Removing Confederate Monuments and Renaming Confederate-Named Military Bases

[DrZoidberg]

It's called common decency.

This is protecting people from feeling hurt of offended. Being offended is fine. Back when I was a militant atheist I wanted all religious symbols banned from public spaces. Not really. But I would have supported any such suggestion. Perhaps taken part in pulling them down. So I undertand the psychological mechanic. Anything we find abhorrend we want to eradicate. But it's not gone. Slavery and white supremacy is still part of our shared history. No matter how much we try to erase any traces of it.

I somehow suspect that this isn't so much a black thing as a white thing. Isn't it more likely that white people feel bad about being reminded that their ancestors where, what they would consider, evil? If that is the case then it's a good thing that the statues stay, to keep them reminded of that. Do you think I'm completely wrong?

Yes.

Then you lost my sympathy. I'm left and progressive. But for me being progressive isn't about crushing our enemies and humiliating them. The moment the progressive forces aren't tolerant I will turn against them. Both the left and the right are capable of totalitarian oppression. And is the inevitable result if we turn the knobs to max, regardless of whether we are left or right.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Treason (actual treason) or worshiping those that committed it isn't something that needs to be tolerated.

This isn't about a disagreement on policy or economics. This is about a bunch of people that started a war because they didn't like the guy who won a fair election. Over half a million died fighting that war, and when I say die, I don't mean they were killed immediately in action, but died awful deaths in the fields of battle. (One of the reasons I absolutely hate Civil War reenactments.)


​These statues honor those that committed the highest crime possible against our Constitution.

 

[Patooka]

You know, if 50% + 1 vote of people wanted a statue of Josef Fritzl, I would still say it is a bad thing and that it should not go ahead. I guess I'm a fascist then because it fucking baffles me that I would have to explain why it would be a bad thing. Fuck your semantics, these statues are equivalent to candy striping Auschwitz and claiming it's still historically accurate.

We'll discuss Captain fucking Cook and other strawman examples once we get on the same page that it is bad idolizing the founder of the fucking Klan, thank you kindly.

 

[Politesse]

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.

There is one, actually! At Saratoga NHP. But because he is such a hated figure, the monument only depicts his foot, and does not name him except as "the most brilliant soldier of the Continental Army who was desperately wounded on this spot"

 

[jonatha]

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.

There is one, actually! At Saratoga NHP. But because he is such a hated figure, the monument only depicts his foot, and does not name him except as "the most brilliant soldier of the Continental Army who was desperately wounded on this spot"

Did it perhaps begin life as a full statue only to be toppled (apart from the foot) by a bunch of agitators in tricorner hats?

 

[laughing dog]

Which part of "we don't want black people to live with a constant reminder that many consider them less than human" is oppressive?

This is thought crime.

The intent and point of their placement was also a thought crime. So leaving them up is promoting and perpetuating a thought crime.

 

[laughing dog]

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

"They" the duly elected representatives of the people are supposed to do what is best for society, the people. If it is democratically decided to fit plaques, then that should be done, if it is decided that they should be moved to a museum or destroyed, so be it.

Except it is against state law in many of those states to do just that. A law passed and signed into law by duly elected representatives.

 

[Jokodo]

It's called common decency.

This is protecting people from feeling hurt of offended. Being offended is fine. Back when I was a militant atheist I wanted all religious symbols banned from public spaces. Not really. But I would have supported any such suggestion. Perhaps taken part in pulling them down. So I undertand the psychological mechanic. Anything we find abhorrend we want to eradicate. But it's not gone. Slavery and white supremacy is still part of our shared history. No matter how much we try to erase any traces of it.

I somehow suspect that this isn't so much a black thing as a white thing. Isn't it more likely that white people feel bad about being reminded that their ancestors where, what they would consider, evil? If that is the case then it's a good thing that the statues stay, to keep them reminded of that. Do you think I'm completely wrong?

Yes.

Then you lost my sympathy. I'm left and progressive. But for me being progressive isn't about crushing our enemies and humiliating them. The moment the progressive forces aren't tolerant I will turn against them. Both the left and the right are capable of totalitarian oppression. And is the inevitable result if we turn the knobs to max, regardless of whether we are left or right.

There's nothing about "crushing" or "humiliating" our enemies about the drive to remove statues that were solely put in place for the explicit purpose of crushing and humiliating minorities.

This has to the most stupid defense I've heard. This is literally on a par with claiming that we're oppressing religious fundamentalists by applying the law of the land as regards homicide when they stone one among their midst for ungodly behaviour.

 

[ronburgundy]

I think this statue stuff reveals one of the fundamental roots of politics.

Lie, omit and deflect about how wide ranging your goals are. To do otherwise is extremely stupid because it will lead to stronger resistance. Lying is perhaps a virtue in this case.

Jefferson and Washington are certainly next on the target list. Though rebellion against the US with the added aspect of preserving slavery is the major cited reason they should be removed. J and W satisfy half of the reason. But if a secession/rebellion happened and was quashed in say the New England states in the 1840s for a totally different reason no one would demand statues of local defeated generals be torn down.

Perhaps only statues of founders like Thomas Paine and Franklin are safe.

Slippery Slope Fallacy?


For those who think treason for the sake of protecting slavery is on the same playing field as anything else...

Tactics, lead with the more easy goals first

You're attributing organized strategic planning to something that is an incidental byproduct of there being more people who are in favor of removing Confed statues, than other monuments like Jefferson, etc.. They aren't targeting those statues first b/c it's easy. There are simply far more people who feel strongly that those are the worst offenders and thus there is majority pressure to bring those down. There are no public monuments in the US on the same level as the Confed ones. Sorry about the Godwin implications, but it's simply true that Confed statues are more similar to if a Statue of Hitler was erected and preserved in Paris 50 years after WWII by Nazi sympathizers celebrating that Hitler controlled Paris for 4 years (same length as Confederacy existed).

There are a large % of people (myself among them) who fully support removal (into a museum of slavery and white supremacy) of all Confed monuments, but either oppose or are uncertain about removing a Jefferson statue. The mere fact that Jefferson owned slaves isn't sufficient for equivalence. Jefferson would be a known, historical, celebrated figure w/o any connection to slavery. Robert E. Lee would not be. Lee's statues are monuments celebrating him for killing US soldiers to preserve slavery. Jefferson's monuments celebrate his critical role in the American Revolution and forming the US government.

Yes, some people want to eliminate all statues of anyone with a civil rights blemish. And while I don't agree with them, I also think that there is little to no real value is such statues anyway and we'd be wise to stop memorializing individuals generally. So, the most extreme bottom of the slippery slope were almost all monuments are removed is less problematic than not removing the Confed statues.

 

[ronburgundy]

Which part of "we don't want black people to live with a constant reminder that many consider them less than human" is oppressive?

This is thought crime. This is protecting people from feeling hurt of offended. Being offended is fine. Back when I was a militant atheist I wanted all religious symbols banned from public spaces. Not really. But I would have supported any such suggestion. Perhaps taken part in pulling them down. So I undertand the psychological mechanic. Anything we find abhorrend we want to eradicate. But it's not gone. Slavery and white supremacy is still part of our shared history. No matter how much we try to erase any traces of it.

I somehow suspect that this isn't so much a black thing as a white thing. Isn't it more likely that white people feel bad about being reminded that their ancestors where, what they would consider, evil? If that is the case then it's a good thing that the statues stay, to keep them reminded of that. Do you think I'm completely wrong?

It's not simply about protecting people from feeling offended for any reason. It's that the source of the offence is the government they pay taxes to is actively promoting and honoring those who are only known to history b/c they killed US soldiers to keep enslaving the ancestors of 13% of current American citizens. And the people who erected those statues were also white supremacists who did so to send a message of white supremacy to oppose growing support for civil rights. As such those monuments inherently send that pro white supremacy message endorsed by government, ever day that they stand.

 

[repoman]

Speaking of tactics, it is the reputation of Lee being a solid tactician and also having some aspect of caring for his soldiers (in the sick compartmentalized way that happens in war) that used to allow him some begrudged respect.

He was nowhere off the charts like Forrest in his other views.

The only Nazi general other than the ones that attempted to kill Hitler that was held in a similar light was Rommel. Again not off the charts in his professed views like Heydrich.

This is like the History Channel boomers in the 1990s that could talk about these guys just on tactics like it was a sport and not have to preface every conversation with self flagellation for having interest in the topic.

 

[repoman]

Are there many statues or memorials to the every day confederate poor bastard cannon fodder privates and corporals?

 

[Horatio Parker]

Speaking of tactics, it is the reputation of Lee being a solid tactician and also having some aspect of caring for his soldiers (in the sick compartmentalized way that happens in war) that used to allow him some begrudged respect.

He was nowhere off the charts like Forrest in his other views.

The only Nazi general other than the ones that attempted to kill Hitler that was held in a similar light was Rommel. Again not off the charts in his professed views like Heydrich.

This is like the History Channel boomers in the 1990s that could talk about these guys just on tactics like it was a sport and not have to preface every conversation with self flagellation for having interest in the topic.

I think Lee is respected, just no longer canonized a la The Lost Cause. He was not without his problems.

Washington won the revolution by fighting a defensive war. Britain was far more powerful than the colonies, more so than the US to the CSA, but Britain lost. Antietam and Gettysburg, offensive Lee campaigns that yielded no strategic benefits, cost the South 75k casualties that they could not afford. Rope-a-dope would've suited the South better.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Are there many statues or memorials to the every day confederate poor bastard cannon fodder privates and corporals?

Not by the US.

 

[Politesse]

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.

There is one, actually! At Saratoga NHP. But because he is such a hated figure, the monument only depicts his foot, and does not name him except as "the most brilliant soldier of the Continental Army who was desperately wounded on this spot"

Did it perhaps begin life as a full statue only to be toppled (apart from the foot) by a bunch of agitators in tricorner hats?

No, it was literally carved as a statue of a boot with a bullet hole in it. The guy who commissioned it was a major history aficianado and wanted a monument to what was indeed one of the most momentous field casualties of the entire war, but he knew that it would have to go a bit undercover so as not to cause offense. If it had been within Connecticut, I can guarantee you that even that degree of obfuscation would not have been enough, even now. It's amazing they remember who he was at all without any statues, which as we know are the primary if not only means of recording history.

Arnold didn't own any slaves, to my knowledge, but that may say more about his financial situation than his moral views.

 

[Politesse]

Are there many statues or memorials to the every day confederate poor bastard cannon fodder privates and corporals?

A few! One that comes to mind is the "confederate soldier" statue in front of the courthouse of Franklin Co., VA. It is dedicated to the common soldiery of that county rather than to any particular general, etc.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Did it perhaps begin life as a full statue only to be toppled (apart from the foot) by a bunch of agitators in tricorner hats?

No, it was literally carved as a statue of a boot with a bullet hole in it. The guy who commissioned it was a major history aficianado and wanted a monument to what was indeed one of the most momentous field casualties of the entire war, but he knew that it would have to go a bit undercover so as not to cause offense. If it had been within Connecticut, I can guarantee you that even that degree of obfuscation would not have been enough, even now.

Arnold didn't own any slaves, to my knowledge, but that may say more about his financial situation than his moral views.

So, that's more of a statue TO Arnold, not OF him.

 

[Politesse]

Did it perhaps begin life as a full statue only to be toppled (apart from the foot) by a bunch of agitators in tricorner hats?

No, it was literally carved as a statue of a boot with a bullet hole in it. The guy who commissioned it was a major history aficianado and wanted a monument to what was indeed one of the most momentous field casualties of the entire war, but he knew that it would have to go a bit undercover so as not to cause offense. If it had been within Connecticut, I can guarantee you that even that degree of obfuscation would not have been enough, even now.

Arnold didn't own any slaves, to my knowledge, but that may say more about his financial situation than his moral views.

So, that's more of a statue TO Arnold, not OF him.

Well, it's definitely meant to be his foot.

If you were a big fan, you could conceivably go and kiss his boot in reverence. Perhaps if you were a big Owain Yeoman fan, but only saw the first two seasons of TURN and didn't realize he went full-on traitor in season 3.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Well, it's definitely meant to be his foot.

Thus, TO him. But it's not even 'police sketch artist' level as far as his likeness goes.

 

[Jokodo]

Speaking of tactics, it is the reputation of Lee being a solid tactician and also having some aspect of caring for his soldiers (in the sick compartmentalized way that happens in war) that used to allow him some begrudged respect.

He was nowhere off the charts like Forrest in his other views.

The only Nazi general other than the ones that attempted to kill Hitler that was held in a similar light was Rommel. Again not off the charts in his professed views like Heydrich.

This is like the History Channel boomers in the 1990s that could talk about these guys just on tactics like it was a sport and not have to preface every conversation with self flagellation for having interest in the topic.

That's kind of off topic though, given the context of WHEN, WHY, by WHOM the vast majority of Confederate monuments were erected.

I'm sure many rank-and-file confederate soldiers, and some generals, didn't really care all that much about the politics behind the secession, and mostly just wanted to defend their state. But the statues weren't erected by the men who served under them, to memorize how great a tactician someone was or to memorize their devotion to the well-being of the men serving under them. If they were, I might even get on board with keeping them. They were erected 50-100 years later by white supremacists who wanted to signal that the cause they fought over, keeping black people enslaved, was a just one, often specifically in reaction to demands for greater inclusion and equality. They serve no other purpose than to put blacks in their place.

As a very loose analogy, I might enjoy Richard Wagner's music and still oppose a monument the Nazis erected which celebrates him as the saviour of Western music against its "Verjudung".