Confederate Statues, Liberalism, Moral Relativism and White Supremacists

[Cope]

I can assure you my statement did not refer to their IQ at all. As for desire, you've gotta wonder how many conservatives take their cues from the likes of Rick Santorum, who famously called Obama a snob for wanting more Americans to go to college.

Actually, it may be a vicious cycle of conservative anti-intellectualism that sparks discrimination from liberal academics, which leads to more anti-intellectualism and so on.

I could congratulate you for having a sense of humour, but it's really just good old fashioned double-think and bigotry.

[RubiconDecision]

You do realize that once many people earned more money working in factories and in construction than their friends with basic degrees, right?

A college degree is very expensive and many people cannot find work based upon their degree but still must pay off the loan.

And inflation has ruined the chances of earning enough to be middle class for many.

And not everyone should be going to universities.

So there is a kind of snobbery about insisting everyone graduate from college.

Sure, we would all like young people to get a university degree and be professionals but never in history was that so. This is why the industrial base was a vital part of achieving the American Dream. Now that is largely over.

Meanwhile four years and most likely five years of no income then adds up. Meanwhile the university graduates and often finds no job but works as a waitress or bar tender. See the problem?

If the student graduates with a nursing degree they almost certainly will get a job. What about with a Doctorate in History? Many end up as part-time professors and never get tenure. Is it worth financially ?Maybe not?

It looks like on quick glance it is a 50-50 shot getting tenure in 14 years. Those are lousy odds but maybe they are doing something else. But does that pay enough to satisfy the loans and Iive reasonably well?

Tell us.

Here's a thought: maybe conservatives have that kind of thought process and decide that becoming a history professor is not worth it as an investment as the odds are not favorable?

[IronBrig4]

You do realize that once many people earned more money working in factories and in construction than their friends with basic degrees, right?

When was that?

A college degree is very expensive and many people cannot find work based upon their degree but still must pay off the loan.

And inflation has ruined the chances of earning enough to be middle class for many.

And not everyone should be going to universities.

So there is a kind of snobbery about insisting everyone graduate from college.

Listen to Santorum's speech and he definitely was not talking about economic concerns. It got into the whole conspiracy theory zone about how Obama was trying to indoctrinate children, which resonated with the anxious elderly whites who made up Santorum's audience. All Obama had said was, "And so tonight, I ask every American to commit to at least one year or more of higher education or career training. This can be community college or a four-year school; vocational training or an apprenticeship."

Meanwhile four years and most likely five years of no income then adds up. Meanwhile the university graduates and often finds no job but works as a waitress or bar tender. See the problem?

If the student graduates with a nursing degree they almost certainly will get a job. What about with a Doctorate in History? Many end up as part-time professors and never get tenure. Is it worth financially ?Maybe not?

It looks like on quick glance it is a 50-50 shot getting tenure in 14 years. Those are lousy odds but maybe they are doing something else. But does that pay enough to satisfy the loans and Iive reasonably well?

You don't have to list these drawbacks because I've lived them. I'm a freshly minted PhD and I was very fortunate to get a full-time position, if only temporary (with strong possibility of continuing). I know that professors used to have a guaranteed middle-class lifestyle but now retiring faculty are being replaced with part-time adjuncts. There's a reason I am actively looking at emigration.

2008 changed everything. The assistantships and grants dried up, paychecks got cut, and newly unemployed people flooded into graduate programs in an attempt to pad their resumes. Everyone else in my cohort and I struggled to get any sort of funding, and most of us didn't for the first few years. When someone asked my advisor what the chances were of getting a decent position in 2009, he replied "if you want enough openings, you'd better hope someone crashes a plane into the next AHA meeting." The long-term effects are still being felt because every time I apply for a position, I'm not just competing with my cohort but with the past five cohorts.

Here's a thought: maybe conservatives have that kind of thought process and decide that becoming a history professor is not worth it as an investment as the odds are not favorable?

Perhaps. Are you agreeing that they just might not be interested then?

And before you say it, there were some evangelical conservatives in my program. All but two of them were brilliant scholars. One of those two was a Tea Partier and really couldn't handle people critiquing the Constitution. I also think she had some serious mental issues that were in no way related to her political leanings. She made a scene in the middle of a seminar and that, combined with many other disruptions, led to the department giving her a way out so she'd at least keep a shred of dignity.

[RubiconDecision]

Well since Affirmative Action demonstrably harms Asian-Americans then how is that something I would support as an archconservative?

Maybe lots of us would like a Doctorate in History and are passionate but have to be practical and think, "Will I as a conservative ever be accepted for tenure, and will it pay enough to offset educational expenses???"

To me, it matters little to publish a book. The mark of being a teacher is to be able communicate so well to my students so they can think critically and then teach history themselves. My science and math professors always said, "If you yourself can teach the subject then you have mastered it not memorized pat answers for the exam."

My humanities teachers said the same thing in interdisciplinary coursework. They didn't want parrots.

[Alastor]

Ah, now I understand. You are replying to an argument I never made. A strawman. No wonder I missed that forest. Once again the irony is not lost on me. But either way I played your game enough. We can continue when you start practicing what you preach.

[RubiconDecision]

See while it may seem we are "shooting the breeze" ie just blathering on a lazy afternoon, the high cost of attending a university and the chance of it resulting in employment...these factors influence bigotry.

In my opinion, while bigotry is often found in the uneducated who have no process of critical thinking being a part of their lives, then they "learn" bigotry from their peers.

But, educated leftists in universities are being recruited to Antifa and BAMN ie By Any Means Necessary and these are bigoted organizations too. Since they are violent by definition, then what we are discussing is a factor. Since many disenfranchised frustrated people can easily slip into bigotry and violence, then this is very applicable.

If your teacher is indoctrinating you that questionable people are Nazis...and if millions who voted for Trump are considered "Nazis" and "Punch a Nazi" is a oft used slogan, that is Bigotry.

If you can't use critical thinking and can't validate your identification of others...you are a bigot if you label them a "Nazi".

[Heathen Hammer]

Looks like one of the reasons for statues removal is to intimidate local population. Question is why do Democrats choose to act like occupational forces in a conquered country, instead of acting like elected officials? Hungry? Poor? Unemployment? Nah, statues are our problem. Hell, in Quebec any official who would dare as to touch any monument dedicated to the French side of the conflict would end up sacked faster then he could say "eh". This is why Americans can't take Democrats seriously anymore.

[NorseThing]

Looks like one of the reasons for statues removal is to intimidate local population. Question is why do Democrats choose to act like occupational forces in a conquered country, instead of acting like elected officials? Hungry? Poor? Unemployment? Nah, statues are our problem. Hell, in Quebec any official who would dare as to touch any monument dedicated to the French side of the conflict would end up sacked faster then he could say "eh". This is why Americans can't take Democrats seriously anymore.

I can agree with your idea though there will be some debate in the specifics.

[ioannis76]

Looks like one of the reasons for statues removal is to intimidate local population. Question is why do Democrats choose to act like occupational forces in a conquered country, instead of acting like elected officials? Hungry? Poor? Unemployment? Nah, statues are our problem. Hell, in Quebec any official who would dare as to touch any monument dedicated to the French side of the conflict would end up sacked faster then he could say "eh". This is why Americans can't take Democrats seriously anymore.

Isn't the far left motto that "monuments are made to be desecrated"? At least that's what I heard. Statues and monuments help our collective memory as a society, by showing us what we have in common. Erasing this collective memory and writing their own version of history on a "clean slate" is part of the communist agenda. They expect reaction, but the reckon that in the long run, it will be beneficial for their "cause", because the newer generations will have forgotten. Fat chance, of course, because Conservatism IS the new counterculture and countercultures don't really need statues. They can put a statue of ing Stalin up there for all we care, it WILL do them more harm than good. Hell, it might have some great graffiti on it a few days later.

[Frostwulf]

Sorry it has taken so long to reply but RL got in the way and yet again problems with this website.

There's a bibliography attached. Enjoy. https://www.historians.org/news-and-...onument-debate

I found nothing that supports the AHA view on the bibliography, therefore I have to assume it is all supposition with a potential kernel of truth.

The Green Party is practically a footnote. And no, not eyebrow raising. They'll call for the removal and their calls will go unheeded because most people recognize Washington and Jefferson as standing for much more than slavery. The Confederacy was formed for the express purpose of maintaining slavery.

The Green party had over a million voters, hardly anything to sneeze at, and the talking head at CNN has a large audience.

And the Confederates declared war on the US and violated the Monroe Doctrine by trying to get Europeans involved in a domestic conflict. I think that's worse. They also robbed their own people with "taxes in kind."

I guess we will just have to disagree then.I find it worse for leaders to endorse and engage in a sneak attack as a declaration of war along the raping, torture,mutilation and murder of innocent men, women and children to be worse then the violation of the Monroe Doctrine (the doctrine deals with European colonization so in reality it has no bases in this debate) and taxes.

In the Indians' cases, they didn't launch a war against the US. The US brought it to them instead and broke many treaties in the process. We put up statues to the chiefs to commemorate their decades of struggle against rapacious settlers, US soldiers, and horrific living conditions on the reservations.

Lets pretend your right (both groups caused problems, not just the U.S.) and say the U.S. did invade these areas and start these "wars". Is it still ok to erect statues commemorating men who were involved in the raping, torture, mutilation and murder of innocent people? So lets compare the two men:
Robert E. Lee- had a "greatly distinguished" service in the Mexican-American war, called slavery evil (but still didn't want equality) and the reason he joined the confederacy was he felt he had a duty to defend his native Virginia if attacked. Joined the confederacy (due to Virginia) and went along with a war in which lots of people died. The federal government and states during this time were not as tied together as they are today.
Red Cloud, Crazyhorse, and Sitting Bull-very good warriors, were looking after their own tribe (to the detriment of other peoples) yet went around murdering, raping, mutilating and torturing people.
I don't see how you justify statues to such men as Red Cloud, etc.
I want to continue but have been fighting this web site and getting very tired of it. Maybe I can try again later when these problems subside.

[NorseThing]

Sorry it has taken so long to reply but RL got in the way and yet again problems with this website.

The Green party had over a million voters, hardly anything to sneeze at, and the talking head at CNN has a large audience.

Snipped your post a bit. Sorry you are have problems with access and posting to TWC. There was a problem with the equipment for less than a day, but you sound like it is more than that with your circumstances. I hope it works out.

Much of your post is good. Your points about the Indian warriors is on point. There is a statue near my home town of the Indian warrior Blackhawk. The statue is a bit run down and has had maintenance issues for decades. However, there is not a bit of a chance it will be torn own (certainly not to be torn down in a riotous rage). He led a rebellion -- one of the last in the Midwest. He lost. The statue was placed after the turn of the century so it is neither contemporary to the events nor is it a place of battle nor is it a home site.

The Black Hawk Statue, or The Eternal Indian, is a sculpture by Lorado Taft located in Lowden State Park which is near the city of Oregon, Illinois. The statue is perched over the Rock River on a 77-foot (23.5 m) bluff overlooking the city.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hawk_Statue

Now I think most of the confederate memorials have more ties to the placement of the memorial than this statue of the warrior Blackhawk. For people to want to tear down (even if down with a council or legislative act) I not respecting the people of the times when the statue / memorial was erected. To simply disagree with a point of the person's life and then demand or take into ones own hands to tear down is simply wrong. The problem of democracy is that at any point you may become a part of the minority. The tyranny of the majority can be ephemeral. A broad consensus is better, but still in time even the broad consensus can erode for a period of time. This is why some things should be respected as historic and not simply as a shrine. Many of the confederate statues should be considered in this manner.

Now to the reason why I have a problem with your post. I do not know how many party members are in the Green Party. I know more will vote than are members. In the USA we have a first past the post type balloting. Even several millions spread out over the entire nation are not going to win any elections. There may be a stray city council seat or even a state legislative seat, but the Green Party just like the Libertarian Party can be sneezed at to use your phrase.

[IronBrig4]

Sorry it has taken so long to reply but RL got in the way and yet again problems with this website.

You and me both. Both RD and I lost a lot of posts on this thread and I'm still salty about it.

I found nothing that supports the AHA view on the bibliography, therefore I have to assume it is all supposition with a potential kernel of truth.

Are you talking about an annotated bibliography of primary sources? Well, you'd have to read deeper into their work to find out. Most likely in academic journals. The AHA statement supports their aggregate findings.

I guess we will just have to disagree then.I find it worse for leaders to endorse and engage in a sneak attack as a declaration of war along the raping, torture,mutilation and murder of innocent men, women and children to be worse then the violation of the Monroe Doctrine (the doctrine deals with European colonization so in reality it has no bases in this debate) and taxes.
Lets pretend your right (both groups caused problems, not just the U.S.) and say the U.S. did invade these areas and start these "wars". Is it still ok to erect statues commemorating men who were involved in the raping, torture, mutilation and murder of innocent people?

The Native American descendants of those who fought in the Indian Wars went through generations of hardship on reservations and in boarding schools where their culture was destroyed. The government figured a few statues was the least it could do. And Native American descendants did not spend the next century lynching and terrorizing minorities in the name of Crazy Horse. Plenty of white Southerners did so in memory of the Confederacy and of the old social order. The Confederate monuments are a symbol of that old social order, and they currently serve as rally points for those who would sweep that history of terrorism under the rug. Looking at the thugs who marched around that statue, they weren't from the Charlottesville Preservation Society. The white nationalists were definitely not interested in the statue's aesthetic value or its value to the local community. In fact, the local community wanted the statue taken down because it attracted the wrong sort of people.

[Magnum_Opus]

I'm not a moral relativist but I don't believe that moral standards of our time should be forced upon historical figures. Everyone has sinned so to speak, so unless someone has done something especially bad by their own times standards, their statue should stay. We can celebrate people for the good things they have done, and indeed we should, while also keeping in mind that they have done bad things as well.

[RubiconDecision]

Of course this illegal removing of statues is about intimidation. It is no different than any kind of illegal removal of public or private property.

At the very least a public hearing and a vote of the governing body should determine such removal, and the persons who donated the stautue given the opportunity to remove it and donate it where it will be appreciated.

Shall we just go around and destroy art which we do not like because it "triggers" us? Interesting. How is that not domestic terrorism?

These items typically are politically motivated but support a constituency like black, white Native Americans, women, etc. If men are offended by a statue of a woman, or black people are offended by a statue of a white person,and on and on, what could be more dumb that defacing statues like the Taliban did in Afghanistan?

This is mob mentality.

[The spartan]

Of course this illegal removing of statues is about intimidation. It is no different than any kind of illegal removal of public or private property.

At the very least a public hearing and a vote of the governing body should determine such removal, and the persons who donated the stautue given the opportunity to remove it and donate it where it will be appreciated.

Shall we just go around and destroy art which we do not like because it "triggers" us? Interesting. How is that not domestic terrorism?

These items typically are politically motivated but support a constituency like black, white Native Americans, women, etc. If men are offended by a statue of a woman, or black people are offended by a statue of a white person,and on and on, what could be more dumb that defacing statues like the Taliban did in Afghanistan?

This is mob mentality.

This just reads like whining following a lost culture battle. A democratically elected government decides to remove controversial statues and boom, we hit domestic terrorism? This isn't about art. If it were about art, it would be a 1st amendment issue, but it is not as if the statue or depictions of Confederate generals are now illegal, they just are being taken down from public places because of the implied condoning of what that person is most famous for.

And how is it mob mentality if it went through proper government channels?

[NorseThing]

This just reads like whining following a lost culture battle. A democratically elected government decides to remove controversial statues and boom, we hit domestic terrorism? This isn't about art. If it were about art, it would be a 1st amendment issue, but it is not as if the statue or depictions of Confederate generals are now illegal, they just are being taken down from public places because of the implied condoning of what that person is most famous for.

And how is it mob mentality if it went through proper government channels?

The tyranny of the majority is a bit like mob rule. For example the US capital has statues placed by each state. But now we see legislation pending by Congress to rake this out of the hands of the individual states.

Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey plans to introduce legislation that calls for the removal of Confederate statues from the U.S. Capitol building.
Mr. Booker, who is thought to be considering a 2020 bid for the Democratic nomination for president, made the announcement Wednesday night on Twitter.
“I will be introducing a bill to remove Confederate statues from the US Capitol building,” Mr. Booker said. “This is just one step. We have much work to do.”

Statues of Confederate leaders on display in the National Statuary Hall inside the Capitol Rotunda include Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...onfederate-st/

It is a bit like the problems I am seeing with the gerrymandering thread I started in the Political Academy.

[The spartan]

The tyranny of the majority is a bit like mob rule. For example the US capital has statues placed by each state. But now we see legislation pending by Congress to rake this out of the hands of the individual states.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...onfederate-st/

It is a bit like the problems I am seeing with the gerrymandering thread I started in the Political Academy.

But if it is going through the proper channels of government, then it is no different than any other decision on public displays that have been made in the past. We can't simply label any decision the elected government makes that we do not personally like "mob rule". If it is legal and done properly, then it is just a change in public policy, which is a good thing to be able to do, ultimately. If this were actually a 1st amendment issue, like we were legally not allow to display depictions of Robert E. Lee at all, then I would get the outrage.

[Gaidin]

The tyranny of the majority is a bit like mob rule. For example the US capital has statues placed by each state. But now we see legislation pending by Congress to rake this out of the hands of the individual states.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...onfederate-st/

It is a bit like the problems I am seeing with the gerrymandering thread I started in the Political Academy.

This one is wrong.

[NorseThing]

This one is wrong.

Really? How? Now I am amused.

[RubiconDecision]

This just reads like whining following a lost culture battle. A democratically elected government decides to remove controversial statues and boom, we hit domestic terrorism? This isn't about art. If it were about art, it would be a 1st amendment issue, but it is not as if the statue or depictions of Confederate generals are now illegal, they just are being taken down from public places because of the implied condoning of what that person is most famous for.

And how is it mob mentality if it went through proper government channels?

A sculpture is not Art?

Are you aware how arbitrary the process is?

Are you aware that it is so candyass that they covered up statues that offended them? Really?

Are you aware that prior to official decisions, Art was destroyed?

Are you aware that decisions were made without public hearings?

This would be like inflamed Christian fundamentalists destroying Maplethorpe art because it offends their sensibilities. You know like the Taliban and the Buddhist statues.


Leftists for censorship and historical revisionism.