What does the confederate flag mean to you? (1 Viewer)

[matttyl]

A few pages back Tim and Bob threw in the ol' hand grenade about how the confederacy = x, y & z, and so inevitably the next question is well if it was so horrid how we could allow any signs of it to stand. Those statements were made without examples. Given examples of what would stay and what would go that was called 'slippery slope' even as one of the proponents, Tim, shouted 'this is just about the flag and nothing else!' Well that's where we are as this has gone past the flag to monuments, street names, bridges, games, toys, ebay, etc. This is where the argument is. I'd like to know if the commenters here are dealing with this directly in their area and if so if they are seeing discord on just that subject.

so you think once you give on the removing the flag form public capitol buildings the next logical step is blowing up Stone Mountain?

Well, yeah (with maybe a few steps in between). It's a monument to the Confederacy, is it not?

Have to say, I called this one.

There you go. Pretty sure this was laughed at as impossible.

I seriously doubt that. I remember many people here thinking it was reasonable and maybe even appropriate for them to change it when the subject came up. Some people-myself included- were surprised the thing exists in the first place.

If you suggested that they would be forced to take it down by the feds or something, that would be laughed at as impossible. But people voicing opposition to it? I'm guessing this isn't even the first time that's happened.

That's about the quickest rewrite of history ever. I did a quick search of the words "Stone Mountain" in this thread, and there were 22 hits. The first mention of it was a joke by Mjoinirs who said "What about sandblasting Stone Mountain! If they need help, I hear ISIS is pretty good at that type of thing." Ditkaless wonder said "I wouldn't mess with Stone Mountain" a few posts later. Fennis then chimed in with "so you think once you give on the removing the flag from public capitol buildings the next logical step is blowing up Stone Mountain", which is what I bumped this morning with my initial response to it - which turned out to be spot on and only off by a few days. Even Officer Pete Malloy said "I'm not sure there is anything we can/should do about it now." There wasn't a single person "thinking it was reasonable or maybe even appropriate for them to change it".

I would say OPM saying that he thought it never should have gone up in the first place qualifies as thinking it would be reasonable or appropriate to change it, no? Perhaps it wasn't accurate to say that I remembered "many" people thinking that, but at least a couple did, including me. And when someone said they thought maybe the feds would withhold funding to state and local parks/rec who had these sorts of things on display I said great, sounds good to me.

And nobody was laughing at it as impossible. That is a quick rewrite of history. One person maybe laughed at the idea of blowing a mountain up, but nobody's proposing that as far as I can tell

Not at all. Do you? Those are two very different things. In fact in the very next sentence he says "I'm not sure there is anything we can/should do about it now." Yeah, he's saying there may be nothing we should do now.

And the NAACP isn't asking for it to be "changed", they're asking for it to be removed. Quote - "The Atlanta branch of the NAACP is calling for the immediate removal of all Confederate symbols from Stone Mountain Park". They've suggested sand blasting it off.

And again, I don't see anyone who posted that they felt it "reasonable or appropriate" to remove or change the carvings in any way.

 

[matttyl]

What's even more amusing (to me) is that the NAACP doesn't want any of their tax dollars to go to the park, which operates on it's own revenue each year - not tax dollars. What they apparently would like, though, is for their tax dollars to be spent on it being removed.

 

[Slapdash]

But that doesn't make them malevolent. I already pointed out that the Confederate leaders believed, wrongly, that slavery was a positive good. These were good decent men who were misguided based on long tradition and history. To compare them to Nazis or others who deliberately choose to commit evil is just wrong IMO. I'll leave it at that, but it's an analogy that I find repugnant.

How would you explain the continuation of oppression of blacks through the Jim Crowe years and the imprisonment of innocent blacks for free prison labor?

Not sure how this fits into what Tim said. White supremacy was prevalent throughout the country before, during, and after the Civil War.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Not at all. Do you? Those are two very different things. In fact in the very next sentence he says "I'm not sure there is anything we can/should do about it now." Yeah, he's saying there may be nothing we should do now.

I would say OPM saying that he thought it never should have gone up in the first place qualifies as thinking it would be reasonable or appropriate to change it, no? Perhaps it wasn't accurate to say that I remembered "many" people thinking that, but at least a couple did, including me. And when someone said they thought maybe the feds would withhold funding to state and local parks/rec who had these sorts of things on display I said great, sounds good to me.

And nobody was laughing at it as impossible. That is a quick rewrite of history. One person maybe laughed at the idea of blowing a mountain up, but nobody's proposing that as far as I can tell
And the NAACP isn't asking for it to be "changed", they're asking for it to be removed. Quote - "The Atlanta branch of the NAACP is calling for the immediate removal of all Confederate symbols from Stone Mountain Park". They've suggested sand blasting it off.

And again, I don't see anyone who posted that they felt it "reasonable or appropriate" to remove or change the carvings in any way.

Yeah you seem to be right- nobody really said they thought it was reasonable/appropriate to change it. My bad. Although I'd also say that nobody was laughing at it as impossible, either.

As for what I think - if I lived in Georgia I'd obviously consider it an embarrassment and I'd want it changed. It's a celebration of the men who fought to retain slavery. It confirms so many negative stereotypes about the the state and the region. But I don't live in Georgia, so I don't really care that much what they do. If they want to continue to salute their losing effort to keep black people as slaves, so be it. They can do what they want, and the rest of the country/planet will perceive them accordingly.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

But that doesn't make them malevolent. I already pointed out that the Confederate leaders believed, wrongly, that slavery was a positive good. These were good decent men who were misguided based on long tradition and history. To compare them to Nazis or others who deliberately choose to commit evil is just wrong IMO. I'll leave it at that, but it's an analogy that I find repugnant.

How would you explain the continuation of oppression of blacks through the Jim Crowe years and the imprisonment of innocent blacks for free prison labor?

Not sure how this fits into what Tim said. White supremacy was prevalent throughout the country before, during, and after the Civil War.

White Supremacy is overrated these days. I've moved on. I've been trying some new ones out.

Yankeefan Supremacy - the political and social movement that stands for the fact that all other baseball fans suck

Bourbon Supremacy - the political and social movement that stands for the fact that all other forms of alcohol are really just a stupid waste of time

Both are working well for me. The meetings are held nightly in my gameroom/mancave. While it's true that so far, the President, Vice President, Secretary, Treasurer, Recording Secretary, and frankly only voting member in either, is me. I sense a groundswell coming soon.

 

[matttyl]

Not at all. Do you? Those are two very different things. In fact in the very next sentence he says "I'm not sure there is anything we can/should do about it now." Yeah, he's saying there may be nothing we should do now.

I would say OPM saying that he thought it never should have gone up in the first place qualifies as thinking it would be reasonable or appropriate to change it, no? Perhaps it wasn't accurate to say that I remembered "many" people thinking that, but at least a couple did, including me. And when someone said they thought maybe the feds would withhold funding to state and local parks/rec who had these sorts of things on display I said great, sounds good to me.

And nobody was laughing at it as impossible. That is a quick rewrite of history. One person maybe laughed at the idea of blowing a mountain up, but nobody's proposing that as far as I can tell
And the NAACP isn't asking for it to be "changed", they're asking for it to be removed. Quote - "The Atlanta branch of the NAACP is calling for the immediate removal of all Confederate symbols from Stone Mountain Park". They've suggested sand blasting it off.

And again, I don't see anyone who posted that they felt it "reasonable or appropriate" to remove or change the carvings in any way.

Yeah you seem to be right- nobody really said they thought it was reasonable/appropriate to change it. My bad. Although I'd also say that nobody was laughing at it as impossible, either.

As for what I think - if I lived in Georgia I'd obviously consider it an embarrassment and I'd want it changed. It's a celebration of the men who fought to retain slavery. It confirms so many negative stereotypes about the the state and the region. But I don't live in Georgia, so I don't really care that much what they do. If they want to continue to salute their losing effort to keep black people as slaves, so be it. They can do what they want, and the rest of the country/planet will perceive them accordingly.

So I guess you'd feel the same about Monument Avenue in Richmond, VA - and most if not all other memorials and such? You already posted your thoughts on the stained glass windows at the National Cathedral. See why I shook my head a few weeks ago when you said that this was a "slippery slope argument"? I think you called it an "Icy elevator shaft".

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

But that doesn't make them malevolent. I already pointed out that the Confederate leaders believed, wrongly, that slavery was a positive good. These were good decent men who were misguided based on long tradition and history. To compare them to Nazis or others who deliberately choose to commit evil is just wrong IMO. I'll leave it at that, but it's an analogy that I find repugnant.

How would you explain the continuation of oppression of blacks through the Jim Crowe years and the imprisonment of innocent blacks for free prison labor?

Not sure how this fits into what Tim said. White supremacy was prevalent throughout the country before, during, and after the Civil War.

White Supremacy is overrated these days. I've moved on. I've been trying some new ones out.

Yankeefan Supremacy - the political and social movement that stands for the fact that all other baseball fans suck

Bourbon Supremacy - the political and social movement that stands for the fact that all other forms of alcohol are really just a stupid waste of time

Both are working well for me. The meetings are held nightly in my gameroom/mancave. While it's true that so far, the President, Vice President, Secretary, Treasurer, Recording Secretary, and frankly only voting member in either, is me. I sense a groundswell coming soon.

Super in for this.

 

[matttyl]

White Supremacy is overrated these days. I've moved on. I've been trying some new ones out.

Yankeefan Supremacy - the political and social movement that stands for the fact that all other baseball fans suck

Bourbon Supremacy - the political and social movement that stands for the fact that all other forms of alcohol are really just a stupid waste of time

Both are working well for me. The meetings are held nightly in my gameroom/mancave. While it's true that so far, the President, Vice President, Secretary, Treasurer, Recording Secretary, and frankly only voting member in either, is me. I sense a groundswell coming soon.

How about the Bourne Supremacy? Wasn't my favorite, either....

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

Not at all. Do you? Those are two very different things. In fact in the very next sentence he says "I'm not sure there is anything we can/should do about it now." Yeah, he's saying there may be nothing we should do now.

I would say OPM saying that he thought it never should have gone up in the first place qualifies as thinking it would be reasonable or appropriate to change it, no? Perhaps it wasn't accurate to say that I remembered "many" people thinking that, but at least a couple did, including me. And when someone said they thought maybe the feds would withhold funding to state and local parks/rec who had these sorts of things on display I said great, sounds good to me.

And nobody was laughing at it as impossible. That is a quick rewrite of history. One person maybe laughed at the idea of blowing a mountain up, but nobody's proposing that as far as I can tell
And the NAACP isn't asking for it to be "changed", they're asking for it to be removed. Quote - "The Atlanta branch of the NAACP is calling for the immediate removal of all Confederate symbols from Stone Mountain Park". They've suggested sand blasting it off.

And again, I don't see anyone who posted that they felt it "reasonable or appropriate" to remove or change the carvings in any way.

Yeah you seem to be right- nobody really said they thought it was reasonable/appropriate to change it. My bad. Although I'd also say that nobody was laughing at it as impossible, either.

As for what I think - if I lived in Georgia I'd obviously consider it an embarrassment and I'd want it changed. It's a celebration of the men who fought to retain slavery. It confirms so many negative stereotypes about the the state and the region. But I don't live in Georgia, so I don't really care that much what they do. If they want to continue to salute their losing effort to keep black people as slaves, so be it. They can do what they want, and the rest of the country/planet will perceive them accordingly.

So I guess you'd feel the same about Monument Avenue in Richmond, VA - and most if not all other memorials and such? You already posted your thoughts on the stained glass windows at the National Cathedral. See why I shook my head a few weeks ago when you said that this was a "slippery slope argument"? I think you called it an "Icy elevator shaft".

And if you're right?

 

[TobiasFunke]

Not at all. Do you? Those are two very different things. In fact in the very next sentence he says "I'm not sure there is anything we can/should do about it now." Yeah, he's saying there may be nothing we should do now.

I would say OPM saying that he thought it never should have gone up in the first place qualifies as thinking it would be reasonable or appropriate to change it, no? Perhaps it wasn't accurate to say that I remembered "many" people thinking that, but at least a couple did, including me. And when someone said they thought maybe the feds would withhold funding to state and local parks/rec who had these sorts of things on display I said great, sounds good to me.

And nobody was laughing at it as impossible. That is a quick rewrite of history. One person maybe laughed at the idea of blowing a mountain up, but nobody's proposing that as far as I can tell
And the NAACP isn't asking for it to be "changed", they're asking for it to be removed. Quote - "The Atlanta branch of the NAACP is calling for the immediate removal of all Confederate symbols from Stone Mountain Park". They've suggested sand blasting it off.

And again, I don't see anyone who posted that they felt it "reasonable or appropriate" to remove or change the carvings in any way.

Yeah you seem to be right- nobody really said they thought it was reasonable/appropriate to change it. My bad. Although I'd also say that nobody was laughing at it as impossible, either.

As for what I think - if I lived in Georgia I'd obviously consider it an embarrassment and I'd want it changed. It's a celebration of the men who fought to retain slavery. It confirms so many negative stereotypes about the the state and the region. But I don't live in Georgia, so I don't really care that much what they do. If they want to continue to salute their losing effort to keep black people as slaves, so be it. They can do what they want, and the rest of the country/planet will perceive them accordingly.

So I guess you'd feel the same about Monument Avenue in Richmond, VA - and most if not all other memorials and such? You already posted your thoughts on the stained glass windows at the National Cathedral. See why I shook my head a few weeks ago when you said that this was a "slippery slope argument"? I think you called it an "Icy elevator shaft".

Slippery slope suggests that it would eventually go somewhere it shouldn't and do some sort of harm. Let me know when that happens.

Seriously, what is it you think needs to be protected here? Our museums and history books will always tell the tale of the civil war and the proud southerners who fought so nobly to keep black people enslaved. There is no risk that we will forget our history. Why do you feel it's also necessary that we pay tribute to these terrible people who fought for terrible things in street names and in statues and rock carvings and stained glass windows? Do you think they deserve to be so honored? Do you not think that the things they fought for are terrible?

 

[Slapdash]

But that doesn't make them malevolent. I already pointed out that the Confederate leaders believed, wrongly, that slavery was a positive good. These were good decent men who were misguided based on long tradition and history. To compare them to Nazis or others who deliberately choose to commit evil is just wrong IMO. I'll leave it at that, but it's an analogy that I find repugnant.

How would you explain the continuation of oppression of blacks through the Jim Crowe years and the imprisonment of innocent blacks for free prison labor?

Not sure how this fits into what Tim said. White supremacy was prevalent throughout the country before, during, and after the Civil War.

White Supremacy is overrated these days. I've moved on. I've been trying some new ones out.Yankeefan Supremacy - the political and social movement that stands for the fact that all other baseball fans suck

Bourbon Supremacy - the political and social movement that stands for the fact that all other forms of alcohol are really just a stupid waste of time

Both are working well for me. The meetings are held nightly in my gameroom/mancave. While it's true that so far, the President, Vice President, Secretary, Treasurer, Recording Secretary, and frankly only voting member in either, is me. I sense a groundswell coming soon.

Count me in on the bourbon

 

[The Commish]

Good...so we all agree that the outrage is to now focus on to Stone Mountain, yes?

 

[The Commish]

Not at all. Do you? Those are two very different things. In fact in the very next sentence he says "I'm not sure there is anything we can/should do about it now." Yeah, he's saying there may be nothing we should do now.

I would say OPM saying that he thought it never should have gone up in the first place qualifies as thinking it would be reasonable or appropriate to change it, no? Perhaps it wasn't accurate to say that I remembered "many" people thinking that, but at least a couple did, including me. And when someone said they thought maybe the feds would withhold funding to state and local parks/rec who had these sorts of things on display I said great, sounds good to me.

And nobody was laughing at it as impossible. That is a quick rewrite of history. One person maybe laughed at the idea of blowing a mountain up, but nobody's proposing that as far as I can tell
And the NAACP isn't asking for it to be "changed", they're asking for it to be removed. Quote - "The Atlanta branch of the NAACP is calling for the immediate removal of all Confederate symbols from Stone Mountain Park". They've suggested sand blasting it off.

And again, I don't see anyone who posted that they felt it "reasonable or appropriate" to remove or change the carvings in any way.

Yeah you seem to be right- nobody really said they thought it was reasonable/appropriate to change it. My bad. Although I'd also say that nobody was laughing at it as impossible, either.

As for what I think - if I lived in Georgia I'd obviously consider it an embarrassment and I'd want it changed. It's a celebration of the men who fought to retain slavery. It confirms so many negative stereotypes about the the state and the region. But I don't live in Georgia, so I don't really care that much what they do. If they want to continue to salute their losing effort to keep black people as slaves, so be it. They can do what they want, and the rest of the country/planet will perceive them accordingly.

So I guess you'd feel the same about Monument Avenue in Richmond, VA - and most if not all other memorials and such? You already posted your thoughts on the stained glass windows at the National Cathedral. See why I shook my head a few weeks ago when you said that this was a "slippery slope argument"? I think you called it an "Icy elevator shaft".

Slippery slope suggests that it would eventually go somewhere it shouldn't and do some sort of harm. Let me know when that happens.

Seriously, what is it you think needs to be protected here? Our museums and history books will always tell the tale of the civil war and the proud southerners who fought so nobly to keep black people enslaved. There is no risk that we will forget our history. Why do you feel it's also necessary that we pay tribute to these terrible people who fought for terrible things in street names and in statues and rock carvings and stained glass windows? Do you think they deserve to be so honored? Do you not think that the things they fought for are terrible?

You've gotten into the Tim habit of defining terms to suite your position. You should stop doing that.

And didn't you say that the line should be drawn at public parks? Why change that now?

 

[matttyl]

Not at all. Do you? Those are two very different things. In fact in the very next sentence he says "I'm not sure there is anything we can/should do about it now." Yeah, he's saying there may be nothing we should do now.

I would say OPM saying that he thought it never should have gone up in the first place qualifies as thinking it would be reasonable or appropriate to change it, no? Perhaps it wasn't accurate to say that I remembered "many" people thinking that, but at least a couple did, including me. And when someone said they thought maybe the feds would withhold funding to state and local parks/rec who had these sorts of things on display I said great, sounds good to me.

And nobody was laughing at it as impossible. That is a quick rewrite of history. One person maybe laughed at the idea of blowing a mountain up, but nobody's proposing that as far as I can tell
And the NAACP isn't asking for it to be "changed", they're asking for it to be removed. Quote - "The Atlanta branch of the NAACP is calling for the immediate removal of all Confederate symbols from Stone Mountain Park". They've suggested sand blasting it off.

And again, I don't see anyone who posted that they felt it "reasonable or appropriate" to remove or change the carvings in any way.

Yeah you seem to be right- nobody really said they thought it was reasonable/appropriate to change it. My bad. Although I'd also say that nobody was laughing at it as impossible, either.

As for what I think - if I lived in Georgia I'd obviously consider it an embarrassment and I'd want it changed. It's a celebration of the men who fought to retain slavery. It confirms so many negative stereotypes about the the state and the region. But I don't live in Georgia, so I don't really care that much what they do. If they want to continue to salute their losing effort to keep black people as slaves, so be it. They can do what they want, and the rest of the country/planet will perceive them accordingly.

So I guess you'd feel the same about Monument Avenue in Richmond, VA - and most if not all other memorials and such? You already posted your thoughts on the stained glass windows at the National Cathedral. See why I shook my head a few weeks ago when you said that this was a "slippery slope argument"? I think you called it an "Icy elevator shaft".

And if you're right?

Where does it end? How much history will be rewritten? Mt. Rushmore has depictions of men who owned other men - should that be sand blasted as well?

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

But that doesn't make them malevolent. I already pointed out that the Confederate leaders believed, wrongly, that slavery was a positive good. These were good decent men who were misguided based on long tradition and history. To compare them to Nazis or others who deliberately choose to commit evil is just wrong IMO. I'll leave it at that, but it's an analogy that I find repugnant.

How would you explain the continuation of oppression of blacks through the Jim Crowe years and the imprisonment of innocent blacks for free prison labor?

Not sure how this fits into what Tim said. White supremacy was prevalent throughout the country before, during, and after the Civil War.

White Supremacy is overrated these days. I've moved on. I've been trying some new ones out.Yankeefan Supremacy - the political and social movement that stands for the fact that all other baseball fans suck

Bourbon Supremacy - the political and social movement that stands for the fact that all other forms of alcohol are really just a stupid waste of time

Both are working well for me. The meetings are held nightly in my gameroom/mancave. While it's true that so far, the President, Vice President, Secretary, Treasurer, Recording Secretary, and frankly only voting member in either, is me. I sense a groundswell coming soon.

Count me in on the bourbon

 

[Yankee23Fan]

White Supremacy is overrated these days. I've moved on. I've been trying some new ones out.

Yankeefan Supremacy - the political and social movement that stands for the fact that all other baseball fans suck

Bourbon Supremacy - the political and social movement that stands for the fact that all other forms of alcohol are really just a stupid waste of time

Both are working well for me. The meetings are held nightly in my gameroom/mancave. While it's true that so far, the President, Vice President, Secretary, Treasurer, Recording Secretary, and frankly only voting member in either, is me. I sense a groundswell coming soon.

How about the Bourne Supremacy? Wasn't my favorite, either....

I'm going to just fully admit that I loved - yup, loved - all the Bourne movies. Solid action right there. Never turn them off when they are on. And my wife has the hots for Matt Damon even though she won't admit it, so she won't turn them off either.

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

Not at all. Do you? Those are two very different things. In fact in the very next sentence he says "I'm not sure there is anything we can/should do about it now." Yeah, he's saying there may be nothing we should do now.

I would say OPM saying that he thought it never should have gone up in the first place qualifies as thinking it would be reasonable or appropriate to change it, no? Perhaps it wasn't accurate to say that I remembered "many" people thinking that, but at least a couple did, including me. And when someone said they thought maybe the feds would withhold funding to state and local parks/rec who had these sorts of things on display I said great, sounds good to me.

And nobody was laughing at it as impossible. That is a quick rewrite of history. One person maybe laughed at the idea of blowing a mountain up, but nobody's proposing that as far as I can tell
And the NAACP isn't asking for it to be "changed", they're asking for it to be removed. Quote - "The Atlanta branch of the NAACP is calling for the immediate removal of all Confederate symbols from Stone Mountain Park". They've suggested sand blasting it off.

And again, I don't see anyone who posted that they felt it "reasonable or appropriate" to remove or change the carvings in any way.

Yeah you seem to be right- nobody really said they thought it was reasonable/appropriate to change it. My bad. Although I'd also say that nobody was laughing at it as impossible, either.

As for what I think - if I lived in Georgia I'd obviously consider it an embarrassment and I'd want it changed. It's a celebration of the men who fought to retain slavery. It confirms so many negative stereotypes about the the state and the region. But I don't live in Georgia, so I don't really care that much what they do. If they want to continue to salute their losing effort to keep black people as slaves, so be it. They can do what they want, and the rest of the country/planet will perceive them accordingly.

So I guess you'd feel the same about Monument Avenue in Richmond, VA - and most if not all other memorials and such? You already posted your thoughts on the stained glass windows at the National Cathedral. See why I shook my head a few weeks ago when you said that this was a "slippery slope argument"? I think you called it an "Icy elevator shaft".

And if you're right?

Where does it end? How much history will be rewritten? Mt. Rushmore has depictions of men who owned other men - should that be sand blasted as well?

Where do you think it ends?

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Good...so we all agree that the outrage is to now focus on to Stone Mountain, yes?

No. I think we are slowily coming to at least a plurality of people that say screw non-bourbon alcohols.

 

[moleculo]

Not at all. Do you? Those are two very different things. In fact in the very next sentence he says "I'm not sure there is anything we can/should do about it now." Yeah, he's saying there may be nothing we should do now.

I would say OPM saying that he thought it never should have gone up in the first place qualifies as thinking it would be reasonable or appropriate to change it, no? Perhaps it wasn't accurate to say that I remembered "many" people thinking that, but at least a couple did, including me. And when someone said they thought maybe the feds would withhold funding to state and local parks/rec who had these sorts of things on display I said great, sounds good to me.

And nobody was laughing at it as impossible. That is a quick rewrite of history. One person maybe laughed at the idea of blowing a mountain up, but nobody's proposing that as far as I can tell
And the NAACP isn't asking for it to be "changed", they're asking for it to be removed. Quote - "The Atlanta branch of the NAACP is calling for the immediate removal of all Confederate symbols from Stone Mountain Park". They've suggested sand blasting it off.

And again, I don't see anyone who posted that they felt it "reasonable or appropriate" to remove or change the carvings in any way.

Yeah you seem to be right- nobody really said they thought it was reasonable/appropriate to change it. My bad. Although I'd also say that nobody was laughing at it as impossible, either.

As for what I think - if I lived in Georgia I'd obviously consider it an embarrassment and I'd want it changed. It's a celebration of the men who fought to retain slavery. It confirms so many negative stereotypes about the the state and the region. But I don't live in Georgia, so I don't really care that much what they do. If they want to continue to salute their losing effort to keep black people as slaves, so be it. They can do what they want, and the rest of the country/planet will perceive them accordingly.

So I guess you'd feel the same about Monument Avenue in Richmond, VA - and most if not all other memorials and such? You already posted your thoughts on the stained glass windows at the National Cathedral. See why I shook my head a few weeks ago when you said that this was a "slippery slope argument"? I think you called it an "Icy elevator shaft".

And if you're right?

Where does it end? How much history will be rewritten? Mt. Rushmore has depictions of men who owned other men - should that be sand blasted as well?

Where do you think it ends?

I think we both know where it ends, Allen.

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

Not at all. Do you? Those are two very different things. In fact in the very next sentence he says "I'm not sure there is anything we can/should do about it now." Yeah, he's saying there may be nothing we should do now.

I would say OPM saying that he thought it never should have gone up in the first place qualifies as thinking it would be reasonable or appropriate to change it, no? Perhaps it wasn't accurate to say that I remembered "many" people thinking that, but at least a couple did, including me. And when someone said they thought maybe the feds would withhold funding to state and local parks/rec who had these sorts of things on display I said great, sounds good to me.

And nobody was laughing at it as impossible. That is a quick rewrite of history. One person maybe laughed at the idea of blowing a mountain up, but nobody's proposing that as far as I can tell
And the NAACP isn't asking for it to be "changed", they're asking for it to be removed. Quote - "The Atlanta branch of the NAACP is calling for the immediate removal of all Confederate symbols from Stone Mountain Park". They've suggested sand blasting it off.

And again, I don't see anyone who posted that they felt it "reasonable or appropriate" to remove or change the carvings in any way.

Yeah you seem to be right- nobody really said they thought it was reasonable/appropriate to change it. My bad. Although I'd also say that nobody was laughing at it as impossible, either.

As for what I think - if I lived in Georgia I'd obviously consider it an embarrassment and I'd want it changed. It's a celebration of the men who fought to retain slavery. It confirms so many negative stereotypes about the the state and the region. But I don't live in Georgia, so I don't really care that much what they do. If they want to continue to salute their losing effort to keep black people as slaves, so be it. They can do what they want, and the rest of the country/planet will perceive them accordingly.

So I guess you'd feel the same about Monument Avenue in Richmond, VA - and most if not all other memorials and such? You already posted your thoughts on the stained glass windows at the National Cathedral. See why I shook my head a few weeks ago when you said that this was a "slippery slope argument"? I think you called it an "Icy elevator shaft".

And if you're right?

Where does it end? How much history will be rewritten? Mt. Rushmore has depictions of men who owned other men - should that be sand blasted as well?

Where do you think it ends?

I think we both know where it ends.

Dogs marrying cats?

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Not at all. Do you? Those are two very different things. In fact in the very next sentence he says "I'm not sure there is anything we can/should do about it now." Yeah, he's saying there may be nothing we should do now.

I would say OPM saying that he thought it never should have gone up in the first place qualifies as thinking it would be reasonable or appropriate to change it, no? Perhaps it wasn't accurate to say that I remembered "many" people thinking that, but at least a couple did, including me. And when someone said they thought maybe the feds would withhold funding to state and local parks/rec who had these sorts of things on display I said great, sounds good to me.

And nobody was laughing at it as impossible. That is a quick rewrite of history. One person maybe laughed at the idea of blowing a mountain up, but nobody's proposing that as far as I can tell
And the NAACP isn't asking for it to be "changed", they're asking for it to be removed. Quote - "The Atlanta branch of the NAACP is calling for the immediate removal of all Confederate symbols from Stone Mountain Park". They've suggested sand blasting it off.

And again, I don't see anyone who posted that they felt it "reasonable or appropriate" to remove or change the carvings in any way.

Yeah you seem to be right- nobody really said they thought it was reasonable/appropriate to change it. My bad. Although I'd also say that nobody was laughing at it as impossible, either.

As for what I think - if I lived in Georgia I'd obviously consider it an embarrassment and I'd want it changed. It's a celebration of the men who fought to retain slavery. It confirms so many negative stereotypes about the the state and the region. But I don't live in Georgia, so I don't really care that much what they do. If they want to continue to salute their losing effort to keep black people as slaves, so be it. They can do what they want, and the rest of the country/planet will perceive them accordingly.

So I guess you'd feel the same about Monument Avenue in Richmond, VA - and most if not all other memorials and such? You already posted your thoughts on the stained glass windows at the National Cathedral. See why I shook my head a few weeks ago when you said that this was a "slippery slope argument"? I think you called it an "Icy elevator shaft".

And if you're right?

Where does it end? How much history will be rewritten? Mt. Rushmore has depictions of men who owned other men - should that be sand blasted as well?

Where do you think it ends?

Just for the semantic argument - removing a flag from a public setting or removing a monument is not "rewritting history." It is removing a symbol or honorarium of someone or something from the outside public. Rewritting history would be actually recording books and whatnot that the south stood for the premise that all men were created purple and that the civil war was a precursor to the evil that was Barney the Dinosaur, a terrorist used to torture parents throughout the last few years of the 20th century.

We aren't really rewritting history so much as saying at this point, the things we are honoring in our culture don't necessarily have to be the bad things in history. Instead, let's focus on good things like the Kardashians and duck hunters that can't find a razor.

 

[The Commish]

Good...so we all agree that the outrage is to now focus on to Stone Mountain, yes?

No. I think we are slowily coming to at least a plurality of people that say screw non-bourbon alcohols.

I think I could probably get on board with this.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Good...so we all agree that the outrage is to now focus on to Stone Mountain, yes?

No. I think we are slowily coming to at least a plurality of people that say screw non-bourbon alcohols.

I think I could probably get on board with this.

Damn, I getting a supermajority by dinner time. I need to come up with a symbol of our movement. A flag of somekind......

 

[moleculo]

Not at all. Do you? Those are two very different things. In fact in the very next sentence he says "I'm not sure there is anything we can/should do about it now." Yeah, he's saying there may be nothing we should do now.

I would say OPM saying that he thought it never should have gone up in the first place qualifies as thinking it would be reasonable or appropriate to change it, no? Perhaps it wasn't accurate to say that I remembered "many" people thinking that, but at least a couple did, including me. And when someone said they thought maybe the feds would withhold funding to state and local parks/rec who had these sorts of things on display I said great, sounds good to me.

And nobody was laughing at it as impossible. That is a quick rewrite of history. One person maybe laughed at the idea of blowing a mountain up, but nobody's proposing that as far as I can tell
And the NAACP isn't asking for it to be "changed", they're asking for it to be removed. Quote - "The Atlanta branch of the NAACP is calling for the immediate removal of all Confederate symbols from Stone Mountain Park". They've suggested sand blasting it off.

And again, I don't see anyone who posted that they felt it "reasonable or appropriate" to remove or change the carvings in any way.

Yeah you seem to be right- nobody really said they thought it was reasonable/appropriate to change it. My bad. Although I'd also say that nobody was laughing at it as impossible, either.

As for what I think - if I lived in Georgia I'd obviously consider it an embarrassment and I'd want it changed. It's a celebration of the men who fought to retain slavery. It confirms so many negative stereotypes about the the state and the region. But I don't live in Georgia, so I don't really care that much what they do. If they want to continue to salute their losing effort to keep black people as slaves, so be it. They can do what they want, and the rest of the country/planet will perceive them accordingly.

So I guess you'd feel the same about Monument Avenue in Richmond, VA - and most if not all other memorials and such? You already posted your thoughts on the stained glass windows at the National Cathedral. See why I shook my head a few weeks ago when you said that this was a "slippery slope argument"? I think you called it an "Icy elevator shaft".

And if you're right?

Where does it end? How much history will be rewritten? Mt. Rushmore has depictions of men who owned other men - should that be sand blasted as well?

Where do you think it ends?

I think we both know where it ends.

Dogs marrying cats?

worse...guns getting gay married.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Not at all. Do you? Those are two very different things. In fact in the very next sentence he says "I'm not sure there is anything we can/should do about it now." Yeah, he's saying there may be nothing we should do now.

I would say OPM saying that he thought it never should have gone up in the first place qualifies as thinking it would be reasonable or appropriate to change it, no? Perhaps it wasn't accurate to say that I remembered "many" people thinking that, but at least a couple did, including me. And when someone said they thought maybe the feds would withhold funding to state and local parks/rec who had these sorts of things on display I said great, sounds good to me.

And nobody was laughing at it as impossible. That is a quick rewrite of history. One person maybe laughed at the idea of blowing a mountain up, but nobody's proposing that as far as I can tell
And the NAACP isn't asking for it to be "changed", they're asking for it to be removed. Quote - "The Atlanta branch of the NAACP is calling for the immediate removal of all Confederate symbols from Stone Mountain Park". They've suggested sand blasting it off.

And again, I don't see anyone who posted that they felt it "reasonable or appropriate" to remove or change the carvings in any way.

Yeah you seem to be right- nobody really said they thought it was reasonable/appropriate to change it. My bad. Although I'd also say that nobody was laughing at it as impossible, either.

As for what I think - if I lived in Georgia I'd obviously consider it an embarrassment and I'd want it changed. It's a celebration of the men who fought to retain slavery. It confirms so many negative stereotypes about the the state and the region. But I don't live in Georgia, so I don't really care that much what they do. If they want to continue to salute their losing effort to keep black people as slaves, so be it. They can do what they want, and the rest of the country/planet will perceive them accordingly.

So I guess you'd feel the same about Monument Avenue in Richmond, VA - and most if not all other memorials and such? You already posted your thoughts on the stained glass windows at the National Cathedral. See why I shook my head a few weeks ago when you said that this was a "slippery slope argument"? I think you called it an "Icy elevator shaft".

And if you're right?

Where does it end? How much history will be rewritten? Mt. Rushmore has depictions of men who owned other men - should that be sand blasted as well?

None. No history is being rewritten. Street names and monuments and rock carvings are not history. The last one might be art. Or maybe history if you count the time a legendary director shot a famous scene there. But that's a stretch.

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

Not at all. Do you? Those are two very different things. In fact in the very next sentence he says "I'm not sure there is anything we can/should do about it now." Yeah, he's saying there may be nothing we should do now.

I would say OPM saying that he thought it never should have gone up in the first place qualifies as thinking it would be reasonable or appropriate to change it, no? Perhaps it wasn't accurate to say that I remembered "many" people thinking that, but at least a couple did, including me. And when someone said they thought maybe the feds would withhold funding to state and local parks/rec who had these sorts of things on display I said great, sounds good to me.

And nobody was laughing at it as impossible. That is a quick rewrite of history. One person maybe laughed at the idea of blowing a mountain up, but nobody's proposing that as far as I can tell
And the NAACP isn't asking for it to be "changed", they're asking for it to be removed. Quote - "The Atlanta branch of the NAACP is calling for the immediate removal of all Confederate symbols from Stone Mountain Park". They've suggested sand blasting it off.

And again, I don't see anyone who posted that they felt it "reasonable or appropriate" to remove or change the carvings in any way.

Yeah you seem to be right- nobody really said they thought it was reasonable/appropriate to change it. My bad. Although I'd also say that nobody was laughing at it as impossible, either.

As for what I think - if I lived in Georgia I'd obviously consider it an embarrassment and I'd want it changed. It's a celebration of the men who fought to retain slavery. It confirms so many negative stereotypes about the the state and the region. But I don't live in Georgia, so I don't really care that much what they do. If they want to continue to salute their losing effort to keep black people as slaves, so be it. They can do what they want, and the rest of the country/planet will perceive them accordingly.

So I guess you'd feel the same about Monument Avenue in Richmond, VA - and most if not all other memorials and such? You already posted your thoughts on the stained glass windows at the National Cathedral. See why I shook my head a few weeks ago when you said that this was a "slippery slope argument"? I think you called it an "Icy elevator shaft".

And if you're right?

Where does it end? How much history will be rewritten? Mt. Rushmore has depictions of men who owned other men - should that be sand blasted as well?

Where do you think it ends?

Just for the semantic argument - removing a flag from a public setting or removing a monument is not "rewritting history." It is removing a symbol or honorarium of someone or something from the outside public. Rewritting history would be actually recording books and whatnot that the south stood for the premise that all men were created purple and that the civil war was a precursor to the evil that was Barney the Dinosaur, a terrorist used to torture parents throughout the last few years of the 20th century.

We aren't really rewritting history so much as saying at this point, the things we are honoring in our culture don't necessarily have to be the bad things in history. Instead, let's focus on good things like the Kardashians and duck hunters that can't find a razor.

Stop making sense.

 

[moleculo]

Not at all. Do you? Those are two very different things. In fact in the very next sentence he says "I'm not sure there is anything we can/should do about it now." Yeah, he's saying there may be nothing we should do now.

I would say OPM saying that he thought it never should have gone up in the first place qualifies as thinking it would be reasonable or appropriate to change it, no? Perhaps it wasn't accurate to say that I remembered "many" people thinking that, but at least a couple did, including me. And when someone said they thought maybe the feds would withhold funding to state and local parks/rec who had these sorts of things on display I said great, sounds good to me.

And nobody was laughing at it as impossible. That is a quick rewrite of history. One person maybe laughed at the idea of blowing a mountain up, but nobody's proposing that as far as I can tell
And the NAACP isn't asking for it to be "changed", they're asking for it to be removed. Quote - "The Atlanta branch of the NAACP is calling for the immediate removal of all Confederate symbols from Stone Mountain Park". They've suggested sand blasting it off.

And again, I don't see anyone who posted that they felt it "reasonable or appropriate" to remove or change the carvings in any way.

Yeah you seem to be right- nobody really said they thought it was reasonable/appropriate to change it. My bad. Although I'd also say that nobody was laughing at it as impossible, either.

As for what I think - if I lived in Georgia I'd obviously consider it an embarrassment and I'd want it changed. It's a celebration of the men who fought to retain slavery. It confirms so many negative stereotypes about the the state and the region. But I don't live in Georgia, so I don't really care that much what they do. If they want to continue to salute their losing effort to keep black people as slaves, so be it. They can do what they want, and the rest of the country/planet will perceive them accordingly.

So I guess you'd feel the same about Monument Avenue in Richmond, VA - and most if not all other memorials and such? You already posted your thoughts on the stained glass windows at the National Cathedral. See why I shook my head a few weeks ago when you said that this was a "slippery slope argument"? I think you called it an "Icy elevator shaft".

And if you're right?

Where does it end? How much history will be rewritten? Mt. Rushmore has depictions of men who owned other men - should that be sand blasted as well?

Where do you think it ends?

Just for the semantic argument - removing a flag from a public setting or removing a monument is not "rewritting history." It is removing a symbol or honorarium of someone or something from the outside public. Rewritting history would be actually recording books and whatnot that the south stood for the premise that all men were created purple and that the civil war was a precursor to the evil that was Barney the Dinosaur, a terrorist used to torture parents throughout the last few years of the 20th century.

We aren't really rewritting history so much as saying at this point, the things we are honoring in our culture don't necessarily have to be the bad things in history. Instead, let's focus on good things like the Kardashians and duck hunters that can't find a razor.

You know what was an actual case of re-writing history? The Lost Cause. The entire notion that the Civil War was about states rights, that the South was about to free slaves anyways, that slaves were actually better off than they would have been in Africa, the war was about Northern aggression towards the Southern way of life.

Hell, claiming the flag stands for anything beyond opposition to the US flag on a pitched battle-field is a result of someone re-writing history.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

You know what was an actual case of re-writing history? The Lost Cause. The entire notion that the Civil War was about states rights, that the South was about to free slaves anyways, that slaves were actually better off than they would have been in Africa, the war was about Northern aggression towards the Southern way of life.


Hell, claiming the flag stands for anything beyond opposition to the US flag on a pitched battle-field is a result of someone re-writing history.

Won't get an argument from me. I'm the one that consistently says the south were traitor criminals that should have been hanged.

 

[Mr. Cross]

I did not know their were so many racists here. This thread at least exposes them.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Where does it end? How much history will be rewritten? Mt. Rushmore has depictions of men who owned other men - should that be sand blasted as well?

None. No history is being rewritten. Street names and monuments and rock carvings are not history. The last one might be art. Or maybe history if you count the time a legendary director shot a famous scene there. But that's a stretch.

Also, there is a huge difference between honoring someone who did something bad and honoring someone because of the bad thing they did. Nobody's building memorials and naming things after Washington and Jefferson because they owned slaves, they're doing it because of some other good stuff they did. Their slave ownership is unfortunate but it's no more connected to their monuments than Michael Jordan's gambling and adultery is connected to the statue of him outside the Bulls' stadium. But they are building memorials and naming things after Davis and Lee because of their efforts in the fight to retain slavery. It's a totally different thing, and I'm not sure why the Don Lemons and Louis Farrakhans and conservative slippery slopers of the world miss it.

 

[matttyl]

Slippery slope suggests that it would eventually go somewhere it shouldn't and do some sort of harm. Let me know when that happens.

Seriously, what is it you think needs to be protected here? Our museums and history books will always tell the tale of the civil war and the proud southerners who fought so nobly to keep black people enslaved. There is no risk that we will forget our history. Why do you feel it's also necessary that we pay tribute to these terrible people who fought for terrible things in street names and in statues and rock carvings and stained glass windows? Do you think they deserve to be so honored? Do you not think that the things they fought for are terrible?

Of course slavery was awful, horrible, disgusting, repulsive and any other adjective you'd like to use. That said...

Most Confederate fighters didn't own, and couldn't afford to own slaves. When a captured Virginian was asked why he was fighting, he responded with "cause you're down here" (from the Civil War series by Ken Burns, quote by Shelby Foote). Most weren't fighting to continue slavery - which again was something most didn't participate in anyway. They fought because they felt their homeland was being invaded by foreign aggressors. Now sure, the reason those "invaders" were "foreign" was because they succeeded from that Union, and those in charge did that mainly due to the issue of slavery - I get that. Another thing stated by Shelby Foote in the Civil War series was that the succeeding States would never have entered the Union in the first place if they felt they couldn't have later left it.

Lets take Lee for instance. He was initially asked by Lincoln to lead the Union army. He thought about it (apparently) for a bit, and then decided to head up the Confederate army. He choose his (then successionist) State over the Union. Even back in 1856 he stated that slavery was a moral and political evil. I'm sure if you were to ask Lee why he fought, his answer wouldn't have been slavery at all - that letter already states that he knew slavery was going to end (in his eyes, through God).

What about Jackson? Jackson funded a school for black children, teaching them to read and write before the war. He even did this during the war. Different sources say different things, but I don't think Thomas (Stonewall) Jackson personally owned any slaves personally. He hired a free black (Jim Lewis) as his cook during the war and they were very close - so close in fact that Lewis was a pallbearer for Jackson.

I don't find either of these men to be "terrible" at all. Both were extremely progressive for their time, actually. You have to put these two men into the context of their time in history. On their military genius alone both should be remembered, and studied (both were extensively, and continue to be).

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I'm not sure why the Don Lemons and Louis Farrakhans and conservative slippery slopers of the world miss it.

Think about that for a minute.

 

[matttyl]

Not at all. Do you? Those are two very different things. In fact in the very next sentence he says "I'm not sure there is anything we can/should do about it now." Yeah, he's saying there may be nothing we should do now.

I would say OPM saying that he thought it never should have gone up in the first place qualifies as thinking it would be reasonable or appropriate to change it, no? Perhaps it wasn't accurate to say that I remembered "many" people thinking that, but at least a couple did, including me. And when someone said they thought maybe the feds would withhold funding to state and local parks/rec who had these sorts of things on display I said great, sounds good to me.

And nobody was laughing at it as impossible. That is a quick rewrite of history. One person maybe laughed at the idea of blowing a mountain up, but nobody's proposing that as far as I can tell
And the NAACP isn't asking for it to be "changed", they're asking for it to be removed. Quote - "The Atlanta branch of the NAACP is calling for the immediate removal of all Confederate symbols from Stone Mountain Park". They've suggested sand blasting it off.

And again, I don't see anyone who posted that they felt it "reasonable or appropriate" to remove or change the carvings in any way.

Yeah you seem to be right- nobody really said they thought it was reasonable/appropriate to change it. My bad. Although I'd also say that nobody was laughing at it as impossible, either.

As for what I think - if I lived in Georgia I'd obviously consider it an embarrassment and I'd want it changed. It's a celebration of the men who fought to retain slavery. It confirms so many negative stereotypes about the the state and the region. But I don't live in Georgia, so I don't really care that much what they do. If they want to continue to salute their losing effort to keep black people as slaves, so be it. They can do what they want, and the rest of the country/planet will perceive them accordingly.

So I guess you'd feel the same about Monument Avenue in Richmond, VA - and most if not all other memorials and such? You already posted your thoughts on the stained glass windows at the National Cathedral. See why I shook my head a few weeks ago when you said that this was a "slippery slope argument"? I think you called it an "Icy elevator shaft".

And if you're right?

Where does it end? How much history will be rewritten? Mt. Rushmore has depictions of men who owned other men - should that be sand blasted as well?

Where do you think it ends?

I don't know, and that's kinda the point. Where do you think it should end?

 

[timschochet]

I hate slippery slope arguments. Hate hate hate! You look at each situation separately and stop trying to apply the same rules for everything.

Yes the battle flag should be removed from the state Capitol. No the Stars and Bars shouldn't be removed from Fort Sumter because there's historical context. Yes some streets named after racists should be renamed. No, statues of confederate icons should not be removed.

It's really not that difficult.

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

Not at all. Do you? Those are two very different things. In fact in the very next sentence he says "I'm not sure there is anything we can/should do about it now." Yeah, he's saying there may be nothing we should do now.

I would say OPM saying that he thought it never should have gone up in the first place qualifies as thinking it would be reasonable or appropriate to change it, no? Perhaps it wasn't accurate to say that I remembered "many" people thinking that, but at least a couple did, including me. And when someone said they thought maybe the feds would withhold funding to state and local parks/rec who had these sorts of things on display I said great, sounds good to me.

And nobody was laughing at it as impossible. That is a quick rewrite of history. One person maybe laughed at the idea of blowing a mountain up, but nobody's proposing that as far as I can tell
And the NAACP isn't asking for it to be "changed", they're asking for it to be removed. Quote - "The Atlanta branch of the NAACP is calling for the immediate removal of all Confederate symbols from Stone Mountain Park". They've suggested sand blasting it off.

And again, I don't see anyone who posted that they felt it "reasonable or appropriate" to remove or change the carvings in any way.

Yeah you seem to be right- nobody really said they thought it was reasonable/appropriate to change it. My bad. Although I'd also say that nobody was laughing at it as impossible, either.

As for what I think - if I lived in Georgia I'd obviously consider it an embarrassment and I'd want it changed. It's a celebration of the men who fought to retain slavery. It confirms so many negative stereotypes about the the state and the region. But I don't live in Georgia, so I don't really care that much what they do. If they want to continue to salute their losing effort to keep black people as slaves, so be it. They can do what they want, and the rest of the country/planet will perceive them accordingly.

So I guess you'd feel the same about Monument Avenue in Richmond, VA - and most if not all other memorials and such? You already posted your thoughts on the stained glass windows at the National Cathedral. See why I shook my head a few weeks ago when you said that this was a "slippery slope argument"? I think you called it an "Icy elevator shaft".

And if you're right?

Where does it end? How much history will be rewritten? Mt. Rushmore has depictions of men who owned other men - should that be sand blasted as well?

Where do you think it ends?

I don't know, and that's kinda the point. Where do you think it should end?

Getting rid of the confederate flag on government/public properties sounds great to me. I'm cool with those municipalities deciding amongst themselves on various statues/memorials a la what Tobias said earlier. I live in MN, so I don't have to live with it much thankfully.

If in the end all of these statues and memorials went away I'd be totaly fine with it. They're never going to sandblast Mount Rushmore, so that's an absurdity I don't need to consider.

 

[matttyl]

Where does it end? How much history will be rewritten? Mt. Rushmore has depictions of men who owned other men - should that be sand blasted as well?

None. No history is being rewritten. Street names and monuments and rock carvings are not history. The last one might be art. Or maybe history if you count the time a legendary director shot a famous scene there. But that's a stretch.

Also, there is a huge difference between honoring someone who did something bad and honoring someone because of the bad thing they did. Nobody's building memorials and naming things after Washington and Jefferson because they owned slaves, they're doing it because of some other good stuff they did. Their slave ownership is unfortunate but it's no more connected to their monuments than Michael Jordan's gambling and adultery is connected to the statue of him outside the Bulls' stadium. But they are building memorials and naming things after Davis and Lee because of their efforts in the fight to retain slavery. It's a totally different thing, and I'm not sure why the Don Lemons and Louis Farrakhans and conservative slippery slopers of the world miss it.

Maybe they are being honored for being, by far, the greatest military minds of their time? Not sure that is something worth honoring, though. WW1 could and likely would have gone a lot differently it both sides hadn't intently studies the tactics of many of the Southern generals.

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

Neat historical anecdotes aside, those soldiers and generals fought for the wrong side.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Slippery slope suggests that it would eventually go somewhere it shouldn't and do some sort of harm. Let me know when that happens.

Seriously, what is it you think needs to be protected here? Our museums and history books will always tell the tale of the civil war and the proud southerners who fought so nobly to keep black people enslaved. There is no risk that we will forget our history. Why do you feel it's also necessary that we pay tribute to these terrible people who fought for terrible things in street names and in statues and rock carvings and stained glass windows? Do you think they deserve to be so honored? Do you not think that the things they fought for are terrible?

Of course slavery was awful, horrible, disgusting, repulsive and any other adjective you'd like to use. That said...

Most Confederate fighters didn't own, and couldn't afford to own slaves. When a captured Virginian was asked why he was fighting, he responded with "cause you're down here" (from the Civil War series by Ken Burns, quote by Shelby Foote). Most weren't fighting to continue slavery - which again was something most didn't participate in anyway. They fought because they felt their homeland was being invaded by foreign aggressors. Now sure, the reason those "invaders" were "foreign" was because they succeeded from that Union, and those in charge did that mainly due to the issue of slavery - I get that. Another thing stated by Shelby Foote in the Civil War series was that the succeeding States would never have entered the Union in the first place if they felt they couldn't have later left it.

Lets take Lee for instance. He was initially asked by Lincoln to lead the Union army. He thought about it (apparently) for a bit, and then decided to head up the Confederate army. He choose his (then successionist) State over the Union. Even back in 1856 he stated that slavery was a moral and political evil. I'm sure if you were to ask Lee why he fought, his answer wouldn't have been slavery at all - that letter already states that he knew slavery was going to end (in his eyes, through God).

What about Jackson? Jackson funded a school for black children, teaching them to read and write before the war. He even did this during the war. Different sources say different things, but I don't think Thomas (Stonewall) Jackson personally owned any slaved. He hired a free black (Jim Lewis) as his cook during the war and they were very close - so close in fact that Lewis was a pallbearer for Jackson.

I don't find either of these men to be "terrible" at all. Both were extremely progressive for their time, actually. You have to put these two men into the context of their time in history. On their military genius alone both should be remembered, and studied (both were extensively, and continue to be).

Again, it's not about their overall character. It's a simple question: why do you think there are statues of them and streets named after them? I wasn't there when the statues were built/named, but I'm about 95% sure it's because of their prominent roles in fighting the Civil War, which was primarily about protecting the institution of slavery. That is what is being honored, just as the Washington Monument honors Washington's efforts as general in the revolutionary war and as the first president, not the fact that he was a super-duper uncle to his nephew Bushrod.

 

[matttyl]

If in the end all of these statues and memorials went away I'd be totaly fine with it. They're never going to sandblast Mount Rushmore, so that's an absurdity I don't need to consider.

Two months ago the same thing could have been said of Stone Mountain.....

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

Bushrod, lol

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

If in the end all of these statues and memorials went away I'd be totaly fine with it. They're never going to sandblast Mount Rushmore, so that's an absurdity I don't need to consider.

Two months ago the same thing could have been said of Stone Mountain.....

Sorry?

 

[TheIronSheik]

Wait. Are we sure slavery was bad? Just want to get a clarification on that.

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

Wait. Are we sure slavery was bad? Just want to get a clarification on that.

Somewhere between a net positive for Africans and as bad as Nazism.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Where does it end? How much history will be rewritten? Mt. Rushmore has depictions of men who owned other men - should that be sand blasted as well?

None. No history is being rewritten. Street names and monuments and rock carvings are not history. The last one might be art. Or maybe history if you count the time a legendary director shot a famous scene there. But that's a stretch.

Also, there is a huge difference between honoring someone who did something bad and honoring someone because of the bad thing they did. Nobody's building memorials and naming things after Washington and Jefferson because they owned slaves, they're doing it because of some other good stuff they did. Their slave ownership is unfortunate but it's no more connected to their monuments than Michael Jordan's gambling and adultery is connected to the statue of him outside the Bulls' stadium. But they are building memorials and naming things after Davis and Lee because of their efforts in the fight to retain slavery. It's a totally different thing, and I'm not sure why the Don Lemons and Louis Farrakhans and conservative slippery slopers of the world miss it.

Maybe they are being honored for being, by far, the greatest military minds of their time? Not sure that is something worth honoring, though. WW1 could and likely would have gone a lot differently it both sides hadn't intently studies the tactics of many of the Southern generals.

People generally don't honor people for being really good at doing something in the service of evil. Nobody's building Hitler a statue for being one of our greatest orators.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I hate slippery slope arguments. Hate hate hate! You look at each situation separately and stop trying to apply the same rules for everything.

Yes the battle flag should be removed from the state Capitol. No the Stars and Bars shouldn't be removed from Fort Sumter because there's historical context. Yes some streets named after racists should be renamed. No, statues of confederate icons should not be removed.

It's really not that difficult.

Why do you get to choose? And what is the basis of your choice? And why is your basis greater or better than someone else's? And why should some guy in California get a say anyway for something in South Carolina - you are the guy that wants smaller states to lose their power in the Congress because your state is more important. Now you want them to do what you say. And you are the one that hates slippery slope arguments? Seems to me you're sliding down one like Chevy Chase in Christmas Vacation.

 

[msommer]

But that doesn't make them malevolent. I already pointed out that the Confederate leaders believed, wrongly, that slavery was a positive good. These were good decent men who were misguided based on long tradition and history. To compare them to Nazis or others who deliberately choose to commit evil is just wrong IMO. I'll leave it at that, but it's an analogy that I find repugnant.

How would you explain the continuation of oppression of blacks through the Jim Crowe years and the imprisonment of innocent blacks for free prison labor?

Not sure how this fits into what Tim said. White supremacy was prevalent throughout the country before, during, and after the Civil War.

White Supremacy is overrated these days. I've moved on. I've been trying some new ones out.

Yankeefan Supremacy - the political and social movement that stands for the fact that all other baseball fans suck

Bourbon Supremacy - the political and social movement that stands for the fact that all other forms of alcohol are really just a stupid waste of time

Both are working well for me. The meetings are held nightly in my gameroom/mancave. While it's true that so far, the President, Vice President, Secretary, Treasurer, Recording Secretary, and frankly only voting member in either, is me. I sense a groundswell coming soon.

If not for the baseball and bourbon things, I'd join you

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Not at all. Do you? Those are two very different things. In fact in the very next sentence he says "I'm not sure there is anything we can/should do about it now." Yeah, he's saying there may be nothing we should do now.

I would say OPM saying that he thought it never should have gone up in the first place qualifies as thinking it would be reasonable or appropriate to change it, no? Perhaps it wasn't accurate to say that I remembered "many" people thinking that, but at least a couple did, including me. And when someone said they thought maybe the feds would withhold funding to state and local parks/rec who had these sorts of things on display I said great, sounds good to me.

And nobody was laughing at it as impossible. That is a quick rewrite of history. One person maybe laughed at the idea of blowing a mountain up, but nobody's proposing that as far as I can tell
And the NAACP isn't asking for it to be "changed", they're asking for it to be removed. Quote - "The Atlanta branch of the NAACP is calling for the immediate removal of all Confederate symbols from Stone Mountain Park". They've suggested sand blasting it off.

And again, I don't see anyone who posted that they felt it "reasonable or appropriate" to remove or change the carvings in any way.

Yeah you seem to be right- nobody really said they thought it was reasonable/appropriate to change it. My bad. Although I'd also say that nobody was laughing at it as impossible, either.

As for what I think - if I lived in Georgia I'd obviously consider it an embarrassment and I'd want it changed. It's a celebration of the men who fought to retain slavery. It confirms so many negative stereotypes about the the state and the region. But I don't live in Georgia, so I don't really care that much what they do. If they want to continue to salute their losing effort to keep black people as slaves, so be it. They can do what they want, and the rest of the country/planet will perceive them accordingly.

So I guess you'd feel the same about Monument Avenue in Richmond, VA - and most if not all other memorials and such? You already posted your thoughts on the stained glass windows at the National Cathedral. See why I shook my head a few weeks ago when you said that this was a "slippery slope argument"? I think you called it an "Icy elevator shaft".

And if you're right?

Where does it end? How much history will be rewritten? Mt. Rushmore has depictions of men who owned other men - should that be sand blasted as well?

Where do you think it ends?

I don't know, and that's kinda the point. Where do you think it should end?

Getting rid of the confederate flag on government/public properties sounds great to me. I'm cool with those municipalities deciding amongst themselves on various statues/memorials a la what Tobias said earlier. I live in MN, so I don't have to live with it much thankfully.

If in the end all of these statues and memorials went away I'd be totaly fine with it. They're never going to sandblast Mount Rushmore, so that's an absurdity I don't need to consider.

Someone once said that they would never get the Dukes of Hazzard off of TV either.

Just sayin'

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

Not at all. Do you? Those are two very different things. In fact in the very next sentence he says "I'm not sure there is anything we can/should do about it now." Yeah, he's saying there may be nothing we should do now.

I would say OPM saying that he thought it never should have gone up in the first place qualifies as thinking it would be reasonable or appropriate to change it, no? Perhaps it wasn't accurate to say that I remembered "many" people thinking that, but at least a couple did, including me. And when someone said they thought maybe the feds would withhold funding to state and local parks/rec who had these sorts of things on display I said great, sounds good to me.

And nobody was laughing at it as impossible. That is a quick rewrite of history. One person maybe laughed at the idea of blowing a mountain up, but nobody's proposing that as far as I can tell
And the NAACP isn't asking for it to be "changed", they're asking for it to be removed. Quote - "The Atlanta branch of the NAACP is calling for the immediate removal of all Confederate symbols from Stone Mountain Park". They've suggested sand blasting it off.

And again, I don't see anyone who posted that they felt it "reasonable or appropriate" to remove or change the carvings in any way.

Yeah you seem to be right- nobody really said they thought it was reasonable/appropriate to change it. My bad. Although I'd also say that nobody was laughing at it as impossible, either.

As for what I think - if I lived in Georgia I'd obviously consider it an embarrassment and I'd want it changed. It's a celebration of the men who fought to retain slavery. It confirms so many negative stereotypes about the the state and the region. But I don't live in Georgia, so I don't really care that much what they do. If they want to continue to salute their losing effort to keep black people as slaves, so be it. They can do what they want, and the rest of the country/planet will perceive them accordingly.

So I guess you'd feel the same about Monument Avenue in Richmond, VA - and most if not all other memorials and such? You already posted your thoughts on the stained glass windows at the National Cathedral. See why I shook my head a few weeks ago when you said that this was a "slippery slope argument"? I think you called it an "Icy elevator shaft".

And if you're right?

Where does it end? How much history will be rewritten? Mt. Rushmore has depictions of men who owned other men - should that be sand blasted as well?

Where do you think it ends?

I don't know, and that's kinda the point. Where do you think it should end?

Getting rid of the confederate flag on government/public properties sounds great to me. I'm cool with those municipalities deciding amongst themselves on various statues/memorials a la what Tobias said earlier. I live in MN, so I don't have to live with it much thankfully.

If in the end all of these statues and memorials went away I'd be totaly fine with it. They're never going to sandblast Mount Rushmore, so that's an absurdity I don't need to consider.

Someone once said that they would never get the Dukes of Hazzard off of TV either.

Just sayin'

lol

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Neat historical anecdotes aside, those soldiers and generals fought for the wrong side.

The second Lee turned down Lincoln and chose to fight for his "country" he became a traitor.

 

[msommer]

Wait. Are we sure slavery was bad? Just want to get a clarification on that.

Somewhere between a net positive for Africans and as bad as Nazism.

Business travel is not all it is cracked up to be