first it was taking down monuments to traitors. now...

[John Galt]

[exploited]

Everyone here is fully aware that consent cannot be given under duress, so saying the Natives agreed to it, when the alternative was being massacred by settlers and losing the land anyways, is just a sloppy form of historical revisionism.

There is no excusing or justifying his decision to sign that bill into law. You can say "times were different," but that is also true of the modern age and is the type of argument that can be repurposed for any conceivable position.

In any case, you have made numerous claims that are factually untrue and very illogical, i.e. history being destroyed and "treason" being a major concern for a nation that idolizes traitors. Note that this tactic is identical to SJWism, where emotion is allowed to overrule logic, yet logic is still considered important enough to require a thin veneer of bullshit masquerading as a rationale. But there really isn't. "Muh statue" is merely an appeal to tradition, which is again just a fallacy.

[Spider]

[JDHURF]

It's unfortunate to find that Galt is actually serious and it's further unfortunate that Spider has joined in support of Galt's abhorrently fallacious positions. I'm glad to see Kane and exploited sufficiently manage the correct rejoinders. Saz too provided a cogent satirical analogy.

The vulgar support of a statue of an individual responsible for his role in the long running crusade of stealing native lands, disrupting tribal organizational systems and genocide. Since the 16th century CE the conquistadors and colonials massacred hundreds of millions of natives, literally. McKinley administered the subversion and dismantling of the Five Civilized Tribes and took no action when tribes were assaulted and killed.

The city council voted to remove the statue in response to the citizens' movement to do so. Such is democracy actually functioning. The statue is not being demolished, it is being relocated to private caretakers. This is a fully commendable and appropriate measure. Arguments to the contrary are unprincipled, reactionary hysterics.

[Spider]

Okay, hurf. Which historical figure would you accept a statue of? Who was it that lived in whenever that is acceptable to your 21st century standards?

Don't you see how fallacious and hypocritical your whole position is?

[JDHURF]

Plenty of statues of historical figures are acceptable in the appropriate location. A statue of McKinley, who administered the subversion and dismantling of the Five Civilized Tribes and observed slaughters of natives in silence, in a location in which precisely such acts occurred, is inappropriate and has been opposed by the citizens and democratically decided to be removed. The supporting of this is a perfectly principled position.

Allow me to elaborate the position: it is not merely an opposition to the existence of such statuaries, but about the support for the democratic will of the people in opposing heinous locations of certain abhorrent statues in severely inappropriate places.

Further, McKinley was opposed by many during his depredations, so you cannot assert the fallacious argument that opposition to McKinley and the statue is merely the product of the 21st century. It is an appalling shame that it has taken so many centuries and decades for the people to so excruciatingly incrementally succeed in opposition to the racist, genocidal powers.

[Spider]

Who, hurf?

Because unless you're looking to build a statue of someone's saintly and long-suffering grandmother, I'm betting I could poke holes in the wholesome veneer of just about any historical figure.

That's why this is such a slippery slope. Basically any figure we've got a statue of in this country and revere for whatever reason also has the nasty stuff people would rather not talk about. This remains true around the world. So stop being a hypocrite and find a consistent standard.

My opinion remains that if the statue in question is on public property and a majority of the public wants it gone, gone it should be. That much is beyond obvious and goes without saying, your hysterical assumptions and preconceptions notwithstanding.

[JDHURF]

[John Galt]

[John Galt]