Who do you have to kill to get a statue around here?

Hey, folks, it's Nidal Hasan pictured here, the United States officer who betrayed his oath to the Constitution he had sworn to defend against  all enemies, foreign and domestic, and turning traitor, treasonously killed 13 fellow American soldiers at Ft. Hood!

He's upset with Robert E. Lee, the United States officer who betrayed his oath to the Constitution he had sworn to defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and turning traitor, treasonously killed 600,000 fellow American soldiers.

Why is he upset?

Because Lee gets all these statues, and Hasan only gets a prison cell.

"But...but...Amicable Anarchist, Nidal Hasan was fighting for the cause of Islamo-fascism!"

Yeah.  So no statue for him.  Because now all of a sudden you don't mind there being no statues, you figure that history and heritage can get by without monuments when it's an Islamic guy.

But Lee was fighting for the cause of chattel slavery, so how was that better?  And before you cry out "State's rights", yeah, he was fighting for State's rights.

The State's right to legal slavery.

And no, this is not about the "slippery slope" of us getting rid of $20 bills because a slave owner is on them.  Andrew Jackson was known for other things, the "slave owning" was an incidental.  He's on there for being a President, not a slave owner.

Robert E. Lee is LITERALLY in the position of Nidal Hasan.  He is not truly known for anything but his treason against the United States and his facility in killing far more U.S. soldiers than even Hitler managed to.  It's not like he invented corn, but oh yeah, then had some slaves.  Nope.

Nor is Nidal Hasan known for anything but his treason against the United States and his facility in killing 13 soldiers.

Both did so for reasons of "conscience", as if they wrestling with their pwecious-wecious consciences excuses them from their honor and their oath and the law!  Both did so for causes clearly unpopular at the time.  Both did so for causes that were at war with the United States of America.

So why Lee?  Why him and not Hasan?  Is it because Lee killed 599,987 more young men?  Is it because he married into his money and bungled his father-in-law's estate?  Is it for his not freeing his father-in-law's slaves and when some tried to run off, capturing them, jailing them, then selling them to a slave trader that would "have them do their duty" with "firmness" for his financial benefit?

Is it for how prettily he spoke, no doubt with a tear in his manly eye, about how his "honor" compelled him to slaughter so many American teens upon the alter of that supposed "honor"?  An "honor" defined by oath breaking and treason, mayhem and murder?

Ahh, what a darling little martyr Lee was!  How thickly did he lay it on with a war torn nation that would swallow anything for peace!  The slave-owner who opposed slavery, the man of honor who had none, the loyal patriot who betrayed his oath, the lover of his countrymen who killed more of them than any in history!

Does someone wish to pipe up - after a hasty google search - with some over-inflated account of him having participated in our interminable skirmishes and wars with Mexico?  99% of you not knowing of any of those at this moment?  Good luck.  Apologists in vain try to make him of some note before the war, when in truth he was of no such note.

The key difference in the men boils down to two.  Lee killed FAR more men for his "honor" than Nidal Hasan did.  Lee's cause was that of blacks being slaves, Hasan wanted all to be slaves to Allah.

Which then are we giving Lee the statues for?  That he killed more poor American teens, or that owning blacks is moral?

Or are we, after all, going to be told that it was for his great triumph in marching from Veracruz or mapping parts of Florida?

A Talk in the Park

An African American father and his son are walking through a park.  They see a statue of General Robert E. Lee.

Son:  Who's that, Dad?

Father:  General Robert E. Lee.

Son:  Teacher said that statues are for great men, was he a great man?

Father:  Many think so.

Son:  What did he do?

Father:  Remember that Civil War you learned about?

Son:  Where our ancestors got their freedom?

Father:  Yes, that one.  This man fought in it.

Son:  So he helped us get our freedom?

Father:  No, he wanted us to stay slaves.

Son:  I don't understand.  He fought against the United States?

Father:  Yes.  He had been an officer in the U.S. Army, and he turned traitor and betrayed his oath.  He helped his home state secede and rebel against the Constitution he had sworn to uphold and defend.

Son:  But this is the United States, why is there a statue of him?  What did he do that was so great?

Father:  His only greatness lies in how well he fought for the right for he and his friends to keep our ancestors in chains.  He did nothing else of note besides that.

Son:  No inventions, no discoveries?

Father:  No.

Son:  Maybe it's for how great an officer he was on the side of the U.S.?

Father:  No, the only thing he did of note as a U.S. citizen was betray his country.

Son:  Then I don't understand.  Do we put up statues of all men who betray and fight against our nation?

Father:  No, son, just those who fought for the right to own you and I.  British, Germans, Iraqis - we erect no statues to the valor of their Generals.  Just the Generals who fought and killed to keep us slaves.

Son:  Does this mean that America is still racist, like Uncle Jim always says at Thanksgiving?

Father:  That's hard to say.  On the one hand, most who like these statues would never dream of whipping or owning or discriminating against any of us.  They seem to identify the statues, and that Confederate flag you see on bumperstickers, with a "Screw you" to their own government.  It makes them feel rebellious and naughty, like maybe they are the freer for being able to do something that the government of the U.S. might not like.

Son:  But on the other hand?

Father:  The majority who feel that way have overlooked that the racists - the real racists, in the KKK and other white supremacy groups - use the Confederate flag and the Confederate statues as symbols of hope, hope in a day in which you and I and mom will be at the least second class citizens, if not out and out slaves.  They overlook that those statues were put up, not in honor of those men's achievements, but to make our people in your granddad's time know our place.  This one, for instance, was erected in the nineteen sixties, during the Civil Rights riots.

Son:  So these statues are so we know our place?

Father:  Regrettably, no matter how ignorant of that many are, or how kind and good they may well be, that is why these statues exist.  The statues are not of great philosophers or inventors from this state, or from the United States, but of men who used to whip and beat and rape and kill us, and find it good and Christian to do so.

Son:  I'm going to spray paint it tonight!

Father:  *sharply*  You'll do no such thing!  We've more burdens than a stupid statue to overcome.  You leave all that to the liberal white college students, they can afford to be arrested, you can't!  Your granddad paid taxes to maintain this, I'm paying taxes to maintain this, but hopefully, one day, with enough education, you won't have to pay taxes to maintain this perpetual symbol of our misery.

Son:  Okay, Dad.  But one way or another, I'll never pay that tax.

Father:  Oh, hush, it's almost dinner time.  You'll pay it because it's just the property tax and the sales tax that goes to a million things, including this shameful monument.  Or are you planning on being homeless and never buying food?

Son:  *laughing*  No, I guess not!  But still...

Beautiful Statues

Donald Trump - and others - are worried about the loss of "beautiful" statues. "Beautiful" Confederate statues. In parks and courtyards around the United States.

What a strange view of history and life. This assumes that if we remove all the statues of those who fought and killed to establish a State's right to legalize slavery, that there will be no statues left.

No one to commemorate. No one to honor. No one to memorialize.

Who else could we possibly memorialize?  

No inventors in America to erect statues to. None of our own Generals to memorialize. None of our own heroes - the parks will be bare now, because we can't show statues of traitors and turncoats.

Golly, and what of the children? No longer will they get to see those who betrayed their own nation, but instead will have to get by with "only" statues of Presidents and Peacemakers, Heroes and Discoverers. What a twisted and incomplete view of history our children will get, when they don't get to see the enemies of our nation so honored.

Oh, but I hear some muttering about "slippery slopes". But it's not actually about removing statues of all who owned slaves or who were less than perfect, the way the slippery slope folks love to pretend.

It is about removing the statues of those who's ONLY claim to fame was fighting for slavery, though.

George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were known for other things, obviously. They were Presidents and Founders who were as an aside, slave owners. Presidents and Founders first. Slave owners secondly.

But General Lee was only known for fighting for the wrong side, the side that wanted the "freedom" to own others. General Lee was the man who betrayed his oath and allegiance, and turned traitor to the Constitution he had sworn to uphold and defend.

He was not an American hero, who just happened to have regrettably owned some slaves. No, he was a fighter for the right to own slaves, and any other good or bad qualities like loving puppies and living off of and spending down his infirm wife's money was secondary to that.

Dumb times over, folks. Those statues are predominantly public statues on public land - publicly supported. And the thin fiction of "history and heritage" doesn't cut it, when we have no statues of our British enemies laying about.

For an African American to have to in any way pay to memorialize with a statue a man who tried to keep his ancestors - and thus himself - in bondage is insane. We should as readily then force Jewish Americans to pay a tax to erect statues of Rommel and Himmler.

You know, so as to let the German Americans have their "heritage".

It's nonsense. Statues are only and ever for those we admire and honor. To advocate for such statues is to advocate for what those men stood for. But hey, by all means, let the President enlighten us on why he thinks Robert E. Lee needs to be honored, when Frederic Douglas is not. Or why we need to give homage to Jefferson Davis, but not to Booker T. Washington.

Those the President defends stood for slavery. A clean, short word that stood and stands for a showcase of horrors. Rape. Torture. Kidnapping. Murder. And all of that institutionalized. Legalized. And preached from southern pulpits as good and moral.

And all now defended by the man who's grandfather was arrested for marching with the Klan. And who condemns the "violence" of defending against racism as equivalent to the violence of racism, as if to raise your hand against those who would lynch you makes you as bad as they.

State's rights? Seriously? If any who go on about history and heritage ever cracked scholarly texts on those issues, they'd learn quickly enough that there was only one right those State's wanted.

Hint: It wasn't to set drinking ages.

"Heritage" - right?

I have to say, they sure take their "history" and "heritage" seriously in Charlottesville, Virginia. I mean, because that's all these Confederate flags represent, right?

Three dead. But at least we've now established that it was Professor J.T. Renner's doctoral thesis on "The Definitive Impact of Bessemer Steel on Post-Civil War Northern Industrial Advancement" that is the definitive analysis of those turbulent times and not that intellectual poser Dr. Remington J. Bindler's "Bessemer Steel and it's Impact on Northern Growth" trite analysis!

History and Heritage buffs vindicated!

An academic conference.  Right?

Pop Quiz

The President of the United States wants to declare opiate abuse as a national emergency. This means he will:

A. Tell the U.S. Army to stop protecting and making deals with the warlords in Afghanistan that grow the poppies that make heroin.

B. Push through legislation mandating Federally funded treatment centers freely available to all.

C. Push for jobs programs that give hope to the lower classes such that the factors that oft times drive such to drug abuse never take place.

D. Increase funding to law enforcement and prisons while advocating sterner sentences that disproportionately impact minorities and the poor.

Spoiler Alert

Guilty

I wonder what part of "illegal" Sheriff Joe "Four Star General" Arpaio didn't understand?

But no, really. This guy is doing that thing where even though the authorities said that what he did was illegal, he's disagreeing and so not only still did what they told him not to, but is now fighting it every step of the way.

Which is kind of funny when you think about it. First, don't get me wrong, I think he has the right to do what he did - ignore the law that he felt was unjust and then fight the authorities tooth and nail so as to get away with it.

But see, that's what those who crossed the border into Arizona had been doing. Ignoring the border regulations that they did not agree with and fighting the authorities over that every way they knew how.

So what's the difference?

Because, I mean, from where I sit, I can't see any difference at all. But I suppose to him it's pretty black and white.