Confederate Statues, Liberalism, Moral Relativism and White Supremacists

[The spartan]

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.

Racism exists on a spectrum, and Lincoln would most likely come off as more racist than many people today. That said, he was still an abolitionist and would have favored simply ending slavery were such a solution possible. He just knew that it wasn't possible and was willing to take a long term strategy to avoid war (via the Free Soilers). Unfortunately for Lincoln and millions of Americans, war came anyways.

[the_mango55]

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.

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

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

Again, does that mean Vietnam monuments should be removed?

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.

State itself, which made such orders.

We don't have any statues to the Vietcong as far as I know, but if we do they should be removed, yes.

[IronBrig4]

From the Journal of the Abraham Lincoln Association. It's an older article but it's written by an actual historian. https://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jala/26...;view=fulltext

As we continue to study Lincoln we continue to define ourselves. Most historians have discarded the myth of the saintly Great Emancipator, but they have also rejected the counter myth of Lincoln as a hopeless racist.[43] We are judging Lincoln by different standards now from those we used a decade ago. Our sense of presidential leadership has changed. We are no longer confident that strong leaders can solve our problems, and in the post- Vietnam, post-Watergate era, the idea of a President who moves far beyond the nation in implementing his ideas arouses our suspicions. We are far more ready now to recognize the conditions that limit the actions of strong leaders for good or for ill.

[Gaidin]

So no official orders to vandalize the statues. That's... ummm... interesting.

[IronBrig4]

But globalist, statist historians are in cahoots with the NWO. Haven't you heard?

You know, part of me wonders if we should have a War of the Worlds type broadcast just for white nationalists. Maybe see how many of them take it seriously and shut themselves up in their bunkers forever.

[NorseThing]

Assuming confederate statues represent racism, I would like to ask a few questions of liberals that seems odd to me. The majority of liberals are atheistic, moral relativist and evolutionist. Since all man evolved from random chemicals that got together for a survival advantage, and there is no God there can be no higher moral code or absolutes. This is why liberalism will be angry with Christians for saying there are absolutes right and wrongs such as abortion, gay marriage etc. To a moral relativist, there is no right or wrong.

"In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, and other people are going to get lucky; and you won’t find any rhyme or reason to it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to its music."
Richard Dawkins, --Out of Eden, page 133

So given those assumptions often believed by the liberal. How can they turn around and say white supremacy is evil. To be clear as a christian I cant find any justification for white supremacy, but I appeal to the bible for justification. The moral relativist claims there is no higher authority or absolute right and wrong. So a white supremacists is just acting on his chemical reactions and just "dancing to his genes" by being what he is just as a homosexual is acting on his own genes.

So if moral relativism is true, how can a liberal claim it is wrong in any way to be a Nazi [who were big government socialist]or racism? I would also like to mention it is the left that is obsessed with race and seeks to divide us.

]http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...s-White-Guilt]


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? Are we not to seek understanding of other cultures instead of hatred and violence? are we no longer cultural relativist?

Lets go back. Yes lets go back to the beginning of this thread. A bunch of assumptions and then two questions. The assumptions tend to be supporting a moral relativist point of view and the questions then question such a view. They can indeed claim that Nazis and the ism is evil --- that is the beauty or relativism. It need not compete with a view that I could hold: Nazis need not be evil or are indeed God's answer to a white man that he and he alone is the image of god. The second question is answered the same as the first. All that is needed is moral relativism and all is possible. I do not claim to understand or deny that there is some basis for a moral relativist argument. I just cannot see how this is answerable based on the original post assumptions.

[ramiroh146]

The thing about supremacist is they who believe in this try to force others to believe in the same thing if not by preaching then by force. That is wrong. People need to let people live with out labels.
Once this happens
Supremacist fail to exist. Then life will continue in peace.
But this will never happen . Mankind is not smart enough to figure this out.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J120A using Tapatalk

[IronBrig4]

Historians have their degree in history. I have a PhD in history too. Not diversity studies. That's what makes us historians.

Typically those who have a deep-seated resentment for historians, scientists, universities, and academia in general couldn't hack it in university. That's why they're so bitter.

[Heathen Hammer]

Huh, this seems familiar some how.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuDDgXzJWWA

Ya gonna expand on that, or just repeat it until you are blue in the face? What aspect of it is anti-intellectual? What schools have removed Robert E Lee from the history books? What actual intellectual discourse has been effected by removing the statue from public places and how would that make sense?

Because there is not a single intellectually coherent argument in favor of removing Confederate statues.

So, what, you are trying to discredit Lincoln or something? I already said his views weren't as enlightened as many people today, but you were the one claiming he chose to be an abolitionist purposefully to alienate the South which is what I was rebutting. He certainly wasn't as racist as most of the South, strictly by the virtue of being an abolitionist. He didn't see black people as literal property as a lot of other people at the time did. And of course he didn't want slaves, he was an abolitionist. He wrote about how owning slaves was wrong.

Him being an abolitionist, is, as it was pointed out earlier, entirely irrelevant. He clearly expressed views and pointed that welfare of slaves is irrelevant to him.

That doesn't relate to your previous comment. You said Diversity Studies, I am guessing to try and link historians to Liberal Arts or something. You still haven't called out any historian who has published information on Lincoln's life or why they would be lying.

That's not what I claimed to begin with.

So...because many people Turkey deny the Armenian Genocide, that means historians of the civil war in the US are lying? How does that flow logically?

And what ideology am I advocating for here? Believing educated historians? This is some desperate false equivalency here.

I'm just pointing out the whole "appeal to authority" thing you have going on in your posts.

Historians have their degree in history. I have a PhD in history too. Not diversity studies. That's what makes us historians.

Typically those who have a deep-seated resentment for historians, scientists, universities, and academia in general couldn't hack it in university. That's why they're so bitter.

If one is making anecdotal claims or trying to support his argument by claiming how one is rich/educated/well-built IRL means one is trying to avoid the actual argument and trying to prove something .... to oneself? Or maybe just being bitter.

[The spartan]

Because there is not a single intellectually coherent argument in favor of removing Confederate statues.

Seriously? You don't think there could possibly be a good reason for removing Confederate statues? Like, you can't even think of a hypothetical? What if people just didn't want them there anymore? Are the local politicians going to come back with "Sorry, that isn't intellectually coherent"?

That is still not what anti-intellectualism is. What part of the intellectual community or intellectual discourse was damaged by removing the statues from public places? If the answer is "none were" then that isn't anti-intellectualism.

Him being an abolitionist, is, as it was pointed out earlier, entirely irrelevant. He clearly expressed views and pointed that welfare of slaves is irrelevant to him.

Your first claim was that Lincoln didn't care about the slaves, despite his belief that all black people in the US deserved to be free, which was by no means a universal belief at the time. Then you claimed that "He was an abolitionist because he wanted to with South" and I explained why he actually was an abolitionist (because of his parents) and it had nothing to do with resentment towards the South.

That's not what I claimed to begin with.

Then why bring up Diversity Studies at all? That has nothing to do with Historians in higher education.

I'm just pointing out the whole "appeal to authority" thing you have going on in your posts.

Wait, you aren't supposed to appeal to authority on the historical biography of a person? How else are you going to know anything about that person's life? Are you going to read ALL the period source documents that involve that person and synthesize a narrative from that? I don't think anyone who doesn't have experience in historical work would know how to do that. I don't know how to do that. Are we just supposed to guess or make up a narrative that fits what we want to be true about that person? I guess what I am asking is: if you think appealing to an expert who researched Lincoln's life is inappropriate, where the else are you getting your information?

[The spartan]

Then it should be decided via a small referendum by the local population.

Not every issue gets a referendum nor is it required. If the decision really upset the large majority of people, they will express that next election.

It had everything to do with maintain US whole and he didn't care about the slaves, he even stated that himself. (as was pointed out several times in the Charlotssville thread)

His abolitionist ideology did not help him keep the union intact, in fact it jeopardized it. The South was convinced he was going to free all the slaves there, but Lincoln did not see that as politically viable. Again, you are disregarding the fact that Lincoln was an abolitionist long before he was president. He wasn't faking it as a political pleaser.
You were the one who made a comment about evil rednecks hating educated city-dwelling folk or some other Hollywood stereotype that doesn't exist IRL.

*yawn* Again, not what I said.
There are many historians with different interpretations of history. You are just cherry picking those whose interpretation fits your political views.

This isn't a policy debate, I am pretty sure the historical facts about Lincoln's life are pretty well established. If you have historians from higher education facilities that say Lincoln was only cosmetically abolitionist, by all means, share.

Edit: I should also add that I am not interested in regional stereotypes such as southern rednecks and costal elites. I have known plenty of fine academics from the South and some trashy people in the North. I was raised in Florida and have no inherent animosity to Southerners.

[irontaino]

NThis isn't a policy debate, I am pretty sure the historical facts about Lincoln's life are pretty well established.

Ah, but what about the alternative historical facts?

If you have historians from higher education facilities that say Lincoln was only cosmetically abolitionist, by all means, share.

Don't cha know? Everyone involved in higher education is part of the Soros Illuminati Reptilian Killary Cabal.

[Heathen Hammer]

Not every issue gets a referendum nor is it required. If the decision really upset the large majority of people, they will express that next election.

That's not how it works.

His abolitionist ideology did not help him keep the union intact, in fact it jeopardized it. The South was convinced he was going to free all the slaves there, but Lincoln did not see that as politically viable. Again, you are disregarding the fact that Lincoln was an abolitionist long before he was president. He wasn't faking it as a political pleaser.

"If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."
Sounds like Lincoln himself just proved you wrong.
I can post some of his quotes on black people, but I gotta warn you, that's some hateful stuff.

Again, the quote above If you have historians from higher education facilities that say Lincoln was only cosmetically abolitionist, by all means, share.

Seems like "historians" you refer to knew more about Lincoln's views, then Lincoln himself, at least based on the above quote, as well as many others.

[TheDarkKnight]

I'm fine with removal. They should go to a museum though...not be destroyed.

I'm not a fan of destroying anything remotely historical, really for any reason.

[NorseThing]

Hunters shot the Dodo bird into extinction. Some think that was a bad thing to do.

The early colonial American days saw the Europeans push against the native populations. Many tribes were made extinct and many more were dislocated and suffered huge loss of population and huge dislocations to culture. Some think this was a bad idea.

Now we want to riot and tear down every vestige of the civil war remembered and the men who fought on the losing side. Some think this is a good idea. Maybe some people can be blind until it is too late to open their eyes.

[Heathen Hammer]

Essentially, advocating for removal of the statues because these people supported something that was acceptable at the time is like advocating removal of Roman ruins because Romans crucified people.

[IronBrig4]

But the Confederate monuments were put up with the intent to intimidate the local black populations and to further Lost Cause mythology.

From New Orleans' mayor Mitch Landrieu:

The historic record is clear, the Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis, and P.G.T. Beauregard statues were not erected just to honor these men, but as part of the movement which became known as The Cult of the Lost Cause. This ‘cult’ had one goal — through monuments and through other means — to rewrite history to hide the truth, which is that the Confederacy was on the wrong side of humanity. First erected over 166 years after the founding of our city and 19 years after the end of the Civil War, the monuments that we took down were meant to rebrand the history of our city and the ideals of a defeated Confederacy. It is self-evident that these men did not fight for the United States of America, They fought against it. They may have been warriors, but in this cause they were not patriots. These statues are not just stone and metal. They are not just innocent remembrances of a benign history. These monuments purposefully celebrate a fictional, sanitized Confederacy; ignoring the death, ignoring the enslavement, and the terror that it actually stood for.

After the Civil War, these statues were a part of that terrorism as much as a burning cross on someone’s lawn; they were erected purposefully to send a strong message to all who walked in their shadows about who was still in charge in this city.

You can also read the whole speech here. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/23/o...t.html?mcubz=0

Again, nearly all American historians are in agreement on this.

PS - The Roman ruins analogy doesn't quite work. Roman bath houses weren't constructed in a deliberate attempt to intimidate the local population into silence, or to keep them from getting too "uppity."

[Cope]

] The Roman ruins analogy doesn't quite work. Roman bath houses weren't constructed in a deliberate attempt to intimidate the local population into silence, or to keep them from getting too "uppity."

The Colosseum was a functional theatre of death: nearly all historians are in agreement on this. Should it, as an unambiguous monument to the institutional slavery of the Roman Empire, be dismantled?

[TheDarkKnight]

It's also not really applicable because of the fact that Roman baths don't cast traitors as heroic.

Don't get me wrong...I think a lot of the Confederate officers were great men...Before the war. Many of them were still (relatively) great men during the war. Lee is pretty much admired as a great man regardless of states.

But that does not stop them from being traitors. Forget the whole slavery/state's rights issue. They declared and carried out a war against their own country. I don't think we should honor that outside of anything like museum pieces.

Though I think battlefield monuments should stay, regardless of who/what is represented on them.

[Heathen Hammer]

But the Confederate monuments were put up with the intent to intimidate the local black populations and to further Lost Cause mythology.

Actually, just like most statues, they were built to honor men who fought in a war for their land.

It's also not really applicable because of the fact that Roman baths don't cast traitors as heroic.

They "betrayed" Union as much as USA itself "betrayed" British Empire.