Was Robert E Lee even a racist? I never really knew anything about him beyond him being a good general. A quick skim through his biography tells me that he was largely indifferent to politics and didn't mind blacks. He joined the Confederate cause purely because he was loyal to Virginia. Perhaps if you tried educating the protestors instead of mowing them down with a car you may have got them on your side. Too late now. It's a shame he's become a white supremacist symbol because that's not really what he stood for.
On the other hand I fully support the protest to get rid of the Cecil Rhodes statue in Oxford, that guy was a total white supremacist, no doubts there.
All I know is I killed him in Assassin's Creed III so he must've been a bad guy
Dominic Collins
Yes, but so were 99% of other white people at the time. Anti-racism didn't really become a thing until the 1930s, and even then, it was very small until the late 1950s.
Adam Parker
It doesn't matter, he was a loser like the rest of the south.
Daniel Moore
He was a 19th century WASP. He'd have considered petty racism beneath him, though he would have been entirely realistic about the capablities and capacities of other races.
Gabriel Fisher
Quick Rundown
Gabriel Martinez
>On the other hand I fully support the protest to get rid of the Cecil Rhodes statue in Oxford, that guy was a total white supremacist, no doubts there.
Why would you support the taking down of a statue of a significant figure from the British Empire, just because he had racial views that were very common for his time?
Would you also support taking down any statues of Winston Churchill too? He had views that would almost certainly be viewed as racist by 'liberal' 21st century Western standards.
Jayden Richardson
Robert E Lee was a traitor to the Confederate cause and as a Southern Nationalist, I have no problem with removing his statues. He was an aristocrat Yankee loving carpetbagging cuck that was his generation's equivalent of Jeb! or Paul Ryan. An overrated General, an overrated leader, he surrendered to a literal drunk and should have been hung for treason.
Matthew Collins
>educating the protestors Like trying to a teach a pigeon how to play chess.
Mason White
>Was Robert E Lee even a racist
Everybody back then was a racist you idiot. Lee didn't have a strong opinion about slavery but didn't believe the federal government had a right to interfere with it in the south. Also nobody actually cares about Robert E Lee, this is just your usual cultural war between the alt right and lefty faggots using his statue as a proxy.
Luis Kelly
He was racist but everyone then was so it's nothing special. He was disappointed by the confederacy though and refused to be buried in his confederate clothes. His college he opened was opened to anyone as well. Jefferson Davis later on disavowed the confederacy as well. They both moved on.
Cameron Roberts
No no the "everybody was racist back then" argument doesn't wash with Rhodes, that guy was hardcore. I forgot the details but I think he even pissed off Queen Victoria or the Colonial Office at one point with his treatment of the natives. And even if you ignore the white supremacy he was a warmonger who started the Boer War for personal profit. He was an all round terrible person.
Chase Richardson
If it wasn't for Lee your war would have been over by Christmas. Also if it wasn't for Lee the Southern people would have been mercilessly punished. Lee's charm and grace on the battlefield and in diplomacy is why the surrender was so amicable. He is like one of those "good-bad guys" like Rommel or Saladin.
Taking down his endowment is wrong. It should be kept, but repurposed if it so triggers people. The idea that history should be erased rather than repurposed is insulting.
Grayson Bailey
The people of Charlotteville at one point respected him enough to immortalize him in statue form. Why not just respect the wishes of those people? All removal of art like statues or swastikas for political reasons is just as bad as the mindless vandalism of ISIS against religious icons.
Adam Williams
For the South the war was more about States Rights.
The States believed they should be able to keep slavery and felt like the Federal government was going to take that away from them. So they left the Union.
Lincoln said you can't leave the Union it doesn't work like that. War.
War goes terribly for North and then Lincoln makes it about slavery to make sure YOU (Great Britain) don't intervene on behalf of the south to get cheap cotton.
Then we got Grant and Sherman. Grant basically walked up to his knees in blood and forced the south to quit
Lee was basically a military genius and a loyal Virginian.
Camden Howard
Lee was a good man and one of Virginia's three main heroes along with Washington and Jefferson.
Grayson Wright
Please be joking. Was that really part of the game?
Easton Miller
It was the 1800s. Both sides were racist. The south wanted slaves, the north didn't want blacks at all.
Jaxon Moore
He was a good man. Jews are trying to erase his memory and the rest of the Confederacy, strictly to protect their own.
>Jefferson Davis later on disavowed the confederacy as well
source? yes, they both moved on because the CSA ceased to exist but they never regretted it and still honored the cause. Davis even wrote multiple books about the confederacy defending it.
Joseph Hughes
Daily reminder that in NYC during the Civil War...
For 3 days Irish people burned down the city and killed black people because they didn't want to get drafted to free black people
They had to send in troops and start shooting people to break it up
Abolitionists were basically the SJWs of America and they started the war by forcing to down the throat of American politics in such a way that the south blew up
Noah King
>Perhaps if you tried educating the protestors instead of mowing them down with a car you may have got them on your side.
No, leftists can't be "educated" about anything. They are insectile antihumans, and have been insectile antihumans for all of modern history.
Jacob Lee
How many "heroes" of the past would be considered to be terrible people if judged by modern standards? I just think its weird, this selective and as far as I can tell uniquely Western guilt over historical figures, even to the extent of removing statues etc, because of the hurt feelings of others, often the descendants of the conquered (who unsurprisingly have a more negative opinion of such historical figures, and quite rightly so from their perspective)
To take another example to show how weird modern Western 'liberal' attitudes are to some of their historical figures, when compared to the rest of the world, consider the following example from Mongolia - in that country there is plenty of appreciation for Ghenghis Khan, with him almost being considered father of the nation now (promoted by the government too), including many statutes of him, many recently built, including the massive one in pic related - that statue was only finished in 2008! (And they are still adding lots of smaller statues of Mongol warrior cavalry near the main Genghis statue).
Rather than being ashamed of Genghis Khan for his conquests, they are proud of him.
Are the Mongols wrong for this, in your opinion, considering the huge death toll of the Mongol conquests? Should the Mongols take down those statues of Genghis Khan, because of the negative results (huge number of deaths, rapes, destruction etc) of his actions? Serious question, I'm honestly curious what your answer is?
Bentley Evans
Of course they aren't wrong. Liberals hate their own history. More specifically liberals hate white history.
There is nothing wrong with taking pride in your past. Mongols were great warriors who conquered a mighty empire. Might as well take pride in that because Mongolia is never going to be relevant again
Christian Perez
Nope
Cameron Baker
>The North wanted to end slavery in the South Completely wrong. The argument was actually about whether new territories admitted to the union should be slave states or not. And this wasn't actually even the main reason for war, it was tarrifs. The North was industrial so benefited from high tarrifs but the South was agricultural and thus benefited from low tarrifs. Staying in the union was ruining the Southern economy. Everebody likes Caesar, his campaigns were pretty genocidal by modern standards. Nobody cares about medieval/ancient times.
Chase Brown
White are superior To state otherwise is lying Cecil Rhodes was simply telling the truth Superiority is offensive to the inferior It makes them fearful and angry
Camden Diaz
It doesn't matter now becausee eve mention of the past will label you a regressive nazi and any attempt to have a discussion on cultural trends or social norms will do the same.
Sebastian Adams
Saw a rather long movie called "Gods and Generals". About the civil war, more specifically the Southern Generals of the civil war. This is one of the first scenes as I recall. youtube.com/watch?v=aeGBpTFZhh4 The movie was okay btw..
Lucas Campbell
>On the other hand I fully support the protest to get rid of the Cecil Rhodes statue in Oxford traitor
Julian Richardson
I'm not white.
Nathaniel Cooper
I disagree, I have Arab and Iranian friends that still have strong dislike/hatred towards Genghis Khan and his Mongolian descendants for the devastation that Mongol armies inflicted on the Middle East during the Mongol conquests. Just because the West doesn't care so much, doesn't mean others forget so easily. I was surprised too actually, when discussing Genghis Khan and his legacy, how negative their attitudes still were.
Similarly, the bloody and arguably genocidal military campaigns of Oliver Cromwell in Ireland make opinions of him often negative among the Irish - considering the negative deeds of Cromwell, should his statue be removed too from in front of Parliament?
But more importantly, it was your point that the problem with the statue of Rhodes was not the era he lived in, but the bad nature of his character, him being a "terrible person" - why then, would it be more appropriate to create or keep statues of figures that could arguably also be considered "terrible" people by modern standards, simply because they lived during an earlier era? If your category for taking down statues is that they are "terrible" people" (by modern standards), why then give pride of place anywhere to statues of those who could be seen as committing serious historical misdeeds against others?
