zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,865
|
Post by zibazinski on Aug 19, 2017 20:07:42 GMT -5
I see
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Aug 19, 2017 20:29:53 GMT -5
A lot of these were slated to be removed before he came into power or just after. So it's not the whole reason. I think part it shifting mores. Another is that the last few years have brought it directly in people's faces that there still is a race issue and some are looking at how to correct that. I also think knowledge of the history behind the statues. I personally just dismissed them as states reaction to losing...until I found out most were way after the war. The one in my city was installed fifty years after the war. Fuck that, tear it down - which they did.
BTW the petitions to remove it started three years ago. This idea isn't as new as people believe. (And occurred during Obama)
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,477
|
Post by Tennesseer on Aug 19, 2017 23:38:22 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 30, 2024 5:00:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2017 0:31:39 GMT -5
A thumb to the nose because they're saying to the Southern states, "Your great men were racist trash and we want nothing to do with them." Probably more accurate to suggest, "...we want nothing to do with them what they represent." What they represent is not worth honoring. Remembering, yes. Honoring, no.A desire for freedom from the tyranny of an oppressive federal government is not worth honoring? Why not?
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,155
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 20, 2017 6:26:27 GMT -5
Probably more accurate to suggest, "...we want nothing to do with them what they represent." What they represent is not worth honoring. Remembering, yes. Honoring, no.A desire for freedom from the tyranny of an oppressive federal government is not worth honoring? Why not? Because the form of society they were fighting to defend was far more oppressive than anything they were fighting against? Just a guess.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 20, 2017 8:42:54 GMT -5
Because there really wasn't a danger when we did not have a president promoting the alt-right agenda and white supremacists. The statues could be fairly well ignored without the belief system behind them being mainstreamed by that twit. "Promoting". It's a lie to say he's even condoned them. The only thing the man has going for him is that his opponents are nearly as deceitful and contemptuous as he is. Keep up the good work.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Aug 20, 2017 10:51:44 GMT -5
Because there really wasn't a danger when we did not have a president promoting the alt-right agenda and white supremacists. The statues could be fairly well ignored without the belief system behind them being mainstreamed by that twit. "Promoting". It's a lie to say he's even condoned them. The only thing the man has going for him is that his opponents are nearly as deceitful and contemptuous as he is. Keep up the good work. I don't think it's a lie to say Trump has condoned the actions of the more extreme on the right. I think it's just another way of viewing what he's said in regard to these actions and who he's chosen to put in positions of importance on his staff. I see a lie as a purposeful misstatement of fact rather than expression of a viewpoint with regard to fact. As far as our posters are concerned, I'm seeing the latter instead of the former.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 20, 2017 11:49:42 GMT -5
"Promoting". It's a lie to say he's even condoned them. The only thing the man has going for him is that his opponents are nearly as deceitful and contemptuous as he is. Keep up the good work. I don't think it's a lie to say Trump has condoned the actions of the more extreme on the right. I think it's just another way of viewing what he's said in regard to these actions and who he's chosen to put in positions of importance on his staff. I see a lie as a purposeful misstatement of fact rather than expression of a viewpoint with regard to fact. As far as our posters are concerned, I'm seeing the latter instead of the former. He initially condemned both sides for the violence. Regardless of whether we considered this appropriate, it doesn't equate to condoning white supremacy. A day later, after the left wing noise machine and its media vassals had thrown a sufficient fit, he came out with an express and unequivocal condemnation of white supremacy. I realize his opponents would prefer he fall prostrate at the feet of Catherine Pugh and lick her boots clean, but in reasonableland, a man actually has to... you know... condone white supremacy to condone it. Insufficient licking of boots doesn't cut it. He's tacitly condoned the alt-right by appointing senior staff members with nominal ties to the alt-right, but the alt-right has no manifesto, no universal set of beliefs, and doesn't equate to white supremacy. But you're right about 'lie'. I shall revise: The statement "Pres. Trump condones white supremacy." is a falsehood. Perhaps one made in ignorance or poor judgment, and not deliberately.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,405
|
Post by thyme4change on Aug 20, 2017 12:23:29 GMT -5
No conservatives willing to take a crack at explaining & defending Confederate monuments in states that didn't even exist until decades after the Civil War? I'm not a conservative, but AZ has a monument (maybe 2?) We had a battle here. Basically the North was riding through to go to CA for some reason, and a bunch of AZ southern-wanna-bes (literally) came out to fight em. And apparently did a pretty good job knocking them out. The monument was put up in 1961, so clearly it was put up for the same reason, a bunch of racist pieces of shit didn't want to let the black guys eat at the lunch counter and therefore needed to remind those n**gers that this land should have joined the confederate States and kept slaves, and they aren't welcome to our drinking fountain.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Aug 20, 2017 13:47:23 GMT -5
I don't think it's a lie to say Trump has condoned the actions of the more extreme on the right. I think it's just another way of viewing what he's said in regard to these actions and who he's chosen to put in positions of importance on his staff. I see a lie as a purposeful misstatement of fact rather than expression of a viewpoint with regard to fact. As far as our posters are concerned, I'm seeing the latter instead of the former. He initially condemned both sides for the violence. Regardless of whether we considered this appropriate, it doesn't equate to condoning white supremacy. A day later, after the left wing noise machine and its media vassals had thrown a sufficient fit, he came out with an express and unequivocal condemnation of white supremacy. I realize his opponents would prefer he fall prostrate at the feet of Catherine Pugh and lick her boots clean, but in reasonableland, a man actually has to... you know... condone white supremacy to condone it. Insufficient licking of boots doesn't cut it. He's tacitly condoned the alt-right by appointing senior staff members with nominal ties to the alt-right, but the alt-right has no manifesto, no universal set of beliefs, and doesn't equate to white supremacy. But you're right about 'lie'. I shall revise: The statement "Pres. Trump condones white supremacy." is a falsehood. Perhaps one made in ignorance or poor judgment, and not deliberately. There are other factors for people to consider, or not, Virgil. Some will see what you see as "tacit" as more than that. Others will see it as less. Just like BLM, there is no overriding manifesto. Individual members (or, groups of members) take their own paths - some of which are violent. The same is true here on the boards. How one views a given thing will decide how that person reacts to that thing. There is no right vs wrong here. There is only one opinion vs another, as I see it. Glad you saw my point regarding the use of the word "lie". It's misused far too often by far too many.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 30, 2024 5:00:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2017 23:34:54 GMT -5
A desire for freedom from the tyranny of an oppressive federal government is not worth honoring? Why not? Because the form of society they were fighting to defend was far more oppressive than anything they were fighting against? Just a guess. Interesting... "the form of society they were fighting to defend" is one where the federal Government couldn't run roughshod over the individual states... one where the Federal government was actually controlled by the States and not the other way around, and is much less oppressive than what we have now (which is what they were worried about). Why is wanting that... bad?
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,155
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 20, 2017 23:38:45 GMT -5
Are you being intentionally obtuse?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 30, 2024 5:00:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2017 23:51:01 GMT -5
Are you being intentionally obtuse? Never. I hate it when people are obtuse just to be obtuse. I just know what the secession was actually about, and am asking questions based on your posts. Questions that reflect the reality of the reasons the States in the Confederacy left the Union versus your commentary, and my confusion as to why you think that those things that they were REALLY fighting for are so hard to understand or why they are supposedly bad.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,865
|
Post by zibazinski on Aug 21, 2017 8:59:36 GMT -5
Well, I hope these statues are given a place where they can Rest In Peace.
|
|
kittensaver
Junior Associate
We cannot do great things. We can only do small things with great love. - Mother Teresa
Joined: Nov 22, 2011 16:16:36 GMT -5
Posts: 7,983
|
Post by kittensaver on Aug 21, 2017 11:48:45 GMT -5
If someone kidnapped your child and sold her into slavery, where would you want to put that person's statue?
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,245
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Aug 21, 2017 12:11:57 GMT -5
Rewriting history is taking children away from their families and forcing them to attend "Indian school" where they are forced to cut their hair, are not allowed to wear tribal clothing, must convert to Christianity (including changing their name), must learn English and never speak their native language again and banning religious practices that go back thousands of years because they are "pagan".
Rewriting history is squatting on land owned by Mexicans for generations in the Southwest territories then burning their home down so with the assistance of local authorities you can swoop in and claim the property as your own since there aren't any "real" titles to the land showing it's already occupied.
Rewriting history is refusing to give Rosalind Franklin credit for discovering the double helix structure of DNA until DECADES after her discovery/death because she is a woman.
Rewriting history is it taking till 2017 before there is a movie acknowleding the work of minorities and women to get to the moon.
Moving a fucking statute from a public square to a museum is NOT rewriting history. Unless you live under a rock there is no way you don't know who these people are. There are thousands of books, movies , museums exhibits and web pages devoted to these people.
How entitled are we of white European descent that we are crying about "destruction of history and culture" over a statue of an already famous person but we apparently don't give two shits if we obliterate other cultures and contributions to history that were made by people that weren't white men?
If you aren't decrying what we did to the people who were here first, or any of the other native cultures White Europeans have erased over the centuries I call bull shit on your claims that you "want to protect history".
And don't worry there are still plenty of monuments and documentation to preserve the history of white people. We rewrote as much of history as possible to make sure nobody forgets us.
I used to weep for the state of science education in this country. Now I weep over the state of historical education.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Aug 21, 2017 14:46:59 GMT -5
Rewriting history is saying "As American as hot dogs and apple pie"
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,865
|
Post by zibazinski on Aug 21, 2017 15:09:59 GMT -5
If someone kidnapped your child and sold her into slavery, where would you want to put that person's statue? I don't know anyone who kidnapped a child or a slave. I doubt anyone here does.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 21, 2017 15:11:44 GMT -5
Moving a fucking statute from a public square to a museum is NOT rewriting history. You're too hung up on the terminology "rewriting history". It's reactionary censorship.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 21, 2017 15:13:41 GMT -5
Rewriting history is saying "As American as hot dogs and apple pie" Why is that "rewriting history"? Because they didn't originate in the US?
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Aug 21, 2017 15:24:46 GMT -5
If someone kidnapped your child and sold her into slavery, where would you want to put that person's statue? I don't know anyone who kidnapped a child or a slave. I doubt anyone here does. Whoosh!
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,245
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Aug 21, 2017 15:25:35 GMT -5
Okay so where is the outrage over Christians banning the Sun dance because it offended them that Native Americans practiced "pagan" rituals?
There was no reason to ban Native Americans from practicing their rituals, it wasn't hurting anybody. The only reason it was made illegal is because a bunch of white people got their panties in a wad over the knowledge that someone was out there worshiping deities other than Jesus.
Why is it okay for us to censor other culture because they "offend" us but apparently we need to lose our minds when it's suggested a statue of a white man needs to be taken down?
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,865
|
Post by zibazinski on Aug 21, 2017 15:25:38 GMT -5
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Aug 21, 2017 15:26:07 GMT -5
Rewriting history is saying "As American as hot dogs and apple pie" Why is that "rewriting history"? Because they didn't originate in the US? Because hot dogs are German and apple pie is British.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,865
|
Post by zibazinski on Aug 21, 2017 15:26:59 GMT -5
Okay so where is the outrage over Christians banning the Sun dance because it offended them that Native Americans practiced "pagan" rituals? There was no reason to ban Native Americans from practicing their rituals, it wasn't hurting anybody. The only reason it was made illegal is because a bunch of white people got their panties in a wad over the knowledge that someone was out there worshiping deities other than Jesus. Why is it okay for us to censor other culture because they "offend" us but apparently we need to lose our minds when a statue is taken down and moved to a museum? I don't think that's right either but I wasn't around when it was being done so I really can't say much.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,245
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Aug 21, 2017 15:30:23 GMT -5
Okay so where is the outrage over Christians banning the Sun dance because it offended them that Native Americans practiced "pagan" rituals? There was no reason to ban Native Americans from practicing their rituals, it wasn't hurting anybody. The only reason it was made illegal is because a bunch of white people got their panties in a wad over the knowledge that someone was out there worshiping deities other than Jesus. Why is it okay for us to censor other culture because they "offend" us but apparently we need to lose our minds when a statue is taken down and moved to a museum? I don't think that's right either but I wasn't around when it was being done so I really can't say much. Then the outrage over moving a statue isn't about protecting history or "censorship". If you're really outraged over the rewriting of history and censorship then you should not be dimissing the genocide that has been committed in this country. We should be working to right those wrongs rather than whining about a statue of Stonewall Jackson. Taking down a statue of Robert E Lee in a park and moving him to a museum is not remotely the same compared to what Europeans have done to other cultures over the span of 500+ years. One is moving a statue to a place where it's appropriate and put into context. The other was "censoring" entire cultures that will now be forever lost to time simply because it offended us to share a planet with them.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 21, 2017 15:42:25 GMT -5
Okay so where is the outrage over Christians banning the Sun dance because it offended them that Native Americans practiced "pagan" rituals? Why would we be outraged today over bans that i) went into effect generations ago and, ii) haven't been in effect for generations? To say nothing of the fact that there was sufficient outrage over the decades that the bans were ultimately reversed. You're really betting on the wrong horse here as far as analogies go. Why is taking down a statue of an "offensive" white man appropriate when censorship of other cultures isn't? If you're going to draw an analogy between the two, you can't have it both ways. Either condone the purging of "offensive" culture or admit the purging of the statues is inappropriate. Pick one, and we can debate it. Or abandon the analogy.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,405
|
Post by thyme4change on Aug 21, 2017 16:22:54 GMT -5
Moving a fucking statute from a public square to a museum is NOT rewriting history. You're too hung up on the terminology "rewriting history". It's reactionary censorship. Societies change and grow, and putting up and taking down monuments reflect what we are thinking at the time. Although I agree it shouldn't be done lightly and willy-nilly, it can be done so we can reflect our changing values. Just as those statues were put up to reflect a stance on race relations during a heated moment in our history, we are being asked to remove them as a show of good faith that we are moving past that history. But, obviously, there are some that don't want to move past it. They want to hang on to divisive time and replay it daily to continually remind everyone of all the bad times.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Aug 21, 2017 19:16:48 GMT -5
What history has anyone every learned from a statute? It's not like Night at the Museum where they come to life and give you a damn history lesson. All you learn is that people at the time the statute was erected literally put the guy on a pedestal. And removing said statute means either 1) people now feel someone/something/nothing is worthier of said spot 2) he is no longer deemed deserving of the pedestal or 3) the artist couldn't replicate Lucy's face to save their life.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 21, 2017 19:24:46 GMT -5
But, obviously, there are some that don't want to move past it. They want to hang on to divisive time and replay it daily to continually remind everyone of all the bad times. If pulling down the statues is about healing breaches, why does it feel as though every "social justice" movement's raison d'etre is rubbing America's nose in past injustices, and slavery in particular? Regardless of what we think of these statues coming down, it's another milestone in the millennial left's quest to find new and exciting ways to be offended. Of course it won't satisfy them. They'll find new bones to pick and wounds to salt, and inspire growing hatred. The fallout won't entirely be their fault, and they won't act entirely without good intentions, but reality doesn't care about who's responsible or what they intended. You're headed for another civil war. The only thing stalling the decline is the world economy holding on by a thread, but when it inevitably tanks, all bets are off.
|
|