The destruction of statues of historical significance, however dubious, might be only the first step.
What if the protest vandals, when they've wiped out all of the offending statues, decide to move on to public artworks, which surely must offend someone.
And what could come after artwork? Books! Next they'll be burning books!
When I was a teen, I read a lot of novels by Edgar Rice Burroughs, the creator of Tarzan. Burroughs' characters were mostly stereotypes and caricatures. His villains were especially two-dimensional. Some of Burroughs' books portrayed Germans negatively.
During the 1930s, Burroughs's books were among those burned by the Nazis for being contrary to the Third Reich.
Will some Americans start burning Burroughs's books because he also portrayed women, blacks, and other minorities as stereotypes? Tarzan went up in flames along with Churchill's writings and the US Constitution.
I just now had a brief debate with one of my professors at her seminar about whether it's fair to judge past authors by today's definition of sexism. I didn't get very far because the professor cut off the discussion and changed the subject as soon as things were getting interesting.
I'm afraid these young people tearing down statues don't understand the full risks of what they're doing. Like it or not, whether it hurts your feelings or not, the statues are part of free speech.
probably on to religion next , any displays of religion or religious freedom. can't have good socialism/communism with people believing there is a god above the government.
it was what the Nazis did , see if you can burn synagogues and if any one will stop you
The U.S is on a crash course to Balkanize, I think that is what happens next.
Florence 1490s, the height of the renaissance, you have painters such as Brunelleschi,Michelangelo,Leonardo Da Vinci, the list goes on, all of them creating beautiful works in a city that is becoming richer all the time. One priest Girolamo Savonarola starts preaching what we would now call "Marxist" principals, he slowly gains followers and his power culminates in casting out much of the ruling class. Savonarola then sends bands of young men around to collect any art or literature that he views as "displeasing to God", huge bonfires rage in the streets and many beautiful works are turned to ash.
Savonarola controlled Florence for a couple years, eventually his Utopian dream failed (they always do). The people eventually had enough of their revolutionary priest, he was tortured, hung and burned and the original ruling families returned.
Sometimes people cannot recognize the good times, the desire for a Utopian promised land is to much for a mob to resist, it may take a few years but they will wish things were as good as there were in 2020, when they do hopefully they will treat their leaders the way to Florintines treated Savonarola.
Here in New Mexico they tore down the statues of the Conquistadors, the Catholic church has a lot of statues and they worked with Spain to civilize this place. The churches are easy targets they hardly wimpered when the govt. shut them down and their right to assemble and worship is in the first amendment, maybe the second amendment should be first!
Maybe when they get tired they will go back to work, oh that's right they don't work, or maybe they are on a payroll not talked about. How does people without a income continue to finance their way for months on end?
I think i read everything Burroughs wrote when I was in grade school. To a ten year old it was high adventure and seemed possible. I doubt any of the looters ever read anything about Lord Greystoke Pellucidar or John Carter.
I'm afraid these young people tearing down statues don't understand the full risks of what they're doing. Like it or not, whether it hurts your feelings or not, the statues are part of free speech. Jim
once "the Left" got into power, they lost all interest in "free speech".
The destruction of statues of historical significance, however dubious, might be only the first step.
What if the protest vandals, when they've wiped out all of the offending statues, decide to move on to public artworks, which surely must offend someone.
And what could come after artwork? Books! Next they'll be burning books!
When I was a teen, I read a lot of novels by Edgar Rice Burroughs, the creator of Tarzan. Burroughs' characters were mostly stereotypes and caricatures. His villains were especially two-dimensional. Some of Burroughs' books portrayed Germans negatively.
During the 1930s, Burroughs's books were among those burned by the Nazis for being contrary to the Third Reich.
Will some Americans start burning Burroughs's books because he also portrayed women, blacks, and other minorities as stereotypes? Tarzan went up in flames along with Churchill's writings and the US Constitution.
I just now had a brief debate with one of my professors at her seminar about whether it's fair to judge past authors by today's definition of sexism. I didn't get very far because the professor cut off the discussion and changed the subject as soon as things were getting interesting.
I'm afraid these young people tearing down statues don't understand the full risks of what they're doing. Like it or not, whether it hurts your feelings or not, the statues are part of free speech.
Jim
I sure hope you see the real lesson here Jim. Yes. Statues and art are free speech. But your leftist professor can't compete in the arena of ideas and free speech. Consequently, he and BLM, ANTIFA, and the DNC must shut down free speech in order to prevail.
It isn't a question of can they present a cogent debate. They know they can't and must, therefore, prevent all debate and discussion.
Maybe when they get tired they will go back to work, oh that's right they don't work, or maybe they are on a payroll not talked about. How does people without a income continue to finance their way for months on end?
I think you have 2 groups of protesters. Those that live completely on welfare, and those that still live with mommy and daddy even though they are pushing 30.
Dont forget the ones funded by the foreign fomentors of unrest(these are the ringleaders using those you mentioned). The communists are well organized well funded and firmly entrenched within western society.
The destruction of statues of historical significance, however dubious, might be only the first step.
What if the protest vandals, when they've wiped out all of the offending statues, decide to move on to public artworks, which surely must offend someone.
And what could come after artwork? Books! Next they'll be burning books!
When I was a teen, I read a lot of novels by Edgar Rice Burroughs, the creator of Tarzan. Burroughs' characters were mostly stereotypes and caricatures. His villains were especially two-dimensional. Some of Burroughs' books portrayed Germans negatively.
During the 1930s, Burroughs's books were among those burned by the Nazis for being contrary to the Third Reich.
Will some Americans start burning Burroughs's books because he also portrayed women, blacks, and other minorities as stereotypes? Tarzan went up in flames along with Churchill's writings and the US Constitution.
I just now had a brief debate with one of my professors at her seminar about whether it's fair to judge past authors by today's definition of sexism. I didn't get very far because the professor cut off the discussion and changed the subject as soon as things were getting interesting.
I'm afraid these young people tearing down statues don't understand the full risks of what they're doing. Like it or not, whether it hurts your feelings or not, the statues are part of free speech.
Jim
James I always enjoy your posts and you make the best director of dinner party conversations. I wonder why the Nazi is placed as the epitome of how all things are judged for evil. In the 1500's, the Germans were engaged in numbers of book burnings. Some were Lutherans burning the books of popery and some were the Vatican burning the Martin Luther's books. As a writer, I have had Google and Facebook, electronically burn my work, and yet they are never defined as the worst, in by reality, the American technology giants have burned more documents and publications since the regime of Mr. Obama, than the world combined. What was the 3rd Reich? A socialist regime which orchestrated government taxation and debt for the public good to conglomerates, all devolved into foreign forced labor. As the Reich was deemed evil, the same Reich doctrines are what the United States and most of the world is governed by using the same economics and foreign labor. Americans have aborted more children than the numbers the Nazi are credited with. As for these soy milk children not understanding what they are engaged in, they understand fully that their womb providers did not abort them, and birthed them into a world which raises them in asylum daycare, asylum schools as their womb providers do not want to raise them. They are too uncertain of themselves to put a rope around their necks and committing suicide, so their natural aversion, just as their messiah Obama is to abort the nation which had moral parents who raised their children, good or bad, because those successes in the monuments which are being torn down, confirm what failures they are. America must be gotten rid of, because the semen and egg donors did not raise these delinquent Darwinians but hired the village which did not love these illegitimate soy creatures from the womb.
What do you say when you want a (This word is unacceptable on Trapperman) to stop! Just leave out the "is". Didn't Bill Clinton equivocate on that word anyway.
The destruction of statues of historical significance, however dubious, might be only the first step.
What if the protest vandals, when they've wiped out all of the offending statues, decide to move on to public artworks, which surely must offend someone.
And what could come after artwork? Books! Next they'll be burning books!
When I was a teen, I read a lot of novels by Edgar Rice Burroughs, the creator of Tarzan. Burroughs' characters were mostly stereotypes and caricatures. His villains were especially two-dimensional. Some of Burroughs' books portrayed Germans negatively.
During the 1930s, Burroughs's books were among those burned by the Nazis for being contrary to the Third Reich.
Will some Americans start burning Burroughs's books because he also portrayed women, blacks, and other minorities as stereotypes? Tarzan went up in flames along with Churchill's writings and the US Constitution.
I just now had a brief debate with one of my professors at her seminar about whether it's fair to judge past authors by today's definition of sexism. I didn't get very far because the professor cut off the discussion and changed the subject as soon as things were getting interesting.
I'm afraid these young people tearing down statues don't understand the full risks of what they're doing. Like it or not, whether it hurts your feelings or not, the statues are part of free speech.
Jim
It's already starting. Try to find a copy of the movie Song of the South. Now they're going after Gone with the Wind.
French revolution. That is where we are. Once the inanimate objects are destroyed the mob comes for real people. Hopefully, that is when we will see real pushback
wealthy oil exporting nation , imported more F150 trucks than any other country in 1996
1998 they elect Hugo
early 2000s they take down the monuments , rewrite the history books , teach only socialism
2012 all private gun ownership is fully banned and guns rounded up
2017 shooting unarmed citizens in the streets who are starving to death from the shortages of everything
this is the very abridged version
At least Venezuela didn't import Chevy Colorado's.
they could not have they didn't have an economy left in 2003 first year for the Chevy Colorado to support the import of any trucks. they were trying to figure out where to get any car form in 2003 by 2012 they were wondering were to get toilet paper and food .
French revolution. That is where we are. Once the inanimate objects are destroyed the mob comes for real people. Hopefully, that is when we will see real pushback
Which people will they come after? I am afraid If they come after the average patriot citizen and if we defend ourselves and violence is used, the government will come after us if the country is turned over to the dems.
I am wondering how far the citizens will allow this purge to continue. They have been stopped in a few places. Will they show up in mass if they decide to torch something like Vicksburg?
French revolution. That is where we are. Once the inanimate objects are destroyed the mob comes for real people. Hopefully, that is when we will see real pushback
Which people will they come after? I am afraid If they come after the average patriot citizen and if we defend ourselves and violence is used, the government will come after us if the country is turned over to the dems.
That is exactly who they will come for. Anyone who thinks differently than they do. What does it matter about the government at that point ? There is no longer any rule of law. If they come for you...........defend yourself !
French revolution. That is where we are. Once the inanimate objects are destroyed the mob comes for real people. Hopefully, that is when we will see real pushback
Which people will they come after? I am afraid If they come after the average patriot citizen and if we defend ourselves and violence is used, the government will come after us if the country is turned over to the dems.
French revolution. That is where we are. Once the inanimate objects are destroyed the mob comes for real people. Hopefully, that is when we will see real pushback
Which people will they come after? I am afraid If they come after the average patriot citizen and if we defend ourselves and violence is used, the government will come after us if the country is turned over to the dems.
My opinion is there is a growing population of average patriot citizens that are nearing the point they don't care anymore. After all, if they continue to trample this country into the ground how many people want to live in a communist regime?
Which people will they come after? I am afraid If they come after the average patriot citizen and if we defend ourselves and violence is used, the government will come after us if the country is turned over to the dems.
My opinion is there is a growing population of average patriot citizens that are nearing the point they don't care anymore. After all, if they continue to trample this country into the ground how many people want to live in a communist regime?
Which people will they come after? I am afraid If they come after the average patriot citizen and if we defend ourselves and violence is used, the government will come after us if the country is turned over to the dems.
French revolution. That is where we are. Once the inanimate objects are destroyed the mob comes for real people. Hopefully, that is when we will see real pushback
Which people will they come after? I am afraid If they come after the average patriot citizen and if we defend ourselves and violence is used, the government will come after us if the country is turned over to the dems.
Lots and lots of average American patriots out there... Just keeping their mouths shut, biding their time, and stocking up on ammo.
What do they say about a dog returning to his vomit?
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: After the purge - 06/28/2003:27 AM
[/quote] I always enjoy your posts and you make the best director of dinner party conversations. I wonder why the Nazi is placed as the epitome of how all things are judged for evil. In the 1500's, the Germans were engaged in numbers of book burnings. Some were Lutherans burning the books of popery and some were the Vatican burning the Martin Luther's books. As a writer, I have had Google and Facebook, electronically burn my work, and yet they are never defined as the worst, in by reality, the American technology giants have burned more documents and publications since the regime of Mr. Obama, than the world combined. What was the 3rd Reich? A socialist regime which orchestrated government taxation and debt for the public good to conglomerates, all devolved into foreign forced labor. As the Reich was deemed evil, the same Reich doctrines are what the United States and most of the world is governed by using the same economics and foreign labor. Americans have aborted more children than the numbers the Nazi are credited with. As for these soy milk children not understanding what they are engaged in, they understand fully that their womb providers did not abort them, and birthed them into a world which raises them in asylum daycare, asylum schools as their womb providers do not want to raise them. They are too uncertain of themselves to put a rope around their necks and committing suicide, so their natural aversion, just as their messiah Obama is to abort the nation which had moral parents who raised their children, good or bad, because those successes in the monuments which are being torn down, confirm what failures they are. America must be gotten rid of, because the semen and egg donors did not raise these delinquent Darwinians but hired the village which did not love these illegitimate soy creatures from the womb. [/quote]
That's it Star flakes! We need to do lunch. I enjoy your posts.
Are we getting to the inner onion layer of James? Peel that skin off brother. Jump in the waters just fine.
I do know my wife didn't like me telling her Lenin executed clergy.
The destruction of statues of historical significance, however dubious, might be only the first step.
What if the protest vandals, when they've wiped out all of the offending statues, decide to move on to public artworks, which surely must offend someone.
And what could come after artwork? Books! Next they'll be burning books!
When I was a teen, I read a lot of novels by Edgar Rice Burroughs, the creator of Tarzan. Burroughs' characters were mostly stereotypes and caricatures. His villains were especially two-dimensional. Some of Burroughs' books portrayed Germans negatively.
During the 1930s, Burroughs's books were among those burned by the Nazis for being contrary to the Third Reich.
Will some Americans start burning Burroughs's books because he also portrayed women, blacks, and other minorities as stereotypes? Tarzan went up in flames along with Churchill's writings and the US Constitution.
I just now had a brief debate with one of my professors at her seminar about whether it's fair to judge past authors by today's definition of sexism. I didn't get very far because the professor cut off the discussion and changed the subject as soon as things were getting interesting.
I'm afraid these young people tearing down statues don't understand the full risks of what they're doing. Like it or not, whether it hurts your feelings or not, the statues are part of free speech.
Jim
I sure hope you see the real lesson here Jim. Yes. Statues and art are free speech. But your leftist professor can't compete in the arena of ideas and free speech. Consequently, he and BLM, ANTIFA, and the DNC must shut down free speech in order to prevail.
It isn't a question of can they present a cogent debate. They know they can't and must, therefore, prevent all debate and discussion.
You have a point, but I'm not sure that's the whole story. These writers are a soft, sensitive bunch. I'm not sure they know what to do with dissent and controversy.
In law school, the professor would ask a question, often a hypothetical, then we'd be off in debate. Lawyers argue for a living, as you know.
The Stonecoast instructor also said as an aside that "the statues should come down." I didn't have the chance to say I agree with her on most of them, but it ought to be left up to the owners, whether public or private. If public, the democratic process should decide.
Jim
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: After the purge - 06/28/2009:57 AM
The jettison of the Monarchial God for the mass of individual gods has consequences.
Some of these newer gods and goddesses have been told far too often how extraordinary their thinking is, and I believe they think it really is perfection in a human suit.
I was taught when I had a light bulb moment; "Great, hand me that wrench and get the lawn cut."
The destruction of statues of historical significance, however dubious, might be only the first step.
What if the protest vandals, when they've wiped out all of the offending statues, decide to move on to public artworks, which surely must offend someone.
And what could come after artwork? Books! Next they'll be burning books!
When I was a teen, I read a lot of novels by Edgar Rice Burroughs, the creator of Tarzan. Burroughs' characters were mostly stereotypes and caricatures. His villains were especially two-dimensional. Some of Burroughs' books portrayed Germans negatively.
During the 1930s, Burroughs's books were among those burned by the Nazis for being contrary to the Third Reich.
Will some Americans start burning Burroughs's books because he also portrayed women, blacks, and other minorities as stereotypes? Tarzan went up in flames along with Churchill's writings and the US Constitution.
I just now had a brief debate with one of my professors at her seminar about whether it's fair to judge past authors by today's definition of sexism. I didn't get very far because the professor cut off the discussion and changed the subject as soon as things were getting interesting.
I'm afraid these young people tearing down statues don't understand the full risks of what they're doing. Like it or not, whether it hurts your feelings or not, the statues are part of free speech.
Jim
I sure hope you see the real lesson here Jim. Yes. Statues and art are free speech. But your leftist professor can't compete in the arena of ideas and free speech. Consequently, he and BLM, ANTIFA, and the DNC must shut down free speech in order to prevail.
It isn't a question of can they present a cogent debate. They know they can't and must, therefore, prevent all debate and discussion.
Colleges, schools as a whole are failing society in a big way. Most all colleges have shut down any type of conservative narrative from the classroom to even having someone remotely conservative invited to speak.
Now they're supporting this BLM thing, and have students across the nation demanding blacks only areas on campus. I thought this was satire when I first read that after decades of protests to desegregate our schools, that they are now wanting segregation on campus.
Colleges, schools as a whole are failing society in a big way. Most all colleges have shut down any type of conservative narrative from the classroom to even having someone remotely conservative invited to speak.
Now they're supporting this BLM thing, and have students across the nation demanding blacks only areas on campus. I thought this was satire when I first read that after decades of protests to desegregate our schools, that they are now wanting segregation on campus.
Wow.
Brett Weinstein suggested a black only day was reverse racism and he got crucified by the college he worked at.
French revolution. That is where we are. Once the inanimate objects are destroyed the mob comes for real people. Hopefully, that is when we will see real pushback
Which people will they come after? I am afraid If they come after the average patriot citizen and if we defend ourselves and violence is used, the government will come after us if the country is turned over to the dems.
People of importance will have to be terminated. Terminating pawns is a slow win at best.
The jettison of the Monarchial God for the mass of individual gods has consequences
Jettison of a monarch has had consequences, no singular direction for the country, constant shifts in foreign and domestic policy, complete incompetents for presidents for the entirety of my life. A monarch and a monarchial God is needed to unify the country peacefully.
French revolution. That is where we are. Once the inanimate objects are destroyed the mob comes for real people. Hopefully, that is when we will see real pushback
Which people will they come after? I am afraid If they come after the average patriot citizen and if we defend ourselves and violence is used, the government will come after us if the country is turned over to the dems.
The destruction of statues of historical significance, however dubious, might be only the first step.
What if the protest vandals, when they've wiped out all of the offending statues, decide to move on to public artworks, which surely must offend someone.
And what could come after artwork? Books! Next they'll be burning books!
When I was a teen, I read a lot of novels by Edgar Rice Burroughs, the creator of Tarzan. Burroughs' characters were mostly stereotypes and caricatures. His villains were especially two-dimensional. Some of Burroughs' books portrayed Germans negatively.
During the 1930s, Burroughs's books were among those burned by the Nazis for being contrary to the Third Reich.
Will some Americans start burning Burroughs's books because he also portrayed women, blacks, and other minorities as stereotypes? Tarzan went up in flames along with Churchill's writings and the US Constitution.
I just now had a brief debate with one of my professors at her seminar about whether it's fair to judge past authors by today's definition of sexism. I didn't get very far because the professor cut off the discussion and changed the subject as soon as things were getting interesting.
I'm afraid these young people tearing down statues don't understand the full risks of what they're doing. Like it or not, whether it hurts your feelings or not, the statues are part of free speech.
"The Stonecoast instructor also said as an aside that "the statues should come down." I didn't have the chance to say I agree with her on most of them, but it ought to be left up to the owners, whether public or private. If public, the democratic process should decide."
The destruction of statues of historical significance, however dubious, might be only the first step.
What if the protest vandals, when they've wiped out all of the offending statues, decide to move on to public artworks, which surely must offend someone.
And what could come after artwork? Books! Next they'll be burning books!
When I was a teen, I read a lot of novels by Edgar Rice Burroughs, the creator of Tarzan. Burroughs' characters were mostly stereotypes and caricatures. His villains were especially two-dimensional. Some of Burroughs' books portrayed Germans negatively.
During the 1930s, Burroughs's books were among those burned by the Nazis for being contrary to the Third Reich.
Will some Americans start burning Burroughs's books because he also portrayed women, blacks, and other minorities as stereotypes? Tarzan went up in flames along with Churchill's writings and the US Constitution.
I just now had a brief debate with one of my professors at her seminar about whether it's fair to judge past authors by today's definition of sexism. I didn't get very far because the professor cut off the discussion and changed the subject as soon as things were getting interesting.
I'm afraid these young people tearing down statues don't understand the full risks of what they're doing. Like it or not, whether it hurts your feelings or not, the statues are part of free speech.
Jim
Read the last paragraph here.............
and yet the side James support is encouraging this attack on free speech by giving them the green light to do it.
Just because someone is good at debating points doesn't mean one has wisdom.
I'm afraid these young people tearing down statues don't understand the full risks of what they're doing. Like it or not, whether it hurts your feelings or not, the statues are part of free speech.
Jim
Originally Posted by James
I didn't have the chance to say I agree with her on most of them, but it ought to be left up to the owners, whether public or private. If public, the democratic process should decide."
Jim
Obviously James is saying that the public has the right to cutail free speech, if they disagree with it. I disagree with James's belief and find it abhorrent.
Many liberals support banning speech they don't agree with in violation of our First Amendment rights.
I didn't have the chance to say I agree with her on most of them, but it ought to be left up to the owners, whether public or private. If public, the democratic process should decide."
Jim
Obviously James is saying that the public has the right to cutail free speech, if they disagree with it. I disagree with James's belief and find it abhorrent.
Most liberals support banning speech they don't agree with in violation of our First Amendment rights.
Keith
That is a blatantly wrong misinterpretation of what James has said. Reread what he wrote and understand it before you refer to it as "abhorrent"
"The statues are part of free speech" then "I agree with her that most of them should come down."
You are cherry picking sentences to make your point while ignoring a key point.
Do a couple of you have a score list by your computer? Instead of trying to understand what James is saying it seems like a couple people are always trying to "score points" against him.
"The statues are part of free speech" then "I agree with her that most of them should come down."
You are cherry picking sentences to make your point while ignoring a key point.
Do a couple of you have a score list by your computer? Instead of trying to understand what James is saying it seems like a couple people are always trying to "score points" against him.
Everyone is trying to make a point. That's what discussions are about. And James deliberately starts imflammatory threads, then gets his feelings hurt. Along with his buddies.
Everyone is trying to make a point. That's what discussions are about. And James deliberately starts imflammatory threads, then gets his feelings hurt. Along with his buddies.
The point of a discussion is to inform or become informed. You cannot win a discussion, if you are incorrect you then have a chance to become correct and that is a "win". If you educate someone that is a good thing for both parties.
Quit trying "win" and "score points", no one is keeping tally.
"The statues are part of free speech" then "I agree with her that most of them should come down."
You are cherry picking sentences to make your point while ignoring a key point.
Do a couple of you have a score list by your computer? Instead of trying to understand what James is saying it seems like a couple people are always trying to "score points" against him.
I like James and have defended him on a number of occasions. I don't see any other meaning in what he wrote than that the voting public can trample the First Amendment rights of other Americans who created and paid for public art, that they don't like.
Under James's theory, when books, music and video becomes public domain, the public can vote to destroy them too. Paintings in public museums could be found offensive, voted on and destroyed A single vote could lead to the destruction of some of the greatest artistic and intellectual works in all of history. That would be truly abhorrent.
Everyone is trying to make a point. That's what discussions are about. And James deliberately starts imflammatory threads, then gets his feelings hurt. Along with his buddies.
The point of a discussion is to inform or become informed. You cannot win a discussion, if you are incorrect you then have a chance to become correct and that is a "win". If you educate someone that is a good thing for both parties.
Quit trying "win" and "score points", no one is keeping tally.
you must be....you want to be heard, but censor everyone else. Sound familiar?
I like James and have defended him on a number of occasions. I don't see any other meaning in what he wrote than that the voting public can trample the First Amendment rights of other Americans who created and paid for public art, that they don't like.
Under James's theory, when books, music and video becomes public domain, the public can vote to destroy them too. Paintings in public museums could be found offensive, voted on and destroyed A single vote could lead to the destruction of some of the greatest artistic and intellectual works in all of history. That would be truly abhorrent.
Keith
If you have not noticed I am not a strong proponent of Democracy for this reason. Just so we are all on the same page let me post the 1st amendment
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
No were does it say that once a piece of art is installed in a public space that it is to be a permanent fixture. If 60 years ago your town decided to put up a statue of Che Guervara would you oppose its removal?
For those interested in what is happening here in Connecticut, New Haven is now seemly looking for elimination of all things European https://www.newhavenindependent.org/
All because a high school student decided that she did not like the statue of Christopher Columbus that had been erected quite sometime ago by Italians who came here seeking a better life....
That's to me how it starts, first the statues, then the institutions... anything with European history to it...
The thing that concerns me is this has been on-going for a while, the serious discussion of getting the land back to it's original owners, the native people - and with things starting to snowball... it won't be long before these talks are presented once again.
People at the plant are getting very concerned, the older folks anyway with talk of dogs and guns filling the air...
I know one thing that's positive coming out of these statues being removed: Lots and lots of support for President Trump, even people who did not like him see our current President as the only way to keep things from getting worse, so lot's of support for a 2nd term in these parts...
But I take this statue removal thing very seriously - because I see it as a gateway to further problems down the road.
Note: I just now really edited this post, after re-reading it I said to myself this totally came out wrong... and Gary's oh boy comment could not have been more accurate.
Sorry about the original post - I'm just really mad about how all our history is being erased.
Since the subject in this thread is really the first amendment, let's look at it from that point of view.
James has said that if it is private property, the the owner should decide. I agree with that.
But IF it is on public property , then it belongs to all of us.
Now what the 1A says is that government can't engage in prior restraint of speech.....in the public square. I think we all agree with that....at least those of us who believe in Constitutional government and the rule of law.
So if we accept that artwork is free speech..........and I do............then the statues are free speech AND if they are on public property, it is my opinion that the government does not now have the authority to remove them. WHY....because I believe that a decision to remove a statue or piece of art would not be based on a "content neutral" basis. That is a NO NO! It would be no different than if Robert Maplethorpe's (This word is unacceptable on Trapperman) CHRIST had been removed because it offended Christians.
Consider the 16 foot statue of Lenin in downtown Seattle. ( Actually I think that one is on private property) but it will work for discussion. Most of us would probably be fine with removing that statue. But if we did we would be in the wrong because our objection would be based on content...or what the statue represents.
I mentioned in the thread on Woodrow Wilson that I think he was a racist. Should we all vote to decide whether or not to rename anything with his name on it ? I think not.
So my bottom line is that the decision to remove any statue should NOT be part of the democratic process. If voters can vote to remove a statue, those same voters can...and WILL.......vote to prohibit your speech against removal. That seems like a very slippery slope to me.
Maybe a solution would be to sell & move the 'offending' statues to private ground......................but I doubt it. The left is never satisfied.
So my bottom line is that the decision to remove any statue should NOT be part of the democratic process. If voters can vote to remove a statue, those same voters can...and WILL.......vote to prohibit your speech against removal. That seems like a very slippery slope to me.
Those are two very different things.
If someone graffitis a political message on a government building should we preserve the graffiti as to not infringe on his speech?
Since the subject in this thread is really the first amendment, let's look at it from that point of view.
James has said that if it is private property, the the owner should decide. I agree with that.
But IF it is on public property , then it belongs to all of us.
Now what the 1A says is that government can't engage in prior restraint of speech.....in the public square. I think we all agree with that....at least those of us who believe in Constitutional government and the rule of law.
So if we accept that artwork is free speech..........and I do............then the statues are free speech AND if they are on public property, it is my opinion that the government does not now have the authority to remove them. WHY....because I believe that a decision to remove a statue or piece of art would not be based on a "content neutral" basis. That is a NO NO! It would be no different than if Robert Maplethorpe's (This word is unacceptable on Trapperman) CHRIST had been removed because it offended Christians.
Consider the 16 foot statue of Lenin in downtown Seattle. ( Actually I think that one is on private property) but it will work for discussion. Most of us would probably be fine with removing that statue. But if we did we would be in the wrong because our objection would be based on content...or what the statue represents.
I mentioned in the thread on Woodrow Wilson that I think he was a racist. Should we all vote to decide whether or not to rename anything with his name on it ? I think not.
So my bottom line is that the decision to remove any statue should NOT be part of the democratic process. If voters can vote to remove a statue, those same voters can...and WILL.......vote to prohibit your speech against removal. That seems like a very slippery slope to me.
Maybe a solution would be to sell & move the 'offending' statues to private ground......................but I doubt it. The left is never satisfied.
Purge is a good word for it, and once the statues are gone, next will be any text that mentions their names. Trying to justify or condemn then by whether it fits our laws is nothing but sideshow to why they are being attacked right now. Make no mistake, it's politics that is allowing this under the guise of race relations.
Watch any news clip or video of the statues being attacked, it's overwhelmingly white people with a political agenda hiding behind the race card that are doing it. You guess their political agenda.
I don't think so Boco. If I want to fly a nazi flag on my property there is nothing to stop me. The American Nazi Party is alive and functional today in the USA. Same with the CPUSA...the communists.
The destruction of statues of historical significance, however dubious, might be only the first step.
What if the protest vandals, when they've wiped out all of the offending statues, decide to move on to public artworks, which surely must offend someone.
And what could come after artwork? Books! Next they'll be burning books!
When I was a teen, I read a lot of novels by Edgar Rice Burroughs, the creator of Tarzan. Burroughs' characters were mostly stereotypes and caricatures. His villains were especially two-dimensional. Some of Burroughs' books portrayed Germans negatively.
During the 1930s, Burroughs's books were among those burned by the Nazis for being contrary to the Third Reich.
Will some Americans start burning Burroughs's books because he also portrayed women, blacks, and other minorities as stereotypes? Tarzan went up in flames along with Churchill's writings and the US Constitution.
I just now had a brief debate with one of my professors at her seminar about whether it's fair to judge past authors by today's definition of sexism. I didn't get very far because the professor cut off the discussion and changed the subject as soon as things were getting interesting.
I'm afraid these young people tearing down statues don't understand the full risks of what they're doing. Like it or not, whether it hurts your feelings or not, the statues are part of free speech.
I don't think so Boco. If I want to fly a nazi flag on my property there is nothing to stop me. The American Nazi Party is alive and functional today in the USA. Same with the CPUSA...the communists.
I stand corrected,it is also not against the law here in Canada to fly a swastika either. But it causes outrage in the jewish community,the last one flown on private property down east was removed due to the commotion it caused. People are harassed into removing them by the vast majority.
Thanks Actor, but I mean to actually order a copy to buy. There is one available on ebay from Australia, but they want $249 for it.
White, I think the artist you're thinking of it Andres Serrano. Mapplethorpe was more into gay porn.
My stepmother was a juror on the maplethorpe case in Cincinnati, where he paid people in coroner's office to let him pose and play with dead, human beings. The things he did with just one dead, little boy should have been enough to get him executed.
I stand corrected,it is also not against the law here in Canada to fly a swastika either. But it causes outrage in the jewish community,the last one flown on private property down east was removed due to the commotion it caused. People are harassed into removing them by the vast majority.
"A group of protesters demanded that a Native American swastika be removed from an SLC market — but were they right?"
I'm afraid these young people tearing down statues don't understand the full risks of what they're doing. Like it or not, whether it hurts your feelings or not, the statues are part of free speech.
Jim
Originally Posted by James
I didn't have the chance to say I agree with her on most of them, but it ought to be left up to the owners, whether public or private. If public, the democratic process should decide."
Jim
Obviously James is saying that the public has the right to cutail free speech, if they disagree with it. I disagree with James's belief and find it abhorrent.
Many liberals support banning speech they don't agree with in violation of our First Amendment rights.
Keith
That's because you haven't thought about it enough. No owner has the obligation to allow the statues. If the voters decide they don't want public resources--their tax dollars--used to display and maintain these statues, why aren't they entitled to remove them?
The First Amendment says only that government may not infringe speech, not that government or anyone else must promote certain kinds of speech.
It's apparently your view that once a statue is erected, it acquires a status as a monument to free speech and may never be removed. I find your beliefs silly in the extreme.
Since the subject in this thread is really the first amendment, let's look at it from that point of view.
James has said that if it is private property, the the owner should decide. I agree with that.
But IF it is on public property , then it belongs to all of us.
Now what the 1A says is that government can't engage in prior restraint of speech.....in the public square. I think we all agree with that....at least those of us who believe in Constitutional government and the rule of law.
So if we accept that artwork is free speech..........and I do............then the statues are free speech AND if they are on public property, it is my opinion that the government does not now have the authority to remove them. WHY....because I believe that a decision to remove a statue or piece of art would not be based on a "content neutral" basis. That is a NO NO! It would be no different than if Robert Maplethorpe's (This word is unacceptable on Trapperman) CHRIST had been removed because it offended Christians.
Consider the 16 foot statue of Lenin in downtown Seattle. ( Actually I think that one is on private property) but it will work for discussion. Most of us would probably be fine with removing that statue. But if we did we would be in the wrong because our objection would be based on content...or what the statue represents.
I mentioned in the thread on Woodrow Wilson that I think he was a racist. Should we all vote to decide whether or not to rename anything with his name on it ? I think not.
So my bottom line is that the decision to remove any statue should NOT be part of the democratic process. If voters can vote to remove a statue, those same voters can...and WILL.......vote to prohibit your speech against removal. That seems like a very slippery slope to me.
Maybe a solution would be to sell & move the 'offending' statues to private ground......................but I doubt it. The left is never satisfied.
My post to Keith covers yours too, I think, but I won't call you silly for being wrong.
I say when people destroy public property they have earned the right to spend a few years in prison. If they want a monument removed there are LEGAL avenues where by that can be done.
I say when people destroy public property they have earned the right to spend a few years in prison. If they want a monument removed there are LEGAL avenues where by that can be done.
I say when people destroy public property they have earned the right to spend a few years in prison. If they want a monument removed there are LEGAL avenues where by that can be done.
That's what I'm saying too. The legal way to accomplish it would be to petition city council or by referendum.
Who's talking censorship? I don't want my taxes going to support memorializing Confederate generals who in fact were traitors to the USA and fought for the cause of slavery.
If a majority of people feel like I do, and vote on it, the statutes will come down.
Regarding that move, "Song of the South," the expression "tar baby" was once applied to black people. The literal tar baby in the movie could be taken as a metaphor for a black person.
Jim, what about books, videos and music that enter the public domain. Should people be able to vote to have them destroyed?
What about paintings in public museums?
Have you ever been to Europe, in particular the Vatican Museum and seen how they knocked off all the male phalluses? Do you agree with defacing artwork if the public who owns it wants it done?
What if the public wants black people painted into all the famous scenes that just depict white people?
What if people want to rewrite all the history books, filling them with falsehoods?
The leftists want to separate us from our history, because a people not rooted in their history are easy to manipulate. People who are ashamed of their history are very easy to manipulate.
Then, Keith, the First Amendment would give me the rights to speak out and lobby against what those people want.
The First Amendment doesn't guarantee that what you say has to be true. Only that you have the right to say it. FOX News and the other networks to a lesser extent are very grateful for this rule.
It would be wrong, imho, to change the textbooks so they promote falsity. But right and wrong don't always comport with what is legal.
Your analogy to books is one I made in the OP. Suppose a group, as often happens, makes a fuss about the inclusion of certain books in a school library. Do you imagine that these books acquire some right to stay there, even though most voters want them removed?
If there were a government book bureau censoring books, the question would have a different answer.
The greatest Confederate general of the Civil War, Lee graduated from West Point in 1829, second in a class of 46, and joined the engineers. A Virginian by birth, Lee claimed that he fought for his home state more than for the Confederacy. The Mexican War-During the Mexican War, Lee served with distinction as a member of General Scott's staff at Veracruz in March 1847, and at Cerro Gordo the following month. His eye for reconnaissance and tactical improvisations led to Scott's victories reconnaissance and tactical improvisations led to Scott's victories at Churubusco, Chapultepec, and eventually to the surrender of Mexico City.
Lee worked a desk job from 1852 to 1855 as superintendent at West Point, after which he became colonel of the 2nd U.S. Cavalry and served in the Southwest until shortly before the outbreak of the Civil War. Lee was offered but rejected a top command in the Union army and resigned when Virginia seceded. On June 1, 1862, he replaced wounded General Joseph E. Johnston and took command of the Army of Northern Virginia. The Civil War-Lee became one of those rare generals who thought strategically, broadly designed his tactics, and took chances. He understood the generals of the North better than those generals understood themselves. He came up with the strategy for Major General Thomas J. "Stonewall: Jackson's Shenandoah Valley Campaign during the spring of 1862, making Jackson the most celebrated officer in the Confederacy-until he was later eclipsed by Lee.
In late June, Lee's smaller force bluffed Major General George B. McClellan's army into withdrawing, and two months later Lee outmaneuvered Major General John Pope and defeated the Army of Virginia at the Second Battle of Bull Run on August 29-30. On September 17, with a force half the size of McClellan's Army of the Potomac, Lee repulsed the Federals in a drawn battle at Antietam. After President Lincoln replaced McClellan with Major General Ambrose Burnside, Lee bloodied the massive Union army on December 13 at Fredericksburg. Lee's aggressive instincts were never more evident than at Chancellorsville. He ignored the maxims of warfare, divided his much smaller force, and on May 2-4, 1863, decimated the right flank of the Army of the Potomac with a surprise attack. But his greatest mistake occurred on July 1-3 at Gettysburg, when he was overly aggressive at a time when he should have fought defensively. He admitted the error and withdrew into Virginia.
By 1864 many of Lee's best officers had been killed and there were no more soldiers to replace those who'd been lost in battle. Forced to fight defensively, Lee held off Grant's offensive in the Battle of the Wilderness on ay5-6, at Spotsylvania on May 8-12, and repulsed the Union assault at Cold Harbor on June 3. Those battles cost Grant a third of his men, but Lee couldn't withstand the pressure and withdrew to Petersburg's trenches. It took Grant eight months to flush Lee out of Petersburg and force his surrender on April 9, 1865, at Appomattox Court House.
What Made Him Great? Lee's men adored him. In victory and defeat, they witnessed his great strength of character, his high sense of duty, and his humility and selflessness. Even Northerners accepted Lee as the greatest general of the Civil War.
Perhaps the most feared general in American history, “that Devil Forrest” was the prophet of mobile warfare. His campaigns were (allegedly) studied by German proponents of the blitzkrieg and compare favorably to those employed by Rommel and Guderian. Though often considered a “cavalry leader” (he was probably the finest in American history), his task-forces were actually well-balanced mobile arms combat teams of cavalry, mounted infantry, and horse artillery. He also has the distinction of being the “fightingest” general in American history, personally killing with his own hands some 30 union soldiers (and losing 29 horses in the process!). Forrest was dubbed “The Wizard of the Saddle,” but he was in truth a wizard (and prophet) of modern warfare.
2. Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson
His reputation for solidness on the battlefield earned him the name “Stonewall.” But this nickname belies the aggressiveness and rapidity of movement that became his hallmark on the battlefield. During the Valley Campaign, Jackson marched his infantry brigades so quickly and covered so much ground that they came to be known as Jackson’s “Foot Cavalry.” Brave, eccentric, religiously upright, and bold, Jackson was at his best when given independent command, perfectly complimenting his commander-in-chief, Lee, as a Corps commander. His crowning glory at Chancellorsville cost him his life when he was wounded coming back from an evening reconnaissance by his own sentries. It can be argued that the Battle of Gettysburg (and the Civil War) was lost the moment those shots echoed in the woods at Chancellorsville.
Who's talking censorship? I don't want my taxes going to support memorializing Confederate generals who in fact were traitors to the USA and fought for the cause of slavery.
If a majority of people feel like I do, and vote on it, the statutes will come down.
Jim
I like this idea... lets vote on it. Problem solved
Besides in my opinion being against the First Amendment, I look on destroying historic, public artwork as falsifying history.
Keith
Do you mean the history of the man the statue memorializes, or the history of erecting the statue itself?
If the former, the loss of the statue doesn't cancel the man's history, which is preserved in many better places. (Like libraries and internet sources.)
If you mean the latter interpretation, then I would reply that the history behind erection of the statue is of slight or dubious value.
Jim
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: After the purge - 06/28/2011:38 PM
Originally Posted by Donnersurvivor
Originally Posted by Mark June
The jettison of the Monarchial God for the mass of individual gods has consequences
Jettison of a monarch has had consequences, no singular direction for the country, constant shifts in foreign and domestic policy, complete incompetents for presidents for the entirety of my life. A monarch and a monarchial God is needed to unify the country peacefully.
A monarchial government is the best government, except when the monarch is a human = flawed. We await the Perfect, sinless Monarch.
In the meantime, my family and I would rather live here in this good 'ol USA than anywhere else. Hands down.
Who's talking censorship? I don't want my taxes going to support memorializing Confederate generals who in fact were traitors to the USA and fought for the cause of slavery.
If a majority of people feel like I do, and vote on it, the statutes will come down.
Jim
I like this idea... lets vote on it. Problem solved
But WHO votes on it? All the registered voters in the city, or the city board?
"If any person or persons, owing allegiance to the United States of America, shall levy war against them, or shall adhere to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States, or elsewhere, and shall be thereof convicted on confession in open Court, or on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act of the treason whereof he or they shall stand indicted, such person or persons shall be adjudged guilty of treason against the United States, and SHALL SUFFER DEATH; and that if any person or persons, having knowledge of the commission of any of the treasons aforesaid, shall conceal, and not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President of the United States, or some one of the Judges thereof, or to the President or Governor of a particular State, or some one of the Judges or Justices thereof, such person or persons, on conviction, shall be adjudged guilty of misprision of treason, and shall be imprisoned not exceeding seven years, and fined not exceeding one thousand dollars."
Venezuela's economy is in the shape it's in primarily because of US led sanctions
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: After the purge - 06/29/2012:45 AM
Originally Posted by James
Hi, Mark. Don't you find it interesting that the monarchy was the only or primary known form of government at the time the Bible was written?
Imho, that's why Jesus is spoken of as returning as king.
Jim
Interesting point James. It is said that we humans seek two things; To minimize our pain. To maximize our pleasure. And that our mind, and body head us in those two directions. The soul however seeks greater things, mostly hard to figure out stuff.
A Perfectly Righteous, Just, Merciful, Loving King would be good right about now.
We humans do the best we can - with what we have.
I'm back on the trap line in 98 degrees today. Rancher called and said "Get here asap. They killing my fawns!" Pay that tuition. Pay that tuition. Man it's HOT!
The greatest Confederate general of the Civil War, Lee graduated from West Point in 1829, second in a class of 46, and joined the engineers. A Virginian by birth, Lee claimed that he fought for his home state more than for the Confederacy. The Mexican War-During the Mexican War, Lee served with distinction as a member of General Scott's staff at Veracruz in March 1847, and at Cerro Gordo the following month. His eye for reconnaissance and tactical improvisations led to Scott's victories reconnaissance and tactical improvisations led to Scott's victories at Churubusco, Chapultepec, and eventually to the surrender of Mexico City.
Lee worked a desk job from 1852 to 1855 as superintendent at West Point, after which he became colonel of the 2nd U.S. Cavalry and served in the Southwest until shortly before the outbreak of the Civil War. Lee was offered but rejected a top command in the Union army and resigned when Virginia seceded. On June 1, 1862, he replaced wounded General Joseph E. Johnston and took command of the Army of Northern Virginia. The Civil War-Lee became one of those rare generals who thought strategically, broadly designed his tactics, and took chances. He understood the generals of the North better than those generals understood themselves. He came up with the strategy for Major General Thomas J. "Stonewall: Jackson's Shenandoah Valley Campaign during the spring of 1862, making Jackson the most celebrated officer in the Confederacy-until he was later eclipsed by Lee.
In late June, Lee's smaller force bluffed Major General George B. McClellan's army into withdrawing, and two months later Lee outmaneuvered Major General John Pope and defeated the Army of Virginia at the Second Battle of Bull Run on August 29-30. On September 17, with a force half the size of McClellan's Army of the Potomac, Lee repulsed the Federals in a drawn battle at Antietam. After President Lincoln replaced McClellan with Major General Ambrose Burnside, Lee bloodied the massive Union army on December 13 at Fredericksburg. Lee's aggressive instincts were never more evident than at Chancellorsville. He ignored the maxims of warfare, divided his much smaller force, and on May 2-4, 1863, decimated the right flank of the Army of the Potomac with a surprise attack. But his greatest mistake occurred on July 1-3 at Gettysburg, when he was overly aggressive at a time when he should have fought defensively. He admitted the error and withdrew into Virginia.
By 1864 many of Lee's best officers had been killed and there were no more soldiers to replace those who'd been lost in battle. Forced to fight defensively, Lee held off Grant's offensive in the Battle of the Wilderness on ay5-6, at Spotsylvania on May 8-12, and repulsed the Union assault at Cold Harbor on June 3. Those battles cost Grant a third of his men, but Lee couldn't withstand the pressure and withdrew to Petersburg's trenches. It took Grant eight months to flush Lee out of Petersburg and force his surrender on April 9, 1865, at Appomattox Court House.
What Made Him Great? Lee's men adored him. In victory and defeat, they witnessed his great strength of character, his high sense of duty, and his humility and selflessness. Even Northerners accepted Lee as the greatest general of the Civil War.
I googled Robert E Lee,since I wasnt familiar with his background.Looks like he was a very good general. But I can see why the blacks dont like him. Apparently he whipped his own slaves.
Can you imagine Gettysburg without confederate statues? The National Park would be destroyed. Gettysburg is hallowed ground for both the north and south soldiers who fought and died there.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: After the purge - 06/29/2001:27 AM
Originally Posted by Grandpa Trapper
Can you imagine Gettysburg without confederate statues? The National Park would be destroyed. Gettysburg is hallowed ground for both the north and south soldiers who fought and died there.
No I can not imagine.
Went there 35 years ago, it was raining hard so the family stayed in the truck for quite a while, so I walked out among the thousands of white crosses. I sat on a bench, no one around, as a bucket of tears fell on that rainy July afternoon. That place, that ground, the history of that era, makes most who see it pause, and pray. But some have a dead heart, and can't think beyond wanting what they want.
There's a special atmosphere and reverence at that civil war battle memorial!
I wish I would have went before it was destroyed. Let's pray that the protesters get good and lost on their way to Gettysburg. There's plenty of little back roads in PA.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: After the purge - 06/29/2001:36 AM
Those old Hollywood westerns were not quite accurate on the medical horrors of the battlefield. At the Battle Of Little Big Horn, in Montana, a decade later, the calvary soldiers carried a little placard with a pic of the body on it + the percent of death that would occur if you got wounded in a particular area. I still remember; the main trunk of the body = 100% fatal. Sepsis would kill you (Hollywood digs the bullet out) almost all the time. Seems like the arms and legs was something like 50% mortality. That's why they said Custer's men panicked and ran every which way. The arrows would rain down on them and 'whack'... took one to the chest. You were a dead man walking!
The civil war casualties during and after the battles was simply gruesome. I'd have been like the native Americans = fight to the death as they did ( because torture - by the women typically) was so horrible.
I wish I would have went before it was destroyed. Let's pray that the protesters get good and lost on their way to Gettysburg. There's plenty of little back roads in PA.
I would have to think that the redneck population here in Pa. would step up and prevent any destruction of Gettysburg. It just might become famous as the sight of a modern day bloody battle too. One of these days, someplace is going to reach a tipping point and then the SHTF time will be with us.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: After the purge - 06/29/2001:42 AM
I was thinking that also. ^^^^^ Gettysburg II ^^^^^^^
The only difference between the "traitors" that founded this country and the "traitors" of the civil war is that one group won and the other group lost. To consider the confederates as traitors is an incorrect slant on history. Along with being "art" statues represent something. What they represent, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Whether one thinks our history is good or bad, if you remove material representations of history, the history may cease to be. What would the history of Christianity be if the cross was removed?
Besides in my opinion being against the First Amendment, I look on destroying historic, public artwork as falsifying history.
Keith
Do you mean the history of the man the statue memorializes, or the history of erecting the statue itself?
If the former, the loss of the statue doesn't cancel the man's history, which is preserved in many better places. (Like libraries and internet sources.)
If you mean the latter interpretation, then I would reply that the history behind erection of the statue is of slight or dubious value.
Jim
Hmm, I've thought about this again, and now think I was wrong here. But that doesn't mean I now agree with Keith.
The history of the man and the history of the statue are two separate things, so when you talk of "history" you should be clear which you're talking about.
The fact the history of the man can be obtained elsewhere, in better places, doesn't nullify the value of a lesser place, like a statue and its inscription.
And the history of the statue might not be of dubious value to someone researching that subject. Anyway, real value has never been a requirement for First Amendment protection.
The First Amendment doesn't protect the statue from the will of the owner, public or private, as I've explained elsewhere. As I've said before, the statues should be left alone unless the owner decides to do otherwise with the public or private property the statues represent.
The only difference between the "traitors" that founded this country and the "traitors" of the civil war is that one group won and the other group lost. To consider the confederates as traitors is an incorrect slant on history. Along with being "art" statues represent something. What they represent, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Whether one thinks our history is good or bad, if you remove material representations of history, the history may cease to be. What would the history of Christianity be if the cross was removed?
Didn't I say traitor to the USA? Lee was plenty loyal to his state, and sided with Virginia when it seceded from the USA. He was a citizen who took up arms against his own country. Sure, if the South had won and preserved the cause of slavery, Lee would have been a hero.
History depends on perspective, sure. For the defeated Confederate cause, Lee was a hero. But how can you claim he was not acting to harm the USA when he led armies against Union troops?
How many Union and Rebel troops lost their lives because Lee's brilliant war strategy and tactics only prolonged the inevitable outcome?
Lee was probably the most brilliant American general in history--only he fought for the wrong side.
The fact the history of the man can be obtained elsewhere, in better places, doesn't nullify the value of a lesser place, like a statue and its inscription.
Something to consider, especially considering the apparent lack of teaching in the American history department these days....
Have you ever came across a statue of a person, or a scene, that you knew nothing about? Being curious about what made this person worthy of a statue, you then go home and research it on your own? In a time when interest in history seems to be sorely lacking, a simple statue placed in a city park can be the spark that leads a person down the rabbit hole into what might end up being just a five minute google search, or a lifelong interest in learning more about the history of our country.
Ever hear of Josiah Tryon? Yeah, me neither, despite growing up only one town over from where he had lived. And although I had of course heard of the Underground Railroad, I'd never read anything more about than what was taught to me in school. Until I stumbled across this statue one day.
Sure, historical information may be found in other places. But I'd argue about whether or not dusty libraries, museums, or ancient historical societies are BETTER places to learn about history, than right out in the open on Main Street, where people will actually see it.
Dont forget the ones funded by the foreign fomentors of unrest(these are the ringleaders using those you mentioned). The communists are well organized well funded and firmly entrenched within western society.
I was thinking that also. ^^^^^ Gettysburg II ^^^^^^^
I am surprised there hasn’t been a move to tear down the Alamo. Then it would be Alamo ll.
Sorry to be the one to inform you Trapper but the move to tear down the Alamo as well as the San Jacinto monument has been going on for several years and it has become really heated in the last year. We are, as the saying goes, fighting them tooth and nail to keep the history of Texas intact.
[/quote] Sorry to be the one to inform you Trapper but the move to tear down the Alamo as well as the San Jacinto monument has been going on for several years and it has become really heated in the last year. We are, as the saying goes, fighting them tooth and nail to keep the history of Texas intact.[/quote]
I didn’t know that. Any actual mob protest occur at the Alamo yet?
I was thinking that also. ^^^^^ Gettysburg II ^^^^^^^
I am surprised there hasn’t been a move to tear down the Alamo. Then it would be Alamo ll.
There has not only been talk of that and the powers that be at the Alamo have already changed some of the content of the museum displays to satisfy the SJWs.
Protests at the Alamo started on May 29th. The State put up a fence around Alamo square on June 2nd. and sent in State troopers and the National guard along with park police and San Antonio PD. The troopers and guard are still there.
The mob set a date in the middle of June as to gather and tear it down. They showed up and when some got their butts kicked and the others saw that the protectors meant serious business they backed off. There is still protests going on there but I think the mob realizes that if they try to tear down the old Church they will be stacked up like cord wood.
Texas is a law and order state even if the mayors are liberal. I noticed that at one point a fairly well armed militia stood behind the officers and sured up the ranks
Dont forget-history,like art, is also in the eye of the beholder. The colonizers view of history is diametrically different then the Indigenous peoples view of history.Its the same history but both sides see it much differently. When one side celebrates victory the other side is having salt rubbed in their wounds. I say it is much the same with the historical record as viewed by black people.They dont "long for the old south". It will only get worse,like June said-old wounds fester.
Around here, the whiners want to tear down the statue of king Louis the 9th because he led one of the crusades against Jews/Muslums, and change the name of St. Louis City to ???.
Whatever happens in the states affects Canada. Like Trudeau senior once said when you are sleeping beside an elephant you got to be on the ball at all times.
Whatever happens in the states affects Canada. Like Trudeau senior once said when you are sleeping beside an elephant you got to be on the ball at all times.
Interesting opinionated read here regarding Canada, the US, and Great Britain as well as some other rabbit holes. Since there is no longer news, I guess we must just try to sift through opinions anyway. Not saying true, false, BS, or other; but I think it is good to get other points of view from outside mainstream US media.
I pulled over to read a historical marker on my way to the ranch I'm trapping here in south Texas and it read,
September, 1870: Thomas Stringfield and his wife Jane were shot and stabbed to death on this site, by 50 armed Indians and Mexicans, as the family made their way back to their homestead with supplies. Their 6 year old son was also killed, and their 4 year old son was never found. Their 8 year old daughter was speared 7 times, thrown into a prickly pear cactus and believed dead. She survived however. Wow.
Should I take the sign down? It may be racist. I've lost count of who is and who isn't racist.
PCR, I am purdy sure all of the anarchists and a huge majority of the leftists in general are not good long term planners. The very thought that socialism works would be a great point.
I would think bringing the violence to the doorstep of the well armed / well trained patriotic property owner types would be the absolute worst possible battle plan ever drawn up since maybe Gen. Custer's last battle.
That's immaterial, now that we know it's acceptable to just start a riot and tear it down without being held accountable. ![[Linked Image]](https://trapperman.com/forum/attachments/usergals/2020/06/full-20923-54011-statue.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://www.roadsideamerica.com/attract/images/sd/SDWOUmassacre_ronnie2.jpg)