• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Charlottesville Confederate statue removal blocked by judge

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Well, I thought you were going to really let me have it. But I guess not. Getting late for me. Here is some encouragement to respond back.

I am not all that computer savy or I would post the song here. Maybe some others can and will. It is where I get my avatar name. Just google 'Good Ol Rebel' by Bobby Horton. You'll enyoy it I'm sure.

Later

Good-Ole-Rebel
Not too quick on the uptake, are you? Here it is again in smaller words: I don't want to talk to you.

I'm certainly not interested in being your friend, and if you've managed to know enough about the world to get on the internet and still never managed to pick up on the fact that treason and racism are things to be ashamed of, I'm sure not going to be the one to volunteer to correct your understanding. I'm not the Klan Whisperer.

Leave me alone.
 

MikeDwight

Well-Known Member
Good Ole Rebel is pretty over the top about it.
Brits having 2 Churches and the British India Company, I guess that just left racist. We're going to make white civilization to everybody, we're the only way.

Dixie used racism to hide they couldn't teach anybody Christians? They had a list
1. c aucasian
2. mongoloid
3. javanese
4. aboriginese
5. negro

strange list like that too. Can't teach anybody at the bottom!
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
No. It's an attack on history. It's....political correctness gone bananas, and really doesn't have anything at all, ultimately, to do with racism.
If it's history you want to commemorate, maybe you'd like this idea: a series of monuments through Georgia to commemorate Sherman's march to the Sea.

At every town that Sherman burned, a tasteful monument to Sherman on a stately plinth. It would be lovely.

It could even be a tourist draw - they could link all the sites into one of those scenic highway routes.

What do you think? After all, we can't erase history... right?
 

MikeDwight

Well-Known Member
Ya they literally love that part, if you read the Montgomery's markers about Martin Luther King jr its so obvious and loud. It was the year of our Lord 1965, 30,000 men camped outside of town helped by the amazing Montgomery inn and board, they came for the protest of voting rights or some such.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Did tearing down statues of Hitler "erase history?"
And look at this erasing of Iraqi history... and by American troops, no less! Shameful!

SaddamStatue.jpg
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
This is why it's referred to as The War of Northern Aggression.
The Confederacy didn't do anything much different than when The Founding Fathers seceded from England. The Confederacy didn't attack the northerners, they were attacked. The war was long and bloody because the southerners were defending their homes and families on their own turf.
Tom

Well, there was a bit of a legal question - since there wasn't really anything in the Constitution which said a state couldn't secede from the Union. The Southern states believed they could secede legally and peacefully - and they also believed they had good justification for doing so. But on a more practical level, they also knew full well that the Union was not going to let them go without a fight.

However, it's not entirely correct to say that the Confederacy didn't attack the Northerners. They did attack Fort Sumter, which is what gave Lincoln justification to call for 150,000 volunteers. He was understandably nervous, since Washington DC is surrounded by Maryland, a slave state, with the Confederacy just across the Potomac River. He suspended the writ of habeas corpus and had a lot of Southern sympathizers locked up. It was a martial law situation. They were rioting in Baltimore, and there was violence in border states like Missouri. It was definitely an explosive situation even before it got started.

They really didn't know what the Confederacy would do, but once they attacked Fort Sumter, all bets were off.

Part of the reason the war was long and bloody was because the Union had trouble finding good generals. Logistically speaking, the North had the South outnumbered and outgunned, plus they had the industry and financial wherewithal for a sustained war. They could have - and should have - won the war much sooner.

By the same token, the Confederates should have seen that they had no chance of winning as early as 1863, after the defeats at Gettysburg and Vicksburg. The Union had control of the Mississippi and the South was cut in two. They were losing in the Western Theater, and the most they could have hoped for in the East was a stalemate. They probably should have surrendered at that point.

And not everyone in the South was in favor of secession. Some were still pro-Union.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
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.

Are you saying there's a connection between the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire and the construction of these monuments?

A lot of what is attributed to the era in question is a strong emphasis on patriotism, Americanism, national unity, etc. The "Lost Cause" may be a part of that, as a way engendering unity among the states and preventing the raising of old animosities.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
If it's history you want to commemorate, maybe you'd like this idea: a series of monuments through Georgia to commemorate Sherman's march to the Sea.

At every town that Sherman burned, a tasteful monument to Sherman on a stately plinth. It would be lovely.

It could even be a tourist draw - they could link all the sites into one of those scenic highway routes.

What do you think? After all, we can't erase history... right?

It's interesting you bring up Sherman, since he has own history which some people might question someday. Not necessarily in the South, but his conduct in the West was questionable. But maybe not so bad as to warrant removing statues of him. There's one in NYC if I recall correctly.
 

Good-Ole-Rebel

Well-Known Member
So you see nothing ethically wrong with subjugating and enslaving other humans?

It is the way it is. Humans everywhere are subjugated and enslaved. Wherever you live you are a slave to that government. Or you are a slave to your employer. You may say, yes, but I can leave. Well, yes, but then you have to find another slave owner. Another government to live under. Another employer to serve.

After a war takes place the loser becomes slaves to the winner. Oh they may get treated alright, but their whole way of life has now changed. It is the way it is. And it will never change.

To your question, a simple yes or not does not answer. It is like asking, 'do you think it is ethically wrong to kill someone?'

Good-Ole-Rebel
 

Good-Ole-Rebel

Well-Known Member
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?

All the people at the rally had a point....didn't they?

Good-Ole-Rebel
 

Good-Ole-Rebel

Well-Known Member
What is PC North? slavery was slavery it was chattel slavery and not indentured servitude because it was horrible and it wiped out any chance for me to know the true history behind my tribal lineage.



This is false there were many Southerners that believed the black man to be inferior justifying it through religion and anthropology.



I'm glad you said this because not only because you have a traitorous picture, but because you actually associate a symbol of pain and agony, but you associate a racist symbol with white people. All whites aren't neo-nazi or KKK so how you stated this above sentence was associating whites with these historical racist groups.

Politically correct North. Kind of like what blacks are wanting to do with Southern white history in removing the history of these people every chance they get. And, they with the North have already distorted that history as can be easily seen in your and others response.

Southernors didn't start slavery. When the black man was brought over into the Western world, he was inferior. My point was that slavery was important to the South as their economy depended on it. And the PC view that the North came down to free the slaves for humanitarian reasons is a lie. They were for destroying slavery because it would destroy the South.

To who am I supposedly a traitor of?

Good-Ole-Rebel;
 
Last edited:

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I think you quoted the wrong post?
You're right.

But this post of yours....
"Proper hygiene and a good education is an attack on southern white people."
.....is rather troubling.
I don't recall your being so hostile years ago.
Something change?
 

MikeDwight

Well-Known Member
And look at this erasing of Iraqi history... and by American troops, no less! Shameful!

SaddamStatue.jpg

Oh I love that whole part. First, Look they're spelling out where things are politically, that's the most ridiculous part, stop saying Washington and Lincoln together. or what else, stop saying its the United States junk like that. Why they got monuments? That's the promenade at the capitol.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
It is the way it is. Humans everywhere are subjugated and enslaved. Wherever you live you are a slave to that government. Or you are a slave to your employer. You may say, yes, but I can leave. Well, yes, but then you have to find another slave owner. Another government to live under. Another employer to serve.

After a war takes place the loser becomes slaves to the winner. Oh they may get treated alright, but their whole way of life has now changed. It is the way it is. And it will never change.

To your question, a simple yes or not does not answer. It is like asking, 'do you think it is ethically wrong to kill someone?'

Good-Ole-Rebel

What if people fight back? What if there are people who have had enough of being subjugated, and what if they decide to start a riot or revolution? What if they commit acts of terrorism? Do we simply say "It is what it is"?

I never could understand the attitude that some people have (especially when it comes to subjugation, exploitation, and oppression) that "it is what it is." Yet if someone dares to lash out or fight back, suddenly they become "terrorists" -- and the oppressors act like they're the injured party. Suddenly, it no longer is what it is - it's some kind of horrible outrage.
 
Top