Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso
no not up set more embarrassed .. and just pointing it out or Information as you put it
So the information that John posted as subject of this thread was, according to you "written to inflame and outrage .. thats it." Not to inform, but only to inflame and cause outrage? And according to you, shockingly, all "right wing" sites printing it to rally the base? But you're post, your information was not meant to outrage and inflame? And, oh, "shocking" (you're term), that Progressive sites are pooh-pooing the article in order to rally their base? I guess for you, information from the Progressive left is unbiased, non-agenda driven, calm information. No passion, no deceit, no motivation to rally some base, just informative facts . . . "that's it." You're pretense, or self deception, that you're even handed is quite often very obvious.
you were so passionate about history you wrote " It may be that you're naïve (my use of "naïve was a retort to you saying I was not naïve to believe that the report was "about" information) to the subtle ways that history can be erased. Interpreting the narrative in ways that denigrate it or makes it out to be a lie destroys it's validity."
And as expected you have issues the with removal of Statues and plaques but no issues with revisionist view of that same history . why is that?
|
You quoted Kelly as saying"lack of an ability to compromise led to the civil war," and retorted to the quote by asking "not slavery??"
Did he actually say the Civil War was not about slavery?
It was about slavery AND the inability to compromise on that subject, among others. Lincoln was willing to compromise to the extent that slavery would remain in the states that had it, but would be banned from any new states that joined the Union. The slave owning states could not accept that. Could not compromise on that basis. Lincoln could not compromise unless that basis was imposed.
You quoted Kelly as saying "I will tell you that Robert E. Lee was an honorable man. He was a man that gave up his country to fight for his state, which, 150 years ago, was more important than country." and threw in your jab "(sprinkle in states rights)."
By most accounts, Lee was an honorable man. He had principles and was willing to fight, and die, to defend those principles. Merriam-Webster's definition of "honor" aptly applies to him.You may not agree with all of his principles, but that does not make you any more honorable than him.
I disagree with Kelly on one point, Lee did not give up his country to fight for his state. Lee gave up the Union to fight for his country.
Virginia was his country. The belief was still strong at that time, especially in the South, that the states were sovereign. That was the definition of a political entity called a "State." The Union was a confederation of the several sovereign States. That's why it was called the United States, not the State of America. So in actuality, Lee gave up the Union to fight for his country--that states rights thing you mentioned.
What would you do as the ranking officer of a unit under UN command if the U.S. wanted to pull out of the U.N., and the other nations would not let it do so under threat of war? What if you strongly believed in the Union of Nations, but the President of the US, was willing to fight to get out of the UN? Would you stay with the UN forces or "rebel" and join US forces to fight the UN? Where does the honor lay between those choices.
Lee had to make that choice. Lincoln asked him to head the Union Army. He could not do that in order to fight against his State, his country, and resigned his commission. And Lee was a strong believer in the Union. And he believed slavery was immoral, and that it would eventually come to an end, peacefully (but that's another long story). He had to make what was for him a moral, honorable choice.
Then you said "And you guys are upset over a private church removing Jim Crow era plaque to Robert e lee and re locating it .. saying its removing History"
The "upset" (which you claim to not be, even though you seem to be protesting about our opinions too much) was about the removal of the Washington plaque, not the Lee. And it wasn't truly being upset (you like to throw in emotional barbs which you claim yourself to be free of), we were commenting on this appearing to be another cave-in to the process of changing history. You, of course, see none of that. For you, the ongoing process of history (it is constantly happening and being portrayed, you know) will not change past history, won't rewrite it, won't relegate old versions into its dust-bins--even though that is what constantly happens.
Finally, you ask "But the POTUS Chief of Staff spewing debunked version of the civil war is ok?Does this concern anyone ?"
How versions are debunked depends on who's doing it. What Washington and Lee did in their time was not debunked then. Much of it, over time, was (here we go) rewritten and analyzed through the lens of later times and later moral positions and understanding or belief in the nature and rights of states. Even the Constitution has been greatly rewritten--not in text, but in the willful changing in the meaning of the text (that "interpretation" stuff you like so much).
Versions are not spewed, as you characterize them, unless, of course, your aim is to disparage them, erase them, put them in museums with notations that make them laughable, and hopefully put to bed and be forgotten.
I don't have a quarrel with a, as you say, a private church or private entity of any kind redecorating its house. But if I see something as a sign of the times, an influence that has force to change perspectives and beliefs in a direction that I think is wrong, I will occasionally comment on that. You seem to have a problem with that, and have a need to protest against it. Not that you're upset or anything.
And I don't see evidence that Kelly lied, as you said he did. Nor that Lee was not honorable, which you implied as being part of Kelly's lying when he said that Lee was an honorable man.
Are you concerned about that?