Erasing history to ease hurt feelings.

a reply to: network dude

Erasing history to ease hurt feelings.

History is re written to support the official narrative/ The crybabies are employed directly or thru ignorance to deflect attention away from that simple fact.

Lets make it an emotional issue to ban this or censor that, that way a fight will break out and the victors can go on about the business of conquering and subjugating with impunity.

While we bicker amongst our selves abut the meaning and interpretation of this or that symbolic icon, they are busy dropping bombs...

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Krazysh0t

but you justify it happening. What about removing MLK Blvd from all the cities where that road exists? After all, it's just idolatry.

Wouldn't bother me. I don't need a street or elementary school name to teach me about MLK. I have history books for that.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Krazysh0t

but you justify it happening. What about removing MLK Blvd from all the cities where that road exists? After all, it's just idolatry.

Wouldn't bother me. I don't need a street or elementary school name to teach me about MLK. I have history books for that.

If schools had not taught about MLK, most people would not really know about him because it would not be of mainstream interest, therefore burying his message over time.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Krazysh0t

but you justify it happening. What about removing MLK Blvd from all the cities where that road exists? After all, it's just idolatry.

Wouldn't bother me. I don't need a street or elementary school name to teach me about MLK. I have history books for that.

some folks have sight and some have VISION. I feel bad for the first group.

originally posted by: iTruthSeeker

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Krazysh0t

but you justify it happening. What about removing MLK Blvd from all the cities where that road exists? After all, it's just idolatry.

Wouldn't bother me. I don't need a street or elementary school name to teach me about MLK. I have history books for that.

If schools had not taught about MLK, most people would not really know about him because it would not be of mainstream interest, therefore burying his message over time.

Teaching about him is a BIT different than displaying his name as the name of the school, which is what I was talking about.

This is NOT the Mud Pit!!!

All rules for polite political debate will be enforced.
Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)

You are responsible for your own posts.


and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!

a reply to: network dude

Your entire premise here, in both of these threads you created, is based on nothing but an emotional reaction. Do you realize that? The pot could not possibly be calling the kettle more black here. You are literally mocking the removal of controversial historical objects and the "feelings" you claim to have prompted such action with what amounts to an emotional outburst, citing your own "feelings" as a valid reason to dismiss the validity of "theirs".

Krazyshot made a very good point earlier. If the history is still there in any old book for anyone to freely read about, why is it a problem? Is it really necessary to flaunt monuments of what most reasoning people consider to be a shameful chapter in American history?

A person would have to have lived their entire existence under a rock to not know good and well that the meaning behind the Dixie flag, for example, isn't simply nothing but preserving a precious piece of history for future generations to come. It has been, and still is in many places, a symbol of hate and intolerance...and that is precisely why it has been removed. It's a fairly simple concept.

You may not personally want to fly it/display it/wear it as a symbol of disdain, mockery and disrespect toward other human beings, but I can assure you that others most definitely do. On July 4th, 2015, I was a vendor at an open celebration event. Hundreds of families were there, all colors and shapes and sizes...little kids running all over.

Suddenly out of nowhere, three guys came striding into the vendor area, yelling and cursing unbelievably loudly. People stopped everything they were doing to see what the commotion was. All three were shirtless, and the guy in the center was holding up a Dixie T-shirt, sort of brandishing it out in front of him.

They walked most of the way around the horseshoe shaped area like this before the cops finally intercepted them, shouting racial epithets at everyone they passed, including small kids. Do you think that was simply their way of preserving American history? No. They were trying to start a fight. Drunk or stupid or both, whatever the motivation, they were looking for trouble.

Now, it was just three dudes...hardly a mob or anything. By themselves, they really posed no threat; just a little cluster of ignorance. However, in their circuit around the horseshoe, there were a disturbing amount of people who were egging them on rather than trying to stop them. It was getting really ugly really quick, and if it had been allowed to go on, they would have gotten the brawl they came for. Wouldn't that have been a lesson for all those kids? Yes indeed.

I don't know about anyone else, but I'd much rather the true historical value of old Dixie be taught in school, without bias or distortion of the meaning, than have it continue to be associated with reprehensible behavior such as that described above. If there is no racial negativity attached to it anymore, no one has to worry about those pesky emotions. The cycle of hate is interrupted. Hate is what got us here in the first place, and keeps us here to this day.

Instead of getting angry, like little kids who've had their toy taken away because they refused to stop using it to hurt others, people should really think about what they could have done differently to prevent it from being taken in the first place. Instead, the behavior is perpetuated and the cycle continues. And that flag remains an icon of hatred rather than one of historical value.

a reply to: tigertatzen

If there were no "dixie" flags flying in the year 2030, do you honestly think anyone would "look up" the meaning of that flag or it's significance of it's time?

Maybe it is my "feelings" that made me write this and think about it, but it's the idea that seeing something makes you think about it, and learn from it. Which is why those monuments exist in the first place.

tell me, are you in favor of removing all statues and monuments, or just the ones relating to the civil war?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: stelth2
a reply to: Krazysh0t


The whole reason the statues were removed was because some people didn't like it. Forget the history, just because some people think that it's racist; doesn't make it so. The right thing to do is to leave the statues where they are.

Again. A statue isn't history. It is idolatry. If it is offensive then remove it. The history isn't erased with no statue there.

Woah there pardner. IODOLATRY is the WORSHIP of A statue,and last i checked No one was worshipping a confederate statue.
But if we need to remove all traces from the public square thenLincoln memorial needs to go for sure. Also remove his face from the Mount rushmore.

a reply to: network dude


Are you asserting that they have removed all mention of the civil war from school curricula? Because that would be the only reason people would not have learned about it in the year 2030. The history is still there. How many people are out there right now in 2017 searching frantically for civil war history and are unable to find it because the physical monuments are gone? That sounds pretty silly, doesn't it?

You assume that I am in favor of removing monuments in the first place. Why is that? Because I offered you an example of why they're doing it? Personally, I think it is silly and pointless...and morally irresponsible. It does not teach people anything. It's simply a form of glossing over things that really should have served as a moral lesson for us all. Refusing to let go of old habits, grudges and anger only invites more of the same. Refusing to face the issue and sweeping it under the rug by just conveniently removing visual reminders of it is even worse.

If you've got a festering wound on your leg, you don't slap a bandage over it and pretend like it's not there...it'll spread and spread under the skin until suddenly the whole limb has to be removed. No...you open it up instead. You debride the dead tissue off, cleanse all the dirt, pus and sebum and damaged skin, make it bleed freely, and then you treat the wound itself. It's the only way it will heal properly.

I understand why they're doing this. That doesn't mean that I am in favor of that particular solution. I think it's far better to rip the bandaid off and heal the wound.

originally posted by: yuppa
Woah there pardner. IODOLATRY is the WORSHIP of A statue,and last i checked No one was worshipping a confederate statue.

Then you should have no problem having it removed.

But if we need to remove all traces from the public square thenLincoln memorial needs to go for sure. Also remove his face from the Mount rushmore.

Give me a good reason to do so and I may agree with you.

However, Mount Rushmore was a desecration of a sacred mountain to the Natives in the first place. I'm not so sure ruining it further would be in the best of tastes... But if the Natives wanted the Presidents' faces removed then I could see that as a compelling reason to deface Mount Rushmore.

a reply to: tigertatzen

That was a very nice and well thought out reply.

I could only add that as a native of Texas, and an Expat, I don't really care about the statues; I always thought they were a bit anomalous in post-Modern US America. And they're anomalous for a reason. Southern "culture" is all but dead anyway. The few who knew or maybe today actually know what I'm talking about know its dying. Its dying and near dead on arrival due to neglect; its been erased from the MSM. Rarely if ever does one see one of the old line Southern authors works referenced in the New York Times. The death of Southern Culture was egged along by Katrina and the decision to close the "all girls" college at Tulane, (can't recall its name at the moment). That college focused on the arts, literature and poetry. No one actually "does" that stuff today.

Western culture is under severe attack and I suspect it will go the way of "Southern" Culture as well.

The only constant is.....................change. (and death and taxes).

ETA: College name....Sophie Newcomb.

Damn. Who knew a statue from so long ago would evoke such reactions today.

This makes me think, in a few hundred years - will humanity continue to be triggered over relics from a time that's passed and gone?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Interesting dichotomy...
Who are the actual crybabies, the folks who whined, cried, and thew tantrums demanding removal of something from public view because: "OMG, my feels!" or the folks who are taking a vocal stand against changing to appease a group of thin skinned little snips that can't control their emotional outbursts over crap that happened well before they or anyone they've ever known in their lives were even alive? They're inanimate monuments and artifacts, if someone is "hurt" by that, then I'm left wondering how they can survive in this world to begin with. Do butterflies land on their arms and leave blood spraying lacerations across their skin where their tiny insect claws ripped through the wet tissue paper they call "skin?"

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Do butterflies land on their arms and leave blood spraying lacerations across their skin where their tiny insect claws ripped through the wet tissue paper they call "skin?"

Man... that would be awesome.

Quick, some one call my hedge fund manager!

"Your American history has been sanitized for your protection."

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: yuppa
Woah there pardner. IODOLATRY is the WORSHIP of A statue,and last i checked No one was worshipping a confederate statue.

Then you should have no problem having it removed.

But if we need to remove all traces from the public square thenLincoln memorial needs to go for sure. Also remove his face from the Mount rushmore.

Give me a good reason to do so and I may agree with you.

However, Mount Rushmore was a desecration of a sacred mountain to the Natives in the first place. I'm not so sure ruining it further would be in the best of tastes... But if the Natives wanted the Presidents' faces removed then I could see that as a compelling reason to deface Mount Rushmore.

Lincon memorial was made for the sole purpose of glorifying a man Whose only saving grace was freeing the slaves,but it was not for a altruistic reason he did so. It was for MONEY and CONTROL of the souths resources.

The mans Own writings also condemn him as a bigot. he planned to deport the africans back to africa or their ancestors points of origin as well.

He broke 11 laws and trampled on the constitution as well to prosecute a war that He and the North precipitated by taxing goods and services to death from the south. Also told them who they could and could not do business with. Hardly a American thing to do.

Lincoln is a EXCELLENT EXAMPLE of rewriting History to suit the Winner. he was scum.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

The people I'm calling cry babies are the people whining about this statue removal when they don't live in the community to begin with. I, personally, don't care if the statue is removed or stays. I didn't protest or petition to have it removed. The community wants it removed so there you go. I just don't agree with the hyperbolic claim that this is erasing history. I see that as an emotional outburst akin to crying.

originally posted by: yuppa
Lincon memorial was made for the sole purpose of glorifying a man Whose only saving grace was freeing the slaves,but it was not for a altruistic reason he did so. It was for MONEY and CONTROL of the souths resources.

Well that and the little matter of preserving the union of the US...

The mans Own writings also condemn him as a bigot. he planned to deport the africans back to africa or their ancestors points of origin as well.

He broke 11 laws and trampled on the constitution as well to prosecute a war that He and the North precipitated by taxing goods and services to death from the south. Also told them who they could and could not do business with. Hardly a American thing to do.

Lincoln is a EXCELLENT EXAMPLE of rewriting History to suit the Winner. he was scum.

How exactly should Lincoln have fought the Civil War to maintain the Union as a whole, Captain Hindsight?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The Union Died already when he broke the COnstitution to Attack the south. They were allowwed by the constitution before the war to Seceed if they wanted to. As i said money and control was the only reason.

If the south would had been allowwed to trade with britain and france the North would had lost billions and they needed the cash for growth.

The framers even suggested that if the nation wanted to split they could if they wished. All that was needed was a vote on it. That lincoln refused to let happen.

The Union was dead and has been dead ever since that Traitor did what he did. A forced Union is not what the framers wanted.