(September 14, 2017 at 11:26 am)Khemikal Wrote: I see, in one of Bennys responses to Thump above..that there is a notion that people argue for these statues to be removed because they are "offensive" to them. As though this were the most pressing issue when it comes to said statues. It is not. They are not what they purport to be. They do not explore our history.,..they distort them. Their existence is not required for racists to keep thinking racist thoughts, or for racists to keep saying racist things. Their removal, however...-is- required for us to acknowledge our actual history, and to fulfill the promise of our our own highest laws - which is exactly the fucking thing the civil war was fought over. These things far exceed any "offense" people take at the sight of them, or at the notion of them being removed.That's a bullshit argument. You acknowledge "actual history" by engraving a set of tablets with the Robert E. Lee wikipedia page, so people can read and understand exactly what he was, what he did, and how he's currently viewed by different segments of society.
But go ahead, tell me exactly how our accurate view of history will be enriched by removing the statue of a historical figure from public lands. So far, you haven't made this argument in a particularly compelling way.
Quote:The acceptence of genteel bigotry was precisely what the confederacy agitated for, from the word go. Today, we see Totally Not Racists arguing for the same in an even more "civil" form. It's appaling. I;m just glad it;s a fuckin canandian doing it, for once, and not my cousin Cletus.Stop with this false dilemma bullshit: "Either you're against displaying a Robert E. Lee statue, or you are a bigot." That's weak.