COVID-19 RESOURCES
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

What is the Good in keeping Confederate Statues and such?

It's just that this monuments saga got turned into such an extreme "the racists" versus "the non- racists" fight,
it's sometimes comical.
 
hsnh said:
It's just that this monuments saga got turned into such an extreme "the racists" versus "the non- racists" fight,
it's sometimes comical.
Click to expand...
I highly doubt that most of the counter protestors at Charlottesville were there to protest the statue. I think that they were there to protest the hate groups.
 
snugglestruggle said:
I saw this question posed by another member in a different thread and its a good one. The short answer is you cant stamp out hate. Nothing you do can stop a person from hating except kill them. People will hate regardless if there are any statues, busts, plaques or memorials to the confederacy or the soldiers who fought for the south.

The thing is by attacking the Symbols, the ideas one group sees as their heritage you actually feed their hate. It doesn't matter what you think or feel because of the emotional investment they have, right or wrong. Tearing down Symbols will only fuel their rage and deepen their hate and desire to resist. If there was no counter protest in charlotte, nobody would have got hurt. The counter protestors (who had no permit to be there) gave the haters exactly what they wanted, a confrontation and innocent people paid the price.
Click to expand...

Apart from whatever legal issues are involved, you've identified what has been nagging at me about the removal of confederate statues and symbols. Essentially, it is a "hollow," virtually meaningless victory. It accomplishes nothing, other than continuing to fuel hatred by the "offended" group. Why would the other side celebrate that exacerbation?

It feels like a social class war over who can exert the most power. Getting rid of a confederate statue seems little more than a victorious effort in exercising that power. What else does it really do?

Far from reclaiming the message, it seems far more productive to me to appropriately minimize and simply ignore that which is largely ineffectual socially. While I certainly support counter-protests as an appropriate expression of First Amendment freedoms, showing up armed and ready for physical conflict only plays into the very thing racist groups are trying to achieve.

The best counter-protest to a Klansman screaming "white power" on a public street is to probably walk by, glance his way, laugh out loud and keep walking.

I remember a time growing up when these people really WERE a domestic terrorist organization. They ruled government and law enforcement in the South. I remember the four civil rights workers murdered in Philadelphia, Mississippi. I remember Emmett Till, Viola Liuzzo and Medgar Evers.

Thankfully, that's not the South today. But if we continue to overreact by oppressively denying every vain, pointless expression of racism that racists attempt to express, we might very well succeed in bringing it back.

I'd prefer doing something else. Like NOT killing flies with elephant guns, and focusing anti-terrorism efforts against real terrorist plans and conspiracies wherever they may be forming.
 
Colonel Hogan said:
Apart from whatever legal issues are involved, you've identified what has been nagging at me about the removal of confederate statues and symbols. Essentially, it is a "hollow," virtually meaningless victory. It accomplishes nothing, other than continuing to fuel hatred by the "offended" group. Why would the other side celebrate that exacerbation?

It feels like a social class war over who can exert the most power. Getting rid of a confederate statue seems little more than a victorious effort in exercising that power. What else does it really do?

Far from reclaiming the message, it seems far more productive to me to appropriately minimize and simply ignore that which is largely ineffectual socially. While I certainly support counter-protests as an appropriate expression of First Amendment freedoms, showing up armed and ready for physical conflict only plays into the very thing racist groups are trying to achieve.

The best counter-protest to a Klansman screaming "white power" on a public street is to probably walk by, glance his way, laugh out loud and keep walking.

I remember a time growing up when these people really WERE a domestic terrorist organization. They ruled government and law enforcement in the South. I remember the four civil rights workers murdered in Philadelphia, Mississippi. I remember Emmett Till, Viola Liuzzo and Medgar Evers.

Thankfully, that's not the South today. But if we continue to overreact by oppressively denying every vain, pointless expression of racism that racists attempt to express, we might very well succeed in bringing it back.

I'd prefer doing something else. Like NOT killing flies with elephant guns, and focusing anti-terrorism efforts against real terrorist plans and conspiracies wherever they may be forming.
Click to expand...

So true and spot on. This whole episode boils down to 2 groups wanting to draw attention to themselves. One are haters, the other not very smart. Why the police did not keep them apart is beyond comprehension. Thanks for adding some thoughtfulness to the discussion.

Do you have any thoughts about the public law I cited? I'm curious if I interpreted it correctly.
 
phrodeau said:
I highly doubt that most of the counter protestors at Charlottesville were there to protest the statue. I think that they were there to protest the hate groups.
Click to expand...
I agree with that part. I think that groups like KKK or neo- nazis, or certain Islamic groups from EU that preach "death to jews" should be labelled as hate groups and banned. Like they did in Germany.
-- I was mainly making fun of some of the things that I've seen on twitter and the GB.

____________________________

Re the events:.
The bottomline is clear, from what I understand: those are statues of people who were For slavery, so at one point they have to go.

But what is confusing to me is:
- So americans erected or allowed those statues to exist for so many decades, and until this year, not that many were bothered by them.
- Yet all of a sudden, those statues are such a sore spot and tearing them down Asap is seen as being almost vital, and anyone who's reluctant to do so is ostracized. After decades of complacency and silence.
 
Last edited:
Confederate flags in 2015 and early 2016, now the statues.


Where does it go from here?


Street names, names of businesses, parks?
 
I just read Col. Hogan's post, which clarified things a bit for me.
 
Emerson40 said:
Confederate flags in 2015 and early 2016, now the statues.


Where does it go from here?


Street names, names of businesses, parks?
Click to expand...

Well, yes, the names of schools are already being changed. There's no difference between what a statue on public land depicts or a public school is named. And the park in Charlottesville where the Lee statue is has already had a name change--from Lee Park to Emancipation Park (a little pretentious, I think. I suggested the two parks be renamed East and West. Jackson Park has been changed to Justice Park, which at least is logical, as the Albemarle County Courthouse is in the park.)

Of course, at least in Virginia, it's going to be easier to change street, school, and park names than it is to move the statues. A 1950 Virginia law protects the statues where they are. The Republican-control legislature has to change the law before the statues can legally go anywhere.

Not sure why you include "businesses." You aren't aware that businesses are private and choose their own names? (How long have the Washington Redskins chosen to hang onto their name by right?)

Seems you are firing from the hip without doing research.
 
sr71plt said:
And the park in Charlottesville where the Lee statue is has already had a name change--from Lee Park to Emancipation Park.
Click to expand...
Like "Lincoln's Emancipation of slaves"?

I agree with tearing down Confederate monuments or symbols of slavery, but why not change them to neutral ones?
 
sr71plt said:
Well, yes, the names of schools are already being changed. There's no difference between what a statue on public land depicts or a public school is named. And the park in Charlottesville where the Lee statue is has already had a name change--from Lee Park to Emancipation Park (a little pretentious, I think. I suggested the two parks be renamed East and West. Jackson Park has been changed to Justice Park, which at least is logical, as the Albemarle County Courthouse is in the park.)

Of course, at least in Virginia, it's going to be easier to change street, school, and park names than it is to move the statues. A 1950 Virginia law protects the statues where they are. The Republican-control legislature has to change the law before the statues can legally go anywhere.

Not sure why you include "businesses." You aren't aware that businesses are private and choose their own names? (How long have the Washington Redskins chosen to hang onto their name by right?)

Seems you are firing from the hip without doing research.
Click to expand...

Forrest Avenue in Atlanta, named after Klan founder Nathan Bedford Forrest was renamed Martin Luther King Jr about 1970. Ishmael's sense of situational outrage wasn't as keenly developed as it is now.

I saw tonight on the news that someone tarred and feathered a Confederate memorial in Phoenix tonight. Points for creativity.

Seems like Trump's Neue Hitler Jugend is starting to realize their actions have consequences. They'd better start stockpilin' ammo.
 
hsnh said:
Like "Lincoln's Emancipation of slaves"?

I agree with tearing down Confederate monuments or symbols of slavery, but why not change them to neutral ones?
Click to expand...

That's how the Russians did it during their purges... statues disappeared, then portraits, then they burned textbooks... it all sounds familiar...
 
coachdb18 said:
That's how the Russians did it during their purges... statues disappeared, then portraits, then they burned textbooks... it all sounds familiar...
Click to expand...

I know… .
One of my parents was Eastern European, and many things that I read about here are reminiscent of their history.
It's fascinating for me to watch America gradually go that way (communism). They're just using minority groups to achieve their goals.
 
Last edited:
hsnh said:
I know… .
One of my parents was Eastern European, and many things that I read about here are reminiscent of their history.
It's fascinating for me to watch America gradually go that way (communism). They're just using minority groups to achieve their goals.
Click to expand...

I'd say in about another forty years, there will be a new renaissance in which the black racists we now elevate will have their statues pulled down, their portraits removed, their words and references removed from textbooks as the shameful period of 2017 in American history must be erased ... and the rewriting of history leaves us with yet another shameful rejection of who we are.
 
snugglestruggle said:
So true and spot on. This whole episode boils down to 2 groups wanting to draw attention to themselves. One are haters, the other not very smart. Why the police did not keep them apart is beyond comprehension. Thanks for adding some thoughtfulness to the discussion.

Do you have any thoughts about the public law I cited? I'm curious if I interpreted it correctly.
Click to expand...

I assume you cited the public law accurately, but since I don't believe there are any surviving veterans of the Civil War, I am further assuming it is essentially moot.

But that probably won't be enough for some partisans in the current environment. I anticipate they will DEMAND its repeal. :D:D
 
hsnh said:
Like "Lincoln's Emancipation of slaves"?

I agree with tearing down Confederate monuments or symbols of slavery, but why not change them to neutral ones?
Click to expand...

Well, I would think that my suggestion that they be renamed East and West (to help tourists navigate the area) was a hint that I would agree with you.

An interesting note--the city council leading with its chin on this again--they ran a contest to rename the parks and "Emancipation" wasn't proposed by anyone in teh contest. The city council went there on their own.
 
sr71plt said:
Well, I would think that my suggestion that they be renamed East and West (to help tourists navigate the area) was a hint that I would agree with you.

An interesting note--the city council leading with its chin on this again--they ran a contest to rename the parks and "Emancipation" wasn't proposed by anyone in teh contest. The city council went there on their own.
Click to expand...

Odd thing about rewriting history, as the Civil War was not about slavery until 1863. The Confederacy was so named because the southern states wanted less federal control, and more state control of government. It wasn't until Lincoln found himself losing the war that he needed the blacks of the time to gain the advantage over the CSA. If you go back and actually read Lincoln's first Inaugural address, he quite flatly states he has no interest in ending slavery, that the south has no reason to fear federal intervention in the laws of the states, and feels he has no power to do so.

But that's not widely known, since... you know... public schools don't teach that stuff.

Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that—
I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

Abraham Lincoln - Monday, March 4, 1861
Click to expand...

​
http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html
 
Last edited:
sr71plt said:
That view isn't anywhere close to being agreed to by everyone (or by very many, actually).
Click to expand...

Let's try this ONE MORE TIME...

Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that—
I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

Abraham Lincoln - Monday, March 4, 1861
Click to expand...

​
http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html
 
coachdb18 said:
Let's try this ONE MORE TIME...

http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html
Click to expand...

Lincoln wasn't the only one around, and you just aren't paying attention if you think that a majority of people will agree with you that slavery wasn't the major sticking point for the Civil War.

I don't think it was the only issue, but I think your position is just off the wall and you're not researching this objectively. I think you have an reactionary agenda, so I give you no credence on this. That shouldn't bother you as longer as you can live with someone saying you're talking through your rear end by assuming much agreement on your view.
 
sr71plt said:
Lincoln wasn't the only one around, and you just aren't paying attention if you think that a majority of people will agree with you that slavery wasn't the major sticking point for the Civil War.

I don't think it was the only issue, but I think your position is just off the wall and you're not researching this objectively. I think you have an reactionary agenda.
Click to expand...

What is it about 'I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so' that you don't understand?

And if the Civil War WAS about slavery, why do you think Lincoln waited until January 1st, 1863 to declare the end of slavery.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

BareAmy83
MEN: What is the *ultimate gift* a Woman can give a Man? What would *YOU* desire most?
2 3
Replies
73
Views
3K
RipleNStllWtr
RipleNStllWtr
J
1950s and 1960s porn movies
Replies
1
Views
430
live4thebj
live4thebj
J
I got banned from one more forum.
Replies
8
Views
603
JohnSm123
J
M
Am I the only one?
Replies
1
Views
295
Onlyforyou100
O
cdstefi
The penis
Replies
14
Views
1K
Ramone45
R
Back
Top