When newspapers start calling for censorship.

Remember how the terrorist movement ISIS has been on a years long crusade to erase the history of other cultures it objects to in the Middle East?

THE beheadings, this time, were performed with hammer and drill, not sword or knife—for the victims were made of stone, not flesh. The destruction of ancient statues (some replicas) at the Mosul museum in Iraq, a video of which was released on February 26th, is far from the most heinous crime committed by Islamic State (IS). The jihadists have killed thousands of people, often in grisly fashion. But the group’s sacking of holy sites and libraries are elements of a broader attack, perpetrated in the name of Islam, on the Middle East’s rich cultural and religious heritage.

Read that here.

What does it say when a newspaper advocates for a similar erasure of history, as the Argus Leader does in an editorial this weekend:

We believe there is a difference between learning from history and paying unexamined reverence to a whitewashed version of the past. The removal of Confederate statues and monuments from public lands is appropriate.

Read it here.

The removal of Confederate statues and monuments from public lands is appropriate.” Wow. Calls for censorship coming from a newspaper are nothing less than shocking.   As opposed to “comforting the afflicted, and the afflicting the comfortable,” the Argus Leader’s editorial board is choosing to lead by joining the groupthink mob. 

I can’t help but ask in opposition to their call for hiding away all the things we disagree with, who is paying “unexamined reverence” to any work of public art? 

Isn’t the point of art to make us think? To make us contemplate?

I would not give a statue of a Confederate soldier any more undue ‘reverence’ than I would a bronze statue of a president on the corner in Rapid City.  They don’t place statues with the ability to control our minds. They are there to make us remember our nation’s history in our own context. Warts and all.

Right now, context matters little to the mobs. The zealots are going so far to damage civil war peace memorials, because they think they somehow glorify the Confederacy. In another case, people were damaging trees at a civil war museum with baseball bats. Seriously, trees now too?

It’s hard to contemplate anything when mobs of ideological zealots are destroying anything they don’t like. And it’s even worse when they’re joined by those who claim to be our local opinion leaders, such as the Argus.

Nationally, calls for censorship have gotten so bad lately that the people who run the Gettysburg Battlefield made a statement about confederate monuments at that location:

Katie Lawhon, a senior adviser for the National Park Service’s Gettysburg office, told the Reading Eagle that the monuments dedicated to Confederacy will remain in place. They’re an important part of the cultural landscape, she said.

The National Park Service owns and maintains the Gettysburg site. It includes over 1,300 statues, markers and other monuments, which help tell the story of the battle.

Thirty of the monuments are dedicated to Confederate states that sent troops to the battle, Confederate military units or individuals like Robert E. Lee.

“The National Park Service is committed to safeguarding these unique and site-specific memorials in perpetuity, while simultaneously interpreting historically and objectively the actions, motivations and causes of the soldiers and states they commemorate,” she wrote in an email, the Eagle said.

Read that here.

The staff at the Gettysburg Battlefield national memorial actually felt they had to make a statement about safeguarding our nation’s heritage.  What does that say about how far some people are willing to go? 

We should be collectively shocked there are those who want to erase any mention that a nation took up arms against itself – including families fighting on opposite sides of the conflict. Are we not supposed to remember a conflict that shook our nation to its core?

Stating the intent to keep the monuments at Gettysburg National Battlefield would appear to be contrary to the Argus’ Editorial board’s demand that “The removal of Confederate statues and monuments from public lands is appropriate.”   You might say “well, that’s an extreme example,” but, isn’t it what they said should happen?  Those are public lands. And that’s where their path of censorship inevitably leads.

More than ever we need to recall the terrible price we paid as the nation was divided, and we fought amongst ourselves. Even as self-appointed thought leaders call for all reminders to be hidden.

50 Replies to “When newspapers start calling for censorship.”

  1. Anne Beal

    The Argus has been on quite a roll. In another editorial they explained that violence against people who are asking for it is acceptable.

    Try that defense in court.

  2. Emoluments Clause

    How is taking down Confederate memorials an erasing of history? We will always remember that the South started the Civil War at Sumter and lost it at Appomattox.

    I don’t know about the rest of you, but In the world I live in losers don’t get trophies….. These Confederate memorials are participation awards at best, but a mention in history books and or museums should be enough to suffice….

    And comparing those opposed to Confederate memorials as Isis in mentality is silly. No one is suggesting that we erase the Confederate history from our history books. But Stone Mountain should be draped (somehow), however, just as the Blashfield mural is….

    1. Bannon

      We should always remember who are the Democrats. We should always remember that the Nazi’s were a Socialist Party. We should understand today who Antifa represents.

      1. Emoluments Clause

        And Lincoln, if he were alive today, would know a Confederate when he saw one too….. WWAD?

        The Nazis were a socialist party in name only. Kind of like the way the Republicans had planned to save Medicare under the Ryan Budget a couple of years ago too… #InNameOnly

    2. duggersd

      Um, the Confederates won on points. 360,000 Union deaths vs 258,000 Confederate deaths. BTW, we give all kinds of trophies to non-winners. And, I believe Robert E. Lee was one of the best generals in US history and deserves recognition.

    3. Fled To Red

      losers don’t get trophies…..

      So, EC is in favor of destroying the Crazy Horse statue? Seems a little much.

  3. Anonymous

    “Stone Mountain should be draped (somehow), however, just as the Blashfield mural is….”

    That’s censorship. Straight from the Liberal Democrat Socialist thought police.

    1. Emoluments Clause

      So draping the Blashfield mural is censorship too? From a distance, the draping of Stone Mountain in black could be used to symbolize the sadness of slavery being a part of our nations history. But up close, one should be allowed to view Stone Mountain as a part of a historical display about the Jim Crow South and the attempt by some, mostly southerns, to glorify a defeated army which fought to preserve slavery, which later southern apologists tried to explain away with the argument of states’ rights in a very revisionary and untruth worthy manner….

      1. Anonymous

        Yes, the walling of the mural was censorship. And you’re proposing putting a curtain on a mountain.

  4. Springer

    First it was the Confederate flag. Gone. Now it’s any Confederate statues. Soon gone. What is next? these were part of our history. I suppose Custer battlefield will have to go as it might offend native Americans. Washington statues, State name, DC Washington because they might offend someone’s sensibilities? Certain presidents on our money because they once owned slaves? This is bad policy and should be stopped in it’s tracks.

    I’m offended by modern art so do I have the right to tear it down? Not quite the same thing but close enough.

    1. Emoluments Clause

      Do they call it the “Custer Battlefield?” I thought is was called the Battle of Greasy Grass? That’s how I see it….The victor should always be allowed to name it, I think, and the only one who should get trophies from it….

      Washington’s name shouldn’t offend anyone, because President Washington represents the beginning of the continuum and progression of our democratic society. Confederate Generals represent merely a diversion or an attempt at the devolution of our values.

      When President Lincoln said at Gettysburg, “….dedicated to the principles that all men are created equal,” he used the word “dedicated” and not “proclaimed,” because he understood as a political leader that the final story had not been written about us as a democracy. He knew it was a continual process. In fact, if a modern Lincoln were to write an address equal to Lincoln’s Gettysburg address in poise and relevance, he probably would use “men and women” and not just “men.” Because it took another 57 years, or two scores and 17 years later, before women could vote in our evolving democracy too….

      And as far as modern art is concerned, well, it’s cubism that really bothers me, but what do I know about art?

      1. Fled To Red

        Washington’s name shouldn’t offend anyone, because

        Nobody’s name should offend anyone, regardless. Facts are facts, ignoring them doesn’t make them go away. Forgetting history doesn’t make it any different, it just makes those who forget more ignorant.

  5. Springer

    The left is offended by everything that differs from their thoughts and beliefs, and they will use anything they can to create controversy and stir up trouble, and they get away with it because to they claim anyone who dares disagree with them is either racist, homophobic, or any other phobic they think of. Well guess what, I am not racist, homophobic, or any other phobic, but I believe symbols of our history should remain as it IS our history. Instead of finding these statues etc offensive, they should and do represent our history and remind us of what not to repeat. I haven’t read of anybody bowing down and worshipping any of these symbols or what they represent. But this issue is being used to incite hate and violence where none relative to this existed before.

    1. Emoluments Clause

      Republicans should be more offend by Confederate memorials than anyone. It was Confederate Generals who wanted Lincoln defeated. And last I checked, Lincoln was a Republican and the first Republican President too, and one of our greatest presidents.

      It is Republicans who should be most offended by the fact that just across the Potomac River from the Lincoln Memorial is a freeway dubbed the Jefferson Davis Highway. Yet, Republicans are silent, why?

      What about all of the tens of thousands of Northern soldiers who died or were wounded in the Civil War? Are not their armies the continuum of our modern day military forces as a nation? And does not their efforts deserve respect and attention and not a flippant attitude about their service merely to placate some mistake southern views or revisionism? ….. And what does that one bumper sticker say, oh yah, “Support Our Troops.” And today’s troops are the successors of the Northern forces of the Civil War and not the Southern forces.

      Springer, says something interesting, though, when he said, “but I believe symbols of our history should remain as it IS our history. Instead of finding these statues etc offensive, they should and do represent our history and remind us of what not to repeat.” Because I would agree to the degree that these “symbols” are a part of the explanation of the Jim Crow South and should be preserved in that context, but they should not be used to honor a defeated army, which wanted the devolution of our constitution and country and the defeat of our American troops.

      The Battle at Gettysburg and its outcome is the day when America began to set in motion not only the eventual defeat of the South, but also the gathering of our nation in a way which would make it a true force in the 20th century. The day that the South lost at Gettysburg, and Vicksburg too, is the day the Nazis lost in the 20th century as well. Because I have problems in believing that half of an America could have succeeded in helping Britain and the French resistance in defeating the Third Reich. Especially, if you recognize the true values of the Confederacy and how they closer matched the goals and values of a Hitlers Germany. So the next time you salute a veteran or thank them for their service, or slap a “Support the Troops” sticker on your car, remember what they fought for and how more difficult it would have been for them to have succeeded, if America had stayed divided as the Confederate Generals once wished….To honor the Confederacy, or even to allow such honoring, is to dishonor our modern day military troops and veterans. And if you choose to do that, then shame on you….

  6. Springer

    So now the south is compared to Germany in WWII!!!! Unbelievable! This tearing down of statues etc is nothing more than the left’s continued use of supposed racism to promote their ideology and demonize anyone who doesn’t believe as they do.

    1. Emoluments Clause

      You are right, there is a difference. The South has the Jefferson Davis Highway, but Germany has no Hitler Express Autobahn…. And when did slavery become merely “supposed racism?”

      1. Springer

        The left ascribes racism to people who simply disagree with them. Of course supposed racism does not refer to slavery, and you know that isn’t what I meant. But go ahead and twist my words if that is all you can come up with.

          1. Fled To Red

            This is why the snowflakes want us to forget history. The KKK was the military arm of the (wait for it) democratic party. Nazis have socialist right in their name. If a bunch of left wing (Nazi, KKK, Antifa) groups want to riot why should Trump have to decide which are righteous and which need condemning?

            Why should Nazis or KKK be associated with trump. Hillary’s mentor (Byrd) was openly active in the KKK until it became a political liability. Once it became less popular, the only thing that changed was the “open” part.

  7. Mark N.

    I disagree that the Argus was advocating censorship when it said that the removal of Confederate statues is appropriate. They weren’t advocating that they be scrubbed from history, just not venerated in the public square. Just because a community at one time believed that an individual was worthy of having a statue doesn’t mean that the community must always believe that. People can change their minds about who can be honored publicly. Taking down a statue doesn’t mean that we forget about the person or event. It just gets moved to the history books and museums. The decision to remove a statue should be made by the community that erected it, taking into consideration the historical, societal, and artistic merit of the statue.

  8. Troy Jones

    If the people of a town or city in the South or San Francisco want to keep or take down a statue, pass a resolution expressing support or condemnation, it is their right under the First Amendment. Whether I agree or not irrelevant.

    But acts by the mob, whether from the right or left, is just that: an illegal act by a mob.

    By the way, these Anitifa mobs are sure idiots. They have been calling for the removal of statues of people like Joan of Arc and Paul Revere. I guess it must be because they are on a horse and they must somehow think horses are a civil war phenomenon.

    Sidebar: this desire to any and all form of opposition strength sure seems to parallel what occurred in the French Revolution and we all know how that turned out. I guess not all because the Argus call is similar to the Jacobins who shut down opposition press and cut off the heads of anyone who opposed them. They are now the Sioux Falls Jacobin Leader in my eyes.

    Also, like the ALCU, I defend the rights of neo-Nazis etc. to get permits as they did in Charlottesville not because I support anything about them but because allowing them to speak insures their ideas are exposed as the filth it is by their own words.

    1. Emoluments Clause

      Getting the proper permits to legally and theoretically express your racist views in a hopefully peaceful and non intimidating manner is one thing, but supporting the continuance of statutes which promote slavery is an other, especially when it is sanctioned by a local or state government.

      As far as the ACLU defending neo-Nazis. Well, that is nothing new. Back in the mid 1970s, the ACLU made national news when they fought for the right for the KKK or the neo-Nazis to acquire a permit to march in a city parade in Skokie, Ill. But the one big difference between then and now is that then Republican President Gerald Ford was not a Nazi apologists or sympathizer, but sadly, our current Republican President appears to be…. WWAD? (What would Abe do?)

  9. duggersd

    One of the problems we deal with is the fact that many people want to judge people in past generations by the morals of today’s generation. I doubt there is anybody who believes slavery is a good thing, despite the fact that the Democrats continually want to keep certain people “on the plantation”. Yet to judge people such as Jefferson, Washington, Lee and others because of their views of slavery is a mistake. 50 years ago, there was the thought by many that “a woman’s place is in her home”. Such people believed (and some still do) that married women should not work outside the home. Most men and women today do not believe this. Yet, are we going to use our morals and values of the 21st Century to condemn many of our grandfathers and fathers? Most of these people were/are very good men, but today’s thinking is different from theirs.
    Many Confederates saw the Union as invading their homeland. People did not look at the US the way they do today. It was AFTER the Civil War that people called themselves an American first and said they were from Virginia second. Back then, they called themselves a New Yorker or a Virginian. Those people were fighting to preserve something they saw as right at the time and it does a disservice to try to take away the reminders we have of them today. Most people who raise the Confederate Battle flag (not the Confederate flag) use it as a symbol of defiance, not one of white supremacy. Get over it!

    1. Emoluments Clause

      Lee was no Jefferson or Washington. Jefferson and Washington speak of the initial progression of our nation. Lee speaks of an attempt at a diversion or devolution of our values. And that is why Lincoln said at Gettysburg, “dedicated to the proposition” and not “proclaimed the proposition.”

  10. KM

    Condoleezza Rice said it well…”I want us to have to look at those names and recognize what they did and to be able to tell our kids what they did, and for them to have a sense of their own history. When you start wiping out our history, sanitizing your history to make you feel better, it’s a bad thing.”

    If people in a city are calling for the removal of a statue, they should have a discussion/debate and vote. Antifa’s & BLM tactics are from a mob rule mentality and will continue to divide us, not to mention the help from the MSM they are receiving.

    EC – you should create your own blog. “Reasons why one should stay on the plantation”

    1. Emoluments Clause

      Why can’t they “look at those names and recognize what they did” merely at a Civil War museum? Why do we need to honor those who fought to protect slavery in a tranquil park, and thus legitimize them?

      And Quit being a generalist too. And I am not talking about just being an apologists for Confederate Generals, because I am also talking about not assuming that all who are opposed to the presence of Confederate statues in public places are some how a part of a mob or have a mob mentality….

      Oh, and as far as a blog is concerned, well, Cory and Scott already do a good enough job at it, actually an excellent job at it, and I truly appreciate how Pat often tolerates me ( 😉 ) …. So I already have my voice, but thanks for the suggestion, though. But I must ask, were the words in “quotations” in reference to me having my own blog, are those words of a titled blog or suggestions for my first alleged blog piece? Because we already have the Dakota Plantation ……. site, but as far as a blog piece, then such a title would have to be a sad satirical writing about a Neo-Nazi or KKK sympathizing President who opines for the past, huh?

      1. KM

        If Cory & Scott do such a great job (at dividing us) why do you voice your opinion in dissertation style? You post on all the blogs, on just about every story. Not that I don’t mind your opinion and insight, just think you would have a more suiting platform on your own blog…it’s easy. I would visit it;)

        Our POTUS condemned both groups, you just see what you want to see. If you are looking to be offended you’re going to find something that triggers you…that’s easy too.

        1. Emoluments Clause

          Once again, I appreciate the suggestion and the constructive criticism, but I already have too many hobbies to take on a full time credible blogging site… Thanks though….

          And you are right that the POTUS criticized both groups, except one of the groups is into hate, the other one not so much or at all….

          1. KM

            Always here to help. Maybe a guest post?

            Both groups are into hate, do you watch YouTube? Plenty of videos showing violence from both sides. Minimizing Antifa, BLM or the Resistance, & yes the “rising” KKK/neo-Nazi, is very dangerous. Stop attempting to divide us, your MSM is manipulating you yet again. May I suggest cutting the cord, it’s great on the budget & quite refreshing. Take a walk, get some fresh air and clear the fog they want you to stay in.

            Want more perspective into what the majority of my generation is thinking? Check out Red Pill Black: I don’t care about Charlottesville, the KKK or White Supremacy. Yes, that’s on YouTube & it will only take 5mins to be enlightened.

  11. Jaa Dee

    Ten Books ONLY that conservatives tried to ban from libraries in 1014
    1) The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian, by Sherman Alexie

    “Reasons: anti-family, cultural insensitivity, drugs/alcohol/smoking, gambling, offensive language, sex education, sexually explicit, unsuited for age group, violence. Additional reasons: ‘depictions of bullying’”;

    2) Persepolis, by Marjane Satrapi

    “Reasons: gambling, offensive language, political viewpoint. Additional reasons: ‘politically, racially, and socially offensive,’ ‘graphic depictions’”;

    3) And Tango Makes Three, Justin Richardson and Peter Parnell

    “Reasons: Anti-family, homosexuality, political viewpoint, religious viewpoint, unsuited for age group. Additional reasons: ‘promotes the homosexual agenda’”;

    4) The Bluest Eye, by Toni Morrison

    “Reasons: Sexually explicit, unsuited for age group. Additional reasons: ‘contains controversial issues’”;

    5) It’s Perfectly Normal, by Robie Harris

    “Reasons: Nudity, sex education, sexually explicit, unsuited to age group. Additional reasons: ‘alleges it child pornography’”;

    6) Saga, by Brian Vaughan and Fiona Staples

    “Reasons: Anti-Family, nudity, offensive language, sexually explicit, and unsuited for age group”;

    7) The Kite Runner, by Khaled Hosseini

    “Reasons: Offensive language, unsuited to age group, violence”;

    8) The Perks of Being a Wallflower, by Stephen Chbosky

    “Reasons: drugs/alcohol/smoking, homosexuality, offensive language, sexually explicit, unsuited for age group. Additional reasons: ‘date rape and masturbation’”;

    9) A Stolen Life, Jaycee Dugard

    “Reasons: drugs/alcohol/smoking, offensive language, sexually explicit, and unsuited for age group”;

    10) Drama, by Raina Telgemeier – “Reasons: sexually explicit.”

    1. KM

      Funny, conservatives tried to ban books from libraries? Our personal library has Alexie’s book and Hosseini’s book and we are conservatives, I think your MSM sites are tricking you again or maybe you’re just blinded by your hatred for diversity of thought and discussion so you make things up. Conservatives defend the right to free speech, not try to stop it with sticks, chains, bottles full of urine, etc. God Bless you, Jaa Dee!

  12. Jaa Dee

    Did any conservative condemn the nazi groups supporting trump during the campaign.—- Will any conservative condemn the nazism in Charlottesville, instead of deflecting from it?—-

    1. Anne Beal

      Of course they did. But here’s the thing: one’s loyalty to the US Constitution can be measured by how well you tolerate its protections for people you don’t like.

      The First Amendment protects the freedom of speech, ideology, religion, etc. That means it protects the speech of Nazis and the ideology of racism. It protects all of us or none of us, whether you like it or not.
      If you want to live someplace without such protections, move to North Korea. Or China.

      On a side note, the groups currently gloating over the waning of white supremacy are in for a heck of a surprise when the Asians, currently in their ascendancy, reign supreme.

      1. Emoluments Clause

        Whose really advocating that hate groups can’t get permits? Many of us just don’t like it when our President permits hate by elevating those groups to a level of legitimacy.

  13. Springer

    Will any liberal condemn the violence advocated by Black Lives Matter and Antifa and the Resist movement? As the saying goes, it takes two to tango, and Trump was perfectly correct when he said both sides were to blame in Charlottesville. Which side came with masks and bats?? They came wanting the confrontation they got and definitely were not innocent. If you can’t accept that, you are blind.

    1. Emoluments Clause

      But when Trump did that, he legitimized Nazis. He legitimized them as a sitting President, who is suppose to expound a moral authority and not an apologetic attitude towards those who hate….

      1. Anne Beal

        The permit legitimized the neo-Nazis, Trump simply pointed out they had one. Their rally was legal.

  14. Troy Jones

    EC,

    What is with this theoretically qualification? Hopefully qualification? Non-intimidating qualification? Your view that rights and privileges are deserved by those you agree with and do it your way oozes from your posts throughout this thread- only your majority view should prevail. Only your minority view should be protected.

    You sound so Jacobin.

  15. Anne Beal

    The Neo-Nazis got their permit thanks to the ACLU and Judge Glen E. Conrad, who was appointed by George W. Bush and confirmed by a 89-0 vote of the US Senate.
    Blaming Trump for any of this is idiotic.
    Obviously it’s all George Bush’s fault.

  16. Anonymous

    View previous replies
    ..

    Living Blue in South Dakota

    Living Blue in South Dakota Nancy Foust I think we should all work with antifa. Just trying not to confuse Trump. He has so much trouble with thinking and with morality. Can’t tell right from wrong.

    LikeShow more reactions
    · Reply · August 18 at 12:00pm

  17. Troy Jones

    Fled,

    Good comments. Many on the left don’t want us or anyone else to forget history. They just don’t think anything which Hasn’t been covered on the Comedy Channel or late night TV is just myth.

    This whole statue discussion from their side may be the most shallow, anti-intellectual, and contrary to history of anything that has come from their pea brains.

    For instance (I would need a book to address the entire list), they keep calling these soldiers as traitors or having committed treason. Here is the truth:

    Besides spies who presented themselves as pro-union AND were NOT formally engaged by the Confederate (mostly Nothern slavery supporters), how many Confederate military leaders, civil leaders, soldiers or citizens went to trial under the charge of treason? ZERO

    If the people who won, lost friends and family, and risked life didn’t consider them traitors, who are these morons to second guess them and force their ignorant views on anyone?

    Presentism is a logic fallacy and moral fallacy on steroids in liberal “thinking” never more openly displayed these past two weeks.

    We should have a discussion about these statues but how do you have a conversation with people so intentionally ignorant and consumed with irrational emotion?

    On another matter, I love the exchange between two reporters in Boston at the free speech rally. On one side of the street are a couple hundred vile Antifa protesters yelling and screaming. On the other side are a dozen people who have a permit giving speeches about our freedoms. The reporter looking to the dozen (not the 200 yelling obscenities), “which ones are the fascists?”

    You just can’t make this up.

  18. Anonymous

    We had the Nuremberg Trials for Nazi War Criminals but now it looks like Cory and his cut followers along with re-writing history will have their own Civil War traitor trials in absentia, Robert E. Lee will be first.