Removing monuments of the Confederacy: Yay or Nay?

[Organic Fapcup]

Removing the statues isn't going to remove the people they represent from history. The South's history books will likely more than make up for it. The statues were created to intimidate black folk, plain and simple. If they truly wanted to honor history, they would add a sign or some such that'd give context to who the person was and what they did.

Preservation of history is very important to me. If the statues MUST remain intact, then they should be shipped off to a museum. I really don't know how people can say "oh it's just the left erasing history" when they're more than willing to replace the statues with figures of the era who triumphed in the face of adversity that they faced in that region of the country at the time. If you're worried about those generals and such being generalized as "evil meanies" then maybe do the intelligent thing and offer courses that contain a nuanced approach to history. Oh but I forgot, that's too hard. Higher critical thinking skills is only a superpower that autistic people possess.

"Intimidating black folk". Truly. Maybe they were just made by a local artisan, who didn't see a need to put a plaque. Maybe it's just a decoration piece to look nice and it doesn't need a plaque. But nah yeah let's jump straight to racism.

And no, it's not the left erasing history. It's a bunch of amped-up idiots committing vandalism because it was en vogue to do so, and here you are, giving some form of validation to their angry tantrums.

 

[mindlessobserver]

So there needs to be an explanation here that people need to understand about the Confederacy and the history that surrounds these monuments. And I am not talking about the History that is being peddled by ethnic studies communists. The actual history.

Slavery WAS the causal drive of the American Civil War. This is indisputable. The arguments over States rights could be boiled down to the States Right to keep and hold slaves. The war was largely inevitable. Southern culture of the time was manifestly different from Northern culture, but the two were kept in Union via the US Constitution and increasingly tenuous compromises that broke down over the 1850's. What worked to keep the Union could not be sustained in the face of new States being added (and thus shifting the power dynamics in Congress) and the awful Dredd Scott decision that forced Northern States to be complicit in the Slave industry against their will. People forget that the South was just as bad at attempting to force its culture down the throat of the Northern States as the Northern States were at forcing it on the south. There was intense bad blood on both sides as the 1860 secession crisis approached.

The details are largely meaningless at that point. Suffice to say the Northern States won, and the South was destroyed. And I do mean that in the literal sense. The major Cities of the South, Savannah, Atlanta, Richmond were destroyed outright, while the economic engines New Orleans, Mobile and Newport News were likewise destroyed in the ensuing economic collapse. The plantation system was the lifeblood of the southern economy and its destruction, caused not just by the freeing of slaves, but also by the British and French Empires creating their own sources of Cotton and Tobacco essentially ruined the south.

You need to remember that as a matter of Industry and Population the North had more power, but the South was the WEALTHIEST (on a per capita basis, counting slaves as property) region in the US. By 1865 that wealth was totally destroyed. Along with all the infrastructure and an entire generation of males. Gone in 4 years. The apocalypse had literally rained down upon the heads of the Southern people and nothing but ruin remained. The Lincoln assassination helped nobody either, as it handed the reintegration process over to the Northern Republicans who were interested in revenge, not reconciliation. Remember, the Northern States were just as mad at the South as the Southern States were going into the mess and the sheer bloody murder of the war only made the resentment of the North worse.

The Northern Republicans treated Race as a weapon right out the gate. The forced Black Senators and Congressmen on the South. Not out of any Altruistic aim, but as punishment. The Reconstructionists were not interested in racial harmony. Putting freed slaves in the Congressional delegations was considered a deliberate insult that was not lost on the Southerners who were already in considerable economic and social misery. Rubbing salt in the wounds essentially. Nascent political unions between poor whites and freed slaves were swiftly ended because of this it should be noted.

After 20 years of this, the Republican Party fell into disarray and could no longer truly sustain the occupation, and the old Southern Democrats reasserted control passing the black codes. These were not only about restoring the old racial order. They were also political retaliation against the freed blacks who were used (unwittingly) as pawns for petty revenge by the Republicans. It was not their fault but the damage was done. As far as the Southerners were concerned the Africans were the stooges of the people who had destroyed their society and then attempted to profit off of its misery. Denying them political power was seen not just as "putting them in their place" as it was insuring this injustice would never happen again.At least, that was how it was sold and after 20 years of post-apocalypse it sold well.

And that is when the first Confederate Statues went up. They were not symbols of racial animus. They were symbols of the South reasserting itself and rebuilding out of the ashes of the war. They went up at the same time as Jim Crow went into effect because Jim Crow, like the Statues, were part of a backlash against the reconstructionists. As time went on, they would become pointed reminders of a terrible war. Not racial animus. The idea that they were monuments to white supremacy would only come in the 21st century. About 10 years ago. Pushed by people who do not understand the history of it, nor particularly care.

 

[Jaimas]

No. Leave the fucking things where they are. We need them.

They're important parts of history.

They're a permanent reminder of where we came from - and just as importantly, where we could end up again if we fuck up hard enough.

 

[Slap47]

After 20 years of this, the Republican Party fell into disarray and could no longer truly sustain the occupation, and the old Southern Democrats reasserted control passing the black codes. These were not only about restoring the old racial order. They were also political retaliation against the freed blacks who were used (unwittingly) as pawns for petty revenge by the Republicans. It was not their fault but the damage was done. As far as the Southerners were concerned the Africans were the stooges of the people who had destroyed their society and then attempted to profit off of its misery. Denying them political power was seen not just as "putting them in their place" as it was insuring this injustice would never happen again.At least, that was how it was sold and after 20 years of post-apocalypse it sold well.

And that is when the first Confederate Statues went up. They were not symbols of racial animus. They were symbols of the South reasserting itself and rebuilding out of the ashes of the war. They went up at the same time as Jim Crow went into effect because Jim Crow, like the Statues, were part of a backlash against the reconstructionists. As time went on, they would become pointed reminders of a terrible war. Not racial animus. The idea that they were monuments to white supremacy would only come in the 21st century. About 10 years ago. Pushed by people who do not understand the history of it, nor particularly care.

The black codes were the restoration of slave codes and the installation of black leaders was basically just the allowing of actual democratic elections to take place. You only really saw alot of black people in government in states with majority black populations. The radicals were true believers in reintegrating the south as a region that treated black people fairly. It's not a coincidence that a few of the leading radical republicans were single men with black maids.

The north only gave up on reconstruction after the rehabilitation of the Democratic party. People stopped seeing them as the traitor party and the Republicans opted to focus entirely on economics rather than on the chaos that was the south that was going nowhere due to resistance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compromise_of_1877

The building of the monuments happened after reconstruction as part of Jim Crow and the Magnolia myth. I personally think they should stay as a reminder of that negative history.

 

[Jaimas]

The black codes were the restoration of slave codes and the installation of black leaders was basically just the allowing of actual democratic elections to take place. You only really saw alot of black people in government in states with majority black populations. The radicals were true believers in reintegrating the south as a region that treated black people fairly. It's not a coincidence that a few of the leading radical republicans were single men with black maids.

The north only gave up on reconstruction after the rehabilitation of the Democratic party. People stopped seeing them as the traitor party and the Republicans opted to focus entirely on economics rather than on the chaos that was the south that was going nowhere due to resistance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compromise_of_1877

The building of the monuments happened after reconstruction as part of Jim Crow and the Magnolia myth. I personally think they should stay as a reminder of that negative history.

This. It's to remind us of how we got where we are today.
Not by some miracle or quirk of fate, but meter by bloody meter, and here we fucking are. Our ancestors fucked up so we didn't have to.

This said, I am for appropriating symbols of bad things and trying to turn them into something better. There's this one old dude I read about some time ago, who decided, a-la Randall of Clerks fame with the term "Porch Monkey," he was gonna take back the Confed flag and use it as a symbol of how far we've come as a nation. Suffice to say, the guy got fucking lambasted by the mainstream press; every time the subject's come up, even otherwise-rational people go froth-at-the-mouth because the usual leftist groups (that have since gone fucking insane) have riled them up by saying OMG THE KKK SUCH RACISM MUH NEO NAZIS. You can't even fucking find this poor guy's campaign on most search engines now, that's how many fucking thousands of websites are devoted to shrieking about the Confederate Flag.

But you know what? Props to the guy. He was right, and still is. The Confed flag isn't like the fucking Nazi flag, where there's basically nothing but negative connotations associated with it; it's a stark reminder of why the war happened in the first place and why the South kept it around. All the people trying to get rid of it accomplishes is encouraging whitewashing of history and simply glossing over the unpleasant (ironically, done by the same people who brought us insisting that white people owe all black people monetary reparations - strange how that works).

Doing something positive like what he suggested, though? Not only does it maintain it, but it completely takes the wind out of the sails of those who would use it for hate by using it for something better. That's kind of a cool idea, and there's some merit to it at the end of the day.

 

[Slap47]

Confederate soldiers fought to defend their countries in the same way that Wehrmacht soldiers fought to keep communism away from their precious Berlin.

Germany however has symbols for its identity outside of the Swastika. What exactly does the south have other than the stars and bars? They've got distinct food and culture but no symbols that aren't also shared with the rest of the Union. Texas has its Lone Star but the Texan revolution was also entirely about slavery.

 

[Trans Fat 41g]

No. Leave the fucking things where they are. We need them.

They're important parts of history.

They're a permanent reminder of where we came from - and just as importantly, where we could end up again if we fuck up hard enough.

This x1000.

If history disturbs or intimidates you in any way, that's actually a good thing.

You want to remember what happened in Massachusetts, Texas, Philadelphia, etc. which made your current life even possible.

We are a very easily arrogant, complacent species. Mind the misanthropic tone, deep thoughts while sick isn't my strong suit.

 

[Mungo]

I know this is kind of a dead/dormant issue, but I've been reading a lot about it recently, and what I've read has changed my perspective on the problem.

I initially approached this issue believing that the majority of the monuments were put up immediately following the Civil War as mementos of its leaders/the "lost cause," and were thus built with the intent of honoring people and concepts that were seen as heroic at the time. For that reason, I was, at first, opposed pretty wholeheartedly to the removal of the monuments, but, since then, I've found evidence to suggest that most of the monuments were constructed in the late 1800s-early 1900s during times of racial strife with the sole purpose of intimidating local black populations. I would be ok with the monuments remaining up where they were erected if I was convinced that they were built to commemorate the War rather than to intimidate a populace, but what I've read about the monuments doesn't really support that idea.

That being said, I do not want the monuments to be destroyed, either by the local government or, heaven forbid, a group of angry protesters, nor do I want the monuments dating back to the Civil War/Reconstruction eras to be taken down, as they were built to honor the "cause" and those who fought for it, but now I wouldn't be opposed to local governments taking the Jim Crow era monuments from where they were built and putting them on public display in museums, preferably with additional information available to recontextualize the purpose of the monuments.

 

[gumboman]

lol, karma kisses western socities, there was a time during early Christianity in Europe when Christian were relentlessly tearing down very symbol of Indo Europeans religion of their ancestors & now their progenies doing the same .

abrahmic cannibalization

 

[LazarusOwenhart]

Historical revisionism is never ok. By all means change the plaque on the statue to give some context to it and explain why a statue was erected to somebody whose behavior is now considered abhorrent, even move the statue to a different place if it's positioning is genuinely insensitive in a changing world but don't ever pretend that people didn't once revere the subject of the statue. Rewriting history is a method favored by dictators and all it does is erase the lessons of the past and help society to make the same mistakes again.

 

[AnOminous]

If people who actually live somewhere overwhelmingly don't want some object there, I don't see why they should be forced to pay taxes to maintain it. If it has historical significance, keep it and put it somewhere else. I'd say put it up for a ballot initiative. If they want to replace it with something else, have a bond issue in the ballot initiative to pay for it.

Now if some vandals and terrorists who don't even live in the place don't like it, fuck those people.

 

[Takayuki Yagami]

If people who actually live somewhere overwhelmingly don't want some object there, I don't see why they should be forced to pay taxes to maintain it. If it has historical significance, keep it and put it somewhere else. I'd say put it up for a ballot initiative. If they want to replace it with something else, have a bond issue in the ballot initiative to pay for it.

Now if some vandals and terrorists who don't even live in the place don't like it, fuck those people.

My understanding of the shitshow in New Orleans is that the residents didn’t actually want the monuments gone, but the mayor decided to act unilaterally to make a name for himself among the Democrats.

 

[AnOminous]

My understanding of the shitshow in New Orleans is that the residents didn’t actually want the monuments gone, but the mayor decided to act unilaterally to make a name for himself among the Democrats.

That's what I was indirectly referencing, although the situation is the same in a lot of places where these antifa terrorists and vandals showed up.

 

[Trilby]

That's what I was indirectly referencing, although the situation is the same in a lot of places where these antifa terrorists and vandals showed up.

Typical BS, really.

 

[RichardMongler]

Pardon me for necroing an old thread, but this video is very relevant to this thread:

 

[DNA_JACKED]

The monuments should stay. Attempting to erase history because it is uncomfortable is a horrible idea. those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

 

[ADN_VIII]

Don't destroy the monuments. Put them in museums and exhibits to teach those who come after, but don't put them on pedestals as some ideal to be strived for.

 

[Mr. 0]

Don't destroy the monuments. Put them in museums and exhibits to teach those who come after, but don't put them on pedestals as some ideal to be strived for.

...They would be safer from smartass vandals who either seek positive validation for the least amount of effort or are so ignorant as to what they do that they can't be convinced that they may possibly be wrong.

Ideally anyway. That would also put them at the mercy of whoever runs those museums and that same type of asshole that wants them destroyed could end up running the museum and getting their way if they want it bad enough.

 

[JustStopDude]

I don't understand celebrating a failed political state that only lasted six years and achieved no goals.

It is also very annoying when northerns flood area to have violent protests. They do not have to pay for clean up. It's always people from Great Lakes area coming down to have fights.

 

[wellthathappened]

Most of the monuments in question were a direct shitlord response to the Civil Rights act. The narrative is that these statues and monuments have existed for generations. They haven't. I don't even care about political correctness and things of that nature, but trying to tie this to history is lame. I also don't really care if they stay or go.