"I wonder, is it George Washington next week?"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-08-2017, 09:33 PM
RE: "I wonder, is it George Washington next week?"
(17-08-2017 02:12 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(17-08-2017 01:51 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  In short, the excerpt you've quoted is a fancy tu quoque ... except that those twelve presidents did not take up arms against their own nation.

The first few of them did, though. They took up arms against England, which was their own nation at the time. I don't know whether that's part of Dr. H's point, but if not, it should be. If you're going to hate on Lee, Jackson, etc., because they were "traitors" -- well, so were Washington, Jefferson, et al. That label just didn't stick to them because their side won. The victors get to write the history books.

False equivalence. They didn't take up arms to defend the right to own another person; that was not the crux of the Revolutionary War. It was certainly the result, shamefully enshrined in our Constitution, but that was not at the base of their rebellion ...unlike the Confederates.

How many statues of George III did we have to pull down? That's right, none.

I think that erecting statues of traitors is stupid. I understand why those statues were put up. It was not to ennoble the indefensible ... it was to justify the inexcusable. If Jefferson et al had as the primary accomplishment in their lives the defense of slavery, you might have a point; but we honor them for deeper and more humane, righteous reasons, imperfect though those men were. If you'd like, I'll list those accomplishments for you and you can judge for yourself.

What was Jeff Davis's biggest accomplishment? What deeds would a statue of him memorialize? Are those actions worth honoring?

I understand that all men are flawed. I understand that we are all beholden to our times. But I also understand that our times change, and that honoring backwards views can be counterproductive. It puzzles me why atheists who labor under the social opprobrium imposed by a Bronze-Age religion, who scoff at the crucifixes of a representative of a maleficent god, should defend further symbols of oppression simply because they are more historically tangible. That historicity is all the more reason to withhold respect.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
17-08-2017, 09:38 PM
RE: "I wonder, is it George Washington next week?"
(17-08-2017 03:08 PM)Dom Wrote:  All of us have flaws and do things that are just wrong, as did Washington and Jefferson.

Not all of us defend our flaws or try to force them onto others, as did Robert. E. Lee..

dingdingdingding
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2017, 09:40 PM
RE: "I wonder, is it George Washington next week?"
(17-08-2017 03:22 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  I don't think that qualifies him as "forcing his flaws on others".

He did, however, defend them, at point of gun. That is the crucial difference and should not be glossed-over.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2017, 10:35 PM
RE: "I wonder, is it George Washington next week?"
(17-08-2017 09:33 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(17-08-2017 02:12 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  The first few of them did, though. They took up arms against England, which was their own nation at the time. I don't know whether that's part of Dr. H's point, but if not, it should be. If you're going to hate on Lee, Jackson, etc., because they were "traitors" -- well, so were Washington, Jefferson, et al. That label just didn't stick to them because their side won. The victors get to write the history books.

False equivalence. They didn't take up arms to defend the right to own another person; that was not the crux of the Revolutionary War. It was certainly the result, shamefully enshrined in our Constitution, but that was not at the base of their rebellion ...unlike the Confederates.

How many statues of George III did we have to pull down? That's right, none.

I think that erecting statues of traitors is stupid. I understand why those statues were put up. It was not to ennoble the indefensible ... it was to justify the inexcusable. If Jefferson et al had as the primary accomplishment in their lives the defense of slavery, you might have a point; but we honor them for deeper and more humane, righteous reasons, imperfect though those men were. If you'd like, I'll list those accomplishments for you and you can judge for yourself.

What was Jeff Davis's biggest accomplishment? What deeds would a statue of him memorialize? Are those actions worth honoring?

I understand that all men are flawed. I understand that we are all beholden to our times. But I also understand that our times change, and that honoring backwards views can be counterproductive. It puzzles me why atheists who labor under the social opprobrium imposed by a Bronze-Age religion, who scoff at the crucifixes of a representative of a maleficent god, should defend further symbols of oppression simply because they are more historically tangible. That historicity is all the more reason to withhold respect.
There was one they had to pull down... but they did that on July 9th, 1776.

There wasn't a massive pride for the glory days in 1830 that lead to reverence of English rulers.

And things like statue removals are more likely to make the situation of the history more recounted via its images, videos, and history books messages that get cataloged. It seems the people who lean to that idea aren't ones as high on history books.

But trump again said some off sounding things, basically the beauty of statues to these men to him cannot be replaced at all... not even if they built other memorials or made other trees and artistic uses of such land.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
17-08-2017, 11:56 PM
RE: "I wonder, is it George Washington next week?"
(16-08-2017 01:45 PM)Dr H Wrote:  I'm with the prez on this one. Washington was a slave holder; we should take down his statues, too. Also those of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and the other 20-30 Founding Fathers who signed a document declaring "all men are created equal" while keeping their fellow men in bondage.

Better still, let's stop putting up statues of dead people and use the money to support food banks and community clinics, eh?

To be fair, considering the time period I'd say "all men considered equal" was more in reference to religious prosecution and anti-monarchy. I don't think the men of the time had black people in mind when they said that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like earmuffs's post
18-08-2017, 12:00 AM
RE: "I wonder, is it George Washington next week?"
(17-08-2017 11:56 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  To be fair, considering the time period I'd say "all men considered equal" was more in reference to religious prosecution and anti-monarchy. I don't think the men of the time had black people in mind when they said that.

That's why the Māori get the water rights.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2017, 01:12 AM
RE: "I wonder, is it George Washington next week?"
(17-08-2017 11:56 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  
(16-08-2017 01:45 PM)Dr H Wrote:  I'm with the prez on this one. Washington was a slave holder; we should take down his statues, too. Also those of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and the other 20-30 Founding Fathers who signed a document declaring "all men are created equal" while keeping their fellow men in bondage.

Better still, let's stop putting up statues of dead people and use the money to support food banks and community clinics, eh?

To be fair, considering the time period I'd say "all men considered equal" was more in reference to religious prosecution and anti-monarchy. I don't think the men of the time had black people in mind when they said that.

IIRC it was originally worded even more strongly but was toned down to avoid offending the slave-owning states. Interestingly enough the creators of the Rhodesian declaration of independence (a state founded on the principle of minority white rule) greatly admired the US constitution and plagiarised some chunks of it. Conveniently left out the "all men are created equal" line though.

Quote:The contradiction between the claim that "all men are created equal" and the existence of American slavery attracted comment when the Declaration of Independence was first published. Before final approval, Congress, having made a few alterations to some of the wording, also deleted nearly a fourth of the draft, including a passage critical of the slave trade. At that time many members of Congress, including Jefferson, owned slaves, which clearly factored into their decision to delete the controversial "anti-slavery" passage.[14] In 1776, abolitionist Thomas Day responding to the hypocrisy in the Declaration wrote, though the first draft stated " All free men are created equal":

If there be an object truly ridiculous in nature, it is an American patriot, signing resolutions of independency with the one hand, and with the other brandishing a whip over his affrighted slaves.[14]

Anyway, I came here to leave this. While I see that elsewhere in the thread examples of statues of freed slaves are cited, actually the article does make what I'd say is a good point. At the very least one can say that statues celebrating slave liberation are few and far between compared to the ubiquity of statues celebrating confederates. If these other clowns want to keep their statues, they should at least erect comparable numbers of statues actually celebrating the positive effect of the war.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2017, 09:15 AM
RE: "I wonder, is it George Washington next week?"
(18-08-2017 01:12 AM)morondog Wrote:  IIRC it was originally worded even more strongly but was toned down to avoid offending the slave-owning states. Interestingly enough the creators of the Rhodesian declaration of independence (a state founded on the principle of minority white rule) greatly admired the US constitution and plagiarised some chunks of it. Conveniently left out the "all men are created equal" line though.

That phrase is nowhere found in the US Constitution, which document infamously and explicitly assigns lesser value to black people for the purpose of Congressional representation of a slave state.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2017, 10:52 AM
RE: "I wonder, is it George Washington next week?"
(17-08-2017 09:33 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(17-08-2017 02:12 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  The first few of them did, though. They took up arms against England, which was their own nation at the time. I don't know whether that's part of Dr. H's point, but if not, it should be. If you're going to hate on Lee, Jackson, etc., because they were "traitors" -- well, so were Washington, Jefferson, et al. That label just didn't stick to them because their side won. The victors get to write the history books.

False equivalence. They didn't take up arms to defend the right to own another person; that was not the crux of the Revolutionary War. It was certainly the result, shamefully enshrined in our Constitution, but that was not at the base of their rebellion ...unlike the Confederates.

How many statues of George III did we have to pull down? That's right, none.

I think that erecting statues of traitors is stupid. I understand why those statues were put up. It was not to ennoble the indefensible ... it was to justify the inexcusable. If Jefferson et al had as the primary accomplishment in their lives the defense of slavery, you might have a point; but we honor them for deeper and more humane, righteous reasons, imperfect though those men were. If you'd like, I'll list those accomplishments for you and you can judge for yourself.

What was Jeff Davis's biggest accomplishment? What deeds would a statue of him memorialize? Are those actions worth honoring?

I understand that all men are flawed. I understand that we are all beholden to our times. But I also understand that our times change, and that honoring backwards views can be counterproductive. It puzzles me why atheists who labor under the social opprobrium imposed by a Bronze-Age religion, who scoff at the crucifixes of a representative of a maleficent god, should defend further symbols of oppression simply because they are more historically tangible. That historicity is all the more reason to withhold respect.

It's a false equivalence, yes, but I never said they were equivalent. Let me reconstruct the sequence. Someone (Dr. H) pointed out that all these people were slave owners. You responded that only one group took up arms against their country. My response was to that one statement only, pointing out that if Robert E. Lee was a "traitor", so was George Washington (and to a lesser degree, every man who signed the Declaration of Independence). George Washington was an officer in the British army, and he took up arms against the British. If that's not treason, I don't know what is. That's really the only point I was making.

Now, if you want to vilify Lee, Jackson, Davis, et al because they were fighting to preserve the institution of slavery, that's a different issue, and I will not try to contest that one (although even there, it's not as simple as it appears -- they were defending other things as well).

My main beef is that the accusations of treason make me quite uncomfortable, as that is a loaded term, and a relative term. George Washington was every bit as much a traitor as Robert E. Lee, and I don't think it's fair to call Washington a hero and Lee a villain on that basis alone. Whether or not you go down in history as a traitor depends entirely on whether or not your side won.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2017, 11:05 AM
RE: "I wonder, is it George Washington next week?"
(18-08-2017 09:15 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(18-08-2017 01:12 AM)morondog Wrote:  IIRC it was originally worded even more strongly but was toned down to avoid offending the slave-owning states. Interestingly enough the creators of the Rhodesian declaration of independence (a state founded on the principle of minority white rule) greatly admired the US constitution and plagiarised some chunks of it. Conveniently left out the "all men are created equal" line though.

That phrase is nowhere found in the US Constitution, which document infamously and explicitly assigns lesser value to black people for the purpose of Congressional representation of a slave state.

Aye, it's the declaration of independence Smile

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: