Chatham County Online BBS
September 20, 2017, 01:29:37 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Read what Chatham County bloggers are saying at the Blog Aggregator
 
   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 3915 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
John Florida
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:Yesterday at 08:27:19 PM
Date Registerd:May 30, 2010, 12:53:20 PM
Posts: 7,295



« Reply #30 on: August 25, 2017, 09:20:12 PM »

  No being born here and don't have a dog in this fight I keep asking myself why is this country fighting against it's history??  Take the statues down then what burn the books?  Shoot the people that refuse to give them up?  For what will any of it change what happened?


   It's your history live with it it won't change.  What's next the next offended party demands MLK statues gone the streets renames don't forget the schools those have to got too books and all.

  It was bad but it got fixed as well as possible and we still work on it but the past will always be there.  It's all your call but it's idiocy you ESPN not sending  an Asian because his name is Robert Lee??  Some idiot football team wants their mascot gone because it's the same color as R.E.Lees horse and the name is similar??

   You have the mayor of N.Y. fretting about street names while he's watching a mass exodus of business's  from his city and the idiot Governor that's watching the same thing happening state wide and yet street names are what they worry about?

  My people were not here when it all went down but we are here now and this is the history were witnessing and I don't see anything for you to be proud of.

  I won't be commenting on this any more
Logged

"ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL"
 FILIPPO MAZZEI
NC YIPPIE
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:Yesterday at 11:47:04 PM
Date Registerd:February 09, 2006, 03:52:41 PM
Posts: 9,826



« Reply #31 on: August 26, 2017, 03:14:49 PM »

Well Pi, if you aren't 'bright enough to understand the difference' in what you said changing from "the" primary purpose to "a" primary purpose, that's not my fault either. Likewise with MOLLUS, if you are 'too dense to understand' the clear difference between someone's right to use an avatar in a private forum versus the right to display a controversial statue in the center of town, I can't do much about that either. If you think you are educating me in any way about the group by spending two minutes on a Google search, that is also pretty funny.

Quote
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.

Nice try, but nope, that is not what I am doing. I'm pointing out that not just that they were a racist group, or were racist individually, but also that they specifically said the monuments were not just put up to honor the dead, but also to celebrate the Confederacy and its beliefs. It has nothing to do with my intellect, which you seem to be focusing on at the moment for your own deflection strategy, but rather with the disconnect of you saying you would support moving it if you thought it celebrated the Confederacy and then attempting to ignore evidence that shows exactly that. It is not 'nonsense' to document the celebration of the Confederacy was a clear part of their plan and motivation. What is nonsense is for you to claim you have already addressed that point clearly. I have been perfectly willing to concede that it is also a memorial to the dead as well from the start of this thread. To say that the motivations go beyond a humble tribute to the fallen soldiers is not a denial that was part of their purpose.

Quote
Clark was clearly a racist. 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.  As far as I can tell, history has shown him to be as wrong about the courts as he was about the topic of equality. Our state courts seem to be very much alive and well.

Quote
1) realize I already acknowledged the reference to slavery and

OK, so show me where you said he was definitely talking about slavery there. I don't think you did, specifically, despite your "did you just stop reading" claim. You mentioned the horrors of slavery or whatever, you said he was a racist, but I don't believe you acknowledged the point that his dedication speech itself brought top the 14th in relation to slavery and also as a means to legitimize and celebrate the Confederacy. Prove me wrong.

Quote
Nobody is ignoring the racist motivations of those who caused the monument to exist in the first place.

Actually, I think many people are doing exactly that. They are saying this statue in Pittsboro is only a memorial to the dead and not admitting it was also put there to both celebrate the Confederacy and promote their racist ideology. It is more obvious with some statues and text than with others, but their overall, documented cause remains the same.

So again, do you still think that one of the primary motivations of this Pittsboro statue was to celebrate the Confederacy? I have yet to see you clearly acknowledge that part. So that is why I circled back around to the same point for emphasis. You said it partially memorializes the Confederacy much earlier here, but still stopped short of any admission that it represents a celebration of the Confederacy and related values. Especially since you have already admitted the context of his speech matters.

Quote
I don't think that monument represents all of a Chatham. It's really quite a stretch to say that it does. Monuments often have a specific purpose and I believe the purpose of that one is to remember those who served and/or died in the Civil War. No evidence that you have provided disproves or invalidates that notion.

I pointed out the statue was in the center of town, as well as the center of the state, in front of the courthouse. I think that it is pretty clear that it represents the whole county in that position. It's hard to think of a more symbolic spot really. Your sentence above came before I brought those facts up, but I didn't see where you addressed that point after that.

You've got all the time in the world to think about this & evolve - and then finally admit that it would probably be the right thing to do, to move it to another less prominent location. I know that is hard though, because that will also require you to admit that I have been right on this issue from the start. But yeah, feel free to keep talking about my avatar.  Roll Eyes
Logged
John Florida
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:Yesterday at 08:27:19 PM
Date Registerd:May 30, 2010, 12:53:20 PM
Posts: 7,295



« Reply #32 on: August 26, 2017, 07:49:39 PM »

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/08/video-southside-chicago-blacks-reject-calls-local-elites-tear-washington-statue/


  https://youtu.be/LhtyzR7KoeE
Logged

"ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL"
 FILIPPO MAZZEI
John Florida
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:Yesterday at 08:27:19 PM
Date Registerd:May 30, 2010, 12:53:20 PM
Posts: 7,295



« Reply #33 on: August 27, 2017, 06:54:51 PM »

Logged

"ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL"
 FILIPPO MAZZEI
Pi
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:September 18, 2017, 05:07:17 PM
Date Registerd:August 09, 2011, 10:12:40 AM
Posts: 4,505



« Reply #34 on: August 28, 2017, 08:12:09 AM »

Yip, once again you are getting wrapped around the axles of unrighteous indignation. I'm not going to repeat myself and your continued attempts to get me to do so are dumb. I've said the UDC was racist. I also said that I believe the primary purpose of the monument is a memorial. If some part of it also celebrates the Confederacy then I of course understand how that would offend some people.

The point about MOLLUS was a valid one and I can tell it stung. You didn't know as much as you thought you did about it. If you did, you wouldn't have chose it. Now you're too stubborn to change it.
This just goes to show that I am capable of evolving and you simply double down.   Cool

It is, as you said, a memorial. It is also a reminder of a horrible past. But it is the history of Chatham County and people that fought and often died to protect what they thought was their community. If you think that the rank and file Confederate soldier marched off to war because they personally wanted to preserve slavery then you are simply wrong.

Anyone who has studied the Civil War (and read so many of their letters) knows that the vast majority of Confederate soldiers felt they were defending their homes. They felt they were defending their own freedoms. It is a sad irony that despite all their machinations about freedom, they were actually fighting for the subjugation of others in the end. Regardless of their personal motivations.

You think that moving the monument would be the right step. But I do not believe the social justice warrriors are content to simply move it to a cemetary.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/08/17/madison-mayor-orders-removal-two-confederate-memorials-cemetery/578889001/

I've not ignored the information you have provided. Of the two of us, only one has rejected the point of this entire thread. I've called attention to the fact that the issue isn't quite so cut and dried and that it is indeed a memorial. It wouldn't be fair to say that you believe those lives to be meaningless. Likewise it is unfair to say that I have disregarded the racist motivations of those who erected the monument in the first place.

You're angry at me because I don't agree with you. That's a common problem I see with most of my liberal friends. It's not even enough when I agree with them if I don't display the appropriate measure of outrage.  I find all of that fake virtue signaling to be tedious.
Logged

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

Last Login:September 18, 2017, 05:07:17 PM
Date Registerd:August 09, 2011, 10:12:40 AM
Posts: 4,505



« Reply #35 on: August 28, 2017, 08:33:29 AM »

For those watching the tennis match it is interesting to observe how Yip adheres to the playbook. This is what happens when they cannot debate the issue. They instead hang their hat on a nonsense point. In this case we see a declaration that something was ignored when it clearly was acknowledged.

The original sentiment was as follows:
"People are free to interpret his statements and the text and statue according to their own beliefs and knowledge"

But that's not really what Yip meant. What Yip meant is that any conclusion that doesn't match his is wrong. The fact is, many people like Yip are very emotionally invested in their opinion. And that is why statements like this that encourage some introspection are met with such derision. 

"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."

The answer is: of course they can.  At the end of the day, that's what everyone should remember. On a positive note, it looks like nobody in this thread is advocating tearing anything down. That is encouraging.
Logged

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

Last Login:Yesterday at 11:47:04 PM
Date Registerd:February 09, 2006, 03:52:41 PM
Posts: 9,826



« Reply #36 on: September 17, 2017, 07:58:40 PM »

First off, anyone reading this thread can clearly see that I have not only debated the issue at hand, but have also provided numerous examples of specific evidence to support my opinions. It's obvious that you say such things here because you want to deflect and make this debate about me, so that your echo chamber of apologists can chime in and shout hooray. Saying that someone is free to hold their own beliefs does not mean I agree with all those beliefs and will not try and debate the factual basis and context of those beliefs.

There’s no shift there, other than again, Pi trying to make this thread about me instead of the topic at hand with his struggling backhand in the face of mounting evidence. It’s funny, for a man who likes to tell everyone how smart he is here, Pi also doesn't seem to get the humor in some of my posts at all, and comprehend that they are often simply a direct quote of his own previous statements, using his exact tone as quoted, but somehow in reverse he claims they are now indicative of indignation. Read it back - it is Pi who first used those phrases, throwing tiny jabs like the last breaths of the fading Confederacy.

Anyway, again Mr. Pi also seems to think that I didn't know something on a topic he has only researched quite recently via Google University, about a group that I have been involved with for many years. Any student of Lincoln is well aware he was a man with many faults. As I already stated Mr. Pi, you have not taught me a single thing about MOLLUS. Talk about hanging your hat on a nonsense point - oh the irony! Your 'point' there is also obviously not even a valid analogy, even if you repeat it and mutter it to yourself while driving around town, because again, there is a HUGE (Trump voice) difference between personal statements and those enshrined on public property, as I've already pointed out. Of course you leave that out of your sophomoric analysis there because it completely invalidates your entire analogy. You choose to skip over that and just say your point 'was valid' with no actual counterpoint.

Pi has clearly also, of course, been fed the dopey line of Confederate apologists, who use the deceptive "the vast majority did not own another human being” when talking about soldiers fighting for the South, which is often claimed to be roughly 1 in 10, however, with no context. (There’s an obvious reason escaped slaves headed to the North - hundreds of thousands of them. It is estimated by some that by the end of the war, 180k blacks were fighting for the North, with about half of them being escaped slaves.) So let’s talk about that popular 1 out of 10 figure in better context. First, most of the troops were young and had not accumulated enough wealth to buy their own slaves. However, many of the soldiers still lived in a household with slaves owned by their parents, or worked at another location owned by a slaveholder, or made money related to slavery in some way:

"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. The fact that their paper notes frequently depicted scenes of slaves demonstrated the institution's central role and symbolic value to the Confederacy."

(Source: https://www.amazon.com/General-Lees-Army-Victory-Collapse/dp/1416596976/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1276825358&sr=1-1)

It’s just bullshit to say that the Confederate soldiers were not - as one of their major reasons - fighting to support the ‘Old South’ which included the institution and benefits for them of slavery. There are mountains of letters, quotes and evidence of exactly that in their own writings. It was the Union troops who sang of John Brown's Body and however racist, fought side by side on the battlefield with thousands of free blacks. So, let's take a look at what the Governor of North Carolina, John Ellis, said at the state convention in 1860:

"Such, gentlemen, are the parties to the contest. The issue between them should be clearly understood, especially here at the South. I assert, and shall maintain it with the proofs, that this issue is, whether African slavery shall be abolished here in the States, where it now exists? Let us not be deceived upon this point. Men may talk about our rights in the territories, but depend upon it they are not the questions now in issue. The abolition of slavery here at home is the design of our opponents. This is the bond that cements all the anti-slavery elements in one solid column against us.”
http://docsouth.unc.edu/nc/ellis/ellis.html

However, in anticipation of the counterpoint, it can easily be claimed that the average soldier from this area most likely knew nothing or very little about that speech. However, there is also evidence that soldiers from NC factored racism and slavery into their personal reasons for fighting. One soldier from North Carolina claimed he would never stop fighting Yankees, because they were "trying to force us to live as the colored race." Another soldier in the 38th North Carolina expressed similar views in a letter, saying he vowed to fight to show the Yankees "that a white man is better than a nigger." In some cases, this hatred resulted in the murder of black soldiers who had already surrendered. A soldier from NC recalled that "several were taken prisoner and after were bayoneted or burnt" in one case, not to mention the documented massacre of black soldiers at Plymouth, NC, and many other battles where it was a known fact that any black person who surrendered wearing Union blue would be killed. Those racist tactics had nothing to do with state's rights or homeland.
(From For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War, by James M. McPherson)

You also said that "If some part of it also celebrates the Confederacy" but have yet to admit that the quotes I show, the speeches and the context show clearly that is indeed the case - it is not just a hollow theory with zero evidence - in other words, it is not an “if” situation, but a matter of just how much. Yet you still don't seem to be able to say clearly that one of the primary motivations of this Pittsboro statue was to celebrate the Confederacy. All you can muster is 'if some part' which still leaves it as a question, even though you know it is true, because you already admitted the context matters and I have provided that specific context and what I could find of the exact historical record. So that has nothing to do with displaying 'the appropriate amount of outrage,' but rather with admitting what the evidence clearly shows or making a counterpoint based upon your own evidence. 

It's not that any conclusion that doesn't match mine is simply wrong, it is that I have provided much more factual evidence to support my opinion here than anyone else posting in this thread. Yes, they are still free to hold their beliefs, but at the same time, I am free to provide more and more evidence. One can look at Lincoln as flawed, as indeed he was, but to conflate personal beliefs, whatever they may be, with public displays is not only a poor analogy, but also completely irrelevant to the discussion as it is private conduct.

1) "If I thought the purpose of the monument was to honor the Confederacy, I would also support moving it." So if it can be proven that part of the purpose was indeed to celebrate the Confederacy, as I indeed have already attempted to show with quotes and other evidence - does your statement still apply? Or are we back to 'the' vs 'a' purpose? You said that you have been clear earlier, but I think that anyone reading this back can see that is actually not the case. You just go with the vague " inauspicious beginning" instead of full blown racist KKK supporters. (This is also why you had to deflect to my personal avatar, BTW.)

2) You said you did not think it represented the entire county and that I provided no evidence. However, I said it is in the geographic center of town, as well as the state, in the town square and in front of the courthouse. I also made the point that it was likely the most prominent place in Chatham. Did you agree with that or not? Seems pretty clear to me, but no clear answer or reply.

3) You said you have evolved here. From where to where? It seems a bit like you are back exactly where you started.

The UDC were not simply racists like many in their time, they also financially supported and publicly backed the KKK. This was at the same time the KKK was murdering residents of this county with no trial. Such evil acts of the KKK at the time include not only the killing black men, but the hanging infants from trees, the beating and shooting women and children and the burning churches to the ground. This is not tacit ideological support - they paid for an old KKK flag and spoke of it with reverence (with evidence of a donation for this flag coming from right here from Chatham), a flag which was likely held when they went on their illegal and murderous raids. The UDC talked about the KKK as noble southerners, protecting the virtues of the Old South. The UDC promoted books for school children to absorb, like Susan Pendleton Lee’s 1895 textbook, A School History of the United States, in which she declared that the Ku Klux Klan was necessary “for protection against . . . outrages committed by misguided negroes.”



"Mrs. S. E. F. Rose, of West Point, Miss., is a most enthusiastic U. D. C. worker. Her administration as State President of the U. D. C. of Mississippi, which was just closed by constitutional limitation, was marked by brilliancy and advancement along all lines of work, over a thousand new members having been added to the Division. When asked as to what she attributed her success, she replied: “My heart was in it.” Mrs. Rose served as State Historian, U. D. C., prior to her election as President, and has written many valuable historical papers, notably the “Ku Klux Clan,” which she gave permission to the Mississippi Division to sell for the benefit of a Confederate monument to be erected at Beauvoir, Miss., the home of the President of the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis. The booklet met with great success, having been sold in thirty-eight States and in far-away China, and the Mississippi Division now has the sum of $500 from the sales of the booklet as a nucleus for the monument."



During the past summer Mrs. Rose prepared a history of the Ku Klux Clan in suitable form for school study, and she will endeavor to secure its adoption as a supplementary reader in the schools, thus bringing the true history of this great organization direct to the young people of the Southland, our boys and girls of to-day, who will be our citizens of to-morrow. Mrs. Rose will ask the indorsement of the U. D. C. for the book and feels that if she can get this information to the youth of our land she will have accomplished a great mission.”



The Ku Klux Klan or Invisible Empire, written by Laura Martin Rose of Mississippi, former president and historian of the Mississippi United Daughters of the Confederacy, was explicit about Forrests’ involvement, giving him the title of “Grand Wizard of the Invisible Empire.” Rose was a native of Giles County, Tennessee, the birthplace of the Klan. Rose’s booklet, sold to raise funds for a monument to Jefferson Davis at Beauvoir, was both excerpted and advertised for sale in the Confederate Veteran magazine, a journal written by and for former Confederate soldiers and their families.

Do all modern UDC members support the party line? No:

“Remove them (Confederate monuments) from public display of places and put them in cemeteries or let them be moved to veterans’ parks, or private parks or private lands. I'm all for that," said Rudiger. “If it’s on public property and because of the issue of slavery, and because we've had so many years in our country of unfairness in this country to minority groups, why not relocate these to places where they can be given the respect they deserve for veteran service?” - Ginger Rudiger, President of the United Daughters of the Confederacy, Florida Division

People can support keeping the statue front and center as a historical reminder and as a memorial to fallen Confederate soldiers from the area. I have also stated clearly that such support does not make them a racist. However, those with other views - that the statue was created as part of an effort to rewrite history, to celebrate and glorify the Confederacy and the southern cause, are just as free to view it as such. There is also much documentation about the intent - we don't have to guess. It was created as a representation of support for the Confederate cause and was also part of a documented strategy to promote white supremacy. Also, the group that put it up was not just racist - they actively supported the racist murders of citizens with no trial.

Finally, it seems to me that if the public voted to erect it or elected those that did and they have that right, then the same public can vote to take it down or move it. It's really not more complex than that - you can't have the right to create it but not have the right to remove it. So let's just bring it to a vote.
Logged
1911A
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:Today at 09:04:38 AM
Date Registerd:April 22, 2006, 04:24:28 PM
Posts: 8,670

"Stand Your Ground" by Charles McNaughton


« Reply #37 on: September 17, 2017, 09:18:08 PM »

No, we're not moving a damn thing, pal, and you can tell that to whomever wrote the preceding post for ya.
Logged

"You are clearly a bigoted, racist pig." - Matilda

"Let us assume for the moment everything you say about me is true. That just makes your problem bigger, doesn't it?"

Vetustior Humo.
Pi
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:September 18, 2017, 05:07:17 PM
Date Registerd:August 09, 2011, 10:12:40 AM
Posts: 4,505



« Reply #38 on: September 18, 2017, 09:31:55 AM »

First off, anyone reading this thread can clearly see that I have not only debated the issue at hand, but have also provided numerous examples of specific evidence to support my opinions. It's obvious that you say such things here because you want to deflect and make this debate about me, so that your echo chamber of apologists can chime in and shout hooray. Saying that someone is free to hold their own beliefs does not mean I agree with all those beliefs and will not try and debate the factual basis and context of those beliefs.

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

Pi has clearly also, of course, been fed the dopey line of Confederate apologists, who use the deceptive "the vast majority did not own another human being” when talking about soldiers fighting for the South, which is often claimed to be roughly 1 in 10, however, with no context. (There’s an obvious reason escaped slaves headed to the North - hundreds of thousands of them. It is estimated by some that by the end of the war, 180k blacks were fighting for the North, with about half of them being escaped slaves.) So let’s talk about that popular 1 out of 10 figure in better context. First, most of the troops were young and had not accumulated enough wealth to buy their own slaves. However, many of the soldiers still lived in a household with slaves owned by their parents, or worked at another location owned by a slaveholder, or made money related to slavery in some way

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?

Anyway, again Mr. Pi also seems to think that I didn't know something on a topic he has only researched quite recently via Google University, about a group that I have been involved with for many years. Any student of Lincoln is well aware he was a man with many faults. As I already stated Mr. Pi, you have not taught me a single thing about MOLLUS. Talk about hanging your hat on a nonsense point - oh the irony! Your 'point' there is also obviously not even a valid analogy, even if you repeat it and mutter it to yourself while driving around town, because again, there is a HUGE (Trump voice) difference between personal statements and those enshrined on public property, as I've already pointed out. Of course you leave that out of your sophomoric analysis there because it completely invalidates your entire analogy. You choose to skip over that and just say your point 'was valid' with no actual counterpoint.

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.

It’s just bullshit to say that the Confederate soldiers were not - as one of their major reasons - fighting to support the ‘Old South’ which included the institution and benefits for them of slavery. There are mountains of letters, quotes and evidence of exactly that in their own writings. It was the Union troops who sang of John Brown's Body and however racist, fought side by side on the battlefield with thousands of free blacks.

I would contend that there are more letters referencing the South being invaded by the North.  And THAT was what the vast majority of Confederate soldiers thought they were fighting for.  In point of fact, ending slavery was not an official Union goal until 1863 and the Emancipation Proclamation.  Of course I can post lots of letters home that talk about the 'Yankee incursion'.  But I suspect that wouldn't be fruitful.  Most people have enough sense to know that the rich declare wars and the poor fight them. 

It just makes it much easier for people like Yip to assume that everyone that fought for the South was "guilty" of supporting slavery.  To a degree that is absolutely correct.  But it is only part of the story and in no way summarizes the motivations of those who fought and died. 

It's not that any conclusion that doesn't match mine is simply wrong, it is that I have provided much more factual evidence to support my opinion here than anyone else posting in this thread. Yes, they are still free to hold their beliefs, but at the same time, I am free to provide more and more evidence. One can look at Lincoln as flawed, as indeed he was, but to conflate personal beliefs, whatever they may be, with public displays is not only a poor analogy, but also completely irrelevant to the discussion as it is private conduct.

Not sure a public message board is the same as "private conduct".  Leaving that aside, public displays are driven by personal beliefs.  It is appropriate to acknowledge those who fought in war with a prominently placed monument.  Unless, as I said before, we decide to get rid of ALL monuments.  Strange that you've yet to comment on that solution. 

The UDC was/maybe is a racist organization.  But you and I are not going to agree that the only purpose of the monument is to glorify the Confederacy.  But what's more important at this point in time is what people today think it stands for.  If the contemporary interpretation of the meaning of the monument is a memorial (which I believe to be the case) and not to glorify the Confederacy, what does that mean, exactly?

I'll tell you what I think it means.  It means that in your usual jaundiced view of the world, you missed an important aspect here.  If it is seen as a memorial, then the UDC has failed in their mission.  Personally I don't give a damn about the Confederacy.  To me, it is a memorial to those who fought and often died.  If the goal of the UDC was to make me shed a tear over the Confederacy, then they have fallen short. 

Now, as to whether or not I've "evolved" on this issue: I've said that maybe we should consider moving all monuments.  If you can't see that as a big step I don't know what to tell you.  Also, I'm still thinking about this issue.

If it is any consolation, I'm reading what you wrote and I've been thinking about it.  It's not my goal to simply argue with you for the sake of arguing.  While you are an insufferable social justice warrior and a race baiter of the worst sort, it doesn't mean that you're incapable of making a good point.  While I think you are misguided I do applaud your passion.  Discussing these issues just wouldn't be the same without you.

Finally, it seems to me that if the public voted to erect it or elected those that did and they have that right, then the same public can vote to take it down or move it. It's really not more complex than that - you can't have the right to create it but not have the right to remove it. So let's just bring it to a vote.

You're exactly right on this point.  That which resides in the public square was put there by acclaimation and can therefore be moved or removed the same way.  The complexity here is how people feel about it.  And some people feel very strongly about it.

What I am against is the destruction of these memorials by groups of protesters.  I don't think there's anything brave or laudable about destroying them. 

Above all, I think this is really a manufactured crisis on the part of the social justice warriors.  It fits a narrative, as I've already said.  The problem is that it's going to get push back.  People who mind their own damn business and go to work every day are being told "Hey, your ancestors were a bunch of racist a55holes and we're going to tear down the monument in the center of town.  And if you oppose us or disagree then you're also a racist rear end!".   That's not exactly what you're saying here, Yip.  Which is surprising to some extent.  I guess you've grown up a little over the past few years.  Time was when you'd have said exactly that.  I guess I was wrong.  You do evolve.   Wink

But many SJWs ARE saying that.  And as a result, most folks are not receptive to it, as you might imagine.  Look, we both agree that:

1. The UDC was a racist organization.
2. Lincoln was a racist.
3. It is possible for people to support leaving the monument where it is and NOT be racist.
4. Monument like this should not be destroyed by a bunch of protesters.

I don't recall if you've specifically agreed with me about #4.  But I'm assuming you do.  If so, there's really very little for us to argue about.  Not that that'd keep us from doing it.   Cheesy
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:Yesterday at 10:42:11 AM
Date Registerd:May 06, 2009, 09:32:07 PM
Posts: 2,114


« Reply #39 on: September 18, 2017, 10:46:46 AM »

Regardless ~ slavery was a dark time in this nations history, even our founding fathers missed the mark when they wrote in the Constitution that all men were created equal in the eyes of God.  Anytime I see a moral issue, I go to scripture. 

These status are mere idols in God's eyes. 

When our black brothers, sisters and their children look upon these statues, what do you think they see??  I would use the example of Jews looking at a statue of Hitler.  The Civil War was fought for many reasons, but the confederacy lost on the slavery issue plain and simple.  The European slave trade was harsh and inhumane.  I'm a firm believer that God withheld his blessing from the Confederacy for this reason only and allowed it to be consumed by the north who outlawed slavery. 

No doubt corruption was on both sides of the Civil War, both north and south. 

You will see no church that follows the true Gospel of Grace speaking out against the removal of these idols. 

Logged
Pi
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:September 18, 2017, 05:07:17 PM
Date Registerd:August 09, 2011, 10:12:40 AM
Posts: 4,505



« Reply #40 on: September 18, 2017, 11:00:25 AM »

Regardless ~ slavery was a dark time in this nations history, even our founding fathers missed the mark when they wrote in the Constitution that all men were created equal in the eyes of God.  Anytime I see a moral issue, I go to scripture.  

These status are mere idols in God's eyes.  

When our black brothers, sisters and their children look upon these statues, what do you think they see??  I would use the example of Jews looking at a statue of Hitler.  The Civil War was fought for many reasons, but the confederacy lost on the slavery issue plain and simple.  The European slave trade was harsh and inhumane.  I'm a firm believer that God withheld his blessing from the Confederacy for this reason only and allowed it to be consumed by the north who outlawed slavery.  

No doubt corruption was on both sides of the Civil War, both north and south.  

You will see no church that follows the true Gospel of Grace speaking out against the removal of these idols.  

Oh this is gonna be good.  We're going to see liberal atheists, who would otherwise do nothing but ridicule those who believe in God, point to this and say "See!  Even true Christians side with us!".

Crosses are prominently displayed in public buildings across the U.S.A.  They are a symbol of Christianity, and according to some people, Christianity was the cause of more loss of life than the exploits of Hitler.

This should be good.  You guys battle it out and I'll just make some popcorn.

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:Yesterday at 10:42:11 AM
Date Registerd:May 06, 2009, 09:32:07 PM
Posts: 2,114


« Reply #41 on: September 18, 2017, 11:49:22 AM »

I only care about what Jesus did, not mankind
Logged
Pi
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:September 18, 2017, 05:07:17 PM
Date Registerd:August 09, 2011, 10:12:40 AM
Posts: 4,505



« Reply #42 on: September 18, 2017, 12:19:47 PM »

I only care about what Jesus did, not mankind

That's not entirely true.  You took the time to weigh in on it.

Mankind has knack for making people care.  The social justice revolution has just begun.  As a religion, Christianity is being changed from within and without.  Soon it won't be anything that you recognize. 

Behold the reformation.  It is happening before our eyes.
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:Yesterday at 10:42:11 AM
Date Registerd:May 06, 2009, 09:32:07 PM
Posts: 2,114


« Reply #43 on: September 18, 2017, 12:41:03 PM »

chuckle  ~ Paul was fighting the same fight 2,000 years ago with his letters to the churches, not much has changed throughout history, just lots more people, voices and opinions on earth now
« Last Edit: September 18, 2017, 01:31:17 PM by Wilderness Voice » Logged
Pi
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:September 18, 2017, 05:07:17 PM
Date Registerd:August 09, 2011, 10:12:40 AM
Posts: 4,505



« Reply #44 on: September 18, 2017, 01:20:25 PM »

chuckle  ~ Paul was fighting the same fight 2,000 years ago with his letters to the churches, not much has changed

~ CHORTLE ~

You're wrong about that.

You should know that Paul's effort were related to the formation of Christianity, not reformation of Christianity.

Apples and chainsaws.
« Last Edit: September 18, 2017, 01:25:58 PM by Pi » 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!