The city counsel of New Orleans today voted in favor of removing....
- Thread starter goober
- Start date
Those morons might raze the city's historic statue of Gen. Robert E. Lee and replace it with one of former New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, who infamously declared that the city should be rebuilt as a "Chocolate City" after getting clobbered by Hurricane Katrina.
They are a bunch of ass clowns that use the terms "racist", "hater" & "victim" to achieve their racist geo-political objectives.
One could go so far as to say that they are trying to revise the past in order to erase all memory of the Confederacy, as if it never existed. One of the many problems with this is that these same folks will find some other way to bring up reminders of the Confederacy when it suits their political agenda again further down the line.
They are a bunch of one-trick-ponies and they are everywhere. It's what they do.
One could go so far as to say that they are trying to revise the past in order to erase all memory of the Confederacy, as if it never existed. One of the many problems with this is that these same folks will find some other way to bring up reminders of the Confederacy when it suits their political agenda again further down the line.
They are a bunch of one-trick-ponies and they are everywhere. It's what they do.
I'm fine with the move. It wasn't my ancestors who were enslaved. If it was I probably would take offense to statues of an army that fought to preserve that enslavement representing My city.
My question is why this bothers anybody ?
My question is why this bothers anybody ?
My Southern roots are deeper than most, I don't have a problem with this.
In this part of the country the ''pc'' thing is to be pro Confederacy.
if you have southern roots , you could have fooled a lot of folks on this board , you sure don't act like it . it bothers people because the " fantasy " libs are acting like this makes a difference, all of a sudden . it's so PC , it's sickening .
I guess it's time to get rid of everything - and I mean everything - that has a pre-1963 historical reference. A statue or city named for Washington - gone. Shit, let's burn the constitution. Every damn signee owned at least one slave. In fact, let's just go ahead and dissolve the union. It was built on the backs of forced labor and in effect served as an ethnic cleansing of sorts for the Indians.
I agree with you it sickening
I don't eather buts it like we should not
First of all I agree but I don't agree they should get rid of them ok.
I'm Southern just not ''pc'' Southern. You could put many of you in a sack, shake it, turn it upside down and it wouldn't matter which fell out first, you all have the same opinion on just about everything.
Your logic is flawed in my opinion. Those with so little understanding of the Civil War usually state the same type of things.
Nonsense, My understanding of American history, yes, Pre-Civil War, Civil War and Post Civil War as well matches many and exceeds most.
I've debated the cookie cutter BS from Confederate apologist far too many times to have any interest in doing so here. It's as pointless as it can be. Some people will live and die having never budged from their wrong headed ideas. I choose a different path, and I'm a better man for it.
your southern roots are deeper than most and your understanding exceeds most , plus you are are a better man for it . you really got it going on , or you just think you do .
There is good reason almost nobody outside of the Southern US believes as You do. That might should give you pause, but it won't, it never does with Confederate apologist.
I'm not smarter or better educated on Civil War history than some of You, I am on the side of right though, I have no question whatsoever in that.
You believe what You believe because of your culture ( PC ) I believe what I believe because it's the truth, and it's the side of the angels.
Should we ban Short Curcuit for using a white side in brown face to portray an Indian guy? What is your opinion on renaming Washington DC and burning the constitution (the document, not the ship...just to clarify)? More importantly, what's your opinion on tearing down the old campus at UGA, since it was for whites only longer than its been integrated?
My family tree here in Georgia goes back well beyond most and my understanding of the true causes of the Civil War exceeds even the most scholarly among us today. (Forgive me, I had to pop my shoulder back in as I dislocated it patting myself on the back, but I'm now the better man for having endured the momentary setback and associated pain).
I debated the cause/effects topic for the last time with several scholars from both sides of the argument in 2010 at the Georgia Historical Society. The occasion was a discussion taking place at the time on setting up a new historical marker to commemorate Sherman's acts that took place in Atlanta near the Railroad Freight Depot.
The marker was to help observe the 150th anniversary of the start of the war and was erected in April, 2011. What better way to commemorate the beginning of the war, I thought, than by placing a marker for a man that helped end it?
To keep from going off topic too far, my argument was on the side of allowing the marker to be erected as there were many that opposed it simply due to the amount of destruction Sherman caused. There were other factors as well... the Civil Rights folks opposed the monument as they felt it was going to compete with Civil Rights turf and markers they had that were in the same vicinity. You don't want to be on the wrong side of the fight of the Civil Rights movement in the ATL, or you're probably going to be disappointed.
Anyhow, I thought it was the right thing to do as it was and is a part of our history. In order to help sway the Civil Rights objectors, it was pointed out that the burning of Atlanta was actually a vital blow to the Confederacy that helped end the war. They were finally swayed and no longer objected to it being erected.
Point being, when you have a subset of people that identify with revisionist historians and are on the side of removing (or preventing placement of) historical markers, just understand that this is usually done to sate the whims of a few that have agendas beyond what you know on the surface.
One of the things removal of historical markers does, is that it only serves the short-sighted and short-term interest of the parties that want to have the marker or monument removed, as they see it as a "feather" in their cap. That "feather" in their cap is worth at least three more terms, and yes that is what their thinking is, whether you realize it or not.
What they fail to acknowledge is that one reason these monuments exist in the first place is acknowledgement of our history and to encourage dialogue and robust debate.
And the very reason they wish to have the monuments removed is to cover up history and quell debate... up and until the next time they need to trot out their tired old agendas that the issues facing them in society today can be traced back to the Civil War.
You can take any number of these PC-type folks, put them in a bag and shake them up... what falls out of the bag is the same stale arguments that don't stand the test of time, and it will leave you wanting to take a shower.
I debated the cause/effects topic for the last time with several scholars from both sides of the argument in 2010 at the Georgia Historical Society. The occasion was a discussion taking place at the time on setting up a new historical marker to commemorate Sherman's acts that took place in Atlanta near the Railroad Freight Depot.
The marker was to help observe the 150th anniversary of the start of the war and was erected in April, 2011. What better way to commemorate the beginning of the war, I thought, than by placing a marker for a man that helped end it?
To keep from going off topic too far, my argument was on the side of allowing the marker to be erected as there were many that opposed it simply due to the amount of destruction Sherman caused. There were other factors as well... the Civil Rights folks opposed the monument as they felt it was going to compete with Civil Rights turf and markers they had that were in the same vicinity. You don't want to be on the wrong side of the fight of the Civil Rights movement in the ATL, or you're probably going to be disappointed.
Anyhow, I thought it was the right thing to do as it was and is a part of our history. In order to help sway the Civil Rights objectors, it was pointed out that the burning of Atlanta was actually a vital blow to the Confederacy that helped end the war. They were finally swayed and no longer objected to it being erected.
Point being, when you have a subset of people that identify with revisionist historians and are on the side of removing (or preventing placement of) historical markers, just understand that this is usually done to sate the whims of a few that have agendas beyond what you know on the surface.
One of the things removal of historical markers does, is that it only serves the short-sighted and short-term interest of the parties that want to have the marker or monument removed, as they see it as a "feather" in their cap. That "feather" in their cap is worth at least three more terms, and yes that is what their thinking is, whether you realize it or not.
What they fail to acknowledge is that one reason these monuments exist in the first place is acknowledgement of our history and to encourage dialogue and robust debate.
And the very reason they wish to have the monuments removed is to cover up history and quell debate... up and until the next time they need to trot out their tired old agendas that the issues facing them in society today can be traced back to the Civil War.
You can take any number of these PC-type folks, put them in a bag and shake them up... what falls out of the bag is the same stale arguments that don't stand the test of time, and it will leave you wanting to take a shower.
This is a vital part of the argument - and I totally agree. The protesters need to go back even further, and look at Jesus' time, and even before, when slaves were a vital part of life there. King David was a slaveholder. Will the Old Testament be condemned? But I digress.
HeulenHund is right. Don't believe it? Just ask him. It's either his logic, or it's wrong. But wrong-headed politicians either playing to a constituency, or politicians whose knee-jerk reaction to a nut with a Confederate Flag has caused revisionism in American History.
The KKK and racist jackasses co-opted the St. Andrews flag, and now "Dixie" is now almost an outlawed song.
But that's progress.
All those words and no indication of what YOU think in any moral sense.
Neat trick I suppose.
I'm sure the desire to cover up history has absolutely nothing to do with decisions to take down a flag or remove monuments. I'm 100% sure it's about not wanting to glorify those areas of history.
Also clearly being ''PC'' on this board, and in this region is what most of You are doing. My views are damn sure not politically correct in this crowd.
I am right, and you shouldn't have to ask, that says something about you.
It's ridiculous to go back to biblical times to try to make a case for The Confederacy. It shows how weak the case is.
Hanging on to the notion there was nobility in the slave economy of the south or to pretend there was anything worth glorifying about Jim Crow and those who prospered from it wreaks of a cultural inferiority complex.
History instructor here. There is only one overriding cause of the Civil War: slavery.
Why do you neo-confederates worship and obsess over a group of traitors who lost, and lost so badly the south is still playing catch-up with the rest of the nation? Seems to me the best way to deal with an embarrassing and humiliating defeat is to put it in the rear-view mirror and move on.
I sure wish all you neo-confederates were as interested in World War II, Korea, and Vietnam as you apparently are in The War of Northern Aggression. That's an apt name for the Civil War, since the north aggressively whipped the traitorous south.
Nonsense? So where do we draw the line? The PC crowd would have anything and everything erased that ever offended anyone. You want to talk nonsense? New Orleans' recent decision is the definition of nonsense.
New Orleans was the first major city during the war of northern aggression to wave the white flag. I see nothing has changed in 150 years.
LOL, that will improve life in NO. Democrats, all symbolism absolutely no substance.
I agree New Orleans is a mess, but the old trick of conflating issues is a desperate measure.
On the issue of removing 4 symbols of an government that fought to keep many of the ancestors of current city residents enslaved, I see Their point and support the move.
If anybody ever decides to defile battlegrounds like Chickamauga, I'll be on the other side, that would be a wrecking ball too far.
Every major speech, every major newspaper article every major event and document that came out of The South for 60 years leading up to Sumter and even afterward during the war made it clear the seminal cause was the preservation of slavery. Also every major piece of legislation, every court decision and every Presidential decision related to the buildup to war was about slavery. The economics argument and other very secondary reasons are revisionist BS that sprung from the pens of southern writers after the war. It was a deliberate white washing of history. It was allowed to take root because the rest of the country was sick of it all by then, their thoughts were on expansion west and industrialization.
Last edited:
ISIS is razing the equivalent of The great art works of ancient Rome and Florence. NO is moving four statues to another location.
I don't disagree with anyone on whether or not slavery was morally wrong, as we all know that it was. That has been true throughout recorded history.
Removing historical references to the Confederacy is not the right thing to do in my opinion, though. Should we do the same for the Civil Rights movement? Should we change February to no longer being hailed as black history month?
A few points:
- Your narrow minded certainty that you are familiar with all motives behind removal of monuments (and so forth) says more about you than it does about anyone who may have a differing opinion than you.
- That sort of mindset reeks of a Superiority complex.
- Folks that suffer from Superiority complexes are masking their known inferiority. This explains why they are downright insulting and intolerant of folks with different beliefs than themselves.
- YOU shouldn't categorize folks that you know nothing about i.e. "being ''PC'' on this board, and in this region is what most of You are doing" as this is as insulting as it is presumptuous, regardless of your belief system.
I could've sworn there were a few other reasons, but some folks like to always boil it down to something they can understand.
With your one liner, I was able to track down the source of your History instructor diploma:
I posted I can't know individual motives, which is exactly opposite with what You claim I posted.
I do think this 150 year obsession with insisting on re-fighting The CW is rooted in a kind of cultural inferiority complex though..yep, I stick to that appraisal.
Also most of You are absolutely being culturally PC, hell, You all have the same opinions on almost all cultural issues, that wouldn't happen randomly.
