Confederate Statue Removers Are Soldier Haters

[protectionist]

And btw "America's military" has with one voice already condemned this Tiki-Nazi-Dodge Challenger bullshit. So you have no friends.

HA HA HA/ Echoes of the liberal-biased press that has been blasting us with Congressional Republican criticisms of Trump's Charlottesville remarks, all from anti-Trumpers (McCain, Graham, Rubio, Cruz) But not a word about the overwhelming majority of Republicans who support Trump's remarks >>

Most Republicans support President Donald Trump’s claim that both sides were to blame for the violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, according to a SurveyMonkey poll Friday on Axios.

The poll asked if voters agreed with this Trump quote: "You had a group on one side that was bad, and you had a group on the other side that was also very violent."

87 percent of Republican voters agreed and 11 percent disagreed;

• 83 percent of Democrats disagreed and 15 percent agreed;

Poll: Republicans Back Trump on Charlottesville Opinion

 

[Pogo]

And btw "America's military" has with one voice already condemned this Tiki-Nazi-Dodge Challenger bullshit. So you have no friends.

HA HA HA/ Echoes of the liberal-biased press that has been blasting us with Congressional Republican criticisms of Trump's Charlottesville remarks, all from anti-Trumpers (McCain, Graham, Rubio, Cruz) But not a word about the overwhelming majority of Republicans who support Trump's remarks >>

Most Republicans support President Donald Trump’s claim that both sides were to blame for the violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, according to a SurveyMonkey poll Friday on Axios.

The poll asked if voters agreed with this Trump quote: "You had a group on one side that was bad, and you had a group on the other side that was also very violent."

87 percent of Republican voters agreed and 11 percent disagreed;

• 83 percent of Democrats disagreed and 15 percent agreed;

Poll: Republicans Back Trump on Charlottesville Opinion

Off topic. Reported.

 

[Pogo]

Exactly -- and that was the whole point of the Lost Cause revisionists like the Daughters of the Confederacy that put most of these monuments up. Part of the history revision to whitewash the Confederacy's image required influencing history education and popular culture, and a tool of doing of that is placing revisionist monuments in public places where they would attract high traffic and be lent an air of "legitimacy" by an "official" building. And another part is hiding that revisionism behind soldiers. In short they were a propaganda device. Just as "Birth of a Nation" was.

Apparently that propaganda can still fool some of the people with that even a hundred years on.

The first monuments of that War, before the Lost Cause started up, were placed in cemeteries and battlefields. Where they belong if they truly are what they claim to be.

This is a great point.

Hands off the soldiers. Period!

Once again, wacknut --- I listed six attacked/removed/defaced/despised monuments of this same propaganda group, NONE of which are soldiers. I then asked if you intended to suggest that they're all attacked/removed/defaced/despised for some other reasons. And you ran away. Just as you ran away from your assertion that I 'want to remove statues'. Because you can't do it.

That's because these monuments do not have "soldiers" in common. What they DO all have in common is Lost Cause revsionism, born of the 'golden age of white supremacy' era. And there's nothing you can do about that, because it's recorded history.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Wow. You're really grasping at straws aren't you? I'm retired military and I see no problem with removing the statues. They are soldiers sure, but they are soldiers who LOST the Civil War. Why do you want to celebrate losers?

They served with honor - win or lose. You don't know that ?

And they served in the Mexican-American War also (1846-1848), and many other years after.

Wrong.

You’re attempting – and failing – to conflate military service with political ideology.

The statues and monuments are political speech, having nothing to do with military service, or when or where one might have served in the military.

And as a fact of Constitutional law local jurisdictions are authorized to remove those statues and monuments, in no manner ‘dishonoring’ soldiers or military service.

 

[emilynghiem]

They don't date from the Civil War or just-after. They date from the turn of the century, the period of this country's worst nadir of bigotry, racism, lynchings, Jim Crow, the resurrection of the Klan, "Birth of a Nation", race rioting and rampant discrimination. All branches of the same tree, all there to serve the cause of White Supremacy.

. Shall we now "defend" the other expressions of the time and bring back the Klan? "Colored" public water fountains? Ban blacks from baseball?

Dear Pogo THIS is where I THOUGHT you were equating "expressions," as in either the statues themselves or free speech of nationalists defending them, with ACTIONS like Klan or segregating fountains or bans based on race.

If you did not mean removal of historic statues or monuments I apologise for misreading this as the "expressions" you oppose and "we're afraid to go back to."

But Pogo if you call to diminish the expression of people petitioning to save the monuments, they WILL get sacrificed to the more vocal pressure to take them down or move them. That's what I mean to question: what did you mean then by not wanting to go back to these expressions? I understand not wanting to justification the actions, but if ppl want to keep the historic statues as expressions that isn't necessarily the same thing. As others pointed out Lee and others accomplished other historic achievements and not just the negative things you list.

If you are only going to allow expressions of ppl with perfect flawless pasts, that's what I mean - then anyone and everyone can be "taken down" by someone if you appease and listen to all critics equally in order to be fair. If you are going to pick and choose Pogo which "expressions" to allow or disallow, WHOSE criteria are you going to use to decide?

Pogo Id Rather these decisions regarding historic preservation be made by consensus of experts based on Wisdom and Understanding, not anger and rejection which isn't objectivr. Let's make decisions together with good will not ill will or hateful distrust.

 

[JQPublic1]

Exactly -- and that was the whole point of the Lost Cause revisionists like the Daughters of the Confederacy that put most of these monuments up. Part of the history revision to whitewash the Confederacy's image required influencing history education and popular culture, and a tool of doing of that is placing revisionist monuments in public places where they would attract high traffic and be lent an air of "legitimacy" by an "official" building. And another part is hiding that revisionism behind soldiers. In short they were a propaganda device. Just as "Birth of a Nation" was.

Apparently that propaganda can still fool some of the people with that even a hundred years on.

The first monuments of that War, before the Lost Cause started up, were placed in cemeteries and battlefields. Where they belong if they truly are what they claim to be.

This is a great point.

Hands off the soldiers. Period!

Poor thing, you don't even know the difference between real soldiers and statues. Besides Generals can indeed be called soldiers but the definition usually applies to the foot soldier in the field. Likewise airmen and navy personnel aren't called soldiers arguably, though, Confederate and Union generals were in the field with their soldiers so technically they were soldiers. Still... to give honor to traitors
Gives license for some to proclaim militantly that the South shall rise again.
That thinly veiled threat should be taken seriously. Removing statues of traitors from public property is the first step to
healing the deep wounds they helped to create. I doubt if they would have been so gracious with the folks wanting to erect statues of Union generals if the South had won.

 

[emilynghiem]

Wow. You're really grasping at straws aren't you? I'm retired military and I see no problem with removing the statues. They are soldiers sure, but they are soldiers who LOST the Civil War. Why do you want to celebrate losers?

They served with honor - win or lose. You don't know that ?

And they served in the Mexican-American War also (1846-1848), and many other years after.

Wrong.

You’re attempting – and failing – to conflate military service with political ideology.

The statues and monuments are political speech, having nothing to do with military service, or when or where one might have served in the military.

And as a fact of Constitutional law local jurisdictions are authorized to remove those statues and monuments, in no manner ‘dishonoring’ soldiers or military service.

Dear C_Clayton_Jones
It depends if the monuments are registered as State or National historic landmarks.
Federal laws on historic preservation call for a Section 106 Review process
to assess the historic significance, and if this would be diminished by removing, altering or demolishing the landmark.

Of course, the norm has been for govt entities to bypass and ignore these regulations
all together. They have stalled on historic designation, and even competed with preservationist
to destroy the landmark before it could be preserved. The cases I saw involved govt deliberately
"laundering" sites through private buyers and sellers, so the process could be bypassed to
destroy the history, then flip the blank land back to the govt without the structures that would have required review.

Clearly the only way to preserve the history is to buy the land that it is on
for a trust or preservation group. That was the final resolution in the case
of a Cross in San Diego that was the subject of a long legal battle to
remove it. Since it had historic value that the preservationists wanted to save,
they ended up raising money for a private entity to buy the property to end the dispute.
But not without a fight, the opposition even sued to stop that sale, arguing
the govt was still enabling or favoring a religious organization in preserving the cross instead of removing it.

You are right about this being about "political" speech, or "political" protests and beliefs.
It looks like the Constitutionalists are right, and the more you keep ownership
among the people first, before the States and before the Federal govt last,
then you retain MAXIMUM freedom and liberty and control by the people directly.

This is the reason for that argument. To avoid abuse of collective govt authority for
political exclusion or oppression between the beliefs of one side or another which is arbitrary, leave private decisions and conflicts to private citizens,
and keep the state and federal govt for public policy only,
not arbitrary values and relative interpretations that vary and will change.

 

[Pogo]

They don't date from the Civil War or just-after. They date from the turn of the century, the period of this country's worst nadir of bigotry, racism, lynchings, Jim Crow, the resurrection of the Klan, "Birth of a Nation", race rioting and rampant discrimination. All branches of the same tree, all there to serve the cause of White Supremacy.

. Shall we now "defend" the other expressions of the time and bring back the Klan? "Colored" public water fountains? Ban blacks from baseball?

Dear Pogo THIS is where I THOUGHT you were equating "expressions," as in either the statues themselves or free speech of nationalists defending them, with ACTIONS like Klan or segregating fountains or bans based on race.

If you did not mean removal of historic statues or monuments I apologise for misreading this as the "expressions" you oppose and "we're afraid to go back to."

But Pogo if you call to diminish the expression of people petitioning to save the monuments, they WILL get sacrificed to the more vocal pressure to take them down or move them. That's what I mean to question: what did you mean then by not wanting to go back to these expressions? I understand not wanting to justification the actions, but if ppl want to keep the historic statues as expressions that isn't necessarily the same thing. As others pointed out Lee and others accomplished other historic achievements and not just the negative things you list.

If you are only going to allow expressions of ppl with perfect flawless pasts, that's what I mean - then anyone and everyone can be "taken down" by someone if you appease and listen to all critics equally in order to be fair. If you are going to pick and choose Pogo which "expressions" to allow or disallow, WHOSE criteria are you going to use to decide?

Pogo Id Rather these decisions regarding historic preservation be made by consensus of experts based on Wisdom and Understanding, not anger and rejection which isn't objectivr. Let's make decisions together with good will not ill will or hateful distrust.

Sigh... Emily Emily Emily. You have a real knack for taking an idea and making a complete spaghetti sandwich out of it. It's like trying to navigate a New Jersey traffic circle.

REAL basically here -- the thread title claims a causation. That causation is articulated as "statue removers are soldier haters", or IOW people are removing statues "because they hate soldiers".

Right? We on the same page so far?

What I did was challenge that causation theory, pointing out a more authentic causation, backing up that more authentic causation (call it the "Lost Cause Revisionism) with the reasoning quoted directly from a statue-remover and lots of historical context. I then augmented it with several examples of monuments that are not soldiers at all, but DO emanate from my same Lost Cause Revisionism argument -- thus "soldiers" is not held in common with these monuments, but Lost Cause Revisionism IS.

ALL of that is examination of the question "why are they removing statues". NONE of that takes a position where I advocate actually doing it.

Again, you can search threads about the New Orleans monuments or the Confederate flag hysteria that spiked right after Dylann Roof --- and you won't find me advocating removal of those artifacts either.

Explaining what's behind an action, and actually taking that action, are two different things.

Again I don't care if statues or monuments or flags stay or go. Their presence or absence means nothing, and I don't believe in idolatry anyway. What I do see is an opportunity to learn some history. Those who fail to do that are doomed to repeat it, and from all appearances it seems we are in the process of doing just that.

And goofball distractors like the OP are the camp trying to keep us from that learning. He's already threatened to "report" me and told another poster to shut up, so it's pretty clear who's trying to shut this down and push his own propaganda.

 

[Pogo]

Wow. You're really grasping at straws aren't you? I'm retired military and I see no problem with removing the statues. They are soldiers sure, but they are soldiers who LOST the Civil War. Why do you want to celebrate losers?

They served with honor - win or lose. You don't know that ?

And they served in the Mexican-American War also (1846-1848), and many other years after.

Wrong.

You’re attempting – and failing – to conflate military service with political ideology.

The statues and monuments are political speech, having nothing to do with military service, or when or where one might have served in the military.

And as a fact of Constitutional law local jurisdictions are authorized to remove those statues and monuments, in no manner ‘dishonoring’ soldiers or military service.

Dear C_Clayton_Jones
It depends if the monuments are registered as State or National historic landmarks.
Federal laws on historic preservation call for a Section 106 Review process
to assess the historic significance, and if this would be diminished by removing, altering or demolishing the landmark.

Of course, the norm has been for govt entities to bypass and ignore these regulations
all together. They have stalled on historic designation, and even competed with preservationist
to destroy the landmark before it could be preserved. The cases I saw involved govt deliberately
"laundering" sites through private buyers and sellers, so the process could be bypassed to
destroy the history, then flip the blank land back to the govt without the structures that would have required review.

Clearly the only way to preserve the history is to buy the land that it is on
for a trust or preservation group. That was the final resolution in the case
of a Cross in San Diego that was the subject of a long legal battle to
remove it. Since it had historic value that the preservationists wanted to save,
they ended up raising money for a private entity to buy the property to end the dispute.
But not without a fight, the opposition even sued to stop that sale, arguing
the govt was still enabling or favoring a religious organization in preserving the cross instead of removing it.

You are right about this being about "political" speech, or "political" protests and beliefs.
It looks like the Constitutionalists are right, and the more you keep ownership
among the people first, before the States and before the Federal govt last,
then you retain MAXIMUM freedom and liberty and control by the people directly.

This is the reason for that argument. To avoid abuse of collective govt authority for
political exclusion or oppression between the beliefs of one side or another which is arbitrary, leave private decisions and conflicts to private citizens,
and keep the state and federal govt for public policy only,
not arbitrary values and relative interpretations that vary and will change.

You seem to be entirely focused on inanimate objects. My point is --- what is behind their very existence.
Because that's where the meaning is.

 

[emilynghiem]

Wow. You're really grasping at straws aren't you? I'm retired military and I see no problem with removing the statues. They are soldiers sure, but they are soldiers who LOST the Civil War. Why do you want to celebrate losers?

They served with honor - win or lose. You don't know that ?

And they served in the Mexican-American War also (1846-1848), and many other years after.

Wrong.

You’re attempting – and failing – to conflate military service with political ideology.

The statues and monuments are political speech, having nothing to do with military service, or when or where one might have served in the military.

And as a fact of Constitutional law local jurisdictions are authorized to remove those statues and monuments, in no manner ‘dishonoring’ soldiers or military service.

Dear C_Clayton_Jones
It depends if the monuments are registered as State or National historic landmarks.
Federal laws on historic preservation call for a Section 106 Review process
to assess the historic significance, and if this would be diminished by removing, altering or demolishing the landmark.

Of course, the norm has been for govt entities to bypass and ignore these regulations
all together. They have stalled on historic designation, and even competed with preservationist
to destroy the landmark before it could be preserved. The cases I saw involved govt deliberately
"laundering" sites through private buyers and sellers, so the process could be bypassed to
destroy the history, then flip the blank land back to the govt without the structures that would have required review.

Clearly the only way to preserve the history is to buy the land that it is on
for a trust or preservation group. That was the final resolution in the case
of a Cross in San Diego that was the subject of a long legal battle to
remove it. Since it had historic value that the preservationists wanted to save,
they ended up raising money for a private entity to buy the property to end the dispute.
But not without a fight, the opposition even sued to stop that sale, arguing
the govt was still enabling or favoring a religious organization in preserving the cross instead of removing it.

You are right about this being about "political" speech, or "political" protests and beliefs.
It looks like the Constitutionalists are right, and the more you keep ownership
among the people first, before the States and before the Federal govt last,
then you retain MAXIMUM freedom and liberty and control by the people directly.

This is the reason for that argument. To avoid abuse of collective govt authority for
political exclusion or oppression between the beliefs of one side or another which is arbitrary, leave private decisions and conflicts to private citizens,
and keep the state and federal govt for public policy only,
not arbitrary values and relative interpretations that vary and will change.

You seem to be entirely focused on inanimate objects. My point is --- what is behind their very existence.
Because that's where the meaning is.

Dear Pogo that's the problem. If people assign different meanings
because they come from different contexts, you are not going to get just one answer.
The problem comes from trying to demean one side for the other.
Why not accept and embrace both as two sides of the same story.
That's more accurate; or if both sides are saying the OTHER is revising it,
then there are FOUR sides to the story. Let's include them all, then.
That's more fair to what is culturally and politically going on here.

When the historians get together for re-enactments of the Battle at San Jacinto,
they know the soldiers and supporters on both sides saw their own fighters as the heroes.
So they include all this in the historic narrative together.

The Tejano community, the Texas and national historians all coordinate
these educational memorial events together. It's all positive, to be
able to teach from history and appreciate where we are today.

We know the two sides saw it from their own perspective.
And that doesn't change the fact that we commemorate and
keep the historic artifacts, regalia, etc. as part of that war history.

 

[Pogo]

Wow. You're really grasping at straws aren't you? I'm retired military and I see no problem with removing the statues. They are soldiers sure, but they are soldiers who LOST the Civil War. Why do you want to celebrate losers?

They served with honor - win or lose. You don't know that ?

And they served in the Mexican-American War also (1846-1848), and many other years after.

Wrong.

You’re attempting – and failing – to conflate military service with political ideology.

The statues and monuments are political speech, having nothing to do with military service, or when or where one might have served in the military.

And as a fact of Constitutional law local jurisdictions are authorized to remove those statues and monuments, in no manner ‘dishonoring’ soldiers or military service.

Dear C_Clayton_Jones
It depends if the monuments are registered as State or National historic landmarks.
Federal laws on historic preservation call for a Section 106 Review process
to assess the historic significance, and if this would be diminished by removing, altering or demolishing the landmark.

Of course, the norm has been for govt entities to bypass and ignore these regulations
all together. They have stalled on historic designation, and even competed with preservationist
to destroy the landmark before it could be preserved. The cases I saw involved govt deliberately
"laundering" sites through private buyers and sellers, so the process could be bypassed to
destroy the history, then flip the blank land back to the govt without the structures that would have required review.

Clearly the only way to preserve the history is to buy the land that it is on
for a trust or preservation group. That was the final resolution in the case
of a Cross in San Diego that was the subject of a long legal battle to
remove it. Since it had historic value that the preservationists wanted to save,
they ended up raising money for a private entity to buy the property to end the dispute.
But not without a fight, the opposition even sued to stop that sale, arguing
the govt was still enabling or favoring a religious organization in preserving the cross instead of removing it.

You are right about this being about "political" speech, or "political" protests and beliefs.
It looks like the Constitutionalists are right, and the more you keep ownership
among the people first, before the States and before the Federal govt last,
then you retain MAXIMUM freedom and liberty and control by the people directly.

This is the reason for that argument. To avoid abuse of collective govt authority for
political exclusion or oppression between the beliefs of one side or another which is arbitrary, leave private decisions and conflicts to private citizens,
and keep the state and federal govt for public policy only,
not arbitrary values and relative interpretations that vary and will change.

You seem to be entirely focused on inanimate objects. My point is --- what is behind their very existence.
Because that's where the meaning is.

Dear Pogo that's the problem. If people assign different meanings
because they come from different contexts, you are not going to get just one answer.
The problem comes from trying to demean one side for the other.
Why not accept and embrace both as two sides of the same story.
That's more accurate; or if both sides are saying the OTHER is revising it,
then there are FOUR sides to the story. Let's include them all, then.
That's more fair to what is culturally and politically going on here.

When the historians get together for re-enactments of the Battle at San Jacinto,
they know the soldiers and supporters on both sides saw their own fighters as the heroes.
So they include all this in the historic narrative together.

The Tejano community, the Texas and national historians all coordinate
these educational memorial events together. It's all positive, to be
able to teach from history and appreciate where we are today.

We know the two sides saw it from their own perspective.
And that doesn't change the fact that we commemorate and
keep the historic artifacts, regalia, etc. as part of that war history.

Whelp --- still sounds like you didn't read a damn thing I wrote, at all, since the point is still flying over your head.

SMH

 

[MindWars]

The mayors, governors, and other politicians who are calling for, and removing statues of former military generals, are soldier haters - pure & simple. Example - in Baltimore, statues of Robert E. Lee and Thomas Stonewall" Jackson were removed in the middle of the night, the mayor knowing there would be anger and opposition. So much for representitive government.

These actions are a disgrace, and an abusive insult to every soldier serving in the military, and every military veteran in America (if not the whole world). The often heard (idiotic) excuse that the statues represent hate, racism, and bigotry, is ludicrous, and an insult to everyone's intelligence.

The mayor of Tampa, Florida, Bob Buckhorn has said this same thing, and even donated $1,000 to have a Civil War monument removed, which has statues of 2 low ranked soldiers in it. Problem with the mayor's ridiculous excuse, is that whatever racism or bigotry existed, it came from POLITICIANS. But statues being removed in Tampa, Charlottesville, Lexington, KY and other places, are not of politicians. They are statues of SOLDIERS. They were people who made no policies of any kind. They simply followed orders, and did the toughest job anyone could do. Many lost their lives. They had nothing to do with the policies of slavery, secession, confederacy, etc. In fact, many of these soldiers (especially the generals) served in the military for many years before the Civil War even started.

These statue removals are despicable acts perpetrated by military and soldier haters, most of whom never served themselves. They are dishonoring these fine, courageous heroes, who went to war, defending their states, counties, and towns from attackers. These governors, mayors, etc should be voted out of office, or recalled if possible. Soldier haters have no business to be holding political office.

For every one of these soldiers whose statues are removed, 3 of theirs should be put up in response. Make the statue removing, soldier haters pay for their bad behavior.

Just out tonight :

WATCH LIVE: University of Texas removing Confederate statues from campus. STORY: http://bit.ly/2x52djq

 

[emilynghiem]

They served with honor - win or lose. You don't know that ?

And they served in the Mexican-American War also (1846-1848), and many other years after.

Wrong.

You’re attempting – and failing – to conflate military service with political ideology.

The statues and monuments are political speech, having nothing to do with military service, or when or where one might have served in the military.

And as a fact of Constitutional law local jurisdictions are authorized to remove those statues and monuments, in no manner ‘dishonoring’ soldiers or military service.

Dear C_Clayton_Jones
It depends if the monuments are registered as State or National historic landmarks.
Federal laws on historic preservation call for a Section 106 Review process
to assess the historic significance, and if this would be diminished by removing, altering or demolishing the landmark.

Of course, the norm has been for govt entities to bypass and ignore these regulations
all together. They have stalled on historic designation, and even competed with preservationist
to destroy the landmark before it could be preserved. The cases I saw involved govt deliberately
"laundering" sites through private buyers and sellers, so the process could be bypassed to
destroy the history, then flip the blank land back to the govt without the structures that would have required review.

Clearly the only way to preserve the history is to buy the land that it is on
for a trust or preservation group. That was the final resolution in the case
of a Cross in San Diego that was the subject of a long legal battle to
remove it. Since it had historic value that the preservationists wanted to save,
they ended up raising money for a private entity to buy the property to end the dispute.
But not without a fight, the opposition even sued to stop that sale, arguing
the govt was still enabling or favoring a religious organization in preserving the cross instead of removing it.

You are right about this being about "political" speech, or "political" protests and beliefs.
It looks like the Constitutionalists are right, and the more you keep ownership
among the people first, before the States and before the Federal govt last,
then you retain MAXIMUM freedom and liberty and control by the people directly.

This is the reason for that argument. To avoid abuse of collective govt authority for
political exclusion or oppression between the beliefs of one side or another which is arbitrary, leave private decisions and conflicts to private citizens,
and keep the state and federal govt for public policy only,
not arbitrary values and relative interpretations that vary and will change.

You seem to be entirely focused on inanimate objects. My point is --- what is behind their very existence.
Because that's where the meaning is.

Dear Pogo that's the problem. If people assign different meanings
because they come from different contexts, you are not going to get just one answer.
The problem comes from trying to demean one side for the other.
Why not accept and embrace both as two sides of the same story.
That's more accurate; or if both sides are saying the OTHER is revising it,
then there are FOUR sides to the story. Let's include them all, then.
That's more fair to what is culturally and politically going on here.

When the historians get together for re-enactments of the Battle at San Jacinto,
they know the soldiers and supporters on both sides saw their own fighters as the heroes.
So they include all this in the historic narrative together.

The Tejano community, the Texas and national historians all coordinate
these educational memorial events together. It's all positive, to be
able to teach from history and appreciate where we are today.

We know the two sides saw it from their own perspective.
And that doesn't change the fact that we commemorate and
keep the historic artifacts, regalia, etc. as part of that war history.

Whelp --- still sounds like you didn't read a damn thing I wrote, at all, since the point is still flying over your head.

SMH

Dear Pogo Where you lost me is trying to justify dismissing or discrediting someone or an entire sector of history because of past violations or flaws.

That's like trying to diminish or dismiss American history because we are the only nation to drop atomic bombs and annihilate thousands of people, including innocent civilians, based on their nationality. We can be blamed for starting the whole trend of defenses based on who has more nukes.

Does the US claiming Hawaii by military force give us the right to destroy Hawaiian heritage and their culture and beliefs just because they lost their land to military takeover?

Are Christians justified in condemning ALL pagan and Wicca practitioners, because of abuses of occult practices that enable certain cult, drug or gang related crimes. How did the left suddenly trade places with the right (blamed for censoring and burning books) and start the liberal version of the witchhunt business?

If statues were set up to preserve Southern culture and Confederate history, sure there will be bad along with good. We can't put up statues of Clinton and Bush without people arguing they committed crimes, too.

(Pogo as for rape at universities, there are campaigns going on TODAY against rape by athletic recruiters setting up sex parties where the rapes and abuse are covered up. Of course that means we should denounce and stop these rapes and abuses that are like a form of trafficking. But we need to work WITH the officials and administrators, we need to work WITH the men responsible to change and cure the problems.
Just denouncing people isn't enough to cure the cause. That's
convenient for the fingerpointers but doesn't solve the real root of it.
I'd say if we really care to stop slavery and stop rape by church, school or state officials, we should do more about WHAT'S GOING ON TODAY - not just point at people in the past "for political convenience" And then FIGHT over whether Clinton or Kennedy were ever called out. We should focus on where we can stop rape and slavery TODAY, would you agree, Pogo?

It's not that I don't hear or care what you say, Pogo, and I apologize if I look like that, but I just hear there's a bigger problem out there behind all the cries against racism, slavery, etc. that's calling us, and this isn't it.

I understand some of these statues were set up to intimidate Blacks because of the fear in the South after Emancipation.

I am just curious why only the Whites and Blacks and other citizens who are insulted or offended by these monuments and memorials get to push their narrative and get their way in policy decisions, while the Whites and Blacks who aren't offended by this history but have forgiven it in order to teach from it, and would rather preserve what we have while pushing for progress in the present and future don't get to be heard and considered equally.

I'd much rather spend the resources restoring Freedmen's Town as a POSITIVE landmark to Freed Slave history instead of wasting resources tearing down other people or sites.

That's where I'm coming from Pogo.
I've only seen more negative come from negative, and watched BLACK CHURCH HISTORY get destroyed from this shame/blame approach.

What I saw bring people together to rebuild was a forgiving understanding UPLIFTING approach to celebrate history together, and not divide and spread ill will biased one way or another.

I'd rather approach the points you want to make Pogo
in that POSITIVE environment instead of a divisive one.
or you're right, we will keep "talking past each other" where I
don't feel you are fully hearing what I am saying either.

Sorry about that, and let's wait for the clouds and "eclipse" to pass so we can see and hear each other more clearly. I think the current environment is too clouded, so let that clear out first. Thanks.

 

[Pogo]

Dear Pogo Where you lost me is trying to justify dismissing or discrediting someone or an entire sector of history because of past violations or flaws.

This is exactly what I mean by your not reading anything I'm writing. Because I never made such a point, and it has nothing to do with what I DID write.

And yet you take off running with this assumption to all sorts of places that have nothing to do with my points.

You need to learn to read what's actually on the page and not what you simply assume is coming because you weren't listening. I suggest you scroll back to the beginning, start over, and WAIT to make up your response until AFTER you've read it --- not before.

 

[protectionist]

Y

The mayors, governors, and other politicians who are calling for, and removing statues of former military generals, are soldier haters - pure & simple. Example - in Baltimore, statues of Robert E. Lee and Thomas Stonewall" Jackson were removed in the middle of the night, the mayor knowing there would be anger and opposition. So much for representitive government.

These actions are a disgrace, and an abusive insult to every soldier serving in the military, and every military veteran in America (if not the whole world). The often heard (idiotic) excuse that the statues represent hate, racism, and bigotry, is ludicrous, and an insult to everyone's intelligence.

The mayor of Tampa, Florida, Bob Buckhorn has said this same thing, and even donated $1,000 to have a Civil War monument removed, which has statues of 2 low ranked soldiers in it. Problem with the mayor's ridiculous excuse, is that whatever racism or bigotry existed, it came from POLITICIANS. But statues being removed in Tampa, Charlottesville, Lexington, KY and other places, are not of politicians. They are statues of SOLDIERS. They were people who made no policies of any kind. They simply followed orders, and did the toughest job anyone could do. Many lost their lives. They had nothing to do with the policies of slavery, secession, confederacy, etc. In fact, many of these soldiers (especially the generals) served in the military for many years before the Civil War even started.

These statue removals are despicable acts perpetrated by military and soldier haters, most of whom never served themselves. They are dishonoring these fine, courageous heroes, who went to war, defending their states, counties, and towns from attackers. These governors, mayors, etc should be voted out of office, or recalled if possible. Soldier haters have no business to be holding political office.

For every one of these soldiers whose statues are removed, 3 of theirs should be put up in response. Make the statue removing, soldier haters pay for their bad behavior.

Just out tonight :

WATCH LIVE: University of Texas removing Confederate statues from campus. STORY: http://bit.ly/2x52djq

They'll all be going back to their original places. SCOTUS will confirm that.

 

[Syriusly]

The mayors, governors, and other politicians who are calling for, and removing statues of former military generals, are soldier haters - pure & simple.

No- not as if they are going around attacking John McCain and his war record.

Now those are the soldier haters.

 

[Syriusly]

Every soldier and veteran in America should be up in arms over these disgraceful dishonorings - and they probably are, but the MSM won't cover that.

Here is the type of statue that protectionist is pissed off that was removed:

New Orleans Begins Removing Confederate Monuments, Under Police Guard

Workers dismantled an obelisk, which was erected in 1891 to honor members of the Crescent City White League who in 1874 fought in the Reconstruction-era Battle of Liberty Place against the racially integrated New Orleans police and state militia, Mayor Mitch Landrieu said in a statement.

The monument, which was sometimes used as a rallying point by David Duke and the Ku Klux Klan, has stirred debate for decades. Local leaders unsuccessfully tried to remove it in 1981 and 1993.

 

[Syriusly]

Y

The mayors, governors, and other politicians who are calling for, and removing statues of former military generals, are soldier haters - pure & simple. Example - in Baltimore, statues of Robert E. Lee and Thomas Stonewall" Jackson were removed in the middle of the night, the mayor knowing there would be anger and opposition. So much for representitive government.

These actions are a disgrace, and an abusive insult to every soldier serving in the military, and every military veteran in America (if not the whole world). The often heard (idiotic) excuse that the statues represent hate, racism, and bigotry, is ludicrous, and an insult to everyone's intelligence.

The mayor of Tampa, Florida, Bob Buckhorn has said this same thing, and even donated $1,000 to have a Civil War monument removed, which has statues of 2 low ranked soldiers in it. Problem with the mayor's ridiculous excuse, is that whatever racism or bigotry existed, it came from POLITICIANS. But statues being removed in Tampa, Charlottesville, Lexington, KY and other places, are not of politicians. They are statues of SOLDIERS. They were people who made no policies of any kind. They simply followed orders, and did the toughest job anyone could do. Many lost their lives. They had nothing to do with the policies of slavery, secession, confederacy, etc. In fact, many of these soldiers (especially the generals) served in the military for many years before the Civil War even started.

These statue removals are despicable acts perpetrated by military and soldier haters, most of whom never served themselves. They are dishonoring these fine, courageous heroes, who went to war, defending their states, counties, and towns from attackers. These governors, mayors, etc should be voted out of office, or recalled if possible. Soldier haters have no business to be holding political office.

For every one of these soldiers whose statues are removed, 3 of theirs should be put up in response. Make the statue removing, soldier haters pay for their bad behavior.

Just out tonight :

WATCH LIVE: University of Texas removing Confederate statues from campus. STORY: http://bit.ly/2x52djq

They'll all be going back to their original places. SCOTUS will confirm that.

LOL- tell us your fantasy of how and why the Supreme Court will order the University of Texas to put its Confederate statues back up?

Please- your fantasies are always so amusing.

 

[Syriusly]

Just pointing out- that the OP- protectionist- is the same whackadoodle that attacked John McCain for his military service.

Because protectionist cares so much about honoring soldiers......

 

[protectionist]

Y

The mayors, governors, and other politicians who are calling for, and removing statues of former military generals, are soldier haters - pure & simple. Example - in Baltimore, statues of Robert E. Lee and Thomas Stonewall" Jackson were removed in the middle of the night, the mayor knowing there would be anger and opposition. So much for representitive government.

These actions are a disgrace, and an abusive insult to every soldier serving in the military, and every military veteran in America (if not the whole world). The often heard (idiotic) excuse that the statues represent hate, racism, and bigotry, is ludicrous, and an insult to everyone's intelligence.

The mayor of Tampa, Florida, Bob Buckhorn has said this same thing, and even donated $1,000 to have a Civil War monument removed, which has statues of 2 low ranked soldiers in it. Problem with the mayor's ridiculous excuse, is that whatever racism or bigotry existed, it came from POLITICIANS. But statues being removed in Tampa, Charlottesville, Lexington, KY and other places, are not of politicians. They are statues of SOLDIERS. They were people who made no policies of any kind. They simply followed orders, and did the toughest job anyone could do. Many lost their lives. They had nothing to do with the policies of slavery, secession, confederacy, etc. In fact, many of these soldiers (especially the generals) served in the military for many years before the Civil War even started.

These statue removals are despicable acts perpetrated by military and soldier haters, most of whom never served themselves. They are dishonoring these fine, courageous heroes, who went to war, defending their states, counties, and towns from attackers. These governors, mayors, etc should be voted out of office, or recalled if possible. Soldier haters have no business to be holding political office.

For every one of these soldiers whose statues are removed, 3 of theirs should be put up in response. Make the statue removing, soldier haters pay for their bad behavior.

Just out tonight :

WATCH LIVE: University of Texas removing Confederate statues from campus. STORY: http://bit.ly/2x52djq

They'll all be going back to their original places. SCOTUS will confirm that.

LOL- tell us your fantasy of how and why the Supreme Court will order the University of Texas to put its Confederate statues back up?

Please- your fantasies are always so amusing.

Just pointing out- that the OP- protectionist- is the same whackadoodle that attacked John McCain for his military service.

Because protectionist cares so much about honoring soldiers......