Why are Americans triggered by statues?

The statues do indeed perpetuate racism, as evidenced from the tears of the racists.

Nobody's putting up statues to Osama in Laden in NYC.

Right? Who would wver celebrate a traitor...

Our founders were all traitors to the British crown.

>people I don't like are racist

>statues are removed
>KKK immediately dissolves
>white nationalists concede defeat
>racists across America see the light and atone for their sinful beliefs
>blacks and whites are now equal in every sense of the word

user it's like a country still having society era Lenin statues or that time some idiot Kinshasa Councillor put up n old Leopold 2 statues in the middle of the city. There's history behind those figures and their actions.

Nobody said they would dissolve, user. But their tears sure are delicious.

You are in a history board, defending revisionism to fight a scare crown. I used to think /b/ have retards.

>History should talk only about what we like, not what happen.

The U.S government did not do enough to really sit the people in power in the South and say "enough of your bullshit". The reason you make a nation you defeat REMEMBER that you kicked their ass/make a nation that commit atrocities it is because people forget and WILL try to mitigate what ahppened or try ot make it much lighter then it really is.

Poles still think Poland was innocent in WW2. Italians have near erasure of their time in Africa during the 20th century or any type of reflection/penance on their fascist era that was like " damn we were shitty to others" yet still try to guilt trip Germany for stuff in ww2 (you know in the country that has high migration and illegal migration complaining about immigrants into it type of hypocrisy).

Why are Eurocucks so triggered by statues?

Their entire nation is founded in treason.

No, the crown were traitors to the founders by taxing without allowing representation

I get high 7 days a week and have no problems

>poles still think poland was innocent in ww2

Oh boy

You're posting on Veeky Forums, think again

But the Russians do still have statues dedicated to Red Army soldiers, and for good reason.

Because Southerners still never got the memo to this day. The minute the Feds gave reigns back to local rule the South explicitly shat on all the progress made in that period and pretty much fucked over the Black population explicitly. Not even saying it would be all peaches and daisies but when a man leaves his house to his two kids he would have expected one of them to beat the other into a bloody mess and the house all fugged up

Revisionism? Voodoo magic? Are you serious? Noone is saying Robert E Lee or Stonewall Jackson never existed, they're arguing that the statues were put up under the idea that traitorous rebels who defended the institution of slavery directly or indirectly are somehow "heroes." The only revisionism is "muh states rights" and the only voodoo magic is the stuff you used to convince yourself that removing a statue is somehow revisionism.

>Because Southerners still never got the memo to this day.
Ok, for what I know, these statues weren't build to cause guilt.

>The minute the Feds gave reigns back
US was always a federation, Feds have more power now than any time before, how can they regain it?

>to local rule the South explicitly shat on all the progress made in that period
You really believe history has a direction and it is progress?

>and pretty much fucked over the Black population explicitly.
>Poor blacks, lets erase history so they can fell better.

Lost cause revisionists crying because they're losing their government-funded participation trophies.

Trophies which weren't actually installed by the generation of southerners who lost, but by latter day southerners who voted for Jim Crow and were trying to send a message to the Negroes whom they terrorized.

True lovers of history cheer for the destruction of traitorous revisionism

>The only revisionism is "muh states rights"
US was founded as a federation, for 100 years states were almost independent countries inside us, and defending it is some form of revisionism.

>If you don't cheer at the destruction of history, you are a revisionist.

modern leftists aren't americans

One of the south's primary gripes that inspired them to secede was that they didn't think that the federal government was doing enough to bring fugitive slaves back to their owners.

The South loved states rights except when they didn't.

It's NOT the destruction of history, it's the destruction of a lie about history that has been repeated ad nauseum to the detriment of the nation.

When it goes away Southerners can study history without distractions, and they'll be better Americans for it.

>It's NOT the destruction of history, it's the destruction of a lie about history

Wow I didn't know statues were a lie

Imagine being black. Your race is the majority in a greater part of the South. The local and state governments glorify a man who said your people were subhuman and fought a fucking war to deny your basic human rights. The very same government uses your tax dollars to pay for the upkeep these statues or indirectly funds the institutions which maintain these statues.
This is not about banishing racism in the here and now. This is about removing a fucking embarassment from public view.

>Wow I didn't know statues were a lie
Then you clearly don't know how propaganda works

>It's NOT the destruction of history,
Really, south forget that confederates are cartoons villains and they only use is to cause guilt.

>it's the destruction of a lie about history that has been repeated ad nauseum
If it don't push my agenda it is a lie and should be destroyed.

>to the detriment of the nation.
History is fact, not a tool to improve nation.

>When it goes away Southerners can study history without distractions
>When we take away the part I don't like, south can learn only the right version of history

> and they'll be better Americans for it.
Nice, because history is a tool to create model citizens to the glorious motherland.

Did you deliberately misinterpret what I said? "Muh States Rights" is what many Southerners say is the reason for the civil war, which, although was an issue between the states before the civil war, is not nearly as significant a reason for the start of the civil war as "slavery" was.
this guy is not me but he has a great point, the south gave no shits about state rights unless they needed to

>traitorous rebels

Northerners always use this line because they assume that Southerns owed their loyalty to the United States as a whole rather than their own states and communities. Lee and Jackson were traitors in the same sense that the founding fathers were traitors.

>This is not about banishing racism in the here and now.
This is not about push an agenda

>This is about removing a fucking embarassment from public view.
This is about taking away thing that may cause a wrong idea.

>Really, south forget that confederates are cartoons villains and they only use is to cause guilt.
The south fought to preserve the institution of slavery, and that's well established fact no matter how hard you cry about it

>If it don't push my agenda it is a lie and should be destroyed.
Said the southerner trying to convince everyone that the confederates were dindus

>History is fact, not a tool to improve nation
Sure it is. By studying objective facts we can teach ourselves to make clear headed decisions, and therefore be better citizens who don't let themselves be taken for a ride by glorified welfare queens

>>When we take away the part I don't like, south can learn only the right version of history
The part you don't like is that the south was on the wrong side of history, both morally, economically, and militarily.

>Nice, because history is a tool to create model citizens to the glorious motherland.
Yes, education makes better citizens out of people because when they are taught the truth, they make better decisions, and that benefits everybody. That's why I'm content with my tax-dollars going towards public schools and not for your participation trophies designed to intimidate anyone who loves their country.

>Then you clearly don't know how propaganda works

We live in the United States, not Britain, not the Confederate states of America, The United States of America. The founding fathers WERE traitors...to the British Crown...but not to the nation they founded.

>owed loyalty
Both Jackson and Lee swore loyalty to the US as part of their entry into the military.

>There is only one correct version of history

History is all about how you frame past events. Southerners framing the Civil War as a struggle for states rights isn't objectively wrong and the veneration of Confederate leaders is perfectly acceptable. We have the man responsible for the Trail of Tears on our 20 dollar bank note. If we only celebrated perfect men then statue makers would likely go out of business.

>Said the southerner trying to convince everyone that the confederates were dindus
Great argue.

>The part you don't like is that the south was on the wrong side of history, both morally, economically, and militarily.
I don't like people that stay on the path of progress, they are evil.

>Yes, education makes better citizens out of people because when they are taught the truth,
Big Brother could say better, congratulations.

>they make better decisions,
They make the decisions you want.

>and that benefits everybody.
They only make society more like you like.

>That's why I'm content with my tax-dollars going towards public schools and not for your participation trophies designed to intimidate anyone who loves their country.
No you happy because this push your ideas by force.

>Both Jackson and Lee swore loyalty to the US as part of their entry into the military.
George Washington swore loyalty to the king as a subject

Maybe men aren't meant to be venerated.

>You're only a traitor if you lose!

Just as Southerners were not traitors to the Confederate States of America. Southern nationalism is still a thing and is different from American nationalism. Just because the war is over doesn't mean the divide it created is gone.

>History is all about how you frame past events.
So give me one good reason why I should allow a framing which is a deliberate obscuring of what actually happened?

>Southerners framing the Civil War as a struggle for states rights isn't objectively wrong
Yes it fucking is. Look up the Fugitive Slave Act. Southerners were pissed because Northern states were basically telling slave owners "fuck you" when it came to returning escaped slaves. The South loved states rights except when they didn't, and that's what they're trying to hide from people in order to push a modern political agenda.

None of that personal shit matters. Its not about their personal loyalties, its not about their quality as military-men or people in general, its not about them being traitors or heroes, its that they were military leaders of a rebellion against the US which was specifically started in order to preserve (and perhaps advance) slavery...now the question is...do we want a statue for that?
(Considering Lee's feelings on Slavery and his reasoning for actually joining the confederacy Virginia actually has a decent reason to have a Lee statue).

Uhhh do you know this guy's military background?

George Washington doesn't have a statue in London does he?

...

>So give me one good reason why I should allow a framing which is a deliberate obscuring of what actually happened?
Why should we allow any historical fact that don't agree with my ideology.

>Yes it fucking is. Look up the Fugitive Slave Act. Southerners were pissed because Northern states were basically telling slave owners "fuck you" when it came to returning escaped slaves. The South loved states rights except when they didn't, and that's what they're trying to hide from people in order to push a modern political agenda.
South had the right to separate, for any reason or even no reason.

Because Brits aren't noble as Americans used to be.

>So give me one good reason why I should allow...

Oh shit I'm sorry, I didn't know I was talking to the king of history

No we Southerners know about slavery, we just turn a blind eye to it. Kind of like how you Northerners turn a blind eye to the Native American genocide perpetrated by Yankee veterans in the West. Se how that works?

>Great argue.
Thanks!
>I don't like people that stay on the path of progress, they are evil.
Feel free to go live out in the forest all by yourself, if you have a problem with the fact that human society gradually trends towards increasingly egalitarian forms.

>Big Brother could say better, congratulations.
Having a government small enough to drown in the bathtub conveniently forgets to tell you who, in fact, is the asshole who wants to drown it.

>They make the decisions you want.
Yes, decisions like "I shouldn't steal from that guy" or "maybe I should put a condom on so I don't get my girl prematurely pregnant" or "I'm going to finish trade school and get a decent, productive, well paying job"

>They only make society more like you like.
I like a society where people interact via peaceful exchange, where they're not whipping each other for missed quotas and shooting them for trying to escape their day jobs

>No you happy because this push your ideas by force.
Says the guy defending slave-owners.

My ideas are pushed by peaceful democratic persuasion. If you can't accept society on these terms, there's nothing stopping you from moving away.

Just like Lee doesn't have any statues up North. There is no difference. While the South is still within the United States there is still a Southern nation and a Northern nation.

>south had the right to separate
except noone has the right to seperate from the US ever, as per the law???? unless you're just making an ideological argument then I guess well "eh"

We don't. In fact southerners are often the first to point out that Yankees go overboard with the apologizing and the white guilt

Replace the statue with one of Longstreet.

Almost every prevalent American before 1850 was a slave owner

The South doesn't exist, the Confederacy was dissolved in 1865.

Yes, and the difference is that one part of the country gradually phased the practice out, while the other part institutionalized it and then hardwired their constitution to make ending the practice effectively impossible.

It's called "progress"

Do you know who the Kurds are? How about the Palestinians? The Chechens? The Hutus and Tutsis? Nations can and do exist without a political entity, state or independent governing body.

None of the founding fathers freed the entirety of their personal slave holdings, nor did they make any effort to eradicate slavery within the US.

>If you don't agree with my ideology go live in the woods and stop fighting it, I've already won.

>I like big government, someone has to push my agenda and the people don't want to do it.

>People do rational decisions, that why we need to feed they with propaganda since birth.

>I like a society were people are free and not oppressed, that's why I defend a huge government with unlimited control over it's citizens.

>See you like history as it is, not as propaganda says, so you are a slave supporter.
>My ideas a pushed force, but it's ok, these are the right means, if you can't accept quiet, go away.

John Adams was a Bostonian Lawyer who never owned any slaves.

And they made no effort to end the practice because if they did, they knew that the union would dissolve as southern states take their toys and go home.

So they figured the individual states figure it out, and thought that the practice would gradually fade out over time.

None of them predicted the cotton gin

>Kind of like how you Northerners turn a blind eye to the Native American genocide perpetrated by Yankee veterans in the West
Except whenever someone suggests putting Harriet Tubman or someone who wasn't a genocidal basket case on our money to replace a current basket case, dime-a-dozen asshats (I'm willing to bet such as yourself), Conservatives, and Alt-Rights shout "MUH SJW BOOGEYMAN."

Before 1865 this was possible, many jurists defended the possibility, just after civil war that became illegal.

The difference is that they won the war they fought in, so they were freedom fighters.

No, he was a constitutionalist, that would have supported south separatism.

Roman memes are deeply ingrained in American civics, and public statues are an integral part of the Roman style civic cult. It's part of the reason why these statues were put up in the first place as an attempt by Reconstruction era Southern Democrats to reclaim and secure a political base based on Southern white voters, black voter suppression, and anti-Northern/Republican sentiment.

>Harriet Tubman

I'd be fine if they replaced Jackson with a historical figure that was actually influential

>I'd be fine if they replaced Jackson with a historical figure that was actually influential
Has was not an evil guy, so we need to ignore him, if we don't how we will build a new American history.

>Doesn't know how to greentext

None of those are arguments, you're doing the internet equivalent of repeating what someone just said back to them in a mocking tone, and basically admitting that you're out of ideas and just going off on a political rant, rather than come back at me with historical sources

The south was in the wrong. Admitting when your country is wrong is a sign of maturity, not weakness.

How is being one of the most widely-known individuals to take initiative of liberating human beings from actual ownership not influential? Just because you were too dumb to open an elementary school history textbook doesn't mean she isn't an icon for other people since childhood.

>The south was in the wrong.
That's the problem, you think just because you have the "right" ideas, you can judge the past and control the future.

>Admitting when your country is wrong is a sign of maturity, not weakness.
Admitting that believe in that, that were many true federalist, that they had the right to fight is a sing of maturity, calling they wrong and evil because of your ideology is child play.

Whats the confederacy/Lost Cause equivalent of wehraboo called? We need a new term for these fags besides rebel scum.

How about losers?

>That's the problem, you think just because you have the "right" ideas, you can judge the past and control the future.
I never said that. The democratic process should decide what is right, but only when it is backed up by a citizenry who has been educated in objective truths. Southern secession was a subversion of that by guys who were, in fact, convinced that they were in the right, and no amount of scientific evidence was going to convince them otherwise.

>Admitting that believe in that, that were many true federalist, that they had the right to fight is a sing of maturity, calling they wrong and evil because of your ideology is child play.
Can you into English next time?

Admitting your country was in the wrong and celebrating your ancestors are not incompatible actions. Around 20% of Southerners owned slaves at the time of the Civil War. Among those 20%, only 10% owned more than five. While Southern politicians started the war to preserve slavery most Southern soldiers were fighting to defend their homes and way of life (i.e. subsistence farming). Those statues do not honor slavery or slave holders, they honor the bravery of the common Southern soldier.

>Those statues do not honor slavery or slave holders, they honor the bravery of the common Southern soldier.

Every day on my commute to work I drive past a statue dedicated to a common union soldier. He's no one whom you'd recognize because he was just another ground-pounder fighting in the mud for what he thought was right.

If those statues were really about the common man then they'd actually BE of the common man, not Nathan Bedford Forrest.

>Those statues do not honor slavery or slave holders, they honor the bravery of the common Southern soldier.
Which is why they've so often equestrians of slave holding Confederate generals and politicians?

I didn't know 'being widely known' and 'influential' were synonymous. She wasn't even the most influential abolitionist. The Underground Railroad is a blip on America's historical radar.

>I never said that. The democratic process should decide what is right, but...
I knew that would have a but, why can't you defend democracy for real and not as a matter of convenience.

>only when it is backed up by a citizenry who has been educated in objective truths.
So... democracy is only good when people are teach to vote certain way? That's democracy for you?

> Southern secession was a subversion of that by guys who were, in fact, convinced that they were in the right, and no amount of scientific evidence was going to convince them otherwise.
By what I understand, that why they need to be crushed, because they were unable to see the one right way of thinking.

>Can you into English next time?
Wow, now you have fight back my argue

>Which is why they've so often equestrians of slave holding Confederate generals and politicians?
Because they were build with private money and generals families paid for it, instead of taxpayers.

>If those statues were really about the common man then they'd actually BE of the common man

Growing up in Virginia I've seen more of those than statues dedicated to individual leaders. Pic is obviously NC but these types of statues are all over the place.

>I knew that would have a but, why can't you defend democracy for real and not as a matter of convenience.
Because it just works, that's why

>So... democracy is only good when people are teach to vote certain way? That's democracy for you?
Yes, they have to be taught how to distinguish between someone who has genuinely beneficial ideas for the nation, and a demagogue making impossible promises. A democratic society is utterly dependent on everyone having a common pool of facts from which they draw their conclusions, and that pool of facts must be grounded in the truth, told objectively as possible. Take that away, and democracy becomes a hypocritical farce before degenerating into authoritarianism.

>By what I understand, that why they need to be crushed, because they were unable to see the one right way of thinking.
Yes, they were unable to see it because they were more intent on making themselves rich by systematically pillaging the labor of tens of thousands.

>Wow, now you have fight back my argue
Your grammar is fucking atrocious to the point of making your shit unreadable. I tried asking you nicely if you wanted to try rewriting that, so now I'm just going to be blunt about it.

destroy everything that offends

but they were on public grounds, and they were being maintained in the modern era by tax dollars.
But the ones in the process of being removed were the ringleaders who suckered them into betraying their country

>those 5000 year old statues

I still fucking cringe when I see this shit

>We have the man responsible for the Trail of Tears on our 20 dollar bank note.

Shhhh.
That's phase two, of the planned destruction of American identity.

but are they worth keeping around if it makes people feel uneasy?

>Because it just works, that's why
Yes, it pushes your ideology, seem to be working.

>Yes, they have to be taught how to distinguish between someone who has genuinely beneficial ideas for the nation, and a demagogue making impossible promises.
What a coincidence that genuinely beneficial ideas is the way you think and all other are demagogue.

>A democratic society is utterly dependent on everyone having a common pool of facts from which they draw their conclusions, and that pool of facts must be grounded in the truth, told objectively as possible.
A democratic society is one were people have the right to chose they own path, be it good or bad, not one were you teach them to follow a certain path, them let them vote for that path, and only that path.

>Take that away, and democracy becomes a hypocritical farce before degenerating into authoritarianism.
So.. if we don't teach people how they should think and who they should vote and democracy became authoritarianism.

Lee actually voted against secession in Virginia's secession ordinance of 1861. He even spoke publicly against secession after Fort Sumter. Once Virginia seceded he felt he had to pick a side and decided he couldn't fight against his family and community (i.e. Virginia). It's not like he was psyched to go to war like some other fire-eaters at the time.