And like that, America's history is scrubbed

Cypress said:
-- In his own words: He believed blacks were better off as slaves, and the "discipline" they received was necessary for their "instruction". --
Click to expand...

Yup, that was Lee 155 years ago..by the way

this was Biden 12 years ago

"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," Biden said. "I mean, that's a storybook, man." Biden on Obama
 
Cypress said:
-- In his own words: He believed blacks were better off as slaves, and the "discipline" they received was necessary for their "instruction". --

Lee was a slave owner—his own views on slavery were explicated in an 1856 letter that is often misquoted to give the impression that Lee was some kind of abolitionist. In the letter, he describes slavery as “a moral & political evil,” but goes on to explain that:

"I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild & melting influence of Christianity, than the storms & tempests of fiery Controversy." -- Robert E Lee

The argument here is that slavery is bad for white people, good for black people, and most important, better than abolitionism; emancipation must wait for divine intervention. That black people might not want to be slaves does not enter into the equation; their opinion on the subject of their own bondage is not even an afterthought to Lee.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/529038/
Click to expand...
Lee is dead, so why do you speak as if he said this shit last week?

Don't you perverts have any concept of time?
 
anatta said:
https://www.history.com/news/slavery-profitable-southern-economy
Building a commercial enterprise out of the wilderness required labor and lots of it. For much of the 1600s, the American colonies operated as agricultural economies, driven largely by indentured servitude. Most workers were poor, unemployed laborers from Europe who, like others, had traveled to North America for a new life. In exchange for their work, they received food and shelter, a rudimentary education and sometimes a trade.

By 1680, the British economy improved and more jobs became available in Britain. During this time, slavery had become a morally, legally and socially acceptable institution in the colonies. As the number of European laborers coming to the colonies dwindled, enslaving Africans became a commercial necessity—and more widely acceptable.

With ideal climate and available land, property owners in the southern colonies began establishing plantation farms for cash crops like rice, tobacco and sugar cane—enterprises that required increasing amounts of labor.
Click to expand...
You are validating what I wrote - indentured servants was the labor system before the 18th century. Not chattel slavery.

You did not know that two nanoseconds before I told you.

I did not have to frantically Google for the information like you did after reading my post, because I already knew it.

I also know that lazy ass white colonists in the deep South didn't know jack shit about rice cultivation, which was Carolina's cash crop in the 18th century. And these lazy ass colonists had to rely on Africans and their knowlege about rice cultivation and metalworking. These lazy shits were even savy enough to know which tribes in Africa had the knowlege of metal working and rice cultivation they needed, and targeted their slave trade towards those tribes.

The bottom line is that lazy ass southern whites used a system of forced labor and Chattel slavery that even the backward agrarian Russian landed gentry did not stoop to.


Slavery is never an economic necessity. It is a willful choice of the cruel and the greedy.
 
Last edited:
So basically the Alt Right argument is to not scrub history we must hide all the bad parts of it, or scrub history?

Lee committed treason. That is a matter of history. Live with it.
 
The Democratic Party has existed since 1828, with origins dating back to Tammany Hall around 1798. The proof of American Exceptionalism is that we have overcome the DNC and its various movements and machines.
 
volsrock said:
Yup, that was Lee 155 years ago..by the way

this was Biden 12 years ago

"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," Biden said. "I mean, that's a storybook, man." Biden on Obama
Click to expand...

There is no statue of Biden erected on public property by any state government anywhere.

The statue of cruel slave master and noted traitor Robert E Lee is still standing on public property and discussions of what Lee stands for are topical and germane to current events.
 
Cypress said:
-- In his own words: He believed blacks were better off as slaves, and the "discipline" they received was necessary for their "instruction". --

Lee was a slave owner—his own views on slavery were explicated in an 1856 letter that is often misquoted to give the impression that Lee was some kind of abolitionist. In the letter, he describes slavery as “a moral & political evil,” but goes on to explain that:

"I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild & melting influence of Christianity, than the storms & tempests of fiery Controversy." -- Robert E Lee

The argument here is that slavery is bad for white people, good for black people, and most important, better than abolitionism; emancipation must wait for divine intervention. That black people might not want to be slaves does not enter into the equation; their opinion on the subject of their own bondage is not even an afterthought to Lee.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/529038/
Click to expand...

Blacks were better off here under bondage then back in Africa under a far more despotic bondage you stupid fuck

Lee was proven wrong however, in that in the main most blacks are too unevolved to be prosperous freemen, the entire continent of Africa and the black population of the US is a testament to that fact.
 
Micawber said:
Shame you can't be honest. You are squarely in the "it's a scared relic because it is in statue form, nobody can ever remove them" camp.

Some good cause has been shown not to venerate these particular individuals with statues. I don't believe that argument has been successfully met.
Applying my notion with which you claim to agree, the case for removal is greater than the case for keeping them up.

That's why I don't believe you. You agree with the southern cause, and identify with it. That is why you want to maintain the statues at issue.
Click to expand...

Translation: I arbitrarily assign Steven VanderMolen some nefarious smear motive, therefore I don't have to refute his logic. <== This is an ad hominem fallacy and it is lazy, childish, and invalid on its face. :bs:

And no, not one iota of merit has been established for your moronic, intolerant bigotry in demanding the purging all art and memorials that commit the heresy of non-conformity. All that has been established is that you are a book-burning Neanderthal tearing down anything that contains any shred of moral imperfection as defined by your narrow-minded Taliban-style definition.
 
LV426 said:
But how does the statue represent any history?
Click to expand...

How does a statue of a historical figure represent history? Um...by being a statue of a historical figure...?

200w.webp


LV426 said:
How does the statue help us learn from our mistakes?
Click to expand...

It raises the question, "Why was this guy a major figure from his era, and why did people want him memorialized?" <== This clarifies that there is more to consider than the left's cartoonishly simplistic Kindergarten version of history in which Confederates were evil Disney villains with no valid reason for what they were doing. THAT'S why Democrats want it torn down. It's harder to lie about and discredit our past when people understand that there are multiple sides to the story.
 
LV426 said:
So if the statue is meant to recognize Lee for other parts of his life, why is he depicted wearing his Civil War uniform in all of them?
Click to expand...

Not other parts of his life than the Civil War...other parts of his life than LOSING the Civil war...remember, that was your childish smear of why he was being memorialized--to provide hero worship for some irrelevant loser--as if winning throughout the war but losing at the end automatically erased all legitimacy in memorializing him. By this logic, all references to the Holocaust need to be torn down, because the Jews were just irrelevant losers, right? Losing a physical battle of any kind negates any value in memorializing a person or group, right?

Comprehending how moronic your argument is yet? :awesome:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top