https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/07/us/robert-e-lee-statue-melt-charlottesville.html
share
Yes, and now things are better. No more racists, birds will sing, and even outhouses will now smell like spring flowers. What took them so long?
Great! I guess we don’t have to teach our children about slavery then. Hey, you’re erasing history. So, fuck liberals!
shareLast I checked, history still existed.
shareYou're correct, sir.
shareHave you ever learned the history, morals and ethics of a particular subject by looking at a statue of a person? Me neither.
I bet the vast majority of people against the teaching of the racial history of the US in schools are also against the removal of statues honouring those who fought to preserve slavery.
There should be a compromise. Every statue of a confederate "hero" should be catalogued in book that is mandatory school reading. In the book it details when the statue was removed, how many slaves the "hero" owned, and how many southern men, who were dirt poor themselves, died fighting for the "hero" so that he could keep his slaves etc.
"... I bet the vast majority of people against the teaching of the racial history of the US in schools are also against the removal of statues honouring those who fought to preserve slavery."
Now you're talking crazy! ;)
I bet the vast majority of people who are for Critical Race Theory if you put a microphone in front of their face and asked them to spell Critical Race Theory they would be sweating under the collar.
sharethis is one of the dumbest things I've ever read. Don't you guys cry the left are out of touch snooty academics and intellectuals?
the fact you even thought these three words may be a challenge to spell shows your level of intelect.
No those snooty academics are the ones making them all stupid to better serve mother Russia or China or whoever pays them.
shareIt's like you can set up a microphone anywhere the students of the Snoots congregate and they will tell you all about the unique differences between the 5000 different genders but ask them to name a Continent other than Canada and they get all nervous and say Alaska and that is completely by design of those you salivate over
shareCanada isn't a continent................
I know that and you know that but try telling that to the Hitler youth that are taught personally by all your Liberal heroes.
sharethe hitler youth.... yah the right wing nazis are actually liberals.
shareYour retort might actually be very logical
shareHave you ever heard the saying "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt?"
You might want to consider taking that advise.
how could it not be. the nazis were objectively right wing reactionaries.. they blended capitalism and socialism into their own pro pure German Volk "third way".
they helped the fascists in italy
they helped the conservative/chrsitians in Spain
they formed domestic alliances in both federal and provincial parties with other conservative parties. never with left wing ones.
they saw themselves as undoubtably on the right
But if you were a right wing Nazi in the system you wouldn't say you were a right wing Nazi. You would say you are a bleeding heart liberal.
shareif you made a coherent point id address.
no the nazis in no ways saw themselves as liberals. they in fact blamed the liberalization for many of germanys problems.
you are so poorly educated it hurts my brain
See you don't understand "South Park Theory" in South Park Theory if i want everyone to vote to keep up a racist flag i'm not gonna tell them to vote to keep the flag up, im gonna tell them to vote to change the flag so they all vote.
I have no doubt the Racist Part of the Government that put up the "No Colors Allowed" signs still have a hold in our government and i have no doubt many are hiding behind a Woke Persona and i have no doubt you act as their Scumbag Internet Defense Lawyer.
I have no doubt the Democratic Party is Dead and in it's place is a party of people just like you. Defense Lawyers and Propagandaists for the Machine leading us into War and Facism.
shareya they didn't teach "South Park theory" when I went to university..
again if you made a coherent point id address it. but your just spewed more shit.
"intellect" has two Ls
sharetoo bad
shareEven Robert E. Lee's enemies respected him.
shareI suspect you know Lee was offered high-paying figure head jobs as president of several northen companies. He refused because he felt he had played a part in the destruction of the south. He chosevto become the president of Washington College, later Washington and Lee.
He more or less invented the modern college curriculum so his students could learn skills to rebuild the south. Yet W&L is ashamed of him now.
Fun fact: Robert E. Lee did more for the advancement of black people, than those that today tore down his statues.
It gets worse, though. In the UK, they tore down statues of Winston Chruchill, of CHURCHILL. The one stubborn dude that probably saved England from German occupation, and now they tore him down because "racism".
Meanwhile, they skipped statues of Lenin, because Lenin wasn't racist at all. As we know, his rotten ideology made people starve no matter what color their skin had. Awww, wholesome Lenin
Meanwhile, they skipped statues of Lenin, because Lenin wasn't racist at all. As we know, his rotten ideology made people starve no matter what color their skin had.
another dumb comment I am sure conservatives eat up.
share
Here, let me fix that for you:
Sorry, I must respectfully disagree with your comment even though a lot of conservatives will surely agree with it.
no it is just dumb. objectively
It's important that we not have poor people to be jealous of the rich. If there are no rich and everyone is starving equally, then there are no "poor" which is a construct based on comparison. The million or so that died under Lenin? Well, they were just in the way of equality.
Ah yes, the "rich don't pay their fair share" - the same old lie that muddles the minds of every Socialist and every other worthless slug who wants to exist solely on the labors of others. Your hated rich are taxed (at least in the U.S.) at a higher *rate* than those who are not "rich".
As the great Dr. Thomas Sowell said: “I have never understood why it is "greed" to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money.”
All we are guaranteed is the opportunity, not a life of leisure. The streets are still paved with gold for those willing to work for it. Here's some advice for you: get a job, save your money, invest, and stop blaming your failures on "rich" people. Blaming others like the rich for your misery is the cheap way out of not owning your failures.
1. they don't. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/10/08/first-time-history-us-billionaires-paid-lower-tax-rate-than-working-class-last-year/
plus they own 89% of all stocks, taxed at 15%. there are also other ways besides income taxes where the poor and middle class contribute.
2. im a socialist? because I disagree slightly on a tax rate?
3. the irony of you saying I am a slug who wants to live off the labor of others while defending the uber rich. sweet irony.
4. I don't hate the rich. im happy we have rich people. im not happy we have rich people who bought the political system to get even more economic advantages.
5. maybe because its greed when you have far far more than you'd ever need, while gaming the system to pay even less while your own workers and fellow Americans can't even get by. It's called having a conscience and not being a sociopath. but I know that seems to be a mental issue among libertarians.
6. we aren't all guaranteed this opportunity. that's a load of nonsense and utter BS. its why various organizations measure social/economic mobility. and the US constantly doesn't even rate top 10. it doesn't even rate top 20. Conservatives try and have it both ways. say the countries economic system, and taxes rules and regulation can affect business and stifle it with big government and its bad, while also then say that its impossible a countries economic system could stifle the poor and middle class ability to move up due to rule sand regulations and the tax code/taxes.
7. I have a job you clown. stop parroting conservative talking points and make a coherent point.
you do not seem to be able to make single intelligible or logical point. it is why you just regurgitate republican and libertarian nonsense.
Get a job and stop trying to live off everyone else's hard work.
I do work. I own. home at 24 and have two cars. nothing fancy mind you but im happy with what I accomplished.
from your response you cannot rebut my arguements. and instead fall back on just parroting right wing talking points
And what if the "right wing talking points" happen to be correct? You keep repeating the left wing talking points.. One of them is right.
Your tax the rich whine smacks of jealousy. Taxing the most productive people at exponential rates compared to everyone else never benefits anyone but politicians, and it NEVER eliminates the poor. It also reduces the opportunities for anyone to make themselves very successful themselves if not rich. Anyone interested in facts knows this, but I suspect you are more interested in complaining about inequity, which is why arguing any further is pointless - so the last comment is yours.
your prove they are correct with evidence and good arguments. you've said so far
1. get a job
2. what if they are correct
I don't repeat them. I gave evidence. america objectively does not rank in the top 20 of countries with the best economic mobility
it doesn't smack of jealous, it smacks of reality. these roads and police and military don't pay for themselves. who said fully eliminate the poor? it doesn't reduce the oppurtunies for everyone. having a healthy middle class and fairly paid ;lower class increases economic activity. as money moves through the economy better, and these people having more income means a far likelier chance they take economic risks and become entrepreneurs.
you have given no facts. you've whined like a bitch and spread propaganda.
https://youtu.be/PkJlTKUaF3Q
here's the quick summation blueprint of how they screwed everyone over.
A sad legacy for my favorite General...
shareIf you take down statues to honor people who fought in order to preserve slavery then that's a good thing.
Just a basic fact.
No child has ever learned about the evil of slavery from a statue.
No one puts up a statue to honor bad things done by the historical figure. The purpose is to commemorate the person’s creditable aspects. Lee was a hero in the Mexican American war and a genius in military science thereafter. The “tearing down” precedent is going to again occur when the National Archives releases the FBI surveillance tapes on Martin Luther King in five years. King’s biographer, David Garrow, says government memos describe the tapes as revealing that King engaged in orgies, solicited prostitutes, and "looked on and laughed" as a pastor he knew raped a woman. The MeToo movement will be coming for King’s monuments based on your same logic
shareLee fought to destroy the United States and maintain slavery. He also lost, therefore a loser. He was an enemy of the United States who was a traitor.
Your attack on a civil rights leader while defending a slave owner and traitor is racist.
I hope you and your straw man enjoy the hay ride together. (I’m sure you will read this comment to mean that I support racism in American agriculture)
shareYour deflection doesn't work with me. Lee attacked the U.S. with the goal of destroying it to maintain slavery.
You might as well support the Japanese for attacking Pearl Harbor, too.
Lee fought to destroy the United States and maintain slavery.
Just for the record: Lee was offered a full pardon and reinstatement after the war. His application with his pledge was “lost”. During Gerald Ford’s presidency it was found. Lee was awarded a full posthumous pardon and restoration of his rank.
shareOnly to help the country to "heal". Nixon was a crook, but Ford pardoned him. Don't read too much into it.
shareThe Army wanted him back in service. They needed him.
To this day they don't know who sabotaged his pardon but at least an effort was made to correct it.
You mean the U.S. Army he waged war on? LOL! He should've been shot for treason.
Lee was not pardoned, nor was his citizenship restored by Johnson.
In 1975, Ford pardoned him to get the racists' vote in the South since they were against the recently signed Civil Rights' legislation. It was part of the Republican Party's Southern Strategy.
This is ridiculously inaccurate. Ford signed a joint resolution passed by Congress to posthumously restore Lee’s citizenship. The resolution was created by two Democrats: Senator Harry Byrd from VA (S.J.Res.23) and Representative Ken Hechlar from W.V. (H.J. Res. 400). It was co-sponsored by 10 Democrat Senators from states in the North, South, East, and West. The Congress in which it passed was a rare super-majority Democrat-controlled legislature and it passed 407-10 in the House of Representatives where Democrats held 61% voting power. You have lost all credibility here.
shareYou only reiterated what I wrote:
"In 1975, Ford pardoned him to get the racists' vote in the South since they were against the recently signed Civil Rights' legislation. It was part of the Republican Party's Southern Strategy."
You only reiterated what I wrote:
“This is ridiculously inaccurate. You have lost all credibility here”
You're only insulting.
My response is accurate history.
The posthumous return of Lee’s citizenship signed by Ford in 1975 was spearheaded exclusively by Democratic legislators, overwhelmingly supported by Democrats in both chambers of Congress from across the U.S., and enthusiastically enacted by a super-majority Democratic legislature. This was not the result of a corrupt partisan strategy by either side. I’m not insulting you, I’m impeaching you. I’m surprised you keep bumping this thread but it has the benefit of exposing your fabrications on this subject.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
And they were right to do so. Nice bi-partisan action. I support "healing" this country, not picking at very, very old wounds.
shareI sincerely believe this was the true goal. Whether people believe it wrong today, the 1975 return of Lee’s citizenship was widely supported across political lines when it occurred. It was not corrupt or racist.
shareWell, of course. BOTH parties have been in favor of equal rights for blacks since the mid 60s.
shareLOL! KKK and other white supremacists are comfortable in the Republican Party.
shareUnlikely. The GOP has been supporting civil rights for generations.
The same GOP gerrymandering and suppression the black vote? And completely disrespected Obama?
shareYep. That's the one. Equality means, being treated like grown ups. You play ball, you take some hits, like being "disrespected" if you are an enemy.
You want coddled, go talk to a lib.
If it is equal than why did they try and suppress votes of a specific group?
shareGerrymanding is almost always about suppressing the vote of the other PARTY.
You did know that, right?
Then why does the right get mad when it is done to them? Turn about is fair play correct? How many times have you heard about the election being stolen from the right? You hear that constantly.
shareSo, you're dropping the line of attack, re:racism, becasue it didn't work and instead you just move on to the next attack?
You are just a troll.
Where did I say racism? I said there is an obvious bias agenda going on. The right claims voter fraud where as the left never does. At least not top the degree the republicans do. You are fine with them Gerrymandering a democrat but they get upset when it is done to a republican.
shareJust more shit talk. If you don't respect the shit you say, why should anyone else?
shareI respect what I say. You just can't come against it. Tell me do you believe the election was stolen?
shareWe were talking about gerrymandering. Now that's just shit under the bridge TO YOU.
I ask again, if you consider the shit you say shit, that you don't care about, why should anyone else care about it?
And I expanded on that. Why is it okay to Gerrymander a democrat but not a republican? You failed to respond to this.
shareYour strawman is your business. It has nothing to do with me.
shareConcession noted. You fail to respond that counts as a concession. Another point for me.
shareSlavery was never acceptable. It was always deemed immoral and evil. Lee and other sociopaths didn't care because of the wealth involved.
The South benefited economically from slavery whether or not an individual owned or didn't own slaves. The wealthiest owned and ran large slave plantations. Most Southerners supported slavery because they hoped to become wealthy by becoming plantation owners themselves. They also believed in the white supremacist ideology.
"the South produced almost 75 percent of all U.S. exports. Slaves were worth more than all the manufacturing companies and railroads in the nation. No elite class in history has ever given up such an immense interest voluntarily."
"the North telling them what to do."
That's not true. It was the opposite. Southerners wanted Northerners to practice slavery which was rejected by them. Northerners weren't going to help capture runaway slaves who were considered free in the North. This shows that the South didn't believe in state's rights for the Northern states.
The South wanted slavery because white plantation owners became rich from it. Read each Southern governor's speech as he explains the reason for starting the war. Or read the Cornerstone Speech.
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/cornerstone-speech
"they couldn't vote"
Why is that?
Slavery was never acceptable.
The Founding Fathers knew slavery was wrong:
"In his initial draft of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson condemned the injustice of the slave trade and, by implication, slavery, but he also blamed the presence of enslaved Africans in North America on avaricious British colonial policies. Jefferson thus acknowledged that slavery violated the natural rights of the enslaved, while at the same time he absolved Americans of any responsibility for owning slaves themselves."
"the Founders, with the exception of those from South Carolina and Georgia, exhibited considerable aversion to slavery during the era of the Articles of Confederation (1781–89) by prohibiting the importation of foreign slaves to individual states and lending their support to a proposal by Jefferson to ban slavery in the Northwest Territory."
"several individual Northern Founders promoted antislavery causes at the state level. Benjamin Franklin in Pennsylvania, as well as John Jay and Alexander Hamilton in New York, served as officers in their respective state antislavery societies. The prestige they lent to these organizations ultimately contributed to the gradual abolition of slavery in each of the Northern states."
https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Founding-Fathers-and-Slavery-1269536
You're in denial. I'm going to assume you had ancestors who owned slaves so you feel guilty and you're trying to justify their actions.
Slavery still exists today.
https://www.growthinktank.org/en/the-return-of-slavery-in-libya/
They don't know rape, kidnapping. torture and forced labor without pay is wrong? Just like the Founding Fathers knew, the Libyans know!
You're in denial. I'm going to assume you had ancestors who owned slaves so you feel guilty and you're trying to justify their actions
They don't know rape, kidnapping. torture and forced labor without pay is wrong? Just like the Founding Fathers knew, the Libyans know!
"Yes, many people knew it was wrong,..."
Exactly.
"... but many like Lee (who said it was a sin but saw no alternative) didn't know a solution.""
Of course, they did. End slavery.
Of course, they did. End slavery.
Pay workers. Wealthy plantation owners take less profit.
Blacks and poor whites benefitted under Reconstruction when millions were able to attend public schools for the first time, vote and elect black representatives, earn a living and not have family members sold away or be raped.
Unfortunately, the pro-slavery vice president reneged on paying former slaves by giving land allotted to them to whites. The North betrayed blacks by ending protection which allowed blacks to be terrorized and Jim Crow laws to be written and progress made during Reconstruction to be destroyed.
You can't reason someone (keelai) out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.
But as always I enjoy your posts.
Not defending slavery is perfectly reasonable.
share40,000,000 people are estimated to be in slavery in the 21st century.
Helping free them would be more noble than grandstanding about the version of slavery that ended in the 19th century.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-that-still-have-slavery
Slavery didn't end in the U.S.. It was only limited and continues today which your link mentions "state-imposed forced labor", buy omits naming the U.S..
share40,000,000 people are estimated to be in slavery in the 21st century.
Helping free them would be more noble than grandstanding about the version of slavery that ended in the 19th century.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-that-still-have-slavery
Slavery didn't end in the U.S.. It was only limited and continues today which your link mentions "state-imposed forced labor", buy omits naming the U.S..
shareSo what are you doing to end slavery today?
Obsession with the form of slavery that ended in the 19th century doesn't help those that are enslaved in 2022.
Convince pro-slavery morons on MC that slavery is wrong. Are you convinced yet?
shareSo, your answer is you aren't doing anything but grandstanding and virtue signaling which means you are a blowhard.
Thanks for acknowledging what the rest of us already knew.
There isn't a single person on MC who doesn't think slavery is wrong, liar. Delete your account.
shareWhat a pathetically shitty strawman argument in defence of the confederacy that continues to be.
Yes we know not everybody owned slaves or wanted to own slaves in the south. But it was accepted by poor southerners as the way of life. It at least meant there would always be people worse off than them that they could feel better about. The north's desire and ability to outlaw slavery was seen as an attack on their "way of life". And it alarmed poor southerners who would no longer be protected from being the poorest thanks to the slaves not having the same rights as them. Or any rights.
To say that people didn't fight for slavery when the rebellion was because the Republicans in the north had a majority and a mandate to end slavery against the southern economy's wishes is completely moronic. Name on other law that undermined the southern way of life which the two sides fight over.
What a pathetically shitty strawman argument in defence of the confederacy that continues to be.
So what is your point in pointing out that many confederate soldiers weren't motivated by being pro the evils of slavery when they chose to fight in a war started because the US voted to end the evil of legal slavery?
Yes I'm well aware of the south's wealth being built on the evils of slavery. And of the wealthy southerners exploiting workers post emancipation in order to maintain their wealth. The economic devastation affected those who fought the war and those whose freedom the war was fought for by the U.S. It did not affect those who wanted to secede and to invite the war.
And of the wealthy southerners exploiting workers post emancipation in order to maintain their wealth.
Nobody is asking for the statues of men who fought to destroy the US for the sake of slavery to be taken down because they slept with prostitutes.