"Confederate" memorial burned in Chicago

[Jludo]

First of all- South Side of Chicago.

Second, Kut makes a good point. It does seem more plausible....or people are just burnin' stuff because. That anyone burned it because they thought Lincoln was a confederate? Seems implausible.

This I would put money on, Its most likely kids screwing around vandalizing **** for its own sake.

 

[T.Lex]

Can you say either by itself is not despicable?

That wasn't the question. You made an assertion. I'm asking you to back it up.

You know. Credibility.

Good luck.

Indeed.

 

[KLB]

^They answered the call not unlike the Germans during WWII. Don't see many defending or standing up for them.

I will. The rank and file German soldier did nothing more than fight for their homeland, just as the majority of the Confederate soldiers did.

There is a vast difference between those soldiers and the small percentage that took active part in the death camps.

 

[Dddrees]

I will. The rank and file German soldier did nothing more than fight for their homeland, just as the majority of the Confederate soldiers did.

There is a vast difference between those soldiers and the small percentage that took active part in the death camps.

You yes, most no.

However the stigma is larger than reality most times.

The fact remains Germany has no statues, of course this was also imposed upon them by the rest of the world. Or at least this is the way I understand it.

 

[Dddrees]

That wasn't the question. You made an assertion. I'm asking you to back it up.

You know. Credibility.


Indeed.

No honestly and actually that's the way I see it. I just don't see comparing the two and trying to determine which one is better. I could have used worse but I just don't see that being the way you judge things like this.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

also[/I] want to burn the statue because Lincoln did free the slaves, and they have been upset at the removal and vandalism of actual Confederate statues. I guess it depends on which narrative you want to believe. Personally, I have no idea.

I have no idea either, but reading the article the thought did cross my mind.

First of all- South Side of Chicago.

Second, Kut makes a good point. It does seem more plausible....or people are just burnin' stuff because. That anyone burned it because they thought Lincoln was a confederate? Seems implausible.

Agreed.

In a predominantly black area of town, where people possibly aren't aware of Lincoln's history, the destruction of his statue would be a pretty significant act, and seen as purposefully attempting to enrage the black populace.

This give me another thought. Could it have been a false flag, rile up the base sort of thing?

^ There are many things you can respect some one for but when they were for or defended a state that represents racism hard to defend that. That is not what most would consider a normal failing by any means. Hard to equate that to something say like adultry.

Nowadays, no it would not be considered a normal failing. Back then? Hell by today's standards, Lincoln would be considered a rabid white supremacist. What do you think of the Union soldiers and leadership? They weren't fighting to free the slaves, they were fighting to "preserve the union". Slavery didn't enter into the equation until Lincoln used it as a political maneuver to restrict support for the south from other nations. I'm sure you have heard of his letter that paraphrasing states, if he could preserve the union by keeping slavery he would, if he could do it by abolishing slavery he would, and that if he could do it by allowing some and abolishing some he would do that also. His plan after freeing the slaves was to ship them back to Africa.

Can you say either by itself is not despicable?

Can you not say adultery by itself is despicable? But you seem to have put it on a spectrum with racism.

 

[T.Lex]

No honestly and actually that's the way I see it. I just don't see comparing the two and trying to determine which one is better. I could have used worse but I just don't see that being the way you judge things like this.

I'm not really interested in which you think is better, I'm curious why you even think they are comparable.

Again, I think you do not know much about the history of the 2 events.

Or much history at all.

Which is exactly what makes these Confederate monuments important. They remind us of a common history that people SHOULD be familiar with. Not as simplistic symbols of jingoistic enthusiasm. Real, actual history.

 

[Dddrees]

I'm not really interested in which you think is better, I'm curious why you even think they are comparable.

Again, I think you do not know much about the history of the 2 events.

Or much history at all.

Which is exactly what makes these Confederate monuments important. They remind us of a common history that people SHOULD be familiar with. Not as simplistic symbols of jingoistic enthusiasm. Real, actual history.

I find them both extremely deplorable acts that humans have committed and as such I see them as being comparable. Of the two there're are only losers and no winners. Neither should be acceptable in any form, fashion, or means.

 

[T.Lex]

I find them both extremely deplorable acts that humans have committed and as such I see them as being comparable. Of the two there're are only losers and no winners. Neither should be acceptable in any form, fashion, or means.

So slavery and the Final Solution are comparable to the nuclear bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Comparable to the burning of alleged witches at Salem?

Bulldozing Palestinian hovels for Jewish settlers?

Carpet bombing Dresden?

Napalm and Agent Orange in Vietnam?

Just trying to get an understanding of your perspective.

 

[KLB]

You yes, most no.

However the stigma is larger than reality most times.

The fact remains Germany has no statues, of course this was also imposed upon them by the rest of the world. Or at least this is the way I understand it.

The German's have gone to the stupid extreme actually outlawing Nazi symbolism. Did you not see where two Chinese tourists were arrested recently for doing a "Hitler Salute"?
https://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2017/08/don-t-mention-war

 

[HoughMade]

^They answered the call not unlike the Germans during WWII. Don't see many defending or standing up for them.

There are plenty of statues and memorials remembering WWII German soldiers in Germany and elsewhere.

 

[Dddrees]

I have no idea either, but reading the article the thought did cross my mind.



Agreed.



This give me another thought. Could it have been a false flag, rile up the base sort of thing?



Nowadays, no it would not be considered a normal failing. Back then? Hell by today's standards, Lincoln would be considered a rabid white supremacist. What do you think of the Union soldiers and leadership? They weren't fighting to free the slaves, they were fighting to "preserve the union". Slavery didn't enter into the equation until Lincoln used it as a political maneuver to restrict support for the south from other nations. I'm sure you have heard of his letter that paraphrasing states, if he could preserve the union by keeping slavery he would, if he could do it by abolishing slavery he would, and that if he could do it by allowing some and abolishing some he would do that also. His plan after freeing the slaves was to ship them back to Africa.



Can you not say adultery by itself is despicable? But you seem to have put it on a spectrum with racism.

I just see this as a part of the human condition. JFK in today's world would possibly be worse than Clinton. Well then since he was never accused of rape maybe not. But then again in his time nothing he did would be reported. Now the President sneezes it's reported.

I also have the luxury of sitting in my comfy chair making judgements on my ancetors. Ah, well these are the times we live in.


However does this mean I will or can defend slavery? No


Does this mean I can have compassion for those who feel they have suffered for centuries. Yes, yes I can and I feel for them more than I do for a hunk of metal and more importantly for one which represents a part of that suffering.

 

[Dddrees]

There are plenty of statues and memorials remembering WWII German soldiers in Germany and elsewhere.

I could be wrong and I didn't remember that. Maybe just not anything that refers to the Nazis.

 

[Dddrees]

The German's have gone to the stupid extreme actually outlawing Nazi symbolism. Did you not see where two Chinese tourists were arrested recently for doing a "Hitler Salute"?
https://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2017/08/don-t-mention-war

Oh yes, I'm well aware the extreme they go to.

 

[HoughMade]

I could be wrong and I didn't remember that. Maybe just not anything that refers to the Nazis.

They do not honor Nazis, but soldiers who fought in WWII is allowed.

 

[T.Lex]

Here's the one place I see Dddrees's point (whether he's actually aware of the history or not): we held Nazi generals accountable for the political policies of their government, yet we give Confederate generals a more gracious treatment.

However, the Nazi situation is a singular nadir of human experience, in terms of scale and logistics. The Confederate policy on slavery was far more ubiquitous in history, though waning by the time our Civil War broke out.

 

[Dddrees]

So slavery and the Final Solution are comparable to the nuclear bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Comparable to the burning of alleged witches at Salem?

Bulldozing Palestinian hovels for Jewish settlers?

Carpet bombing Dresden?

Napalm and Agent Orange in Vietnam?

Just trying to get an understanding of your perspective.

Comparable or wrong? Yes I find these things wrong. Yes I find deplorable things deplorable.

I could very easily make the case that the nuclear bomb is not. Very easy for me to believe more human tragedy and suffering would have taken place had that event not taken place.

Napalm and Agent Orange here I'm not convinced one way or the other.

Quibling about Slavery and the Final Solution no winners.

 

[Dddrees]

Here's the one place I see Dddrees's point (whether he's actually aware of the history or not): we held Nazi generals accountable for the political policies of their government, yet we give Confederate generals a more gracious treatment.

However, the Nazi situation is a singular nadir of human experience, in terms of scale and logistics. The Confederate policy on slavery was far more ubiquitous in history, though waning by the time our Civil War broke out.

For this purpose actually that's an excellent way of putting it.

 

[Trigger Time]

Here's the one place I see Dddrees's point (whether he's actually aware of the history or not): we held Nazi generals accountable for the political policies of their government, yet we give Confederate generals a more gracious treatment.

However, the Nazi situation is a singular nadir of human experience, in terms of scale and logistics. The Confederate policy on slavery was far more ubiquitous in history, though waning by the time our Civil War broke out.

But it wasn't just the confederacy. Slavery was legal in the whole United States except it wasn't being adopted in New western states. It was the law of the land. No one started a civil war over slaves. They weren't worth that much to anyone.

 

[Dddrees]

But it wasn't just the confederacy. Slavery was legal in the whole United States except it wasn't being adopted in New western states. It was the law of the land. No one started a civil war over slaves. They weren't worth that much to anyone.

Whoa, you may have not meant what I'm seeing here. But that certainly is a poor way of expressing your thoughts.