Richardson Statue Coming Down

[The NFL Shield At Midfield]

3 hours ago, mav1234 said:

Plenty of iconic structures were not built with slave labor, and some that are have notices that they were built by slaves, and in most countries, that is acknowledged as abhorrent.  Most countries do not have a sizable portion of their population that venerates a traitorous faction whose entire reason for existence was to maintain legal slavery. 

Gone with the Wind is not historically accurate in the full (tbh I don't think fiction needs to be, but aspects of it are assuredly problematic). It perpetuates a myth of slavery that I see brought up in discussions regularly here in the South. Before moving here, I always assumed that it was fringe lunatics that thought people were "well treated" during slavery, or slaves were part of the family, etc.  I have encountered that enough here to realize there is a problem with the cultural representations here in the South (and elsewhere in the US - perhaps I was lucky to learn what I did when growing up) of slavery and the Confederacy, and in fact, history has already been changed - and by the survivors of the traitorous losing side. 

Have you seen those articles about all the Karens who are taking plantation tours and getting pissed off because they're starting to incorporate the perspectives and stories of slaves now?

I mean talk about erasing history, geez.  What the hell do you think happened at a plantation anyway?  It wasn't this fantasy world of mint juleps and corsets.

[mav1234]

1 hour ago, Stumpy said:

Literally a 10 second google search would show that your version of history is inconsistent with the facts...

Egyptian Craftsmen Built Pyramids : Archeology: A burial site debunks belief that the Pharaohs’ shrines were built by slaves. Workers apparently enjoyed their lives and jobs.

Who Built the Pyramids? Not slaves. Archaeologist Mark Lehner, digging deeper, discovers a city of privileged workers.

Egypt's leading archaeologist says 4,000-year-old burial plots with skeletons expose myth that builders were slaves

Just because some book, that has been rewritten hundreds of times by people with their own agendas, says that Jewish slaves built the pyramids, doesn't make it so. The geological and archaeological records are pretty clear on this. And, have been for decades. The first article I posted is from 1991.

Also, I don't think you know what a slippery slope fallacy is.

fwiw this is what I was referring to earlier. although from what I remember, the term, usage, and context of slavery in Egypt varied tremendously from period to period, and it is possible that slaves were involved in aspects of the construction. but it has been a while since I read anything about that.

edit: but regardless, egregious slippery slope fallacy was the point, as Stumpy said.

[Vagrant]

2 hours ago, The NFL Shield At Midfield said:

You'd think statues are the primary way humans preserve and transfer knowledge reading this thread.

it's actually kind of sad. i was only half kidding when i said that statues are for people that can't/won't read but this thread is shaking my faith. there is nothing sacred about a field where man took life from another man who wanted to keep slaves as animals even if it happened a long time ago and you believe that makes it historically relevant. it should be instructed, but not in the ways these people want it. it should be talked about with the same somber tone that the holocaust is talked about. 12.4 million people is an estimated number of people that died in custody of these reprehensible people. why you would be proud of an ancestor that fought on the wrong side of that war is beyond me. it's an embarrassment and a blemish on history just the same as the calculated slaughter of native americans, which also gets glossed over with the feel good narrative of the founding fathers nonsense. this is our national shame, and if you do not feel shame for the loss of 12.4 million lives but still get weepy on 9/11, you're a coward not a patriot. 

people talking about the civil war as a case of government overreach as it pertains to freeing PEOPLE from their captors and those good old boys just fighting for ole glory and their right to those people as property is just disgusting. those bleeding heart liberals strike once again! 

[Brooklyn 3.0]

Police are guarding the Christopher Columbus statue here.

[Matthias]

On 6/10/2020 at 2:05 PM, Black said:

 

LOL!  Coming down like the Confederate statues.

[SmittysLawnGuy]

10 hours ago, 1of10Charnatives said:

So going to war against the Nazis to bring an end to the holocaust was a "needless, terrible event"? Your words. Feel free to backtrack and claim that wasn't what you meant and wasn't the war you were referring to, but you didn't take care to be more precise and thoughtful in your original wording. Experience tells me that lack of care in choosing one's words often goes hand in hand with lack of careful thinking. 

I agree that statues and memorials commemorating leaders and soldiers of a losing side which were fighting to preserve a horrific institution should be taken down and left to the dust bin of history. Let these things be remembered in museums and classrooms, where they more rightly belong in the context of cautionary tales, rather than glorified in the public arena. I don't see a single statue of Hitler anywhere, yet no one makes the argument that we should put some up so that "we don't forget".

However, the american civil war was a unique and terrible event in our nation's history, a time when we grappled with unfinished questions and moral dilemmas the founding father chose to leave unresolved in the interest of founding a cohesive nation. While slavery is terrible and rightly has been abolished, the confederacy was not without a leg to stand on. Morally wrong though slavery may have been, the Constitution specifically outlines a legal process under which states may secede from the Union, and all of the Confederate states followed this process properly. Lincoln defied the Constitution he had taken an oath to uphold in declaring he would not allow the Confederate states to withdraw from the Union peacefully. 

In an age when the NSA spies illegally daily on it's own citizens, the FBI has it's own kangaroo court to rubber stamp surveillance requests, Congress circumvents the limitations imposed by the Constitution in which they are granted only specific enumerated powers (please find for me the Constitutional basis justifying the existence of a federal Department of Education, there is none) by putting states at the end of a funding string on which they must dance to a federal tune, and our President himself seems to be barely aware of or hold any regard for Constitutional limitations on his power, can anyone say that walking the battlefields of the Civil War might not yet provide more than one lesson beyond just the struggle to end slavery?

I am southern born and bred and abhore not just slavery and segregation and racism in all it's forms, but I have walked the fields of Gettysburg Pennsylvania, looked out across the peach orchards from Little Round Top, and the ghosts who whispered to me there from across time were not just Union soldiers who shed blood so that other men might be free, but Confederate soldiers cautioning me against the overreach of federal power, however pure the motives might be.

However you might feel about that, men died there, for reasons both good and bad, but no matter what they were our countrymen, and in this one place outside museums, it is not inappropriate to let those flags fly, so that we might stand and look out not just from a classroom, but over the fields where the trees have been watered by the blood of our ancestors and soak in both the lessons of sacrifice and folly. 

How to beat up a smart guy 101.

[1of10Charnatives]

9 hours ago, Bronn said:

Just don't visit them.

 

So you don't want people who might be offended by monuments to those who fought to preserve slavery to visit the battlefields where they likely lost ancestors too.

Got it.

The US Constitution speaks of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Nowhere does it speak of nor guarantee a right not to be offended, nor should it. If we tear down things of historical significance, and there is no arguing that monuments ON BATTLEFIELDS specifically have historical significance, since they commemorate what happened there. No one should be forced to view potentially offensive statues and monuments in places they must go to go about their daily life, but suggesting that all potentially offensive monuments should be removed from places specifically set aside to mark the past, both good and bad, is a philosophical position which says no one should ever have to be offended about anything, even if they must go out of their way to be offended. Like the highly religious marching into a strip club and then demanding that the lewd dancing be stopped, this is not a supportable position in a free and open society.

I have seen and been exposed to things which offended me on more than one occasion in my life. The President's twitter account comes immediately to mind. Somehow I managed to pick up the pieces of life and move on. Loathsome though I may find his tweets, nowhere will you find me advocating that he has no right to speak his mind. Does doing so from his position of authority and visibility amount to horribly poor judgement and frequent asshattery on his part? Of course, but learning to tolerate the offensive is part of the price of a free society. No one has ever forced me to read dipshit's tweets, just as no one has ever been forced to visit a battlefield.

 

[Inimicus]

35 minutes ago, 1of10Charnatives said:

The US Constitution speaks of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Nowhere does it speak of nor guarantee a right not to be offended, nor should it. If we tear down things of historical significance, and there is no arguing that monuments ON BATTLEFIELDS specifically have historical significance, since they commemorate what happened there. No one should be forced to view potentially offensive statues and monuments in places they must go to go about their daily life, but suggesting that all potentially offensive monuments should be removed from places specifically set aside to mark the past, both good and bad, is a philosophical position which says no one should ever have to be offended about anything, even if they must go out of their way to be offended. Like the highly religious marching into a strip club and then demanding that the lewd dancing be stopped, this is not a supportable position in a free and open society.

I have seen and been exposed to things which offended me on more than one occasion in my life. The President's twitter account comes immediately to mind. Somehow I managed to pick up the pieces of life and move on. Loathsome though I may find his tweets, nowhere will you find me advocating that he has no right to speak his mind. Does doing so from his position of authority and visibility amount to horribly poor judgement and frequent asshattery on his part? Of course, but learning to tolerate the offensive is part of the price of a free society. No one has ever forced me to read dipshit's tweets, just as no one has ever been forced to visit a battlefield.

 

You make a couple of interesting and well spoken arguments both here and your post on page 14 and forgive me for the escalation but...

Would a 20 foot statue of Hitler be appropriate at Auschwitz?  People go to that place to mourn the victims not to venerate the victimizers.

[SmittysLawnGuy]

Man, guy likes chicks  in tight jeans and brushes against a few boobs. Tough crowd! If you guys get porn removed from the internet, I'm going to be pizzed!

[RASTAN66]

2 hours ago, 1of10Charnatives said:

The US Constitution speaks of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Nowhere does it speak of nor guarantee a right not to be offended, nor should it. If we tear down things of historical significance, and there is no arguing that monuments ON BATTLEFIELDS specifically have historical significance, since they commemorate what happened there. No one should be forced to view potentially offensive statues and monuments in places they must go to go about their daily life, but suggesting that all potentially offensive monuments should be removed from places specifically set aside to mark the past, both good and bad, is a philosophical position which says no one should ever have to be offended about anything, even if they must go out of their way to be offended. Like the highly religious marching into a strip club and then demanding that the lewd dancing be stopped, this is not a supportable position in a free and open society.

I have seen and been exposed to things which offended me on more than one occasion in my life. The President's twitter account comes immediately to mind. Somehow I managed to pick up the pieces of life and move on. Loathsome though I may find his tweets, nowhere will you find me advocating that he has no right to speak his mind. Does doing so from his position of authority and visibility amount to horribly poor judgement and frequent asshattery on his part? Of course, but learning to tolerate the offensive is part of the price of a free society. No one has ever forced me to read dipshit's tweets, just as no one has ever been forced to visit a battlefield.

 

Well said.

 

[mav1234]

35 minutes ago, Inimicus said:

You make a couple of interesting and well spoken arguments both here and your post on page 14 and forgive me for the escalation but...

Would a 20 foot statue of Hitler be appropriate at Auschwitz?  People go to that place to mourn the victims not to venerate the victimizers.

So first, I think all of this is context dependent.  And Hitler is a special case, in a lot of ways.  I don't know that it would be appropriate, no. I doubt it.  Now, a photo of Hitler with some of the people directly involved in running Auschwitz that details the atrocities he authorized?  I could see that, but I would leave that to the German people.  Especially because Hitler specifically has a certain cult around him that is not the same for any one Confederate leader.

So I don't know what the equivalent is to the Confederacy, but I am hard-pressed to think that, e.g. a statue of Lee on a battlefield he fought on is inappropriate, or a statue that notes the names of soldiers that lost their lives, etc.  A lot of the context provided in these places is key, too.  Signage is useful here to provide truthful accounts of the battle, about its context in the war, and about the war in a broader sense, as well.

[mav1234]

1 hour ago, SmittysLawnGuy said:

Man, guy likes chicks  in tight jeans and brushes against a few boobs. Tough crowd! If you guys get porn removed from the internet, I'm going to be pizzed!

yeah sorry excuse me I expect employees to treat all their employees with fuging dignity. too much to ask I guess. just remember to properly address the mistah and wear the right clothes so you meet his standards.

[Inimicus]

7 minutes ago, mav1234 said:

So first, I think all of this is context dependent.  And Hitler is a special case, in a lot of ways.  I don't know that it would be appropriate, no. I doubt it.  Now, a photo of Hitler with some of the people directly involved in running Auschwitz that details the atrocities he authorized?  I could see that, but I would leave that to the German people.  Especially because Hitler specifically has a certain cult around him that is not the same for any one Confederate leader.

So I don't know what the equivalent is to the Confederacy, but I am hard-pressed to think that, e.g. a statue of Lee on a battlefield he fought on is inappropriate, or a statue that notes the names of soldiers that lost their lives, etc.  A lot of the context provided in these places is key, too.  Signage is useful here to provide truthful accounts of the battle, about its context in the war, and about the war in a broader sense, as well.

So acknowledging that the Hitler escalation is "for effect" where do we draw the line?

We recognize Robert E Lee was a reluctant leader for the south and as such there is honor in his sense of duty but the cause he fought for was so abhorrent to modern society that he almost becomes the perfect test case.

A man that did his duty despite whatever moral compass he possessed.

But we collectively decided at Nuremberg that "just following orders" was no defense.

Lee becomes our political litmus test.  Support him (irrespective of why) and you are on the side of slavery, oppose him and you claim the moral high ground.

 

So when it comes to his statue it turns into a black and white issue(the irony of using that phrase is not lost on me).

 

Lee lost.  He failed.  His army was defeated.

 

In 2020 why does he deserve to be venerated in the towns common market or on the battlefields where he was defeated?

[cookinwithgas]

2 hours ago, 1of10Charnatives said:

The US Constitution speaks of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Nowhere does it speak of nor guarantee a right not to be offended, nor should it. If we tear down things of historical significance, and there is no arguing that monuments ON BATTLEFIELDS specifically have historical significance, since they commemorate what happened there. No one should be forced to view potentially offensive statues and monuments in places they must go to go about their daily life, but suggesting that all potentially offensive monuments should be removed from places specifically set aside to mark the past, both good and bad, is a philosophical position which says no one should ever have to be offended about anything, even if they must go out of their way to be offended. Like the highly religious marching into a strip club and then demanding that the lewd dancing be stopped, this is not a supportable position in a free and open society.

I have seen and been exposed to things which offended me on more than one occasion in my life. The President's twitter account comes immediately to mind. Somehow I managed to pick up the pieces of life and move on. Loathsome though I may find his tweets, nowhere will you find me advocating that he has no right to speak his mind. Does doing so from his position of authority and visibility amount to horribly poor judgement and frequent asshattery on his part? Of course, but learning to tolerate the offensive is part of the price of a free society. No one has ever forced me to read dipshit's tweets, just as no one has ever been forced to visit a battlefield.

 

Have any battlefield monuments been torn down? 

 

A monument for Confederate soldiers at Gettysburg - totally appropriate

A monument for John Calhoun in a public square telling us all the awesome things he said in defense of slavery? Not needed.