Charlottesville, Virginia [Ban The Klan?]

[cicciobuki]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

I find myself a little bit bemused by the Charlottesville story. On the one hand the display of tensions is pretty deplorable, and reminds me of the National Front marches which used to happen in the UK and the street fighting which frequently arose out of that.

On the other hand, I am not sure I see either the need or the useful purpose served in the proposal to remove the statue of General Robert E Lee. It strikes me as political correctness and historical revisionism and a denial of the past rather than an acceptance and coming to terms with the past. If it were General Nathan Bedford Forrest [founding father of the KKK] being removed, then I would understand. If it were a formal striking down of a Confederate flag, the emblem of the slave state rebellion, then I would understand. But General Lee? No I don't. I actually have sympathy with people who are offended by the removal of General Lee's statue. General Lee is an important figure in the history of the United States and was from Virginia, and all of his active service in the Civil War was leading the Army of Virginia and mostly spent defending, rightly or wrongly, the soil of Virginia. This is a real piece of American history and I feel no respect for the decision to try to rub it out. It stinks of lies, and I do not like it.

So would you view General Lee as ... let's say someone like Erwin Rommel? (a respected general and not really a nazi but still working for the 'wrong' side).

[bombermouse]

Originally Posted by cicciobuki

So would you view General Lee as ... let's say someone like Erwin Rommel? (a respected general and not really a nazi but still working for the 'wrong' side).

Robert E. Lee was a highly respected and exceptionally talented general. He was also a man who took up arms against his legally constituted government. In most countries, that is treason. I am a US citizen and as far as I know, this is the only country that has memorials for the key figures in an unsuccessful rebellion. This has always seemed odd to me.

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by bombermouse

Robert E. Lee was a highly respected and exceptionally talented general. He was also a man who took up arms against his legally constituted government. In most countries, that is treason. I am a US citizen and as far as I know, this is the only country that has memorials for the key figures in an unsuccessful rebellion. This has always seemed odd to me.

Erwin Rommel was highly respected too.
He was not a Nazi.
You surely know the following fact. He conspired against Hitler to try to kill him. Sadly the bombing failed and Rommel had to commit a forced suicide.

After the war, he was considered as one of the rare German Marshall who didn't commit crime against humanity.

[steamjon]

Originally Posted by bombermouse

Robert E. Lee was a highly respected and exceptionally talented general. He was also a man who took up arms against his legally constituted government. In most countries, that is treason. I am a US citizen and as far as I know, this is the only country that has memorials for the key figures in an unsuccessful rebellion. This has always seemed odd to me.

Of course if the South had won. Lee would had been a legitimate hero!

I have always been bemused why in a lot of westerns throughout the years, the Unionists are portrayed as shifty, despicable while Confederates are seen as honourable, people who have been betrayed even.

One side wanted to split the country because they wanted to keep the black man as slaves and even in the 21st century, some are not that keen with things like equal rights.

[movieman88]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

But General Lee? No I don't. I actually have sympathy with people who are offended by the removal of General Lee's statue. General Lee is an important figure in the history of the United States and was from Virginia, and all of his active service in the Civil War was leading the Army of Virginia and mostly spent defending, rightly or wrongly, the soil of Virginia. This is a real piece of American history and I feel no respect for the decision to try to rub it out. It stinks of lies, and I do not like it.

Agreed.

Guys watch this clip from God's & Generals (2003). It gets across what Lee was about.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeGBpTFZhh4

[movieman88]

Originally Posted by cicciobuki

So would you view General Lee as ... let's say someone like Erwin Rommel? (a respected general and not really a nazi but still working for the 'wrong' side).

Pretty much. Read the "Lee's views on slavery" section here...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Lee
Especially interesting is the fact that he supported his wife & daughter helping liberated blacks move back to Liberia & building technically illegal schools for them on plantations.

[otokonomidori]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

Speaking about a country that I know quite well: Switzerland. Nazis meetings and concerts are not allowed. And don't tell me that's this country is a dictature or a tyranny.
In a lot of Western European countries, we remember very well what happened in our continent about 80 years ago.
How can you be too permissive with the intolerants?

I thought we fought WW2 to liberate you Europeans from people who would suppress any point of view that wasn't their own.

[spartaneric]

Originally Posted by plastic tiffani

Well done Donald! Into only 6 months you let racists morons walking in the streets ....
That's just my opinion.

Stop it already!
Betcha Soros is behind this.

Again....

[ConstantOgler]

Has no prominent pol or pundit said this or ~?

"The original protestors should have been allowed and required to get a permit. Specifying # of participants, routes & locations of events. Once this is granted (and obeyed) anyone attempting to obstruct or interfere with the permitted assembly is a lawbreaker.

No one can or will arrest random individuals who shout objections. But an organized counter-demo or protest must be illegal. Common sense and repeated experience make obvious: the real object and result of that is not free speech but anarchic violence. Free speech does not require anarchic violence. Let the counters assemble (by permit) 2 days later, or whenever they prefer."
____________
I don't pay close attention, so maybe someone said something like this, and maybe they did but went unnoticed. Anyway, jmo, and if no one did say it, or could say it, that says a lot too.

[vinceprince]

Originally Posted by otokonomidori

I thought we fought WW2 to liberate you Europeans from people who would suppress any point of view that wasn't their own.

I thought it was to defeat Nazis.
(The Swiss weren't liberated, they just carried on liberally laundering stolen money)

I'm sure the people of Eastern Europe felt liberated under Stalin etc.