It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Your false comparisons with Confederate Statues.

page: 5
10
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 06:13 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal


I get your thread.


Good.


I put a lot less certainty in the words like maybe, could and possibly.


I do, especially when I don't know something for sure, and therefore try not to treat it as fact; it's disingenuous and intellectually dishonest.
edit on 15-8-2017 by Liquesence because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 06:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Liquesence

My point it that there is something worthwhile and admirable about Jefferson even though he also had a darker side to him.

You can view some of the figures of these monuments the same way. Like it or not, the South produced some of the greater military minds seen.

And some of these monuments are dedicated to the common soldier, men who would not have had slaves. They fought for their homes and families. Like it or not, back then, you felt more attachment to your state than your country in many cases. The state government was more immediate to you than the Federal government in DC. Many were swept along in the tide of events on both sides who didn't want to fight. Some fought their own family.

And if we don't allow ourselves to learn those lessons and keep them out in the public eye, we are once again going to be learning them the hard way, across the barrels of each other's guns.



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 06:14 PM
link   


I mean, he was a slave owning founder nor above sleeping with his slaves on occasion. There are blacks descended from him.

Some of the other founders were also slave owners, and you count him an inspiration.

Just like some of us. Are you going to defend that piece of racist history?!
a reply to: ketsuko

Right now we eat animals, you and I are typing on a keyboard of a computer made with slave labor, and use fossil fuels.


I will guarantee we will be judged harshly by what is considered socially ok today too.



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 06:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Liquesence

They probably believe their own propaganda about certain figures being revealed amongst "the left"...

Jefferson, obama, Stalin , Castro , exc are all worshipped at left wing temples where the elites sacrice children's to ... whoever..

Any evil figure in history and modern day rightwing punching bag are all prayed to daily in liberal homes across America..



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 06:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Did obama lead a rebellion that killed 10s of thousands of Americans???


Not yet, give him time, he is busily working at it from his "Resist" headquarters.
His BLM soldiers are on the march, his OWS lackys are changing costumes at record paces and his people are managing all that Nazi sympathizer loot provided by Soros with extra caution.



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 06:17 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

My point with that was tongue in cheek, but you do hear people muttering it in the halls of academia.

If the mere hint of slavery makes something verboten, then the Founders and all they achieved are going to be on the chopping block next. Where do you think the "racist, oppressive construct" language comes from when they discuss the country?

It's because they think like that.



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 06:18 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Did you miss your meds?



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 06:19 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

You definitely have to judge things like racism on a curve..



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

What does that mean?



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 06:23 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Thanks for the clarification, and I agree with you for the most part.


You can view some of the figures of these monuments the same way. . . . And some of these monuments are dedicated to the common soldier, men who would not have had slaves.


But when have I ever said the monuments or statues should be removed or destroyed? I haven't.

I have, in fact, said quite the opposite.

Do you recall this thread?

Again, the point I'm making in this thread, and then people try to put words in my mouth and falsely categorize, was not that the monuments should be removed but that their erection seems to be a reaction to social advances by people of color. That's it. Period. That is my point.

That does not automatically mean I support their removal.

edit on 15-8-2017 by Liquesence because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 06:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Liquesence

If the mid 1960's (100 anniversary of the civil war) is proven to be a hot bed for in your face hard core statue erecting to show those civil rights gains who is who, what should be done?

How do we determine if this was a slight?

I think it could have something more to do with the 100 anniversary of the civil war. Seems like 50th, 75th and 100th are big milestone.



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 06:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
Are you going to demand that Gone with the Wind be burned and banned from movie theatres?


that depends, are they going to show it on government property? or will there be a rally of several hundred white supremacists with torches rallying around it to celebrate the way of life it depicts?

y'all have a real problem with context. you think somehow you can reduce this # to a math problem and come out on the right side of it... but you're on the wrong side of history. your kids and grandkids, if you have them, will look back and know your delusion for what it is.



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal


If the mid 1960's (100 anniversary of the civil war) is proven to be a hot bed for in your face hard core statue erecting to show those civil rights gains who is who, what should be done?


I don't think anything should be done, and I never said something should be done.


How do we determine if this was a slight?


We'd have to find out the intend of those who coordinated, financed, etc, which is unlikely.


I think it could have something more to do with the 100 anniversary of the civil war.


Valid, reasonable, and logical, and also just as likely. But it could also be a cover as a reaction to Civil Rights.



edit on 15-8-2017 by Liquesence because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: fiverx313

My children and grandchildren will know that I stood against censorship and was for freedom of speech.



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 06:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: VictorVonDoom

You mean like the historical accuracy of ..

"The civil war wasn't fought over slavery??"

What about pretending we are not talking about the monuments to a bunch of traitors who killed 10s of THOUSANDS of US service members????




Which side was trying to end slavery?



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 06:51 PM
link   
a reply to: VictorVonDoom

I assume your eluding to the fact the North had no desire to end slavery...


That just makes the confederacy stupid traitors, since they rebelled over something that was NOT about to happen...

As I said in one of these posts..

It was really a very specific group of elite southern slave owners who predicted abolition and hyped everyone to rebel..



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

You have to judge historical figures on the average of the day. Not by modern standards.



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: fiverx313

History doesn't have sides. It simply is.



Trying to tell us you know the future is simply another way of trying to tell us to
already because you don't want to consider anything someone else might have to say.



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 06:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: fiverx313

My children and grandchildren will know that I stood against censorship and was for freedom of speech.



incitement is not protected speech, unfortunately.



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 06:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: fiverx313

History doesn't have sides. It simply is.

Trying to tell us you know the future is simply another way of trying to tell us to
already because you don't want to consider anything someone else might have to say.


not at all, talk all you want. you can be as wrong as you want to be.




top topics



 
10
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join