The Confederacy represents racism

This is the affect we are seeing now of General Sherman not finishing the job in the south

 

Ill stand by that position as well. If minorities who have never been enslaved by anyone but still feel triggered by historic monuments can affect a majority decision to remove those monuments within their local jurisdiction, then awesome.

Is that what they're doing?

 

That's one insensitive way to look at it.

The institution of slavery, and the defense of it by the Confederacy, is a symbol to blacks (and those sympathetic to their views, like me) every bit as real as is the holocaust to Jews. Is it odd to you that Jews who never lived a day in a Concentration Camp would be sensitive about the holocaust? Slavery and the holocaust, were wrong. Perception is important, and if the memorials are perceived as tribute to something wrong, that carries a lot of weight. I haven't heard anything from your side that is nearly as important as that. I don't think the statues should be destroyed (i.e. I favor preserving history and art), I just don't think they should be displayed in a context that can be perceived as celebratory of something wrong.

 

Someone is always going to 'perceive' it as other than intended. The question is: does the majority have an obligation to cater to the emotional fragility of the minority? Is it legitimate to deface or destroy a publicly owned and cherished symbol just because it offends you personally? Should we be teaching/allowing people to smash out of anger that which they disagree with, or should we be enforcing the patient, civilized approach of social campaigning and the democratic process?

 

Oh boy. Some select quotes from Confederate leaders is sufficient to cast condemnation on all those who served to *defend their homeland* in the South.

This is like when people say Hitler was bad, therefore those who fought in the Wehrmacht should be condemned.

It's also like, in our day, people saying that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were for oil - and extend their condemnation of Bush &co. to the infantrymen who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, holding then equally responsible.

It ****ing horseshit and anyone who looks at it without a partisan lens can see it clearly. Most of the political leaders of the Confederacy said things that casts their cause in a negative light. But most of the military leaders, men like Lee, Longstreet, and Stonewall Jackson, made clear that they were not fighting to defend slavery - they were actually abolitionists. They fought to defend their homeland from invasion. And it is *THEIR* statues which are being torn down.

 

Ok let's run with that comparison. Would Jews protesting statues of Hitler and Goebbels be comparable? Not really, because we're not talking about statues honoring the political leaders of the South, but ones honoring the soldiers who fought to defend it.

So then for a more apt comparison, suppose that there was a German statue dedicated "to those who fought in vain to defend the Fatherland from Soviet conquest", and suppose Jews were out tearing those statues down, both on their own and through the legal process. Would you think it absurd for anyone to object?

 

And your position is wrong. Most statues of Lincoln and the Confederates honor the sum total of the men, not a specific aspect.

Of these 2, which is the hardest:
1 - Lincoln deciding to emancipate the slaves in the Confederacy for a military advantage, an action which caused him no political, social, or personal distress;
2 - Lee, after the war and living in the South, arguing that all of his Southern neighbors should reunite with the North, the same North that destroyed the South, waged indiscriminant war against civilians, and committed many atrocities against Southern women and children.

If Lincoln had not been assassinated, then it might be different, but Lee was clearly a greater man than Lincoln. Lee had to live with the aftermath of the War, and his character was shown in those very difficult times.

<>

This issue of tearing down statues is not about achievements of the men, it is an attempt to rewrite history for political gain, and to gain political power. These people tearing down statues don't have a clue who these men were, what the Civil War was about, or even what Lincoln actually did.

 

It's ALL about perception here. You perceive minorities reaction as being a display of "emotional fragility" whereas I perceive it as a reasonable indignation. You perceive the statues as "cherished symbols", whereas I perceive them as symbols of something repugnant. Perception is subjective - there's no objectively correct perception.

No, there's no obligation to cater to anyone, and it is absolutely wrong to deface or destroy a publicly owned statue. We should teach people to respect both private and public property, to act civilized, and engage in the democratic process.

Whether politician or soldier, they were all engaged in an immoral cause. And in both cases, the subjects were leaders - political or military.

BTW, there were some positive accomplishments under Nazi Germany, like the Autobahn and the VW beetle. Heck, Hitler got Germany out of an economic depression that was worse than the one in America. And yet, there are no statues of Hitler celebrating these accomplishments. Why do you suppose?

Vandalism is wrong; no one should tear down statues. Given your hypothetical (and assuming there are no other relevant issues, such as this being placed right outside a concentration camp), my sympathies would not be with the Jews in this case - but they'd have a right to pursue a legal process.

 

Agreed that perception is subjective. I understand that they feel differently than I, and honestly I can understand why they dont want those statues lording over them. This is the sort of thing that needs to be hashed out by reasonable, rational adults in a public forum so opposing perceptions can be exposed.
I do think they're being emotionally fragile, but that isnt 'wrong'- humans are emotional creatures. My own emotional fragility lends me to be resistant to folks who claim that the only possible reason anyone like me would appreciate those statues would be because of bigotry, especially in the face of having been provided explanation to the contrary. And then, like petulant spoiled children, they show up with bats and feces grenades. Angry, immature mobs are not how problems are solved in a civilized culture (and neither are they solved with swastika flags and torches designed to further trigger the already emotionally compromised). The presumption that anyone who supports/appreciates these historical monuments must be racist is really the big issue here. The left, the media, the bulk of the establishment *are* catering to the petulent, spoiled children by pushing that narrative instead of promoting a rational forum on the issue.

Agreed

 

Of these 2, which is the hardest:
1 - Lincoln deciding to emancipate the slaves in the Confederacy for a military advantage, an action which caused him no political, social, or personal distress;
2 - Lee, after the war and living in the South, arguing that all of his Southern neighbors should reunite with the North, the same North that destroyed the South, waged indiscriminant war against civilians, and committed many atrocities against Southern women and children.

If Lincoln had not been assassinated, then it might be different, but Lee was clearly a greater man than Lincoln. Lee had to live with the aftermath of the War, and his character was shown in those very difficult times.

<>

This issue of tearing down statues is not about achievements of the men, it is an attempt to rewrite history for political gain, and to gain political power. These people tearing down statues don't have a clue who these men were, what the Civil War was about, or even what Lincoln actually did.[/QUOTE]
Perhaps when you see a heroic depiction of Lee in battle against the Union, it conjures up images in your mind of a man urging his fellow Southerners to unite, but most of us aren't going to perceive it that way. As I said previously, I'd be fine with memorials that celebrate the good things that were done by those Confederates after the war, but not their defense of the Confederacy - which is what most will perceive when they see a depiction of Lee in uniform.

On the other hand, with Lincoln - we are reminded of the consequences of his actions and the inspiring words he spoke. No, these don't represent the sum total of the man, but it does represent ideals that are worth emulating.

In both cases, the sum total of the man can only be understood by delving into the details of their lives. A statue doesn't do that. Since a statue can't convey the complexity of an individual's life, it's simply wrong to suggest this implies history is being re-written. You are probably right that most people don't understand who these men are, but maintaining the statues won't inform them either. Regarding tearing down the statues in acts of vandalism: that is unequivocally wrong. However, it's perfectly fine to go through a political or legal process to have them removed. You are free to advocate to keep them, just like I am free to advocate for their removal. I will say this - in your advocacy, it really would be helpful to bring up the sort of facts you referenced about Lee. Honestly, it doesn't sway me to your side, but it makes me a bit more sympathetic.

 

Thumbs up! Next round's on me.

 

History is not black and white. It is full of incidences where people had to choose the lesser evil

Take WWII. Winston Churchill was as anti-communist as anyone in British politics. But when Hitler invaded the USSR, he knew he had to ally with Stalin in order to win the war.

In order to pass the Constitution in 1787, Congress had to overcome several hurdles. One of them was slavery.

Northern congressman had to accept the demands of the South to leave slavery intact. They did it for the greater good and kicked the issue down the road until it could no longer be kicked in 1860.

Robert E.Lee was offered command of the Union Armies in 1861 by Lincoln himself to put down the rebellion in the southern states. He turned down the offer only after his home state of Virginia seceded. He resigned his commission to defend his home.

You are right about Lincoln and slavery. He was against slavery but he would have left it in tact for the greater good in order to end the rebellion. 600,000 Americans (the equivilant to 6 million today) had to died to die instead.

 

Well newsflash...monuments to the Civil War erected at the height of the Jim Crow ere are INTENDED as intimidation

 

BS without evidence. As explained ad-nauseum, slavery wasnt the only issue being fought over. Many (most) celebrators of the Confederacy and its various heroes do so out of respect for the resistance to federal tyranny those symbols represent, not for the racism of slavery.

 

RACIST, this week's battle cry in the quest for free ****

 

Yes. He refused to kill jews. His soldiers respected him more than the fuhrer (which is why Hitler didn't have him killed for disobeying orders). You might say he was the greatest hero of the war. I'm surprised there hasn't been a movie about him.

 

Of course it is rewriting history. Removing all symbols contrary to the desired political thought-speak is what all totalitarian systems do, they want no reminder of better times or alternative ways, they want no item that could trigger creative thinking. They don't want to pour propaganda into childrens minds in the govt run schools and then have the kids go out and see a statue of Robert E. Lee. That's why everywhere you went in the USSR all you saw were statues of Stalin and memorials commemorating the "great Soviet victory" of WW2, and in Iraq it was all Saddam and the glory days of Babylon. In Cuba, its all Castro.

And your posts indicate you think the Civil War was all about slavery, that's revisionist thinking. The premier issue was economic - the North controlled Congress and created taxes and tariffs and trade treaties which benefitted the North at the expense of the South. That is what led to the idea of secession, which was accepted as a valid recourse for states, even Northern states threatened secession at times. When the war started, the issue of states rights came to the forefront. Slavery was not the major issue, in many ways it was a pawn of other events.

When people knowledgeable of history see a statue of Lee, they don't think about slavery but states rights, the Constitution, and the underdog South standing up against the bully North; and the hardship sufferd by the South after the war, hardship at the hands of a domineering and abusive Northern occupation; and through it all the honorable Lee trying to do what was right.

 

Most people grow up in an environment and accept the values around them because everyone else does. Most of the south was fighting for what they believed was right- the north felt they had the right to interfere with that. While it is true slavery was an abominable practice, it is also true that the south did not see it that way- and were not fighting for evil.

While the war was killing soldiers from both sides (as many as 20,000 in one day) so that their righteous causes might prevail, something else was going on. Consider that all the lands involved here were stolen from the original Americans (Indians) because- we wanted them. How did we go about that? we tricked them, declared war on them, made truces that we broke with regularity, gave them lands and made promises, then forced them to move and go elsewhere as soon as we found that there was anything of value on the land we gave to them. Perhaps that is where the term "Indian giver" came from- referring not to indians, but to the way we treated them. We also placed bounties on them... and harvested scalps as proof of killing.

In California- still the land of the gentle liberals- a policy of genocide was announced in 1850 as the "only solution" to the Indian problem. A scalp bounty was put up in 1856 at $0.25, but soon raised to $5.00. California's first bond issue ($400,000) was made to raise money to pay for these Indian bounties. Many killed parents for bounty (old, man, woman made no difference) and took Indian children as slaves. While the state of California paid out $1.5 million in bounties over 10 years (1850-60) the federal government chipped in $250K of it. In the first two years of the gold rush, 100,000 Indians were killed- 70% of the entire population of the state. Was that evil? Or- were we righteous in our cause?

Do you see people tearing down founders statues in California over this genocide? Of course not. Most people are unaware of it and don't care- or consider it totally justifiable, because after all- those nasty Indians were objecting to our righteous seizure of their nation and murder of their people. The were vicious animals and deserved to die...

My point is that the double standard has been common all through the history. We are unable to look in the mirror and judge ourselves by the same standards we judge others by. To say the least- calling ourselves "hippocrites" would be almost a compliment; our record of conduct is far worse than that. Seems one should look to their own house before pointing out the flaws in others.

 

They like the term "American Exceptionalism".....but what about "White Exceptionalism"???
Discuss.

 

The Lincoln Memorial: Tear. It. Down.

 

I keep reading that he refused to deport the Jews of France and he refused to mistreat Jewish civilians and POWs in North Africa.

If this is all true, he was an enemy soldier but not a war criminal.

 

and this is why the Confederacy and all Confederate flags represent racism and white supremacy.

 

So how many people need to be offended? Does the native Americans offense at the us flag mean it should be removed? Or do they not count?

 

The ideas that the confederacy were traitors or that they went to war to preserve slavery are both DEMONSTRABLY false and easily refuted.

 

If you would like to compare the sum total of Lee’s life against Lincoln’s, I’ll take that battle ANY day of the week.