Keep doing it.
For what you are going to do is tie your "Southern heros"[1] to the the Nazis and their crimes against humanity. You are helping to make the case that slavery was a form of genocide.
Every time you stand in front of a statue and wave the Swastika, you help make the connection. Every time you do that, you make it easier and easier for the decision to be made to confine those statues to a scrapyard.
The day will come when a battery of howitzers will line up, open fire on the carvings on Stone Mountain and pound them into rubble. When that day comes, those who have marched in Nazi regalia, marched under the Nazi flag, given the Nazi salute and yelled "seig heil" will have made destroying the symbols of the Confederacy politically possible. They might as well have pulled the firing lanyards, themselves.
If you think this is far-fetched, remember this: For over fifty years, the Confederate descendants fought the removal of the Confederate battle flag[2] from the Capitol Building in South Carolina. But then one young white supremacist went into a black church and murdered nine parishioners. Almost immediately, that flag came down.
So keep marching, Nazis.
_________________________________
[1] Or "Traitors".
[2] Or the Flag of Traitors.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I agree with you about the Nazi flag.
The rest? Tearing down monuments makes you no better than the Taliban.
And tearing down those monuments won't help the plight of Blacks one iota.hey'll have to change to help themselves. T
B., like Donnie, you don't know when to stop. These last two comments have made it clear where your thought process is, I'm sorry.
B, I can only hope that one day you'll look back on that last sentence and think "did I really say that??"
Until then I can only feel sorry for you.
Monuments celebrating those who took up arms against the U.S. government. Did you forget that part, B?
B, as I said on your blog, these "monuments" were erected to honor people who committed traitorous acts against the United States of America. They lived in the USA, were citizens of the USA, and took up arms against the USA. Those that want to keep these monuments, and fly the confederate "battle flags" are wanting us to be reminded of these traitors. The civil war was about states keeping the right (and any new state joining the union) to decide whether or not to keep slaves. Plain and simple. Take them down and put their busts in a museum where people can read and learn about history and the actions they took.
As far as Nazis vs BLM, one group is trying to oppress others and keep things as they were in the "good ol days". The other group is fighting that oppression that is trying to eradicate them. As stated before on this blog, the entire world fought against the Nazis and other opressionists in WWII. That would have been the end of it there. But small minded, bigoted people keeping their "dream" alive is where a majority of the problems come from.
Dale
Perhaps we should all take David Duke's example and thank the resident for making things perfectly clear. No ambiguities, no beating around the bush, no bullshit. Brought it all out into the open where we can all see it.
These monuments are monuments to evil men, evil men who killed more Americans than Hitler as part of their insane quest to be able to own human beings as livestock. Having them in every public square in the South is as if Germany had monuments to Hitler in every public square -- it's glorifying evil, and offensive to those upon whom that evil was committed (or do you think Jews visiting Germany would enjoy Hitler statues in every public square? Really?). These monuments belong in a museum where they can be placed into their proper historical context, not out in public squares where they can be interpreted as the state condoning evil.
To compare destroying or removing statues of evil men as being *just the same* as the Taliban destroying statues of Buddha (who as far as I know never killed anybody or owned anybody as livestock) is such a stupid and ridiculous comparison that anybody who makes it is either an idiot, or himself evil. That is all I have to say in that regard.
I just finished reading U.S. Grant's autobiography, his opinion on the southern solders which he considered to be in the great part brave, gallant men engaged in a dishonorable cause. After reading this book, I was reminded that not only was the southern solder treasonous, but they were grossly misled by a press complicit with the confederate leadership and in part lost because of that. Fox news, Bagdad Bob and Spicer could have gotten pointers from the southern (and some of the Union) papers which amplified the southern and criticized the Union's victories.
My question has always been how poor white men (they were commonly called "white trash" if they competed with slave labor in the field or trades) were convinced to sacrifice their lives and honor to protect rich peoples property and privilege. It seems to continue even today.
Anon, the history of that war as taught today is retarded. The people of the day had a very different take on it than do people today.
See, for example, https://foseti.wordpress.com/2011/03/03/review-of-a-defense-of-virginia-by-robert-lewis-dabney/
This post discusses a book by Union General Charles Francis Adams (grandson and great grandson of Presidents) and later Harvard history professor and first President of the American Historical Society. Gen. Adams said quite plainly that Virginia was justified in seceding according to the general understanding of the day. He points out that Virginia voted NOT to secede (February 1861), and only changed its mind after Lincoln forced the blockade of Sumpter, which was recognized at the time as an act of war by the Federal government against a state.
It's interesting that you use the word "treason" - Gen. Adams fought in that war and was considerably more circumspect.
History is a lot more interesting that those who want to use it for today's political purposes would like you to know.
No, just no. The Blockade of Fort Sumpter was an act by a State (South Carolina) in revolt, against Federal Forces. If you are positing, as it appears, that the Federal Troops failure to withdraw was the cause of the Blockade, then you are victim blaming. South Carolina went looking for the fight, yet you blame Lincoln.
Wait, let's try this Donnie's way...there was bad people on both side, and good people. All those "good" slave owners just wanted to keep their property, so why do we blame them for those nasty Feds attacking them. Is that what you're looking for?
Post a Comment