Ironically, IIRC, the OP (AC Slater) claimed he knew more about Hitler than basically anyone else and then demonstrated he didn't know like dozens of basic facts about Hitler nor had he read several popular books about Hitler.

The Trump-Powell comparison has been made before:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/23/o...-of-blood.html

Fun Fact: Hitler's middle name was "Jeremy"

The interesting part is chatting about why, in theory some statues should be-installed/remain-installed at these particular places, at this particular time in history. That can be quite interesting.

What's not interesting at all, is some fool JAQing around, while they are fishing for a "Gotcha".

As for starting a thread... I'd expect you to come up with a general thesis regarding which statues should not be installed / remain installed, at these particular places, right now. Use the NASA statue as an example of your general thesis. Then defend your thesis, in general, and not just in regard to the NASA statue, to Politardia as a whole.

Is that what you were thinking of doing ??

I'm old enough to remember how people talked about the "pendulum" getting ready to swing left after the 2000 election. Like, virtually my entire life the country has lurched rigthward to the point where literal Nazis have White House offices.

True but maybe a bit too dour. Drug legalization, gay marriage are two examples of improvements. In fact taken more broadly, in popular culture and art for the masses, and other social indicators have to be viewed as mixed to positive for the left and for people who want social justice.

I agree that political culture is especially degraded, and racial grievances have proven surprisingly durable but America hasn't been holistically regressing, just in a lot of areas.

nope. i'll just ask the question. i'm not smart enough to do the rest of that.

but I am interested in the bolded conversation for sure

ACLU changes policy

Bull****, dude. You're just passive-aggressively JAQ'ing off. Make a point or go home.

There's also a lot of propagandic value those left-of-center are missing when they poo-poo the fact that the CSA were a pack of treasonous rebels. They are making the same logical mistake the deplorables make when they misuse the term "moral relativism" in their non-stop whining.

The CSA was a pack of treasonous rebels. They deserve -zero- place in our national pantheon, even if they weren't a buncha slave mongers too. Saying shiz like: those statues need to come down because they are symbols of white supremacy -not- because they glorify treason is getting it all wrong. Those statues need to come down because they are symbols of white supremacy -and- they glorify treason.

However, the real payload comes when you turn it all around...

What, besides enabling white supremacy, could or would make these folks wanna glorify treason in our national pantheon ??

sound_of_crickets.wav

FYI: If you are not smart enough to have a general thesis, you aren't smart enough to dispute anyone else's.

well ****, i'm honestly not sure about how i feel about statues. but i'm not offended by any of them either so I can't speak for people who are. just wondering if there's an objective criteria for what should be allowed and not. I thought maybe we could get in interesting discussion going on that topic.

Jamelle Bouie is right as usual. The whole article is good.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...monuments.html

FlyWy -

"Lee himself was conflicted about the core issues of his day. He was a slave owner who some say was cruel (Atlantic article) and a general who fought to preserve the institution. But he personally described slavery as a “moral and political evil” (article I cited) that should end. Before the war, Lee opposed secession, but once his native Virginia voted to leave the Union he declared he was honor-bound to fight for the Confederacy."


Is ScreamingAsian a regular Rootbone contributor?

Or do you only pick and choose to consider aspects of history that appeal to your political sensibilities?

How can you defend socialism while fighting the KKK guys! Nazi Germany had socialist in the name and it was Hitler's grand vision.

http://www.inforum.com/opinion/lette...port-socialism

Boston has already said they will be escorted in by police and allowed to assemble behind barricades. Then escorted out. No weapons allowed including flagpoles. They are subject to search by agreement and terms of the permit.

That doesn't mean Boston Police won't tear gas the good guys but I don't think the Nazis will be terrorizing anyone.

If someone is morally opposed to rape, but goes out and commits rape, that doesn't make them a morally conflicted figure, it makes them a rapist. If Lee was in any way conflicted about slavery, it wasn't enough to make him either get rid of his own slaves, or choose not to wage war to preserve the practice.

I show one thing in mitigation of a figure, and others jump to the conclusion that I therefor support everything about said figure, regardless of any other negative things I say about said figure.

Amazing.


I say "Lee was more progressive than Jefferson", in the context of cutting down Jefferson's legacy, and I'm taken to have said "Lee was a progressive".

It's not a matter of "taking offense". So, right there, you are starting with a garbage-in-garbage-out assumption.

We are chatting about public art. There are no objective criteria regarding art.

Being "conflicted" about whether it's okay to own other humans make you a reprehensible taintstain.

I think the whole concept of treason, and the idea that rebellion is something bad are inherently super-right wing ideas.

Judge I can assure you with 100% accuracy that nobody buys this **** from yuo

The preamble and its principles were frequently cited and referenced in every facet of American government, not the least of which was the Supreme Court.

Jefferson said we have to get all of the blacks (what he thought of as an inferior race) out of America or they'll kill us all, but in the meantime let's make as much money off of them as we can.

Lee said we have to teach the blacks how to be American and believed that slavery was sadly how to do it.


Lee at least saw the potential for integration, and acknowledged the evil of the institution. Jefferson's motives were just plain selfish.

Yeah no ****, this really isn't complicated. Go try to steal something from a bank robber, see what complicated nuanced views he displays

It should be pointed out that the "slavery is a (necessary) evil, it will eventually go away" was a standard position even in the Founding Father's day. The necessary part was often implied and the eventually go away part was always just a bit further in the distance. Slavery went on just fine by those who thought it was an evil as well, so people shouldn't read too much into the "conflicted" part.

Same thing happened with the Civil Rights movement that there was a large contingent that though blacks and whites needed to be integrated....but at their own pace. A pace that always never seemed to be in a hurry to happen.

Lee's army also captured free blacks in Pennsylvania and enslaved them, so his "conflict" wasn't too much of a problem to the Confederate cause nor to his standing in it.