but now you're confusing a nation acting in defense as a nation acting off of ideology. the south didn't march on the north, the north marched on them. Nazis were aggressors in their conflicts

@brainbomb

"The confederacy did not murder as many people but they are a source of shame that brings down american greatness."

So... History according to brainbomb: before the American Civil War, there were good slavers and bad slavers. Good slavers are not a source of shame. They include Thomas Jefferson. He hated slavery, so he had only the slaves that a gentleman of his standing was expected to have. Apparently, that means around 600 people. Also, having 6 children with a slave doesn't count as rape if the slaver in question is Jefferson. In his case, it's love.

I didnt say he was a great person. But his contribution to american greatness absolutely overshadows the minor indiscretion of happening to own a few slaves.

"the minor indiscretion of happening to own a few slaves"

This is priceless. I can't even tell if you're joking.

Also the North marched on them... last I checked Hitler didnt march on us either. Dudnt stop us from fuckin his western flank up like it was christmas.

Im not joking because his contribution to American Greatness exists in a vaccuum from his actions as a slave owner. He didnt fight to uphold slavery. He is proven historically to have tried to get rid of it but seeing that it wouldnt pass he opted to do the 3/5 comprimise. Why do you think its called a comprimise?

But does his owning slaves make him deplorable? Yes.
Did he do amazong things to advance American greatness? UNQUESTIONABLY YES

It's fascinating how American greatness stops at the Mason-Dixon line.

By the way, brainbomb, whose statues would you tear down to appease the Indians? Or would that deflate your eagerness somewhat?

Not all southerners were bad either. That doesnt mean we need to keel up.monumemts of men who went to war to protect slave owners.

Thomas Jefferson wasnt fighting a war to keep his slaves. Theres a pretty significant body of evidence to show he found slavery detestable just as madison, washington and several others did

I wouldnt be building a fucking pipileline through their sacred lands!!! Thats a fuckin starter. Where to even begin helping their culture?? Weve trampled on them unjustly for so long.

I'm glad you agree. So, which men of marble do we tear down? All the American politicians of the 19th century?

Tearing down statues is not enough to appease what was done to Native Americans nor ancestors of the original slaves. We should do more. Far more. Some simple things would be perhaps actually give more opportunities to these communities. Give them better land that isnt barren and stuck in bumfuck nowhere with no sources of water. Give them better schools and stop convieniently placing 56 liquor stores a mile from their federal protected reservations

Sure, I'm all for it. But you were talking about destroying monuments. You started the blame game. Don't tell me you're folding now.

Theres other ways to appease people than just ripping up statues. Give BLM more of a voice for example. Force cops to stop murdering black kids for sport. How bout creating statues honoring slaves instead of slavers

No but removing statues of scumbags who fought and butchered black people is step 1. We can do plenty more.

I think you are deliberately obtuse just to be annoying. Nobody thinks like this other than Republicans hiding secret racist tendencies.

If you care more about a peice of metal honoring a guy who wanted slaves to be firever property -- then you most likely think that peice of metal is more important than the descendants of slaves themselves.

If you alternatively ARENT racist youd have no problem seeing a statue of a racist torn down

@brainbomb

"There's other ways to appease people than just ripping up statues."

Now you sound like someone who can be reasoned with.

"If you alternatively ARENT racist youd have no problem seeing a statue of a racist torn down"

Yes. I provided the example of Jefferson not to denigrate that great man, but to show you that there is always a context. And every statue or memory of someone from the Confederacy should be judged within the context of that age, not ours.

One way to appease people is to bow down before a foreign king like Trump just did in Saudi Arabia.

goddamnit Trump

Okay but the difference is a false equivalency.

Thomas Jeffersons monuments have nothing to do with the fact he owned slaves in fact it was a relatively irrelevant matter in why he is revered in American History.

The generals and slave owners of the south do not have much else to be memorialized for save for the fact they fought and died (or lived) to help keep a slave owning aristocracy in place.

Thomas Jefferson wasnt fighting to keep slavery intact he was fighting to build a nation that stood for Life Liberty and Happiness.

Your analogy would be like imagining that in some distant future it became a crime to serve meat because killing cows is deemed evil.

So in that analogy statues of anyone who ever ate meat should be ripped down regardless of considering what the monument even stood for.

(And yea sure - there may be a few southern generals honored for some conrributtion totally absent of slavery, though its rather counter intuitive to think that way since if he wasnt aiding the cause he was actually a traitor?)

https://www.monticello.org/site/plantation-and-slavery/thomas-jefferson-and-slavery


Thomas Jefferson and Slavery

Throughout his entire life, Thomas Jefferson was a consistent opponent of slavery. Calling it a “moral depravity” and a “hideous blot,” he believed that slavery presented the greatest threat to the survival of the new American nation.3 Jefferson also thought that slavery was contrary to the laws of nature, which decreed that everyone had a right to personal liberty.4 These views were radical in a world where unfree labor was the norm.

At the time of the American Revolution, Jefferson was actively involved in legislation that he hoped would result in slavery’s abolition.5 In 1778, he drafted a Virginia law that prohibited the importation of enslaved Africans.6 In 1784, he proposed an ordinance that would ban slavery in the Northwest territories.7 But Jefferson always maintained that the decision to emancipate slaves would have to be part of a democratic process; abolition would be stymied until slaveowners consented to free their human property together in a large-scale act of emancipation. To Jefferson, it was anti-democratic and contrary to the principles of the American Revolution for the federal government to enact abolition or for only a few planters to free their slaves.8

Although Jefferson continued to advocate for abolition, the reality was that slavery was becoming more entrenched. The slave population in Virginia skyrocketed from 292,627 in 1790 to 469,757 in 1830. Jefferson had assumed that the abolition of the slave trade would weaken slavery and hasten its end. Instead, slavery became more widespread and profitable. In an attempt to erode Virginians’ support for slavery, he discouraged the cultivation of crops heavily dependent on slave labor—specifically tobacco—and encouraged the introduction of crops that needed little or no slave labor—wheat, sugar maples, short-grained rice, olive trees, and wine grapes.9 But by the 1800s, Virginia’s most valuable commodity and export was neither crops nor land, but slaves.

Jefferson’s belief in the necessity of ending slavery never changed. From the mid-1770s until his death, he advocated the same plan of gradual emancipation. First, the transatlantic slave trade would be abolished.10 Second, slaveowners would “improve” slavery’s most violent features, by bettering (Jefferson used the term “ameliorating”) living conditions and moderating physical punishment.11 Third, all born into slavery after a certain date would be declared free, followed by total abolition.12 Like others of his day, he supported the removal of newly freed slaves from the United States.13 The unintended effect of Jefferson’s plan was that his goal of “improving” slavery as a step towards ending it was used as an argument for its perpetuation. Pro-slavery advocates after Jefferson’s death argued that if slavery could be “improved,” abolition was unnecessary.

Next time you wanna try to make me look like some absolutist with uninformed positions please actually do some research of your own.

*mic drop*

Here is one worth discussing.

http://kut.org/post/woodrow-wilson-statue-removal-prompts-closer-look-his-history-race-relations

Tell me what you think of a Statue of Woodrow Wilson being removed. A rather pathetic former President but still.a president nonetheless.

@brainbomb

"Next time you wanna try to make me look like some absolutist with uninformed positions please actually do some research of your own."

Posting walls of text in praise of Jefferson does not disprove the facts I mentioned. It does put them in context, which is exactly what I stand for.

@brainbomb

"And yea sure - there may be a few southern generals honored for some conrributtion totally absent of slavery."

General Lee is praised as the greatest military genius of the Civil War. The greatness of a general does not depend on what state system he fought for, or whether the war was lost. Hannibal is revered as perhaps the greatest general of all time. He fought for an aristocratic elite that practiced slavery and made human sacrifices.

@brainbomb

Your article says: "Officially, the university stated the Wilson statue’s removal was for aesthetic reasons." It makes the discussion purely theoretical, but considering what the article says about his racism, it doesn't look like anything major, so I'd keep him.

What I find more interesting is this: "Wilson himself was quoted in "Birth of a Nation," the controversial 1915 D.W. Griffith silent film. The then-president even screened the film at the White House that year. It was the first film to be screened at the White House."

As you probably know, "Birth of a Nation" is praised as one of the greatest films ever made, on par with "Battleship Potemkin." Now, since "Birth of a Nation" openly supports KKK, do you think it should be banned?

Zmaj the romans owned slaves and committed tons of atrocities in the name of conquest. Villifying Hannibal as being a monster doesnt explain at all what he was fighting against. Also slavery in the ancient world is no different than slavery in the 1860's it was awful. It always will be awful. Hannibal did more than those things you described and once again not only was the Punic wars not even about slavery it also was between two sides both having slaves. You cant paint that as a lesser of two evils.

Birth of a nation is a horrible film. Whoever thinks its great is actually in the kkk.

"You cant paint that as a lesser of two evils."

Oh, but I can. Rome was a republic. If Carthage had won, it would have been disastrous for the history of the West.

"Birth of a nation is a horrible film. Whoever thinks its great is actually in the kkk."

Don't get delusional on me, because we can't have a discussion then.