an explanation on why the moments for the South topple so easy

[Stan]

 

[CyberGuy]

Many of the monuments are being toppled by MOB action. This I do not approve of. Many of government sanctioned removals are simply moving it to another place or a historical library. It is the mob action I disapprove of. Seems mob violence is the approved action of many these days. Even monuments to Lincoln have been attacked and vandalized. Seems many do not know who the good guys were during that period.

[Gary K]

This destruction of Confederate monuments is pure stupidity.  If you want to make sure slavery is gone for good you make sure that history is kept alive.  You don't destroy that history.  Look what the German's did after WWII.  They made monuments out of places like Auschwitz so that no one could ever forget the horror and the evil.  They didn't wipe out all the physical reminders of the Holocaust.  They made sure that the memory stayed alive. 

The destruction of history is the beginning of totalitarianism, because if we don't know where we came from we have no idea where it is we are headed.  This is illustrated well in George Orwell's book, 1984.  We ignore these lessons at our own peril. 

[GayatfootofCross]

4 hours ago, Gary K said:

This destruction of Confederate monuments is pure stupidity.  If you want to make sure slavery is gone for good you make sure that history is kept alive.  You don't destroy that history.  Look what the German's did after WWII.  They made monuments out of places like Auschwitz so that no one could ever forget the horror and the evil.  They didn't wipe out all the physical reminders of the Holocaust.  They made sure that the memory stayed alive. 

The destruction of history is the beginning of totalitarianism, because if we don't know where we came from we have no idea where it is we are headed.  This is illustrated well in George Orwell's book, 1984.  We ignore these lessons at our own peril. 

hello Gary K.

 

Actually they made them Museums to show the Horror and the INTENT is to teach.

Those  statues Are  Monuments are in pubic squares as a source of Pride and a Salute to those men.

 

There is difference !

Perhaps we can now have museums in the South ..  highlighting the atrocities with those statues with their crimes against humanity on plaques  and using even using those very statues as exhibits in those Museums, instead. Hey !

Wonderfully dotted all over the region.

School field trips and documentaries for years to come!

Lest .."We ignore these lessons at our own peril." - Gary K

So the history of hate in America that basically had brother on brother KILLING  each other over Greed and Racism would be remembered.

 

well anyhooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Here is something from Ty Gibson on this Everyone!

http://www.lightbearers.org/a-brutal-wakeup-call/

[GayatfootofCross]

Oh dear!

I kinda thought I was dropping that Ty link in the other thread "where was the Church?"

But if I do that it would be called spamming?

[Stan]

9 hours ago, CyberGuy said:

Many of the monuments are being toppled by MOB action. This I do not approve of. Many of government sanctioned removals are simply moving it to another place or a historical library. It is the mob action I disapprove of. Seems mob violence is the approved action of many these days. Even monuments to Lincoln have been attacked and vandalized. Seems many do not know who the good guys were during that period.

I agree there.

I do not think Lincoln would be supportive of this.

His speech about the end of the war, was one of the best in History and started a noble road to one America.

[CoAspen]

I, being white, can not understand what it means to a black person to see a statue or symbol of the desire for continuation of slavery in a park where my children play or a town square where I live.  Takeing them down and putting in a museum or such, as a teaching method, would be more appropriate, maybe. It all depends on how much we revere the  persons depicted. Prejudice and racism are very subtle, at times, to white Americans. Depending on culture/background/location of a person, they may not understand that their own words/thoughts/ideas about others is hateful. When we think/act/believe that an individual/ourself is in any way more important/better/smarter, etc than any other person, it is hateful in the eyes of God. If we fully believe in Christ and desire to emulate that character, than we have to eliminate any feelings of superiority and help others in their battles for equality in all aspects of being human.

[Gary K]

7 hours ago, GayatfootofCross said:

hello Gary K.

 

Actually they made them Museums to show the Horror and the INTENT is to teach.

Those  statues Are  Monuments are in pubic squares as a source of Pride and a Salute to those men.

 

There is difference !

Perhaps we can now have museums in the South ..  highlighting the atrocities with those statues with their crimes against humanity on plaques  and using even using those very statues as exhibits in those Museums, instead. Hey !

Wonderfully dotted all over the region.

School field trips and documentaries for years to come!

Lest .."We ignore these lessons at our own peril." - Gary K

So the history of hate in America that basically had brother on brother KILLING  each other over Greed and Racism would be remembered.

 

well anyhooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Here is something from Ty Gibson on this Everyone!

http://www.lightbearers.org/a-brutal-wakeup-call/

A museum is a monument to history. 

I am amazed sometimes at how little we respect those who lived before us, and at how little we think what it would have been like to grow up and live during a time other than our own. 

The following will seem off-topic, but I have a point to make and don't know how else to go about it. 

Abraham Lincoln is often accused of racism in these days.  Yet, when you read his writings, and most of his correspondence and other things he wrote have been saved, you see a man who was incapable of racism.  His level of compassion was such that he could not bear to see even an animal in pain.  It physically affected him to witness someone in pain.  Yet, he seriously considered sending blacks back to Africa.  Why?  To understand why he thought that way you have to actually understand both the man and his times. 

He was born in the back woods of Illinois.  He had never actually known a black man until he met Frederick Douglass, the famous abolitionist, during the time he was president.  He had, however, when he was 18 made a trip on a flat boat down the Mississippi river to New Orleans.  He later wrote of how much it affected him to see human beings chained together and sold like cattle.  He later wrote, based on that experience, that if slavery was not wrong, nothing in the world could wrong.  That is an absolute moral judgment against slavery. 

So why did he consider sending blacks back to Africa, and think, at one point in his life, that blacks and whites could never actually live together.  What caused that?  To understand that you have to look at what the scientists of his day were saying.  Phrenology was considered real.  Scientific consnsus then was that blacks were not the mental or moral equivalent of whites.  As someone who had never actually known a black man, what else was he supposed base his view on?  He was in line with the science of his day in that thinking.

Then, while he was president, someone introduced him to Frederick Douglass.  Frederick Douglass was a known critic of Lincoln.  He opposed almost everything Lincoln was doing.  Then someone, and I can't remember who off the top of my head, made an appointment for him to meet Lincoln.  He says that when he walked into the waiting room at the WH, he looked around and the waiting room was full.  There were army and cavalry officers, military messengers, congressmen, business men, and then him.  He felt highly out of place and figured that Lincoln, as busy as he was might give him a brusque hi-and-goodbye, and that would be it.  To his surprise when Lincoln's secretary told Lincoln he was there Lincoln told the secretary to bring him in.  When Douglass entered the room one of the members of Lincoln's cabinet was in the room have a discussion with Lincoln.  To his absolute surprise Lincoln got to his feet, shook his hand, and turned to the Cabinet member and said, we can finish this later.  I've been wanting to meet and talk to Mr. Douglass.  

Douglass said all of Lincoln's other business was put on hold while he and Lincoln talked, and they talked for a long time.  If my memory serves me correct it was a couple of hours.  At that first meeting the two men became fast friends.  When Douglass left he left with a completely different understanding of who Lincoln was and what Lincoln was trying to accomplish.  They met and talked several times after that and most of the decisions Lincoln made afterwards concerning blacks were made at Douglass' recommendation.  Douglass said he still didn't understand everything Lincoln did, but he trusted him implicitly. 

Douglass went to the reception held after Lincoln's re-election in 1864. He said that when he showed up he had a hard time getting past the sentry at the door until someone he knew told the sentry it was OK.  When he entered the room where the Lincoln's were receiving congratulations there was such a crush of people, and Lincoln looked so fatigued, he figured he just better leave, but Lincoln happened to turn his head and see him.  He siad Lincoln's face just lit up when he caught sight of him, and that Lincoln walked away from the line of people wanting to shake hands with him to go grasp Douglass' hand and ask him what he thought of the celebration.  Douglass went from feeling out of place to feeling at home. 

A few days later he got a note from Lincoln asking him to come by and visit him during one evening.  But Douglass had a previously made speaking engagement and couldn't make the meeting.  The next morning when he woke up Lincoln had been assassinated.  He regretted not breaking that speaking engagement for the rest of his life. 

Now, if Lincoln was truly a racist, why would not a man who born and raised in slavery recognize that immediately?  He knew racist's and racism intimately.  The answer is that Lincoln never was a racist.  He was simply a man of times who was influenced by the opinions of those with more education than he had. 

Now what does that have to do with Confederates?  These men were also a product of their times.  They had grown up around slavery.  Their entire lives had spent in it's influence.  And yet many of these men didn't actually choose to fight for the confederacy over the slavery issue.  Many of them fought for a reason I cannot understand, tut which I would say a majority of people alive today use for making moral judgments.  What is that reason?  Many, and I think it is a majority, of people choose love of home and family to side with over what is right.  They don't care how wrong their family is in what they are doing they are going to side with their family.  Other Confederate officers saw the conflict, not in terms of slavery, but of the right of a state to make decisions for itself rather than having the federal government make those decisions.  Remember, in that day most of the decision making power was held at the state and local level.  It wasn't like it is today where the federal government reigns supreme.   These men found this to be a compelling reason to fight for the Confederacy.  They did not make their choices easily.  Many of them were greatly torn before they made their decisions. 

Now why were southerner's proud of these men?  These men were by far the cream of the crop of US Army and Cavalry officers, talentwise.  They were outstanding leaders with a great degree of military skill.  Some of them like Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, James Longstreet, etc... were absolutely loved by their men.  They would have followed their leaders into a situation where they knew all of them would die.  They had that much respect and loyalty for their leadership.  Were these men fighting for the wrong cause?  Absolutely.  But, and this is a big but, why wouldn't southerners be proud of having men like that as leaders in their cause?   History tells us that when Lee would be riding Traveler around camp or on marches, whether it was after a loss and forced multi-day retreat on foot in the raid and thick mud, or after a win, would spontaneously rise and cheer.  They did this even after Pickett's charge a Gettysburg where 10's of thousands of them died due to Lee's bad decisions.   Whether you like or hate the cause they fought for you have to respect the quality of men they were.  That's why there are statues of them.  Yes, some like Nathan Bedord Forrest were absolute racists, but most of them were not. 

The point is everyone is a product of the time in which they lived.  To despise those who lived in another time because we now think differently is bigotry, plain and simple.  It is based upon our own feelings of just how superior we think we must be because knowledge has been increased since then.  That is nothing but plain old arrogance based upon not understanding history.     

If time goes on there will be people looking back at our time and commenting at how stupid and ignorant those of us who live now were.  Oh, well, what goes around comes around. 

[GayatfootofCross]

You make very good points. ..Many good points!

3 hours ago, Gary K said:

 

 

It is very unfair to judge history by our current culture and knowledge.

I really do see both sides of the issue.

But the lauding and pride of the that history is so unfortunate and scary seeing the fruit it wiles up in so many.

[Bravus]

I don't see too many statues of Hitler and Himmler and Goebbels in Germany.

Most of the statues of Confederate leaders were not put up during or immediately after the Civil War. They were set up during the civil rights arguments around bussing and integration and de-segregation last century with an explicitly racist intent.

They should be removed by governments, but if governments refuse to remove them, what then?

Remember terrible history, by all means. But don't celebrate it. Don't use it to send a terrible message to people living here and now.

[Gary K]

9 hours ago, GayatfootofCross said:

You make very good points. ..Many good points!

 

It is very unfair to judge history by our current culture and knowledge.

I really do see both sides of the issue.

But the lauding and pride of the that history is so unfortunate and scary seeing the fruit it wiles up in so many.

But the southerners have every right to be proud of those men.  They were their heroes.  They fought against sometimes almost impossible odds.  Yes they were on the wrong side of the issue, but that doesn't take away from their courage, honor, and skill. 

I see  this much like Erwin Rommel who was without a doubt the greatest German general during WWII.  He was not a Nazi, but he fought for his country.  He loved the men under him, never wasted their lives needlessly, and his men loved and supported him in all things.  They willingly obeyed every order he ever gave.  He was a good man.  He was just placed in a very bad situation.  Hitler finally had him shot because of his honesty and blameless life. 

I see nothing wrong with saying men like Rommel, Lee, Stonewall Jackson, and James Longstreet were good men worthy of emulation.  They had sterling characters. They were peerless leaders. They were men who actually cared about the lives of the men under their command.  That is worthy of emulation. They were just placed in positions by the times in which they lived that placed them upon the wrong side of the struggles they were invovled with.  I don't see anything wrong with honoring good men of all sides.  Men of honor, character, and nobility.  

The reason so many people are so afraid of history is that it used by academia, politicians, and the media to frighten people.  Those people have a political agenda and they use distorted facts of history to push their cause, and since they are doing this with kids in school it's easy for them to do.  It's the scaremongering that is evil, not the history itself.  History is just facts.  It says what once was.  That is nothing to erase.  It's there for us to learn from, and if we erase the history, or hide it from view, we forget about it, and then we really are in trouble as a civilization.   

 

[Gary K]

17 hours ago, Bravus said:

I don't see too many statues of Hitler and Himmler and Goebbels in Germany.

Most of the statues of Confederate leaders were not put up during or immediately after the Civil War. They were set up during the civil rights arguments around bussing and integration and de-segregation last century with an explicitly racist intent.

They should be removed by governments, but if governments refuse to remove them, what then?

Remember terrible history, by all means. But don't celebrate it. Don't use it to send a terrible message to people living here and now.

Why not stop using false comparisons, i.e. false analogies?  To compare Hitler, Himmler, and  Goebbels to Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, etc... is nuts.  Robert E. Lee was a dedicated Christian.  He was often seen by his men having his private devotionals and standing with his head bowed in prayer.  He was a kind and loving man who owned maybe one or two slaves.  Slaves who,  by the way, when he told them they were free to leave told both he and his wife that they would not leave as they loved the Lees. They would rather stay on as unpaid help than leave he and his wife.  So, he paid them a wage and those former slaves stayed with the Lee's until either they died, or the Lee's both passed away.  If that does not tell you your comparison is a fallacy I don't know what will.

Also, Lee, Jackson, Longstreet, etc... were not  the men who began slavery.  This is the second part of your fallacy.  You want to place the blame for slavery on someone?  Then put the blame where it belongs.  It was the English lords of the 1600's who were granted great tracts of land in the New World who first imported slaves and slavery into this land. They forced slaves on their overseers as they thought slavery was the way to wealth.  Along with slaves they sent convicted theives, prostitutes, pickpockets, indentured servants caught stealing, adventurers who came only because they thought they could become fabulously wealthy by just walking around and picking gold up off the surface of the earth, and the "black sheep" of wealthy families who were nothing more than profligate wasterers, drunkards.  This was the foundation upon which the southern colonies were built. 

In contrast the northern settlements were created by family men who brought their families with them.  These men were out to build a moral civilization.  They came with advanced political ideals that were a century or more ahead of the European governments and political philosophers.  They brought their religion and high ideals of morality with them.  Not a single slave was among them. 

So, by the 2nd or 3rd generation of people growing up in the south, which was still long before the US was founded as a nation, slavery was already an established institution, and the people of the south were taught it was the way to wealth.  So, it became a self-perpetuating behavior upon which the economy of the south was based.  Wiping it out would destroy the economy of the entire region.  So, of course there was a lot of resistance to it being destroyed as an institution.  

You're highly educated.  You call yourself an intellectual and an academic, so you know how despicable using fallacious arguments is.  Many people repeat them because they don't know better, but you know both what they are and why they are used.  It does not reflect well on you.

[CoAspen]

 It does not reflect well on you.

Maybe poster would like to pause and reflect on those words, eh?

 

[LifeHiscost]

13 hours ago, Gary K said:

It's there for us to learn from, and if we erase the history, or hide it from view, we forget about it, and then we really are in trouble as a civilization.   

 

11 Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.....1 Corinthians 10

God is Love!~Jesus saves! 

[Bravus]

It was not me who introduced Germany as a parallel in this thread.

[phkrause]

2 hours ago, Bravus said:

It was not me who introduced Germany as a parallel in this thread.

Exactly Bravus!!

[B/W Photodude]

Diamond and Silk give an alternate opinion on the monuments:

https://youtu.be/TPv2Gk-8FVM

[Gary K]

18 hours ago, Bravus said:

It was not me who introduced Germany as a parallel in this thread.

And they all stand up and cheer as Bravus throws a regressive red herring to the cheering audience.  Didn't know there were so many people around here who loved to eat post hoc....

What you going to do, Bravus, just keep on throwing out more fallacies?  Thought you claimed to be a great searcher for truth....  Pretty odd way to go about it.