New Orleans To Remove Excremental Rebel Monuments

[Chef Jim]

Oh, still not contributing to the topic at hand? Big surprise there

And at the 11th hour gator chimes in with his hypocrite of the year post entry. And it's a good one folks. The guy who typically just posts to call people d-bags and tells others to eff off is accusing someone of not contributing to a topic. Bravo! Well done gator old boy. Well done!

[birdog1960]

 

 

At least gatorman knows he's a !@#$ing dunce. You really are nowhere near as smart as you think you are.

if you're correct then we finally have something in common.

[DC Tom]

if you're correct then we finally have something in common.

 

People disagree. Smart people. People FAR smarter than you. People smart enough to know what a "library" is.

[Deranged Rhino]

if you're correct then we finally have something in common.

Still waiting for you to stop running from your own comments and answer the questions posed to you -- if you can that is:

 

This thread is about those monuments, and you offered your position on the matter as "anyone who supports slavery is bad/morally inferior to those who don't". That was the logic YOU offered in this thread, is it not? How is that not relevant to the thread?

 

Only an intellectual coward, or a dishonest poster, would then make the claim that what they said about this subject is suddenly tangential to the conversation. Because anyone with one iota of common sense knows the arguments made within a thread are fair game for discussion and follow up.

 

The fact you think I'm obfuscating or a con (ha) just shows you're completely full of shite and are trying very hard to distance yourself from your own logical fallacy.

 

So, let's try this again. According to your own arguments made in this thread about this subject you believe anyone who supports slavery is morally inferior, correct? So how do you, bird dog, possibly reconcile the fact that you yourself support slavery today while also trying to claim the moral high ground in a discussion about SLAVERY?

 

Isn't it possible that people are not just black and white? That passing wholesale judgements on their lives and the times they live is an inherently risky proposition? Isn't it more honest to admit that thousands of motivations go into people's decision making, not just "slavery bad / slavery good"? I mean it must be true right? After all here you are fully supporting modern slavery without any sense of shame because they make a groovy iPhone while simultaneously judging people from the past for doing exactly what you're doing today.

 

Or would you just finally like to admit that you don't have the foggiest idea what you're talking about in this thread other than offering emotional arguments devoid of logic or consistency?

[/dev/null]

 

People smart enough to know what a "library" is.

That's where they keep the Classics®

 

Stuff like Dr Seuss, Clifford, Curious George, and Where's Waldo

[Chef Jim]

That's where they keep the Classics®

 

Stuff like Dr Seuss, Clifford, Curious George, and Where's Waldo

And only the learned ones can figure out that darn dewy decimal system.

[DC Tom]

And only the learned ones can figure out that darn dewy decimal system.

 

It's not that hard. It's how I organize my library.

[birdog1960]

 

People disagree. Smart people. People FAR smarter than you. People smart enough to know what a "library" is.

"I don't post sources because I read books and primary sources."

 

you mean like this? http://www.yale.edu/collections_collaborative/primarysources/primarysources.html access to such s place should make it all the more easy to reference your sources to support your argument. the library has already catalogued the information and in many cases digitized it. additionally, on sites such as this, there are links to search and even view such materials on line. additionally, such sources are used in dissertations (i assume we are excluding whatever rhino's "thesis" was meant to mean). the authors of such documents often use primary source material as well. but they meticulously reference it if done well.

 

so why can't you? why can't you back up your statements with your sources?

 

smart people reference their sources. meticulously and as thoroughly as possible. including primary sources and conversations. when they don't', other smart people don't take them seriously.

Edited December 31, 2015 by birdog1960

[birdog1960]

Still waiting for you to stop running from your own comments and answer the questions posed to you -- if you can that is:

 

This thread is about those monuments, and you offered your position on the matter as "anyone who supports slavery is bad/morally inferior to those who don't". That was the logic YOU offered in this thread, is it not? How is that not relevant to the thread?

 

this is actually what i said: " i contend that those still supporting the idea of the confederacy and by extension its link to slavery, are in fact very likely to be ethically inferior to those that don't. young makes the point with artistry i don't possess."

 

the distinction between "anyone" and "very likely" is quite clear and purposely ignored by you. "very likely" leaves open the very possibilities and complexities that you describe.

 

additionally, the slavery associated with the confederacy on the whole, was a very different entity than working conditions in apple factories even in the worst case. apple doesn't buy and sell people. they don't sanction rape and whipping and various other types of torture as punishment. to equate the two is ridiculous and doesn't warrant discussion.

 

so you have purposefully misstated my statement and are arguing against it. even a loser like you must recognize the logical fallacy there. intellectual dishonesty? some might go as far as calling it lying. i find it tiresome and futile to argue against those that willfully disregard the rules of proper behavior.

 

i won't engage you again.

Edited December 31, 2015 by birdog1960

[Keukasmallies]

Whoa, birdog 1960, you bee's a haughty mammy jammer!

[DC Tom]

"I don't post sources because I read books and primary sources."

 

you mean like this? http://www.yale.edu/collections_collaborative/primarysources/primarysources.html access to such s place should make it all the more easy to reference your sources to support your argument. the library has already catalogued the information and in many cases digitized it. additionally, on sites such as this, there are links to search and even view such materials on line. additionally, such sources are used in dissertations (i assume we are excluding whatever rhino's "thesis" was meant to mean). the authors of such documents often use primary source material as well. but they meticulously reference it if done well.

 

so why can't you? why can't you back up your statements with your sources?

 

smart people reference their sources. meticulously and as thoroughly as possible. including primary sources and conversations. when they don't', other smart people don't take them seriously.

 

Smart people also understand the difference between peer review, and the petulant demands of a delusional,ignorant eight year old on the internet. The idea that you believe you are entitled to a bibliographical appendix to my posts is laughable.

 

Frankly, if there were a chance in hell of you having an honest discussion on the topic, only then would I consider justifying myself to you. But then, if there were that chance in hell, I wouldn't have to.

[Nanker]

Yes, the tap into the mindless anger of the left wing cry babies. They live in the best country in the world with the highest standard of living and so many things that so many others can only dream about and they cry, whine and stomp their feet screaming like idiots. And we should take them seriously? F them! /g

[birdog1960]

Yes, the tap into the mindless anger of the left wing cry babies. They live in the best country in the world with the highest standard of living and so many things that so many others can only dream about and they cry, whine and stomp their feet screaming like idiots. And we should take them seriously? F them! /g

well, no. the liberals here are celebrating this move, not whining it's the cons that are whining. not sure about what exactly but ostensibly it seems to be about "erasing history". my suspicions lie elsewhere.

 

but happy new year to you too.

 

Smart people also understand the difference between peer review, and the petulant demands of a delusional,ignorant eight year old on the internet. The idea that you believe you are entitled to a bibliographical appendix to my posts is laughable.

 

Frankly, if there were a chance in hell of you having an honest discussion on the topic, only then would I consider justifying myself to you. But then, if there were that chance in hell, I wouldn't have to.

don't believe i'm entitled to anything from you. i believe you have a nearly worthless argument without sourcing. i also believe what you said above is much more honest than when you said this:

 

"I don't post sources because I read books and primary sources."

 

honesty, however, is not virtuous in this case.

Edited January 1, 2016 by birdog1960

[Tiberius]

 

Smart people also understand the difference between peer review, and the petulant demands of a delusional,ignorant eight year old on the internet. The idea that you believe you are entitled to a bibliographical appendix to my posts is laughable.

 

Frankly, if there were a chance in hell of you having an honest discussion on the topic, only then would I consider justifying myself to you. But then, if there were that chance in hell, I wouldn't have to.

Heck, I just asked what you meant by saying most slaves did not live on plantations and what that had to do with how brutal slavery was and you would not answer. Even though you made the argument. All I got from you was the screaming rant of a petulant eight year old.

 

You read the classics? Did you read Frederick Douglass' autobiography? And if you have you will understand how that undermines your ignorant argument

[DC Tom]

well, no. the liberals here are celebrating this move, not whining it's the cons that are whining. not sure about what exactly but ostensibly it seems to be about "erasing history". my suspicions lie elsewhere.

 

but happy new year to you too.

don't believe i'm entitled to anything from you. i believe you have a nearly worthless argument without sourcing. i also believe what you said above is much more honest than when you said this:

 

"I don't post sources because I read books and primary sources."

 

honesty, however, is not virtuous in this case.

 

My argument is that you're a facile moron. My source is this entire board.

[Chef Jim]

Heck, I just asked what you meant by saying most slaves did not live on plantations and what that had to do with how brutal slavery was and you would not answer. Even though you made the argument. All I got from you was the screaming rant of a petulant eight year old.

 

You read the classics? Did you read Frederick Douglass' autobiography? And if you have you will understand how that undermines your ignorant argument

So tell us what Frederick Douglas' biography says about where most slaves were?

[B-Man]

How Did Robert E. Lee Become an American Icon? By James C. Cobb

 

Lengthy article..........

 

FTA:

 

For many black southerners, the widespread assault on Confederate icons and symbols went hand in hand with celebrating the crusade to free the South from the racial system constructed on the ruins of the Confederate legacy. Civil rights museums and memorials became prominent attractions in Birmingham, Montgomery, and Memphis to name but a few, and by 1996 the cities and towns of the old Confederacy accounted for 77 percent of the nation’s streets named in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

 

One of the greatest breakthroughs accompanying the destruction of Jim Crow was registered in opinion surveys, which since the late 1960s have consistently shown blacks about as likely as whites to identify themselves as southerners. This does not mean, however, that the two always agree on how that identity should be represented. Championing efforts to remove the Confederate insignia from the Georgia state flag, Atlanta journalist John Head made it clear in 1993 that “the South is my home [and] I am a Southerner,” but he would not accept “the Confederate battle flag as an emblem in which all Georgians can take pride.” Some fifteen years later, Pulitzer Prize-winning poet Natasha Trethewey sounded much like Head when she insisted, “There are other Souths beyond the white Confederate South. . . . My South didn’t lose the war. We won.”

 

{snip}

 

Not everyone, of course, is willing to grant Lee such benefit of the doubt, particularly African Americans troubled by Lee’s actual and figurative connections with the persecution of their forebears.

Understandably, they would prefer to see other, more affirmative icons front and center in a hotly contested public memory that frequently tells us less about a broadly defined past than the aims and sensibilities of those who seem to hold sway in the present.

Denying that whites held sole claim to what “the South” means, Natasha Trethewey explained, “I don’t want to take it away from anyone. I just want them to recognize that it’s mine, too.”

 

 

Such recognition is also essential if the South’s (and thus, the nation’s) history is to be presented both accurately and comprehensively. However, when Trethewey insists that “my South didn’t lose the war,” she points not to the separate pasts of blacks and whites so much as to the way in which, at critical times, they simply experienced a common past quite differently. Doing full justice to such a past makes stark juxtapositions and contrasts inevitable.

 

It is not necessarily a bad thing that the Martin Luther King Jr. National Historical Site shares top billing as an Atlanta tourist attraction with the massive images of Lee, Davis, and Stonewall Jackson carved into nearby Stone Mountain, or even that Virginia celebrates Lee-Jackson Day on the Friday preceding the Monday observance of Rev. King’s birthday. After all, “We Shall Overcome” never seems more stirring and powerful than when it is performed in places like Birmingham or Selma, where it is still very easy to remember what actually had to be overcome.

 

 

Finally, there is surely polarization enough over the far more substantive and urgent concerns of a needful present without incessant quarreling over how the past is represented. When an Annapolis councilman called for the former slave port to issue an official apology for the “perpetual pain, distrust and bitterness” that slavery inflicted on black people, a constituent allowed that she would “prefer that the aldermen have a resolution to atone for the lack of a decent middle school curriculum in Anne Arundel County.”

 

For all his apparent personal virtues, there is no denying Robert E. Lee’s direct connection with the cause of slavery or his symbolic appropriation by those who succeeded in replacing slavery with Jim Crow. Unfortunately, although it might make for good political melodrama and perhaps even gladden the departed soul of Frederick Douglass, stripping Lee’s name from a school is unlikely to reduce overcrowding in its classrooms, upgrade its computer or science labs, or end drug trafficking in its corridors. If it would, ironically enough, Lee—at least the one Dwight Eisenhower saw in the portrait on his wall—would likely be the first to join Douglass in endorsing the move.

 

 

http://www.neh.gov/humanities/2011/julyaugust/feature/how-did-robert-e-lee-become-american-icon

Edited January 1, 2016 by B-Man

[Nanker]

Why did Bill Clinton sign a proclamation when he was governor that one of the blue stars in the Arkansas flag commemorated the Confederacy?

Not only is he a serial abuser of women, but he's a Confederacy sympathizer. He'd have been a slave trader if he were born over 150 years ago.

#ABUSEDWOMENMUSTBEHEARD #SLAVELIVESMATTER

[meazza]

Why did Bill Clinton sign a proclamation when he was governor that one of the blue stars in the Arkansas flag commemorated the Confederacy?

Not only is he a serial abuser of women, but he's a Confederacy sympathizer. He'd have been a slave trader if he were born over 150 years ago.

#ABUSEDWOMENMUSTBEHEARD #SLAVELIVESMATTER

 

He has evolved.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Why did Bill Clinton sign a proclamation when he was governor that one of the blue stars in the Arkansas flag commemorated the Confederacy?

Not only is he a serial abuser of women, but he's a Confederacy sympathizer. He'd have been a slave trader if he were born over 150 years ago.

#ABUSEDWOMENMUSTBEHEARD #SLAVELIVESMATTER

Microaggressive