NYC is considering removing statues of Washington and Columbus

[bendog]

Would you not take penicillin because it was discovered by accident?

He was looking for a quicker route to India, and found said other continents.

He got there first, came back first, and led others to go looking.

I'm sure there's a statue of Alexander Fleming somewhere in the US, but that isn't really the point.

The point is that Columbus really didn't do anything in the development of our Republic. And morally he was bereft of even Cromwell.

 

[martybegan]

I'm sure there's a statue of Alexander Fleming somewhere in the US, but that isn't really the point.

The point is that Columbus really didn't do anything in the development of our Republic. And morally he was bereft of even Cromwell.

He started the ball rolling, and he was also picked up by the Italian American Community as a symbol of theirs.

Was he any worse than any other Spanish Explorer of the time?

Ask British Anti-Monarchists about Cromwell. Just because the Irish don't like him doesn't mean he is morally bereft.

 

[marvin martian]

Run along cosplayer....

Beat it, klanner....

 

[Curried Goats]

I agree with Marty as to people being prisoners of their own time.

They were Founders of their own country. They understood liberty and tyranny, they just finished arguing and fighting for it..., they could of created whatever kind of State they wanted. They chose to create a Slave State. You could argue that some rando born in the country without any financial or political power wasn't really responsible for the actions of a his country beyond the power that comes with his vote, but the Founders? Hard to argue they were prisoners and Founders.

 

[Curried Goats]

Beat it, klanner....

What's a klaner?

 

[martybegan]

They were Founders of their own country. They understood liberty and tyranny, they just finished arguing and fighting for it..., they could of created whatever kind of State they wanted. They chose to create a Slave State. You could argue that some rando born in the country without any financial or political power wasn't really responsible for the actions of a his country beyond the power that comes with his vote, but the Founders? Hard to argue they were prisoners and Founders.

A Slave State that already had the seeds of getting rid of it in the document in question, eliminating the Slave Trade by a given date. Another compromise, because again, the morality of the institution was still debatable.

 

[Curried Goats]

A Slave State that already had the seeds of getting rid of it in the document in question, eliminating the Slave Trade by a given date. Another compromise, because again, the morality of the institution was still debatable.

Getting rid of the international slave trade helped facilitate the growth of their own internal slave trade. Only about 400,000 slaves made it here from the Atlantic slave trade and yet there were over four and half million slaves in America at the start of the American Civil war.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

And I pointed out to you that it doesn't because political parties are tools and reflections of those who wield them. If we were talking about the Democratic party in the 1800s then you'd have a point.

I never heard you say it was a shit political party.

I have disdain for what the Republican party is doing today. That's a bit different than trying to place the disdain for 19th century Democrats on today's Democrats.

And yet, many blacks (and not a few whites) hold the whites of today accountable for slavery and past discrimination. That's what the whole reparations issue is about.

I understand just fine. I certainly have condemnations of the Republican party, at the time. They aren't the same condemnations that I have for the Republican party today.

You have condemnations of the Republican Party at the time but none for the Democrat party at the time?

Do you understand how time works?

Do you? You seem to think that time fundamentally changed the Republican Party but not the Democrat Party.

Should I go back to the beginning? We can start at the big bang and work our way forward if this jumping back and forth through time is too confusing for you.

I'm not the one cherrypicking parts of history to hold up to moral scrutiny while ignoring others.

I don't know honestly. You not being able to understand that the Democratic party of today isn't the Democratic party of the 1800s kind of makes me want to call you a Bingo but I'm trying.....

I know they're not the same for fuck's sake. My point is your hypocrisy.

It's a apt description of the demographic make up of the Republican party. Even the Black, Asian and Latino members lean more heavily Christian conservative.

You said "white evangelicals". Would it not be more accurate to say that the Republican Party is mostly comprised of conservatives?

I haven't recognized any yet that you've pointed out or that I couldn't counter.

By ignoring the fact that, by your own criteria, the Democrat Party of that time was a shit party.

How is the Republican Party's inability to attract diverse membership anyone else's fault but it's own?

Why should attracting minorities be a litmus test for the overall morality of a party? If a minority person does not have conservative values then they're not going to join a conservative party.

Good for you.

I haven't. I've simply pointed out one Party's inability to attract diverse membership.

In other words, you're assessing the two parties along racial lines.

Yes. When they represented the culture of slavers and segregationists. I'm not reluctant to admit that.

And yet you haven't. You've made a point of saying you have condemnations for the Republican Party for both that time and today. But you have actually not condemned the Democrat Party of that time.

I don't care why you choose to venerate slavers,

I just said they're not being venerated for owning slaves.

I only know that only deplorable mutants from deplorable cultures do.

So then, the Africans who sold slaves were also deplorable mutants, yes?

A lot of it. Yes. How hard is that to admit for people who claim to find moral good in individual rights?

You mean you don't find moral good in individual rights?

 

[marvin martian]

What's a klaner?

I guess it's you spelling the word "klanner" wrong. Dipshit.

 

[Curried Goats]

I never heard you say it was a shit political party.

The Democratic party of the 1800s? I didn't realize you needed to that spelt out for you since I had already called Robert E Lee and Jefferson Davis shit people from a shit culture. They were Democrats weren't they?

And yet, many blacks (and not a few whites) hold the whites of today accountable for slavery and past discrimination. That's what the whole reparations issue is about.

No one (save a handful of morons) is holding whites today morally responsible for slavery. Seeking reparations is an attempt to hold the American government responsible for its role in slavery and segregation. It's just an unfortunate fact that citizens are ultimately financially responsible for their government. But this isn't any different than reparations for Japanese Americans interned during WW 2. Those reparations weren't paid until the 1980s. My parents immigrated to this country in 81. My family wasn't even in the country when the Japanese were interned and yet our taxes still went to pay for those reparations. This isn't a new or foreign concept.

You have condemnations of the Republican Party at the time but none for the Democrat party at the time?

Other than calling Robert E Lee and Jefferson Davis shit people from a shit culture you mean. You'd think someone would rationally conclude that included their political party of bigots and slavers as well.

Do you? You seem to think that time fundamentally changed the Republican Party but not the Democrat Party.

Or you just simply misunderstood....

I'm not the one cherrypicking parts of history to hold up to moral scrutiny while ignoring others.

No, you're cherry picking your morals. What other slavers and murders and rapists would you celebrate for their other accomplishments?

I know they're not the same for fuck's sake. My point is your hypocrisy.

If you're going to ask a question, maybe wait for the response before you condemn someone....

You said "white evangelicals". Would it not be more accurate to say that the Republican Party is mostly comprised of conservatives?

That's another accurate way of describing the Republican party but mine certainly fits as well. Non white members of the Republican party are a tiny minority.

By ignoring the fact that, by your own criteria, the Democrat Party of that time was a shit party.

Why should attracting minorities be a litmus test for the overall morality of a party? If a minority person does not have conservative values then they're not going to join a conservative party.

So it's conservative values that has little appeal outside white evangelicals. Same difference.

In other words, you're assessing the two parties along racial lines.

Which isn't racist, it's just racial. What's wrong with noting the lack of appeal your ideology holds for non white people?

And yet you haven't. You've made a point of saying you have condemnations for the Republican Party for both that time and today. But you have actually not condemned the Democrat Party of that time.

I have, you just missed the inference.

I just said they're not being venerated for owning slaves.

And I said they're still being venerated. It similarly wouldn't matter to me if you celebrated a brutal serial rapist for his comedic talent. I'd still think you were a deplorable mutant yourself. How about not celebrating any slavers, murderers or rapists? Is that really a lot to ask? If you told me the statue in your front yard of Hitler wasn't for his slaughtering of the jews but because you really liked what he did with an oil and canvas, would you really be surprised if people thought you yourself were a piece of shit?

So then, the Africans who sold slaves were also deplorable mutants, yes?

Yes.

You mean you don't find moral good in individual rights?

I do. I said the opposite of that.

 

[martybegan]

Getting rid of the international slave trade helped facilitate the growth of their own internal slave trade. Only about 400,000 slaves made it here from the Atlantic slave trade and yet there were over four and half million slaves in America at the start of the American Civil war.

The internal slave trade was always there.

It's called procreation, something you probably have only had experience with in the theoretical sense.

 

[Curried Goats]

The internal slave trade was always there.

It's called procreation, something you probably have only had experience with in the theoretical sense.

No... the internal slave trade wasn't there because Africans weren't native to the North American continent. They had to first be brought there. Moron. Fucking christ these people are stupid.

 

[martybegan]

No... the internal slave trade wasn't there because Africans weren't native to the North American continent. They had to first be brought there. Moron. Fucking christ these people are stupid.

The internal slave trade locally went from plantation to plantation. There were a few large migrations due to changing crop conditions and concentrations.

And my original point is the founders saw the eventual decline of slavery, as they included a self limiting portion in the US Constitution.

 

[Curried Goats]

The internal slave trade locally went from plantation to plantation. There were a few large migrations due to changing crop conditions and concentrations.

And my original point is the founders saw the eventual decline of slavery, as they included a self limiting portion in the US Constitution.

Except slavery didn't decline you dumb Simp. It increased exponentially. Your impression of what the Founders saw is just silly propaganda or straight up ignorance. What they saw was their own profit so they engaged in the time honored tradition of protectionism of local markets from foreign ones.

 

[martybegan]

Except slavery didn't decline you dumb Simp. It increased exponentially. Your impression of what the Founders saw is just silly propaganda or straight up ignorance. What they saw was their own profit so they engaged in the time honored tradition of protectionism of local markets from foreign ones.

The numbers of slaves did due to them procreating, but the spread was curtailed, and that was the primary reason for the Civil War.

Slavery as an institution DECREASED in scope as States outlawed it, or it died out in the non plantation system States.

 

[Curried Goats]

The numbers of slaves did due to them procreating, but the spread was curtailed, and that was the primary reason for the Civil War.

A lot of that was forced procreation. Like what farmers do to cattle. Who is thinking of starting a family when your spouse and children are going to be sold away from you to live their entire lives as slaves as well?

Slavery as an institution DECREASED in scope as States outlawed it, or it died out in the non plantation system States.

Let's try this again you simple Bingo. It's just basic math. Only 400,000 slaves made the journey from Africa to North America and there were four and half million slaves in the country at the start of the Civil war. Is that an increase or a decrease?

 

[martybegan]

A lot of that was forced procreation. Like what farmers do to cattle. Who is thinking of starting a family when your spouse and children are going to be sold away from you to live their entire lives as slaves as well?

Let's try this again you simple Bingo. It's just basic math. Only 400,000 slaves made the journey from Africa to North America and there were four and half million slaves in the country at the start of the Civil war. Is that an increase or a decrease?

Who has to force procreation? If you are referencing the use of slave women by white men as concubines, that's another issue.

It's an increase, but that it was an increase is moot. The institution itself was being decreased.

 

[Curried Goats]

Who has to force procreation? If you are referencing the use of slave women by white men as concubines, that's another issue.

And their forced procreation with other slaves. As I said, who would want to bring a child into a world where they would be someone else's property? In normal circumstances you don't have to force people to procreate, and it's not that none ever did, but force was required to keep the numbers of slaves they needed for their industry.

It's an increase, but that it was an increase is moot. The institution itself was being decreased.

That's stupid. The institution can be said to have decreased if the number of slaves grew ten fold you ridiculous Simp.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Take away the border. Take away the history. Pretty soon you have a landmass called The United States of America. Simply because they have to call it something.

 

[martybegan]

And their forced procreation with other slaves. As I said, who would want to bring a child into a world where they would be someone else's property? In normal circumstances you don't have to force people to procreate, and it's not that none ever did, but force was required to keep the numbers of slaves they needed for their industry.

That's stupid. The institution can be said to have decreased if the number of slaves grew ten fold you ridiculous Simp.

Assuming you know the mindset of people hundreds of years ago is again more of that SJW unearned hubris.

Why did serfs procreate for centuries in Europe?

You have evidence of mass spread forced procreation drives?

The institution decreased in scope due to the geographical and political decreases.