Removing monuments of the Confederacy: Yay or Nay?

[El Porko Fako]

Enlightening and interesting thread. When it comes to monuments of Confederate soldiers and icons, more often not I think they shouldn't be taken down because of their historical and educational worth, but I was anti-Confederate flag all the way.

Spoiler: Slightly Off-Topic, but kind of relevant

Potential power-leveling, but my neck of the woods is nowhere near the Deep South, but I've had some bad experiences of people waving and displaying that flag. Despite its historical importance, I just couldn't get over my past experiences I'd had with it. Anyway, this is my flag story.

Every once in awhile, white supremacists, usually a combination of KKK and neo-nazis, would hold a rally near my town and they prominently displayed the Confederate flag. I've seen these dip shits try to instigate violence by yelling nigger or wetback at people and sometimes families with small children as well who are just going about there day and trying to enjoy their weekend. Last rally got really violent and someone got stabbed iirc.

My problem is that I've always associated that flag with assholes blocking the fucking sidewalk and yelling obscenities at minorities to pick fights, and nothing else. Reading this thread has let me see how ignorant and petty I've been and realize not everyone who displays it is a racist piece of shit. Congrats Kiwis, consider my opinion somewhat swayed.

 

[cuddle striker]

while I'm impressed by the sentiment in some posts here, I also feel the need to remind people that if they're in the south they're Americans.

you're Americans. you didn't fight in that war, on either side. you were born in, and are citizens of, the USA.

 

[Caesare]

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?

The same people who hate immigrants? Which people? Wtf are you talking about even?

 

[feedtheoctopus]

Tell me, as a commie do you think statues of Stalin and Lenin should be removed?

Lenin and Stalin were cocks, so sure.

 

[Gym Leader Elesa]

while I'm impressed by the sentiment in some posts here, I also feel the need to remind people that if they're in the south they're Americans.

you're Americans. you didn't fight in that war, on either side. you were born in, and are citizens of, the USA.

Identity can transcend the bounds of empires. People like Kurdish "Turks", Irish nationalists in NI, etc. would strongly disagree with your sentiments. Some Southerners do as well, and not without reason. Most secessionists here are Southerners first and Americans second, which is how every region should be.

Southern nationality is more than the war. If an independent South sprung up tomorrow that had no links to the Confederacy that was some social democracy with a lotus flag, that would still be my country. The South will always take precedent, just like for a nationalist in NI the arguement that they posess British citizenship is irrelevant.

 

[BT 075]

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.

 

[Alec Benson Leary]

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.

In other words, tearing down signs of history just because that history may be ugly comes with a terrible price.

 

[IwegalBadnik]

I'm no fan of the Confederacy, but I would be reluctant to say the least when it comes to removing historical monuments.

 

[Absolutego]

If Germany decided to keep Auschwitz, why not keep Confederate monuments, too?

I don't know if you're aware of this, but Auschwitz is in Poland. It was the USSR, then Poland's decision to keep it, it was never up to the Germans.

On topic, I've only ever lived west of the Mississippi and don't claim to understand the deep South on a personal level. My personal experience with both the flag and other Confederate memorabilia is limited to redneck northerners trying to force it as a rural pride or generic anti-government symbol, so I usually find it distasteful. That said, having these monuments around is critical for people to understand how the war came to pass and what underlying philosophical differences fueled the conflict. The Civil War was the first (and so far, thank God, only) war to consist entirely of Americans fighting. Understanding why Americans would split from each other to the point of violence beyond "hurr it was all slavery/it was solely state's rights" is critical to learning from said war and ensuring it doesn't rear its ugly head again.

In short: if the monuments are pushing a one-sided propagandistic viewpoint for Southerners to rally around, make them better instead of removing them. Getting rid of them and pretending the whole period never happened encourages us to repeat the mistakes of the past, and this time the philosophical conflict isn't nearly so regionally based as before. It's better to recognize that our forebears were just as stupid and evil as we can be than whitewash the past for the sake of accommodating those taking offense on behalf of their ancestors.

 

[cuddle striker]

Identity can transcend the bounds of empires. People like Kurdish "Turks", Irish nationalists in NI, etc. would strongly disagree with your sentiments. Some Southerners do as well, and not without reason. Most secessionists here are Southerners first and Americans second, which is how every region should be.

Southern nationality is more than the war. If an independent South sprung up tomorrow that had no links to the Confederacy that was some social democracy with a lotus flag, that would still be my country. The South will always take precedent, just like for a nationalist in NI the arguement that they posess British citizenship is irrelevant.

regional identity is like any other identity really. we're all 'merkins whether we're South, Cascadia, Bronx, Yooper or Hoosier.

Talking about your own country like it's secondary to your identity is odd to me. It's almost like talking about your country as secondary to your.. gender identity, race, etc.

identity politics are always strange to me. culture is one thing, identifying yourself as that thing primarily is where it all goes awry.

(I think I said earlier that I thought museums and graves should be left alone, and current monuments should possibly just have more educational or explanatory plaques added, but that no government institution should be allowed to fly the flag outside of an educational, historical context. we did win that war against ourselves, after all.)

 

[Lokamayadon]

Identity can transcend the bounds of empires. People like Kurdish "Turks", Irish nationalists in NI, etc. would strongly disagree with your sentiments. Some Southerners do as well, and not without reason. Most secessionists here are Southerners first and Americans second, which is how every region should be.

Southern nationality is more than the war. If an independent South sprung up tomorrow that had no links to the Confederacy that was some social democracy with a lotus flag, that would still be my country. The South will always take precedent, just like for a nationalist in NI the arguement that they posess British citizenship is irrelevant.

How do you feel towards your/their nationalist counterparts? Like the American (USA as a whole) patriots, people who see themselves as citizens of Turkey first and maybe are nostalgic of the Ottoman Empire,ect...
Heck, what would you feel if your own Southern culture was made up of many smaller subcultures with many of the people from these primarily identifying as members of these subcultures and wanting to become independent, even if it would destroy YOUR whole?
I'm not sure it's oppressed separationists vs the cloaking and faceless empires.

 

[cuddle striker]

Heck, what would you feel if your own Southern culture was made up of many smaller subcultures with many of the people from these primarily identifying as members of these subcultures and wanting to become independent, even if it would destroy YOUR whole?
I'm not sure it's oppressed separationists vs the cloaking and faceless empires.

How would it feel to know that every southern black person is the descendant of slaves and identifies as that, above being southern?
identity politics is messy.

 

[Gym Leader Elesa]

Talking about your own country like it's secondary to your identity is odd to me. It's almost like talking about your country as secondary to your.. gender identity, race, etc.

Dixie is my country.

 

[feedtheoctopus]

I'm no fan of the Confederacy, but I would be reluctant to say the least when it comes to removing historical monuments.

They're not really "historical" in the sense a lot of people are using in many cases. Some of these things were erected in the god damn 90's. Most of them are from around 1900-1930. We're quite literally talking about propaganda for Jim Crow in a lot of cases.

Whether people keep the damn things or not is a matter for people in that individual community to decide, but the idea that they contain some sort of inherent value just because they're old (and sometimes not even that) is kinda ridiculous.

 

[Gym Leader Elesa]

regional identity is like any other identity really. we're all 'merkins whether we're South, Cascadia, Bronx, Yooper or Hoosier.

Talking about your own country like it's secondary to your identity is odd to me. It's almost like talking about your country as secondary to your.. gender identity, race, etc.

identity politics are always strange to me. culture is one thing, identifying yourself as that thing primarily is where it all goes awry.

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.

How do you feel towards your/their nationalist counterparts? Like the American (USA as a whole) patriots, people who see themselves as citizens of Turkey first and maybe are nostalgic of the Ottoman Empire,ect...
Heck, what would you feel if your own Southern culture was made up of many smaller subcultures with many of the people from these primarily identifying as members of these subcultures and wanting to become independent, even if it would destroy YOUR whole?
I'm not sure it's oppressed separationists vs the cloaking and faceless empires.

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.

 

[Enclave Supremacy]

That's like the British having a public statue of George Washington outside parliament.

Spoiler

They're he is in Trafalgar Square, the Square built to honour Admiral Nelson for winning the Battle of Trafalgar in what is possibly one of the largest dedications to a single non-royal in the whole country. Not quite outside Parliament but right in the heart of London right next to the road of Buckingham Palace.

I'm glad I got to see the statue of Lee before they took it down; was in New Orleans around the 18th last month. 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.

On that note, the idea that you cannot ever secede from the United States seems insane, an obvious power-play by the Federal Government and another one of America's bizarre historical hypocracies. If the Scots want to leave the UK then by democratic majority then they can leave, we aren't going to force them to stay. Similarly the USA, people have the right to self-determination.

SJW's the world-over are emboldened by stuff like this and it spreads to other countries (see Rhodes Must Fall). Don't give these people an inch.

 

[Marvin]

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."

If different parts of the US broke apart, I don't think they'd maintain the great things the US does on their own. Some parts of the US would turn into India. Some parts of the US would turn into Saudi Arabia. Some parts would turn into a shittier version of the UK. Together, we're greater than the sum of our parts.

This doesn't apply universally though. It's not like we should expand indefinitely. We'd quickly spread ourselves too thin and lose everything. But I'm also against retracting as well. I think we maintain our current territory very well.

I consider it unacceptable for someone to have full constitutional rights as an American, in particular the first amendment, and then to later lose those rights because of secessionists. I feel so strongly about this that I enthusiastically support suppressing secession. By force if necessary.

I know some people might disagree with me here. It's not nice to phrase it that way. And don't get me wrong, I'm all for states rights in lots of ways. But this is something I don't compromise on. I support states rights only as long as everyone has their individual rights as citizens guaranteed. I don't trust any subsection of the US to maintain these rights on their own.

(To put things in context, I'm a big fan of the ACLU and FIRE.)

On a similar note, the idea that you cannot ever secede from the United States seems insane, an obvious power-play by the Federal Government and another one of America's bizarre historical hypocracies.

I wouldn't say it's a hypocrisy. When a state enters the union, it (depending on the circumstances) gives up certain privileges. It has to abide by the constitution, for example. A state can't decide to outlaw offensive speech, for example.

Likewise, one privilege the state gives up is the ability to withdraw from the union. They're consenting to it, essentially.

I see that as a desirable part of the design, not a historical accident.

 

[Gym Leader Elesa]

I wouldn't say it's a hypocrisy. When a state enters the union, it (depending on the circumstances) gives up certain privileges. It has to abide by the constitution, for example. A state can't decide to outlaw offensive speech, for example.

Likewise, one privilege the state gives up is the ability to withdraw from the union. They're consenting to it, essentially.

I see that as a desirable part of the design, not a historical accident.

Sadly, the South was not told of these terms and the fact that they couldn't withdraw wasn't decided until after they joined by a supreme court decision. Very subjective deciding that a "perfect union" means an "indissolvable" one. How very convenient for the federal government they didn't have to decide that until later. We'll have to agree to disagree. In any case, deciding that the Union is permanent is something all states should have been asked to consent to, not told after a vicious war because "damn, that inconvenienced our robber barons, didn't it?"

 

[Marvin]

Sadly, the South was not told of these terms and the fact that they couldn't withdraw wasn't decided until after they joined by a supreme court decision. Very subjective deciding that a "perfect union" means an "indissolvable" one. How very convenient for the federal government they didn't have to decide that until later. We'll have to agree to disagree. In any case, deciding that the Union is permanent is something all states should have been asked to consent to, not told after a vicious war because "damn, that inconvenienced our robber barons, didn't it?"

Yeah... like, a lot of territories were taken against their will. I don't like that that happened and I certainly wouldn't consent to doing that in the future.

However, my most important tenet is that Americans have certain rights that can't be taken away. I would consider a successful secessionist movement to be doing that essentially.

I think if we had bigger regional strife in the US, it might make this position a lot harder to stand by. Like if the US suddenly annexed, say, Saudi Arabia, it might be harder for me to say "lol, ur american now, too late".

But as things are now, I'm OK with things. It's also why I'm for state's rights, giving people plenty of local autonomy helps keep down regional strife. (There's a place for the federal government, but a lot more things really should be decided on the state level.)

 

[Gym Leader Elesa]

Yeah... like, a lot of territories were taken against their will. I don't like that that happened and I certainly wouldn't consent to doing that in the future.

However, my most important tenet is that Americans have certain rights that can't be taken away. I would consider a successful secessionist movement to be doing that essentially.

I think if we had bigger regional strife in the US, it might make this position a lot harder to stand by. Like if the US suddenly annexed, say, Saudi Arabia, it might be harder for me to say "lol, ur american now, too late".

But as things are now, I'm OK with things. It's also why I'm for state's rights, giving people plenty of local autonomy helps keep down regional strife. (There's a place for the federal government, but a lot more things really should be decided on the state level.)

I will admit this is one of the better arguments I have heard. Thank you for taking the time to not just go "lol we won." In any case, it would help a lot of that simmering resentment for a lot of people if certain powers were restored to the states. It would be hard at first, but as long as you kept that baseline of necessary powers in the hands of the federal government I think a more decentralized union could work. There's a sweet spot between the disastrous articles of confederation and the current system.

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.