Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Memorial Day
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 45,205
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 606
I Root For: Rice
Location: Paradise

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #21
RE: Memorial Day
Another interesting point is that some people oppose the Confederate monuments/statues because they conducted "an open rebellion" against the parent country.

I think our Founding Fathers did the same. As have other honored persons in many places and times. Perhaps they are reprehensible people only if they lose - heroes if they win?

It seems a special case is made against the rebels in the Civil War. Somehow, they are worse than the rebels in the Revolutionary War.

One of the rallying cries of the South was " A union freely entered may be freely left." I tend to agree with this. I know of few if any associations which cannot be terminated. We have Brexit as an example.

But this is getting far afield from my premise - that the people who lived through the Civil War were often much more forgiving than those today. Those ladies in Mississippi who laid flowers on the Union graves - I am sure many of them lost husbands, sons, brothers, to those selfsame union lads. Much more forgiving than today.

I would opt for more civility and less mob rule.
05-28-2019 01:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 66,139
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 1766
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #22
RE: Memorial Day
(05-28-2019 01:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(05-28-2019 01:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(05-28-2019 01:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  OO, you might want to read the replies again. Owl#s is the one who lobbed those word grenades at me...
But I'm glad you're taking Owl#s to task for making things personal, I did feel like calling me arrogant was a bit too far as well. Thanks for having my back! 04-cheers
Yes I did use those words. And I used them in a question of sorts, leaving it as either/or. And yes, I own them and I think them appropriate in that context. Presuming to know with certainty the intentions of people long dead strikes me as the height of either claimed omnipotence, or arrogance--which in that context are probably the same thing.
Ironically, you used those words when describing a projection you were making, based on my statements. Something that too seems to be a bit arrogant.
In the text you responded to, I laid out a few of the context clues that can fairly easily show why some statues, and in that specific case, the Jefferson Davis memorial, were not erected to honor fallen soldiers or the like, but to either celebrate the Confederacy (in Jefferson's case), or worse, intimidate.
Does this mean that anytime someone uses contextual clues to evaluate the rationale behind an action they are being arrogant?

I was making a projection based on your statements? How so?

As far as context clues, they are valuable as context clues. But to extrapolate context clues into an absolute statement about te motivations of people who ave been dead for 100 years or thereabouts strikes me as the height of self-claimed omnipotence or arrogance or both. Sorry if the offends.

And you overlooked some pretty serious context clues. The South was pretty badly treated during Reconstruction. If you want to compare the actions of Southerners to Germans or Japanese post-WWII, it might be a useful starting point to compare Reconstruction to the Marshall Plan or to MacArthur's handling of Japan. The result was a tremendous amount of deep-seated resentment among Southerners, a good bit of which was justified. That was a huge motivation behind many of the Confederate memorials--along the lines of, "they can screw us but they can't stop us from remembering." It's pretty much generally accepted that Reconstruction set the South back decades economically. It's catching up now, but that resentment still has carry-over aspects. The cultural importance of NASCAR and SEC football come to mind. Question, do you think the treatment of the South during Reconstruction was appropriate? Do you think any resentment over that treatment was unjustified?
(This post was last modified: 05-28-2019 02:18 PM by Owl 69/70/75.)
05-28-2019 02:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,771
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 97
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #23
RE: Memorial Day
(05-28-2019 02:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(05-28-2019 01:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(05-28-2019 01:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(05-28-2019 01:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  OO, you might want to read the replies again. Owl#s is the one who lobbed those word grenades at me...
But I'm glad you're taking Owl#s to task for making things personal, I did feel like calling me arrogant was a bit too far as well. Thanks for having my back! 04-cheers
Yes I did use those words. And I used them in a question of sorts, leaving it as either/or. And yes, I own them and I think them appropriate in that context. Presuming to know with certainty the intentions of people long dead strikes me as the height of either claimed omnipotence, or arrogance--which in that context are probably the same thing.
Ironically, you used those words when describing a projection you were making, based on my statements. Something that too seems to be a bit arrogant.
In the text you responded to, I laid out a few of the context clues that can fairly easily show why some statues, and in that specific case, the Jefferson Davis memorial, were not erected to honor fallen soldiers or the like, but to either celebrate the Confederacy (in Jefferson's case), or worse, intimidate.
Does this mean that anytime someone uses contextual clues to evaluate the rationale behind an action they are being arrogant?

I was making a projection based on your statements? How so?

As far as context clues, they are valuable as context clues. But to extrapolate context clues into an absolute statement about te motivations of people who ave been dead for 100 years or thereabouts strikes me as the height of self-claimed omnipotence or arrogance or both. Sorry if the offends.

And you overlooked some pretty serious context clues. The South was pretty badly treated during Reconstruction. If you want to compare the actions of Southerners to Germans or Japanese post-WWII, it might be a useful starting point to compare Reconstruction to the Marshall Plan or to MacArthur's handling of Japan. The result was a tremendous amount of deep-seated resentment among Southerners, a good bit of which was justified. That was a huge motivation behind many of the Confederate memorials--along the lines of, "they can screw us but they can't stop us from remembering." It's pretty much generally accepted that Reconstruction set the South back decades economically. It's catching up now, but that resentment still has carry-over aspects. The cultural importance of NASCAR and SEC football come to mind. Question, do you think the treatment of the South during Reconstruction was appropriate? Do you think any resentment over that treatment was unjustified?

So you're really telling me that I can't use the fact that a statue of Jefferson Davis was erected on the 50th anniversary of his inauguration to the presidency of the Confederacy to deduce that it was erected to celebrate the Confederacy?

You're telling me that we can't use context clues and evidence to evaluate anyone's motives?

You're telling me that analyzing these facts and drawing a conclusion is no longer critical thinking, but rather arrogance? So now we're arrogant if we hold opinions based on an analysis of an action?

You were projecting because in my response I never once tried to make a sweeping generalization about the motivation of all confederate memorials nor did I try and say what should have happened at that time. My response focused on what the statues stand for today, why they were placed in the first place, and if they have a place as a public memorial. Some do, some don't. I provided a clear example of one that doesn't belong. Do you think Davis' statue in New Orleans was wrongfully removed? If so, why?

Finally, I fail to see how the South's reaction to reconstruction changes whether or not some memorials should be taken down today and removed as public memorials. Many belong in museums as artifacts of history, not as present day memorials.
05-28-2019 02:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 66,139
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 1766
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #24
RE: Memorial Day
(05-28-2019 02:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So you're really telling me that I can't use the fact that a statue of Jefferson Davis was erected on the 50th anniversary of his inauguration to the presidency of the Confederacy to deduce that it was erected to celebrate the Confederacy?
You're telling me that we can't use context clues and evidence to evaluate anyone's motives?
You're telling me that analyzing these facts and drawing a conclusion is no longer critical thinking, but rather arrogance? So now we're arrogant if we hold opinions based on an analysis of an action?
You were projecting because in my response I never once tried to make a sweeping generalization about the motivation of all confederate memorials nor did I try and say what should have happened at that time. My response focused on what the statues stand for today, why they were placed in the first place, and if they have a place as a public memorial. Some do, some don't. I provided a clear example of one that doesn't belong. Do you think Davis' statue in New Orleans was wrongfully removed? If so, why?
Finally, I fail to see how the South's reaction to reconstruction changes whether or not some memorials should be taken down today and removed as public memorials. Many belong in museums as artifacts of history, not as present day memorials.

No, I'm telling you that your analysis sucks because you are cherry-picking your context clues. There are things that you are not considering. I think the Jeff Davis statue may have been put there for the reasons you suggest, or may have been meant as an "up yours" to the damn yankees. Most likely, it was probably some of both. I think that to conclude that it was solely there for one reason is the height of feigned omnipotence and arrogance. I'm not projecting it onto anything but your specific comments. As far as 1911 being the 50th anniversary, if you were going to put up a statue of Jeff Davis for any reason, when would you choose to put it up?

As for failing to understand the impact of the south's reaction to reconstruction, you didn't live in the south when that resentment was still alive and strong, so I doubt that you are really capable of comprehending the depth of resentment. Fortunately, in the last 50 years or so, the region's economic development has overcome a lot of that. Whatever racism remains, and there is some but not as much as I have seen in Boston, is more attributable to poor whites who see an educated African-American population as a direct economic threat (not acknowledging that in many cases it's their own laziness that is more of a problem). I see little or nothing that I would attribute to racism among the educated populations of all colors with whom I interact when there. I do see a fair amount of residual reconstruction resentment. Southerners will watch NASCAR rather than Indy cars (both are just a lot of left turns, although I find NASCAR more entertaining because they actually race alongside more because bumping is not fatal), and generally care more about SEC football than the NFL, to cite a couple of examples, although I saw a lot of the old sectional resentment in the reaction of Saints fans to the blown no-call in the NFL championship game. In the SEC football context, there are many knowledgable observers who will insist that the largest step toward racial harmony ever taken in the south was taken by Paul Bryant with a considerable assist from Sam "Bam" Cunningham on a night in Birmingham in September 1970. Based on what I have seen, I tend to agree.

As far as the substantive issue of the statues, I think we are in general agreement, although we get there by different routes.

There is a feeling in the south that the rest of the country, and the northeast in particular, is trying to screw the south. It has nothing to do with race, so far as I can tell, and in fact I have seen instances that it is shared by people of all races. So if I've answered your question, I'll ask you again, do you think the treatment of the south during reconstruction was appropriate?
(This post was last modified: 05-28-2019 03:32 PM by Owl 69/70/75.)
05-28-2019 03:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,771
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 97
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #25
RE: Memorial Day
(05-28-2019 03:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(05-28-2019 02:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So you're really telling me that I can't use the fact that a statue of Jefferson Davis was erected on the 50th anniversary of his inauguration to the presidency of the Confederacy to deduce that it was erected to celebrate the Confederacy?
You're telling me that we can't use context clues and evidence to evaluate anyone's motives?
You're telling me that analyzing these facts and drawing a conclusion is no longer critical thinking, but rather arrogance? So now we're arrogant if we hold opinions based on an analysis of an action?
You were projecting because in my response I never once tried to make a sweeping generalization about the motivation of all confederate memorials nor did I try and say what should have happened at that time. My response focused on what the statues stand for today, why they were placed in the first place, and if they have a place as a public memorial. Some do, some don't. I provided a clear example of one that doesn't belong. Do you think Davis' statue in New Orleans was wrongfully removed? If so, why?
Finally, I fail to see how the South's reaction to reconstruction changes whether or not some memorials should be taken down today and removed as public memorials. Many belong in museums as artifacts of history, not as present day memorials.

No, I'm telling you that your analysis sucks because you are cherry-picking your context clues. There are things that you are not considering. I think the Jeff Davis statue may have been put there for the reasons you suggest, or may have been meant as an "up yours" to the damn yankees. Most likely, it was probably some of both. I think that to conclude that it was solely there for one reason is the height of feigned omnipotence and arrogance. I'm not projecting it onto anything but your specific comments. As far as 1911 being the 50th anniversary, if you were going to put up a statue of Jeff Davis for any reason, when would you choose to put it up?

As for failing to understand the impact of the south's reaction to reconstruction, you didn't live in the south when that resentment was still alive and strong, so I doubt that you are really capable of comprehending the depth of resentment. Fortunately, in the last 50 years or so, the region's economic development has overcome a lot of that. Whatever racism remains, and there is some but not as much as I have seen in Boston, is more attributable to poor whites who see an educated African-American population as a direct economic threat (not acknowledging that in many cases it's their own laziness that is more of a problem). I see little or nothing that I would attribute to racism among the educated populations of all colors with whom I interact when there. I do see a fair amount of residual reconstruction resentment. Southerners will watch NASCAR rather than Indy cars (both are just a lot of left turns, although I find NASCAR more entertaining because they actually race alongside more because bumping is not fatal), and generally care more about SEC football than the NFL, to cite a couple of examples, although I saw a lot of the old sectional resentment in the reaction of Saints fans to the blown no-call in the NFL championship game. In the SEC football context, there are many knowledgable observers who will insist that the largest step toward racial harmony ever taken in the south was taken by Paul Bryant with a considerable assist from Sam "Bam" Cunningham on a night in Birmingham in September 1970. Based on what I have seen, I tend to agree.

As far as the substantive issue of the statues, I think we are in general agreement, although we get there by different routes.

There is a feeling in the south that the rest of the country, and the northeast in particular, is trying to screw the south. It has nothing to do with race, so far as I can tell, and in fact I have seen instances that it is shared by people of all races. So if I've answered your question, I'll ask you again, do you think the treatment of the south during reconstruction was appropriate?

Just a quick question - what do you think my analysis of the reason for the placement of the statue is? What reasons do I suggest (I'm interested at the plurality of that word).

In your diatribe, yet you seem to be pretty certain that my reasoning sucks, but frankly, I'm not sure if you know what I think the reasoning is given such a bombastic response to a rather benign reason.
05-28-2019 03:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 66,139
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 1766
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #26
RE: Memorial Day
(05-28-2019 03:40 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Just a quick question - what do you think my analysis of the reason for the placement of the statue is? What reasons do I suggest (I'm interested at the plurality of that word).
In your diatribe, yet you seem to be pretty certain that my reasoning sucks, but frankly, I'm not sure if you know what I think the reasoning is given such a bombastic response to a rather benign reason.

First, answer my question. Do you think the South was properly treated during reconstruction?

Do you think that resentment over that treatment just might possibly have had a much bigger role in these events than you are allowing?
05-28-2019 03:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,771
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 97
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #27
RE: Memorial Day
(05-28-2019 03:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(05-28-2019 03:40 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Just a quick question - what do you think my analysis of the reason for the placement of the statue is? What reasons do I suggest (I'm interested at the plurality of that word).
In your diatribe, yet you seem to be pretty certain that my reasoning sucks, but frankly, I'm not sure if you know what I think the reasoning is given such a bombastic response to a rather benign reason.

First, answer my question. Do you think the South was properly treated during reconstruction?

Do you think that resentment over that treatment just might possibly have had a much bigger role in these events than you are allowing?

Nah, not letting you deflect or play this silly game. You're the one trying to chastise me for something - I think you should at least be willing to explain to me what "sucks" and what makes me "arrogant" in your eyes before I play along.

Your unnecessary and personal attack has veered us off course from a rather substantive topic that does warrant discussion. Good job.
05-28-2019 04:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 66,139
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 1766
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #28
RE: Memorial Day
(05-28-2019 04:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(05-28-2019 03:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(05-28-2019 03:40 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Just a quick question - what do you think my analysis of the reason for the placement of the statue is? What reasons do I suggest (I'm interested at the plurality of that word).
In your diatribe, yet you seem to be pretty certain that my reasoning sucks, but frankly, I'm not sure if you know what I think the reasoning is given such a bombastic response to a rather benign reason.
First, answer my question. Do you think the South was properly treated during reconstruction?
Do you think that resentment over that treatment just might possibly have had a much bigger role in these events than you are allowing?
Nah, not letting you deflect or play this silly game. You're the one trying to chastise me for something - I think you should at least be willing to explain to me what "sucks" and what makes me "arrogant" in your eyes before I play along.
Your unnecessary and personal attack has veered us off course from a rather substantive topic that does warrant discussion. Good job.

Sorry, I don't see it as a personal attack. It was directed more to what I saw as a leap to a conclusion that the Jeff Davis statue must be removed because it was dedicated 50 years after the confederacy was established with I'm as president. The gratuitous "whites only" comment hinted at racism. I think you jumped a bit far. I thought you were adult enough to handle a bit of criticism. You certainly don't have any problem dining it out.

As for your comment about Jeff Davis, it came in a post that struck me as being more a counter to OO's comments about the origins of Memorial Day, and my original comments were directed more toward OO's comments than yours.

Again, I think we get to the same place at the end of the day, at least on this one. I even suggested a couple of alternative persons who might be more appropriately memorialized in New Orleans. Since there is already a statue of Andy Jackson in Jackson Square, I think another appropriate candidate might be Jean Lafitte.

Now, do you think the south was treated appropriately during reconstruction?
(This post was last modified: 05-28-2019 04:33 PM by Owl 69/70/75.)
05-28-2019 04:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,248
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 340
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #29
RE: Memorial Day
(05-28-2019 11:16 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(05-28-2019 11:07 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I don't see what your problem is is with what I said, but I will say it again, in different fashion:

The people of 150 years ago could display compassion for the dead of both sides, recognizing that they fought valiantly, even if for a side one did not agree with. The people of today, cannot.

Pulling down monuments to Confederates, whether the monuments are individual or collective, for the dead or for the survivors, fails to display this. Therefore it is something we have lost. Compassion? Empathy? A willingness to see the other side? A willingness to lover the sinner while hating the sin?

I do not understand your complaints about 150 years ago, especially when you quote supposed attitudes from 120 years ago.

I think we should honor the dead. All of them. Not just the ones who fit some modern template of what is acceptable now.

How you get omnipotence and arrogance out of an honest expression of opinion, I don't know, although I am impressed with the arrogance and omnipotence you two are expressing. I am glad y'all stepped down from your pedestals to castigate this wrong-thinker. I might have gone on thinking courage and valor, even in a bad cause, should be recognized.

I quoted a self-professed liberal. I guess y'all think she is arrogant too. Oh, and omnipotent.

You do not "honor the dead" by memorializing the leaders of an insurrection and rebellion...

You honor the dead by memorializing them or the places they died. You notice how there is no concerted effort to remove historical markers at Antietam?

Again, look at how Germany handled WW2. You don't see statues of Hitler or Himmler, commemorating their valor for fighting for what they thought was right. You see monuments dedicated to those who lost their life and were persecuted. You see small remembrances of historically significant areas. You see places like the rally grounds at Nuremberg kept in place, or concentrations camps maintained. All of that is done to remember what happened, honor those that died, but explicitly NOT glorify those who fought for something evil.

I 100% agree that memorials honoring those who died and were scarred by the gruesome war should remain. And that we should keep in place protections that preserve historical places. But I see no reason to leave standing in public memorials of the leaders of a rebellion.

PS - give this persecuted conservative bit a rest - "glad y'all stepped down from your pedestals to castigate this wrong-thinker" - ehgads. Sorry I think your opinion is bad and have told you.

leader of an insurrection or rebellion.....

Can you cite to me the portions of the Constitution or any Supreme Court cases pre-bellum that categorically denied a state (any state) the right or ability to leave the Union?

I will say that undoubtedly the victors wrote the history books (not to mention the subsequent law) on that question, considering that you take that factoid as set in stone.

Funny thing, is that there was just as good precedent for the states to secede at that time as there was for them remaining inviolate in the Union..... much to the contrary of your inference above with the terminology of 'insurrection and rebellion'.

But hey, why let little facts like that get in the way of some rhetoric. Bummer that.....
05-28-2019 04:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 45,205
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 606
I Root For: Rice
Location: Paradise

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #30
RE: Memorial Day
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.
05-28-2019 04:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,771
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 97
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #31
RE: Memorial Day
(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 think you overstepped on your assumption here...

Seems to be like we're all assuming a bit too much in this thread, eh?
05-28-2019 05:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,771
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 97
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #32
RE: Memorial Day
(05-28-2019 04:29 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(05-28-2019 04:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(05-28-2019 03:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(05-28-2019 03:40 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Just a quick question - what do you think my analysis of the reason for the placement of the statue is? What reasons do I suggest (I'm interested at the plurality of that word).
In your diatribe, yet you seem to be pretty certain that my reasoning sucks, but frankly, I'm not sure if you know what I think the reasoning is given such a bombastic response to a rather benign reason.
First, answer my question. Do you think the South was properly treated during reconstruction?
Do you think that resentment over that treatment just might possibly have had a much bigger role in these events than you are allowing?
Nah, not letting you deflect or play this silly game. You're the one trying to chastise me for something - I think you should at least be willing to explain to me what "sucks" and what makes me "arrogant" in your eyes before I play along.
Your unnecessary and personal attack has veered us off course from a rather substantive topic that does warrant discussion. Good job.

Sorry, I don't see it as a personal attack. It was directed more to what I saw as a leap to a conclusion that the Jeff Davis statue must be removed because it was dedicated 50 years after the confederacy was established with I'm as president. The gratuitous "whites only" comment hinted at racism. I think you jumped a bit far. I thought you were adult enough to handle a bit of criticism. You certainly don't have any problem dining it out.

As for your comment about Jeff Davis, it came in a post that struck me as being more a counter to OO's comments about the origins of Memorial Day, and my original comments were directed more toward OO's comments than yours.

Again, I think we get to the same place at the end of the day, at least on this one. I even suggested a couple of alternative persons who might be more appropriately memorialized in New Orleans. Since there is already a statue of Andy Jackson in Jackson Square, I think another appropriate candidate might be Jean Lafitte.

Now, do you think the south was treated appropriately during reconstruction?

I am adult enough to handle criticism, have you seen me leave this board yet? I really didn't have a personal problem with what you said, I thought it was unnecessary, but I only brought it up because OO incorrectly attributed the barb to me. I wanted to make sure it was clear that he was in fact coming to my defense with his comment chastising the original comment.

The thing about criticism, is it needs to be doled out with some support. You seem to have provided that now.

The reason I say that the Davis statue should have been removed is not because it was dedicated 50 years after the confederacy, but because it is clearly not a memorial honoring the dead or the atrocities of the war. It is clearly a memorial honoring a leader of the Confederates. Do you disagree with what it was memorializing - Jefferson Davis, the president of the Confederacy?

The comment about whites only was not to hint at racism as you suggest, or to suggest that it was erected as an FU (and I never said either thing, mind you). I added that comment because it was more evidence that this monument was not erected to honor the dead and the sacrifice of many. If you wanted to honor those who died in battle and their memories, why would you exclude anyone?

So my thesis still stands as I originally stated "many were erected to celebrate the Confederacy, such as the Jefferson Davis monument in New Orleans, which was dedicated in 1911."

Do you still find that comment/analysis to be arrogant and sucky?

As to your question, Reconstruction is not a topic of American history I'm well versed in. I learned a bit about it in school over the years, but it's been a long time since I ever thought about it. I believe there were some issues with the formation of the new governments of southern states, but besides that, I'm not very well informed. I said earlier that this wasn't germane because I wasn't digging as deep into the psyche of those who erected that statue as many seemed to think I was...
05-28-2019 05:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,771
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 97
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #33
RE: Memorial Day
(05-28-2019 04:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(05-28-2019 11:16 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(05-28-2019 11:07 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I don't see what your problem is is with what I said, but I will say it again, in different fashion:

The people of 150 years ago could display compassion for the dead of both sides, recognizing that they fought valiantly, even if for a side one did not agree with. The people of today, cannot.

Pulling down monuments to Confederates, whether the monuments are individual or collective, for the dead or for the survivors, fails to display this. Therefore it is something we have lost. Compassion? Empathy? A willingness to see the other side? A willingness to lover the sinner while hating the sin?

I do not understand your complaints about 150 years ago, especially when you quote supposed attitudes from 120 years ago.

I think we should honor the dead. All of them. Not just the ones who fit some modern template of what is acceptable now.

How you get omnipotence and arrogance out of an honest expression of opinion, I don't know, although I am impressed with the arrogance and omnipotence you two are expressing. I am glad y'all stepped down from your pedestals to castigate this wrong-thinker. I might have gone on thinking courage and valor, even in a bad cause, should be recognized.

I quoted a self-professed liberal. I guess y'all think she is arrogant too. Oh, and omnipotent.

You do not "honor the dead" by memorializing the leaders of an insurrection and rebellion...

You honor the dead by memorializing them or the places they died. You notice how there is no concerted effort to remove historical markers at Antietam?

Again, look at how Germany handled WW2. You don't see statues of Hitler or Himmler, commemorating their valor for fighting for what they thought was right. You see monuments dedicated to those who lost their life and were persecuted. You see small remembrances of historically significant areas. You see places like the rally grounds at Nuremberg kept in place, or concentrations camps maintained. All of that is done to remember what happened, honor those that died, but explicitly NOT glorify those who fought for something evil.

I 100% agree that memorials honoring those who died and were scarred by the gruesome war should remain. And that we should keep in place protections that preserve historical places. But I see no reason to leave standing in public memorials of the leaders of a rebellion.

PS - give this persecuted conservative bit a rest - "glad y'all stepped down from your pedestals to castigate this wrong-thinker" - ehgads. Sorry I think your opinion is bad and have told you.

leader of an insurrection or rebellion.....

Can you cite to me the portions of the Constitution or any Supreme Court cases pre-bellum that categorically denied a state (any state) the right or ability to leave the Union?

I will say that undoubtedly the victors wrote the history books (not to mention the subsequent law) on that question, considering that you take that factoid as set in stone.

Funny thing, is that there was just as good precedent for the states to secede at that time as there was for them remaining inviolate in the Union..... much to the contrary of your inference above with the terminology of 'insurrection and rebellion'.

But hey, why let little facts like that get in the way of some rhetoric. Bummer that.....

No, you're nitpicking and intentionally trying to obscure the big picture.

Plus, while I cannot point to a portion of the Constitution that denies a state that right, can you point to a portion of the Constitution that does establish that right? So what does the absence of a right to secede or right to deny secession mean?

And what was the precedent for that existed at that time for states to secede?

Big picture - portion of the US at the time wanted to secede from the federal government and form their own country. That is a textbook definition of rebelling...
05-28-2019 05:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 66,139
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 1766
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #34
RE: Memorial Day
(05-28-2019 05:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  As to your question, Reconstruction is not a topic of American history I'm well versed in. I learned a bit about it in school over the years, but it's been a long time since I ever thought about it. I believe there were some issues with the formation of the new governments of southern states, but besides that, I'm not very well informed. I said earlier that this wasn't germane because I wasn't digging as deep into the psyche of those who erected that statue as many seemed to think I was...

So you conclude that the reason was related strictly to memorializing the confederacy (and throw in the "whites only" comment as a not-too-subtle jab at racism), don't consider the impact of resentment over the reconstruction, and ten admit that you really don't know enough about the reconstruction to answer a simple question? Gotcha.

And you dug deep enough into the psyche to determine motivation but not deep enough to consider other possible factors? Gotcha.

I'm just messing with you a bit, but you need to recognize that things are seldom simple enough for a simplistic analysis to be valid.

My biggest concern about statues of Jeff Davis and Robert E. Lee in New Orleans is that neither really had much to do with New Orleans. I would guess that Davis probably travelled there multiple times since it not far from Beauvoir, but I don't know if Lee ever went there (probably did when he was working on the Mississippi River with the COE, but I don't really know), and it was clearly not a major locale in the lives of either one. I'm fine with statues of people were they had impact. But I wouldn't see much basis for a statue of, say, Steve Jobs in Detroit or Jimmy Carter in Philadelphia.
05-28-2019 05:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,248
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 340
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #35
RE: Memorial Day
(05-28-2019 05:31 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(05-28-2019 04:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(05-28-2019 11:16 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(05-28-2019 11:07 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I don't see what your problem is is with what I said, but I will say it again, in different fashion:

The people of 150 years ago could display compassion for the dead of both sides, recognizing that they fought valiantly, even if for a side one did not agree with. The people of today, cannot.

Pulling down monuments to Confederates, whether the monuments are individual or collective, for the dead or for the survivors, fails to display this. Therefore it is something we have lost. Compassion? Empathy? A willingness to see the other side? A willingness to lover the sinner while hating the sin?

I do not understand your complaints about 150 years ago, especially when you quote supposed attitudes from 120 years ago.

I think we should honor the dead. All of them. Not just the ones who fit some modern template of what is acceptable now.

How you get omnipotence and arrogance out of an honest expression of opinion, I don't know, although I am impressed with the arrogance and omnipotence you two are expressing. I am glad y'all stepped down from your pedestals to castigate this wrong-thinker. I might have gone on thinking courage and valor, even in a bad cause, should be recognized.

I quoted a self-professed liberal. I guess y'all think she is arrogant too. Oh, and omnipotent.

You do not "honor the dead" by memorializing the leaders of an insurrection and rebellion...

You honor the dead by memorializing them or the places they died. You notice how there is no concerted effort to remove historical markers at Antietam?

Again, look at how Germany handled WW2. You don't see statues of Hitler or Himmler, commemorating their valor for fighting for what they thought was right. You see monuments dedicated to those who lost their life and were persecuted. You see small remembrances of historically significant areas. You see places like the rally grounds at Nuremberg kept in place, or concentrations camps maintained. All of that is done to remember what happened, honor those that died, but explicitly NOT glorify those who fought for something evil.

I 100% agree that memorials honoring those who died and were scarred by the gruesome war should remain. And that we should keep in place protections that preserve historical places. But I see no reason to leave standing in public memorials of the leaders of a rebellion.

PS - give this persecuted conservative bit a rest - "glad y'all stepped down from your pedestals to castigate this wrong-thinker" - ehgads. Sorry I think your opinion is bad and have told you.

leader of an insurrection or rebellion.....

Can you cite to me the portions of the Constitution or any Supreme Court cases pre-bellum that categorically denied a state (any state) the right or ability to leave the Union?

I will say that undoubtedly the victors wrote the history books (not to mention the subsequent law) on that question, considering that you take that factoid as set in stone.

Funny thing, is that there was just as good precedent for the states to secede at that time as there was for them remaining inviolate in the Union..... much to the contrary of your inference above with the terminology of 'insurrection and rebellion'.

But hey, why let little facts like that get in the way of some rhetoric. Bummer that.....

No, you're nitpicking and intentionally trying to obscure the big picture.

Plus, while I cannot point to a portion of the Constitution that denies a state that right, can you point to a portion of the Constitution that does establish that right? So what does the absence of a right to secede or right to deny secession mean?

And what was the precedent for that existed at that time for states to secede?

Big picture - portion of the US at the time wanted to secede from the federal government and form their own country. That is a textbook definition of rebelling...

Not obscuring at all. Just commenting at your 'after the fact' characterization of a rebellion or insurrection.

No I cannot point to a 'get out free portion'. I can point to a *lot* of drafters of the Constitution that espoused that in later works.

The absence or presence of a right to secede means that there was just as much 'right' to secede as there was that the states, once entering into the Union, were shackled inviolate in eternity (i.e. an open question, just as I characterized it.)

That question was absolutely answered in total by force. And only later enshrined into the law, mind you.

So, one can just as easily, with exactly the same legal basis that you blindly charge off into, change *your* knee jerk final statement to:
Quote: Big picture - portion of the US at the time wanted to secede from the federal government that they had every right to leave and form their own country. That is not a textbook definition of rebelling...

It only becomes a 'rebellion' with an ex post facto application of a law and legal regime that never actually existed at the time of the issue.

lad -- words matter.

I will agree with you twenty times to Sunday that should Missouri decide to leave the Union without overriding permission today, you would be absolutely correct in noting that an 'insurrection'.

And I will agree with you twenty times to Sunday that if the same actions the Southern States undertook in 1861 happened today it would be an insurrection under the law.

But, applying the legal regime enacted in the 1870s to actions that occurred 10 years earlier and calling the previous actions 'illegal' is just mind boggling stupid.

The simple fact remains that the Southern States had just as much legal basis at that time to claim that they could leave as the carpetbagging states to, again, at that time, claim that they couldn't. And no amount of applying ex post facto legal bases to that situation changes that calculus.
(This post was last modified: 05-28-2019 07:03 PM by tanqtonic.)
05-28-2019 07:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 45,205
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 606
I Root For: Rice
Location: Paradise

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #36
RE: Memorial Day
I think there is no more reason to assume that the USA was a union that could not be withdrawn from, than there is to assume that that woman cannot withdraw from a marriage.


Somebody name an association that cannot be withdrawn from. MS-13? No. NATO? No. EEU? No. Opec? No.

Why is this one, and only this one, unbreakable?

I think the attitude that "Hell no you aren't going anywhere" was seen in Hungary in 1956, as well as the USA in 1860. Any other examples of armed force being used to coerce a member into staying? Maybe India, 1857?

Lad you really should read a couple of articles on Reconstruction.

Try this one

Or this one

A quick perusal of the latter produced this interesting nugget - nobody was ever prosecuted for treason after the CW - not even Jeff Davis.

And this:

"The Five Civilized Tribes that had been relocated to Indian Territory (now part of Oklahoma) held black slaves and signed treaties supporting the Confederacy. During the war, a war among pro- and anti-Union Indians had raged."

So if there is a statue of a pro-Confederacy, slave owning Indian anywhere, should it be pulled down?
(This post was last modified: 05-28-2019 08:50 PM by OptimisticOwl.)
05-28-2019 08:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,248
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 340
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #37
RE: Memorial Day
(05-28-2019 08:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think there is no more reason to assume that the USA was a union that could not be withdrawn from, than there is to assume that that woman cannot withdraw from a marriage.


Somebody name an association that cannot be withdrawn from. MS-13? No. NATO? No. EEU? No. Opec? No.

USSR? No. Warsaw pact? No. United Kingdom? No.

Why is this one, and only this one, unbreakable?

Quote:I think the attitude that "Hell no you aren't going anywhere" was seen in Hungary in 1956, as well as the USA in 1860. Any other examples of armed force being used to coerce a member into staying? Maybe India, 1857?

Czechoslovakia, 1968. Hungary, 1956. Poland, 1988. Georgia/Ossetia, 2008. Kosovo, 1990's. Pretty much every ex-Yugoslavian province, 1990's. East Ukraine, current day.

Neat group there, isnt it?

Quote:A quick perusal of the latter produced this interesting nugget - nobody was ever prosecuted for treason after the CW - not even Jeff Davis.

And a number of turn of the 20th century historians noted that a major reason that Davis was never prosecuted was because of the fear that a trial could result in a judicial decision that would validate the constitutionality of secession.

But, why let that get in the way of a good ex-post facto characterization?
05-28-2019 09:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rice93 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,611
Joined: Dec 2005
Reputation: 21
I Root For:
Location:

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #38
RE: Memorial Day
(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?""
05-28-2019 09:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 45,205
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 606
I Root For: Rice
Location: Paradise

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #39
RE: Memorial Day
(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.
05-28-2019 10:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rice93 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,611
Joined: Dec 2005
Reputation: 21
I Root For:
Location:

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #40
RE: Memorial Day
(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?
05-29-2019 08:03 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2020 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2020 MyBB Group.