Removing monuments of the Confederacy: Yay or Nay?

[The Nothingness]

After hearing about several Confederate monuments in New Orleans were taken down I decided to make this thread for any history buffs or people wanting to engage in a conversation about this topic. So where do people stand on this? Is this like what Allied soldiers did in Germany by destroying all the things associated with the Nazis or is this erasing history because the offended are making noise that is loud enough?

It seems to me that when it comes to historical events, such as the American Civil War, we are given a simplistic view as to not make it complicated (North=Good, South=Bad). And trying to find an objective view on the Civil War seems to be quite a challenge. Will there be a stopping point if the all Confederate monuments are gone or will other things be next such as national parks where the Confederacy won a battle? What happens if historical places such as Jamestown are next because someone might point out how the American Indians were treated by the colonists?

Should history only cover the "good" stuff or should people take the "bad" with the "good"?

 

[AnOminous]

I'm going to side with nay on this one.

While I do think some Confederacy shit should go, like flags flown from the statehouse in some states, they should remain on battlefields, military monuments, and similar places where they do not signify endorsement of an ideology, but are simply recognition of an historical fact.

Historical revisionism is shit, and something mainly renowned because of its association with Nazis. I don't think we should join the Nazis in revising the past, which already happened.

 

[Eldritch]

Eh. Fuck it, let's just bulldoze the entire planet. last few thousand years didn't happen. Mulligan.

If we only cover the (subjectively) "good" parts of history, then we practically don't see history as it happened at all. "Confederate - Bad. Union - Good. German - Bad. American - Good." Is a child's understanding of history.

 

[Gym Leader Elesa]

I could hardly post more than a sentence in this thread without devolving into a seething, fanatical, a-logging, mess, so I am just going to say "no" because the South was justified in seeking independence and should still continue to pursue it (blah, blah I'm a faggot, we've all seen me post.) Obviously, though, a Southern Nationalist is going to have an extremely biased opinion- those aren't "historical" flags to me- they're the flags of my country. Those monuments are additionally monuments to a living nation if not a "country." So it's a bit like saying "should we take down all the French tricolors in France" to me. Nonetheless, count me as "nay" for a simple vote.

 

[Alec Benson Leary]

There's a practical reason to not condemn a historical artifact like these monuments: it comes with the "original sin" connotation that people should apologize for the history they come from.

 

[Sperglord Dante]

I'm going to side with nay on this one.

While I do think some Confederacy shit should go, like flags flown from the statehouse in some states, they should remain on battlefields, military monuments, and similar places where they do not signify endorsement of an ideology, but are simply recognition of an historical fact.

Historical revisionism is shit, and something mainly renowned because of its association with Nazis. I don't think we should join the Nazis in revising the past, which already happened.

I agree with this.

Commemorative plates and confederate flags on museums and historic landmarks are okay. Confederate paraphernalia of any nature on private property is okay. Confederate flags and general Lee statues on government property like town halls is not okay.

 

[Ruin]

I'm worried mostly about the precedent this sort of thing sets. If we are obligated to remove or destroy anything that might be construed as "offensive" where does it stop and where is the line drawn? Do we burn all of HP Lovecraft's books because he was kind of a racist douch? Margaret Sanger was a Nazi fangirl and proponent of eugenics so does that mean we should shut down Planned Parenthood? Honestly to me this whole thing looks like a moralistic witch hunt.

tl,dr that's a no from me.

 

[millais]

Leave it all up. Even if it is commemorating a morally indefensible institution, the value of the monument is in the historical context that it provides to modern day citizens. If we willfully forget and suppress the uncomfortable and unsavory truths of our national history, we will be condemned to repeat them in the future. If you have to, put up a new plaque beside the old monument that tells people the other side of the Civil War's history so they don't get onesided misinformation (like it might be appropriate to put up a new plaque beside a monument to Nathan Bedford Forrest explaining that he illegally executed black Union POWs and founded the KKK after the war), but don't remove the original monument.

 

[Gym Leader Elesa]

I agree with this.

Commemorative plates and confederate flags on museums and historic landmarks are okay. Confederate paraphernalia of any nature on private property is okay. Confederate flags and general Lee statues on government property like town halls is not okay.

I assume this includes graveyards and the like (in terms of private property?)

Edited for clarification.

 

[Southern Belle]

As a Southerner it pisses me right off so mark me as a strong nay.

As an intelligent individual I understand that soldiers do what soldiers do in times of war, and soldiers follow or give orders depending on their rank and who they answer to. I don't always agree with their actions or decisions, but again, understand that they follow orders. And that's what General Lee was doing. If these revisionists looked outside their little safe space boxes of edited history, they'd actually see that yes, while Lee is a problematic historical figure, he also was actually opposed to slavery, and encouraged his wife and daughter in their works to help slaves and former slaves. In the post-war South, Lee actually tried to reconcille the Confederates and the Unionists, and pushed for education for freed slaves. And while yes he was opposed to giving blacks the vote so soon after the war, he wasn't closed off to the idea entirely. In fact, his own statements show he didn't want them to have the vote so soon because the majority of blacks were completely uneducated and therefore were completely incapable of making an informed political or ideological decision that, at the time, was considered one of the most important decisions voters would or could ever make. He wanted them to be educated - able to read, write, do math, etc - before being given the right to vote so they wouldn't make complete asses of themselves, and in turn, the entire country.

The point is, one single event is being used to destroy historical landmarks and works simply because one single event is attached to the individual. For all anyone knows, the statue on govt property may be there to commemorate an event the individual was a key player in which was entirely separate and self contained outside of the civil war itself. And even then, the person's role in the separate event might actually be something the people calling for it's destruction actually agree with and advocate for.

 

[Gym Leader Elesa]

For all anyone knows, the statue on govt property may be there to commemorate an event the individual was a key player in which was entirely separate and self contained outside of the civil war itself. And even then, the person's role in the separate event might actually be something the people calling for it's destruction actually agree with and advocate for.

This if often the case with monuments to figures like G.T. Beauregard, who was a well-regarded figure in Louisiana before and after the war. He is often beloved either in spite of, or without regards to, his status as a Confederate general.

 

[Sperglord Dante]

I assume this includes graveyards and the like (in terms of private property?)

Edited for clarification.

I suppose so. There are KKK gravestones out there, so confederate flags wouldn't hurt.

 

[Gym Leader Elesa]

I suppose so. There are KKK gravestones out there, so confederate flags wouldn't hurt.

Fair enough. That's one of the few concessions from unionists I do get a little "petty" over. Tearing the flags down from graveyards, from the men who fought and died for them, always seemed abominable to me whether one hated their cause or not. I don't think there is any cause or group of people I have ever hated enough for that- but calls to take down the Confederate flags and monuments from Southern graveyards are constant and very venomous.

 

[The Nothingness]

Do we burn all of HP Lovecraft's books because he was kind of a racist douch?

Virtue-signalers never take into account the ripple effect with their reactions. Since Lovecraft's work influenced so many others, does that mean their stuff must be destroyed too? There is always a bigger picture that they don't see

 

[millais]

Also, if the person or place is not related to the ANV, they shouldn't get to fly the battle flag. The Stars and Bars is good enough for everyone else, plus it probably won't hurt the fee-fees of the easily triggered to the same extent as the battle flag.

 

[Jason Genova]

We should make a deal with the rest of the country, you can take the monuments of the confederacy and outlaw confederate flags if:
You take all the fucking new yorkers out of Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Florida, and Georgia and all of the Californians out of Texas and New Mexico.

 

[cuddle striker]

they're historical. they stay.
added context would be a good idea (adding information on plaques, etc)

a flag of a nation that tried to destroy the united states shouldn't be hanging anywhere on united states government property though. except a museum.

and leave the graveyard alone.

 

[AnOminous]

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.

 

[Sergeant Politeness]

Do we burn all of HP Lovecraft's books because he was kind of a racist douch?

Of course. You don't wanna be on the wrong side of history, do you?

This comes down to if you consider prominently displaying historical artifacts as a seal of approval. To get rid of the dark periods of history is to say they didn't happen. The Confederacy played a role in US history, and racism played a role in the Confederacy. It's part of the history of this country and we need to accept it and educate about it, not hide it. (Also, fucking with graveyards is disrespectful regardless of what they believed, and anyone who says otherwise is just being edgy.)

I also have an issue with simplifying the Confederacy down to "slaveowners"; as someone said earlier, it's historical revisionism. The winning side becomes the right side.

 

[Jason Genova]

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'm still utterly speechless that people think the Union were the "good" guys rather than just "the guys who fought against slavery because they didn't profit from cotton as much". If cotton could be grown just as well in Alaska as in Alabama there would have been no fucking war and there would probably have been slavery for MUCH longer.

War is never about one side being evil and the other side being Captain America to come save the day, war is almost always about money, power, and territory.

All the people who organized the civil war were cocksuckers, confederate and union, and almost all the people fighting on both sides were just regular dudes in the military.

Same reason we fight wars today, because politicians and people who run corporations are cocksuckers who need to be skinned, and because regular everyday dudes are willing to take orders from them.