Honoring Our Heroes

[xxlt]

Just heard on the fake news that some Southern states honor Robert E. Lee on Martin Luther King day. Related story here:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/arkansas-tries-strip-gen-lee-martin-luther-king-154638579.html

I was wondering, since it is obviously racist not to honor Lee and since it is obviously offensive that we don't honor other like-minded American heroes, when we are going to water the ground with the blood of enough tyrants so we can have days to honor the following American heroes?

-John Wilkes Booth
-Sirhan Sirhan
-James Earl Ray
-Lee Harvey Oswald
-John Hinkley
-Emperor Hirohito
-Adolf Hitler
-Benito Mussolini
-Field Marshal Erwin Rommel
-General Hideki Tojo

This is by no means an exhaustive list. Feel free to add nominees for honoring with a day of observance.

It does seem like the heroic men on this list rise to or beyond the level of General Lee and merit honor every bit as much as he does. It is important, as one elected South Carolina official once observed, for people to know what side America is on. So, let's get crackin' and get these men honored!

Who's with me? And if you aren't with me, why on earth not? And will you at least stand up for good ol' General Lee?

[Belsnickel]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee%E2%80%93Jackson_Day

[xxlt]

(03-20-2017, 01:28 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee%E2%80%93Jackson_Day

USA!USA!USA!

[BengalHawk62]

What about Jefferson Davis?  or Henry Wirz?

[Millhouse]

Lee was far more honorable of anyone mentioned on that list with maybe the exception of Rommel. But his greatest misfortune was that he was born in Virginia, and was a product of the times of his state as he would own slaves himself through his wife. He was against secession though and was not a proponent of it, but that wasnt enough to persuade him to fight against his own state after they seceded as he couldnt raise his hand against Virginia when it came down to it.

Now should he be honored on MLK day, no. Should Lee be typecasted as a historical bad guy, no. When his army invaded the north, they were forbidden to rape and murder the northern civilians, unlike what the northern armies did when they were invading the south. And when the time came to surrender, he did so honorably and urged the rest of the south to do so peacefully as he backed President's Johnson's reconstruction plan.

[Dill]

(03-20-2017, 03:20 PM)Millhouse Wrote: Lee was far more honorable of anyone mentioned on that list with maybe the exception of Rommel. But his greatest misfortune was that he was born in Virginia, and was a product of the times of his state as he would own slaves himself through his wife. He was against secession though and was not a proponent of it, but that wasnt enough to persuade him to fight against his own state after they seceded as he couldnt raise his hand against Virginia when it came down to it.

Now should he be honored on MLK day, no. Should Lee be typecasted as a historical bad guy, no. When his army invaded the north, they were forbidden to rape and murder the northern civilians, unlike what the northern armies did when they were invading the south. And when the time came to surrender, he did so honorably and urged the rest of the south to do so peacefully as he backed President's Johnson's reconstruction plan.

As a "product of his times," Lee certainly forced his slaves to work for him as long as he could. He does not seem to care whom he got them from.

Lee's treatment of white, northern civilians was indeed very respectful. But what happened to northern blacks caught fleeing before the Army of Virginia in 1863?

Seems a little unfair to compare "northern armies" behavior to Lee's behavior.  What happens if we compare armies to armies? Or Lee to Grant or Lincoln, who freed the slaves? And by the way, I am aware of no "northern army" not forbidden to rape and murder civilians.

The real question is whether Lee should be held forth as a neo-Confederate icon, his "honor" used to revise our history of the "Great War of Northern Aggression."  That is what is at stake in celebrating him on MLK day, and also what is at stake in "honor comparisons" between the north and south.  

I say no.

[xxlt]

(03-20-2017, 03:05 PM)BengalHawk62 Wrote: What about Jefferson Davis?  or Henry Wirz?

Now we're talking!

[xxlt]

(03-20-2017, 03:20 PM)Millhouse Wrote: Lee was far more honorable of anyone mentioned on that list with maybe the exception of Rommel. But his greatest misfortune was that he was born in Virginia, and was a product of the times of his state as he would own slaves himself through his wife. He was against secession though and was not a proponent of it, but that wasnt enough to persuade him to fight against his own state after they seceded as he couldnt raise his hand against Virginia when it came down to it.

Now should he be honored on MLK day, no. Should Lee be typecasted as a historical bad guy, no. When his army invaded the north, they were forbidden to rape and murder the northern civilians, unlike what the northern armies did when they were invading the south. And when the time came to surrender, he did so honorably and urged the rest of the south to do so peacefully as he backed President's Johnson's reconstruction plan.

Well with nuanced and fact based posts like this what the hell kind of chance does this thread, nay this entire subforum, have? Sir, you have thrown down the gauntlet! And it now lies there in pieces. I shall have my house servant pick it up, repair it, and return it to your custody post haste! Good day!

[xxlt]

(03-20-2017, 04:06 PM)Dill Wrote: As a "product of his times," Lee certainly forced his slaves to work for him as long as he could. He does not seem to care whom he got them from.

Lee's treatment of white, northern civilians was indeed very respectful. But what happened to northern blacks caught fleeing before the Army of Virginia in 1863?

Seems a little unfair to compare "northern armies" behavior to Lee's behavior.  What happens if we compare armies to armies? Or Lee to Grant or Lincoln, who freed the slaves? And by the way, I am aware of no "northern army" not forbidden to rape and murder civilians.

The real question is whether Lee should be held forth as a neo-Confederate icon, his "honor" used to revise our history of the "Great War of Northern Aggression."  That is what is at stake in celebrating him on MLK day, and also what is at stake in "honor comparisons" between the north and south.  

I say no.

Millhouse said, "No," too, to be fair.

My bigger concern is why Millhouse? Is he paying homage to Bart's little weiner friend or America's icon of integrity and leadership, Richard Milhous Nixon? Or is it something even more sinister - both?

[*bfine32*]

Yelp, if we can honor Christopher Columbus, we can honor anybody.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-20-2017, 03:20 PM)Millhouse Wrote: Lee was far more honorable of anyone mentioned on that list with maybe the exception of Rommel. But his greatest misfortune was that he was born in Virginia, and was a product of the times of his state as he would own slaves himself through his wife. He was against secession though and was not a proponent of it, but that wasnt enough to persuade him to fight against his own state after they seceded as he couldnt raise his hand against Virginia when it came down to it.

Now should he be honored on MLK day, no. Should Lee be typecasted as a historical bad guy, no. When his army invaded the north, they were forbidden to rape and murder the northern civilians, unlike what the northern armies did when they were invading the south. And when the time came to surrender, he did so honorably and urged the rest of the south to do so peacefully as he backed President's Johnson's reconstruction plan.

The comparison to Rommel is a good one.  As a career military man, especially in a country in which the military and political system are inviolately separate, how do you reconcile your loyalty and commitment to a cause that you find to be unjust?  Both men did their best to maintain personal integrity under difficult circumstances.

As to OP, celebrating anything Confederacy related on MLK day smacks of either stupidity or, far more likely, deliberate provocation.

[xxlt]

(03-20-2017, 05:57 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The comparison to Rommel is a good one.  As a career military man, especially in a country in which the military and political system are inviolately separate, how do you reconcile your loyalty and commitment to a cause that you find to be unjust?  Both men did their best to maintain personal integrity under difficult circumstances.

As to OP, celebrating anything Confederacy related on MLK day smacks of either stupidity or, far more likely, deliberate provocation.

[Millhouse]

(03-20-2017, 05:30 PM)xxlt Wrote: Millhouse said, "No," too, to be fair.

My bigger concern is why Millhouse? Is he paying homage to Bart's little weiner friend or America's icon of integrity and leadership, Richard Milhous Nixon? Or is it something even more sinister - both?

Neither, just an old high school nickname actually.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

I find it interesting that the OP didn't mention Stalin, Lenin, Amin, Pol Pol, Mao, Castro and others.

I'm not saying that days celebrating any evil is needed or wanted, I'm just saying its interesting.

[Belsnickel]

(03-20-2017, 02:08 PM)xxlt Wrote: USA!USA!USA!

o7

[Dill]

(03-20-2017, 05:30 PM)xxlt Wrote: Millhouse said, "No," too, to be fair.

My bigger concern is why Millhouse? Is he paying homage to Bart's little weiner friend or America's icon of integrity and leadership, Richard Milhous Nixon? Or is it something even more sinister - both?

I don't necessarily disagree with Milhouse. I just found the presentation a little ambiguous and wanted to nudge his point away from any defense of the Confederacy.

[xxlt]

(03-20-2017, 06:04 PM)Millhouse Wrote: Neither, just an old high school nickname actually.

A likely story!

[xxlt]

(03-20-2017, 06:42 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: I find it interesting that the OP didn't mention Stalin, Lenin, Amin, Pol Pol, Mao, Castro and others.

I'm not saying that days celebrating any evil is needed or wanted, I'm just saying its interesting.

Likewise it is interesting that you have put them on the table for consideration. Well done!

[xxlt]

(03-20-2017, 10:22 PM)Dill Wrote: I don't necessarily disagree with Milhouse. I just found the presentation a little ambiguous and wanted to nudge his point away from any defense of the Confederacy.

I read your response that way, just wanted to highlight his "no," which some may have overlooked.

[Rotobeast]

Hot damn !
I can facilitate something fantastic, if any of you have access to a cloning lab.
My friend/neighbor has Robert E. Lee DNA. (hair and a gum envelope)


Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk