Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
The Attic
Afraid of history.
Page <<first <prev 5 of 18 next> last>>
Aug 15, 2017 14:51:27   #
idaholover Loc: Nampa ID
 
The problem is, is that we take people and events from a different era in history and put them in our time. It is our own arrogance and narcissism by which we judge events and the people who were involved.

Reply
Aug 15, 2017 15:04:50   #
BigBear Loc: Northern CT
 
idaholover wrote:
The problem is, is that we take people and events from a different era in history and put them in our time. It is our own arrogance and narcissism by which we judge events and the people who were involved.


It isn't easy to t***sport your mind back in time and not take yourself with it.
That is something I practice doing while trying to get the essence of the period and the people.

Reply
Aug 16, 2017 03:03:46   #
btbg
 
thom w wrote:
You don't see a difference between owning s***es, when it was common, and being the general for the most dangerous enemy the Union ever faced? I don't wish to stand up in support of s***e owners, but it was a different time in a quite different culture and I am unable to put myself in their shoes.


Yes, but you are perfectly willing to throw Lee under the bus instead of having the same compassion for the moral dilemma he faced.

There are many things in the world that I find offensive, or that remind me of bad things in my past. I don't go around trying to destroy them. Nor should anyone else. We can all learn from others and what they have done, both good and bad, and we can choose to take offense or not.

Some people rise above their environment and use the bad things to fuel their success. Others wallow in self pity and make excuses for their problems.

I'm truly sorry if anything I say is offensive to others, and I'm sorry if a confederate monument causes some a problem. Still, we would all be better off if people grew thicker skin and let things go.

Reply
 
 
Aug 16, 2017 03:15:10   #
btbg
 
user47602 wrote:
wait...

are you seriously comparing religious monuments erected to the glory of our creator that have stood for thousands of years to 150 year-old statues honoring a t*****r to the republic and the institution of s***ery?


...most people would see a connection with the Taliban and w***e s*********ts...hehe.


Those of you on the left keep insisting that the left is not trying to rewrite history. The funny thing is that I have a minor in history and nowhere in any of the classes I took in the 70s was any general from the south labelled a t*****r. That is all in the last few years.

The civil war was much more complex than you are trying to make it out to be. There were s***e owners on both sides and those without s***es on both sides.

The war was both about s***ery and about states rights. And both sides lost. Our country was nearly destroyed once. Since then we had made great progress concerning r****m, and healing the divides in our country until relatively recently. Now we are making new divides that are as deeply entrenched as any that led to the Civil War, and are potentially just as dangerous.

The difference is now instead of a geographical and philosophical divide we have a political divide.

Just the fact that now any confederate soldier is labelled a t*****r and treasonous is proof that history is being rewritten.

There was a legitimate debate at the time regarding whether or not it was constitutional for a state to secede from the union. That debate was only settled because the north won. There were three possible outcomes from the time period of the civil war. 1) the north won. 2) the south won. and 3) there was no fight because the north allowed the south to secede.

History is written the way it is because of choices that men on both sides made. Once upon a time the writers of that history were careful to include multiple reasons that the disagreement ended up in war, and correctly laid some blame on both sides for decisions that they made.

It seems that more recently that has changed, and now everyone on the one side was treasonous and everyone on the other side was a hero. The thing is some didn't chose a side, geography did it for them and we have no way of judging either their motives, or their sense of patriotism and duty.

There were good people and bad people on both sides, but apparently history has already been rewritten to the point that you can no longer see that.

Reply
Aug 16, 2017 03:28:58   #
user47602 Loc: ip 304.0.0.33.32
 
btbg wrote:
Those of you on the left keep insisting that the left is not trying to rewrite history. The funny thing is that I have a minor in history and nowhere in any of the classes I took in the 70s was any general from the south labelled a t*****r. That is all in the last few years.

The civil war was much more complex than you are trying to make it out to be. There were s***e owners on both sides and those without s***es on both sides.

The war was both about s***ery and about states rights. And both sides lost. Our country was nearly destroyed once. Since then we had made great progress concerning r****m, and healing the divides in our country until relatively recently. Now we are making new divides that are as deeply entrenched as any that led to the Civil War, and are potentially just as dangerous.

The difference is now instead of a geographical and philosophical divide we have a political divide.

Just the fact that now any confederate soldier is labelled a t*****r and treasonous is proof that history is being rewritten.

There was a legitimate debate at the time regarding whether or not it was constitutional for a state to secede from the union. That debate was only settled because the north won. There were three possible outcomes from the time period of the civil war. 1) the north won. 2) the south won. and 3) there was no fight because the north allowed the south to secede.

History is written the way it is because of choices that men on both sides made. Once upon a time the writers of that history were careful to include multiple reasons that the disagreement ended up in war, and correctly laid some blame on both sides for decisions that they made.

It seems that more recently that has changed, and now everyone on the one side was treasonous and everyone on the other side was a hero. The thing is some didn't chose a side, geography did it for them and we have no way of judging either their motives, or their sense of patriotism and duty.

There were good people and bad people on both sides, but apparently history has already been rewritten to the point that you can no longer see that.
Those of you on the left keep insisting that the l... (show quote)


I'm pretty sure Grant pardoned or honorary discharged those that fought for the south, so that they were not technically t*****rs... but they did resort to violence to further their cause, perhaps war was their only viable choice.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=72360 it was Jackson

Reply
Aug 16, 2017 05:24:40   #
Twardlow Loc: Arkansas
 
btbg wrote:
Yes, but you are perfectly willing to throw Lee under the bus instead of having the same compassion for the moral dilemma he faced.

There are many things in the world that I find offensive, or that remind me of bad things in my past. I don't go around trying to destroy them. Nor should anyone else. We can all learn from others and what they have done, both good and bad, and we can choose to take offense or not.

Some people rise above their environment and use the bad things to fuel their success. Others wallow in self pity and make excuses for their problems.

I'm truly sorry if anything I say is offensive to others, and I'm sorry if a confederate monument causes some a problem. Still, we would all be better off if people grew thicker skin and let things go.
Yes, but you are perfectly willing to throw Lee un... (show quote)


Recognizing the Robert E. Lee led an armed i**********n is not throwing him under the bus.

The moral dilemma you refer to was whether or not to take up arms against the nation that bore him and educated him and supported him for years and which he served in violence with honor, dignity, and respect.

He could decline command of the Northern forces with dignity and respect. However, taking command of troops in the act of i**********n was an entirely different matter, and only Lincoln's grace in victory saved him from a hangman's noose.

Reply
Aug 16, 2017 05:49:10   #
Sjfh
 
user47602 wrote:
I'm pretty sure Grant pardoned or honorary discharged those that fought for the south, so that they were not technically t*****rs... but they did resort to violence to further their cause, perhaps war was their only viable choice.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=72360 it was Jackson


I think that those pardons went a long way to offer an olive branch and begin healing. We did, after all, need to live together and make some attempt to get along. Hmmmm....sounds much like today.

But still....the pardon doesn't excuse what they did....it merely forgives.

It does add another element to consider.

Considering.....

Reply
 
 
Aug 16, 2017 06:11:14   #
Twardlow Loc: Arkansas
 
btbg wrote:
Those of you on the left keep insisting that the left is not trying to rewrite history. The funny thing is that I have a minor in history and nowhere in any of the classes I took in the 70s was any general from the south labelled a t*****r. That is all in the last few years.

The civil war was much more complex than you are trying to make it out to be. There were s***e owners on both sides and those without s***es on both sides.

The war was both about s***ery and about states rights. And both sides lost. Our country was nearly destroyed once. Since then we had made great progress concerning r****m, and healing the divides in our country until relatively recently. Now we are making new divides that are as deeply entrenched as any that led to the Civil War, and are potentially just as dangerous.

The difference is now instead of a geographical and philosophical divide we have a political divide.

Just the fact that now any confederate soldier is labelled a t*****r and treasonous is proof that history is being rewritten.

There was a legitimate debate at the time regarding whether or not it was constitutional for a state to secede from the union. That debate was only settled because the north won. There were three possible outcomes from the time period of the civil war. 1) the north won. 2) the south won. and 3) there was no fight because the north allowed the south to secede.

History is written the way it is because of choices that men on both sides made. Once upon a time the writers of that history were careful to include multiple reasons that the disagreement ended up in war, and correctly laid some blame on both sides for decisions that they made.

It seems that more recently that has changed, and now everyone on the one side was treasonous and everyone on the other side was a hero. The thing is some didn't chose a side, geography did it for them and we have no way of judging either their motives, or their sense of patriotism and duty.

There were good people and bad people on both sides, but apparently history has already been rewritten to the point that you can no longer see that.
Those of you on the left keep insisting that the l... (show quote)


"T*****r" is not some label given by a scholar or politician, but a title earne by actions of the guilty, whether the actor is named as a t*****r or not. It's like denying being left-handed because no one accused you of being left-handed.

The t***h is in the fact, the action, not the absence or presence of a label.

"Just the fact that now any confederate soldier is labelled a t*****r and treasonous is proof that history is being rewritten.

"Just the fact that now any confederate soldier is labelled a t*****r and treasonous is proof that history is being rewritten."

You may say so, but that doesn't make it so. A man who takes up arms against his own country is a t*****r, in the presence of the label, or without it, just as warmth exists with or without a name and water is wet under similar conditions.

Reply
Aug 16, 2017 08:40:22   #
ken hubert Loc: Missouri
 
Twardlow wrote:
You hide behind the big words like "agenda."

You don't have an "agenda?"

You always sneak a lick in as you run away, but the running away is the sign of defeat.


YOU'RE THE FASTEST RUNNER IN ARKANSAS, TWAT!

Reply
Aug 16, 2017 09:38:44   #
chrisscholbe Loc: Kansas City, MO
 
btbg wrote:
Those of you on the left keep insisting that the left is not trying to rewrite history. The funny thing is that I have a minor in history and nowhere in any of the classes I took in the 70s was any general from the south labelled a t*****r. That is all in the last few years.

The civil war was much more complex than you are trying to make it out to be. There were s***e owners on both sides and those without s***es on both sides.

The war was both about s***ery and about states rights. And both sides lost. Our country was nearly destroyed once. Since then we had made great progress concerning r****m, and healing the divides in our country until relatively recently. Now we are making new divides that are as deeply entrenched as any that led to the Civil War, and are potentially just as dangerous.

The difference is now instead of a geographical and philosophical divide we have a political divide.

Just the fact that now any confederate soldier is labelled a t*****r and treasonous is proof that history is being rewritten.

There was a legitimate debate at the time regarding whether or not it was constitutional for a state to secede from the union. That debate was only settled because the north won. There were three possible outcomes from the time period of the civil war. 1) the north won. 2) the south won. and 3) there was no fight because the north allowed the south to secede.

History is written the way it is because of choices that men on both sides made. Once upon a time the writers of that history were careful to include multiple reasons that the disagreement ended up in war, and correctly laid some blame on both sides for decisions that they made.

It seems that more recently that has changed, and now everyone on the one side was treasonous and everyone on the other side was a hero. The thing is some didn't chose a side, geography did it for them and we have no way of judging either their motives, or their sense of patriotism and duty.

There were good people and bad people on both sides, but apparently history has already been rewritten to the point that you can no longer see that.
Those of you on the left keep insisting that the l... (show quote)

I am not a fan of rewriting history to conform with how some people are thinking today.

Our history has a lot to teach us about things we should and shouldn't do.

I'm also not a fan of "mobs" tearing down monuments.
There is a political process to remove monuments.....if the majority deems it "necessary".

I do believe that our views of history are colored by our own beliefs.
This is not a reason to rewrite the history books.

You don't like General Lee, for example,.....OK....don't like him.
That's not a reason to tear down a monument.

The "problem" IMHO, is that we have entered a time where there is NO tolerance for anything other than what we, as individuals, believe.

I believe this started with the Tea Party but is now being embraced by some liberals, not all, as well.

Reply
Aug 16, 2017 09:50:59   #
dragonfist Loc: Stafford, N.Y.
 
I have seen a photo of Union and Confederate veterans shaking hands over the wall at the high watermark of the Confederacy at Gettysburg. If they could get over it and they were the folks in harms way why would anyone 150 years after that war take offense. A lot of those southeners were fighting for states rights which I have no illusions meant the right to own s***es. As many of the conservative folk on here want less government intrusion in their lives those folks felt the same way. It was what it was, pulling down a statue won't change it because history is written in indelible ink. If folks wish to honor their heroes what right does anyone have to say they can't? My avatar is my great grandpa who was captured at the siege of Petersburg. He was not well treated in the prison camps but then his guards didn't fare much better as by then the Union had a stranglehold on the supply lines. I have read from his diary that on many days they received only water as there was no food to be had. I still admire men such as Lee and Jackson for their military prowess and certainly do not find a statue honoring any confederate objectionable even though one of my forebearers suffered because of that war.

Reply
 
 
Aug 16, 2017 10:02:07   #
Twardlow Loc: Arkansas
 
chrisscholbe wrote:
I am not a fan of rewriting history to conform with how some people are thinking today.

Our history has a lot to teach us about things we should and shouldn't do.

I'm also not a fan of "mobs" tearing down monuments.
There is a political process to remove monuments.....if the majority deems it "necessary".

I do believe that our views of history are colored by our own beliefs.
This is not a reason to rewrite the history books.

You don't like General Lee, for example,.....OK....don't like him.
That's not a reason to tear down a monument.

The "problem" IMHO, is that we have entered a time where there is NO tolerance for anything other than what we, as individuals, believe.

I believe this started with the Tea Party but is now being embraced by some liberals, not all, as well.
I am not a fan of rewriting history to conform wit... (show quote)


Re-writing history has nothing to do with removing statues. The question is, should we commemorate men who wanted to destroy our country? We knew all along, and the history books knew too, that was what they wanted. That's no re-writing history.

Reply
Aug 16, 2017 10:16:24   #
ken hubert Loc: Missouri
 
Twardlow wrote:
Re-writing history has nothing to do with removing statues. The question is, should we commemorate men who wanted to destroy our country? We knew all along, and the history books knew too, that was what they wanted. That's no re-writing history.


We know that you want to destroy the country but rest assured, we will never build a statue of you!

Reply
Aug 16, 2017 10:22:03   #
chrisscholbe Loc: Kansas City, MO
 
Twardlow wrote:
Re-writing history has nothing to do with removing statues. The question is, should we commemorate men who wanted to destroy our country? We knew all along, and the history books knew too, that was what they wanted. That's no re-writing history.

Wanting to break away from an entity that no longer shares your views...Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Kind of like we did when we broke away from England?

Not saying right or wrong.

Just saying that there are more ways to look at this than any one of our singular perspectives.

Also, we weren't there when it was happening.

Reply
Aug 16, 2017 11:10:26   #
Twardlow Loc: Arkansas
 
chrisscholbe wrote:
Wanting to break away from an entity that no longer shares your views...Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Kind of like we did when we broke away from England?

Not saying right or wrong.

Just saying that there are more ways to look at this than any one of our singular perspectives.

Also, we weren't there when it was happening.


Clearly England sees our revolution differently from our view; do you have trouble seeing that?

They see the forefathers we revere as t*****rs, and make no statues to commemorate them within their country, yet you expect us to commemorate our t*****rs within our boundaries, don't you?

Perhaps your logic wanders.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 5 of 18 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
The Attic
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.