I want to test whether white people really mean what they say. Black people should have a statue of Bin Laden commissioned and place it in American cities and see how they react to it. Is anybody buying the bullshyt about these statues being historical and therefore should be preserved?
Would white people say a statue of Bin Laden was just history and should be preserved?
- Thread starter acbjr22
- Start date
I always thought a better analogy was a statue of Benedict Arnold. I mean why not? He was also one of the country's top generals, and won key battles for this countrys independence, but then he committed treason by defecting to the British army during the revolutionary war, similar to Robert E Lee. But he's still one of our founding fathers and yet we don't have any statues of him now do we? I wonder why that is 
Yeah a statue of Bin laden is a bad comparison solely because he wasn't an American and there's no way to paint he did anything positive for the country. Now the Benedict Arnold and Nat Turner are far better comparisons. I feel safe in saying the answer is hell naw. They would block that shyt from even happening. Even better than that an Obama statue in this political climate would probably cause white people to just say fukk it and we would be in civil war.
lol ..made cartoons, countless effigies of him and shyt all over him..
fukk crackaerica!!
GPBear
The Tape Crusader
Or how if Antifa counter-protestors swinging clubs around is considered the impetus for a neo-nazi domestic terrorist to run over twenty peoplee...
Then is the US's hyper-aggressive foreign policy to blame for the foreign jihadist terrorists?
Then is the US's hyper-aggressive foreign policy to blame for the foreign jihadist terrorists?
Well there is that Lenin statue in Seattle but I guess that's kind of a different situation.
US should have treated the Confederacy like Germany treated Nazis and made it illegal to do anything with the flag/leaders outside of very specific historical contexts from the jump. It never made sense to let the losing side treat a group seceding from the Union in order to keep their state rights (
) to slavery, to the point of causing a war, as heroes and integrate the LOSING SIDE's flags and iconography into the newly reunited states' imagery.
Like
how did that shyt happen in the first place? How wasn't anyone charged for treason? King George III statue got torn down for a reason. Imagine London putting up statutes of Washington and Jefferson in 1782 
.
US should have treated the Confederacy like Germany treated Nazis and made it illegal to do anything with the flag/leaders outside of very specific historical contexts from the jump. It never made sense to let the losing side treat a group seceding from the Union in order to keep their state rights (
) to slavery, to the point of causing a war, as heroes and integrate the LOSING SIDE's flags and iconography into the newly reunited states' imagery. Like
how did that shyt happen in the first place? How wasn't anyone charged for treason? King George III statue got torn down for a reason. Imagine London putting up statutes of Washington and Jefferson in 1782 .