Social Controversial Statue? Put it in a museum...naw, melt it down

What matters is what he did in reality, not in some alternate timeline.

He broke up slave families on purpose, personally beat his own slaves, had a Virginia court force him to free slaves he was legally obliged to free because of a deal he tried to renege on, enslaved free black people of the north and brought them to the south and massacred black union soldiers who had surrendered.

After the war he spent time as president of Washington College, where the good ol' boys would abduct and rape local black shoolgirls from newly created black schools. He was indifferent to it.

Then he had the audacity to say, "that unless some humane course is adopted, based on wisdom and Christian principles, you do a gross wrong and injustice to the whole negro race in setting them free. And it is only this consideration that has led the wisdom, intelligence and Christianity of the South to support and defend the institution up to this time.” He did it for their own good!!! That's rich!
Ok… thanks for explaining why he was Lincoln’s first choice to lead the union effort. Maybe he was trans too..
 
What kind of cruel parents would name their child Zyanha?

No wonder the world is going mad

I was deployed with a man named Quantavious-Takarist. He legally changed his name to Robert and his mom stopped talking to him.
 
That's a stupid thing to do. Put the statue / sculpture in a museum and explain why it's there and the things the person did. Destroying it makes no sense and is counter-productive in informinig people.
 
I give no fucks about Lee. What pisses me off is how this shit evolves. Statue has been there how long and then suddenly its a problem. Argument becomes send it to a museum or something but remove it from its current public space then moves on naw, just melt it down.

I see the same thing eventually happening to statues of Jefferson, Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt etc. Precedent is being set for the justification.

That's where I see this going as well. I'm all for taking down Lee's statue. It's a monument to a man who fought for the South, defending the right to own other people. I understand why people want this statue gone and I agree with their right to do so. Granted, it will be funny to see whatever pandery, bullshit racial pride project the metal gets used for, but I'm all for getting rid of it.

What I see happening in the future is that this makes it all the way down to Jefferson, Washington...maybe even Lincoln. I don't care about any of those statues either, but it seems disingenuous for people to pretend like this will stop at Civil War figures.

Someday they'll tear down MLK too.
 
And this is happening at the same time that the CRT conversation is happening (and this isn't a commentary on if/how/the extent to which CRT is being presented). Think about that -- don't teach aspects of American history because it can harm the psychology of young white children but do leave up statues commemorating people who actually wanted to harm young black children. :eek:

I don't know how people are squaring that circle.

To be fair, I don't think most of the anti-CRT people are upset about teaching the dirty history of the US, but rather they don't agree with the sociological aspects of it. Things like intersectionality and standpoint theory, which have their fair share of critics in academica. I don't know if CRT courses at middle/high school levels go that deep, but I don't think most of the criticism is based on teaching history, but rather the theoretical framework used to tackle modern-day issues.

I do agree that there is no reason to keep the REL statue up. It should have never gone up in the first place. Good riddance.
 
Their succession was a traitorist act. The succession started immediately following Lincolns victory in an election won fairly and under the rules of the constitution that the sourthern states ratified and agreed to.

traitor
NOUN
  1. a person who betrays a friend, country, principle, etc..

It really just depends on who won the war (very happy the North won, for obvious reasons). I don't think the South were traitors. Almost half the country thought their president was conducting a traitorous act by nullifying states rights and enacting legislation that would cripple their economy. Yes, it was the right legislation, but it wasn't even clear that the president had the power to do something like that at the time. It wasn't a case of somebody selling out their country for personal gain, it was a situation where the nation split into half and both sides thought themselves the rightful owners of the country.

Had the North lost, they would have been traitors by your logic, which is clearly not the case.
 
Melt it down and make a Sherman Statue.

1592854693713.jpg
 
What's the case against putting the statues in a museum? There are museums dedicated to Egyptian pharoahs, including statues and personal belongings, who were guilty of slavery and other horrible human rights abuses.

His life for a cause but I guess there’s a reason you find 0 value in it.

Probably because the "cause" is a divisive lie that has prompted hate mobs to burn cities, loot stores, and murder people.
 
It further opens the door to do it to any and all statues, monuments, etc.

Oh really? This is the first time a statue has ever been taken down and melted? And statues have never come and gone before? And statues are the only symbol or way to learn or reflect on history? Monuments, etc?
 
Next people are going to want remove books that discuss historical things like slavery and Jim Crow from school libraries.
 
He was charged, a lot of other legal arguments were made. One argument was that he wasnt a citizen, therefore he couldnt be charged. Then Andrew Johnson issues a pardon that made to where none of the Confederates could be prosecuted. That was Dec. 25 1868. At the time more politicians were worried about reconciliation than trying to press treason charges.

He was charged but never went to trial. If it was treason and they were sure they would have prosecuted. All of this was settled with the Texas case.
 
Destroying statues is part of a communist takeover. Muslims taking over a county also destroy statues. Getting rid of a history is part of conquest.
You sure it's a communist takeover amd not a pedophilia takeover? It's gotta be one or the other...
 
Back
Top