Red Mosquito

elliseamos wrote:Watching it a few more times I think the skateboard broke.

elliseamos wrote:Watching it a few more times I think the skateboard broke.

Toward the end of the speech, however, Scott gave voice to the kinds of explicitly racist ideas that modern defenders of Confederate monuments generally no longer air publicly. The “crowning glory” of Confederate soldiers, he declared, was their service “during the nightmare called the reconstruction,” when they “boldly, aggressively, and intentionally overrode the letter of the law, that they might maintain the spirit of the law and preserve Anglo Saxon civilization.” Rather than singling out the war itself, in other words, Scott called attention to Confederate soldiers’ actions in the Reconstruction years that followed, when the former Confederate states were reincorporated into the Union and white southerners violently resisted the elevation of black southerners to full equality.

[...] We have been told repeatedly that these monuments were the products of grief. But in reality, as Scott made clear, they were a celebration. On that day in May 1906, he could stand atop the dais confident that he and the assembled crowd still enjoyed the Herrenvolk democracy that the Confederate defeat and Reconstruction had, for a time, threatened to overturn. It was a day of jubilee. Scott did not want to reflect upon what had been lost, but rather, what had been won.

BurtReynolds wrote:So she dismisses nearly everything as mere "boilerplate"... Oh ok. "These aren't monuments to grief because some politician a hundred years ago threw in a bit about reconstruction at the end in some flailing attempt at a silver lining! It's not about the war at all. Got 'em!" Lol it's so clear.

What would an acceptable monument to honoring dead confederate soldiers look like to carpetbagging journalists and professors? If even one possible racist at some point was even mildly associated with it, does that discredit the entire thing? Just admit there isn't an acceptable monument and the south isn't allowed to honor their dead because of slavery, so we can have the real conversation.

Strat wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:So she dismisses nearly everything as mere "boilerplate"... Oh ok. "These aren't monuments to grief because some politician a hundred years ago threw in a bit about reconstruction at the end in some flailing attempt at a silver lining! It's not about the war at all. Got 'em!" Lol it's so clear.

What would an acceptable monument to honoring dead confederate soldiers look like to carpetbagging journalists and professors? If even one possible racist at some point was even mildly associated with it, does that discredit the entire thing? Just admit there isn't an acceptable monument and the south isn't allowed to honor their dead because of slavery, so we can have the real conversation.

You dont care though burt

Bi_3 wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

Strat wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:So she dismisses nearly everything as mere "boilerplate"... Oh ok. "These aren't monuments to grief because some politician a hundred years ago threw in a bit about reconstruction at the end in some flailing attempt at a silver lining! It's not about the war at all. Got 'em!" Lol it's so clear.

What would an acceptable monument to honoring dead confederate soldiers look like to carpetbagging journalists and professors? If even one possible racist at some point was even mildly associated with it, does that discredit the entire thing? Just admit there isn't an acceptable monument and the south isn't allowed to honor their dead because of slavery, so we can have the real conversation.

You dont care though burt

When they come for the Washington Monument and Jefferson Memorial, he'll care.

Strat wrote:i wonder who hates antifa more? burt or trump?

Strat wrote:i wonder who hates antifa more? burt or trump?