The removal of statues

[untermensche]

Those Democrats became Republicans after the The Civil Rights Act.

Nixon wins North and South Carolina, Virginia, Kentucky, Florida and Tennessee.

Wallace the favorite of racists everywhere wins Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Arkansas.

Democrats are shut out of the entire South.

That at the time meant Republicans were just as bad.

No it didn't.

What is showed was that many Southern racists left the Democratic party and became Republicans. Those that supported Wallace also mostly became Republican voters.

 

[bilby]

FFS this tearing down of statues is spreading throughout the political correct West!
Here in Australia some idiots have destroyed statues of Captain Cook overnight.
Greens and one or two Green pc influenced councils are demanding the wording on plaques be re-worded because of claims some indigenous people may be offended!

And here I was thinking that this was satire.

You do know that spraying paint onto a plinth is unlikely to destroy (or to cause, lead to, or bring about the destruction of) a bronze statue mounted upon said plinth, right?

Perhaps you are struggling with the difference between 'destroyed' and 'defaced'?

Do I really care about the details of how you came to YET AGAIN post something factually wrong, hyperbolic, and deeply misleading? No. No I don't.

 

[whichphilosophy]

That at the time meant Republicans were just as bad.

No it didn't.

What is showed was that many Southern racists left the Democratic party and became Republicans. Those that supported Wallace also mostly became Republican voters.

It meant that there were racists in both parties at one point. It's not a really important issue nowadays is that the US should be looking sensibly as to how it should move its statues, e.g. move confederate ones from the court houses and areas of justice to other locations etc.

I'm not sure it's a good idea to necessarily destroy them as they may be future works of art and reminders of some of the less pleasant parts of US history. Hopefully there will be a message somewhere not to repeat this.

(Of course we know that the end of slavery did not end virtual slavery where African Americans worked for pennies and faced institutionalized segregation for another 100 years).

- - - Updated - - -

Anything on this thread suggest I support the confederates? The US has to decide sensibly what to do regarding these artifacts.

It is implied by the post I quoted - don't play dumb.

So nothing I said posted this?

 

[LordKiran]

No it didn't.

What is showed was that many Southern racists left the Democratic party and became Republicans. Those that supported Wallace also mostly became Republican voters.

It meant that there were racists in both parties at one point. It's not a really important issue nowadays is that the US should be looking sensibly as to how it should move its statues, e.g. move confederate ones from the court houses and areas of justice to other locations etc.

I'm not sure it's a good idea to necessarily destroy them as they may be future works of art and reminders of some of the less pleasant parts of US history. Hopefully there will be a message somewhere not to repeat this.

(Of course we know that the end of slavery did not end virtual slavery where African Americans worked for pennies and faced institutionalized segregation for another 100 years).

- - - Updated - - -

Anything on this thread suggest I support the confederates? The US has to decide sensibly what to do regarding these artifacts.

It is implied by the post I quoted - don't play dumb.

So nothing I said posted this?

I like (Raven's?) suggestion. Keep the nice ones or ones made by notable artists and scrap the rest. As has been mentioned before, a lot of the ones made in the 1900s were mass produced and made on the cheap, not the sort of thing worth getting all upset over really. Can't be that important if they couldn't even be bothered to put a little passion into it.

 

[untermensche]

No it didn't.

What is showed was that many Southern racists left the Democratic party and became Republicans. Those that supported Wallace also mostly became Republican voters.

It meant that there were racists in both parties at one point. It's not a really important issue nowadays is that the US should be looking sensibly as to how it should move its statues, e.g. move confederate ones from the court houses and areas of justice to other locations etc.

I'm not sure it's a good idea to necessarily destroy them as they may be future works of art and reminders of some of the less pleasant parts of US history. Hopefully there will be a message somewhere not to repeat this.

There are racists in every US party. Racism is something that has polluted the US since it's inception.

But since 1964 the Republicans have been able to win with subtle and not so subtle appeals to racists.

The Democrats have not.

The ban on Muslims and the wall on the Mexican border are nothing but red meat for racists and bigots and idiots.

 

[angelo]

FFS this tearing down of statues is spreading throughout the political correct West!
Here in Australia some idiots have destroyed statues of Captain Cook overnight.
Greens and one or two Green pc influenced councils are demanding the wording on plaques be re-worded because of claims some indigenous people may be offended!

And here I was thinking that this was satire.

You do know that spraying paint onto a plinth is unlikely to destroy (or to cause, lead to, or bring about the destruction of) a bronze statue mounted upon said plinth, right?

Perhaps you are struggling with the difference between 'destroyed' and 'defaced'?

Do I really care about the details of how you came to YET AGAIN post something factually wrong, hyperbolic, and deeply misleading? No. No I don't.

The fucking Guardian?

 

[iolo]

I find this resembles the discussion of unusual sexual habits I don't share. Does anyone really get some sort of kick about these silly models of posturing people? They just get in the way of the traffic or the view as far as I can see, and they are getting far too common.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Does anyone really get some sort of kick about these silly models of posturing people?

Google 'statue humor' and look under the images tab. Some people find a LOT of kicks about adding to posturing people...

 

[iolo]

Does anyone really get some sort of kick about these silly models of posturing people?

Google 'statue humor' and look under the images tab. Some people find a LOT of kicks about adding to posturing people...

I think bog walls are cheaper for municipalities.

 

[bilby]

And here I was thinking that this was satire.

You do know that spraying paint onto a plinth is unlikely to destroy (or to cause, lead to, or bring about the destruction of) a bronze statue mounted upon said plinth, right?

Perhaps you are struggling with the difference between 'destroyed' and 'defaced'?

Do I really care about the details of how you came to YET AGAIN post something factually wrong, hyperbolic, and deeply misleading? No. No I don't.

The fucking Guardian?

First Dog on the Moon. It's a cartoon. It happens to be published by The Guardian - in their 'Comment is Free' section, which publishes opinion pieces from a variety of sources.

It's also almost word-for-word the same response you had (only Mr Onthemoon is attempting to paint a hyperbolic caricature of the most over the top response possible). He captured your likeness pretty well.

 

[repoman]

Interesting long article in Newsweek:

http://www.newsweek.com/think-about-you-tear-down-robert-e-lee-statue-655965

He seems to compared Robert E Lee and Benedict Arnold, saying that in the military you judge a man for how he conducts himself in a war less than why he got into it. Basically Lee nutted up and honestly fought the North with a full declaration, while Arnold was treacherous and a liar. I can see how loyalty and procedure obsessed military people would agree with that assessment.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Interesting long article in Newsweek:

http://www.newsweek.com/think-about-you-tear-down-robert-e-lee-statue-655965

He seems to compared Robert E Lee and Benedict Arnold, saying that in the military you judge a man for how he conducts himself in a war less than why he got into it. Basically Lee nutted up and honestly fought the North with a full declaration, while Arnold was treacherous and a liar. I can see how loyalty and procedure obsessed military people would agree with that assessment.

I'm pretty sure the Confederates saw the Unionists as traitors to the American ideals. He also represented a significant portion of the American population. The people who lost. Lee was willing to sacrifice himself to his nation, ie be a soldier. We need soldiers. It's a type of behaviour we should celebrate.

There's so many accounts of captured military leaders who get treated with great respect by their captors. Treated like honoured guests. I like that. We should do more of that.

 

[angelo]

Even a couple of German "Field Marshals " were treated with respect by the Allies at the end of WW2.
Of course comparing the Confederates to the Nazis is like comparing apples to lemons.

 

[angelo]

FFS this tearing down of statues is spreading throughout the political correct West!
Here in Australia some idiots have destroyed statues of Captain Cook overnight.
Greens and one or two Green pc influenced councils are demanding the wording on plaques be re-worded because of claims some indigenous people may be offended!

And here I was thinking that this was satire.

You do know that spraying paint onto a plinth is unlikely to destroy (or to cause, lead to, or bring about the destruction of) a bronze statue mounted upon said plinth, right?

Perhaps you are struggling with the difference between 'destroyed' and 'defaced'?

Do I really care about the details of how you came to YET AGAIN post something factually wrong, hyperbolic, and deeply misleading? No. No I don't.

The only difference been that a defaced statue can in many cases be repaired. One that's destroyed also can be re-made.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Of course comparing the Confederates to the Nazis is like comparing apples to lemons.

Really? Is it apples or lemons that would fight a war to be sure an entire race of people were put in their proper, subhuman place?

 

[angelo]

Of course comparing the Confederates to the Nazis is like comparing apples to lemons.

Really? Is it apples or lemons that would fight a war to be sure an entire race of people were put in their proper, subhuman place?

Both ideologies were and are subhuman. But General Lee didn't commit genocide like the Nazis did.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Really? Is it apples or lemons that would fight a war to be sure an entire race of people were put in their proper, subhuman place?

Both ideologies were and are subhuman. But General Lee didn't commit genocide like the Nazis did.

So, not apples and lemons. More like apples and slightly less wormy apples?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

General Lee has a cool car named after him. Plus, Lee was just a cog in the machine like Eichmann.

 

[iolo]

Really? Is it apples or lemons that would fight a war to be sure an entire race of people were put in their proper, subhuman place?

Both ideologies were and are subhuman. But General Lee didn't commit genocide like the Nazis did.

In the UK we share a general fantasy that Field Marshal Rommel (was it) was a 'good German', although he was a member of the Nazi Party: it always feels better if you can respect some of your opponents. Lee was about as good as that racist gang got, and I believe he finally got around to freeing his slaves. What it comes down to in the end, though, is that evil is evil is evil, and goes on forever if not stopped. Southern racism was more rational in that it kept its victims alive to benefit their exploiters, whereas the Nazis went in for direct murder. It seems to me a distinction without meaning though. It would have been too embarrassing for Lee to have led the Union armies perhaps. So, as a gentleman, he should have resigned and gone abroad until the unpleasantness was over!

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Both ideologies were and are subhuman. But General Lee didn't commit genocide like the Nazis did.

In the UK we share a general fantasy that Field Marshal Rommel (was it) was a 'good German', although he was a member of the Nazi Party: it always feels better if you can respect some of your opponents. Lee was about as good as that racist gang got, ...

Just for clarification...and I know you're only talking about the racist gang...in the south there were plenty of abolitionists but they got silenced by laws--to include their speech. Regarding statues, again, those statues have plaques that lie such as throwing words around like "Sacrifice." If the south wants statues, they should put up statues of people who deserve it with plaques that truly reflect history...such as statues of abolitionists or slaves or Harriet Tubman. So the racist gang does have plenty of better persons in their history that they could use as heroes. Why do they insist on someone like Lee who chose to kill people rather than stand up to his friends?