|
AtUrCervix -> RE: Okay, if statues of southern gererals are promoting racism... (8/16/2017 4:57:15 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jlf1961
I have a really stupid question of you liberals who are insisting that the statues of Confederate Generals and Confederate War Dead memorials are racist.
If any these represent the forced subjugation of a race (please remember that some of these confederates served with distinction in the War with Mexico) and that is a perfectly good reason to remove these statues and memorials, then there are some others that I would suggest be removed as well.
Statues of General Philip Sheridan, great general in the Union army, burned a lot of white southerners out of their homes and farms, confiscated livestock in his march down the Shenandoah, he also instituted the US Army policy that legitimized the massacres of Native American men, women and children.
Clearly, a man of racist beliefs, famously saying "the only good indian is a dead indian."
So, lets take his statue down.
While we are at it, how about the statue immortalizing Gen. G.A. Custer? While he died with the 7th at little big horn, he also commanded a the 7th during an attack on an Indian village he listed as hostiles (didnt matter they were actually ON the reservation in the Indian Territories at the time.)
How about the statues of every president that authorized the US government's violation of every damn treaty the Government made with Native Americans? Including the ones to President Jackson, who, in defiance of the US Supreme court still ordered the forced removal of the Cherokee and other tribes from the south eastern states?
Not only was the original treaty violated, but thousands died on the trail of tears.
Lee was no saint, neither was Washinton, and Jefferson fathered children with his slaves.
The simple fact is this, the Liberals are great at condemning anything to do with the Confederacy and the civil war, lets destroy the statues, lets tear down the memorials, etc.
But I have yet to see a fucking liberal stand up and make the same statement about 'heroes' who had some really great victories, like the slaughter of starving old men, women and children in the name of "manifest destiny."
The real reason they want these memorials removed is because the south lost.
Yes, hundreds of thousands were held in slavery in the south.
Millions of Native Americans died either directly under the sword of US army troops, or by starvation on reservations with ground so poor weeds were the only thing that would grow and being given rancid beef to eat by a 'benevolent government.'
The men that fought for the south, did so out of the belief they had a justified cause. The men that rode down on defenseless native americans can slaughtered them, cut off dead women's breasts or a brave's scrotum to make tobacco pouches did so because they believed they were supporting a justified cause.
The truth is that both sides, both armies were wrong, the difference is that the North won, the Confederacy and Indians lost.
There is a universal truth, the Victors write the Histories.
Funny thing, a statue of a general, or a memorial to men killed in battle do not honor some racist philosophy, it honors their sacrifice, they died fighting defending their homeland, nothing more, nothing less. The average southern soldier did not come from a slave holding family, or own slaves himself. He was usually a draftee, who did not want to be there in the first place.
It is no different than the war graves of German soldiers from both world wars. Especially in the second world war, the great majority of German soldiers were not Nazi's, hell many of the officers were not Nazi's, but their graves remain undisturbed. Left in piece with the understanding that they died not for a cause, but for home.
Hell people, leave it alone, it happened a 152 years ago, it is history. If you people decide to remove every memorial that tarnishes the history of the US, you are going to be destroying a lot of statues. Many heroes of the Union commanded troops that massacred thousands of Native Americans. Hell almost all of them would have been arrested for crimes against humanity in modern times.
As for the 20th century, Eaker and everyone in the US army air corpse knew that precision daylight bombing was a joke, they knew that for every bomb that fell on the target 10 fell anywhere but the target.
Then there was the firebombing of Japanese cities. Christ, damn near a million Japanese civilians died in those raids.
And please do not forget, only one country in history has used an atomic weapon in anger, the United States.
Let you Liberals who are for this eradication program in on a secret.
At the end of World War Two, the allies were going to put Admiral Karl Dönitz on trial for crimes against humanity for his campaign of unrestricted submarine warfare, along with every surviving uboat officer.
There was one good reason it never happened.
The Commanders of the US Submarine forces in the Pacific went to the war crimes officials and told them that the US followed the same principle in the pacific, sinking warships, transports, freighters, and passenger ships without warning.
Go ahead, erase these men from history, but remember some of the statues are not for their service to the south, but their contributions either before or after the war.
it happened a 152 years ago, it is history.
(Flawless).
|
|
|
|
