Protesters topple Confederate monument on UNC campus

[protectionist]

I guess you are disappointed Federal property was retained and slavery was not preserved. Fair enough. I accept your cultural standards.

The Civil War was about much more than slavery. To most southern fighters, IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH SLAVERY, OR THE CONFEDERACY. Many soldiers fought just to defend themselves from outside invaders who were attacking them. What would you do if YOUR turf was being attacked ? Walk up to the attackers and say "Thank you" ?

Most Confederate soldiers never saw a slave. They, in self defense, took up arms against people who were entering their home turf and shooting at them, burning buildings, etc. Thousands of times when southern fighters were defeated and captured Union soldiers asked them why they were fighting. The answer across all 11states was always the same >> "Because you're here."

The Union left its home base and attacked them at their home base (the South). They fought against that invasion, not for slavery. Almost no southern soldiers had slaves. Many lived in mountainous areas of the South, where slavery did not exist. Many were illiterate, and didn't even know slavery existed, or the confederacy either.They never heard of Jefferson Davis. They had no TV, radios, computers. if they had access to a newspaper, tey probably couldn't read it.

Only a minority of very rich southerners had slaves, while most southern soldiers were so poor, they went to the battlefields barefoot. The lucky ones who got uniforms, including boots, were known to have said > "This is the best set of clothes I've ever owned." Your knowledge of the Civil War is extremely deficient.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself for insulting American veterans the way you are.

 

[Correll]

Jim Crow did not need fucking STATUES to make it real.

It needed statues to glorify and validate it. Otherwise it was just the work of a bunch of racist peckerwoods, rather than that of glorious patriots.

SO, your position is that if the statues did not go up, that JIm Crow would have never been the law of the land, in 1880 Alabama.


Because the voters of the Deep South would have, without the statues, realized that the Jim Crow laws were racist and thus not supported them.


That is your position, and your justification for removing them now.


This is my response to that.

 

[protectionist]

Your straw man is yours, not mine. Your request that I join you in playing with it, is disrespectfully declined. My point stands.

Your excuses for you cultural bigotry and disrespect for the dead, are noted and laughed at.
If you want to actually address what I said, I will be happy to respond to THAT.

He's too much of a coward. Specializes in changing the subject.

 

[protectionist]

You know. That statue has been there for over a hundred years and now all of a sudden people find it objectionable??

Good Lord talk about fools.

It shows a new focus from the left on disrupting things in cities controlled by democrats whose lawless behavior condones and allows lawlessness >> vandalism, blocking traffic, attacking Trump supporters, rioting, looting, etc

How Democrats Disrespect & Destroy Law in America

 

[Hiryuu]

The day I let a statue consume me is the day I'll rethink my priorities in life.

I am pretty sure white privilege is the only reason I have never viewed a Civil War statue and thought, "This means I can hold black people down".

I have visited Civil War battle parks on many occasions, looked at statues and markers all over the place. There are many times I thought about how tragic it was we (as a nation at that time) had to go to that measure of death and destruction. They still won't ever make me hate black people, nor treat them any different because they are black.

If using what is left over from the Civil War to rekindle the hatred that caused it, instead of using it as a reminder of why we should not take that path of division again, is what someone has in mind ... I have no use for bigotry on either side of the argument.

 

[protectionist]

Yup. Making sure Jim Crow was in place and blacks kept to theirs. One sees an increase in Confederate monuments around the Civil Rights era as well. Just a coincidence, I'm sure.

https://www.businessinsider.com.au

I am anticipating a HUGE increase in Confederate monuments in cities/states controlled by Republicans. 5 new ones put up there, for every 1 torn down in the Democrat cities/states. And there still are more than 1503 public monuments and memorials to the Confederacy. These are all over the country. Most are in the South, but hundreds are in northern and western states too.

List of Confederate monuments and memorials - Wikipedia

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Six years...seems about right

Texas Man Sentenced For Trying To Blow Up Confederate Statue - Breaking911

 

[there4eyeM]

No outside invaders were involved in the American Civil War. American troops maneuvered on American territory to defend America and the Constitution from those who sought to destroy them.

 

[EverCurious]

And the middle ground, the lawful approach, you petition to have the statues removed.

The act of tearing them down illegally is the bad part, not so much that they destroy history (which I do see as bad, regardless of what one might individually wish to interpret about "what the statue represents") - it destroys the construction methods, the artists work, the... archaeological history of it. It is also innately wrong to destroy other peoples property (or the states, or the cities, or the schools, or the business, or the historical foundation group, etc) - even /if/ one thinks that the statues being there is wrong. When you allow this kind of mischief you undermine "common law" - and to condone it, merely speaks to your anarchist roots and the acceptance of criminal behavior.

 

[protectionist]

Six years...seems about right

Texas Man Sentenced For Trying To Blow Up Confederate Statue - Breaking911

Occasionally they get it right. Even in a city with a Democrat mayor. Hurray for Sylvester Turner.

 

[martybegan]

And the middle ground, the lawful approach, you petition to have the statues removed.

The act of tearing them down illegally is the bad part, not so much that they destroy history (regardless of what one might wish to say about "what the statue represents" it destroys the construction methods, the artists work, the... archaeological history of it. It's wrong to destroy other peoples (or the states, or the cities, or the schools, or the business, or the historical foundation group, etc) property - even /if/ one thinks that the statues being there is wrong. When you allow this kind of criminal mischief you undermine "common law" - and to condone it, merely notes your anarchist roots...

The other part of this is if the people who brought down the Statue thought so much of it, why hide while doing it, and run away when finished?

The Civil rights movement was based on protesters who violated laws they thought were unjust, got arrested, paid the fine/spent time in jail and then when right out there and did it again.

Our current crop of "rebels" seem to be brave enough to commit the acts, but not brave enough to embrace the consequences.

 

[protectionist]

No outside invaders were involved in the American Civil War. American troops maneuvered on American territory to defend America and the Constitution from those who sought to destroy them.

Bullshit! The Union troops came from hundreds of miles away from where they were attacking. They mounted invasions, and these were even called that by union officers during the war.

 

[EverCurious]

And the middle ground, the lawful approach, you petition to have the statues removed.

The act of tearing them down illegally is the bad part, not so much that they destroy history (regardless of what one might wish to say about "what the statue represents" it destroys the construction methods, the artists work, the... archaeological history of it. It's wrong to destroy other peoples (or the states, or the cities, or the schools, or the business, or the historical foundation group, etc) property - even /if/ one thinks that the statues being there is wrong. When you allow this kind of criminal mischief you undermine "common law" - and to condone it, merely notes your anarchist roots...

The other part of this is if the people who brought down the Statue thought so much of it, why hide while doing it, and run away when finished?

The Civil rights movement was based on protesters who violated laws they thought were unjust, got arrested, paid the fine/spent time in jail and then when right out there and did it again.

Our current crop of "rebels" seem to be brave enough to commit the acts, but not brave enough to embrace the consequences.

And that's a separate problem in my eyes, I (too?) have a... gut feeling that these punks are just using this as an excuse to destroy shit. These progressive revisionists as a whole have a tenuous grasp on actual principles, their arguments fail to merit the unlawful pulling down of statues - the lawful voting to have them removed is appropriate, but that's not what they choose to do, and allow to be done. They allow criminal hooligans who have no principle connection to their movement to run the show. This ultimately undermines their arguments and serves as nothing more than a hot bed of animosity between their position (which may actually have some semblance of logic to it) and those who would prefer to preserve 'history' as /they/ see it. Circumventing the legal process, regardless of if it's intentional or incidental does irreparable harm to logical public discourse on a matter the removers say they want to "discuss."

While I personally don't mind if they allow the hooligans and criminals to lead them to defeat, I do dread the idea of one party rule in the nation - this leaves me sitting on a rather odd fence of not agreeing with their radical methods and wanting them shunned for criminal acts so the more logical seeming righties can keep us as a nation on the straight and narrow, yet also wanting them (on the left) to fucking clean up their shit as a party >.<

 

[Weatherman2020]

No one can change history by toppling statues.

Its history is as a monument erected in 1913 to the Jim Crow laws which were keeping the blacks in their place. It glorifies men who fought for a government based on the inferiority of the black man, which intended to preserve slavery. History will record that such men were less likely to be glorified 150 years after the war.

So we get to destroy everything that offends us?

OK.

 

[Hiryuu]

So we get to destroy everything that offends us?

OK.

That's just it; they aren't trying to destroy what offends them. They are attempting to attack their opposition by destroying something that won't fight back, and claiming victory. They accomplish nothing but destruction, and insist on continuing to provide fuel for what offends them.

 

[martybegan]

And the middle ground, the lawful approach, you petition to have the statues removed.

The act of tearing them down illegally is the bad part, not so much that they destroy history (regardless of what one might wish to say about "what the statue represents" it destroys the construction methods, the artists work, the... archaeological history of it. It's wrong to destroy other peoples (or the states, or the cities, or the schools, or the business, or the historical foundation group, etc) property - even /if/ one thinks that the statues being there is wrong. When you allow this kind of criminal mischief you undermine "common law" - and to condone it, merely notes your anarchist roots...

The other part of this is if the people who brought down the Statue thought so much of it, why hide while doing it, and run away when finished?

The Civil rights movement was based on protesters who violated laws they thought were unjust, got arrested, paid the fine/spent time in jail and then when right out there and did it again.

Our current crop of "rebels" seem to be brave enough to commit the acts, but not brave enough to embrace the consequences.

And that's a separate problem in my eyes, I (too?) have a... gut feeling that these punks are just using this as an excuse to destroy shit. These progressive revisionists as a whole have a tenuous grasp on actual principles, their arguments fail to merit the unlawful pulling down of statues - the lawful voting to have them removed is appropriate, but that's not what they choose to do, and allow to be done. They allow criminal hooligans who have no principle connection to their movement to run the show. This ultimately undermines their arguments and serves as nothing more than a hot bed of animosity between their position (which may actually have some semblance of logic to it) and those who would prefer to preserve 'history' as /they/ see it. Circumventing the legal process, regardless of if it's intentional or incidental does irreparable harm to logical public discourse on a matter the removers say they want to "discuss."

While I personally don't mind if they allow the hooligans and criminals to lead them to defeat, I do dread the idea of one party rule in the nation - this leaves me sitting on a rather odd fence of not agreeing with their radical methods and wanting them shunned for criminal acts so the more logical seeming righties can keep us as a nation on the straight and narrow, yet also wanting them (on the left) to fucking clean up their shit as a party >.<

They want to be part of the "protest" but don't want to put the sacrifice required into it.

Which leads me to believe they really don't believe half the crap the spout about being "upset" by these things, because if they really were upset they would risk more to get rid of what they despise.

 

[Weatherman2020]

So we get to destroy everything that offends us?

OK.

That's just it; they aren't trying to destroy what offends them. They are attempting to attack their opposition by destroying something that won't fight back, and claiming victory. They accomplish nothing but destruction, and insist on continuing to provide fuel for what offends them.

Much easier and safer fighting statues than real evil in the world.

 

[martybegan]

So we get to destroy everything that offends us?

OK.

That's just it; they aren't trying to destroy what offends them. They are attempting to attack their opposition by destroying something that won't fight back, and claiming victory. They accomplish nothing but destruction, and insist on continuing to provide fuel for what offends them.

That is an interesting way of looking at it. Thank you.

 

[EverCurious]

And the middle ground, the lawful approach, you petition to have the statues removed.

The act of tearing them down illegally is the bad part, not so much that they destroy history (regardless of what one might wish to say about "what the statue represents" it destroys the construction methods, the artists work, the... archaeological history of it. It's wrong to destroy other peoples (or the states, or the cities, or the schools, or the business, or the historical foundation group, etc) property - even /if/ one thinks that the statues being there is wrong. When you allow this kind of criminal mischief you undermine "common law" - and to condone it, merely notes your anarchist roots...

The other part of this is if the people who brought down the Statue thought so much of it, why hide while doing it, and run away when finished?

The Civil rights movement was based on protesters who violated laws they thought were unjust, got arrested, paid the fine/spent time in jail and then when right out there and did it again.

Our current crop of "rebels" seem to be brave enough to commit the acts, but not brave enough to embrace the consequences.

And that's a separate problem in my eyes, I (too?) have a... gut feeling that these punks are just using this as an excuse to destroy shit. These progressive revisionists as a whole have a tenuous grasp on actual principles, their arguments fail to merit the unlawful pulling down of statues - the lawful voting to have them removed is appropriate, but that's not what they choose to do, and allow to be done. They allow criminal hooligans who have no principle connection to their movement to run the show. This ultimately undermines their arguments and serves as nothing more than a hot bed of animosity between their position (which may actually have some semblance of logic to it) and those who would prefer to preserve 'history' as /they/ see it. Circumventing the legal process, regardless of if it's intentional or incidental does irreparable harm to logical public discourse on a matter the removers say they want to "discuss."

While I personally don't mind if they allow the hooligans and criminals to lead them to defeat, I do dread the idea of one party rule in the nation - this leaves me sitting on a rather odd fence of not agreeing with their radical methods and wanting them shunned for criminal acts so the more logical seeming righties can keep us as a nation on the straight and narrow, yet also wanting them (on the left) to fucking clean up their shit as a party >.<

They want to be part of the "protest" but don't want to put the sacrifice required into it.

Which leads me to believe they really don't believe half the crap the spout about being "upset" by these things, because if they really were upset they would risk more to get rid of what they despise.

Well you'd have to go back to the modern lefts "principles" - or complete fucking lack there of - to understand the flippant and illogical "moral foundation" of their current movement. When one has no "guiding principles" for why they believe what they do, you end up with a mishmash of hysterical moments, you do not have a solid base of "I believe this" you end up with an emotionally charged "I feel this at this moment... but tomorrow it may be the opposite" ~rolls eyes~

 

[Hiryuu]

That is an interesting way of looking at it. Thank you.

It only takes into consideration that if we want to unite, and the only way they can seem to manage that is division and destruction, then we really didn't learn a damn thing from the Civil War.