Richmond is taking down Confederate statues: Is this the end for other Confederate memorials?

#2,351
#2,351
#2,353
#2,353
Weezer said:
Saw that story earlier. I'm confused why West Point has a KKK plaque? Makes zero sense. It should be taken down. I'm not big on removing statues in general, but I see no need for a KKK plaque. Just dumb, IMO.
Click to expand...
I think I agree (knowing nothing more than what I’ve read so far here).

Why does one of our premier service academies need a klan plaque? I don’t get that.
 
#2,356
#2,356
Weezer said:
Saw that story earlier. I'm confused why West Point has a KKK plaque? Makes zero sense. It should be taken down. I'm not big on removing statues in general, but I see no need for a KKK plaque. Just dumb, IMO.
Click to expand...

Mixed on this. If it engenders questions, some study, etc about the KKK, what it was, how it started, what conditions led to its popularity at times (at one point, I think the Indiana state legislature was majority KKK or something like that) so that people understand what it was and what it wasn't, it would be a positive to have it. If I'm so weak-minded that I cannot bear the existence of a plaque to an less than admirable group, I think that is on me.

But then again, I have no idea of what the nature of the plaque is. Been to West Point, but do not recall seeing said plaque.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and EasternVol
#2,357
#2,357
GroverCleveland said:
Mixed on this. If it engenders questions, some study, etc about the KKK, what it was, how it started, what conditions led to its popularity at times (at one point, I think the Indiana state legislature was majority KKK or something like that) so that people understand what it was and what it wasn't, it would be a positive to have it. If I'm so weak-minded that I cannot bear the existence of a plaque to an less than admirable group, I think that is on me.

But then again, I have no idea of what the nature of the plaque is. Been to West Point, but do not recall seeing said plaque.
Click to expand...

You can recount historical events without a plaque. Plaques generally speaking are commemorative and celebratory, so saying we shouldn’t commemorate/celebrate the KKK has nothing to do with being “weak-minded”
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lawrence Wright
#2,358
#2,358
Franklin Pierce said:
EXCLUSIVE: Black troops study Ku Klux Klan plaque at West Point as academy is told to strip down giant murals to the white supremacists, Confederate chief Robert E. Lee and slavery plantations in the South

  • A congressional committee has demanded brass at West Point remove or rename all facilities associated with Confederate leaders including Robert E. Lee
Black troops view KKK plaque at West Point that congressional committee says is ok to keep up | Daily Mail Online
Click to expand...

They didn’t say it’s OK to keep up, they said it’s outside of their purview because they’re charged with renaming military bases and the like. You somehow find misleading headlines every single time, but I suspect that plaque won’t last long
 
#2,359
#2,359
NashVol11 said:
You can recount historical events without a plaque. Plaques generally speaking are commemorative and celebratory, so saying we shouldn’t commemorate/celebrate the KKK has nothing to do with being “weak-minded”
Click to expand...

Don't agree with that. A lot of plaques are put up to convey information and as I stated, I am unfamiliar with the plaque in question. But I am firmly of the opinion that things like that are learning opportunities. If something like that bothers me, I definitely think it is on me and is a sign of weak-mindedness. An idea or opinion cannot hurt me unless I let it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#2,360
#2,360
GroverCleveland said:
Don't agree with that. A lot of plaques are put up to convey information and as I stated, I am unfamiliar with the plaque in question. But I am firmly of the opinion that things like that are learning opportunities. If something like that bothers me, I definitely think it is on me and is a sign of weak-mindedness. An idea or opinion cannot hurt me unless I let it.
Click to expand...

Doesn’t have to hurt you, if you don’t think we should have statues celebrating the KKK/Confederates then don’t have them. Simple. Weak-minded would be being afraid to take them down because anything 10+ years old put up by the Daughters of the Confederacy is a “historical artifact” to some people
 
  • Like
Reactions: MarcoVol
#2,361
#2,361
NashVol11 said:
Doesn’t have to hurt you, if you don’t think we should have statues celebrating the KKK/Confederates then don’t have them. Simple. Weak-minded would be being afraid to take them down because anything 10+ years old put up by the Daughters of the Confederacy is a “historical artifact” to some people
Click to expand...
Got to say that is a strange conclusion. Maybe you need a Snickers?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#2,362
#2,362
GroverCleveland said:
Got to say that is a strange conclusion. Maybe you need a Snickers?
Click to expand...

Certainly not as strange a conclusion as “yes, we shouldn’t be putting Confederates/KKK members on pedestals and wouldn’t consider doing so now, but we absolutely have to continue displaying statues with those characteristics for no apparent reason/because anything else is weak”
 
#2,363
#2,363
NashVol11 said:
Certainly not as strange a conclusion as “yes, we shouldn’t be putting Confederates/KKK members on pedestals and wouldn’t consider doing so now, but we absolutely have to continue displaying statues with those characteristics for no apparent reason/because anything else is weak”
Click to expand...
WTH are you talking about?
 
#2,364
#2,364
NashVol11 said:
You can recount historical events without a plaque. Plaques generally speaking are commemorative and celebratory, so saying we shouldn’t commemorate/celebrate the KKK has nothing to do with being “weak-minded”
Click to expand...
Plaques are generally informative, unless they're award plaques, in which case they're usually commemorative and / or celebratory. Let's see what it says before we pass judgement.
 
#2,365
#2,365
Pentagon Spends $21M On Confederate Base Renamings

WASHINGTON – The Defense Department is shelling out $21 million on what critics argue seems to be the BIden military’s most pressing issue – renaming bases that offend the left.

In 90 days, nine Army bases long named for Confederate generals will “immediately” begin swapping to more palatable-to-the-woke-crowd labels such as “Fort Liberty” – in a move that will cost more than $21 million.

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin on Thursday ordered the Army to begin renaming nine bases selected for the change by an independent commission after a congressionally mandated 90-day wait period expires.

joe-biden-lloyd-austin.jpg


Army and Pentagon leaders began considering stripping bases of Confederate-linked names in 2020 during the nationwide racial riots after Minneapolis police killed George Floyd, a black man under arrest on suspicion of using a counterfeit $20 bill.

Pentagon spends $21M on Confederate base renamings
 
#2,366
#2,366
Given the logic of some here, perhaps a Muslim plaque should be added to the 9/11 memorial for informational and learning purposes.
 
#2,369
#2,369
Lawrence Wright said:
More like oranges to tangerines.

Attacks against our nation can come in the form of Confederate armed forces or four hijacked airplanes.
Click to expand...

I get why people support removing confederate General Names from military bases, don't support it but I understand it. But to compare the confederacy to Islamic terrorists is ludicrous. The confederate states legally seceded from the United States and had no desire to attack or go to war with the US, it was the US that attacked the confederacy. The confederacy in no way attacked the US until 1863 when they marched to Gettysburg.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary and AM64
#2,370
#2,370
hog88 said:
I get why people support removing confederate General Names from military bases, don't support it but I understand it. But to compare the confederacy to Islamic terrorists is ludicrous. The confederate states legally seceded from the United States and had no desire to attack or go to war with the US, it was the US that attacked the confederacy. The confederacy in no way attacked the US until 1863 when they marched to Gettysburg.
Click to expand...

I was comparing the scale of the conflict, but your point is noted.

Naming US military bases after Confederate generals is akin to renaming Neyland Stadium after Steve Spurrier or Bear Bryant…in my opinion.
 
#2,375
#2,375
Lawrence Wright said:
I was comparing the scale of the conflict, but your point is noted.

Naming US military bases after Confederate generals is akin to renaming Neyland Stadium after Steve Spurrier or Bear Bryant…in my opinion.
Click to expand...
The bases were established and named not so long after the war. Naming them after local heroes was a way to boost acceptance of the bases, or so I've been told. The government grabbing all that land wasn't popular.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top