Confederate Statues, Liberalism, Moral Relativism and White Supremacists

[The spartan]

A sculpture is not Art?

Not even remotely close to what I said. I said that "this" (this culture battle) isn't about art.

Are you aware how arbitrary the process is?

Anymore arbitrary than any other local government process?

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

Was it legal? Because I am not personally interested in what you consider virtues or not.

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

If something illegal happened than it was illegal. My guess is the majority of these statues are coming down through proper legal channels.

Are you aware that decisions were made without public hearings?

Did they need to be? These are democratically elected officials here. If this hurt your delicate sensibilities, take it out on the next election.

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

Not really, no. Don't act like governments haven't taken down statues before.

Leftists for censorship and historical revisionism.

Rightist propaganda? Because history hasn't been effected here.

[conon394]

@ NorseThing

Why should there statues of men who were traitors in the defense of slavery be in the capital of the Union in the first place? They should not be there anyway, rip them out and put a second Grant or Sherman. Besides I thought America liked winners - why Lee - epic looser.

[NorseThing]

@ NorseThing

Why should there statues of men who were traitors in the defense of slavery be in the capital of the Union in the first place? They should not be there anyway, rip them out and put a second Grant or Sherman. Besides I thought America liked winners - why Lee - epic looser.

The problem is not whether they are traitors or not. The rule is / was to allow each state to make the decision on the statue their state chooses to place in the capital. The changing of the rule midstream because a majority of the legislators from other states disapprove the choices of some of the states makes the rule of state choice of the statue meaningless. We all have differing perspectives, but unless we can show some tolerance when we disapprove, democracy cannot succeed. This tolerance of choice is a basic part of why the liberal traditions of democracy succeed. If this liberal tradition fails, we will end just killing our enemies.

[Gaidin]

People realize councils only have direct power over the city's public land and haven't tried to do anything about statues on private land, making Spartan hilariously right and NorseThing hilariously wrong...right?

[NorseThing]

People realize councils only have direct power over the city's public land and haven't tried to do anything about statues on private land, making Spartan hilariously right and NorseThing hilariously wrong...right?

I am glad I have amused you. What post best is focused on being hilarious? Why is it hilarious? I will be the first to admit that some of my posts may be a bit off base.

[RubiconDecision]

The candyass sensibilities of easily triggered folks has resulted in the removal of statues.

The latest Antifa missive is about a mass countrywide destruction of Columbus statues on Columbus Day (Monday). What barbarians.

Already BLM has demanded taking down statues of Thomas Jefferson. Then the question become, "Which statues and memorials shall we demolish next out of insane political correctness?"

Cuckoo cuckoo.

There is nothing remotely reasonable about this process and it really is only coward politicians yielding to mob rule.

[The spartan]

The candyass sensibilities of easily triggered folks has resulted in the removal of statues.

The latest Antifa missive is about a mass countrywide destruction of Columbus statues on Columbus Day (Monday). What barbarians.

Already BLM has demanded taking down statues of Thomas Jefferson. Then the question become, "Which statues and memorials shall we demolish next out of insane political correctness?"

Cuckoo cuckoo.

There is nothing remotely reasonable about this process and it really is only coward politicians yielding to mob rule.

That was some lovely partisan ranting. You kinda undercut yourself when you use terms like "candyass", though.

[Gaidin]

Because the "tyranny of the majority" is not infringing on freedom of speech, just controlling city land.

[Frostwulf]

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.

No problem at all and I found a method that should work.

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.

My point wasn’t about the Green Party itself as it was to the attention that Ajamu Baraka could receive. It’s not only the Green Party but people who would interview and show his views across the nation. He has name recognition that does carry some weight and to dismiss him because his party is small (yet has over 1million that voted) is wrong. His name could easily go beyond the Green Party.

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 already went through quite a few of these articles, and again nothing that backs up what they are saying. Since you’re the one pointing to the AHA, the burden of proof belongs to you. Again, I can see how their view could be correct especially considering when most were made, but until I see the proof it’s supposition.

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.

Ahh so that’s why it’s ok to murder, rape, torture and mutilate innocent people and still get a statue. REALLY? Some went through some hard times in the reservations, but the Souix did not during the time of Red Cloud, Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse. They had their own lands and in 1851 the Lakota broke the treaty, not the U.S. Furthermore the Lakota, Cheyenne etc. murdered miners that had entered their territory (is immigration reason for murder? Or should they have been given tribal membership?). They also attacked forts that were on Crow land, the Lakota, Cheyenne etc. started the fights, not the U.S.

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.

Nor did they do it in the name of Robert E. Lee or Stonewall Jackson or any other man, they did it to keep white privilege in place.

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.

So you and the AHA say, and it may be true but I have seen no proof, just supposition.

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.

I’m not sure why there are statues to those confederates and if it is for the reason that the AHA has said then I would support the removal of said statues. But there are certainly some exceptions such as Virginia having a statue of Robert E. Lee, that I understand. Also Longstreet and perhaps others depending on the situation. That being said, the reason stated for the removal of these statues is that the men these statues represent were either traitors and/or supported slavery. That is what this is all about!
Yet you try to make excuses to keep statues to men who either led or participated in mass murder, rape, torture and mutilation of innocent people. Are you such an ideologue you cannot see the hypocrisy in your views? Men like Black Hawk, Crazy Horse, Red Cloud, Sitting Bull, Tecumseh etc. made war on the U.S. and committed/endorsed/led atrocities to innocents and you make feeble excuses for these actions they took. Then condemn the likes of Longstreet and Robert Lee who also like the aforementioned men took up arms against the U.S. but did not endorse/lead massacre, rape, torture and mutilation. The only reason Lee joined the confederacy was his loyalty to Virginia (again U.S. states and federal gov. had different relationship back then)! Your excuses(reservations, boarding schools) for the tribal leaders is weak considering most of that happened after these men were dead. If your going to put up statues of Native Americans then do so with those who did not take up arms against the U.S. but worked for peace ( Dekanawidah, Pocahontus, ect.). Put up statues for those who were charitable to all peoples, not murderers, rapists, torturers and mutilators. I’m even good with Black Hoof and others who changed their ways.


One other thing:
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/05/0...ws.google.com/

Others said they worried that the removals would create a slippery slope. Where would it end, they asked? Would a statue of George Washington be next?


Such concerns were unlikely to be assuaged by Mr. Suber, an adjunct professor of political science at Southern University, an avowed Marxist-Leninist, and an organizer of an anti-statue group called the Take ’Em Down NOLA Coalition. He noted that he had been part of a group that persuaded the Orleans Parish School Board to pass a policy in 1992 that prohibited schools from being named for slave owners. It eventually led to a school called George Washington Elementary being renamed for Dr. Charles Richard Drew, a prominent black surgeon.


On Thursday, Mr. Suber chuckled mischievously and said he would be delighted to see the statue of Washington over by the New Orleans Public Library come down, too.

The bold was put in by me.

Still issues with this site.

[IronBrig4]

I already went through quite a few of these articles, and again nothing that backs up what they are saying. Since you’re the one pointing to the AHA, the burden of proof belongs to you. Again, I can see how their view could be correct especially considering when most were made, but until I see the proof it’s supposition.

If you're so convinced these AHA historians are lying to you, then put your money where your mouth is and email them. Most of those who commented on the subject are professors with university email addresses. They would have the archival sources listed.

Ahh so that’s why it’s ok to murder, rape, torture and mutilate innocent people and still get a statue. REALLY? Some went through some hard times in the reservations, but the Souix did not during the time of Red Cloud, Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse. They had their own lands and in 1851 the Lakota broke the treaty, not the U.S. Furthermore the Lakota, Cheyenne etc. murdered miners that had entered their territory (is immigration reason for murder? Or should they have been given tribal membership?). They also attacked forts that were on Crow land, the Lakota, Cheyenne etc. started the fights, not the U.S.

It doesn't excuse their actions. And these statues aren't necessarily meant to honor violent chiefs, but their peoples. The chiefs are more recognizable than a squaw with a papoose. Looking at the spikes in monument construction (turn of the century and 1950s), the Confederate monuments were put up to honor the cause of white supremacy.

Nor did they do it in the name of Robert E. Lee or Stonewall Jackson or any other man, they did it to keep white privilege in place.

By using symbols of the Confederacy.

I’m not sure why there are statues to those confederates and if it is for the reason that the AHA has said then I would support the removal of said statues. But there are certainly some exceptions such as Virginia having a statue of Robert E. Lee, that I understand. Also Longstreet and perhaps others depending on the situation. That being said, the reason stated for the removal of these statues is that the men these statues represent were either traitors and/or supported slavery. That is what this is all about!

Regarding Longstreet, he has relatively few statues in the South. That's because he cooperated with Reconstruction and put the war behind him. Lost Causers such as Jubal Early spent the next several decades vilifying Longstreet as a scalawag. They even went so far as to suggest that he intentionally sabotaged the Confederate strategy at Gettysburg. And this is one of the most successful Confederate generals. This goes to show there was a method to these monuments.

Yet you try to make excuses to keep statues to men who either led or participated in mass murder, rape, torture and mutilation of innocent people. Are you such an ideologue you cannot see the hypocrisy in your views? Men like Black Hawk, Crazy Horse, Red Cloud, Sitting Bull, Tecumseh etc. made war on the U.S. and committed/endorsed/led atrocities to innocents and you make feeble excuses for these actions they took. Then condemn the likes of Longstreet and Robert Lee who also like the aforementioned men took up arms against the U.S. but did not endorse/lead massacre, rape, torture and mutilation. The only reason Lee joined the confederacy was his loyalty to Virginia (again U.S. states and federal gov. had different relationship back then)! Your excuses(reservations, boarding schools) for the tribal leaders is weak considering most of that happened after these men were dead. If your going to put up statues of Native Americans then do so with those who did not take up arms against the U.S. but worked for peace ( Dekanawidah, Pocahontus, ect.). Put up statues for those who were charitable to all peoples, not murderers, rapists, torturers and mutilators. I’m even good with Black Hoof and others who changed their ways.

Once again, the Indian statues did not inspire a century of terrorism like the Confederate statues did. If young, angry Indian men with tiki torches rallied around the statues and murdered a counter-protester, then we can talk about possible removal.

Edit: https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20....html#comments

The monuments, which are located predominantly in the South but also stand in the US Capitol and in the North, in places including New York and Massachusetts, were mostly erected between 1890 and 1920, said Kirk Savage, a University of Pittsburgh historian and author of “Standing Soldiers, Kneeling Slaves: Race, War, and Monument in Nineteenth-Century America.”

The monuments were built by the sons and daughters of Confederate soldiers as part of a “systematic campaign,” he said, to recast the history of the Civil War as a heroic battle for the “Lost Cause,” in defense of Southern values.

“It was, of course, a whites-only history that was used to sugarcoat slavery and the Confederacy and justify the reassertion of white supremacy after Reconstruction,” Savage said.

If you want primary sources, then look at Savage's book and check out the bibliography.

[NorseThing]

Because the "tyranny of the majority" is not infringing on freedom of speech, just controlling city land.

I had meant that Congress was taking back that which they had allowed for political expediency. Oppose the statues is an easy out. However, it should be up to each individual state to place and remove their own statues. That is what I meant in any case. Thanks for the response.

[Gaidin]

I had meant that Congress was taking back that which they had allowed for political expediency. Oppose the statues is an easy out. However, it should be up to each individual state to place and remove their own statues. That is what I meant in any case. Thanks for the response.

Please, it's actually a common theme for conservatives to not like upper echelons of higher tier government to control the lower tier governments. Or so they say. That is, until local or state laws or ordinances they don't like is passed. Then they might step in with some over-controlling federal or state law to over-control the situation like North Carolina did with HB2. Remember, big government is good when its good for them! Of course, not all states with these statues have passed an over-arcing law controlling these statues yet like Alabama has, Virginia certainly hasn't, so Charlottesville's GOD DAMN DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED COUNCIL can certainly handle the situation.

That is, unless local democracy is now tyranny. Tell me now, is it?

[NorseThing]

Please, it's actually a common theme for conservatives to not like upper echelons of higher tier government to control the lower tier governments. Or so they say. That is, until local or state laws or ordinances they don't like is passed. Then they might step in with some over-controlling federal or state law to over-control the situation like North Carolina did with HB2. Remember, big government is good when its good for them! Of course, not all states with these statues have passed an over-arcing law controlling these statues yet like Alabama has, Virginia certainly hasn't, so Charlottesville's GOD DAMN DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED COUNCIL can certainly handle the situation.

That is, unless local democracy is now tyranny. Tell me now, is it?

Local or any legislative body can behave as a tyranny. However I never said anything about Charlottesville as such. Maybe we are somewhat talking past each other. I can let it go. I hope that you can as well.

[The spartan]

Have we had any semi-decent arguments on how removing statues from public spaces is tantamount to rewriting history? As someone interested in history, I am seriously curious to this line of thought.

[Gaidin]

Have we had any semi-decent arguments on how removing statues from public spaces is tantamount to rewriting history? As someone interested in history, I am seriously curious to this line of thought.

The best they can come up with is a vague argument for abuse of local power. We'll find out next election when we see if local city councils get re-elected, or not. Places to watch are Charlottesville, VA; Lexington, KY; and New Orleans, LA.

[IronBrig4]

Yeah, the US doesn't have any monuments to Loyalists but we remember them. In fact, they were 15-20 percent of the population in the 13 Colonies.

[IronBrig4]

Well, many feel it is a slippery slope toward removing anything distasteful from American history. The most rational argument I've heard is that, by removing Confederate statues, Americans will eventually forget that the South was once dominated by violent Redeemers and other white supremacists. So the statues should be left up (with a plaque explaining their context) to serve as a horrible warning of what happens when white supremacy is allowed to thrive.

[Gaidin]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Mother of god....

[NorseThing]

Maybe a bit off topic, but...

"As long as I am governor of the great State of New York, there will be a statue of Christopher Columbus standing tall and proud in the city of New York," Cuomo said at the Columbus Citizens Foundation gala Saturday night. The Italian-American governor said he understands people have differences over the issue and that "in this great country by our Constitution people can disagree. But it is also true that by the Constitution you cannot censor, you cannot control, and government cannot seek to impose its own political ideology on the people."

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/

The reason it may be a bit more on topic than you may think -- I can see a governor in Virginia or the mayor of some university town saying the same thing about a confederate statue such as General Lee. Duke University did not seem to get such support though a few months back when their General Lee statue was vandalized and then the university simply removed it from a cha[el area.

[RubiconDecision]

Who has removed history in the past?
The USSR
The Taliban
And now extreme leftist Americans.