HorrorMovieFans.com

is there stated intent to glorify or celebrate slavery by the raising of these statues and monuments?

Jason wrote:

showa58taro wrote:It's not about the soldiers but the statues. Keep up.

Hint: the statues aren't about the soldiers in them. But you already knew that.

showa58taro wrote:

Jason wrote:

showa58taro wrote:It's not about the soldiers but the statues. Keep up.

Hint: the statues aren't about the soldiers in them. But you already knew that.

I would say the statues are about the soldiers who died not the cause of the war. When I see the iconic Iwo Jima statue I think of the soldiers who fought there not Pearl Harbor .

Tiggnutz wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Jason wrote:

showa58taro wrote:It's not about the soldiers but the statues. Keep up.

Hint: the statues aren't about the soldiers in them. But you already knew that.

I would say the statues are about the soldiers who died not the cause of the war. When I see the iconic Iwo Jima statue I think of the soldiers who fought there not Pearl Harbor .

My point is that a statue erected in Gettysburg in 1911 was never about the guys in the statue.

showa58taro wrote:

Tiggnutz wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Jason wrote:

showa58taro wrote:It's not about the soldiers but the statues. Keep up.

Hint: the statues aren't about the soldiers in them. But you already knew that.

I would say the statues are about the soldiers who died not the cause of the war. When I see the iconic Iwo Jima statue I think of the soldiers who fought there not Pearl Harbor .

My point is that a statue erected in Gettysburg in 1911 was never about the guys in the statue.

so, i'll ask again... was there stated intent, by the raising of these statues and monuments, to glorify or celebrate slavery?

showa58taro wrote:

Jason wrote:

showa58taro wrote:It's not about the soldiers but the statues. Keep up.

Hint: the statues aren't about the soldiers in them. But you already knew that.

Did you even read my post?

There are monuments dedicated to the black soldiers who fought for the south. Should those be removed?

zombie wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Tiggnutz wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Jason wrote:

showa58taro wrote:It's not about the soldiers but the statues. Keep up.

Hint: the statues aren't about the soldiers in them. But you already knew that.

I would say the statues are about the soldiers who died not the cause of the war. When I see the iconic Iwo Jima statue I think of the soldiers who fought there not Pearl Harbor .

My point is that a statue erected in Gettysburg in 1911 was never about the guys in the statue.

so, i'll ask again... was there stated intent, by the raising of these statues and monuments, to glorify or celebrate slavery?

It isn't just glory to old slavery but yo the (at that time) current slavery. About White Supremacy, Jim Crow and the de facto segregated state.

And you're telling me to keep up...

showa58taro wrote:

zombie wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Tiggnutz wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Jason wrote:

showa58taro wrote:It's not about the soldiers but the statues. Keep up.

Hint: the statues aren't about the soldiers in them. But you already knew that.

I would say the statues are about the soldiers who died not the cause of the war. When I see the iconic Iwo Jima statue I think of the soldiers who fought there not Pearl Harbor .

My point is that a statue erected in Gettysburg in 1911 was never about the guys in the statue.

so, i'll ask again... was there stated intent, by the raising of these statues and monuments, to glorify or celebrate slavery?

It isn't just glory to old slavery but yo the (at that time) current slavery. About White Supremacy, Jim Crow and the de facto segregated state.

could you link me to show whatever document or plaque or whatever shows that that is the intent?

Jason wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Jason wrote:

showa58taro wrote:It's not about the soldiers but the statues. Keep up.

Hint: the statues aren't about the soldiers in them. But you already knew that.

Did you even read my post?

Yes. It's not even remotely interesting to read your defense of Bob Lee and his fight against his own country, or your interpretation of how it was nicer to be a slave than a beleaguered and vilified free man.

Should we remove statues of Martin Luther King because he was a womanizer? How does that make feminists feel that we honor a man who was terrible to women?

zombie wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

zombie wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Tiggnutz wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Jason wrote:

showa58taro wrote:It's not about the soldiers but the statues. Keep up.

Hint: the statues aren't about the soldiers in them. But you already knew that.

I would say the statues are about the soldiers who died not the cause of the war. When I see the iconic Iwo Jima statue I think of the soldiers who fought there not Pearl Harbor .

My point is that a statue erected in Gettysburg in 1911 was never about the guys in the statue.

so, i'll ask again... was there stated intent, by the raising of these statues and monuments, to glorify or celebrate slavery?

It isn't just glory to old slavery but yo the (at that time) current slavery. About White Supremacy, Jim Crow and the de facto segregated state.

could you link me to show whatever document or plaque or whatever shows that that is the intent?

No. And I can't link you to a document explicitly ordering the extermination of the Jews by Hitler. So I guess that wasn't real either. The intent is often not the stuff written on any plaque but rather the timing, situation and rationalization for the statues themselves. It's that easy.

showa58taro wrote:

Jason wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Jason wrote:

showa58taro wrote:It's not about the soldiers but the statues. Keep up.

Hint: the statues aren't about the soldiers in them. But you already knew that.

Did you even read my post?

Yes. It's not even remotely interesting to read your defense of Bob Lee and his fight against his own country, or your interpretation of how it was nicer to be a slave than a beleaguered and vilified free man.

Wonderful liberal spin. You can't talk to a leftist, they only believe what they want to believe.

showa58taro wrote:
No. And I can't link you to a document explicitly ordering the extermination of the Jews by Hitler. So I guess that wasn't real either. The intent is often not the stuff written on any plaque but rather the timing, situation and rationalization for the statues themselves. It's that easy.

earlier, you specifically made the case the intent for raising the statues was about slavery or racism. not even about any figure that is depicted in said statue or anything else.

i've said before that if they are universally thought to be about bigotry and slavery, then take them down by official means. but careful where that goes, is all.

Jason wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Jason wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Jason wrote:

showa58taro wrote:It's not about the soldiers but the statues. Keep up.

Hint: the statues aren't about the soldiers in them. But you already knew that.

Did you even read my post?

Yes. It's not even remotely interesting to read your defense of Bob Lee and his fight against his own country, or your interpretation of how it was nicer to be a slave than a beleaguered and vilified free man.

Wonderful liberal spin. You can't talk to a leftist, they only believe what they want to believe.

I'm not a leftist. that's not a thing. And your point was still irrelevant to the discussion because it was around the man himself and his reasons for betraying his country.

zombie wrote:

showa58taro wrote:
No. And I can't link you to a document explicitly ordering the extermination of the Jews by Hitler. So I guess that wasn't real either. The intent is often not the stuff written on any plaque but rather the timing, situation and rationalization for the statues themselves. It's that easy.

earlier, you specifically made the case the intent for raising the statues was about slavery or racism. not even about any figure that is depicted in said statue or anything else.

i've said before that if they are universally thought to be about bigotry and slavery, then take them down by official means. but careful where that goes, is all.

It was and is. Why raise a statue in 1924 to honor Lee?

showa58taro wrote:

zombie wrote:

showa58taro wrote:
No. And I can't link you to a document explicitly ordering the extermination of the Jews by Hitler. So I guess that wasn't real either. The intent is often not the stuff written on any plaque but rather the timing, situation and rationalization for the statues themselves. It's that easy.

earlier, you specifically made the case the intent for raising the statues was about slavery or racism. not even about any figure that is depicted in said statue or anything else.

i've said before that if they are universally thought to be about bigotry and slavery, then take them down by official means. but careful where that goes, is all.

It was and is. Why raise a statue in 1924 to honor Lee?

i wasn't there. it could very well be about slavery. so remove it, officially. no vandalism, no arson. just official decision and removal.

personally, i would make it clear that the reason for keeping the statue up was to remind of past shit. as an example to do better, to grow from our mistakes and our past bias' and wrongdoings. but i'm not into censorship and i can see where this could be headed.

was burning lincoln's statue, also because he represented slavery or racism?

zombie wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

zombie wrote:

showa58taro wrote:
No. And I can't link you to a document explicitly ordering the extermination of the Jews by Hitler. So I guess that wasn't real either. The intent is often not the stuff written on any plaque but rather the timing, situation and rationalization for the statues themselves. It's that easy.

earlier, you specifically made the case the intent for raising the statues was about slavery or racism. not even about any figure that is depicted in said statue or anything else.

i've said before that if they are universally thought to be about bigotry and slavery, then take them down by official means. but careful where that goes, is all.

It was and is. Why raise a statue in 1924 to honor Lee?

i wasn't there. it could very well be about slavery. so remove it, officially. no vandalism, no arson. just official decision and removal.

personally, i would make it clear that the reason for keeping the statue up was to remind of past shit. as an example to do better, to grow from our mistakes and our past bias' and wrongdoings. but i'm not into censorship and i can see where this could be headed.

was burning lincoln's statue, also because he represented slavery or racism?

Do that in a Museum not a statue or street.

Lincoln burning strikes me as a right wing ploy. But I haven't read up on it more.

showa58taro wrote:
Do that in a Museum not a statue or street.

Lincoln burning strikes me as a right wing ploy. But I haven't read up on it more.

as in they burnt it and tried to pin it on liberals, or they incited liberals to burn it through trickery?

it's more visible on the street, but fair enough. all i can do is state my view on this.