Thread of Statue Removals

[Paul Wesley 3,313]

Oh, and I think Dorie Miller was from Waco, right?  

Seems close enough to Killeen to make a worthy and appropriate namesake.  

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,708]

5 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

Mildly surprised by this. Senate committee, led by the GOP, holds a voice vote to pass the renaming requirement. I would have thought their line would be that there are more pressing issues and refusing to discuss.  Now perhaps the gop senators really don’t care if they’re renamed given that I assume any of the people in question have been dead for 140+ years. Or perhaps they want confederate honor a debate topic for trump. Odd.

the voice vote is a good move. The individual gop senators can walk the line of support or nonsupport depending on the question.

[MaybeACoordinator 8,350]

3 hours ago, Paul Wesley said:

Oh, and I think Dorie Miller was from Waco, right?  

Seems close enough to Killeen to make a worthy and appropriate namesake.  

He was Navy. Benavidez is a Texan soldier. He earned the right. 

[DigglerontheHoof 21,516]

12 hours ago, mdmost said:

NASCAR announced they are banning Confederate flags at their races. 

They can always fly them at the trump rallies. 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,708]

4 hours ago, Paul Wesley said:

I was born in the south, grew up in the south, and I am "of" the south.  From early childhood, I heard the heritage/history arguments in favor of the Confederate flag.

But lately it occurs to me that this country isn't going to get to where it needs to be until the average southern man sees the stars and bars along the same lines as he sees Nazi flags.  They're symbols of people who fought in favor of genocide, slavery, and murder.  I don't think there's much of a distinction between the systems they represent. 

I'm kind of shocked that NASCAR (!!) would take such a step.... but it gives me hope.   

Agree it’s surprising but then again I’m willing to bet that few vehicles if not zero had a confederate flag. Few Corp sponsors, that can afford to sponsor a car, would share space with the confederate flag. Maybe there was one but it would be rare. I also assume that the tracks themselves did not have confederate flags officially as NASCAR voluntarily asked everyone including fans to not display it years ago.

The real question is whether it will or even can be enforced. Flags, shirts, tattoos. Is NASCAR going to ask people to leave, cover them, or take down flags?  It’s an ambitious goal to go after your fan base for their behavior but not alienate them. Especially given that a certain percent of them don’t even agree it’s a problem.

i don’t think George Floyd’s death will remove all of the confederate items out there but his death certainty pushed it forward by a large scale.

[wildcat09 29,559]

13 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

“Party of Lincoln! Republicans freed the slaves!”

But also, “Don’t erase the confederacy!”.

Like, how does the cognitive dissonance and double speak not burn their brains?

What brains?

[Mrs Whiggins 13,050]

8 hours ago, HenryJames said:

 

Here is the quote from the article. It's from his Facebook page:

Quote

“Well its been a fun ride and dream come true but if this is the direction Nascar is headed we will not participate after 2020 season is over, i don’t believe in kneeling during Anthem nor taken ppl right to fly what ever flag they love. I could care less about the Confederate Flag but there are ppl that do and it doesn’t make them a racist all you are doing is f****** one group to cater to another and i ain’t spend the money we are to participate in any political BS!! So everything is for SALE!! Sarah Ciccarelli”

Do you wonder if one used the wayback machine on his account how the Rainbow flag would fare?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

I’m glad they are using the word “beheaded” instead of “statue with missing head.”  It really brings home the message to the looters in power that people are really fucking pissed.

[Asithappens 978]

8 hours ago, Paul Wesley said:

I was born in the south, grew up in the south, and I am "of" the south.  From early childhood, I heard the heritage/history arguments in favor of the Confederate flag.

But lately it occurs to me that this country isn't going to get to where it needs to be until the average southern man sees the stars and bars along the same lines as he sees Nazi flags.  They're symbols of people who fought in favor of genocide, slavery, and murder.  I don't think there's much of a distinction between the systems they represent. 

I'm kind of shocked that NASCAR (!!) would take such a step.... but it gives me hope.   

Good post. While I read it I thought I could hear screaming and bullwhips cracking.

[Mrs Whiggins 13,050]

Cakes left at the WH entrance might remind those that "there is a prodigious strength in sorrow and despair."

 

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,708]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

McSally, Tillis and Ernst are all on that committee. I wonder if it was an unanimous vote or where they stood. Low poll numbers motivate politicians.

[StassneyHorn 6,755]

26 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

McSally, Tillis and Ernst are all on that committee. I wonder if it was an unanimous vote or where they stood. Low poll numbers motivate politicians.

Was a voice vote, Hawley, the Senator from Missouri that a good number of GOP think has a presidential future said he voted NO. 

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/502218-senate-panel-votes-to-require-pentagon-to-rename-bases-named-after

Edited June 11, 2020 by StassneyHorn

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

2 hours ago, StassneyHorn said:

Was a voice vote, Hawley, the Senator from Missouri that a good number of GOP think has a presidential future said he voted NO. 

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/502218-senate-panel-votes-to-require-pentagon-to-rename-bases-named-after

Hawley might be the biggest grand dragon in the GOP.  He knows all the cryptic dog whistles, like better than David Duke.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

 

[workswithseed 2,201]

 

[hayden_horn 11,401]

so i have a few thoughts on this. 

i've long said we need to pull down the confederate statues. why we honor traitors is beyond me. i was pleased when the university removed the south mall statues. we have actual texan heroes to honor. why do we need jefferson davis on the south mall? easy: we do not.

however, complex questions about a guy like thomas jefferson can engender some interesting conversations. the sum of a person's life is bigger than his worst moments. jefferson was a founding father with a penchant for slave rape. however, without his writings and thoughts, the framework for eliminating slavery might never have happened in america. so i think a jefferson monument is worth having, as long as we are honest about his bad acts, since he was fundamental in the formation of this nation in which we reside.

sure robert lee was a great general with a sharp tactical and strategic mind. he served our country valiantly prior to turning traitor. who else resembles that? you don't see any statues of benedict arnold in dc or new york, do you? more importantly, lee was not shoved into confederate leadership. he had a choice. he bought his ticket, i say let him crash.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,708]

12 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

 

When I watched the crowd throw the statue in the river/harbor in the UK, there was a rope or two dangling off it it. I was hoping no one was holding it or had it somehow wrapped around themselves.  Easy to hurt yourself when trying to use brute force to move something that isn't meant to be moved.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

48 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

why we honor traitors is beyond me.

These are shrines to white supremacy.  People say the Civil War was fought over slavery but I believe it’s more accurate to say it was fought over white supremacy and the only thing that was resolved at the end was slavery.  The white supremacy never stopped in our laws, our culture, our politics. 

The confederacy saw themselves as the real America, one controlled by Christian white men, George Washington was a hero to them too.  It was the North that was treasonous to their racist “American values.” 

The statues are a reminder that white supremacy was never defeated, only concealed in plain sight. 

Edited June 11, 2020 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Paul Wesley 3,313]

57 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 like better than David Duke.

Slow Burn (podcast) season 4 is about Duke.  First episode is out.  

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

 

[bad_teammate 13,481]

2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

but but but MY HISTORY

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Some flag history:

 

[formermav43 4,607]

1 hour ago, hayden_horn said:

so i have a few thoughts on this. 

i've long said we need to pull down the confederate statues. why we honor traitors is beyond me. i was pleased when the university removed the south mall statues. we have actual texan heroes to honor. why do we need jefferson davis on the south mall? easy: we do not.

 

Of course, many of our Texan heroes are traitors and slave owners. In fact, the Texas "Revolution" was fought at least in part to secure Texas for slavery against a Mexican government that was trying to stamp it out.

[Llano Estacado 1,257]

so i think a jefferson monument is worth having, as long as we are honest about his bad acts, since he was fundamental in the formation of this nation in which we reside.

 

That’s how I feel about that hypothetical calculatin' son of a gun Colombo. Did he do terrible things to both Natives and his first colonist, absolutely. But he did them under a 500 year old lens. We’re walking on a continent that was called Colombia by most of the world for at least a period of time. Our Capital District bears his name.

 

Hispaniola wants to remove every trace of a monument, I get it. But colonization by brutal European forces was going to happen with or without Columbus. Death of thousands of indigenous people at the hands of European conquerors was going to happen in the 1500s with or without Columbus. He was just the first western European to make landfall and at that time that’s what gets recorded in the history books.

 

Additionally, you can’t retract what he meant to generations of minority Spanish and Italian immigrants to the US.

 

Remember the good with the bad.

 

Sidebar - I assume renaming military bases is as easy as renaming schools. Aside from merging or separating parishes/counties a hundred years ago, have any municipalities or counties had a name change in the last few decades? I assume that’s going to generate a tremendous amount of legal paperwork in 2020.

 

 

 

[hayden_horn 11,401]

2 minutes ago, Llano Estacado said:

 

That’s how I feel about that hypothetical calculatin' son of a gun Colombo. Did he do terrible things to both Natives and his first colonist, absolutely. But he did them under a 500 year old lens. We’re walking on a continent that was called Colombia by most of the world for at least a period of time. Our Capital District bears his name.

 

Hispaniola wants to remove every trace of a monument, I get it. But colonization by brutal European forces was going to happen with or without Columbus. Death of thousands of indigenous people at the hands of European conquerors was going to happen in the 1500s with or without Columbus. He was just the first western European to make landfall and at that time that’s what gets recorded in the history books.

 

Additionally, you can’t retract what he meant to generations of minority Spanish and Italian immigrants to the US.

 

Remember the good with the bad.

 

Sidebar - I assume renaming military bases is as easy as renaming schools. Aside from merging or separating parishes/counties a hundred years ago, have any municipalities or counties had a name change in the last few decades? I assume that’s going to generate a tremendous amount of legal paperwork in 2020.

 

 

 

for some reason, austin decided to rename manchaca road and achieved that goal. but i don't know of any cities or counties.

[HenryJames 67,116]

18 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

There is tons false propaganda that has a been spread about Columbus over the last few decades, and even more that is currently circulating on social media. It is almost entirely all bullshit.  Here are some facts:

• The primary goal of Columbus with his voyages was to meet the Grand Khan of China to set up a trading post to fund a campaign to take back Jerusalem from the Muslims.  He thought the end times were approaching and that Christians having control of Jerusalem was very important for this to occur.  He wanted everyone on the planet to be baptized, which is why he repeatedly asked the Spanish to send priests to the New World in order to baptize the natives so that they would be saved from damnation.  This may seem like an outdated medieval view to the modern secular viewpoint, but those were his intentions based in his worldview.  
• Columbus believed the people he encountered would be citizens of the great Chinese empire, and so it would not be possible to enslave them.  Also, under Spanish law baptized people could not be enslaved.  Why would he want to baptize all the natives if he knew he could not make them slaves in that case?  The truth is he had no intention of creating a massive slave trade of the people who he believed were subjects of the greatest empire in the world.  His goals were to set up trade and to evangelize.  
• In fact, Columbus never owned a slave.
• Columbus never killed any natives and repeatedly gave commands to his men to “not go marauding, pillaging, raping the women, or enslaving people.”  There are records of him punishing his men when he caught them mistreating the natives.  
• Columbus had a very high opinion of the natives and formed strong friendships with many of them.  From his diary:  "I believe that in the world there are no better people or a better land. They love their neighbors as themselves, and they have the sweetest speech in the world; and [they are] gentle and always laughing."
• After the first voyage, Columbus took 6 natives with him back to Spain. All were baptized, which was his goal with the natives, and thus could not be enslaved. The son of one of the chiefs of the indigenous people became his adopted son.
• There were slaves that were sent back eventually on the third or fourth voyage.   However, his men were the ones who captured the natives while Columbus was away looking for the Khan, and once he returned he had to decide what to do with them.  They believed the captured natives were cannibals, and Columbus believed they were better off returning to Europe as slaves where they could eventually learn the gospel instead of staying in their depraved cannibalistic state.  Also, the papal law at the time allowed for cannibals to be enslaved.  Again, these views are not in line with modern secular views, but the point is that slavery was never the main goal for him.  
• Columbus never ran a child sex slave operation.  This is a ridiculous bit of propaganda based on a quote in which he complained about the practice.  From the Dartmouth Review:  In his oft-quoted letter to Dona Juana de la Torre, Columbus stated, “There are plenty of dealers who go about looking for girls; those from nine to ten are now in demand, and for all ages a good price must be paid.” Many of Columbus’ detractors have claimed that this sentence indicates the explorer’s complicity in the trade of sex slaves. However, when taken in context with the following lines from the letter, “I assert that the violence of the calumny of turbulent persons has injured me more than my services have profited me; which is a bad example for the present and for the future. I take my oath that a number of men have gone to the Indies who did not deserve water in the sight of God and of the world,” we see his explicit condemnation. Although we can never be completely certain of Columbus’ actions in the Caribbean, it is clear in his writings that he wholeheartedly disavowed the sexual traffic of minor indigenous women.
• I know reading primary sources directly without people summarizing for us to tell us what it’s supposed to mean is not preferred by the twitter crowd, but you can read the full letter the quote is taken from here.  Quote is on page 12.

So why is there such a terrible image of Columbus these days as a relentless greedy slave trapper who routinely murdered and oppressed the new world natives?  This mostly started with Howard Zinn's portrayal of him as such a villain.  Zinn was not an expert on Columbus and relied on snippets from other researchers and he mostly quoted highly edited sections of Columbus letters with lots of ellipses to remove important context.  Zinn knew very little about Columbus and of course the man himself wasn't the point of any of his writings.  His goal was to remove symbols of traditional American ideals and to replace them with socialists and other folks that held political views in line with his own.  He was very open about this in interviews, making statements that we should replace old heroes like Columbus with folks like Helen Keller because she was a socialist.  Here he explains why Hllen Keller should be a model for school children in lieu of Columbus:  “People don’t learn in school, young people don’t learn in school, what we want them to learn when we do books like Young People’s History of the United States, that Helen Keller was a socialist, she was a labor organizer.”

 

So after decades of overt propaganda from a socialist with a clear agenda being poured into the ears of all college graduates, and now with twitter has amplified this nonsense, people think Columbus is a villain without ever reading any of the primary sources on any attempt to understand his life within the times in which he lived.  People even want to tear down statues of Columbus that were erected as symbol against racial discrimination in protest against one of the largest lynchings in US history.  

[4th&Five 41,904]

racist tweet about preserving racist monuments.

[Ghost of LL 15,664]

27 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

Of course, many of our Texan heroes are traitors and slave owners. In fact, the Texas "Revolution" was fought at least in part to secure Texas for slavery against a Mexican government that was trying to stamp it out.

This is dead wrong.  Slavery was illegal in Mexico, but the ban wasn't enforced in Texas.  And there is no evidence that it was a motivating reason for the Revolution.

Look at the Texas Declaration of Independence.  It's a mess.  It's an absolute grab-bag of every possible reason anyone there at Washington on the Brazos could have for declaring independence.  And you know what gets not a single mention?  Slavery.

Oh, but GOLL--they were just being politically correct.

Bullshit.

When Texas actually did declare independence because of slavery in 1861, it had no problem declaring the reason and stating it for all the world to see.  

[HenryJames 67,116]

1 minute ago, Ghost of LL said:

When Texas actually did declare independence because of slavery in 1861, it had no problem declaring the reason and stating it for all the world to see.  

Shit, look at every state’s articles of secession. They’re pretty fucking explicit.

[Post Oak 20,551]

19 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

racist tweet about preserving racist monuments.

He's so close to stroking out.  So so close. 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,708]

52 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

There is tons false propaganda that has a been spread about Columbus over the last few decades, and even more that is currently circulating on social media. It is almost entirely all bullshit.  Here are some facts:

• The primary goal of Columbus with his voyages was to meet the Grand Khan of China to set up a trading post to fund a campaign to take back Jerusalem from the Muslims.  He thought the end times were approaching and that Christians having control of Jerusalem was very important for this to occur.  He wanted everyone on the planet to be baptized, which is why he repeatedly asked the Spanish to send priests to the New World in order to baptize the natives so that they would be saved from damnation.  This may seem like an outdated medieval view to the modern secular viewpoint, but those were his intentions based in his worldview.  
• Columbus believed the people he encountered would be citizens of the great Chinese empire, and so it would not be possible to enslave them.  Also, under Spanish law baptized people could not be enslaved.  Why would he want to baptize all the natives if he knew he could not make them slaves in that case?  The truth is he had no intention of creating a massive slave trade of the people who he believed were subjects of the greatest empire in the world.  His goals were to set up trade and to evangelize.  
• In fact, Columbus never owned a slave.
• Columbus never killed any natives and repeatedly gave commands to his men to “not go marauding, pillaging, raping the women, or enslaving people.”  There are records of him punishing his men when he caught them mistreating the natives.  
• Columbus had a very high opinion of the natives and formed strong friendships with many of them.  From his diary:  "I believe that in the world there are no better people or a better land. They love their neighbors as themselves, and they have the sweetest speech in the world; and [they are] gentle and always laughing."
• After the first voyage, Columbus took 6 natives with him back to Spain. All were baptized, which was his goal with the natives, and thus could not be enslaved. The son of one of the chiefs of the indigenous people became his adopted son.
• There were slaves that were sent back eventually on the third or fourth voyage.   However, his men were the ones who captured the natives while Columbus was away looking for the Khan, and once he returned he had to decide what to do with them.  They believed the captured natives were cannibals, and Columbus believed they were better off returning to Europe as slaves where they could eventually learn the gospel instead of staying in their depraved cannibalistic state.  Also, the papal law at the time allowed for cannibals to be enslaved.  Again, these views are not in line with modern secular views, but the point is that slavery was never the main goal for him.  
• Columbus never ran a child sex slave operation.  This is a ridiculous bit of propaganda based on a quote in which he complained about the practice.  From the Dartmouth Review:  In his oft-quoted letter to Dona Juana de la Torre, Columbus stated, “There are plenty of dealers who go about looking for girls; those from nine to ten are now in demand, and for all ages a good price must be paid.” Many of Columbus’ detractors have claimed that this sentence indicates the explorer’s complicity in the trade of sex slaves. However, when taken in context with the following lines from the letter, “I assert that the violence of the calumny of turbulent persons has injured me more than my services have profited me; which is a bad example for the present and for the future. I take my oath that a number of men have gone to the Indies who did not deserve water in the sight of God and of the world,” we see his explicit condemnation. Although we can never be completely certain of Columbus’ actions in the Caribbean, it is clear in his writings that he wholeheartedly disavowed the sexual traffic of minor indigenous women.
• I know reading primary sources directly without people summarizing for us to tell us what it’s supposed to mean is not preferred by the twitter crowd, but you can read the full letter the quote is taken from here.  Quote is on page 12.

So why is there such a terrible image of Columbus these days as a relentless greedy slave trapper who routinely murdered and oppressed the new world natives?  This mostly started with Howard Zinn's portrayal of him as such a villain.  Zinn was not an expert on Columbus and relied on snippets from other researchers and he mostly quoted highly edited sections of Columbus letters with lots of ellipses to remove important context.  Zinn knew very little about Columbus and of course the man himself wasn't the point of any of his writings.  His goal was to remove symbols of traditional American ideals and to replace them with socialists and other folks that held political views in line with his own.  He was very open about this in interviews, making statements that we should replace old heroes like Columbus with folks like Helen Keller because she was a socialist.  Here he explains why Hllen Keller should be a model for school children in lieu of Columbus:  “People don’t learn in school, young people don’t learn in school, what we want them to learn when we do books like Young People’s History of the United States, that Helen Keller was a socialist, she was a labor organizer.”

 

So after decades of overt propaganda from a socialist with a clear agenda being poured into the ears of all college graduates, and now with twitter has amplified this nonsense, people think Columbus is a villain without ever reading any of the primary sources on any attempt to understand his life within the times in which he lived.  People even want to tear down statues of Columbus that were erected as symbol against racial discrimination in protest against one of the largest lynchings in US history.  

I think most of the anger towards Columbus is more what he represents in how the Old World pillaged the New World (conquest and disease) and not as much his personal actions. Saying Columbus wasn't personally so bad, doesn't mean much in that context.

Also there are always problems when putting contemporary ideals on history. And Columbus and his peers were an extremely long time ago. The American Revolution is closer in time to COVID-19 than they were with Columbus.

Edited June 11, 2020 by Nice Guy Eddie

[formermav43 4,607]

5 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

This is dead wrong.  Slavery was illegal in Mexico, but the ban wasn't enforced in Texas.  And there is no evidence that it was a motivating reason for the Revolution.

Look at the Texas Declaration of Independence.  It's a mess.  It's an absolute grab-bag of every possible reason anyone there at Washington on the Brazos could have for declaring independence.  And you know what gets not a single mention?  Slavery.

Oh, but GOLL--they were just being politically correct.

Bullshit.

When Texas actually did declare independence because of slavery in 1861, it had no problem declaring the reason and stating it for all the world to see.  

Well the part about them being traitors and slave owners isn't dead wrong, obviously.

But I'd disagree that slavery wasn't a motivating factor for the Texans. While you're correct that the ban wasn't enforced in Texas, there is evidence that the Mexican government was planning some new legislation - even emancipating slaves and encouraging revolt in order to combat the Anglo Texans. If you have a JSTOR account, check out "Slavery and the Texas Revolution" in the October 1985 Southwestern Historical Quarterly.

[MaybeACoordinator 8,350]

2 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

Well the part about them being traitors and slave owners isn't dead wrong, obviously.

But I'd disagree that slavery wasn't a motivating factor for the Texans. While you're correct that the ban wasn't enforced in Texas, there is evidence that the Mexican government was planning some new legislation - even emancipating slaves and encouraging revolt in order to combat the Anglo Texans. If you have a JSTOR account, check out "Slavery and the Texas Revolution" in the October 1985 Southwestern Historical Quarterly.

Or read Randolph Campbell's An Empire for Slavery.

As for the Declaration, of course they weren't going to say the slavery part out loud -- they wanted material and moral support from civilized nations. In fact you could make a case for the thicket of verbiage that avoids the slavery question as a gigantic smokescreen for the real reason they wanted to part ways with Mexico City.

Or you could look into the business dealings of heroes like Bowie, Fannin and Travis. 

[relapse98 634]

16 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I think most of the anger towards Columbus is more what he represents in how the Old World pillaged the New World (conquest and disease) and not as much his personal actions. Saying Columbus wasn't personally so bad, doesn't mean much in that context.

Yup. It's not Columbus they are mad at. It's "Columbus" and everything that came after that they are mad at. Defend him all you want, that won't change the feelings because it's the after that is not great.

[Ghost of LL 15,664]

8 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

Well the part about them being traitors and slave owners isn't dead wrong, obviously.

But I'd disagree that slavery wasn't a motivating factor for the Texans. While you're correct that the ban wasn't enforced in Texas, there is evidence that the Mexican government was planning some new legislation - even emancipating slaves and encouraging revolt in order to combat the Anglo Texans. If you have a JSTOR account, check out "Slavery and the Texas Revolution" in the October 1985 Southwestern Historical Quarterly.

For the most part, they weren't traitors.  The Tejanos certainly were.  But most of the Anglos hadn't been in Texas long enough to become citizens.  So they weren't traitors.  They were adventurers.

But regardless, there is one document in which the rebels declared the reasons for independence.  That document is silent on slavery (though it is very loud on any number of other things).  Reading slavery into it is mere speculation, and not particularly good speculation.

That's not to say that there weren't people who fought for or favored independence who were motivated by slavery.  But they didn't declare independence.  The body that declared independence identified its reasons for declaring independence.  Slavery wasn't among them.  And imputing that motive to them is really ahistorical.

2 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

Or read Randolph Campbell's An Empire for Slavery.

As for the Declaration, of course they weren't going to say the slavery part out loud -- they wanted material and moral support from civilized nations. In fact you could make a case for the thicket of verbiage that avoids the slavery question as a gigantic smokescreen for the real reason they wanted to part ways with Mexico City.

Or you could look into the business dealings of heroes like Bowie, Fannin and Travis. 

The Confederacy wanted material and moral support from the rest of the world.  But when Texas seceded, it had no problem identifying slavery as the reason for its action.

Moreover, slavery wasn't anathema to the civilized world in 1836.  It was still legal in French and Dutch colonies and in British India.  There is absolutely no basis to believe that the inclusion of slavery in the Declaration of Independence would've prevented France and Britain from recognizing the Republic of Texas.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,708]

If you say people are making up stories about Columbus, that's unfair but does it really matter? Over time, actions of a group or culture get thrown onto the backs of the leaders of that era. Columbus had a good run for a long time so if he gets treated unfair, who cares. Even his descendants shouldn't take pride or shame in his actions or accomplishments because its so far removed from them. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

 

[formermav43 4,607]

47 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

For the most part, they weren't traitors.  The Tejanos certainly were.  But most of the Anglos hadn't been in Texas long enough to become citizens.  So they weren't traitors.  They were adventurers.

But regardless, there is one document in which the rebels declared the reasons for independence.  That document is silent on slavery (though it is very loud on any number of other things).  Reading slavery into it is mere speculation, and not particularly good speculation.

That's not to say that there weren't people who fought for or favored independence who were motivated by slavery.  But they didn't declare independence.  The body that declared independence identified its reasons for declaring independence.  Slavery wasn't among them.  And imputing that motive to them is really ahistorical.

Your entire argument rests on a single document. THAT'S ahistorical.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

 

[SimonBolivar 11,036]

2 hours ago, Axiom of Choice said:

There is tons false propaganda that has a been spread about Columbus over the last few decades, and even more that is currently circulating on social media. It is almost entirely all bullshit.  Here are some facts:

 

• There were slaves that were sent back eventually on the third or fourth voyage.   However, his men were the ones who captured the natives while Columbus was away looking for the Khan, and once he returned he had to decide what to do with them.  They believed the captured natives were cannibals, and Columbus believed they were better off returning to Europe as slaves where they could eventually learn the gospel instead of staying in their depraved cannibalistic state.  Also, the papal law at the time allowed for cannibals to be enslaved.  Again, these views are not in line with modern secular views, but the point is that slavery was never the main goal for him.  

 

 

This is just one point of your broader point, but this was the justification of every apologist of slavery. It certainly wasn't a unique position and was a point used often by Muslim enslavers of Christians of the era. 

Edited June 11, 2020 by SimonBolivar

[4th&Five 41,904]

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Chuck Schumer sucks so much.

1. The Tubman $20 isn’t the hill to fight on right now.  

2. The confederate generals fought to preserve white supremacy, which includes slavery.

3. Chuck can’t bring himself to openly call Trump a white supremacist or even a racist.  His statements always lack backbone and he tweets like a pundit sitting at home on his couch.

[SimonBolivar 11,036]

39 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

I imagine so.  I didn't mean to imply this was valid moral justification for it, but offered to give background on the situation that (1) Columbus didn't round up the slaves personally, it was his men who did so while he was away (they frequently defied his orders), and (2) he then had to decide what to do with them and did what he thought was the better option as returning them may have posed bigger problems as there were atrocities committed between tribes including captives/slaves being taken.  It doesn't justify it, but the point is slavery was never his goal of the expeditions and he clearly had much less interest in it than many of his contemporaries.  Slavery was a common facet of human life for most of human civilization in virtually every culture including the indigenous peoples of the world.  For some reason people will look back and fixate on some particular person as the culprit for all of it.  Columbus never even owned a slave and did his best to get all natives baptized, which would have made it illegal to enslave them.  No reason to focus all the moral outrage of slavery onto him.  

That's the kicker.

What is the point of the statues to Columbus? What is the celebration? He didn't acheive his goal and the result was a catastrophic disaster for millions of people. I just don't get what we're supposed to take from the statue? Is it...

Quote

If you're loud enough with your bad math/science then you too can inadvertantly kill 90% of the population of a new continent while being too stubborn to realize you're thousands of miles away from where you think you are?

If it's an ode to exploration then throw up statues of countless explorers that knew what they were doing. I guess if we're trying to celebrate the growth of the power of Spain then you could honor him, but I'm not sure why cities in the United States would give a shit about the Spanish Golden Era.

Edited June 11, 2020 by SimonBolivar

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

That’s a shame.

[MaybeACoordinator 8,350]

Dick Dowling and the Spirit of the Confederacy to be moved in Houston.

This will be Dowling's third or fourth move...He was the first Houstonian to be honored with a statue, decades before Sam Houston himself...Because Houston had been a "traitor" to the Confederacy. 

 

 

[bolverk 30,242]

15 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

The point and intent behind any given statue varies.  For the one in Columbus Circle, as I mentioned up thread it was erected as symbol against racial discrimination following one of the largest lynchings in US history. 

You seem to be implying that it was constructed in response to those lynchings, which is entirely inaccurate as it had been in planning stages for at least two years and was explicitly constructed to as part of NYC's celebrateion of the 400th anniversary of Columbus' arrival in America.

The monument was one of three planned as part of the city's 1892 commemoration of the 400th anniversary of Columbus' landing in the Americas. Originally, the monument was planned to be located in Bowling Green or somewhere else in lower Manhattan. By the time Russo's plan was decided upon in 1890, a commission of Italian businessmen from around the United States had contributed $12,000 of the $20,000 needed to build the statue (equivalent to $341,000 of the $569,000 cost in modern dollars). The statue was constructed with funds raised by Il Progresso, a New York City-based Italian-language newspaper.

Russo created parts of the Columbus Column in his Rome studio and in other workshops in Italy; the bronze elements were cast in the Nelli Foundry. The completed column was shipped to the United States in September 1892, to be placed within the "circle at Fifty-ninth Street and Eighth Avenue". Once the statue arrived in Manhattan, it was quickly transported to the circle. The monument was officially unveiled with a ceremony on October 13, 1892, as part of the 400th anniversary celebrations.:287

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbus_Monument_(New_York_City)?wprov=sfla1

 

[bolverk 30,242]

1 minute ago, Axiom of Choice said:

It was planned in an era of strong discrimination against immigrants.  It took on additional significance due to the lynching and the events that followed, and those events provided additional meaning at the time of the unveiling.  It remains an icon for many Italian Americans to this day. 

Do you think we should remove it?

No, I don't personally think it should come down, because I don't consider the intent of its construction as an FU to Native Americans unlike the Confederate statues. That said, I do appreciate the angst they must feel about their land, culture, and history being taken from them by our ancestors.

I've never considered it in this light, but I just thought of the comparison of romantic nostalgia some southerners feel about the past to that of Native Americans and was like "whoa." It shouldn't even be close.

[MaybeACoordinator 8,350]

The line between Columbus and the Confederates runs straight through the Founding Fathers.

Buckle up.

When we smash these idols, we also question the ideals behind them. Right now we are questioning the very morality of this nation's existence as seldom? never? before.

[bolverk 30,242]

The horse is out of the barn on the nation's founding, and the best we can do in moving forward is live up to the ideals we supposedly espouse: liberty and justice for all. Unfortunately, we don't have the power to do that retroactively.

Edit: I know those words probably sound trite...glib...hollow and fully recognize the statement comes from a place of profound privilege, but I mean them sincerely.

Edited June 12, 2020 by bolverk