The First 100 days

Discussion in 'West Mall' started by theiioftx, Nov 10, 2016.

  1. OUBubba

    OUBubba 5,000+ Posts

    There's a difference between having history and glorifying an era as an act of oppression. These statues were mostly built during times where the subjugated population was gaining a foothold. It peaked in two eras. First, when states were passing Jim Crow laws and second during the school desegregation and civil rights era. Robert E. Lee himself argued against erecting any monuments.

    My family is from the south. I don't know that they had slaves but I'd assume that they did, probably even the Indian side of the family tree. I guess I need to update my antifa email address.
     
  2. Garmel

    Garmel 5,000+ Posts

    You're just quoting MSM ********. Even the left leaning Politifact shoots this down. http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...nfederate-symbols-gain-prominence-civil-righ/
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. theiioftx

    theiioftx Sponsor Deputy

    I believe most were erected during the period when many of the veterans who survived were dying.

    If you were reading or listening to anything but CNN or MSNBC, you would not need the ANTIFA email address. However, since you brush with broad strokes, maybe you are one of them too?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Htown77

    Htown77 5,000+ Posts

    You want nuance? There is a difference in supporting your southern heritage and supporting nazis. A lot of confederate flag waiving southerners died ridding the world of nazis. An 1800s, extreme libertarian, American, constitutional republic which had a jewish secretary of state and that had slavery and tried to gain independence (CSA) was nearly the same as the slightly less libertarian, American, constitutional republic that had slavery (USA) from which it was seceding. The CSA was not remotely similar to a 1900s, undemocratic, tyrannical, fascist, german dictatorship that committed a holocaust and tried to take over the world.

    The people that join the klan/neo nazis tend to be total fools who do not know history or anything very well so it makes sense that they would stupidly confuse the two. Please stop going along with klan/neo nazi stupidity and thinking the American South and neo nazis are the same thing. Be smarter than them. Stop agreeing with them.

    Guess what? A hell of a lot of pro confederate statue southerners had their families fight and die ridding of the world of the actual nazis. They are not fans of the neo-nazis punks marching or in general either.

    Neo-nazis/the klan often adopt US flags too. Most americans comprehend what they stand for is not what the US flag stands for. If a neo-nazi idiot is waiving a confederate flag, that flag sure as hell does not stand for hitler, fascism, hate, etc. any more than the star spangled banner does.

    A bunch of southern Americans that historically dont want “gov’ment” telling them what to and tried to break off is the exact dang opposite of a bunch of germans trying to bring one of the most all-controlling, central, least free governments in history to the world.
     
  5. Garmel

    Garmel 5,000+ Posts

    That's what the article says. Most of the statues were erected in 1910, which would make most of the Civil War veterans in their 60s and 70s. In other words, they are beginning to pass away.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. OUBubba

    OUBubba 5,000+ Posts

    Reid was partly wrong. Many of them were put up 40/50 years previous to that when the Jim Crow laws were being passed. It's the same data set. The first uptick may be wholly related to aging out civil war vets. Ok. It also coincided with the NAACP being founded and the resurgence of the klan. If the monuments were only related to vets, then why is there another uptick after Brown v. Board of Education and the civil rights era of the 1960's?
     
  7. OUBubba

    OUBubba 5,000+ Posts

    You should tell your fellow southerners this and not worry about educating this "liberal".

    PS: State's rights. Nice....it was 98% about chattel slavery and you know it.
     
  8. Htown77

    Htown77 5,000+ Posts

    Hundreds of thousands of people that never owned a slave died for someone else’s property. Sure.

    Tell that to my Texas german ancestors that came to Texas when it was still part of Mexico, fought for the south and, like most texas germans, never owned a damn slave.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  9. OUBubba

    OUBubba 5,000+ Posts

    Except for the fact that the motivation of the people making the decisions were different that those Germans. Look at the Mississippi letter as an example.
    ---------------
    In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

    Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth.
     
  10. Garmel

    Garmel 5,000+ Posts

    Do me a favor and just read the article I just posted and look at the timeline. The rise of the Klan occurred after the statues. The climb in statues occurred before the NAACP. I swear, you're getting as bad as Husker. I can show you fact after fact where you're wrong and will still try to spin the damn thing to your favor.
     
  11. OUBubba

    OUBubba 5,000+ Posts

    From your article. "Reid's comment that Confederate symbols are political statements aimed at African-Americans is backed up by history, say experts."

    She's wrong but not wholly wrong. Plessy v. Ferguson where separate but equal started seems to be the 2 of spades that got played to get this started.

    As I said, you may be right about the honoring of veterans. However, if you were right there wouldn't have been an uptick in the 50's/60's. There was. Can we agree on that part?
     
  12. Garmel

    Garmel 5,000+ Posts

    There were no uptick of statues during the 50s/60s. The only thing that happened during that time was an uptick in confederate flags being hijacked by the Klan for political reasons. We were talking about confederate statues, right?
     
  13. Htown77

    Htown77 5,000+ Posts

    I have already shown on the board that the confederate monument movement happened at the exact same time as the american revolution monument movement, northern civil war monument movement and texas revolution monument movements happened. It was a time when people cared about preserving history so everyone could get it wrong and destroy it 100 years later.

    Daughters of the American Revolution founded: 1890
    Daughters of the Republic of Texas founded: 1891
    Daughters of the Confederacy founded: 1894
    Sons of Confederate Veterans: 1896
    Lincoln Memorial: Built from 1914-1922.
    US Grant Memorial: Build from 1902-1924

    The Daughters and Sons groups are responsible for most confederate memorials.

    The monument history movement and the rise of the Klan/segregation are as related as the Cubs winning the world series and Trump becoming becoming president. Many unrelated things happen at the same time.

    Trump was elected president and the economy is booming! My economics degree tells me the President does not have that much control over the economy, but maybe he was the spade that got it started! :smile1:
     
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2018
  14. OUBubba

    OUBubba 5,000+ Posts

    Broseph: First, I certainly concede that most were built when you state. HOWEVER, there are two trends in this data. One is in the Jim Crow days that also coincide with aging vets. The other is just after Brown v. Board of Education. That was 1954. There was one built that year. There were 17 in the 12 years before that. There were 75 in the 12 years after. Is that a 525% increase? I'm not a statistician.

    It's not as significant as far as raw numbers go when compared to the lost cause era but it's obvious unless you're in denial.

    https://www.splcenter.org/20180604/whose-heritage-public-symbols-confederacy
     
  15. ProdigalHorn

    ProdigalHorn 10,000+ Posts

    So is your argument that there were no "good people" protesting the removal of civil war statues, regardless of whether they were in league with the white supremacists? Basically if you were against removing the statue, you were on the wrong side and were not a good person?
     
  16. OUBubba

    OUBubba 5,000+ Posts

    I say if you saw the **** show that took place with the tiki torch march and the "blood and soil" stuff that was all over the news the night before and you didn't pack it up and take it to the house then you're overly attached to confederate monuments. Much like that armed citizen in Dallas a few years ago who, according to his lawful right, had an AR-15 strapped to him. Once the bullets started flying he found the nearest police officer and turned his weapon in. Mark Hughes. Smart guy.
     
  17. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    No comment on this issue from me except this.

    [​IMG]
     
  18. ShAArk92

    ShAArk92 1,000+ Posts

    9 months, eh?

    that’s some honeymoon. you wouldn’t be jaded by difference in politics, would ya???

    or ... are you suggesting it was W’s fault 9/11 happened? Are you one of those nut ball “truthers?”

    I can unequivocally state the government didn’t “allow” 9/11 to happen. If it had, as part of a group who could have understood how ... but the one of 3 possible ways weren’t “voided” ... so ... no ... you could say the government was incompetent, and I woudln’t necessarily disagree ... and that incompetence didn’t start when W was inaugurated, btw ... it took those cretens a while to plan and execute ... right under the nose of Clinton. But the Fed Govt of the US didn’t ALLOW Muslims to execute their terrorist act.

    I’ll never say never, but because of what we have known, now, since 9/11 ... it won’t be an “unobserved” attack.

    Wake up Hanna.
     
  19. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    It was part of Russia, but it was transferred voluntarily to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic back in the '50s. After the breakup of the Soviet Union, it was duly left under the control of the successor nation, the Ukrainian Republic. I don't see anything in that equation that suggests any sort of Russian right to it today.

    You're regurgitating Musberger talking points. First, there's no reason to put "invaded" in quotes. It was an invasion - not a big one, but it was an invasion. Russian military personnel entered the Ukraine without the Ukraine's permission. That's an invasion. Second, the pro-EU coup didn't happen for shits and giggles. There was a reason for it. Third, a coup doesn't justify an invasion. Unless the naval base was seized, I don't see any basis for invasion.

    LOL. You mentioned (and rightly so) that conventional weapons are necessary to deal with other threats (meaning non-Russian). That is true, and that's why you should walk back your comment about every tank in Europe being a waste of money. Russia isn't the only bad apple in the world.

    Nevertheless, you're still nuts to assume that tanks wouldn't be used in a war with Russia. In fact, Russia has conducted military exercises, drills, etc. near Eastern NATO countries, and guess what has been part of those? Tanks - quite a few of them, in fact. So they think tanks would be involved in any conflict, whether offensively or defensively. And even Eisenhower whom you quoted, deployed US Army tanks to Europe during the Cold War, even though both the US and the USSR were nuclear powers. If you think NATO is obsolete and that the US shouldn't do anything to protect Europe, that's another matter. If you buy that, then all military strength dealing with Russia or NATO is a waste of money. However, if you think the ability to win a fight with Russia or any substantial military force, then tanks aren't a waste.

    OK, dude. Nitpick me on what I called it. The Ground Forces of the Russian Federation is a formidable and large force. It could roll over the Baltics with no problem. That's the point I was getting at, and there has been a Russian military buildup in that area (with tanks!). The fear is well-founded.

    I don't have any special loyalty to the Ukraine. I think we should try to have decent relations with them, but I'm not interested in putting them in NATO. If they choose to make deals with the EU or join the EU, that's their business.

    One thing I'm not neutral on is that Yulia Tymoshenko is sexy as hell.

    [​IMG]
     
  20. Garmel

    Garmel 5,000+ Posts

    As HTown hinted I'm pretty certain if you lay out the timeline when the Revolutionary War statues were being erected you can probably find a "correlation" between them and certain big events in the Civil Rights movement. :p The SPLC is a hard left organization so I wouldn't take anything they say seriously.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  21. ProdigalHorn

    ProdigalHorn 10,000+ Posts

    Just answer the question, please.
     
  22. Htown77

    Htown77 5,000+ Posts

    Okay @Mr. Deez, you got me. I think we can trust her.

    The monuments in the 1960s tended to mark centennials of the civil war and were not related to any message. See the battle flag in Columbia, South Carolina.

    Also, the whole "the monuments were directed at black people for white supremacy" is such a failure to understand the southern and even american mindset it is not even funny. When people were invoking confederate imagery in the south in the 1950s, it was not directed at black people. It was directed at the north for telling the south what to do yet again. It was about defiance against white yankees and yes, local control of government. This entire country was founded on states rights when the colonies did not like England telling them what do in 1776. That is why we started with the Articles of Confederation and not the Constitution. South Carolina tried to secede over states rights in the 1830s which had nothing to do with slavery but because the north was setting their tariff rates. Texas (and other mexican states joined in the rebellion for the same reason) seceded from Mexico over local control and an unpopular central government telling them what to do (although that is not the best example as, admittedly, Santa Anna was a dictator that overthrew the democratic government). Yet somehow, it boggles the mind of many, that the South in both the 1860s and 1950s (just like all of America in 1776) simply never liked being told what to do by someone far away and tended to get hardheaded about it even when they were wrong. I will also add, the North was not too different from the South. You know why the Federal Courts stopped pushing desegregation in the 1970s? Because they started trying to desegregate the north. The hypocritical north pushed back and said "we do not need to do this anymore." Why? The same hardheadedness. The difference between the South and the North was, the North in the 1970s actually had a power to call things off when they got hardheaded and did not like it.

    Anyway, the rebel flag from 1950-2000 was seen as a symbol of general hardheaded defiance and NOT white supremacy
    . This whole white supremacy baloney is part of the revision of history and now living in an "EVERYTHING IS RACIST" society.

    I honestly feel like the guy who worked at the Ministry of Truth in 1984 because it is amazing how over the just the past 10 years how much history I have seen rewritten and I am not just talking about the South or even American history. Literally everyone and everything is viewed through a truth distorting "racist" lens and since every reaction has an equal and opposite reaction, we now have elected a tv goofball president.

    This we can agree on. I have no idea why anyone would go to a nazi rally. I mean people on BOTH sides. Both the nazis and antifas showed up looking for trouble. Anyone who went to that was dumb or looking for trouble whether they are for or against. I totally agree there is no reason to ever go to any rally being put on by nazis even if they come it out for something you like. If Nazis come out for ice cream and decide to have an ice cream rally, while it certainly will not change my opinion of ice cream, I certainly would not attend their ice cream rally and no one with a brain should.

    If you have a group causing trouble whether it is nazis in virginia, blm in fergueson or that bundee rancher in nevada, you decide to go there and you are not law enforcement trying to keep the peace, you are part of the problem. I do not like neo-nazis either, but I see no good coming out of me going out there and yelling at them. What the hell does two groups of people yelling at each other accomplish? Unless they are going to protest and counterprotest apart from one another, the only thing that can come out of that is physical violence. It is stupid.

    However, americans have the right to have protests. When troublemakers decide to have an event, the police need to keep them and the troublemakers who will counterprotest apart. The biggest culprits in Charlottesville were the police who let the troublemakers on both sides fight it out until someone got killed. The mayor and police chief should have resigned in disgrace.
     
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2018
  23. Htown77

    Htown77 5,000+ Posts

    Also, I hate to break it to you @Mr. Deez, but you and Bystander were complaining about how everything is now called a nazi nowadays. Well when you and Nikki Haley go along and give in to the revision of history and symbolism and go along with the rebel flag being converted from a symbol of general defiance, anti-authority in general or the south into "nazis", you just embolden them. If you pointed at a confederate flag 30 years ago and called it a nazi symbol, people would look at your like you were nuts. Now it has been successfully associated. Yes, the next thing they will call "nazis" will be republicans. They called the south "nazis" over and over and over and over until it stuck. Now, after yall helped them out, they are doing the same thing to republicans.

    As much as I do not like Trump, he is not a dang nazi. He is not even conservative, and I honestly do not even think he is a racist either. He is just an incompetent goofball and a populist in the vein of William Jennings Bryant. But the left knows they can keep chipping away and calling everything "racist" and "nazis" because republicans like Nikki Haley will move the goal posts back and let them. They'll appease and give in. The "vilify those that oppose us to an extreme" was the primary tactic of the nazis. The "everything is racist group" are the closest thing we have today to anyone acting politically like nazis. You know what does not work with people acting like nazis? Appeasement. You follow Nikki Haley, you might as well be following George Pickett across the fields of Gettysburg because she will only lead you to defeat.

    I will give Trump this. He is defiant and does not back down. I would love to see someone like that who is actually a conservative and is not a fool run for office. Unfortunately, Trump is like John Bell Hood and, while he will not back down, his incompetency will generally probably end in disaster.
     
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2018
  24. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    Barry, you do realize that someone could just as easily argue, "If you saw Antifa show up to (insert protest) and didn't pack it up and take it to the house, then you're overly attached to (insert issue)." The presence of crackpots doesn't give rise to a duty by reasonable people to be quiet and go home. If anything, the opposite is true.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  25. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    I didn't say you could trust her. I just said she's sexy as hell. If anything, that's a reason to be suspicious of her. LOL.
     
  26. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    Damn, I need a trigger warning for you any time Nikki Haley gets brought up. lol

    And just FYI - conservatives have been called Nazis much longer than the Confederate flag or memorials have been serious issues. In fact, I've never known a time when they weren't. I remember countless times when they were called Nazis for slowing the growth in Medicare spending back in 1995, which is kinda ironic since the Medicare program is actually very Nazi-like. The Nazis would have loved the Medicare program. But people forget that "Nazi" was an abbreviation for "Nationalsozialistische," which is German for National Socialist. Socialism was part of the equation.
     
  27. Htown77

    Htown77 5,000+ Posts

    I am tired of Nikki Haley and Joe Straus type republicans who pretend to be socially conservative, but really are not. They will sell out on any moral values in a heartbeat. They tell their base one thing, but will give in to the opposition if things get at all difficult because they really do not share the values of their voters. It is all a farce with them. Although with Trump, I am not sure what direction that party is going anyway.
     
  28. OUBubba

    OUBubba 5,000+ Posts

    525% increase does not a correlation make?
     
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2018
  29. OUBubba

    OUBubba 5,000+ Posts

    I can say that there may have been a few "good" people/descendants of the sons/daughters of the confederacy who were protesting. Much like how Donald Trump's dad got rolled up with the KKK back in the 1940's. I'm sure he was just passing through.

    After seeing the Nazi flags you'd think they'd get the heck out of dodge.
     
  30. OUBubba

    OUBubba 5,000+ Posts

    I was referring to the tiki torch carriers marching and singing blood and soil. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_and_Soil. There were a few actual swastika flags the next day.
     

Share This Page