Removing Civil War Monuments

[swansont]

14 hours ago, Outrider said:

 So would you be ok with a federally funded Lee library? Note the question mark please.

Lee was not president and there is no statute mandating preservation of his records. No.

14 hours ago, Outrider said:

What does this have to do with anything?

Nixon was president and there is a statute mandating preservation of his records.

 

 

[Area54]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Lee was not president and there is no statute mandating preservation of his records. No.

Nixon was president and there is a statute mandating preservation of his records.

I am not familiar with the details of this staute, but I imagine (and ask to corrected, if necessary) that its objective is to preserve matters of historical interest. While there may be no statute requiring the same for Lee would the underlying objective not make it a worhtwhile project?

[Airbrush]

"Keep the statues. Change the plaques."

I agree, but let the NEW plaques be very easy to read and briefly explain the TOTAL history of the monument, and how the character of the "hero", or his cause, is questionable.  It's basically artwork, created to evoke an aesthetic response, but with the bad intention to intimidate.  Public artwork can be ANYTHING of interest, even abstract structures.  Why does it need to be a war hero?  Or even a human being?

It would not be appropriate to take a vote on the subject, and allow the majority of the community to decide to keep statues to intimidate the oppressed minority of the same community and NOT modify the plaques.

 

Edited August 31, 2017 by Airbrush

[zapatos]

I am less worried about the monuments if they were built to intimidate than I would be if they still intimidate. I imagine 99% of the population is not aware of why they were built, nor do they care. They like or dislike them because of what they currently mean to them. I'm sure no one is suggesting that many of the monuments in Rome be torn down just because they were built to celebrate some atrocity or other.

Edited August 31, 2017 by zapatos
**spelling**

[swansont]

3 hours ago, Area54 said:

I am not familiar with the details of this staute, but I imagine (and ask to corrected, if necessary) that its objective is to preserve matters of historical interest. While there may be no statute requiring the same for Lee would the underlying objective not make it a worhtwhile project?

We have books and museums.

2 hours ago, zapatos said:

I am less worried about the monuments if they were built to intimidate than I would be if they still intimidate. I imagine 99% of the population is not aware of why they were built, nor do they care. They like or dislike them because of what they currently mean to them. I'm sure no one is suggesting that many of the monuments in Rome be torn down just because they were built to celebrate some atrocity or other.

I personally can't speak to whether others feel intimidated by such statues. But given that there are still attempts (some quite blatant) to intimidate or otherwise control minorities, I don't see that the current meaning has changed much from the old meaning.

[zapatos]

4 minutes ago, swansont said:

We have books and museums.

I personally can't speak to whether others feel intimidated by such statues. But given that there are still attempts (some quite blatant) to intimidate or otherwise control minorities, I don't see that the current meaning has changed much from the old meaning.

Based on what I've been reading online it seems that most people who want the statues to remain are suggesting it be done for historical or cultural reasons. For all I know they may be lying, but if they are, that certainly takes some of the sting out of their intimidation approach.

[swansont]

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

Based on what I've been reading online it seems that most people who want the statues to remain are suggesting it be done for historical or cultural reasons. For all I know they may be lying, but if they are, that certainly takes some of the sting out of their intimidation approach.

Why does lying take some of the sting out? 

[zapatos]

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

Why does lying take some of the sting out? 

If a white man says (lies) to a black man that he likes the statues because they represent historical figures in their state, that is less intimidating than telling (the truth to) the black man that he likes the statues because they act as a reminder to blacks that we could legally beat you once and if you are not careful we can do it again.

[swansont]

20 minutes ago, zapatos said:

If a white man says (lies) to a black man that he likes the statues because they represent historical figures in their state, that is less intimidating than telling (the truth to) the black man that he likes the statues because they act as a reminder to blacks that we could legally beat you once and if you are not careful we can do it again.

Thing is, I think people can recognize the lie. They aren't fooled, since the underlying prejudicial behavior is still happening. It's like all of the innocuous "dog whistle" phrases that get used.  The people who are the targets of the bigotry know as well as the target audience what message is being sent. It's code to make the bystanders think there's nothing to it, and keep us on the sidelines.

[Area54]

45 minutes ago, swansont said:

We have books and museums.

Books and museums were judged insufficient for preserving presidential material. Your objection to affording similar modes of preservation for material related to Lee appears to be based upon your distaste for Lee. That may or may not be an appropriate stance for a physicist. It would stink to high heaven were you a historian.

[zapatos]

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

Thing is, I think people can recognize the lie. They aren't fooled, since the underlying prejudicial behavior is still happening. It's like all of the innocuous "dog whistle" phrases that get used.  The people who are the targets of the bigotry know as well as the target audience what message is being sent. It's code to make the bystanders think there's nothing to it, and keep us on the sidelines.

I am not talking about the neo-nazis as I'm sure any of their lies about historical importance are recognized, as you say. I am talking about the other 99% of the population. When the statues went up, I imagine it was clear to most whites and blacks that intimidation was the primary reason behind it. But that is not (I don't believe) how the statues are viewed now. I find it unlikely that the average person sees one of those statues and equates it to, say, a burning cross.

My point being, it was wrong back then because it was equated to a burning cross, but if that is no longer the case, then that reason for taking them down is diminished. And a handful of crazies in bedsheets scaring little kids is not necessarily indicative of the views of the rest of the population, and therefore should not be the sole reason we take down the statues.

5 minutes ago, Area54 said:

Books and museums were judged insufficient for preserving presidential material. Your objection to affording similar modes of preservation for material related to Lee appears to be based upon your distaste for Lee. That may or may not be an appropriate stance for a physicist. It would stink to high heaven were you a historian.

I thought Swansont made it clear that his objection was based on the lack of a statute that we fund a library dedicated to every general who ever served.

[Area54]

4 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I thought Swansont made it clear that his objection was based on the lack of a statute that we fund a library dedicated to every general who ever served.

Which to me is resorting to a legal loophole. "We shouldn't  do it because we haven't made any legal provision for it." He appears to me, to be opposed to the notion of making such a legal provision. So, to me, his objection  was not clear, if it is precisely as you suggest. And he did not speak of other generals, but only of one. Lee. Who, as I understand it, was one of the most historically important of the Confedarate generals. And it is the historical importance that seems to me to justify the retention of these statues. And, to ensure the correct "message" is delivered, then accompany these with appropriate plaques, guidebooks, whatever.

[Outrider]

12 hours ago, Ten oz said:

The monument in Charlottesville wasn't paid for with federal funds. Paul Goodloe Mcintire paid for the statue and even bought up the land to put it on, It went up 59yrs after the war ended. So why should federal funds be responsible for it now?

1st are you sure its federaly funded I thought  Charlottesville  maintained it? Regardless I doubt your objection would change and neither would my answer. Its hardly an unusual arrangement. Take the Washington statue in London is it not maintained by British taxpayers? Often gifts of this sort are given by other governments (Statue of Liberty comes to mind) or wealthy individuals and then maintained through public coffers. BTW Mcintire also gifted Charlottesville with statues of Stonewall Jackson, Lewis and Clarke and George Rogers Clark. The last being a revolutionary hero who died long before the civil war. Would you like to remove any of those on the same grounds?

 

12 hours ago, Ten oz said:

There are 1,503 symbols ( monuments, statues,  names of schools, roads, parks, bridges, counties, cities, lakes, dams, and etc) of the Confederacy spread out across 36 states. Many of these went up a hundred years after the war ended. some have gone up within that last decade. Are all "historical" works that deserve to either stay or be preserved in a museum? The Confederate Monument in Springfield, TN just went up in 2012 is it now a automatically some important part of history which can't be removed?  

I'm actually not a  big fan of doing or keeping this or that because the forefathers did. Whether we are talking about this statue or gun control we are our own people and we should do what we think is right. So my answer to your question is no.

 

12 hours ago, Ten oz said:

As for Robert E Lee being a traitor:

"On May 29, 1865, President Andrew Johnson issued a Proclamation of Amnesty and Pardon to persons who had participated in the rebellion against the United States. There were fourteen excepted classes, though, and members of those classes had to make special application to the President. Lee sent an application to Grant and wrote to President Johnson on June 13, 1865:

Being excluded from the provisions of amnesty & pardon contained in the proclamation of the 29th Ulto; I hereby apply for the benefits, & full restoration of all rights & privileges extended to those included in its terms. I graduated at the Mil. Academy at West Point in June 1829. Resigned from the U.S. Army April '61. Was a General in the Confederate Army, & included in the surrender of the Army of N. Virginia 9 April '65.

Oath of amnesty submitted by Robert E. Lee in 1865

On October 2, 1865, the same day that Lee was inaugurated as president of Washington College in Lexington, Virginia, he signed his Amnesty Oath, thereby complying fully with the provision of Johnson's proclamation. Lee was not pardoned, nor was his citizenship restored."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Lee#President_Johnson.27s_amnesty_pardons

But Lee was pardoned and his citizenship restored. It says so (you didn't leave it on purpose) in the very next paragraph from your cite.

Quote

Three years later, on December 25, 1868, Johnson proclaimed a second amnesty which removed previous exceptions, such as the one that affected Lee.

And that was only the first time.

https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2005/spring/piece-lee.html

 

Quote

 

More than a hundred years later, in 1970, an archivist at the National Archives discovered Lee's Amnesty Oath among State Department records (reported in Prologue, Winter 1970). Apparently Secretary of State William H. Seward had given Lee's application to a friend as a souvenir, and the State Department had pigeonholed the oath.

In 1975, Lee's full rights of citizenship were posthumously restored by a joint congressional resolution effective June 13, 1865.

At the August 5, 1975, signing ceremony, President Gerald R. Ford acknowledged the discovery of Lee's Oath of Allegiance in the National Archives and remarked: "General Lee's character has been an example to succeeding generations, making the restoration of his citizenship an event in which every American can take pride."

 

 

You can say once a tratior  always a tratior but I don't  and U.S. government dosent see it that way. 

Edited August 31, 2017 by Outrider

[Outrider]

8 hours ago, Airbrush said:

"Keep the statues. Change the plaques."

I agree, but let the NEW plaques be very easy to read and briefly explain the TOTAL history of the monument, and how the character of the "hero", or his cause, is questionable. 

I like this but this I like this...

8 hours ago, Airbrush said:

Public artwork can be ANYTHING of interest, even abstract structures.  Why does it need to be a war hero?  Or even a human being?

...even better. I would prefer to see less monuments to dignitaries and more to ideals. If we spent more time looking at the way we would like to be maybe we would more resemble it. 

Edited September 1, 2017 by Outrider

[swansont]

15 hours ago, zapatos said:

I am not talking about the neo-nazis as I'm sure any of their lies about historical importance are recognized, as you say. I am talking about the other 99% of the population. When the statues went up, I imagine it was clear to most whites and blacks that intimidation was the primary reason behind it. But that is not (I don't believe) how the statues are viewed now. I find it unlikely that the average person sees one of those statues and equates it to, say, a burning cross.

And I disagree. Much like they symbolism of the Confederate flag, I think it's constant reminder for people of color. I think it's far too easy for white people to dismiss the seriousness of something, as we don't experience the discrimination on a daily basis, much like some men dismiss issues of sexual harassment, for the same reason. You need to listen to the targets of the behavior, rather than merely what you observe, or imagine.

 

15 hours ago, Area54 said:

Books and museums were judged insufficient for preserving presidential material. Your objection to affording similar modes of preservation for material related to Lee appears to be based upon your distaste for Lee. That may or may not be an appropriate stance for a physicist. It would stink to high heaven were you a historian.

You don't see a presidential library as a museum? 

Historians learn things from studying the Lee statues? Seriously? (I have mentioned no other "material related to Lee", and I don't recall anyone else doing so). 

11 hours ago, Outrider said:

But Lee was pardoned and his citizenship restored. It says so (you didn't leave it on purpose) in the very next paragraph from your cite.

The recent presidential pardon has brought to light the fact that accepting a pardon is an admission of guilt. It eliminates the punishment for the crime, but does not erase the crime itself.

[Area54]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

You don't see a presidential library as a museum? 

Historians learn things from studying the Lee statues? Seriously? (I have mentioned no other "material related to Lee", and I don't recall anyone else doing so).

You stated the folllowing in the response to my question as to whether you would or would not be in favour of a federally funded library for lee.

22 hours ago, swansont said:

Lee was not president and there is no statute mandating preservation of his records. No.

This, coupled with the undertone of other of your posts, creates the strong impression that you object to anything that provides Lee with any recognition.

 

I shall be charitable  and assume I have been vague, not that you have been deliberately obtuse. We can use statues, amongst other things, to educate people about wrongs committed in the past in the hope that other wrongs might be avoided. Adopting the ostritch approach hasn't always worked out well.

However, this is a US matter and I am neither a US citizen, nor a US resident. I've expressed my view that the desire to remove the statues is PC gone mad, but - more importantly - would be discarding an outstanding opportunity to teach a valuable lesson. Thank you for your time.

[iNow]

34 minutes ago, Area54 said:

I shall be charitable  and assume I have been vague, not that you have been deliberately obtuse. We can use statues, amongst other things, to educate people about wrongs committed in the past in the hope that other wrongs might be avoided. Adopting the ostritch approach hasn't always worked out well.

However, this is a US matter and I am neither a US citizen, nor a US resident. I've expressed my view that the desire to remove the statues is PC gone mad, but - more importantly - would be discarding an outstanding opportunity to teach a valuable lesson.

Let's say my grandmother was brutally raped and those in power at the time worked passionately to change the laws such that the rapist would be allowed to move forward with impunity and continue his raping. Let's also say that those in power thankfully failed in that endeavor, but then decades later scores of statues were erected to celebrate the work those men did to help rapists.

Let's say they put those statues smack dab in the middle of town squares across the state, that they intentionally placed them in areas frequented by my grandmother and her family knowing the affect they would have. Would you think it equally appropriate to dismiss my and my family's desire to remove those statues as "PC gone mad?" Would you so persistently work to convince me of the importance of leaving those statues there to "teach a valuable lesson?" I suspect not.

The mind just boggles. You speak so indignantly above of folks being deliberately obtuse, when even a remedial read of your stance allows the same charge to be applied to you in context of calls to remove these confederate monuments.

[Area54]

It's your country. Your choice. I just favour the Nelson Mandela approach. If we followed your approach in the UK our towns and villages would be denuded of practically all statuary. I think that would be a loss. You think a more restricted application of the approach in the US would be a gain. Just two different views.

If I have been obtuse in expressing my stance, I apologise. I recognised this was a contentious issue and attempted to express myself delicately, while still expressing myself. I believe that is good practice on a discussion forum where diverse views are likely to exist. Clearly that attempt has failed, at least as far as you are concerned. I have nothing further to say on the matter.

[zapatos]

4 hours ago, swansont said:

And I disagree. Much like they symbolism of the Confederate flag, I think it's constant reminder for people of color. I think it's far too easy for white people to dismiss the seriousness of something, as we don't experience the discrimination on a daily basis, much like some men dismiss issues of sexual harassment, for the same reason. You need to listen to the targets of the behavior, rather than merely what you observe, or imagine.

If you are going to admonish me for only using what I observe or imagine, then I think it only fair that you provide data rather than say "I THINK it's a constant reminder for people of color". Where is your data indicating that a majority of African Americans see these statues as a form of intimidation?

Below are the results of a poll showing a majority of African Americans do not even support removing Confederate statues.

Quote

An NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll last week found that 62 percent of respondents thought statues honoring leaders of the Confederacy should “remain as a historical symbol.” Only 27 percent of those polled wanted the statues removed. It is noteworthy that, by 44 percent to 40 percent, African Americans did not support removing Confederate statues.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450866/confederate-statues-african-americans-majorities-reject-tearing-down-monuments

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450866/confederate-statues-african-americans-majorities-reject-tearing-down-monuments

Edited September 1, 2017 by zapatos

[Ten oz]

29 minutes ago, zapatos said:

If you are going to admonish me for only using what I observe or imagine, then I think it only fair that you provide data rather than say "I THINK it's a constant remember for people of color". Where is your data indicating that a majority of African Americans see these statues as a form of intimidation?

Below are the results of a poll showing a majority of African Americans do not even support removing Confederate statues.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450866/confederate-statues-african-americans-majorities-reject-tearing-down-monuments

This is a misleading post. You are playing with context. Swansont rendered an opinion about the motives behind those who put up and celebrate the monuments. The comparison was the symbolism of the Confederate Flag. The opinion was not about how minorities perceived the monumnets/symbolism. The poll you provided doesn't shed light on what Swansont posted. Rather it deflects to a different unrelated point. If zero percent of African Americans wanted confederate statues moved that would mean that those who erected them didn't intend for them to be a constant reminder. The two things aren't the same.

[zapatos]

24 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

This is a misleading post. You are playing with context. Swansont rendered an opinion about the motives behind those who put up and celebrate the monuments. The comparison was the symbolism of the Confederate Flag. The opinion was not about how minorities perceived the monumnets/symbolism. 

Our entire conversation is about how minorities perceive the monuments. And we specifically removed from the conversation the motives about who put up the monuments and are discussing how people today feel about the monuments. When swansont mentioned the Confederate flag it was in direct response to my comment about intimidation.

You need to read the entire conversation. You can start with my first post on this page.

[swansont]

7 hours ago, Area54 said:

You stated the folllowing in the response to my question as to whether you would or would not be in favour of a federally funded library for lee.

This, coupled with the undertone of other of your posts, creates the strong impression that you object to anything that provides Lee with any recognition.

Like I said, I haven't mentioned any other material telated to Lee, so I can't see how I gave that impression. As it so happens, I was reading some summaries of analyses of Lee's actions in the war. Plenty of history books out there. (The consensus, interestingly, was he was a mediocre general)

7 hours ago, Area54 said:

I shall be charitable  and assume I have been vague, not that you have been deliberately obtuse. We can use statues, amongst other things, to educate people about wrongs committed in the past in the hope that other wrongs might be avoided. Adopting the ostritch approach hasn't always worked out well.

However, this is a US matter and I am neither a US citizen, nor a US resident. I've expressed my view that the desire to remove the statues is PC gone mad, but - more importantly - would be discarding an outstanding opportunity to teach a valuable lesson. Thank you for your time.

I guess "haven't addressed the subject" technically counts as vague...

5 hours ago, zapatos said:

If you are going to admonish me for only using what I observe or imagine,

Disagreement is admonishment?

5 hours ago, zapatos said:

then I think it only fair that you provide data rather than say "I THINK it's a constant reminder for people of color". Where is your data indicating that a majority of African Americans see these statues as a form of intimidation?

Below are the results of a poll showing a majority of African Americans do not even support removing Confederate statues.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450866/confederate-statues-african-americans-majorities-reject-tearing-down-monuments

I never actually claimed a majority; that's a bit of a strawman. People have said this; they exist.

I've commented before on these polls. They are not asking questions that allow one to validly draw these conclusions. The link doesn't even take you to the polls to alliw you to know what was being asked, though I'm fairly sure one is the poll mentioned elsewhere in the thread. 

4 hours ago, Ten oz said:

This is a misleading post. You are playing with context. Swansont rendered an opinion about the motives behind those who put up and celebrate the monuments. The comparison was the symbolism of the Confederate Flag. The opinion was not about how minorities perceived the monumnets/symbolism.  

Yes, it was.

[Area54]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Like I said, I haven't mentioned any other material telated to Lee, so I can't see how I gave that impression. As it so happens, I was reading some summaries of analyses of Lee's actions in the war. Plenty of history books out there. (The consensus, interestingly, was he was a mediocre general)

A Federally funded Lee library would contain more that statues. This would be "other material related to Lee". You indicated clearly you were not in favour of such a library. The connection appeared clear to me. i.e. I mentioned other material related to Lee and you noted disapproval of federally funding a facility to house it. That' how you gave me that impression.

[swansont]

27 minutes ago, Area54 said:

A Federally funded Lee library would contain more that statues. This would be "other material related to Lee". You indicated clearly you were not in favour of such a library. The connection appeared clear to me. i.e. I mentioned other material related to Lee and you noted disapproval of federally funding a facility to house it. That' how you gave me that impression.

And why would this be necessary, as opposed to some other museums? Where the papers are already kept.

[Outrider]

11 hours ago, swansont said:

The recent presidential pardon has brought to light the fact that accepting a pardon is an admission of guilt. It eliminates the punishment for the crime, but does not erase the crime itself.

He was never tried or convicted of anything but you are right he did admit his guilt. But then he came back to this country and worked hard to bring it back together. Wasn't a tratior, was a tratior, wasn't a tratior. Died not a tratior and I don't think he deserves to be remembered as one.