This is why they kneel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joeyc77

I just watched the two part episode of "dark side of the ring" about chris benoit. While i don't think WWE produces the show, there were certainly plenty of WWE personalities commenting about benoit and the murders. I agree potential cte has a lot to do with it. But again, that's part of the pr nightmare. I can understand a company not wanting liability when it comes to the death (murder/suicide) of three people.

Need to? No. But some people want to appreciate those men for their good deeds. And people are allowed to be offended at those men for their bad deeds. We can have a conversation about it, remove if necessary, move on if not necessary.

---

Yeah thats my point. WWE themselves will never mention Benoit. Shows like Dark Side of the Ring are not affiliated with any wrestling company and they never let current WWE employees interview for the show. That's not an accident.

Yes need to. Clearly there are prominent slave owners in this country that the US felt behooved to give monuments to or put them on US currency. I dont see a scenario where that should fly when there are so many historical figures without owning other people on their resumes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joeyc77

The Confederacy was not a good deed. That doesn't mean the men who were in it were 100% bad. The Union was a good deed. That doesn't mean the men who were in it were 100% good. Life is complicated that way.

---

I'm aware. But that could be said of any large organization. What if someone joined the KKK for the comraderie? Are you going to say we should celebrate KKK members because they may not have joined for the wrong reasons? Not all Nazis are 100% bad, you plan to put up any swastikas praising Nazis leaders for their heroism?


When you join an organization whose desire is evil and you support that evil, you start to lose the "I'm really a good guy" credibility.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

I'm aware. But that could be said of any large organization. What if someone joined the KKK for the comraderie? Are you going to say we should celebrate KKK members because they may not have joined for the wrong reasons? Not all Nazis are 100% bad, you plan to put up any swastikas praising Nazis leaders for their heroism?


When you join an organization whose desire is evil and you support that evil, you start to lose the "I'm really a good guy" credibility.

---

I don't know how people can't see this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joeyc77

I totally agree. Also, i have no issue if people are offended by statues of Confederate generals. Just like i have no issue if people are offended by OJs bust in the HOF. But it should be handled with a simple conversation explaining the reasons those men are being honored. None of which has to do with their misdeeds.

Also, i saw some people mention chris Benoit as an example. Part of the reason WWE banished benoit from their "history" is because the Monday after he murdered his family, they kinda jumped the gun and had an entire 3 hour show honoring him. It was a PR nightmare as they honored someone who just murdered his family. But as time has passed, they have begun talking about Benoit.

---

The problem isn't that you take issue with those offended by Confederate statues, it's that you're supporting them and think they should be honored at all.

You don't get to separate them from their worst deeds, that is a part of the total of who they are. That is the very definition of ignoring slavery.

Also, as Ewing said, the statues are not honoring them for some other good deeds unrelated to their owning of slaves or fighting for slavery, that is exactly why they are being honored.

They are being honored for their heriosm in battle defending slavery.

Explain to me how fighting for slavery doesn't have to do with slavery. Explain how fighting for slavery is a good thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bird of Prey

It depends on the entire history of the person that you are talking about. Look at George Washington and Thomas Jefferson as prime examples. Both owned slaves. Yes, it was wrong. But both of them grew up in that CULTURE where slavery was acceptable to a huge % of the world's governments and people. And look at the great things that both of those guys did with their lives.

If you believe as I do that we are all imperfect and make some bad mistakes, then we should gauge a person by their entirety and not just one bad thing that they did. Especially when talking about what a person did a almsot three centuries ago.

---

The difference between Washington and Jefferson is they didn't actively fight to keep slavery. The Confederates did. They were given a choice of "slavery or no" and they said "I'd rather die than lose slavery". That is how deep their resolve for slavery was. And this was at a point in history where most of the rest of the developed world had illegalized slavery. Plenty of people knew slavery was wrong at a time when the South fought to keep it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bird of Prey

when the Culture of the time that a young child was brought up in and educated in was such that the norms taught were that slavery was accepted, what odds would you give that a given child would grow up thinking differently other than his own experiences taught him? That is what I think that most people at the time were immersed in morally. And that is why I do not judge so harshly some of the people who owned slaves at the time or at least condoned the thing.

---

You should judge them through the lens of the time. Even back then, they were judged harshly. So many people felt slavery was wrong they went to war over it. Most of the developed world had abolished slavery by that point.

The idea that nobody knew slavery was wrong during the Civil War is bunk. Plenty of people knew it was wrong, and acting like the South didn't know any better is a copout. They were given opportunities to end slavery and they made it very clear they'd rather die.

It's not like they had slaves because everybody else was doing it, they were the principle people driving it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joeyc77

I just watched the two part episode of "dark side of the ring" about chris benoit. While i don't think WWE produces the show, there were certainly plenty of WWE personalities commenting about benoit and the murders. I agree potential cte has a lot to do with it. But again, that's part of the pr nightmare. I can understand a company not wanting liability when it comes to the death (murder/suicide) of three people.

Need to? No. But some people want to appreciate those men for their good deeds. And people are allowed to be offended at those men for their bad deeds. We can have a conversation about it, remove if necessary, move on if not necessary.

---

We are having a conversation about it now. The problem is you don't think it's necessary to remove the statues honoring slave owners because they did such a good job fighting to keep slaves.

It is ironic you say "move on, if necessary" because that is sort of what your ilk tells black people about slavery, but it's kind of hard to move on when guys like you are like "we need to HONOR slave owners because they were such awesome people!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bird of Prey

It depends on the entire history of the person that you are talking about. Look at George Washington and Thomas Jefferson as prime examples. Both owned slaves. Yes, it was wrong. But both of them grew up in that CULTURE where slavery was acceptable to a huge % of the world's governments and people. And look at the great things that both of those guys did with their lives.

If you believe as I do that we are all imperfect and make some bad mistakes, then we should gauge a person by their entirety and not just one bad thing that they did. Especially when talking about what a person did a almsot three centuries ago.

---

This is pretty significantly understating the number of places where slavery was being ended before before and during their presidencies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

We are having a conversation about it now. The problem is you don't think it's necessary to remove the statues honoring slave owners because they did such a good job fighting to keep slaves.

It is ironic you say "move on, if necessary" because that is sort of what your ilk tells black people about slavery, but it's kind of hard to move on when guys like you are like "we need to HONOR slave owners because they were such awesome people!"

---

I'd be fine with having a vote on individual statues. If more people vote to remove it, than remove it. If more people vote to keep it, keep it and move the **** on. I personally don't care enough about the statues. I have no connection to them. I'd be more willing to fight for OJs bust in the HOF. But i know a lot of people do care about those statues. And i know some people are offended. It shouldn't be the squeaky door getting the oil on this. That is, whichever side is louder. That's when we see fringe elements from either side.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joeyc77

I'd be fine with having a vote on individual statues. If more people vote to remove it, than remove it. If more people vote to keep it, keep it and move the **** on. I personally don't care enough about the statues. I have no connection to them. I'd be more willing to fight for OJs bust in the HOF. But i know a lot of people do care about those statues. And i know some people are offended. It shouldn't be the squeaky door getting the oil on this. That is, whichever side is louder. That's when we see fringe elements from either side.

---

EDIT: You keep talking about this in empty platitudes (I suspect to hide from the fact you would support and vote for most if not all Confederate Generals statues to remain standing).

How about some specific examples. Who are some Confederate Generals who should be taken down or kept up because of why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

The difference between Washington and Jefferson is they didn't actively fight to keep slavery. The Confederates did. They were given a choice of "slavery or no" and they said "I'd rather die than lose slavery". That is how deep their resolve for slavery was. And this was at a point in history where most of the rest of the developed world had illegalized slavery. Plenty of people knew slavery was wrong at a time when the South fought to keep it.

---

The problem is your side (or your ilk as you say) have already requested statues of Washington and Jefferson to be removed. They asked for a statue of Lincoln, which was paid for by ex slaves to be removed as well. They won't stop with just Confederate generals. You have to be aware of this...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

The difference between Washington and Jefferson is they didn't actively fight to keep slavery. The Confederates did. They were given a choice of "slavery or no" and they said "I'd rather die than lose slavery". That is how deep their resolve for slavery was. And this was at a point in history where most of the rest of the developed world had illegalized slavery. Plenty of people knew slavery was wrong at a time when the South fought to keep it.

---

Yes, a lot of people knew that slavery was wrong. However, it was the fact that the southern states were losing any control that they had in a say so with the federal government if it was removed . The origin of the Civil War was really about states rights and the decision whether new states coming into existing territories would be slave states or free. In short, this was about power and the economy not the wrong or right about slavery itself originally.

Also, The US was expanding so fast economically that if the South had its way and remained its own country, it would have had the 4th largest economy in the entire world. And eventually modern agricultural machines and the industrial inventions as well as abolition itself would have removed slavery as the economic lever that it was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

How do you expect people to move on from slavery when you are like "if we vote that slave owners who fought for slavery were great people, then I guess they were"?

---

Because we are a democracy. Just like when we voted a smug, egocentric reality tv star as president followed by a lame brain, half dead idiot. You dont have to like it. You have to accept it and move on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joeyc77

The problem is your side (or your ilk as you say) have already requested statues of Washington and Jefferson to be removed. They asked for a statue of Lincoln, which was paid for by ex slaves to be removed as well. They won't stop with just Confederate generals. You have to be aware of this...

---

OK, but agreeing to take down a Confederate General's statue doesn't mean you are then obligated to take down Washington or Jefferson. You can be for one and not the other.

Would you say we need to keep up a statue of Stalin or Mao because if they come down, so does Washington?

Stop using Washington or Jefferson as a shield for defending Confederate General statues. As you yourself said, we should judge them on their individual merits. Do the statues deserve to come down or not on their own merits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joeyc77

Because we are a democracy. Just like when we voted a smug, egocentric reality tv star as president followed by a lame brain, half dead idiot. You dont have to like it. You have to accept it and move on.

---

So if we decide to vote for slavery again or to be able to discriminate based on race, you'd think that is OK so long as it was voted in?

Just because the US is a Democracy doesn't mean there are things that are not votable. Some prominent example are the Bill of Rights.

Some things should not be put to a vote, they are inherent. Like the right to freedom of speech, or that slavery and fighting for slavery is bad.