Trump and the cons want to bring back Confederate statues and the name of military bases

[Logophile]

I don't actually. Are people who wage war against their country not traitors?


Odd. One would think the people holding on to commemorations of people who fought trying to keep slavery was more divisive.


Well digging up old bones would be desecration of a burial site, and no one is talking about anything remotely close to that. What's been problematic are the statues of Confederate generals in public places because some find it offensive since they fought against the US to preserve the slavery in their states, so the descendents of those slaves should have a say. So if people of German descent wanted statues commemorating the achievements of Nazis, that should be ok and Jews should "get over it"?

No, people that wage war against the direction of their country's government are NOT traitors. They were not considered traitors in Spain, in China, in Vietnam, in Britain or generally anywhere else. So let's get that out of the way. Secondly, everybody is offended by something somewhere. ART in particular is going to be offensive to somebody especiallyif it's not abstract but representational. But be that as it may, it gets to stay. In NYC there's a statute of Floyd. Now given the fact that he punched or knifed his pregnant girlfriend, some might find his likeness offensive. BUT, it's art and this is free country so c'est la vie

 

[eohrnberger]

I remember just fine. I also remember you saying they should be venerated for the government they created.

Actually, no, it wasn't 'the government they created', it was:

. . .
In the case of the founders, venerate might be applicable, given their creation of a nation and a new form of governing.
. . .

That government legalized and profited off of the exploitation murder and rape of millions of Black people. That's a fact. That is part of this creation you want to celebrate. I'm not sure why you'd feel the need to pretend otherwise other than shame.

I'm not assigning you this position, you chose it for yourself.

This is factually incorrect.

 

[Luce]

You should speak to your own tax dollars. Blacks will speak to theirs. Ex Confederates will speak to theirs. Incidentally ex Confederates are also forced to use their tax dollars to monuments to war criminals like Gen William Tecumseh Sherman* and all manners of carpet baggers.

*I like Gen Sherman quite alright, but since we are into historical revisionism and eradication, as well as the revisiting an earlier era with the norms of a later era, it will be remiss not to point out the torching of Atlanta was a war crime.

It was not.

 

[Master Debator]

Actually, no, it wasn't 'the government they created', it was:





This is factually incorrect.

Okay, so the slave nation they created. Now that you got that important distinction out of your system, where exactly is your evidence they weren't a slave nation?

 

[SCrider]

I'm on the fence about things like this.

Obviously I think Confederates were solid straight-up pieces of shit.

However, it IS a part of history. Not just Southern history but American history as a whole. I may see statues differently than others do, though. I don't always see statues as things that automatically laud their likenesses. I just see them as physical snapshots in time. And I don't like getting uncomfortably close to physical censorship of this kind.

Statues and bases named after people are to honor them.
Confederates do not deserve that honor.

 

[Juin]

Maybe unlike @eohrnberger you can explain what parts of history you imagine me to be revising. Lee was a loser, literally, I mean. Like as a matter of objective fact. He lost and surrendered. In fact since human beings technically being to the monkey clade Lee is literally a surrender monkey.

That's like saying a top Qarterback is a loser because he never won a superbowl. Lee was one of the top Generals of the Civil War, if not the most talented. Lee probably ranks among the top Generals of all time. Grant won, but he also had the better team. Lee lost because in just about all his engagements he had the lesser the team, but overall got more out of his team than the Union Generals

 

[Juin]

Statues and bases named after people are to honor them.
Confederates do not deserve that honor.

Do Confederates get a same on who gets honoured? I imagine they do. After the Civil War they returned to full citizens and rights as any other citizen

 

[SCrider]

Do Confederates get a same on who gets honoured? I imagine they do. After the Civil War they returned to full citizens and rights as any other citizen

Not sure what you are asking.

 

[Master Debator]

That's like saying a top Qarterback is a loser because he never won a superbowl.

Yep. Unfortunately for me as a Dolphins fan Marino ultimately was a loser. (Tua looks like hes going to be a bust as well. Hope no one breaths too hard on that mother ****er.... ) He couldnt win the big game.

Lee was one of the top Generals of the Civil War, if not the most talented. Lee probably ranks among the top Generals of all time. Grant won, but he also had the better team. Lee lost because in just about all his engagements he had the lesser the team, but overall got more out of his team than the Union Generals

And still objectively a loser and surrender monkey. I don't really care about all your opinions in light of those objective facts.

 

[SCrider]

That's like saying a top Qarterback is a loser because he never won a superbowl. Lee was one of the top Generals of the Civil War, if not the most talented. Lee probably ranks among the top Generals of all time. Grant won, but he also had the better team. Lee lost because in just about all his engagements he had the lesser the team, but overall got more out of his team than the Union Generals

Yes, Lee was a great military leader, but ultimately, he chose the side that wanted to end the Union and keep slavery. These two things should disqualify him from being honored as a great American.

 

[Juin]

Not sure what you are asking.

You said Confederates dont deserve to be honoured. Is who gets honoured not up to the citizens of the United States? After the war Confederates' citizenship was fully restored; meaning they could, and were able to have Confederates honoured

 

[Juin]

Yes, Lee was a great military leader, but ultimately, he chose the side that wanted to end the Union and keep slavery. These two things should disqualify him from being honored as a great American.

Massa Tom Jeff'son and Massa George Washington were both industrial scale slavers; why does slavery not disqualify them from being hnoured as great Americans?

 

[Juin]

Yep. Unfortunately for me as a Dolphins fan Marino ultimately was a loser. (Tua looks like hes going to be a bust as well. Hope no one breaths too hard on that mother ****er.... ) He couldnt win the big game.

And still objectively a loser and surrender monkey. I don't really care about all your opinions in light of those objective facts.

Dan Marino was a great Quarterback. A Hall of Famer to boot.

 

[SCrider]

Massa Tom Jeff'son and Massa George Washington were both industrial scale slavers; why does slavery not disqualify them from being hnoured as great Americans?

Did they fight against the country as well?

 

[SCrider]

You said Confederates dont deserve to be honoured. Is who gets honoured not up to the citizens of the United States? After the war Confederates' citizenship was fully restored; meaning they could, and were able to have Confederates honoured

So

 

[Master Debator]

Dan Marino was a great Quarterback. A Hall of Famer to boot.

That's an opinion. Objectively he's a loser when it comes to Super Bowl wins. Do you understand the difference between opinions and facts?

 

[Diving Mullah]

What's the difficulty? Maybe I look at Lincoln and see someone who should have heeded the copperheads rather than plunge the land into butchery and mayhem. Or look at Grant and see someone who abided Sherman's war crimes.

Maybe I'm a Black guy who looks up at your Lee and Stonewall Jackson statues and use them to tell my children the tragedy of misbegotten allegiance to state over country and the harsh barbarity of slavery.

There is a fundamental difference between slave-owning figures like Thomas Jefferson and those like Andrew Jackson or General Robert E. Lee. Many American heroes and historical figures—regardless of any reprehensible actions, including genocide—are still considered "Americans" in that they ultimately represented and upheld the United States and its Constitution.

In contrast, figures such as Lee and Jackson were the antithesis of the United States Constitution. They sought to destroy it and replace it with the Confederate Constitution. Their primary goal was to secede from the Union and dissolve the very idea of America itself. For all practical purposes, the Confederacy was a completely different country: they had their own president, their own constitution, and wore distinct uniforms, typically gray instead of the Union’s blue.

Honoring the Confederates on American soil is akin to honoring enemies such as Nazis, Al-Qaeda, or Russian invaders; they cannot be considered "American" in the context of fighting against Union forces and the United States. Had they won, the United States as it stands today would no longer exist. That is the essential difference

I hope you all can see that.

Honoring General Lee holding the Virginia battle Flag is as un-American as it can be. the reason people do it is a slap at Northerners, aka Union Forces, and what they stood for, despite them winning the war. They belong to Musimum as a reminder of what not to be and a lesson on what happens to you when you rise against the United States!

They are symbols of celebrations but only a cautionary tale!

Diving Mullah

 

[Juin]

Did they fight against the country as well?

Yes, they did. They fought against their Lord and King His Majesty George III



p.s Since you dismissed slavery on the parts of Massas Tom Jeff'son and George Washington does that mean it can also be dismissed in the case of Robert E Lee?

 

[Master Debator]

There is a fundamental difference between slave-owning figures like Thomas Jefferson and those like Andrew Jackson or General Robert E. Lee. Many American heroes and historical figures—regardless of any reprehensible actions, including genocide—are still considered "Americans" in that they ultimately represented and upheld the United States and its Constitution.

Okay but what's the value in that to you if that constitution they upheld allowed for genocide and chattel slavery?

I'm not sure what the rationale is that says I'm supposed to treat that document like a special little snowflake.

In contrast, figures such as Lee and Jackson were the antithesis of the United States Constitution.

By engaging in the same sort of national support of slavery that the slaver Founders did?

They sought to destroy it and replace it with the Confederate Constitution. Their primary goal was to secede from the Union and dissolve the very idea of America itself. For all practical purposes, the Confederacy was a completely different country: they had their own president, their own constitution, and wore distinct uniforms, typically gray instead of the Union’s blue.

They decided to try and create their own slave state just like revolutionary Americans broke away from Britain to create their own independent slave state. What's the important distinction you see?

Honoring the Confederates on American soil is akin to honoring enemies such as Nazis, Al-Qaeda, or Russian invaders; they cannot be considered "American" in the context of fighting against Union forces and the United States. Had they won, the United States as it stands today would no longer exist. That is the essential difference

I hope you all can see that.


Honoring General Lee holding the Virginia battle Flag is as un-American as it can be. the reason people do it is a slap at Northerners, aka Union Forces, and what they stood for, despite them winning the war. They belong to Musimum as a reminder of what not to be and a lesson on what happens to you when you rise against the United States!

They are symbols of celebrations but only a cautionary tale!

Diving Mullah

That's the better argument than the one that relies on Founders and a constitution that itself supported and legalized slavery.

 

[Juin]

There is a fundamental difference between slave-owning figures like Thomas Jefferson and those like Andrew Jackson or General Robert E. Lee. Many American heroes and historical figures—regardless of any reprehensible actions, including genocide—are still considered "Americans" in that they ultimately represented and upheld the United States and its Constitution.

So slavery is ok for some but damning for others! Just uphold the Constitution and one's slavery is forgiven ?

 

[Luce]

Do Confederates get a same on who gets honoured?

No.

 

[EnchantedMuggle]

Massa Tom Jeff'son and Massa George Washington were both industrial scale slavers; why does slavery not disqualify them from being hnoured as great Americans?

Why do you keep saying Jefferson like that?

 

[Juin]

Why do you keep saying Jefferson like that?

He is Mr Thomas Jefferson to me. He is Massa Tom Jeff'son only when I am dealing with folks who argue a Confederate be damned in perpetuity for slavery but quickly begin to make excuses when it is pointed out that if slavery damns in perpetuity then Jefferson cannot be excused

 

[Luce]

He is Mr Thomas Jefferson to me. He is Massa Tom Jeff'son only when I am dealing with folks who argue a Confederate be damned in perpetuity for slavery but quickly begin to make excuses when it is pointed out that if slavery damns in perpetuity then Jefferson cannot be excused

Sweet Jesus.

You going to do blackface for that?

 

[SCrider]

Yes, they did. They fought against their Lord and King His Majesty George III



p.s Since you dismissed slavery on the parts of Massas Tom Jeff'son and George Washington does that mean it can also be dismissed in the case of Robert E Lee?

What is the MAGA fascination with traitors? Oh wait i know why already......