This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
CambridgeEagle Sydenham 16 Aug 17 5.42pm | |
---|---|
Good to see they are renaming it
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Ray in Houston Houston 16 Aug 17 5.44pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by johnno42000
Why not put a statue of a famous black person by the side of the ones from the Confederacy? Also every Founding Father (bunch of traitors, all of them) owned slaves. Yes, they did. Later, their successors decided that owning people was wrong and changed the law; Robert E. Lee and his ilk took up arms in opposition to that and nearly a million people died. Also, giving a historical black figure equal prominence with a Confederate general is a Bolasian missing of the point. Edited by Ray in Houston (16 Aug 2017 5.47pm)
We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football. |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
elgrande bedford 16 Aug 17 5.49pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Ray in Houston
Yes, they did. Later, their successors decided that owning people was wrong and changed the law; Robert E. Lee and his ilk took up arms in opposition to that and nearly a million people died. Also, giving a historical black figure equal prominence with a Confederate general is a Bolasian missing of the point. Edited by Ray in Houston (16 Aug 2017 5.47pm) Not sure it does to be honest.
always a Norwood boy, where ever I live. |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
CambridgeEagle Sydenham 16 Aug 17 5.50pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Mr_Gristle
Not in the slightest. Read it again. What you should be inferring is that ugly history should remain as something visible to challenge, learn from and serve as a clear reminder of what can happen when the rule of reason and ethics is sacrificed to the will of the rich and powerful. I am not as relaxed about the airbrushing of history by lessening the visibility of its darker side as some people obviously are.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
CambridgeEagle Sydenham 16 Aug 17 5.51pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by elgrande
Not sure it does to be honest. I'd say that message would be one of confusion. It also wouldn't erase the reason why those statues were put up in the first place.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
wordup 16 Aug 17 5.56pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Different times, racism was a part of life....It's wrong and terrible but we also have to remember that these people and people now had relatives from these times. Sure some demonise and some understand and know it was wrong and a product of the times. I think most of us agree that slavery and racism is wrong but as soon as you start screwing around with people's histories people get upset...whatever side they are on. Hot-heads create more hot-heads. This said, people are responsible for their own actions but rhetoric doesn't help. Life has taught me that a closed fist meets a closed fist. If someone spat on a statue for the leader of an army that I had a relative in....well I'm going to be pissed off. Other people don't get to tell them how they should feel about that. I know the resentment that causes. Essentially I can tell that more violence is on the way from both sides. Edited by Stirlingsays (16 Aug 2017 2.41pm) If spitting at a monument makes you want to punch someone in the face, consider what the political placement of this monument during a time of lynchings and heavy KKK activity decades after the civil war does to a person of colour and their families. Or don't their relatives count? That's what I mean about this one sided emotional connection. These movements on the left and right take advantage of the most emotionally numb to one side of an argument. You called Richard Spencer a 'jerk' in the other thread. Maybe you should ask yourself why you need to water down the fact that he's a white supremacist who wants 'peaceful ethnic cleaning' and has denounced Jews but not Adolf Hitler.. why don't you appear to particularly care about that but someone spitting gets you filled with rage. Still, violence on all sides is wrong in my book, whether aimed at an angry white supremacist, someone spitting at a monument, a ranting raving university student. They're going to need heavier police presence at these events.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Hrolf The Ganger 16 Aug 17 5.58pm | |
---|---|
Putting up a statue of anyone is questionable. People are just people. Giving them a statue suggests they are something more. My concern is not who's statue is being removed but why. What ridiculous demands will we cave into next? I'm getting a little irritated by the Colosseum. Some of my ancestors probably died in there. And Nelson's column?
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
elgrande bedford 16 Aug 17 6.00pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle
I'd say that message would be one of confusion. It also wouldn't erase the reason why those statues were put up in the first place. Why,surely it would say that the country has come a long way since black people were owned by white people..
always a Norwood boy, where ever I live. |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
wordup 16 Aug 17 6.09pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
Putting up a statue of anyone is questionable. People are just people. Giving them a statue suggests they are something more. My concern is not who's statue is being removed but why. What ridiculous demands will we cave into next? I'm getting a little irritated by the Colosseum. Some of my ancestors probably died in there. And Nelson's column? I think we can ask the very same questions about when and why it was put up as we can the timing of when and why it was taken down. We should find a way to democratically move all of these decisions to those in the areas involved. The alternative it to care what those outraged about a monument they hadn't even heard of the previous week think. And those on the left and right bused in to show outrage whenever something hits the headlines should be given short thrift. Edited by wordup (16 Aug 2017 6.10pm)
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Stirlingsays 16 Aug 17 6.59pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Ray in Houston
This is such nonsense as a rationale to defend the south in the civil war. Many Germans died fighting for the Nazis too so, by your reckoning, it'd be ok - in 1990 - to erect a statue of Hitler in Berlin to honour those reluctant German soldiers who died in WW2? You are so full of nonsense. Jefferson Davis was the leader of the confederacy. Hitler led the Nazi party and Germany. I'd have no problem with a statue of Rommel. There are statues of him in Germany. Like Lee he was a general under whom many died. The statue of Lee was in the south. Having a statue of Rommel in the UK would be like having a statue of Lee in the north. I'm getting fed up with your nonsense now. Edited by Stirlingsays (16 Aug 2017 7.12pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Hrolf The Ganger 16 Aug 17 7.27pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by wordup
I think we can ask the very same questions about when and why it was put up as we can the timing of when and why it was taken down. We should find a way to democratically move all of these decisions to those in the areas involved. The alternative it to care what those outraged about a monument they hadn't even heard of the previous week think. And those on the left and right bused in to show outrage whenever something hits the headlines should be given short thrift. Edited by wordup (16 Aug 2017 6.10pm) That is a fair point. I'd need to be convinced that they were erected purely to celebrate 'racism' and slavery before I took a sledgehammer to them.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
johnno42000 16 Aug 17 8.00pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Ray in Houston
Yes, they did. Later, their successors decided that owning people was wrong and changed the law; Robert E. Lee and his ilk took up arms in opposition to that and nearly a million people died. Also, giving a historical black figure equal prominence with a Confederate general is a Bolasian missing of the point. Edited by Ray in Houston (16 Aug 2017 5.47pm) But not those traitors so any monuments to them should be ripped down. Are you certain none of their descendants let out a good old rebel yell? Also Washington must appear nowhere, vile traitor and slave owner. What's Yannick got to do with it? My idea would sort out everyones problems, a confederate soldier alongside perhaps a black soldier who fought on the Union or Confederate side (not many I grant you but there were some). Edited by johnno42000 (16 Aug 2017 8.01pm)
'Lies to the masses as are like fly's to mollasses...they want more and more and more' |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Registration is now on our new message board
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.