He was a traitor to Britain. Not a traitor to the United States. That’s the difference.
That’s not what YogSosoth wrote, so perhaps you and he differ.
I’m not British.
I don’t think we do; rather, I think you’re nitpicking, interpreting what was obviously shorthand for what the entire discussion’s been about for something much more specific than what he meant. Maybe I’m wrong.
Maybe I am.
It was just one remark in a lengthy post responding to his fanatical devotion to stereotyping, so it’s not all that important to what I was trying to convey. It’s quite possible that he meant “They venerate war criminals and traitors to the United States like the generals…”. I don’t know that it was obvious, but certainly plausible.
The “war criminals” part remains unexplained.
As opposed to what region of the country where there is not a significant enough percentage of backwards thinking people to say that many are racist fucks? Sherman was a racist fuck- one of the most racist generals of the war. I’m guessing millions of modern day northerners and Midwesterners and westerners and probably Mexicans and Belgians and Taiwanese are probably racist fucks.
Neo-Confederates absolutely exist. So do PETA activists who claim 9-11 was no worse than what happens to millions of chickens everyday and NAMBLA and anarchists and UFO cultists, but they’re fringe groups and not representative of the people at large in the state where they live. Most people really are far more concerned about the 21st century than the 19th, and often even their racism and bigotry often has a uniquely modern hue.
I think he’s referring to Generals Forrest and/or Gordon.
Which is why I would exempt any Brits from feeling he should be honored on whatever the British equivalent of Memorial Day is, but would consider them obnoxious if they expressed a desire to piss on his grave. And I doubt there’s a lot of passionate Anglophobia among Revolutionary War reenactors.
Odd fact: there are British U.S. Civil War reenactors. If they ever film Good Omens I kind of hope they change the war-games corporate training camp to British USCW reenactors.
Odd, if true, as neither were war criminals.
I don’t think Gordon is accused of anything, but Forrest had this:
Disputed, but it is something. Good point.
Well, there are several different arguments expressed in this thread, among them:
- We should honor Confederate soldiers because they fought with bravery, regardless of the cause they fought for.
- We should not honor Confederate soldiers because they were traitors.
- We should not honor Confederate soldiers because they knowingly defended an atrocious cultural institution.
Folks in the second category might be obnoxious if they express anger toward the confederacy. But if, for example, someone’s great-great-great grandmother were a slave, and that person harbored some real hostility toward the folks who fought to keep his g-g-g-grandmother a slave, would that be out of line? Would you call someone descended from slaves obnoxious if they loathe confederate soldiers?
I wrote the OP and I voted for number 2, but I’d tell anybody who has truly passionate feelings against people who they never met and who weren’t policy makers and who have been dead for a century to get a life. I’d also suggest that if the’re really looking for All Good Guys v. All Bad Guys then they’d do better with daytime soap operas than with history.
What about people who have truly passionate feelings FOR those same people–should they also get a life?
The problem with your soap opera comment is that we’re talking about things that really happened and that really were really bad. If someone hates all rapists in history and thinks they were all bad guys, that’s not being melodramatic, that’s a legit position. Similarly, if someone hates all pro-slavery forces, we’re talking about hating a real thing, not some comic-book demonization.
What choices people made had consequences, and some people chose to defend slavery through warfare. They were choosing to kill people in order to keep actual living (at the time) other people in chains. It’s legitimate to consider anyone who’d make that choice a bad guy.
Exceptions might be made for those who joined at the point of a bayonet, sure. In that case, those people should be pitied, not honored.
It is another rung of support for the stereotype that Southerners tend to sway towards monstrously traitorous beliefs. If I had a hundred, or a thousand such anecdotes, you would point out that they number in the tiny fraction of the population, and no doubt that would be unconvincing to you. But one anecdote in your favor and you would be trumpeting that as the standard.
Let me break it down for you: the trend in the South is support of these Confederate ideals and people, to the opposite trend in the North and everywhere else. There are no statues of Robert E. Lee in California, or Montana, but there are in the South. And given the prevalence of states rights politicians and elected office holders and their mean distribution in a geographical area, we can factually generalize that this type of belief is not evenly distributed, it seems to concentrate in the states that were, surprise!, part of the old Confederacy!
Now if you want to argue against all that and pretend like the South has no clear plurality on the beliefs of its ancestors, that there are Civil War re-enactors espousing the benefits of slavery in Massachusetts, and they are widely spread enough to hold elected office or have local influence, then be my guest. But you’d be wrong.
Your beliefs on this subject are a Russian nesting doll of errors, one lying within the next.
-
You believe that Civil War re-enactors pursue this hobby as a political statement that the Confederacy was right and that slavery should return, rather than as a fun history-based hobby with cannons and beer. This is laughably wrong: re-enactors portray both sides, reenactments are done anywhere there was a notable battle (and in the UK, as it turns out).
-
You believe that the tiny fraction of people who engage in Civil War re-enacting represents the South as a whole. Even if re-enactors were motivated by politics, which they aren’t, it’s a fringe hobby. You may as well conclude that people who sew by hand are all Luddites eager to destroy technology, and New England has a bunch of them thus New Englanders are Luddites.
-
You believe that “state’s rights” is code for resuming slavery, instead of a political issue as old as the nation itself. Remember the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists? Remember the Constitution?
-
You believe that the existence of statues of Robert E. Lee proves that today’s Southerners are racist neo-Confederates, in spite of the fact that a) statues last for a long time, b) the U.S. military has named bases and ships after Confederate generals without being neo-Confederates, and c) for the umpteenth time, you can oppose treason and slavery without personally hating everyone that ever put on a gray uniform. Or, at least adults can.
-
You believe Southerners support “Confederate ideals”, though you seem unable to articulate what those might be.
-
And, you believe you can toss around terms like “trend” and “plurality”, as though your beliefs were based on some careful, mathematical study instead of a gut feeling based on ignorant stereotyping without anyone noticing.
So, you don’t think we should honor Confederate soldiers on Memorial Day, then.
No, I don’t. In fact that’s why I explicitly said so, repeatedly, with detail as to why, in the OP (that means the very first post).
Absolutely, and in no uncertain terms.
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
The problem with your soap opera comment is that we’re talking about things that really happened and that really were really bad. If someone hates all rapists in history and thinks they were all bad guys, that’s not being melodramatic, that’s a legit position. Similarly, if someone hates all pro-slavery forces, we’re talking about hating a real thing, not some comic-book demonization.
[/QUOTE]
There’s a difference in hating slavery and thinking teenaged soldiers should have their graves pissed on 150 years after they died because the army they were fighting for (and which they probably had little choice but to fight for) was on the losing side of history.
I always thought this was a very moving scene from Band of Brothers; you can hate the cause and have sympathy for the troops. It’s amazing how many Civil War soldiers and veterans had far more respect and compassion for their foes than their great-great-great-grandchildren have.
So you did. :smack:
Fair enough. I think I’m somewhere in the middle: I view folks who fought for slavery as having made a profoundly and life-definingly unethical choice, unethical in the same way that choosing to torture someone is life-definingly unethical. But I have no desire to pee on graves, because that’s just weird.
As for having little choice but to fight for the army, wellllll, sort of. Child soldiers in Uganda have little choice but to fight for the army. But grown-ass adults have got a choice, and if your choice is to face execution or fight on behalf of slavery, I won’t say that you’re obligated to choose martyrdom, but if you don’t, I do think you need to live with the guilt, and certainly shouldn’t be honored for privileging your own life over the lives of slaves.
Edit: and it’s not the fact that they were on the losing side of history that makes the confederate soldiers so unworthy of honor. I’m fine if folks want to honor Native American soldiers or British soldiers or what have you (without going into details–if you want to bring up atrocities those specific soldiers committed, I’ll happily withdraw permission to honor them 
). It’s the fact that they fought on behalf of a really rotten social institution that makes them unworthy of honor. If they’d won, I’d still say they shouldn’t be honored.