Donald Trump is the President Mark IV (Read Mod Warning in OP)

derb12

While he did state that lee was a great general, the point he was making that son of Ohio, the greater general Ulysses s Grant was an even greater one despite his drink problem.
Two weird things about the speech for me:
Why mention the drinking?
Why leave it at great general, when grant actually became president a few years after the war!

RIGOLO

Leroy42 wrote: »

So yet again, Trump makes a speech that people need to come on to try and give their impression of what he really meant. For a man that tells it like it is surprising just how often he doesn't mean what he actually said.

But lets look at what he said. He was praising a confederate general, a person that fought against the US state and in aim of keeping slavery. They were defeated, thankfully, as that lead to the USA of today. The USA that all these supporters cheer and love and want to make great again.

So was the making these comments in order to say that while he may have been a good general in terms of the military, he was on the wrong side of the fight and luckily for everyone that the other side were better and on in the end? Was he making them to show that talented people can be wrong? That despite his other virtues he should only be talked about in terms of how wrong he was and the threat he posed to the USA? That far from being a hero, looking back now he must be seen as a terrorist against the USA?

Or are we supposed to think that Trump was giving a lecture on the great military minds of the past?

No, he was playing to the audience. An audience that continues to idolise these people and wish that their side had won.

And this is not the first time that he has clearly shown admiration for the confederates. It is almost as if, if you were to take him at his words and deeds, that the man considers the Confederation was a just cause. Almost like both sides had a good argument.

Thats the danger with looking back thru a prism of what the norm is nowadays.

By your reckoning we should look back and consider the Democrat Party a terrorist party against the USA. After all it was the Democrat party that Lee fought under , supported and endorsed, as well as it being that he flew the Democratic Party Confederate flag in that campaign. .. etc etc.
Its a poor argument to look back and make a case using the same judgements that you would make today, it was a very different time.


American history is a long varied and complex and fascinating story. This current phase is just one of many.

Igotadose

derb12 wrote: »

While he did state that lee was a great general, the point he was making that son of Ohio, the greater general Ulysses s Grant was an even greater one despite his drink problem.
Two weird things about the speech for me:
Why mention the drinking?
Why leave it at great general, when grant actually became president a few years after the war!

Well, Trump's speeches are incoherent ramblings as a rule, this one slightly more organized than normal, so, yeah, he confused a lot of people. What a great President, incomprehensible ramblings passed off as speeches with paid teams to provide interpretations afterwards.

FWIW, Grant was a dreadful President. A cabinet full of sycophants that were corrupt. Sound familiar?

And, Robert E. Lee's descendant (an anti-racism activist https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/09/05/robert-e-lee-descendant-and-denouncer-quits-n-c-pastor-post-over-hurtful-reaction-to-vma-speech/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.91322c1dc622) is unhappy with Trump, but hey, join the crowd. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/robert-e-lee-descendant-slams-trump-for-praising-confederate-general_us_5bc2a93de4b040bb4e82d9b6

Leroy42

RIGOLO wrote: »

Thats the danger with looking back thru a prism of what the norm is nowadays.

By your reckoning we should look back and consider the Democrat Party a terrorist party against the USA. After all it was the Democrat party that Lee fought under , supported and endorsed, as well as it being that he flew the Democratic Party Confederate flag in that campaign. .. etc etc.
Its a poor argument to look back and make a case using the same judgements that you would make today, it was a very different time.


American history is a long varied and complex and fascinating story. This current phase is just one of many.

We should consider any actions that people did under our new understandings, if we are of the belief that we are growing and developing. that is not to say that we cannot understand those actions in the context of the time.

So I can understand why many people sided with the confederate side at the time, but I cannot understand how anyone can think of them as anything other than wrong now a days.

So how can the current POTUS stand up and claim that he was a good man when he directly tried to destroy the very country the man claims to love.

Leroy42

RIGOLO wrote: »

Thats the danger with looking back thru a prism of what the norm is nowadays.

By your reckoning we should look back and consider the Democrat Party a terrorist party against the USA. After all it was the Democrat party that Lee fought under , supported and endorsed, as well as it being that he flew the Democratic Party Confederate flag in that campaign. .. etc etc.
Its a poor argument to look back and make a case using the same judgements that you would make today, it was a very different time.


American history is a long varied and complex and fascinating story. This current phase is just one of many.

We should consider any actions that people did under our new understandings, if we are of the belief that we are growing and developing. that is not to say that we cannot understand those actions in the context of the time.

So I can understand why many people sided with the confederate side at the time, but I cannot understand how anyone can think of them as anything other than wrong now a days.

So how can the current POTUS stand up and claim that he was a good man when he directly tried to destroy the very country the man claims to love.

The DNC have changed. They have adapted from their original position. Unfortunately, many in the US are still in the position that the Confederates were years ago and want to be treated with the same understanding as if the world hasn't changed and evolved.

Den14

Rjd2 wrote: »

He was praising Grant in his home state for beating a formidable general in General Lee. That was the point of the speech, you can loath Lee's side but like Rommel admit he was a formidable foe that needed someone special to beat him which Grant clearly was.

Credit to Miles Kahn a Samantha Bee producer (so raging right winger) to correct this and not go down the Think Progress/Krassenstein brothers cheap clickbait style actions. As Miles points out there is more than enough to criticise Trump for on a daily basis anyhow.
https://twitter.com/mileskahn/status/1050953048036712448

This is a constant ploy by the left to misinform the masses and make Trump look as bad as possible. Doctor the story or leave out vital information.
At this stage I don't know what to believe anymore. Like your example this is being done constantly now by the MSM. Unfortunately for those who don't have time, who are already biased or who just don't care lap it up and take it as gospel.
By the time the truth or whole picture emerges the public focus has moved on to something else and that dock mark is etched in their belief system.

batgoat

Think posters intermittent claim that Trump is great on gay rights. The US is now one of thirteen countries in human rights Council that have voted against the condemnation of the death penalty for being gay. Another new low.
https://twitter.com/joncoopertweets/status/1051090211889967104?s=19

Pa8301

RIGOLO wrote: »

Thats the danger with looking back thru a prism of what the norm is nowadays.

By your reckoning we should look back and consider the Democrat Party a terrorist party against the USA. After all it was the Democrat party that Lee fought under , supported and endorsed, as well as it being that he flew the Democratic Party Confederate flag in that campaign. .. etc etc.
Its a poor argument to look back and make a case using the same judgements that you would make today, it was a very different time.


American history is a long varied and complex and fascinating story. This current phase is just one of many.

You need to relearn your American History. The Civil War was not fought on a Democrat v Republican basis. It was a North-South divide. And the Confederate flag was not the Democrat Party flag. Lee did not fight for the Democrat Party. He commanded the armiesof the Confederate States of America and specifically the Army of Northern Virginia.

For a US citizen, your lack of knowledge about your country's history is, quite frankly, shocking and hard to take at face value.

Leroy42

Den14 wrote: »

This is a constant ploy by the left to misinform the masses and make Trump look as bad as possible. Doctor the story or leave out vital information.
At this stage I don't know what to believe anymore. Like your example this is being done constantly now by the MSM. Unfortunately for those who don't have time, who are already biased or who just don't care lap it up and take it as gospel.
By the time the truth or whole picture emerges the public focus has moved on to something else and that dock mark is etched in their belief system.

Believe what Trumps words and actions tell you. He has a soft spot for the confederates and see's their fight as justified. He has already said that he sees both sides as having equal measure.

There is nothing MSM about that. That is simply what the man has said.

Don't you find it odd that the POTUS is unable to get across a simple message without it being distorted in such a way? That 18 months in he still refuses to change his delivery in order to get away from it? You don't have any issue with a man that is so bad at communication that he constantly needs others to try to interpret what he said, yet he is the man going into negotiations with the likes of Putin and Xi?

Nobody is leaving out vital information. They are trying to claim his words were a back handed compliment. So why no say that so.

Why even bring him into it. You don't need to give credit to the other side to give praise to the winners. He brought him up because that is exactly what he wanted to do, to feed the audience and their hero worship. To try to legitimise the confederacy and the people that fought for it.

Yet a few hundred people outside the senate building are a rent a mob out to destroy a mans life!

Den14

Leroy42 wrote: »

Believe what Trumps words and actions tell you. He has a soft spot for the confederates and see's their fight as justified. He has already said that he sees both sides as having equal measure.

There is nothing MSM about that. That is simply what the man has said.

Don't you find it odd that the POTUS is unable to get across a simple message without it being distorted in such a way? That 18 months in he still refuses to change his delivery in order to get away from it? You don't have any issue with a man that is so bad at communication that he constantly needs others to try to interpret what he said, yet he is the man going into negotiations with the likes of Putin and Xi?

Nobody is leaving out vital information. They are trying to claim his words were a back handed compliment. So why no say that so.

Why even bring him into it. You don't need to give credit to the other side to give praise to the winners. He brought him up because that is exactly what he wanted to do, to feed the audience and their hero worship. To try to legitimise the confederacy and the people that fought for it.

Yet a few hundred people outside the senate building are a rent a mob out to destroy a mans life!

Yes you make valid points on his delivery and communication skills. He's certainly no Obama on that front. As regarding legitimising the confederacy well they did exist and were part of the American civil war. There is no getting away from that. History is history. I think he is just acknowledging a time and a place. Why does it have to go deeper than that. I don't think he does in his own mind. He's not that deep of a guy. He's a politician. The mere mention of certain past figures are triggering leftists. Can we not talk about these people anymore?

pixelburp

"Triggering leftists" is a crude, reductionist dismissal of concerns over still present stains and scars on a nations psyche. Ireland knows itself how deep pain can reside, our neighbour still seen with a cautious, sometimes antagonistic eye (Black 47 in cinemas highlighting a more recent historical crime against humanity). The presence of Confederacy statues and the anger they cause those who would know their legacy is testimony to that. The sitting US president basically acknowledging and praising these figures validates and rubs salt needlessly. Yes, there should be an adult conversation but when "Proud Boys" and their ilk venerate these Confederates, decorum is needed more, not less, from the President.

Rjd2

Rhineshark wrote: »

I dunno - don't recall the details of the last one offhand, but the democrats seem far more willing to call out their own side. I don't remember any "very fine people on both sides" crap regarding the shooting. And regarding say sexual assault, Franken stood down. The republicans went down all guns blazing for theirs.



Not even so much that Dems have the high ground as the GOP seem to keep trying to burrow through to China to keep the bar low enough for Trump's behaviour in particular, but also that of some pro-Rep nominees/runners (eg Moore) to be ignorable.

Honestly it's a bit of a false equivalence at the moment. This is not calling the Dems squeaky saints, it's pointing out just how bad the GOP have gotten under Trump's influence.

Looks at how Susan Collins got hassled over Kavanaugh. 3000 clothes hangers sent to her, death threats which a Democrat politician taunted her about and only apologised when Jake Tapper demanded he apologise. Ted Cruz had suspected ricin sent to him. As I sad Republican senators had their personal details revealed by a Democrat staffer in the Kavanaugh aftermath. Hatch’s wife got plenty of abuse from all accounts.
Then of course you have the likes of Waters and Brooker encourage public harassment of Republican officials and to top it off Clinton said last week you can’t be civil with Republicans. She knew of the attempted murder of Scalise, the death threats to Collins etc. but she was giving a green light to the more dangerous elements out there to physically attack Republicans.
This doesn’t mean the Republicans are angels, some ****wit threatened a Dem this week which was posted here and there is plenty of abuse done on behalf of Trump, but people here need to acknowledge the dangers of a very small but foaming at the mouth element of the hard left which has been egged on by Clinton, Waters etc.


Rand Paul has said he expects someone to die in the next year or two due to the atmosphere, his wife has been getting death threats so his fear is justified.

Hopefully it does not happen, but it will be interesting if the likes of Trump, Waters., Clinton and the ****wits who cheer on the more dangerous elements of the left (anti fa) and right react.

Leroy42

Whether he means it or not is irrelevant. He surely understands the powerful position he holds, and the power of his words. He thus needs to consider what he says.

That he continually doesn't (if we are to believe his defenders rather than takes what he actually says) points to a man totally unable to construct an argument with any understanding of the wider context. This is deeply concerning for a man that needs to represent a range of people.

Again, there was no need to bring Lee up at all. He wasn't giving a speech abouttge civil war, trying to contextualize the time but take an updated view that they wete wrong and the US needs to move on and accept that they were wrong.

So why did he bring it up? Because he was speaking to a particular audience. Feeding their beliefs. But guess what? That room doesn't represent everyone and his speech will be covered by all. So his problem appears to be he only wants his speeches to be heard by those in the room.

It yet another example of his supporters making excuses for his poor skills.

So the media are the enemy of the people, but those that actually fought agaist the US are heros. Maybe he simply doesn't understand the context of the media and in years to come he will understand the heros they are

Rjd2

Leroy42 wrote: »

So yet again, Trump makes a speech that people need to come on to try and give their impression of what he really meant. For a man that tells it like it is surprising just how often he doesn't mean what he actually said.

But lets look at what he said. He was praising a confederate general, a person that fought against the US state and in aim of keeping slavery. They were defeated, thankfully, as that lead to the USA of today. The USA that all these supporters cheer and love and want to make great again.

So was the making these comments in order to say that while he may have been a good general in terms of the military, he was on the wrong side of the fight and luckily for everyone that the other side were better and on in the end? Was he making them to show that talented people can be wrong? That despite his other virtues he should only be talked about in terms of how wrong he was and the threat he posed to the USA? That far from being a hero, looking back now he must be seen as a terrorist against the USA?

Or are we supposed to think that Trump was giving a lecture on the great military minds of the past?

No, he was playing to the audience. An audience that continues to idolise these people and wish that their side had won.

And this is not the first time that he has clearly shown admiration for the confederates. It is almost as if, if you were to take him at his words and deeds, that the man considers the Confederation was a just cause. Almost like both sides had a good argument.

He did not say Lee was on right side of history, just admitted he was a formidable opponent which many would agree that he was. Similar to Rommel you can appreciate how tough he was to defeat while loathing his politics.

When talking about playing to the crowd, yes he was to an extent. He was in Grant territory and he was praising him for what many consider his finest ever moment and arguably one of the most seminal moments in American history.

VonZan

Leroy42 wrote: »

Whether he means it or not is irrelevant. He surely understands the powerful position he holds, and the power of his words. He thus needs to consider what he says.

That he continually doesn't (if we are to believe his defenders rather than takes what he actually says) points to a man totally unable to construct an argument with any understanding of the wider context. This is deeply concerning for a man that needs to represent a range of people.

Again, there was no need to bring Lee up at all. He wasn't giving a speech abouttge civil war, trying to contextualize the time but take an updated view that they wete wrong and the US needs to move on and accept that they were wrong.

So why did he bring it up? Because he was speaking to a particular audience. Feeding their beliefs. But guess what? That room doesn't represent everyone and his speech will be covered by all. So his problem appears to be he only wants his speeches to be heard by those in the room.

It yet another example of his supporters making excuses for his poor skills.

So the media are the enemy of the people, but those that actually fought agaist the US are heros. Maybe he simply doesn't understand the context of the media and in years to come he will understand the heros they are

How are the media heros? Media distrust in the United States is at an all time low. There are some great journalists out there but the majority of journalism these days is based on clicks, not content, so to describe them as the heros in this mess is completely incorrect.

Opinion pieces attacking elements of the right and left are all the rage these days because people consume divisive content and its why poor standards of journalism are the revenue drivers for most papers. To describe them as the heros in all this is a bit daft.

dr.fuzzenstein

Leroy42 wrote: »

Whether he means it or not is irrelevant. He surely understands the powerful position he holds, and the power of his words. He thus needs to consider what he says.

That he continually doesn't (if we are to believe his defenders rather than takes what he actually says) points to a man totally unable to construct an argument with any understanding of the wider context. This is deeply concerning for a man that needs to represent a range of people.

I sometimes wonder whether Trump found an entirely new way of arguing.
I'm still trying to figure it out. My theory is, his followers will be behind him no matter what he says or does. So he throws out several answers to the same question, all contradicting each other. To his followers it won't matter, because, just like Mr. R here, they can just pick wherever answer suits their argument at the time.
Fox News is doing that anyway and they don't care about the contradictions, they just want to bathe their glorious leader in golden light.
And someone like CNN, well, they would chose whatever is unflattering about him anyway, but that straight up doesn't matter, because of the confused ramblings of the man.

RIGOLO

Pa8301 wrote: »

RIGOLO wrote: »

Thats the danger with looking back thru a prism of what the norm is nowadays.

By your reckoning we should look back and consider the Democrat Party a terrorist party against the USA. After all it was the Democrat party that Lee fought under , supported and endorsed, as well as it being that he flew the Democratic Party Confederate flag in that campaign. .. etc etc.
Its a poor argument to look back and make a case using the same judgements that you would make today, it was a very different time.


American history is a long varied and complex and fascinating story. This current phase is just one of many.

You need to relearn your American History. The Civil War was not fought on a Democrat v Republican basis. It was a North-South divide. And the Confederate flag was not the Democrat Party flag. Lee did not fight for the Democrat Party. He commanded the armiesof the Confederate States of America and specifically the Army of Northern Virginia.

For a US citizen, your lack of knowledge about your country's history is, quite frankly, shocking and hard to take at face value.

Lee served under Jefferson Davis , a DEMOCRAT from Mississippi, who was President of the Confederate States.
Post the civil war , Lee endorsed Horaito Seymour the Democratic Party Presidential candidate in the 1868 Presidential election. 
whitls its a complex time, theres little doubting Lees Democratic affiliation. 
As to the Democratic Party origins of the Confederate Flag, theres plenty of historical evidence of that also.

RIGOLO

Pa8301 wrote: »

RIGOLO wrote: »

Thats the danger with looking back thru a prism of what the norm is nowadays.

By your reckoning we should look back and consider the Democrat Party a terrorist party against the USA. After all it was the Democrat party that Lee fought under , supported and endorsed, as well as it being that he flew the Democratic Party Confederate flag in that campaign. .. etc etc.
Its a poor argument to look back and make a case using the same judgements that you would make today, it was a very different time.


American history is a long varied and complex and fascinating story. This current phase is just one of many.

You need to relearn your American History. The Civil War was not fought on a Democrat v Republican basis. It was a North-South divide. And the Confederate flag was not the Democrat Party flag. Lee did not fight for the Democrat Party. He commanded the armiesof the Confederate States of America and specifically the Army of Northern Virginia.

For a US citizen, your lack of knowledge about your country's history is, quite frankly, shocking and hard to take at face value.

Lee served under Jefferson Davis , a DEMOCRAT from Mississippi, who was President of the Confederate States.
Post the civil war , Lee endorsed Horaito Seymour the Democratic Party Presidential candidate in the 1868 Presidential election. 
whitls its a complex time, theres little doubting Lees Democratic affiliation. 
As to the Democratic Party origins of the Confederate Flag, theres plenty of historical evidence of that also.

Igotadose

RIGOLO wrote: »

Lee served under Jefferson Davis , a DEMOCRAT from Mississippi, who was President of the Confederate States.
Post the civil war , Lee endorsed Horaito Seymour the Democratic Party Presidential candidate in the 1868 Presidential election. 
whitls its a complex time, theres little doubting Lees Democratic affiliation. 
As to the Democratic Party origins of the Confederate Flag, theres plenty of historical evidence of that also.

So, you agree that the Civil war wasn't fought on a Democratic vs. republican basis? And, you're o.k. with the move to remove all the monuments?

Pa8301

RIGOLO wrote: »

Lee served under Jefferson Davis , a DEMOCRAT from Mississippi, who was President of the Confederate States.
Post the civil war , Lee endorsed Horaito Seymour the Democratic Party Presidential candidate in the 1868 Presidential election. 
whitls its a complex time, theres little doubting Lees Democratic affiliation. 
As to the Democratic Party origins of the Confederate Flag, theres plenty of historical evidence of that also.

You are hugely over simplifying things again. Lee fought for the Confederates because his State, Virginia, seceded from the Union. He wouldn't fight against his native State. It had nothing to do with any affiliation with the Democrat Party.

As for the Confederate flag. The stars represented the states that seceded on the red and blue background. It had nothing to do with the Democrat party.

Eric Cartman

Igotadose wrote: »

So, you agree that the Civil war wasn't fought on a Democratic vs. republican basis? And, you're o.k. with the move to remove all the monuments?

I like your 'well if you agree with this part, you have to agree with that part' logic.

Those statues should never have been removed. History has its bad parts you can't just hide them.

B0jangles

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I like your 'well if you agree with this part, you have to agree with that part' logic.

Those statues should never have been removed. History has its bad parts you can't just hide them.

This graph shows when the Civil War monuments were put up - notice how the vast majority weren't erected until early 50 years after the war? Why the sudden enthusiasm for war memorials in the 1910's?

Yet many historians say the argument about preserving Southern history doesn't hold up when you consider the timing of when the "beautiful" statues, as Trump called them, went up. "Most of the people who were involved in erecting the monuments were not necessarily erecting a monument to the past," said Jane Dailey, an associate professor of history at the University of Chicago."But were rather, erecting them toward a white supremacist future."



The most recent comprehensive study of Confederate statues and monuments across the country was published by the Southern Poverty Law Center last year. A look at this chart shows huge spikes in construction twice during the 20th century: in the early 1900s, and then again in the 1950s and 60s. Both were times of extreme civil rights tension.

In the early 1900s, states were enacting Jim Crow laws to disenfranchise black Americans. In the middle part of the century, the civil rights movement pushed back against that segregation. James Grossman, the executive director of the American Historical Association, says that the increase in statues and monuments was clearly meant to send a message. "These statues were meant to create legitimate garb for white supremacy," Grossman said. "Why would you put a statue of Robert E. Lee or Stonewall Jackson in 1948 in Baltimore?"

https://text.npr.org/s.php?sId=544266880

They were never memorials - they were intended as a threat to black Americans - keep quiet or we'll put you back where you belong.

Captain Obvious

TomOnBoard wrote: »

New depths of latent violence are being plumbed daily. Here's Pennsylvania Republican gubernatorial candidate Scott Wagner:

“Governor Wolf, let me tell you, between now and November 6th, you better put a catcher’s mask on your face because I’m gonna stomp all over your face with golf spikes....”

Now, I'm sure its not all on one side, and that Dems have their own ignominious moments, but FFS, where in any normal handbook of politicking are techniques like this recommended?

Let us not forget that, in 2017, a Republican candidate literally body slammed a reporter and still got elected.

Rjd2 wrote: »

Both sides have dangerous supporters so not sure anyone can really take the moral high ground. Scalise was shot last year and there has been plenty of intimidation of Republicans elsewhere whether from Antifa or others. Then you only recently had a Democrat staffer leak the addresses and phone numbers of GOP people.

So the amusing spectacle of both sides over the last few years, republicans previously and the dems now both trying to claim the moral high ground while never owning up to there crazies is infuriating.

On Mc Innes?

Guy is trash and has always been, but I dunno if he has much influence these days. I hope not anyhow.

The both sides argument tends to ignore scale and party response though.

Pa8301 wrote: »

You need to relearn your American History. The Civil War was not fought on a Democrat v Republican basis. It was a North-South divide. And the Confederate flag was not the Democrat Party flag. Lee did not fight for the Democrat Party. He commanded the armiesof the Confederate States of America and specifically the Army of Northern Virginia.

For a US citizen, your lack of knowledge about your country's history is, quite frankly, shocking and hard to take at face value.

It's not lack of knowledge, it's revisionism.

Eric Cartman

B0jangles wrote: »

This graph shows when the Civil War monuments were put up - notice how the vast majority weren't erected until early 50 years after the war? Why the sudden enthusiasm for war memorials in the 1910's?


https://text.npr.org/s.php?sId=544266880

They were never memorials - they were intended as a threat to black Americans - keep quiet or we'll put you back where you belong.

https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/aug/15/joy-reid/did-confederate-symbols-gain-prominence-civil-righ/

rated mostly false, the uptick the SPLC conflate with the civil rights era is the presence of the confederate flag as an anti black statement. Most of the monuments were built after the civil war to commemorate dying veterans etc.. a new generation of the south.

If they were erected in the 60s like the SPLC wants to make out that would make a difference, but it seems most were put up as memorials as veterans of the civil war died off, by groups looking to honour their dying parents / grandparents.

B0jangles

Eric Cartman wrote: »

https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/aug/15/joy-reid/did-confederate-symbols-gain-prominence-civil-righ/

rated mostly false, the uptick the SPLC conflate with the civil rights era is the presence of the confederate flag as an anti black statement. Most of the monuments were built after the civil war to commemorate dying veterans etc.. a new generation of the south.

If they were erected in the 60s like the SPLC wants to make out that would make a difference, but it seems most were put up as memorials as veterans of the civil war died off, by groups looking to honour their dying parents / grandparents.

Thank you for this, it is very interesting but it doesn't really counter what I was saying. Your article says that there was no major uptick in monument building the 1960's, which is apparently true.

I was talking about the earlier period - all the article says about that is that they were built then to remember an idealized past; a wealthier, happier past in which black americans were slaves.

Expecting black americans to be magnanimous and respectful about monuments which were built to feed a nostalgia for a time when they were literally enslaved (a time which is only about 150 years ago) is a little bit much, don't you think?

batgoat

Eric Cartman wrote: »

https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/aug/15/joy-reid/did-confederate-symbols-gain-prominence-civil-righ/

rated mostly false, the uptick the SPLC conflate with the civil rights era is the presence of the confederate flag as an anti black statement. Most of the monuments were built after the civil war to commemorate dying veterans etc.. a new generation of the south.

If they were erected in the 60s like the SPLC wants to make out that would make a difference, but it seems most were put up as memorials as veterans of the civil war died off, by groups looking to honour their dying parents / grandparents.

You do realise that your own link backs up that there was a racist intent behind the statues? The statues were intentionally placed around court houses etc and the uptick related directly to Jim Crowe era laws.

"Tributes to the Confederacy — placing statues, naming streets and other public facilities — were part of the Lost Cause ideology that focused on an idyllic era of stately mansions, beautiful women and gallant Confederate officers," Bullock said.

But the monuments also implicitly symbolized slavery and white violence, the experts said.

"On the surface, they were memorials to the Confederacy and their heroes," said Karen L. Cox, a professor of history at the University of North Carolina-Charlotte. "Yet, they were also built during a period of racial violence and strong beliefs about Anglo-Saxon (i.e. white) supremacy."

"The fact that they were placed on the grounds of county and state courthouses was intentional," she added. "The message: white men are in charge."

The period between 1890-World War I saw whites reassert control over the South by enforcing Jim Crow laws, taking control of southern governments and systematically disenfranchising and disempowering African-Americans, said Jonathan Leib, a professor of geography and chair of the department of political science and geography at Old Dominion University.

Eric Cartman

batgoat wrote: »

You do realise that your own link backs up that there was a racist intent behind the statues? The statues were intentionally placed around court houses etc and the uptick related directly to Jim Crowe era laws.

they were placed as memorials although the locations chosen for racist reasons in the south but erected in a post civil war early 1900s US much before the civil rights movement or anything like that. Relating to my original post that yet again gives credence that its removing history and you can't just erase history because its 'bad'

nobody is going to knock down auschwitz or fill in the bullet holes on the GPO etc...

I think they should have been left as a reminder of that period (early 1900's) and a cautionary tale of what not to repeat.

The other poster postured that most of them were from the 60s civil rights era, that article I posted said no, that most of them were built by veterans groups much earlier. These are hundred year old statues we're on about.

Professor Moriarty

Eric Cartman wrote: »

they were placed as memorials although the locations chosen for racist reasons in the south but erected in a post civil war early 1900s US much before the civil rights movement or anything like that. Relating to my original post that yet again gives credence that its removing history and you can't just erase history because its 'bad'

nobody is going to knock down auschwitz or fill in the bullet holes on the GPO etc...

I think they should have been left as a reminder of that period (early 1900's) and a cautionary tale of what not to repeat.

The other poster postured that most of them were from the 60s civil rights era, that article I posted said no, that most of them were built by veterans groups much earlier. These are hundred year old statues we're on about.

You're comparing Auschwitz to these statues? In what way are they comparable?

B0jangles

Eric Cartman wrote: »

The other poster postured that most of them were from the 60s civil rights era, that article I posted said no, that most of them were built by veterans groups much earlier. These are hundred year old statues we're on about.

If this is referring to my post, I explicitly said I was talking mostly about the 1910's. The civil rights movement became prominent in the 1960s

Eric Cartman

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

You're comparing Auschwitz to these statues? In what way are they comparable?

both remnants of a period of history that should never be forgotten but not for positive reasons.