Charlottesville and Hypocrisy of the Left and the Media

Take off the mask and its ..... more panty-fa

 

I didn't kick him out. Either way, he's not a mainstream media figure.

 

I think Evan McM is a mainstream guy. He's a conservative that's not uber conservative. Of course, guys like that in these times are called RINO's and treated like they're aggy in Austin.

 

Some of them must be finally clueing in that this stuff is election day poison for the left.

 

He's a mainstream conservative, but he's not a mainstream media figure.

 

Most Americans want Confederate statues preserved

 

So George Washington's old church is taking down its memorial to him. Link. They are a private institution and have every right to do this, but if George Washington is offensive to enough people to bring this kind of pressure on an institution, we have a problem. The stupid and crazy are starting to overwhelm and overcome the rational and sane.

 

The problem is that the majority opinion doesn't matter anymore. If a few snowflakes complain, most of the time they get their way. No one wants to take a chance on having the lethal charge of racism thrown at them. It's worse than being calling a Commie back in the McCarthy era. Until the country gets fed up with this horses___, it will continue.

 

Only the church leadership knows why they are taking the Washington and Lee plaques down. I'd wager it started with a decision take down the Lee plaque after the recent controversy and resulted in a "let's stay out of 'politics' altogether since our focus is on God" approach.

 

Hmm ... took 'em long enough to decide that.

IDK what the motivation was ... but it's a travesty nonetheless. From what I've read of Washington, their institution's namesake didn't support this foolishness.

 

the stupid and crazy have been in the saddle at least since the sinking of the Maine. How do you think we got stuck with Puerto Rico, the theft that keeps on stealing?

 

Here's the complete statement from the church. To their credit, they are not completely removing either (including Lee) from the premises or putting them into storage. What bugs me is this quote, "The plaques in our sanctuary make some in our presence feel unsafe or unwelcome." Like I said before, if we're going to take the position that George Washington is "unsafe" or "unwelcoming" seriously, that's a major cultural problem. This can't become a pattern.

In addition, this is terrible for the broader debate on monuments. On multiple occasions, I've argued with @Htown77 about the memorial issue. He's a supporter of keeping Confederate memorials and flags on public grounds. I oppose them. A key facet of his argument is that if we appease liberals by taking down Confederate memorials, they won't be satisfied with those memorials and will move on to American memorials. My position has long been that the American and Confederate memorials are entirely separate issues and that we can get rid of the Confederate memorials without it being an "appeasement" of anybody and still fervently defend American memorials from radicals. When this kind of story comes out, it strengthens his position and weakens mine.

 

Barry agrees with Deez here. I typically don't think it a big deal to remove a confederate monument as they're typically not coming from a place of honor. This one is.

 

Thanks for the statement. What's unclear is whether "liberals" are asking for the Washington plaque to be removed or if the Vestry simply wants to avoid the entirety of the confederate plaque removal histrionics thus is removing both of them.

Here is their statement on why Washington too.

Based on that statement, this isn't a slippery slope argument but rather an attempt to remove Robert E. Lee entirely without the ensuing controversy. They've essentially said "we're removing all plaques" rather than make this a confederate issue.

 

And what I think is somewhat ironic is that the church doesn't distinguish between Lee and Washington. I think there's a pretty substantial difference.

 

They may have a strong "Southern" contingent of their congregation that they are trying to placate here. That's the only justification I can come up with. The anti-founding father movement hasn't materialized as of yet.

One of the national nightly news shows last night that had a story of Madison's Montpelier estate where they had invited descendants of the more than 300 slaves to assist in archaeological digs. This story didn't have the negative racial overtones which impressed me. These were teenagers and adults simply wanting to learn more about their ancestors lives. The estate was turning their finds into a slavery museum on the grounds.

 

They may be trying to avoid controversy by removing both, but I don't think that's effective. The Confederate advocates are still going to be pissed off, and they're creating a much bigger controversy, perhaps inadvertently.

But we can't lump them together in this debate. I think this has the perhaps unintended consequence of actually polarizing the issue by lumping them together. Personally, I'm OK with removing Confederate memorials and don't think black folks who complain about them are being unreasonable. If I was black, I would have a problem with them. However, if forced to choose between taking down all memorials or aligning with Confederate advocates and keeping both, I'm going to err on the side of keeping both. I'd rather have memorials to George Washington and Thomas Jefferson as well as Robert E. Lee or even Jefferson Davis than to have memorials to none.

 

Damned if you do...damned if you don't. As soon as the issue was identified, they were doomed. I'm sure there were some liberal congregation members that scoffed at the Robert E Lee monument. Their mistake was not realizing in 1870 that Robert E Lee would become eponymous for supporting slavery 150 years later, even though he personally didn't have any slaves.

 

Well, leadership is a contact sport ... no matter which decision you make, you're gonna get hit.

So ... take the hit from the one which is on thin ice ... take the chin music from those who'd rewrite history ... from those who are looking for someone to blame ...

take the hit from the one (side) which can't be pleased

take the hit from the one which doesn't represent propriety.

 

History is being rewritten constantly, as it should as new information becomes available. From my experience, churches are generally resistant to rocking the boat.

 

The character assassination of someone who has been pretty universally regarded as an honorable individual and great Christian example up until the extreme PC and anti-PC madness and ignorance overtook this country recently is rather sad. The man did not care about slavery. He was very loyal to the US and agonized about which side to fight for after being offered commands in both armies. Ultimately he did the right thing and sided with his family and the democratic will of his state over the democratic will of bunch of people in states north of him that he was not related to, did not know and did not see day to day. If your family, friends, neighbors and entire state leaves the US, why would you side with the US against the people you care about? And before you say “slavery”, slavery ending was not even on the table until the emancipation proclamation. One of the most amazing things about the civil war now being about slavery is no one in either army was trying to preserve or end it for the first two years of the war. The first two years the only issues were whether a state could secede or not/whether the union could be preserved. The “slavery cause” appeared two years after most of these men represented by statues in the north and south started fighting. You cannot honestly say that anyone who signed on in 1861 did so to free or keep slaves.

Sam Houston completely disagreed with secession, but stayed neutral, despite Lincoln’s call for assistence, knowing it would not have been honorable to fight against the democratic will of his state. I guess Lee could have gone the Sam Houston route and stayed neutral... though if I had to guess, that will not help Sam Houston and there will be calls for his removal soon enough unless the madness stops. In reality Sam Houston took a better course than Lee because if everyone on all sides said no to calls for service for war, we would not have any wars (obviously this is unrealistic).

On another more modern note, unless @Mr. Deez knows something I do not, I find it ridiculous Spain wants to jail the Catalonian leaders. As far as I know, those leaders did not do anything violent. Spain could remove and ban them from office, but jail time for “rebellion” seems a ridiculous response to failed democratic and peaceful secession attempt.

 

The same information is available. People just have new, less informed views on history as they rewrite it nowadays.

 

New information never comes to light? Really?

Democratic rule...for slavery. Think about that for a moment. I'd say he was an honorable man that chose to be on the wrong side of history.

 

of course, because the entire conflict was about the owning of other people.
SMH.

 

I guess the Constitution does not count either since it was for slavery.

 

It is a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. I get that, but the "we're not going to take sides or make moral distinctions" approach is easier for a government entity to take. They're supposed to be neutral entities that simply follow and enforce laws. A church is expected to make moral distinctions. That doesn't mean everybody has to agree with them, but they should be making them.

I don't think we're really learning very much new about Lee. I think people in 1870 knew that slavery was at least a major factor in the Civil War. Keep in mind that we can look at the articles of secession passed by the various states and see what their motivates were, and those were publicly available documents in 1870.

I think our judgment of slavery has changed. Certainly for the extent of my life, we've viewed slavery as a terrible wrong but not so terrible that we viewed anyone who supported it as inherently rotten regardless of whatever redeeming values and qualities that person might have had. Accordingly, one could disapprove of Lee's support for the Confederacy but still respect his character and the fact that he was one of the greatest officers in the history of the US military. Ditto for Jefferson Davis but to much lesser extent.

Instead, we're starting to approach slavery the way we approach Nazism. One could point out the resurrection of the German economy, the technological innovations, and infrastructural improvements that took place under Nazism, but it'll never outweigh or even mitigate genocide, waging aggressive war in Eastern Europe, and murdering millions of innocent people. Accordingly, it's becoming taboo to even mention anything positive not only about Hitler and his direct associates but of anybody associated with Nazi Germany. We're moving in that direction with the Confederacy. Anyone who was favorable to them in any sense is going to be viewed as monsters with no redeeming qualities. We're not quite there yet, but we're going that way with the Confederacy.

 

The bottom line is we are erecting for ourselves golden calves to worship and if you don't worship the golden calf of the day, you are an evil person with no redeeming qualities, certainly not in quantity to tolerate your evil objection of the golden calf.

We fail to understand because we reject The Truth... therefore the truth is foolishness ... and we worship a "graven image" to compensate for our lack of understanding.

 

Anyone who believes that slavery was not the principal issue in the "war of northern aggression" is not being honest about history. My middle name is Lee. I'm sure he was a fine man. George Washington did not take up arms against the United States.

 

He did take up and against Britain. The point is that he was a traitor. However, his efforts were successful. Lee's were not.