|
Post by jiminix on May 14, 2017 16:29:08 GMT -7
Removing Monuments to Confederate history The City of New Orleans is removing four monuments to Civil War history from public squares and putting them into a museum. Workers moving the statues have worked at night, worn body armor, and worn scarves hiding their faces to prevent recognition and later punishment by neo-confederate extremists. I also read about a monument recently removed somewhere else, I believe by a city in South Carolina, but I'm not sure. Here's a brief local New Orleans article that contains references to some other articles. www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/05/confederate_monuments_national.htmlConfederate History Month (April) slipped by without the discussions like we used to have some years over on the TNews forum. I wish that was still available for reading, since it featured both sides on the forum giving their best shot at supporting their viewpoints. This particular issue of public symbols of the Confederacy doesn't have any necessary connection to the revisionist history often promoted in the South, so a middle of the road view of it can be defended. The first monument taken down by New Orleans celebrated a bloody victory by the white supremacist White League over the local police force during Reconstruction. Any claim that monument should have been kept is blatant support of white supremacy. But I wouldn't mind seeing some monuments retained, like statues of Lee, maybe Longstreet, maybe Beauregard. Any statues of Jefferson Davis, Jubal Early, John Bell Hood, etc., have to come down, because of their outspoken white supremacy and support of slavery. Any statues of Lee (or anybody else) left standing should be accompanied by his quotes describing slavery as an abominable institution, it should be made clear that the leaders of the Confederacy were morally indefensible in going to war to preserve that institution. There is some room to accommodate the effect of prevailing opinion of the times on historical figures. But by 1860 the argument about slavery was essentially settled worldwide. Advocates of continuing slavery at that late date must suffer the judgment of history. They must not be glorified, and must be condemned whenever they are mentioned.
|
|
|
Post by jiminix on May 14, 2017 19:05:43 GMT -7
I ran across that second story again. It's so glaring, I don't know how I forgot the details of it. It was in Charlottesville, VA. Here's the local newpaper story. Torch-wielding protesters gather at Lee Parkwww.dailyprogress.com/news/local/torch-wielding-protesters-gather-at-lee-park/article_201dc390-384d-11e7-bf16-fb43de0f5d38.htmlThe protesters chanted "Blood and soil" and "Russia is our friend". This image shows exactly why the glorification of the Confederacy must stop. These people either ARE the KKK or they are deluded to think that it's OK to pretend to be KKK. Either way, it's the reason why rational Southerners should be eager to get rid of so-called "Southern Heritage" once and for all. In my opinion, if it were not for Trump's prominently flaunted bigotry, these people would never have dared to slither out from under their slimy rock.
|
|
|
Post by osha on May 14, 2017 21:41:52 GMT -7
I kind of see things in a different way.
Yes, we have a sketchy past and it is just that, a past. Trying to erase the past does not undo the things that were done in the past.
We are always going to have people who feel their race is supreme and this can go be added to the ever growing list of things that separate us and contributes to what is the sickness of this country.
Whites hate blacks Blacks hate whites Christians hate Muslims Muslims hate Christians Rich hate the poor Poor hate the rich
This list can continue. We can even talk about generations hating other generations. For instance, I hold a certain amount of blame towards the Baby Boomers for where we are today. I wouldn't say I hate the Baby Boomers, but I do believe many are out of touch coming from a generation of endless opportunity and then believing that the Millennials share in the same opportunities as themselves, when that's just not true. And I was raised by a Baby Boomer.
I don't believe hiding things fixes hate in any way, it will remain. I believe even in some ways, we don't want to solve hate. I live in the South now but I came from the far North (up around Cleveland, Ohio). I seen growing up the race card being played many times. Not just by one race, even others. When your the minority in one area, you could even see whites wondering if a certain action was taken because they were white.
If we lose those special cards we can play, we never get over a sense of entitlement due to the special card.
It's even like many Christians. When you get into a conversation about Muslims with a Christian, it can easily turn into "Muslims are savages and they should all die". And this comes from the comfort they enjoy in their "group" and the backing of this "group" gives them the ability to feel safe in saying such things because a part of this "group" feels the same way as the person who said such a thing.
Even in a discussion I had on this forum I was accused of being an Atheist when nothing could be further from the truth. I believe very much in God, but I don't view God the way that any "group" views God. I feel if there are over 1000 religions in the world and they all try to explain God, none of them understands God. If we all had 1000 ways to explain a tree, we would come to the conclusion there is a good chance people do not understand the tree. I view religion like this. Over 1000 different ways to explain God and all those "groups" feel like they are right and all others are wrong. Only one can be right..... We are to stupid as a species to understand God. That's how I feel.
The moral of all this is, we need to work on hate at our core and that is something I believe is a much tougher endeavor.
|
|
|
Post by John Doe on May 15, 2017 9:16:58 GMT -7
At least they are placing them in a museum for historical record and not destroying them.
|
|
|
Post by Entimos on May 15, 2017 12:58:31 GMT -7
Who said this at the "late date": I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgement, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I.... am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. And this: "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 in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."
Let's see if these politically correct folks are willing to be consistent and tear down the statues and memorials made to honor that particular 1860s racist. Here's the truth: the intolerant race pimps and their leftist enablers that are removing these statues are guilty of this: These book burners and the people removing the statues are equally evil. By the way, I'll debate anyone on the true Southern motivations for secession as well as the legality of that secession. I'm tired of the Northern propaganda and falsehoods that have convinced so many ignorant snowflakes to support the vile purges in NOLA and Virginia.
|
|
|
Post by Entimos on May 15, 2017 13:00:20 GMT -7
|
|
|
Post by Entimos on May 15, 2017 13:11:12 GMT -7
|
|
|
Post by Entimos on May 15, 2017 13:12:48 GMT -7
And one more: Are you ready to ban the American flag?
|
|
|
Post by hoofie on May 15, 2017 14:56:21 GMT -7
|
|
|
Post by jiminix on May 15, 2017 15:38:34 GMT -7
Who said this at the "late date": I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists.... And this: "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 ...
Let's see if these politically correct folks are willing to be consistent and tear down the statues and memorials made to honor that particular 1860s racist. I know you can't resist the temptation to twist my words into something I didn't say. I say "late date" because slavery had been morally condemned going on a thousand years, and by that time legally banned in almost the entire world. Even Mexico, Central America, and South America mostly banned slavery in the 1820s. The U.S. Constitutional ban on importation of slaves after 1804 indicates that it was already assumed by the founding of the nation that states would begin abolishing slavery of their own accord. There is nothing in Lincoln's words that can be interpreted as advocating for slavery, so it's not relevant to what I said above. I specifically said above "There is some room to accommodate the effect of prevailing opinion of the times on historical figures." The prevailing opinion of that time was that the white race was superior to all others in every way. The evidence to the contrary had barely begun to emerge, so it is unjust to condemn people of that time for that view. That's quite different from support of slavery.
|
|
|
Post by jiminix on May 15, 2017 15:42:39 GMT -7
By the way, I'll debate anyone on the true Southern motivations for secession as well as the legality of that secession. I'm tired of the Northern propaganda and falsehoods that have convinced so many ignorant snowflakes to support the vile purges in NOLA and Virginia. There's nothing to debate about their motivations for secession. They put it right in their declarations of secession, just as our Declaration of Independence specified our reasons for separating from England. The documents were very up front about the fact that they were leaving in order to preserve their institution of slavery. Go read them if you believe otherwise; most of them are short.
|
|
|
Post by Entimos on May 17, 2017 8:51:58 GMT -7
By the way, I'll debate anyone on the true Southern motivations for secession as well as the legality of that secession. I'm tired of the Northern propaganda and falsehoods that have convinced so many ignorant snowflakes to support the vile purges in NOLA and Virginia. There's nothing to debate about their motivations for secession. They put it right in their declarations of secession, just as our Declaration of Independence specified our reasons for separating from England. The documents were very up front about the fact that they were leaving in order to preserve their institution of slavery. Go read them if you believe otherwise; most of them are short. YOU might want to "read them" and make additional efforts to understand what they say. I'll help you. There were only five "declarations" out of 11 Confederate States, and Virginia's says nothing. The South Carolina document dealt with economic issues and state's rights, not slavery. So, these four documents created by a handful of firebrands speak to the motivation of five million souls in the Confederacy? Here's the content breakdown in the four declarations Only 6% of Southerners were slave owners and of these 5% owned five or fewer and worked beside them in the fields. Are you actually postulating that the motivation of the remaining 94% of Southerners was slavery?
|
|
|
Post by Entimos on May 17, 2017 9:21:14 GMT -7
I know you can't resist the temptation to twist my words into something I didn't say. I say "late date" because slavery had been morally condemned going on a thousand years, and by that time legally banned in almost the entire world. Even Mexico, Central America, and South America mostly banned slavery in the 1820s. The U.S. Constitutional ban on importation of slaves after 1804 indicates that it was already assumed by the founding of the nation that states would begin abolishing slavery of their own accord. There is nothing in Lincoln's words that can be interpreted as advocating for slavery, so it's not relevant to what I said above. I specifically said above "There is some room to accommodate the effect of prevailing opinion of the times on historical figures." The prevailing opinion of that time was that the white race was superior to all others in every way. The evidence to the contrary had barely begun to emerge, so it is unjust to condemn people of that time for that view. That's quite different from support of slavery. I twisted nothing you said. You made a statement and from that declaration, I expected you to be consistent in condemning a racist like Lincoln and demanding that his memorials be removed. Alas, requesting consistency and objectivity from a liberal is a "lost cause". I just gave you a nibble of what Lincoln said. I can keep making the case if you'd like. Lincoln was a tyrant, racist and a murderer. My heroes and ancestors in gray were and always will be far better men that Lincoln and his Northern mob will ever be. Why don't you look up the "Corwin Amendment" and find out what Lincoln said about it during his first inaugural. Look up Lincoln's letter to Horace Greeley where he said this: "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it". Look up Lincoln's efforts to keep slavery intact in all of the border states. Look up Lincoln's desire to ship blacks back to Africa. Or just study his many statements during the debates with Stephen Douglas. And THEN tell me that you are OK with tearing down Confederate monuments but still want to honor that piece of 19th century Illinois trash.
|
|
|
Post by John Doe on May 17, 2017 14:58:40 GMT -7
lets all dial it back a a little and get back on topic, Jiminix / Entimos, i don't want to have to lock another thread.
Thanks
|
|
|
Post by snakebit on May 18, 2017 15:44:27 GMT -7
I know you can't resist the temptation to twist my words into something I didn't say. I say "late date" because slavery had been morally condemned going on a thousand years, and by that time legally banned in almost the entire world. Even Mexico, Central America, and South America mostly banned slavery in the 1820s. The U.S. Constitutional ban on importation of slaves after 1804 indicates that it was already assumed by the founding of the nation that states would begin abolishing slavery of their own accord. There is nothing in Lincoln's words that can be interpreted as advocating for slavery, so it's not relevant to what I said above. I specifically said above "There is some room to accommodate the effect of prevailing opinion of the times on historical figures." The prevailing opinion of that time was that the white race was superior to all others in every way. The evidence to the contrary had barely begun to emerge, so it is unjust to condemn people of that time for that view. That's quite different from support of slavery. I twisted nothing you said. You made a statement and from that declaration, I expected you to be consistent in condemning a racist like Lincoln and demanding that his memorials be removed. Alas, requesting consistency and objectivity from a liberal is a "lost cause". I just gave you a nibble of what Lincoln said. I can keep making the case if you'd like. Lincoln was a tyrant, racist and a murderer. My heroes and ancestors in gray were and always will be far better men that Lincoln and his Northern mob will ever be.Why don't you look up the "Corwin Amendment" and find out what Lincoln said about it during his first inaugural. Look up Lincoln's letter to Horace Greeley where he said this: "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it". Look up Lincoln's efforts to keep slavery intact in all of the border states. Look up Lincoln's desire to ship blacks back to Africa. Or just study his many statements during the debates with Stephen Douglas. And THEN tell me that you are OK with tearing down Confederate monuments but still want to honor that piece of 19th century Illinois trash. That superiority and the predominance of religion in the South probably explains why the Southerners went on to lead the greatest democracy in the world to a position of world supremacy while the Northern states became a minor region known for extremist Evangelical piety, ignorance, poverty and bigotry. The superiority of your ancestors probably also explains why the Northern states still need welfare/transfer payments from the Southern states to avoid becoming third world like hell holes. Oh, wait, That seems backward. Entiomo, forget Lincoln and your ancestors who got their asses whipped by him (and by my ancestors). The inbred bigots xian evangelicals in the South in the modern era fought tooth and nail against desegregation which had to be forced on them by the civilized people and actual Christians of the North. Who still favors slavery or at least many of its bigoted beliefs and who doesn't?
|
|