Now is the time

[bird]

To destroy the confederate monument at Stone Mountain.

[gounion]

Agreed. But Glenn WILL be showing up and pretending to be an art lover who is all into preservation.

[Glennfs]

Agreed. But Glenn WILL be showing up and pretending to be an art lover who is all into preservation.

No we should be like the radical Muslims and radical Christians and destroy all works of art that liberals find offensive

[gounion]

No we should be like the radical Muslims and radical Christians and destroy all works of art that liberals find offensive

Thank you for proving me right. We knew you’d come here to defend the KKK artwork.

[bird]

No we should be like the radical Muslims and radical Christians and destroy all works of art that liberals find offensive

It is not a work of art along the lines of the Buddha’s destroyed by the Taliban. It is a monument to traitors and the evil of slavery.

It should be destroyed.

The South needs to be reminded every single day that their ancestors were traitors.

[gounion]

https://www.kqed.org/lowdown/19119/ston ... -klux-klan

Yes, Stone Mountain is where the Ku Klux Klan was founded, and one of the big things that caused it to be done was the movie Birth of a Nation, which Glenn has also praised as one of the great movies in history.

It is a monument to white supremacy. So, Glenn, keep arguing for it.

[Glennfs]

Thank you for proving me right. We knew you’d come here to defend the KKK artwork.

Oh so this is a trolling thread. I should have known.

[Glennfs]

https://dcist.com/story/20/09/01/dc-ren ... ashington/

We also need to change or destroy these

[gounion]

https://dcist.com/story/20/09/01/dc-ren ... ashington/

We also need to change or destroy these

Give us one good reason. Are they KKK statues? Yes or no?

[bradman]

Why now?

i'm all for working on it's "removal" but we are talking about their holy grail here.

[Glennfs]

Give us one good reason. Are they KKK statues? Yes or no?

No they are not. The KKK holds rally there but that does not make them a holy grail for the klan.

How is that you and your ilk believe yourselves to be the arbiter of what needs destroyed or ended.
The left finds something offensive so it has to go.

How about Mt Rushmore many native Americans find it offensive. Should it be destroyed?

Another question you don't have the balls to answer. Just like you didn't answer about my link.

This thread is nothing more than a gotcha trolling thread. That and another thread where again you don't have the balls to respond to any questions.

[bird]

No they are not. The KKK holds rally there but that does not make them a holy grail for the klan.

How is that you and your ilk believe yourselves to be the arbiter of what needs destroyed or ended.
The left finds something offensive so it has to go.

How about Mt Rushmore many native Americans find it offensive. Should it be destroyed?

Another question you don't have the balls to answer. Just like you didn't answer about my link.

This thread is nothing more than a gotcha trolling thread. That and another thread where again you don't have the balls to respond to any questions.

I would have no problem with Mt. Rushmore being turned over to the indigenous peoples to do with what they will.

Your are attempting to conflate apples and pine cones.

The bas relief carving of traitors is the largest such carving in the world. It was created as a monument to treason. All three figures were traitors whose memories should be kept in a museum that depicts exactly what they did. They committed treason for the sole purpose of maintaining the enslavement of human beings for profit.

This is not about leftists being offended. This is about rightist white supremacists pushing white supremacy and treason as being acceptable.

As for a gotcha, trolling thread? Too bad. Reply or not. Treason needs to remain odious.

I would also go further and tear down the names of every confederate politician and military person whose name is on streets, military bases or public building. Traitors deserve no reverence.

As for arbiters of what needs to be destroyed? Take the plank out of your eye. Look to Ron DeathSantis, the so-called Moms for Liberty, Family Research Council, Steve “treasonous” Bannon, Steven Miller, Michael Flynn, any Republican presidential candidate that will not decry Trump. They all want gays at the very least locked back in the closet. Many want the entire government of this country torn down. I would even posit that they want the slavocracy of the early decades of this country restored.

[Glennfs]

Again so whatever liberals deem offensive has to go. Be it a statue or work of art or a team mascot or a name brand or anything else.
If the left in our country decides it is offensive it has to be gone.
Next up the left being outraged at the standards set by parents for public schools which the parents pay for and are in charge of.

[ZoWie]

Confederate monuments, for the most part, are nearly all the result of two or three Southern conservative groups who never got over the Civil War. Ordinary people called the war settled history and moved on with their lives, but obviously quite a few others did no such thing, keeping it going for generations.

Most of the monuments would not be considered art by critics and scholars, any more than Grant's Tomb in upper Manhattan is art. I can't say for Stone Mountain, not having any desire to go to that scary part of the country to see it, but most of the smaller Confederate monuments that are being taken down came from the same company in New Jersey. The same figures came in Union or Confederate uniforms, depending on the request. Most of the Confederate ones were paid for and put up by the same reactionary women's group that also partially funded Stone Mountain along with the Klan.

Personally I consider them history more than art, and largely erected for polemic purposes. Since much of our great art is polemic for Christianity, that isn't a bad thing in itself, but the monuments are a far cry from the Sistine Chapel.

[bird]

Again so whatever liberals deem offensive has to go. Be it a statue or work of art or a team mascot or a name brand or anything else.
If the left in our country decides it is offensive it has to be gone.
Next up the left being outraged at the standards set by parents for public schools which the parents pay for and are in charge of.

It is offensive as regards slavery but it is far more than that.

It is a monument to treason.

That you lack the ability to process that is your fault and not my problem.

[ZoWie]

At one time, the left deserved some, not all but some, of the flak it got for criticizing cherished institutions.

This is hardly that time.

We all know who's doing most of the pissing and moaning right now. We know who is censoring libraries and revising school curriculums so alternatives to the Missionary Position no longer exist until you're college age. It's certainly not the left.

[JoeMemphis]

Confederate monuments, for the most part, are nearly all the result of two or three Southern conservative groups who never got over the Civil War. Ordinary people called the war settled history and moved on with their lives, but obviously quite a few others did no such thing, keeping it going for generations.

Most of the monuments would not be considered art by critics and scholars, any more than Grant's Tomb in upper Manhattan is art. I can't say for Stone Mountain, not having any desire to go to that scary part of the country to see it, but most of the smaller Confederate monuments that are being taken down came from the same company in New Jersey. The same figures came in Union or Confederate uniforms, depending on the request. Most of the Confederate ones were paid for and put up by the same reactionary women's group that also partially funded Stone Mountain along with the Klan.

Personally I consider them history more than art, and largely erected for polemic purposes. Since much of our great art is polemic for Christianity, that isn't a bad thing in itself, but the monuments are a far cry from the Sistine Chapel.

We had a couple of those monuments in Memphis a few years back. One of them I had driven by on a daily basis for years and I didn’t know who or what it was. Most people didn’t. It was just a statue in a park. I never heard of any Klan rallies or any protests. Then for a couple of years folks were offended on both sides. Then somehow somebody raised the money to remove them and replace them with nothing. So now people are back to driving past those places and paying them no mind just like before. So I hear what you say about the war being over. I thought so as well. But it cranked back up on both sides for a while and people got all riled up and spent money to remove two statues. In the end, nothing was accomplished and it did absolutely nothing to improve race relations in the city. If that was the objective. It failed.

So my question is what is the objective? Who is offended and about what? Are folks offended because the south rebelled against the north? Are folks offended because of racial implications? As I see it, the war is over. The southern states are part of the union and that isn’t going to change. That issue was settled 150 years ago. That issue is as dead as the folks represented by those monuments. BOTH sides need to get over it.

If it’s race, well that’s another matter. That is still a problem. That was a problem long before the civil war and remains a problem today. It’s part of our history. So are we to remove all monuments and all references to men who owned slaves? How far is that to go and what does anyone think it accomplishes. Seems to me we need to deal with the history and move forward instead of refighting those demons over and over again. Removing all mention of that history and relegating it to museums doesn’t erase the history. I guess we can leave it to our school system which is falling further and further behind and maybe to Hollywood. In the end, somebody somewhere is still going to be offended about something we did in history. You can’t erase it. The history is still there. The problems will still be there.

[ZoWie]

I'm doing art criticism. Personally I don't consider them art. People who live in the places involved can make up their own minds about whether they should go or stay. What I'm arguing is that they deserve none of the kind of protection that one would give, say, great Renaissance art works by Leonardo and Michelangelo which glorify the beauty of the human form on an objective level along with communicating the thematic material that one would expect from Papal commissions.

The Confederate statues for the most part are a commercial product from an early version of mass production, and I have no esthetic or critical opposition to their removal. They're from an era when people put up statues in the park for all sorts of reasons, including controversial and racial ones such as the ones the Klan and the Daughters of the Confederacy were pushing.

Statues are part of the culture everywhere. In Manhattan, all manner of robber barons and people who have undergone historical revision have statues. General Sherman, who burned Atlanta, has a real dandy gilded one you can't miss from 5th Avenue. Columbus, a loony tune who thought he was finding a trade route to India, but who instead triggered several of history's great tragedies, got a whole traffic circle along with his statue. You don't want to be the guy who draws the wrath of people descended from Italian immigrants by asking for that one to be taken down. I have noticed, though, that "Indigenous Peoples' Day" is starting to catch on. Fine.

Frankly, if some towns want to keep the damn Confederate monuments, they can have them. Like you, I used to view them largely as antiquated war memorials from another time, but then I read more about them. I can see a case for and against them. No matter. Most of the places where they're on display are not ones I'd ever visit anyway.

[Number6]

The monument is on state property so for those who want to keep the monument perhaps the state should just sell the site to a private party, company, group, or organization who will turn it into a tourist attraction. That way, if enough people visit the monument the state won't be sanctioning" homage to traitors. If enough people don't visit the monument then the owners will have to figure out what to do with it.

[Glennfs]

It is offensive as regards slavery but it is far more than that.

It is a monument to treason.

That you lack the ability to process that is your fault and not my problem.

No it's offensive because people like you have decided it to be offensive.
We have a small monument at the local cemetery. None of my kids nor their spouses ever noticed it. Even though they went past it 1000s of times.

Again anything the left decides is offensive has to go.

[JoeMemphis]

I'm doing art criticism. Personally I don't consider them art. People who live in the places involved can make up their own minds about whether they should go or stay. What I'm arguing is that they deserve none of the kind of protection that one would give, say, great Renaissance art works by Leonardo and Michelangelo which glorify the beauty of the human form on an objective level along with communicating the thematic material that one would expect from Papal commissions.

The Confederate statues for the most part are a commercial product from an early version of mass production, and I have no esthetic or critical opposition to their removal. They're from an era when people put up statues in the park for all sorts of reasons, including controversial and racial ones such as the ones the Klan and the Daughters of the Confederacy were pushing.

Statues are part of the culture everywhere. In Manhattan, all manner of robber barons and people who have undergone historical revision have statues. General Sherman, who burned Atlanta, has a real dandy gilded one you can't miss from 5th Avenue. Columbus, a loony tune who thought he was finding a trade route to India, but who instead triggered several of history's great tragedies, got a whole traffic circle along with his statue. You don't want to be the guy who draws the wrath of people descended from Italian immigrants by asking for that one to be taken down. I have noticed, though, that "Indigenous Peoples' Day" is starting to catch on. Fine.

Frankly, if some towns want to keep the damn Confederate monuments, they can have them. Like you, I used to view them largely as antiquated war memorials from another time, but then I read more about them. I can see a case for and against them. No matter. Most of the places where they're on display are not ones I'd ever visit anyway.

I never looked at them as “art”. Maybe some folks have. To each his own. I’ve been to art museums that had many displays I wouldn’t consider art. Funny how that kind of art can be offensive as hell but folks will throw themselves on the sword defending it.

These statues are markers for the most part. I never paid much attention to them. It’s kinda like the historical markers on the highway. There was a skirmish here. Who stops and reads those? Not me. But I suppose some people do. Maybe we should get rid of those as well. I’m sure somebody finds them offensive. Glenn does have a point. When and where do you stop? What good is it doing? Seems to me we could be spending the time money and attention preparing young people for the workplace of the future.

[Glennfs]

I never looked at them as “art”. Maybe some folks have. To each his own. I’ve been to art museums that had many displays I wouldn’t consider art. Funny how that kind of art can be offensive as hell but folks will throw themselves on the sword defending it.

These statues are markers for the most part. I never paid much attention to them. It’s kinda like the historical markers on the highway. There was a skirmish here. Who stops and reads those? Not me. But I suppose some people do. Maybe we should get rid of those as well. I’m sure somebody finds them offensive. Glenn does have a point. When and where do you stop? What good is it doing? Seems to me we could be spending the time money and attention preparing young people for the workplace of the future.

https://dcist.com/story/20/09/01/dc-ren ... ashington/

There are many groups wanting to remove founding fathers names from monuments, cities and states.
Which would be the natural progression of this movement.
I noticed a deafening silence from the left on that.