Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Not because they wanted all the blacks free. Only a few fringe idiots called abolitionists wanted that.
So you see nothing ethically wrong with subjugating and enslaving other humans?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Not because they wanted all the blacks free. Only a few fringe idiots called abolitionists wanted that.
Wanting to take down Confederate Statues is an attack on Southern white people. Get over it.
Good-Ole-Rebel
No, but similarly he was an enemy who had a hand in atrocities. Important to remember, but not worthy of being honored with some tacky statue.Why? Is Robert E Lee holding a decapitated head?
Classic straw man.Again, well documented history isn't going to magically disappear if contemporary statues (i.e. participation trophies for the losers) are moved off government property.
One might say that ignoring post #38 is "dumb".Also again, you don't need to commemorate or celebrate something in order to remember it. We certainly need to remember it, but it's certainly not worthy of being commemorated or celebrated, especially not with your or my tax dollars. So yeah, referring to it as "erasing history" is pretty damn dumb.
Or better yet...interpretive additions can be made.Even then, history can still be commemorated with noticeable monuments which aren't necessarily statues of individuals. We still have the battlefield monuments and memorials, and they're not going away anytime soon.
Slavery was of course an issue. But not like the PC North was making it to be. And certainly not like the PC North during and after the war made it to be.
The North was concerned over slavery because it fueled the Southern economy, which was doing well. Not because they wanted all the blacks free. Only a few fringe idiots called abolitionists wanted that. The South was for slavery, not because they believed the black man needed to be enslaved, but because that was a major part of their economy. And slavery was a legitimate institution in that day. Protected by the Constitution.
KKK and Neo-Nazis in Charlotte came to protest the removement because blacks and minorities use this as a legal way to come against white people, especially Southern white people. The North has made blacks the enemy of the South. Blacks have bought into it and truly are now enemies of the Southern white people. But it is because they, the blacks, believe the smoke that has been blown up their backside all these years, by the North, or Federal government.
Thus the conflict.
Good-Oe-Rebel
The iron age....you just made an enemy.Abolitionists were a "few fringe idiots" and neo-Nazis and the KKK supposedly have a point now?
Did somebody invent a time machine that allowed your post to come to us from the Iron Age or something?
It's not a "straw man". Claiming that it's an attempt to erase history remains nothing more than melodramatic hyperbole.Classic straw man.
See post #38.
One might say that ignoring post #38 is "dumb".
But I'm too polite to go there.
Oh come on now. There are other ways to ensure that it remains noticeable and present. Maybe statues for those who actually deserve celebration and commemoration?We use "erasing history" not in such an extreme sense,
ie, removing all info about what happened. Instead, it's
about making history less noticeable & present.
So, how come nobody's arguing over the removal of racist and anti-Semitic Malcolm X statues and memorials that are across the nation in various schools and public buildings?
Or is the sheer hypocrisy just way too much for some people?
If you're going to proactively remove icons of hatred from public funded places, then go all the way with it. Don't just stop at Confederate monuments.
I agree with his decision. We can't erase history
To entirely remove it from the public's eye, is indeed erasure.It's not a "straw man". Claiming that it's an attempt to erase history remains nothing more than melodramatic hyperbole.
As I've oft suggested, the statues would benefit from additional interpretive displays.Oh come on now. There are other ways to ensure that it remains noticeable and present. Maybe statues for those who actually deserve celebration and commemoration?
PC North
The South was for slavery, not because they believed the black man needed to be enslaved,
KKK and Neo-Nazis in Charlotte came to protest the removement because blacks and minorities use this as a legal way to come against white people, especially Southern white people.
Dang...you really look down on southerners.So you see nothing ethically wrong with subjugating and enslaving other humans?
Wanting to take statues down is not an attack on white people. Get over it
Y'know, the ancient Egyptians used to do that. They would absolutely destroy the tombs, any references, whatever to a previous king or queen...or anybody else...that the contemporary folks didn't want to remember. Of course, they figured that doing so erased them completely, not just the memory, but still....
And it didn't work.
There was considerably more to the civil war than slavery. I hate to say so, but if it were slavery and slavery only, there would have been no civil war. I really wish that we would (the northerners) have gone to war for that cause....but no.
Slavery was important...but the complete and utter difference between the culture of the south vs. the north...'states' rights,' farming vs. manufacturing. Slavery was part of that very different culture. However, slavery had been a part of America for a very long time. Slavery comes in third or fourth in ALL the 'causes of the civil war' analyses.
For anybody to figure that slavery was the only...or even the main...reason for the war are going for an incredibly simplistic view of history. Remember; there are still people in the south who refer to the civil war as 'the war of northern aggression."
And do NOT give me the 'you are a racist and white supremacist' thing because I say this. NOBODY in my family has ever owned slaves, as far back as I can track...and I'm a Mormon. I track things back a very long time. We've been abolitionists when 'abolitionist' was a "thing,"
This is why it's referred to as The War of Northern Aggression.From the North's point of view, at least at first, it didn't matter to them why the South was seceding, as secession itself was bad enough.
So, from that standpoint, there is one indisputable historical fact about the Civil War which all sides can agree upon: The South did secede from the Union.
And slavery.....the southerners were defending their homes and families on their own turf.
Or better yet...interpretive additions can be made.
Ya well worse than that, people don't think its an active outlook of politicians? There's no 'knights' in the confederate army. The 1900's 'lost cause' era of the politics associates 'the knightliest of the knightly' in terms of the gallant, the damsel, the weak protected, because of the shirtwaist factory fire in new York, and that's on our current monuments obviously.Yes, that might be good. Perhaps a lesson in the history of history, explaining that earlier historical perceptions of the Civil War led to the erection of statues of Confederate war figures.
I wonder if anyone has thought to put a statue of Heather Heyer in that park.