Jeh Johnson: Removal of Confederate Statues a Matter of ‘Homeland Security’

[jg121783 3,909]

http://freebeacon.com/politics/johnson-removal-confederate-statues-homeland-security/

 

No Jeh. Arresting the antifa criminals who vandalize public property, assault people and throw urine and feces at police and other people is a matter of homeland security.

[OriZ 3,157]

[IAMX 3,055]

Oh those dangerous statues -- sitting there all historic.

 

[Boiler 45,402]

Toppling statues? Here’s why Nelson’s column should be next

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/22/toppling-statues-nelsons-column-should-be-next-slavery

[IAMX 3,055]

I keep hearing arguments about us remembering history and not to forget it.. so in light of this statue toppling hissy fit, I've yet to see how this aligns with their alleged concern for not repeating history.

 

In reality this seems like attempts to wipe out southern heritage by attacking its historical symbols, such as the Confederate Flag, statues, etc. I thought trying to erase and re-write history and other cultures as you see fit is an Orwellian concept.. look at how terrorists in Islam are trying to do the same thing in their bid to ethnically cleanse MENA. Guess the left are wanting to follow in the footsteps of their terrorist idols.

Edited August 22, 2017 by IAMX

[bcking 3,157]

1 hour ago, Boiler said:

Toppling statues? Here’s why Nelson’s column should be next

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/22/toppling-statues-nelsons-column-should-be-next-slavery

While I see the similarity they are painting with Nelson, I do think there is a distinction between those who opposed the abolition of slavery or were slave owners themselves and those who actively ceceded and fought a civil war over the matter. Nelson was opposed, but when he didn't get his way he didn't take a faction in England and go to war.

 

I see the issue with the Confederates as two-fold. It's a combination of their support of slavery and their willingness to go to war and kill their fellow Americans in defense of that support. I can see going to war and killing to destroy slavery, but not to defend it. I realize there are other "reasons" that many people list for the Civil War (States rights) but to me it still ultimately comes down to the fact that they were willing to go to war for their State's rights to keep slaves. They put that above killing other Americans.

 

All that being said, I also really don't care about the statues. I'm never going to travel anywhere just to see a statue of a Confederate general/leader. They were the losing team. I'll just walk past them.

[IAMX 3,055]

19 minutes ago, bcking said:

While I see the similarity they are painting with Nelson, I do think there is a distinction between those who opposed the abolition of slavery or were slave owners themselves and those who actively ceceded and fought a civil war over the matter. Nelson was opposed, but when he didn't get his way he didn't take a faction in England and go to war.

 

I see the issue with the Confederates as two-fold. It's a combination of their support of slavery and their willingness to go to war and kill their fellow Americans in defense of that support. I can see going to war and killing to destroy slavery, but not to defend it. I realize there are other "reasons" that many people list for the Civil War (States rights) but to me it still ultimately comes down to the fact that they were willing to go to war for their State's rights to keep slaves. They put that above killing other Americans.

 

All that being said, I also really don't care about the statues. I'm never going to travel anywhere just to see a statue of a Confederate general/leader. They were the losing team. I'll just walk past them.

The purpose behind statues such as General Lee has nothing to do with slavery or the promotion of it. One would think that 150 years after slavery was made illegal with the 14th amendment this would be evident.

Edited August 22, 2017 by IAMX

[bcking 3,157]

19 minutes ago, IAMX said:

The purpose behind statues such as General Lee has nothing to do with slavery or the promotion of it. One would think that 150 years after slavery was made illegal with the 14th amendment this would be evident.

Of course none of the statues were created for the purpose of promoting slavery. Nelson's column isn't celebrating his support of slavery, nor are General Lee's.

 

We have always been talking about what the men that the statues commemorate represents.

 

Nelson didn't fight a war to defend slavery. Lee did. He killed other Americans to defend the right for the south to cecede so they could keep their slaves. That is a big difference, in my opinion.

[IAMX 3,055]

4 minutes ago, bcking said:

Of course none of the statues were created for the purpose of promoting slavery. Nelson's column isn't celebrating his support of slavery, nor are General Lee's.

 

We have always been talking about what the men that the statues commemorate represents.

 

Nelson didn't fight a war to defend slavery. Lee did. He killed other Americans to defend the right for the south to cecede so they could keep their slaves. That is a big difference, in my opinion.

General Lee didn't represent slavery any more than the Presidents on Rushmore represented genocide.

 

This is a political revision of a heroic patriot who served not only his country as a whole but his southern homeland. There's a prevailing attitude about southern culture, primarily from non-southerners, that southern culture encompasses slavery, rather than, well, culture. Which hearkens to the comment about 150 years later.

 

I encourage you to learn more about southern culture itself rather than presume slavery is the end-all be all of discussion surrounding these statues merely because the left think so.

Edited August 22, 2017 by IAMX

[bcking 3,157]

5 minutes ago, IAMX said:

General Lee didn't represent slavery any more than the Presidents on Rushmore represented genocide.

 

This is a political revision of a heroic patriot who served not only his country as a whole but his southern homeland. There's a prevailing attitude about southern culture, primarily from non-southerners, that southern culture encompasses slavery, rather than, well, culture. Which hearkens to the comment about 150 years later.

 

I encourage you to learn more about southern culture itself rather than presume slavery is the end-all be all of discussion surrounding these statues merely because the left think so.

The southern states ceceded the union over their right to continue slavery. I've studied American History enough I know that.

 

General Lee may have been a patriot and whatever else, but ultimately he chose to side with and fight for those who wouldn't remain in the Union over the issue of slavery. He could have personally hated slavery, I don't care. He still fought for those who wanted to see it continue.

[IAMX 3,055]

Just now, bcking said:

The southern states ceceded the union over their right to continue slavery. I've studied American History enough I know that.

 

General Lee may have been a patriot and whatever else, but ultimately he chose to side with and fight for those who wouldn't remain in the Union over the issue of slavery. He could have personally hated slavery, I don't care. He still fought for those who wanted to see it continue.

General Lee was honored and decorated well before the Civil War issue came about. So this idea that his name comes from the Civil War and slavery is bunk.

 

So the idea that a statue of a patriot who served his country honorably should come down because of invented character traits of "racism" is stupid. 

 

It's mythic symbolism from people who simply want their way by any means necessary, including tyranny.

[bcking 3,157]

6 minutes ago, IAMX said:

General Lee was honored and decorated well before the Civil War issue came about. So this idea that his name comes from the Civil War and slavery is bunk.

 

So the idea that a statue of a patriot who served his country honorably should come down because of invented character traits of "racism" is stupid. 

 

It's mythic symbolism from people who simply want their way by any means necessary, including tyranny.

Unfortunately sometimes honourable people do less honourable things later in their life which can ruin their reputation.

 

If Nelson ended his career by going to war against the crown over the abolition of slavery, his reputation would be very different.

 

Doesn't matter what Lee did before the Civil War. He still chose to use his military expertise and skill to support a rebellious government that was rebelling over their right to keep slaves. He was on the wrong side.

[Teddy B 17,252]

12 minutes ago, bcking said:

The southern states ceceded the union over their right to continue slavery. I've studied American History enough I know that.

 

General Lee may have been a patriot and whatever else, but ultimately he chose to side with and fight for those who wouldn't remain in the Union over the issue of slavery. He could have personally hated slavery, I don't care. He still fought for those who wanted to see it continue.

The bolded part has been stated a few times now and we still get the reply below.

 

8 minutes ago, IAMX said:

General Lee was honored and decorated well before the Civil War issue came about. So this idea that his name comes from the Civil War and slavery is bunk.

 

So the idea that a statue of a patriot who served his country honorably should come down because of invented character traits of "racism" is stupid. 

 

It's mythic symbolism from people who simply want their way by any means necessary, including tyranny.

Reading comprehension goes a long way on a discussion board.

[IAMX 3,055]

4 minutes ago, bcking said:

Unfortunately sometimes honourable people do less honourable things later in their life which can ruin their reputation.

 

If Nelson ended his career by going to war against the crown over the abolition of slavery, his reputation would be very different.

 

Doesn't matter what Lee did before the Civil War. He still chose to use his military expertise and skill to support a rebellious government that was rebelling over their right to keep slaves. He was on the wrong side.

Lee's reputation outside of the south is obviously negative, but the contention here is not that statues of him should be erected where they don't want it. It's where they do want it because Lee represents many positive traits to southern culture.

 

And of course I will reiterate about the awful "you lost"/"wrong side" argument, this justifies getting rid of Mexican missions in California, not to mention all this honoring of Native Americans. They were on the wrong side. Why honor losers?

 

Bad argument.

Edited August 22, 2017 by IAMX

[bcking 3,157]

4 minutes ago, IAMX said:

Lee's reputation outside of the south is obviously negative, but the contention here is not that statues of him should be erected where they don't want it. It's where they do want it because Lee represents many positive traits to southern culture.

 

And of course I will reiterate about the awful "you lost"/"wrong side" argument, this justifies getting rid of Mexican missions in California, not to mention all this honoring of Native Americans. They were on the wrong side. Why honor losers?

 

Bad argument.

Lee wasn't in the wrong side because the South lost.

 

He was on the wrong side because the South was wrong. Win or lose, they were wrong. They seceded and went to war because they didn't want to give up treating people as property. I don't care who won. Their cause was morally wrong and unjust. 

 

As for the "statues where they want it" arguement -

 

Would you support local votes in each community, and then majority rules? If Charlottesville voted to remove them, then it's fine?

 

I would support that.

Edited August 22, 2017 by bcking