ADVERTISEMENT

The monuments should come down

It's not the man who raped the woman. The woman asked for it. Even though the man had been whistling and hollering at the woman (maybe even grabbed her) that night at the bar, without any interest returned from the woman.

Claim that you (as a white male) are actually the victim. And completely ignore your bad behavior, and claim someone else caused it and made you do it.

It amazes me that people truly believe this stuff. Isn't the pub party allegedly the party of personal accountability?
It makes you wonder how people ever became white supremacists back in the days when there were no modern liberals to teach them.
 
Hey Confederate douche bags, wanna see some real torches and fire?

sherman.png
 
Kinda odd how these kkklowns worship Trump because "he's a winner" yet they wave the flags of two of the biggest losers, Confederates and Nazis, in history.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sglowrider
Righties are crying their eyes out with, "Are you going to tear down the Washington Monument next?" I have a few questions for them:

1) While not perfect, Washington was a patriot. These Confederate a-holes were treasonous losers. So, how about you stop the false equivalency?

2) What, exactly, about your "heritage" are you proud of? They were guilty of treason or they thought humans should be slaves?

3) Germany has outlawed both the Swastika and the Nazi salute. Should they both be legal so people can be "proud of their heritage"?
 
The white supremacists rallied in Charlottesville because the city is beginning to take down its Confederate monuments. This antagonizes the white supremacists, because unlike the monuments' mainstream defenders, they understand perfectly well that the monuments aren't about any mythical heritage, but are instead expressions of white supremacy:

Many of the treasured monuments that seem to offer a connection to the post-bellum South are actually much later, anachronistic constructions, and they tend to correlate closely with periods of fraught racial relations, as my colleague Yoni Appelbaum has noted. South Carolina didn’t hoist the battle flag in Columbia until 1961—the anniversary of the war’s start, but also the middle of the civil-rights push, and a time when many white Southerners were on the defensive about issues like segregation and voting rights.

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.
This is more explaining than ought to be necessary. The Confederate rebellion was all about slavery and white supremacy, as the Confederates' own words abundantly establish. And as a matter of historical fact, the Confederate flag came back up and the Confederate monuments mostly went up during periods in which white racists felt particular need to keep black people down.
Defenders of the Confederate flag and the Confederate monuments frequently claim that those who want to take them down are somehow trying to erase history. That's ironic, because they're the ones who don't know their history. By all means let's teach that history. Let's make certain that everyone knows why there was a Civil War and what "heritage" these monuments actually celebrate. But that doesn't remotely require us to venerate white supremacy -- as the Confederate flag and these Confederate monuments unequivocally to do.
SPLC has this interesting infographic. Their hypothesis is that at key civil rights (or suppression of rights) events, the number of monuments spikes.

 
The white supremacists rallied in Charlottesville because the city is beginning to take down its Confederate monuments. This antagonizes the white supremacists, because unlike the monuments' mainstream defenders, they understand perfectly well that the monuments aren't about any mythical heritage, but are instead expressions of white supremacy:

Many of the treasured monuments that seem to offer a connection to the post-bellum South are actually much later, anachronistic constructions, and they tend to correlate closely with periods of fraught racial relations, as my colleague Yoni Appelbaum has noted. South Carolina didn’t hoist the battle flag in Columbia until 1961—the anniversary of the war’s start, but also the middle of the civil-rights push, and a time when many white Southerners were on the defensive about issues like segregation and voting rights.

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.
This is more explaining than ought to be necessary. The Confederate rebellion was all about slavery and white supremacy, as the Confederates' own words abundantly establish. And as a matter of historical fact, the Confederate flag came back up and the Confederate monuments mostly went up during periods in which white racists felt particular need to keep black people down.
Defenders of the Confederate flag and the Confederate monuments frequently claim that those who want to take them down are somehow trying to erase history. That's ironic, because they're the ones who don't know their history. By all means let's teach that history. Let's make certain that everyone knows why there was a Civil War and what "heritage" these monuments actually celebrate. But that doesn't remotely require us to venerate white supremacy -- as the Confederate flag and these Confederate monuments unequivocally to do.

Does this include the Confederate Memorial at Arlington National Cemetery? Those gravestones as well? What about Antietam or Gettysburg? They're littered with Confederate Monuments.

Do we establish a commission to decide which Confederate Monuments are valid?
 
Does this include the Confederate Memorial at Arlington National Cemetery? Those gravestones as well? What about Antietam or Gettysburg? They're littered with Confederate Monuments.

Do we establish a commission to decide which Confederate Monuments are valid?
Battlefield memorials =/= commemorative monuments. Doesn't take a commission to see the difference.
 
Hey Confederate douche bags, wanna see some real torches and fire?

sherman.png

I had 3 relatives march with Sherman.

They first fought in Kentucky at Perryville, then chased the Rebs out through the Cumberland Gap. Moved to Nashville, fought at Murfreesboro, Chattanooga, Chicamauga, seiged Atlanta and then Marched.
 
Battlefield memorials =/= commemorative monuments. Doesn't take a commission to see the difference.

Arlington wasn't a battlefield. Can I put you down as wanting to tear down the Memorial and knock over the Confederate Graves?

Or is it Cemetery's and Battlefields = o.k.

Commemorative monuments = not o.k.?

What about Lee's house at Arlington? I don't know if you can technically count that as part of the cemetery, does that go down?

The battlefields themselves are nothing but a collection of commemorative monuments and graves.

Your position would be akin to being o.k. with the existence of a McDonald's but not with the existence of the Big Macs and Fries inside.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IUSUMMERS
Arlington wasn't a battlefield. Can I put you down as wanting to tear down the Memorial and knock over the Confederate Graves?

Or is it Cemetery's and Battlefields = o.k.

Commemorative monuments = not o.k.?

What about Lee's house at Arlington? I don't know if you can technically count that as part of the cemetery, does that go down?

The battlefields themselves are nothing but a collection of commemorative monuments and graves.

Your position would be akin to being o.k. with the existence of a McDonald's but not with the existence of the Big Macs and Fries inside.
My fault. I should have known better than to engage you.
 
My fault. I should have known better than to engage you.

I understand the essence of what you're saying. There are places of great historical significance that hold monuments to the Confederacy. Those places, shouldn't be stripped of their historical value in the form of confederate monuments.

That's different than just a one-off monument, erected long after the war, in a random location like Charlottesville.

Just pointing out that parsing the two might prove more difficult than you guys make it seem.

After all, the Confederate Memorial in Arlington wasn't erected until 1914 by the United Daughters of the Confederacy. It matches a lot of the same criteria laid out in INRanger's graphic.
 
I understand the essence of what you're saying. There are places of great historical significance that hold monuments to the Confederacy. Those places, shouldn't be stripped of their historical value in the form of confederate monuments.

That's different than just a one-off monument, erected long after the war, in a random location like Charlottesville.

Just pointing out that parsing the two might prove more difficult than you guys make it seem.

After all, the Confederate Memorial in Arlington wasn't erected until 1914 by the United Daughters of the Confederacy. It matches a lot of the same criteria laid out in INRanger's graphic.
Okay, serious reply.

We have a relatively unique situation in this country. Most countries that suffer internal strife don't dedicate monuments to the losers. When they do, they are usually one-offs (like a small handful of statues of Oliver Cromwell erected in England in the 19th C.). And they are (almost?) never by way of celebrating the defeated cause over which a war was fought. But that's exactly what we have: thousands of statutes dedicated to the values for which the Confederacy fought.

There are a lot of things monuments to evil events can do, some of which are not only benign, but affirmatively good.

1. Genuine historical markers. One of the worst things you can do to bad parts of your own history is to ignore or forget them. Markers that remind us what we went through serve a beneficial function. Many if not most battlefield monuments would fall into this category.

2. Remembering the dead. Even those who died for a bad cause were still Americans. Most of the dead were not slaveholders. They were just caught up in a war that just happened to occur at a time when they were the right age to be killed in it. A lot of battlefield markers, as well as cemetery monuments, would fall into this category. Some people would call remembering the dead an affirmative good. At the very least, I think most of us would agree that it's benign at worst.

3. Celebrating the cause. This is the bad one. Statues erected on courthouse lawns in response to the civil rights movement in order to celebrate the Confederacy. These monuments are the ones that represent the affirmative evil. They serve no purpose but to remind us that, even long after the war was over, the powers that be were still invested in oppressing a particular race of citizens. These are the ones that we should all be able to agree need to come down, because they never should have been erected in the first place.

Out of the many thousands of monuments, I'm sure we'll find some that exist in a gray area (the one in Louisville seems to be just such a case). But most of the monuments we look at will probably land pretty clearly on one side or the other. And the difficulty of dealing with those gray area instances shouldn't stop us from dealing with the obvious ones.
 
Does this include the Confederate Memorial at Arlington National Cemetery? Those gravestones as well? What about Antietam or Gettysburg? They're littered with Confederate Monuments.

Do we establish a commission to decide which Confederate Monuments are valid?
I dunno, not-racist. What do you think? Please show your work.
 
My best friend in life is a black guy who thinks they are history and should stand. I disagree but we still are friends and socialize everyday. It seems strange.
 
Often it seems people bring about what they fear. In the case of Confederate monuments, the people so determined to remember the Confederacy have done so with such gusto they have created a negative backlash. Wanting Confederate flags flying everywhere is creating a scenario they will fly no where. Same is happening with monuments, I posted the numbers before of how many more Confederate monuments there are in Ky than Union, even though 2/3s of Kentucky troops fought for the Union.

I am opposed to Confederate monuments in city spaces. I do hope the monuments stay in Civil War battlefields. And I say that as one who is VERY pro-Union/anti-rebel. But I fear the tide is turning such that those monuments are in danger. Maybe some demanding a Confederate monument on every street corner wasn't their best idea. Scales tend to go too far right then too far left before settling. One group pushed them too far one direction, and now we are in danger of swinging too far the other.
 
Yeah, but what about George Washington? And Thomas Jefferson, huh?? What's next???

There are no parallels to be drawn between that Trump statement about GW and TJ, and the conversation that was being had about monuments.

Go back and read the conversation over again, then interject with something actually relevant to the discussion.
 
There are no parallels to be drawn between that Trump statement about GW and TJ, and the conversation that was being had about monuments.

Go back and read the conversation over again, then interject with something actually relevant to the discussion.
LOL. That's a big swing and a miss. Trump himself explicitly connected the two in his rambling train wreck of a press conference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RBB89
LOL. That's a big swing and a miss. Trump himself explicitly connected the two in his rambling train wreck of a press conference.
So has his lawyer:

President Trump’s personal lawyer on Wednesday forwarded an email to conservative journalists, government officials and friends that echoed secessionist Civil War propaganda and declared that the group Black Lives Matter “has been totally infiltrated by terrorist groups.”

The email forwarded by John Dowd, who is leading the president’s legal team, painted the Confederate general Robert E. Lee in glowing terms and equated the South’s rebellion to that of the American Revolution against England. Its subject line — “The Information that Validates President Trump on Charlottesville” — was a reference to comments Mr. Trump made earlier this week in the aftermath of protests in the Virginia college town.

“You cannot be against General Lee and be for General Washington,” the email reads, “there literally is no difference between the two men.”
A tip for John Dowd:
  • George Washington = Father of our country
  • Robert E. Lee = Traitor to our country
 
LOL. That's a big swing and a miss. Trump himself explicitly connected the two in his rambling train wreck of a press conference.

Trump is referencing Lee to other figures in American history. I'm referencing Confederate monuments to other Confederate monuments. Keep in mind I'm talking about the conversation being had in this thread solely, about the validity of some Confederate monuments vs. others. Not the national conversation on the topic.

The only parallel is the one you two made up in your own head. Unless you can find me a confederate monument of Thomas Jefferson or George Washington.

I'll wait...
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT