Fellow Republicans assail Trump after he defends Confederate monuments

[sawadeeken]

1 minute ago, TMNH said:

And preserving an "historic" symbol that some considered a treasonous part of history as well as subjugation of blacks should be construed as important? Nicky Haley as Governor of South Carolina thought not.

And YOU are saying that he is "RIGHT"??????

[stevenl]

1 minute ago, sawadeeken said:

And YOU are saying that he is "RIGHT"??????

Who is 'he'?

[TMNH]

1 minute ago, stevenl said:

Who is 'he'?

My question as well...

[iReason]

1 hour ago, sawadeeken said:

Many of us would like the monuments to be there just in case we want to see it.............

 

You have a fancy for "monuments" to racist traitors do ya?

 

I'm sure you can find some photos online to satisfy your needs...

[iReason]

1 hour ago, sawadeeken said:

It's a Yankees vs Rebels 'THING'

 

Just a "THING" you say?

Right.

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

13 hours ago, Scott said:

I believe most of those monuments are being moved, not destroyed, not erased.  

I saw on CNN this morning, ironically, Trump during the campaign was asked about one of the confederate statues, and answered at the time publicly that it ought to be moved to a museum -- which is what typically is being proposed for these kinds of things.  Too bad President Dufus can't remember, or doesn't care, what he said then vs. what he's saying now.

 

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

I think the problem with these kinds of Confederacy statues and those who want to display the Confederate flag is roughly similar to how German has dealt with the swastika and Hitler stuff in the post WW II era.

 

Those kinds of symbols were being used by ultra rightest groups as a rallying symbol for their political agendas, and thus Germany pretty much has outlawed their use. I don't think anyone's accusing Germany of trying to erase history. They're simply trying to prevent the glorification and proselytizing of an evil chapter in their history.

 

IMHO, pretty much the same thing in the U.S. with symbols that glorify/commemorate/honor slavery and promote white racism/nationalism.

 

 

Edited August 18, 2017 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[Chou Anou]

Yeah...here's how concerned Trump has been in the past with "preserving history:"

[TMNH]

4 minutes ago, Chou Anou said:

Yeah...here's how concerned Trump has been in the past with "preserving history:"

Yet another example of his countless hypocritical utterances...do as I say- not as I do.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

More than that... Apparently this runs in the Trump family, as reported last year:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/28/in-1927-donald-trumps-father-was-arrested-after-a-klan-riot-in-queens/?utm_term=.2e163f04f17b

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/trumps-dad-arrested-in-1927-for-kkk-involvement-2015-9

 

And then there was his alleged history of racial discrimination in his past NY housing projects:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/28/us/politics/donald-trump-housing-race.html

 

Quote

‘No Vacancies’ for Blacks: How Donald Trump Got His Start, and Was First Accused of Bias

 

 

Quote

 

The Justice Department undertook its own investigation and, in 1973, sued Trump Management for discriminating against blacks. Both Fred Trump, the company’s chairman, and Donald Trump, its president, were named as defendants. It was front-page news, and for Donald, amounted to his debut in the public eye.

“Absolutely ridiculous,” he was quoted as saying of the government’s allegations.

Looking back, Mr. Trump’s response to the lawsuit can be seen as presaging his handling of subsequent challenges, in business and in politics. Rather than quietly trying to settle — as another New York developer had done a couple of years earlier — he turned the lawsuit into a protracted battle, complete with angry denials, character assassination, charges that the government was trying to force him to rent to “welfare recipients” and a $100 million countersuit accusing the Justice Department of defamation.

When it was over, Mr. Trump declared victory, emphasizing that the consent decree he ultimately signed did not include an admission of guilt.

But an investigation by The New York Times — drawing on decades-old files from the New York City Commission on Human Rights, internal Justice Department records, court documents and interviews with tenants, civil rights activists and prosecutors — uncovered a long history of racial bias at his family’s properties, in New York and beyond.

 

 

Edited August 18, 2017 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[Jingthing]

41 minutes ago, Chou Anou said:

Yeah...here's how concerned Trump has been in the past with "preserving history:"

Whatever's politically convenient for the lying sleazebucket.

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/08/17/candidate_trump_said_he_d_remove_confederate_flag_from_south_carolina_state.html

[ilostmypassword]

12 hours ago, sawadeeken said:

This whole topic is not about 'flying the flag on State houses.......... It's about destroying parts of history.....

And this is my last attempt to open your eyes to Preserving anything Historic.............

As the Thai bargirls say.... "up to you"..........

Anyway, any evidence that these statues are being destroyed?

[IAMHERE]

After clearing out all the Confederate status and names, let's go after Custer and all the glorious Indian killers that are celebrated, Columbus too along with a lot of those religious fellows that helped kill the Indians.  

[craigt3365]

26 minutes ago, IAMHERE said:

After clearing out all the Confederate status and names, let's go after Custer and all the glorious Indian killers that are celebrated, Columbus too along with a lot of those religious fellows that helped kill the Indians.  

Being part Indian, I don't agree with this. How about going after all the nut job racists using these monuments to further their BS. No more protests. Period.

[iReason]

59 minutes ago, IAMHERE said:

After clearing out all the Confederate status and names, let's go after Custer and all the glorious Indian killers that are celebrated,

Columbus too along with a lot of those religious fellows that helped kill the Indians.  

 

Good idea. 

[pitrevie]

13 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

I saw on CNN this morning, ironically, Trump during the campaign was asked about one of the confederate statues, and answered at the time publicly that it ought to be moved to a museum -- which is what typically is being proposed for these kinds of things.  Too bad President Dufus can't remember, or doesn't care, what he said then vs. what he's saying now.

 

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/08/17/candidate_trump_said_he_d_remove_confederate_flag_from_south_carolina_state.html

 

[iReason]

 

No surpise. Still FOS.

[puck2]

On 8/18/2017 at 8:42 AM, Scott said:

I don't have strong feelings one way or the other.   I've seen some of them (actually in the North).   At this point, they probably need to be moved for the protection of the statutes -- and they do need to be protected.   Many of them are pieces of art work, whether you like who they are of or not.  

Get real.

Monuments of intolerable history should be kept because they are artworks?

 

As already mentioned here in this thread, what would you say if the Germans build „artworks“ of Hitler, Goering etc. and the Italiens of Mussolini? All these dictators “fought for what, they believed“.

 

I think you forgot that monuments of people like Lee, Hitler, Stalin, Mao – the list goes on – are a symbol of what the people believe in and giving them inspiration to follow their old, mad and rotten ideas.

 

The Lee-monument in Charlotteville was the reason for the US racists to come together. The announced demolition was the symbol for the racists that their ideas should be razed. The same situation if the Germans would allow building Hitler-monuments. BTW, in Germany it's forbidden by law. Why demolished the US  military the Hussein monument in Baghdad?

 

Such monuments deserve to be demolished. There are others ways to learn about history.

[alanrchase]

I have no problem with any statue. If I disagree with the values of the person depicted I can look upon it with contempt. When the statue becomes a focal point for "racists and bigots" there is a problem. As with other "radicals?" It becomes a cause. Move the statues to a museum where people of all persuasions can admire them and learn some history. I saw Nelsons Coulum in the UK with no clue what he was about.

[thaihome]

Despite the well-documented history of the Civil War, legions of Southerners still cling to the myth of the Lost Cause as a noble endeavor fought to defend the region’s honor and its ability to govern itself in the face of Northern aggression. This deeply rooted but false narrative is the result of many decades of revisionism in the lore and even textbooks of the South that sought to create a more acceptable version of the region’s past. The Confederate monuments and other symbols that dot the South are very much a part of that efort.

https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/whoseheritage_splc.pdf

 

Worth looking at as it includes a very telling graphic of the timing of the statues erection and court and legislative decisions that impacted the white supremacy movement.  

TH 

[joecoolfrog]

19 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

I think the problem with these kinds of Confederacy statues and those who want to display the Confederate flag is roughly similar to how German has dealt with the swastika and Hitler stuff in the post WW II era.

 

Those kinds of symbols were being used by ultra rightest groups as a rallying symbol for their political agendas, and thus Germany pretty much has outlawed their use. I don't think anyone's accusing Germany of trying to erase history. They're simply trying to prevent the glorification and proselytizing of an evil chapter in their history.

 

IMHO, pretty much the same thing in the U.S. with symbols that glorify/commemorate/honor slavery and promote white racism/nationalism.

 

 

This is it in a nutshell !

Those trying to pretend that this is an attack on 'history ' or statues per se , are simply muddying the waters , one can only speculate as to why they are doing so.

Quite frankly I am extremely dubious of the motives of anybody who claims a similarity between a memorial to the dead of war , and a statue put up specifically to glorify racial division.

[joecoolfrog]

On Friday, August 18, 2017 at 9:06 AM, 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]

 

 

The statue of Rhodes in Oxford commemorates his work in education, Rhodes scholarships have hugely benifited many commonwealth students over the years so the statue is appropriate.

Statues of Rhodes in Southern Africa glorify a far less seemly aspect of the mans character, consequently many have been removed which also seems appropriate.

[Skywalker69]

1 hour ago, joecoolfrog said:

This is it in a nutshell !

Those trying to pretend that this is an attack on 'history ' or statues per se , are simply muddying the waters , one can only speculate as to why they are doing so.

Quite frankly I am extremely dubious of the motives of anybody who claims a similarity between a memorial to the dead of war , and a statue put up specifically to glorify racial division.

 Chelsea Clinton nailed it on Twitter!

 

@ChelseaClinton

The story of Lucifer-who rebelled against God-is part of many Christians' traditions. I've never been in a church with a Lucifer statue.

2:05 AM - Aug 18, 2017

[GinBoy2]

1 hour ago, joecoolfrog said:

The statue of Rhodes in Oxford commemorates his work in education, Rhodes scholarships have hugely benifited many commonwealth students over the years so the statue is appropriate.

Statues of Rhodes in Southern Africa glorify a far less seemly aspect of the mans character, consequently many have been removed which also seems appropriate.

An interesting dilemma. A memorial to a mans work in education, benefiting many people, but enabled by the money made by the enslavement of many thousands of Africans.

[joecoolfrog]

4 minutes ago, GinBoy2 said:

An interesting dilemma. A memorial to a mans work in education, benefiting many people, but enabled by the money made by the enslavement of many thousands of Africans.

Its a philosophical dilemma but one has to be pragmatic , refuse ' dirty ' money and pretty much every charity would go broke tommorow.I remember Robin Cook proudly announcing that the Labour party would view foreign policy in a strictly ethical manner. That lasted about as long as a British rail egg sandwich.

[GinBoy2]

2 minutes ago, joecoolfrog said:

Its a philosophical dilemma but one has to be pragmatic , refuse ' dirty ' money and pretty much every charity would go broke tommorow.I remember Robin Cook proudly announcing that the Labour party would view foreign policy in a strictly ethical manner. That lasted about as long as a British rail egg sandwich.

So does pragmatism trump doing whats right? Now I don't quite understand some of the references you make, but I assume they are British.

That may be part of the  problem. In the US, slavery has been a huge blot on our collective memory., and a issue that has sparked endless debate and strife.

For the British, you seem to have passed it off as someone else's problem, and hence decided to ignore it. Trouble is, British ships were the primary transportation of slaves, making millions for the owners. The other dirty rotten truth, largely I think forgotten in the UK, was that the only reason slavery was abolished was that the slave owners were actually compensated for loss of their 'property'. 

 

We didn't do that, and instead fought a civil war  to resolve the slavery issue.

 

The same extends to a lot of colonial history, exploitation was after all the primary function.

So yes, symbols, statues mean a lot. Maybe not to the master, but ask the subjects, thats a lot more informative

[joecoolfrog]

21 minutes ago, GinBoy2 said:

So does pragmatism trump doing whats right? Now I don't quite understand some of the references you make, but I assume they are British.

That may be part of the  problem. In the US, slavery has been a huge blot on our collective memory., and a issue that has sparked endless debate and strife.

For the British, you seem to have passed it off as someone else's problem, and hence decided to ignore it. Trouble is, British ships were the primary transportation of slaves, making millions for the owners. The other dirty rotten truth, largely I think forgotten in the UK, was that the only reason slavery was abolished was that the slave owners were actually compensated for loss of their 'property'. 

 

We didn't do that, and instead fought a civil war  to resolve the slavery issue.

 

The same extends to a lot of colonial history, exploitation was after all the primary function.

So yes, symbols, statues mean a lot. Maybe not to the master, but ask the subjects, thats a lot more informative

Well in a perfect world right would trump pragmatism , but it isn't a perfect world and never will be.

Anyway back on topic , the statues in question are in the main a glorification of race divide and if the local communities dont want them then they should go.

It doesn't set a precedent , its not part of a conspiracy to rewrite history , they are simply undesirable in this day and age.

[GinBoy2]

31 minutes ago, joecoolfrog said:

Well in a perfect world right would trump pragmatism , but it isn't a perfect world and never will be.

Anyway back on topic , the statues in question are in the main a glorification of race divide and if the local communities dont want them then they should go.

It doesn't set a precedent , its not part of a conspiracy to rewrite history , they are simply undesirable in this day and age.

Slightly off topic, but for the Brits who seem to love opining on US angst over slavery and it's lasting legacy, 

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/britains-colonial-shame-slave-owners-given-huge-payouts-after-abolition-8508358.html

Edited August 19, 2017 by GinBoy2

[Slip]

1 hour ago, joecoolfrog said:

Its a philosophical dilemma but one has to be pragmatic , refuse ' dirty ' money and pretty much every charity would go broke tommorow.I remember Robin Cook proudly announcing that the Labour party would view foreign policy in a strictly ethical manner. That lasted about as long as a British rail egg sandwich.

9 days you say? Impressive.

Edited August 19, 2017 by Slip
punktewaysion

[craigt3365]

34 minutes ago, GinBoy2 said:

Slightly off topic, but for the Brits who seem to love opining on US angst over slavery and it's lasting legacy, 

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/britains-colonial-shame-slave-owners-given-huge-payouts-after-abolition-8508358.html

Almost all of Europe was involved in various atrocities around the world. But in the U.S., it was right in our backyard. We're living with the consequences to this day.

 

http://www.walkingbutterfly.com/2010/12/22/when-you-kill-ten-million-africans-you-arent-called-hitler/
 

Quote

 

When you see his face or hear his name you should get as sick in your stomach as when you read about Mussolini or Hitler or see one of their pictures. You see, he killed over 10 million people in the Congo.

 

His name is King Leopold II of Belgium.