Yeah, but is that because you don’t put much stock in such honors anyway? Because when we build a statute, we do it for the future, not just for us. The Vietnam memorial isn’t there to make the Vietnam generation happy, it’s there so that 200 years from now, Americans will remember that war and those who died fighting it.
Lots of streets in Germany were named after Nazi bigwigs. After WW2, all those street names were changed.
Old joke from that time period: An old lady comes to Düsseldorf after the war and asks a policeman “Can you direct me to the Adolf-Hitler Street, please?” “Shush, grandma, it’s now called the Count Adolf Street!” “Oh how nice, he really deserves that!”
That’s a special case though, because the changes were very recent. Let’s say that we had a lot of things named after Bill Cosby(assumedly there must be some). Knowing what we know now about the guy, it makes sense to take them down. Same goes for Adolf Hitler streets and Stalingrad and Leningrad(Russia just went back to the traditional names for those places).
Changes can and should be made, but the rationale should be clearer than, “It’s 2016 and we’ve decided that this guy was bad by our standards, so let’s remove him and replace him with someone who we like, but who the people of the time might not have thought much of.” It’s generational chauvinism.
Not on the graves, I hope. That’s crass.
I did not make my tirade against slavery because I think anyone in this thread is advocating it. I wrote it because we so quickly and easily sweep the historical reality of slavery under the rug. I object to is the way modern southerners, neo-confederates and their various apologists have progressively whitewashed people like Lee and Jefferson Davis, or the CSA in general. I can understand southerners being revolted that their ancestors fought to preserve such an inhuman and criminal system as slavery, but that is the reality. When these people deify CSA leaders on places like Stone Mountain, they justify themselves with nonsense that the CSA was not about slavery.
From films like Birth of a Nation, Jezebel and Gone with the Wind, the world was fed a steady diet of pro-southern pap that showed slaves as nothing more than nicely-dressed house servants shuffling around, making funny comments in their raspy voices, and being filled with maternal or avuncular love for “their” families. What were Uncle Ben and Aunt Jemima? They were the “loving house servants”, which whites were told were representative of slavery.
Putting up monuments to the CSA or to people who fought to preserve slavery is, whether we like it or not, expressing approval for slavery.
Wouldn’t honoring the founders in general be an endorsement of slavery by that logic? Or at least the founders who owned slaves, as well as some Presidents like Andrew Jackson?
The only thing that differentiates Jefferson Davis and Andrew Jackson is treason. Slavery can’t really be the issue here, because slavery isn’t limited to the CSA. This country elected quite a few slaveholding Presidents, two of which are on Mount Rushmore.
The CSA was a political entity that fought a protracted war mainly for the purpose of preserving slavery, since in 1860, the economic value of slaves in the United States exceeded the invested value of all of the nation’s railroads, factories, and banks combined.
Washington did own slaves (and confessed himself bothered by the fact in at least one extant letter), but what he fought for during eight grueling years was the independence of his country from Britain. In other words, if Washington had been told in, say, 1780, that the Continental Congress had decided that slavery would be ended once independence was won, I doubt if Washington would have lessened his fight for independence one iota.
Now you might argue that the Confederates were also fighting for their independence, but that would be sophistry. Americans in slave states were not deprived of the right to vote, were not subject to taxation without representation, and enjoyed the full rights of American citizens. They certainly had more rights than their slaves!
Jefferson Davis, knowing full well how much people in Europe and the rest of the world were revolted by slavery, regularly told foreign journalists “We are not fighting for slavery, we are fighting for our independence.”
As nice and noble as that sounds, there are still a good number of written resolutions passed by seceding states that for some odd reason mention that pesky “s” word over and over and over as their main reason for leaving the union. There is the “cornerstone” speech by CSA VP Alexander Stevens in which he says in so many words that the CSA is based on domination of white over black.
Jefferson Davis, after telling journalists that he was NOT fighting for slavery, reacted to the Emancipation Proclamation by ordering that all free blacks in the CSA and their descendants be immediately reduced to slavery FOREVER. Funny way to fight for your independence.
I might also mention that when Lee invaded Pennsylvania before the battle of Gettysburg, he had no objection to his troops seizing free blacks who were citizens of the State, and sending them down south to be sold. The not inconsiderable income from this “bonanza” was used to finance the pro-slavery fight of the CSA, of course.
And that was his error. Once the confederacy was defeated, he should have strongly suggested to Congress to demote each traitorous state back to territorial status, and have them earn their way back into the union.
That would have been reasonable. It might also have been reasonable to throw all the prominent loyalists in prison after the revolution. As Barack Obama is fond of saying, “That’s not who we are.”
What would have been reasonable, and far better for the country than what happened, was an actual long-term Reconstruction similar to the post-WWII denazification in German, to obliterate as much remaining pro-Confederacy and anti-black sentiment as possible. As much guilt as post-war Germans felt about the war and the Holocaust should have been felt by post-Civil-War white southerners. The education and society of the South should have been re-engineered such that the KKK would have been as unwelcome in the South in the late 19th and early 20th centuries as neo-Nazis were in Germany in the mid and late 20th century.
That would have been good as well, the best outcome actually, but I don’t think there are any examples of that being done pre-WW2. What we did with Japan and Germany in WW2 really was a uniquely successful effort. I’m sure it can be duplicated, but it probably was impossible in the 1860s, and it’s hard to argue that the Republican radicals were doing it right at the time.
In fact, the US DID practise massive retaliation on its loyalist population after the Revolution. Do they not teach you that in American history? Loyalists were lynched or tarred and feathered (there is nothing funny about the latter punishment, since it involves being rolled in burning tar and can often be fatal, and certainly disfiguring for life.) It is estimated that some 70,000 loyalists out of a total U.S. population of 2.5 million, fled the country.
Many tens of thousands remained in the new republic, but suffered social exclusion and violence for years after.
It is a slippery slope. Social views change over time and always will. Unless you keep forever changing the names of all cities, schools, holidays, etc… every decade, you’re not going to be satisfied. Pretty much every historical figure from 50> years ago does not live up to today’s standards of racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc…
Another vote for get over it.
As if racist sentiment was unique to the South? You seem to think the rest of the US was a monolithic thinking, enlightened entity.
Alive and well in Pennsylvania.
You just don’t hear “nigger” as often as you did back in the '60’s and '70’s.
No, it was just much worse in the South. In general, the KKK was much more prominent in the South; lynching was much more common in the South; segregation and Jim Crow were more widespread and more enforced in the South; interracial marriage was illegal for longer in the South; etc.
Point was that in your benevolent, enlightened North there was no desire to bleed further for the plight of minorities that were not viewed favorably. Even today some of the most segregated parts of the country are in the North. So how would this harsher reconstruction have been enacted without the will?
I think it really depends on the context. The founding fathers owned slaves. Abraham Lincoln was, according to accounts I’ve read, generally a white supremacist by today’s standards, despite being the Great Emancipator. Where do we draw the line?
I’m absolutely in favor of removing the confederate flag from state buildings and official state flags that depict them ought to remove them, as several states have already done. These monuments were foisted on a population that couldn’t even vote, and even if they had voted, they would have been a minority. People who have been injured by the history of the South have to pay taxes while living with the indignity of knowing that the state that takes their income keeps thumbing their nose at causes like civil rights.
Having said that, I don’t think it’s necessary to remove dedications or memorials; they just need to be put in a more appropriate place.
And here’s the proof that this is just another meaningless term.
Virtue signaling should mean a signal that tells someone else that you are a virtuous person–that you adhere to the values of the group. That’s what those two words mean put together–that you are signaling virtue.
But, instead, it is used for the concept of “telling people what I think is right.” As if this is some horrible thing. Actual virtue signaling isn’t even a bad thing–it’s good to let people know you share their values before arguing with them.
And, unfortunately, the term is itself a signal–a signal that you agree with a completely different set of values. Because it’s a term that’s only used in a few places–places with questionable morals.
In short, it’s the new “social justice warrior,” and just as useless a term. You might as well have said, “I have nothing of value to contribute to this argument.”