Removing Confederate Monuments and Renaming Confederate-Named Military Bases

[laughing dog]

It's certainly not even vaguely related to the claim:



Do you withdraw that claim, or are you just hoping nobody noticed that you moved the goalposts to a different continent?

No goal posts were moved. The issue has always been about what the monuments or statues represent. A statue of Churchill erected after the war is that of a historical figure in a moment of history. It is a part of history. A period in time. A significant time in the past.

Whether a statue, bust or monument should be defaced by a mob, relocated or destroyed because Churchill was less than perfect is the question.

Statues of confederate generals or officers erected after the war represent historical figures in that period of history, and the only question is should they be relocated preserved as a part of history, or destroyed because they are symbols of a reprehensible period in history, the defenders of slavery.

Whatever is decided should be done through public debate, not rampaging mobs.

That's all. It's not hard to grasp.

First, as two posters have shown, public debate in those states where it is ILLEGAL to move was stifled. Now, an intellectually curious poster might wonder why those states felt the need to enact such a law. Well, the reason was to stop people from attempting to move the those statutes with reasoned public debate.

Second, no one is arguing the mob rule is the preferred method of achieving the goal. It happened in the US this time. And this time, the mob was right.

Third, statues of confederates are statues of traitors which you continually and understandably ignore (since traitor is not put on the statute). Can you point to public statutes of traitors? After all, traitors are part of the historical record.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

N/m. Wrong thread.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Protestor discernment in action:

''A statue of Winston Churchill has been sealed inside a protective steel barrier ahead of a massive London race protest which Prime Minister Boris Johnson says has been "hijacked" by extremists.

Construction workers boarded up the heritage-listed 3.5-metre tall bronze monument to the former prime minister overnight amid fears it could be torn down or become a flashpoint for clashes between rival protesters this weekend. ''

''The extraordinary sight has shocked Britain. London Mayor Sadiq Khan also ordered another eight statues to be covered by protective casing while tensions are high. Those statues include tributes to Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi, George Washington, and the cenotaph near Downing Street.''

"The statue of Winston Churchill in Parliament Square is a permanent reminder of his achievement in saving this country - and the whole of Europe - from a fascist and racist tyranny," Johnson said on Friday.

"It is absurd and shameful that this national monument should today be at risk of attack by violent protesters."

Johnson said he understood the "legitimate feelings of outrage at what happened in Minnesota and the legitimate desire to protest against discrimination" and acknowledged Britain had not fully combated racism and discrimination.

"But it is clear that the protests have been sadly hijacked by extremists intent on violence," he said.''

I'm old enough and experienced enough at life to know without doubt that one thing is certainly true, namely that you get what you accept. If we continue to accept that these statues and monuments to oppression and enslavement are honorable and significant of our ideals then that is what we will get. And we have been getting it literally forever. I do not accept them anymore.

No one of sound constitution should accept them anymore than we should accept a statue of Hitler, (Godwin award accepted) a man who raised Germany to great heights and influence, a man of the year, a man of history, a champion of Aryan supremacy, a true German.

Our country was founded by men and women who did the same thing as those "mobs" are doing today. If these statues and monuments are not removed we are not a just society.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Are you really this ok siding with the white supremacists?

You midunderstand. I am siding with reason over emotion, due process over mob hysteria..... your post is an appeal to emotion.

Bullshit. You are rationalizing, not being rational.

And trying to demean people who understandably get angry from being treated unfairly by a system their whole lives is also bullshit. You might like to pretend you're spock, but it just makes you an unsympathetic ass.

This isn't an exercise in pure logic. It's too bad you can't see that.

 

[ideologyhunter]

I'm old enough and experienced enough at life to know without doubt that one thing is certainly true, namely that you get what you accept. If we continue to accept that these statues and monuments to oppression and enslavement are honorable and significant of our ideals then that is what we will get. And we have been getting it literally forever. I do not accept them anymore.

No one of sound constitution should accept them anymore than we should accept a statue of Hitler, (Godwin award accepted) a man who raised Germany to great heights and influence, a man of the year, a man of history, a champion of Aryan supremacy, a true German.

Our country was founded by men and women who did the same thing as those "mobs" are doing today. If these statues and monuments are not removed we are not a just society.

Agreed. There's a difference between the functions of a museum or historical research and the celebratory nature of a statue in a public space. It would be good if we could catch up with Gen. Grant's statement in his memoirs, in reference to Appamattox: "I felt anything rather than rejoicing at the downfall of a foe who had fought so long and valiantly, and had suffered so much for a cause, though that cause was, I believe, one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse."

 

[bilby]

It's certainly not even vaguely related to the claim:



Do you withdraw that claim, or are you just hoping nobody noticed that you moved the goalposts to a different continent?

No goal posts were moved. The issue has always been about what the monuments or statues represent. A statue of Churchill erected after the war is that of a historical figure in a moment of history. It is a part of history. A period in time. A significant time in the past.

Whether a statue, bust or monument should be defaced by a mob, relocated or destroyed because Churchill was less than perfect is the question.

Statues of confederate generals or officers erected after the war represent historical figures in that period of history, and the only question is should they be relocated preserved as a part of history, or destroyed because they are symbols of a reprehensible period in history, the defenders of slavery.

Whatever is decided should be done through public debate, not rampaging mobs.

That's all. It's not hard to grasp.

It's not based in reality either.

The Confederate statues were not 'erected after the war' except in the trivial sense that they weren't erected before the war.

Most were erected in the Jim Crow era, several decades after the war; or during the civil rights era in the middle of the twentieth century.

That you appear to believe that they were erected immediately after the war as a commemoration of the people who fought is a pretty strong indication that they are positively detrimental to educating people in the history they portray.

I don't care to address your other points, while you persist with the falsehood that history is in any way important in this debate. It's ONLY importance is as a lie; a propaganda tool. Confederate statues have exactly fuck all to do with the history of the Civil War.

When you say "the only question is should they be relocated preserved as a part of history, or destroyed because they are symbols of a reprehensible period in history" you are assuming something untrue - the question you claim is the "only" question doesn't arise unless you first give the incorrect answer to the question "Are these statues in any way a part of the history of the Civil War?".

They are not.

 

[Politesse]

When they say "we must remember history", they don't mean actual historical events. They mean the elementary school school subject called history, a sort of propagandistic pageant of sorts that emphasizes the heroic qualities of "pioneers" and "revolutionaries" and ignores the gritty bits. The statues, to them, are history. They never learned anything else about it besides the monuments, and don't want to.

 

[Worldtraveller]

When they say "we must remember history", they don't mean actual historical events. They mean the school subject called history, a sort of propagandistic pageant of sorts that emphasizes the heroic qualities of "pioneers" and "revolutionaries" and ignores the gritty bits. The statues, to them, are history. They never learned anything else about it besides the monuments.

Exactly.

And just as importantly, they don't want to learn any more.

 

[ideologyhunter]

The trope I hear is that the Civil War was all about state's rights (which I don't have trouble with, if you mean the right to run your state as a slave republic.) The guys who I hear this from are anxious to tell you that most CSA soldiers didn't own slaves -- true. But virtually all white Southerners were horrified by the notion of millions of freemen entering their society. States rights has been a pretty squalid banner in our history, far too often used to facilitate an end run around civil rights for all and equal access to justice.

 

[Horatio Parker]

The trope I hear is that the Civil War was all about state's rights (which I don't have trouble with, if you mean the right to run your state as a slave republic.) The guys who I hear this from are anxious to tell you that most CSA soldiers didn't own slaves -- true. But virtually all white Southerners were horrified by the notion of millions of freemen entering their society. States rights has been a pretty squalid banner in our history, far too often used to facilitate an end run around civil rights for all and equal access to justice.

I wonder, which states rights would those be?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The trope I hear is that the Civil War was all about state's rights (which I don't have trouble with, if you mean the right to run your state as a slave republic.) The guys who I hear this from are anxious to tell you that most CSA soldiers didn't own slaves -- true. But virtually all white Southerners were horrified by the notion of millions of freemen entering their society. States rights has been a pretty squalid banner in our history, far too often used to facilitate an end run around civil rights for all and equal access to justice.

I wonder, which states rights would those be?

Presumably the right to tax hot pants.

 

[Horatio Parker]

The trope I hear is that the Civil War was all about state's rights (which I don't have trouble with, if you mean the right to run your state as a slave republic.) The guys who I hear this from are anxious to tell you that most CSA soldiers didn't own slaves -- true. But virtually all white Southerners were horrified by the notion of millions of freemen entering their society. States rights has been a pretty squalid banner in our history, far too often used to facilitate an end run around civil rights for all and equal access to justice.

I wonder, which states rights would those be?

Presumably the right to tax hot pants.

I thought they were concerned about other state's rights - such as outlawing slavery, or allowing free blacks the vote.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Well, we are heading down a dark road, where it leads nobody knows. Strap in, hope for the best, we may be in for a rough ride.

Heading?
We're HERE because there seems to be many cases where cops face no accountability for abusing their authority even to the point of needless deaths. Where cops trying to hold others accountable for their abuses are the ones systematically marginalized, slandered, and bullied off the force.
The ride is dark and has been rough for a while, and you're worried about preserving the statues, maybe.
You're ignoring the message and concentrating on the medium.
Possibly for the noblest of reasons, but it still looks identical to the efforts to justify ignoring protests so no change is required. People who have to give their children The Talk aren't really in the mood for that discussion any more.

 

[repoman]

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.

 

[Trausti]

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.

They’ve already knocked down Jefferson statues. This isn’t about the Confederacy. It’s about America. Once all the founders are unpersoned, that constitution they wrote with its abominable protection of individual rights comes next.

 

[Politesse]

Yes, opposing slavery is a slippery slope to opposing all individual rights. People who truly love freedom have no problem with slavery.

It must be weird living inside your heads.

 

[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.

They’ve already knocked down Jefferson statues. This isn’t about the Confederacy. It’s about America. Once all the founders are unpersoned, that constitution they wrote with its abominable protection of individual rights comes next.

Those who defend the Confed flag and monuments are the greatest enemies of the rights and the Constitution that this country has ever seen. They not only want to honor those who were an enemy government and traitors against the US, but whose treason was motivated by the desire to enslave other humans and deny them of all rights. To claim that those who see honoring pro-slavery traitors to our constitutional US government as problematic are the enemies of civil rights is beyond absurd and requires full blown pathological delusion.

Oh, and the Confederacy existed for a total of 4 years, so there is no such thing as "heritage" of the Confederacy. The only heritage that being preserved is the centuries of pro-slavery and white supremacy that ruled and defined southern culture and for which the confederacy briefly fought and lost.

 

[bilby]

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.

They’ve already knocked down Jefferson statues. This isn’t about the Confederacy. It’s about America. Once all the founders are unpersoned, that constitution they wrote with its abominable protection of individual rights comes next.

Those who defend the Confed flag and monuments are the greatest enemies of the rights and the Constitution that this country has ever seen. They not only want to honor those who were an enemy government and traitors against the US, but whose treason was motivated by the desire to enslave other humans and deny them of all rights. To claim that those who see honoring pro-slavery traitors to our constitutional US government as problematic are the enemies of civil rights is beyond absurd and requires full blown pathological delusion.

Oh, and the Confederacy existed for a total of 4 years, so there is no such thing as "heritage" of the Confederacy. The only heritage that being preserved is the centuries of pro-slavery and white supremacy that ruled and defined southern culture and for which the confederacy briefly fought and lost.

And nobody's being 'unpersoned' outside the richly delusional world of right-wing imagination.

Lots of people - indeed, the VAST majority of people who have ever lived - are not glorified by statuary in public spaces. And yet their existence and accomplishments are still remembered by those interested in doing so.

Dropping a statue in a harbour is historic. The statue itself is not.

 

[DBT]

Are you really this ok siding with the white supremacists?

You midunderstand. I am siding with reason over emotion, due process over mob hysteria..... your post is an appeal to emotion.

Bullshit. You are rationalizing, not being rational.

And trying to demean people who understandably get angry from being treated unfairly by a system their whole lives is also bullshit. You might like to pretend you're spock, but it just makes you an unsympathetic ass.

This isn't an exercise in pure logic. It's too bad you can't see that.

Wrong, you are equivocating. I'm not demeaning people who are legitimately angry. I'm not demeaning people who are legitimately protesting against police brutality, slavery or past wrongs,

I am saying that legitimate protests are being hijacked by extremists , looters, riotors, those who take joy in destruction for its own sake....that it is the extremists who demean all who protest in a reasonable manner.

 

[Rhea]

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...