TROPHIES R US

TROPHIES R US | NEXT TIME THE LEFT WANTS TO REMOVE A CONFEDERATE STATUE, REMIND THEM THAT IT IS JUST A PARTICIPATION TROPHY | image tagged in participation trophy,confederate statues,robert e lee,hypocrites | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
share
2,081 views, 57 upvotes, Made by HANSHUE 3 months ago participation trophyconfederate statuesrobert e leehypocrites
Add Meme
Post Comment
reply
7 ups, 2 replies
No, it's actually not. Technically, they were losers, however, their loss has become a "glorious defeat" in the eyes of many southerners due to the "Lost Cause of the South" mythos. That's what the statues are about, and that's why most of them were erected in the 1910s and 1920s, during the heyday of the KKK.

Sorry to burst your bubble.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
That may be true, but it...was...still..a...joke...
reply
1 up, 1 reply
I guess...

It wasn't particularly funny, though
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
it was funny to me
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Well, I'm not you, am I?
reply
0 ups
and i created the meme as a joke pointing to the left these days that kids shouldnt win or lose in sports, but giving them "participation trophies" allowing them to fail in life later than sooner when they would have a chance to learn from it. Yes i find it funny, and i also find it funny that you have no sense of comedy, critical thinking, and drink milk and eat eggs and still call yourself a vegan.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Well said :)
reply
1 up
Thank you
reply
4 ups
reply
4 ups, 2 replies
reply
0 ups
The fact that you use Lee as your poster child for racism just shows you know nothing about history. Bedford Forrest, maybe. Lee? You're just showing off your ignorance.
reply
0 ups
!!!
reply
3 ups
i.imgflip.com/2gmumr.jpg (click to show)
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
reply
1 up, 1 reply
there is a sequel tho, it's called "whether it was white people, irish, italians. spaniards, portuguese, dutch, german settlers, they were all a shade of white, and worked hard. all you deniers think the pasty white male came over to america and killed every indian, and everyone here owned slaves, and stole land that belonged to indian nations. Try learning some history and stop reading the just the cover of every book.
reply
1 up, 2 replies
Then why those statues for only "the pasty white male"?

The only denial being spouted here is coming from you, as people of ALL shades - not just 'white' - worked, and in some cases, literally slaved here. Have you any idea what the Spanish did to the Native Americans? Practically almost sorta makes the Brits look like Samaritans in comparison. Portugese not much better either. In their former colony of Brazil, it was legal to hunt Native Americans for sport - like deer - in the Amazon till 1921. Plus those two brought in far more slaves to their colonies than the British did.

In the early 1900s, the KKK get a reboot from Griffith's "Birth of a Nation" and a boost from animosity towards the most recent immigrant wave - primarily the Irish and Italians you mentioned. Non-British nor Germanic, they were Catholic, and seen as the gravest threat (stop me when this starts sounding familiar) to American culture since its founding.

Defensive posturing and false deflection illuminate your position. You're pointing fingers and decrying, not giving any positive reasons for those statues (of which there are, as well as negatives - for some, anyways). If those are monuments are reduced to little more than symbols of antagostic 'pride' instead of statesmenship and patriotism (albiet with the negative aspect of slavery entwined), then revulsion towards them and that aspect is not incomprehensible.

It's 2018, time to stop dwaddling on a misbegotten past.
reply
1 up, 2 replies
http://www.civilwarprofiles.com/dwight-d-eisenhower-in-defense-of-robert-e-lee/
Here's a positive reason for those statues. I'm sure you'll ignore it like you do everything else that doesn't confirm to your worldview, though.
reply
0 ups
"Modda

.....

You're pointing fingers and decrying, not giving any positive reasons for those statues (of which there are, as well as negatives - for some, anyways)."

> positive reasons for those statues (of which there are,< as well as negatives - for some, anyways).

Don't need ta read it, pumpkin, been there done that-isms.

Next time, TRY reading something before relocating your disoriented dysentery to your bungling brook of a goose stepping mouth.
reply
0 ups
"Modda

.....

If those are monuments are reduced to little more than symbols of antagostic 'pride' instead of statesmenship and patriotism (albiet with the negative aspect of slavery entwined), then revulsion towards them and that aspect is not incomprehensible."

>statesmenship and patriotism<

That too.

Hope that doesn't stub your hickoid knee jerk bone too much.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
White pasty? they are all made of bronze!
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
{{*cough cough* scroll up to the comment immediately above that is was a reply to *cough cough*}}
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
i have brain allergies
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
I noticed,,,
reply
0 ups
that and the genital warts i got
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
i.imgflip.com/2gkbuw.jpg (click to show)

EXCELLENT!
reply
2 ups
Nobody's erasing history by tearing down statues. There's these things called "textbooks" and "museums" that you can go to. Personally, I think these statues shouldn't be destroyed, but rather taken out of places like public parks and put into museums, where the statues of these people can be surrounded by the context of what they did, both good and bad. I know from personal experience that if there's a statue in a public place, people, especially children, tend to look up to those depicted, even if they don't know who they are. Growing up, there was a confederate statue in a park near where I lived, but I didn't know that. All I knew was that this man was memorialized, and therefore must've been an amazing person. Only recently did I bother to do research on this man, and find out that he was a confederate soldier and slave owner. That shook my world, because this was a man I'd been subconsciously looking up to my whole life, and I found out who he truly was. This is why these statues can't stay. They ingrain the idea of idolizing traitors and rebels into young people, which is exactly what was intended by the United Daughters of the Confederacy when they put them up in the 1920s and 1960s. Museums are where these statues belong, not in public parks where they can be idolized and memorialized.
reply
1 up
You mean like the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall is a participation trophy, right?
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
when the right cry's about confederate statues tell them to get over it they dont need a participation trophy
reply
0 ups, 4 replies
and when the left becomes fascist and want to destroy and erase history, well they should just get over it.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
reply
3 ups, 2 replies
Frederick Douglass, a black leader who met with Abraham Lincoln himself said this, “The savage chiefs of the western coasts of Africa, who for ages have been accustomed to selling their captives into bondage and pocketing the ready cash for them, will not more readily accept our moral and economical ideas than the slave traders of Maryland and Virginia,” he warned. “We are, therefore, less inclined to go to Africa to work against the slave trade than to stay here to work against it.” Black Africans sold other black Africans to the Europeans. A simple historical fact that many people ignore to perpetuate the victim culture built around black people. Truth be told, black Africans are just as responsible for slavery in the US as white people ever were.
reply
1 up
Truth be told, everyone did.

It didn't take long for Europeans to realize they could do most of it themselves. Add to that increasing demand for slaves, profitability from sales, plus economic activity in other sectors (the banking and insurance companies in London that rose and benefitted from the slave trade turned it into the economic capital it still is today), and the middle man gets cut out. They colonized Africa, and it went through the roof.

FREE BONUS: You think it was just en route to here and after that Africans suffered? Check out what the likes of Liepold, Kruger, and Rhodes did there. Makes Hitler look like a rank amature.

FREE BONUS II: Ever wonder why in Africa and East Asia more Moslems live in ports of call? As today, Arabs were involved in the slave trade. Moslems can only enslave non Moslems. One protection from getting kidnapped by Arab traders was to convert to Islam.
So it wasn't Africans selling Africans, it was Islamic Africans selling Africans of other ethnicities who also had not converted.

But all this is irrelevent. Africans could have shipped then here themselves and forced them down slave owners throats, that doesn't absolve slave owners from having been slave owners,,,
reply
0 ups
Africans of other ethnicities and religions*
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
reply
1 up
put it up!~
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Nobody's erasing history by taking a statue down. You can still read textbooks and go to museums, which is where these statues SHOULD be.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
why?
reply
2 ups
Because in museums, it's clear that we are educating people on what these people did, while statues in public places often seem to commemorate and celebrate what the people depicted have done. Without the context of information surrounding statues of people like Robert E Lee, it becomes an idolization, not a source of information. But put that same statue in a museum, surround it with information on his achievements and mistakes, and you can better inform people on what he did. These statues were put up by the United Daughters of the Confederacy during the 1920s and 1960s, an outspokenly racist group with intentions of stirring up interracial conflict during times like the civil rights movement. If you want to remember Southern history, then you should have no problems with putting these statues in museums. But putting up statues of traitors, racists, and rebels in places like public parks celebrates the fact that they were all those things.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
what left you right wing f*ggot for clinton and trump
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
maybe could you clarify that asstosis?
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
are you such a f*ggot you think clinton is left wing
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
o i didnt realize clinton was a right winger. and what is your fixation with gays?
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
none except right wingers are f*ggots for soros tax breaks
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
wow you are confused right wingers n soros are like oil n water
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
look up who kushner owes money too you slave hes in debt for millions to george soros and trump gave him a big fat tax break i get to pay for you nazi sand ni**er
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
thank you for your deniro
0 ups
see i knew you where a clinton voter
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
well now your just being stupid. i held higher regards for you laonsite.
reply
3 ups, 2 replies
its the same thing. The south were the biggest pain and destruction to this nation in history, way more harm than ww1 or even ww2... no statues, not for hitler, not for the south, and not for Lee (Oswald or general) , or Benedict Arnold or ... those statues are offensive and divisive . Put em in a museum.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
In an 1858 letter, Lincoln said, "I have declared a thousand times, and now repeat that, in my opinion neither the General Government, nor any other power outside of the slave states, can constitutionally or rightfully interfere with slaves or slavery where it already exists." In a Springfield, Ill., speech, he explained, "My declarations upon this subject of negro slavery may be misrepresented, but can not be misunderstood. I have said that I do not understand the Declaration (of Independence) to mean that all men were created equal in all respects." Debating with Sen. Stephen Douglas, Lincoln said, "I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of ... making voters or jurors of Negroes nor of qualifying them to hold office nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races, which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality."

You might believe..., "His Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves! That proves he was against slavery." Lincoln's words: "I view the matter (Emancipation Proclamation) as a practical war measure, to be decided upon according to the advantages or disadvantages it may offer to the suppression of the rebellion." He also wrote: "I will also concede that emancipation would help us in Europe, and convince them that we are incited by something more than ambition." At the time Lincoln wrote the proclamation, war was going badly for the Union.

Historical truth matters, monuments and memorials matter, neither should ever be cleansed, or removed, to suit the personal agenda of corrupt politicians and race hustlers who distort history for their personal gain. Maybe you guys oughta be trying to tear down the Lincoln memorial, too?
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
if you cant tell the "winner" from the "loser" then no one can help you. there are no statues of hitler. there are no statues of king George, there are no statues of the Rosenberg's, there are no statues of Tojo, there are no statues of King Louis who without we would not exist as a country even. the south LOST they are SLAVERS they do not get a statue, why is this so hard for you to grasp?
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
There's statues of Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull. They lost in the end, yet their descendants get to honor them. The southerners as a whole don't get the same right because some of them owned slaves?
reply
0 ups
No because they were traitors and were enemies of the United States. No statues of Benedict Arnold either
reply
2 ups
reply
1 up
Flip Settings

Created with the Imgflip Meme Generator

IMAGE DESCRIPTION:
NEXT TIME THE LEFT WANTS TO REMOVE A CONFEDERATE STATUE, REMIND THEM THAT IT IS JUST A PARTICIPATION TROPHY
hotkeys: D = random, W = like, S = dislike, A = back
Feedback