This is what emboldened white supremacists look like

[Arthur Brain]

So everything they do you believe is the will of the people?

I know a bunch of gays who pretended to be conservative to get on a city councel too, so they could put their own agenda into place- their will, not of those who elected them.

Youve seen a ton of cities cater to the Freedom from faith people cause issues in cities far and wide removed from them, think those things are the local peoples desires who elected their counsels?

You know a bunch of gays?

Wow, did you tell them that you think they should be executed?

:think:

 

[exminister]

If it's a minority that removes them, it's totalitarian. What is going on is no different than ISIS destroying monuments. If you want to remove a culture from your society, remove it's history first. Our history has already been revised beyond recognition by the stalinists in our society. They have been taking down our visual reminders too. Soon, we will have no real history and we can safely be removed from society like has already begun. Much of the remaining members of our society have been relegated to the backwoods and left to live off government scraps and opioids.

There are these things called books that provide a depth that monuments cannot.
I don't really care if these monuments stay or go as long as it is all done legally - no totalitarian action that way.
But looking at all of Tam's pictures of monuments I have learned extremely little, just names of people on horses. It takes a book to get any really understanding. Reading the Bible is far more beneficial than staring at a picture of Jesus. If you like the 10 commandments it cautions against graven images. Must be some thought behind that.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Compared what?

She seems to think a photo of a fish serves as 'response'...although at least she was honest enough in her intent. Just to distract. She shoulda used a 'sole'...



lain:

No plaice for fish jokes after all then...

 

[WizardofOz]

By vote when it affects the whole community.

Isn't every vote made by the city council going to impact the entire community? That's why we have elected officials.

If it went to a vote and they still voted for removal would you then drop your opposition?

Should i be able to dictate what the locals in san francisco want when i dont even live there?

:liberals: Of course not. Then again the city council does live where they govern so I don't understand your point.

Do you live in New Orleans?

Which has what to do with condfederate statues being vandalized?

Both are politically motivated vandalism.

I feel that vandalizing a confederate monument with political speech most definitely is comparable to vandalizing someone's house with political speech. But, since you feel they are not, I'll agree in the fact that vandalizing someone's private property is worse.

 

[kmoney]

:idunno:

 

[kmoney]

She seems to think a photo of a fish serves as 'response'...although at least she was honest enough in her intent. Just to distract. She shoulda used a 'sole'...



lain:

No plaice for fish jokes after all then...

Your home's are always hilarious. lain:

 

[exminister]

The contractor who was to remove these monuments received death threats and had his car burned

More

Didn't happen because conservatives never do such things. Fingers in ears la-la-la

 

[Arthur Brain]

Your home's are always hilarious. lain:

Oh go grow some sprouts...

lain:

 

[exminister]

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.

 

[exminister]

Yes. That's how councils of local government form and how they function. The same is true for Congress. We vote in people to speak for us, negotiate and stand. If they don't do the job we can fire them.

Here's something from the mayor of New Orleans:

New Orleans was also America’s largest slave market: a port where hundreds of thousands of souls were brought, sold and shipped up the Mississippi River to lives of misery and torture. Our history is forever intertwined with that of our great nation — including its most terrible sins. We must always remember our history and learn from it. But that doesn’t mean we must valorize the ugliest chapters, as we do when we put the Confederacy on a pedestal — literally — in our most prominent public places.

​

The record is clear: New Orleans’s Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis and P.G.T. Beauregard statues were erected with the goal of rewriting history to glorify the Confederacy and perpetuate the idea of white supremacy. These monuments stand not as mournful markers of our legacy of slavery and segregation, but in reverence of it. They are an inaccurate recitation of our past, an affront to our present and a poor prescription for our future.

Just like the decision to publicly recognize the tragic significance of that stone, removing New Orleans’s Confederate monuments from places of prominence is an acknowledgment that it is time to take stock of, and then move past, a painful part of our history. Anything less would render generations of courageous struggle and soul-searching a truly lost cause.​

This is the thing some white southerners are oblivious to. They cannot walk in a black man shoes even for a moment. Growing up black and seeing the confederacy honored and knowing that those honored were fighting to preserve slavery as an institution has to have lasting affect. If the North had lost these black men could well be in the chains of slavery today.

When God brought Israel out of the Egypt he did not ask them to honor those who fought and died for the Egyptian way of life honoring slavery. Wouldn't make sense right? Why would a black man want to honor Jefferson Davis rather than Lincoln?

 

[Foxfire]

Maybe we should start putting Obama statues everywhere and see what happens. :think:

Mexico lost a war with the US too. Maybe there should be monuments to Mexican war hero's all over Texas. :think:

 

[patrick jane]

Mexico lost a war with the US too. Maybe there should be monuments to Mexican war hero's all over Texas. :think:

Mexicans are not American dufus

 

[Foxfire]

Mexicans are not American dufus

Neither is the Confederacy.

 

[exminister]

Right click the pic tambora posted, and look at the adress where the pic came from, it came from that newspaper. Are they lying?

My iPad won't allow the right click. But how would I know if they are lying?
Could someone have sent them a bogus picture and they went with such a story. Did you look closely at the pic? The paint just isn't laying naturally. But I said this was the only one I doubted.

I found your apples to oranges logic off when you would not allow conservative vandalism on a house as comparable to liberal vandalism on a monument. It stands equal in that the vandals expressed their given hatred some place and destructively. You must be aware of vandalism of right wing group on synagogues, burning of crosses on black peoples lawn or even burning down black churches. I agree with kmoney that the given targets for conservative vandalism is quite limited. There is the MLK monument in DC, but it would be watched and guarded. I had no idea how many monuments to the Confederacy there were even though I am a southerner until Tam posted so many. Many of these would not be guarded so they would be easy target for vandals.

 

[exminister]

Isn't every vote made by the city council going to impact the entire community? That's why we have elected officials.

If it went to a vote and they still voted for removal would you then drop your opposition?



:liberals: Of course not. Then again the city council does live where they govern so I don't understand your point.

Do you live in New Orleans?


Both are politically motivated vandalism.

I feel that vandalizing a confederate monument with political speech most definitely is comparable to vandalizing someone's house with political speech. But, since you feel they are not, I'll agree in the fact that vandalizing someone's private property is worse.

Weird you have to explain how government works to those who know everything.

 

[CherubRam]

Why do our governments promote Islam? Also: I have noticed that the public libraries here in America promote homosexuality with children. The public schools also do the same. I guess my questions is: why does the government promote homosexuality?

 

[Town Heretic]

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.

Aside from fundamentally disagreeing with that, the Reich being a racist system within which certain people weren't actually considered people or given the protection of law, my use of it was in noting that doing away with the symbols of its evil didn't erase history or cause anyone to forget. We recall the Nazi evil easily enough. Perhaps one reason people like you don't really see the same evil in the Southern institution is because of the influence of that noble myth and its symbols.

You may be inadvertently making the point for those who want them relegated to museums and/or private collections. You'll make the point more strongly later in your response.

Go figure the ultra sensitive would be 'offended.'

Rather it is the insensitivity of the insulated that isn't hard to figure and the propensity of that privileged class to react to feeling put upon by the object of the offense that seems pampered to me. Soft. That mindset was comfortable dishing out inequality and insult for generations, but listen to it wail when its right to anything it feels entitled to is challenged.

Didn't I say as long as it doesn't break laws?

You did, but those laws are censorship, which remains my point. You aren't an enemy of censorship. No reasonable person could be and hope to have a society that works. You don't have the right to scream profanity in the public square, to peddle pornography to anyone passing by on the street, and so on. Those laws ARE censorship, Lon.

I think I got your point, however. Were the statues of Southern generals "racist?"

Are the emblems of a slave state inherently racist? Yes. Of course they are.

Should the South be ashamed of exercising what they believe was their right to secede by states?

It should be ashamed of why it desired the exercise. That remains the point, not the attempt by some to rewrite the actual history into another noble fable.

...Or the evil people of New Orleans.

Whatever you think of them there's nothing evil about pulling commemorations to a slave state from the public square.

It doesn't matter who won and who lost the Civil War, might doesn't make right.

No one is suggesting it does. At least I'm not.

I do not believe 1) that slavery is as offensive as people make it.

You know I like you and you're a brother in Christ, but that statement takes your reasonableness on the position off the table. People were raped, murdered, families were torn apart and generations suffered both from that institution and from the wake of it. I'm deeply sorry that the weight of that evil doesn't make a deeper impression upon you.

I'm not opposed to Martin Luther King Jr. Statues.

Why would you be?

I don't think he was the moral standard others have met

His statue in Washington is in recognition of his pivotal role in undoing some of the remnants of slavery and giving his full measure of devotion to freeing American citizens who never should have required the sacrifice.

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.

I've said it wouldn't bother me if the lot of them were dropped into the sea, except I'd feel compassion for the fish. I've never suggested anyone had to do it.

There was no 'evil.'

If you don't find systematic dehumanization, rape, torture, murder, the denial of right and liberty evil I don't know how to speak with you about it.

Rather, everybody should be encouraged to look at facts instead of assessments and opinions regarding our history.

Sure, that's why I noted inconvenient facts for those trying to preserve the old myth. I noted how prevalent slavery was among the common man, how many benefited from the institution both directly and indirectly. The average Joe wasn't walking about debating the idea of states rights and randomly deciding to test the theory. But they were tied to slavery, whose expansion and power were being threatened by the north with the election of Lincoln.

You are calling 11 states 'wicked.' It has to be much more than that shallow assessment.

You made the assessment then judged it. You're not quoting me. I'd say that the states left to support that institution and its evil. That's a statement founded on fact, not a shallow assessment. It's what it was and how it went. Not what Hollywood, defeated Southern apologists and those who want to drape their racism in the robes of nobility have put on the table for popular consumption.

You know what is humorous? You were born in the South, I in the North!

I grew up in it. I'm a son of old lines here. I've born witness to the impact of that evil across social strata. I've witnessed its echoes, the obvious and subtle and seen some of its damage up close. My criticism isn't something I'm happy to advance, but its necessary.

Slavery abolition was tacked on 'after' the Civil War was already in progress.

I never said the Union went to war to abolish slavery. I've noted the South attempted to withdraw to defend and expand slavery.

I disagree. It is giving bias.

A bias for reason is no fault. A bias for the truth is a virtue. As with censorship the presumption that all instances are cut from the same cloth simply cannot survive a reasoned contemplation.

Again, slavery, in and of itself, was 'supported' by the Bible.

Not the same animal, though I'd argue slavery in the Bible is a complicated narrative.

I am a slave to the Lord Jesus Christ, for instance.

Your master won't abuse you, sell you, rape or maim you. Not the same thing at all then.

 

[CherubRam]

Bible slavery is where a person is under a contract to preform duties for hire.

 

[rexlunae]

Mexicans are not American dufus

Some of them are.

 

[Lon]

Aside from fundamentally disagreeing with that, the Reich being a racist system within which certain people weren't actually considered people or given the protection of law, my use of it was in noting that doing away with the symbols of its evil didn't erase history or cause anyone to forget. We recall the Nazi evil easily enough. Perhaps one reason people like you don't really see the same evil in the Southern institution is because of the influence of that noble myth and its symbols.

You could make a case for perhaps the flag on that note, but the persons? It seems to me, you are hating men that had honorable reasons for warring. You saw the quotes I gave, for instance. Historically, these men were seen as trying to sustain their states. There were economic reasons for this as well. There was a fight rearing at the time, long before the war began. Not so Nazi Germany, by comparison, imho. We've never seen Lee anywhere near akin to Hitler. There are many sentiments from both sides, regretting the inevitability of the Civil War. Lee's wife spoke against slavery, if not best for them, not knowing how else to help them rise as a people.

Rather it is the insensitivity of the insulated that isn't hard to figure and the propensity of that privileged class to react to feeling put upon by the object of the offense that seems pampered to me. Soft. That mindset was comfortable dishing out inequality and insult for generations, but listen to it wail when its right to anything it feels entitled to challenged.

You are born in Italy and see a naked statue outside all your life. It is a historical and artistic presentation. Your offense would be to tear it down? If a few tourists say they will not come there, because of it, should it affect its standing? We don't really have public nudity statues here in the U.S. like that. I think it does affect their culture. They may come to a point somewhere long into the future, where their values are against whatever those statues stand for. Soft, is who ever cries the loudest. I have an incredible tolerance for pain, except in my mouth.

You did, but those laws are censorship, which remains my point. You aren't an enemy of censorship. No reasonable person could be and hope to have a society that works. You don't have the right to scream profanity in the public square, to peddle pornography to anyone passing by on the street, and so on. Those laws ARE censorship, Lon.

Agree, yet, is a statue of Lee, in and of itself, offensive? It goes back to the Hitler question. I know of no 'unbiased' sentiments against Lee or Grant to that degree and am frankly taken aback in thread. I've never seen such against these men before :nono:

Are the emblems of a slave state inherently racist? Yes. Of course they are.

Lee and Jackson are emblems of the slavery state? Again, not in the North. How did that happen in the South? You saw the quote I gave in thread a page or so back regarding Lee and why he is admired by all historians? I've never seen the like, regarding Hitler. This again, is where we disagree and I think it important to talk this particular point out, well and perhaps long.

It should be ashamed of why it desired the exercise. That remains the point, not the attempt by some to rewrite the actual history into another noble fable.

War is never noble. Blame can and always does go both ways. Some, perhaps unbelievably, hate Lincoln as well. That said, we in the North have not been taught slavery was the only reason for the war, and we were taught, in public high schools, that Lincoln didn't issue the Emancipation Proclamation until the war was well going. It seems there is a desire, to get all the facts and come to terms with all instead of part of the existence of the Civil War. Perhaps where you were, it may have been all about slavery. That isn't the picture we have here and I 'think' I can speak from the curriculum with some authority.

Whatever you think of them there's nothing evil about pulling commemorations to a slave state from the public square.

Then why are there protests and lawsuits? Clearly some believe differently.

You know I like you and you're a brother in Christ, but that statement takes your reasonableness on the position off the table. People were raped, murdered, families were torn apart and generations suffered both from that institution and from the wake of it. I'm deeply sorry that the weight of that evil doesn't make a deeper impression upon you.

How prevalent? Down to Thomas Jefferson and the Founding Fathers? What are we talking about? From what I understand, they happened outside the confines of slavery, as the atrocities that they are, as well.

If you don't find systematic dehumanization, rape, torture, murder, the denial of right and liberty evil I don't know how to speak with you about it.

How effective could our laws have been then? I know there were laws against these violent crimes against slaves then. Not enforced? Maybe we are ALL naïve up here in the North (or most of us)

Why would you be?

Because he was unfaithful to his wife? Because he had a few more sins upon the table for all to see?
There are a good many others I look up to before I'd ever consider him.

His statue in Washington is in recognition of his pivotal role in undoing some of the remnants of slavery and giving his full measure of devotion to freeing American citizens who never should have required the sacrifice.

Yet, he is an offense to many in America. Should we tear him down in deference to those offended and wronged (by their own words).

I've said it wouldn't bother me if the lot of them were dropped into the sea, except I'd feel compassion for the fish. I've never suggested anyone had to do it.

I haven't even seen movies made, that portray these men as you seem to disdain them, let alone our history books up here. What are you getting on your end that makes them so much more atrocious than I'm seeing up here??? :idunno: There is definitely a discrepancy between your information and mine, at least I'd greatly assume!

Sure, that's why I noted inconvenient facts for those trying to preserve the old myth. I noted how prevalent slavery was among the common man, who many benefited from the institution both directly and indirectly. The average Joe wasn't walking about debating the idea of states rights and randomly deciding to test the theory. But they were tied to slavery, whose expansion and power were being threatened by the north with the election of Lincoln.

From what I've read, their was an economic crises that could not be met by the demand. There was no 'phasing out' slavery per say. The cotton gin was still expensive and the availability not of effect. They were not so much fighting for slavery as their livelihood by such accounts. Again, up here, in school, slavery was and is taught as but a part of the overall problems at the time.

You made the assessment then judged it. You're not quoting me. I'd say that the states left to support that institution and its evil. That's a statement founded on fact, not a shallow assessment. It's what it was and how it went. Not what Hollywood, defeated Southern apologists and those who want to drape their racism in the robes of nobility have put on the table for popular consumption.[/QUOTE
Well, it is huge, if you can support it. It SHOULD be part of history books if it is as clear and stark and given against what I was given as counterfactuals. I've read a few Civil War books as well. All of them biased? Give me a bit of reading material.

I grew up in it. I'm a son of old lines here. I've born witness to the impact of that evil across social strata. I've witnessed its echoes, the obvious and subtle and seen some of its damage up close. My criticism isn't something I'm happy to advance, but its necessary.

Perhaps to even write a book about. I guarantee, to whatever degree you are right, it is needful. We are getting a different picture up here, imho.

I never said the Union went to war to abolish slavery. I've noted the South attempted to withdraw to defend and expand slavery.

I need this disseminated a bit more, if you would please.

A bias for reason is no fault. A bias for the truth is a virtue. As with censorship the presumption that all instances are cut from the same cloth simply cannot survive a reasoned contemplation.

Again, you have to realize, when discussing 'why the war took place' up here, is a dual consideration for both sides as well as an attempt to understand both sides and their real and/or perceived needs. There is empathy because of that and I did not learn of Southern general's Christianity much, in public school. I did, however, in reading books.

Not the same animal, though I'd argue slavery in the Bible is a complicated narrative.

Agree. BUT to me, it is like being born into a good family or being born into a bad family, and perhaps in a bad area. I envy those born in a good family, but God has truly blessed me with providing a much better family for my own kids.

Your master won't abuse you, sell you, rape or maim you. Not the same thing at all then.

:up: I know this topic is painful, but I'm deeply appreciative of you going through it with me, and in a thoughtful and reasoned manner.

In Him -Lon