Removing Confederate Monuments and Renaming Confederate-Named Military Bases

[DBT]

Nobody has suggested respect. Just history as it happened.

 

[J842P]

Nobody has suggested respect. Just history as it happened.

A monument is a symbol of respect. No matter if you put some plaque on it.

A museum would be an appropriate place for such a thing, not as a monument.

 

[DBT]

Nobody has suggested respect. Just history as it happened.

A monument is a symbol of respect. No matter if you put some plaque on it.

A museum would be an appropriate place for such a thing, not as a monument.

A monument is a symbol of respect for those who commissioned and erected it, but not necessarily so for later generations, who just see a statue, covered in pigeon shit, they know nothing about.

A museum is probably a good place for some.

 

[Jokodo]

While you're at it, one could also erect statues for members of the  British_Free_Corps, complete with "comprehensive plaques".

Or, one could just not have statues of traitors who are best known for killing in the fight to keep slavery alive.

We are talking about the fate of existing monuments, be they left in place, moved or destroyed. What should or should not be erected is another issue.

Most confederate statues/monuments were erected long after the Confederacy ended, after Reconstruction - the overwhelming majority in the 20th century.

A statue erected 50 or 80 years after the Civil War to honor generals of the losing side isn't "history as it happened" - it's a conscious act of revisionism, painting the folks that went to war for being allowed to keep slaves as the good guys, and freeing "negros" as a historical error.

 

[J842P]

Nobody has suggested respect. Just history as it happened.

A monument is a symbol of respect. No matter if you put some plaque on it.

A museum would be an appropriate place for such a thing, not as a monument.

A monument is a symbol of respect for those who commissioned and erected it, but not necessarily so for later generations, who just see a statue, covered in pigeon shit, they know nothing about.

A museum is probably a good place for some.

Right. Which is why those later generations might want to take down the monument.

 

[DBT]

A monument is a symbol of respect for those who commissioned and erected it, but not necessarily so for later generations, who just see a statue, covered in pigeon shit, they know nothing about.

A museum is probably a good place for some.

Right. Which is why those later generations might want to take down the monument.

Some may want them destroyed, some may want them moved to a museum, others may wish to leave them where they are, while others don't care what happens to them. You can't please everyone. Being a democracy, take a referendum...if enough people care.

 

[Jokodo]

A monument is a symbol of respect for those who commissioned and erected it, but not necessarily so for later generations, who just see a statue, covered in pigeon shit, they know nothing about.

A museum is probably a good place for some.

Right. Which is why those later generations might want to take down the monument.

Some may want them destroyed, some may want them moved to a museum, others may wish to leave them where they are, while others don't care what happens to them. You can't please everyone. Being a democracy, take a referendum...if enough people care.

Once again, the statues weren't left over from the time of the confederacy, they were erected 50-100 years later, often times out of a clear and explicit white supremacist/revisionist motivation - by people who made no secret of their preference for a world where the South won and blacks are still slaves.

 

[Patooka]

A monument is a symbol of respect for those who commissioned and erected it, but not necessarily so for later generations, who just see a statue, covered in pigeon shit, they know nothing about.

A museum is probably a good place for some.

Right. Which is why those later generations might want to take down the monument.

Some may want them destroyed, some may want them moved to a museum, others may wish to leave them where they are, while others don't care what happens to them. You can't please everyone. Being a democracy, take a referendum...if enough people care.

I'm really not sure what you are arguing for/against anymore. Do you think these statues provide a constructive use staying up? Do you think they should stay up? What are your objections towards them being taken down? This is a very perverse hill you are choosing to die on.

 

[DBT]

Some may want them destroyed, some may want them moved to a museum, others may wish to leave them where they are, while others don't care what happens to them. You can't please everyone. Being a democracy, take a referendum...if enough people care.

Once again, the statues weren't left over from the time of the confederacy, they were erected 50-100 years later, often times out of a clear and explicit white supremacist/revisionist motivation - by people who made no secret of their preference for a world where the South won and blacks are still slaves.

Confederate statues were not only ones being targeted. Protests happened all over, Australia, Britain, etc. Here it was Captain Cook, a former prime minister and others.

People rightly feel outraged by past injustices, but the historic value and fate of monuments should not be determined through emotion or summarily destroyed in reaction.

Move them, leave them or destroy them, but do it democratically, through public debate.

 

[Patooka]

Some may want them destroyed, some may want them moved to a museum, others may wish to leave them where they are, while others don't care what happens to them. You can't please everyone. Being a democracy, take a referendum...if enough people care.

Once again, the statues weren't left over from the time of the confederacy, they were erected 50-100 years later, often times out of a clear and explicit white supremacist/revisionist motivation - by people who made no secret of their preference for a world where the South won and blacks are still slaves.

Confederate statues were not only ones being targeted. Protests happened all over, Australia, Britain, etc. Here it was Captain Cook, a former prime minister and others.

People rightly feel outraged by past injustices, but the historic value and fate of monuments should not be determined through emotion or summarily destroyed in reaction.

Move them, leave them or destroy them, but do it democratically, through public debate.

Did you miss the title of the thread?

 

[DBT]

Some may want them destroyed, some may want them moved to a museum, others may wish to leave them where they are, while others don't care what happens to them. You can't please everyone. Being a democracy, take a referendum...if enough people care.

I'm really not sure what you are arguing for/against anymore. Do you think these statues provide a constructive use staying up? Do you think they should stay up? What are your objections towards them being taken down? This is a very perverse hill you are choosing to die on.

Die on? It's a casual discussion. I don't care that much either way. You are being too dramatic. As for what I am arguing against, that should be clear, knee jerk reaction, extremists hijacking legitimate protest. Determining the fate of public monuments through public debate....do we all have to nod our heads in unison?

 

[Patooka]

As for what I am arguing against, that should be clear, knee jerk reaction, extremists hijacking legitimate protest.

Those are the very conditions that caused confederate statues being erected (see Jim Crow and the Civil Rights Movement). Also, popular doesn't equate to moral. And when you get right down to it, there aren't a lot of public monuments that are built with public input so I don't see why it is necessary for vote on each one to be taken down. There sure as fuck wasn't a vote on who wanted them built.

 

[fromderinside]

Keep seeing images of Roman ruins being blown up or Cambodian religious icons being destroyed as reaction to idolatry, of people with nothing to say speaking.

GAGA anyone?

 

[DBT]

As for what I am arguing against, that should be clear, knee jerk reaction, extremists hijacking legitimate protest.

Those are the very conditions that caused confederate statues being erected (see Jim Crow and the Civil Rights Movement). Also, popular doesn't equate to moral. And when you get right down to it, there aren't a lot of public monuments that are built with public input so I don't see why it is necessary for vote on each one to be taken down. There sure as fuck wasn't a vote on who wanted them built.

Again, the issue of what happens to public statues/monuments goes beyond confederate statues. Let it be sorted out democratically. Anyone who cares to can have their say on the matter.

 

[marc]

The most common defense of confederate statues I've seen is it is about the south's 'heritage'. To which I would ask, is your heritage so bad, so pathetic that the BEST thing about it is when your ancestors turned traitor in support of slavery? That is it?!? They had no other accomplishments, no other contributions to society or culture? No industry, no innovations, no successful businesses? The food is so bad you would rather talk about treasonous ancestors than your cooking? The founders of your state and cities are so bad that you would rather be associated with traitors and slavers than your founders?

 

[DrZoidberg]

You know what you don't see in the US? Statues of Benedict Arnold. He was by all accounts a competent general, having been given command of West Point by Washington himself.

Yet he betrayed that trust, and went over to the British, his name becoming synonymous with treachery as he fought against his own countrymen.

He doesn't have statues because he doesn't deserve them. Neither do Confederate generals for the same reason.

When the ancient Persians conquered their enemies they let their monuments stay. Upon entering a conquered city they went out of their way to show defference towards the religious symbols of that city. The reason they did it was pragmatic rather than ideological. There were very few Persians and their subjects outnumbered them. But it worked. Their subjects felt respected and valued which kept the empire together. It lasted, in some form or another, from 600 BC right up until the Iranian revolution in 1970.

The Unionists showing respect to Confederate generals is a sign of respect for the fallen. No matter why they died.

There's no shortage of black heroes of American history. How about putting a more of them up? Rather than tearing down things. Also = more art.

It also has to do with the image of USA. Having public art conform to the state ideology is what we associate with dictatorships and totalitarianism. Not the land of the free. Being allowed to say offensive stuff is arguably what USA is all about. At least to the rest of the world. If they want to stay being admired, perhaps focus on freedom of expression rather than being a snowflake?

The notion that killing for the sake of keeping slavery legal isn't something to be praised for is "state ideology"?

I think it's very important to remind people that sometimes we get things wrong. Sometimes most people are wrong about stuff. I've never been a big fan of book burning.

In these times of extreme social justice warrior times, it's especially important to be careful. It's easy to get sucked in.

As far as I can tell every major corporation is supporting the Black Lives Matter movement. It has virtually no opponents. At least none with any power. That means a couple of things. The BLM movement is politically harmless and in support of the status quo. It means that extremists committing acts of extremism in the name of BLM are protected by the establishment. An analogue is the SA brownshirts harrassing Jewish shopkeepers and the police did nothing. They didn't dare to, lest it might annoy those in power. The mayor of Seattle pulling back police from Chaz is something similar. His primary function as mayor is to keep the peace. His tactical retreat means something and indicates who has power.

Don't get me wrong. I like that the anti-racists are in power now. But any movement with near total power can quickly spiral out of control. I see tearing down monuments of the old paradigm as a part of this. I see it as an attempt to erase history.

Political progress has to be something other than just replacing one oppressive regime with another. Or it's not progress. If this is the best we can do, what was the point of the civil rights movement?

I love the irony of that the person who formulated this the best was an American neo-Nazi. Kevin Alfred Strom.

"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."

The only way to prove that guy wrong is to let the statues stay. Or any reminder of an uncomfortable past. European cities are full of statues of horrendous figures from history. We don't seem to mind them that much. They add colour. Perhaps, try it? It's not like the decendents of African slaves in America can escape getting reminded of it every waking moment anyway. After all, they live in America. Most people live where they live today because somebody at some point did something horrible to somebody else. Something like a third of all Russians are direct decendents of a soldier in Djingis Khan's army. Yes, it was rape. It's just history. In all it's horrendous and gruesome detail.

Life is about more than genuflecting before socially acceptable pieces of propaganda all day. What Foucalt called the performative life, ie one's entire life is about pretending to be a good person. It's an empty life IMHO.

 

[Rhea]

Even statues of evil are pretty. I don't like statues removed. It says something about a people if they are willing to allow statues of a histories losers to stay erect.

In Eastern Europe few communist statues were destroyed. Instead they moved them to statue parks.

Fundamentally statues are art and we all need more art in our lives. Human beings are capable of thinking on several levels. Allowing a statue to stay isn't to agree with it.

Especially USA which has so little public art

Art and history. They could put a comprehensive plaque at the foot of the statue telling the visitor who the person was and what role they played in whatever event the statue commemorates: this was a general in the confederate army, fighting against the abolition of slavery, his war crimes were such and such......using the monument as a lesson in history, both the good and the bad.

“They” could add plaques. “They” won’t.

 

[Rhea]

The Unionists showing respect to Confederate generals is a sign of respect for the fallen. No matter why they died.

The Unionists tried that. You forget these statues were erected LONG AFTER THE WAR WAS OVER to show disrespect for the Union.

 

[Rhea]

Or, they could put those statues in a space dedicated to art and history, both the good and the bad, and use the public space they used to occupy for purposes better suited to modern society.

They could. It's an option. A referendum could be held on the fate of questionable monuments.

How does putting that racist spew on a monument glorifying men who fought to preserve slavery and white supremacy make the monument not advocacy for racism and white supremacy?

IMO, that would just make the reasons for moving it to Asshole Park even better.

That's not what I said. I meant history as it happened without glorifying it or elevating whoever the monument was erected to. Objective as possible. Just like in the history books. The deeds, actions and cause speak for themselves.

You keep talking about this like it is history, like it is in the past.

IT IS NOT IN THE PAST

Racism, hatred, harm are all alive and ongoing. These statues were erected FOR THE PURPOSE of continuing oppression on black people.
The south was not a uniform vanquished people, it was a place where the liberated people also lived. And were continued to be oppressed and subjugated by every method possible for as long as possible.

These statues do not represent a general. They represent an effort to continue to press a knee into the neck of the black population. You never acknowledge that that is the reason they were erected so many years after the end of the war, going forward even on up to the 50s.


WE KNOW why they put up the statues. It was not to revere them, it was to oppress their fellow citizens and display dominance despite having lost their traitorous cause.


Why on earth would we EVER want to support that effort? The deliberate and cruel effort to place statues of the oppressors in the faces of the oppressed to continue the oppression.

I repeat - you do not seem to have heard the many people explaining to you WHY and WHEN those statues were erected, instead clinging to the story that they were erected by adoring followers right after the war to remember their good deeds. These statues were not erected to be art.

I don’t know why all those words seem invisible to you.

 

[Jokodo]

Some may want them destroyed, some may want them moved to a museum, others may wish to leave them where they are, while others don't care what happens to them. You can't please everyone. Being a democracy, take a referendum...if enough people care.

Once again, the statues weren't left over from the time of the confederacy, they were erected 50-100 years later, often times out of a clear and explicit white supremacist/revisionist motivation - by people who made no secret of their preference for a world where the South won and blacks are still slaves.

Confederate statues were not only ones being targeted. Protests happened all over, Australia, Britain, etc. Here it was Captain Cook, a former prime minister and others.

People rightly feel outraged by past injustices, but the historic value and fate of monuments should not be determined through emotion or summarily destroyed in reaction.

Move them, leave them or destroy them, but do it democratically, through public debate.

This thread happens to be about Confederate monuments and Confederate named military bases though, not about James Cook.

It's right in the title.