Confederate Monuments

[Thomas]

Just now, krAbs said:

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.

Que?

[krAbs]

18 minutes ago, Thomas said:

Que?

My point is, just because someone in the future may turn around and say "hey! we got rid of the confederate statues, we should get rid of statue x", that doesn't make it not a good reason to get rid of the confederate statues in the first place. Like, if I say "this slave owner shouldn't have a monument to his owning of slaves," an adequate response is not: "We can't take that down, because then we would have to take down every monument to everyone ever because they probably did something wrong at some point, and maybe eventually you're going to make the same argument there and take those down," obviously ignoring the fact that those would need a totally different argument. Like...if you go down that road, where you can judge an argument by future distortions, you can literally counter any argument for anything ever.

[mtangelsfan]

57 minutes ago, krAbs said:

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.

I suggest you ask someone from the South.  However if I would guess it would be about state's rights, their economy and their ability to govern themselves.  I am not making an argument that they were right but the issues justifications are almost never black and white.

[Thomas]

17 minutes ago, krAbs said:

My point is, just because someone in the future may turn around and say "hey! we got rid of the confederate statues, we should get rid of statue x", that doesn't make it not a good reason to get rid of the confederate statues in the first place. Like, if I say "this slave owner shouldn't have a monument to his owning of slaves," an adequate response is not: "We can't take that down, because then we would have to take down every monument to everyone ever because they probably did something wrong at some point, and maybe eventually you're going to make the same argument there and take those down," obviously ignoring the fact that those would need a totally different argument. Like...if you go down that road, where you can judge an argument by future distortions, you can literally counter any argument for anything ever.

But people already want to get rid of statue X. And people are already defending statue X (While defending Confederate monuments). And if they weren't, the POTUS just made sure they are. That's my point. It's already an issue. No time needed to wait. This ship has already sailed, even if not everyone here has noticed.

[red321]

1 hour ago, Thomas said:

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.

 

Oh Thomas...did you really resort to you didn't respond quick enough? Sigh.

Since you appear to be interested

Spoiler

 

Let's see what my schedule was last night. Ah...ok...got hair cut, filled up wife's car with gas, went by coffee house to pickup coffee beans (Columbian in case you were wondering, I can send a picture), went to guitar lesson (worked on Imagine...getting pretty good at it!), stopped by liquor store, cooked dinner, ate dinner, practiced guitar (California Stars by Wilco and Billy Bragg...very catchy tune...also started to work on something for my anniversary...shhh...don't tell wife). I think I some point I realized the Angels had played a game...checked score. When did Howie join the Nationals? Went to bed.

 

You can keep playing whataboutism...that's fine. I've pointed to people who can speak to the heart of the matter more succinctly and eloquently than I will ever be able to. If that's not sufficient for you...oh well....not the first time someone failed to convince someone else of their viewpoint on the internet.

Pointing to the right wing talking point about the alt-left just reinforces my point...whataboutism is really nothing more than an attempt to distract or introduce noise into the discussion. Rather than discuss the issue, we end up debating the parameters of what should be included in the issue. It's similar to a discussion on gun violence, and people start saying..."what about DUI and cars"...and suddenly the debate has shifted to arguing about why are people focused on guns when cars kill more people. They are both worthy of discussion, but instead of discussing those items we end up debating what is and isn't part of the debate.

There is also a difference about attempting to re-write history (see Confederacy being courageous and patriotic American act) and changing attitudes while looking at history and historical figures over time. The campaign to whitewash the confederacy has been going on for over a century...almost from the minute the war ended. A significant number if not a significant majority of these monuments in question were part of this campaign. These were not glorious monuments to celebrate southern history, they were an attempt to terrorize a segment of the population and an attempt to reframe how the actions of the confederacy were interpreted.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-battle-for-memory-started-immediately

An excerpt...the report being cited was written in 1868 by General George Henry Thomas (emphasis from talking points memo article cited)

The effect of this is to cause disturbance throughout the State by inciting the ruffianly portion of this class of citizens to murder, riot, and maltreat the white Unionists and colored people in localities where there are no United ‘States troops stationed.The local authorities often have not the will, and, moreover, often have not the power to suppress or prevent these outrages....

...The controlling cause of the unsettled condition of affairs in the Department is that the greatest efforts made by the defeated insurgents since the close of the war have been to promulgate the idea that the cause of liberty, justice, humanity, equality, and all the calendar of virtues of freedmen, suffered violence and wrong when the effort for Southern independence failed. This is of course intended as a species of political cant, whereby the crime of treason might be covered with a counterfeit varnish of patriotism, so that the precipitators of rebellion might go down in history hand in hand with the defenders of the Government, thus wiping out with their own hands their own stains. This species of self-forgiveness is amazing in its efficiency, when it is considered that life and property were justly forfeited by the laws of the country, of war and of nations.

[Thomas]

4 minutes ago, red321 said:

I've pointed to people who can speak to the heart of the matter more succinctly and eloquently than I will ever be able to.

On that we wholeheartedly agree. 

[Thomas]

It's an interesting point you argue against via Google, copy and paste.  It's not my argument your combating but I'm sure an interesting one all the same. But I have learned that Confederate were racists dicks big on imagery who shouldn't be idolized. Who knew? I would have hoped you might have learned something from mine. Perhaps a new perspective or similar. But that would have required reading them. 

[Rico]

20 hours ago, Thomas said:

History is nothing but muddy. If those that want to take down the monuments can't even answer the question of where the line is drawn, how will it seem to be anything but another example of partisan and regional antagonism?

I don't know where the line should be, but the Confederate guys are definitely on the wrong side of it.  Those guys were literally anti-American.  

[Vegas Halo Fan]

3 hours ago, mtangelsfan said:

I suggest you ask someone from the South.  However if I would guess it would be about state's rights, their economy and their ability to govern themselves.  I am not making an argument that they were right but the issues justifications are almost never black and white.

I grew up in the south. I attended a junior high school named after a Confederate general. My brother-in-law attended a high school named after a different confederate general (since renamed). My high school was named after a president who reneged on multiple deals with Native Americans and who is generally reviled by them. IMO MT's analysis is pretty much spot on. Removing the monuments does not erase history, although some symbolically see it as that.

[Thomas]

3 minutes ago, Vegas Halo Fan said:

 My high school was named after a president who reneged on multiple deals with Native Americans and who is generally reviled by them.

Could you narrow it down a bit?

[Vegas Halo Fan]

Sure.

[krAbs]

On 8/16/2017 at 10:58 AM, mtangelsfan said:

I suggest you ask someone from the South.  However if I would guess it would be about state's rights, their economy and their ability to govern themselves.  I am not making an argument that they were right but the issues justifications are almost never black and white.

Fair enough. That IS the information I am trying to get though. I can't help but feel like if that is the logic, it is still very willingly missing the forest for the trees - its like saying, 'I'm not a Neo Nazi because I hate Jews, I just REALLY think that the reparations put on Germany after WWI were deeply unfair.' Its like...they're not wrong, but....

Question for everyone saying that we should keep statues up because they are history and we shouldn't destroy history: To me, what we should do is replace those monuments with monuments that more accurately show history, by showing it more from the perspectives of their slaves. Thoughts? I mean...I guess it comes down to, I am not proud that we as a country had such a big part in slave trade, and I think we need to recognize and deal with the fact that it was a problem. Glorifying confederate generals seems to do the opposite. Now, its totally the choice of those keeping them up, but like...I guess, if you celebrate racism, I'm gonna call you racist, and I'm going to be right, even if its offensive to the snowflakes in the south...you know? And I'm going to have a lot of trouble feeling sympathy for you when the people you are pretty openly racist against are pissed about it.

Now now I know. Calling conservatives racist drives them to the alt right and blah blah I need to not offend the snowflakes. But like...maybe a better approach than doubling down on racism is to like...not celebrate enslaving an entire race? IDK. Maybe I'm nuts.

[fan_since79]

Abraham Lincoln monument in Chicago was torched today.

A city alderman took to Facebook to condemn this act. “F- Abe Lincoln,” responded someone named Quintin Mitchell, whose comment was “liked” or deemed “funny” by 160 others....

Meanwhile, I wonder how many people were shot there today.

 

 

[Tank]

16 minutes ago, fan_since79 said:

Abraham Lincoln monument in Chicago was torched today.

A city alderman took to Facebook to condemn this act. “F- Abe Lincoln,” responded someone named Quintin Mitchell, whose comment was “liked” or deemed “funny” by 160 others....

as a history teacher, this saddens me deeply.

[Lhalo]

So I gues we have moved on to discussing leaders such as Washington...

Bishop James E. Dukes of Chicago’s Liberation Christian Center responded to Mr. Trump’s comments by calling on Mayor Rahm Emanuel to rename Washington Park and remove a statue of the first U.S. president over his ties to slavery.

“It’s time,” Mr. Dukes wrote on his Facebook page, The Washington Times reported. “Please read my letter to Mayor Rahm Emanuel and The Chicago Park District. I’m calling on them to change the names of Washington and Jackson Park. Slave owners do not deserve the honor of our children playing in parks named after them. There is no way a Native American Community would allow a General Custer Park or a Jewish Community allow a Gestapo Park in their community.”

[Blarg]

The Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument is on the Crow Reservation along with the Seventh Calvary Memorial and the Custer Battlefield Cafe and Trading Post.

 

[mtangelsfan]

6 hours ago, Blarg said:

The Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument is on the Crow Reservation along with the Seventh Calvary Memorial and the Custer Battlefield Cafe and Trading Post.

 

Ha ha, totally what I was thinking.  People should do their research before making embarrassing comparisons.

[Thomas]

In the "This has expanded way beyond the Confederates" news we here have blown past Washington and the founding fathers and gone to the 17th century. Unlike all the other Johnny come lately capitals in this country.

http://krqe.com/2017/08/18/santa-fe-mayor-wants-to-review-city-monuments-role-in-historic-celebrations/

[Make Angels Great Again]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/aug/18/barkley-worrying-about-confederate-statues-waste/

[Taylor]

Lol @ Washington Times

[Spirit]

What if the statues were left in place, but the plaque was change or a new plaque was added? 

Something like, "This statue of Robert E. Lee was erected in 1919.  This racist, treasonous son of a bitch ... blah blah blah."   

 

 

[Taylor]

Also, Charles Barkley is black, so he definitely speaks for all African-Americans, and any African-Americans who disagree with him are wrong.

[Thomas]

Just now, Geoff said:

What if the statues were left in place, but the plaque was change or a new plaque was added? 

Something like, "This statue of Robert E. Lee was erected in 1919.  This racist, treasonous son of a bitch ... blah blah blah."  

The put Pete Rose in the BHOF argument?

[Spirit]

3 minutes ago, Thomas said:

The put Pete Rose in the BHOF argument?

 

That gambling son of a bitch should absolutely be in the Hall!

 

 

[Thomas]

Just now, Geoff said:

That gambling son of a bitch should absolutely be in the Hall!

To be fair he's managed to make the gambling not the biggest issue with him.