Let's Start A Riot?!?!

I just hope these children who see themselves as "revolutionaries" realize that is exactly how the men (confederate or otherwise) immortalized in stone and bronze were viewed as they suddenly feel the need to tear down their monuments.

The common misconception is that the Confederacy was fighting to keep slavery because they hated black people. When in fact, they simply saw the North's view of the southern state's economical principles as unsupportable and considered the actions against them tyrannical, which they felt is why they'd just left and fought the British empire, to get away from such tyranny. Not saying I agreed with the Confederacy just saying, "with historical context," that was how they viewed the situation.

So being that BLM and Antifa hate revolutionaries so much, the next time they see some scrub in a Che Guevara T-shirt, they better walk right up and punch that unmitigated a~hole in the face.

They aren't reading history to begin with. They have no clue what they are doing. It is literally a temper tantrum when they riot and pull these stunts.

They are merely in it for the Snapchat story, it's like the sad wads that think climbing Rushmore is any sort of rare feat in this day and age.

It's protest tourism.

It's the equivalent of a 6 week luxury cruise for the 'social activist's sort of crowd.

Has anyone ever seen the movie The Beach? It's a nice sort of metaphor.

Cultist mentality.

But I cannot say as I blame them, 'we all thought we would grow up to be rock gods or movies stars, but we didn't, and we are very pissed off about it.'

Way to influence the easily influenced, influencer society. Truly feeling the influence of a society that values Kardashians, over NDT.

They basically just larping... but ya know without the consent of the others they going medieval on

Shortly after the reading of the Declaration of Independence, colonists in New York tore down a statue of King George III. Tearing down statues of an adversary isn't exactly new.

I have two issues with confederate statues: 1. glorification of an enemy of the US and 2. the time frame in which a vast majority of the statues were erected.

This isn't to say that the monuments located in the immediate area of a confederate grave site should be removed, that's less commemorating the war as it is in memoriam of those that died.

We don't fly the flags of England, France, Germany, Spain, Mexico, Japan, Italy, or any other nation we've ever had a scrap with. CSA was an enemy nation of the US, why fly their flag?

The majority of monuments erected in public areas were done so during Jim Crow laws and separate but equal and in direct retaliation of civil rights protests. The Nathan Bedford Forest monument was dedicated by then Gov James B Fraser, news articles quote Fraser as saying "let this stand as a testament to the superiority of White men".

But, I will concede that it is up to those that are residents of those states to decide for themselves what needs to be done. If the majority wish to keep them, then so be it, it's their home, but they should at least understand the history behind the monument and not just what it represents to them as individuals.

That is just so wrong.

The south was economically dependent on enslaved labor.

The common misconception is that the Confederacy was fighting for "states rights" and that "states rights" had nothing to do with slavery.

You seem to be assuming the children doing the "tearing down" know any of this or even if they did, their actions were related to how/when/why the monuments were erected, at all.

Barely a handful of people cared about them for decades then suddenly, they ALL had to go, like, some kind of woke emergency enema. You're trying to make logic of an event that not only has no logic, but the illogical ones involved in said event don't even have the brain power to differentiate from one statue to the next. All they see is, "concrete, white, old looking dude....tear it down? Check!" If their tantrum had any real point at all, they wouldn't be defacing/toppling abolitionists and monuments that were placed in respect of African-American wartime units. If these representations of the past were so horrific to that portion of our country, this would have been dealt with decades ago.

"In an interview with WBRC-TV in Birmingham last week, Charles Barkley said he has always ignored Confederate statues and that most black people probably haven't thought about them "a day in their life." He said the black community needs to worry about more important issues like education and crime. "That's wasted energy," the NBA legend said." Fact.

Um, yeah, that's what I meant. That was their economic structure. They weren't mad because they just hated black people, they were upset because they viewed the North as tyrants, trying to crush the economy of the southern states by removing their cheap labor. How is that, "so wrong?"

It just amazes me how if someone wishes to perceive some kind if negativity into someone's comments of simple facts, they can block out all else and just see that one line that triggers them.

Been an increase in shootings in Austin. Maybe it's a coincidence and it's not related to this anti cop/govt/white thing

on those two points

1. They were still americans. the symbolisim behind them was that even though we had a difference of opinion, and one side of that opinion won the war, we still held respect for them enough to recognize them and understand what they fought for. That message has been lost over the years with education systems failing to teach that fact, and instead brainwashing children that the south was nothing but black hating racists who only fought a war to keep their slaves - which is completely removed from reality. The reality of the civil war, is that the northern republican states, effectively removed the southern democratic states ability to participate in democracy by preventing the establishment of new slave states, and allowing the establishment of non-slave states - effectively giving them a permanent unbeatable super majority in the government. E.G. even when EVERY SINGLE southern state voted for John C. Breckinridge in the election of 1860, they still werent able to win the election. this effectively rendered the south mute in all things, and you cant have democracy in that situation. They were absolutely correct to have left the union at that point, because they removed their ability to be equal in that union. Slaves were a footnote in the civil war. its why lincoln waited two years after the start of the war to free the slaves; and he quite literally lamented having to do so, but stated it was the only way they could win their war against the south. even through his entire lead up to his presidency, he ran on the specific platform that he would not allow congress to strip the south of their rights to own slaves (because owning slaves at that point WAS a right - not that it was right).
2. most confederate monuments were erected in the fifty years following the war after our reconstruction period in the south began. several statues were actually erected by northern states out of respect for the people they had fought against. its a myth that they were raised to scare black people, or in some way be testaments to racisim.

I mean, if you think the north 'liked' black people- you have to ask yourself why people like Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Buchanan, James Madison, Daniel Webster, James Monroe, John Marshall, and Francis Scott Key all were a part of the 'back to africa' efforts before during and after the war. half of those back to africa people, hated blacks and didnt want them in the country post war, and the other half thought they'd be better off in africa.

Derp, I meant Everest.

Hard to say why that "back to Africa" thing was a thing for each of those people.
Me personally, I'd be ok with offering any US citizen a 1 time "GTFO" coupon to wherever they wanted to relocate. Only 1 time though, none of this back and forth BS. Not going to tax payer fund a bunch of vacations.

they were all card carrying members of the American colonization society; the group that literally founded liberia, and funded sending blacks back to africa.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Colonization_Society

Once again you are slightly off the mark.

A healthy slave was worth about what a modest luxury car costs today. About a Buick or an Infiniti. Don't think in abstract terms like economy, think personal wealth. The wealth of a plantation owner was far more invested in chattel than land.

But yes, the republican north was viewed as tyrannical.

Well, I mean if you are going to put it that way, their value still depreciated, like a car. Land was/is a permanent asset that will never depreciate and continues to become more scarce and valuable the more people keep multiplying.

Honestly your comparison is very off the mark, can put 2 cars together, and make more cars.

Overall it's a disturbing thing to ponder on anyway. Slavery, is appalling, and it's a shame, because slavery very much still exists in this world.

Can't put 2 cars together***

Obv there are rare circumstances that will depreciate the value of specific plots of land. But on the whole ground will always be worth more than it was in the past.

All that said. Continuing to beat the Civil War dead horse gets no one anywhere. A huge part of the problem is people being unwilling to move on. They don't know ***all about history but want to continue walking around with a chip on their shoulder because of the past. I am talking about almost all global conflicts, not just white/black Americans.

This is another major problem.

NDT = Neil Degrasse Tyson FYI.

Interesting on the civil war even if I did find it on Daily Kos.

It Wasn’t North vs. South; It Was Patriots vs. Secessionists

its mainly why the republican party held the presidency from 1860 until grover cleveland in 1884, and grover cleveland i believe was the first incumbent to ever lose re-election - but somehow managed to win in the following election, and beat his prior oponent in his incumbent election. after that there wasnt another democrat in office untill 1916, with woodrow wilson. after that, roosavelt came in after mckinley was assassinated by an insane anarcho leftist.

funny how the left seems to have a track record for assassinating republican presidents. the only president not killed by a democrat was james garfield who wasnt killed over political differences.

another one

https://www.yahoo.com/news/museum-remove-roosevelt-statue-decried-230029129.html



wait till they realize that mount rushmore is a thing

problem solved?

Yup world peace achieved!

Like the Museum taking down the statue and putting it in storage or some special exhibit would be fine, destroying it is very bad.

Found some video footage of Democrats destroying more statues they don't like.

these radical liberals need to check themselves, because they are going to open a can that cant be closed again if they keep being so insane. they have to understand that their actions are going to have an equal or greater reaction if they keep pushing against that thin line of civility that keeps us all from murdering each other. its like that kid who sits there quietly abused by his family, until one day that reaction finally comes. it wont be nice, and it wont be pretty.