Confederate Monuments

[Thomas]

Just now, krAbs said:

So this is the best argument I've heard so far. But still, the difference is: confederate generals are celebrated explicitly BECAUSE of slavery, not in spite of it.

Didn't really mean for it to be an argument per se.

[mtangelsfan]

You brought up Europe as some bastion of social justice.  

Do you believe that was the mindset of every confederate soldier?  Do you believe that the mindset of every german soldier was defending their ability to kill jews?  

[krAbs]

8 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

Funny for sure but not really comparable.

haha yeah, I take your point.

[krAbs]

Just now, Thomas said:

Didn't really mean for it to be an argument per se.

You didn't mean to say that this was the beginning of a slippery slope with no real end that could in the end stop the recognition of the great works of many flawed people a long time ago? Because that IS a pretty solid argument. You can also maneuver that into the "don't judge other cultures by our culture's standards" argument.

[mtangelsfan]

3 minutes ago, krAbs said:

So this is the best argument I've heard so far. But still, the difference is: confederate generals are celebrated explicitly BECAUSE of slavery, not in spite of it.

I'm sure that there is a small group who celebrate them because of slavery but not all.  

[Thomas]

Just now, red321 said:

red herring....Were those monuments erected to rebrand the history of our country and the ideals of the confederacy? (stolen from Mitch Landrieu whose speech I'm listening to again).

Bullshit it being a red herring. If you want to remove the sins of the past the confederacy is only the tip of the iceberg. Washington is nothing but a celebration of conquering a land from previous tenants and the achievements built on the back of slaves.

[Thomas]

1 minute ago, krAbs said:

You didn't mean to say that this was the beginning of a slippery slope with no real end that could in the end stop the recognition of the great works of many flawed people a long time ago? Because that IS a pretty solid argument. You can also maneuver that into the "don't judge other cultures by our culture's standards" argument.

It was more of a request of clarification of the initial argument. But in itself it was an incomplete thought.

[krAbs]

3 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

You brought up Europe as some bastion of social justice.  

Do you believe that was the mindset of every confederate soldier?  Do you believe that the mindset of every german soldier was defending their ability to kill jews?  

I meant to bring up a specific case as an example of a better way to deal with a similarly messy history.

 

So! This is a point I kind of wanted to get to. Do you think it would be morally acceptable for Germany to be littered with monuments to Nazi soldiers? Because you are 100% right that that was not every (or even most) soldier's mentality.

[krAbs]

3 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

I'm sure that there is a small group who celebrate them because of slavery but not all.  

So this is kind of the root of my question (assuming "them" here refers to confederate generals). What exactly is being celebrated here?

[mtangelsfan]

Just now, krAbs said:

I meant to bring up a specific case as an example of a better way to deal with a similarly messy history.

 

So! This is a point I kind of wanted to get to. Do you think it would be morally acceptable for Germany to be littered with monuments to Nazi soldiers? Because you are 100% right that that was not every (or even most) soldier's mentality.

I would think that would be up to the German people and government.  Just as I believe it should be up to the state and its residents.

[mtangelsfan]

Just now, krAbs said:

So this is kind of the root of my question (assuming "them" here refers to confederate generals). What exactly is being celebrated here?

I am not a southerner.  So I really couldn't tell you. 

[AngelsLakersFan]

45 minutes ago, krAbs said:

The consensus appears to be that new = bad, classic = fine, and a part of history. So, followup question: Why is that so? Not to be the Nazi guy, but honestly...what would your reaction be if you walked into modern day Germany, and there were statues of Hitler and his ilk, and they were kept up because they were part of history? There seems to me to be a huge difference between acknowledging the past and celebrating it.

A statue of Hitler put up around the time of the war would be historical. A statue of Hitler put up today would be trolling.

[UndertheHalo]

It seems to me that it's inappropriate to have confederate statues or flags on any government property.  Federal, state, municipal.  Period.  If they're old or new whatever.  Any confederate symbols on public land is unacceptable.  

That said, I don't agree with the idea of erasing history because it's uncomfortable.  I don't think it's impossible for people to have sympathetic views of the confederate cause that is unrelated to racism or slavery.  There were a whole myriad of issues around the civil war aside from slavery.  Libertarians, for example.  I can understand them having a politically favorable view of some of the states rights stuff the confederacy was about.  I am not a fan of libertarian politics, but I don't think it's out right racist.  If someone has private property that they want to put a statue on so be it. 

Now, is it a red flag.  It definitely is.  If someone is gonna venerate a confederate statue or fly a confederate flag on their lawn.  They better be prepared for and accept the assumptions that brings. The onus is on them to prove they aren't racists. 

Edited August 15, 2017 by UndertheHalo

[mtangelsfan]

8 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

It seems to me that it's inappropriate to have confederate statues or flags on any government property.  Federal, state, municipal.  Period.  If they're old or new whatever.  Any confederate symbols on public land is unacceptable.  

That said, I don't agree with the idea of erasing history because it's uncomfortable.  I don't think it's impossible for people to have sympathetic views of the confederate cause that is unrelated to racism or slavery.  There were a whole myriad of issues around the civil war aside from slavery.  Libertarians, for example.  I can understand them having a politically favorable view of some of the states rights stuff the confederacy was about.  I am not a fan of libertarian politics, but I don't think it's out right racist.  If someone has private property that they want to put a statue on so be it. 

Now, is it a red flag.  It definitely is.  If someone is gonna venerate a confederate statue or fly a confederate flag on their lawn.  They better be prepared for and accept the assumptions that brings. The onus is on them to prove they aren't racists. 

I am fine with your statement if it is the state or municipality that decides that.  No way in hell do the feds get to decide that.

[krAbs]

Just now, mtangelsfan said:

I would think that would be up to the German people and government.  Just as I believe it should be up to the state and its residents.

Okay, fair enough. But, just to be explicit here...your reasoning boils down to, it should be the state's right to express whatever racism it wants?

[UndertheHalo]

9 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

I am fine with your statement if it is the state or municipality that decides that.  No way in hell do the feds get to decide that.

The federal government is the highest authority in this country.  Local governments shouldn't be allowed to implicitly or explicitly discriminate against their citizens.  White, black, blue, brown.  Whatever.  Confederate stuff is understandably deeply offensive to black citizens.  They view it as discriminatory.  This is something that should just be understood.  Just as Nazi stuff is unacceptable to Jews.  

Discrimination is banned at the federal level, it doesn't matter what the local governements opinion is on it.  Are you saying that you oppose the supremacy of federal law ?

Edited August 15, 2017 by UndertheHalo

[floplag]

As many have said, tricky.    So many things could be argued here.

Should we have monuments to those who have been legally declared as treasonous, no i do not think so.  Should we ignore that this happened, of course not.   We cannot ignore painful history as it cheats future generations of chances to learn from it.  But one has to wonder why this is an issue now, and wasnt one in the past.  People have had 150+ years to tear this shit down, why now?  

I think a lot of people that want to hold "all white people" accountable for these things should learn a little more history though. Who do they think fought that war for the north after all?  It isnt like Lincoln shipped in Irish mercenaries to fight that war.  We literally killed each other to remove this from our country, many southerners helped to free slaves thru the underground railroad, but that gets no credit for some reason.

We didnt invent slavery, it existed long before there even was an America.  The first one to sell them were Dutch as i recall who literally had slave farms.  Some of the first owners, in fact the first court case about this as i recall was a blank owner, or one of them anyway.  It took root in the south due to plantations and the need for cheap manual labor on a large scale, but even there as i recall it was only about a third of families or something like that.   

It is a huge spot on our history, but every nations has spots.  Every nation has committed atrocities seemingly.  Some to this day still have castes (a form of slavery) and its only been in the last 20 years that things like apartheid have been removed.  We are seeing examples of genocide and ethnic cleansing to this day in parts of the world.   We live in a world where honor killing are still considered acceptable and being raped is a crime for the person who was assaulted.   I guess I dont really understand why we as white Americans are held as the poster children for the evils of the world, it makes little sense.

[mtangelsfan]

14 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

The federal government is the highest authority in this country.  Local governments shouldn't be allowed to implicitly or explicitly discriminate against their citizens.  White, black, blue, brown.  Whatever.  Confederate stuff is understandably deeply offensive to black citizens.  They view it as discriminatory.  This is something that should just be understood.  Just as Nazi stuff is unacceptable to Jews.  

Discrimination is banned at the federal level, it doesn't matter what the local governements opinion is on it.  Are you saying that you oppose the supremacy of federal law ?

Protection of speech is the foundation of our country.  The federal government should not, in any way, get to dictate what a state has as a statue.  States keep all rights not explicitly given to the federal government.  Everything is offensive to someone.  It seems like you are envisioning some utopia where everyone thinks and feels the same way.  

I guess if you could prove that a statue of some old general discriminated against you.........................

[floplag]

28 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

I am fine with your statement if it is the state or municipality that decides that.  No way in hell do the feds get to decide that.

Honestly though, dont they?  i mean you could easily argue that it was the fed wronged by the succession so it should be they who declares it legal as you cannot commit treason against a state if these are symbols of treason
just playing devils advocate as im all for separation in that regard, but treason or succession are in fact federal things, does this not give the fed jurisdiction in this case?

 

[mtangelsfan]

19 minutes ago, krAbs said:

Okay, fair enough. But, just to be explicit here...your reasoning boils down to, it should be the state's right to express whatever racism it wants?

As I said above, the Constitution gives all rights to states not explicitly given to the federal government in the Constitution.

It is kind of important although ignored by the feds in many ways.

[red321]

21 minutes ago, Thomas said:

Bullshit it being a red herring. If you want to remove the sins of the past the confederacy is only the tip of the iceberg. Washington is nothing but a celebration of conquering a land from previous tenants and the achievements built on the back of slaves.

I'm surprised you're paraphrasing Trump...“Many of those people were there to protest the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee,” Mr Trump said. “This week, it is Robert E Lee and this week, Stonewall Jackson. Is it George Washington next? You have to ask yourself, where does it stop?”

The discussion is the celebration of the confederacy and revisiting what it means in a historical context. The statues/monuments in place were, for the most part, put in place to either celebrate the confederacy or instill fear in a large segment of the population. That is a separate discussion, with separate issues, in comparison to Washington, Jefferson, and other founding fathers.

 

[UndertheHalo]

5 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

Protection of speech is the foundation of our country.  The federal government should not, in any way, get to dictate what a state has as a statue.  States keep all rights not explicitly given to the federal government.  Everything is offensive to someone.  It seems like you are envisioning some utopia where everyone thinks and feels the same way.  

I guess if you could prove that a statue of some old general discriminated against you.........................

Imagine being black and going to a court house, hoping for justice.  How would you feel about your chances if you had to march confederate shit being displayed as respectable symbolism. I feel like I wouldn't feel great about my odds. 

This doesn't seem like a difficult excerxise to me MT.  Put yourself in their shoes.  That stuff doesn't belong on public property. 

[Adam]

We should get rid of all statutes, flags, etc... 

[Jason]

55 minutes ago, red321 said:

red herring....Were those monuments erected to rebrand the history of our country and the ideals of the confederacy? (stolen from Mitch Landrieu whose speech I'm listening to again).

What if people are butt hurt and offended by them? That seems to be the only reason necessary these days. 

[Thomas]

6 minutes ago, red321 said:

I'm surprised you're paraphrasing Trump...“Many of those people were there to protest the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee,” Mr Trump said. “This week, it is Robert E Lee and this week, Stonewall Jackson. Is it George Washington next? You have to ask yourself, where does it stop?”

The discussion is the celebration of the confederacy and revisiting what it means in a historical context. The statues/monuments in place were, for the most part, put in place to either celebrate the confederacy or instill fear in a large segment of the population. That is a separate discussion, with separate issues, in comparison to Washington, Jefferson, and other founding fathers.

Let me drive you around my state for a few days and you come back to me about the two not being analagous.