• Confederate Memorial Vandalized in Charleston
    507 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48048682]The issue here is that you're hung up on an erroneous belief that every or even most Confederate soldier was a slave owning racist (more racist than what was normal for that time period). I would feel comfortable in saying that there was not a measurable population of slave owners among the Confederate fighting force, and that most of them could really have not cared less about slavery when the Union was bearing down on their cities and torching them one by one while the Confederate government was offering them a rifle to stop it with. [B]Putting words anyone's mouth isn't a way to make an argument. Vandalizing a memorial with this message is not the way to make people take the tagger seriously, full stop. I think it's entirely ridiculous to tag a war memorial with [I]anything[/I]. I don't care if it's BLACK LIVES MATTER or SAVE THE TREES or MUSCLE CARS ARE ALRIGHT I GUESS.[/B][/QUOTE] it seems like it is being taken seriously? want to know what happens if they had just tagged a tree? nothing but now you tag something that is an icon of the civil war, and suddenly there's news articles about it, and people going "woah maybe keeping all these confederate symbols up isn't the best idea"
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48048682]The issue here is that you're hung up on an erroneous belief that every or even most Confederate soldier was a slave owning racist (more than what was normal for that time period). I would feel comfortable in saying that there was not a measurable population of slave owners among the Confederate fighting force, and that most of them could really have not cared less about slavery when the Union was bearing down on their cities and torching them one by one while the Confederate government was offering them a rifle to stop it with. Putting words anyone's mouth isn't a way to make an argument. Vandalizing a memorial with this message is not the way to make people take the tagger seriously, full stop. I think it's entirely ridiculous to tag a war memorial with [I]anything[/I]. I don't care if it's BLACK LIVES MATTER or SAVE THE TREES or MUSCLE CARS ARE ALRIGHT I GUESS.[/QUOTE] No, I'm not. I understand that perfectly well. The issue here is that YOU are failing (willfully or otherwise) to understand the concept of symbolism. No, it's not fair to say "every Confederate soldier was a white supremacist," yet the Confederacy still represents those values as a whole in the popular social narrative, and defacing those monuments is a symbolic attack on those broader values, NOT on the individual soldiers.
Or don't be a cunt. Seriously, none of this badgering would of happened had John kept his damn mouth shut about something that was completely irrelevant to an ongoing murder case. The fact people are moving now to remove anything remotely related to the CSA because "muh racism" "muh institutionalized problems" is insane and needless to say would be about as politically correct as me taking a graffiti can and writing, "Fuck the reservations/Fuck drug abuse bastions" on any local monument dedicated to Sacajawea or spray painting my distaste for Bowe Berghdahl on a local MIA memorial. Once again: None of this drama and crap would of happened had ol' Johnny kept his mouth shut about completely irrelevant dog shit. If anything, all this is going to do is pander to psychopathic white nationals into committing further crimes and atrocities. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Muh memeshit" - Big Dumb American))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48048706]OK, I guess they deserved to have their cities burned and their families massacred because a country formed around them and aggro'd another country. I'm sorry. Fuck those people for taking up arms against an invasion they didn't incite.[/QUOTE] what are you trying to get at. stop putting words in lordcrypto's mouth
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;48048727]Or don't be a cunt. Seriously, none of this badgering would of happened had John kept his damn mouth shut about something that was completely irrelevant to an ongoing murder case. The fact people are moving now to remove anything remotely related to the CSA because "muh racism" "muh institutionalized problems" is insane and needless to say would be about as politically correct as me taking a graffiti can and writing, "Fuck the reservations/Fuck drug abuse bastions" on any local monument dedicated to Sacajawea or spray painting my distaste for Bowe Berghdahl on a local MIA memorial. Once again: None of this drama and crap would of happened had ol' Johnny kept his mouth shut about completely irrelevant dog shit. If anything, all this is going to do is pander to psychopathic white nationals into committing further crimes and atrocities.[/QUOTE] i'm sorry, is institutionalized racism not a thing in joeskylynx world cause here in the real world, it is a thing
I never said it's not a thing. I said that attacking monuments is silly and all it accomplishes is pissing off people.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48044683]I'm really starting to sound like a broken record here. Confederate soldiers and the general citizenry did not benefit from slavery. They were not slave owners. Slavery was generally regarded as a moral evil. Many of them were slaves in all but name, paid pennies by plantation owners, then charged their salary to live on the land they worked, and not allowed to work the land unless they lived on it. Racism was a theme on both sides of the conflict. If you don't understand why someone would fight for the Confederacy take a look at how the Union invasion force operated in Southern territories. Burning cities to the ground, massacring civilians, destroying farm land, maiming workers (including slaves). The Confederate military had a rifle and a uniform for anyone interested in protecting their plot of land. Argue all you want about the Confederacy's many wrongdoings and missteps and its awful political stances but do not demonize 250,000 men who were killed fighting their own countrymen in a war they didn't want.[/QUOTE] ^This, and for anyone who still doesn't know their own US history, Robert E. Lee although thought that converting the Africans to Christianity was in their benefit, he found slavery to be an evil institution. [QUOTE] “In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages.”[/QUOTE] He reminds me of general Erwin Rommel, balancing a fine line between two sides. He was devoted to his native state or land, like any other "countryman". [QUOTE]“If Virginia stands by the old Union,” Lee told a friend, “so will I. But if she secedes (though I do not believe in secession as a constitutional right, nor that there is sufficient cause for revolution), then I will follow my native State with my sword, and, if need be, with my life.” [/QUOTE] [URL]http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/making-sense-of-robert-e-lee-85017563/?no-ist=&page=2[/URL] Lincoln tried to convince Lee to remain on the Union forces, but Lee declined Lincoln's offer to a command position. [URL]http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/biographies/robert-e-lee.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/[/URL] [QUOTE]Because of his reputation as one of the finest officers in the United States Army, Abraham Lincoln offered Lee the command of the Federal forces in April 1861. Lee declined and tendered his resignation from the army when the state of Virginia seceded on April 17, arguing that he could not fight against his own people.[/QUOTE] As horrible as the Civil War was, the history on both sides is fascinating to read up on.
[QUOTE=ExplosiveCheese;48048765]^This, and for anyone who still doesn't know their own US history, Robert E. Lee although thought that converting the Africans to Christianity was in their benefit, he found slavery to be an evil institution. He reminds me of general Erwin Rommel, balancing a fine line between two sides. He was devoted to his native state or land, like any other "countryman". [url]http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/making-sense-of-robert-e-lee-85017563/?no-ist=&page=2[/url] Lincoln tried to convince Lee to remain on the Union forces, but Lee declined Lincoln's offer to a command position. [url]http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/biographies/robert-e-lee.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/[/url][/QUOTE] congrats you cherry picked like 2 generals [QUOTE=LordCrypto;48044850]haha haahaha "The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization." -- Georgia's declaration of secession "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world." -- Mississippi [editline]24th June 2015[/editline] [url]http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html[/url] go read these and tell me it was "more than just slavery"[/QUOTE] i'm lazy and don't feel like retyping that because it's still valid [editline]25th June 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;48048757]I never said it's not a thing. I said that attacking monuments is silly and all it accomplishes is pissing off people.[/QUOTE] the people that it pisses off are generally the ones who look at institutionalized racism and go "nope no problem here"
And people who don't think it's acceptable to demonize 250,000 war dead?
[QUOTE=LordCrypto;48048773]congrats you cherry picked like 2 generals i'm lazy and don't feel like retyping that because it's still valid[/QUOTE] lol, I provided a specific example to show it isn't so black and white as people put it. Slavery was more than just fucking enslaving black people just because. The South's economy practically relied on it.
[QUOTE=ExplosiveCheese;48048787]lol, I provided a specific example to show it isn't so black and white as people put it. Slavery was more than just fucking enslaving black people just because. The South's economy practically relied on it.[/QUOTE] i provided a specific example that [B][U][I]proves[/I][/U][/B] the entire fucking secession was based pretty much solely on slavery
[QUOTE=LordCrypto;48048792]i provided a specific example that [B][U][I]proves[/I][/U][/B] the entire fucking secession was based pretty much solely on slavery[/QUOTE] Can you provide an example that [B][U][I]proves[/I][/U][/B] that the war dead in Charleston were all slaveowners fighting solely to preserve the institution of slavery? Because I and others have provided plenty of evidence not only to the direct contrary but also some pretty blatant reasons to resist a Union invasion whether you were really pro-Confederacy or not.
I don't think anyone who died for that memorial were slave owners but I also am 100% okay with people spray painting black lives matter on it.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;48048817]I don't think anyone who died for that memorial were slave owners but I also am 100% okay with people spray painting black lives matter on it.[/QUOTE] After all, slaveowners rarely joined the army and payed folks to do it for them.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;48048817]I don't think anyone who died for that memorial were slave owners but I also am 100% okay with people spray painting black lives matter on it.[/QUOTE] Then we've identified the root of the problem. You think vandalizing war memorials with irrelevant messages is acceptable and I do not.
[QUOTE=LordCrypto;48048792]i provided a specific example that [B][U][I]proves[/I][/U][/B] the entire fucking secession was based pretty much solely on slavery[/QUOTE] Look back a little further at the Hartford Convention, when an economy is threatened, the governments of these states get nervous as fuck. Connecticut delegates actually debated succession, but thankfully it failed to go through because it was deemed premature and the party failed throughout the years. [URL]http://www.usconstitution.net/hartford.html[/URL] And Grenadiac also makes a good point.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48048835]Then we've identified the root of the problem. You think vandalizing war memorials with irrelevant messages is acceptable and I do not.[/QUOTE] except again that message is not irrelevant "No, I'm not. I understand that perfectly well. The issue here is that YOU are failing (willfully or otherwise) to understand the concept of symbolism. No, it's not fair to say "every Confederate soldier was a white supremacist," yet the Confederacy still represents those values as a whole in the popular social narrative, and defacing those monuments is a symbolic attack on those broader values, NOT on the individual soldiers."
[QUOTE=LordCrypto;48048841]except again that message is not irrelevant "No, I'm not. I understand that perfectly well. The issue here is that YOU are failing (willfully or otherwise) to understand the concept of symbolism. No, it's not fair to say "every Confederate soldier was a white supremacist," yet the Confederacy still represents those values as a whole in the popular social narrative, and defacing those monuments is a symbolic attack on those broader values, NOT on the individual soldiers."[/QUOTE] But the monument isn't to the broader values. It's specifically addressed to the Confederate defenders of Charleston, not even to anything as broad as the entire Confederate army. It's an irrelevant message.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48048800]Can you provide an example that [B][U][I]proves[/I][/U][/B] that the war dead in Charleston were all slaveowners fighting solely to preserve the institution of slavery?[/QUOTE] The social narrative of the Confederacy's values and symbolic value of these monuments in the eyes of minorities seems to be an elusive concept for you. Would Holocaust survivors spitting on a monument celebrating Nazi soldiers also be inappropriate? Perhaps on a personal level (after all, not every Nazi supported, or was even overtly AWARE of death camps), but what history remembers the which values the Nazis represented as a whole is unchanged by what the facts of every individualized member of the Nazi armies and political groups [I]personally[/I] knew or believed. This defacement is not an attack on individual Confederate soldiers, it is an attack on Confederate values as understood on a general basis. The tagger was not saying, "to hell with Jacobi Hintonson, a random private in a massive organization!" He was saying "to hell with the Confederacy." It might be potentially offensive, but it is not [I]random[/I] or irrelevant
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48048835]Then we've identified the root of the problem. You think vandalizing war memorials with irrelevant messages is acceptable and I do not.[/QUOTE] so what, do you retract your previous statement that black lives matter is a good slogan? make up your mind.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48048835]Then we've identified the root of the problem. You think vandalizing war memorials with irrelevant messages is acceptable and I do not.[/QUOTE] Or I don't think they're irrelevant messages. It's not like someone spraypainted HAHA PENIS on it.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;48048817]I don't think anyone who died for that memorial were slave owners but I also am 100% okay with people spray painting black lives matter on it.[/QUOTE] There is a time and place for everything and displaying your political views on a memorial regarding a 150 years old war is not the right time nor the right place for that. It's disrespectful, idiotic and a kneejerk reaction at best.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;48048854]Or I don't think they're irrelevant messages. It's not like someone spraypainted HAHA PENIS on it.[/QUOTE] True, and the tagger could've simply vandalized confederate grave sites instead. (assuming there are historic cemeteries in Charleston)
If it was "To Nathan Bedford Forrest, founder of the KKK and hero of the Confederacy, wearer of a totally sweet beard and a kooky haircut" then tag that shit. Leave the men who defended Charleston out of it. Their memorial has nothing to do with black lives mattering or not.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;48048859]There is a time and place for everything and displaying your political views on a memorial regarding a 150 years old war is not the right time nor the right place for that. It's [B]disrespectful[/B], idiotic and a kneejerk reaction at best.[/QUOTE] as far as places go it's actually a fairly good one they've already admitted it can be cleaned off, so it's no permanent damage so it's ok to disrespect minorities in america, but when you disrespect that monument which both stands for the CSA and the dead soldiers (don't even grenadiac, they're inexorably linked, you can't have soldiers without the CSA), stop the presses?
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48048884]If it was "To Nathan Bedford Forrest, founder of the KKK and hero of the Confederacy, wearer of a totally sweet beard and a kooky haircut" then tag that shit. Leave the men who defended Charleston out of it. Their memorial has nothing to do with black lives mattering or not.[/QUOTE] so you'd be ok if was in support of the CSA, even if it was sarcastic? lmao
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;48048859]There is a time and place for everything and displaying your political views on a memorial regarding a 150 years old war is not the right time nor the right place for that. It's disrespectful, idiotic and a kneejerk reaction at best.[/QUOTE] I am sorry people are not protesting injustice correctly. I will inform them that they should spray paint trees or something instead.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48048884]If it was "To Nathan Bedford Forrest, founder of the KKK and hero of the Confederacy, wearer of a totally sweet beard and a kooky haircut" then tag that shit. Leave the men who defended Charleston out of it. Their memorial has nothing to do with black lives mattering or not.[/QUOTE] Well, I'm not going to assume every average joe knows the specifics of the Civil War's history, its clearly a confederate memorial, so to the tagger it probably didn't matter.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;48048898]I am sorry people are not protesting injustice correctly. I will inform them that they should spray paint trees or something instead.[/QUOTE] If they want to tag monuments they should tag monuments pertinent to their cause.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48048905]If they want to tag monuments they should tag monuments pertinent to their cause.[/QUOTE] and this monument as bda and i have stated again and again is pertinent to their case
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.