Confederate Streets and Monuments

[ComradeMilton]

edit: Just not worth the effort.

Edited August 20, 2017 by ComradeMilton

[Caecus]

2 hours ago, Rozalia said:

The current line from the less excited shall we say. If you like it or not those men have cultural value to the south of America. Texas for example also has it's own heroes who at the end of the day were simply rebels, traitors, and all the rest. Sam Houston doesn't just have a huge statue but also a city named after him. Speaking of rebels... what of the Democratic party? Many of the Confederates including their President were Democrats who entered into rebellion. Why is a party that rebelled like that allowed to exist (I am aware the Democrats continued in the Union, as a much depleted force)? Surely by the same token you take the party should be banned no? In fact... the Democrat party has quite the history when it comes to slavery and the rights of non-whites, quite the negative one. Where is their banning? Why are the anti-racists all over there? Surely history trumps all else no?

You going to just ignore the attacks that have already occurred including the torching of a Lincoln monument that I linked? If you think those rabid foot soldiers of identity politics won't turn on you then I am sorry for your naivety. 

Your first paragraph just demonstrates even further that you have no understanding of American history. 

As for the attacks on the Lincoln monument, ok. Again, the way I see it, the Lincoln monument you can defend. You can say to "rabid foot soldiers of identity politics" that Lincoln kept the Union together, and ultimately freed the slaves despite the unpopularity of such a policy even in the North. You can't defend statues of confederate leaders. 

Again, you are trying to make me debate some random minute point without actually addressing the topic at hand. You have one flimsy argument about people vandalizing the Lincoln memorial. I have at least 5 morally compelling arguments against you. By sheer numbers (not to mention quality), I win the debate. 

[Rozalia]

1 minute ago, Caecus said:

Your first paragraph just demonstrates even further that you have no understanding of American history. 

As for the attacks on the Lincoln monument, ok. Again, the way I see it, the Lincoln monument you can defend. You can say to "rabid foot soldiers of identity politics" that Lincoln kept the Union together, and ultimately freed the slaves despite the unpopularity of such a policy even in the North. You can't defend statues of confederate leaders. 

Again, you are trying to make me debate some random minute point without actually addressing the topic at hand. You have one flimsy argument about people vandalizing the Lincoln memorial. I have at least 5 morally compelling arguments against you. By sheer numbers (not to mention quality), I win the debate. 

You have said this repeatedly often with insults peppered in. Not once actually stated why. 

Hehehe. You are indeed very naive. You think they care? He was a racist. Fact. That is all they care about. Fanatics can't be reasoned with. 

Again, you just say things. I don't count 5, only 1 (standard argument, not "morally compelling) that relies on fanatical people ending up satisfied simply with having claimed Confederate heads. I say they won't and recent events already show that it will not be the case. They will get more anti-Lincoln and the rest in the future, not less. However if we must think of who will be first targeted in force then I'd think it would be Jefferson, who they'll say was a monster who kept slaves and raped and impregnated some of them... what are you going to say? He did the declaration of Independence and that was a good thing? Not for the black person it wasn't they'll remark. 

Now if you don't want to talk about the Democratic party thing as by your logic you have to admit that yes they should go... that is fine. I'll write it off as you being too afraid to touch it and that is good enough for me. 

[Caecus]

9 minutes ago, Rozalia said:

You have said this repeatedly often with insults peppered in. Not once actually stated why. 

Hehehe. You are indeed very naive. You think they care? He was a racist. Fact. That is all they care about. Fanatics can't be reasoned with. 

Again, you just say things. I don't count 5, only 1 (standard argument, not "morally compelling) that relies on fanatical people ending up satisfied simply with having claimed Confederate heads. I say they won't and recent events already show that it will not be the case. They will get more anti-Lincoln and the rest in the future, not less. However if we must think of who will be first targeted in force then I'd think it would be Jefferson, who they'll say was a monster who kept slaves and raped and impregnated some of them... what are you going to say? He did the declaration of Independence and that was a good thing? Not for the black person it wasn't they'll remark. 

Now if you don't want to talk about the Democratic party thing as by your logic you have to admit that yes they should go... that is fine. I'll write it off as you being too afraid to touch it and that is good enough for me. 

After debating the minute points of an argument that only tangentially relates to the op, you wait until my patience runs out and declare victory. 

I'll just write off the fact that you have never touched even one of my arguments as admission that you surrender. I know you are too afraid to actually debate my arguments because you know you can't win. Everyone can see that too, by the way. You are trying SO hard for me to debate something that doesn't relate to the OP in the hopes that it will distract me from the fact you can't refute my arguments and then taunt me for not replying to your ignorance. 

Can you actually refute my arguments for once? I don't expect you to do so, since you are obviously too afraid to debate me on my arguments. 

[Rozalia]

10 hours ago, Caecus said:

After debating the minute points of an argument that only tangentially relates to the op, you wait until my patience runs out and declare victory. 

I'll just write off the fact that you have never touched even one of my arguments as admission that you surrender. I know you are too afraid to actually debate my arguments because you know you can't win. Everyone can see that too, by the way. You are trying SO hard for me to debate something that doesn't relate to the OP in the hopes that it will distract me from the fact you can't refute my arguments and then taunt me for not replying to your ignorance. 

Can you actually refute my arguments for once? I don't expect you to do so, since you are obviously too afraid to debate me on my arguments. 

Just keep saying that, I'm sure it'll sell to someone someday. 

Bullet point them then and I'll reply once to them and that'll be that, no going back and forth. 

Refute? That the Confederates were traitors or whatever? Why would I try to refute a fact? Do I have to now? I don't believe I have to. I'm sorry that I don't agree with destroying monuments over mass Trump induced mania (if Clinton won those people wouldn't care, I'm certain about that). I know the arguments, better than you have put them, that the statues represent ills such as telling to each non-white person that the whites still control the cities/towns they were put up in. I fully understand that, however carrying out these rash actions which include mobs smashing down statues themselves is not correct. Problem with fanatics is things are never quite pure enough and more can always be done. Simply giving them what they want only leads to them wanting more and you know to what I refer to. Now should something be done about the statues themselves? Likely yes. In some cases they have been moved to confederate cemeteries and I'm sure they can stick a bunch in museums. Such a process could be done gradually and without the big hysteria. Doing things in a way that inflames nutters on both sides is not how to go about it. 

[Caecus]

1 hour ago, Rozalia said:

Just keep saying that, I'm sure it'll sell to someone someday. 

Bullet point them then and I'll reply once to them and that'll be that, no going back and forth. 

Refute? That the Confederates were traitors or whatever? Why would I try to refute a fact? Do I have to now? I don't believe I have to. I'm sorry that I don't agree with destroying monuments over mass Trump induced mania (if Clinton won those people wouldn't care, I'm certain about that). I know the arguments, better than you have put them, that the statues represent ills such as telling to each non-white person that the whites still control the cities/towns they were put up in. I fully understand that, however carrying out these rash actions which include mobs smashing down statues themselves is not correct. Problem with fanatics is things are never quite pure enough and more can always be done. Simply giving them what they want only leads to them wanting more and you know to what I refer to. Now should something be done about the statues themselves? Likely yes. In some cases they have been moved to confederate cemeteries and I'm sure they can stick a bunch in museums. Such a process could be done gradually and without the big hysteria. Doing things in a way that inflames nutters on both sides is not how to go about it. 

 

On 8/10/2017 at 7:03 PM, Caecus said:

If the idea that you put up statues is because they are somehow tied to a certain nationality, why don't I have a statue? Sure, you could argue that I'm more or less a nobody working a 9 - 5 job that likes to troll people on the internet, but I have an idea and a point that I would like to convey. We build statues because we see some positive aspect in them that, in a collective social memory, we have decided to retain. Since you mentioned "denazification," I'll just let the millions of Goebbels statues (because Hitler is Austrian, duh.) show how much Germans love making statues of Germans. 

This argument makes sense, except that it discounts a couple of things:

• First, your argument assumes that these forts and streets were already named during the reconstruction period. That is incorrect. Again, most of these monuments, streets, and forts were christened after the Spanish-American war in an effort to unify the nation by placating southerners and allowing them to glorify their homegrown terrorists. 
• Second, removing these monuments and rebranding these fort and street names do serve a purpose. Besides the fact that some descendants of slaves might find it rather distasteful to serve in a fort bearing the name of a person who decided to kill people in order to preserve the institution of racialized enslavement, these forts are implicit reminders that the US government still recognizes a sectionalism that should have died at the end of 1945 and is actively still placating a (in my opinion) dead vision of a divided country and a return to an economy built on the backs of forced laborers.  
• Thirdly, and this is super important, these names also serve to sanitize the southern secessionist cause. Seeing as how people can barely remember what year the war of 1812 started, people who are uninformed may (in their continued ignorance) look at these names and think to themselves that they must have been great people who have done significant things for our country. Little do they know, these people represent a fragmented identity of a section of a country built on the backs of forced servitude that actively fought in the nation's bloodiest war in order to retain the profits of owning another human being and is now being represented because there was a need for political correctness and national unity at the beginning of the 20th century;  A political correctness that entirely ignored the trampled civil rights and murdering terrorists that tried to sanitize, justify, and restore a stratified hierarchy centered on the difference of skin color.

If you want to keep up the monuments and names, perhaps some context should be given in order to better inform the public that might view these pieces out of said context. Like, putting a whip in the hand of Robert E Lee as he beats a black man, his sister, and their cousin for having fled north, or having Fort Benning's entrance be adorned with the graves of those who fought under and against him. With American education as poor as it is now, is it really such a stretch to think that people might actually think these people did great things for our country when it is really the opposite? 

 

Finally, "questioning the overreach of the state" is fine and dandy, but most people generally don't mobilize an entire economy and kill half a million people (again, on the low end of the estimates) to do their "questioning." If violence was the proper medium of discourse in a democracy, you would imagine the Wiemar Republic might still exist today. 

 

I refer to my statement above. And lol, French-Indian. I agree, people in this country need better primary education. 

And then there is this whole bit about PC culture, but I'm too damn lazy to go pick it up from Dubuoyoo's debate page that you already posted on. I'm assuming you already picked it up. I actually really like that argument. 

[Rozalia]

1: I have said I fully understand this in my previous post. I would say you are likely painting those who donated the monuments in a worse light than you should as such thinking of the monument showing black people what for is something I doubt was at the forefront of most of their minds. Some people just want to have a statue of a famous local guy and that is it. This however is a minor point.
2: The slope is the problem as is the fact Obama did little and were the country under Clinton it is very likely nothing would be happening on this either. Doing things rashly and in a mania is fuel for the loonies on both sides. On one it gives them more fuel for their angle that they are under attack. On the other it deems that their thuggery will be tolerated and they can keep pushing. It is bizarro world I'm arguing against a Neo-Liberal for gradual change rather than sudden change by the way.
3: To me personally secession is an unacceptable process. In America however a lot of talk happens regarding states rights and such which secession crops up in. So I would tell you that the statues have little to do with it. If you care about the issue then confront it head on. A good deal of people in America believe it is simply a thing that states can and should do if they feel the union no longer fits their views. You should do a movement to make it being illegal from dubious to solid, somewhere in writing. 

[Caecus]

6 hours ago, Rozalia said:

1: I have said I fully understand this in my previous post. I would say you are likely painting those who donated the monuments in a worse light than you should as such thinking of the monument showing black people what for is something I doubt was at the forefront of most of their minds. Some people just want to have a statue of a famous local guy and that is it. This however is a minor point.
2: The slope is the problem as is the fact Obama did little and were the country under Clinton it is very likely nothing would be happening on this either. Doing things rashly and in a mania is fuel for the loonies on both sides. On one it gives them more fuel for their angle that they are under attack. On the other it deems that their thuggery will be tolerated and they can keep pushing. It is bizarro world I'm arguing against a Neo-Liberal for gradual change rather than sudden change by the way.
3: To me personally secession is an unacceptable process. In America however a lot of talk happens regarding states rights and such which secession crops up in. So I would tell you that the statues have little to do with it. If you care about the issue then confront it head on. A good deal of people in America believe it is simply a thing that states can and should do if they feel the union no longer fits their views. You should do a movement to make it being illegal from dubious to solid, somewhere in writing. 

1. There are plenty of other local famous guys who I assume are not treasonous slave owners dedicated to killing people in order to preserve slavery. But you are right, its a minute point. 

2. On the contrary, I think both under Obama, Clinton, and even the Bushes, there has been a steady removal of old Civil War things, though almost entirely done through state governments. South Carolina used to have the Confederate Battle Flag up on its state legislature flag pole before 2015. You are entirely correct in saying that presidents almost always had nothing to do with it, most of it came from local support and pressure. And, in fact, this removal of statues and monuments has been quietly going on for several years now, it only seems like sudden change because it has now garnered the attention of the spot light. Regardless, the vision of an independent South with a stratified racial hierarchy is dead and should stay that way. The US federal government, or even the individual state governments, should not hold those symbols of a divided country up anymore. 

3. There is something like that in writing: the Constitution, which explicitly says that unless its specified in the amendments, any federal law automatically supersedes state law. The best example of this is the legalization of weed. Technically speaking, weed is illegal everywhere because of federal law. But, states have "legalized it" and commercialized it. Under the Obama administration, the illegality of weed was not enforced, and so these state exchanges for legal weed went unpunished. It's different now under the Sessions AT. 

There are very few instances I can think of where a statue or monument was built to NOT glorify someone or their cause. We don't have statues up of Washington just because he was our first president. We have statues up of Washington because he represents the Republican idealism, someone who had every opportunity to establish his own dynasty but chose to step away in favor of the grand democratic experiment. Even if we were to solely look at the person that the statues were glorifying, I can understand Lee. Lee was extremely good at killing people en-mass. But what about Jefferson Davis? What the hell did he do? His only significant achievement that anyone still remembers is that he was the president of an independent south fighting against the proposition that all men are created equal.

 

Here is the way I see it: you are entirely right. There is a possibility that at one point in time in the future that we may come together and look at the statues of Jefferson and Washington and think they belong in a museum because they were racist or slave owners. It's entirely plausible that 20 years from now, the morality of this country would demand such a thing. But that's a future debate, and in my mind, a debate that actually has defensible grounds. On the other hand, there are already multiple reasons in which the removal of these statues are sound and just. The slippery slope argument seeks to predict and correct a future possibility at the cost of disregarding the status quo. It's an argument that (in my opinion) puts an extreme possibility against reasonable and rational action to correct deadly mistakes of our country and how we view them. 

[ComradeMilton]

11 hours ago, Caecus said:

1. There are plenty of other local famous guys who I assume are not treasonous slave owners dedicated to killing people in order to preserve slavery. But you are right, its a minute point. 

2. On the contrary, I think both under Obama, Clinton, and even the Bushes, there has been a steady removal of old Civil War things, though almost entirely done through state governments. South Carolina used to have the Confederate Battle Flag up on its state legislature flag pole before 2015. You are entirely correct in saying that presidents almost always had nothing to do with it, most of it came from local support and pressure. And, in fact, this removal of statues and monuments has been quietly going on for several years now, it only seems like sudden change because it has now garnered the attention of the spot light. Regardless, the vision of an independent South with a stratified racial hierarchy is dead and should stay that way. The US federal government, or even the individual state governments, should not hold those symbols of a divided country up anymore. 

3. There is something like that in writing: the Constitution, which explicitly says that unless its specified in the amendments, any federal law automatically supersedes state law. The best example of this is the legalization of weed. Technically speaking, weed is illegal everywhere because of federal law. But, states have "legalized it" and commercialized it. Under the Obama administration, the illegality of weed was not enforced, and so these state exchanges for legal weed went unpunished. It's different now under the Sessions AT.  This is technically extremely accurate. The issue is the federal level isn't staffed to the degree necessary to occupy offending areas and change them. It's the same way sanctuary cities operate, whether or not it's permitted by US policy or federal laws.

There are very few instances I can think of where a statue or monument was built to NOT glorify someone or their cause. We don't have statues up of Washington just because he was our first president. We have statues up of Washington because he represents the Republican idealism, someone who had every opportunity to establish his own dynasty but chose to step away in favor of the grand democratic experiment. Even if we were to solely look at the person that the statues were glorifying, I can understand Lee. Lee was extremely good at killing people en-mass. But what about Jefferson Davis? What the hell did he do? His only significant achievement that anyone still remembers is that he was the president of an independent south fighting against the proposition that all men are created equal. I think we'd be better off following the example of the Statue of Liberty and just promoting the building of images representative of values we hold in the United States. CSA personnel don't fit unless you remember to do your 3/5ths conversion first.

 

[Rozalia]

21 hours ago, Caecus said:

1. There are plenty of other local famous guys who I assume are not treasonous slave owners dedicated to killing people in order to preserve slavery. But you are right, its a minute point. 

2. On the contrary, I think both under Obama, Clinton, and even the Bushes, there has been a steady removal of old Civil War things, though almost entirely done through state governments. South Carolina used to have the Confederate Battle Flag up on its state legislature flag pole before 2015. You are entirely correct in saying that presidents almost always had nothing to do with it, most of it came from local support and pressure. And, in fact, this removal of statues and monuments has been quietly going on for several years now, it only seems like sudden change because it has now garnered the attention of the spot light. Regardless, the vision of an independent South with a stratified racial hierarchy is dead and should stay that way. The US federal government, or even the individual state governments, should not hold those symbols of a divided country up anymore. 

3. There is something like that in writing: the Constitution, which explicitly says that unless its specified in the amendments, any federal law automatically supersedes state law. The best example of this is the legalization of weed. Technically speaking, weed is illegal everywhere because of federal law. But, states have "legalized it" and commercialized it. Under the Obama administration, the illegality of weed was not enforced, and so these state exchanges for legal weed went unpunished. It's different now under the Sessions AT. 

There are very few instances I can think of where a statue or monument was built to NOT glorify someone or their cause. We don't have statues up of Washington just because he was our first president. We have statues up of Washington because he represents the Republican idealism, someone who had every opportunity to establish his own dynasty but chose to step away in favor of the grand democratic experiment. Even if we were to solely look at the person that the statues were glorifying, I can understand Lee. Lee was extremely good at killing people en-mass. But what about Jefferson Davis? What the hell did he do? His only significant achievement that anyone still remembers is that he was the president of an independent south fighting against the proposition that all men are created equal.

 

Here is the way I see it: you are entirely right. There is a possibility that at one point in time in the future that we may come together and look at the statues of Jefferson and Washington and think they belong in a museum because they were racist or slave owners. It's entirely plausible that 20 years from now, the morality of this country would demand such a thing. But that's a future debate, and in my mind, a debate that actually has defensible grounds. On the other hand, there are already multiple reasons in which the removal of these statues are sound and just. The slippery slope argument seeks to predict and correct a future possibility at the cost of disregarding the status quo. It's an argument that (in my opinion) puts an extreme possibility against reasonable and rational action to correct deadly mistakes of our country and how we view them. 

I'm sure there is. My town is hardly large and has statues to three people (A famous book writer, Prison reformer, and Archbishop). Unless a town is really new it is sure to have produced/adopted someone notable.

Due to the Trump effect yes. Though it should be mentioned that even if over the years statues were being removed, they were also being put up. One state in America even has a law protecting such statues.

Depends how you want to see it and as I said, it ain't a problem here or in the rest of the world. There is statues of warlords all over the place for example. Warlords who had control of X amount of the country and spent decades waging war and killing countless amounts of people from the other part of the country. These warlords often had plenty of slaves, some of them were big time rapists, killed people over slights, so on. If we talk simply on notability Lee as you put it was good at killing people and he is considered an ideal leader ain't he? Bedford Forrest was considered an extremely able soldier/commander who used an early version of mobile warfare, and even though famously a member of the KKK when it began he later in life acted/spoke differently and was condemned by racists for it (this is the same argument people use in defense over that guy (Byrd I believe) Hillary is always shown kissing, so not sure why it doesn't apply to Forrest). Davis is known only for being the first/only Confederate President though yeah, largely considered incompetent too so no notable positives.

I hope you realise that I have no attachment to Confederates (would be strange to). I simply find the taking down of monuments strange and negative for reasons stated already. Perhaps a law against putting up more and removing the less notable ones, but some should I think stay. When this sort of thing popped off here over a year ago with the Cecil Rhodes statue I opposed taking that down too and unlike over in America they guys who wanted it taken down lost and lost quite easily. 

[ComradeMilton]

no point.

Edited August 22, 2017 by ComradeMilton

[Caecus]

On 8/22/2017 at 2:30 AM, Rozalia said:

I'm sure there is. My town is hardly large and has statues to three people (A famous book writer, Prison reformer, and Archbishop). Unless a town is really new it is sure to have produced/adopted someone notable.

Due to the Trump effect yes. Though it should be mentioned that even if over the years statues were being removed, they were also being put up. One state in America even has a law protecting such statues.

Depends how you want to see it and as I said, it ain't a problem here or in the rest of the world. There is statues of warlords all over the place for example. Warlords who had control of X amount of the country and spent decades waging war and killing countless amounts of people from the other part of the country. These warlords often had plenty of slaves, some of them were big time rapists, killed people over slights, so on. If we talk simply on notability Lee as you put it was good at killing people and he is considered an ideal leader ain't he? Bedford Forrest was considered an extremely able soldier/commander who used an early version of mobile warfare, and even though famously a member of the KKK when it began he later in life acted/spoke differently and was condemned by racists for it (this is the same argument people use in defense over that guy (Byrd I believe) Hillary is always shown kissing, so not sure why it doesn't apply to Forrest). Davis is known only for being the first/only Confederate President though yeah, largely considered incompetent too so no notable positives.

I hope you realise that I have no attachment to Confederates (would be strange to). I simply find the taking down of monuments strange and negative for reasons stated already. Perhaps a law against putting up more and removing the less notable ones, but some should I think stay. When this sort of thing popped off here over a year ago with the Cecil Rhodes statue I opposed taking that down too and unlike over in America they guys who wanted it taken down lost and lost quite easily. 

1. And yet of all the grand characters they could have chosen to put on a pedestal literally, they chose Robert E. Lee. 

2. Is that state Florida? It has to be Florida. !@#$ing Florida. 

3/4. 

You brought up Cromwell in the English Civil War and how he killed a lot of Scots, and that's supposedly the reason why there are 3 statues of him in your town. I know in China there are still many statues of Cao Cao, or statues of Charlemagne and Napoleon in France and Germany. The rest of the world may extol warlords and kings who are proficient at killing a bunch of people, but that's not how the United States works.

The rest of the world had spent centuries on cults of personality, praising their proficiency at violence and how they dictated the world in the destructive aftermath. The personal worship of kings, nobility, emperors, and dictators inherently rests on the belief that only they could govern. Often enough, their legacy is a mountain of dead people, lasting just as long until another proficient mass-murderer comes along. 

The United States doesn't believe in cults of personality. We remember Washington, not because he was proficient at killing people (calling him mediocre is flattering), but because he rejected the notion that only he could govern the United States, even when everyone else believed it to be so. We remember Jefferson, not because he negotiated with France to bring military aid, but because the words he wrote represented the ideals of our country. Unlike the rest of the world, we only fought a civil war once, not over which so-and-so was the rightful ruler of the seven kingdoms, but over the ideals and the future of the republic. The old world has propped up mortal men, believing that only they could rule and pray for their long life. The new has chosen ideals as their immortal champion. There are very few instances (aside from confederate monuments) in American history where we praise someone for the amount of people they killed and not for the ideals (and thus their legacy) they represented. 

 

[ComradeMilton]

Jefferson is kind of hilarious since he went home early with a totally misguided idea about how the federal level was going to work.

[Ogaden]

The historical significance crowd should be aware most of these went up between 1920 - 1970 to stick it to civil rights.  They are 20th century monuments to racism, not 19th century monuments to the war.

Edited August 25, 2017 by Ogaden

[WISD0MTREE]

On 8/16/2017 at 8:35 PM, Caecus said:

3. Washington and Jefferson were slave owners, yes. But unlike Robert E. !@#$ing Lee, they didn't try to destroy this country. And unlike the confederacy, the progression of equality in this country was assumed to be more encompassing, even Washington and Jefferson knew that. To even equate Washington and Jefferson to Lee is a !@#$ing disgrace, and shows that you don't know a damn thing about American history. 

This post didn't age well. 

http://thefederalist.com/2017/08/25/statue-watch-uva-thomas-jefferson-vandalized-ohio-revolutionary-war-statue-decapitated/

Quote

The University of Virginia has cleaned up a vandalized statue of Thomas Jefferson and is investigating the crime, which occurred last weekend. The statue was apparently doused with red paint the day before UVA’s Black Student Alliance presented a list of “demands” that included taking down Confederate plaques on campus and teaching students about the relation between Jefferson and white supremacy, the Daily Progress reported.

[...]

This morning, Ohio state Rep. Wes Goodman reported that a courthouse statue of a Revolutionary War hero has been decapitated. Yes, that’s Revolutionary War, not Civil War. Col. William Crawford served George Washington in the American Revolution and was tortured to death by Native Americans who had been raiding American settlements along the frontier.

Apparently 

i. Thomas Jefferson was a white supremacist. 

ii. We can have a Black Student Alliance. I don't think a White Student Alliance would go over too well. 

iii. Trump was right about people attacking Jefferson. 

iv. Students who behead the wrong monuments are dictating what classes other students need to take. 

---

Kind of a side note rant for my own sanity here. Expanding on the BSA's demands. 

(Same link as above)

http://www.dailyprogress.com/news/local/continuing-developments-related-to-violence-in-charlottesville/article_12d8e80e-8906-11e7-a056-9f3c394bdeaa.html

Quote

Those demands include removing Confederate plaques from the Rotunda; denouncing and banning Unite the Right organizer Jason Kessler and other hate groups from Grounds; requiring all students to take a class about white supremacy and slavery as they relate to Thomas Jefferson, the founder of UVa; and taking action to increase the enrollment of African-American students to more accurately reflect the state’s demographics.

Just African Americans? According to UVA, 20% are African American. 22% of Virginia is African American, according to the CDC. UVA is only 44% White (non-hispanic), while the state is 57.3% White (non-hispanic) according to the same sources. That's a much larger gap. However, I think if someone asked UVA to take "action to increase the enrollment of white students to more accurately reflect the state's demographics," they would almost certainly be called a racist white-supremacist/Nazi. UVA is only 37% male. However, I think if someone asked UVA to take "action to increase the enrollment of male students to more accurately reflect the state's demographics," they would almost certainly be called a bigoted, misogynistic rapist. 

[Ogaden]

Yeah no shit the US was founded on slavery

[ComradeMilton]

Yeah, but we stopped the first time it didn't work.

[Rozalia]

2 hours ago, WISD0MTREE said:

This post didn't age well. 

http://thefederalist.com/2017/08/25/statue-watch-uva-thomas-jefferson-vandalized-ohio-revolutionary-war-statue-decapitated/

Apparently 

i. Thomas Jefferson was a white supremacist. 

ii. We can have a Black Student Alliance. I don't think a White Student Alliance would go over too well. 

iii. Trump was right about people attacking Jefferson. 

iv. Students who behead the wrong monuments are dictating what classes other students need to take. 

 

---

Kind of a side note rant for my own sanity here. Expanding on the BSA's demands. 

(Same link as above)

http://www.dailyprogress.com/news/local/continuing-developments-related-to-violence-in-charlottesville/article_12d8e80e-8906-11e7-a056-9f3c394bdeaa.html

Just African Americans? According to UVA, 20% are African American. 22% of Virginia is African American, according to the CDC. UVA is only 44% White (non-hispanic), while the state is 57.3% White (non-hispanic) according to the same sources. That's a much larger gap. However, I think if someone asked UVA to take "action to increase the enrollment of white students to more accurately reflect the state's demographics," they would almost certainly be called a racist white-supremacist/Nazi. UVA is only 37% male. However, I think if someone asked UVA to take "action to increase the enrollment of male students to more accurately reflect the state's demographics," they would almost certainly be called a bigoted, misogynistic rapist. 

I'm impressed that it has continued... I'm hoping to see more. Don't let the Roz down Antifa, show dear Caecus how silly he has been to defend you. I think I hear the slope... it's falling on top of Caecus. 

[Caecus]

5 hours ago, WISD0MTREE said:

This post didn't age well. 

http://thefederalist.com/2017/08/25/statue-watch-uva-thomas-jefferson-vandalized-ohio-revolutionary-war-statue-decapitated/

Apparently 

i. Thomas Jefferson was a white supremacist. 

ii. We can have a Black Student Alliance. I don't think a White Student Alliance would go over too well. 

iii. Trump was right about people attacking Jefferson. 

iv. Students who behead the wrong monuments are dictating what classes other students need to take. 

---

Kind of a side note rant for my own sanity here. Expanding on the BSA's demands. 

(Same link as above)

http://www.dailyprogress.com/news/local/continuing-developments-related-to-violence-in-charlottesville/article_12d8e80e-8906-11e7-a056-9f3c394bdeaa.html

Just African Americans? According to UVA, 20% are African American. 22% of Virginia is African American, according to the CDC. UVA is only 44% White (non-hispanic), while the state is 57.3% White (non-hispanic) according to the same sources. That's a much larger gap. However, I think if someone asked UVA to take "action to increase the enrollment of white students to more accurately reflect the state's demographics," they would almost certainly be called a racist white-supremacist/Nazi. UVA is only 37% male. However, I think if someone asked UVA to take "action to increase the enrollment of male students to more accurately reflect the state's demographics," they would almost certainly be called a bigoted, misogynistic rapist. 

Oh my goodness! Stupid college kids who get drunk off their asses every chance they get don't know any American history?!?! Who would have thought. Color me surprised. 

It sounds like UVA is off by 2% African Americans then. I don't see how that is a problem.

Also, have you considered the possibility that white males just don't want to go to college? That their life choices resulted in not making the same amount as men  not wanting to go to college? 

Also, if the white supremacists at the UTR rally was any indication, angsty white males living in their mother's basement probably wouldn't be able to make it to college anyway. That's always confused me, you know. When white supremacists declare themselves the master race, they tend to be the most stupid, uninformed, worthless scum-sucking white trash there is. If that's the best white people have to offer, they are all really better off not getting into UVA anyway. 

3 hours ago, Rozalia said:

I'm impressed that it has continued... I'm hoping to see more. Don't let the Roz down Antifa, show dear Caecus how silly he has been to defend you. I think I hear the slope... it's falling on top of Caecus. 

You know how you were so tilted that I even vaguely suggested the notion that you were somehow related to white supremacists and neo-Nazis because you stood on the opposite side of the monuments debate? This, this collection of verbatim posted above, is collectively called hypocrisy. 

Also, you didn't respond to my post. I eagerly await your response. 

[Rozalia]

14 hours ago, Caecus said:

1. And yet of all the grand characters they could have chosen to put on a pedestal literally, they chose Robert E. Lee. 

2. Is that state Florida? It has to be Florida. !@#$ing Florida. 

3/4. 

You brought up Cromwell in the English Civil War and how he killed a lot of Scots, and that's supposedly the reason why there are 3 statues of him in your town. I know in China there are still many statues of Cao Cao, or statues of Charlemagne and Napoleon in France and Germany. The rest of the world may extol warlords and kings who are proficient at killing a bunch of people, but that's not how the United States works.

The rest of the world had spent centuries on cults of personality, praising their proficiency at violence and how they dictated the world in the destructive aftermath. The personal worship of kings, nobility, emperors, and dictators inherently rests on the belief that only they could govern. Often enough, their legacy is a mountain of dead people, lasting just as long until another proficient mass-murderer comes along. 

The United States doesn't believe in cults of personality. We remember Washington, not because he was proficient at killing people (calling him mediocre is flattering), but because he rejected the notion that only he could govern the United States, even when everyone else believed it to be so. We remember Jefferson, not because he negotiated with France to bring military aid, but because the words he wrote represented the ideals of our country. Unlike the rest of the world, we only fought a civil war once, not over which so-and-so was the rightful ruler of the seven kingdoms, but over the ideals and the future of the republic. The old world has propped up mortal men, believing that only they could rule and pray for their long life. The new has chosen ideals as their immortal champion. There are very few instances (aside from confederate monuments) in American history where we praise someone for the amount of people they killed and not for the ideals (and thus their legacy) they represented. 

 

I missed this the first time, sorry.

1: He is pretty notable and has if you like it or not been admired as a military leader for a long time in America. 

2: North Carolina.

3: ??? The country that elected Donald Trump as president doesn't believe in cults of personality? Obama who put the left to sleep?

[Caecus]

8 hours ago, Rozalia said:

I missed this the first time, sorry.

1: He is pretty notable and has if you like it or not been admired as a military leader for a long time in America. 

2: North Carolina.

3: ??? The country that elected Donald Trump as president doesn't believe in cults of personality? Obama who put the left to sleep?

2. You do not know how desperately I wanted to hear Florida. 

1/3. Is this a subtle admission that people who support Trump (yourself included) are doing it out of a personal worship for the man? 

And let's be honest, even if you just did admit that Trump supporters now support him out of a cult worship, that's only 33% of the population at best. Granted, that number is high and saddens me nonetheless, but I take comfort in the 66% of people who can see what happens in reality and not get it from twitter or facebook. 

I nonetheless still stand by my statement that the US is different and doesn't fundamentally believe in cults of personality. Lee is on a pedestal either because we built a cult of personality around him or we believe in his ideals. Seeing as how his ideals revolve around the preservation of slavery, I can only assume decent people still leave his statue up because of the cult of personality. 

[WISD0MTREE]

10 hours ago, Caecus said:

It sounds like UVA is off by 2% African Americans then. I don't see how that is a problem.

And 13.3% whites. Let's face it. We both know they'll cut the white admission rate to get more blacks. 

And from the same site

Quote

and the group will examine “how people become radicalized and what steps can be taken to prevent political violence in the future.”

 

[Caecus]

1 hour ago, WISD0MTREE said:

And 13.3% whites. Let's face it. We both know they'll cut the white admission rate to get more blacks. 

And from the same site

 

I couldn't possibly comment on the admission practices of a university that I've never even heard of, let alone attended. On the other hand, my University does have programs that favor minorities with sub-performing GPAs. Can't say that I still see many of them, most of my state is whiter than bleach. 

Also, from my understanding of how public education is funded in the US, if a university is publicly funded, it tends to get more money when most of its student body is white, not some minority. Especially under this administration (if you could call what Devos is running anything akin to an "administration"), nobody is going to pony up money for more black people in colleges. 

Also, I imagine your frustration comes from the fact that statistically speaking, there are more poor uneducated white people than there are black people. Multiple studies have also shown that there is no income gap between white and African American workers. The issue is that generations of slavery and Jim Crow has produced a massive asset gap, and its hard to see how educating more African Americans in college would result in that gap closing anytime soon. The way I see it, if college funding from the government is similar to K-12 public education, if UVA has more black people, it's probably less funded than other higher percentage white colleges. The less funding means that less shit gets published, less teachers get promoted, less professors get to pay students to work in their labs and learn the ropes of research, less community outreach programs, or work/study programs. White people are probably better off at a different college then. 

Also, that entirely assumes that UVA simply rejects hordes of white people (of which we don't know exist) who actually want to go to the college. This also assumes that white applications are better than the black applicants that made it in and the decision was based on race. Without knowing all the details, we can only speculate what's actually going on. 

[ComradeMilton]

Outside of sports that's not quite where the funding comes from. a decent amount comes from approved research grants, a lot from alumni donation and most of the rest from the endowment.

[WISD0MTREE]

6 hours ago, Caecus said:

Also, I imagine your frustration comes from the fact that statistically speaking,

there are more poor uneducated white people than there are black people.

No, I have a problem because I was denied to a college where I was top 10% in terms of my ACT score, and top 25% SAT. Plus I has extracurricular activities, awards, etc. The college is over 2 times more likely to accept women than men due to the admissions office trying to achieve 50% women. 

m8 do you really think that you're fighting Nazis or something?