Expunging U.S. History

The Trust for the National Mall in Washington, D.C. says that; "the Jefferson Memorial and other monuments to the Founding Fathers will be updated to reflect their personal records as slave owners".

Oh brother. Maybe they can find a preserved pair of Jefferson's dirty underwear and have it mounted and included in the exhibit.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...l-to-be-altered-to-emphasize-slave-ownership/

 

Didn't most men free-ball back then? I didn't think underwear was a thing for men back in the 18th century.

 

That's out of my scope of expertise. But, according to Wikipedia's "Undergarment" article;

"The invention of the spinning jenny machines and the cotton gin in the second half of the 18th century made cotton fabrics widely available. This allowed factories to mass-produce underwear, and for the first time, people began buying undergarments in stores rather than making them at home."

So, I'm betting they wore tighty whities. Another nod to the inherent racism that was rampant at that time.

 

The guy arrested here is a richie rich kid

 

Seattle (and deez when arguing with me about the flag in Columbia) made a point about "democracy." National polling was 62% for the statues to remain, 27% for them to go and 11% did not care. 44% of african americans wanted them to stay, 40% wanted them to go and 16% did not care. Virginia is 51% stay, 28% go and 22% do not care. Polling among republicans in South Carolina after the flag was removed found 76% disagreed with the decision of the republican legislature to remove the flag.

Public officials giving into the media and a loud, vocal minority that averages only around 27% of americans (less than a third) is not democratic at all. Of course Stalin said he only needed 1 out of every 10 people on his side to control the other 9.

Trump gets votes because he takes majority positions (being pro statues) and does not cower to the media and a small, vocal minority like many other leaders seem to do.

 

And yet the GOPe cannot see a winning strategy even when it is demonstrated right in front of them.

 

Honestly, I think this is a local issue and in this case why should someone in Seattle (me) have any voice in Charlottesville's decision to remove the statue. I'd say the same for the UT statues as well. Now, I should have a voice in the Seattle statues. Some guy in rural Nebraska shouldn't have a voice in keeping a confederate statue on the campus of UT. Heck, that statue is intended to reflect what UT students/alumni revere, not what a Husker, Aggie or Tide fan thinks.

In Charlottesville, a AA student gather 2000+ signatures from locals and petitioned the City Council to remove the statue. They agreed. That's the Democracy I'm referring to. That's 2k signatures in a town of 43k. That total is not insignificant.

The pool you state says 62% said for them to remain. Rueters/Ipso just released a poll yesterday that claimed 54% support them remaining. One thing I'm confident in is that the more the White Supremacists march around this issue that support will continue to dwindle.

 

He'll be popular in prison...and since he has a prior probation for explosives within the past few years, I don't envision a federal judge letting him have probation on THIS charge.

 

Seattle,

1. UT and Fenves consulted no one. I 100% support having a state vote on the issue or even an alumni vote. There was nothing democratic about Fenves's position. There is currently a lawsuit against him for an unrelated matter due to his unilateral decision making.

2. 2000 random signatures that may or may not be local is not a vote. Let the issue at least be a campaign issue in the next council election. However, since you are pro democracy I would assume you would support a local public vote on the matter.

3. I quotes the PBS/NPR poll conducted AFTER Charlottesville. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/pressre...e-weak-fatal-car-rampage-act-domestic-terror/
Your poll still indicates over half support the statues. While the number of pro statue people has varried between 51-61% the number of anti-statue people has been a more steady 24-28% in polls.

If these poll numbers are accurate, I do not think a local vote would result in the removal of statues... which is why officials have not been putting it to a local vote. They have instead acted like UT Pres Fenves did by removing statues in the middle of the night including removing non-confederate statues (Governor Hogg) against the recommendation of his own biased, non-local, mostly-non UT alumni task force.

There would be a lot less opposition from me and others if these statues were being removed in a more democratic fashion and not in the cover of darkness without prior announcement or at the behest of a small vocal minority.

I will add that it does not help the anti-statue side when communist antifa rallies and people trying to blow up statues rally to the anti-statue cause.

 

Seattle, here are the people on the anti-statue side. I never defended the neo-nazis and never will. However these are the people you claim have the moral high ground and defended:


Defending and siding with people who follow the morally bankrupt ideology of regimes that killed 36 million in Russia, 50 million in China and countless more is not a good look.

 

That's funny as hell. lol

(And for the record, I hate tighty-whities.)

 

But we don't govern by polls. We govern by election results. If it's truly that lopsided, then it should be very easy to oust the officials who are taking down the monuments and flags and replace them with people who will put them back up.

 

I think the undergarments of choice were pantaloons? Pa Ingalls wore red long johns.
Tighty whities = yuck.

 

And uncomfortable, and stupid-looking . . .

I'll never understand why some men choose them. There's no upside at all.

 

My boys need a house.

 

Everybody's boys need a house, but they don't necessarily need the secure packaging of Jockeys.

 

They get ousted Deez. Leaders in both parties keep pandering to the 27% that want statues removed. The results are them being out of step with the majority and people like Donald Trump getting elected. Leaders being out of step with things 70% want or don't care about and acting in favor of the 27% has results. The results may not be getting statutes back but the results do include division and worse candidates. Hillary pandering to the extreme left and becoming out of step with the majority was a factor in her losing. Another example is Nikki Haley. Quite a few people, including myself, will never vote for her now no matter what.

The issue is not big enough that someone is going to vote for someone who wants to put the statues back, but it is big enough to cause people to vote for the outsiders (who are sometimes loons) running against incumbents in primaries or general elections. In short, elected officials should not pander to dumb, extremist wishes of less than 30% on something (statues) that is not harming anyone.

 

Now this guy, Daniel Pena, in the Texas Observer is suggesting that the Alamo should be included in the Confederate Statue Discussion.

https://www.texasobserver.org/remember-alamo-differently/

Them's fighting words.

 

One thing I'm confident in is that the more the Democrats and their hate groups such as BLM and ANTIFA march around and pull down statues these issue that support will continue to dwindle and the GOP will keep winning future elections.

 

The Houston person can and should be prosecuted. Careful about that Boston Antifa group. It's largely believed that's a fake account. At least the actual antifa groups aren't vouching for it. Antifa clearly exists, not sure they need any help to be viewed as extremist.

National polls shouldn't drive a local issue. Besides, there is likely a vast difference in saying "should all confederate statues be removed" and should a specific statue be removed when asking a specific community. Again, some guy living in California shouldn't have any say what happens on the UT campus unless that person is affiliated with the school (i.e. alumni).

Those 2000 signatures were submitted to the Charlottesville City Council who voted to remove the Robert E. Lee statue. I agree with Deez, if Charlottseville citizens don't like their decisions then they should vote those councilman and mayor out. In the UT case, the Regents have control over Fueves, right?

 

Based on the riot at the last Charlottesville City Council meeting, I think they are all getting voted out for their poor handling of the protests anyway so it will be tough to tell the primary reason for them getting voted out.

UT is a big can of worms that goes far far far beyond statues. The Kroll report came out a couple of years ago showing Powers (who Fenves succeeded) bought off support from the Legislature by admitting unqualified kids of elected officials into UT (which has very competitive admissions that just had an affirmative action case go up to the supreme court). The result is that UT is now horribly corrupt and mismanaged with massive administrstive waste and the house desperately needs to be cleaned for a lot bigger reasons than statues or liberal/conservative politics.

In short, UT's leadership has bought off key state support for awhile and feel free to do whatever they want with anything without caring what locals, alumni, students or the state thinks. If you want a reference for how out of hand it has gotten and what a corrupt scumbag Fenves is, see this thread: https://www.hornfans.com/threads/ut-president-fenves-sued.104857/

Fenves ignored his own biased task forces he set up by removing all the statues and by overturning that sexual assault finding. In short, he is just doing what he personally wants to do.

Now the people could pressure the governor to appoint new regents, but they dont. In reality, almost all public education needs improvement at all levels, but people dont really care. Go look at the horribly low turnouts in local school board elections. Or they just vote for President and think Trump will just fix everything.

Anyway, UT has taken a financial hit. The percentage of UT and UT Law alumni that give is ridiculously low compared to other comparable schools (like laughably low). UT actually gets state oil money and unless the legislature cuts that off, UT probably can survive with 0 alumni giving. My personal opinion is that if UT continues to prioritize out of state students in admissions and continues to dump on the popular will of the people of the state, the Legislature should take UT's oil money away and use it to build better roads and infrastructure. Force UT to rely on donations like most schools and they would actually have to be responsive to alumni and locals. As long as they can buy off the Legislature with admissions, keep the oil money and do favors for a few rich daddies, King Fenves will continue to have total control over a state funded fiefdom.

Hopefully people will at some point start caring about public education at all levels and where there tax money is going. Right now, a lot of UT almuni are outraged about the statues and have stopped giving, but nothing will be done about statues or any of the much bigger problems if they do not put pressure on the legislature.

I think one of the issues is people incorrectly see UT as separate entity and do not understand it is a state institution funded by their tax dollars and their state-owned oil and they do have a say regardless of where they went to school or even if they did not.

The problem we have is, in a lot of these situations, is there is not very much responsiveness by leaders to their constituents and it is driving popularity for Trumps and Bernies.

 

Damn straight those are fighting words!

 

My lefty opinion. If a city/state/university have a constituency that directs them to take down confederate monuments that's a local decision made by local representatives. I don't have any real opinion of a statue at UT Austin. I can see them taking them down to protect them in the short term until we "figure out what's going on". I won't raise a finger to remove or to save a confederate statue in my region. My opinion is that I don't have slavery in my family tree so my lack of offense is irrelevant. That said, if my region had a statue of Andrew Jackson there I'd like to see it removed. Put it in a park somewhere else but not on courthouse lawns and shared public areas.

The issue is that these monuments were put up as part of the Lost Cause movement to not so subtlety remind the "formerly" oppressed that they needed to keep themselves in line. Kept in line by people who used terms like "the war of northern aggression" and states rights. That war was about the economic impact of the outlawing of chattell slavery.

Conflating these figures with Jefferson, Washington, etc. is wrong. They didn't take up arms against the USA. I think Robert E. Lee, who was by all accounts an American hero prior to the Civil War, would agree that he differed from that group.

Again, the protests and anti protests in Charlottesville were NOT about the statue. The racist right is emboldened since 11/8/16. The Klan and their ilk were there from all over without hoods. NO ONE at that protest who walked with the neo nazis were "good people". They lost that identification once it started and the swastikas were out and they were still marching.

 

While I don't care that much about Confederate statues, some do. You can't know that everyone out there was a neo-nazi racist. Would you march with BLM to protest an issue you cared about? They are a racist hate-group that seems to attract other liberal whites.

 

Actually, they were put up by people who loved their fathers/grandfathers/veterans and were patriotic to their state just like every other war monument.

I can very easily disapprove your theory on the statues at UT being there as a reminder to the formerly oppressed: UT was segregated when those statues were put there meaning minorities would not have seen them at the time. If they were put as a hate symbol of oppression and a "reminder", they would have been put up in the segregated black neighborhoods. I understand how a black person can see it as a reminder, but that was never the intent of the statues.

This whole "they put statues as part of hate" is a big, stupid lie. Black people did not want statues of MLK Jr. as a "screw you" to racists. They wanted his statue because he was a hero to them and they wanted to honor him, which the vast majority of Americans, including myself, think is great.

World War 2 memorials are not there as a "f*** you" to nazis and the japanese. They are there to honor WW2 Veterans.

The South lost the war. It was economically devastating far beyond the end of slavery. The South went from being wealthy and able to challenge the North so far as to openly secede, to being impoverished, politically insignificant and trampled upon. The statues were put up by a bunch of people that were not seeing their ancestors as defending enslavement (they were living in a segregated society where black people were treated terribly), they saw them as defending their homes and states from the devastation that the civil war and reconstruction caused. The oppression of reconstructuon caused the white south to vote solidly democrat for 100 years and the oppression of slavery has caused 9/10 black people to vote liberal for far longer than that. Somehow that is lost on people from both parties. They think everything must just be "racism" and they are trying to apply nazi thought processes to free American people who existed before nazis were a thing and fought nazis. FDR commented on how destitute the South was and worked on that during the New Deal. The South saw their southern heroes as defending them from foreign invasion and destitution and wanted to honor them just like we honor WW2 vets.

Now, we all know the South brought everything on itself and was foolish and that slavery was wrong. However, that does not change the fact that the statues were not put there as "hate symbols" to oppress anyone. Americans do not do that in their public spaces.

This whole "they were put there as hate or to oppress black people" baloney needs to end. It is total balony.

Also, the lost cause was never about white supremacy. America was heavily segregated from the 1880s-1950s and 60s. If the war was about "white supremacy" than the cause was not lost until long after the heyday of the "lost cause movement". The "lost cause" was southern independence and being a separate independent country. What all those hundreds of thousands of non-slave owners fighting the war thought they were fighting a second war of independence to be their own country. The union troops thought they were fighting war to preserve the Union. As another poster pointed out, for the vast majority of americans on both sides, the war was over whether a state could unilaterally secede or not over any issue. The Emancipation Proclamation was not issued until well after the war began and even it did not free all the slaves. Hell, northern states even passed the Corwin Amendment protecting slavery and the South rejected that because slavery was not the primary issue. The North proposed the Corwin Amendment protecting slave rights because preserving the union was their primary cause and the South rejected it because State's Rights particularly secession was their primary cause. The end of slavery was a secondary result, but federal supremacy and the indivisibility of the Union were the primary reasons for the war.... which people in the 1880-1990s used to understand.

 

Conflating the BLM movement with Nazi/KKK is more moral equivalency. Yes, there are racist elements of the BLM but it is an movement preaching equality not superiority. That is a HUGE difference that separates them.

 

I'm assuming the 29% response was "Why are you bothering me with this nonsense?"

It's 4%. I'm not sure how significant that is. So basically the strategy to get things done at the local level is to get 4% of the people to get really angry, sign a petition and threaten the city council with national attention and accusations of racism, and you can pretty much do whatever you want.

They may or may not be preaching superiority, but I'm not sure you can say they're preaching equality when they're saying that a person should be judged as evil/racist/the cause of societal ills and in need of re-education based on their skin color and cultural/political worldview.

 

The Charlottesville statue was commissioned in 1917 and erected in 1924. Do you think that has anything to do with the revival of the KKK starting in 1915, hitting its zenith in the 1920's? Just a coincidence?

Again, the local politicians voted to remove the statue. This wasn't particularly controversial until the outsiders (on all sides of the political spectrum) took up the cause.

Isn't that the crux of the matter? WWII vets were fighting for the USA. These Southern heroes were fighting for a subset of the South and against their slaves rights. Do you think a descendant of a slave might look at a Robert E. Lee statue different than McArthur?

 

From the Southern Poverty Law Center: 4. There were two major periods in which the dedication of Confederate monuments and other symbols spiked — the first two decades of the 20th century and during the civil rights movement.
The timing is significant. The Southern Strategy hurt our country more than Vietnam. It brought on division for decades to come.