Confederate Monuments

[floplag]

1 hour ago, Thomas said:

How do we deal with Thomas Jefferson? The man who wrote the Declaration of Independence, held practically every meaningful office, doubled the size of the country. Oh and was a slave owner, now considered by many a serial rapist, and of course the inconvenient aspect of the native population who would be affected by the expansion.

Simple really, we dont apply todays ideology.  Whatever he may or may not have done at the time, was in fact legal.  Perhaps despicable or vile by todays morality, but at the time commonplace.  You cant apply todays bullshit to past events, its out of context at best.  How many periods in history could withstand such scrutiny? 

[red321]

1 hour ago, UndertheHalo said:

aren't we muddying this discussion a bit by trying to compare Jefferson and FDR to confederate icons ?

That's the whole point, to muddy the discussion. 

[Thomas]

12 minutes ago, red321 said:

That's the whole point, to muddy the discussion. 

I'd expect better from you. 

[red321]

1 hour ago, Thomas said:

Thanks for proving my point. It's not like I need the help but every bit does help.

You've yet to actually make a point in regards to subject at hand. How modern day Americans judge men such as Jefferson, Washington, etc. can be complicated. History is complicated. Judging the civil war and monuments erected to instill terror and glorify a war to maintain slavery is not. 

If you want to have a discussion on how men like the founding fathers should be viewed, fair enough, but that doesn't have real bearing on the removal of confederate statues. They are separate issues with different drivers. A discussion regarding Thomas Jefferson and his place in american history is different than that of Nathaniel Bedford Forrest.

Most people are having a discussion about dinner...you want to argue about last weeks breakfast  

 

 

[Thomas]

1 minute ago, red321 said:

You've yet to actually make a point in regards to subject at hand. How modern day Americans judge men such as Jefferson, Washington, etc. can be complicated. History is complicated. Judging the civil war and monuments erected to instill terror and glorify a war to maintain slavery is not. 

If you want to have a discussion on how men like the founding fathers should be viewed, fair enough, but that doesn't have real bearing on the removal of confederate statues. They are separate issues with different drivers. A discussion regarding Thomas Jefferson and his place in american history is different than that of Nathaniel Bedford Forrest.

Most people are having a discussion about dinner...you want to argue about last weeks breakfast  

Judging by the arguments on social media we're all having steak and eggs for dinner. But seeing as you are cherry picking my questions I'm not surprised you're still deflecting. I know, this debating stuff is hard. I'll try to help. This is the primary argument by opponents of taking down the monuments. It's not like I'm actually against taking some down but you sure as hell better be able to explain it better than nuh uh, Confederates are all evil. Not all confederate symbols are purely for intimidation. Unless you are suggesting everyone who fought for the south was mustache twirling villains.  I sincerely doubt the General Lee was intended to be a subversive um..vehicle to subvert American youth to hate. So if you are going to support a universal removal of confederate monuments you sure as hell better be able to answer why Confederates are targets but other similar subjects get a pass.

[Jason]

2 hours ago, Thomas said:

How do we deal with Thomas Jefferson? The man who wrote the Declaration of Independence, held practically every meaningful office, doubled the size of the country. Oh and was a slave owner, now considered by many a serial rapist, and of course the inconvenient aspect of the native population who would be affected by the expansion.

Rico posted a video in the Trumped forum with this activist woman talking about how difficult it is as an African American having to look at the master every day sitting on top of Monticello. You can bet the fore fathers will be on their list soon enough. It won't stop until American history is completely rewritten 

[Thomas]

Just now, Jason said:

Rico posted a video in the Trumped forum with this activist woman talking about how difficult it is as an African American having to look at the master every day sitting on top of Monticello. You can bet the fore fathers will be on their list soon enough. It won't stop until American history is completely rewritten 

Applicable 

History is going to be rewritten. Selfishly that suits me just fine. But yeah, trying to confine the impact of slavery to the Civil War or as strictly a Southern sin is as silly as trying to contain it to when the US Constitution was ratified or the Declaration of Independence was signed. It minimizes the impact of slavery and is a discredit to those who endured the suffering it brought.

[arch stanton]

What gets lost in the debate over whether these people are statue-worthy is that they lost. To me it's easy enough to take a group over to observe the monument while describing what happened before this incompetent man led his forces to great defeat thus allowing to country to move forward

[Lhalo]

7 hours ago, Adam said:

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

"Man I hate Nazis... now let's pledge allegiance to this flag."

[Tank]

6 hours ago, Thomas said:

How do we deal with Thomas Jefferson? The man who wrote the Declaration of Independence, held practically every meaningful office, doubled the size of the country. Oh and was a slave owner, now considered by many a serial rapist, and of course the inconvenient aspect of the native population who would be affected by the expansion.

One thought I had was that Jefferson, Washington, et al were working to break free from an oppressive gov't as opposed to actively promoting slavery and racial oppression. There are plenty of layers to that idea, of course, but it wasn't to promote one race over another like the confederates were actively seeking.

its an interesting and complex conversation to have and I'm interested to see what becomes of it.

Edited August 16, 2017 by Tank

[Lhalo]

10 hours ago, Kevin said:

As a big civil war history nerd, I struggle with this a lot. 

The only solution I can come up with is not so much a removal completely but a relocation to battlefields, museums, or confederate cemeteries. They might already be doing this but I haven't followed too closely on what happens after the removal.

What about monuments next to dead confederates at cemeteries?

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-hollywood-forever-monument-20170815-story.html

[Ordos]

6 hours ago, mtangelsfan said:

So by that reasoning a confederate flag in South Orange County would be no problem.

That's just silly. There's no way an HOA in south OC would let you get away with an unapproved flag.

[Ordos]

7 hours ago, Jason said:

A little off topic but this is in Seattle

I'm not familiar with Taco Del Mar, but I'm willing to give it a try.

[Kevin]

6 hours ago, LHalo said:

What about monuments next to dead confederates at cemeteries?

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-hollywood-forever-monument-20170815-story.html

Extremely dumb. I'm a person who feels like there can be a compromise and felt like my post offered a good solution. 

 

Unfortunately those on the extreme left and right (politicians and even American citizens) live in a dichotomy type of world. "You're always wrong and I'm always right." 

[Adam]

Makes the most sense to let the citizens of the town the monuments are in to decide. 

[red321]

13 hours ago, Thomas said:

Judging by the arguments on social media we're all having steak and eggs for dinner. But seeing as you are cherry picking my questions I'm not surprised you're still deflecting. I know, this debating stuff is hard. I'll try to help. This is the primary argument by opponents of taking down the monuments. It's not like I'm actually against taking some down but you sure as hell better be able to explain it better than nuh uh, Confederates are all evil. Not all confederate symbols are purely for intimidation. Unless you are suggesting everyone who fought for the south was mustache twirling villains.  I sincerely doubt the General Lee was intended to be a subversive um..vehicle to subvert American youth to hate. So if you are going to support a universal removal of confederate monuments you sure as hell better be able to answer why Confederates are targets but other similar subjects get a pass.

You are right...debating stuff is hard...I guess that explains why you've spent the majority of the thread started to discuss Confederate monuments playing whataboutism with the founding fathers and other historical figures.

American history is complicated, this issue isn't. You don't feel the points I've laid out, or from other's like Mitch Landrieu, is sufficient? Ok. Fair enough, glad that a growing number of people don't seem to hold your opinion. You want to forward the argument that we should view the civil war, the confederacy, and the rebranding of both through the same lens as we view the founding fathers or other historical figures? Ok...feel free to make that case rather than just insist others convince you that shouldn't be.

 

 

 

 

 

[Jason]

This forum would be so much more interesting at this time if Bakunin was still around

[krAbs]

18 hours ago, mtangelsfan said:

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.

3 points (only one about this quote).

First, so, say you're right. I'm not super interested in a state vs federal govt argument here, so I'll let you have this (plus, you're PROBABLY right here). What is the case for the states themselves to keep these statues up? It is perfectly legal for me to run up to a random black dude, shout "N*GGER N*GGER N*GGER" in his face, and run off. I would still be a complete asshole though. What is the argument that the south should preserve what appears to be monuments of racism? Many many people on the left will knee jerk answer this question "because they are racist", but I'm really trying to be generous here.

Second, statues of confederate generals =\= statues of slave owning founders. The generals have statues because of their involvement with slavery, founders are recognized in spite of it (also, founders =\= Gods - its okay to have a problem with things they did and STILL like them as people). Please, lets TRY to be intellectually honest here and not make false equivalences. I know y'all are smarter than that.

Third, my favorite take on these monuments: I thought y'all DIDN'T like participation trophies, ya damn snowflakes.

[mtangelsfan]

29 minutes ago, krAbs said:

3 points (only one about this quote).

First, so, say you're right. I'm not super interested in a state vs federal govt argument here, so I'll let you have this (plus, you're PROBABLY right here). What is the case for the states themselves to keep these statues up? It is perfectly legal for me to run up to a random black dude, shout "N*GGER N*GGER N*GGER" in his face, and run off. I would still be a complete asshole though. What is the argument that the south should preserve what appears to be monuments of racism? Many many people on the left will knee jerk answer this question "because they are racist", but I'm really trying to be generous here.

Second, statues of confederate generals =\= statues of slave owning founders. The generals have statues because of their involvement with slavery, founders are recognized in spite of it (also, founders =\= Gods - its okay to have a problem with things they did and STILL like them as people). Please, lets TRY to be intellectually honest here and not make false equivalences. I know y'all are smarter than that.

Third, my favorite take on these monuments: I thought y'all DIDN'T like participation trophies, ya damn snowflakes.

That is your take on why some in the South celebrate these people.  I think the reasons are much more complex than just being able to keep slaves.  

and couldn't care less about the statues, just about the sentiment that if you remove them then somehow things will be better.

[Thomas]

54 minutes ago, red321 said:

You are right...debating stuff is hard...I guess that explains why you've spent the majority of the thread started to discuss Confederate monuments playing whataboutism with the founding fathers and other historical figures.

 

It took you this long to come up with nothing? It's like you read my replies, thought crap that looks hard, I'd better find a way to save face. I understand.

54 minutes ago, red321 said:

American history is complicated, this issue isn't. You don't feel the points I've laid out, or from other's like Mitch Landrieu, is sufficient? Ok. Fair enough, glad that a growing number of people don't seem to hold your opinion. You want to forward the argument that we should view the civil war, the confederacy, and the rebranding of both through the same lens as we view the founding fathers or other historical figures? Ok...feel free to make that case rather than just insist others convince you that shouldn't be.

I can tell you didn't really read my posts. Not exactly new as you've haven't for years though I'm not sure why I'd expect different.  Growing number of people not hold my opinion?  Are you kidding?  I'm mostly just going off what I'm seeing as the growing trend though I tend to agree with it. My whole point is that there is already a movement that have moved way beyond Confederate targets. The number of people who view this is growing and it isn't necessarily coming from the right...  The number on the right are growing to believe that all of American history is going to be rewritten. We've have some posts in this thread stating as much. And those on the left are growing to think we should do just that. Do you even talk to people on the left under the age of 35? Buildings on campuses around the country are being renamed because of their ties to slavery or racism. I don't really have a problem with such but it certainly has been and is still happening.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/09/us/ole-miss-confederacy.html
http://www.oregonlive.com/teens/index.ssf/2017/07/oregon_state_debates_buildings.html
 

And this morning a right wing talking point is the "alt-left" wanting to take down a statue of Theodore Roosevelt.
(Actual news story) https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/11/museum-natural-history-theodore-roosevelt-statue-protest
(Slightly less unbiased story being pasted today on reliably right wing feeds. Note their complete inability to read calendar dates)
http://www.dailywire.com/news/19741/leftist-activists-demand-new-york-museum-take-down-michael-qazvini

So yeah when I say that this is way bigger than the Confederate monuments and will need to be handled as such, I'm really not going out on a limb I can assure you. So Trump's comments yesterday was his typical self serving but decidedly politically cunning and rather evil norm. Because it got the right wing defensive and many on the left saying "Hey, that isn't really a bad idea" which of course led to many an Internet argument and confirming of self held biases.

But please, continue to tell me how I'm out of touch and avoiding the issue at hand. I look forward to it.

[Thomas]

43 minutes ago, krAbs said:

Second, statues of confederate generals =\= statues of slave owning founders. The generals have statues because of their involvement with slavery, founders are recognized in spite of it (also, founders =\= Gods - its okay to have a problem with things they did and STILL like them as people). Please, lets TRY to be intellectually honest here and not make false equivalences. I know y'all are smarter than that.

You apparently don't read Tumblr. These equivalences have been growing for years among the liberal youth. (And yeah I pretty much agree with them in this regard)

[krAbs]

10 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

That is your take on why some in the South celebrate these people.  I think the reasons are much more complex than just being able to keep slaves.  

and couldn't care less about the statues, just about the sentiment that if you remove them then somehow things will be better.

What are the reasons?

I'm gonna put a tack in your second point right now. I'll come back to it soon. I wanna focus on the reasoning behind the statues, because I actually don't really have an axe to grind there- I just don't get it.

[krAbs]

2 minutes ago, Thomas said:

You apparently don't read Tumblr. These equivalences have been growing for years among the liberal youth. (And yeah I pretty much agree with them in this regard)

People saying it doesn't make it logically defensible. Its a totally separate issue.

EDIT: Though, I will caveat here, I mentioned this earlier, but...I do think its okay to see the flaws in the founding fathers. We don't worship them. They weren't perfect. They aren't Gods. And that's totally okay. There is room to say that though it was standard for the time, it was horrible and hypocritical of them to own slaves - but they also did a lot of good and created a wonderful country and had a ton of great ideas.

[Thomas]

2 minutes ago, krAbs said:

People saying it doesn't make it logically defensible. Its a totally separate issue.

By definition if enough people believe in something it becomes an issue. I get why some want to constrain the issue to the Civil War as the Confederates, especially post-war admiration of them, because they are such an easy target. See also Red's um... approach to this issue. But both sides, especially after the comments by Trump yesterday, have seemed to make that untenable. Because it's going to be the defense by the right going forward. And many on the left are more than willing to go along with it and are going to be quite vocal about it.

[krAbs]

Just now, Thomas said:

By definition if enough people believe in something it becomes an issue. I get why some want to constrain the issue to the Civil War as the Confederates, especially post-war admiration of them, because they are such an easy target. See also Red's um... approach to this issue. But both sides, especially after the comments by Trump yesterday, have seemed to make that untenable. Because it's going to be the defense by the right going forward. And many on the left are more than willing to go along with it and are going to be quite vocal about it.

I mean...okay. I guess "someone in the future may change this argument and then it wouldn't be true, so you can't use it now" is like...a pretty awful argument to make.