First it was Confederate monuments - Now it's former president William McKinley

Status
Not open for further replies.
Kacper said:
I think exactly the opposite. Liberals are controlling the DNC. Progressives not so much.
Click to expand...
the DNC is under new management..not sure what they are but Keith Ellison seems progressive.

But I was speaking to it's national identity -granted much more difficult to quantify- but that seems to be the ID they are projecting
 
Stretch said:
Well, Obama did remove the bust of Churchill from the Oval office, LOL.
Click to expand...

Fake news.

"There are two busts of Churchill, virtually identical, which for the sake of simplicity we will call Bust A and Bust B. Bust A was made by the English sculptor Sir Jacob Epstein. It was given to President Lyndon B. Johnson on Oct. 6, 1965. (Here’s Lady Bird Johnson’s diary entry about the gift, which was facilitated by Churchill’s wartime friends, including W. Averell Harriman.) So that bust has been in the White House for more than five decades.

Bust B also was made by Epstein. It was provided in July 2001 by then Prime Minister Tony Blair, via the British ambassador, as a loan to President George W. Bush because Bust A was being repaired. Bush said he would keep it in the Oval Office, and various news reports at the time said the bust would be returned once Bush left office.

According to a 2010 interview with White House curator William Allman, the decision to return the bust had been made even before Obama arrived, as the loan was scheduled to last only as long as Bush’s presidency. That narrative was confirmed by British ambassador Sir Peter Westmacott just before stepped down in 2015: “To be honest, we always expected that to leave the Oval Office just like everything else that a president has tends to be changed,” he told The Guardian newspaper. “Even the carpet is usually changed when the president changes.”
Bust B was shipped back to the library of the British ambassador’s residence."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...st-in-the-oval-office/?utm_term=.226cb664ea24
 
Kacper said:
I am not arguing anything, potty-mouth. Most people don't care one way or the other. Don't care about the MLK bridge and don't care about the confederate monuments. Don't care if people get upset about President McK. I just enjoy the theater.
Click to expand...

Again it their right not to care. However it is their right to care also. It isn't a right to care about what statue east labamadad puts up if you don't live there. That is the point.
 
Kacper said:
I am not arguing anything, potty-mouth. Most people don't care one way or the other. Don't care about the MLK bridge and don't care about the confederate monuments. Don't care if people get upset about President McK. I just enjoy the theater.
Click to expand...

Oh and calling me a fucking potty-mouth is not PC?????? you funny.
 
anatta said:
simplistic as usual. Your Johnny 1 note go to.

Causes of the American Civil War
Citation: C N Trueman "Causes of the American Civil War"
https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/the-american-civil-war/causes-of-the-american-civil-war/
A common assumption to explain the cause of the American Civil War was that the North was no longer willing to tolerate slavery as being part of the fabric of US society and that the political power brokers in Washington were planning to abolish slavery throughout the Union. Therefore for many people slavery is the key issue to explain the causes of the American Civil War. However, it is not as simple as this and slavery, while a major issue, was not the only issue that pushed American into the ‘Great American Tragedy’. By April 1861, slavery had become inextricably entwined with state rights, the power of the federal government over the states, the South’s ‘way of life’ etc. – all of which made a major contribution to the causes of the American Civil War.
Click to expand...

You don't understand the matter. The north was not about to abolish slavery, and was even working on passing a compromise amendment that would have specifically protected slavery in the south. That wasn't good enough for the south, who was offended by the north's moral objection to slavery.

The south never once cited the fiction that is "state's rights" (the common misreading of the 10th Amendment), in the secession documents, so we know that it has only come with decades of revisionism by apologists and liars that the argument has come about.
 
smb said:
Again it their right not to care. However it is their right to care also. It isn't a right to care about what statue east labamadad puts up if you don't live there. That is the point.
Click to expand...

You contradicted yourself by saying it is their right to care and then saying it isn't their right unless they live there. Nonetheless, with so much state and federal money flowing into local governments, one could argue that "there" is really "in that country". In addition, there are businesses that might invest "there", "there" has visitors, etc. For reasons known but to God, my city hosts an annual rugby tournament that gets teams from all over the world. I am not saying we shouldn't. I just have no clue as to why this thing comes to our "there" every year. We don't even have a rugby club in our city. It apparently is just because we have the space and the sports fields and it is cheaper than having it in real cities since we used a massive amount of state and federal money developing an extensive contiguous park system with lots of sports fields, etc. for no reason other than there was money to be had to do it.
 
Threedee said:
You don't understand the matter. The north was not about to abolish slavery, and was even working on passing a compromise amendment that would have specifically protected slavery in the south. That wasn't good enough for the south, who was offended by the north's moral objection to slavery.

The south never once cited the fiction that is "state's rights" (the common misreading of the 10th Amendment), in the secession documents, so we know that it has only come with decades of revisionism by apologists and liars that the argument has come about.
Click to expand...

take it up with the authors.
we know for sure many CSA soldiers joined to defend their state -if that ain't "state's rights"
I don't know what else you would call it/

But I'm not interested in re-litigating the cause of the war. only the reconcilliation and proper perspective of the soldiers deeds on both sides afterwards.

The CSA statues. some are historical and worth keeping, some are pure monuments to Jim Crowe.
Which is why some kind of historical commission look at them from a cooler heads perspective is needed
 
noise said:
take it up with the authors.
we know for sure many CSA soldiers joined to defend their state -if that ain't "state's rights"
I don't know what else you would call it/

But I'm not interested in re-litigating the cause of the war. only the reconcilliation and proper perspective of the soldiers deeds on both sides afterwards.

The CSA statues. some are historical and worth keeping, some are pure monuments to Jim Crowe.
Which is why some kind of historical commission look at them from a cooler heads perspective is needed
Click to expand...

1) The authors are lying. If you have ever read the secession documents and concluded that there were causes other than slavery, then you are either lying or illiterate. You are literally putting words in the mouths of the confederates that weren't there.

2) There is no such thing as state's rights. Governments have powers, they do not have rights. The term has come into use as a fictional argument for why the south seceded. Particularly given that the actual reason was idiotic and self-defeating.
 
Kacper said:
You contradicted yourself by saying it is their right to care and then saying it isn't their right unless they live there. Nonetheless, with so much state and federal money flowing into local governments, one could argue that "there" is really "in that country". In addition, there are businesses that might invest "there", "there" has visitors, etc. For reasons known but to God, my city hosts an annual rugby tournament that gets teams from all over the world. I am not saying we shouldn't. I just have no clue as to why this thing comes to our "there" every year. We don't even have a rugby club in our city. It apparently is just because we have the space and the sports fields and it is cheaper than having it in real cities since we used a massive amount of state and federal money developing an extensive contiguous park system with lots of sports fields, etc. for no reason other than there was money to be had to do it.
Click to expand...

That is not a contradiction that is geography.
 
noise said:
the statue itself isn't that important except it's not the only one that's targeted.
If you read the article there are others, there is the war on Christopher Columbus,and there is the Jefferson statue at Hofstra. Now are you concerned? It's obvious the PC/far/whack-a-doodle left agenda is to whitewash selected parts of history that cause them "historical pain".

Americans don't do markers or statues anymore because we don't produce notables, but also because we have no sense of the continuum of the county. We live/ponder in the moment of Tweets and iphones.

You Stalinesque memories of statutes should not color your evaluation of the the historical perspective here.
Click to expand...

No, I am not concerned at all. First, I hate statues, and a democratic republic such as ours should not be deifying our public servants.

I am interested in burning confederate flags and removing traces of history's worst traitors from our public commons.

Second, I am well accustomed to rightwing paranoia, exaggeration, and hypbole. I do not believe for one nanosecond that there a viable movement afoot to rid this country of its monuments, any more than I believe claims by the gun-humping lobby that federal agents and their liberal cohorts are going to confiscate "all guns".
 
christiefan915 said:
Fake news.

"There are two busts of Churchill, virtually identical, which for the sake of simplicity we will call Bust A and Bust B. Bust A was made by the English sculptor Sir Jacob Epstein. It was given to President Lyndon B. Johnson on Oct. 6, 1965. (Here’s Lady Bird Johnson’s diary entry about the gift, which was facilitated by Churchill’s wartime friends, including W. Averell Harriman.) So that bust has been in the White House for more than five decades.

Bust B also was made by Epstein. It was provided in July 2001 by then Prime Minister Tony Blair, via the British ambassador, as a loan to President George W. Bush because Bust A was being repaired. Bush said he would keep it in the Oval Office, and various news reports at the time said the bust would be returned once Bush left office.

According to a 2010 interview with White House curator William Allman, the decision to return the bust had been made even before Obama arrived, as the loan was scheduled to last only as long as Bush’s presidency. That narrative was confirmed by British ambassador Sir Peter Westmacott just before stepped down in 2015: “To be honest, we always expected that to leave the Oval Office just like everything else that a president has tends to be changed,” he told The Guardian newspaper. “Even the carpet is usually changed when the president changes.”
Bust B was shipped back to the library of the British ambassador’s residence."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...st-in-the-oval-office/?utm_term=.226cb664ea24
Click to expand...

President Barack Obama finally addressed an issue that has hung over the “special relationship” between the U.S. and the United Kingdom for almost eight years — the removal of a bust of Winston Churchill from the Oval Office.

Shortly after Obama took office he chose to remove from the White House a bronze bust of Britain’s wartime leader placed there by his predecessor George W. Bush. At the time, some in the British media treated it as a diplomatic snub and prima facie evidence of cooling relations with the U.S. The removal briefly resurfaced in the 2012 election after Mitt Romney’s ill-fated trip to Britain.

At a press conference during a visit to the U.K. on Friday, Obama confirmed that he had in fact removed the bust from the office to make way for one of Martin Luther King. “There’s only so many busts you can have before it starts looking a little cluttered in there,” he said.

http://time.com/4305062/obama-church...t-oval-office/
 
Stretch said:
President Barack Obama finally addressed an issue that has hung over the “special relationship” between the U.S. and the United Kingdom for almost eight years — the removal of a bust of Winston Churchill from the Oval Office.

Shortly after Obama took office he chose to remove from the White House a bronze bust of Britain’s wartime leader placed there by his predecessor George W. Bush. At the time, some in the British media treated it as a diplomatic snub and prima facie evidence of cooling relations with the U.S. The removal briefly resurfaced in the 2012 election after Mitt Romney’s ill-fated trip to Britain.

At a press conference during a visit to the U.K. on Friday, Obama confirmed that he had in fact removed the bust from the office to make way for one of Martin Luther King. “There’s only so many busts you can have before it starts looking a little cluttered in there,” he said.

http://time.com/4305062/obama-churchill-bust-oval-office/
Click to expand...

There were actually two busts. The one in question was on loan to Bush, to be returned once he left office.
 
smb said:
So what about people deciding for themselves whom to honor and whom not to honor in their own communities makes you uncomfortable? Should you and you alone decide for them who they should honor in their own communities?

Were patriot groups "snowflakes" for tearing down statues of British monarchs?

The notion that people can decide things for themselves must be highly distressful to you heh?
Click to expand...

:hand:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top