Which public statues should be removed, if any, and why?

The important thing to understand about statues is, that they were not erected to commemorate the depicted figure, but to celebrate them.
So when you have statues of people that fought on the side of evil, like Saddam, Stalin, Hitler, or in this case, literal traitors that fought for the preservation of slavery, of course they should be torn down.

Removal of statues is good.

It’s not just in the South. Chris Columbus statue was beheaded here in the North End in Boston. Also, check out this here in Boston.

All the Jim Crow statues need to be removed. Some need to be preserved in a different location and context provided as to why the statue was really erected and why it was removed so that people in the future will understand the history behind the Jim Crow era. Statues that have genuine history unrelated to that era should remain and needed context provided. They should not be removed by a mob under the cover of darkness or in a protest. The state must remove them.

Because in truth we really don’t “need” statues.
Museums may need them to draw the tourists crowds in and for tax purposes perhaps.?

All public erections should be banned.

None. Move them if you want, but don’t get rid of them. It is the modern day version of book burning. If we try to ignore our history, we are doomed to relive it. We don’t have to like where we come from, but we should at least remember it…learn from it. Not to mention those that are screaming for trashing statues and vandalizing them have no real clue sometimes. I give you the statue of Matthias Baldwin as a prime example. His statue in Philadelphia was vandalized by the same people trying to get rid of Civil War statues. After all, we can’t have statues of people from the South! Well, Matthis Baldwin was a strong advocate for abolitionism, he fought for the right of blacks to vote and founding a school in Philadelphia for black children. But the ignorant fools just saw a statue and hated it.

My neighbor has one of a mackerel jumping over a large sphere with a water feature. I’d be happy if someone took that one down.

None!

Any that majorly offend and are images of enemies of the state as it is now, and are displayed on public property.

Look at Germany – no statues of Hitler and now they’ve completely forgotten about him and his regime.

Good or bad, disassociate a culture from it’s past and it affords license to create another one.
Mao and Robespierre’s “Reign of Terror” come to mind.

@lucillelucillelucille: “Good or bad, disassociate a culture from it’s past and it affords license to create another one.”

Maybe you could elaborate on how tearing down celebrations/tributes to injustice is “disassociating” a culture from its past.

It seems to me that the ones tearing down these things are far more aware of this culture’s history.

@hmmmmmm -The very nature of removing historical figures disassociates people from their past.
This is precisely what Mao and Robespierre did.
Robespierre redefined terms.
You can read all about it in history books unless those have been disassociated or burned as well.

^ Nobody is removing historical figures. Books have documented their brutality quite well. People are expressing their desire to not honor or celebrate these people. Can you see the difference?

What is it in particular about bad art (statues) that is supposed to be educational in a way books are not?

Should we shift to representing our history in the form of statues? What would be a good way of representing – in statues – the genocide of native people, slavery, white supremacy, xenophobia, imperialism, and unnecessary human suffering that makes up our history?

Hey, you should put a large, triumphant statue of Emperor Hirohito on Pearl Harbour. You know, to “remember history”.
Or maybe one of a smiling Osama Bin Laden playing with a toy plane and a WTC model, right next to the new tower.

Well, I guess many people think it is as offensive as a statue of Ted Bundy would be to women (and hopefully to men as well.)

White man came to North America. The ancestors made them feel welcome, and let them spend the night.
The thankless visitors did not leave. They extended hospitality which was not theirs to give. They invited more, and more of their kind, pushing back the native people.
Holy ground was decimated. Valued treasures and historic depictions were destroyed.
Native people were told they must not celebrate their ways, or follow their beliefs. Languages and history have been lost forever.
You carve the faces of your heroes to look over the land you banned the native peoples from.

Even so, I believe statues should not be destroyed. It is those depictions by which we remember these atrocities, and what kind of people committed them. Those people claimed to be doing God’s work. They raped and killed innocent souls, and it goes on today.
Now, those same who call themselves righteous wish to erase the sins of the past by destroying the markers of those sins. I say they should remain, so when the true hosts of the land reclaim her, the guilty can look upon the faces of their predecessors and curse them for bringing them to a place they do not belong.

Books. How accurate are books? Do criminals not keep two sets of financial records? One is true, the other is not.
History is written in the way feverish sick minds see fit to write them.
Don’t expect your uppity puritan bullshit to be believed by everyone. No matter how long your statues remain, the innocent will live on, long after they have seen your kind crumble.
The people will look upon the stone faces, and it will be a reminder of the crookedness.

The dark men were brought against their will, but so what? It was their own people who sold them to the whites. Evil walks with them just as it walks with the white men. Just as the whites, they make their home here. The dark men wail about the injustices done to them, but once given their freedom they remained in a land where they do not belong, and call it home.

None were invited by the hosts of the land, the keepers of her bounty.

@hmmmmmm -History is not. at least in a free country, sacrificed on the alter of political expediency or whim.
As for artwork, whether it be a sculpture,painting,book or film, should it be banned if it depicts people or unsavory events? Guernica anyone? Rape of the Sabines? Piss Christ? I am not one for banning art, no matter how pissed off it makes me.
There’s no safe spaces on history’s campus.
@Patty_Melt-“Even so, I believe statues should not be destroyed. It is those depictions by which we remember these atrocities, and what kind of people committed them.” Exactly

@lucillelucillelucille: “History is not. at least in a free country, sacrificed on the alter of political expediency or whim.”

That sentence doesn’t mean anything – especially as a response to the issue we’re talking about. If you want to get philosophical about the concept of “history”, we can have this discussion, although I find it far less interesting than the current topic.

@lucillelucillelucille: “As for artwork, whether it be a sculpture,painting,book or film, should it be banned if it depicts people or unsavory events?”

Again, I think you might be arguing about something else altogether. I thought we were discussing people tearing down public statues. Nothing is being banned. What exactly are you referring to here?

@lucillelucillelucille: “There’s no safe spaces on history’s campus.”

Now this is something we can agree on. But…I’m finding it difficult to make a connection to this and what we’re discussing.

I suspect you’re seeing speech and expression that offends you (the destruction or removal of statues), and you are looking to maintain a safe space that allows oppressors to make public speech in the form of statues that honor and celebrate evil men. Opposition to this orthodoxy is threatening in this context, and it threatens the safe space you have enjoyed for your whole life.

It’s time that conservatives be forced to leave their safe spaces and allow for political expression that doesn’t conform to politically correct white fragility.

Also, it should be easy to identify and empathize with an oppressed people who see public celebratory displays of their oppression as part of the problem. If you feel that these statues should be in a museum, nobody would complain. In fact, watch the video I linked to in my first comment in this thread. If you didn’t want these destroyed and felt that they had historical value, they should reside in museums, which is where these things belong.

@lucillelucillelucille the problem is that statues aren’t like movies or books or paintings. The latter are created through an individual’s perspective and they don’t necessarily have to take any sides think documentaries, whose main point is to show events for what it is. But when people see a statue, they immediately know that the person it depicts is meant to be honored. You can make books or movies out of anything, but there needs to be some sort of collective agreement for a statue to be erected. If we really need to compare, I would compare statues with propaganda media. They are both meant to shape people’s opinion in a certain way, and they both cause problems if the message is controversial.

That said, I think there is a need to document history. If we need to record a statue, maybe we can make a small copy of it in a museum, or just a photo of it is fine. It’s one thing to see a statue in a museum, it’s another thing to see it on the street.

I think move them to a museum, or even a specific area that is outdoors that represents America of the past and hopefully changing.

Any statue that evokes a fear that a whole group of people, including government, wants to kill your people, you aren’t going to like that statue being up. If I had to walk by a statue of Hitler every day on my way to work, and I knew millions in my country protested to keep the statue up, I’d be pretty flipping terrified. It already is frightening enough having confederate flags around.

Keeping the statues up is an endorsement by the government that the feelings, and I go as far to say fears, of our black citizens are being ignored. It’s like an insidious message that things still are not equal and there are still people who don’t want society to be equal, or even worse.

At minimum the statues should have information at the base of the statue stating the South lost its battle to keep slavery, but you know that’s not likely, because too many Southerners think the war wasn’t about slavery.

All junk food mascot statues should be removed. Like Ronald McDonald. Purveyor of diabetes. None know exactly how many people have died from junk food. I’m not loving it. I do order out at night when I don’t have any groceries for the midnight snack.

@RedDeerGuy1 I would agree. Reminds me of when Adam West, as mayor of Quahog, spent the city’s entire budget on a golden statue of Dig ‘Em, the Honey Smacks frog.

Some things certainly don’t need to be celebrated, and holding human beings as slaves is certainly one of those things. They all need to come down.

I just read that protesters toppled and defaced a Thomas Jefferson statue in Portland. How deep should these things go?

@ARE_you_kidding_me: “I just read that protesters toppled and defaced a Thomas Jefferson statue in Portland.”

Can you imagine why?

@ARE_you_kidding_me: “How deep should these things go?”

What’s that mean?

@hmmmmmm Sure he was a slave owner but he was no KKK leader or Confederate general. That’s no Jim Crow statue. What’s next cancel the Declaration of Independence because the author owned slaves???

^ Why do you have a problem with this? If people feel that they don’t want to have a celebratory monument at a high school for a guy who owned 600 slaves and felt that black people were inferior, what’s it to you?

This isn’t that difficult to understand, is it?

Guess I shouldn’t care if people break into the national archives and wipe their hind end with the Declaration of Independence either by that logic.

If enough people really want that statue gone then it should happen through proper channels.

@hmmmmmm So, when will it stop?

@ARE_you_kidding_me: “Guess I shouldn’t care if people break into the national archives and wipe their hind end with the Declaration of Independence either by that logic.”

…or people start marrying their toaster oven.

Come on, you understand what this is about. Don’t pretend this is about breaking into national archives, etc. Don’t insult my intelligence by pretending you believe this nonsense.

Let’s review…

- Statues are celebrations of these people, are in public, and people are angry and don’t want to have state endorsement of these people in celebration.
– Museums are perfect places for these things, as everyone repeats over and over.

So, if you want to explain why you thought it might be interesting to talk about national archives, go ahead. But that’s not what we’re discussing here and you know it.

@ARE_you_kidding_me: “If enough people really want that statue gone then it should happen through proper channels.”

“Proper channels” don’t get shit done. Too late. If you want it moved to a museum before we destroy these things, then you go through the “proper channels”.

@kritiper: “So, when will it stop?”

What is the “it” in this question, and what are you asking?

You should know that Thomas Jefferson wrote the declaration of independence. I don’t care if someone wants to marry their toaster. None of my business. Putting a statue in a museum is perfectly fine. Just willy nilly pulling it down in protest is not. It’s just criminal vandalism, I don’t care how you want to justify it. Where does it end? The “it” is how deep do you have to dig to address racism.

Imagine if you are a descendant of a slave and then come across records that show who at that time “owned” your Ancestor and worked them hard and cruel .

Now imagine what you would feel upon coming across a “Statue” honoring that slave owner.

Eventually one would come to destroy that statue as it is a despicable memory attached to it for many.

Much like as if one were to go to your relatives tomb only to see that someone had defaced it with graffiti.

The Statue is defacing the memories of Ancestors and in there face everyday, of course anger would erupt and it would be torn down, as a meaning “we will not take this anymore”!

If this happened to YOU then you would understand from where the pain is coming from and try to lesson it somewhat, right?

Remove and move to a museum or elsewhere out of Public parks,streets , institutions etc

Time to understand, heal and help..

@ARE_you_kidding_me: “It’s just criminal vandalism, I don’t care how you want to justify it.”

Well, you at least you’re honest about which side you are on.

@ARE_you_kidding_me: “Where does it end? The “it” is how deep do you have to dig to address racism.”

What does that mean? “Address racism”? You need to pretend that I’m outside your bubble (I am) and explain what you are referring to.

Those statues have remained untoppled for centuries.
Clearly the “proper channels” do not work in this instance.
The same reason that ‘Whistleblowers’ are a necessity.

It means what exactly I said. What’s it going to take to get racism to end, to heal the damage done. There is no bubble here. What do you think it’s going to take.

@ARE_you_kidding_me: “It means what exactly I said. What’s it going to take to get racism to end, to heal the damage done. There is no bubble here. What do you think it’s going to take.”

I don’t know. I have ideas on actions that can be taken to address the material effects of racism. But it seems as though you are tying the “how to end racism” to “when are people going to stop tearing down racist statues”? Aren’t they different questions altogether?

You are expressing your disagreement with people tearing down or vandalizing statues. That appears to be your concern.

@ARE_you_kidding_me
“What’s it going to take to get racism to end, to heal the damage done”?

I believe that racism will end when we ALL have an equal standard of living and NO one is below another.

Racism will always exist in some form as it is a “Bully Mentality” where the majority go after the Minority in any group.

Religions,Race color,Cultures,Beauty standards, whats acceptable in a community..every area is targeted throughout History.

It is simply because a Minority stand out in a Majority and thus targeted.

“IF” everyone had an “EQUAL” standard of living this would not happen.

I don’t think a mob tearing down statues addresses anything other than anger at the current moment. You have to force the institution that erected it to remove it. That’s when you know things are moving where they need to. If the channels are still rancid as you say then nothing has been accomplished.

@ARE_you_kidding_me: “I don’t think a mob tearing down statues addresses anything other than anger at the current moment. You have to force the institution that erected it to remove it. That’s when you know things are moving where they need to.”

“Addresses”?

You have a very odd perspective. Every answer seems drenched in other assumptions that leads me to believe we’re likely talking about different things.

Tearing down a statue because while your people are getting killed and brutalized, you finally have the chance to express your disgust with your oppressor and take down the state-endorsed celebrations isn’t the entire end goal.

As we’ve discussed, the “proper channels” are themselves rancid. I still don’t understand why you’re so upset that bad art celebrating shitty people has been destroyed.

We’re likely not only going to continue to disagree here – I think we’re likely to continue to disagree on what we’re disagreeing about.

@ARE_you_kidding_me: “If the channels are still rancid as you say then nothing has been accomplished.”

Where’s the statue? If the goal of tearing down a statue is to tear down the statue, and the goal was achieved, then that has been accomplished. Other than you, not a single person on the planet has thought that tearing down a statue could solve racism, police brutality, and economic inequality.

@hmmmmmm
Doesn’t solve, but its a start in the right direction.

Its in their face everyday, time to move the statue or destroy it.

It was the “last straw”, and now the people are acting instead of waiting for “understanding” from where their pain comes from.

Better a statue than a person to inflict on.

^ preaching to the choir

@hmmmmmm

You are entitled to your opinion and I respect that ,despite the ridicule.

what?

@hmmmmmm
Your ^ preaching to the choir?

^ Meaning: I agree with you. Shit. I really wish people were more inspired 2 read. The last thing I need to do is have an argument with someone I’m agreeing with because they think I am the guy who’s crying over broken statues. Wrong person champ.

Err, ahm tinkin…ahm tinkin…

@hmmmmmm
Sorry I didn’t take that meaning.
More clarity needed.
Thanks for the clarification.
I am not that up on texting symbols etc

No problem. Miscommunication. I’m the guy arguing that all statues should be torn down. I think you were meaning to respond to @ARE_you_kidding_me…or maybe not.

All statues????

^ Ok, just the ones you like.

@hmmmmmm
No problem. My mistake in understanding.
All clear now.

@ucme -What are you doing now?

@lucillelucillelucille Right now?
I happen to be admiring a marvellous bust.
They’re my favourite don’t you know?

@ucme -I think I’ve heard you mention that twice before.

Well, if we are going to tear down statues of people that supported the south during the Civil War, and really any others that people want to associate with slavery, why don’t we get really serious about this? Why don’t we do away with the Democratic Party? I mean, after all, they WERE the south during the Civil War. It was the Republicans that fought against slavery. It was the Democratic party that pushed segregation, opposed equal rights, passed all the Jim Crow laws, and basically dragged racism on the public face well into the 20th century. If you REALLY oppose all things that supported slavery, you need to oppose the Dems.

@lucillelucillelucille I like pairs, what can I say?

@ucme do you like miniatures or do you like life-sized?

@seawulf575 You dirty, dirty bugger! :D

when the right comes in and says, “enough of this talk about statues and race!”

@ucme I think YOU are the dirty bugger! Your mind! Here are some examples of miniatures. These are a little bigger. And THESE are some really big busts!

When the left left it will be left to the right to right those wrongs.
Lashings of lemonade all round…hoorah!

@seawulf575 I shan’t look, I just shan’t!
Is that even a word?

@hmmmmmm Who gets to decide what statues get torn down, what is the criteria that puts one on the chopping block? I don’t give a rats ass about the Jim Crow Confederate statues. There is one here in Tennessee of Nathan Bedford Forrest I would like to see gone. Pulling down statues of our founding fathers I disagree with. Especially of the man who wrote “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal”

As usual on this forum, meaningful conversation gets shat upon by someone who just has to waltz in and drop their little piles of inanity all over the place. And, of course, others are too eager to join in because – hey, anything to distract from the topic on hand.

@ARE_you_kidding_me ” It’s just criminal vandalism, I don’t care how you want to justify it.”

Sorta like that time in our nation’s history when a bunch of guys got together and destroyed a bunch of tea and pulled down statues of King George, huh? Though those guys where well-to-do white men who’s gripe was taxes, so, of course, we celebrate their vandal, I mean patriotism.

“I don’t think a mob tearing down statues addresses anything other than anger at the current moment.”

Of course it’s anger. A righteous anger at that. When a people have been trod upon long enough while others turn a deaf ear to their cries then eventually they’re going to respond in furious anger.

“You have to force the institution that erected it to remove it.”

And how, exactly, do you do that? “Proper channels”? And when proper channels have been tried time and time again to no effect? What then?

“Especially of the man who wrote “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal””

Wrote, but acted completely antithetical to that. Thomas Jefferson was not the man we’ve deified him as. There are more worthy examples among our Founding Fathers.

@Darth_Algar This is not a revolution. I don’t believe even the protesters want to form a new gov’t. If you want to keep our gov’t and want change you have to force the current institution to do it otherwise nothing has changed. If you just act and remove the statues with out forcing the issue they don’t have to acknowledge anything at that point. No apology, no reform, nothing. It is an opportunity wasted. If you don’t think you can force the issue I beg to differ. You’re just not raising enough stink about it.

@ARE_you_kidding_me: ” Pulling down statues of our founding fathers I disagree with. Especially of the man who wrote “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal””

You’re wavering between offering a critique of strategy of a side-effect of these protests (the taking down of statues) and expressing some hurt that your cherished figures are also targeted.

What is it about these statues that you feel are so valuable that you would want people to save your feelings and leave them alone? Maybe you can make the case through “proper channels” to let people know that your favorite statues of the founding dudes should be left alone.

@ARE_you_kidding_me _“This is not a revolution.”

Neither was the Boston Tea Party.

“I don’t believe even the protesters want to form a new gov’t.”

Neither did the Founding Fathers, necessarily. All they wanted was for their rights as Englishmen to be extended as equally to them as in England. The notion of forming a new government only arose out of necessity when it became clear than a complete severance from the mother country was inevitable.

“If you just act and remove the statues with out forcing the issue they don’t have to acknowledge anything at that point.”

So, I ask again, how do you force the issue?

“Centuries,” @ragingloli? Maybe not quite one century.

I mean, it’s a mackerel for cripes’ sake.

I saw “shat upon” swiftly followed by “little piles” & thought, yep…same old crap!

Oh & the waltz was never my forte, much more suited to tango

@Darth_Algar “Of course it’s anger. A righteous anger at that. When a people have been trod upon long enough while others turn a deaf ear to their cries then eventually they’re going to respond in furious anger.” So why aren’t they rebelling against the Democratic Party? As I said before, they were the driving force behind many of the woes the blacks have endured. They founded the KKK for cripe’s sake! So is it really about venting righteous anger or is it really just about causing problems?

@seawulf575

And which candidate was endorsed by the KKK this last presidential election? It sure as shit wasn’t the Democrat.

I was wondering if the spat with France while Geroge Bush jr. was in office would result in the statue of liberty to be removed. I guess that most citizens didn’t know that it was a gift from France, and not made by Americans.

I would restore Mount Rushmore’s defacement of Presidents to look like a normal mountain again.

@Darth_Algar Which of the historical figures in the statues ran in the last presidential election? Oh yeah…none of them. People are venting anger about how they have been treated for 150+ years. And the Democrats were at the root of most of that mistreatment.

@hmmmmmm “What is it about these statues that you feel are so valuable that you would want people to save your feelings and leave them alone? Maybe you can make the case through “proper channels” to let people know that your favorite statues of the founding dudes should be left alone.”

It’s equivalent to shitting on the American flag, that’s why. You may be perfectly fine with doing so but I’m not. I’m not in the minority with this either.

@hmmmmmm How about it? I’ve mentioned it twice now. If you are so gung ho to get rid of historical reminders of slavery, how about banning the Democratic Party since they were the drivers of much of the strife with blacks in this country?

But a statue is meant to celebrate a historical figure. The current Democratic Party doesn’t exist to celebrate its racist past. So the comparison isn’t quite right. Both could be construed as “reminders of the past” but only one exists as a celebration/honoring of that past. Only one is an intentional reminder.

@seawulf575-I couldn’t help but think of this quote:
“The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.” ― George Orwell

@Demosthenes The anger isn’t against a statue. It’s against how people were abused. The statues are reminders of a party of people that systematically abused these people. That party still exists today. So instead of taking down statues that have no impact at all on reality today, taking down the party of people that caused the entire issue would have a much more profound impact. Not to mention, those people that the statues represent were not the only people that engaged in slavery. They represent the leadership of that cause and that leadership was just about 100% Democratic party members.

@Demosthenes and you say the current Democratic Party doesn’t exist to celebrate its racist past. But it doesn’t acknowledge it either. In fact, they have never been held accountable for the troubles they have caused in this nation.

The US invented slavery right from the beginning of this country. I think anybody who can’t prove ancestry here more than ten generations back, should leave. Then this great land could return to its original beauty…
plus casinos.

@seawulf575 Are the statues a reminder of a party or reminders of a race, or perhaps an ideology? The leadership was most certainly 100% white and male, and those who supported slavery and opposed civil rights also invariably supported state’s rights, limited government, and laissez-faire capitalism, principles associated with today’s Republicans and libertarians. So maybe it’s those who hold that ideology today who should take responsibility for the past.

(I hope you realize I’m not in support of removing statues or blaming today’s Democrats or white people or conservatives for the sins of the past, only illustrating the absurdity of any of this).

@Demosthenes I don’t recognize either party anymore. I have watched the Republican party move further right and the left in their respective direction. They have left most people behind and the voltage between those who went with them is at a dangerous level. Most people I know just want to get out of the way when these two groups eventually let their ideology lead them into war with each other.

@seawulf575 Removing statues has nothing to do with Democrats or Republicans. It has to do with condemning slavery.

@seawulf575 LOL. Get real. What party was your grandparents in, just curious? Close your eyes and imagine your people had been enslaved, tortured, killed. The people who fought to keep your grandparents and great grandparents enslaved, tortured, and killed are erected around the city. Every time you walk or drive by you see those statues, AND people are fighting to keep them up as a symbol of what? A symbol of owning slaves? Put yourself in the other persons place for a minute. Your children will grow up knowing statues glorifying these people who fought to maintain ownership over your people are up in prominence. You would be a slave now if they had gotten their way. You. Or, do you feel so superior that you just don’t believe that would ever happen, and so you completely dismiss the exercise.

How would you feel if you saw a statue of Hitler in Germany? Another statue of one of his right hand men that helped murder over 9 million people? Do you think Germany should have those statues up in city capitals?

Seriously, stop defending your position for a second and put yourself in the other person’s shoes.

@Dutchess_III Of course it does! And it was the Dems that fought against doing away with it! Let me put it through another lens. Nazi Germany did some horrific things under Hitler. So much so that merely belonging to the Nazi party today guarantees that people all over will hate you. Why? Because it is a gross reminder of what was. Today’s Nazis may or may not have much to do with Hitler (I don’t know any so I can’t say), but they are associated with them anyway. And with the concentration camps. And with the murder of 6M Jews. And with…well, you get the idea. Saying they aren’t the same today as they were back then means nothing. Yet people want to pull down statues of figures that remind them of those times. The people these statues represent are almost 100% Democrats. Yet for some reason we want to give the Dems a pass…a pass that is not given to any other group that has done horrible things in their past. Why is that?

@JLeslie Interesting that you think only statues can be reminders of the past. Aren’t most of those people those statues represent Democrats? Wasn’t the Confederate States of America basically the Democratic Party of the time?
You bring up Hitler…good for you. I just answered @Dutchess_III with that same analogy. Hitler was a horribly evil person. Yet he did not act alone. The entire Nazi Party supported him. Even today, the Nazi party has all sorts of evil connotations associated with them. People revile them readily…just as you did. Why? Are the people in today’s Nazi Party the same ones that did the atrocities of the early 1940’s? Nope. But the party itself has been branded by that past. They could turn around now and be perfect saints and no one would believe it. Yet we don’t treat the Democrats the same way. Hell, they fought against equal rights well into the 1960’s. George Wallace was a Democratic candidate running for president in 1968 and he was very much a bigot that supported segregation. LBJ only managed to get the Civil Rights act of 1963 passed because he had support of the Repubs. If it was left up to the Dems it would not have passed. The Dem party did more to harm blacks in the history of our country than any of the individuals represented by those statues. So why do we give them a pass? Because they say they have changed?

Nazis today still worship Hitler and his minions.
Not even that you know.

I am aware that the democrats were pro slavery. They and the republican party have done a complete reversal of their platforms since then. They aren’t the same parties they were.

How Democrats are made

don’t worry, one day you too will break free and stop being bricks in the dem wall of faceless voting bricks.

I used to be a neutral voter, but the Republlicans acted so shamefully toward the Obamas I put as much distance between me and them as I could and changed my vote to Democrat. They were an embarrassment.

@seawulf575 In other words you can’t do it. You can’t be the minority being abused. Why can’t you? Why can’t you do that?

I’m not going to engage in your Democrat BS, because the parties have changed over time and you know it. I don’t care what each political party represented or did 100 years ago, it has ZERO bearing on whether a statue should stay up. The statue could be a man related to me and I wouldn’t care.

I don’t think white Southerners today have anything to feel bad about regarding what the South did 100+ years ago unless they are defending it today! Unless, they are continuing to be racist in their actions. Unless they continue to not see black people as equals. Wanting to keep up the statues as some sort of thing they are proud of is doing just that.

If you felt equal you would be able to feel as vulnerable as a minority does, it’s not just about believing they are just as smart, honest, moral, creative, etc etc as white Protestants.

Empathy is what makes for decent societies.

@JLeslie Would you agree with taking down Thomas Jefferson statues? I’m all for taking down Jefferson Davis and the like. What was behind those statues being erected is sinister. While Thomas Jefferson owned slaves he also was somewhat radical for his time. In many ways he laid some of the first civil rights guide stones. Do we judge people to today’s standards or do we step back and judge them in the context of their own time?

Darth Vader has a bust of his head in a monument in D.C. should we take it down. Also the profit Mohamed has a bust as well. It is against his religion to have a idol of him anywhere.

@ARE_you_kidding_me I think it’s all worth discussing. I’d want to hear differing opinions, but my gut reaction is Thomas Jefferson supported the union. The confederate leaders and soldiers wanted to break us apart. That’s one part of why people have a problem with some of these statues. If I remember correctly Jefferson eventually was against bringing in slaves. Or, do I have that wrong? I thought he evolved regarding slavery. It feels to me like if he were alive today he would not own slaves, some of these other characters I don’t feel that way.

It still upsets me that so many white Protestants can’t even imagine themselves in a situation that they are the minority either being harmed or with a history of being harmed. This is part of the supremacy mindset in my mind, but I am not calling everyone with this inability a white supremacist as in KKK, I just mean they feel better than everyone else.

It used to happen all the time when school prayer was a topic. I’d ask, “what if the country was 75% Muslim, would you want prayer in school? So many of them would answer, “I would never live in a country that was 75% Muslim.” They will not be the minority in their mind for a moment these people. I’d tell them, you have to make laws so that if the situation flips and you become the minority, then you are protected. They still wanted laws that favor Christians or white people or whatever is in their interest.

These people will screw themselves in the end. They will be so obstinate they will create the very things they fear. They brought a bunch of black Africans over to America, treated them horribly, bought and sold them like cattle, and then they were finally freed, and then the racist people leftover in the South lived where were more blacks than any other part of the country. It’s only fairly recently in history that large numbers of black people live in northern cities. It’s happening again with statues and the confederate flag. They won’t listen so they create a situation where people get tired of asking and explaining and so they start screaming and taking to the treats and in some cases tearing down statues themselves.

Probably, if we had more economic equality people wouldn’t be so worried about these statues. When people feel oppressed and life is very hard, the seek to find change. The statues are a symbol of their oppressors, and the oppression still feels alive today to them. It’s like having PTSD.

I agree with you that this is a symptom of a larger problem which is not talking about these things. Thomas Jefferson died long before the civil war so we never got to hear his take. From what I read he was outspoken against slavery but it’s hard to reconcile with the fact that he owned a lot of them. The paradox of this goes deeper too, especially regarding his relationship with Sally Hemmings. There is a lot to consider when you look at the whole picture.

I suspect in the future having an obscene amount of wealth will be looked down upon harshly. Will we judge people like Bill Gates and Elon Musk the same way when the measuring stick in the future is very different?

John Cleese’s take on things.

@ARE_you_kidding_me: “I suspect in the future having an obscene amount of wealth will be looked down upon harshly. Will we judge people like Bill Gates and Elon Musk the same way when the measuring stick in the future is very different?”

We can only hope – and in the very near future!

@ARE_you_kidding_me I’m thinking regarding Jefferson it might be similar to how I sometimes feel about affirmative action, and salaries and taxes, in some situations.

I generally believe in a merit system; not giving a group special preference. When the issue of school admissions is discussed I would vote to not have affirmative action or quotas, but while those things exist I will use them. If I had children they would be Hispanic and I would use the system, but I would vote against my own interests if it came to a policy change.

The other example is I would willingly give up 10% of my household income if I knew it would be directly put into the hands of people who I believe are very underpaid in terms of higher wages for them, or if it would create a better social structure for all. I’m not going to donate money back to my government or my company how it is now though, not unless there is a system change and everyone is participating.

Maybe Jefferson treated his slaves well relatively speaking, we can only hope. It’s never ok to own someone, and for the slave the absence of freedom is always there, and lack of freedom is a torture, even in the absence of actual physical torture or other mental abuses.

Look at all of these people freaking out about being stuck at home because of the covid19 lockdowns. That was a slave’s entire life, but much worse in many ways, and for our poor it isn’t much different that they are confined by lack of money and their general circumstance.

I did some googling and it does seem Jefferson was against slavery and believed it ruined people and society. I skimmed the Wikipedia it’s very interesting. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson_and_slavery That seems much different to me than these confederate generals and leaders taking up arms to maintain slavery.

Jefferson seemed to want to help slaves if they were freed, understanding it would be a difficult transition, while people in the confederate states didn’t want to help them, and eventually put in segregation and all sorts of blocks in society to inhibit their ability to succeed or feel truly free.

I know there were Southerners who were against slavery and segregation, and there were northerners who were in favor of keeping slavery and segregation, but I’m just talking as a whole what was happening, the minority voice in the two groups is not really the topic, although in a separate discussion I think it is interesting that they went against the popular feelings in their region.

Yeah, Thomas Jefferson was so against slavery that he owned more than 600 slaves.

And yes, Jefferson was opposed to importing slaves, but not for any moral reasons. The slave population in America was, by Jefferson’s time, more than self-sustaining. Indeed, it was one of the easiest ways by which a plantation owner might increase his wealth.

“I consider a woman who brings a child every two years as more profitable than the best man of the farm. What she produces is an addition to the capital, while his labors disappear in mere consumption.”

So why pay someone to import slaves to you when your own stock would naturally increase on it’s own? That was the crux of Jefferson’s opposition to the importation of slaves.

Frankly – Thomas Jefferson was a vile man who in no way lived up to our glorification of him.

@Darth_Algar So, what do you suppose we do? His Monticello home is basically a museum. I have been ok with the statues being moved to museums, so I’m ok with his home remaining standing. Maybe move the statues there if people want to keep the statues somewhere. I’ve actually went to Monticello when I was in my early teens, but I don’t remember any of what they said about the history. All I remember is the house itself and how the air system and kitchen worked.

More complicated than a statue is the Jefferson Memorial in DC. It is one of my favorites of the memorials in terms of architecture. Did Jefferson do anything redeeming enough that you are ok with memorializing him? Do you really see him equal to a confederate general?

@JLeslie: “So, what do you suppose we do?”

Allow people to remove statues (public state-endorsed celebrations) of Jefferson and not get all weepy.

There is nothing to figure out here. If you are black and don’t want to see a guy who would have owned you if you had born earlier being honored in public, then it’s very reasonable for you to want to get that thing out of sight. Why have to look at that?

All of this talk about suppressing history, book burning, museums, etc is a complete straw man and besides the point.

@JLeslie

Jefferson can be “memorialized” in history books. The Jefferson Memorial can be renamed. This deification of him is unnecessary at best, hurtful at worst.

@Darth_Algar As you can see I’m basically on the side of not maintaining statues and memorials that offend or I’d say even scare those who have been harmed. The confederate flag scares me. I would be curious to know what black people in general are saying about Jefferson statues and memorials, I have to admit I haven’t been up on that. FDR refused a ship load of Jews during the Holocaust and I think it was awful, but I’m not looking to tear down his house/museum.

Although, I think renaming the memorial is definitely a good possibility if there truly is a consensus that he did more harm than good. I’d have to listen to the arguments by various people, especially African Americans.

I am completely for renaming our military bases named after confederate generals.

I don’t see any deification here. The issue is how fair are we judging him. Nobody is offering an apology for his slave ownership. The question is more about do we judge a person who lived two hundred years ago by today’s standards. Painting him with a broad brush as a “bad guy” based on that alone without taking the rest of what he did as a whole does not seem very reasonable.

So for those of you that say the Dems are no longer the racists they were even 40 or 50 years ago, maybe you can explain why Dick Durbin (D-Ill) called Tim Scott (R-SC) a “token”? I mean, it would be interesting to hear why he came up with that. Yes, he apologized, but only because there was immediate backlash. And his mind and mouth went there automatically. So really…have Dems changed that much? What exactly have they done for blacks? I’m struggling here. I can’t come up with much, other than to keep the poor and dependent. Heck, even Joe Biden said if you don’t vote for him you ain’t black! And he is the Dem POTUS candidate! Yes, their racism is still alive and well. Yet for some reason all of you only want old statues taken down, not something more meaningful and effective.

One important fact to look at, made by @ARE_you_kidding_me. People are trying to judge an 18th century man by 21st century standards.
DURING MY LIFETIME encyclopedias were still being printed with such facts as negroes were unable to function as well as whites intellectually. It was supposedly scientifically sound knowledge that they could never be equal to caucasian people.
Even though Jefferson felt slavery was wrong, even though he loved slaves who were well involved in his life, he was of the belief that negro and caucasian were separated by much more than the color of their skin. To believe any different was as unlikely back then as believing that one day humans would travel to the moon, or that babies could be made outside of a woman’s body, or that beetles could be brought to the states from England, and thousands of women would be thrilled to see them.
His statue is a testament to how very much we have learned since his lifetime.
Sally must have loved him, or she would have stayed in France, where she was considered free. Should their descendants completely lose sight of those facts? Their relationship ultimately had a positive effect. Do we ignore that?

^GA, Wish I could give you more than one.

@Patty_Melt: “His statue is a testament to how very much we have learned since his lifetime.”

I think many people would disagree, and that is why you are finally seeing revolt.

Remember – this isn’t a museum. This is a public endorsement and celebration. Public statues are there as state-endorsed figures that are in peoples’ face in the public space.

Many people here seem to be of the opinion that things are just rolling along all nice for everyone, and then suddenly out of the blue a whole country erupts into a fury with their whole effort on tearing down statues. The country is exploding because of continued racial and economic injustice that has a direct line to the beginning of this country.

If you are furious about the state continuing to kill and oppress your people after you built the country for free, the toppling of a few shitty dude statues isn’t the goal, but is a good thing to do while you’re active. People refuse to take these things down, and you’re faced with staring at these monsters while you talk to your young children about how to not get killed by the very people who are supposed to protect you.

So, yes – you’re seeing Columbus statues and other statues of shitty dudes getting torn down. And rather than show solidarity, or even the slightest bit of empathy, there are people here that feel that the destruction of these statues is the problem. Rather than show how “much we have learned”, it really shows how far we have to go.

@Patty_Melt It doesn’t change asking them question where should it be taught and what we should have where. Everything you said can be taught at Monticello, and in history books. It could be written inside the Jefferson monument, but a random statue in a state? I don’t know the answer, but I can see an argument against it.

A friend of mine posted a photo on Facebook of a concentration camp in Germany that Jewish people especially wanted the camp to remain, not to be torn down, so no one ever questions the history and so people learn from the history. He was comparing that to the statues being turn down in America. My comment to him is he going to have information at the statue about how these Confederate Generals fought to keep slavery in place, to be able to own and sell human beings. That slaves could not move about town freely, they were subject to hard labor, whippings, women were raped with no protections, you know the rest. Plus, the Confederacy fought to leave the Union, to leave the United States of America.

The Germans are very clear that the camp was a horrible place and the Nazis were immoral and genocidal and condemn this part of the German history. His response was the basic response that I’m an idiot, that I don’t know history, and the civil was about money. THAT is why statues are being vandalized and toppled rather than being preserved in some way. That obstinance and need to believe the Civil War was not to keep slavery intact.

Concentration camps in Germany are museums that teach about the atrocities that were committed.
They are not symbols of German Pride, in contrast to confederate statues, that are.
As for the civil war not being about slavery, slavery was literally stated to be the primary reason for the secession, on paper, by the confederate states.

To continue: He replied with the typical response that I know nothing about history and the Civil War was not about slavery, but rather about money. Typical Southern response, but what I find amazing is he went to high school with me!

I gave him a quote and a link to look at, maybe @seawulf575 and others fighting to keep up Confederate statues will take a look. Here is what I wrote:

Declaration of Secession: “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery – the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.”

I googled and found this link for you for further research. https://m.jacksonfreepress.com/weblogs/jackblog/2015/jun/21/confederates-speak-yes-we-fought-the-civil-war-ove/?fbclid=IwAR2vNi6Kg0QqBk4eEM70qIak43rmDJXS41pq0K5Xsf5cbEBiCdzONip2kw4

Also, one correction, he posted a photo of Auschwitz, which is Poland, but still a Nazi camp, Poland was occupied at the time, I am sure you all know that.

@JLeslie “FDR refused a ship load of Jews during the Holocaust and I think it was awful, but I’m not looking to tear down his house/museum.”

Neither am I. Nor am I looking to tear down Jefferson’s house/museum. But I’m also not looking to build great monuments to FDR ether.

I remember, in the early 80s, getting really upset with a friend of mine because she had a “medical” book that was really shitty about black women and men lying around her house. I told her what I had read in it, and asked wasn’t she concerned about her kids reading that someday??!!!
She just looked at me blankly.

For anyone in favour of keeping statues because “history”, GOOD NEWS!!
A life-sized statue of Vladimir Lenin has just been erected by the MLPD in Germany.

That sentence I wrote was horrible! My friend did not have black men and women lying around her house.

Update on the Boston statue that was talked about in this video, which I linked to above…

The Boston arts commission has voted to remove it.

Keep in mind that while this removal might feel more “peaceful” or appropriate to some who oppose statues being destroyed or removed by people, something like this is only possible precisely because so many statues have finally been torn down after lawmakers doing nothing.

@hmmmmmm I completely disagree with you. If enough voting members of the public voice their opinion they will come down in a real hurry. That support did not exist or was not voiced before this trend.

^ You have a belief and trust in US democracy, so this disagreement is understandable. But history doesn’t support your position.

Also keep in mind that people’s opinion of BLM didn’t change until people took to the streets.

@hmmmmmm ” You have a belief and trust in US democracy” I do, this is true. I also disagree that history does not support this position, it does. People who don’t believe that it does focus on the negatives and seldom look at the broader picture. They’ll be unhappy wherever they go. This is not all bad, there needs to be people who do this in any population.

I don’t think people have changed their opinion of BLM at all. There is a little more fear in people and officials now that angry mobs are walking the streets and creating conditions that are being taken advantage of by unscrupulous individuals. Both sides of the extreme political spectrum are exploiting these conditions. Of course Black Lives Matter, you won’t find many people who would disagree with this. I don’t think opinions on that have changed. People don’t necessarily care for the organization. This is a huge difference. The implication of saying you don’t care for the BLM organization is flipped and you’re made to look like you “don’t care about black lives ” or are a racist which is absurd. The marketing there is genius on their part. In reality, the higher level organizers of BLM are admitted Marxists and likely some anarchists as well. This is not completely about race, it’s a political chessboard behind the curtain at the moment. Most of us know it too. Corporations are getting behind BLM not because they care but because they don’t believe this will last and they want brand loyalty that will. They’re playing a long PR game with a group that are ant-capitalist and run agendas counter to their interests. Politicians are doing the same. That creates a chemistry where people are afraid to say what they really think about the BLM organization.

All that said, I cannot paint the current conditions as all positive or negative. There will likely be positive change in in some of this. Especially police reform, most people can see that a mile away. Some people who did not give racism a second thought were challenged by this and likely will be more understanding as a result.

^ Well, we have different perspectives on things, that’s for sure.

But I just want to point out that of course people on the left are anti-capitalist. That’s a tautology. Any addressing of racism in the US has to take the form of taking on capitalism.

@hmmmmmm Capitalism is not racist. Capitalism does not care about such things, it’s intrinsically indifferent. The left’s favorite trick is to equate something they don’t like to racism and then attack it under that umbrella. Taking on racism does not in anyway have anything to do with capitalism in 2020.

^ Capitalism is cumulative. Every day doesn’t just begin the new found game of wealth, markets, etc. There are very serious issues of inherited wealth, stolen labor that built the country (slavery), etc., as well as the countless nightmares that exist in the form of private prisons, prison labor, drug laws and targeted communities to keep up with supply, and general class issues that are inherent in capitalism. Historically, race has been a tool used to keep working people from seeing that people of all “races” and nationalities have a common enemy that is exploiting and stealing from them in plain site.

Of course, there is the fact that capitalism requires expansion and imperialism, meaning that the US must undermine democracy around the world and extract resources and labor. Xenophobia is a tool that goes a long way in selling these exploits at home.

So, yes – there are plenty of reasons that existing systemic racial inequities are a benefit to the capitalist class, so they are perpetuated. There are financial reasons why they cannot be eradicated.

But more importantly – you just can’t beat the racism out of someone or shame them on Facebook and expect racism to disappear. It doesn’t work that way. Racism isn’t useful as a term of individual bigotry. Racism is an explanatory term in its relation to power. A bunch of liberals saying nice things or wearing Kente cloths (christ, I can’t believe they did that shit) is not addressing the systemic issues that plague black people at higher rates. The only way to do this is to immediately attack the material inequities that exist and improve the material conditions for poor people of all “races”.

And sure – if the game of capitalism were to start from scratch today, you could say that “capitalism isn’t racist”. But since this isn’t the case, this is patently absurd.

Keep in mind that the left is still pretty small here in the US. You have two right-wing parties (really, just two wings of the same party that are nearly identical in substantive policies) that both punch left. And since they are both corporate capitalist parties that are funded by the very economic system that wishes to see the left die (or literally crushes it abroad), they work very well at making sure less-informed people see the performative infighting between friends as something reflective of a true ideological divide and wide spectrum. It helps that the very institutions that benefit from a lack of a left in the US are the companies that provide the news to everyone.

Anyway, I’m not of the belief that we’re going to come to some agreement here. Just wanted to speak my mind on it I guess. Capitalism has very serious moral issues that have to do with the need to have an exploited class, need for perpetual growth, etc. It’s not just racism. Capitalism is morally unjustifiable. I have to run…

@hmmmmmm Man, no issue here, I’m glad to hear your perspective. I don’t totally agree with what you believe capitalism is but that’s neither here nor there. Capitalism is neither good nor evil. It’s like a force or a tool. I imagine it as a voltage that can be used for progress, particularly technological progress that has a great potential. Don’t think I’m for laissez faire capitalism. Lethal voltages need to be properly contained with engineering controls. That’s where gov’t comes into play. I have yet to see any real evidence of such progress outside of capitalism.

^ Good analogy. I’m on board with you there.

@ARE_you_kidding_me “Capitalism is neither good nor evil.”

Capitalism regards the cease accumulation of wealth not as a means to an end, but as the end itself. Growth solely for the sake of growth. This is the philosophy of a cancer. That, by its very nature, is malignant.

@Darth_Algar That is unbounded and uncontrolled capitalism which is essentially a runaway train. You don’t leave something like that unattended. If a train crashes you don’t blame the train. You figure out what went wrong and likely introduce new safety features or restrictions.

So, there should be a limit on the amount of wealth one should be able to acquire?

@Darth_Algar I may go against the grain of my more conservative peeps here but in a nutshell, yes but circumstances matter. I don’t view it any differently than monopoly protections which this country has all but abandoned but had very good initial intentions. Where you draw that line is the subjective part. I would likely draw it higher than you would. The CEO of my company made over eight million dollars last year. That’s 100X the salary of the more highly compensated professionals working below him. I don’t in any way believe this person is adding 100X the value of one of those professionals. I would say this person is above the line. The “market will bear” this sort of thing artificially because there is a buddy system manipulating it but it does not have to be this way. Most of the obscene wealth concentration is a direct result of our monopoly protections breaking down. This breakdown is not an inevitable result of capitalism, it’s just poor control.

@ARE_you_kidding_me

Actually you’d draw the line much lower than I would. Truth is, I’m not sure I’d really place arbitrary restrictions as I don’t really think they’re necessarily an effective way to counter capitalism’s more toxic effects.

@Darth_Algar That’s kind of surprising. Interesting what happens when people actually talk huh? I assume the more toxic effects you are referring to are are environmental. We lost control of that too IMO. I’m nowhere near calling capitalism cancer though. It’s just a dangerous voltage that requires controls and certain constraints. When used properly the potential for human progress, happiness and freedom is profound.

“I assume the more toxic effects you are referring to are are environmental.”

Among other things.

But as for the “progress”, “happiness” and “freedom” that capitalism supposedly brings – I’m just not seeing it.

@Darth_Algar Well I see it, every day. You can cherry pick any image you want without context to try to counter that but it’s not reality. Capitalism has no monopoly on pollution, poverty, corruption and other social ills. Those things happen everywhere, under any political system you can imagine and often in greater amounts where capitalism is all but disallowed. I have also yet to see any system other than capitalism that provides as much as it does. I certainly would not want to live in any society that does not have capitalism at least as a major component in some form.

“Capitalism has no monopoly on pollution, poverty, corruption and other social ills. Those things happen everywhere, under any political system”

Didn’t claim otherwise. Capitalism just isn’t the wonder that its proponents so often try to paint it as. It does, however, have one huge failing inherent to it by its very nature – the worship of wealth beyond all else. The ceaseless drive towards accumulation at the expense of everyone else. That it must be constrained (as you acknowledge yourself) is proof of its malignant nature.

@Darth_Algar I don’t think that’s the core behind capitalism at all. We see this very, very differently. Capitalism allows people the freedom to do what they want, keep the fruits of their labor, be as innovative and creative as they want without too much intervention or forced direction from some governing entity. When it comes to the worship of wealth and power you again, find that everywhere you look. The worship of wealth beyond all else is a petty common human failing. Capitalism did not create that. Most people just want to have enough to be happy and secure.

@Darth_Algar I think what you are trying to identify is that capitalism falls short because of human fault, namely greed. But I would ask you…what form of society doesn’t suffer from that exact same downfall? Human frailty? Look at Socialism or Communism. Both end up with separation of the haves and have-nots. The only real difference is that the only way to be one of the haves is to be one of the inner elite. Why? Because those that are in charge have greed for money and power. And they don’t like to share any more than capitalists.

Completely missing the point, both of you.

What I keep thinking is what matters most is integrity. Capitalism without some golden rule runs amok, and communism usually has power seeking dictators.

Now, in America, we have some Christians (We have a Christian majority and they have influence) actually arguing that extreme greed is good, and letting the least among us to struggle, suffer, and die is part of the word of God. I really don’t get it. There are Christians speaking out to counter this, I’m not putting all Christians in one basket at all, I’m just commenting on the twisting of Jesus’ word. Capitalism left uncontrolled with lots of people without integrity in the system creates wild inequities.

I believe in capitalism, but either people have to care about others while working in that system, or some controls need to be put in, or things get too out of whack and too extreme, and every extreme gets an opposite and equal reaction. So, extreme runaway capitalism is likely to bring in extreme socialism or communism. If the capitalists in our country want to keep capitalism, I suggest they do it with some consideration for the masses and not just the top 1%.

Trickle down does not work. Open your eyes. Do you think Dave Ramsay is right about finances? Then why are you ok with America still having a huge deficit when we have had such a strong economy?

Just recently, I have Christians all around me saying things like they don’t want to wear a mask because they aren’t worried about getting sick. Not giving a damn about others. Again, how is that Christian? Finally, some politicians who actually market and brand themselves as Christians have stepped out and said it’s good to wear a mask. How the hell were they sleeping at night standing by saying nothing all that time?! I’m grateful every time my Christian friends fought back when someone on Facebook said things like, “if you are right with God you don’t have to worry about the virus.”

I see all of this interconnected.

Some people criticize moderation, but I see moderate thinking as the way to protect against extreme influences.

@Darth_Algar Explain.

@JLeslie You’re touching on the dark side of what some Christians often are: fearful and somewhat selfish and self-righteous. The ones that virtue signal their Christianity that is.

Ain’t that the truth @ARE_you_kidding_me.

@ARE_you_kidding_me I truly believe good Christians will be one of the biggest influences to save our country from total division and destruction. If I was a praying person I would be praying hard for their words to be heard. I feel there is a sinister element working hard, and I do not believe they are Christians at all, but that they are using Christianity to influence people by twisting the religion. It is influencing religious Jews too, not just Christians, but like I said, our country is a majority of Christians in America, and their feelings and opinions have great influence.

Seems like the Christians are the most ardent trump supporters.
I think it’s self-thinking atheists that will make the difference.

@Dutchess_III We need public will and votes and some unity. The country still is a majority of Christians, and we are still a Democracy, so we need Christians who are analytical and willing to see the truth. They have a chance to convince some of the Christians who are mislead. The Christians who have their heals dug in about the confederate flag, letting the rich get richer, not wearing masks, and now BLM is a movement for Marxism, maybe some of them can be moved by other Christians, they are not going to listen to atheists.

Take a friend of mine whose mom voted for Trump. My friend might have also, I don’t know. They are Republicans. They are both religious Catholics. My friend works in healthcare, adjacent to a hospital, and saw the overflow trailer full of dead bodies with covid. She told her mom do not vote for Trump in 2020. No way her mom would believe that story from me, but she believes her daughter who she knows has similar values.

I don’t really know of any Christians who are analytical, really. If they were analytical they’d have figured out that there is no God.

@Dutchess_III We have jellies like filmfann and judi and plenty of other examples here who are, not to mention people I know in real life. Of course there are Christians who compartmentalism religion and what is happening in the world.

@Dutchess_III Here is the rub, you don’t know there is no “god” either. You’re guessing based on all of the nonsense surrounding religion. I know plenty of very analytical people who are deeply religious. Several have PhD’s in hard sciences. If you question why they believe some will often explain to you that the creation story is the watered down fairy tale version of whatever happened that brought us into being. People define “god” in many different ways and the origin of our universe is truly unknown.

I also do not know that there is not an invisible pink unicorn that fucks me in the butt every night, then erases all physical traces afterwards.

@ragingloli Unicorns are not real yet. Someday someone will genetically engineer a pink unicorn if they want it. It may even be able to fulfill your fantasy.

Many people view “god” as an abstract placeholder anyway.

Unicorns are real.
For perspective. loli, if one of these effed your bee, I’m sure you would know it.

@Dutchess_III: You’re lumping all Christians together like they all think alike. That’s like saying “women _______” or “black people ________” or “people from Kansas ________.”

@Dutchess_III I like to think I’m analytical. I’ve worked in nuclear power chemistry for 30+ years. And I believe in God. In fact, the more I dig in analytically, the more I believe. Funny though, when I bring up some of my beliefs with most adamant non-believers, they freak out…they don’t want to hear it. they just want to say it is mythology and leave it at that.

Sweetie…..you and I could have a conversation about it, and within 5 minutes you’d be saying “Well God works in mysterious ways,” because there is no other answer. There is no logic.

@Dutchess_lll if you ask me why God does things, I will gladly tell you I have no idea. But if you want to be analytical and actually start looking at science, I suspect you would be running away throwing comments about mythology or Trump behind you.

@Dutchess_lll
Those “arguments” usually boil down to “I do not know, therefore god did it”.
A waste of time.

No, actually mine boil down to scientific laws and studies. But I’m pretty sure you would still say “I don’t know so it’s a waste of time!”.

Suuuuure.

and, @ragingloli, you kinda just proved my point. You aren’t open minded enough to even consider any other concept than your own narrow mind.

Coming from you, I assure you I will sleep soundly tonight.

I don’t run away from science. The thing I like best about is if they don’t know the answer they easily admit to it and then try and find it.
Since you opened the subject of myths I find it fascinating that you don’t have a problem dismissing Greek mythology as just that….myths and legends. But a Christian will continue to insist that the scientifically impossible stories in the Bible are true…even though they’re pretty much the exact same stories in Greek mythology!

Actually there have been many theologies that share similar stories. Noah’s Ark for example didn’t appear only in the bible or even first in the bible. Now it may not have had the character Noah in all of them, but the stories are very similar.
But you make two statements I find interesting and contradictory. The first is: “The thing I like best about is if they don’t know the answer they easily admit to it and then try and find it.” The second is “But a Christian will continue to insist that the scientifically impossible stories in the Bible are true…” If you go back in mankind’s history, many scientific discoveries were considered impossible…right up until they were proven very possible. Science fiction stories are examples. Things written about that people at the time viewed as fanciful and impossible but which are now commonplace. So how can you admire science and think it is great because it looks at things that aren’t always possible, yet look down your nose at Christians for the exact same thing?

Doesn’t matter if every culture in the world has a “Great Flood” story in their culture. Doesn’t make it true.
Also “Great Flood” is relative. If your whole village is flooded, it may seem like the whole world is flooded.

Science fiction is at least based on a modicum of science, and they don’t threaten people with hell fire if they don’t believe their stories.
Things like the virgin birth and the resurrection are bologna. (FYI, I didn’t believe either of those stories when I was a practicing Christian, either. It’s ridiculous.)

All it means is that Judaism plagiarised the epic of gilgamesh, and like a cheating student, just altered it a bit, so it does not look completely identical.

Yep.

Egyptian Pharaohs had slaves. Should the Sphinx and pyramids be torn down?

@Dutchess_III I really do believe we are hijacking this thread. But I do want to point out that you were the one that wanted to compare Christian stories to Greek stories. I pointed out that the great flood is another example.
But you make other statements that really do make me wonder sometimes. You bring up the idea of virgin birth and call it bologna. Maybe this bologna would make you rethink that? It happens all the time in other species and the last time I checked, they all needed opposite sexes too. So that is based in science as well. You say Science Fiction is based on a modicum of science. I find that entirely silly. It is based on made up science at the very best. I give you Jules Verne as a great example. He wrote about going to the moon and nuclear submarines almost 100 years before they became realities. There was no science to back these ideas up. Nuclear power wasn’t even considered…there were no theories concerning it. Moon travel was just a fancy. And both of these examples are of things that were thought foolish at the time…entertaining at the best, but not realistic…but influenced later research into these possibilities. So if it is okay for science to look for the reality in a story, why is it wrong for Christians to do the same?

Humans are not reptiles. We have an extremly different DNA make up. We can’t reproduce asexually.

Yep, we aren’t reptiles. But the DNA differences are not really all that far off. And the article says that chickens and turkeys have had virgin births. It says they have created genetically altered mice that have given birth to offspring that not only lived but could go on to reproduce as well. So it is a possibility in mammals, though not normal. And aren’t you one that believes in evolution? That we all came from the primordial ooze and our ancestors crawled up onto the ground? That means we are likely descendants of fish or lizards.

Pretty sure the ability to alter genes wasn’t around in Jesus’ day.
But keep reaching to somehow magically equate superstition and myths with science.

Also, if mary (had she existed in the first place) happened to procreate using parthenogenesis (and the virgin birth was not just a story concocted to conceal the vastly more likely rape she endured), jesus would have been a clone, therefore female. But since he went through life as male, it therefore means that the christian saviour was transgender.

:D
I think the story was concocted to conceal the fact that she had SEX! OMG.

@ragingloli Possible. But when turkeys have exhibited parthenogenesis, the offspring are always males. So your theory of clones is a bit off.

Unlike humans, birds do not have X and Y chromosomes, but W and Z chromosomes.
And unlike humans, in birds it is the males that have 2 Z, while the females have the WZ configuration.

Sam Kinison had a great bit about this.

You’re overwhelming @seawulf575 with logic, @ragingloli. Shame on you.

No, not overwhelmed. Amused, maybe. What I failed to see in @ragingloli was any indication that ZZ was more naturally occuring or why it would be that way. Yes, Birds follow the ZW system for determining sex. As do some snakes. But there are other theories as well that play into this. But in the end, the biggest difference is that in the XY system the sperm determines the sex and in the ZW, it is the ovum. But none of that explains why turkeys always have male offspring when they undergo parthenogenesis. But again, this all probably needs to move to a different thread.

Just like the Y chromosome in humans is severely atrophied compared to the X chromosome, so is the W chromosome in birds.
With means that, just like a YY configuration, a WW configuration does not have enough genetic information to make a viable organism, and a WZ configuration does not occur, because parthenogenesis in birds happens via chromosome doubling, turning a haploid gamete (W or Z) into a diploid (WW or ZZ) gamete.

And again, this all needs to fall into a separate thread.

It doesn’t have enough genetic information to make a viable organism by itself.

Women have XX, Mr “I believe in god because of science”.