Question for OdontoBear66 and Golden One: Would you support a triumphant Osama bin Laden statue going up in Manhattan to commemorate the 20th anniversary of 9/11?

Didn't realize the Holocaust Meuseum in DC was full of statues idolizing Hitler and his Nazis generals as heroes.

Golden One said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

TandemBear said:

---

Good. Tear it out and be rid of it. The south, or former Confederate states, need to divest themselves from their horrible history. So unbelievable that people still want to fly that flag. Rewatching "Django Unchained" recently really drove home the point that the south still celebrates this reprehensible part of their history. It was utter brutality on all levels. That we could have treated fellow humans the way we did then. But now to still try to celebrate it? Or equally worse, lie about what's being celebrated under a VERY thin racist veil?

Can you imagine if a large swath of southern Germany (why is it always the south?) flew and celebrated the Nazi flag? Said it wasn't the ethnic cleansing they're celebrating, but instead "German punctuality and perfectionism," or "good Bavarian beer," or some such other nonsense? We'd bash them mercilessly and they'd NEVER be allowed to escape their Nazi past. Their humming economy wouldn't be what it is today if a third of their country openly embraced national socialism.

Instead, they teach the horrors of the past so that people do not forget. The only Nazi flags and remnants of that time are found in museums and historic places kept in place so that it cannot be forgotten. So that it can't be erased from history so the lunatic holocaust deniers can have any sort of additional evidence to support their insane agenda.

But here in the US, for some reason, people still harken back to a "better time when you could enslave others and profit off their labor for free!" And raping a few of the women every now and again when the wife wasn't putting out was a nice side benefit. Crude, I know. But it's true, dammit!

Topple all of the statues. Burn all of the flags. Enough of this.

An embarrassment.

---

Dumb sh*t. Erase it and you lose the lesson of its errors. Simple as that. My family has always been of northern persuasion and the errors of slavery, and the Confederacy. But erase it? No. Learn from its horrors? Yes.
All I know is I went to Cal in the era of free speech, and when it is such, the evil will be exposed. What you espouse is an evil unto itself that relates not even to the subject in question. Embarrassing. Did you go to Cal? Or did you just sign up for Antifa of late?

---

Exactly. Using TandemBear's logic, we should tear down the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C.

---

This is probably the most ridiculous post I have seen on this board and every previous iteration since I first started reading this board almost 20 years ago.

Bear19 said:

---

TandemBear said:

---

Good. Rewatching "Django Unchained" recently really drove home the point that the south still celebrates this reprehensible part of their history. An embarrassment.

---

Siting a movie as proof for anything, much less for how the entire South views slavery, is embarrassing.

---

You're right. We should cite the fact that so many of these Confederate monuments are still up.

OdontoBear66 said:

---

TandemBear said:

---

Good. Tear it out and be rid of it. The south, or former Confederate states, need to divest themselves from their horrible history. So unbelievable that people still want to fly that flag. Rewatching "Django Unchained" recently really drove home the point that the south still celebrates this reprehensible part of their history. It was utter brutality on all levels. That we could have treated fellow humans the way we did then. But now to still try to celebrate it? Or equally worse, lie about what's being celebrated under a VERY thin racist veil?

Can you imagine if a large swath of southern Germany (why is it always the south?) flew and celebrated the Nazi flag? Said it wasn't the ethnic cleansing they're celebrating, but instead "German punctuality and perfectionism," or "good Bavarian beer," or some such other nonsense? We'd bash them mercilessly and they'd NEVER be allowed to escape their Nazi past. Their humming economy wouldn't be what it is today if a third of their country openly embraced national socialism.

Instead, they teach the horrors of the past so that people do not forget. The only Nazi flags and remnants of that time are found in museums and historic places kept in place so that it cannot be forgotten. So that it can't be erased from history so the lunatic holocaust deniers can have any sort of additional evidence to support their insane agenda.

But here in the US, for some reason, people still harken back to a "better time when you could enslave others and profit off their labor for free!" And raping a few of the women every now and again when the wife wasn't putting out was a nice side benefit. Crude, I know. But it's true, dammit!

Topple all of the statues. Burn all of the flags. Enough of this.

An embarrassment.

---

Dumb sh*t. Erase it and you lose the lesson of its errors. Simple as that. My family has always been of northern persuasion and the errors of slavery, and the Confederacy. But erase it? No. Learn from its horrors? Yes.
All I know is I went to Cal in the era of free speech, and when it is such, the evil will be exposed. What you espouse is an evil unto itself that relates not even to the subject in question. Embarrassing. Did you go to Cal? Or did you just sign up for Antifa of late?

---

The only dumb sh*t here is your argument that these statues were erected because of "history."

https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544266880/confederate-statues-were-built-to-further-a-white-supremacist-future

Another Bear said:

---

I support taking those down by the people and by force. Voting simply will not get the job done. Meanwhile the culture of hate survives in the South.

---

In the history of this country, voting out something explicitly racist typically does not happen until enough people make enough of a stink about it to force the issue. As such, I'm fine with having some of these statues torn down by force. That's how you show people that it's a problem; otherwise they remain blissfully unaware.

OaktownBear said:

---

Golden One said:

---

Exactly. Using TandemBear's logic, we should tear down the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C.

---

This is probably the most ridiculous post I have seen on this board and every previous iteration since I first started reading this board almost 20 years ago.

---

Was thinking the exact same thing. SMH.

OaktownBear said:

---

Golden One said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

TandemBear said:

---

Good. Tear it out and be rid of it. The south, or former Confederate states, need to divest themselves from their horrible history. So unbelievable that people still want to fly that flag. Rewatching "Django Unchained" recently really drove home the point that the south still celebrates this reprehensible part of their history. It was utter brutality on all levels. That we could have treated fellow humans the way we did then. But now to still try to celebrate it? Or equally worse, lie about what's being celebrated under a VERY thin racist veil?

Can you imagine if a large swath of southern Germany (why is it always the south?) flew and celebrated the Nazi flag? Said it wasn't the ethnic cleansing they're celebrating, but instead "German punctuality and perfectionism," or "good Bavarian beer," or some such other nonsense? We'd bash them mercilessly and they'd NEVER be allowed to escape their Nazi past. Their humming economy wouldn't be what it is today if a third of their country openly embraced national socialism.

Instead, they teach the horrors of the past so that people do not forget. The only Nazi flags and remnants of that time are found in museums and historic places kept in place so that it cannot be forgotten. So that it can't be erased from history so the lunatic holocaust deniers can have any sort of additional evidence to support their insane agenda.

But here in the US, for some reason, people still harken back to a "better time when you could enslave others and profit off their labor for free!" And raping a few of the women every now and again when the wife wasn't putting out was a nice side benefit. Crude, I know. But it's true, dammit!

Topple all of the statues. Burn all of the flags. Enough of this.

An embarrassment.

---

Dumb sh*t. Erase it and you lose the lesson of its errors. Simple as that. My family has always been of northern persuasion and the errors of slavery, and the Confederacy. But erase it? No. Learn from its horrors? Yes.
All I know is I went to Cal in the era of free speech, and when it is such, the evil will be exposed. What you espouse is an evil unto itself that relates not even to the subject in question. Embarrassing. Did you go to Cal? Or did you just sign up for Antifa of late?

---

Exactly. Using TandemBear's logic, we should tear down the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C.

---

This is probably the most ridiculous post I have seen on this board and every previous iteration since I first started reading this board almost 20 years ago.

---

I'll see you and raise you: I remove the qualifier "probably."

OaktownBear said:

---

Golden One said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

TandemBear said:

---

Good. Tear it out and be rid of it. The south, or former Confederate states, need to divest themselves from their horrible history. So unbelievable that people still want to fly that flag. Rewatching "Django Unchained" recently really drove home the point that the south still celebrates this reprehensible part of their history. It was utter brutality on all levels. That we could have treated fellow humans the way we did then. But now to still try to celebrate it? Or equally worse, lie about what's being celebrated under a VERY thin racist veil?

Can you imagine if a large swath of southern Germany (why is it always the south?) flew and celebrated the Nazi flag? Said it wasn't the ethnic cleansing they're celebrating, but instead "German punctuality and perfectionism," or "good Bavarian beer," or some such other nonsense? We'd bash them mercilessly and they'd NEVER be allowed to escape their Nazi past. Their humming economy wouldn't be what it is today if a third of their country openly embraced national socialism.

Instead, they teach the horrors of the past so that people do not forget. The only Nazi flags and remnants of that time are found in museums and historic places kept in place so that it cannot be forgotten. So that it can't be erased from history so the lunatic holocaust deniers can have any sort of additional evidence to support their insane agenda.

But here in the US, for some reason, people still harken back to a "better time when you could enslave others and profit off their labor for free!" And raping a few of the women every now and again when the wife wasn't putting out was a nice side benefit. Crude, I know. But it's true, dammit!

Topple all of the statues. Burn all of the flags. Enough of this.

An embarrassment.

---

Dumb sh*t. Erase it and you lose the lesson of its errors. Simple as that. My family has always been of northern persuasion and the errors of slavery, and the Confederacy. But erase it? No. Learn from its horrors? Yes.
All I know is I went to Cal in the era of free speech, and when it is such, the evil will be exposed. What you espouse is an evil unto itself that relates not even to the subject in question. Embarrassing. Did you go to Cal? Or did you just sign up for Antifa of late?

---

Exactly. Using TandemBear's logic, we should tear down the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C.

---

This is probably the most ridiculous post I have seen on this board and every previous iteration since I first started reading this board almost 20 years ago.

---

ProTip for conservatives: the fact that your arguments grow ever more desperate is strong evidence that your position is untenable. Best advice: change your position.

sycasey said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

Golden One said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

TandemBear said:

---

Good. Tear it out and be rid of it. The south, or former Confederate states, need to divest themselves from their horrible history. So unbelievable that people still want to fly that flag. Rewatching "Django Unchained" recently really drove home the point that the south still celebrates this reprehensible part of their history. It was utter brutality on all levels. That we could have treated fellow humans the way we did then. But now to still try to celebrate it? Or equally worse, lie about what's being celebrated under a VERY thin racist veil?

Can you imagine if a large swath of southern Germany (why is it always the south?) flew and celebrated the Nazi flag? Said it wasn't the ethnic cleansing they're celebrating, but instead "German punctuality and perfectionism," or "good Bavarian beer," or some such other nonsense? We'd bash them mercilessly and they'd NEVER be allowed to escape their Nazi past. Their humming economy wouldn't be what it is today if a third of their country openly embraced national socialism.

Instead, they teach the horrors of the past so that people do not forget. The only Nazi flags and remnants of that time are found in museums and historic places kept in place so that it cannot be forgotten. So that it can't be erased from history so the lunatic holocaust deniers can have any sort of additional evidence to support their insane agenda.

But here in the US, for some reason, people still harken back to a "better time when you could enslave others and profit off their labor for free!" And raping a few of the women every now and again when the wife wasn't putting out was a nice side benefit. Crude, I know. But it's true, dammit!

Topple all of the statues. Burn all of the flags. Enough of this.

An embarrassment.

---

Dumb sh*t. Erase it and you lose the lesson of its errors. Simple as that. My family has always been of northern persuasion and the errors of slavery, and the Confederacy. But erase it? No. Learn from its horrors? Yes.
All I know is I went to Cal in the era of free speech, and when it is such, the evil will be exposed. What you espouse is an evil unto itself that relates not even to the subject in question. Embarrassing. Did you go to Cal? Or did you just sign up for Antifa of late?

---

Exactly. Using TandemBear's logic, we should tear down the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C.

---

This is probably the most ridiculous post I have seen on this board and every previous iteration since I first started reading this board almost 20 years ago.

---

ProTip for conservatives: the fact that your arguments grow ever more desperate is strong evidence that your position is untenable. Best advice: change your position.

---

I think Golden One believes he laid down a real zinger there. He never admits when his statements are asinine. Maybe he has private moments where he takes stock of this idiocy, but here on the boards it's just a stream of unfettered partisan nonsense. Not even cogent positions or arguments, just semi-snide potshots with no substance. My three year old also thought their arguments were solid.

There is an environmental issue that has been overlooked in this thread. Discarded statues of discredited football coaches, Cardinals that covered up abuse, Confederate heroes, and old Suburbans make excellent artificial reefs off the coast.

blungld said:

---

sycasey said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

Golden One said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

TandemBear said:

---

Good. Tear it out and be rid of it. The south, or former Confederate states, need to divest themselves from their horrible history. So unbelievable that people still want to fly that flag. Rewatching "Django Unchained" recently really drove home the point that the south still celebrates this reprehensible part of their history. It was utter brutality on all levels. That we could have treated fellow humans the way we did then. But now to still try to celebrate it? Or equally worse, lie about what's being celebrated under a VERY thin racist veil?

Can you imagine if a large swath of southern Germany (why is it always the south?) flew and celebrated the Nazi flag? Said it wasn't the ethnic cleansing they're celebrating, but instead "German punctuality and perfectionism," or "good Bavarian beer," or some such other nonsense? We'd bash them mercilessly and they'd NEVER be allowed to escape their Nazi past. Their humming economy wouldn't be what it is today if a third of their country openly embraced national socialism.

Instead, they teach the horrors of the past so that people do not forget. The only Nazi flags and remnants of that time are found in museums and historic places kept in place so that it cannot be forgotten. So that it can't be erased from history so the lunatic holocaust deniers can have any sort of additional evidence to support their insane agenda.

But here in the US, for some reason, people still harken back to a "better time when you could enslave others and profit off their labor for free!" And raping a few of the women every now and again when the wife wasn't putting out was a nice side benefit. Crude, I know. But it's true, dammit!

Topple all of the statues. Burn all of the flags. Enough of this.

An embarrassment.

---

Dumb sh*t. Erase it and you lose the lesson of its errors. Simple as that. My family has always been of northern persuasion and the errors of slavery, and the Confederacy. But erase it? No. Learn from its horrors? Yes.
All I know is I went to Cal in the era of free speech, and when it is such, the evil will be exposed. What you espouse is an evil unto itself that relates not even to the subject in question. Embarrassing. Did you go to Cal? Or did you just sign up for Antifa of late?

---

Exactly. Using TandemBear's logic, we should tear down the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C.

---

This is probably the most ridiculous post I have seen on this board and every previous iteration since I first started reading this board almost 20 years ago.

---

ProTip for conservatives: the fact that your arguments grow ever more desperate is strong evidence that your position is untenable. Best advice: change your position.

---

I think Golden One believes he laid down a real zinger there. He never admits when his statements are asinine. Maybe he has private moments where he takes stock of this idiocy, but here on the boards it's just a stream of unfettered partisan nonsense. Not even cogent positions or arguments, just semi-snide potshots with no substance. My three year old also thought their arguments were solid.

---

True, he can always go back to Fox/Breitbart/InfoWars who will tell him all of his arguments are sound (plus he'll get some new zingers to regale us with).

sycasey said:

---

blungld said:

---

sycasey said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

Golden One said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

TandemBear said:

---

Good. Tear it out and be rid of it. The south, or former Confederate states, need to divest themselves from their horrible history. So unbelievable that people still want to fly that flag. Rewatching "Django Unchained" recently really drove home the point that the south still celebrates this reprehensible part of their history. It was utter brutality on all levels. That we could have treated fellow humans the way we did then. But now to still try to celebrate it? Or equally worse, lie about what's being celebrated under a VERY thin racist veil?

Can you imagine if a large swath of southern Germany (why is it always the south?) flew and celebrated the Nazi flag? Said it wasn't the ethnic cleansing they're celebrating, but instead "German punctuality and perfectionism," or "good Bavarian beer," or some such other nonsense? We'd bash them mercilessly and they'd NEVER be allowed to escape their Nazi past. Their humming economy wouldn't be what it is today if a third of their country openly embraced national socialism.

Instead, they teach the horrors of the past so that people do not forget. The only Nazi flags and remnants of that time are found in museums and historic places kept in place so that it cannot be forgotten. So that it can't be erased from history so the lunatic holocaust deniers can have any sort of additional evidence to support their insane agenda.

But here in the US, for some reason, people still harken back to a "better time when you could enslave others and profit off their labor for free!" And raping a few of the women every now and again when the wife wasn't putting out was a nice side benefit. Crude, I know. But it's true, dammit!

Topple all of the statues. Burn all of the flags. Enough of this.

An embarrassment.

---

Dumb sh*t. Erase it and you lose the lesson of its errors. Simple as that. My family has always been of northern persuasion and the errors of slavery, and the Confederacy. But erase it? No. Learn from its horrors? Yes.
All I know is I went to Cal in the era of free speech, and when it is such, the evil will be exposed. What you espouse is an evil unto itself that relates not even to the subject in question. Embarrassing. Did you go to Cal? Or did you just sign up for Antifa of late?

---

Exactly. Using TandemBear's logic, we should tear down the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C.

---

This is probably the most ridiculous post I have seen on this board and every previous iteration since I first started reading this board almost 20 years ago.

---

ProTip for conservatives: the fact that your arguments grow ever more desperate is strong evidence that your position is untenable. Best advice: change your position.

---

I think Golden One believes he laid down a real zinger there. He never admits when his statements are asinine. Maybe he has private moments where he takes stock of this idiocy, but here on the boards it's just a stream of unfettered partisan nonsense. Not even cogent positions or arguments, just semi-snide potshots with no substance. My three year old also thought their arguments were solid.

---

True, he can always go back to Fox/Breitbart/InfoWars who will tell him all of his arguments are sound (plus he'll get some new zingers to regale us with).

---

Or maybe find a gem or two among the lyrics of American Bard Toby Keith.

Something like: "You, you, you, you, you you, you, you. I wanna talk about me!"

AunBear89 said:

---

Or maybe find a gem or two among the lyrics of American Bard Toby Keith.

Something like: "You, you, you, you, you you, you, you. I wanna talk about me!"

---

Hey, that one's actually good.

But occasionally. . .I wanna talk about me!

okaydo said:

---

Dlc83 said:

---

It was erected by the Daughters of the Confederacy to honor the UNC students who lost their lives fighting for their State in the Civil War. It is seen as a symbol of peace since the statute features an empty cartrage belt.

Others now view it as a homage to White Supremacy.

Vandals tore it down so I guess they "won" (kind of like the Taliban won when they destroyed those ancient Buddist statutes).

In any event, it is complicated. My guess is that it will be restored after it is repaired.

---

Dlc83 would also have no problem with Colorado State erecting a statue to alum Anwar al-Awlaki.

---

Well there is a monument for the historic Colorado Civil War battle at Sand Creek..

This is apologetically long. The confederate statue, which as I understand did not represent a specific person, but honored dead confederate soldiers and the principles they fought for, should have been taken down long ago. Further, history museums are a good place for statues espousing these beliefs, not public forums at state universities.

That said, history can be a *****, and those with the typical comments about southerners may want to look closer to home.

Stanford was funded by the wealth of a man when running for Senator ran on white supremacy platform. For example, then Governor Stanford said:

[T] he cause in which we are engaged is one of the greatest in which any can labor. It is the cause of the white manI am in favor of free white American citizens. I prefer free white citizens to any other race. I prefer the white man to the negro as an inhabitant to our country. I believe its greatest good has been derived by having all of the country settled by free white men.

He also took part in the anti-Asian fervor that was so much a part of the Bay Area for some time, having unloaded this gem in his acceptance speech as Governor:

"The presence of numbers of that degradedpeople [Chinese-Americans] would exercise a deleterious effect upon the superior [white] race.To my mind it is clear that [Asian-American] settlement among us is to be discouraged by every legitimate means. Large numbers are already here, and unless we do something early to check their immigration, the question which of the two tides of immigration meeting upon the shores of the Pacific"the Euro-American and the Asian"shall be turned back, will be forced upon our consideration when far more difficult than now of disposal"

But if Stanford's racism is not sufficiently offensive to today's selective censors that means changing the name of the University and all its affiliates, thousands of streets, many building and organization names, several hotel names, and on and on, why not a deeper look at the school's history? In a 1957 statement approving non-discrimination in admissions, the Board of Trustees admitted the school had failed to treat Black students, people of Asian descent, or Native Americans equally. This from a school with the then nickname Indians. Stanford's founding president David Starr Jordan, as well as former professors Lewis M. Terman and Elwood P. Cubberley, were active founders and supporters of the eugenics movement, which was used by Nazi's to formulate extermination policies (fwiw,, Teddy Roosevelt was a major proponent and used it to justify American Imperialism which he often referred to as white man's burden). But Stanford was really known for in the early years was fighting the yellow peril. Indeed many a Stanford President lectured on the problem of the Asian mind. In fact, Jane Stanford fired one President for using it as a platform for what appeared to be a run for elected office.

There is Junipero Serra, that Furd activists say brutalized Indians at the missions, covered for Spanish colonization and destroyed indigenous culture by converting the Indians to Catholicism. The Furd activists and the Furd student assembly want the street, mall, buildings, statues, and whatever else named Serra on the campus to be changed (not to mention everything else named after him in California). They may want to have the Pope revoke his saint hood granted in 2015. If the Stanford activists aim to obliterate Serra's existence, they have a long road ahead.

Then there is Cal. In its early days, Cal had a well known President (before they were called Chancellors), who made a fortune selling weapons to the confederates, several Presidents and administrators who had slaves, another famous President who wrote anthropological work on the Philippines and regions of Africa during the early 1900s describing inferior races, which was unfortunately common at the time. Boalt was an attorney who drafted the Chinese exclusionary laws. What is also interesting is many of these men were considered progressive for their time, and Cal was considered the one of the most progressive schools in the nation. In any event, there is a movement to remove these mens' names from campus (also Berkeley schools are named after two of these Presidents), and while there is a framework in place to make name changes at Cal for several years, only Boalt's name has been deleted.

The ancient Romans invented the practice in which all traces of those who Emperors that had fallen from political favor were systematically removed after their deaths from public squares, coins and documents. Today's version turns human beings facing different societal norms and motivations into villains, perhaps in some cases to perpetuate agendas. Stanford and Cal may, of course, rename and pretend men formally revered never existed (but except in one case, Boalt, have refused). And Pilipino Americans can demand to remove Roosevelt's face from the mountain all they want. But the Roman Emperors' names still exist. At some place you have to draw a line.

The censored word refers to a female dog.

wifeisafurd said:

---

This is apologetically long. The confederate statue, which as I understand did not represent a specific person, but honored dead confederate soldiers and the principles they fought for, should have been taken down long ago. Further, history museums are a good place for statues espousing these beliefs, not public forums at state universities.

That said, history can be a *****, and those with the typical comments about southerners may want to look closer to home.

Stanford was funded by the wealth of a man when running for Senator ran on white supremacy platform. For example, then Governor Stanford said:

[T] he cause in which we are engaged is one of the greatest in which any can labor. It is the cause of the white manI am in favor of free white American citizens. I prefer free white citizens to any other race. I prefer the white man to the negro as an inhabitant to our country. I believe its greatest good has been derived by having all of the country settled by free white men.

He also took part in the anti-Asian fervor that was so much a part of the Bay Area for some time, having unloaded this gem in his acceptance speech as Governor:

"The presence of numbers of that degradedpeople [Chinese-Americans] would exercise a deleterious effect upon the superior [white] race.To my mind it is clear that [Asian-American] settlement among us is to be discouraged by every legitimate means. Large numbers are already here, and unless we do something early to check their immigration, the question which of the two tides of immigration meeting upon the shores of the Pacific"the Euro-American and the Asian"shall be turned back, will be forced upon our consideration when far more difficult than now of disposal"

But if Stanford's racism is not sufficiently offensive to today's selective censors that means changing the name of the University and all its affiliates, thousands of streets, many building and organization names, several hotel names, and on and on, why not a deeper look at the school's history? In a 1957 statement approving non-discrimination in admissions, the Board of Trustees admitted the school had failed to treat Black students, people of Asian descent, or Native Americans equally. This from a school with the then nickname Indians. Stanford's founding president David Starr Jordan, as well as former professors Lewis M. Terman and Elwood P. Cubberley, were active founders and supporters of the eugenics movement, which was used by Nazi's to formulate extermination policies (fwiw,, Teddy Roosevelt was a major proponent and used it to justify American Imperialism which he often referred to as white man's burden). But Stanford was really known for in the early years was fighting the yellow peril. Indeed many a Stanford President lectured on the problem of the Asian mind. In fact, Jane Stanford fired one President for using it as a platform for what appeared to be a run for elected office.

There is Junipero Serra, that Furd activists say brutalized Indians at the missions, covered for Spanish colonization and destroyed indigenous culture by converting the Indians to Catholicism. The Furd activists and the Furd student assembly want the street, mall, buildings, statues, and whatever else named Serra on the campus to be changed (not to mention everything else named after him in California). They may want to have the Pope revoke his saint hood granted in 2015. If the Stanford activists aim to obliterate Serra's existence, they have a long road ahead.

Then there is Cal. In its early days, Cal had a well known President (before they were called Chancellors), who made a fortune selling weapons to the confederates, several Presidents and administrators who had slaves, another famous President who wrote anthropological work on the Philippines and regions of Africa during the early 1900s describing inferior races, which was unfortunately common at the time. Boalt was an attorney who drafted the Chinese exclusionary laws. What is also interesting is many of these men were considered progressive for their time, and Cal was considered the one of the most progressive schools in the nation. In any event, there is a movement to remove these mens' names from campus (also Berkeley schools are named after two of these Presidents), and while there is a framework in place to make name changes at Cal for several years, only Boalt's name has been deleted.

The ancient Romans invented the practice in which all traces of those who Emperors that had fallen from political favor were systematically removed after their deaths from public squares, coins and documents. Today's version turns human beings facing different societal norms and motivations into villains, perhaps in some cases to perpetuate agendas. Stanford and Cal may, of course, rename and pretend men formally revered never existed (but except in one case, Boalt, have refused). And Pilipino Americans can demand to remove Roosevelt's face from the mountain all they want. But the Roman Emperors' names still exist. At some place you have to draw a line.

The censored word refers to a female dog.

---

I really don't understand your point here WIAF.

I have no problem with Stanford University having to change its name (actually that would be funny to me). Also no problem with statues of the people you describe being put in museums with proper (ugly) historical context rather than glorified in public and fiercely/resentfully defended as the confederate statues in the south are.

I think many in the bay area would agree with me too, possibly other than the dozens of people that are hard core Stanford sports fans who might not want the name change. I don't think large swathes of the bay area population would have a giant persecution complex about history being put in proper context. Seems like a false equivalence.

And that's completely aside from the difference in degree - the confederate rebellion resulted directly in hundreds of thousands of dead Americans, all to preserve (state's rights to practice and enforce) enslavement of blacks. That's why people compare it to the small handful of familiar historical entities that might have been even worse, like Nazi Germany (who I'm sure also had their own unknown Silent Sam soldiers). As bad as the things you talk about were with Cal and Stanford people, even including profiteering from the civil war, they still don't sink to that nadir of human ****tiness.

But whatever - as I said, no problem on my end putting statues of Leland Stanford and some old Cal officials in museums with proper context rather than in places of public honor. None of my Cal friends that I can think of would care much either. By contrast, in the south and really probably a third or more of the country, it's a rallying cry for the right who get triggered every time something happens to a confederate monument.

Edited to add: just witness the comparisons, even in this thread, of confederate monuments being akin to sacred Buddhist statues or the Holocaust museum. Good grief.

w said:

---

At some place you have to draw a line.

---

I would say it's pretty easy to draw a line at not honoring people who committed treason to fight a war in support of human enslavement.

Being a casually s***ty racist like many others of your time is something worth talking about, but not necessarily worth removing names over.

You have also talked here about removing a historical figure "from existence," which seems to me a strawman offered in bad faith. No one here has advocated removing the Confederacy from the historical record. They have advocated removing monuments to it from places of honor (in front of government buildings, etc.).

OaktownBear said:

---

Dlc83 said:

---

It was erected by the Daughters of the Confederacy to honor the UNC students who lost their lives fighting for their State in the Civil War. It is seen as a symbol of peace since the statute features an empty cartrage belt.

Others now view it as a homage to White Supremacy.

Vandals tore it down so I guess they "won" (kind of like the Taliban won when they destroyed those ancient Buddist statutes).

In any event, it is complicated. My guess is that it will be restored after it is repaired.

---

The SCULPTOR who was not a southerner put the empty cartridge belt in there. You have a tough time arguing that it only later was viewed as an homage to White Supremacy when the dedication speech featured these gems:

"The present generation... scarcely takes note of what the Confederate soldier meant to the welfare of the Anglo Saxon race during the four years immediately succeeding the war... their courage and steadfastness saved the very life of the Anglo Saxon race in the South"

and

"One hundred yards from where we stand, less than ninety days perhaps after my return from Appomattox, I horse whipped a negro wench until her skirts hung in shreds because she had maligned and insulted a Southern lady, and then rushed for protection to these University buildings where was stationed a garrison of 100 Federal soldiers. I performed the pleasing duty in the immediate presence of the entire garrison."

Okaydo's post just above has a more lengthy excerpt. It is pretty clear on the date of dedication that at least the man who dedicated the statue thought it was an homage to White Supremacy.

It is actually not complicated. I can acknowledge that the soldiers who fought for the South bravely sacrificed for what they thought was right. But what they thought was right was grievously wrong and should no longer be honored. History is filled with men who bravely died for horrific causes. And all the while, we have comparatively few statues honoring the slaves who were the real victims (and the few that exist tend to be vandalized and stolen without national news coverage).

---

Honoring people who tried to split this country in two, keep the institution of slavery alive, and committed treasonous acts against the United States of America, means you get nothing. The South shouldn't get their statues that remind millions of people of the horrors visited upon their forefathers. The South lost and should be reminded of that so we don't repeat the same mistakes again. These statues weren't put up to honor people, they were put up to terrorize people and remind them of their place in this country as less than. The dedication speech of the specific statue is proof of that intent. Nobody who is sane argues for a monument honoring the Nazi's, Imperial Japan, North Korea, The Taliban, Bin Laden, Viet Cong or IS. When you fight for the losing side you get your life, you don't get to raise statues in the winner's front yard and claim you are honoring those "brave, and honorable souls" who died trying to destroy the United States of America.

Hey, everyone! It is time to play American Conservatives' favorite game show:

False Equivalency!

The game where you draw questionable parallels to justify your offensive beliefs and behaviors! Anyone can play and the only losers are logic and reason!

Some people do great things despite also doing things that were viewed as legitimate at the time but in hindsight are considered horrible (George Washington is a good example). These people can still be honored for the great things they did but, in my opinion, it is important to be honest about the negative things they did as well. The Cal / Stanford people probably fit in that category. But if the students get riled up enough to pull down the statue of a robber baron, then it should probably stay down. Usually students are pretty apathetic about these things.

But what did Silent Sam ever do except honor and glorify the Confederacy? What did Jefferson Davis do outside the Confederacy?

These attempts at false equivalency are hollow and insulting.

Why not take all these statues and assemble them in a museum with appropriate commentary from both sides?
People can go see them for what they were.

OneKeg said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

This is apologetically long. The confederate statue, which as I understand did not represent a specific person, but honored dead confederate soldiers and the principles they fought for, should have been taken down long ago. Further, history museums are a good place for statues espousing these beliefs, not public forums at state universities.

That said, history can be a *****, and those with the typical comments about southerners may want to look closer to home.

Stanford was funded by the wealth of a man when running for Senator ran on white supremacy platform. For example, then Governor Stanford said:

[T] he cause in which we are engaged is one of the greatest in which any can labor. It is the cause of the white manI am in favor of free white American citizens. I prefer free white citizens to any other race. I prefer the white man to the negro as an inhabitant to our country. I believe its greatest good has been derived by having all of the country settled by free white men.

He also took part in the anti-Asian fervor that was so much a part of the Bay Area for some time, having unloaded this gem in his acceptance speech as Governor:

"The presence of numbers of that degradedpeople [Chinese-Americans] would exercise a deleterious effect upon the superior [white] race.To my mind it is clear that [Asian-American] settlement among us is to be discouraged by every legitimate means. Large numbers are already here, and unless we do something early to check their immigration, the question which of the two tides of immigration meeting upon the shores of the Pacific"the Euro-American and the Asian"shall be turned back, will be forced upon our consideration when far more difficult than now of disposal"

But if Stanford's racism is not sufficiently offensive to today's selective censors that means changing the name of the University and all its affiliates, thousands of streets, many building and organization names, several hotel names, and on and on, why not a deeper look at the school's history? In a 1957 statement approving non-discrimination in admissions, the Board of Trustees admitted the school had failed to treat Black students, people of Asian descent, or Native Americans equally. This from a school with the then nickname Indians. Stanford's founding president David Starr Jordan, as well as former professors Lewis M. Terman and Elwood P. Cubberley, were active founders and supporters of the eugenics movement, which was used by Nazi's to formulate extermination policies (fwiw,, Teddy Roosevelt was a major proponent and used it to justify American Imperialism which he often referred to as white man's burden). But Stanford was really known for in the early years was fighting the yellow peril. Indeed many a Stanford President lectured on the problem of the Asian mind. In fact, Jane Stanford fired one President for using it as a platform for what appeared to be a run for elected office.

There is Junipero Serra, that Furd activists say brutalized Indians at the missions, covered for Spanish colonization and destroyed indigenous culture by converting the Indians to Catholicism. The Furd activists and the Furd student assembly want the street, mall, buildings, statues, and whatever else named Serra on the campus to be changed (not to mention everything else named after him in California). They may want to have the Pope revoke his saint hood granted in 2015. If the Stanford activists aim to obliterate Serra's existence, they have a long road ahead.

Then there is Cal. In its early days, Cal had a well known President (before they were called Chancellors), who made a fortune selling weapons to the confederates, several Presidents and administrators who had slaves, another famous President who wrote anthropological work on the Philippines and regions of Africa during the early 1900s describing inferior races, which was unfortunately common at the time. Boalt was an attorney who drafted the Chinese exclusionary laws. What is also interesting is many of these men were considered progressive for their time, and Cal was considered the one of the most progressive schools in the nation. In any event, there is a movement to remove these mens' names from campus (also Berkeley schools are named after two of these Presidents), and while there is a framework in place to make name changes at Cal for several years, only Boalt's name has been deleted.

The ancient Romans invented the practice in which all traces of those who Emperors that had fallen from political favor were systematically removed after their deaths from public squares, coins and documents. Today's version turns human beings facing different societal norms and motivations into villains, perhaps in some cases to perpetuate agendas. Stanford and Cal may, of course, rename and pretend men formally revered never existed (but except in one case, Boalt, have refused). And Pilipino Americans can demand to remove Roosevelt's face from the mountain all they want. But the Roman Emperors' names still exist. At some place you have to draw a line.

The censored word refers to a female dog.

---

I really don't understand your point here WIAF.

I have no problem with Stanford University having to change its name (actually that would be funny to me). Also no problem with statues of the people you describe being put in museums with proper (ugly) historical context rather than glorified in public and fiercely/resentfully defended as the confederate statues in the south are.

I think many in the bay area would agree with me too, possibly other than the dozens of people that are hard core Stanford sports fans who might not want the name change. I don't think large swathes of the bay area population would have a giant persecution complex about history being put in proper context. Seems like a false equivalence.

And that's completely aside from the difference in degree - the confederate rebellion resulted directly in hundreds of thousands of dead Americans, all to preserve (state's rights to practice and enforce) enslavement of blacks. That's why people compare it to the small handful of familiar historical entities that might have been even worse, like Nazi Germany (who I'm sure also had their own unknown Silent Sam soldiers). As bad as the things you talk about were with Cal and Stanford people, even including profiteering from the civil war, they still don't sink to that nadir of human ****tiness.

But whatever - as I said, no problem on my end putting statues of Leland Stanford and some old Cal officials in museums with proper context rather than in places of public honor. None of my Cal friends that I can think of would care much either. By contrast, in the south and really probably a third or more of the country, it's a rallying cry for the right who get triggered every time something happens to a confederate monument.

Edited to add: just witness the comparisons, even in this thread, of confederate monuments being akin to sacred Buddhist statues or the Holocaust museum. Good grief.

---

I don't get the Buddhist statue reference either. And I found many of the posts smug and hypocritical. It was mighty generous of you to change the name of some one else's school, but why don't we change the name Berkeley, and see if you feel the same way? Some talk about the South with contempt while walking through a Cal campus full of honors to guys like LeConte who made their blood money selling munitions to the Confederacy. Are you prepared to erase his name everywhere it exits like some activists demand? Should we erase the name of every Cal person that participated in slavery? Change the name of Memorial Stadium because it honors soldiers who killed people? Do you want to go though and remove all the Catholic art given the Church abuses and persecution of non-believers like some group of Furdies want? Do you want start going though every person who may have done many good things (at least by some people's views), and things that are not acceptable to some group today, and censor them out of existence? Let's get rid of Teddy for his sins versus various countries? The point is*** do you draw the line?


Take a good hard look at the posts above. There is a distinction between a monument to a cause no longer considered acceptable, as opposed to monument to some individual. You get into rather difficult situations where people on statues (or with names on buildings, schools, State office buildings, streets and just about everything else) offend certain people, and we don't seem to be receptive when it is our own people. Basically, we are hypocrites which also is my point. Take a look in the mirror. California ranks No. 1 in the nation for hate groups, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. In the 1850s, the state government paid bounties for Indian body parts 25 cents per scalp, up to $5 for a whole head. In his 1851 CA Gov. John McDougall declared a "war of extermination" against California Indians. There were 300,000 then. By 1900, their numbers had fallen to only 17,000. For many decades, California discriminated against Asians led primarily by the elite faculty or alums from Stanford and Cal. Japanese immigrants were barred from owning property. The Chinese couldn't legally migrate here at all. Blacks could not own property due to recorded covenants drafted by Cal professors. Yet the men who did all this have their names littered all over California campuses and when people object, we don't act. Do these smug posters realize that children in this state still go to public schools named after Robert Lee and Jefferson Davies, not to mention all the name of early Californians who some people think did horrible things. There probably is not one statue placed on the Cal campus before 1930 that you could not find some objection and knock down. For example, do you really want to remove the Hearst name all over the place for some of the things good old Willy did?

History is full of people acting in ways that were acceptable in their times, but not in these times. Is the genocide of Indians less troublesome that the confederacy, and should we remove names like Polk or Jackson everywhere we see them (starting with names of cities?) Or those peaceful Pilgrims who flayed alive people for land (I can show a nice monument to the battle of Stonington depicting this)? Anti-minority sentiment is a big part of the history of this country. Should we demand Harvard eliminate the names of all those who participated in anti-Jewish codes decades ago, or who today enforce policies designed to reduce the number of Asian students. If your Asian, do we remove Obama's name like a bad Roman Emperor because his Justice Department supported these policies? *** do you draw the line, and who gets to determine where the line lies? That is my point.

Edit: deleted portion is a W_F

dajo9 said:

---

Some people do great things despite also doing things that were viewed as legitimate at the time but in hindsight are considered horrible (George Washington is a good example). These people can still be honored for the great things they did but, in my opinion, it is important to be honest about the negative things they did as well.

---

Most of the Founding Fathers had some beliefs that would be considered pretty crappy today. They were not all great people.

But they aren't "honored" for being 100% perfect humans, they are honored for founding a new kind of democratic republic and successfully fighting for self-rule over monarchy. That is absolutely a worthwhile advance in human history and an accomplishment worth celebrating, whatever else their faults may have been.

What did the Confederates accomplish that is worth celebrating?

sycasey said: Most of the Founding Fathers had some beliefs that would be considered pretty crappy today. They were not all great people.

But they aren't "honored" for being 100% perfect humans, they are honored for founding a new kind of democratic republic and successfully fighting for self-rule over monarchy. That is absolutely a worthwhile advance in human history and an accomplishment worth celebrating, whatever else their faults may have been.

This x 1000.

The conventional wisdom is, "to the victors goes the ability to write history.". The issue here is the South did NOT win, they were not the victors.

The issue is there are thousands upon thousands of these statues and they send the wrong message of intimidation, inhumanity, racism and LOSING.

I thought a museum is a good compromise, taking Southerners at their word it's about history. However put real academics, curation and the full story behind the statues, meta cultural analysis as well (as why there's thousands and thousands of confederate statues). Also call it was it is "Confederate War Memorial Musuem"...and make it pay for itself. If there's not enough room for those statues, melt them down. The point is take them out of public.

sycasey said:

---

w said:

---

At some place you have to draw a line.

---

I would say it's pretty easy to draw a line at not honoring people who committed treason to fight a war in support of human enslavement.

Being a casually s***ty racist like many others of your time is something worth talking about, but not necessarily worth removing names over.

You have also talked here about removing a historical figure "from existence," which seems to me a strawman offered in bad faith. No one here has advocated removing the Confederacy from the historical record. They have advocated removing monuments to it from places of honor (in front of government buildings, etc.).

---

I don't see a straw man when activists and student governments are demanding removal of essentially everything. Look above, someone has a post with a remove it all theme, so you know what you can do with with your bad faith comment.

History is littered with bad behavior. I hardly call what happened to the Indians, for example, being casually racist, but I guess its all in the (blind) eye of the beholder.

I just find what I see here is smug comment with the rationalization of hypocrites who defend their views with references to phrases about conservative equivalency.

FWIW, Robert Lee and many other confederates had significant accomplishments before taking a very bad turn with the Confederacy. There is a distinction to be made between monuments to a bad cause and those to individuals who did many things in their lifetime, and I also think most people take a blind eye, when in involves their people.

Edit: I do get the point about what the statue if for, and I generally agree with that. If the guy is in a confederate uniform, remove the statue. If its a founding father being remembered for starting a republic fine. But is the statue and barracks named after Lee at West Point really about the confederacy for those who actually know something about Lee? Black activists want both the statue and name removed.

sycasey said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Some people do great things despite also doing things that were viewed as legitimate at the time but in hindsight are considered horrible (George Washington is a good example). These people can still be honored for the great things they did but, in my opinion, it is important to be honest about the negative things they did as well.

---

Most of the Founding Fathers had some beliefs that would be considered pretty crappy today. They were not all great people.

But they aren't "honored" for being 100% perfect humans, they are honored for founding a new kind of democratic republic and successfully fighting for self-rule over monarchy. That is absolutely a worthwhile advance in human history and an accomplishment worth celebrating, whatever else their faults may have been.

What did the Confederates accomplish that is worth celebrating?

---

That is exactly my point

wifeisafurd said:

---

sycasey said:

---

w said:

---

At some place you have to draw a line.

---

I would say it's pretty easy to draw a line at not honoring people who committed treason to fight a war in support of human enslavement.

Being a casually s***ty racist like many others of your time is something worth talking about, but not necessarily worth removing names over.

You have also talked here about removing a historical figure "from existence," which seems to me a strawman offered in bad faith. No one here has advocated removing the Confederacy from the historical record. They have advocated removing monuments to it from places of honor (in front of government buildings, etc.).

---

I don't see a straw man when activists and student governments are demanding removal of essentially everything. Look above, someone has a post with a remove it all theme, so you know what you can do with with your bad faith comment.

History is littered with bad behavior. I hardly call what happened to the Indians, for example, being casually racist, but I guess its all in the (blind) eye of the beholder.

I just find what I see here is smug comment with the rationalization of hypocrites who defend their views with references to phrases about conservative equivalency.

FWIW, Robert Lee and many other confederates had significant accomplishments before taking a very bad turn with the Confederacy. There is a distinction to be made between monuments to a bad cause and those to individuals who did many things in their lifetime, and I also think most people take a blind eye, when in involves their people.

Edit: I do get the point about what the statue if for, and I generally agree with that. If the guy is in a confederate uniform, remove the statue. If its a founding father being remembered for starting a republic fine. But is the statue and barracks named after Lee at West Point really about the confederacy for those who actually know something about Lee? Black activists want both the statue and name removed.

---

The Lee name and statue should absolutely be removed. He was a traitor to the country. Personally, I don't think the US Army or government should be honoring any traitors no matter what else they did (Fort Bragg and all the rest).

Why not the Benedict Arnold Building of Foreign Affairs?

Or the Donald Trump Building of Central Intelligence?

wifeisafurd said:

---

I don't see a straw man when activists and student governments are demanding removal of essentially everything.

---

They're not though. Sure, there is always SOMEONE who will say so, but I'm not concerned about it unless there's a significant popular movement.

There's a reason why Confederate monuments are a flashpoint in the way those other people aren't, and it's not just because people are being hypocritical and selective. It's because those monuments really are more problematic than the rest.

These are political as much as moral decisions. Many confederate states have come down because most black people live in the south and don't want to live around them and they have the political power in many communities to do it.

The California missionary thing is interesting. Certainly the missionaries created involuntary servitude- or slavery-among the Indians and flogging and murder were punishment for seeking liberty. But they are all dead or gone and the Hispanic community and Church arent going to trash Serra, so there is no political pressure and kids will still make their fourth grade diorama of the smiling Indian picking corn for dear Padre.

dajo9 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Some people do great things despite also doing things that were viewed as legitimate at the time but in hindsight are considered horrible (George Washington is a good example). These people can still be honored for the great things they did but, in my opinion, it is important to be honest about the negative things they did as well.

---

Most of the Founding Fathers had some beliefs that would be considered pretty crappy today. They were not all great people.

But they aren't "honored" for being 100% perfect humans, they are honored for founding a new kind of democratic republic and successfully fighting for self-rule over monarchy. That is absolutely a worthwhile advance in human history and an accomplishment worth celebrating, whatever else their faults may have been.

What did the Confederates accomplish that is worth celebrating?

---

That is exactly my point

---

Okay, so what I think your telling me then is the line is what the statute stands for. If the statue represents someone for what they did with the Confederacy take it down. If it's for another reason, it stays. So for example, LeConte stays because he is being remembered for his academic contributions, even thought he was an arms supplier for the Confederacy. Yes? I think we agree. Edit: clearly LeConte is a traitor and should be removed under your analysis.

But what do you tell the Furies who want everything Serra removed when he is recognized for his actions in starting California, and they believe those actions led to the extermination of the native inhabitants? Remove? It's not that easy to draw a line always. What do you do when Catholics object? It is a slippery slope.

Anarchistbear said:

---

These are political as much as moral decisions. Many confederate states have come down because most black people live in the south and don't want to live around them and they have the political power in many communities to do it.

The California missionary thing is interesting. Certainly the missionaries created involuntary servitude- or slavery-among the Indians and flogging and murder were punishment for seeking liberty. But they are all dead or gone and the Hispanic community and Church arent going to trash Serra, so there is no political pressure and kids will still make their fourth grade diorama of the smiling Indian picking corn for dear Padre.

---

So the line is we only make decisions based on who is politically popular. The Custard statue stays, the Lee statue doesn't.

Edit: I hope Knowlton gets a game with Army so people can visit the campus.

sycasey said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

I don't see a straw man when activists and student governments are demanding removal of essentially everything.

---

They're not though. Sure, there is always SOMEONE who will say so, but I'm not concerned about it unless there's a significant popular movement.

There's a reason why Confederate monuments are a flashpoint in the way those other people aren't, and it's not just because people are being hypocritical and selective. It's because those monuments really are more problematic than the rest.

---

So all the Indians are dead or politically powerless. Screw them.

Political power and will of the people is way more complicated than popularity. Most decisions in this country are "unpopular."