This is not true, is it? Removing confederates from Arlington?

Utilitarian

co-Cain Manager
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
1,060
Reaction score
476
Points
198
Location
NC
We cannot afford to forget the history of the Nazis, Soviets, or Confederates.
Out of balance analogy. There was independence involved in the CSA history and world domination where the nazis and Soviets are concerned. Complete opposite.
I can agree with that. The Confederates certainly weren't a global threat.
 

TrumpSucks

Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2020
Messages
65
Reaction score
33
Points
21

If passed as-is, this amendment would require that the federal government desecrate the graves of 482 Confederate soldiers buried in Arlington National Cemetery. The soldiers are buried in a circle around a massive, 106-year-old monument commemorating the Confederate soldiers who died in the Civil War. Every President since Teddy Roosevelt has laid a wreath at this monument. Yes, that includes Barack H. Obama. He paid his respects to the Confederate dead buried in Arlington back in 2009.

Warren's amendment would require that the memorial be removed from the grounds of Arlington. It is impossible to do this without disturbing the grave sites around the monument…

But it actually gets worse. Elizabeth Warren's amendment is so poorly written that while it gives an exception for gravestones, it does not exempt the graves themselves. Since being buried in Arlington is considered an honor, a literal reading of Warren's bill would require these Civil War soldiers to be exhumed and moved off the premises. Just think about how small of a person someone would have to be to write an amendment in 2020 that could force the exhumation of 482 Civil War soldiers because they disagree with the cause they fought for…

Even in a best case scenario, the graves would get to stay, but Arlington wouldn't be able to advertise where they're located. No signage… no mention in the maps… no helpful directions from staff… Anyone who has ever been to Arlington looking for a specific grave knows it is next to impossible to do without help and directions. So best case, the Confederates get to stay buried, but no one would be allowed to know where they are…
Well, if you actually READ the bill, it doesn't mandate that everything simply be removed. Each monument and everything else will be looked at and debated before anything is done. But why let the facts get in the way of your white supremacist outrage?

—The Secretary of Defense shall establish a commission relating to assigning, modifying, or removing of names, symbols, displays, monuments, and paraphernalia to assets of the Department of Defense that commemorate the Confederate States of America or any person who served voluntarily with the Confederate States of America. (c) DUTIES.—The Commission shall— (1) assess the cost of renaming or removing names, symbols, displays, monuments, or paraphernalia that commemorate the Confederate States of America or any person who served voluntarily with the Confederate States of America; (2) develop procedures and criteria to assess whether an existing name, symbol, monument, display, or paraphernalia commemorates the Confederate States of America or person who served voluntarily with the Confederate States of America; (3) recommend procedures for renaming assets of the Department of Defense to prevent commemoration of the Confederate States of America or any person who served voluntarily with the Confederate States of America; (4) develop a plan to remove names, symbols, displays, monuments, or paraphernalia that commemorate the Confederate States of America or any person who served voluntarily with the Confederate States of America from assets of the Department of Defense, within the timeline established by this Act; (5) include in the plan procedures and criteria for collecting and incorporating local sensitivities associated with naming or renaming of assets of the Department of Defense.
You’re an idiot. An indoctrinated moron.
The CSA were not traitors or seditionists. They attempted independence.
They failed, their states were reacquired by the USA and maintained statehood and historical significance in the context of the union.
You’re a brainwashed moron. You are more of a traitor than any of these CSA soldiers who fought for their states.
That is exactly what they were traitors and seditionists. Get a new excuse, that one is nothing but Grade A horseshit.
They were Pardoned; all Americans now!!

Greg
They still don't deserve to be honored.
Negroes still have no appreciation of the charity White Americans have given blacks....both yankees and southerners.

The best think that ever happened to the Africans but the worst thing for America was them being brought over here.

They are now being used as useful idiots by the democrats to further divide America and to fundamentally change it to the point where we will be so weakened we will not be able to defend ourselves from adversaries who are tooling up to take us down as we speak.
Racist propaganda at it's best. Now watch not one right winger will attack this hate speech, why is that?
I have a question of my own for ya. Not one black person has attacked hate speech from blm towards left wingers. Why is that?
Give me a few examples.
The vid isn't enough?
I don't hear him say the Nword in the vid.
Of course you didn't. He could appear in a white sheeted pointy hat and you would still defend him.

Look, I will say this once. You are not stupid. Just bullheaded. THINK for a minute. Biden has used the N word many time in his career. Dementia or not, his racism towards black is still embedded in him. Just like a drunk shows his/her true self when embibing...so do dementia patients. It's who they are.

Believe what you want. I'm not going to argue with you further about it.
There's no evidence for what you claim. But fine, don't argue about it any more.
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
132,574
Reaction score
15,418
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
Your understanding of history is rather lacking. Most Confederates didn't own slaves. They were too poor for that. Now, it is true that the elites of each side pitted their poor against each other to die for their own interests, but that's pretty much every war.
1) I have a degree in history. Fuck off.
2) Yes, the average inbred racist didn't own a slave. (Although 30% of the population of the Confederacy did in fact own slaves), but they benefitted directly and indirectly from slave labor. The fear was that when slaves were emancipated, they'd do things like take white people's jobs and have sex with their women.

There may not be a statue of Hitler himself, but there are monuments that invoke his name. If we want to talk about revisionist history, several American columnists have given a false account of what happened when Germany fell at the end of WW2. De-Nazification was not absolute, as they often claim. A good example of this is a museum of sorts that is in Berlin that displays various Nazi-era statues and monuments, along with imperial German ones.
That's a museum, not the town square....... those museum pieces are qualified with, "These people were really bad". Or the German equivalent.

Now, you do have a point that DeNazificiation wasn't complete. After we had the good sense to hang the to 10,000 or so Nazis, most of the rest were allowed to resettle in German life, quietly putting their SS uniforms in the attic.

Nobody is proud of Grossvater Hans who was an Obergruppenfuhrer in the SS like they are of Great Grandpa Beauregard who was a Colonel in the Confederate Army.
 

Utilitarian

co-Cain Manager
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
1,060
Reaction score
476
Points
198
Location
NC
1) I have a degree in history. Fuck off.
Touchy, touchy.

2) Yes, the average inbred racist didn't own a slave. (Although 30% of the population of the Confederacy did in fact own slaves), but they benefitted directly and indirectly from slave labor. The fear was that when slaves were emancipated, they'd do things like take white people's jobs and have sex with their women.
So, are you saying that every white Southerner was an "inbred racist"? That's rather lacking in nuance. It's like thinking that every non-Jew German under Hitler's reign was an antisemite.

That's a museum, not the town square....... those museum pieces are qualified with, "These people were really bad". Or the German equivalent.

Now, you do have a point that DeNazificiation wasn't complete. After we had the good sense to hang the to 10,000 or so Nazis, most of the rest were allowed to resettle in German life, quietly putting their SS uniforms in the attic.

Nobody is proud of Grossvater Hans who was an Obergruppenfuhrer in the SS like they are of Great Grandpa Beauregard who was a Colonel in the Confederate Army.
Well, as another poster pointed out in this thread, there is one notable difference between Nazis and Confederates -- Nazis were intent on world domination while Confederates just wanted independence. It's a little easier to romanticize an independence movement than a world conquest attempt. Even slavery isn't quite as bad as a genocide.
 

whitehall

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
47,920
Reaction score
11,555
Points
2,040
Location
Western Va.
The ironic thing is that Confederate General Robert E. Lee owned the property that was turned into the Arlington National Cemetery. It was seized by the Union for non payment of property tax. If the Lee descendants can prove irregularity in the Union law suit the property could revert back to the Lee family.
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
132,574
Reaction score
15,418
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
So, are you saying that every white Southerner was an "inbred racist"? That's rather lacking in nuance. It's like thinking that every non-Jew German under Hitler's reign was an antisemite.
Actually, I would say that. German culture was DEEPLY antisemitic before Hitler got there.

Well, as another poster pointed out in this thread, there is one notable difference between Nazis and Confederates -- Nazis were intent on world domination while Confederates just wanted independence. It's a little easier to romanticize an independence movement than a world conquest attempt. Even slavery isn't quite as bad as a genocide.
Well, that's a mythology. The Nazis weren't out for "world domination"... that's just something that our propagandists like to say. They had no real interest in Africa, Asia or the Americas. They were happy to let Britain, Japan and the US run those areas.

Yes, slavery is just as bad as Genocide...
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
132,574
Reaction score
15,418
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
The ironic thing is that Confederate General Robert E. Lee owned the property that was turned into the Arlington National Cemetery. It was seized by the Union for non payment of property tax. If the Lee descendants can prove irregularity in the Union law suit the property could revert back to the Lee family.
The ironic things is we didn't take Lee out and hang him as a traitor.
 

Utilitarian

co-Cain Manager
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
1,060
Reaction score
476
Points
198
Location
NC
So, are you saying that every white Southerner was an "inbred racist"? That's rather lacking in nuance. It's like thinking that every non-Jew German under Hitler's reign was an antisemite.
Actually, I would say that. German culture was DEEPLY antisemitic before Hitler got there.
A lot of Europe in general was equally as antisemitic as Germany. The main difference is that a lot of Germany's neighbors hadn't had a Jewish pogrom in a while by the time that the Nazis had risen. And of course, the scale of genocide was higher with the Nazis, although they clearly targeted more than just Jews.

Well, as another poster pointed out in this thread, there is one notable difference between Nazis and Confederates -- Nazis were intent on world domination while Confederates just wanted independence. It's a little easier to romanticize an independence movement than a world conquest attempt. Even slavery isn't quite as bad as a genocide.
Well, that's a mythology. The Nazis weren't out for "world domination"... that's just something that our propagandists like to say. They had no real interest in Africa, Asia or the Americas. They were happy to let Britain, Japan and the US run those areas.

Yes, slavery is just as bad as Genocide...
If that's your argument, then we should have let Britain and the Soviets defeat the Nazis on their own. At the very least, they could have forced Hitler into a truce. Entering WW2 only made sense under the assumption that the Nazis were a threat to us. If they weren't a threat, then it begs the question of why we entered the war.

Also, if slavery is just as bad as genocide, then it sounds like we should be doing a lot more about Libya's slavery and China's enslavement of the Uighurs.
 

RoshawnMarkwees

Assimilationist
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
25,956
Reaction score
7,168
Points
280
Location
Middle class, suburban ghetto.
So, are you saying that every white Southerner was an "inbred racist"? That's rather lacking in nuance. It's like thinking that every non-Jew German under Hitler's reign was an antisemite.
Actually, I would say that. German culture was DEEPLY antisemitic before Hitler got there.
A lot of Europe in general was equally as antisemitic as Germany. The main difference is that a lot of Germany's neighbors hadn't had a Jewish pogrom in a while by the time that the Nazis had risen. And of course, the scale of genocide was higher with the Nazis, although they clearly targeted more than just Jews.

Well, as another poster pointed out in this thread, there is one notable difference between Nazis and Confederates -- Nazis were intent on world domination while Confederates just wanted independence. It's a little easier to romanticize an independence movement than a world conquest attempt. Even slavery isn't quite as bad as a genocide.
Well, that's a mythology. The Nazis weren't out for "world domination"... that's just something that our propagandists like to say. They had no real interest in Africa, Asia or the Americas. They were happy to let Britain, Japan and the US run those areas.

Yes, slavery is just as bad as Genocide...
If that's your argument, then we should have let Britain and the Soviets defeat the Nazis on their own. At the very least, they could have forced Hitler into a truce. Entering WW2 only made sense under the assumption that the Nazis were a threat to us. If they weren't a threat, then it begs the question of why we entered the war.

Also, if slavery is just as bad as genocide, then it sounds like we should be doing a lot more about Libya's slavery and China's enslavement of the Uighurs.
Nazi U-boats were sinking American merchant and navy ships in American waters including within view of NY harbor. I’d consider that a threat.
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
132,574
Reaction score
15,418
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
A lot of Europe in general was equally as antisemitic as Germany. The main difference is that a lot of Germany's neighbors hadn't had a Jewish pogrom in a while by the time that the Nazis had risen. And of course, the scale of genocide was higher with the Nazis, although they clearly targeted more than just Jews.
Missing the point. The Germans had a religious book called "The Jews and their Lies", written by the founder of the German Church. They had Passion Plays every winter with the Jews killing Jesus. It wasn't very hard for Hitler to convince Germans the Jews were responsible for all their problems because they were already inclined to think that.

If that's your argument, then we should have let Britain and the Soviets defeat the Nazis on their own. At the very least, they could have forced Hitler into a truce. Entering WW2 only made sense under the assumption that the Nazis were a threat to us. If they weren't a threat, then it begs the question of why we entered the war.
Because FDR wanted to get into the war, and Germany was dumb enough to declare war on us when they didn't have to. Their treaty with Japan didn't require them to take sides in wars Japan started.

Also, if slavery is just as bad as genocide, then it sounds like we should be doing a lot more about Libya's slavery and China's enslavement of the Uighurs.
We did do something in Libya, and we made things worse. And frankly, I don't give a shit about the Uighurs, they've been fighting Chinese domination for centuries... you'd think they'd get the hint.
 

Fang

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2012
Messages
7,271
Reaction score
3,026
Points
390
"If passed as-is, this amendment would require that the federal government desecrate the graves of 482 Confederate soldiers buried in Arlington National Cemetery. The soldiers are buried in a circle around a massive, 106-year-old monument commemorating the Confederate soldiers who died in the Civil War. Every President since Teddy Roosevelt has laid a wreath at this monument. Yes, that includes Barack H. Obama. He paid his respects to the Confederate dead buried in Arlington back in 2009."

Yes, even Barack Obama was reasonable about this.
 

RoshawnMarkwees

Assimilationist
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
25,956
Reaction score
7,168
Points
280
Location
Middle class, suburban ghetto.
"If passed as-is, this amendment would require that the federal government desecrate the graves of 482 Confederate soldiers buried in Arlington National Cemetery. The soldiers are buried in a circle around a massive, 106-year-old monument commemorating the Confederate soldiers who died in the Civil War. Every President since Teddy Roosevelt has laid a wreath at this monument. Yes, that includes Barack H. Obama. He paid his respects to the Confederate dead buried in Arlington back in 2009."

Yes, even Barack Obama was reasonable about this.
No, Obama was political about it. Asked today and he’d either dance around the question or agree they should be removed.
 

Utilitarian

co-Cain Manager
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
1,060
Reaction score
476
Points
198
Location
NC
A lot of Europe in general was equally as antisemitic as Germany. The main difference is that a lot of Germany's neighbors hadn't had a Jewish pogrom in a while by the time that the Nazis had risen. And of course, the scale of genocide was higher with the Nazis, although they clearly targeted more than just Jews.
Missing the point. The Germans had a religious book called "The Jews and their Lies", written by the founder of the German Church. They had Passion Plays every winter with the Jews killing Jesus. It wasn't very hard for Hitler to convince Germans the Jews were responsible for all their problems because they were already inclined to think that.
And that wasn't exclusive to Germans either. Hitler borrowed a lot of his rhetoric from the Austrian politician Karl Lueger. A major driver for Germany's antisemitic leanings, however, was economic. Many of the wealthiest people in Germany before Hitler's rise were Jewish. Given the economic hardships a lot of the German public suffered during the decline of the Weimar Republic, wealthy Jews became an easy scapegoat. Still, Hitler's rise to dictator did not come from the support of the public. The Enabling Act was the fatal mistake -- which can be squarely blamed on the legislature itself. We'll never know, but I don't get the impression that Hitler would have received such vast powers from a public referendum.

If that's your argument, then we should have let Britain and the Soviets defeat the Nazis on their own. At the very least, they could have forced Hitler into a truce. Entering WW2 only made sense under the assumption that the Nazis were a threat to us. If they weren't a threat, then it begs the question of why we entered the war.
Because FDR wanted to get into the war, and Germany was dumb enough to declare war on us when they didn't have to. Their treaty with Japan didn't require them to take sides in wars Japan started.
Well, we also were being attacked by U-boats, and we were helping to supply the Allies before we entered the war. It was kind of a foregone conclusion that we would enter the war and that Germany clearly had the capability and motivation for harming us. Military powers don't tend to take supplying their enemies lightly.

Also, if slavery is just as bad as genocide, then it sounds like we should be doing a lot more about Libya's slavery and China's enslavement of the Uighurs.
We did do something in Libya, and we made things worse. And frankly, I don't give a shit about the Uighurs, they've been fighting Chinese domination for centuries... you'd think they'd get the hint.
The slave trade in Libya that exists now is directly related to removing Gaddafi. We made things worse alright, but the current slave trade wouldn't exist if we hadn't removed him.

In short, we enabled the slave trade there.

If your argument is that the Uighurs don't matter because of how long the fight has been, then I can use the same logic to suggest that all the talk of the "legacy of slavery" is also pointless. At some point, you have to hold people responsible for their own success, rather than blaming everything on society or events that happened long ago.

In fact, I could use the same logic to downplay the pogroms and the Holocaust, given the long history of Jewish oppression in Europe. So you can see where your logic leads.

Should we downplay the significance of the Armenian genocide while we're at it?
 
Last edited:

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
132,574
Reaction score
15,418
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
And that wasn't exclusive to Germans either. Hitler borrowed a lot of his rhetoric from the Austrian politician Karl Lueger. A major driver for Germany's antisemitic leanings, however, was economic. Many of the wealthiest people in Germany before Hitler's rise were Jewish. Given the economic hardships a lot of the German public suffered during the decline of the Weimar Republic, wealthy Jews became an easy scapegoat. Still, Hitler's rise to dictator did not come from the support of the public. The Enabling Act was the fatal mistake -- which can be squarely blamed on the legislature itself. We'll never know, but I don't get the impression that Hitler would have received such vast powers from a public referendum.
Wouldn't he have? The NSDAP got the most votes in the election of 1933. They were the only ones who could have formed a government because the only way to stop them would be to have the far left, center and moderate right form a coalition government to block them.

Instead, the Moderate Right and Center thought they could control Hitler. Kind of like how sensible moderate republicans thought they could control Trump. It's like people never fucking learn.

Well, we also were being attacked by U-boats, and we were helping to supply the Allies before we entered the war. It was kind of a foregone conclusion that we would enter the war and that Germany clearly had the capability and motivation for harming us. Military powers don't tend to take supplying their enemies lightly.
Actually. No. Hitler went out of his way to NOT attack American shipping supplying the UK. He didn't want to give America an excuse to get into the war. After Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, though, he got stupid and declared war on us, figuring that we'd be too involved fighting Japan to bother him.

The slave trade in Libya that exists now is directly related to removing Gaddafi. We made things worse alright, but the current slave trade wouldn't exist if we hadn't removed him.

In short, we enabled the slave trade there.
Qadafi was going down regardless of what we did. This isn't our failure, it was the failure of the Libyans themselves to rebuild their society.

If your argument is that the Uighurs don't matter because of how long the fight has been, then I can use the same logic to suggest that all the talk of the "legacy of slavery" is also pointless. At some point, you have to hold people responsible for their own success, rather than blaming everything on society or events that happened long ago.
That's ummmm, retarded. I mean, seriously, do you wear a helmet to keep from hurting yourself?

Uighers are 12 million people in a country with a population of 1.3 BILLION. Of those 12 million, the Chinese government lock up maybe 120,000 of the most radical.

Again, we've been chasing Muslim fanatics around the world for the last 30 years... and you are upset because the Chinese are doing something about Muslim fanatics in their own borders?

here's the thing you Trump Cultists don't get - Chinese History. Something that China is VERY TOUCHY about is their own sovereignty. Most because the rest of the world spent a century treating China like everyone's bitch.

So when you whine about Uigher Terrorists or Hong Kong demonstrators or Taiwan being a bunch of pricks, to China, this is just outsiders fucking with their sovereignty.
 

Utilitarian

co-Cain Manager
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
1,060
Reaction score
476
Points
198
Location
NC
If your argument is that the Uighurs don't matter because of how long the fight has been, then I can use the same logic to suggest that all the talk of the "legacy of slavery" is also pointless. At some point, you have to hold people responsible for their own success, rather than blaming everything on society or events that happened long ago.
That's ummmm, retarded. I mean, seriously, do you wear a helmet to keep from hurting yourself?

Uighers are 12 million people in a country with a population of 1.3 BILLION. Of those 12 million, the Chinese government lock up maybe 120,000 of the most radical.

Again, we've been chasing Muslim fanatics around the world for the last 30 years... and you are upset because the Chinese are doing something about Muslim fanatics in their own borders?

here's the thing you Trump Cultists don't get - Chinese History. Something that China is VERY TOUCHY about is their own sovereignty. Most because the rest of the world spent a century treating China like everyone's bitch.

So when you whine about Uigher Terrorists or Hong Kong demonstrators or Taiwan being a bunch of pricks, to China, this is just outsiders fucking with their sovereignty.
Yeah, you're clearly a wumao. Say hello to my ignore list.
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
132,574
Reaction score
15,418
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
Yeah, you're clearly a wumao. Say hello to my ignore list.
Not sure what a wumao is.. is that the scary Chinese person who is hiding under your bed.

But for those interested in the poor Uighers, here's some enlightening reading.


 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top