Be a Supporter!

Removal of Confederate Monuments

  • 486 Views
  • 30 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
Th-e
Th-e
  • Member since: Nov. 2, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 23
Blank Slate

On June 17, 2015, Dylann Roof murdered 9 African Americans at a church in Charleston, SC.

Today, we are having historic Confederate monuments, many over 100 years old, being removed from public spaces because of offended African Americans and leftists supporting their cause.

The first major removal was in Louisville, KY where a 120-year old, 70 foot monument at the University of Louisville was removed over this controversy.

Next came the most newsworthy case: the 4 monuments of New Orleans. And the lead organization behind this is calling for even more monument removals and edits to things associated with white supremacists of the past. Two of those monuments (Beauregard and Lee) were listed in the National Register of Historic Places.

Now we have a 100 year old St. Louis monument being dismantled. Prior to the New Orleans case, little attention was even paid to this monument.

In addition, there are debates in Arizona, Maryland, Virginia, and Alabama among other places involving removal of Confederate monuments. The latter case is occurring despite a law passed to keep monuments over 40 years old in place.

I am outraged by this. This is blatant political correctness, blatant creation of safe spaces, having gone to new extremes! And this is under Trump, who promised to fight political correctness! This is whitewashing of history, and behavior that is not too far off (though relocation is significantly different from outright destruction) from jihadists like the Taliban and ISIS.

These people have judged the Confederate soldiers by today's standards rather than in their historical context. They have basically stripped away any character these people had because they supported slavery, and have defined them only by that fact.

This has gone too far.

Don't get me wrong here; I am willing to make compromises. I am willing to let the Missouri flag be changed (personally, I would prefer the magnolia from the original flag to replace the stars and bars), and I am open to adding context to these monuments or building pro-union monuments around them to stand in contrast to the Confederate ones. But I am not OK with hiding away historical monuments because of people being offended by them. They are what they are!


My country is of thee sweet land of consistent decay. Why is this, and how can we get America to be America again?

Gario
Gario
  • Member since: Jul. 30, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Musician
Response to Removal of Confederate Monuments 2017-06-12 11:04:33 Reply

At a glance, it looks like the majorities out there supported their removal, so their government decided to listen to the majority of their constituents and remove them. What's the issue, other than people not doing what you want them to do? It's not like people don't learn about the civil war and the confederacy in grade school, and if people want to share it with pride they can put their own paraphernalia on their own private property.

No one is changing history, people are getting the government to do what they want, and no one's rights are being trampled. That shounds like a healthy, functioning local government, to me.


Need some music for a flash or game? Check it out. If none of this works send me a PM, I'm taking requests.

Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 49
Programmer

Statues belong to winners they were slavers and lost so no statues for them. But as a civil war buff (been to Gettysburg did the do it yourself week tour) don't destroy anything that has significant historical value civil war stuff is hard to come by just relocate it and put it in an appropriate place like a museum or a associated site.

EdyKel
EdyKel
  • Member since: Dec. 11, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 26
Gamer
Response to Removal of Confederate Monuments 2017-06-12 16:08:28 Reply

Personally, I'm of two minds over this. On one hand, I don't like the ideas of historic monuments being removed, especially destroyed, no matter who, or what they represent. It's all history. But on the other hand, this is nothing new. And it's what countries often do to move on from their terrible pasts. It's what Germany did to move on from the 3rd Reich after it's defeat. It's what Russia, and soviet held countries, did to move on from their communist held past after it collapsed. They tore down their monuments to the leaders, and symbols, of those eras, and they never really looked back. Monuments are for celebrating the winners, and those who stood for justice, freedom, and humanity.

Removing monuments is not about forgetting the past, or even changing history. The South lost the war. That is a fact. They are the losers. Yet, they erected monuments to the losers of that war, as if they could not accept that defeat, and did it to rebel against how history was written afterwards. A history where many Southerners still don't believe that the civil war was about slavery but of state rights and their culture - which so happened, revolved around slavery, the engine of economic prosperity for southern plantation owners, the richest people in the south at the time.

Theses monuments don't really reflect history, or reality, in any kind of way. They are meant to delude, and distract, the people in the south, so they can't move on. They represent duel histories that compete, and conflict, with each other, and only end up contradicting the other. They represent culture, and slavery, and two incompatible views on them. Where one says slavery was okay, and the other say it was not. And this is where the argument over the removal of them comes down to. You have white nationalist who revere these figures for fighting to preserve a status between blacks and whites, and you have a group of people who are reminded that these figures are being celebrated for trying to preserve slavery - and if they had won, would still be slaves, or have reduced rights. This is what it comes down to. It's about one history over the other.

Sause
Sause
  • Member since: Aug. 13, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate

It's kind of funny people are proud of places like "Robert E. Lee Elementary School" but it's even funnier when people throw a shit-fit over a school's name.

Also I'm glad Dylann Roof is getting the death penalty.

EdyKel
EdyKel
  • Member since: Dec. 11, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 26
Gamer

At 6/12/17 04:20 PM, Sause wrote: It's kind of funny people are proud of places like "Robert E. Lee Elementary School" but it's even funnier when people throw a shit-fit over a school's name.

Also I'm glad Dylann Roof is getting the death penalty.

Kinda like how it would be funny if Jews complained about a school named after Adolf Hitler? I don't think it would be that funny. So, it would be understandable if blacks felt offended by a school that is dedicated to the memory of a guy who tried to keep their ancestors as slaves.

aviewaskewed
aviewaskewed
  • Member since: Feb. 4, 2002
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 44
Blank Slate
Response to Removal of Confederate Monuments 2017-06-12 16:38:22 Reply

I am so glad I get to use this.

Read this article yesterday, just completely unrelated to this but it's so relevant. It says everything that I would say, but the quick summary (which is no excuse not to read this, you should) is this: The intent of the monuments being pulled down was always to push The Myth Of The Lost Cause of The Confederacy. The idea that this wasn't a war all about the evils of slavery and the South trying to preserve an awful system to prop up it's economy and lose any hope of parity with the North. These things were always about pushing a false narrative which has damaged this country even to this day.


You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate. --Mark Pryor, Senator
The Endless Crew: Comics and general wackiness. Join us or die.
PM me about forum abuse.

BBS Signature
orangebomb
orangebomb
  • Member since: Mar. 18, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 20
Gamer
Response to Removal of Confederate Monuments 2017-06-12 17:19:19 Reply

While I certainly do agree that the historical aspect of statues of Confederate leaders, the fact that people are actively wanting city governments (and sometimes outside pressure as well) to take them down means that they don't want to be associated with the ghosts of the past and the baggage of what the South represented during that time period. Historical revisionism is a dangerous path to go on, as it often sugarcoats the past misdeeds or paint themselves as victims of aggressions of the winning party. The irony in that statement is that the Confederates (at least early on) were quite aggressive and were threatening Washington D.C. in spite of the technological and manpower disadvantage.

This isn't limited to the Confederate South, there are segments of Japan that view themselves as the victim of American aggression during WW2, (in spite the fact that is was the complete opposite) or at the very least downplay the brutality of their Pacific conquests. Now I can't really say if modern Japan has similar sentiments to what we have with Confederate statues and revisionism, though judging by the Yasukuni Shrine who has Hideki Tojo and other Class A war criminals inscribed in there, it's probably not the same.


Just stop worrying, and love the bomb.

BBS Signature
Gario
Gario
  • Member since: Jul. 30, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Musician
Response to Removal of Confederate Monuments 2017-06-12 18:06:10 Reply

At 6/12/17 03:36 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: Statues belong to winners they were slavers and lost so no statues for them. But as a civil war buff (been to Gettysburg did the do it yourself week tour) don't destroy anything that has significant historical value civil war stuff is hard to come by just relocate it and put it in an appropriate place like a museum or a associated site.

Wasn't one of the reasons it's expensive to move these things specifically because they don't want to destroy them? I did not click on ALL the links, but the statue in New Orleans is being carefully dismantled, not destroyed (bad art or not, I kind of agree complete destruction is a waste - blame the artist in me for that).

Also, much of this stuff ain't from the Civil War. It's most often from this century, celebrating what they though the civil war was about. It's kind-of historic in it's own way, but it represents less the history of the civil war and more the history of the 20th century attempts to white wash the Confederates from the civil war.


Need some music for a flash or game? Check it out. If none of this works send me a PM, I'm taking requests.

RydiaLockheart
RydiaLockheart
  • Member since: Nov. 21, 2002
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 32
Gamer
Response to Removal of Confederate Monuments 2017-06-12 19:31:03 Reply

OK, the other states I get, but why does Arizona have Confederate monuments?

aviewaskewed
aviewaskewed
  • Member since: Feb. 4, 2002
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 44
Blank Slate
Response to Removal of Confederate Monuments 2017-06-12 19:46:02 Reply

At 6/12/17 07:31 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: OK, the other states I get, but why does Arizona have Confederate monuments?

Why do you think? :)


You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate. --Mark Pryor, Senator
The Endless Crew: Comics and general wackiness. Join us or die.
PM me about forum abuse.

BBS Signature
aviewaskewed
aviewaskewed
  • Member since: Feb. 4, 2002
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 44
Blank Slate
Response to Removal of Confederate Monuments 2017-06-12 19:52:12 Reply

At 6/12/17 05:19 PM, orangebomb wrote: This isn't limited to the Confederate South, there are segments of Japan that view themselves as the victim of American aggression during WW2, (in spite the fact that is was the complete opposite) or at the very least downplay the brutality of their Pacific conquests. Now I can't really say if modern Japan has similar sentiments to what we have with Confederate statues and revisionism, though judging by the Yasukuni Shrine who has Hideki Tojo and other Class A war criminals inscribed in there, it's probably not the same.

If the act like Pearl Harbor wasn't a direct act of aggression pushing America into the war and all that happened because of that act, then yes, they are like the Lost Cause of The Confederacy, which pushes the myth of "The War of Northern Aggression" forgetting that the attack on Fort Sumter by the Confederacy was clearly the act that made the North (represented by the Union and the true US Government) realize there was no way to settle the situation short of armed forced to reunite the nation. In both cases, you have a power outside the Constitutionally recognized US government forcing aggression to win a war against said government.


You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate. --Mark Pryor, Senator
The Endless Crew: Comics and general wackiness. Join us or die.
PM me about forum abuse.

BBS Signature
Sause
Sause
  • Member since: Aug. 13, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Removal of Confederate Monuments 2017-06-12 20:21:47 Reply

At 6/12/17 04:34 PM, EdyKel wrote:
At 6/12/17 04:20 PM, Sause wrote: It's kind of funny people are proud of places like "Robert E. Lee Elementary School" but it's even funnier when people throw a shit-fit over a school's name.

Also I'm glad Dylann Roof is getting the death penalty.
Kinda like how it would be funny if Jews complained about a school named after Adolf Hitler? I don't think it would be that funny. So, it would be understandable if blacks felt offended by a school that is dedicated to the memory of a guy who tried to keep their ancestors as slaves.

That would actually be funny, just because of how try-hard and edgy it would be. And the salt fallout from it's implementation would be oh so delicious.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Removal of Confederate Monuments 2017-06-12 21:58:30 Reply

At 6/12/17 03:36 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: Statues belong to winners they were slavers and lost so no statues for them. But as a civil war buff (been to Gettysburg did the do it yourself week tour) don't destroy anything that has significant historical value civil war stuff is hard to come by just relocate it and put it in an appropriate place like a museum or a associated site.

Battle sites and historical markers are VERY different from monuments placed in otherwise random locations. Sites and markers designate specific events in our history, some good, and others not so good. They are apolitical. Monuments in non-significant locations are meant to celebrate people and by proxy their causes. There was no significant incident of Robert E. Lee in Louisiana. I'd be surprised if he ever even set foot in the city. So a statue of him in NO is meant to show pride in him, not meant to remember history.

Th-e
Th-e
  • Member since: Nov. 2, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 23
Blank Slate
Response to Removal of Confederate Monuments 2017-06-12 23:54:15 Reply

At 6/12/17 04:08 PM, EdyKel wrote: Personally, I'm of two minds over this. On one hand, I don't like the ideas of historic monuments being removed, especially destroyed, no matter who, or what they represent. It's all history. But on the other hand, this is nothing new. And it's what countries often do to move on from their terrible pasts. It's what Germany did to move on from the 3rd Reich after it's defeat. It's what Russia, and soviet held countries, did to move on from their communist held past after it collapsed. They tore down their monuments to the leaders, and symbols, of those eras, and they never really looked back. Monuments are for celebrating the winners, and those who stood for justice, freedom, and humanity.

Hitler was evil. Stalin was evil. The people of the Confederacy, given the context, were not evil people, though they believed in idea that proved to be evil. Also, there are monuments and building and street names to people who were part of our nation's history but also committed acts that are evil by today's standards. Andrew Jackson (Trail of Tears and slave ownership) and Woodrow Wilson (a definite racist). Let's not forget George Washington owned slaves. I guess the Washington Monument is even more offensive than many of the Confederate monuments due to combining that and the phallic appearance of the monument.

No, I am not going to defend monuments to Kim Il Sung or his descendants, regardless of their age (though they probably will never come down, given that the regime is pretty much immortal due to Orwellian style rule plus nukes). Their actions were evil by the standards back then (and this was after Hitler), and are evil today, though some gulags would end up preserved as museums the way Auschwitz is preserved today if the regime fell. But this is not the same as the people of the Confederacy.

Also, why did someone in Arizona put up a Confederate monument in 2010?!

Removing monuments is not about forgetting the past, or even changing history. The South lost the war. That is a fact. They are the losers. Yet, they erected monuments to the losers of that war, as if they could not accept that defeat, and did it to rebel against how history was written afterwards. A history where many Southerners still don't believe that the civil war was about slavery but of state rights and their culture - which so happened, revolved around slavery, the engine of economic prosperity for southern plantation owners, the richest people in the south at the time.

Theses monuments don't really reflect history, or reality, in any kind of way. They are meant to delude, and distract, the people in the south, so they can't move on. They represent duel histories that compete, and conflict, with each other, and only end up contradicting the other. They represent culture, and slavery, and two incompatible views on them. Where one says slavery was okay, and the other say it was not. And this is where the argument over the removal of them comes down to. You have white nationalist who revere these figures for fighting to preserve a status between blacks and whites, and you have a group of people who are reminded that these figures are being celebrated for trying to preserve slavery - and if they had won, would still be slaves, or have reduced rights. This is what it comes down to. It's about one history over the other.

Part of Landrieu's speech: "These monuments purposefully celebrate a fictional, sanitized Confederacy; ignoring the death, ignoring the enslavement, and the terror that it actually stood for."

But removing them after they stood for over a century takes those places and creates a fictional, sanitized city. This creates a paradox.

And these removals create a gateway to remove other monuments and memorials that people find offensive because of their actions in history, as I provided in those links.

I was looking at some of the anti-removal articles, and also the Landrieu message, and some things stood out:

From Landrieu:

"And it immediately begs the questions; why there are no slave ship monuments, no prominent markers on public land to remember the lynchings or the slave blocks; nothing to remember this long chapter of our lives; the pain, the sacrifice, the shame... all of it happening on the soil of New Orleans."

So monuments or no monuments, parts of the city's Confederate history are missing from the city itself. Memorials and markers need to be added to the city to fill in those gaps.

The next article, an anti-removal piece:

"Rather than excision, says Christy Coleman, the black chief executive of the American Civil War Museum in Richmond, it is better to expand the narrative and erect new monuments to tell the story of blacks and women who were left out or misrepresented."

Indeed. This includes adding context to the Confederate monuments along with building monuments to fill the gaps Landrieu mentioned. It also mentions what I like to call the sanitization paradox.

And this article points out that the North, including Lincoln, weren't exactly pro-African American.

So after looking through your comments and reading some articles, I still remain opposed to the removal of these historic monuments. At the same time, however, things need to be changed around those monuments and in the cities where they stand to better reflect their Confederate history. There needs to be a compromise.


My country is of thee sweet land of consistent decay. Why is this, and how can we get America to be America again?

DoctNik
DoctNik
  • Member since: Jan. 9, 2016
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Art Lover
Response to Removal of Confederate Monuments 2017-06-13 07:27:46 Reply

This is our history, our cost for our freedom, war is awful, and the Civil War saw brother killing brother, the union didnt save black people, they didn't immediately become equal to us post war, all the war did was see to the deaths of too many people. What the confederates stood for was more than just being racist, and thanks to the modern PC age most people aren't sure what it was. I think we all need to stand in protest of this censorship and protect the history that made america what it is, good and bad. Otherwise we may make the same mistakes again.

bitcoins4u
bitcoins4u
  • Member since: Jun. 13, 2017
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Removal of Confederate Monuments 2017-06-13 07:29:20 Reply

if the majority is in favor of removing them, then it is ok. if not then it is wrong

Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 49
Programmer
Response to Removal of Confederate Monuments 2017-06-13 07:43:53 Reply

At 6/12/17 09:58 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Battle sites and historical markers are VERY different from monuments placed in otherwise random locations. Sites and markers designate specific events in our history, some good, and others not so good. They are apolitical. Monuments in non-significant locations are meant to celebrate people and by proxy their causes. There was no significant incident of Robert E. Lee in Louisiana. I'd be surprised if he ever even set foot in the city. So a statue of him in NO is meant to show pride in him, not meant to remember history.

true but clustering them in relevant locations or museums would be better than just removing them or destroying them outright some of those monuments are anywhere between 70 to 120 plus years old, that alone makes them historically significant.

bikinis
bikinis
  • Member since: Jun. 13, 2017
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate

they are just statues i dont see what is the problem with removing them but of course only if majority agrees

AcetheSuperVillain
AcetheSuperVillain
  • Member since: Jan. 17, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 12
Blank Slate
Response to Removal of Confederate Monuments 2017-06-13 11:36:56 Reply

The action of taking down monuments in the present context is nothing to do with the monuments themselves, and little to do with history at this point. It is a protest by the black people who are still victims of racial injustice, and taking down the monuments is a gesture by their local governments that says "you know what, you're right, let's start to fix things."

So maybe the removal of monuments will have a few bad consequences, but as long as that gesture of proaction by the governments is sincere and leads to repairing the racial injustices of today, then the exchange is worth it.


Ace the SuperVillain

BBS Signature
Loki
Loki
  • Member since: Oct. 18, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 53
Writer
Sause
Sause
  • Member since: Aug. 13, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Removal of Confederate Monuments 2017-06-13 12:30:13 Reply

All this huff over a rock. Just saying.

EdyKel
EdyKel
  • Member since: Dec. 11, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 26
Gamer
Response to Removal of Confederate Monuments 2017-06-13 22:47:28 Reply

At 6/12/17 11:54 PM, Th-e wrote: Hitler was evil. Stalin was evil. The people of the Confederacy, given the context, were not evil people, though they believed in idea that proved to be evil. Also, there are monuments and building and street names to people who were part of our nation's history but also committed acts that are evil by today's standards. Andrew Jackson (Trail of Tears and slave ownership) and Woodrow Wilson (a definite racist). Let's not forget George Washington owned slaves. I guess the Washington Monument is even more offensive than many of the Confederate monuments due to combining that and the phallic appearance of the monument.

Yes, he did own slaves. He also gave his slaves their freedom upon his death. Even Thomas Jefferson did the same thing. There were people like them who felt conflicted in owning them after fighting for their own independence from the British. But the point here is that Washington, and Jefferson, won the revolutionary war, and formed our government. They accomplished great things in this country. It's why they are remembered, even though they were hypocrites in some ways. But those inconsistencies can be overlooked considering the great amount of good they did. So what did the leaders of the Confederacy accomplish, other than starting a war by attacking a norther state, and then losing that war, and fighting to keep a group of people oppressed? Absolutely nothing. That's the difference. As to the other names you mentioned, they also accomplished a great deal more than those in the confederacy.

The Washington Monument is an obelisk, which has it's origins in ancient Egypt. It's basically a long square stone pillar with a pyramid on top. In ancient Egypt it was a symbol of the sun, or a ray from the sun, that contained great divine power, the power of a god. It was also considered to have astronomical properties. Other cultures began to use it, or take them out of Egypt. By the 17th century, into the 18th century, western countries became obsessed, almost cultish, with them. They became symbols of reason and order during the era of the enlightenment. They represented architecture, science, mathematics, astrology. They were part of a movement against known religions, like Christianity, with groups like the Freemasons, who rejected Christian doctrine and Christian control. Many of our founding forefathers were greatly influenced by this movement.

But, as you pointed out, the obelisk can often be looked upon as a phallic symbol. Well, that is according to anthropologists, who claim that anything that looks long and hard, and is revered by a culture, must represent the male's dick, a symbol of power and virility. And while there may be some truth to that, most people don't think about that shit, unless they have dirty minds, or are easily offended by long hard objects. Most people who look at the Washington monument only look at it as a beacon in which it represents the accomplishment of a man who was a pillar for the foundation that gave rise to this country.

No, I am not going to defend monuments to Kim Il Sung or his descendants, regardless of their age (though they probably will never come down, given that the regime is pretty much immortal due to Orwellian style rule plus nukes). Their actions were evil by the standards back then (and this was after Hitler), and are evil today, though some gulags would end up preserved as museums the way Auschwitz is preserved today if the regime fell. But this is not the same as the people of the Confederacy.

But you just said that slavery was evil. Isn't slavery the ultimate form of tyranny?

Also, why did someone in Arizona put up a Confederate monument in 2010?

Because it's needlessly complicated. Basically, it's a monument honoring 60 dead confederate soldiers, because the state unofficially sided with the confederacy, but did not participate in the slave trade. After the war, many northerners moved there, overtaking the population. After WW2, many southerners moved there and tried to revive the southern culture. But they began flying the Confederate flags at the capital, and building more confederate monuments, around the time of racial desegregation, and the civil rights movement. It was meant to send a strong message against racial integration.

Part of Landrieu's speech: "These monuments purposefully celebrate a fictional, sanitized Confederacy; ignoring the death, ignoring the enslavement, and the terror that it actually stood for."

Lets be clear. It's only sanitization if ALL Confederate monuments are removed. The deaths, or slavery, won't be forgotten with the removal of these monuments. And the monuments are not being destroyed, they are being taken down in prominent locations, which could then be moved to museums.

The confederate flag largely disappeared after the civil war, but was resurrected in full force during desegregation and the civil Rights movement. There is no doubt about the message they were sending over race relation at the time. People who flew that flag did it to show their position against any attempt at racial integration, and racial civil rights. They were prejudice, or outright racist.

Similarly, we also saw an increase in monuments dedicated to the confederacy since then, with many public schools and roads, named after confederate leaders. So, the intent is not about celebrating the individual, but what they represented. It's about glorifying a time when race was separated, and not mixed. These monuments could have been put into museums, but they were placed in public areas, along with the confederate flag, in the center of capitals and cities, and town, to be seen by all. And their intent was clear. It was a big "Fuck You" to other races. And this is what they often symbolize now, racism and hate, and not much else, especially history, as they will often claim anything but slavery, or how they started the war.

wildfire4461
wildfire4461
  • Member since: Dec. 27, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 04
Blank Slate
Response to Removal of Confederate Monuments 2017-06-14 10:44:12 Reply

At 6/12/17 11:54 PM, Th-e wrote:

Meanwhile they don't have a problem flying the Fleur De Lis.

At 6/13/17 10:47 PM, EdyKel wrote:
The confederate flag largely disappeared after the civil war, but was resurrected in full force during desegregation and the civil Rights movement.

It was hijacked by the Dixiecrats at that time. Before then Klan rallies looked like this:

Removal of Confederate Monuments


That's right I like guns and ponies. Hitlery lost libtards. Get over it.
Politically correct is anything that leftists believe.Politically incorrect is anything common sense.

BBS Signature
jasobeluexy
jasobeluexy
  • Member since: Jun. 1, 2017
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Melancholy
Response to Removal of Confederate Monuments 2017-06-14 11:08:21 Reply

nothing personal but I think it would be more important to remove the whore house from the epicenter of st pete first///


The T-Technology of T-Tdoay Is the T-Technology of -Y-YOU But that Do -Y-Y-ou Even Know Who -Y-Y-ou Are".

FUNKbrs
FUNKbrs
  • Member since: Oct. 28, 2000
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 10
Blank Slate
Response to Removal of Confederate Monuments 2017-06-14 12:43:10 Reply

Fuck the Con-arti....I mean Confederates.

They lost.

They're losers.

Their cause is even called The Lost Cause.

Memphis has two confederate monuments Nashville passed a state law to stop us from tearing down, and it's a huge bag of shit.

The statues were built in the 1890's after the end of Union occupation the second local rule was re-established as a "Fuck You!" to former slaves. One of the reason they were so solidly built was to make them difficult to remove, because even their builders knew any decent freedom loving american who saw them would eventually try to tear them down.

However, I would gladly compromise that instead of tearing down the Confrauderate Monuments, statues of Civil Rights heroes like Harriet Tubman should be built squatting over them, covering them in a pile artistically sculpted turds.


My psychobilly band Los Psychosis.Me playing Psychobilly accordion.
HATE.
Because how else do you explain 1.2 million years of perpetual war?

BBS Signature
Pixbot
Pixbot
  • Member since: Jun. 13, 2017
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Removal of Confederate Monuments 2017-06-16 12:55:50 Reply

At 6/13/17 07:29 AM, bitcoins4u wrote: if the majority is in favor of removing them, then it is ok. if not then it is wrong

People were in favor of violent murders, that doesn't make it right

Sause
Sause
  • Member since: Aug. 13, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Removal of Confederate Monuments 2017-06-16 17:13:46 Reply

At 6/16/17 12:55 PM, Pixbot wrote:
At 6/13/17 07:29 AM, bitcoins4u wrote: if the majority is in favor of removing them, then it is ok. if not then it is wrong
People were in favor of violent murders, that doesn't make it right

We're not talking about murder.

We're talking about hunks of rock

Pixbot
Pixbot
  • Member since: Jun. 13, 2017
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Removal of Confederate Monuments 2017-06-16 17:25:09 Reply

At 6/16/17 05:13 PM, Sause wrote:
At 6/16/17 12:55 PM, Pixbot wrote:
At 6/13/17 07:29 AM, bitcoins4u wrote: if the majority is in favor of removing them, then it is ok. if not then it is wrong
People were in favor of violent murders, that doesn't make it right
We're not talking about murder.

We're talking about hunks of rock

Actually, there not just "hunks of rock" they are historical monuments. There is a difference

Gario
Gario
  • Member since: Jul. 30, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Musician
Response to Removal of Confederate Monuments 2017-06-17 15:07:33 Reply

At 6/16/17 05:13 PM, Sause wrote:
We're not talking about murder.

We're talking about hunks of rock

That's correct. So there's absolutely nothing wrong if the public elects to get rid of the hunk of rock, right? It'd be pretty silly to see a bunch of people crying over a city getting rid of something like that.


Need some music for a flash or game? Check it out. If none of this works send me a PM, I'm taking requests.