Silent Sam Toppled by Protestors
- Thread starter uncboy10
- Start date
It's not too simple, but your comment suggests that only a white republican (which is a not so subtle way of saying racist redneck in this context) has a problem with this statue being taken down.
I hope George Soros emails me soon. No idea what I’m supposed to care about until then...
I do wish people would stop equating silent Sam with the statues commencement speech by Julian Carr though. People have been implying that his speech outlined the initial reasons for erecting the statue. Which is irritating
@Hark_The_Sound_2010 mentioned the bell tower. Just go with that until further notice.
The difference is that people agitated by fear don't turn to mob rules violence. People who are outraged often feel that their violent actions are justified because they have been convinced that they are morally correct.
That's really my biggest issue with this, is the misunderstanding of the statue itself. I wouldn't have really cared if the statue was removed in the proper way, but people should learn more about the statue than the speech that was given. If you're going to be mad, be mad for the right reason.
Kindly tell me about all the right wing protests which were motivated by fear that turned violent without confrontation.
Ok, I think I understand what you were saying more clearly now. You're saying that right wing protests that turn violent are due to someone else confronting them. The right wing protestors play no part.
I'm a white conservative. I don't correlate that with racist redneck at all.
I wish more people involved with this issue took this approach.
You should be angry that they don't take that approach.
Correct. Statues don't get toppled, private property destroyed, etc.
I never said they play no part. I only said they don't initiate violence or destruction. Don't try to create drama where there is none.
Hmm, now that I look at it that way... I think we ought to go blow some shit up until they see it our way.
I see what you are saying here. Those oppressed and outraged will tend to be more prone to action, whereas those in fear of losing something will prepare for an assault/reprisal.
This is the state of politics. One side ramps up the fear, the other stirs up anger. They help pit two sides against one another and encourage chaos instead of civil discourse. No one is interested in understanding one another.
It's not like they warned us about this 225 years ago or anything:
There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution. - J. Adams
The media plays a role as well. They are quick to act like the world is coming to an end over every little thing and everyone hates everyone else, because it drives up ratings/clicks. It would be nice if they would recognize the role that they have played in this and tried to get back to their original purpose.
And, I wish people who oppose the statues, and hate the South would stop comparing the American Civil War to World War II, and the South as the Nazis. Comparing the circumstances of wars is not always an accurate depiction for an argument.
The Civil War had Americans on BOTH SIDES!
Northern soldiers didn't care about African slaves being "free" any more than the average Southern soldier. This idea that all the Northern soldiers were Horace Greeley's and John Brown's is a terrible inaccuracy.
The South lost at least 300,000 men. The South was allowed back into the Union. They were also allowed to commemorate their fallen soldiers and lost loved ones.
I guess because of Jim Crow and the civil rights issues of the 20th Century, the entire understanding (at present) of the Civil War is not quite the same as it was at the time of the war itself or when it ended.
The Civil War had Americans on BOTH SIDES!
Northern soldiers didn't care about African slaves being "free" any more than the average Southern soldier. This idea that all the Northern soldiers were Horace Greeley's and John Brown's is a terrible inaccuracy.
The South lost at least 300,000 men. The South was allowed back into the Union. They were also allowed to commemorate their fallen soldiers and lost loved ones.
I guess because of Jim Crow and the civil rights issues of the 20th Century, the entire understanding (at present) of the Civil War is not quite the same as it was at the time of the war itself or when it ended.
Am I allowed to do that without his permission though? I don’t want to piss off the liberal elite, the last thing I need is the deep state coming after me.
It doesn't work that way. The media is a for-profit business that wants to sell ads. They show it because it's what their base wants to see. If there wasn't an appetite for it, then they wouldn't cover it. And its not new, either. Newspapers did this long before the advent of cable news.
I do wish there wasn't a 24 news hour cycle, but how do you fix it?
Probably because they’re too busy running people over with their cars.
So let's recap Charlottesville. A bunch of right wingers were protesting statues being removed. A bunch of left wingers showed up and started with violence and harassing the right wingers. Some right winger flipped and ran over a left winger with his car.
Note which act of violence and harassment happened first.
Probably because they’re too busy running people over with their cars.
Or pummeling folks with metal pipes . .
You mean the guy with the bike lock? Im pretty sure he was a left winger.
Just come up with one where the mob violence was initiated by the right.
I know it doesn't work that way, I'm saying that it should work that way. How do you fix it? I'm not sure if it can be fixed at this point. I do think people would still be interested in news that was presented in a fair way. The audience wouldn't just disappear. Some people that have given up on the news might even come back, but it would most likely cut into profits some. Profits shouldn't come into play for the media though. Of course, I realize that's a pipe dream and they will always be driven by profit instead of the delivery of information.
I've never watched the news. I've never read newspapers. I never tune-in to any "news channel." The only exposure I ever have to it is in the car, listening to talk radio.
Now that I have a mobile wireless speaker and Pandora... I don't listen to that anymore. It's effortless to not watch or listen to it.
I guess.
Do you watch the news every day?
I see bits-and-pieces on places like this, online. I wouldn't have known about the statue otherwise. But, I don't frequent CNN.com, or any news websites.
I sort of get this argument but sort of don't. They polled citizens (well, men who could vote) in I wanna say like 1852 during the election and they asked simply "are you in favor of slavery" and it was like 31% yes in the north and 77% yes in the south. So to say that northerners and southerners felt the same about slavery is not accurate.
And while the South and the Nazi's aren't the same obviously....they did both brutally enslave and murder their own countrymen because they were different racially.
The Northern economy before the war thrived on chattel slavery, just like the South. Now, whether or not the average citizen "approved of it" in a random question setting, I can't say for sure.
I agree that the Southern soldier was fighting to perpetuate a racial superiority ideology. But, I don't think it was as definitive, or even as important, as we see it now. I would be willing to bet that the people giving the survey believed that whites were still superior to blacks. From an intellectual perspective, they were. Blacks weren't allowed to learn to read and write. I also believe that southern slave-holders and whites, in general in the south, had personal reservations about it and questioned its morality. Sooner or later, the truth comes out. But, they were stubborn as hell, and their way of life was in jeopardy. That makes you even more stubborn. It was a very religious time and The Bible/Scripture is used all the time to reinforce racial/tribal prejudices.
An interesting tidbit- Stonewall Jackson taught blacks (slaves) how to read in his Sunday School class despite it being illegal in Virginia. https://www.thevintagenews.com/2017...ackson-champion-of-african-american-literacy/
You're free to begin tearing it down whenever you'd like.
Keep in mind though, that you won't get exemption from those pesky laws that govern those with a lesser moral compass until it's officially declared a beacon of racism, which probably won't come for another week or two, so tread lightly in the meantime.
#dammit
Do I at least get some kind of special virtue exemption for being a woke white dude?
The name Tar Heel is derived from several origins. Tar Heel was already in use BEFORE the soldiers from NC in the Civil War used the name to reference their battle courage.
The state's nickname is The Tar Heel State, and has been for... 100 years? We have these trees called Pine Trees. They provide tar and pitch. That was a commodity of the state for a very long time. That is where the Tar comes from, and if you were barefooted, you got it on your heels. Tar Heels isn't going anywhere except back to Raleigh to beat the Wolfpack again and again.
Interesting article. Another example of things not always being black and white.
Similar threads
