A History of Racism Erased From U.S. Capital

The author of that article is Bryon Thomas and he is black.

 

And that's your belief. Be that as it may, just know that your belief is stemmed to a historical inaccuracy. At once upon a time, the left bragged it was the intellectual party, it has since regressed into some pseudo intellectual garbage and as a result, we have things like this.

 

Those statues are offensive to anyone with a working knowledge of the conditions slaves were subjected to and the men who fought to continue the subjugation of them. Pointing out their political party affiliation from 150 years ago seems to be a popular way to obscure the reality of those kinds of Dems having become Repubs.

 

Yeah, you'll have to provide some kind of proof for that. How about starting with some Republicans who support slavery.

 

Okay chief. Still not interested in hearing the opinions of a Confederate flag waver though.

 

If you’re talking about the article on the second page of this thread, which I assume you are, so what? One black guy saying it’s okay doesn’t mean anything. So what?

 

We recognize your denial.

 

Denial of what? One guys opinion doesn’t matter in the long run.

 

I find it odd that there are any Confederate statues in the U.S. Capitol at all.

 

That shouldn't be hard at all to figure out.

 

Yes. It should. Countries don't typically enshrine monuments to their enemies. Especially when those enemies were primarily motivated by racism and slavery.

 

Removing monuments isn't, in any fathomable way, erasing history. Germany doesn't have shrines to Hitler anymore. It doesn't mean history is erased.

 

They were social conservatives. They weren't shy about this. Read newspapers from the time period. Their support for slavery was largely based on social conservatism.

 

Well, when I said that it shouldn't be hard to figure out, I was referring to the poster I was replying to, not you. Yes for you, it will be damn near impossible to figure out.

 

At the time those statues were put up, the people who were directly involved in the Civil War were looking to heal the country. It was a way to extend an olive branch to the South.

As they usually do, the progressive Democrats are looking for ways to open old wounds and use that to their advantage. The Progressive Democrats got the ignorant, left wing rabble riled up so that they would burn and riot. They succeeded and probably will again if a Republican is elected president.

 

I'm sorry you think it is logical for countries to create shrines to their racist enemies. I disagree.

 

Words I never said for $500 Alex.

 

So you do agree that it is illogical to do so . . . despite saying that it should be hard to find out why a country would want to do so. Please make up your ****ing mind.

 

My mind is made up. I'm not sure what contradictions in my words you are seeing here.

 

Our southern citizens are not, and never have been, our enemies. The Civil War was a family disagreement that was settled with violence followed by reconciliation. But some people prefer to hang on to hate.

As the Civil War drew to a close, Lincoln spoke about how the North and South must work together.
https://www.history.com/news/abraham-lincoln-second-inauguration

“With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation’s wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan—to do all which may achieve and cherish a just, and a lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.”

​

 

I'll also say this if you desire to stem your beliefs on things that are factually inaccurate: The left and Trump, are not so different from each other. The only difference appears to be the inaccuracies that both sides hold dear to them.

 

Except there's no historical evidence for this. Literally every article you click on the subject, they go onto explain that there wasn't much official party movement within the Congress itself. If there was a movement of anything, it was simply the demographics, as at the time the South was growing faster than the Mid-Atlantic, and the census is what determines EV points.

Then later, the California population started to boom, and that's why we have the population we have now presently. California's the largest individual state in the Union, Texas is among the top-3 and then there's the Mid-Atlantic strip.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/states



So, how did the completely false and utterly nonsensical point of 'party change' come about? Well to quote one Joesph Goebbels: Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth. That's literally it. Everything the left believes about modern politics, is one massively effective propaganda campaign effort.

That's how something like the 'Southern Strategy', a basic outline of capturing the votes of a growing population center, turned into some ebil racist scheme. It had to be painted that way. If it were told: Republicans are shifting their efforts towards States where they can capture the most votes, that's just plain boring.

So the propaganda worked, the left has dominated elections for most of the 21st century. But propaganda DOES NOT leave the election. it burdens the soul of the nation. The South is in tatters, the people divided again. But hey, politicians with a D next to their name have a higher chance of elected office, all for the greater good.

 

I don't think there is any evidence whatever that voters in the south turned to the GOP for reasons of racism.

 

Cool story bro, but if I haven’t made it clear already, I’ve said that I know where I stand and how I feel on this issue.

 

I never said I found it difficult to figure out. I said I found it odd.