This is exactly how the Chinese Revolution began
OT: Just How Laughable Has ESPN Become
- Thread starter fedman
- Start date
Yes, there is a good and valid reason for the continued existence of the statues. The majority of the people in the various communities want the statues to exist.
You are off on a couple of other points. 1) The Third Reich and the Confederacy are not the same thing. Not even close. Many of the founding fathers of the United States owned slaves, including the most prominent like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. It's simply hypocritical to call for removal of statues of other slaveholders, but not those. 2) Statues of Lenin were put there by the occupying USSR, not the Poles themselves. That's different from from an autonomous community deciding what statues to erect.
3) The Confederacy wasn't an insurrection against the United States. The southern states left the United States, as was/is their right. The United States used military force to bring the southern states back into the Union. By your logic, the United States itself committed an insurrection against Great Britain, meaning George Washington and co. did the same thing you are accusing Robert E. Lee and co. of doing. 4) The Jim Crow era began roughly a decade after the Civil War. There wouldn't be anything unusual about the statues going up 10-20 years after the war.
Because in many states, it's required by law that the state legislature vote to remove said monuments. Also, there wasn't much of a civil rights movement in the 1920s to really respond to.
Most locals don't really want the statues removed. Most of the uproar is coming from outside sources, namely the national media.
Let's it work it's way through the legislation the voters will decide if they should stay or go
The will of the majority isn't the only governing principle in our society. If it was we wouldn't need a Senate, or the Electoral College, or the judiciary, or the Bill of Rights.
The fact that some founding fathers owned slaves is a red herring offered to avoid the uncomfortable discussion of defending the goals of the Confederacy. Yes, Washington and Jefferson owed slaves, but the statutes and monuments are there to commemorate their contributions to our society. Washington could have easily been King but stepped aside after two terms and set the standard for the peaceful transfer of power. Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis did nothing other than lead a rebellion against the lawful government of the United States in the effort to defend slaveowners. So there's no argument to be made that they should be venerated for their great accomplishments despite their deficiencies. Their great accomplishments were their deficiencies. It's really that simple.
Fair enough distinction, although the argument can still be made that it's part of Polish history, good or bad, which is the prime argument being offered to defend these statues here.
No, it was not their right before the war, and even if it arguably was their right, it certainly wasn't their right after the war. They were treasonous bastards who deserved their fate. They ripped the country apart due to their desire to own human property. Sugar coat it all you want, but a turd is still a turd at its core.
And your George Washington analogy fails simply because he won. The treasonous South did not.
Actually peak confederate statue construction occurred around 1910, which was 45 years after the war. just google a timeline.
Comrade Trumpsky and the confederates are traitors to the United States and dont deserve statues. Stone Mtn is coming down next. LOL.
Getting back to ESPN, I was watching "College Football Live" today and Desmond Howard was making a case for QBs to stop transferring. He mentioned the Golson / Keil situation as a QB who basically screwed himself. But, while he was making his talking points, he managed to slip in that ND was "curb stomped" by Alabama in the BCS title game. A point that had nothing to do with the topic. Unfortunately, he's not the only one who does this and it's not only ESPN.
Do you EVER have anything to offer in a thread?????
Funny thing about that. Rebelling against your king was quite unlawful.
The will of the minority isn't the only governing principle either.
Nope, it's not a red herring. I fully acknowledge the issue of slavery as it relates to the Confederacy. Actually, it's people who want to avoid the uncomfortable discussion of slavery in relation to the founding fathers, and the Constitution itself.
The Confederacy itself was a lawful government. The southern states chose to leave the Union. Again, the colonies rebelled against the lawful government of Great Britain. (And the rebel colonists also turned around and upheld slavery in the resulting Constitution.)
And again, the majority of people don't support removal of the statues. Most people who want the statues to remain want them up because it's part of their heritage, for good or bad. Lenin was not a part of Polish heritage. He was a foreigner whose country occupied Poland by force.
Oh, yes, it certainly was their right. The individual states DID, and still do, have the right to leave the Union if they so chose. The also had the right, even after the war. They couldn't exercise that right, for obvious reasons. However, the inability to exercise a right doesn't mean that the right doesn't exist.
It's funny how you can't/won't see these parallels. You say the southern states didn't have the right to leave, because they were compelled to by the use of military force. So in other words, you believe "might makes right," which is how blacks were enslaved in the first place.
"They ripped the country apart"
I'll point out yet again, the colonists did the same thing when rebelling against Great Britain. If you are going to claim the Confederacy didn't have the right to leave the Union, you certainly have no grounds to claim the colonies had the right to leave Great Britain. The fact that the colonists won and the confederates lost doesn't change that.
I never said otherwise. I was pointing out that the Jim Crow era stretched farther back that the other poster indicated. The implication was that the confederate monuments were simply put there to spite the civil rights movement, which simply isn't the case.
Last edited:
ANTIFA protestors destroyed a statue of Abe Lincoln in Chicago. They know where they are, but they evidently aren't very knowledgeable when it comes to history.
Isn't it about time you create another id? You already used turnover machine, end 23, and row the boat.
Do you have any more fake accounts?
You lost my interest at NY Times.
Laughable. Being PC is atrocious. So liberal. BTW on this board I dint think you need to do OT.
Michael Wilbon blurted out on PTI the other day that he doesn't care what his viewers and readers have to say about anything he comments on. And that is the respect and gratitude ESPN has for its public.
I think they should have given the Asian announcer more "Lee" way.
Pretty good interview of Sage Steele by Dan Patrick yesterday. Sage thinks ESPN needs to get out of the pop culture and politics business and back into the SPORTS business. My guess is she wouldn't be too happy with 25% of Sportscenter devoted to an unsigned free agent QB and his travails.
Save for the actual sports contests, I don't devote any time to ESPN. Maybe if the panels actually spent more time related to the S in the Network's call letters, I'd tune in to those discussions.
The thing with ESPN is that you don't know how much of what you see is ESPN driven and how much is Disney/ABC driven. For all we know the sports guys at ESPN could be just as aggravated as the public is with the choice of programming and the overall slant.
That could well be. I should also say that besides the actual sports contests, I watch the "30 for 30," which have been uniformly excellent. Also, the executive decision to move Bob Lee is mind numbingly stupid. A baserunner being victimized by the hidden ball play three times in a game is more excusable than that.
Third parties produce those for ESPN. ESPN is just the distribution channel. Not being naive to think ESPN might not have some say on content, but others are producing the material.
I'm just stating that those programs plus the sports contest are all I watch on ESPN. I used to watch The Sportswriters, but the most literary panelists left or died. Perhaps there are some insidious and slanted political views being orchestrated by the powers that be, but they hardly shape my outlook and I'd feel sorry for those who would be so duped.
One did yesterday and he wasn't very upset about the incident at all. In fact, the guy was making excuses for the decision made by ESPN.
The civil war was not just fought about slavery. . It was fought over states rights. Stop the revisionist history there liberal.
IHave a grand idea board liberals. Send me all your currency that has George Washington ,Thomas Jefferson and every other piece of currency that is offensive and oppressive , the more racism you can find in currency the more I'll be glad to take off your hands. That way you will FEEL Good about yourself, and my family will be better off. See its a win win. So now who is first in line here?
It pretty much was about slavery, which was the labor used and required to fuel the agrarian society supposedly behind the rationale of states rights.
You mean the high demand for cotton from the North. It makes you wonder who really fueled the slave industry? Hmmmm. Btw when will you be putting your money where your mouth is and dispose of that racist money you keep in your pocket?
Pretty sure the South's biggest trading partner for cotton was England. At any rate, regardless of the customer, the issue about "states rights" was a lightly veiled commitment to prolonging slavery.
Well considering slavery was excepted universally I don't believe that to be the case.
I'm not sure whether, in your context, you mean "accepted' or "excepted," but the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment led to the banning of slavery. The abolitionist fervor was irreversible save for the redoubt of the South.
The hazards of talk texting without proofreading.
Accepted!
I not disputing the dismantling of slavery and the evils of it
I was just stating slavery was a common practice all around the world.
From the American Indians to the tribes in Africa to Europe... hell even Muhammad had slaves.
Last edited:
Fair enough, but there clearly was a gaping chasm between how slavery was regarded in the North and the South, as Dixie regarded it as an instrumental practice for sustaining their its way of life.
Slavery was definitely an ends to a means for those who owned them.
The whole idea one man owning another just makes me sick to my stomach
If the south would have agreed that all new states were going to be non-slave states, the north would have agreed to keep slavery in the existing slave states. It's not like the north was passionately anti-slavery.
Totally agree. However, since it was so ubiquitous centuries ago, even among what would be regarded as more enlightened societies, I'd have to conclude that our present attitudes have been shaped by an intellectual awareness, maybe even evolution.
