Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Veteran)   ... And Methodists   (corneliustoday.com) divider line
    More: Murica, Slavery, Confederate States of America, World War II, Confederate States Army, Confederate monument, Ku Klux Klan, American Civil War, imposing statue of a Confederate soldier  
•       •       •

3345 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 May 2021 at 12:49 PM (5 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



23 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2021-05-13 9:43:42 AM  
FTA: it is on privately owned property

There's probably measures that can be taken.

FTA: At the time, Goldfield suggested an explanatory plaque be attached to such monuments

For example, perhaps put up a sign outside the fence saying "Warning: Asshole Legacy Inside".
 
2021-05-13 9:54:48 AM  
I think there's a decent case for keeping some of these minor, generic soldier memorials with the explanation/plaque that most regular soldiers were sold an ideal, a notion that they were defending their home states against invaders. Very few of them (outside of officers) had any direct stake in slavery. It's not unlike most other wars *cough*Iraq where young, easily impressionable men go do the bidding of rich people with bad information and propaganda encouraging them. That goes without saying for things like the Vietnam memorial, we just don't like to talk about it because it's still a part of our recent memories.

As Abe Lincoln so obviously put it, "If these peckerwoods really wanted to know what they were fighting for, they should have followed Jeff Davis's twitter feed."
 
2021-05-13 11:06:24 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-05-13 12:53:48 PM  
Seems like the site is farked.
 
2021-05-13 12:55:04 PM  
external-content.duckduckgo.comView Full Size

503 at snowflake server. lol @ it...
 
2021-05-13 12:57:09 PM  
I'm tired of waiting.  Get the firing codes for the Semitic space lasers and take these things out for good.
 
2021-05-13 12:58:15 PM  
Could you repeat that, sir?
 
2021-05-13 1:01:15 PM  

razrez75: Seems like the site is farked.


Seconded.
 
2021-05-13 1:01:53 PM  
 
2021-05-13 1:02:01 PM  
It's ironic that the sidevalways biatching about "participation trophies" are fighting over something that is basically a participation trophy.
 
2021-05-13 1:06:33 PM  
If you want to celebrate the Confederacy you should have pay reparations.

To Black Lives Matter.
 
2021-05-13 1:11:51 PM  
Subtle, subby.  +1
 
2021-05-13 1:50:37 PM  
I see "States Rights" figures prominently in the comments.

Do tell... what rights did the southern states lose following the victory of the Union?

Exactly. STFU and EABOD.
 
2021-05-13 2:50:38 PM  
Oh, subby, applause for that header
 
2021-05-13 2:54:26 PM  

NikolaiFarkoff: I think there's a decent case for keeping some of these minor, generic soldier memorials with the explanation/plaque that most regular soldiers were sold an ideal, a notion that they were defending their home states against invaders. Very few of them (outside of officers) had any direct stake in slavery. It's not unlike most other wars *cough*Iraq where young, easily impressionable men go do the bidding of rich people with bad information and propaganda encouraging them. That goes without saying for things like the Vietnam memorial, we just don't like to talk about it because it's still a part of our recent memories.

As Abe Lincoln so obviously put it, "If these peckerwoods really wanted to know what they were fighting for, they should have followed Jeff Davis's twitter feed."


There is no 'decent case' for keeping any of them.

If you haven't learned history in school or from reading you aren't going to learn it from a statue.
 
2021-05-13 3:00:34 PM  

HairBolus: razrez75: Seems like the site is farked.

Google cache
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com​/search?q=cache:fwAyAmuVkMsJ:https://w​ww.corneliustoday.com/is-the-confedera​te-monument-here-to-stay/+&cd=1&hl=en&​ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-b-1-d


Neat trick. Thanks!
 
2021-05-13 3:10:26 PM  
Shouldn't have read the comments.

FWIW, I used to think 'keep them up, they're part of history.' Now I think they're tributes to traitors who were fighting to maintain the right to own people. Nothing more.
 
2021-05-13 3:26:16 PM  
Of the actual Confederate monuments that were toppled (in other words, ignoring those that were misidentified) the only one that made me upset was the Confederate soldier grave statue in Silver Spring. It's a gravesite for unidentified Confederate soldiers and imho should never have been touched.

https://wtop.com/montgomery-county/202​0/06/grave-marker-for-confederate-troo​ps-is-toppled-in-silver-spring/
 
2021-05-13 3:29:13 PM  
gottagopee:

There is no 'decent case' for keeping any of them.

If you haven't learned history in school or from reading you aren't going to learn it from a statue.


So are you saying a populace cannot honor or remember their dead based on the cause the dead fought for? Back to my Iraq or Vietnam examples.

I'm honestly asking. I believe public squares with Lee/Jackson/Davis/Forrest/etc should be taken down, but I'm not against small, private displays and memorials for the general fallen in a conflict, regardless of side. Maybe with restrictions, like not displaying the battle flag, etc.
 
2021-05-13 3:45:18 PM  

NikolaiFarkoff: I'm not against small, private displays and memorials for the general fallen in a conflict, regardless of side.


The German WWII cemetery at Mont-de-Huisnes, France. Go ahead and honor the dead. However, there isn't a Hitler statue in sight.

upload.wikimedia.orgView Full Size
 
2021-05-13 3:53:37 PM  

Metastatic Capricorn: NikolaiFarkoff: I'm not against small, private displays and memorials for the general fallen in a conflict, regardless of side.

The German WWII cemetery at Mont-de-Huisnes, France. Go ahead and honor the dead. However, there isn't a Hitler statue in sight.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 590x373]


Thank you so very much. It's not complicated. We don't celebrate horrific historical touchstones. Teach about them, yes. Memorialize with statuary, no.
 
2021-05-13 4:57:53 PM  

NikolaiFarkoff: gottagopee:

There is no 'decent case' for keeping any of them.

If you haven't learned history in school or from reading you aren't going to learn it from a statue.

So are you saying a populace cannot honor or remember their dead based on the cause the dead fought for? Back to my Iraq or Vietnam examples.

I'm honestly asking. I believe public squares with Lee/Jackson/Davis/Forrest/etc should be taken down, but I'm not against small, private displays and memorials for the general fallen in a conflict, regardless of side. Maybe with restrictions, like not displaying the battle flag, etc.


Your OP didn't mention anything about private property. What anyone does on their property in the way of memorializing traitors to the nation *or* the poor cannonfodder those traitors pushed into battle is the property owner's business.
 
2021-05-14 9:38:05 AM  

gottagopee: NikolaiFarkoff: gottagopee:

There is no 'decent case' for keeping any of them.

If you haven't learned history in school or from reading you aren't going to learn it from a statue.

So are you saying a populace cannot honor or remember their dead based on the cause the dead fought for? Back to my Iraq or Vietnam examples.

I'm honestly asking. I believe public squares with Lee/Jackson/Davis/Forrest/etc should be taken down, but I'm not against small, private displays and memorials for the general fallen in a conflict, regardless of side. Maybe with restrictions, like not displaying the battle flag, etc.

Your OP didn't mention anything about private property. What anyone does on their property in the way of memorializing traitors to the nation *or* the poor cannonfodder those traitors pushed into battle is the property owner's business.


Seems like the memorial in question was intentionally placed on a private chunk of land that was purchased because of its high visibility to the public. I'm sure the city could enact an ordinance that would impact this, but it sounds like it's currently legal.

I can't argue with you about people being able to do what they want on their own private property. Just remember that everyone has the right to call you a racist shiatheel if that's what you're advertising.
 
Displayed 23 of 23 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.