US President Donald Trump has denounced the removal of "beautiful" Confederate statues amid a heated national debate about US race relations.

"Sad to see the history and culture of our great country being ripped apart with the removal of our beautiful statues and monuments," he tweeted.
"You can't change history, but you can learn from it," he continued.

Mr Trump drew outrage by defending organisers of a white supremacist rally that left a woman dead and dozens hurt.

The rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, supported by neo-Nazis and white supremacists, was in protest of the removal of a statue of Robert E Lee, a general who had fought for the pro-slavery Confederacy during the US Civil War.

It turned deadly when a driver ploughed into a crowd of counter protesters, inflicting fatal injuries on Heather Heyer.

---

"Robert E Lee, Stonewall Jackson - who's next, Washington, Jefferson? So foolish!" Mr Trump continued in a series of tweets on Thursday.
"The beauty that is being taken out of our cities, towns and parks will be greatly missed and never able to be comparably replaced!"

The recent removal of controversial statues, including some to leaders of the pro-slavery rebellion defeated in the US Civil War, has been the latest flashpoint in racial tensions across the country.

Critics say monuments to the Confederacy are racially offensive, but supporters say they are important symbols preserving Southern heritage.

---

What's your opinion on this topic? Should the statues remain as a part of America's history, or should they be abolished?

These people on the left tearing down statues are no different than the Chinese during Mao's "Cultural Revolution" or frankly the Taliban who destroyed the Buddha statues in the Bamiyan Valley. These are people who want to inhibit first amendment rights based off skin color, Who treat ideas and words that they don't like as calls for violence, who call for free college tuition for ONLY African American students because slavery existed and that I quote "standardized tests perpetuate and uphold white supremacy" (which will lead back to further segregating America and continued racism on both sides which is exactly what MLK fought with his life to change), who march down streets screaming things like "What do we want?" "Dead cops" or "Pigs in a blanket fry them like bacon" referring to cops. What I also think is pathetic is that people read "Mr trump drew outrage by defending organizers of a white supremacist rally that left a woman dead and dozens hurt" and actually believe that disgusting lie. He only drew outrage because when he first talked about it he DIDN'T jump to conclusions and run his mouth without any facts, which is the very thing he gets slammed for daily! He then called out the actions of the white supremacists and stated VERY clearly that both the white supremacists and the antifa factions were to blame for the violence. As much as i despise people who judge others based on race or anything that a person has no control over, Peaceful protest IS ALLOWED BY LAW. If you're a member of the Black Panthers or frankly Black Lives Matter movement which are black supremacy movements YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO PEACEFUL PROTEST, If you're a member of the KKK or some other supremacist organization YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO PEACEFUL PROTEST. On the Tuesday after this tragic day, Trump said that there were innocents on both sides; That is a factual statement. I don't like antifa/racist neo-nazis/dumb democrats any more than the next person but at some point the stupidity has to lift and people need to realize that not everyone on both sides committed or called for violence and that STATING that fact is not siding with one side or the other. A quote that stuck with me recently was one by a member of congress, basically saying "It is not brave to follow a law you like, what takes true bravery is to follow a law you don't like and try to change it legally for the better." Next thing you know this will spread to Britain and your royal family will be brought into question for its past shareholding in in the British Corporations that were established to conduct the slave trade or in the early 1700's with their involvement in the South Sea Company, or that George III and his son William were against the parties in Parliament in the late-1700's who favored outlawing the slave trade. Imagine in France people illegally pulled down statues of Napoleon because they think "He offends me", or IMAGINE if Christians illegally removed statues of Buddha because that religion "Offended them". You know what? What happens when the crazy reaches the pyramids of Egypt, the Roman Colosseum, or the Basilica Cistern in Istanbul? Are those buildings that were built by slaves okay because they're not in America?

 

These people on the left tearing down statues are no different than the Chinese during Mao's "Cultural Revolution" or frankly the Taliban who destroyed the Buddha statues in the Bamiyan Valley. These are people who want to inhibit first amendment rights based off skin color, Who treat ideas and words that they don't like as calls for violence, who call for free college tuition for ONLY African American students because slavery existed and that I quote "standardized tests perpetuate and uphold white supremacy" (which will lead back to further segregating America and continued racism on both sides which is exactly what MLK fought with his life to change), who march down streets screaming things like "What do we want?" "Dead cops" or "Pigs in a blanket fry them like bacon" referring to cops. What I also think is pathetic is that people read "Mr trump drew outrage by defending organizers of a white supremacist rally that left a woman dead and dozens hurt" and actually believe that disgusting lie. He only drew outrage because when he first talked about it he DIDN'T jump to conclusions and run his mouth without any facts, which is the very thing he gets slammed for daily! He then called out the actions of the white supremacists and stated VERY clearly that both the white supremacists and the antifa factions were to blame for the violence. As much as i despise people who judge others based on race or anything that a person has no control over, Peaceful protest IS ALLOWED BY LAW. If you're a member of the Black Panthers or frankly Black Lives Matter movement which are black supremacy movements YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO PEACEFUL PROTEST, If you're a member of the KKK or some other supremacist organization YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO PEACEFUL PROTEST. On the Tuesday after this tragic day, Trump said that there were innocents on both sides; That is a factual statement. I don't like antifa/racist neo-nazis/dumb democrats any more than the next person but at some point the stupidity has to lift and people need to realize that not everyone on both sides committed or called for violence and that STATING that fact is not siding with one side or the other. A quote that stuck with me recently was one by a member of congress, basically saying "It is not brave to follow a law you like, what takes true bravery is to follow a law you don't like and try to change it legally for the better." Next thing you know this will spread to Britain and your royal family will be brought into question for its past shareholding in in the British Corporations that were established to conduct the slave trade or in the early 1700's with their involvement in the South Sea Company, or that George III and his son William were against the parties in Parliament in the late-1700's who favored outlawing the slave trade. Imagine in France people pulling down statues of Napoleon because they think "He offends me", or IMAGINE if Christians had the authority to remove statues of Buddha because another religion "Offended them".

There is so much in this that I whole heartedly disagree with that I don't even know where to start. I guess I'll organize my thoughts into points.

1) I don't understand how in the first couple sentences you tied wanting to take down controversial confederate statues to inhibiting first amendment rights and free college tuition for only African Americans. The reason that some people want to take down the statues is because of what the statues stand for. The Confederacy was a portion of the country wanting to break away from the union and continue to embrace slavery because of its importance in the economy of the United States. To all of the African Americans living in the United States, there's nothing good coming from the representation of people like Robert E. Lee. When people think of slavery, they obviously think of bad and evil acts, but most people really don't look into just how gruesome and evil the slave trade in the United States was. I will never understand how those claiming that statues of the confederacy are nothing more than resemblances of history and heritage is a defense for them remaining. Yes, it does resemble history and heritage - the history and heritage of slavery and values contradicting those of the nation. I don't think it would be questionable if those in Germany wanted to tear down statues dedicated to Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party because of what he stood for, what he did, and the values of the country. How this is viewed as such a "leftist" and "extreme" view I don't understand either.

To address your side notes - no where have I ever seen any politician on the right or left advocate for free college tuition for only people of color. I have no idea where you concocted that idea from. Also, I don't see the left having any problem with the groups that protested having the ability to protest. The debate is over the values that they stand for and the murder that took place at the time of the protests.

2) When you mentioned chants like "What do we want?" "Dead cops" or "Pigs in a blanket fry them like bacon" I'm assuming you're referring to the Black Lives Matter movement and some of the recordings of branches of this movement chanting such atrocities. First, BLM does not stand for or represent all African Americans. In your post you seemed to assert that these statements are what most if not all African Americans believe and stand for which is simply not true. These chants came from an extremist branch of the BLM movement. BLM is not a "black supremacy" movement in any way but simply a civil rights movement founded after the emergence of many videos of African Americans getting shot by white police officers. Just because there are "bad apples" in this group doesn't mean that the legitimacy of the purpose of the group is tarnished. Directly from their site, BLM is "rooted in the experiences of Black people in this country who actively resist our dehumanization, #BlackLivesMatter is a call to action and a response to the virulent anti-Black racism that permeates our society. Black Lives Matter is a unique contribution that goes beyond extrajudicial killings of Black people by police and vigilantes."

3) You're right. President Trump is always ripped on for jumping to conclusions without any regard to the facts. But how one can argue that NOW he's doing so just doesn't make sense when it comes to a defense. Donald Trump said that President Obama was a Muslim born in Kenya, that climate change was a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese government, that he had the largest inaugural crowd in history, that crime is at an all time high, that millions of illegal immigrants voted illegally, that he won the popular vote if these illegals hadn't voted, and many other comments contradicting obvious facts. So when it comes to all of these issues he disregards the facts and makes false claims and misleads the country, but when it comes to white supremacy, something that's so clean cut wrong, he has to wait and take his time to make sure he gets it right? That is absurd to me. Especially since those defending him now for "taking his time" were the same people criticizing President Obama after the Benghazi attacks for not calling it a terror attack right away.

4) I agree with you when it comes to the 1st Amendment and that no matter how awful the speech is, it is protected by this. Peaceful protests, even those done by the KKK, white supremacists, Nazis, etc. is protected.

5) I can't really comment on your last few sentences as I don't know the law when it comes to those areas of the world.

And a note to all people who are going to respond on this thread, please do not take any conversations or debate as personal. The point of political debate is to remain objective, be polite, doing succumb to ad hominem, and respect other people even if you disagree. I LOVE debating, but it has to be done correctly if anything good is to come out of it.

1) I don't understand how in the first couple sentences you tied wanting to take down controversial confederate statues to inhibiting first amendment rights and free college tuition for only African Americans. The reason that some people want to take down the statues is because of what the statues stand for. The Confederacy was a portion of the country wanting to break away from the union and continue to embrace slavery because of its importance in the economy of the United States. To all of the African Americans living in the United States, there's nothing good coming from the representation of people like Robert E. Lee. When people think of slavery, they obviously think of bad and evil acts, but most people really don't look into just how gruesome and evil the slave trade in the United States was. I will never understand how those claiming that statues of the confederacy are nothing more than resemblances of history and heritage is a defense for them remaining. Yes, it does resemble history and heritage - the history and heritage of slavery and values contradicting those of the nation. I don't think it would be questionable if those in Germany wanted to tear down statues dedicated to Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party because of what he stood for, what he did, and the values of the country. How this is viewed as such a "leftist" and "extreme" view I don't understand either.

This point can be somewhat confusing. You can want to take down the statues with every fiber of your being. Is it legal to destroy property that is not yours? No. Therefore this act is very easily labeled "leftist" and "extreme" because the left seems to have the bad habit of resorting to illegal violence to support their ideas quite often. How my statements tie together is very clear. The same people who want to limit free speech be it on university campus, on the streets, on the internet. Want to tear down statues illegally, punch people in the face for using language they don't agree with, and continue segregating people based of ideas and skin color. Those points tie in very closely with one another. You say very clearly " I will never understand how those claiming that statues of the confederacy are nothing more than resemblances of history and heritage is a defense for them remaining " What about those Americans who founded the country? They owned slaves. Would you change the name of our nations capital? Would you burn the Jefferson Memorial Forest because he owned slaves? This logic only leads us to one place and that is more illegal acts of destroying American history as deemed inappropriate by a vocal minority of Democrats and is just a stepping stone to book burning and thought policing. People who Illegally tear down statues that represent the civil war on the claims that they are offensive are AGAIN no different than the Chinese when they destroyed years of history under Mao, Or the Taliban who destroyed precious statues and artifacts of a religion they disagreed with.

To address your side notes - no where have I ever seen any politician on the right or left advocate for free college tuition for only people of color. I have no idea where you concocted that idea from. Also, I don't see the left having any problem with the groups that protested having the ability to protest. The debate is over the values that they stand for and the murder that took place at the time of the protests.

I mean this one is easy. Western Kentucky University and University of Wisconsin-Madison both had movements made to achieve free college tuition for ONLY people of color not only those whos ancestors suffered from slavery in America. These are common as the Black Liberation Collective has made similar demands to 90 campuses across the country. It's not a concocted idea as I nor anyone I know deal in fantasies or off the top statistics.

I dont quite understand what you're getting at with the second part. The left has a problem with free speech plain and simple.

2) When you mentioned chants like "What do we want?" "Dead cops" or "Pigs in a blanket fry them like bacon" I'm assuming you're referring to the Black Lives Matter movement and some of the recordings of branches of this movement chanting such atrocities. First, BLM does not stand for or represent all African Americans. In your post you seemed to assert that these statements are what most if not all African Americans believe and stand for which is simply not true. These chants came from an extremist branch of the BLM movement. BLM is not a "black supremacy" movement in any way but simply a civil rights movement founded after the emergence of many videos of African Americans getting shot by white police officers. Just because there are "bad apples" in this group doesn't mean that the legitimacy of the purpose of the group is tarnished. Directly from their site, BLM is "rooted in the experiences of Black people in this country who actively resist our dehumanization, #BlackLivesMatter is a call to action and a response to the virulent anti-Black racism that permeates our society. Black Lives Matter is a unique contribution that goes beyond extrajudicial killings of Black people by police and vigilantes."

You're right about me specifically referring to Black Lives Matter, However antifa is far worse. I know Black Lives Matter does not speak for all African Americans. Just today I was referred to a video of an African American man sitting beside a Confederate flag (as is his right) speaking against the movements of BLM, antifa, and the rest of the people who believe in them, I know they don't represent him. The legitimacy of the group is further tarnished by supporting students at Evergreen University who rioted because a Jewish professor refused to leave campus on a day they told him to. This is an interesting story for any who are reading this and unaware. Evergreen has a wonderful cultural event in which African-American students and staff will leave the University for a day to signify their importance in the community and then return the next day for a whole day of celebration. This event is based off a play written by Douglas Turner Ward (An African-American playright) in which African-Americans decide one day to not go into work to show a town their significance in the community. However in 2017 it was decided that African-American staff would not voluntarily leave campus, they would ask white students and staff to leave. One deeply progressive Jewish professor refused. In his letter to the administration he wrote that "People shouldn't be allowed to speak or not speak based on their skin color" and "that there is all the difference in the world between a population deciding to absent themselves from a shared space in order to highlight their role, and a population deciding to absent another from a shared space." to which he was physically threatened for and his African American colleagues and students are seeking for his removal. Yes, Maybe at its core BLM is a group devoted to equality in an "Institutionally racist country" when there was an African-American president, there are African-American judges, senators, congressmen and women, lawyers, police, doctors, etc. However it is not shown.

3) You're right. President Trump is always ripped on for jumping to conclusions without any regard to the facts. But how one can argue that NOW he's doing so just doesn't make sense when it comes to a defense. Donald Trump said that President Obama was a Muslim born in Kenya, that climate change was a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese government, that he had the largest inaugural crowd in history, that crime is at an all time high, that millions of illegal immigrants voted illegally, that he won the popular vote if these illegals hadn't voted, and many other comments contradicting obvious facts. So when it comes to all of these issues he disregards the facts and makes false claims and misleads the country, but when it comes to white supremacy, something that's so clean cut wrong, he has to wait and take his time to make sure he gets it right? That is absurd. Especially since those defending him now for "taking his time" were the same people criticizing President Obama after the Benghazi attacks for not calling it a terror attack right away.

See this is interesting. I agree that people attacked President Obama unfairly while he was waiting for the facts of the situation. I was not among those people who devolved into idiocy. However Democrats have devolved into the same level of idiocy over Trump waiting for the facts of the situation. Yes, White supremacy is morally wrong. However you can not condemn a group for the illegal actions of one person. Those white supremacists UNDER LAW had every right to peacefully protest. They even had a permit to be there. I think logically you would say those who were there legally did nothing wrong even if their message was disgusting. The man who killed Heather Heyer as Trump said "Is a disgrace to himself, his family, and his country."

4) I agree with you when it comes to the 1st Amendment and that no matter how awful the speech is, it is protected by this. Peaceful protests, even those done by the KKK, white supremacists, Nazis, etc. is protected.

I'm glad you agree because I'd hate to live in a country where it wasn't.

5) I can't really comment on your last few sentences as I don't know the law when it comes to those areas of the world.

I don't understand what you mean by "I don't know the law when it comes to those areas of the world." I would assume the law everywhere is if you don't own something it's not yours to break. There's also the "You break it you buy it" which I think personally would be hilarious to bill the cost of the statues to those who destroy them. No, I'm simply making the point that seems fairly obvious is that the ENTIRE world for a VERY LONG TIME thought slavery was acceptable. Should the history of the world up until slavery was abolished in America and other countries be wiped out because of that or should we look at the past of humanity and treat the lives before us as a learning experience? I mean really. No one contests slavery in America was awful but I don't see the Jewish people rioting and destroying statues and they easily have had it the worst. I don't see the anger and hatred at the African tribes who enslaved their own people to use and sell off. Indians owned slaves, what about them? My question is a fairly simple one that does not require knowledge of the law to answer. If the history of the world for a time revolved around slaves, Do you stop with confederate flags and statues; or do you attempt to police the entire worlds history?

And a note to all people who are going to respond on this thread, please do not take any conversations or debate as personal. The point of political debate is to remain objective, be polite, doing succumb to ad hominem, and respect other people even if you disagree. I LOVE debating, but it has to be done correctly if anything good is to come out of it.

Amen

This point can be somewhat confusing. You can want to take down the statues with every fiber of your being. Is it legal to destroy property that is not yours? No. Therefore this act is very easily labeled "leftist" and "extreme" because the left seems to have the bad habit of resorting to illegal violence to support their ideas quite often. How my statements tie together is very clear. The same people who want to limit free speech be it on university campus, on the streets, on the internet. Want to tear down statues illegally, punch people in the face for using language they don't agree with, and continue segregating people based of ideas and skin color. Those points tie in very closely with one another. You say very clearly " I will never understand how those claiming that statues of the confederacy are nothing more than resemblances of history and heritage is a defense for them remaining " What about those Americans who founded the country? They owned slaves. Would you change the name of our nations capital? Would you burn the Jefferson Memorial Forest because he owned slaves? This logic only leads us to one place and that is more illegal acts of destroying American history as deemed inappropriate by a vocal minority of Democrats and is just a stepping stone to book burning and thought policing. People who Illegally tear down statues that represent the civil war on the claims that they are offensive are AGAIN no different than the Chinese when they destroyed years of history under Mao, Or the Taliban who destroyed precious statues and artifacts of a religion they disagreed with.

No where am I advocating for illegally removing statues. I'm referring to cities, counties, states, etc. wanting to remove them because of what they stand for. I whole-heartedly disagree with violently and illegally bringing them down. That is vandalism. No where did I ever endorse or defend that. I'm against limiting free speech on campuses and such as well. You're connecting a lot of different points that I think many democrats are divided on or share opposing viewpoints. Not ALL democrats stand for the extreme cases you talk about. Hell, I'd say most don't. Punching people in the face because they say something they disagree with? Again, not sure how this ties in as both sides get violent at times. The man you're defending incited violence at his own rallies with many videos you can find with an easy search on YouTube... including videos of supporters at his rallies doing the exact same thing that you're condemning the left of. It's a problem on both sides, not just one. But as of right now, the leader of the Republican Party has encouraged it himself.

Comparing Robert E Lee and the confederacy to George Washington and Thomas Jefferson is just a HUGE false equivalency with no comparable grounds that the president started himself. Yes, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. I guess by that fact they're comparable. But let's take George Washington for example. As the first president, he founded the United States. He led the surge against the British and helped to win the Revolutionary War. He acted as president in the way he did with all eyes on him because he was the product of such a momentous moment in history when the United States broke away from Great Britain. On the other hand, there's Robert E. Lee, the person who fought against everything that George Washington stood for and built. He fought to retain one of America's largest grievances and disappointments. So, how is a statue against a rebellion leader against the foundation of the United States who fought to secede and prolong the egregious acts of slavery comparable to the man who fought in the Revolutionary War, led the victory against Great Britain, and became the first president of the United States. Both of these peoples' "high points" and specific historical remembrances tied with them are night and day. It is possible to learn from history and embrace it (it's successes and failures) without idolizing and showcasing a villain of our past.

I mean this one is easy. Western Kentucky University and University of Wisconsin-Madison both had movements made to achieve free college tuition for ONLY people of color not only those whos ancestors suffered from slavery in America. These are common as the Black Liberation Collective has made similar demands to 90 campuses across the country. It's not a concocted idea as I nor anyone I know deal in fantasies or off the top statistics.

I dont quite understand what you're getting at with the second part. The left has a problem with free speech plain and simple.

All I'll say here is you're bringing in random things that you think add to your point that are totally unrelated. You bring in extreme instances and then paint the entire Democratic party to believe and follow the same path. No where do I see any left-wing politician of any significant power having any chance or publically advocating and gaining any ground for free tuition for African Americans only. And to he free speech assertion, again, you're painting a single idea for a few extreme cases and painting the entire left to fall under it. The just simply isn't true.

You're right about me specifically referring to Black Lives Matter, However antifa is far worse. I know Black Lives Matter does not speak for all African Americans. Just today I was referred to a video of an African American man sitting beside a Confederate flag (as is his right) speaking against the movements of BLM, antifa, and the rest of the people who believe in them, I know they don't represent him. The legitimacy of the group is further tarnished by supporting students at Evergreen University who rioted because a Jewish professor refused to leave campus on a day they told him to. This is an interesting story for any who are reading this and unaware. Evergreen has a wonderful cultural event in which African-American students and staff will leave the University for a day to signify their importance in the community and then return the next day for a whole day of celebration. This event is based off a play written by Douglas Turner Ward (An African-American playright) in which African-Americans decide one day to not go into work to show a town their significance in the community. However in 2017 it was decided that African-American staff would not voluntarily leave campus, they would ask white students and staff to leave. One deeply progressive Jewish professor refused. In his letter to the administration he wrote that "People shouldn't be allowed to speak or not speak based on their skin color" and "that there is all the difference in the world between a population deciding to absent themselves from a shared space in order to highlight their role, and a population deciding to absent another from a shared space." to which he was physically threatened for and his African American colleagues and students are seeking for his removal. Yes, Maybe at its core BLM is a group devoted to equality in an "Institutionally racist country" when there was an African-American president, there are African-American judges, senators, congressmen and women, lawyers, police, doctors, etc. However it is not shown.

This paragraph is really quite concerning. First, I confront you for using one instance to represent a group as a whole and you admit you weren't doing that and then do the exact same thing with a single situation taking place at a university. That's all I really have to say here.

The second is that your sarcasm about an institutionally racist country is astonishing because it just simply is. I'm blown away first that you're using the argument that most people find ridiculous... "America has had a black president and therefore no racism." Of course you're not necessarily saying there is no racism, but to say that because a black man got elected one time in the 45 presidents that the United States has had means that there is no institutional racism just is unfounded. Just because a person of color is able to succeed does not mean that institutional racism doesn't exist. You talk about the presidency, senators, congressmen and women, judges, etc. You want to talk about them? Ok.

The amount of African American Presidents of the 45: One
The amount of African American Senators in history: Ten
The amount of African American Senators currently in office: Three
The amount of African American Representatives in history: 148 (although this number seems high, remember there are always 435 members at any given time holding office)
The percentage of African American judges in the United States (2010): 5 percent
The percentage of African American police officers (2013): 12 percent

I could go on and on about crime statistics and laws as well. Laws that have harsher criminalization of crack as opposed to cocaine because of crack being the "poorer drug" of the two and more commonly found in minority neighborhoods. Laws that only allow members of a household to rent the house to members of their immediate family "because they are more reliable with payments" as opposed to the minority community surrounding the area. Recordings of previous presidents enforcing the "war on drugs" narrative that was enforced largely to criminalize and capture African Americans with laws implemented like what I've said above. I won't go on about this anymore, but the evidence is overwhelming. Not to mention that slavery is one of the largest injustices the United States has imposed on its citizens and the government nor the United Nations have required any sort of reparations for slavery in the passed as have been done with other countries in situations much less egregious and grueling as this.

I don't understand what you mean by "I don't know the law when it comes to those areas of the world." I would assume the law everywhere is if you don't own something it's not yours to break. There's also the "You break it you buy it" which I think personally would be hilarious to bill the cost of the statues to those who destroy them. No, I'm simply making the point that seems fairly obvious is that the ENTIRE world for a VERY LONG TIME thought slavery was acceptable. Should the history of the world be erased up until slavery was abolished in America and other countries be wiped out because of that or should we look at the past of humanity and treat the lives before us as a learning experience? I mean really. No one contests slavery in America was awful but I don't see the Jewish people rioting and destroying statues and they easily have had it the worst. I don't see the anger and hatred at the African tribes who enslaved their own people to use and sell off. Indians owned slaves, what about them? My question is a fairly simple one that does not require knowledge of the law to answer. If the history of the world for a time revolved around slaves, Do you stop with confederate flags and statues; or do you attempt to police the entire worlds history?

I addressed this earlier. You're able to learn about history, acknowledge it's existence, teach it, advocate for knowledge of it, etc. without idolizing and putting up monuments to honor the evil figures in it. It is possible to go throughout school in the elementary, middle, and high school levels and get a basis for history and even choose to pursue it further in university if you wish and, I'll say it again, without having to put up monuments to honor the villains of history.

No where am I advocating for illegally removing statues. I'm referring to cities, counties, states, etc. wanting to remove them because of what they stand for. I whole-heartedly disagree with violently and illegally bringing them down. That is vandalism. No where did I ever endorse or defend that. I'm against limiting free speech on campuses and such as well. You're connecting a lot of different points that I think many democrats are divided on or share opposing viewpoints. Not ALL democrats stand for the extreme cases you talk about. Hell, I'd say most don't. Punching people in the face because they say something they disagree with? Again, not sure how this ties in as both sides get violent at times. The man you're defending incited violence at his own rallies with many videos you can find with an easy search on YouTube... including videos of supporters at his rallies doing the exact same thing that you're condemning the left of. It's a problem on both sides, not just one. But as of right now, the leader of the Republican Party has encouraged it himself.

I would never assume that you advocate for illegal activities without any basis. I also entirely agree that violence is not limited to race/creed/political opinion. I don't defend Trump always. I don't agree with many things. Trump is different, that's why people like him. I'm tired of boring politics and so were enough Americans to elect the man. If there are specific clips or videos of him inciting violence and riots then I'll condemn it. I think however drawing a comparison between rally speech that does not lead to looting and destruction of property, and the groups I specifically called out is a mistake and takes away from the real crimes people are committing in the name of political protest.

Comparing Robert E Lee and the confederacy to George Washington and Thomas Jefferson is just a HUGE false equivalency with no comparable grounds that the president started himself. Yes, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. I guess by that fact they're comparable. But let's take George Washington for example. As the first president, he founded the United States. He led the surge against the British and helped to win the Revolutionary War. He acted as president in the way he did with all eyes on him because he was the product of such a momentous moment in history when the United States broke away from Great Britain. On the other hand, there's Robert E. Lee, the person who fought against everything that George Washington stood for and built. He fought to retain one of America's largest grievances and disappointments. So, how is a statue against a rebellion leader against the foundation of the United States who fought to secede and prolong the egregious acts of slavery comparable to the man who fought in the Revolutionary War, led the victory against Great Britain, and became the first president of the United States. Both of these peoples' "high points" and specific historical remembrances tied with them are night and day. It is possible to learn from history and embrace it (it's successes and failures) without idolizing and showcasing a villain of our past.

I believe Trump got the comparison from a Fox news article. Which... has already become true. Al Sharpton has already come out saying that the Jefferson Memorial should be defunded. I think as a question it's a fair one. It's a question Democrats as a party seem unable to grasp. Where does it end? George Washington was a great man even if he owned slaves is what seems to be what you're saying. Robert E Lee, who was AGAINST Virginia succeeding from the union found it his duty to protect his home as the decision to succeed was made democratically. While his family did own slaves there is no evidence that says he openly agreed with slavery. There is no false equivalency. These are two men who are dead and have historical significance to our country.  Washington owned slaves, he fought as a general in the revolutionary war and won then he became the president. Lee's family owned slaves, Lee fought as a general in the civil war in defense of his state and lost. Do you see the point I'm trying to make? Who is it on the Democrats side that gets to decide whos statues get pulled down? What are the criteria? It is easy for us in 2017 to sit on a high horse and judge humanity in the past, but unless you live it there is no way you can say with any ounce of fact that you would not be guilty of the same things they were. To say
 

All I'll say here is you're bringing in random things that you think add to your point that are totally unrelated. You bring in extreme instances and then paint the entire Democratic party to believe and follow the same path. No where do I see any left-wing politician of any significant power having any chance or publically advocating and gaining any ground for free tuition for African Americans only. And to he free speech assertion, again, you're painting a single idea for a few extreme cases and painting the entire left to fall under it. The just simply isn't true.

Well you did accuse me of making it up. I don't think its unrelated in the slightest. This conversation was not started with the moderates in the Democratic party in mind. If these groups that are for the policing of speech and ideas, violence, and segregating people based on political views to name a few are some fringe extremists; why is the Democratic party not distancing themselves? You keep making the point that you do not see leftist politicians calling for free tuition for African Americans only, and while this is true for now; the vocal minority of Democrats are calling for these things. These are people in college or fresh out of college who will some day be in leadership positions. They are entirely relevant and assuming you're a Democrat, how are you not infuriated that your party is being torn apart from the inside by extremists who use violence as a means of protest and call for actions that would re-segregate our country? The Democratic party can't even decide on what to bash Trump with each week, and the moderates in the Democratic party have come out and said the party has no base anymore. 

This paragraph is really quite concerning. First, I confront you for using one instance to represent a group as a whole and you admit you weren't doing that and then do the exact same thing with a single situation taking place at a university. That's all I really have to say here.

The second is that your sarcasm about an institutionally racist country is astonishing because it just simply is. I'm blown away first that you're using the argument that most people find ridiculous... "America has had a black president and therefore no racism." Of course you're not necessarily saying there is no racism, but to say that because a black man got elected one time in the 45 presidents that the United States has had means that there is no institutional racism just is unfounded. Just because a person of color is able to succeed does not mean that institutional racism doesn't exist. You talk about the presidency, senators, congressmen and women, judges, etc. You want to talk about them? Ok.

The amount of African American presidents of the 45: One
The amount of African American Senators in history: Ten
The amount of African American Senators currently in office: Three
The amount of African American representatives in history: 148 (although this number seems high, remember there are always 435 members at any given time holding office)
The percentage of African American judges in the United States (2010): 5 percent
The percentage of African American police officers (2013): 12 percent

I could go on and on about crime statistics and laws as well. Laws that have harsher criminalization of crack as opposed to cocaine because of crack being the "poorer drug" of the two and more commonly found in minority neighborhoods. Laws that only allow members of a household to rent the house to members of their immediate family "because they are more reliable with payments" as opposed to the minority community surrounding the area. Recordings of previous presidents enforcing the "war on drugs" narrative that was enforced largely to criminalize and capture African Americans with laws implemented like what I've said above. I won't go on about this anymore, but the evidence is overwhelming. Not to mention that slavery is one of the largest injustices the United States has imposed on its citizens and the government nor the United Nations have required any sort of reparations for slavery in the passed as have been done with other countries in situations much less egregious and grueling as this.

I fail to see what your comment even is about. You confronted me about specifically referring to BLM and I said I was, I also admitted that atifa is a bigger problem than BLM. I guess if you want to stick with them we can. I very carefully agreed that BLM does not speak for all African-Americans and rightly so however I don't understand how the use of a second example in showing that Black Lives Matter is involved in more than one event that turned violent is yet another generalization? I even conceded to you that the core of BLM maybe really is devoted in equality so what is the confusion?

You said that "These chants came from an extremist branch of the BLM movement. BLM is not a "black supremacy" movement in any way but simply a civil rights movement founded after the emergence of many videos of African Americans getting shot by white police officers. Just because there are "bad apples" in this group doesn't mean that the legitimacy of the purpose of the group is tarnished. Directly from their site, BLM is "rooted in the experiences of Black people in this country who actively resist our dehumanization, #BlackLivesMatter is a call to action and a response to the virulent anti-Black racism that permeates our society. Black Lives Matter is a unique contribution that goes beyond extrajudicial killings of Black people by police and vigilantes."
I think my agreement that BLM does not speak for everyone is quite in line. I gave you an example in which a BLM march said disgusting things about police officers and you said that they are "bad apples" and do not speak for the group, I get that. It makes sense. Were those 'bad apples' the same ones that incited hatred towards the Jewish professor i mentioned? Are they the same "bad apples" that rioted at UC Berkeley and assaulted a Muslim from Syria with a rod stating "You look like a Nazi" while at the same time causing over $100,000 in damages? Are these the same "bad apples" that appear at college campuses in successful attempts to silence people who think differently then they do? Are you saying that these same "bad apples" in Black Lives Matter are doing all of these things and it has nothing to do with the organization?

Yes, lets talk about America's institutional racism. Lets beat the pretend dead horse some more. I did not say that because America had a black president, that there is no racism in the country. What you seem confused on is that institutional racism would even look like.
"Whether implicitly or explicitly expressed, institutional racism occurs when a certain group is targeted and discriminated against based upon race." This is what institutional racism is. Being able to run for President of the United States as a black man certainly does not mean that racism does not exist, what it proves is that institutional racism does not. If institutional racism existed every number you threw out would be 0, because they would not be allowed to even run for office. I find interesting that you would use numbers of African Americans in public office as an example for institutional racism as by definition people in public office are voted in.. by the public.. which last I checked was not an institution. Believe what you want but consider this. Calling out institutional racism does not combat racism. If you can point out a racist policy or person then I will support you in evaluating & changing the policy or calling out the person. What I hear at times when I listen to commentators or read articles is this concept of Virtue Signaling. A person can claim institutional racism with no evidence of it or plan to combat such a thing and is applauded because its an approved point of view on the left. This action helps no one. Instead of saying institutional racism why not draw attention to a specific institution. Which institution is racist? Obviously racism is evil and everyone should stand up against it, but its about time the Democrats put away slogans like "White Privilege" and "Institutional racism" point out the problems and then sit down to fix them in a manner that does not effect the liberty of others.

You want to talk about laws? Okay sure! You say its institutional racism that crack is dealt with in a more harsh manner than cocaine because crack is found in minority neighborhoods? Did you know weed is classed higher than both of these drugs? Crack is also considered more dangerous than cocaine simply because it is smoked. That sounds less like institutional racism and more like the FDA is incompetent when it comes to classifying drugs.

If you can link the actual law that says what you claim about renting, I would be impressed and I would actively seek to shut that law down.

"Not to mention that slavery is one of the largest injustices the United States has imposed on its citizens and the government nor the United Nations have required any sort of reparations for slavery in the passed as have been done with other countries in situations much less egregious and grueling as this."
Yes slavery was bad, I get it. I would never enslave a person and I hope no one in the future ever will. This idea that the United States imposed slavery on its citizens is an absolute lie. You have to know that right? There were slaves before the United States even was the United States. No country that I could even attempt to find has ever paid reparations for slavery. Ask the Japanese to pay the Chinese for that time they invaded China and took slaves instead of enslaving their own people as they usually did, see where that gets you. Ask the Egyptians to pay the Jews for the time they used Jewish slaves to build the pyramids. I mean you can honestly think that Great Britain and by extension America had the worst cases of slavery in the history of the world, you'd still be wrong.

I addressed this earlier. You're able to learn about history, acknowledge it's existence, teach it, advocate for knowledge of it, etc. without idolizing and putting up monuments to honor the evil figures in it. It is possible to go throughout school in the elementary, middle, and high school levels and get a basis for history and even choose to pursue it further in university if you wish and, I'll say it again, without having to put up monuments to honor the villains of history.

I disagree with you fundamentally on your characterization of people you have no history with or knowledge about.

I can't speak for everywhere in the US, but I can speak for what's happening in my hometown.

For us, there's been a large movement by our mayor and the other leaders of our city to take down the statues that are owned by the city. They removed them, and are now storing them until they can move them into a museum. This has satisfied the largest amount of people possible really.

A lot of people have problems with the statue because the view it as "glorifying" the south or the leaders that fought for states' rights and slavery as the most prominent right. Statues in public here are generally reserved for heroes, famous authors/poets, and people who contributed significantly to our city or state's history. We weren't part of the confederacy, so the confederate statues don't match that idea. Museums on the other hand we have to show all of history. The point of a museum is to learn, and so they aren't afraid to have statues of leaders or memorabilia from hate groups.

I think that's really where the distinction is. If you destroy the statues outright, you're revising history. If you move them to a more appropriate place so people can learn, you're preserving the history and the sanctity of being a statue.

oh and... it turns out that Trump and most of us on the right were correct about it not just stopping with Confederate statues

oh and... it turns out that Trump and most of us on the right were correct about it not just stopping with Confederate statues

We're just going to have to agree to disagree @Mavi. Now that classes have started I don't have the free time to continue to debate all of these points going back and forth. I still believe that there's a place for confederate statues like in museums, but out as monuments to those who fought and stood for what America doesn't represent, I disagree with. We are able to learn from and celebrate our history without putting up monuments in honor of those who attempted to tear the U.S. as it was apart.

If its voted on and passed then sure, put em in. Most people don't seem to care though. It's just senseless identity politics by Democrats to throw the civil war Democrats under the bus to fit their narrative of the right being the racists. We could be talking about education or infrastructure but now the right and left are going nuts about statues Democrats had the last 8 years to do something about :^) 

If its voted on and passed then sure, put em in. Most people don't seem to care though. It's just senseless identity politics by Democrats to throw the civil war Democrats under the bus to fit their narrative of the right being the racists. We could be talking about education or infrastructure but now the right and left are going nuts about statues Democrats had the last 8 years to do something about :^)

I don't know why you always come back to "everything is the Democrats fault." This is the fault of both sides of the aisle. Donald Trump and the right advocating to keep all statues and claiming that bringing them down is "erasing history" is ridiculous and those on the left saying that a broader range of statues of Founding Fathers and so on is ridiculous as well.