The Confederacy - Erasing History

CM189191

Degeneratefk said:

mcgruff10 said: 

jeffbr said:

Why would cities put up statues of losing, treasonous, traitors anyway? I'm not from the South, and have no family in the South, so the concept is completely foreign to me. A hostile group took up arms against my country and got their asses kicked, and yet they still are allowed to memorialize their heroes in public places? Stick them in a private museum where others can go see them if they'd like, but honor them in town squares and city centers? Nope. I'm content to have them relegated to history books and Hollywood movies.

I'm telling you, it's the only time in history that the losers were able to put up statues and fly their battle flag lol.  I seriously can't think of another example.
When I lived in spain I don't recall seeing any statues of the moors.

That was part of Lincoln's reconstruction plan. He didn't want to alienate the South. So they were allowed to do that shit. Worst decision he ever made.

Well....2nd worst decision anyways

JC29856

mcgruff10 said:

jeffbr said:

Why would cities put up statues of losing, treasonous, traitors anyway? I'm not from the South, and have no family in the South, so the concept is completely foreign to me. A hostile group took up arms against my country and got their asses kicked, and yet they still are allowed to memorialize their heroes in public places? Stick them in a private museum where others can go see them if they'd like, but honor them in town squares and city centers? Nope. I'm content to have them relegated to history books and Hollywood movies.

I'm telling you, it's the only time in history that the losers were able to put up statues and fly their battle flag lol.  I seriously can't think of another example.
When I lived in spain I don't recall seeing any statues of the moors.

How about this one??

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Three_Soldiers

mace1229

jeffbr said:

Why would cities put up statues of losing, treasonous, traitors anyway? I'm not from the South, and have no family in the South, so the concept is completely foreign to me. A hostile group took up arms against my country and got their asses kicked, and yet they still are allowed to memorialize their heroes in public places? Stick them in a private museum where others can go see them if they'd like, but honor them in town squares and city centers? Nope. I'm content to have them relegated to history books and Hollywood movies.

I touched on that earlier this morning. The vast majority of the confederate army did not own slaves and had no choice in the matter. They did not want a civil war, they did not want to lose their farms, houses, families to a cause they didnt even care about. But they were forced to. Labeled as traitors and treated as such if they didnt. There was no such thing as "conscientious objector" back then (referenced from a previous quote). You fought for your side or you were likely killed. 
I'm glad the north won, but still saddened by the hundreds of thousands that lost their lives on both sides, many of them too young to join today's military.
They didnt own slaves or big farms, they were forced to fight the rich man's war and had no say in the process. Their only fault was being born in the south. I think they deserve to be remembered.

Gtilley8

JC29856 said:

mcgruff10 said:

jeffbr said:

Why would cities put up statues of losing, treasonous, traitors anyway? I'm not from the South, and have no family in the South, so the concept is completely foreign to me. A hostile group took up arms against my country and got their asses kicked, and yet they still are allowed to memorialize their heroes in public places? Stick them in a private museum where others can go see them if they'd like, but honor them in town squares and city centers? Nope. I'm content to have them relegated to history books and Hollywood movies.

I'm telling you, it's the only time in history that the losers were able to put up statues and fly their battle flag lol.  I seriously can't think of another example.
When I lived in spain I don't recall seeing any statues of the moors.

How about this one??

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Three_Soldiers

That is absolutely asinine.  

JC29856

Gtilley8 said:

JC29856 said:

mcgruff10 said:

jeffbr said:

Why would cities put up statues of losing, treasonous, traitors anyway? I'm not from the South, and have no family in the South, so the concept is completely foreign to me. A hostile group took up arms against my country and got their asses kicked, and yet they still are allowed to memorialize their heroes in public places? Stick them in a private museum where others can go see them if they'd like, but honor them in town squares and city centers? Nope. I'm content to have them relegated to history books and Hollywood movies.

I'm telling you, it's the only time in history that the losers were able to put up statues and fly their battle flag lol.  I seriously can't think of another example.
When I lived in spain I don't recall seeing any statues of the moors.

How about this one??

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Three_Soldiers

That is absolutely asinine.  

how so? Its a statue and we lost the war

HughFreakingDillon

mcgruff10 said:

jeffbr said:

Why would cities put up statues of losing, treasonous, traitors anyway? I'm not from the South, and have no family in the South, so the concept is completely foreign to me. A hostile group took up arms against my country and got their asses kicked, and yet they still are allowed to memorialize their heroes in public places? Stick them in a private museum where others can go see them if they'd like, but honor them in town squares and city centers? Nope. I'm content to have them relegated to history books and Hollywood movies.

I'm telling you, it's the only time in history that the losers were able to put up statues and fly their battle flag lol.  I seriously can't think of another example.
When I lived in spain I don't recall seeing any statues of the moors.

because they couldn't agree on the spelling. 

some thought it was the Moops. 

cincybearcat

JC29856 said:

Gtilley8 said:

JC29856 said:

mcgruff10 said:

jeffbr said:

Why would cities put up statues of losing, treasonous, traitors anyway? I'm not from the South, and have no family in the South, so the concept is completely foreign to me. A hostile group took up arms against my country and got their asses kicked, and yet they still are allowed to memorialize their heroes in public places? Stick them in a private museum where others can go see them if they'd like, but honor them in town squares and city centers? Nope. I'm content to have them relegated to history books and Hollywood movies.

I'm telling you, it's the only time in history that the losers were able to put up statues and fly their battle flag lol.  I seriously can't think of another example.
When I lived in spain I don't recall seeing any statues of the moors.

How about this one??

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Three_Soldiers

That is absolutely asinine.  

how so? Its a statue and we lost the war

C'mon.........

tempo_n_groove

Go Beavers said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Go Beavers said:

tempo_n_groove said:

JC29856 said:

CM189191 said:

mcgruff10 said:

I thought this was really good:  https://sports.yahoo.com/charlottesville-native-chris-long-discusses-city-wont-stick-sports-203627846.html
“If you say ‘It’s history and shouldn’t be destroyed,’ then put it in a museum where they can educate people about how far we’ve come, and the dangers of white supremacy and the Confederacy,” Long said. “Don’t put it in a public place, where people who might be offended by it have to walk by it every day.”

Driving through New Orleans there is a highway that cuts through a large cemetery.  On one side of the road is the black cemetery, and white on the other side.  The white side is spacious with giant beautiful maintained monuments, where the black side is run down and crowded.  I imagined what it must be like to commute to work and see that everyday as a black person living in a segregated city where the whites have giant spacious homes, and black neighborhoods are rundown and crowded.  That cemetery will serve as a more appropriate monument to our history than any statue of some loser confederate general will.

Good post for sure. It got me thinking (collective cringe)
So all this fuss over confederate statues, what is the message of tearing down these statues (or protest against the removal of )? That we wont tolerate/accept memorializing slavery? Im not an expert on the KKK or white supremacy groups, the ones that wanted to protest the removal of the statue in Charlottesville, do they advocate a return to slave ownership? Your post got me thinking about the black and white of war. That statue that was torn down is more of a war memorial than a symbol of slavery(or even hate). Do the protestors on either side think war is black and white? Any civil war historians in here? Was the civil war simply about the black and white issue of slavery? Were the confederates the only side in the wrong? Take it a step further are any wars black and white? Were the wars in Iraq/Afghan simply about avenging 911? Which side was in the wrong in those wars?
Some of the answers may be found in history books hence the reason why I recommend to read a few. Imagine the line between the North and the South, like the road thru the segregated cemeteries, where literally neighbors were forced by allegiance to take arms and kill each other.
Here's an idea tear down every offending statue but first educate yourself on its history and why it's there and try not to get caught up in the bastardization of it from some ideological fringe group.

I did bring up the Stalin statue in Seattle but no one has touched that topic yet.

We're also not in Russia. That's a key factor. 

We aren't in Charlottesville either yet we are still having a conversation.

That's still part of the US, I think. Since trump got elected, I'm in some bizzarro world where people draw parallels and equivilancies that are such an extreme reach in some attempt to make a point about hypocrisy (or something). 

What?!?

Extreme reach at what?

It's a statue of a foreign leader in the "US"...  

The statue bothers people, offends them...

mace1229

So according to some, should we tear down the Crazy Horse statue in South Dakota, because, you know, the natives lost that war, why memorialize them?
Winning or losing doesn't have anything to do with memorializing someone. 

JC29856

mace1229 said:

So according to some, should we tear down the Crazy Horse statue in South Dakota, because, you know, the natives lost that war, why memorialize them?
Winning or losing doesn't have anything to do with memorializing someone. 

100% agree!

mickeyrat

long read, but worth it imo.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/the-civil-war-isnt-over/389847/?utm_source=atlfb

CM189191

JC29856 said:

Gtilley8 said:

JC29856 said:

mcgruff10 said:

jeffbr said:

Why would cities put up statues of losing, treasonous, traitors anyway? I'm not from the South, and have no family in the South, so the concept is completely foreign to me. A hostile group took up arms against my country and got their asses kicked, and yet they still are allowed to memorialize their heroes in public places? Stick them in a private museum where others can go see them if they'd like, but honor them in town squares and city centers? Nope. I'm content to have them relegated to history books and Hollywood movies.

I'm telling you, it's the only time in history that the losers were able to put up statues and fly their battle flag lol.  I seriously can't think of another example.
When I lived in spain I don't recall seeing any statues of the moors.

How about this one??

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Three_Soldiers

That is absolutely asinine.  

how so? Its a statue and we lost the war

False equivalence:  a logical fallacy in which two opposing arguments appear to be logically equivalent when in fact they are not. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency

Why is that so difficult for some people to grasp?

rgambs

I think the most important factor in this debate is the behaviour of white supremacy groups and general racists in the South.
There is absolutely ZERO question that they venerate and rally around symbols of the Confederacy.  These statues, to them, are monuments to martyrs of their cause.  They are a reminder and symbol of the hate they preach.  What other purpose do they serve?

If the statues are supposedly some bulwark against forgetting the past, they should be located with their counterparts in museums.

rgambs

It's funny, I was speaking with a hillbilly today who assured me that the Confederate flags which festoon every part of his pontoon boat "don't mean nothin'".
Really dumbass?  Then why do you fly ten of them??

He went on to tell me that it was designed by a black man and "blacks are the real racists, we just honest wif 'em".

Doesn't fly the Stars and Stripes, but sure as shit flies a Trump flag.

CM189191

A timeline of the genesis of the Confederate sites shows two notable spikes. One comes around the turn of the 20th century, just after Plessy v. Ferguson, and just as many Southern states were establishing repressive race laws. The second runs from the mid-1950s to the mid-1960s—the peak of the civil-rights movement. In other words, the erection of Confederate monuments has been a way to perform cultural resistance to black equality.

JC29856

CM189191 said:

JC29856 said:

Gtilley8 said:

JC29856 said:

mcgruff10 said:

jeffbr said:

Why would cities put up statues of losing, treasonous, traitors anyway? I'm not from the South, and have no family in the South, so the concept is completely foreign to me. A hostile group took up arms against my country and got their asses kicked, and yet they still are allowed to memorialize their heroes in public places? Stick them in a private museum where others can go see them if they'd like, but honor them in town squares and city centers? Nope. I'm content to have them relegated to history books and Hollywood movies.

I'm telling you, it's the only time in history that the losers were able to put up statues and fly their battle flag lol.  I seriously can't think of another example.
When I lived in spain I don't recall seeing any statues of the moors.

How about this one??

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Three_Soldiers

That is absolutely asinine.  

how so? Its a statue and we lost the war

False equivalence:  a logical fallacy in which two opposing arguments appear to be logically equivalent when in fact they are not. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency

Why is that so difficult for some people to grasp?

not sure but the phase is overused IMO

fal·la·cy

noun: fallacy; a mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound argument.

tempo_n_groove

rgambs said:

I think the most important factor in this debate is the behaviour of white supremacy groups and general racists in the South.
There is absolutely ZERO question that they venerate and rally around symbols of the Confederacy.  These statues, to them, are monuments to martyrs of their cause.  They are a reminder and symbol of the hate they preach.  What other purpose do they serve?

If the statues are supposedly some bulwark against forgetting the past, they should be located with their counterparts in museums.

Agreed.

I have often heard it as "heritage" or "southern lifestyle".  That heritage and style have an ugly underlying though and some don't see it that way...

rgambs

CM189191 said:

A timeline of the genesis of the Confederate sites shows two notable spikes. One comes around the turn of the 20th century, just after Plessy v. Ferguson, and just as many Southern states were establishing repressive race laws. The second runs from the mid-1950s to the mid-1960s—the peak of the civil-rights movement. In other words, the erection of Confederate monuments has been a way to perform cultural resistance to black equality.

That brings up another important point.
There is a ton of evidence that Confederates themselves moved on, many even with shame.
They didn't cling to their failed rebellion and shout about the South rising again.  That came later, and continues to this day.  It had/has nothing to do with the war or the soldiers, it had/has everything to do with repudiation of...well, bluntly, the existence of black people.
The Reconstruction era is very interesting, and the destruction of the Reconstruction as well.

Go Beavers

CM189191 said:

A timeline of the genesis of the Confederate sites shows two notable spikes. One comes around the turn of the 20th century, just after Plessy v. Ferguson, and just as many Southern states were establishing repressive race laws. The second runs from the mid-1950s to the mid-1960s—the peak of the civil-rights movement. In other words, the erection of Confederate monuments has been a way to perform cultural resistance to black equality.

So you're telling me it's different than a statue of Lenin in Seattle?

JC29856

CM189191 said:

A timeline of the genesis of the Confederate sites shows two notable spikes. One comes around the turn of the 20th century, just after Plessy v. Ferguson, and just as many Southern states were establishing repressive race laws. The second runs from the mid-1950s to the mid-1960s—the peak of the civil-rights movement. In other words, the erection of Confederate monuments has been a way to perform cultural resistance to black equality.

can u add 2016 and 2017 in this infographic?