What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Do you personally agree with taking down confederate monuments? (1 Viewer)

No I do not.

I could make a nice long post as to why, but I have done that multiple times over the years on this board.  Not doing it again at 6am on this Monday morning.

Suffice it to say that I do not agree with these actions. But, do not think that I agree with the yelling idiots that the cameras find protesting these actions.  That is not representative of my opinions either.  These three particular monuments are dedicated to individuals that were public figures and are iconic to American history. The Battle of Liberty Place is not a Confederate Monument.
 

 
I'm fine with having Confederacy stuff in museums. I don't think we should just forget our history as a country. However, I don't think we need monuments to these people any more.

 
Henry Ford said:
I think part of the disconnect is in honoring the person vs. honoring the Confederacy.  The Confederacy was founded on slavery.  Robert E. Lee is worthy of historical representation quite apart from that.  But he isn't made into a monument wearing the crest of Washington and Lee University.  He's wearing a Confederate uniform. It's a monument to a slave state. 
Click to expand...
yep, that's the part that needs destruction

 
I'm torn on this issue.  To me, a monument is a permanent marker for an event in time - a historical momento that doesn't just honor a person, it marks how society felt about that person at one point in time.

I think this all came from the Roof /Emmanuel church shootings and taking down the Confederate flag from the SC statehouse.  That was a completely different thing.  Flying the flag represents a continuation of the ideals that the flag stood for, but perhaps more importantly, what it stands for today.

So I think the Confederate memorials should stay up.  I'm cool with re-naming streets, schools, etc, I'm cool with taking the flags down, but I think memorials should stay up.

 
You stupid hicks.  Don't you know your regional pride offends the PC crowd in New York and California and it must be wiped out from the pages of history to make them feel better?

 
These monuments should be removed and restored as the prevailing sociopolitical environment changes.  Like decorations for different holidays.  It never gets old.

 
It's important to note that most of the statues we're talking about are of soldiers: Lee, Jackson, Beauregard, etc. Prior to the outbreak of fighting, these men were not prominent figures defending the Old South or slavery. They happened to be born in the region that chose to secede, and that is 99% of the reason they fought for that region. 

If we were talking about statues of Calhoun, Yancey, Robert Rhett, even Jefferson Davis (men who were famous for defending slavery) You would have a much better argument for taking the statues down IMO. 

As an analogy: if I were to travel to Germany today and I saw a statue of Joseph Goebbels, I would be pretty offended. But if I saw a statue of Erwin Rommel I would not be offended at all. 

 
timschochet said:
It's important to note that most of the statues we're talking about are of soldiers: Lee, Jackson, Beauregard, etc. Prior to the outbreak of fighting, these men were not prominent figures defending the Old South or slavery. They happened to be born in the region that chose to secede, and that is 99% of the reason they fought for that region. 

If we were talking about statues of Calhoun, Yancey, Robert Rhett, even Jefferson Davis (men who were famous for defending slavery) You would have a much better argument for taking the statues down IMO. 

As an analogy: if I were to travel to Germany today and I saw a statue of Joseph Goebbels, I would be pretty offended. But if I saw a statue of Erwin Rommel I would not be offended at all. 
Click to expand...
Many of Germany's leaders were anti-semites and Aryan.   Rommel is a rare exception of someone who excelled to the point of senior leadership despite his inactivism in HItler's Thousand Year Reich racial and religious trends.    HIs participation in the attempt on Hitler's life certainly exonerates him of most guilt in many many people's eyes.

 
MarvinTScamper said:
Many of Germany's leaders were anti-semites and Aryan.   Rommel is a rare exception of someone who excelled to the point of senior leadership despite his inactivism in HItler's Thousand Year Reich racial and religious trends.    HIs participation in the attempt on Hitler's life certainly exonerates him of most guilt in many many people's eyes.
Click to expand...
Rommel was an anti-Semite. He may have known the details of the Holocaust; many German generals did. But he wasn't involved. He was a soldier, and a brilliant one. And that's my point. Those statues of Robert E Lee were not put up to honor slavery, whatever racists might think. They were put up to honor Lee's military achievements which, much like Rommel's, were brilliant. 

 
timschochet said:
It's important to note that most of the statues we're talking about are of soldiers: Lee, Jackson, Beauregard, etc. Prior to the outbreak of fighting, these men were not prominent figures defending the Old South or slavery. They happened to be born in the region that chose to secede, and that is 99% of the reason they fought for that region. 

If we were talking about statues of Calhoun, Yancey, Robert Rhett, even Jefferson Davis (men who were famous for defending slavery) You would have a much better argument for taking the statues down IMO. 

As an analogy: if I were to travel to Germany today and I saw a statue of Joseph Goebbels, I would be pretty offended. But if I saw a statue of Erwin Rommel I would not be offended at all. 
Click to expand...
The difference, of course, is that you won't find a publicly displayed statue or Rommel in Germany, and I bet you won't find roads of schools named after him.

That's because for the most part the German people have confronted the ugliness in their history and want to move out of its shadow instead of allowing it to define them.

 
In Kansas there is a statue of John Brown. Brown was a terrorist, who, much like Osama bin Laden, believed in killing innocent people in order to terrify others to achieve his political aims. Should we take this statue down? 

 
timschochet said:
In Kansas there is a statue of John Brown. Brown was a terrorist, who, much like Osama bin Laden, believed in killing innocent people in order to terrify others to achieve his political aims. Should we take this statue down? 
Click to expand...
Your problem here is that you are talking about "we" as if there's a collective decision to be made.  The decision belongs to whoever put the statue up, who must decide how they wish to be defined.  If the state of Kansas, or the city or county or whoever, wish to be defined as people who consider John Brown worthy of a publicly displayed statue, so be it.  If you want to consider them pro-terrorism for doing so, that's your choice.

Similarly, if a city or state (or private business) want to be defined as people who consider leaders of the confederacy as worthy of publicly displayed statues, so be it. But that means we get to define them as fans of pro-slavery traitors, because that is who they've chosen to honor.

 
timschochet said:
Rommel was an anti-Semite. He may have known the details of the Holocaust; many German generals did. But he wasn't involved. He was a soldier, and a brilliant one. And that's my point. Those statues of Robert E Lee were not put up to honor slavery, whatever racists might think. They were put up to honor Lee's military achievements which, much like Rommel's, were brilliant. 
Click to expand...
Where did you read this?   What I've read over and over is that he was not.  That he held no strong views on this whatsoever.

 
rommel was an early hitler supporter and subscriber to nazi ideologiy saying he was not an anti semite because he was not a goebles level antisemite just means he was not as bad as others but he was still an antisemite the whole idea that he was just a military guy disconnected from politics is and always has been a total bunch of bs take that to the bank brohans 

 
timschochet said:
In Kansas there is a statue of John Brown. Brown was a terrorist, who, much like Osama bin Laden, believed in killing innocent people in order to terrify others to achieve his political aims. Should we take this statue down? 
Click to expand...
Nice comparison of John Brown to Osama Bin Laden.  John Brown was an abolitionist, not a terrorist.  We still celebrate out choice to be a "free state" in Lawrence - both my kids will attend Free State High school.  

 
SWC said:
rommel was an early hitler supporter and subscriber to nazi ideologiy saying he was not an anti semite because he was not a goebles level antisemite just means he was not as bad as others but he was still an antisemite the whole idea that he was just a military guy disconnected from politics is and always has been a total bunch of bs take that to the bank brohans 
Click to expand...
reference cited: some brohans

Got it.

 
timschochet said:
In Kansas there is a statue of John Brown. Brown was a terrorist, who, much like Osama bin Laden, believed in killing innocent people in order to terrify others to achieve his political aims. Should we take this statue down? 
Click to expand...
All I know is that his body lays a mouldering in his grave.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think people flying Confederate flags and erecting Confederate statues are idiots and are supporting a treasonous mission built on the treating of human beings like cattle.

I think they are low level thinkers at best and full blown racists at best.

However, they are free to express their beliefs just as I'm free to say the above.  'Merica!

 
Jayrod said:
I think people flying Confederate flags and erecting Confederate statues are idiots and are supporting a treasonous mission built on the treating of human beings like cattle.

I think they are low level thinkers at best and full blown racists at best.

However, they are free to express their beliefs just as I'm free to say the above.  'Merica!
Click to expand...
:goodposting:

If that's how you want to be known, so be it. Just don't complain the next time someone stereotypes the south. You continue to make the choice to honor failed slavery-protecting traitors.  There's not a lot of gray area there.

 
Nugget said:
Nice comparison of John Brown to Osama Bin Laden.  John Brown was an abolitionist, not a terrorist.  We still celebrate out choice to be a "free state" in Lawrence - both my kids will attend Free State High school.  
Click to expand...
In the case of Brown, these two terms were not contradictory. There are two facts that can't be ignored:

1. In Kansas, John Brown deliberately killed innocent people in the name of abolitionism.

2. At Harper's Ferry, John Brown preached for the murder of innocent people in order to spread terror in the name of abolitionism.

When I look at these facts, I say "terrorist", and I fail to see any difference between this man and bin Laden. You're welcome to interpret things differently of course.

 
knowledge dropper said:
Is Dixie a banned song per snowflakes?
Click to expand...
You understand that nobody is being "banned" from doing anything, right?  These are municipalities making decisions about what to display or not display on public property. Those decisions are made all the time for all kinds of reasons.

As far as I'm concerned I hope anyone who wants to do anything promoting pride in the confederacy does so as loudly as possible. It gives us more opportunity to make fun of them for embracing racist losers.

 
timschochet said:
He was devoted to Hitler, so I made that assumption. It's not a question I've studied, however, so I could be wrong.
Click to expand...
Here's what I've read (this is from memory, Desert Fox, hours and hours of web surfing, Rise & Fall....)

- His Afrika Corp was known to be a haven for captured Jews

- He refused to execute jewish POWs based no religion alone (as was expected by Hitler)

- He participated in Hitler's assasination attempt

- other leaders said he protested Jewish policies

- some believed Rommel had soldiers of jewish descent that he protected

- he was not a member of the Nazi party

I'm not making the guy out to be a saint, but I don't believe he was guilty of what most officers at the top of the food chain were.  If he had been, I believe he would have been at Wansee.  Additionally, he was given choice of suicide (and a spared family) or execution and family the same fate after the von Stauffenberg failure in Valkyrie.

 
Quez said:
So should we change the name of every school, road, etc. Named after Robert Lee?
Click to expand...
Eventually it will happen. People have too much time on their hands. With that free time they come up with things to be offended by. If enough people want to take down a statue. So be it. Once the statues are gone, they will move on to something else that they will get worked up about. 

 
VA703 said:
I think theyre going to change the history books next
Click to expand...
A big difference between deciding which people in history are worthy of honor and changing history books.  We aren't erasing history, just removing the celebration of people who ultimately tried to tear apart the US in order to protect an evil practice a certain way of life.

 
TheFanatic said:
Eventually it will happen. People have too much time on their hands. With that free time they come up with things to be offended by. If enough people want to take down a statue. So be it. Once the statues are gone, they will move on to something else that they will get worked up about. 
Click to expand...
Yes, people are just now "coming up" with being offended by the Confederacy. :rolleyes:

 
TheFanatic said:
Eventually it will happen. People have too much time on their hands. With that free time they come up with things to be offended by. If enough people want to take down a statue. So be it. Once the statues are gone, they will move on to something else that they will get worked up about. 
Click to expand...
It has nothing to do with being "offended" by anything.  The people that want to take down the statues aren't really "offended" by them the way that word is usually defined.  They're embarrassed by them, as well they should be. It's literally the worst part of their history. There's so many great things to celebrate about the south, and in this case about New Orleans in particular. Why would you want to be known as the place that's proud of the time it tried to turn against the United States so it could keep black people as slaves only to get whupped by a bunch of northerners?  Hell, build a Paul Prudhomme statue. He enriched the lives of many Americans, plus it would provide more shade.

 
TobiasFunke said:
Why would you want to be known as the place that's proud of the time it tried to turn against the United States so it could keep black people as slaves only to get whupped by a bunch of northerners? 
Click to expand...
While it was a very big part of it, making the Civil War solely about slavery is a lie, and hurts the position.   States rights were and are a major consideration for why the national electorate does what it does.

 
Jayrod said:
Yes, people are just now "coming up" with being offended by the Confederacy. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Evidently there's a confederate monument here in St. Louis. Never knew it existed as did just about most of the population of the city. Now there is this big uproar about it. People aren't just now coming up with the idea to be offended by the confederacy. They are coming up with new ways to direct their ill ease about it. I really don't feel the need to spend my tax dollars on something I didn't know existed a few months ago. I would rather that money go to the roads or a teachers salary or something.

 
MarvinTScamper said:
timschochet said:
He was devoted to Hitler, so I made that assumption. It's not a question I've studied, however, so I could be wrong.
Click to expand...
Here's what I've read (this is from memory, Desert Fox, hours and hours of web surfing, Rise & Fall....)

- His Afrika Corp was known to be a haven for captured Jews

- He refused to execute jewish POWs based no religion alone (as was expected by Hitler)

- He participated in Hitler's assasination attempt

- other leaders said he protested Jewish policies

- some believed Rommel had soldiers of jewish descent that he protected

- he was not a member of the Nazi party

I'm not making the guy out to be a saint, but I don't believe he was guilty of what most officers at the top of the food chain were.  If he had been, I believe he would have been at Wansee.  Additionally, he was given choice of suicide (and a spared family) or execution and family the same fate after the von Stauffenberg failure in Valkyrie.
Click to expand...
refernce cited what scamper read got it take that to the hypocrite bank bromigos 

 
MarvinTScamper said:
While it was a very big part of it, making the Civil War solely about slavery is a lie, and hurts the position.   States rights were and are a major consideration for why the national electorate does what it does.
Click to expand...
I understand it's more complicated than that, but that doesn't really change my argument.

The bottom line is that, motivated in significant part by their desire to keep black people as slaves (you can debate how significant, but as the Cornerstone Address tells us it was definitely at the top of the list), they fought a war to secede from the greatest nation on earth that resulted in the deaths of millions. Oh, and they got their butts handed to them by a bunch of Yankees in the end. If you build a statue to honor that and let that statue stand in the 21st century so be it.  But you can't then turn around and be outraged when the rest of the country draws entirely logical conclusions based on what you decide to celebrate.

 
TobiasFunke said:
I understand it's more complicated than that, but that doesn't really change my argument.

The bottom line is that, motivated in significant part by their desire to keep black people as slaves (you can debate how significant, but as the Cornerstone Address tells us it was definitely at the top of the list), they fought a war to secede from the greatest nation on earth that resulted in the deaths of millions. Oh, and they got their butts handed to them by a bunch of Yankees in the end. If you build a statue to honor that and let that statue stand in the 21st century so be it.  But you can't then turn around and be outraged when the rest of the country draws entirely logical conclusions based on what you decide to celebrate.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I agree it was first.  Some of the secondary reasons were only there because of the first as well.  

 
TobiasFunke said:
I understand it's more complicated than that, but that doesn't really change my argument.

The bottom line is that, motivated in significant part by their desire to keep black people as slaves (you can debate how significant, but as the Cornerstone Address tells us it was definitely at the top of the list), they fought a war to secede from the greatest nation on earth that resulted in the deaths of millions. Oh, and they got their butts handed to them by a bunch of Yankees in the end. If you build a statue to honor that and let that statue stand in the 21st century so be it.  But you can't then turn around and be outraged when the rest of the country draws entirely logical conclusions based on what you decide to celebrate.
Click to expand...
I was always of the impression that the number of deaths was less, somewhere around 600,000.  Of course I am no historian, and maybe my number was soldiers in battle, not internment, and civilians from displacement and disease.  I'll have to look it up, I guess.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ditkaless Wonders said:
I was always of the impression that the number of deaths was less, somewhere around 600,000.  of course I am n historian, and maybe my number was soldiers in battle, not internment, and civilians from displacement and disease.  I'll have to look it up, I guess.
Click to expand...
I have no idea, shouldn't have thrown that number out. Lotsa dead Americans, though.  Also, they lost.

 
VA703 said:
I think they're going to change the history books next
Click to expand...
First they came for the statues, and no one said anything....

The north can't quit shoving it into the faces of the south.  They get it, the north won.  I don't see the need to continually rub their noses in it.

 
Statorama said:
First they came for the statues, and no one said anything....

The north can't quit shoving it into the faces of the south.  They get it, the north won.  I don't see the need to continually rub their noses in it.
Click to expand...
there are consequences to losing civil wars

 
Imagine if those crackers had just picked their own cotton.  We'd be a completely different nation now, that's for sure.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
Do You Believe That Effective Modern "Work / Life Balance" Is Even Possible? (19/30)
2
Replies
54
Views
4K
Joe Bryant
Joe Bryant
GordonGekko
Could You Beat Up Steven Seagal In A Pure Stand Up 1 Vs 1 Hand To Hand Fight? (23/30)
Replies
36
Views
3K
sho nuff
sho nuff
GregR
Greg's Useless Trivia #50 - 100 questions (75 greatest hits, 25 new)
Replies
19
Views
3K
GregR
GregR

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top