Chatham County Online BBS
November 22, 2017, 05:25:02 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Read the latest Chatham news at Chatham Journal
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Tags Login Register  
Digg This!
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Down
  Send this topic  |  Print  
Author Topic: To Those Demanding the Destruction of the Monument in Pittsboro  (Read 5493 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Wilderness Voice
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:October 03, 2017, 01:22:19 PM
Date Registerd:May 06, 2009, 09:32:07 PM
Posts: 2,120


« Reply #45 on: September 18, 2017, 01:38:29 PM »

Paul was just bringing the deity of Jesus to the Gentiles, throughout history people have always attempted to bring Jesus in the picture to manipulate and distort his teachings to serve themselves and not God.  Nothing new here.  Now if you want a make a case for the end times, not even Jesus new that date, just the birthing pains that will happen prior
Logged
Pi
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:Yesterday at 03:28:46 PM
Date Registerd:August 09, 2011, 10:12:40 AM
Posts: 4,511



« Reply #46 on: September 18, 2017, 02:09:14 PM »

Paul was just bringing the deity of Jesus to the Gentiles, throughout history people have always attempted to bring Jesus in the picture to manipulate and distort his teachings to serve themselves and not God.  Nothing new here.  Now if you want a make a case for the end times, not even Jesus new that date, just the birthing pains that will happen prior

The end times?  I'll leave prognosticating about Armageddon to someone else. 

Everything comes to an end.  All great empires fall and something else often rises from the ashes.  What I am concerned with is a net loss of individual freedom brought about by an overbearing government driven by fuzzy notions of social justice.

The danger of this is not theoretical.  That which social justice says is for the "common good" or that which is "fair" and equitable are driven less by hard and fast principles than by fluid concepts.  The goalposts simply get moved each time it is revealed that attempts at equal outcomes have failed.  Or more to the point have been perceived to fail. 

One of the key steps is tearing down any and all authorities that rival the state.  This paints a very large target on the church.  The church will likely persist in basements and backrooms, just as it did in the USSR.  But I hardly consider that desirable or acceptable.

It doesn't matter what I think anyway.  It's going to be whatever it's going to be. 
Logged

There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country. One is by the sword. The other is by debt. - John Adams
Wilderness Voice
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:October 03, 2017, 01:22:19 PM
Date Registerd:May 06, 2009, 09:32:07 PM
Posts: 2,120


« Reply #47 on: September 18, 2017, 02:30:59 PM »

try not to get religion and Jesus mixed up, as far as the end times whenever that may be?   I plan on spending eternity with Christ through Grace alone and pray you will accept the same Savior that God sent us
Logged
NC YIPPIE
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:November 02, 2017, 03:41:05 PM
Date Registerd:February 09, 2006, 03:52:41 PM
Posts: 9,827



« Reply #48 on: October 18, 2017, 11:26:39 AM »

I'm not trying to make this about you.  However, you entered this thread spouting the usual tripe about racism.  This from the same fellow that equates libertarian beliefs with racism.  No, Yip, we didn't forget your post where you asked about the viability of "states rights" and then posted this pic of George Wallace as an opener:

So let's not pretend you're at all interested in having an honest and respectful discussion.  Because you're not.  Your goal, just like a lot of other social justice warriors, is to raise the spectre of racism.  That's really what this push to remove monuments is all about.  It's to create a narrative that racism exists and is everywhere.  And that white folks are the perpetrators of all the world's wrongs.

This type of tactic is destructive and like most things, has unintended consequences.  The consequence of social justice witch hunts with regard to free speech and free thought are precisely what made Donald Trump our president.  As you know, I'm not a fan and argued vociferously AGAINST his nomination here on the board.  

So thanks for that.  /sarcasm

The problem with that skewed 'analysis' is that I entered this thread with actual evidence of racism at the statue's dedication ceremony. So clearly, that is not 'tripe' as you say here, but actual, documented racism. I don't equate libertarian views with racism, which is why you can't quote me saying anything like that here. You are right about one thing though, I do equate the Confederate & KKK supporters who put up this statue with George Wallace and his effort to use the veil of "state's rights" to help hide his racism. That is not the spectre of racism either - it is actual, documented racism, again, at this statue's dedication ceremony. I said that the "state's rights" line in the speech was simply a smokescreen for the ‘right’ of the Confederacy to enslave others. It's also not a witch hunt to call out the KKK - and their financial supporters. The speaker at hand that I quoted not only declares the right of states to have slaves, he questions the 14th amendment of the US Constitution not because of some vague, lofty ideal, but because of a sinister self-interest to own other human beings. It is in that questioning and in the other statements that make it abundantly clear that it is certainly not tripe in the slightest - it is blatant racism & evil intentions hiding just behind the much more palatable banner of mysterious and unidentified state's rights. The other funny thing about state's right is that when it came to the topic of fugitive slaves, the South was all for the power of the federal government over other states. You have partially acknowledged that the context of the creation of this statue matters, but have downplayed the racism of that context as you have downplayed the role of slavery in motivating many who fought for the South. Your goal seems to be to dismiss discussions of the actual evidence we have and only focus on the text of the monument and the current feelings of some citizens. The more historical evidence presented, the more the attempt to shift the conversation to me instead of the statue.

And here you go again, saying I'm trotting out the lines of "Confederate apologists".  There's just one problem with that Yip.  It's not true.  The vast majority did NOT own slaves.  Your own Google "research" doesn't dispute that claim either.  The reason I say that is because I, and many others, see the monument as a memorial.  And just like every other war, the ones that fought and died were most often poor folks who believed they were fighting off invaders or protecting their homes.   However, I guess you acknowledging that is not going to happen.  And so instead, you move the goalposts to "lived with or worked with or did business with"" slavery.  No sh!t Sherlock.  They were from the South.  When the powerful people are the ones that own slaves, and also most of the business concerns, how the hell would someone avoid being associated with someone that owns slaves?  I guess if they wore cotton clothing they were also supporting slavery in some shape or form too, right?

Nice try, but yeah, that's exactly what you are doing. Saying someone did not directly own a slave does not mean they did not support and directly benefit from the institution of slavery. To clarify, I am speaking of a much more direct connection than owning a shirt. Slaves were owned by the richest male in a household - meaning that his five sons could live in that same master's house, beat slaves daily, rape them at night and then say - but hey, we don't technically 'own' those slaves, right? Again, I'm speaking of those directly connected to slavery and it was absolutely much higher than 10%. So that's why I'm calling you an apologist for pushing that "only 10% owned" line of thinking, which is based upon the tiny truth that only the master owned the slaves on paper, but not on the reality of the direct and often brutal participation of their sons, daughters and other white employees. No honest person would say that someone who orders slaves around their plantation, who forces them to do their bidding on a daily basis and who buys their clothes with money created by people they enslave is somehow not directly connected to slavery. They were a society up to their necks in the 'peculiar institution' of the south which was woven directly into the fabric of their daily existence. Feel free to compare that to someone far away owning cotton clothing if you like, that just strikes me as yet another display of a Confederate apologist pushing a narrative that is highly misleading. If you want downplaying the scope and responsibility of slavery to be your thing though, go for it.

More evidence:
"Thus, volunteers in 1861 were 42 percent more likely to own slaves themselves or to live with family members who owned slaves than the general population. The attachment to slavery, though, was even more powerful. One in every ten volunteers in 1861 did not own slaves themselves but lived in households headed by non family members who did. This figure, combined with the 36 percent who owned or whose family members owned slaves, indicated that almost one of every two 1861 recruits lived with slaveholders. Nor did the direct exposure stop there. Untold numbers of enlistees rented land from, sold crops to, or worked for slaveholders. In the final tabulation, the vast majority of the volunteers of 1861 had a direct connection to slavery. For slaveholder and nonslaveholder alike, slavery lay at the heart of the Confederate nation."
(Source: General Lee's Army: From Victory to Collapse)

Yet again you sidestep the point.  Which is par for your course I suppose.  The point was about the dichotomy between revering MOLLUS when MOLLUS reveres a racist like Lincoln.  I made that quite clear and the point definitely hit more than a nerve.  Personal or public, the point goes to the complexity of people's feelings on the issue.  Your whole exercise here is to try to prove that people who support leaving the monument where it is are wrong.  And they are wrong, in your view, because the monument glorifies the Confederacy.  Those people have just as much right to disregard the racist and promotion of the Confederacy by the UDC as you have to disregard Lincoln's blatant racism.  

I see absolutely no difference between you and them from a moral standpoint.  You have NO moral high ground here whatsoever.

You pretend to see no difference. Using the phrase personal or public is the real sidestep, as there is a huge, glaring difference between those two things. I have not in any place said they don't have the right to disregard the racist promotion of the Confederacy by the UDC. What I have questioned is the public funds and very prominent position of their statue and if it is still supported by the citizens of this county.  made the point that if they voted to erect it, they could also vote to take it down. Comparing that to a personal choice to join a group which in part glorifies Lincoln's role in maintaining the Union is not even in the same ballpark, even when you use the phrase "personal or public" as a smokescreen. We are talking about public here, in case you forgot. The complexity of people’s feelings? Whew, you're really starting to sound like an elbow-patched liberal there, hilarious! We are not talking about ‘private feelings’ or what someone does at home or as part of a private club. Lincoln was a flawed man, but in the end he was on the side fighting for the United States and against slavery, even though he had racist views. However, it was also the party of Lincoln that first put an end to slavery as part of its official platform, before the war ended. It was also Lincoln who in the end kept this country together. The UDC also promoted and supported the racist views of the Confederacy, which is something MOLLUS does not do with Lincoln. So even on a personal level, it is not the same.

Lincoln:"I think we want, and must have, a national policy in regard to the institution of slavery that acknowledges and deals with that institution as being wrong. Whoever desires the prevention of the spread of slavery and the nationalization of that institution yields all when he yields to any policy that either recognizes slavery as being right or as being an indifferent thing. Nothing will make you successful but setting up a policy which shall treat the thing as being wrong. When I say this I do not mean to say that this General Government is charged with the duty of redressing or preventing all the wrongs in the world, but I do think that it is charged with preventing and redressing all wrongs which are wrongs to itself. This Government is expressly charged with the duty of providing for the general welfare. We believe that the spreading and perpetuity of the institution of slavery impairs the general welfare. We believe, nay, we know, that that is the only thing that has ever threatened the perpetuity of the Union itself. The only thing which has ever menaced the destruction of the Government under which we live is this very thing. To repress this thing is, we think, providing for the general welfare."

It's also funny to see you try and put words in my mouth again, with the whole "But you and I are not going to agree that the only purpose of the monument is to glorify the Confederacy." I have never said that and again, that is why you can't quote me saying that to back up your fake point there. BTW, it's not a "public message board" it is a private message board used by members of the public, which again, is a big difference. In fact, I even used a quote that mentioned the memorial part specifically. It’s my opinion that is the main purpose, again, not the only one.

Also, there you go again, trying to put words in my mouth with your "it much easier for people like Yip to assume” because you can’t quote me. I never said that everyone that fought supported slavery. I never said that it "summarizes the motivations” but rather that your 1 in 10 apologist point was very misleading, of which there is little doubt - and even less so after this post. It’s much more than just a tiny degree - the support of slavery and its importance to the Southern cause was enshrined in many of their official documents of succession, word for word. Not in just private letters, but in the words of their leaders. Southerners didn't just have these views on slavery - they loudly supported them as an institution. They also shot down unarmed blacks who had surrendered in cold blood. As I mentioned earlier, there were 180,000 plus blacks fighting for the North. When slaves escaped, they ran North. That is clearly not because the North & South were the same in their views on slavery and the future of this county.

That which resides in the public square was put there by acclaimation and can therefore be moved or removed the same way.  

Agreed, as I said above. I disagree that it is entirely a manufactured crisis, I see it as more of a grassroots reaction to the recent rise in KKK gatherings and public appearances, the killings by Dylan Roof and the ongoing tension over various police killings, such as Walter Scott, Eric Garner and most recently Patrick Harmon. I also acknowledge the backhanded compliment, lol. It seems to me however, that you don't entirely comprehend what a race baiter of 'the worse sort' would really say here, so you latch on to what you consider 'the closest thing' and just use it when you are short on historical evidence. Anyway, I think I’ve made more than one good point here and you have certainly made a few of your own. I'm fine being called a social justice warrior, as I do support social justice. BTW, I've seen you be a social justice warrior here as well - but only on some issues.

Ok, so reviewing that 1-4 list again, are you really comparing the UDC views & Lincoln as equivalent as it seems there? Because it is not even close. With the UDC, you're talking about a group that did not just harbor some racist views, but who actively supported the KKK and attempted to legitimize their murderous activities as they killed babies, tortured innocent people and even burned people alive. The KKK lynched thousands without trial, killed sheriffs (with one example of this documented right here in Graham, NC). They castrated men with razors, bombed churches, poured burning hot tar on people, whipped old women, slit people’s throats and burned schools to the ground. So although Lincoln clearly did believe in the inferiority of the black race, to compare supporting Lincoln to supporting the KKK is completely ridiculous. On three, I have already said as such, as you know. On four, certainly the best way to go about it is by legal means.

My posts here are also to point out what the media coverage had not even mentioned - that the UDC did not just hold racists views, they actively supported and conducted PR efforts for the KKK and were part of the financial propaganda network that attempted to legitimize the KKK, even going so far as to ban certain textbooks. So sure, let's continue to have an honest public debate, with all the known facts - and let the chips fall where they may.

Logged
Pi
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:Yesterday at 03:28:46 PM
Date Registerd:August 09, 2011, 10:12:40 AM
Posts: 4,511



« Reply #49 on: October 18, 2017, 01:53:20 PM »

Yip,

No one is dismissing any actual evidence.  You did in fact equate state's rights with racism.  Those of us who were reading the forum them remember it.  And while you deny it in one breath you state it again in the next.

I'm not downplaying the racist nature of the UDC.  But you're a Harper Valley hypocrite for saying that I am while you simultaneously try to downplay the racism of Lincoln.  I don't have a forum avatar that shows a logo of an organization that glorifies a racist.  You do.  Was Lincoln as racist as the UDC?  Perhaps not.  But then I'm not proudly displaying a MOLLUS emblem and you are.  Best thing you could have done is simply acknowledge the problematic nature of what you're doing.  I'm not saying that the UDC and Lincoln were one and the same.  But the fact that Lincoln was a racist should, at the very least, give you a moment to stop and reflect on things.

The point I made wasn't to liken Lincoln to the UDC.  The point I was making is that things are often complicated.  History has a rosy view of the victors, and such is the case when it comes to Lincoln.  MOLLUS clearly recognizes and glorifies Lincoln.  That's a fact.  But your perception of MOLLUS and Lincoln is interesting because it focuses on the positives and sort of excuses the negatives.

Thus, when modern day folks look at the monument in the center of town, they are also apt to focus on the fact that it is a memorial.  I'm simply asking you to apply the same consideration when it comes to others.

You are certainly free to reject my points, though you do admit from time to time that I've made good ones.  If I seem to make a point that you deem related to "social justice" it might just be true.  But understand that I always try to take the side of freedom.  Slavery and racism is the very opposite of freedom.

Social justice is all about the state forcing people to behave a certain way.  What I support is recognizing that people have the freedom to do as they please up to a certain point.  That point is when those actions affect others, and I don't mean hurting someone's feelings. 

As I said before, the monument was put there by public acclimation.  I really doubt, as you said, that there's much cost involved in maintaining it.  You've made it clear that you don't think much of those that fought for the South.  Most of them were "directly connected" to slavery in your opinion.  I disagree about that.  I've found different numbers that I shared above.  You're welcome to stick to your numbers.

You're welcome to keep discussing this, but really what this boils down to is you trying to convince others that removing the monument is the right thing to do.  I'm not so sure that is the right thing.  You don't seem to see that many people don't look at it as a symbol of racism.  I can see what you're trying to do is get people to first understand how racist the monument supposedly is and then change their minds.  I don't have a problem with that.

I don't even have a problem with you cherry picking facts.  But I do think you'll be more effective if you don't look down on those you're actually trying to convince.  You seem to interpret any disagreement with you as being rooted in ignorance.  Sometimes that's the case.  More often it is not.

Quite frankly, this is somewhat off topic.  This thread was about those that wanted to destroy the monument.  There were rumors going around that people would come in during the night and tear down the monument.  They didn't say they would hold a vigil or ask the city to remove it.  They were going to do it by force and use violence if necessary.

Whether or not that's true, I don't know.  I do know that has happened in other places and I don't think it is right.  It happened in Durham.  I'm not sure if you support those actions or not, to be honest.  For some reason I don't think you ever really discussed this aspect of the thread even though that's what it is actually about.

It seems that you're wanting a conversation about this, and I'm okay with that.  I'm not okay with people destroying the monument. 

Logged

There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country. One is by the sword. The other is by debt. - John Adams
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Up
  Send this topic  |  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!