Another statue was taken down... this time forcibly

Author Topic: Another statue was taken down... this time forcibly  (Read 10333 times)

i never downplayed other effects of slavery aside from the economic benefits

"The lack of basic human and civil rights was of course bad, the free labor was very very good imo"



« Last Edit: August 15, 2017, 11:41:02 PM by LeisureSuit912 »

"The lack of basic human and civil rights was of course bad, the free labor was very very good imo"

free labor completely hinders an economy past a certain point. it's why the north won. stop being a sperg

i recommend we just cut the heads off all the statues


are you seriously comparing americans revolting against the crown to red anarchists destroying a historical monument?

hell, it wasn't even antifa this time. it was just a bunch of loving morons who want to revise history
what do you mean revise history?

stuff happened, the stuff happening is still told in books, no one in the world believes that breaking a statue changes that

i don't get why people keep bringing up 'history' for a hunk of metal modeled after some dead dude.
ah yes, that's what he would've looked like if frozen solid and painted. history is preserved.

oh ok so I guess you'd be okay if we bulldozed Auschwitz and the Japanese internment camps

because surely that stuff happening is still told in books so no one in the world believes driving a car through those sites changes that amirite

oh ok so I guess you'd be okay if we bulldozed Auschwitz and the Japanese internment camps

because surely that stuff happening is still told in books so no one in the world believes driving a car through those sites changes that amirite
The reach is strong in this one.

you're not delegitimizing my point by dismissing it as a reach

if he actually believes that taking down monuments and memorials doesn't matter then he means it across the board

because they were american citizens before and after the war? robert e lee served in the US army for over 30 years before the civil war and wasn't happy about the division or the war. he probably would have sided with the union if it wasn't for the fact that his home state joined the confederacy
They were American citizens before, yes, but technically afterward they remained territories until they formed governments and ratified the 14th Amendment before they could be re-admitted into the Union; additionally, there were other provisions which sought to limit the rights of ex-pats through the Wade-Davis Bill and through Ironclad Oaths. But I digress.

In what form, also, does those who fought on the side of the Confederates or supported them make them American heroes? Most Confederates themselves saw themselves to reject the idea that they were countrymen along with the Union, and had chosen to take up a new national identity.

Additionally, he sided with the Confederates because he had a "devout Christian conviction" that slavery was good for the black man. In his words,
Quote from: Robert E. Lee
[. . .]that unless some humane course is adopted, based on wisdom and Christian principles you do a gross wrong and injustice to the whole Bro race in setting them free. And it is only this consideration that has led the wisdom, intelligence and Christianity of the South to support and defend the institution up to this time.
Frederick Douglass's admonition for this mentality was reflected perfectly in the following:
Quote from: Frederick Douglass
between the Christianity of this land and the Christianity of Christ, I recognize the widest possible difference.
He was even known to enslave previously free black men from the North as a part of this so-called providence among many other atrocities committed against prisoners of war. Some historians point to this cruelty, "[. . .]historian Richard Slotkin wrote in No Quarter: The Battle of the Crater, “his silence was permissive.”" as his personal enjoyment of war. His allegiances were not political or defined by boundaries; but by his twisted code of ethics.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2017, 01:58:37 AM by SWAT One »

oh ok so I guess you'd be okay if we bulldozed Auschwitz and the Japanese internment camps

because surely that stuff happening is still told in books so no one in the world believes driving a car through those sites changes that amirite
auschwitz isn't a memorial for Riddler or other prominent national socialist figures, it's literally a museum that is used to commemorate the millions of jewish lives lost during WWII. no ones saying to replace Gettysburg with a themepark, your brown townogy was awful

oh ok so I guess you'd be okay if we bulldozed Auschwitz and the Japanese internment camps

because surely that stuff happening is still told in books so no one in the world believes driving a car through those sites changes that amirite
Auschwitz doesn't literally commemorate treason.
Not saying these monuments should be torn down by angry mobs but your brown townogy is stuff.

oh ok so I guess you'd be okay if we bulldozed Auschwitz and the Japanese internment camps

because surely that stuff happening is still told in books so no one in the world believes driving a car through those sites changes that amirite
last time i checked, auschwitz is too big to be moved into a museum. so instead they built the museum inside


you're not delegitimizing my point by dismissing it as a reach

if he actually believes that taking down monuments and memorials doesn't matter then he means it across the board
Using this argument, you must be okay with erecting Riddler/Stalin/Husein/etc. statues. Do you really think its okay to have statues that don't just remind of a terrible person but commemorate them? statues are meant to be idolized, that's their whole purpose. To have a public statue of someone like Robert E lee puts him in a place of idolization. most people know what kinda man he was but some people will look to that statue and find strength in it and rally behind it. See last weekend for my example.

Using this argument, you must be okay with erecting Riddler/Stalin/Husein/etc. statues.

Absolute bullstuff. My argument was that taking down monuments and memorials makes a huge difference, which was what Shift was arguing against. It's why the people took down the statues of Riddler and Hussein, because they didn't want to remember him at all. Meanwhile, you have stuffheads destroying memorials to fallen soldiers and calling for the destruction of more monuments, not realizing that the descendants of these soldiers are alive and well, furious that their ancestors are being disgraced and are now leaping into the arms of the alt-right because some loving chud couldn't keep his white guilt richard in his pants.

Do you really think its okay to have statues that don't just remind of a terrible person but commemorate them? statues are meant to be idolized, that's their whole purpose.

What do you idolize by looking at Michaelangelo's works? Nothing. Statues have different purposes. The purpose of the statue that the leftist forgets tore down was to honor the fallen, not to make them look like gods.

To have a public statue of someone like Robert E lee puts him in a place of idolization. most people know what kinda man he was but some people will look to that statue and find strength in it and rally behind it. See last weekend for my example.

The national socialists and white supremacists are the only ones who show public affection which definitely disturbs me and taints any arguments that I make against the destruction of these statues. Maybe there might be other people who are happy with the statue, say, the people whose ancestors were kept alive by Robert E. Lee's tactical skill on the battlefield and were able to return home safely to their families?