Removing monuments of the Confederacy: Yay or Nay?

To sum up an already too long story, New Orleans isn't the "liberal paradise" these lowlife transplant's think it is. They move here from the Midwest, up North, or whatever cornball city they come from and attempt to sanitize it and make it as just as culturally bland as whatever shithole area they come from, which is highly unfortunate.
Why do you think they come from culturally bland places? What would make a place culturally bland?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Alec Benson Leary
Why do you think they come from culturally bland places? What would make a place culturally bland?
Because outside of some random shit midwesterners/bay area people/the general schmucks he's talking about are among the most anodyne people you will ever meet. That is to say the antithesis to old, strange, good-kind-of-trashy places like New Orleans.
 
I think removing things like this is highly contextual, in that public art is something that supposedly benefits the public. People pay taxes, and if most of the people paying those taxes don't want them spent on some particular monument or memorial and its upkeep, their wishes should be respected, to some degree.

It also has a lot to do with the placement of the monument and whether it signifies government endorsement of what that monument represents, or whether it is simply there for historical significance.

If the majority of the people experiencing public art like this actually hate it and want it destroyed, they shouldn't necessarily immediately get their wishes, but perhaps it should actually be removed from public spaces where the government is essentially endorsing the view represented by the art. In that case, it's still very likely that it should actually be preserved at least in a museum.

The only place I'm absolutely opposed to removing every remotely Confederate-related thing is military parks, where the educational purpose of the park is essentially completely destroyed by the historical revisionism of pretending that somehow, one side of the conflict literally didn't even exist.

(As for the specific Robert E. Lee monument, I personally disagree with removing that. At the same time, though, it seems like an issue for the people who actually live in that area and have strong opinions about its presence.)
 
(As for the specific Robert E. Lee monument, I personally disagree with removing that. At the same time, though, it seems like an issue for the people who actually live in that area and have strong opinions about its presence.)

The thing about the monuments in New Orleans, the people here (and in the region in general) have very strong feelings about it. There was no vote for the people to decide to take them down, Landrieu just decided to make a name for himself in the media and pushed through the removals. It's going to literally cost millions to remove these monuments. Have you ever seen the monument to General Robert E. Lee? It's humongous. The statue itself is much larger than life sized, and it sits on a pillar that extends close to 40 feet in the air (though I could be mistaken, I'm not good at eyeballing distances even though I drive by the thing every day.)

I'm positive that the money used on the upkeep of these statues is a mere fraction of what its going to cost to remove them. The millions that it will cost to take them down is probably enough to maintain their upkeep for the next fifty years. And they are all important monuments: they beautify the city, they can be used as teaching tools to school children, and they are tourist destinations where people can visit and take pictures of them.

This whole thing is just extremely unfortunate, more so that its completely politically motivated by Landrieu, who has absolutely no chance at winning the Democratic nomination for the next presidential election anyway. He's just a small, weak man with an inferiority complex and an inflated ego.
 
Last edited:
The thing about the monuments in New Orleans, the people here (and in the region in general) have very strong feelings about it. There was no vote for the people to decide to take them down, Landrieu just decided to make a name for himself in the media and pushed through the removals. It's going to literally cost millions to remove these monuments. Have you ever seen the monument to General Robert E. Lee? It's humongous.

I have, actually, in person. It's an impressive monument. I don't think it should be removed. My personal preference would be that it be kept up, but that the general area around it be used educationally, and the historical context behind it explained with some kind of tour, with plaques around it, as is often done with other Civil War-related scenes.
 
Huh, I never thought about it from the taxpayers' perspective. I guess carpetbaggers are necessarily taxpayers too, so if it really would save money to pull them down, that is a pretty good argument. In the southern state where I am living, there aren't any Confederate statuary or memorials I can recall, just a monument to some German-American Unionists who got lynched for dodging the Confederate conscription board, so I never see anything about monument removal propositions showing up on the municipal ballot.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Gym Leader Elesa
To me it depends on what type of monument it is, and where it is. There are many smaller monuments in small towns/counties in the south that simply have names of Confederate soldiers from that place who fought and died in the Civil War. I don't think that's hurting anyone. It's not a symbol of anything really, it's more like a headstone. I don't think the huge monuments to Confederate leaders really serve much of a purpose though, and I'm guessing that many of the subjects of those statues would rather they not exist in the first place. I'm almost positive that Robert E. Lee would be mortified at the number of memorials that bear his likeness. He even once said of war monuments specifically: "I think it wiser, moreover, not to keep open the sores of war, but to follow the example of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife, and to commit to oblivion the feelings it engendered."

That said, I think that tearing down monuments in a place like Gettysburg would be fucked up, and I hope it never comes to that.
 
Last edited:
Huh, I never thought about it from the taxpayers' perspective. I guess carpetbaggers are necessarily taxpayers too, so if it really would save money to pull them down, that is a pretty good argument. .

That's the thing though, it's actually going to cost much more to take the monuments down than it would to maintain them for likely the next 30-50 years. Plus, you're ruining a culturally significant landmark for the sake of what? A tiny minorities feelings? Why not remove the American flag from buildings? I'm sure there is a minority that hates this country enough that it hurts their feelings as well.
 
  • Semper Fidelis
Reactions: Gym Leader Elesa
The statues who are there to commemorate important shit should stay, the rest should be taken down and put in museums so that Confederateaboos can take notes for their next cosplay meet.

Like who currs theyre basically giant statues of a bunch of losers who died of dysentery
 
Last edited:
He even once said of war monuments specifically: "I think it wiser, moreover, not to keep open the sores of war, but to follow the example of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife, and to commit to oblivion the feelings it engendered."

Ironically, the fact that he was the kind of man who would say something like that is precisely why there are so many monuments to him.
 
A place without a rich history and traditions that go back hundreds of years like places such as New Orleans and New York City.
History isn't the only component of culture. Hell, it's not even necessarily a big part of it.

I've never really taken seriously the "it's old" argument for something to be good. At least not on its own. It smacks of hipsterism. Like I'm reminded of hipsters who really love mortadella, but simultaneously sneer on bologna, despite them being essentially the same food. (Mortadella is bologna with hunks of fat in it.) Heh, like try offering some of these people a bologna sandwich and then a mortadella sandwich, and compare the reactions you get.

History is cool, but so is art, music, local traditions (of any age), sports, food, beer, etc.

And I say this as someone from a pretty old city and state, where there's lots of history if you're into that sort of thing. At the end of the day, I guess you could say I'm more of a John Waters kinda guy than an Edgar Allan poe kinda guy. (But Poe's cool too.)

Maryland style crab cakes > Louisiana style crab cakes :tomgirl:
 
History isn't the only component of culture. Hell, it's not even necessarily a big part of it.

I've never really taken seriously the "it's old" argument for something to be good. At least not on its own. It smacks of hipsterism. Like I'm reminded of hipsters who really love mortadella, but simultaneously sneer on bologna, despite them being essentially the same food. (Mortadella is bologna with hunks of fat in it.) Heh, like try offering some of these people a bologna sandwich and then a mortadella sandwich, and compare the reactions you get.

History is cool, but so is art, music, local traditions (of any age), sports, food, beer, etc.

And I say this as someone from a pretty old city and state, where there's lots of history if you're into that sort of thing. At the end of the day, I guess you could say I'm more of a John Waters kinda guy than an Edgar Allan poe kinda guy. (But Poe's cool too.)

Maryland style crab cakes > Louisiana style crab cakes :tomgirl:

There is no argument. Chesapeake Bay crabs are the best ever, anywhere, period. I will beat anyone who disagrees.
 
History isn't the only component of culture. Hell, it's not even necessarily a big part of it.

History is cool, but so is art, music, local traditions (of any age), sports, food, beer, etc.

Of course history isn't the only part of culture, but art, music, food, and traditions are basically always tied into the history of an area. The older the city, the more time there is to develop and nurture the area's culture. Even recent happenings are important for an area to develop its own style and flavor, but age gives it authenticity and renown. For instance, I'm going to have more appreciation for the Taj Mahal than the some place in Wisconsin that is a local cultural landmark for making quirky maple syrup bottles.

I've never really taken seriously the "it's old" argument for something to be good. At least not on its own. It smacks of hipsterism.

That is what brings hipsters to places like NYC and NO in the first place. They want to live in a place that is considered "old" and "cool". But then once they move here, these are the exact type of people who want to change and ruin everything. There were a bunch of hipsters at the monument protest. I'm sure you can guess which side they were on. I actually talked to a bunch of them who pretended they were "from here" but couldn't answer basic questions about the city. That is what really enrages the traditionalists who believe in maintaining the beauty and magnificence of these monuments, the fact that there are these hipster rejects that rep the city but haven't lived here long enough to even know extremely basic local history and events. Then they actually have the nerve to pretend they are "old timers", it's fucking pathetic.

The statues who are there to commemorate important shit should stay

Yes, they should stay, as they are all important and every one of them commemorates important events and people.

Maryland style crab cakes > Louisiana style crab cakes :tomgirl:

Not to start an argument but New Orleans food > The entire American continent's food. This isn't even an argument, it's just the way it is. :)
 
Last edited:
I really don't see the social or political benefit of keeping around a statue of general lee that was built in 1920 by a segregationist asshat. If that's your heritage it's a shitty one and you should probably hate it. Like, it's not like my guido ass keeps a painting of Il Duce in my living room. Well, guest room, maybe.

Realistically southerners should resent those aristocratic shitheads who sent your great great great grandpappy to die for their right to own human beings as cattle. In the process of course lowering his wages and takin' his jerb. Like, c'mon, these same people hate immigrants for undercutting their wages. You should hate slaverowners even more. Kinda hard to compete with actual free labor, right?
 
I really don't see the social or political benefit of keeping around a statue of general lee that was built in 1920 by a segregationist asshat. If that's your heritage it's a shitty one and you should probably hate it. Like, it's not like my guido ass keeps a painting of Il Duce in my living room. Well, guest room, maybe.

Realistically southerners should resent those aristocratic shitheads who sent your great great great grandpappy to die for their right to own human beings as cattle. In the process of course lowering his wages and takin' his jerb. Like, c'mon, these same people hate immigrants for undercutting their wages. You should hate slaverowners even more. Kinda hard to compete with actual free labor, right?
Tell me, as a commie do you think statues of Stalin and Lenin should be removed?
 
Back