Mt. Rushmore

[Mormolyce]

You didn't answer my question.

I feel like I did.

[Deleted]

I feel like I did.

Not really.

''Capitalism is private ownership of the means of production.''

''Lol, you commie ''.

''What?''

''That's textbook Marx, therefore communism xD''.

In fact I doubt you have any idea what I even meant with my original comment.

[Kraenen]

Removing some cheap trash statues is tyranny?

Not surprised you completely missed what I was referring to. You're a good little drone - mindlessly obedient to the cause.

[mvaliz]

Where does it stop though? If it turns out Harriet Tubman said hateful things about white people in her private diaries, do we need to melt down every sign she ever existed into slag?

It stops where it should stop: Was the statue erected to honor/represent your contribution to a treasonous side of a war or not.

[Mormolyce]

Not really.

''Capitalism is private ownership of the means of production.''

''Lol, you commie ''.

''What?''

''That's textbook Marx, therefore communism xD''.

In fact I doubt you have any idea what I even meant with my original comment.

I see why you're confused, you've forgotten your actual comment.

Good post. What is happening today is a class war disguised as a race/ideological war and people are falling right into it.

[Deleted]

I see why you're confused, you've forgotten your actual comment.

No I didn't. I just changed it to better demonstrate how absolutely terrible your ''logic'' is.

[Poopymonster]

they weren't traitors, they chose to secede, due to differences. calling them traitors, you might as well call all of the USA traitors because we were a British colony.

Fun fact: They were traitors and terrorists.

But they won the war, so they were freedom fighters.

[Deleted]

This makes me furious.

They're just following their example.

[Martymark]

Fun fact: They were traitors and terrorists.

But they won the war, so they were freedom fighters.

So all it takes for a historical figure not to offend anyone is for them to be a winner?

[Sky High]

the only people who can clamor about taking Mt Rushmore down is the native people who's land that was built on, and even then that's a case of "OK... good luck with that..."

[Fencers]

They are US presidents, not traitors to the United States.

[turboether]

So all I need to do to get people to build a monument for me and sidestep the slavery mark is to give them a chicken dinner every night and promise to buy them a nice headstone if they die of exertion? Man, those Egyptian oppressors had it easy.

[stomination]

Except that's not how logic works. That's not how a simple if-then statement works. Considering if they rejoined the Union they would have to follow their laws, which slavery was against. If you're seriously suggesting that they would have been allowed to keep their slaves by simply giving up then you're delusional because that doesn't say anything close to that.

Actually that would be wrong. Slavery wasnt abolished till it was passed by Congress on January 31, 1865, and ratified on December 6, 1865. Which was 3 years later. In fact they allowed some ppl to keep slaves till they died but cudnt purchase anymore.

Hell even northern states had slaves well passed Lincolns Emancipation Proclamation.

The Union fought the South to preserve the Union. The goal of eliminating slavery was to gain a second cause for the war and to get a lot more former slaves to help fight. Hence why Lincoln waited till a major victory to state his PRE Emancipation Proclamation in hope he could just get the Confederates to Surrender.

- - - Updated - - -

True, but in the North, aside the Union Border states, there weren't new slaves anymore, so slavery in the north was disappearing. In addition, the southern slave states, did a major fuckup, to spread slavery, for example in Kansas, into newly formed states.
Lincoln would have taken the South back, with slaves in chains, to preserve the union, and spare a bloody civil war. But on the long term, with, or without Lincoln, Slavery was a dying concept, which didn't serve a purpose in the north anymore. The south did fuck up, way before Lincoln, including the infamous caning of Sumner and much more.

Slavery was indeed dying or basically dead in the North. And the Civil war ended up being fought with One side wanting to preserve the Union and the Other side was attemtping to Protect its use of Slavery. This mainly happened because of what was going on in new terroritories such as Kansas before they became States.

[kasuke06]

So all it takes for a historical figure not to offend anyone is for them to be a winner?

You win and you get to write the history in your favor.

[Kaleredar]

If that sentiment where current then i guess you people would never have repealed the jim crow laws?

They were repealed. Very, very begrudgingly.

You know that Mississippi only ACTUALLY got around to officially making slavery illegal in the state constitution in 2013?

You pretend that racism is a solved thing of the past. It isn't. The white supremacists and nazis still marching around should have clued you in to that.

You will always have nut jobs everywhere, just look at neo nazi's in Germany..
Fact is, does it make you uneasy when you pass these statues? The answer is probably, yes. Then these things are doing the job of reminding people pretty well.

Reminding them of the existence of people that still champion these causes?

"Hey black people, see this big, grand statue of Robert E. Lee, the guy who fought for others to be able to own you as property, sitting in front of city hall? Well guess what, there are still people around here that believe that! And look up to this statue!

...But don't worry, city hall itself doesn't believe that, of course!"

Wel, yea the original is, a replica is still standing on its site and the original is still standing a few feet away.

...in a museum.

And how exactly will that help?

Because statues are built to celebrate people and the causes they stood for. I really don't understand why you're being so dense on this.

Auschwitz was built to kill Jews.

Sure was. Then they TURNED IT INTO A MUSEUM.

/facepalm yea, them vandals...

Well you're the one worried that people will "forget history" if they don't have a contextless statue to stare at.

Yea, we should totally burn Auschwitz down too, that would really show those nazi's /s

Auschwitz has been thoroughly retrofitted to be a holocaust memorial museum.

Auchwitz isn't still a prison or concentration camp or gulag. It's a museum.

Those statues are... guess what, still STATUES. They function exactly the same way as they've functioned since they were put up... sitting there as reminders of what "heroes" these guys were to the confederacy.

So again, why not vandalize the statue if you're saying it should be left out "as a reminder of how bad these things were?" A statue isn't a museum. And you're saying it shouldn't go in one. So why should the statue remain pristine?

This is part of your history too, just like Auschwitz is part of Poland's history. Point is that they do not have the same meaning anymore.

Your parallels aren't really parallel.

What you're espousing is more like saying we should hang up signs that say things like "IRISH NEED NOT APPLY" or "JAPS GO HOME" around towns and assume that people know they're "there to remind them of times when that was the case" instead of making them think that that's still the case.

the only people who can clamor about taking Mt Rushmore down is the native people who's land that was built on, and even then that's a case of "OK... good luck with that..."

Pretty sure that the "take down Mt. Rushmore" is more false parallel "whataboutism" than actual legitimate outrage from anyone.

[Deleted]

They were repealed. Very, very begrudgingly.

You know that Mississippi only ACTUALLY got around to officially making slavery illegal in the state constitution in 2013?

You pretend that racism is a solved thing of the past. It isn't. The white supremacists and nazis still marching around should have clued you in to that.

So they where repealed, thank you, that was all you needed to say. I never pretended that racism is a thing of the past, im merely saying that when you try to remove parts of that history you will forget it at one point.

Reminding them of the existence of people that still champion these causes?

"Hey black people, see this big, grand statue of Robert E. Lee, the guy who fought for others to be able to own you as property, sitting in front of city hall? Well guess what, there are still people around here that believe that! And look up to this statue!

...But don't worry, city hall itself doesn't believe that, of course!"

Right, reading is hard, but i was talking about white people who feel uneasy when seeing it because it is a reminder of how bad their group had let things become.
But if this isn't the context that you want to put on it then it is you that is part of the problem.

...in a museum.

So the replica doesn't count for anything? The fact that they want to preserve the original has no real meaning to this.

Because statues are built to celebrate people and the causes they stood for. I really don't understand why you're being so dense on this.

And after years we see that these idea's where wrong, that doesn't mean that it didn't happen. So we use these statues as a stark reminder that racism is shitty.

Sure was. Then they TURNED IT INTO A MUSEUM.

THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT I AM MAKING OVER AND OVER AGAIN, IT GOT A DIFFERENT MEANING ALONG THE WAY, JUST LIKE THESE STATUES. See, i can do caps too, not that hard, doesn't make a difference.

Well you're the one worried that people will "forget history" if they don't have a contextless statue to stare at.

Because its so hard to put a plate there with some context And it won't be the first time that history like this was forgotten, its not like we are not making the same god damn mistakes over and over again.

Auschwitz has been thoroughly retrofitted to be a holocaust memorial museum.

Again, putting up a plate that explains the situation was pretty much all that was done there. This can be done easily with these statues too.

Auchwitz isn't still a prison or concentration camp or gulag. It's a museum.

Gee, i wonder what i've been saying all this time... must be something like changing the context of these things like they did here, its almost as if you are being obtuse just for the reason of being obtuse here.

Those statues are... guess what, still STATUES. They function exactly the same way as they've functioned since they were put up... sitting there as reminders of what "heroes" these guys were to the confederacy.

What the fuck does it matter if something that is made to look at still only functions as something only to look at.

So again, why not vandalize the statue if you're saying it should be left out "as a reminder of how bad these things were?" A statue isn't a museum. And you're saying it shouldn't go in one. So why should the statue remain pristine?

Are you really asking me why you should not break stuff??

Your parallels aren't really parallel.

What you're espousing is more like saying we should hang up signs that say things like "IRISH NEED NOT APPLY" or "JAPS GO HOME" around towns and assume that people know they're "there to remind them of times when that was the case" instead of making them think that that's still the case.

Bullshit, all there is to this. Leaving a statue as a stark reminder of the past is nothing like hanging discriminatory signs, and then you are saying that my "parallels aren't really parallel" /lol

[stomination]

I'm not sure what your point is considering my claim was that they put forward legislation to abolish slavery and nothing you're saying refutes that. It just didn't happen as early as they would have liked.

They didn't put that legislation down until the South didn't Surrender after the Pre Emancipation Proclamation and lost the war.

[Mormolyce]

No I didn't. I just changed it

Ahahahahaha!

[Mittens]

Traitors don't deserve monuments in their honour.

[Logwyn]

Except that's not how logic works. That's not how a simple if-then statement works. Considering if they rejoined the Union they would have to follow their laws, which slavery was against. If you're seriously suggesting that they would have been allowed to keep their slaves by simply giving up then you're delusional because that doesn't say anything close to that.

There was no Federal law in 1863 that made slavery illegal. It wasn't until December 18, 1865 with the 13th amendment. There were 5 states that were part of the Union were slavery was still practiced. The emancipation also didn't cover New Orleans or the state of Tennessee.