You are correct. That is an incorrect assessment.
The north was fighting to preserve the union.
The south was fighting to preserve slavery.
They stuck their middle finger in the face of the federal government, in order to preserve slavery. I see no reason to respect these guys, unless one holds similar values.
Many individual soldiers of every rank, nation, and era, fight skillfully and bravely regardless of the merits of their political cause. A military historian can and should disinterestedly admire skilled warcraft wherever it is found.
But it’s a far leap from there to erecting public monuments to the enemy cause.
It took balls to fly those planes into the sides of the WTC & Pentagon. And it took great creativity and skill to conceive the plan. They too were fighting an unequal battle against the US federal government.
I don’t think we should be erecting statues to those 9/11 guys and I don’t think you’d be making supportive noises if the Saudis or ISIS / Al Qaeda-types erected such statues even on their own territory using their own money.
22% is considerably higher than the U.S. average as a whole (13% black,) and considerably higher than, say, the northeastern US or pacific northwest.
Not a statue exactly but Auschwitz was kept intact for a reason. It’s a horrible, disgusting reminder to the world that the atrocities actually happened and warning to watch that it never happens again.
Now you are goalpost shifting. You said in your post that “the present day” doesn’t want these monuments to stand. Now you are saying, “Well, ok, it does, but we are working on it!”
Velocity said:
I replied:
Yes, things need to be edited, changed, removed, and renamed to fit what the present-day wants. The present day doesn’t want slavery. The present day doesn’t want Jim Crow. The present day doesn’t want white supremacists marching the streets unopposed. The present day doesn’t want to sanction oppression of minorities. The present day doesn’t want to glorify the fiction of the Nobel South. The present day doesn’t want to honor the generals who fought to keep blacks enslaved. It doesn’t want to keep statues erected as a symbol to show blacks they are forever second class. The present day wants to stop waving the banners of the racists traitors who fought a war to rebel against the USA. The present day wants Gays and Lesbians and Transgender people to feel welcome in society.
Now, I fully admit there are still people who do want white supremacists marching in the streets - they are the ones doing it. And I admit plenty of white folks do want to keep Confederate statues and monuments. But if you ask them, I don’t think they would admit those statues were “erected as a symbol to show blacks they are forever second class,” nor would they agree the Confederate flags are “banners of the racist traitors who fought a war to rebel against the USA.” They’d couch it in different terms, like your “admire the sacrifice to stick a middle finger in the face of the federal government”. They would be wrong to deny the truth, but there’s a lot of willful ignorance out there.
And just why do you want to honor sticking the finger in the face of the Federal Government? I mean, I can agree with the policies of this particular administration, but not as a blanket general principle.
To me that sounds analogous to a plantation with a tour that shows what life was like for the slaves there. I dont think anyone is against something like that-- so long as it isn’t portrayed as a romantic southern Gone with the Wind idealized plantation but instead shows the brutal reality faced by slaves.
Again, the Lost Cause stuff is bulllshit. But I’ve been a Civil War buff my whole life and I have read books and visited probably every battlefield. It’s good that the North won. But I can still look at some of the ballsy and truly heroic stuff that those guys did, even if the ultimate thing, the thing three steps above what they were personally fighting for is the single worst thing that ever happened in U.S. history.
It’s possible to admire the line level actions and bravery without glorifying the cause.
It’s too simplistic to say that the North was fighting to free slaves and the South was fighting to keep slaves. That was simply the issue du jour. A lot of people still admire the sacrifice to stick a middle finger in the face of the federal government and that underlying purpose is what was celebrated, and still is celebrated, and it should not be tossed aside for an easy and cheap one-liner that these guys were just all about slavery.
See, there’s that “it was States’ rights, not slavery” bullshit.
And it’s easy to say the statues are about celebrating their bravery and honor when it isn’t you and your family getting subjugated.
But Auschwitz isn’t being held up as a celebration of what the NAZI’s did.
Still figuring this quoting thing out.
I mentioned this in another thread – it is even more approriate in this one, IMO.
The argument about whether or not their monuments deserve places of honor, is a matter of what is acceptable to society. It has become intolerable to continue to celebrate them. They have to go. Hey, they had a good run.
And let’s consider the case of Benedict Arnold. He provides IMO a counter to some of the arguments for preserving the monuments to seccessionists. To wit: we do not have plazas and avenues in his name with monumental statues to him, right? BUT… we all know who he was , right? Even more, many of us are aware he once was a hero at Saratroga, before his turnaround, don’t we? So, we do not celebrate him but at the same time he was not “erased” . He is, though, denounced as a traitor and that’s why he is not celebrated – which he would be as a minor hero if he had merely resigned and buggered off to private life upon becoming disgruntled.
So it’s not as if memory would be erased if we moved the statues to museums and battlefield cemeteries as historical exhibits and memorials.
Now, if we were to get into an issue of “deadnaming” by which you had to pretend Ft. Bragg or Washington and Lee College were not named that for a century – that would be a different story. You should record and know and own that for X number of years this was celebrated. You should acknowledge that a business or a hospital or a school or a scholarship program was founded and endowed by racists and that it has done and achieved good things nonetheless.
I’m also not getting the 1984 aspects of this. Putting the statues up wasn’t recording history and taking them down won’t erase history. The libraries are full of books about the U.S. Civil War and they’re not going anywhere, so if you want actual history, do some reading already and that includes reading 1984 itself to avoid using it as a flawed analogy in future.
Yes, Aji de Gallina, you’re right that mob action is problematic, because mobs often go too far and they’re hard to stop. You want to prevent mob action? Then do the right thing in an organized, officially-sanctioned way first. We’ve had plenty of time to have sober, reasoned discussion and to send out city maintenance crews to systematically disassemble these monuments to hate. But since we didn’t, it’s falling to the mob to make up for our shortcomings.
One thing to remember is that the overall goas was for South to preserve slavery and that the north to preserve the union. The way they did it was different.
In order to win the union had to invade the south, kill hundreds of thousands, and impoverish millions. For many southerners the confederates were thought of not as the people fighting to keep slavery but the people who fought to protect them from an army that was trying to kill their men, take all their food, and destroy the infrastructure so they could not get food, clothes, or medicine.
That lie is kinda the reason why Confederates shouldn’t be honoured.
How do I get in on this immunity, I got some scores to settle and I don’t want to bother going through channels, cause I might not get what I want. How many guys do I need to have an official mob and be off the hook?
Well . . . that might be playing a little fast and loose with definitions. If the people in my town don’t like a law that was passed at the state level, is our local population being oppressed? Or if a state doesn’t like a law that is enforced by the federal government, is the population of the state being oppressed? Is taxation really theft?
If, as you suggest, the city voted to remove a statue but the decision was “blocked” by the state, I’d assume that there’s some level of agreement that that’s how our flavor of Democracy works; that the city as an entity does not have unilateral power to do whatever it wants within its borders.
I’m not saying that Democracy can’t be used as a tool of oppression, but your definition catches a lot of every day, necessary distributions of power and empowerment that are clearly not oppression.
in this particular issue, it’s hypocritical to tell localities that have no right to remove a statue that was supposedly erected to celebrate those who fought for more local control.
Plus a lot of these states have voter suppression issues which makes one wonder how much of a democracy the state is even if it the will of the people at a statewide level should trump those at a city level.
Yes, totally. All those things.
But again, I don’t know that that’s a good definition for oppression is all I’m saying. Are state-wide taxes anti-Democratic or oppression if a town doesn’t want to pay them?
I’m not sure Benedict Arnold is a great example. The main reason Benedict Arnold is well known in the public consciousness is because his name has literally become synonymous with “traitor”.
If you are looking at it from the aspect of what you can get away with, you not only are completely missing the point, but you are showing that you have desires that are not compatible with the movements about removing statues.
I’m in favor of making anyone who removes or damages a statue to pay a fine. There is no immunity. Now, there are those who think that they should go to jail for 10 years. I strongly disagree with that. Not going to jail for 10 years for breaking a piece of metal or stone is not the same as immunity.
When there were sit ins at the Woolworth counter, did you consider them to be calling themselves “immune” to the law?
You don’t seem to understand the point, the action, nor the consequence of civil disobedience.
If your city was required to put up a statue to Trump in your townsquare, in spite of objections of your neighbors and other residents, you wouldn’t consider that to be even the slightest bit oppressive?