Chatham County Online BBS
August 23, 2017, 10:13:29 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Best Email List in the Triangle! Join the Chatham Chatlist
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Tags Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
 1 
 on: Today at 01:05:53 PM 
Started by Pi - Last post by Silk_Hope
ATTENTION: DO NOT Ė I repeat Ė DO NOT use $1 Ė $2 Ė $50 or $100 bills.

They display pictures of former slave owners on them and must be disposed of immediately!

Send them all to me and I will take care of this, free of charge!

DO NOT just throw them away. They need to be disposed of properly and I am certified to do so.

Send a Private Message to me if you need my mailing address.

We must get these out of circulation ASAP.


Thank you for your cooperation.
Like

 2 
 on: Today at 08:04:11 AM 
Started by blondesnooper - Last post by Bill Crawford
It may not be a greedy landlord at play with the Oakleaf. Many restaurants in positions like that get leases with rent discounts the first year, as incentive to self-fund capital outlays needed to make it functional and Board Of Health compliant. It may be that the ensuing increase was simply something their income stream wasn't up to handling.

They might not have been growing to a level they anticipated when they signed on. I didn't eat there often, but there were a couple of times I wondered how the covers they were getting were covering their rent and expenses.

 3 
 on: Today at 05:45:44 AM 
Started by Pi - Last post by Pi
(BTW, I gave a lengthy reply to your points and simply left the avatar discussion for another post. I certainly agree that Lincoln was a racist. However, in order to be a member of MOLLUS, you first have to be a direct descendent of a Union soldier. It was created to defend the Union aka the country, as Lincoln was already dead. I don't believe there is any reference to Lincoln in the founding documents at all. It was more a reaction to his assassination as a US President and possible further conspiracies as a threat to the Union after he was killed than about him as an individual. It was a reaction of loyalty to the United States in defense of those who might attempt to destroy it, foreign or domestic.)

Let's look at this again because there is a valid point to be made here.

https://www.lmunet.edu/academics/abraham-lincoln-library-and-museum-1/mollus

MOLLUS, in association with the National Park Service, hosts the Lincoln Commemorative Birthday Celebration each February 12 in Washington, DC,

MOLLUS seeks to foster military and naval science, promote allegiance to the United States government, perpetuate the memory of those who fought to preserve the unity and indivisibility of the Republic and to honor the memory and promote the ideals of President Abraham Lincoln.


1. Promote allegiance to the US government. Interesting distinction. Not the United States.  The government.

2. I'm hoping that when it comes to the "memory and ideals of President Abraham Lincoln" they don't mean his racist ones.  I'm sure they are rather "selective" when it comes to his ideals.

If some people can look at a racist like Lincoln and the reverence an organization has for a person with such faults; and if those people can proudly display an emblem representative of that...

Can others not do the same with regard to a monument that had an inauspicious beginning but also stands for memorial?

I believe so.

 4 
 on: Today at 05:17:12 AM 
Started by Pi - Last post by Pi
All of this back and forth has brought us further away from the main point. Acorn said that the monument was not a memorial.

I think it is clear that it is indeed a memorial. It is at the very least part of its purpose. Even if it was put there by people with reprehensible views.  

The other day I saw an Indy magazine. On the front cover it had a picture of a statue and a caption that read "TEAR THEM ALL DOWN". That is the sentiment I was referring to in the original post. Note that the thread title specially says "destruction" and not "relocation".

Just wanted to remind folks where this thread started before it drifts too far.  

 5 
 on: Today at 04:47:12 AM 
Started by Pi - Last post by Pi
Well, stop trying to put words in my mouth or link me to statements that I never made and we'll be fine.

Calm down Yip. Nobody is putting words in your mouth. That's your maneuver.

I didn't catch the reference to this specific statue with your "You seem to disregard the idea that people fought and often died in a terrible war" sentence and the ones around it. Thus the slight miscommunication there, which may be my fault.

Yeah it's your fault.

However, I still think you are backing away from something that seems clear when we look at the speeches the UDC and their speakers gave when dedicating similar monuments - it was a statue not only to the soldiers, but to their cause, the Confederacy. So your saying they did not build these monuments to glorify the Confederacy? Even after reading through their many documents, which all say exactly that? Or are you saying that was not their primary goal? Or are you only talking about this one, specific statue?

I've already addressed this with complete clarity and I am in no mood to repeat myself. It is always the same game with you. You ignore what I say and pretend to be obtuse as a method of repeating an accusation. I'm tired of playing that game with you. If you aren't bright enough to hold up your end of the conversation, that's not my fault.

Yes, memorial is one of their primary purposes, certainly.

You can stop right there. That's the point I was trying to make and you were trying to avoid acknowledging. The rest of what you typed is nonsense designed to soften the blow of you having to concede the point. Their racism has already been acknowledged by me.  If you once agree that "memorial" was part of their primary purpose, then t stands to reason that the monument is also a memorial to some degree. I think that's not too much of a stretch.

If you also once agree that people are able to support the monument staying there without being racist, then what the hell are you yammering about?  We already agreed that history is complicated.

(BTW, I gave a lengthy reply to your points and simply left the avatar discussion for another post. I certainly agree that Lincoln was a racist. However, in order to be a member of MOLLUS, you first have to be a direct descendent of a Union soldier. It was created to defend the Union aka the country, as Lincoln was already dead. I don't believe there is any reference to Lincoln in the founding documents at all. It was more a reaction to his assassination as a US President and possible further conspiracies as a threat to the Union after he was killed than about him as an individual. It was a reaction of loyalty to the United States in defense of those who might attempt to destroy it, foreign or domestic.)

Watching you squirm about this is highly entertaining.  That avatar is your way of saying you're some sort of social justice warrior and it was hilarious to educate you on it.

So let's get back to the monument in Pittsboro -

Yeah I bet you'd like that lol.

if it was shown that someone said "I hereby proclaim that we have created this monument, not only to remember our brave Confederate dead but also as a celebration of pure Anglo-Saxon blood and the Confederacy and all it stood for, for the education of future generations" would that make any difference to you, if it was not also carved in stone on the monument itself? Or should our only consideration be what is there in the stone?

Sure it is a consideration and I've already said that. Even if your quote is manufactured. Already addressed Yip.

Speaking of skipping over things, you have danced around my point about Clark's dedication speech specifically mentioning the 14th Amendment and why he did that. First you said that "However I think the quote you provided shows that he was concerned that the 14th was being twisted by some entities. And that such twisting of the precedent was not in accordance with its true meaning and was instead being used to undermine state courts. On what issues I have no idea."

So really, on what issues you have no idea? Let's read what he said again, shall we?

"It is true that there is the fourteenth amendment which was passed solely (if indeed legally adopted at all) to secure the rights of the newly emancipated colored people."

Again, your reply was "On what issues I have no idea." Really? You don't think that was a clear reference to slavery???

Dude, did you just stop reading at that point or did you read the rest?  It is not my job to educate you. If you are smart enough to find the links you are smart enough to stop and think about what is being said.  You are smart enough to 1) realize I already acknowledged the reference to slavery and 2) understand that there is additional context there related to states rights and judicial precedence that is NOT related to slavery.

I consider his statements at the dedication, as reported I believe in the Chatham Record, by an editor that I think was the husband of one of the leaders of the UDC, to be factual. Perhaps this is one of my points that you are still considering, but have not mentioned again as yet. It is my point here, again, that what was said at the dedication does in fact matter, as part of the factual record, when considering the motivations behind the monument. Indeed, as you said, context cuts both ways.

We got that the first two time you said it Yip.  You're not presenting any new information here. Nobody is ignoring the racist motivations of those who caused the monument to exist in the first place.

We're simply saying that memorializing those that fought and/or died is a major part of its purpose. Apparently you see it as a monument to the Confederacy and as such it has little value you to you. We get it. We read you loud and clear. Subsequent virtue signaling on your part is not necessary.

To be clear, I appreciate you bringing this context to the discussion. I really do. And understand that it is a compliment that based on your information I'm still thinking very hard about this.

I'm not a stupid man Yip. Give me time to process and parse things out. I'm quite capable of evolving.

 6 
 on: Yesterday at 07:59:56 PM 
Started by Pi - Last post by Bill Crawford
Open letter to Pittsboro:

The culture war seems to run in waves and the top subject changes with it. After Charlottesville, the top subject switched to memorials and statues, mainly confederate ones (although across the country recently, other targets have been tagged). We are presently having our own regarding the memorial in front of our Courthouse. I'm going to say my piece and I doubt that I would carry the day in a vote here, but this is a democracy and I don't always get my way in that glorious process.

I understand there are other sensibilities out there regarding this subject and I respect that. I am just hoping to present another side for all of you to consider.

First, I realize that most of the people getting involved with this are considering what is (in my mind) the more reasonable option of moving the statue somewhere else. The people I have talked to who wish it to be simply taken down often use other examples of this in history, from Hitler's figures being destroyed all the way up to the U.S. Army lending their equipment to take down Saddam Hussein's edifice in 2003. I would simply point out to you that all of these examples were immediately following a war, which few of the confederate statues in question fall under. In fact, I'd bet that if the Mexicans managed to capture a chunk of our Southwest in the 19th century and we later pushed them out, it probably wouldn't be hard to gather a working majority of Americans in all the states and territories to remove any standing marble reminders of Pancho Villa.

Second, while I understand there is a lot of argument pouring out about the wave of construction of these statues in the 1910-20 period being a push to set the terms for Reconstruction, set up the network of Jim Crow laws and advance the "Lost Cause" narrative (all of which have validity to them), I beg you to see that there is another side to be considered. That time period was also a recognition that many of the Civil War vets were getting on in years and many people wanted to show them their respects before they passed on. We had a similar wave in the media with WWII vets in the latter part of the last century. Reagan's Pointe Du Hoc speech in Normandy in 1984 was given for that purpose. This was a war between Americans. Families fought on opposite sides. A President was assassinated over it. The war itself was probably the dirtiest in history- the weapons were the first generation of 20th century- more reliable and better constructed than Revolutionary War rifles and capable of reloading and firing much faster, injuring more and more catastrophically, but the state of medicine was still not much better than medieval times. There was a lot of healing that needed to happen, and these statues were part of that process, not simply a symbol of slavery and racial animus.

Finally, I would like you to consider my "eyes wide open" approach to history. Moving them to make the world around you more comfortable also takes away some strong teachable moments such memorials provide. I didn't have to take my children to see such a thing, they asked me about who that was standing by the Courthouse and I gave them both barrels of history- the good, bad and ugly. I told them that the old saw said that "the truth will set you free", but along the way it will occasionally make you uncomfortable as hell. Having it out there as it was set in 1909 could also serve as a more ubiquitous reminder of the other side of the better angels of our nature and could make it less likely for some idiot to whip people up fifty years from now and repeat the same stupidity.

The Germans have deliberately left some of the Nazi prison camps up intact, so people can be properly horrified and hopefully follow Elie Wiesel's mantra of "Never Forget!" When Eisenhower went through those camps, he collected a small army of photographers and cinematographers to record all they could, to better chance that down the road, Holocaust deniers would more likely be properly be denounced as fools. They didn't want things destroyed, or moved to a quieter place.

We should face the future with a clear eye on the past. Every age has it's positive and negative, we should not hide from the worst parts of the past. Let us work to make sure the worst parts are not repeated.

 7 
 on: Yesterday at 04:03:38 PM 
Started by Pi - Last post by NC YIPPIE
Well, stop trying to put words in my mouth or link me to statements that I never made and we'll be fine.

I didn't catch the reference to this specific statue with your "You seem to disregard the idea that people fought and often died in a terrible war" sentence and the ones around it. Thus the slight miscommunication there, which may be my fault. However, I still think you are backing away from something that seems clear when we look at the speeches the UDC and their speakers gave when dedicating similar monuments - it was a statue not only to the soldiers, but to their cause, the Confederacy. So your saying they did not build these monuments to glorify the Confederacy? Even after reading through their many documents, which all say exactly that? Or are you saying that was not their primary goal? Or are you only talking about this one, specific statue?

Yes, memorial is one of their primary purposes, certainly. However, you actually said "the primary purpose" not "a primary purpose" which is what I was talking about there. So if you apply it as an 'a' instead of a 'the' to this statue - as you just did - that means that their goals of historical, benevolent, educational and social are also primary to their purpose when creating monuments. So with that in mind, it is both a memorial to the Confederate soldiers, as well as a tribute their ideas and social structure - part of legitimizing the 'Old South' one might say.

(BTW, I gave a lengthy reply to your points and simply left the avatar discussion for another post. I certainly agree that Lincoln was a racist. However, in order to be a member of MOLLUS, you first have to be a direct descendent of a Union soldier. It was created to defend the Union aka the country, as Lincoln was already dead. I don't believe there is any reference to Lincoln in the founding documents at all. It was more a reaction to his assassination as a US President and possible further conspiracies as a threat to the Union after he was killed than about him as an individual. It was a reaction of loyalty to the United States in defense of those who might attempt to destroy it, foreign or domestic.)

So let's get back to the monument in Pittsboro - if it was shown that someone said "I hereby proclaim that we have created this monument, not only to remember our brave Confederate dead but also as a celebration of pure Anglo-Saxon blood and the Confederacy and all it stood for, for the education of future generations" would that make any difference to you, if it was not also carved in stone on the monument itself? Or should our only consideration be what is there in the stone?

Speaking of skipping over things, you have danced around my point about Clark's dedication speech specifically mentioning the 14th Amendment and why he did that. First you said that "However I think the quote you provided shows that he was concerned that the 14th was being twisted by some entities. And that such twisting of the precedent was not in accordance with its true meaning and was instead being used to undermine state courts. On what issues I have no idea."

So really, on what issues you have no idea? Let's read what he said again, shall we?

"It is true that there is the fourteenth amendment which was passed solely (if indeed legally adopted at all) to secure the rights of the newly emancipated colored people."

Again, your reply was "On what issues I have no idea." Really? You don't think that was a clear reference to slavery???

I consider his statements at the dedication, as reported I believe in the Chatham Record, by an editor that I think was the husband of one of the leaders of the UDC, to be factual. Perhaps this is one of my points that you are still considering, but have not mentioned again as yet. It is my point here, again, that what was said at the dedication does in fact matter, as part of the factual record, when considering the motivations behind the monument. Indeed, as you said, context cuts both ways.

 8 
 on: Yesterday at 01:36:24 PM 
Started by Pi - Last post by Pi
Ah, so the issue is the morality of the people that put it up, and they are on trial in the court of public opinion.  And since the people that paid for the memorial were racist, then the monument has no redeeming value and should be removed.

Did I say anything about 'no redeeming value' or that it was completely a clear cut case?

Likewise, I don't think you can ignore the fact that it also celebrates the Confederacy by calling them heroes, by location and as part of a documented strategy of revision.

I appreciate you acknowledging a few of my points. But which ones specifically?

First of all, stop being snippy.  I did mention a few points and said I am still thinking and considering the information you provided.  That's more than you're willing to do in this discussion.

I think my clear statement "I do have respect for the humanity of the Confederate troops and men like Col. Lane as well" addresses your claim that I disregard that people fought & died. I don't and as I've said, some of them were my ancestors, on both sides. Having respect for the humanity of others who you may disagree with on some major points and having them occupy a place of honor in the center of town is, at least in my mind, two different things. I don't know if it is true, but I have heard that there are more than double the amount of Confederate statues than Union ones. Some of that blame lies upon all of us, those who were related and society in general of course. The UDC was a monument making machine! Another questionable fact, I've even read in another place that there are more monuments to Confederate soldiers than any other veteran's group any place in the world.

No, it wasn't clear that you understood that in specific reference to the monument in question.  I believe it is important to understand the link between those two things, as that is part of understanding the issue with this monument.  I think that if it is reasonable to have a monument to Union soldiers in the middle of town then it is reasonable to have monuments for Confederate soldiers.  I'm not sure I agree that the monument is all about glorifying the Confederacy though.  We'll just have to agree to disagree on that point.

I see you have switched to using 'primary purpose' based upon the order of a sentence. Is it primary just because it was listed first there? Not sure that is the case. However, we can also see in those quotes that they were seeking to celebrate the Confederacy, to promote the notion that their ideas were not wrong and to inspire future generations to take up their lost cause. Also, what of the language used in speeches at the dedication of many of these monuments? Or are we only to go by what was carved into the stone itself? (Look up Julian Carr's speech at the Silent Sam dedication, it is horrific.) They do celebrate the Confederacy with the language of 'heroes' instead of simply soldiers or dead, but that is a bit of a stretch, sure.

I haven't switched anything.  The UDC lists "memorial" as one of their primary purposes.  Now Yip, if you're going to cite the UDC with regard to their motivations, you can't simply disregard part of what they've said because it doesn't fit perfectly with your narrative.  I'm acknowledging all of what they said and am simply asking you to do the same.  You're trying to obscure or call it into question.  Look, if you're going to use their quotes as a reference, you can't be that selective.  Memorial is one of their primary purposes.  It's right there in the information you provided.

I think that moving it to a less prominent place, like a Confederate cemetery, might be a reasonable compromise. I think it would be fair to look at other monuments, as you mentioned, and have the people who live in that area weigh in on them individually. History and individuals are indeed complicated, with good deeds and horrible deeds, as you know.

Well, your avatar is problematic for the reasons I mentioned.  Unsurprisingly, you decided to ignore that.   Wink

By your reasoning, if the people in this area decided to keep the monument where it is, then it should stay. 

I love how there are documented quotes from Robert E. Lee against creating statues of himself and others, as it would in his words yet they are ignored by those quoting him about other issues. It is especially funny when he is quoted by those claiming to be so much more informed than others.

"As regards the erection of such a monument as is contemplated; my conviction is, that however grateful it would be to the feelings of the South, the attempt in the present condition of the Country, would have the effect of retarding, instead of accelerating its accomplishment; & of continuing, if not adding to, the difficulties under which the Southern people labour. All I think that can now be done, is to aid our noble & generous women in their efforts to protect the graves & mark the last resting places of those who have fallen, & wait for better times." - Robert E. Lee, 1866

Note that he said "in the present condition of the country".  But remember that sentiment changed a bit after the Spanish American War.  Perhaps Lee would have had a different opinion had he lived long enough to see that.  Context cuts both ways, Yip.

Again, I think saying the monument celebrates the Confederacy by calling them heroes is a stretch.  To me, it is clearly directed at the people who served, not the Confederacy.  I think you're reading a bit too much into things.  But that's certainly your right to do so.    

 9 
 on: Yesterday at 01:16:20 PM 
Started by Pi - Last post by NC YIPPIE
Ah, so the issue is the morality of the people that put it up, and they are on trial in the court of public opinion.  And since the people that paid for the memorial were racist, then the monument has no redeeming value and should be removed.

Did I say anything about 'no redeeming value' or that it was completely a clear cut case?

Likewise, I don't think you can ignore the fact that it also celebrates the Confederacy by calling them heroes, by location and as part of a documented strategy of revision.

I appreciate you acknowledging a few of my points. But which ones specifically?

I think my clear statement "I do have respect for the humanity of the Confederate troops and men like Col. Lane as well" addresses your claim that I disregard that people fought & died. I don't and as I've said, some of them were my ancestors, on both sides. Having respect for the humanity of others who you may disagree with on some major points and having them occupy a place of honor in the center of town is, at least in my mind, two different things. I don't know if it is true, but I have heard that there are more than double the amount of Confederate statues than Union ones. Some of that blame lies upon all of us, those who were related and society in general of course. The UDC was a monument making machine! Another questionable fact, I've even read in another place that there are more monuments to Confederate soldiers than any other veteran's group any place in the world.

I see you have switched to using 'primary purpose' based upon the order of a sentence. Is it primary just because it was listed first there? Not sure that is the case. However, we can also see in those quotes that they were seeking to celebrate the Confederacy, to promote the notion that their ideas were not wrong and to inspire future generations to take up their lost cause. Also, what of the language used in speeches at the dedication of many of these monuments? Or are we only to go by what was carved into the stone itself? (Look up Julian Carr's speech at the Silent Sam dedication, it is horrific.) They do celebrate the Confederacy with the language of 'heroes' instead of simply soldiers or dead, but that is a bit of a stretch, sure.

I think that moving it to a less prominent place, like a Confederate cemetery, might be a reasonable compromise. I think it would be fair to look at other monuments, as you mentioned, and have the people who live in that area weigh in on them individually. History and individuals are indeed complicated, with good deeds and horrible deeds, as you know.

I love how there are documented quotes from Robert E. Lee against creating statues of himself and others, as it would in his words yet they are ignored by those quoting him about other issues. It is especially funny when he is quoted by those claiming to be so much more informed than others.

"As regards the erection of such a monument as is contemplated; my conviction is, that however grateful it would be to the feelings of the South, the attempt in the present condition of the Country, would have the effect of retarding, instead of accelerating its accomplishment; & of continuing, if not adding to, the difficulties under which the Southern people labour. All I think that can now be done, is to aid our noble & generous women in their efforts to protect the graves & mark the last resting places of those who have fallen, & wait for better times." - Robert E. Lee, 1866


 10 
 on: Yesterday at 12:07:59 AM 
Started by Pi - Last post by 1911A
Quote
... This Confederate monument narrative is designed by the left to provoke a backlash from whites who are tired of being scorned, ridiculed, belittled and called racists, rednecks and deplorables by so called open minded progressives. Itís working. The cold race war is beginning to turn hot. The president has no intention of trying to bring the two sides together because itís impossible at this point. Thatís how Fourth Turnings roll. The mood of the country will continue to darken. Reactions to these types of events will intensify. More blood will be shed. Itís too bad these functional illiterates didnít pay attention in history class or ever read a book. They are going to learn some harsh lessons over the next decade.

https://www.theburningplatform.com/2017/08/15/functional-illiterates-trying-to-erase-history/

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!