Support NeoGAF

[ShadowSwordmaster]

His numbers went up.

 

[Fenderputty]

So I came into work this morning to an article being passed around via. Apparently a field electrician that was hired out of the local in SF and dispatched to my company was at the Nazi party in Charlottesville. Someone recognized him and plastered his face all over the job site. We let him go yesterday. Feels kinda weird coming from a company I work for out of SF California.

His numbers went up.

Had a feeling.

 

[Hindl]

I agree with the fact that it all seems like a publicity stunt. GOP sees decent numbers and might want behind him, but they'd be better off going after a different candidate. Nugent is right.

That said, what in the world does he mean by "Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, You know, Antifa World?" I guess I'm not understanding the connection.



This is my sentiment as well. He's not a quitter.

They're just tying leading Democrats to extremists to try to paint the entire Democratic Party as terrorists. Republicans already hate Pelosi and think she's a baby-killer, tying her to Antifa is the next logical step

 

[whyamihere]

Who ran that poll, Teggy? That definitely seems like a right-leaning questioning.

Marist

 

[Wilsongt]

No one is scrubbing the confederacy from the history books.

But you know what is being scrubbed?

How terrible and inhumane slavery and the slave trade was. I mean, SOME slaves actually got to live and work in their Master's house! What! And they were treated kindly by their masters! Talk about living the high life! It wasn't all that bad! Thanks for letting us see that slavery wasn't such a tragic event in American history, Texas!

 

[Kusagari]

It's impossible to win this argument because somehow statues erected almost a century, or more, after the Civil War are considered part of history.

Logically, it makes zero fucking sense.

 

[Wilsongt]

It's impossible to win this argument because somehow statues erected almost a century, or more, after the Civil War are considered part of history.

Logically, it makes zero fucking sense.

I say we need more statues of King George and British generals from the Revolutionary war since people in American love their losers so much and they are a part of history.

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

Its really irritating seeing how much attention the monuments are getting, its a deflection to keep the story away from people flying nazi flags.

If those momuments didnt exist, that rally still would have happened.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Seriously though, Washington was a slave-owner. His statues should also be removed. Not even kidding.

 

[Vimes]

If there truly isn't broad public support to bring the statues down, it just reinforces what an own goal the nazi march was. Now they're just literally vanishing in the night.

Reminds me of gamergate trying to get Intel ads pulled from Gamastura and how badly that backfired.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

I still can't get over how blatantly loaded those questions are. "Honoring" "some people" "historical"

It should be "Do you believe we should remove Confederate monuments" y/n/u. That's it.

Seriously though, Washington was a slave-owner. His statues should also be removed. Not even kidding.

During a time when everyone rich had slaves, and he freed them in his will (after his wife died).

Proposing we remove Washington statues is the fastest way to get the entire country to tune the message out.

Know how to pick battles.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

During a time when everyone rich had slaves, and he freed them in his will (after his wife died).

And? The Confederates rebelled in favour of slavery during a time when the vast majority of people in the territories that would form the Confederacy were in favour of slavery. Why does Washington get to have his treatment of slaves washed away by contextualization?

Proposing we remove Washington statues is the fastest way to get the entire country to tune the message out.

Know how to pick battles.

I'm not running on this as a policy. I'm pointing out what would be the case in an ideal world.

 

[PBY]

I still can't get over how blatantly loaded those questions are. "Honoring" "some people" "historical"

It should be "Do you believe we should remove Confederate monuments" y/n/u. That's it.



During a time when everyone rich had slaves, and he freed them in his will (after his wife died).

Proposing we remove Washington statues is the fastest way to get the entire country to tune the message out.

Know how to pick battles.

Lol get the fuck out of here with this bullshit and just own that the reason you don't want to call for this isn't an ideological one, but a "pick your battles" argument. Which is fine, but don't bend over backwards for this shit.

 

[Surfinn]

I still can't get over how blatantly loaded those questions are. "Honoring" "some people" "historical"

It should be "Do you believe we should remove Confederate monuments" y/n/u. That's it.

"Do you believe we should remove these beautiful monuments?"

 

[Hindl]

And? The Confederates rebelled in favour of slavery during a time when the vast majority of people in the territories that would form the Confederacy were in favour of slavery. Why does Washington get to have his treatment of slaves washed away by contextualization?



I'm not running on this as a policy. I'm pointing out what would be the case in an ideal world.

My personal perspective is that Washington owned slaves, and that is a horrible thing, but it wasn't uncommon at the time. We should condemn Washington and Jefferson for their ownership of other people, I agree with that. We should teach people that the Founding Fathers were deeply flawed and not revered deities. However, Confederate generals were traitors to their country and fought and killed Americans in order to keep slaves in chains. They would rather kill their former countrymen than give up slaves. If there's evidence that Washington and Jefferson killed people in order to keep their slaves, then I'd probably agree with you

 

[Aaron Strife]

Sabato has a good write-up of the 2018 gubernatorial elections.

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/cr...-the-democrats-complicated-path-to-big-gains/

I would call it a good night if we held all our seats and swung:

Florida
Illinois
Maine (if Collins doesn't run)
Maryland
Michigan
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Mexico
Wisconsin

If I were being greedy, add Georgia, Iowa, Kansas and Ohio to that list.

 

[RastaMentality]

All the slave-owning presidents definitely fucking suck but Trump comparing Robert E. Lee to Washington is just insane considering the office he holds.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

And? The Confederates rebelled in favour of slavery during a time when the vast majority of people in the territories that would form the Confederacy were in favour of slavery. Why does Washington get to have his treatment of slaves washed away by contextualization?



I'm not running on this as a policy. I'm pointing out what would be the case in an ideal world.

Washington owned slaves 70 years before the Civil War. He died before England had even banned slavery. There's a pretty clear difference between statues of George Washington (who was known for things other than slavery) and monuments built in the 1920s to scare black people and which depicted men whose only footnote in history was that they were traitors who started a war over the ability to own other people.

If we removed every single statue of a slave owner or supporter of slavery in the US, we wouldn't have any monuments of anyone before the 1850s. Abe Lincoln would basically be the first president in the country to have a statue.

 

[Blader]

Marist went from 35 percent approval to 38 percent in one day?

 

[Veritigo_X]

Seriously though, Washington was a slave-owner. His statues should also be removed. Not even kidding.

Uh, let's take a step back and not fall into a Trump created narrative. Tearing down statues of traitors is one thing, but tearing down statues of the founding fathers isn't gonna go well with anyone besides brits I guess?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

My personal perspective is that Washington owned slaves, and that is a horrible thing, but it wasn't uncommon at the time. Confederate generals were traitors to their country and fought and killed Americans in order to keep slaves in chains. They would rather kill their former countrymen than give up slaves. If there's evidence that Washington and Jefferson killed people in order to keep their slaves, then I'd probably agree with you

You don't know your history very well. One of the tactics the British tried to use during the early stages of the American Revolution was to promise freedom to any slaves who fought for the British Army. Washington explicitly used this as a rallying-cry to draw support towards the American revolutionaries, and the idea that the British were conspiring with the Negroes was a common theme of Revolutionary-era propaganda.

Washington was a traitor to his former countrymen in order that others might keep slaves. The only difference between him and Lee is that he was successful!

 

[kirblar]

Remember from Crab and the UK's perspective, Washington was a traitor.

 

[Tall4Life]

Uh, let's take a step back and not fall into a Trump created narrative. Tearing down statues of traitors is one thing, but tearing down statues of the founding fathers isn't gonna go well with anyone besides brits I guess?

I doubt anyone in Great Britain cares

we've been allies for more than a hundred years, I seriously doubt you could find someone that's like "Oh man fuck Washington he rebelled against us"

 

[pigeon]

Guys, Crab already explicitly said he's arguing from a moral perspective and not a political one. Saying it would be bad politics doesn't intersect.

 

[PBY]

Washington owned slaves 70 years before the Civil War. He died before England had even banned slavery. There's a pretty clear difference between statues of George Washington (who was known for things other than slavery) and monuments built in the 1920s to scare black people and which depicted men whose only footnote in history was that they were traitors who started a war over the ability to own other people.

If we removed every single statue of a slave owner or supporter of slavery in the US, we wouldn't have any monuments of anyone before the 1850s. Abe Lincoln would basically be the first president in the country to have a statue.

Fucking fine. Read accounts of how Washington treated his slaves, its disgusting. There is zero nobility in that.

I totally understand the line of thinking of "pick your battles" but just own it and don't try to rationalize slavery.

 

[Veritigo_X]

I doubt anyone in Great Britain cares

we've been allies for more than a hundred years, I seriously doubt you could find someone that's like "Oh man fuck Washington he rebelled against us"

That was just a joke a threw on at the end.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I doubt anyone in Great Britain cares

we've been allies for more than a hundred years, I seriously doubt you could find someone that's like "Oh man fuck Washington he rebelled against us"

Pretty much. I'm actually just interested to see whether anyone on PoliGAF can find a consistent moral reason for tearing down Lee statues but not Washington statues that ultimately doesn't boil down to 'Washington won'.

 

[Tall4Life]

You don't know your history very well. One of the tactics the British tried to use during the early stages of the American Revolution was to promise freedom to any slaves who fought for the British Army. Washington explicitly used this as a rallying-cry to draw support towards the American revolutionaries, and the idea that the British were conspiring with the Negroes was a common theme of Revolutionary-era propaganda.

Washington was a traitor to his former countrymen in order that others might keep slaves. The only difference between him and Lee is that he was successful!

Do you have a source for this?

 

[Dominican Power]

https://twitter.com/ErickFernandez/status/898220319449677824

I fucking love Ali Velshi. I wish more pundits/journalists would call out these idiots out in their bullshit right on the spot.

 

[PBY]

Pretty much. I'm actually just interested to see whether anyone on PoliGAF can find a consistent moral reason for tearing down Lee statues but not Washington statues that ultimately doesn't boil down to 'Washington won'.

There really isn't any imo

 

[Hindl]

You don't know your history very well. One of the tactics the British tried to use during the early stages of the American Revolution was to promise freedom to any slaves who fought for the British Army. Washington explicitly used this as a rallying-cry to draw support towards the American revolutionaries, and the idea that the British were conspiring with the Negroes was a common theme of Revolutionary-era propaganda.

Washington was a traitor to his former countrymen in order that others might keep slaves. The only difference between him and Lee is that he was successful!

Fair enough I didn't know that you're right. Do you have any deeper reading on that?

 

[kirblar]

What wars are fought for matters. Slavery was not a battle line in 1776. It would have been maintained no matter which side won. You can acknowledge it without endorsing it.

 

[Teggy]

Who ran that poll, Teggy? That definitely seems like a right-leaning questioning.

It's NPR/PBS/Marist

http://maristpoll.marist.edu/nprpbs-newshourmarist-poll-results-on-charlottesville/

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

Pretty much. I'm actually just interested to see whether anyone on PoliGAF can find a consistent moral reason for tearing down Lee statues but not Washington statues that ultimately doesn't boil down to 'Washington won'.

Even though he was a flawed individual he still is largely responsible of giving us the framework which we, the people, can change and govern ourselves with the peaceful transition of power. He also exemplifies the selfless attitudes that we can strive for in service, and unity promoting the Union.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Fucking fine. Read accounts of how Washington treated his slaves, its disgusting. There is zero nobility in that.

I totally understand the line of thinking of "pick your battles" but just own it and don't try to rationalize slavery.

I recently went to the Washington museum in Philadelphia, where 75% of the museum was talking about Washington as a general and leader. But also about 25% of it was on his slaves, how he treated them, who they were, and how it ties into the Civil War and the Civil Rights movement, even bringing some gay rights discussion into it.

Washington's bad side isn't forgotten just because some monuments celebrating him as a leader and president exist. More and more as monuments and stuff are put up for Washington and the other founding fathers, they do so in context that they weren't perfect and are hypocrites, and owned slaves, but that they also did things that benefited the country.

Whereas someone like Columbus, 99% of what is taught and celebrated of him is pure fiction. He wasn't a nice man. He was a terrible, monster of a person. In the scheme of things, he contributed little to the history of our country. So we should totally look into reducing the amount of honor he gets in monuments and special days and stuff.

But Washington was actually an important guy who did important stuff that actually did lead to good things in American history. And those things should be honored. But not without a note that he did own slaves, and was a hypocrite about freedom. And more and more newer monuments of Washington provide that context.

 

[PBY]

What wars are fought for matters. Slavery was not a battle line in 1776. It would have been maintained no matter which side won. You can acknowledge it without endorsing it.

I mean... they started a new nation with their own principles that they created. They chose not to make slavery a battle line, its not as if there weren't slave rebellions prior to that. Its not like "they didn't know any better."

Stop making shitty arguments to defend a somewhat reasonable political stance.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Marist's polls have an insane amount of undecideds in them.

Kind of weird compared to other polls.

 

[RastaMentality]

Liberals should never participate in rationalizing how fucking awful Washington and Jefferson treated their slaves. They were awful people. You can think they were great leaders or whatever but the way they treated black people was terrible.

If I ever hear the "Jefferson treated his slaves well because he even dated one of them!" argument, ill feel sick.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Do you have a source for this?

Yes. It was called Lord Dunmore's Proclamation, and read:

I do require every Person capable of bearing Arms, to resort to His MAJESTY'S STANDARD, or be looked upon as Traitors to His MAJESTY'S Crown and Government, and thereby become liable to the Penalty the Law inflicts upon such Offences; such as forfeiture of Life, confiscation of Lands, &c. &c. And I do hereby further declare all indented Servants, Negroes, or others, (appertaining to Rebels,) free that are able and willing to bear Arms, they joining His MAJESTY'S Troops as soon as may be, for the more speedily reducing this Colony to a proper Sense of their Duty, to His MAJESTY'S Crown and Dignity.​

Lord Dunmore's Proclamation is what the Declaration of Independence was responding to where it says:

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.​

In other words: the British are much too nice to the blacks and Indians, join the revolution! And that's smack-bang in the middle of the Declaration of Independence.

 

[ShadowSwordmaster]

Even though he was a flawed individual he still is largely responsible of giving us the framework which we, the people, can change and govern ourselves with the peaceful transition of power. He also exemplifies the selfless attitudes that we can strive for in service, and unity promoting the Union.

We should take down statutes that promote unity.

 

[kirblar]

I mean... they started a new nation with their own principles that they created. They chose not to make slavery a battle line, its not as if there weren't slave rebellions prior to that. Its not like "they didn't know any better."

Stop making shitty arguments to defend a somewhat reasonable political stance.

"Lets tear down monuments to Washington" isn't a reasonable political stance.

You can acknowledge the flaws while acknowledging the good things.

 

[Blader]

I might be fine with Confederate statues standing if it was somehow made boldly, visibly clear on the statue that Lee, et al. were fighting to preserve the right to treat black people as property.

 

[pigeon]

Pretty much. I'm actually just interested to see whether anyone on PoliGAF can find a consistent moral reason for tearing down Lee statues but not Washington statues that ultimately doesn't boil down to 'Washington won'.

In general, I would say the founding fathers weren't unaware of the moral compromise of their position. They were hanging out with Benjamin Franklin and John Laurens, so it's not like they hadn't heard the arguments. It's undeniable that they deliberately tried to tamp down abolitionist sentiment because they felt the revolution wouldn't succeed without the Southern states and they wouldn't agree to abolishing slavery. It's also clear that this strategy of "just don't talk about it" became ongoing American policy that led to the Civil War. At the same time, they could've explicitly enshrined slavery, as the Confederacy did, and they chose not to do so, but to preserve the dissonance between America's aims and it's condition.

It's not a particularly bright moral line, but I do think the difference is clear between a man who participated in the slow boil of American slavery versus a man who explicitly fought to change the country to make permanent and unchangeable the peculiar institution. Washington was pretty bad, in terms of slavery, but he left the door open for a country where it could be abolished. Lee wanted to hammer that door shut for all time.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

What wars are fought for matters. Slavery was not a battle line in 1776. It would have been maintained no matter which side won. You can acknowledge it without endorsing it.

This.

Washington didn't fight in order to maintain slavery. And his views changed over time although not nearly enough) against the practice.

The tide was turning around the time of the Revolution and Washington was pretty much in step with the times. The revolution likely hastened it with its emphasis on the rights of man.

Lee, OTOH, was fighting against the tide to the point of revolt.

 

[PBY]

"Lets tear down monuments to Washington" isn't a reasonable political stance.

That's my point. Its somewhat reasonable to draw a distinction politically between tearing down confederate and Washington statues.

Don't try to make shitty moral arguments to back that up though, because there are none.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Even though he was a flawed individual he still is largely responsible of giving us the framework which we, the people, can change and govern ourselves with the peaceful transition of power. He also exemplifies the selfless attitudes that we can strive for in service, and unity promoting the Union.

In the alternate timeline where the Confederacy succeeded:

Even though [Lee] was a flawed individual he still is largely responsible of giving us the framework which we, the [Confederate] people, can change and govern ourselves with the peaceful transition of power. He also exemplifies the selfless attitudes that we can strive for in service, and unity in promoting the Confederacy.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

That's my point. Its somewhat reasonable to draw a distinction politically between tearing down confederate and Washington statues.

Don't try to make shitty moral arguments to back that up though, because there are none.

Nobody is making arguments that Washington was moral in owning slaves

 

[Vimes]

In general, I would say the founding fathers weren't unaware of the moral compromise of their position. They were hanging out with Benjamin Franklin and John Laurens, so it's not like they hadn't heard the arguments.

This is what truly irritates me about worship of the founding fathers. They were intellectually self-aware enough to know what they were doing was morally evil and did it anyway.

 

[whyamihere]

In the alternate timeline where the Confederacy succeeded:

please send your Confederate specs through your agent to the showrunner instead of a random submission.

 

[PBY]

In the alternate timeline where the Confederacy succeeded:

Its not like Washington presided over the signing of a document that codified black people as 3/5 human.

Totally agree.