MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Charlottetown, Virginia  (Read 20934 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Brasilnut

  • Author Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock & Blog

« Reply #50 on: August 20, 2017, 08:18 »
0
Here's a statue of Oliver Cromwell in front of the Houses of Parliament in London.

To many English he's considered a hero. To the Irish he's a war criminal

Quote
In September 1649, Cromwell's 12,000-strong forces stormed Drogheda, north of Dublin.

HIs troops massacred nearly everyone in the garrison and the town - which Cromwell justified as the "righteous judgment of God upon these barbarous wretches".

A month later Wexford suffered the same fate and both incidents, justified by the British as militarily necessary to subdue the population, still figure strongly in Irish republican history.


Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/326121.stm


« Reply #51 on: August 20, 2017, 08:37 »
+4
Here's a statue of Oliver Cromwell in front of the Houses of Parliament in London.

To many English he's considered a hero. To the Irish he's a war criminal

Quote
In September 1649, Cromwell's 12,000-strong forces stormed Drogheda, north of Dublin.

HIs troops massacred nearly everyone in the garrison and the town - which Cromwell justified as the "righteous judgment of God upon these barbarous wretches".

A month later Wexford suffered the same fate and both incidents, justified by the British as militarily necessary to subdue the population, still figure strongly in Irish republican history.


Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/326121.stm


But clearly that statue isn't there because of what he did to the Irish or to remind Irish people to keep their heads down. It is there because of his role in the history of British parliament. His reputation is tarnished by what he did in Ireland. The statues in the South are only there because of the horrific things done by the people they depict and to glorify the evil ideology behind them. Look into when they were put up and by who.

If the Orange Order put up a statue of Cromwell in the middle of Belfast at the height of troubles then I would be on the side of tearing that down too, it would only be there remind the Irish of the pain they had suffered and as a veiled threat.

The statues being torn down in the US are not only of people who fought for a hateful ideology but the statues themselves are there to further that ideology. It isn't nearly as complicated as it is being made out to be.

« Reply #52 on: August 20, 2017, 08:59 »
0
The Irish removed British statues.  They dealt with Nelson's Pillar in Dublin when the politicians did nothing about it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson%27s_Pillar#Destruction

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #53 on: August 21, 2017, 23:54 »
+2
Why not? Replace them all with statues of heroic black women, I say.

Or heroic black men, white men, white women, Asian women or Asian men. But seeing black women are probably the most underrepresented in the world of statues, you probably have a fair point... level the scales a bit.

Semmick Photo

« Reply #54 on: August 22, 2017, 03:50 »
0
The Irish removed British statues.  They dealt with Nelson's Pillar in Dublin when the politicians did nothing about it

Of course not ;) the Irish weren't/aren't really fond of English war heroes, plus it is a matter for the Gardai really

Brasilnut

  • Author Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock & Blog

« Reply #55 on: August 22, 2017, 05:00 »
0
Interesting article on the (left-wing) Guardian today about Nelson's column. Apparently, he was a white supremacist.

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

« Reply #56 on: August 22, 2017, 05:31 »
+1
Interesting article on the (left-wing) Guardian today about Nelson's column. Apparently, he was a white supremacist.

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

Again Nelson isn't on that column because he was a white supremacist though is he? (not saying he was or not but clearly it isn't the reason for the column)

The column itself isn't there to celebrate white supremacy is it?

These wider discussions about the grey complicated area surrounding other statues put up to celebrate achievements by people who may also have aspects to them that aren't to be celebrated or whatever are really irrelevant to the very black and white issue of the statues being discussed in the US at the moment. The people showing up to defend the statues aren't screaming about how great the people they depict are or how much they love art or history, they are screaming about Jewish and black people.

Are you going to keep Googling up other statue controversies and posting them rather than discussing the issue in any substantive way? I mean there's Churchill, or if you want to stick to the US there's Roosevelt too. None of these people have monuments thrown up to them to celebrate their views on race or their willingness to kill for those views.

Shelma1

« Reply #57 on: August 22, 2017, 05:53 »
+2
It's always fun to be reminded of how alike the United States and England are when it comes to racism. Reading the comments to the Guardian article is just like reading comments from people here in the USA, albeit with slightly different spelling.

namussi

« Reply #58 on: August 22, 2017, 05:57 »
0
It's always fun to be reminded of how alike the United States and England are when it comes to racism. Reading the comments to the Guardian article is just like reading comments from people here in the USA, albeit with slightly different spelling.

And what is your opinion on Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland?

Brasilnut

  • Author Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock & Blog

« Reply #59 on: August 22, 2017, 06:04 »
0
Quote
Are you going to keep Googling up other statue controversies and posting them rather than discussing the issue in any substantive way? I mean there's Churchill, or if you want to stick to the US there's Roosevelt too. None of these people have monuments thrown up to them to celebrate their views on race or their willingness to kill for those views.

I'm on the fence on this one, to be honest, although I don't think the statue of Nelson should be demolished for the simple fact that he was a great naval commander & patriot. The US statues in question are more problematic in that they symbolise something which 99.5% of people consider to be "wrong" in 2017.

The cliche is that History is written by the winners so if the N azis had won WW2, there would have been fascist statues all over the UK and a large minority wouldn't think twice about it (look at Eastern Europe during communism). Morality changes with time as we tend to evolve, slowly.

I think being a History revisionist is dangerous. Did those people hold racist views (by modern standards)? Yes. Should we erase this legacy from the public sphere? No, in my opinion.

I tend to generally agree with the following quote from the article:

Quote
"Its History we cant & shouldnt re-write it we learn from it. Removing statues would make us no different to terrorists at Palmyra."

I'll be taking a train shortly at Milan's train station. It's a magnificent over-the-top structure built by the Italian fascist regime in 1931 to represent the power that racist regime (picture below). It has "strong nationalistic" symbols everywhere. Maybe I'm missing the point but such building needs to be preserved even if what it represented once-upon-a-time was "evil".


Shelma1

« Reply #60 on: August 22, 2017, 06:22 »
+5
The southern USA attempted to break away and form their own country to retain slavery, and were defeated. The statues in question depict the losers of that war, traitors to the country they are still part of. In addition, they're cheapo statues mass-produced and hastily erected during periods of black uprising in the USA to remind black people that they live in a place that would still be enslaving them if it were only legal (instead, we incarcerate them in huge numbers, keeping them from influencing elections too much).

These are not glorious works of art...they're racist crapola that crumbles to nothing with the yank of a piece of tape.

« Reply #61 on: August 22, 2017, 06:31 »
+1
ETA, this is a response to the post above Shelma's

Well that makes it sound like we are somehow post-history now.

It isn't revising history to take down a statue of Hitler. You aren't denying he existed. You can take down some statues of racist confederate generals built in the 1960s without tearing down Milan station.

With that kind of thinking we would very quickly run out of room to build anything at all.

How do you think the Palmyra got built? Those Greco-Roman columns are built on the ruins of the Amorites and Arameans.

Deciding what to preserve and what can be let go is complicated but we can't be scared to grapple with it by pretending everything can be or should be held onto. It is a massively complicated topic with a huge grey area in the middle. The statues in the US are no where near that grey area.


« Reply #62 on: August 22, 2017, 08:02 »
+5
The previous two posters have summed it up nicely.  There is no gray area about statues to Confederate military leaders.  1) Aiding your enemy during a war is the definition of treason - all of those "leaders" were traitors to their country.  You don't have monuments to traitors!  2) They were fighting to preserve the inhumane and morally bankrupt institution of slavery.  I grew up in the south and they taught us all this nonsense about how the "war between the states" as they like to call it there was not about slavery but states rights.  However, if you read the articles of secession and documents from the CSA it is clear that the only states right they cared about was slavery. 3) Those "leaders" lost the war.  As a kid I was always confused about why they had monuments to these "great" leaders for a war they lost - why memorialize that?  The only purpose for those statues and other memorials was for oppression. 

If any of those statues have artistic or true historical value then they should be preserved in a museum, but the vast majority should be destroyed and replaced with something appropriate.  This should extend to the names of schools, roads, etc., except maybe in their home towns or other areas where there could be historical significance.  This is long past due.  This is not revisionist history - the revisionists were the ones who put up the statues and named the schools.

To sum it up in terms even Trump could understand: 1) traitors = losers; 2) morally bankrupt cause = losers (for Trump: "morally bankrupt" = "bad"); 3) lost the war = losers.  Why have statues to triple losers when there are many good people who could be memorialized instead?

Brasilnut

  • Author Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock & Blog

« Reply #63 on: August 22, 2017, 08:31 »
0
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist_symbolism

Just spotted at Milan's central station.

« Reply #64 on: August 22, 2017, 10:07 »
+2
The OP was about Charlottesville - you're in the wrong country!

« Reply #65 on: August 22, 2017, 14:09 »
0
The southern USA attempted to break away and form their own country to retain slavery, and were defeated. The statues in question depict the losers of that war, traitors to the country they are still part of. In addition, they're cheapo statues mass-produced and hastily erected during periods of black uprising in the USA to remind black people that they live in a place that would still be enslaving them if it were only legal (instead, we incarcerate them in huge numbers, keeping them from influencing elections too much).

These are not glorious works of art...they're racist crapola that crumbles to nothing with the yank of a piece of tape.

You mean, democrats?

« Reply #66 on: August 22, 2017, 14:50 »
+1
The southern USA attempted to break away and form their own country to retain slavery, and were defeated. The statues in question depict the losers of that war, traitors to the country they are still part of. In addition, they're cheapo statues mass-produced and hastily erected during periods of black uprising in the USA to remind black people that they live in a place that would still be enslaving them if it were only legal (instead, we incarcerate them in huge numbers, keeping them from influencing elections too much).

These are not glorious works of art...they're racist crapola that crumbles to nothing with the yank of a piece of tape.

You mean, democrats?


Yes the racist Southern Democrats who were against school integration, didn't what colored voters, and didn't want integration. Those lovely Democrats who now claim to be on the side of minorities, promising welfare and free support for votes. Great fakers. ps Lincoln was a Republican

« Reply #67 on: August 22, 2017, 15:14 »
+4
The southern USA attempted to break away and form their own country to retain slavery, and were defeated. The statues in question depict the losers of that war, traitors to the country they are still part of. In addition, they're cheapo statues mass-produced and hastily erected during periods of black uprising in the USA to remind black people that they live in a place that would still be enslaving them if it were only legal (instead, we incarcerate them in huge numbers, keeping them from influencing elections too much).

These are not glorious works of art...they're racist crapola that crumbles to nothing with the yank of a piece of tape.

You mean, democrats?


Yes the racist Southern Democrats who were against school integration, didn't what colored voters, and didn't want integration. Those lovely Democrats who now claim to be on the side of minorities, promising welfare and free support for votes. Great fakers. ps Lincoln was a Republican

Yeah! I hear this a lot of this sophism from racist republicans, who like to forget about the great switch-over that took place some 60 years ago, during Nixon's time (what is known as the "southern strategy"), when the republicans decided to do whatever it takes to attract the southern voters on their side.

Back then, the two major parties basically switched positions on the social liberty axis.

What matters is who supports and emboldens racism TODAY! And the answer is crystal clear!

« Reply #68 on: August 22, 2017, 16:14 »
+1
Well this took a sudden turn.  Isn't it possible to discuss issues or policy without turning it into partisan BS?

I'm being rhetorical, because of course it isn't.

Okay the Democrats used to be awful, you win I guess?

« Reply #69 on: August 22, 2017, 21:09 »
+1
The southern USA attempted to break away and form their own country to retain slavery, and were defeated. The statues in question depict the losers of that war, traitors to the country they are still part of. In addition, they're cheapo statues mass-produced and hastily erected during periods of black uprising in the USA to remind black people that they live in a place that would still be enslaving them if it were only legal (instead, we incarcerate them in huge numbers, keeping them from influencing elections too much).

These are not glorious works of art...they're racist crapola that crumbles to nothing with the yank of a piece of tape.

You mean, democrats?


Yes the racist Southern Democrats who were against school integration, didn't what colored voters, and didn't want integration. Those lovely Democrats who now claim to be on the side of minorities, promising welfare and free support for votes. Great fakers. ps Lincoln was a Republican

Yeah! I hear this a lot of this sophism from racist republicans, who like to forget about the great switch-over that took place some 60 years ago, during Nixon's time (what is known as the "southern strategy"), when the republicans decided to do whatever it takes to attract the southern voters on their side.

Back then, the two major parties basically switched positions on the social liberty axis.

What matters is who supports and emboldens racism TODAY! And the answer is crystal clear!

60 years ago would be 1957. Why don't you try your revisionist history with the facts? The southern democrats went well into the decades after that and maybe still now, as despicable racists. Pretending to care isn't the same as actually standing up for diversity and individual rights.

The removal of Confederate monuments is an attempt to 'erase parts of our history just in the name of some contemporary political cause.' But you're a sucker for cause instead of thoughtful meaningful wisdom. Old wrongs can't be corrected by over correcting. There's no way to repair slavery, racist hate, or the misdeeds of the past.

Remember the Irish were once a shunned and abused minority. The Italians can after that. The blacks are no longer the largest minority in America, the Hispanics are. And believe it or not, the blacks are not happy with this change. Seems like having a cause and being a victim is more important than blending into the existing society.

Separate but equal is not a minor concept. It's the way that minority groups, or social pressure groups manipulate issues for more than equal status by handing guilt trips to the rest of us. If we are all equal, we don't need special treatment or extra rights beyond everyone else.

Shelma1

« Reply #70 on: August 22, 2017, 21:13 »
+2
Rolls eyes

« Reply #71 on: August 22, 2017, 21:46 »
+3
The southern USA attempted to break away and form their own country to retain slavery, and were defeated. The statues in question depict the losers of that war, traitors to the country they are still part of. In addition, they're cheapo statues mass-produced and hastily erected during periods of black uprising in the USA to remind black people that they live in a place that would still be enslaving them if it were only legal (instead, we incarcerate them in huge numbers, keeping them from influencing elections too much).

These are not glorious works of art...they're racist crapola that crumbles to nothing with the yank of a piece of tape.

You mean, democrats?


Yes the racist Southern Democrats who were against school integration, didn't what colored voters, and didn't want integration. Those lovely Democrats who now claim to be on the side of minorities, promising welfare and free support for votes. Great fakers. ps Lincoln was a Republican

Yeah! I hear this a lot of this sophism from racist republicans, who like to forget about the great switch-over that took place some 60 years ago, during Nixon's time (what is known as the "southern strategy"), when the republicans decided to do whatever it takes to attract the southern voters on their side.

Back then, the two major parties basically switched positions on the social liberty axis.

What matters is who supports and emboldens racism TODAY! And the answer is crystal clear!

60 years ago would be 1957. Why don't you try your revisionist history with the facts? The southern democrats went well into the decades after that and maybe still now, as despicable racists. Pretending to care isn't the same as actually standing up for diversity and individual rights.

The removal of Confederate monuments is an attempt to 'erase parts of our history just in the name of some contemporary political cause.' But you're a sucker for cause instead of thoughtful meaningful wisdom. Old wrongs can't be corrected by over correcting. There's no way to repair slavery, racist hate, or the misdeeds of the past.

Remember the Irish were once a shunned and abused minority. The Italians can after that. The blacks are no longer the largest minority in America, the Hispanics are. And believe it or not, the blacks are not happy with this change. Seems like having a cause and being a victim is more important than blending into the existing society.

Separate but equal is not a minor concept. It's the way that minority groups, or social pressure groups manipulate issues for more than equal status by handing guilt trips to the rest of us. If we are all equal, we don't need special treatment or extra rights beyond everyone else.

I said "some" 60 years ago, please don't try to play the accuracy game here, when you know exactly what I'm talking about.
For those who don't, here is a summary:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

"In American politics, the southern strategy was a Republican Party electoral strategy to increase political support among white voters in the South by appealing to racism against African Americans. As the Civil Rights Movement and dismantling of Jim Crow laws in the 1950s and 1960s visibly deepened existing racial tensions in much of the Southern United States, Republican politicians such as presidential candidate Richard Nixon and Senator Barry Goldwater developed strategies that successfully contributed to the political realignment of many white, conservative voters in the South to the Republican Party that had traditionally supported the Democratic Party. It also helped push the Republican Party much more to the right."





« Reply #73 on: August 23, 2017, 10:20 »
0
Rolls eyes

    No Joke. #ESPN pulled an Asian American announcer because his name is #RobertLee ..
    Madness!
    Karlene Nation (@karlenenation) August 23, 2017

    I'm sure his name, #RobertLee has something to do with how he announces a game...where do we draw the line???
    Aaron Royalty (@MosCowboy96) August 23, 2017

    So @espn pulled an announcer off coverage because his name was Robert Lee.

    Robert Lee is an Asian American with no ties to the confederacy
    Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) August 23, 2017

    Wait, @espn actually pulled an Asian announcer named Robert Lee from the booth for the UVa opener?

« Reply #74 on: August 23, 2017, 10:47 »
0

I said "some" 60 years ago, please don't try to play the accuracy game here, when you know exactly what I'm talking about.
For those who don't, here is a summary:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

"In American politics, the southern strategy was a Republican Party electoral strategy to increase political support among white voters in the South by appealing to racism against African Americans. As the Civil Rights Movement and dismantling of Jim Crow laws in the 1950s and 1960s visibly deepened existing racial tensions in much of the Southern United States, Republican politicians such as presidential candidate Richard Nixon and Senator Barry Goldwater developed strategies that successfully contributed to the political realignment of many white, conservative voters in the South to the Republican Party that had traditionally supported the Democratic Party. It also helped push the Republican Party much more to the right."



http://russp.us/racism.htm

"Every political party has its racists, but the notion that Republicans are more racist than Democrats or any other party is based on nothing more than a constant drumbeat of unsubstantiated innuendo and assertions by Leftists, constantly echoed by the liberal media. It is a classic example of a Big Lie that becomes "true" simply by virtue of being repeated so many times.

In the 1960s the Democratic Party changed its strategy for dealing with African Americans. Thanks to earlier Republican initiatives on civil rights, blatant racial oppression was no longer a viable political option. Whereas before that time Southern Democrats had overtly and proudly segregated and terrorized blacks, the national Democratic Party decided instead to be more subtle and get them as dependent on government as possible. As LBJ so elegantly put it (in a famous moment of candor that was recorded for posterity), "I'll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years." At the same time, the Democrats started a persistent campaign of lies and innuendo, falsely equating any opposition to their welfare state with racism."

The Southern Democrats are hypocrites and still finding ways to oppress and control minority groups, especially the poor Blacks. Many of the conservatives want to embrace and educate to help people of color and minorities gain stature and become part of America, like other minority groups over our history. The Liberals want to control and manipulate people, for the power of their votes.

Free food, subsidized housing, grants that are based on race or other minority requirements, and basically a discriminatory policy against white males. The largest minority in the US now is Hispanics, and that pisses off some of my Black friends. Consider this, black businesses are booming, blacks have a long tradition of military service, with black veterans amounting to more than 2 million in 2010. Moreover, blacks graduate from high school at about the same rate as Americans do overall.

Blacks prefer the South and the former Confederate states as their homes. I have a feeling we can expect the black American's to take over leadership in the South to a greater extent in the future, which is a positive movement instead of pandering by white politicians to control. Latinos and Hispanic peoples will concentrate in the South West and have a favorably controlled representation in that area.

The melting pot will just have some realignments, and still be the United States.

White supremacists have no place in our country. We support freedom of speech for all, so unfortunately they are allowed to speak. I don't care to hear them, or their misguided racist claims. Spreading hate with lies shouldn't be encouraged.

« Last Edit: August 23, 2017, 14:21 by YadaYadaYada »


 

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results