The Founding Fathers are next after the Confederate monuments

[LittleLebowski]

No doubt in my mind about this.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/15/opinions/jefferson-charlottesville-rally-opinion-due/index.html

[SamAdams]

You destroy a nation by destroying its culture, memory of its history, and families.

Tin foil hat stuff ?

Not if you've read Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, and Saul Alinsky.

[hufnagel]

I'll be in Gettysburg very soon for a mini vacation and some sight seeing and tours. If I see anyone attempting to do anything to any of the monuments, well, I'll probably be needing a lawyer. I will say it right now... that shit will not fly if i'm there.

On a related note, I need to research more about on body bicycle carry options, while in full spandex. :)

[SamAdams]

hufnagel - I'm not worried about guys like us. The concern is for young people who've been brainwashed in schools & universities and in front of the t.v. since they were tykes.

[RJ]

Saw Trump take a few questions on this after his infrastructure comments.

He was spot on, in my opinion, calling out violent, racist assholes no matter what banner or ideology they hide behind.

[45dotACP]

Op ed piece in a flaming liberal rag=full blown communism coming to your town? I have my doubts.

Also, not to put too fine a point on it, but Confederate monuments are monuments to enemies. I very much doubt we have public monuments to King George, Hitler, or...as the case may be...Joseph Stalin.

They lost the war. They didn't build this nation like the founding fathers. They were indeed Americans. They were also enemy combatants. It was generous of the United States of America to allow any monument to be built to a warrior for the CSA....a long failed attempt at state sovereignty which didn't succeed.

Maybe I'm just too much of a Yankee but I don't see the problem with tearing down Ol Stonewall's pigeon pulpit.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[Permethrin]

I'll be in Gettysburg very soon for a mini vacation and some sight seeing and tours. If I see anyone attempting to do anything to any of the monuments, well, I'll probably be needing a lawyer. I will say it right now... that shit will not fly if i'm there.

On a related note, I need to research more about on body bicycle carry options, while in full spandex. :)

What are you implying?

[Permethrin]

Saw Trump take a few questions on this after his infrastructure comments.

He was spot on, in my opinion, calling out violent, racist assholes no matter what banner or ideology they hide behind.

The issue is how long it took him to do so, when he is so quick on the twitter trigger etc regarding such important issues such as facelifts and...

[hufnagel]

What are you implying?

That traditional holsters don't work well with spandex biking shorts. :D

[RJ]

The issue is how long it took him to do so, when he is so quick on the twitter trigger etc regarding such important issues such as facelifts and...

I don't have a problem with him calling out violent racist assholes, no matter when or where.

Black violent racist assholes, AntiFa violent racist assholes, White Supremacist violent racist assholes; any of them.

[RJ]

That traditional holsters don't work well with spandex biking shorts. :D

"Edging towards TMI for $100, Alex."

:cool:

[hufnagel]

"Edging towards TMI for $100, Alex."

:cool:

http://manybrightdots.com/twg/cache/Family/2017/DSC_0002.JPG.small.jpg

now go get your brain bleach. ;)

[SamAdams]

Op ed piece in a flaming liberal rag=full blown communism coming to your town? I have my doubts.

Also, not to put too fine a point on it, but Confederate monuments are monuments to enemies. I very much doubt we have public monuments to King George, Hitler, or...as the case may be...Joseph Stalin.

They lost the war. They didn't build this nation like the founding fathers. They were indeed Americans. They were also enemy combatants. It was generous of the United States of America to allow any monument to be built to a warrior for the CSA....a long failed attempt at state sovereignty which didn't succeed.

Maybe I'm just too much of a Yankee but I don't see the problem with tearing down Ol Stonewall's pigeon pulpit.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

There is probably an impossible amount of ground to cover in terms of the real history. First of all, the war wasn't primarily about slavery. That ended in most of the world without a bloody war.
The war was about economics and the founding principles of the nation, including that it was a voluntarily association of the states for limited common purposes. There was never supposed to be an all powerful federal government run out of D.C. The American founders had experienced that under the English king & Parliment. - That notion of limited government and real checks & balances died after the Civil War.

Do a little research on the European 1848 revolutions. After losing in Europe, many union officers and troops were immigrant refugees from those revolutionary efforts. And many of them settled in your own Illinois.

[RJ]

http://manybrightdots.com/twg/cache/Family/2017/DSC_0002.JPG.small.jpg

now go get your brain bleach. ;)

That is actually a great photo.

[hufnagel]

first day on the new trail-a-bike (THANKS txdpd !!!) and I took him to Police Academy camp.
that's how i'll be tugging him around a good part of Gettysburg. We've done it once before. I might be fat, but I can climb.

[Permethrin]

There is probably an impossible amount of ground to cover in terms of the real history. First of all, the war wasn't primarily about slavery. That ended in most of the world without a bloody war.
The war was about economics and the founding principles of the nation, including that it was a voluntarily association of the states for limited common purposes. There was never supposed to be an all powerful federal government run out of D.C. The American founders had experienced that under the English king & Parliment. - That notion of limited government died after the Civil War.

Do a little research on the European 1848 revolutions. After losing in Europe, many union officers and troops were immigrant refugees from those revolutionary efforts. And many of them settled in your own Illinois.

I for one am glad that the CSA lost the civil war.

Also, I don't think 45dot mentioned anything about slavery or causes/non-causes of the war? Why was that brought up?

[SamAdams]

I for one am glad that the CSA lost the civil war.

Also, I don't think 45dot mentioned anything about slavery or causes/non-causes of the war? Why was that brought up?

Because thats usually the justification given for the war.

[RJ]

Because thats usually the justification given for the war.

The short answer I recall from many years ago in Virginia History class was it was States Rights.

I'm not, really, that knowledgeable in this area. Is that an accurate (if succinct) summary of the basis of the Civil War?

[Permethrin]

Because thats usually the justification given for the war.

I fail to see how that is germane to the actual discussion here - specifically that some of these monuments, while perhaps historically interesting are indeed monuments of men who fought against the USA

[SamAdams]

Rich_Jenkins - 'Show me the money' is often the bottom line answer. Tariffs disadvantaged Southern agriculture and advantaged Northern merchant & financial interests. The federal central government was financed by these tariffs. When Lincoln heard the South might leave the union he asked 'But who will pay for the government ?'

[hufnagel]

Depending on your analysis of history, It could be said that the US as intended by the Founding Fathers lost the Civil War, as the southern states lost not only some of their individual autonomy, but had their way of life destroyed during the fighting (and i'm not referring to slavery either.) As such we are now in a situation where we have larger centralized government and lesser state level control.

[SamAdams]

hufnagel - yes, and the reason the Founders designed a limited and divided government was to keep ii answerable to the governed who would give it their consent. They designed the three branches of government & delineated states rights and the role of the national government was limited.

[TGS]

As such we are now in a situation where we have larger centralized government and lesser state level control.

Which is true, but Civil War being the turning point for such certainly isn't true.

It was a gradual centralization that started much earlier....about a couple years after the current US Government was created, actually. If the federalization was a word document on a computer, then the Civil War was just converting the Word Document into a PDF on the changes that had already happened, that way no one could easily edit said changes.

[RevolverRob]

Fact: Your personal interpretation of the causes behind the US Civil War are directly related to whether or not you grew up in a former Union or a former Confederate state.

What I've learned over the years is:

If you grew up in a Union State, the Civil War was entirely about racism and slavery.
If you grew up in a Confederate state the Civil War was entirely about states rights and political imbalance that begin with the Missouri Compromise.
If you grew up in California, you have no conceptual idea of a Civil War and assume it has something to do with who grows the best marijuana.

States Rights was a very serious issue in the Civil War as was Slavery and as was racism. We need only reflect on the fact of the Draft Riots in New York and the public racism that was displayed there. Neither side can ignore that slavery is/was a serious problem with respect to how this country was founded and played a critical role in the instigation of the war.

Anyways, I've run off on a tangent. The destruction/removal/elimination of Confederate monuments in the southern US has been ongoing for 30 years. We have erased a large portion of that past now and renamed most of the various bits and pieces to reflect different people. BUT there is one thing STILL going on...if you live in Texas...you're still taught that the Civil War was about States Rights. If you live in Illinois you're still taught that the Civil War was about Slavery. And you still have a historical political and cultural divide that has existed since the 1840s in this country.

[SamAdams]

I agree that the battle between those who wanted a more centralized government & those who feared the potential abuses of that started very early. Jefferson and Hamilton characterize the two sides. But the war settled it in a way debate & ink could not IMO.

[45dotACP]

There is probably an impossible amount of ground to cover in terms of the real history. First of all, the war wasn't primarily about slavery. That ended in most of the world without a bloody war.
The war was about economics and the founding principles of the nation, including that it was a voluntarily association of the states for limited common purposes. There was never supposed to be an all powerful federal government run out of D.C. The American founders had experienced that under the English king & Parliment. - That notion of limited government and real checks & balances died after the Civil War.

Do a little research on the European 1848 revolutions. After losing in Europe, many union officers and troops were immigrant refugees from those revolutionary efforts. And many of them settled in your own Illinois.Wasn't federalism a fairly well received concept among our founding fathers?

In any case, I made no mention of the civil war being about slavery.

I noted that the thing that brought all the sieg-heiling neckbeards with swastikas and their impassioned cries of "Jew will not replace us" was their passionate defense of Robert E. Lee or some other long dead general of an enemy nation.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[LittleLebowski]

Op ed piece in a flaming liberal rag=full blown communism coming to your town? I have my doubts.

Also, not to put too fine a point on it, but Confederate monuments are monuments to enemies. I very much doubt we have public monuments to King George, Hitler, or...as the case may be...Joseph Stalin.

They lost the war. They didn't build this nation like the founding fathers. They were indeed Americans. They were also enemy combatants. It was generous of the United States of America to allow any monument to be built to a warrior for the CSA....a long failed attempt at state sovereignty which didn't succeed.

Maybe I'm just too much of a Yankee but I don't see the problem with tearing down Ol Stonewall's pigeon pulpit.


So, I did not say anything about "full blown communism coming to your town", I checked. Didn't imply it either. After that you went off on a tangent about Confederate memorials and we all know I was not talking about those either.

I'll rehash it in more words as so to get my point across:

I think that the left will not stop with Confederate memorials but will move on to or at the same time, attack memorials to our Founding Fathers through word and deed.

[RoyGBiv]

Depending on your analysis of history, It could be said that the US as intended by the Founding Fathers lost the Civil War, as the southern states lost not only some of their individual autonomy, but had their way of life destroyed during the fighting (and i'm not referring to slavery either.) As such we are now in a situation where we have larger centralized government and lesser state level control.

So the Democrats actually won the Civil War?

[TAZ]

Op ed piece in a flaming liberal rag=full blown communism coming to your town? I have my doubts.

Also, not to put too fine a point on it, but Confederate monuments are monuments to enemies. I very much doubt we have public monuments to King George, Hitler, or...as the case may be...Joseph Stalin.

They lost the war. They didn't build this nation like the founding fathers. They were indeed Americans. They were also enemy combatants. It was generous of the United States of America to allow any monument to be built to a warrior for the CSA....a long failed attempt at state sovereignty which didn't succeed.

Maybe I'm just too much of a Yankee but I don't see the problem with tearing down Ol Stonewall's pigeon pulpit.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

I will preface my statement with the following disclaimer: I am 100% opposed to slavery of any firm. I am 100% in favor of dickstomping those who would oppress their fellow man in such a manner. I am 100% opposed to racism and other forms of bigotry. Having seen first hand the effects of communism, I'm 100% opposed to those asshats as well. I am 100% committed to the concepts of our Constitution and ONLY the Constitution.

The fact that most people wish to ignore is that the South and it's economy did help build this nation. Like it or not the economy of the south prior to the industrial revolution was a contributor to the welfare of the nation. Had it not been profitable nobody would have wanted to tax it nor would the south have been upset at an X% tax as X% of nothing is still nothing. Like it or not the southern states did their share in helping this country develop into the nation it is.

I look at confederate statues in the same way as I do other statues of historic people or moments. As a reminder of our history. We need to be reminded where we came from so we don't repeat our mistakes. If we chose to hide the bad things we did as a nation - slavery, ethnic cleansing, racism... we are 100% doomed to repeat them. I for one do not want to have our nation regress. Do you??

[SamAdams]

Yes, the thread was derailed by those who think its fine to erase history if it involves those they don't like.

Ya know the Egyptians & Romans had slaves (as did most of the world then). Why not bulldoze the Colliseum and Great Pyramid? And the Aztecs did terrible sacrifices, their structures should be leveled too.


Hmmm . . . this is starting to sound like very familiar. Didnt the Taliban do similar things ?

[LittleLebowski]

Yes, the thread was derailed by those who think its fine to erase history if it involves those they don't like.

Ya know the Egyptians & Romans had slaves (as did most of the world then). Why not bulldoze the Colliseum and Great Pyramid? And the Aztecs did terrible sacrifices, their structures should be leveled too.

Hmmm . . . this is starting to sound like very familiar. Didnt the Taliban do similar things ?

Spot on.

[45dotACP]

Yes, the thread was derailed by those who think its fine to erase history if it involves those they don't like.

Ya know the Egyptians & Romans had slaves (as did most of the world then). Why not bulldoze the Colliseum and Great Pyramid? And the Aztecs did terrible sacrifices, their structures should be leveled too.


Hmmm . . . this is starting to sound like very familiar. Didnt the Taliban do similar things ?Oh my lawd. I said Jack shizzle about slavery bro. Also...wasn't the very library of Alexandria leveled and burned in the course of war? History is written by the victor. The South was not the victor right?

Please don't make me go all carpetbagger up in here :D

I don't believe we ought to erase history. I doubt Robert E Lee or Stonewall Jackson or even Thomas Jefferson will fade into obscurity. They shouldn't.

But if it makes the Nazis mad, I'm all for removing a statue it two that's only collecting bird shit and graffiti...

Want to learn about history? A book, a museum, or the internet is an educational place. Even in Chiraq they have such institutions.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[BillSWPA]

Getting back to the present day, Trump was completely right to say that the violence was the fault of both sides. While I am completely opposed to racism, I am much more opposed to the idea that it is okay to engage in violence against those with whom we disagree. Blaming only one side for the violence - as all Democrats and most Republicans have now done - is accepting the idea that shutting down speech with which we disagree with violence is okay. I hate to think about what this country will look like if we go down that path.

[Peally]

People that knock down monuments, confederate or otherwise, are pieces of shit. Fucking fascists sure are getting news time lately.

[Zincwarrior]

People that knock down monuments, confederate or otherwise, are pieces of shit. Fucking fascists sure are getting news time lately.was knocking down all the Saddam statues a bad idea then?

[45dotACP]

Getting back to the present day, Trump was completely right to say that the violence was the fault of both sides. While I am completely opposed to racism, I am much more opposed to the idea that it is okay to engage in violence against those with whom we disagree. Blaming only one side for the violence - as all Democrats and most Republicans have now done - is accepting the idea that shutting down speech with which we disagree with violence is okay. I hate to think about what this country will look like if we go down that path.No disagreement there.

If speech becomes violence, violence becomes speech. That is bad. Like "innocent woman run over by ill intentioned Nazi shithead" bad.

Also...another thread drift here...this seem like an object lesson.

You cannot run over protesters. Even violent ones.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[BillSWPA]

The free speech aspects of this keep getting worse.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/aug/15/jim-hinkle-georgia-judge-suspended-after-criticizi/

[TexasSiegfried]

...enough said....https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170816/6d73f78b8df81bb0305b99f39ece56bb.jpg

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[BillSWPA]

...enough said....https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170816/6d73f78b8df81bb0305b99f39ece56bb.jpg

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

When I took high school literature classes, I thought they were largely useless. However, I now believe that the reason why Common Core focuses less on fiction and more on "factual" documents is to ensure that students never read 1984 or Brave New World - the two books they really need to read in order to understand what is happening in the world.

[TAZ]

But if it makes the Nazis mad, I'm all for removing a statue it two that's only collecting bird shit and graffiti...

Want to learn about history? A book, a museum, or the internet is an educational place. Even in Chiraq they have such institutions.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Once you begin to accept revisionism it's a slippery slope. I grew up under a communists regime. They went down this path of history erasure. Started out with overt symbols like monuments and the quickly graduated to a complete rewrite of all history. All great inventions/advancements and such of the modern day were attributed to some Communist dipshit. So going to the library or museum or the internet will not help. Just think of the internet censorship/guidance going on today with Google, Facebook, Yahoo all controlling their trending stories. Would that become better or worse if we accept that rewriting factual history to appease people's feelings is a good thing?

[jc000]

was knocking down all the Saddam statues a bad idea then?

I thought so.

[DMF13]

The short answer I recall from many years ago in Virginia History class was it was States Rights.
Yes, and there was one state right that was in dispute, often referred as that "peculiar institution." It's dishonest to say the Civil War was not about slavery, but rather "States Rights," when the particular states rights issue in dispute was slavery.

[DMF13]

. . . those who think its fine to erase history if it involves those they don't like.Thinking that traitors and enemies, such as Robert Lee, Thomas Jackson, etc, should not be honored with statues, is not wanting to "erase history." We can study the history of those men, without erecting (or keeping) statues honoring them. We've all been able to study the history of Adolf Hitler, Isoruko Yamamoto, Josef Stalin, Ho Chi Minh, Robert Hannssen, Aldrich Aames, Gordon Liddy, Timothy McVeigh, Usama Bin Laden, etc, without erecting statues to them.

[DallasBronco]

Thinking that traitors and enemies, such as Robert Lee, Thomas Jackson, etc, should not be honored with statues, is not wanting to "erase history." We can study the history of those men, without erecting (or keeping) statues honoring them. We've all been able to study the history of Adolf Hitler, Isoruko Yamamoto, Josef Stalin, Ho Chi Minh, Robert Hannssen, Aldrich Aames, Gordon Liddy, Timothy McVeigh, Usama Bin Laden, etc, without erecting statues to them.

You're able to learn the narrative that those who wrote about those people wanted you to learn. Forgetting or ignoring where we came from is of no benefit to a free and thinking people. We probably learn more from what we did wrong than what we got right. Erasing the foibles just means we get to live them again, kind of like all the socialism that is trying to be forced on us now. It's never been successful, but why not try it again?
Those that fought for the South were defending their homes, families, countrymen, and their states. How could that make them traitors? I guess that's what you learned when studying about them.

[DMF13]

Forgetting or ignoring where we came from is of no benefit to a free and thinking people. We probably learn more from what we did wrong than what we got right. Erasing the foibles just means we get to live them again, kind of like all the socialism that is trying to be forced on us now. It's never been successful, but why not try it again?Again, not erecting (or not keeping statues) honoring those people is not "erasing" the history. The history can still be recorded and studied without having statues to those men.

How could that make them traitors? I guess that's what you learned when studying about them.Robert Lee, Thomas Jackson, and many others of the Confederacy, had sworn oaths to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies, foreign and domestic. They became traitors when they betrayed that oath, and joined the Confederacy. Maybe you should study more, rather than making false assumptions about what I've studied?

[ReverendMeat]

Yes, and there was one state right that was in dispute, often referred as that "peculiar institution." It's dishonest to say the Civil War was not about slavery, but rather "States Rights," when the particular states rights issue in dispute was slavery.

My takeaway from both private and public school in my neck of the woods is that the civil war was fought because Abe Lincoln wanted to free the slaves. I think a lot of kids are told the same thing, hence the "no it was about states' rights" overcorrection.

[Chance]

Meanwhile, Seattle has a statue of Lenin (https://www.geekwire.com/2017/time-pull-seattles-lenin-statue-silicon-valley-venture-capitalist-takes-relics-place-wake-charlottesville-tragedy/amp/). It's cool though, because it's art.

[Mjolnir]

Saw Trump take a few questions on this after his infrastructure comments.

He was spot on, in my opinion, calling out violent, racist assholes no matter what banner or ideology they hide behind.

I only heard snippets. Did he call the "Black Bloc" groups by name? I didn't hear if he did. I'm sick of Antifa.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Joe in PNG]

It's a shame Teddy's dead- Leftist Activists Demand New York Museum Take Down Statue of ‘Racist’ Theodore Roosevelt (http://www.dailywire.com/news/19741/leftist-activists-demand-new-york-museum-take-down-michael-qazvini)
Was Teddy a losing general who broke his oath to fight in an insurrection? Nope.
Was Teddy a slaveowner? Nope.
But there you go- any historical figure that upsets the Left in the slightest will be purged and done away with. Bad precedent.

[Jared]

This summer I took two American History classes, 1 & 2 concurrently and online. At one point during the semester I posted the comment on our discussion board that many historical figures were imperfect. I also added the argument that focusing only on their faults and ignoring their contributions was a lot like throwing the baby out with the bath water and was every bit as bad as ignoring the things they did wrong. I also added the argument to the class that they themselves would not like to be solely judged based on their own imperfections. Believe it or not the instructor agreed whole heartedly with my statements.

I think we can all agree that the institution of slavery was wrong and should not be repeated. However, I have a big problem with rejecting every single contribution of men who owned slaves because simply because of that. I'm specifically talking Jefferson and Washington here.

As far as the causes of the Civil War, our textbook mentioned many causes including abolitionist sentiment in the north, the tariff that protected northern industries but not southern agriculture and the election of Lincoln. I'll say that the Civil War is not one of my major historical interests, as I've focused most of my reading on our 20th century wars, so I'm not 100% confident in this quote, but.... Lincoln was quoted as stating that for him the purpose of the was was about preserving the union and that "if I could preserve the union and free no slaves I would do that, if I could preserve it and free all the slaves I would do that, and if I could preserve it and free some of the slaves I would do that also." The text basically painted the Emancipation Proclamation as Lincoln caving to immense political pressure, not something he himself was particularly passionate about other than it could help the North win the war.

I personally believe that slavery was wrong. Very wrong. Where I take issue with the current line of thinking is when people believe that all whites should be punished for the sins of long dead ancestors. I've never enslaved nor oppressed anyone, nor do I have any desire to do so. I wasn't around then to protest the practice nor fight against it. In other words, it wasn't my fault, nor am I responsible for it. I do think that we, as a people, need to recognize that it did happen and that it was wrong, and to never repeat it. I also think it's time that we all, as in all races and cultures, accept that the slaveowners are all dead, and that the whites that are alive now cannot undo what happened back then. The back and forth blame game changes nothing and benefits no one.

[hufnagel]

So the Democrats actually won the Civil War?

If you'll allow the term "Democrats" to be defined as it is currently, then yes I would posit that they did indeed win the Civil War. The erosion of State's Rights, which started before the Civil War, was as suggested by TGS else cemented at that time. Such erosion has continued through modern times.

[Jared]

It's a shame Teddy's dead- Leftist Activists Demand New York Museum Take Down Statue of ‘Racist’ Theodore Roosevelt (http://www.dailywire.com/news/19741/leftist-activists-demand-new-york-museum-take-down-michael-qazvini)
Was Teddy a losing general who broke his oath to fight in an insurrection? Nope.
Was Teddy a slaveowner? Nope.
But there you go- any historical figure that upsets the Left in the slightest will be purged and done away with. Bad precedent.

Wait... What? I thought TR was a progressive, one of the presidents who wished to solve problems with government intervention. Now the left hates him?

[Hambo]

A lot of these statues were commissioned in the early 20th century when the KKK was on an upsurge and "The Birth of a Nation" was playing in theaters. The southern way of life they were paying homage to was either the antebellum era or Jim Crow.

My family fought Nazis and Confederates, and nothing pisses me off more than seeing morons with symbols of either.

[LittleLebowski]

I only heard snippets. Did he call the "Black Bloc" groups by name? I didn't hear if he did. I'm sick of Antifa.


He just mentioned that were bad people on both sides, called out both sides for showing up prepared for violence.

[LittleLebowski]

It's a shame Teddy's dead- Leftist Activists Demand New York Museum Take Down Statue of ‘Racist’ Theodore Roosevelt (http://www.dailywire.com/news/19741/leftist-activists-demand-new-york-museum-take-down-michael-qazvini)
Was Teddy a losing general who broke his oath to fight in an insurrection? Nope.
Was Teddy a slaveowner? Nope.
But there you go- any historical figure that upsets the Left in the slightest will be purged and done away with. Bad precedent.

That's basically my point, I don't think it's going to stop with the Confederate monuments.

[Kyle Reese]

Are statues honoring Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Ceaucescu permitted by lefties?

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

[LittleLebowski]

The issue is how long it took him to do so, when he is so quick on the twitter trigger etc regarding such important issues such as facelifts and...

Last night he said the same thing that he said this weekend. So, no real delay.

[walker2713]

My takeaway from both private and public school in my neck of the woods is that the civil war was fought because Abe Lincoln wanted to free the slaves.

Lincoln's continuously stated goal was to save the UNION, and abolishing slavery was a means to that end. He'd always been personally anti-slavery, but had to work within the framework of the founders who had compromised on the issue at the founding.

This is my first post on this thread, and it's taken a lot of restraint from jumping into the fray. My family has been in the South since arriving in America in the 17th century, and many of my ancestors fought and died for the South in the Civil War.

The war was a complex and evolving series of events, long in our past, and it doesn't make sense to me to apply our modern perspectives and norms on people and circumstances that we struggle to comprehend.

Jeff Davis, Lee, Jackson and their compatriots were men of their time, just as we are men of our times. Subsequent local decisions to erect statues and memorials for those men and women who served and sacrificed makes sense to me. Human beings have done this from time immemorial. I also understand that modern communities may choose to lawfully change those decisions.

I personally view Lincoln as America's greatest President. In spite of the fact that he was so intimately involved in the affairs of his day, he managed to maintain a remarkable perspective on the events in which he played a critical role. In addition to the Second Inaugural Address, I commend to your attention an undated manuscript found in a drawer after his death. It's usually know as "The Meditation on the Divine Will."

The will of God prevails — In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God. Both may be, and one must be wrong. God cannot be for, and against the same thing at the same time. In the present civil war it is quite possible that God's purpose is somewhat different from the purpose of either party — and yet the human instrumentalities, working just as they do, are of the best adaptation to effect this.

[Chance]

It's a shame Teddy's dead- Leftist Activists Demand New York Museum Take Down Statue of ‘Racist’ Theodore Roosevelt (http://www.dailywire.com/news/19741/leftist-activists-demand-new-york-museum-take-down-michael-qazvini).

Roosevelt famously invited Booker T. Washington to have dinner at the White House. That was the first time a black man had been invited to a formal gathering by the president. So... what the actual fuck?

[Hambo]

Those that fought for the South were defending their homes, families, countrymen, and their states. How could that make them traitors? I guess that's what you learned when studying about them.

When I studied the Constitution I learned this:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

[Jared]

Roosevelt famously invited Booker T. Washington to have dinner at the White House. That was the first time a black man had been invited to a formal gathering by the president. So... what the actual fuck?

And if I recall a documentary on TR correctly, when he was called out by racists for having dinner with a black man he basically said he'd have dinner with whomever he wished and invite Mr Washington over as often as he'd like. He may have not had the exact same racial views as people do today, but TR was a lot more forward thinking on this issue than many of his contemporaries.

[LittleLebowski]

Roosevelt famously invited Booker T. Washington to have dinner at the White House. That was the first time a black man had been invited to a formal gathering by the president. So... what the actual fuck?

Unless he matches today's morals that SJWs espouse, he's racist.

[LittleLebowski]

Are statues honoring Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Ceaucescu permitted by lefties?


Lenin is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_statues_of_Vladimir_Lenin#United_States

[Chance]

And if I recall a documentary on TR correctly, when he was called out by racists for having dinner with a black man he basically said he'd have dinner with whomever he wished and invite Mr Washington over as often as he'd like.

Yep. Folks in the south we're not happy at all.

[Peally]

was knocking down all the Saddam statues a bad idea then?

My answer is: Pineapple.

Stupid question, stupid answer.

[Wayne Dobbs]

Op ed piece in a flaming liberal rag=full blown communism coming to your town? I have my doubts.

Also, not to put too fine a point on it, but Confederate monuments are monuments to enemies. I very much doubt we have public monuments to King George, Hitler, or...as the case may be...Joseph Stalin.

They lost the war. They didn't build this nation like the founding fathers. They were indeed Americans. They were also enemy combatants. It was generous of the United States of America to allow any monument to be built to a warrior for the CSA....a long failed attempt at state sovereignty which didn't succeed.

Maybe I'm just too much of a Yankee but I don't see the problem with tearing down Ol Stonewall's pigeon pulpit.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

And so you're a victim of not enough delving into the frame of reference of the times and the fact that slavery was a tertiary issue at best to both sides. Both sides supported and held slaves and Lincoln's so called Emancipation conveniently didn't free a single slave, it was just political theater. He exempted slaves held in the Union states and slaves that were being enslaved by the Union Army in the Southern states that were under Union control so they could keep on being slave labor for that selfsame Union Army. While I hold Lincoln in high regard overall, the following statement of his (one of many that showed he was a stone racist) may be illuminating:

“Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life. Family life may also collapse and the increase of mixed breed bastards may some day challenge the supremacy of the white man.”

The issue of individual sovereignty of the States was what launched the Civil War. Lincoln could've given two hoots in hell about slaves if he could've held the Union together. From the long view of history, I'm glad the outcome was a Union victory, as we would not have formed the US we have today without that outcome, but until you've learned the depth of the events and the complete honor of the very man you denigrate (Thomas Jackson), it might be good to keep your counsel.

[willie]

The monuments are a part of history. Post signs saying whatever you wish. Destroy these, and then what?

[SamAdams]

Are statues honoring Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Ceaucescu permitted by lefties?

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

They do seem to love Che Guevara t-shirts. Does that count ?



(BTW - Guevara was a psychopath mass murderer)

[45dotACP]

And so you're a victim of not enough delving into the frame of reference of the times and the fact that slavery was a tertiary issue at best to both sides. Both sides supported and held slaves and Lincoln's so called Emancipation conveniently didn't free a single slave, it was just political theater. He exempted slaves held in the Union states and slaves that were being enslaved by the Union Army in the Southern states that were under Union control so they could keep on being slave labor for that selfsame Union Army. While I hold Lincoln in high regard overall, the following statement of his (one of many that showed he was a stone racist) may be illuminating:

“Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life. Family life may also collapse and the increase of mixed breed bastards may some day challenge the supremacy of the white man.”

The issue of individual sovereignty of the States was what launched the Civil War. Lincoln could've given two hoots in hell about slaves if he could've held the Union together. From the long view of history, I'm glad the outcome was a Union victory, as we would not have formed the US we have today without that outcome, but until you've learned the depth of the events and the complete honor of the very man you denigrate (Thomas Jackson), it might be good to keep your counsel.I said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Zero. Zilch. Diddly about slavery. Wtf. Why do you assume my opposition to having monuments to enemy combatants (however honorable) is rooted in some SJW tirade about slaves?

They were generals of an enemy military. I said absolutely nothing about the civil war being fought over slavery.

Let me repeat again for those who haven't seemed to read my post. I said nothing about the civil war being solely fought over slavery. Slavery was a key issue that states wished to retain their sovereignty to protect, but ultimately slavery would have been abolished as agricultural technology no longer would require significant manual labor. But individual states retaining their sovereignty would have made this country weaker. Bad idea. The founding fathers even differed on the value of federalism vs confederalism, (I actually read the federalist papers) but ultimately they did not choose state sovereignty. So there it is. The South wanted what the United States was not.

Small government died long before the civil war. George Washington his own damn self was mostly a federalist.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[Shotgun]

Well, one can fairly easily pick out those from the North, and those from the South, in this thread regarding the War of Northern Aggression. So many Yankees have lost heir jobs up north and have move south to find work that it almost could be a southern migration. Unfortunately, many have brought their politically correct and anti-southern sentiments with them. To Southerners who have been here for generations, it is a shame that people would even think about tearing down historical monuments to Lee, Jackson, etc. And yes, the War of Northern Aggression was all about states' rights.

Next thing you know, the politically correct are going to try to rename Washington and Lee University to just Washington University. Oh, wait, General Washington was also a slave owner. Perhaps W&L will need to be renamed Politically Correct University. I read 1984 before it was 1984. I'm going to have go back and read that book. It seems very applicable at the moment.

[eb07]

These kids are being indoctrinated in public schools and colleges to hate America, capitalism, etc. it is no big surprise where the country is going to go in the next 20 years if we don't make radical changes to the education system and get rid of these radical liberal teachers and professors.

The klansman and neo nazis; they can be summed up from years of inbreeding.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

This is a stupid discussion for a technical pistol forum. The convoluted rationalizations that the Civil War was not about slavery as the major factor are just attempts to rationalize a repugnant chapter in American History. One engages in cognitive dissonace to avoid that fact. Yes, I have studied the issue in depth and I understand, in depth, the processes of denial.

[jc000]

Many southerners in civil war times felt they were acting in line with the vision of our founding fathers, and resisting a tyrannical govnerment. Those statues are an acknowledgement that we diverged as nation yet we were able to come back together, stronger because of it.

Technically, yes, the confederacy are 'traitors', but they are also our fellow citizens and family. It's ok to avoid a dogmatic, binary view of this event in our history.

[TGS]

This is a stupid discussion for a technical pistol forum. The convoluted rationalizations that the Civil War was not about slavery as the major factor are just attempts to rationalize a repugnant chapter in American History. One engages in cognitive dissonace to avoid that fact. Yes, I have studied the issue in depth and I understand, in depth, the processes of denial.

Here Here.



Well, one can fairly easily pick out those from the North, and those from the South, in this thread regarding the War of Northern Aggression. So many Yankees have lost heir jobs up north and have move south to find work that it almost could be a southern migration. Unfortunately, many have brought their politically correct and anti-southern sentiments with them. To Southerners who have been here for generations, it is a shame that people would even think about tearing down historical monuments to Lee, Jackson, etc. And yes, the War of Northern Aggression was all about states' rights.

Next thing you know, the politically correct are going to try to rename Washington and Lee University to just Washington University. Oh, wait, General Washington was also a slave owner. Perhaps W&L will need to be renamed Politically Correct University. I read 1984 before it was 1984. I'm going to have go back and read that book. It seems very applicable at the moment.

Posts like this aren't terribly helpful if you're trying to actually discuss something with people.

Using partisan phrases like The War of Northern Aggression isn't going to help your cause. First, because it wasn't a war of northern aggression.....the first shots, the rebellion, was started by southerners at Ft Sumter. Secondly, it's pretty backwards to use a term coined in the 1950s by Jim Crowe segregationists (as if it were a legitimate label to begin with) when discussing racial tensions in modern day America.


Many southerners in civil war times felt they were acting in line with the vision of our founding fathers, and resisting a tyrannical govnerment. Those statues are an acknowledgement that we diverged as nation yet we were able to come back together, stronger because of it.

Technically, yes, the confederacy are 'traitors', but they are also our fellow citizens and family. It's ok to avoid a dogmatic, binary view of this event in our history.

It's not only okay, but as you touched on I think there's a not-so-subtle lesson in those statues on inclusion, assimilation, and forgiveness with your enemies. It tends to work, as opposed to ostracizing and punishing people.

ETA: Unfortunately, I think those lessons are lost on a lot of people from both sides.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Here, Here!

Please recall that many of the statues under question were put up as explicit statements against civil rights and desegregation. That negates the 'pride' issue and monuments to fighting so-called Northern Aggression.

[RevolverRob]

For some reason I feel this thread needs some Johnny Cash.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t51MHUENlAQ

[RJ]

I only heard snippets. Did he call the "Black Bloc" groups by name? I didn't hear if he did.

You are right, I don't think he mentioned BLM.

Yet.

[TheNewbie]

Slavery is evil and disgusting and yet it was the norm at the time of our founding. Does not make it right but it's an important point to understand.

Several of the founding fathers owned slaves, yet where great men who formed a country that would eventually become the least racist and most tolerant in human history.

For the left this is too complicated to understand. They want to destroy everything as they see the world as black and white, with no gray area in it. Plus so many of them go to college where their intellect is corrupted and they are NOT taught wisdom.


Oh and to the Democrats who help start the Civil War. What idiots you were. You helped destroy states roghts in the name of the evil slavery.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

States rights trumped the evil of slavery? Great point. I suppose the civil rights laws and SCOTUS decisions that negated the Jim Crow laws were evil. I suppose if SCOTUS actually voids (fat chance) state laws that limit 2nd Amend. rights you will be all for that application of states rights. Three Cheers for the NY SAFE Act. Let's go shell Fort Sumner in favor of banning AR-15s by the states!

[SamAdams]

And so you're a victim of not enough delving into the frame of reference of the times and the fact that slavery was a tertiary issue at best to both sides. Both sides supported and held slaves and Lincoln's so called Emancipation conveniently didn't free a single slave, it was just political theater. He exempted slaves held in the Union states and slaves that were being enslaved by the Union Army in the Southern states that were under Union control so they could keep on being slave labor for that selfsame Union Army. While I hold Lincoln in high regard overall, the following statement of his (one of many that showed he was a stone racist) may be illuminating:

“Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life. Family life may also collapse and the increase of mixed breed bastards may some day challenge the supremacy of the white man.”

The issue of individual sovereignty of the States was what launched the Civil War. Lincoln could've given two hoots in hell about slaves if he could've held the Union together. From the long view of history, I'm glad the outcome was a Union victory, as we would not have formed the US we have today without that outcome, but until you've learned the depth of the events and the complete honor of the very man you denigrate (Thomas Jackson), it might be good to keep your counsel.

Thank you sir for inserting additional real history into this discussion.

Earlier I was going to include Lincoln's quotes where he said he would end slavery, or keep it - whatever it took to keep the union together. In addition, he was in favor of shipping all the blacks outside the nation to form their own country- and said so.
Slavery ended throughout the rest of the world, without a bloody war. Economically, slavery was inefficient & would inevitably end in an increasingly industrialized West. Lincoln's motivation for the proclamation was probably related to keeping England out of the war on the side of the South.

The image we were given of Lincoln from the time we were in elementary school is inaccurate. Mr Lincoln was a wealthy rail road attorney. He actually had his own private rail car. His interests meshed with those of Northern industry and finance, who benefited from tariffs on manufactured goods from overseas (primarily England & Europe) at the expense of Southern agriculture. As I mentioned earlier, when Lincoln heard that the South might leave the union he asked "But who will pay for the government?"

It can be argued that economics (money) was what ultimately fueled the conflict that would eventually spark the war. Yes, there were other factors too. But this was a primary one.

[rob_s]

Maybe I'm just too much of a Yankee

you are

[RJ]

Baltimore removes statues:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/16/us/baltimore-confederate-monuments-removal/index.html

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170816/3bc753952eacde63ae8f671878148fed.jpg

[willie]

It's a simple fact that many Southerners have some small degree of emotional attachment to the southern effort during the Civil War. I do because both sides of my family fought and died as CSA soldiers. Emotion is seldom derived from logic. Hence, I would not argue my point past what I just wrote.

I would bet that the same protestors stirring crap about police are the same people trying to pull down monuments. If they had jobs and worked for a living, they would not have time to do either.

[Jeep]

Personally, I'm the descendant of Southern Unionists who rejected the Confederacy and paid a very severe price for it. Multiple ancestors ended up in Andersonville; many men in their Unionist regiments were murdered for "treason" after being captured. The Confederates confiscated their arms, burned their barns and drafted any man or boy their could. In addition, the war was, at its base, about slavery. South Carolina attacked Fort Sumpter after Lincoln was elected but months before he was inaugurated because of the fear that his government would undermine slavery.

That being said, I find the removal of Confederate statutes to be abhorrent. To the best of my knowledge all of those men were pardoned after the war. Nor did they believe they were traitors because they believed that their primary loyalty was to their states (I disagree but that was their understanding). Most of them fought honorably and well (I don't include Bedford Forrest in that--he fought very well--but not honorably) and some, like Lee and Jackson, were outstanding men. To remove their statutes 150 years after the war is over is revolting.

And yes, the SJW's are not going to stop here. They won't be satisfied until the Washington monument and the cities and State of Washington are renamed. George Washington was one of the finest men in the history of the world, and they are going to go after him as a "white supremacist." To Hell with them.

[LittleLebowski]

This is a stupid discussion for a technical pistol forum. The convoluted rationalizations that the Civil War was not about slavery as the major factor are just attempts to rationalize a repugnant chapter in American History. One engages in cognitive dissonace to avoid that fact. Yes, I have studied the issue in depth and I understand, in depth, the processes of denial.

Except we strictly enforce technical discussions in the technical sub forums and this sub forum's purpose and intent are decidedly different and openly labeled as such.

[Zincwarrior]

The monuments are a part of history. Post signs saying whatever you wish. Destroy these, and then what?

Statues and pictures to Hitler and Hussein were too.

Most of these statues were put up in the Jim Crow era and Civil Rights struggles. They are monuments to traitors put up by racists.
Alternatively keep them up but put up plaques discussing their treason.

[RJ]

Lincoln Memorial Vandalized:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/lincoln-memorial-vandalized-with-graffiti-park-police-say/

[45dotACP]

Oh dear, we actually have someone here calling it The War of Northern Aggression...

It was the American Civil war. The United States of America won it. The Confederate States of America lost it. Thus it is what we will call it. All that said, the cognitive dissonance, historical innacuracies and the apparent lack of reading comprehension on this thread are making me feel sympathetic for general Sherman.

I think we can all agree that defacing a public monument (to whomever) is still illegal...that removing a public monument (to whomever) is the decision of the government and that electing the government who would remove a monument (to whomever) falls on us.

I think I've definitely said my piece here. There's nothing else for me to say. Some of you seem to think that taking down monuments to enemies of the state will lead to us taking down monuments to the men who built this nation and kept it safe during troubling times.

I think you're wrong.

I think we can still see our founders as great men with some character traits that would be frowned on today.

I think we can agree that if you fight a war against your own country, some will still respect you. But if you lose, you forfeit the right to monuments, holidays, or yes, even a mention in a history book. History has forgotten much. History is written by the victor. History is full of lies. And as is quite apparent in this thread, history is not well understood by all.

But this is a good country still. That men like Thomas Jackson, Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee are mentioned at all is testament to the fact that this is America and we respect our history.

Anyways I disagree with the premise of the OP and with many of you. But youse guys (Yankee version of y'all) are still alright in my book. I'm stepping out now.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[Zincwarrior]

This is a stupid discussion for a technical pistol forum. The convoluted rationalizations that the Civil War was not about slavery as the major factor are just attempts to rationalize a repugnant chapter in American History. One engages in cognitive dissonace to avoid that fact. Yes, I have studied the issue in depth and I understand, in depth, the processes of denial.
There you go. regardless of opinions, its a gun forum and probably best to focus on the actual events that occurred there.

[Zincwarrior]

Many southerners in civil war times felt they were acting in line with the vision of our founding fathers, and resisting a tyrannical govnerment. Those statues are an acknowledgement that we diverged as nation yet we were able to come back together, stronger because of it.

Technically, yes, the confederacy are 'traitors', but they are also our fellow citizens and family. It's ok to avoid a dogmatic, binary view of this event in our history.

Most were poor and were drafted by wealthy Southernors who didn't themselves fight (sound familiar?).

[peterb]

Pulling down statues, as just happened in Durham, is vandalism plain and simple. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/durham-arrests/537015/

Destroying history is wrong. I understand wanting to move some statues to less prominent locations, or to add additional information to existing memorials. But destroy them? Absolutely not.

No great man was flawless. It is appropriate to take a more critical look at their lives and legacies. It is wrong to forget them.

[Zincwarrior]

For some reason I feel this thread needs some Johnny Cash.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t51MHUENlAQ

Son, like good TexMex, there's no time in one's life that can't be improved with a little Johnny Cash.

[SamAdams]

The term 'politically correct' came from the old USSR.

Many of us are concerned about the '1984' nature of these moves to take down statues. People have given their opinions here on the Civil War - The views are diverse in range & that's a good thing IMO. This subject has generated debate. Acts to tear down monuments scream out that all issues are settled. Those depicted are judged as 'evil' and nothing they did, thought, or said has any merit.

The timing of all this is 'interesting' as is apparent efforts to taint Pres Trump and spark racial & ideological discord.

History is what it is. The events took place & cannot be changed. Some say if the South had prevailed, the central government would be less dominant & obtrusive in almost every aspect of our lives today. Perhaps. - - It is also possible that a divided country would have been more vulnerable to the influence & threat from European powers. And how might that have impacted our lives today ? There's no way to know that.

BTW - I was born in the North - an Army brat with a career soldier father. Our family were immigrants from Germany, primarily in the 1800s. Two of my ancestors fought in the Civil War, serving in the Union Army.

[TheNewbie]

States rights trumped the evil of slavery? Great point. I suppose the civil rights laws and SCOTUS decisions that negated the Jim Crow laws were evil. I suppose if SCOTUS actually voids (fat chance) state laws that limit 2nd Amend. rights you will be all for that application of states rights. Three Cheers for the NY SAFE Act. Let's go shell Fort Sumner in favor of banning AR-15s by the states!

I haven't read every post, but has anyone said this? The South had the right idea behind state sovereignty, but it was all negated by the evils of slavery. Specifically the vile form of race based slavery.

[walker2713]

Except we strictly enforce technical discussions in the technical sub forums and this sub forum's purpose and intent are decidedly different and openly labeled as such.

LL....just checking: is participation in this sub-forum voluntary?

What happens if someone ignores it, and doesn't read or post?

[Peally]

Statues and pictures to Hitler and Hussein were too.

Most of these statues were put up in the Jim Crow era and Civil Rights struggles. They are monuments to traitors put up by racists.
Alternatively keep them up but put up plaques discussing their treason.

Treason or not (you know, against the nation built entirely by traitors in the first place), guys like Robert E Lee were far better men than you or I. So was Nate Champion or any other historical great, but I'm sure plenty of assholes somewhere are offended by what they did.

These fascists and anarchists (and that's exactly what they are) can disrespect our nation's incredible history all they want, I'll paint my opinions of them appropriately. These criminals act like these are statues of Hitler burning Jew babies instead of driven frontiersmen that shaped our land as well as they could. That speaks directly of their intelligence and the black hole where their brain used to be.

I think Lincoln was about 500% overrated, and he was certainly a driving force for both our modern overbloated federal government and a war that caused the deaths of three quarters of a million fucking people, and yet here I am thinking his statues damn sure should be up around our nation, and I'm not brainlessly joining roving crowds of useless fuckheads toppling them over either. He was critical to what we are now and he acted with quite noble intentions. He was a dirty traitor as far as the other side was concerned, but the victor gets to write all the history books.

Really, this whole situation is ground zero fucking pathetic. These people are human dumpster fires and deserve every bit of ridicule and disgust they get their way. They're the same pieces of shit that'd be burning history books in the night and lynching people they don't like given a chance, regardless of what zealot religious-political side they choose.

If anyone really honestly thinks someone like Lee or Grant or Washington = Hitler and Hussein all I can do is laugh my ass off and wonder WTF is wrong with this world. But I guess calling everyone a racist and destroying public property is what people value these days.


This isn't aimed at you in particular, but I have a real fucking problem with what some people in the US think of our history and their desires to shit all over it. I'd rather they stop bitching about how our past is nothing but racism and killing and go live somewhere where the modern politics match their ideals better. Maybe Germany.

[Peally]

LL....just checking: is participation in this sub-forum voluntary?

What happens if someone ignores it, and doesn't read or post?

IT'S REQUIRED.

If you don't get into an argument in 3 billing cycles Tom slaps you and you lose your warranty.

[Mjolnir]

Y'all keep saying "enemy nation" but please show me where it was illegal to secede from this nation?

Your Federal Government was the enemy at the time.

Both sides were "right" (relative) and neither side was "correct" (absolute).

The Liberal Eastern Establishment and the Rothschild banks had effectively enslaved the heavily industrialized North.

The Rothschild/Euro
elite-friendly Southern ruling class were sitting on the wealthiest portion of the USA at the time.

Keep in mind it was the Euro Elite's goal to bring down the USA - the very form of our government is a direct threat to their monarchies. It STILL is. It was THEIR plan to press for secession.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Zincwarrior]

It's a simple fact that many Southerners have some small degree of emotional attachment to the southern effort during the Civil War.

I imagine that literally only applies to "white" people. :-).

[LittleLebowski]

What gets me about this whole furor over statues that have been there for decades is what does it solve? What about Chicago? What about NAFTA? What about generations (not decades) of single "parent" "families" raising children doomed to be on the dole for birth. Their primary caregivers are usually their grandmothers, their mothers are married to their sole breadwinner = Uncle Sam.

This statue thing is trite, useless, horseshit. Nothing but silly theater that literally accomplishes nothing. Do you think that the nation will be healed if all of the Confederate memorials come down?


Reminder: GD threads are subject thread drift, therefore I'm not bitching (not that I care) about the thread drift from the original topic (I think that the Founding Fathers monuments are next). I understand some don't like this topic (other ones in GD are apparently OK), but with Pistol-Forum (as I see it), we are doing a few things:


providing an online home for those that learned from ToddG and want to continue his unique performance driven style of shooting from carry gear
maintaining a gun forum where civility is fairly standard and censorship is not
discussing training and proficiency without someone shrieking "!STAY IN YOUR LANE!" at each other


There's a lot of people that like this place. Quite a few of those people want to be able to discuss current events here. Furthermore, I know for a fact that our mods despise censorship (many of you know why). Therefore, we are not going to pick and choose which topics are allowed to be posted.

[LittleLebowski]

I imagine that literally only applies to "white" people. :-).


https://youtu.be/fZo372fs8jM

[NEPAKevin]

I'll be in Gettysburg very soon for a mini vacation and some sight seeing and tours. If I see anyone attempting to do anything to any of the monuments, well, I'll probably be needing a lawyer. I will say it right now... that shit will not fly if i'm there.

On a related note, I need to research more about on body bicycle carry options, while in full spandex. :)

I imagine you are already aware, but there are some facilities in Gettysburg, such as the visitors center, where firearms are prohibited (except for LEO with in their jurisdiction).

[Zincwarrior]

https://youtu.be/fZo372fs8jM

Not a lot of folks volunteering to be slave re-enactors I take it.

[SamAdams]

https://youtu.be/fZo372fs8jM

Thank you for posting that video. The gentleman in it mentioned numerous things that I've been completely unaware of.
I'll have to play it back a couple of times & write down the names & events he mentioned so I can do some further research.

[LittleLebowski]

Not a lot of folks volunteering to be slave re-enactors I take it.

I don't know about that nor how many are volunteering to be black Confederate soldier re-enactors which is what this guy is.

[JHC]

slavery was a tertiary issue at best to both sides. .

The great myth of the "Lost Cause" narrative. Lincoln was surely driven primarily to preserve the Union. And the Confederacy was surely driven primarily to preserve the institution of slavery. They said so.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcy7qV-BGF4&t=26s

[Zincwarrior]

I don't know about that nor how many are volunteering to be black Confederate soldier re-enactors which is what this guy is.
Well if there's only video of this one guy then...one. :)

[peterb]

What gets me about this whole furor over statues that have been there for decades is what does it solve? What about Chicago? What about NAFTA? What about generations (not decades) of single "parent" "families" raising children doomed to be on the dole for birth. Their primary caregivers are usually their grandmothers, their mothers are married to their sole breadwinner = Uncle Sam.

This statue thing is trite, useless, horseshit. Nothing but silly theater that literally accomplishes nothing. Do you think that the nation will be healed if all of the Confederate memorials come down? .

By itself it solves nothing. But small steps matter. We've got a lot of folks here who think that incremental gains are worth pursuing.

Imagine if you were a Jewish citizen in Germany, and every day on your way to work you walked past a heroic statue of Adolf Hitler on the front lawn of your city hall. Might you feel that city hall wasn't a place for you? Might you feel that it would be more appropriate to put that statue in a museum instead of having it dominate a public space?

I do think the current rush to "pull them all down" is hasty and poorly thought out. It is theater that distracts from other, larger issues. But a discussion about what we want in our public spaces is perfectly appropriate.

[Shotgun]

Using partisan phrases like The War of Northern Aggression isn't going to help your cause. First, because it wasn't a war of northern aggression.....the first shots, the rebellion, was started by southerners at Ft Sumter. Secondly, it's pretty backwards to use a term coined in the 1950s by Jim Crowe segregationists (as if it were a legitimate label to begin with) when discussing racial tensions in modern day America.

War of Northern Aggression was said somewhat tongue in cheek. I am well aware that it was not called that at the time. Yes, the first shots were fired by the South at Fort Sumter, but Northern troops were occupying southern territory and trying to reinforce their position at the fort. Someone can fact check me, but I recall learning that President Buchanan was trying to reinforce the fort, and the very act of the North occupying South Carolina territory, much less reinforcing the position, was viewed by South Carolina as an act of aggression. Let me do a little Googling here. Yes, found it. At the time of the decision to reinforce Fort Sumter, the Secretary of War, John Floyd, who was from Virginia, told President Buchanan: "It would be an act of aggression against South Carolina which I cannot be a party to; I will resign my office before I sign such an order." To a few of President Buchanan's own cabinet members, Floyd was joined by a couple of others, the first act of aggression was committed by the North. Let us not forget that Union forces invaded the South first by crossing the Potomac and by occupying Arlington Heights, and General Lee's home, Arlington House. The South would have been very much content to have been left alone by the North. The North acted the bully when the South would have been content to avoid any fight at all. Although not used at the time, "War of Northern Aggression" would be historically accurate.

I have no idea when the phrase War of Northern Aggression was first used or in what context. Nevertheless, it is sometimes heard in the South when discussing the Civil War, War Between the States, or more historically accurate from the time perhaps, War of the Rebellion. I have a law partner from Virginia who sometimes uses that phrase. Too me, the phrase is nothing other than another way, funny to many Southerners, to refer to the Civil War.

I note the tactic of trying to paint someone as potentially racist by saying a backward term tied to Jim Crowe segregationists was used, in an effort to gain an advantage in a debate. That is a tactic often used by the left. I would say that the people of various colors with whom I have lived, worked, played, attended church, and socialized would refute your statement with regard to any racist motivations on my part. But, it may be your view perhaps, that anyone who would want to preserve Confederate monuments must be a racist. That view is flat wrong.


Please recall that many of the statues under question were put up as explicit statements against civil rights and desegregation. That negates the 'pride' issue and monuments to fighting so-called Northern Aggression.

If you are saying that most Confederate statues and monuments were erected during the civil rights era, you are wrong. Approximately 75% were erected before then. Most Confederate monuments were erected between the 1890's and 1920's venerating fathers and grandfathers who had fought in the Civil War (War of Northern Aggression). The General Lee statue in Charlottesville was erected in 1924. There is definitely a "pride" factor involved in many of the Confederate monuments.

A similar statement to yours was made by Joy Reid. She said "The idea of putting up (Confederate) monuments actually didn't happen right after the Civil War. It happened during the 1960s." This statement was debunked and rated by politifact as "mostly false."

Political correctness has run amuck when we start thinking about tearing down monuments, many of which have stood for over a century, because they are tied to the Confederacy. Those monuments are history.

Professor Meyer, you live in San Antonio. The Alamo is in your backyard. Colonel Travis, who died defending the Alamo (some Yankees reading this might not know who he is), was a slave owner. That's a terrible, terrible thing. But, due to political correctness, are the statues and memorials remembering Colonel Travis next in Texas? Shall we tear those down? Certainly not.

[Amp]

Behind The Dixie Stars:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YF-QIJyLhKQ

[Zincwarrior]

Fort Sumter was a federal installation. Fact Fail. Attack the US and we have a tendency to obliterate you. Oh look, thats exactly what happened.

[Totem Polar]

I had heretofore pretty much figured that I'd be dead before the need to buy a touring motorcycle and travel the US to see our statues and monuments before they were gone arose. I dislike being wrong.

[LittleLebowski]

By itself it solves nothing. But small steps matter. We've got a lot of folks here who think that incremental gains are worth pursuing.

Imagine if you were a Jewish citizen in Germany, and every day on your way to work you walked past a heroic statue of Adolf Hitler on the front lawn of your city hall. Might you feel that city hall wasn't a place for you? Might you feel that it would be more appropriate to put that statue in a museum instead of having it dominate a public space?

I do think the current rush to "pull them all down" is hasty and poorly thought out. It is theater that distracts from other, larger issues. But a discussion about what we want in our public spaces is perfectly appropriate.

I get that and I still contend that this is useless, hurried drama and that the Founding Fathers are next.

[Zincwarrior]

Behind The Dixie Stars:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YF-QIJyLhKQ

Oh loook who else uses the Battle Flag right now.*
19082
*From the Charletteville fun.

[farscott]

Slavery was an issue from the time the country was formed (Articles of Confederation) until the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution were ratified. The country was on the verge of war over slavery many times (remember "The Missouri Compromise" and Dred Scott v. Sanford).

Here is a chunk of Federalist Papers No. 54. It is only one of the Papers that addresses slavery, but it leaves no doubt about how it was an issue back in 1787.


In the latter, it has reference to the proportion of wealth, of which it is in no case a precise measure, and in ordinary cases a very unfit one. But notwithstanding the imperfection of the rule as applied to the relative wealth and contributions of the States, it is evidently the least objectionable among the practicable rules, and had too recently obtained the general sanction of America, not to have found a ready preference with the convention. All this is admitted, it will perhaps be said; but does it follow, from an admission of numbers for the measure of representation, or of slaves combined with free citizens as a ratio of taxation, that slaves ought to be included in the numerical rule of representation? Slaves are considered as property, not as persons. They ought therefore to be comprehended in estimates of taxation which are founded on property, and to be excluded from representation which is regulated by a census of persons. This is the objection, as I understand it, stated in its full force. I shall be equally candid in stating the reasoning which may be offered on the opposite side. "We subscribe to the doctrine," might one of our Southern brethren observe, "that representation relates more immediately to persons, and taxation more immediately to property, and we join in the application of this distinction to the case of our slaves. But we must deny the fact, that slaves are considered merely as property, and in no respect whatever as persons. The true state of the case is, that they partake of both these qualities: being considered by our laws, in some respects, as persons, and in other respects as property. In being compelled to labor, not for himself, but for a master; in being vendible by one master to another master; and in being subject at all times to be restrained in his liberty and chastised in his body, by the capricious will of another, the slave may appear to be degraded from the human rank, and classed with those irrational animals which fall under the legal denomination of property. In being protected, on the other hand, in his life and in his limbs, against the violence of all others, even the master of his labor and his liberty; and in being punishable himself for all violence committed against others, the slave is no less evidently regarded by the law as a member of the society, not as a part of the irrational creation; as a moral person, not as a mere article of property. The federal Constitution, therefore, decides with great propriety on the case of our slaves, when it views them in the mixed character of persons and of property. This is in fact their true character. It is the character bestowed on them by the laws under which they live; and it will not be denied, that these are the proper criterion; because it is only under the pretext that the laws have transformed the negroes into subjects of property, that a place is disputed them in the computation of numbers; and it is admitted, that if the laws were to restore the rights which have been taken away, the negroes could no longer be refused an equal share of representation with the other inhabitants. "This question may be placed in another light. It is agreed on all sides, that numbers are the best scale of wealth and taxation, as they are the only proper scale of representation. Would the convention have been impartial or consistent, if they had rejected the slaves from the list of inhabitants, when the shares of representation were to be calculated, and inserted them on the lists when the tariff of contributions was to be adjusted? Could it be reasonably expected, that the Southern States would concur in a system, which considered their slaves in some degree as men, when burdens were to be imposed, but refused to consider them in the same light, when advantages were to be conferred? Might not some surprise also be expressed, that those who reproach the Southern States with the barbarous policy of considering as property a part of their human brethren, should themselves contend, that the government to which all the States are to be parties, ought to consider this unfortunate race more completely in the unnatural light of property, than the very laws of which they complain? "It may be replied, perhaps, that slaves are not included in the estimate of representatives in any of the States possessing them. They neither vote themselves nor increase the votes of their masters. Upon what principle, then, ought they to be taken into the federal estimate of representation? In rejecting them altogether, the Constitution would, in this respect, have followed the very laws which have been appealed to as the proper guide. "This objection is repelled by a single observation. It is a fundamental principle of the proposed Constitution, that as the aggregate number of representatives allotted to the several States is to be determined by a federal rule, founded on the aggregate number of inhabitants, so the right of choosing this allotted number in each State is to be exercised by such part of the inhabitants as the State itself may designate. The qualifications on which the right of suffrage depend are not, perhaps, the same in any two States. In some of the States the difference is very material. In every State, a certain proportion of inhabitants are deprived of this right by the constitution of the State, who will be included in the census by which the federal Constitution apportions the representatives.

In this point of view the Southern States might retort the complaint, by insisting that the principle laid down by the convention required that no regard should be had to the policy of particular States towards their own inhabitants; and consequently, that the slaves, as inhabitants, should have been admitted into the census according to their full number, in like manner with other inhabitants, who, by the policy of other States, are not admitted to all the rights of citizens. A rigorous adherence, however, to this principle, is waived by those who would be gainers by it. All that they ask is that equal moderation be shown on the other side. Let the case of the slaves be considered, as it is in truth, a peculiar one. Let the compromising expedient of the Constitution be mutually adopted, which regards them as inhabitants, but as debased by servitude below the equal level of free inhabitants, which regards the SLAVE as divested of two fifths of the MAN. "After all, may not another ground be taken on which this article of the Constitution will admit of a still more ready defense? We have hitherto proceeded on the idea that representation related to persons only, and not at all to property. But is it a just idea?

Another tidbit about the Dred Scott case from Wikipedia.


Historians discovered that after the Supreme Court had heard arguments in the case but before it had issued a ruling, the President-elect James Buchanan wrote to his friend, U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice John Catron, asking whether the case would be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court before his inauguration in March 1857. Buchanan hoped the decision would quell unrest in the country over the slavery issue by issuing a ruling that put the future of slavery beyond the realm of political debate.

Buchanan later successfully pressured Associate Justice Robert Cooper Grier, a Northerner, to join the Southern majority in Dred Scott to prevent the appearance that the decision was made along sectional lines. Both by present-day standards and under the more lenient standards of the time, Buchanan's applying such political pressure to a member of a sitting court would be regarded as highly improper. Republicans fueled speculation as to Buchanan's influence by publicizing that Chief Justice Roger B. Taney had secretly informed Buchanan of the decision before Buchanan declared, in his inaugural address, that the slavery question would "be speedily and finally settled" by the Supreme Court.

Slavery and its financial impact on the northern and southern states was a simmering dispute for about eighty years; it then came to the fore in 1860. The Civil War then was used to settle the ideas that a state cannot secede from the Union and that the federal government is superior to any of the States. In many ways, the Civil War voided the 10th Amendment.

[LittleLebowski]

Oh loook who else uses the Battle Flag right now.*
*From the Charletteville fun.

And they also used the American flag. Does that mean the American flag is racist or just anyone flying it?

[NEPAKevin]

Lincoln Memorial defaced with explicit graffiti. (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/08/15/lincoln-memorial-defaced-with-explicit-graffiti.html)

[PNWTO]

I don't think that the founding fathers are next... but I do believe that our society is in danger of believing that progressive thought and revisionism are coexistent. I have family in the Deep South and have family lineage to the CSA, and certain vehemently evil humanitarian practices that supported the economy pre-Civil War. With that said, I was always raised that rebel flags and other such bastardized culture/bro-culture was trashy and disrespectful, and I believe that to this day. Let's honor that part of our history in withdrawn memorials, museums, and cemeteries, and keep it there in private and somber display. I leave it at that since I know my views are a bit more left than the political mean of P-F.

EDIT: It should be of note the Robert E. Lee did not like the idea of such things either. (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/robert-e-lee-opposed-confederate-monuments/)


“I think it wiser,” the retired military leader wrote about a proposed Gettysburg memorial in 1869, “…not to keep open the sores of war but to follow the examples of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife, to commit to oblivion the feelings engendered.”


“As regards the erection of such a monument as is contemplated,” Lee wrote of an 1866 proposal, “my conviction is, that however grateful it would be to the feelings of the South, the attempt in the present condition of the Country, would have the effect of retarding, instead of accelerating its accomplishment; [and] of continuing, if not adding to, the difficulties under which the Southern people labour.”

The retired Confederate leader, a West Point graduate, was influenced by his knowledge of history.

“Lee believed countries that erased visible signs of civil war recovered from conflicts quicker,” Horn said. “He was worried that by keeping these symbols alive, it would keep the divisions alive.”

For a bit of humor, I often support my family in Alabama by sending them a reminder of the only Confederate colors that mattered.

19084

[orionz06]

The General Lee statue in Charlottesville was erected in 1924. There is definitely a "pride" factor involved in many of the Confederate monuments.


Why was it erected?

[Peally]

LMAO Zinc you're a guy that just loves arguing on the internet, at least I really hope so. If anything a neonazi uses is instantly exclusively Nazi related there may be a whole lot of bedsheet, TV, and ramen noodle factories that you need to firebomb.

I already don't visit the seaboards due to orwellian politics, so I guess your point of view doesn't affect me at this point. Try not to spread your ideas West though, as a personal favor.

[Mjolnir]

Oh loook who else uses the Battle Flag right now.*
19082
*From the Charletteville fun.
It was originally the Flag of Northern VA. It's the Confederate BATTLE Flag and these fucks fly the US Flag and clutch the Bible and burn Crosses.

Where does this silly shit end?

Oh, I'm Black (Creole of Color) and from Southeastern Louisiana. I oppose removing the statues and relics as well.

[Zincwarrior]

And they also used the American flag. Does that mean the American flag is racist or just anyone flying it?

Pardon but that doesn't fly. The racists have taken over the Stars and Bars and are the ones waiving that around. The actual Confederates tried to take a giant dump on the US flag and got grapeshot for it.

[Shotgun]

Why was it erected?

It was a gift to Charlottesville from Paul McIntire, a wealthy philanthropist. This same man also donated four parks to Charlottesville, one of which was named after Booker T. Washington and was planned as a “playground for the colored citizens of Charlottesville." A little searching reveals McIntire also donated statues of Lewis and Clark and George Rogers Clark (a revolutionary war hero) to Charlottesville. It looks like he was a rich guy commissioning beautiful works of art of historical figures for his city.

[Mjolnir]

Pardon but that doesn't fly. The racists have taken over the Stars and Bars and are the ones waiving that around. The actual Confederates tried to take a gaint dump on the US flag and got grapeshot for it.

You sound like a Federalist. I imagine you're quite giddy at the way things have progressed - Globalism and all...

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170816/c3329721babcf3593745be0068c7832c.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Zincwarrior]

Why was it erected?
The erected the General Lee probably because it was an awesome car and they really missed Daisy Duke and her Daisy Dukes...

[Zincwarrior]

LMAO Zinc you're a guy that just loves arguing on the internet, at least I really hope so. If anything a neonazi uses is instantly exclusively Nazi related there may be a whole lot of bedsheet, TV, and ramen noodle factories that you need to firebomb.

I already don't visit the seaboards due to orwellian politics, so I guess your point of view doesn't affect me at this point. Try not to spread your ideas West though, as a personal favor.


You might think before you waive a Confederate flag in Crenshaw, or you could and realize not everyone thinks like you do...


You sound like a Federalist. I imagine you're quite giddy at the way things have progressed - Globalism and all...
This statement doesn't appear to be based on reality, unless you believe that people who aren't racists or NeoNazis are such. In that case cool, count me with Eisenhower and every Republican ever.

[LittleLebowski]

Youmight think before you waive a Confederate flag in Crenshaw, or you could and realize not everyone thinks like you do...

Nor does everyone think like you. I have no use for the Confederate battle flag but I won't use it to judge people either.

[PNWTO]

You sound like a Federalist. I imagine you're quite giddy at the way things have progressed - Globalism and all...


This is probably not the time or place but globalization is a grand thing for the future of the world and is very much parallel to what many of us believe in terms of classical (Adam Smith) economics. Sure, it does have some inefficiencies and pitfalls but it is all part of the process.

The above is a needless contribution to this thread and I'll probably delete but I don't understand a fear of globalization.

[TheNewbie]

Where I grew up the Confederate flag was a cultural thing. Most people mature out of it after their high school years.

I grew up in an all white town and went to an all white school. Many people had confederate flags. Yet no one thought blacks were inferior or that slavery was a good thing. In fact I was raised by a father who taught me only values and when looking for a wife skin color does not matter, again only values matter.

My grandad was a dirt poor farmer from the depression who was a republican and didn't like the democrats. He also invited his black worker to dinner with the family during the 1950s.

I think way too much attention is given to the confederate flag and not the actual values of the modern south.

[Zincwarrior]

Nor does everyone think like you. I have no use for the Confederate battle flag but I won't use it to judge people either.

Really? You won't judge people who carry the Confederate flag? I call bull poop. Unless you're at a CW re-enactment there's only one group that routinely carries that flag.. The Klan is almost dead, and I hope to see it gone in my lifetime.


Where I grew up the Confederate flag was a cultural thing. Most people mature out of it after their high school years.

Same. Further, in my time that went from being a tradition (I had a bunch) to something no one would think of doing in polite company. Times change and sometimes for the better.

[Peally]

You might think before you waive a Confederate flag in Crenshaw, or you could and realize not everyone thinks like you do...

Bro, we both disagree. Only one of us is backing tearing down historical memorials and saying they're monuments on par with Nazi genocide.

[Peally]

Unless you're at a CW re-enactment there's only one group that routinely carries that flag

Wow, there must be a shitload more KKK members in the country than I thought.

[TAZ]

Not a lot of folks volunteering to be slave re-enactors I take it.

Every month when millions take the table scraps from their government they are volunteering for actual slavery. Does that count??

[Mjolnir]

Really? You won't judge people who carry the Confederate flag? I call bull poop. Unless you're at a CW re-enactment there's only one group that routinely carries that flag.. The Klan is almost dead, and I hope to see it gone in my lifetime.


Same. Further, in my time that went from being a tradition (I had a bunch) to something no one would think of doing in polite company. Times change and sometimes for the better.

*I* don't judge anyone with a Confederate BATTLE Flag and I'm a Black Southerner... What's your issue, bro?

[Mjolnir]

This is probably not the time or place but globalization is a grand thing for the future of the world and is very much parallel to what many of us believe in terms of classical (Adam Smith) economics. Sure, it does have some inefficiencies and pitfalls but it is all part of the process.

The above is a needless contribution to this thread and I'll probably delete but I don't understand a fear of globalization.

It's actually the right conversation within this conversation. The Deep South was all in for Globalism a la Riccardo and the British Crown which had such an infatuation with. Free Labor and International Trade. It made them the wealthiest States at that time.

I'm not ever a proponent of either. We had tariffs for a reason (and they were to pay for Federal Government - no Fed Taxes...) but we have such a horrid education system we don't properly recognize Liberty even when it pisses on our legs.

[eb07]

*I* don't judge anyone with a Confederate BATTLE Flag and I'm a Black Southerner... What's your issue, bro?

The problem is not the flag but the fact that everyone in America has a grievance now. Something offends them and they need to be vocal and sometimes violent about it. I blame this DIRECTLY on the fact that schools, sports, and helicopter parents have been coddling these kids from day 1. Everyone passes, nobody fails, trophies for everyone. They do not get to experience failure. They are force fed a liberal fantasy utopia life. Then they grow up and face real life which includes offensive things, different opinions, and failure and cannot handle it and start having adult temper tantrums.

The way I grew up, if something offended you and it didn't affect you directly physically or financially you firiggin ignored it and went about your day. Today you spazz out and have adult temper tantrums. This country is going to be a soup sandwich that makes idiocracy look like a documentary 20 years from now if it doesn't change.

[Peally]

We do indeed live in the age of spittle filled daily outrage.

[Mjolnir]

One can find Confederate Battle Flags unofficially in many armies across the world and with many militias. It's a "badge of resistance" just as the Gadsden Flag and others - including the Jolly Roger. Symbols mean what the person intends them to mean. When I lived in MI I would fly an LSU Tiger flag and a Confederate Battle Flag. The looks I got when I jumped out of my truck was interesting in Ann Arbor to say the least. But the CBF said it all, "to Hell wit ya if you don't like my Tigers!" I've also flown my SEC Flag with the CBF and the Bonnie Blue and the LSU Flag and the Creole Flag and... you get the picture.

Obviously, I'm not at all pro-slavery and I despise their racial viewpoint which was also prevalent THROUGHOUT THE NATION; by all means do not forget.

In case you have take the time to familiarize yourself with this:

http://www.npiamerica.org/research/category/what-the-founders-really-thought-about-race

[Zincwarrior]

Bro, we both disagree. Only one of us is backing tearing down historical memorials and saying they're monuments on par with Nazi genocide.

Because they are monuments to traitors defending a built on the bondage of an entire people. That shit's bad on a Biblical scale. The CSA had no redeeming values and ranks with the absolute worst of human societies. God blessed us by expunging it from the earth via the sacrifice of hundreds of thousands, forever.

[Zincwarrior]

Wow, there must be a shitload more KKK members in the country than I thought.

With the help from the FBI and Mother Nature we can fix that.
However the Klan used to march in the tens of thousands. Now its at best a few hundred slack jawed yokels that need to bolster their ranks with neo nazi cochroaches to make a march.

[XXXsilverXXX]

Because they are monuments to traitors defending a built on the bondage of an entire people. That shit's bad on a Biblical scale. The CSA had no redeeming values and ranks with the absolute worst of human societies. God blessed us by expunging it from the earth via the sacrifice of hundreds of thousands, forever.

I'm sorry but slavery still exists in every part of the world. It never went away just become different, and I'm not talking about inequal pay for workers, but actual adults and children who are bought and sold, to work in homes, as sex workers and whatever other horrible work one can think of.

[Zincwarrior]

I'm sorry but slavery still exists in every part of the world. It never went away just become different, and I'm not talking about inequal pay for workers, but actual adults and children who are bought and sold, to work in homes, as sex workers and whatever other horrible work one can think of.

Here it is illegal. The CSA was made just to keep it legal.

[LittleLebowski]

With the help from the FBI and Mother Nature we can fix that.
However the Klan used to march in the tens of thousands. Now its at best a few hundred slack jawed yokels that need to bolster their ranks with neo nazi cochroaches to make a march.

Yup, they are statistically insignificant (yes, I know that doesn't matter to that innocent girl that vile little shit ran over) and usually infiltrated pretty heavily by LE/LE informants.

[Peally]

Because they are monuments to traitors defending a built on the bondage of an entire people. That shit's bad on a Biblical scale. The CSA had no redeeming values and ranks with the absolute worst of human societies. God blessed us by expunging it from the earth via the sacrifice of hundreds of thousands, forever.

Holy shit.

You're no better than those you hate.

[Zincwarrior]

Yup, they are statistically insignificant (yes, I know that doesn't matter to that innocent girl that vile little shit ran over) and usually infiltrated pretty heavily by LE/LE informants.

Indeed.

[Zincwarrior]

Holy shit.

You're no better than those you hate.

Thats an interesting bit of logic. Following that I guess all the guys who fought the Germans in WWII were no better than Hitler and Goebbels. Thats not a workable argument.

Also when did it become permissible to attack other posters on this board?

[Totem Polar]

The way I grew up, if something offended you and it didn't affect you directly physically or financially you firiggin ignored it and went about your day. Today you spazz out and have adult temper tantrums. This country is going to be a soup sandwich that makes idiocracy look like a documentary 20 years from now if it doesn't change.

If you add in too many quarters spent playing "defender," "asteroids." and "pac-man," then we had much the same upbringing. Total agreement about current probable outcome.


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ByZatUFCQAAiy7B.png

[Jeep]

Because they are monuments to traitors defending a built on the bondage of an entire people. That shit's bad on a Biblical scale. The CSA had no redeeming values and ranks with the absolute worst of human societies. God blessed us by expunging it from the earth via the sacrifice of hundreds of thousands, forever.

As I posted earlier, I'm descended from Southern Unionists (who from 1864 on until today became Republicans. They fought the Confederacy, and they loved the Stars and Stripes. But to say that the CSA "ranks with the absolute worst of human societies" and had no redeeming values is utterly ridiculous.

The CSA respected the laws of war far more than most other societies have. Yes there were some atrocities but their were Federal atrocities as well--wars do that. When the Confederates invaded a union area they stole food and burned barns but they did not rape women or shoot children--and Rebs who did commit rape were promptly executed. Most of their senior officers were West Point grads with a serious sense of honor.

Nor did the CSA commit genocide. It existed to defend slavery but it made no attempt to exterminate anyone. Black people in the Confederacy were generally subjugated, but there were also free blacks who joined the Confederate army and fought well.

Yes slavery or racism are bad, but many societies in the 20th Century alone were far worse, including Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Communist China, Communist Vietnam, Cambodia, Cuba and Ethiopia, the Ottoman Empire, Somalia, most of the Warsaw Pact, East Pakistan, Burma, and arguably India and most of Africa. Indeed, today's Venezuela is probably a far worse society.

I'm not a CSA apologist, but I've been reading history (and a lot of it) for well over 50 years and the statement that the CSA ranks with the absolute worst of human societies is gross hyperbole at best. There have been a lot of really bad societies in human history and only a few moderately good ones. The CSA for all its slavery and racism was better than most of them, believe it or not.

[Peally]

Thats an interesting bit of logic. Following that I guess all the guys who fought the Germans in WWII were no better than Hitler and Goebbels. Thats not a workable argument.

Also when did it become permissible to attack other posters on this board?

I've been holding myself to being half civilized quite a bit, for Tom's sake.

Your least favorite side of the civil war = the SS. El oh fucking el. You gonna go organize a toppling of Lord Nelson's statue for the sake of the Spanish when you visit London? After all, the English were NAZIS!

[NEPAKevin]

Pardon but that doesn't fly. The racists have taken over the Stars and Bars and are the ones waiving that around.

Historical note. The "Stars and Bars (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flags_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America#First_f lag:_the_.22Stars_and_Bars.22_.281861.E2.80.931863 .29)" refers to the first flag of the Confederate States with thee horizontal stripes alternating red, white, and red and a blue field with seven stars, not to be confused with the "Battle Flag" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flags_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America#Battle_ flag) and its variations more commonly associated with the CSA, Dukes of Hazzard, and so forth.

[RevolverRob]

I've visited a couple of places once...where evil, genuine, terrible, and horrible evil had occurred.

The front gate of Dachau Concentration Camp. A place where I have, never in my entire life, been so humbled to see the scale of evil that can exist on Earth.

19086

Slaves' Quarters at Washington-On-The-Brazos where the Declaration of Independence and first Constitution of my home (Texas) was written.

19085

Evil existed in both of these places. People were subjugated based on their religion, sexuality, skin color, and class. They were abused, had their freedom stolen, had their children stolen. Many, many, many died under these institutions.

And we cannot forget them. Tearing down monuments that were erected is not a grand solution, because it allows the people to ignore them. Moving them to museums, preserving them as vestiges of our heritage? It is the only correct thing to do. And following that, we should follow the example our German colleagues have set. Our children should see these symbols, these places, they should see that evil can and does exist in the world. And they should know that it can be inside of them...if they wish to ignore the past, if they wish to be greedy, if they wish to be prideful, if they wish to be selfish. That evil has not gone away, no degree of "just ignore them, they'll go away", will replace true ignorance. We must simultaneously reject those ideologies and understand them for what they are.

[XXXsilverXXX]

Here it is illegal. The CSA was made just to keep it legal.

Just because something is illegal doesn't mean people won't engage in it... for example speeding is illegal we all do it.

But we are talking about slavery which still happens, at the same time I was born in this country as a first generation American, and I grew up in both the north and the south, we put to much emphasis on slavery and all the shit that goes along with that. The war was the keep the union together, not to free slaves, that would of eventually ended on its own. Hell look at our current system, minimum wage for the worker and the company owners make the big bucks.

[Mjolnir]

Because they are monuments to traitors defending a built on the bondage of an entire people. That shit's bad on a Biblical scale. The CSA had no redeeming values and ranks with the absolute worst of human societies. God blessed us by expunging it from the earth via the sacrifice of hundreds of thousands, forever.

Then lets tear down the entirety of this nation because slavery was practiced in ALL Thirteen Colonies...

See how insidiously stupid broad brushing everything is?

[NEPAKevin]

Just because something is illegal doesn't mean people won't engage in it... for example speeding is illegal we all do it.

But we are talking about slavery which still happens, at the same time I was born in this country as a first generation American, and I grew up in both the north and the south, we put to much emphasis on slavery and all the shit that goes along with that. The war was the keep the union together, not to free slaves, that would of eventually ended on its own. Hell look at our current system, minimum wage for the worker and the company owners make the big bucks.

Some argue that the welfare state is for all intents and purposes more an institution for enabling failure than a safety net. Add to that drug addiction and the results are not far from that of actual slavery.

[RJ]

Hey I bet AntiFa never saw this coming:

"While the AntiFa armies of the left continue to target confederate statues, those miscreants over at 4Chan have come up with a plan of their own. Operation Lenin Down as it’s become known is an attempt to target Lenin or other Communist statues across America just as AntiFa is targeting Confederate ones.

Arguing that if the left is saying we shouldn’t be allowed statues celebrating parts of our own actual American history and heritage because they have potential negative connotations, then why in the world should we allow statues in America of a mass murdering Russian tyrant to keep standing? With this in mind, 4Chan has begun plotting how to remove or at least best alter these glorifications of Communism standing on American soil."


https://ageofshitlords.com/4chan-strikes-back-antifa-operation-lenin

Heh.

[TheNewbie]

Then lets tear down the entirety of this nation because slavery was practiced in ALL Thirteen Colonies...

See how insidiously stupid broad brushing everything is?

That's what the left wants do. All the while enslaving minorities into projects, ghettos, welfare dependency, single parent families and having contempt for non whites. It's truly disgusting.

White racism stills exists, it's just not the overt form it used to be. The democrats were the party of racism yesterday and they are the party of racism today. Was it Bush who talked about the soft racism of low expectations?

[LittleLebowski]

More to come.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/city/frank-rizzo-memorials-helen-gym-statue-take-down-mural-tweet-charlottesville-20170815.html

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2017/08/16/jackson-washington-park-protest-presidents-slave-owners/

[LittleLebowski]

Some argue that the welfare state is for all intents and purposes more an institution for enabling failure than a safety net. Add to that drug addiction and the results are not far from that of actual slavery.

Agreed.

[eb07]

Duplicate post

[RevolverRob]

More to come.
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2017/08/16/jackson-washington-park-protest-presidents-slave-owners/

Maybe the good pastor can focus on representing the black people who live in these neighborhoods adequately within the local government. As opposed to supporting our current Alderwoman...a woman who has never lived in this neighborhood (but lives in the bordering, exceptionally wealthy neighborhood) and a woman who hasn't actually been elected (she was appointed her position when the former occupant resigned). Which he is currently doing...Or maybe he is a bit full of himself and is contributing not to the welfare of the local community, but to the continued decline of adequate representation in local government.

Also for the record, Washington and Jackson Park both belong, almost entirely, within the bounds Hyde Park, which is itself the most racially intermixed neighborhood within the entire city. So saying that these parks are purely within the realm of the black community is disingenuous to the actual racial dynamics within the area. This neighborhood was, historically, working-class black, but hasn't been working-class black since the 1980s. Also note that Jackson Park is the chosen locality as the future home of the Obama Library, which will probably result in a renaming of the park - anyways.

[Shotgun]

More to come.
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2017/08/16/jackson-washington-park-protest-presidents-slave-owners/

You proved your own point from the beginning of this thread. Political correctness run amuck.

_________________
Now, getting back to enjoying shooting, I may get to go shoot some sporting clays this evening if I can get out of the office.

[voodoo_man]

I spoke with my grandmother today about what was going on in the US, she gets most of her news from RT so it's always skewed.

She was born about ten years after the Russian revolution. She told me that when she was a young girl, before the holocaust, that her father and mother told her about the statues of the czar's which were dismantled by angry mobs (revolutionaries/workers unions/reds/blues) who then were usually killed/shot by the government troops/soldiers at the order of the czar. She said that before she was born one of the most well known of Lenin's speeches was at a site where they removed a particularly large czar statue.

After the holocaust, she remembered hearing about Stalin making a speech at the same "historical" place - to her this was all one fascist POS replacing another in a "real" (fake) election.

She said that removing history, through uprooting statues and signs of the past is the first step real fascists will take. They want to replace them with their own statues of people who are normally considered by the citizenship as being repugnant, but ideologically on par with the fascists who want to put their statues up, removing and replacing history with their own take on the matter.

While I was too young to remember vividly, she pointed out that in the late 70's and early 80's statues of communist concepts were beginning to be removed by angry mobs and the government did not really do anything as Gorbachev did not want to incite the citizenship, even though it happened anyway.

She said that if the government in the US does not quickly move to quell these types of outbursts, there will serious consequences because each side will begin to use greater and greater amounts of force against each other until a "faux" civil war begins, where people who clearly identify as one side or another will be targets from the other sides. Issue is, and I explained to her all the different sides here - BLM, Nazi's, "nationalists," alt right / left, anti-fa, KKK, etc. She basically said that they are all after the same goal they just took a side really early in this conflict. The same happened during the Russian Revolution and there were dozens of sides, hell was a side which wanted a constitutional republic just the US and reached out to the US for help to make it happen - issue is those people were either jailed, killed or converted to the red side as it had more support from labor union parties and "the masses" - the fact that there was a war going on did not hurt either, as anyone who believed in the government or one type of government system over another was fighting elsewhere, it was an opportune time for this type of situation.

She said that if the shooting starts, just make you sure you know what side you are on, find those who side with you, and understand that the government will not help or save you from each other. Once the shooting starts, you are literally on your own. She also said she's way too old to go through this type of shit again.

At this point, I do not believe, that we are on the brink of a war, class, civil or otherwise. Can it quickly go into that direction? Totally. I'd like to see the police be utilized a bit more aggressively in these types of situations, since if the groups can't physically contact they can't fight and will direct their anger at the police who can accept it without prejudice. This should either completely stop or push off as far as possible violent confrontation between the groups and leave that level of aggression to internet memes and twitter storms. If this does not happen, then you should be stocking up on food, water, medical supplies and ammo now before the wave hits.

[TheNewbie]

Also, why do people give a damn about race? It's simply a physical descriptor to me.

[Peally]

Also, why do people give a damn about race? It's simply a physical descriptor to me.

Gives them something to side with in their nazi/antifa/whatever spittle flinging.

I'm guessing the vast majority of "normal" people in the US don't give a shit what someone's skin color is as long as they're a decent human being.

[SamAdams]

Hmmmm . . . curious if true -


http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-16/why-was-crowd-hire-company-recruiting-25-hour-political-activists-charlotte-last-wee

[Sensei]

Agreed.

Do you think these progressives will denounce Islam with the same zeal? After all, Muhammad (may bacon be upon him) traded in exclusively African slaves.

[Joe in PNG]

Meanwhile, about 300 million Americans of all sorts got along fairly well with other Americans of all sorts.
But that's pretty boring, and that makes for lousy ratings.

[Peally]

David Burge doing what he does best.

19092

[orionz06]

David Burge doing what he does best.

19092

Can't really argue against his point...

[richiecotite]

Also, why do people give a damn about race? It's simply a physical descriptor to me.

Because racism is still a serious issue for millions of people in this country.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[voodoo_man]

Hmmmm . . . curious if true -


http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-16/why-was-crowd-hire-company-recruiting-25-hour-political-activists-charlotte-last-wee

If people really think that there are legitimate groups of people, on both sides, who show up and act a fool for free then they have to be seriously kidding themselves.

There is always someone, somewhere, who orchestrated this whole thing, who wanted this whole thing to turn into a violent confrontation and is laughing, between choking on his cuban cigar, at the rest of the country.

If you read the above and instantly thought "soros" or "obama," then you are correct, except only one of them smokes cigars and not sausages.

[fixer]

If people really think that there are legitimate groups of people, on both sides, who show up and act a fool for free then they have to be seriously kidding themselves.

There is always someone, somewhere, who orchestrated this whole thing, who wanted this whole thing to turn into a violent confrontation and is laughing, between choking on his cuban cigar, at the rest of the country.

If you read the above and instantly thought "soros" or "obama," then you are correct, except only one of them smokes cigars and not sausages.

Yep as the multiple Project Veritas videos showed explicitly; manipulation of public opinion is a cash cow.

[Mjolnir]

Thats an interesting bit of logic. Following that I guess all the guys who fought the Germans in WWII were no better than Hitler and Goebbels. Thats not a workable argument.

Also when did it become permissible to attack other posters on this board?

You're attacking an entire region... so suck it up, buttercup.

Your level of hypocrisy I find troubling.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RevolverRob]

VDM makes a very valid and excellent post

I think everyone in this country...and all countries should have to visit two places in this world and both happen to be in Germany.

The DDR Museum - https://www.ddr-museum.de/en - Which details the depths of depravity that the former East German Republic sunk to, to oppress and destroy its citizenry.

And then everyone should have to visit a Concentration Camp. And see the scale of depravity.

Both places are deeply and fundamentally disturbing to a freedom seeking person.

[Mjolnir]

I spoke with my grandmother today about what was going on in the US, she gets most of her news from RT so it's always skewed.

She was born about ten years after the Russian revolution. She told me that when she was a young girl, before the holocaust, that her father and mother told her about the statues of the czar's which were dismantled by angry mobs (revolutionaries/workers unions/reds/blues) who then were usually killed/shot by the government troops/soldiers at the order of the czar. She said that before she was born one of the most well known of Lenin's speeches was at a site where they removed a particularly large czar statue.

After the holocaust, she remembered hearing about Stalin making a speech at the same "historical" place - to her this was all one fascist POS replacing another in a "real" (fake) election.

She said that removing history, through uprooting statues and signs of the past is the first step real fascists will take. They want to replace them with their own statues of people who are normally considered by the citizenship as being repugnant, but ideologically on par with the fascists who want to put their statues up, removing and replacing history with their own take on the matter.

While I was too young to remember vividly, she pointed out that in the late 70's and early 80's statues of communist concepts were beginning to be removed by angry mobs and the government did not really do anything as Gorbachev did not want to incite the citizenship, even though it happened anyway.

She said that if the government in the US does not quickly move to quell these types of outbursts, there will serious consequences because each side will begin to use greater and greater amounts of force against each other until a "faux" civil war begins, where people who clearly identify as one side or another will be targets from the other sides. Issue is, and I explained to her all the different sides here - BLM, Nazi's, "nationalists," alt right / left, anti-fa, KKK, etc. She basically said that they are all after the same goal they just took a side really early in this conflict. The same happened during the Russian Revolution and there were dozens of sides, hell was a side which wanted a constitutional republic just the US and reached out to the US for help to make it happen - issue is those people were either jailed, killed or converted to the red side as it had more support from labor union parties and "the masses" - the fact that there was a war going on did not hurt either, as anyone who believed in the government or one type of government system over another was fighting elsewhere, it was an opportune time for this type of situation.

She said that if the shooting starts, just make you sure you know what side you are on, find those who side with you, and understand that the government will not help or save you from each other. Once the shooting starts, you are literally on your own. She also said she's way too old to go through this type of shit again.

At this point, I do not believe, that we are on the brink of a war, class, civil or otherwise. Can it quickly go into that direction? Totally. I'd like to see the police be utilized a bit more aggressively in these types of situations, since if the groups can't physically contact they can't fight and will direct their anger at the police who can accept it without prejudice. This should either completely stop or push off as far as possible violent confrontation between the groups and leave that level of aggression to internet memes and twitter storms. If this does not happen, then you should be stocking up on food, water, medical supplies and ammo now before the wave hits.

Be careful of what you wish... re: aggressive policing.

We WILL get it but it will be "politically applied".

I like your grandmother.

Prayers from Baton Rouge, brother.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mjolnir]

I think everyone in this country...and all countries should have to visit two places in this world and both happen to be in Germany.

The DDR Museum - https://www.ddr-museum.de/en - Which details the depths of depravity that the former East German Republic sunk to, to oppress and destroy its citizenry.

And then everyone should have to visit a Concentration Camp. And see the scale of depravity.

Both places are deeply and fundamentally disturbing to a freedom seeking person.

Ummm. No. I'll pass.

I see plantation homes here all the time.

My suffering was MINE; not anyone else's.

I have my own crosses to bear. I have no time nor room for others'.

Thank you, kindly,

The Southerner.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RevolverRob]

Ummm. No. I'll pass.

I see plantation homes here all the time.

My suffering was MINE; not anyone else's.

I have my own crosses to bear. I have no time nor room for others'.

Thank you, kindly,

The Southerner.


Try again.

I grew up in East Texas and I am racial minority. I get the reality of the American South.

And though we all have our own crosses to bear...seeing the realities of not just your own society but others is extremely powerful. Particularly when people haven't experienced the same thing that you or I have.

[BigDaddy]

Oh dear, we actually have someone here calling it The War of Northern Aggression...

It was the American Civil war. The United States of America won it. The Confederate States of America lost it. Thus it is what we will call it. All that said, the cognitive dissonance, historical innacuracies and the apparent lack of reading comprehension on this thread are making me feel sympathetic for general Sherman.

I think we can all agree that defacing a public monument (to whomever) is still illegal...that removing a public monument (to whomever) is the decision of the government and that electing the government who would remove a monument (to whomever) falls on us.

I think I've definitely said my piece here. There's nothing else for me to say. Some of you seem to think that taking down monuments to enemies of the state will lead to us taking down monuments to the men who built this nation and kept it safe during troubling times.

I think you're wrong.

I think we can still see our founders as great men with some character traits that would be frowned on today.

I think we can agree that if you fight a war against your own country, some will still respect you. But if you lose, you forfeit the right to monuments, holidays, or yes, even a mention in a history book. History has forgotten much. History is written by the victor. History is full of lies. And as is quite apparent in this thread, history is not well understood by all.

But this is a good country still. That men like Thomas Jackson, Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee are mentioned at all is testament to the fact that this is America and we respect our history.

Anyways I disagree with the premise of the OP and with many of you. But youse guys (Yankee version of y'all) are still alright in my book. I'm stepping out now.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

And as a resident of the same state as you are, I respectfully say that if you actually think that they are going to stop with the removal of monuments to Confederate war heroes, you are crazy. This is only the beginning. I understand what you are saying because I was educated in the Communist cesspool of Chicago that perhaps you were educated in. I know how their minds work. I know how they operate. I've seen it first hand, up close for over 60 years now. This is not over by a long shot. They have just begun. BTW, are you aware that in Chicago Public Schools they have classes in which they teach about how evil and brutal the Police, particularly the Chicago Police are? That at a teachers rally recently one of the guest speakers stood on stage and shouted "Fuck the Police" with the consent of the CTU President? They are not done my friend.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I've said my piece and won't repeat it again. Excesses of the left - which have been discussed and criticized (there is a large push back against the college campus crazies if you read the Chronicle of Higher Ed. or articles in places like the Atlantic) cannot support the acceptance of folks who preach genocidal elimination of entire subsets of humanity.

[voodoo_man]

Be careful of what you wish... re: aggressive policing.

We WILL get it but it will be "politically applied".

I like your grandmother.

Prayers from Baton Rouge, brother.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am completely against politicizing the police, any LEO, in any capacity. It creates the issues we have now and even more issues will follow. It is unacceptable. The police know what needs to happen and how to make it happen.

The only issue I may see here is that thanks to the left, street LEOs have a hard time doing what needs to be done without being vilified in the media and judged in the court of public opinion. So while I don't want to have to say it (again), but to quote a certain fantasy police chief...they don't get the police they want, they get the police they deserve...

[txdpd]

If people really think that there are legitimate groups of people, on both sides, who show up and act a fool for free then they have to be seriously kidding themselves.

There is always someone, somewhere, who orchestrated this whole thing, who wanted this whole thing to turn into a violent confrontation and is laughing, between choking on his cuban cigar, at the rest of the country.

If you read the above and instantly thought "soros" or "obama," then you are correct, except only one of them smokes cigars and not sausages.

Short of mass murder, there is not much else that could have been to done to legitimize white supremacist and steel the resolve of their followers. Key point being "their followers". The people that were on toeing the line on joining or financial supporting these groups are getting a push over the line, because Antifa and BLM played right into their rhetoric. They know they are hated, they don't need broad appeal, just a narrow sliver of the population that they need to appeal too.

The leaders of these groups are laughing all the way to the bank. They couldn't have hoped for a better outcome and all the idiots that think they are "counter protesting" are getting played and helping their cause.

[Mjolnir]

Short of mass murder, there is not much else that could have been to done to legitimize white supremacist and steel the resolve of their followers. Key point being "their followers". The people that were on toeing the line on joining or financial supporting these groups are getting a push over the line, because Antifa and BLM played right into their rhetoric. They know they are hated, they don't need broad appeal, just a narrow sliver of the population that they need to appeal too.

The leaders of these groups are laughing all the way to the bank. They couldn't have hoped for a better outcome and all the idiots that think they are "counter protesting" are getting played and helping their cause.

They are paid by the same
Parasitical Vampyres, bro.

Opposames


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mjolnir]

Try again.

I grew up in East Texas and I am racial minority. I get the reality of the American South.

And though we all have our own crosses to bear... seeing the realities of not just your own society but others is extremely powerful. Particularly when people haven't experienced the same thing that you or I have.

No. *I* shall pass!

YOU can go.

I tire of the shit; we had NO rights in the USA at the time yet there we were... "fighting for freedom". Oh, and my Cherokee ancestry... let's not go there, shall we?

What's "extremely powerful" to you may not remotely register to others due to circumstances YOU may not comprehend.

I have MY OWN shit to deal with.

I know the suffering of the Russians have suffered MUCH more (60 million dead) as have the Germans AFTER WW II (See James Bacque's OTHER LOSSES). The Chinese (60 to 100 million dead). I could go on and on.

I don't NEED to see anything. All I NEED to see is right here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Zincwarrior]

You're attacking an entire region... so suck it up, buttercup.

Your level of hypocrisy I find troubling.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What region is that? Racistland?

[Mjolnir]

What region is that? Racistland?

Sounds like wherever the Hell you are to be honest. Bigots never perceive themselves to be what they actually are perceived to be by many.

Stop being a clown and THINK.

You've obviously not well educated on this subject. But then MOST are not.

When ignorance (lacking knowledge) tries to dictate it crosses the line into stupidity.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Zincwarrior]

Sounds like wherever the Hell you are to be honest. Bigots never perceive themselves to be what they actually are perceived to be by many.

Stop being a clown and THINK.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am not supporting the guys marching at night shouting white power.
Again I guess it's acceptable to insult other posters in this board now. Oh well.

[Jay Cunningham]

Well, we can either allow this spirited discussion to take place on PF, or we can...

SHUT IT DOWN.

[Peally]

Well, we can either allow this spirited discussion to take place on PF, or we can...

SHUT IT DOWN.

This shitshow is really something, I'm surprised no one slapped a big ol' padlock on it already.

I've got to go back in my threads and figure out who I'm gonna poop on this PFestivus!

[RevolverRob]

No. *I* shall pass!

YOU can go.

I did go. Have you? Then you aren't getting it.


I tire of the shit; we had NO rights in the USA at the time yet there we were... "fighting for freedom". Oh, and my Cherokee ancestry... let's not go there, shall we?

Oh my fucking god, you have stepped in it. Your Cherokee ancestry? How about my Mayan and Aztec ancestry? Where an entire group of white Europeans enslaved that entire group, decimated their entire culture, and has yet to even acknowledge their existence as a Native American group. What about the black ancestry in my family that was also enslaved like their Mestizo counterparts?

Fuck it, let's just move it into the 20th century.

What do you think it was like for my mother to grow up speaking Spanish until she was 8-years old and then be forced to speak only English for the rest of her life by an oppressive white culture and an oppressive abusive white stepfather, who was systematically protected by white police officers and therefore was allowed to do those things, because he was white and she was "lucky" to be his stepdaughter?

How do you think it affected my great grandfather to move to this country as a Mexican-national when Pancho Villa was the villan de jour and white soldiers burned his cotton farm and all of his livestock to the ground?

How do you think it has affected ME, to see the fall out of all of those things AND to deal with my own racist interactions up and to this very damn day. If you think you know or understand me, or you think I am somehow impressed by your personal story - I'm not. It's not a fucking contest to see whose personal histories are worse.

It's a statement about understanding, looking at, and trying to stop these cultural traits from continuing.


What's "extremely powerful" to you may not remotely register to others due to circumstances YOU may not comprehend.

I have MY OWN shit to deal with.

I don't NEED to see anything. All I NEED to see is right here.


What you aren't getting is...it isn't about you personally. Whatever your personal issues are - don't make a fucking difference to the broader sociocultural reality we are discussing. Go look in the mirror and repeat, "This isn't about me." About 75 times. Then drink a beer or some scotch.

[Mjolnir]

I did go. Have you? Then you aren't getting it.

Oh my fucking god, you have stepped in it. Your Cherokee ancestry? How about my Mayan and Aztec ancestry? Where an entire group of white Europeans enslaved that entire group, decimated their entire culture, and has yet to even acknowledge their existence as a Native American group. What about the black ancestry in my family that was also enslaved like their Mestizo counterparts?

Fuck it, let's just move it into the 20th century.

What do you think it was like for my mother to grow up speaking Spanish until she was 8-years old and then be forced to speak only English for the rest of her life by an oppressive white culture and an oppressive abusive white stepfather, who was systematically protected by white police officers and therefore was allowed to do those things, because he was white and she was "lucky" to be his stepdaughter?

How do you think it affected my great grandfather to move to this country as a Mexican-national when Pancho Villa was the villan de jour and white soldiers burned his cotton farm and all of his livestock to the ground?

How do you think it has affected ME, to see the fall out of all of those things AND to deal with my own racist interactions up and to this very damn day. If you think you know or understand me, or you think I am somehow impressed by your personal story - I'm not. It's not a fucking contest to see whose personal histories are worse.

It's a statement about understanding, looking at, and trying to stop these cultural traits from continuing.

What you aren't getting is...it isn't about you personally. Whatever your personal issues are - don't make a fucking difference to the broader sociocultural reality we are discussing. Go look in the mirror and repeat, "This isn't about me." About 75 times. Then drink a beer or some scotch.

Your last paragraph sums it quite well. Yet is YOU who don't get it, brother.

I'm not trying to force you to do anything. Simply keep the invite. Or offer it elsewhere.

I'm Angolan, French, Cherokee, Scots-Irish. Creole of Color; "Black" to most on this web board.

You and I share a somewhat similar ethnic/racial background. I don't need to dredge up my family history in an attempt to "prove" anything. It's as sad if not more so than your own. In fact, I never brought up what I've experienced and I would not toss it out there to the world because I recognize IT DOES NOT MATTER TO THE WORLD-AT-LARGE. And I'm okay with that.

I don't require what you may find insightful. I'm glad you got something out of it. Yet you find an issue with it. I'm over it, already.

If I'm ever back in Germany I think I'll visit the Nordschleife... Maybe I could get a hot lap from Sabeine Schmitz.

Or visit H&K.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RevolverRob]

Your last paragraph sums it quite well. Yet is YOU who don't get it, brother.

I'm not trying to force you to do anything. Simply keep the invite. Or offer it elsewhere.

I'm Angolan, French, Cherokee, Scots-Irish. Creole of Color; "Black" to most on this web board.

You and I share a somewhat similar ethnic/racial background. I don't need to dredge up my family history in an attempt to "prove" anything. It's as sad if not more so than your own. In fact, I never brought up what I've experienced and I would not toss it out there to the world because I recognize IT DOES NOT MATTER TO THE WORLD-AT-LARGE. And I'm okay with that.

I don't require what you may find insightful. I'm glad you got something out of it. Yet you find an issue with it. I'm over it, already.

If I'm ever back in Germany I think I'll visit the Nordschleife... Maybe I could get a hot lap from Sabeine Schmitz.

Or visit H&K.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I get you man. Given your locale and my home, I bet we have a lot of shared experiences.

My suggestion isn't really aimed at you or even me. It's a suggestion that might compel those who don't get it and make them confront a harsh historical reality that might help them get it.

Re: Back to Germany, two words Porsche Museum.

[Totem Polar]

From Raphael Lempkin's definition of genocide:

Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups.


That gives pause for thought.


I do believe I'll think about it over a cold brew. It's getting hot in here. ;)