"Smash The Old World"
found how controversial this topic can be - from BBC re Cecil Rhodes statue
One letter writer to the Daily Telegraph argued: "The trouble… is that almost every person of that era held opinions that were commonplace at the time but are at odds with modern thinking. Taken to its extreme, this approach would lead to the eradication of almost every building and statue commemorating notable figures of the past, including the Albert Memorial and Nelson's Column."
In this below Cecil Rhodes compared to Hitler by one side and this is what the chancellor of the university and Mary Beard has to say
The university’s chancellor, Chris Patten, told students that if they could not embrace freedom of thought, they may “think about being educated elsewhere”.
In an article for the Times Literary Supplement, the celebrated classicist Mary Beard told the students: “The battle isn’t won by taking the statue away and pretending those people didn’t exist. It’s won by empowering those students to look up at Rhodes and friends with a cheery and self-confident sense of unbatterability.”
How can any of you people be right-leaning after your experiences in the borg? - Nevuela
I'm struggling to see the connection but I think you have perfectly illustrated my point that some people on the left really don't understand others who don't share their worldview.
Care and compassion are valued by people on the right and the left. Regressive lefts think it is the only virtue worthy of attention.
Studies abound to prove whatever you want Cofty
Terrific. Find a study that proves the opposite and it'll nullify cofty's point. Until then, your argument is nothing more than inflation of conflict and has the side effect of proving too much - that no studies are useful when discussing anything.
Nevuela: that graphic is PURE propaganda. It's the democrats basically trying to claim credit for changes in history such as ending slavery as though *they* were the ones that pushed for it instead of the reality - they fought it tooth and nail.
People seem to forget that individuals can only change the needle of history from the point it is at when they exist, not the world we live in today.
People who pushed to end slavery may have previously owned slaves because that is the reality they were raised in - does that negate what they did or make the fact that they pushed to end it more noble because they saw something wrong and were campaigning against their own interests.
What should be considered regarding the Democratic party being the party of slavery and republicans fighting against it is that those were different times and since that period the two parties values and beliefs swapped. What is obvious is that the people who were racist democrats of that time now have the values of racist republicans of today.
Politics is a game... a disgusting and immoral one. The ideals of the KKK are the same since inception. The ideals of the de.ocratic party are not
I am not a Democrat or a Republican.
So ... now it's all "different times" and we should forget all about it ... because it was the democrats responsible.
But "white man bad" is OK?
This is a case where liberals pick and chose their "principles" and change them like the weather and they end up in knots trying to reconcile contradictions.
If that was then / this is now, then why is it OK to pick on white people in general? Shouldn't the criticism of slavery be focused solely on those who did it and perpetuated it and especially those who fought to defend and promote it?
Please explain the warped mind of the leftist to me. It's like being mad at Germans in general for WWII but saying "let's not blame the nazis though, just different times".
I never said we should forget about it... did I?
Why you have "white man bad" in quotes is beyond me because I never said that. Putting it in quotes like that gives the appearance that I did. Maybe we should start using APA style on this forum so when accusations are made there is some form of reference so that we know ideas are not being pulled out of thin air.
I am nowhere near a liberal. Picking and choosing principles is what intelligent people do when they realize that the principles that they hold are wrong / outdated / damaging etc... I am sure most people here (yourself as well as I included) that were link to incoherent JW babble. We changed those principles.
Who is picking on white people in general? THose who promoted slavery should be blamed for it. As well as those who supported and implemented Jim Crow should be blamed for their roles in it. Those who created structures following Jim Crow and even after the civil rights amendment should be blamed for what they did.
Which leftist mindset in particular. You are lumping all leftists into the exact same mindset and that is ridiculous. So if you have Republicans in the south TODAY that are involved in racial gerrymandering in the Southern states and they get called out for it, you think the logical response is something along the lines of, "well the democrats did this stuff first so don't point a finger at republicans".
I think the root of the anger and arguments from a number of the posters on this board is because the majority of the vitriol from the left is targetted at concepts, policies, and institutions that were created or benefitted WHITE MEN, and therefore much of this is taken as a personal attack.
There seems to be an assumption on this thread that "liberals = Democrats and it has always been exactly that way forever" and "conservatives = Republicans and it has always been exactly that way forever".
That is not quite so.
The political parties known as "Republican" and "Democrat" in the USA have ping-ponged around quite a bit.
Here is a helpful little breakdown / history lesson. It's simplified but useful:
It doesn't take much research to learn that conservatives opposed nearly every single freedom that we are lucky enough to take for granted these days
It doesn't take much to look around and see that extremist leftists oppose nearly every freedom we take for granted. The current state of college campuses is a prime example. The specifics of the rules would be different, but the left would still have us live in a kingdom hall where unapproved thought is not allowed. And you get to try to defend yourself from the mob when an accusation is let loose; without benefit of a trial, witnesses, or legal protection. The absolutes are in play, if you're not with them, you are opposed. Looks just like being accused of apostate leanings to me.
Additional note: while we're erasing the past, Robert Byrd (D) was a member of the KKK. Let's take his name off of everything its on. That would be approximately every public structure in West Virginia.
Second note: Jefferson Davis was a Democrat.
You don't even have to voice an opinion to get accosted or assaulted by a righteously angry mob just wear a hairstyle they don't like or feel you have "mis-appropriated."