Confederate Statues, Liberalism, Moral Relativism and White Supremacists

[IronBrig4]

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.

Neo-Confederates and white nationalists tend to be failed individuals. That's why they cling to the embellished memory of a failed rebellion or their skin color. It's the only thing that makes them feel good about themselves.

As for tearing down statues, that's just vandalism and not an answer. But a city council voting to move them to a more suitable location is just fine.

[swabian]

Neo-Confederates and white nationalists tend to be failed individuals. That's why they cling to the embellished memory of a failed rebellion or their skin color.

Are you sure you're not talking about 'ghetto gangstas' or something?

It's the only thing that makes them feel good about themselves.

Now, that's some deep insight you're sharing here with the world.

Did you spend some time with those despicable elements of society? If so, why?

[IronBrig4]

I know it sounds apocryphal. I thought my friend was making it up too. But I had to see it to believe it. If you'd like I can send you the Youtube link.

[IronBrig4]

Mundane criminal behavior is generally apolitical.

And yes, I've spent some time with them. I used to play Airsoft in a group that contained a few of the neo-Confederate and militia types. They seriously thought it was combat training for the Second Civil War.

Another was the cousin of a friend. He'd been raised in backwoods Texas and had mostly been homeschooled by evangelical and white supremacist parents. He was already screwed up and THEN the Army sent him to Iraq where he became radicalized. Nordic tattoos, death metal hate music, every conspiracy theory you can think of, etc. He was simply seething with resentment towards minorities and women who were more successful than he was. And he wasn't successful at all. He was even on Judge Judy because he couldn't pay child support for the two families he had; the guy reproduced with all the wisdom of a stray tomcat.

[swabian]

He was even on Judge Judy because he couldn't pay child support for the two families he had;

right...

I hope you don't take it personally if i embrace those anecdotes of yours with some due scepticism.

[swabian]

Sir, that's none of my busines. I'm sure you are occupied with teaching more serious history somewhere else.

[TheDarkKnight]

At the time, yes it makes sense.

Over a century and a half later? It has trended towards and stayed in Lost Cause territory and it is rather sad. The Confederates WERE the bad side in the conflict...They were on the wrong side of history. That much is a fact. And by starting the war any sympathy that might have been felt by contemporary historians had been lost. No one "invaded" their lands...It was simply US soldiers putting down an errant and misguided revolt over perceived slights to their "rights".

And yes, they were traitors to the United States. Why you continue to argue that baffles me.


They pretty much fit every qualification in that definition, especially the officers. How were they not?

[hellheaven1987]

And yes, they were traitors to the United States.

I think it is not a surprise the descents of traitors became traitors themselves.

[Heathen Hammer]

At the time, yes it makes sense.

Over a century and a half later? It has trended towards and stayed in Lost Cause territory and it is rather sad. The Confederates WERE the bad side in the conflict...They were on the wrong side of history. That much is a fact. And by starting the war any sympathy that might have been felt by contemporary historians had been lost. No one "invaded" their lands...It was simply US soldiers putting down an errant and misguided revolt over perceived slights to their "rights".

And yes, they were traitors to the United States. Why you continue to argue that baffles me.

No, they were not traitors, since they fought for the South, and US was technically an invader since they declared independence from it, so you can't betray something that you are no longer a part of.
Again, I don't even know how to explain this in simpler terms. You just call them such because you side with another side, which is quite weird to see people in 2017 take sides on a conflict that ended in 1860s. What can I say? Liberals.

[RubiconDecision]

It's the worst kind of political hysteria to be terrified and simultaneously incensed by a statue of a Confederate general. It's a freaking monument. Get over your outrage.

The Left has become the new Taliban desiring to blow up the wooden Buddhas.

I know, let's pull down statues of Julius Caesar because he was a dictator too. Let's erase history as they have done in Russia and China. We'll have committees who censor history and unpopular people who offend us by taking a vote and doing it democratically...you know good old mob rule.

Why stop there? Let's just remove those that offend the mob as they did in the French Revolution. Everyone can be accused by the mob and disempowered in every way because they offend the mob. That way the mob can take the private property and the jobs of these Enemies of the State.

That will be immensely popular until members of the mob lose their own heads...as happened in the French Revolution.

[IronBrig4]

I know, let's pull down statues of Julius Caesar because he was a dictator too. Let's erase history as they have done in Russia and China. We'll have committees who censor history and unpopular people who offend us by taking a vote and doing it democratically...you know good old mob rule.

Why stop there? Let's just remove those that offend the mob as they did in the French Revolution. Everyone can be accused by the mob and disempowered in every way because they offend the mob. That way the mob can take the private property and the jobs of these Enemies of the State.

I think you're being a tad alarmist.

And I'm sick of repeating myself, but it's not erasing history just to have a monument moved to a more suitable location. The largest professional organization of US historians has come out and said the monuments were put up in a deliberate attempt to impose upon the local black populations.

Caesar was a dictator from the classical era and so is a much more complex figure than Confederate leaders. The former helped to usher in the Roman Empire. The latter only led a short-lived, failed rebellion that ushered in one hundred years of white Southern terrorism.

[RubiconDecision]

Washington certainly was a traitor to the British. We have already discussed this. Which is why I was surprised to find the Brits have a statue of him. But it was donated by Virginia...a gift to a foreign ally. And the Brits accepted the gift because they are a polite lot and there is a lot of mutual respect between British and us.

It's not the same situation with the Confederacy. Again...they betrayed their country, their friends, and their principles. Do I need to post the picture again?

Edit: Screw it, I will post the picture again, because apparently it is necessary.

That's the kind of pseudointellectual political nonsense that labels those who don't agree with you as Nazis. That kind of reasoning has been utilized at Snowden. It's been used at Martin Luther King. It's been used to every Vietnam War protester. Screw that malevolent garbage. I won't accept your labels.

I think you're being a tad alarmist.

And I'm sick of repeating myself, but it's not erasing history just to have a monument moved to a more suitable location. The largest professional organization of US historians has come out and said the monuments were put up in a deliberate attempt to impose upon the local black populations.

Caesar was a dictator from the classical era and so is a much more complex figure than Confederate leaders. The former helped to usher in the Roman Empire. The latter only led a short-lived, failed rebellion that ushered in one hundred years of white Southern terrorism.

Balderdash. What was the political bent of these historians as their bias is outrageous by lumping in all Confederate monuments.

No no no. If you're going to start censoring the history that offends your sensibilities, then the museums will be plundered, the schools will all be renamed, and history will be a short lived presently palatable page of information that has no consistency but awaits the whim of the rabble.

[RubiconDecision]

This term "traitor" is too easily being applied as that would mean that those who supported the Confederacy should all have been executed.

Is George Washington a traitor?

Are Patrick Henry and all of the Antifederalists in your view traitors?

Weird.

[TheDarkKnight]

This term "traitor" is too easily being applied as that would mean that those who supported the Confederacy should all have been executed.

Is George Washington a traitor?

Are Patrick Henry and all of the Antifederalists in your view traitors?

Weird.

Washington certainly was a traitor to the British. We have already discussed this. Which is why I was surprised to find the Brits have a statue of him. But it was donated by Virginia...a gift to a foreign ally. And the Brits accepted the gift because they are a polite lot and there is a lot of mutual respect between British and us.

It's not the same situation with the Confederacy. Again...they betrayed their country, their friends, and their principles. Do I need to post the picture again?

Edit: Screw it, I will post the picture again, because apparently it is necessary.

[IronBrig4]

I've posted this statement twice, but much earlier in the thread so you probably didn't read it. I shall post it again for your benefit. https://www.historians.org/news-and-...rate-monuments

Decisions to remove memorials to Confederate generals and officials who have no other major historical accomplishment does not necessarily create a slippery slope towards removing the nation’s founders, former presidents, or other historical figures whose flaws have received substantial publicity in recent years. George Washington owned enslaved people, but the Washington Monument exists because of his contributions to the building of a nation. There is no logical equivalence between the builders and protectors of a nation—however imperfect—and the men who sought to sunder that nation in the name of slavery. There will be, and should be, debate about other people and events honored in our civic spaces. And precedents do matter. But so does historical specificity, and in this case the invocation of flawed analogies should not derail legitimate policy conversation.

The AHA is a professional organization, and its members are at the top of their fields. Feel free to argue against the experts if you'd like, but I think they're much better qualified than you. As for the purpose of those monuments, do you think it's a coincidence that there were so many lynchings during the spike in monument construction?

[RubiconDecision]

I've posted this statement twice, but much earlier in the thread so you probably didn't read it. I shall post it again for your benefit. https://www.historians.org/news-and-...rate-monuments

Decisions to remove memorials to Confederate generals and officials who have no other major historical accomplishment does not necessarily create a slippery slope towards removing the nation’s founders, former presidents, or other historical figures whose flaws have received substantial publicity in recent years. George Washington owned enslaved people, but the Washington Monument exists because of his contributions to the building of a nation. There is no logical equivalence between the builders and protectors of a nation—however imperfect—and the men who sought to sunder that nation in the name of slavery. There will be, and should be, debate about other people and events honored in our civic spaces. And precedents do matter. But so does historical specificity, and in this case the invocation of flawed analogies should not derail legitimate policy conversation.

The AHA is a professional organization, and its members are at the top of their fields. Feel free to argue against the experts if you'd like, but I think they're much better qualified than you. As for the purpose of those monuments, do you think it's a coincidence that there were so many lynchings during the spike in monument construction?

This is insanity. We're not installing Confederate monuments NOW but removing these historical monuments that have been in place for decades.

What other historical monuments do you and these clownish historians wish to eradicate from the American landscape?

This will never stop with Confedrates alone but will be ridiculously done for the Founding Fathers because when people make claims and want to dredge up the slave ownership of former historical leaders, and then use that to remove what offends them, then no political figures can withstand that scrutiny.

[IronBrig4]

Who's saying anything about eradicating monuments? These other historians and I (btw, I recently got a PhD in history) are just talking about removing them or putting up a plaque to place the monument in context. The AHA is the largest professional organization of historians in the US. It's to historians what the American Medical Association is for physicians.

And you keep using the slippery slope fallacy.

Edit: And although we aren't putting up Confederate monuments NOW they are currently used as rally points for the white nationalist vermin.

[RubiconDecision]

Who's saying anything about eradicating monuments? These other historians and I (btw, I recently got a PhD in history) are just talking about removing them or putting up a plaque to place the monument in context. The AHA is the largest professional organization of historians in the US. It's to historians what the American Medical Association is for physicians.

And you keep using the slippery slope fallacy.

Edit: And although we aren't putting up Confederate monuments NOW they are currently used as rally points for the white nationalist vermin.

Baloney. Not everyone who attends those rallies is a white nationalist. Many are on the right and pissed about assaults by Antifa and BAMM scum who actually are documentably making domestic terror acts.

And it's not up to some dry as dust intellectuals in academia to decide what to do as the mob in Black Lives Matter is making the decisions by knocking them over. Hey if a monument pisses you off, then destruction of public property is allowed if you're a flaming moronic domestic terrorist.

[IronBrig4]

Baloney. Not everyone who attends those rallies is a white nationalist. Many are on the right and pissed about assaults by Antifa and BAMM scum who actually are documentably making domestic terror acts.

EVERYBODY waving torches and chanting "Jews will not replace us!" at the rally last month was a white nationalist. The normal protesters weren't there because decent people don't associate with neo-Nazis and the like. Angry, bitter little people.

The historians have weighed in on this. And their statements carry more weight than yours because they're enforced by years of specialized study. That's why it's called expert opinion.

[RubiconDecision]

EVERYBODY waving torches and chanting "Jews will not replace us!" at the rally last month was a white nationalist. The normal protesters weren't there because decent people don't associate with neo-Nazis and the like. Angry, bitter little people.

The historians have weighed in on this. And their statements carry more weight than yours because they're enforced by years of specialized study. That's why it's called expert opinion.

Right because US academia is not 100 % leftist only 99% leftist, thus not entirely biased to the point of ignoring the very faults creating the civil unrest by the Left. Wake up and see Antifa, BAMM, and BLM for being 1000 times worse than a paltry number of white nationalists. That is the priority not Confederate freakin monuments.