The Jefferson Jackson Bailey dinners are famous events for the state Democratic Party in Connecticut. However, as part of the backlash against historical figures who owned slaves, the NAACP demanded that both names be stripped away from the dinner and the state Democratic Party agreed.
Nick Balletto, the party’s first-year chairman, said that he hoped other states would follow suit and do “the right thing.” Some may disagree with that assessment.
First, I have been a long critic of Jackson who is legitimately blamed for the Trail of Tears and other atrocities against Native Americans. He is also viewed as the father of the patronage system. He also openly challenged the authority of the Supreme Court to restrain him. It has always astonished me that Democratic Party embraced such an abusive figure as Jackson. However, Jefferson is a founding father who is credited not only with the Declaration of Independence but key rights like those of religious freedoms.
Second, stripping away references to all slave owners would wipe out many if not most of the framers. Slavery was a tremendous evil at the time and those framers with slaves are legitimately criticized for calling for political and social rights while enslaving other human beings. They were flawed figures but they were also the creators of a system that allowed for not only the evolution of rights but the ultimate rejection of slavery.
Scot X. Esdaile, the head of Connecticut’s NAACP, insisted that only stripping away such names can heal the wounds of racism and that the move of the Democratic Party was “making the symbolic first step and striving to right the wrongs of the past . . . You can’t right all the wrongs, but I think it’s a symbolic gesture of our support for their party.”
Ironically, Jefferson was one of the most active in seeking to curtail slavery. In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson originally sought to criticize England for forcing the slave trade on the colonies but it was taken out of the draft. In 1778, Jefferson led the effort to ban the importation of slaves into Virginia and as President fought against the slave trade. In 1784 Jefferson unsuccessfully proposed federal legislation banning slavery in the New Territories of the North and South after 1800. He wrote about the corrupting influence of slavery. In other words, his story is a complex one and captures a generation that was moving at least in part toward the emancipation of slaves.
What do you think?
ninian,
You’ve provided no evidence that our constitution doesn’t provide the framework necessary to move our culture from its current state to the desired future state. Our founding documents didn’t fail the union, the people elected to guide our cultural transformation failed. Why you cannot accept that is indicative of some other motivation. In your zest to spin the narrative towards your understanding you demonstrate a complete unwillingness to acknowledge that the principles of freedom, liberty and natural rights are not something declared in a vacuum. That you don’t agree with their implementation strategy is far more reflective of your narrow-minded thinking. Of course you don’t agree with arguments supporting the Founding Fathers, that would completely undermine whatever cause you are pursuing and it would take a degree of humility you apparently don’t possess.
Your arguments fail in much the same way our government has failed as they ignore their original purpose. There will always be the arrogant, political know-it-alls that believe they will outsmart human nature. What they fail to realize is their nature is as flawed as everyone else yet they believe they are cut from a different cloth.
I repeat for the umpteenth time, this is not that difficult to understand if you ACTUALLY seek understanding.
By the way, you are under the assumption you are bringing something new to the table; your ideas are retreads. Too bad you’ve set your life’s work on stale ideas.
To Olly: I’m relaying the facts. About what was declared and how it only applied to government of all of the people by some of the people. But how it is sold as government of the people by the people. It’s this deception I’m complaining about.
@ninian
Here’s the site: http://www.historynet.com/civil-war-flags
The Union and Confederate official flags were similar. The Confederate battle flag, on the other hand, is not.
If two armies clashed in battle at night, much more in the middle of a foggy dawn, they would have a hard time identifying the other if they saw stripes and stars. When they carried their own battle flag, they could easily identify Union forces. On the other hand, the Union could identify the Confederates once that battle flag shows in their line of sight.
NOTE: The “Paul Schulte C” mention in my previous comment is directed at ninian, not Paul. It’s an excerpt from what he wrote previously.
Paul C. Schulte: It is really odd that a nation which claims to be founded on liberty freedom and equality went on to fight a civil war primarily about slavery only 90 years later. You can see why these concepts are legitimately questioned.
I don’t think you understand the Civil War correctly. The Civil War was not fought primarily over slavery. Slavery was only a sliver of the issue delivered throughout the Civil War. Rather, the Confederates were fighting to prevent “federal usurpation” of powers and wanted to have their own government. You should read the Carolina Secession papers, where the representatives outlined the reasons for why they were breaking away and joining the Confederacy. The mutual main issue of the Civil War was that both governments were “incompatible” with their own foundings of the governments. They were mutually divided on the issues that Confederates agree with that the Yankees never did. The Yankees agreed on some that the Confederates never agreed with.
On top of it, it was fought for political power. The North, among the civilian populace, thought “Screw ’em!” Leave them alone was the adage of the day. But there were those who were in power who did not want that, went against the wishes of the civilian Yanks, and decided to invade the Confederacy. What resulted was a Civil War that proved the technologically superior always win. The North had steel, coal, mines, that could be turned into high quality weapons. The Confederates were agrarian, less technologically advanced, relied on cotton to get most of their economies (which is what Britain wanted, aside from being agitated by the Morill Tariff Act.), and used slaves to complete the work for themselves.
By the way, the Confederate flag was not an actual representation of slavery. That’s the problem today. It’s a very ill-perceived notion that the Confederate flag screams, “Slavery at its finest!” No sir, it does not. If you look at the Union and the Confederate flags, they were similar. The Confederates decided to use that flag as a battle flag identifier, to see themselves differently and engage in combat toward an enemy that they could easily identify!
So much social justice is being done to erase what was vitally important to a time period. The Confederate flag was taken down not because it represented slavery but because we had to appease an illiterate masses of Blacks who are not aware of its proper use. They would rather scream, “Slavery! Slavery!” and point at anything that remotely disturbs them. Do check Baltimore, Ferguson, etc. and more. Their excuse was that they were ‘oppressed’.
What about the Irish who were sold out by the British and sent to the Caribbeans or the Americas? Did you know that the average Irish slave costs a lot less than the average Negro? Did you actually know that the Irish slaves were beaten, and often died from the resulting beatings more than the Negro did? In fact, the Negro costs more and did get beatings but rarely, if ever, died.
After they acquired equality, the KKK was not primarily targeting Blacks. They targeted Republicans, who were in power, trying to force the Southern States to embrace the Northern traditions. They were primarily Democrats. Blacks were not the consistent targets until much much later on.
Texas Polygynist – I said that the War of Northern Aggression was fought over political power and money. Is there any part of that you disagree with?
It was also fought about slavery
ninny – when the War of Northern Aggression first started, slaves captured by the North were returned to their Southern owners. If the war was about slavery, why did this happen?
Paul C. Schulte: Slaves Returned to Southern Owners
It would appear to be another example of hypocrisy?
ninny – if you assume that the States were still united, then there was a law in effect requiring escaped slaves to be returned to their owners (Fugitive Slave Act). So, Federal officers followed Federal law. Now, if you assume that the War of Northern Aggression was over slavery, then the Federal officers would have been required to free those ex-slaves. However, they didn’t. They returned them to their owners. Thus, the War of Northern Aggression could not have been about ending slavery.
ninian,
When a business does strategic planning on a weekend offsite, should they expect the business culture to change Monday morning when they announce the new mission, vision and guiding principles? Or, do they do a phased implementation using change management techniques? Will they already have an understanding of the climate of the people within the business to understand how receptive they will be to change? Will they need to build into their plan effective strategies to move the entire organization from their current state to the envisioned future state?
The leadership wouldn’t see the gap between the business cultures current and future state as anything more than an opportunity that needs managing. They would be excited about the coming future change, especially if they knew they had just developed a plan for the organization that has never been tried before.
You wouldn’t call these business leaders hypocrite’s for coming up with such a plan. You wouldn’t call them hypocrites if the plan called for them to establish guiding principles that they themselves currently didn’t adhere to. You wouldn’t call them hypocrites for putting the best interests of the entire organization ahead of their own. They would be enlightened visionaries and if they managed such a robust plan to completely transform the organization and succeeded AT ANY TIME, They would be considered great leaders.
Olly: My criticism is about the concepts of Freedom Liberty and Rights as professed by the Founding Fathers and then selectively ignored in the constitution. They knew exactly what they were doing and I don’t agree with it. Nor with arguments supporting it.
ninny – what freedoms are in the Constitution and where did you get the arguments for them. This is a real simple question with a real simple answer. Those of us who have taught American History or American Government know the answer to this simple question. Do you?
Paul C Schulte:
I’m talking about the whole package. Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Amendments/Bill of Rights. There’s nothing difficult about this. It was a concept of many contradictions that was never implemented and which you understand only too well and will never admit. It was the creation of a “Free” Country based on a foundation of slavery and abuse of the rights so eloquently declared by the Founding Father’s. Now that’s the Truth. You have the freedom to interpret it in whatever obtuse way you choose. But that’s how many see America.
Read my blogs.
ninny – I know you think you are making some great point and enlightening all the great unwashed, however your argument is built on sand. BTW George III was both a tyrant and a lunatic.
Paul C. Schiulte:
What more delusions Paul?
George III was a constitutional monarch with no political power. There is some evidence that he may have had porphyria, but this is not certain as his medication could turn urine a blue colour. He certainly recovered from mental illness but did recover. He was a popular King.
There is no evidence whatsoever that he was a tyrant other than the rantings of American Revolutionaries who needed to discredit the British to bring credence to an ill conceived DOI. And King George III was sincerely mourned when he died. A tyrant would not have been mourned.
He was hated by the Americans for their own reasons later on in the dispute and there again not by all Americans.
A Tyrant is defined by the Free Dictionary as
1. An extremely oppressive, unjust, or cruel ruler. George III reigned but did not rule. Parliament ruled.
2. An absolute ruler who governs without restrictions, especially one who seized power illegally. George III did not govern, he was a constitutional monarch.
3. An oppressive, harsh, arbitrary person: George III was not regarded as oppressive or harsh. He was affable and it is recorded that those who met him liked him.
A tyrant e.g. Henry VIII would never have made peace and would have had the American delegation arrested and executed as traitors when they presented themselves to the King. The punishment he would have meted out was hanging drawing and quartering in the most vicious manner.
What did George III do? He lamented the division and welcomed the delegation. Hardly the actions of a tyrant methinks. He was also a loyal husband and also fathered 15 children. So he hadn’t really much time in his life to pursue tyrannical hobbies. There were no purges in parliament with political enemies being sent to the gallows. The notion that he was a tyrant is a Big Joke and absolutely untrue.
As a former history teacher you really should know all about this – but you obviously don’t.
So now you do know – and there can be no more excuses for getting it wrong again.
So go home and write out in longhand 100 times….
Evidence confirms that His Majesty King George III was not a tyrant and he did not hold political power as a constitutional monarch. I profusely apologise for teaching my students facts that were not true and the result of my own prejudice towards the British.
ninny – George III is the tyrant who required all of the royal family to have his approval to get married. It has only been in the last 50 years or so that he has NOT been considered a tyrant. I am old school. I hold with the Founding Fathers.
Paul C. Schulte: So His Majesty King George III is not regarded in the last 50 years as a tyrant.
Why is that? Please explain?
I think arranged marriages were quite common then and now in some cultures.
Marriage is wrong to enforce with respect to freedom issues but hardly tyrannical.
As far as I know he was not thought of as being tyrannical in the USA because of his views on marriage. I don’t think he tried to interfere with the marriage of George and Martha Washington nor with the enforced?sexual relationships of other Founding Fathers with slaves, but there again I haven’t finished reading the American Constitution for Dummies,.
Ninny,
I agree that American Freedom was intended for Americans.
Moses led his people into the “Promised Land” and out of Egypt before the ink was dry on the Israelites’ release documents.
Lincoln had the definitive and appropriate plan for compassionate repatriation of the slaves to instill a sense of nation and provide self-esteem. Alas, at the last minute, Lincoln’s mind was changed.
To wit,
“If all earthly power were given me,” said Lincoln in a speech delivered in Peoria, Illinois, on October 16, 1854, “I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution [of slavery]. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia, to their own native land.” “…he asked whether freed blacks should be made “politically and socially our equals?” “My own feelings will not admit of this,” he said, “and [even] if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not … We can not, then, make them equals.”
Lincoln agreed with the words of Thomas Jefferson:
“Suppose 20 millions of republican Americans thrown all of a sudden into France, what would be the condition of that kingdom? If it would be more turbulent, less happy, less strong, we may believe that the addition of half a million of foreigners to our present numbers would produce a similar effect here.”
Lincoln concurred completely with Alexander Hamilton’s perspective:
“The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities.”
“In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.”
Ninian,
Not sure what you mean by your last statements. I thought one of your earlier comments was illuminating. You mentioned that society needs to adapt if it is to survive and the focus needs to be on “we, not me.”
American was founded on rugged individualism. It seems that after WW II, much of Europe moved toward socialism, but America did not do this.
Many of us believe it is our God given right to manage our own lives. We want limited government. I think Europe and the UK are more in the mode of government dependency.
True Americans are still individualistic and very mistrustful of government.
Paul C. Schulte: History books are written by the victors. I am trying to explain to you what actually happened in areas where the American version is wrong. It’s up to you if you want to Jean from this experience or not.
ninny – it is clear you do not know any American History written by either the victors or the vanquished. What would I learn from you but ignorance?
Paul C. Schulte:
You can’t learn anything Paul, from anybody.
I can only tell you the truth. It’s up to you whether you accept it. It makes no difference to me…..
ninny – You want me to accept your ‘truth’ but you have done nothing to show the truthiness of your truth. You do not know enough about the subject to have an opinion.
Paul C. Schulte:
On the contrary, I think I’ve untangled most of the confused logic you have been posting.
But what I can’t do, is save you from a self perpetuated delusion.
Ninian,
Thank-you for saying you are British. It seems that many Brits find us offensive. Not sure why.
Although America began as a British colony, our cultures became very divergent over time. What I do not understand is your degree of emotion over this issue.
My ancestors were Irish and the Irish have been treated very poorly by the Brits. But I do not become distraught over that. It is history now.
Roydenoral: I am half Irish and I don’t find the Americans offensive. Maybe misguided in some respects! My concern is an ingrained belief in historic rhetoric which is starting to land the country in trouble as it cannot employ common sense for the common good.
Remember when America sneezes the world catches cold.
Roydenoral – if you are really Irish you can never forget what the British did to the Irish and still are doing in Northern Ireland. I send a monthly contribution to help the cause.
Hey Paul,
Yes, I am primarily Irish. I think what the British did to the Irish was indeed unconscionable and horrific. (Currently I am tracing my Irish heritage.)
However, I do not hate the Brits for this. It is history and was not done to me. This is the way I feel abouts blacks and slavery. It is history and no blacks currently were slaves.
I am far more interested in American history, primarily the first half of the 19th century. I become far more emotional about that than my Irish history.
Congrats on supporting the Irish.
Roydenoral:
Many Irish Americans do make contributions and much money has been used to buy Arms to fight in the past.
I have always believed you can do more for your country by living for it than dying for it. But others don’t agree.
I’m sure that donations will be pouring into the US too to fund all sorts of groups with no loyalty to the United States. And this is where the problem lies. How do you address that situation of urban violence? These guys will regard themselves as freedom fighters whilst the establishment regards them as terrorists.
So whoever end up being president has a duty to defend the United States and that’s what will happen….. one way or another.
Paul,
Appreciate you comment about the War of Northern Aggression (AKA the War to prevent Southern Independence).
Ninian,
Are you British? You have a great deal of anger toward America. Where is this coming from?
Have you read our Declaration of Independence? What about all the grievances listed against King George?
Roydenoral:
I’m British. I have no quarrel nor hatred of America but I object to how your history is taught. Because it isn’t remotely true.
I think it is dangerous that America thinks it is the land of the free. Because it isn’t.
In short, a really good idea of your founding fathers was wrecked in the way it was introduced. It has produced a nation of unshakeable self belief which is out of touch with the reality of what it became.
But most important of all is a dichotomy between individual freedom and collective freedom. There is a conflict between these concepts in the US which is irreconcilable. With current threats to national security of terrorism this could tear America apart. I have been trying to explain why…. what worries me are the radical and vitriolic nature of views expressed which makes consensus impossible. And I have tried to explain the origins of this extreme behaviour and how it might be addressed.
Society needs to adapt if it is to survive and it would appear there is some reluctance to adapt in a Me rather than We Society.
ninny – I have taught US History and I know how it is taught. There are actual standards that must be taught. Your concept of US History is something that you might find on Dr. Who, but has not place in reality.
ninianpeckitt wrote: “But most important of all is a dichotomy between individual freedom and collective freedom. … Society needs to adapt if it is to survive and it would appear there is some reluctance to adapt in a Me rather than We Society.”
This really is the crux of the difference between us. Collectivism manifests as socialism, communism and fascism. I personally object to these economic and political systems. Freedom is always lost when the focus is on the collective. It is basically an oxymoron to talk about “collective freedom.” It never works.
We believe freedom has to do with the INDIVIDUAL, not the collective. Government needs to safeguard the freedom and liberty of the individual or tyranny is the end result.
davidm2575: Freedom and Collective Freedom “really is the crux of the difference between us”.
Yes it is.
I am arguing that the two freedoms cannot co-exist. They are like matter and anti matter.
Baronness Thatcher once stated “there is no such thing as society”. And in saying so she was espousing Individual Freedom. What is got her was political assassination and she was ejected without even losing a vote, but by not winning by enough.
A country is created by consensus. Therefore it is inconceivable that individual freedoms will take precidence over the collective wishes of a Nation. That’s the way it is and that’s the way it always has been.
So America is in some difficulty promoting the ideals of individual freedom within a system that runs on an alternative fuel of collective democracy.
The danger of individual freedom is that the country can be hijacked by a group expressing a radical idea suppressing freedom of others. This has happened many times in history and has always ended in self destruction.
The real worry is that many Americans maybe on the extremes of politics don’t see it. They are so wound up in their own viewpoint they reject any collaboration which might modify their position.
And therein lies the danger of self destruction.
If America is to survive it needs to broker a solution for this problem.
If it can’t then once more we shall witness shutdown of the system.
But maybe this time for good.
Paul,
I do not think war could have been averted even in the Federal Government offered to pay southern slave holders as England did. This was never offered.
The passage of the Morrill Tarriff act in 1860 was the final straw. Southern states were required to pay huge taxes to finance northern industry. This was truly taxation without representation. Lincoln did not want to lose his tax base.
Ninian,
Where do you obtain your information? I always look for non-revisionist history. I have never seen anything that would support your viewpoint.
Our War of Independence was about freedom from an oppressive government, which was England. The statement that “all men are created equal” meant that we did not have an aristocracy like England. Women were not allowed to vote, and people owned slaves. That was the culture of the 17th century.
Unfortunately, our current government in no way represents what the Founding Fathers intended.
Thank-you for your comments about our Civil War. It was about money.
Roydenoral: Of course it was about money. It was all about money. This is the real engine of America. Freedom is the pedestrian that gets run over.
Britain was ruled by parliament not King George who was a constitutional monarch. The real villain was Lord North.
But it was the King who was the targeted to justify revolution. I have posted details of what he was really like as a person.
No the DOI transfered power from one elite to another. You never got rid of the aristocracy. You just created your own.
ninianpekitt wrote: “Britain was ruled by parliament not King George who was a constitutional monarch. The real villain was Lord North.”
I read your screed about gentle nice George, but we apparently read different history books.
I read that Lord North tried to resign numerous times, but King George did not let him. Is that true?
I also read that it was George, not Lord North, who insisted on keeping one direct tax, to demonstrate that they had the power to tax, despite the objections about no representation.
Also, when we sent John Adams as our first ambassador to England, King George III said to him, “I was the last to consent to the separation; but the separation having been made and having become inevitable, I have always said, as I say now, that I would be the first to meet the friendship of the United States as an independent power.” That does not sound like the uninvolved sweet King that you portray him to be.
I also note that throughout this time, England was fighting the French, Spain, as well as Africa and Asia.
davidm2575: I’ve explained about the King in detail. No way was he a tyrant and he had no political power. He had no interest in politics. Lord North appears to be the villain. I have tried to explain that the victorious write the history books and it is in the American interests to paint the British as the Baddies. What I am trying to do is set the record straight. It makes no difference to me whether what I post is accepted. The facts are actually correct. It is the interpretation that is reasonable to debate
ninianpeckitt wrote: “I have tried to explain that the victorious write the history books and it is in the American interests to paint the British as the Baddies. What I am trying to do is set the record straight.”
But you are using only your own authority to make your case. When I research your points, I find the history books do not support you. You make a valid point that the history books I consult might be biased, but when I convey to you what I read there, you never reference another source to contradict it. You never reference a history book that supports your claims. You never even direct me to read a history book that you think better conveys the truth. I am sure that you have students who hang on your every word and just accept what you say at face value, but many of us do not trust professors. We check out everything they say.
The truth is that I am very interested in reading an alternative history. I am very aware how historians insert their bias in the history books. The problem is that you give me nothing to look at. Unlike some here I consult Wikipedia, and it disagrees with your history. Maybe you should go and edit it their history. I would like to see if your edits stick.
Roydenoral – the War of Northern Aggression was about political power and money.
Paul,
I do not disagree with your comments. I think there are many reasons why most of the northern states abolished slavery and the southern states did not. Was not sure if I should have even included my comments about the Civil War.
Even after all this time, I find it is still hotly debated. Doubt there will ever be a consensus about that war. Divisions between the northern and southern states is still very strong.
Roydenoral – Britain got rid of its slavery problem by paying the owners for the loss of their property. Some 40 million pounds in around 1830. But they made the slaves apprentices so the owners would not lose them immediately.
Had the United States government offered to buy the slaves from the owners we might not have had a War of Northern Aggression.
Paul C. Schulte: It is really odd that a nation which claims to be founded on liberty freedom and equality went on to fight a civil war primarily about slavery only 90 years later. You can see why these concepts are legitimately questioned.
Paul C Schulte: Civil War
Of course it was about money and the contribution to the economy of 500,000 slaves.
David M:
If I had been there I would join the bloods beating the ship out of the KKK man. I say get some homey. Too bad the bloods think the KKK man is a Republican when in actuality he’s nothing but a socialist/Marxist fool.
David M:
There the party of Marx and Engels and that’s it no Jefferson, no John Locke just pure unadulterated Marxist socialist hate America dogma.
Byron, here is a video clip of the new reality of the Democratic Party. It is an interesting role reversal.
https://youtu.be/j6py5wlI0Dw
David M:
Yes they do and every chance they get.
Well leave it to the Democrats to eradicate Jackson and Jefferson. I’m sure they are resting much happier now. Unencumbered by their association with progressives.
For the life of me, I don’t understand why Jefferson is associated with Democrats considering all of his writings about human liberty.
Byron wrote: “For the life of me, I don’t understand why Jefferson is associated with Democrats considering all of his writings about human liberty.”
They hijack Jefferson the same way they hijack being the party for civil rights and ending slavery. It is all about creating the image they want to project.
Ninian,
Wow! You really do despise America and our Constitution. If you do live here, under our Constitution you have the right to leave and live elsewhere.
The Constitution did not set the stage for the American Civil War which was a most un-civil war. That was Mr. Lincoln’s war and slavery was not the reason for the war. Read the non-revisionist history of that war.
Roydenoral:
No I don’t live in the US and don’t despise it one little bit. I admire the concepts of Freedom and Liberty but I don’t accept that that was achieved in 1776. And I have blogged in detail about it. I understand that the Civil War was really about money and became a slavery issue. I understand that the South saw independence of shaking off the yoke of the north mirroring the colonialists and the British.
I just think that Americans are taught and really believe the propaganda of 1776 and it wasn’t like that. Freedom took a long time and civil rights were only realised in the 1960s. So I believe America never really had the high moral ground although I accept that Americans do not accept this. I admire what you strive to be rather than what you have become but the autarky that overwhelms American Society bothers me
Paul C. Schulte: I may be a twit in your opinion but the facts I have posted are right. It is of consequence if you choose to remain deluded.
ninian,
You fail to respect the fact that independence and the self-evident truths were not achieved simply because they were captured in a document. They are a vision for the current culture to aspire to become. Our constitution was designed to facilitate that transformation but that sort of change does not happen overnight. The DoI and Constitution didn’t fail to live up to the principles of liberty and equality; people failed. It is not a surprise that people failed yet everyone, including yourself blame the founding generation for the failures of the subsequent generations. Twist it any way you like, our failures and successes are dependent on people living up to the principles in our founding documents, follow them and we move toward the vision; deviate from them and we return to the form of tyranny that led to the original declaration.
This is not complicated.