Nationwide Removal of Confederate Statues

[Gamebreaker]

1 minute ago, twa said:

 

Well I did say it was a Marist poll

You are pretty safe since they said only 44% of AA's support leaving them

 

the poll certainly could be wrong and the numbers worse.

 

True, not a majority. I should've realized that. 44% is still ridiculously too high. 

[visionary]

 

[Kilmer17]

I think thats a fabulous idea.  Get all elected officials on the record with a vote on the issue.

[nonniey]

10 minutes ago, Gamebreaker said:

 

I saw "The American Conservative", not NPR. Either way, it's funny people who said poll results couldn't be trusted when Trump won now want us to trust poll results. Find a point you are willing to stick to, not one that suits your needs when it helps your side. Furthermore, I will believe the majority of African American don't want confederate statues removed when Trump goes a single day without telling a lie. 

 

4% of AA agree with White Supremacists....yeah right...

I'd wager a years pay you agree with White Supremacists as well, but I get to pick the subject you agree with them on. 

[twa]

 

 

 

10 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

I said in the other thread with the polling showing 50 percent of GOPers would approve of eliminating the 2020 election the same thing I say now-

 

Polls are meaningless in today's America.

 

about that poll

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/poll-republicans/536472/?utm_source=nl-politics-daily-081017

 

 

Edited August 18, 2017 by twa

[Gamebreaker]

6 minutes ago, nonniey said:

I'd wager a years pay you agree with White Supremacists as well, but I get to pick the subject you agree with them on. 

 

That sounds like an interesting method of manipulating information. But from this question: "From what you have heard or seen about each of the following do you mostly agree or mostly disagree with their beliefs: The white supremacy movement?" I doubt it. 

[RedskinsFan44]

Maybe a bit off topic, but Charlottesville was more about white supremacy and less about statues.

[Cooked Crack]

The only people who think it was about statues is the President and whoever wants to slurp him on Fox. Also, I believe the guy mentioned on the poster was in that Vice video. Racist looking Gandalf claiming he's the master race.

[daveakl]

A good friend of mine said the following while three of us were talking about confederate statues and the large amount constructed during different civil rights movements to intimidate people.

 

Paraphrasing "now hold on, the statues were not constructed during those times because of civil rights issues, they were built during the 50 and 100 year anniversaries, largely funded by the daughters of the revolution. I've actually read up on this a lot because there is a so much misinformation out there."

 

So how does one respond to that? He's correct that the timing lines up but it seems more coincidental to me.

[twa]

Just now, daveakl said:

 

 

So how does one respond to that? He's correct that the timing lines up but it seems more coincidental to me.

 

Since it doesn't support my racist,pandering Dem theory it must be wrong.

[Cooked Crack]

Sounds like white washing. Where was the boom for the 150th anniversary?

[daveakl]

23 minutes ago, twa said:

 

Since it doesn't support my racist,pandering Dem theory it must be wrong.

Or it's right.  I honestly had never heard that before and couldn't find a thing anywhere to support it.

20 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

Sounds like white washing. Where was the boom for the 150th anniversary?

 

Well, this happened

"In 2015, only days after the 150th anniversary of the Civil War was commemorated, a white man killed nine parishioners in an African-American church in South Carolina."  That kind of started the tide of removing them right?

[twa]

Just now, daveakl said:

Or it's right.  I honestly had never heard that before and couldn't find a thing anywhere to support it.

 

they are still putting them up today, more markers and such than statues.

 

[tshile]

4 hours ago, Gamebreaker said:

So I'm supposed to believe poll results from obviously biased sources. 

 

Ok. 

the american conservative has a lot of good writers for it.

 

a lot of what non-conservatives claim they want from the gop, exists on TAC.

 

they have some writers that are off the rails too, but for the most part it's a solid site.

 

(they've been railing against trump since the primaries started, fyi)

 

[Cooked Crack]

4 minutes ago, daveakl said:

Well, this happened

"In 2015, only days after the 150th anniversary of the Civil War was commemorated, a white man killed nine parishioners in an African-American church in South Carolina."  That kind of started the tide of removing them right?

If it's about heritage not hate I don't think Dylan Roof would have mattered. I mean there were atrocities going on against blacks during the 50th and 100 anniversary. I'd like to know how many Revolutionary statues were going up in 1833. Why does this only seem to be a Southern phenomenon?

[tshile]

3 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

If it's about heritage not hate I don't think Dylan Roof would have mattered. I mean there were atrocities going on against blacks during the 50th and 100 anniversary. I'd like to know how many Revolutionary statues were going up in 1833. Why does this only seem to be a Southern phenomenon?

the north didn't need something to cling to?

[DogofWar1]

17 minutes ago, daveakl said:

Or it's right.  I honestly had never heard that before and couldn't find a thing anywhere to support it.

I think the problem with it is that the uptick in monuments started prior to 1910 and 1960 in both of the big increases.

 

By 1910 the increase in monuments had been ongoing for some time and the erection of monuments actually dropped between 1910 and 1915, and further continued somewhat past 1915 into even the 1930s.  With the exception of 1919 and 1920, the trend started in the late 1890s makes a bell curve that leans a bit towards the later end, and covers from the late 1890s through the mid 1930s.

 

Similarly, the smaller batch later in the century appears to have started in the mid 1950s.  It didn't extend much past 1965 like the previous one, but the Civil Rights Act of 1964 probably played a not insignificant role in public opinion on the matter too.

 

On the whole, there probably were a decent number of monuments erected for the 50 and 100 anniversaries.  However, many, many fit outside that time frame, enough that I think the burden falls back on him to show how the ones that were erected in between, say, 1900 and 1910, were tied to anniversaries.

[visionary]

 

[daveakl]

1 hour ago, DogofWar1 said:

I think the problem with it is that the uptick in monuments started prior to 1910 and 1960 in both of the big increases.

 

 

By 1910 the increase in monuments had been ongoing for some time and the erection of monuments actually dropped between 1910 and 1915, and further continued somewhat past 1915 into even the 1930s.  With the exception of 1919 and 1920, the trend started in the late 1890s makes a bell curve that leans a bit towards the later end, and covers from the late 1890s through the mid 1930s.

 

Similarly, the smaller batch later in the century appears to have started in the mid 1950s.  It didn't extend much past 1965 like the previous one, but the Civil Rights Act of 1964 probably played a not insignificant role in public opinion on the matter too.

 

On the whole, there probably were a decent number of monuments erected for the 50 and 100 anniversaries.  However, many, many fit outside that time frame, enough that I think the burden falls back on him to show how the ones that were erected in between, say, 1900 and 1910, were tied to anniversaries.

So that was my thought, that the actual increase in building was tied more to intimidation and it just happened to coincide with the 50 and 100 year marks (in the same way that it could have coincided with the 25 and 75 or whatever you want to cite after the fact).  But I had never heard or seen that written anywhere and still can't figure out where he got that idea from.

[PleaseBlitz]

3 hours ago, daveakl said:

A good friend of mine said the following while three of us were talking about confederate statues and the large amount constructed during different civil rights movements to intimidate people.

 

Paraphrasing "now hold on, the statues were not constructed during those times because of civil rights issues, they were built during the 50 and 100 year anniversaries, largely funded by the daughters of the revolution. I've actually read up on this a lot because there is a so much misinformation out there."

 

So how does one respond to that? He's correct that the timing lines up but it seems more coincidental to me.

 

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/16/regime-change-in-charlottesville-215500

 

Author is the author of “1861: The Civil War Awakening” and director of Washington College’s Starr Center for the Study of the American Experience.

[Stadium-Armory]

 

[Larry]

20 hours ago, @SkinsGoldPants said:

This probably goes here.

 

 

 

For a guy who lies so often. A weak one like this..... ouch. 

 

Well, his first sentence was true. 

[Bang]

Yep, and guys who beat their wives don't beat their wives.

they just have violent disagreements with her face.

 

**** these ****ing ****s.

 

~Bang

 

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

[nonniey]

21 hours ago, Gamebreaker said:

 

That sounds like an interesting method of manipulating information. But from this question: "From what you have heard or seen about each of the following do you mostly agree or mostly disagree with their beliefs: The white supremacy movement?" I doubt it. 

That is the point you were manipulating information in that exact way.