U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-02-2016, 08:53 AM
 
47,555 posts, read 45,245,703 times
Reputation: 15193

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by brownbagg View Post
because he offends me, and it hurts my feeling and get me upset when ever i pass his statue
Why? Tell me how a man who fought to make sure EVERYONE is treated equal, offends you. Tell me how a man who stood for ALL Americans being treated like Americans offends you.

 
Old 01-02-2016, 08:54 AM
 
Location: *
8,041 posts, read 2,385,998 times
Reputation: 2203
Quote:
Originally Posted by HOSS429 View Post
it is a shame that logical thinking men could not have settled this without spilling blood .. and logical thinking men would have done so but politicians are not such people ..slavery was a terrible unhuman thing that should not have been instituted to begin with but it was acceptable at the time .. no one can disagree with that ..but to ask a general public to give up a given is asking too much .. you people who drive an electric car and want me to stop driving my gas guzzler hot rods aren`t going to win without a fight .. you people who want to take my gun from me are`nt going to win without a fight .. if i owned a slave 160 years ago and you wanted to take him from me what do you think i would do
By the way, I asked you a question about this post many pages ago, I'm still curious & maybe you missed it? Here it is again:

I'm trying to understand what you're saying but it's hard to reconcile your first sentence with your last?

Please clarify - what would've have been the logical rationale that would've settled this without spilling blood?
 
Old 01-02-2016, 09:03 AM
 
8,882 posts, read 5,038,893 times
Reputation: 9237
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest View Post
White Supremacy is a consistent theme in the Confederate cause. The Confederacy fought to maintain Slavery & to preserve White Supremacy. Back then, the Confederates were very honest & straightforward in this being their main objective. This intent is evidenced in all legal documents of the time.

& that would be the end of it if the Confederacy had won the American Civil War. Green_mariner & many others honestly ask why anyone (in the present day) would want to honor a cause rooted in maintaining Slavery & in preserving White Supremacy? One way would be to deny the central role of Slavery. Another would be to continue to hold White Supremacist views in the present day. Are there any other motivations?


In the south we honor these people, even though they lost by huge amount because they are our relatives, they stood up for us. they lost but they are our family. It like all those in that cementary in france, they lost too but are still honor, why dont we dig them up too.

it has nothing to do with winning or losing, its history. what about all the black monuments in the south too, they lost too, let take them too.

what about monument like those in pearl harbor, they lost, let take them too. when is it became, you have to win to get a monument. who say you cant do great thing but not win the war
 
Old 01-02-2016, 09:08 AM
 
Location: *
8,041 posts, read 2,385,998 times
Reputation: 2203
Quote:
Originally Posted by brownbagg View Post
but what does all this slavery have to do with today, why is it keep being drag up. there not one person in United states that agrees with it. Everybody is on the same side, nobody fighting for slavery. There is not one person alive today or for awhile that was born a slave. Everybody alive was born free. Nobody fighting that, were all on the side side. so why does this keep getting dragged up
Why do you prefer the Politically Correct version? Were you taught the Lost Cause version or did you resurrect it?
 
Old 01-02-2016, 09:13 AM
 
Location: *
8,041 posts, read 2,385,998 times
Reputation: 2203
Quote:
Originally Posted by brownbagg View Post
In the south we honor these people, even though they lost by huge amount because they are our relatives, they stood up for us. they lost but they are our family. It like all those in that cementary in france, they lost too but are still honor, why dont we dig them up too.

it has nothing to do with winning or losing, its history. what about all the black monuments in the south too, they lost too, let take them too.

what about monument like those in pearl harbor, they lost, let take them too. when is it became, you have to win to get a monument. who say you cant do great thing but not win the war
It's not about losing, it's about re-writing history so that it's Politically Correct.

& who is talking about digging people up? Or is this more drama?
 
Old 01-02-2016, 09:26 AM
 
47,555 posts, read 45,245,703 times
Reputation: 15193
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest View Post
White Supremacy is a consistent theme in the Confederate cause. The Confederacy fought to maintain Slavery & to preserve White Supremacy. Back then, the Confederates were very honest & straightforward in this being their main objective. This intent is evidenced in all legal documents of the time.

& that would be the end of it if the Confederacy had won the American Civil War. Green_mariner & many others honestly ask why anyone (in the present day) would want to honor a cause rooted in maintaining Slavery & in preserving White Supremacy? One way would be to deny the central role of Slavery. Another would be to continue to hold White Supremacist views in the present day. Are there any other motivations?

The Lost Cause portrays the Confederate Cause as an honorable struggle for the Plantation way of life while negating the central role of Slavery.

The Lost Cause of the Confederacy is a set of beliefs founded upon several historical inaccuracies. The Lost Cause narrative was created out of false necessity when the Confederacy lost the war. The creators of the Lost Cause mythology sought to justify their own actions & to provide future generations with a 'Politically Correct' narrative of the war.

After the War was lost, the former Confederates were again Americans. Slavery was no longer an option however some neo-Confederates sought to preserve White Supremacy. Creating a 'Politically Correct' however historically inaccurate 'Cause' the former Confederates could 'save face' while they continued to foster White Supremacy. By honoring & celebrating the leaders of the Confederacy, the former Confederates were, again, being honest & straightforward about their intent to preserve White Supremacy. This intent is evidenced by the creation of the Jim Crow laws in the 1880s & enforced into the 1960s.

David Duke is an admitted White Supremacist. He cited the 'Battle of Liberty Place' monument in New Orleans as a symbol of 'White Pride.'

Resurrecting the 'Lost Cause' mythology in the present day makes very little sense.
Some more information to consider.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tappan_Thompson

Thompson was an ardent supporter of the Confederacy. He was also the co-founder of the Savannah Morning News. He proposed the "Stainless Banner", which is the battle flag design on hoist side of a White background. Something that Thompson wrote in an editorial:

Quote:
As a people, we are fighting to maintain the Heaven-ordained supremacy of the white man over the inferior or colored race; a white flag would thus be emblematical of our cause.[4]… Such a flag…would soon take rank among the proudest ensigns of the nations, and be hailed by the civilized world as the white man's flag.[5]… As a national emblem, it is significant of our higher cause, the cause of a superior race, and a higher civilization contending against ignorance, infidelity, and barbarism. Another merit in the new flag is, that it bears no resemblance to the now infamous banner of the Yankee vandals
That is something to add to what you said about White supremacy being a big part of the Confederate cause.

I've heard some stories about some textbooks in the South lying about Civil War. I don't know how true this is for myself. It wouldn't surprise me because many people I know will lie about the Civil War or at the very least, downplay the role of slavery.

I do have this link to share about how some textbooks lie about the Civil War: American textbooks have been lying about what happened during the Civil War - Business Insider

I remember watching Sweet Home Alabama. Melanie(played by Reese Witherspoon) mentioned that when the South lost, Civil War re-enactments favoring the Confederacy became popular. It was mentioned in a very kitschy way. If one really studies about it, it was not a noble cause.

The last paragraph pretty much sums up the lost cause. It was very racial, and we have proof. Jim Crow was essentially a continuation of the lost cause. There were those who felt that Blacks should be subjugated. The Confederate cause was rooted in slavery and bigotry. And it was economically motivated with some cultural issues. There was such a large interest in keeping the slave system alive because it made money, and there was a very engendered bigotry in that slavery. There was no play on what to do once slavery was over.

Jim Crow was about subjugating people, making sure Blacks could not compete on the same level with Whites. It was about "keeping people in their place". It was a continuation of the war, only instead of splitting a nation apart physically, laws were used. There was a sense of "we haven't forgotten about the war". Some KKK members referred to themselves as "ghosts of the Confederacy".

The end of slavery, Reconstruction, and the end of Jim Crow, many went through this kicking and screaming. This is why honoring people like Confederate soldiers and Jim Crow politicians(like Judge Perez, Ross Barnett) does not make sense. If we know that the causes said persons were fighting for are wrong, it doesn't make much sense to honor such persons.
 
Old 01-02-2016, 09:31 AM
 
47,555 posts, read 45,245,703 times
Reputation: 15193
Quote:
Originally Posted by brownbagg View Post
In the south we honor these people, even though they lost by huge amount because they are our relatives, they stood up for us. they lost but they are our family. It like all those in that cementary in france, they lost too but are still honor, why dont we dig them up too.

it has nothing to do with winning or losing, its history. what about all the black monuments in the south too, they lost too, let take them too.

what about monument like those in pearl harbor, they lost, let take them too. when is it became, you have to win to get a monument. who say you cant do great thing but not win the war
I don't honor such persons because of the cause they represented. I have no respect for them, period. This is not just about history, this is about right and wrong.

That monument in Pearl Harbor, that is to commemorate our American soldiers who died fighting for the USA, who were NOT traitors, who were not fighting for a vile cause. It isn't about history, it is about what is right and what is wrong. What the CSA stood for is wrong. One reason not to honor such. Honoring the fallen in Pearl Harbor is right because they were attacked first. Someone attacks your soil, you fight back. The Confederates, that was a different matter. Attack a U.S. military installation, expect to be hit back. The CSA fired the first shot, therefore, that started a war. And the cause they were doing this for was to desperately keep slavery around. We have proof of this in. Why honor such if we know the facts?
 
Old 01-02-2016, 09:55 AM
 
Location: *
8,041 posts, read 2,385,998 times
Reputation: 2203
Quote:
Originally Posted by green_mariner View Post
Some more information to consider.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tappan_Thompson

Thompson was an ardent supporter of the Confederacy. He was also the co-founder of the Savannah Morning News. He proposed the "Stainless Banner", which is the battle flag design on hoist side of a White background. Something that Thompson wrote in an editorial:



That is something to add to what you said about White supremacy being a big part of the Confederate cause.

I've heard some stories about some textbooks in the South lying about Civil War. I don't know how true this is for myself. It wouldn't surprise me because many people I know will lie about the Civil War or at the very least, downplay the role of slavery.

I do have this link to share about how some textbooks lie about the Civil War: American textbooks have been lying about what happened during the Civil War - Business Insider

I remember watching Sweet Home Alabama. Melanie(played by Reese Witherspoon) mentioned that when the South lost, Civil War re-enactments favoring the Confederacy became popular. It was mentioned in a very kitschy way. If one really studies about it, it was not a noble cause.

The last paragraph pretty much sums up the lost cause. It was very racial, and we have proof. Jim Crow was essentially a continuation of the lost cause. There were those who felt that Blacks should be subjugated. The Confederate cause was rooted in slavery and bigotry. And it was economically motivated with some cultural issues. There was such a large interest in keeping the slave system alive because it made money, and there was a very engendered bigotry in that slavery. There was no play on what to do once slavery was over.

Jim Crow was about subjugating people, making sure Blacks could not compete on the same level with Whites. It was about "keeping people in their place". It was a continuation of the war, only instead of splitting a nation apart physically, laws were used. There was a sense of "we haven't forgotten about the war". Some KKK members referred to themselves as "ghosts of the Confederacy".

The end of slavery, Reconstruction, and the end of Jim Crow, many went through this kicking and screaming. This is why honoring people like Confederate soldiers and Jim Crow politicians(like Judge Perez, Ross Barnett) does not make sense. If we know that the causes said persons were fighting for are wrong, it doesn't make much sense to honor such persons.
Thanks & respect for responding & for adding more relevant information, I appreciate. Unfortunately many of my direct questions to other posters remain unanswered.

Quote:
Originally Posted by green_mariner View Post
... And since you are speaking in a term of "move on", why is there so much desire to keep flying the Confederate flag? Why such strong support for the Confederate cause?
I too would like to understand why there is, in the present day, such strong support for the Confederate cause.

Personally, I don't think it will ever make sense to defend a way of life founded on white supremacy & supported by the institution of slavery. I accept this was our history. I don't find it honorable, respectable, a reason for pride ...
 
Old 01-02-2016, 11:11 AM
 
Location: Sun City West, Arizona
22,058 posts, read 10,266,157 times
Reputation: 20103
Quote:
Originally Posted by dechatelet View Post
This isn't an English class, professor.

Hang around a while and you'll find that most of us don't care about how a post is crafted as long as the point is made.

Instead of pettifogging (a fallacy), you could try addressing his points.

Who are you to say what rational people universally agree on?

And why should we believe that you would stop with statues that are on government property?

The fact that you accuse people in one country (the CSA) of committing treason against another country (the U.S.A.) just shows that you are ignorant.

The United States was founded as a voluntary confederation of independent states.

And there was never anything in our founding documents that forbade their secession.

How odd, then, that we have racial preference programs (affirmative action) that judge people solely on race and are racially discriminatory.
1. It may not be an English class, but a poster who can't write a sentence using even rudimentary grammar, spelling, and punctuation probably also isn't well-read on the fine points of historical, national, and international law, which this thread is about. As long as it's not done in an insulting way (such as with sarcasm in your response), it seems to me like fair game.

2. Pettifogging is not "a fallacy", it's "placing undue emphasis on petty details".


3. Deciding what position is "rational" is pretty much a personal opinion, so everyone gets to decide.


4. Where is your evidence that the poster has any intent to move beyond stopping with statues only on government property?

5. You go from 3 consecutive statements about secession and treason to saying: "How odd, then, that we have racial preference programs (affirmative action) that judge people solely on race and are racially discriminatory." There is no segway at all, so that conclusion is irrelevant to this discussion.
 
Old 01-02-2016, 11:25 AM
 
Location: Sun City West, Arizona
22,058 posts, read 10,266,157 times
Reputation: 20103
Quote:
Originally Posted by dechatelet View Post
Exactly.

Applying the standards of the present to the past is bogus.

Slavery was practiced by all races and ethnic groups for thousands of years.

But it's only white Americans from the South who are guilty -- right.

It is also hypocritical when you insist on tearing down Confederate monuments, but not monuments honoring slave-owners Washington and Jefferson.

All of this is nothing more than a war on white people based on a double-standard.

Washington and Jefferson would eventually have their monuments torn down as well.
No, applying the standards of the present to people is the past is not bogus -- at least in this case -- because the fact that "Slavery was practiced by all races and ethnic groups for thousands of years" doesn't mean that it was ever moral. The concept was immoral from its start. Buying and selling and owning other humans was never moral. I'm not sure, but it almost seems as if you are confusing the difference between morality and legality.

However, looking at the actions of people from the past through a historical lens does help understand their thinking and decision-making.

You are also over-simplifying how people look at (or should look at) monuments. If there was a statue dedicated to Washington or Jefferson which praised their slave-holding past, then I would say tear it down. However, I've never seen such a statue. If I'm going to bother to take a photo of a monument to a famous man, I actually take the time to read what is on the statue. In Washington's case, the statues are usually dedicated to his efforts in the Revolutionary War to found this nation or his work as our First President. When you go to Jefferson's Monticello, the guides hardly overlook his slave holding or even his relationship with Sally Hemmings; it's all there for people to make their judgements after understanding the good, the bad, and the really ugly.

A double standard? That doesn't fit in your post. I've never seen a statue honoring a Black person for his or her actions upholding slavery.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:57 PM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top