Confederate statues are not something to be proud of

might as well just delete the entriery of civilisation then

>>170539
The Confeds were a short-lived rebellion intended to retain the right to own people. Not exactly a civilisation or even a *facet* of one.

>>170561
You are a deluded moron if you actually believe that

>>170537
OP, are you actually retarded? This is the betsy devos article you posted an hour ago.

>>170568
>Posting opinion pieces on /news/

Why yes he is retarded.

>>170537
>opinion
sage

Uhh, anon
You might have posted the wrong story

>>170566
Of course he believes that baseless propaganda, anon.

>>170561

Do you know why most blacks live in the south today? Because after the civil war, northern states made it illegal for them to move there.

>>170623
>>170561
You two are the morons if you look at what was said by idk the vice president of the Confederates? You would clearly see he says "this war is about our states rights" this is where you people stop let's keep reading shall we " to own black slaves". That is what he said let's read it all together now "this war is about our states rights to own black slaves". They succeeded from the United States of America and tryed to become their own country colluded with France which France didn't out right help but did agree to loan them some money through french capitalists. The American civil war was a war fought between the Union North and the Confederate south the south fought for individual state rights to keep and own slaves the Union North fought to free them from the brutality of the south and to " free" them. Also as a side note there is no note of the northern states outlawing black people from moving North they did however let any free black man to join there fight and fight along side them.

>>170537
Yo money has white slave owners on it faggot

>>170537
The wrong side won the civil war.

>>170668
Are you sure it's not because it was the fucking 1800s and moving anywhere was considered a huge undertaking? Even moving now is still a fucking hassle since you're technically a US citizen, but all of your documents are based on your state of residence.

>>170709
Do you really think somebody would do something like that, just go on the internet and make a bunch of stuff up?

>>170539
>civilisation
It's a typo what is there to discuss?

>>170673
The South may have been fighting to keep slaves, but the North certainly was not fighting just to free a bunch of niggers.

it doesnt matter who won the war, for any reason. the important thing is to make sure a civil war does not happen. its all a distraction anyways, no ones talking about saving the earth anymore. wake up. this govt is supposed to be for the people.we can take the power back.

>>170561
The civil war was not fought over slavery. Lincoln didn't even care about the slavery at first. The abolitionist party wasn't as big as you'd think, until later in the war.
The South seceded because the North would not let them trade with European countries.

>>171393
That's not what the states that seceded said.

https://www.civilwar.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states

>>170696
First american slave owner was black

>>170537
>You were on the side that lost this (very heated) argument, so your history, culture, heritage, and soul should no longer exist. But this was fun and we WANT to forget so in a few generations we can do it all over again. Thanks for playing the human race demo! There is nowhere to leave feedback.

>>171447
While many of the southern states seceded because they were afraid Lincoln would abolish slavery
not every southern state cared about slavery also not every northern state had abolished it.
While slavery was the major issue of the war it wasn't the reason it was started.

>>171743
So about the statues of Washington, Jefferson and Joan of Arc that are controversial? Is that celebrating slavery?

>>171743
i think the statues of MLK endorse plagiarism- please remove all of them for me.

if you refuse you are a bigot and i will engage in street violence against you and maintain a smear campaign against you until you conform to my opinions.

>>171751
The difference between statues of Washington and Jefferson, and statues of Lee is that Washington and Jefferson fought for, and created the Union. They did own slaves, but their statues celebrate their ideas and legacy. Not that they owned slaves. In contrast, many people view the Lee statue as a celebration of slavery, and the Confederacy. As for Joan of Arc, I have no idea why someone would want her statue removed, or what she could've done for people to suddenly hate her so much.

I, personally, don't care if the statues stay or go. Either way, though; it should be for the right reasons. We shouldn't keep the statues just because of some people's irrational fear that white culture will be wiped out if the statues are gone. We also shouldn't get rid of the statues if people really are going to try to forget about the Civil War. So far, it seems pretty unlikely anyone is trying to forget the Civil War, though

It's history. We don't have to be proud of it, but we need to learn it so we do not repeat the parts we are not proud of.

>>171743
White soldiers who died in Civil War = White heritage.

The British America shall rise again.

>>171922
I agree but do we need their statue in a triumphant pose mounted in front of courts and state houses? That appears to glorify them.
I think we should learn all of our history but I don't need a statue for that.

>>171772
Why is this childish essentialist thinking such a common feature of arguments from the political right? Nuance is important to accurately understand the world. Statues are symbols, not people. We put up statues of George Washington and MLK in our country despite their flaws and because of the good they did.

Statues of General Lee were erected to glorify the cause he fought for, which was the right of states to allow citizens to own people. It's a part of Southern heritage like stoning women is a part of Islamic heritage.

>>171957
>Statues of General Lee were erected to glorify the cause he fought for, which was the right of states to allow citizens to own people. It's a part of Southern heritage like stoning women is a part of Islamic heritage.

General Robert E Lee was against slavery and secession but fought for the Confederates because he did not want to fight people from his home state of Virginia. Tell me(not you) why would any self-respecting European Americans want to tear down that noble statue? Civil War happened either way. Get over it Amerifats.

The big switch is a myth. The democrats were pro slavery back then and they are pro slavery now. Just look how they scream when you threaten to take away their illegal mexican toilet cleaners and fruit pickers.
Democrats don't want to hire real people and pay real wages. They want slaves.

If you're going to remove Confederate monuments, you are either a racist and a bigot towards southern white people, or, you also feel Native American burial monuments should be removed since they had slavery, and the Statue of Liberty should be removed since both America AND France had slavery, and the Egyptian Pyramids should be demolished sine they were built on slave labor, and frankly, most every monument in the world should be removed since all races and nations at some point were guilty of slavery.

42779

>>171735
Then why do they say it's about slavery, those are primary source documents and the seceding states say it's about slavery, not about trade.

>>171961
Democrats want everyone to be able to make a living wage. So, how are those Mexicans slaves? The big switch isn't a myth, you're just ignoring history
>>171994
>If you want to remove these statues, you're racist toward white people
No. The reason people want them taken down is because they feel they're racist toward blacks. Not glorifying the Confederacy is not the same as hating white people
>The statue of liberty should be taken down because America and France both had slaves
The statue of liberty doesn't glorify slavery, though. It glorifies the United States, the American Dream, and liberty

>>171959

>Tell me(not you) why would any self-respecting European Americans want to tear down that noble statue?
Because they don't think it's noble for the same reason everyone else wants it removed. It doesn't matter what Lee's thoughts were when it comes to removing a statue of him any more than it matters what Washington's thoughts were about slavery. Statues of Lee were erected well after the civil war and again after the civil rights movement to symbolize the second-class status of part of our citizenry. That's what they remind people of, and to place them in front of courthouses and statehouses glorifies that part of the US's history.

>>172065
We have a winner!

stop postting opinion pieces

>>172301
And to amplify their intent by that specific placement: That statues of confederate leaders be erected on public and, means the public sector here still sympathizes with them. Essentially, put Lee in front of a courthouse and you tell everyone entering it that they will be treated as Lee would have them treated.

Imagine if you saw a huge, brass monument of Stalin in front of a courthouse. Yet Lee, another enemy of the country, and all of his compatriots who lead the poor they cucked out of honest work, to be killed by their countrymen to preserve tyrannical slavery, somehow deserve special treatment.

>>172309
you're foisting a lot of intent on the part of the statue where nowhere is it actually stated any of those things you assert.

lee is far from stalin, anyway. these two personalities are not anywhere near the same level of evil.

besides, if this was like fucking georgia, and there was a statue of stalin i wouldn't expect to be given a show trial and purged, that's ridiculous and you trying to imply that somehow there being a statue somewhere in public of a historical figure given some respect and gravity by the local culture means that somehow you're subject to some grim apartheid is pretty ridiculous, anon.

>>172332
The statues were funded and built by organizations engaging in Historical revisionism by painting confederate figures in a positive light while ignoring everything else about them (fuckton of Statues popped up in the early 20th century during the years Kim crow and segregation were ramped up higher).

>>171906
>So far, it seems pretty unlikely anyone is trying to forget the Civil War, though

Revisionism is rampant though in education and the public

>I agree but do we need their statue in a triumphant pose mounted in front of courts and state houses? That appears to glorify them.

It only glorifies it in your eyes because you folks so desperately wish to convey everything with the same, tired rethoric because of your infectious insecurities.

Seriously, erasing history does nothing. Tearing down a statue won't magically improve anyones life. If you want to make an impact, if there was one to be made, then you would take to the streets in mass protest to express your beliefs, peacefully. You're all just a bunch on whiny, fascist, book-burning criminals who stand blindly behind a hateful idealogy. You're no different than the KKk.

>>172332
Idk man if your black lee might have been stalin. I mean enough niggers were dragged out into the night to only be found under a tree the next day or just plain vanished.

The terror of which black people had to live under in the south for a long time is why everything is so fucked up.

I mean why contribute anything when your churches get blown up you family gets killed , your house gets burned down and you get lynched?
I mean why bother bettering your self if you will just be resented for it.

>Celebrating retards who seceded from the U.S, fought a war with against the U.S and assassinated a president after losing said war.
>Implying these statues have any historical values when they were put up long after the war to scare black people because confederates were butthurt that they couldn't be racist anymore.
>Idiots don't even know that the confederate flag was actually a battle flag and not the one that represented that failure of a nation.

>>171959

That's pretty much how I see it, Lee was only tangentially related to slavery, his motivations and ideals are what define him as admirable. Ultimately, though, that "tangentially related" part is enough to poison the whole character.

Ultimately I figure if you're gonna pretend people with bigoted views never existed it'd cut out every name born before... September 2017.

>>171922

If a statue just exists to teach history, then why didn't we erect statues of British revolutionary war generals everywhere? Why isn't anyone requesting Europe erect statues of Hitler and Stalin everywhere?

Statues these don't exist to teach, they exist to glorify. We don't depend on statues to learn history. They can serve as a reminder of history, but what is a statue of a Confederate general in a heroic pose in front of a statehouse or in a court supposed to be reminding us of? It is designed to glorify a man who is remembered for waging a war that would keep slavery legal if he'd won.

I'm not saying glorifying slavery should be illegal. But there are plenty of people by which Southerners can remember their heritage and culture that are not remembered for fighting a war that would perpetuate slavery if they won. In light of this, It would be nice to have a society in which (even if it's legal to erect a statue of Lee) people extend some consideration to fellow citizens whose family would have suffered had he won and choose a less contentious figure by which to remember Southern culture and heritage.

>>173007
Nobody ever said
"It's a free country"
unless they were already being an asshole

>>173007
Maybe people shouldn't build statues of traitors decades after they lost and parade flags of traitors that lost their war.

>>173105
Thats the thing though, the soutb seceded because it felt it was their right. There's a reason US states are called states rather than provinces and it's no surprise that southern generals sided with their particular state, because up until after the war most people would identify themselves as a Virginian or a New Yorker rather than as an American. We started this great country under the articles of confederation and only later and with great opposition did the central government take a more federal stance, it still then begged the question as to whether or not a state could secede, which, though I'm happy the US is one country today, they probably should have been permitted to.
The role of the central government and it's powers, particularly regarding it's rights over individual states in regards to say slavery, was the reason for the war and only a dribbling idiot would simply say it was all about slavery.

>>170673
The north was fighting to preserve the Union. Lincoln banned slavery to weaken the south. He even said he would have not freed a single slave if he didn't need to.

Don't glorify the north as fighting for rights or freedom. They didn't care about either.

>>170668
>>170673
>>171393
>"Hey guys we got all this political power and Jack shit economic power because of the slaves isn't it great? GO 3/4THS!"
>Lincoln says fuck that
>The South: REEEEEEEEEE! NO! REEEEEEE! REEEEEE!

To even suggest that the civil war wasn't about slavery is disingenuous considering the fact that slavery was what literally put the south in the situation that """"""""""""""""required"""""'""""""" them to """"""""""""""""""protect""""""""""""" their """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""rights"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" and the dip shits chimped the fuck out over it

>Article I Section 9(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

And btw when the US was expanding south they'd prefer for the work to be done by actual full citizens not the property of a bunch of lazy faggots. They still barely cared about the slaves at the end of the day it was literally about slaves no matter what mental Olympic gymnastics

You lost get the fuck over it already

>>173151
>south
I mean west*

Confederates are traitors to the United States and their statues should be treated as such.
>b-but it was a war for states rights
South Carolina's "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union" states slavery as the reason for secession, not states rights.
>b-but you're erasing history
History books exist, idiot. Children are taught about the Civil War. Destroying statues isn't destroying history, it's destroying racist monuments to traitors of the USA.
>b-but muh culture
The Confederates destroyed the culture of their slaves - they prevented them from speaking their language, practicing their religion, etc. You really think destroying statues is paramount to that? Quit crying you pathetic cuckfederate. You are free to practice your "culture" of your short-lived pathetic traitor colony, but prepared to get punched in the face and lose again and again and again like your ancestors.

>>173155
I just don't like destroying them because I don't like destroying historical artifacts. Why can't we just put them in a museum where they belong?

>>173209
Many of these statues are not Confederate-era historical relics. A lot of them went up far later, when people felt that their way of life was being threatened by the civil rights movement and what not.

>>173239
They are also pretty shoddily made because they were mass produced, notice how some of the statues just crumple when torn down.

The south fought for civil liberties unlike the north.

>>173239
spot the amerifat. they were erected every 50 years or so as to not let it happen again.

>>173274
So, they're not Confederate-era historical relics.

>>173239
Most of them are from the 1890's, when veterans of the war were starting to die. It's also worth noting that the reason none of them are from the immediate post-war era is because it was literally illegal to erect them during Reconstruction. You can be sure loads of people threw them up as soon as they were able.

Don't get me wrong, people did certainly hold grudges. Vicksburg didn't celebrate the 4th of July for a hundred years after the war because it was the day they surrendered. And New Orleans put their statues up because they were bitter as hell for being occupied territory the whole war under some very unfriendly folks.

>>172065
Jews.

Slaves in the south were often worked to death... They've found graveyards full of deformed African skeletons, which are evidence of the extreme and brutal labor the slaves were forced to do. From an early age, they had to carry very heavy loads on their backs.

It was only at the cusp of the civil war, when automation and technology improved, and more attention was paid to the slavery issue, that some plantations cleaned up their act in an attempt to cover up their crimes.

>>172667
This needs to be shouted from the heavens by god himself.

>>170537
History should be preserved
in history books and museums
paintings of Hitler and whatever else, swastikas, nazi uniforms, logos, documents, all that shit should be preserved and be publicly accessible
but statues in public places of objectively bad people should not be a thing, there's no reason for them to be there, other than be a literal proxy device of oppression

>>173155
>The Confederates destroyed the culture of their slaves - they prevented them from speaking their language, practicing their religion, etc. You really think destroying statues is paramount to that?

Technically speaking, that's a beneficial stepping stone as they were to be freed one day.

And what of the scorched earth campaign the north inflicted on the south? We show disdain for southern resentment but make no effort to acknowledge the cause. Of course not, I keep forgetting this is black and white and moral ambiguity hurts the brain. STATUE = BAD.

Makes me think of Rome.

>>172246
>It glorifies the United States, the American Dream, and liberty
which are inherently violent and racist concepts

>>175751
Nice bait.

>>175711
>objectively bad people
There it is.

>>175761
>america's equivalent of the nazis not objectively bad people
get ready to get bashed all the way back to /pol/, fash

>>175762
>equivalent of the nazis
Whenever you try to use this as a serious argument you've already lost.

Incidentally, Rommel still has streets and memorials.

>>175763
>Whenever you try to use this as a serious argument you've already lost.
whatever you say /pol/

>>175765
Confederate veterans are American veterans, according to federal codexed law. You are a faggot and a traitor.

>>175766
I'm not even American lmao
yeah well they're like german soldiers, youth that got drafted and fought in WW2 to defend their homeland, they didn't believe in nazi ideals, just had no choice, only then it's acceptable, otherwise those very veterans are scum, and while we should show understanding towards the mistakes of our past, we should not celebrate them.

>>175760
not an argument, those are all reserved for white america

>>175767
Only 12% of the Confederate Army was drafted. The rest volunteered.

Somehow, people believed in that whole states rights thing funny that. :^)

>>170537
WHO FUCKING CARES? god you imbeciles and your obsession with statues and museum exhibits get a fucking life and or a clue idiots. If you can't make it life it isn't the fault of some historical relic like a statue. full fucking stop. Stop being a bitch, stop soap boxing over some old shit most people care nothing about, and most of all stop fucking postin. Your lack of intelligence is disturbing.

>>175843
>States rights
This is the biggest meme in American history

Their rights to bamboozle the political system and worn human beings

>>175843
See
>>171447

>>170673
Do you stand for everything your vice president stands for today? Of course not. Likewise, the people of the South were fighting for their rights and freedoms, not because they wanted to own slaves that most of them didn't have anyway.

>>170673
The south claiming States Rights is akin to modern day "I'm not racist, but..."

If you really believe the States Rights argument go look up Byron Paine and the Wisconsin States Rights case in the 1850s. They used the same argument to overturn the Fugitive Slave Clause and got shut down by the federal government. "States Rights" has always been a legal strategy used to justify moral arguments one way or another. A war was never fought over "states rights." States rights were never the primary issue.

Source: I wrote my thesis on Wisconsin States Rights and got a B+

>>176073

>The south claiming States Rights is akin to modern day "I'm not racist, but..."

And the funny thing is that the slaver owners were democrats. The southern racists were mostly democrat. All this bullshit about states rights and "slavery wasn't that bad" is propaganda from democrats to cover up their racist past.

But who's doing the work for them now? Republicans. Truly conservacuckery is no mere meme. There's something off in this party.

>>170537
>there are people that actually think the civil war wasn't about slavery and still deny it to this day
christ, these people are wastes of flesh

>>170537
nothing to proud of, but its still historical and worth remembering

>>176077
The democrats of the 1850s are not the democrats of today. Parties change over time and 150 years is a longass time. Not to say everyone wasn't racist back then but to compare today's Democratic Party with the slave holding democrats of the 19th century is ignorant or deliberately misleading. But this has nothing to do with party so I don't know why you brought that up

>>171994
>Egyptian Pyramids should be demolished sine they were built on slave labor,

>>171994

Not to take away from your main point, but the Pyramids were most likely not built on the back of chattel slave labor. Instead, the growing historical consensus is that the pyramid builders were, in varying degrees, highly skilled workers that were paid a wage. The closet you get to slavery being use in pyramid construction is the use of a corvée labor system, but that's more related to a form of taxation and laborers were still paid a wage regardless.

Slavery did exist in Egypt though, so I'm sure we can find some temples to tear down.


http://harvardmagazine.com/2003/07/who-built-the-pyramids-html

>>172336
Outside of literature what's been revised as far as current history being taught to children is concerned?

>>172685
What's their excuse now that their ancestors' fight is won and they have equal rights, and in many cases advantages over their previous oppressors?