Louis Gossett Jr
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2012
- Messages
- 12,715
- Reaction score
- 6,532
I suppose this is a case where having different opinions is acceptable as it's not black and white facts to be argued.
I've open my mind. Y'all should try too. There is another voice, or many others. It's not so black and white.
BEND A LITTLE. IT DOESNT HURT.
The UNITED STATES was at war. There were no traitors at the time
I say tear down the freedom building in the year 2090 when Muslims in America are the majority.
How do they impact lives? They don't. They're fucking statues. Statues to honor those who last fought and died 152 years ago, or survived, came home, and died as decrepit old men 80 years ago. This is about "feelings." Somebody "feels" angry when they see that. Why do they "feel" angry? Because somebody told them they should feel marginalized and they see all their friends whining on social media and have a heightened sense of self-importance. Fuck their feelings, and frankly, fuck the feelings of anybody who feels so outraged that they have to either march in support of a statue or in opposition to it. Get over yourselves. Have an appreciation for history and how it impacted this country for better and for worse. THINK when you see those monuments, don't FEEL. Think of where we were as a nation before then and since. Think about how the same people who fought for the south had parents who fought in the Revolutionary War, The War Of 1812, The Mexican War (lots of Civil War vets in this one, actually), and sons who have fought in the numerous conflicts since. Think of how their lives were impacted, all their lives. Think of how somebody in Maine had their life impacted the same way somebody in Texas did after a battle in Gettysburg, PA. Think of how tragic the Civil War was for everybody and how the victors chose to deal with the victory and how the defeated dealt with defeat. This shit is over and done and dealt with and was 150 years ago. There is no net positive to be gained from tearing down old confederate statues. None. It is vandalism and lawlessness, plain and simple. It happened in Durham, so I doubt the offenders will even be prosecuted (and it looks like the penalty is on par with a code of conduct offense at Wake), but they should be charged the maximum allowable under law.
And make no mistake, this isn't about the Civil War. This is about passing judgment upon people who lived in a different time and place for things we find truly incomprehensible today. Civil war monuments today, slaveholder founders tomorrow.
but first we should erect statues of Custer and Hitler...so we can learn about history
Where is this crowd with respect to the desecrated battlefield at Nashville, where General Thomas smashed an entire army of the so-called confederacy? Shouldn't this glorious episode of southern history have more monuments and memorialization?
something like this:
If you do even a cursory examination of history-- and it doesn't have to even be US history but could be your own family histories-- you will see that who fought on the north and who fought on the south was often a result of whether somebody went left or right out of the Cumberland Gap. If that land on the Kentucky side looked better, then Kentucky it was. Tennessee side? Then Tennessee. Or folks may have ended up further north or further south. The land was opened up for settlement and for land grants, and nobody was thinking in 1790-1800 about which side their kids or grandkids may have to fight in a war in 60 years. They really weren't thinking about that before then if they happened to settle in the Carolinas or Georgia or Virginia, which was the first English settlement in the new world. They were pushing west for opportunity and for a new start. Kentucky was an especially interesting state in the Civil War.
The politicians fought for one thing, the rank and file largely for another or simply because they had no other choice other than conscription or heading west to the wilderness to avoid service. Go back and look at census records from 1840, 1850, and 1860. Most people didn't own slaves. A few owned a lot. Some had one or two. Most of the northerners didn't care about slavery either. They were in the same boat or cared more about preservation of the union. To portray it as racists vs. non-racists is not accurate. Both sides were quite racist, certainly by today's standards or even the standards of 50 years ago. Even to portray it as slave states vs non slave states is not accurate. What side you came down upon depended largely upon geography and the states caught in between made choices in their own self-interest, not any moral principle.
All this crap having been said, I note the following--
1 - There is a difference between a statue honoring the confederate soldier and, say, one honoring Nathan Bedford Forrest. There is also a difference between Robert E. Lee and Forrest. To not attempt to make any distinction is ignorant.
2 - If a city wants to remove it from public property, they should be the ones making that decision. If state law dictates otherwise, they should work with the state. I won't comment on the wisdom or lack thereof of the NC state legislators except to say that they seem to have a recent history of taking choices away from municipalities and putting them in the hands of the state, which is not a philosophy I generally agree with.
3 - The city should make overtures to the UDC or similar organizations for relocation of the statues. Absent interest there, they should decide whether it is in their interest to destroy something historic or sell it to the highest bidder and make some money off it, which they will need in order to replace it with something else (Coach K statue?) or just put green space there instead.
4 - Lawlessness and vandalism among stupid activists cannot prevail.
5 - These statues aren't Nazi Germany honoring Hitler, nor are the activist denizens of Durham Iraqis overcoming the persecution of Saddam Hussein. Quit making false equivalencies.
If you do even a cursory examination of history-- and it doesn't have to even be US history but could be your own family histories-- you will see that who fought on the north and who fought on the south was often a result of whether somebody went left or right out of the Cumberland Gap. If that land on the Kentucky side looked better, then Kentucky it was. Tennessee side? Then Tennessee. Or folks may have ended up further north or further south. The land was opened up for settlement and for land grants, and nobody was thinking in 1790-1800 about which side their kids or grandkids may have to fight in a war in 60 years. They really weren't thinking about that before then if they happened to settle in the Carolinas or Georgia or Virginia, which was the first English settlement in the new world. They were pushing west for opportunity and for a new start. Kentucky was an especially interesting state in the Civil War.
The politicians fought for one thing, the rank and file largely for another or simply because they had no other choice other than conscription or heading west to the wilderness to avoid service. Go back and look at census records from 1840, 1850, and 1860. Most people didn't own slaves. A few owned a lot. Some had one or two. Most of the northerners didn't care about slavery either. They were in the same boat or cared more about preservation of the union. To portray it as racists vs. non-racists is not accurate. Both sides were quite racist, certainly by today's standards or even the standards of 50 years ago. Even to portray it as slave states vs non slave states is not accurate. What side you came down upon depended largely upon geography and the states caught in between made choices in their own self-interest, not any moral principle.
All this crap having been said, I note the following--
1 - There is a difference between a statue honoring the confederate soldier and, say, one honoring Nathan Bedford Forrest. There is also a difference between Robert E. Lee and Forrest. To not attempt to make any distinction is ignorant.
2 - If a city wants to remove it from public property, they should be the ones making that decision. If state law dictates otherwise, they should work with the state. I won't comment on the wisdom or lack thereof of the NC state legislators except to say that they seem to have a recent history of taking choices away from municipalities and putting them in the hands of the state, which is not a philosophy I generally agree with.
3 - The city should make overtures to the UDC or similar organizations for relocation of the statues. Absent interest there, they should decide whether it is in their interest to destroy something historic or sell it to the highest bidder and make some money off it, which they will need in order to replace it with something else (Coach K statue?) or just put green space there instead.
4 - Lawlessness and vandalism among stupid activists cannot prevail.
5 - These statues aren't Nazi Germany honoring Hitler, nor are the activist denizens of Durham Iraqis overcoming the persecution of Saddam Hussein. Quit making false equivalencies.
a statue of hitler might not be a good analogy, perhaps statues of Rommel or Doenitz. Would that make sense?
"it's not that we're honoring Nazism, but the sacrifices of the Wehrmacht and Kreigsmarine" #heritagenothate