Had enough yet

[mark blazejewski]

This all began because someone decided, as other elected officials have across the country, to cave in to partisan political pressures and seek to erase American history. History is not there for us to love or hate, but for us to learn from and seek to not repeat its mistakes.

It is become increasingly clear to me, that America is in the midst of a revolution; a revolution aimed at the destruction of our Constitution, our history, our culture, and our way of life. There is no need to present scholarly arguments to justify America's heritage and harmonize it with America's present. The revolutionaries will not hear those reasoned thoughts.

The purging of history is symptomatic of the toxic revolution: a controlled message targeted to the controlled mind. Lenin, Hitler, Mao, and Castro all undertook such purification programs.

Americans may be well served to consider that recalling the past, with strict reliance on a purified facts, is propaganda; the complete presentation of the American experience, both virtuous and flawed, is history. Indeed, America in 2017, is the sum of its whole, not the difference of its select.

Perhaps the revolution-approved purified past, is an essential component to a revolution-approved, purified future.

Consider another symptom of a toxic revolution present in today's America: the incremental drive towards controlled speech.

Political correctness, ostensibly presented as a necessary condition for sensitivity and tolerance, should be considered and assessed as a possible foundation for control of those view points which the revolutionary may perceive as threatening. In America today, it seems as though that any unapproved spoken words, or any unedited written thoughts, are subject to burning in the incinerator of the PC Police. It is good to remember the words of Heinrich Heine: "Where one burns books, one eventually burns people."

Consider further, an additional symptom: the boycott of those businesses and organizations which seemingly do not comply with the tenants of the controlled message. The contemporary practice of the boycott has overtones of those horrible yellow Stars of David on the windows of Jewish businesses in long ago, but not far away, Germany.

This perceived revolution threatens the very existence of the Republic. This is not a good place for America to be,

[abc123]

we don't memorialize the holocaust with statues of hitler. yet, we still memorialize the holocaust. if the elected leaders in a city decide that a statue that was put up 100 years ago does not appropriately represent their city today, is well within their right to move it. if the citizens disagree, they can elect new leaders. its pretty simple.

regarding that whataboutism filled diatribe from allen west...if white supremecists were descending on lancaster, would you not voice your displeasure? would you not be outraged that nazi flags are being waved in our streets? or, would you stay home, calling around to make sure the proper permits were in place before you went outside, in your own town, to shout down the racist out of towners? that is such a sad argument. the racists from states away in fatigues open carrying are the good guys....because they had a permit. come on...

[mark blazejewski]

we don't memorialize the holocaust with statues of hitler.

If the statue you are referring to is that of Robert E. Lee, comparing Robert E. Lee to Hitler? Oh come now.

Statues are not constructed as a form of worship; they are constructed as a form of remembrance. Each individual viewing the statute has can attach whatever viewpoint they want as to what that statue represents.

The statue of Lee to some, may suggest the sin of slavery. To some, his skill as a soldier. To some, a symbol of state pride. To some, his skill as an educator, because during his time as Commandant of West Point, he taught and mentored many of the heroes of the Army Of The Republic that destroyed the institution of slavery.

It depends on how you look at things. That is why free thoughts and free expressions are crucial to a free people.

[abc123]

Comparing Robert E. Lee to Hitler? Oh come now.

Statues are not constructed as a form of worship; they are constructed as a form of remembrance. Each individual viewing the statute has can attach whatever viewpoint they want as to what that statue represents.

The statue of Lee to some, may suggest the sin of slavery. To some, his skill as a soldier. To some, a symbol of state pride. To some, his skill as an educator, because during his time as Commandant of West Point, he taught and mentored many of the heroes of the Army Of The Republic that destroyed the institution of slavery.

It depends on how you look at things. That is why free thoughts and free expressions are crucial to a free people.

i'm not equating lee to hitler. that wasn't the point.

it DOES depend on how you look at things. and, obviously, people looked at "things" a lot differently in 1920 when that statue was erected. there is nothing wrong with reconsidering it 100 years later. that IS free thought and free expression in action. people elected leaders. who looked at an issue and made a decision. true representative democracy in action.

the fact that neo-nazis view this as so important to them is evidence that they made the right decision.

[WNYresident]

i'm not equating lee to hitler. that wasn't the point.

it DOES depend on how you look at things. and, obviously, people looked at "things" a lot differently in 1920 when that statue was erected. there is nothing wrong with reconsidering it 100 years later. that IS free thought and free expression in action. people elected leaders. who looked at an issue and made a decision. true representative democracy in action.

the fact that neo-nazis view this as so important to them is evidence that they made the right decision.

I never looked but is there documentation when the statues were installed? News paper articles saying why the statue was placed and why?

Would be interesting to read about the group behind various statues. Maybe the intention was based on someone's skill as a solder or a heroic deed they did. The statues might not have been put up honoring "slavery" and their roll in "slavery".

[abc123]

this one was commissioned in 1917 and forged in 1924

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert..._Lee_Sculpture

many such statues and memorials only date back to the 60s. they were specifically created in response to the civil rights movement.

[mark blazejewski]

[QUOTE=abc123;1740757]

i'm not equating lee to hitler. that wasn't the point.

Are you sure? If you were not equating Lee to Hitler, explain this later comment:

the fact that neo-nazis view this as so important to them is evidence that they made the right decision.

A supporting argument, but hardly conclusive or compelling. Guilt by association, the trademark of the left. If the Neo-Nazis like puppies, does that mean that puppies should be "removed?"

there is nothing wrong with reconsidering it 100 years later.

Yep your right. But that process of reconsideration should take into account all points of view and perspectives; not one to the exclusion of all others.

Again, this quote suggests a seemingly myopic tendency to equate all viewpoints supportive of the retention with one rather extremist, disgusting viewpoint:

the fact that neo-nazis view this as so important to them is evidence that they made the right decision.

[LuvinBuffalo]

i'm not equating lee to hitler. that wasn't the point.

it DOES depend on how you look at things. and, obviously, people looked at "things" a lot differently in 1920 when that statue was erected. there is nothing wrong with reconsidering it 100 years later. that IS free thought and free expression in action. people elected leaders. who looked at an issue and made a decision. true representative democracy in action.

the fact that neo-nazis view this as so important to them is evidence that they made the right decision.

Reconsidering statues or memorials or monuments 100 years later is fine, but a mob destroying property without going through legitimate steps is simply vandalism and they should all be fined, jailed, charged with the crime. I hear a third world country calling to them, and they should answer.... and head there immediately.

Although I hate what the white supremist and KKK groups stand for, I also have no respect for the BLM and antifa groups either, but that doesn't mean they don't have the right to gather and speak their points of view - even if I totally disagree with them. This is their constitutional right. They do NOT have the right to destroy property or cause bodily harm to others simply because they don't like what they have to say. If the antifa group was really only interested in being in Charlottesville to only counter-protest, why didn't they also get permits and show they can assemble peacefully? Sadly, these groups are not about peaceful protest and only want to wreak havoc and create turmoil. Add to that the Hollywood snowflakes, unreliable and unsubstantiated media stories, and the state of alt-leftist academic influences on a younger generation, and we find we are bombarded with negative press daily. Not only that, many of them applaud these acts of violence as a must. How sad is that?

[mark blazejewski]

Although I hate what the white supremist and KKK groups stand for, I also have no respect for the BLM and antifa groups either, but that doesn't mean they don't have the right to gather and speak their points of view - even if I totally disagree with them. This is their constitutional right. They do NOT have the right to destroy property or cause bodily harm to others simply because they don't like what they have to say. If the antifa group was really only interested in being in Charlottesville to only counter-protest, why didn't they also get permits and show they can assemble peacefully? Sadly, these groups are not about peaceful protest and only want to wreak havoc and create turmoil. Add to that the Hollywood snowflakes, unreliable and unsubstantiated media stories, and the state of alt-leftist academic influences on a younger generation, and we find we are bombarded with negative press daily. Not only that, many of them applaud these acts of violence as a must. How sad is that?

Very sad indeed. I could not agree more with your comments.

[Save Us]

Reconsidering statues or memorials or monuments 100 years later is fine, but a mob destroying property without going through legitimate steps is simply vandalism and they should all be fined, jailed, charged with the crime. I hear a third world country calling to them, and they should answer.... and head there immediately.

Although I hate what the white supremist and KKK groups stand for, I also have no respect for the BLM and antifa groups either, but that doesn't mean they don't have the right to gather and speak their points of view - even if I totally disagree with them. This is their constitutional right. They do NOT have the right to destroy property or cause bodily harm to others simply because they don't like what they have to say. If the antifa group was really only interested in being in Charlottesville to only counter-protest, why didn't they also get permits and show they can assemble peacefully? Sadly, these groups are not about peaceful protest and only want to wreak havoc and create turmoil. Add to that the Hollywood snowflakes, unreliable and unsubstantiated media stories, and the state of alt-leftist academic influences on a younger generation, and we find we are bombarded with negative press daily. Not only that, many of them applaud these acts of violence as a must. How sad is that?

We can thank the corrupt education system and derelict parenting for this non-sense. The parents should be ashamed that they failed so miserably.

[abc123]

Are you sure? If you were not equating Lee to Hitler, explain this later comment:

yes. i am sure. hitler was worse than robert e. lee. i have never heard anyone argue differently. have you? the point was how we memorialize events and people. we, generally, take greater care to consider others perspectives now than we did 100 years ago.

A supporting argument, but hardly conclusive or compelling. Guilt by association, the trademark of the left. If the Neo-Nazis like puppies, does that mean that puppies should be "removed?"

ah, but you have your association wrong. the city council voted down the statue. the PROTESTERS associated THEIR actions with their perceived larger politically correct, anti-white narrative. the statue wasn't removed because of association with neo-nazis. neo-nazis took it as their cause afterwards. which provides additional justification that it was the right decision.

Yep your right. But that process of reconsideration should take into account all points of view and perspectives; not one to the exclusion of all others.

Again, this quote suggests a seemingly myopic tendency to equate all viewpoints supportive of the retention with one rather extremist, disgusting viewpoint:

how did it not? there are 5 members to the council, 3 voted to move the statue, 2 against it. initially, 1 abstained, but they were convinced it was the right thing to do. there was considerable debate. in fact, it was not at all unlike a certain mascot decision here a couple years ago.

[mark blazejewski]

[QUOTE=abc123;1740857]

yes. i am sure. hitler was worse than robert e. lee.i have never heard anyone argue differently. have you?

Now be nice, after all, I was the one to point out the difference between Hitler and Lee, with shocked clarity. I certainly know the difference between the two. Cute trick, slick tactic, twisted meaning, ABC. You are starting to sound like Cincinatus.

ah, but you have your association wrong. the city council voted down the statue. the PROTESTERS associated THEIR actions with their perceived larger politically correct, anti-white narrative.

Sorry my friend, but I not only have ducks in order on the "guilt by association" comments, but you are missing my entire point as to the LEGAL protest, protected under the First Amendment.

Assuming the exercise of free political speech is still guaranteed, I held that different people, with different views, may have gleaned different meaning(s) from the statue's existence. The decision to remove the statue was properly the Council's; the right to voice displeasure properly resided with a diverse set of protesters.

Some undoubtedly protested as a reaction to what you describe as a "larger politically correct, anti-white narrative." There is no question that you are correct on that point.

However, some may have protested for reasons other than the narrative your describe. Perhaps they viewed it as an attack on the sovereignty of their state and its heritage; perhaps some viewed it as an insult to ancestors, serving under General Lee, who laid their lives down protecting their homes and families; some perhaps viewed it as an insult to a great American military leader, who as an educator and mentor, provided the necessary skills to so many Union warriors who DESTROYED SLAVERY.

To wit, my original words in addressing your initial post of today:

Statues are not constructed as a form of worship; they are constructed as a form of remembrance. Each individual viewing the statute has can attach whatever viewpoint they want as to what that statue represents.

The statue of Lee to some, may suggest the sin of slavery. To some, his skill as a soldier. To some, a symbol of state pride. To some, his skill as an educator, because during his time as Commandant of West Point, he taught and mentored many of the heroes of the Army Of The Republic that destroyed the institution of slavery.

It depends on how you look at things. That is why free thoughts and free expressions are crucial to a free people.

ABC, what I am arguing is that different people, with different values and interests, protested the removal of the statue; not just the highlighted Neo-Nazi jerks. I submit free speech is too precious to be sacrificed on the alter of an apparently cheap "guilt by association" tactic.

Go Legends.

[mark blazejewski]

in fact, it was not at all unlike a certain mascot decision here a couple years ago.

And as I had a right to refute those who wanted to restore the mascot, equally, they had a right to tell me to stick it in my ear.

[mark blazejewski]

how did it not? there are 5 members to the council, 3 voted to move the statue, 2 against it. initially, 1 abstained, but they were convinced it was the right thing to do. there was considerable debate

.

The Council debated the issue and passed on it, which is their right. It is also the right of protesters to voice their reasons why the decision was not in their interests, and why the issue should possibly be re-visited.

The "process" to which I was referring was not singularly that of the legislative action, but is inclusive of the post-decision, public debate process. Sorry for the lack of clarity.

[HipKat]

if the elected leaders in a city decide that a statue that was put up 100 years ago does not appropriately represent their city today, is well within their right to move it.

Moving it is one thing. RE-moving it is another. I'll have to go look it up but off hand, if I remember my history class, I think Lee took the position of commander of the confederate army begrudgingly. I don't think he wanted the job, originally, but I'll go look and edit this if I'm wrong