Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by KnightBrolaire, Aug 26, 2017.
I am fully aware of that.
I agree there is a gray area, and every historical figure has their flaws (MLK Jr. was very anti-homosexual for instance) and we shouldn't go removing every trace of someone who we disagree with, but there's a difference between ISIS removing priceless 3 thousand year old artifacts that reveal new information about early civilizations and taking down a statue built in the 1960s to spite civil rights activists and attempt to maintain cultural dominance.
What do you think about toppling statues during a revolution, like Stalin or Sadam statues? Are those who want to enter a new era by destroying the relics of a past oppressive one destroying history? If North Korea is ever liberated will you tell ex-DPRK citizens they must leave Pyonyang alone or else they're bad people for removing monuments they disagree with?
Care to share anything supporting that claim about MLK Jr.?
According to what I could find after reading that, Bayard Rustin, a gay civil rights activist who was shunned by most in the black community at the time for being homosexual, helped mold MLK into the civil rights leader he became.
What I meant by removing an inferior past because it doesn't fit their political agenda for the comparison to ISIS was that ISIS goes out and blows up thousands of years old statues, remains of cities, etc because they want to eradicate any existence of a non-Muslim Iraq or Syria. Of course, that's different from what the radical left is doing today in a way because how they see these statues of Confederate generals as symbols of white supremacy which like I said, is different from what ISIS' motives are but still have a common goal of what I compared them for. As for how I view removing statues during revolutions, my viewpoint changes and I find it too complex and confusing to really put into words so I do apologize about not really giving you my whole viewpoint on removing statues during revolutions.
Can't wait to see which founding father's statue the libtards deface next.
is this unironic
It would be a damn shame if that did happen.
So you admit they are two completely different situations and yet you still want to compare them for some reason. I have a feeling that if these were Stalin or Hitler statues erected in the 1950s that many would reverse their opinions on trying to "preserve" history. I also don't see how taking down these statues is somehow affecting history, some of them are being put in museums and last I checked most american children don't learn history from looking at statues but in school. I haven't seen a single Christopher Columbus or Eric the Red statue but strangely I still know who they are.
I don't see Stalin and Hitler statues history whatsoever. I see them as monuments to corrupt dictatorships. As far as I'm concerned, most of those Confederate statues were made because of the KKK reviving in the 20s.
Preface: I haven't read a lot of this thread
I understand criticisms of taking down monuments. Why is it okay to attack one sides statues for actions of those people but exclude the other side?
It's all or nothing. Take down slave owners statues (that are on government property and publicly owned) but don't limit it to just Confederate leaders. George Washington, great guy I'm sure, but he will always be in history books. I don't find the argument of slavery being a cultural norm to be a write off.
Probably not the best place, but whatever. There was some "Mother of All Rallies" today, and apparently BLM showed up. The people holding the event handed the mic off to the folks representing BLM that approached the stage, and the two were very cordial. CNN wouldn't call it a "victory," but I think it is, or close enough to one, anyways. I think it's pretty fucking awesome, and I hope the mutual respect continues.
Hey, we don't see eye to eye on much, but I'm pro civil discourse.
Yep, this shit happened. Now Teddy Roosevelt is apparently racist too.
His great grandson said this :
“I can understand some of these issues — particularly statues of people who were enemies of the US and rebelled,” Tweed said. “But I think in TR’s case, he was not rebelling against the US — he was one of our greatest presidents. If you judge him in the context of his own time, he was very progressive.
“We need to understand that it is not appropriate to apply today’s standards to the past.”
I mean, I think there's a pretty clear distinction that can be made here, namely that while they were largely pardoned after the war, the Confederate leaders were traitors and rebels fighting against the United States.
Broken record, perhaps, but I don't see too many monuments to other countries we've fought in the US. Hitler? Mussolini? King George? We beat them all in wars, where are their monuments?
What if somebody built a statue of Ted Kaczynski (the Unabomber) for his academic work on boundary functions? Or, more ironic yet, for his manifesto, by comparing it to the work of Thomas Paine as a revolutionary exposé on the perils of the industrial revolution.
I mean, he was American, held himself to his own principles without compromise, which could be seen as honourable, perhaps, in some way, and he was incredibly smart. He believed he was fighting for the common people... he's basically the updated version of Robert E. Lee, right?
yeah sure, minus the fact that Lee never mailed explosives to random civilians