Confederate Memorials and Monuments - what history do they represent?

[Conservative65]

My initial thought was - they're a legacy of the civil war, put up by the losing side...and no "big deal" beyond that history. But I was wrong.

Removing historical monuments is always a "slippery slope", but so is erecting those monuments. For example, in Russia - the many monuments to Stalin (torn down when communism fell) or in Iraq, the many monuments to Sadaam (torn down too).

There IS something similar in the Confederate Monuments, compared to Stalin or Hussein or others. That is WHY they were erected.

Most were erected between the 1890's and 1920's - more then 30 years after the Civil War ended. They coincided with the rise in legislation essentially reinstalling slavery through a set of laws that segregated black people from white people, prevented them from exercising their right to vote, and saw a huge increase in lynchings and the reappearance of the Confederate Flag.

So what do these things REALLY represent? There has been a sustained movement to sanitize the Confederacy - to severe it from slavery and portray it as little more than a "state's rights" conflict. But you can't do that - it's inseperable from the slavery issue, as is evident by what occurred in the south AFTER the war's end.

So what are we seeking to "preserve" by keeping both that flag and those monuments on public spaces? These aren't battlefield monuments...they are monuments erected all over the country outside of historical sites. I used to be a huge Civil War buff as a kid...and I value and love history - but THIS part of the history, I was oblivious of. SHOULD we support it, in our public spaces, or retire it to Museums where it might be more fitting? This historian makes some good points.

Like The Flag, Confederate Monuments Have Been 'Severely Tainted'

JAMES COBB: Well, the great bulk of them were erected between roughly 1890 and 1920. But every time there was a sort of a racial flare up, later on, there would be a more modest surge in erecting monuments in the same way that Confederate flags started going on. State flags are being flown atop state capitals, but the 1890-1920 period is really, I think, critical because that period also saw the rise of legally mandated racial segregation and disfranchisement of black Southerners.

And in tune with that, the campaigns for passage of these segregation, disenfranchising laws involved a tremendous amount of horrific racial scapegoating. So that same period saw roughly 2,000 lynchings of black Americans. And so the thing I think people miss because it's so easy to jump on the clear connection between these monuments and slavery is that they also were sort of like construction materials in an effort to rebuild slavery.​

and

COBB: Well, I think for generations, white Southerners had maintained, despite the presence of the flag at all of these racial atrocities, had maintained that it was possible to separate heritage and hate. And I think the slaying in Charleston pretty much shattered what was left of that mythology. And there were a number of cases, a number of states, where Confederate flags were furled almost, you know, within a matter of days of that event. The next target was going to be monuments. But compared to a flag, the monuments are a bit less emotive. And they were seen like as on the second line of defense as far as the whole cult of the lost cause and the refusal to accept the idea that both the flag and the monuments were tied to slavery.


Monuments were simply less closely associated in the minds of white Southerners, in particular, with anything related directly to racial oppression. It was the flag that had been waved at the Klan rallies. You know, it's easier to hoist a flag than a bust of Stonewall Jackson. It had the much stronger visual association with racial oppression or racist hate groups than monuments did.​

and

COBB: Well, as a historian, I'll confess to a certain nervousness about sanitizing the historical landscape. But I think what we're looking at here is that these monuments, just like the flag, have been sort of seized on. And they've been so severely tainted. I think the best way to look at them upon removing them - and I think they do have to be removed from public spaces.


But I think the best way to look at them is that they're not being preserved in a museum, which is where I think they should go as a monument, but really, as an artifact because their connection with, you know, the effort to practically reinstitute slavery after the Civil War gives them an extra layer of complexity that I think most people have not been exposed to. Whereas they - in a public spot, I think they can only be divisive and a source of discord and conflict.​

i honestly don't give a rats ass about the monuments. i'm to the point of being sick and tired of told what my morality should be by the left. they got away with the WE JUST WANT THIS FLAG OFF THIS PROPERTY! to look what we have now?

nothing is sacred. our history is to be forgotten in the name of "feeling better".

Who is suggesting our history be 'forgotten'?

Do you think that if there is not a statue to Robert E. Lee no one will remember the Civil War, or how the Confederacy was formed to protect the institution of slavery?

Why do you object to local communities deciding to remove monuments?

we've taken down the monuments for being "insensitive". we've removed dukes of hazard cause of the general lee. we're now wanting statues of columbus to be removed.

why do you think it will stop there? once we've gotten rid of things no one has likely paid attention to in a decade will they then force the softening up of our history books? will we teach todays version of the civil war or the real one?

if i see the liberals continue to get their way it will be rewritten that the south was nazi driven before we even had nazis.

so yes, we're removing history cause its inconvenient to todays sensitivities.

In SC, those in opposition to the Stars/Bars on the Statehouse dome agreed to a compromise to where it would be placed on Statehouse grounds. As soon as it was put on the grounds, those liars started efforts to have it removed from there.

 

[iceberg]

My initial thought was - they're a legacy of the civil war, put up by the losing side...and no "big deal" beyond that history. But I was wrong.

Removing historical monuments is always a "slippery slope", but so is erecting those monuments. For example, in Russia - the many monuments to Stalin (torn down when communism fell) or in Iraq, the many monuments to Sadaam (torn down too).

There IS something similar in the Confederate Monuments, compared to Stalin or Hussein or others. That is WHY they were erected.

Most were erected between the 1890's and 1920's - more then 30 years after the Civil War ended. They coincided with the rise in legislation essentially reinstalling slavery through a set of laws that segregated black people from white people, prevented them from exercising their right to vote, and saw a huge increase in lynchings and the reappearance of the Confederate Flag.

So what do these things REALLY represent? There has been a sustained movement to sanitize the Confederacy - to severe it from slavery and portray it as little more than a "state's rights" conflict. But you can't do that - it's inseperable from the slavery issue, as is evident by what occurred in the south AFTER the war's end.

So what are we seeking to "preserve" by keeping both that flag and those monuments on public spaces? These aren't battlefield monuments...they are monuments erected all over the country outside of historical sites. I used to be a huge Civil War buff as a kid...and I value and love history - but THIS part of the history, I was oblivious of. SHOULD we support it, in our public spaces, or retire it to Museums where it might be more fitting? This historian makes some good points.

Like The Flag, Confederate Monuments Have Been 'Severely Tainted'

JAMES COBB: Well, the great bulk of them were erected between roughly 1890 and 1920. But every time there was a sort of a racial flare up, later on, there would be a more modest surge in erecting monuments in the same way that Confederate flags started going on. State flags are being flown atop state capitals, but the 1890-1920 period is really, I think, critical because that period also saw the rise of legally mandated racial segregation and disfranchisement of black Southerners.

And in tune with that, the campaigns for passage of these segregation, disenfranchising laws involved a tremendous amount of horrific racial scapegoating. So that same period saw roughly 2,000 lynchings of black Americans. And so the thing I think people miss because it's so easy to jump on the clear connection between these monuments and slavery is that they also were sort of like construction materials in an effort to rebuild slavery.​

and

COBB: Well, I think for generations, white Southerners had maintained, despite the presence of the flag at all of these racial atrocities, had maintained that it was possible to separate heritage and hate. And I think the slaying in Charleston pretty much shattered what was left of that mythology. And there were a number of cases, a number of states, where Confederate flags were furled almost, you know, within a matter of days of that event. The next target was going to be monuments. But compared to a flag, the monuments are a bit less emotive. And they were seen like as on the second line of defense as far as the whole cult of the lost cause and the refusal to accept the idea that both the flag and the monuments were tied to slavery.


Monuments were simply less closely associated in the minds of white Southerners, in particular, with anything related directly to racial oppression. It was the flag that had been waved at the Klan rallies. You know, it's easier to hoist a flag than a bust of Stonewall Jackson. It had the much stronger visual association with racial oppression or racist hate groups than monuments did.​

and

COBB: Well, as a historian, I'll confess to a certain nervousness about sanitizing the historical landscape. But I think what we're looking at here is that these monuments, just like the flag, have been sort of seized on. And they've been so severely tainted. I think the best way to look at them upon removing them - and I think they do have to be removed from public spaces.


But I think the best way to look at them is that they're not being preserved in a museum, which is where I think they should go as a monument, but really, as an artifact because their connection with, you know, the effort to practically reinstitute slavery after the Civil War gives them an extra layer of complexity that I think most people have not been exposed to. Whereas they - in a public spot, I think they can only be divisive and a source of discord and conflict.​

i honestly don't give a rats ass about the monuments. i'm to the point of being sick and tired of told what my morality should be by the left. they got away with the WE JUST WANT THIS FLAG OFF THIS PROPERTY! to look what we have now?

nothing is sacred. our history is to be forgotten in the name of "feeling better".

Who is suggesting our history be 'forgotten'?

Do you think that if there is not a statue to Robert E. Lee no one will remember the Civil War, or how the Confederacy was formed to protect the institution of slavery?

Why do you object to local communities deciding to remove monuments?

we've taken down the monuments for being "insensitive". we've removed dukes of hazard cause of the general lee. we're now wanting statues of columbus to be removed.

why do you think it will stop there? once we've gotten rid of things no one has likely paid attention to in a decade will they then force the softening up of our history books? will we teach todays version of the civil war or the real one?

if i see the liberals continue to get their way it will be rewritten that the south was nazi driven before we even had nazis.

so yes, we're removing history cause its inconvenient to todays sensitivities.

In SC, those in opposition to the Stars/Bars on the Statehouse dome agreed to a compromise to where it would be placed on Statehouse grounds. As soon as it was put on the grounds, those liars started efforts to have it removed from there.

which is why i'm against the removal of ANYTHING at this point. its' not done to put "pain away" - it's done to tell people what to do and what is morally right and wrong.

not their call.

 

[Conservative65]

My initial thought was - they're a legacy of the civil war, put up by the losing side...and no "big deal" beyond that history. But I was wrong.

Removing historical monuments is always a "slippery slope", but so is erecting those monuments. For example, in Russia - the many monuments to Stalin (torn down when communism fell) or in Iraq, the many monuments to Sadaam (torn down too).

There IS something similar in the Confederate Monuments, compared to Stalin or Hussein or others. That is WHY they were erected.

Most were erected between the 1890's and 1920's - more then 30 years after the Civil War ended. They coincided with the rise in legislation essentially reinstalling slavery through a set of laws that segregated black people from white people, prevented them from exercising their right to vote, and saw a huge increase in lynchings and the reappearance of the Confederate Flag.

So what do these things REALLY represent? There has been a sustained movement to sanitize the Confederacy - to severe it from slavery and portray it as little more than a "state's rights" conflict. But you can't do that - it's inseperable from the slavery issue, as is evident by what occurred in the south AFTER the war's end.

So what are we seeking to "preserve" by keeping both that flag and those monuments on public spaces? These aren't battlefield monuments...they are monuments erected all over the country outside of historical sites. I used to be a huge Civil War buff as a kid...and I value and love history - but THIS part of the history, I was oblivious of. SHOULD we support it, in our public spaces, or retire it to Museums where it might be more fitting? This historian makes some good points.

Like The Flag, Confederate Monuments Have Been 'Severely Tainted'

JAMES COBB: Well, the great bulk of them were erected between roughly 1890 and 1920. But every time there was a sort of a racial flare up, later on, there would be a more modest surge in erecting monuments in the same way that Confederate flags started going on. State flags are being flown atop state capitals, but the 1890-1920 period is really, I think, critical because that period also saw the rise of legally mandated racial segregation and disfranchisement of black Southerners.

And in tune with that, the campaigns for passage of these segregation, disenfranchising laws involved a tremendous amount of horrific racial scapegoating. So that same period saw roughly 2,000 lynchings of black Americans. And so the thing I think people miss because it's so easy to jump on the clear connection between these monuments and slavery is that they also were sort of like construction materials in an effort to rebuild slavery.​

and

COBB: Well, I think for generations, white Southerners had maintained, despite the presence of the flag at all of these racial atrocities, had maintained that it was possible to separate heritage and hate. And I think the slaying in Charleston pretty much shattered what was left of that mythology. And there were a number of cases, a number of states, where Confederate flags were furled almost, you know, within a matter of days of that event. The next target was going to be monuments. But compared to a flag, the monuments are a bit less emotive. And they were seen like as on the second line of defense as far as the whole cult of the lost cause and the refusal to accept the idea that both the flag and the monuments were tied to slavery.


Monuments were simply less closely associated in the minds of white Southerners, in particular, with anything related directly to racial oppression. It was the flag that had been waved at the Klan rallies. You know, it's easier to hoist a flag than a bust of Stonewall Jackson. It had the much stronger visual association with racial oppression or racist hate groups than monuments did.​

and

COBB: Well, as a historian, I'll confess to a certain nervousness about sanitizing the historical landscape. But I think what we're looking at here is that these monuments, just like the flag, have been sort of seized on. And they've been so severely tainted. I think the best way to look at them upon removing them - and I think they do have to be removed from public spaces.


But I think the best way to look at them is that they're not being preserved in a museum, which is where I think they should go as a monument, but really, as an artifact because their connection with, you know, the effort to practically reinstitute slavery after the Civil War gives them an extra layer of complexity that I think most people have not been exposed to. Whereas they - in a public spot, I think they can only be divisive and a source of discord and conflict.​

i honestly don't give a rats ass about the monuments. i'm to the point of being sick and tired of told what my morality should be by the left. they got away with the WE JUST WANT THIS FLAG OFF THIS PROPERTY! to look what we have now?

nothing is sacred. our history is to be forgotten in the name of "feeling better".

Who is suggesting our history be 'forgotten'?

Do you think that if there is not a statue to Robert E. Lee no one will remember the Civil War, or how the Confederacy was formed to protect the institution of slavery?

Why do you object to local communities deciding to remove monuments?

we've taken down the monuments for being "insensitive". we've removed dukes of hazard cause of the general lee. we're now wanting statues of columbus to be removed.

why do you think it will stop there? once we've gotten rid of things no one has likely paid attention to in a decade will they then force the softening up of our history books? will we teach todays version of the civil war or the real one?

if i see the liberals continue to get their way it will be rewritten that the south was nazi driven before we even had nazis.

so yes, we're removing history cause its inconvenient to todays sensitivities.

In SC, those in opposition to the Stars/Bars on the Statehouse dome agreed to a compromise to where it would be placed on Statehouse grounds. As soon as it was put on the grounds, those liars started efforts to have it removed from there.

which is why i'm against the removal of ANYTHING at this point. its' not done to put "pain away" - it's done to tell people what to do and what is morally right and wrong.

not their call.

It's done to appease a bunch of bleeding heart, guilt ridden white people and whining blacks.

 

[iceberg]

i honestly don't give a rats ass about the monuments. i'm to the point of being sick and tired of told what my morality should be by the left. they got away with the WE JUST WANT THIS FLAG OFF THIS PROPERTY! to look what we have now?

nothing is sacred. our history is to be forgotten in the name of "feeling better".

Who is suggesting our history be 'forgotten'?

Do you think that if there is not a statue to Robert E. Lee no one will remember the Civil War, or how the Confederacy was formed to protect the institution of slavery?

Why do you object to local communities deciding to remove monuments?

we've taken down the monuments for being "insensitive". we've removed dukes of hazard cause of the general lee. we're now wanting statues of columbus to be removed.

why do you think it will stop there? once we've gotten rid of things no one has likely paid attention to in a decade will they then force the softening up of our history books? will we teach todays version of the civil war or the real one?

if i see the liberals continue to get their way it will be rewritten that the south was nazi driven before we even had nazis.

so yes, we're removing history cause its inconvenient to todays sensitivities.

In SC, those in opposition to the Stars/Bars on the Statehouse dome agreed to a compromise to where it would be placed on Statehouse grounds. As soon as it was put on the grounds, those liars started efforts to have it removed from there.

which is why i'm against the removal of ANYTHING at this point. its' not done to put "pain away" - it's done to tell people what to do and what is morally right and wrong.

not their call.

It's done to appease a bunch of bleeding heart, guilt ridden white people and whining blacks.

that too.

 

[DOTR]

Who is suggesting our history be 'forgotten'?
Do you think that if there is not a statue to Robert E. Lee no one will remember the Civil War, or how the Confederacy was formed to protect the institution of slavery?

Spoken like a true barbarian.

 

[DOTR]

In SC, those in opposition to the Stars/Bars on the Statehouse dome agreed to a compromise to where it would be placed on Statehouse grounds. As soon as it was put on the grounds, those liars started efforts to have it removed from there.

Liberalism and liberals always have to hide their true agenda. They move forwards in small steps.
For instance:

(1)1980 we dont think homosexuals should be criminals. We arent asking for them to be considered a lifestyle choice or anything.
Ok done.

(2)2000 Ok so maybe they can have civil unions. We arent asking for anything as ridiculous as marriage of course.
Ok done..sigh. Happy?

(3)2015 ok we are going to court top overturn your voice and force your state to marry gays to each other. Come on..its not like we are forcing you to participate.
Ok no...but I see you used force to beat me. Ill just look the other way.

(4)today Bake my fucking gay marriage cake bigot!

 

[Conservative65]

In SC, those in opposition to the Stars/Bars on the Statehouse dome agreed to a compromise to where it would be placed on Statehouse grounds. As soon as it was put on the grounds, those liars started efforts to have it removed from there.

Liberalism and liberals always have to hide their true agenda. They move forwards in small steps.
For instance:

(1)1980 we dont think homosexuals should be criminals. We arent asking for them to be considered a lifestyle choice or anything.
Ok done.

(2)2000 Ok so maybe they can have civil unions. We arent asking for anything as ridiculous as marriage of course.
Ok done..sigh. Happy?

(3)2015 ok we are going to court top overturn your voice and force your state to marry gays to each other. Come on..its not like we are forcing you to participate.
Ok no...but I see you used force to beat me. Ill just look the other way.

(4)today Bake my fucking gay marriage cake bigot!

View attachment 145870

Same type of thing with the flag except a shorter amount of time.

 

[cnelsen]

So if I am in a lifeboat and there is only room for one more, and there is a black guy and a white guy in the water and I choose the white guy, am I a racist?

you asked him a yes or no question.

those are hard to answer when you carry a minimum of 10 bullets per post.

And he won't be able to answer it, even with all three volumes of his definition. The real world has a way of bowling over elaborate edifices like his definition. Like the college professor who's just winding up a class in which he's proved beyond a shadow of a doubt there's no such thing as race, when a masked gunman runs into the room, presses a pistol against the professor's head and says "You've got one second to tell me the correct number of African-American students you have in this class or you die". "Nine!" the professor shouts immediately and correctly.

Like the college professor who's just winding up a class in which he's proved beyond a shadow of a doubt there's no such thing as race, when a masked gunman runs into the room, presses a pistol against the professor's head and says "You've got one second to tell me the correct number of African-American students you have in this class or you die". "Nine!" the professor shouts immediately and correctly.

Any such professor worth his salt will be equally aware of how others who think there is such a thing as race construe the matter as well as how/why it is that those individuals are mistaken. Accordingly, the professor will be able, as needed, to answer questions from either (or all, in instances where there are more than two sides) perspective. That is why the "professor" in your scenario is able to correctly answer "nine."

That's the way it is with intellectuals. They understand their side of an argument as well as they understand the opposing side; thus they are keenly aware of which side has the greater share of weaknesses, recognizing that greater share may be quantitatively or qualitatively, or a mix of each, determined.

Quite simply it's rare that one overcomes something one doesn't fully understand. Racism is one such thing that requires such a full understanding, at least by some quantity of people who lead, to be overcome.

"thus they are keenly aware of which side has the greater share of weaknesses"

If intellectuals have it so figured out, why do they produce such a steady stream of nonsense? Hmmm....maybe it's not "understanding", as you put it, they are after. White privilege? Race is a social construct? Diversity is our strength? Institutional racism? The Civil War was fought over the price of cotton? The examples of complete bullshit gushing forth from academe are endless. And these are the people of complete "understanding" who you believe should lead lead us? Yikes! You one scary dude.

"Quite simply it's rare that one overcomes something one doesn't fully understand. [especially if it doesn't exist in the first place] Racism is one such thing that requires such a full understanding, at least by some quantity of people who lead, to be overcome."
"

If intellectuals have it so figured out, why do they produce such a steady stream of nonsense?

You know I'm not going to provide a substantive response to a loaded question.

Well, just think what you no-such-thing-as race folks want the rest of us to swallow, We are expected to believe that the great human racial families lived in almost complete isolation from one another for tens of thousands of years. All that time, evolution was in full effect. Any reasonable person would suppose that such a situation, through external variables and random chance, will develop different, recognizable, identifiable characteristics. And indeed, that's exactly what happened and so here we are all thrown back together again just a few days ago, and you are telling us that he differences we can see with our own eyes--the differences any reasonable person would expect--aren't there. And these are our intellectual betters, who have it all figured out, in whom we should entrust the Republic's future?

 

[usmbguest5318]

you asked him a yes or no question.

those are hard to answer when you carry a minimum of 10 bullets per post.

And he won't be able to answer it, even with all three volumes of his definition. The real world has a way of bowling over elaborate edifices like his definition. Like the college professor who's just winding up a class in which he's proved beyond a shadow of a doubt there's no such thing as race, when a masked gunman runs into the room, presses a pistol against the professor's head and says "You've got one second to tell me the correct number of African-American students you have in this class or you die". "Nine!" the professor shouts immediately and correctly.

Like the college professor who's just winding up a class in which he's proved beyond a shadow of a doubt there's no such thing as race, when a masked gunman runs into the room, presses a pistol against the professor's head and says "You've got one second to tell me the correct number of African-American students you have in this class or you die". "Nine!" the professor shouts immediately and correctly.

Any such professor worth his salt will be equally aware of how others who think there is such a thing as race construe the matter as well as how/why it is that those individuals are mistaken. Accordingly, the professor will be able, as needed, to answer questions from either (or all, in instances where there are more than two sides) perspective. That is why the "professor" in your scenario is able to correctly answer "nine."

That's the way it is with intellectuals. They understand their side of an argument as well as they understand the opposing side; thus they are keenly aware of which side has the greater share of weaknesses, recognizing that greater share may be quantitatively or qualitatively, or a mix of each, determined.

Quite simply it's rare that one overcomes something one doesn't fully understand. Racism is one such thing that requires such a full understanding, at least by some quantity of people who lead, to be overcome.

"thus they are keenly aware of which side has the greater share of weaknesses"

If intellectuals have it so figured out, why do they produce such a steady stream of nonsense? Hmmm....maybe it's not "understanding", as you put it, they are after. White privilege? Race is a social construct? Diversity is our strength? Institutional racism? The Civil War was fought over the price of cotton? The examples of complete bullshit gushing forth from academe are endless. And these are the people of complete "understanding" who you believe should lead lead us? Yikes! You one scary dude.

"Quite simply it's rare that one overcomes something one doesn't fully understand. [especially if it doesn't exist in the first place] Racism is one such thing that requires such a full understanding, at least by some quantity of people who lead, to be overcome."
"

If intellectuals have it so figured out, why do they produce such a steady stream of nonsense?

You know I'm not going to provide a substantive response to a loaded question.

Well, just think what you no-such-thing-as race folks want the rest of us to swallow, We are expected to believe that the great human racial families lived in almost complete isolation from one another for tens of thousands of years. All that time, evolution was in full effect. Any reasonable person would suppose that such a situation, through external variables and random chance, will develop different, recognizable, identifiable characteristics. And indeed, that's exactly what happened and so here we are all thrown back together again just a few days ago, and you are telling us that he differences we can see with our own eyes--the differences any reasonable person would expect--aren't there. And these are our intellectual betters, who have it all figured out, in whom we should entrust the Republic's future?

just think what you no-such-thing-as race folks want the rest of us to swallow,

YOU need to think again. I'm not a "no such thing as race" person. You are the one who, in this line of conversation, introduced that notion in the scenario you presented. I merely responded to your scenario; I did not attest to ascribing to that notion.

 

[DOTR]

YOU need to think again. I'm not a "no such thing as race" person. You are the one who, in this line of conversation, introduced that notion in the scenario you presented. I merely responded to your scenario; I did not attest to ascribing to that notion.

No he didnt. It is accepted liberal theology that there is no such thing as race (unless you are making a TV commercial in which case only very light skinned, Caucasian looking blacks exist). E.O Wilson, the brilliant biologist from Harvard and Duke who wrote "Sociobiology: The New Synthesis" has been heckled, had scalding water poured on him and had leftist students at Harvard block his entry to podiums where he was scheduled to speak...all because of his crime of believing race exists. Stephen Pinkers as well (The Blank Slate...The Language Gene).

Liberals and Marxists are trying to convince normal functioning humans that race does not exist. yes the same people trying to undo the last election. Which means sooner or later you will parrot it if you haven't already.
In addition to being at war with decency you liberals have been at war with nature and reality since Karl Marx.

Stop gaslighting people who notice.

 

[Syriusly]

You mean a traitor like those who attack American soldiers in 1860?

They weren't traitors.

LOL- you call a guy burning an American flag a traitor- but not the Americans shooting Americans soldiers.

How fucked up are you anyway?

Nowhere near as fucked as a pussy like you that gets his panties in a wad over a piece of metal.

You are a coward and a pussy.

LOL- you call a guy burning an American flag a traitor- but not the Americans shooting Americans soldiers.

How fucked up are you anyway?

I'm not the one that's afraid of a statue.

You are terrified of everything- most of all of being honest.

 

[Syriusly]

In SC, those in opposition to the Stars/Bars on the Statehouse dome agreed to a compromise to where it would be placed on Statehouse grounds. As soon as it was put on the grounds, those liars started efforts to have it removed from there.

Liberalism and liberals always have to hide their true agenda. They move forwards in small steps.
For instance:

(1)1980 we dont think homosexuals should be criminals. We arent asking for them to be considered a lifestyle choice or anything.
Ok done.

(2)2000 Ok so maybe they can have civil unions. We arent asking for anything as ridiculous as marriage of course.
Ok done..sigh. Happy?

(3)2015 ok we are going to court top overturn your voice and force your state to marry gays to each other. Come on..its not like we are forcing you to participate.
Ok no...but I see you used force to beat me. Ill just look the other way.

(4)today Bake my fucking gay marriage cake bigot!

View attachment 145870

Contards always have to hide their true agenda- which is of course enforcing their moral beliefs on all others.

• Women shouldn't vote
• Homosexuals should be sent to prison
• Women shouldn't be allowed to use birth control.
• Americans shouldn't be allowed to talk about birth control
• Whites and blacks shouldn't be allowed to marry.
• Whites should be allowed to refuse to rent a room- or bake a cake to blacks.
• No one should go to court to protect their civil rights- except conservatives trying to overturn state gun laws.

 

[usmbguest5318]

YOU need to think again. I'm not a "no such thing as race" person. You are the one who, in this line of conversation, introduced that notion in the scenario you presented. I merely responded to your scenario; I did not attest to ascribing to that notion.

No he didnt. It is accepted liberal theology that there is no such thing as race (unless you are making a TV commercial in which case only very light skinned, Caucasian looking blacks exist). E.O Wilson, the brilliant biologist from Harvard and Duke who wrote "Sociobiology: The New Synthesis" has been heckled, had scalding water poured on him and had leftist students at Harvard block his entry to podiums where he was scheduled to speak...all because of his crime of believing race exists. Stephen Pinkers as well (The Blank Slate...The Language Gene).

Liberals and Marxists are trying to convince normal functioning humans that race does not exist. yes the same people trying to undo the last election. Which means sooner or later you will parrot it if you haven't already.
In addition to being at war with decency you liberals have been at war with nature and reality since Karl Marx.

Stop gaslighting people who notice.


View attachment 145892

View attachment 145893

View attachment 145894

It is accepted liberal theology that there is no such thing as race

And that has what to do with the nature and line of discussion that's transpired thus far between the other member and me?

• He asked me what racism is and I directly and comprehensively answered answered his question.
• He presented a variety of scenarios and asked me about them. I responded directly to his questions.
• Theology is something faiths not political persuasions have.

At no point did I say anything about liberal or conservative. I didn't pass judgment on the liberality or conservativeness of the questions I answered or scenarios about which I responded.

It is accepted liberal theology that there is no such thing as race (unless you are making a TV commercial in which case only very light skinned, Caucasian looking blacks exist).

Oh, dear. I suppose you'll next go down some "road" approximating or related to the "brown paper bag" line? That's a "black thing" that black folks need to resolve within the black community. I think it's absurd that sort of thing is real, but it is and it needs to not be.

I'm not going to say you need to watch more television, but I will say that if you do watch television you must surely have a very narrow assortment of shows you watch, or maybe you "DVR" the shows you watch (I do) and fast-forward through the commercials (I almost always do). Whatever the case, you need to pay closer attention to and see more of the world in which you live if you are going to remark upon it.

• Post Cereal
• 
  
• Revlon
  
  
• Verizon -- I was watching the news as I typed this looked up and just looked up and this was on TV.
  
  
• Progressive Insurance Company
  
  
• Walmart
  
  Ganador
  Shop Fast, Check out Faster | Walmart

Don't take this the wrong way -- and know that I'm writing what follows only because I don't recognize your ID, but I bothered to just now make a mental note of it -- but if you're going to engage with me on a topic (and it's a topic on which I'm willing to engage), you should come with portfolio. Once I start noticing a member consistently to me says off-point, inaccurate and/or inane things, I ignore them. (That may be what some members want, and those who do, I'm happy to oblige. Truly, they need only ask.) I have time, but not time for any of that. I'm not here to be inflammatory, coddled, liked/disliked, agreed or disagreed with, self-aggrandizing, didactic, funny or hyperbolic; I'm here for a few specific reasons, but the preceding are not among them.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Having read about 20% of the above, I find that, although my great grandfather fought for Tennessee from 1862 to 1865, I am opposed to confederate statues on public land, so I hate the United States. That came as quite a surprise to me, because I thought that those who consider the Confederacy a noble cause hated the United States. Hell, I thought that I love America! Damn!

View attachment 145851

And stop with the pretend hero of the marxist revolution stuff. You have chosen to not resist and join the celebrities, corporate ceos, media conglomerates and wealthy democrats. They lead you in a fight for their status quo as they dig in their heels against the election and the change it brought which will upend them and their safe spaces. Rich Silicon Valley CEOs back your every thought and fund the In" crowd. It is the least brave thing you could do. You face no censure or fear of criticism from the media or any government or private power broker. The animals roaming the streets and vandalizing monuments are no threat to you. You are going with the flow...the easy way to be brave while lost in a crowd of knuckledraggers.
And you feel like you are "resisting" something? You couldn't acquiesce more if you tried.

View attachment 145855

View attachment 145856

Is your lover your right hand, or is it your left hand?

 

[DOTR]

YOU need to think again. I'm not a "no such thing as race" person. You are the one who, in this line of conversation, introduced that notion in the scenario you presented. I merely responded to your scenario; I did not attest to ascribing to that notion.

No he didnt. It is accepted liberal theology that there is no such thing as race (unless you are making a TV commercial in which case only very light skinned, Caucasian looking blacks exist). E.O Wilson, the brilliant biologist from Harvard and Duke who wrote "Sociobiology: The New Synthesis" has been heckled, had scalding water poured on him and had leftist students at Harvard block his entry to podiums where he was scheduled to speak...all because of his crime of believing race exists. Stephen Pinkers as well (The Blank Slate...The Language Gene).

Liberals and Marxists are trying to convince normal functioning humans that race does not exist. yes the same people trying to undo the last election. Which means sooner or later you will parrot it if you haven't already.
In addition to being at war with decency you liberals have been at war with nature and reality since Karl Marx.

Stop gaslighting people who notice.


View attachment 145892

View attachment 145893

View attachment 145894

It is accepted liberal theology that there is no such thing as race

And that has what to do with the nature and line of discussion that's transpired thus far between the other member and me?

• He asked me what racism is and I directly and comprehensively answered answered his question.
• He presented a variety of scenarios and asked me about them. I responded directly to his questions.
• Theology is something faiths not political persuasions have.

At no point did I say anything about liberal or conservative. I didn't pass judgment on the liberality or conservativeness of the questions I answered or scenarios about which I responded.

It is accepted liberal theology that there is no such thing as race (unless you are making a TV commercial in which case only very light skinned, Caucasian looking blacks exist).

Oh, dear. I suppose you'll next go down some "road" approximating or related to the "brown paper bag" line? That's a "black thing" that black folks need to resolve within the black community. I think it's absurd that sort of thing is real, but it is and it needs to not be.

I'm not going to say you need to watch more television, but I will say that if you do watch television you must surely have a very narrow assortment of shows you watch, or maybe you "DVR" the shows you watch (I do) and fast-forward through the commercials (I almost always do). Whatever the case, you need to pay closer attention to and see more of the world in which you live if you are going to remark upon it.

• Post Cereal
• 
  
• Revlon
  
  
• Verizon -- I was watching the news as I typed this looked up and just looked up and this was on TV.
  
  
• Progressive Insurance Company
  
  
• Walmart
  
  Ganador
  Shop Fast, Check out Faster | Walmart

Don't take this the wrong way -- and know that I'm writing what follows only because I don't recognize your ID, but I bothered to just now make a mental note of it -- but if you're going to engage with me on a topic (and it's a topic on which I'm willing to engage), you should come with portfolio. Once I start noticing a member consistently to me says off-point, inaccurate and/or inane things, I ignore them. (That may be what some members want, and those who do, I'm happy to oblige. Truly, they need only ask.) I have time, but not time for any of that. I'm not here to be inflammatory, coddled, liked/disliked, agreed or disagreed with, self-aggrandizing, didactic, funny or hyperbolic; I'm here for a few specific reasons, but the preceding are not among them.

"Come with a portfolio" huh? LOL. I have heard it all now.
Just so we are clear you are a repulsive, disgusting mush headed liberal. And as such the old liberal standby "the exception negates the rule" applies to all your thinking. Im not going to go through every silly 8 year old commercial you posted. You cherry picked from daily fare and you did it knowing you are dishonest.
You picked a certain covergirl commercial for instance..when you could have chosen one much more representative of the racism of madison avenue.

The more Caucasian the features the better Madison Avenue likes em. It is noticeable by anyone with the basics of two eyes and a brain. Blacks have been complaining about it for years. Once again you try to gaslight....deny what everyone can see.

Why are blacks in commercials very light skinned and never that dark? Anyone else notice that?

commercials light skinned blacks - Bing video

Some ad agencies openly will only cast light skinned blacks.
Acura NSX Super Bowl Commercial -- Only Light-Skinned Blacks Need Apply
Acura Super Bowl Commercial Wanted Only Light-Skinned Blacks To Apply


Arent you the idiot who tried to deny the push to deny the reality of race? Figures.

 

[usmbguest5318]

YOU need to think again. I'm not a "no such thing as race" person. You are the one who, in this line of conversation, introduced that notion in the scenario you presented. I merely responded to your scenario; I did not attest to ascribing to that notion.

No he didnt. It is accepted liberal theology that there is no such thing as race (unless you are making a TV commercial in which case only very light skinned, Caucasian looking blacks exist). E.O Wilson, the brilliant biologist from Harvard and Duke who wrote "Sociobiology: The New Synthesis" has been heckled, had scalding water poured on him and had leftist students at Harvard block his entry to podiums where he was scheduled to speak...all because of his crime of believing race exists. Stephen Pinkers as well (The Blank Slate...The Language Gene).

Liberals and Marxists are trying to convince normal functioning humans that race does not exist. yes the same people trying to undo the last election. Which means sooner or later you will parrot it if you haven't already.
In addition to being at war with decency you liberals have been at war with nature and reality since Karl Marx.

Stop gaslighting people who notice.


View attachment 145892

View attachment 145893

View attachment 145894

It is accepted liberal theology that there is no such thing as race

And that has what to do with the nature and line of discussion that's transpired thus far between the other member and me?

• He asked me what racism is and I directly and comprehensively answered answered his question.
• He presented a variety of scenarios and asked me about them. I responded directly to his questions.
• Theology is something faiths not political persuasions have.

At no point did I say anything about liberal or conservative. I didn't pass judgment on the liberality or conservativeness of the questions I answered or scenarios about which I responded.

It is accepted liberal theology that there is no such thing as race (unless you are making a TV commercial in which case only very light skinned, Caucasian looking blacks exist).

Oh, dear. I suppose you'll next go down some "road" approximating or related to the "brown paper bag" line? That's a "black thing" that black folks need to resolve within the black community. I think it's absurd that sort of thing is real, but it is and it needs to not be.

I'm not going to say you need to watch more television, but I will say that if you do watch television you must surely have a very narrow assortment of shows you watch, or maybe you "DVR" the shows you watch (I do) and fast-forward through the commercials (I almost always do). Whatever the case, you need to pay closer attention to and see more of the world in which you live if you are going to remark upon it.

• Post Cereal
• 
  
• Revlon
  
  
• Verizon -- I was watching the news as I typed this looked up and just looked up and this was on TV.
  
  
• Progressive Insurance Company
  
  
• Walmart
  
  Ganador
  Shop Fast, Check out Faster | Walmart

Don't take this the wrong way -- and know that I'm writing what follows only because I don't recognize your ID, but I bothered to just now make a mental note of it -- but if you're going to engage with me on a topic (and it's a topic on which I'm willing to engage), you should come with portfolio. Once I start noticing a member consistently to me says off-point, inaccurate and/or inane things, I ignore them. (That may be what some members want, and those who do, I'm happy to oblige. Truly, they need only ask.) I have time, but not time for any of that. I'm not here to be inflammatory, coddled, liked/disliked, agreed or disagreed with, self-aggrandizing, didactic, funny or hyperbolic; I'm here for a few specific reasons, but the preceding are not among them.

"Come with a portfolio" huh? LOL. I have heard it all now.
Just so we are clear you are a repulsive, disgusting mush headed liberal. And as such the old liberal standby "the exception negates the rule" applies to all your thinking. Im not going to go through every silly 8 year old commercial you posted. You cherry picked from daily fare and you did it knowing you are dishonest.
You picked a certain covergirl commercial for instance..when you could have chosen one much more representative of the racism of madison avenue.

View attachment 146017 View attachment 146018 View attachment 146019 View attachment 146020

The more Caucasian the features the better Madison Avenue likes em. It is noticeable by anyone with the basics of two eyes and a brain. Blacks have been complaining about it for years. Once again you try to gaslight....deny what everyone can see.

Why are blacks in commercials very light skinned and never that dark? Anyone else notice that?

commercials light skinned blacks - Bing video

Some ad agencies openly will only cast light skinned blacks.
Acura NSX Super Bowl Commercial -- Only Light-Skinned Blacks Need Apply
Acura Super Bowl Commercial Wanted Only Light-Skinned Blacks To Apply


Arent you the idiot who tried to deny the push to deny the reality of race? Figures.

Preface:

For this post and out of convenience, I've lumped race with ethnicity. I'm aware of the differences between the two and that some of the things I've mentioned are more accurately ethnic "things" than are they race "things."​

Main Post:
First of all, I understand now that the thing you're discussing is the "white washing" of black personages in video and print ads; however, that's not what you wrote. What you wrote is "[in the] making a TV commercial ... only very light skinned, Caucasian looking blacks exist." The "white washing" is real. That only very light skinned blacks exist in commercials is not at all so.

Would it really have been so troublesome for you to have clearly and accurately expressed what you meant by writing "unless you are making a TV commercial in which case only seemingly very light-skinned, Caucasian-looking blacks appear?" Would it have been so burdensome for you instead to have used a qualifying technique similar to the following: "by my observation, unless you are making a TV commercial in which case only very light-skinned, Caucasian-looking blacks exist?"

I recall seeing that Elle cover and to the black woman sitting next to me reading the magazine commenting that the only way Gabby could possibly look that pale is for her to be dead. And frankly, I doubt even then she'd look that pale.

You cherry picked from daily fare and you did it knowing you are dishonest.

Continuing with the above begun theme of my merely reading what you wrote and basing my remarks on your statements....

I'm not being dishonest. You were inaccurate. You are the person who wrote, "unless you are making a TV commercial in which case only very light skinned, Caucasian looking blacks exist." I merely observed that in your statement is the word "only;" thus I didn't have to "cherry pick" at all. One instance of there being a medium brown or dark brown skinned person in a commercial is enough to establish the inaccuracy of your below shown assertion.

unless you are making a TV commercial in which case only very light skinned, Caucasian looking blacks exist

Quite simply, I don't know you and you don't know me, but we both can read what the other writes. I'm sure you've observed that USMB members often write all sorts of things that do not accurately describe that which is extant and yet, judging by the member's remarks, one must accept that the member genuinely believes what they assert is so indeed is so despite it either (1) not being so or (2) there being no credible basis for thinking it is so.​

Arent you the idiot who tried to deny the push to deny the reality of race?

No.

1. I'm not an idiot.
2. I do not deny the existentiality of race, nor do I deny that some people have notions based on what they believe about race.

Race does result in some differences among people. Blacks, for instance, more often than whites suffer from sickle cell anemia. Whites more often than blacks suffer from sun poisoning (melanoma). Those are very real differences that are associated with, perhaps because of, race. There are other differences associated with race. Whites generally have thinner lips than do blacks. Orientals and Native Americans have epicanthic folds that are uncommon among blacks and whites. Those things are what they are -- differences, not bases for one person/race being better or worse in any way than another. Some people make something more of those attributes than what is merited. That some people do is real.

Im not going to go through every silly 8 year old commercial you posted.

I didn't post a collection of eight year-old commercials. Most of them are quite recent. I think the Post Cereal one may possibly be eight years old. I'd have to check. The others, except the one I saw on TV as I wrote that post, were obtained by going to the noted companies' Youtube sites and grabbing them. Those videos are essentially current.

Acura NSX Super Bowl Commercial -- Only Light-Skinned Blacks Need Apply

I wasn't aware that Acura (perhaps its ad agency?) makes such stipulations in some of its casting calls. TY for sharing that information.

Frankly, I think the response given by the person "associated with casting the commercial" is pathetic and dissembling. That individual stated that "one of the reasons for the "not too dark" restriction was because "lighting and special effects would get tricky." There was a time when that statement was accurate from a technical/technology standpoint.

Color film was built for white people. Here's what it did to dark skin.​

These days, AFAIK, unless the filming company is using very old -- ~20 years-old or older -- equipment and film, the lighting issue I'm aware of is that "extreme white washing," as has been done to Beyonce, makes one look like somebody entirely different. To wit, the "white washed" image of Beyonce looks to me more like Uma Thurman with a tan than like Beyonce.

From my college days, I remember that blacks who performed in plays didn't need nearly as much makeup as did whites (notice the folks standing in the center of the photo below). That was largely because the very bright lights didn't "wash out" their features -- much of the detail and three-dimensionality cheeks, brows, lip curves, etc. give to one's face is greatly diminished, which results in a performer's facial expressions, especially the nuanced ones that viewers register subconsciously, being much less apparent -- as it did whites. That is still an issue in ad photoshoots and filming, but it's less an issue with blacks. That said, the lights don't "wash out" blacks to the extent shown in the Beyonce or Gabby photos above.

I say that because when that (L'oreal?) ad was running, someone mentioned it to me and I responded by asking, "What Beyonce ad?" I later told the person that I thought that was Uma Thurman because Beyonce is a black woman, and she's not what some might call "high yellow." Too, even after having a "nose job," Bey's nose is not nearly so aquiline as it appears in the L'oreal ad.

Beyonce before and after her "nose job." No matter her skin tone, she looked like a black woman.

I happen to think Beyonce was pretty enough to have been in a L'oreal makeup ad before and after her plastic surgery. Quite simply, she's never not been a pretty woman.


Aside:

I'm also aware that often when medium-to-dark-skinned blacks appear in ads, a tribal or subservient depiction is commonly the contextual setting and imagery in which they appear. If there's any single depiction of blacks that I find disturbing, it's the ongoing association of being very dark-skinned with being animals, wild, and so on.

​

I would have less, perhaps nothing, to say about that phenomenon -- the perpetuation of stereotypes that, in the days of "separate but equal" and before, served as the supporting "evidence" white supremacists, segregationists, slave holders, etc. used to justify systemic subjugation of blacks -- were it that in my anecdotal observations it struck me that non-blacks, with comparable frequency in ads, were depicted similarly.​