Arkansas To Remove Confederate Statue In U.S. Capitol, Add Johnny Cash, Daisy Bates

[Grand Mal]

Yes, erase history so it will never be repeated....knowingly.

News for you- statues aren't history. When they toppled statues of Stalin in the former Soviet empire they didn't erase one word of history.

 

[Grand Mal]

Fascinating how much the statue haters resemble the Taliban.

But liberals tend to despise free speech (they don't agree with) as much as they tend to hate guns.

Their purity standards will come back to bite them on the ass of course - time is a b*tch.

Gawd. Another one who's loudly ignorant. If you don't know the basics of political theory maybe you should shut up and learn something. "Liberals despise free speech"? Here's a hint- you learn with your eyes and ears open and stop learning when you open your mouth.

 

[joko104]

Every structure built before the Civil Rights Act in the USA must be demolished.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

It does and it will.
I'm not a fan of the implications though. And I still don't understand why historical statues and monuments are so offensive?
To me this is all very childish...in a dangerous sort o' way.

The "heroes of the Confederacy" should have been rounded up, tried for treason, and executed. But Lincoln thought it was better, rather than turn these traitors into martyrs, he would let them live to better heal the devastating wounds of the nation. Somehow the folks in the South decided they would celebrate the leaders of the failed Confederacy. This became particularly popular among Southern whites after the turn of the 20th century when black citizens started feeling they ought to be allowed to enjoy the full fruits of being free men. This would never do, as far as the whites were concerned, so they started passing lots of Jim Crow laws and erecting faux tribute statues, many of which were cheaply mass produced, to remind the citizens of just who was really in charge.

That is why these statues are so offensive. They are not tributes to the fallen of the Confederacy. They are reminders of the genesis of our society.

 

[Buzz62]

The "heroes of the Confederacy" should have been rounded up, tried for treason, and executed. But Lincoln thought it was better, rather than turn these traitors into martyrs, he would let them live to better heal the devastating wounds of the nation. Somehow the folks in the South decided they would celebrate the leaders of the failed Confederacy. This became particularly popular among Southern whites after the turn of the 20th century when black citizens started feeling they ought to be allowed to enjoy the full fruits of being free men. This would never do, as far as the whites were concerned, so they started passing lots of Jim Crow laws and erecting faux tribute statues, many of which were cheaply mass produced, to remind the citizens of just who was really in charge.

That is why these statues are so offensive. They are not tributes to the fallen of the Confederacy. They are reminders of the genesis of our society.

To YOU!
And do you have something against a reminder of the genesis of the society? Something to be proud of no?

 

[PoppyCock]

Yes, erase history so it will never be repeated....knowingly.

The taliban is keen on monument destruction, as well.

 

[WCH]

Try as you might, you ought not celebrate your ancestors' attempt to destroy the U.S. and preserve an economic system that was dependent on slave labor. It makes some of us question your loyalty to the U.S. today. Are you a patriot or a subversive who desires to try again?

There are days when I don't want to be associated with some of you. With that garbage you just wrote, today might be one of those days.

"some of you" can KMA. Especially with you wanting to destroy the Constitution.

 

[PoppyCock]

Please PM me to get rid of your offensive paper money with slave owners portraits on it.

 

[WCH]

The "heroes of the Confederacy" should have been rounded up, tried for treason, and executed. But Lincoln thought it was better, rather than turn these traitors into martyrs, he would let them live to better heal the devastating wounds of the nation. Somehow the folks in the South decided they would celebrate the leaders of the failed Confederacy. This became particularly popular among Southern whites after the turn of the 20th century when black citizens started feeling they ought to be allowed to enjoy the full fruits of being free men. This would never do, as far as the whites were concerned, so they started passing lots of Jim Crow laws and erecting faux tribute statues, many of which were cheaply mass produced, to remind the citizens of just who was really in charge.

That is why these statues are so offensive. They are not tributes to the fallen of the Confederacy. They are reminders of the genesis of our society.

Guess you forgot about Sherman's march. That was mighty nice of the union.

 

[joko104]

The "heroes of the Confederacy" should have been rounded up, tried for treason, and executed. But Lincoln thought it was better, rather than turn these traitors into martyrs, he would let them live to better heal the devastating wounds of the nation. Somehow the folks in the South decided they would celebrate the leaders of the failed Confederacy. This became particularly popular among Southern whites after the turn of the 20th century when black citizens started feeling they ought to be allowed to enjoy the full fruits of being free men. This would never do, as far as the whites were concerned, so they started passing lots of Jim Crow laws and erecting faux tribute statues, many of which were cheaply mass produced, to remind the citizens of just who was really in charge.

That is why these statues are so offensive. They are not tributes to the fallen of the Confederacy. They are reminders of the genesis of our society.

Every American participant in the American Revolution was a traitor too, weren't they?

 

[joko104]

The "heroes of the Confederacy" should have been rounded up, tried for treason, and executed. But Lincoln thought it was better, rather than turn these traitors into martyrs, he would let them live to better heal the devastating wounds of the nation. Somehow the folks in the South decided they would celebrate the leaders of the failed Confederacy. This became particularly popular among Southern whites after the turn of the 20th century when black citizens started feeling they ought to be allowed to enjoy the full fruits of being free men. This would never do, as far as the whites were concerned, so they started passing lots of Jim Crow laws and erecting faux tribute statues, many of which were cheaply mass produced, to remind the citizens of just who was really in charge.

That is why these statues are so offensive. They are not tributes to the fallen of the Confederacy. They are reminders of the genesis of our society.

They also remind people who the Democratic Party really is. That's why the Democratic Party desperately wants them all gone.

 

[joko104]

Why are any ancient structures allowed to stand - whether Notre Dame cathedral, the ancient building in Rome and Greece, all of Venice, the Great Wall of China, from the White House to the temples of the Mayans. All were build essentially by slave labor (serfs were essentially slaves) and slave societies. Why are they glorified and preserved, rather than demolished to the terrible psychological suffering they cause for the evil history they represent?!

As I posted, certainly any structure and statute more than 200 years old MUST be destroyed as all are symbols of slavery or other horrific oppression.

History should be nice and all history books should be discarded and rewritten with only nice events. Afterall, all great empires and nations were built on niceness. All references to wars, slavery, torture and any other oppression are extremely offensive and disturbing to people whose ancestors at some point suffered - and since that is 99.99% of everyone alive, this offense against them most end.

Really, this should be the only history book used in school:

"The Entire History of the Human Race."

The first paragraph should state: "The human race first came into existence in the United States in 1964 with the passage of the Civil Rights Act. Since then, humans have spread to some other areas of the world. Most of the world still had no human presence. Most of the world remains inhabited by a sub-human species that little to nothing is known about as it was decided knowledge of just how evil they were and are would severely harm too many humans."

 

[joko104]

Pick up a history book.

Go to a library.

Log off debate politics and do some research online.

Go to a museum.

I assure you there are plenty of ways to learn about Confederate losers!

Why do you want to honor the Confederacy in books and museums?!

 

[Tigerace117]

Guess you forgot about Sherman's march. That was mighty nice of the union.

Uh.....yes, actually. Compared to just about every other army facing similar opposition in recorded history up to that point, Sherman was incredibly lenient.

Take a look at what the Brits did in Ireland as just one example.

And considering that you are in Texas, which surrendered well before the Union launched any such campaign on your land, your hysterics are amusing.

 

[joko104]

Funnily enough, the Germans still know who the Nazis were despite not having statues of Heinrich Himmler all over the place.

There is ever reason to destroy all ancient Aztec, Mayan, Roman, and Greek structures, plus the Great Wall of China and so many other EVIL structures and statutes because people can read about them in books. Maybe a true heroic SJW organization will destroy those structures to affirm opposition to slavery.

The Democrats should campaign on a promise they will destroy all structures that were built by or represent slave societies, vowing if Italy, Greece, the UK, China, South American, Central American and Mexico will not voluntarily destroy them we will - upon notice so civilians can evacuate - destroy them with drone strikes.

Certainly 99% of what is in the museums of the UK must be destroyed as slave-labor products and societies. They MUST be erased from history so no one is offended.

 

[Tigerace117]

There are days when I don't want to be associated with some of you. With that garbage you just wrote, today might be one of those days.

"some of you" can KMA. Especially with you wanting to destroy the Constitution.

Everything he said was accurate; the Confederacy was absolutely dependent on slavery, and explicitly went to war to protect it

Your feelings being hurt don’t change the facts.

 

[joko104]

Uh.....yes, actually. Compared to just about every other army facing similar opposition in recorded history up to that point, Sherman was incredibly lenient.

Take a look at what the Brits did in Ireland as just one example.

And considering that you are in Texas, which surrendered well before the Union launched any such campaign on your land, your hysterics are amusing.

Texas never surrendered. In fact, Texas (which also then included New Mexico and Oklahoma) is the only state that kept it's state lands. The Federal government took the lands of most other states. Texas did not join the United States. The United States joined Texas. At least that's the rumor (if only it were true).

 

[joko104]

The wealthiest people in the USA at the time were plantation owners in the South. They had life-death power over their slaves and just about everything else. The one thing they didn't have was their own slave countries each could rule over. That was the purpose of the Confederacy.

The culture of the Confederacy had to be destroyed.

That said, removing the statutes is absurd - and that is how absurd the SJW "progressives" are. IF every country did the same, there would be NO ancient statutes or structures of any kind - yet they do not protest those. It is all knee-jerk reaction on demand to try to erase the history of the Democratic Party, nothing else. Otherwise they would be vandalizing and demanding the destruction of Mount Vernon, the White House, and nearly every other historic building in the USA.

 

[Tigerace117]

There is ever reason to destroy all ancient Aztec, Mayan, Roman, and Greek structures, plus the Great Wall of China and so many other EVIL structures and statutes because people can read about them in books. Maybe a true heroic SJW organization will destroy those structures to affirm opposition to slavery.

The Democrats should campaign on a promise they will destroy all structures that were built by or represent slave societies, vowing if Italy, Greece, the UK, China, South American, Central American and Mexico will not voluntarily destroy them we will - upon notice so civilians can evacuate - destroy them with drone strikes.

Certainly 99% of what is in the museums of the UK must be destroyed as slave-labor products and societies. They MUST be erased from history so no one is offended.

Ah, so southerners were so primitive and backwards that they still had the same social mores as those from thousands of years earlier? The South went to war in 1861, not 861. That excuse doesn't hold water. Not to mention, of course, that Romans, Greeks, Mayans and Chinese people did not go to war with the United States and murder hundreds of thousands of American soldiers and sailors to try and preserve it.

None of your hysterical rantings change the facts even slightly.

 

[joko104]

Fascinating how much the statue haters resemble the Taliban.

But liberals tend to despise free speech (they don't agree with) as much as they tend to hate guns.

Their purity standards will come back to bite them on the ass of course - time is a b*tch.

Except there is no "purity." The protest ONLY what they are told to protest - and that is to demand removing anything that exposes the true history of the Democratic Party. Everything else is ok to them.

 

[Tigerace117]

Texas never surrendered. In fact, Texas (which also then included New Mexico and Oklahoma) is the only state that kept it's state lands. The Federal government took the lands of most other states. Texas did not join the United States. The United States joined Texas. At least that's the rumor (if only it were true).

That's somehow an even bigger fairy tale than the "stabbed in the back" myth.

Amusingly enough, the "don't mess with Texas" slogan started as an anti-littering campaign.

 

[joko104]

Ah, so southerners were so primitive and backwards that they still had the same social mores as those from thousands of years earlier? The South went to war in 1861, not 861. That excuse doesn't hold water. Not to mention, of course, that Romans, Greeks, Mayans and Chinese people did not go to war with the United States and murder hundreds of thousands of American soldiers and sailors to try and preserve it.

None of your hysterical rantings change the facts even slightly.

Ah, so your position is that there was NOTHING wrong with slavery EXCEPT in the USA. That is consistent with the Democratic Party's demand that Americans hate the USA and Americans, but any other culture that does or did the same is perfectly fine. You LIKE slavery, just not in the United States.

I also note your hatred of soldiers, calling them murderers. That also is consistent with the Democratic Party, isn't it?

 

[Tigerace117]

Fascinating how much the statue haters resemble the Taliban.

But liberals tend to despise free speech (they don't agree with) as much as they tend to hate guns.

Their purity standards will come back to bite them on the ass of course - time is a b*tch.

The moronic hysterics of claiming those who don't celebrate the slaveocracy are akin to the Taliban is truly laughable.

Whining about free speech is especially funny when one considers that most people in the CSA did not have any such thing.

 

[Tigerace117]

Ah, so your position is that there was NOTHING wrong with slavery EXCEPT in the USA. That is consistent with the Democratic Party's demand that Americans hate the USA and Americans, but any other culture that does or did the same is perfectly fine. You LIKE slavery, just not in the United States.

I also note your hatred of soldiers, calling them murderers. That also is consistent with the Democratic Party, isn't it?

Gee, what a surprise, the guy who wants to label Democrats as a "terrorist organization" managed to pull another load of crap out of his ass.

No one flying the the Roman flag blew up a bunch of little kids in church when their parents tried to exercise their constitutional rights. No Mayans raped and murdered American citizens with impunity for decades. None of those other societies needed a bloody civil war to get slavery to end either.

I note the pathological stupidity of your arguments, but then again, that is consistent with conservatives, isn't it.

 

[joko104]

That's somehow an even bigger fairy tale than the "stabbed in the back" myth.

Amusingly enough, the "don't mess with Texas" slogan started as an anti-littering campaign.

Your claim that Texas "surrendered" to the United States is what is absurd. You forgot or never knew that until the Civil War, each state essentially was its own country that was in a compact with other states. The Civil War erased that part of the US Constitution, replacing it with a federalized system that was made up out of thin air. However, since the Supreme Court has successfully overthrown the elected government to declare themselves absolute tyrants and dictators for which elected government and democracy has NO more relevancy that what a majority on the Supreme Court will allow, much of the US Constitution had already been erased.

It could be argued that the traitor was Lincoln, not the Confederacy. The issue of slavery versus the issue of states rights are not the same. The federal government used the issue of slavery to add erasing states rights as a final goal - and one that still continues.