billsfan89

Because the argument they are to preserve history is undermined when the entire context is as a racial response to the civil rights movement. The local communities are the ones that want those statues removed. I am only supporting their decision.

So please enlighten me as to how you would gauge how a community in general (not universally) feels about an issue?

I was referring to gauging how black people in those communities that have statues feel about the statues. The polling, voting and what community groups say about the issue I think is a fair way to judge what the general (not universal) consensus is on an issue within that community. Also please address these points. 1- How do these statues preserve history by being public more than they would in being in a museum? 2- Almost all of these statues were erected 50-80 years after the war ended and were erected as a counter symbol to the Civil Rights movement. In what world do those statues which were put up for that purpose serve as anything other than a negative symbol for black people and Americans?

Letter from soldiers are only one piece of evidence. I don't dismiss it but I also can find a lot of other evidence that states otherwise. Local Papers, wartime propaganda, articles of secession, quotes from leaders and representatives, and letter from soldiers that state otherwise. I only bring up Prager U because even a right wing organization supports the simple and historically true idea that the Civil War was about slavery. The guy in the video was also the leading professor of military history at West Point, so someone with a decent perspective. Even if the average Southern person who fought was ignorant to that reasoning most of these statues are to generals and other high up leaders of the confederacy. Those people most definitely knew. Also you guys keep ignoring two very obvious points. 1- How do these statues preserve history by being public more than they would in being in a museum? 2- Almost all of these statues were erected 50-80 years after the war ended and were erected as a counter symbol to the Civil Rights movement. In what world do those statues which were put up for that purpose serve as anything other than a negative symbol for black people and Americans?

I have no better way to gauge how local people feel about such statues other than listening to the communities leaders and groups as to how they feel about an issue. There is no issue that produces universal consent from any group and there is no group that is empowered to speak for everyone so please stop stating that though that is a thing. You are being disingenous to state that because there might be some black people that have a different view disproves the polling and community support that states most want the statues removed. Please stop being purposefully obtuse. I have also not devolved the opinions of others in those communities who disagree. It doesn't invalidate the idea that if most people in a community feel a way that it is fair to characterize that position as having the communities support.

We will see, if Allen is a top 10 QB year in and year out the Bills will not be portrayed as historic losers. But even though White is a top flight All-Pro CB he still isn't worth missing out on a possibly generational QB. But if Allen develops into a top QB and Tre stays healthy no one is going to look at the Bills as having made the wrong move. Especially if Edumonds and Tre are foundational pieces for the defense the next 5 years and Allen is a quality QB. As the real pieces the Bills got for Mahomes was essentially Edumonds and White.

Local African American Groups are the ones that want the statues removed. I am not deciding for them I am supporting their choice.

It doesn't? Articles of Secession state other wise. Quotes from generals and leadership say otherwise. What is this evidence? 20 years after the war when Southerns looked to Whitewash what the war was about? "Alexander Stephens, vice president of the Confederacy, said the Southern states would fight to keep “the *****” in “his place” in a hard-to-misread statement on the day the Civil War began." https://www.huffpost.com/entry/civil-war-slavery_n_7639988 Mississippi explained, "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world … a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization." Texas Stated "We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable." South Carolina actually comes out against the rights of states to make their own laws — at least when those laws conflict with slaveholding. "In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals," the document reads. The right of transit, Loewen said, was the right of slaveholders to bring their slaves along with them on trips to non-slaveholding states. https://www.livescience.com/13673-civil-war-anniversary-myths.html Even Prager ***** U says that Slavery was the central issue. https://www.prageru.com/video/was-the-civil-war-about-slavery/ So I ask what the ***** are you talking about?

I will go break it down in a much simpler manner as I think we are getting lost in the weeds. I understand that wars and large scale political events have many layers. But the entire underpinning and central issue of the war was slavery and race. The artifacts of the time tend to back up that statement as a general term. But putting a pin that for the moment as I don't think that it is even relevant as the statues were not put up to memorialize the war (thus undermining the argument they actually serve as any preservation of history.) These statues were put up as a response to the Civil rights movement 50-80 years after the war ended. Do you think it is fair for local groups to call for the statues to be taken down? Do you understand why local groups feel as though these statues represent oppression of black people in the South? Why do you feel taking down these statues and putting them in museums means that history is lost? I would rather be much more sensitive to the people that are justifiably wanting to take down statues put up in response to the civil rights movement than keep them up for a rather arbitrary notion that taking down statues and putting them in museums erases history. I am honestly asking this question, what history do the statues preserve that they couldn't preserve in a museum? Why do they need to be in a public space?

Southern's weren't fighting for their right to keep slaves but against the idea that blacks were equal to whites. You aren't getting average people to fight for "states rights" you can however get them to fight against the rights of people they feel are lower to them. To Whitewash the Civil War and slavery as anything else does a massive disservice to history. Even the history of why the statues were put up is racist. Did people forget the Civil Wars history for the 50-80 years after the war when the statues weren't up?

It is just weird because his numbers on net average punt while good aren't dramatically better than quality modern punters. So it is hard to quantify his impact. But of course he earned a reputation for a reason.

All the Articles of Secession mention slavery as the driving issue. Also if the Confederacy is just a symbol of Southern pride (or whatever) why were these statues put up 50-80 years after the war in direct response to the growing Civil Rights movement?

American Black people in the South shouldn't see statues glorifying the Confederacy figures who fought to keep their ancestors enslaved. This idea that taking statues out of public spaces whitewashes history ignore the fact that statues have little value in teaching history. It also ignores the actual history of why the statues were put up (as a response to the civil rights movement.) Whitewashing the Confederacy is a far greater travesty. No one should blame the USA and the American South as uniquely evil for slavery. That is silly and anyone doing that is wrong. The vast majority of recruiting was done under the opuses of race and slavery however. This idea that your average Southern was going to care about the federal government (an entity an average Southern person and zero contact with) or tariffs is out of touch with reality. But your average poor Southern was going to care about their place in society compared to blacks. That is why all the articles of secession mention slavery as the main cause. The main issue dividing the South was their right to slavery. I also ask once again if the Confederacy was not about slavery or race why were these statues put up 50-80 years after the war and in response to the civil rights movement?

The Civil War was fought over slavery. That was the prominent states right that they fought over. There is no arguing this as the evidence only points to that. Any attempt to say otherwise is whitewashing history and buying into a post war Southern narrative to paint their own history in a better light. The evidence of slavery being at the forefront of the war are in the Propaganda used to get the public for the war, the articles of secession published by the state governments themselves, the speeches transcribed from the time, the diaries of those who were alive at the time and the political maneuvers of the Southern senators and states from the time that are on record. This isn't guessing what lies in the hearts of man. This is historic fact brought on by the artifacts that have been verified from the time. I don't need to put myself in at the time to read these pieces of evidence and make a very sensible conclusion. The apartheid state that existed for black people for 100 years after the war is also further evidence. Hell the fact that the statues were erected 50-80 years after the war in response to civil rights movements is further evidence the Confederacy was built off of the idea of states rights to slavery. Once again do you feel that the Confederacy is something that should be celebrated with statues in public spaces?

What idea do statues in public spaces represent? That the Confederacy was not bad and something that should be glorified? The actual history (transcripts of speeches, propaganda, and articles of succeeding the union) show that the war was over preserving the states rights to slavery. The South years after the war are the ones who were pushing this "states rights" and "Tariffs" narrative trying to change history. The statues themselves weren't even put up until the early to mid 20th century as a response to civil rights movements.

Not everyone in the South owned slaves. But the propaganda to get the common person to fight was about slavery. Your average poor Southerner was not going to fight a war about tariffs or some more obscure idea that only impacted the elite. But tell them that this is about preserving the place of the white man in society and suddenly you have an emotional idea that they would be willing to fight and defend their homeland for. The Confederate leaders knew what they were doing in putting the slavery issue at the center of their propaganda and speeches before and during the war. To think that statues built to commemorate people fighting for the institution of slavery should be glorified in public spaces as a means to preserve history is stupid. Also the calls for these statues to be taken down are often coming from Local groups and communities. It isn't some mandate coming down from outside these communities. The issues was started and raised by those in the community who find those statues offensive. So the argument is who in those communities is right? The people that want the statues put into museumes or those who want to keep up statues of those who fought in open rebellion against the USA for the purposes of preserving the institution of slavery?

You're presenting the idea that the only way to teach history is to have statues displayed and glorified in public spaces. That is a false dichotomy. You can put the statues in various civil war museums thus not deleting them out of existence. Also these statues were erected in the early to mid 20th century as a response to civil rights movements. These aren't statues commemorating history right after the war ended. Thus the idea they preserve any sort of history is silly. Do Confederate documents and manuscripts have to be on public display for them to be a valid tool for teaching history? Or is having them preserved in archives and photographed/scanned digitally enough. Putting statues and memorials in public spaces glorifies them in a way that makes a lot of people uncomfortable. I wouldn't tell a Jewish person that a statue to Himler shouldn't be taken down because there is no way to teach that history without that statue being in a public place.

I don't get why the Confederacy is this thing of value for conservatives who claim to love the USA but then want proud public displays of people who were in open rebellion against the USA because they wanted to preserve the institution of slavery (yes the Civil War was about the states right of slavery, all the propaganda, transcribed speeches and Confederate declarations before and during the war all mention preserving the institution of slavery, it was only after the war these economic issues and "states rights" arguments were fashioned to make the South feel better.) Hating on the Confederacy should be something that units everyone left and right.

Would you blame Germany for tearing down statues of Nazi generals and placing them in museums? The Confederacy is literally a rebellion against the USA, why should they be memorialized? The analogue that removing statues from public spaces is akin to not teaching history makes no sense.

I guess my point was that had Russell Wilson not ended up being a top 5 QB the Seahawks would have quickly been a losing team after winning the Super Bowl in 2013. Their defense began to erode after the 2014 season when injuries, age, and free agency took their toll. They were still a good defense in 2015 but by 2016 the cracks started to show. Granted just as their defense and surrounding parts began to erode Wilson began to ascend. That's why I think the Bills window for sustained success beyond 2 seasons will be defined by continued good drafting and Josh improving.

If you could trade a 1st round pick for Justin Tucker would you do it? I honestly don't think trading a later 1st round pick for such a great kicker is all that bad an idea. Considering that usually 2-3 games a year come down to kicking having a guy you know is money 49 yards and in (along with consistently money on extra points) and has a high degree of success post 50 and can hit a 60+ yarder in the right conditions gives you a lot of value in a league where so many games are decided by single scores. The reason we don't see kickers in particular drafted in round one is mainly due to the position being hard to project into the pros. Kickers drafted high or in the mid-rounds are a crapshoot. If there was more certainty around the position and you had a high chance of getting a Justin Tucker type kicker by drafting one early you would see kickers go high fairly often. As far as a punter goes I wonder how good Guy was? I know his reputation and credentials were outstanding but how does his punting stand up to the modern era? Genuinely curious.

I find the Patriots under Billy B to be mostly conservative. They tend to play in a way that is super disciplined and philosophically designed to limit mistakes and capitalize on their opponents mistakes. Yes they take some chances here and there like any coach but overall I think they mostly play to force you to lose the game. Marty Schotenheimer was a coach who had a lot of regular season success playing a conservative type of game. Bill Cowher was also a very conservative coach who let his ground game and defense win a lot of games who won a lot and did win a Super Bowl. I think there are actually a lot of "great" conservative coaches. But we tend to attribute aggressiveness in coaching to winning when in the end selected moments of aggression are outliers as opposed to the coaches general nature.

A window for success in the NFL is usually about 2-3 seasons unless you have a great QB (and even then you will ebb and flow as the team has to adjust to paying a QB a lot of money.) Everyone thought that after 2013 the Seahawks were going to run off multiple Super Bowls and have this long window of success. After 2014 and that brutal loss in the Super Bowl to the Pats they went 4 straight years with 10 or less wins and not getting out of the divisional round. I think the Bills have a 2 maybe year window with Josh on his rookie deal to have a high degree of success. BUT if Josh can't develop into a top 10 QB this team will fall quickly under the weight of retaining talent and quickly find its self in a rebuild. A lot rides on how good Josh can be. Even the Seahawks recent success has post 2014 has been because Russell Wilson is the real deal at QB. Their defense up until this season has been far from elite in a long time.

I would rest the starters and take advantage of a defacto bye. But I think playing a half to keep everyone sharp isn't bad.

Might as well honestly no need to play anyone. After a long season it would be nice to get these guys rested into a road playoff game.