The Political Discussion Thread

[Annoyed]

And another thing to consider about statutes and other means to honor historical figures.
We are applying modern standards, values and mores to people and situations hundreds of years ago. Although the idea of one human owning another is wrong and was wrong back then, by the "rules" of the society they lived in, it was an accepted, common practice. Many important historical figures such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. It was perfectly acceptable, by the standards of the time they lived in. Do we excoriate them as well by applying standards from 200 years after they lived?

Suppose 200 years from now, society has changed so that illegal immigration is not only frowned upon, but considered as unacceptable as slave ownership is today. (it's not impossible) Do they then proceed to remove all traces and honor given to Obama because he encouraged illegals? If you don't like that example, I'm sure I can think of others.

But the basic question is "is it right to judge the actions of people from 200 or more years ago by modern standards which were unheard of in their time?"

[Skydiver]

As said, the issue for many isn't that the statues were there, per se, but when and why they were put up. THey weren't erected in 1895 on the 30th anniversary of the civil war, they were erected in the 1960's, as a 'f you' to variuos civil rights victories.

Now not having seen them in person, could the meaning of the statue have been changed with a different plaque or explanation? Maybe, who knows.

Could something have been accomplished to, instead of tearing down the confederate ones, if they had focused on erecting ones that celebrate those running the underground railroad, or Lincoln or other pro-liberty figures.

However as some cling to the past and openly and sometimes violently refuse consider changing, things can become symbols or targets of people's ire.

One could make an argument as there have been many race issues in the past years and months that the statues are just easy 'targets'. And, perhaps if there were less instances of 'creatively drawn district lines' like in Texas, or unpunished white upon black violence that the statues may not have been targeted. But as people become increasingly frustrated with feeling like they are always losing, they lash out. And those statues become easy symbols of oppression.

DO people take offense to Jefferson or Washington? Not really. However, the statues of them do not celebrate the 'statesman/slave owner', they celebrate the statesman.

[Annoyed]

Could something have been accomplished to, instead of tearing down the confederate ones, if they had focused on erecting ones that celebrate those running the underground railroad, or Lincoln or other pro-liberty figures.

If I recall what they taught me in school correctly, the nearest city to me was involved in the underground railroad. It came up almost every year in one way or another in history classes.

But anyway, I'm not so sure they won't want to purge others.

Consider: source: http://mason.gmu.edu/~zschrag/hist12...oln_ottawa.htm

I will say here, while upon this subject, that I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position.

I wonder why they're not all over Lincoln.

[Gatefan1976]

Because Lincoln also said this:

You know I dislike slavery; and you fully admit the abstract wrong of it... I also acknowledge your rights and my obligations, under the constitution, in regard to your slaves. I confess I hate to see the poor creatures hunted down, and caught, and carried back to their stripes, and unrewarded toils; but I bite my lip and keep quiet. In 1841 you and I had together a tedious low-water trip, on a Steam Boat from Louisville to St. Louis. You may remember, as I well do, that from Louisville to the mouth of the Ohio, there were, on board, ten or a dozen slaves, shackled together with irons. That sight was a continued torment to me; and I see something like it every time I touch the Ohio, or any other slave-border. It is hardly fair for you to assume, that I have no interest in a thing which has, and continually exercises, the power of making me miserable. You ought rather to appreciate how much the great body of the Northern people do crucify their feelings, in order to maintain their loyalty to the Constitution and the Union. … How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor of degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes." When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty—to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.

[Annoyed]

Slavery wasn't the point. Slavery of one form or another has existed ever since one man learned he could rule another man. It has not always involved white vs. black.

There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position.

He clearly thought that the black subspecies was inferior to the white subspecies of the human species, and was fine with the white race being superior.

[Gatefan1976]

No, he was in favour of elevating the race he belonged to, read it again.

[jelgate]

Slavery wasn't the point. Slavery of one form or another has existed ever since one man learned he could rule another man. It has not always involved white vs. black.


He clearly thought that the black subspecies was inferior to the white subspecies of the human species, and was fine with the white race being superior.

Ah marriage

[Annoyed]

No, he was in favour of elevating the race he belonged to, read it again.

Good grief! Can't you read English? How much clearer could he have been? That's lying down in the same bed as Hitler and his "master race". He outright says that the white race is superior to the black race, and goes on to say that he's glad he's a member of what he views as the superior race.

[Annoyed]

Ah marriage

That is another whole discussion, my friend. And I don't know if it's best discussed in public.

[Gatefan1976]

Good grief! Can't you read English? How much clearer could he have been? That's lying down in the same bed as Hitler and his "master race". He outright says that the white race is superior to the black race, and goes on to say that he's glad he's a member of what he views as the superior race.

No, he does not. Read it again.
Do you need help?
Here you go:

There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality,

So there are physical differences between the two, no judgement on value, just a note that there are differences.
Equality comes in with Lincoln recognizing tribalism, and how hard that is to break.

and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position.

If Lincoln were black, he would have been in favour of blacks having the superior position. He is saying -nothing- about either being superior, just that he would want -HIS- "tribe" to be the superior one.
Learn English, and I don't mean speaking it, but the written language conventions.

[Annoyed]

If Lincoln were black, he would have been in favour of blacks having the superior position. He is saying -nothing- about either being superior, just that he would want -HIS- "tribe" to be the superior one.
Learn English, and I don't mean speaking it, but the written language conventions.

Borrowing from the other thread.. Liberals like yourself live in fantasy. If Lincoln were black
In reality, he was white, and he said what was on his mind quite clearly.

[Gatefan1976]

Borrowing from the other thread.. Liberals like yourself live in fantasy. If Lincoln were black
In reality, he was white, and he said what was on his mind quite clearly.

He said, Quite clearly, that he would give advantage to his tribe.
You ask why people always make it about race?
Because numbnuts like you keep bringing it in.
You can easily note that "slavery is not just about black and white", but when given a real, historical example of it being black and white, you -choose- to defend it, and that, by definition makes you a racist.
Just admit it, you are a racist. You see anything not white as inferior to you and your desperate need to prove you are not is just sad.

[Annoyed]

He said, Quite clearly, that he would give advantage to his tribe.
You ask why people always make it about race?
Because numbnuts like you keep bringing it in.
You can easily note that "slavery is not just about black and white", but when given a real, historical example of it being black and white, you -choose- to defend it, and that, by definition makes you a racist.
Just admit it, you are a racist. You see anything not white as inferior to you and your desperate need to prove you are not is just sad.

How the hell do you read what I wrote as defending slavery? I am attacking Lincoln for clearly racist attitudes. He said:

I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position.

That outright states that he believes the white race is superior. How much more racist can you get?

Granted, by the standards, values and mores of the time period, it was probably a popular attitude. But that doesn't change what it is.

Not for nuthin', but you might want to get that head looked at. Your gears are slipping.

[Skydiver]

I think you both want to step back and take a few.

[Falcon Horus]

Bannons out, next to go will be Gorka.

Bannon's out of the WH, but he's vowed to continue the "war" for Trump.

So, another town decides to trash its history. Quite common these days.
But it still doesn't address the basic strategy mistake. The counterprotesters gave their opponents a leg up onto the national stage. Prior to this, no one had ever heard of them.

Or do you think you can destroy an idea by destroying hardware?

Let us put it in a different setting:

Exhibit A: Outcry over the removal of confederate statues -- don't take away our beautiful statues, they are a part of our history.

Exhibit B: That pipeline needs to go through North Dakota. No problem, we'll just bulldoze our way through that sacred Native American burial ground (which is also part of your history).

I rather like Arnold Schwarzenegger's video message to Trump.

His use of the bobble-head is brilliant.

I'm fine where I am. =)

The amount of complaining you do, I doubt it.

And when did the EU and other nations adopt laws outlawing holocaust deniers/denial? EU was around 2007, wasn't it? No one from the 1930's or 1940's era saw them, either.

The European Union is not a state.

EU adopts measure outlawing Holocaust denial

It took the EU 6 years to negotiate the law which was signed in 2007. The members can enforce however they see fit or in accordance with their own holocaust denial laws, which most countries adopted way before the EU anyway.

The earliest was Austria in 1947 and the latest is 2014.

From the article:

Laws against denying the Holocaust exist in Austria, Belgium, France, Germany and Spain, and in many cases the national legislation goes much further than the new EU rules.

The number of countries with laws has risen since the publication of that article.