Should we remove the Jefferson Memorial in DC?
- Thread starter LittleNipper
- Start date
Votto
Diamond Member
- Oct 31, 2012
- 68,654
- 77,201
- 3,605
I'm thinking they should remove all of Washington DC, which I'm in favor of.
FJO
Gold Member
Of course, all references to Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, Monroe, etc. etc. must be removed.
Consider the immediate and potential benefits:
1. Meteoric rise of standard of living of all Democrats, especially all blacks.
2. Meteoric rise of IQ in the Democratic and especially the black community.
3. Al Sharpton for president.
4, Maxine Waters for Miss Universe
5. Saving on not heating/cooling/cleaning such useless and unnecessary edifices such as the Capitol and the Supreme Court.
6. Save on cop's pay. Lay them all off and don't pay them, since you make them stand off anyway.
7. Save by not providing public rest rooms. Just piss and crap where those monuments once stood and you got a twofor.
That is for a start,
Imagine the happy world where useless slugs abuse their rights fought them by the very same people whose legacies they are hell bent on destoying.
Consider the immediate and potential benefits:
1. Meteoric rise of standard of living of all Democrats, especially all blacks.
2. Meteoric rise of IQ in the Democratic and especially the black community.
3. Al Sharpton for president.
4, Maxine Waters for Miss Universe
5. Saving on not heating/cooling/cleaning such useless and unnecessary edifices such as the Capitol and the Supreme Court.
6. Save on cop's pay. Lay them all off and don't pay them, since you make them stand off anyway.
7. Save by not providing public rest rooms. Just piss and crap where those monuments once stood and you got a twofor.
That is for a start,
Imagine the happy world where useless slugs abuse their rights fought them by the very same people whose legacies they are hell bent on destoying.
Luddly Neddite
Diamond Member
- Sep 14, 2011
- 63,975
- 9,998
- 2,040
Not to mention that he wrote the Declaration of Independence which the rabid right wants destroyed.
RWNJs have also said they want Jefferson removed from text books because 'he didn't contribute anything'.
Damn fool nutters.
EvilCat Breath
Diamond Member
- Sep 23, 2016
- 94,905
- 70,944
- 3,645
Jefferson's opinion was the same as Lincoln's. Free the slaves, round them up and send them back to Africa.
He was right. They were both right.
Lost in all this ideological wilderness is that neither the statues, monuments etc or the people and events they represent, are really the point.
This wave of monumenting and statuing was all going on roughly one hundred years ago, give or take a decade, during, and as a direct result of, the enormous degree of racism and general bigotry of that time, a time when the Klan was resurrected out of extinction, an infamous film "Birth of a Nation" was showing nationwide, Jim Crow laws and attitudes were being developed and shored up, and vigilante lynchings were rampant.
Our history schoolbooks kind of forget to mention all that but that was the tenor of the time, and that's what this wave of statue/monument erection represents ---- regardless who's on the statue or monument. Check the dates. Turn of the century into the 1920s (the Klan reached its peak about 1925).
One example -- exactly 100 years ago May 1917, the Daughters of the Confederacy attached a plaque to a building in Pulaski Tennessee, commemorating its place as the building where the Ku Klux Klan was first conceived, with the founders' names. They thought Pulaski had been slighted in "Birth of a Nation" since it was not mentioned (of course the film in typical Hollywood fashion had taken all sorts of liberties with the facts anyway).
That plaque is still on the building today, although it now faces backward so it can't be read. When the building changed hands to a new owner in the 1990s he had it reversed. And nobody complained.
They don't date from the Civil War nor do they represent it. They represent the period of hyperbigotry that birthed them. Their purpose in being erected was to substantiate and rationalize that bigotry, those Jim Crow laws, those lynchings. That's what their wording would say if it were honest.
The nation needs to do what that building owner did with that plaque --- turn its back on that legacy. Show its blank side so it's obvious that something used to be there --- and now it's gone. Because we turned it away.
Last edited:
Lost in all this ideological wilderness is that neither the statues, monuments etc or the people and events they represent, are really the point.
This wave of monumenting and statuing was all going on roughly one hundred years ago, give or take a decade, during, and as a direct result of, the enormous degree of racism and general bigotry of that time, a time when the Klan was resurrected out of extinction, an infamous film "Birth of a Nation" was showing nationwide, Jim Crow laws and attitudes were being developed and shored up, and vigilante lynchings were rampant.
Our history schoolbooks kind of forget to mention all that but that was the tenor of the time, and that's what this wave of statue/monument erection represents ---- regardless who's on the statue or monument. Check the dates. Turn of the century into the 1920s (the Klan reached its peak about 1925).
One example -- exactly 100 years ago May 1917, the Daughters of the Confederacy attached a plaque to a building in Pulaski Tennessee, commemorating its place as the building where the Ku Klux Klan was first conceived, with the founders' names. They thought Pulaski had been slighted in "Birth of a Nation" since it was not mentioned (of course the film in typical Hollywood fashion had taken all sorts of liberties with the facts anyway).
That plaque is still on the building today, although it now faces backward so it can't be read. When the building changed hands to a new owner in the 1990s he had it reversed. And nobody complained.
They don't date from the Civil War nor do they represent it. They represent the period of hyperbigotry that birthed them. Their purpose in being erected was to substantiate and rationalize that bigotry, those Jim Crow laws, those lynchings. That's what their wording would say if it were honest.
The nation needs to do what that building owner did with that plaque --- turn its back on that legacy. Show its blank side so it's obvious that something used to be there --- and now it's gone. Because we turned it away.
And as just mentioned the KKK was "erected" at the same time these statues and monuments were, literally erected with a burning cross on a mountain. Shall we all lock arms to "preserve" that icon as well?
Oh wait, some are already doing that.
Ummm... You do realize that they were right? I mean that tweet is meant in jest correct?
In the USA, people believe that using federal funds and property to honor and celebrate those that took up arms against the USA and tried to overthrow our government on an ideal of building a new country with a cornerstone built on the perpetuation of slavery is not ok.
MindWars
Diamond Member
- Oct 14, 2016
- 42,227
- 11,215
- 2,040
- Banned
- #37
Of course it's correct. They can't answer it either. Why the hell protest , and tear these down now during Trump....
Because it's being fueled by Globalist who control the MSM who fuel false thoughts and information into the minds of weak minded a.h. who are easily indoctrinated.
So wait a minute. After all the protests in the Obama era, especially after the Dylan Roof act of terrorism which led to more Confederate statues, flags, and names of buildings being removed than at any other point of time outside of the Reconstruction Era is proof?
I mean you have flags, multiple Robert E Lee schools renamed. Monuments in Madison Wisconson, Reidsville NC, Louisville Kentucky, Wichita, KS, Tampa FL, all coming down. DId you not notice any of that?
This is about Jefferson being a slave owner. I've said a lot of times. Illegally seceding and fighting a war against the US for the perpetual existence of slavery was not something Jefferson did. He helped build the country that honors him, not overthrow it. That to me is a LARGE difference. Did he have character flaws. Yes. Did he do things we see as evil today. Yes. Did he wage war against the USA. NO.
I am fine honoring Major William D Swenson, Medal of Honor winner in the war in Afghanistan. Even if he has character flaws that someday judging in that time may be considered evil. I am not fine honoring Major Nidal Malik Hassan who took up weapons against the US at Fort Hood.
Again the Constitution does not give the Supreme Court the power to judge legality on potential illegal acts that have yet to occur. But when the Supreme Court was asked to judge on the legality of the secession of 1860, they deemed it was illegal according to the US Constitution. Short of you shitting on the US Constitution your claim is invalid.
Just like it's still murder if you run around and kill a bunch of people and are charged and later convicted of that charge. Your actions are not deemed illegal by a judge before you commit them. But if the Judicial system says it was murder, your previous action was illegal.
The same here. No new legislation, the law had been on the books since 1791 that the Supreme Court used to say the secession was illegal.
Obviously the Constitution which is the law of the land in the USA did not apply to the Revolutionary War and departure from Great Britian. I don't know what the legal aspect of that was, I don't care. Great Britian's laws don't supersede the US Constitution in the USA.
This is about Jefferson being a slave owner. I've said a lot of times. Illegally seceding and fighting a war against the US for the perpetual existence of slavery was not something Jefferson did. He helped build the country that honors him, not overthrow it. That to me is a LARGE difference. Did he have character flaws. Yes. Did he do things we see as evil today. Yes. Did he wage war against the USA. NO.
I am fine honoring Major William D Swenson, Medal of Honor winner in the war in Afghanistan. Even if he has character flaws that someday judging in that time may be considered evil. I am not fine honoring Major Nidal Malik Hassan who took up weapons against the US at Fort Hood.
Again the Constitution does not give the Supreme Court the power to judge legality on potential illegal acts that have yet to occur. But when the Supreme Court was asked to judge on the legality of the secession of 1860, they deemed it was illegal according to the US Constitution. Short of you shitting on the US Constitution your claim is invalid.
Just like it's still murder if you run around and kill a bunch of people and are charged and later convicted of that charge. Your actions are not deemed illegal by a judge before you commit them. But if the Judicial system says it was murder, your previous action was illegal.
The same here. No new legislation, the law had been on the books since 1791 that the Supreme Court used to say the secession was illegal.
Obviously the Constitution which is the law of the land in the USA did not apply to the Revolutionary War and departure from Great Britian. I don't know what the legal aspect of that was, I don't care. Great Britian's laws don't supersede the US Constitution in the USA.
