Fellow Republicans assail Trump after he defends Confederate monuments

[LannaGuy]

Just now, ilostmypassword said:

Now that's a rigorous legal argument. The government chose not to prosecute people for treason out of a desire to put the war behind them. But how much more treasonous an act can there be than secession?

Oh right then Prayut could learn a thing or two about 'putting things behind them' and let Yingluck GO   lol

 

Why would secession be treasonous if they don't accept the Union? I'm not a lawyer nor an expert on the CW so I'll just say this. All countries have good and bad history. I believe Lee and Davies were totally wrong but I don't deny their sincerity in their cause however wrong that cause was and statues are an information point to show how slavery was overcome. The film Gods and Generals was very fine indeed. They lost, thankfully, but they are a part of US history as much as Cromwell etc. are to Britain's. 

[alanrchase]

I am supprised Trump is defending the statues. I thought he only liked winners?

[emilymat]

I am a Brit, but do worry about erasing monuments that reflect actual history.

 

I heard one of my countrymen supporting the removal on the radio. I'd love to tell him that we celebrate, each year, a 'guy' who tried to blow up the House of Commons. Lets abolish November 5th then.

 

Robert E Lee was offered command of the federal army, which he turned down as a Virginian. President Lincoln must have thought he wasn't such a bad bloke, yet he seems now to be depicted as some sort of Hitler.

 

Where will all this PC end??. 

[Orac]

I am a Brit, but do worry about erasing monuments that reflect actual history.
 
I heard one of my countrymen supporting the removal on the radio. I'd love to tell him that we celebrate, each year, a 'guy' who tried to blow up the House of Commons. Lets abolish November 5th then.
 
Robert E Lee was offered command of the federal army, which he turned down as a Virginian. President Lincoln must have thought he wasn't such a bad bloke, yet he seems now to be depicted as some sort of Hitler.
 
Where will all this PC end??. 

Hate to quibble but surely bonfire night is a celebration of Guy Fawkes' failure and is remembered by symbolically burning an effigy of him so not exactly the same as erecting a statue to him.

History, both good and bad, must be remembered however the bad stuff should not be glorified.


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[iReason]

1 hour ago, LannaGuy said:

Ah you are saying Robert E. Lee was a traitor?  who else is on your list?  Stonewall Jackson?  who else do you hate from the past Mr Righteous?  

 

"Ah you are saying Robert E. Lee was a traitor?

Of course he was.

 

He was an; "exceptional officer and military engineer in the United States Army for 32 years."

"During this time, he served throughout the United States, distinguished himself during the Mexican–American War,

and served as Superintendent of the United States Military Academy."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Lee

 

When the conflict stared to flare, he was asked to lead the Union Army.

He chose to desert the United States Army to take up armed conflict against them and the United States.

 

 

"who else do you hate from the past Mr Righteous?"

Please don't project your personality upon me with your comfortable use of the word "HATE".

As most Trumpeteers freely do.

 

 

Edited August 18, 2017 by iReason

[emilymat]

Just now, Orac said:

No, you are right to clarify that - I expected it. Mr Guy failed, we burn effigy's. Lee failed, they put up a statue.  Whatever we might think, there were thousands of American men fighting for what they believed was right at the time. Clearly slavery was a disgrace, but they believed in it and the rights of states against the federal government.

I just worry about all this clamour.

Just now, Orac said:

Hate to quibble but surely bonfire night is a celebration of Guy Fawkes' failure and is remembered by symbolically burning an effigy of him so not exactly the same as erecting a statue to him.

History, both good and bad, must be remembered however the bad stuff should not be glorified.


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

[GinBoy2]

17 minutes ago, Orac said:

 

Hate to quibble but surely bonfire night is a celebration of Guy Fawkes' failure and is remembered by symbolically burning an effigy of him so not exactly the same as erecting a statue to him.

History, both good and bad, must be remembered however the bad stuff should not be glorified.


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

i dont think there is an equivalence here. 

 

Most of the statues that all this nonsense is centered on were erected in the 20th century, not to celebrate anything, but as a direct result of the segregationist movement in the South to proclaim their dominance over African Americans.

 

It's very possible to honor war dead, regardless of what side they were on. There are plenty of memorials to the dead in Germany & Italy, yet I don't see statues of Hitler or Mussolini.

 

The problem always remains that the South, even today, bought into the myth that the Confederacy and subsequent war, was a war about States rights. It was always first and foremost about the right to own slaves, As for the legality of succession, even Lee on the eve of war acknowledged it was not what the framers ever envisaged , although he 'modified that opinion later

 

"The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it were intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It is intended for perpetual union, so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government (not a compact) which can only be dissolved by revolution, or by the consent of all the people in convention assembled."

 

To the Brits opining upon this. You have your own history to look at too. Cecil Rhodes to name but one. There are still many monuments, Oxford University, Rhodes scholarships to name but a few. 

 

There is nothing wrong with remembering our collective history, but a monument is a 'tribute' to a great persons accomplishments. I would suggest that neither Lee or Rhodes, although great men, their actions were far from honorable.

[ilostmypassword]

42 minutes ago, emilymat said:

I am a Brit, but do worry about erasing monuments that reflect actual history.

 

I heard one of my countrymen supporting the removal on the radio. I'd love to tell him that we celebrate, each year, a 'guy' who tried to blow up the House of Commons. Lets abolish November 5th then.

 

Robert E Lee was offered command of the federal army, which he turned down as a Virginian. President Lincoln must have thought he wasn't such a bad bloke, yet he seems now to be depicted as some sort of Hitler.

 

Where will all this PC end??. 

No he's being depicted as a defender of slavery. 

[RawboneFunksta]

Red Ken Livingstone the then communist mayor of London tried to do the same in Trafalgar Square. He wanted all the statues of Generals who helped build and sustain the British Empire removed and the history eradicated.

 

Trump's right. the left have brought the inherent violence out into the open by six months of protesting and if anything are much more anti-freedom that conservatives. The KKK etc are nuts and everyone knows it. 

 

Demanding the Pres 'condemns white supremacists is just a ploy by the left wing media who can't name Islamic terrorism when they see it, ironic.

Edited August 18, 2017 by RawboneFunksta
Anyone with an education knows the civil war was not really about slavery. Black people were often treated far worse by the northern factory owners after the war when they needed jobs. The union was no honeymoon for black people. Just read some Ralph Elli

[GinBoy2]

4 minutes ago, RawboneFunksta said:

Red Ken Livingstone the then communist mayor of London tried to do the same in Trafalgar Square. He wanted all the statues of Generals who helped build and sustain the British Empire removed and the history eradicated.

 

Trump's right. the left have brought the inherent violence out into the open by six months of protesting and if anything are much more anti-freedom that conservatives. The KKK etc are nuts and everyone knows it. 

 

Demanding the Pres 'condemns white supremacists is just a ploy by the left wing media who can't name Islamic terrorism when they see it, ironic.

The difference being, the majority of colonial 'hero's' conducted their bloodletting outside of their own country. Slaughtering a few thousand natives in the Sudan or the like, is somewhat difference than killing your own neighbor, then setting up a monument to glorify the fact.

Try erecting a statue of Kitchener in Kharthoum...great historical figure, made quite an impact on the country. Wonder what the reaction would be??

[HooHaa]

personally i think all monuments should be left intact as a reminder.

 

pulling down a statue changes nothing in the past.

 

 

[RawboneFunksta]

I believe there should be a referendum or at least the act of removing statues should be done by elected officials as opposed to a bunch of liberal soft-cocks steeped in Marxism from some shabby university with a minimal grasp on history.

 

Our colonial past may be a reminder of deeds now considered negatively but we all know the reason for their removal is to appease the left wing agenda and it's tool of political correctness. If you want to see fascism in action, look outside! 

[GinBoy2]

7 minutes ago, HooHaa said:

personally i think all monuments should be left intact as a reminder.

 

pulling down a statue changes nothing in the past.

 

 

So, should Germany erect statues to Hitler, Italy to Mussolini? All historical figures for sure, certainly made their mark?

 

Once again you can honor the dead of any war, but you don't glorify the leaders that lead you there. 

Edited August 18, 2017 by GinBoy2

[Skywalker69]

So Mr. Trump, now you like loosers? I like people that didn´t loose a civil war!

[Skywalker69]

7 minutes ago, HooHaa said:

personally i think all monuments should be left intact as a reminder.

 

pulling down a statue changes nothing in the past.

 

 

Should the monuments of Hitler, Stalin and Sadam also?

 

[NanLaew]

31 minutes ago, GinBoy2 said:

To the Brits opining upon this. You have your own history to look at too. Cecil Rhodes to name but one. There are still many monuments, Oxford University, Rhodes scholarships to name but a few. 

 

There is nothing wrong with remembering our collective history, but a monument is a 'tribute' to a great persons accomplishments. I would suggest that neither Lee or Rhodes, although great men, their actions were far from honorable.

With regard to Lee, Rhodes and any other name pulled out of history simply to assuage someone's more recently offended sensibilities, I would say that some of their actions were far from honorable but what is basically the equivalent of photoshopping history isn't a good idea. The tour guide points to a broken plinth and some brown grass and says, "And here's where the statue of a former army general that was a significant player in the wonderful history of our nation but whom we can't talk about stood for almost 120 years."

 

Historic Bristol music venue Colston Hall ditches name shared with 'toxic' slave trader. Could the Colston bun be next?

 

Sir Anthony Seldon, a political historian and vice chancellor of the University of Buckingham, criticised the decision by Bristol Music Trust to cave in.

 

“The slave trade was noxious,” said Sir Anthony, “But we learn better lessons from history, not by trying to obliterate the past, but by trying to understand it and the context in which people acted.

 

“Changing names is the beginning of a slippery slope.”

 

On Facebook, one protester wrote the move was “political correctness gone mad”, while another said “past should not be airbrushed out”.

 

The row over Colston has echoes of the Rhodes Must Fall campaign, in which students in Oxford demanded the removal of a statue to the British colonialist Cecil Rhodes erected at Oriel College.

 

Following angry protests students at the Oxford Union voted 245 to 212 in favour of taking down the statue, but it was announced in January last year (2016) that the statue would remain, after donors threatened to withdraw gifts and bequests worth more than £100 million if it was removed.

[iReason]

9 minutes ago, RawboneFunksta said:

I believe there should be a referendum or at least the act of removing statues should be done by elected officials

as opposed to a bunch of liberal soft-cocks steeped in Marxism from some shabby university with a minimal grasp on history.

 

"...as opposed to a bunch of liberal soft-cocks steeped in Marxism from some shabby university with a minimal grasp on history."

 

A succinct illustration of insulting, pointless, juvenile blather.

Very TrumpWorld.

[NanLaew]

14 minutes ago, GinBoy2 said:

So, should Germany erect statues to Hitler, Italy to Mussolini? All historical figures for sure, certainly made their mark?

 

Once again you can honor the dead of any war, but you don't glorify the leaders that lead you there. 

..and

 

12 minutes ago, Skywalker69 said:

Should the monuments of Hitler, Stalin and Sadam also?

 

What's with this sudden trivialization of Hitler?

Edited August 18, 2017 by NanLaew

[GinBoy2]

3 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

With regard to Lee, Rhodes and any other name pulled out of history simply to assuage someone's more recently offended sensibilities, I would say that some of their actions were far from honorable but what is basically the equivalent of photoshopping history isn't a good idea. The tour guide points to a broken plinth and some brown grass and says, "And here's where the statue of a former army general that was a significant player in the wonderful history of our nation but whom we can't talk about stood for almost 120 years."

 

Historic Bristol music venue Colston Hall ditches name shared with 'toxic' slave trader. Could the Colston bun be next?

 

Sir Anthony Seldon, a political historian and vice chancellor of the University of Buckingham, criticised the decision by Bristol Music Trust to cave in.

 

“The slave trade was noxious,” said Sir Anthony, “But we learn better lessons from history, not by trying to obliterate the past, but by trying to understand it and the context in which people acted.

 

“Changing names is the beginning of a slippery slope.”

 

On Facebook, one protester wrote the move was “political correctness gone mad”, while another said “past should not be airbrushed out”.

 

The row over Colston has echoes of the Rhodes Must Fall campaign, in which students in Oxford demanded the removal of a statue to the British colonialist Cecil Rhodes erected at Oriel College.

 

Following angry protests students at the Oxford Union voted 245 to 212 in favour of taking down the statue, but it was announced in January last year (2016) that the statue would remain, after donors threatened to withdraw gifts and bequests worth more than £100 million if it was removed.

So you want to glorify a man who systematically, disenfranchised, drove people from their lands...but made a lot of money?

 

n 1890, Rhodes became Prime Minister of the Cape Colony. He introduced the Glen Grey Act to push black people from their lands and make way for industrial development. Rhodes's view was that black people needed to be driven off their land to "stimulate them to labour" and to change their habits.^[22] "It must be brought home to them", Rhodes said, "that in future nine-tenths of them will have to spend their lives in manual labour, and the sooner that is brought home to them the better."^[22]

The growing number of enfranchised black people in the Cape led him to raise the franchise requirements in 1892 to counter this preponderance, with drastic effects on the traditional Cape Qualified Franchise.^[23] By simultaneously limiting the amount of land black Africans were legally allowed to hold while tripling the property qualifications required to vote, Rhodes succeeded in disenfranchising the black population, as, to quote Richard Dowden, most would now "find it almost impossible to get back on the list because of the legal limit on the amount of land they could hold".^[24] In addition, Rhodes was an early architect of the Natives Land Act, 1913, which would limit the areas of the country that black Africans were allowed to less than 10%.^[25] At the time, Rhodes would argue that "the native is to be treated as a child and denied the franchise. We must adopt a system of despotism, such as works in India, in our relations with the barbarism of South Africa."^[26]

 

 

[GinBoy2]

5 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

..and

 

What's with this sudden trivialization of Hitler?

So what in your mind would be the difference between Hitler & Lee. Both led to the needless deaths of thousands of men women & children?

[NanLaew]

Just now, GinBoy2 said:

So you want to glorify a man who systematically, disenfranchised, drove people from their lands...but made a lot of money?

 

n 1890, Rhodes became Prime Minister of the Cape Colony. He introduced the Glen Grey Act to push black people from their lands and make way for industrial development. Rhodes's view was that black people needed to be driven off their land to "stimulate them to labour" and to change their habits.^[22] "It must be brought home to them", Rhodes said, "that in future nine-tenths of them will have to spend their lives in manual labour, and the sooner that is brought home to them the better."^[22]

The growing number of enfranchised black people in the Cape led him to raise the franchise requirements in 1892 to counter this preponderance, with drastic effects on the traditional Cape Qualified Franchise.^[23] By simultaneously limiting the amount of land black Africans were legally allowed to hold while tripling the property qualifications required to vote, Rhodes succeeded in disenfranchising the black population, as, to quote Richard Dowden, most would now "find it almost impossible to get back on the list because of the legal limit on the amount of land they could hold".^[24] In addition, Rhodes was an early architect of the Natives Land Act, 1913, which would limit the areas of the country that black Africans were allowed to less than 10%.^[25] At the time, Rhodes would argue that "the native is to be treated as a child and denied the franchise. We must adopt a system of despotism, such as works in India, in our relations with the barbarism of South Africa."^[26]

 

 

Who is glorifying ANY of these people? Are there any mandatory once-in-a- lifetime pilgrimages, ritual cleanings, homage making or any formal annual tributes floral or otherwise at any of these statues of long-dead people?

 

Please, if you cannot curb your 'wiki', please attribute it.

[GinBoy2]

1 minute ago, NanLaew said:

Who is glorifying ANY of these people? Are there any mandatory once-in-a- lifetime pilgrimages, ritual cleanings, homage making or any formal annual tributes floral or otherwise at any of these statues of long-dead people?

 

Please, if you cannot curb your 'wiki', please attribute it.

Well rather than quote my gut, which seems to be your way, I rather prefer to quote wikipedia and other journals.

What you may 'feel' doesn't make history any more palatable, which is the same issue we have with the Confederate apologists in the US. You may 'want' to believe in a narrative, but unfortunately historical truth gets in the way!

[joecoolfrog]

2 hours ago, LannaGuy said:

I think much less so. The US is deeply divided as the racists believe, stupidly, that there is mileage in their hateful ways and they use this 'issue' to stir up such hate. Much better to ignore them as tearing down statues gives them focus and attention they do not deserve.  

The statues are just a diversion , Trumps sudden miraculous 'interest' , surely proves the point.

[Skywalker69]

Clay Aiken apologizes for defending Trump- ‘Well, I am a f****ng dumbass’ (Details)

Last year, Clay Aiken, former Celebrity Apprentice candidate, supported Hillary Clinton but defended Trump against racism accusations that Trump heard during his presidential campaign.

 

During his appearance on Fox Business in March 2016, Aiken stated, “I don’t think he’s fascist. I don’t think he’s a racist. I like him as a person. I always say, he’s kind of like the uncle who gets drunk at the wedding and embarrasses you. You still love him, but you wish he’d shut up.”

 

http://whatmattersnews.com/us-politics/clay-aiken-apologizes-for-defending-trump-details

[HooHaa]

1 hour ago, Skywalker69 said:

Should the monuments of Hitler, Stalin and Sadam also?

 

even more so.

they most certainly happened.

 

their actions should most certainly be remembered and never repeated.

Edited August 18, 2017 by HooHaa

[HooHaa]

1 hour ago, GinBoy2 said:

So, should Germany erect statues to Hitler, Italy to Mussolini? All historical figures for sure, certainly made their mark?

 

Once again you can honor the dead of any war, but you don't glorify the leaders that lead you there. 

where do i say anything about glorification.

i am ant-denial and sweeping the past under the rug.

[HooHaa]

1 hour ago, NanLaew said:

With regard to Lee, Rhodes and any other name pulled out of history simply to assuage someone's more recently offended sensibilities, I would say that some of their actions were far from honorable but what is basically the equivalent of photoshopping history isn't a good idea. The tour guide points to a broken plinth and some brown grass and says, "And here's where the statue of a former army general that was a significant player in the wonderful history of our nation but whom we can't talk about stood for almost 120 years."

 

Historic Bristol music venue Colston Hall ditches name shared with 'toxic' slave trader. Could the Colston bun be next?

 

Sir Anthony Seldon, a political historian and vice chancellor of the University of Buckingham, criticised the decision by Bristol Music Trust to cave in.

 

“The slave trade was noxious,” said Sir Anthony, “But we learn better lessons from history, not by trying to obliterate the past, but by trying to understand it and the context in which people acted.

 

“Changing names is the beginning of a slippery slope.”

 

On Facebook, one protester wrote the move was “political correctness gone mad”, while another said “past should not be airbrushed out”.

 

The row over Colston has echoes of the Rhodes Must Fall campaign, in which students in Oxford demanded the removal of a statue to the British colonialist Cecil Rhodes erected at Oriel College.

 

Following angry protests students at the Oxford Union voted 245 to 212 in favour of taking down the statue, but it was announced in January last year (2016) that the statue would remain, after donors threatened to withdraw gifts and bequests worth more than £100 million if it was removed.

what he said.

knocking down the statues changes not one thing. 

 

[GinBoy2]

Just now, HooHaa said:

where do i say anything about glorification.

i am ant-denial and sweeping the past under the rug.

A statue glorifies, an exhibit in a museum explains

[HooHaa]

4 minutes ago, GinBoy2 said:

A statue glorifies, an exhibit in a museum explains

bullshit.

[GinBoy2]

Just now, HooHaa said:

bullshit.

why?

Is Lee, Hitler, Mussolini worthy if a statue alongside Churchill in Westminster? 

If a statue is only to recognize history, put them all there

Edited August 18, 2017 by GinBoy2