US Politics - Trump cancels summit having to do with North Korea

Brerlappin wrote:Trump: "From my point of view the Jedi are evil!"

They assaulted those droids, who had permits.

twitter.com/Scott_Gilmore/status/897582269308653568

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.

Knoyleo wrote:
Brerlappin wrote:Trump: "From my point of view the Jedi are evil!"

They assaulted those droids, who had permits.

The Jedi ruthlessly hunt down and kill innocent Sith Lords.

This Lord here got his Lordship given to him for volunteering for 40 years at his local children's hospital and was universally loved and adored but he was mercilessly hunted down.

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:

twitter.com/Scott_Gilmore/status/897582269308653568

That's the thing I don't get. Most of these alt-right people will have had parents or grandparents who played a role in defeating Nazi Germany in WW2, either on the frontline or on the home front. How can they not see that they're now the very thing their country fought against? Mind boggling.

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.

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.

It's certainly an odd hill that CRD has decided to plant his flag and die on

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.

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?

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.

Let me rephrase that. Actually no I'll just repeat the statement:

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?

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.

It's like they've taken the symbolism of the Nazi's without truly understanding who they were. Or just interpreted/cherry picked an aspect of them. Like in the past (and I'm sure still, if you frequent the right parties...) that was usually just the affinity with the attire and uniform. Or the logo itself.

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.

Oh in that case it hasn't change. History is taught in infant, primary and secondary school up until the final 2 years of GCSE where you pick specialist subjects (I'm guessing your friends, like me, didn't chose History at this point)

History is basically dinosaurs, space, Romans/Saxons/Vikings/Tudors, World War 2, end.

KK wrote:History is basically dinosaurs, space, Romans/Saxons/Vikings/Tudors, World War 2, end.

We went to space before the rise of the Roman Empire?

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.'

Corazon de Leon

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?

Clearly I'm biased about this but it's a disgrace that history isn't a compulsory subject.

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.'

That's a fair comment but it's still a shame it isn't considered a core subject for GCSE.
One of the good things about this country being relatively small is that there's usually something historically significant within an hour or so coach trip.

US Politics - Trump cancels summit having to do with North Korea

Who is online

Affiliates