Confederate Statues, Liberalism, Moral Relativism and White Supremacists

[Muizer]

As Sukiyama pointed out, not following religion does not mean embracing amorality. Religion has emerged, often independently, in almost every society in human pre-history. Key elements shared by religions, notably empathy and hence guilt and redemption (in other words a 'conscience') have evolutionary origins. Ergo, morality is part of the human condition. Except for sociopaths, the obvious alternative to religion is humanism. Amorality would actually require something as effective at manipulating the human condition as only religion has consistently proven to be.

[Roma_Victrix]

In the meantime, the American Historical Association has released a statement on the Confederate monuments. https://www.historians.org/news-and-...rate-monuments

To remove such monuments is neither to “change” history nor “erase” it. What changes with such removals is what American communities decide is worthy of civic honor. Historians and others will continue to disagree about the meanings and implications of events and the appropriate commemoration of those events. The AHA encourages such discussions in publications, in other venues of scholarship and teaching, and more broadly in public culture; historical scholarship itself is a conversation rooted in evidence and disciplinary standards. We urge communities faced with decisions about monuments to draw on the expertise of historians both for understanding the facts and chronology underlying such monuments and for deriving interpretive conclusions based on evidence. Indeed, any governmental unit, at any level, may request from the AHA a historian to provide consultation. We expect to be able to fill any such request...

...Nearly all monuments to the Confederacy and its leaders were erected without anything resembling a democratic process. Regardless of their representation in the actual population in any given constituency, African Americans had no voice and no opportunity to raise questions about the purposes or likely impact of the honor accorded to the builders of the Confederate States of America. The American Historical Association recommends that it’s time to reconsider these decisions.

The AHA is THE professional organization for American historians (that is, historians who study US history, and not historians who are American). I think it's best to defer to the experts on this one. I do not hold a membership in the AHA because US history is not my concentration. Instead, I'm a member of both the Economic History Association and the Society for Nautical Research. I agree with the AHA because they put in the hard research and are not motivated by Lost Cause mythology.

A fairly reasonable post. I also reiterate the idea that cities should have the right to keep or take down whatever statue they like, without fear of vandalism or terrorism on their streets. Having the locals protest is one thing, but busing in a bunch of out-of-towners and in many cases people from out of state is totally unnecessary. That applies to both the Neo-Nazis and the Antifa crowd. If it's not happening in your hometown, why would you give a crap? The whole thing is totally overblown.

That said, the statues that are coming down should be given a proper space in a museum or other national park, per their historical value.

As Sukiyama pointed out, not following religion does not mean embracing amorality. Religion has emerged, often independently, in almost every society in human pre-history. Key elements shared by religions, notably empathy and hence guilt and redemption (in other words a 'conscience') have evolutionary origins. Ergo, morality is part of the human condition. Except for sociopaths, the obvious alternative to religion is humanism. Amorality would actually require something as effective at manipulating the human condition as only religion has consistently proven to be.

The OP wasn't even making the case that religion itself provides morality...he was basically arguing that only Christianity achieves this (without specifying Catholicism, Protestant branches, Orthodox Christianity, etc.) I think the ancient Greeks and Romans before the time of Constantine, including the sponsor of Stoicism Emperor Marcus Aurelius, would take offense to that idea. There are some basic universal values shared by all human societies, so no single religion really has a monopoly on morality IMHO, the standards of which have been evolving since time immemorial. Our modern standards of morality have rapidly changed even in the last two centuries, with the official abolishing of slavery and enactment of the Geneva Code in regulating practices of warfare being some prime examples. For that matter morality was an evolving concept within the Christian community for the past 2,000 years. The Catholic Church no longer burns heretics at the stake, for instance, or attempts to place brilliant astronomers under house arrest for challenging accepted dogma.

[twc01]

In the meantime, the American Historical Association has released a statement on the Confederate monuments. https://www.historians.org/news-and-...rate-monuments

To remove such monuments is neither to “change” history nor “erase” it. What changes with such removals is what American communities decide is worthy of civic honor. Historians and others will continue to disagree about the meanings and implications of events and the appropriate commemoration of those events. The AHA encourages such discussions in publications, in other venues of scholarship and teaching, and more broadly in public culture; historical scholarship itself is a conversation rooted in evidence and disciplinary standards. We urge communities faced with decisions about monuments to draw on the expertise of historians both for understanding the facts and chronology underlying such monuments and for deriving interpretive conclusions based on evidence. Indeed, any governmental unit, at any level, may request from the AHA a historian to provide consultation. We expect to be able to fill any such request...

...Nearly all monuments to the Confederacy and its leaders were erected without anything resembling a democratic process. Regardless of their representation in the actual population in any given constituency, African Americans had no voice and no opportunity to raise questions about the purposes or likely impact of the honor accorded to the builders of the Confederate States of America. The American Historical Association recommends that it’s time to reconsider these decisions.

The AHA is THE professional organization for American historians (that is, historians who study US history, and not historians who are American). I think it's best to defer to the experts on this one. I do not hold a membership in the AHA because US history is not my concentration. Instead, I'm a member of both the Economic History Association and the Society for Nautical Research. I agree with the AHA because they put in the hard research and are not motivated by Lost Cause mythology.

in other words dont think, dont read history, believe what a group of liberal historians tells you and shut up. I would suggest history is the authority. but non of this hits the topic of the thread.

A fairly reasonable post. I also reiterate the idea that cities should have the right to keep or take down whatever statue they like, without fear of vandalism or terrorism on their streets. Having the locals protest is one thing, but busing in a bunch of out-of-towners and in many cases people from out of state is totally unnecessary. That applies to both the Neo-Nazis and the Antifa crowd. If it's not happening in your hometown, why would you give a crap? The whole thing is totally overblown.

That said, the statues that are coming down should be given a proper space in a museum or other national park, per their historical value.



The OP wasn't even making the case that religion itself provides morality...he was basically arguing that only Christianity achieves this (without specifying Catholicism, Protestant branches, Orthodox Christianity, etc.) I think the ancient Greeks and Romans before the time of Constantine, including the sponsor of Stoicism Emperor Marcus Aurelius, would take offense to that idea. There are some basic universal values shared by all human societies, so no single religion really has a monopoly on morality IMHO, the standards of which have been evolving since time immemorial. Our modern standards of morality have rapidly changed even in the last two centuries, with the official abolishing of slavery and enactment of the Geneva Code in regulating practices of warfare being some prime examples. For that matter morality was an evolving concept within the Christian community for the past 2,000 years. The Catholic Church no longer burns heretics at the stake, for instance, or attempts to place brilliant astronomers under house arrest for challenging accepted dogma.

the op says nothing of what either of you have taken from it. the op said how can amoral relativist, liberal, atheist, evolutionist justify the claim one randomly evolved animal [themselves] is correct while another randomly evolved animal, is not. what makes their chemicals correct over what another thinks is true. on what grounds does it appeal to say it is correct over another.

[Ludicus]

So what if Hitler won ww2 and killed off all non white supremacists, than indoctrinated the next generation with white supremacy. Would it than be ok and morally good?

Hitler was not atheist.Hitler was a disgusting religious white supremacist who hated Jews.
Quoting, 1928,
"We are a people of different faiths, but we are one. Which faith conquers the other is not the question; rather, the question is whether Christianity stands or falls"
"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: bydefending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
----
Are you saying that without Christianity or a religious faith, people cannot live moral lives? btw, the golden rule isn't an exclusive of Christianity.
Is morality an exclusive of the Christian God? how many Gods are there?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

we are just chemicals fighting for a survival advantage randomly evolved, "survival of the fittest" so how can we justify murder is wrong?

You know, eugenics and social darwinism - both are based on very convenient misunderstandings of evolution, and were historically used as a justification for the Portuguese/Spanish/Dutch/British/German western imperial expansion: it was a duty of the white people to bring civilization to "backward"peoples". And that includes the US,

How much more so can they also claim diversity and tolerance and yet be intolerant of a culture other than there own towards a different people in a different time to tare down statues of confederates?

Define Southern culture.
Let's keep in mind that your "Southern culture" around the Confederacy erases the fact that Africans are an important segment of Southern culture - and they did not support the war and the racist statues.See above.

Like it or not, creationism is based on faith whereas evolution is a testable scientific theory (that said, let's keep in mind that according to the Christian Pope, evolution of nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation because evolution presupposes the creation of beings which evolve)

We can argue that, in some aspects, moral relativism promotes tolerance. Ruth Benedict, (Patterns of Culture, p. 257) on the basis of the anthropological research she has described, wrote,

we shall arrive at a more realistic social faith, accepting as grounds of hope and as new bases for tolerance the coexisting and equally valid patterns of life which mankind has created for itself from the raw materials of existence

Benedict also argued that moral relativism can be positively beneficial in helping to combat bigotry, racism, chauvinism and other forms of prejudice.This book is a fundamental text in teaching us the value of diversity.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

...are we no longer cultural relativist?

But make no mistake, relativism should not necessarily imply an absolute and universal tolerance, particularly towards oppressively intolerant moral systems that should not be tolerated.
Popper (a critic of moral relativism), asserted that "to allow freedom of speech to those who would use it to eliminate the very principle upon which they rely is paradoxical"(sic). Here, I agree, that's the reason why Europe and the US have opposite approaches to the question of tolerance of hate speech.

[Heathen Hammer]

Removal of statues and historical artifacts, much like book-burnings, in general is perhaps the epitome of anti-intellectual barbarism that engulfs the globalist left.
Also destruction of statues was never really democratically approved by the population, they are either suddenly removed overnight based on a decision of a government official or destroyed ISIS-style by a mob of antifa thugs (who such officials fail to act against, despite the obvious case of vandalism and destruction of property). In both cases, destruction of historical monuments is definitely more of an act to erase history, somewhat similar to how left's ideological predecessors in Russia destroyed thousands of statues and historical monuments in Eastern Europe.

[Gaidin]

Removal of statues and historical artifacts, much like book-burnings, in general is perhaps the epitome of anti-intellectual barbarism that engulfs the globalist left.
Also destruction of statues was never really democratically approved by the population, they are either suddenly removed overnight based on a decision of a government official or destroyed ISIS-style by a mob of antifa thugs (who such officials fail to act against, despite the obvious case of vandalism and destruction of property). In both cases, destruction of historical monuments is definitely more of an act to erase history, somewhat similar to how left's ideological predecessors in Russia destroyed thousands of statues and historical monuments in Eastern Europe.

Let's just not elect governments to make decisions anymore, right?

[IronBrig4]

The removals were approved by the city council, which represented the citizens of those communities. That's what happened in Charlottesville and New Orleans.

I'm not sure where you get your information from, but vandals are arrested and prosecuted. For example, the lady who destroyed the statue in Durham was arrested and she will be prosecuted.

[Heathen Hammer]

Just because you were elected, doesn't mean you have a right to use your power to LARP as ISIS, which is what city councils in Charlotsville and New Orleans did by ordering removal of historic monuments that were erected long before these government officials were even born. I can see that being put under referendum where locals can decide by themselves.

[Gaidin]

Just because you were elected, doesn't mean you have a right to use your power to LARP as ISIS, which is what city councils in Charlotsville and New Orleans did by ordering removal of historic monuments that were erected long before these government officials were even born. I can see that being put under referendum where locals can decide by themselves.

The government didn't LARP as ISIS. The elected government made a decision to remove various statues legally and are in fact dealing with various groups legal arguments in courts in various cities. Those that LARP as ISIS are finding themselves charged with crimes. I think we call your argument a fallacy. Specifically a cross between a red herring and a strawman. Nice try though.

If an election of officials to represent the people and make decisions for them in government isn't good enough for you, move somewhere else.

[The spartan]

Just because you were elected, doesn't mean you have a right to use your power to LARP as ISIS, which is what city councils in Charlotsville and New Orleans did by ordering removal of historic monuments that were erected long before these government officials were even born. I can see that being put under referendum where locals can decide by themselves.

Why keep insisting that the only other group of people to ever take down statues, presumably in the history of forever, is ISIS? Like, how intellectually dishonest, and desperate to discredit your "enemies", can you get? Your BIG takedown of your opponents (by comparing them to ISIS) is that they remove statues? Really, that's it? Can I compare you to Stalin because you both get your hair cut?

They defended independence, to the same extent US itself did in 1700s. Lincoln himself didn't give a squad about welfare of slaves and was openly racist. Locals like them because they fought for their land and independence.

Take some history classes; Lincoln was an abolitionist. He didn't think he could implement that as President, he wanted to take a long term strategy as president, but he knew slaves needed to be free at some point.

in other words dont think, dont read history, believe what a group of liberal historians tells you and shut up. I would suggest history is the authority. but non of this hits the topic of the thread.

I think it is closer to "believe what the smarter and more educated people say on the matter and shut up" though no one is being made to shut up, they just should. People seem to think their amateur opinions are as good as facts, nowadays.

[Heathen Hammer]

Why keep insisting that the only other group of people to ever take down statues, presumably in the history of forever, is ISIS? Like, how intellectually dishonest, and desperate to discredit your "enemies", can you get? Your BIG takedown of your opponents (by comparing them to ISIS) is that they remove statues? Really, that's it? Can I compare you to Stalin because you both get your hair cut?

Well, the other two groups that jump in mind for anti-intellectual statue-removing activities of the liberal left were NSDAP and Bolsheviks in Russia.

Take some history classes; Lincoln was an abolitionist. He didn't think he could implement that as President, he wanted to take a long term strategy as president, but he knew slaves needed to be free at some point.

Take some history classes, Lincoln was a racist and ignited the war to preserve whole country together. He was an abolitionist because he wanted to with South, not because he cared for the salves.

I think it is closer to "believe what the smarter and more educated people say on the matter and shut up" though no one is being made to shut up, they just should. People seem to think their amateur opinions are as good as facts, nowadays.

Yeah, its not like palace-historians were ever biased in human history. Never-ever. Ever. /sarcasm

[The spartan]

Well, the other two groups that jump in mind for anti-intellectual statue-removing activities of the liberal left were NSDAP and Bolsheviks in Russia.

Of course those are the groups that come to mind, you want to relate groups you don't like with your opponents, regardless of any actual parity. Removing statues from a public place isn't anti-intellectual, fyi. Anti-intellectual would be removing references to people in a history book or something. Removing a statue of Robert E. Lee from a park doesn't remove him from history. We still talk about him all the time.

Take some history classes, Lincoln was a racist and ignited the war to preserve whole country together. He was an abolitionist because he wanted to with South, not because he cared for the salves.

Ah, so now Lincoln was the one who started the war AND he had it out for the South ever since his childhood (when he became an abolitionist, his parents were abolitionists) despite being born in Kentucky? I am curious as to what history books you are reading.

Yeah, its not like palace-historians were ever biased in human history. Never-ever. Ever. /sarcasm

And it is not like uneducated people ever think they know more than educated folk, never ever.

Also, what is a palace historian? Historians in higher education aren't typically known for being partisan left-wingers...

[Heathen Hammer]

Of course those are the groups that come to mind, you want to relate groups you don't like with your opponents, regardless of any actual parity. Removing statues from a public place isn't anti-intellectual, fyi.

Yes, it is, if it is done for political reasons.

Ah, so now Lincoln was the one who started the war AND he had it out for the South ever since his childhood (when he became an abolitionist, his parents were abolitionists) despite being born in Kentucky? I am curious as to what history books you are reading.

I'm reading things that Lincoln himself state about black people, which would make modern white supremacists sound like a bunch of hippies.

And it is not like uneducated people ever think they know more than educated folk, never ever.

Mostly because a lot of educated folk consists of people with non-STEM degrees. I'm sorry, people who major in "diversity studies" aren't educated.

Also, what is a palace historian? Historians in higher education aren't typically known for being partisan left-wingers...

Those whose views correspond with that of ruling elite? Same type of historians in Turkey claim that Armenian genocide never happened.

[Heathen Hammer]

I like how this argument can be used to pretty much justify any act committed by the government, from state-sanctioned vandalism to a genocide.

[Gaidin]

I like how this argument can be used to pretty much justify any act committed by the government, from state-sanctioned vandalism to a genocide.

Which state sanctioned group was vandalizing them as opposed to removing them as ordered.

[Alastor]

the op says nothing of what either of you have taken from it. the op said how can amoral relativist, liberal, atheist, evolutionist justify the claim one randomly evolved animal [themselves] is correct while another randomly evolved animal, is not. what makes their chemicals correct over what another thinks is true. on what grounds does it appeal to say it is correct over another.

Amoral relativist? I assume you speak of moral relativism. In which case the justification stems from the standpoint. Moral relativism is just that, the rejection of absolute standpoints, not the rejection of morality. But if you want to speak strictly amorally, then I suppose you revert to instinct. True if you reject morality there is no right or wrong. There is still counterproductive and dangerous though. The imperative is the continuation of the species. To do that you need to form social groups. Acts that put those groups at risk are a threat to the survival of the whole. Therefore this individual animal with its destructive tendencies is an aberration to be expunged from the group in order to safeguard it's survival. I would say that morality as a whole was created as a means to accommodate exactly that. The elimination of undesirable behaviours, dangerous to the group.

My approach in such matters is fairly simple. I have a personal morality that applies to myself and how I conduct my business. But that's where it stops. I accept that others have their own and it is different to mine, maybe even contradictory. At the same time I can understand that society needs to function because on my own I will be eaten by the wolves, suffer and ultimately be unable to pass down my genes and satisfy my imperatives. So for that to happen and since I can't rightly claim my morality is more correct than anyone else's the path of least interference is preferable. Live and let live. I do things my way, others their way. So on the group level, I support groups, movements and ideas that conform to this approach, oppose those that do the opposite. Naturally, both the racists and the antifa, fall in the latter category.

[conon394]

Just because you were elected, doesn't mean you have a right to use your power to LARP as ISIS, which is what city councils in Charlotsville and New Orleans did by ordering removal of historic monuments that were erected long before these government officials were even born. I can see that being put under referendum where locals can decide by themselves.

Umm so your all down with the elected officials of the CSA defending slavery by treason? But not elected officials now removing the monuments to men who lost. Put in place well after the CSA lost - to what intimidate the dark folk? The point of democracy is you loose elections and than deal until the next vote. I don't believe removing a statue violates any basic law of the land or law of SC, if it did the white supremacists could have simply changed it in court. Besides who really cares about the guy who lost the war? I thought Americans liked winners but one of Grant in the same spot.

Consider the banal alternative in 1920 a city via its elected representatives decided to have a park, now 100 years later the same government decided to have (via its representatives) an expensive condo development to deal with current reality? That is just democracy and you know people changing.

[Heathen Hammer]

Umm so your all down with the elected officials of the CSA defending slavery by treason?

They defended independence, to the same extent US itself did in 1700s. Lincoln himself didn't give a squad about welfare of slaves and was openly racist. Locals like them because they fought for their land and independence.

But not elected officials now removing the monuments to men who lost.

Does that mean they should remove monuments to soldiers that were KIA in Vietnam?

Put in place well after the CSA lost - to what intimidate the dark folk?

If someone feels intimidated by an inanimate object, they should probably see a psychiatrist.

The point of democracy is you loose elections and than deal until the next vote. I don't believe removing a statue violates any basic law of the land or law of SC, if it did the white supremacists could have simply changed it in court. Besides who really cares about the guy who lost the war? I thought Americans liked winners but one of Grant in the same spot.

Again, does that mean Vietnam monuments should be removed?

Consider the banal alternative in 1920 a city via its elected representatives decided to have a park, now 100 years later the same government decided to have (via its representatives) an expensive condo development to deal with current reality? That is just democracy and you know people changing.

Yeah, sure and government allowing people to own slaves way back when was also "democracy". It should not be up to government officials to do things like that. If the issue is too controversial, then have a referendum, where locals will decide instead of some career politician.

Which state sanctioned group was vandalizing them as opposed to removing them as ordered.

State itself, which made such orders.

[Gaidin]

State itself, which made such orders.

Produce the orders as generated by the state legislatures or local councils to vandalize the statues instead of remove them to ordered alternate location.

[NorseThing]

They defended independence, to the same extent US itself did in 1700s. Lincoln himself didn't give a squad about welfare of slaves and was openly racist. Locals like them because they fought for their land and independence.

Hmmm.... I do not whether Lincoln was a racist whether openly or not. I also do not know whether he gave anything about their welfare or not. If these were deleted from your post, would it matter? If yes, why are these statements included. Personally I do believe Lincoln cared. In the context of the times I do not know if racism was even a bit of an issue no matter what your beliefs. This is not germane to the discussion or I am missing your point.