Thu August 17, 2017 2:35 am
Steve Bannon wrote:
“Ethno-nationalism—it's losers. It's a fringe element. I think the media plays it up too much, and we gotta help crush it, you know, uh, help crush it more. These guys are a collection of clowns.”
Thu August 17, 2017 1:13 pm
Thu August 17, 2017 2:49 pm
I'm all for stripping Andrew Jackson from names of things for many reasons in addition to slavery.Bi_3 wrote:http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2017/08/16/jackson-washington-park-protest-presidents-slave-owners/
Unsure what to think here. I believe history should be judged in context of the events, but if things get renamed all time for dumbed reasons than this.
Thu August 17, 2017 4:30 pm
Thu August 17, 2017 4:48 pm
digster wrote:Asking out of ignorance; is there an analogue somewhere else in the world where the instigators of a civil war that tried to break up the country are venerated to the degree Civil War figures are? Sure, it's concentrated in the South, but it's a nationwide thing. Do other countries lionize traitorous characters and moments in their history the way we do? Even stepping back from the emotion, and with the knowledge that the memorials were often being utilized as a tool of terror when they were being established in the Deep South, it's nevertheless a bizarre concept.
Thu August 17, 2017 4:49 pm
digster wrote:Asking out of ignorance; is there an analogue somewhere else in the world where the instigators of a civil war that tried to break up the country are venerated to the degree Civil War figures are? Sure, it's concentrated in the South, but it's a nationwide thing. Do other countries lionize traitorous characters and moments in their history the way we do? Even stepping back from the emotion, and with the knowledge that the memorials were often being utilized as a tool of terror when they were being established in the Deep South, it's nevertheless a bizarre concept.
Thu August 17, 2017 4:50 pm
digster wrote:Asking out of ignorance; is there an analogue somewhere else in the world where the instigators of a civil war that tried to break up the country are venerated to the degree Civil War figures are? Sure, it's concentrated in the South, but it's a nationwide thing. Do other countries lionize traitorous characters and moments in their history the way we do? Even stepping back from the emotion, and with the knowledge that the memorials were often being utilized as a tool of terror when they were being established in the Deep South, it's nevertheless a bizarre concept.
Thu August 17, 2017 4:51 pm
Thu August 17, 2017 4:52 pm
Thu August 17, 2017 5:01 pm
McParadigm wrote:digster wrote:Asking out of ignorance; is there an analogue somewhere else in the world where the instigators of a civil war that tried to break up the country are venerated to the degree Civil War figures are? Sure, it's concentrated in the South, but it's a nationwide thing. Do other countries lionize traitorous characters and moments in their history the way we do? Even stepping back from the emotion, and with the knowledge that the memorials were often being utilized as a tool of terror when they were being established in the Deep South, it's nevertheless a bizarre concept.
How many civil wars elsewhere were fought during the initial growth spurts of creating a nation where none had previously existed? Involving an officer class that had just won a war for the country? At a time when military officers could be major cultural figureheads? Where neither side represented an ambition to "take over" (install a military dictator, overthrow a king, etc)? Where 1 in 25 of all men are killed during the course of the war? Where the war ended with a desperate attempt by a fledgling, weak country to heal and ignore grievances? Where the military leader for the opposition force was allowed to serve as president of a premier military college after surrendering?
The whole sitch was weird.
Thu August 17, 2017 5:09 pm
Bi_3 wrote:McParadigm wrote:digster wrote:Asking out of ignorance; is there an analogue somewhere else in the world where the instigators of a civil war that tried to break up the country are venerated to the degree Civil War figures are? Sure, it's concentrated in the South, but it's a nationwide thing. Do other countries lionize traitorous characters and moments in their history the way we do? Even stepping back from the emotion, and with the knowledge that the memorials were often being utilized as a tool of terror when they were being established in the Deep South, it's nevertheless a bizarre concept.
How many civil wars elsewhere were fought during the initial growth spurts of creating a nation where none had previously existed? Involving an officer class that had just won a war for the country? At a time when military officers could be major cultural figureheads? Where neither side represented an ambition to "take over" (install a military dictator, overthrow a king, etc)? Where 1 in 25 of all men are killed during the course of the war? Where the war ended with a desperate attempt by a fledgling, weak country to heal and ignore grievances? Where the military leader for the opposition force was allowed to serve as president of a premier military college after surrendering?
The whole sitch was weird.
"So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that slavery is abolished. I believe it will be greatly for the interests of the South. So fully am I satisfied of this, as regards Virginia especially, that I would cheerfully have lost all I have lost by the war, and have suffered all I have suffered, to have this object attained.". -Lee
I wish I knew more on this topic. It's so much more complicated than just 'slavery'. But that is no excuse for the existence of memorials that were constructed from n the 20th century as symbols of domination.
Thu August 17, 2017 5:10 pm
Thu August 17, 2017 5:19 pm
Bi_3 wrote:McParadigm wrote:digster wrote:Asking out of ignorance; is there an analogue somewhere else in the world where the instigators of a civil war that tried to break up the country are venerated to the degree Civil War figures are? Sure, it's concentrated in the South, but it's a nationwide thing. Do other countries lionize traitorous characters and moments in their history the way we do? Even stepping back from the emotion, and with the knowledge that the memorials were often being utilized as a tool of terror when they were being established in the Deep South, it's nevertheless a bizarre concept.
How many civil wars elsewhere were fought during the initial growth spurts of creating a nation where none had previously existed? Involving an officer class that had just won a war for the country? At a time when military officers could be major cultural figureheads? Where neither side represented an ambition to "take over" (install a military dictator, overthrow a king, etc)? Where 1 in 25 of all men are killed during the course of the war? Where the war ended with a desperate attempt by a fledgling, weak country to heal and ignore grievances? Where the military leader for the opposition force was allowed to serve as president of a premier military college after surrendering?
The whole sitch was weird.
"So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that slavery is abolished. I believe it will be greatly for the interests of the South. So fully am I satisfied of this, as regards Virginia especially, that I would cheerfully have lost all I have lost by the war, and have suffered all I have suffered, to have this object attained.". -Lee
I wish I knew more on this topic. It's so much more complicated than just 'slavery'. But that is no excuse for the existence of memorials that were constructed from n the 20th century as symbols of domination.
Thu August 17, 2017 5:31 pm
Thu August 17, 2017 5:32 pm
Thu August 17, 2017 5:34 pm
Thu August 17, 2017 5:35 pm
Thu August 17, 2017 5:36 pm
Thu August 17, 2017 7:31 pm
cutuphalfdead wrote:Probably less love than a generation or two ago, but still.
Thu August 17, 2017 7:32 pm