Virgil, quick, come see. There goes the Robert E. Lee
- Thread Starter flyingron
- Start date
- Status
Tax Counsel
Well-Known Member
Nope. Once again, you read into posts something I've not said and put words in my mouth. You really need to stop doing that.
Removing a statue doesn't equate to erasing history. I'm all for people learning our history, ALL of our history, the good, the bad, and the ugly. That way we can learn what works and what mistakes to avoid. I've no problem with people learning about the Confederacy, who lead them, and what kind of people they were. There is much to learn there. But I certainly wouldn't be putting up any statues to them.
Actually, cancel culture is now taking on the kids' cartoon series Paw Patrol. Apparently they show police officers in a positive light (horrors!) and the police dog character on the show is "more valiant" than the other characters. God help us.
No, they changed it when they were mad at Bush for something. Years ago.
Redemptionman
Well-Known Member
Some of these monuments have stood for over 100-120 years, it is a disgrace to see them destroyed and cut up removed just because the woke PC crowd thinks they are discriminatory or represent injustice. I have never really been to Virginia but do have a cousin that was on the Supreme court. I don't ever plan to visit, so they can keep their woke city to themselves.
No, it was 2020.
Zigner
Well-Known Member
Oh, I see...a monument to racism is just fine as long as it was put up long enough back. Does that apply to everything? I mean...heck, if a guy kills another guy and they don't figure out it's him until 40 or 50 years later, he should get away with it, right? Good on him for avoiding consequences for so many decades...right?
Oh, do tell. Or at least give a clue.
Tax Counsel
Well-Known Member
The amount of time that a statue has been up doesn't really mean much. If the person is not worthy of the honor, then it ought to come down, whether it was originally put up 1 year ago or 100 years ago.
Redemptionman
Well-Known Member
Lots of folks died on both sides, evidentially the people at the time felt Lee was worthy of remembrance. All this time later it reeks of appeasement. None of my family owned slaves, I have nothing to feel any guilt or privilege over. Everything I have earned has been from my own achievements not a systemic system that was stacked in my favor. Black people have every opportunity here to better themselves, obtain meaningful work, and get their own selfs out of poverty. African descendant people have it better here than in any other country, period. Yet it is still NOT ENOUGH!!!
Lincoln himself said that their are inherent differences that the two would never be able to over come. Those are your great emancipators own words.
The night they drove ole' Dixie Down,
when The Band plays it is an anthem of sympathy
when Joni Mitchell sings it is an anthem of in your face protest song, similar to all the people celebrating the removal of the Lee statute.
Again I could care less cause I do not have to visit their city or live in their cesspool.
Tax Counsel
Well-Known Member
That much is clearly true. It is also true that our ancestors on the whole were far more racist than Americans on the whole are today. So what our racist ancestors thought worthy of remembrance — a general who fought to preserve slavery — doesn't mean that we today should find that honorable and worthy of remembrance.
Let us suppose, for a moment, that the colonists lost the Revolutionary War. I doubt the British would have allowed monuments/statues to (in their eyes) traitors. No matter what sort of general they may have been.
Then let us suppose the South had won the Civil War. Does anyone believe we'd see statues/monuments honoring Lincoln? Grant? Sherman? Anyone, anywhere except, perhaps, on the battlefields?
ETA: Slavery is really moot to this discussion. Their side lost. End of story.
Then let us suppose the South had won the Civil War. Does anyone believe we'd see statues/monuments honoring Lincoln? Grant? Sherman? Anyone, anywhere except, perhaps, on the battlefields?
ETA: Slavery is really moot to this discussion. Their side lost. End of story.
Redemptionman
Well-Known Member
The far left is so comfortable with stereotypical racist comments that they give each other a FREE PASS while roasting the Republicans over it. See the double standard?
what would really blow your liberal brainwashed progressive minds if you were to actually find out that there were confederate black regiments prepared to defend the South against the aggressive North.
Last edited:
Tax Counsel
Well-Known Member
LOL, there you go again with the "aggressive North". You ranted earlier about attempts to change or erase history, yet you do that yourself. I pointed out before that the South were the aggressors — they fired the first shots of the Civil War. A fact that in your haste to defend your beloved Confederacy you want to forget and instead recast the North as the aggressors. The South wasn't defending itself from invasion by the North when it fired those shots. So at least get your history right.
Please provide some information - I'd be interested in learning about it. Thx.
Zigner
Well-Known Member
At what shade of blue will you stop holding your breath?
Tax Counsel
Well-Known Member
Redemptionman either doesn't know history on this well or is deliberately trying to make Black involvement in the Confederate military seem more than it really was. You'll find a nice explanation of the truth of it here:
Black Confederates: Truth and Legend
- Status
Ask a Question
Share this page
