Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

Nationwide Removal of Confederate Statues

No Excuses

By No Excuses
in The Tailgate

 Share

Recommended Posts

Dont Taze Me Bro

Dont Taze Me Bro

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, tshile said:

Right, you just said that the one you subscribe to trumps theirs.

 

 

 

I think it trumps theirs.  Absolutely.  You know exactly the point I was trying to make, so stop with the nitpicking.  That point being that if a statue of say Lee is a symbol for someone honoring their fallen ancestor (who has no racist intentions) and is also a symbol for racism (racist people, KKK, etc.) that one is extremely worse than the other one. 

 

And if it were me honoring that statue (which I don't honor anything related to the Confederacy for the record) I would be open minded to it being removed/relocated and sympathetic to those it offended and would seek out another way to honor my fallen civil war ancestors (if people really do that).  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Going Commando

Going Commando

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Riggo-toni said:

Lee was not a great general; in fact he is probably the person most responsible for the South losing.

He had a much higher casualty rate, for example, than Grant, but Southern revisionists tried to claim Grant only prevailed over Lee because Grant was a brute who didn't care about casualties.  He refused to provide needed reinforcements to other areas of the South, a result of both an absence of strategic forethought and an obsession with Virginia over the rest of the South.  He repeatedly led frontal assaults on fortified positions. He gave ambiguous orders that left his subordinates stymied.  His personality may have won him the devotion of others, but he was a lamentable tactician void of strategic thought.

 

I'm not familiar with your source that is critical of Lee's war record, but my initial reaction is that it holds the revisionist position rather than the other way around.  I'd read it though and give it fair consideration, but my thought is that it's probably being too narrow in it's assessment of both Lee's strategic and tactical decision making.

 

This is an interesting debate, but it'd be a weedsy derailment that would cause everyone else to scroll right on past our posts.  I wouldn't mind having it in a separate thread about military history though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Riggo-toni

Riggo-toni

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

I'm not familiar with your source that is critical of Lee's war record, but my initial reaction is that it holds the revisionist position rather than the other way around.  I'd read it though and give it fair consideration, but my thought is that it's probably being too narrow in it's assessment of both Lee's strategic and tactical decision making.

 

https://www.amazon.com/Myth-Lost-Cause-South-Fought/dp/1621574547/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1534970233&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_FMwebp_QL65&keywords=bonekemper&dpPl=1&dpID=51EEiRA9QBL&ref=plSrch

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Renegade7

Renegade7

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

Maybe I'm being naive, but if black war contributions were properly honored, then wouldn't that be of value to black communities?  Wouldn't that promote a sense of pride in their ancestry and a connection to the period?  Wouldn't that promote interest in the significance of the history of the event?

 

It's all good, I know your heart is in the right place, your reputation proceeds this thread.  Unfortunately, if your talking about blacks that fought for the confederacy, they'd be getting called coons and blacks would not want those statues either. I do remember saying civil war was a moment in our history we have to look and treat differently then our other wars.

 

I've brought up Lee a couple times, I don't need the statues for blacks fighting in the union.  It will be a different debate when his desire was some kind of closure or reconsiliation on a topic that almost 150 years later is almost 31 page thread and counting.  I'd compromise with memorials to battles that killed so many on both sides in that war over individuals on either side.  The lesson should be to never let that happen again.

 

Quote

I think it was you who said yesterday that such a level of cooperation to achieve and union and black monument building drive in the same public spaces as Confederate statuary would require so much good faith from everyone involved that it probably will never happen.  You are probably right.  This is a visceral subject that puts peoples backs up.

 

I don't remember, but that does seem like something I'd say.  The nasty truth with the founding fathers after revolutionary war was over was north was in mad debt, South was not due to unlimited free labor, and ending slavery would've crashed the souths economy before constitution was even signed, we'd be sitting ducks. That's why they kicked it down the road hoping better heads would prevail and retackle this issue with dignity and logistical common sense.  They were wrong and we're still paying for it.

 

America's relationship with blacks is unique in many ways, starting with most of our ancestors not coming here voluntarily for a better life like other culture's and races.  This is why I was telling you a couple pages ago you won't win this one no matter what you are right on. We're still the boogeyman all the way into the 21st century, that's what needs to be fixed and no statue is going to fix that.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheGreatBuzz

TheGreatBuzz

Posted
Posted

Here's my take fwiw.

 

For many people, Souther pride, the Confederacy, and everything tied to it is a tool to support their racist beliefs.

 

For a many different people, those things have to do with states rights, heritage not hate, etc.  It has nothing to do with race and they aren't racist for it.

 

But here is the rub.  To a vast majority of people, it is about racism.  And sometimes you have to accept that a definition changed whether you like it not.

 

You can run around yelling FAG all day and insist you mean "A tiring or unwelcome task."  But you are pretty much the only one who thinks that definition.  Accept the change and find a new way of defining yourself.

 

link for definition.  

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/fag

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TD_washingtonredskins

TD_washingtonredskins

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Here's my take fwiw.

 

For many people, Souther pride, the Confederacy, and everything tied to it is a tool to support their racist beliefs.

 

For a many different people, those things have to do with states rights, heritage not hate, etc.  It has nothing to do with race and they aren't racist for it.

 

But here is the rub.  To a vast majority of people, it is about racism.  And sometimes you have to accept that a definition changed whether you like it not.

 

You can run around yelling FAG all day and insist you mean "A tiring or unwelcome task."  But you are pretty much the only one who thinks that definition.  Accept the change and find a new way of defining yourself.

 

link for definition.  

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/fag

 

Don't necessarily agree or disagree, but this is a very interesting take. It's not dissimilar to the Redskins name debate. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dont Taze Me Bro

Dont Taze Me Bro

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

Don't necessarily agree or disagree, but this is a very interesting take. It's not dissimilar to the Redskins name debate. 

 

While both can represent two different things (honoring a group of people vs. racist symbol/name), the main difference is the acceptance of each by those that would be offended.  The vast majority of Native Americans do not think the term Redskin is offensive and it does not bother them that our team is named the Redskins.  Some of the polls show results as high as 9/10 Native Americans do not find it offensive.

 

But the statues/monuments/memorials to the Confederacy is honoring a group of people (not all enlisted and may have been drafted against their will) that fought to keep slavery of black people intact.  These monuments/statues/memorials are all over the south, thousands of them.  The vast majority of African Americans are offended by them and the Confederate flag.  

 

Similar, but different overall response is what makes one (Confederate monuments/statues/etc.) worse than the other (Redskins team name), imo.  

 

Not to derail the thread, but in regards to the team name, I want to point out that I'm not dismissing those Native Americans that feel the term is racist just because 90% (or 75%, etc.) think otherwise. I'd never tell anyone they couldn't or shouldn't feel a certain way about anything, especially when it could be deemed racist/derogatory in nature.

Edited by Dont Taze Me Bro
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
Gamebreaker

Gamebreaker

Posted
Posted
On 12/21/2017 at 11:38 PM, PleaseBlitz said:

The fact that there are statutes of Nathan Beford Forrest are the exact reason why people are right to say they (all statues of confederate soldiers) are monuments to racism and not some bull**** “heritage.”

 

Exactly. That PoS is the first leader of the KKK. Why the hell should there ever be a monument to that trash? 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
AsburySkinsFan

AsburySkinsFan

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

True, but I just meant the idea that something can represent something completely different to one person than it does for another. 

No, you’re talking about “empty jar” relativism, and we’re talking about facts.

Facts like these statues were built by race baiters looking to commemorate failed slave owning revolutionaries. The “Redskins” debate involves a faux reality where a vocal extreme minority seeks to dictate reality for everyone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TD_washingtonredskins

TD_washingtonredskins

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

No, you’re talking about “empty jar” relativism, and we’re talking about facts.

Facts like these statues were built by race baiters looking to commemorate failed slave owning revolutionaries. The “Redskins” debate involves a faux reality where a vocal extreme minority seeks to dictate reality for everyone else.

 

Wait, when did I become pro-Confederate statues here? I just meant that it's interesting to hear someone talk about them in less black-and-white (hahahah) terms. You start to realize that they may represent something different to some people than they do to others. 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
AsburySkinsFan

AsburySkinsFan

Posted
Posted
33 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

Wait, when did I become pro-Confederate statues here? I just meant that it's interesting to hear someone talk about them in less black-and-white (hahahah) terms. You start to realize that they may represent something different to some people than they do to others. 

I’m not accusing you of anything, but those seeking to recast the meaning of those Confederate monuments are the ones guilty of “empty jar” reletavism.

Link to comment
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
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...