Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Confederate Memorials
America's Debate > Social Issues > Race Issues
Google
entspeak
There have been two white supremacist rallies in Charlottesville recently and the past few months have been filled with discussions about the removal of memorials honoring Confederate military and government figures.

Should memorials erected to honor the acts and individuals who fought for the Confederacy be taken down (and, possibly, moved to places like museums?)

Why/Why not?
Google
Mrs. Pigpen
Should memorials erected to honor the acts and individuals who fought for the Confederacy be taken down (and, possibly, moved to places like museums?)

Why/Why not?


I'm not a fan.
I read a writeup pretty recently from a retired diplomatic attache's blog.
He mentioned living in Spain during the tumult following the death in 1975 of Francisco Franco.
I'll post an excerpt:
QUOTE
One of the things that struck me during those unsettled early years of the transition from dictatorship to democracy was the Spanish passion for tearing down statues and renaming the hundreds of streets and plazas that bore the name of Franco or of some other now politically incorrect former dignitary. As an American, I found it curious and hypocritical (more below).

I remember, in particular, a small monument across the street from my aunt's home in San Sebastian, on the Avenida de Colon, in the now posh Gros neighborhood. Erected, I think, in the 1940's, it recalled the September 13, 1939 liberation/occupation (you decide) of San Sebastian by Franco's forces under General Mola; it stood in a small square, more of a triangular space really, near the Santa Catalina bridge that spans the Urumea river. If memory serves, it was a small, rectangular plinth with some kind of bronze laurels or swords on top and a greenish plaque that read along the lines of, "In commemoration of when the Marxist chains that held down San Sebastian were broken." Every September 13, the local Movimiento types would hold a short ceremony in front of the monument; they would lay a wreath, sing the national anthem, and maybe some other nationalist ditty. With the death of El Caudillo, this monument became an issue of contention, along with the names of various streets which had been de-Basqued during the long Franco regime. It must have been in 1976 or so, can't remember exactly, when somebody took a sledgehammer to the little monument, and ripped off the swords or laurels and the plaque and threw it all in the river. The Movimiento sorts, still around and fighting a losing battle to preserve Franco's legacy, rushed out, put up a new temporary wooden plaque and laid a wreath in front of the battered plinth. The new plaque and wreath, in short order, were floating down the Urumea to the sea. The Franquistas came back, put up another temporary plaque, and this time stood guard for a couple of days. As soon as their vigilance came to an end, well, you guessed it, more debris in the river, and another couple of whacks at the plinth. This went on for some time. As far as I know, the little monument is now gone and most youngsters in San Sebastian probably don't know it ever existed. I also doubt they know what September 13 was about.

All this, at the time, struck me as odd. I understood, of course, that Franco had not been everybody's cup of tea, to say the least. His regime initially had been exceptionally brutal--so brutal, in fact, that in the 1940s, the German Nazis, yes, those Nazis, the real ones, not the ones with Tiki torches, urged Franco to ease off on the executions as he was on the verge of wiping out the skilled working class. As the years went on, however, the regime settled down to a drab almost comical routine of pomp, empty pronouncements and corruption, but one that also brought unprecedented stability and prosperity to Spain
*snip*
Spaniards could travel abroad freely, open businesses, own property, worship, and complain about all sorts of things. It wasn't exactly Athenian or Jeffersonian democracy, but not exactly the USSR or the DPRK, either. Watching a Franco statue being removed in Madrid, I remember asking a somewhat left-leaning Spanish friend of mine what he thought this would accomplish. He said, "We want no trace of that odious dictatorship." I asked him if he thought all the dams, highways, bridges, airports, housing blocs, etc., built under Franco should also be removed in the interest of erasing the dictatorship. What about all the stuff built by Spain's long-line of autocratic monarchs? He smiled sheepishly and invited me to a drink and some tapas. Conversation over.

I used to bore my Spanish friends with how in the US we didn't go around tearing down statues or trying to erase history, and that it seemed we had greater respect for history than they did. I remember, quite specifically, citing the streets named for and the statues to Confederate generals, and the Confederate-inspired state flags in the South, as a sign of our greater enlightenment. I also pointed out that the US military names weapon systems after formidable Native American opponents. I guess, if my Spaniard interlocutors remember those long-ago conversations, they are probably having themselves a laugh at my expense. Go ahead, I deserve it.


The Confederate statues date back to the 1800s. We're a very new nation, relatively speaking. We don't have a lot of historical memorabilia from that far back.
Visiting the site where an original structure/monument was placed offers a different "feel" than seeing it in a museum.
You picture the people who lived there long ago. There's a sort of solemnity to it.
Italy is replete with things like that, and I believe it offers a good example for comparison.
I think there is value to keeping a historical landmark in its original position, and removal would take some of that value away.

I'm not the only one, this is a largely accepted viewpoint which is the reason the National Register of Historic Places keeps an official list of cultural resources worthy of preservation.
For example, the 1884 statue of Robert E Lee was on that list.
From the website:
The National Register is part of a national program to coordinate and support public and private efforts to identify, evaluate, and protect historic and archeological resources. Properties listed in the National Register include districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that are significant in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture.
National Register properties are distinguished by having been evaluated according to uniform standards. These criteria recognize the accomplishments of all people who have contributed to the history and heritage of the United States and are designed to help state and local governments, federal agencies, and others identify important historic and archeological properties worthy of preservation and of consideration in planning and development decisions.


Since these statues/monuments have been established to have historical value, there should be a very compelling reason for their removal that would supersede their documented importance.
I don't see any new very compelling reasons.
Their removal at this point in time seems either very arbitrary, or entirely politically motivated.
Trouble
QUOTE(entspeak @ Oct 11 2017, 01:53 PM) *
There have been two white supremacist rallies in Charlottesville recently and the past few months have been filled with discussions about the removal of memorials honoring Confederate military and government figures.

Should memorials erected to honor the acts and individuals who fought for the Confederacy be taken down (and, possibly, moved to places like museums?)

Why/Why not?


Not without a rigorous discussion first. The destruction and or removals had a two year head start. According to Wikipedia, the removal of various historical monuments has been going on since at least the Charleston Church shooting. Regardless of ones' position a counter view was certain to occur and to the best of my knowledge there has been no debate. Was it reasonable to begin a two year campaign of removing statues and not expect some form of resistance? In Baltimore the statues were removed for public safety concerns. Yes that is right, council people were afraid of rioting. Rioting which over time lead to the Antifa group being labeled by Homeland Security as a terrorist group because of the their aggressive tactics which prevent debate.

So how do you debate the issue when you cannot debate the issue?

Obviously for those who did not share Antifa's views committees had to form and get out ahead of the problem by introducing legislation like the Tennessee Heritage Protection Act and the Alabama Memorial Preservation Act.

I accept Mrs.P's arguement of intrinsic value to time and place for any given memorial. I have a similar view. How many real life instances can we find where people discussed this the merits of any given memorial as opposed to name calling?
entspeak
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Oct 12 2017, 06:04 AM) *
The Confederate statues date back to the 1800s. We're a very new nation, relatively speaking. We don't have a lot of historical memorabilia from that far back.

Most of the statues were erected in the 20th century... and as your blogger points out in a section you chose not to quote:

QUOTE
I know the story of some of those statues and Confederate-inspired state flags. A lot of them appeared well after the 1861-1865 Civil War, and many were acts of rebellion by Democrats against growing demands for racial equality and against--horrors!--the Republican Party and its support for those demands.

Most were erected as Jim Crow laws were put in place and as a middle finger to the growing civil rights movement - they have nothing to do with celebrating anything other than white supremacy.

QUOTE
Visiting the site where an original structure/monument was placed offers a different "feel" than seeing it in a museum.
You picture the people who lived there long ago. There's a sort of solemnity to it.

These are not solemn monuments documenting a shameful period in our history that we need to acknowledge. These are monuments honoring the individuals - traitors, who fought against and killed US citizens in order to protect a perceived right to own slaves because they believed their government should be this:

QUOTE
Our new government is founded upon exactly [this] idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

- Confederate Vice President Andrew Stephens


This is what the individuals memorialized in these statues believed in and fought for... it is why the statues were erected... to celebrate their efforts and to intimidate those who have sought to establish racial equality in this country. These are not solemn monuments, they are the equivalent of swastikas on synagogues.

QUOTE
I think there is value to keeping a historical landmark in its original position, and removal would take some of that value away.

What value is there in keeping a statue erected decades after the Civil War as a means of rebellion against progress in racial equality? What is the value in keeping those middle fingers to progress up?

QUOTE
Since these statues/monuments have been established to have historical value.

Just because a statue is of a historical figure doesn't mean it has historical value.

QUOTE
Their removal at this point in time seems either very arbitrary, or entirely politically motivated.

Some feel that keeping these statues simply keeps - as Robert E. Lee, himself put it - "open the sores" of a war fought primarily to keep a section of US citizens enslaved. The timing is irrelevant.

Edited to add:

I am not saying that these statues should be destroyed or vandalized - which is what your blogger was talking about. But, I also don't see removing them from their current places as center points in the public square as erasing history - the only heritage it might diminish is that of white supremacy (which is why many of them were built in the first place). Keeping them where they are provides no context for what they should be... statues of white supremacist traitors who fought to enslave people of color. A museum could provide that context and they will then have a better educational and historical value... as the statues of white supremacist traitors who fought to enslave people of color.
Mrs. Pigpen
QUOTE(entspeak @ Oct 12 2017, 10:12 PM) *
Most of the statues were erected in the 20th century... and as your blogger points out in a section you chose not to quote:


I thought it was a courtesy not to quote the anti-Democratic party portions of his post.
If you read it, it's a pretty biased piece overall and I didn't want that to detract from the pertinent portions.
But okay, yes, I agree the Democrats erected those statues originally and not for the cleanest reasons.
I also agree with his overall point that this isn't really about statues.
I'll provide a link now, so others can also peruse it in its entirety

QUOTE
Some feel that keeping these statues simply keeps - as Robert E. Lee, himself put it - "open the sores" of a war fought primarily to keep a section of US citizens enslaved. The timing is irrelevant.

Timing matters.
For context, let's give an example of prudent timing.
The Confederate flag was removed from the state house grounds in South Carolina after the Dylann Roof murders.
The timing obviously mattered, and it was appropriate.

Currently we have people demanding to tear down statues immediately, all over the country, that have been up (for the most part) over a century.
This fact didn't seem to bother them as recently as 12 months ago, but now it's very very important to bring those statues down.

And (most importantly in my estimation) they're making their demands as a mob.
So I am unpersuaded.
I might be more persuaded in a few years.
If a few years down the line the same folks are just as adamant they want the statues removed for the same reasons, I will be persuaded they are sincere and not just using contrived outrage as a bludgeon to undermine leadership they do not approve of.
entspeak
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Oct 13 2017, 07:24 AM) *
QUOTE(entspeak @ Oct 12 2017, 10:12 PM) *
Most of the statues were erected in the 20th century... and as your blogger points out in a section you chose not to quote:


I thought it was a courtesy not to quote the anti-Democratic party portions of his post.
If you read it, it's a pretty biased piece overall and I didn't want that to detract from the pertinent portions.
But okay, yes, I agree the Democrats erected those statues originally and not for the cleanest reasons.
I also agree with his overall point that this isn't really about statues.
I'll provide a link now, so others can also peruse it in its entirety


His partisan dig aside, it's the most important point - these monuments serve no historical purpose; they were put up to intimidate and, as Robert E. Lee warned against, "keep open the sores of war" - a treasonous war fought by the Confederates because they felt whites were the supreme race. They are continued acts of rebellion to racial equality.

QUOTE
QUOTE
Some feel that keeping these statues simply keeps - as Robert E. Lee, himself put it - "open the sores" of a war fought primarily to keep a section of US citizens enslaved. The timing is irrelevant.

Timing matters.
For context, let's give an example of prudent timing.
The Confederate flag was removed from the state house grounds in South Carolina after the Dylann Roof murders.
The timing obviously mattered, and it was appropriate.

Currently we have people demanding to tear down statues immediately, all over the country, that have been up (for the most part) over a century.
This fact didn't seem to bother them as recently as 12 months ago, but now it's very very important to bring those statues down.

"For the most part?" Where did you read that? According to a cataloguing effort by the Southern Poverty Law Center in 2016, only roughly 1/5th were put up "over a century ago." A couple handfuls of them were put up in the last decade.

When people wake up to a wrong is irrelevant, what is important is that the wrong be fixed. Nobody is offended when swastikas are removed from synagogues; nobody should be offended if we remove statues and symbols erected as acts of white supremacist intimidation and rebellion.

As for mobs, I am no fan of Antifa. I'm not saying these should be vandalized or torn down. But, it doesn't seem to me to be valid to keep them up just because the current "leadership" wants to cater to a portion of his base who also hold mistaken beliefs about what these statues mean, or delude themselves about protecting "southern heritage" (or use it as a code word for white supremacy), or are out and out racists. The current "leadership" also seems to mistakenly believe that "for the most part" these monuments were built "over a century ago."

Much of this new spark to pull them down is in response to white supremacists feeling validated and trying to come out of the shadows. Now is the perfect time to let them know, through action, that - while they are free to speak - they are not free to act on their white supremacist beliefs and that white supremacy will not be tolerated in this country. And, that is what these confederate memorials symbolize... a belief in white supremacy, and that is why they should be removed from the public square.

That's not a persuasive argument? Why not?
Mrs. Pigpen
QUOTE(entspeak @ Oct 13 2017, 11:01 AM) *
"For the most part?" Where did you read that? According to a cataloguing effort by the Southern Poverty Law Center in 2016, only roughly 1/5th were put up "over a century ago." A couple handfuls of them were put up in the last decade.


My concern applies only to monuments and statues that are specifically listed as documented items on the official National Historic list of cultural resources worthy of preservation.
Nothing erected in the past decade should apply.
entspeak
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Oct 13 2017, 01:33 PM) *
QUOTE(entspeak @ Oct 13 2017, 11:01 AM) *
"For the most part?" Where did you read that? According to a cataloguing effort by the Southern Poverty Law Center in 2016, only roughly 1/5th were put up "over a century ago." A couple handfuls of them were put up in the last decade.


My concern applies only to monuments and statues that are specifically listed as documented items on the official National Historic list of cultural resources worthy of preservation.
Nothing erected in the past decade should apply.

It's a list. Does the fact that someone (we don't know who or why) included such monuments on the list change what the statue represents? What about my question regarding the persuasiveness of the argument against keeping them up? Why is a list more persuasive than that? Who put them on the list? Should we not question the worthiness of these monuments to be on this list for the very reasons I mentioned?

Edited to add:

Besides, the National Park Service has stated that a monument's inclusion on the list is not, necessarily, an impediment to a local or state governments choice to remove them... so long as no federal money is attached to the monument, they can remove them if they choose. And, even if there is federal money attached to the monument, the discussion can be had with the Advisory Council on Historic Places regarding its historical value and why it should or shouldn't be kept in place - at which point, my argument in the previous post and my question about worthiness becomes relevant.

List or no, the historical value of these monuments should be questioned - we should not blindly keep them simply because someone put them on a list and said we should. So, perhaps, I don't understand exactly what the concern is here? Do you feel they have historical value? If so, what is it?
Mrs. Pigpen
QUOTE(entspeak @ Oct 13 2017, 02:33 PM) *
It's a list. Does the fact that someone (we don't know who or why) included such monuments on the list change what the statue represents? What about my question regarding the persuasiveness of the argument against keeping them up? Why is a list more persuasive than that? Who put them on the list? Should we not question the worthiness of these monuments to be on this list for the very reasons I mentioned?


What does anything on the list represent?
Heck, Lizzie Borden's home is on that list. What does that represent?
Should only historical statues/monuments/landmarks that originated for edifying reasons qualify for preservation?
If so, there's little point in preserving many, if not most of them.
Humans don't have a lot of really edifying history behind them (and much of the edifying tends to be hagiographic).
What did the Roman colosseum represent?
Our founders were traitors who owned slaves. Down with the Jefferson memorial!
FDR incarcerated US citizens of Japanese lineage.

Maybe we shouldn't preserve any of it, just take it all down and house it (or portions) in museums somewhere.
What is the point in any of it?
But if there is a point then once an item is considered to be a protection worthy part of history it shouldn't be taken down for arbitrary political reasons, and I definitely don't see the urgency of this matter.
So, again, in time (a few years down the road) I think the matter might be reconsidered. And over the course of the next few years historians who are in charge of making the decisions on what deserves and doesn't deserve preservation should weigh in on that determination.
entspeak
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Oct 14 2017, 10:17 AM) *
What does anything on the list represent?
Heck, Lizzie Borden's home is on that list. What does that represent?
Should only historical statues/monuments/landmarks that originated for edifying reasons qualify for preservation?
If so, there's little point in preserving many, if not most of them.
Humans don't have a lot of really edifying history behind them (and much of the edifying tends to be hagiographic).
What did the Roman colosseum represent?
Our founders were traitors who owned slaves. Down with the Jefferson memorial!
FDR incarcerated US citizens of Japanese lineage.

Maybe we shouldn't preserve any of it, just take it all down and house it (or portions) in museums somewhere.
What is the point in any of it?
But if there is a point then once an item is considered to be a protection worthy part of history it shouldn't be taken down for arbitrary political reasons, and I definitely don't see the urgency of this matter.
So, again, in time (a few years down the road) I think the matter might be reconsidered. And over the course of the next few years historians who are in charge of making the decisions on what deserves and doesn't deserve preservation should weigh in on that determination.

At what point did removing a statue because it was erected to celebrate the white supremacist acts of the Confederacy, or as an attempt to intimidate, or to put the middle finger up to those who would further the progress of racial equality become an "arbitrary political reason?" How is that "arbitrary?" That seems to be the opposite of arbitrary.

Lizzie Borden's home was not built to intimidate anyone, or stand as an act of rebellion, or to celebrate what Lizzie Borden did as a good thing, was it? And, while a monument or memorial may be a historic place, not every historic place is a monument or memorial.

Was the Jefferson Memorial erected because he was a slave owner and to commemorate that fact? No.

Nobody is without flaw, but we all know that Thomas Jefferson and George Washington - though they did have slaves - do not have monuments celebrating their slave ownership - that's not why those monuments were built. The memorials represent the good they did. The Confederate memorials were not erected to celebrate the good things people like Lee and Stephens did; they were erected to celebrate their involvement in the Confederacy and the Civil War - to celebrate their treason and their white supremacy... labeling those acts as heroic, loyal, and something to be proud of.

I'm not against monuments that represent bad times in our country's history or history that we should be ashamed of... I am against monuments that celebrate and commemorate those things as good, heroic, loyal, and something to be proud of. That's the difference. If Thomas Jefferson had a memorial statute that celebrated his slave ownership, I'd say that had to come down, too.

Do you see the difference? The distinction isn't arbitrary.
Google
Mrs. Pigpen
QUOTE(entspeak @ Oct 14 2017, 09:05 PM) *
At what point did removing a statue because it was erected to celebrate the white supremacist acts of the Confederacy, or as an attempt to intimidate, or to put the middle finger up to those who would further the progress of racial equality become an "arbitrary political reason?" How is that "arbitrary?" That seems to be the opposite of arbitrary.


It wouldn't be arbitrary in 1950, but it seems arbitrary in 2017 to me.
How many people today still view things as the people who set them in place originally did?
Very very few I'm sure.
Like most things over time, they've become a part of the culture of the area (in this case "the South").
It doesn't surprise me their removal feels like an assault on their culture to many people.
I'd prefer not to get into a Civil war debate, but I think it's reasonable to believe every situation was unique to the individual.
Everyone had his own reasons to fight.
There were honorable and dishonorable people on both sides. Just like any other war.
People tended to be loyal to their home.
Example: Nazi Germany was a toxic ideology in my estimation, but I still think Rommel was an honorable man.
I think the same of Robert E Lee.

QUOTE
Lizzie Borden's home was not built to intimidate anyone, or stand as an act of rebellion, or to celebrate what Lizzie Borden did as a good thing, was it?
And, while a monument or memorial may be a historic place, not every historic place is a monument or memorial.


True. But if Lizzie Borden's home were built as an act of rebellion that led to a civil war it would probably be worth saving as a historical item too.
More so, in fact, than it is now.

That said (as I mentioned before) that doesn't necessarily mean it has to stand forever. But the removal process should take time (years), include the opinion of historical experts, and not come across as a reaction to the wishes of a politically motivated mob that seems to only have an interest in creating civil disharmony and unrest.
Again, there is no urgency here.
entspeak
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Oct 15 2017, 04:10 PM) *
QUOTE(entspeak @ Oct 14 2017, 09:05 PM) *
At what point did removing a statue because it was erected to celebrate the white supremacist acts of the Confederacy, or as an attempt to intimidate, or to put the middle finger up to those who would further the progress of racial equality become an "arbitrary political reason?" How is that "arbitrary?" That seems to be the opposite of arbitrary.


It wouldn't be arbitrary in 1950, but it seems arbitrary in 2017 to me.
How many people today still view things as the people who set them in place originally did?
Very very few I'm sure.
Like most things over time, they've become a part of the culture of the area (in this case "the South").
It doesn't surprise me their removal feels like an assault on their culture to many people.
I'd prefer not to get into a Civil war debate, but I think it's reasonable to believe every situation was unique to the individual.
Everyone had his own reasons to fight.
There were honorable and dishonorable people on both sides. Just like any other war.
People tended to be loyal to their home.
Example: Nazi Germany was a toxic ideology in my estimation, but I still think Rommel was an honorable man.
I think the same of Robert E Lee.


White supremacy is white supremacy... whether it's 1950 or 2017. How does the passage of time make protesting white supremacy arbitrary?

Yes, over the years there has definitely been an attempt to reframe the Civil War into something less and/or different than what it was - to argue that it wasn't really about slavery... that makes it easy to integrate these things into one's culture, by making the men depicted less the traitors and white supremacists they actually were.

Of course, people in the South would love to have us all believe that these statues are part of some innocent "southern heritage." You know who hasn't reframed that history? The descendents of slaves. As Robert E. Lee said, such monuments keep open the sores of war. If your grandmother was raped by a well known serial rapist who had a monument built 60 years ago celebrating his acts as a rapist, would you feel it inappropriate for that statue to be up, to be reminded that people celebrated your grandmother's rape by putting up a statue? Would you accept their argument that your grandmother's rape is not what this statue means to them now? The descendants of that man have been able to revise the history in their mind about what happened, so, do you feel the statute commemorating the rapes should stand? It's easy for white people to frame this as a purely historical preservation issue and accept that other white people don't view those monuments in the same way as blacks or anyone who has fought to progress racial equality in this country. It doesn't affect us personally. That doesn't make it any less a continued insult to the people who remember, the people who were told the first hand accounts from grand-parents, or great-grand parents, of the torture, humiliation, rape and killings that these men participated in and, so that they would be allowed to continue, fought a war to protect the institution that allowed those horrors.

Someone tells me that these monuments are part of their southern heritage, I would question what they believe. That is not a heritage to be proud of. It is not a heritage to celebrate. If they say that slavery and white supremacy is not what these statues commemorate, I'd say they need to look at history and not try to change it or, ironically, erase it. Again, just as nobody would be offended by the removal of swastikas from synagogues, nobody should truly be offended by the removal of these statues if they aren't white supremacists.

The people who established the Confederacy had an agenda... they made it clear that the cornerstone of the Confederacy was going to be the belief that blacks were an inferior race - the Vice President of the Confederacy stated that explicitly - white supremacy was the corner-stone of the Confederacy, he said. No matter what "unique" situation there was, that was what the Civil War was about and that was people were fighting for. There are no ifs, ands, or buts about that. Robert E. Lee owned slaves, he never spoke out against slavery, and was a general in a war fought to keep it. Sorry, them's the facts. But, regardless of his honor, or any good he may have had in him, he was a traitor to this country. And, while he did some good after the Civil War, his actions as a part of the Confederacy and the Civil War are not something to be praised with memorials - he, himself, said as much.

QUOTE
True. But if Lizzie Borden's home were built as an act of rebellion that led to a civil war it would probably be worth saving as a historical item too.
More so, in fact, than it is now.

That's a shift in the argument. These monuments did not lead to a civil war, they were built after and in order to commemorate the traitorous acts and white supremacist beliefs of the people who fought in that war.

For an example of southern heritage that should remain... Robert E. Lee's home is a historical place - the grounds of the mansion are Arlington Cemetary. I would never argue that his mansion should be taken down. In fact, his memorial there honors his attempts at peace and reconciliation after the Civil War. It is not a Confederate monument.

QUOTE
That said (as I mentioned before) that doesn't necessarily mean it has to stand forever. But the removal process should take time (years), include the opinion of historical experts, and not come across as a reaction to the wishes of a politically motivated mob that seems to only have an interest in creating civil disharmony and unrest.
Again, there is no urgency here.

Not every person protesting to get these statues removed is a member of Antifa. Antifa's chaos doesn't negate the need to remove these statues. They need to go. As I said, we are having a surge in white supremacist actions and they are trying to mainstream themselves again... in part, by making use of these monuments.
Julian
"You lost. Get over it."

That's a defining phrase of our time. It gets directed over in the UK by pro-Brexit 'Leavers' at those who voted to remain in the USA. I've seen and heard it used by Republicans (or just non-affiliated Trump supporters) about anyone who isn't a fan of the incumbent president.

But I hardly ever hear anyone say it to "the South" in the context of the Civil War. The South lost, right? They lost the civil war, and the North won. There are men and women who died in that war on both sides who deserve to have their deaths marked in some way - in much the same way that the senseless deaths on all sides are commemorated in official war graves around the world, particularly for those killed in the two world wars.

But there aren't many statues of losing generals or political leaders from those conflicts, are there? Those few that there have been aren't generally held in high esteem. Winning a war not only wins the dispute, but it (rightly or wrongly) gives the winning side the right to author the narrative. (I'm not a big fan of nouns as verbs, but "right to write" felt clunky, especially to non-rhotic Brit ears).

So why is this even an issue? To hell with the "history" (much of which is historical revisionism designed to rehabilitate racists, as entspeak argues), take 'em down. The South lost. Get. Over. It.

/SARCASM off

What I really think is that America has always impressed me with the widespread reverence and national priority you place on your history. I visited the Gettysburg battlefield museum and was impressed to see the whole way in which the site was treated with reverence and respect by everyone, regardless of their present day politics. Go to a English civil war battlefield (say, Naseby or Bosworth Field) and you're more likely to be asked to move on by the local landowner. Possibly at the point of a shotgun, so I'm a bit jealous that what history you have (for what it's worth, I spent the years between my fourth and thirteenth birthday in a house that predates the sailing of the Mayflower by at least a century. I didn't live in a museum, or a stately home; it was a rented farm cottage that happened to date from the reign of Henry VIII.

So, from the outside, it seems very peculiar that there is stuff like this going on over there. It seems out of your national character, at first glance, but given the thick overlaying of racial politics, perhaps I shouldn't be surprised. The very fact that people of mixed heritage are 'claimed' by this community or that one, or feel that they have to choose to identify as such and - more crucially, that everyone on all sides seems to think racial identification in this regard really matters - seems to me, on the outside, to be a continuation of the old 'One Drop' rule under the cover of modern identity politics.
Mrs. Pigpen
QUOTE(entspeak @ Oct 15 2017, 07:42 PM) *
White supremacy is white supremacy... whether it's 1950 or 2017. How does the passage of time make protesting white supremacy arbitrary?


The answer lies in who holds the power.
I'll start with the concept of "culture" and address that one first:

As an example, lets go to the Maori culture in New Zealand.
The New Zealand military recently approved the full facial tattoos for Maori service members. The push for it is cultural pride (apparently enough pride to get a full facial tattoo, but not quite enough pride in culture to go for the traditional chisel instead of modern tattoo gunbut I digress).
Ignoring the pros/cons to this decision and getting right to the cultural pointMaoris traditionally exhumed dead bodies and cannibalized sailers. Are practicing Maoris in 2017 the same threat as practicing Maoris of yesteryear? The years are about the same (Maori wars took place in New Zealand from 1845 to 1872).

We havent seen Jim Crow laws in a long while. During that time (and in the years closer to it), there would be a good argument that white supremacy held real power. Today not so much. There are five times as many members of the Church of Satan as there are members of the KKK.

Lets put some context on protesting: 100 neo-nazi's losers/nobodies marched down an obscure Virginia town and somehow scared 320 million Americans into hysteria. Three times as many anti-white supremacist protesters showed up to protest those protestors.
The opposition is making these irrelevant losers more relevant than theyve been in decades.
entspeak
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Oct 16 2017, 09:09 AM) *
QUOTE(entspeak @ Oct 15 2017, 07:42 PM) *
White supremacy is white supremacy... whether it's 1950 or 2017. How does the passage of time make protesting white supremacy arbitrary?


The answer lies in who holds the power.
I'll start with the concept of "culture" and address that one first:

As an example, let's go to the Maori culture in New Zealand.
The New Zealand military recently approved the full facial tattoos for Maori service members. The push for it is "cultural pride" (apparently enough pride to get a full facial tattoo, but not quite enough pride in culture to go for the traditional chisel instead of modern tattoo gun, but I digress).
Ignoring the pros/cons to this decision and getting right to the cultural point‚šMaoris traditionally exhumed dead bodies and cannibalized sailers. Are practicing Maoris in 2017 the same threat as practicing Maoris of yesteryear? The years are about the same (Maori wars took place in New Zealand from 1845 to 1872).

You aren't seriously arguing that, because the Maori have changed their death rituals and no longer eat their enemies, that, somehow, the white supremacists of 2017 are different from the white supremacists of the 1950's, are you?

Let's put this in perspective. We feel that domestic Islamic terrorist threats are a problem. In 2015, we had the San Bernadino shootings and the attack in Chattanooga. We feel something should be done about domestic Islamic terrorism. Yet, more people died at the hands of white supremacists in 2015.

So, why is domestic Islamic terrorism an urgent threat in 2017, but white supremacy is not?

QUOTE
We haven‚š‚žt seen Jim Crow laws in a long while. During that time (and in the years closer to it), there would be a good argument that white supremacy held real power. Today not so much. There are five times as many members of the Church of Satan as there are members of the KKK.

More than half of the KKK groups operating in the US formed in the last 3 years. And, while this may be news to some, you don't actually have to be a member of the KKK to be a white supremacist. Richard Spencer is a white supremacist with tens of thousands of online followers - he is not a member of the KKK, he is the founder of the National Policy Institute. Attendance to his white nationalist conferences has risen since Trump's election.

Do we wait until they actually have the power to enact laws before we deal with them? This is like arguing that we shouldn't do anything about fundamentalist Islamic terrorism in this country until Al Qaeda has a majority in Congress.

QUOTE
Let‚š‚žs put some context on protesting: 100 neo-nazi's losers/nobodies marched down an obscure Virginia town and somehow scared 320 million Americans into hysteria. Three times as many anti-white supremacist protesters showed up to protest those protestors.
The opposition is making these irrelevant losers more relevant than they‚š‚žve been in decades.

Well, that might be easy to say from whatever bubble you might be living in. Where I live, police are reporting an increase in anti-Semitic violence, and in racist intimidation. I have more friends talking about the racist rhetoric being bandied about on the street and on the subway. People living in the small section of my borough in New York are posting images of the Juden Raus letters they are receiving in the mail. This may not be hitting you where you live, but it's not hysteria by any stretch.

Again, Confederate symbols are symbols of white supremacy... that was the explicitly stated "corner-stone" of the Confederacy - no amount of revisionism can change that. Anyone saying otherwise is either lying or been lied to.
Mrs. Pigpen
QUOTE(entspeak @ Oct 16 2017, 10:42 AM) *
Let's put this in perspective. We feel that domestic Islamic terrorist threats are a problem. In 2015, we had the San Bernadino shootings and the attack in Chattanooga. We feel something should be done about domestic Islamic terrorism. Yet, more people died at the hands of white supremacists in 2015.


This interests me. Where did you get this statistic? I can't think of any white supremacist attacks that year in the CONUS that would dwarf the San Bernadino and Chattanooga attacks (unless you're talking about attacks around the globe, in which case we're going worldwide and there are a LOT LOT LOT more people around the globe died from Islamic terrorist attacks).
droop224
This debate reminds me of a Facebook meme I read:

"Racism is so much a part of America that if you were to protest racism, many people would see it as protest against America."

And boy do I agree with that statement there. Whether that protest be kneeling during the anthem, marching in the streets, or simply making the statement "Black Lives Matter". Many White conservatives have seen demonstrations against racial injustice as attacks on American culture. They have placed more values in symbols than the very human lives of their fellow Americans or the ideals and principals for which we supposedly are suppose to believe in as Americans. This debate is no different.

Entspeak, I don't have a lot to add that would not be repetitive of what you have already said. Mrs P I consider you a very modern moderate conservative and you still are, but modern conservatism still protects institutional racism. Modern conservatives were taught and will teach their children to protect this same institutional racism, mostly by teaching their children a.) it doesn't really exist or b. ) that it only just barely exists and is merely an excuse for those that don't make it in the world.

I look at young White kids in 2017 that proudly wear the confederate flag, I've seen prominent Blacks in the past try to appropriate the confederate symbol, lucky most Blacks were not buying in to it.

Too many Americans protect the institutions of racism. I will reiterate a couple of points that should be practical enough for a "modern moderate conservative" Symbols erected as forms of institutional racism are racist regardless of how long they been standing. And there is nothing wrong with keeping our history as a nation, the good the bad, and the ugly, but to memorialize, or allow the memorialization of these figures to continue is just one more form of racism that will continue on into another generation.

Mrs P.'s point, if I understand it correctly, "whats the rush?" But this sentiment exemplifies the power of racism in the American psyche. There is no "rush". Its been decades. DECADES! In some cases, a century or more. For it to take this long there must be a resistance. What political group do you suppose this is coming from? No rush, allow me to ask a question... if most people don't think like they use to, "What is taking so long?" What is taking "modern moderate conservatives" so long, why aren't you helping in the fight to end racism?










entspeak
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Oct 16 2017, 12:29 PM) *
QUOTE(entspeak @ Oct 16 2017, 10:42 AM) *
Let's put this in perspective. We feel that domestic Islamic terrorist threats are a problem. In 2015, we had the San Bernadino shootings and the attack in Chattanooga. We feel something should be done about domestic Islamic terrorism. Yet, more people died at the hands of white supremacists in 2015.


This interests me. Where did you get this statistic? I can't think of any white supremacist attacks that year in the CONUS that would dwarf the San Bernadino and Chattanooga attacks (unless you're talking about attacks around the globe, in which case we're going worldwide and there are a LOT LOT LOT more people around the globe died from Islamic terrorist attacks).


Nope, only domestic. According to the ADL, there were 52 killings by domestic extremists in 2015. 37% were by Islamic extremists, 38% by White Supremacists.

Will killings by white supremacists only count if they are mass shootings? And, they need to "dwarf" the amount of deaths at once by Islamic extremists? That's an odd bar to set.
Mrs. Pigpen
QUOTE(droop224 @ Oct 16 2017, 12:18 PM) *
I look at young White kids in 2017 that proudly wear the confederate flag, I've seen prominent Blacks in the past try to appropriate the confederate symbol, lucky most Blacks were not buying in to it.


The South of 2017 is not the same culture of the South in 1950 which was not the same as the culture of the South in 1885.
Just as other cultures have changed (Sweden isn't a land of Vikings anymore, and France isn't the society of the guillotine, and Maoris no longer act like Maoris once did).

QUOTE(droop224 @ Oct 16 2017, 12:18 PM) *
I look at young White kids in 2017 that proudly wear the confederate flag, I've seen prominent Blacks in the past try to appropriate the confederate symbol, lucky most Blacks were not buying in to it.


The South of 2017 is not the same culture of the South in 1950 which was not the same as the culture of the South in 1885.
Just as other cultures have changed (Sweden isn't a land of Vikings anymore, and France isn't the society of the guillotine, and Maoris no longer do what Maoris used to).

Per symbols, I gave my husband a Che shirt for Christmas a couple of years back (intended it to be a gag gift).
He loved it. Wore it all the time (well, not in his current job he had to put that way back in the closet since he started back on active duty but he'll wear it again when he retires).
He's not a Communist. He's pretty much the opposite of a communist.

QUOTE(entspeak @ Oct 16 2017, 03:13 PM) *
Nope, only domestic. According to the ADL, there were 52 killings by domestic extremists in 2015. 37% were by Islamic extremists, 38% by White Supremacists.

Will killings by white supremacists only count if they are mass shootings? And, they need to "dwarf" the amount of deaths at once by Islamic extremists? That's an odd bar to set.


I'll start with the last first.
Do only "mass shootings count"? Definitely not.
But if you are going to draw a comparison between white supremacist murders and Islamic terrorist attacks this implies a causal relationship between the ideology and the crime.
So for instance, Dylann Roof shoots up a church. Thats obviously a crime inspired by white supremacy. If there had only been one victim, or none (say it was thwarted) it would still be a white supremacy crime. By contrast, if Lee Bob shot a sheriff during a heist, or Jethro shot a drug dealer when he was trying to steal some meth.Those arent de facto white supremacy inspired crimes.

I spent a great deal of time trying to track down those statistics, and ADL doesn't seem very forthcoming with their data. They also made some strange claims, for instance:
QUOTE
As has been the case every year since 1995, white supremacists have been responsible for the largest number of deaths, at 20

To include 2001 when the World Trade center, four airliners, and a portion of the Pentagon went down? Those were domestic flights.

With no luck on that end, I saw a government GAO study that is (kinda, sorta) similar (though it cites anti-government terrorism it also mentions white supremacist terrorism).

Link to the GAO report:
http://www.gao.gov/assets/690/683984.pdf

There, also, some of the examples of white supremacist violence are kind of strange upon inspection.
Theres a policeman shot in a robbery attempt, a drug dealer shot, a sexual offender shot. None of these seem racially inspired.
There were some prison shankingswell, yes, Im sure there are a lot of white supremacist gangs in prison (and every other type of gang, probably highly separated on racial lines, we could discuss why that is but it should be pretty obvious as humans are tribal and tend to congregate with people they have commonalities withnot a whole lot of hobbies in prison so theyre more likely to congregate by race. Also, oh yeahtheyre a bunch of violent criminals penned up together).

One of the larger examples (and in the exact year mentioned, 2015) of an ostensible white supremacist motivated attack was this guy.
It happened recently so we should all remember it well:
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/10/us/roseb...per-mercer.html

There is nothing to indicate this is a white supremacy inspired attack. Most notably, all of the victims were white. He asked if they were Christians and if and when they said yes he shot them.

Most of the GAO statistics seemed to come from START, so I continued on the bunny trail there. The following site seems to be where everyone (exception perhaps the ADL)
has generated the data.
I did a search from 2002 to 2016, search criteria country: US, casualties (fatalities only, Ill start with that.any number)
This will show all domestic ideologically motivated attacks from the timeframe of 2002 to 2016. Only incidents where there is essentially no doubt of terrorism. Including only successful attacks (the chart shows number of deaths, and injuries)

http://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search/Result...0#results-table

Different search to include unsuccessful/thwarted attacks also.

http://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search/Result...0#results-table

The above data does not support the ADLs claims. Its more along the lines of what I thought. One of the reasons I do not like the attention serial killers get isit tends to inspire wackos to commit copy cat crimes. I feel similarly about giving attention to the white supremacist folks. Theyve been given an awful lot of attention lately.

Are all people who want to take the statues down Antifa people? No, of course not. Are all people who want to leave the statues up ipso facto white supremacist people? No, I dont think so. For reasons I've explained a couple of times above.
entspeak
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Oct 17 2017, 02:59 PM) *
Are all people who want to take the statues down Antifa people? No, of course not. Are all people who want to leave the statues up ipso facto white supremacist people? No, I dont think so. For reasons I've explained a couple of times above.

I've never stated that all people who want the statues up are white supremacist people, so that means nothing to my argument. And nothing you've stated alters what Confederate symbols mean... you've only talked about how white people have made themselves more comfortable... of course, they were never the uncomfortable ones to begin with when it came to slavery.
LoneWisdom
QUOTE(entspeak @ Oct 17 2017, 04:06 PM) *
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Oct 17 2017, 02:59 PM) *
Are all people who want to take the statues down Antifa people? No, of course not. Are all people who want to leave the statues up ipso facto white supremacist people? No, I don't think so. For reasons I've explained a couple of times above.

I've never stated that all people who want the statues up are white supremacist people, so that means nothing to my argument. And nothing you've stated alters what Confederate symbols mean... you've only talked about how white people have made themselves more comfortable... of course, they were never the uncomfortable ones to begin with when it came to slavery.


The Civil War was about secession. Think about it. Going off on a tangent is just an attempt to rewrite history. "Cry Havoc! And let slip the dogs of war."

The attempt by the left to take down Confederate Monuments by mob action is anarchy. It should be handled lawfully, not like vandals. The current political climate leads me to believe that the left is attempting a noisy coup, constantly offended no matter which way the wind blows.
entspeak
QUOTE(LoneWisdom @ Oct 17 2017, 07:54 PM) *
The Civil War was about secession.

Uh... yep, the South wanted to secede. Why did they want to secede? What was the reason given by, I believe, pretty much all of the states who wanted to secede?
LoneWisdom
QUOTE(entspeak @ Oct 18 2017, 03:07 AM) *
QUOTE(LoneWisdom @ Oct 17 2017, 07:54 PM) *
The Civil War was about secession.

Uh... yep, the South wanted to secede. Why did they want to secede? What was the reason given by, I believe, pretty much all of the states who wanted to secede?


It was about secession. Slavery was not illegal in the southern states at the time. Should have been, but it wasn't. The attempt to end slavery came later in the war.

The New England states were talking about seceding during the War of 1812, and Madison secretly sent in troops in order to put that down if it had occurred. Jackson defeating the British made it a moot point. The New England states had actually conspired with the British, which should have been treason.

States were fairly autonomous at the time. The Kentucky Resolutions could be used to nullify what a state considered an unconstitutional law. Many states didn't recognize the United States having authority over secession since it wasn't granted in the Constitution. It's ironic that there are hints the left coast is murmuring about secession now.

The United States considered their power over secession was settled after they won the war. In Texas v. White in 1869, secession was made null by judicial decree. So the land of the free uses power to keep their states in the Union. Another bit of irony, setting slavery aside for a moment, it didn't seem that the United States believed in self-determination any more, and it appears that an indivisible Union is the operative phrase here. It seems like the states didn't like the revolution requirement or the union of states having the right to decide if their membership was permanent.

As another aside, I'm in no way defending or justifying slavery of any type here. I'm just opposed to the steady drum beat of an endless stream of intolerances seized on by the left, that will not end well for the country. One set up after another in an attempt to knock the President off the rails. It doesn't matter whether or how he responds, The left and/or the media will attempt to blitz him. I expect he's playing the media in order to keep them off balance. They always seem to think they have him just where they want him.

I'm pretty confident those Confederate Monuments have no power to enslave anyone, but they sure seem to throw some people off kilter, or they pretend to be easily offended. It seems the left only believes in the Freedom of Speech if it's their speech, or as long as it doesn't offend them. Not really what the Freedom of Speech means, I expect.
droop224
QUOTE(Mrs P)
The South of 2017 is not the same culture of the South in 1950 which was not the same as the culture of the South in 1885. Just as other cultures have changed (Sweden isn't a land of Vikings anymore, and France isn't the society of the guillotine, and Maoris no longer do what Maoris used to).

Per symbols, I gave my husband a Che shirt for Christmas a couple of years back (intended it to be a gag gift).
He loved it. Wore it all the time (well, not in his current job he had to put that way back in the closet since he started back on active duty but he'll wear it again when he retires).
He's not a Communist. He's pretty much the opposite of a communist.


Yeah but Che is and has always been a man that exemplifies struggle against oppression. Its the Right that fights to make tarnish that into something he was not. Just as the Right continues to tarnish the term communist to a philosophy that it is not. But I digress and I'm not here to send this debate of the rails.

You are correct that the south is not the same culture, well not exactly the same, but that doesn't define how much its changed either, (Entspeak beats me to the punch again) that's not the point. In fact, its an avoidance of the points. If the culture of 2017 is not the same as 1885 or 1950, why are these symbols of racism still being memorialized? I mean you still had DECADES! The 60's, the 70's, the 80's, the 90's, the... well I don't know what to call 2000-2010... but there you have it.

What are we holding on to? What is the resistance? You haven't made argument that these symbols are no longer symbols of racism, so I don't wan to put words in your mouth. I am trying to understand what you are saying when you say society has changed?

Because it seems to me that society has changed so much that when ever Blacks protest racial injustice, the modern moderate conservatives are either silent or speak up against the protest.

QUOTE(Lone Wisdom)
It was about secession. Slavery was not illegal in the southern states at the time. Should have been, but it wasn't. The attempt to end slavery came later in the war.

The New England states were talking about seceding during the War of 1812, and Madison secretly sent in troops in order to put that down if it had occurred. Jackson defeating the British made it a moot point. The New England states had actually conspired with the British, which should have been treason.


More avoidance... What did they secede for? The question is why, what was the chief motivation? Because that motivation is what they were fighting for, what they were killing for, and what they were dying for. And yes, like EVERY war, I'm sure there were thousands of people that fought for the confederates that fought for their own individual reasons. Fame, Glory, Pride, Nationalism, Wealth, Family, Friends, etc

QUOTE
As another aside, I'm in no way defending or justifying slavery of any type here. I'm just opposed to the steady drum beat of an endless stream of intolerances seized on by the left, that will not end well for the country. One set up after another in an attempt to knock the President off the rails. It doesn't matter whether or how he responds, The left and/or the media will attempt to blitz him. I expect he's playing the media in order to keep them off balance. They always seem to think they have him just where they want him.

I'm pretty confident those Confederate Monuments have no power to enslave anyone, but they sure seem to throw some people off kilter, or they pretend to be easily offended. It seems the left only believes in the Freedom of Speech if it's their speech, or as long as it doesn't offend them. Not really what the Freedom of Speech means, I expect.
Couple of things. Mrs P mentioned this too. There is no mass hysteria going on in the left. The election of Trump is not hysteria. Nationalism is so much on the rise the McCain felt a need to speak out against it. Under the guise of White Nationalism is a crap load of racism. Everyone talks about how Trump beat Hillary and seem to forget how he beat out all the "modern moderate conservatives" too.

Still there is no hysteria. That how some people on the right are characterizing the lefts resistance to your message... but lets talk about that.

Lone Wisdom what is the message? You type at your keyboard and state that the left only believes in freedom of speech when its their speech, well what speech are they drowning out or preventing? What message is the right trying to get out that the left is trying to stop? You are correct, people on the left do want to take down monuments, what speech or message is the left intolerant of? What's your opinion?

That above question goes for anyone here on this issue? I'll wait for more direct answers, but more than likely, more non-answers and obfuscation is to follow. And here is why, even though culture in the south and in America as a whole has changed, some of it is still the same. There are Americans, not some small minute minority either, I'd say over 40 percent that still fight for White supremacy. No they don't where hoods, they don't use the "N-word", they actually do have friends,(best friends) and family that are minorities, sometimes they are minorities and, all the same, they fight for White supremacy in this country.

The left is intolerant, whoever thought we weren't, I'm not sure. But like I tell my children, be careful of people that try to equate things incorrectly. We aren't intolerant of free speech, we believe in it. We have heard and we understand the message. We are intolerant of a message that goes against the ideals of equality and justice for all. The reason why there is so much dodging, obfuscation, avoidance

I am not condoning the actions of ANTIFA, but I won't condemn them either. Too long and too many times through history have many Whites sat on the sideline while other Whites abused fellow American citizens. Watching White people take fist to face of White racists, nationalist, extremist, terrorist, or whatever flavor you want to call them, is uplifting to me as a Black man. ANTIFA followers are acting violently and that is sad, but they are acting violently and intolerant to the ideals of White supremacy and that is something to be hopeful about. Because like I tell my friends, regardless of how much you might think Blacks or even Latinos need to do better as individuals, we as a group can't do better while institutional racism is allowed to exist. Sure as individuals, one here and one there, we minorities can escape poverty and the cyclic degeneration caused by institutional racism, but as a group, minorities will never have the equality (whether we are talking about actual or equality of opportunity) as long as we have systemic racism. We are called minorities for a reason, because we are minority race so we can't change the laws and norms that allow for systemic racism without the help of fellow White citizens. We need our fellow countrymen, who more than not, are leftist and idealists to help us fight this wave, of racism and nationalism.

And that is not hysteria, just an opinionated observation on my part. But maybe i'm wrong so let me ask again so that this is the last part of my post. What is the message\speech we are conveying by leaving these monument of the confederacy up?
entspeak
QUOTE(LoneWisdom @ Oct 18 2017, 04:27 AM) *
QUOTE(entspeak @ Oct 18 2017, 03:07 AM) *
QUOTE(LoneWisdom @ Oct 17 2017, 07:54 PM) *
The Civil War was about secession.

Uh... yep, the South wanted to secede. Why did they want to secede? What was the reason given by, I believe, pretty much all of the states who wanted to secede?


It was about secession. Slavery was not illegal in the southern states at the time. Should have been, but it wasn't. The attempt to end slavery came later in the war.


South Carolina was the first to secede. In its declaration of reasons for seceding, it refers to the an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery and the resulting laws passed in non-slaveholding states as the reason for seceding.

In a correspondence from a South Carolinian congressman to civic leaders in Virginia at the time, this was stated:

QUOTE
In the great and momentous movement which our people have been able to make with unprecedented unanimity, after years of insult, robbery and patience, we have not been unmindful of the character and interests of your noble Old Dominion, whose warriors, statesmen and patriots have cast a lustre over her sisters identical in interest with her, and, in my judgment, soon to be identified with us in a common destiny, absolved from all ties with enemies who, in violation of every obligation which should have been sacred to the memory of a common ancestry, would murder our citizens, burn our houses, and poison even our women and children.

It is a source of unfeigned joy to me to believe, as I do, that "Virginia yet in time will surely stand like South Carolina, a free, sovereign and independent State, ready to unite with her Southern sisters."

I have never doubted what Virginia would do when the alternatives present themselves to her intelligent and gallant people, to choose between an association with her sisters and the dominion of a people, who have chosen their leader upon the single idea that the African is equal to the Anglo-Saxon, and with the purpose of placing our slaves on equality with ourselves and our friends of every condition! and if we of South Carolina have aided in your deliverance from tyranny and degradation, as you suppose, it will only the more assure us that we have performed our duty to ourselves and our sisters in taking the first decided step to preserve an inheritance left us by an ancestry whose spirit would forbid its being tarnished by assassins.

We, of South Carolina, hope soon to great you in a Southern Confederacy, where white men shall rule our destinies, and from which we may transmit to our posterity the rights, privileges and honor left us by our ancestors.


That last line sounds like it could have come out of Richard Spencer's mouth - that is how unchanged the idea of white supremacy is.

The Civil War was about secession because of slavery and white supremacy. And, as I pointed out earlier, the "corner-stone" of the Confederacy was slavery and white supremacy - this was explicitly stated by the Confederate government. Confederate symbols and monuments represent, are celebrations of, and commemorations of slavery, white supremacy, actions taken in support of that aim, and individuals who fought to maintain it. Anyone who says otherwise is either lying or has been lied to.
Mrs. Pigpen
QUOTE(droop224 @ Oct 18 2017, 09:15 AM) *
Yeah but Che is and has always been a man that exemplifies struggle against oppression. Its the Right that fights to make tarnish that into something he was not. Just as the Right continues to tarnish the term communist to a philosophy that it is not. But I digress and I'm not here to send this debate of the rails.


I'm glad you're stopping there because I hope it's understood that Che himself is not the point.
The point is, people assign meanings to things for different reasons.
Sometimes the meaning might even be intentionally ironic.

QUOTE
And that is not hysteria, just an opinionated observation on my part. But maybe i'm wrong so let me ask again so that this is the last part of my post. What is the message\speech we are conveying by leaving these monument of the confederacy up?


Well, I thought the intent is:
History. Historical figures are often portrayed on monuments and statues.
I got that impression because these items (as mentioned earlier) are noted as historically important items that deserve preservation.
Maybe the people who run the National Register of Historic Places are a team of white supremacists. But I doubt it.

Edited to add:
Here is one such place
I think we would lose something valuable if this were taken away.
Certainly it seems worth visiting, and I can understand why a person might have an attachment to it over time particularly if one lived in that area.
LoneWisdom
QUOTE(entspeak @ Oct 18 2017, 10:31 AM) *
QUOTE(LoneWisdom @ Oct 18 2017, 04:27 AM) *
QUOTE(entspeak @ Oct 18 2017, 03:07 AM) *
QUOTE(LoneWisdom @ Oct 17 2017, 07:54 PM) *
The Civil War was about secession.

Uh... yep, the South wanted to secede. Why did they want to secede? What was the reason given by, I believe, pretty much all of the states who wanted to secede?


It was about secession. Slavery was not illegal in the southern states at the time. Should have been, but it wasn't. The attempt to end slavery came later in the war.


South Carolina was the first to secede. In its declaration of reasons for seceding, it refers to the an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery and the resulting laws passed in non-slaveholding states as the reason for seceding.

In a correspondence from a South Carolinian congressman to civic leaders in Virginia at the time, this was stated:

QUOTE
In the great and momentous movement which our people have been able to make with unprecedented unanimity, after years of insult, robbery and patience, we have not been unmindful of the character and interests of your noble Old Dominion, whose warriors, statesmen and patriots have cast a lustre over her sisters identical in interest with her, and, in my judgment, soon to be identified with us in a common destiny, absolved from all ties with enemies who, in violation of every obligation which should have been sacred to the memory of a common ancestry, would murder our citizens, burn our houses, and poison even our women and children.

It is a source of unfeigned joy to me to believe, as I do, that "Virginia yet in time will surely stand like South Carolina, a free, sovereign and independent State, ready to unite with her Southern sisters."

I have never doubted what Virginia would do when the alternatives present themselves to her intelligent and gallant people, to choose between an association with her sisters and the dominion of a people, who have chosen their leader upon the single idea that the African is equal to the Anglo-Saxon, and with the purpose of placing our slaves on equality with ourselves and our friends of every condition! and if we of South Carolina have aided in your deliverance from tyranny and degradation, as you suppose, it will only the more assure us that we have performed our duty to ourselves and our sisters in taking the first decided step to preserve an inheritance left us by an ancestry whose spirit would forbid its being tarnished by assassins.

We, of South Carolina, hope soon to great you in a Southern Confederacy, where white men shall rule our destinies, and from which we may transmit to our posterity the rights, privileges and honor left us by our ancestors.


That last line sounds like it could have come out of Richard Spencer's mouth - that is how unchanged the idea of white supremacy is.

The Civil War was about secession because of slavery and white supremacy. And, as I pointed out earlier, the "corner-stone" of the Confederacy was slavery and white supremacy - this was explicitly stated by the Confederate government. Confederate symbols and monuments represent, are celebrations of, and commemorations of slavery, white supremacy, actions taken in support of that aim, and individuals who fought to maintain it. Anyone who says otherwise is either lying or has been lied to.


The reasons for the secession wouldn't have mattered, as I pointed out. There were, have been, and continue to be issues that led/lead States to consider secession. South Carolina had seceded, and demanded that the United States remove itself from Fort Sumter. The United States refused, hence becoming a foreign occupier.

If the United States was all about ending slavery, why stop with the Confederate States? If a current State seceded without the approval of the other States, would the United States go to war to keep it subjugated? You are conflating the two issues. The reason for secession and secession.

QUOTE
Anyone who says otherwise is either lying or has been lied to.
Really!?


entspeak
QUOTE(LoneWisdom @ Oct 18 2017, 12:42 PM) *
The reasons for the secession wouldn't have mattered, as I pointed out.

Wouldn't have mattered to whom? They clearly mattered to the Confederates - or they wouldn't have seceded. Without the secessions, there would have been no Civil War, so clearly the reasons matter.

QUOTE
QUOTE
Anyone who says otherwise is either lying or has been lied to.
Really!?

Yes, really.


QUOTE
Maybe the people who run the National Register of Historic Places are a team of white supremacists. But I doubt it.
Clearly, one doesn't need to be a white supremacist in order to ignore white supremacy.

QUOTE
Edited to add:
Here is one such place
I think we would lose something valuable if this were taken away.
Certainly it seems worth visiting, and I can understand why a person might have an attachment to it over time particularly if one lived in that area.


What a lovely sentiment - folks attached to their heritage, their history.

Yes, "attached" is correct.

Some feel that it is hallowed ground. In fact, one citizen used those very words...

R. Wayne Byrd - president of a chapter of the Heritage Preservation Associaton - said, during a city council meeting regarding the installation of the Arthur Ashe statue, that Monument Avenue was "hallowed ground" and that placing the statue elsewhere "would pay the proper tribute to a great athlete without violating the historic sensibilities of Richmond's Confederate-American population."

One has to wonder, what exactly is a Confederate-American?

Another person in a letter to the editor of the Richmond Dispatch wrote: "Ashe, by most accounts, was a nice guy and a good tennis player. I would stop short of calling him a 'hero' for being nice. A hero by most definitions is one who saves another's life. The addition of an Ashe statue would undermine the historic integrity of this famous street. The figures on Monument Avenue are heroes; this theme should be maintained. A tennis player joining the ranks of generals is simply ludicrous."

So, these treason reframed as heroism, as I said.

And another person called into a Richmond radio station to say, "We need to protect our heritage . . . We don't need blacks on Monument Avenue . . . They've taken over our city; they've tried to take over our government. If you've got daughters like I've got daughters, they're trying to take them over, too."

"Heritage" as a code word for white supremacy, as i said.

https://blog.richmond.edu/memorializing/fil...ared-spaces.pdf

This blog also talks about the "Lost Cause" movement which led to the erecting of many of these statues. That was the reframing of the Confederacy and the Civil War as being something they weren't - honorable, and not about slavery and white supremacy.

You can also read there about the black opposition to putting Arthur Ashe on Monument Avenue... those folks aren't "attached" to it. They recognize it for what it is. So, when it comes to these symbols, who should win out in the end... the folks trying to rewrite history so as not to have to come to terms with either their own racism or the racist "heritage" of the South? Or the people who see these statues for what they are and for what they truly represent... something that shouldn't be celebrated or commemorated with a memorial. My thought is the latter.
droop224
QUOTE(Mrs P)
I'm glad you're stopping there because I hope it's understood that Che himself is not the point.
The point is, people assign meanings to things for different reasons.
Sometimes the meaning might even be intentionally ironic.
Not the point I got, but now that you are saying that's the point, you get no argument from me, we are agreed. We all assign different meaning to the same thing for different reason. If more conservatives thought like this maybe they wouldn't be so offended when people kneel during the anthem in protest to racial injustice. tongue.gif I'm digressing again, aren't I?? I'll stop.

QUOTE
Well, I thought the intent is:
History. Historical figures are often portrayed on monuments and statues.
I got that impression because these items (as mentioned earlier) are noted as historically important items that deserve preservation.
Maybe the people who run the National Register of Historic Places are a team of white supremacists. But I doubt it.
Don't doubt it, White supremacy comes in all sort of shapes, sizes, and flavors, ironically, like a box of chocolates. Like I said, you can fight for White supremacy and not even be White.

Let me ask you, do you see statues and streets named after Adolf Hitler and other prominent Nazis? Oh that's right Hitler wasn't American. Does Germany have statues of Hitler in the middle of city in front of judicial buildings in an effort to remember him? Do you know who Hitler is? Do most kids over 14 know who Hitler is?

My point: I don't think we should conflate keeping history with memorializing figure with commemorative statues, school, hospital, highway names, etc.

I have no problem with keeping the names and the deeds of these confederates alive in books of history. I wouldn't mind a confederate Museum where we learn why these people fought to continue slavery. But that a loooooooong way from wanting to a whole avenue of these men riding gallantly on the back of horses, stand tall as pillars of inspiration in the middle of town square isn't it? Do you get the difference?

QUOTE
Edited to add:
Here is one such place
I think we would lose something valuable if this were taken away.
Certainly it seems worth visiting, and I can understand why a person might have an attachment to it over time particularly if one lived in that area.
I know you do. And I am somewhat judging you on that. As I said, you are conservative but you are one of the most moderate of conservatives on this board.

And that last statement, exemplifies the uphill battle faced in fighting racism. You see I could ask you "why?" you think we would be losing something of value, but that doesn't matter. You are not alone. There are people further right than you that share it. There are people of different skin color than White that shares your viewpoint and the answer to "Why's" could be too many to try to counter.

Simple there are Americans that think the statues of American traitors, that fought to continue to enslave humans based on the color of their skin, are valuable... IS the point. This is the point that could show people how systemic racism works and how it corrupts us.

It doesn't make you a racist, it doesn't make you hate black people, and it doesn't make me hysterical.

Those men went to war, under the confederate flag, against their country, so that they could continue enslave human beings.
Regardless what Lone Wisdom says, the reasons do matter. It is totally against the values and ideals of this country... supposedly. Those statues AT BEST are there to convey to people "they were men of honor on the wrong side of history, but not that bad" and AT WORST they are there to "the men were heroic patriots who lost a war, but they had it right" Either way the commemorative designation seek to redeem these men in both character and deed.

Mrs. Pigpen
QUOTE(droop224 @ Oct 18 2017, 01:41 PM) *
QUOTE
Edited to add:
Here is one such place
I think we would lose something valuable if this were taken away.
Certainly it seems worth visiting, and I can understand why a person might have an attachment to it over time particularly if one lived in that area.
I know you do. And I am somewhat judging you on that. As I said, you are conservative but you are one of the most moderate of conservatives on this board.

And that last statement, exemplifies the uphill battle faced in fighting racism. You see I could ask you "why?" you think we would be losing something of value, but that doesn't matter. You are not alone. There are people further right than you that share it. There are people of different skin color than White that shares your viewpoint and the answer to "Why's" could be too many to try to counter.

Simple there are Americans that think the statues of American traitors, that fought to continue to enslave humans based on the color of their skin, are valuable... IS the point. This is the point that could show people how systemic racism works and how it corrupts us.


Well, I think a lot of historical things are valuable.
I think the Roman colosseum is extremely valuable (more so than Confederate statues) and thousands upon thousands (of slaves, mostly) were tortured to death for entertainment purposes in there.
I also like the works of slaves.
Hundreds of thousands of slaves with little shovels were forced to dig that huge lake in the summer palace in Beijing.
It's nice. I think they'd be losing something of value if they took that away too.
Human history is replete with slavery and warfare.
Barbary pirates were stealing Europeans for the slave trade about as long as we were importing slaves.
Would I object to statues of Barbary pirates?
I'm sure I wouldn't. I'd consider them to be a valuable part of history too.

But, yes (to continue on the Confederate statue issue specifically) I'm not alone.
Here is a poll that asks the question (breaks it down by political ideologies, race, and so forth). Page 9.
The majority (to include African Americans) in most every category either think they should remain, or are "unsure".
That said, folks can be persuaded under heavy social influence**, so with some effort the majority (myself included) might eventually (over time) agree they should be removed.

Also noteworthy (perhaps more noteworthy given the course this conversation has been going)
Page 12 shows the amount of support for the white supremacists, page 13 the nationalists, page 19 the KKK.
It is as I mentioned to entspeak.
Support for these movements is extremely, extremely low.
Support is as low among the white population as it is in the black population.

Anyway, with that poll I'll bow out. I haven't much left to say (that I haven't stated before).

**I'll reiterate here something I mentioned above.
Social influence works a number of ways, so while white nationalism is a very tiny movement (even fewer than the Satanists), the more people continue to act as if its a gigantic and important social force, the more likely the wackos will come. The disturbing trend to me is how much attention and validity folks are giving this group (ostensibly to "combat them").
droop224
QUOTE(Mrs. P.)
Well, I think a lot of historical things are valuable.
I think the Roman colosseum is extremely valuable (more so than Confederate statues) and thousands upon thousands (of slaves, mostly) were tortured to death for entertainment purposes in there.
I also like the works of slaves.
Hundreds of thousands of slaves with little shovels were forced to dig that huge lake in the summer palace in Beijing.
It's nice. I think they'd be losing something of value if they took that away too.
Human history is replete with slavery and warfare.
Barbary pirates were stealing Europeans for the slave trade about as long as we were importing slaves.
Would I object to statues of Barbary pirates?
I'm sure I wouldn't. I'd consider them to be a valuable part of history too.
No disagreement here, but again, it requires we pivot. Even if we were talking about our country, I don't think people seeking to tear down confederate monuments are talking about destroying the infrastructure that housed slaves, or infrastructure built by slaves. There may be some who seek that, but that's a little far for my taste. I think the distasteful thing that has us concerned is the previous and continued reverence to confederates that fought to continue slavery. Again, totally against the country ideals.

QUOTE
But, yes (to continue on the Confederate statue issue specifically) I'm not alone.
Here is a poll that asks the question (breaks it down by political ideologies, race, and so forth). Page 9.
The majority (to include African Americans) in most every category either think they should remain, or are "unsure".
That said, folks can be persuaded under heavy social influence**, so with some effort the majority (myself included) might eventually (over time) agree they should be removed.

Also noteworthy (perhaps more noteworthy given the course this conversation has been going)
Page 12 shows the amount of support for the white supremacists, page 13 the nationalists, page 19 the KKK.
It is as I mentioned to entspeak.
Support for these movements is extremely, extremely low.
Support is as low among the white population as it is in the black population.

Anyway, with that poll I'll bow out. I haven't much left to say (that I haven't stated before).
Understandable. Its not my mission to badger you either. Like you say with time and discussion opinions can change. Like Obama and so many other leaders of change understand... it takes time. To say "change doesn't happen over night" is such an understatement. Our country takes 10 steps forward and 9 steps back when it comes to racial change.

Conservatism as a philosophy tends to take us back. The election of Trump is a step back. People angry at protest against racial injustice is a step back. Acceptable killing of unarmed minorities is a step back. Rise of these right wing nationalist movements are a step back. But like I told a coworker, the pendulum of society and change in society works that way. Its all good.

But the question I think you could ask yourself without any response in this thread needed. What made "them" wrong? When non slave owning Whites allowed slavery to exist in the south, why did they? Why did so many choose that side? When Jim Crow laws were put in place, why did so many White support them? Why did they think it was fair, why did they choose that side? These are philosophical questions, where the answers of yesterday, are still the answers of today, IMO. And those answers, IMO, are still the wrong answers.


entspeak
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Oct 19 2017, 06:36 AM) *
Well, I think a lot of historical things are valuable.
I think the Roman colosseum is extremely valuable (more so than Confederate statues) and thousands upon thousands (of slaves, mostly) were tortured to death for entertainment purposes in there.
I also like the works of slaves.
Hundreds of thousands of slaves with little shovels were forced to dig that huge lake in the summer palace in Beijing.
It's nice. I think they'd be losing something of value if they took that away too.
Human history is replete with slavery and warfare.
Barbary pirates were stealing Europeans for the slave trade about as long as we were importing slaves.
Would I object to statues of Barbary pirates?
I'm sure I wouldn't. I'd consider them to be a valuable part of history too.

Well, much like with the Example of Lizzie Borden's house, you are conflating historical places where terrible things happened with memorials built to celebrate and commemorate terrible acts in history as good, heroic things - there is a distinction there.
LoneWisdom
QUOTE(entspeak @ Oct 19 2017, 10:41 AM) *
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Oct 19 2017, 06:36 AM) *
Well, I think a lot of historical things are valuable.
I think the Roman colosseum is extremely valuable (more so than Confederate statues) and thousands upon thousands (of slaves, mostly) were tortured to death for entertainment purposes in there.
I also like the works of slaves.
Hundreds of thousands of slaves with little shovels were forced to dig that huge lake in the summer palace in Beijing.
It's nice. I think they'd be losing something of value if they took that away too.
Human history is replete with slavery and warfare.
Barbary pirates were stealing Europeans for the slave trade about as long as we were importing slaves.
Would I object to statues of Barbary pirates?
I'm sure I wouldn't. I'd consider them to be a valuable part of history too.

Well, much like with the Example of Lizzie Borden's house, you are conflating historical places where terrible things happened with memorials built to celebrate and commemorate terrible acts in history as good, heroic things - there is a distinction there.


There's also a distinction between the reputation of a leader in battle and the cause they were fighting for. Was Rommel less of a brilliant tactician because he fighting for the wrong cause? There's a distinction between how people viewed war and their leaders over time.

There's also a distinction between art and what it's representing. Most people don't see Confederate Monuments as defending slavery or white supremacists. I would hazard a guess that most people don't even know who or what is being represented by the monuments.

Most people have contradictory values and believe that all their causes are the most moral and just. Some people just need to be offended all the time, and they seem to be outraged that everyone around is not offended too.

Most people are probably too self-centered to care about other people's causes and they see those that take up controversial causes as crazy people tilting at windmills.


entspeak
QUOTE(LoneWisdom @ Oct 19 2017, 12:16 PM) *
QUOTE(entspeak @ Oct 19 2017, 10:41 AM) *
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Oct 19 2017, 06:36 AM) *
Well, I think a lot of historical things are valuable.
I think the Roman colosseum is extremely valuable (more so than Confederate statues) and thousands upon thousands (of slaves, mostly) were tortured to death for entertainment purposes in there.
I also like the works of slaves.
Hundreds of thousands of slaves with little shovels were forced to dig that huge lake in the summer palace in Beijing.
It's nice. I think they'd be losing something of value if they took that away too.
Human history is replete with slavery and warfare.
Barbary pirates were stealing Europeans for the slave trade about as long as we were importing slaves.
Would I object to statues of Barbary pirates?
I'm sure I wouldn't. I'd consider them to be a valuable part of history too.

Well, much like with the Example of Lizzie Borden's house, you are conflating historical places where terrible things happened with memorials built to celebrate and commemorate terrible acts in history as good, heroic things - there is a distinction there.


There's also a distinction between the reputation of a leader in battle and the cause they were fighting for. Was Rommel less of a brilliant tactician because he fighting for the wrong cause? There's a distinction between how people viewed war and their leaders over time.

There's also a distinction between art and what it's representing. Most people don't see Confederate Monuments as defending slavery or white supremacists. I would hazard a guess that most people don't even know who or what is being represented by the monuments.

Most people have contradictory values and believe that all their causes are the most moral and just. Some people just need to be offended all the time, and they seem to be outraged that everyone around is not offended too.

Most people are probably too self-centered to care about other people's causes and they see those that take up controversial causes as crazy people tilting at windmills.


That's a lot of most peoples. Ignorance may be bliss, but it doesn't change reality.
AuthorMusician
Rundown on how the memorials came to be and why:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOkFXPblLpU

It has always been an attempt to win a lost war by utilizing subsequent propaganda. Not at all original and pretty limp, unless maybe a race war can be sparked.

You know, worse than in the 1960s.

Some liberal groups are arming themselves. You know, for self-protection. Huh.








droop224
QUOTE(Entspeak)
That's a lot of most peoples. Ignorance may be bliss, but it doesn't change reality.


Unfortunately, I have to disagree. Whether it is willful ignorance of one keeping their proverbial blinders on or just straight up, "Damn, I never knew that" Ignorance does change reality, because it changes our perception of events. Now, I'm not just being disagreeable, because I believe I do get the gist of what you are saying. Which is to say, "Just because you don't believe the civil war was about slavery, doesn't mean it wasn't."

But if I listen to what Mrs P, Lonewisdom, and others are saying and I combine it with the excellent video from AM last post(great video of purposeful revising of history), I can see that changing reality is the goal and a changed reality is their belief. Why does Trump and Mrs P, bring up Jefferson and Washington? Why does Lone think there are all these other reasons for secession.

Obfuscation and muddying of the water breed ignorance and allows people to exist in realities where the slave owners were bad, but they weren't evil. They weren't like Hitler or anything that bad. I mean, Washington and Jefferson prove that you can own slaves and still fight for freedom, right?? hmmm.gif whistling.gif

One thing that I can say about bringing up the founding fathers is that the well of educating our youth with willful ignorance certainly goes deeper than the Civil War and ending of slavery.

And its weird how it comes out right?

Here I am a Black man, descendant of slaves in America. A Marine. A person that stands to the National Anthem. And because White people, mostly conservatives are losing their collective minds at the idea that a man won't stand for the anthem, the TRUTH about the anthem comes out. There is a hidden verse in there that celebrates the slaughtering of individuals "hirelings and slaves" that truly were fighting for ACTUAL freedom... from slavery.

They bred ignorance into me from my childhood up until my late 30's. And it did change my reality of what that song was about. So did the truth. Now that I know what the song is truly about, I'm not over sensitive, but I am knowledgeable and that song can never be a song of freedom... for me. Maybe for others.

Ignorance can be used to shape our truths and our beliefs and that's basically what creates our reality. And that allows me to make a final dig at conservatism, because this is what separates the mentality. The further left you go the more likely you are going to be able to take in that new information, apply it, and allow it to change your reality. The more conservative you are, the opposite happens. That new information is over looked, set aside, so that the former/current reality can remain.


entspeak
Heres an article on books that would help in the correcting of a lot of misconceptions about the Civil War and its heroes.

https://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2017/11/f...tm_source=atlfb
AuthorMusician
QUOTE(entspeak @ Nov 6 2017, 04:06 PM) *
Heres an article on books that would help in the correcting of a lot of misconceptions about the Civil War and its heroes.

https://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2017/11/f...tm_source=atlfb

Thanks for the book recommendations to get rid of the stupid that surrounds the Civil War. I did a lot of reading about that war in the late 1980s and early 90s, back when I was living close to the battlefields. It mildly surprised me that Lee's actions at Gettysburg, the generally acknowledged turning point of the war, had a lot of controversy among historians. Did he or did he not lose the war due to faulty thinking?

Another point had to do with speculation about if the South had won. Today it seems logical that there would have been two countries, the USA and the CSA, but considering that Lee's goal was to capture Washington DC, it very well could have turned out to be only the CSA. Other supporting evidence includes the South's prewar stance that it wanted total capitulation from the North, not any kind of compromise.

Kinda sounds familiar to me. I guess bullheadedness springs eternal.






Looms
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Nov 7 2017, 04:48 AM) *
QUOTE(entspeak @ Nov 6 2017, 04:06 PM) *
Heres an article on books that would help in the correcting of a lot of misconceptions about the Civil War and its heroes.

https://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2017/11/f...tm_source=atlfb

Thanks for the book recommendations to get rid of the stupid that surrounds the Civil War. I did a lot of reading about that war in the late 1980s and early 90s, back when I was living close to the battlefields. It mildly surprised me that Lee's actions at Gettysburg, the generally acknowledged turning point of the war, had a lot of controversy among historians. Did he or did he not lose the war due to faulty thinking?

Another point had to do with speculation about if the South had won. Today it seems logical that there would have been two countries, the USA and the CSA, but considering that Lee's goal was to capture Washington DC, it very well could have turned out to be only the CSA. Other supporting evidence includes the South's prewar stance that it wanted total capitulation from the North, not any kind of compromise.

Kinda sounds familiar to me. I guess bullheadedness springs eternal.


Just like that, huh? Not a thought in either of your heads that may suggest that a definitive (read this or you're stupid) reading list on the Civil War by Ta-Nehisi Coates may be quite WOKE and not at all OBJECTIVE? Do guys actually enjoy being useful idiots?
entspeak
QUOTE(Looms @ Nov 10 2017, 09:26 PM) *
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Nov 7 2017, 04:48 AM) *
QUOTE(entspeak @ Nov 6 2017, 04:06 PM) *
Here’s an article on books that would help in the correcting of a lot of misconceptions about the Civil War and its “heroes.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2017/11/f...tm_source=atlfb

Thanks for the book recommendations to get rid of the stupid that surrounds the Civil War. I did a lot of reading about that war in the late 1980s and early 90s, back when I was living close to the battlefields. It mildly surprised me that Lee's actions at Gettysburg, the generally acknowledged turning point of the war, had a lot of controversy among historians. Did he or did he not lose the war due to faulty thinking?

Another point had to do with speculation about if the South had won. Today it seems logical that there would have been two countries, the USA and the CSA, but considering that Lee's goal was to capture Washington DC, it very well could have turned out to be only the CSA. Other supporting evidence includes the South's prewar stance that it wanted total capitulation from the North, not any kind of compromise.

Kinda sounds familiar to me. I guess bullheadedness springs eternal.


Just like that, huh? Not a thought in either of your heads that may suggest that a definitive (read this or you're stupid) reading list on the Civil War by Ta-Nehisi Coates may be quite WOKE and not at all OBJECTIVE? Do guys actually enjoy being useful idiots?

Oh. I’m sorry. Was that the only book on the list? I apologize. And, if you take issue with the facts in that particular book, what are those issues?
AuthorMusician
QUOTE(Looms @ Nov 10 2017, 09:26 PM) *
Just like that, huh? Not a thought in either of your heads that may suggest that a definitive (read this or you're stupid) reading list on the Civil War by Ta-Nehisi Coates may be quite WOKE and not at all OBJECTIVE? Do guys actually enjoy being useful idiots?

I am sure that there are controversial things in just about any history book on the Civil War, and the more that's read about it, the more it becomes clear that the South has a lot of different takes on what happened and why than the North.

Got any Civil War history books you care to recommend? Amazon carries a ton of them, and the Internet has a bunch of reviews of them. The books are likely available in public libraries too, so this might actually be interesting rather than trollish.

You might also want to define what you mean by WOKE. Doesn't seem to make sense within the context you used it:

https://splinternews.com/how-woke-went-from...-int-1793853989

Might I suggest a less slangy term like subjective? It'd improve parallelism and wouldn't be so trendy in a kind of hipster whistling way.

Anyway, back to monuments. We should really keep the ones that have to do with all the generals and political leaders in the CSA who were hung by the neck until dead for treason against the USA. Put them in the courthouses too, if not already there shifty.gif
Mrs. Pigpen
QUOTE(entspeak @ Nov 11 2017, 02:30 AM) *
Oh. I’m sorry. Was that the only book on the list? I apologize. And, if you take issue with the facts in that particular book, what are those issues?


He didn't write any of the books on the list, he is the one who created the "read this so you'll be less stupid" list of recommended books.
Just briefly perusing this person's history, I'm hard pressed to think of a less objective person to come up with a recommended reading list on Confederate history (even the title is insulting to anyone who disagrees with his viewpoint). Considering historians are in disagreement about far more recent wars with far more information available, I do not agree there is only one "smart" way to think on this.
AuthorMusician
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Nov 13 2017, 08:37 AM) *
QUOTE(entspeak @ Nov 11 2017, 02:30 AM) *
Oh. I’m sorry. Was that the only book on the list? I apologize. And, if you take issue with the facts in that particular book, what are those issues?


He didn't write any of the books on the list, he is the one who created the "read this so you'll be less stupid" list of recommended books.
Just briefly perusing this person's history, I'm hard pressed to think of a less objective person to come up with a recommended reading list on Confederate history (even the title is insulting to anyone who disagrees with his viewpoint). Considering historians are in disagreement about far more recent wars with far more information available, I do not agree there is only one "smart" way to think on this.

Comparing more recent war information with what was left behind from the Civil War isn't valid. The more recent wars are shrouded in tippy-top secret docs that won't become available to historians for decades, if ever. But everything that has survived from the Civil War is now available to any historian doing research, and has been for quite a while.

A few other things that are different: We have a CIA now; active soldiers are not allowed to talk politics; correspondents (journalists) are more tightly controlled (don't repeat Vietnam); paper shredders were invented; historians rarely have access to docs from both sides of a more recent war.

While it's true that different takes on the Civil War are common, the only good ones (i.e., smart) have a lot of supporting evidence. This isn't true about the Southern propaganda that included the erection of Civil War monuments in support of Jim Crow discrimination during the early part of the 20th century.

But I do agree that a recommended reading list is simply a start down the road of getting, ahem, woke to what really happened and why. That is to say, smarter. So by all means, don't take anyone's word for it -- do your own reading. I highly recommend visiting as many battle fields as possible too.

Additionally, don't confuse novels with actual histories. And keep in mind that both sides had their own brands of propaganda. Good historians point this out in their works.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2017 Invision Power Services, Inc.