RocksInMyHead
God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!
- May 12, 2011
- 9,274
- 10,031
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
But he looks so cool and he rides a motorcycle! *squee*By reading about Ches conduct during and after the Cuban revolution written by other leftist revolutionaries and noticing he was a authoritarian nutcase among authoritarian nutcases…
And welcomed nuclear war, what’s not to like?But he looks so cool and he rides a motorcycle! *squee*
It was a joke, man. All I learned about Che in college was that he was a Cuban revolutionary I'd never heard of before college.By reading about Ches conduct during and after the Cuban revolution written by other leftist revolutionaries and noticing he was a authoritarian nutcase among authoritarian nutcases…
When I said "the Confederacy stuff" I was talking about the topic of this thread - the renaming of schools and tearing down of statues.T
The confederacy was pure treason.
The names and statues were propaganda in the first place, to fabricate honor long after the actual history. Good riddance.When I said "the Confederacy stuff" I was talking about the topic of this thread - the renaming of schools and tearing down of statues.
Yeah, I replied to a post where you said Obama had to be clean before he could attempt to run for president, then you moved the goalpost by telling me he had a clean presidency. Getting into office and being in office are two different things. Especially in his case.Did this post #220 have a point?
Fine. Beyond the literal treason of the confederacy (which needs no honors) there is the use of confederate symbols and iconography as a tool of white supremacy. That's the thing we've been dancing around with the naming and de-naming and renaming of these schools long after the living memory of the confederacy.When I said "the Confederacy stuff" I was talking about the topic of this thread - the renaming of schools and tearing down of statues.
Remember that time President Reagan visited the cemetery with soldiers who fought for Nazi Germany? Some people didn't like that, but they were wrong. The soldiers do deserve honor. If you don't like the Confederacy you should direct your ire at the politicians who started the war. Soldiers don't start wars, they just do what they're called to do.The names and statues were propaganda in the first place, to fabricate honor long after the actual history. Good riddance.
I'm not in disagreement with what you say above. From what I recall, my first post in this thread was simply to make the point that the renaming is being done because of the "white supremacy" and not because of the treason. At least three posters had said it was about the treason and others agreed with them, and that's just silly.Fine. Beyond the literal treason of the confederacy (which needs no honors) there is the use of confederate symbols and iconography as a tool of white supremacy. That's the thing we've been dancing around with the naming and de-naming and renaming of these schools long after the living memory of the confederacy.
I wouldnt disturb confederate cemetaries. But we're talking schools and town squares here.Remember that time President Reagan visited the cemetery with soldiers who fought for Nazi Germany? Some people didn't like that, but they were wrong. The soldiers do deserve honor. If you don't like the Confederacy you should direct your ire at the politicians who started the war. Soldiers don't start wars, they just do what they're called to do.
Right, and I think the kind of figure depicted. Compare these two:I wouldnt disturb confederate cemetaries. But we're talking schools and town squares here.
It is about that. I was hoping anyone who was "pro confederate name" might back out on the fact that the namesakes were traitors. Things get kind of tight when the other notion is inferred about another poster.I'm not in disagreement with what you say above. From what I recall, my first post in this thread was simply to make the point that the renaming is being done because of the "white supremacy" and not because of the treason. At least three posters had said it was about the treason and others agreed with them, and that's just silly.
In a previous post I asked you to provide info to back up this claim. You never did. Here's your second chance.It is about that.
We've already discussed this. Why would it be a concern that they were traitors when our beloved Founding Fathers were traitors?I was hoping anyone who was "pro confederate name" might back out on the fact that the namesakes were traitors. Things get kind of tight when the other notion is inferred about another poster.
The founding fathers were traitors to Britain, not America. I'm not British. Are you?We've already discussed this. Why would it be a concern that they were traitors when our beloved Founding Fathers were traitors?
I just said I was giving posters a chance to reject the naming based on not naming things after traitors. (This goes to the "history" argument use to do such things.) It is absolutely clear that the motivation to name schools after such traitors is to use memory of the confederacy to emphasize the ideology of white supremacy.In a previous post I asked you to provide info to back up this claim. You never did. Here's your second chance.
I couldn't find anything specific to renaming, but Wiki does have an article featuring a list of removed monuments. The very first sentence in the article says "During the civil unrest[1] that followed the murder of George Floyd in May 2020, a number of monuments and memorials associated with racial injustice were vandalized, destroyed or removed,..." The article cites racial injustice; it makes no mention of traitors or treason.
Not to the US, but to an abomination (monarchy). There is a difference. If the British don't want to build statutes to Washington, that is fine with me.We've already discussed this. Why would it be a concern that they were traitors when our beloved Founding Fathers were traitors?
That doesn't matter when we're talking about treason as a general hypothetical.The founding fathers were traitors to Britain, not America. I'm not British. Are you?
You seem to be going by the old adage that "you can't legislate morality", when the truth is that all legislation is an expression of morality.Again, it's not that treason is a moral failing - it's that it's betrayal of one's country. If your treason succeeds and you create a new country (or take control of the country), then the future citizens of that country generally won't care because their country - the one that they live in - was not the one you betrayed. It's very rare for a country to honor a failed traitor though, and the actual moral failings of the Confederacy (slavery) make that even harder to justify.
You quoted me, but you did not respond to what I said.I just said I was giving posters a chance to reject the naming based on not naming things after traitors. (This goes to the "history" argument use to do such things.) It is absolutely clear that the motivation to name schools after such traitors is to use memory of the confederacy to emphasize the ideology of white supremacy.
Not to the US, but to an abomination (monarchy). There is a difference. If the British don't want to build statutes to Washington, that is fine with me.
I think I did.You quoted me, but you did not respond to what I said.
Of course.So you think monarchy is an abomination?
He's my anti-neo-Confederate spirit animal.Well I think Sherman was a war criminal.
But we're not talking about treason as a general hypothetical. We're talking about specific instances of treason. The reason why America honors the treasonous founding fathers while rejecting the treasonous Confederacy is entirely down to who the treason was against.That doesn't matter when we're talking about treason as a general hypothetical.
Nope.You seem to be going by the old adage that "you can't legislate morality",
Absolutely incorrect - unless you believe that all governments are divinely appointed. Which I don't.when the truth is that all legislation is an expression of morality.
As "Rocks" stated, we are not talking of treason as a general thing being bad. Someone who committed treason right now against Iran, or Russia, or North Korea might be someone I would hail as a hero. Many of a nations greatest assists came as acts of treason against some other country.That doesn't matter when we're talking about treason as a general hypothetical.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?