Protesters destroy confederate monument in Durham

[Pannonian]

You still seem to be mixed up. Tell me, what was the purpose of the rally?

Their intention was to unite the right. It turned out to be a Nazi rally. KNOWING how it turned out you come in here claiming it is validated. So i'm quite comfortable calling you a nazi-apologizer, but if you prefer nazi-sympathizer, i can settle for that too.

[BuckSparkles]

It's not irrelevant.. the reason for wanting to take down the statues is very valid.

Statues of traitors and slavers put up by racist violent groups....

Well if you have that opinion, don't be surprised if there is more and more backlash.

[Deleted]

Please elaborate on how what happened in the south had nothing to do with racism, perhaps you will say the KKK who killed thousands of blacks / africans were just fans of cosplay

Lincoln planned to have the slaves deported, but through the power vacuum that occurred after he got assassinated many took the matter in their own hands through knee-jerk, hysteric reactions as usual.

[Themius]

Keep fighting the good fight but after every post just say this; "Vandalism is bad, mmkay." I'm sure you do not condone vandalism, but what is crazy about his is the Nazi sympathizers in these forums, excuse me "pro Confederate" and people loving history can basically use this as the bad people like to destroy things.

Trying to equate confederate leaders to civil-rights leaders just blew my mind... it's so stupid. I don't know what's with people on this forum.

- - - Updated - - -

Well if you have that opinion, don't be surprised if there is more and more backlash.

If I have the opinion that statues of literally traitors and slavers that were put up literally by racist violent groups such as the KKK should be taken down I should expect backlash?

[Pannonian]

Chanting "No police, No KKK" though

Are people really just equating them together now then?

That's just sad. "No white house, No KKK" would at least be somewhat justified, but alienating the side that tries to keep up order wont help a bit.

[BuckSparkles]

Trying to equate confederate leaders to civil-rights leaders just blew my mind... it's so stupid. I don't know what's with people on this forum.

It's the fact that confederate monuments like civil rights icons have value to people in this country.

But the point is going over your head because folks like you froth at the thought of racists and can't think clearly.

[Draco-Onis]

Lincoln planned to have the slaves deported, but through the power vacuum that occurred after he got assassinated many took the matter in their own hands through knee-jerk, hysteric reactions as usual.

Ok you keep claiming that but that is false, Lincoln considered the idea as well as many others but there is no factual evidence that he was going to do it. Second why is it so hard for you admit that the slave owners were racists?

[Noxx79]

It's the fact that confederate monuments like civil rights icons have value to people in this country.

But the point is going over your head because folks like you froth at the thought of racists and can't think clearly.

So we should put a statue of Hitler on 5th avenue. It has value to neo-nazis.

[Crissi]

Lincoln planned to have the slaves deported, but through the power vacuum that occurred after he got assassinated many took the matter in their own hands through knee-jerk, hysteric reactions as usual.

First, he was only for voluntary leaving, not forced removal. 2nd, he gave up that option eventually as he worked with people like Frederick Douglas

[Themius]

It's the fact that confederate monuments like civil rights icons have value to people in this country.

But the point is going over your head because folks like you froth at the thought of racists and can't think clearly.

And I'm sure a statue of Hitler has value to people. That doesn't mean it should be in the center of a park in America.

Froth at the thought of racists?

So now I am not allowed to call it for what it is?

Let me guess If they were muslims its okay to say terrorists, but if they're racist KKK members I must say "counter anti-fa" is that it? Am I doing it right?

[BuckSparkles]

And I'm sure a statue of Hitler has value to people. That doesn't mean it should be in the center of a park in America.

Froth at the thought of racists?

So now I am not allowed to call it for what it is?

Let me guess If they were muslims its okay to say terrorists, but if they're racist KKK members I must say "counter anti-fa" is that it? Am I doing it right?

Not to detract from the point, but there is a rather large group of those who destroy history and monuments in another part of the world because it offends them.

[Paranoid Android]

Trying to equate confederate leaders to civil-rights leaders just blew my mind... it's so stupid. I don't know what's with people on this forum.

They symbols of the Confederacy (statues, state flags) were created in the Jim Crow south. Almost all of them, which I will get to in a minute. African Americans had now say of "Do you want something such as a statue on public grounds that represented a time when you were a slave." No say whatsoever and it was an obvious projection of their control over a post Civil War.

Fun fact. Arizona which did not join the union some 50 years after the Civil War has statues to honor Confederate soldiers. Basically Arizona had a big influx of people who were from south, aka segregationists, who constructed these monuments. We in Minnesota had a few and got rid of some but I think some still stand.

[Orbitus]

Because certain people in our country hate history because it offends them.

No, the people with brains don't think we should be celebrating traitorous people that wanted to split this country up so they could continue to own PEOPLE.

[Noxx79]

Not to detract from the point, but there is a rather large group of those who destroy history and monuments in another part of the world because it offends them.

And hitler drank water, so water is bad. Should we put up a hitler statue on 5th avenue? It has value to some people.

[Themius]

Not to detract from the point, but there is a rather large group of those who destroy history and monuments in another part of the world because it offends them.

You've done nothing but detract lol.

[Livnthedream]

And I'm sure a statue of Hitler has value to people. That doesn't mean it should be in the center of a park in America.

Hey, Marx is allowed. In all honesty he is responsible for many more deaths than Hitler.

[Themius]

And hitler drank water, so water is bad. Should we put up a hitler statue on 5th avenue? It has value to some people.

I'm still waiting for him to answer your question lol. Since his argument was "It has value for people" and I'm sure gassing jews for some reason again, would be great for some people, doesn't mean we should do it.

Hey some people see great value in having slavery again!

[Pannonian]

Not to detract from the point, but there is a rather large group of those who destroy history and monuments in another part of the world because it offends them.

You can be for removing these objects without destroying them.

What you're referring to is history revisionism practiced by ISIS, invented by the ancient egypt and perfected by the romans as damnatio memoriam. And i think that's wrong, because as soon as we erase history, we don't learn about it, and why it was deemed to be erased.

To give you an example: The lessons on history for my parents in school ended with the first world war (mind you, that was in the 60s) because the teachers didn't want to talk about their nazi past. That is horribly wrong. If we want to avoid our mistakes from the past we have to learn about it.

So i'm not in favour of tearing them down, but putting them in a museum and explain them.

but there is a difference between tearing stuff down to erase history and tearing stuff down because the glorification of its cause is deemed offensive now. (would you have argued for letting Saddams statue remain in its original prominent place?)

- - - Updated - - -

Hey, Marx is allowed. In all honesty he is responsible for many more deaths than Hitler.

That is stupid on so many levels...

Like saying Jesus is responsible for all the people killed in the name of Christendom. Do you really want to go there?

Or is this just a new line to apologize for Nazis?

[Taso]

Because for some reason the right claimed Obama becoming president meant that racism had vanished.

no one except on the far right or those who sympathized with the democrats thought racism ended if anything the left thought that. Why do you think they didn't get another black person to run for 2016.
On the side lines I do not know what you mean by the right? GOP has ran in the last 5 elections a diverse number of candidates from alan keys, Herman Cain to ben carson to bob jindal and marco rubio so its hard to say they didn't acknowledge racism not being real.

[Sama-81]

Mhm, yeah but it's hard to compare medieval wars to more recent ones. Back then the idea of a state/nation or a people was way less common than today, so of course it wasn't a big topic ever. Also something you don't have in europe for most countries, is a significant majority with a very special history. Also the Civil War was extremely bloody, one of the bloodiest conflict ever, for several reasons: They horrible medical treatment, US troops used no bajonettes (therefore units never scattered, but stood until they're gunned down), and of course it was the first war fought with modern weapons on both sides. Many european war observers wrote home that the hope they wont have a war soon because the destructive power was so immense.

Also conflicts can scar a whole population. Take the german french feud that lasted from Napoleon until the second world war. That's 150 years where people still get aroused - so i don't think the civil war still gripping peoples mind is so outlandish. And don't forget - every black person in the US is a daily reminder of history - because most of them came to this country in a very special way...

Again, to stress on this, if i'd be a black person with this history (not claiming that i really understand anything) i would at least be angry if i saw a statue of a guy that started a civil war because he denied my forefathers freedom being defended.

Ah well. It is what it is, I suppose. I want to add though, that in the last battle of the war I was referring to, a large battle famous for how incredibly bloody it was (70% losses on both sides), and which lead to lots of land changing hands and a lot of hard readjustments for the populace, the one big monument that was raised at the time has an inscription on it, that goes something like - "Here lie good men of both sides, their bones and blood mixed so noone can say otherwise. Of one origin and one faith, yet they could not manage to live together in peace". On the other side, one which basically states that the horror of this battle, made the survivors realize the futility of it all, and vow that war and resentment would never again come between brothers. It of course did in a sense, such as the napoleonic wars, but never again in a similar manner.

I realize how little it has to do with the american civil war, and how anecdotal it is, but some similar conclusion really ought to have prevailed after a war like the american civil war. I stand by my assessment of how incredibly immature the US is, when it comes to national history and how to deal with it.