National cemetary vandalized in San Antonio

[KnightBrolaire]

https://americanmilitarynews.com/20...dium=facebook&utm_campaign=alt&utm_source=dvf
Some of the gravestones that were vandalized are 75 to 100 years old.
damage is placed at 3-5K usd to repair.

Some people just like being pricks I guess.

 

[Unleash The Fury]

I got $50 on Antifa.

Turrible. Just turrible

 

[thraxil]

I worked in a cemetery as a groundskeeper over the summers when I was in high school. This kind of thing was unfortunately pretty common. Drunk high school students usually.

 

[Drew]

I worked in a cemetery as a groundskeeper over the summers when I was in high school. This kind of thing was unfortunately pretty common. Drunk high school students usually.

Yeah, that's way more likely than some left wing or anarchist conspiracy.

 

[CrazyDean]

“Those headstones are irreplaceable. They were there at the time of the burials."

Uhh...isn't that typically when you place a headstone?

 

[Drew]

“Those headstones are irreplaceable. They were there at the time of the burials."

Uhh...isn't that typically when you place a headstone?

I'd take that as meaning they didn't wear away and need to be replaced, or had been previously vandilized. That said, it's less uncommon than you might think for couples to buy plots well in advance of their death and just not add the name and date of the other onto the tombstone when one dies. That just tends not to happen in military cemeteries.

 

[KnightBrolaire]

https://americanmilitarynews.com/20...dium=facebook&utm_campaign=alt&utm_source=dvf
apparently the national anthem is racist and a statue commemorating the star spangled banner got defaced

 

[ElRay]

... apparently the national anthem is racist ...

If you know anything about Key, he was. He was especially against the Colonial Marines — a very effective group of ex-slaves. He also felt that White should be “good christians” and take care of the inferior negros.

If you know anything beyond the first stanza of the poem that became the national anthem, you’d know that it is racist. Not in a blatant, vulgar way, but as an insulting piece towards all blacks that dared to fight for their freedom instead of just letting the superior whites take care of them.

 

[KnightBrolaire]

If you know anything about Key, he was. He was especially against the Colonial Marines — a very effective group of ex-slaves. He also felt that White should be “good christians” and take care of the inferior negros.

If you know anything beyond the first stanza of the poem that became the national anthem, you’d know that it is racist. Not in a blatant, vulgar way, but as an insulting piece towards all blacks that dared to fight for their freedom instead of just letting the superior whites take care of them.

Realistically, if you look at the lines
"Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave"
Key lumps the colonial marines in with the mercenaries as being contemptible due to the colonial marines basically betraying the americas to fight for the british (according to Mark Clague, a musicology professor at UofMI).
I took a cursory glance at some op-eds on the the other stanzas being racist (more specifically the 3rd) but it seems to be a point of contention among scholars.
I think too many people get sensitive over past portrayals/writings about slavery, etc, which in the context of their time, was possibly inoffensive. Context is everything imo. Trying to apply today's morals to yesterday's culture doesn't work.
I would contend that nothing is racist since there are no races other than the human race. Can people be discriminatory? yes, but racism cannot exist logically if skin color is a continuous spectrum and anthropologically/biologically/genetically speaking, we're all basically the same. Racism is a socio-cultural construct and a way to discriminate based on phenotype. Whiter people are whiter because of the environment they evolved in over thousands of years (same with northern asians). They needed the lighter skin to better absorb Vitamin D, while darker people needed darker skin to reduce the breakdown of other essential vitamins (beta carotene or something like that, it's light sensitive) and to protect from the harsh sun. The Samburu people of africa have eyelid folds similar to those of asiatic people. Physical expression of our genes (like eye folds, hair texture and skin color) does not make us different species.

 

[MaxOfMetal]

Trying to apply today's morals to yesterday's culture doesn't work.

Why? Because it shines a very harsh light on our ancestors? Because it makes us uncomfortable to know that the "good guys" really weren't that "good" of people?

Until we get comfortable discussing the skeletons in our historical closest we're not going to be able to move forward.

 

[KnightBrolaire]

Why? Because it shines a very harsh light on our ancestors? Because it makes us uncomfortable to know that the "good guys" really weren't that "good" of people?
Until we get comfortable discussing the skeletons in our historical closest we're not going to be able to move forward.

It's not productive. I don't think spraypainting on a statue " THIS IS RACIST" is conducive. There's a large difference between acknowledging the past and getting offended at art/culture from a different era. Americans have these weird blinders on when it comes to world war 2 for example. Some people still buy into the propaganda of the day, where it was the pure moral americans fighting the evil fascists and vanquishing them singlehandedly(or nearly so). They tend to overlook the fact that war is war, regardless of the country, and that americans killed 70k civilians in hamburg and dresden, more in nagasaki and hiroshima, took ears/fingers/skulls from dead japanese, opened fire on unarmed POWs and a number of other brutal acts. Check out the book War Without Mercy if you want to read more about american brutality and why the Pacific theater was essentially a race war. People also tend to overlook just how racist/discriminatory the world was at the time, with segregated combat units, and the fact that propaganda at the time portrayed the japanese as slanty eyed rat faced people. The American red cross wouldn't accept non-white blood donations for sending overseas to help american soldiers until pressured by a large number of african americans/the NAACP. A bunch of schoolchildren at PS43 tested white and black blood, and found no difference, then published a an article about it with the help of their teacher in opposition to the red cross segregating/discriminating blood donations . They started taking some donations from blacks but kept segregating the blood until the 50s, even though science saw no relationship between race and blood at the time.
My point is that people try to cherry pick aspects of the past and fail to look at them through a relatively objective lens and try to understand them in the context of the time. Was the red cross not taking black blood racist? Of course it was, but given the time period/culture of the time, it made sense to people then, just like the concepts of japanese being seen as apes/vermin/subhumans during the war. That kind of portrayal was common as a tactic to try and dehumanize the enemy into the "others"/subhumans and was also utilized by the germans against the jews/russians.

 

[MaxOfMetal]

There's a large difference between acknowledging the past and getting offended at art/culture from a different era.

How so? We see the past as wrong because it offends us. It offends us because we accept that it was wrong.

The issue seems to be acknowledging that even though it was not seen as offensive at the time, it actually was offensive.

As for being productive, that's been the claim for decades. The "don't make a big deal, it's not going to do anything" attitude hasn't worked in over a century. Maybe it's time to try something different. And here we are talking about this. Would we be talking about it if it hadn't been vandalized?

 

[KnightBrolaire]

How so? We see the past as wrong because it offends us. It offends us because we accept that it was wrong.

The issue seems to be acknowledging that even though it was not seen as offensive at the time, it actually was offensive.

As for being productive, that's been the claim for decades. The "don't make a big deal, it's not going to do anything" attitude hasn't worked in over a century. Maybe it's time to try something different. And here we are talking about this. Would we be talking about it if it hadn't been vandalized?

My issue with going down that path is that once we start trying to conform other time periods' morals/culture to our own, we'll start censoring things. It happened with the book burnings in the middle ages and during the 1930s.It also happened with isis destroying works that don't fit into their moral/cultural schema.
I think we've reached a strange point in time where people claim to be tolerant and accepting but aren't actually any more tolerant or accepting. People are people and baser instincts like violence/tribalism haven't gone anywhere.

 

[MaxOfMetal]

My issue with going down that path is that once we start trying to conform other time periods' morals/culture to our own, we'll start censoring things. It happened with the book burnings in the middle ages and during the 1930s.It also happened with isis destroying works that don't fit into their moral/cultural schema.
I think we've reached a strange point in time where people claim to be tolerant and accepting but aren't actually any more tolerant or accepting. People are people and baser instincts like violence/tribalism haven't gone anywhere.

I think this is where our opinions truly diverge.

Removing something offensive from the spotlight is not censorship in and of itself.

For instance, I don't think all Nazi artifacts or North America Slave Trade artifacts should be destroyed or hidden and especially not forgotten. They should be displayed in a museum with an explanation of the context from which they came. Same with confederate statues.

The problem isn't the existence of these black marks on our history, but the enshrining of them. It speaks to a grave misunderstanding of the different histories and origins of our fellow man.

You don't see the national anthem as racist because it's never meant anything more than a superficial glory anthem to you and yours. To some, what it means is pretty dark and hurtful.

Just some stuff to think about.

 

[KnightBrolaire]

I think this is where our opinions truly diverge.

Removing something offensive from the spotlight is not censorship in and of itself.

For instance, I don't think all Nazi artifacts or North America Slave Trade artifacts should be destroyed or hidden and especially not forgotten. They should be displayed in a museum with an explanation of the context from which they came. Same with confederate statues.

The problem isn't the existence of these black marks on our history, but the enshrining of them. It speaks to a grave misunderstanding of the different histories and origins of our fellow man.

You don't see the national anthem as racist because it's never meant anything more than a superficial glory anthem to you and yours. To some, what it means is pretty dark and hurtful.

Just some stuff to think about.

Oh I agree, nothing should be censored, and the context/history behind objects/artifacts should be explained. The problem is that by putting those more controversial items in museums some will claim you're enshrining them and then that opens up a whole other can of worms leading back to censorship battles, etc.
Barring that one verse, which I referenced in one of my posts, the overall connotation of the anthem has nothing to do with slavery as far as I'm concerned. I think it's quite interesting how within the last couple of years something as relatively innocuous as the national anthem has become racist.

 

[MaxOfMetal]

Oh I agree, nothing should be censored, and the context/history behind objects/artifacts should be explained. The problem is that by putting those more controversial items in museums some will claim you're enshrining them and then that opens up a whole other can of worms leading back to censorship battles, etc.
Barring that one verse, which I referenced in one of my posts, the overall connotation of the anthem has nothing to do with slavery as far as I'm concerned. I think it's quite interesting how within the last couple of years something as relatively innocuous as the national anthem has become racist.

There is a museum devoted to slavery. I don't think anyone who visits it would say it's enshrining anything. Mere preservation is not reverence. I can't think of any sane person who would say otherwise.

As for the anthem, it didn't "become" racist. It was always racist. If you're just hearing that now you've been well insulated.

 

[KnightBrolaire]

There is a museum devoted to slavery. I don't think anyone who visits it would say it's enshrining anything. Mere preservation is not reverence. I can't think of any sane person who would say otherwise.

As for the anthem, it didn't "become" racist. It was always racist. If you're just hearing that now you've been well insulated.

If it's always been racist then why is there no real mention of it being racist until the last couple of years? I've seen two op-eds from historians on the root that support it being racist, but others argue that it's not. I stand by the overall meaning of the anthem as being patriotic and inspiring.
On that end, here's an op-ed by a black man and why he thinks the anthem isn't racist: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017...ttacked-as-racist-but-say-should-keep-it.html :

"As an African-American man, I am well aware that racism was the official U.S. policy back in 1814 and that my ancestors were enslaved. And I know that many prominent Americans – including George Washington and Thomas Jefferson – owned slaves as well.
But do we rename Washington, D.C., Washington state, and the many counties, cities, streets and monuments around our country named after Washington and Jefferson? The unfortunate historical truth is that many great Americans were without a doubt morally flawed by their sinful enslavement other human beings.
Congress designated “The Star-Spangled Banner” as our national anthem in 1931, so it has been part of the lives of most Americans for as long as we’ve been around.
We only sing the first verse of Key’s poem at sporting events and other gatherings. The lyrics we sing are a moving tribute to patriotism and a call for the unity of all Americans. Regardless of its origins, its unsung verses, or the regrettably racist views and actions of its author, in modern times “The Star-Spangle Banner” has become something that unites all Americans – regardless of race, color or creed.
The symbols we choose to represent us tell the story of who we are as Americans. They give all of us something tangible to hold on to, particularly during times of division and strife. For 86 years, “The Star-Spangled Banner” has been such a symbol.
The national anthem has become a song of tribute to America and the American spirit of determination to fight against all odds. When we sing it today we honor our country and the brave American patriots in uniform of every race and ethnicity who have fought and sometimes died defending our freedoms on battlefields around the world.
Abandoning “The Star-Spangled Banner” as our national anthem today would be like turning our backs on one of our ancestors who did much that was good in life, but also had serious faults – especially when judged by today’s standards.
In the challenging times our nation faces today, we need to focus on what makes us the United States of America and not be the Divided States of America. “The Star-Spangled Banner” can be such a unifying force. We ought to keep it as our national anthem. "

another op-ed from a professor of music history/african american studies: http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/31/opinions/star-spangled-banner-criticisms-opinion-clague/index.html :
"...However, related claims about the song and its author as especially racist have been distorted and exaggerated.
"The Star-Spangled Banner" in no way glorifies or celebrates slavery. The middle two verses of Key's lyric vilify the British enemy in the War of 1812, what Key refers to in Verse 3 as "hirelings and slaves." This enemy included both whites and blacks, largely British professional soldiers (hirelings) but also the Corps of Colonial Marines (slaves). The Colonial Marines were escaped black American slaves who joined British forces because of the promise of freedom in return for fighting their former masters.
Fortunately, Britain honored this promise after the war, relocating the former slaves and their families to Halifax and Trinidad. For Key, however, the British mercenaries were scoundrels and the Colonial Marines were traitors who threatened to spark a national insurrection.
The graphic language of Key's denunciation of this British enemy led to the removal of Verse 3 in sheet music editions of the song in World War I, when the United States and Britain became staunch allies.
Yet in 1814 Key's lyric honored American soldiers both black and white. "The Star-Spangled Banner" celebrates the heroes who defended Fort McHenry in the face of almost certain defeat against the most powerful gunships of the era. America's soldiers included mainly whites, but also free and escaped blacks. Escaped slave William Williams served in the US infantry at Fort McHenry and was killed by a fragment of a British bomb. Another escaped slave, Charles Ball, writes in his memoirs of being among the American soldiers of the Chesapeake Bay Flotilla who courageously repelled a night attack and saved the city. "The Star-Spangled Banner" thus honors American military heroes, black and white, without regard to race. In this respect, "The Star-Spangled Banner" is not racist.
Key is complicit to the extent that he was a pragmatist, who, like nearly all of America's founders and early leaders, inexcusably put the prevailing social order ahead of universal human freedom. In the context of his era, however, Francis Scott Key was surprisingly progressive.
During Key's day, Washington was a bustling capitol of a new nation that hosted both a thriving commercial slave market that traded enslaved black people as commodities as well as the largest community of free blacks in the United States. To serve this community, Key helped establish the Georgetown Lancaster School for freed people of color and even taught there. Over 1,000 black children were students at the school, and most attended tuition-free.
As detailed in Marc Leepson's recent biography, Key put his skills and reputation as a lawyer at the service of blacks suing for freedom, most notably in an 1825 case of the slave ship Antelope (a precursor of the Amistad). Speaking to the US Supreme Court, Key described the treatment of slaves as "extreme cruelty" and slaves as "unhappy victims." Key said that those aboard the ship "are men, of whom it cannot be affirmed that they have universally and necessarily an owner." Key lost this case, but most of the enslaved captives were returned to Africa — a moral, if not legal victory.
Key also lost cases for Sally Henry, a woman named Kitty, and William Jordan. They remained enslaved, but Key won the freedom of Harry Quando in 1830 and Joseph Crawford in 1834. Typically, he undertook these cases gratis, without expectation or potential for payment of legal fees. Key even led a fundraising effort to help defend a man, woman and child represented by an abolitionist lawyer.
On the other hand, Key also represented slave owners as clients suing in court for the return of their then-legal "property." In Key's professional career, the matter often seemed a legal one. Those illegally enslaved should be freed. Those legally slaves had to be freed by their owners voluntarily or purchased and released from bondage. Any moral objections Key had against slavery were often shamefully set aside at times in his legal practice.
Thus, it is remarkable that the fourth verse of "The Star-Spangled Banner" begins with this opening line: "O thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand between their loved home and the war's desolation." When Key used the word "freemen," he used a legal term encompassing any man who was free, that is both blacks and whites. As a lawyer, Key used language precisely.
It is thus my belief that "The Star-Spangled Banner" encompasses all Americans; not only is Key's use of the word "freemen" surprisingly inclusive, but because nation and song have both changed — if imperfectly — since it was written. As our nation's anthem, it can and should be sung by any and all for everyone."

 

[MaxOfMetal]

The song written by a slave owner who mentions slaves is offensive to those descended from slaves.

Though I still think ElRay put it best:

If you know anything about Key, he was. He was especially against the Colonial Marines — a very effective group of ex-slaves. He also felt that White should be “good christians” and take care of the inferior negros.

If you know anything beyond the first stanza of the poem that became the national anthem, you’d know that it is racist. Not in a blatant, vulgar way, but as an insulting piece towards all blacks that dared to fight for their freedom instead of just letting the superior whites take care of them.

But it's not racist to you and that's fine. No one is taking the anthem away from you. You're more than welcome to think of it positively. That's your right.

Just understand to a lot of people it's offensive. It brings up a terrible part of our national history. Just in passing, but it's there. There is no disputing that.

 

[Drew]

It's not productive. I don't think spraypainting on a statue " THIS IS RACIST" is conducive. There's a large difference between acknowledging the past and getting offended at art/culture from a different era. Americans have these weird blinders on when it comes to world war 2 for example. Some people still buy into the propaganda of the day, where it was the pure moral americans fighting the evil fascists and vanquishing them singlehandedly(or nearly so). They tend to overlook the fact that war is war, regardless of the country, and that americans killed 70k civilians in hamburg and dresden, more in nagasaki and hiroshima, took ears/fingers/skulls from dead japanese, opened fire on unarmed POWs and a number of other brutal acts. Check out the book War Without Mercy if you want to read more about american brutality and why the Pacific theater was essentially a race war. People also tend to overlook just how racist/discriminatory the world was at the time, with segregated combat units, and the fact that propaganda at the time portrayed the japanese as slanty eyed rat faced people. The American red cross wouldn't accept non-white blood donations for sending overseas to help american soldiers until pressured by a large number of african americans/the NAACP. A bunch of schoolchildren at PS43 tested white and black blood, and found no difference, then published a an article about it with the help of their teacher in opposition to the red cross segregating/discriminating blood donations . They started taking some donations from blacks but kept segregating the blood until the 50s, even though science saw no relationship between race and blood at the time.
My point is that people try to cherry pick aspects of the past and fail to look at them through a relatively objective lens and try to understand them in the context of the time. Was the red cross not taking black blood racist? Of course it was, but given the time period/culture of the time, it made sense to people then, just like the concepts of japanese being seen as apes/vermin/subhumans during the war. That kind of portrayal was common as a tactic to try and dehumanize the enemy into the "others"/subhumans and was also utilized by the germans against the jews/russians.

I think the continued success of Kurt Vonnegut's career suggests we're not really white-washing the events of Dresden. Maybe that's just me.

To your broader point, I think the real area where you and I disagree is in your bolded section. You think this is about needing to understand events within their context. I think the context itself was the problem. I also wonder what any of this has to do with the defacing of a national cemetery in San Antonio, considering the second article you posted, while from the same news outlet, was about a statue in a public park in Baltimore.

 

[bostjan]

There have been hundreds of reports like the one (from over a month ago) that you posted. It's sad and upsetting, but I'm not sure it's really newsworthy on a national level. Cases like these are almost never solved, but, when they are, it's almost always stupid teenagers thinking it'll be fun to dare each other to do progressively more stupid things. My sleepy little town has even had it's general cemetery vandalized a bunch of times by bored farm kids with nothing productive to do.