SHAME sprayed on Robert E. Lee statue.

[oldjones]

General Lee made the most of what he had but he was still defending a slave economy. I do not condone the vandalism but I understand the motive.
…

I understand it as well. But look how fast those who rose above their hate, got past settling old scores and forgave managed to achieve the result that shamers hadn't managed in two centuries. Utter, bloody defeat couldn't get that flag down; human compassion did.

No one had any quarrel with the Cotton Trade, or the South's attachment to it. What lost them the War, as it had lost them the century of debate that failed to prevent the war was their religious attachment — as if it had been by God's Command — to enslaving others to feed their selfish greed.

 

[SkyRider]

— to enslaving others to feed their selfish greed.

The sweatshops of the north were little better. Slavery in 1860 as an institution was dying a natural death anyway.

 

[scouser1]

Oh no absolutely not, the US Civil War was not about slavery at, but hey let's take a look at the Cornerstone Speech of the vice President of the traitors oh sorry Confederacy"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."

Oh yeah it was definitely about state's rights, as in the right to kidnap, enslave, beat, rape and murder another human being.

 

[oldjones]

The sweatshops of the north were little better. Slavery in 1860 as an institution was dying a natural death anyway.

Clearly not fast enough. And those who fired on Fort Sumter were quite willing to kill in huge numbers, even die themselves, to keep it alive indefinitely. Considering the institution should have died stillborn as soon as it was proposed, and that slave labour continued long after the War in the form of convict rentals, it's a hollow argument without any real basis.

As persuasive as arguing that sweatshop piecework and "…owing your soul to the comp'ny store" were just fine because at least they weren't slavery.

 

[trtinajax]

Any symbol of the south in the civil war is going to be a target.

Maybe lee did some good but that is not the point of the vandalism.

Not saying it is right. Just saying thatt this is to be expected.

Now that i think about it this is more than just random vandalism. The person was making a point and honestly i think if my people had been oppressed, seeing daily reminders of that oppression would be pretty upsetting.

How many people living in the USA were opposed as slaves in their earlier life? How about the Native peoples in both Canada and the USA? Were they not oppressed and should history not be re-written to obscure that part of history. What about the settlers that were slaughtered? Were they not oppressed and should that part of history be re-written? We had best tear down every memorial, close every park and whatever in Canada and the USA because it is going to hurt somebody's feelings for some bloody reason.

 

[oldjones]

How many people living in the USA were opp[ress]ed as slaves in their earlier life? How about the Native peoples in both Canada and the USA? Were they not oppressed and should history not be re-written to [not] obscure that part of history. What about the settlers that were slaughtered? Were they not oppressed and should that part of history be re-written? We had best tear down every memorial, close every park and whatever in Canada and the USA because it is going to hurt somebody's feelings for some bloody reason.

A valid view, but it does ignore the fact that the vandals' target actually memorialized and glorified the commander of the rebel slavers in the homeland of their victims. Sort like having a grand memorial to the Oberkommando der Werhrmacht in a park next to Dachau.

Although the vandalism is inexcusable, and just perpetuates the self-righteous belligerence that caused the war, that 'let bygones be bygones' has always sounded hollow coming from those who continue to to oppress the descendant of historic victims and enjoy what they stole as if by right. Perhaps you, or someone could supply the Google Map link to Dallas's Suffering Slaves Memorial and it's attractive park. A silly symbol I know, but if we're to believe everyone's heart is at long last, finally in the right place …

As for vandalism of that sort of memorial, I think the recent shootings fully qualify. Getting overwrought about this little tit-for-tat, when so much remains of the day to day evil the Civil War should have erased just proves what low, unevolved creatures we humans are.

No wonder we had to invent a God to forgive us.
--------
PS: As usual auto-suggest seems to have distorted some of your post, so I put in brackets what I guessed you intended. Do correct me, please.

Although it's wrong, I did leave the bit about rewriting histories of how early settlers were oppressed. Presumably you meant the usual tripe about bloodthirsty savages. Those few sensational inventions — mostly American — so distort the actual commonplace reality that they should be re-written, but then they'd be so dull they'd be unread, as are the actual histories. In any case I wasn't sure just what you intended by your rhetorical question, as the 'oppression' of settlers has long been exaggerated. In any case history is constantly revised already, always has been, always will be. Whoever said different was lying to cover their part in that process.

 

[red]

The statue of a dude who lead a group of racist traitors who committed treason and were losers was vandalised, how bad are we supposed to feel?

LOL well said

 

[Smallcock]

How many people living in the USA were opposed as slaves in their earlier life?

I don't know. How many and what is the relevance?

How about the Native peoples in both Canada and the USA? Were they not oppressed and should history not be re-written to obscure that part of history.

History has been re-written. Where books once championed Columbus for discovering the New World, it's now much often said that he was 1) the first European to discover the New World and 2) was a conqueror.

What about the settlers that were slaughtered? Were they not oppressed and should that part of history be re-written?

They were not oppressed. They were conquerors in a land in which the people already living their battled with them and killed them.

We had best tear down every memorial, close every park and whatever in Canada and the USA because it is going to hurt somebody's feelings for some bloody reason.

This makes no sense.

 

[Smallcock]

We have statues of Louis Riel. Anyway, a civilized country allows its states to secede without resorting to killing people (e.g. Quebec, Scotland, etc.).

Never heard of him, but wiki tells me he was the founder of Manitoba and defended the rights of the Métis people, at a time when they had no recognized ones.

Seems quite the opposite of the monuments in the South and what they fought for.

 

[Aardvark154]

A valid view, but it does ignore the fact that the vandals' target actually memorialized and glorified the commander of the rebel slavers in the homeland of their victims. Sort like having a grand memorial to the Oberkommando der Werhrmacht in a park next to Dachau.

More like having a statue of Generalfeldmarschall von Rundstedt or perhaps even more a statute of Generalfeldmarschall Ritter von Leeb in Dresden.

Although it's wrong, I did leave the bit about rewriting histories of how early settlers were oppressed. Presumably you meant the usual tripe about bloodthirsty savages. Those few sensational inventions — mostly American

Oh, so you mean the countless "Indian raids" and those who were killed in them, straight through from the Powhatan Uprising of 1622 and King Philip's War (1675-1678) to the mid-nineteenth century are merely an invention of deluded historians and genealogists?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

 

[Aardvark154]

What about the settlers that were slaughtered? Were they not oppressed and should that part of history be re-written?

They were not oppressed. They were conquerors in a land in which the people already living their battled with them and killed them.

Wow particularly in light of the following!

We have statues of Louis Riel.

Never heard of him

Are you planning on leaving North America in the next few days since you feel you have no right to be here?

 

[canada-man]

 

[mandrill]

A valid view, but it does ignore the fact that the vandals' target actually memorialized and glorified the commander of the rebel slavers in the homeland of their victims. Sort like having a grand memorial to the Oberkommando der Werhrmacht in a park next to Dachau.

Although the vandalism is inexcusable, and just perpetuates the self-righteous belligerence that caused the war, that 'let bygones be bygones' has always sounded hollow coming from those who continue to to oppress the descendant of historic victims and enjoy what they stole as if by right. Perhaps you, or someone could supply the Google Map link to Dallas's Suffering Slaves Memorial and it's attractive park. A silly symbol I know, but if we're to believe everyone's heart is at long last, finally in the right place …

As for vandalism of that sort of memorial, I think the recent shootings fully qualify. Getting overwrought about this little tit-for-tat, when so much remains of the day to day evil the Civil War should have erased just proves what low, unevolved creatures we humans are.

No wonder we had to invent a God to forgive us.
--------
PS: As usual auto-suggest seems to have distorted some of your post, so I put in brackets what I guessed you intended. Do correct me, please.

Although it's wrong, I did leave the bit about rewriting histories of how early settlers were oppressed. Presumably you meant the usual tripe about bloodthirsty savages. Those few sensational inventions — mostly American — so distort the actual commonplace reality that they should be re-written, but then they'd be so dull they'd be unread, as are the actual histories. In any case I wasn't sure just what you intended by your rhetorical question, as the 'oppression' of settlers has long been exaggerated. In any case history is constantly revised already, always has been, always will be. Whoever said different was lying to cover their part in that process.

Here's a job for you, OJ. Go to wiki and look up the "Beaver Wars" and then you can tell me all about your noble savages and how oppressed they were.

 

[red]

More like having a statue of Generalfeldmarschall von Rundstedt or perhaps even more a statute of Generalfeldmarschall Ritter von Leeb in Dresden.

Oh, so you mean the countless "Indian raids" and those who were killed in them, straight through from the Powhatan Uprising of 1622 and King Philip's War (1675-1678) to the mid-nineteenth century are merely an invention of deluded historians and genealogists?

Or the iroquois genocide of the hurons

 

[james t kirk]

The sweatshops of the north were little better. Slavery in 1860 as an institution was dying a natural death anyway.

No it wasn't actually.

As stats were being added to the union, for every free state added, they had to add a slave state in order to maintain the status quo. While I agree that eventually slavery would have died out on its own accord, the fact is that in 1861, slavery as an institution in the United States was still very much alive and kicking. It would be an interesting academic exercise to theorise just how long slavery would have lasted if the Civil War never came along.

 

[Smallcock]

Are you planning on leaving North America in the next few days since you feel you have no right to be here?

No. The conquerors succeeding in their conquest. I'm the beneficiary of their conquest and you are, too.

We also live in a civilized society that extends rights not only to the conquerors, but the conquered - we all fall under the banner of citizens.

I'm happy about that and happy to live here. What about you?

 

[frankcastle]

How many people living in the USA were opposed as slaves in their earlier life? How about the Native peoples in both Canada and the USA? Were they not oppressed and should history not be re-written to obscure that part of history. What about the settlers that were slaughtered? Were they not oppressed and should that part of history be re-written? We had best tear down every memorial, close every park and whatever in Canada and the USA because it is going to hurt somebody's feelings for some bloody reason.

Blacks still feel the effects of racism to this day. Racism is not dead.

And the rest of your point is just a slippery slope argument.

You talk about whites killed by natives but the whites won overall. So again that is a moot poi t too.

 

[Insidious Von]

The sweatshops of the north were little better. Slavery in 1860 as an institution was dying a natural death anyway.

Nimrod post of the day. Those sweatshop workers in the North were not whipped to the point of flaying nor were one of their limbs amputated if they tried to escape. And they eventually formed unions.

Jim Crow had some nasty side effects. The legacy of Texas Ranger Bass Reeves was whitewashed for radio with The Lone Ranger. His exploits as a tracker were erased and almost forgotten. It was only recently that Fort Smith consecrated a monument to him.

 

[mandrill]

Or the Iroquois genocide of the Huron

This was an episode in the Beaver Wars, a series of military expeditions in which the Iroquois attempted and largely succeeded in depopulating Ohio by genocide and torture of other Indian groups in order to obtain exclusive possession of prime beaver trapping territories.

Not all Indian tribes were nasty, but some were very, very nasty indeed. Read anything on the Comanche and what they did to lose your appetite for a couple of days. Ditto the Apache. And these were not desperate people defending their land from the Whites. These tribes were engaged in deliberate expansionist wars against both other Indian tribes and white settlements.

OJ knows fuck-all and is just ranting his usual leftie garbage.