Black Chicago Pastor is asking Rahm Emmanuel to remove a George Washington statue.

Should statues of George Washington and other slave owning founding fathers should be taken down?

  • Total voters
    146
Mark Hunts FIST said:
That's the point. She is not factually wrong. Which is why it will gain steam unfortunately.

But up until recently, we accepted their flaws as a product of their time. Our founding fathers should be honored, not erased from the view of people.
Click to expand...

Kant was of their time and against slavery. That argument doesn't hold water.
 
Founding fathers were white. No women, blacks, natives other ethic groups to determine what was bets for America.

Most minorites laugh when whites bring up the founding fathers like they were looking out for anyone other than whites at the time. They need to revamp the constitution.
 
ripskater said:
Oh they are here right now trying to get even our founding fathers statues taken down. In Chicago with Rahm Emmanuel, that is very possible.
Click to expand...

No, it's not VERY possible. That's a moronic statement. It's VERY unlikely.

Learn to think.
 
djacobox372 said:
No, it's not VERY possible. That's a moronic statement. It's VERY unlikely.

Learn to think.
Click to expand...
Right now 10% of the war room thinks the George Washington statue should come down. If you took that poll in Chicago, who knows what the poll would say? Then you have sjw Rahm Emmanuel who made Chicago a sanctuary city for illegals. So it is very possible.
 
ripskater said:
Right now 10% of the war room thinks the George Washington statue should come down. If you took that poll in Chicago, who knows what the poll would say? Then you have sjw Rahm Emmanuel who made Chicago a sanctuary city for illegals. So it is very possible.
Click to expand...

10% =/= very possible

Like I said: learn to think
 
JonesBones said:
Kant was of their time and against slavery. That argument doesn't hold water.
Click to expand...

Immanuel Kant?


http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/kant-and-colonialism-historical-and-critical-perspectives/
Not sure why bottom part is being crossed out.
But these opinions would be a product of his time, no?

"Consider, for example, the Anthropology lecture notes from 1781-82: Kant here holds that only the white race "contains all incentives and talents in itself"; the American indigenous people, by contrast, are said to be indifferent and lazy and to acquire no culture; the "Negro race . . . acquire culture, but only a culture of slaves; that is, they allow themselves to be trained"; the "Hindus" finally "acquire culture in the highest degree, but only in the arts and not in the sciences. They never raise it up to abstract concepts"
 
Last edited:
kenetics said:
Founding fathers were white. No women, blacks, natives other ethic groups to determine what was bets for America.

Most minorites laugh when whites bring up the founding fathers like they were looking out for anyone other than whites at the time. They need to revamp the constitution.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, if we can expel people like you in the new bill of rights.
 


Trump was 100% right that once you start erasing history where do you stop. The new morality police aka the far left have been doing this for a while now. Remember last year when they tried to erase Woodrow Wilson from Princeton.

Now you got Angela Rye, this Pastor from Chicago, and the con man and close Obama confidant Al Sharpton calling for the removal of Washington, Jefferson, etc. The funniest part of the Sharpton comments was that he said public funds shouldn't be used to maintain slave owner statues (rich coming from a guy that owes $4 million to the IRS). Lincoln's memorial was just defaced and a bust of him was burnt in Chi-raq. We need to stop pretending like this isn't a goal of the far left. The media has proven that they will capitulate to these nuts and normalize getting rid of these monuments. Shit just this week they were making fucking ANTIFA of all people out to be some heroic virtuous group similar to the Allies in WW2 (as if our troops were a bunch of stick figured soy latte drinking pussies).

I will say I'm happy to see the result of the poll and that at least a good chuck voting yes were mostly trolling. Should be 100% no.
 
Mark Hunts FIST said:
Immanuel Kant?


http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/kant-and-colonialism-historical-and-critical-perspectives/
Not sure why bottom part is being crossed out.
But these opinions would be a product of his time, no?

"Consider, for example, the Anthropology lecture notes from 1781-82: Kant here holds that only the white race "contains all incentives and talents in itself"; the American indigenous people, by contrast, are said to be indifferent and lazy and to acquire no culture; the "Negro race . . . acquire culture, but only a culture of slaves; that is, they allow themselves to be trained"; the "Hindus" finally "acquire culture in the highest degree, but only in the arts and not in the sciences. They never raise it up to abstract concepts"
Click to expand...

He was still against slavery.

Yet his attitude contrasts starkly with the way in which, in his last works, Kant describes colonial rule as an unambiguous violation of right and accuses states in the Western European world of the horrifying "injustice they show in visiting foreign lands and peoples (which with them is tantamount to conquering them)."[3] With these practices, the "European savages" (AA 8:354), as Kant calls them, do not advance the progress of civilization, as they pretend to do, but rather display a barbarism that goes beyond the alleged "savagery" of the "foreign peoples"
 
JonesBones said:
He was still against slavery.

Yet his attitude contrasts starkly with the way in which, in his last works, Kant describes colonial rule as an unambiguous violation of right and accuses states in the Western European world of the horrifying "injustice they show in visiting foreign lands and peoples (which with them is tantamount to conquering them)."[3] With these practices, the "European savages" (AA 8:354), as Kant calls them, do not advance the progress of civilization, as they pretend to do, but rather display a barbarism that goes beyond the alleged "savagery" of the "foreign peoples"
Click to expand...

The irony of him writing this from East Prussia.
 
Denter said:
The irony of him writing this from East Prussia.
Click to expand...
Kant was a Noam Chomsky of his day. Benefitted highly from the privilege afforded him by the people he attacked.
 
leto1776 said:
Kant was a Noam Chomsky of his day. Benefitted highly from the privilege afforded him by the people he attacked.
Click to expand...

God forbid. So you are saying because Chomsky lives a comfortable life in America, he shouldn't criticize it?
 
I'm saying their intellectual hypocrites.
 
JonesBones said:
He was still against slavery.

Yet his attitude contrasts starkly with the way in which, in his last works, Kant describes colonial rule as an unambiguous violation of right and accuses states in the Western European world of the horrifying "injustice they show in visiting foreign lands and peoples (which with them is tantamount to conquering them)."[3] With these practices, the "European savages" (AA 8:354), as Kant calls them, do not advance the progress of civilization, as they pretend to do, but rather display a barbarism that goes beyond the alleged "savagery" of the "foreign peoples"
Click to expand...

my point is during his time his concept of race wouldn't be accepted now. And yes he was against slavery..... eventually. I'm not sure that thinking you're the superior race is much better. The "superior race" idea would have helped or given an excuse for slavery I would assume.
 
Mark Hunts FIST said:
my point is during his time his concept of race wouldn't be accepted now. And yes he was against slavery..... eventually. I'm not sure that thinking you're the superior race is much better. The "superior race" idea would have helped or given an excuse for slavery I would assume.
Click to expand...

Aristotle made discriminatory statements too. Like he said women were inferior. Why would he think that? Because they were treated as inferior. There is objective logic. They are smaller. They can do less work. They are worth less to sell.

Though I agree nearly every writer from that time and before used language like that. Another of my favorite thinkers, Jung, also used that language well into the 20th century. Also Lincoln said blacks were inferior.

Malcolm X is one of my heroes and he blasted whites on every page. lol. Though I admit it is a different circumstance.
 
Last edited:
Mark Hunts FIST said:
my point is during his time his concept of race wouldn't be accepted now. And yes he was against slavery..... eventually. I'm not sure that thinking you're the superior race is much better. The "superior race" idea would have helped or given an excuse for slavery I would assume.
Click to expand...

This is a legit critique of Kant. His arguments on slavery are based totally on reason. Kant wasn't against slavery for the same reason abolitionists were. But he gives us a rational explanation why slavery is wrong. I mean, you and I know slavery is wrong, but Kant puts it so formally lol. He makes it logical. He makes slavery a contradiction. And that is useful in a world made of value judgments.

And his main message in my view: a man is never an end for another, he is always an end in himself.

I noticed that him and Ayn Rand are a lot alike.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,994
Messages
55,459,937
Members
174,787
Latest member
Freddie556

Share this page

Back
Top