Statue defaced as U.S. Confederate monument protests grow

[iReason]

6 minutes ago, VocalNeal said:

At the time the sugar islands in the Caribbean were more valuable to Britain than the thirteen colonies.

The thirteen colonies were sacrificed to retain the sugar islands. Naval resources were kept in the Caribbean . 

 

The little talked about "Spice Wars".

One of the primary reasons for conquests.

[Lokie]

9 hours ago, thaihome said:

Maybe this is the time to mention that English king was actually a German (though he was the first one actually born in England and spoke English) and most of the so called "red coats" were hessian conscripts  from Hanover?

 

It is well acknowledged in the US that the war would have never have been won without the timely support of the French navy (who England was at war with at the time). A sure case of luck and timing. 

 

Also worth noting that at least one of Sally Hemming's children by Thomas Jefferson was conceived and born while Jefferson was US ambassador to France (negotiating that assistance) during the Revolutionary War.  Jefferson agreed to free those children on their majority if Sally would return to the US with him as she was actually a free person in France and could have stayed there with her children. 

 

TH   

All the royal families of Europe are interbred, has no bearing on anything bar the fact he was a touch 'mad' as is well documented,

 

As for the Hessians - hardly 'most of the so called Redcoats' yes the British did have German (Hessian) regiments but less than 10000, along with Royalist american forces, and an Ethiopian Regt made up of freed slaves along with native american injuns!!

 

Ahh La-France...., as usual they are good at sneaking in when it suits them and getting in a sly dig but together with Spain they could not take the Brits on in a fair scrap, repeatable we sent them packing on numerous occasions.

 

ll very interesting though and makes one wonder how the world would have been if the US was still part of Great Britain or similar sort of thing... how history would have been differant.... The civil war would not have probably ever happened?

[Lokie]

11 minutes ago, VocalNeal said:

At the time the sugar islands in the Caribbean were more valuable to Britain than the thirteen colonies. Yes the French helped the ,now, US but they were using the "any friend of my enemy..." thinking and they also wanted the sugar islands. The thirteen colonies were sacrificed to retain the sugar islands. Naval resources were kept in the Caribbean . 

Quite a good point there... Demerara anyone...?

[gk10002000]

Emotions are strong.  I get it.  I have lived in the south and the north and the east and the west.  I have seen the extreme views of all the sides.  But today on the Florida news, there was an old white lady.  And she was espousing that the South and the Confederates were traitors against the USA.  I had heard many opinions over the years, but never heard traitor before.

[bert bloggs]

While i am no advocate for slavery ,it happened ,we live with it , but i never see the protestors going on about the people who sold them the slaves , It was Muslim slave traders , this is always conveniently forgoton ,why dont they demonstrate outside their embassys or destroy their statues ? fear of the backlash ,or is it not PC .

[CaptHaddock]

I'm with Bannon on this one.  Going after the statues is a stupid, self-defeating move that the Democrats should ignore.  Polls show most voters don't want the statues removed.  Far better to implement programs that actually improve the lives of the lower half, like Obamacare, than to alienate voters over what are only symbols, even if admittedly offensive. 

[ilostmypassword]

21 minutes ago, bert bloggs said:

While i am no advocate for slavery ,it happened ,we live with it , but i never see the protestors going on about the people who sold them the slaves , It was Muslim slave traders , this is always conveniently forgoton ,why dont they demonstrate outside their embassys or destroy their statues ? fear of the backlash ,or is it not PC .

Maybe because that stopped over a hundred fifty years ago and as far as I can tell, none of the countries in question have erected monuments to their slave traders. 

[halloween]

22 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Maybe because that stopped over a hundred fifty years ago and as far as I can tell, none of the countries in question have erected monuments to their slave traders. 

Can you point out one statue of a slave trader in the US. I'll trade you for a 1000 statues of slave owners.

[iReason]

1 hour ago, bert bloggs said:

While i am no advocate for slavery ,it happened ,we live with it , but i never see the protestors going on about the people who sold them the slaves ,

It was Muslim slave traders , this is always conveniently forgoton ,why dont they demonstrate outside their embassys or destroy their statues ?

fear of the backlash ,or is it not PC .

 

Please dispense with your ploy of duplicity and deflection with your muslim obsession. 

What happened in Virginia was not about slavery.

This diversion by the ignorant fool occupying the White House is simply dispicable subterfuge.

 

The racist neo-Nazis, white supremacists and the KKK were there to proclaim their lunatic, racist bigoted views.

 

The counter-protesters, the patriot Americans, confronted their hate. And rightfully so.

 

 

I was in Charlottesville. Trump was wrong about violence on the left

 

"On Friday night, hundreds of white supremacists and neo-fascists had a torchlight march across the University of Virginia’s campus, a place to which they had not been invited."

 

"They openly chanted fascist slogans like “blood and soil” and “Jews will not replace us”.

 

"When they reached a much smaller group of counter-protesters gathered around a statue of Thomas Jefferson, they surrounded them, hurled verbal abuse and then commenced beating them with lit torches and fists, and using pepper spray on them."

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/16/charlottesville-violence-right-left-trump

 

 

 

Torch-wielding white supremacists rallied around a Robert E. Lee statue slated for removal and chanted

“Russia is our friend" in Virginia Saturday night.

 

"The group surrounding the Confederate statue in Charlottesville’s Lee Park extinguished their torches and left as cops swarmed the street just before 9:30 p.m., according to the Daily Progress newspaper."

 

"It was not immediately clear which group was behind the unsettling stunt but extremist Richard Spencer claimed that he was among the torchbearers after protesting at a similar rally in Jackson Park hours earlier."

 

“This event involving torches at night in Lee Park was either profoundly ignorant or was designed to instill fear in our minority populations +in a way that hearkens back to the days of the KKK,” Charlottesville Mayor Mike Signer said in a statement."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/torch-wielding-protesters-rally-confederate-statue-virginia-article-1.3164235

 

 

Edited August 19, 2017 by iReason

[George Bowman]

I grew up in ‘Missoura’ and as a youngster I learned the state’s nickname early on life. Why? My father followed the Show Me principles in all matters. Especially at school. Great nickname and for a good reason. Good solid people. Well, most of them.

 

Growing up in ‘Missoura’ and saying ‘warshed’ instead of washed, I still received a great common sense education. I learned that there are what some people call developing countries.

 

I have lived in Thailand since 1999. Initially, I thought it was a developing country and we sure do things differently back in ‘Missoura’. It is and we do. But, now, I don’t see much difference between the two.  Thailand is Truly Amazing and both the Show Me State and America is showing me, common sense is gone.

[iReason]

2 hours ago, halloween said:

Why don't you try explaining why it is nonsense?

How is blindly destroying what you don't like as part of some moral/religious crusade without any respect for the feelings of others

any different to ISIS doing the same.

Both parties are absolutely sure of the "correctness" of their view that any counter view must be labelled as racist, nazi, or simply ridiculous.

 

"...without any respect for the feelings of others"  

Right.

 

"...any counter view must be labelled as racist, nazi, or simply ridiculous."

 

I submit you are massively uninformed and have no clue as to why the neo-Nazis, white supremacists and the KKK were there.

As a primer, see post #70.

 

 

Edited August 19, 2017 by iReason

[halloween]

31 minutes ago, iReason said:

 

"...without any respect for the feelings of others"  

Right.

 

"...any counter view must be labelled as racist, nazi, or simply ridiculous."

 

I submit you are massively uninformed and have no clue as to why the neo-Nazis, white supremacists and the KKK were there.

As a primer, see post #70.

 

 

You have the moral certainty of an ISIS soldier, probably based on only reading the history written by the winners. It's only a pity you can't apply any logic to your answers as might be expected from your username. I have every idea "why the neo-Nazis, white supremacists and the KKK were there."

 

If you had bothered to read what I have posted, I am more concerned of the rights of those OTHER than the rabid of both sides.

 

BTW Washington was a traitor. Period. He is not remembered as a traitor because he won.

[Scott]

Personal bickering is going to earn suspensions.

 

[Credo]

Mike Pence Compares Donald Trump To Teddy Roosevelt, Who Said White People Were The 'Forward Race'

https://www.yahoo.com/news/mike-pence-compares-donald-trump-043448275.html

 

It seems Pence isn't far behind Trump in his racist attitude.   

[Rancid]

I find it ironic that the progressive left and Democrats are suddenly up in arms about racism. Here is a couple of interesting historical tidbits:

 

In the 1920s the KKK marched 50,000 men in hoods down 5th Ave in New York – they were headed to the Democratic National Convention...oops.

 

Apparently in 1860 on the eve of the civil war, no Republicans owned slaves - all the slaves in the US were owned by Democrats...ouch.

 

Not that there is anything to like about current Republicans, but it was a Republican government that freed the slaves.

 

Perhaps can now understand why the American Progressive Taliban is trying to erase history...too many inconvenient truths.

Edited August 19, 2017 by Rancid

[CaptHaddock]

3 hours ago, iReason said:

 

The little talked about "Spice Wars".

One of the primary reasons for conquests.

 

44 minutes ago, Rancid said:

I find it ironic that the progressive left and Democrats are suddenly up in arms about racism. Here is a couple of interesting historical tidbits:

 

In the 1920s the KKK marched 50,000 men in hoods down 5th Ave in New York – they were headed to the Democratic National Convention...oops.

 

Apparently in 1860 on the eve of the civil war, no Republicans owned slaves - all the slaves in the US were owned by Democrats...ouch.

 

Not that there is anything to like about current Republicans, but it was a Republican government that freed the slaves.

 

Perhaps can now understand why the American Progressive Taliban is trying to erase history...too many inconvenient truths.

 

The Republicans did free the slaves in the 19th century and the Democrats did legislate civil rights in the 1960's against oppression of black people.  Is there some reason that you think today's Democrats should be indifferent to racism, because once upon a time Strom Thurmond and George Wallace were Democrats???

[CaptHaddock]

4 hours ago, iReason said:

 

The little talked about "Spice Wars".

One of the primary reasons for conquests.

Spices were a reason for the Age of Exploration, but the British Empire and the Industrial Revolution were based on one commodity that was the first to have a globalized chain of production, cotton.  As industrialization made the English cotton mills ever more efficient, their need for raw cotton on a large scale demanded converting large areas of suitable agricultural land to its exclusive production.  But in India and Egypt, which had favorable climates,  existing social and agricultural practices meant resistance to such extensive restructuring.  The one area that could be efficiently cleared of aboriginals and then dedicated to vast cotton agriculture was the American Deep South, which was the largest producer of cotton fiber from about 1800 until 1930.

 

There is a fascinating book on the subject, "The Empire of Cotton," by Sven Beckert.

 

 

[Meljames]

31 minutes ago, CaptHaddock said:

The Republicans did free the slaves in the 19th century and the Democrats did legislate civil rights in the 1960's against oppression of black people.  Is there some reason that you think today's Democrats should be indifferent to racism, because once upon a time Strom Thurmond and George Wallace were Democrats???

 

Never understood why people think racism and bigotry is a function of ones  political leanings. I've met bigoted pricks at all levels of the political spectrum and from many different countries. It transcends politics, economics,education,borders and every other kind of demographic. As does  forbearance and acceptance  of others.

 

Some of the most insufferable people I have encountered are the indignant leftists who somehow think their self avowed enlightened status gives them a right to judge and disrespect the shortcomings of others. A severe case of not seeing the  beam in their own eye.

Edited August 19, 2017 by Meljames

[crankshaft]

On 8/18/2017 at 1:41 AM, goldenbrwn1 said:

These (millennial) students encouraged by their lunatic far left teachers/professors or what not are completely deluded. They are obsessed with race and overly encourage racial thinking at every opportunity, be it now or historical. They think you should interact with people depending on what colour/gender/sexuality they are and that you contantly watch your language depending on what individual you are talking too.  They just love to encourage this constant racial thinking where as the students of anti establishment thinking and protests in yesteryears 60s/70s was all about the person and the character of that person ... not race or skin colour.

 

'I look to a day when people will not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character'...can't remember who said that....? But this is exactly the opposite these new movements across college campuses around the world are indirectly doing. 

 

I of course like everyone I'm sure on this forum totally condemn far right nationalist  and Nazis and other extreme groups inc Antifa.  The government should just remove the monuments that need removing quietly and then hopefully remove the possibility of violent protests.

 

 

 

 

 

Does that mean that they are going to remove all the Presidents on USA currency/coins as majority owned slaves. Where will it stop?...buildings, books, street names? It's ludicrous to try and erase the past. Forget the past only to repeat it.

[Scott]

1 hour ago, crankshaft said:

Does that mean that they are going to remove all the Presidents on USA currency/coins as majority owned slaves. Where will it stop?...buildings, books, street names? It's ludicrous to try and erase the past. Forget the past only to repeat it.

No, that would create WAY too many problems for the drug cartels as they tried to change their billions!

 

[thaihome]

8 hours ago, crankshaft said:

Does that mean that they are going to remove all the Presidents on USA currency/coins as majority owned slaves. Where will it stop?...buildings, books, street names? It's ludicrous to try and erase the past. Forget the past only to repeat it.

 

Why do you continue the false equivalency argument between confederate leaders and all "slave owners". Memorials or commemorations are done about specfic actions a person took.

 

Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence and did several acts that furthered the United States. Though he was a slave owners and white supremacist he never took up arms in defense of that philosophy. 

 

Robert E Lee is mostly known has the commander in chief of the Confederacy having made the choice to fight against the United States in defense of slavery and white supremacy.  

 

Also using the slavery owner argument about the confederate  memorials ignores the context of periods they were erected.  As has been posted many times on many threads, they were almost all erected not has true war memorials but as political statements in support of white supremacy court decisions and legislative actions, or in negative reaction to the  civil rights movement. 

 

There is no equivalency in their actions. To say "Does that mean that they are going to remove all the Presidents"  as defense to their removal is disingenuous. 

TH 

 

[crankshaft]

13 hours ago, thaihome said:

 

Why do you continue the false equivalency argument between confederate leaders and all "slave owners". Memorials or commemorations are done about specfic actions a person took.

 

Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence and did several acts that furthered the United States. Though he was a slave owners and white supremacist he never took up arms in defense of that philosophy. 

 

Robert E Lee is mostly known has the commander in chief of the Confederacy having made the choice to fight against the United States in defense of slavery and white supremacy.  

 

Also using the slavery owner argument about the confederate  memorials ignores the context of periods they were erected.  As has been posted many times on many threads, they were almost all erected not has true war memorials but as political statements in support of white supremacy court decisions and legislative actions, or in negative reaction to the  civil rights movement. 

 

There is no equivalency in their actions. To say "Does that mean that they are going to remove all the Presidents"  as defense to their removal is disingenuous. 

TH 

 

You say "ignored the context of periods they were erected"...but they were still slave owners, who believed in slavery and their own supremacy over the black man and yet you conveniently tippy toe around this. You can't have it both ways.

[Paul Catton]

A reasonable summary from A Voice for Men, https://www.avoiceformen.com/a-voice-for-men/18-truths-about-charlottesville/

[FreddieRoyle]

and a little light humor if permissible

 

 

 

[Meljames]

6 hours ago, crankshaft said:

You say "ignored the context of periods they were erected"...but they were still slave owners, who believed in slavery and their own supremacy 

Following the war many statues were erected for the soldiers who lost their lives by the respective states. It wasn't til later that statues of the leader were made. The focus of the newer statues were less to honor the leaders than to put forth the cause they fought  for. The time periods they were built were  also when  segregation  and  Jim Crows were at their peak. It's not a coincidence. The context of the periods they were built is  important.

 

When and why the statues were  built are the reason for their removal.It has nothing to do with re-writing history or erasing it. More about acknowledging a low point in US history and  moving forward. 

 

Why would New York, California and Illinois all go to the trouble of having  tributes to fallen CSA leaders?   New  York had the most number of Union soldiers, why would they want to honor an enemy that took so many lives?

 

Also not all southern leaders were pro-slavery, Robert E Lee was one.. He wrote a letter to his wife and the NY Times standing against it and calling slavery a moral and political evil. A poor choice for hero worship for the  white  supremacists.

 

My opinion; keep the statues but put them in a place  and in a light that shows what they truly are . Not on the  grounds of court houses and state capitals. 

 

 

 

Edited August 21, 2017 by Meljames

[Scott]

Troll post removed.  

[CaptHaddock]

3 hours ago, Meljames said:

Following the war many statues were erected for the soldiers who lost their lives by the respective states. It wasn't til later that statues of the leader were made. The focus of the newer statues were less to honor the leaders than to put forth the cause they fought  for. The time periods they were built were  also when  segregation  and  Jim Crows were at their peak. It's not a coincidence. The context of the periods they were built is  important.

 

When and why the statues were  built are the reason for their removal.It has nothing to do with re-writing history or erasing it. More about acknowledging a low point in US history and  moving forward. 

 

Why would New York, California and Illinois all go to the trouble of having  tributes to fallen CSA leaders?   New  York had the most number of Union soldiers, why would they want to honor an enemy that took so many lives?

 

Also not all southern leaders were pro-slavery, Robert E Lee was one.. He wrote a letter to his wife and the NY Times standing against it and calling slavery a moral and political evil. A poor choice for hero worship for the  white  supremacists.

 

My opinion; keep the statues but put them in a place  and in a light that shows what they truly are . Not on the  grounds of court houses and state capitals. 

 

 

 

Lee was not anti-slavery.  He dragged his feet in carrying out his father-in-law's will providing for the release of his slaves.  When his army invaded Pennsylvania, they enslaved free black citizens wherever they found them.  After the Civil War, Lee testified that the former slaves, now free black citizens, should be removed from Virginia.  He did lament slavery from time to time, but mostly as a burden for white people.  For black people slavery was necessary to civilize them. 

 

Too much Lost Cause propaganda still pollutes the American mind.