Community >> View Thread

Author
Superman's Pal

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 2,590


Forgive me, I'm not super educated on this topic, I'm just curious what others' thoughts are. This came up last year, I think, when they removed the Confederate flags from some of the government buildings in the south, and now again with the tearing down of the statues.

On the one hand, the Confederacy was at best a foreign nation and at worst a militia fighting against the Union. Either way, is it appropriate to have their flag or their leaders represented on an official government building of the United States? I would think that sort of stuff would more properly belong in a museum. I don't think we should erase this stuff from history, but even if you believe the flag represents Southern pride and family values, should it be on a government building? I don't think so.

Then there's this more pointed argument that the statues were not erected to honor the Confederacy but simply to scare blacks. Is it right?

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/08/the-real-story-of-all-those-confederate-statues/



Posted with Google Chrome 60.0.3112.90 on Windows 7
zvelf


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 8,284



    Quote:
    On the one hand, the Confederacy was at best a foreign nation and at worst a militia fighting against the Union. Either way, is it appropriate to have their flag or their leaders represented on an official government building of the United States? I would think that sort of stuff would more properly belong in a museum. I don't think we should erase this stuff from history, but even if you believe the flag represents Southern pride and family values, should it be on a government building? I don't think so.


All I can say is what I already wrote in a different thread below: Even if a few Southerners don’t see statues of Confederate leaders and generals as racist, that’s an extreme degree of compartmentalizing. These Confederates fought to uphold slavery. That’s is their claim to fame and they shouldn’t be honored for that. Aside from the rare neo-Nazi, you don’t see Germans clamoring for Hitler statues even though Hitler is part of their heritage. Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis committed treason, they were traitors to their country, their actions in the Civil War led to the deaths of thousands upon thousands, and they tried to perpetuate slavery, the most abhorrent institution ever established in the United States of America. Why should that be honored? Also note that most of these statues and monuments were erected between 1900 and 1930, the era of Jim Crow laws, and again between 1956-1965, the era of the civil rights movement. These were times when racial conflict was highest and the messaging behind these monuments is white supremacy.


    Quote:
    Then there's this more pointed argument that the statues were not erected to honor the Confederacy but simply to scare blacks. Is it right?



    Quote:
    http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/08/the-real-story-of-all-those-confederate-statues/


It's easy to make the case that the statues were erected to do both.




Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
atrimus


Location: Saint Louis, MO
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 1,817



    Quote:
    Forgive me, I'm not super educated on this topic, I'm just curious what others' thoughts are. This came up last year, I think, when they removed the Confederate flags from some of the government buildings in the south, and now again with the tearing down of the statues.



    Quote:
    On the one hand, the Confederacy was at best a foreign nation and at worst a militia fighting against the Union. Either way, is it appropriate to have their flag or their leaders represented on an official government building of the United States? I would think that sort of stuff would more properly belong in a museum. I don't think we should erase this stuff from history, but even if you believe the flag represents Southern pride and family values, should it be on a government building? I don't think so.


That's my take. You remember history through books and museums; doesn't mean you have to honor traitors by building monuments to them.


    Quote:
    Then there's this more pointed argument that the statues were not erected to honor the Confederacy but simply to scare blacks. Is it right?



    Quote:
    http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/08/the-real-story-of-all-those-confederate-statues/


Building monuments to slavers just to intimidate blacks sounds pretty appropriate for the Jim Crow methodology.





Posted with Google Chrome 60.0.3112.101 on Windows 7
bd2999


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 14,503



    Quote:
    Forgive me, I'm not super educated on this topic, I'm just curious what others' thoughts are. This came up last year, I think, when they removed the Confederate flags from some of the government buildings in the south, and now again with the tearing down of the statues.



    Quote:
    On the one hand, the Confederacy was at best a foreign nation and at worst a militia fighting against the Union. Either way, is it appropriate to have their flag or their leaders represented on an official government building of the United States? I would think that sort of stuff would more properly belong in a museum. I don't think we should erase this stuff from history, but even if you believe the flag represents Southern pride and family values, should it be on a government building? I don't think so.


I would agree with that. It is strange to celebrate an entity whose goal was to end the U.S. as an entity. That was their only real contribution.

Now the flag we normally see for the Confederacy is not the flag per se but it has taken up that as a symbol. So it is pretty much the same thing.


    Quote:
    Then there's this more pointed argument that the statues were not erected to honor the Confederacy but simply to scare blacks. Is it right?



    Quote:
    http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/08/the-real-story-of-all-those-confederate-statues/


It is a mixed bag. At least as far as I can tell from my limited look into things.

Most of the statues were built a far ways from the CW itself. Typically in the 1880's through WW1 and continuing through what we consider the civil rights era. Although most were in the earlier area.

Most of the statues were pushed for by son's and daughters of CW soldiers that were dying off to remember them etc. The danger was that it allowed the South as a whole to idealize the CW and what the South was. That it was a better time etc. Keep in mind, that through reconstruction the Southern states did not economically do too well. So, it was in a way allowing them to brainwash themselves and could have helped build into the continuing segregation sorts of things.

Now, another point was to sort of remind minorities, mainly blacks at the time, that white's were in control. One could argue not every case, but the general opinions of scholars I have seen give an opinion that it is pretty clear that this was the case. It was one of the meanings.

They are historic, that period did happen, but the things of note are that the argument that getting rid of these is white washing history is a lie. At least in my view. Removing a statue celebrating what the confederacy stood for is not bad at all. There are many books and it is taught to everybody.

The whole mess sort of started when there were half butted efforts to teach the causes of the CW initially. After the CW the idea of slavery was allowed to be downplayed a fair bit until much later. At that point it was already part of the culture. Not slavery but the way the South and Confederacy were remembered. Making it easier to just march on the way it is.

That said, getting rid of the statues is not a way to stop hate, but it is a way of at least helping the situation. At least in my view. Given that the only argument I have seen to keep the things is that they are historical. However, the same people seem to happily ignore more recent or older tragedies that happened to subjugated individuals but did not make statues etc.

Guess it is selective history.




Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 55.0 on Windows 7
Unstable Molecule


Location: Calgary, AB Canada
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 2,687


There should absolutely be a place for those statues - after all, as the saying goes, those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. So yes, those symbols should survive as an important reminder of a chapter in your country's history. But they shouldn't be in town squares or public buildings.

"It belongs in a museum!"




And a lean, silent figure slowly fades into the gathering darkness, aware at last that in this world, with great power there must also come -- great responsibility!
Posted with Google Chrome 60.0.3112.90 on Windows 10
The Black Guardian

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 21,243


New Orleans resident, born and raised (so it's been a local issue for me). You're right, and I agree with the points made in the responses.


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 54.0 on Windows 10
MysteryMan


Member Since: Fri Apr 28, 2017
Posts: 936



    Quote:
    There should absolutely be a place for those statues - after all, as the saying goes, those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. So yes, those symbols should survive as an important reminder of a chapter in your country's history. But they shouldn't be in town squares or public buildings.



    Quote:
    "It belongs in a museum!"





Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
bd2999


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 14,503



    Quote:

      Quote:
      There should absolutely be a place for those statues - after all, as the saying goes, those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. So yes, those symbols should survive as an important reminder of a chapter in your country's history. But they shouldn't be in town squares or public buildings.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        "It belongs in a museum!"


      many are being taken down in more constructive ways.





Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 55.0 on Windows 10
Rehzon


Location: Red Forest, Chernobyl
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 8,620



Posted with Google Chrome 60.0.3112.101 on Windows 10
MysteryMan


Member Since: Fri Apr 28, 2017
Posts: 936


>


Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 10
bd2999


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 14,503


How do you define many?

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/08/running-list-of-confederate-monuments-that-have-been-removed.html

There is one for sure in that list. There were others that were vandalized, but most are taken down by those with authority to do so.

But sure, phrase things the way you are with little evidence other than "many" and then try and blame me. "Some" or "a few" would be a better phrase on your part. Unless there are loads more that have been toppled by force that were not recorded as of yet.

It is not ok to vandalize or for people to destroy public property. But your phrasing makes it seem like I am cool with it. You assume quite a bit. I dislike the statues but they need to come down legally.




Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 55.0 on Windows 7
Dragon Red


Member Since: Fri Jul 05, 2013
Posts: 864


If you're tearing down statues of proponents of slavery... I would imagine the USA is going to tear down a LOT more statues than that one. Might even have to detonate Mt Rushmore too.


Posted with Google Chrome 60.0.3112.101 on Windows 7
Trent Trueheart


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 557


...


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 54.0 on Windows 10
MysteryMan


Member Since: Fri Apr 28, 2017
Posts: 936



    Quote:
    It is not ok to vandalize or for people to destroy public property. But your phrasing makes it seem like I am cool with it. You assume quite a bit. I dislike the statues but they need to come down legally.


Just noting when you almost off-handedly say it's ok...or downplay something. It does imply your ok with it. You say you are not...then you are not then.

Personally I think a few should be left up and a few put in a museum. Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it and all that jazz.


Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 10
MysteryMan


Member Since: Fri Apr 28, 2017
Posts: 936


>


Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 10
bd2999


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 14,503



    Quote:

      Quote:
      It is not ok to vandalize or for people to destroy public property. But your phrasing makes it seem like I am cool with it. You assume quite a bit. I dislike the statues but they need to come down legally.



    Quote:
    Just noting when you almost off-handedly say it's ok...or downplay something. It does imply your ok with it. You say you are not...then you are not then.


My post, lost in a comment quote bracket was that many are being taken down in more constructive ways. I am not sure where you are getting this based on what I have said in this line of thought so far.

I am not ok with them being torn down. I do think taking them down is very much ok and what should have been done ages ago.

I mean if we are going by this sort of logic than I could almost make the same claim a few threads down about downplaying some other things to play up both sides stuff.


    Quote:
    Personally I think a few should be left up and a few put in a museum. Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it and all that jazz.


They should all come down in my view. Not sure what good reason there is for leaving a symbol to attempted insurrection and racial scorn in public spaces. Outside of monuments to the dead and so on.

I have not heard a compelling reason to leave them up. Being in a museum is fine.






Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 55.0 on Windows 7
Rehzon


Location: Red Forest, Chernobyl
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 8,620



ghccgh



Posted with Google Chrome 60.0.3112.113 on Windows 10

Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2017 Powermad Software