Benjamin L. Corey

Benjamin L. Corey

BLC is an author, speaker, scholar, and global traveler, who holds graduate degrees in Theology & Intercultural Studies from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, and received his doctorate in Intercultural Studies from Fuller. He is the author of Undiluted: Rediscovering the Radical Message of Jesus, and Unafraid: Moving Beyond Fear-Based Faith.

Banning Hateful Symbols & Removing Monuments: A Better Way of Remembering History

For much of my life there was no debate on the display of racist symbols such as the rebel flag, or statues erected to memorialize mass-murdering sex traffickers like Columbus.

For a smaller time in my life there was some debate, but few listening and no one taking action.

Today, for the first time in my life, it finally feels as if we are potentially at the cusp of a momentum of change.

From Nascar banning the rebel flag from their properties and events, to congress wanting to strip all military assets of names/dedications that glorify the confederacy, to the Speaker of the House calling for statues of traitors be removed from the Capitol, we are beginning to see positive movement that so many of us have long hoped for.

Even though there is finally a momentum building, there is also an endless number of racists who insist that we must keep all of our monuments, and who continue defending display of a flag long since defeated. The fall-back argument they use time after time is simply that we must “remember history, and not erase it.”

Of course, those who say this have often already forgotten history– such as the fact that most confederate monuments were built between the 1890’s and 1950 during the era of Jim Crow in order to intimidate people of color, or that Georgia and South Carolina only added the rebel flag during the civil rights movement as a way to express resistance to equality. Or better yet, they try to redefine what the rebel flag means (AKA, re-writing history), when it actually means “We quit the United States and are keeping our slaves– and we double dog dare you to come down here and do something about it.”

These things are not so much relics of history as they are vestiges of white supremacy.

(Side note, isn’t it kinda strange that the people who fly a flag that literally means “We quit America” also like to call themselves American patriots?)

Regardless of the underlying racism inherent in wanting to display these things or glorify those leaders of evil, this idea that keeping these vestiges prominently visible in our country is the best way to remember history, is simply wrong.

Displaying symbols of the confederacy and erecting monuments to those who betrayed America and thought it was okay to buy and sell human beings, is not how we remember correctly– or how we remember at all. In fact, doing so actually leads us to destigmatize, re-write, and forget something that must never be forgotten.


It is the total banishment and prohibition of these symbols and monuments that is the far more powerful way to ensure there is a collective memory of our history and national shame.


Allowing something to remain prevalent through multiple generations is actually how history is forgotten or rewritten. Case in point are those who have grown up with the rebel flag and now try to tell us it magically means something different than what it actually means. It is the same with monuments built to memorialize confederate leaders– somehow it slowly shifts from something built to intimidate people of color, to becoming something important to keep because it’s “part of history.”

We must keep these things as a nation in order to remember our history, you say?

Um, no– no, we don’t.

The United States would do well to learn a lesson from Germany, a nation who has chosen the far more effective way of remembering and preserving their history: banishment of the symbols or any glorification of their past national sin, or the leaders who led them to it.

Germany will forever be my second home– it is the place I lived in my late teen years throughout my early 20’s. And from my years living there I can tell you one thing is for certain:

Germany remembers their history far better than Americans do, and they do it without flying Nazi flags at football matches or giant statues of Hitler or Himmler.

It is illegal to display nazi symbols in Germany– it is even illegal to give the nazi salute, and this is something that actually preserves them in history– it traps them in national shame so that they cannot slowly become less offensive or take on slightly new meaning for a future generation. The fact that it is illegal to deny the factualness of their historical atrocities, that they criminal charge surviving Nazis to this day– no matter how old they are when they are discovered, and that memorials remembering that period of their history are memorials to their own victims instead of to those who perpetuated it, is how one correctly remembers and preserves history.

Why? Because Germany recognizes these symbols are not harmless relics of the past, but are Volksverhetzung– something that incites hatred of others. It is no different than the rebel flag of the shameful American south, or monuments to commemorate evil men– they are our Volksverhetzung.

So you say that we need the rebel flag and confederate monuments so that we don’t forget or re-write our own history?

In all my years in Germany I never saw a statue of Hitler in a town square, or a Nazi flag flying in someone’s front yard. Even when shopping antiques, anything from that era which had a nazi symbol on it was required to have that evil symbol covered up as something too vile for a passing eye.

It was because of this– not despite it– that I’d never met a German who was not keenly aware of their history and the collective shame for what their parents and grandparents had done.

While so many keep saying we need these things lest we forget, German culture, I assure you, is very much a culture of remembrance

And it is the absence and forbidden nature of some things in Germany that constantly remind them.

So, if you really mean what you say about how important it is that we remember our history and learn from it instead of erasing it, let’s do what has already proven to work in Germany:

Let us, as a people, banish and outlaw these symbols and monuments under an eternal blanket of shame– for it is their conspicuous absence from our culture that will call us to remembrance with a voice that speaks far more loudly.

Benjamin L. Corey

Benjamin L. Corey

BLC is an author, speaker, scholar, and global traveler, who holds graduate degrees in Theology & Intercultural Studies from Gordon-Conwell, and earned his doctorate in Intercultural Studies from Fuller.

He is the author of Unafraid: Moving Beyond Fear-Based Faith, and Undiluted: Rediscovering the Radical Message of Jesus.

It's not the end of the world, but it's pretty #@&% close. Trump's America & Franklin Graham's Christianity must be resisted.

Join the resistance: Subscribe to posts and email updates from BLC!

Also from Benjamin L. Corey:

Books from BLC:

Previous
Next
What you think

Post Comments:

46 Responses

  1. Corey for President!! If only the man in the White House was as anti-racist as you. Instead, he defends racism and champions symbols of racism like the traitor flag and confederate statues.

    1. Ben is an interesting person. His blogs far and away generate the most comments. Patheos still run his old blogs.

      Racism is a co-opted topic. The majority of people in this country do not think of themselves as racist; and indeed they are not. The Left I believe are using this horrible issue as yet another ploy to disparage our President but mostly to put themselves on a pedestal so they can feel righteous at the expense of others.

  2. Is anybody surprised to see Mr. Corey slandering anybody who doesn’t want to see our heritage stripped away as a racist? It’s sort of a go-to for those who don’t have any facts to base their petty hatreds on, after all.

    Here in the real world, the building of monuments peaked in 1915 (this was when the number of Southern monuments finally matched the number of Northern monuments!) and in 1960-1965. In 1910-1-15 in particular, the battles for Jim Crow were already over and “civil rights” meant women’s suffrage, but for anybody not willfully blind, the obvious reason is that these were the 50- and 100-year anniversaries of the war.

    Like his statements about the Bible, Mr. Corey tells us what the rebel flag actually means, by spewing a ridiculous lie about what it actually doesn’t mean. Here in the real world, there were more slave states in the Union than in the Confederacy when the war started, the Confederacy continually begged for peace, and Lincoln offered slavery on a silver platter via the Corwin Amendment, neatly shredding Mr. Corey’s race-card.

    Naturally, Mr. Corey’s second response is to break out the ol’ reductio ad hit lerum. When you have nothing to go on and you know it, you compare your opponent to hit ler. Mr. Corey knows that he’s lying, he knows that his hatred of freedom has no basis in fact, and he hopes that by calling his opponents the worst ad hominems he can think of (Well, the worst ad hominem he can think of is “believing Christian,” but he’s not supposed to admit that!), he can forestall debate.

    The truth is far more simple. My ancestors stood against tyranny and oppression. Against overwhelming odds, outgunned, outsupplied, facing terrorism, they performed heroic deeds in the name of freedom. That’s why I honor them. That’s why a few mobs of thugs and a few corrupt politicians have managed to tear down some monuments, but we will build others up. That’s why I cherish them, and that’s why you hate them.

    That’s why we will win, and it’s why you will lose.

    1. Hilarious and such a perfect example of re-writing history.

      – Jim Crow did not end by 1910-1915, lol. It lasted until 1968: https://www.history.com/topics/early-20th-century-us/jim-crow-laws

      – And yes, the rebel flag by fact, stands for quitting America and being pro-slavery. The only need to adopt a flag was because, they in fact, quit America. They did so as soon as Lincoln won the election because they feared the cause of slavery was in jeopardy, even though he was pragmatic on the issue instead of principled. But southern anger had been brewing since the Missouri compromise, because they not only wanted to have slaves but they wanted to expand it to the entire western part of the US where crops would grow better.

      The rebel flag is *literally* the most un-American symbol in existence, because it’s the only symbol ever created for the purpose of saying “we’re not America”. In fact, the first confederate flag was hated and had to be changed because everyone thought it was too similar to the American flag, which they detested.

      – Fantastic job re-writing history on slavery! “Here in the real world there were more slave states in the union than the confederacy” Fascinating, since there were zero free states in the south and zero slave states in the north. In fact, the north had been abolishing slavery for almost 100 years before the war even started, and by 1804 all northern states had abolished it– almost 60 years before the war even started.

      Spin it all you want, but your ancestors didn’t fight tyranny and oppression– they were evil, godless men, and to justify what they did is to be evil and godless yourself.

      1. “Hilarious and such a perfect example of re-writing history.”
        You mean by pretending that everything you disagree with is a work of white supremacy?

        “Jim Crow did not end by 1910-1915, lol.”
        Thank you for that completely non-germane fact–at least it was a fact, so some congratulations are in order. The “Jim Crow era” lasted more than 100 years–considerably more if you consider the fact that “Jim Crow” laws were copies of the “Black Codes” that had already been in effect in Northern states for decades. Tying every event that took place within more than a century to Jim Crow is a ridiculous attempt to play the race-card–which, after all, is all you’ve got.

        The fact remains that at the time war monuments peaked there were no ‘battles’ over Jim crow, and the issue was pretty much settled; there was no need or sense in establishing white supremacy, as you dishonestly claim.

        “They did so as soon as Lincoln won the election because they feared the cause of slavery was in jeopardy, even though he was pragmatic on the issue instead of principled.”
        Here in the real world, Lincoln offered slavery on a sliver platter. The Corwin Amendment still neatly shreds your race-card.

        “because they not only wanted to have slaves but they wanted to expand it to the entire western part of the US where crops would grow better.”
        LOL–because who can forget the sight of those massive cotton plantations in the deserts of Arizona…..

        “The rebel flag is *literally* the most un-American symbol in existence”
        Well, there’s your website….

        “because it’s the only symbol ever created for the purpose of saying “we’re not America””
        So is a passport. After all, your position is already that trying to leave the country makes somebody a traitor, a position shared by most socialist regimes (trust me, that’s no surprise).

        “In fact, the first confederate flag was hated and had to be changed because everyone thought it was too similar to the American flag, which they detested.”
        In actual fact, one of the first things the provisional confederate congress did was to create a “Committee on the Flag and Seal,” during which they asked the public for thoughts and were “overwhelmed by requests not to abandon the “old flag” of the United States.” One of the officers had already designed the modified St. Andrew’s Cross often called the “battle flag” and preferred it, but we chose a flag similar to the US flag because that was what the public wanted.

        While a bit of detestation was understandable after Northern troops had spent two years marauding their way through the civilian populace, the change in the flag had more to do with the fact that flags were used to coordinate troops on the battlefield–and the two flags looked pretty similar, especially if they weren’t ‘flying’ with movement or wind, which could result in confused troops moving the wrong way.

        “Fascinating, since there were zero free states in the south and zero slave states in the north.”
        Here in the real world, the Union had Virginia, North Carolina, Arkansas, and Tennessee when the war started, all of which had slavery.
        After the war started, it still had Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, and Delaware, all states in which slavery was legal. (that’s eight, by the way. Which is more than seven. Which is how many states the Confederacy had at the beginning of the war.)

        You was sayin’ somethin’ about rewriting history?

        “Spin it all you want, but your ancestors didn’t fight tyranny and oppression.”
        Because it’s not like Lincoln launched a massive four-year invasion of a sovereign country, ignoring any attempts at peace abroad and jailing anybody who spoke in favor of peace at home–or criticized any of his policies, including economic, an estimated 13,000 people–and held them in military prisons without trial. It’s not like the yankee leader had an opposing senator arrested in the dead of night and deported, had more than 300 presses smashed, and used the army to ‘manage’ elections.
        And it’s not like Lincoln’s troops consistently looted and torched churches, like yankee troops consistently stabled horses in churches just to let them crap on the floors, and like churches that didn’t offer prayers for lincoln weren’t turned out of their buildings and the pastors arrested…
        (and it’s definitely not like the yankees set up a literal temple to their leader, one the people who scream “you think your leader is Jesus!” and “Separation of church and state!” at the top of the lungs every time we don’t share one of your hatreds seem not to notice….)
        And it’s certainly not like the Union troops made deliberate warfare against civilians a policy even early in the war, with civilians killed and civilian towns destroyed as revenge for military actions, with General Butler giving his troops a right to rape any woman who “shows disrespect,” with slaves and free blacks alike raped robbed and murdered at the hands of union soldiers, wells poisoned, homes burned, and a stated policy of genocide even before Sherman and Sheridan’s campaigns of rape, arson, looting, and murder….

        Oh, no, wait, it IS like that. It’s exactly like ALL of that…. y’know–tyranny and oppression. The fact that you don’t mind stuff like that if it’s against people you hate doesn’t mean that stuff ain’t bad.

        “they were evil, godless men, and to justify what they did is to be evil and godless yourself.”
        Considering that according to your blog the way to be good and godly is to hate freedom and Trump and care about absolutely nothing else, I’ll take that as a compliment. To paraphrase the old cartoon: Your boos mean nothing to me; I’ve seen what makes you cheer.

        1. To be clear, you are saying the Confederacy seceded principally because of the treatment it suffered at the hands of Union troops fighting it after it had done so?
          Presumably therefore you also think the Japanese justifiably attacked Pearl Harbor in retaliation for Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the fire bombing of Tokyo?

          1. “To be clear, you are saying the Confederacy seceded principally because of the treatment it suffered at the hands of Union troops fighting it after it had done so?”
            No. I did not at any point say or imply that.

            1. That’s exactly what you said. You said the aim of the Confederacy in seceding was to fight tyranny and oppression, and the tyranny and oppression you said they were opposing in seceding was the war fought against them after they seceded.

              1. That is not exactly what I said. It’s not what I said at all. You are a liar.

                I did not say anything about the aim of the Confederacy in seceding, except to dispute your race-card bullshit.

                1. This string of garbage is hilarious. Its a game of racist twister. Kenneth I hope you are a wonderful human being in person, cause you come off as a the opposite here.

                  Regardless of your personage however, I think you are full of crap and your argument not worth even addressing. I am convinced that the South was a racist society and fought to preserve the right to own other human beings.

                  And I find that disgusting.

                  Also, Kenneth feel free to reply to me, but I will do nothing but make fun of you. I will not address your “arguments” in any serious way – those arguments are stupid and dishonest.

                  1. So you refuse to deal with facts or logic, but you think other people have a ‘string of garbage’? In short, you’re going to make a bunch of claims, but you refuse to back them up, defend them, or consider any evidence to the contrary…..

                    Well, that’s pretty much what the other two are doing–props for being honest about it, I suppose.

                    1. Kenneth

                      I’m not a sock puppet. I am a really boy! Geppetto’s (and my parents) wish came true (although I think they wanted a girl).

                      Up front I want ask a question: Now..keep in mind I do not have a full transcript of the event, with that said, isn’t everything Satan says in the Garden of Eden a fact?

                      Moving on…

                      No, you are right, I don’t care about facts. I care about facts, feelings, and credibility.

                      The trinity of argumentation: Ethos, Pathos, and Logos.

                      And you have zilich credibility (ethos) with me because you came in here looking for a fight. Fighting is about winning, arguments are about agreement. AND in an argument fighting is the only sin. (all this according to “Thank you for Arguing” by Jay Heinrichs.)

                      So you have to repent of your sin before I am going to go forward with any kind of discussion of THE facts.

                      Repent and be baptized.

                      Therefore, I will ask you to be as honest as I was…why are you so defensive about this issue? Remember I only give credit for honest answers. That rules out slogans or name calling or insinuations or facts.

                      I want to know why you feel threatened.

                      Darrel

                    2. “Up front I want ask a question: Now..keep in mind I do not have a full transcript of the event, with that said, isn’t everything Satan says in the Garden of Eden a fact?”
                      And I’ll respond with a question: Considering you stated clearly that you do not want to make any attempt at actual debate, just why should I answer questions for you?

                      “And you have zilich credibility (ethos) with me because you came in here looking for a fight.”
                      LOL–you mean like the way your first post was to spew a bunch of dishonest personal attacks?

                      “Therefore, I will ask you to be as honest as I was”
                      To do that, I’d have to spew a bunch of dopey, vicious lies, and I refuse.

                      “I want to know why you feel threatened.
                      Darrel”
                      If I felt threatened every time some Leftist spewed lies about me, I’d never crawl out from under my bed, lain.

                    3. Hi Kenneth

                      The first shall be last commented on…

                      I am afraid I have to dock you points for Leftists…that’s an insult…insults aren’t arguments.

                      As for personal attack…well I’ll give you back your point for..lets see, well…I’m not sure..I’m having trouble seeing any personal attacks.

                      Let me look at it bit by bit: sock puppet – no that was a joke about me..that’s not it. My parents wanted a girl..again a joke about me. Ok the Satan bit. Satan used facts. Well no I take that back, that isn’t about you. No I don’t think you are Satan, right? (I’m iffy about this one, I’ll give it to you if you want)

                      Ok ok, here’s one: I said, you came in here looking for a fight. Alright now I see it: I ASSUMED you came in here looking for a fight. I mean it is totally obvious from the wall of text you posted – which included many important facts that detail the events of the confederacy – that what you wanted was a civil conversation about how the blog was completely wrong. Forgive me for not seeing that clearly. So:

                      Let me clear that up: You came off to me as if you were spoiling fight, not actually willing to discuss/debate/change minds. Which, again, isn’t an argument, its a fight. I avoid those if I can.

                      ON the flip side I wasn’t willing to be convinced. I didn’t want to debate/discuss/change MY mind about the topic so your post – for me – was doomed to fail at debate. I refuse to debate the fact that I think these statues are racists garbage.

                      Which leads to my questions. They are rhetorical. In the sense that I want to find something you and I (at the least – since you obviously like to debate) CAN debate, because I am not debating whether or not the statues are racist. I think they are, you don’t. WHAT is there to discuss?

                      So at the end of this it still seems you and I are 0-0. I am fine with that because my goal is not to fight but argue, and I sincerely hope that I’ve done my part to show others a better way to talk to shit heads like you.

                      Peace!

                    4. “I am afraid I have to dock you points for Leftists…that’s an insult…insults aren’t arguments.”
                      LOL. So I’m making an insult when I name your political ideology, but you aren’t when you dishonestly call me racist?

                      “So at the end of this it still seems you and I are 0-0.”
                      I have facts, and you have a string of childish lies. That’s not 0-0 unless you consider those two things equal.

                      The funny part is that if I came into this conversation neutral, you would have convinced me. If I didn’t know that I should honor my ancestors, at least I would know that the people who hate my ancestors are the kind of people I don’t want to be.

                    5. Dear Kenneth,

                      I have to ask, what false accusations have I made?

                      Let me see, again, taking a look solely at what I said. Okay I said that insults weren’t arguments. They still aren’t. I then examined my comments about sock puppetism and Satan. Again, those were about myself so I guess they could be accusations, but certainly not false. I did say those things.

                      Then I said something about one possible point of personal attack. I did clarify what I said, which again I guess could be an accusation but since I KNOW what I meant, its more of just an explanation. I was guessed what you were doing and did not ask a question to determine if I was correct. But it was not false.

                      And then I talked about the fact that I wasn’t interested in debating racist statues. I am not. No false accusation there. I did actually mean that, and I said so.

                      Then I said something about racist statues. That I think they are, and you do not. Okay. I am fine with that. Again, not a false accusation because as you have repeatedly proven you do not think the racist statues are racist. I, and others, do. Not a false accusation. NOT even an accusation.

                      That is what we would call in the business an observation.

                      So I am afraid you still wrong. I did not call you a racist. I called the statues racist. And nothing you can say will change the FACT that I think they are nothing but monuments to monumental racist bullsh!t. THAT, for me, isn’t up for debate. So try something else. I don’t care what “facts” you say you have. I am convinced you do not know what you are talking about. That you have committed a Logical Fallacy called Cherry Picking.

                      Anyway I am pleased that you don’t seem to care in the slightest that I did actually insult you. I did make a personal attack.

                      Also, is your name Kenneth? If so why do you randomnly sign your replies with the name Iain? Do you still think I am some sock puppet? Are you having a stroke? Do you need medical help? Are you fallen and can’t it get up?

                      Darrel

                    6. Dear Kenneth,

                      I have to ask, what false accusations have I made?

                      Let me see, again, taking a look solely at what I said. Okay I said that insults weren’t arguments. They still aren’t. I then examined my comments about sock puppetism and Satan. Again, those were about myself so I guess they could be accusations, but certainly not false. I did say those things.

                      Then I said something about one possible point of personal attack. I did clarify what I said, which again I guess could be an accusation but since I KNOW what I meant, its more of just an explanation. I was guessed what you were doing and did not ask a question to determine if I was correct. But it was not false.

                      And then I talked about the fact that I wasn’t interested in debating racist statues. I am not. No false accusation there. I did actually mean that, and I said so.

                      Then I said something about racist statues. That I think they are, and you do not. Okay. I am fine with that. Again, not a false accusation because as you have repeatedly proven you do not think the racist statues are racist. I, and others, do. Not a false accusation. NOT even an accusation.

                      That is what we would call in the business an observation.

                      So I am afraid you still wrong. I did not call you a racist. I called the statues racist. And nothing you can say will change the FACT that I think they are nothing but monuments to monumental racist bullsh!t. THAT, for me, isn’t up for debate. So try something else. I don’t care what “facts” you say you have. I am convinced you do not know what you are talking about. That you have committed a Logical Fallacy called Cherry Picking.

                      Anyway I am pleased that you don’t seem to care in the slightest that I did actually insult you. I did make a personal attack.

                      Also, is your name Kenneth? If so why do you randomnly sign your replies with the name Iain? Do you still think I am some sock puppet? Are you having a stroke? Do you need medical help? Are you fallen and can’t it get up?

                      Darrel

                    7. “I have to ask, what false accusations have I made?”
                      First, when you have stated from the beginning that you have no intention of honest debate, you don’t get to have questions answered.

                      Second, since the entire point of your posts, from the moment you made this account, was to make false accusations, you are obviously trolling.

                      Yes, my name is still Kenneth, and your name is still Iain. You are also aware of both of these things–but you also have no integrity.

                    8. Kenneth, dear kenneth,

                      I fail to see how is a statement of fact (ie “I won’t debate you about racist statues being racist”) is an accusation? I think they are, that isn’t an accusation. It is a fact. I really do think they are racist – regardless of what “facts” you trot out to “prove” they aren’t. You’re facts are irrelevant. And that is not an accusation.

                      Do you even know how to debate?

                      Maybe you need a refresher as to what an accusation is: its a claim that someone has done something wrong or illegal. I admit, the dictionary is biased, it doesn’t give you the answer you want.

                      So. Again you fail at any kind of actual debate. You continue to just throw around false accusations of false accusations.

                      Because here’s THE TRUTH Kenneth. You keep falsely accusing me of being someone else. Of claiming to be someone else.

                      How about you provide me with ANY facts that I am “Iain”. Any. WHAT evidence do you have beyond your own paranoid delusions of impotence?

                      Beyond that I think it is fun that you accuse me of the thing you are doing. That’s really neat. How about you take your own medicine and SHOW ME THE FACTS!!!!

                      I’ll wait……

                      dArReL

                    9. “I fail to see how is a statement of fact (ie “I won’t debate you about racist statues being racist”) is an accusation?
                      That’s clearly not all that you said (nor is it entirely factual).

                      Again, you cannot state from the beginning that you refuse to engage in honest debate and then expect to be taken seriously.

                      Troll someone else, Iain.

                    10. Kenneth

                      Is our time coming to an end? I hope so. You are such an idiot. You claim I am doing your stupid human tricks, and yet you continue to do them.

                      I cannot engage with you in an honest debate, we haven’t found anything you can be honest about.

                      Are you a racist? Why do you like racist statues? Do you think you are better than people of color? Why do you worship racist statues? Would you like a golden calf to worship as well.

                      I love that you think I am Iain on no evidence. Not even slim evidence.

                      Well that’s okay I know who I am.

                      I remain

                      daRRel

                      PS I cannot troll anyone else here, I can only troll the troll: you!

                    11. Kenneth

                      Is our time coming to an end? I hope so. You are such an idiot. You claim I am doing your stupid human tricks, and yet you continue to do them.

                      I cannot engage with you in an honest debate, we haven’t found anything you can be honest about.

                      Are you a racist? Why do you like racist statues? Do you think you are better than people of color? Why do you worship racist statues? Would you like a golden calf to worship as well.

                      I love that you think I am Iain on no evidence. Not even slim evidence.

                      Well that’s okay I know who I am.

                      I remain

                      daRRel

                      PS I cannot troll anyone else here, I can only troll the troll: you!

                    12. “Is our time coming to an end? I hope so.”
                      Too bad you’ve shown such a penchant for dishonesty.

                      “You claim I am doing your stupid human tricks, and yet you continue to do them.
                      So calling you out on your blatant, state refusal to engaged in an honest discussion is somehow my fault?

                      If you actually want an honest debate (and I already know you don’t), you can go back to your real name. Or, at least, your other account.

                      Yeah, still ain’t workin’, Iain.

                    13. Kenneth

                      I guess we ran out of things to discuss. We can’t even agree on who I am. Well. Enjoy your racist statues..hopefullly they are all be gone soon. Just like your ancestors.

                      DarreL

                    14. Perhaps someday you won’t have to make up false accusations.

                      Just like someday, perhaps you won’t have to make up new accounts.

                      Go away, Iaian.

                    15. How ironic that Ken accuses others of lying.

                      He’s the biggest liar around.

                      No wonder he worships trump.

                    16. Perhaps when you learn that spewing false accusations don’t work you’ll be a bit more convincing–but clearly, honesty ain’t your strong suit, Iain.

                  2. Well, you and the other one. Seeing as you just created this account a few minutes ago, you’re obviously trying to inflate your numbers. And since Mr. Corey himself is doubtless going to abuse his mod powers and either outright ban me or selectively delete my posts any moment, process-of-elimination makes you Mr. Lovejoy.

                    Although I suppose I should feel a little honored. I’ve whipped a lot of Leftists in my time, but I think this is the first time I’ve ever gotten one to make a sock-puppet account to tag-team me with.

                    Good day, Iain.

    2. Given you know less of your own history than I do, and I’m not even from the US, tell us again how all these statues mean you remember history?
      Alexander Stephens, the Vice President of the Confederate States of America:
      “The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution, African slavery as it exists amongst us – the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. …
      The prevailing ideas entertained by [Thomas Jefferson] and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away.
      Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.”
      Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. ”
      And that’s why every decent human being should hate the Confederacy and what it stood for, and that’s why we will win, and it’s why you will lose.

      1. “Given you know less of your own history than I do, and I’m not even from the US, tell us again how all these statues mean you remember history?”
        Mostly because I’m not spewing blatant falsehoods about it. As we’ll see, you can’t say the same.

        “Alexander Stephens, the Vice President of the Confederate States of America:”
        It’s always amused me the way opponents of freedom drag a Lincoln ally who opposed secession out of mothballs whenever they need a little support for their race-card.

        Meanwhile, when Stephens’ boss, the actual president, stated that we weren’t fighting for slavery, but for independence, I suppose we’re supposed to simply ignore that.

        Likewise the fact that slavery was safer in the Union than out of it, and the fact that Lincoln offered slavery on a silver platter, and the Corwin amendment quite neatly shreds your race-card.

        But I suppose if I find a statement from Pence supporting Christianity, that proves that America is a Christian nation?

        1. My mistake, you are not ignorant of your history but actively lying about it.
          Jefferson Davis gave the reason for secession as slavery as well in an address to the Confederate Congess in April 1861:
          https://www.historyonthenet.com/reasons-for-secession
          Georgia, Texas, Mississippi, Virginia and South Carolina all gave their reason for secession as preserving slavery:
          https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states#Georgia
          Arkansas and Tennessee likewise:
          https://www.historynet.com/which-states-referred-to-slavery-in-their-cause-of-secession.htm
          The Confederate constitution made the ownership of slaves a constitutional right:
          Section 9, Article 4:
          “No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.”
          You are simply making stuff up.

          1. “My mistake, you are not ignorant of your history but actively lying about it.”
            Didn’t Kavanaugh teach you Lefties that false accusations don’t work?

            “The Confederate constitution made the ownership of slaves a constitutional right:”
            So did the US Constitution. That’s why an amendment was necessary to change it.

            And thus, the Corwin Amendment still neatly shreds your race-card.

            1. WTF are you talking about? The Corwin Amendment was a proposed but never passed amendment to the US Constitution proposed in 1861 that would have prevented any further amendment outlawing slavery. It read:
              “No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.”
              And no, the US Constitution didn’t protect owning slaves as a constitutional right, it left the status of slaves as a matter of individual state law, albeit allowing for slaves in one state to be recoveredin another. (It is to be noted that “States Rights” were not apparently an issue when the slave states wanted the federal government to interfere with the rights of individual states to determine the matter using the various fugitive slave laws.) The function of the 13th amendment was to prohibit slavery constitutionally.
              Please stop lying, you dishonest racist piece of sh*t.

              1. The Corwin Amendment didn’t pass because the war broke out. If the South had accepted Lincoln’s offer, it would have protected slavery, forever.

                And the Confederate Constitution left the status of slaves to state law just like the US did.

                If you want to accuse somebody of lying, try actually waiting until they lie, and/or coming up with a post that’s not a string of BS yourself. Both would be preferable, but either one would be cool. I understand that you need false accusations and ad hominems to press your point, since the facts won’t–but that’s your problem, not mine.

                Put down the race-card and come up with a real argument….

                ….if you can.

                1. You can’t stop, can you?
                  You just lie and BS and distract and lie again, because you can say nothing, and have said nothing, at great length, to dispute the stone cold fact that the slave states seceded to preserve slavery, as everyone involved at the time openly said. Which you can’t and cannot dispute.
                  That there was a failed proposal (in fact one of a whole host of them) to amend the US to protect slavery in order to try and keep the slave states in only demonstrates that everyone else knew perfectly well secession was about slavery as well. Jefferson Davis himself proposed an amendment explicitly defending slavery.
                  Oh, and the “Corwin” amendment was proposed, oddly enough, by a Senator Corwin, not Lincoln, and was endorsed as a proposal by President James Buchanan, not Lincoln, who only became president after it had been approved by Congress (it was never ratified by the states).

                  1. “You just lie and BS and distract and lie again”
                    If that was the case, you’d come up with a lie. Y’know, other than the several you’ve spouted.

                    “because you can say nothing, and have said nothing, at great length, to dispute the stone cold fact that the slave states seceded to preserve slavery”
                    Because it’s not like I pointed out that the Corwin Amendment still shreds your race-card or…

                    No, wait, I did, and you’re still just a liar.

                    “That there was a failed proposal (in fact one of a whole host of them) to amend the US to protect slavery in order to try and keep the slave states in only demonstrates that everyone else knew perfectly well secession was about slavery as well.”
                    If “everyone knew that” then why didn’t the South take the deal?

                    “Oh, and the “Corwin” amendment was proposed, oddly enough, by a Senator Corwin, not Lincoln”
                    And was endorsed by Lincoln in his inaugural address, and as Lincoln supporter Doris Kearns-Goodwin relates in her book “Team of Rivals,” originated with Lincoln.

                    So again–put down the race-card and pick up a real argument….

                    ….if you can (and you’re answering that part pretty well so far).

                  2. Great article @@benjaminlcorey:disqus

                    Hi @IainLovejoy:disqus (and others), thank you for educating me on a number of dark corners of the Confederate mind. Mr Abbott however, will not be “larned”.

                    I would not consider myself liberal in a theological sense (in case Mr Abbott is wishing to apply dismissive labels again), but this current discussion is not directly about scripture, other than being about truth.

                    Having read the exchange, I confirm that Mr Abbott failed to engage with the key points raised by Mr Lovejoy, who carried the day with his claim that the Civil War was fought over maintaining a particularly wicked institution of slavery.

                    This is not to say that only Confederates should be ashamed, however. The fact that the Corwin amendment could have got as far as it did should be a matter of shame to the North as well. In fact John Wesley had already pointed out at the time of the Revolution that the colonial cries for “freedom” were hypocritical on account of their holding slaves. This proves that even those at the time were aware of the issue, so no “historical context” free pass can be issued.

    3. It’s not “our history”. The Confederacy was a traitorous entity which fought to preserve slavery. Plus it only lasted for five years. There’s zero reason for anyone associated with the Confederacy to be honored in the country they fought to destroy. Tear the statues down.

      1. Since President Trump signed an executive order to punish people destroying Federal property including a 10 year jail term you will notice statues have disappeared from the “conversation.” Apparently the progressives don’t believe that strongly in re-writing “our history” after all.

        But as for traitors and traitorous conduct watch as Durham indicts the key Obama administration officials for treason.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Books from BLC:

Previous
Next