Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Nazis showing up at places uninvited.


Recommended Posts

Just now, No Excuses said:

I don't know why you guys are taking the bait. 

 

Before it used to be "Heritage not Hate". No one can make this argument without looking like a moron anymore.

 

Now it's based around a hypothetical scenario completely unrelated to the current events.

 

Bro, I said this before about Kilmer's views and others who espouse views like that and a few posters on here thought I was wrong for it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, PleaseBlitz said:

 

I think those things are offensive, but they aren't the only important acts conducted by those actors.  Nobody ever raised a statue of FDR because he interned the Japanese during WWII.  The only reason to raise a statue to Jefferson Davis or RE Lee or a random Confederate soldier to to glorify their specific acts of treason, which is stupid.

 

Well said. One would hope this puts an end to this ridiculous deflection but probably not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

Why is the Civil War a deal breaker but others dont meet that requirement?

 

I agree with your overall point about the slippery slope of deciding which parts of history to airbrush and on what basis by whom. Its also problematic to apply the standards and morality of today to historical acts as well.

 

In the main.

 

However there are exceptions. Use of or display of Nazi emblems or glorification of leading Nazis is against the law in Germany. Not largely because they took them into an illegal and ruinous war but because of their genocidal racism. That is burned into the national consciousness and is still relevant today.

 

The Confederacy and slavery is a similar event burned into the US consciousness. Slavery and racial discrimination and economic and social disadvantage  emanating from slavery are very real, current and daily issues for a large percentage of the US population. The symbolism and heroes of the Confederacy are viewed differently (by both sides of this debate) than other characters in US history who have their own fair share of baggage.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

Is it just Civil War statues that are offensive?

 

Sherman killed thousands of people in the south.  Some of those were not supporters of the Confederacy.  Are monuments to him ok?  

 

What about Andrew Jackson monuments?

 

And those that slaughtered Native Americans, put Asians into camps, wanted to ship slaves back to Africa, former Klansmen.

 

we should probably remove all graven images just to be on the safe side.....and Roman numerals.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Every so often I have to drive straight at Stone Mountain, and more specifically, come right over a hill where it comes into view with the sky, on the side where the carving shows. 

It's weird.  I think of King's speech every single time, and it rings more beautifully because of that carving...to me anyway. 

But I wouldn't have any objection whatsoever to it being replaced with a giant peach, peanut, or Claxton Fruit Cake.  :silly:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't believe so many are defending Nazis in this thread.

 

There are gray in many issues, but Nazis are evil. It's one of the universal black and white truths. Nazis' goals are evil. Their intentions are evil. There's just not a lot of wiggle room there. If a group of Nazis are gathering with torches to "unite" there's nothing good about it.

 

I am fine with saying that even Nazis deserve to have the freedom to speak, but defending or supporting them? Never. Defending and supporting them when they not only assemble, but murder?

 

No way in hell.

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Burgold said:

Can't believe so many are defending Nazis in this thread.

 

There are gray in many issues, but Nazis are evil. It's one of the universal black and white truths. Nazis' goals are evil. Their intentions are evil. There's just not a lot of wiggle room there. If a group of Nazis are gathering with torches to "unite" there's nothing good about it.

 

I am fine with saying that even Nazis deserve to have the freedom to speak, but defending or supporting them? Never. Defending and supporting them when they not only assemble, but murder?

 

No way in hell.

 

100% this.

 

I've posted this statement in another thread but I think it bears repeating here. This is no longer a left v right issue. Its wrong v right. Pick a side and be judged by that choice.

  • Like 9
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not hard, people.

 

The question is WHY was the monument erected, and what does it stand for?

 

Thomas Jefferson has monuments because he was one of the primary Fathers of the Country.  He has monuments because of the Declaration of Independence.  He does not have monuments BECAUSE he was a slaveholder, or because he took advantage of Sally Heming.  We honor his accomplishments in creating this country, while hopefully not forgetting his flaws as a human being.  

 

Same with George Washington, and FDR, and all of the rest of the red herringse that people are throwing in here.   They all have monuments because their accomplishments on behalf of this country were notable and positive, even though they were flawed as individuals.

 

Now ask yourself - WHY is there a monument to Robert E. Lee anywhere?  Was it because of his impeccable beard?  Was it because his horse won the Kentucky Derby?

 

Or, just perhaps, was it because Robert E Lee was the primary military leader for the Confederacy, a bunch of traitors who attempted to tear the country apart in order to protect slavery, and whose very constitution was based on the principle of white supremacy?   Was it because he is the symbol of the Confederacy, and are the statues a means to try and whitewash the absolute indefensible horror that the Confederacy really represents?  

 

You all know the answer already.  Lee has statutes because people want to continue to glorify and mythologize that bullcrap.  

 

If you can't grasp that distinction, screw you.  And if you try to weasel around that distinction, screw you.  And if you keep playing "whatabboutism" and "slippery slope" baloney with this stuff, screw you.  This stuff is important.  This goes to the core of what we aspire to be as a country.  

 

Some of you are better than that.  Maybe some of you aren't.  

 

 

Edited by Predicto
  • Like 42
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Burgold said:

Can't believe so many are defending Nazis in this thread.

 

I must have missed the crowd of people defending nazi here.  I have seen a lot of them elsewhere on the internet and on TV though. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Destino said:

 

I must have missed the crowd of people defending nazi here.  I have seen a lot of them elsewhere on the internet and on TV though. 

I'm not interested in playing games with this. There were a ton of Nazis at this event. There were a ton of Nazis organizing this event. If you are trying to rationalize this event or the results of this event, you are defending Nazis.

 

As I said, there's no real gray to me here. If you make excuses for the Nazis at Charlottesville, their motives, their actions, etc. you are defending Nazis. Period.

 

You are trying to justify their goals. Period.

 

Quoting a response I just got on Facebook.

 

Quote

To me, there are three issues that are separate from one another that people seem to be conflating: The length of time it took Trump to respond, the substance of his remarks and finally, the actions themselves of the Nazi/Alt Right. The first two are debatable and can be discussed. The final point is not debatable. Anything short of absolute, unequivocal condemnation is offensive, unpatriotic and morally repugnant.

 

 

Edited by Burgold
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, skinsmarydu said:

Every so often I have to drive straight at Stone Mountain, and more specifically, come right over a hill where it comes into view with the sky, on the side where the carving shows. 

It's weird.  I think of King's speech every single time, and it rings more beautifully because of that carving...to me anyway. 

But I wouldn't have any objection whatsoever to it being replaced with a giant peach, peanut, or Claxton Fruit Cake.  :silly:

Interesting point someone made on a Sunday talk show, you have to look at when these monuments were put up too. Stone Mountain and the statue of Lee in Charlottesville were put up in the late 1910s and early 1920s after Birth of a Nation and the resurgence of the Klan. Apparently a lot of confederate monuments also went up in the late 50s/early 60s as desegregation and civil rights became hotbed issues in the south.  That was also when the stars and bars came into prominence again. The guy on the talk show posited that these monuments were meant to send a message to blacks in the areas they were erected. 

Edited by RedskinsFan44
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Destino said:

Trumps latest statement was better.  Reminds me of the "disavow" situation during the campaign.  Dog whistle first, say the minimum acceptable thing later when forced to.  

Trump's forced statement, “Racism is evil.” “And those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the K.K.K., neo-Nazis, white supremacists and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.”

 

This statement was like a hostage forced to read a statement while under capture.  Trump didn't mean it, his sentiments were made clear in his first statement.  Even here he mentioned other hate groups?  It's clear, he believes the counter protesters were hate groups also. Hence his original statement and this one,

 

This may satisfy some but he's already exposed himself for what he is and nothing he can do, will change that.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

I don't know why you guys are taking the bait. 

 

Before it used to be "Heritage not Hate". No one can make this argument without looking like a moron anymore.

 

Now it's based around a hypothetical scenario that is on nobodies radar, never will be and is completely unrelated to the current events.

 

 

Not that I can read minds, but I don't think Kilmer was trying to troll. 

 

I think he was genuinely asking what would be next because it has been on the radar - things like schools named after historical people who were slave owners (jmu, Woodrow Wilson school at Princeton, the San Francisco school board for a few examples). How big of a deal it is debatable. 

 

I agree that the confederacy is a good line to have, but there are definitely people who would have us go further. It's an interesting topic and he did say one appropriate for another thread.

 

I could be wrong but I don't think any motives were dishonest. 

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...