Erasing History

[Skylar]

Absolute unmitigated Boshoi. The Civil War still echoes in the present. Dramatically. It will never be forgotten, not in any of our lifetimes. And that's equally true whether monuments exist or not.

Again --- monuments are not history books. Nor should they be.

Then it appears we can defund tax dollars for the arts at all levels of government since there's no point in paying someone to create a thing to be destroyed by the emotional societal swings of future generations.

*****SMILE*****

So unless all art ever created is eternal and never changes....there's no point in art existing?

Holy shit, dude. Pout much?

Who says it won't exist?????

I'm sure private fund raisers and charities will provide a plentiful environment for the arts without government support for future generations of emotional societal drama to enact destruction upon.

Overdramatize much?

*****CHUCKLE*****

Or, we don't through a little temper tantrum and nix all public art forever....because a piece you like is being taken down.

Life is change. Take a breath and learn to think a little more laterally.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Humans have done this throughout history.

The Egyptians are notorious for taking chisels and hacking the name or likeness of a Pharoah that was out of favor when he died. One time a woman took the thrown and dressed as a man, but when she died they got busy erasing her from all the monuments she put up.

And Marxists have made it one of the few things they're good at along with murdering millions of people, lying and abusing government power.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Absolute unmitigated Boshoi. The Civil War still echoes in the present. Dramatically. It will never be forgotten, not in any of our lifetimes. And that's equally true whether monuments exist or not.

Again --- monuments are not history books. Nor should they be.

Then it appears we can defund tax dollars for the arts at all levels of government since there's no point in paying someone to create a thing to be destroyed by the emotional societal swings of future generations.

*****SMILE*****

So unless all art ever created is eternal and never changes....there's no point in art existing?

Holy shit, dude. Pout much?

Who says it won't exist?????

I'm sure private fund raisers and charities will provide a plentiful environment for the arts without government support for future generations of emotional societal drama to enact destruction upon.

Overdramatize much?

*****CHUCKLE*****

Or, we don't through a little temper tantrum and nix all public art forever....because a piece you like is being taken down.

Life is change. Take a breath and learn to think a little more laterally.

I'm not the one(s) 'throwing' a temper tantrum and destroying things in some childish emotional protest.....

As I see it there's no reason to waste my, or anyone else's, tax dollars on something that might offend some future generation that wants to 'throw' an emotional temper tantrum and destroy it in protest.

I'm being a practical fiscal conservative.

Let the private sector fund the arts without government support.

*****SMILE*****

 

[Skylar]

Absolute unmitigated Boshoi. The Civil War still echoes in the present. Dramatically. It will never be forgotten, not in any of our lifetimes. And that's equally true whether monuments exist or not.

Again --- monuments are not history books. Nor should they be.

Then it appears we can defund tax dollars for the arts at all levels of government since there's no point in paying someone to create a thing to be destroyed by the emotional societal swings of future generations.

*****SMILE*****

So unless all art ever created is eternal and never changes....there's no point in art existing?

Holy shit, dude. Pout much?

Who says it won't exist?????

I'm sure private fund raisers and charities will provide a plentiful environment for the arts without government support for future generations of emotional societal drama to enact destruction upon.

Overdramatize much?

*****CHUCKLE*****

Or, we don't through a little temper tantrum and nix all public art forever....because a piece you like is being taken down.

Life is change. Take a breath and learn to think a little more laterally.

I'm not the one(s) 'throwing' a temper tantrum and destroying things in some childish emotional protest.....

As I see it there's no reason to waste my, or anyone else's, tax dollars on something that might offend some future generation that wants to 'throw' an emotional temper tantrum and destroy it in protest.

Sure there is. Because it might not. And because it can be viewed and enjoyed in the interim.

Nixing on all public art on the mere possibility that *any* piece of it might be taken down at some point in future history is just childish petulance embodying the 'all or nothing' standards of children barely out of diapers.

Thankfully, adults will be making these decisions. Rendering your demands useless noise. We'll continue to have public art. And given enough time, every single piece of it will be removed, lost, or replaced. Art need not exist eternally to have value.

 

[xband]

Art Deco

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Then it appears we can defund tax dollars for the arts at all levels of government since there's no point in paying someone to create a thing to be destroyed by the emotional societal swings of future generations.

*****SMILE*****

So unless all art ever created is eternal and never changes....there's no point in art existing?

Holy shit, dude. Pout much?

Who says it won't exist?????

I'm sure private fund raisers and charities will provide a plentiful environment for the arts without government support for future generations of emotional societal drama to enact destruction upon.

Overdramatize much?

*****CHUCKLE*****

Or, we don't through a little temper tantrum and nix all public art forever....because a piece you like is being taken down.

Life is change. Take a breath and learn to think a little more laterally.

I'm not the one(s) 'throwing' a temper tantrum and destroying things in some childish emotional protest.....

As I see it there's no reason to waste my, or anyone else's, tax dollars on something that might offend some future generation that wants to 'throw' an emotional temper tantrum and destroy it in protest.

Sure there is. Because it might not. And because it can be viewed and enjoyed in the interim.

Nixing on all public art on the mere possibility that *any* piece of it might be taken down at some point in future history is just childish petulance embodying the 'all or nothing' standards of children barely out of diapers.

Thankfully, adults will be making these decisions. Rendering your demands useless noise. We'll continue to have public art. And given enough time, every single piece of it will be removed, lost, or replaced. Art need not exist eternally to have value.

The only childish petulance on display here is progressives, such as yourself, demanding a inanimate structure be destroyed simply because they take offense to something about it.

Shall we remove boobs and penises off pieces of art next?

There's plenty practical semi-artistic projects that artisans can do for the government if they need a job like building bridges, buildings, roads, water towers, sewers, etc... Of course they won't be paid as well but they will be able to put some of those artistic skills to work with all their less artistic co-workers as we reroute all those funds formally given to the arts to more practical artistic government funded projects.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[defcon4]

Humans have done this throughout history.

The Egyptians are notorious for taking chisels and hacking the name or likeness of a Pharoah that was out of favor when he died. One time a woman took the thrown and dressed as a man, but when she died they got busy erasing her from all the monuments she put up.

...and it is a great loss for archaeologists in reconstructing her era of reign, no? You just spoke against removing statues and monuments. Thank you.

 

[defcon4]

There's plenty practical semi-artistic projects that artisans can do for the government if they need a job like building bridges, buildings, roads, water towers, sewers, etc... Of course they won't be paid as well but they will be able to put some of those artistic skills to work with all their less artistic co-workers as we reroute all those funds formally given to the arts to more practical artistic government funded projects.

I agree with you and if we look at it that way, why don't we just demolish the great Gothic Cathedrals too since it offends other religions and atheists. Artists expressed themselves in statues, building style, the layout and there are esoteric messages built into the artwork of those great and beautiful buildings for future generations.

 

[jillian]

Let's erase history ourselves:

View attachment 62499

Wishful thinking, nutbar.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

News from The Associated Press

In the Soviet Union, people who became disfavored by the Communist Party were "disappeared." Not only would their body disappear, but also their memory. Photographs would be altered to remove them. History books would be edited to remove all mention of them. Any paintings or statues of them would be taken down, and everyone know that to name that person would bring upon that same fate upon themselves.

George Orwell, a socialist who became disillusioned with Communism while he fought on the Loyalist Side during the Spanish Civil War, warned the world about a future where an all powerful state would control language and history so as to control what words people were allowed to say, which would control what thoughts they were allowed to think. If there was not a word for a concept, people would not be able to think it.

Now, we see politicians in the South taking down statues and monuments of Confederate heroes. But there is no history to replace it with, so the South will become a place with no history at all. That is an ideal situation for the left, because in the gap, they can impose their own false mythology, and children will believe it in the absence of truth.

The point is this, the left hates anything or anybody who is opposed to, or outside, the all powerful state that they are trying to create. Under Communism, Christian holidays were outlawed, Churches were abandoned, children were encouraged to spy on their parents, any non-Communist parties were outlawed, all children were forced to join the Communist youth groups.

The left wants this to happen here, and if they can get either Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton into office, it will be a victory for them. Both candidates hate and despise the United States, and everything it stands for. Both will continue Obama's policy of setting groups against each other, rich v. the middle class, white v. blacks, men v. women, gays v. straights. In other words, both candidates are counting on hate to sweep them into office, as what happened with Obama.

When you erase history, you are destroying all memory of our ancestors, and with it the knowledge of why we are here, what caused it to happen, and what will the future bring. The leftist wants us to live only in the present, with the state having all power over our bodies, our words, and our minds. And that is where we are going. The entire Democrat party is taking us there.

But conservatives accuse America's historians of being commies, statists, liberals etc. because they always rate FDR as one of America's greatest presidents. So are historians commies and the history they write just communistic blather? Should history be abolished in schools?

Most historians aren't commies, statists, not Liberals.

FDR was a great president because of how he allowed our armed forces to win WW2, not because of his domestic policies.

 

[Wry Catcher]

News from The Associated Press

In the Soviet Union, people who became disfavored by the Communist Party were "disappeared." Not only would their body disappear, but also their memory. Photographs would be altered to remove them. History books would be edited to remove all mention of them. Any paintings or statues of them would be taken down, and everyone know that to name that person would bring upon that same fate upon themselves.

George Orwell, a socialist who became disillusioned with Communism while he fought on the Loyalist Side during the Spanish Civil War, warned the world about a future where an all powerful state would control language and history so as to control what words people were allowed to say, which would control what thoughts they were allowed to think. If there was not a word for a concept, people would not be able to think it.

Now, we see politicians in the South taking down statues and monuments of Confederate heroes. But there is no history to replace it with, so the South will become a place with no history at all. That is an ideal situation for the left, because in the gap, they can impose their own false mythology, and children will believe it in the absence of truth.

The point is this, the left hates anything or anybody who is opposed to, or outside, the all powerful state that they are trying to create. Under Communism, Christian holidays were outlawed, Churches were abandoned, children were encouraged to spy on their parents, any non-Communist parties were outlawed, all children were forced to join the Communist youth groups.

The left wants this to happen here, and if they can get either Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton into office, it will be a victory for them. Both candidates hate and despise the United States, and everything it stands for. Both will continue Obama's policy of setting groups against each other, rich v. the middle class, white v. blacks, men v. women, gays v. straights. In other words, both candidates are counting on hate to sweep them into office, as what happened with Obama.

When you erase history, you are destroying all memory of our ancestors, and with it the knowledge of why we are here, what caused it to happen, and what will the future bring. The leftist wants us to live only in the present, with the state having all power over our bodies, our words, and our minds. And that is where we are going. The entire Democrat party is taking us there.

Putting this rant in perspective, it is a slippery slope argument, a straw man argument, one lacking specific examples and created by a partisan troll.

Framed by the above perspective, the rant ignores the Right Wing's efforts to assassinate the character of those whose opinions, creed, ethnicity and ideas are different and or conflict with their own.

Other points to consider:

• Today we are a pluralistic society and need to live up to what that means
• Symbols of hate are not erased, they must be displayed appropriately not proudly
• We must learn from the past, so as to not repeat it.
• The Flag(s) of the Confederacy belong in Museums, they should never fly above halls or chambers which make laws or enforce them; those who make the laws and enforce the laws have each taken the oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.

 

[Pogo]

Who gives a fuck?
Who paid for them to be created and set up in the first place?

Definitely not you. Remember? You were in France studying Robespierre's Reign of Terror and how to implement the eradication of all historical artifacts to fit your totalitarian agenda.

Check your planet. I'm the one who's constantly calling out myths posted on this forum --- myths designed to obscure real history.

Fucking wacko.

 

[Pogo]

The statue removal and rewriting of history amounts to nothing more than revenge.

The Orwellian truth what the anti-American, statist, totalitarianism loving, communist Pogster is working on diligently:
"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past."
George Orwell

A statue or monument is in no way "the past", retard. It represents a snapshot of some figure or event, in effect a community's opinion on who or what that community finds honorable or laudable. It may be a biased perspective, it may or may not be accurate. Take North Korea for instance --- monuments everywhere, not a whole lot of historical accuracy. Would it "erase history" to take down monuments that claim the US invaded Korea and the valiant Kim Il Sung fought them off?

As a snapshot it by definition cannot convey context. And context is crucial. That's where the history books come in, and why monuments can never hope to compete with them. A monument that actually presented the relevant context would take up the side of a building and take all day to read, so you might as well read it in a book.

As a monument represents a community's opinion of what's honorable, that community's descendants may decide, upon further historical review, that their opinion is different. And "upon further review" means, again, context. So today's community may decide what yesterday's community found honorable --- isn't.

Know what happened to the Dulles bust at the Dulles airport? Know what happened to the plaque marking the building where the Ku Klux Klan was founded? Covering, hiding or moving these things in no way declares or implies that John Foster Dulles or the Klan never existed. They imply the community associated with them doesn't find it an attractive spotlight.

And that's their business.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

A statue or monument is in no way "the past", retard.

So now you're saying we can defund government spending on archeology too.

Great! More money for infrastructure.

*****SMILE*****

 

[Pogo]

Yes. You do learn history by walking around examining monuments, statues and historical places. That is how you learn history.

The average college grad has absolutely no concept of United States history. They don't even know what the 4th of July is much less the civil war.

It might be how you learn history. That would explain a ton.

Why do you think schools take kids to see the Battlefield of Gettysberg, why do think tourists go to the graveyard of soldiers who died on D-Day?

No idea. I can't for the life of me understand why anybody goes to Gettysburg. That action is over. Been over for a century and a half.

My schools never went there, and I grew up in PA. And if we had I don't know what the point would have been.
What IS the point? Ghost hunting?

Who goes to a sports stadium ---- after the game is already over?

Those who don't know about history is bound to repeat it.

Cannot agree more. Words to live by.

Not sure what that's got to do with going to a battlefield that hasn't been a battlefield for 150+ years though.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

Yes. You do learn history by walking around examining monuments, statues and historical places. That is how you learn history.

The average college grad has absolutely no concept of United States history. They don't even know what the 4th of July is much less the civil war.

It might be how you learn history. That would explain a ton.

Why do you think schools take kids to see the Battlefield of Gettysberg, why do think tourists go to the graveyard of soldiers who died on D-Day?

No idea. I can't for the life of me understand why anybody goes to Gettysburg. That action is over. Been over for a century and a half.

My schools never went there, and I grew up in PA. And if we had I don't know what the point would have been.
What IS the point? Ghost hunting?

Who goes to a sports stadium ---- after the game is already over?

Those who don't know about history is bound to repeat it.

Cannot agree more. Words to live by.

Not sure what that's got to do with going to a battlefield that hasn't been a battlefield for 150+ years though.

It will always be a battlefield and, therfore, hallowed ground. We owe it to the men that fought there to honor their sacrifice.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

The statue removal and rewriting of history amounts to nothing more than revenge.

The Orwellian truth what the anti-American, statist, totalitarianism loving, communist Pogster is working on diligently:
"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past."
George Orwell

A statue or monument is in no way "the past", retard. It represents a snapshot of some figure or event, in effect a community's opinion on who or what that community finds honorable or laudable. It may be a biased perspective, it may or may not be accurate. Take North Korea for instance --- monuments everywhere, not a whole lot of historical accuracy. Would it "erase history" to take down monuments that claim the US invaded Korea and the valiant Kim Il Sung fought them off?

As a snapshot it by definition cannot convey context. And context is crucial. That's where the history books come in, and why monuments can never hope to compete with them. A monument that actually presented the relevant context would take up the side of a building and take all day to read, so you might as well read it in a book.

As a monument represents a community's opinion of what's honorable, that community's descendants may decide, upon further historical review, that their opinion is different. And "upon further review" means, again, context. So today's community may decide what yesterday's community found honorable --- isn't.

Know what happened to the Dulles bust at the Dulles airport? Know what happened to the plaque marking the building where the Ku Klux Klan was founded? Covering, hiding or moving these things in no way declares or implies that John Foster Dulles or the Klan never existed. They imply the community associated with them doesn't find it an attractive spotlight.

And that's their business.

It's idiotic and ignorant to compare Robert E. Lee to the Nazis and the Baathists.

 

[defcon4]

Check your planet. I'm the one who's constantly calling out myths posted on this forum --- myths designed to obscure real history.

Fucking wacko.

Calm down comrade. No need to get a heart attack over a message board discussion. Your colors are flying high only the blind can't see it.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Check your planet. I'm the one who's constantly calling out myths posted on this forum --- myths designed to obscure real history.

Fucking wacko.

Calm down comrade. No need to get a heart attack over a message board discussion. Your colors are flying high only the blind can't see it.

or smash your computer screen on the floor

--LOL

 

[defcon4]

It's idiotic and ignorant to compare Robert E. Lee to the Nazis and the Baathists.

You will always see that his types' referencing to Nazism is aimed to discredit a valid argument and shame the opponent into silence and submission. However, crying wolf all the time diminishes the once held significance of it and less and less people get intimidated by those unfounded accusations.