• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  
Dog

History out of context

208 posts in this topic

Well, you can be sure the GOP will ride this like a horse in a dead heat at the Kentucky Derby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Dog said:

Judging historical figures without any consideration for the times and circumstances in which they lived...George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and now Thomas Jefferson are all judged to be unworthy. We've lost our fucking minds.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/uva-students-cover-thomas-jefferson-statue-tarp-article-1.3491888?cid=bitly

 It must be those damn commie teachers.

Send in the Nazis and the KKK to beat some respect into those punks!

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Steam Flyer said:

 It must be those damn commie teachers.

Send in the Nazis and the KKK to beat some respect into those punks!

-DSK

They likely will when they discover it was only 100 students, any more and they would be too afraid.

 

"An apparent lack of action on the part of administrators helped prompt a protest on the campus Tuesday night that consisted of about 100 students, alumni, faculty and local residents who surrounded the statue of Jefferson and covered it up while chanting “shut it down,” according to news reports and videos posted on Facebook."

https://www.thecollegefix.com/post/36702/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We lost our fucking minds to the point where some people will constantly cite that the democrats were the pro-slavery party a hundred and fifty years ago as evidence they are now. Perhaps that's attributable to rank dishonesty though. Hard to be sure. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

History

2 hours ago, Dog said:

Judging historical figures without any consideration for the times and circumstances in which they lived

Karl Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler - time to rethink them for the good because of their circumstances, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Mark K said:

We lost our fucking minds to the point where some people will constantly cite that the democrats were the pro-slavery party a hundred and fifty years ago as evidence they are now. Perhaps that's attributable to rank dishonesty though. Hard to be sure. 

Ding!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Mark K said:

We lost our fucking minds to the point where some people will constantly cite that the democrats were the pro-slavery party a hundred and fifty years ago as evidence they are now. Perhaps that's attributable to rank dishonesty though. Hard to be sure. 

Yeah, Levin had a whole segment on that again, yesterday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand the anger at confederate statues.  Extending it to founding fathers is wrong.   Like it or not slavery was around for thousands of years and still exists in today's world.   Why is the US always held to the fire for something the whole world was engaged in?   I get it that it was evil and cruel,  things that slaves endured are among the worst things any human could live through.  BUT it is over 150 years since it was ended in the US.  Time to move on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, TMSAIL said:

Why is the US always held to the fire for something the whole world was engaged in?

Oh FFS. We're going to need some officers from the Special Victimhood Unit over here stat. Send a waaah-mbulance. :rolleyes: 

The US gets held to the fire for it's actions. Other countries get held to the fire for their actions. Just because one country does a bad thing doesn't mean another country should get a free pass on it. Unless, of course, you consider your morality a popularity contest. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

History

Karl Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler - time to rethink them for the good because of their circumstances, right?

Kind of extreme examples with Hitler and Stalin ..But..Mao, Castro even Qaddafi could be said to have been true champions of the people for their time...lets face it..the vast majority of the people in those countries are now so much better off than under the regimes of the times...education, health care etc.

As for the OP..history is not static.

Historical figures should be judged in the context of their times with revisionist balance good V evil..

It's really not that hard. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TMSAIL said:

I understand the anger at confederate statues.  Extending it to founding fathers is wrong.   Like it or not slavery was around for thousands of years and still exists in today's world.   Why is the US always held to the fire for something the whole world was engaged in?   I get it that it was evil and cruel,  things that slaves endured are among the worst things any human could live through.  BUT it is over 150 years since it was ended in the US.  Time to move on. 

I was with you until your last 2 sentences. If it were as easy as "Time to move on", I think things would be decidedly different. The wounds caused by that time of atrocity have festered for decades in less overt efforts to dehumanize the victims. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TMSAIL said:

Why is the US always held to the fire for something the whole world was engaged in? 

Probably because the USA was the last significant country that practiced it legally. Took the worst war in your history to end it.

Time to move on though, as you say.

Long past time actually if you regard entrenched racism as a byproduct of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

Probably because the USA was the last significant country that practiced it legally.

The Ottoman empire practiced it into the 20th century; Russia only abolished serfdom in 1861. 

Of course we were well behind the British and the French in abolition of slavery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SloopJonB said:

Probably because the USA was the last significant country that practiced it legally. Took the worst war in your history to end it.

Time to move on though, as you say.

Long past time actually if you regard entrenched racism as a byproduct of it.

You are wrong for several reasons.  The US was not a significant country in 1865.  Human trafficking continues to this day in Africa.  The ottomans were still practicing it up to WW 1.   

Other countries abolished it around the same time.  

My point about moving on was on the issue of Slavery not racism or the plight of many African Americans.  Those issues need to be addressed not ignored.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mark K said:

We lost our fucking minds to the point where some people will constantly cite that the democrats were the pro-slavery party a hundred and fifty years ago as evidence they are now. Perhaps that's attributable to rank dishonesty though. Hard to be sure. 

Just sayin

464782573.thumb.jpg.bb540a8a48f68593d0537c3dae258e9f.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saying what?

That you have been unable to follow or comprehend the developments in American politics since the civil war?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

Saying what?

That you have been unable to follow or comprehend the developments in American politics since the civil war?

That Democrats wanted slavery, Republicans chose to get rid of it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Moderate said:

That Democrats wanted slavery, Republicans chose to get rid of it

And that was 150 years ago.

Now the Republicans want to bring back slavery

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

And that was 150 years ago.

Now the Republicans want to bring back slavery

-DSK

Can you point the plank in thier platform

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Moderate said:
14 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Now the Republicans want to bring back slavery

-

Can you point the plank in thier platform

Maybe it's the vote suppression and gerrymandering? Maybe it's the roll back on minority education & jobs and putting toxic or medical waste dumps in minority neighborhoods? Maybe it's just all the hate for people who don't like the KKK and who don't think cops should shoot black people willy-nilly.

I dunno, there's so much to choose from

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Moderate said:

Can you point the plank in thier platform

How about we just point to you?

You're as thick as a plank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TMSAIL said:

You are wrong for several reasons.  The US was not a significant country in 1865.  Human trafficking continues to this day in Africa.  The ottomans were still practicing it up to WW 1.   

Other countries abolished it around the same time.  

My point about moving on was on the issue of Slavery not racism or the plight of many African Americans.  Those issues need to be addressed not ignored.   

1

Because we were supposed to be the role model. 

We're the only nation/culture/society that claimed "all men are created equal"... and we did it at the same time as we practiced chattel slavery? 

Any other culture/country that's since joined us in making that claim, got rid of slavery first.

 

2

Because we did it on a massively huge scale, compared to anyone else ever.

 

3

Because even after we abolished slavery, we held on to the caste system.  While still preaching, 'all men are created equal'.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, TMSAIL said:

I understand the anger at confederate statues.  Extending it to founding fathers is wrong.   Like it or not slavery was around for thousands of years and still exists in today's world.   Why is the US always held to the fire for something the whole world was engaged in?   I get it that it was evil and cruel,  things that slaves endured are among the worst things any human could live through.  BUT it is over 150 years since it was ended in the US.  Time to move on. 

It would be time to move on if people were no longer legally enslaved today. But they are, so it's not ... 

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, frenchie said:

1

Because we were supposed to be the role model. 

We're the only nation/culture/society that claimed "all men are created equal"... and we did it at the same time as we practiced chattel slavery? 

Any other culture/country that's since joined us in making that claim, got rid of slavery first.

 

2

Because we did it on a massively huge scale, compared to anyone else ever.

 

3

Because even after we abolished slavery, we held on to the caste system.  While still preaching, 'all men are created equal'.

Maybe the Thirteenth Amendment was a mistake?

Why did we need an amendment to The Constitution to abolish slavery (other than the crime loophole)?

Slavery was unconstitutional from the inception of The Constitution, because all men are created equal and endowed by their creator of natural rights. If our country had simply enforced The Constitution on all the criminals who were enslaving their fellow humans, we perhaps could have avoided the next hundred-some years of racist law and is enslaving the children of slaves for victimless crimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Dog said:

Judging historical figures without any consideration for the times and circumstances in which they lived...George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and now Thomas Jefferson are all judged to be unworthy. We've lost our fucking minds.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/uva-students-cover-thomas-jefferson-statue-tarp-article-1.3491888?cid=bitly

They seem to want two things:
 

Quote

 

The demonstrators that jeered the Jefferson statue in the latest show of defiance also renewed demands for the UVA administration to remove Confederate plaques and tweak school policies to prohibit concealed weapons and open flames at the Rotunda lawn.

The Black Student Alliance published the demands a week after Heyer’s death on Aug. 20. The group asked the school to acknowledge the former President’s white supremacist ties in a new plaque. He owned slaves.

 

I see nothing wrong with informing those who don't already know it that Jefferson owned slaves. It's part of our history.

The other big, important issue is making sure that people who follow rules are disarmed in certain areas. I think that does little about those who don't follow rules, who are the ones we should worry about with guns. But perhaps covering a statue is a better argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Mark K said:

We lost our fucking minds to the point where some people will constantly cite that the democrats were the pro-slavery party a hundred and fifty years ago as evidence they are now. Perhaps that's attributable to rank dishonesty though. Hard to be sure. 

Cite please 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, frenchie said:

1

Because we were supposed to be the role model. 

We're the only nation/culture/society that claimed "all men are created equal"... and we did it at the same time as we practiced chattel slavery? 

Any other culture/country that's since joined us in making that claim, got rid of slavery first.

 

2

Because we did it on a massively huge scale, compared to anyone else ever.

 

3

Because even after we abolished slavery, we held on to the caste system.  While still preaching, 'all men are created equal'.

 

 

 

 

All what you say is true,  so what?   I could argue that if the founding fathers tried to end slavery in 1776 the union would have never formed.   Regardless my conscience is clear my grandparents came over in the 1930's   And like the overwealing number of Americans had zero nothing nada to do with slavery

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, TMSAIL said:

All what you say is true,  so what?   I could argue that if the founding fathers tried to end slavery in 1776 the union would have never formed.   Regardless my conscience is clear my grandparents came over in the 1930's   And like the overwealing number of Americans had zero nothing nada to do with slavery

 

Some of the Founding Fathers did want to end slavery, but as you say, it would not have worked.

No living American had anything to do with slavery. But if you want -your- history to be honored by others, then you have to honor other peoples' history. It's that simple. If OTOH you want to shove offensive symbols in other peoples' faces, then you should expect to be treated rather discurteously.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Some of the Founding Fathers did want to end slavery, but as you say, it would not have worked.

No living American had anything to do with slavery. But if you want -your- history to be honored by others, then you have to honor other peoples' history. It's that simple. If OTOH you want to shove offensive symbols in other peoples' faces, then you should expect to be treated rather discurteously.

-DSK

Do you consider Founding fathers like Jefferson and Washington to be offensive symbols?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep in mind that history is ALWAYS filtered through the lens of the present, that's why historiography is it's own sub-field.  That said, neither Washington nor Jefferson are remembered only as supporting slavery unlike the defenders of the Confederacy. A more troublesome figure would be Stand Watie; only Native American general during the Civil War but was the last Confederate general to surrender and was a slave owner.  The Founding Fathers were known for acts other than support for slavery unlike Lee, Forrest, Davis et al.  Their places of honor were created by the Redeemer governments after the end of Reconstruction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Dog said:

Judging historical figures without any consideration for the times and circumstances in which they lived...George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and now Thomas Jefferson are all judged to be unworthy. We've lost our fucking minds.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/uva-students-cover-thomas-jefferson-statue-tarp-article-1.3491888?cid=bitly

I hate to admit that trump called this.....

Yep, we've lost our fucking minds!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, mikewof said:

Maybe the Thirteenth Amendment was a mistake?

Why did we need an amendment to The Constitution to abolish slavery (other than the crime loophole)?

Slavery was unconstitutional from the inception of The Constitution, because all men are created equal and endowed by their creator of natural rights. If our country had simply enforced The Constitution on all the criminals who were enslaving their fellow humans, we perhaps could have avoided the next hundred-some years of racist law and is enslaving the children of slaves for victimless crimes.

Constitution =! Declaration of Independence.

2 hours ago, TMSAIL said:

All what you say is true,  so what?   I could argue that if the founding fathers tried to end slavery in 1776 the union would have never formed.  

You were asking why we get singled out. 

If your attitude is "so what?", why did you bring it up?

 

2 hours ago, TMSAIL said:

Regardless my conscience is clear my grandparents came over in the 1930's   And like the overwealing number of Americans had zero nothing nada to do with slavery

Why on earth would you feel personally accused of being responsible for something that ended 150 years ago... by someone wanting to change the plaque on a statue of Jefferson? 

I'm an immigrant, ffs, my ancestors are dispossessed french canadians.  Definitely no role in american slavery. 

So?  See point #3.  "White" people benefit from the caste system, whether we intend to or not.  It's just how the place is set up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TMSAIL said:

Do you consider Founding fathers like Jefferson and Washington to be offensive symbols?

Personally, I do not, but it's not up to me. Nor you, but you don't seem to grasp that elementary fact.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Personally, I do not, but it's not up to me. Nor you, but you don't seem to grasp that elementary fact.

-DSK

Who DOES get to dictate what should and should not be permitted?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Who DOES get to dictate what should and should not be permitted?  

The herd, of course.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

The herd, of course.

-DSK

yeah.... Don't we have an approach to governance that's absolutely counter to that concept? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

The herd, of course.

-DSK

yeah.... Don't we have an approach to governance that's absolutely counter to that concept?

Umm, no

There's this thing called voting

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Umm, no

There's this thing called voting

-DSK

Didn't think that you actually understood.  No worries - have fun with your fallacy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Didn't think that you actually understood.  No worries - have fun with your fallacy. 

Which fallacy is that?

The one that says you have some inborn right to demand other people honor your monuments to white supremacy?

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Which fallacy is that?

The one that says you have some inborn right to demand other people honor your monuments to white supremacy?

-DSK

Of course you'd think that - I'll help you with this one, though it shouldn't be necessary. Your fallacy is that I was incorrect in stating that our approach to government is counter to mob rule, when it has been clearly established that our approach to government is designed with the requirement to protect the minority from the whims of the majority, exactly opposite the intention of your "the herd" comment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Of course you'd think that - I'll help you with this one, though it shouldn't be necessary. Your fallacy is that I was incorrect in stating that our approach to government is counter to mob rule, when it has been clearly established that our approach to government is designed with the requirement to protect the minority from the whims of the majority, exactly opposite the intention of your "the herd" comment. 

Ummmm, our form of government gives the choice to the majority. Yes it gives protection from "tyranny of the majority" although IMHO that arose more out of a sense of prudent desire for stability; but "protection from the majority" is not the primary fundamental principle. So, you're just fuckin wrong about that, surprise surprise

If you're still reading, YOU asked "who decides what is permitted" in the context of protesting against statues of slave owners.

My point was, YOU don't even get to decide what your own social group decides much less what others do. I apologize for aiming so far above your head

When a large group of black people can forgive a white supremacist for murdering some of them, the fact that you and your fellow we-must-honor-Confederates-believers cannot forgive blacks for not honoring the statues you choose for them... makes you look rather mean-spirited and petty-minded.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Ummmm, our form of government gives the choice to the majority. Yes it gives protection from "tyranny of the majority" although IMHO that arose more out of a sense of prudent desire for stability; but "protection from the majority" is not the primary fundamental principle. So, you're just fuckin wrong about that, surprise surprise

If you're still reading, YOU asked "who decides what is permitted" in the context of protesting against statues of slave owners.

My point was, YOU don't even get to decide what your own social group decides much less what others do. I apologize for aiming so far above your head

When a large group of black people can forgive a white supremacist for murdering some of them, the fact that you and your fellow we-must-honor-Confederates-believers cannot forgive blacks for not honoring the statues you choose for them... makes you look rather mean-spirited and petty-minded.

-DSK

My god you twist and turn to avoid admitting you mistook something, and to take the opportunity to again embarrass yourself with more false equivalencies.  My "who gets to decide" had nothing to do with protest - it had everything to do with deciding what gets to stay and what gets torn down.   Since when does not wanting to see something torn down equate to "not forgiving black for not honoring the statues you choose for them"?    You'd make Gumby proud. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Ummmm, our form of government gives the choice to the majority. Yes it gives protection from "tyranny of the majority" although IMHO that arose more out of a sense of prudent desire for stability; but "protection from the majority" is not the primary fundamental principle. So, you're just fuckin wrong about that, surprise surprise

If you're still reading, YOU asked "who decides what is permitted" in the context of protesting against statues of slave owners.

My point was, YOU don't even get to decide what your own social group decides much less what others do. I apologize for aiming so far above your head

When a large group of black people can forgive a white supremacist for murdering some of them, the fact that you and your fellow we-must-honor-Confederates-believers cannot forgive blacks for not honoring the statues you choose for them... makes you look rather mean-spirited and petty-minded.

-DSK

We are talking about Jefferson not civil war statues.  Try and keep up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a fan of revisionist history and I don't agree with tearing down statues of people like Lee but there are some limits - For example, I can't believe the Brits allow a statue of "Butcher" Haig to stand in London. Tearing down Sadaam was appropriate but I'm not so sure about Lenin for example - IIRC many or all the monuments to him were demolished.

If Alabama wanted to erect one to George Wallace I would not be in favour of it. :D

I'm not even certain of my own standards on this subject though - maybe historical significance is the criteria, not just prominence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Yep, we've lost our fucking minds!

You voted in Trump expecting things to get better. You having lost your minds is already a given.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I hate to admit that trump called this.....

Yep, we've lost our fucking minds!

Are you a student at UofV? The tarp was put on by a few people and stripped off as soon as they left the premises.

 If we are going slippery slope, as in allowing the removal of Confederacy icons which have become appropriated symbols by neo-nazis and fascists resulting in riled up lefties, then we must consider the slope how riled up they might become if this state of affairs is allowed to stand. It has been said that "good people" like those icons. Well, the message that needs to be given to them is the history of the swastika. Curating symbols must be done with exceeding vigilance. I imagine there were some precious Hindu snowflakes bemoaning the unfairness of what happened to that as well.

   IOW, if those symbols stand for anything good in the minds of those "good people" they should have been first in line to slap the Stars and Bars and like-such out of their cretin neo-nazi paws, not radical lefties. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/13/2017 at 4:41 PM, badlatitude said:

Well, you can be sure the GOP will ride this like a horse in a dead heat at the Kentucky Derby.

It would be nice if some Democrats said something.

I Woolley almost bet a kidney that they won't!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Snore said:

It would be nice if some Democrats said something.

I Woolley almost bet a kidney that they won't!!!

LOL, They'll have plenty to say when there is something worth commenting about. 100 people making a night time protest doesn't get any sane persons ire up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

LOL, They'll have plenty to say when there is something worth commenting about. 100 people making a night time protest doesn't get any sane persons ire up.

Flip the script --- if it was 100 crazy conservatives, would you feel the same?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Snore said:

Flip the script --- if it was 100 crazy conservatives, would you feel the same?

Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, TMSAIL said:

Do you consider Founding fathers like Jefferson and Washington to be offensive symbols?

I don't think that they are offensive symbols, but they are what they are, deeply flawed individuals who could not fully understand that the concept of 'all men are created equal' extended in fact to all men. The Constitution is a seriously flawed document but perhaps the best that could be done at the time. In 2017 we need to acknowledge these facts. If this is historical revision bring it on. It would be nice to think that the northern states would not have accepted the creation of the country with slavery in place, but perhaps that is too much to ask.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

I'm not a fan of revisionist history and I don't agree with tearing down statues of people like Lee but there are some limits - For example, I can't believe the Brits allow a statue of "Butcher" Haig to stand in London. Tearing down Sadaam was appropriate but I'm not so sure about Lenin for example - IIRC many or all the monuments to him were demolished.

If Alabama wanted to erect one to George Wallace I would not be in favour of it. :D

I'm not even certain of my own standards on this subject though - maybe historical significance is the criteria, not just prominence.

I think they're all interesting. Someone wanted to put it up at some point. That's interesting.

I watch cartoons, science, and history shows on TV. I always hate to see some ancient monument that was damaged along the way because someone got mad at what it stood for. I get that there are often good reasons to get mad and to remove the offending symbol. Remove, not destroy.

Put it somewhere else. Saddam. Lenin. Jefferson. Lee. Whoever. They're all interesting parts of history. Later on, there's less to learn from damaged or destroyed artifacts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, TMSAIL said:

We are talking about Jefferson not civil war statues.  Try and keep up. 

Everything he said still applies. 

We're used to seeing Jefferson as a symbol of the Enlightenment  -  rationality, free thinking, individual rights... but step out of your intellectual habit for a second, and really ponder the fact that to some people, he's a symbol of white supremacist hypocrisy. 

He opposed slavery, while owning slaves.  He slept with a black woman (in what by modern standards would surely qualify as rape), while believing blacks were too inferior to take part in civilized society.

We're used to dismissing all that by claiming he was a benevolent slaveowner, and you know, whatever, people are complicated and full of contradictions... But consider, for a moment, how it can just as easily be viewed as hypocrisy.  The ultimate example of white priviledge: he gets to own slaves without even getting any of its moral taint on him... because he opposed it in principle?  Come on.

 

It helps if you've read some of the more recent scholarship.  Smithsonian did a longform on Jefferson a few years back...

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-dark-side-of-thomas-jefferson-35976004/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

I'm not even certain of my own standards on this subject though 

Maybe you should try figuring this out first before you condemn others.  Although I have to admit the squirming and the tap dancing out of your elk on this subject now that the mob's attention has moved on from somewhat "safe" icons of protest to ones that are fairly revered throughout American history.

I listened to a back commentator on this subject a few weeks ago on NPR twisting and turning trying to describe why protesting Lee (who did not own slaves btw) was different than protesting Washington and Jefferson (both of whom did own slaves).  And this was before the latest events where Jefferson has been covered up.  The contortions in his logic we amusing to say the least and more than a little bit sad.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:
14 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Yep, we've lost our fucking minds!

You voted in Trump expecting things to get better. You having lost your minds is already a given.

I didn't vote for trump.  You must have me confused with someone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I didn't vote for trump.  You must have me confused with someone else.

Collective you, referring to the US in general. Referring to the same collective as in the statement "Yep, we've lost our fucking minds".

I have not confused you with anyone else. You simply misread the post.

Anything else you'd like clarified, Princess, or are you done manufacturing issues to be precious about for today?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Maybe you should try figuring this out first before you condemn others.  Although I have to admit the squirming and the tap dancing out of your elk on this subject now that the mob's attention has moved on from somewhat "safe" icons of protest to ones that are fairly revered throughout American history.

I listened to a back commentator on this subject a few weeks ago on NPR twisting and turning trying to describe why protesting Lee (who did not own slaves btw) was different than protesting Washington and Jefferson (both of whom did own slaves).  And this was before the latest events where Jefferson has been covered up.  The contortions in his logic we amusing to say the least and more than a little bit sad.  

Maybe you should actually read what you're commenting on first.

Where exactly did I condemn others?

Cite please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Mark K said:

If we are going slippery slope, as in allowing the removal of Confederacy icons which have become appropriated symbols by neo-nazis and fascists resulting in riled up lefties, then we must consider the slope how riled up they might become if this state of affairs is allowed to stand. It has been said that "good people" like those icons. Well, the message that needs to be given to them is the history of the swastika. Curating symbols must be done with exceeding vigilance. I imagine there were some precious Hindu snowflakes bemoaning the unfairness of what happened to that as well.

I hearz ya, but the fallacy of that argument is that the nazi's actually came to power in Germany and there were unlikely a lot of hindu snowflakes around in 1930's Berlin to bemoan the appropriation of their symbol.  Had they not come to power and started a world war, no one would be talking about that particular iconic symbol.

I think where I have the biggliest issue with this whole kerfluffle is that I think the protesters are swinging a big dull machete rather than a surgical scalpel.  I'm ALL for removing or re-locating those confederate statues that were erected for the obvious purpose of rubbing the black's noses in the fact that they were still under the thumb of the white supremacists in the deep south.  I think we collectively need to look at the historical context and symbol of what, where and why a particular statue is there before getting your panties in a bunch.  A statue memorializing a battle or fallen Confederate soldiers or a particularly good military leader (such as Lee) - I have absolutely no issue with.  Like it or not, these are American Veterans and the vast majority of them were fighting "because ya'll were down there".  OTOH, if its a particularly egregious symbol of slavery or oppression - such as a Confederate governor, mayor or other person known for ruthless and despicable acts against slaves under their care or jurisdiction - then I'll be glad to help swing the hammer to take it down.  

I just think we've lost our collective minds.  HOWEVER....... if knocking down a few granite statues of some dead white guys gets all the little black and white snowflakes in America over this sullied period and back onto the path towards my post-racial nirvana.... then fuck, take them ALL down for all I carez.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Lee (who did not own slaves btw) was different than protesting Washington and Jefferson (both of whom did own slaves).

Lee not only owned slaves, he's sort of infamous for breaking up families when selling.  Also some fuckery over a will, he was supposed to free some slaves but got to use them for another five years, fist.

Washington is the only one of the three who freed his slave.  And even he waited until the very end, did it in his will.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Like it or not, these are American Veterans and the vast majority of them were fighting "because ya'll were down there". "

 A bit of historical whitewashing going on here in support of rebels that took up arms against the United States to support a way of life built on white supremacy.  Would you be so generous to the veterans of Shay's Rebellion or the Whiskey Rebellion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, learningJ24 said:

"Like it or not, these are American Veterans and the vast majority of them were fighting "because ya'll were down there". "

 A bit of historical whitewashing going on here in support of rebels that took up arms against the United States to support a way of life built on white supremacy.  Would you be so generous to the veterans of Shay's Rebellion or the Whiskey Rebellion?

Well, given that Confederate soldiers and even the leaders were pretty much pardoned after the war by the Union and sent home to live peaceful lives, I don't think it's a stretch to call them veterans.  I don't agree with their motives for secession and think they were wrong to rebel.  Even Shay himself was pardoned after his rebellion and if you read the grievances of the insurgents - it's not hard to understand why they might have felt the need to take up arms against the state.  Shay's rebellion actually ended up resulting in much needed reforms and ultimately shaped the US Constitution and the new gov't.  In some ways, you might even say Shay was a hero for doing this.

I would not put the Whiskey rebellion in the same category as either two above.  A bunch of disgruntled boozers who didn't like paying higher taxes on their booze.  Waaah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would agree with "veterans" with a small v as anyone that served in any capacity can be so labeled but since American Veterans swear to uphold and defend the Constitution while the Confederates declared war against it I don't agree with the higher honor. 

Since the pardon seems to be your criteria, the two leaders convicted of treason during the Whiskey Rebellion were pardoned by GW so does that make them hero's as well?  What about the Bundy's?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, learningJ24 said:

I would agree with "veterans" with a small v as anyone that served in any capacity can be so labeled but since American Veterans swear to uphold and defend the Constitution while the Confederates declared war against it I don't agree with the higher honor. 

Since the pardon seems to be your criteria, the two leaders convicted of treason during the Whiskey Rebellion were pardoned by GW so does that make them hero's as well?  What about the Bundy's?

Fair enough on the small v.

I think I clearly stated what my criteria was and it was not solely the pardon.  I said the WR rebs were a bunch of crybabies.

And like it or not, the Civil War was not fought solely to preserve slavery and maintain a white supremacist society.  Although I don't at all deny that was a big part of it.  The CW was fought in large part over a dispute about "Stites Rats" vs the power of the Federal gov't.  Even the most ardent anti-slavery person can admit that prior to 1865, that issue was not at all settled science.  That the Southern states that later became the Confederacy didn't like being told what to do by some "gov't" in a mosquito infested swamp in DC.  Part of the confusion stems from the Constitution itself, because the FF's tried to walk a really tight line on Stites Rats vs Fed Authority.  Sadly it took 600,000 American lives to settle the question that Federal authority > State's authority.  But had the FF's written it that way in the beginning, there would have been NO "United States" at all.  

So I think the CW in some form was inevitable.  If it hadn't been over slavery, it would have been something else.  In fact I would submit that if the US had not fought the Civil War, as horrible as it was, we would be a lessor country than we are now.  

Just sayin'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

I'm not a fan of revisionist history and I don't agree with tearing down statues of people like Lee but there are some limits - For example, I can't believe the Brits allow a statue of "Butcher" Haig to stand in London. Tearing down Sadaam was appropriate but I'm not so sure about Lenin for example - IIRC many or all the monuments to him were demolished.

If Alabama wanted to erect one to George Wallace I would not be in favour of it. :D

I'm not even certain of my own standards on this subject though - maybe historical significance is the criteria, not just prominence.

Thanks for that Sloops - that is exactly my point:  Where we to try to erect confederate statues today?  I'd be asking WTF someone was thinking.  Tearing them down after they've stood for 100 years?  That oughta be equally out of the question.  Adding monuments to provide counter perspectives?  Fuckin' A - let's make that happen! 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

...    ...    ...

And like it or not, the Civil War was not fought solely to preserve slavery and maintain a white supremacist society. ...   ...   ...

Actually, it was. The amazing thing is that it was not fought a couple of generations earlier. You can say "States Rights" all you want, the only "states right" they were interested in was the right of the state to maintain slavery. Very few secession debates of the time even mentioned any other issue, and the other issues were trivial. Red herrings at best.

The funny thing is how the secessionists in many Southern states had to go thru all sorts of political shenanigans to get their state to secede from the Union. North Carolina voted against it twice until Zeb Vance purged the legislature, Virginia voted in secession during a recess, several others did the same.

4 hours ago, frenchie said:

Lee not only owned slaves, he's sort of infamous for breaking up families when selling.  Also some fuckery over a will, he was supposed to free some slaves but got to use them for another five years, fist.

Washington is the only one of the three who freed his slave.  And even he waited until the very end, did it in his will.

 

I had read that Lee only owned one slave, his personal valet, but apparently that's not correct. The biggest indictment of him is his refusal to speak against terrorism against blacks after the War.

(from Wikipedia) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Lee#Lee.27s_views_on_race_and_slavery

Lee's views on race and slavery

Columbia University historian Eric Foner summarizes Robert E. Lee's relationship with and views on race and slavery in the following way:[72]

During his lifetime, Lee owned a small number of slaves. He considered himself a paternalistic master but could also impose severe punishments, especially on those who attempted to run away. Lee said almost nothing in public about the institution. His most extended comment, quoted by all biographers, came in a letter to his wife in 1856. Here he described slavery as an evil, but one that had more deleterious effects on whites than blacks. He felt that the “painful discipline” to which they were subjected benefited blacks by elevating them from barbarism to civilization and introducing them to Christianity. The end of slavery would come in God’s good time, but this might take quite a while, since to God a thousand years was just a moment. Meanwhile, the greatest danger to the “liberty” of white Southerners was the “evil course” pursued by the abolitionists, who stirred up sectional hatred. In 1860, Lee voted for John C. Breckinridge, the extreme pro-slavery candidate. (A more moderate Southerner, John Bell, carried Virginia that year.) Lee’s code of gentlemanly conduct did not seem to apply to blacks. During the Gettysburg campaign, he did nothing to stop soldiers in his army from kidnapping free black farmers for sale into slavery. In Reconstruction, Lee made it clear that he opposed political rights for the former slaves. Referring to blacks (30 percent of Virginia’s population), he told a Congressional committee that he hoped the state could be “rid of them.” Urged to condemn the Ku Klux Klan’s terrorist violence, Lee remained silent.

Foner notes that Lee "was not a pro-slavery ideologue. But I think equally important is that, unlike some white southerners, he never spoke out against slavery."[73] Foner also notes,[74]

Lee claimed that blacks were "not disposed to work," denigrated their intellectual capacity and expressed the hope that Virginia "could get rid of them." While claiming to have no interest in politics, he firmly opposed giving black men the right to vote and strongly defended Andrew Johnson’s approach to Reconstruction, which abandoned the former slaves to the mercy of governments controlled by their former owners. A word from Lee might have encouraged white Southerners to accord blacks equal rights and inhibited the violence against the freed people that swept the region during Reconstruction, but he chose to remain silent.

Washington and Lee University historian Barton Myers said,[75]

Some historical accounts, newspaper accounts that are reporting through hearsay, do account for Lee being involved in actually personally whipping a slave. They are not direct eyewitness accounts, but he was definitely involved in administering the day-to-day operations of a plantation. He clearly was involved in the recapture of slaves that had run away and the administration of the estate. I think Lee found slavery quite annoying as a day-to-day institution to run. His public comments on this are out there in a letter from 1856 to his wife where he talks about slavery being a great evil, but a great evil primarily to white people, because of what it was doing to the lower classes within the South and that it was a moral drag on those people. (end quote)

Not trying to give a moral pass, but Lee had a complicated life. Feeling his obligation as scion of two of the most celebrated families in the country, I'm sure he found it difficult to get by on a colonel's salary. A lot of the negative statements about his relationship to slavery comes from trying to settle an in-laws will, a number of large estates with hundreds of slaves and massive debt. As it hints at above, there are stories circulating about him personally whipping a slave, which I think is quite possible but unlikely... Lee certainly did not shrink from violence and in his Army career demonstrated far too much personal courage under fire to think he would be squeamish about such a thing... but IMHO he would think it undignified. This story originates in some dubious newspaper stories cobbled up from a former slave with a grudge (don't blame him, I'd damn sure hold a grudge too), all in all it could be true.

Lee was a product of his times, he was a great military leader who made IMHO an unfortunate choice... if he had accepted command of the Union Army from Lincoln, he probably would have ended the war much quicker. Would he be considered a hero nowadays, if so? But he could not make the leap past thinking of blacks as less than "real people" whatever his other great characteristics.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lee's own rationale for joining the confederacy was not framed in terms of race or slavery but in terms of his Virginian identity. "I cannot raise my sword against Virginia". Whether that was pretext is open to debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, frenchie said:

Everything he said still applies. 

We're used to seeing Jefferson as a symbol of the Enlightenment  -  rationality, free thinking, individual rights... but step out of your intellectual habit for a second, and really ponder the fact that to some people, he's a symbol of white supremacist hypocrisy. 

He opposed slavery, while owning slaves.  He slept with a black woman (in what by modern standards would surely qualify as rape), while believing blacks were too inferior to take part in civilized society.

We're used to dismissing all that by claiming he was a benevolent slaveowner, and you know, whatever, people are complicated and full of contradictions... But consider, for a moment, how it can just as easily be viewed as hypocrisy.  The ultimate example of white priviledge: he gets to own slaves without even getting any of its moral taint on him... because he opposed it in principle?  Come on.

 

It helps if you've read some of the more recent scholarship.  Smithsonian did a longform on Jefferson a few years back...

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-dark-side-of-thomas-jefferson-35976004/

i disagree the confederates were part of the fight to KEEP Slavery.  In 1775 slavery was pretty standard for most of the world and it was not limited to Africans  Indentured servants, convicts convicted for petty crimes were being sent to far off lands to work as slave labor for many of the European powers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TMSAIL said:

i disagree the confederates were part of the fight to KEEP Slavery.  In 1775 slavery was pretty standard for most of the world and it was not limited to Africans  Indentured servants, convicts convicted for petty crimes were being sent to far off lands to work as slave labor for many of the European powers. 

1. you mean revolutionaries, not confederates?

2. where or when did I say they were part of the fight to keep slavery?  I said Jefferson, despite being a symbol of freedom to us, can easily/logically be viewed as a symbol of hypocrisy.

3. Indentured servitude is NOT the same thing as chattel slavery. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Thanks for that Sloops - that is exactly my point:  Where we to try to erect confederate statues today?  I'd be asking WTF someone was thinking.  Tearing them down after they've stood for 100 years?  That oughta be equally out of the question.  Adding monuments to provide counter perspectives?  Fuckin' A - let's make that happen! 

 

Instead of "tearing down", is it out of the question to move such statues?  

I favor moving them to a venue more appropriate, such as a museum or cemetery.  On the grounds of a state house, city hall, public square, etc. should be "out of bounds", IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is this facebook thing you mention???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I hearz ya, but the fallacy of that argument is that the nazi's actually came to power in Germany and there were unlikely a lot of hindu snowflakes around in 1930's Berlin to bemoan the appropriation of their symbol.  Had they not come to power and started a world war, no one would be talking about that particular iconic symbol.

I think where I have the biggliest issue with this whole kerfluffle is that I think the protesters are swinging a big dull machete rather than a surgical scalpel.  I'm ALL for removing or re-locating those confederate statues that were erected for the obvious purpose of rubbing the black's noses in the fact that they were still under the thumb of the white supremacists in the deep south.  I think we collectively need to look at the historical context and symbol of what, where and why a particular statue is there before getting your panties in a bunch.  A statue memorializing a battle or fallen Confederate soldiers or a particularly good military leader (such as Lee) - I have absolutely no issue with.  Like it or not, these are American Veterans and the vast majority of them were fighting "because ya'll were down there".  OTOH, if its a particularly egregious symbol of slavery or oppression - such as a Confederate governor, mayor or other person known for ruthless and despicable acts against slaves under their care or jurisdiction - then I'll be glad to help swing the hammer to take it down.  

I just think we've lost our collective minds.  HOWEVER....... if knocking down a few granite statues of some dead white guys gets all the little black and white snowflakes in America over this sullied period and back onto the path towards my post-racial nirvana.... then fuck, take them ALL down for all I carez.

It might be a closer analogy to suggest that the statues of CSA "heroes" are viewed in much the same way Jews might view statues of Rommel and Von Manstein, if the Germans had been so crass as to put them up. 

  Not sure Lee was as great a general as some wish to believe him to be, btw. Nearly all of the brilliance happened when he hand Bob Jackson as his "right arm". Many accounts indicate that famous meeting between Lee and Jackson in which the plan to do the daring flanking maneuver at Chancellorsville was Jackson drawing it with a stick on the ground for Lee to approve or not. He sure as shit was competent in getting the most from what he had left after ordering Pickett to charge, but that charge was fuckin' brain-dead. A great general? Perhaps a truly great general wouldn't have continued to sacrifice all those men in what he knew was a hopeless fight in the last two months. His men loved him, that was his gift, but it takes more than that. I view that bit is the main difference between Lee and Custer, really. Audacious as hell is a quality which can't be discounted...but reckless is easy to mistake for that. 

 The question...anywho...is what exactly are those statues are celebrating? Not real common to make a bunch of monuments to generals from the losing side in human history. Moses Ezekiel's stuff was wonderful tributes to the sacrifices and were from a time much closer to the war, and as usual, were not lionization of any generals. Something happened in the early part of the 20th century which caused these statues to suddenly spring up all over the south.

  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mark K said:
18 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I hearz ya, but the fallacy of that argument is that the nazi's actually came to power in Germany and there were unlikely a lot of hindu snowflakes around in 1930's Berlin to bemoan the appropriation of their symbol.  Had they not come to power and started a world war, no one would be talking about that particular iconic symbol.

I think where I have the biggliest issue with this whole kerfluffle is that I think the protesters are swinging a big dull machete rather than a surgical scalpel.  I'm ALL for removing or re-locating those confederate statues that were erected for the obvious purpose of rubbing the black's noses in the fact that they were still under the thumb of the white supremacists in the deep south.

Well, good. Now, which ones are those? No matter which ones you pick, somebody is going to insist you are a revisionist and dishonoring their grandpappy or something.

 I think we collectively need to look at the historical context and symbol of what, where and why a particular statue is there before getting your panties in a bunch.  A statue memorializing a battle or fallen Confederate soldiers or a particularly good military leader (such as Lee) - I have absolutely no issue with.  Like it or not, these are American Veterans and the vast majority of them were fighting "because ya'll were down there".

??? Since when are Confederate soldiers "American Veterans"? -Some- Confederates have been given US military honors, such as the bodies of the crew of the CSS Hunley. The US gov't paid pensions to a few, last surviving Confederate war widow died when I was kid in the early 1960s. Now, she had married an old soldier as a 14 yo hillbilly bride IIRC.

 OTOH, if its a particularly egregious symbol of slavery or oppression - such as a Confederate governor, mayor or other person known for ruthless and despicable acts against slaves under their care or jurisdiction - then I'll be glad to help swing the hammer to take it down.  

I just think we've lost our collective minds.  HOWEVER....... if knocking down a few granite statues of some dead white guys gets all the little black and white snowflakes in America over this sullied period and back onto the path towards my post-racial nirvana.... then fuck, take them ALL down for all I carez.

It might be a closer analogy to suggest that the statues of CSA "heroes" are viewed in much the same way Jews might view statues of Rommel and Von Manstein, if the Germans had been so crass as to put them up. 

Bingo

  Not sure Lee was as great a general as some wish to believe him to be, btw. Nearly all of the brilliance happened when he hand Bob Jackson as his "right arm". Many accounts indicate that famous meeting between Lee and Jackson in which the plan to do the daring flanking maneuver at Chancellorsville was Jackson drawing it with a stick on the ground for Lee to approve or not. He sure as shit was competent in getting the most from what he had left after ordering Pickett to charge, but that charge was fuckin' brain-dead. A great general? Perhaps a truly great general wouldn't have continued to sacrifice all those men in what he knew was a hopeless fight in the last two months. His men loved him, that was his gift, but it takes more than that. I view that bit is the main difference between Lee and Custer, really. Audacious as hell is a quality which can't be discounted...but reckless is easy to mistake for that. 

 The question...anywho...is what exactly are those statues are celebrating? Not real common to make a bunch of monuments to generals from the losing side in human history. Moses Ezekiel's stuff was wonderful tributes to the sacrifices and were from a time much closer to the war, and as usual, were not lionization of any generals. Something happened in the early part of the 20th century which caused these statues to suddenly spring up all over the south.

Robert E. Lee as a general- if you look at what he accomplished with the extreme imbalance of forces, and the long run view that the South could not militarily win the war -but- could force a stalemate long enough to make the North give up.... ie a political victory... he very nearly accomplished that. Lincoln was considered sure to lose the 1864 election, casualties had been too high and victory too uncertain. And Lincoln was the -only- Presidential candidate in 1864 whose stated policy was to continue the war. Now, let me say I am not in favor of lionizing or sanctifying Lee, in fact I think I've said a number of less flattering things about him elsewhere. But if you look at the actual record, he was a military leader with very few betters in history. Grant thought so.

What are the statues celebrating? It depends on who you ask. Many (perhaps the vast majority) were erected in the Jim Crow era. It's stereotypical of Southern towns to have a generic Confederate soldier statue in front of the courthouse, inscribed with something like "To Our Noble Heroes." Obviously these have very little historical importance, although they have a certain sentimental value. Quaint, y'know? I wonder if many of them are the result of a traveling statue salesman.

However if it were up to me, I would let the community decide. Not the loudest voices, but give everybody a chance to speak up. If enough people were pissed off enough, then sure smash that fucker. It's cheaper than putting up another statue!

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Dog said:

Lee's own rationale for joining the confederacy was not framed in terms of race or slavery but in terms of his Virginian identity. "I cannot raise my sword against Virginia". Whether that was pretext is open to debate.

Don't you think that his Virginian identity might have had just a little to do with an agricultural aristocracy, of which he was a part, that owed its wealth to the ownership of other men?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Mark K said:

The question...anywho...is what exactly are those statues are celebrating? 

I'd say resistance to US govt meddling.

I know we always think US govt meddling is wise and good. Those who are being meddled with don't always agree. It's true today and was true then.

"I'm fighting because you're down here!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I'd say resistance to US govt meddling.

I know we always think US govt meddling is wise and good. Those who are being meddled with don't always agree. It's true today and was true then.

"I'm fighting because you're down here!"

Pretty selective, that. Is government meddling what blacks see when they look at the same statues?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Pretty selective, that. Is government meddling what blacks see when they look at the same statues?

No, many understandably see a celebration of their subjugation and resent hell out of it. That's a pretty good reason to remove them. I still disagree with destroying them. The statues and their context are historically significant artifacts and all history is something from which we can learn. Destroying something from which you can learn is just plain stupid. No other word for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Bristol-Cruiser said:

Don't you think that his Virginian identity might have had just a little to do with an agricultural aristocracy, of which he was a part, that owed its wealth to the ownership of other men?

No doubt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Dog said:

No doubt.

So he said, in not so many words, that he was fighting to protect a society and economy that was based on slavery. If he had thought that the principles that were the basis of the United States ( D of I, Constitution, Bill of Rights) were more important then we would have ended being a Union general and the war would not have lasted nearly as long as Lincoln would not have had to keep replacing his top general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I'd say resistance to US govt meddling.

I know we always think US govt meddling is wise and good. Those who are being meddled with don't always agree. It's true today and was true then.

"I'm fighting because you're down here!"

So, what were all the soldiers from Alabama and Mississippi and South Carolina and Georgia etc etc doing at Manassass?

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

So, what were all the soldiers from Alabama and Mississippi and South Carolina and Georgia etc etc doing at Manassass?

-DSK

Meddling?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Meddling?

Victimized much? Meddling with slavery. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Robert E. Lee as a general- if you look at what he accomplished with the extreme imbalance of forces, and the long run view that the South could not militarily win the war -but- could force a stalemate long enough to make the North give up.... ie a political victory... he very nearly accomplished that. Lincoln was considered sure to lose the 1864 election, casualties had been too high and victory too uncertain. And Lincoln was the -only- Presidential candidate in 1864 whose stated policy was to continue the war. Now, let me say I am not in favor of lionizing or sanctifying Lee, in fact I think I've said a number of less flattering things about him elsewhere. But if you look at the actual record, he was a military leader with very few betters in history. Grant thought so.

What are the statues celebrating? It depends on who you ask. Many (perhaps the vast majority) were erected in the Jim Crow era. It's stereotypical of Southern towns to have a generic Confederate soldier statue in front of the courthouse, inscribed with something like "To Our Noble Heroes." Obviously these have very little historical importance, although they have a certain sentimental value. Quaint, y'know? I wonder if many of them are the result of a traveling statue salesman.

However if it were up to me, I would let the community decide. Not the loudest voices, but give everybody a chance to speak up. If enough people were pissed off enough, then sure smash that fucker. It's cheaper than putting up another statue!

-DSK

"He nearly accomplished that." Yes, but in spite of his strategy, not because of it. What he did was key in tipping the balance towards galvanizing the north's collective will towards winning that war. True, his tactical competence when Grant was pounding him down nearly turned that tide a year later..but Sherman taking Atlanta checked that. Would Sherman had even been near the place if Lee hadn't sought that great big-ol' Napoleonic battle? Which happens to be the precise opposite of what one needs to do to tire the other guys out. See the US revolutionary war and the Viet Nam, Republic of. I don't believe the north would have mustered up the sack to invade had it not been for Lee's dumb move.  

 To me that turning point was Gettysburg. It was when, suddenly, the Army of the Potomac became dedicated, top to bottom. It was then and there the officers dropped the old ways of deliberately over-estimating Confederate numbers and adopted the system worked out by George Sharp and his boys nearly a year earlier...and they had been studiously ignoring. Someone dug in and followed the chain for the numbers estimate just before Chancellorsville and found not only had the intel boys over-estimated Reb numbers, but every officer in the chain questioned it as probably low and added a more. I'm convinced the prevailing unspoken attitude was "We will wait this out and the politicians will eventually make a deal". However, at Gettysburg, suddenly, organically, that shit stopped on a dime handed back eight cents change and they fought every bit as well as the Rebs had when the Rebs were defending their own land.


And...they fucking won. Bigly.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mark K said:

"He nearly accomplished that." Yes, but in spite of his strategy, not because of it. What he did was key in tipping the balance towards galvanizing the north's collective will towards winning that war. True, his tactical competence when Grant was pounding him down nearly turned that tide a year later..but Sherman taking Atlanta checked that. Would Sherman had even been near the place if Lee hadn't sought that great big-ol' Napoleonic battle? Which happens to be the precise opposite of what one needs to do to tire the other guys out. See the US revolutionary war and the Viet Nam, Republic of. I don't believe the north would have mustered up the sack to invade had it not been for Lee's dumb move.  

 To me that turning point was Gettysburg. It was when, suddenly, the Army of the Potomac became dedicated, top to bottom. It was then and there the officers dropped the old ways of deliberately over-estimating Confederate numbers and adopted the system worked out by George Sharp and his boys nearly a year earlier...and they had been studiously ignoring. Someone dug in and followed the chain for the numbers estimate just before Chancellorsville and found not only had the intel boys over-estimated Reb numbers, but every officer in the chain questioned it as probably low and added a more. I'm convinced the prevailing unspoken attitude was "We will wait this out and the politicians will eventually make a deal". However, at Gettysburg, suddenly, organically, that shit stopped on a dime handed back eight cents change and they fought every bit as well as the Rebs had when the Rebs were defending their own land.


And...they fucking won. Bigly.

 

It sounds like you have read a different history than I have. The Union invaded Virginia right off the bat. If it weren't for McClellan's lack of balls.... although it seems he may have been a Southern sympathizer himself, nice bit of irony.... The Union would have been encircling Richmond within the first six months. Certainly the political will of the North was ebbing and remember that Sherman didn't take Atlanta until just before the election

From wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1864

400px-PresidentialCounty1864Colorbrewer.

Blue counties went for McClellan (surely the only time a commanding general as a candidate advocating surrender) even -after- Sherman's victory.

You're right that Gettysburg was a big turning point. It was a turning point in leadership and a turning point in soldiers' attitudes; it was a strategic turning point as well because Lee could never again move north and threaten Washington DC.

It's absolutely true that the North won, and a good thing for the country. If you think I am saying Lee was a great general out of some Confederate sympathy, you could not be more wrong. Try playing chess against an opponent who starts out with twice as many pieces as you, and can replace his pieces as you go. See if you can make it to end game. Lee did.... at great cost. He knew the odds were badly against him. Actually I think that Longstreet was also a great general.

BTW it was also advocated by many at the time, including Jeff Davis at the end, that the Confederacy disperse it's main armies and pursue guerilla war. There -was- guerilla war thru much of the country. Could the South have worn down an occupying force? Maybe, I would say the odds would have been against it.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

It sounds like you have read a different history than I have. The Union invaded Virginia right off the bat. If it weren't for McClellan's lack of balls.... although it seems he may have been a Southern sympathizer himself, nice bit of irony.... The Union would have been encircling Richmond within the first six months. Certainly the political will of the North was ebbing and remember that Sherman didn't take Atlanta until just before the election

From wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1864

400px-PresidentialCounty1864Colorbrewer.

Blue counties went for McClellan (surely the only time a commanding general as a candidate advocating surrender) even -after- Sherman's victory.

You're right that Gettysburg was a big turning point. It was a turning point in leadership and a turning point in soldiers' attitudes; it was a strategic turning point as well because Lee could never again move north and threaten Washington DC.

It's absolutely true that the North won, and a good thing for the country. If you think I am saying Lee was a great general out of some Confederate sympathy, you could not be more wrong. Try playing chess against an opponent who starts out with twice as many pieces as you, and can replace his pieces as you go. See if you can make it to end game. Lee did.... at great cost. He knew the odds were badly against him. Actually I think that Longstreet was also a great general.

BTW it was also advocated by many at the time, including Jeff Davis at the end, that the Confederacy disperse it's main armies and pursue guerilla war. There -was- guerilla war thru much of the country. Could the South have worn down an occupying force? Maybe, I would say the odds would have been against it.

-DSK

I can't see a counter argument to any of my points in this. The points you have made are good for the most part but are unrelated to the ones I made, far as I can tell. Perhaps you missed my saying Lee was good but not great. He was great when he had Jackson but not after. Jackson WAS great. No doubt about it. Check out the moves he made in his Shenandoah campaign sometime. His raids to the north are a perfect example of getting into the other guy's head. He knew that just one good attack on the key point to their supply train to the war in the west was enough to keep most of the Union forces garrisoned all the way up there. The stupid crept in right after he died too. 

 The points I will quibble about is the south won the guerrilla war and ended the occupation right after Grant left office but it was all but a done deal by then, and you have cited Longstreet as a great general, which I agree is true, but what did he think of Lee's decision to launch Pickett's charge at Gettysburg? He was right and Lee was wrong, whodagreatestnow?

 Lee was a good man but quite flawed. On one hand he had the notion of waging a guerrilla as a strategy was wrong, it would mean waging it among their own people and if they had to do that it wasn't worth it. On the other, he sacrificed thousands of men extending the war a couple months after he was absolutely convinced, rightly, that they had lost. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Mark K said:

I can't see a counter argument to any of my points in this. The points you have made are good for the most part but are unrelated to the ones I made, far as I can tell.

Sorry, it may be that I don't understand what you you're saying well enough. I thought you were saying that Lee's strategy increased the motivation for most Northerners to continue the war, which is not the way I see it. That's why I showed how Lincoln nearly lost the election of 1864, was considered sure to lose until Sherman took Atlanta, which Lee had nothing to do with (he did play a small part in planning the fighting around Chattanooga, which was Sherman's starting point). Lee's primarily defensive campaign kept the Union from being able to conquer Virginia for three years, while out numbered >3:1 at times and with a force that was very inferior in all respects except morale.

Perhaps you missed my saying Lee was good but not great. He was great when he had Jackson but not after. Jackson WAS great. No doubt about it. Check out the moves he made in his Shenandoah campaign sometime. His raids to the north are a perfect example of getting into the other guy's head. He knew that just one good attack on the key point to their supply train to the war in the west was enough to keep most of the Union forces garrisoned all the way up there. The stupid crept in right after he died too. 

Well, I am not a fan of Jackson, IMHO he was kind of a one-trick pony and if you think Lee wasted his men's lives, you haven't looked at the numbers for Jackson. His own troops hated him, I consider him a homicidal maniac, and I think the odds are very high that his own troops shot him on purpose. There are a lot of personal accounts (journals, letters, and formal autobiographies) from his soldiers the point to all that.

It's possible that if Jackson had been present at Gettysburg, Lee would have won and that would have put the Union Army in a much much more difficult position. Could Jackson have succeeded where Pickett (and a couple days before, Early) failed? No way to know for sure, Pickett's Charge is often described as "almost succeeding" but they didn't have the numbers. As you point out, Longstreet knew that. I tend to agree with Longstreet, without committing a lot more troops to the attack, Pickett's Charge would not have succeeded even with Alexander the Great, and Joshua with his trumpet, both leading it.

 The points I will quibble about is the south won the guerrilla war and ended the occupation right after Grant left office but it was all but a done deal by then, and you have cited Longstreet as a great general, which I agree is true, but what did he think of Lee's decision to launch Pickett's charge at Gettysburg? He was right and Lee was wrong, whodagreatestnow?

 Lee was a good man but quite flawed. On one hand he had the notion of waging a guerrilla as a strategy was wrong, it would mean waging it among their own people and if they had to do that it wasn't worth it. On the other, he sacrificed thousands of men extending the war a couple months after he was absolutely convinced, rightly, that they had lost. 

 

As I said earlier, the evidence of Lee's ability as a general is to look at his record... almost four years of campaigning against overwhelmingly superior forces, and winning many of the battles and succeeding in the object of the campaign... at least for much longer than any reasonable expectation. mIt would be like playing chess against an opponent with twice as many pieces AND the ability to replace pieces as he plays.

Agree with your last... Lee was human. Flawed. He was a tragic figure IMHO, placed in a really impossible position. And while he was a product of his times with regard to attitudes about race, I don't consider that to be an excuse.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I posted b4....

satire.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Interestingly ..Nobody seems to give a fuck about this .....yet.....

Image result for buffalo bill statue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, captpiratedog said:

 

Interestingly ..Nobody seems to give a fuck about this .....yet.....

Image result for buffalo bill statue

Ted Nugent does..... or did, way back when

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cal Jam... Nugent

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about this? Just eliminate all public references to history.

Most people don't know a fuckin' thing about it anyway.

Or care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SloopJonB said:

How about this? Just eliminate all public references to history.

Most people don't know a fuckin' thing about it anyway.

Or care.

The thread title invites comment on history, and on out-of-control history. The gun issue, they say, is based of FF History. What is presented next is a mishmosh of weak, selective, misconstrued, peripheral, and rejected references to individual self defense rights. Immature, selective "history" is being used to mangle the "constitution."

The scholars feel it is a battle between poorly supported legal briefs from lawyers, vs. other theories well supported by peer-reviewed work from professional historians.

This is scary. We're gonna see soon if the Supreme Court will compromise itself by accepting poorly researched history. The jaded body of work came from CATO, well labelled, in broad dayllight.

Quote

History Lesson 101: Interpreting Text Without Historical Context Is Just a Con

(see p 1759)This leads us to an important empirical question: what is the harm in stretching text beyond its intended context—or what one may refer to as breaking the bounds of historical elasticity? The answer is that one false interpretation can lead to a domino effect that creates a web of false historical and legal paradigms.154

This is exactly what has happened to Blackstone’s fifth auxiliary right as Standard Model writers then applied this poor construct to the founding generation.155 In such instances, historical context is replaced with modern misconceptions of text or the importation of personal opinion as historical fact. Some lawyers have even selectively quoted Blackstone—completely out of context—to argue that the Second Amendment was naturally understood to protect a right to carry arms for “protection against violence in public.”156 This ahistorical conclusion is reached by classifying the 1689 Declaration of Rights “having arms” provision as a libertarian auxiliary right, which serves principally as a barrier “to protect and maintain inviolate the three great and primary rights, of personal security, personal liberty, and private property.”157 To be precise, lawyers are misconstruing history  to argue that, by the late eighteenth century, arms were seen as the means and ends to preserve a person’s security, liberty, and property on a day-to-day basis in both public and private spheres, that is to say a Wild West version of history. This cannot even be remotely classified as history in context, and the fault can be attributed to incomplete and inadequate research methodologies.

Fordham Urban Law Journal, Vol. 39, pg 1727, 2012

The SA Gun Club has avoided discussion the particulars of all FF history? LMFAO. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, captpiratedog said:

 

Interestingly ..Nobody seems to give a fuck about this .....yet.....

Image result for buffalo bill statue

The statue is bunk, it's urban myth. FYI, only rookies and poorly guided amateurs hunted buffalo in this manner. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anybody who has been anywhere near one of those monsters - particularly a bull - would definitely hunt from a goodly distance.

They had a small herd of them at the game farm I worked at for my first summer job at 15. The bull was so big I couldn't see across his back. The enclosure used sections of telephone pole for fence posts and that thing snapped one of them merely by scratching against it. They are surprisingly quick too - they can turn about as quickly as a horse.

You definitely have to have a lot of respect for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

The statue is bunk, it's urban myth. FYI, only rookies and poorly guided amateurs hunted buffalo in this manner. 

Not only rookies and poorly guided amateurs.  Also: showmen, hamming it up for the rubes. 

 

I'm confused what point captpiratedog was trying to raise, though.  Why would anyone object to Buffalo Bill?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, frenchie said:

Not only rookies and poorly guided amateurs.  Also: showmen, hamming it up for the rubes. 

 

I'm confused what point captpiratedog was trying to raise, though.  Why would anyone object to Buffalo Bill?

 

The destruction of the buffalo is viewed by some as a form of systematic and intentional genocide.  By wantonly destroying the herds, the plains Indians were  effectively robbed of any possibility of maintaining their lifestyle and were therefore forced to assimilate and abandon their nomadic history or parish.

Glorifying the destruction of the Buffalo, in that context, is not much different than putting up statues of Stalin in Kiev.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now