Originally Posted by Giantaxe

The kindest thing I can say about dc koop's views is that they are "old fashioned". Conveniently that is also the name of a bourbon drink:

https://cdn.liquor.com/wp-content/up...-fashioned.jpg

Originally Posted by dc koop

I can only say that you appear to know very little about the USA after the civil war. After Reconstruction the former states were restored to the Union and with full States rights. For generations afterwards no one north or south cared much about the blacks. They had no right to vote in the south, segregationist southern politicians were elected to Washington by segregationist southern voters. Southern states were governed by segregationist governors who maintained the status quo. Segregation was also recognized by the Federal government. Black passengers on trains had to move to the rear of the train when it crossed the Mason Dixon line . The US military was segregated until 1947. There was the story of the black passengers on a train who were obliged to give up their seats to German POWS when it crossed into a southern State. Presidents, even Roosevelt were reluctant to tackle the problem of racial segregation and civil rights in the south. No one wanted to rock the boat. Statues dedicated to civil war leaders were erected and no one batted an eye lid.

Maybe an incident that occurred on a public passenger bus in Montgomery, Alabama finally ignited something that grew to become the civil rights movement and the refusal of a group of people to leave a lunch counter in a Woolworths store in one of the southern states. It wasn't until 1957 that President Eisenhower finally got up off his backside and sent federal troops to Little Rock Ark to enforce the rights of a few young black students to enter an all white high school.

You should read much more history. It was only from the 1950s that the cause of racial justice and equal rights became the concern of the country at large. Prior to that anyone who went around campaigning for civil rights was either a Commie, a troublemaker or an anarchist

Originally Posted by dc koop

I can only say that you appear to know very little about the USA after the civil war. After Reconstruction the former states were restored to the Union and with full States rights. For generations afterwards no one north or south cared much about the blacks. They had no right to vote in the south, segregationist southern politicians were elected to Washington by segregationist southern voters. Southern states were governed by segregationist governors who maintained the status quo. Segregation was also recognized by the Federal government. Black passengers on trains had to move to the rear of the train when it crossed the Mason Dixon line . The US military was segregated until 1947. There was the story of the black passengers on a train who were obliged to give up their seats to German POWS when it crossed into a southern State. Presidents, even Roosevelt were reluctant to tackle the problem of racial segregation and civil rights in the south. No one wanted to rock the boat. Statues dedicated to civil war leaders were erected and no one batted an eye lid.

Maybe an incident that occurred on a public passenger bus in Montgomery, Alabama finally ignited something that grew to become the civil rights movement and the refusal of a group of people to leave a lunch counter in a Woolworths store in one of the southern states. It wasn't until 1957 that President Eisenhower finally got up off his backside and sent federal troops to Little Rock Ark to enforce the rights of a few young black students to enter an all white high school.

You should read much more history. It was only from the 1950s that the cause of racial justice and equal rights became the concern of the country at large. Prior to that anyone who went around campaigning for civil rights was either a Commie, a troublemaker or an anarchist

Originally Posted by dc koop

If the statues were built much later on it must have had something to do with the healing process that took decades to achieve.

Originally Posted by Giantaxe

You didn't answer my question (twice) so I'll give you one more opportunity before writing you off as a lost cause:

"Your claim was that their erection [of the statues long after the end of the civil war] was part of the "healing process". How exactly does what you wrote here [and previously] indicate that? How do you think that healing was going for those " black southerners" who kept quiet "if they knew what was good for them". [as you claimed]?

Originally Posted by dc koop

The words "healing process" was a bad choice. What should have been said was that years after the civil war ended and the southern States were readmitted into the union the erection of statues to honor southern war dead raised no eyebrows in Washington. Confederate war veterans held their annual parades for years into the 20th century and often met up with fellow veterans from the Union Army. That's what old soldiers do.
Many in the Union armies stated that their former enemies in the south had fought honorably and bravely. General Lee was highly regarded by such people as General U.S Grant. The Union had been restored and it was a case of let bygones be bygones. The issue of former black slaves living in the southern States wasn't a particular subject of concern. They had been freed and were now at liberty to pursue their own lives. The southern States decided on a policy towards blacks of "separate but equal" which of course was a joke and an excuse to keep them separate from white society and deny them any chance of gaining political power by requiring them to take some sort of educational test, a test devised to guarantee failure to pass and therefore classify them as ineligible to vote.

That about all there is to it. No more history stuff

Originally Posted by dc koop

The words "healing process" was a bad choice. What should have been said was that years after the civil war ended and the southern States were readmitted into the union the erection of statues to honor southern war dead raised no eyebrows in Washington.

Originally Posted by dc koop

The issue of former black slaves living in the southern States wasn't a particular subject of concern. They had been freed and were now at liberty to pursue their own lives. The southern States decided on a policy towards blacks of "separate but equal" which of course was a joke and an excuse to keep them separate from white society and deny them any chance of gaining political power by requiring them to take some sort of educational test, a test devised to guarantee failure to pass and therefore classify them as ineligible to vote.

Originally Posted by mrken30

I guess the Northern State did not determine the Blacks as equals. The first black exclusion law in Oregon, adopted in 1844 by the Provisional Government, mandated that blacks attempting to settle in Oregon would be publicly whipped—thirty-nine lashes, repeated every six months—until they departed. I am assuming the same did not happen to non-Blacks.

Originally Posted by Giantaxe

The point you're continually missing is that very few statues were raised in the era after the civil war ended. The vast majority of statues weren't raised until the Jim Crow era of the early 1900's. Why the 50 year gap? You really think it was just a coincidence that the era of statue building almost completely coincides with the era of segregationist laws in the southern states? Similarly, why do you think there was a spike of statue building in the civil rights era of the 60's?

Really, the bottom line here is that the vast majority - not all - of these statues were sending a very clear message to black Americans in southern states.

And if you can't see the connection from this to why these statues were built, well...

Originally Posted by dc koop

Memories are long down there and passed down from generation to generation

Originally Posted by kimilseung

OMG these Nazi snowflakes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=ovIt4SGEk5Q

Originally Posted by dc koop

Would a white Nazi have the right to punch you in the face if you wore "LGBT and proud of it" tee shirt. To his way of thinking LGBT is unacceptable also. What needs to happen is that we need to grow up and start acting like mature citizens. I used to attend public speaking sessions in Britain given by people of all beliefs, Fascists, Communists, Anarchists you name it. There were boos, loud hectoring, ridicule but never physical violence.

Originally Posted by Boiler

Seems like it is now all kicking off in Barcelona.

Originally Posted by Hiro11

I find a lot of what's in the following article to be thought provoking. Actually, I agree with a lot of what's in the following article. Caveat: I know nothing about the following blog and I make no claims about agreeing with its editorial stance. Also, I realize that the article is overly vindictive, engages heavily in stereotypes and is infuriatingly preachy.

From Charlottesville to Barcelona | Terrorism | spiked