Unpatriotic Dems In Virginia Erases Confederate Holiday

[Correll]

Yeah, you said that. And then I pointed out how he changed in life, while you are currently working to tear this nation apart.

So, like I said, uncensored point is likely on. As you know, or you would have directly challenged it.

Actually what Pothead ("Uncensored") said was that Lee, quote, "never owned a slave in his life".

He was wrong about that, and Brutha did directly challenge it.

And yet, Lee, as I said, lost, surrendered and later redeemed himself by becoming a national icon of reconciliation and unity, while superbruther is actively trying to tear this nation apart, so, uncensored's point could still be pretty much on.

"National icon" might be a bit hyperventilative but yes, he did that, and deserves to be recognized that he did. Which, again, proscribes putting up graven images in his name which he specifically discouraged in advance AS PART OF that reconciliatory stance. Ergo to ignore those wishes and plunk him on a building with arms folded confronting the north, is a direct spit in the face OF that stance. It directly contradicts what he ended up standing for.

Meanwhile speaking of lies and using people's images to tell them, we continue to see stuff like this dropped around this site like so much confetti:

-- another case of a racist who reformed, loudly and longly, whose legacy gets perverted by self-serving propagandists for their own jollies despite actual biography.

But this thread/discussion is not about individuals; it's about a collective, specifically a cult. But within that cult, the direct ignorance of the intentions of one of its major figures, intentions you yourself just articulated, demonstrates the naked dishonesty of the propaganda therein.

So you can't have it both ways --- EITHER Robert E.Lee remained a lifelong evil ogre with nothing but negative baggage, OR he came around to see what was needed for his country. IF the latter is the case, THEN that makes the propagandist cult, by perverting his reconciliatory intentions, the ones who are dishonoring history. And it makes those communities like New Orleans, by removing those dishonest perversions, the ones honoring it.

"Recording" that history is of course out of the question and always has been. History has never in all of time been recorded in statues. History is news --- neutral, just the facts. Statues and monuments are editorials --- opinions ABOUT that news.

As for Pothead, his ass-ertion that Lee "never owned a slave in his life" was and still is PROVABLY WRONG. And it was proven so. That too is perverting history. By floating easily disprovable myths Pothead is engaging in the same dishonest propaganda as the LCC. Lee did own slaves and that doesn't go away because he changed his views later, just as Byrd did join the Klan and that doesn't go away because he changed his. But both DID take that course of redemption and neither end of that journey can be ignored just because some wanker wants to float mythology on a message board. So no, his point is not at all "pretty much on", it's BULLSHIT.

How many times, do I have to say the same thing, before you libs actually get it? Do you have to reapply those concrete plugs in your ears, every morning, or are they permanent?

What, because I've been agreeing with you about Robert E. Lee's change of heart?

SMGDFH

There is some irony that one of the men that people want to put historical statues up of, stated that he thought such historical statues was a bad idea.


BUT, imo, and likely in the opinion of those that support the statues, he was in error about the effect that the statues would have on the people of the South AND the way they would be perceived by the people of the rest of the Union.



So, nothing about that, is a justification for removing the statues, or smearing the good people that support them.

So what you're saying is, these stature-erectors went, "let's put a statue up of this guy because he was wrong and we know better".
.....

If putting some negative spin on it, makes you feel better, sure.


And nothing about that, justifies you conflating them with the Lost Cause, or any of the other insane shit you have been doing here.

 

[Pogo]

1. What other group, do you examine and judge whether or not they are allowed to celebrate their heritage and culture?


2. They were forgiven and accepted back into America, by the rest of America, including, the very men that fought and defeated them. Who are you, to have the Moral Authority to over rule them and withdraw that forgiveness? FIVE FUCKING GENERATIONS AFTER THE FACT?

The Confederacy was treason.

What other group in the world is given a holiday to commemorate treason? Is their entire culture defined by this and only this? That is what you seem to be arguing.

YOur pretend outrage over the treason, is not credible at this late date. IN real history, AMERICA and AMERICANS got over that, long ago and for 5 generations, have been fine with the SOuth having regional pride as part of the larger American Identity.


So, your outrage is not credible. Seriously. Not even a little.

If you want to actually contribute to the discussion, instead of posting bs, why don't you try actually ANSWERING the QUESTIONS, you hit the reply button on?



1. What other group, do you examine and judge whether or not they are allowed to celebrate their heritage and culture?


2. They were forgiven and accepted back into America, by the rest of America, including, the very men that fought and defeated them. Who are you, to have the Moral Authority to over rule them and withdraw that forgiveness? FIVE FUCKING GENERATIONS AFTER THE FACT?

Actually....in REAL history...no. One side did not get over it. As far as one side is concerned - the war is still being fought only the battlefields are white washing a bloody heritage into something noble.

If they want to maintain that as part of their culture and heritage - that's their choice. But there are OTHER people living there also who do not view it that way. People for whom that "culture and heritage" represented bondage and brutality and they TOO are part of the population.

\

Seems to me that other "side" has been continually claiming that the South got over the whole racism legacy, moved on and left it in the gutter. And yet here they're trying to bring them back as some kind of nobility. Just doesn't quite compute.

Getting over racism, does not require wallowing in guilt over past wrongs. That is a lib thing, not an American thing. That you don't understand that, is a problem with you, not with US.

So you have no argument to counter the paradox I just articulated.

Yeah, didn't think there was one.

 

[Correll]

Oh, democrats?

Yeah, democrats are real scum. Always were, always will be. They're doing the Jim Crow shit again, but this time against white people. Fucking vermin....

Southerners

Southerners owned slaves for 200 years before the Democratic Party was formed

Again, liberals show that they never learned as toddlers, how generalizations work.

Generalizations are by definition fallacies. The post quoted actually understated the timeline and it was put there in correction to the mythology of associating a political party with Slavery. In actual fact the overwhelming majority of slave owners/traders had no political party at all, both because none was needed for a nonpolitical activity, and not least of which because NONE EXISTED.

Not to mention exponentially greater numbers of Africans that were shipped to other places that to this day have never had a Democratic Party at all, yet somehow found a way to buy and sell human cargo.

So that's how the mythological and fallacious generalization of trying to pin Slavery on a political party goes down in flames. Kablooey.

1. Generalizations are not by definition fallacies.

2. It is a Faulty Generalization to state that "Southerns owned slaves" as though either all southerns owned slaves and/or only southerns owned slaves.

Yes, thank you for shooting your own point in the foot. Saves me work.

What you just said there, was shit. My points thus stand as the final word, until you grow a pair and actually address them.


1. Generalizations are not by definition fallacies.

2. It is a Faulty Generalization to state that "Southerns owned slaves" as though either all southerns owned slaves and/or only southerns owned slaves.

 

[Correll]

Soviet Union wanted to change history. Taliban wanted to change history. Chairman Mao wanted to change history. So I'm not surprised that 2020 Democratic Party wants to do the same.

The Lost Cause changed history

We are trying to fix it

No, you are not. But, as a lib, you just say shit. We know you don't mean nuthin by it.

Tell us again how slavery had nothing to do with the war

Slavery was the primary reason for the war. What the fuck are you talking about?

Oh, right, sorry, forgot for a second. LIbs just say shit, they don't mean nuthin by it.


Any how, The memorials and the statues, are not part of the Lost Cause. They focus very narrowly on the service of the fighting men of the South, ignoring the cause(s) of the war, or the intent of the war.


That is not the "Lost Cause" argument.


Thus, when you lefties, move to tear down the statues and memorials of the South, you are not "trying to fix" history, but rewrite it, and tear the nation apart.

Those statues were put up to remind negroes of their place in life and keep them in their place.

Dude. YOU make a point, and I point out how what you just said was shit, and you don't even try to defend what you said? You just spout off some more shit?


You are pathetic beyond words.



For five generations, since the immediate aftermath of the war, the nation as a whole has accepted the South having regional pride in their heritage and culture as a part of the larger American identity.


This has served this nation well, healing the wounds of the war and moving the nation forward past past conflicts.



That you libs today, want to reopen old wounds, is primary, about you people being fucking assholes.

 

[rightwinger]

Southerners

Southerners owned slaves for 200 years before the Democratic Party was formed

Again, liberals show that they never learned as toddlers, how generalizations work.

Generalizations are by definition fallacies. The post quoted actually understated the timeline and it was put there in correction to the mythology of associating a political party with Slavery. In actual fact the overwhelming majority of slave owners/traders had no political party at all, both because none was needed for a nonpolitical activity, and not least of which because NONE EXISTED.

Not to mention exponentially greater numbers of Africans that were shipped to other places that to this day have never had a Democratic Party at all, yet somehow found a way to buy and sell human cargo.

So that's how the mythological and fallacious generalization of trying to pin Slavery on a political party goes down in flames. Kablooey.

1. Generalizations are not by definition fallacies.

2. It is a Faulty Generalization to state that "Southerns owned slaves" as though either all southerns owned slaves and/or only southerns owned slaves.

Yes, thank you for shooting your own point in the foot. Saves me work.

What you just said there, was shit. My points thus stand as the final word, until you grow a pair and actually address them.


1. Generalizations are not by definition fallacies.

2. It is a Faulty Generalization to state that "Southerns owned slaves" as though either all southerns owned slaves and/or only southerns owned slaves.

All Southerners profited from a slave economy.
They were complicit

 

[Correll]

The Confederacy was treason.

What other group in the world is given a holiday to commemorate treason? Is their entire culture defined by this and only this? That is what you seem to be arguing.

YOur pretend outrage over the treason, is not credible at this late date. IN real history, AMERICA and AMERICANS got over that, long ago and for 5 generations, have been fine with the SOuth having regional pride as part of the larger American Identity.


So, your outrage is not credible. Seriously. Not even a little.

If you want to actually contribute to the discussion, instead of posting bs, why don't you try actually ANSWERING the QUESTIONS, you hit the reply button on?



1. What other group, do you examine and judge whether or not they are allowed to celebrate their heritage and culture?


2. They were forgiven and accepted back into America, by the rest of America, including, the very men that fought and defeated them. Who are you, to have the Moral Authority to over rule them and withdraw that forgiveness? FIVE FUCKING GENERATIONS AFTER THE FACT?

Actually....in REAL history...no. One side did not get over it. As far as one side is concerned - the war is still being fought only the battlefields are white washing a bloody heritage into something noble.

If they want to maintain that as part of their culture and heritage - that's their choice. But there are OTHER people living there also who do not view it that way. People for whom that "culture and heritage" represented bondage and brutality and they TOO are part of the population.

\

Seems to me that other "side" has been continually claiming that the South got over the whole racism legacy, moved on and left it in the gutter. And yet here they're trying to bring them back as some kind of nobility. Just doesn't quite compute.

Getting over racism, does not require wallowing in guilt over past wrongs. That is a lib thing, not an American thing. That you don't understand that, is a problem with you, not with US.

So you have no argument to counter the paradox I just articulated.

Yeah, didn't think there was one.

Umm, I just did that. I pointed out that there is no conflict between the two. Are you....


Oh, right, sorry forgot again. Libs just say shit. Sorry for taking you seriously for a second.


So, yes, of course. There is no conflict between celebrating the sacrifice and/or skill of the Confederate Soldiers or Generals and being done with the racism, that was part of the political decision to go to war in the first place.

 

[Correll]

Again, liberals show that they never learned as toddlers, how generalizations work.

Generalizations are by definition fallacies. The post quoted actually understated the timeline and it was put there in correction to the mythology of associating a political party with Slavery. In actual fact the overwhelming majority of slave owners/traders had no political party at all, both because none was needed for a nonpolitical activity, and not least of which because NONE EXISTED.

Not to mention exponentially greater numbers of Africans that were shipped to other places that to this day have never had a Democratic Party at all, yet somehow found a way to buy and sell human cargo.

So that's how the mythological and fallacious generalization of trying to pin Slavery on a political party goes down in flames. Kablooey.

1. Generalizations are not by definition fallacies.

2. It is a Faulty Generalization to state that "Southerns owned slaves" as though either all southerns owned slaves and/or only southerns owned slaves.

Yes, thank you for shooting your own point in the foot. Saves me work.

What you just said there, was shit. My points thus stand as the final word, until you grow a pair and actually address them.


1. Generalizations are not by definition fallacies.

2. It is a Faulty Generalization to state that "Southerns owned slaves" as though either all southerns owned slaves and/or only southerns owned slaves.

All Southerners profited from a slave economy.
They were complicit

No, they did not. No they were not.


This is where, you would defend your points, by making an argument to support them.


Except, you are a liberal, and in this day and age, libs just talk shit.


So, instead of making the case for your absurd claims, you will just spout some other shit from your face anus and keep moving forward to the next shit claim.



In the real world, what is going on, is that assholes like you, are racists and bigots and fucking with the Southerns, who just want the same freedom to celebrate their history and culture that everyone else has,


you are fucking with them, just so you can be shit spewing assholes.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

The Lost Cause changed history

We are trying to fix it

No, you are not. But, as a lib, you just say shit. We know you don't mean nuthin by it.

Tell us again how slavery had nothing to do with the war

Slavery was the primary reason for the war. What the fuck are you talking about?

Oh, right, sorry, forgot for a second. LIbs just say shit, they don't mean nuthin by it.


Any how, The memorials and the statues, are not part of the Lost Cause. They focus very narrowly on the service of the fighting men of the South, ignoring the cause(s) of the war, or the intent of the war.


That is not the "Lost Cause" argument.


Thus, when you lefties, move to tear down the statues and memorials of the South, you are not "trying to fix" history, but rewrite it, and tear the nation apart.

The Lost Cause strategy is by its own definition -- "an American pseudo-historical, negationist ideology that holds that the cause of the Confederacy during the American Civil War was a just and heroic one" -- which is wasn't....

Correct. Focusing not on the "Cause" of the fight, but the service and sacrifice of the soldiers doing the fighting, is completely different.


That was pretty cool. YOu actually made a point. Now, if you can admit that your point was successfully refuted, and we can move on,


for one second, you would not be just talking shit, like a normal liberal.


Of course, you are not going to do that.

Your delusion has long been refuted, much in the same way the confederacy and slavery was refuted....now if you are just a glutton for punishment -- why don't you humor us by explaining why the Nazis were just in their cause.....

Are you for the erecting of statues like Rommel to celebrate his skills and strategy on the battlefield?? In the effort of "EXTERMINATING JEWS"??

Something tells me you won't -- which tells me you have more respect for the plight of the Jews at the hands of the Nazis than you do for the plight of black people at the hands of the Nazis here in the US

 

[Correll]

No, you are not. But, as a lib, you just say shit. We know you don't mean nuthin by it.

Tell us again how slavery had nothing to do with the war

Slavery was the primary reason for the war. What the fuck are you talking about?

Oh, right, sorry, forgot for a second. LIbs just say shit, they don't mean nuthin by it.


Any how, The memorials and the statues, are not part of the Lost Cause. They focus very narrowly on the service of the fighting men of the South, ignoring the cause(s) of the war, or the intent of the war.


That is not the "Lost Cause" argument.


Thus, when you lefties, move to tear down the statues and memorials of the South, you are not "trying to fix" history, but rewrite it, and tear the nation apart.

The Lost Cause strategy is by its own definition -- "an American pseudo-historical, negationist ideology that holds that the cause of the Confederacy during the American Civil War was a just and heroic one" -- which is wasn't....

Correct. Focusing not on the "Cause" of the fight, but the service and sacrifice of the soldiers doing the fighting, is completely different.


That was pretty cool. YOu actually made a point. Now, if you can admit that your point was successfully refuted, and we can move on,


for one second, you would not be just talking shit, like a normal liberal.


Of course, you are not going to do that.

Your delusion has long been refuted, much in the same way the confederacy and slavery was refuted....now if you are just a glutton for punishment -- why don't you humor us by explaining why the Nazis were just in their cause.....

Are you for the erecting of statues like Rommel to celebrate his skills and strategy on the battlefield?? In the effort of "EXTERMINATING JEWS"??

Something tells me you won't -- which tells me you have more respect for the plight of the Jews at the hands of the Nazis than you do for the plight of black people at the hands of the Nazis here in the US

Yeah, earlier in the thread we covered how you libs can't grasp that different situations are treated differently.

One of you guys actually claimed that slavery and genocide was the same thing. It was hilarious. He was a moron and humiliated himself.


Anyhow. so, you trolls, I mean libs, are now just going in circles.



In the real world, this is the situation. America as a whole, long ago embraced the South and it's celebration of regional pride and part of our larger American identity.


No one has a problem with it. And we all know that you are only pretending to care, so that you have an excuse to attack your enemies.


You should be ashamed of your actions.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Tell us again how slavery had nothing to do with the war

Slavery was the primary reason for the war. What the fuck are you talking about?

Oh, right, sorry, forgot for a second. LIbs just say shit, they don't mean nuthin by it.


Any how, The memorials and the statues, are not part of the Lost Cause. They focus very narrowly on the service of the fighting men of the South, ignoring the cause(s) of the war, or the intent of the war.


That is not the "Lost Cause" argument.


Thus, when you lefties, move to tear down the statues and memorials of the South, you are not "trying to fix" history, but rewrite it, and tear the nation apart.

The Lost Cause strategy is by its own definition -- "an American pseudo-historical, negationist ideology that holds that the cause of the Confederacy during the American Civil War was a just and heroic one" -- which is wasn't....

Correct. Focusing not on the "Cause" of the fight, but the service and sacrifice of the soldiers doing the fighting, is completely different.


That was pretty cool. YOu actually made a point. Now, if you can admit that your point was successfully refuted, and we can move on,


for one second, you would not be just talking shit, like a normal liberal.


Of course, you are not going to do that.

Your delusion has long been refuted, much in the same way the confederacy and slavery was refuted....now if you are just a glutton for punishment -- why don't you humor us by explaining why the Nazis were just in their cause.....

Are you for the erecting of statues like Rommel to celebrate his skills and strategy on the battlefield?? In the effort of "EXTERMINATING JEWS"??

Something tells me you won't -- which tells me you have more respect for the plight of the Jews at the hands of the Nazis than you do for the plight of black people at the hands of the Nazis here in the US

Yeah, earlier in the thread we covered how you libs can't grasp that different situations are treated differently.

One of you guys actually claimed that slavery and genocide was the same thing. It was hilarious. He was a moron and humiliated himself.


Anyhow. so, you trolls, I mean libs, are now just going in circles.



In the real world, this is the situation. America as a whole, long ago embraced the South and it's celebration of regional pride and part of our larger American identity.


No one has a problem with it. And we all know that you are only pretending to care, so that you have an excuse to attack your enemies.


You should be ashamed of your actions.

That tap dancing you are doing is called a deflection....

Which proves my point.....

 

[Correll]

Slavery was the primary reason for the war. What the fuck are you talking about?

Oh, right, sorry, forgot for a second. LIbs just say shit, they don't mean nuthin by it.


Any how, The memorials and the statues, are not part of the Lost Cause. They focus very narrowly on the service of the fighting men of the South, ignoring the cause(s) of the war, or the intent of the war.


That is not the "Lost Cause" argument.


Thus, when you lefties, move to tear down the statues and memorials of the South, you are not "trying to fix" history, but rewrite it, and tear the nation apart.

The Lost Cause strategy is by its own definition -- "an American pseudo-historical, negationist ideology that holds that the cause of the Confederacy during the American Civil War was a just and heroic one" -- which is wasn't....

Correct. Focusing not on the "Cause" of the fight, but the service and sacrifice of the soldiers doing the fighting, is completely different.


That was pretty cool. YOu actually made a point. Now, if you can admit that your point was successfully refuted, and we can move on,


for one second, you would not be just talking shit, like a normal liberal.


Of course, you are not going to do that.

Your delusion has long been refuted, much in the same way the confederacy and slavery was refuted....now if you are just a glutton for punishment -- why don't you humor us by explaining why the Nazis were just in their cause.....

Are you for the erecting of statues like Rommel to celebrate his skills and strategy on the battlefield?? In the effort of "EXTERMINATING JEWS"??

Something tells me you won't -- which tells me you have more respect for the plight of the Jews at the hands of the Nazis than you do for the plight of black people at the hands of the Nazis here in the US

Yeah, earlier in the thread we covered how you libs can't grasp that different situations are treated differently.

One of you guys actually claimed that slavery and genocide was the same thing. It was hilarious. He was a moron and humiliated himself.


Anyhow. so, you trolls, I mean libs, are now just going in circles.



In the real world, this is the situation. America as a whole, long ago embraced the South and it's celebration of regional pride and part of our larger American identity.


No one has a problem with it. And we all know that you are only pretending to care, so that you have an excuse to attack your enemies.


You should be ashamed of your actions.

That tap dancing you are doing is called a deflection....

Which proves my point.....

My pointing out that different situations were treated differently, and making fun of you for being surprised at that, is not deflection.


My point stands.



Anyhow. so, you trolls, I mean libs, are now just going in circles.



In the real world, this is the situation. America as a whole, long ago embraced the South and it's celebration of regional pride and part of our larger American identity.


No one has a problem with it. And we all know that you are only pretending to care, so that you have an excuse to attack your enemies.


You should be ashamed of your actions.[

 

[Pogo]

The Lost Cause changed history

We are trying to fix it

No, you are not. But, as a lib, you just say shit. We know you don't mean nuthin by it.

Tell us again how slavery had nothing to do with the war

Slavery was the primary reason for the war. What the fuck are you talking about?

Oh, right, sorry, forgot for a second. LIbs just say shit, they don't mean nuthin by it.

Any how, The memorials and the statues, are not part of the Lost Cause. They focus very narrowly on the service of the fighting men of the South, ignoring the cause(s) of the war, or the intent of the war.

That is not the "Lost Cause" argument.

Thus, when you lefties, move to tear down the statues and memorials of the South, you are not "trying to fix" history, but rewrite it, and tear the nation apart.

Those statues were put up to remind negroes of their place in life and keep them in their place.

Dude. YOU make a point, and I point out how what you just said was shit, and you don't even try to defend what you said? You just spout off some more shit?

You are pathetic beyond words.

For five generations, since the immediate aftermath of the war, the nation as a whole has accepted the South having regional pride in their heritage and culture as a part of the larger American identity.

This has served this nation well, healing the wounds of the war and moving the nation forward past past conflicts.

That you libs today, want to reopen old wounds, is primary, about you people being fucking assholes.

SMGDMFH

>> It’s helpful, in the midst of any conversation about this country’s Confederate monuments, to understand who put these things up, which also offers a clue as to why. In large part, the answer to the first question is the United Daughters of the Confederacy, a white Southern women’s “heritage” group founded in 1894. Starting 30 years after the Civil War, as historian Karen Cox notes in her 2003 book “Dixie’s Daughters,” “UDC members aspired to transform military defeat into a political and cultural victory, where states’ rights and white supremacy remained intact.” In other words, when the Civil War gave them lemons, the UDC made lemonade. Horribly bitter, super racist lemonade.

Though the UDC didn’t invent the Lost Cause ideology, they were deeply involved in spreading the myth, which simultaneously contends the Confederacy wasn’t fighting to keep black people enslaved while also suggesting slavery was pretty good for everyone involved.

... “In their earliest days, the United Daughters of the Confederacy definitely did some good work on behalf of veterans and in their communities,” says Heidi Christensen, former president of the Seattle, Washington, chapter of the UDC, who left the organization in 2012. “But it’s also true that since the UDC was founded in 1894, it has maintained a covert connection with the Ku Klux Klan. In fact, in many ways, the group was the de facto women’s auxiliary of the KKK at the turn of the century. It’s a connection the group downplays now, but evidence of it is easily discoverable — you don’t even have to look very hard to find it.”

1. They published a very pro-KKK book. For children.

In 1914, the in-house historian of the UDC Mississippi chapter, Laura Martin Rose, published “The Ku Klux Klan, or Invisible Empire.” It’s essentially a love letter to the original Klan for its handiwork in the field of domestic terror in the years following the Civil War, when blacks achieved a modicum of political power.

“[D]uring the Reconstruction period, sturdy white men of the South, against all odds, maintained white supremacy and secured Caucasian civilization, when its very foundations were threatened within and without,” Rose writes.

She goes on to provide a look at the roots of racist anti-black stereotypes and language in this country, a lot of which is still recognizable in modern right-wing rhetoric. For example, she accuses black people of laziness* — and wanting a handout — for refusing to keep working for free for white enslavers, and instead trying to find fortune where the jobs were: “Many negroes conceived the idea that freedom meant cessation from labor, so they left the fields, crowding into the cities and towns, expecting to be fed by the United States Government.” In one section, with pretty overt delight, Rose highlights the methods the KKK used to terrify black people, including posting notes around towns with the “picture of a figure dangling from the limb of a tree,” and exalts the KKK’s lawless, murderous violence:​

[*anyone remember which contemporary figure declared "Laziness is a trait in blacks"? Hint: he's orange]
​

.. 2. Actually, they published at least two very pro-KKK books. . .

. . .and probably many more. Another UDC ode to the KKK was written by Annie Cooper Burton, then-president of the Los Angeles chapter of the UDC, and published in 1916. Titled “The Ku Klux Klan,” much like Rose’s aforementioned book, it argues that the Klan has gotten a bad rap just because they terrorized and intimidated black people, not infrequently assaulting and raping black women, murdering black citizens, and burning down black townships. For these reasons, she suggests, the UDC should do even more to show reverence to the Klan:

“Every clubhouse of the United Daughters of the Confederacy should have a memorial tablet dedicated to the Ku Klux Klan; that would be a monument not to one man, but to five hundred and fifty thousand men, to whom all Southerners owe a debt of gratitude.”

By “all Southerners,” Burton clearly means “only white people,” which is also what she means whenever she uses the word “people.”

3. They built a monument to the KKK.

The UDC was busiest during the 1910s and 1920s, two decades during which the group erected hundreds of Confederate monuments that made tangible the racial terror of Jim Crow. This, apparently, the group still considered insufficient to convey their message of white power and to reassert the threat of white violence. So in 1926, the UDC put up a monument to the KKK. In a piece for Facing South, writer Greg Huffman describes a record of the memorial in the UDC’s own 1941 book “North Carolina’s Confederate Monuments and Memorials:”

“IN COMMEMORATION OF THE ‘KU KLUX KLAN’ DURING THE RECONSTRUCTION PERIOD FOLLOWING THE ‘WAR BETWEEN THE STATES’ THIS MARKER IS PLACED ON THEIR ASSEMBLY GROUND. THE ORIGINAL BANNER (AS ABOVE) WAS MADE IN CABARRUS COUNTY. << --- Seven Things the UDC Might Not Want You to Know About Them
​

NOTE -- this is not a reference to the Stone Mountain carving honoring the site of the founding of the 1915 Klan, nor the memorial plaque the UDC put up at the site of the founding of the 1865 Klan --- this is a third monument honoring the Klan in a third different state. This one was erected in Concord, less than 100 miles from where I sit.

 

[Correll]

No, you are not. But, as a lib, you just say shit. We know you don't mean nuthin by it.

Tell us again how slavery had nothing to do with the war

Slavery was the primary reason for the war. What the fuck are you talking about?

Oh, right, sorry, forgot for a second. LIbs just say shit, they don't mean nuthin by it.

Any how, The memorials and the statues, are not part of the Lost Cause. They focus very narrowly on the service of the fighting men of the South, ignoring the cause(s) of the war, or the intent of the war.

That is not the "Lost Cause" argument.

Thus, when you lefties, move to tear down the statues and memorials of the South, you are not "trying to fix" history, but rewrite it, and tear the nation apart.

Those statues were put up to remind negroes of their place in life and keep them in their place.

Dude. YOU make a point, and I point out how what you just said was shit, and you don't even try to defend what you said? You just spout off some more shit?

You are pathetic beyond words.

For five generations, since the immediate aftermath of the war, the nation as a whole has accepted the South having regional pride in their heritage and culture as a part of the larger American identity.

This has served this nation well, healing the wounds of the war and moving the nation forward past past conflicts.

That you libs today, want to reopen old wounds, is primary, about you people being fucking assholes.

SMGDMFH

>> It’s helpful, in the midst of any conversation about this country’s Confederate monuments, to understand who put these things up, which also offers a clue as to why. In large part, the answer to the first question is the United Daughters of the Confederacy, a white Southern women’s “heritage” group founded in 1894. Starting 30 years after the Civil War, as historian Karen Cox notes in her 2003 book “Dixie’s Daughters,” “UDC members aspired to transform military defeat into a political and cultural victory, ......​

Karen who? Why should I take her opinion as fact?


YOu libs are just going in circles. You are just bringing up points, that have already been refuted.


​

For five generations, since the immediate aftermath of the war, the nation as a whole has accepted the South having regional pride in their heritage and culture as a part of the larger American identity.

This has served this nation well, healing the wounds of the war and moving the nation forward past past conflicts.

That you libs today, want to reopen old wounds, is primary, about you people the bad guys.

 

[Pogo]

Tell us again how slavery had nothing to do with the war

Slavery was the primary reason for the war. What the fuck are you talking about?

Oh, right, sorry, forgot for a second. LIbs just say shit, they don't mean nuthin by it.

Any how, The memorials and the statues, are not part of the Lost Cause. They focus very narrowly on the service of the fighting men of the South, ignoring the cause(s) of the war, or the intent of the war.

That is not the "Lost Cause" argument.

Thus, when you lefties, move to tear down the statues and memorials of the South, you are not "trying to fix" history, but rewrite it, and tear the nation apart.

Those statues were put up to remind negroes of their place in life and keep them in their place.

Dude. YOU make a point, and I point out how what you just said was shit, and you don't even try to defend what you said? You just spout off some more shit?

You are pathetic beyond words.

For five generations, since the immediate aftermath of the war, the nation as a whole has accepted the South having regional pride in their heritage and culture as a part of the larger American identity.

This has served this nation well, healing the wounds of the war and moving the nation forward past past conflicts.

That you libs today, want to reopen old wounds, is primary, about you people being fucking assholes.

SMGDMFH

>> It’s helpful, in the midst of any conversation about this country’s Confederate monuments, to understand who put these things up, which also offers a clue as to why. In large part, the answer to the first question is the United Daughters of the Confederacy, a white Southern women’s “heritage” group founded in 1894. Starting 30 years after the Civil War, as historian Karen Cox notes in her 2003 book “Dixie’s Daughters,” “UDC members aspired to transform military defeat into a political and cultural victory, where states’ rights and white supremacy remained intact.” In other words, when the Civil War gave them lemons, the UDC made lemonade. Horribly bitter, super racist lemonade.

Though the UDC didn’t invent the Lost Cause ideology, they were deeply involved in spreading the myth, which simultaneously contends the Confederacy wasn’t fighting to keep black people enslaved while also suggesting slavery was pretty good for everyone involved.

... “In their earliest days, the United Daughters of the Confederacy definitely did some good work on behalf of veterans and in their communities,” says Heidi Christensen, former president of the Seattle, Washington, chapter of the UDC, who left the organization in 2012. “But it’s also true that since the UDC was founded in 1894, it has maintained a covert connection with the Ku Klux Klan. In fact, in many ways, the group was the de facto women’s auxiliary of the KKK at the turn of the century. It’s a connection the group downplays now, but evidence of it is easily discoverable — you don’t even have to look very hard to find it.”

1. They published a very pro-KKK book. For children.

In 1914, the in-house historian of the UDC Mississippi chapter, Laura Martin Rose, published “The Ku Klux Klan, or Invisible Empire.” It’s essentially a love letter to the original Klan for its handiwork in the field of domestic terror in the years following the Civil War, when blacks achieved a modicum of political power.

“[D]uring the Reconstruction period, sturdy white men of the South, against all odds, maintained white supremacy and secured Caucasian civilization, when its very foundations were threatened within and without,” Rose writes.

She goes on to provide a look at the roots of racist anti-black stereotypes and language in this country, a lot of which is still recognizable in modern right-wing rhetoric. For example, she accuses black people of laziness* — and wanting a handout — for refusing to keep working for free for white enslavers, and instead trying to find fortune where the jobs were: “Many negroes conceived the idea that freedom meant cessation from labor, so they left the fields, crowding into the cities and towns, expecting to be fed by the United States Government.” In one section, with pretty overt delight, Rose highlights the methods the KKK used to terrify black people, including posting notes around towns with the “picture of a figure dangling from the limb of a tree,” and exalts the KKK’s lawless, murderous violence:

[*anyone remember which contemporary figure declared "Laziness is a trait in blacks"? Hint: he's orange]
.. 2. Actually, they published at least two very pro-KKK books. . .

. . .and probably many more. Another UDC ode to the KKK was written by Annie Cooper Burton, then-president of the Los Angeles chapter of the UDC, and published in 1916. Titled “The Ku Klux Klan,” much like Rose’s aforementioned book, it argues that the Klan has gotten a bad rap just because they terrorized and intimidated black people, not infrequently assaulting and raping black women, murdering black citizens, and burning down black townships. For these reasons, she suggests, the UDC should do even more to show reverence to the Klan:

“Every clubhouse of the United Daughters of the Confederacy should have a memorial tablet dedicated to the Ku Klux Klan; that would be a monument not to one man, but to five hundred and fifty thousand men, to whom all Southerners owe a debt of gratitude.”

By “all Southerners,” Burton clearly means “only white people,” which is also what she means whenever she uses the word “people.”

3. They built a monument to the KKK.

The UDC was busiest during the 1910s and 1920s, two decades during which the group erected hundreds of Confederate monuments that made tangible the racial terror of Jim Crow. This, apparently, the group still considered insufficient to convey their message of white power and to reassert the threat of white violence. So in 1926, the UDC put up a monument to the KKK. In a piece for Facing South, writer Greg Huffman describes a record of the memorial in the UDC’s own 1941 book “North Carolina’s Confederate Monuments and Memorials:”

“IN COMMEMORATION OF THE ‘KU KLUX KLAN’ DURING THE RECONSTRUCTION PERIOD FOLLOWING THE ‘WAR BETWEEN THE STATES’ THIS MARKER IS PLACED ON THEIR ASSEMBLY GROUND. THE ORIGINAL BANNER (AS ABOVE) WAS MADE IN CABARRUS COUNTY. << --- Seven Things the UDC Might Not Want You to Know About Them
NOTE -- this is not a reference to the Stone Mountain carving honoring the site of the founding of the 1915 Klan, nor the memorial plaque the UDC put up at the site of the founding of the 1865 Klan --- this is a third monument honoring the Klan in a third different state. This one was erected in Concord, less than 100 miles from where I sit.​

Karen who?​

​

AGAIN -- the Professor's full name and credentials were already spelled out in the post. Perhaps you were too busy going at the rest of the post and washing it down the drain so you could pretend it wasn't there. I went back and made those credentials real big so even you might find it.

Why should I take her opinion as fact?

She's a degreed (PhD) historian and Professor, founding Director of the UNC graduate public history program and author.

And your degree is.......... 98.6?
Doctor of Message Board Whining?

YOu libs are just going in circles. You are just bringing up points, that have already been refuted.

Actually it's documented history. Show me where what I posted "has been refuted". Show me where it's even been brought up. I didn't know about the Concord Klan monument until this. Did you?

​

For five generations, since the immediate aftermath of the war, the nation as a whole has accepted the South having regional pride in their heritage and culture as a part of the larger American identity.

Uh huh.

Link?

Why should I take your opinion as fact?

This has served this nation well, healing the wounds of the war and moving the nation forward past past conflicts.

That you libs today, want to reopen old wounds, is primary, about you people the bad guys.

.

Tissue?

 

[Superbadbrutha]

Tell us again how slavery had nothing to do with the war

Slavery was the primary reason for the war. What the fuck are you talking about?

Oh, right, sorry, forgot for a second. LIbs just say shit, they don't mean nuthin by it.


Any how, The memorials and the statues, are not part of the Lost Cause. They focus very narrowly on the service of the fighting men of the South, ignoring the cause(s) of the war, or the intent of the war.


That is not the "Lost Cause" argument.


Thus, when you lefties, move to tear down the statues and memorials of the South, you are not "trying to fix" history, but rewrite it, and tear the nation apart.

The Lost Cause strategy is by its own definition -- "an American pseudo-historical, negationist ideology that holds that the cause of the Confederacy during the American Civil War was a just and heroic one" -- which is wasn't....

Correct. Focusing not on the "Cause" of the fight, but the service and sacrifice of the soldiers doing the fighting, is completely different.


That was pretty cool. YOu actually made a point. Now, if you can admit that your point was successfully refuted, and we can move on,


for one second, you would not be just talking shit, like a normal liberal.


Of course, you are not going to do that.

Sorry the 2 go hand in hand. You can't discount the inhumanity and evil that was a part of the Confederacy.

Except that America as a whole, has been doing that, to the extent that you mean it in this context, for one hundred and fifty years.


So, that statement you just made, was completely insane.


You don't get to say, that something CAN'T be done, when your nation has been doing it, for FIVE GENERATIONS.



Did you mean to say, that you disagree with the practice? Cause that would not be insane.

I disagree with honoring unhonorable men.

 

[Uncensored2008]

10 days later and we still have "conservatives" trying to defend/rationalize/justify/minimize slavery....

Then they wonder why we call them closet racists...…

As much as I have seen people try to claim the holocaust was fake, or that the holocaust was greatly overstated -- I never seen those people referred to as being "patriotic" defenders of German history and culture....they are rightfully called what they are "Anti-Semitic"

Also...I don't see the people who push back against those efforts to try to rationalize and minimize the holocaust being called "racist" or "hate filled bigots"

But for conservatives.....when it comes to pushing back against the glorification of the Confederacy and slavery -- they have the audacity to call those people racist??

Again...these dic sucking keyboard neo-confederates wonder why we call them racist

Nope, but you're still fucking lying.

It's your way.

Fact, Republicans used force of arms to make you fucking pile of shit democrats stop keeping other human beings as slaves. 150 years later and you STILL haven't gotten over it.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

The entire point sailed right over your hood, didn't it. Pity. I tried to keep it short so that even you could pick up on it.

There is no such thing as a "Liberal racist". They are OPPOSITES. It's an oxymoron. Two terms that are mutually exclusive. You can have one but you can't have the other with it. You gotta *PICK* one. You can be a Liberal, OR you can be a racist. Once you pick either one, you can't have the other.

Now I'm going to post that again in whatever your native language is in case you're on drugs.

Hmmm, now where would be the perfect place for racists to hide?...that is some of the most tortured logic I have ever seen or read.

I3wh o3wijv amzs a lwqkktj. Kalmvpa wjoiq ljasovj aljreoaijolajvoai. AWAOJV maaoj ma aojwwe. UIaamsapdom ISFVAS qkga ajl r. JLLSWE!

That's the first thing you've ever posted that cannot be proven wrong.

 

[Correll]

Slavery was the primary reason for the war. What the fuck are you talking about?

Oh, right, sorry, forgot for a second. LIbs just say shit, they don't mean nuthin by it.

Any how, The memorials and the statues, are not part of the Lost Cause. They focus very narrowly on the service of the fighting men of the South, ignoring the cause(s) of the war, or the intent of the war.

That is not the "Lost Cause" argument.

Thus, when you lefties, move to tear down the statues and memorials of the South, you are not "trying to fix" history, but rewrite it, and tear the nation apart.

Those statues were put up to remind negroes of their place in life and keep them in their place.

Dude. YOU make a point, and I point out how what you just said was shit, and you don't even try to defend what you said? You just spout off some more shit?

You are pathetic beyond words.

For five generations, since the immediate aftermath of the war, the nation as a whole has accepted the South having regional pride in their heritage and culture as a part of the larger American identity.

This has served this nation well, healing the wounds of the war and moving the nation forward past past conflicts.

That you libs today, want to reopen old wounds, is primary, about you people being fucking assholes.

SMGDMFH

>> It’s helpful, in the midst of any conversation about this country’s Confederate monuments, to understand who put these things up, which also offers a clue as to why. In large part, the answer to the first question is the United Daughters of the Confederacy, a white Southern women’s “heritage” group founded in 1894. Starting 30 years after the Civil War, as historian Karen Cox notes in her 2003 book “Dixie’s Daughters,” “UDC members aspired to transform military defeat into a political and cultural victory, where states’ rights and white supremacy remained intact.” In other words, when the Civil War gave them lemons, the UDC made lemonade. Horribly bitter, super racist lemonade.

Though the UDC didn’t invent the Lost Cause ideology, they were deeply involved in spreading the myth, which simultaneously contends the Confederacy wasn’t fighting to keep black people enslaved while also suggesting slavery was pretty good for everyone involved.

... “In their earliest days, the United Daughters of the Confederacy definitely did some good work on behalf of veterans and in their communities,” says Heidi Christensen, former president of the Seattle, Washington, chapter of the UDC, who left the organization in 2012. “But it’s also true that since the UDC was founded in 1894, it has maintained a covert connection with the Ku Klux Klan. In fact, in many ways, the group was the de facto women’s auxiliary of the KKK at the turn of the century. It’s a connection the group downplays now, but evidence of it is easily discoverable — you don’t even have to look very hard to find it.”

1. They published a very pro-KKK book. For children.

In 1914, the in-house historian of the UDC Mississippi chapter, Laura Martin Rose, published “The Ku Klux Klan, or Invisible Empire.” It’s essentially a love letter to the original Klan for its handiwork in the field of domestic terror in the years following the Civil War, when blacks achieved a modicum of political power.

“[D]uring the Reconstruction period, sturdy white men of the South, against all odds, maintained white supremacy and secured Caucasian civilization, when its very foundations were threatened within and without,” Rose writes.

She goes on to provide a look at the roots of racist anti-black stereotypes and language in this country, a lot of which is still recognizable in modern right-wing rhetoric. For example, she accuses black people of laziness* — and wanting a handout — for refusing to keep working for free for white enslavers, and instead trying to find fortune where the jobs were: “Many negroes conceived the idea that freedom meant cessation from labor, so they left the fields, crowding into the cities and towns, expecting to be fed by the United States Government.” In one section, with pretty overt delight, Rose highlights the methods the KKK used to terrify black people, including posting notes around towns with the “picture of a figure dangling from the limb of a tree,” and exalts the KKK’s lawless, murderous violence:

[*anyone remember which contemporary figure declared "Laziness is a trait in blacks"? Hint: he's orange]
.. 2. Actually, they published at least two very pro-KKK books. . .

. . .and probably many more. Another UDC ode to the KKK was written by Annie Cooper Burton, then-president of the Los Angeles chapter of the UDC, and published in 1916. Titled “The Ku Klux Klan,” much like Rose’s aforementioned book, it argues that the Klan has gotten a bad rap just because they terrorized and intimidated black people, not infrequently assaulting and raping black women, murdering black citizens, and burning down black townships. For these reasons, she suggests, the UDC should do even more to show reverence to the Klan:

“Every clubhouse of the United Daughters of the Confederacy should have a memorial tablet dedicated to the Ku Klux Klan; that would be a monument not to one man, but to five hundred and fifty thousand men, to whom all Southerners owe a debt of gratitude.”

By “all Southerners,” Burton clearly means “only white people,” which is also what she means whenever she uses the word “people.”

3. They built a monument to the KKK.

The UDC was busiest during the 1910s and 1920s, two decades during which the group erected hundreds of Confederate monuments that made tangible the racial terror of Jim Crow. This, apparently, the group still considered insufficient to convey their message of white power and to reassert the threat of white violence. So in 1926, the UDC put up a monument to the KKK. In a piece for Facing South, writer Greg Huffman describes a record of the memorial in the UDC’s own 1941 book “North Carolina’s Confederate Monuments and Memorials:”

“IN COMMEMORATION OF THE ‘KU KLUX KLAN’ DURING THE RECONSTRUCTION PERIOD FOLLOWING THE ‘WAR BETWEEN THE STATES’ THIS MARKER IS PLACED ON THEIR ASSEMBLY GROUND. THE ORIGINAL BANNER (AS ABOVE) WAS MADE IN CABARRUS COUNTY. << --- Seven Things the UDC Might Not Want You to Know About Them
NOTE -- this is not a reference to the Stone Mountain carving honoring the site of the founding of the 1915 Klan, nor the memorial plaque the UDC put up at the site of the founding of the 1865 Klan --- this is a third monument honoring the Klan in a third different state. This one was erected in Concord, less than 100 miles from where I sit.​

Karen who?​

​

AGAIN -- the Professor's full name and credentials were already spelled out in the post. Perhaps you were too busy going at the rest of the post and washing it down the drain so you could pretend it wasn't there. I went back and made those credentials real big so even you might find it.

Why should I take her opinion as fact?

She's a degreed (PhD) historian and Professor, founding Director of the UNC graduate public history program and author.

And your degree is.......... 98.6?
Doctor of Message Board Whining?

YOu libs are just going in circles. You are just bringing up points, that have already been refuted.

Actually it's documented history. Show me where what I posted "has been refuted". Show me where it's even been brought up. I didn't know about the Concord Klan monument until this. Did you?

​

For five generations, since the immediate aftermath of the war, the nation as a whole has accepted the South having regional pride in their heritage and culture as a part of the larger American identity.

Uh huh.

Link?

Why should I take your opinion as fact?

This has served this nation well, healing the wounds of the war and moving the nation forward past past conflicts.

That you libs today, want to reopen old wounds, is primary, about you people the bad guys.

.

View attachment 307265​

Tissue?

My opinion is backed up by history. The policy of reconciliation and the way the South has been a valuable and patriotic part of American, instead of a restive and troublesome conquered territory is well known.


Tell me which part you claim to be ignorant of, and promise that you will admit it, when I post documentation, and I will be happy to do so.



As to the Professor, just being an Authority, is not a supporting argument. Your desire to Appeal to Authority is denied. Her assertion was weakly supported at best. A few statements from a few people, across generations of time, and vast geographical areas and scores of millions of people, prove nothing.

That was my point with, "Karen who"? I thought I spelled that out well enough, in the portion of the post you cut.

 

[rightwinger]

There are still plenty of Patriotic holidays southerners can celebrate...

Fourth of July, Memorial Day, Veterans Day, MLK Day

 

[playtime]

i don't get why there should be any holidays to celebrate the effort to secede or for the 'right' to own other humans.