Asked and answered. Can you not read?Then why do we preserve civil war battlefields? Is that a wast of time, money and effort? Should we destroy the famous Robert E. Lee statue there?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Asked and answered. Can you not read?Then why do we preserve civil war battlefields? Is that a wast of time, money and effort? Should we destroy the famous Robert E. Lee statue there?
Also, Gettysburg serves as sort of a memorial for the entire war, and all the death and destruction that came with it. Only an abject idiot would think that Lee's statue there somehow is meant to honor or endorse the Confederate cause. Rather, it's part of a larger collection meant to induce meditation on the terrible price paid when we allow our society to be torn apart by civil war.Asked and answered. Can you not read?
So Herr Fogel treats you to a drunken demonstration of Aryan superiority, and you see this as a misty water color memory? Oh my.When stationed in Germany, my German landlord after several cognacs revealed a sense of pride in having served in the German military during WWII. To prove his point regarding Nazi military physical fitness he did about thirty pushups and walked around the apartment on his hands. Not feeling a willingness to compete, I conceded to his superior physical abilities.
My point being that Herr Fogel was proud to have been a member of a fighting force along with buddies who fought for his homeland. I don't think Fogel was proud of fighting for Hitler or gave a darn about Hitler. However once engaged in fighting for your country and fellow soldiers, the cause gets lost in the shuffle.
So the South giving tribute to a gallant effort by General Lee and the Confederate soldiers isn't an endorsement for slavery anymore than my landlord's pride as German soldier endorses Hitler.
In some contexts, perhaps, but many of the statues we are talking about here were erected specifically for the purpose of celebrating white southern heritage in the face of increasing agitation for civil rights for blacks. The context of their erection absolutely cannot be ignored.So the South giving tribute to a gallant effort by General Lee and the Confederate soldiers isn't an endorsement for slavery anymore than my landlord's pride as German soldier endorses Hitler.
Seems rather different from a monument to Jefferson Davis.Butler County Kentucky presents a unique problem to the purging. On the Courthouse square is a monument to the Civil War, the North facing side has the names of the boys who fought for the Union on the south facing side the boys who went for the Confederacy.
Doesn't seem like a problem to me at all. It's a memorial to the war, not to the Lost Cause.Butler County Kentucky presents a unique problem to the purging. On the Courthouse square is a monument to the Civil War, the North facing side has the names of the boys who fought for the Union on the south facing side the boys who went for the Confederacy.
I have seen it but I didn't stop.
The south facing wall honors those who fought to preserve slavery. Why shouldn't the names be sand blasted off.Doesn't seem like a problem to me at all. It's a memorial to the war, not to the Lost Cause.
Why should they?The south facing wall honors those who fought to preserve slavery. Why shouldn't the names be sand blasted off.
Because it's in remembrance of the war, not a gigantic celebration of the confederacy specifically.The south facing wall honors those who fought to preserve slavery. Why shouldn't the names be sand blasted off.
Because you can't provide a reason they should be. You need a reason to do things, not a reason to not do them.Why shouldn't they?
http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/335283-alabama-moves-to-protect-confederate-monuments
Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey (R) this week signed legislation that will preempt cities and counties from removing monuments to the Confederacy from public property, over the objections of black lawmakers and civil rights groups.When will Alabama finally come to grips with the profound evil of white supremacy and its history of slavery and oppression?
The legislation comes after the city of New Orleans removed several statues honoring Confederate figures in recent weeks. The measure’s lead sponsor, state Sen. Gerald Allen (R), said he hoped to end the “wave of political correctness” sweeping the nation.
“Where does it end? Are all parts of American history subject to purging, until every Ivy League professor is satisfied and the American story has been re-written as nothing but a complete fraud and a betrayal of our founding values of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?” Allen said.
Because you can't provide a reason they should be. You need a reason to do things, not a reason to not do them.
As a general rule, we should remember all war dead with respectful solemnity, especially front line soldiers. I don't see what that has to do with what this thread is about, unless you are incapable of understanding the difference between memorializing the dead and embracing/endorsing a shameful cause.Should we continue to honor Confederate dead?
So did Herr Fogel want a statue of Himmler or Goebels built in his town's platz?When stationed in Germany, my German landlord after several cognacs revealed a sense of pride in having served in the German military during WWII. To prove his point regarding Nazi military physical fitness he did about thirty pushups and walked around the apartment on his hands. Not feeling a willingness to compete, I conceded to his superior physical abilities.
My point being that Herr Fogel was proud to have been a member of a fighting force along with buddies who fought for his homeland. I don't think Fogel was proud of fighting for Hitler or gave a darn about Hitler. However once engaged in fighting for your country and fellow soldiers, the cause gets lost in the shuffle.
So the South giving tribute to a gallant effort by General Lee and the Confederate soldiers isn't an endorsement for slavery anymore than my landlord's pride as German soldier endorses Hitler.
This may be a tad off topic and perhaps naive but should those opposed to the things being discussed in this thread feel the same about movies which glorified the confederacy? Movies like Gone with the Wind for example. A documentary type film generally shows how it was, the cause and effect etc, but many movies actually glorify the south and their cause. Are they equally offensive?As a general rule, we should remember all war dead with respectful solemnity, especially front line soldiers. I don't see what that has to do with what this thread is about, unless you are incapable of understanding the difference between memorializing the dead and embracing/endorsing a shameful cause.
But what exactly do you want done with Gone with the Wind? It's not going to be banned. People can see that, just like people can see Birth of a Nation if they really want to. There's a difference between that stuff, and glorifying specific members of the confederacy as heroes and literally placing them on a pedestal.This may be a tad off topic and perhaps naive but should those opposed to the things being discussed in this thread feel the same about movies which glorified the confederacy? Movies like Gone with the Wind for example. A documentary type film generally shows how it was, the cause and effect etc, but many movies actually glorify the south and their cause. Are they equally offensive?
Gone with the Wind is a product of its time, and as such, it does whitewash certain aspects of plantation life. But it's a novel and a film, not a monument. Its purpose isn't to glorify anything. There's nothing wrong with a honest critical evaluation of its depiction of certain characters and events, but to lump it in with monuments erected for the sole purpose of celebrating white supremacy is as much a folly as dismissing The Merchant of Venice as no more worthy than The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.This may be a tad off topic and perhaps naive but should those opposed to the things being discussed in this thread feel the same about movies which glorified the confederacy? Movies like Gone with the Wind for example. A documentary type film generally shows how it was, the cause and effect etc, but many movies actually glorify the south and their cause. Are they equally offensive?
They're all dead.But they became the republicans
Perhaps...I was simply asking the question to see if perhaps people felt as strongly about movies of this nature as they do monuments. I do think that many of the movies of this nature do glorify specific individuals and put them on a pedestal and it isn't much different than staring at a monument of the same character(s) portrayed in movie.But what exactly do you want done with Gone with the Wind? It's not going to be banned. People can see that, just like people can see Birth of a Nation if they really want to. There's a difference between that stuff, and glorifying specific members of the confederacy as heroes and literally placing them on a pedestal.
Also, Gettysburg serves as sort of a memorial for the entire war, and all the death and destruction that came with it. Only an abject idiot would think that Lee's statue there somehow is meant to honor or endorse the Confederate cause. Rather, it's part of a larger collection meant to induce meditation on the terrible price paid when we allow our society to be torn apart by civil war.
Parenthesis: It's not only the Lost Cause that has this issue. John Chivington has a statue in Denver that once honored the Sand Creek massacre, until protests forced the state to change the wording on the accompanying plaque.
https://newrepublic.com/article/120441/statue-celebrated-sand-creek-massacre
The problem here isn't that black people are too easily offended by these tributes to white supremacy and treason, but that so many white people aren't offended by them.
There is no Confederate "heritage" worthy of honor or nostalgia. The Confederacy should be regarded as a stain on Southern history, and certainly not as a source of pride -- any more than Germans should celebrate the "good" parts of their Nazi "heritage" with swastikas and Hitler statues.
Y'all need to deny history worse than Trump needs to resign.
Keep telling yourselves you're the party of Lincoln. Today's republicans wouldn't elect Lincoln in the reddest of the red states. He wouldn't get through a primary.
Seriously My, that "argument" about the historical GOP is the one that I see made in every comments section of practically any online article on Race.Not saying it's true of you,but it certainly seems below you.It;s usually made by the closet rascists who neglect to realize that THEY would likely have been a Democrat in 1860s Amerika...
That is common. There is a good debate on whether or not a major component of Shiloh, the Hornets Nest, actually happened. At Gettysburg, Oates believed the 20th Maine story we all know was a total fabrication. And Pickett's Charge may be grossly exaggerated, the vast majority of confederates probably never advanced beyond the fence row staying there for cover.FWIW, John Chivington was indeed a commander in the Civil War, commanding the Union troops, (Colorado Volunteers) at the Battle of Glorietta Pass. There is now considerable dispute about Chivington's actual role in the battle. Years ago, I read an account of the battle written by one of the Colorado cavalrymen who was there. That account differs from what we see today about that history.
That is common. There is a good debate on whether or not a major component of Shiloh, the Hornets Nest, actually happened. At Gettysburg, Oates believed the 20th Maine story we all know was a total fabrication. And Pickett's Charge may be grossly exaggerated, the vast majority of confederates probably never advanced beyond the fence row staying there for cover.
For my part all of this, movies, monuments are part of the historical record but also part of our cultural heritage. Think of a movie like Triumph of the Will by Reifensthal. It is a propaganda film to one of the vilest characters in history. But it is also a work of art. The movie is deservedly still screened but it is considerably different from a public monument that intends to signal a foundational common value. Those monuments to the confederacy were erected mostly during two periods, first immediately after the end of reconstruction and then again during the civil rights movement. In both periods the meaning was absolutely clear--the southern states and localities meant to proclaim white supremacy as core common value.Perhaps...I was simply asking the question to see if perhaps people felt as strongly about movies of this nature as they do monuments. I do think that many of the movies of this nature do glorify specific individuals and put them on a pedestal and it isn't much different than staring at a monument of the same character(s) portrayed in movie.
Oh well......
That's always the problem with history. It's extremely subjective and very error prone.Fake news? Things haven't changed much.
Amazingly it turns out the people who were at these events often exaggerated the part they played. It may not be intentional. I heard a guy compare it to his days playing left guard. The only action he could follow was that in his immediate area, so from his view it was the most important action on every play.That's always the problem with history. It's extremely subjective and very error prone.
That's always the problem with history. It's extremely subjective and very error prone.
Amazingly it turns out the people who were at these events often exaggerated the part they played. It may not be intentional. I heard a guy compare it to his days playing left guard. The only action he could follow was that in his immediate area, so from his view it was the most important action on every play.
The first part is conventional wisdom, but our Civil War history is written mostly by confederate. Part of that was their fanatical devotion to the lost cause, part is Texas's oversized role in textbook adoption.history is written by the winners.
Oh, and it's "his story". We dont hear much from historical females o
When stationed in Germany, my German landlord after several cognacs revealed a sense of pride in having served in the German military during WWII. To prove his point regarding Nazi military physical fitness he did about thirty pushups and walked around the apartment on his hands. Not feeling a willingness to compete, I conceded to his superior physical abilities.
My point being that Herr Fogel was proud to have been a member of a fighting force along with buddies who fought for his homeland. I don't think Fogel was proud of fighting for Hitler or gave a darn about Hitler. However once engaged in fighting for your country and fellow soldiers, the cause gets lost in the shuffle.
So the South giving tribute to a gallant effort by General Lee and the Confederate soldiers isn't an endorsement for slavery anymore than my landlord's pride as German soldier endorses Hitler.
The first part is conventional wisdom, but our Civil War history is written mostly by confederate. Part of that was their fanatical devotion to the lost cause, part is Texas's oversized role in textbook adoption.
...but our Civil War history is written mostly by confederate. Part of that was their fanatical devotion to the lost cause, part is Texas's oversized role in textbook adoption.