Alabama Senate passes bill to protect confederate monuments

[Fenton Lum]

With Don, Sessions and Bannon, what wold you have expected. Make america White Again.

While I'm sure you believe that should be, the fact is that America was never "White" and people of color fought for the Confederacy as well as the Union.

Correct on one part wrong on other.

Enlighten me, then

The US was intended for the founders PROGENY aka white people. Also look at the naturalization acts of the 1790's. Its quite clear who this country was intended for.

I already know how you think Odious; the founders' progeny has turned out to be just as pathological, evil, sadistic, muderous, genocidal, colonial, authoritarian and twisted as the original virus that "discovered" this land mass at land fall.

 

[Fenton Lum]

With Don, Sessions and Bannon, what wold you have expected. Make america White Again.

I didn't realize they ran the Alabama legislature.

Think national.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Make america White Again.

That's the way the founders intended it to be via the Naturalization Act of 1790.

Via their campaign of genocide on this land mass rather.

 

[Fenton Lum]

With Don, Sessions and Bannon, what wold you have expected. Make america White Again.

You are a racist fuck.

I know, anyone who challenges racists must be racist now in Reality America.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

With Don, Sessions and Bannon, what wold you have expected. Make america White Again.

I didn't realize they ran the Alabama legislature.

Think national.

Are you inferring that this legislation would not have passed had we currently had President Clinton? That would be quite an erroneous assumption seeing as how the movement to start purging confederate monuments in the south started a couple of years ago. This would have happened regardless of who won the election.

 

[Fenton Lum]

With Don, Sessions and Bannon, what wold you have expected. Make america White Again.

I didn't realize they ran the Alabama legislature.

Think national.

Are you inferring that this legislation would not have passed had we currently had President Clinton? That would be quite an erroneous assumption seeing as how the movement to start purging confederate monuments in the south started a couple of years ago. This would have happened regardless of who won the election.

Yeah, like I've been saying, and Goldman Sachs is running the white house like they would have either way as well. You're going to have to go somewhere else to find someone whi believes in the left vs. right ruse.

Still, Sessions and Bannon have been at their "make american white again" thing for some time now. Trump came along and they found a willing vessel.

 

[Marion Morrison]

So these Republicans want to protect monuments honoring the Democrats that the RWnuts claim were EVIL??

Interesting.

It's called "Not destroying history".

 

[Fenton Lum]

So these Republicans want to protect monuments honoring the Democrats that the RWnuts claim were EVIL??

Interesting.

It's called "Not destroying history".

They need to remain, we all need to remember how this place is and how it came to be. Genocide and slavery are grand american historical foundations. So is the only allowing affluent land holding white males to vote, and a senate appointed by the aristocracy.

 

[defcon4]

They need to remain, we all need to remember how this place is and how it came to be. Genocide and slavery are grand american historical foundations. So is the only allowing affluent land holding white males to vote, and a senate appointed by the aristocracy.

I recommend you to read a short history of slavery.
History of slavery - Wikipedia

 

[Pogo]

View attachment 116232

True enough, but that's got nothing to do with this thread. This thread's about fetishism and symbol-mindedness.

Some klown in Steve McRacist's whine thread about such monuments coming down in New Orleans tried to make the case that doing so was "erasing history", which seems to be your idea here. Couple of us (both Southerners) challenged her on how it equates to that. She ran away.

Pogster, we went through on this already in the past with you when the big Globalist Elite push was launched to eradicate historical monuments. Just go back to those threads an look it up. When monuments, such as statues disappear it is that much easier to rewrite history what you people are very good at. Leave historical monument commemorating events untouched even if it somehow doesn't fit your narratives at the present.
The eradication attempt of statues and monuments is nothing new in world history what you are well versed in (at least that's how perceive you)
It is called "Damnatio memoriae" The earliest of that I can remember from history was Akhenaten, there may have been earlier attempts also. Then, it continued throughout the ages from the Romans to the Communist Soviet Union and now here in the U.S.

Actually we went through this much more recently, here. You're conflating history with historical symbols. They're two different things. If this were not the case none of us would know anything of history unless it was manifest in some monument.

Now who exactly is "you people"?

You need to read one more time what I wrote. I am not conflating anything. Let me quote that your spin would be evident.
"When monuments, such as statues disappear it is that much easier to rewrite history what you people are very good at."
"You people" is the anti-American left trying to implement total censorship, eradicate history and destroy Western civilization.

Then I'm afraid you're utterly lost. I'm immersed in history. I'm usually the one quoting it on these pages, and that's usually to correct some mythology that wants to rewrite it. And I've never advocated censorship of anything. Have you never read a damn thing I've posted here? Are you completely illiterate?

Again to the point --- a monument or statue has nothing to do with whether history exists or not. No relationship. Its function is to commemorate something. That has nothing to do with whether whatever it's commemorating happened or not. The latter is a simple disinterested accounting of what happened. The former is institutional approval of it.

So you're full of shit--- it makes it no "easier to rewrite" jack squat. Once again, and I already made this point, and I did so for a reason ----- no historical event's existence epends on whether a monument to it exists or not. That's just not possible. That's what we have news media and history books for.

Take that citation of post 53 to which I referred you. Did the Ku Klux Klan get wiped out of the history books because the building's owner turned the plaque backward? Did they cease to have existed? Not at all. Was that even his intention in doing so? Not at all. He turned it backward because he felt that history, which is true, should not be highlighted and commemorated. That's got absolutely zero to do with any kind of "eradicating history".

 

[defcon4]

Then I'm afraid you're utterly lost. I'm immersed in history. I'm usually the one quoting it on these pages, and that's usually to correct some mythology that wants to rewrite it. And I've never advocated censorship of anything. Have you never read a damn thing I've posted here? Are you completely illiterate?

Of course you say "illiterate" it is the modus operandi of you people.

Again to the point --- a monument or statue has nothing to do with whether history exists or not. No relationship. Its function is to commemorate something. That has nothing to do with whether whatever it's commemorating happened or not. The latter is a simple disinterested accounting of what happened. The former is institutional approval of it.

In our case, it commemorates real persons and real events, so it is historical commemorative monument.

So you're full of shit--- it makes it no "easier to rewrite" jack squat. Once again, and I already made this point, and I did so for a reason ----- no historical event's existence epends on whether a monument to it exists or not. That's just not possible. That's what we have news media and history books for.

Yes, it does make it easier to rewrite history when no artifacts exists to prove it otherwise.
Philosophically you are correct when you say: "no historical event's existence epends on whether a monument to it exists or not." Where you are wrong is that the media and history books are not going to be rewritten at some point in time. They will be according to the interests of the powers to be.

 

[Pogo]

Then I'm afraid you're utterly lost. I'm immersed in history. I'm usually the one quoting it on these pages, and that's usually to correct some mythology that wants to rewrite it. And I've never advocated censorship of anything. Have you never read a damn thing I've posted here? Are you completely illiterate?

Of course you say "illiterate" it is the modus operandi of you people.

Again to the point --- a monument or statue has nothing to do with whether history exists or not. No relationship. Its function is to commemorate something. That has nothing to do with whether whatever it's commemorating happened or not. The latter is a simple disinterested accounting of what happened. The former is institutional approval of it.

In our case, it commemorates real persons and real events, so it is historical commemorative monument.

So you're full of shit--- it makes it no "easier to rewrite" jack squat. Once again, and I already made this point, and I did so for a reason ----- no historical event's existence epends on whether a monument to it exists or not. That's just not possible. That's what we have news media and history books for.

Yes, it does make it easier to rewrite history when no artifacts exists to prove it otherwise.

Philosophically you are correct when you say: "no historical event's existence epends on whether a monument to it exists or not." Where you are wrong is that the media and history books are not going to be rewritten at some point in time. They will be according to the interests of the powers to be.

So you have no response and should never have gone down this road in the first place Yeah I'm hip.

Once again --- at least the third time now ---- history is not recorded in "artifacts". It's not recorded in "monuments"; it's not recorded in "statues"; it's not recorded in "plaques"; it's not recorded in T-shirts; it's not recorded in Googly images; it's not recorded in myths. It's recorded in history books. No event that factually happened is any more or less factual because a monument exists or does not exist. That's never been the case and it never will be the case. PERIOD. History books are permanent.

NOR, we should point out to the Illiterati, does the fact that somebody puts up a monument to some event or person mean automatically that that monument is accurate anyway, Gumball.

 

[defcon4]

Then I'm afraid you're utterly lost. I'm immersed in history. I'm usually the one quoting it on these pages, and that's usually to correct some mythology that wants to rewrite it. And I've never advocated censorship of anything. Have you never read a damn thing I've posted here? Are you completely illiterate?

Of course you say "illiterate" it is the modus operandi of you people.

Again to the point --- a monument or statue has nothing to do with whether history exists or not. No relationship. Its function is to commemorate something. That has nothing to do with whether whatever it's commemorating happened or not. The latter is a simple disinterested accounting of what happened. The former is institutional approval of it.

In our case, it commemorates real persons and real events, so it is historical commemorative monument.

So you're full of shit--- it makes it no "easier to rewrite" jack squat. Once again, and I already made this point, and I did so for a reason ----- no historical event's existence epends on whether a monument to it exists or not. That's just not possible. That's what we have news media and history books for.

Yes, it does make it easier to rewrite history when no artifacts exists to prove it otherwise.

Philosophically you are correct when you say: "no historical event's existence epends on whether a monument to it exists or not." Where you are wrong is that the media and history books are not going to be rewritten at some point in time. They will be according to the interests of the powers to be.

So you have no response and should never have gone down this road in the first place Yeah I'm hip.

Once again --- at least the third time now ---- history is not recorded in "artifacts". It's not recorded in "monuments"; it's not recorded in "statues"; it's not recorded in "plaques"; it's not recorded in T-shirts; it's not recorded in Googly images; it's not recorded in myths. It's recorded in history books. No event that factually happened is any more or less factual because a monument exists or does not exist. That's never been the case and it never will be the case. PERIOD. History books are permanent.

NOR, we should point out to the Illiterati, does the fact that somebody puts up a monument to some event or person mean automatically that that monument is accurate anyway, Gumball.

Your usual spinmeister Intelligantsia response. Who shouts louder is always right. I did acknowledge that historical events are not dependent on statues because it is true. Commemorative monuments are erected at the same time period as the events happen(d) so they have to be accurately depicting the events. You are just like ISIS destroying a few millennia old artifacts in Iraq and Syria; you want to destroy only one hundred plus years old artifacts. In my eyes it is the same. You are an educated barbarian. It seems like an oxymoron but it is true in your case.

 

[Pogo]

Then I'm afraid you're utterly lost. I'm immersed in history. I'm usually the one quoting it on these pages, and that's usually to correct some mythology that wants to rewrite it. And I've never advocated censorship of anything. Have you never read a damn thing I've posted here? Are you completely illiterate?

Of course you say "illiterate" it is the modus operandi of you people.

Again to the point --- a monument or statue has nothing to do with whether history exists or not. No relationship. Its function is to commemorate something. That has nothing to do with whether whatever it's commemorating happened or not. The latter is a simple disinterested accounting of what happened. The former is institutional approval of it.

In our case, it commemorates real persons and real events, so it is historical commemorative monument.

So you're full of shit--- it makes it no "easier to rewrite" jack squat. Once again, and I already made this point, and I did so for a reason ----- no historical event's existence epends on whether a monument to it exists or not. That's just not possible. That's what we have news media and history books for.

Yes, it does make it easier to rewrite history when no artifacts exists to prove it otherwise.

Philosophically you are correct when you say: "no historical event's existence epends on whether a monument to it exists or not." Where you are wrong is that the media and history books are not going to be rewritten at some point in time. They will be according to the interests of the powers to be.

So you have no response and should never have gone down this road in the first place Yeah I'm hip.

Once again --- at least the third time now ---- history is not recorded in "artifacts". It's not recorded in "monuments"; it's not recorded in "statues"; it's not recorded in "plaques"; it's not recorded in T-shirts; it's not recorded in Googly images; it's not recorded in myths. It's recorded in history books. No event that factually happened is any more or less factual because a monument exists or does not exist. That's never been the case and it never will be the case. PERIOD. History books are permanent.

NOR, we should point out to the Illiterati, does the fact that somebody puts up a monument to some event or person mean automatically that that monument is accurate anyway, Gumball.

Your usual spinmeister Intelligantsia response. Who shouts louder is always right. I did acknowledge that historical events are not dependent on statues because it is true. Commemorative monuments are erected at the same time period as the events happen(d) so they have to be accurately depicting the events.

Well no --- they're not. That plaque I linked for instance --- erected (by the Daughters of the Confederacy) in 1917 ---- 52 years after the event and four decades after that Klan ceased to exist. The statue of P.T. Beauregard in New Orleans --- 1915, about the same time, half a century after the War ended. The Robert E. Lee statue in the same city --- 1884. The White League obelisk --- 1891, fourteen years after the event.

Monuments are generally erected long after the event or person's life, much like the bible is written down years after Jesus is gone. Echoes of a memory. Memories can be tricky things. Ask Brian Williams.

You are just like ISIS destroying a few millennia old artifacts in Iraq and Syria; you want to destroy only one hundred plus years old artifacts. In my eyes it is the same. You are an educated barbarian. It seems like an oxymoron but it is true in your case.

....

I've advocated "destroying" absolutely nothing. Now you're putting words in my mouth because you know full well you lost an argument you never should have started because you didn't think before posting.

Go ahead --- just TRY to prove me wrong.... Quote me or admit you're pulling it out of your [hat] in desperation.

 

[Pogo]

Then I'm afraid you're utterly lost. I'm immersed in history. I'm usually the one quoting it on these pages, and that's usually to correct some mythology that wants to rewrite it. And I've never advocated censorship of anything. Have you never read a damn thing I've posted here? Are you completely illiterate?

Of course you say "illiterate" it is the modus operandi of you people.

Again to the point --- a monument or statue has nothing to do with whether history exists or not. No relationship. Its function is to commemorate something. That has nothing to do with whether whatever it's commemorating happened or not. The latter is a simple disinterested accounting of what happened. The former is institutional approval of it.

In our case, it commemorates real persons and real events, so it is historical commemorative monument.

So you're full of shit--- it makes it no "easier to rewrite" jack squat. Once again, and I already made this point, and I did so for a reason ----- no historical event's existence epends on whether a monument to it exists or not. That's just not possible. That's what we have news media and history books for.

Yes, it does make it easier to rewrite history when no artifacts exists to prove it otherwise.

Philosophically you are correct when you say: "no historical event's existence epends on whether a monument to it exists or not." Where you are wrong is that the media and history books are not going to be rewritten at some point in time. They will be according to the interests of the powers to be.

So you have no response and should never have gone down this road in the first place Yeah I'm hip.

Once again --- at least the third time now ---- history is not recorded in "artifacts". It's not recorded in "monuments"; it's not recorded in "statues"; it's not recorded in "plaques"; it's not recorded in T-shirts; it's not recorded in Googly images; it's not recorded in myths. It's recorded in history books. No event that factually happened is any more or less factual because a monument exists or does not exist. That's never been the case and it never will be the case. PERIOD. History books are permanent.

NOR, we should point out to the Illiterati, does the fact that somebody puts up a monument to some event or person mean automatically that that monument is accurate anyway, Gumball.

Your usual spinmeister Intelligantsia response. Who shouts louder is always right. I did acknowledge that historical events are not dependent on statues because it is true. Commemorative monuments are erected at the same time period as the events happen(d) so they have to be accurately depicting the events.

Well no --- they're not. That plaque I linked for instance --- erected (by the Daughters of the Confederacy) in 1917 ---- 52 years after the event and four decades after that Klan ceased to exist. The statue of P.T. Beauregard in New Orleans --- 1915, about the same time, half a century after the War ended. The Robert E. Lee statue in the same city --- 1884.

Monuments are generally erected long after the event or person's life, much like the bible is written down years after Jesus is gone. Echoes of a memory. Memories can be tricky things. Ask Brian Williams.

You are just like ISIS destroying a few millennia old artifacts in Iraq and Syria; you want to destroy only one hundred plus years old artifacts. In my eyes it is the same. You are an educated barbarian. It seems like an oxymoron but it is true in your case.

Absolute fucking bullshit.

I've advocated "destroying" absolutely nothing. Now you're putting words in my mouth because you know full well you lost an argument you never should have started because you didn't think before posting.

Go ahead --- just TRY to prove me wrong, dishonest hack. Quote me or admit you're pulling it out of your ass in desperation.

Ainchu jus all bad and shit? Is it hard being the smartest person on earth? You're the same person who tried to "prove" that there were no more progressives. Dumbass.

I ought to know what ... I posted, oughtn't I ..--- clearly the poster did not. ...

None of this, including my posts, is ... privileged information. It's in --- guess what --- the HISTORY BOOKS. Anyone ... should, look it... up before putting his proverbial hoof in his mouth.

 

[Pogo]

Then I'm afraid you're utterly lost. I'm immersed in history. I'm usually the one quoting it on these pages, and that's usually to correct some mythology that wants to rewrite it. And I've never advocated censorship of anything. Have you never read a damn thing I've posted here? Are you completely illiterate?

Of course you say "illiterate" it is the modus operandi of you people.

Again to the point --- a monument or statue has nothing to do with whether history exists or not. No relationship. Its function is to commemorate something. That has nothing to do with whether whatever it's commemorating happened or not. The latter is a simple disinterested accounting of what happened. The former is institutional approval of it.

In our case, it commemorates real persons and real events, so it is historical commemorative monument.

So you're full of shit--- it makes it no "easier to rewrite" jack squat. Once again, and I already made this point, and I did so for a reason ----- no historical event's existence epends on whether a monument to it exists or not. That's just not possible. That's what we have news media and history books for.

Yes, it does make it easier to rewrite history when no artifacts exists to prove it otherwise.

Philosophically you are correct when you say: "no historical event's existence epends on whether a monument to it exists or not." Where you are wrong is that the media and history books are not going to be rewritten at some point in time. They will be according to the interests of the powers to be.

So you have no response and should never have gone down this road in the first place Yeah I'm hip.

Once again --- at least the third time now ---- history is not recorded in "artifacts". It's not recorded in "monuments"; it's not recorded in "statues"; it's not recorded in "plaques"; it's not recorded in T-shirts; it's not recorded in Googly images; it's not recorded in myths. It's recorded in history books. No event that factually happened is any more or less factual because a monument exists or does not exist. That's never been the case and it never will be the case. PERIOD. History books are permanent.

NOR, we should point out to the Illiterati, does the fact that somebody puts up a monument to some event or person mean automatically that that monument is accurate anyway, Gumball.

Your usual spinmeister Intelligantsia response. Who shouts louder is always right. I did acknowledge that historical events are not dependent on statues because it is true. Commemorative monuments are erected at the same time period as the events happen(d) so they have to be accurately depicting the events.

Well no --- they're not. That plaque I linked for instance --- erected (by the Daughters of the Confederacy) in 1917 ---- 52 years after the event and four decades after that Klan ceased to exist. The statue of P.T. Beauregard in New Orleans --- 1915, about the same time, half a century after the War ended. The Robert E. Lee statue in the same city --- 1884. The White League obelisk --- 1891, fourteen years after the event.

Monuments are generally erected long after the event or person's life, much like the bible is written down years after Jesus is gone. Echoes of a memory. Memories can be tricky things. Ask Brian Williams.

You are just like ISIS destroying a few millennia old artifacts in Iraq and Syria; you want to destroy only one hundred plus years old artifacts. In my eyes it is the same. You are an educated barbarian. It seems like an oxymoron but it is true in your case.

Absolute fucking bullshit.

I've advocated "destroying" absolutely nothing. Now you're putting words in my mouth because you know full well you lost an argument you never should have started because you didn't think before posting.

Go ahead --- just TRY to prove me wrong, dishonest hack. Quote me or admit you're pulling it out of your ass in desperation.

So two days later and ------------------------------------------------------- nothing. ...

Fake posts: the antecedent of fake news.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You can dynamite all the statues of Buddha you want. But you can't touch the concept of Buddha. It's in the mind.

Yeah, didn't figured a tenured turd like you would have the intellect to grasp the connection.

Yeah, didn't think you could come up with a response.

I gotta get off this low hanging fruit diet.

Buddhas of Bamiyan - Wikipedia

Read it and you'll see that you're looking in a mirror....

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
So you have no response and should never have gone down this road in the first place Yeah I'm hip.

Once again --- at least the third time now ---- history is not recorded in "artifacts". It's not recorded in "monuments"; it's not recorded in "statues"; it's not recorded in "plaques"; it's not recorded in T-shirts; it's not recorded in Googly images; it's not recorded in myths. It's recorded in history books. No event that factually happened is any more or less factual because a monument exists or does not exist. That's never been the case and it never will be the case. PERIOD. History books are permanent.

NOR, we should point out to the Illiterati, does the fact that somebody puts up a monument to some event or person mean automatically that that monument is accurate anyway, Gumball.

And with no artifacts, art, or monuments, there is nothing to contradict the books, allowing you Stalinist's to change history to suit your goals.

IF one seeks to truly control history, as you Stalinist's do, then the art of the defeated must be entirely obliterated, as your party seeks to do here.

 

[Pogo]

[
So you have no response and should never have gone down this road in the first place Yeah I'm hip.

Once again --- at least the third time now ---- history is not recorded in "artifacts". It's not recorded in "monuments"; it's not recorded in "statues"; it's not recorded in "plaques"; it's not recorded in T-shirts; it's not recorded in Googly images; it's not recorded in myths. It's recorded in history books. No event that factually happened is any more or less factual because a monument exists or does not exist. That's never been the case and it never will be the case. PERIOD. History books are permanent.

NOR, we should point out to the Illiterati, does the fact that somebody puts up a monument to some event or person mean automatically that that monument is accurate anyway, Gumball.

And with no artifacts, art, or monuments, there is nothing to contradict the books, allowing you Stalinist's to change history to suit your goals.

IF one seeks to truly control history, as you Stalinist's do, then the art of the defeated must be entirely obliterated, as your party seeks to do here.

Again Stupid --- I don't give a flying fuck what the state of Alabama or the city of New Orleans does with its monuments. That's up to them, not me and certainly not you.

Again Stupid --- I don't have a "party" nor am I any kind of "Stalinist". That attitude I just articulated is called "Liberalism". It ain't my business.

Again Stupid --- the presence or absence of some monument in no way affects the presence or absence of any historical record. I happen to be pretty deep in history and I guarantee you I got absolutely ZERO of it from any monument. If I'm at a monument it's because I already knew about the event. And for the reason just cited I rarely ever go to them --- they prove nothing. And in some cases grossly mislead.

And again Stupid ---- we never, ever, use an apostrophe to form a plural in the English language. The plural of Stalinist would be Stalinists. Your errant apostrophe performs no function.

Much like the rest of your pointless post.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Again Stupid --- I don't give a flying fuck what the state of Alabama or the city of New Orleans does with its monuments. That's up to them, not me and certainly not you.

Again Stupid --- I don't have a "party" nor am I any kind of "Stalinist". That attitude I just articulated is called "Liberalism". It ain't my business.

Again Stupid --- the presence or absence of some monument in no way affects the presence or absence of any historical record. I happen to be pretty deep in history and I guarantee you I got absolutely ZERO of it from any monument. If I'm at a monument it's because I already knew about the event. And for the reason just cited I rarely ever go to them --- they prove nothing. And in some cases grossly mislead.

And again Stupid ---- we never, ever, use an apostrophe to form a plural in the English language. The plural of Stalinist would be Stalinists. Your errant apostrophe performs no function.

Much like the rest of your pointless post.

This thread regards the preservation of Confederate monuments. You have aggressively argued against the actions of the state of Alabama to preserve these artifacts, arguing that history books such as the shit from Zinn. Art and monuments provide support or refutation for the written word. Again, you ARE a Stalinist and seek to eradicate traces of the past that refute the script that your party seeks to promote.

Ironic that you cried to the mods then turned around and called me "stupid" 3 times in the same post. Ironic in an incredibly hypocritical way.