Good News, At Least 160 confederate Monuments Were Finally Removed In 2020

[Pogo]

I'm very happy to read about this. I hope it continues.

All of those monuments and statues should be in a museum where they belong.

People who attacked our nation causing the bloodiest war in our history, which put brother against brother, which killed over 600 thousand Americans, should never been revered or celebrated.

They should only be held in contempt. They aren't patriots. Patriots don't go to war to leave the union.

They are traitors to our nation and the last thing they deserve is our respect or any sort of monument or statue.

TAI News

Reporting for progress

americanindependent.com

Only Nazis and commies would be happy about removing history. You libtards are so friggin stupid.

Once AGAIN for the stupids ---- monuments are NOT where we keep history. BOOKS are where we keep history. Nothing changed about that.

Monuments are where we REWRITE history, if so inclined, which is what these particular monuments tried to do, and succeeded for too long. Why don't you tell the class what sort of folks would be UNhappy that the REWRITE was undone.

Bull! Monuments record history same as books do and books can be written in an attempt to rewrite the history recorded by monuments just as easily as the other way around. Fact is both are made by people and sometimes people either lie or do not know the truth and record something else. You're all about agenda; not history and not truth. You desperately search for excuses.

Uhhhmmmm.... I ain't the asshat who just made up a fictitious "very important battle" that never happened, Gummo, so which one of us is "desperate"?

No, you're the asshat who thinks all of history in some way pertains to slavery even though it was abolished long ago.
And I "made up" nothing". I confused similar place names.

"All history" in no way pertains to slavery. You made that up just like you made up the "Battle of Stone Mountain". You know, the one that "deserves to be remembered".

If something "deserves to be remembered" how is it you can't remember it?

Did I not keep it simple enough for even you to understand? The battles of Stones River and Lookout Mountain were indeed important battles that happened near by. The carving on Stone Mountain to is commemorate the Confederacy and the the War in the West that took place along the logistically important railways and river systems running from Nashville Tn. through Atlanta Ga. I provided links knowing your aversion to looking at history that actually happened rather than making up your own as you go along. Neither the battles nor the carving had anything to do with slavery.

You sat on this board claiming a "very important battle" took place at Stone Mountain, where "many men died" and "deserve to be remembered". AGAIN if you claim to be all about history HOW did you pull that out of your ass? How can you "remember" battle deaths that never happened?

Again, neither of those sites is near Stone Mountain, I DON'T NEED your links to know your Battle of Stone Mountain never happened, and I didn't claim Stone Mountain OR those battles had anything to do with slavery, other than being associated with the Confederacy. What I DID say in bringing up Stone Mountain was that it was the site of the re-founding of the Ku Klux Klan in 1915, and that the UDC commemorated it with the relief sculpture, hiring a rabid Klanner to do it, just as they also commemorated the building at 205 West Madison Street in Pulaski Tennessee, the birthplace of the first Ku Klux Klan in 1865.

Those are facts. I was aware I knew more history than you do, I guess I didn't realize I know WAY more.

And the relevance of all that to this thread is that the UDC is the same group that ran around frantically erecting statues and monuments on public land, AND spent even more energy rewriting school history textbooks, ALL in the name of Propaganda. The propaganda of the Cult of the Lost Cause.

And the relevance of all that to this thread is that the UDC is the same group that ran around frantically erecting statues and monuments on public land, AND spent even more energy rewriting school history textbooks, ALL in the name of Propaganda. The propaganda of the Cult of the Lost Cause.

If the Daughters of the Confederacy did anything other than good works I am unaware of them

Of course you're unaware. That's because I keep pointing to post 108 and you keep going , scared shitless that you might actually learn something.

and you have certainly not presented any evidence of such.

Again, see post 108. This is exactly why I put it there. I can point you to the post number; I can't read it into your unwilling brain FOR you.

Statues and monuments may commemorate something you don't like or don't agree with but they are not propaganda.

That's *EXACTLY* what they are. You just said so yourself --- "commemorate". Propaganda is what commemoration is..

​

Commemorate​

com·mem·o·rate​

/kəˈmeməˌrāt/​

verb​

recall and show respect for (someone or something).​

"a wreath-laying ceremony to commemorate the war dead"​

celebrate (an event, a person, or a situation) by doing or building something.​

If they were NOT propaganda, it would be impossible to "agree" or "disagree" with it. You can't "agree" or "disagree" with fact; you "agree" or "disagree" with OPINION. In this case the OPINION is the whole Lost Cause Cult song and dance. "It really wasn't about slavery" "Even if it was about slavery, slavery was a good thing" -- that whole load of crap.

Many of the monuments that were torn down had absolutely nothing to do with the Confederacy or slavery. Far more a matter of "political correctness" than history or propaganda.

So you're saying "Confederate monuments finally removed" (the topic here) had nothing to do with the Confederacy? Or slavery?

Again, let's go back to my previous analogy which IIRC you had no answer for --- imagine a group called the United Daughters of the Third Reich had run around all over Europe where Nazi Germany invaded, frantically throwing up statues and monuments and markers in homage to this place where Jews were herded into cattle cars or that place where the local socialists, intellectuals, infirm and other "undesirables" were corralled, worked and/or shot to death and buried in mass graves. Now imagine there's a contemporary movement to remove those stone tributes. We could imagine it would look something like this:

--- Based on what you're posting here you'd be opposed to that action, right? Not to mention this imaginary UDTR would have spent even more time rewriting German history books to whitewash what the Nazi regime did.

Now imagine some Swastika like that has been perched across the street from a synagogue for decades, but now it's about to be blown up. And you're the one protesting "NO DON'T DO IT" Because "HISTORY"!

 

[Pogo]

How many statues must be removed before slavery never happened?

How is removing statues erasing slavery?

Beats me. I'm not the one wanting to remove statues.

But you are the one who posted the Post Hoc fallacy.
It's sitting right there above.

How come you did that Dave?

Huh Dave?

It's not me wanting to erase history, Skippy. And we know why you want to do that. You leftists simply can't help it.

Nobody wants to "erase history", Peanutbutter. That's not what this thread is about.
What it is about is idols. Graven images in the biblical sense. Or as I like to call it --- propaganda.

Really? Whose propaganda? "Graven images"=propaganda? Propaganda at it's [sic] most ignorant from you.

Thanks for a post in nonEnglish.

Definition of graven image​

​

: an object of worship carved usually from wood or stone : IDOL​

Of course, I already said "idol" didn't I.

Funny I don't remember y'all idol worshipers having a problem with this graven image coming down--- maybe I just missed it?

 

[Pogo]

How many statues must be removed before slavery never happened?

How is removing statues erasing slavery?

Beats me. I'm not the one wanting to remove statues.

But you are the one who posted the Post Hoc fallacy.
It's sitting right there above.

How come you did that Dave?

Huh Dave?

It's not me wanting to erase history, Skippy. And we know why you want to do that. You leftists simply can't help it.

Nobody wants to "erase history", Peanutbutter. That's not what this thread is about.
What it is about is idols. Graven images in the biblical sense. Or as I like to call it --- propaganda.

I doubt you know anything about the Bible being a commie lib.

That's nice, dear.

 

[Pogo]

Are Trumpsters tired of winning yet?

Depends on how you spell whining.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Try as you might there is no comparison between the Confederacy and the third reich. Only in the twisted minds of democrat communists.

 

[Pogo]

Try as you might there is no comparison between the Confederacy and the third reich. Only in the twisted minds of democrat communists.

There is always comparison between disparate and unrelated groups using the same propaganda tactics.
Like it or lump it.

 

[Pogo]

Are Trumpsters tired of winning yet?

What does Trump have to do with Confederate statues?

People in favor of keeping confederate monuments are almost all going to be Trumpsters.

I’m asking if they’re tired of winning.

Perhaps, but they likely comprise a small contingent of those who voted for Trump overall. I only know 1 or 2 Trump supporters in real life that care about this sort of thing.

What most people seem to be worried about is where it goes from here. As I mentioned in another post, there seems to be a mentality of expanding which statues should be taken down. Taking down a statue of General Lee is one thing. Taking down a statue of Jefferson is quite another, even though he did have many slaves.

You are correct, those would indeed be quite different things.
That's because these Confederate monuments coming down has nothing to do with "who owned slaves" and it's dishonest to pretend that's what it's about.

Which is of course why Rump did exactly that at his hissyfit speech in Charlottesville. Can't deal with the actual dynamic, so he built a strawman instead of a statue. One which those of us with functioning brain cells are delighted to take down. And smash.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Try as you might there is no comparison between the Confederacy and the third reich. Only in the twisted minds of democrat communists.

There is always comparison between disparate and unrelated groups using the same propaganda tactics.
Like it or lump it.

Lump communists. Into graves.

Someone please remove that tribute to alcoholics, the statue of martin luther king jr.

 

[Pogo]

Try as you might there is no comparison between the Confederacy and the third reich. Only in the twisted minds of democrat communists.

There is always comparison between disparate and unrelated groups using the same propaganda tactics.
Like it or lump it.

Lump communists. Into graves.

Someone please remove that tribute to alcoholics, the statue of martin [sic] luther [sic] king [sic] jr. [sic]

Pretty sure martin [sic] luther [sic] king [sic] jr. [sic] had nothing to do with rewriting the history of this country to glorify white supremacy. Pretty sure he had nothing to do with alcoholism either. Too bad he wasn't a pot smoker, because then you could have shot him in the face.

 

[Utilitarian]

Perhaps, but they likely comprise a small contingent of those who voted for Trump overall. I only know 1 or 2 Trump supporters in real life that care about this sort of thing.

What most people seem to be worried about is where it goes from here. As I mentioned in another post, there seems to be a mentality of expanding which statues should be taken down. Taking down a statue of General Lee is one thing. Taking down a statue of Jefferson is quite another, even though he did have many slaves.

You are correct, those would indeed be quite different things.
That's because these Confederate monuments coming down has nothing to do with "who owned slaves" and it's dishonest to pretend that's what it's about.

Which is of course why Rump did exactly that at his hissyfit speech in Charlottesville. Can't deal with the actual dynamic, so he built a strawman instead of a statue. One which those of us with functioning brain cells are delighted to take down. And smash.

It does actually play a part. And it's not limited to America. In the UK, there has been a movement to remove statues and change names of institutions that are connected to Imperial figures. Slavery is a big part of that discussion, as is colonialism. There are American counterparts that use the same argument to remove statues of certain Founders like Jefferson. This movement isn't as significant as the one for removing Confederate monuments, but it is growing.

It is not dishonest to point these things out. It's no different from pointing out how "anti-racism" is really just another word for anti-white rhetoric. That's another ideology that is growing among the left.

 

[Pogo]

Perhaps, but they likely comprise a small contingent of those who voted for Trump overall. I only know 1 or 2 Trump supporters in real life that care about this sort of thing.

What most people seem to be worried about is where it goes from here. As I mentioned in another post, there seems to be a mentality of expanding which statues should be taken down. Taking down a statue of General Lee is one thing. Taking down a statue of Jefferson is quite another, even though he did have many slaves.

You are correct, those would indeed be quite different things.
That's because these Confederate monuments coming down has nothing to do with "who owned slaves" and it's dishonest to pretend that's what it's about.

Which is of course why Rump did exactly that at his hissyfit speech in Charlottesville. Can't deal with the actual dynamic, so he built a strawman instead of a statue. One which those of us with functioning brain cells are delighted to take down. And smash.

It does actually play a part. And it's not limited to America. In the UK, there has been a movement to remove statues and change names of institutions that are connected to Imperial figures. Slavery is a big part of that discussion, as is colonialism. There are American counterparts that use the same argument to remove statues of certain Founders like Jefferson. This movement isn't as significant as the one for removing Confederate monuments, but it is growing.

It is not dishonest to point these things out. It's no different from pointing out how "anti-racism" is really just another word for anti-white rhetoric. That's another ideology that is growing among the left.

Correlation without Causation. They're not related.

Again, the dynamic behind the topic here, relates specifically to the Cult of the Lost Cause that put those monuments up there in the first place. This doesn't preclude OTHER unrelated monuments from being removed anywhere in the world for whatever other reason.

Again, I've posted this before but it's buried by now, easier to just repost. This is as good an overview of the working dynamic as any:

​

For further reading Landrieu expands on that background and his own discovery thereof, here.

>> So why wasn’t this history better known? To the Lost Cause, rewriting the narrative of the war was as important as erecting monuments, and it largely worked. Still to this day, many I know in Louisiana believe the Civil War was more about states’ rights than preserving slavery. Even leaders at the highest levels of our national government try to dispute the cause of the Civil War.​

​

... The propaganda the Lost Cause adherents were peddling was not only benign myth, it was a lie that distorted history, sought to rationalize lynching, and created a second class of citizenship for African-Americans. With every new piece of history, it became clearer that the symbols were intended to send a specific message to African-Americans. I firmly believe that they had a link to the systems and institutions that we are working to address today.​

​

Most importantly, these particular statues do not represent history—they are an affront to it. I knew this sanitizing of history must end, and I did what I could, which was work with our City Council to remove them. We all have to keep pushing. <<​

​

As we've also noted, one of those monuments New Orleans took down was a statue of Robert E. Lee, prominently placed in the center of "Lee Circle" where major downtown streets come together, a statue defiantly facing North. Iconography that Lee himself specifically advised against in the interest of healing the nation. Another monument, the first one the city removed, was a "memorial" to the "Battle of Liberty Place", which commemorated a coup by force, taking over a democratically-elected city government that was biracial, by a white supremacist group called the White League in the 1870s. That particular monument, an obelisk with an inscription lauding the idea of white supremacy, stood for decades at the foot of Canal Street, literally the busiest point in the city, the heart of downtown, where it would be impossible to not notice.

All these monuments, having been placed on public property, were then relocated by the public governments of that public property, as is and always has been their right. Cities/towns/states are aware that such a conspicuous monument, placed on prominent public lands, as such represent and speak for that city, state or town, and they wish not to be represented that way, simple as that. And that's exactly why I call them "propaganda transmitters" since that's exactly what they were placed there FOR.

"Lee Circle/Lee Place" was in fact created by ordinance of that same white supremacist government that had taken over the city by force, less than three years after that coup, so ALL of these are related whether they involve the UDC or not, whether they refer specifically to the Confederacy or not.

Much like in the late 1980s when the new owner of a building at 205 West Madison Street in Pulaski Tennessee, pulled a plaque off the outside wall and turned it backward so that it looks blank. The plaque, placed there in 1917 by the same UDC that ran around frantically erecting Lost Cause monuments, which commemorated that building as the site of the founding of the original Ku Klux Klan in 1865. Again, the building owner's right. And nobody objected to that action except some die-hard Klan people who made annual pilgrimages to the site.

 

[Utilitarian]

Correlation without Causation. They're not related.

Again, the dynamic behind the topic here, relates specifically to the Cult of the Lost Cause that put those monuments up there in the first place. This doesn't preclude OTHER unrelated monuments from being removed anywhere in the world for whatever other reason.

Again, I've posted this before but it's buried by now, easier to just repost. This is as good an overview of the working dynamic as any:

​

For further reading Landrieu expands on that background and his own discovery thereof, here.

>> So why wasn’t this history better known? To the Lost Cause, rewriting the narrative of the war was as important as erecting monuments, and it largely worked. Still to this day, many I know in Louisiana believe the Civil War was more about states’ rights than preserving slavery. Even leaders at the highest levels of our national government try to dispute the cause of the Civil War.​

​

... The propaganda the Lost Cause adherents were peddling was not only benign myth, it was a lie that distorted history, sought to rationalize lynching, and created a second class of citizenship for African-Americans. With every new piece of history, it became clearer that the symbols were intended to send a specific message to African-Americans. I firmly believe that they had a link to the systems and institutions that we are working to address today.​

​

Most importantly, these particular statues do not represent history—they are an affront to it. I knew this sanitizing of history must end, and I did what I could, which was work with our City Council to remove them. We all have to keep pushing. <<​

​

As we've also noted, one of those monuments New Orleans took down was a statue of Robert E. Lee, prominently placed in the center of "Lee Circle" where major downtown streets come together, a statue defiantly facing North. Iconography that Lee himself specifically advised against in the interest of healing the nation. Another monument, the first one the city removed, was a "memorial" to the "Battle of Liberty Place", which commemorated a coup by force, taking over a democratically-elected city government that was biracial, by a white supremacist group called the White League in the 1870s. That particular monument, an obelisk with an inscription lauding the idea of white supremacy, stood for decades at the foot of Canal Street, literally the busiest point in the city, the heart of downtown, where it would be impossible to not notice.

All these monuments, having been placed on public property, were then relocated by the public governments of that public property, as is and always has been their right. Cities/towns/states are aware that such a conspicuous monument, placed on prominent public lands, as such represent and speak for that city, state or town, and they wish not to be represented that way, simple as that. And that's exactly why I call them "propaganda transmitters" since that's exactly what they were placed there FOR.

Much like the new owner of the building at 205 West Madison Street in Pulaski Tennessee, pulled a plaque off the outside wall and turned it backward so that it looks blank. The plaque, placed there in 1917 by the same UDC that ran around frantically erecting Lost Cause monuments, which commemorated that building as the site of the founding of the original Ku Klux Klan in 1865. Again, the building owner's right. And nobody objected to that action except some die-hard Klan people who made annual pilgrimages to the site.

Sanitizing history is also a matter of treating Lincoln as an idealist. He was a pragmatist. He was even quoted as saying that he would be willing to not end slavery if there was some way to preserve the Union without ending it. He also did not initially free all of the slaves -- just the ones in states that were officially controlled by the Confederates.

The Civil War was partially about slavery, but if you look at the full context of what led up to it, it was about other things as well. Before the Civil War, there was an ongoing conflict involving the creation of new states. For every new free state created, a new slave state had to be created to keep both sides appeased. There were major conflicts over this sort of thing, like in Kansas (shortly before the war). And then there was also the economic difference between the North and South. The South provided a lot of raw materials for the North's production of finished goods.

Slavery was certainly a big part of it, but the North wasn't exactly some virtuous cause fighting solely for abolition. Lincoln himself was favorable towards encouraging blacks to return to Africa.

But it is true that many Confederate statues were erected after the war and often during Jim Crow. Some were a matter of intimidation. Others, however, were a matter of remembering fallen ancestors.

 

[Pogo]

Correlation without Causation. They're not related.

Again, the dynamic behind the topic here, relates specifically to the Cult of the Lost Cause that put those monuments up there in the first place. This doesn't preclude OTHER unrelated monuments from being removed anywhere in the world for whatever other reason.

Again, I've posted this before but it's buried by now, easier to just repost. This is as good an overview of the working dynamic as any:

​

For further reading Landrieu expands on that background and his own discovery thereof, here.

>> So why wasn’t this history better known? To the Lost Cause, rewriting the narrative of the war was as important as erecting monuments, and it largely worked. Still to this day, many I know in Louisiana believe the Civil War was more about states’ rights than preserving slavery. Even leaders at the highest levels of our national government try to dispute the cause of the Civil War.​

​

... The propaganda the Lost Cause adherents were peddling was not only benign myth, it was a lie that distorted history, sought to rationalize lynching, and created a second class of citizenship for African-Americans. With every new piece of history, it became clearer that the symbols were intended to send a specific message to African-Americans. I firmly believe that they had a link to the systems and institutions that we are working to address today.​

​

Most importantly, these particular statues do not represent history—they are an affront to it. I knew this sanitizing of history must end, and I did what I could, which was work with our City Council to remove them. We all have to keep pushing. <<​

​

As we've also noted, one of those monuments New Orleans took down was a statue of Robert E. Lee, prominently placed in the center of "Lee Circle" where major downtown streets come together, a statue defiantly facing North. Iconography that Lee himself specifically advised against in the interest of healing the nation. Another monument, the first one the city removed, was a "memorial" to the "Battle of Liberty Place", which commemorated a coup by force, taking over a democratically-elected city government that was biracial, by a white supremacist group called the White League in the 1870s. That particular monument, an obelisk with an inscription lauding the idea of white supremacy, stood for decades at the foot of Canal Street, literally the busiest point in the city, the heart of downtown, where it would be impossible to not notice.

All these monuments, having been placed on public property, were then relocated by the public governments of that public property, as is and always has been their right. Cities/towns/states are aware that such a conspicuous monument, placed on prominent public lands, as such represent and speak for that city, state or town, and they wish not to be represented that way, simple as that. And that's exactly why I call them "propaganda transmitters" since that's exactly what they were placed there FOR.

"Lee Circle/Lee Place" was in fact created by ordinance of that same white supremacist government that had taken over the city by force, less than three years after that coup, so ALL of these are related whether they involve the UDC or not, whether they refer specifically to the Confederacy or not.

Much like in the late 1980s when the new owner of a building at 205 West Madison Street in Pulaski Tennessee, pulled a plaque off the outside wall and turned it backward so that it looks blank. The plaque, placed there in 1917 by the same UDC that ran around frantically erecting Lost Cause monuments, which commemorated that building as the site of the founding of the original Ku Klux Klan in 1865. Again, the building owner's right. And nobody objected to that action except some die-hard Klan people who made annual pilgrimages to the site.

Sanitizing history is also a matter of treating Lincoln as an idealist. He was a pragmatist. He was even quoted as saying that he would be willing to not end slavery if there was some way to preserve the Union without ending it. He also did not initially free all of the slaves -- just the ones in states that were officially controlled by the Confederates.

Of course. But that's known and recorded history. There's no United Daughters of Lincoln running around erecting monuments to distort his history. If there had been, they'd be under fire for their propaganda too.

The Civil War was partially about slavery, but if you look at the full context of what led up to it, it was about other things as well. Before the Civil War, there was an ongoing conflict involving the creation of new states. For every new free state created, a new slave state had to be created to keep both sides appeased. There were major conflicts over this sort of thing, like in Kansas (shortly before the war). And then there was also the economic difference between the North and South. The South provided a lot of raw materials for the North's production of finished goods.

Slavery was certainly a big part of it, but the North wasn't exactly some virtuous cause fighting solely for abolition. Lincoln himself was favorable towards encouraging blacks to return to Africa.

All true. But you just claimed the Civil War was only "partially" about slavery, and then proceeded to list a lot of "other" dynamics that ALL are related to slavery and Slavocracy.

The Lost Cause Cult and its textbooks and its pop culture icons, though, would have us believe that it wasn't about slavery at all, and even if it was the enslaved were "happy" with it (see post 108 again) and that the cause of enriching oneself off the backs of the enslaved was somehow "noble". It is that sentiment that municipalities are removing, wishing to not be associated with it.

But it is true that many Confederate statues were erected after the war and often during Jim Crow. Some were a matter of intimidation. Others, however, were a matter of remembering fallen ancestors.

Those "others" were (a) erected JUST after the War, when memories of it were still fresh (the UDC by contrast didn't even exist until 1894, whereupon it went immediately to work on propaganda transmitters to whitewash the events of three/four decades in the past, both via monuments and school textbooks) ...

and (b) were located where such monuments belong --- in cemeteries and on battlefield sites. As is done for ANY war. There's a YUGE difference between that, and taking over prominent public spaces to influence the public mind about a historical event that went down very differently from what the monument's message says.

As you correctly hinted it's no coincidence that the frantic erection of all these propaganda transmitters -- monuments, school textbooks, pop culture icons --- temporally coincided with Jim Crow, rampant segregation, rampant lynchings complete with body part souvenirs and postcards, baseball's "gentlemen's agreement" effectively banning black players from baseball, blackface minstrel shows, the spate of race riots in the same period especially the "Red Summer" of 1919 and the Tulsa Race Riot of 1921; and the re-formation of the Ku Klux Klan at Stone Mountain in 1915, in direct result of that same Lost Cause pop culture (the film "Birth of a Nation", derived from the play/book "the Clansman" of 1905). All happening at the same time and all part of the same propaganda. A propagandic history revision to which communities wish not to return. Or to sustain, which is what they effectively do by allowing such PTs to remain standing on THEIR property. Every day that monument of Robert E. Lee defying "the North" continues to stand, is a day that city sustains that propaganda and takes responsibility as being part of the problem.

It can be jarring to find out that values and stories one was taught all one's life were just "normal", were actually born of nefarious purpose since they were generated by real humans with real flaws. But the truth shall set us free.

 

[Utilitarian]

Those "others" were (a) erected JUST after the War, when memories of it were still fresh (the UDC by contrast didn't even exist until 1894, whereupon it went immediately to work on propaganda transmitters to whitewash the events of three/four decades in the past,, both via monuments and school textbooks) ...

and (b) were located where such monuments belong --- in cemeteries and on battlefield sites. As is done for ANY war. There's a YUGE difference between that, and taking over prominent public spaces to influence the public mind about a historical event that went down very differently from what the monument's message says.

By the same logic then, we could say the same for many monuments of Founders. The American Revolution was really only fought for the freedom of white landowning males. They were the only ones who could vote initially, and slavery obviously stayed intact for almost a century after the revolution.

If slavery is really the source of the issue, then why not apply the logic evenly? In this respect, I have to admit that the people calling for the removal of Jefferson statues and the like are consistent in their distaste for slavery.

If the Founders don't apply, however, then the actual issue for removing Confederate statues would seem to be more related to keeping around monuments of those on a losing side of a war, not specifically supporters of slavery, since that was not unique to the Confederacy.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Those "others" were (a) erected JUST after the War, when memories of it were still fresh (the UDC by contrast didn't even exist until 1894, whereupon it went immediately to work on propaganda transmitters to whitewash the events of three/four decades in the past,, both via monuments and school textbooks) ...

and (b) were located where such monuments belong --- in cemeteries and on battlefield sites. As is done for ANY war. There's a YUGE difference between that, and taking over prominent public spaces to influence the public mind about a historical event that went down very differently from what the monument's message says.

By the same logic then, we could say the same for many monuments of Founders. The American Revolution was really only fought for the freedom of white landowning males. They were the only ones who could vote initially, and slavery obviously stayed intact for almost a century after the revolution.

If slavery is really the source of the issue, then why not apply the logic evenly? In this respect, I have to admit that the people calling for the removal of Jefferson statues and the like are consistent in their distaste for slavery.

If the Founders don't apply, however, then the actual issue for removing Confederate statues would seem to be more related to keeping around monuments of those on a losing side of a war, not specifically supporters of slavery, since that was not unique to the Confederacy.

They’re already coming after the founders. In reality, it is not so much slavery itself as that is just one excuse. The goal is to usurp the entire culture in order to more successfully implement Marxism. That is the main goal.

 

[Pogo]

Those "others" were (a) erected JUST after the War, when memories of it were still fresh (the UDC by contrast didn't even exist until 1894, whereupon it went immediately to work on propaganda transmitters to whitewash the events of three/four decades in the past, both via monuments and school textbooks) ...

and (b) were located where such monuments belong --- in cemeteries and on battlefield sites. As is done for ANY war. There's a YUGE difference between that, and taking over prominent public spaces to influence the public mind about a historical event that went down very differently from what the monument's message says.

As you correctly hinted it's no coincidence that the frantic erection of all these propaganda transmitters -- monuments, school textbooks, pop culture icons --- temporally coincided with Jim Crow, rampant segregation, rampant lynchings complete with body part souvenirs and postcards, baseball's "gentlemen's agreement" effectively banning black players from baseball, blackface minstrel shows, the spate of race riots in the same period especially the "Red Summer" of 1919 and the Tulsa Race Riot of 1921; and the re-formation of the Ku Klux Klan at Stone Mountain in 1915, in direct result of that same Lost Cause pop culture (the film "Birth of a Nation", derived from the play/book "the Clansman" of 1905). All happening at the same time and all part of the same propaganda. A propagandic history revision to which communities wish not to return. Or to sustain, which is what they effectively do by allowing such PTs to remain standing on THEIR property. Every day that monument of Robert E. Lee defying "the North" continues to stand, is a day that city sustains that propaganda and takes responsibility as being part of the problem.

It can be jarring to find out that values and stories one was taught all one's life were just "normal", were actually born of nefarious purpose since they were generated by real humans with real flaws. But the truth shall set us free.

By the same logic then, we could say the same for many monuments of Founders. The American Revolution was really only fought for the freedom of white landowning males. They were the only ones who could vote initially, and slavery obviously stayed intact for almost a century after the revolution.

Far as I know there has been no cult propaganda machine running around editing textbooks and pushing a narrative in defiance of the historical record. We're all aware of (for example) Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemmings. Certainly the tension between consolidating a country based on "all men are created equal" while simultaneously bribing the slave states with the ability to count 3/5 of their slaves for political power while granting those same slaves 0/5 of a vote, was always a paradox and led directly to the inevitable conflict we now call the Civil War. To the extent whatever monument to the Founders (or more pertinently, whatever schoolbook) omits that tension, that's a dishonest or at the least, slanted, portrait that needs to be exposed, and already has been. And as far as I can see, it's been exposed, discussed and analyzed without any of the butthurt of "waaah muh statues" that we get here. Just as that Klan plaque was turned backward without objection.

If slavery is really the source of the issue, then why not apply the logic evenly? In this respect, I have to admit that the people calling for the removal of Jefferson statues and the like are consistent in their distaste for slavery.

I don't know those people or their motivations, but it's unrelated to this topic in that Thomas Jefferson died in 1826 and had nothing to do directly with the Civil War or with whitewashing its history thirty years after the fact.

If the Founders don't apply, however, then the actual issue for removing Confederate statues would seem to be more related to keeping around monuments of those on a losing side of a war, not specifically supporters of slavery, since that was not unique to the Confederacy.

Actually it was unique to the Confederacy by then. They all wrote it into their articles of secession, while the rest of the states had abolished it and had no plans to reinstate Slavery. But the issue for removing propaganda transmitters is ---------- the propaganda that they transmit. Not that complex. In a nutshell, when you've got propaganda transmitters sanctioned by your city, you're thus propagating propaganda, until you put a stop to it.

 

[Pogo]

Those "others" were (a) erected JUST after the War, when memories of it were still fresh (the UDC by contrast didn't even exist until 1894, whereupon it went immediately to work on propaganda transmitters to whitewash the events of three/four decades in the past,, both via monuments and school textbooks) ...

and (b) were located where such monuments belong --- in cemeteries and on battlefield sites. As is done for ANY war. There's a YUGE difference between that, and taking over prominent public spaces to influence the public mind about a historical event that went down very differently from what the monument's message says.

By the same logic then, we could say the same for many monuments of Founders. The American Revolution was really only fought for the freedom of white landowning males. They were the only ones who could vote initially, and slavery obviously stayed intact for almost a century after the revolution.

If slavery is really the source of the issue, then why not apply the logic evenly? In this respect, I have to admit that the people calling for the removal of Jefferson statues and the like are consistent in their distaste for slavery.

If the Founders don't apply, however, then the actual issue for removing Confederate statues would seem to be more related to keeping around monuments of those on a losing side of a war, not specifically supporters of slavery, since that was not unique to the Confederacy.

They’re already coming after the founders. In reality, it is not so much slavery itself as that is just one excuse. The goal is to usurp the entire culture in order to more successfully implement Marxism. That is the main goal.

If that were true, then those removed Confederate monuments would have been replaced with "Marxist" ones, whatever the fuck that means, as some wag posted a while back as a joke. Perhaps it was you. Perhaps it was not a joke. Perhaps it was your own joke that you didn't even get.

More to the point, insofar as such a silly idea can coexist in the same breath with the word "point", if installing Marxism were some entity's goal, it would be entirely irrelevant to expend energy into Confederate monuments. They're no more related than fish and bicycles.

 

[Canon Shooter]

They should only be held in contempt. They aren't patriots. Patriots don't go to war to leave the union.

What are your thoughts on George Washington. He led the colonies to war for essentially the exact same reason...

 

[harmonica]

I'm very happy to read about this. I hope it continues.

All of those monuments and statues should be in a museum where they belong.

People who attacked our nation causing the bloodiest war in our history, which put brother against brother, which killed over 600 thousand Americans, should never been revered or celebrated.

They should only be held in contempt. They aren't patriots. Patriots don't go to war to leave the union.

They are traitors to our nation and the last thing they deserve is our respect or any sort of monument or statue.

TAI News

Reporting for progress

americanindependent.com

......good thing they got rid of them--because the MURDER rate went up in many cities--and that means more blacks MURDERED
..those statues are more important than black lives--according to you people

 

[harmonica]

Under thst mentality we should still be a British colony flying the Union Jack over our government buildings rather than the Star Spangled Babner.

Except one war was for freedom and the other was for slavery.

just your opinion on the legality of it