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.
I was just correcting a technicality (regarding the fact that the pyramids weren't built by slaves, or the Jews).
I express again, that the difference between the Forest Park monument and Pyramids is millenia. It isn't a far stretch to assume that great grandchildren of slaves are still alive today.
I love history, and believe that we should all know and respect our history to truly move forward as a society. With that said, there's a difference between showing something in a museum, and having something displayed in public in a non-museum setting with no real connection to those memorialized.
I didn't write that the pyramids were built by slaves, but I understand your point. I don't think anyone really knows who built the pyramids, perhaps that is partially because a lot of historical records have been destroyed or lost over time. We do know that the Egyptians had slaves though.
About your point concerning the great grandchildren of slaves, what about the descendants of confederate soldiers?
I just find it fascinating that it is deemed morally acceptable in today's society to spend thousands of dollars to takes trips to Egypt, just to visit (in a way paying homage) the tombs of pharaohs that enslaved vast numbers of people. Yet, God forbid that we have a monument in Forest Park that was dedicated to the poor confederate soldiers that died in the Civil War! I might be in the minority, but forgive me if I find just a tad of hypocrisy in that.
This issue speaks volumes to me about how as a society we have let the media and politicians define for us what is morally acceptable.
Society has to make choices about what to keep and what to throw out. This memorial's advertisement of oppression outweighs its historical value, so we're throwing it out. Not even that, we're relocating it. Getting rid of the statue doesn't mean we have to abolish all mentions of history, and keeping it doesn't mean we have to erect Nazi triumphal arches across the country. We can discuss it like adults, and the city's elected representatives have responded to their constituents by removing the statue. Its historic value was argued and found insufficient cause to keep it. We don't have to draw a slippery slope from every decision that's made. We just don't value memorializing the Jim Crow white supremacist movement as much as we value relics of the world's oldest civilizations.
God forbid that we have a monument in Forest Park that was dedicated to the poor confederate soldiers that died in the Civil War! I might be in the minority, but forgive me if I find just a tad of hypocrisy in that.
This issue speaks volumes to me about how as a society we have let the media and politicians define for us what is morally acceptable.
As a society many of us are becoming more aware of what is morally acceptable- it has nothing to do with the media or politicians.
And no, I don't believe it is hypocrisy.
A monument in a public place, not directly related to the Civil War at that, is glorifying an unjust cause.
To use your logic, descendants of fallen Nazi soldiers should be permitted to erect monuments to them in public parks too?
I have no issue with Confederate cemeteries to memorialize their fallen, but this is a public park in the 21st Century.
To use your logic, descendants of fallen Nazi soldiers should be permitted to erect monuments to them in public parks too?
I have no issue with Confederate cemeteries to memorialize their fallen, but this is a public park in the 21st Century.
Some people have no idea that there is a huge distinction between a Nazi and a German soldier. But yes, if monuments are approved by the local governments (like the one in Forest Park was over a 100 years ago), then I have no problems with them erecting statues of German soldiers.
All to often, liberals who like to claim that they are tolerant, are only tolerant of something that fits perfectly in line with their worldview. It's really sad when you think about it.
Stop with the "liberals" garbage. No defeated army thats sole cause was to enslave people has been memorialized as being "really neato, great guys." Get over it.
If you think the Civil War was fought over just slavery, you're profoundly ignorant and uneducated. There were paramount contentions over states' rights and economic/banking policy during the buildup to the Civil War. Slavery was in fact, a symptom of the former. If the Confederate States of America hadn't been almost entirely agrarian based, slavery wouldn't have even been necessary, much less contested legally or on a battlefield.
It's not ironic that the southern states today still suffer the economic impacts of being on the losing end of the war. Some southern states, such as Mississippi and Louisiana, as examples, will suffer in perpetuity it seems as they've consistently been the bottom of the barrel economically since the war ended. Mississippi is always at the top of the "poorest states" list and Louisiana isn't far behind, plus they have the distinction of having the highest incarceration rate in the nation. They've been dubbed, "The prison capital of the world." One could argue that agricultural slavery was simply replaced with wage slavery, most notably in the form of low pay economic dead zones and for-profit prisons in most of the former Confederacy. I wonder if there were more black slaves in Louisiana and Mississippi right before the Civil War or if there are more blacks currently in prison in those states today? Now that would indeed be ironic, if it were the latter.
So, it seems that the monument was mired in controversy even before it was put in place over a century ago.
According to the Star Times, in 1912 the St. Louis City Council was refusing to give permission for it to be erected. The GAR had been protesting the proposition.
It was instead proposed that a monument for 'peace' and unity be built instead at a cost of $200,000.
***
And if there's any question over the initial intent of the monument, when it was erected in 1914, Mrs. Spencer of the Monument Association said the following in her speech, according to a P-D article of the period...
"It is not alone to those that died, but also for our beloved Veterans who are with us today, and who are still loyal and true in their love and devotion to the principles for which they fought and only by overwhelming numbers were they at last overcome.
So there you have it. "Straight from the horses mouth" as it were.
The monument was placed 49 years after the Civil War by people who still believed in the principle of slavery.
I wonder if there were more black slaves in Louisiana and Mississippi right before the Civil War or if there are more blacks currently in prison in those states today? Now that would indeed be ironic, if it were the latter.
Because the population in the U.S has increased exponentially over the past century and a half, a number to number comparison directly won't hold any weight. It has to be done on percentages and per capita.
So in 1860, the Lower South (SC, MS, AL, GA, FL, TX, LA) had a total of 2.82 million African Americans according to the Federal Census.
Of that number, 2.39% (67,418) were free. The remaining 97.61% were enslaved.
There is no way that more than 97% of the African American population in the Lower South is incarcerated today. Anybody could tell you that was ludicrous.
It is fact that some years ago the number of incarcerated African Americans overtook the amount enslaved, but in terms of population per capita it isn't a fair comparison.
There is certainly an issue in this country regarding the diaparities in races within the prison population and social factors which lead to it, but prisoners and slaves are different. Most prisoners are incarcerated because of their actions. Slaves were forced or born into slavery.
If you think the Civil War was fought over just slavery, you're profoundly ignorant and uneducated. There were paramount contentions over states' rights and economic/banking policy during the buildup to the Civil War. Slavery was in fact, a symptom of the former. If the Confederate States of America hadn't been almost entirely agrarian based, slavery wouldn't have even been necessary, much less contested legally or on a battlefield.
It's not ironic that the southern states today still suffer the economic impacts of being on the losing end of the war. Some southern states, such as Mississippi and Louisiana, as examples, will suffer in perpetuity it seems as they've consistently been the bottom of the barrel economically since the war ended. Mississippi is always at the top of the "poorest states" list and Louisiana isn't far behind, plus they have the distinction of having the highest incarceration rate in the nation. They've been dubbed, "The prison capital of the world." One could argue that agricultural slavery was simply replaced with wage slavery, most notably in the form of low pay economic dead zones and for-profit prisons in most of the former Confederacy. I wonder if there were more black slaves in Louisiana and Mississippi right before the Civil War or if there are more blacks currently in prison in those states today? Now that would indeed be ironic, if it were the latter.
You can say the same for Missouri too basically outside of Stl and KC it's not doing terribly well economically. Jobs outside of stl and KC pay terrible.
As for the last comment I have not looked at any stats but you also have to take into account that every state is far more populated than it was in 1860.
I did see a quote once by one of the St. Louis police chiefs a few year ago. I think it was chief Isom or Dotson, can't remember but they said something like 53 percent of black males in the city of St. Louis have criminal records. So yes a lot of them are incarcerated or got probation or suspended sentences instead of prison time. Missouri at the start of the civil war had an increasing slave population but I don't think there are over 150,000 blacks in Missouri's prisons right now.
They have lower incomes because they're lazier, less educated and less intelligent than their White, Asian and Middle Eastern counterparts that dominate economics. If this weren't true, then they would have risen to the top by now and refuted that sentiment. We live under a capitalistic system. The cream rises to the top. If you're the best at what you do, you are rewarded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcx456
If you think the Civil War was fought over just slavery, you're profoundly ignorant and uneducated. ....... I wonder if there were more black slaves in Louisiana and Mississippi right before the Civil War or if there are more blacks currently in prison in those states today? Now that would indeed be ironic, if it were the latter.
I believe your words on this thread speak for themselves.
So, it seems that the monument was mired in controversy even before it was put in place over a century ago.
According to the Star Times, in 1912 the St. Louis City Council was refusing to give permission for it to be erected. The GAR had been protesting the proposition.
It was instead proposed that a monument for 'peace' and unity be built instead at a cost of $200,000.
***
And if there's any question over the initial intent of the monument, when it was erected in 1914, Mrs. Spencer of the Monument Association said the following in her speech, according to a P-D article of the period...
"It is not alone to those that died, but also for our beloved Veterans who are with us today, and who are still loyal and true in their love and devotion to the principles for which they fought and only by overwhelming numbers were they at last overcome.
So there you have it. "Straight from the horses mouth" as it were.
The monument was placed 49 years after the Civil War by people who still believed in the principle of slavery.
Your conclusion is flawed at best. Notice that the speaker makes no reference to slavery or the confederate cause, but instead refers to the principles that the confederate soldiers held as individuals. In your rush to defend your position on the matter you clearly twisted the speakers words. At the very least you should provide a link to the entire speech so that we can get a better idea of the context. Cherry picking one quote and then twisting it to justify your position is an example of faulty logic. The quote could actually be used as evidence that the monument was indeed erected to honor the fallen soldiers, and not the confederate cause. Ask every member of the Armed Forces today about what their principles are and what they are fighting for, and each one will give you a different answer.
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.
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.
