ISIS leads the way for politically correct statue removal

[Fred Exley]

As we move forward as a society, destroying old artifacts currently
deemed offensive, let's give credit where credit is due:

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


Intolerance and unity, and violence to those who vote differently is the
new politically correct paradigm. George Washington had slaves? Fuck
him. We need to replace his image on the $1 bill with a negro cleaning
lady.

[Sharx35]

George Washington may have had slaves but Thomas Jefferson REALLY *had*
slaves, if you know what I mean.

[jimbo]

On Friday, August 18, 2017 at 12:05:37 PM UTC-4, Fred Exley wrote:
> Intolerance and unity, and violence to those who vote differently is the
> new politically correct paradigm. George Washington had slaves? Fuck
> him. We need to replace his image on the $1 bill with a negro cleaning
> lady.

Plaque which indicated that Jefferson Davis had resided in a home where The Bay store now stands was removed b/c it "triggered" emotions in our young people.

http://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/confederate-plaque-removed-from-downtown-hudson-bay-wall

[Fred Exley]

ha ha! good one :)

[Fred Exley]

A Confederate plaque honoring Jefferson Davis in Montreal? Who woulda
thunk it. Maybe the French Canadians view themselves as confederates?
A lot of 'em do want to secede...

[jimbo]

On Friday, August 18, 2017 at 1:15:45 PM UTC-4, Fred Exley wrote:
> A Confederate plaque honoring Jefferson Davis in Montreal? Who woulda
> thunk it. Maybe the French Canadians view themselves as confederates?
> A lot of 'em do want to secede...

I listened to Newt Gingrich on Fox and he was explaining that there are many monuments to the men who died for their cause and these should be honored but also many States erected pro Confederacy monuments in the late 1950's and 60's in their opposition to the civil rights movement.

[Ted H]

To me there's a pretty clear difference between things that are
meant to document the past (historical information) and things
that are intended to honor the past. The plaque strikes me as the
former, and it seems excessive to remove it.

On the other hand, I expect it's probably impossible to draw a
bright line that distinguishes these two types of displays.

--
Ted H.

[Charlie M. 1958]

On 8/18/2017 2:40 PM, Ted H wrote:

>> http://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/confederate-plaque-removed-from-downtown-hudson-bay-wall
>
> To me there's a pretty clear difference between things that are
> meant to document the past (historical information) and things
> that are intended to honor the past. The plaque strikes me as the
> former, and it seems excessive to remove it.
>
> On the other hand, I expect it's probably impossible to draw a
> bright line that distinguishes these two types of displays.
>

I just checked out the article and noticed the reference to a tweet from
Mark Warner. Heck, I didn't even know you were a lawyer, Mark.

https://twitter.com/MAAWLAW?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fmontrealgazette.com%2Fnews%2Flocal-news%2Fconfederate-plaque-removed-from-downtown-hudson-bay-wall

[Sharx35]

I didn't know, for sure, that Mark was a "brother".

[Socrates]

The United Daughters of the Confederacy, also known as the UDC, is a
hereditary association of Southern women established in 1894. The stated
purpose of the organization is to commemorate Confederate soldiers and
its main activity is the erection of monuments to these men, and its
promotion of the Lost Cause movement (a set of revisionist beliefs that
describes the Confederate cause as a heroic one against great odds
despite its defeat).

Today, the Southern Poverty Law Center lists them as a Neo-Confederate
group. Some historians have also described them as supporting white
supremacist ideas.

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

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

[RobD]

My dad was an otherwise intelligent man. I have never thought of him as a
racist . . . quite the opposite, really.

But he was a firm believer in the nonsense . . . that the CW was not about
slavery, but "States' Rights."

Talking to him on the topic was surreal.

[Charlie M. 1958]

On 8/18/2017 6:33 PM, RobD wrote:

> My dad was an otherwise intelligent man. I have never thought of him as a
> racist . . . quite the opposite, really.
>
> But he was a firm believer in the nonsense . . . that the CW was not about
> slavery, but "States' Rights."
>
> Talking to him on the topic was surreal.
>

Hmmm....

Doesn't seem too different from the abortion debate, if you ask me. One
side says it's about a woman's right to make her own choices about her
body, while the other side says it's about killing a human being.

[tedw]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCiXN0i6CJE&t=384s

[Charlie M. 1958]

On 8/18/2017 7:27 PM, tedw wrote:

>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCiXN0i6CJE&t=384s
>

Nice outfit! Beats the heck out of the balaclava.

[tedw]

http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm


'My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views."---Abraham Lincoln

[Socrates]

Bringing new meaning to delusional is easier if there are props. One
day he's a terrorist, the next he's George Washington. Next:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCUmINGae44

[jimbo]

On Friday, August 18, 2017 at 7:37:23 PM UTC-4, RobD wrote:
> Talking to him on the topic was surreal.

I was confused about the war b/c Lincoln never spoke publicly on emancipation.

[RobD]

Leaving that particular debate aside . . .

If it was about "States' Rights," *which* "right" was it that the South
decided they would leave to preserve?

[Charlie M. 1958]

On 8/18/2017 8:38 PM, RobD wrote:

> If it was about "States' Rights," *which* "right" was it that the South
> decided they would leave to preserve?
>

I guess my point was that people who want to defend some action (right
or wrong) will usually find some "matter of principle" to stand on when
the action itself is too distasteful to defend directly.

[Skeezix LaRocca]

On 08/18/2017 08:38 PM, Charlie M. 1958 wrote:

>
> Nice outfit! Beats the heck out of the balaclava.

That guy sure does look like Ted W.
--


We all do better when we all do better.

Paul Wellstone

[Charlie M. 1958]

Skeezix LaRocca <fatl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 08/18/2017 08:38 PM, Charlie M. 1958 wrote:
>
>>
>> Nice outfit! Beats the heck out of the balaclava.
>
> That guy sure does look like Ted W.

Ted W....... George W.

Coincidence? I think not.

[RobD]

Uh-huh.

And what was to be the law regarding slavery in new territories?

[jimbo]

On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 1:07:01 AM UTC-4, RobD wrote:

> And what was to be the law regarding slavery in new territories?

He signed a bill banning slavery in the new territories but that does not answer the question as to why he did not take a public position on slavery.

Maybe he was more of a politician than he gets credit for?

Time to reread the history as its been 40 years since I studied it.

[Charlie M. 1958]

On 8/19/2017 7:25 AM, jimbo wrote:

> Time to reread the history as its been 40 years since I studied it.
>

A lot of history has changed since then. :-)

[jimbo]

On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 8:50:33 AM UTC-4, Charlie M. 1958 wrote:
> A lot of history has changed since then. :-)

I caused ruckus at a Big Book Study group by saying that the most fu**ed up
versions of AA history are told at AA meetings.

[Fred Exley]

For a perspective removed from the current brouhaha, I turned to Ken
Burn's 1990 Civil War documentary, 'Episode 1: The Cause'. Definitely
slavery.

The war officially began April 12, 1861, but as early as May 1836 people
we being killed over the issue:

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

[Ted H]

Yeah, but isn't Ken Burns a lefty propagandist?

--
Ted H.