‘Silent Sam’ Confederate Statue

[Blackjack200]

They committed treason against Britain, participated in open rebellion and warred against the King. While they did so to establish OUR independence, it's in many ways similar to the South attempting to break away from the USA and start their own country. (and, keep in mind, BOTH men were slave owners...)

Agree, get rid of those statues and monuments too.

 

[theeedude]

They committed treason against Britain, participated in open rebellion and warred against the King. While they did so to establish OUR independence, it's in many ways similar to the South attempting to break away from the USA and start their own country. (and, keep in mind, BOTH men were slave owners...)

Jefferson and Washington didn't fight the revolutionary war for slavery. And they won. There would not be statues of them if the UK won.

 

[kage69]

They committed treason against Britain, participated in open rebellion and warred against the King. While they did so to establish OUR independence, it's in many ways similar to the South attempting to break away from the USA and start their own country. (and, keep in mind, BOTH men were slave owners...)

Kind of an irrelevant point in the context of a war of independence.

Yes, the warts I mentioned. Washington was a mediocre tactician, a racist and a bigot, not to mention slave owner. Jefferson penned "all men are created equal" while he at the time owned more than 600 slaves. It's not that people are unaware, it's that as I said, you get a lot of latitude for creating an enduring and dominant country. We accept the founding fathers, warts and all. Hard to say the same about a racist reaction to Jim Crow being shown the door.

 

[Zorba]

I support taking these statues down for the reasons you stated given the intent of their placement.

However, I think the military leaders of the Confederacy are complex as historical figures, so I would not correlate them to Mussolini or Hussein. Many were officers who fought in campaigns of Manifest Destiny under an American flag, for which notions of white supremacy was a huge driving force, although not in the same context as we define it today. Lee was a hero of the Mexican War, which wasn’t fought for the most noble of intentions. The same could be said for many officers. Take Custer for example. Fought for the Union and yet fought against Native Americans.

I agree that they are complex and should be studied. I also don't have issue with contemporary statues (of which there are very few) and generally feel those at least deserve a discussion on staying.

Regardless of what else they did, these statues were erected due to their place in the civil war, not previous wars fighting for the US. Unlike Jefferson that has statues because he wrote the Declaration of Independence, was a generally good early president, purchased the Louisiana territory, etc, not because he was a slave owner/raper.

 

[Homerboy]

They committed treason against Britain, participated in open rebellion and warred against the King. While they did so to establish OUR independence, it's in many ways similar to the South attempting to break away from the USA and start their own country. (and, keep in mind, BOTH men were slave owners...)

You're kidding me right? You can't possibly be this dense.

The South committed treason against the United States of America. That is why the United State of America probably shouldn't be celebrating "heroes" of the South. Those "heroes" were direct enemies of the winning side. Just like I wouldn't expect Britain to erect statues of Washington and Jefferson since those two were leaders of sedition and rebellion against Britain.

I'm not even touching the "slavery" aspect of this.

 

[Zorba]

I'm sorry, please remind me when those 2 committed treason, open rebellion and warred against the United States?

They committed treason against Britain, participated in open rebellion and warred against the King. While they did so to establish OUR independence, it's in many ways similar to the South attempting to break away from the USA and start their own country. (and, keep in mind, BOTH men were slave owners...)

I wonder how many statues England has of Washington and Jefferson... I wonder how many are installed near royal palaces and military bases to remind them that America whipped them and they better stay in their place.

 

[realibrad]

I wonder how many statues England has of Washington and Jefferson... I wonder how many are installed near royal palaces and military bases to remind them that America whipped them and they better stay in their place.

They have them.

https://www.guidelondon.org.uk/blog/around-london/statues-6-american-presidents-london/

Trafalgar Square.

To be fair though, the ones in the south were done to let Blacks know where they stood. George Washington was promoted for liberty. So direct opposites in that regard.

 

[glenn1]

The statue had to come down. North Carolina Republicans in the state house decided how that was going to happen.
As far as voting them out, Republicans foreclosed that one too with gerrymandering, and a Republican SCOTUS did nothing, so really hard to blame the students for bypassing this Republican BS and taking matters into their own hands.

So if a mob of good ol' boys decides the statue of Arthur Ashe on Monument Avenue in Richmond "has to come down" you'd be OK with that? Or just if some other mob goes up the street instead and tears down one of the CSA statues? Just trying to determine if you support the mob in all cases or just when their aims align with your political beliefs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monument_Avenue

 

[Blackjack200]

So if a mob of good ol' boys decides the statue of Arthur Ashe on Monument Avenue in Richmond "has to come down" you'd be OK with that? Or just if some other mob goes up the street instead and tears down one of the CSA statues? Just trying to determine if you support the mob in all cases or just when their aims align with your political beliefs.

Sure, they should try. Who gives a shit. It will be funny if they got their faces beaten in though.

 

[kage69]

Sure, they should try. Who gives a shit. It will be funny if they got their faces beaten in though.

Black tennis stars, every bit as evil and oppressive and anti-American as slavery!

Idk, seems like a hard sell, even for the constitution hating dickless cowards on the alt-right. Should they try they better hope for better odds than they got at that D.C protest! hahaha

 

[zinfamous]

So if a mob of good ol' boys decides the statue of Arthur Ashe on Monument Avenue in Richmond "has to come down" you'd be OK with that? Or just if some other mob goes up the street instead and tears down one of the CSA statues? Just trying to determine if you support the mob in all cases or just when their aims align with your political beliefs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monument_Avenue

be honest: is Ambien responsible for this post (and your others in this thread?)

 

[GagHalfrunt]

That's your response to me bringing up the comparison fail? A pair of absurd what ifs?

I expect any conquerors in your alt-future would view all statues and memorials as remnants of a society they want to do away with. I think your point is as mute as it is moot.

Try to keep up Zippy, it gives me a headache to dumb things down to a level where you might be able to understand. I'll take a couple of Advil and give it a shot.

One mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter. One mans liberator is anothers conqueror and dictator. Mao was once praised as a builder of a nation, Lenin the poster child of a now failed ideology, Chavez as a fiscal genius, Pot as a liberator of his people. All were great leaders to people in one time and place, failures and despicable murderers to people with a different perspective on their actions. WE view Washington and Jefferson as heroes, others do not. It's that fucking simple. Please tell me which parts of that are still too hard for you to follow and I'll try to draw you a map in crayon.

 

[theeedude]

So if a mob of good ol' boys decides the statue of Arthur Ashe on Monument Avenue in Richmond "has to come down" you'd be OK with that? Or just if some other mob goes up the street instead and tears down one of the CSA statues? Just trying to determine if you support the mob in all cases or just when their aims align with your political beliefs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monument_Avenue

Do the people of Richmond want to move this statue to a museum and the state government, elected through vote suppression and gerrymandering, is forcing them to keep it? Then have at it for all I care.
But I predict that Virginia is more likely to clear that avenue of traitor statues than those of a tennis player.

 

[Blackjack200]

Black tennis stars, every bit as evil and oppressive and anti-American as slavery!

Idk, seems like a hard sell, even for the constitution hating dickless cowards on the alt-right. Should they try they better hope for better odds than they got at that D.C protest! hahaha

It's funny to me that he's basically implying that the political inverse of the people that tore down the Silent Sam statue are just straight up racists. It's like, okay man, I wouldn't put myself in that camp, but you do you.

 

[glenn1]

It's funny to me that he's basically implying that the political inverse of the people that tore down the Silent Sam statue are just straight up racists. It's like, okay man, I wouldn't put myself in that camp, but you do you.

A mob is a mob no matter what its supposed motivations. I see little difference between a mob tearing down the Ashe statue and one burning down Koreatown after the acquitals of the police officers in the Rodney King trial. Destructive mobs are bad no matter why they're being destructive and explicitly telling folks "it's OK to destroy property that represents concepts you disagree with" is a fundamentally bad idea even if you dislike that concept also.

 

[Blackjack200]

A mob is a mob no matter what its supposed motivations. I see little difference between a mob tearing down the Ashe statue and one burning down Koreatown after the acquitals of the police officers in the Rodney King trial. Destructive mobs are bad no matter why they're being destructive and explicitly telling folks "it's OK to destroy property that represents concepts you disagree with" is a fundamentally bad idea even if you dislike that concept also.

Totally agree, that's why we should place the blame for these mobs squarely where it belongs: with the LAPD for brutally beating a man that was not resisting, and to the governments that continue to insult their communities with monuments to slavery and oppression. Glad we're on the same page.

 

[glenn1]

Totally agree, that's why we should place the blame for these mobs squarely where it belongs: with the LAPD for brutally beating a man that was not resisting, and to the governments that continue to insult their communities with monuments to slavery and oppression. Glad we're on the same page.

Perhaps at some point you'll realize the irony in supporting mob violence, perhaps the most famous examples of which were on the side of intolerance such as the KKK and course the biggest one of all of course being the Confederacy and their uprising during the Civil War. A mob you probably appreciate due to their high level of organization and political coherence in their aims against a government they felt "insulted their communities."

 

[kage69]

Try to keep up Zippy, it gives me a headache to dumb things down to a level where you might be able to understand. I'll take a couple of Advil and give it a shot.

One mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter. One mans liberator is anothers conqueror and dictator. Mao was once praised as a builder of a nation, Lenin the poster child of a now failed ideology, Chavez as a fiscal genius, Pot as a liberator of his people. All were great leaders to people in one time and place, failures and despicable murderers to people with a different perspective on their actions. WE view Washington and Jefferson as heroes, others do not. It's that fucking simple. Please tell me which parts of that are still too hard for you to follow and I'll try to draw you a map in crayon.

Maybe you should throw a nap in with those Advil Gag. It's possible after some rest you'll have less interest in beating your sanctimonious What If straw into an anti-leftist rant. Its ok man, we all get tired.

 

[UberNeuman]

Maybe you should throw a nap in with those Advil Gag. It's possible after some rest you'll have less interest in beating your sanctimonious What If straw into an anti-leftist rant. Its ok man, we all get tired.

He's just afraid "those people" are coming to tear down his prized statue

"oooohhh, please help me mister glenn - they's coming to takes me aways."

 

[woolfe9998]

Hopefully they’re all prosecuted for the maximum number and severity crimes the state can find. If they feel so stronly about it, they should be willing to go to jail for their convictions.

Sure they should be prosecuted. We have laws. What I don't understand is your zeal for all this, "shooting resisters" and finding every law they can possibly find to prosecute them for. What is so special about this particular crime?

And yes, sure they should be willing to accept punishment. That's part of what civil disobedience means. I just don't see why they should face any more penalty than anyone else would for destruction of property. Typically a misdemeanor. The fact that the motive was political, rather than say personal, doesn't suggest the need for greater punishment to me.

 

[Xellos2099]

Sure they should be prosecuted. We have laws. What I don't understand is your zeal for all this, "shooting resisters" and finding every law they can possibly find to prosecute them for. What is so special about this particular crime?

And yes, sure they should be willing to accept punishment. That's part of what civil disobedience means. I just don't see why they should face any more penalty than anyone else would for destruction of property. Typically a misdemeanor. The fact that the motive was political, rather than say personal, doesn't suggest the need for greater punishment to me.

At the very least the students involved should be expelled.

 

[woolfe9998]

At the very least the students involved should be expelled.

Sure, if that is dictated by the university's code of conduct. But they shouldn't face anything which wouldn't be faced by anyone else destroying property on campus. If someone took down, say, an "ugly" art statue as a prank, that would be the same thing. No higher punishment should be doled out just because their motives were political.

 

[theeedude]

At the very least the students involved should be expelled.

From the KKK?

 

[glenn1]

He's just afraid "those people" are coming to tear down his prized statue

"oooohhh, please help me mister glenn - they's coming to takes me aways."

That’s OK now @Blackjack200 has agreed to the principle that’s its OK for mobs to destroy stuff they don’t like I look forward to him extending the same principle to people who burned down black churches. I don’t have a lawn jockey on my yard but there’s plenty of black churches out there so I look forward to you supporting those arsons too.

 

[kage69]

That’s OK now @Blackjack200 has agreed to the principle that’s its OK for mobs to destroy stuff they don’t like I look forward to him extending the same principle to people who burned down black churches.

Don't you guys ever get tired of embarrassing yourselves with ridiculous comparisons? A statue is not a place of worship. You have a constitutional right to freedom of religion and the freedom to worship in the structure of your choice. There is no constitutional right to arson.

Link on actual mobs burning down black churches? Last I checked those kinds of attacks are perpetrated by small numbers of arsonists, usually at night. Your "principle" fails on many fronts.