Re: US Politics - Trump's latest press conference is a total disaster
Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 10:21 am
Games and Stuff
https://grcade.co.uk/
Brerlappin wrote:Trump: "From my point of view the Jedi are evil!"
Moggy wrote:captain red dog wrote:Hexx wrote:captain red dog wrote:General Lee doesn't deserve a statue. Neither do Washington or Jefferson. They owned slaves and quite a few at that. Slavery is an abomination. The fact you have painted yourself into a corner to defend statues of two slavers is absolutely incredible.
Ok at this point you're just trolling.
No one is even talking about half the issues you're trying to bring up - and you refuse to respond to what anyone is actually saying
Baiting people with antagonistic style isn't going to change that (I did particularly like your cretin remark yesterday after your whinging in the Brexitique thread)
The comment was brought up regarding the removal of a Lee statue being compared to removing statues of Jefferson and Washington. I said that's a fair point, if you remove one you should remove the others.
Is your position that their brand of slavery is somehow acceptable because they didn't fight a war to stop it? Thus their statues should be allowed to stand?
No I am not trolling. I am ideologically opposed to slavery and don't make an exception because history written by the victors might paint someone as a founding father. I think there are more productive ways to tackle these historical acts of inhumanity than removing statues, but that's another subject entirely.
Washington doesn't have a statue because of slavery. He also founded the USA and was its first President.
Lee has a statue because of a fight to keep slavery. He was also traitor to the USA.
That's the difference.
Knoyleo wrote:Brerlappin wrote:Trump: "From my point of view the Jedi are evil!"
They assaulted those droids, who had permits.
Garth wrote:Having statues of people who founded the US is clearly not the same as having statues of traitors to the US who took up arms to keep and expand slavery about a century later. Many of these Confederacy statues symbolise white supremacy and were erected long after the end of the civil war at state-owned buildings etc at times of great racial divide, in support of segregation laws for example and to remind African-Americans who holds power and to put them in their place. The Confederate flag became much more popular again in the Civil Rights era of the 1960s for instance, as it was used as a political statement aimed at African-Americans. So you can see, many of these Confederacy statues and symbols were made and used for racist purposes, while statues of founding fathers and former Presidents were not. Sure, keep some Confederacy statues in museums for historic and educational purposes, but they have no place standing outside government buildings nowadays as they are a direct insult to many of the citizens living there.
Garth wrote:
captain red dog wrote:Moggy wrote:captain red dog wrote:Hexx wrote:captain red dog wrote:General Lee doesn't deserve a statue. Neither do Washington or Jefferson. They owned slaves and quite a few at that. Slavery is an abomination. The fact you have painted yourself into a corner to defend statues of two slavers is absolutely incredible.
Ok at this point you're just trolling.
No one is even talking about half the issues you're trying to bring up - and you refuse to respond to what anyone is actually saying
Baiting people with antagonistic style isn't going to change that (I did particularly like your cretin remark yesterday after your whinging in the Brexitique thread)
The comment was brought up regarding the removal of a Lee statue being compared to removing statues of Jefferson and Washington. I said that's a fair point, if you remove one you should remove the others.
Is your position that their brand of slavery is somehow acceptable because they didn't fight a war to stop it? Thus their statues should be allowed to stand?
No I am not trolling. I am ideologically opposed to slavery and don't make an exception because history written by the victors might paint someone as a founding father. I think there are more productive ways to tackle these historical acts of inhumanity than removing statues, but that's another subject entirely.
Washington doesn't have a statue because of slavery. He also founded the USA and was its first President.
Lee has a statue because of a fight to keep slavery. He was also traitor to the USA.
That's the difference.
They were founding fathers of a nation where slavery was legalised, they owned and profited off slaves personally and did nothing whilst in power to end the practice. They are slavers and just as bad as Lee. I don't believe in degrees of slavery, the whole practice was immoral and an afront to humanity.
To keep statues of some slavers but not others for nationalist/pride reasons is immoral in my opinion. What message does that send to minorities in the US that were oppressed and still are oppressed. If you fight a war to keep slavery then you are scum, but build an entire nation on slavery and you are honoured as a hero?
If society decides to remove statues of slavers then they should all be removed without exception.
Moggy wrote:captain red dog wrote:Moggy wrote:captain red dog wrote:Hexx wrote:captain red dog wrote:General Lee doesn't deserve a statue. Neither do Washington or Jefferson. They owned slaves and quite a few at that. Slavery is an abomination. The fact you have painted yourself into a corner to defend statues of two slavers is absolutely incredible.
Ok at this point you're just trolling.
No one is even talking about half the issues you're trying to bring up - and you refuse to respond to what anyone is actually saying
Baiting people with antagonistic style isn't going to change that (I did particularly like your cretin remark yesterday after your whinging in the Brexitique thread)
The comment was brought up regarding the removal of a Lee statue being compared to removing statues of Jefferson and Washington. I said that's a fair point, if you remove one you should remove the others.
Is your position that their brand of slavery is somehow acceptable because they didn't fight a war to stop it? Thus their statues should be allowed to stand?
No I am not trolling. I am ideologically opposed to slavery and don't make an exception because history written by the victors might paint someone as a founding father. I think there are more productive ways to tackle these historical acts of inhumanity than removing statues, but that's another subject entirely.
Washington doesn't have a statue because of slavery. He also founded the USA and was its first President.
Lee has a statue because of a fight to keep slavery. He was also traitor to the USA.
That's the difference.
They were founding fathers of a nation where slavery was legalised, they owned and profited off slaves personally and did nothing whilst in power to end the practice. They are slavers and just as bad as Lee. I don't believe in degrees of slavery, the whole practice was immoral and an afront to humanity.
To keep statues of some slavers but not others for nationalist/pride reasons is immoral in my opinion. What message does that send to minorities in the US that were oppressed and still are oppressed. If you fight a war to keep slavery then you are scum, but build an entire nation on slavery and you are honoured as a hero?
If society decides to remove statues of slavers then they should all be removed without exception.
You are utterly missing the point here.
Washington's statues are not there because he was a slavery supporter.
Lee's statues are there because he was a supporter of slavery.
There's a massive difference between the way the two are honoured.
Peter Crisp wrote:The problem is a lot of young people now just don't know anything about history.
I realised this when I was talking to a few new people at work about the film Dunkirk and they knew strawberry float all about it and I was pretty stunned as I honestly thought everyone knew about such an important event in our history. I found out that history isn't a compulsory subject any more which amazed me as it's to my mind pretty much essential to have at least some grasp of where we've come from but I'm obviously wrong.
I can't believe I'm saying this but some people honestly don't give a gooseberry fool about history.
captain red dog wrote:Moggy wrote:captain red dog wrote:Hexx wrote:captain red dog wrote:General Lee doesn't deserve a statue. Neither do Washington or Jefferson. They owned slaves and quite a few at that. Slavery is an abomination. The fact you have painted yourself into a corner to defend statues of two slavers is absolutely incredible.
Ok at this point you're just trolling.
No one is even talking about half the issues you're trying to bring up - and you refuse to respond to what anyone is actually saying
Baiting people with antagonistic style isn't going to change that (I did particularly like your cretin remark yesterday after your whinging in the Brexitique thread)
The comment was brought up regarding the removal of a Lee statue being compared to removing statues of Jefferson and Washington. I said that's a fair point, if you remove one you should remove the others.
Is your position that their brand of slavery is somehow acceptable because they didn't fight a war to stop it? Thus their statues should be allowed to stand?
No I am not trolling. I am ideologically opposed to slavery and don't make an exception because history written by the victors might paint someone as a founding father. I think there are more productive ways to tackle these historical acts of inhumanity than removing statues, but that's another subject entirely.
Washington doesn't have a statue because of slavery. He also founded the USA and was its first President.
Lee has a statue because of a fight to keep slavery. He was also traitor to the USA.
That's the difference.
They were founding fathers of a nation where slavery was legalised, they owned and profited off slaves personally and did nothing whilst in power to end the practice. They are slavers and just as bad as Lee. I don't believe in degrees of slavery, the whole practice was immoral and an afront to humanity.
To keep statues of some slavers but not others for nationalist/pride reasons is immoral in my opinion. What message does that send to minorities in the US that were oppressed and still are oppressed. If you fight a war to keep slavery then you are scum, but build an entire nation on slavery and you are honoured as a hero?
If society decides to remove statues of slavers then they should all be removed without exception.
Again. Washington owned slaves. Lee fought and forced men to die for the right to do so. People want the Lee statue removed as this is what he stood for and what the statue stands for: the right to own slaves. This is not the same thing that Washington statues stand for, nor is fighting for the right to oppress people based on their colour the same as once having owned slaves.
As an aside, Washington also freed his slaves.
BID0 wrote:Peter Crisp wrote:The problem is a lot of young people now just don't know anything about history.
I realised this when I was talking to a few new people at work about the film Dunkirk and they knew strawberry float all about it and I was pretty stunned as I honestly thought everyone knew about such an important event in our history. I found out that history isn't a compulsory subject any more which amazed me as it's to my mind pretty much essential to have at least some grasp of where we've come from but I'm obviously wrong.
I can't believe I'm saying this but some people honestly don't give a gooseberry fool about history.
History hasn't been compulsory in my time. I guess when it changed to GCSE then?
Peter Crisp wrote:BID0 wrote:Peter Crisp wrote:The problem is a lot of young people now just don't know anything about history.
I realised this when I was talking to a few new people at work about the film Dunkirk and they knew strawberry float all about it and I was pretty stunned as I honestly thought everyone knew about such an important event in our history. I found out that history isn't a compulsory subject any more which amazed me as it's to my mind pretty much essential to have at least some grasp of where we've come from but I'm obviously wrong.
I can't believe I'm saying this but some people honestly don't give a gooseberry fool about history.
History hasn't been compulsory in my time. I guess when it changed to GCSE then?
I think history was compulsory for me and I was in the first few years of GCSE exams but I would have taken it instantly in any case.
To me history is essential and if nothing else it's an interesting subject you can really get into.
KK wrote:History is basically dinosaurs, space, Romans/Saxons/Vikings/Tudors, World War 2, end.
BID0 wrote:Peter Crisp wrote:The problem is a lot of young people now just don't know anything about history.
I realised this when I was talking to a few new people at work about the film Dunkirk and they knew strawberry float all about it and I was pretty stunned as I honestly thought everyone knew about such an important event in our history. I found out that history isn't a compulsory subject any more which amazed me as it's to my mind pretty much essential to have at least some grasp of where we've come from but I'm obviously wrong.
I can't believe I'm saying this but some people honestly don't give a gooseberry fool about history.
History hasn't been compulsory in my time. I guess when it changed to GCSE then?
KK wrote:The problem I think with a lot of history is that for schools to do it properly is expensive. It requires day trips and on-site interactivity. Kids want to sit in the bunker of the War Museum with the spinning pram wheel, not look at some stuffy text book. It was kind of the same with geography & science.
'When are we going to get the bunsen burners out'
'Never.'