Can’t argue
- Status
B
Bradski
Guest
Great. Let’s give it a go. Do you think someone who took your land and hung members of your community as a warning to others should have a statue erected in his honour?
Let’s be specific. Who took who’s land?
B
Bradski
Guest
Let’s not. Just work with what you have. Someone took land that wasn’t theirs and killed people who resisted. And hung them from trees as a warning.
The guy didn’t repent. Whatever else he might have done, does the information that you have indicate to you a good man or a bad man? I’ll tell you what I think: he’s not worthy of praise. Just on the information given.
Hypotheticals often lead to misunderstanding. Give me a name
B
Bradski
Guest
You don’t get one. You have all the information you need to make a decision. As it stands with that info, does he deserve recognition? Let me know and we can look for extenuating circumstances.
Although that concept entails relativism. The guy should stand or fall on what he did and whether he repented. Catholics keep emphasising this.
And there it is, relativism.
If you have no name, then expand details. A government entity?
For example: socialists believe in the confiscation or strict control of the means of production.
M
mikekle
Guest
Well, it depends on the overall agenda of the person committing these acts as well as the outcome, and also the passage of time.
When the US govt did the things it did to the native americans in order to steal their land, if you were an indian, it was probably a very bad thing, you would never want to see statues of those people put up and have them celebrated…but look around today, those people ARE celebrated, statues were erected, and many native americans are proud, patriotic US citizens, so…?
The passage of time and outcome are also very important factors, I know its unrealistic, but lets say the native americans beat the US govt and there were not able to steal their land…what kind of statues would we have today, what people/events would be celebrated in this history?
Mark121359
Well-known member
Umm…frankly, I’m stunned by the hypocrisy that’s at work here. Ever heard of Robert Byrd? Although he never took land or hung anybody AFAIK, Senator Robert Byrd was a member of the KKK and has many,***** many***** things named after him. Here are a few of his quotes;
Here is a list containing the many places named after him. What say you Bradski, do you think this Democrat should have this many places named after him? By the way, this is the man of whom Hillary Clinton once called “my mentor.” When he died she said; “It is almost impossible to imagine the United States Senate without Robert Byrd. He was not just its longest serving member, he was its heart and soul."
Oh yes…the hypocrisy that’s at work here!
Peace, Mark
B
Bradski
Guest
You’re exactly right there is relativism being used here. As someone said in a recent post, Catholics are the first to argue against relativism and the first to use it in any argument to bolster their position.
You don’t need to know if this was a government entity and if it was liberal or conservative. You don’t need to know if this was recent, in times past, whether the guy was a socialist, a Christian, an atheist or a flat earth creationist. Personally speaking, I have zero problem in declaring that taking someone’s land and killing them when they protest is wrong.
Now if the same guy was a patriotic hero who cured polio, then it’s time for a discussion as to how he should be remembered. As a good Catholic, I would imagine that you would insist that a few rights do not justify a few wrongs.
And talking of relativism…
If it was yesterday, it’s not as bad as if you did it today?
Hypocrisy would be calling for a discussion on matters such as these and then denying the right to hold that conversation to others.
The discussion down here in Australia is not so much removing these monuments, but clarifying the deeds of those to whom they are honouring. Ignoring or glossing over the ugly side of their characters does a disservice to everyone.
Well, good. I can join in you in a blanket condemnation. The problem recently is that these types of condemnations seem to be selective, particularly from the progressive side.
Actually, I’m not Catholic, at least not of the Roman kind, but I do believe that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. If we are going to bludgeon those who have committed wrongs in the past, then only statue can stand.
Actually no. It is just as bad, but in evaluating those of the past, one has to also consider the era they lived in.
We’re seeing a lot of it on our college campuses these days.
A problem here, too, and I give Dinesh D’Souza much credit for exposing it.
Jon
B
Bradski
Guest
I think we’re on the same page, Jon.
M
mikekle
Guest
I was referring more to decades, centuries passing.
Plus it highly depends on the outcome and popular public opinion at the time. The man who tried to plant a bomb where Hitler was going to be (Project Valkyrie), was viewed as a criminal at the time he did it, but today he is seen as a hero. If the Nazis had won though, would he still be seen as a hero…I think not, it would have went down in history as a terrorist attack on the leader.
Same thing with the American Revolution, had England won, all the American patriots we idolize and celebrate, would go down in history comparable to Osama Bin Laden and all their acts seen as terrorist attacks.
MLK and the civil rights fight of the 60s are a more recent example, had civil rights laws not passed and they lost, all those people involved would have went down in history as domestic terrorists or ‘rabble-rousers’ (problem makers), however the passage of time and the outcome changed things drastically.
The future will be NO DIFFERENT, they will likely be celebrating people, who are currently living in our times, who are hated, causing problems, but fighting for the cause they believe in.
P
psalm90
Guest
I just read this book, The speeches of Abraham Lincoln
(amazon.com/Lincoln-Speeches-Penguin-Civic-Classics/dp/0143121987/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&qid=1504296109&sr=8-11&keywords=speeches+of+abraham+lincoln)
in which Lincoln discusses the problem of slavery in the United States. Although the founders were slave owners, they did not mention slavery directly in the Constitution, because there was the realization and admission that slavery would eventually come to an end. part of Lincoln’s quandry was how to bring slavery to an end.
This example relates to all those mentioned here, that what we need to do is make the United States MORE democratic and fair to all its citizens. We simply should not give up the fight. and, part of that effort, is to not OVERLOOK where we’ve been in the past and what the target for the future is. We can’t change the past, of course, but we should attempt to set the record straight about the past, for sure.
In the inclusive sense of the words, we believe that “all men are created equal.” And, we should make every opportunity to live up to that philosophy.
- Status