Where have I disagreed with that?
When was the statue put up? When you find that out, answer the obvious questions that throws up.
Your insults are low grade(although i am getting old and there’s every chance that i’m a cunt). Try harder if you want to insult me.
1 Like
Well they weren’t insults then.
No they weren’t. They were primarily put up during the period following reconstruction leading into the Jim Crow era with a bunch more added during the civil rights movement.
4 Likes
You are factually wrong. First, he was no more a war hero than was the typical nazi general. Second, the statues were not put up “at the time” but later in an attempt to rewrite history. If there was a place where someone had put up statues of the 15 best american military leaders, you could argue that Lee was there based on his leadership and military skills and that statue was not endorsing white supremecy but that is not what is at issue here.
4 Likes
So how many German generals would be hero’s if they had won the 2nd ww then
History is written by the winners
and as this statue was erected after the civil war who did win that war?
just asking like
It depends how you define many but few southerners were against slavery in 1861 and many of the ones that were fought with the north. Nearly all of the rest of the southerners who were against slavery were the slaves themselves who you seem to conveniently forget.
2 Likes
Only one?
http://docsouth.unc.edu/commland/monument/15/
The Winston-Salem memorial was erected in 1905 during the period of time the South was expanding Jim Crow. The memorial undoubtedly was to commemorate white supremecy, not the dearly departed southern war dead.
We could probably use a little bit of cessation.
2 Likes
Sure. If Germany had won the second world war, they probably would have been lots of german generals who were treated as war heros. But they still would have been evil.
If the South had won the civil war then they undoubtedly would have put up lots of statues commemorating their heros (althoiugh they would have done it right away not so much over the next 100 years) but slavery would still have been evil.
History may be written by the winners, but that does not make all winner morally right.
1 Like
Can there be no confederate civil war memorials? This is what it will come down to.
1 Like
Why should there be such memorials–at least ones that honor the confederate dead to the exclusion of the union dead? And given they are a focus of pride for white racists, they certainly should not be on public property. If a neo-nazi wants such a statue he can buy a lot, get a building permit, and erect himself.
The Japanese have war memorials from World War II, what is the difference, I despise the Nazi ideology but I can still see a brave soldier and human dying, you honour the dead and fallen. Should Waterloo be renamed? All street names?
2 Likes
The germans have it right
Often the argument for preserving Confederate statues and allowing Confederate flags is that we should not forget our history. In Germany, Nazi buildings are extremely hard to come by — nearly all have been destroyed. Yet Germany certainly has not forgotten anything: There’s just a recognition that remembering and memorializing are two different things.
http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2017/08/16/543808019/the-view-of-charlottesville-from-berlin
1 Like
You seem to use the word ‘Liberals’ as a term of abuse Barry. I have to be honest here and admit that i enjoy reading your posts. I like the fact that you have your opinions, never mind that they are politically incorrect. I admire your refusal to be bullied into changing them. And they make me laugh out loud. I especially liked your rant which ended with your wish to see the ‘cunts’ shopping at Aldi. It really doesn’t get much better than that on a Saturday night when i get home from the pub and log on to our favourite ‘football’ forum, which, incidently, pisses all over the competition, ( i use the word 'competition loosely. Speaking as a ‘Liberal’!
The dropping of atom bombs by the USA on Hiroshima and Nagasaki had no relevence regarding ending the threat of Japan. They were already finished to all intents and purposes. It was purely about ‘making a statement’ to the rest of the world, especially Russia. And with the added bonus of testing them, seeing if they worked in a real life scenario. Nagasaki wasn’t even on the list of target cities for the bomb. The main target was japan’s ancient city, Kyoto’. The list of targets was created by a committee of American military generals, army officers and scientists. Purely an academic exercise, nothing to do with the the day to day realities of war. Kyoto, which is home to more than 2,000 Buddhist temples and Shinto shrines, including 17 world heritage sites was at the top of the list because, " the people of Kyoto are more apt to appreciate the significance of the weapon as a gadget". The scientists on the Target Committee preferred Kyoto because it was home to many universities and they thought the people there would be able to understand that an atomic bomb was not just another weapon - that it was a turning point in human history. The US Secretary of War, Henry Stimpson, ordered Kyoto to be removed from the target list. He argued that it was of cultural importance and was not a military target. The military didn’t want it removed so it kept putting Kyoto back on the list until late July 1945 but Stimpon went directly to President Truman and Nagasaki was added to the target list instead of Kyoto. Even though Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not military targets either. It is known that Stimpson visited Kyoto as a tourist several times in the 1920s, he honeymooned there, fell in the love with the place and was a huge admirer of the Japanese culture to be found there. On such things do the lives of tens of thousands of innocent people hang. The US secretary of war couldn’t bear the thought of a beautiful city that he had such fond memories of being destroyed so Nagasaki it was then. Never mind the tens of thousands of poor sods who lived there, they were not even part of the equation. One man, having the power of life and death over whole cities full of people, playing God, deciding who lives and who dies with a stroke of a pen. There has never been a more true saying than,‘The first casualty of war is the truth’. Sadly as true now as it was seventy odd years ago.
Incidently Pap, i am intrigued with your casual use of the term “Jap” to describe our oriental friends. Presumably you will also be OK with 'Nip, Kraut, Frog, Russki etc. Whatever will those ‘right on’ chaps at Momentum think!
6 Likes
I’ve watched lots of movies and read lots of books about the Civil war.
But I can’t recall anyone using the words White Supremist
Also interesting to now see the debate has moved on to discuss Mount whatsit and removing a couple of Presidents heads.
Unfortunately no one mentions removing Trumps head.Now. When we going to start on the Dutch & the horrors inflicted by their East India company. And the French and their appalling Empire in Africa and…
1 Like
Its not about the words Phil, but I suggest suppressing a whole race of people into slavery and treating them as sub-humans does kind of reflect an attitude of ‘supremacy’…
Seems to me that there is a tendency to fall into the trap of making this about ‘Political Correctness’ - (the completely wrong use of the term by the way as I have tried to point out) to deflect from taking an action to remove a stature that to millions of folks represents opprression. Its not time or even what the statue represented originally that is the issue here, But what it symbolises TODAY… whether it STILL acts as a rallying icon for oppressors and racists… and it does. That is why it is different from many other, monuments. To me, I am not that keen on Bomber Harris having a statue… BUT you dont get a whole large group of ignorant cunts using it as a symbol to justify their hatred of Germans do you? (Apart form a bunch if ignorant fucks who do bommber runs at England Games…), so its not something I would call to be removed… unless it became one. (If I called for it to be removed now without it being a current symbol of something evil… then that might qualify as a ‘PC gone mad’ - although that is a meaningless expression invented by by folks who dislike challenges to their prejudices)
That to me is the difference - forget how long its been there, forget why it was errected, what does it symbolise today ? And if its an icon for hate, then tear the fucker down. and stop hiding behind the Daily Hates hijacking of PC as an excuse to let it be…
Great post! but even if the Jap
But even if the Japanese surrendered or wanted to (there is much debate on that) how could the fanatical civilian population be controlled, I don’t doubt dropping the bombs (wrong order of them dropping and there were three) was a message to Russia but I do believe the US population and the military didn’t want any more needless losses, I’ll add we would have had to help as well and it saved many British lives.
There was revenge in this I have no doubt but arguably the Japanese treated its (war) prisoners the worst, they certainly didn’t understand the word surrender that many Allied and Axis soldiers even did, also the burning of Tokyo was a war crime.
I believe and think dropping that bomb saved 10,000’s of allied lives and did bring an end to the war (not totally as I’ve said still many Japanese fought on after the unconditional surrender).
Hirohito couldn’t even face using the word surrender.
Great post again.