Not too closely affiliated with a party, but as an American I’m willing to express some form of dyspepsia with various aspects of its roots. Blindly claiming it’s done no wrong is jingoistic clap-trap (which I think may be part of the underlying gist of your second point). For another example, I think the Trail of Tears should be taught in schools as another condemnable part of our history, and I would post similar sentiments about those who wish to venerate the actions of those who enforced and committed the event.
I’d agree, as long as it comes with the other side of the coin - that there is no reason to be proud of something you didn’t do yourself.
Speaking as a lifelong Democrat, I’m definitely embarrassed about some of the history of my party, especially the pro-slavery and pro-segregation parts of it. While I wouldn’t try to tar all Democrats of those periods with the racial-discrimination brush, I certainly wouldn’t support any kind of effort to honor their sacrifices in the service of bad causes.
There’s a difference between guiltily “apologizing for that which you cannot control” and simply refraining from gratuitously glorifying our predecessors’ dedication to an ignoble and immoral mission. Yes, we have to accept it and understand it in its historical context, but we certainly don’t have to celebrate it.
I generally agree with that, but I’ve always said I can understand why people who have been oppressed or told to feel ashamed about who they are take pride in their groups.
It’s irrelevant anyway. Even if we assert that morality is relative, that doesn’t justify erecting monuments and naming holidays after people just because they didn’t know history would judge them later.
‘Ashamed’ isn’t really the best word, and the best I could do at the moment was put the ‘mildly’ modifier in there. I get your point that it’s generally used for accepting responsibility or involvement in an act, but that seems to be straying into semantics.
Do you get the concept I was trying for? Consider an extreme example (for illustration only). Say your mother/father/sister/brother/cousin/aunt/wife/whatever shows up in the news as the next “but he was such a quiet man” type story. Secret butcher of a hundred nuns or something like that, something that you had nothing to do with. Following your post above, you wouldn’t be ‘ashamed’ per se, but I dare say you’d feel some abstract sense of negativity that needs a description. Now, tune that down a thousand notches or so to the distant connection to an ancestor that lived a 150 years ago, modify the phrase as appropriate, and what do you have? That’s the concept I was aiming for.
I’m glad that the overall good achieved and committed by the nation far outweighs the ill. The Confederacy and the forces that propelled it are among the ills. We done fucked up on that one, and we shouldn’t be venerating the perpetrators.
While I generally agree that “the past is a foreign country” (and the Confederates would insist that was literally true!), I’ve never totally bought the idea that people in 1860 didn’t know slavery was wrong.
-
They had abolitionists and former slaves telling them it was wrong. They may not have agreed (or, more likely, not have wanted to agree), but does that itself give them the “ignorance of wrongdoing” defense?
-
They were familiar with the “Golden Rule.”
-
In secession, there was much heated rhetoric about Lincoln being a tyrant, submission to the North being the same as enslavement, and the South being willing to die rather than be enslaved. Generally that indicates an awareness that being enslaved is bad.
I’m with you that far, but what about that sacred principle we Americans are so conscious of that we name military operations and fried potatoes after it? Isn’t it a slap in the face to freedom itself and all who defend it?
Pickett attended West Point, but I’m not sure how much attention he was paying in class. 
I can sort of cut them a break on womens’ issues, gender identity, and so on. I mean, defined gender roles aren’t inherently evil, given that there are obvious differences between men and women.
Owning people is a little bit different.
Also a good point.
What I would feel, I think, is regret for not being aware and stopping it, and fear that people would identify me with the person who committed the crime. So I think I know what you’re shooting for but I don’t think it applies here. I agree with you that this isn’t a cause that should be venerated.
Honestly, is there any need to remember the sacrifices of anybody for something that happened 150 years ago? What’s the point? Maybe I am too cynical, but a Confederate History month serves no purpose except to appease those who still think they are fighting some sort of war.
Well, we ARE in the midst of a census… 
I find his speech (the excerpt) to be just so much twaddle–he is still arguing (as are some Southerners) that it wasn’t 'bout the slaves a’tall! :rolleyes: I find the whole premise for this month to be silly. You can’t walk through a southern town without tripping over a statue honoring “their glorious dead” etc. The fact that the soldiers and officers are always white males should give them pause. I don’t doubt that the Rebel forces fought bravely and fiercely. If you’re a fan of war, that is laudatory, but that’s as far as it goes.
Why not celebrate Southern history? 1607. the Melungeon, the Afro-Caribs, the Hugenots, the Spanish etc. Why JUST the Confederacy? Because this is his focus, I find the whole thing suspect and offensive.
I know you’re satirizing my emphasis on the semantics of what was said. However, it’s worth noting that, satire aside, Hitler very much did have an ulterior motive in conflating language groups, ethnic groups, and religious affiliations and was very consciously creating a mythology through the abuse of language to further his goals. That fact that he then went on to do much worse things doesn’t absolve him of this.
There were in fact quite a lot of black Confederate soldiers (thanks, Sampiro!). They just don’t get monuments.
My question is why is it whenever southerners want to honor their history, they always end up picking the same five years? Why don’t you ever see a bunch of Virginians reenacting the founding of Jamestown or the Battle of Yorktown or the Spotswood Expedition or the Convention of 1776?
It wasn’t a cemetery for SS troops. It was a German military cemetery which also included the graves of a few Waffen SS soldiers (49 out of a total of 2000). The attribution of “these” in the Reagan quote to mean “SS troops” seems to be common on the web, but can’t be correct as his reference to “2000 graves” makes clear.
Yes, I know–that was my point.
Because they were on the winning side for those. They’re masochists. 
Oh, alright.
This is the crux of it for me. The Confederacy only lasted four years but people continued to do things in the name of the Confederacy for a hundred years after. The lynchings, the Jim Crow stuff - that was all done by Confederate sympathizers. There’s a reason the KKK uses a Confederate flag* to this day. A lot bad shit happened within living memory - all in the name of the Confederacy.
If the Gov had declared Civil War Month or Reenactors Month I could buy that it was just an attempt at promoting tourism (a legitimate duty for a Governor.) But I don’t see how it’s possible to celebrate the Confederacy as something that happened in the distant past without acknowledging its on-going legacy and its current supporters.
- yes, I know it’s not -THE- Confederate flag, it’s just -A- flag used by the Confederate Army. But that’s it’s common name.
The Klan doesn’t use a Confederate flag. Most of the time, in fact, you’ll see them with U.S. flags. Now, obviously it’s not like they never do it, but it’s not part of the insignia of any of the major Klan groups.
Frankly, monuments for them would squick me out more the monuments they have for white soldiers do, so I’m not shedding any tears for this oversight.
Maybe that’s just the Nat Turner in me talking, though.