(05-29-2019 08:03 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-28-2019 10:37 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-28-2019 09:50 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-28-2019 04:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  We seem to have established, at least in the minds of some, that the erection of a monument to the leader of a rebellion is a big FU to the other side. So what message were we sending England with the erection of the Washington Monument, the naming of the Capitol City, the carving on Mt. Rushmore, and even the erection of the Statue of Liberty? Were all of those big FUs?

How about the establishment of the Alamo as a shrine? Big FU to Mexico?

And I am still trying to figure out what the presence of a Che poster in an Obama election HQ meant. FU? To who?

In short, I am wondering is there is any basis to assume the statues were put up as any sort of an FU. So far, all I see are assumptions.

There are statues of Lincoln everywhere, even though his positions on blacks would certainly qualify him as a racist by 2019 standards. Are they big FUs? To who?

I think Lad overstepped on this assumption.

I was the one who made the "F U" comment. And I never implied that monuments are automatically an "F U" to the opposing side.

Many of these monuments were put up during times when black people were fighting for civil rights. Many were put in seemingly unconnected locations... as you have alluded to regarding New Orleans.

https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544266880...ist-future


""Most of the people who were involved in erecting the monuments were not necessarily erecting a monument to the past," said Jane Dailey, an associate professor of history at the University of Chicago."But were rather, erecting them toward a white supremacist future."

The most recent comprehensive study of Confederate statues and monuments across the country was published by the Southern Poverty Law Center last year. A look at this chart shows huge spikes in construction twice during the 20th century: in the early 1900s, and then again in the 1950s and 60s. Both were times of extreme civil rights tension.

In the early 1900s, states were enacting Jim Crow laws to disenfranchise black Americans. In the middle part of the century, the civil rights movement pushed back against that segregation.

James Grossman, the executive director of the American Historical Association, says that the increase in statues and monuments was clearly meant to send a message.

"These statues were meant to create legitimate garb for white supremacy," Grossman said. "Why would you put a statue of Robert E. Lee or Stonewall Jackson in 1948 in Baltimore?""

Seems to be an epidemic of mis-attributing quotes.

I said nothing about NOLA.

Seems to me the best ways ways to send messages were way more direct. In any case, maybe if you erect a statue of Adam Schiff, I might take it as a big FU. But it wouldn't change the facts of his life one little bit. He would still be a congressman who led the mission to impeach Trump. Still be a hero to many. Just because I think he is an ******* doesn't mean your motivation in erecting his statue was to piss me off. Maybe a nice secondary effect. Maybe an unintended consequence.

Either way, I have no right to demand that Schiff's statue be torn down, moved, or sequestered in some sort of Schiff museum. I have no right to tear it down and drag it down the street just because it offends me. I do have the right to ignore it.

and that is how I would handle the Schiff statue - not with violence or demonstration but with indifference. Same for the statue of Horace Mills in the Texas Capitol. Who's that? Don't know, don't care.

Few of our Founding Fathers could pass the purity test of the left these days. Many, if not most, if not all, were racist. And even more were sexist. And many were active in rebellion against the legal authorities.
War criminals, except they won.

All I can do is to control my own reaction to things, and while I do not support racism, or sexism, or slavery, or involuntary servitude, I do support being tolerant of other people, especially those who died decades ago, even if they had an old-fashioned view of things different from mine. I wonder why our tolerant party is so intolerant. But if they want to be that way, let them. Not my job to make everybody think alike. That is the job of the tolerant party.

So I will just go back to ignoring statuary, and y'all can go back to removing them.

Cool that you can find it within yourself to go about your life while ignoring statues. How many of the statues that you encounter celebrate leaders of a movement that enslaved/tortured your ancestors? Were some of these statues that you encounter put up expressly to intimidate or "put back in your place" people of your race?

Considering OO is at least half Hispanic, he probably sees a giant fkload of them, and actually I surmise he gets through Columbus Day without having a nervous breakdown abut it.

Growing up in El Paso, the answer for me is 'yes' to the first question as well. The Villistas and his motley crue did a whole bunch of butt-hurt to my family tree back in the day all up and down the Texas border back in the day. I guess I should be a mentally scarred rabbit from having to endure the 'Villa cult of personality' while growing up.

Another big massive sub-trunk fell victim (about 30 in two family units) to the Apaches back in the day as well. I guess, lord forbid I should keep my eyes even part way open when driving through the Mescalero lands these days.

'93 -- are you African American or are you just 'channeling' to make a point?

Funny, didnt we just have a big furrball about the progressive mantra of keeping every wound open for as long as humanly possible? I mean, at least we have 'statues' being a life issue these days. Without statues to crusade against, I think progressives would lose about 70 per cent of their will to live.....