Removing monuments of the Confederacy: Yay or Nay?

[Duke Nukem]

Honestly, with a white guilt plaque I bet you could get away with at least one of those.

Yup, replace all Confederate monuments with statues of black criminals killed by evil racist white police officers and all American presidents before 1865 statues with monuments to white guilt that shame them for their privilege.

Sounds like a workable plan to me.

 

[Caesare]

I was just reading up on that, are they still calling it "Lee Circle", because now it just comes off rather pointless without the MAN there. Wonder if that'll be up on some voting site soon?

Yeah, people will always call it Lee Circle. Just like people will always call the airport NO International instead of "Louis Armstrong" Airport. Nothing against Louis, I actually like him, but it was always N.O. International and I'm going to call it that since it was always called that in my lifetime, the Louis Armstrong thing only happened 12 years ago or so.

I'm gonna keep praying that we get a non faggot mayor that will return Robert E. Lee's statue to it's proper place, however. Preferably, with much fanfare and a slight militaristic theme to the whole event.

 

[DoctorJimmyRay]

I don't really care what happens to the various statues that were shat all over the south in the early 1900s. But on artistic merit alone, it'd be a damn shame to see Stone Mountain defaced.

 

[Caesare]

I don't really care what happens to the various statues that were shat all over the south in the early 1900s

I don't really know why, but they're all over the West too. You never hear about them. Just like you never hear about historical markers that actually are offensive.

 

[Trilby]

I don't really know why, but they're all over the West too. You never hear about them. Just like you never hear about historical markers that actually are offensive.

Funny when they do pop up out of nowhere because someone got triggered.

 

[Antipathy]

I'd say remove them. It isn't historical revisionism, because these aren't figures of heroes, patriots or innovators. They're monuments to the failure of a system as the ex-Confederate states carefully create a cherry-picked view of their past. Statues to Lee aren't reminders of the grim failures of the past. They're there as a way of continuing the fight against the North. There's no heroism to celebrate.

Destroy them the way the Germans did monuments to the Nazis, the Italians did to Mussolini, and the Russians did to Stalin.

 

[Mysterious Capitalist]

Nay

History must be remembered: if not to commemorate it, at least to not repeat it.

 

[Gym Leader Elesa]

They're there as a way of continuing the fight against the North

I mean my family and others are still trying to do that to be fair. Nothing against the North, but we deserve independence and monuments that celebrate it. Fighting for independence in any case, is heroic. They were patriots. Serving their country.

Nay

History must be remembered: if not to commemorate it, at least to not repeat it.

I wouldn't mind repeating it if we won.

 

[MG 192]

No.

We should not remove monuments of the Confederacy barring association with the government. The fact is that history is complex and morally ambiguous as there are often at least two side to the discussion (and often more). The Civil War had no good side to it so much as the North disagreed with slavery while the South supported it (and that's not the whole story behind the secession of the South either, just one of several factors). Yes the Confederate committed atrocities but so did the Union and it would be ignorant to pretend that did not happen. Not even World War II was a good vs. evil battle as Allied did commit war crimes; it's just that the Axis Powers were the greater evil.

We have the right to study it and its impact on the nation. Revisionist history will bring today China.

 

[Antipathy]

We have the right to study it and its impact on the nation. Revisionist history will bring today China.

I mean my family and others are still trying to do that to be fair. Nothing against the North, but we deserve independence and monuments that celebrate it. Fighting for independence in any case, is heroic. They were patriots. Serving their country.

And here lies the arguments against removing the monuments. Now, allow me to state something. Removing monuments isn't revisionism. The Civil War will still be taught, (and not as "The War of Northern Aggression" as it is called in some ex-Confederate states), rather than glossed over and censored like the reign of Mao Zedong. The Confederate flag and Confederate monuments should be relegated to museums and history books, but not forgotten outright. Removing a monument isn't removing mention, it's removing the notion of respect.

It's not ignoring the past, it's saving taxpayer money by preventing the maintenance cost of actual revisionism: IE, the southerners were patriots. This oft-trod argument is said again and again, and I thoroughly disagree. The southern generals and politicians weren't patriots. They held county over country. They went to war for their estates and finance.

They went to war not because the North was infringing upon their rights, but because they were afraid of the consequences of abolitionism. This isn't patriotism. This is being traitorous to the larger whole of the country. There is no patriotism to be had in betraying the United States, breaking off from them and firing upon U.S citizens and soil.

It's not even close to the colonial rebellion. There, they at least had the excuse of the Atlantic ocean separating them from their governance and an actual problem with representation and regulations. There, they at least had some excuse.

But not the South. It is revisionism and painfully obvious whitewashing to insist that their cause was a patriotic cause. The same revisionism and whitewashing you claim to oppose.

However, if it is maintained in museums or on private property, I cannot argue. If it is held on government owned property and maintained by government funds, I say remove them.

 

[Gym Leader Elesa]

They went to war not because the North was infringing upon their rights, but because they were afraid of the consequences of abolitionism. This isn't patriotism. This is being traitorous to the larger whole of the country. There is no patriotism to be had in betraying the United States, breaking off from them and firing upon U.S citizens and soil.

Their country is Dixie, and so is mine. You can't betray your own country by serving it.

I didn't say anywhere in this thread anything about "revisionism." I don't care what the United States thinks of us. I only care that it leaves us alone. I don't support those monumemts because "they're historical." I'm a Southern Nationalist for God's sake. Those are symbols of a living, breathing, people- just not the American people. I have no interest in the Confederates being seen as American patriots, or American history, or even as Amereicans. Why would I call them patriots for a nation they fought against? What are you on about?

We should be independent and have nothing to do with America. America conquered us. Why would I insult their memory in such a way?

 

[AnOminous]

I'd say remove them.

I don't think there should be a general rule. If it's public art, it should be up to the public who has to look at it every day. If they're okay with it, pretty much everyone else can fuck off.

I also think public art should generally be replaced with something if you're going to do it, so you don't just get to rip down that statue like a vandal. If you want that statue replaced with a statue of Malcolm X or Paul Robeson or some shit, the voters should have the choice of whether they want to approve a rate increase or a bond issue or some shit to pay for that.

Put it on a ballot. If people care enough they'll show up.

 

[Y2K Baby]

I don't think there should be a general rule. If it's public art, it should be up to the public who has to look at it every day. If they're okay with it, pretty much everyone else can fuck off.

I also think public art should generally be replaced with something if you're going to do it, so you don't just get to rip down that statue like a vandal. If you want that statue replaced with a statue of Malcolm X or Paul Robeson or some shit, the voters should have the choice of whether they want to approve a rate increase or a bond issue or some shit to pay for that.

Put it on a ballot. If people care enough they'll show up.

Replace it with a statue of Hitler.

 

[ICametoLurk]

Earlier this month they removed the signs off of Pickett's bridge in the northern part of the Puget Sound in the city of Bellingham
http://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/local/article167992382.html

And they are saying that it's a sign of White Supremacy.
http://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/dean-kahn/article32668383.html

This despite

1.) This was way before the Civil War in 1854 and Pickett was the first Military Governor of the area
2.) Pickett had the bridge constructed and it was the first bridge in the area. His house is the earliest building in the area.
3.) Built the first fort that made him a hero among the local tribes cause protected them from the Haida raids (they were like the Native version of Vikings).
4.) Married a local Native woman and had a son that was a big part of the Seattle community.
5.) Pickett is really only known to the public for his defeat while fighting against the United States of America. In other words he's thought of as a loser.
6.) This city has high homeless rates, I think like 1 out of 25 of all the kids in the schools of this city are homeless. But yeah, let's force on getting rid of a sign off of a historical bridge made by someone who it is named after instead cause years later he fought on the other side.

 

[Trilby]

Earlier this month they removed the signs off of Pickett's bridge in the northern part of the Puget Sound in the city of Bellingham
http://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/local/article167992382.html

And they are saying that it's a sign of White Supremacy.
http://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/dean-kahn/article32668383.html

This despite

1.) This was way before the Civil War in 1854 and Pickett was the first Military Governor of the area
2.) Pickett had the bridge constructed and it was the first bridge in the area. His house is the earliest building in the area.
3.) Built the first fort that made him a hero among the local tribes cause protected them from the Haida raids (they were like the Native version of Vikings).
4.) Married a local Native woman and had a son that was a big part of the Seattle community.
5.) Pickett is really only known to the public for his defeat while fighting against the United States of America. In other words he's thought of as a loser.
6.) This city has high homeless rates, I think like 1 out of 25 of all the kids in the schools of this city are homeless. But yeah, let's force on getting rid of a sign off of a historical bridge made by someone who it is named after instead cause years later he fought on the other side.

Because I guess they couldn't think of a better idea of what to do with taxpayer money.

 

[Y2K Baby]

Because I guess they couldn't think of a better idea of what to do with taxpayer money.

Confetti.

 

[MG 192]

And here lies the arguments against removing the monuments. Now, allow me to state something. Removing monuments isn't revisionism. The Civil War will still be taught, (and not as "The War of Northern Aggression" as it is called in some ex-Confederate states), rather than glossed over and censored like the reign of Mao Zedong. The Confederate flag and Confederate monuments should be relegated to museums and history books, but not forgotten outright. Removing a monument isn't removing mention, it's removing the notion of respect.

It's not ignoring the past, it's saving taxpayer money by preventing the maintenance cost of actual revisionism: IE, the southerners were patriots. This oft-trod argument is said again and again, and I thoroughly disagree. The southern generals and politicians weren't patriots. They held county over country. They went to war for their estates and finance.

They went to war not because the North was infringing upon their rights, but because they were afraid of the consequences of abolitionism. This isn't patriotism. This is being traitorous to the larger whole of the country. There is no patriotism to be had in betraying the United States, breaking off from them and firing upon U.S citizens and soil.

It's not even close to the colonial rebellion. There, they at least had the excuse of the Atlantic ocean separating them from their governance and an actual problem with representation and regulations. There, they at least had some excuse.

But not the South. It is revisionism and painfully obvious whitewashing to insist that their cause was a patriotic cause. The same revisionism and whitewashing you claim to oppose.

However, if it is maintained in museums or on private property, I cannot argue. If it is held on government owned property and maintained by government funds, I say remove them.

If it was just an issue of estates and finances, why bother separating in the first place? Obviously the North had more money than the South and splitting up cuts off that access of resource. Slavery would have been on its way out even if the Confederates had remained independent. Tariffs and states rights were just as important factors for the split.

The Confederates lasted as long as they did in the North because of patriotism. Up until the Battle of Gettysburg, they had an upper hand over the North in spite of their lack of resources. They believed that the government was too intrusive and they needed a new system much like when the United States split from the United Kingdom in the American Revolution.

It's not like the North were a bastion of liberalism either (at least not until the 1960s). Keep in mind that most whites were racist against blacks (and would continue to be for a century after the war). If blacks weren't enslaved, they were sharecroppers. If reluctantly made citizens, they were second class. Hell, Lincoln himself was a racist. Remember that the Civil War did not start out to free the slaves, that came in the middle of the war.

As for being traitorous, keep in mind that had the USA lost the American Revolution, the Founding Fathers like Washington, Franklin, and Jefferson would have been executed for treason. Instead of going to change the world, history would see the USA as a failed rebellion of traitors who illegally separated from Britain for a brief period of time. The history we hear about is mostly written by victors.

Beside, it is much more expensive to destroy (and even relocate) monuments than to preserve them over a long period of time. Most people who support the monument disapprove of the Confederacy and sees it as a failed system. They support the statues staying up because it is important that we remember why the Civil War happened and that both sides had blood on their hand.

 

[c-no]

I'd say place them in a museum, say who they are and what they stood for. I will say I can't really give much care about the statues. I can see both sides being divided on it. On one hand, these are monuments to history that try to say who this guy is and what he fought for. On the other hand, this is a guy who fought for a side that wanted to retain its right in owning a certain people as a property.

 

[Todesfurcht]

Nay. Removing history makes it doomed to repeat itself.

 

[TheAmazingAxolotl]

Yes and no.

Certain monuments honour those that shouldn't be honoured and certain monuments honour both those that deserve it and those that do not. A statue of Nathan Bedford Forrest, for example, shouldn't stand in a state building. A statue commemorating the common soldier of the Confederacy, however, has more of a right.

It's a slippery slope. The vast majority of people who fought for the CSA weren't slave owners, but they all fought for their rights (i.e. the right to own slaves) against a government they believed to be tyrannical, which can be construed as something similar to the Revolution, the key difference being that the Revolution against Great Britain succeeded and the rebellion against the Union failed.

Ultimately, the decision to remove monuments defaults to the local and state governments who, the majority of the time, remove them as a result of an ultra-reactionary order in the wake of some racially or politically motivated tragedy. In my opinion, no government building in the 11 states that seceded should have a Confederate flag flying in front of it, nor should they have a monument to anyone greater than the common man who fought in the war. Individual citizens flying the CSA's flags - who gives a shit, it's their right. We shouldn't outright remove *everything* bad from our history, either. We live in a day and age where we should be able to look at the sins of our forefathers and know we have the ability to move past it as a country, but unfortunately, there are people who would like nothing more than to rewrite this chapter in history as "wypipo do bad blekpipo win".