[Chevy Woonsocket]

(04-25-2017 01:08 PM)Sumanguru Wrote:  

(04-25-2017 12:45 PM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

I bet you'd have no problem keeping this monument honoring the memory of a black man who served in the confederacy too or would you tear it down too?

I would tear it down.

I don't care if I happened to be the same race as him, he fought for a nation *hostile to America*. I have no interest in him, or any member of the Confederacy, having a monument on American soil any more than I would want the Japanese to have a WWII monument on American soil. Fuck that.

The Confederacy were Americans, not Japanese or Germans or Muslims. And they were only hostile to the Union due to economic sanctions the North was piling on including limiting slavery.

The victors of 150 years ago didn't have a problem with Confederate monuments because their leaders were considered honorable and worthy foes. I don't have a problem with it either because it's war long ended and these men are a part of our history, whether you like it or not.

[Atlanta Man]

(04-25-2017 01:14 PM)BrewDog Wrote:  

I think some of you forget that the United States was formed by traitors. Why do we allow symbols of treason such as the Washington Monument, the American flag, or the Jefferson Memorial?

You know what America did to traitors in the 1700's? They made them president.

God Save the Queen......Not! If the British managed to hold on to their colonies I doubt there would be a Washington Monument.

[BrewDog]

(04-25-2017 01:25 PM)Atlanta Man Wrote:  

(04-25-2017 01:14 PM)BrewDog Wrote:  

I think some of you forget that the United States was formed by traitors. Why do we allow symbols of treason such as the Washington Monument, the American flag, or the Jefferson Memorial?

You know what America did to traitors in the 1700's? They made them president.

God Save the Queen......Not! If the British managed to hold on to their colonies I doubt there would be a Washington Monument.

So, the victors get to rewrite history? We can agree there.

[Foolsgo1d]

People who agree with this are hiding behind the "muh racism" card without actually arguing why and how the real reasons these monuments are being removed.

Its cultural marxism and whether you like it or not the slave trade, black ownership and the civil war are a part of US history and just because it hurts your delicate feelings doesn't mean it should be glossed over.

Shall the Vietnam war be glossed over because the US military killed a lot of civilians with indiscriminate bombings. Dresden was the same during WW2. Shall we gloss over those facts because they were upsetting?

Well tough shit. You either take history and learn from it or be doomed to repeat it in the future.

You fall for this ploy and whats to stop them next time? Oh it hurts [insert group] feelings so it has to go. Then what? This is white shaming and the toxic liberal ideology has evolved into some Frankenstein where even the south of the fucking US of A is being dragged under.

You keep on giving into the victim complex and you'll end up with nothing and where everyone has a grievance. Nobody alive in this day and age was alive back then, same goes for the majority who fought in WW2.

This is like morons arguing over Christian and Muslim atrocities and because Christians waged holy war against the East means its a-ok for them to do it to us.

I believe the person who coined "an eye for an eye leaves the world blind" actually meant this sort of thing and not the tit-for-tat revenge.

[Samseau]

(04-25-2017 11:08 AM)Atlanta Man Wrote:  

The Confederate army lost the war, the monuments should have been gone from public state run facilities a long time ago. Let private individuals pay for the maintenance and care of the statues, not tax dollars.

History is dictated by the winners, the Confederacy lost. The Union was too kind post war, these statues should never have gone up.

Human nature is a fickle beast, today they are taking down confederate statues, 100-500 years from now MLK statues are being blown apart.

Every action has a reaction, provoking fights for no reason is almost always going to have horrible adverse consequences.

[stugatz]

(04-25-2017 11:01 AM)Gustavus Adolphus Wrote:  

(04-25-2017 10:34 AM)stugatz Wrote:  

Slavery was obviously a horrible and barbaric thing. That said, THIS IS WORSE. Rewriting history by deletion is a crime against humanity, and anyone who does it needs to be labeled as an enemy.

This event is not worse than slavery.

I wrote that post a little quickly - I blame lack of sleep and a particularly bad morning shift, but I take full responsibility for getting emotional and shooting my mouth off.

That said, this event reminds me of ISIS tearing down Assyrian churches, or the Taliban blowing up those Buddha statues - it's influencing history by aggressive deletion. Clearly, the people behind this want to oversimplify history and squash any possibly CSA-sympathetic viewpoint...essentially retconning them as a bunch of proto-Nazis. Lincoln was tolerant of slavery as a compromise up until nearly the end of the war? The anti-slavery Free Soil movement hated blacks worse than the Confederates? A quarter of the states that fought for the Union were pro-slavery and fought the 13th Amendment tooth and nail? That will all be forgotten in a blink of an eye.

(And that will, as soon as any liberal gets power again, increase racial tensions and help along arguments for reparations. We all need to act as if this Trump administration is just temporary four-year relief from what we all saw during Obama - we could very well lose in 2020.)

Tearing down these statues also forgets the nature of the surrender at Appomattox. We beat a hostile insurgency that wanted to divide us in two, yes - but as argument over nationwide slavery was what led to the war, the Union couldn't sit back and pretend that it was just a Southern thing. It was just as complicit in continuing the institution and kicking the can down the road. We let them put up their monuments and name military bases after Hood and Lee as a way of telling them that this was just a regrettable quarrel and we wanted to let bygones be bygones. Anything less than that, and the South would have felt like they were a conquered nation within a nation.

Sure, they were traitors. So were we when we started shooting redcoats. If the British had defeated us in 1778, pardoned all of our rebel leaders, and given us full autonomy and representation in Parliament as a way of being gracious in victory, we'd probably all be still flying the Gadsen flag and triggering any limey tourists.

[Atlanta Man]

The statues are going into storage and later will be moved to a private museum, no one is rewriting history, the Civil War happened and the Confederates lost.

[stugatz]

I'd consider taking the public monuments down and putting them in private museums under one condition - we devastatingly squash the Cultural Marxists, with maximum prejudice. Then, and only then, we can consider it, because we're not doing it to please the triggered pansexual crybabies and race hustlers.

As much as I understand that we conceded to the Confederacy because they were a special kind of insurgent - they were still insurgents. I don't like the cognitive dissonance I feel when I argue for keeping up the monuments, then talk about how Sherman was awesome for burning down Atlanta.

[weambulance]

The confederates were not traitors. This nation was formed as a union of independent states. There's nothing treasonous about leaving a union when you feel it's no longer in your interest to stick around. Lincoln did great damage to the fabric of the nation and states rights forever.

Saying the confederates were "enemies of America" is also pretty ridiculous.

And for fuck's sake, the civil war wasn't about ending slavery.

[weambulance]

I can't believe people actually argue in favor of this sort of destruction of cultural heritage. Talk about being ruled by irrational feels.

[stugatz]

(04-25-2017 02:10 PM)weambulance Wrote:  

the civil war wasn't about ending slavery.

No, it was about keeping the South from leaving, at least on paper - but slavery was involved in a way, certainly. Slavery was why they left. (The Border States remaining clouds this argument a little, but not too much.)

Slavery had gone from a merely uncomfortable issue to something that disqualified you as a Southerner if you disagreed with it. Comparatively, Northerners were totally fine with funding slave rebellions and having them go all Toussaint Louverture on the South - at least a pretty big portion of them were.

Slavery was the main hot-button issue that made Americans want to kill each other in the mid-1800s, full stop. The struggle over state government in Kansas (Bleeding Kansas) made it obvious to the world that the can had been kicked too far down the road, and the only thing that was going to end the institution was violence.

[loremipsum]

(04-25-2017 02:16 PM)weambulance Wrote:  

I can't believe people actually argue in favor of this sort of destruction of cultural heritage. Talk about being ruled by irrational feels.

Deja vu

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution

[weambulance]

Oh really.

Importation of slaves was halted in 1808. Are you suggesting it would've been more costly to just, I dunno, buy the remaining slaves' freedom than fight a war that killed 600,000 Americans?

Slavery was nothing but a tangential issue in the civil war. The war was fought over whether the states had the power to leave the union. Lincoln couldn't stand the affront and kicked off the most devastating war in US history. Full stop.

[TigerMandingo]

In Russia, they still have monuments of Lenin everywhere despite the fact that his regime murdered tens of million of ordinary Russians - and no one gets triggered when they walk past those statues. It's part of history, no matter how ugly it may be.

[SamuelBRoberts]

Just a thought that occurred to me:

Is removing these statues more or less likely to promote racial harmony?

[The Beast1]

(04-25-2017 02:26 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  

Just a thought that occurred to me:

Is removing these statues more or less likely to promote racial harmony?

Probably as good as giving free money to the ghetto (answer being no).

The only reparations i'd allow are one way flights to an African country of their choice. Otherwise, BLM can sit down and shut up.

[stugatz]

(04-25-2017 02:22 PM)weambulance Wrote:  

Importation of slaves was halted in 1808. Are you suggesting it would've been more costly to just, I dunno, buy the remaining slaves' freedom than fight a war that killed 600,000 Americans?

Importation of slaves might have been halted, but what to do with the slaves when the institution ended was a pretty big problem that the South had to figure out. (That is, were the freedmen going to all be shipped back to Africa to start a second Liberia, were they going to be equal citizens, were they going to be second class citizens, etc.) They were pretty understandably uneasy about this and wanted to decide it on their own timeline. The North didn't really care, as far as I know.

[BrewDog]

Can we please now take down all the tributes and memorials to this racist?

Lincoln-Douglas Debates
Charleston, Illinois
September 18, 1858

Abraham Lincoln:

Quote:

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

[JohnKreese]

Not a smart idea. Let's see how long Trump waits to send FEMA down the next one a big one rolls through.

[Kona]

Read about what that statue actually commemorates. The Crescent City White League. A group that was formed to make sure freed slaves didn't vote or have the same rights as white people.

Try to think about this from a black mans side living and paying taxes in new Orleans. You gotta drive by that slap-in-the face every day.

The guy is right, it is american history, but its shitty american history that has no need for a statue to commemorate.

Also, when someone goes on a rant like the beard guy and says "its not about white are black" nine times out of ten that's all its about.

Aloha!

[Repo]

(04-25-2017 02:22 PM)weambulance Wrote:  

Oh really.

Importation of slaves was halted in 1808. Are you suggesting it would've been more costly to just, I dunno, buy the remaining slaves' freedom than fight a war that killed 600,000 Americans?

Slavery was nothing but a tangential issue in the civil war. The war was fought over whether the states had the power to leave the union. Lincoln couldn't stand the affront and kicked off the most devastating war in US history. Full stop.

No, the war wasn't fought over whether the states had the power to leave the union, the war was fought because the states actually left the union. These two are not the same thing. The states did not leave the union over a disagreement of if they could leave, they actually fucking left. Slavery being a main reason why they left the union, as well as other factors.

**edit* *

When we say why the war for independence was fought, we don't say it was because we declared independence, we say it was because of the reasons we declared independence. Its misleading to ignore the whole "why" behind the action.

[Steve McQueen]

Im with the statue keepers.

Fk the feelings of a bunch of people with nothing better to do than piss and moan about how bad they have it in the richest country on earth.

BLM supporters should have to spend a year living in an African city in some hellhole like Nigeria and then they can tells us about how oppressed they are.

Am disappointed to see some of the black guys on here siding with removing the statues and going on about slavery, Irish were slaves too but like the Jews with the Holocaust you guys feel like you get to play that card over and over, the rest of us just stfu. Sorry but I speak for most people when the subject of reparations / white shame comes up in this day and age....git tha fk outa heee!

We built the West like it or not and bad as some had it, y'know compared to a lot of other places, whatever colour you are, in the US you had it pretty dam good.

[BrewDog]

(04-25-2017 06:28 PM)Steve McQueen Wrote:  

Im with the statue keepers.

Fk the feelings of a bunch of people with nothing better to do than piss and moan about how bad they have it in the richest country on earth.

Well the SJW's have run out of topics to protest, so now they make them up. There's no Vietnam War and gays have marriage rights, so let's look for some other affront - no matter how small - to protest over. That's why I suppose we now call them micro-aggressions because there are no more macro-aggressions to discuss.

Now in the South, it's normally not the citizenry that raises protests about these things. It's Yankee journalists and attorneys stirring the race pot when - believe it or not - most everyone here is very polite to one another.

When I was a boy, MLK Holiday was signed into law by Ronny Reagan. And I was for it and still am. If any American deserves recognition and have his own holiday, it's Martin Luther King Jr. MLK didn't throw rocks or firebomb anyone. He encouraged people to protest an injustice peacefully.

When Black History Month was promulgated, I thought it odd, however. I wasn't against it; I just wasn't sure how to feel about it.

This man helped me clear it up in my own mind, and I very much agree with him.

[Foolsgo1d]

(04-25-2017 02:01 PM)Atlanta Man Wrote:  

The statues are going into storage and later will be moved to a private museum, no one is rewriting history, the Civil War happened and the Confederates lost.

You mean hidden away?

By this logic the British Empire and the USA should not be friends because they had a go at each other and by extension it introduced blacks to the US.

I think I recall the British having a rather unpleasant time with the Americans and vice versa. Afterall, didn't we become one of the few country's to have attacked the US on its own soil?

Hell those bastard Spaniards and French helped you but we moved on and we learned from it and now we're part of the most powerful military alliance the world has ever known.

That has to hurt some delicate snowflakes somewhere I bet.

Divide and conquer tactics still working well these days.

[BrewDog]

(04-25-2017 06:56 PM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  

I think I recall the British having a rather unpleasant time with the Americans and vice versa. Afterall, didn't we become one of the few country's to have attacked the US on its own soil?

Well, the Redcoats, Mexico, Canada, Japan, and most recently Saudi Arabia.