The Whole Statue Issue.....

As noted in the Atlantic Month in 1992 when it was a magazine that had critical thought. This pretty much explains the complete ignorance of the wash out history because it hurts me coalition. Link to entire article at bottom.

"PRESENTISM" is the term that historians use for applying contemporary or otherwise inappropriate standards to the past. An awkward term at best, it nevertheless names a malaise that currently plagues American discussions of anything and everything concerning the past: the widespread inability to make appropriate allowances for prevailing historical conditions. The issue of presentism is hardly new, but it has perhaps been amplified of late by the debunking and revisionist spirit of the times and the effect this has had on public perceptions. As the uncritically positive and unabashedly patriotic approach that for so long characterized the teaching of American history in the public schools has abated, the emphasis has steadily shifted to the problems and failures of the past. The saga of the glories of the old West has thus given way to a saga of exploitation and greed. Pride in conquering the wilderness has yielded to the shame of despoiling the land and dispossessing the indigenous peoples. What seems to have happened is that a laudably corrective trend has predominated to such an extent that the emphasis seems somehow reversed, and parents complain that they scarcely recognize the history their children are taught.
With a built-in emphasis on what had previously been ignored or suppressed, it is hardly surprising that almost all the revisionist news, at least where traditional American heroes are concerned, is bad. A question that was once reasonably clear has become a muddle: How should we remember the leading figures of our history? By their greatest achievements and most important contributions or by their personal failures and peccadilloes? Can one category cancel out the other? In a sense these reversals of fortune are inevitable, inasmuch as nothing ever keeps its place in a world of incessant change. It is perhaps an instance of what the historian Henry Adams called the law of acceleration -- the tendency of change to come faster and faster -- that John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr.,whose murders elevated them to martyrdom, should both come in for reappraisal while their memories and legacies are still fresh. Do the revelations about such things as Kennedy's womanizing, his not-so-heroic war record, and his non-authorship of a book for which he accepted the Pulitzer Prize detract from his positive accomplishments as President? Do the revelations about King's philandering and his plagiarism as a graduate student have any bearing on his conspicuous achievements as a civil-rights leader? Or is this a case of asking the question backward? Is it perhaps more appropriate and revealing to ask, Are the significant contributions of Kennedy and King, which affected the lives of millions of Americans, in any way diminished by subsequent revelations about their shortcomings and failings in other areas?



https://www.theatlantic.com/past/doc...n/charactr.htm

The victors write history...

But yes these article has a great point.

The historical norms of the time should be taken into consideration presently. But the problem seems to be that some (KKK) want to bring back the old norms! Lol

The statues being allowed to stand would be like if a statue of Hitler remained in the center of berlin. We don't have to glorify that part of history to remember it. We need to remember it as the dark hour that it was. Those statues do not serve that purpose. Instead, they embolden supremacist movements. They need to go.


Racism is a cancer. You don't allow any part of it to remain. Women's breasts are beautiful. However in the face of cancer, women choose to lose their breasts to get rid of the cancer.

Will this get rid of the cancer? No, but it will cut some of it out. So, why not?

History must be preserved as a means to highlight the utter stupidity of the actions taken oin the past. If that be statues, so be it. These statues can represent bad ideas, so ADD BETTER IDEAS to these monuments.

Also, 50 guys dressed up in funny outfits and getting a permit to march around and spew stupid ideas is constitutionally protected speech. Yes, from the Supreme Court in 1978 in Skokie, IL (ans as depicted in The Blues Brothere movie). I lived there and had these idiot Nazis driving in the parking lot of my High School for recruiting. The were laughed at by everyone before we moved on to get an italian beef and fries. And, we never thought about them the rest of the day unless being joked about. I heard a report that there at most 7000-8000 neo-nazi in the US today. That is a fart in west Texas. If they break the law - put them in jail. This is not a big issue.

Dismiss stupid and move on. Didn't your grandma tell you to ignore the brother or cousin that was teasing and taunting you?

Actually...there have been many good suggestions for these statues....they may more belong in a Museum.

I'm of the mind to pay them no mind.

Let a bunch of redneck fools march around them. Pay them no mind and you give them no power. It would be like a tree falling in the forest.


The left has empowered these KKK nuts...and Trump has become their face.



These nuts will now be exposed because of Trump. They feel empowered now by Trumps silent endorsement but they will be exposed.

I still think the best thing was to ignore them. And you sure as fuck can not start illegally taking down statues. It does not put you on the same level but it gives the KKK lovers ammunition

History must be preserved as a means to highlight the utter stupidity of the actions taken oin the past. If that be statues, so be it. These statues can represent bad ideas, so ADD BETTER IDEAS to these monuments. Originally Posted by johnjay

If we added a cock into the mouth or up the ass of these statues, wouldn't they still need to be removed because they would then be inappropriate?

The statues being allowed to stand would be like if a statue of Hitler remained in the center of berlin. Originally Posted by grean

That's ridiculous but continue to delude yourself.

Is there something more palatable about a movement in California seeking to separate from the United States of America? The movement gained strength, at least in volume, with the "sanctuary" dialogue and the opposition from the Federal government over allowing undocumented aliens to enjoy equal advantages, if not greater benefits, than natural citizens of this country. Should there be an armed resistance to the separation?

I'm seeing this argument a lot.

Where there ever statues of Hitler erected after WWII? No.

These statues were memorials erected after the Civil War. They memorialize the men, women and sacrifices of the South. They don't memorialize slavery.

Do some of these statute deserve to go? Probably, just as many statutes throughout history have been lost.

But some people are trying to historically cleanse this country. They are already calling for heads. The next time won't be figuratively.

Let the supremacists take them. If a town decides they don't want them, it's their choice.

If we added a cock into the mouth or up the ass of these statues, wouldn't they still need to be removed because they would then be inappropriate? Originally Posted by grean

The Austin Reacharound Crew don't like their secret statutes revealed.

Let the supremacists take them. If a town decides they don't want them, it's their choice. Originally Posted by grean

You know some of these people who want these statues aren't white supremacists. But that doesn't fit your narrative.

If we added a cock into the mouth or up the ass of these statues, wouldn't they still need to be removed because they would then be inappropriate? Originally Posted by grean

You mean create "transgender" replicas for current consumption?

You know some of these people who want these statues aren't white supremacists. But that doesn't fit your narrative? Originally Posted by gnadfly

He seems to be focused on "cocks in the mouth"? Not history.

There are holocaust museums all over this country ... it seems appropriate that a "Confederate Museum" would be acceptable and those statues and other memorials, including flags, could be kept there in the event someone is curious about the historical aspects of the era.

But immature, thugs break and destroy others' property in their uncontrolled tantrum when the don't get their way ....



Why is he hiding his identity?

You know some of these people who want these statues aren't white supremacists. But that doesn't fit your narrative? Originally Posted by gnadfly

You are right. There are some who do not want these statues removed and they aren't racist. However, it would seem they are a minority. Free speech, and majority rules. The majority of folks don't care or want them removed.

I'm okay with anything that fucks with racists. That's my narrative. Racists are idiotic, illogical cowards. They waste their lives with hate.

He seems to be focused on "cocks in the mouth"? Not history.

There are holocaust museums all over this country ... it seems appropriate that a "Confederate Museum" would be acceptable and those statues and other memorials, including flags, could be kept there in the event someone is curious about the historical aspects of the era. Originally Posted by LexusLover

A museum would be an acceptable solution.