Julian Carr had this to say when he dedicated a monument on UNC's campus in 1913 about the same time a prominent business man dedicated a monument at UVA.

 

That's the heritage that is being celebrated with these monuments and symbols.

It isn't the people that want to uncommemorate these monuments that are trying to erase or whitewash history.

That's the heritage

 

 

-------------------------
...

Praise god...

Well, that is certainly a damning piece of evidence. Allow me to JAQ off for a second.

If the Stars and Bars was once a symbol of Souther Pride to the majority (well, it still is according to a WGs survey), but was hijacked as a symbol for racisms by a minority, and therefore must be destroyed. Can the same logic be applied to the Statues?

If they were once a symbol of racism, but have evolved to be a symbol of Southern heritage, can they stay?

Or does original intent matter, but if it did, we'd be OK with the Stars and Bars. So confusing......

Southern Heritage?  Hallelujah we tried to seceede from the greatest nation in the world and got our a$$es whipped and had to rejoin.

That's about right.

Just get a new symbol for your club obx.

Although you (and the rest of the liberals) have such a myopic view of this topic, and refuse to even consider other views, I'll will still throw this out there.

What if you traced your heritage back to the South, all the way back to the early 1800s, and you had ancestors who fought and died in the Civil War, and understood that slavery was just an objectified/symbol of the real underlying reason for the war (again, something the Left seems to gloss over) What if those Statues to you were a representation of your heritage, and not slavery? Then would you be OK with them staying? Or no, because only one opinion matters and the rest are not afforded to have different opinions, or be upset at their removal?

So much for "tolerance," huh?

What if you traced your heritage back to the South, all the way back to the early 1800s, and you had ancestors who suffered and died in slavery, and understood that slavery was the real underlying reason for the war (again, something the white nationalists would like to ignore). What if those Statues to the criminal perpetrators were a reminder of the slavery perpetrated upon your ancestors? Then would you be OK with them being moved? Or no, because only one opinion matters and the rest are not afforded to have different opinions?

Your idea of "tolerance" is that everyone else should "tolerate" what you see fit as a privileged white man.

How about you "tolerate" the fact that being confronted by these statues (memorializing people who chose to fight for the evil cause of human bondage) in the public square is an insult to them and their ancestors who were the victims?
You acknowledge no other "culture" or "heritage" than your own.



The suggestion is that these statues be moved to a place of historical context, such as museums and cemeteries. Keep it up and you may see more of them destroyed outright.



-------------------------
“It is the heart of US policy to use fascism to preserve capitalism while claiming to be saving democracy from communism “ - Michael Parenti

Well said, rusty. I think your empathy to all people is a valid counterpoint to obx's myopic tolerance.

-------------------------

"One of the reasons why propaganda tries to get you to hate government is because it's the one existing institution in which people can participate to some extent and constrain tyrannical unaccountable power." Noam Chomsky.

I've got a question for those that support the stars and bars, and the monuments:

Why are there monuments to the losing side? The South lost the war, and there are all these monuments to commemorate the LOSERS? (I'd like the trump supporters to answer, mostly because they must be sick of losing...)

Why not replace all the statues of confederate leaders with the Northern Generals who actually WON THE WAR!?


Meanwhile, in line with the Confederate flag/monument issue, the Atlanta Falcons are erecting a statue of QB Matt Ryan in downtown Boston to commemorate their Heritage in the last Super Bowl.

-------------------------
GOP:

Gaslight
Obstruct
Project

The reason is because although the South lost the war, Lincoln knew they were still people fighting for American ideals. Quite frankly, its a show of tolerance, understanding, and empathy to allow the local populace to memoralize their dead and battle heros. The North didn't gloat, and afforded reprieval because we were brothers fighting brothers, sons fighting fathers, etc. It was a horrible time. Go ahead and research "how the Confederate was punished" and you'll find there isn't much. In fact, you'll find the losses were so great on both sides, the Union didn't feel the need to inflict more. It was a sign of respect and humility. Once upon a time, this country truly accepted freedom of beliefs and choice, and the Federal government had no inclination to stop the local populace from doing what they want, much less stop them from memoralizing their dead and war heros. Allowing them to erect and keep the statues is a true testament to why this country was so great. Unfortunately, that is completly lost on the Liberals. They don't understand what respect means, unless it follows their narrative.

Honestly, research the topic and compare that to today. Tell me if this is "progress".

Obie wrote - 'The South went to war because of ecomonic sanctions, unfair taxes, and not respecting State Rights. But if its easy for you some sum all of that up to "slavery", than I can't help you out there.'

Jesus H Christ obie - it is fucking written in the actual articles of secession. Mississippi for one - 'Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.'

Quit being a fucking idiot..

-------------------------
QOP = Terrorists
FK = Gay

Edited: 08/17/2017 at 12:49 PM by wtf

Thanks for pointing out the real Stars and Bars.



-------------------------
QOP = Terrorists
FK = Gay

That doesn't actually answer the question.

obx2 actually answered the question.

Fail.

Quit being a fucking idiot, wtf!



-------------------------
The REAL truth is....both of the forum idiots are OWNED.
-BOTH of them have no clue who their owner is.
-They are both card carrying narcissists.
^These are PROVED facts.

Obie wrote - 'The South went to war because of ecomonic sanctions, unfair taxes, and not respecting State Rights. But if its easy for you some sum all of that up to "slavery", than I can't help you out there.'

Thanks for furthering what we already know, that not only are you a fat cocksucking fucking coward, you are stupid beyond belief...

-------------------------
QOP = Terrorists
FK = Gay

Let me ask you this. Why do you think the Southwas upset about losing slaves? Was it becasue they were white supramicist assholes? Or was it because, at that time, they were the "machines" that drove their economy? Imagine getting a new tax imposed (which was only 3%, and it caused a revolt, imagine now-a-days, but I digress), on top of economic sanctions, and then your means of produciton is taken. Not only is more of your income taken away, but so is your ability to produce, and you are getting ecomomic sanctions imposed, by people who don't even live in your area, and are not effected by their decision.

That sad fact is, taking into context of that time period, slaves were the machines that drove the South's economy. The South went to war, to preserve their means. Unfortunately, that is objectivied as slavery, and it is now taken out of context,  and analyzed through today's "norms," and vilianized by people who have no fcking clue what they are talking about.

Yes - slaves were the labor that drove the south's economy and the south was going to hold onto this by any means, thus the war that almost drove this country apart. Whether or not they were white supremacists assholes is irrelevant. The fact is that slaves were treated as 'property' and not 'humans'. These were people forced into labor against their will.

There is nothing taken out of context. Treating people like that is abhorrent - it was then and it is now, and thankfully the North called the south out on it and whooped their ass to free 'human beings' that deserve the same rights as every other human. Just because it was the 'norm' then does not mean it was right. And it was not right, simple as that.

-------------------------
QOP = Terrorists
FK = Gay

Wow tell that to the freaks in California, maybe they can prevent embarrassment from tarnishing their stellar reputation

The millionaire Plantation caste went to war because the North was not respecting their State's right to chain, sell, whip, murder and force to work for free members of the human race based upon their idea that they were part of a superior race and negroes were inferior. Thats your heritage and mine. Thats not the small part. Its the biggest part of the antebellum south. The symbols of the south's racism have been revived for the new brand of internet white supremacy. You are lying to yourself if you cannot admit this. You cannot lie to me about it.

-------------------------

"One of the reasons why propaganda tries to get you to hate government is because it's the one existing institution in which people can participate to some extent and constrain tyrannical unaccountable power." Noam Chomsky.