Jump to content
AuroranHusker

Wisc. transfer Kobe King is 'N'

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, aphilso1 said:

 

I also oppose trying to erase history by tearing down statues.  But on the other hand, I oppose trying to re-write history by strategically putting up statues, too.  Hence why I'm OK with the statues commemorating the Confederate Army's "heroes" coming down, but not Washington's or Grant's.

 

Two of my great, great grandfathers fought for the U.S. (the North, as it were) in the Civil War. I don't know if they did anything heroic. I'm sure men they fought next to -- men who gave their "last full measure of devotion" -- were both heroic and honorable.

 

I've never had occasion to mourn the loss of a loved one killed in battle. I've known some who have, though, in places like Viet Nam, Afghanistan and Iraq, and it's a natural human emotion to hope that your loved one did not give his life in vain and that the cause for which he served was just.

 

I'm glad my ancestors fought to end slavery.

 

But I can put myself in the shoes of someone whose ancestors fought for the South. And I feel I can safely assume there were Confederate soldiers who served honorably and acted courageously and died heroically on the field of battle.

 

I can also assume their surviving loved ones and descendants would want to honor the service and sacrifice of the husbands, fathers and grandfathers they lost in battle every bit as much as those of us whose ancestors fought for the north.

 

And it should be noted that historical estimates of Civil War dead have been adjusted sharply upwards in the last ten years as a result of research by a demographic historian from Binghamton University named David Hacker. It used to be supposed that the losses for the south -- for which there were not as complete a list of unit rosters and casualties -- was proportional to the much-better-documented loss of life among union soldiers. Hacker's research found that this assumption was not true and that actual loss of life among Confederate soldiers was substantially higher than among Union soldiers.

 

I remember reading the scholarly article when it came out in 2011. And one of the points this historian made was that the demographic ripple effects of the loss of life among Confederate soldiers in the Civil War was still being felt in the South to this day.

 

I don't know the actual numbers. I've seen a statistic that suggested roughly 25% of Confederate soldiers owned or were from families which owned slaves. And I've seen the statistic that 30% of all Southern white males between the ages of 18 and 40 died in the Civil War (compared with just 10% of northern men ages 20-45.) Which tells me there were a lot of Southern young men who gave their lives for a cause in which they were not stakeholders or particular beneficiaries.

 

Try to imagine the impact of 30% of all men ages 18-40 in your town being killed in a war tomorrow. And it's not hard to imagine that their surviving loved ones would want to somehow honor their service whether or not they approve of the cause for which they died. The widow whose husband was killed in Viet Nam might think the Viet Nam war was unjust, but does that mean her late husband's heroism on the battlefield cannot, in some way, be at least remembered?

 

Is there some way that we can make room in our society, in our parks and public squares, to remember those who fought in the Civil War on both sides and not just those who fought for the North?

 

I think Abraham Lincoln would have thought so. In his second inaugural address, he spoke of the need to reintegrate the South back into the Union: "With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations."

 

Lincoln didn't differentiate between the widows from the north and the widows from the south for the southern widow most assuredly lost her husband, too.

 

And Lincoln made another important point -- relevant to the events we're seeing these days -- in his 2nd inaugural:

 

Both [the north and south] read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."

 

Lincoln suggests here that God may have imposed the Civil War on our nation as penance for the sin of slavery and that every drop of blood drawn by the sword in the Civil War was payment for every drop of blood drawn by the lash and the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil. Three-quarters of a million men died in that war,  which produced the end of slavery in this country and the preservation of the union. That's worth pondering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The confederate statues need to come down. It would be one thing if these statues were put up to honor the fallen soldiers on the confederate side directly after the war, but that wasn't the case. The truth is the majority of these statues were put up in the 1900s during times of racial tension. These statues weren't put to honor loved ones, or to teach history. They were put up to vindicate the idea's the confederacy fought for. Statues put up in order to prevent the rights of Americans, have no place in our society.  

 

As always thanks for the awesome discourse HHC!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I for one wouldnt want to honor any of my ancestors who fought to keep slavery. There is nothing noble, honorable, or heroic about that.

 

Feel free to sympathize with deceased confederate soldiers and their families. However, I will continue to direct my energy towards the people who have to walk around their own communities and see monuments and statues of people who viewed/treated black people as livestock. And for students who have to enter schools memoralizing individuals who didnt even think POC were worthy or capable of receiving an education. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, hhcmatt said:

 

The intention of the Osborne and Berringer statue is not to perpetuate a myth like the Lost Cause nor is it meant to intimidate or exclude.

Noted Confederate Stevie Ray Vaughan would disagree. Not with anything stated explicitly here, but with what is implied, about the purity of the motivations of those who would destroy things.

Edited by Dead Dog Alley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, hhcmatt said:

 

The intention of the Osborne and Berringer statue is not to perpetuate a myth like the Lost Cause nor is it meant to intimidate or exclude.

 

Wow, Dimes.  Nice leap to take my post all the way to Lost Cause.  Your response is explicitly meant to intimidate.  So, Matt, which of these statues, that have been torn down, or defaced, were meant to intimidate or exclude:

Slavery abolitionist Matthias Brown--Philadelphia

54th Massachusetts Regiment, an all black volunteer regiment of the Union Army--Boston

Admiral Farragut-Tennessee.  After his state seceded, he remained loyal to the Union and led them in battle victories.

 

I'm not even talking about the statues Norm and others have already mentioned.

 

I'm really happy an off-the-cuff post of mine can bring out some dialogue on this board.   I hope it makes everyone challenge what they think is truth.    

 

Dimes, I too, have read Rules for Radicals.  Unlike you, I found it to be complete bullshit.

 

Happy Independence Day, everyone!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, khoock said:

I for one wouldnt want to honor any of my ancestors who fought to keep slavery. There is nothing noble, honorable, or heroic about that.

 

Feel free to sympathize with deceased confederate soldiers and their families. However, I will continue to direct my energy towards the people who have to walk around their own communities and see monuments and statues of people who viewed/treated black people as livestock. And for students who have to enter schools memoralizing individuals who didnt even think POC were worthy or capable of receiving an education. 

 

I'm not primarily concerned with sympathizing with the families of deceased confederate soldiers. I'm just saying I can see another side and think it's possible for reasonable people to disagree about whether such statuary should be allowed to exist. I also sympathize with the descendants of slaves who would walk around their own communities and see monuments of people who supported slavery.

 

My primary concern, actually, is the notion of memory holing things that make us feel uncomfortable and the precedent it sets. And where does the mob stop? Because, as @cipsucks has pointed out, the mob has destroyed a lot of statues that don't fall under that broad category of "people who viewed/treated black people as livestock." (Do George Washington and Thomas Jefferson statues fall into that category, though? If so, should they be removed? If you think they should, can you at least acknowledge that reasonable people could differ with you on that point?)

 

 “Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”

 

George Orwell, "1984"

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, cipsucks said:

 

Wow, Dimes.  Nice leap to take my post all the way to Lost Cause.  Your response is explicitly meant to intimidate. 

 

I took an off-the-cuff post that I spent time questioning why on earth someone would feel comfortable making and I illustrated my uncomfortableness with it by making, for me, an uncomfortable statement. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, jdw said:

If we are trying to tear down statue's of Grant I don't think anyone is teaching history any more.

Lot’s of people are teaching history. Just like good journalism, it’s out there you just have to look. Actually you don’t even have to look very hard to find real history. I’m not sure who the “we” you are referring to is in your comment but I would think that would not be the real history crowd. Though Grant, like all of us had a more complicated existence then what shows up in your generic history book. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, colhusker said:

Any word on if he's going to play ball some where?  

 

The wisconsin message board that I visited didn't know anything either and he's been silent on social media since it was announced he wasn't coming here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, hhcmatt said:
12 hours ago, cipsucks said:

 

Wow, Dimes.  Nice leap to take my post all the way to Lost Cause.  Your response is explicitly meant to intimidate. 

 

I took an off-the-cuff post that I spent time questioning why on earth someone would feel comfortable making and I illustrated my uncomfortableness with it by making, for me, an uncomfortable statement. 

 

There has been a lot of good dialogue over the last day offering differing and interesting viewpoints.  When I read Cip's initial comment, I immediately took it as satire and a jab at how the BLM movement has devolved and been hijacked by a group of people with more sinister motives.  The problem today is that in a world of hyper political correctness and living with the rage of the "cancel culture", I guess you have to tread so carefully as to not say anything that could be taken out of context by anyone.  A very slippery slope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, khoock said:

I for one wouldnt want to honor any of my ancestors who fought to keep slavery. There is nothing noble, honorable, or heroic about that.

 

Feel free to sympathize with deceased confederate soldiers and their families. However, I will continue to direct my energy towards the people who have to walk around their own communities and see monuments and statues of people who viewed/treated black people as livestock. And for students who have to enter schools memoralizing individuals who didnt even think POC were worthy or capable of receiving an education. 

 

I've pondered your response here -- I have to assume this is a response to me -- and I guess I just have to venture a rejoinder.

 

You can correct me if I'm wrong, but I suspect that you never served in the military and maybe never had a close relative who did. So you probably don't have the same frame of reference that I have.

 

I think people often make the mistake of thinking that *your* reason for why you think a war was fought applies to everyone who participated in that war. I'd like to suggest to you that it's far more nuanced than that, and the reasons vary from soldier to soldier, and that the guys with actual boots on the ground who are being shot at might have had an entirely different reason for being there than the reasons the policy makers had for sending them there.

 

I think your response presents a false dichotomy -- that you can only sympathize with one of the parties or the other -- and it carries an implication that I'm indifferent, or even hostile, to the emotions of the descendants of those slaves who were freed as a consequence of the Civil War. That's not a fair assumption, nor is it accurate. And you also ducked my question about whether there's room in our society to recognize and in some way remember if not honor those who gave their lives in that war on both sides of the fight.

 

See, I was a soldier once. And I'm the son of a soldier. And I'm the direct descendent of men who served during the American Revolution, the War of 1812, the Civil War, WWII, Korea and Viet Nam. So, I suppose I have a natural tendency to identify with and take ranks with those who actually answered the call of duty (as opposed to those who just played the video game.)

 

I won't pretend that I've ever had bullets fired at me in anger but I have *enormous* respect for those who have, and I have some sense of what it's like for family members to see their dad bringing his web gear home and leaving it by the front door night after night in case he gets "that call." And I'm not going to apologize for having not only some sense of but also sympathy for what the surviving family members must have felt like when they received word that Johnny wouldn't come marching home again.

 

And, if I'm honest, I guess I don't really care what some little pissant, who sat comfortably in his ivory tower judging those of us who answered the call, thinks about it.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Similarly, @Norm Peterson, who are we to judge (and I'm not calling anyone out specifically on this for the record) a young kid who decides that he feels it's important to pursue fighting for a cause he feels so passionate about that he's willing to sacrifice his athletic career.  That is if, in fact, @huskerbaseball13 is correct about his reasons for not coming on board.

 

And even if it's not the reason, what good does it do to hate or judge a kid for making a choice that is entirely theirs?  More often than not this board has been too quick to judge (and too harsh in their judgement) quite a number of young men who once were, and some who still are, Huskers.  IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, colhusker said:

Mean while back at the ranch, Kobe King, remember Kobe King?  It's a thread about Kobe king (to paraphrase Arlo Guthrie).  Any word on if he's going to play ball some where?  

 

 

 

Who's Kobe...King? Never heard of her. 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Norm Peterson said:

I think your response presents a false dichotomy -- that you can only sympathize with one of the parties or the other -- and it carries an implication that I'm indifferent, or even hostile, to the emotions of the descendants of those slaves who were freed as a consequence of the Civil War. That's not a fair assumption, nor is it accurate. And you also ducked my question about whether there's room in our society to recognize and in some way remember if not honor those who gave their lives in that war on both sides of the fight.

 

I do not for the life of me recall ever seeing a Confederate statue. Yet somehow I possess the knowledge that the Civil War occurred. Every child the United States learns about some version the Civil War in an American history class which includes the amount of death and destruction that happened. My wife grew up in North Carolina where their version is referred to it as 'the war of northern aggression'.

 

The confederate statues are symbolic of distorting that the South was fighting to keep slavery and erected to intimidate.  Replace them with a general from the Union or slave freed.  Replace them with a wounded soldier with whom you cannot tell the side.  If the takeaway from this brutal and destructive point in our history wasn't that the right side won, we're doing it wrong.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, hhcmatt said:

 

I do not for the life of me recall ever seeing a Confederate statue. Yet somehow I possess the knowledge that the Civil War occurred. Every child the United States learns about some version the Civil War in an American history class which includes the amount of death and destruction that happened. My wife grew up in North Carolina where their version is referred to it as 'the war of northern aggression'.

 

The confederate statues are symbolic of distorting that the South was fighting to keep slavery and erected to intimidate.  Replace them with a general from the Union or slave freed.  Replace them with a wounded soldier with whom you cannot tell the side.  If the takeaway from this brutal and destructive point in our history wasn't that the right side won, we're doing it wrong.

 

 

I can respect that there are well-meaning people of good will who would disagree with me on this. However, there's something that troubles me about removing things like statues.

 

Maybe I was particularly struck by reading Orwell's "1984." Maybe it's the firmly ingrained view from my classically-liberal youth that the best antidote for speech that we don't like is not less speech but more speech. In part, it's probably the notion that removing things sets a precedent for the next group that comes along with an articulable grievance. Notably, concerns that the removal movement would spread have been realized. It's happened. It's no longer just about statues of Confederate generals from the Civil War. Then there's this whole cancel culture phenomenon and how the apparent standards aren't applied equally across the board.

 

 If you think a better statue could be built, then by all means build another statue. But I'm uneasy about the idea of tearing one down that's already there.

 

And, for what it's worth, I have no problem with the government of the State of Mississippi voting this past week to change the state flag to remove the symbol of the Confederate flag from the design. I think that's appropriate and a good thing to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, 49r said:

Similarly, @Norm Peterson, who are we to judge (and I'm not calling anyone out specifically on this for the record) a young kid who decides that he feels it's important to pursue fighting for a cause he feels so passionate about that he's willing to sacrifice his athletic career.  That is if, in fact, @huskerbaseball13 is correct about his reasons for not coming on board.

 

And even if it's not the reason, what good does it do to hate or judge a kid for making a choice that is entirely theirs?  More often than not this board has been too quick to judge (and too harsh in their judgement) quite a number of young men who once were, and some who still are, Huskers.  IMO.

 

I have no problem with Kobe King for deciding not to come here. I can stomach that change of heart a lot better than Andrew Benedict Arnold III or Jordy Tschimanga bolting at a time when it was really too late to find a suitable replacement. I'm not going to judge Kobe's reasons. It's his life and he has to make decisions that he'll have to live with, so he has to be free to make that call. Just don't do it when it's too late for us to find someone else. Which he didn't. So, it's all good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Norm Peterson said:

 

I can respect that there are well-meaning people of good will who would disagree with me on this. However, there's something that troubles me about removing things like statues.

 

Maybe I was particularly struck by reading Orwell's "1984." Maybe it's the firmly ingrained view from my classically-liberal youth that the best antidote for speech that we don't like is not less speech but more speech. In part, it's probably the notion that removing things sets a precedent for the next group that comes along with an articulable grievance. Notably, concerns that the removal movement would spread have been realized. It's happened. It's no longer just about statues of Confederate generals from the Civil War. Then there's this whole cancel culture phenomenon and how the apparent standards aren't applied equally across the board.

 

 If you think a better statue could be built, then by all means build another statue. But I'm uneasy about the idea of tearing one down that's already there.

 

And, for what it's worth, I have no problem with the government of the State of Mississippi voting this past week to change the state flag to remove the symbol of the Confederate flag from the design. I think that's appropriate and a good thing to do.

 

Here was the quote from Joe Paterno that they put up alongside his statue: "They ask me what I'd like written about me when I'm gone. I hope they write I made Penn State a better place, not just that I was a good football coach." 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, hhcmatt said:

 

Here was the quote from Joe Paterno that they put up alongside his statue: "They ask me what I'd like written about me when I'm gone. I hope they write I made Penn State a better place, not just that I was a good football coach." 

 

 

Yeah, the cement hadn't quite dried yet when they took that statue down. He's probably not a very good standard-bearer for the "save the statues" movement.

 

One difference is that Paterno's flaws weren't known when the statue was erected. The full history of Robert E. Lee was an open book for the last 150 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Norm Peterson said:

 

Yeah, the cement hadn't quite dried yet when they took that statue down. He's probably not a very good standard-bearer for the "save the statues" movement.

 

One difference is that Paterno's flaws weren't known when the statue was erected. The full history of Robert E. Lee was an open book for the last 150 years.

 

I've never understood the South's fascination with Lee.  By most accounts he was a below average strategist who failed to heed the advice of his field grade officers.  He performed OK as General in Chief/Commander of the Confederate Army but was abysmal as a battle commander.  Stonewall Jackson's death, which forced Lee to the field with more regularity and made Lee's incompetence apparent, was the most significant turning point in the war.  

 

So taking the ethics out of the equation for a second -- why would Southerners even want to honor the guy who screwed up the war for their side?

Edited by aphilso1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A true daughter of the confederacy has written what should be the last words on the monuments: 

By Caroline Randall Williams
June 26, 2020

I have rape-colored skin. My light-brown-blackness is a living testament to the rules, the practices, the causes of the Old South.

If there are those who want to remember the legacy of the Confederacy, if they want monuments, well, then, my body is a monument. My skin is a monument.

Dead Confederates are honored all over this country — with cartoonish private statues, solemn public monuments and even in the names of United States Army bases. It fortifies and heartens me to witness the protests against this practice and the growing clamor from serious, nonpartisan public servants to redress it. But there are still those — like President Trumpand the Senate majority leader,Mitch McConnell — who cannot understand the difference between rewriting and reframing the past. I say it is not a matter of “airbrushing” history, but of adding a new perspective.

I am a black, Southern woman, and of my immediate white male ancestors, all of them were rapists. My very existence is a relic of slavery and Jim Crow.

According to the rule of hypodescent (the social and legal practice of assigning a genetically mixed-race person to the race with less social power) I am the daughter of two black people, the granddaughter of four black people, the great-granddaughter of eight black people. Go back one more generation and it gets less straightforward, and more sinister. As far as family history has always told, and as modern DNA testing has allowed me to confirm, I am the descendant of black women who were domestic servants and white men who raped their help.

It is an extraordinary truth of my life that I am biologically more than half white, and yet I have no white people in my genealogy in living memory. No. Voluntary. Whiteness. I am more than half white, and none of it was consensual. White Southern men — my ancestors — took what they wanted from women they did not love, over whom they had extraordinary power, and then failed to claim their children.

What is a monument but a standing memory? An artifact to make tangible the truth of the past. My body and blood are a tangible truth of the South and its past. The black people I come from were owned by the white people I come from. The white people I come from fought and died for their Lost Cause. And I ask you now, who dares to tell me to celebrate them? Who dares to ask me to accept their mounted pedestals?

You cannot dismiss me as someone who doesn’t understand. You cannot say it wasn’t my family members who fought and died. My blackness does not put me on the other side of anything. It puts me squarely at the heart of the debate. I don’t just come from the South. I come from Confederates. I’ve got rebel-gray blue blood coursing my veins. My great-grandfather Will was raised with the knowledge that Edmund Pettus was his father. Pettus, the storied Confederate general, the grand dragon of the Ku Klux Klan, the man for whom Selma’s Bloody Sunday Bridge is named. So I am not an outsider who makes these demands. I am a great-great-granddaughter.

And here I’m called to say that there is much about the South that is precious to me. I do my best teaching and writing here. There is, however, a peculiar model of Southern pride that must now, at long last, be reckoned with.

This is not an ignorant pride but a defiant one. It is a pride that says, “Our history is rich, our causes are justified, our ancestors lie beyond reproach.” It is a pining for greatness, if you will, a wish again for a certain kind of American memory. A monument-worthy memory.

But here’s the thing: Our ancestors don’t deserve your unconditional pride. Yes, I am proud of every one of my black ancestors who survived slavery. They earned that pride, by any decent person’s reckoning. But I am not proud of the white ancestors whom I know, by virtue of my very existence, to be bad actors.

Among the apologists for the Southern cause and for its monuments, there are those who dismiss the hardships of the past. They imagine a world of benevolent masters, and speak with misty eyes of gentility and honor and the land. They deny plantation rape, or explain it away, or question the degree of frequency with which it occurred.

To those people it is my privilege to say, I am proof. I am proof that whatever else the South might have been, or might believe itself to be, it was and is a space whose prosperity and sense of romance and nostalgia were built upon the grievous exploitation of black life.

The dream version of the Old South never existed. Any manufactured monument to that time in that place tells half a truth at best. The ideas and ideals it purports to honor are not real. To those who have embraced these delusions: Now is the time to re-examine your position.

Either you have been blind to a truth that my body’s story forces you to see, or you really do mean to honor the oppressors at the expense of the oppressed, and you must at last acknowledge your emotional investment in a legacy of hate.

Either way, I say the monuments of stone and metal, the monuments of cloth and wood, all the man-made monuments, must come down. I defy any sentimental Southerner to defend our ancestors to me. I am quite literally made of the reasons to strip them of their laurels.

Caroline Randall Williams(@caroranwill) is the author of “Lucy Negro, Redux” and “Soul Food Love,” and a writer in residence at Vanderbilt University.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dean Smith said:

A true daughter of the confederacy has written what should be the last words on the monuments: 

 

While I think her statement is compelling, I don't buy that there's only one opinion that can ever be allowed on almost any subject.

 

You don't like having debate; you like shutting down debate. I find that to be pretty typical these days. We get a lot of group think in our public discussions, and we get a lot of the product of group think in our policies as a result.

 

It's why the only possible answer to Covid was shutting down the entire economy, and anyone who questioned whether our social distancing guidelines were entirely necessary or whether something slightly more open/less restrictive might be allowable was accused of wanting to kill grandma. And then the #BLM protests occurred and it's like social distancing really wasn't all that important, apparently.

 

After watching all these giant protests going on unimpeded by authorities throughout the country, explain again why so many people couldn't visit dying relatives in the hospital one last time and then couldn't hold a funeral service with more than a handful of people present.

 

I've said my peace (or piece, if you'd prefer) on the subject of monuments. I've allowed as to how reasonable people could certainly differ and hold a contrary view. I haven't proclaimed my view to be the last word on any subject. And I'm not ready to start allowing others' views to be the final word on any subject for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Norm Peterson said:

You don't like having debate; you like shutting down debate.

I understand this is a message board and debate is the point. However, at some point a debate is over. Views can be wrong and right. And I understand you are making very nuisanced points. But for the life of me I will never understand the defence of theses monuments or the Confederate flag. For whatever reason. And for me the debate will always circle back to those monuments are wrong and should be removed. I may be wrong here but it's my understand Germany has no monuments dedicate to Nazi Germany. It's that simple to me. NAZIS MONUMENTS = BAD, CONFEDERATE MONUMENATES = BAD. History can be acknowledged without monuments. End rant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Norm Peterson said:

 

While I think her statement is compelling, I don't buy that there's only one opinion that can ever be allowed on almost any subject.

 

You don't like having debate; you like shutting down debate. I find that to be pretty typical these days. We get a lot of group think in our public discussions, and we get a lot of the product of group think in our policies as a result.

 

It's why the only possible answer to Covid was shutting down the entire economy, and anyone who questioned whether our social distancing guidelines were entirely necessary or whether something slightly more open/less restrictive might be allowable was accused of wanting to kill grandma. And then the #BLM protests occurred and it's like social distancing really wasn't all that important, apparently.

 

After watching all these giant protests going on unimpeded by authorities throughout the country, explain again why so many people couldn't visit dying relatives in the hospital one last time and then couldn't hold a funeral service with more than a handful of people present.

 

I've said my peace (or piece, if you'd prefer) on the subject of monuments. I've allowed as to how reasonable people could certainly differ and hold a contrary view. I haven't proclaimed my view to be the last word on any subject. And I'm not ready to start allowing others' views to be the final word on any subject for me.

 

I disagree with your view on the monuments, but 100% agree with your points on the need for open discourse.  Freedom of expression, without the fear of abuse for differing views, is paramount to a free society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...