What's correct is the fact that if was a DEMOCRAT (socialist progressive) PARTY ideology (Jim Crow laws...etc..,) that allowed blacks to be the subject of discrimination in spite of the 14th amendment to the US CONSTITUTION. Just ask progressive Woodrow Wilson how JIM CROW showed up at the federal level.
Confederate Statues
- Thread starter Oneuli
- Start date
What's correct is the fact that if was a DEMOCRAT (socialist progressive) PARTY ideology (Jim Crow laws...etc..,) that allowed blacks to be the subject of discrimination in spite of the 14th amendment to the US CONSTITUTION. Just ask progressive Woodrow Wilson how JIM CROW showed up at the federal level.
Your words, pussy.
Of course not? Do you have proof or are you imagining again?
Robert E. Lee took full responsibility for Gettysburg.
You're the one that's wanting to cover up something that scares you, boy. Are you afraid blacks might do worse than they already do if statues stay up?
Mason Michaels
Verified User
Then Washington, Jefferson, Adams, and a whole long list of founding fathers should have.
Are you claiming that renouncing your citizenship and going elsewhere is considered treason? Do you believe Lee renounced his citizenship by joining the Confederacy?
Guno צְבִי
We fight, We win, Am Yisrael Chai
General Sherman should have been allowed to continue burning of southern cracka land
No, it isn't.
What's important is to obey the law.
If you don't like what you see in public places, then go through legal channels to make the change.
Honestly, I don't know why every single fucking democrat isn't behind bars.
Someone with a Liberal bias has proven they can't be educated. Look at all the black Liberals. The average IQ of blacks is 85 which means they can't learn on but a below average level.
Saying that the world of academia isn't reality makes as much sense as saying that the business world isn't reality, or the world of the military isn't reality. Yes, a person who has only had one type of career -- whether that's for-profit business work, academic work, military service, or anything else, is going to have only second-hand experience with other parts of reality. But that's just the nature of human existence. We all choose between being experts and having little meaningful experience outside that area, or being dilettantes and lacking deep experience in any area.
You recall incorrectly. Allow me to spur your memory. In 2008, Barack Obama ran against John McCain. McCain essentially ran as a third term for GW Bush -- you'd be hard-pressed to identify a single policy position he took that was materially different from Bush's policies. Even on subjects where the two once disagreed, such as the wisdom of Bush's budget-destroying upper-class tax cuts, McCain had remade himself in Bush's image. Thus, the American people had a choice of voting for the legacy of arguably the worst president in modern times -- a man who had led us to the worst economy since the Great Depression, unending bloody quagmires in Iraq and Afghanistan, the biggest security failure in American history, the drowning of New Orleans, and the utter demolition of America's reputation on the world stage. Most, understandably, opted to vote for the other guy, instead. His race had very little to do with it. Most who voted for Obama had voted for Clinton, Gore, and Kerry, all of whom are white.
In fact, the idea that Obama's race was a net positive for him in that election takes an amusing ignorance of American history. In all of that history, no black candidate had ever even won a major party nomination for president, much less the general election. The electoral handicap of black candidates was so strong that in all of our history, to that point, we'd only had three African American governors, and three post-reconstruction black senators.
The interesting thing about voting patterns in 2008 isn't what blacks did. They went for the Democrat, as they'd done in all recent elections. Instead, what was interesting is what whites did. If you look at the voting of voters who didn't have a representative in the election (Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans, Arabs, etc.), as a sign of what an ethnically neutral voter thought, Obama was the vastly better candidate in 2008 -- he won with all those neutral groups by an enormous margin. So, the fact that black voters agreed with the unbiased voters that Obama was better isn't really noteworthy. What's noteworthy is that white voters, for the fifty-fifth consecutive time, voted for a white candidate. So far in history, we have no sign that whites have even once been able to get over their pro-white prejudice enough for the majority of them to vote for a non-white candidate in a national election. Every other ethnic group has had the majority of its members vote for someone besides one of their own -- whites, alone, haven't managed to get over themselves to that limited extent.
Last edited:
What makes you think that? As a reminder, this isn't about censoring someone from making pro-confederate statements. Rather, it's about whether the state itself should be celebrating that treason. I'm among those who think it should not.
Not really. Instead, it would be like taking a monument to the Gettysburg address and capping it with some other monument celebrating something else. Personally, I like the sentiments in the Gettysburg address, so I wouldn't favor doing that, even if the other monument were great. But I have no such qualms about over-topping a monument to white supremacist traitors. Their actions were disgraceful, and there's no reason people need to have that disgrace promoted to them day in and day out, through monuments honoring it.
This isn't about denying history. It's about whether or not the state should celebrate shameful parts of history. It may help you to think more clearly about it, if you picture the same question in the context of parts of history you're able to recognize as shameful. For example, what if this were Germany and it was a statue of an SS soldier? What if it were Lower Manhattan and it was a statue honoring one of the 9/11 hijackers for his courage? Those things are history, too. But would you take the view that denying those statues a place of honor denies history? Or would you recognize that giving them that honor was inappropriate?
I'm aware of the sad legacy of segregated universities. I think the end of that policy was a positive thing, and should be celebrated. And that's the point of my suggestion: wouldn't it be better to celebrate something positive like that, rather than to celebrate traitors who murdered a bunch of American soldiers in the name of white supremacy?
Mason Michaels
Verified User
As you know, I've said nothing at all about being scared (or about being a boy, for that matter). What I've said is that I'd like to see these public spaces be used to honor things worth honoring, rather than being used to celebrate reprehensible things. Don't you agree that would be better?
I certainly wouldn't accept that as an absolute moral principle. For example, I wouldn't condemn someone for hiding Anne Frank in his attic, even if it was against the law at the time.
As for the present question, I'm not condoning the vandalism. I think it's counter-productive. But I do think it's important to recognize it as a predictable outcome of denying local communities a practical legal way to remove offensive monuments. People who don't see a legal way forward to address an injustice will be tempted to go with an illegal way. What I'm further suggesting is a way that the offensive monuments can be dealt with without violating any law.
Really? What does a statue say that a book doesn't?
You don't need statues or monuments to the losers, nor do those statues and/or monuments teach anyone about the events. It seems like you need the statues because they give you comfort; you can pretend the awful people whose views you share weren't awful people. But they were. They were traitors.
There are no statues to Benedict Arnold anywhere in the US, yet everyone knows who he is and what he did. So how are the Confederates any different?
All of them were during Jim Crow with the purpose of intimidating freed black slaves.
And we don't honor the British who fought here against us. So why honor traitors?
"Make history come alive"? How does an inanimate bronze sculpture "make history come alive"? Don't we already have that with TV and movies?