Printable View
That is bullshit, judged through the prism of his time he was an abject traitor. The statue itself was an example of revisionism, trying to make a traitor into a war hero by focusing on his strategic qualities rather than the fact that he fought against his own country.Quote:
Originally Posted by Asmo
Sensible. If you're going to do it, don't grandstand and just do it quickly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
You keep saying traitor like it is meaningful. The country was in civil war and he fought for his state. He along was given a pardon, along with other rebels, by President Johnson in 1868.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
He resigned his post from the only legitimate army to join an illegal army. With this army he fought the duly elected government of his country. Today we would call him an insurgent or a terrorist. Back then you would call such a man a rebel and a traitor. Being pardoned does not take away the crime. It merely lifts the punishment.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Time to start building those statues to Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Asmo
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...illing-to-come
Fox's Shep Smith: We couldn't find a Republican willing to come on and defend Trump
:haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::h aha::haha::haha::cry:
He hasn't been a fan of Trump for awhile now. Generally speaking though Republicans are probably right not to jump into the fray to defend Trump. Its particularly disappointing that Trump can't articulate himself better. This was a tremendous opportunity to look presidential and to call for an end to all violent political movements. A couple of days later he could look to champion passing really strict federal anti-rioting laws. Sigh.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
So you're upset he isn't authoritarian enough for you? That's the problem?
I don't see why we should be building statues today to either of these people.Quote:
Time to start building those statues to Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin then.
Although I would be totally for restoring some of the statues to Stalin he certainly had an impact on the history of our nation, and in my opinion they should never have been knocked down. Although communist statues are a bit of a special case since there were build by the Goverment in place in mass so defiantly mass produced statues can removed. Lenin can be kept to designate one way streets. But certainly a reasonable number of prominent statues preferably those that are more impressive should be kept.
Hitler, Mussolini - Again I don't see why we today should be building statues to these people, but if there were statues that are still standing today I do not think they would need to be knocked down.
It would be quite inconcievable indeed to put up statues of Hitler and Mussolini, both immediately after the war and today. I will give you that Stalin is a bit of an outlier, not so much because of what his regime meant in the USSR, but because of the personality cult that came with it. That makes the monuments a part of Russian history. And not a post-ante attempt to honor him. And as we both know the biggest honor (his place next to Lenin) he was stripped off a long long time ago. What remains of the statues doesn't merely glorify him, but also is a stark reminder of his totalitarian rule. As such they can't be compared to statues that were merely put in place to rehabilitate people who betrayed their country.Quote:
Originally Posted by Asmo
Not sure what the traitor bit is supposed to mean, who and what did he betray? As far as I understand at the time it was widely accepted that union was voluntary, and supreme court ruling to the contrary came after the civil war. Also how do you even define a traitor in a civil war, the winner and the loser? The only one I could apply that term to is someone who stated out fighting for one side and switched midway.
He served in the US army and laid down his commission with the express intent to fight against that same army. The oath he swore as he took up his commission contains a promise to defend the United States against all enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC. Now, you may think that oaths don't matter very much, but back when he made it they sure as hell counted for something, and his behavior is what causes him to be a prime example of a traitor. But maybe you have an entirely different concept of oaths and honor and are supporting the erection of statues for Russian volunteers who fought for Hitler. If that is the case may I suggest Bronislaw Kaminski. I don't know what ruling you refer to, but IF the Supreme Court ruled that secession was illegal, that means the Law in the United States always was that secession was illegal. It doesn't make Lee less of a traitor, it even makes him a criminal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Asmo
The reason why he wasn't hanged after the Civil War mostly lies in the generous terms Grant offered for surrender. Which in short promised immunity for officers of the Confederate army if they would go back home and promised not to break the law. It was Grant's insistence that the US government should honor these terms that saved Lee in the end.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/...nalysis-shows/
Photo of ‘Antifa’ man assaulting officer was doctored, analysis shows
and by doctored, they mean the picture isn't even from the US. So the two big stories Trump and his ilk leaned on, violence against officers and gathering without a permit, has already fallen apart.
He's doing a fine job articulating himself. He doesn't actually disagree with the white supremacist movement, he doesn't want to discourage them, and he wants to keep their support. That's what he is articulating and that's what decent people find abhorrent. I realize it's hard for you to understand, but there is no miscommunication from Trump.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
I agree with this evaluation. He doesn't want to loose the support of what is basically an extremist section of the voters who will stick with him unless he would launch a frontal attack on them.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
Yeah, it's not like he's a difficult man to read or anything.
No, no, it's really all about the #optics
#reasonableconservative
http://www.businessinsider.com/rober...numents-2017-8
“It’s often forgotten that Lee himself, after the Civil War, opposed monuments, specifically Confederate war monuments,” Jonathan Horn, a Lee biographer, told PBS.
Hazir should I then conclude that in all civil conflicts where rebels oppose the power in place, the rebel side are traitors? In particular those military personal that join the rebel side. If so its a totally clear point of view not necessarily one i share but is respectable if applied consistently to all civil conflicts.
http://i.imgur.com/iJPkwRq.jpg
Confederate Monuments were not built for historical reasons, they were constructed as a negative response to Reconstruction, in celebration of the rise of the Second KKK (and a movement known as the Invisible Empire), and a negative response to the Civil Rights Movement.
They were constructed in places that never were part of the Confederacy (like Ohio and Indiana), in white enclaves that wanted a symbol to keep out economically mobile black citizens.
Much of this born of the Lost Cause movement that has been romanticizing the Confederacy as plucky rebel under dogs who fought heroically for their way of life. The truth though is that the Confederacy was started by wealthy plantation owners so that they could maintain their slave work force. And to a large extent it was not fought by those families but by conscripted poor farmers, tradesmen and immigrants right off the ship.
You will often hear the terms Neo-Confederate and Neo-Nazi used interchangeably, that is because they both come from the same school of thought which classified the races in a hierarchical ladder of "fitness" which gained popularity in the 1890's and was used to convince people of the evolutionary superiority of the "white race".
It was during this time that the roots of Nazism started to form, and the Neo-Confederate Movement (KKK, Invisible Empire, etc) started to gain influence in the United States. While Nazis had few decades to really get a foothold, the Neo-Confederates quickly latched onto white resentment against economically successful minorities and were able to gain considerable political power. While those monuments started going up all over the South (and other places) the State Houses began passing Jim Crow laws and setting the stage for what came to be known as the Civil Rights Movement.
In conclusion, these monuments have nothing to do with the history of the Civil War, they are Totems of Racism. They have nothing to do with heritage, they are rallying points of White Supremacy. They have no place in our society if we want a culture of inclusion and equality.
oh but wait, our new york billionaire president wants to stick his foot in his mouth. again.
Twitter Link
Twitter Link
So while there were spikes in the two periods stated the graph also shows there were some built consistently every decade since the Civil War through to today.
Once you do start ripping out monuments it won't stop with Confederate ones.
almost as if we still have large patches of racism. :noob: I mean holy shit, look at the explosion of school naming/renaming after the brown vs board case. But you do raise a good question. What is your cutoff for them to be "historical"?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Source? I mean relocating or removing statues isn't a new or US only thing. The UK has its own wiki page for its efforts.Quote:
Once you do start ripping out monuments it won't stop with Confederate ones.
You seriously expect a reply to this sterling slippery slope red herring? We are talking about monuments in the American context that are dedicated in remembrance of war efforts that were in defense of a system that held millions of people in bondage. Monuments that are offensive because they are nothing more than attempts to make us believe that the Confederacy all in all was worth fighting for , despite that minor issue of slavery.Quote:
Originally Posted by Asmo
i.e. Not different than erecting monuments for Hitler because after all the genocide of Jews wasn't sufficient to negate the fact that he built motorways, ended unemployment in Germany and set humanity on a path towards the stars. If you concede that such monuments are non-controversial I will concede that all monuments have a right to exist because even the biiggesr criminals treat their mothers well.
Of course they're traitors in the purest sense of the word. As usual, it depends on the reason why you become a traitor and what exactly you are betraying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Asmo
So the statue in front of my county courthouse was given a $140,000 price tag by the county commissioners. They were of the opinion that if the daughters of the confederacy can pay to install it, protesters should have no issue paying such a price to relocate it.
City countered with a WTF and footed the bill via its chamber of commerce
Counterpoint: it willQuote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Ooooh, a slippery slope fallacy!
Rand, you realize that in order to be able to argue a "slippery slope" you'll have to be able to provide an argument which inevitably leads to the propagation of the chain.
This is getting farcical :o
Twitter Link
I predict a surge in new ratings for this movie on IMDB, rottentomatoes and netflix.
I think you may very well be right. Do you have some ideas as to which other "monuments" may be removed in the next decade?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Nope. That wasn't in the language of it at the time actually, it was added in 1882 as a simplification of the changes made in 1862 because of the civil war then being waged. The oath Lee would have sworn at West Point said something along the lines of the followingQuote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Quote:
. . .do solemnly swear, or affirm, that I will bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and that I will serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies or opposers whatsoever, and observe and obey the orders of the President of the United States, and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the rules and articles for the government of the Armies of the United States.
There was not such a ruling at the time in either direction. SCOTUS did later declare unilateral secession unconstitutional in 1869, in a case addressing Texas specifically, but the argument made by the majority was tenuous and made claims which directly ignored the terms of the treaty which brought the originally independent Lone Star Republic into the US as a state, and was also made by a court composed entirely of the victors. The ruling also held that Texas was not a state at all (Radical Reconstructionists controlled the Court and government at the time)Quote:
I don't know what ruling you refer to, but IF the Supreme Court ruled that secession was illegal, that means the Law in the United States always was that secession was illegal. It doesn't make Lee less of a traitor, it even makes him a criminal.
That is a good question. As a general rule of thumb I would say anything pre-dating WWII is "historical" though I would have used the same cut-off twenty years ago so at some point post-war stuff would move into the realms of history. Possibly where enough time that all the people concerned at the time of erection are now dead.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Can you provide a link to that. If you're referring to stuff like #RhodesMustFall then I mentioned that earlier as an example to support my argument. This is becoming a global phenomenon of removing statues that don't match today's values and I don't think that is appropriate whether it is in the UK, South Africa, USA or anywhere else.Quote:
Source? I mean relocating or removing statues isn't a new or US only thing. The UK has its own wiki page for its efforts.
There's a difference between the occasional change to renovate any area and politically motivated campaigns to remove people you don't approve of.
It won't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
It's not a fallacy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
I have done. The success of those who succeed in removing their opponents does not satisfy people as there will always be more opponents, especially when contrasting historical standards with modern ones. This has been witnessed across the world in recent years eg with the aforementioned #RhodesMustFall campaign that led from the successful attempt to remove a statue of Rhodes in South Africa to lots more South African and other statues being removed and an attempt to remove Rhodes from Oxford University (which almost succeeded until donors threatened to pull finance if the University gave in to the protestors which suddenly led to a change of heart).Quote:
Rand, you realize that in order to be able to argue a "slippery slope" you'll have to be able to provide an argument which inevitably leads to the propagation of the chain.
In America it is not just hypothetical future examples, there are already nascent movements to challenge others.
Now a statue to Lincoln has been vandalised: http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local...440897443.html
There are already calls to remove statues to Presidents Washington and Jackson and rename parks named in their honour: http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2017/08/...-slave-owners/
Nope, racist acts done by racist people for racist reasons don't automatically age into acceptance because of the amount of time it took the attacked party to find a voice.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...erly_in_London
Now before you go all Drax and literally try to pick it apart this is simply a list of lost, destroyed and relocated statues. You seem to have an issue in this thread with understand the vast difference between something being relocated to a more appropriate location and being outright destroyed. Not that the list is empty of worthwhile examples.
Green Party 2016 Veep candidate weighs in:
Twitter Link
Yeah this will end with the Confederacy it is a total fallacy to suggest others may be next. :rolleyes:
If you check the list they are primarily either temporary pieces of artwork or those that were moved/replaced during renovations, or pieces of artwork that were stolen, weathered or otherwise destroyed. Which is what I said in my post that you snipped. "There's a difference between the occasional change to renovate any area and politically motivated campaigns to remove people you don't approve of."Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Very few there that I can see match this in being a politically motivated change.
We haven't discussed much the idea of something being relocated. I am quite content with things being relocated.
So you admit that offensive statues can be removed without it snowballing? Thats good step for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
No I don't because as I said I don't see where that's been happening. If you can point to the examples of the offensive statues being removed without it snowballing then I would agree. Especially any examples without it snowballing in the modern communications era.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Very eloquently put:
Twitter Link
I know he's Constitutionally-forbidden from being President but if any "celebrity" Republican were to be President I'd infinitely rather it was Arnold than Donald.
Sure, Rand, we learn history from fucking statues. In fact we exclusively learn from statues about Ancient Greece or Medieval Europe. And we wouldn't know anything about Hitler or Göring without their statues!
Who said we only learn history from statues? Not me. If you're going to try a straw man, maybe try one a tad less obvious.
We do not learn history from statues at all, Rand. Not. At. All.
They serve a completely different purpose. You can stick your apologetic "But, but, but: Rewriting of history!" where the sun doesn't shine.