Rufus M Rose House

[cowdery]

Unless I misread your message, you weren't calling the area "problematic"; you were reporting what you had read. Why, then, would you think I was writing about you?

"Bob told me Canadians talk funny" isn't the same as "I think Canadians talk funny". I have not agreed with Bob's assessment or presented it as my own; I have simply reported it.

I concluded from what I read that the neighborhood was problematic. I chose that word, therefore by your reckless assessment of what I wrote, I'm a racist. Thanks again. Even using your example, is citing a calumny to a source, without comment, really different from merely repeating it without citation?

Certainly there are people who assess an area's safety by observing the skin color of its denizens, but don't assume everyone does that, especially not when your sole evidence is their use of the word "problematic."

[HGB3]

His brother, his son, and his nephew, according to one story.

Another story has it that the Four Roses were his daughters.

[craigthom]

Certainly there are people who assess an area's safety by observing the skin color of its denizens, but don't assume everyone does that, especially not when your sole evidence is their use of the word "problematic."

Please show me where I've made that assumption.

I've stated that, in my opinion, people uncomfortable with others with different skin color ("racists" is a charged term and is a bit strong for this context) call areas like downtown Atlanta and downtown Louisville "problematic" because of the race of the people in the area.

The problem is that you've accused me of the converse, that people who use the word are racists. That fails logically and is, in addition, false.

[jcg9779]

I've stated that, in my opinion, people uncomfortable with others with different skin color ("racists" is a charged term and is a bit strong for this context) call areas like downtown Atlanta and downtown Louisville "problematic" because of the race of the people in the area.

I don't want to get in the middle of the discussion between the two of you, but I disagree with this statement. I think that the area of Atlanta in question could be called "problematic" because it is not the safest area. The fact that one race is more predominant in the area is coincidental. Although I know that people could, and in fact have, contended that it is unsafe because of the predominant race simply because they want to play the race card (the opposite is true also, people may want to play the race card to say why people call the area problematic, which is also false). I may be wrong or naive, but I think "problematic" means an area that has some problems and faces some challenges....it is completely unrelated to race.

For the record, I didn't think that what Chuck said was in any way racist, and I didn't think that Craig's response implied that it was. I do think that this whole conversation has gone down a path that wasn't intended.

[cowdery]

I tend to agree with Jack's interpretation.

I also fear that the Rufus Rose house will not receive enough love to survive.

The "four daughters" story seems to come from a tale that tries to explain how the brand came to move from the Rose family to Paul Jones, as he winds up marrying one of the daughters. I don't know who originated that story. The current owners want nothing to do with it.

There is better historical documentation that the R. M. Rose & Co. Distillery was operated by Rufus, his brother, and their sons, and they were the original "Four Roses."

Where's the disconnect? It's possible "Four Roses" as we would understand a brand was only informally used by the Rose family's business. Jones may have been familiar with it, liked the sound of it, and merely appropriated it, much as Augustus Busch did with the name Budweiser.

As the saying goes, behind every great fortune lies a great crime.