White House announces more aggressive review of Smithsonian museums

[martybegan]

Your "historical statue" is anti-American propaganda.

Not sure what part of the Smithsonian you consider to be "leftard" propaganda, but given you appear to be very stupid (judging based on your use of "leftard") I doubt you have any idea and just accept what you're told to believe.

The Smithsonian certainly don't need to be told how to educate the populace on history by a guy who references Leningrad in 2025.

Smithsonian Made Big Mistake By Snubbing Clarence Thomas at New African-American History Museum | Law & Crime

This week, the museum opened the National Museum of African-American History and Culture – and it snubbed Clarence Thomas, big time. It omitted all but a brief mention of Thomas – only the second black Supreme Court justice, and one who has served for a quarter century.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

Your playing dumb it noted and ignored.

Obviously not since your dumbass replied. You want to celebrate the good and hide the bad.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

Smithsonian Made Big Mistake By Snubbing Clarence Thomas at New African-American History Museum | Law & Crime

That wasn't a mistake, we are not celebrating a ass kissing, boot licker.

 

[martybegan]

That wasn't a mistake, we are not celebrating a ass kissing, boot licker.

Racist asshole.

 

[Marener]

Smithsonian Made Big Mistake By Snubbing Clarence Thomas at New African-American History Museum | Law & Crime

I assumed Clarence Thomas wouldn’t want people to celebrate his achievements on the basis of race.

Is that the best you got? It’s a decade old.

 

[martybegan]

I assumed Clarence Thomas wouldn’t want people to celebrate his achievements on the basis of race.

Is that the best you got? It’s a decade old.

It's a prime example.

Another:

 

[Missourian]

If aliens landed on earth, enslaved me for a few decades, then let me out but stayed in charge and stuck a bunch of slaver alien statues around town.. how would I feel? Not sure. I'd think I wouldnt feel great.

Ok, that's understandable.

But to make your anecdote accurate, in wouldn't be you, the former slave, that we're talking about. The person who is viewing the statue today never met you. You died 110 years ago. Your children died 70 years ago. Your grandchildren died 30 years ago. Your great granddaughter is married to an alien. The aliens voted for and helped elect the first member of your species to lead the free world. All your life you've had the same rights and responsibilities as the aliens.

180 years in the future no one is intimidated by a statue.

 

[Correll]

Your "historical statue" is anti-American propaganda.

No, it's not. Southern Pride has been assimilated into the larger American Patriotism generations ago.

That is WHY the opposition to these statues comes not from conservative Patriotis, but from America hating leftards like yourself.

Not sure what part of the Smithsonian you consider to be "leftard" propaganda, but given you appear to be very stupid (judging based on your use of "leftard") I doubt you have any idea and just accept what you're told to believe.

The Smithsonian certainly don't need to be told how to educate the populace on history by a guy who references Leningrad in 2025.

Irrelevant. You support it, I oppose it. YOu pretending it is not there, is just your defense of it.

So....yeah. Oh, you are a leftard.

 

[Correll]

Racist as hell, go suck yourself, you'll get more.

You are a filthy liar.

 

[Correll]

Obviously not since your dumbass replied. You want to celebrate the good and hide the bad.

I want to celebrate the good and not pretend that hte bad makes America something to be ashamed of, you commie bastard.

 

[Marener]

No, it's not. Southern Pride has been assimilated into the larger American Patriotism generations ago

No it hasn’t. There’s nothing patriotic about killing your countrymen in an attempt to rip the country apart to preserve the ability to own people.

That’s not patriotic and thinking it is shows you’re a revisionist.

 

[dblack]

Pretending you aren't in the middle of a war is a good way to get hit by shells from both sides.

And it's idiotic.

Nah. You fuckers are insane. I won't be choosing sides.

 

[Correll]

No it hasn’t.

Yes, it has. Your denial is dumb.

There’s nothing patriotic about killing your countrymen in an attempt to rip the country apart to preserve the ability to own people.

There is in defending your home from an invading army, which was most of the experience of most of the southern soldiers.

That you need to add SPIN, to your point, to make your point, is because your point is false.

That’s not patriotic and thinking it is shows you’re a revisionist.

Except, for over 5 generations, that thinking was the norm in this country and in the process, the wound of hte civil war was healed.

 

[Marener]

There is in defending your home from an invading army, which was most of the experience of most of the southern soldiers.

That you need to add SPIN, to your point, to make your point, is because your point is false.

The spin is pretending like you don’t understand the cause of the civil war. You make it seem like the civil war for the south was in self defense.

That’s revisionism and anti-American.

Except, for over 5 generations, that thinking was the norm in this country and in the process, the wound of hte civil war was healed.

No it didn’t. It was left to fester, which is why revisionists like you can’t see reality.

 

[citygator]

Ok, that's understandable.

But to make your anecdote accurate, in wouldn't be you, the former slave, that we're talking about. The person who is viewing the statue today never met you. You died 110 years ago. Your children died 70 years ago. Your grandchildren died 30 years ago. Your great granddaughter is married to an alien. The aliens voted for and helped elect the first member of your species to lead the free world. All your life you've had the same rights and responsibilities as the aliens.

180 years in the future no one is intimidated by a statue.

I think knowing those statues were put up to intimidate those like me might not sit well. What if the NYC new mayor starts putting up statues around town of the 9/11 bombers? Seems silly right? So does confederate traitors.

 

[Missourian]

I think knowing those statues were put up to intimidate those like me might not sit well. What if the NYC new mayor starts putting up statues around town of the 9/11 bombers? Seems silly right? So does confederate traitors.

I would say there is a difference between terrorists who killed innocent civilians like cowards and soldiers who fought and lost a war.

Would it upset you that there are tributes to Benedict Arnold in both the US and the UK?

Doesn't bother me a lick.

But I understand why a leftist can't discern between a group of cowardly, civilian-murdering terrorists and beloved Generals who led their troops, the Sons of the South, into battle.

 

[citygator]

I would say there is a difference between terrorists who killed innocent civilians like cowards and soldiers who fought and lost a war.

Would it upset you that there are tributes to Benedict Arnold in both the US and the UK?

Doesn't bother me a lick.

But I understand why a leftist can't discern between a group of cowardly, civilian-murdering terrorists and beloved Generals who led their troops, the Sons of the South, into battle.

They will be taken down next democratic president. I look forward to it. This time I expect them to be destroyed.

 

[Missourian]

I think knowing those statues were put up to intimidate those like me might not sit well. What if the NYC new mayor starts putting up statues around town of the 9/11 bombers? Seems silly right? So does confederate traitors.

From AI...

The prompt "Examples of Great Generals who fought on the side of morally questionable conflicts"...


This is a complex and fascinating topic, as it delves into the often-blurry lines between military prowess, personal character, and historical context. The definition of a "great man" is subjective and can be debated, but generally, it refers to individuals who demonstrated exceptional leadership, strategic genius, and often, a certain level of personal integrity or honor, even if they served a cause that history has judged harshly.
Here are a few examples of generals who fit this description, along with the reasons they are often considered "great men" despite fighting for a morally wrong side:


* Erwin Rommel (World War II): Often called the "Desert Fox," Rommel was a brilliant German field marshal who commanded the Axis forces in North Africa. He is widely respected for his tactical genius, particularly his use of swift, mobile warfare, which earned him the admiration of his opponents, including the British. Rommel is also noted for his conduct during the war. He was not a member of the Nazi Party, and he consistently disobeyed Hitler's orders to execute captured commandos and Jewish soldiers, treating prisoners of war humanely. He was later implicated in the 20 July plot to assassinate Hitler and was forced to commit suicide. His reputation as a professional soldier who acted with honor and opposed the regime's worst atrocities stands in stark contrast to the morally bankrupt cause he served.


* Robert E. Lee (American Civil War): Lee was the commanding general of the Confederate States Army. While the Confederacy fought to preserve slavery, a morally indefensible institution, Lee himself is often portrayed as a man of high character. He was a brilliant strategist, respected by both his own men and his Union opponents. He was a devout Christian who was known for his personal integrity, humility, and dedication to his soldiers. After the war, he urged reconciliation between the North and South and encouraged his former soldiers to become good citizens of the United States. His commitment to duty, his personal honor, and his actions to heal a divided nation are often cited as reasons he is considered a "great man," despite fighting for the "Lost Cause."


* Yamamoto Isoroku (World War II): As the commander-in-chief of the Imperial Japanese Navy, Yamamoto was the architect of the attack on Pearl Harbor. While he served an aggressive and expansionist empire, Yamamoto himself was a complex figure. He had studied at Harvard and served as a naval attaché in Washington D.C. and understood the industrial might of the United States. He opposed war with America, believing Japan could not win a prolonged conflict. He was a brilliant naval strategist who planned the attack on Pearl Harbor with the hope of crippling the U.S. fleet in a single blow, allowing Japan to negotiate for peace from a position of strength. He was a man of honor, and despite his opposition to the war, he dedicated himself to his duty once the decision was made. His personal foresight and strategic brilliance are often cited, even by his former enemies, as evidence of his greatness as a military leader.

 

[Moonglow]

They should be places that celebrate America.....Leave the unseemly "warts" to self-loathing "historians".

Well, that throws Trump out the door.

 

[Missourian]

They will be taken down next democratic president. I look forward to it. This time I expect them to be destroyed.

The way the pendulum is swinging, that may be awhile.

Woke is dead. You may be the last hanger on.

Hopefully cooler Democrat heads will prevail and a compromise can be reached.

We can all I think agree that men owning other men was wrong.

But we can also agree that risking your life for your country, home and citizenry is courageous, and leading men honorably into battle under the onslaught of enemy fire is also worthy of memorialization, even if that country no longer exists.

There can be monuments and tributes to good and honorable men that fought for, in retrospect, morally indefensible causes.