Removing monuments of the Confederacy: Yay or Nay?

[cuddle striker]

This was well reasoned and deserved it a better reply than I gave it. At the time I was distracted with many other things, and I didn't really do right by you at the time. You engaged me and I wasn't fair. So let me try again.

I would counter that the opposite of what you say is true, that identifying myself as "American first" simply by what it is says on my passport is akin to identifying myself by race or gender identity. My family settled this land, gave me a different education, different religious inclinations, a different culture, in my case a different language and accent (Louisiana French), fought to drive off the North (obviously massively unsuccessfully, but we killed and wounded hundreds of thousands, three times as many as we lost) and for generations have raised ourselves as southerners. I have literally nothing in common with someone from Iowa. I know because I've moved around this country for years. The contrast is as stark as a German in Sub-Saharan Africa. We were some of the first Europeans to settle in the Americas, not all of us in the thirteen colonies. My family has kept its flags, passed down, and its way of life and identity for hundreds of years, both before and after the war. We're Dixies. That's what we are. America is the country we belong to, some of us by choice, but the South is our nation.



You're damn sure right about the last part. At least a little. Secessionism is absolutely suppressed by virtue of the fact it's illegal, however. I should have given the United States more dignity, though. You'll see above in the thread that being American, short of an independent South, is still better than anything else on Earth in my view, at least for us. I would still fight for the United States to defend it, if only because the South is in it and this is for now and probably forever what my neighbors, increasingly foreigners and migrants, are choosing. We are indeed made of many subcultures and minorities with a common Southern identity (of which I belong to one of the most prominent.)

That said, identifying with the people who fought and died for me, my land, and my faith, with my language, culture, way of life, and our flag, might be "identity politics" to the both of you. But no more so than calling myself "American" would be. People disagree with my feelings, and that's absolutely fair and allowed, but so did many Irish unionists with their nationalists. Yet there the Irish Republic is. All I want is the constitutional right to try. Britain, Canada, and many other fine countries give their constituents the right to secede peaceably. Indeed many would vote against us. By why is the U.S. so afraid of us that it would tear down our flags, denies us this right, and refuses to hear us? Perhaps it is because they fear we really are a nation and wouldn't make the same choice Quebec and Scotland did. They certainly took pains under Grant and others to destroy "Confederate nationalism." Even now, apparently, it is widely feared at least by idiots.

This is a right states should have.

yeah I don't have shit in common with people from Iowa either. I get the regional identity thing, and the personal history.

we're Americans though, it's"united states" and "melting pot" and all that. we've got to be on the same team, that war was fought and ended.

 

[Gym Leader Elesa]

we're Americans though, it's"united states" and "melting pot" and all that. we've got to be on the same team, that war was fought and ended.

I reject that narrative, as you may have gathered, and aim to reopen that issue. I would like to play for a different team, so to speak, and won't give my up land to do so. The war was settled, the Union was indeed better at fighting, but the right to secession was never put to rest in a legally, intellectually, or politically satisfactory manner. They just killed everyone, which is valid up to a point, but only goes so far. Hence this conversation. Might does not make right. Even if it did, I'm not dead, so here we are. And here we will remain, until the rest of us are killed or die off. If I live an average lifespan, that should be another fifty years or so. The Union won the war, it did not kill my ideas, or the ideas of my ancestors. I don't really care about "united states" or "melting pot" I want "my nation" and "independent South." I have no desire to see this culture melt any further into the Union.

I guess, tl;dr "Make me." It's not that your emotional appeals are invalid, it's just that they are by nature ineffective on someone who was raised with a completely different mindset. Up to a certain point, you may as well be telling a Russian "we're all Americans."

 

[cuddle striker]

I reject that narrative, as you may have gathered, and aim to reopen that issue. I would like to play for a different team, so to speak, and won't give my up land to do so. The war was settled, the Union was indeed better at fighting, but the right to secession was never put to rest in a legally, intellectually, or politically satisfactory manner. They just killed everyone, which is valid up to a point, but only goes so far. Hence this conversation. Might does not make right. Even if it did, I'm not dead, so here we are. And here we will remain, until the rest of us are killed or die off. If I live an average lifespan, that should be another fifty years or so. The Union won the war, it did not kill my ideas, or the ideas of my ancestors. I don't really care about "united states" or "melting pot" I want "my nation" and "independent South." I have no desire to see this culture melt any further into the Union.

I guess, tl;dr "Make me." It's not that your emotional appeals are invalid, it's just that they are by nature ineffective on someone who was raised with a completely different mindset. Up to a certain point, you may as well be telling a Russian "we're all Americans."

the great thing about this all, is that we can disagree on that and I still think you're all right. whenever I get called in to the south, the food is amazing and especially in New Orleans, being mixed race, I don't hear jack shit about it, nobody cares. it's part of the culture.

I didn't realize they hadn't polled the locals on the monuments, what the hell? it's up to the people that live with them, whether or not they stand. That's some serious bullshit. I mean it's definitely a local issue.

Taking a flag down from a federally run building like a congressional office is one thing, removing local landmarks is another.

 

[TiggerNits]

Whatever the locals want to do with them. Hard to give a shit about what the runner up in the Civil War does to lick its wounds and nurse its pride. I grew up spending summers in the South and they're good people, same as the rest of America aside from the hippies. Self government is the cornerstone of what makes America functional. Let the folks living in these places decide what to do with them, not the fucking national news

 

[millais]

Being curious, I looked into the situation some more, and it seems there are a few more Confederate monuments in my state than I assumed, though they are in a much more precarious situation than I expected. On the grounds of the State Capitol, there are at least three monuments, and them being on government property is already not a good sign for their longevity. Even worse the capital is easily the most libcucked city in the whole of the state by a longshot, which is why in the past I never would have thought to look for Confederate monuments there when visiting. Fortunately they seem to have evaded the ire of the college activists and carpetbaggers as far as I can tell, and there is currently no campaign to have them removed or anything like that. If they were ever targeted, I think it would be in their favor that none of the monuments commemorate individual Confederate leaders, just the war dead and the veterans of the two most illustrious military units to leave their mark on the annals of the state's history.

That is a pretty badass equestrian statue; I hope I get a chance to swing by to see it in person sometime. I really appreciate the sculptor's attention to detail and historical accuracy. Long story short, from the style in which the jacket is buttoned down to the make of the carbine, it's a very representative figure of the ideal volunteer from the commemorated unit.

 

[Caesare]

If you start removing historical monuments now, I predict in about a hundred years you guys will have the cast of Jersey Shore on Mount Rushmore.

It does seem like that's what they're shooting for.

America is a young nation and the few organic symbols you've developed in your time people should probably be able to keep, Confederate symbols are part of the South and Southern identity and are not necessarily connotative of racism secessionist ideals.

Exactly. I can't understand the mindset of a person who supports removing a historical monument, especially in a free society. It's complete insanity to me. The fact that some people can judge men from over 150 years with today's standards of morality is just mind boggling.

I could never get behind the censorship of our own history. It's just like burning books you don't agree with.

In any case, I wish New Orleans as a people had gotten a vote on those monuments. There just never has been a local vote on these issues anywhere in the South (that I have heard of) because I suspect our leaders know what the people, including many blacks, would vote for. It sure isn't "spend millions getting rid of a statue of General Lee." I wish there was a more robust, local, democratic process.

Meanwhile, 3 people killed and 10 wounded in five separate shootings last Saturday. This puts the number of people killed and wounded by gunfire over 300 since the beginning of the year. This is the most frustrating thing in all of this, the fact that Landrieu is more interested in getting his name in the news by ruining historical sites than he is with the long-running crime epidemic in his city.

 

[Marvin]

Exactly. I can't understand the mindset of a person who supports removing a historical monument, especially in a free society. It's complete insanity to me. The fact that some people can judge men from over 150 years with today's standards of morality is just mind boggling.

I could never get behind the censorship of our own history. It's just like burning books you don't agree with.

So it seems pretty obvious that in the case of New Orleans, there's a current political bent to the issue.

However, current politics aside, I think it's completely valid for cities to grow and change over time. Old buildings sometimes need to get torn down, new buildings get put up. Same thing for public art.

If there were 1500 installations of public art in a city, you should probably put effort into maintaining the particularly important ones. But I see no reason why you need to maintain 100% of them.

Furthermore, I think you're dismissing the significance of symbolism of these monuments as they apply today. You talk about these issues as if the only valid context for these monuments is a historical one, and people who don't see it that way are crazy.

To bring up a more extreme example, the Soviet Union is dead and buried, yet Russia is full of its symbols. Is it unreasonable for people to take concern with that?

Heh, like, this video is joking, but that's pretty much how it feels. You walk around Moscow and see giant monuments to the USSR, and you visit Lenin's papery corpse, and then you see a stand selling a bunch of mugs and tshirts with Putin's face glaring at you. Nothing's changed.

 

[Bob Page]

Nay, because this is history revisionism at its worst.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it
-George Santayana

 

[Gym Leader Elesa]

To bring up a more extreme example, the Soviet Union is dead and buried, yet Russia is full of its symbols. Is it unreasonable for people to take concern with that?

Yes. I hate the communists, but yes. What the Soviet Union has left behind in monuments and symbols should remain. They are forever a part of Russia's history, and modern Russia was irrevocably shaped by it. They need to incorporate what happened into the next phase of their existence.

That said, the Soviet Union was a phase of Russia's history. A Southern nation was not a phase of history, it is a thing which in my view still exists today, and so those flags and monuments represent a living people, rather than a failed ideology. Dixie is not an idea, it is a reality. But we all know where I am on that. I fall to the furthest extreme on the "pro" side since the monument's enemies are not "erasing my history" they are directly attacking my country. So of course, I take it in much more hostile terms than even @Coleman Francis or @entropyseekswork or the others.

To finally wrap up my endless posts in this thread after my hilariously botched attempt to keep my mouth shut, a conclusion:

The South was right.
The monuments and flags should be left there since we should just secede again anyway, fuck the Union.
The black and white people of the South have more in common with each other despite historical racial divides then they do with their northern (or Californian) overlords.
State's rights.
More democracy and voting.
God bless Robert E. Lee one of the greatest men who ever lived.
God Save the South.

And furthermore, Gettysburg, Pennsylvania must be destroyed.

 

[Caesare]

So of course, I take it in much more hostile terms than even @Coleman Francis or @entropyseekswork or the others.

Certain people that live outside of N.O. or the South in general wonder why such strong feelings continue to exist for this period in history. For that, the blame falls into the lap of certain units and generals of the Union Army who had zero control over their troops and basically let them run a reign of terror in occupied territory. Murdering innocents, women, children. Burning the workplaces and homes of Southerners who were against the war, etc.

There was a certain Union general who occupied the Florida Parishes of Louisiana, North of Lake Pontchartrain, who had zero control over his men. They waged a reign of terror: pillaging, murdering, burning homes and businesses, raping, you name it they did it.

The thing about it is, the people of the Florida Parishes were poor farmers and store owners. They had no love for the Confederacy, were against the war to begin with, and particularly resented the Southern aristocracy who owned thousands of slaves, who they believed looked more highly upon their slaves than they did these dirt poor white folks.

Long story short, when the reign of terror took place in the Florida Parishes, these individuals who were formerly against the war, became the most die hard CSA supporters. They were tired of the atrocities, so they waged guerrilla warfare against the Union army in the area and were successful! The atrocities stopped once these civilians started hiding in the woods with their rifles, taking potshots at the rear of the Union squads marching through. The best part about it, these "bushwackers" as they were called, were virtually never caught since they knew the land so well.

Had they not been treated so disgustingly by the occupying armies, they would have actually been benevolent, occupied subjects. Case in point, another Union Commander who was responsible for marching through neighboring Mississippi, kept his troops on a tight leach. He only allowed them to destroy government property, such as ammunition dumps, military railroads, etc. He would not allow his troops to run wild, looting and pillaging everything they could.

This gained the Commander the respect of the occupied people of Mississippi, and they were much easier to accept defeat where the individuals in the Florida Parishes engaged in guerrilla warfare even after the war ended.

I'm not going to even get into Reconstruction, but that was an entire other atrocity after the war's end. All because the Puritanical fundamentalist abolitionists believed they were on a mission from God to completely pulverize the already surrendered CSA.

Unlike @Gym Leader Elesa and others I've spoken to online, I have no family connection to the Confederacy besides growing up in the city of New Orleans. I've seen my family tree, everyone on both sides of the family settled here in the very late 19th century and the early 20th century. Yet the more I study this time period, the more strongly I feel part of it.

 

[millais]

Certain people that live outside of N.O. or the South in general wonder why such strong feelings exist for this period in history. For that, the blame falls into the lap of certain units and generals of the Union Army who had zero control over their troops and basically let them run a reign of terror in occupied territory. Murdering innocents, women, children. Burning the workplaces and homes of Southerners who were against the war, etc.

There was a certain Union general who occupied the Florida Parishes, North of Lake Pontchartrain, who had zero control over his men. They waged a reign of terror: pillaging, murdering, burning homes and businesses, raping, you name it they did it.

The thing about it is, the people of the Florida Parishes were poor farmers and store owners. They had no love for the Confederacy, were against the war to begin with, and particularly resented the Southern aristocracy who owned thousands of slaves, who they believed looked more highly upon their slaves than they did these dirt poor white folks.

Long story short, when the reign of terror took place in the Florida Parishes, these individuals who were formerly against the war, became the most die hard CSA supporters. They were tired of the atrocities, so they waged guerrilla warfare against the Union army in the area and were successful! The atrocities stopped once these civilians started hiding in the woods with their rifles, taking potshots at the rear of the Union squads marching through. The best part about it, these "bushwackers" as they were called, were virtually never caught since they knew the land so well.

Had they not been treated to disgustingly by the occupying armies, they would have actually been benevolent, occupied subjects. Case in point, another Union Commander who was responsible for marching through neighboring Mississippi, kept his troops on a tight leach. He only allowed them to destroy government property, such as ammunition dumps, military railroads, etc. He would not allow his troops to run wild, looting and pillaging everything they could.

This gained the Commander the respect of the occupied people of Mississippi, and they were much easier to accept defeat where the individuals in the Florida Parishes engaged in guerrilla warfare even after the war ended.

I'm not going to even get into Reconstruction, but that was an entire other atrocity after the war's end. All because the Puritanical fundamentalist abolitionists believed they were on a mission from God to completely pulverize the already surrendered CSA.

Unlike @Gym Leader Elesa and others I've spoken to online, I have no family connection to the Confederacy besides growing up in the city of New Orleans. I've seen my family tree, everyone on both sides of the family settled here in the very late 19th century and the early 20th century. Yet the more I study this time period, the more strongly I feel part of it.

From what I recall of history lessons, the Union general in charge of the wartime occupation of New Orleans was a locally hated figure too. On the first day of the occupation, a woman emptied the contents of her household's chamberpot on the Union troops who were parading down the street below. In retaliation for this isolated incident, General Butler issued an order instructing his men in the bluntest of terms to treat all the women of New Orleans as prostitutes. Needless to say, this did not go down well with the local population.

 

[Alec Benson Leary]

War is hell.

 

[Marvin]

Yes. I hate the communists, but yes. What the Soviet Union has left behind in monuments and symbols should remain. They are forever a part of Russia's history, and modern Russia was irrevocably shaped by it. They need to incorporate what happened into the next phase of their existence.

You're missing my point though.

You're focusing on interpreting them in a historical context. But there are other contexts to consider, like a modern day context. Those matter too.

"What does this mean for the history of the country?" is an important question to ask to justify keeping a piece of public art intact. But so is "how will it make me feel to live around this?" Same as all other land use issues (like zoning). Like, is it an eyesore? Was the subject important?

I don't see any reason for all public art to be immutable. I mean, I think there should be a tendency to preserve prominent public art, but that's a far cry from "never tear anything down".

Heh, and regarding the Soviet Union: what about if the Soviets had erected a statue in Afghanistan? Like a big old statue of Lenin stepping on the back of some Afghan peasant, holding the hammer and sickle. Right in the middle of Kabul.

 

[Alec Benson Leary]

Heh, and regarding the Soviet Union: what about if the Soviets had erected a statue in Afghanistan? Like a big old statue of Lenin stepping on the back of some Afghan peasant, holding the hammer and sickle. Right in the middle of Kabul.

I was trying to figure out a good way to word this. The Soviet Union was all Russia, none of their satellite states/conquered territories had any cultural identification with that shit.

 

[Marvin]

I was trying to figure out a good way to word this. The Soviet Union was all Russia, none of their satellite states/conquered territories had any cultural identification with that shit.

I think that's debatable. Many of the smaller SSRs were resentful, but quite a few really drank the koolade and got into the whole soviet shtick. It varies.

Heh, when I wrote my last post, I was thinking about the ugliest piece of public art I could think of. I was thinking of this giant, milquetoast tranny statue that's out front of Baltimore's Penn Station. Personally I don't have a problem with it (and I didn't even realize it was about trannies to begin with), but apparently some people got offended at it. If it got taken down and replaced with a fountain or something, I wouldn't sweat it.

Now on the other hand, if some hippies wanted to take down the General Pulaski monument, I'd lose my shit. I cannot believe that they gave Mother Theresa honorary US citizenship alongside Casimir Pulaski. Fuck that shit.

 

[AnOminous]

I was trying to figure out a good way to word this. The Soviet Union was all Russia, none of their satellite states/conquered territories had any cultural identification with that shit.

That's why I didn't say none of these monuments should ever be removed, ever. I think if you live in a city, and there's some piece of shit everyone in the city hates installed in the town square, there should be some public voice as to whether it stays there.

I just think it should be something on the level of a supermajority actually voting for it, maybe 70-30 or something.

Not just angry screaming by a bunch of really noisy idiots.

 

[Trilby]

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

The notion of "history being written by the winners" has never been so obvious than now.

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.)

That is excessive and doesn't benefit anyone.

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.

Again, history written by the winners.

That is a pretty badass equestrian statue; I hope I get a chance to swing by to see it in person sometime. I really appreciate the sculptor's attention to detail and historical accuracy. Long story short, from the style in which the jacket is buttoned down to the make of the carbine, it's a very representative figure of the ideal volunteer from the commemorated unit.

The sad part is thinking the guy who made this put in all that effort in something that may end up destroyed thanks to a generation who doesn't care about what that person did.

It does seem like that's what they're shooting for.

Well at least it's not Jesus Christ like some Japanese cartoon did back in the 70's.

Exactly. I can't understand the mindset of a person who supports removing a historical monument, especially in a free society. It's complete insanity to me. The fact that some people can judge men from over 150 years with today's standards of morality is just mind boggling.

I'd love to think what someone 150 years from now would think of what we're doing today (I'm sure they'll think we're total cucks!)!

I could never get behind the censorship of our own history. It's just like burning books you don't agree with.

True. It's like nobody wants to deal with what look like 'blemishes' that can be eradicated permanently.

 

[AnOminous]

Meanwhile, the other side of this debate doesn't seem to have any issues with it being forgotten that Sherman went total war and slaughtered civilians and absolutely destroyed civilian property and land, ensuring it could never be made useful again, on a rampage through the entire South, essentially just to punish the civilian population, something that would be considered a war crime less than 100 years later at Nuremberg.

This is how we treated our own citizens.

 

[teh forist speret]

I have a feeling that if they actually did start removing monuments, we'd have a situation with the confederacy similar to how Germany views its history with WWII; we could scrub it clean on the surface so as to not attract controversy, but the rest of the world still knows and openly talks about it.

Of course removing monuments and such is historical revisionism so SJWs can walk through the South without being triggered, rather than a movement born of any actual shame of that dark period in history.

 

[Trilby]

I have a feeling that if they actually did start removing monuments, we'd have a situation with the confederacy similar to how Germany views its history with WWII; we could scrub it clean on the surface so as to not attract controversy, but the rest of the world still knows and openly talks about it.

Of course removing monuments and such is historical revisionism so SJWs can walk through the South without being triggered, rather than a movement born of any actual shame of that dark period in history.

Which they DO NOT FUCKING HAVE!