NationStates

Nordengrund wrote:

ECKU wrote:Ok? There's a bunch of old state laws that aren't actually followed.

Did he regret joining it? And did he reject his racist views?

I think he did end up renouncing it and racist views, but he had also denied ever being apart of the KKK.

So he lied. Well did he regret joining the CSA?

Christian Confederation wrote:I didn't observe it, but did hear about it.
We should keep the holiday but talk about the good and bad.
Georgia celebrates Jeff Davis and General Lee's birthday, as well as Confederate memorial day.
The civil war happened 200+ years ago and people are still talking about it. If we keep taking down statues and "Blow those Racists off Stone mountain!" Like some people want-https://www.ajc.com/blog/politics/abrams-calls-for-removal-confederate-faces-off-stone-mountain/MysbHRxXFN3ueVb79LdVMJ/
(She didn't win thank the Lord)

Point being I don't want my defendents to live in a world where the bravery and heroism of the southern men is forgotten.

I don't want to live in a world where my descendants are wary of people glorifying terrorists and racists.

EastKekistan wrote:

Christian Confederation wrote:It's still wrong, and I'd rather not see censorship and history altering in America.

I didn't say that it is justified but what America does isn't worse than what other nations do. Any republic has to have asabiyyah-boosting brainwashing. Any empire has to have loyal-to-the-emperor brainwashing.

The world is full of people deceiving each other for personal gain.

Bashing of white Southerners is a necessary consequence of including black descendants of slaves into Americans. Either white Southerners are "real Americans" or black descendants of slaves are but not both.

Both are.

Kannap wrote:

Christian Confederation wrote:I didn't observe it, but did hear about it.
We should keep the holiday but talk about the good and bad.
Georgia celebrates Jeff Davis and General Lee's birthday, as well as Confederate memorial day.
The civil war happened 200+ years ago and people are still talking about it. If we keep taking down statues and "Blow those Racists off Stone mountain!" Like some people want-https://www.ajc.com/blog/politics/abrams-calls-for-removal-confederate-faces-off-stone-mountain/MysbHRxXFN3ueVb79LdVMJ/
(She didn't win thank the Lord)

Point being I don't want my defendents to live in a world where the bravery and heroism of the southern men is forgotten.

Bring down every Confederate statue that's in the public plaza, change every school, bridge, street, etc. named after Confederate generals, take every Confederate flag off government flagpoles.

Put them all in a museum.

First American Empire wrote:

Kannap wrote:
Bring down every Confederate statue that's in the public plaza, change every school, bridge, street, etc. named after Confederate generals, take every Confederate flag off government flagpoles.

This. Also blow up Stone Mountain with a nuclear bomb. (Assuming there are no homes nearby, otherwise just blow it up with dynamite.)

It isn't, I've seen it myself. But it is part of Stone Mountain historical site and there's an area where people sit in front of it (like a picnic area)

Ethel mermania wrote:Forrest repended his views later in life coming to fully support negro suffrage and championed the admission of a black kid into law school. So I believe that repentance is sincere.

I wonder if anyone else yet mentioned that.

I kind of feel in the case of forrest it is too little to late. I do not believe we should honor the man.

If it was sincere good on him.

EastKekistan wrote:

First American Empire wrote:
They can both be "real Americans". Many white southerners have just chosen not to, by literally supporting treason committed in the name of slavery. If they simply stopped venerating the Confederacy, everything would be fine.

They can not. The harsh reality of the universe tells me that in any political struggle the winner needs to not just defend their rights but also be deliberately unreasonable. If southern whites give in on Confederate symbols more demands will come. Same for the other side. Politics inherently requires violence and illegality. Winners are people who can commit crimes (i.e. violate nominally shared norms) and get away with it.

White southerners are Americans, black people are Americans. Get over it and stop trying to cause more division.

Arcadian States and Commonwealths wrote:If it is done right it can be a good idea since he realized he was wrong and tried to fix his mistakes but we all know racists will use it as a day for a pro-CSA circle jerk while being ignorant of the fact he disavowed the Klan

"After only a year as Grand Wizard, in January 1869, faced with an ungovernable membership employing methods that seemed increasingly counterproductive, Forrest issued KKK General Order Number One: “It is therefore ordered and decreed, that the masks and costumes of this Order be entirely abolished and destroyed.” By the end of his life, Forrest’s racial attitudes would evolve — in 1875, he advocated for the admission of blacks into law school — and he lived to fully renounce his involvement with the all-but-vanished Klan.” ~Huffington Post

Then why not celebrate that part of his life instead of the racist part? Geez, this is what I hate about the South

Heloin wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:Forrest repended his views later in life coming to fully support negro suffrage and championed the admission of a black kid into law school. So I believe that repentance is sincere.

I wonder if anyone else yet mentioned that.

I kind of feel in the case of forrest it is too little to late. I do not believe we should honor the man.

The people who want to honour the man are probably not honouring him for his later support for suffrage.

First American Empire wrote:
This. Also blow up Stone Mountain with a nuclear bomb. (Assuming there are no homes nearby, otherwise just blow it up with dynamite.)

Lots of people live right next to it. I briefly lived only a few kilometres from it when my family first moved to America. Just blow up the carvings, it'd be much easier then the whole mountain.

^This. I thought that was what he meant. Yeah, don't blow up the whole mountain, the view there is beautiful.

EastKekistan wrote:

Kannap wrote:
Confederate generals weren't Jews being targeted by genocide, they were aggressors fighting and killing their countrymen for the right to own another human being. Your comparison wasn't a good one.



Censorship my ass, if anything it makes the headaches louder. Nobody's silencing anybody when they're screaming on Fox News or in the public forum all the time anyway.

Nobody cares.

You don't care. The rest of us do.

Salandriagado wrote:

Alien Overlord wrote:Honestly it shouldn't matter whether it was a war criminal or not. If the Iraqi's want to start putting up statues of Saddam Hussein, it would be wrong for America to forcibly stop them.

The sad part is, that these sort of supposed issues could easily be solved with a state-wide or local referendum.

Except that nobody has suggested anybody forcefully stop anybody from doing anything.

I was more so reiterating my point that non-involved entities (be it other nations or states or whatever) should take a hands off approach to these sort of issues (statues, naming of places or things, symbols, etc)-just to clarify.

Alien Overlord wrote:

Salandriagado wrote:
It makes a political statement that he's a hero. He wasn't. He was a war criminal.

And it is no more your state than it is mine.

Honestly it shouldn't matter whether it was a war criminal or not. If the Iraqi's want to start putting up statues of Saddam Hussein, it would be wrong for America to forcibly stop them.

The sad part is, that these sort of supposed issues could easily be solved with a state-wide or local referendum.

Wrong. It would be perfectly justified.

Nathan Bedford Forrest, starting the KKK. It's almost like supporting Philippe Petain. He is and was universally vilified as a collaborator. His reputation is and should be in ruins.

Kowani wrote:

Alien Overlord wrote:Honestly it shouldn't matter whether it was a war criminal or not. If the Iraqi's want to start putting up statues of Saddam Hussein, it would be wrong for America to forcibly stop them.

The sad part is, that these sort of supposed issues could easily be solved with a state-wide or local referendum.

Wrong. It would be perfectly justified.

I don't see how so. If the Government of Iraq wanted to use their own budget to create a statue, and it had the support of a majority of the citizens, why would it be justifiable for a foreign entity to stop them from doing so? Because we think it would be inappropriate or wrong?

Alien Overlord wrote:

Kowani wrote:Wrong. It would be perfectly justified.

I don't see how so. If the Government of Iraq wanted to use their own budget to create a statue, and it had the support of a majority of the citizens, why would it be justifiable for a foreign entity to stop them from doing so?

Because said statue would be honoring a person who said foreign entity did not want to be honored.

Kowani wrote:

Alien Overlord wrote:I don't see how so. If the Government of Iraq wanted to use their own budget to create a statue, and it had the support of a majority of the citizens, why would it be justifiable for a foreign entity to stop them from doing so?

Because said statue would be honoring a person who said foreign entity did not want to be honored.

No Kowani that's not right. Iraq setting up a statue is wrong from a religious standpoint, and they shouldn't be honoring someone as vile as him. However, America has no right to interfere in then doing so.

ECKU wrote:

Kowani wrote:Because said statue would be honoring a person who said foreign entity did not want to be honored.

No Kowani that's not right. Iraq setting up a statue is wrong from a religious standpoint, and they shouldn't be honoring someone as vile as him. However, America has no right to interfere in then doing so.

You and I both know that we’re not going to get anywhere arguing morality.

Kowani wrote:

ECKU wrote:No Kowani that's not right. Iraq setting up a statue is wrong from a religious standpoint, and they shouldn't be honoring someone as vile as him. However, America has no right to interfere in then doing so.

You and I both know that we’re not going to get anywhere arguing morality.

Either way a foreign government should not interfere in what statutes another country wants to put up.

Kowani wrote:

Alien Overlord wrote:I don't see how so. If the Government of Iraq wanted to use their own budget to create a statue, and it had the support of a majority of the citizens, why would it be justifiable for a foreign entity to stop them from doing so?

Because said statue would be honoring a person who said foreign entity did not want to be honored.

I don't particularly want Forrest to be honored, but i find it reasonable to understand that i don't live in Tennessee and it shouldn't be my choice. The United States shouldn't decide who the Iraqi's choose to honor, no more than Russia should decide who we in the United States should honor. Russians and Iraqi's and Americans, we should choose to honor or make statues of or whatever, of whomever we want. Breaking that down, i feel it should be individual communities who decide these things, given that they are the ones that will actually have a connection to them.

ECKU wrote:

Kowani wrote:You and I both know that we’re not going to get anywhere arguing morality.

Either way a foreign government should not interfere in what statutes another country wants to put up.

I agree.

Alien Overlord wrote:

Kowani wrote:Because said statue would be honoring a person who said foreign entity did not want to be honored.

I don't particularly want Forrest to be honored, but i find it reasonable to understand that i don't live in Tennessee and it shouldn't be my choice. The United States shouldn't decide who the Iraqi's choose to honor, no more than Russia should decide who we in the United States should honor. Russians and Iraqi's and Americans, we should choose to honor or make statues of or whatever, of whomever we want. Breaking that down, i feel it should be individual communities who decide these things, given that they are the ones that will actually have a connection to them.

1. Tennessee is in the US, so the federal government does have a legitimate interest in who is honored within it. And traitors, whose cause was slavery, should not be honored.

Alien Overlord wrote:

Salandriagado wrote:
It makes a political statement that he's a hero. He wasn't. He was a war criminal.

And it is no more your state than it is mine.

Honestly it shouldn't matter whether it was a war criminal or not. If the Iraqi's want to start putting up statues of Saddam Hussein, it would be wrong for America to forcibly stop them.

The sad part is, that these sort of supposed issues could easily be solved with a state-wide or local referendum.

But that wouldn't do, would it? Can't have people voting the wrong way.

Nathan Bedford Forrest also was a murderous man, in almost psychopathic proportions. At Fort Pillow, he ordered the deaths of 300 African-American soldiers, of which some were even tortured or buried alive. How do you honor not only the founder of the KKK but a man who violated laws and basic human rights in ending the lives of three hundred soldiers?

He seems important to the history of Tennessee and was an accomplished fighter. If I were a Tennessean, I would celebrate this day.

The South Falls wrote:Nathan Bedford Forrest also was a murderous man, in almost psychopathic proportions. At Fort Pillow, he ordered the deaths of 300 African-American soldiers, of which some were even tortured or buried alive. How do you honor not only the founder of the KKK but a man who violated laws and basic human rights in ending the lives of three hundred soldiers?

Are there no celebrations of Andrew Jackson anymore then, if that is the criteria we are using?

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:

The South Falls wrote:Nathan Bedford Forrest also was a murderous man, in almost psychopathic proportions. At Fort Pillow, he ordered the deaths of 300 African-American soldiers, of which some were even tortured or buried alive. How do you honor not only the founder of the KKK but a man who violated laws and basic human rights in ending the lives of three hundred soldiers?

Are there no celebrations of Andrew Jackson anymore then, if that is the criteria we are using?

Or any revolutionary.

Bear Stearns wrote:He seems important to the history of Tennessee and was an accomplished fighter. If I were a Tennessean, I would celebrate this day.

There are more accomplished fighters and people who were also more important to Tennessean history.

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:

The South Falls wrote:Nathan Bedford Forrest also was a murderous man, in almost psychopathic proportions. At Fort Pillow, he ordered the deaths of 300 African-American soldiers, of which some were even tortured or buried alive. How do you honor not only the founder of the KKK but a man who violated laws and basic human rights in ending the lives of three hundred soldiers?

Are there no celebrations of Andrew Jackson anymore then, if that is the criteria we are using?

I wouldn't be opposed to not celebrating him.

He was a corrupt president, once again a murderer, and champion/prosecutor/purveyor of the Indian removal act, which had its own death count.

Bear Stearns wrote:He seems important to the history of Tennessee and was an accomplished fighter. If I were a Tennessean, I would celebrate this day.

Bin Laden was of great importance to world history and was an extremely accomplished fighter, bin Laden day when?

The South Falls wrote:

Bear Stearns wrote:He seems important to the history of Tennessee and was an accomplished fighter. If I were a Tennessean, I would celebrate this day.

In a negative manner.

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:Are there no celebrations of Andrew Jackson anymore then, if that is the criteria we are using?

I wouldn't be opposed to not celebrating him.

He was a corrupt president, once again a murderer, and champion/prosecutor/purveyor of the Indian removal act, which had its own death count.

Would you be opposed to some holier-than-thou people who weren't even from where you live said you were racist for celebrating him though?

Page wrote:

Bear Stearns wrote:He seems important to the history of Tennessee and was an accomplished fighter. If I were a Tennessean, I would celebrate this day.

Bin Laden was of great importance to world history and was an extremely accomplished fighter, bin Laden day when?

Pretty sure that's already celebrated in Afghanistan.

Bear Stearns wrote:

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:Are there no celebrations of Andrew Jackson anymore then, if that is the criteria we are using?

Or any revolutionary.

That’s true, France doesn’t celebrate Robespierre.

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:

The South Falls wrote:In a negative manner.

I wouldn't be opposed to not celebrating him.

He was a corrupt president, once again a murderer, and champion/prosecutor/purveyor of the Indian removal act, which had its own death count.

Would you be opposed to some holier-than-thou people who weren't even from where you live said you were racist for celebrating him though?

You might have your reasons, but I feel it isn't right. There are racists who celebrate him, but you might not be one.

Kowani wrote:

Alien Overlord wrote:I don't particularly want Forrest to be honored, but i find it reasonable to understand that i don't live in Tennessee and it shouldn't be my choice. The United States shouldn't decide who the Iraqi's choose to honor, no more than Russia should decide who we in the United States should honor. Russians and Iraqi's and Americans, we should choose to honor or make statues of or whatever, of whomever we want. Breaking that down, i feel it should be individual communities who decide these things, given that they are the ones that will actually have a connection to them.

1. Tennessee is in the US, so the federal government does have a legitimate interest in who is honored within it. And traitors, whose cause was slavery, should not be honored.

The United States operates under a federal system rather than a unitary one. That means individual states are relegated some autonomy as to how they manage their affairs. The Federal Government has decided that the states are allowed to build statues and have local holidays-which means it should abide by what the individual states choose for those statues or holidays.

If you say to a child that they can draw a picture with the crayons in a box and they do, you can't morally be upset with them because they used a red crayon and you don't particularly like the color red. The Federal Government gives the State's the delegated right to decide these things-holidays and statues and that. So it's a local affair and it should stay a local affair. The Federal Government can't arbitrarily pick and choose which are right and which are wrong. Especially when these sorts of things aren't causing any harm-or the local community wants them to stay or be built (or have the holiday). But ending that holiday or destroying that statue stirs up polarization and serves no purpose but to make people in the local community less happy.

Using either local or state-wide referendums will allow local communities to be happy with the making or destruction or keeping of things like holidays or statues.

The South Falls wrote:

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:Would you be opposed to some holier-than-thou people who weren't even from where you live said you were racist for celebrating him though?

You might have your reasons, but I feel it isn't right. There are racists who celebrate him, but you might not be one.

Andrew Jackson did a lot of good things for common people, so it's not fair to say that everyone who likes him is racist.

But this does beg to question, if you take left-wing/social justice/whatever to its logical conclusion, then pretty much all American history before 1964 is racist and America itself is an inherently racist nation. And if racism is the ultimate evil of our time, and anything that celebrates the old America is racist, then therefore celebrating the old America is bad and should not be done.

And a country that doesn't celebrate its past is a country ripping apart at the seams.