Printable View
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.
Again I didn't say that.
Then I'm not seeing what the big hubbub is about. Things change. Get with the program.
No things don't all change. Historical monuments should not change. New ones should go up but old ones should remain.
Yes, we definitely should have kept Stalin and Lenin around. :rolleyes:
And our Adolf-Hitler streets, too, while we were at it.
Can you point to me an Adolf-Hitler street that has been around for 90 years?
I would be against removing historical monuments to Stalin or Lenin that are about a century old. Since we are talking about Virginia it is worth mentioning that there is indeed a Stalin bust in Virginia at the National D-Day Memorial.
Right, so it's about "history". Again. And what exactly makes them so important?
And what's the cut-off date? Are ten years okay? Twenty? Or does it need to be a century?
Nothing makes them so important. Age has made them part of the heritage and fabric of the country - for good or ill.
No, ten or twenty years is modern. I will refer you to my comment earlier.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Ah, so you get to decide what's historical or not. And moving the goalposts as you deem fit. Congratulations.
Good thing your opinion is worthless on this :)
My opinion is my opinion, never said any more or less.
Pre-WWII has been a recognised cut-off for historical for a long time and is not just my opinion though other opinions of course do exist.
I don't care if my opinion is worthless. The entire purpose of the forum is to debate and discuss our opinions and I intend to put my own opinions not somebody else's. If you want to parrot other people rather than posit your own opinion then that is your choice but I wouldn't respect it.
I don't respect your shitty opinions at all, my dear. You're a curmudgeon who would like nothing more than to yell at clouds while the world passes him by because he's too daft to understand that nothing is set in stone. As evidenced by your idolatry of British Exceptionalism.