You have to be discerning in how you do it and what you do. The current statue destruction is not about erasing the confederacy. If it was, the overwhelming majority would have no problem moving confederate emblems, even then you have to be careful and discerning. The Lincoln emancipation monument they want to tear down was paid for in part by freed slaves at the time. Federick Douglas gave a moving speech at its unveiling. In Vicksburg, there is a confederate avenue and union avenue to memorialize the battle lines. Don't rename them. The monuments in the park follow the battle lines and represent both sides and all who fought there. US Grant freed his inherited slave and savagely hunted the KKK. Why tear his down? I could go on, but the BLM movement is being used as cover by Marxists trying to destroy history and the system to implement their Marxist system. I'm not speculating that, they've said it. I abhor the random confederate monuments at court houses, that's glorifying the confederacy, but at battlefields, Grant, Cervantes (who was a slave himself for 5 years), etc. those are clearly by Marxists bent on tearing down the system. So, as usual, there is some right on both sides and both sides need to be discerning. If they could come together on the common ground rather than yelling past each other, they could stamp out the crazy "Antifa" Marxists and BLM movement could stop themselves from being political pawns.
Rebels still holding on to Confederacy
- Thread starter fishwater99
- Start date
- Status
I think the difference is in when they were torn down. To the extent Lenin or Stalin statues came down in RUssia after the Soviet Union fell, great. To the extent there are still lenin or stalin statues in Russia, I'd argue that they should stay standing. Russia killed millions and they should remember that past. On the flip side,if the soviet bloc countries that were "conquered" want to tear down statues of Lenin or Stalin decades after the fact, that's maybe fine as people may not need to be reminded of being conquered as opposed to voluntarily allowing a monster to come to power, although considering Russia's actions the last decade, maybe it's a good reminder of the consequences of being weak in the face of Russia.
It does make you pause when you consider somewhere like Germany. Germans should have reminders that Hilter rose to power somewhat democratically and didn't force germans to commit atrocities with an army. But maybe having reminders in commonly seen places for people that had nothing to do with it is a little overboard, and is outright gruesome to have jewish people be reminded of that, which is maybe a better argument for removing confederate statues or monuments, or at least relocating them to somewhere people only see when they are going out of their way to learn about them.
I think regardless of what schools teach, I think the point is there is no way that a statue or monument is ever a substitute for actual history, which can be obtained either from schools or independent research / discovery. You can’t get any sort of real impression from the life and impact of George Washington just by going to look at a giant 17ing obelisk in the middle of Washington D.C. Same holds true with a statue of MLK, Nathan Bedford Forrest, Michael Jordan, Stephen Lee, etc. Therefore the notion that anyone is “erasing history” by tearing down or moving a statue or monument is extremely flawed. The only thing being erased is that somebody built a tribute, and even that is thoroughly recorded and established in the annals of time.
Last edited:
Yes I know that, but that’s not even what my post was about. The statues that I was referring to aren’t even in MS. Again since you obviously didn’t read the post you replied to, exactly who is the “they” that statues of Lincoln and Grant are meant to show who’s in charge and what are they in charge of.
Last edited:
I mistakenly gave dorndog the benefit of the doubt and assumed he just typed sloppily and meant celebrated. Guess maybe that was a foolish assumption on my part.
[FONT="]I think most Christians would agree that Satan is an important part of Christian history, but if you put up a bunch of statues of him in your church, people might start to make assumptions about who you worship and what ideals you glorify 
*
— Andy Ryan (@AndyBoyStory) June 16, 2020 [/FONT]
*— Andy Ryan (@AndyBoyStory) June 16, 2020 [/FONT]
See...this is your problem. You talk about monuments and memorials as "Mississippi celebrating one particular 4 year stretch of history." It's offensive and dishonest. Nobody is celebrating anything. These things happened 160 years ago, and monuments were built by those who lost loved ones. It's not a celebration, and it's not all of Mississippi condoning what happened back then.
You need to cut the man bun and grow up.
If everybody in the world was an idiot, you'd be correct. But most folks are inquisitive. A young person sees a statue and reads the inscription, and then turns and asks his dad more about it. Maybe he pulls up his phone and googles the name and reads more about it.
No, statues alone are not a substitution for history. But they are a part of history. They are meant to commemorate a point in history.
Most of these monuments/memorials were built 1890, many 1910 or later. So you're telling us they waited 25-45 years to honor their dead? Where are the statues built by others who lost loved ones?
Now you're being obtuse. It's a clear sign you're on the wrong side of the argument.
Yes, I inadvertently included statues being vandalized and torn down nationwide with confederate statues such as the ones the OP was referring to. I was referring to the nationwide uniform vandalism when I shouldn’t have in this particular thread. My mistake.
I understand you're a narcissist, but nobody here wants to see your selfies, either.
The Taliban and German Brown shirts went through destroying monuments. This group of idiots and thugs doing it here are no different. It's not just Confederate statues. Its statues to founding fathers, Christopher Coulmbus, US Grant, Abraham Lincoln, the Massachusetts 53rd regiment and the list goes on. Now its Theodore Roosevelt. Some think this is no big deal. Remember that when these hoodlums come for you. It's hard to put the genie back in the bottle when they have had their taste of unfettered anarchy.
It's not quite that simple. They were also memorials/headstones for men who never had one. Most of those statues were placed during the golden age of Civil War memorials, 1890-1910. This includes the ones on the battlefields and on town squares, NORTH and south. It happened because the men who fought the battles were getting old and wanted to leave something behind to commemorate their service. The vets themselves were the spearheads for most of them, north and south. Now there is no doubt the language used in the dedications in the south included a lot of the stuff you point out. They were also steeped in the Lost Cause myth. But to say the purpose was solely to intimidate is ignorance in the extreme. Dig into the historiography of the Civil War and it's monumentation sometime. It's as fascinating as the actual history. My position on the monuments is that on town squares and such they exist at the pleasure of the current generation. I do NOT approve of mobs tearing them down. Do it legally and by the book. If the vote doesn't go your way, accept it and move on. Now in cemeteries and on battlefields, they should be left alone.
As for the flag, I t should have been changed the day after it was approved. I voted against it last time and will again.
Last edited:
Actually they did, both north and south. Almost all of the monuments both in towns and on battlefields nationwide were erected during that time. The reason was the living vets were getting old and wanted to leave something behind to commemorate what was for all of them the defining experience of their lives. They spearheaded most of it. Dig into the history and historiography of Civil War monumentation some time.
I'm pretty sure there aren't any statues of me, nor will there ever be. But, if there ever ends up being one of me somewhere, and someone wants to pull it down, I wholeheartedly give them my blessing to do so.
The "slippery slope" argument in this particular discussion is the last refuge of people who don't have a valid point to make.
Last edited:
Relocate all confederate statues to a park where everyone can go admire them for a small price. Everybody wins.
Why is this so difficult?
Why is this so difficult?
Tell that to the people who these thugs have hospitalized or killed in these riots.
Just to be clear, you're now claiming that people who want to take down statues of racist traitors have moved on from that to beating and/or killing people in riots? And (I'm inferring here) because of that, we should leave up said statues of racist traitors?
Please correct me if I've misinterpreted what you're saying. Because it's so outlandish that I'm starting to think I'm misinterpreting your comments.
Off topic but this is the approach I believe Cooperstown should adopt, include the McGwires, Bonds, Clemens, and Palmerio’s but include on the plaques what we now know of their accomplishments.
If you looked past the entire group of statues I mentioned that have nothing to do with the Confederate monuments, then there is nothing more to say. Please look at my original post again. These thugs are destroying every statue and are violent anarchists that have killed people. They arent garden club members.
The confederate monuments are the main point. I'm still going to know who Roosevelt is if they move that statue somewhere else. Besides, his own descendants have said they are fine with that particular statue coming down.
I haven't seen anything about any other statues. But, frankly, if a few other statues get taken down in the process, I don't really care.
At this point, you're going to have to show your work when it comes to your claim about "violent anarchists that have killed people." And from a reputable source.
They, they, they... Good thing you aren't just lumping all protesters in to one big group and assuming "they" are all the same, and bad people. Very well reasoned argument there. You must have been on debate team.***
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/s...-general-ulysses-s-grant-s-statue/ar-BB15KtqI
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/06/10/metro/statue-christopher-columbus-vandalized-north-end/
https://www.wbur.org/artery/2020/06/03/16-statues-memorials-damaged
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/na...0200603-xrc3akhpn5bbvehumr7v2z2com-story.html
And there is a difference between peaceful protest and the out of control rioters. Protests are welcome.
- Status
Latest
-
01
Maroon and White
Injury Report: KaMario Taylor and Fluff Bothwell remain questionable
-
02
Maroon and White Basketball
Culture and Retention sets the stage for Year 5 under Sam Purcell
-
03
Maroon and White Football
Keys to Victory for Mississippi State at LSU
-
04
Maroon and White Football
Mississippi State Week 7 Preview: Who carries the load?
-
05
Maroon and White Basketball
Everything Mississippi State WBK HC Sam Purcell said at SEC Media Days