Confederate Statues, Liberalism, Moral Relativism and White Supremacists

[TheDarkKnight]

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

Precisely. And I can't think of a single statue of any Founding Fathers in England besides one of Washington in London.

The difference of course being, the South lost. And I see no reason to honor them for that.

[Heathen Hammer]

Precisely. And I can't think of a single statue of any Founding Fathers in England besides one of Washington in London.

The difference of course being, the South lost. And I see no reason to honor them for that.

So basically you are advocating for removal of statues to KIA in Vietnam? Cuz you know, US lost there.

[Prodromos]

So basically you are advocating for removal of statues to KIA in Vietnam? Cuz you know, US lost there.

It was a tie!



(Well, decisive military victory, but political loss)

[Gaidin]

So basically you are advocating for removal of statues to KIA in Vietnam? Cuz you know, US lost there.

Do we have any memorials to US people and/or dead IN Vietnam? Or are they giving us the finger?

Understand the question before answering.

[TheDarkKnight]

So basically you are advocating for removal of statues to KIA in Vietnam? Cuz you know, US lost there.

I really don't think you are seeing the point. Or you are intentionally ignoring it. Vietnam is not a good comparison because it was not a civil war (for us). The British one was the closest you came but it fell short because you don't see the British honoring Henry Knox, Anthony Wayne, Nathaniel Greene, Benjamin Lincoln, or any of the Colonial generals besides Washington, and I feel like that is just a special case because the statue was donated and the British didn't want to turn down a gift from one of its allies. Heck, I don't even think the British celebrate Arnold in any way because despite their issues with the colonies he was still a person who changed sides.

It makes no sense at all for the United States to celebrate the soldiers and generals who chose to fight against their own government for some perceived inequities. They are traitors to the US government, plain and simple. Whether the South wants to view it as such is their problematic prerogative, but ultimately history and the (legitimate) government in Washington DC has decided that they were traitors and acted against the best interests of the United States.

Honor them in museums or even on battlefield monuments, where that kind of history belongs. Don't honor them with parks, statues, and the like. Because their decision to turn against their own government ended in disaster and the deaths of more than half a million US citizens. I'm not advocating the destruction of these statues and forgetting their names, but keep their memories in appropriate places.

I'm not quite sure why that is so difficult to grasp...We aren't likely to build any statues to Snowden and Manning in the future, nor should we. It should be the same with Southern generals. Traitors, no matter their cause, are simply not worth honoring in this way.

[TheDarkKnight]

Are we really comparing a large, impressively engineered and constructed structure such as the Colosseum that was built nearly two thousand years ago (and is a testament to the might and ingenuity of an entire empire) to simple statues of traitors who fought for a losing cause?

[Cope]

Are we really comparing a large, impressively engineered and constructed structure such as the Colosseum that was built nearly two thousand years ago (and is a testament to the might and ingenuity of an entire empire) to simple statues of traitors who fought for a losing cause?

The debate concerning Confederate statues is focused on the motive behind their construction. As IronBrig has correctly highlighted, resistance to these statues is not derived from their artistic/engineering "might" (or lack thereof) but from the purpose of their erection - which was malicious in its intent. Had Confederate sympathizers constructed monuments as "impressive" as the Colosseum, the argument in favour of their removal or deconstruction would be no different.

That said, it is self-evidently the case that the Colosseum was constructed with sinister intentions - both as blood sport arena for the unwilling and as a monument to imperial power (which itself was derived from brutal military conquest). Thus, the only two meaningful differentials between it (the Colosseum) and the Confederate monuments are context and proximity. As to the former, it is clearly true that the Colosseum is treated as an historical entity whilst many Confederate monuments are not. It should therefore follow that either: a) appropriate information corresponding to the history and purpose of the Confederate monuments be provided on site or b) they should be moved (as you have suggested) to historical centers. Neither of these solutions, however, are synonymous with destruction.

As to the latter differential (proximity), it begs the question of how much temporal space is necessary before the original purpose of an icon becomes irrelevant in a contemporary social/political context, if it ever does. Both the Roman Empire and the Confederacy are dead - though the remnants of both remain in modern society. Indeed, despite its more distant proximity, the ripples of the Empire are far more prevalent than those of the Confederacy.

[TheDarkKnight]

HH, the South lost. Therefore they are part of the United States. Their honored dead should be those that fought on the side of the Union...you know...The United States.

I don't care if they feel they should remember the past in a reasonable way, but they are honoring the wrong side.

[Heathen Hammer]

HH, the South lost. Therefore they are part of the United States. Their honored dead should be those that fought on the side of the Union...you know...The United States.

I don't care if they feel they should remember the past in a reasonable way, but they are honoring the wrong side.

Um, Confederates fought on the Southern side, so it makes sense to honor those that fought on their side. Just like it makes sense for Irish to honor those that fought against Cromwell, or for Taiwanese to honor Nationalist China soldiers, rather then Mao's troops.
Whether they won or lost is irrelevant.
Western countries are full of monuments dedicated to those that fought on the "losing side", from Vercigentorix and Harold Godwinson to Paris commune and Budapest uprising.

What the hell are you talking about? That's exactly how it works. Our representatives represent us. If we don't like how they represent us we god damn well vote them out of office in the next election. If there's an egregious offense by a particular representative some states may have procedures for recall. No one knows this better than you and crowing about how well 2010 went against the Democrats.

Don't push this. This is a self-defeating argument for you.

We already went through this. If some Democrat appartchik is bothered by a historical monument, then do a referendum where locals themselves get to decide, as opposed to some government official.

[Gaidin]

We already went through this. If some Democrat appartchik is bothered by a historical monument, then do a referendum where locals themselves get to decide, as opposed to some government official.

I already answered this. Referendums aren't the default way for any Council to do anything. That's why a city elects them. So that the members represent the city's citizens and they make decisions in concert with the mayor on behalf of the city's citizens. If the decisions are not liked they are voted out of office in the next election. A referendum is generally the sign of them being scared of a decision and passing it on down to the voters so they can say "not my fault it failed/succeeded".

Or in your case, you're just scared of what's being done in this particular case and want to amend the entire method of governing for some strange reason.

[The spartan]

Um, Confederates fought on the Southern side, so it makes sense to honor those that fought on their side. Just like it makes sense for Irish to honor those that fought against Cromwell, or for Taiwanese to honor Nationalist China soldiers, rather then Mao's troops.
Whether they won or lost is irrelevant.
Western countries are full of monuments dedicated to those that fought on the "losing side", from Vercigentorix and Harold Godwinson to Paris commune and Budapest uprising.

Those analogies aren't analogous. The Irish certainly didn't see themselves in a civil war and would not be considered traitors to the British as they weren't British themselves. Taiwan is still a national entity, there is no Confederacy government and hasn't been since 1865. Your insistence for countries to honor literal traitors is strange.

We already went through this. If some Democrat appartchik is bothered by a historical monument, then do a referendum where locals themselves get to decide, as opposed to some government official.

"Went through this" implies you explained your reasoning, which you didn't. You just keep saying a referendum is required when it's not.

[TheDarkKnight]

There are no more Confederates. Their "country" was conquered within four years. All of their descendants are US citizens.

It does not make sense for them to honor not only the rightfully losing side but the actual wrong party (traitors)in the conflict.

Look, my family is southern so I kind of get it. But history and fire power has shown that the confederate were the losers in both ideology and conflict. I see no reason for that to be celebrated. Remembered in museums, absolutely. That's where it belongs. But beyond that slides into idiocy, and further contributes to a region of the country that can't seem to get over a war that they lost a hundred and fifty years ago.

[Heathen Hammer]

So now there is another weird "progressive" myth, according to which there was a secret Confederate conspiracy to build Confederate statues to "intimidate black people". The ironic part is that this crazy theory is mostly coming from Democrats. You know, the actual white supremacist party that fought tooth and nail to prevent black people from having equal rights, and only changed their views a few decades ago.

Those analogies aren't analogous. The Irish certainly didn't see themselves in a civil war and would not be considered traitors to the British as they weren't British themselves. Taiwan is still a national entity, there is no Confederacy government and hasn't been since 1865. Your insistence for countries to honor literal traitors is strange.

Again, Confederates fought for the South, so it is normal for Southerners to support those that fought on their side. Technically the only traitors here are the government officials who want to remove these statues.

"Went through this" implies you explained your reasoning, which you didn't. You just keep saying a referendum is required when it's not.

I did, and just like in case with you claiming that Lincoln was some kind of civil rights activist, I've proved my argument as correct, while the only response is simply repeating the argument that I already disproved. Just because you agree with a decision made by the government official because it corresponds with your far-left views doesn't mean that decision didn't require consent from the population.

There are no more Confederates. Their "country" was conquered within four years. All of their descendants are US citizens.

It does not make sense for them to honor not only the rightfully losing side but the actual wrong party (traitors)in the conflict.

But Confederates were not traitors, therefore it makes sense for Southerners to honor them. Hell, even Union didn't view them as such.

Look, my family is southern so I kind of get it. But history and fire power has shown that the confederate were the losers in both ideology and conflict. I see no reason for that to be celebrated. Remembered in museums, absolutely. That's where it belongs. But beyond that slides into idiocy, and further contributes to a region of the country that can't seem to get over a war that they lost a hundred and fifty years ago.

Again, it is part of their heritage and identity. There is nothing wrong with celebrating soldiers who fought for their land against Union, who from Southern perspective were invaders and occupants. Each side has its own heroes and celebrates them. Why is that so hard to understand?

Most of those statues are not 100+ years old. And how are you confused why people would be upset by it? Statues can be very upsetting depending on their context; why do you think people gathered into a big mob to tear down the statue of Saddam Hussein?

because they didn't want to get shot by the "liberators"?

People in the South have been feeling uncomfortable about those statues for decades, there has just not much they could do about it until relatively recently (the local governments were controlled by people who wanted to keep them). This isn't a sudden outrage for the people who genuinely care.

Nobody was uncomofrotable about these statues until some Democrat apparatchik decided that those guys in ISIS are actually on to something.

[The spartan]

The belief in the Lost Cause is still alive to this day. It is also kinda creepy.

[NorseThing]

The belief in any lost cause after many generations is creepy. It is not just the American Civil War, but you need go no further than the Middle East to see how this belief in lost causes can be a problem for people. Rather than looking to the future or even being concerned with the welfare of people in the present, they are focusing on that which never could be.

[IronBrig4]

If the purpose of monuments was just to honor local soldiers who fought, then there'd be USCT monuments throughout the South. Those are relatively rare and most were put up very recently. There should also be monuments to Southern Unionists in West Virginia and Kentucky, but they are heavily outnumbered by Confederate monuments even though both states were Union during the war. But USCT and Union monuments weren't put up in those areas because white Southern mobs would have responded with violence and terrorism as per usual.

Most of the Confederate monuments were put up as yet another symbol to intimidate local blacks into silence during the height of Jim Crow. The American Historical Association, independent historians, and Ken Burns have all said that.

One reason the Lost Cause stayed for so long is because white Southerners wallowed in self-pity for over a century. Except for hubs like Atlanta and New Orleans, the South was an economic and cultural backwater. There was little else to be proud of except for their ancestors' participation in a four-year hissy fit. They enthusiastically participated in "Redemption" and sabotaged their own development in order to maintain the old hierarchy.

[TheDarkKnight]

If the purpose of monuments was just to honor local soldiers who fought, then there'd be USCT monuments throughout the South. Those are relatively rare and most were put up very recently. There should also be monuments to Southern Unionists in West Virginia and Kentucky, but they are heavily outnumbered by Confederate monuments even though both states were Union during the war. But USCT and Union monuments weren't put up in those areas because white Southern mobs would have responded with violence and terrorism as per usual.

Most of the Confederate monuments were put up as yet another symbol to intimidate local blacks into silence during the height of Jim Crow. The American Historical Association, independent historians, and Ken Burns have all said that.

One reason the Lost Cause stayed for so long is because white Southerners wallowed in self-pity for over a century. Except for hubs like Atlanta and New Orleans, the South was an economic and cultural backwater. There was little else to be proud of except for their ancestors' participation in a four-year hissy fit. They enthusiastically participated in "Redemption" and sabotaged their own development in order to maintain the old hierarchy.

The bold is a really good point. USCT were what, 200,000 strong at their height in the war? And they get almost no recognition for their efforts.

The underlined part reminds me of Vicksburg. In their self-pity over what happened during the war the city refused to celebrate the 4th of July for EIGHT decades. Eighty years. I could understand a few years after the war, absolutely. I think we all could to some degree. But eighty years? That in an insane level of devotion to a lost cause.

[Prodromos]

The only people creepily focusing on old things, are those kids throwing a tantrum over century-old statues. I have no idea why they care so much. It is seriously bizarre. One day everything is okay, the next day people living a thousand miles away are violently enraged about a Virginia statue? This is not normal. But I see that pretty much nobody is discussing the issue in the news now, so I'm guessing it was just the fake outrage of the week.

[The spartan]

The only people creepily focusing on old things, are those kids throwing a tantrum over century-old statues. I have no idea why they care so much. It is seriously bizarre. One day everything is okay, the next day people living a thousand miles away are violently enraged about a Virginia statue? This is not normal. But I see that pretty much nobody is discussing the issue in the news now, so I'm guessing it was just the fake outrage of the week.

Most of those statues are not 100+ years old. And how are you confused why people would be upset by it? Statues can be very upsetting depending on their context; why do you think people gathered into a big mob to tear down the statue of Saddam Hussein? People in the South have been feeling uncomfortable about those statues for decades, there has just not much they could do about it until relatively recently (the local governments were controlled by people who wanted to keep them). This isn't a sudden outrage for the people who genuinely care.

[NorseThing]

Vicksburg being mentioned reminds me of many decades ago as a child doing a junior high classroom report. The people suffered so terribly under the siege. I understand how they would not celebrate the fourth of July for quite a while after the end of the siege. I undertand why even the children of those who lived might be bitter. This is when I learned that people did believe in at least the memory of a lost cause and why such a belief held for so long. It is still better not to cling to such beliefs as a substitute for celebration of causes worth supporting though.

I do not know why such bitterness and memories are so important to people that are not related in any way to the events. So much today is 'remembered' in error by people that never lived through an event nor took an interest to actually study about the event. Stating you even hate the sound of a person's name for what you think the person represents is silly. Tearing down statues in a riotous manner is silly in the same way.