The Atlanta chapter of the NAACP and Congressman Hank Johnson are demanding the destruction of the monument dedicated to Confederate Historical figures at Stone Mountain in Georgia.
The monument which is reminiscent of Mount Rushmore is apparently unacceptable to the racialist who feel that symbols of the Confederacy are the reason why so many youtes are killing each other on the streets of America. Of course Congressman Johnson is the same brianiac who was worried about putting too many troops on Guam because the island might capsize. These are the people who are leading the charge to disappear all symbols of the Civil War regardless of their historical significance.
Once they succeed with this they will move on to removing the American Flag and the monuments to people like Washington, Jefferson and Madison who were slave holders.
They are the true American Taliban.
47 comments:
I like Trooper, he's a fighter.
Seriously, the way to respond to this is call them out for who they are. They will try the same, but its easier to show the resemblance of this request with the Taliban, than to believe a hack professor unfamiliar with the Goldwater Rule.
Stone Mountain is where William Simmons had his vision to resurrect the Klan, but I'll bet not one of those morons knows that.
It's understandable that dead-enders want to keep them. When you lost a war so badly that your leader ran from his conquerers dressed as a lady, no opportunity to burnish his image is too much. It's not like anyone wants to acknowledge their desire to commemorate the cause he stood for, so what are you going to do? It's pathetic, but no less pathetic than denying what he stood for, or that it and the Klan that followed it, left any lasting damage.
Neither Washington, Jefferson or Madison fought to destroy the United States. It's embarrassing to see them mentioned as part of the same ideal. But hey, at least it's a third-rate carving. There are probably wooden spoons engraved with these jokers that have better craftsmanship.
What's next? Defending monuments to Tim McVeigh? Seriously. Why are people so interested in seeing these fools as heroes? They were heroically stupid, and that's it.
The Taliban is exactly the current Democrat party.
On Mount Rushmore they could put their current saints, like Trayvon Martin and OJ Simpson.
Rhythm and Balls said...
It's understandable that dead-enders want to keep them. When you lost a war so badly that your leader ran from his conquerers dressed as a lady, no opportunity to burnish his image is too much
He thought he was going to be hanged, moron. but go ahead, let's hear you say something about Robert E Lee and Thomas Jackson.
But spare me. Ritmo is another of these phony defenders of the Republic that's only interested in the Stalinization of this country's history and will use any pretext to achieve that end. He'll call anybody who wants to stand up to the mob - and that's all they are, a mob, a neoConfederate.
He wants people to believe Jeff Davis was a coward, take a look at Davis' actions at Buena Vista.
Troop says he respects Ritmo.
I don't. Ritmo is a liar and one of the crowd of Leftists that wants to destroy this country.
Oh, and for the record, when I noted Stone Mountain's connection to the Klan, it was to express its real part in history.
Troop, if you want to call me wrong, do it.
Heres a question Ritmo. If there was a historically and artistically significant statue or monument to Genghis Kahn or Attila the Hun or Hillary Clinton should they be destroyed because of their bad acts?
The people on that statue all distinguished themselves serving in the Mexican War. Of course that is another part of American History that should be erased. Because history has to be rewritten to fit the politically correct play book.
Don't fool yourself. The exact same people who want to destroy this monument are the same ones who want to tear down monuments to Washington and Jefferson.
The same ones who are afraid that Guam will capsize. You know. Idiots.
Ritmo likes to argue his points vehemently ed. I respect that. We can be friends and diametrically opposed in our viewpoints.
I also know that in time his viewpoint will change. He is a young guy. Experience will change him.
As the sayings go a conservative is often a liberal who was mugged the night before. Give it time pilgrim.
I know. We can sandblast those statues and put up one of Trayvon, Michael Brown and Freddie Grey. I think you are to something ed.
I never said they should be destroyed. But that's different from accepting that a lot of destructive and ignorant sentiment made their way into these memorials. At the least, does every other damn road need to be named after a Confederate leader? There is a worship of those guys that borders on cultishness.
Genghis Kahn was a pretty important historical figure. And yet, he raped enough concubines to pass on his Y chromosome to probably at least 10 million Asians today. Your point is taken. Good point.
I would tear down a statue of Hillary on grounds of general principle (as Vinny Vega said to Jules Winfield) and taste.
He thought he was going to be hanged, moron. but go ahead, let's hear you say something about Robert E Lee…
Robert E. Lee fought like a man, and surrendered like a man. In the most dignified way possible. He gave allegiance to Virginia when he felt duty called. He did not AFAIK give extended diatribes defending the moral presumptions of a slave economy.
Davis did neither. Further, Davis lied about what the Confederacy was about in order to save his own reputation years later, and arguably made the most destructive pattern we're stuck in today by refusing to come to terms with what he did wrong. Even Bedford Forrest was probably a more dignified statesman afterward.
Davis was reluctant to win the CS presidency, but he did nothing to lead it, and less to challenge it as it needed to be. IIRC, it was Lee who, in the Confederacy's last desperate throes, suggested arming slaves and freeing them if they fought. Davis did not even do this.
Davis faced mobs of Southern ladies pissed to hell with the way he could not even feed his own (white!) people in the midst of the conflagration.
By all measures, he was a pisspoor leader. And worse, a liar who miseducated 150 years of Southern youth just for the sake of his lousy reputation and avoiding any admission of his calamitous errors and moral and political blunders.
His name should be remembered in infamy.
Ed, Trooper makes his point and defends what's important to him, but with good humor. He sees beyond partisanship and is a full human being in every sense of the word. You would get more respect from me if you saw the importance of having things like that going for you.
On Mount Rushmore they could put their current saints, like Trayvon Martin and OJ Simpson.
Heisman Trophy image OJ or mugshot OJ image?
I imagine the statue of Hillary to be the opening a tunnel for a bullet train between New York and DC. With the Tunnel being her vagina between her splayed legs and her cankles waving in the air.
They just have to build it life size and they are good to go. Just sayn'
They are the ones talking about destroying the memorial. I think they can protest it. Then can stand at the tourist areas handing out literature denouncing the people on the monument. But they want to destroy it. Just like the Taliban. For the same reasons. It is as simple as that.
Like Hell, That's for people like Ritmo. Ritmo called him a coward and he wasn't.
Davis didn't want to give up. He tried to talk Lee into fading into the mountains and fighting for another 20 years. He tried to convince Johnston, too. The only one who was willing was Kirby Smith - know who that was, Ritmo, or do you have to go back to your handlers and ask?
But Davis called 'em like he saw 'em. The Confederacy was run more like it was under the Articles of Confederation than a faux Constitution and his authority was limited.
But Ritmo would like Lincoln's way better - suspending Constitutional rights whenever it suited him, imposing an illegal income tax because he was dumb enough to declare an illegal war on the region the Union needed to keep the government going and still didn't have enough money, so he cut a deal with the Abolitionists to get that money and issued an Emancipation Proclamation that didn't even free the slaves in Jersey and Delaware, but did cause 50,000 soldiers to desert the Union Army.
it was Lee who, in the Confederacy's last desperate throes, suggested arming slaves and freeing them if they fought. Davis did not even do this.
Wrong, moron. It was the first thing Lee did when he joined the confederate Army.
Pat Cleburne was one of the last to suggest the same thing in the last months of the war.
Christ, you don't even know what you're talking about, do you? You just have your talking points and barf them up on command.
I imagine the statue of Hillary to be the opening a tunnel for a bullet train between New York and DC. With the Tunnel being her vagina between her splayed legs and her cankles waving in the air.
Lol. Before I even got to the second sentence I had an idea of what was coming next. But I didn't even think you would go there. At best, I'd got an image in my mind of what happened to the Dude during his dream in the Big Lebowski.
I think the naming of streets after historical figures is problematic at best. Why was every other thing named after JFK after he got shot by the Mafia? Cheap sentiment.
Now we are facing many places being renamed for Barack Obama. That is going to be interesting.
I think that street names should reflect the community or tribe that it serves. So change the names in black areas. Name them after Al Sharpton or Louie Farakan or Eric Garner if you want. But if you are living on Nathan Bedford Forrest Road there should be a reason for it. Just sayn'
I wish Chip would photo shop the Hillary Clinton Tunnel but I promised Lem I would keep it clean. Sort of.
So before we go any further down the road on deleting symbols of the historical record, I'd like to know what IS the criteria for doing so? Because it can't just be negative media attention generated at the behest of attention-seeking hacktivists. Concrete, bright-line criteria only: What goes, what stays, and why?
Davis didn't want to give up. He tried to talk Lee into fading into the mountains and fighting for another 20 years.
And what a disaster for the country that would have been. Even worse than now. Add one more item to his list of "horrible blunders of leadership."
But Davis called 'em like he saw 'em.
And he saw "'em" as blurry as Mr. Magoo looking through a microscope.
The Confederacy was run more like it was under the Articles of Confederation than a faux Constitution and his authority was limited.
Glad to know your thoughts on great examples of government.
But Ritmo would like Lincoln's way better -
That's all you have to say. You confirm what I suspect about a number of people who want the Party of Lincoln to be about everything other than the flexible, successful examples of great leadership by the man who first led it. It's a disgrace. Despite Lincoln's nearly universal admiration, you go with a narrative on Confederate apologia that not even Southern historians accept. They reject the excuse-making and cultish worship of the Confederacy's nature just as universally. The Confederacy was a disaster.
"it was Lee who, in the Confederacy's last desperate throes, suggested arming slaves and freeing them if they fought. Davis did not even do this."
Wrong, moron. It was the first thing Lee did when he joined the confederate Army.
So what? You strengthen my own point by quibbling with the technicality to further contrast Lee's decent nature with Davis' execrable nature.
Christ, you don't even know what you're talking about, do you? You just have your talking points and barf them up on command.
Ask Christ if he'd like you to remove the log from your eyes before quibbling with the mote in mine. You don't seem to understand the difference between a meaningless detail (as proud as you are of your robotic memory for recalling it) and what the whole point even is.
It's sad, ed. It's like going to a job interview and asking the hiring committee if they'd like you to bring them any coffee on your way.
You know what that's like.
Meanwhile, Trooper is adding to the historical record.
Meanwhile, Trooper is adding to the historical record.
And with my full blessing, too. His wild creativity is sorely needed when it comes to ways of "properly" commemorating Hillary. And as he reminds us when it came to JFK, that unfortunate day will come.
After all, nearly her entire tenure as senator consisted of finding ways to commemorate and rename post offices. The least we could do is offer her a more eccentric way of being remembered.
Yes, I know. She really is a bitch, when I'm forced to admit it.
She could dress as a man and a Jefferson Davis impersonator could stand next to her dressed as a lady. In a Vegas chapel.
Ed would love it. Hahahaha.
Nice.
That'll kill two birds with one stone. So to speak.
I think that more than anything, Obama has encouraged Americans to reach back to their own tribalism.
This sort of cruelty is a problem in any narrative about American Indians, because Americans like to think of their native aboriginals as in some way heroic or noble. Indians were, in fact, heroic and noble in many ways, especially in defense of their families. Yet in the moral universe of the West--in spite of our own rich tradition of torture, which includes officially sanctioned torments in Counter-Reformation Europe and sovereign regimes such as that of Peter the Great in Russia--a person who tortures or rapes another person or who steals another person's child and sells him cannot possibly be seen that way. Crazy Horse was undoubtedly heroic in battle and remarkably charitable in life. But as an Oglala Sioux he was also a raider, and raiding meant certain very specific things, including the abuse of captives. His great popularity--a giant stone image of him is being carved from a mountain in South Dakota--may have a great deal to do with the fact that very little is known about his early life. He is free to be the hero we want him to be.
S.C. Gwynne in "The Empire of the Summer Moon"
The quoted paragraph followed a written description of Comanche violence including their glee in throwing live victims into fires and hearing their skin "pop." Sounds like the Taliban.
Discuss
Ritmo can't just say it. He has to go the route of the 5th grader.
But Ritmo would like Lincoln's way better -
That's all you have to say. Blah, blah
That's the whole point, but yeah, I don't doubt you want to obfuscate your way past it.
And I have no grand love of the Confederacy, I just object to the Stalinization of the country's history and tell the facts, which is the point you always duck, isn't it?
Davis didn't want to give up. He tried to talk Lee into fading into the mountains and fighting for another 20 years.
And what a disaster for the country that would have been. Even worse than now. Add one more item to his list of "horrible blunders of leadership."
No bigger blunder than Lincoln starting a war that could have been prevented. But back to the point, he was a coward or a fighter? Can't have both.
Wrong, moron. It was the first thing Lee did when he joined the confederate Army.
So what? You strengthen my own point by quibbling with the technicality to further contrast Lee's decent nature with Davis' execrable nature.
Nothing to do with Lee's "decent nature" (he was fighting for slavery wasn't he? I thought all the slavers were eeeevilll - come on, can't have it both ways, we hate all the Confederates, don't we?), he was talking about the practicalities of winning a war.
You really don't have any clue on this, do you?
a Jefferson Davis impersonator could stand next to her dressed as a lady.
Sounds more like they need a Ritmo impersonator for that.
Sounds like the Taliban.
Or lately, ISIS.
I think that more than anything, Obama has encouraged Americans to reach back to their own tribalism.
Oh whatever. The historicity and defensive sense of legacy associated with the picture in the post disproves that whole theory.
Eddie-pie, the "facts" on what the Confederacy was about are all right here: http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html. There's no hiding, no "Stalinization" (whatever that means). Lincoln didn't "start" bombarding Fort Sumter, Lee was not a politician at all, but someone who fought honorably simply on behalf of the fact that his home state had a greater bond and sense of duty for him, and whatever else you want to ramble about, go ahead. It's like listening to a stutterer in a straitjacket, honestly.
You could learn some things from Lee. What does duty mean to you, ed? Anything?
I do hope your obsession with me will abate tonight. I have limited interest in responding to the sheer number of accusations you'll no doubt fantasize me doing.
Last week (or whenever), anybody who wore the gray was a slaver and anybody who supported them was a neo-Confederate according to you.
So now all that's changed, we have never been at war with Eastasia?
You could learn some things from Lee.
I've been reading about Lee since I was 10. Did you know he practically won the Mexican War single-handed? Bet you can't name the battle.
And you know exactly what Stalinization is or you wouldn't be trying to change the subject all the time.
PS You might want to use more than one source for your nonsense. The Internet is awash with historical sites, not all good, but many with differing points of view and a great many with facts not covered elsewhere.
Of course, differing points of view confuse apparachiks like you, so maybe it's just as well you stick to one site and don't question it.
Wouldn't want your head to explode.
chickelit said...
The quoted paragraph followed a written description of Comanche violence including their glee in throwing live victims into fires and hearing their skin "pop." Sounds like the Taliban.
Indians were essentially terrorists. The whole idea of the war paint, surprise attacks, mutilation of the dead, rape of women captives was to scare the enemy.
Unfortunately for the Comanches, they faced the same kind of Scotch-Irish emigrants which had hacked their way through the Shawnee and the Creeks and who believed in retaliation in kind.
Whatever they did was paid back a thousandfold by people whose forebears had invented the clan feud.
The Taliban believe symbols of any other culture is blasphemy and that they do a righteous thing destroying them.
Kind of like Ritmo and his friends trying to rewrite American history to suit themselves.
The Atlanta chapter of the NAACP and Congressman Hank Johnson are demanding the destruction of the monument dedicated to Confederate Historical figures at Stone Mountain in Georgia.
The Atlanta chapter of the NAACP and Congressman Hank Johnson deserve only derision for their proposal. It won't get very far, nor should it.
Unfortunately for the Comanches, they faced the same kind of Scotch-Irish emigrants which had hacked their way through the Shawnee and the Creeks and who believed in retaliation in kind.
Gwynne goes into that, and quotes a few Romans on Celtic "barbaricity."**
___________________
** Inspired by Ritmo's "historicity"
Hawaii is littered with human sacrifice altars, a practice not abandoned until 1819 or so. The people blocking access to Mauna Loa (and the construction of the 30 Meter Telescope) are spiritually fond of their pagan forebears. The sentiments are growing, not shrinking. BTW, many many Hawaiian gift shops are littered with BHO "native son" crap.
John Newton, who wrote the hymn "Amazing Grace," was a former slave ship captain. I suppose we should rip that racist scum's music from our hymnals.
ndspinelli said...
Ritmo is a Commie bastard. But, I will always have his back. When a friend of our took sick Ritmo stepped up generously and w/ compassion and real concern. So did Sixty. I miss Sixty.
So what? When Althouse seemed threatened by local Madison labor goons during her coverage of the Walker recall, garage mahal--GARAGE MAHAL! telephoned me and expressed concern. Can you imagine?
I am touched by human outreach too, however, what I don't countenance is deliberate, contrived contrariness in blog comments. There is absolutely no need for this sort of human behavior--the sort of game that Althouse bragged about playing with her sons at the breakfast table: "defend this unpopular position" -- or some such legalistic masturbation. It's fine for a law school but doesn't really belong in a blog without trigger warnings.
People here and in blogs in general should weigh in with their own genuine, authentic, and original opinions. In a free market of opinions-- i.e. without deletions--there is no danger of echo chambers. The other side will always weigh in if there is an other side. There is no need for contrarian poseurs except in so far as blog commenting has become an "art" form.
Rhythm and Balls said...
Oh whatever. The historicity and defensive sense of legacy associated with the picture in the post disproves that whole theory.
It's just the other side of the coin, ritmo-- it's: hey you black folks and people of color, you got tribal loyalties too-- it's not just for white folks in the last 200 years.
The difference is that we've got POTUS who preaches tribalism. Yes, tribalism has always existed in America. But name another recent POTUS who so blatantly played it from the office.
I'm with Amartel. The Woodrow Wilson bridge gets a pass. It was less than a decade ago that Democrats praise Robert Byrd, and most of WV is named after him. I think I see the rules, but put them down on paper so we can see what they are, and then we can talk action.
@Nick: My objection isn't to whether or not people are bad--it's whether they act badly.
Thanks, Nick, I appreciate your kind words.
What amazes me is that after all this time the same players are playing the same games in the same forum - Titus, Rit Mo, Meade and the rest - no personal growth has occurred, no introspection, no increase in concern for other humans, just blah blah blah, over and freakin' over.
Get a grip people, grow up. You have been hashing out the same tired points forever and I am astounded that you have not grown tired of it. I did, a long time ago. You don't "win", you just play with words and think you are clever. You aren't. You are tedious. And predictable. Your words have not changed anyone's opinion nor moved anyone to action, other than to type yet another comment.
Lem, if you had any sense or the ability to be ashamed you would shut this place down now and send the cockroaches back to their cracks. It has become an appendix on the internet - you know, vestigial and full of shit.
It has become an appendix on the internet - you know, vestigial and full of shit.
...but, if we're the occupants, what's that make us?
windbag said: "...but, if we're the occupants, what's that make us?"
Apparently something Sixty Grit is scraping off his boots. I enjoyed reading his comments and this one is no exception. I like reading Lem's but given that we're all destined to be a tiny little pile of dust it doesn't much matter what any of us say. We might as well be writing our names in a bucket of water.
Well 60 I'm sure I haven't changed your opinion any more than you've changed mine. I can't really imagine you changing anyone's opinion, anyway - or even imagine you trying to without threatening force. Maybe that's why you hate the internet so, as that component is removed.
What's astounding is that Chick assumes agreement. Disagreement is only for the disagreeable, he seems to say. Well, that works for as long as he stays away from about 60% of society, I guess.
I appreciate Nick's words and his ability to see past simple political opinions. I've never cheated, stolen, assaulted or worse. I was a good student and an Eagle scout. I don't like to brag but doing good impresses and drives me no less than any fair-minded person would imagine. Like Troop, some people understand that people won't see eye-to-eye on everything, or even most things. There are other parts of the big picture to see, whether it's character, or just humor. It's no big deal. That's what life is.
Chick, if disagreement (or a good defense of it) is bad, just say the word. I like coming here 'cause of the history and cause I see most of you as real people. I don't go to fanatic lefty sites, or fanatic right-wing sites. Just here (and places where no perspective is assumed).
But in the meantime, I thought you should be reminded of the instructions above where comments are left. It says:
"I welcome all legitimate comments, whether you agree with me or not."
I hope you don't mind, but I'll defer your judgment to the P.I. on whether my comments are actually, in fact, legitimate.
In the meantime, cheers to anyone who wants to hear it. Far be it from me, though, to assume that the point of life is to make people believe as I do on any single thing.
Post a Comment