Removing Civil War Monuments

[iNow]

People really need to ask themselves why communities erected statues of slave holders and not of abolitionists. 
 

h/t AOC

[studiot]

7 hours ago, iNow said:

People really need to ask themselves why communities erected statues of slave holders and not of abolitionists. 
 

h/t AOC

Good question +1, but since the statue toppling mania has spread to other countries it should be noted that targetting has now become indiscriminate and worse an excuse for attack and counterattack by one community on another.

Arguments against the Bristol slave trader Colston have been widely publicised since his statue was dragged into the harbour.

Less widely reported was the counterattack on a statue of a modern black writer and actor (Fagon) in that same city.

Still in my region we have the entirely idiotical threat to the statue of Admiral Blake, the British Admiral noted for freeing slaves.

So communities should be examining their consciences as to whether this has already gone too far.

 

[swansont]

British grabbing someone’s cultural work of art and doing what they damn well please with it seems pretty on-brand and in keeping with tradition.

[dimreepr]

3 hours ago, swansont said:

British grabbing someone’s cultural work of art and doing what they damn well please with it seems pretty on-brand and in keeping with tradition.

Many of our traditions, started with grabbing someone's country for profit, brother...

[Alex_Krycek]

I lived in the Deep South for a while.  To me the best analogy of the civil war monuments is that of Nazi Germany.  Would it be correct for the Germans to allow statues of Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, Joseph Mengele, Adolf Eichmann, etc to remain standing?  How about the Nazi flag?  Is that just about "heritage"?

The Confederates were traitors to the United States and explicit supporters of a racist ideology.  Leaving those statues up is a tacit endorsement of their beliefs and enemies of the Constitution.  They should be taken down and put in a museum display about the Confederacy.  The military bases named after Confederate generals should also be renamed.  Currently those monikers are a slap in the face to every person of color who serves there.

[dimreepr]

9 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

I lived in the Deep South for a while.  To me the best analogy of the civil war monuments is that of Nazi Germany.  Would it be correct for the Germans to allow statues of Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, Joseph Mengele, Adolf Eichmann, etc to remain standing?  How about the Nazi flag?  Is that just about "heritage"?

Essentially it's about who wins... And, that the winner doesn't know it's dead yet... 😉

[Alex_Krycek]

14 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Essentially it's about who wins... And, that the winner doesn't know it's dead yet... 😉

The Confederates did not win.  

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Alex_Krycek said:

The Confederates did not win.  

They didn't, but then... Trump... 

[Alex_Krycek]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

They didn't, but then... Trump... 

Let's just say they were extremely sore losers.

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Let's just say they were extremely sore losers.

Which is exactly why... 😉

[swansont]

27 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

The Confederates did not win.  

Or did they, after the fact?

[MigL]

On the topic of the Confederate flag...
What we commonly associate with the Confederacy, was not their actual flag.
The stars and X bars, was actually a square battle flag adopted for the Civil War effort.
The actual Confederate flag went through several iterations, the later of which incorporated the battle flag in the top left corner.

See here   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flags_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America

The rectangular version of the battle flag, and what we usually associate with the Confederacy, gained acceptance in the 1920s, due in no small part to KKK efforts. It was never a 'legal' version to begin with.

[Alex_Krycek]

6 minutes ago, swansont said:

Or did they, after the fact?

Well, why did the Civil war happen in the first place? To end slavery / racism?   Or to stop Secession, and thus prevent a substantial weakening of the Union?   

My view it is was the latter.  In reality, the north was probably only slightly less racist compared to the South, they just had no economic investment in slavery.  The Civil War was not a Crusade of true believers intent on liberating black people.  It was a war to maintain territorial integrity.

Secession in practical terms meant that about a third of the population with substantial material resources had withdrawn from what had constituted a single nation and established a separate government.

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, bryozoa said:

Vandalism should have no place in society. It's all so relative as well. If communist thugs can desecrate statues of slave-traders and civil war monuments then statues of terrorist communist scum like Nelson Mandela should also be brought down.

You wish...

[Alex_Krycek]

7 minutes ago, bryozoa said:

Vandalism should have no place in society. It's all so relative as well. If communist thugs can desecrate statues of slave-traders and civil war monuments then statues of terrorist communist scum like Nelson Mandela should also be brought down.

What about statues of Lenin and Stalin in Eastern Europe?  Should those have been torn down?

[Alex_Krycek]

5 minutes ago, bryozoa said:

That's correct. It's ironic, the millennial generation, the children of wealthy liberals, who have themselves never lived under communism but extol its supposed virtues, would happily re-erect these statues.

Quite a generalization.  I'm a millennial and a liberal, and I am well versed in the evils of Communism. 

That being said, one should also not conflate communism with a robust social democracy, which is what many on the right do.

 

Edited June 14, 2020 by Alex_Krycek

[swansont]

51 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Well, why did the Civil war happen in the first place? To end slavery / racism?   Or to stop Secession, and thus prevent a substantial weakening of the Union?   

My view it is was the latter.  In reality, the north was probably only slightly less racist compared to the South, they just had no economic investment in slavery.  The Civil War was not a Crusade of true believers intent on liberating black people.  It was a war to maintain territorial integrity.

Secession in practical terms meant that about a third of the population with substantial material resources had withdrawn from what had constituted a single nation and established a separate government.

Yeah, pretty much. The south seceded to preserve slavery (or rather the power it enabled). The North eventually facilitated the end of slavery but that was not the primary goal of the war.

[naitche]

My perspective is that

If humanity is going to be viewed as 'One' entity in evolutionary terms,  destroying monuments is comparable to humanities cells (us, our collective body) refusing to recognise the foundations of our present day  existence. The environment that shaped us. 

History may be recorded else where, and more completely, but our monuments  better express the condition of our humanity in the past,  when these events occurred and how we have altered our condition today.

'History'in facts and figures may not be of interest to everyone,  but what our Humanity  was built from, and its  potential  manifestations  should be.

Monuments remind us as 'people in common' , that the value of good intentions for humanity,  depends on recognition of humanity in its entirety. 

We don't have to accept any manifestation of humanity as it is, but it doesn't work better through destruction of its parts.

Individual responsibility  to humanity as a single entity would mean looking for the causes of its unacceptable manifestations, and working  to correct them.

The  faulty  perspectives of humanity represented by  these monuments can't be got rid of by repeating the same mistakes.

A person has their own  perspective. If it results in harm to humanity, it doesn't change because you refuse to accept its validity.  The perspective causing harm changes when  you  give whats needed to alter that perspective. 

You are the subject of your environment. I don't see how our human environment will be subject to the force of our demands. Not without an equal and opposite reaction.

 

 

[MigL]

Well, since we are sharing perspectives, this is my opinion on the matter.

Removing monuments which are offensive to our modern sensibilities ( yes, history is VERY offensive ), is about as effective in combatting/mediating racism, as tweeting their  support for a cause is for the hash-tag generation.
IOW, next to useless.

[Prometheus]

1 minute ago, MigL said:

IOW, next to useless.

Depends on what else happens, but i fear it could be worse than useless. On the one hand authorities and individuals can simply start removing monuments, hence being able to say 'look we tackled racism', while doing nothing to address current problems that disadvantage various communities. It could also provide recruitment material for far right groups (i'm sure the recent defacing of a Churchill monument will feature heavily in their propaganda). That's not a reason not to remove monuments, but since they will ensure there is a price to pay, what we get in return should be worth it.

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, MigL said:

Well, since we are sharing perspectives, this is my opinion on the matter.

Removing monuments which are offensive to our modern sensibilities ( yes, history is VERY offensive ), is about as effective in combatting/mediating racism, as tweeting their  support for a cause is for the hash-tag generation.
IOW, next to useless.

Indeed, poor people aren't worth mentioning...

[naitche]

6 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

It could also provide recruitment material for far right groups (i'm sure the recent defacing of a Churchill monument will feature heavily in their propaganda). That's not a reason not to remove monuments, but since they will ensure there is a price to pay, what we get in return should be worth it.

If it feeds the ideologies you are trying to end, could it be?

[MigL]

you're gonna have to elaborate, Dim.
( do you have an aversion to typing full sentnces and ideas  )

[dimreepr]

19 minutes ago, MigL said:

you're gonna have to elaborate, Dim.
( do you have an aversion to typing full sentnces and ideas  )

You're gonna have to say, which word is tripping you up.

Edited June 23, 2020 by dimreepr

[MigL]

Your whole post.
Please elaborate.