|
Post by 1percenter on Aug 18, 2017 12:52:12 GMT -5
I never understood statues of Confederate soldiers. The Confederate's lost and losers should not get statues, winners get statues. Isn't fighting against the USA treason? But the left wants them torn down because they say all those Confederates were racists slave owners and not because they committed treason.
So the point of this thread is to ask where do we stop if we are tearing things down because someone was a slave owner. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. Do we tear down the Washington Monument?
The lefts has started a slippy slope with their reasoning (an it's only a slippy slope because of their reasoning) of why Stonewall Jackson, Robert E Lee and other Confederate soldiers statues need torn down. And before someone says it's only Confederate soldiers that they want torn down, let me pull a Lee Corso and say, 'not so fast'. Leftist are already calling for Washington DC to be renamed, for Jefferson statues to be torn down and for Mt Rushmore to be sandblasted.
Do we tear down the Colosseum in Rome too? It's a symbol of people being forced to fight to the death for entertainment.
So where do we stop?
|
|
|
Post by sportsjock on Aug 18, 2017 14:11:36 GMT -5
Removing historic statues of great military leaders of the Civil War is just wrong. The American Civil War is eternally entrenched in our nations history and the large part of that bitter war is the men of greatness who led both sides.
George Henry Thomas Stonewall Jackson Ulysses S. Grant Robert E. Lee William Tecumseh Sherman There were many others of prominence as well.
Pulling down historical statues, what's next? Oh yes, raiding libraries and burning books on the Civil War! Ripping Civil War paintings from the walls of museums!
Hard to believe we have come to this.....sad.
|
|
|
Post by galion on Aug 18, 2017 14:34:16 GMT -5
Did you just just f ing name Nathan Bedford Forrest? For real? The man who was one of the founders of the KKK. The man who literally slaughtered African American soldiers who laid down their arms and were surrendering. Holy crap. Please explain to me how that was the first name to pop into your head. So you have a difficult time understanding why people who took up arms against the United States to defend the institution of slavery(let's be honest that was the only one of the "states rights" that was ever really under attack) shouldn't be celebrated with statues and monuments?
|
|
|
Post by sportsjock on Aug 18, 2017 14:56:45 GMT -5
Did you just just f ing name Nathan Bedford Forrest? For real? The man who was one of the founders of the KKK. The man who literally slaughtered African American soldiers who laid down their arms and were surrendering. Holy crap. Please explain to me how that was the first name to pop into your head. So you have a difficult time understanding why people who took up arms against the United States to defend the institution of slavery(let's be honest that was the only one of the "states rights" that was ever really under attack) shouldn't be celebrated with statues and monuments? He is listed among the notable Generals of the Civil war. It never occurred to me his dark history, till you mentioned it. Holy crap is right! Scratch him from the list....lol (already did that) In Robert E. Lee's instance, he was opposed to slavery, but was defending his home state of Virginia. To suggest a monument in his honor is somehow advocating slavery is a huge stretch....but, that's what historical revisionists do.
|
|
|
Post by galion on Aug 18, 2017 15:26:19 GMT -5
So what's next? Should we put up a monument to honor Adm. Yamamoto at Pearl Harbor? And why did Virginia secede again? He still fought for them anyway. If you put a monument up right after the war it possibly was to honor him. If you waited to put the monument up until the Jim Crow era or the 1960's during the Civil Rights Movement then it was absolutely meant to signify something else. I'm sorry, they were traitors and they lost the war. To me that's the end of the discussion. Slavery and treason is not something that should be honored. You should really consider the hundreds of thousands of people who lost their lives because of these "honorable" people. And that my friend is not revisionist history.
|
|
|
Post by 1percenter on Aug 19, 2017 7:55:48 GMT -5
Well, galion and sportsjock are attempting to hijack the thread.
The left is NOT calling for these statues to be torn down because of treason, they want them torn down because of slavery. So back to the question I asked, where do we stop? Do we stop after the Washington Monument and Mt Rushmore and no longer? Or will the next phase be to tear down womanizers? Michael Jordan statue getting torn down for being a womanizer JFK airport renamed for JFK being a womanizer Martin Luther King Jr holiday being stripped from the calendar for him being a womanizer?
Where does this stop? We are only on this slippery slope because the left decided being a slave owner meant all statues of you can not exist. No more George Washington statues, Thomas Jefferson statues, Ben Franklin statues, etc.
|
|
|
Post by sportsjock on Aug 19, 2017 10:08:08 GMT -5
Well, galion and sportsjock are attempting to hijack the thread. The left is NOT calling for these statues to be torn down because of treason, they want them torn down because of slavery. So back to the question I asked, where do we stop? Do we stop after the Washington Monument and Mt Rushmore and no longer? Or will the next phase be to tear down womanizers? Michael Jordan statue getting torn down for being a womanizer JFK airport renamed for JFK being a womanizer Martin Luther King Jr holiday being stripped from the calendar for him being a womanizer? Where does this stop? We are only on this slippery slope because the left decided being a slave owner meant all statues of you can not exist. No more George Washington statues, Thomas Jefferson statues, Ben Franklin statues, etc. Anyone thinking the statue removing frenzy is going to end anytime soon, think again. Wherever the finger gets pointed next, becomes a strong candidate for the ongoing eradication process. As I stated in the other thread, Civil War books at libraries and Civil War era portraits could be targeted next. When local communities and politicians relent, power is established to those groups promoting this eradication movement.
|
|
|
Post by galion on Aug 19, 2017 13:06:42 GMT -5
Well, galion and sportsjock are attempting to hijack the thread. The left is NOT calling for these statues to be torn down because of treason, they want them torn down because of slavery. So back to the question I asked, where do we stop? Do we stop after the Washington Monument and Mt Rushmore and no longer? Or will the next phase be to tear down womanizers? Michael Jordan statue getting torn down for being a womanizer JFK airport renamed for JFK being a womanizer Martin Luther King Jr holiday being stripped from the calendar for him being a womanizer? Where does this stop? We are only on this slippery slope because the left decided being a slave owner meant all statues of you can not exist. No more George Washington statues, Thomas Jefferson statues, Ben Franklin statues, etc. You can't differentiate between the two. The slavery, and the defense of slavery, is what eventually brought about the treasonous act that culminated in the Civil War. For you to try and equate that, an epic tragedy in our country's history, with being a womanizer is absolutely disgraceful. When you show me where the actions of Washington or Jefferson tore apart this country and killed and maimed at least 20% of the population then we can have that discussion.
|
|
|
Post by galion on Aug 19, 2017 13:09:30 GMT -5
Well, galion and sportsjock are attempting to hijack the thread. The left is NOT calling for these statues to be torn down because of treason, they want them torn down because of slavery. So back to the question I asked, where do we stop? Do we stop after the Washington Monument and Mt Rushmore and no longer? Or will the next phase be to tear down womanizers? Michael Jordan statue getting torn down for being a womanizer JFK airport renamed for JFK being a womanizer Martin Luther King Jr holiday being stripped from the calendar for him being a womanizer? Where does this stop? We are only on this slippery slope because the left decided being a slave owner meant all statues of you can not exist. No more George Washington statues, Thomas Jefferson statues, Ben Franklin statues, etc. Anyone thinking the statue removing frenzy is going to end anytime soon, think again. Wherever the finger gets pointed next, becomes a strong candidate for the ongoing eradication process. As I stated in the other thread, Civil War books at libraries and Civil War era portraits could be targeted next. When local communities and politicians relent, power is established to those groups promoting this eradication movement. Surely you have the capacity to distinguish between outright symbols of hatred being displayed in public and a library book.
|
|
|
Post by fanofthegame on Aug 19, 2017 13:23:32 GMT -5
If you destroy history you lose it. It cannot recreated. Many of these symbols need removed from positions of prominence, but under no circumstances should they be destroyed.
Anyone been to the Holocaust Museum in DC? It is full of disturbing images. Swastikas, etc. Should it be destroyed because it is offensive? I realize that's not an apples to apples comparison. One is educating and reminding the other is memoralizing and glorifying, but the point is this. Destroying that history doesn't erase its existence and it runs the risk of us forgetting it and repeating it.
Should a statue of a general who did atrocious things be displayed prominently at a state house? How about a Confederate Flag fly over a government building? No and no. Should they be destroyed? Absolutely not. They should be placed in a museum with an appropriate explanation on a plaque beside them.
|
|
|
Post by 1percenter on Aug 19, 2017 13:31:14 GMT -5
Well, galion and sportsjock are attempting to hijack the thread. The left is NOT calling for these statues to be torn down because of treason, they want them torn down because of slavery. So back to the question I asked, where do we stop? Do we stop after the Washington Monument and Mt Rushmore and no longer? Or will the next phase be to tear down womanizers? Michael Jordan statue getting torn down for being a womanizer JFK airport renamed for JFK being a womanizer Martin Luther King Jr holiday being stripped from the calendar for him being a womanizer? Where does this stop? We are only on this slippery slope because the left decided being a slave owner meant all statues of you can not exist. No more George Washington statues, Thomas Jefferson statues, Ben Franklin statues, etc. You can't differentiate between the two. The slavery, and the defense of slavery, is what eventually brought about the treasonous act that culminated in the Civil War. For you to try and equate that, an epic tragedy in our country's history, with being a womanizer is absolutely disgraceful. When you show me where the actions of Washington or Jefferson tore apart this country and killed and maimed at least 20% of the population then we can have that discussion. You seem to be incapable of understanding the written language. People are calling for Washington DC to be renamed People are calling for Washington, Jefferson and Franklin statues to be torn down because they owned slaves. Where is this going to stop because the left will get their way and all this will be torn down. Then they will move onto something else. I'm guessing it will be womanizers. What's next after that? Where is this going to stop?
|
|
|
Post by galion on Aug 19, 2017 13:32:29 GMT -5
Well, for starters, Franklin didn't own slaves.
|
|
|
Post by sportsjock on Aug 19, 2017 13:52:53 GMT -5
People wish to perpetuate the notion that America was the world center for the slave trade at that period in history. Fact is, it was an accepted, world wide phenomena, as shameful as it may be. Many different forms of slavery existed, some that included white immigrants of the era were subjected to similar practices through indentured servantry.
|
|
|
Post by sportsjock on Aug 19, 2017 13:59:07 GMT -5
People wish to perpetuate the notion that America was the world center for the slave trade at that period in history. Fact is, it was an accepted, world wide phenomena, as shameful as it may be. Many different forms of slavery existed, some that included white immigrants of the era were subjected to similar practices through indentured servantry.
|
|
|
Post by tommygunn on Aug 19, 2017 15:32:25 GMT -5
Now these pussies want Christopher Columbus statues removed. When will this stop. Offended by statues all of a sudden? What a bunch of pussies.
|
|
|
Post by 1percenter on Aug 19, 2017 15:46:41 GMT -5
Well, for starters, Franklin didn't own slaves. Yes he did, he owned two.
|
|
|
Post by DrTorch on Aug 19, 2017 16:00:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by galion on Aug 20, 2017 3:45:55 GMT -5
I see since all of you closet "white nationalists" can't argue the "heritage" of confederate statues built in the 1960's anymore you want to move on to the "slippery slope" argument to keep them up. Let's for a moment consider that Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin were founding fathers. The Confederates were traitors. That should be enough of a line to calm your fears. Now I realize that there may be a few dozen or so on the far left that may have called for more. That hardly qualifies as a movement.
|
|
|
Post by galion on Aug 20, 2017 3:50:33 GMT -5
Now these pussies want Christopher Columbus statues removed. When will this stop. Offended by statues all of a sudden? What a bunch of pussies. You of all people shouldn't be throwing the word "pussies" around. Good God you're scared of everything that isn't white. I mean reprehensible as they are at least the hate mongers in Charlettesville had the balls to come out of their mommy's basement and show the world who they were.
|
|
|
Post by sportsjock on Aug 20, 2017 10:49:20 GMT -5
I see since all of you closet "white nationalists" can't argue the "heritage" of confederate statues built in the 1960's anymore you want to move on to the "slippery slope" argument to keep them up. Let's for a moment consider that Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin were founding fathers. The Confederates were traitors. That should be enough of a line to calm your fears. Now I realize that there may be a few dozen or so on the far left that may have called for more. That hardly qualifies as a movement. I absolutely can argue the 'heritage' of Civil War generals, war heroes who represented both sides, both Union and Confederate. Dispelling history is a dangerous road to take. I'm quite surprised to see you...Galion, trying to resort to the typical liberal tactic of labeling those with differing viewpoints with an offensive moniker. In this case, 'white nationalists' or more accurately 'white supremists' , worse yet 'closet white nationalists'. Come on, that's total BS, you know it and I know it. Again, the attempt to put anyone 'white' on the defensive, especially a white males, you must be racist or a bigot....right? Again, total BS. Generalizations thrown about, in hoping they might stick and inflict doubt is both dishonest and unfare. Drop the race card and maybe we can have an intelligent and logical discussion. The notion that anyone who fought for the south are 'traitors' or war criminals is absurd. Anyone who thinks this revisionist movement is a loose, reactionary effort by a few isolated individuals here and there is blatantly naive. With little doubt, it is an extremely well organized and orchestrated movement, generously funded by any number of far left groups, most prominent of which is George Soros. You can take it to the bank, Soros is heavily involved. It's all about control and influence of the American thought process, that's how any movement originates.
|
|
|
Post by fanofthegame on Aug 20, 2017 11:17:47 GMT -5
To boil the Civil War down to slaves or no slaves is an oversimplification. That's the issue we were taught about in school. There were other issues. To assume that everyone who fought for the south was fighting for slavery is an inaccurate assumption. Most who fought and died didn't own a single slave. We'll never know what percentage gave a rat's butt what color someone's skin was. Destroying history isn't going to change it. Learning from it will change our future and that's all we have control over.
|
|
|
Post by galion on Aug 21, 2017 4:50:51 GMT -5
Many of the people who fought and died in the Civil War may not have owned slaves. But the gentlemen in the state legislatures that called the shots definitely did.
|
|
|
Post by galion on Aug 21, 2017 5:01:51 GMT -5
I see since all of you closet "white nationalists" can't argue the "heritage" of confederate statues built in the 1960's anymore you want to move on to the "slippery slope" argument to keep them up. Let's for a moment consider that Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin were founding fathers. The Confederates were traitors. That should be enough of a line to calm your fears. Now I realize that there may be a few dozen or so on the far left that may have called for more. That hardly qualifies as a movement. I absolutely can argue the 'heritage' of Civil War generals, war heroes who represented both sides, both Union and Confederate. Dispelling history is a dangerous road to take. I'm quite surprised to see you...Galion, trying to resort to the typical liberal tactic of labeling those with differing viewpoints with an offensive moniker. In this case, 'white nationalists' or more accurately 'white supremists' , worse yet 'closet white nationalists'. Come on, that's total BS, you know it and I know it. Again, the attempt to put anyone 'white' on the defensive, especially a white males, you must be racist or a bigot....right? Again, total BS. Generalizations thrown about, in hoping they might stick and inflict doubt is both dishonest and unfare. Drop the race card and maybe we can have an intelligent and logical discussion. The notion that anyone who fought for the south are 'traitors' or war criminals is absurd. Anyone who thinks this revisionist movement is a loose, reactionary effort by a few isolated individuals here and there is blatantly naive. With little doubt, it is an extremely well organized and orchestrated movement, generously funded by any number of far left groups, most prominent of which is George Soros. You can take it to the bank, Soros is heavily involved. It's all about control and influence of the American thought process, that's how any movement originates. Actually when they took up arms against The United States they were literally the very definition of the word traitor. I promise you that for every wack job on the left that wants to rename Washington DC there were likely 3 Birthers on the right trying to prove that Obama was a Kenyan National. Tell me, how did that work out? Maybe this movement will work out for Soros the way that the birther thing did for Trump. As far as your Confederate monuments go explain to me how you can honor people who, slavery aside, rebelled and fought against this country killing and maiming over 20% of the population.
|
|
|
Post by galion on Aug 21, 2017 5:03:53 GMT -5
To boil the Civil War down to slaves or no slaves is an oversimplification. That's the issue we were taught about in school. There were other issues. To assume that everyone who fought for the south was fighting for slavery is an inaccurate assumption. Most who fought and died didn't own a single slave. We'll never know what percentage gave a rat's butt what color someone's skin was. Destroying history isn't going to change it. Learning from it will change our future and that's all we have control over. How is removing monuments destroying history? Your welcome to read about it at any library. Gettysburg and the other prominent battle fields are still open as well. I recommend it if you haven't been there. But glorifying those people and their actions is not appropriate.
|
|
|
Post by Rambo McClain on Aug 21, 2017 5:52:53 GMT -5
Ha ha, more triggered liberals resorting to the only thing they have since they lost the house, senate, Presidency, and only have 15 Governors. Democrats are being destroyed across the country so they only have 1 card to play, they label anyone that disagrees with them as a Nazi, 3 weeks ago it was a Russian. You triggered liberals are hilarious.
Normal person, we shouldn't burn books just because they mention Hitler. Triggered liberal, You are a Nazi, Hitler was horrible how dare you say he was a hero Normal person, hmm I'm not a Nazi, and I think Hitler was bad, erasing history doesn't actually change history Triggered liberal, You are a Nazi, Hitler shouldn't be revered, he was evil and you are just like him Normal person, wow, I'm done here, I'll go vote for anyone but a Democrat and all non-liberals that saw this conversation are going to do the same. We are done with your labeling with anyone you disagree with as a Nazi. The nation has had enough of your crap that's why you are down to a pathetic 15 of 50 Governorships. Keep calling everyone a Nazi and see how that works out for you.
|
|
|
Post by fanofthegame on Aug 21, 2017 6:55:09 GMT -5
To boil the Civil War down to slaves or no slaves is an oversimplification. That's the issue we were taught about in school. There were other issues. To assume that everyone who fought for the south was fighting for slavery is an inaccurate assumption. Most who fought and died didn't own a single slave. We'll never know what percentage gave a rat's butt what color someone's skin was. Destroying history isn't going to change it. Learning from it will change our future and that's all we have control over. How is removing monuments destroying history? Your welcome to read about it at any library. Gettysburg and the other prominent battle fields are still open as well. I recommend it if you haven't been there. But glorifying those people and their actions is not appropriate. Read my previous post. I agree 100% with removing them from a position of prominence. I don't advocate destroying them (which is what happened).
|
|
|
Post by galion on Aug 21, 2017 9:07:42 GMT -5
Ha ha, more triggered liberals resorting to the only thing they have since they lost the house, senate, Presidency, and only have 15 Governors. Democrats are being destroyed across the country so they only have 1 card to play, they label anyone that disagrees with them as a Nazi, 3 weeks ago it was a Russian. You triggered liberals are hilarious. Normal person, we shouldn't burn books just because they mention Hitler. Triggered liberal, You are a Nazi, Hitler was horrible how dare you say he was a hero Normal person, hmm I'm not a Nazi, and I think Hitler was bad, erasing history doesn't actually change history Triggered liberal, You are a Nazi, Hitler shouldn't be revered, he was evil and you are just like him Normal person, wow, I'm done here, I'll go vote for anyone but a Democrat and all non-liberals that saw this conversation are going to do the same. We are done with your labeling with anyone you disagree with as a Nazi. The nation has had enough of your crap that's why you are down to a pathetic 15 of 50 Governorships. Keep calling everyone a Nazi and see how that works out for you. Says the person who just labelled another group of people pussies. Burning books? Who is advocating that? Do you dream about this stuff or just make it up as you go?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2017 9:38:38 GMT -5
Our history is all better now that a statue has been vandalized.
|
|
bat21
All Conference
Posts: 148
|
Post by bat21 on Aug 21, 2017 14:24:20 GMT -5
I was at Rushmore this past spring. We were there for 2 days ... talking with the people of the town who worked there and lived there. They appreciate and care for the monument. They tell facts ... and some fairy tales ... as the families in the area have handed down stories of how their people worked on the monument. I can promise you this ... try to deface or destroy that monument ... will be met with quite a fight.
|
|
|
Post by galion on Aug 21, 2017 14:52:12 GMT -5
Last I checked Mt. Rushmore is not a confederate monument.
|
|