• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

NAACP wants Georgia's Stone Mountain carving removed

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Subyman said:
I remember visiting stone mountain numerous times as a child. I'd hate to see the carvings removed. They are incredible to see in person. I definitely see removing the flag, but removing historic carvings from a begone era is definitely stepping over the line. Let's not burn Alexandria as our culture changes.
Click to expand...

Been there at least twice maybe three times myself. You can't erase history.

My brother and I were at the Manassas battlefield park on the 6 of July. He has a Masters in history and does research for a living. Anyway, the park rangers are super geeks about where all the different units fought and on what days ect. Armed with my brothers geneological information we walked over the area where both my great great grandfather and great great uncle fought while in the 2nd Vermont. My great great uncle was a captain and permanently lost the use of an arm due to a wound at the Wilderness battle south of Fredericksburg. There's a monument in St. Albans, Vermont honoring him.

North or South, you can't erase history. This does not mean the battle flag of the Virginia should be flown as state sponsered.
 
FWIW, I remember the Stone Mountain Museum having a lot of Native American artifacts and local history. There is a section about the Civil War, but its not what the entire museum is about. The Civil War area is more factual information such as where battles were, who won, and so forth. It doesn't touch on many cultural or philosophical subjects, which I think is tasteful. Remembering the dead, no matter the side, is important. It shouldn't be a hall of shame.

I remember reading about a "slavery museum" that is in the works. I'd be very interested in seeing how they do that and would love to go some day.
 
Angry Irishman said:
So we should put a wall up that shows all the presidents who owned slaves? What do you want a sign pointing to General Lee saying "slave owner"? I don't disagree that slavery should be reflected as part of American history but the current trend/actions taking place and being proposed are ridiculous.

The civil war was about a lot more that just slavery....that's a fact. If you want to focus on just slavery then so be it but it is shortsighted.

You may not care but you surely ACT as if you are an expert of everything to include this topic.
Click to expand...

One last time: it was much much more about slavery than anything else. This is a simple fact.

Saying you don't know what you're talking about doesn't make me an expert; it makes you someone who doesn't know what he's talking about.
 
I am descended from an ancient line of people who were or were related to the people who committed every crime ever committed, but I know I'm the best person who ever lived because I have State Farm Insurance.
 
Last edited:
eskimospy said:
One last time: it was much much more about slavery than anything else. This is a simple fact.

Saying you don't know what you're talking about doesn't make me an expert; it makes you someone who doesn't know what he's talking about.
Click to expand...

What do you propose should be done with the memorial? Be specific.....

I never said it wasn't primarily about slavery.....keep assuming.
 
Angry Irishman said:
What do you propose should be done with the memorial? Be specific.....

I never said it wasn't primarily about slavery.....keep assuming.
Click to expand...

I already said what:

Leave the memorial there. The museums and stuff around it are a whitewash of its history and racist past. They should be updated so they aren't.
 
eskimospy said:
Wrong.

http://www.civil-war.net/pages/1860_census.html

Look at the states that seceded and look at the % of slaveowners. 5%? My ass.

More census data on it:

http://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/00165897ch14.pdf

It's about slavery and racism BECAUSE THE PEOPLE WHO MADE THE CONFEDERACY SAID IT WAS ABOUT SLAVERY AND RACISM.

Are you calling them liars?
Click to expand...

Did you miss the WHITE southerner part?

http://newobserveronline.com/hidden-facts-about-slavery-in-america/

Fact 5: In 1860 only a small minority of whites owned slaves. According to the US census report for that last year before the Civil War, there were nearly 27 million whites in the country. Some eight million of them lived in the slaveholding states.

The census also determined that there were fewer than 385,000 individuals who owned slaves. Even if all slaveholders had been white, that would amount to only 1.4 percent of whites in the country (or 4.8 percent of southern whites owning one or more slaves).

The figures show conclusively that, when free, blacks disproportionately became slave masters in pre-Civil War America. The statistics outlined above show that about 28 percent of free blacks owned slaves—as opposed to less than 4.8 percent of southern whites, and dramatically more than the 1.4 percent of all white Americans who owned slaves.
Click to expand...
 
eskimospy said:
I already said what:

Leave the memorial there. The museums and stuff around it are a whitewash of its history and racist past. They should be updated so they aren't.
Click to expand...

No its not. The museum is factual and only part of it is about the war, the rest is about the local region and Native Americans. The stuff about the war pertains to the war itself, such as battles, generals, and the war's affect on the people. Its not a slavery memorial. It is a war memorial. As I said before, there is a slavery museum in the works.
 
hal2kilo said:
Been there at least twice maybe three times myself. You can't erase history.

My brother and I were at the Manassas battlefield park on the 6 of July. He has a Masters in history and does research for a living. Anyway, the park rangers are super geeks about where all the different units fought and on what days ect. Armed with my brothers geneological information we walked over the area where both my great great grandfather and great great uncle fought while in the 2nd Vermont. My great great uncle was a captain and permanently lost the use of an arm due to a wound at the Wilderness battle south of Fredericksburg. There's a monument in St. Albans, Vermont honoring him.

North or South, you can't erase history. This does not mean the battle flag of the Virginia should be flown as state sponsered.
Click to expand...

That is very remarkable. I'd love to go on a guided tour with such knowledgable people. The times I've gone were mostly about hiking to the top and picnicking. Its a beautiful area. I remember the laser show against the cliff face. That was neat as a child 🙂
 
xBiffx said:
5% of white southerners owned slaves. 5%! How is this at all about slavery and/or racism?

The issue was always state's rights. Slavery was just a talking point to focus in on around that man issue. It would be much like gun rights discussions today. Gun rights are always at the center of the debate but some focus more in on things like CCW or magazine restrictions.

Also, how could it have been about slavery. Grant still owned slaves at the surrender while Lee had freed his 20 years prior. Grant even said that had the war been about slavery, he never would have fought.
Click to expand...

funny how you persist with this dumbassery.
 
cabri said:
States rights.

South did not want the North dictating to them how they should live/operate.

Southern states relied on agriculture which need manpower.
Northern states decided that such was not right and tried to then force their will on the South.
Click to expand...

the "state right" to own slaves and, more insidiously, the South's perceived right to spread slavery into future states.

That is it: The state's right to slavery.


why are you people so willfully presenting yourself as ignorant clowns in this 170+ year euphemism?
 
xBiffx said:
Did you miss the WHITE southerner part?

http://newobserveronline.com/hidden-facts-about-slavery-in-america/
Click to expand...

No, did you bother to read my links?

Your source is saying that the % of white people in the south that were slaveholders was 5%, but in that they are counting women and children who in many cases simply couldn't be slaveholders. Under your metric if you have a slave that serves 5 people in a family that's 1 slaveowner. It should be immediately obvious to you how that's either a foolish or dishonest metric.

My links count the percentage of families that owned slaves, which if you take a minute to think about it makes way more sense, as I doubt the wives and children of slaveowners didn't consider the slave theirs just because their name wasn't on the paperwork.
 
Angry Irishman said:
That's not specific....updated how and according to who?
Click to expand...

Updated to include the history of slavery and its importance to the war. Updated according to mainstream historians on the issue. The fact of slavery and its central importance to the conflict isn't really even an item of debate among historians.
 
unokitty said:
washington_rushmore-2-P.jpeg


Lakota Times


Slave holders, Indian killers, nice monument white boy!

Uno
Click to expand...

Only perfect people and ideas should get monuments.
 
eskimospy said:
Updated to include the history of slavery and its importance to the war. Updated according to mainstream historians on the issue. The fact of slavery and its central importance to the conflict isn't really even an item of debate among historians.
Click to expand...

Well what do you know....we don't disagree. Although the war memorial isn't the place for that. As mentioned in another post there is a slavery exhibit/museum in the works.
 
cabri said:
States rights (to own slaves).

South did not want the North dictating to them how they shouldnt own slaves live/operate.

Southern states relied on agriculture which need slaves manpower.
Northern states decided that owning slavessuch was not right and tried to then force their will on the South.
Click to expand...

Hint, when you need to dance around quite so much in the language you use you know that youre defending the undefendable.


[Bolded are my corrections (just in case anyone get tetchy about me changing the quote)]
 
zinfamous said:
You make a boldly stupid analogy, and so the person that calls you on it is a commie?

Odd.

fwiw, I think this request is absurd.
Click to expand...

boldly stupid? do i need to dumb it down for you? ok. "this group does not like something and there fore it must be destroyed"

thats exactly what ISIS is doing and what the NAACP wants to do. but in a less violent and civil manner.
 
OutHouse said:
boldly stupid? do i need to dumb it down for you? ok. "this group does not like something and there fore it must be destroyed"

thats exactly what ISIS is doing and what the NAACP wants to do. but in a less violent and civil manner.
Click to expand...

Ah.

I see you don't understand "boldly stupid."

Now I've bolded the stupid for you, if that helps.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top