Should The Pyramids Be Toppled

[Darryl]

Built by slaves to honor slave owners

Darryl

[kingcat]

No offense, because many of my family would agree with you. Perhaps if the statues some whites claim to hold dear were considered architectural wonders of this world there would be argument there imho..








But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

[dan_bgblue]

Well Mt Rushmore should definitely be blown up

[Catonahottinroof]

All this does is pave the way for whatever division down the road and it's figures who are memorialized to be torn down. I understand the discomfort that confederate monuments may cause, but who's to say a statue of MLK may evoke that same emotion in 100 years? Will the demographics of America change enough to bring that kind of feeling? And more importantly would the feeling that's brought about that change be stronger than what brought the change about in the first place?
Any history, however checkered it may be should remain just so prior generations will understand the struggle that occurred to get us here.

[CitizenBBN]

So b/c slavery was awful, which everyone agrees on, we should remove any vestige of anything connected to it in any way? Is that the argument?

we already have calls not to just remove Civil War statues, but those of Jefferson and Washington, b/c they owned slaves. Do we burn down Monticello? What do we do with the Declaration of Independence, written by an obviously evil man and signed by others who are evil?

It's convenient to take that step that civil war statues, or Jefferson statues, etc. are somehow one to one directly connected with condoning slavery. But it's a strawman argument.

The Civil war happened. It happened in fact for many reasons, and slavery was just one aspect of it, and not a reason that most who fought for the South did so. Denying it happened, erasing history, is the surest way to repeat it.

[CitizenBBN]

No offense, because many of my family would agree with you. Perhaps if the statues some whites claim to hold dear were considered architectural wonders of this world there would be argument there imho.

I don't hold those statues "dear", but I do hold history dear. All of history, so we can learn from it. Nothing good has ever come from burying it. INstead of taking down a statue, put up one of MLK next to it, so we can show the evolution of our nation and broaden our understanding. I'm all for that.

How is what we are doing so different from what ISIS is doing in Syria, destroying "pagan" temples and idols b/c they offend their faith?

[CitizenBBN]

FWIW I should add that Tucker Carlson is right. This isn't about statues. This is about being able to discredit the Founders, so their works can then be discredited.

IF Jefferson and Washington can be torn down, etc. then they can start to discredit and tear down the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, b/c pesky things like free speech and different ideas have become thought crime and it's time to stamp those things out, and the Constitution and our belief in the principles of the FOunders are in the way.

[dan_bgblue]

How is what we are doing so different from what ISIS is doing in Syria, destroying "pagan" temples and idols b/c they offend their faith?

[kingcat]

Slavery was evil and the confederacy championed slavery. And they lost decidedly.

So although I dont personally view the monuments as anything other than a sad testament to a dark past, If another citizen has cause to be greatly offended, I side with that citizen.

Rather than discuss if a major segment of our society is right in wanting these things removed, we should discuss what they really mean to those who defend keeping them with their sweat and blood. I do not feel one bit patriotic seeing a confederate statue.

Slavery, which was a major theme of the war is an extremely embarrassing and cruel part of the history of the United States. And those on either side who championed it will have to answer for it. If it offends a segment of America, its wrong to argue their God given right to demand they be taken away, plain and simple.

The historical significance is nothing to be proud of, as they sought to kill a great American hero in President Lincoln and keep slaves a part of our American way of life. They failed and as individuals should not be applauded imho.

"United we stand, divided we fall". That's not talking about the races. And I for one will not stand with the nazis, the KKK, or the confederacy against true Americans. The discussion is fine and needed...but that's where I end up from my perspective. Others see it differently I understand



Id only add that, if our country fell because of one side protecting confederate statues, how sill would the history we love, view us?

[Catonahottinroof]

The Union went to war with the Confederacy over taxes, not slavery per se. Many articles state this, but here is one.

http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/...oric_is_i.html

[kingcat]

The statue removed from the Maryland State House is of a man who said this with regard to Blacks..

Blacks are “regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights that the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his own benefit.”..Roger B Taney

How can I side against a Black person in the face of this? To debate each case on its own merit is something I could fathom. But not defending such as this...It just isn't Christian.

[Catonahottinroof]

I agree with you. It isn't Christian. I'd also add the caveat that deleting Exodus, Leviticus etc from the Bible to blank out bad portions of human action and history and is similar to what is going on in this country currently. You need to know where you've been, to know where (and how to) move forward.

The statue removed from the Maryland State House is of a man who said this with regard to Blacks..

Blacks are “regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights that the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his own benefit.”..Roger B Taney

How can I side against a Black person in the face of this? To debate each case on its own merit is something I could fathom. But not defending such as this...It just isn't Christian.

[CitizenBBN]

The statue removed from the Maryland State House is of a man who said this with regard to Blacks..

Blacks are “regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights that the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his own benefit.”..Roger B Taney

How can I side against a Black person in the face of this? To debate each case on its own merit is something I could fathom. But not defending such as this...It just isn't Christian.

Fair enough. The Declaration of Independence was written by a slave holder? what do we do with it? With his monument?

I would like some proof though that most of the outrage is coming from black people. As Charles Barkley said most black people haven't spent a day in their lives worried about these things. They're too busy worrying about making a living, keeping their kids away from drugs, etc. Numerically I bet we'd find this is predominantly guilty white folks, mostly Yankees who think you and I are both racists.

[CitizenBBN]

I agree with you. It isn't Christian. I'd also add the caveat that deleting Exodus, Leviticus etc from the Bible to blank out bad portions of human action and history and is similar to what is going on in this country currently. You need to know where you've been, to know where (and how to) move forward.

Of course it isn't Christian, I agree. We did a lot of non-Christian things to win WWII too. Do we think those boys on Iwo Jima were Christian to the Japanese, and vise versa? Of course not. Do we take down the memorial?

Closer to home, many think Rupp was a racist (despite there being very little evidence and a lot of it he wasn't). But I'm sure as a man of his time he probably didn't like the idea of a black man marrying his potential daughter as it were, so do we take his name off everything, purge the media guide? Do we really take a stand and forfeit his wins and titles?

If we cannot see that almost every figure in history has both good and bad on his resume, and that none of them, no matter how progressive for their era, are going to measure up to modern standards, then we're going to be taking down ALL the statues and monuments, and ripping up all the history books.

what about MLK? he wrote in an Ebony advice column to a young boy worried about being gay that the boy's feelings for other boys was a problem to be "solved." While very respectful and supportive for his time, his comments on the subject would never pass muster in our era. Do we take down his statues b/c he wasn't pro LGBTXYZ enough at the time?

I'll go to my grave unable to understand why people can't put themselves in different context in order to judge events, decisions, and people. It's so easy to condemn things from our context, but you can only judge people based on their context at the time, and people just can't seem to do it.

[dan_bgblue]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/...-hysteria.html

[kingcat]

It became much more of an issue than it was when Nazis and the KKK felt empowered enough to descend on the protests, peaceful protests with legitimate concerns, and terrorize people.

One can argue why they feel empowered, and I wont go there. Yet that is the major concern fair or not, that the defense by redirecting blame.

Regardless, in the face of the enemy of democracy and freedom, changing the focus to the folks protesting just is not prudent imo. I understand it is a current conservative talking point but in my view is that it's at least in part to protect and defend the actions of POTUS.

People can peacefully protest the removal and initiate dialogue on the matter, but don't placate the terrorists by blaming those with legitimate concerns for violence.. That's what this is all about.

No offense to anyone here or the OP, it's just my general opinion about what's happening nationally .
I wont be swayed, so Ill leave it here. I do enjoy the chance to express my personal views on the matter.

I am not arguing that all the statues should come down. only the ones that justly offend the former oppressed. I support their effort to right any perceived injustice.
And a case against it hasn't been made imo

[CitizenBBN]

So you're OK taking down the Jefferson Memorial and Washington Monument (or at least renaming that one)? Blowing the face off Mount Rushmore? All 3 of those have come up this week.

[kingcat]

Seems silly to me and I don't think that would ever happen. No doubt there are some out there who get off going to extremes whenever the media will listen.
Some should go, and some should not. No place for confederate statues at federal or state offices for the most part.

National Monuments are a different story and Ive not read or seen any story related to them on any news outlets I follow.

[UKHistory]

The statue removed from the Maryland State House is of a man who said this with regard to Blacks..

Blacks are “regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights that the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his own benefit.”..Roger B Taney

How can I side against a Black person in the face of this? To debate each case on its own merit is something I could fathom. But not defending such as this...It just isn't Christian.

And justice taneyoversaw a horribly wrong decision. It is awful. But the question is where do,we stop. Nazis fought against he world. Confederates fought for thei states which were based on A slave economy.

Taney applied the law however immoral it was and stayed true to his country. He was a racist jerk by our standards but he was not a rebel.

Taney is the next step to attacking the founding fathers. Dangerous direction.

[CitizenBBN]

Seems silly to me and I don't think that would ever happen.

I'll bet you $1,000.

This isn't about Confederate statues. You cited Justice Taney, who had nothing to do with the Civil War personally, simply b/c we now disagree with a single court decision he made.

it's naive IMO to think there's any distinction in the minds of those on the left between supporting the South in the Civil war and having been a slave holder or otherwise doing something seen as sympathetic to or supportive of slavery, and you just proved the point with your own post about Taney.

Rep. Rangel has already proposed de-funding the Jefferson Memorial. The man who wrote the Declaration of Independence and one of the 5 or so key men in establishing the United States.

FWIW, you also mis-quoted Taney. He wasn't expressing his personal opinions, he was citing the fact that the Constitution did make them worth 3/5ths of a Citizen, and he was interpreting the document as he saw it. Isn't that the job of a Justice of the Supreme Court? It was the proper role of Congress and the States to then say we want something different, and make changes, which was done.

There's no doubt Taney was racist, but by modern standards so was Lincoln, and in fact we've seen at least two of his monuments defaced in the last week as well. Lincoln said that while black people had a right to try to better themselves, he did not in any way support them being politically or socially integrated with or equal to white people. He was not an abolitionist.

So buckle up, b/c if you think this ends here you're sorely wrong. Jefferson, Washington, Lincoln are all on the chopping block. All the foundations of our nation. Men who were more than extraordinary, men who established the very freedom that now allows this insane nonsense.

[CitizenBBN]

And justice taneyoversaw a horribly wrong decision. It is awful. But the question is where do,we stop. Nazis fought against he world. Confederates fought for thei states which were based on A slave economy.

Taney applied the law however immoral it was and stayed true to his country. He was a racist jerk by our standards but he was not a rebel.

Taney is the next step to attacking the founding fathers. Dangerous direction.

This is how radical leftist revolutions begin, by destroying the past and rejecting it, b/c then you can rewrite everything. This is about getting rid of the Constitution.

Many will think that's alarmist, but it's true. Among leftist justices we already see comments that the Constitution is outdated, that it has basically outlived its usefulness and isn't applicable to the modern world. Breyer, Gingsburg among others have made such comments, and they sit on the damned bench.

The goal is to discredit all of the glorified history of America, b/c they don't see America as good, and to undo those ties to our Founders and our mission as a nation, so we can sweep away things like free speech and individual liberty.

I'ts not as crazy as it sounds. In Europe people are already being convicted of "hate speech", where it's an actual crime to say things that offend others. There are numerous calls for that from the Left in this country, and we see it happening in event after event on college campuses.

They will tear down anything they deem "offensive", and it won't be long till the statues of slave owners turn to the documents written by slave owners.

Fundamentally these leftists (not all liberals but Leftists), think they are smarter than anyone else. Smarter than conservatives for sure, but also smarter than the Founders, and they don't think twice about history or anything else. It's about social justice and their causes, and anything they have to do for them is acceptable.

[kingcat]

There were non racist slave owners. Jefferson was one. And if Lincoln had taken the moral stance of Taney and others, we certainly would not have a Lincoln Memorial.

The cause he championed won the war, not his might. It was ordained of God for the south to fall. Slavery was not some romantic Shirley temple movie...it was our version of the Holocaust.

Just as evil imho, period And acknowledged as a such by Jefferson himself as proven below

"Whenever I hear any one arguing for slavery I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally."
..Abraham Lincoln

“no body wishes more than I” to see the end of prejudice and slavery

an “abominable crime,”

..Thomas Jefferson

[kingcat]

Id like to add that imo, there was a definite middle ground at one time regarding slavery and White nationalism.

It no longer exists.

Id suggest our leader(s) open a political dialogue with regard to every monument, obelisk, or statue in question.

And any, outside of national monuments, that cant be agreed upon should be placed in a museum somewhere.

And Id exclude every KKK member or white supremacist from any input, rally, or demonstration.
Its time to stop them and show Muslims worldwide that we are consistent with regard to hate groups. Same for all such groups that seek to divide along those lines

[CitizenBBN]

I
And Id exclude every KKK member or white supremacist from any input, rally, or demonstration.
Its time to stop them and show Muslims worldwide that we are consistent with regard to hate groups. Same for all such groups that seek to divide along those lines

So do we ban the BLM and Nation of Islam as well?

Good to know I was right I guess, but hoping I was wrong. You are as fair minded as anyone I know, and you support the elimination of free speech, free expression and freedom of association of groups you find offensive. If that's the case, the Constitution really is living on borrowed time.

Not trying to put words in your mouth, but if you want to ban the KKK/Nazis and other hate groups from demonstrating, having permits to march, etc. that sure sounds like what you're saying. Now we get to decide based on the content of your beliefs if you have a right to express yourself. I can't imagine anything more dangerous.

We will all accept everyone, under pain of death. So much for individual liberty, even if we don't like what people do with it.

[Doc]

I see many Muslims as hate groups, certainly as it pertains to Israel. Go to a mosque sometime and listen to their rhetoric concerning the Jews, or the other "infidels". Can we ban them as well, or is that me just being an Islamaphobe?

[CitizenBBN]

I see many Muslims as hate groups, certainly as it pertains to Israel. Go to a mosque sometime and listen to their rhetoric concerning the Jews, or the other "infidels". Can we ban them as well, or is that me just being an Islamaphobe?

You misunderstand Doc. We can only hate the hate groups on the prescribed lists, created by this unidentified group that decides Muslim imams preaching the destruction of Israel and institution of Sharia law are to be tolerated and respected, but a white minister preaching the same thing gets run out on a rail.

Seriously, get with the program.

That's what that poll reflects, which is why I posted on this topic at all. A lot of Americans see the obvious hypocrisy and double standards of what constitutes "hate" and "fascism" in the country today. None of them support the KKK or Nazis, but they also see the murder of cops as some kind of social protest for what it is too. The real fascism today comes from the BLM and these social justice warriors operating as internet age thought police, b/c the Nazi version is never going to catch on but the Leftist version is making real progress.

[kingcat]

If you are accusing me this is way, way off base from my point. I am not accusing anyone as an Islamaphobe.

I would ask you, do you consider all Muslims part of a radical hate group?

[kingcat]

So do we ban the BLM and Nation of Islam as well?

Good to know I was right I guess, but hoping I was wrong. You are as fair minded as anyone I know, and you support the elimination of free speech, free expression and freedom of association of groups you find offensive. If that's the case, the Constitution really is living on borrowed time.

Not trying to put words in your mouth, but if you want to ban the KKK/Nazis and other hate groups from demonstrating, having permits to march, etc. that sure sounds like what you're saying. Now we get to decide based on the content of your beliefs if you have a right to express yourself. I can't imagine anything more dangerous.

We will all accept everyone, under pain of death. So much for individual liberty, even if we don't like what people do with it.

Anyone who is violent in their approach is a criminal. And so relinquished their rights to liberty imo. I do not support violence, but kind and peaceful discussion...and you ARE trying to put words in my mouth.
Just changing the subject to suit your argument again.

Cool....but not going to work.

Ive said all I can say, and feel real, real comfortable with my position.

[Doc]

If you are accusing me this is way, way off base from my point. I am not accusing anyone as an Islamaphobe.

I would ask you, do you consider all Muslims part of a radical hate group?

I'm accusing you of nothing. Apologies if it sounds as such.

My point is I oppose anything "hate" related. Who decides what is or isn't a hate group? It pertains to crimes as well. Why is killing somebody in and of itself not terrible but make it a HATE KILLING and suddenly its worse. IMO any murder is a hate crime and see no reason to add "hate" in certain circumstances.

Many Muslims do in fact preach the destruction of Israel. That is a fact yet if anybody dares to call them out for that suddenly you are an Islamaphobe. Are all Arabs preaching the destruction of Israel? Nope but lets not ignore that a LARGE faction is, and comparatively speaking, its FAR FAR greater than the number of members in the KKK or other White Supremacy groups. However when these white supremacist legally gather suddenly its an issue (don't take that as I support the KKK or Nazi's in any form because I despise these groups) yet anybody who has an issue with Radical Islamic Terrorist is somehow a bigoted racist that fears all Arabs.

Edit: note my original post said MANY, not all. There is a distinct difference and I want to be clear of that difference.

[CitizenBBN]

Anyone who is violent in their approach is a criminal. And so relinquished their rights to liberty imo. I do not support violence, but kind and peaceful discussion...and you ARE trying to put words in my mouth.
Just changing the subject to suit your argument again.

Cool....but not going to work.

Ive said all I can say, and feel real, real comfortable with my position.

I'm absolutely not trying to put words in your mouth. I'm trying to figure out your position.

You said you'd ban Nazis from events, demonstrations, etc. You said it, not me. I am trying to figure out how we now determine who gets to have a demonstration and who doesn't and what that means for the 1st Amendment.

Now you are saying those who are violent. OK, but all of these demonstrations start without violence, and I'm betting a majority of even the KKK and Nazi guys at this thing didn't actually engage in a fight (just based on the numbers). So it's OK for them to get a permit and have a demonstration as long as they aren't violent?

Many in the BLM have called for killing cops, even chanted at some of their demonstrations. Are they now banned?

I'm not putting anything in your mouth. I'm asking questions, trying to figure out exactly what policy you are proposing.

Violence is already illegal. None of these things get permits with "going to start a rumble" on the application. Traditionally in America you're innocent until guilty, so you are allowed to come and say what you want, even "hate speech", and if it turns out violent people get arrested. It seems you're proposing we decide a priori that groups X and Y are prone to violence so we just ban them from assembling.

If that's not the case tell me, I really am asking.