Removing Confederate Monuments and Renaming Confederate-Named Military Bases

[Rhea]

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.

I am surprised by your equating the long-held desire to remove racist statues with the extremist looting and destruction.
Those people are not the same. The “destruction for it’s own sake” folks do not target specific icons.... by definition, really.

 

[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.

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

 

[Politesse]

The defeat of slavery in this country was anything but "easy". It's not even complete.

 

[DBT]

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.

I am surprised by your equating the long-held desire to remove racist statues with the extremist looting and destruction.
Those people are not the same. The “destruction for it’s own sake” folks do not target specific icons.... by definition, really.

I'm not saying that the people who protest peacefully are necessarily the ones looting, rioting or defacing monuments. I'm saying that an extremist element hijacks legitimate protest and due process, careful consideration of what should or should not be destroyed, thereby bringing what should be a legitimate and necessary protest into disrepute.

I am making a distinction between necessary protest and extremist actions. Extremists resorting to looting, violence and destruction for its own sake: anarchists.

There is just cause to remove many of the monuments but what we see happening is not the best way to go about it.

I am saying that there is a point where reasonable and legitimate protest tips into extremism, that things can and do get out of hand.

 

[Arctish]

The defeat of slavery in this country was anything but "easy". It's not even complete.

I think repoman was referring to the preservation of symbols of white supremacy as the easy goal to lead with first.

The harder goal will be the creation of a white ethnostate in Idaho.

 

[fromderinside]

No problem. Boise and SW ID is entirely held by Mormons and Nazarenes tending their potatoes and sugar beets while the north is occupied by retired law and security professionals who golf at old Crosby golf courses while SE ID is ordinance testing, nuclear research and Craters of the Moon park.

No one cares much about ski bunnies any more which are mostly situated around the mental institution at Orphino. Mines at Wallace and Kellog are long played out not that that changes the high rates of stream abuse by mineral rightests there.

For the people of Baker Oregon Idaho looks like Hemingway's dreamland. I encourage them to do what Ernest did back in the sixties, blow their heads off.

It's in places like the above where I learned journalism from the bottom up in bar hopping street sales in Kalispell, endo'towner delivery boy in Coeur d'Alene, and n'er-do-well fleecer in Wenatchee.

From there on 'til entering the service it was Katie at thee bar door.

Good times.

Best o'luck to those GenZ name erasers and statue beheaders.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There are better ways. But polite requests to remove those statues have been falling on deaf ears for years. Some states went so far as to make it illegal to move them, so the only way to get rid of the damn things is to topple them.

How about some shaped charges?

 

[DrZoidberg]

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

 

[repoman]

People's lives in general, unrelated to racial aspects, are turning to shit in the US. This is a way to scapegoat the past for crap lives now.

Focus on concentration of wealth and power to big corporations would be more productive. But now these Globocorps are woke-washing their heinous records through BLM and so on.

 

[Politesse]

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

Most of these statues aren't being destroyed, either.

 

[Ford]

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.

 

[DBT]

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.

 

[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?

 

[DBT]

As for 'historical' - both the good and the bad.

Definition of historical

1a : of, relating to, or having the character of history historical data

b : based on history historical novels

c : used in the past and reproduced in historical presentations



''Recent Examples on the Web Calls to remove statues of historical figures have been growing in the United States following the death of George Floyd, and protesters have defaced (and in some cases knocked down) statues of Confederate leaders. — Andrew Mark Miller, Washington Examiner, "Thousands sign petition to remove 'racist' Gandhi statue," 13 June 2020 ''

 

[Jokodo]

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"?

 

[Arctish]

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.

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.

At the dedication of one of those statues, Silent Sam at the University of North Carolina , a former Confederate soldier, white supremacist, pro-slavery advocate, and admirer of the KKK named Julian Carr delivered a speech in which he extolled the virtues of Confederate soldiers and Southern women. He chided the present generation for not fully appreciating their work to preserve white supremacy and then added a personal anecdote about his own efforts to keep blacks in their place:

The present generation, I am persuaded, scarcely takes note of what the Confederate soldier meant to the welfare of the Anglo Saxon race during the four years immediately succeeding the war, when the facts are, that their courage and steadfastness saved the very life of the Anglo Saxon race in the South – When “the bottom rail was on top” all over the Southern states, and to-day, as a consequence the purest strain of the Anglo Saxon is to be found in the 13 Southern States – Praise God.
I trust I may be pardoned for one allusion, howbeit it is rather personal. One hundred yards from where we stand, less than ninety days perhaps after my return from Appomattox, I horse-whipped a negro wench until her skirts hung in shreds, because upon the streets of this quiet village she had publicly insulted and maligned a Southern lady, and then rushed for protection to these University buildings where was stationed a garrison of 100 Federal soldiers. I performed the pleasing duty in the immediate presence of the entire garrison, and for thirty nights afterwards slept with a double-barrel shot gun under my head.

https://hgreen.people.ua.edu/transcription-carr-speech.html

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.

 

[Jokodo]

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.

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.

 

[DBT]

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.

 

[DBT]

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.

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.

 

[Ford]

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"?

The "state ideology" of the Confederacy was - in the simplest of terms - that Negroes are not fully human beings. They were quite explicit about this.

This is not something one needs to "show respect" for. The "fallen" fell in not just a lost cause, but a demonstrably wrong one. If my great great great etc. grandfather had been on the other side of Breed's Hill (later known as the Battle of Bunker Hill) I wouldn't feel terribly proud of that lineage.

Fast forward a couple hundred years, and I understand why Russians would be proud of a grandfather or great grandfather who stood against the Nazis at Stalingrad. Pride in actual Stalin? Not so much. He was a mass-murdering fuckhead...as many important historians have said.

The list of honorable or admirable things that Confederate generals fought for is vanishingly small. "Black people should continue to be property" is not one of them. And "this idea that 'all men are created equal is bollocks'" also doesn't qualify. States rights? If you look at the 10th Amendment you might be able to make the case that states rights should be more prominent, but throwing out the Constitutional baby with the bathwater and declaring that "since you're not sticking to this one Amendment we have to burn the whole fucking thing down" is a bit much.

Finally, the Confederacy stands against everything that "America" in all it's ugly and convoluted history claims to stand for. Yeah, we failed for a long time on slavery. Treatment of Native Americans. Treatment of women. Jim Crow. Imperialism. Yet the seeds of a better society are right there in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Slowly...agonizingly...we're moving towards that "more perfect union." The Confederacy sought to strangle those ideas and embrace "we get to own other people and we'll kill you for that right."


They don't deserve statues. They don't deserve respect. It was an ugly four years that needs to be taught as an example of "what not to do," not "it was a noble cause that deserves respect."