Is tearing down statues the modern equivalent of the Nazi book burnings?

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: chris_stibrany
a reply to: ScepticScot

Because the ones toppling the statues know if it was up to a sensible vote, most of the statues would be kept.

Depends on what statue.

Does it? Why did they also target Frederick Douglas, a prominent abolitionist ? The truth is that many of these protesters grew up with the communist revisionist history of Howard Zinn, as Dinish DSouza relates in his documentary film, that Zinn’s books focus on a hatred of America.

Yes.

And who targeted the statue of Fredrick Douglas?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

No. Not the same.
One chooses to read a book.

But vandalism is not the way.

Cant read the book if you don't have access to it and children are already brainwashed in public schools today. They teach white kids that they should feel ashamed of themselves for their skin color and stopped teaching real history all together.

The book issue is being repeated by the gov removing web sites and censoring the net non stop without most knowing how many things are being removed.

Most people here do not even know what the civil war was about. Ignorant people think it was all about Slavery because that what they are pushing now.

I am old enough to know what I was taught in my school history books. Slaves being set free was a long forethought way into the war even though people had longed talked about it.

The civil war was about STATES RIGHTS and the north telling the south how it was going to supply the north with what they wanted while paying for the brunt of all US Tariffs. More Taxes and you know how people felt about those back then.

The north only released their slaves if they would sign up to fight for the north and continue to fight until the war was over. Most were not even in favor of it until things got so bad, that the southern army was almost ready to invade too far north!!!

More tariffs in 1842 and 1857 along with the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 and the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision worked to further divide the country. In May of 1860, the House of Representatives passed the Morrill Tariff Bill, the twelfth of seventeen planks in the platform of the incoming Republican Party — and a priority for the soon-to-be-elected new president. Charles Dickens, from his journal, All the Year Round, observed, “The last grievance of the South was the Morrill tariff, passed as an election bribe to the State of Pennsylvania, imposing, among other things, a duty of no less than fifty per cent on the importation of pig iron, in which that State is especially interested.” (1)

medium.com...@jonathanusa/everything-you-know-about-the-civil-war-is-wrong-9e94f0118269

a reply to: RudeMarine


Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens, 1861:

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science.

www.csaconstitution.com...

a reply to: seagull

Beg to differ. Removal, or vandalism, in an attempt to hide any hint that there are stories out there that one might want to learn about, if you don't know it's out there to be learned, how then do you learn it.

Vandalism is one thing; a government body voting to authorize removal is quite another.

There are many stories out there that don't have statues; that's why we have books, to read the sundry unknown stories; that's why we seek out knowledge and the forgotten stories—in vast collections of books.

Statues are there so that people will remember the stories, both the good parts, and the bad.

There is a reason why Saddam's statue was toppled; and, why there are no statues of Nazis.

a reply to: RudeMarine

Cant read the book if you don't have access

Libraries=Free.

Books are more readily available than statues, which are one of a kind.

Ignorant people think it was all about Slavery because that what they are pushing now.

Slaves being set free was a long forethought way into the war even though people had longed talked about it.

Slavery is literally in the Confederate Constitution.

Yes.

They target confederacy statues because they were all democrats and they want to white wash that FACT

They target founding fathers and other Patriot heroes because they are Marxist and hate America

I still think it's ridiculous people like to pon slavery on the south and turn a blind eye to slavery in the north. They point out the Confederate leaders wanting to continue slavery, because they weren't set up to be economically sound without it. The south got screwed by going all in with technology like the cotton gin.

The northern states were benefitting off of the south disproportionately. The southern states felt they were getting the crap end of the stick. Despite the south calling for changes to be made the northern states dgaf.

The southern states formed a confederacy and pulled away from the northern states. The leaders of the northern state realized that without all the cotton and other resources they were dependent on from the south would not be available they got pissy and demonized the newfound confederacy and went to war over it to get the resources back.

War is always about resources and money.
The north had its fair share of slaves.
Lincoln didn't really care all that much about the slaves.
Slaves that had escaped the southern states would be returned to the south if found in the northern states. They had to make it all the way to Canada to be safe.
The majority of people in the south didn't own slaves.
The majority of people in the north didn't own slaves.

The only people who really did anything to abolish slavery was the "radical" Republicans.

After the war, the north refused to allow the southern leaders to maintain their positions. They sent people from the north down south to hold positions of authority to oversee the "Reconstruction."

This lead to people getting pissed that not only were they demonized before the war, suffered heavy casualties in the war, but then weren't allowed to choose who their leaders were and give up their possessions as reparations.

A lot of what is going in now mirrors what went on back then. It's just no longer north vs south.

We are entering a new technological era where automation is expected to further reduce the labor force.

The people who own the means of production, i.e. the plantation owners, are going to remain rich, while those who live in poverty and the middle class are going to suffer the most.

BLM has been coopted by Marxists just like back then when Lincoln was influenced by Marxist teachings. And many Marxist inspired Europeans like Carl Schurz arrived to the US and entered into politicians and further influenced the socioeconomics of the country.

That's mirrored in today's time by those who come to the US with Marxist influence and wish to dismantle the current form of the US government.

History isn't just repeating. It's continuing. The Reconstruction failed. The north bungled the situation by demonizing the whole south, much like calling a majority of Americans "deplorables" and it's been a back and forth thing ever since.

History us written by the victors. The then Union leaders did their best to demonize the south and say that they were a bunch of racist slave owners(despite that not everyone owned slaves and there were slave owners in the north and the south and that slavery was accepted by members of both the Democrats and Republicans,) and that the southern states couldn't succeed because it was illegal. That judgement wasn't based off of the Constitution, but because Lincoln felt that way.

Then, a bunch of ex-confederate soldiers and officers got pissed off enough to form the KKK and the Dixiecrats to become political opponents of old democrats and newly changed Republican party.

And the rest is history.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: chris_stibrany
a reply to: ScepticScot

Because the ones toppling the statues know if it was up to a sensible vote, most of the statues would be kept.

Depends on what statue.

Does it? Why did they also target Frederick Douglas, a prominent abolitionist ? The truth is that many of these protesters grew up with the communist revisionist history of Howard Zinn, as Dinish DSouza relates in his documentary film, that Zinn’s books focus on a hatred of America.

Yes.

And who targeted the statue of Fredrick Douglas?

Apparently it is not known. Who do you think would have done it? www.washingtonexaminer.com...

originally posted by: JBurns
Yes.

They target confederacy statues because they were all democrats and they want to white wash that FACT

They target founding fathers and other Patriot heroes because they are Marxist and hate America

Bingo!
I think these young people toppling statues are clueless about history because of the lousy indoctrination of the schools and the insanity of Common Core. Strangely, I think they are victims of those who want to overthrow our Republic and bring in the Marxist totalitarian New World Order.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

You and I both TEOH!

I don't want to go the route of the LWNJs with "deprogramming camps" or other brainwashing and indoctrination tactics, just want to teach them our REAL history and show them *why* they should be proud to be American, that we ARE the best of the best and all the reasons for it

The world wouldn't be where it is today without the United States, we are truly pioneers and leaders in every sense of the word

One way to fix this is to throw out teacher's unions and make sure we are putting good, wholesome people in these positions

The investigation required for teachers should be on the same level as those stewarding nuclear weapons and other critical functions

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: chris_stibrany
a reply to: ScepticScot

Because the ones toppling the statues know if it was up to a sensible vote, most of the statues would be kept.

Depends on what statue.

Does it? Why did they also target Frederick Douglas, a prominent abolitionist ? The truth is that many of these protesters grew up with the communist revisionist history of Howard Zinn, as Dinish DSouza relates in his documentary film, that Zinn’s books focus on a hatred of America.

Yes.

And who targeted the statue of Fredrick Douglas?

Apparently it is not known. Who do you think would have done it? www.washingtonexaminer.com...

I would say it's unlikely to be the same groups that were targeting statues of slave owners.

In either case it's relevant to democratic decisions being the correct way of deciding what statues are kept in public spaces which was the the point replied to.

originally posted by: JBurns
Yes.

They target confederacy statues because they were all democrats and they want to white wash that FACT

They target founding fathers and other Patriot heroes because they are Marxist and hate America

Or because they disagree with glorifying slave owners and supporters of slavery.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Not everything is about events that happened 200 years ago. We've forgiven the democrats, let them remain a political party and even honored their dead.

If you want to replace them with war heroes, civil rights icons and other deserving individuals by all means it is welcomed

Make sure to target Washington/Oregon's statues of that monster Lenin as well as any other communist/socialist/Nazi/etc which are every bit as bad and bloodthirsty as the DEMOCRAT Confederates.

I don't give a hoot about those ridiculous statues. Sadly they aren't ONLY targeting traitors. They're also targeting founding fathers including several GOP abolitionists

a reply to: ScepticScot

Angry mobs with ropes and face coverings are democratic only in the sense of party affiliation. There is nothing democratic in practice about feloniously destroying public property

Then that moron hag Pelosi says "ho him oh well people will do what they do" in between her hourly Botox injections. Just remember that next time something happens by one of our people you're not going to hear one word of criticism or denouncement hell I might even say "oh well people do what they do!"

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: ScepticScot

Angry mobs with ropes and face coverings are democratic only in the sense of party affiliation. There is nothing democratic in practice about feloniously destroying public property

Then that moron hag Pelosi says "ho him oh well people will do what they do" in between her hourly Botox injections. Just remember that next time something happens by one of our people you're not going to hear one word of criticism or denouncement hell I might even say "oh well people do what they do!"

See my previous posts.

What statues are in public spaces should be a democratic decision.

If certain statues should be in public spaces is a different point from how that decision should be made.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Including KKK grand wizards, Hitler, etc?

That's exactly the same level of evil as dirtbags like Lenin and Marx that liberal cities in the PNW worship

And once again angry mobs are the exact opposite of democratic

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: chris_stibrany
a reply to: ScepticScot

Because the ones toppling the statues know if it was up to a sensible vote, most of the statues would be kept.

Depends on what statue.

Does it? Why did they also target Frederick Douglas, a prominent abolitionist ? The truth is that many of these protesters grew up with the communist revisionist history of Howard Zinn, as Dinesh DSouza relates in his documentary film, that Zinn’s books focus on a hatred of America.

Yes.

And who targeted the statue of Fredrick Douglas?

Apparently it is not known. Who do you think would have done it? www.washingtonexaminer.com...

I would say it's unlikely to be the same groups that were targeting statues of slave owners.

In either case it's relevant to democratic decisions being the correct way of deciding what statues are kept in public spaces which was the the point replied to.

So you don’t know that, but in your personal bias and worldview, it has to be racist White people who did it... or nazi kkk. Got it.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: chris_stibrany
a reply to: ScepticScot

Because the ones toppling the statues know if it was up to a sensible vote, most of the statues would be kept.

Depends on what statue.

Does it? Why did they also target Frederick Douglas, a prominent abolitionist ? The truth is that many of these protesters grew up with the communist revisionist history of Howard Zinn, as Dinesh DSouza relates in his documentary film, that Zinn’s books focus on a hatred of America.

Yes.

And who targeted the statue of Fredrick Douglas?

Apparently it is not known. Who do you think would have done it? www.washingtonexaminer.com...

I would say it's unlikely to be the same groups that were targeting statues of slave owners.

In either case it's relevant to democratic decisions being the correct way of deciding what statues are kept in public spaces which was the the point replied to.

So you don’t know that, but in your personal bias and worldview, it has to be racist White people who did it... or nazi kkk. Got it.

Could you quute where I said that? It would be difficult since I didn't.

It could be racist white people or KKK. It could also just be mindless vandalism.

It is however pretty unlikely to be done for the same agenda that statues of slave holders were torn down.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: ScepticScot

Including KKK grand wizards, Hitler, etc?

That's exactly the same level of evil as dirtbags like Lenin and Marx that liberal cities in the PNW worship

And once again angry mobs are the exact opposite of democratic

If that's what people want in their communities that is their choice. I reserve the right to think they are morons but that is how democracy works.

Once again read what I actually said. The view that such statues should be removed is different from the view it's ok to just pull them down.

a reply to: ScepticScot

I personally don't care what a large group of morons think (democracy). If they want to put up a statue of Hitler or a statue of Stalin it's time for the adults in the room to smack their hands and tell them NO

The view that such statues should be removed is different from the view it's ok to just pull them down.

Agreed. It's perfectly fine to remove some of them. But whether it's 9% or 90%, removing statues that honor the founding fathers, abolitions, war heroes and other American icons is just wrong. The only reason to do that is because they want to whitewash history or do their typical revisionist history BS. If you're an American, you're supposed to be on AMERICA'S side. That means you don't play these little games and do things to undermine our own interests.

Democracy just means a bunch of people getting together and saying Yay or Nay. But what happens when that group is mostly (all) morons.. sorry, low information... who form their opinions based on facially untrue positions, corrupt ideologies and/or the desire to harm this country? Do you really think we should let our own system of government be our undoing?

Do we really want to let people who don't know (or care) about XYZ issue be the one to decide it? I sure as heck don't. Personally I think getting back to basics, enforcing the Constitution (not just slaps on the wrist by enforcement by hanging for treason when its violated) and eliminating the ability for laws to be passed (which are the foundation of tyranny, frankly) will go a long way

We have a Constitution. Having an executive to ensure our rights are respected makes sense. Having the judiciary makes sense to keep them in check. But what is the purpose of having an unrestrained legislature? So they can pass 1,000,000 +1 laws that regulate every possible action a person can take? Our country was never intended to be this way