The difference between a book and a statue - Printable Version +- Rogue-Nation3 (https://rogue-nation3.com) +-- Forum: Controversy and Debate (https://rogue-nation3.com/forum-19.html) +--- Forum: A Rogue's Opinion Piece... (https://rogue-nation3.com/forum-108.html) +--- Thread: The difference between a book and a statue (/thread-5429.html) |
RE: The difference between a book and a statue - Antisthenes - 06-23-2020 (06-23-2020, 08:10 AM)Ninurta Wrote:(06-23-2020, 08:00 AM)Antisthenes Wrote: I guess if we're discussing the Confederate effigies which would seem to be the lion share of what's being destroyed, my opinion would be if you want the thing on private property then that should be your right and business. But it also seems out of place to have them on public prooerty. I mean, they were seditionists so why would we have their presence on Public grounds. I can think of no other Country that has Statuary or Portraiture of people that commited treason against the present regime. I mean, I don't see any statues of the Shah in Iran? But they did in fact start out as States in the Union and declared themselves as being separate from that Union. So in effect they were repudiating their Statehood in that Union. They didn't have that right. Consequently, that makes them treasonous in my minds eye. RE: The difference between a book and a statue - Antisthenes - 06-23-2020 I don't think I'm formatting my replies correctky? Yay!!!! Fixed RE: The difference between a book and a statue - Ninurta - 06-23-2020 (06-23-2020, 08:21 AM)Antisthenes Wrote: But they did in fact start out as States in the Union and declared themselves as being separate from that Union. So in effect they were repudiating their Statehood in that Union. They didn't have that right. Consequently, that makes them treasonous in my minds eye. No, they started out as colonies. Colonies who voluntarily entered a union of a new nation, and then later voluntarily left that union to form their own nation. Yes, they repudiated their statehood in that union, in favor of forming their own union. At the time, there was nothing illegal about that, no more illegal than a colony declaring itself independent of the British Crown. Of course they had that right - that's how the US was formed to begin with! Or are you asserting that the colonials were treasonous seditionists as well, and that the US is in fact an illegal and invalid nation? Virginia, and 3 other Confederate states, did not secede until two days after Lincoln declared war on the Confederacy and called up 75,000 troops to prosecute his war. Their hand was forced into it. The logical extension of your argument is that the UK can reclaim the US at any time, because we are an illegal nation of treasonous seditionists. . RE: The difference between a book and a statue - Antisthenes - 06-23-2020 (06-23-2020, 09:01 AM)Ninurta Wrote:(06-23-2020, 08:21 AM)Antisthenes Wrote: But they did in fact start out as States in the Union and declared themselves as being separate from that Union. So in effect they were repudiating their Statehood in that Union. They didn't have that right. Consequently, that makes them treasonous in my minds eye. I definitely see the United States as traitors to the Crown .....and if they ever want it back....come and get it?.To the Victor always goes the spoils. So aside from verbiage and semantics, the Confederacy lost. Had they won, I suspect you wouldn't see any statues of Lincoln or Grant. To a greater degree though, I understand why blacks who pay taxes in the United States and are citizens, may not want to subsidize those statues as they do represent some pretty horrible history for them. RE: The difference between a book and a statue - Antisthenes - 06-23-2020 As an aside and before I head to snoozeland, section 3 of the Constiturion allows for treason against any citizen of the United States to that wages war against it to be treasonous. Now you could argue they seceeded and then waged war but now it really is word salad and any U.S. court that wanted to prove that against a Defendant most likely would according to most Constitutional scholars RE: The difference between a book and a statue - Ninurta - 06-23-2020 (06-23-2020, 09:39 AM)Antisthenes Wrote: As an aside and before I head to snoozeland, section 3 of the Constiturion allows for treason against any citizen of the United States to that wages war against it to be treasonous. Now you could argue they seceeded and then waged war but now it really is word salad and any U.S. court that wanted to prove that against a Defendant most likely would according to most Constitutional scholars Indeed, they did secede, and then told the US to get off their lawn. The Commandant of Ft. Sumter refused to get off their lawn, and that is why they bombarded Sumter - to repel invaders on their territory. After Sumter fell, Lincoln declared war on the Confederacy and called up 75k troops "for 3 months service". It was a very long 3 months. It was no more "treason" under the Constitution than it was "treasonous" against Germany for the UK to refuse German overtures of overlordship in WWII. They were separate countries. The Constitution you speak of was the US Constitution, not the Confederate Constitution. Extending it over the Confederacy would be like trying to extend it over Mexico, and make Mexicans beholden to US law on Mexican soil. . RE: The difference between a book and a statue - Ninurta - 06-23-2020 (06-23-2020, 09:15 AM)Antisthenes Wrote: I definitely see the United States as traitors to the Crown .....and if they ever want it back....come and get it?.To the Victor always goes the spoils. So aside from verbiage and semantics, the Confederacy lost. Had they won, I suspect you wouldn't see any statues of Lincoln or Grant. To a greater degree though, I understand why blacks who pay taxes in the United States and are citizens, may not want to subsidize those statues as they do represent some pretty horrible history for them. Point out which of those statues was erected with US government funds (i.e "subsidized" by the taxpayers), and I'll lead the charge to have it un-erected. . RE: The difference between a book and a statue - BIAD - 06-23-2020 (Oh jeez, as a Limey, I'm staying out of this one!) RE: The difference between a book and a statue - Wallfire - 06-23-2020 A statue, you look at it you listen to the man telling you who it represents and the bad he did, you cheer and get the ropes out and pull it down. A book, you need to want to open it, have the ability to read it and understand it. Germany burned books because the level of education there was high, people could read books. Quote:Even a statue of Miguel Cervantes (1547-1616) was vandalized with red spray, reports the San Francisco Chronicle. Communists writing history again, if people could only read books. I wonder how many there had read Don Quijote. As each day goes by I wonder if George Orwell was a time traveler RE: The difference between a book and a statue - Ninurta - 06-23-2020 (06-23-2020, 10:03 AM)BIAD Wrote: (Oh jeez, as a Limey, I'm staying out of this one!) Well, going by the argument presented, the Colonies are still your to deal with - but I'm not entirely sure you'd want them at the moment! . RE: The difference between a book and a statue - FauxMulder - 06-23-2020 @"beez" Odd, I know, but I agree with Phage on this one. Let me explain how I see it. People don't walk by a statue and look at it as a work of art or free expression. The usually wonder who it is and then read the plaque that explains the person. It is most commonly used to celebrate a person and their accomplishments. What did these confederates accomplish? I don't need to see a statue of this mother f-er to know who they are. I learned about it in school, hell I own a few books on the civil war. Example, lets say you are a black man walking with your kids in a park. You walk by a statue of Nathan Bedford Forest. A prominent confederate, KKK leader / founder. Your kids ask "daddy who is that?" "Oh, thats just some guy who thinks we are inferior to whites and he helped fight a war that would they have won, kept us enslaved" "He sounds like a bad man, why do they have a statue of him?" "Ummm.....erm....thats just art kids" Edit to add: I dont think people should go around tearing them down thats just stupid. If they want to get rid of or move them, that should be up to the town or city to vote on. RE: The difference between a book and a statue - BIAD - 06-23-2020 (06-23-2020, 11:39 AM)Ninurta Wrote: Well, going by the argument presented, the Colonies are still your to deal with - but I'm not entirely sure you'd want them at the moment! The odd creature that lives in my shed has no eyes and yet, has the ability to see both sides of a discussion. Sadly, I -as the mere owner of BIAD's abode, struggle! It was another time and mind-set, I wasn't there. RE: The difference between a book and a statue - 727Sky - 06-23-2020 RE: The difference between a book and a statue - beez - 06-23-2020 I have to travel to Portland Oregon today, but when I'm safe in my hotel room (after some minor touring and looting) I'll be back online. Thanks for the honest debate everyone! RE: The difference between a book and a statue - Mystic Wanderer - 06-23-2020 (06-23-2020, 12:05 PM)BIAD Wrote:(06-23-2020, 11:39 AM)Ninurta Wrote: Well, going by the argument presented, the Colonies are still your to deal with - but I'm not entirely sure you'd want them at the moment! What he said, except I do have eyes. I see both sides of the argument. I was told once upon a time by a professional who does an analogy on people's personality, strengths, etc., that I would make a good negotiator because I can see both sides more clearly than most people. So... I agree with both sides. There, that's my opinion. RE: The difference between a book and a statue - IAMTAT - 06-23-2020 (06-23-2020, 03:22 AM)beez Wrote:Agreed.(06-23-2020, 03:19 AM)Phage Wrote:(06-23-2020, 02:18 AM)beez Wrote: I have an issue. Well, many, but that's beside the point.Quite a difference, actually. Phage does not address the concept of 'battlefield' statues. THESE are integral to telling the story of how the battle unfolded and what took place at that point. These are outdoor installations...designed to teach, inform and memorialize. God help the Gettysburg battlefield once the SJWs go hunting for Confederate statues at Devils Den or the site of Pickett's charge. RE: The difference between a book and a statue - Antisthenes - 06-23-2020 (06-23-2020, 09:51 AM)Ninurta Wrote:(06-23-2020, 09:15 AM)Antisthenes Wrote: I definitely see the United States as traitors to the Crown .....and if they ever want it back....come and get it?.To the Victor always goes the spoils. So aside from verbiage and semantics, the Confederacy lost. Had they won, I suspect you wouldn't see any statues of Lincoln or Grant. To a greater degree though, I understand why blacks who pay taxes in the United States and are citizens, may not want to subsidize those statues as they do represent some pretty horrible history for them. I have to wonder if a private citizen erected (no pun intended) a 15 foot stone phallus in a public Park with private funds, just how long it would be there before it was torn down. I choose to be empathetic to Black Americans and realize the only way these silly things are going away is to take matters into their own hands. It seems once destroyed, unlikely they'll be reinstated to their former position. Pragmatics and deep seeded frustration seems to be in play? RE: The difference between a book and a statue - Mystic Wanderer - 06-23-2020 (06-23-2020, 08:37 PM)Antisthenes Wrote: I have to wonder if a private citizen erected (no pun intended) a 15 foot stone phallus in a public Park with private funds, just how long it would be there before it was torn down. You mean like this one? I see a big phallus there, and children bowing to him. As far as I know, this was planted in Arkansas and is still there. I might be wrong, but I never heard that it was moved. Or, maybe it was left some other place. I'm not up to date on this. RE: The difference between a book and a statue - Antisthenes - 06-23-2020 (06-23-2020, 09:01 PM)Mystic Wanderer Wrote:(06-23-2020, 08:37 PM)Antisthenes Wrote: I have to wonder if a private citizen erected (no pun intended) a 15 foot stone phallus in a public Park with private funds, just how long it would be there before it was torn down. YIKES! That's all kinds of wrong! Apparently it was moved after sitting on a flatbed at the Capitol in Arkansas for "a few hours" It's presently in an Art museum in Salem, MA. RE: The difference between a book and a statue - Mystic Wanderer - 06-23-2020 (06-23-2020, 09:07 PM)Antisthenes Wrote:(06-23-2020, 09:01 PM)Mystic Wanderer Wrote:(06-23-2020, 08:37 PM)Antisthenes Wrote: I have to wonder if a private citizen erected (no pun intended) a 15 foot stone phallus in a public Park with private funds, just how long it would be there before it was torn down. Salem, MA? How appropriate! |