Do you have any cites that those are their policies, or that those policies derive from their purpose? If not, please note that resorting to your imagination is a way of conceding the loss of a debate.
I was actually at Gettysburg over 4th of July weekend. There was a gathering of “defenders of the Confederacy,” who were there “protecting” the southern monuments. It was very disconcerting having a bunch of people wandering around with weapons strapped to them. I didn’t think that was allowed in national parks. We decided to cut our visit short since I was uncomfortable being around all those guns. This was later confirmed when we heard someone had been accidentally shot and had to be taken away in a ambulance.
That they have confused the concept of principles of action with biological facts and mathematical properties.
Ok, how many statues are there? How many of CSA Generals? How many of Union?
Pretty well distributed.
how many statues to bin Laden in Manhattan? Not very well distributed.
Nuke it from orbit, it’s the only way to be sure.
:);)
:D:eek:
Snarky, snarky. I’m getting the impression that you believe the removal of confederate monuments is a fools errand. What is your opinion of confederate flags flying over state capitals? Appropriate? Should issues like these be resolved by state legislatures? Public referendum?
If you want to go somewhere with historical significance, and see stuff about the civil war, then going to gettysburg is a good place to start. It has many memorials and such. I haven’t been since I was a kid, so I don’t remember it well, but I understand how it can be educational on more than a purely academic level to go and visit the statues and memorials, even the ones to the “evil” side.
If you want to go to the courthouse, or to your school, or to the state capitol, or down the road, then you don’t need to have historical stuff about the civil war shoved in your face.
There are appropriate times and places for everything, and a giant outdoor museum where one of the deadlier battles of the civil war was fought is a good place for memorials to people on both sides, the public square, not so much.
'Fact, I thought of what we can do with all the statues in public squares in the south. We put them all in at gettysburg, all grouped together, and put up a plaque commemorating the removal of these signs of oppression, of slaver, and of hatred from the municipalities that they are currently polluting.
Probably wishes he/she could buy a slave.
If you don’t support them, then you should support doing things to stop them. And one way to stop them is to take down their monuments. They can’t exactly have a protest around a monument if they have no more monuments.
Another way is to dox them, which you also seem to oppose.
So what way do you propose to fight them? Why do you seem to always take the side against doing something when it comes to this sort of thing?
If you oppose something, then you must by your actions show it. The same as, if you believe something, you must by your actions show it.
Yeah. You can carry weaponry in many national parks. Government buildings on those parks are a no go for weaponry, from what I remember.
This should be preserved for all time as the best example of a strawman argument.
So are you going to engage in doxing and counter protests?
As for my argument in this case, I don’t really consider an open-air museum to be good enough. Part of what removes the glorification of a statue is to have it indoors and not where everyone can see it.
I’m also not at all a fan of the reason the statues were made. We didn’t put anything behind us. It would be good if we did, but we didn’t. So I don’t support them on those grounds, either.
The main thing is that we’ve got to stop glorifying the Confederacy. We’ve got to stop treating this as some glorious War Between the States. The main reason to take down the statues is that the people they are honoring should not be honored.
I support the museum idea just to try and get Confederates on board. Really, I think we have too many statues, most of them not actually created near the time they depict. I actually worry that museums will eventually become shrines.
The real issue is just to stop the glorification. If you can come up with a better method, I’m all ears.
Isn’t there already a thread about Confederate monuments? Why should this discussion be separate?
Just like 400 threads on Trump we need 400 threads on monuments. It signals righteousness. We also have 1 thread on that terror attack in Spain. I’m sure another one will pop up cautioning people not to be judgemental of the ideology that inspired that terror attack because doing so would be bigoted.
You are saying that Bricker started this thread as a form of virtue signalling?
Among monuments to units which fought in the battle, only 3 are Confederate, one of which is a small plaque, v 100’s of monuments, statues of individuals, plaques and markers altogether related to Union units or individuals plus a few Union state monuments. The Confederate monuments in contrast are mainly the state monuments along the western edge of the battlefield, the main CSA position on the second and third days of the battle (north to south, NC, TN, VA, FL, LA, MS, GA, SC, AR, TX, AL) and the ‘Soldiers and Sailors of the Confederacy’ one at the southern end. A few of those were erected in the 1910’s, several in the 1960’s, last one TN in 1982. The permanent Union monuments date from the late 1860’s but the real flood of them started in the 1880’s; most date to the veterans themselves raising money to fund their construction.
IOW if you don’t walk that part of the field, you might not see any Confederate monuments, up close anyway, some of the Southern state ones are pretty big.
IMO there’s no need for statues of Confederate leaders in ‘the town square’ but it should be a local issue. I think it’s mainly cynical politics (I think Trump’s wager is most people are against removing them, per NPR, PBS NewsHour, Marist poll see below) or over moralizing (a common flaw of today’s left IMO) to make it into a national issue.
But there’s no need for plaques to be added at G’burg saying the Confederates fought for slavery or their army committed atrocities. War is hell but relatively speaking the ACW wasn’t that dirty as far the major campaigns or battles, so it’s just politics IMO to put a plaque on a Gettysburg monument saying the Confederate Army executed black prisoners somewhere else, Union atrocities against Confederate irregulars or Indians, or either side’s harsh treatment of prisoners, all occurring elsewhere not at Gettysburg. The monuments are to the men who served and died in the battle, placed where it happened. You’d surely have heard about it if any of the CSA state ones had politicized inscriptions, which they don’t. There’s no need for (politicized) ‘clarifying’ counter inscriptions.
Back to crass politics, the left/Democrats can turn this issue against themselves IMO by giving credibility to the idea they want to put political screeds on Gettysburg monuments to the dead, or thermite them, or proceed with an agenda to expunge Washington, Jefferson etc over slave ownership. As long as it’s kept to what’s reasonable (no Jeff Davis in front of the courthouse if the local voters don’t want him anymore) the polls which say most people support those statues could rapidly change to not supporting them. But push for less reasonable stuff and people are going to dig in their heels. I know that’s an unpopular way of thinking now on either side, to forego antagonizing other people for no good reason (leaving the Gettysburg CS monuments alone is really a problem, seriously?), but practically it’s worth considering.
I can’t speak for Bricker. I was merely stating that, in general, the vast amount of these threads is a display of righteous indignation.
To the contrary: the post to which I replied offered up precisely the same kind of argument: we should opposed X, because neo-Nazis and the KKK support X.
My post shows the flaw in that reasoning.
Do you even understand what a strawman argument is?
I’m going to declare that you do not, based on this post. A strawman argument imputes a weaker, invalid argument to your opponent and then rebuts it. That did not happen here.