Would i support a statue of harvy milk, no, if one was erected in san franciso and the majority wanted it, would i vandalize it or try to tear it down, no.
oppostition does NOT = vandalism.
man you guys are desperate
This is what emboldened white supremacists look like
- Thread starter annabenedetti
- Start date
Would i support a statue of harvy milk, no, if one was erected in san franciso and the majority wanted it, would i vandalize it or try to tear it down, no.
oppostition does NOT = vandalism.
man you guys are desperate
Don't hold your breath.
WizardofOz
New member
I expressly stated that the parallel may not be history or content. Of course the content is very different.
Both involve an outcry of public opinion over taxpayer funding that offends some on opposite sides of the political spectrum. The drag queens offend you and the confederate monuments offend others.
That is the parallel.
Its apples and oranges completely.
HA!
I think a lot of folks rely on TV and movies with Civil War themes for their history on the Civil War.
Saying the Civil War was about slavery is like saying the Boston Tea Party was about how to drink tea.
I haven't said or implied that opposition equals vandalism. I'm not desperate.
You asked me to come up with half the number of examples of conservatives vandalizing monuments. I started asking questions because I don't think there is even a comparable number of targets so comparing incidents doesn't mean much.
ClimateSanity
New member
He is the wiz of a parallel universe.
in other words, conservatives arent out like liberals, looting, burning and vandalizing, thanks
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
You already did and I read it entirely.lain: Otherwise, as with Tam and Angel this is what I expect in response to reason from people who lack a demonstrated command of the facts and control of their emotions. Ah, well. Can't wait on the next exciting upchuck or smiley. I'm sure it will be riveting.
It's only a wonder Stripe isn't here to add some 'informed commentary'...
lain:
False assertion, the thing about the drag queen was offered about political force (ie disney not making a movie available) it was not offered in reference about war statues , whole different issue you just mashed together there.
WizardofOz
New member
The content is but the underlying issue is similar.
I don't necessarily think the statues should be removed (my personal opinion) and I don't think that the drag queens should have story time with children at a public library. I can, however see the parallel between using public funds to pay for what may offend and divide people.
No. In other words there isn't a comparable thing for conservatives to go vandalize.
Lon
Well-known member
Honestly, this IS the bias I'm talking about. Imh, but studied opinion, the cause of the South was nothing near Nazi Germany. Not even close.
Too soft and sensitive. We'd literally have to erase Don Rickles et al. I've been called a cracker. Laughed. Song of the South? Disney made that movie because he 'loved' those people and their stories. Go figure the ultra sensitive would be 'offended.' Same with "Redskins" btw. It is idiocy, imh but studied opinion. I believe you have a "right" to be offended, but you don't have the right to always remove that offense. I find a lot of comics offensive. I just don't go there. Easy (imho).
Didn't I say as long as it doesn't break laws? That said, the summer solstice is soon upon us and I'll avoid Seattle that day.
Apparently they think that the law can be eschewed once a year.
I think I got your point, however. Were the statues of Southern generals "racist?"Does their icon represent slavery? :idunno: If Lee is public soil, so too should be Grant etc.
Disagree. Censoring is a removal of my 'right' to come to my own conclusions regarding history.
It is a way of 'steering.' We all do it regarding our values, but there is great protest right now about
the removal of identity. Should the South be ashamed of exercising what they believe was their
right to secede by states? Especially when there were so many that did so? History censors
the reason for seceding. Slavery wasn't the only problem.
...Or the evil people of New Orleans... Are the ones suing to keep them from being removed the evil ones? My home vs. downtown are two different things. I don't want two dudes kissing outside my home. I have curtains. What is the difference? One represents the whole of a people vs. what interests less than 1% of our nation and doesn't represent our greater values. If our German themed town ever posted a statue of Hitler, that is that town's prerogative. If New Orleans wants to remove their statues, 1) I think the citizens that don't want them removed have a right. 2) There is not need for stipulation if they are removed. You want them destroyed, or put behind walls, but don't want them portrayed on private property. It seems your sentiments go beyond rights. For whatever reason, you think a statue of a Southern general is an offensive thing. You thought the same of the Confederate flag. I'm not disagreeing with all of your sentiments here, just the ones that seem biased/unbalanced. We shouldn't remove the Lincoln Memorial imho. It doesn't matter who won and who lost the Civil War, might doesn't make right. I want future generations to wrestle over values, not get the censored version. I have to fight with the liberal agenda and retraining of students almost every day. Our sentiments are greatly influenced by media and culture. I tend to try and fight against indoctrination, only in the sense that I want to think for myself. I'm self-analytical, so of course, I analyze all else as well. I don't want much of my data to analyze, removed. If it is, I have to dig much harder to come to a cogent conclusion. I want a nation of thinkers, not followers.
Or the wicked people of New Orleans... If it was a Michelangelo? I could carve a few leaves I suppose. I could also consider moving my church to someplace else. We don't have to go to extremes though: If the 'good' people of New Orleans want to remove a statue of Louis Armstrong because they no longer wanted to be stereo-typed with jazz? Sounds absurd, but what if many there start hating jazz and the local government decides to bow to the large group (not necessarily the majority)? Realize his statue would be hated, not for what you and I think about him, but because he represents something hated. Okay, let me buy the statue and keep it on my property, then. It doesn't have to be hidden simply because some odd # find it offensive. It, in and of itself, is not offensive. Neither are statues of generals. They were good men. They are good men part of our history that had hard decisions to make, but they fought for what they believed was right. I do not believe 1) that slavery is as offensive as people make it. It is represented in the Bible without fanfare. 2) That it has to be about skin color. Slavery touches ALL of our histories, no matter our color. Anything else is censoring history to benefit another's values and bent. 3) Lee and Jackson etc. don't represent 'slavery' or opposition to blacks. I'm not opposed to Martin Luther King Jr. Statues. I don't think he was the moral standard others have met, that I'd commission statues over, but he does represent a point in our history that is important. Removing him would ALSO censor a student's need to read and understand both sides of history.
You said not seen publically, in a museum behind doors, or at the bottom of the sea. It 'seemed' like you did. If not, we are closer to being on page. :up:
:thumb:
:nono: There was no 'evil.' I could argue Lincoln was 'evil' for not letting states secede and 'starting' a war. Rather, everybody should be encouraged to look at facts instead of assessments and opinions regarding our history. You are calling 11 states 'wicked.' It has to be much more than that shallow assessment. You know what is humorous? You were born in the South, I in the North!
An interesting thought. I don't think any of us venerate the KKK. Those TOL members were banned. Further, I don't think any state 'could' erect that statue in the first place. There were different reasons for the statues of those generals being erected.
Totally different history books here in the North, then. I actually appreciated a balanced approach.
Lincoln was first interested in uniting the states back to the Federal. Slavery abolition was tacked on 'after' the Civil War was already in progress.
I don't believe the comparison holds up.
...or evil people....
By association, is it your intent to cast those opposed, as evil or wicked, by intention?
And whether you have a purpose or are just shooting up the town, aiming at the dentist sign because you don't like dentists, then moving over to the sheriff sign, because you don't like the law :think: As I said, I avoid Seattle, and Nevada. A statue of a soldier, in and of itself, imho, doesn't compare to nudity. I still avoid Seattle and Nevada. While the neighbor might hang a lighted sign that says 'brothel' I'd likely move.
I disagree. It is giving bias. Again, slavery, in and of itself, was 'supported' by the Bible. I do not at all want to be a part of it, but it would have been more important to me, back then, that slaves were not abused. I am a slave to the Lord Jesus Christ, for instance. Because slavery is against our laws, I'm opposed to it, but not upon moral basis, else I'd have to declare God "wrong."
....or evil....or misguided....or socialist communists....etc. etc. ALL of politics must be biased as long as it is not run by the Lord Jesus Christ.
At that time, there will yet be bias, the right one. People 'would' oppose if such were possible. We will ALL be slaves at that point. No statue glorifying it, will be taken down. :nono:
No they arent, at all. With a statue, a parent can choose what to teach their children about it, or ignore it. Statues are silent.
Not the same as a captive audience and a live speaker in a public place.
Bite your tongue!
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Yes, because it's typical of anyone not leaning to the far right to do such things, a bit like picketing the funerals of soldiers and holding up placards saying "God Hates Fags" etc...
Get some objectivity going on 'Angel'. Bracketing people into 'groups' doesn't do anyone any favours.
Sure there are, quick trips, and liquior stores are in conservative areas also.
WizardofOz
New member
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Did you know that the black members of the cast weren't allowed to see the film they actually starred in? At least in cinemas?
Oh indeed, how times have changed.
I'm talking about statues/monuments. Regardless, the situations simply aren't comparable. If conservatives are as oppressed as some say they are then we'll see how things look in 20 years.