Post: #51

(04-25-2017 06:28 PM)Steve McQueen Wrote:  Im with the statue keepers.

Fk the feelings of a bunch of people with nothing better to do than piss and moan about how bad they have it in the richest country on earth.

BLM supporters should have to spend a year living in an African city in some hellhole like Nigeria and then they can tells us about how oppressed they are.

Am disappointed to see some of the black guys on here siding with removing the statues and going on about slavery, Irish were slaves too but like the Jews with the Holocaust you guys feel like you get to play that card over and over, the rest of us just stfu. Sorry but I speak for most people when the subject of reparations / white shame comes up in this day and age....git tha fk outa heee!

We built the West like it or not and bad as some had it, y'know compared to a lot of other places, whatever colour you are, in the US you had it pretty dam good.

What does BLM have to do with this?

And again we see it, the mayor who ordered the removal IS WHITE!

Here's more crap where white people created a problem, bitched about it for years, solved it and then bitched some more. But let's blame black people.

Also, instead of the "go back to Africa" argument, since it appears this is a white guilt issue, can we start saying "tie up white folks whip them and make them work on the farm" its the same logic.

Aloha!

Post: #52

After I learned what the statue actually stood for and read the mayor's reasoning, I supported it being taken down:

Quote:New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu has called the Liberty Monument "the most offensive of the four" to be taken down, adding it was erected to "revere white supremacy."

"If there was ever a statue that needed to be taken down, it's that one," he said in an interview Sunday with The Associated Press.

The Crescent City White League attempted to overthrow a biracial Reconstruction government in New Orleans after the Civil War. That attempt failed, but white supremacist Democrats later took control of the state.

An inscription added in 1932 said the Yankees withdrew federal troops and "recognized white supremacy in the South" after the group challenged Louisiana's biracial government after the Civil War. In 1993, these words were covered by a granite slab with a new inscription, saying the obelisk honors "Americans on both sides" who died and that the conflict "should teach us lessons for the future."

------------------------------------------------------

The removals are "about showing the whole world that we as a city and as a people are able to acknowledge, understand, reconcile — and most importantly — choose a better future," Landrieu said in a statement released by his office. "We can remember these divisive chapters in our history in a museum or other facility where they can be put in context — and that's where these statues belong."

------------------------------------------------------

"The monuments are an aberration," he said. "They're actually a denial of our history and they were done in a time when people who still controlled the Confederacy were in charge of this city and it only represents a four-year period in our 1,000-year march to where we are today."

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/new-...ls-n750036

The statue is a physical representation some of the most absurd and extreme behavior to ever rise in the United States of America.

It represents an aberration of mankind, so I do agree that it should be taken down.

Still, it should be put in a museum, so we don't forget our past, no matter how bad it can be.

Post: #53

Yeah, sounds totally legit and righteous. That's why they removed the monument in the middle of the night, wearing body armor, with armed guards including snipers.

Up next they're removing monuments to:

Robert E. Lee
Jefferson Davis
P.G.T. Beauregard

It is as I said. They are attempting to destroy the cultural heritage of the south.

Post: #54

If you're black and approve of this statue being removed because you believe the "legacy of slavery" is so toxic that it must be erased from public consciousness, it would behoove you to remember that the most prominent legacy of slavery is the very presence of millions of African-descended people (that would be you) in this country to begin with. Therefore, all African-Americans who truly want to erase the legacy of slavery should immediately self-deport to Sub-Saharan Africa. Any takers? No? Didn't think so.

Also, I can't believe that anyone is so fucking stupid as to believe that this monument was simply removed because it was particularly offensive. You've got to be intentionally obtuse or incredibly naive if you don't understand how the left wages its battles in the culture war. This monument was the low-hanging fruit. With the precedent set, they will continue to press for removal of more prominent Confederate monuments.

Eventually this insanity will reach its logical conclusion when the Washington monument is dynamited to the raucous cheers of "American" useful idiots of all colors, driving the final nail in the coffin of the historic American nation by engaging in the figurative patricide of the father of their country. Just a lovely picture of the future brought to you by George Soros and friends.

Post: #55

"Self-deport out to Africa to erase the legacy of slavery?"

I'll only agree to this if I get to take all the wealth accumulated by those descended from the slave-owners. Kona gets some too.



Send the people and the wealth accumulated in the wake of slavery back to Africa.

#MAGA (make africa great again)

Post: #56

If Mayor Hairplugs removes the monuments that upset minorities, will they stop complaining or move on to the next thing that upsets them? Is it even minorities who are upset or white liberals who've run out of things to control?

The cycle doesn't end, you can't give liberals an inch. EVERYTHING is about politics to a liberal. Everything is another attempt to exercise control. I don't even care much about the monuments themselves but their removal symbolizes another attempt to control how people think.

Post: #57

(04-25-2017 08:15 PM)scorpion Wrote:  Also, I can't believe that anyone is so fucking stupid as to believe that this monument was simply removed because it was particularly offensive. You've got to be intentionally obtuse or incredibly naive if you don't understand how the left wages its battles in the culture war. This monument was the low-hanging fruit. With the precedent set, they will continue to press for removal of more prominent Confederate monuments.

While it is relatively easy to become belligerent and prognosticate about doomsday scenarios where your culturally history is wiped about, at some point you have to recognize why it is logical that this specific monument should be removed.

The driving ideology behind the founding of the United States of America was based on natural law. Natural law promotes the idea of basic inalienable rights of human beings.

This monument is literally a physical manifestation of a political ideology promoting a racial caste system in the United States of America. The monument is ideologically inconsistent with the basic underlying principles that formed this country. As such, it is logical to remove it since it is an improper representation of this country.

I still think we should keep the monuments of the men, since individual men are far more complex beings than an ideology promoting a racial caste system.

Post: #58

This is ridiculous, you think blacks are entitled to any wealth because they were slaves? And Kona is polynesian, what do polynesians have to do with this. It just sounds like you just want to take from white and give to everyone who's not white. Where have I heard this before?

Post: #59

(04-25-2017 08:55 PM)Fortis Wrote:  "Self-deport out to Africa to erase the legacy of slavery?"

I'll only agree to this if I get to take all the wealth accumulated by those descended from the slave-owners. Kona gets some too.

-snip-

Send the people and the wealth accumulated in the wake of slavery back to Africa.

#MAGA (make africa great again)

Sorry, paid that back a long time ago.

Post: #60

If the South had actually won the Civil War, slavery would have died a very quick death. Before the Civil War, an escaped slave had to get to Canada. During the Civil War, they only had to get to the North. This was the subsidy that the North gave the South, and it was why many abolitionists wanted the Northern states to leave the Union. William Lloyd Garrison called the Constitution "a compact with hell."

Southerners also had a very legitimate fear that they could have been subject to a mass slave revolt like the one which had happened in Haiti. This was one reason why the US Government didn't recognize the second independent nation in the Western Hemisphere until about 50 years later.

Most slaves were owned by probably the top 1% of the population. It was an immoral institution that was subsidized by everyone, including poor and middle-class Southern Whites. If the poor southern Whites had any brains, they would have risen up and killed the slaveowners themselves. This was why the South implemented a draft, but provided an exemption for large slaveowners. The old cliche "rich man's war, poor man's fight" applied to this war as much as any of the others.

Post: #61

This whole issue is very sorrowful.

This issue mirrors the problems that split the US so many years ago.

The Civil War was a very complicated matter, and it takes great emotional patience to look at it beyond a simple us versus them, north vs south issue.

There were many issues that drove the fracturing of the USA, and tied into them were economic, political, and cultural. Slavery was the predominant of them all, or at least the manifestation of all of those factors.

Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis both were from Kentucky, only 8 months apart, and less than 100 miles from each other. What would lead two similar men to such different fates?

Abraham Lincoln moved in young adulthood to the more mercantile and industrious Illinois, where as Davis moved to Mississippi.

I bring this up to show how two men of an eerily similar background can have their worldviews shaped so dramatically different from one another.

Lincoln's own cousin and closest friend decided to fight for the south, despite Lincoln's desperate plea and an offer of Colonel in the Union Army. His cousin ended up dying in the war, and Lincoln was distraught like few had ever seen him.

In the border states brother fought brother, and neighbor fought neighbor. One cannot overstate overstate this fact. Particularly for the South, the near entirety of its army was poor men with no connection or even remote future personal benefit from slavery. Even the Union held a silent admiration for the professionalism and conduct of the Confederate army, whose soldiers were fighting in tattered clothing with little pay in worthless currency.

Were these men evil? Does a man suddenly wake up and decide to fight his own brother over some imaginary slaves he's never seen and will never own?

Did these men not make up the fabric of America? Do they not represent a goodness about America, even in the most tragic of ways?

There can be many similar great things said of the Union Army, whose great leadership and determination eventually broke a stale mate to crush a determined enemy on their own home territory. Every memorial to their victory is a testament to restoring a great country to its whole.

From it's inception in 1863 until around 1900, confederate widows and war orphans were not even able to lay flowers on their fathers tombs in Gettysburg National Cemetery. Such was the dark atmosphere that lingered from that war.

Fortunately the mood lightened and memorials started to rise, remembering both the dead and notable southern figures from the war. If we solely look at it from this angle, surely there is little to protest.

Yet inevitably, things become perverted. Racist and segregationist causes did co-opt confederate heritage to their own ends, and this did nothing to heal any divide, and likely this was the case with the Confederate Flag over the South Carolina capital, erected in protest of the de-segregation laws in 1962. This kind of misrepresentation was and is a deep insult to the true heritage of the confederacy.

Now, however, there is perversion on the other side. Rather than have an informed discussion on what is proper and respectful for historical remembrance, we are motivated by passion to remove any public recognition or remembrance of our forefathers who fought in that tragic war.

Surely even a rabid confederate sympathizer would not be completely distraught over the removal of just that one memorial in New Orleans commemorating white supremacists (post civil war in fact). However this removal was not part of a mutual discussion with respectful and limited aims. We are now on two sides, which cannot be bridged. One side is in power, and they want all statues gone, all memory erased.

What faith can a man keep while his past is erased?

The center cannot hold.

***** FIN *****

Post Script: In small, tiny, non-descript towns in Germany you occasionally come across German WW2 memorials. Usually they are tucked away by small church. Nobody, especially the people of these communities, has any love for Nazism, which devastated their country and took away their sons and husbands. Yet they still pay respect to the men who went off and died, and respect the sacrifice of the men who went to fight for them. Most importantly, they pray for their souls to rest in peace.

Post: #62

All Or Nothing does have a good point, apparently this specific obelisk is a monument to something that goes against what the US si supposed to stand for, freedom, equality, liberty and all that, but instead of removing it why not simply change its name, call it "Fraternity obelisk" or something.

Post: #63

^

They already did, in 1993. Not good enough, apparently.

From wikipedia:

Quote:When the monument was moved in 1993, some of the original inscriptions were removed, and replaced with new inscriptions that state in part:

"In honor of those Americans on both sides who died in the Battle of Liberty Place ... A conflict of the past that should teach us lessons for the future."

Post: #64

(04-25-2017 09:04 PM)Teutatis Wrote:  Kona is polynesian, what do polynesians have to do with this.

White people are always messing with us.

Also, maybe they took the statue thing down at night to not screw with traffic?

Aloha!

Post: #65

(04-25-2017 09:16 PM)Teutatis Wrote:  All Or Nothing does have a good point, apparently this specific obelisk is a monument to something that goes against what the US si supposed to stand for, freedom, equality, liberty and all that, but instead of removing it why not simply change its name, call it "Fraternity obelisk" or something.

It is because changing the name does not negate the original reason why it was created, which is why it made sense to me why it should be moved into a museum.

The monument should still exist (in a museum) so that we remember our collective past. At the same time, it should be removed from the public square since it is not representative of the values of this country.

Post: #66

Weambulance already touched on this, but for me what marks it as wrong -- and that the mayor knows it's wrong -- is the fact it's being removed at night. By masked workers. Night is the time of the thief and the secret policeman alike because it conceals.

"He who behaves badly hates the light."

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #67

(04-25-2017 08:58 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  While it is relatively easy to become belligerent and prognosticate about doomsday scenarios where your culturally history is wiped about, at some point you have to recognize why it is logical that this specific monument should be removed.

Can you name a Marxist movement that has NOT wiped out cultural history?

There's nothing "belligerent" about predicting that the left will do what the left always does.

Post: #68

I am a supporter of the confederacy, but I agree completely with Atlanta man. Confederate monuments should not be in the hands of the US or state governments. The Confederate States were invaded by the United States, lost and signed terms of surrender to rejoin the Union. It wasn't like "oh hey buddy, lets put down our guns and hug it out" It was more like "surrender or be completely obliterated" its more akin to Irish occupation by the British, than line up and shake hands after a softball game. Making this separation clear to the people in the south by removing monuments and banning flags should make it more clear that they are a conquered people, not 'brothers and sisters' with California hippies or Vermont socialists.

The cap on this is the deceit that the civil war was at all about slavery. The Confederate States of America legally declared their secession (Calexit) and formation of a sovereign government separate from the United States of America. After seceding, the USA would not remove their federal troops from confederate soil. Conflict ensued and the United States invaded the Confederates states, seizing their territory and gaining their surrender through military conflict. The Confederate States of America did not invade the USA. They were invaded by Lincoln. They resisted the invasion and lost. Its like Russia using military force to invade and retake countries that it lost in the fall of the USSR.

The US civil war was the imposition of federal military power against the democratic will of the people. All of the states voted to secede, they did not have dictatorships or military coups forcing their exit from the United States.

The slavery portion was propaganda to make people feel like the USA was 'liberating' a country from its evil masters, just like how we 'brought democracy' to Iraq, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Korea. If it was really about slavery, why did Lincoln's emancipation proclamation only free the slaves in the confederate states, while those in Kentucky (union) remained in bondage. The emancipation proclamation wasn't even 'real' or binding. The US president can't make law over other nations (The confederate states of America). Its as ludicrous as Trump writing an executive order to free all of the slaves in Libya, or banning hockey in Canada.

The more these statues come down, graves are dug up, and flags are removed the more the mask is removed. What used to be a paternal relationship of the federal govenment to the ignorant and backwards south, becomes naked spite. The leftists who ruined new york, california, minnesota etc now only have one place left to emigrate to, and that is the south, where god, family and the confederacy must be erased to make it 'safe' for gay pride parades, electric cars and bike paths.

Confederates, and Southern States need to get this idea that the rest of America needs to, or wants to make room for their culture out of their heads. They need need to make private efforts to keep it instead of assuming that the very government that has contempt for them will also be fair custodians. Foolish.

Post: #69

Lincoln killed states rights.

Post: #70

Guys, you know I was joking.

C'mon, I always try to bring a bit of levity to untenable threads.



Also, Kona is forever black in my heart.

Post: #71

@AtlantaMan

So how should the entire black population be treated in US? Because based on your logic you are all children of losers, I mean how much big of a loser can you be if someone took you from your homeland in chains, made you work for free and occasionally fucked the female ones during lunch break.

Post: #72

Considering the workers had to do this at night under the cover of police snipers, I would say that they're just freeing up space.

The next statue is going to be of a guy with an AR15. I don't suspect it will take more than 20 years for it to be in place at this rate.

And when the spark ignites there's gonna a be a lot more pain laid down than just fucking hurt feelz. The days when troubles were limited to problematic statues will seem god-damned utopian by comparison.

Post: #73

Mark my words - this is just the beginning.

They will go after the Founding Fathers next in the North as well as anyone anywhere.

Even Abraham Lincoln is not safe, because he is not diverse enough.

That is how the history of a nation gets wiped out. Ah well - nothing lasts forever.

Post: #74

(04-25-2017 11:29 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  The cap on this is the deceit that the civil war was at all about slavery.

(04-25-2017 11:29 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  The slavery portion was propaganda

(04-25-2017 12:08 PM)Repo Wrote:  "It wasn't about race, it was about defending state rights" - Defenders

" A plaque removed from the monument in 1989 once hailed “white supremacy in the South,” " - Article

Someone said to me once, that it was about states rights...to keep slaves.

Here's a handy guide for the next time someone says "slavery had nothing to do with it!11!""

Excerpts From Mississipi's declaration of secession:

Quote:Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

Excerpts From Georgia's declaration of secession:

Quote: For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property

Excerpt from South Carolina'sdeclaration of secession:

Quote:But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution.

Excerpt from Texas's declaration of secession:

Quote:Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?

Quote:That in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations

So to summarise: States upset that they cant keep slaves, and explicitly mentioning black/negro/African slaves. Even going to far as to say only black people can stand the sun . But by going by posts in this thread, slavery was a complete afterthought.

Post: #75

I hear the Revolutionary War was nothing but an overreaction to a small tea tax, too.

Nobody said slavery had nothing to do with it. But it sure as hell was not some righteous war waged by the north to free the slaves. The Civil War was the result of many years of simmering hostility and the slavery aspect was but a minor part of it. Up until the start of the Civil War, slaves who escaped to the free states were legally supposed to be captured and returned to their owners, per the Supreme Court. And the reason they were no longer returned after the start of the Civil War was because they were considered contraband.

But yep, those Yankees--of which I am one, by the way--were just in it to free the po' slaves.

Can you explain to me why the slaves weren't just freed by way of sending a bunch of cash to the south to buy the slaves' freedom if that's what it was all about? Or are you just going to rest comfortably on your confirmation bias?