1 comment

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [S] 10 points 1 year ago

Explanation: Robert E. Lee, the foremost general of the Confederate forces in the US Civil War, was a Southern Gentleman(tm).

And by that, I mean a horrific fucking slaver using civility towards white people as a mask for immensely inhumane cruelty.

Robert E. Lee personally owned slaves that he inherited upon the death of his mother, Ann Lee, in 1829. (His son, Robert E. Lee Jr., gave the number as three or four families.) Following the death of his father-in-law, George Washington Parke Custis, in 1857, Lee assumed command of 189 enslaved people, working the estates of Arlington, White House, and Romancoke. Custis’ will stipulated that the enslaved people that the Lee family inherited be freed within five years.

Lee, as executor of Custis’ will and supervisor of Custis’ estates, drove his new-found labor force hard to lift those estates from debt. Concerned that the endeavor might take longer than the five years stipulated, Lee petitioned state courts to extend his control of enslaved people.

The Custis bondspeople, aware of their former owner’s intent, resisted Lee’s efforts to enforce stricter work discipline. Resentment resulted in escape attempts. In 1859 Wesley Norris, his sister Mary, and their cousin, George Parks, escaped to Maryland where they were captured and returned to Arlington.

In an 1866 account, Norris recalled,

[W]e were immediately taken before Gen. Lee, who demanded the reason why we ran away; we frankly told him that we considered ourselves free; he then told us he would teach us a lesson we never would forget; he then ordered us to the barn, where, in his presence, we were tied firmly to posts by a Mr. Gwin, our overseer, who was ordered by Gen. Lee to strip us to the waist and give us fifty lashes each, excepting my sister, who received but twenty; we were accordingly stripped to the skin by the overseer, who, however, had sufficient humanity to decline whipping us; accordingly Dick Williams, a county constable, was called in, who gave us the number of lashes ordered; Gen. Lee, in the meantime, stood by, and frequently enjoined Williams to lay it on well, an injunction which he did not fail to heed; not satisfied with simply lacerating our naked flesh, Gen. Lee then ordered the overseer to thoroughly wash our backs with brine, which was done.

  • source
  • 82 comments in c/historymemes@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] [S] 115 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Explanation: Robert E. Lee, the foremost general of the Confederate forces in the US Civil War, was a Southern Gentleman(tm).

    And by that, I mean a horrific fucking slaver using civility towards white people as a mask for immensely inhumane cruelty.

    Robert E. Lee personally owned slaves that he inherited upon the death of his mother, Ann Lee, in 1829. (His son, Robert E. Lee Jr., gave the number as three or four families.) Following the death of his father-in-law, George Washington Parke Custis, in 1857, Lee assumed command of 189 enslaved people, working the estates of Arlington, White House, and Romancoke. Custis’ will stipulated that the enslaved people that the Lee family inherited be freed within five years.

    Lee, as executor of Custis’ will and supervisor of Custis’ estates, drove his new-found labor force hard to lift those estates from debt. Concerned that the endeavor might take longer than the five years stipulated, Lee petitioned state courts to extend his control of enslaved people.

    The Custis bondspeople, aware of their former owner’s intent, resisted Lee’s efforts to enforce stricter work discipline. Resentment resulted in escape attempts. In 1859 Wesley Norris, his sister Mary, and their cousin, George Parks, escaped to Maryland where they were captured and returned to Arlington.

    In an 1866 account, Norris recalled,

    [W]e were immediately taken before Gen. Lee, who demanded the reason why we ran away; we frankly told him that we considered ourselves free; he then told us he would teach us a lesson we never would forget; he then ordered us to the barn, where, in his presence, we were tied firmly to posts by a Mr. Gwin, our overseer, who was ordered by Gen. Lee to strip us to the waist and give us fifty lashes each, excepting my sister, who received but twenty; we were accordingly stripped to the skin by the overseer, who, however, had sufficient humanity to decline whipping us; accordingly Dick Williams, a county constable, was called in, who gave us the number of lashes ordered; Gen. Lee, in the meantime, stood by, and frequently enjoined Williams to lay it on well, an injunction which he did not fail to heed; not satisfied with simply lacerating our naked flesh, Gen. Lee then ordered the overseer to thoroughly wash our backs with brine, which was done.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 74 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    “…. who gave us the number of lashes ordered…”

    ”Gen. Lee then ordered the overseer to thoroughly wash our backs with brine, which was done.”

    Even Satan would tell this guy to calm down.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 52 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Unfortunately, washing lashed backs with brine or hot pepper juice was a well-known 'additional' punishment levied on flogged slaves in the American South, whenever the punishers felt like the slaves deserved it, or looked at them wrong, or if the slavers were just having a moment of pure fucking meanness.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 84 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Every American general that graduated from Westpoint has their portrait hung prominently at the school. Despite graduating westpoint and becoming a general, Robert E Lee does not have a portrait hung in Westpoint's gallery because he's a filthy fucking traitor and is burning in hell

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Benedict Arnold has neither name nor portrait at West point despite being a literal war hero that only defected because he was owed money and continually denied promotion he justly deserved (Washington admitted to this and lamented the fact that if not for a promotion he denied Arnold he likely wouldn't have defected).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    In college I tried to stage a protest where we dressed up as British Redcoats waving a union jack flag at my state's capitol ostensibly protesting in favor of putting a Benedict Arnold statue next to a Confederate statue and just parroting talking points people bring up about the Confederate statue. I was going to call the group "The Sons of Loyalist Veterans" and talk about how we are just celebrating our heritage, not hate, and that we don't hate America we just want to celebrate our Loyalist ancestors and Loyalist hero Benedict Arnold. Unfortunately I couldn't get anyone to go with me and chickened out.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 93 points 1 year ago (61 children)

    Growing up: “Robert E. Lee was a good man who fought on the losing side.”

    As an adult: “Robert E. Lee was a Confederate and supported slavery.”

    Reading a PugJesus post about Robert E. Lee: 🤮

  • source
  • hideshow 61 child comments
  • [–] [S] 99 points 1 year ago (60 children)

    It's really sad how lionized Lee is despite being worse than average even by slaver standards.

    Like, history is my center of interest. I am acutely aware that morals and norms are deeply contextual things, and that most people will grow up absorbing the morals and norms of the time and place.

    But how can someone be such a piece of shit that their own slave overseer refuses to carry out their orders? The man's job is literally to brutalize slaves, and HE thinks you've gone too far?

    I mean, shit, at least lionize some blinkered fanatic like Stonewall Jackson. He was a slaver, but at least he was willing to break the law for the sake of treating slaves more humanely, rather than less humanely. It doesn't absolve him from being a slaver at a time when it was increasingly clear that slavery was not some fundamental piece of existence, but it at least absolves him of being worse than his fucking peers.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 60 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    One of the things I appreciate about Behind the Bastards is the acknowledgment that historically people were more racist and misogynist, and to then clarify that the subject of an episode was notably racist or misogynistic for the time. Like Dewey of the Dewey Decimal System, who had a colleague write about how horribly sexist he was.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Same for LGBT rights. There's been a seismic shift since I was a kid in the 80s. Here in America we're rolling backwards a bit, but that's the nature of societal progress, two steps forward, one back.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    Librarian here. One of the reasons librarianship was dominated by women was bc Dewey convinced people they could pay them less. Also, he likes to use his power to form sexual relationships. The subject headings that his decimal system uses are still problematic to this day.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I mean, shit, at least lionize some blinkered fanatic like Stonewall Jackson.

    Jackson was a 19th century Christian jihadist.

    On the other hand... instead of Lee or Jackson, James Longstreet is right there.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    I mean, to be fair, Jackson was a 19th century Christian fanatic. He wasn't an advocate for some radically changed theocracy to take charge of the pre-war USA or the Civil War CSA. His fanaticism affected his personal behavior more than his political positions.

    On the other hand… instead of Lee or Jackson, James Longstreet is right there.

    Longstreet 'betrayed the cause' by daring to make peace with the fact that they lost the war and Black folk were citizens, that's basically treason to a Lost Causer. Jackson died before any such thing could theoretically happen, so he remains pure.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (52 children)

    The only reason that “morals are deeply contextual” is that average people are dumb as shit in all the ways that matter. Moral reasoning is similar to mathematics, but whereas we have formalized math, which people study in school for 12+ years (and are still terrible at it), morality is a fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants-and-do-your-best endeavor.

    That’s why there’s such a discrepancy between the opinions of ethicists and those of average people. Why we had slavery for 10,000 years, why Trump was elected. Why billionaires, religions, and cruise ships exist. Because average people are dumb as shit in all the ways that matter, and no discipline in the world reminds us just how close the average human is to a mindless animal than ethics.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 52 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    We had slavery for thousands of years because the enlightenment occurred only a few hundred years ago and it brought about the concept of liberalism (not like liberal/conservative but liber like short for liberty or liberate - meaning freedom). Up until that point there was only basic pathos that would allow people to feel bad for a slave's conditions but usually not to the extent that it would lead to a full abolition movement.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago*

    Yes. There were countless folks of every generation since time immemorial begging their fellow humans to use basic reasoning to see the evil of their actions. To no avail. It took thousands of years of social progress and education to convince (a plurality of) people of the most rudimentary and blatant moral facts. Because the average human is dumb as shit about everything that matters.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (48 children)

    Are you a vegan by chance?

    I feel like that's the next big moral shift. People lionize dogs and cats, and harming one makes you literally Hitler. But there's not a lick of difference between a dog and a cow.

    I think that an objective ethicist would absolutely say veganism is the only moral choice, and that anyone who isn't a vegan is knowingly participating in unimaginable cruelty.

    But in our current context, only a small fraction of people care. Including a lot of people who look down on people of the past for not being as amazingly moral as they are.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 48 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (15 children)

    I mean, in the end an animal is an animal. I have had cats and dogs and don't really like to see them hurt because (in the West) there is no purpose for their existence besides being pets.

    Cows and livestock, on the other hand, only exist for food and we keep breeding them for that.

    At the same time, is don't really see a problem with the cultures that eat cats and dogs, in the end, it's all just animals and it doesn't matter if I think that some of them look cuter than others

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago (14 children)

    Many animals are smarter than severely mentally-disabled humans, yet we don't torture and eat severely mentally-disabled humans. So it's not about intelligence. It's obviously also not about being able to feel pain, because animals can feel pain.

    Do you agree with "Don't do to others what you wouldn't want done to you"?

    If yes, would you be okay with genetically modified people who are much smarter and crueler than you, treating you like factory farmers and fishermen treat animals? 1-3 trillion fish are enslaved in torturous factory-farm conditions every year, and together with fishermen torture about 2-6 trillion fish to death annually, usually by slow asphyxiation. Hundreds of billions of land-animals (mostly chickens) are enslaved in torturous conditions every year and slaughtered. About 1% of chickens are boiled alive because it would cost more money to make sure the machines that kill them don't miss that 1%. Dairy cows are repeatedly put on rape racks to be artificially inseminated, because they only give milk after delivering a calf. The calves are removed from their mothers, because the farmers don't want the calves to drink the milk. Would you like to be kept your entire life in torturous conditions? Be tortured to death? You and/or your female family repeatedly artificially inseminated and made to give birth, then have the babies taken away so you and/or your female family's milk can be harvested, eventually killed for hamburger when not yielding enough milk to make a profit?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    comparing the mentally disabled to animals is gross

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    The reason many people say it's OK to be complicit in factory farming animals, but not humans, is because humans are smarter: "they're just animals". Pointing out that factory farmed animals are smarter than severely mentally-disabled humans, shows it's clearly not about intelligence. Speciesism is therefor similar to racism and sexism.

    What's important is whether they can feel pain or not, not intelligence.

    Pointing out the lie isn't gross. What is gross is torturing 3-6 trillion fish to death every year, and enslaving 1-3 trillion animals in torturous conditions every year.

    Dominion, Land of hope and glory, Earthlings

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    comparing other races to animals is what racists do. comparing women to animals is what misogynists do. their fight for their own rights isn't premised on their ability to feel pain, but the fact that they, too, are fully human.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    "They deserve rights because they are human", ah, okay. So being human is just a magical qualifier that determines whether or not you are entitled to the ability to live unimpeded. Every other species on the planet exists to serve the whims of humanity, for being human is special.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago*

    You're getting a lot of pushback and I can see why, but I've actually been coming to similar conclusions in a different way. It's essentially species narcissism, just like we have racial narcissism, gender narcissism, physical narcissism, etc.

    But we exist within this planet and evolved with it as well. Factory farming, monoculture, and industrial farm practices are harmful for the planet and us and is pretty bad for many reasons. Being a heterotroph is not something we have control over, however. We consume other species, plant and animal and microbes alike, to get nutrients as do many other species. Even some autotrophs will eat other species.

    So it's important to not continue to engage species narcissism and thus remove ourselves as participants living with this world.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    It would be gross if the comparison sought to belittle the mentally disabled, but the comparison is to point out the cruelty and inhumanity. It's gross that you think it's okay to cause pain and suffering because animals are "lesser" in your worldview.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I never said they are lesser. you are fighting a strawman

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Oh? If their existence isn't lesser than humanity, then what issue do you take in comparing the value of their existence? 🤔 oh right, it's not a strawman, you just aren't smart enough to compete in an actual argument. Go back to school, champ.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    different things are different. that doesn't mean better or less.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    At what point did anyone say humans and cows were the same? Or dogs and cows? You just started saying that because you don't have any actual rebuttal.

    We compare things that are different all the time- in fact, that's how the concept of comparison works. You can't really compare two identical things because there is nothing to compare. They are identical.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Hundreds of billions of livestock are kept in torturous conditions every year. Dominion, Land of hope and glory, Earthlings.

    1-3 trillion fish are kept in torturous conditions every year on factory farms.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    in torture, the point is to cause pain. the pain incurred by animals in agriculture is incidental. it's not the point of the practice. if there were some other options that were just as cost effective or cheaper, farmers would use them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Actually, torture is a method by which people advance their goals. For example, you might torture someone to extract information. The point of the practice is to extract information, not necessarily cause pain. It just so happens that torture was the method they deemed most effective.

    Have anything intelligent to say or are you just going to keep saying stupid shit?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (28 children)
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (25 children)

    Puppies aren't housebroken and their meat would be very tender.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 25 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (24 children)

    they can be housebroken, though.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (23 children)

    Then they're no longer a puppy but a dog.

    Besides, cows can be housebroken. https://www.cnet.com/science/scientists-show-cows-can-be-potty-trained-just-like-your-favorite-pets/

    There's also pigs. Pot bellied pigs were a popular pet a few years ago.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (22 children)

    so I guess there is no difference at all. I can take em to the dog park and watch em run and tussle and play fetch...

    it's clear they are different, and saying they're not is just a lie.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] [S] 3 points 1 year ago (16 children)

    so I guess there is no difference at all. I can take em to the dog park and watch em run and tussle and play fetch…

    I mean, I'm not a vegan, but yes, you literally can. Pigs are generally regarded as intelligent creatures in the same vein as dogs.

    it’s clear they are different, and saying they’re not is just a lie.

    What animals we eat and which we don't is a purely cultural affectation. There's nothing wrong with a cultural affectation, but there's not a fundamental difference between what creatures it's okay to eat and which it is not okay to eat.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (15 children)

    even among animals we eat, there are clearly differences. denying this doesn't serve anyone.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] [S] 2 points 1 year ago (14 children)

    In parts of Africa, monkeys are eaten. In parts of Asia, dog is eaten.

    Cat is generally not eaten in most cultures outside of spiritual and crisis contexts because it's stringy, apparently.

    Our tradition of not eating certain animals is just that - tradition. It's not anything deeper, and certainly not universal.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (13 children)

    this has nothing to do with whether there is a difference between dogs and cows, which there clearly is.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] [S] 2 points 1 year ago (12 children)
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    this appears to be an appeal to ridicule.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (10 children)

    Your point about being housebroken was shown to be wrong. Your point about fetch was shown to be wrong. No one is saying a cow is a dog. You are being deliberately obtuse to avoid the unpleasant idea that cows are just as sentient and loving as many dogs (most dog breeds are smarter than cows but some breeds are stupid). But for cultural reasons we don't eat dogs.

    I'm not vegan either but I recognize the horror.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    so you know they are not the same

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (8 children)

    They are the same in the ways that are relevant to this argument. Some dogs aren't housebroken. Some dogs you can't play fetch with. Do you eat those dogs?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    i didnt suggest eating any animal is ok. I'm pointing out that is simply untrue to claim there isn't a lick of difference between cows and dogs

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (6 children)

    There's a difference between different dogs too. You write like all dogs are the same. Again not all dogs play fetch or are housebroken.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    this doesn't change whether dogs are different from cows

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    Your argument wasn't that cows are different than dogs but that you could play fetch with them.

    Stop ignoring the actual argument.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    Your argument wasn’t that cows are different than dogs

    that's all i've been arguing this whole time.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    The differences that everyone has already acknowledged that exist between a dog and a cow isn't relevant to this particular argument.

    I've already said a cow isn't a dog. You keep repeating an argument no one is making.

    The argument is about the ways in which a cow is similar to a dog.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (1 child)

    if there is more than a lick of difference, and you can admit that, then there is no further discussion.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    The differences being discussed are what makes one animal food.

    Again absolutely no one has said a cow is a dog.

    That's a strawman you prop up because you thought cows were practically vegetables. Then I showed you that they can be house trained and play fetch.

    You were wrong.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    picks up goal post and moves it still sounds like a dumbass

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    Yes, I agree. In about a century folks will look back on modern humans as irredeemable monsters. And they would be right! This is an objective fact, and downvotes don’t change normative reality. More’s the pity.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I only see this happening if lab grown meat takes off in a really big way. Which I'm in favor of, but with how it's been going I'm not so sure.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago*

    Assuming civilization (i.e., democracy) survives, it will happen. Democracy is almost ineluctable in promulgating moral progress. That’s one of the chief reasons that it’s under such sustained attack. Can’t have the poor and ignorant learning right from wrong.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 36 points 1 year ago* (5 children)

    Fun fact: Robert E. Lee was one, of many, of the Confederate leaders that recognized the deep harm they caused the nation, and thus he specifically wrote in his diary and will, that no statue, memorial, or song should ever commemorate his traitorous actions.

    Then Wilson became president and refounded the KKK, erected a fuckton of Confederate statues, segregated the federal government for the first time in history, and generally shat on as many brown people as he could.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (4 children)
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Interesting that your extremely northern source just repeated everything I just said. After the confederacy lost, many of them recognized the mistakes they made. I have no love for the traitors that made the confederacy. I do recognize the difference between a poor loser like Drumpf, and a man that recognized that he did wrong in his own lifetime, and attempted to fix it after the fact.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    While Lee did publicly repent, there's a nonzero chance that he did so because at the time the Lost Cause hadn't hit full swing - Lee died in 1870, after all - and because there were still a very large number of radical Republicans quite literally calling for Lee to be hanged, even despite Johnson's amnesty.

    He may have genuinely morally repented, or he may have (more likely in my eyes) simply seen no reason to continue fighting a (ha) lost cause with no hope of victory after the fall of the CSA, but he also may have just been trying to keep his head down to avoid personal trouble. Like Forrest suddenly swearing up-and-down that he was a good and peaceful citizen once it became clear that the Federal government was going to crack down on protofascist fucks.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    You really cherry picked that and out of contexted it. He never repented and was a life long racist.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago*

    You're putting words in my mouth that were never there. You're the one perpetuating class distinctions, when neither I, nor Robert Lee, made any such distinctions with that particular directive.

    Whether or not Robert Lee was a racist bigot isn't in discussion. He recognized he did wrong against his country and, for once, he apologized.

    The fact that he was a racist bigot honestly doesn't need to be addressed since it is assumed that everyone was. Especially when you realize that Teddy fucking Roosevelt was an extremely progressive racist bigot nearly 25 years later, and he is revered as one of the most progressive presidents in history.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    What is this Lee guy doing in the picture part of the meme? I don't get it

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Who's memory? Am I too not-a-Southerner for this meme?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Why tf is he shown wearing a blue Union (Northern) uniform and not a grey Confederate (traitorous Southern) uniform?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment