Login Register

charlottesville antics
#61
(08-24-2017, 05:20 AM)Delirious Biznasty Wrote:
(08-24-2017, 05:03 AM)fat lesbian Wrote: the thing about lincoln is he's kinda lionized after the fact, he said very specifically that he did not advocate for any form of racial equality, his ending slavery was a great thing but i think his intentions (financial and political, not humanitarian) can be analyzed and criticized still

Every president has done something incredibly stupid that should be analyzed and criticized

well yes obviously but people like to shut down all criticism of Lincoln with "BUT HE ENDED SLAVERY" when his ending of slavery was CERTAINLY not due to his respect for black people
[Image: NSiuXpT.jpg]
Reply
#62
(08-24-2017, 05:08 AM)fat lesbian Wrote: statues and monuments will always be portrayed as a positive thing, that's the nature of them. i don't think they need to be kept even in museums or galleries. i DO think that history books and public education needs a serious overhaul with how it handles the atrocities of american history, it needs to portray them as atrocities and not just products of their time, and then we have no need to preserve it in the form of monuments to terrible men whose names, for the most part, do need to be lost to history.

I disagree heavily. These men should be remembered, to learn from their mistakes. To erase them from history would be to assume that the horrible things they did, did not exist in the first place. 

Can you tell me exactly what you mean as "portray them as atrocities" part? I remember the trail of tears, slavery, (japanese-internment camps were talked about for a day in middle school, I thought I should note that too) and the holocaust taking up a major part of what was taught about history in my school.
Reply
#63
(08-24-2017, 05:14 AM)grue Wrote: Also, they have the support of a certain political influence on the right. These are the people calling for the freedom of speech of nazis - even in this case, you will see them make the points of "well yeah the death is wrong and I'm definitely not a nazi you guys, but nazis should have a right to organize regardless; not the antifa though, the antifa are terrorists!" They fan the extremist flames because the chinless morons will tke the fall for these people, who thrive.


but it was the ACLU (liberal) that sued Charlottesville for the right to assemble.

antifa has been militant-like for months now & i'd argue the civilian militias of the right you saw at charlottesville are the reactionary side to antifa. 

i think we should protest white nationalists/nazis in open space at their own events but i'm not sure if the situation would have turned violent without the influence & presence of antifa. all over social media since Richard Spencer was punched was "yeah you should hit nazis, you should use violence against those who oppress you, micro aggressions are oppression". the people at charlottesville were anticipating violence. 

NOTE that i think the timeline here is important. the VICE piece on militant antifa was out months before any images of a violent alt-right. as far as i know, antifa/alt-left moved to violence first & now we are in a reactionary cluster fuck.
Reply
#64
(08-24-2017, 05:25 AM)fat lesbian Wrote:
(08-24-2017, 05:20 AM)Delirious Biznasty Wrote:
(08-24-2017, 05:03 AM)fat lesbian Wrote: the thing about lincoln is he's kinda lionized after the fact, he said very specifically that he did not advocate for any form of racial equality, his ending slavery was a great thing but i think his intentions (financial and political, not humanitarian) can be analyzed and criticized still

Every president has done something incredibly stupid that should be analyzed and criticized

well yes obviously but people like to shut down all criticism of Lincoln with "BUT HE ENDED SLAVERY" when his ending of slavery was CERTAINLY not due to his respect for black people

Thomas Jefferson - Louisiana Purchase

Andrew Jackson - Trail of Tears

Lincoln - Racist

Woodrow Wilson - brought country into wwi to get onto the peace table

FDR - cemented the federal governments grasp on the country

Reagan - hahaha

Obama - hahHAHHHhahhHHAHHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHHA
Reply
#65
please don't say alt-left, I cringe everytime

I've been hearing about "the antifa" for years. Now I didn't see that VICE piece, so maybe I'm missing something that's happening in america, but for me "antifa" has always been a blanket term for any and all fringe groups that organize to meet fascists on the streets. That includes militant communists* and anarchists, disenfranchised left-wingers, pacifists, you name it. Edit: ie, comparing a wide net of fringe groups with different levels of organization to the supporters of the german national socialist party seems very erroneous. Antifa is a concept; Nazi is a political stance.

I've heard of the ACLU and afaik they've been on the spot before with the left. Something similar, but I can't properly remember. Are they liberal? I thought they were more libertarian-leaning.

*all communists are militant tbh
[Image: 4761558c1f.png]
[-] The following 1 user Likes grue Moderator's post:
  • fat lesbian
Reply
#66
(08-24-2017, 05:27 AM)Delirious Biznasty Wrote:
(08-24-2017, 05:08 AM)fat lesbian Wrote: statues and monuments will always be portrayed as a positive thing, that's the nature of them. i don't think they need to be kept even in museums or galleries. i DO think that history books and public education needs a serious overhaul with how it handles the atrocities of american history, it needs to portray them as atrocities and not just products of their time, and then we have no need to preserve it in the form of monuments to terrible men whose names, for the most part, do need to be lost to history.

I disagree heavily. These men should be remembered, to learn from their mistakes. To erase them from history would be to assume that the horrible things they did, did not exist in the first place. 

Can you tell me exactly what you mean as "portray them as atrocities" part? I remember the trail of tears, slavery, (japanese-internment camps were talked about for a day in middle school, I thought I should note that too) and the holocaust taking up a major part of what was taught about history in my school.

i think that for the same reason we shouldn't publicize the names of mass murderers and terrorists, we shouldn't publicize the names of evil historical figures. it causes people to focus in on the men themselves and not what they did and not their victims. their mistakes should be taught but their names and their lives? not so much 

in my experience and a few other people that i know (idk how common this is) things are glossed over. kind of a "the natives sold the english the land and everyone got along but the natives got sick and died :(", the narrative that slaves were treated well and were grateful to work, and the holocaust was targeting people with brown hair and brown eyes. 

BUT to be fair i went to a very poor district and our materials were all severely outdated
[Image: NSiuXpT.jpg]
Reply
#67
(08-24-2017, 05:35 AM)grue Wrote: please don't say alt-left, I cringe everytime

I've been hearing about "the antifa" for years. Now I didn't see that VICE piece, so maybe I'm missing something that's happening in america, but for me "antifa" has always been a blanket term for any and all fringe groups that organize to meet fascists on the streets. That includes militant communists* and anarchists, disenfranchised left-wingers, pacifists, you name it.

I've heard of the ACLU and afaik they've been on the spot before with the left. Something similar, but I can't properly remember. Are they liberal? I thought they were more libertarian-leaning.

*all communists are militant tbh
non authcoms aren't coms moon emoji 

but yeah you're right antifa isn't a single organization it's just people opposed to fascism
[Image: NSiuXpT.jpg]
Reply
#68
(08-24-2017, 05:29 AM)shagg Wrote:
(08-24-2017, 05:14 AM)grue Wrote: Also, they have the support of a certain political influence on the right. These are the people calling for the freedom of speech of nazis - even in this case, you will see them make the points of "well yeah the death is wrong and I'm definitely not a nazi you guys, but nazis should have a right to organize regardless; not the antifa though, the antifa are terrorists!" They fan the extremist flames because the chinless morons will tke the fall for these people, who thrive.


but it was the ACLU (liberal) that sued Charlottesville for the right to assemble.

antifa has been militant-like for months now & i'd argue the civilian militias of the right you saw at charlottesville are the reactionary side to antifa. 

i think we should protest white nationalists/nazis in open space at their own events but i'm not sure if the situation would have turned violent without the influence & presence of antifa. all over social media since Richard Spencer was punched was "yeah you should hit nazis, you should use violence against those who oppress you, micro aggressions are oppression". the people at charlottesville were anticipating violence. 

NOTE that i think the timeline here is important. the VICE piece on militant antifa was out months before any images of a violent alt-right. as far as i know, antifa/alt-left moved to violence first & now we are in a reactionary cluster fuck.

... are you saying that leftists became violent before neo nazis and the KKK because i have some news for you and it isn't good
[Image: NSiuXpT.jpg]
Reply
#69
it's like saying "the environmentalists". a few environmentalists were terrorists, some are radical but nonviolent, some others are more liberal-minded and even others are well-organized in different levels of okayness. using "the environmentalists" is a blanket term, just like "the antifa", at least that's how I always saw it, idk
[Image: 4761558c1f.png]
[-] The following 1 user Likes grue Moderator's post:
  • fat lesbian
Reply
#70
i agree with you niki to an extent, but history is a story of people and their decisions. SHOULD we learn about WWII & the Holocaust without learning about Adolf Hitler? though there are people that end up revering his image and likeness, which is definitely true in this example, I'm not sure if its true to history to act like his ego & self were huge parts of what happened.

examples like how Stalin uprooted Lenin behind his back tho they were close friends

the complexities of heroes & villains even Lincoln as we mentioned paint fuller pictures.

what I do agree with you on is if there's a statue/memorial of "George P. Farmer who died here in virginia killing indians... he built this church too". that shit is not relevant to how we shape our understanding. But General Custer is & how he savagely sought revenge on natives that had nothing to do with his war
Reply
#71
(08-24-2017, 05:38 AM)fat lesbian Wrote: ... are you saying that leftists became violent before neo nazis and the KKK because i have some news for you and it isn't good


wow way to already be arguing a bad point for the sake of it. 

we are talking modern politics niki, pls.
Reply
#72
(08-24-2017, 05:45 AM)shagg Wrote:
(08-24-2017, 05:38 AM)fat lesbian Wrote: ... are you saying that leftists became violent before neo nazis and the KKK because i have some news for you and it isn't good


wow way to already be arguing a bad point for the sake of it. 

we are talking modern politics niki, pls.
your point being bad is the whole reason it's being argued, ugly. you're wrong. and you didn't respond to anything else i said so yeah, im gonna continue to call out your wrong points. 

in modern politics, neo nazis and the KKK were violent long before leftists. try again and try harder this time, liberal.
[Image: NSiuXpT.jpg]
Reply
#73
(08-24-2017, 05:41 AM)shagg Wrote: i agree with you niki to an extent, but history is a story of people and their decisions. SHOULD we learn about WWII & the Holocaust without learning about Adolf Hitler? though there are people that end up revering his image and likeness, which is definitely true in this example, I'm not sure if its true to history to act like his ego & self were huge parts of what happened.

examples like how Stalin uprooted Lenin behind his back tho they were close friends

the complexities of heroes & villains even Lincoln as we mentioned paint fuller pictures.

what I do agree with you on is if there's a statue/memorial of "George P. Farmer who died here in virginia killing indians... he built this church too". that shit is not relevant to how we shape our understanding. But General Custer is & how he savagely sought revenge on natives that had nothing to do with his war

do we need to learn about hitlers chidlhood, his forays into art school, his relationships to learn about the holocaust? no, we don't. but it still happens and it absolutely doesn't need to. his picture does not need to accompany holocaust education. pictures of survivors and pictures of the camps and pictures of people IN the camps do. we don't need to humanize people who have committed atrocities.
[Image: NSiuXpT.jpg]
Reply
#74
if we NEED to preserve the names and stories of these men they need to take a backseat to what they did and the effects of what they did and the impact their actions had in shaping the world today, but that's unfortunately not what happens. history education in America is very uncomfortable when discussing serious crimes against humanity and tends to skate around them in a way i think very much enables a slide into white supremacy as an adult. children need to be taught firmly and early that these things were terrible and the VICTIMS need to be humanized, not the perpetrators.
[Image: NSiuXpT.jpg]
Reply
#75
well you went to a shitty underserved school & thought the holocaust wasn't an atrocity so I'm gonna wait for better responses
Reply


Forum Jump: