The removal of statues

[Jolly_Penguin]

There's so many accounts of captured military leaders who get treated with great respect by their captors. Treated like honoured guests. I like that. We should do more of that.

Why should enemy military leaders be treated any better than enemy grunt soldiers or enemy civilians, or anybody else? I don't get it.

 

[Sarpedon]

The rules benefit the people who make them. Officers want to be well treated.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Why should enemy military leaders be treated any better than enemy grunt soldiers or enemy civilians, or anybody else? I don't get it.

The officers saw themselves as gentlemen, professionals, and having more in common with the officers on the other side than they did with the grunts on their own.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Oh, I understand that would treat their social status better than those they saw as below it. I was more asking why Zoidberg praised this as a good thing. Is there something other than class bias to this? Something that I'm not seeing?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Oh, I understand that would treat their social status better than those they saw as below it. I was more asking why Zoidberg praised this as a good thing. Is there something I'm not seeing?

It would make it appear that the members of one armed service saw the enemy as human, rather than demonizing them as vile and contemptible savages.
Of course, this ignores the officers seeing their own men as vile and contemptible savages.
Wellington (on his own troops):

I don't know what effect these men will have upon the enemy, but, by God, they frighten me.

People talk of their enlisting from their fine military feeling - all stuff - no such thing. Some of our men enlist from having got bastard children -- some for minor offences -- many more for drink.

Ours (our army) is composed of the scum of the earth - the mere scum of the earth.

 

[J842P]

Interesting long article in Newsweek:

http://www.newsweek.com/think-about-you-tear-down-robert-e-lee-statue-655965

He seems to compared Robert E Lee and Benedict Arnold, saying that in the military you judge a man for how he conducts himself in a war less than why he got into it. Basically Lee nutted up and honestly fought the North with a full declaration, while Arnold was treacherous and a liar. I can see how loyalty and procedure obsessed military people would agree with that assessment.

I'm pretty sure the Confederates saw the Unionists as traitors to the American ideals. He also represented a significant portion of the American population. The people who lost. Lee was willing to sacrifice himself to his nation, ie be a soldier. We need soldiers. It's a type of behaviour we should celebrate.

There's so many accounts of captured military leaders who get treated with great respect by their captors. Treated like honoured guests. I like that. We should do more of that.

No. None of those people should be honored, nor treated with great respect.

- - - Updated - - -

Even a couple of German "Field Marshals " were treated with respect by the Allies at the end of WW2.
Of course comparing the Confederates to the Nazis is like comparing apples to lemons.

The comparison is apt. Treated with "respect" is fine if by "respect" you mean treated fairly, not tortured, given due quarter, whatever.

If by "respect" you mean "put up statues in the public square honoring them", then no. And the Allies didn't do that either.

- - - Updated - - -

Really? Is it apples or lemons that would fight a war to be sure an entire race of people were put in their proper, subhuman place?

Both ideologies were and are subhuman. But General Lee didn't commit genocide like the Nazis did.

He fought to maintain the perpetual enslavement of a race of peoples. You can argue whether or not that is "better" than genocide, but I think it is somewhere on the same (im)moral plane. It is apples to apples.

 

[J842P]

It would make it appear that the members of one armed service saw the enemy as human, rather than demonizing them as vile and contemptible savages.
Of course, this ignores the officers seeing their own men as vile and contemptible savages.
Wellington (on his own troops):

I don't know what effect these men will have upon the enemy, but, by God, they frighten me.

People talk of their enlisting from their fine military feeling - all stuff - no such thing. Some of our men enlist from having got bastard children -- some for minor offences -- many more for drink.

Ours (our army) is composed of the scum of the earth - the mere scum of the earth.

To be fair to Wellington, he was probably right. Indeed, the soldiers of a modern nation-state is more akin to a mercenary than, say, a citizen-soldier of the Greek city-states.

There is a very robust cult of soldier-worship in the United States, mostly as a reaction to the treatment of Vietnam veterans during the 70s.

It has become pathological.

 

[Keith&Co.]

To be fair to Wellington, he was probably right.

Oh, no doubt. Unlike the Royal Navy, his army didn't have the legal right to form press gangs and just round up a force from a given neighborhood. They had to entice men to form up, march off and get killed. Usually that meant their prospects at home were even worse than dying in ranks overseas...
People running away from the law or towards the hope of loot, rape, pillage and whores.

There is a very robust cult of soldier-worship in the United States, mostly as a reaction to the treatment of Vietnam veterans during the 70s.

And got quite a surge at 9/11. If you didn't support the troops, that meant you didn't support the war, and you were a communist muslim atheist.
And vice versa. Questioning the invasion of one or more lands was unpatriotic, anti-soldier, librul thing to do.

Which could be quite amusing after one of those rants, to show my retired Navy ID card... "I spent 20 in uniform to show my patriotism, what service were YOU in, Bucky?"

 

[bilby]

Oh, no doubt. Unlike the Royal Navy, his army didn't have the legal right to form press gangs and just round up a force from a given neighborhood. They had to entice men to form up, march off and get killed. Usually that meant their prospects at home were even worse than dying in ranks overseas...

Don't forget the drink.

In the days before the industrial revolution, the invention of the flushing toilet, and the widespread adoption of the motor vehicle, life was pretty vile. So the Europeans responded in the only sensible way, and spent every possible waking moment as drunk as newts.

But despite the fact that you could be (as the sign in Hogarth's 'Gin Lane' says "Drunk for 1/2d, Dead drunk for 1d"), many poor people simply didn't have a penny a day to spend on such essentials as gin.

For many, the solution was obvious - a soldier was issued (in addition to his pay) half a pint of gin or rum, or a pint of wine, or five pints of beer. Per day. (These are imperial pints, about 1.25 modern US pints).

Of course, once he drank his rations, he still had his pay to spend on more drink; and on campaign, the army 'lived off the land' - which often meant drinking a tavern or cellar dry, with no thought to payment.

A very large fraction of Wellington's army would today be diagnosed with clinical alcohol dependency, and they were easily recruited by the promise of plentiful free drinks.

 

[repoman]

Golly, imagine a whole regiment or army going through the DTs at the same time.

 

[iolo]

Oh, no doubt. Unlike the Royal Navy, his army didn't have the legal right to form press gangs and just round up a force from a given neighborhood. They had to entice men to form up, march off and get killed. Usually that meant their prospects at home were even worse than dying in ranks overseas...

Don't forget the drink.

In the days before the industrial revolution, the invention of the flushing toilet, and the widespread adoption of the motor vehicle, life was pretty vile. So the Europeans responded in the only sensible way, and spent every possible waking moment as drunk as newts.

But despite the fact that you could be (as the sign in Hogarth's 'Gin Lane' says "Drunk for 1/2d, Dead drunk for 1d"), many poor people simply didn't have a penny a day to spend on such essentials as gin.

For many, the solution was obvious - a soldier was issued (in addition to his pay) half a pint of gin or rum, or a pint of wine, or five pints of beer. Per day. (These are imperial pints, about 1.25 modern US pints).

Of course, once he drank his rations, he still had his pay to spend on more drink; and on campaign, the army 'lived off the land' - which often meant drinking a tavern or cellar dry, with no thought to payment.

A very large fraction of Wellington's army would today be diagnosed with clinical alcohol dependency, and they were easily recruited by the promise of plentiful free drinks.

After the Industrial Revolution had really entered working-class life, getting blotto was still 'the quickest way out of Manchester'. I suppose that, later, drugs offered short-cuts. According to Kipling (who might be lying) even late in the Nineteenth Century respectable pubs 'wanted no redcoats here'. When Mrs Thatcher wanted a return to Victorian values, this was no doubt what she was after.

 

[DrZoidberg]

There's so many accounts of captured military leaders who get treated with great respect by their captors. Treated like honoured guests. I like that. We should do more of that.

Why should enemy military leaders be treated any better than enemy grunt soldiers or enemy civilians, or anybody else? I don't get it.

A couple of reasons. Military leaders should be treated better because we want all troops to want to be officers. We want men/women/transexuals under command to have lots and lots of respect for their commanding officers. It's super super important. They can do what they will with their privileges, but I think it helps.

Why enemies? After war there is peace. The peace is most likely going to go on a lot longer than the war. After the war we want our former enemies to be our friends. If we treat them, and their leaders, badly, we get an unstable peace. And most likely war again.

That's the mistake Maliki did in Iraq. Because of unfair treatment of Shias under Saddam, Maliki, with the goal of rectifying a former wrong, tilted the scale in the opposite direction. Hey, presto created a massive fifth column that welcomed ISIS. This is how to not do it.

A good example of how to do a regime change is Nelson Mandela. His first order of business was to embrace the symbols of the losing side. Symbols who he prior to this hated, hated with a passion. He made a point of keeping all the old statues glorifying racism, white power and colonialism. To my knowledge they're still there. I know there was some kerfuffle a few years back about a Cecil Rhodes statue. Cecil Rhodes is like the qualities of Hitler and Uncle Scrooge in one man. He's right up their with Stalin, Hitler, Idi Amin and Pol Pot. The fact that there was a debate about it in 2015 (20 years after the fall of Apartheid) is the interesting part.

The American Civil War is a mixed bag, a mixed carpetbag. They did some things right, and some things wrong. What they did right was to let the South glorify their leaders and let them keep all their symbols.

That means acknowledging their former leaders. And treating them, super super nice. The winners will have to win the vanquished over. An uncooperative conquered people is expensive to rule, and dangerous.

This is why the Brits dismantled the British empire. They were broke after WW2 and had to balance the books. With their chauvinistic imperialist and evangelical Christian rhetoric of the 1880's onwards they'd managed to alienate all their colonial subjects. From a very good starting position. The early British imperialists were extremely skilled at winning hearts and minds. They acknowledge colonial leaders, treated them with respect and adopted local customs. They pissed all that away. Once they'd alienated their subjects they needed more security. Security is expensive.

Here's another example of what I mean. Hitler was a fucking dick. I think we can all agree on that. He's the worst example of cultural chauvinism and penis waving. So why didn't he set up German politicians as presidents of the conquered countries? He was super super careful of treating the conquered leaders with respect. He let them keep all their statues, and even glorify their fallen soldiers. He forced the French to genuflect before Marshal Petain. NOT himself. He was of course holding Petain's leash. But symbols matter. Most French adapted fast, and a lot of them even liked it.

 

[repoman]

Reminds me of MacArthur and Hirohito. An execution of Hirohito, how would that have turned out?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Reminds me of MacArthur and Hirohito. An execution of Hirohito, how would that have turned out?

Plus that Hirohito was a spineless coward, completely out of touch with reality, who had been a complete fucking tool, of whoever sat on the real power his entire life. I think adapting to American lordship went extremely smoothly. All MacArthur needed to do was bow a little and use the emperors titles and he would have the perfect hand-puppet for Japanese dominion.

 

[jonatha]

Lee was about as good as that racist gang got, and I believe he finally got around to freeing his slaves.

According to Wikipedia, he freed the slaves his wife inherited from her father according to the terms of her father's will.

He does not appear to have been as enlightened a slaveholder as Jefferson Davis,.

 

[angelo]

Of course another known slave holder in history was Muhammed who today is worshipped by around 1.6 billion people as the greatest human being who ever lived,

 

[DrZoidberg]

Of course another known slave holder in history was Muhammed who today is worshipped by around 1.6 billion people as the greatest human being who ever lived,

To his defence, he only whipped them lovingly.

Angelo, how come you bring in criticism of Islam, in every damn subject? Whenever we discuss anything (it seems to me) your contribution is mostly "Yeah, but Islam... ".

Islam's dreadfulness in no way exonerates anybody for anything. Lee isn't magically transformed into a beacon of goodness, virtue and generosity because you can find someone else more evil.

Was it really relevant to add your comment?

 

[angelo]

Of course another known slave holder in history was Muhammed who today is worshipped by around 1.6 billion people as the greatest human being who ever lived,

To his defence, he only whipped them lovingly.

Angelo, how come you bring in criticism of Islam, in every damn subject? Whenever we discuss anything (it seems to me) your contribution is mostly "Yeah, but Islam... ".

Islam's dreadfulness in no way exonerates anybody for anything. Lee isn't magically transformed into a beacon of goodness, virtue and generosity because you can find someone else more evil.

Was it really relevant to add your comment?

I'm just making a point. Also the fact that islam is now the biggest threat to world harmony in the history of the universe!

 

[iolo]

Lee was about as good as that racist gang got, and I believe he finally got around to freeing his slaves.

According to Wikipedia, he freed the slaves his wife inherited from her father according to the terms of her father's will.

He does not appear to have been as enlightened a slaveholder as Jefferson Davis,.

Ah. Probably another example of the way we want to find a 'good German' (so to speak) on the other side. Plus the other influence - background connexions, however distant. Like me, Lee was brought up a serious Anglican, though in my case it was Christian Socialist Anglican. Ah well - we learn, slowly, over time, so we must believe!

- - - Updated - - -

Of course another known slave holder in history was Muhammed who today is worshipped by around 1.6 billion people as the greatest human being who ever lived,

If you find anyone worshipping Muhammed, tell Isis, who will soon see them off for you.

 

[DrZoidberg]

To his defence, he only whipped them lovingly.

Angelo, how come you bring in criticism of Islam, in every damn subject? Whenever we discuss anything (it seems to me) your contribution is mostly "Yeah, but Islam... ".

Islam's dreadfulness in no way exonerates anybody for anything. Lee isn't magically transformed into a beacon of goodness, virtue and generosity because you can find someone else more evil.

Was it really relevant to add your comment?

I'm just making a point. Also the fact that islam is now the biggest threat to world harmony in the history of the universe!

What point exactly are you making? How is Islam a factor in the debate regarding Southern Racism now or 1860? Islam has a rule against figurative statues. Is that what you're talking about? Still not sure how it's relevant?

In 1860 the Islamic world was at their historical low point. Ineffectual leadership, horrendous political oppression, nationalistic, conservative, chauvinistic, inward looking and with delusions of grandeur. A good warning example against others who are afraid of openness, multiculturalism, pluralism and liberalism.