What does /his/ think about destruction of historical monuments for ideological reasons?

What does /his/ think about destruction of historical monuments for ideological reasons?

Link related
twitter.com/DerrickQLewis/status/897235297485901825

Other urls found in this thread:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corwin_Amendment
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Check the catalogue before you post another stealth Sup Forums thread.

I really don't care about that statue, what I care about is the defaming of lovely authoritarianism

Nothing good.

>muh southern pride.
should have gone full throttle on them desu.

There's nothing wrong with it.

take them out of public spaces, put them in museums. really not difficult decision at all.

Getting rid of a monument celebrating an evil thing is not "Erasing History" or "Hiding the Truth". The past still exists in history books, the classes you take at school, documentaries, etc. All these Soviet and Confederate statues are merely celebrations of the oppressors over the oppressed or other repulsive beliefs. Getting rid of all the Hitler statues did not "erase history" in Germany. On the contrary they teach more about Hitler than ever. Getting rid of Confederate statues will simply end a celebration of treason and oppression. We will in fact talk about the Civil War long after its last statue celebrating either side crumbles to dust, so we do not need to celebrate its villains as heroes.

>They start kicking the statue
Fuck me, America is such a meme country

Who are you talking to? No one in this thread has stated any of those things that you are arguing against.

There is nothing historically significant about that statue, this is just more alt-reich manbaby tears

>We will in fact talk about the Civil War long after its last statue celebrating either side crumbles to dust, so we do not need to celebrate its villains as heroes.
You don't see the irony contained within this statement?

>le good and le evil

SPOOKED.com

No one ITT said the statue was significant. What/Who are you arguing against?

The picture in the OP is literally arguing that the destruction of ancient works of art and history in the middle east is somehow equivalent to tearing down a bunch of propaganda pieces made in the 1920's and 1950's by bottomed southerners attempting to rewrite history.

No, it doesn't. Here's what actually happened: You like to say your opinions, which you consider to be very insightful, nuanced and deep, and take any slightest provocation to say them.

OP asked "What does /his/ think about destruction of historical monuments for ideological reasons?", but you decided to answer something completely different.

The OP's picture is no less a statement than his text. He put it there on purpose. If he disagreed with what it said he should have stated so. The picture clearly informs what question he's really asking. If you can't get that you're either obtuse or I've fallen for your bait.

>muh alt-right
Nice conspiracy theory there.

>Le spook man

Nice edge fag

Public art isn't necessarily celebratory or commemorative, it can simply be a tool to educate.

Also not every soldier fighting for the Confederacy was fighting for the right to keep slaves, it's incredibly disingenuous to present it that way, and it only encourages idiotic behaviour like in the op video.

This.

I'd like to point out how this comic is also dumb : there is no comparison to be made between Isis destroying ancient monuments and the local cities deciding to get rid of the statues. Like you said, these statues represents a symbol of oppression towards a large part of the local communities. While seemingly inoffensive, they still depicted figures and symbols that acted towards an institution that willingly put down racial communities in favour of another one. Their presence shouldn't be put in a public setting where they can be easily celebrated but put in a museum where they can be presented in context of what they stood for.

Meanwhile, ISIS is willingly destroying ancient monuments that stood for 2000 years and assassinating historians specialized in this period. ISIS has no intentions whatsoever to put into context these monuments more so that they obviously wants to erase them. Their view of Islam cannot, in their own mind, be inclusive with the notion that ancient civilization and religion lived before them. For a comparison, it's exactly the same mindset as Mao's Red Guards during the Chinese revolution when they set themselves to destroy any ancient Chinese artifacts (such as the cemetery of Confucius) in order to purify any non-communist aspect in the country.

So this comic is dumb on the simple fact that it compares local municipalities deciding to remove historical monuments in public places in order to better put them in context of what they represent with fucking ISIS. Aka, the sand niggers that decapitated an elderly man (who they branded as an heretic) because he refused to tell them where was the monuments he studied his entire life.

tl;dr yall are punk ass niggas that should stfu and let the academicians do their things.

The Confederacy existed for the sole purpose of defending and strengthening slavery. Even if they had a more immediate reason for enlisting the Confederate troops knew why the war was being fought and which side stood for what. Even if they owned no slaves the average Confederate soldier wanted to protect the institution thanks to Plantation owner propaganda that convinced them that slavery benefitted the poor white-man (It didn't). Sure not every Wehrmacht soldier was a die-hard Nazi, but we rightfully don't have memorial shrines to those who fought for Hitler.

This is some extreme mentaly gymnastry. Radicalized students vandalizing property is "local mucincipalities deciding to remove historical monuments in public places". If you didn't have an obvious political bias, you could make these same mental gymnastics to argue in favour of ISIS destroying monuments. They too are often a radicalized part of the community, just doing the communitys will and removing old monuments that are offensive to Islam.

Well it is pretty much iconoclasm of the left in the case of confederate war monuments. Where some might see a statue of Robert E. Lee and see a symbol of Southern identity and a man with great devotion and duty; others just see a symbol of a characteristically evil age and wish to wash their hands of it. I personally don't see the value in destroying historical monuments.

>I don't like Southerns
>REEE you can't leave the Union
>I don't like Southerns
>"We should've destroyed them"
You are a retard of the highest order and I say that as someone whose a pro-Union..

Antifa are recognized terrorist fascist political cultists.
Only ideas and thought that they agree with is worth saving.
Confederate men of history exist and have had valid contributions to modern society, lessons that are enduring regardless of time. Slavery as the main reason for civil war makes about as much sense as having a revolution over taxes over a box of tea.
I think slavery would not continue regardless of what side won. The war was just, for both sides im sure. America is mature, moral and intelligent enough to see its own past and acknowledge its own history.
Antifa, leftists, and their followers are the extreme of ignorance, hate, and intolerance. They are truly the ISIL terrorists in America and Europe.

Confederate war monuments were put up after Reconstruction to signal the old guard taking power back, and many were put up fairly recently. They stand *explicitly* as symbols of a treasonous movemet motivated (as they state in their documents of secession) by slavery and white supremacy. Their erection was just as much a political statement as their being taken down.

The artifacts and ruins destroyed by ISIS are thousands of years old and do not have any of this context behind them.

tl;dr we shouldn't have half-assed Reconstruction or we wouldn't be dealing with this bullshit today

Communists should be press-ganged into building new monuments to the Confederacy.

You'll notice that people who hate America the most are the loudest in their fake patriotism when the Civil War is mentioned.

Adding to this: The Confederate battle flag was only revived as a symbol in 1961, when it was put up at the South Carolina governors' mansion. Other than the Civil War centennial, it should be easy to guess why it saw a revival.

pretty much this. I think the confederacy got what it had coming but I still respect a man like Robert E. Lee.

I'm not a communist. I think that ex-Soviet towns have the right to take down Lenin statues too.

Patently untrue. You aren't fooling anyone with your ridiculous affectations of patriotism, either.

Couldn't give a shit about destroying monuments erected after the fact. Come back when they start desecrating battlefields or confederate grave yards or museums and then I'll start getting a little upset.
t. lefty

So by that reasoning the MLK guy emerging from unfinished stone statue should be torn down. Probably quite a few people disagree with its premise or execution. Does it have a right to exist?; because it's already written in some book on history, just destoy it no big deal.

even if they were a political statement and I don't agree with the political statement I don't agree with taking them down. Even if a statue of Hitler was erected on U.S. soil I would defend it solely because the fact that it was erected was an interesting part of history.

>Also not every soldier fighting for the Confederacy was fighting for the right to keep slaves
True, a lot of them were conscripted. However to my knowledge none of these monuments commemorate or serve as a somber reminder that a shitload of poor stupid fucks were forced to fight a way that in no way served their interest in order to allow a few wealthy faggots to continue their exploitation.

It's censoring history and an attempt to disown white southerners completely. It's also the future of Yankee land once people start to realize that Jefferson and Washington owned slaves as well

One solution is moving them to a confederate cemetery. Destroying it outright and unlawfully removes any chance of a compromise. Fuck these fags.

>The South fought for slavery and not independence meme
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corwin_Amendment

Seriously , fuck the schools in this country

>It's not the same because the statues aren't old enough
Are you fucking serious right now or this just how delusions liberals really are? They are symbols of southern independence and southern culture they aren't just symbols of slavery ffs

He's not delusional, he's disingenuous. People having authentic cultures is dangerous and needs to be stamped out so that the past can be re-written.

You misunderstand. We wanted the Southern STATES. The people were and remain useless.

>The Corwin Amendment is a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that would shield "domestic institutions" of the states (which in 1861 included slavery)
>included slavery
dingus they fought for independence in order to assure a future for slavery. Lincoln was not only part of an explicitly anti-slavery party, but was elected without a single southern state's delegates. this gave the south very good reason to suspect that the Republicans would be able to keep control of the presidency for the foreseeable future and be able to support anti-slavery policies with little resistance. this does not mean that anyone thought that abolishing slavery would happen if they stayed in the union, but they did have very good reason to think slavery had a dim future in terms of spreading to new states and therefore keeping the power balance between North and South.

This lmao. Yankee autism never ceases to amaze me.

You can have statues in remembrance of people without glorifying them

>Reject a future for slavery by refusing the rejoin the Union to have slavery protected
>B-b-but they fought the war to secure a future for slavery
Autism. Pure, 100%, hyper concentrated Yankee autism. The South fought for it's on independence in the tradition of the Jeffersonian American Ideal. This concept that has been pushed through the public school system that the South fought for slavery alone is hogwash, the North and South had sectional tensions since the revolution.

If you think the statue should be torn down you could petition city hall or something. But I wouldn't consider destroying that statue equivalent to destroying historical artifacts either.

>if you're not a neo-Confederate you're a communist

Fuck off.

The yeoman farmers that Jefferson idolized were actually the bases of Unionism in the South. While it's true they were generally skeptical of a strong central government, it's spelled out quite clearly in state documents of secession and in Alexander Stephens' cornerstone speech that the *main* motivation for Confederate secession was to preserve the institution of slavery.

Will there ever be an end to sou*hern butthurt?

>The Confederate battle flag was only revived as a symbol in 1961

>it's a "we get to use majority vote to start tearing down the minority vote's shit out of nothing but vitriol and hate" episode
We need to agree to some sort of not-fucking-with-each-other compromise, because it could just as well be your shit on the chopping block.

Neck yourself cunt, toppling a memorial to soldiers might as well be pissing on graves
Go to China where your cultural revolution already happened, your one-party Socialist Utopia awaits.

>Alexander Stephens'
>The entirety of the South
No, they seceded for independence in itself and the reason the South made slavery such a hot button issue was due to many factors, one of them being slavery in itself being very economical and the other factors having to do fear over the North using the slaves as political leverage to upset the balance of power within the country between the two warring sections. The declarations of secession also outline, amongst the preservation of slavery, a strong advocate for southern independence, states rights, and general jeffersonian ideals of democracy. The citation of Stephen's cornerstone speech you're thinking of is cherrpicked from the greater message of the speech and the rebellion in itself. Stephen's speech makes multiple references to these jeffersonian ideals as the spiritual successor of the magna carta and other such ideals which the South had ALWAYS disagreed with the North on.

>This new constitution. or form of government, constitutes the subject to which your attention will be partly invited. In reference to it, I make this first general remark: it amply secures all our ancient rights, franchises, and liberties. All the great principles of Magna Charta are retained in it. No citizen is deprived of life, liberty, or property, but by the judgment of his peers under the laws of the land. The great principle of religious liberty, which was the honor and pride of the old constitution, is still maintained and secured. All the essentials of the old constitution, which have endeared it to the hearts of the American people, have been preserved and perpetuated. Some changes have been made. Some of these I should have preferred not to have seen made; but other important changes do meet my cordial approbation. They form great improvements upon the old constitution. So, taking the whole new constitution, I have no hesitancy in giving it as my judgment that it is decidedly better than the old.

>The Confederate battle flag was only revived as a symbol in 1961
Tell that to the WW2 and Korea vets lmao

>Antifa are recognized terrorist fascist political cultists.
Stop calling them fascists. It makes it that Marxists shouldn't have to own their shit.

>4 years of separatist rebellion are the same as centuries of history of many ancient peoples

>The Confederacy only represents the rebellion
No it represents Dixie's history since revolutionary times

>celebrating an evil thing
>Getting rid of a monument is not "Erasing History"
> Soviet and Confederate statues are merely celebrations of the oppressors
>Getting rid of all the Hitler statues did not "erase history" in Germany
>On the contrary they teach more about Hitler than ever

>it represents Dixie's history since revolutionary times

What are you trying to say? Do you know how to greentext?

>the sole purpose of

do you know what "sole" means?

>ITT

Statues are meant to commemorate more than educate. You don't see statues of Hitler or Stalin although they had a much bigger impact on history than many historic figures with statues.

These statements are all idiotic. Read a book nigga

I don't really want to bother with explaining it to you.

a better analogy would be tearing down a soviet era war memorial like the angel of stalingrad

>Statue was specifically "For the boys who wore the gray"

>This helps my side so its good!
>This hurts my side so its bad!

This is why both sides are shit.
Restore the republic.
>8/9/48 BC MUST COMMENCE AGAIN!

Bullshit. These Confederate memorials came in two big waves, between the world wars and during the civil rights movement. they have no actual history to them. They were an attempt at both historical revisionism and to intimidate blacks who in both era's were starting to agitate for their rights.

there's literally nothing wrong with it. the nazis acting like moralfags and pretending they would not destroy every piece of culture they perceive as detrimental to their ideology are funny though

>tfw to inteligent not to support the conservation of nazi, confederate and soviet monuments

Completly untrue you blind fool.

Im german with little american history knowledge and even I know that.

Whats happening here is the same thats happening to old bundeswehr they are starting to rename all of them from things like "Bismarck Barrack" and other german military heroes to shit like "NRW Bundeswehrkaserne #2"

They are erasing national history in order to make globalism more attractive to the next generation/s

fyi to all these indoctrinated yankee libshit university types.

The south fought for independence and not slavery.
(most democrats were slave owners)

>the nazis
The nazis were defeated in WW2.
As much as you want to pretend they are German nationalists, they are just angry Americans that got fucked over when we shipped all of our jobs overseas.

Calling them nazis is like when the Christians called Atheists, Jews, Gays, SJW's, and Muslims all Satan worshipers.

You yankee pseudo good people throw the word nazi around way too much.
Nazis dont exist anymore. If anything they are racists not nazis.

US universitys are really fucking shit these days Id assume. Given what kinda people come out of there.

my point is that there's literally nothing wrong with destroying culture if it clashes with our ideology. if the people objecting to this are not nazis good for them, I don't care.

>censoring history
lol no it's not censorship. It's deciding as a community not to celebrate a certain aspect of history.

I agree. There is a statue of Lenin in Seattle. We should tear it down because it is an affront to million of victims of communist swines, who butchered, enslaved and oppressed indiscriminately all across the globe, everywhere where their repugnant ilk showed up.
The existence of such filth is the greatest failure of 21st century.

Will they ever stop destroying our beautiful historical art?

>my point is that there's literally nothing wrong with destroying culture if it clashes with our ideology.
>It's perfectly OK to re-write history and destroy any old historical proof that conflicts with my telling of history

Why are you even on this board?

Your point is that historic revisionism is ok when it conflicts with YOUR ideology.
Sounds like ISIS and other extremists to me.
Why the fuck do you even come to this board?

>lets rewrite history so it fits our narrative for coming generations

youre the worst kind of human.

did I advocate for revisionism of history? No, I didn't, I said nothing of the kind.

This, assuming the South did anything wrong (which they didn't.)

>a statue of in memory of local soldiers outside a courthouse isn't necessarily celebrating them

>did I advocate for revisionism of history? No, I didn't, I said nothing of the kind.
You may not think you did. But you did.
Statues are literally symbols of history.
We only know what some important ancient people looked like, because of statues.


Your original post suggests we are ok with tearing down "evil communist statues". Here is when it is only acceptable to tear down a statue: When the statue was recently built (less then one generation old) and the people tearing it down are directly (one generation) related in some way to the people who put it up.

Your actions today create history.
Once your actions are settled its history.
If you today go and destroy something that is already settled, you are doing revisionist history.

Destroying a statue because I think my great great grandpa was a slave is revisionist history. Same goes for people destroying cold war monuments in 2017.

>Jeffersonian American Ideal
jeffersonianism is absolutely degenerate ideal that anyway is highly compatible, if not supportive of, slavery.

>If you today go and destroy something that is already settled, you are doing revisionist history.
so this... is the power of traditionalism.

It has nothing to do with Traditionalism.
It has nothing to do with politics at all.
What separates us from the animals is our ability to pass on knowledge to our children.
The passing of knowledge is what advances society.
We learn to avoid the mistakes of the past and copy the successes.
What we preserve today will be in the history books of tomorrow.

It's a crime against humanity to destroy knowledge.


If you think i'm wrong please tell me why.

>(most democrats were slave owners)
what are implying here? I'm afraid that you'll say something retarded like "the democratic party in 1861 is the same as the democrats today". If you say that, you really might consider going back to high school.

Dont try to talk sense into him.
Hes some extremly narrow minded american uni student. Hes not thinking for himself, hes saying what hes been told. I already know what kinda look he has in his eyes while talking.

the OP asks: What does /his/ think about destruction of historical monuments for ideological reasons?
I reply: nothing wrong with it.

case closed. there's no revisionism here. if you destroy something important you're creating history, not revisioning, just adding.
go be a faggot somewhere else

t. Ahmad al-Marxismi

Meanwhile, in Norway, we have statues of Vikings and kings that tortured people

>Statues are literally symbols of history.
statues made a century after a secessionist war built for the purpose of celebrating oppression and intimidating blacks in the age of jim crow? really? when the ancestors of those blacks are still around and still are subject to discrimination in a great variety of ways?

>this is what impotent anti white cucks actually believe

what people did they torture?
did at any point the torturees or their descendants gain political power in Norway?

when they do, you'll see the statues coming down. that's how it always is.

>built for the purpose of celebrating oppression and intimidating blacks in the age of jim crow
It does not matter what the purpose of the statue is. It's history.
The purpose of concentration camps was to exterminate all races the Germans found to be inferior. And we do not tear them down, because we do not want to repeat that history.

The south lost. Those monuments are a symbol of the defeat.
They are literally statues of failed men.
This history must be preserved.

>when the ancestors of those blacks are still around and still are subject to discrimination in a great variety of ways

The ancestors of all people are still around, they are moving forward creating new history.

It seems to me that your only argument is:
Blacks are oppressed by history so lets destroy it.
And that is unacceptable.

Great retort.

>built for the purpose of celebrating oppression and intimidating blacks in the age of jim crow
Unless you can provide an anecdote of someone commissioning these statutes for that purpose, you're just speculating. It's probably far more likely that these statues were comissioned for nostalgiafags to remind them of 'the good old days'. But then again, my speculation is no more or less valid than yours, since I've provided no proof either.

Memes

FUCKING MODS STOP MOVING HISTORICAL DISCUSSIONS TO Sup Forums.

WE CAN'T HAVE A SERIOUS DISCUSSION ON Sup Forums!!!!!!!!