8 hours ago, Gsxrnz said:

"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." Orwell, 1984

 

Somehow I always knew we would end up at the dystopian crossroads of Orwell, Bradbury, and Huxley.

 

 

Like, its just a statue being removed , its not such a big deal .

Its just a statue 

6 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

I  provided a link to my claim, where's yours?

Your link was merely an opinion piece. Nothing more. No ' proof ' of anything at all .

 

If Lee was a traitor for leaving the Union then surely , by the same logic George Washington was also a traitor for turning on the Crown and seeking independence from England.

2 minutes ago, Denim said:

Your link was merely an opinion piece. Nothing more. No ' proof ' of anything at all .

 

If Lee was a traitor for leaving the Union then surely , by the same logic George Washington was also a traitor for turning on the Crown and seeking independence from England.

The US was never part of England.

6 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

The US was never part of England.

You are joking aren't you ?

 

Have you never heard of the 13 colonies ???

 

These colonies wanted independence from England because they had to pay taxes to the crown but had no voice in Parliament 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_taxation_without_representation#:~:text="No taxation without representation" is,American colonists for Great Britain.

 

As such , Washington was regarded as a traitor by the English :

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/yes-george-washington-was-a-traitor/2016/01/29/9e527058-c46d-11e5-b933-31c93021392a_story.html

 

4 minutes ago, Denim said:

You are joking aren't you ?

 

Have you never heard of the 13 colonies ???

 

These colonies wanted independence from England because they had to pay taxes to the crown but had no voice in Parliament 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_taxation_without_representation#:~:text="No taxation without representation" is,American colonists for Great Britain.

 

As such , Washington was regarded as a traitor by the English :

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/yes-george-washington-was-a-traitor/2016/01/29/9e527058-c46d-11e5-b933-31c93021392a_story.html

Colonies. Australia was a colony as well. Washington Post, LOL. America became a united country in 1787.

5 hours ago, ThailandRyan said:

So you think the US of A should have done like the UK, how laughable....different times and circumstances my friend.

30 years later so hardly different times. Lincoln never even looked at any other solution except invading the CSA, but then slavery was the least of his concerns. Most of the slave owners were Democrats of course.

1 hour ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Like, its just a statue being removed , its not such a big deal .

Its just a statue 

To be fair then take the Lincoln memorial statue down, he was a white supremacist even by the standards of the day. The great emancipator from 1858

 

“I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races [applause]: that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.” — Reply by Abraham Lincoln to Stephen A. Douglas in the first joint debate, Ottowa, IL; 21 Aug 1858

6 hours ago, ozimoron said:

The rules of the forum require you to substantiate any claim of fact.

here is a link.

 

https://reparationscomm.org/reparations-news/britains-colonial-shame-slave-owners-given-huge-payouts-after-abolition/#:~:text=The British government paid out,in Britain's colonies in 1833.

On 12/27/2022 at 8:09 AM, stoner said:

history needs to be learned from not erased. 

 

Most learn history from books.

 

Statues and portraits, meh, not so much.

 

No one is talking about banning books, oh except for some on the far right.

 

Interesting how some want to "erase" the "original sin", and those same people bemoan the removal of icons of traitors. A curious lot.

 

 

39 minutes ago, bamnutsak said:

Most learn history from books.

correct me if i am wrong but history is generally written by the victor ?

Robert E. Lee’s Thoughts on Confederate Memorials

The complex relationship between Robert E. Lee and memorials began in Lee’s lifetime. He argued against creating Confederate war monuments on battlefields, which would “keep open the sores of war.” [1] Instead, Lee supported efforts by Ladies Memorial Associations to mark the graves of Confederate casualties.

https://www.nps.gov/arho/learn/historyculture/memorialization-of-robert-e-lee-and-the-lost-cause.htm#:~:text=Robert E. Lee's Thoughts on Confederate Memorials&text=He argued against creating Confederate,the graves of Confederate casualties.

 

 

Robert E. Lee's descendant says taking down Confederate symbols a 'no-brainer'

Rev. Robert Lee IV says taking down these symbols is an "opportunity."

https://abcnews.go.com/US/robert-lees-descendant-taking-confederate-symbols-brainer/story?id=71545891

As if taking down a hunk of granite depicting a hero from any war would help 'Heal'

Just another PC gesture which means nothing at all.

If all the rainbow warriors actually worked toward change, instead of making empty gestures like these, then improvements in society will be possible.

But Oh No - so so much easier to make a token, symbolic gesture to get your 30 seconds of fame in the media - both established and social - and sit back and say "Oh Boy, we really accomplished something today"

 

 

This week, The Washington Post detailed the story of how a Black contractor named Devon Henry stepped up with his company and took down most of the remaining Confederate monuments set for removal in Richmond, Virginia — when White contractors across the area refused to do so.

 

City and state officials said they turned to Team Henry Enterprises after a long list of bigger contractors — all White-owned — said they wanted no part of taking down Confederate statues."

 

https://www.rawstory.com/confederate-statues/

13 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

This week, The Washington Post detailed the story of how a Black contractor named Devon Henry stepped up with his company and took down most of the remaining Confederate monuments set for removal in Richmond, Virginia — when White contractors across the area refused to do so.

 

City and state officials said they turned to Team Henry Enterprises after a long list of bigger contractors — all White-owned — said they wanted no part of taking down Confederate statues."

 

https://www.rawstory.com/confederate-statues/

There is always somebody ready to do the administrations dirty work for the right price..

Just now, proton said:

There is always somebody ready to do the administrations dirty work for the right price..

Nothing to do with the Administration. It's a state thing.

On 12/30/2022 at 7:38 AM, seedy said:

As if taking down a hunk of granite depicting a hero from any war would help 'Heal'

Just another PC gesture which means nothing at all.

If all the rainbow warriors actually worked toward change, instead of making empty gestures like these, then improvements in society will be possible.

But Oh No - so so much easier to make a token, symbolic gesture to get your 30 seconds of fame in the media - both established and social - and sit back and say "Oh Boy, we really accomplished something today"

 

 

The use of "rainbow warriors" sounds like something white nationalist Tucker Carlson would say. 

 

 

On 12/28/2022 at 5:13 PM, bamnutsak said:

Robert E. Lee’s Thoughts on Confederate Memorials

The complex relationship between Robert E. Lee and memorials began in Lee’s lifetime. He argued against creating Confederate war monuments on battlefields, which would “keep open the sores of war.” [1] Instead, Lee supported efforts by Ladies Memorial Associations to mark the graves of Confederate casualties.

https://www.nps.gov/arho/learn/historyculture/memorialization-of-robert-e-lee-and-the-lost-cause.htm#:~:text=Robert E. Lee's Thoughts on Confederate Memorials&text=He argued against creating Confederate,the graves of Confederate casualties.

 

 

Robert E. Lee's descendant says taking down Confederate symbols a 'no-brainer'

Rev. Robert Lee IV says taking down these symbols is an "opportunity."

https://abcnews.go.com/US/robert-lees-descendant-taking-confederate-symbols-brainer/story?id=71545891

Not such a bad guy for a TRAITOR!

 

Robert E. Lee Wasn't a Hero, He Was a Traitor | History News Network

 

 

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

The use of "rainbow warriors" sounds like something white nationalist Tucker Carlson would say. 

It was the name of a Greenpeace ship sunk by French commandos in New Zealand in 1985.

22 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

It was the name of a Greenpeace ship sunk by French commandos in New Zealand in 1985.

I don't think it was used here in that historical context.

9 hours ago, Jingthing said:

The use of "rainbow warriors" sounds like something white nationalist Tucker Carlson would say. 

No clue how he would use the term.

I use it as a blanket term to cover all the people with too much time on their hands, running around like a chicken with its head cut off, squawking about things that happened a donkeys age ago and seeking redress from people who were not even born when whatever catches their fancy happened.

Reminds me of the Balkans, where blood feuds from hundreds of years ago are still going on.

What next - people seek redress from the Mongols for what they did in the 1200's ?

Lee stood up for States rights, which he believed in, and has a ton more credibility than the Yahoos shouting and screaming for redress.

Accept that what happened - happened. Ensure it does not happen again. Get Over It.

 

 

9 hours ago, Jingthing said:

 

 

Not such a bad guy for a TRAITOR!

 

Robert E. Lee Wasn't a Hero, He Was a Traitor | History News Network

 

 

As has been said by that logic Washington was a traitor as well, at least the south had the best songs, even the tyrant Lincoln thought so!

 

 

On 12/27/2022 at 4:33 PM, Denim said:

Your link was merely an opinion piece. Nothing more. No ' proof ' of anything at all .

 

If Lee was a traitor for leaving the Union then surely , by the same logic George Washington was also a traitor for turning on the Crown and seeking independence from England.

Yes, he was a traitor to the UK. Has anyone put up a statue of him at Sandhurst?

A reported troll post has been removed.

44 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Yes, he was a traitor to the UK. Has anyone put up a statue of him at Sandhurst?

Nope , only the one in Trafalgar Square , standing on Virginia soil.

 

https://www.military.com/history/george-washington-statue-london-british-soil.html

What is true is that the Civil War was not fought over slavery and over the years it has become politically popular to say it was.  The North and South had already agreed that those states that were slave states could remain so.  It was passed in congress and labeled the Missouri Compromise.  The compromise was worked out because the South did not want representation in new states to be non slave and hence wanted protection that slavery would be allowed to continue.  They got that assurance with the passage of the Missouri Compromise of 1820

It was later repealed but not until after the Civil War.  Since the states that had slavery were expressly in the law allowed to keep it, the issue with the South was not about retaining slavery.  





The real issue as always was economic.  The North possessed the factories and wanted protection from cheaper imported products hence the Morrill Tarrifs which greatly increased the cost of imported goods.  The North benefited from higher prices for its manufactured products and the South with fewer factories had the brunt by paying more for imported products than they otherwise would. 

 After the Civil War the slaves were free, but the war was not fought to free the slaves, it was fought to stop the South from leaving the Union and the reason that the broke from the Union was the tarrifs. 


https://www.jstor.org/stable/26062020#:~:text=In Britain%2C the tariff thus,European recognition of the Confederacy.

10 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

What is true is that the Civil War was not fought over slavery and over the years it has become politically popular to say it was.  The North and South had already agreed that those states that were slave states could remain so.  It was passed in congress and labeled the Missouri Compromise.  The compromise was worked out because the South did not want representation in new states to be non slave and hence wanted protection that slavery would be allowed to continue.  They got that assurance with the passage of the Missouri Compromise of 1820

It was later repealed but not until after the Civil War.  Since the states that had slavery were expressly in the law allowed to keep it, the issue with the South was not about retaining slavery.  





The real issue as always was economic.  The North possessed the factories and wanted protection from cheaper imported products hence the Morrill Tarrifs which greatly increased the cost of imported goods.  The North benefited from higher prices for its manufactured products and the South with fewer factories had the brunt by paying more for imported products than they otherwise would. 

 After the Civil War the slaves were free, but the war was not fought to free the slaves, it was fought to stop the South from leaving the Union and the reason that the broke from the Union was the tarrifs. 


https://www.jstor.org/stable/26062020#:~:text=In Britain%2C the tariff thus,European recognition of the Confederacy.

Before the war the tariff hardly figured in reasons given for secession. Were they keeping it a secret?

https://www.thoughtco.com/morrill-tariff-real-cause-of-the-civil-war-1773719

Whereas the defense of slavery figured prominently in every state's declaration of secession. And all of the seceding states mention Abraham Lincoln and his suspected abolitionist program.

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/reasons-secession

 

31 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

What is true is that the Civil War was not fought over slavery and over the years it has become politically popular to say it was.  The North and South had already agreed that those states that were slave states could remain so.  It was passed in congress and labeled the Missouri Compromise.  The compromise was worked out because the South did not want representation in new states to be non slave and hence wanted protection that slavery would be allowed to continue.  They got that assurance with the passage of the Missouri Compromise of 1820

It was later repealed but not until after the Civil War.  Since the states that had slavery were expressly in the law allowed to keep it, the issue with the South was not about retaining slavery.  





The real issue as always was economic.  The North possessed the factories and wanted protection from cheaper imported products hence the Morrill Tarrifs which greatly increased the cost of imported goods.  The North benefited from higher prices for its manufactured products and the South with fewer factories had the brunt by paying more for imported products than they otherwise would. 

 After the Civil War the slaves were free, but the war was not fought to free the slaves, it was fought to stop the South from leaving the Union and the reason that the broke from the Union was the tarrifs. 


https://www.jstor.org/stable/26062020#:~:text=In Britain%2C the tariff thus,European recognition of the Confederacy.

One other thing about the Morrill Tariffs. They only passed because 7 of the Southern States had already seceded and all those Senators were anti-Tariff. Had they remained, the Tariffs would not have passed.

 

"Precisely because southern states began seceding from December 1860 onwards, a number of southern senators had resigned that could otherwise have voted against the tariff bill. Had they not resigned, they would have had enough votes in the Senate to successfully block the tariff’s congressional passage."

https://imperialglobalexeter.com/2015/03/02/debunking-the-civil-war-tariff-myth/

6 minutes ago, placeholder said:

One other thing about the Morrill Tariffs. They only passed because 7 of the Southern States had already seceded and all those Senators were anti-Tariff. Had they remained, the Tariffs would not have passed.

 

"Precisely because southern states began seceding from December 1860 onwards, a number of southern senators had resigned that could otherwise have voted against the tariff bill. Had they not resigned, they would have had enough votes in the Senate to successfully block the tariff’s congressional passage."

https://imperialglobalexeter.com/2015/03/02/debunking-the-civil-war-tariff-myth/

It's truly amazing the contortions some will go through deny slavery and racism as the cause of the civil war. Slavery is racism of course.

3 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 Slavery is racism of course.

Slavery existed in many forms , with White people often being being  enslaved as well and there were Black slave owners and Black slave dealers and  thus slavery isn't racism 

9 hours ago, seedy said:

No clue how he would use the term.

I use it as a blanket term to cover all the people with too much time on their hands, running around like a chicken with its head cut off, squawking about things that happened a donkeys age ago and seeking redress from people who were not even born when whatever catches their fancy happened.

Reminds me of the Balkans, where blood feuds from hundreds of years ago are still going on.

What next - people seek redress from the Mongols for what they did in the 1200's ?

Lee stood up for States rights, which he believed in, and has a ton more credibility than the Yahoos shouting and screaming for redress.

Accept that what happened - happened. Ensure it does not happen again. Get Over It.

 

 

Would this be appropriate in the circumstances?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc7HmhrgTuQ&ab_channel=MontyPython