Removing monuments of the Confederacy: Yay or Nay?

[Mrs Paul]

Depends on where the statues are. I don't think they belong in government buildings (I mean, why would you want a bunch of statues of traitors and shit?) Museums, graveyards, etc? Let it remain. As far as war memorials, I have to say, I'm iffy on this. On one hand, I don't like just erasing the past. On the other hand, is it really a good thing to have a monument to someone like, say, Nathan Bedford Forrest? (The dude who founded the KKK)

And yeah, the Civil War was not just about slavery. On the part of the South it was (read the Cornerstone Speech if you don't believe me), but the North was just like, "fuck you, you're not leaving!" (Although contrary to what some people may think, there were no free black Confederate soldiers -- the army was segregated, and since blacks were still second class citizens, in no way would they have been allowed to serve in combat. Some soldiers brought their slaves along, but only as servants. It wasn't until the very end of the war that blacks were allowed to fight)

But the Union just wanted to keep the South from leaving. Most soldiers didn't give a rat's ass about slavery, and were probably just as racist as the Confederacy.

 

[ZeCommissar]

I don't see the removal of monuments on public, taxed property to be erasing history, due to the fact that unless we go full Oceania and start re-writing the past while burning all texts associated with the civil war then we can never erase it in the minds of future generations.

A nation divided is a nation destroyed, the south were traitors to the union that reaped what they sowed. I don't see the "it's my southern heritage" argument, is your heritage being a traitor to the United States?
Now on private property confederate things can be flown and erected, I mean we have a statue of Lenin on US soil on private property, so if we can keep that there than we can keep privately owned confederate statues.

Tearing down the statues because you are offended is a bad reason, a more pragmatic reason would be why would you keep statues of traitors to your government on public government property? That's like the British having a public statue of George Washington outside parliament.

Nay on all of them, yea on public ones.

 

[Alec Benson Leary]

Depends on where the statues are. I don't think they belong in government buildings (I mean, why would you want a bunch of statues of traitors and shit?)

the south were traitors to the union that reaped what they sowed. I don't see the "it's my southern heritage" argument, is your heritage being a traitor to the United States?

Good luck pitching this to a lot of southerners who don't view the confederate separatists as traitors though. And we are in a country that not only glorifies its own origin in the fires of a rebellion against a government considered unjust by the governed, but also glorifies the belief that no one else's opinion but the governed was necessary to make that decision. The question becomes a bit more difficult with those factors in mind. Calling the separatists traitors carte blanche is almost inviting the south to criticize you for hypocritically siding with history's winners just because they won.

 

[Marvin]

As others pointed out, the correct camp is probably "keep it intact, and distinguish historicity from endorsement".

If this theory is correct, then shouldn't we also take down all monuments to Sherman? His activities during the Civil War were arguably war crimes even if he was on the winning side.

I don't think war crimes developed into a coherent enough branch of law by that point. Like, by my tastes, it's just far enough in the past that it has more in common with memorials to medieval warlords than a modern atrocity that still needs to be dealt with.

Spoiler: off topic

I visited a memorial to Tamerlane when I was in Tashkent. The guy I was hanging out with was laughing about it, as he told me about how the numbskulls in Kazakhstan (or some neighboring country, I don't remember) revere Tamerlane as one of their own, when in fact his army left pyramids of their people's skulls in their wake as an intimidation tactic.

Somehow I suspect the Kazakhs think the same thing about the Uzbeks.

To me, it's just two groups of asian people arguing about whose side the murderous warlord was actually on.

Also, fucking with graveyards is disrespectful regardless of what they believed, and anyone who says otherwise is just being edgy.

Well, I mean, if they're an average person who just happened to be on the losing side yeah, that's pretty edgy.

But I'm OK with disassembling memorials to recently deceased dictators.

Good luck pitching this to a lot of southerners who don't view the confederate separatists as traitors though. And we are in a country that not only glorifies its own origin in the fires of a rebellion against a government considered unjust by the governed, but also glorifies the belief that no one else's opinion but the governed was necessary to make that decision. The question becomes a bit more difficult with those factors in mind. Calling the separatists traitors carte blanche is almost inviting the south to criticize you for hypocritically siding with history's winners just because they won.

I don't think winning as irrelevant to the argument as some would say.

To me, a crucial part of the civil war was the legal question. Are states allowed to secede? Why or why not?

If the south had won, the secession would've been declared legal, through some sort of justification, in a similar way to the the US Declaration of Independence.

I don't believe that to be hypocritical because, on an international level, might makes right. That's just how it is. The winner decides the truth. I don't consider that to be a hollow truth either, because at the end of the day, military strength is the only thing that maintains all these definitions (independent nation vs a governed part of another country) to begin with.

I mean, even the UN, a noble attempt to create a peaceful standards body for these definitions, is growing limp and flaccid by the day.

"Traitor" vs "freedom fighter" is a distinction that only established by the victor. Arguing otherwise is like the nation state version of sovereign citizens. (Heh, and really, sovereign citizens are basically doing the same thing, they're just a much smaller minority.)

Of course, all these rationalizations aside, it still doesn't make the proud southerner feel any better. It's a pretty insulting argument to make for someone who really believes they're fighting for a cause and gets slapped down by someone bigger than them.

In general, I wouldn't really argue the point with a southern nationalist. The best way to get past this argument is to make the south feel like a valued part of the US, which it should be.

 

[Alec Benson Leary]

To me, a crucial part of the civil war was the legal question. Are states allowed to secede? Why or why not?

If the south had won, the secession would've been declared legal, through some sort of justification, in a similar way to the the US Declaration of Independence.

This doesn't feel like a meaningful point though. War is war, and each side will always claim the other was wrong. Writing your claims on special paper and calling it "law" doesn't change that. And if you want to say that might makes right at the end of the day, then the question of legality is a pointless one to begin with. If Congress allowed states to secede, then there wouldn't have been a war, but the whole point was that congress did not do this and the south still decided "we don't like listening to your laws anymore".

I don't believe that to be hypocritical because, on an international level, might makes right. That's just how it is. The winner decides the truth. I don't consider that to be a hollow truth either, because at the end of the day, military strength is the only thing that maintains all these definitions (independent nation vs a governed part of another country) to begin with.

See, if it's all about muscle then why claim civility in the first place? Questioning the south's "right" to secede may as well be revisionism if you accept that standard.

 

[Marvin]

See, if it's all about muscle then why claim civility in the first place? Questioning the south's "right" to secede may as well be revisionism if you accept that standard.

My point is that it isn't even revisionism. Revisionism suggests a reinterpretation of the past. I'm arguing that the only original interpretation, at all, of these types of definitions, come from power, after the fact.

The rebels were traitors, literally, because they lost. And no other reason.

I don't consider that to be an inconsequential difference because that's the only difference that matters.

Edit: My comparison with sovereign citizens is pretty apt, actually. It's like talking about what the "real" law is with sovcits. They can claim a dissenting view, but because they don't have the power to enforce what they claim is the "real" law, speakers of American English would disagree about the usage of the word "real" there.

When you have the power to enforce the law, you get to decide what the majority terminology is.

 

[Gym Leader Elesa]

When you have the power to enforce the law, you get to decide what the majority terminology is.

The rebels were traitors, literally, because they lost. And no other reason.

Might makes right is indeed, the traditional argument in the Union's favor. "You lost the war, therefore your argument is invalid." We are aware. I respect this opinion, it is pragmatic after all. You're not even wrong.

But, the fact that your ancestors managed to beat mine in a war doesn't really sway me in terms of your righteousness. It just means I would prefer peaceful secession instead this time around. None of our arguments were ever really beaten or even equaled intellectually. So while we did lose, and now you get to decide "fuck us", it is unrealistic to expect people in the South, who have been harping on this forever, to suddenly surrender their souls because you have more guns and money. Of course most do anyway, because they're ignorant- or they're cowards. But Poland didn't do this for the Soviet Union, Cambodia didn't do this for Vietnam, and I don't really care to do it for America. That flag is my flag. Those monuments are my monuments. Deo Vindice and all that.

 

[Alec Benson Leary]

My point is that it isn't even revisionism. Revisionism suggests a reinterpretation of the past. I'm arguing that the only original interpretation, at all, of these types of definitions, come from power, after the fact.

The rebels were traitors, literally, because they lost. And no other reason.

I don't consider that to be an inconsequential difference because that's the only difference that matters.

I think I see your point. It sounds like we are using different words to describe a similar position.

But I would describe "after the fact" to be catering to revisionism, whether it happens a day after the war ends or 100 years after.

I don't think you are saying that the moral or righteous are decided by victory, I think I know you well enough to guess that you are - like me - a lot more consequentialist than that. It sounds like you're basically saying the world we have to deal with is what it is because of who won.

Which I fully agree with, but I think I may give less credit than you to the letter of the law when war breaks. Because war is basically the ultimate "fuck the law".

But I welcome correction.

But, the fact that your ancestors managed to beat mine in a war doesn't really sway me in terms of your righteousness.

This is exactly what I was trying to say.

 

[Marvin]

But, the fact that your ancestors managed to beat mine in a war doesn't really sway me in terms of your righteousness.

Fair enough.

I think I see your point. It sounds like we are using different words to describe a similar position.

Probably, yeah

But I would describe "after the fact" to be catering to revisionism, whether it happens a day after the war ends or 100 years after.

I don't think you are saying that the moral or righteous are decided by victory, I think I know you well enough to guess that you are - like me - a lot more consequentialist than that. It sounds like you're basically saying the world we have to deal with is what it is because of who won.

Oh yeah, it's not a moral issue. It's a practical one.

I don't really like to impose my emotions on other people. And "traitor" vs "freedom fighter" are pretty emotional words.

When you ignore emotion, all that's left is some sort of technical interpretation, like a legal one. Or maybe something like international consensus.

So when I look at things that way, I say that I can't really distinguish between traitors or freedom fighters until after the dust settles. To me, neither term has much "meaning" at that point. At least no meaning I would use in an argument, or claim is generally correct for most people.

Which I fully agree with, but I think I may give less credit than you to the letter of the law when war breaks. Because war is basically the ultimate "fuck the law".

The law has a lot of influence in deterring war. It's an escape valve for pressure.

War is indeed what you get when the law fails. In the case of the civil war, the confederacy's defeat cemented the interpretation of the law that secession is not a right.

I'm sure a bunch of secessionist movements are squashed because of it.

Like with SJWs in California or the Pacific Northwest agitating for secession. The legal precedent from the civil war means that they'd have to fight for independence. Which obviously isn't happening.

 

[Alec Benson Leary]

The law has a lot of influence in deterring war. It's an escape valve for pressure.

War is indeed what you get when the law fails.

Okay, I get this.

I think then we are settling on that law is ideally preventative rather than reactive.

 

[Mrs Paul]

I think it also depends on the reason for the memorials. Some people try to compare them to memorials to Jefferson, or Washington, and say, "well, they owned slaves too!"

Only they forget that those two aren't being honored for owning slaves. The Confederacy was based on the idea that all men are NOT equal. Let's just call a spade a spade. And I think the reason a lot people bring up the treason angle is because those in favor of Confederate memorials and shit also are the quickest to proclaim how patriotic they are. Well, how can you say you love your country, but at the same time want to honor a bunch of people who hated it so much they fought a war against it? That doesn't quite make sense.

And as for honoring heritage, maybe it is -- but is it the kind of heritage you want to honor? You don't have to hide it away, but it's not something you should celebrate, either. There are plenty of ways to honor being from the South without using negative symbols to do so.

Russia has pulled down numerous statues to Stalin and Lenin since the fall of the Soviet Union. And you could argue that Stalin DID achieve things for Russia -- the Allies would never have won WWII without Russia's efforts. But I wouldn't support a memorial to Stalin.
The Japanese have this problem -- they still have a lot of memorials to war criminals from WWII, and tend to whitewash thing the whole thing. There's a big movement to deny the Rape of Nanking, or the comfort women. It's rather disturbing.

You can acknowledge history without celebrating it. (Do keep Stone Mountain, though. For the artistic and historical value, not as a memorial or monument.)

 

[Marvin]

And as for honoring heritage, maybe it is -- but is it the kind of heritage you want to honor? You don't have to hide it away, but it's not something you should celebrate, either. There are plenty of ways to honor being from the South without using negative symbols to do so.

I think the argument is that southern heritage groups focus on ethnicity or some sort of regional nationalism, or a military tradition or something like that. Not "they fought for the south to preserve slavery", but "they fought for the south", without the slavery part.

Russia has pulled down numerous statues to Stalin and Lenin since the fall of the Soviet Union. And you could argue that Stalin DID achieve things for Russia -- the Allies would never have won WWII without Russia's efforts. But I wouldn't support a memorial to Stalin.

They've still got Lenin's body on display. I saw it.

I would've gotten a selfie with it, but I didn't fancy a beating and a night in russian jail.

The Japanese have this problem -- they still have a lot of memorials to war criminals from WWII, and tend to whitewash thing the whole thing. There's a big movement to deny the Rape of Nanking, or the comfort women. It's rather disturbing.

Oh god, yeah. Japan's racist as shit. They're the kinds of racists where, if you're not always watching them, they sorta creep back up into their old ways.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/19/n...des-park-nj-irritates-japanese-officials.html

Like this is my favorite story regarding Japanese war crime denial. Some tiny little city in New Jersey has this monument to comfort women. And the Japanese government sent not just one, but two delegations to complain at them about it.

Fucking goofy.

 

[RI 360]

US history began before the 1960's. The Civil war was fought for identical reasons the Revolution (which was also a secession) was, which included cutting ties with central banks. Fuck off with revisionism.

 

[Gym Leader Elesa]

For what it's worth, as a final note to some earlier comments, I do view my heritage as "treason" to the United States and like many from old Southern families, am not patriotic and do not see myself as American culturally. Not all neo-Confederates are the SCV or rednecks.

 

[AnOminous]

They've still got Lenin's body on display. I saw it.

I'd go to see it. It would be pretty cool. How many dead bodies are on display publicly?

It's kind of weird to do that, but I'd go gawk.

 

[Alec Benson Leary]

You can acknowledge history without celebrating it.

Exactly.

 

[AnOminous]

For what it's worth, as a final note to some earlier comments, I do view my heritage as "treason" to the United States and like many from old Southern families, am not patriotic and do not see myself as American culturally. Not all neo-Confederates are the SCV or rednecks.

If you hate America that much, shouldn't you just leave, like the antifa who also hate America that much?

I mean seriously, anyone in this country vastly benefited from the treasure trove we got out of World War I and World War II. If you're that unpatriotic, why are you sucking up those benefits?

 

[Gym Leader Elesa]

If you hate America that much, shouldn't you just leave, like the antifa who also hate America that much?

I mean seriously, anyone in this country vastly benefited from the treasure trove we got out of World War I and World War II. If you're that unpatriotic, why are you sucking up those benefits?

My family's property has been passed down to me, the South is my home, and no matter how long it is occupied, I will not abandon it. Presumably, that will be "forever" because an independent South is an impossibility if there ever was one.

In any case, I do not hate the United States. I just don't think this land belongs to it.

 

[AnOminous]

In any case, I do not hate the United States. I just don't think this land belongs to it.

A lot of Southerners agree with you, don't they?

 

[Gym Leader Elesa]

A lot of Southerners agree with you, don't they?

Yes, but if you have any fear of us (and you don't, of course, because you're not insane) they are far out-numbered by normal, patriotic, people who don't base their political views on a dying lineage of old delta and coastal families. My family has been here at least since Plymouth to give you an idea of how entrenched some of these groups get.

We are irrelevant and politically marginalized in all but either the richest or poorest areas. The fact that this thread exists is proof of that. My views are a matter of pride, tradition, nostalgia, education, religion, and politics, but it's not a blend that's going to ever go anywhere at this point. The South did lose. I would only ever want a peaceful revival even if that weren't true. A constitutional amendment, a court case, a referendum. I think our arguments and beliefs deserve re-examining. I think those monuments and flags deserve to exist. I consent to removing them from U.S. government property because I don't expect America to honor a rebel government and I don't ask it to. But families like mine should be allowed to purchase and preserve them on private land or in a park or something.

I literally only state my views as a matter of personal honor.

Edit: I guess, all I am asking is, let us die with dignity. Just let the last few of us who still venerate the southern way of life, and its confederacy, go out quietly. Just relocate all of those things. Give us the artifacts from whatever gets torn down.