When will Stone Mountain be sandblasted?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

If we are worried about ruining the Artistry in Grandeur of the mural, it could be reconfigured to include people like John Lewis, MLK and Abraham Lincoln in terms of a dedication Two Georges contribution to the Civil Rights struggle. Include a light show even showing the march across the Pettus Bridge instead of Confederates Galloping on a charge against the Damn Yankees.

The wolf course meaning of stone mountains current tourists wouldn't be interested, most not even remotely, in visiting and equally monumental and artistic dedication for such a divergently different - - even though far more noble - - historical record. The vast majority of people who visit Stone Mountain do so as a pilgrimage Shrine of the Confederacy and all it stood for.

And that's probably the best argument as to why Stone Mountain needs to end as a Confederate Monument.

lol

Its just a giant tourist trap lmao right next to Atlanta. That along with some nice hiking trails and other stuff. Its literally the most visited location for Georgia tourists and there aren't hordes of White Americans thinking this is their Mecca or something.

You poor deluded Soul. Are you really so naive I still think that pernio Confederates this isn't happy place? You really think the same people would attend if they suddenly change it to a mural of MLK, John Lewis, and Abraham Lincoln? Do you really have it cluelessness unironically post at?

If you're worried about tourist Revenue, there'd be increased tourism from African Americans in Pro civil rights whites. Whitmore the point, we shouldn't give a s*** about the people who would no longer attend it wasn't about the Lost Cause.

Seriously, that is a painfully obtuse post on your part.

The vast majority of people who visit the monument do so as part of a visit to a park which includes hiking, camping, golf, lakes, a tourist train, holiday events, and other random stuff. I think it's a very safe bet these people don't care whether it's Robert E Lee or Ulysses Grant or Winfield Scott on the side of the mountain. There is nothing about Stone Mountain that would make it a magnet for some white power neo-Confederate pilgrimage. In fact, having to pay admission and wade through crowds of families makes a pretty poor spot for that.

Including very many (minority families!)

Probably fair to assume that the minority families who visit aren't Confederate sympathizers...key word being probably...

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Never. Not only would it amount to being too expensive & probably dangerous of a logistical nightmare to undertake, but there's arguably a case to be made that it should be preserved simply for its inherent artistic value & historic merit, given the carving's scale: it's still the largest bas-relief sculpture in the world, after all.

With regards to the rest of the park, though, the Confederate battle flags & statues of Confederate leaders which are littered around it should be immediately removed, as should the laser show, & all of the roads in the park which are currently named after Confederate generals should be renamed too.

I was there a couple of years ago. Other than the obligatory inclusion of an animated version of the bas-relief, there was actually no other Confederate imagery in the laser show. The Confederate imagery was fairly minimal in the theme park itself, mainly confined to the museum/bottom cable car station.

Of course it would be a lot easier to get the relief removed if it had been made more like the original conception, which included some KKK imagery in the background. By the time it was actually carved, only the three central figures were done.

(The Stone Mountain half dollar that was issued as a fund raiser, only shows Lee and Stonewall, as even in 1925, including Jeff Davis was too controversial for the U.S. Mint.)

I can't see the bas-relief being redone with a different three on horseback. If it's removed, they'd have to go to a blank slate, and that's going to require much more than sandblasting. Indeed, it it ever gets sandblasted, it would be to touch up the relief, not to destroy it.

[Badger]

If we are worried about ruining the Artistry in Grandeur of the mural, it could be reconfigured to include people like John Lewis, MLK and Abraham Lincoln in terms of a dedication Two Georges contribution to the Civil Rights struggle. Include a light show even showing the march across the Pettus Bridge instead of Confederates Galloping on a charge against the Damn Yankees.

The wolf course meaning of stone mountains current tourists wouldn't be interested, most not even remotely, in visiting and equally monumental and artistic dedication for such a divergently different - - even though far more noble - - historical record. The vast majority of people who visit Stone Mountain do so as a pilgrimage Shrine of the Confederacy and all it stood for.

And that's probably the best argument as to why Stone Mountain needs to end as a Confederate Monument.

lol

Its just a giant tourist trap lmao right next to Atlanta. That along with some nice hiking trails and other stuff. Its literally the most visited location for Georgia tourists and there aren't hordes of White Americans thinking this is their Mecca or something.

You poor deluded Soul. Are you really so naive I still think that pernio Confederates this isn't happy place? You really think the same people would attend if they suddenly change it to a mural of MLK, John Lewis, and Abraham Lincoln? Do you really have it cluelessness unironically post at?

If you're worried about tourist Revenue, there'd be increased tourism from African Americans in Pro civil rights whites. Whitmore the point, we shouldn't give a s*** about the people who would no longer attend it wasn't about the Lost Cause.

Seriously, that is a painfully obtuse post on your part.

The vast majority of people who visit the monument do so as part of a visit to a park which includes hiking, camping, golf, lakes, a tourist train, holiday events, and other random stuff. I think it's a very safe bet these people don't care whether it's Robert E Lee or Ulysses Grant or Winfield Scott on the side of the mountain. There is nothing about Stone Mountain that would make it a magnet for some white power neo-Confederate pilgrimage. In fact, having to pay admission and wade through crowds of families makes a pretty poor spot for that.

Including very many (minority families!)

Citation badly needed.

[Badger]

When the only thing you know about Stone Mountain is about 1915 film Birth of a Nation from your Film Studies gen ed class.

So educate us great unwashed as to what we're missing here.

The fact that the majority of people who visit Stone Mountain are regular tourist families who want to hike somewhere outside, see a cool laser light show or some large sculpture. Very few of the people who visit Stone Mountain now are full fledged racists.

Citation needed. Just because they're not holding cross burnings there doesn't mean that the monument itself isn't a tribute to the Confederacy and the white supremacy for which it fundamentally stood.

How about this? Why don't we carve an enormous bass relief into a mountain of Rommel and other Nazi generals, and then you try explaining to any Jewish people you run across that it's okay because a lot of people going there are just there to hike or see a light show?

There's literally no distinction in your argument, that is unless you're willing to try to seriously argue that there was somehow a material difference in the human misery and death inflicted by American slavery vs. The Holocaust. In which case, please let me get my popcorn first.

Extraordinary

Does the truth hurt? Do you have a an actual rebuttal?

[Badger]

If we are worried about ruining the Artistry in Grandeur of the mural, it could be reconfigured to include people like John Lewis, MLK and Abraham Lincoln in terms of a dedication Two Georges contribution to the Civil Rights struggle. Include a light show even showing the march across the Pettus Bridge instead of Confederates Galloping on a charge against the Damn Yankees.

The wolf course meaning of stone mountains current tourists wouldn't be interested, most not even remotely, in visiting and equally monumental and artistic dedication for such a divergently different - - even though far more noble - - historical record. The vast majority of people who visit Stone Mountain do so as a pilgrimage Shrine of the Confederacy and all it stood for.

And that's probably the best argument as to why Stone Mountain needs to end as a Confederate Monument.

If one has that sort of vision for Stone Mountain, then it could simply be carved into the mountain alongside what is already there. Nothing can excuse the destruction of what is currently there, but one can excuse an addition.

Why would nothing excuse it? Do You Weep tears about the swastika on top of the reichstag being blown up after the Allies occupied Berlin? Weren't at least as many African Americans killed from slavery and the middle passage as people who were killed even in the Holocaust? Is it because Stone mountains celebration of a  racist white supremacist Mass murdering ideology is more grandiose than the  aforementioned exploded swastika? I'd be interested in hearing the distinction.

I think a proper discussion can start when you give up treating the Confederacy as if it was some predecessor to Nazi Germany (what an unoriginal, lame, and overdone comparison), and give up treating Stone Mountain as a place of which its main contemporary purpose is some neo-Confederate pilgrimage site.

I never said a single word, or even imply, that the Confederacy was some sort of "predecessor" to Nazi Germany. They sprung from widely different cultures and causes while being united in a very undeniable - - at least for those of us with a clue - - basis in white supremacy. The fact that you have to literally put words in my mouth to defend your argument is telling indeed.

Try looking up the statistics as to number of African Americans killed in the Middle Passage. Or from being worked to death or disease the same way it have it in some places like Buchenwald. It is utterly shameful that you wipe away your own ignorance of historical statistics as "unoriginal, lame, and overdone".

It's rather apparent now your opposition to removing this monument comes more from looking back that's slavery and reacting with a shrugful "Hey, mistakes were made, but was it really all that bad?" However, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt in assuming that it's not because you consider millions of murdered African Americans less important than millions of murdered Jews, Romani, homosexuals, and leftists, but rather You're simply just ignorant about just  how many people American slavery actually killed. Ignorance is curable with education, though, so there's hope for you yet.

[Fight for Trump]

If we are worried about ruining the Artistry in Grandeur of the mural, it could be reconfigured to include people like John Lewis, MLK and Abraham Lincoln in terms of a dedication Two Georges contribution to the Civil Rights struggle. Include a light show even showing the march across the Pettus Bridge instead of Confederates Galloping on a charge against the Damn Yankees.

The wolf course meaning of stone mountains current tourists wouldn't be interested, most not even remotely, in visiting and equally monumental and artistic dedication for such a divergently different - - even though far more noble - - historical record. The vast majority of people who visit Stone Mountain do so as a pilgrimage Shrine of the Confederacy and all it stood for.

And that's probably the best argument as to why Stone Mountain needs to end as a Confederate Monument.

lol

Its just a giant tourist trap lmao right next to Atlanta. That along with some nice hiking trails and other stuff. Its literally the most visited location for Georgia tourists and there aren't hordes of White Americans thinking this is their Mecca or something.

You poor deluded Soul. Are you really so naive I still think that pernio Confederates this isn't happy place? You really think the same people would attend if they suddenly change it to a mural of MLK, John Lewis, and Abraham Lincoln? Do you really have it cluelessness unironically post at?

If you're worried about tourist Revenue, there'd be increased tourism from African Americans in Pro civil rights whites. Whitmore the point, we shouldn't give a s*** about the people who would no longer attend it wasn't about the Lost Cause.

Seriously, that is a painfully obtuse post on your part.

The vast majority of people who visit the monument do so as part of a visit to a park which includes hiking, camping, golf, lakes, a tourist train, holiday events, and other random stuff. I think it's a very safe bet these people don't care whether it's Robert E Lee or Ulysses Grant or Winfield Scott on the side of the mountain. There is nothing about Stone Mountain that would make it a magnet for some white power neo-Confederate pilgrimage. In fact, having to pay admission and wade through crowds of families makes a pretty poor spot for that.

Including very many (minority families!)

Citation badly needed.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2017/09/19/stone-mountain-the-ugly-past-and-fraught-future-of-the-biggest-confederate-monument/

Demographic changes in DeKalb County mean that a majority of visitors on any given day are African Americans or immigrants.

“Most people who come don’t seem to think about it at all,” said John Bankhead, spokesman for the Stone Mountain Memorial Association.

Most visitors interviewed recently agreed: Confederate history hadn’t been on their minds as they rode the gondola or the scenic railroad. But the park has been the site of white-supremacist rallies in recent years. The memorial association denied a KKK group a permit to burn a cross at the park as recently as August, citing public safety concerns.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

If we are worried about ruining the Artistry in Grandeur of the mural, it could be reconfigured to include people like John Lewis, MLK and Abraham Lincoln in terms of a dedication Two Georges contribution to the Civil Rights struggle. Include a light show even showing the march across the Pettus Bridge instead of Confederates Galloping on a charge against the Damn Yankees.

The wolf course meaning of stone mountains current tourists wouldn't be interested, most not even remotely, in visiting and equally monumental and artistic dedication for such a divergently different - - even though far more noble - - historical record. The vast majority of people who visit Stone Mountain do so as a pilgrimage Shrine of the Confederacy and all it stood for.

And that's probably the best argument as to why Stone Mountain needs to end as a Confederate Monument.

If one has that sort of vision for Stone Mountain, then it could simply be carved into the mountain alongside what is already there. Nothing can excuse the destruction of what is currently there, but one can excuse an addition.

Why would nothing excuse it? Do You Weep tears about the swastika on top of the reichstag being blown up after the Allies occupied Berlin? Weren't at least as many African Americans killed from slavery and the middle passage as people who were killed even in the Holocaust? Is it because Stone mountains celebration of a  racist white supremacist Mass murdering ideology is more grandiose than the  aforementioned exploded swastika? I'd be interested in hearing the distinction.

I think a proper discussion can start when you give up treating the Confederacy as if it was some predecessor to Nazi Germany (what an unoriginal, lame, and overdone comparison), and give up treating Stone Mountain as a place of which its main contemporary purpose is some neo-Confederate pilgrimage site.

I never said a single word, or even imply, that the Confederacy was some sort of "predecessor" to Nazi Germany. They sprung from widely different cultures and causes while being united in a very undeniable - - at least for those of us with a clue - - basis in white supremacy. The fact that you have to literally put words in my mouth to defend your argument is telling indeed.

Try looking up the statistics as to number of African Americans killed in the Middle Passage. Or from being worked to death or disease the same way it have it in some places like Buchenwald. It is utterly shameful that you wipe away your own ignorance of historical statistics as "unoriginal, lame, and overdone".

It's rather apparent now your opposition to removing this monument comes more from looking back that's slavery and reacting with a shrugful "Hey, mistakes were made, but was it really all that bad?" However, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt in assuming that it's not because you consider millions of murdered African Americans less important than millions of murdered Jews, Romani, homosexuals, and leftists, but rather You're simply just ignorant about just  how many people American slavery actually killed. Ignorance is curable with education, though, so there's hope for you yet.

I mean, I guess you didn't directly claim the Confederacy was a direct predecessor, but you are guilty as charged with having a perspective jaundiced by the fashions of the present.
To compare the deaths of those who died in the triangular trade to those who died in concentration camps misses the time frames in question, the differing landscapes politically, the differing social mores and causes and motivations of the actors involved, and so on.
Yes, quite a lot of people died in the triangular trade. You are correct to say that.
However:

Patrick Manning estimates that about 12 million slaves entered the Atlantic trade between the 16th and 19th century, but about 1.5 million died on board ship. About 10.5 million slaves arrived in the Americas. Besides the slaves who died on the Middle Passage, more Africans likely died during the slave raids in Africa and forced marches to ports. Manning estimates that 4 million died inside Africa after capture, and many more died young. Manning's estimate covers the 12 million who were originally destined for the Atlantic, as well as the 6 million destined for Asian slave markets and the 8 million destined for African markets.[9] Of the slaves shipped to The Americas, the largest share went to Brazil and the Caribbean.[94]

We are talking likely at least 5.5 million dead over a time span of roughly 300 years, while the Holocaust had a total of 5.9 million Jewish victims, with an additional 10 million non-Jewish victims of Nazi persecution in 12 years of the Holocaust Era (per Wikipedia).
This isn't even getting into differing intents; the triangular trade was brutal, evil, and inhumane, but its ultimate aim was enslavement, not wholesale destruction of the group known as black West Africans along with their descendants. If they were wholesale destroyed and killed, they wouldn't have been able to be used as slaves, and Europeans would not have wasted money buying slaves from West African elites ready to sell their own people out for a quick buck.
Seems to me you accidently wound up minimizing the Holocaust. I know that's not your intent, so I will assume you simply harbored ignorance. Ignorance is curable with education, you're right. I hope this post served to educate you.
P.S. Please don't accuse me of having subpar empathy for those sent on slave ships sent to America, it's a woefully bad reading of me as a person.
EDIT: Manning's total refers to slave markets everywhere in Africa; so I don't know the exact tally for those who died in the triangular trade. And the 12 million tally in any case are for all the Americas, not just the Antebellum South.

[Horus]

Tons of non white Atlantans go to Stone Mountain every day to hike, have family get togethers or participate in other outdoor activities.

As for the carving, I don't have a problem with it being sandblasted, but I'd much rather we put a bunch of famous black Georgians in a circle around the traitors, smiling and laughing.

[Badger]

If we are worried about ruining the Artistry in Grandeur of the mural, it could be reconfigured to include people like John Lewis, MLK and Abraham Lincoln in terms of a dedication Two Georges contribution to the Civil Rights struggle. Include a light show even showing the march across the Pettus Bridge instead of Confederates Galloping on a charge against the Damn Yankees.

The wolf course meaning of stone mountains current tourists wouldn't be interested, most not even remotely, in visiting and equally monumental and artistic dedication for such a divergently different - - even though far more noble - - historical record. The vast majority of people who visit Stone Mountain do so as a pilgrimage Shrine of the Confederacy and all it stood for.

And that's probably the best argument as to why Stone Mountain needs to end as a Confederate Monument.

lol

Its just a giant tourist trap lmao right next to Atlanta. That along with some nice hiking trails and other stuff. Its literally the most visited location for Georgia tourists and there aren't hordes of White Americans thinking this is their Mecca or something.

You poor deluded Soul. Are you really so naive I still think that pernio Confederates this isn't happy place? You really think the same people would attend if they suddenly change it to a mural of MLK, John Lewis, and Abraham Lincoln? Do you really have it cluelessness unironically post at?

If you're worried about tourist Revenue, there'd be increased tourism from African Americans in Pro civil rights whites. Whitmore the point, we shouldn't give a s*** about the people who would no longer attend it wasn't about the Lost Cause.

Seriously, that is a painfully obtuse post on your part.

The vast majority of people who visit the monument do so as part of a visit to a park which includes hiking, camping, golf, lakes, a tourist train, holiday events, and other random stuff. I think it's a very safe bet these people don't care whether it's Robert E Lee or Ulysses Grant or Winfield Scott on the side of the mountain. There is nothing about Stone Mountain that would make it a magnet for some white power neo-Confederate pilgrimage. In fact, having to pay admission and wade through crowds of families makes a pretty poor spot for that.

Including very many (minority families!)

Citation badly needed.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2017/09/19/stone-mountain-the-ugly-past-and-fraught-future-of-the-biggest-confederate-monument/

Demographic changes in DeKalb County mean that a majority of visitors on any given day are African Americans or immigrants.

“Most people who come don’t seem to think about it at all,” said John Bankhead, spokesman for the Stone Mountain Memorial Association.

Most visitors interviewed recently agreed: Confederate history hadn’t been on their minds as they rode the gondola or the scenic railroad. But the park has been the site of white-supremacist rallies in recent years. The memorial association denied a KKK group a permit to burn a cross at the park as recently as August, citing public safety concerns.

Interesting. I guess as noted the park is far more than the Stone Mountain display itself , and it wouldn't shock me one bit that meaning of the non-white tourists come there for the scenic views and hiking rather than for the Monument celebrating leaders of the unquestionably traitorous and white supremacist based Confederacy , such as the one African American Season Pass Holder they interviewed who wants to see the monument taking down. However, that would admittedly just be speculation on my part.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If we are worried about ruining the Artistry in Grandeur of the mural, it could be reconfigured to include people like John Lewis, MLK and Abraham Lincoln in terms of a dedication Two Georges contribution to the Civil Rights struggle. Include a light show even showing the march across the Pettus Bridge instead of Confederates Galloping on a charge against the Damn Yankees.

The wolf course meaning of stone mountains current tourists wouldn't be interested, most not even remotely, in visiting and equally monumental and artistic dedication for such a divergently different - - even though far more noble - - historical record. The vast majority of people who visit Stone Mountain do so as a pilgrimage Shrine of the Confederacy and all it stood for.

And that's probably the best argument as to why Stone Mountain needs to end as a Confederate Monument.

lol

Its just a giant tourist trap lmao right next to Atlanta. That along with some nice hiking trails and other stuff. Its literally the most visited location for Georgia tourists and there aren't hordes of White Americans thinking this is their Mecca or something.

You poor deluded Soul. Are you really so naive I still think that pernio Confederates this isn't happy place? You really think the same people would attend if they suddenly change it to a mural of MLK, John Lewis, and Abraham Lincoln? Do you really have it cluelessness unironically post at?

If you're worried about tourist Revenue, there'd be increased tourism from African Americans in Pro civil rights whites. Whitmore the point, we shouldn't give a s*** about the people who would no longer attend it wasn't about the Lost Cause.

Seriously, that is a painfully obtuse post on your part.

The vast majority of people who visit the monument do so as part of a visit to a park which includes hiking, camping, golf, lakes, a tourist train, holiday events, and other random stuff. I think it's a very safe bet these people don't care whether it's Robert E Lee or Ulysses Grant or Winfield Scott on the side of the mountain. There is nothing about Stone Mountain that would make it a magnet for some white power neo-Confederate pilgrimage. In fact, having to pay admission and wade through crowds of families makes a pretty poor spot for that.

Including very many (minority families!)

Citation badly needed.

Will eyewitness testimony from someone who actually visited there count?  The theme park itself doesn't have a Confederate theme, nor is the relief highly visible from there. It's also considerably cheaper than Six Flags, so for Atlanta day trippers looking for a family outing, it's a better choice unless you have a need for roller coasters and the like. I'll grant that the Memorial Hall there doesn't get much minority visitation and that mainly because the skyway to the top has its base station there. Also, as I pointed out earlier, the laser show, other than briefly acknowledging what's carved on the side, doesn't have any Confederate imagery.  I do think the Memorial Hall portion could do with a better acknowledgement of the less savory parts of the site's history, but that's the only necessary change in my opinion.  Moreover, given the site's history, I don't think simply destroying the relief is a viable option. I think that would likely cause more problems with the racist reactionaries than it would solve. Better to let benign neglect and weathering do in the relief.

I'll grant (no pun intended) that the place as a whole has a Dukes of Hazzard type relationship with Confederate history, so if you insist on a PC outing, it won't be your cup of tea.

[Badger]

If we are worried about ruining the Artistry in Grandeur of the mural, it could be reconfigured to include people like John Lewis, MLK and Abraham Lincoln in terms of a dedication Two Georges contribution to the Civil Rights struggle. Include a light show even showing the march across the Pettus Bridge instead of Confederates Galloping on a charge against the Damn Yankees.

The wolf course meaning of stone mountains current tourists wouldn't be interested, most not even remotely, in visiting and equally monumental and artistic dedication for such a divergently different - - even though far more noble - - historical record. The vast majority of people who visit Stone Mountain do so as a pilgrimage Shrine of the Confederacy and all it stood for.

And that's probably the best argument as to why Stone Mountain needs to end as a Confederate Monument.

If one has that sort of vision for Stone Mountain, then it could simply be carved into the mountain alongside what is already there. Nothing can excuse the destruction of what is currently there, but one can excuse an addition.

Why would nothing excuse it? Do You Weep tears about the swastika on top of the reichstag being blown up after the Allies occupied Berlin? Weren't at least as many African Americans killed from slavery and the middle passage as people who were killed even in the Holocaust? Is it because Stone mountains celebration of a  racist white supremacist Mass murdering ideology is more grandiose than the  aforementioned exploded swastika? I'd be interested in hearing the distinction.

I think a proper discussion can start when you give up treating the Confederacy as if it was some predecessor to Nazi Germany (what an unoriginal, lame, and overdone comparison), and give up treating Stone Mountain as a place of which its main contemporary purpose is some neo-Confederate pilgrimage site.

I never said a single word, or even imply, that the Confederacy was some sort of "predecessor" to Nazi Germany. They sprung from widely different cultures and causes while being united in a very undeniable - - at least for those of us with a clue - - basis in white supremacy. The fact that you have to literally put words in my mouth to defend your argument is telling indeed.

Try looking up the statistics as to number of African Americans killed in the Middle Passage. Or from being worked to death or disease the same way it have it in some places like Buchenwald. It is utterly shameful that you wipe away your own ignorance of historical statistics as "unoriginal, lame, and overdone".

It's rather apparent now your opposition to removing this monument comes more from looking back that's slavery and reacting with a shrugful "Hey, mistakes were made, but was it really all that bad?" However, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt in assuming that it's not because you consider millions of murdered African Americans less important than millions of murdered Jews, Romani, homosexuals, and leftists, but rather You're simply just ignorant about just  how many people American slavery actually killed. Ignorance is curable with education, though, so there's hope for you yet.

I mean, I guess you didn't directly claim the Confederacy was a direct predecessor, but you are guilty as charged with having a perspective jaundiced by the fashions of the present.
To compare the deaths of those who died in the triangular trade to those who died in concentration camps misses the time frames in question, the differing landscapes politically, the differing social mores and causes and motivations of the actors involved, and so on.
Yes, quite a lot of people died in the triangular trade. You are correct to say that.
However:

Patrick Manning estimates that about 12 million slaves entered the Atlantic trade between the 16th and 19th century, but about 1.5 million died on board ship. About 10.5 million slaves arrived in the Americas. Besides the slaves who died on the Middle Passage, more Africans likely died during the slave raids in Africa and forced marches to ports. Manning estimates that 4 million died inside Africa after capture, and many more died young. Manning's estimate covers the 12 million who were originally destined for the Atlantic, as well as the 6 million destined for Asian slave markets and the 8 million destined for African markets.[9] Of the slaves shipped to The Americas, the largest share went to Brazil and the Caribbean.[94]

We are talking likely at least 5.5 million dead over a time span of roughly 300 years, while the Holocaust had a total of 5.9 million Jewish victims, with an additional 10 million non-Jewish victims of Nazi persecution in 12 years of the Holocaust Era (per Wikipedia).
This isn't even getting into differing intents; the triangular trade was brutal, evil, and inhumane, but its ultimate aim was enslavement, not wholesale destruction of the group known as black West Africans along with their descendants. If they were wholesale destroyed and killed, they wouldn't have been able to be used as slaves, and Europeans would not have wasted money buying slaves from West African elites ready to sell their own people out for a quick buck.
Seems to me you accidently wound up minimizing the Holocaust. I know that's not your intent, so I will assume you simply harbored ignorance. Ignorance is curable with education, you're right. I hope this post served to educate you.
P.S. Please don't accuse me of having subpar empathy for those sent on slave ships sent to America, it's a woefully bad reading of me as a person.

Wow. So you are distinction between my original question of trying to justify a giant bas relief of the military and political leaders of the Third Reich to Jewish families versus one of Confederate leaders is that the millions of people killed by the Middle Passage, as well as killed  bye slavery once they reached our Shores itself, is not quite as many millions killed by the Holocaust. Then you follow up that up with the literally jaw dropping attempted distinction by saying that the intent of enslavement wasn't the whole sale destruction and annihilation of Africans and their descendants, notwithstanding that is exactly what slavery accomplished, nor was it remotely unforeseeable at the time.

AND, as the cherry on top of this absolutely bizarre rationalization sundae you objected to any suggestion you don't share sufficient empathy for those Killed by slavery.

Wow. Just wow.

I'm going to leave you with one tiny little fact that might jar even your calcified thinking on the subject. over the course of the Atlantic slave trade to America such ship transport killed approximately two million-- again, not counting the millions who were worked to death in Southern cotton and Indigo fields. The death toll on the Middle Passage alone was so bad, and caused so many dead black bodies to be thrown overboard from slave ships, that marine biologists measured a definite change in several species of sharks hunting migration patterns which had previously existed for literally millions of years beforehand to follow slave ship routes instead. Think about that. Literally Aeons of evolutionary Behavior Modified by the sheer volume of Carnage the middle passage created.

To somehow say the Holocaust and American slavery aren't particularly comprable exercises in white supremacist genocide because slavery didn't kill quite as many millions as the Holocaust, and somehow it matters worth a damn that slavery sought to keep slaves alive as long as they could produce - - Nazis Camp concentration camp prisoners alive to work too, btw- - when the end result in both situations was the murder, Mass rape, and cultural destruction of people in the name of white supremacy....again, just wow.

Seriously Tim, your efforts to distinguish the two as even a partial defense of the Stone Mountain monument is beyond obtuse. There may be some arguments in favor of not removing it such as Artistic integrity, Etc. But to seriously clean that there is a material worthwhile difference between the millions killed in slavery vs. The billions killed by the Holocaust, both in the name of white Supremacy is beyond bewildering.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It’s the epitome of Awful Taste but Great Execution

If you want Awful Taste, the original conception was going to include some homages to the KKK. Thankfully, those never got carved for a variety of reasons.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

SNIP

I think one can call enslavement a highly inhumane process that deserves condemnation (indeed, such condemnation has been rendered by human beings both alive and dead, past and present *cough* Mauritania *cough*), and simultaneously take notice of the Holocaust's true severity, recognizing it had at least somewhat few comparable examples dating to before the 20th century (for instance, it is no accident that it came after railroads were laid over much of Eastern Europe and technology had advanced well beyond 100 years before the Nazis took power).
Also - no one is saying slaveowning was good either. But I think most can agree that, if one had to choose, it would relatively better to be enslaved a la Antebellum South, than be exterminated as part of a "Final Solution", which is the fate the Nazis had planned for Jews as well as other "undesirables". Both would be very, very bad, needless to say, but it does matter.
The only reason I am bringing up this historical subtext is because of a comparison you made.
I'm done debating with you on this for the time being, because you seem to just be aimlessly angry on the topic and unable to see logic.

[Badger]

SNIP

I think one can call enslavement a highly inhumane process that deserves condemnation (indeed, such condemnation has been rendered by human beings both alive and dead, past and present *cough* Mauritania *cough*), and simultaneously take notice of the Holocaust's true severity, recognizing it had at least somewhat few comparable examples dating to before the 20th century (for instance, it is no accident that it came after railroads were laid over much of Eastern Europe and technology had advanced well beyond 100 years before the Nazis took power).
Also - no one is saying slaveowning was good either. But I think most can agree that, if one had to choose, it would relatively better to be enslaved, than be exterminated as part of a "Final Solution", which is the fate the Nazis had planned for Jews as well as other "undesirables". Both would be very, very bad, needless to say, but it does matter.
The only reason I am bringing up this historical subtext is because of a comparison you made.
I'm done debating with you on this for the time being, because you seem to just be aimlessly angry on the topic and unable to see logic.

You really don't see how much deeper you're digging yourself into a hole, do you?

So let me get this straight. Your "logic" here is that since slavery killed fewer Millions of people in the name of white supremacy than Nazism, that if one " had to choose" between the two then slavery would at least be "relatively better". And therefore it's perfectly rational to support destruction of Nazi monuments, while still not objecting to monuments of the white supremacist pro-slavery Confederacy. And furthermore anyone who doesn't buy into such flawless thinking is "unable to see logic". Got it.

Your factual perception and intellectual rigor on the topic is akin to a cinder block. Hearing your intellectually turgid argument in favor of sparing the Stone Mountain Monument actually reduced what few reservations I had. And I assure you that isn't because I'm unable to grasp your compelling "logic" here. Well done indeed.

[DaleCooper]

There are a number of reasons why the destruction of Stone Mountain would not be comparable to the destruction of Nazi monuments in the aftermath of WWII, and none of these reasons are confederate apologia.

The primary difference is that Nazi monuments and public iconography were displayed by the Nazis themselves to reinforce the quasi-religious devotion of German citizens, which served to strengthen their hold on power and allow them to more easily carry out their crimes, including the Holocaust. These monuments, like the famous swastika atop the stadium that was dynamited, were destroyed by the Allies as part of the denazification of Germany in the aftermath of the war to ensure that Nazism was eradicated as the country rebuilt. If the Stone Mountain sculpture had been commissioned by the Confederacy and was destroyed by the US during Reconstruction, that would've been much more comparable to the destruction of Nazi architecture. Also, if it were constructed more recently and lacked historic value then there would be a much more compelling argument for destroying it. But the Stone Mountain memorial is 100 years old and is in a relatively remote location where it can be avoided by anyone that prefers not to see it. It's a historic landmark and a notable artistic accomplishment, unlike many of the mass-produced confederate monuments that are displayed in much more public settings, so there will likely need to be a greater reason for its destruction than it being problematic.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

SNIP

I think one can call enslavement a highly inhumane process that deserves condemnation (indeed, such condemnation has been rendered by human beings both alive and dead, past and present *cough* Mauritania *cough*), and simultaneously take notice of the Holocaust's true severity, recognizing it had at least somewhat few comparable examples dating to before the 20th century (for instance, it is no accident that it came after railroads were laid over much of Eastern Europe and technology had advanced well beyond 100 years before the Nazis took power).
Also - no one is saying slaveowning was good either. But I think most can agree that, if one had to choose, it would relatively better to be enslaved, than be exterminated as part of a "Final Solution", which is the fate the Nazis had planned for Jews as well as other "undesirables". Both would be very, very bad, needless to say, but it does matter.
The only reason I am bringing up this historical subtext is because of a comparison you made.
I'm done debating with you on this for the time being, because you seem to just be aimlessly angry on the topic and unable to see logic.

You really don't see how much deeper you're digging yourself into a hole, do you?

So let me get this straight. Your "logic" here is that since slavery killed fewer Millions of people in the name of white supremacy than Nazism, that if one " had to choose" between the two then slavery would at least be "relatively better". And therefore it's perfectly rational to support destruction of Nazi monuments, while still not objecting to monuments of the white supremacist pro-slavery Confederacy. And furthermore anyone who doesn't buy into such flawless thinking is "unable to see logic". Got it.

Your factual perception and intellectual rigor on the topic is akin to a cinder block. Hearing your intellectually turgid argument in favor of sparing the Stone Mountain Monument actually reduced what few reservations I had. And I assure you that isn't because I'm unable to grasp your compelling "logic" here. Well done indeed.

Let's correct the record here. I, the amateur historian that I am, was talking about your broader historical perspective and why I think it wrong - not simply saying "x is Y, therefore Stone Mountain stays", in fact, that was hardly the actual focus on my arguments at all. And I was not at all talking about Nazi monuments, whereever they may exist, whatsoever. You read too much into what I was saying. (That being said the best parallel to the post-1865 South was Iraq post-2003, not Nazi Germany, but this convo has exhausted my appetite for debate on this topic). Anyway, believe whatever helps you sleep at night Badger. Have a nice day.

[Fudotei]

Ridiculous analogy coming around this forum that the Confederacy was analogous to the Holocaust - the historical record is clear on this issue, western expansion was the genocide of the time, not imported slave labor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judah_P._Benjamin

[Badger]

There are a number of reasons why the destruction of Stone Mountain would not be comparable to the destruction Nazi monuments in the aftermath of WWII, and none of these reasons are confederate apologia.

The primary difference is that Nazi monuments and public iconography were displayed by the Nazis themselves to reinforce the quasi-religious devotion of German citizens, which served to strengthen their hold on power and allow them to more easily carry out their crimes, including the Holocaust. These monuments, like the famous swastika atop the stadium that was dynamited, were destroyed by the Allies as part of the denazification of Germany in the aftermath of the war to ensure that Nazism was eradicated as the country rebuilt. If the Stone Mountain sculpture had been commissioned by the Confederacy and was destroyed by the US during Reconstruction, that would've been much more comparable to the destruction of Nazi architecture. Also, if it were constructed more recently and lacked historic value then there would be a much more compelling argument for destroying it. But the Stone Mountain memorial is 100 years old and is in a relatively remote location where it can be avoided by anyone that prefers not to see it. It's a historic landmark and a notable artistic accomplishment, unlike many of the mass-produced confederate monuments that are displayed in much more public settings, so there will likely need to be a greater reason for its destruction than it being problematic.

I'm afraid your assessment of the historical inspiration and timeline of the Stone Mountain Monument are factually incorrect. The monument was initially planned very explicitly as a statement of victory of White's having been saved from black Rule and miscegenation. While initial project started over a hundred years ago nothing of the project was actually completed for the first few decades Beyond Lee's face due to funding problems. It was only in 1958 in direct response to the Brown versus Board of Education decision that the Georgia state government stepped in to finance finishing the project. So again, not only is 90 + percent of the monument barely 60 years old, it was made as a very explicit expression of whites seeking to maintain and communicate the political status quo of their maintaining power.

https://www.kqed.org/lowdown/19119/stone-mountains-hidden-history-americas-biggest-confederate-memorial-and-birthplace-of-the-modern-ku-klux-klan

Buy your own comparison, Stone Mountain has just as much justification for being destroyed as the swastika monuments blown up after World War II. The passage of a few decades consolidate the political will do so shouldn't render these Confederate monuments one Iota less immune.

BTW, not that it particularly matters, but the Stone Mountain Memorial is hardly out of the way at all. It is within the rapidly-growing Atlanta metro region, and hosted in a state park facility that receives approximately 4 million visitors a year.

[R.P. McM]

If we are worried about ruining the Artistry in Grandeur of the mural, it could be reconfigured to include people like John Lewis, MLK and Abraham Lincoln in terms of a dedication Two Georges contribution to the Civil Rights struggle. Include a light show even showing the march across the Pettus Bridge instead of Confederates Galloping on a charge against the Damn Yankees.

The wolf course meaning of stone mountains current tourists wouldn't be interested, most not even remotely, in visiting and equally monumental and artistic dedication for such a divergently different - - even though far more noble - - historical record. The vast majority of people who visit Stone Mountain do so as a pilgrimage Shrine of the Confederacy and all it stood for.

And that's probably the best argument as to why Stone Mountain needs to end as a Confederate Monument.

If one has that sort of vision for Stone Mountain, then it could simply be carved into the mountain alongside what is already there. Nothing can excuse the destruction of what is currently there, but one can excuse an addition.

Why would nothing excuse it? Do You Weep tears about the swastika on top of the reichstag being blown up after the Allies occupied Berlin? Weren't at least as many African Americans killed from slavery and the middle passage as people who were killed even in the Holocaust? Is it because Stone mountains celebration of a  racist white supremacist Mass murdering ideology is more grandiose than the  aforementioned exploded swastika? I'd be interested in hearing the distinction.

I think a proper discussion can start when you give up treating the Confederacy as if it was some predecessor to Nazi Germany (what an unoriginal, lame, and overdone comparison), and give up treating Stone Mountain as a place of which its main contemporary purpose is some neo-Confederate pilgrimage site.

I never said a single word, or even imply, that the Confederacy was some sort of "predecessor" to Nazi Germany. They sprung from widely different cultures and causes while being united in a very undeniable - - at least for those of us with a clue - - basis in white supremacy. The fact that you have to literally put words in my mouth to defend your argument is telling indeed.

Try looking up the statistics as to number of African Americans killed in the Middle Passage. Or from being worked to death or disease the same way it have it in some places like Buchenwald. It is utterly shameful that you wipe away your own ignorance of historical statistics as "unoriginal, lame, and overdone".

It's rather apparent now your opposition to removing this monument comes more from looking back that's slavery and reacting with a shrugful "Hey, mistakes were made, but was it really all that bad?" However, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt in assuming that it's not because you consider millions of murdered African Americans less important than millions of murdered Jews, Romani, homosexuals, and leftists, but rather You're simply just ignorant about just  how many people American slavery actually killed. Ignorance is curable with education, though, so there's hope for you yet.

I mean, I guess you didn't directly claim the Confederacy was a direct predecessor, but you are guilty as charged with having a perspective jaundiced by the fashions of the present.
To compare the deaths of those who died in the triangular trade to those who died in concentration camps misses the time frames in question, the differing landscapes politically, the differing social mores and causes and motivations of the actors involved, and so on.
Yes, quite a lot of people died in the triangular trade. You are correct to say that.
However:

Patrick Manning estimates that about 12 million slaves entered the Atlantic trade between the 16th and 19th century, but about 1.5 million died on board ship. About 10.5 million slaves arrived in the Americas. Besides the slaves who died on the Middle Passage, more Africans likely died during the slave raids in Africa and forced marches to ports. Manning estimates that 4 million died inside Africa after capture, and many more died young. Manning's estimate covers the 12 million who were originally destined for the Atlantic, as well as the 6 million destined for Asian slave markets and the 8 million destined for African markets.[9] Of the slaves shipped to The Americas, the largest share went to Brazil and the Caribbean.[94]

We are talking likely at least 5.5 million dead over a time span of roughly 300 years, while the Holocaust had a total of 5.9 million Jewish victims, with an additional 10 million non-Jewish victims of Nazi persecution in 12 years of the Holocaust Era (per Wikipedia).
This isn't even getting into differing intents; the triangular trade was brutal, evil, and inhumane, but its ultimate aim was enslavement, not wholesale destruction of the group known as black West Africans along with their descendants. If they were wholesale destroyed and killed, they wouldn't have been able to be used as slaves, and Europeans would not have wasted money buying slaves from West African elites ready to sell their own people out for a quick buck.
Seems to me you accidently wound up minimizing the Holocaust. I know that's not your intent, so I will assume you simply harbored ignorance. Ignorance is curable with education, you're right. I hope this post served to educate you.
P.S. Please don't accuse me of having subpar empathy for those sent on slave ships sent to America, it's a woefully bad reading of me as a person.

Wow. So you are distinction between my original question of trying to justify a giant bas relief of the military and political leaders of the Third Reich to Jewish families versus one of Confederate leaders is that the millions of people killed by the Middle Passage, as well as killed  bye slavery once they reached our Shores itself, is not quite as many millions killed by the Holocaust. Then you follow up that up with the literally jaw dropping attempted distinction by saying that the intent of enslavement wasn't the whole sale destruction and annihilation of Africans and their descendants, notwithstanding that is exactly what slavery accomplished, nor was it remotely unforeseeable at the time.

AND, as the cherry on top of this absolutely bizarre rationalization sundae you objected to any suggestion you don't share sufficient empathy for those Killed by slavery.

Wow. Just wow.

Yeah, this is truly appalling. Unfortunately, when the you scratch the surface of a Trump supporter or GOP apologist, this is generally what you find.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Why would nothing excuse it? Do You Weep tears about the swastika on top of the reichstag being blown up after the Allies occupied Berlin? Weren't at least as many African Americans killed from slavery and the middle passage as people who were killed even in the Holocaust? Is it because Stone mountains celebration of a  racist white supremacist Mass murdering ideology is more grandiose than the  aforementioned exploded swastika? I'd be interested in hearing the distinction.

I think a proper discussion can start when you give up treating the Confederacy as if it was some predecessor to Nazi Germany (what an unoriginal, lame, and overdone comparison), and give up treating Stone Mountain as a place of which its main contemporary purpose is some neo-Confederate pilgrimage site.

I never said a single word, or even imply, that the Confederacy was some sort of "predecessor" to Nazi Germany. They sprung from widely different cultures and causes while being united in a very undeniable - - at least for those of us with a clue - - basis in white supremacy. The fact that you have to literally put words in my mouth to defend your argument is telling indeed.

Try looking up the statistics as to number of African Americans killed in the Middle Passage. Or from being worked to death or disease the same way it have it in some places like Buchenwald. It is utterly shameful that you wipe away your own ignorance of historical statistics as "unoriginal, lame, and overdone".

It's rather apparent now your opposition to removing this monument comes more from looking back that's slavery and reacting with a shrugful "Hey, mistakes were made, but was it really all that bad?" However, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt in assuming that it's not because you consider millions of murdered African Americans less important than millions of murdered Jews, Romani, homosexuals, and leftists, but rather You're simply just ignorant about just  how many people American slavery actually killed. Ignorance is curable with education, though, so there's hope for you yet.

I mean, I guess you didn't directly claim the Confederacy was a direct predecessor, but you are guilty as charged with having a perspective jaundiced by the fashions of the present.
To compare the deaths of those who died in the triangular trade to those who died in concentration camps misses the time frames in question, the differing landscapes politically, the differing social mores and causes and motivations of the actors involved, and so on.
Yes, quite a lot of people died in the triangular trade. You are correct to say that.
However:

Patrick Manning estimates that about 12 million slaves entered the Atlantic trade between the 16th and 19th century, but about 1.5 million died on board ship. About 10.5 million slaves arrived in the Americas. Besides the slaves who died on the Middle Passage, more Africans likely died during the slave raids in Africa and forced marches to ports. Manning estimates that 4 million died inside Africa after capture, and many more died young. Manning's estimate covers the 12 million who were originally destined for the Atlantic, as well as the 6 million destined for Asian slave markets and the 8 million destined for African markets.[9] Of the slaves shipped to The Americas, the largest share went to Brazil and the Caribbean.[94]

We are talking likely at least 5.5 million dead over a time span of roughly 300 years, while the Holocaust had a total of 5.9 million Jewish victims, with an additional 10 million non-Jewish victims of Nazi persecution in 12 years of the Holocaust Era (per Wikipedia).
This isn't even getting into differing intents; the triangular trade was brutal, evil, and inhumane, but its ultimate aim was enslavement, not wholesale destruction of the group known as black West Africans along with their descendants. If they were wholesale destroyed and killed, they wouldn't have been able to be used as slaves, and Europeans would not have wasted money buying slaves from West African elites ready to sell their own people out for a quick buck.
Seems to me you accidently wound up minimizing the Holocaust. I know that's not your intent, so I will assume you simply harbored ignorance. Ignorance is curable with education, you're right. I hope this post served to educate you.
P.S. Please don't accuse me of having subpar empathy for those sent on slave ships sent to America, it's a woefully bad reading of me as a person.

Wow. So you are distinction between my original question of trying to justify a giant bas relief of the military and political leaders of the Third Reich to Jewish families versus one of Confederate leaders is that the millions of people killed by the Middle Passage, as well as killed  bye slavery once they reached our Shores itself, is not quite as many millions killed by the Holocaust. Then you follow up that up with the literally jaw dropping attempted distinction by saying that the intent of enslavement wasn't the whole sale destruction and annihilation of Africans and their descendants, notwithstanding that is exactly what slavery accomplished, nor was it remotely unforeseeable at the time.

AND, as the cherry on top of this absolutely bizarre rationalization sundae you objected to any suggestion you don't share sufficient empathy for those Killed by slavery.

Wow. Just wow.

Yeah, this is truly appalling. Unfortunately, when the you scratch the surface of a Trump supporter or GOP apologist, this is generally what you find.

Hi there! You are talking about someone who actually has hated the GOP as an institution for as long as I've been political-minded, and has a long record of being extremely hackish in terms of who I cheer on in elections! Here's a hint, it's not the GOP.
Sorry the debate's already over. You arrived too late.
P.S. I am no Trump supporter, and I've called the GOP a party driven by moral cowardice.

[Badger]

SNIP

I think one can call enslavement a highly inhumane process that deserves condemnation (indeed, such condemnation has been rendered by human beings both alive and dead, past and present *cough* Mauritania *cough*), and simultaneously take notice of the Holocaust's true severity, recognizing it had at least somewhat few comparable examples dating to before the 20th century (for instance, it is no accident that it came after railroads were laid over much of Eastern Europe and technology had advanced well beyond 100 years before the Nazis took power).
Also - no one is saying slaveowning was good either. But I think most can agree that, if one had to choose, it would relatively better to be enslaved, than be exterminated as part of a "Final Solution", which is the fate the Nazis had planned for Jews as well as other "undesirables". Both would be very, very bad, needless to say, but it does matter.
The only reason I am bringing up this historical subtext is because of a comparison you made.
I'm done debating with you on this for the time being, because you seem to just be aimlessly angry on the topic and unable to see logic.

You really don't see how much deeper you're digging yourself into a hole, do you?

So let me get this straight. Your "logic" here is that since slavery killed fewer Millions of people in the name of white supremacy than Nazism, that if one " had to choose" between the two then slavery would at least be "relatively better". And therefore it's perfectly rational to support destruction of Nazi monuments, while still not objecting to monuments of the white supremacist pro-slavery Confederacy. And furthermore anyone who doesn't buy into such flawless thinking is "unable to see logic". Got it.

Your factual perception and intellectual rigor on the topic is akin to a cinder block. Hearing your intellectually turgid argument in favor of sparing the Stone Mountain Monument actually reduced what few reservations I had. And I assure you that isn't because I'm unable to grasp your compelling "logic" here. Well done indeed.

Let's correct the record here. I, the amateur historian that I am, was talking about your broader historical perspective and why I think it wrong - not simply saying "x is Y, therefore Stone Mountain stays", in fact, that was hardly the actual focus on my arguments at all. And I was not at all talking about Nazi monuments, whereever they may exist, whatsoever. You read too much into what I was saying. (That being said the best parallel to the post-1865 South was Iraq post-2003, not Nazi Germany, but this convo has exhausted my appetite for debate on this topic). Anyway, believe whatever helps you sleep at night Badger. Have a nice day.

I really have no idea what this word salad is supposed to prove. Let's recap the conversation so far.

Me: Nazis killed millions of people in the name of white supremacy and we had no problem demolishing monuments to the military and political leaders of their murderous racist cause. Similarly, slavery killed Millions in the name of white supremacy, so we should not distinguish destroying monuments to their political and military leaders either.

You: Well, technically slavery didn't kill as many millions of people as the holocaust, nor was genocide the intent of slavery even if that was its result. Therefore if one had to choose, slavery would be relatively better. So this isn't an accurate comparison.

Me: Are...are you f****** serious?

You: Of course. Pffft! Aren't you able to see logic?

Me: OMG! You actually believe a Monument to an ideology that killed millions in the name of white supremacy should be allowed to remain so long as it didn't kill as many millions of people as other murderous racist ideologies?!?

You: Oh no. I really haven't even tried to answer that question about Stone Mountain at all. I'm simply stating American slavery killed fewer people than the Holocaust. (Shrug)

Me: But...that was my entire point?


So have I missed anything here, Tim? Because if not your posts to this thread have been little more than intellectual masturbation. Just sayin.

[R.P. McM]

If we are worried about ruining the Artistry in Grandeur of the mural, it could be reconfigured to include people like John Lewis, MLK and Abraham Lincoln in terms of a dedication Two Georges contribution to the Civil Rights struggle. Include a light show even showing the march across the Pettus Bridge instead of Confederates Galloping on a charge against the Damn Yankees.

The wolf course meaning of stone mountains current tourists wouldn't be interested, most not even remotely, in visiting and equally monumental and artistic dedication for such a divergently different - - even though far more noble - - historical record. The vast majority of people who visit Stone Mountain do so as a pilgrimage Shrine of the Confederacy and all it stood for.

And that's probably the best argument as to why Stone Mountain needs to end as a Confederate Monument.

If one has that sort of vision for Stone Mountain, then it could simply be carved into the mountain alongside what is already there. Nothing can excuse the destruction of what is currently there, but one can excuse an addition.

Why would nothing excuse it? Do You Weep tears about the swastika on top of the reichstag being blown up after the Allies occupied Berlin? Weren't at least as many African Americans killed from slavery and the middle passage as people who were killed even in the Holocaust? Is it because Stone mountains celebration of a  racist white supremacist Mass murdering ideology is more grandiose than the  aforementioned exploded swastika? I'd be interested in hearing the distinction.

I think a proper discussion can start when you give up treating the Confederacy as if it was some predecessor to Nazi Germany (what an unoriginal, lame, and overdone comparison), and give up treating Stone Mountain as a place of which its main contemporary purpose is some neo-Confederate pilgrimage site.

I never said a single word, or even imply, that the Confederacy was some sort of "predecessor" to Nazi Germany. They sprung from widely different cultures and causes while being united in a very undeniable - - at least for those of us with a clue - - basis in white supremacy. The fact that you have to literally put words in my mouth to defend your argument is telling indeed.

Try looking up the statistics as to number of African Americans killed in the Middle Passage. Or from being worked to death or disease the same way it have it in some places like Buchenwald. It is utterly shameful that you wipe away your own ignorance of historical statistics as "unoriginal, lame, and overdone".

It's rather apparent now your opposition to removing this monument comes more from looking back that's slavery and reacting with a shrugful "Hey, mistakes were made, but was it really all that bad?" However, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt in assuming that it's not because you consider millions of murdered African Americans less important than millions of murdered Jews, Romani, homosexuals, and leftists, but rather You're simply just ignorant about just  how many people American slavery actually killed. Ignorance is curable with education, though, so there's hope for you yet.

I mean, I guess you didn't directly claim the Confederacy was a direct predecessor, but you are guilty as charged with having a perspective jaundiced by the fashions of the present.
To compare the deaths of those who died in the triangular trade to those who died in concentration camps misses the time frames in question, the differing landscapes politically, the differing social mores and causes and motivations of the actors involved, and so on.
Yes, quite a lot of people died in the triangular trade. You are correct to say that.
However:

Patrick Manning estimates that about 12 million slaves entered the Atlantic trade between the 16th and 19th century, but about 1.5 million died on board ship. About 10.5 million slaves arrived in the Americas. Besides the slaves who died on the Middle Passage, more Africans likely died during the slave raids in Africa and forced marches to ports. Manning estimates that 4 million died inside Africa after capture, and many more died young. Manning's estimate covers the 12 million who were originally destined for the Atlantic, as well as the 6 million destined for Asian slave markets and the 8 million destined for African markets.[9] Of the slaves shipped to The Americas, the largest share went to Brazil and the Caribbean.[94]

We are talking likely at least 5.5 million dead over a time span of roughly 300 years, while the Holocaust had a total of 5.9 million Jewish victims, with an additional 10 million non-Jewish victims of Nazi persecution in 12 years of the Holocaust Era (per Wikipedia).
This isn't even getting into differing intents; the triangular trade was brutal, evil, and inhumane, but its ultimate aim was enslavement, not wholesale destruction of the group known as black West Africans along with their descendants. If they were wholesale destroyed and killed, they wouldn't have been able to be used as slaves, and Europeans would not have wasted money buying slaves from West African elites ready to sell their own people out for a quick buck.
Seems to me you accidently wound up minimizing the Holocaust. I know that's not your intent, so I will assume you simply harbored ignorance. Ignorance is curable with education, you're right. I hope this post served to educate you.
P.S. Please don't accuse me of having subpar empathy for those sent on slave ships sent to America, it's a woefully bad reading of me as a person.

Wow. So you are distinction between my original question of trying to justify a giant bas relief of the military and political leaders of the Third Reich to Jewish families versus one of Confederate leaders is that the millions of people killed by the Middle Passage, as well as killed  bye slavery once they reached our Shores itself, is not quite as many millions killed by the Holocaust. Then you follow up that up with the literally jaw dropping attempted distinction by saying that the intent of enslavement wasn't the whole sale destruction and annihilation of Africans and their descendants, notwithstanding that is exactly what slavery accomplished, nor was it remotely unforeseeable at the time.

AND, as the cherry on top of this absolutely bizarre rationalization sundae you objected to any suggestion you don't share sufficient empathy for those Killed by slavery.

Wow. Just wow.

Yeah, this is truly appalling. Unfortunately, when the you scratch the surface of a Trump supporter or GOP apologist, this is generally what you find.

Hi there! You are talking about someone who actually has hated the GOP as an institution for as long as I've been political-minded, and has a long record of being extremely hackish in terms of who I cheer on in elections! Here's a hint, it's not the GOP.
Sorry the debate's already over. You arrived too late.
P.S. I am no Trump supporter, and I've called the GOP a party driven by moral cowardice.

Well, in my few exchanges with you, you've generally defended the establishment GOP position. So that's colored my perspective. But this latest exchange is absolutely appalling. You're honestly trying to make some sort of moral distinction between murdering, by your estimation, 5.9 million Jews in the Holocaust; or 5.5 million Africans in the slave trade? Not saying I accept your numbers, but neither cause is even remotely worthy of commemoration with a monument. Are you f****** insane?!

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

snip

Look, just going to make a few things clear.
The African slave trade was a very multifaceted thing caused by economics, while the Holocaust was not (mainly) economics-driven. In fact, it occurred somewhat in spite of economics - resulting to the largest degree because of Nazi ideology.
The bulk of the African slave trade, in terms of where slaves arrived, was in fact Brazil and the Carribbean, so any death toll from the triangular trade (even if one be reputably estimated) would have to be divided among those two areas, Spanish continental Latin America, and the Antebellum South. And not necessarily equally among those four geograpical areas.

A sizable amount of the blame for the slave trade happening has to be put at the feet of local elites in West Africa, who emptied out large swatches of the region for sake of greed, and in fact a majority of deaths related to or linked to the triangular trade were done by Africans to Africans, as just the latest manifestation of the millennia-old slave trade in Western Africa, with the Europeans being the customers, buying those slaves for their own greedy self-serving reasons. The text I copied in seems to mention an estimation of 4 million who died in the process of bringing those slaves to the ports (excluding those who died while young), over a 300 year period - who do you think was dealing those deaths? Europeans?

It is very Amero-centric to say the main takeaway from the triangular trade is "Confederacy bad because triangular trade x and y", and even that would be incorrect - in fact, leading Confederate planter elites didn't want to bring the trade back. Slaves had become more valuable over time, something linked to relative scarcity. The single biggest story from all of this is how inhumane commerce can get and how much elite sections of society, when the conditions are so amenable, can just be uncaring towards the powerless.

The death toll from the triangular trade, and the death toll from the triangular trade that Europeans actually dealt firsthand or, should I say, after slaves were handed over at port - two clearly distinct numbers. That number has to be subivided farther if we are to have a number worthy of being thrown around as even merely the basis of an argument, of whatever quality or justifiability, on this topic.

More generally, leaving aside the issue of deaths from the triangular trade, the historian in me has gotten sick of Confederacy-Nazi parallels, and just labelling things with that slipshod designation "white supremacist", however valid it may be or not, is bad practice. By that standard the entirety of the New World was at one time white supremacist, that isn't telling us too much. That is called presentism and it makes for lazy arguments, lazy history, and lazy debate.

[Interlocutor is just not there yet]

Man those quotes are long. Perhaps snip them a bit so that the same essay-long replies aren't posted over and over again?


Ok, carry on now.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Man those quotes are long. Perhaps snip them a bit so that the same essay-long replies aren't posted over and over again?


Ok, carry on now.

I've edited my latest post.
EDIT: shortened some of them, if you want them reduced further just tell me so.