs to be preserved? Not really, you can relocate them to a museum to do that. (Preferably together in a row, so everyone can see that they are copies of each other and have no merit.) And put up a plaque describing what they represent. It preserves them with little long-term cost to the tax payer (because they are inside), and provides historical context.

Other alternatives? Stop maintaining them and let nature take its course. Just because the first amendment protects them as free speech, doesn't mean we have to pay to preserve them. The protection only goes so far.

Links backing up all of the above can be found in a separate post that I did last night. I did a bit of research on the topic.